Men’s Rights Activists are whiny losers

The reason men’s rights activist sites are so whiny is that they accept the progressive ideology of equalism, and in their own lives they treated women as equals, and of course deservedly got treated like shit. They complain that men and women are not truly treated as alike, and therefore men get the short end of the stick.

Since men and woman are not alike, if they were truly treated alike, both would get the short end of the stick. In a previous post in the comments I observed that if the government enforced contracts on women in the same way they enforce contracts on men, it would be mighty rough on women.

Men’s rights activist sites piously whine that men are not equal to women, and should be – but we tried equality in 1850. It was a complete disaster and things have steadily gotten worse since then.

A Voice for Men complained about Jenna_Myers_Karvunidis_–_Bigot, which resulted in her issuing a grovelling apology: A big succes for men’s rights :-) What was this woman’s horrid crime? A false rape allegation? Demanding that accused rapists be treated as guilty until proven innocent?

Nope, she objected to males doing potty duty unsupervised on children they were not related to – in other words, she had a moment of sanity, making an unprincipled deviation from the equalist ideology she, and men’s rights activists, theoretically subscribe to, for the safety of her own children.

In practice, almost everyone believes in equalist ideology when it is apt to have disastrous consequences for other people, but considerably fewer people believe in equalist ideology when it is likely have disastrous consequences for themselves or their own children. Instead, they make an unprincipled exception for themselves to what they theoretically believe in for everyone else.

As I have said many times before: Show me a marriage where the housework is equally and fairly shared, rather than being divided into man’s work (taking out the garbage, unplugging the drains, mowing the lawn, and barbecuing meat) and woman’s work (almost everything else) and I will show you a marriage where the husband sleeps on the couch, and once in a week or so the wife’s lover drops in to bang her on the main bed, rough her up a bit, take her money, and leave a mess for the husband to clean up.

While he cleans up the mess the lover made, washing bodily fluids off the sheets, the husband explains that he is so enlightened and sensitive that he has an open marriage and is a polyamorist.

In my observation, in every successful marriage, if the husband theoretically believes in female emancipation, he quietly makes an unprincipled exception for himself and his wife. Men’s rights activist failed to make an unprincipled exception, and so encountered total disaster.

Women are not attracted to kitchen bitch husbands, equalist relationships, or men they are supporting due to earning more than them. Women loathe all of that, eventually, regardless of the feminist programming they have gotten that may tell them they should love being the marital dominatrix.

Further, it is not in a women’s nature to just grin and bear it, to do their duty, so faced with a situation that is not to their liking, however much they are theoretically supposed to like it, they will cuckold, they will leave, they will find something else that suits them. And they will be happy doing so.

Where are the John Waynes, Steve McQueens, Clint Eastwoods, and Charles Bronsons of today? Men no longer have role models that would enable them to command and lead their wives the way that women want to be commanded and led, thus increasingly we see people failing to make the necessary unprincipled exception in their own lives.

Women are not naturally inclined to submit, notwithstanding John Norman’s wishful thinking. But they are naturally inclined to find a man who can make them submit, overwhelming their willful and vigorous resistance. They want a husband who will lead and command, that they can honor and obey, even though they will struggle strenuously to dishonor and disobey. The John Norman novels depict women eager to obey submitting themselves to a man reluctant and diffident to command, thus he has PC males and non PC females, which is, alas, not at all the way it works in real life. Woman don’t want to honor and obey, but they want a husband who makes them honor and obey, which is to say, a husband who is absolutely not a Men’s Rights Activist.

76 Responses to “Men’s Rights Activists are whiny losers”

  1. Zach says:

    “In my observation, in every successful marriage, the husband theoretically believes in female emancipation, but quietly makes an unprincipled exception for himself and his wife.”

    Hypocrites (and retards) make the world go ’round eh? Sounds “virtuous”. ;)

    I speculate you’re trying to defend your friends and yourself with some “clever rationalization”. So you insult them. Yet it wasn’t intended to be an insult. So what’s going on here?

    Marriage today (a lot more than yesterday) is an incredibly complicated relationship with numerous dynamics. Most married Men do believe in female emancipation (as you said), but I highly doubt they make a conscience effort to make an exception for themselves. But this might be your point? So you might be talking about an exception, that Men, themselves, are not aware of?

    • spandrell says:

      Incredibly complicated? Really? It’s only complicated if you are battling with liberal preconceptions about how woman are equal to man yet superior in all that matters.

      Women are generally stupid and thus easy to handle.

      • jim says:

        Women’s intelligence varies, though on average slightly lower than men. However, they prefer to marry a man smarter than they are, and if they don’t, will be difficult.

        Women are markedly better than men at some things “Honey, where did I leave my keys?”, and markedly worse than men at other things.

        • spandrell says:

          When my woman complains about having to look for things I always tell her that she evolved to find fruits in the forest, so its her job.

          • Zach says:

            The keys are a good example. I’ll shout out loud:

            “Where are my godamn keys?” She’ll walk down, point to the counter under my nose, and show them to me.

            It’s almost miraculous. I don’t think it’s so much that she is better at “finding” the item, but that somewhere in my mind, I expect her to find the item because I shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. Sounds “ghey” but I think there’s something to that. Nothing pisses me off more than wasting my fucking time, finding shit… even if its my fault.

            However, at a store, when we’re looking for X, I can find it much faster than she can. So I suspect a good bit of psychological expectation to be involved with a Mans perceived lack at “finding things”.

      • Zach says:

        Very complicated. In whitey society with millions of dollars being thrown around, trust me, it’s complicated.

        All relationships are. C’mon man?

    • jim says:

      Well, defending my friends. I am not sure to what extent that they are consciously aware of making an exception for themselves, but they are at least somewhat aware.

      Everyone except a tiny handful of reactionary rebels pays some lip service to PC, but there are no politically correct marriages except those going disastrously wrong, so there is close to 100% lip service on politically correct marriage, and close to 100% deviation from politically correct marriage.

      • Zach says:

        I think you’ve misread what is actually going on.

        The tiny handful of rebels is you and I vs the rest (even though I believe you’re not in the U.S.). This explains why Men “quietly” assert their patriarchy, instead of doing what Jerad does, with no apologies. I can’t see your post Jerad, so I apologize I got your name wrong.

        At least here in America, visibly asserting your dominance will get you no standing in 99% of parties filled to the brim with civilized and yet ignorant people.

        So a nuanced approach is preferred, which also requires the disconnect between thought and deed, at home, or elsewhere.

        • Zach says:

          Sorry it’s Jehu not Jerad.

          :(

        • jim says:

          (even though I believe you’re not in the U.S.)

          I have citizenship of more than one country, the US among them.

          • Zach says:

            …thank you for reintroducing that typo!

            Good for you. I’ve just now begun to talk about leaving this dump. There comes a time, thief….

            From Conan the Barbarian:

            “There comes a time, thief, when the jewels cease to sparkle, when the gold loses its luster, when the throne room becomes a prison, and all that is left is a father’s love for his child.”

            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082198/quotes

            Speaking of mighty soundtracks, ya just found yourself one in that movie.

  2. Jehu says:

    I know a fair number of successful marriages, my own included, where the husband makes no pretense of believing in female emancipation. Hence no unprincipled exception is necessary.

    • Zach says:

      You mention a pretense in belief. How far, and in what manner, does this extend to “deed”?

      Examples?

      (I’m curious)

      • Jehu says:

        Zach,
        I’m fairly straightforwardly patriarchal. We have a fairly traditional division of labor in our home. For instance, when our little boy asked who a Mommy obeys (after being told that little boys obey Mommy and Daddy), I replied that the Mother obeys the Father, and my wife didn’t even bat an eye. There’s little question that she is, as Athol would put it, my first officer and that I am the captain. Everyone involved is much happier with said unity of command. Our model in practice isn’t much different than that used by my wife’s parents.

        • jim says:

          When my son was in early school, he created a father’s day card, which stated that I was the boss of the family. Did not need to ask who was the boss.

        • Zach says:

          Interesting. What is your nationality and culture (usually they’re the same)? I only ask, because I find it completely relevant.

          For example, what is socially acceptable in Hmong culture, is not acceptable in crazy feminist whitey culture, today, in America.

          • Jehu says:

            Zach,
            I’m from the Southern US originally. I make no bones about being against women’s suffrage, for instance, although I’m not in favor of unilateral disarmament. Presently I’m a transplant in the Pacific NW and attend a fairly reactionary Quaker church (ok, we’re not very good Quakers, although I wager George Fox would like us a lot better than the median modern Quaker).

        • anon says:

          “as Athol would put it, my first officer and that I am the captain. Everyone involved is much happier with said unity of command. Our model in practice isn’t much different than that used by my wife’s parents.”
          Did she give the power to you because you were a good (family) leader, or was it forced on her (by her upbringing or yours) and she accepted it with a Stockholm syndrome?
          Large difference there… but your “that’s patriarchy man” schtick seems to suggest the latter, which doesn’t really say anything positive about you.

          • Jehu says:

            Silly anon, the power was granted me in a mystical ceremony blessed by God! You might know it better as a marriage. In that ceremony a number of covenants were made. These covenants might grate occasionally on both of us, but we recognize that the arrangement is to both of our benefit, and of course, it was the will of God. Everyone is much happier under unity of command, and my wife even got to choose her own captain. She was raised to seek out and defer to a suitable captain, like her father, and to be a suitable first officer. The duties owed by each of us to the other are not dependent on skill at our respective roles.

            I’ll let you in on another secret anon. Leaders who are secure in their authority and the loyalty of those that they lead don’t tend to micromanage or demand a lot of submission rituals.

          • anon says:

            Hi Jehu, there is no “God” and you’ve just successfuly dismantled what little chance at credibility you may have had before.

            It’s quite nice that your wife “chose her own captain”, though a bit less so that she was RAISED to do so – to look for an authority figure in a romantic partner as much as her father was one to her? Yea, sounds healthy to me.
            When all your life you’re told that you’re by nature submissive and in need of leadership, that kind of defeats the whole “nature” argument by the power of irony does it not ;)

      • jim says:

        Hard to say. I was taunting some progressives with the fact that they would not visit certain excessively vibrant neighborhoods, and one responded that he did visit neighborhoods that had a significant minority population – which by omission kind of implies that he did not visit neighborhoods with an overwhelming black population, and indeed none of them did. (I don’t have any strikingly obvious safety problem with neighborhoods that have an overwhelming Mexican population. They are less safe, and have greater levels of vandalism, than white neighborhoods, but the difference is merely statistical, rather than overwhelming and obvious)

    • Samson J. says:

      I was going to say the same thing, Jehu. Not to nitpick an otherwise worthy piece, but really? You don’t know any marriages where the husband is straightforwardly patriarchal? Maybe you really don’t, if you don’t know many conservative religious people.

      • jim says:

        I mispoke. I am straightforwardly and unambiguously patriarchal, and I have been married since I was very young. I am correcting the post.

  3. JZ says:

    “…but considerably fewer people believe in equalist ideology when it is likely have disastrous consequences for themselves or their own children.”

    Robert Conquest’s 1st law of politics. :)

    • JZ says:

      Also, another data point: schoolteachers (whose values do *they* profess?) send their own children to private schools at a much higher rate than the general population.

  4. Brendan says:

    He’s right as usual Progressivism fails the test of life.

  5. Sconzey says:

    ‘Where are the John Waynes, Steve McQueens, Clint Eastwoods, and Charles Bronsons of today?’

    Isn’t Tim Tebow happily married?

  6. [...] Men’s Rights Activists are whiny losers [...]

  7. krauser says:

    I agree with the general thrust that MRAs are whiny. They have good reason to complain because the world really is stacked against men, but they do come across as awfully angry and whiny. I agree that equalism is a big root of it.

    These men swallow the equalist bullshit, try to live it, get horribly burned, and then discover MRA which conveniently puts all the blame on the external world rather than the man’s own pussy equalist beliefs.Thus they don’t fix their problems.

    There’s enough anti-male objective reality in society that this dynamic can persist for decades. I’m not in any way against MRAs, I agree with much of their analysis, but this equalist dogma is an unfortunate byproduct of the movement.

  8. Jehu says:

    MRA is useful in that it points out that women aren’t really after equality, but rather advantage. Pretty much all groups are like this, but some of them get to hide their quest for advantage behind universalist cant.
    The problem is that it generally seeks to make women live up to their professed beliefs, which obviously they won’t do. I’d be much more favorably inclined if it took the position of who…whom. That is, there’s no moral high ground to be had around here so let’s just have a straightforward slugfest of self and group interest.

    • jim says:

      women aren’t really after equality, but rather advantage.

      Due to the apex fallacy, women are genuinely unaware of this. High socioeconomic status women can only perceive men in the top three percent, one man out of thirty. The rest genuinely do not exist for her. Lower status women can only perceive men in the top twenty percent, one man out of five. Compared to these men, women do indeed get the short end of the stick.

      The problem is that it generally seeks to make women live up to their professed beliefs, which obviously they won’t do.

      But how could women possibly live up to their professed beliefs? According to their professed beliefs, they should love to have sex with the nice guy, and not cheat on him with the bad boy. We have to change, and ridicule, their professed beliefs, since they cannot possibly live up to them.

      If women are scolded by a man they perceive as high status, they quake in their boots. The trouble is that MRAs do not sound high status, so women just do not hear them, and if MRAs were high status, women are just not capable of living up to their professed beliefs.

      • anon says:

        “they should love to have sex with the nice guy, and not cheat on him with the bad boy.”
        And a lot of them do ;)
        I smell a “bitter ex-boyfriend” thing going on here.

    • anon says:

      Seeing as how you’re for MALE advantage, you’re really not one bit better than them.

      • Jehu says:

        Silly rabbit,
        This isn’t a question of better from any cosmic moral perspective. Advantage men, result, civilization. Advantage women, result, social decay leading towards grass huts. Next question?

        • anon says:

          “Advantage women, result, social decay leading towards grass huts.”
          Whatever you have to make up to justify your urges, pal.
          Btw, you forgot to analyze what equality leads to ;)

  9. Anonymous says:

    I’ve not read the book but off the top of my head, the guy from 50 shades of grey sounds like a role model for todays man no?

    • jim says:

      No. Females tell me that the male love interest of “fifty shades of grey” is excessively wimpy and PC.

      Similarly, John Norman’s heroes of Gor are so wimpy that real life women would walk all over them.

      It is not that the males of these books are improbably dominant, but that the females are improbably submissive.

      For what women really want in a man, see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6GdRxImID8 View at 50 seconds

      I feel I am sort of vibrating from head to foot … the raw thrill … it happened so fast, and he is so unbelievably strong (giggle)

      Men need to be able to deal with women who are more pushy and aggressive than the heroine of fifty shades of grey, or the love interests of the Gor novels, but a book with such a hero would these days be too politically incorrect to be publishable.

      Watch Barbara Walters get sexually excited when Sean Connery declines to be bullied. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FgMLROTqJ0

  10. Zach says:

    I’d like to offer up something new for shits and giggles. Watch this Mans reaction:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oCnqy8Klaw

    All sports are fucking joke and I attribute their success to homos the world over. Only Gladiators or Warriors today, know what defeat feels like at the hands of another man.

    Relentless humiliation and self criticism. I know this feeling. It’s horrific.

    Roid rage or not, Mark (a warrior) has a real moment at 1:40. That kind of psychological rape can only happen when Warriors do battle. Nothing else contributes to another mans dread more than losing to another man in combat – the only “sport” today that is representative of an activity that has mattered in all of human history. That being the case, the stakes are higher. The pressure is more. The potential humiliation is 30x of anything else.

    To those that like sports (or playing catch) please understand the psychological element of the “breaking point” and how it predominantly exists in MMA today more than anywhere else.

    (talk about a random post…)

  11. Bruce Charlton says:

    Both sides in this debate seem horrible to me – who cares who exploits whom, if exploitation is the bottom line, as it must be in the secular worldview?

    Just a matter of which of the farmyard animals gets the most fun today.

    Hobbes’s war of each against all.

    If marriage is ultimately a Christian thing, that changes everything.

    • jim says:

      If marriage is ultimately a Christian thing, that changes everything.

      If traditional Christianity was still existent, it would.

      Obviously if marriage can be unilaterally at whim dissolved at the expense of the party that does not want it dissolved, this motivates both sides to keep an eye on their own interests.

      In practice, marriages are usually dissolved by the woman, not because men are well behaved but because bad male behavior seldom breaks up a marriage. Where is the Church that disapproves of women ditching their husbands, disapproves to an extent and in a manner likely to discourage such behavior?

      In traditional Christian marriage, the woman and the man consent to sex once and forever. The wife is obligated to keep her husband sexually gratified, and the husband obligated to keep his wife sexually gratified. Paul in the New Testament tells us that they can only stop having sex by mutual consent, and cannot divorce even by mutual consent – which principle is now known as “marital rape”.

      Where is the traditional Christian Church that still supports “marital rape”?

      If you don’t support “marital rape”, then you support unilateral divorce at whim, for continued marriage makes no sense without continued performance of the duties of marriage. So if you don’t support “marital rape”, you don’t support Christian marriage.

      If no church that still supports “marital rape”, then no church that supports Christian marriage.

      • Bruce G Charlton says:

        Oh for goodness sake!

        Read CS Lewis’s essay Transposition – you are just transposing high and beautiful things (which you don’t believe in) into low and despicable things, then saying that people must choose between them!

        We are living in evil times; the question is how to be good in evil times, not which particular type of evil we should approve.

        Imagine you are living in Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China – you would not expect society to lay on a choice of options, some good some bad; you would expect all mainstream options to be bad, not expect society to offer *any* good options. The good options only exist by accident and precariously and secretly.

        But the Church that does most of what you ask for is the LDS church, with several million adherents in the USA. Utah is approx 50 percent Mormon and trends in all the right directions

        http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr06-592.pdf

        The advice is simple, if what one wants is a traditional marriage then become a Mormon – give it your best shot, really try.

        If this feels like too much to ask, then one should examine one’s conscience: does one really want a good marriage? or only an excuse to be a domestic tyrant, or a rake?

        (I have used ‘one’ to try and make clear I am not talking to you specifically!)

        • jim says:

          The founding miracle of the Mormon religion happened sufficiently recently that it is known to be a pious fraud.

          The founding miracle of the Christian religion happened too long ago for any evidence to remain as to whether it was a pious fraud or not, however what is known is that today’s Christianity is strikingly different from traditional Christianity. If Christians do not take their holy books all that seriously, why should anyone else?

          Jesus ditched all the unpleasant stuff of the Old Testament, without really specifying what was the unpleasant stuff and what was not, leaving a fair bit of highly convenient flexibility with regard to the Old Testament, but when did we get in a new prophet to ditch the no longer politically correct parts of the New Testament?

        • jim says:

          or only an excuse to be a domestic tyrant

          The bible, and Darwinism, are clear on the authority of the husband, and the authority of males over women and children. The New Testament is clear that marriage and consent to sex is given once and for all time, irrevocably, which is to say, clear on what is now called “marital rape”.

          What is your position on these issues? What is your position on “Marital Rape”?

          If a Christian Church throws out the politically incorrect stuff from the New Testament, is it still a Christian Church?

          I, of course, am a Darwinist. The lek mating system, the patriarchal polygynous mating system, and the patriarchal monogamous mating system with female chastity are all within the human potential, all in roughly comparable accord with our evolved human nature, but the lek mating system seems to pretty reliably lead to the collapse of civilization, whereas the patriarchal monogamous mating system with female chastity typically leads to the highest flowering of human civilization. I conjecture that this is because monogamous mating with female chastity gives males the greatest incentive to invest in posterity, and the lek mating system the least, with the result that if a society moves towards the lek mating system, it disappears from history, historians being part of posterity.

          • anon says:

            “The bible, and Darwinism”
            Um “Darwinism” doesn’t say anything on the matter, let alone being “clear” on it. It’s purely descriptive, not prescriptive.

          • jim says:

            Genesis is also descriptive, but the prescription is implied by the description.

          • anon says:

            Genesis is descriptive, a lot of the Bible is prescriptive however.

            “Darwinism” is all about survival against competitors – it doesn’t say anything about whether you should kill or let your competitors die in order to have better chances for yourself. It may describe higher chances, but it can’t prescribe you to abandon morality in favor of those chances.

            Compare, apply.

  12. Bruce G Charlton says:

    The conversation is about to loop back and recapitulate, by me pointing out that Darwinian theory is not a moral system, and that morality cannot be got out of it, and why should a Darwinian care about the transmission of his genes, or the collapse of civilization or anything else…

    What I find remarkable is the sudden extreme moral scrupulousness of amoral pick up artists and domestic tyrants when it comes to – say – Mormonism.

    Suddenly their supposed focus on a well-ordered civilization with eugenic fertility disappears – and their scruples over religious absurdity mean that – so sorry – they could not possibly consent to such ‘nonsense’ as Mormon theology even if it led to exactly the kind of society which they supposedly advocate.

    The inference is obvious, the shallowness of the ‘moral’ position is obvious.

    The extent to which this views are self-centred rationalizations is obvious.

    Libertarianism is after all on the Left – there is no such thing as the secular Right, not really.

    The ‘secular right’ is just a more explicitly selfish version of the secular Left.

    • jim says:

      Darwinian theory is not a moral system, and that morality cannot be got out of it,

      Darwin, and Darwinian theory, predicts that social animals will evolve certain moral characteristics, to facilitate cooperation and avoid killing each other too often. Those conspecifics that Darwin thinks we should kill, and that Darwinian theory predicts that we will be inclined to kill, we call evil, and those that Darwin thinks we should prefer to associate with, and that Darwinian theory predicts that we will be inclined to prefer to associate with, we call good.

      The resulting moral system has a fair resemblance to Randian enlightened egoism, Aristotlean ethics, and the moral principles expressed by Xenophon when justifying the conduct of the ten thousand.

      why should a Darwinian care about the transmission of his genes, or the collapse of civilization or anything else…

      He should care about his offspring, and their offspring, and generally does, and therefore cares about the collapse of civilization.

      they could not possibly consent to such ‘nonsense’ as Mormon theology even if it led to exactly the kind of society which they supposedly advocate.

      I certainly do consent to such nonsense, in the sense that I think that such beliefs should be encouraged. But I know them to be false, and will say they are false if the question is put, without going out of my way to tell people that they are false in the way I go out of my way to tell people that dangerous and hurtful beliefs, such as socialism, progressivism, equalism, and so forth are false.

      Traditional Christianity would, and did, lead to the kind of society I advocate, in particular Restoration England. But traditional Christianity is dead, and shows no obvious signs of being more capable of revival than Greek paganism. Today’s Christianity is progressive, at most trailing behind the official and orthodox progressivism by a few years.

      there is no such thing as the secular Right,

      Perhaps you could help Dalrock find the religious right. He has been looking for it and has not found it.

      It is probably true that a society needs religious or quasi religious underpinnings, needs a theocracy, or something functionally similar. I am a big admirer of Restoration England, which founded the scientific revolution and the industrial revolution. But the Established Christianity of restoration England can no more be revived than the official paganism of republican Rome. Julian the apostate tried and failed to revive the old paganism, and got an undead religion. If we are going to have a religious right, it will have to be based on a new religion, or new substitute for religion.

      And you still have not answered: What is your position on “marital rape”, women being allowed to speak in church, and all the other horribly politically incorrect parts of the New Testament? Did we get in another prophet when I was not looking, to ditch the disturbing parts of the New Testament, the way we got in a prophet to ditch the disturbing parts of the Old? Are you Religous Right?

      • Bruce G Charlton says:

        “The resulting moral system… ”

        What moral system? You have merely described the result of a contingent and always changing historical process. What has that got to do with a moral system?

        “He should care about his offspring, and their offspring, and generally does, and therefore cares about the collapse of civilization.”

        Where did you get that ‘should’ from? No ‘should’s in science…

        “But traditional Christianity is dead, and shows no obvious signs of being more capable of revival than Greek paganism. ”

        Ah – the Nietzschian desire to be on the winning side…

        Sorry, but it may not be possible to be Good and also on the winning side.

        *

        But if you really want to be on the winning side (with patriarchy thrown-in) there is a religion which has gone from 4-20 percent of the world’s population in 100 years and is set to expand by another billion in the next generation. If I was a betting man, I would bet on them as the most likely winners.

        “If we are going to have a religious right, it will have to be based on a new religion, or new substitute for religion.”

        Not at all. See above – if present trends continue we know *exactly* what kind of religious right we will be getting.

        *

        But I agree, the only alternative is a different religion; but that would only be preferable if the other religion was true. Luckily we know which one *is* true (and it also happens to be the only one we would want to be true: see Pascal’s Pensees).

        “What is your position on …”

        My position is that Christianity is not *primarily* a matter of rules or laws – and I regard this as a second millenium Western corruption of Christianity.

        If real (orthodox traditional) Christianity did revive and again become powerful, we (in the depths of our corruption) cannot possibly predict what form it would take, nor how its essence would be expressed in terms of laws and rules.

        Christian Rome, Constantinople, Anglo Saxon England under Alfred, Holy Russia were all very different in their specifics and emphases.

        So there is no blueprint. First the revival – then (if we are so lucky) then we can worry about legalistic minutiae.

        *

        But while I *hope* for a revival (I really do) I certainly do not *expect* it, I expect to be on the losing side.

        • jim says:

          “The resulting moral system… ”

          What moral system? You have merely described the result of a contingent and always changing historical process. What has that got to do with a moral system?

          The universe does not know good from evil, nor any other thing, but humans do, and Darwinism explains how and why they know. We are evolved to know good from evil, and fear evil, in the same way, and for the same reasons, as we are evolved to perceive heights and fear heights. Heights may well kill us, and evil men may well kill us.

          “He should care about his offspring, and their offspring, and generally does, and therefore cares about the collapse of civilization.”

          Where did you get that ‘should’ from? No ‘should’s in science…

          Darwin is the voice of science, and there are lots of ‘should’s in Darwin.

          Teleology is metaphor for natural selection, which though not purposive and directional, acts as if purposive and determinedly heads in particular directions. Darwin uses that metaphor of purpose and intent extensively, and “should” references that metaphorical purpose. It is a metaphorical “should”.

          “What is your position on …”

          My position is that Christianity is not *primarily* a matter of rules or laws – and I regard this as a second millenium Western corruption of Christianity.

          The New Testament is pretty clear on marriage. No divorce, except for female adultery, and consent for sex is given once and forever, not moment to moment. And so Christianity was interpreted, from the days of Saint Paul to around 1960 or so.

          But now, however, you find room for a new interpretation, an interpretation whose adoption was swiftly followed by the general collapse of Christianity and the emptying of the churches.

          When did we get in a new prophet with authority to ditch the disturbing parts of the New Testament the way the disturbing parts of the Old Testament were ditched?

          Christian Rome, Constantinople, Anglo Saxon England under Alfred, Holy Russia were all very different in their specifics and emphases.

          Did any of them allow married people to withdraw their consent to sex from moment to moment? Did any of them have women speaking in Church in the presence of males, or exercising leadership roles over males in religious organizations?

  13. Bruce Charlton says:

    If I might stick to Darwin: “We are evolved to know good from evil, and fear evil, in the same way, and for the same reasons, as we are evolved to perceive heights and fear heights. Heights may well kill us, and evil men may well kill us.”

    Let’s be clear – you are equating good with reproductive success (increasing the differential representation of alleles in future generations, or something like that) and evil with a tendency to extinction of the lineage.

    This is simply to redefine good and evil. Almost nobody in the history of the world or the world today would agree with this redefinition – why on earth should they? It is about genes, not people.

    This particular point was well argued by Keith Stanovich in The Robot’s Rebellion – in which he argues that Ev Psych implies a kind of hedonism that understands natural selection mainly in order to work around it in pursuit of greater happiness.

    This used to be my own view, when I was an atheist – it at least has the virtue of making sense from the perspective of the organism.

    Who cares about gene frequencies?

    • jim says:

      Let’s be clear – you are equating good with reproductive success (increasing the differential representation of alleles in future generations, or something like that)

      I am not equating good with reproductive success, any more than I am equating fast running with reproductive success or dangerous heights with reproductive failure. See my paper “Natural law and Natural Rights

      The reason we can see in three dimensions is that if you are cross eyed, it impairs your reproductive success. To say this does not equate three dimensionality to reproductive success.

      Knowing good from evil, like recognizing dangerous heights, or seeing three dimensionality is one of the many capabilities that support reproductive success. We infer three dimensions from the two dimensions that our eyes can directly perceive, and we infer good and evil from the behavior that our eyes can directly perceive. We are able to infer three dimensions because inability to perceive three dimensions could get us killed, and we are able to infer good and evil because inability to perceive evil could get us killed and ability to perceive good can keep us alive. See the fairy tale “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”

      I am however, equating good to the kind of good that generally favors reproductive success: Randian enlightened egoism, Aristotlean ethics, and Xenophon’s justification of the conduct of the ten thousand.

      This is simply to redefine good and evil. Almost nobody in the history of the world or the world today would agree with this redefinition.

      Rather, this redefines good and evil in ways that agree with the pagan concept of “virtue” – which in practice is what people really believe, and what fairy tales teach. The neopagans might succeed if they gave up trying to recreate a paganism consistent with progressivism or nazism, and looked at what the myths they supposedly celebrate really teach.

      the Robot’s Rebellion

      If one believed in the theories of “the Robot’s rebellion”, one would believe that men would treat step children and adopted children like their own, and women would be happy to become cat ladies rather than mothers, which manifestly is not true. That rebellion is in vain, is a rebellion against life itself.

      “The Robot’s Rebellion” makes no sense, because it attempts to render Darwinism compatible with progressivism, and your supposed Christianity makes no sense, because it attempts to render Christianity compatible with progressivism.

      A woman running the Young Christian Activity Group is every bit as incompatible with Christianity as an openly gay bishop, and like gay bishops, results in most of the boys and all of the manly boys dropping out of their religion. People may tell themselves that Christianity can be compatible with progressivism, but each step to reconcile them empties the churches.

      If you accept the progressive position on “marital rape”, that sex requires the continuing consent of both parties, and reject the Christian position that consent to sex is given once and forever, and that for a married couple to abstain from sex requires continuing mutual consent or physical inability, then you pretty much have to accept the position that divorce is at a woman’s whim, which is the end of marriage as traditionally understood.

      Since the Church is the family writ large, an echo of the family between the earthly family headed by the father, and the divine fatherhood of god, abolishing marriage ends Christianity. So, if Christians deviate from the New Testament on male authority and irrevocable consent to sex, Christianity ends, and it is apparent that it is ending. Christianity is dead.

  14. Bruce Charlton says:

    There is no ‘furthermore’! – that was a typo…

  15. Zach says:

    (is happy to see when drunk nobody bothers to respond to me…)

  16. Samson J. says:

    Dr. Charlton:

    Libertarianism is after all on the Left – there is no such thing as the secular Right, not really.

    The ‘secular right’ is just a more explicitly selfish version of the secular Left.

    You know that TREMENDOUSLY gratifying feeling you get when someone else states something that you think is obvious, but is somehow not common knowledge? You just gave me that feeling. I have been arguing for some time now that people who call themselves “economically conservative but socially liberal”; people who say, “Oh, yeah, I’m conservative but I mean fiscally conservative” – that this position is not conservative but *selfish*. The real meaning of this position is: “I want the social freedom to do anything I want, and the money to buy it, and I don’t want anyone – or anyone’s rules – to get in my way.”

    • jim says:

      No one was more unselfish than Pol Pot. A sincere intent to do good by political means is unlikely to result in good, since political means are necessarily coercive. The means consume the ends.

      All real morality is ultimately self interested, in that to the extent we feel like doing good to others, we only wish to do good to kin, friends, and allies, in that order. Anyone who is so “unselfish” that he wishes to do good to strangers far away, usually wishes to use political power to do that good, in which case he is dangerous, evil, and needs killing.

      Those who sincerely intend to accomplish good through political means should be dealt with in the same manner as Somali pirates should be dealt with. People who hope to accomplish good outcomes by political means (feed the hungry, prevent global warming, and so one and so forth) are evil and dangerous. Guns, and politics, can be used to kill bad people. Cannot be used to feed hungry people.

      The usual justification for government is that governments are needed to kill bad people – it is the standard conventional argument, and is the most persuasive argument for government. I don’t find that argument entirely persuasive, but it is not blatantly evil, false and deranged, unlike the argument that we need government to feed the hungry etc.

  17. googlepo says:

    Great article, lots of intersting things to digest. Very informative

  18. Jay says:

    Well Duh, of course there is a division of labor. Women are not as physically strong as men. And men like me work 100 hours a week at work. Many other men work 60 to 80 routinely, especially if they make real money. I simply avoid marriage because I don’t want a woman unilaterally divorcing me for half of my very hard work in rough environmental conditions and then getting alimony or child support on top of that. No bitch is taking half my 401k because she suddenly feels like she has out grown me. Marriage is simply a bad investment when the woman can walk away take your hard work and future earnings when you did nothing wrong. Fuck that

  19. [...] manospherians want equality between the sexes, but that isn’t going to happen. And when one lets go of this dream, there’s [...]

  20. Idontseethedifference says:

    I really don’t see much of a difference between MRA’s and the guys posting on this blog. Both seem to have a problem with women and both seem to be pounding their chests trying to impress other men with stories (probably fabricated) about how their women do as they’re told.

    I smell a bunch of fedora wearing virgins.

  21. anon says:

    Lol… biotruths, generalizations, and generallly stupid nonsense. When I came to the second half of this article, I admittedly did think for a second that you were suggesting male dominance over MRA stuff (kind of ironic, given how some MRAs tend to whine about their minor problems as if they were as big as the women’s and hence effectively do work towards male privilege – or are “old-school” guys arguing for patriarchy altogether), but I get it:
    You think all women want some kind of mild BDSM relationship. Well do they? A lot of first-hand accounts from women contradict your claims, so, what, how many women does this apply to? 60%? 70%? Certainly not all, and besides, we’re talking about general standards here – when two find each other, they are free to act out whatever dominance-submission preferences they have, and distribute their housework as they see fit.

    All women want to be dominated? Really? So all those claiming they don’t and rather leave when it starts getting that way are lying? Well, they sure must be the “homogenous” gender as men don’t seem to have any problem to differ from each other in how “submissive” or “tameable” they want their gfs.

    “As I have said many times before: Show me a marriage where the housework is equally and fairly shared, rather than being divided into man’s work (taking out the garbage, unplugging the drains, mowing the lawn, and barbecuing meat) and woman’s work (almost everything else) and I will show you a marriage where the husband sleeps on the couch, and once in a week or so the wife’s lover drops in to bang her on the main bed, rough her up a bit, take her money, and leave a mess for the husband to clean up.”
    Huh? A woman being so desperate that she has to pay a callboy instead of just catching one at the bar, is, if not a rarity, probably a minority – and hence not suitable for a general example :)

    “While he cleans up the mess the lover made, washing bodily fluids off the sheets,”
    Why should he do that?? I thought the work was distributed equally, and btw that shouldn’t include the “mess” each individual partner creates ;)

    “the husband explains that he is so enlightened and sensitive that he has an open marriage and is a polyamorist.”
    Some are like that; others aren’t, and if they’re cheated on they’ll leave. It has nothing to do with “enlightenment” or “backwardness”, it’s just a PREFERENCE. Whatever firm connection there seems to be between equal distribution of housework and being into swinging inside that head of yours, is largely confined to it I’m afraid.

    Reading this article decreased my IQ at least by 20% – to call it “embarassing” would be an understatement.

    • jim says:

      You think all women want some kind of mild BDSM relationship. Well do they? A lot of first-hand accounts from women contradict your claims, so, what, how many women does this apply to? 60%? 70%? Certainly not all<

      What women say bears little relationship to what they do.

      All women. Every single heterosexual fertile age woman.

      All women push for power, but if they get it, will not have sex with their husbands of boyfriends, if they get it, none of them will have sex with their husbands or boyfriends.

      If the husband picks up fifty percent of the socks, he sleeps on the couch.

      • anon says:

        “What women say bears little relationship to what they do.”
        So when they get a boyfriend and then leave when they they find out he wants to “lead”, does that count as deed?

        “All women. Every single heterosexual fertile age woman.”
        So you’re determined to remove any doubts about your idiocy aren’t you.

        “All women push for power, but if they get it, will not have sex with their husbands of boyfriends,”
        Yes, apparently you are. Women who want sex, will have sex ESPECIALLY if they have the power to do so. Women who love their partners and believe in (temporal) monogamy, will sleep with their partners – especially if they have the power to do so.
        Your conception that women will stop being into their partners once they’ve seized “power”, is, as already stated, false.

        “If the husband picks up fifty percent of the socks, he sleeps on the couch.”
        Whatever, dumbass. If your point is that men should seek power over their partners so they get more sex from them, we have nothing more to discuss – you’ve basically done the entire work for me.

        • jim says:

          Have you actually observed a marriage where the husband picks up fifty percent of the socks, and still gets to sleep with his wife?

  22. anon says:

    “Men no longer have role models that would enable them to command and lead their wives the way that women want to be commanded and led”

    *DOUBLE FACEPALM*

  23. asdfasdfasdf says:

    “for the safety of her own children”

    That in no way negates the fact that she acted in a sexist, derogatory way towards a certain sex, something she is supposedly fighting against doing.

    • jim says:

      She reacted in an entirely realistic and appropriate way towards a certain sex. Men should no more be allowed to undress other people’s children, than women should be allowed to vote.

  24. […] Men’s Rights Activists are whiny losers « Jim’s Blog […]

Leave a Reply