Poll Analysis & The Third Option

Poll Analysis & The Third Option

Sep 16, 2013

As you may be aware, I conducted a poll of our readers’ religious and political affiliations. Honestly for no good reason – I was just curious. The results have been interesting. However, I must concede this is not necessarily an accurate representation of the Manosphere. First off only people who have been to this site would have voted; which is most likely, exclusively, a portion of TheRedPill subreddit. Secondly it was only posted at the end of two of my articles: Chivalry Is A Beta Move, Right? and How Feminism Has Manipulated The English Language & The Concept of Equality. Meaning only people interested in those titles would have clicked and voted. But regardless, we got over 220 participants – so we’re good to go.   I should note, initially there was no “Atheist” option, silly me. Once added the numbers jumped, so that’s what I put the 8% of “Other” down to. Also, the Atheists might have chosen Agnostic as second-best. Regardless, the Atheists and Agnostics added together make up about 50% of the vote. Second largest is a clear, precedented Christian representation; given the state of the Church this is pleasing. In addition the Catholics are at 4%. Lastly, we’ve got a few Jews, Buddhists, and Islamics; so we can claim “cultural indifference”. And to the dude who pointed out that the Evolution is a scientific theory not a religious belief… I know it just, it just works easier sticking in that group.   The first thing to note is there is a very clear majority of Libertarians. This is surprising and unsurprising at the same time. I kind of knew there would be an over-representation of them, but I didn’t think they would get 50% of the vote. But back to these guys in a second. Secondly, it’s interesting to note that there is a fairly even spread of Democratic Left & Democratic Right. At 12% and 16% the conservatives have the lead; unsurprising as though as when I think feminism, I think Progressives. Nevertheless it’s good we’ve got a few Left Wing brethren so that we’re not written off as crazy cracker right wing extremist misogynists. Good to see we’ve...

How Feminism Has Manipulated The English Language & The Concept of Equality

How Feminism Has Manipulated The English Language & The Concept of Equality

Sep 3, 2013

In George Orwell’s dystopian (that’s smart-talk for “scary fucking fictional future”) novel Nineteen Eighty-Four he implemented the concept of a language called newspeak. Newspeak was a boiled-down version of the English language. It was used by the totalitarian regime as a tool to limit free-thought; concepts outside of the established verbal construct were considered “thought-crime”. Concepts like freedom, rebellion, individuality, and peace could not be verbally explained within the confines of newspeak: “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” ― George Orwell, 1984 However, they didn’t just ban words, they changed them too. For example, the word “free” still existed in newspeak but could only be used in terms of something not being possessed, as in, “the dog is free from lice” or, “this field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in terms of being able to do as one pleases, as in “free choice” or “free will” since these concepts no longer existed. “We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.” ― George Orwell, 1984 As you have likely realized by now, I’m about to make more outrageous comparisons between Feminism and Socialism. However this time I’m just going to use Nineteen Eighty-Four as a precursory comparison. I won’t force conclusions on you at every turn, I’ll let you do that for yourself with each example. So let’s hit it.   5. Sexism is always misogyny Despite what everyone seems to think, sexism is not inherently bad. Sexism is, by definition: Prejudice or discrimination on the basis of gender. So prejudice is bad, but discrimination? Well it has two meanings: (1) The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things (2) Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.   If we combine the meaning of sexist and the second meaning of discrimination we have: Recognizing the difference between the sexes. What we can conclude is that discrimination, and therefore sexism, is amoral. For example: I would hook up with a girl but not a guy, not because I’m homophobic, not because I’m misandrist, but because I’m being sexist. I’m discriminating between potential hook-ups on the basis of gender. Or...

Chivalry is a Beta Move, Right?

Chivalry is a Beta Move, Right?

Aug 23, 2013

Chivalry. We’re all aware of the basic idea, opening a door for a girl, letting her exit the elevator first, pulling out her chair, etcetera… Now as far as I’m aware, this is the general consensus within the Manosphere: Chivalry is about as Beta as you get. No. It’s worse than Beta…. It’s Omega. Chivalry is what “nice guys” do. And we all know what happens to… “nice guys”. I’m here to dispel this theory. Or at least, offer a counter point of view. The Origin of Chivalry Contrary to popular belief, Chivalry is not about being every woman on earth’s personal manservant. Well, it wasn’t, at least. As Ian Ironwood discussed in this excellent article; The Knights of Chivalry and The Vows of Knighthood were mostly about honour, combat, glory, respect, authority, duty, responsibility, and honesty. So Chivalry is without a doubt a manly thing. One of the most famous examples of Chivalry is to not stab someone in the back. They should be facing you, sword drawn. I’m fairly confident this is meant both physically and metaphorically. Problem is, the meaning today has been boiled down to just the one code: To respect the honour of women. A quick note to the feminists who believe that that rule was born from times when women were assumed to be “weak and defenceless”: To protect the weak and defenceless To give succour to widows and orphans To fight for the welfare of all To respect the honour of women. Notice that, “To protect the weak and defenseless”, and “To respect the honour of women”. Are two different rules. Chivalry In Society Look carefully at how this is written: To respect the honour of women. “Enhance,” says the main protagonist to the tech-guy in NCIS. To respect women’s honour. “Enhance,” he says again, adjusting his dark sunglasses. To respect honourable women. “Now invert it horizontally.” You don’t have to be chivalrous to bitches. You can then extend this to, “You don’t have to be chivalrous to girls you don’t know.” Hence doing away with one of the problem Dalrock brought up in this very sarcastically written article on the topic. This is the “all men...

Fallacy, Shaming, Control, and Indoctrination… Sure Looks Like a Liberal Agenda to Me

Fallacy, Shaming, Control, and Indoctrination… Sure Looks Like a Liberal Agenda to Me

Aug 2, 2013

“Feminism is for Conservatives too! It shouldn’t be a radical or leftist idea to support equal rights for women.” Here’s my problem with that. It’s a loaded statement. Technically speaking, I support Women’s Rights – technically. I just don’t like the Liberal’s version of it, ergo, Feminism. I don’t support Feminism for two main reasons. 1. Because it shares the same four telltale signs of a Liberal agenda: Fallacy, Shaming, Control, and Indoctrination. Hence the title of this post. 2. We don’t need to fight for Women’s Rights anymore. Honest. The revolution ended decades ago. The only reason it’s still here is because it the Liberal Feminists are refusing to relinquish their victimhood. To do that, would be to accept responsibility. Gasp. You see, female Conservatives/Libertarians don’t need feminism, look at Conservatarian Dana Loesch, she’s married, homeschools two boys, and a voice in the media (oh and she’s an ex-Liberal Feminist). I know what you’re thinking, “My gosh! She should be on the cover of Woman’s Weekly. SUPERMOM! How does she do it all!!??” Honestly I have no freaking idea, but the important thing is – she did it without Feminism. Note: It’s no secret the majority of Manospherians tend to be Right-Wing. In fact, this article seemed to say, there may be an unproportional number of Libertarians in the Manosphere (whether they know it or not). But, I digress. However for the sake of coherence, I’m lumping Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and Right-Wingers, as Conservatives; and Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, and Left-Wingers as Liberals. And if you don’t really know what those words mean, here’s a quick crash course in basic Politics: Conservatives want to be your father, Liberals want to be your mother, and Libertarians just want to be treated like fucking adults. So let’s dive into why Feminism looks like Liberal Agenda to me: Logical Fallacies & Shaming Tactics I was inspired to write this article after reading DarlingDoll’s excellent response to and deconstruction of the question, “Dear Anti-Feminists, what do you stand for?”. The feminist goes on to ask (emphasis mine): I’m not against anti-feminists because I understand everyone has their own opinions, but it just makes me wonder, what do they...

Feminism & Personal Freedom

Feminism & Personal Freedom

Jul 26, 2013

If you’re ever in need of a good laugh, I sincerely recommend you throw over to WhoNeedsFeminism.com. If you’re not already aware, Who Needs Feminism is a site where women and (I am ashamed to say) some men write a reason for why they need feminism on a piece of paper of some sort, eg. “I need feminism because sexual girl power traditional social construct empowerment rape culture blah blah vaginal superiority.” Granted, for that level of sarcasm you’d need to go to WhoNeedsFeminism.org. This site is essentially one giant troll to their “dotcom” cousin; and a giant, sarcastic middle finger to feminism (They’re a non for profit organization, they just really want to get the information out there). The reason I’m going into all this is simply because earlier I was surprised at just how many of the posts left me thinking, “And so to fix this… you would do… what exactly?” Let me give you a few examples: Notice the similarity between all of these? If you were to go to each of these girls and ask them what they want done about it, the answers would almost certainly be “They shouldn’t be allowed to say that stuff anymore!” So then the question to ask simply is, what ACTUALLY would you do about it? Ban it? Pass legislation to prohibit people saying anything to offend you or any other delicate flower in the entire country? Label “rape jokes” as “hate speech”? Make it a crime for anyone to openly disagree with the feminist doctrine? Freedom of speech anyone? Oh and in 2012 a radical group of feminists in Europe wanted to ban wolf-whistling and men calling women “darling”. YES. They want to take away men’s whistling rights. Oh but there’s more: Not only do they wish to take away our freedom of speech, but this young girl is after our looking rights! Because somehow, male appreciation of a female’s “feminine attributes” is offensive to her? Forgiving me for jumping to conclusions but I can’t help but feel as though this is eerily… Socialist? Or communist or fascist or whatever trendy word is being tossed around these days. But I know what you’re...