The Male Feminist

A MFer will lie and support a social cause against himself in order to identify and associate with women who care nothing about him.

Readership: All
Theme: Archetypes of Faux-Masculinity
Author’s Note: This post contains excerpts from reader’s comments. Links to original comments are embedded in the initial word.
Length: 2,250 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes

Introduction

There’s so much room for what’s called a Male Feminist (MF). Everything from Chivalrous Cuckservatives, to Complementary Churchians, to liberal mouthpieces of “women should vote”, to male versions of radical feminists (contemporary MFs who think there’s “tons of work to be done”). Some Manospherian authors have even included Blue Pilled incels and Red Pilled PUAs to the list, for the mere fact that they’re molding their lives around Feminine Imperatives. So, this is a broad category that might very well include the majority of men.

The differences between a Male Feminist and a White Knight (WK) are as follows.

  • WKs have a covert contract. MFers do not.
  • WKs conform to chivalrous ethics. MFers do not.
  • WKs have a sense of honor, morality, and self-respect. MFers do not.
  • MFers are predisposed to angry outbursts, and may resort to violence (and in the worst case, murder). WK would never go there.
  • MFers willingly jump on the feminist bandwagon, or make some effort to give that appearance. WK might not.
  • MFers will do anything they can to schmooze their way into a woman’s panties, even to support a social cause against himself (i.e. feminism) in order to associate with more women. WK are content to work within their own social group.

Similar to the WK, women want MFs for their “allyship”, resources, strength, and (im)moral encouragement, but the MFs have other biological motivations to be there.

One Stanford study showed that people who loudly proclaim anti-racist views are often, in practice, more racist than average [1]. Likewise, men who identify as feminist are more prone to sexual misbehavior, especially when they imagine their politically correct beliefs put them beyond reproach.

Where did the Male Feminist Originate?

Male feminists are as old as feminism itself. But up until recently, they’ve mostly gone under the social radar, except for occasionally receiving attention as a good intentioned but hopelessly pathetic and forlorn victim of unrequited love, which was not a very accurate representation, as we will see later on.

According to Khan [2], the Male Feminist first came to prominence during the cultural tremor of the GamerGate incident in late 2014.  It was comprised of men who were otherwise minding their own business opting to fight back against excessive ‘feminist’ demands that they stop their recreation to spend more time producing resources for ungrateful ‘feminists’ to parasitically consume.  The gamers found that ‘feminists’ were so unaccustomed to being challenged that they could only respond by demanding that other men defend them.  Few men volunteered for this thankless task other than some ‘male feminists’ and cuckservatives acting as virtual White Knights. The gamers’ response was so vehement that shortly afterward and ever since then, ‘feminists’ have been too hesitant to harass gamers any further.

Khan notes that this was a major victory, and a template of what works against misandry. Whenever possible, ‘male feminists’ should be exposed proactively and ruthlessly, especially since they are hated by women too, and thus are not a protected group.  

Male Feminists are Liberal Socialists

MFers are likely to be liberal and/or socialists. Khan writes [2],

“Studies have shown that physically weak men tend to be socialists (we include cluckservative socialists in this group).  These studies don’t go far enough, because they stop short of revealing that women are socialists for the same reason.  Ultimately, the likelihood of a person being a collectivist is inversely proportional to how well they could survive in the jungle for an indefinite period.  A man who could manage that situation well (whether due to physical strength, resourcefulness, etc.) is less likely to be a socialist in our modern world.  A woman attractive enough to get such a man to take her in and share his resources with her is also less likely to be a socialist, whereas women who are unlikely to attract such a benefactor tend to favor socialism.  As far as we may think we are from prehistoric times, ‘Jungle Survivability’ is still the governing factor in what system a person favors.  This is also why people who opposed socialism in their prime become socialists in their old age.”

Following this description, we can expect the typical MF to be remarkably less masculine and unusually less handsome than the average man.

Two Types of Male Feminists

Overall, there are essentially two types of Male Feminists, although there are countless subvarieties. The difference is largely one of power and status. If a MF has power and status, then this will allow him to attract and exploit women. If he is of the low power and status variety, then he is the one being exploited by wimmin.

The Low Power Male Feminist (LPMF)

The LPMF, AKA Mangina, is the prototypical, simpy soy boy who panders to women and who couldn’t punch through a wet paper bag.

The LPMF truly believes in the glorious revolution of establishing a wimminocracy. He is stuck in his head, obsessing and philosophizing about every kind of feminist inspired ideology. He thinks feminism and all that goes with it is the dandiest, most sophisticated cultural wave around, and anyone who isn’t a diligent follower never comes up on his radar, or else, they are dismissed as being “a minority”, “backwoods”, “living in the past”, “out of touch”, and such.

Cameron told us a story about a high school friend who fits the image of a LPMF. He’s a simp. He brags online about how he sits down when he pees so he won’t get pee on the toilet seat – to please his wife. He has learned his version of feminism from society and from his liberal mom and dad.

Most LPMFs are annoyingly common, and typically mediocre in attractiveness. They try to make up for their mediocrity by making hamfisted efforts to curry some (albeit limited) favor with the women in their life. They might mimic chivalry on the rare occasion, but tend to avoid it in general because they lack the masculine presence to make it effective, and they know their efforts never comes across as intended. Instead, it only makes him appear to be more of what he is — a thirsty male who, if he’s a good boy, will get a little affection, attention, and praise, (all the while hoping for sex, but in vain).

A Male Feminist’s Viewpoint: Being a Privileged Ally | Domenic Roberto | TEDxYouth@BHS (2015-6-25; Length: 12:36)

As you can see from the video, too much time spent around women and seriously entertaining their arguments has made him soft, effeminate, emotionally oversensitive, and cowardly.

It can get worse, much worse. An article at The Other McCain [3] describes a “male feminist” named Charles Clymer. If you’ll click on the link to his Twitter profile, you’ll see that in the 7 years since that article was written, Charles has morphed into Charlotte!

The High Power Male Feminist (HPMF)

HPMF are not always fully sincere in their feminist convictions – they don’t need to be, because of their status — but they are capable of putting on a convincing show of agree and amplify whenever hot button issues come up in conversation.

The HPMF has access to female attention because of his status, both of which allow him to appear much more confident and collected than the LPMF. Aziz Ansari and Harvey Weinstein are prime examples of the HPMF. HPMF might be subcategorized into those having a bit of Game and those who don’t. The former can get away with their shenanigans for a much longer time. For example, Aziz Ansari got in trouble just for not being adept at seduction. But Harvey Weinstein should have gotten in trouble with the law over 20 years ago.

Exclusive: Video shows Harvey Weinstein behaving inappropriately (2018-9-13; Length: 8:36)

Here, we can clearly see Weinstein’s skill in the pick up (e.g. establishing status, creating a sexualized interaction from the very beginning, casual physical intimacy indicating possession, push-pull/hot-cold, escalation, the power of suggestion, using a strong, soft, hypnotic voice, moving the interaction to somewhere private…). It’s all straight out of a PUA’s playbook.

The thing that makes this interaction so weird is not the banter and flirting. It is the fact that they only just met for the first time after having one business oriented phone conversation! Another odd thing is that in the interview, she says she felt very uncomfortable about his advances, but in the video, she was giving clear IOIs (e.g. leaning in close to him, giving him full extended eye contact and smiling warmly…), and at no time does she ever draw a line nor establish some boundaries of decency. Instead, she falls in with his “friendly” act and goes along with it. She even decides to have another beer! He then interprets this lack of resistance as a signal to continue. Then she goes to his hotel to “finish business”… !!! She was clearly seduced, but in the interview, she won’t admit that she was seduced. IMO, her only defense is that she didn’t know when to escape.

Male Feminists are Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

Most men have to play the game in order to get anywhere with deceitful, dishonest women (the overwhelming majority). One could take the position that men who do this are desperate and thirsty, and thus masquerade as something they’re not in order to get some action. Or then again, given the unchecked feral nature of modern women, one could reasonably ask, “What other choice do they really have?”

Well, with Male Feminists, the first viewpoint would be the correct one. When a man identifies himself as a feminist, you can start the clock on incoming credible sexual harassment/assault accusations. The fact that ‘Male Feminists‘ are often creepy predators in disguise has become widely known and many such individuals have fortunately been exposed and convicted. Being an outspoken male supporter of gender equality is no shield against accusations of improper behavior, nor is it any defense against a social media mobbing [1].

We know leftist and feminist princesses are steeped in “privilege” boilerplate, and are therefore prone to claiming someone harassed them, molested them, raped them, “eye raped” them, and so on. MFers are the real evidence that such claims may indeed be true, thereby opening the floodgates of accusations directed at all men, MF or not. So you see, MFers are not only the enemy of women, but also of all self-respecting men.

Rollo described this rippling impact as follows.

“What Weinstein and dozens of other accusation of (usually ‘male feminist’) men following in his wake has reinforced is that masculinity makes us inherently evil. So evil, in fact, that men must be reeducated by the Feminine Imperative to ensure that one’s fellow man (a prospective harasser/rapist/gunslinger) is acting in accordance with the dictates of the Great Masculine Scare of 2017.”

“…in this new shift it’s no longer “toxic” masculinity, it’s masculinity that is toxic.”

“The difference now is that just being a man makes one a potentially violent criminal – or a potential sexual harasser.”

The Rational Male: Riff on This (2017-10-27)

MFers are also the enemy of the wider society. Few incidents encapsulate everything wrong with ‘feminism’ so completely as the mass murders that sadly have become commonplace in recent years.

For example, the victims of the Isla Vista shooting amounted to 4 men and 2 women.  Yet, the shooting is described as ‘misogynist’ because the shooter was a staunch ‘male feminist’ for many years but was continually rejected by wimmin. He actually hated pickup artists since they were succeeding where he was not.

E11i0t R0dgәr, male feminist and perpetrator of the Isla Vista shooting.

Epilogue

Creepy male feminists are the epitome of ‘feminist’ ugliness and anti-enlightenment.

Overall, here are the typical traits of a MF.

  • They are plebian, low quality men at best, and they are creepy harassers, sleazy molesters, or perverts at worst.
  • They are deeply confused about gender / sex roles. (More obvious in the LPMF.)
  • They make catering to women, female primacy, Feminine Imperatives, and/or having sex their primary purpose in life.
  • MFs are Liberal Socialists in their socio-political orientation.
  • They are driven to find acceptance and popularity (among other things) among the trendy progressive crowd.
  • The only reason men say (or even show in their daily lives) they are feminists is because it’s a deductive form of Beta Game.
  • MFers play up being “friendly” and use this to casually touch women and be touchy-feely with them, including women they don’t know.
  • MFs have a desperate need for physical proximity and contact with women, and this desperation is born from dealing with women who think they’re creepy.
  • They’re totally obsessed with women, so they’ll never honestly ask themselves why they feel the need to touch women in general.
  • It is not uncommon for male-feminists / female-allies to be facing accusations of sexual harassment and lawsuits within months of publicly declaring they are male feminists.

Final Admonitions [2]

It is best to steer clear from MFs altogether for a multitude of reasons.

Getting involved in Feminism will, among other drawbacks, make one far more accessible to predators, both male and female, since it is an ideology accustomed to immunity from accountability.

Also, be wary of organizations that say they are not “Feminist” but still espouse the same beliefs, as they are havens for predators all the same.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit keeps a running chronicle of the numerous instances where the true nature of such an individual is exposed, and women have written articles warning other women to avoid these sexual predators.  The #MeToo movement excised quite a few of these predators, but many still remain.

Masculinity Rating

The notoriety of the MF as a faux-masculine archetype presents a d@mning cataclysm in the popular narrative about perspectives on masculinity.

Low Power Male FeministHigh Power Male Feminist
Strength: 0-2
Honor: 0
Authority: 0-5 (by definition)
Respect: 0-2
Purpose: 0-1 (purpose is to feel good)

Average Score: 1
Strength: 0-5
Honor: 0
Authority: 5-10 (by definition)
Respect: Varies by individual
Purpose: 5-10 (purpose is to score)

Average Score: 4.5

Sources

  1. UnHerd (Mary Carrington): The problem with male feminists (2021-6-17)
  2. The Futurist (Kartik Gada, Imran Khan): Gems (2020-1-1)
  3. The Other McCain: ‘Male Feminist’ Admits Well-Known Truth: ‘Male Feminists’ Are Scum (2014-12-19)*

* H/T: Oscar

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Archetypes, Attitude, Culture Wars, Faux-Masculinity, Feminism, Handling Rejection, Identity, Media, Misogyny, Models of Failure, Online Personas, Personal Presentation, Politics, Purpose, Relationships, Self-Concept, Sphere of Influence, White Wash, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to The Male Feminist

  1. rontomlinson2 says:

    “She even decides to have another beer! He then interprets this lack of resistance as a signal to continue.”

    It’s often said that there’s a rule which evil must follow: that it must tell you what it intends to do before doing it. I’m thinking maybe it’s simply asking for your heart’s consent in a deniable way and that this consent, implied by your silence or lack of resistance, is the most important thing it wants. It wants it more than the intended consequent activity.

    I don’t have much interaction with male feminists these days. When I was younger I remember they mostly had pony tails. As a result I inwardly cringe when I see a man sporting that hair style, Horatio Hornblower movies excluded. Far from being plebian they were usually middle class and university educated, though perhaps this is a selection effect of my own background. They do cater to women, often literally. Always preparing fancy meals; sometimes even transporting the food over to her house.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. cameron232 says:

    The same high school friend bought his wife a book of Jason Momoa pictures which she said (on social media) she uses as a masturbation aid. She and her friends agreed that he’s a “confident” man for doing this.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. redpillboomer says:

    Between the Low Power Male Feminist (LPMF) and the High Power Male Feminist (HPMF), there’s also got to be some sort of hybrid or in-between position. In the educational work that I participate in, there are several men who look masculine, but when they open their mouths, they’re obviously aligned with the feminist worldview.

    I don’t consider them High Power Male Feminists, because while appearing masculine, they don’t have all that much power operating in their favor, i.e they’re not rich or particularly high status in society, more moderate in status. BUT, they do get the women into bed with their Betagame, and farily easily I might add.

    It’s a bit weird to me, the women seem drawn to them: fairly good looking guys, somewhat masculine in build (decent, not a gym bro, but not bad), and FEMINIST mindsets; however, it also seems they get the women for a season, and the women end up repelled by them in the long run. I’ve always referred to them as “Mangina’s” but the way Jack used Mangina as an LPMF didn’t quite fit these dudes; HPMF didn’t quite fit either. They have some PUA about them, but if PUA is their classification, they’re not quite the classic PUA, you know the brash, confident, swaggering, pick-up-liney dudes. So I’m not sure what to call them now if they’re not really Mangina’s (LPMF)? Any suggestions?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      They sound like me, way back when. Just blissfully unaware and inexperienced. Probably so satisfied with their lot in life that they feel no need to seek any alternative perspectives (the truth). I sought the truth because I ran into too many who misjudged my intentions and made me out to be the bad guy when I was trying to be a good guy. I saw too many hypocrisies. Too many contradictions. So I started asking questions.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “I saw too many hypocrisies. Too many contradictions. So I started asking questions.”

        If only more people would ask questions when they see contradictions.

        Sadly, most people have that natural tendency beaten out of them as children. Children love to ask “why”, and most adults hate to answer. It’s like they’ve forgotten what it was like for themselves as kids.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Good for you. This exercise happens when you look around you and go “This isn’t right. This doesn’t add up. This doesn’t make sense. There’s no evidence to support what everyone’s telling me. In fact, everything looks like the exact opposite of what they’re telling me. I’m gonna go see if other people are seeing what I’m seeing.”

        Always heed the instinct to ask and to find out more when something’s not adding up.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Elspeth says:

      The men you describe are not male feminists. They’re just normal guys who somehow managed to retain some vestiges of their god-given masculinity (strong dads, granddads, lots of brothers, uncles, etc). I recognize what you’re describing because I’ve grown up around those men. Mostly red pill, but they see some real advantages to some of the rights women enjoy.

      Some men believe in egalitarianism because they were raised to believe in it. I marvel that people don’t get this; that men — especially those who haven’t really been grist for the cultural/divorce industry mill — don’t really see a problem with women having equality. They don’t see it as a net negative. They see the fact that their wives/girlfriends are somewhat independent as a good thing; particularly in the financial department. This is not a new development. 26 years ago, when my the 22-year-old husband told me to quit my job, every one of his male relatives and friends but one thought he was taking on too much. The longer I stayed home, the higher eyebrows raised. And it cuts across cultures ever since women went to work en masse in the 70s.

      We have a neighbor family on our block. Young couple. They remind me of the kinds of families that used to grace most American advertisements. She is blonde and gregarious. He is tall and fit, kind of like a Ken doll. The wife worked with my daughter in an accounting department for years. When they had a second baby, the baby was sick a lot from day care. She and my daughter sat down and crunched numbers and made a presentation for her to give her husband to show how she could stay home. This woman has been begging her husband for years, “Let me stay home with him so he can stop getting sick.” “Can I work part time?” “Can I at least get a job at the day care center so I can keep a better eye on him?” Anything that meant less money than she was making was met with a firm no.

      So they get to keep her paycheck and his spendthrift lifestyle, but something has shifted. My husband rebuked her once when she said something within earshot, but not sure if it helped. She basically said, “He wants equal, then I’ll give him equal.”

      Not all men who believe in female equality are male feminists. Well they are, but they don’t know they are. We’re at the point now where any man who is “cis-gendered”, straight, and can get a date, fairly easily is pretty much a knuckle-dragging neanderthal.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Another follow up thought before I forget:

        Feminism flourishes in an environment where interdependence between man and woman has been eradicated. This is one of the reasons why the financial independence factor is ignored at our peril. It’s why Japanese men reportedly don’t date women unless they are of lower financial status, and Japan is in a demographic free fall.

        In a healthy society, there are things women need that they can only get from men, and things men need they can only get from women. Biology had dictated those things before technology hacked in and mitigated many weaknesses inherent to womanhood. It also did the same for men, albeit in a less visibly overt way.

        When women can get what they need from life without depending on men (and vice versa), radical feminism is the end result. After a long enough time in such an enviroment, generations of men and women are born who do not know anything differently and will balk at the idea that either men or women should voluntarily put themselves in a place where they are vulnerable to the other.

        We’ve gone from feminism as an incoherent ideology to feminism as something most kids are steeped in from the cradle. So even if they’re not activists or creeps, it’s all they know until life knocks it loose. So I think the men RPB is describing don’t really fit into any neat little box.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        “After a long enough time in such an enviroment, generations of men and women are born who do not know anything differently…”

        Sometimes, I get the crazy idea that it was God’s wrath, and simultaneously an act of God’s mercy, to allow abortion to be legalized. There are a number of reasons why I think so.

        — It prevented millions of children from growing up with a harridan feminist mother and/or in a broken home.
        — Growing up in a broken home with feminist parents prevents one from experiencing God as a child and becoming an upright adult. That’s gone.
        — Not sure what happens to the souls of aborted babies, but I imagine abortion prevented millions of those babies from arriving at an ultimate destiny of going to hell.
        — It cleaned out the gene pool of people descended from those who would fornicate and then kill their own progeny — descendants who would probably have the same inclinations.

        Legalized abortion has gone on for roughly three generations, which fits the description of a curse on those who hate God (Exodus 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9). According to these passages, it’s about time for the curse to be lifted. We’re at the point now where reinstating a ban on abortion would have a correcting effect on society.

        Although there are always pros and cons with trying to “legislate morality”, I’ve noticed (during my travels around the world) that some laws geared towards controlling immorality have to be instituted, because if not, then everyone in that culture would be doing that thing. For example, the reason littering is punished by jail time in Singapore is because if it were not, then everyone would do it and the whole city would become a landfill. There’s no such law in Taiwan, because no one litters, and many people (mostly middle-schoolers and the elderly) are sweeping the streets on a daily basis. I’m quite certain that the reason divorce is outlawed in the Philippines is because if it were legalized, then practically everyone in the Philippines would be getting a divorce and the whole country would go to the dogs. (My apologies to any Filipino readers.)

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Men aren’t afraid of doing any of this. Men aren’t afraid of getting what we need from women. Men aren’t afraid of saying we want and need women because they have the one thing we need from them that we can’t get anywhere else – sex. Men aren’t afraid of taking on one woman and providing for her in exchange for sex.

        Men aren’t afraid of commitment. Men aren’t afraid of forsaking other women so long as one woman will forsake all others for us. Men aren’t afraid of the financial responsibility.

        Men will gladly give up things for one woman. Men will gladly shoulder financial responsibility for one woman and her children by him. Men will gladly put up with all manner of problems, headaches, inconvenience, stress, and self-deprivation for one woman.

        We just want that one woman to commit to us and display the same level of commitment to us that we give them.

        It’s women who won’t do this. It’s women who are afraid. It’s women who won’t give up things. It’s women who won’t shoulder childrearing and homemaking responsibility. It’s women who won’t give up their “careers” (jobs). It’s wone who won’t commit. It’s women who won’t put up with the problems and inconvenience.

        You want to fix this? Talk to women, not men.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I mentioned men having fear? Where? When?

        Stop attacking me. You know I talk to women all the time. All. The. Time. If I can wave a magic wand and change the world I would. But I can’t.

        I’m going to share a story here that I shared with Ame and I’m done.

        We were at a party Friday night and I had two women, separately, tell me that I have influenced them to honor their husbands more. One of their husbands actually told me I could start charging money for my counsel. “You really need to start passing the plate. It’s worth it.”

        I was totally uncomfortable, and my husband was thoroughly impressed, and I don’t know how to make sure people see that it is God’s wisdom, and not mine.

        That is my legacy. It’ll have to be enough. I will keep at it out here where it really matters, because I believe in it. But it’s not effective here for obvious reasons. You win deti.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        Elspeth,
        We welcome your comments here, but please recognize the place where you shine brightest is in ministering to women.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I appreciate that Jack, thanks. I know that the place where the most good is done is with other women. I’ve learned that this message doesn’t land well online with women who aren’t already bought into it.

        The point of my story about the party is that I already talk to women. A lot, but in the flesh where there is more depth and an ability to see more than just my words.

        I enjoyed the conversation here because it often sparks thoughts of am angle I hadn’t considered. So thanks for that as well.

        I don’t enjoy being a trigger or source of contention, so I will severely limit my commentary here for the sake of peace. I actually am working on something with Hearth. I’ll send you info when/if it seems relevant.

        Thanks again.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        I’m not attacking you. I’m telling you that men aren’t the problem here. I’m not saying you, Elspeth, have to solve this problem. I’m saying women do.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I like to think that needing the other person cultivates love. Children need their parents and that’s part of what grows the love within the relationship.

        But when women say “no thanks” to putting themselves in a situation of needing a man it’s hard to see relationships as more than just a transaction. In order to experience love women will have to trust. That involves risk. Women are risk averse.

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Feminism flourishes in an environment where interdependence between man and woman has been eradicated.”

        Yes E, I’ve seen what you’re talking about firsthand I believe. I know a mid-thirties, new Christian couple my wife and I have mentored a bit in the faith. He’s an Air Force officer and she was a stay at home mom for the most part, except that she was studying nursing working toward her RN which she finally received a year or so ago.

        When she received her RN, I noticed a shift in their relationship that occurred within the first couple of months of her starting her new career. Coincidentally, it occurred when they crossed the ten year mark of their marriage, and he crossed the ten year mark of his AF career; both significant markers in the eyes of the legal system and the AF’s pension system.

        I remember congratulating her on all the milestones they had achieved at once as a couple, and she made an off hand comment to me at the time that didn’t fully register. It just landed as a bit odd to me. She said something along the lines of, “Well, now he can’t leave me.” I thought it was insecurity speaking, and maybe it was; however, in reflecting back on it, and certainly in light of their subsequent marital struggles, I think there was more to it than just feeling more secure on the wife’s part now that she had her RN. I think it had to do with NOW the wife had true equality AND she had the upper hand legally going forward.

        Their marriage appears to be on the rocks and the husband is really nervous about it. He doesn’t want to lose his family, they have two kids, one his and the other her out-of-wedlock child he adopted. HOWEVER, what I think is lurking behind that fear, is the fear of what she can NOW do to him. She is no longer dependent on him, or really even interdependent with him, she can call the shots.

        Time will tell what the outcome ends up being, I’m praying for them regularly. The husband is a true believer in egalitarianism, like you mentioned in your earlier post, really a masculine male who is a feminist by default and enculturation without even realizing it. He’s beginning to wake up to it now, not red pilled yet, but increasingly seeing the threat of an egalitarian home now.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        RPB

        Well, your nurse friend should be careful here. Your intrepid Air Force officer friend could leave her. Their separate financial positions have equalized because she can earn her own money now. He probably wouldn’t have to pay her alimony because she has her own career. If she outearns him, and the marriage ends, she might not have to pay him alimony, but certainly she might take a hit in any property division that happens. Maybe she thinks she can call the shots, but in reality it just creates more conflict.

        He can leave her and there’s a greater possibility of having no ongoing financial obligations to her. Only thing that could happen adversely to him is she could ask for half his pension. But then – he can ask for half of hers now….

        Like

      • anonymous_ng says:

        Here’s a link to a law firm blog post from 2021 regarding military pensions and divorce.

        — Military pension can be considered a marital asset.
        — There is no marriage length requirement for a military pension to be considered a marital asset.
        — More interesting stuff if you want to read the entire post.

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Well, your nurse friend should be careful here. Your intrepid Air Force officer friend could leave her.”

        True enough! In fact, he mentioned he should start getting himself ready and looking into divorcing her. It would be prudent on his part. I’m no fan of divorce, but now being red pilled, I told him you need to get with a F-ing legal and begin educating yourself. You need to hope for the best that this thing will work itself out, but prepare for the worst. With God, all things are possible, and the spouses do have faith; however Christians end up divorcing too, and I’ve heard the rate in the church is similar to the secular couples divorce rate.

        He’s dragging his feet a bit about researching the divorce process because she’s been “only flirting” with a Chad at the gym that they, both husband and wife, go to for workouts. Both of them (husband and wife) are into cross-fit and have trained together in the past, so hubby has a front row seat in all this Chad nonsense. Chad is either a fellow participant or an instructor, not sure which. Most of the flirting takes place in exchanges of text messages when she’s at home which hubby knows about and can’t get her to stop doing it. She sits on the couch and texts away to Chad. He sulks and frets and has tried to get her to stop, she just tells him to mind his own business, the fruits of an egalitarian relationship.

        I think more at this stage of things, and I’ll admit I’m reading a bit between the lines here, I think it is more for her a situation of “not feeling anything for him anymore” (if she ever did, by her own admission to him), and getting older. She’s still quite attractive for 35, but still 35, not 22 anymore. I’ve seen pictures of her in her early to mid-twenties and she was quite the looker, a real hottie in fact; she still is for 35, but obviously not as hot as she was back in her early twenties. I think Chad’s attention has rekindled the nostalgia for her earlier years when she probably had men falling all over themselves to get with her.

        I’m not seeing it yet, the marital strife (and I could be wrong), as a monetary issue so much as it is more of a “love” issue, or more accurately, a lack of love issue from her. It’s classic Red Pill 101. Her N-count by her husband’s estimation is “somewhere in the teens”, and she has strayed a time or two during their marriage. What complicates matters is he has too, on at least one occasion that he admitted to me. He’s also told me how they originally got together when they were around 23 or so and there was crap going on back then, and that crap just ripples right on down through the years contributing to the current marital mess. So, you’ve got messes going both ways in this marriage.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        RPB,
        Your buddy should go ask Chad to stop talking with his wife, and be prepared for the worst.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        RPB:

        “I’m not seeing it yet, the marital strife (and I could be wrong), as a monetary issue so much as it is more of a “love” issue, or more accurately, a lack of love issue from her. It’s classic Red Pill 101. Her N-count by her husband’s estimation is “somewhere in the teens”, and she has strayed a time or two during their marriage. What complicates matters is he has too, on at least one occasion that he admitted to me. He’s also told me how they originally got together when they were around 23 or so and there was crap going on back then, and that crap just ripples right on down through the years contributing to the current marital mess.”

        I am right again.

        Your AF officer friend married a woman who isn’t sexually attracted to him and does not respect him. She has mental health issues and as such is unable to pair bond. Trust issues. Daddy issues. Slept around before marriage — racked up an N in the teens before age 23. (That’s definitely slut territory. It’s one thing to sleep with around 15 men. It’s quite another to sleep with around 15 men by age 23.) Has cheated on him at least a couple of times. (That last bit is game over to me. She cheats, it’s over. We’re done. That to me is see lawyers and do the best you can because there’s no coming back from that.)

        Once again, just another example of what happens when a woman marries a man she’s not sexually attracted to.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        “I like to think that needing the other person cultivates love.”

        Modern women see dependence as weakness. In themselves and in men. They will hate themselves for needing a man, and they will hate any man who needs them for the slightest thing. Such a shame.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        “Although there are always pros and cons with trying to “legislate morality…”

        Every law is a legislation of morality. Murder is illegal, because it’s immoral. Theft is illegal, because it’s immoral.

        The question is not, never was, and never will be whether we will legislate morality.

        The question is, always has been, and always will be whose morality we will legislate.

        When the Supreme Court made child sacrifice the law of the land (without the voters’ consent), they legislated satanic women’s morality.

        Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      Sorry about the typos and wrong word choice (they’re instead of their). Must always proofread before submitting!

      Like

    • Jack says:

      RPB,

      “I’ve always referred to them as “Mangina’s” but the way Jack used Mangina as an LPMF didn’t quite fit these dudes; HPMF didn’t quite fit either.”

      The OP draws up a general comparison based on power/status since this seems to be a key difference, but in actuality, there are countless subtypes, different types of power/status, and grey areas. To make a more complete list, we have…

      — Chivalrous Cuckservatives
      — Churchians
      — Complementarians
      — F boys
      — Generic Nice Guys
      — Incels
      — Liberal mouthpieces
      — Male versions of radical feminists
      — Manginas
      — Nice Guys™
      — PUAs
      — QTBGL types
      — White Knights

      The reason there are so many MFs, and so many types, is because most all men across the West have been raised by feminist parents and schooled in feminism from their youth.

      The thing that makes them all MFs is that they either espouse feminist philosophy, or they support feminism, either willingly or inadvertently.

      Like

  4. thedeti says:

    No discussion of the Male Feminist could be complete without mentioning Hugo Schwyzer, the most extreme, egregious example of this archetype.

    TLDR: Schwyzer, a bipolar sufferer, holds a Ph.D. in medieval studies and was a professor at Pasadena City College in California. Before 2011, Schwyzer stumbled into a career as a gender studies professor because PCC needed someone to teach a couple of gender studies classes. Though he wasn’t qualified, the school let him teach the classes. He rose to greatest prominence from 2011-2014, when he had been writing on feminism for a few years. He was known as a virulent, vicious defender of women and a great “feminist ally”.

    It turned out Schwyzer, a married man in his early 40s, was using his position to sleep with students and cheat on his wife. He then went off his Bipolar meds to show everyone “the real Hugo”. He descended into a torrent of self destruction, going on social media to confess his drug addiction, his unethical behavior, his infidelity, and even that he had tried to murder his ex wife. (He has never been charged with any crimes in connection with that last bit.) Schwyzer left his position at PCC and vanished into the shadows, having self destructed on social media in spectacular fashion.

    Hugo Schwyzer is one of the most extreme examples of the Male Feminist I’ve ever seen. Behind that “defender of women” is usually a man who either (1) is using feminism to get close to women in the hopes of finding sex and romantic partners; or (2) virulently hates women and uses them for his own purposes, or (3) both, in Schwyzer’s case.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Rock Kitaro says:

    Back in 2013 (age 27), I used to call myself a Feminist… though I really didn’t know what all it encompassed. I mainly just agreed with the notion of equality and “anything a man can do, a woman can do too if she puts forth the effort.”

    It wasn’t till May of 2014, when I had a discussion with my aunt that shook me from all that. I told her, “I’m confused. I’m doing what the world’s saying. I’m treating women as my equal! I’m not looking for a woman to lead, nor am I looking for a woman to follow. I’m looking for someone who I can walk hand and hand with as my equal. But it’s not working.”

    Mind you, I had just started reading the Bible, so I hadn’t gotten to what God says about it just yet. So my Aunt jumped the gun here and told me, “Well, Rock… As Christians, we’re taught by the scriptures that husbands are supposed to lead. They’re the head of the households. They’re to love and honor their wives, but Wives are supposed to submit to their husband.”

    That was like a bomb going off. She showed me multiple scriptures and I just remember feeling so stupid. Then angry. I looked at society and asked myself, “How the hell did we let it come to this?! That we let ourselves be tricked into the fear of being called sexist or a misogynists when it says it RIGHT HERE IN THE BIBLE!” (Ephesians 5:22-27)

    Liked by 5 people

    • feeriker says:

      “How the hell did we let it come to this?! That we let ourselves be tricked into the fear of being called sexist or a misogynists when it says it RIGHT HERE IN THE BIBLE!” (Ephesians 5:22-27)”

      I’m sure it must have hurt doubly to realize just how many Christians reject what the Bible says in favor of the World’s version of intersexual relations. The “church” is as full of MFers today as the World.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        Yo!!!! Don’t get me started. You’re absolutely right. It does hurt doubly, because (1) the women I’m meeting who claim to be Christian reject what the scriptures say about the roles of a husband and wife, and (2) I’ve faced a lot of pressure, even from men who claim to be Christians, who essentially shame me for following what the Bible says. I’ve been hit with, “But, Rock, times have changed” and “You have an ego”, for simply pointing out what God says on the matter.

        One older guy from my boxing class who calls himself a Christian, but is always spouting rhetoric about stoicism legit told me, “You know, I believe in Jesus Christ and what he said, but I don’t agree with all that other stuff his apostles were talking about.”

        I was like, “But bro! It’s not like Jesus wrote the Gospels himself? Everything you know about him came from what someone else wrote down? So how can you discredit the rest of the New Testament but only put your faith in the four books of the Gospels?”

        Then things got heated where he accused me of “not respecting other people’s opinion.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • jorgen says:

        “One older guy from my boxing class who calls himself a Christian, but is always spouting rhetoric about stoicism…”

        Stoicism is even more anti-feminist than Christianity when properly understood though.

        “…all that other stuff his apostles were talking about.”

        If it’s about women, the apostles were agreeing with stoicism.

        The idea that “sex that is not open to procreation is sin” also comes from stoicism. Stoicism would say “unphilosophical”, but Christianity translates that to sin.

        This old dude clearly hasn’t read Epictetus’ Dialogues but perhaps only the Enchiridion (Manual/Summary) if even that much. Epictetus also says if two men engage in homosexual activity, then both lose their manhood. So this modern lie that stoicism is pro-feminism and pro-faggotry is not correct. Stoicism taught having sex only with your wife and only when open to procreation… In moral theology, it’s the foundation Catholicism built on top of.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        Stoicism and Catholicism mirror each other a lot, especially when dealing with suffering. Epictetus often made reference to Zeus, or God in general. Stoicism of course lacks Christ and the joy that comes with Him, but you can certainly use Stoicism to become a better Christian.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “I was like, “But bro! It’s not like Jesus wrote the Gospels himself? Everything you know about him came from what someone else wrote down? So how can you discredit the rest of the New Testament but only put your faith in the four books of the Gospels?”

        Exactly. The only way anyone knows anything Jesus said is because the Apostles wrote it down. Therefore, if you don’t trust the Apostles, then you don’t trust Jesus, either. It amazes me that people can’t think through such a simple line of logic.

        “Then things got heated where he accused me of “not respecting other people’s opinion.”

        Translation: “I’m losing the argument! Stop making sense!”

        Liked by 4 people

  6. Lastmod says:

    Most Incels know women don’t like them “in that way”. They have known this since entering their teenage years. I can see how they would gravitate to the “male feminist” thing. Many of these incels have turned their anger on men, not because those men are “good” with women and they are not… but mostly for the fact that other men made them feel worse about it when the flippant advice (e.g. “just go to the gym” and “just get some confidence”) didn’t pan out. (How could it? It would be like telling my Down’s Syndrome brother with a 40 IQ, “Greg, you just are not trying hard enough! You must like being stupid!”)

    Fifty years ago, many Incels probably would have found someone… How happy would the marriage be? Who knows??? But nevertheless, the previous eras in the West at least gave these men an aspect of “hope” that they could improve. That is now gone, and that little remaining hope in reality was stripped away by fellow men.

    My point is, the growing number of men “not allowed” female access, and having to face a vicious circle of rejection, and then being belittled by other men for that, creates (or it can) a very self-destructive situation. The Incel comes to the conclusion that everything is futile and existence is meanlingless… for him… The ugly behaviors of addiction, and violence, and a very deep resentment become the norm, and it can be almost impossible to treat.

    The best help Incels can get is actually finding fellowship. A mentor. Someone who cares. Scouting did this at one time (until hazing became the norm and was tolerated). The church did this at one time (until men there decided that creepy losers didn’t need Jesus, they just needed Rollo).

    It’s a very complex situation, but to sum it up:

    The betrayal of women is a given… but more damage is done by the carelessness and mockery from fellow men. Hence, there is much anger towards men (PUAs / Game practitioners / Red Pill Bros / Gym rats / arrogant pricks / players).

    I keep saying this, and I know I’ll be told I have no idea what I am talking about, but you can deny reality all you want, and make it clean and neat like a math equation, despite the variables being wrong from the get go.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Lastmod says:

      I will add, that the work the Incel must put in is this…especially if he is the age of 35.

      Accept its over. Didn’t happen. Not fair? True, it isn’t….but being *stuck in your vicious circle for the next half of your life wont solve anything.

      *He must find “meaning” in life, and its a very hard task in our sex-soaked culture when the sex act is made out to be the only thing worth living for. Men measure other men by how sexually attractive they are to women (blue pilled, I am telllin’ you catering everything to what “women want in a man” is not alpha. Its not being a leader)

      He must find an activity or hobby that doesn’t involve sitting at a computer. Most Incels are loners, getting social skills at the age of 35 is going to be very hard. He has to *start making baby steps. Reading. Taking a walk. He needs to turn off the computer for a few hours a day and BEGIN. Whatever his hobby is…he must master it. Many Incels are slightly autistic and so mastering a hobby or pursuit should not be too hard. Mine was music. Listening to and collecting vinyl. It helped.

      *He must understand he has to preserve the last ounce of being a man he has. His work. Not his “mission” or his purpose. His job. He’s a janitor? He had better be doing better than anyone. Clerk at 7-11? Own it. fast food worker? A job is a job. No shame. He wants a promotion or better job? He has to begin the process. he lives at home? He needs to leave. Yesterday. This will be herculean because many Incels are so far behind.

      *The best help is actually getting a friend. Not online. A cousin. A guy from work. An uncle. A grandfather. Someone to listen. Someone to encourage, yet re-direct. This part here will be very hard for many.

      *Drinking? Drug user? Overeater? get help now. Weigh Watchers. AA, or NA. Most of these guys have little HOPE and breaking these chains will take work.

      They need empathy to a point. They need someone to listen, and they need to see men who are like them “getting by” and “finding some meaning” without the validation of women.

      I will be the first to admit, many Incels need help beyond of what I can suggest. My biggest complaint against many of them is:

      They honestly believe to the core that if they were like “chad” every problem would go away. They would be well off. They would have high self-esteem. They would still be able to what they wanted and be loved for that. If they just had access to sex, or were having it, or had a girlfriend / girlfriends their life would be great

      Been in that scene long enough to know that IF this was the case, they would be like women and expect a “better one right around the corner” and many have a very twisted view that women are only there FOR sex, I think this became iintertwined because of the PUA thing which did a 100 mega ton nuclear bomb of damage to many of these men. Really.

      I don’t have the answers. Incel-dom, like MGTOW covers a vast swath of extremes and personalities. The burden in the end…it will be their war / battle to fight. The odds are really stacked against many of them……however, I honestly believe with proper mentorship in some ways could be a vast help…not a solution. Church and other civic groups at one time did this for that kind of man (even the Elks Club, supper clubs, John Birch Society and the like) but these organizations now allow women in them and to lead.

      A “mens group” at your run of the mill protestant big box church will probably drive many to suicide.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Jack says:

      “The betrayal of women is a given… but more damage is done by the carelessness and mockery from fellow men. Hence, there is much anger towards men (PUAs / Game practitioners / Red Pill Bros / Gym rats / arrogant pricks / players).

      I keep saying this, and I know I’ll be told I have no idea what I am talking about…”

      I hear you. I’ve been in that place before, and Rock just said he has too. (Although we’re both volcels, the effect is the same.) This is a lynchpin issue that propagates many of the problems in society. This is why I keep hammering on the idea that men need to encourage and support other men.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. feeriker says:

    “Only thing that could happen adversely to him is she could ask for half his pension. But then – he can ask for half of hers now…”

    It depends on how long they’ve been married. When my ex and I divorced, she tried to go after my military retirement pension. Unfortunately for her, we had only been married for six years at the time of my retirement. Not long enough for her to qualify (has to be half of a career or longer). While I am paying her alimony (about a third of my net monthly income), that will stop in three years.

    Family and friends recoil in horror at the fact that I’m having to pay the woman who blew up her marriage. I tell them that, all things considered, I got off lightly. I’m only paying her a third for ten years. It could’ve been half or more FOR LIFE. People just don’t seem to understand (or maybe are just in denial) that injustice is baked into the system.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      I live in a state that has “indefinite maintenance”. It’s basically lifetime alimony. They don’t want to call it that, but that’s what it is. Kicks in at 20 years. So if you’ve been married 20 years or more, someone’s most likely getting lifetime alimony. This is in addition to the property division and the pension (automatic half for the duration of the marriage) and the health insurance.

      The point behind these draconian, punishing financial penalties is ostensibly to keep people from going on the public dole and draining the system. The policy is to avoid spending public money for basic life necessities. As I’ve said before – most states’ family law policies are premised on the following statement: if a man can be found who can pay, he should be made to pay.

      And so we have come full circle. 150 years ago, women could not leave marriages because they’d be destitute. Today, men cannot leave marriages without being made destitute because all of their earnings will be confiscated and transferred to a former spouse.

      Liked by 2 people

      • anonymous_ng says:

        Damn!! I thought it had disappeared.

        I swear if I’d been saddled with indefinite alimony, I’d have left the US as soon as my kids were old enough to understand my reasoning.

        Sure, there are lots of countries where your child support and alimony judgements will follow you, but there are others where they will ignore the US.

        Like

    • anonymous_ng says:

      Thankfully, these days lifetime alimony is rare. Lots of places it’s for half the length of the marriage which still seems ridiculous.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      You were married six years at retirement, but you have to pay her alimony for 10 years??

      Incredible!

      Liked by 1 person

  8. jorgen says:

    It’s funny how women and manginas say they “need” feminism. It’s like some kind of addiction and they get withdrawals.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. feeriker says:

    “You were married six years at retirement, but you have to pay her alimony for 10 years??

    Incredible!

    The alimony is a separate issue from military retirement pay. We were married for 23 years, but the marriage started to come unraveled long before then.

    Basically, because of the longevity of the marriage and the fact that she had been “helping herself to” money out of our joint checking account up to a certain maximum amount each month while we were separated, the court decided that she was entitled to spousal support up until the age of 67 and 1/2 when she would then be eligible to start collecting social security from whatever she’d warned (in her sporadic working life up until that point). Thus the cap on “spousal support” (as this state calls it) at ten years.

    Of course there was the usual division of joint assets (she got 50 percent of my 401K, which was about the worst of it. I got the house).

    Like I said, it could have been MUCH worse for me, but the fact that I’m having to pay her at all after SHE destroyed the marriage (which of course, in typical female fashion, she refuses to acknowledge) is what galls me to no end. That said, I pity her once the alimony stream dries up. Even though she works full time at a job that pays her enough to fully support herself, she’s hopeless at managing money.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. feeriker says:

    “[H]owever Christians end up divorcing too, and I’ve heard the rate in the church is similar to the secular couples divorce rate.”

    Last time I saw any statistics (a few years back), “Christians” divorce at a rate of “only” 38 percent, compared to about 52 percent for non-believing couples. Since the Christian divorce rate should be about one percent, AT WORST, I think it’s past time we started referring to the 38 percent rate (or whatever increase has occurred over the last few years, and it surely has) as the CHURCHIAN divorce rate.

    “He’s dragging his feet a bit about researching the divorce process because she’s been “only flirting” with a Chad at the gym that they, both husband and wife, go to for workouts. Both of them (husband and wife) are into cross-fit and have trained together in the past, so hubby has a front row seat in all this Chad nonsense. Chad is either a fellow participant or an instructor, not sure which. Most of the flirting takes place in exchanges of text messages when she’s at home which hubby knows about and can’t get her to stop doing it. She sits on the couch and texts away to Chad. He sulks and frets and has tried to get her to stop, she just tells him to mind his own business, the fruits of an egalitarian relationship.”

    A test of their church would be to see if they de-fellowship her if she runs out on hubby with another man. I’m pretty sure I know the answer.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Oscar says:

    Off topic: Western men’s deference to women derives from 1 Peter 3:7.

    1 Peter 3:7 (NKJV)
    Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

    Thanks to feminism, this is where we’re heading.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

      LMAO at all the BoomerCucks going “Where are the MEN!” and AMOGing on how they’d beat his @ss. Yep. Just like you defended the bathroom and the Capitol with you 14.5 billion guns, amirite?

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Where are the men? Um, we’re not allowed to do anything about conduct like this. Because it’s “racist” and “oppressive”. Because we must “understand the rage” that produces conduct like this. Because we are not allowed to correct antisocial behavior. Because if we do, we risk physical conflict and if that starts, we aren’t allowed to defend ourselves. We are required to allow young men to threaten and beat us if we attempt to step in.

        We are not allowed to defend women because that’s sexist. We have been sternly told and instructed that women are strong and independent and can do it all themselves, better than we can.

        Like

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        Adding to Deti’s list, Mario (avg. guy, btw) no longer gets to take the princess home when he rescues her from the castle. More than likely, she rejects him and goes back to Bowser. Why bother? She doesn’t want to be saved. (Just saw a guy with a Mario shirt, hence the reference)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I suspect that if a male civilian had defended that elderly lady, the defender would have been arrested. Also, note that Sweden is one of the most egalitarian societies.

        I know I’m preaching to the choir, but at least the choir listens.

        I’ve been to places where it’s normal for men to beat their women openly, publicly, on the street, and no one thinks anything of it, not even other women.

        That’s where we’re heading.

        That’s not what I want. That’s what I observe. I have six daughters. I want them to live in a culture where men honor women as the weaker vessel, like I was taught to do since childhood. But that requires women to acknowledge that they are the weaker vessel.

        When women insist that they are strong and independent and don’t need no man, the logical result is in the video I linked.

        Liked by 2 people

  12. Pingback: Faux Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

  13. Maniac says:

    “Not sure what happens to the souls of aborted babies, but I imagine abortion prevented millions of those babies from arriving at an ultimate destiny of going to hell.”

    This is why I don’t plan on having kids of my own. Jesus said in Matthew 7:13-14 that the majority of people will wind up in Hell and I’m not willing to take that gamble.

    Like

  14. “I was like, “But bro! It’s not like Jesus wrote the Gospels himself? Everything you know about him came from what someone else wrote down? So how can you discredit the rest of the New Testament but only put your faith in the four books of the Gospels?”

    People who talk like that are conceding to know nothing about scripture. The Holy Spirit inspired it all. When people say they don’t like Paul, for example, they are saying that they don’t like the Holy Spirit, because everything they know about him came through that process.

    And they don’t understand and obey the “red letters.” Jesus quoted the Old Testament extensively and referred to its most controversial elements without apology: Sodom & Gomorrah, Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, etc. The “Christian” Left hates and denies all those things. And the 2nd paragraph of the red letters said that all the letters matter (“Man does not live by bread alone . . .”).

    Liked by 2 people

  15. feeriker says:

    “A “mens group” at your run of the mill protestant big box church will probably drive many to suicide.”

    Ain’t that the ugly truth! And that’s in churches that even bother to HAVE men’s groups at all.

    Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Fee – Most men’s groups at churches are set up like women’s groups as social/discussion type groups, which makes them wholly inadequate for most men. My experience is that only a handful of men speak and the rest remain silent.

      I have witnessed groups do well as discipleship groups, but the number in the group is 5 or fewer. Most men’s groups that create comradery have a distinct purpose and are typically activity based. They can be team sport related or service related, but the key is that a group of men have a common purpose and work together on that purpose.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        Thats ALL our men’s group did. Play sports. We played sports in a Salvation Army gymnasium or out on the football field. Grown men in their forties and fifties… most reverting to being in high school again and taking the game we were playing (soccer, two-hand touch football… which ALWAYS turned into two hand push, two hand shove, two hand check…) as seriously as if it were a matter of life and death. If someone missed a pass in a football game, it was like he cost the team the “superbowl title” or something.

        The bible study part always involved making sports analogies, or talking about sex (stories of sexual encounters and how great every guy was with women back in high school or college), because that’s what men do — play sports and talk about sex…… To listen to them talk, every one of these guys threw like Eli Manning in high school or striked like Beckham did in 1996 or whenever, and every guy was a porn star before he met his submissive, perfect wife. To tell the truth, their wives were actually some of the most boring and plain women I have ever met. Then when we got down to the actual Bible study, there was always one person leading and asking silly questions like, “How are you like Daniel in your family life, or in church?”. It seemed starkly incongruous with all the other talk going on.

        I once answered, “I don’t know, ask me when it happens. What would we do if, one fine Sunday, a gang of masked thugs came in, beat us, gagged us, hauled your wives and daughters out and took them away…. then threw us in a truck and hauled us far away to a work camp like when the Hebrews went to Babylon (an alien place)??? How many of us would be “rejoicing and praising God” for our wonderful fortune? It’s a hard question isn’t it? All we do is play sports and have a bro session here after.”

        The leader told me I was “unfashionably negative” and that I “needed to pray”. Overall, he was basically telling me to “Man up!” The other men didn’t comment for some reason…… I quit going to that church shortly thereafter, and I focused on my Christian life by leading a troop of Boy Scouts. Those men never missed me. I was never invited back or “encouraged” to attend church for as long as I lived in that area, which was a few more years.

        Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        “Most mens groups that create comradery have a distinct purpose and are typically activity based. They can be team sport related or service related, but the key is that a group of men have a common purpose and work together on that purpose.”

        That should be one of the easiest things imaginable for any group of Christ-following men to do. And yet we reflect the World in our disunity and lack of focus and purpose.

        And Jesus wept.

        Like

  16. feeriker says:

    “I’ve been to places where it’s normal for men to beat their women openly, publicly, on the street, and no one thinks anything of it, not even other women.

    That’s where we’re heading.”

    If that happens here in (what remains of) the YouEssAye, you can rest assured that ONLY the alpha Chads will get away with it. Any “lesser” man who tries to “get his beeyotch under control” in public insuch a manner will immediately feel the full force of (what will pass for) “the law” come down on him like a ton of granite.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      Maybe, but in the less civilized places, nobody cares, including the law. If the man can overpower his woman, he’s free to do so, regardless of his status.

      I doubt that feminists know this, but feminism is a regression to savagery in all things. Basically, you can have feminism and indoor plumbing for a while, but not for long.

      Like

  17. locustsplease says:

    The most recent male feminist seems to be the pro-Covid-restrictionist. You are basically a murderer if you’re not vaccinated. And they are always married. Very few unmarried hetero single men care at all. I know one guy whose wife shamed him into attacking me. Anytime a man tells me pro-Covid hysteria propaganda, I say, “I don’t care what your wife thinks. I’m single. I do what I want.” Most men can’t even get a shot at a woman their age, as long as they’re all lining up for Chad’s seed. They could care less about living forever. But at least those single men don’t have a Covid hysterical wife nagging them.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      Not vaxxed. Don’t care if people are. Don’t care if they get the boosters or not. It’s a personal choice. I had it evidently during the summer of 2020. I got my physical when I moved down to LA with my new doctor. He ordered the whole barrage of blood work… It was all normal, but during our first meeting he asked me, “When did you have Covid?”

      I told him, “I didn’t.”

      “You have had it, maybe you had a very mild case…” he said.

      And then, to think about it, during the summer of 2020, I had a massive headache behind my eyes that would not go away. I was eating Anacin aspirin every six hours. It was so bad one day, I almost got sick from the nausea it was causing. Then it went away. I figured it was a stress headache or something. Maybe it was Covid. Probably was.

      So I didn’t get the vaxx. Doctor signed my “shot card” as “Covid antibodies”, and then England stopped requiring all vaccinations and proof thereof a few months ago. So I am ready to travel.

      Like

  18. Pingback: A Summary of Faux-Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: No Mo Roe, No Mo Hoe! | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: Bad@ss Chad | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: The 12 Harbingers of Masculine Doom | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Black Pill Competition | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s