The One Good Man sees in Woman what men lack. Woman is bright and charming and good. Men are dark and sinister and bad.
To maintain the image of Woman as bright and charming and good, the One Good Man swallows Her darkness. Her rages, Her excesses, Her cruelties are his responsibility, not Hers. All Her goodness is not chosen because She is helpless in Her goodness—as She is helpless in Her femininity. But because it is not chosen, it is not goodness and it feeds nothing in the One Good Man.
Without shadow there is no depth.
He craves dimension and he receives only bright, charming images as thin as a whisper. To compensate he tries to capture as many as he can, but they flit through his fingers like sunlight and his hunger grows.
He needs a Harem.
The politician signs into law one-sided advocacy that ignores the pain of men to help women: Domestic Violence, Rape, Sexual Harrassment, it doesn’t matter. He sees it all as an avenue to destroy his competitors and win an adoring harem, even if it’s only the myth of himself in his own mind. He is the One Good Man, good because of his influence, which he uses to advance women.
The family judge eviscerates his rival—a father and husband—and in the woman’s approval he sees another adoring harem member. He knows that her husband has failed her otherwise why would she be here before him? But he won’t fail her. He is the One Good Man, good because of his power, which he uses to benefit women.
The priest condemns the imperfect morality of his flock’s husbands and in their admiration he sees a harem. He knows the church women are there to hear his words and uses them to throw petty sins of their husbands into high relief. He won’t fail them. He is the One Good Man, good because of his morality, which he uses to lionize women.
The petty bully brutalizes a smaller boy, cheered on by girls. The girls have a grievance; the boy presumed to ask one of them out, or maybe he was staring at her breasts too long? He won’t fail them. He is the One Good Man, good because of his strength, which he uses to avenge women.
The One Good Man sees all other men as feckless, immoral, weak, beneath him. The One Good Man is good because he knows he is the only good man. He is special. He regales of stories of his goodness, all with the same refrain: I have used my strengths to woman’s service, I have crushed men so that women may walk upon them. And thus he is deserving of the admiration and approval of many woman. He has a Harem. But that is not enough.
The One Good Man has enemies.
The One Good Man hates the Hungry Man because they are the same man. The Hungry Man hungers for women’s bodies; The One Good Man hungers for their approval. The Hungry Man says, ‘women’s only use is their sex.’ And the One Good Man disagrees because a ‘woman’s only use is their approval.’ That’s why the One Good Man cannot allow himself to see Woman’s shadow; because if he did, she might not approve.
Hungry Man and One Good Man are the same man, but they will never admit it. Hungry Man says he does not care for women’s approval, yet he needs it to access her sex; One Good Man says he does not care for a woman’s sex, but it’s her sex that makes her approval worth so much.
Both the Hungry Man and the One Good Man fear the Bad Man, perhaps better called the Broken Man, for he is the Hungry Man having fed to little and the One Good Man having swallowed too much.
The Bad Man says ‘look, Woman has a shadow! A shadow that She casts, not me! Every shadow is Hers!’
The One Good Man hates the Bad Man’s words; he points to an obvious flaw, ‘Some of those shadows are cast by you!’ and dismisses the greater truth.
The One Good Man has a final enemy; and this one is most insidious of all because he is part of the One Good Man, the Hungry Man and the Bad Man.
He is just a man. Not a bad man, not a good man, not a real man or a fake man, not a strong man or a powerful man or an aggressive man or a useful man or a useless man. Just a man. A man who sees that words like good, strong, bad, real, fake, powerful, useless and useful are just words the One Good Man uses to divide himself from other men, to make himself special and thus worthy of his Harem.
The man, just a man, sees a woman as just a woman. She is made of light and shadow in equal measure to the light, and so she has depth and form and substance. When she hurts him he says ‘you have hurt me. You take responsibility for it. I will not take responsibility for having been hurt.’ And if she does, he stays, because she feeds him.
With shadow, there is depth.
He does not need a Harem. And so he does not need to hate or hurt other men to have a Harem.
He is not the One Good Man. The Bad Man or the Hungry Man.
He is a man, just a man.
Tags: goodmenproject.com, Male Feminists, Manginas, Miscellaneous, Typhonblue
11 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
Jared White:
Codebuster:
napocapo69:
Rper1959:
quolls:
ThoughtCriminal:
Standing Ovation.
My thanks for the down vote. I was worried it wasn’t going to happen.
Good — now I don’t feel so lonely from all of the down votes I have received. We should have a party for whoever gets the most!
YAY — more, more and I may get a party!!!
I’ll TOTALLY beat you…just watch!
LMAO!!!!
You won because I got a pussy pass.
Lol. Not from me. My pedestalizing days are long gone.
wow! I WON…because of her pussy pass….imagine..
I’m looking forward to an epic April fools joke from you in two weeks!
Brilliant!
Best damn thing I have read in this place so far…and God knows there have been many.
“The One Good Man has a final enemy; and this one is most insidious of all because he is part of the One Good Man, the Hungry Man and the Bad Man.”
We all have these men within us, corny though it may sound. We can choose to be any of these. Now I am more sure than ever which I want to be. Just…the man.
Sounds like I’m reading a biography of myself before waking up.
I used to be that guy. If I heard a story that a woman had been raped or assaulted, I thought “How terrible! What kind of bastard would do that!?” without asking “But wait a minute, did it actually HAPPEN?”.
All this despite watching my mother slam her head against a wall,call the cops and say my father did it to her,when I was a child. It didn’t register in my mind that my mom wasn’t unique, and that she got the idea she could do that from SOMEWHERE.
I regaled many a woman with my stories about what I would do to some unfortunate son of a bitch who I thought might have raped someone to smiles,nods, and high-pitched womanly giggles. Since I was having sex with most of those women, I didn’t realize that it was ME they were laughing at.
You could reasonably say I was “alpha”,I certainly got laid a lot (still do,when I feel like making the effort), but looking back on my behavior, it is shameful. It was manginism and that is why this is something I am willing to fight tooth and nail.
Manginas, your lives are empty and worthless. You may (or may not, as is often the case) get pussy for what you are doing but you are destroying men who have done nothing wrong in the process,men who could teach you and show you so much more than the women you are aligning yourself with. You would sacrifice your life for her, but would she so much as wash your dishes for you?
Ask her.
If not, WHY not? Is it because she doesn’t consider you or your problems anywhere near as worthy of her attention as you consider her and hers worthy of your life,if need be?
Why would you do so much for someone who thinks so little of you?
Many of us in the Men’s Movement are offering support and solidarity to men falsely accused of rape, though we may never be ourselves, men who are abused by women, though we may never be ourselves, we offer education to men who can’t get it in the mainstream feminist universities,etc.
The men of the MRM have offered me so much and asked NOTHING from me. I have learned so much from all of these people, what they have taught me may very well save my life some day.
“Manginas, your lives are empty and worthless. You may (or may not, as is often the case) get pussy”
Manginas only get pussy if they have something else a woman wants besides a pedestal. (money, status, power) Very few women are going to let a man stick it to her simply for being a huge mangina. Unless she is of very low status and it is pure desperation.
Your larger point is well-taken. Pussy just isn’t that important. I’ve been with women most guys would think were beautiful. Also been with women most guys wouldn’t. And I’ve been celibate for part of my adult life. In no circumstance did varying vagina access make me feel more or less of a man.
“Manginas only get pussy if they have something else a woman wants besides a pedestal. (money, status, power) Very few women are going to let a man stick it to her simply for being a huge mangina. Unless she is of very low status and it is pure desperation.”
Hence,the “may not” part.
“Your larger point is well-taken. Pussy just isn’t that important. I’ve been with women most guys would think were beautiful. Also been with women most guys wouldn’t. And I’ve been celibate for part of my adult life. In no circumstance did varying vagina access make me feel more or less of a man.”
Completely agreed. If a woman walked up to me as I’m typing this,tore off her clothes in front of me and offered me the wildest sex I’d ever imagined,no strings attached, I’d have to stop and think about whether I really want to take that risk because even without the dating and wooing, the price is still abominably high in our culture for a man engaging in sex.
It’s definitely not a badge of honor to get laid in our society. With the deck so heavily stacked against men,it’s a huge liability unless you videotape the sex,her consent, make her sign a contract guaranteeing non-revocable consent for 3 hours or so,and have at least 3 witnesses,1 or 2 of them female, monitoring the whole affair at all times.
Excellent work Typhon, true to form.
That was poetic!
Oh, and just for the record. Anyone wants to say that we should not have the voices of women in this movement, you can pucker up and kiss my ass about now.
The MRM is where the women who are “not like that” are. Every one of these ladies who have been with us all this time have earned my trust and sincerest gratitude.
They all have a personal stake in the matter,sons,husbands,brothers and friends that they wish to protect and aid and I would never turn them away.
That up vote was from a woman. Thank you!
Typhonblue is a woman? Wow…awesome!
I’m printing this one out. Maybe frame it. Not kiddin
hey I just posted that I am going to print out and frame what a WOMAN wrote. Don’t be a PUSSY! Be a REAL MAN and downvote me!
MAN UP and do it!
I’m confused.. IS Typhonblue a woman? This is a great article and yet, strangely, that seems to make it even more impressive to me. It shows tremendous insight into the way men think and act. Much more than most men have about themselves and their own behavior.
Yes, I’m a woman.
Fuck whoever is downvoting her…there I said it.
Paul,
“we should not have the voices of women in this movement” is probably a misphrasing or misguided exaggeration/conclusion from the fact that some women have shown the attitude “Be glad I, a woman, do say something good about you”, usually followed by some plea to tone down the language so it does not offend other women like her. To those women, I still say no thanks.
If they think there is merit in the cause – join in. If they are going to be offended by the “misogynistic” language despite the merit of the cause.. well MRM, especially online is probably not a good place for those specific women.
Lets not forget that women are our most important ally. I think the only really significant part of the population that is likely to lean up against feminism is mothers with sons. We seriously need them on our side and if it means holding back our anger a little (however justified it is), well for me that’s worth it.
It seems it would be worth it. But if you don’t have experience arguing with women who are not convinced. You can ask Factory, Attila or any of the veterans of MRM – it does not work in practice.
I am all for those who are not burned out yet, to go ahead and give it a try. But it only leads to burning out yourself and getting more and more angry the more you try to make converts by trying to “get them on our side”.
Ironically, the misandrists are the most successful recruiters to MRM.
“Ironically, the misandrists are the most successful recruiters to MRM.”
That’s why I like hyperbole, and stirring them up. Their behaviour from then on is usually so extreme they accuse you of “strawfeministing” them if you describe it to others.
Feminists will never, ever, EVER “come over to our side”. It’s like no one in the MRM ever read Charlie Brown. No matter how many times Lucy promised to not move the ball, she ALWAYS did (and laughed at Charlie for believing her).
Feminists will not work with men, or in concert with MRA goals, because to do so would be to refute nearly every principle that makes them ‘feminist’.
WOMEN, on the other hand…..are a different story.
Try not to confuse the two, is all I say.
“Try not to confuse the two, is all I say.”
And be aware that feminists often confuse that. Anti-feminist = Anti-female.
Some times they lie too, I know yall can’t believe it, but it is true. They say, “I am a female, but I am not a feminist”. To such I say, Trust, but verify!
Eh.. and excuse the Bern language
It is unfortunately true..
Great article!
Good writing, good style. Might be good for some women to understand what/why MRM is.
Articles like this are part of the reason that we’ll beat feminism. Our side has the articles!
A beautifully prophetic portrait of the prevailing raging sea of political exploitation and profiteering presently being practised by many male politicians and government employees – using the deification of women as their weapon, ordinary men as their victims and female approval as the currency of reward.
Such men are vain, shallow charlatans who indeed need to be exposed and seen for what they are. But they are also naive and perversely infantile.
I quote again from another thread.
@Isaiah 3.12 (2007 New Living Translation).
“Childish leaders oppress my people, and women rule over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you; they send you down the wrong road.”
The imagery of Christ that accompanies this article’s heading is presumably solely mockery of the shallow secular delusions of they who consider themselves to be the “One Good Man” – in the empty terms of modern day social & political blessing.
I do hope so. For remember, whether you believe in its religious truth (as I do) or not, real Christianity is the antithesis of the message of radical feminism. That is why people who are both fantatical atheists and feminists in my own country, men and women like Richard Dawkins, Phillip Pulman and Polly Toynbee (along with legions of others), constantly mock the word of God. Many campaign to see it literally criminalized.
Modern day atheism has become almost totalitarian by nature. Totalitarianism has long since become the modus operundi of modern feminism.
Proverbs 28:4
“Wicked people strengthen one another in wicked ways”.
That aside. The message of the article was exquisitely written and had a strikingly clear MRA message that rips off and smashes to pieces every phony halo that is being worn out by every mangina and white knight or any other fool brainwashed into believing they are amongst those who have joined the enlightened. Great piece.
Unfortunately Christian leaders have been negligent for many years and have actually participated in criminalizing men. Lots of different interpretations of the bible but the leadership is polluted with Good Men.
Many years, yes, well over two thousand.
‘Modern day atheism has become almost totalitarian by nature.’
Dude that is utter rubbish.
I have been an atheist all my life.
I can find you many atheists with far better morals and principles than many religions people I know.
I can find you many religious people with far better morals and principles than many atheists people I know.
It is comments like yours that cause people to leave church.
Amen…..don’t MEAN for that to be a pun.
And there are THEISTS like me that feel the best way to be spiritual isto grant others the freedom to believe as they will and want.
“I do hope so. For remember, whether you believe in its religious truth (as I do) or not, real Christianity is the antithesis of the message of radical feminism.”
My real Christianity is better than everybody else real Christianity….smirk.
“…..the word of God. Many campaign to see it literally criminalized. …..
Modern day atheism has become almost totalitarian by nature. Totalitarianism has long since become the modus operundi of modern feminism.”
I mean that’s as Orwellian as it gets. All the dystopian fictions, 1984, Brave New World , God was not high on the opressor’s lists. All athiest. Or that great Twillight Zone episode with Burgess Merideth and Elliot Gould…you know “OBSELETE! OBSELETE!”
Of course, you forgot about The Straw Man, who a patsy for a Borderline Waif who wears Ruby Slippers. Unfortunately, no one can help The Straw Man because he is one whom we regularly sacrifice upon the Altar of Reason at A Voice For Men.
Slight edit request Paul. Just to keep the grammar flowing.
The last paragraph of my posting should have read:-
“……..every phony halo that is being worn out there by every mangina and white knight…..”
Missed out the word ‘there’. Thanks.
Typhonblue, excellent and accurate piece.
The elite man; stomping on the common man to gain female approval,(essentially), for ages. Maybe feminists were on to something about that “Oppressed for thousands of years.”, stuff, they just had the angle wrong.
I really enjoyed this piece, it puts the Orwellian word play into perspective.
The Good Men are the male feminists and the so-con alphas that are responsible for keeping men in their place to please their harems. Honesty is unimportant, perceptions are everything.
Brilliant explination of the mangina and the mechanism he uses to oppress other men. These guys are everywhere!
I often wonder about the complaint many women offer that there aren’t enough females in high office. What would feminists do though if they removed the Joe Bidens of this world and replaced them with the Hillary Clintons? The Clintons would not be anywhere near as effective as the Bidens in bringing the everage man to heel. Why? Because no woman will bow down to the almighty vagina like the “One Good Man” will. I think that many women secretly know this and that is why Obama was elected in the primaries and not Clinton.
Just a thought.
Single women were Obama’s single largest “identifiable protected class” voting bloc, behind blacks and hispanics, (which also include these same women). I think Hillary Clinton would have been a better leader. Obama is just not taking the reigns on anything. He’s enjoying being the president, just not doing the job of a president.
But really the bottom line is that Obama is sexy and Hillary is not.
She’s frumpy, shrill and haggard.
Obama is slender, cool and clean.
You nailed it!
Judging from what i heard from her (TEDtalk), she would be a horrible leader.
Hillary as President would do wonders for recruiting men to the MRM.
Would also give men a big stick with which to beat feminists who try chanting their “glass ceiling” mantra.
@Denis
” Lots of different interpretations of the bible but the leadership is polluted with Good Men.
You are absolutely right Denis. I have locked horns with their representatives many times on private and mainstream websites. I have even been banned from the website of one British far left wing, pro-feminist, bible gender neutralising campaigner called Peter Kirk – whose website is, ironically, called ‘Gentle Wisdom’.
It followed a series of exchanges I posted after he had actually been suggesting to an American female poster from New York State that it was right that she should mistrust men. He had also been saying derogatory things about the attitude of the British Royal Family towards the church that I knew to be brazen lies.
This man claims to be a practising Christian – whilst deliberately sowing the seeds of mistrust and division between different groups of human beings.
You don’t have to tell me about the pollution of ‘Good Men’ throughout the leadership (and below) of the modern church Denis. They are the ultimate ‘wolf in sheeps’ clothing to me, whom I despise more than any other ilk of mangina or white knight.
I despise them because they lie about and misrepresent me, and millions of other human beings – and they lie and misrepresent God. And many of them are actually fully aware that they do this. But their primary mission in life is politics – and they are knowingly using the church purely as a mask. This situation is probably worse in the USA than it is in the UK – where the representatives of the Anglican church in America have actually overseen the consecration of a female lesbian bishop – the antithesis of everything true Christianity stands for or means – it is literally ‘ground zero’ material for the traditional church.
But it all has nothing to with reality in real Christian terms. That is why the main Christian influence upon my life comes directly from the bible and from writers like C.S.Lewis and G.K.Chesterton. Both Christian writers, G.K. Chesterton most cuttingly, tell me all I need to know about where the women’s movement stands in the eyes of God.
That is why the work of both writers is reviled so much by the far Left and by feminists here in the UK. They were real Christians, they were honest, and, if alive today, they would be truly horrified – and outspokenly so.
So…what do you do? Blindly follow the leadership or expose them for their hypocrisy?
IMO, Dawkins is doing a great job.
Like he said.
You are so right there. I’ve talked to lots of clergy too, most of which just don’t get it or just become abusive when truth rears it’s ugly head. Some do get it and agree with truth in these matters, a much smalelr group. They are against abortion and other fmeinist agenda, but supprot the worst part of feminism which attacks family, nation and liberty and claims them in the name of Marism. Feminists may claim to be Marxist, but they are really femifascists.
To deny and ignore the enemy, it’s roots or that feeding the roots, or to fail to recognize our enemy’s strengths is to undercut ourselves, which even most fathers’ rights people blissfully do in their deep, deep ignorance.
I’ve surveyed/interviewed so many divorced and sigle dads that it would make your head spin. But that is an education in itself , leading to really finding out not just the fact that 75% of divorced and single mothers are deadly dangerous, having made false abuse allegations which guarantees they have and do also additionally abuse their kids with parental alienation child abuse.
Surveying so many fathers forces you to find out and verify things that many in our groups get offended at, such at the fact that chivalry is the underpinning, the very foundation of feminism. However, too many, not just clergy, but right in our so called father’s groups are still chivalrous which is feeding the very root of our own and our children’s biggest problems.
They don’t understand that feminism is self claimed Marxism (ultimate control and loss of liberty). They don’t have a clue, or are offended, when told that David Rockefeller was proud of the fact that the Rockefellers funded feminism to get off the ground here in the US. they funded US feminism, self claimed Marxists, specifically to destroy the family and help them implement a socialist world govt… Yes, all will be poorer, but they can control more people, all people. Feminism is key to that, according to Marx, Lenin and many others. Even Marx told the truth at times, just like femifascists do.
Then there’s the “patriarchy,” which is one twisted double edged sword. And this is where Clergy come in strongly, and ignorantly. Sure, the patriarchy is NOT the bad controlling and abusive parasitic husbands which feminists scream in pain about. Despite the real patriarchy being quite the opposite self sacrificing thing, it is just as destructive at that opposite extreme, and WE just don’t get it, not just the clergy. So we all defend the “good patriarchy” because it is selfless, serves the family and community, puts others first, the family first, the group first (damn, it could almost support Marxism there…), such a selfless, wonderful thing which really did build society, right (not a lie). Yet we don’t even see what flies under the radar in this too, not even realizing that destructive chivalry which undermines us and props up feminism comes straight out of the double edged sword of the “good and protective patriarchy” which puts women and others first (on destructive pedestals…) thus denying ourselves of any rights, even the leftover crumbs of liberty which we “good men” so selflessly provide at any cost…
And on and on, most men don’t get it. You simply can’t defeat or even fight any enemy which you refuse to even fully see or identify. And that is why most of our father’s rights/equality bills go down in flames or are not enforced if they do get passed – “shovelry,” burying the very men supporting it, doing our “duty” to destroy ourselves for the good of the group. Damn, that does sound Marxist – “The ministry of love.”
The chivalrous patriarchy IS our blinders keeping our own “men’s groups” from clearly seeing and thus fighting and defeating the enemy.
Outstanding. Soft polygamy and virtual harems are the air we breathe today.
Good article.
[img]http://avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Severino%20Skull.jpg[/img]
[img]http://avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Severino%20Skull-1.jpg[/img]
Keyster your quote,
“Single women were Obama’s single largest “identifiable protected class” voting bloc, behind blacks and hispanics, (which also include these same women). I think Hillary Clinton would have been a better leader”.
Do you remember how feminist denounced Ted Kennedy for endorsing Obama instead of Clinton? Headlined “How could you”. Feminist were counting on Wisconsin and Florida delegations being seated despite defying the Democratic party rule.
But earlier feminist had argued that party rule superseded the Constitution. The Federal District Court ruled that the Constitution was paramount but the 4th Circuit Court of appeals reversed. Link;
http://openjurist.org/836/f2d/837/bachur-v-democratic-national-party.
That caused Hillary to give litigation to have the delegates seated.
Hillary has been loyal Secretary of State since the President as the final say, but if Hillary had been elected feminists would be in hog heaven,
There is nothing that I can add to Typhonblue’s excellent article, except that this is the sort of writing that makes me proud to be a participant.
As a person very much interested in child raising, I must say the way boys are brought up (not talking about the west) – attention, affection, respect and recognition is intentionally held back from them. They must prove themselves to become/nurture the “One Good Man” in order to get it. It is very subtle but very effective (children being more sensitive/perceptive to it at a young age).
Don’t know if that is correct. I certainly don’t have academic studies to prove this – but you can see it, if you watch carefully. I also don’t know if this is true in western civilization. The preying on the natural instinct of human beings to seek approval/affection from others – can also explain why sociopaths are usually very effective in social interactions, forming excellent camouflage in society and especially do great with Women. They are not burdened by the Good Man, Hungry Man/Bad Man complex.
They can actually BE just a man or just a woman.
That was just a random thought in my mind. Actually I came by to link this piece in just so folks here know and inspires someone to write
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Players-chip-in-to-save-coach-8217-s-life-after?urn=nba-wp184
I do not know much about NBA, except that it is basketball (no questioning my manhood please!
).. so I wont write about it, unless noone else does. I think it can be good for a decent topic on the general demonization of masculinity/testosterone poisoning and acts of kindness, also gratitude.
My only hope is that people, and especially those at “The Good Men Project”, have the intellectual capacity to grasp what this says.
That the Good Man is ultimately looking for approval and validation of his own manhood from women en masse. While the man accepts the woman with a shadow of various depths intact, and willingly sacrifices part of himself to her, and she gives herself to him.
Present day he’ll sacrifice nothing, because she offers only risk and little value in return. The Good Man is her overlord and protector, because she is now the man. And the man men once were are being replaced by Hungry Man and Bad Man.
“Marriage is a recognition of a spiritual identity. When you make the sacrifice in marriage, you’re sacrificing not to each other but to unity in a relationship.”
- Joseph Campbell
“Some of us are becoming the men we wanted to marry.”
- Gloria Steinhem
Typhonblue
This is a powerful comment. “Good girls” without a shadow side, forever provided for, and never having to take responsibility for the choices they make, are pretty lame. That’s right… they never choose “goodness”, they merely fall by accident into a “safe” situation of guaranteed security, where their goodness is never tested, and all they have to offer anyone is the vacuous candy-floss of “niceness”. Hence the idea (Otto Weininger) that women are amoral. What are we talking about here? The moral woman who grasps the gravity of the choices she makes and accepts responsibility for them while recognizing her shadow side. She will know that the woman that chooses an idiot is herself an idiot. Try finding such a woman, capable of bearing such a burden of responsibility, in the Anglosphere. Manginas and white knights are so toxic because they wholly exempt women of this moral responsibility, they permit the free-ride, the boundless gravy-train of female privilege.
What a beautiful piece Thank you Typhonblue for your clarity and razor sharp accuracy in painting a picture of what underlies much of the misandry that we see today. You have exposed the underbelly that most never see and most act out unconsciously. Very, very well done. This is a keeper. I bow to you in admiration.
Out there! ….Nice writing.
I am confused with the thumbs up. My words are not a compliment. I just think the writer is looking at reality from a certain lens and thinking everyone fits into that lens.
The post is bullshit. Things don’t work this way.
I want to expand on this.
Back in the 1920′s women were put in prison if they knew something about a man with power. Our beloved Marilyn Munroe didn’t really have a life of men giving everything to her – there was a cost.
It’s interesting that you say this.
Because I think there is a lot of room to interpret that the dynamic I wrote about hurts women as well.
Women don’t have to fear men who own their pain; they have to fear men who don’t.
And this dynamic creates a lot of men who can’t own their pain because the very idea goes against the dominant gender narrative of WomanGOODmanBAD.
Not to mention that it is dehumanizing to women.
You mean giving everything to her for FREE. don’t you?
Absolutely not!! My apology. Honestly, I respect you big time for putting this forward because you took a risk and the risk is, …. you have to listen to something uncomfortable.
I would like for men to study men but that isn’t going to happen because we’re attacking the fact women got to do it. It’s almost like a group of men don;t want women to have something they have but behind the scenes they’re pissed off because women have anything. So many men want women to be beneath them. It’s a fact, it’s almost part of masculinity which brought about, Every man is a possible this and that”.
Confusing comment is confusing.
TB, you get along with MRAs much more than I do. Of course anything I have to say is confusing to you. But then, good on you because the western world wants men and women working together these days and you are the perfect person for it.
Just go girl.
BTW, I am flat out with a few projects and don’t have the time to give writing stuff back and forward. I won’t be visiting this post again. Just want to say. “Go woman, help your brothers”
lolwhut??
J
hey J
are you like on drugs or something??
Your post is confusing because it doesn’t make any sense
it’s like you had a bunch of ideas
threw them in a pot
mixed them around a bit
and the end result is what posted
Most marriages are female dominant, with women making most major decisions. Women also have more spending power and less risk of injury.
What more could women want?
Nobody wants to take anything from women. We want to give things to men- honor,respect,appreciation for the hard work they do.
It sounds like you don’t think men deserve these things at all. Nothing a man does can ever be as good as what a woman does.
If you’re not saying that, I sincerely apologize for my misunderstanding because if that is your position, it’s monstrous.
I don’t feel women are beneath me,I feel that the law does not adequately serve the interests of men.
Tell me that isn’t true when most suicides are men,and one of the most common reasons for suicide is divorce.
J, let’s pull a gender-switch in your March 18 01:05 post, and see how it feels to you.
“I would like for women to study women but that isn’t going to happen because we’re attacking the fact women got to do it. It’s almost like a group of women don’t want men to have something they have but behind the scenes they’re pissed off because men have anything. So many women want men to be beneath them. It’s a fact, it’s almost part of femininity which brought about, “Every woman is a possible this and that.”
Does this sound, to use your own word, “uncomfortable”? Certainly.
Do men see this in their female colleagues, in their wives, in the community, in the media? ‘Fraid so.
Can you see this? Probably you see it as “just” and “fair” and “if only men would stay in their place.”
“Our beloved Marilyn Munroe didn’t really have a life of men giving everything to her – there was a cost.”
Do explain how that is not complaining about the cost. Or are you denying that she was given anything at all?
“you have to listen to something uncomfortable.”
Don’t patronize me. I hear uncomfortable things all the time, like your conspiracy claims that “but behind the scenes they’re pissed off because women have anything”.
Look, bitch (meaning “abusive woman” for those needing translation of this poorly understood term), you have chosen to use the femifascist standard to shut down truth. Why?
You choose to parrot with no thinking or logic capacity. Why? You use the femifascist “logic” of “When you tell the truth it is offensive and so you become your own worst enemy to your cause!”
Love it!
Nice try at despising truth though.
Sorry for exposing you, by so rudely ripping the sheep’s clothing off of you there, wolfy.
I’m sure no males have ever had any misfortune befall them due to knowledge of the bad behavior of a powerful person. Gosh, you’ve expanded with something that is really arcane. When you post something this outdated and irrelevant you lend more support since we’ll assume you don’t have anything better to counter with.
Yeah, and guys were *never* “disappeared” if THEY KNEW something they ought’nt.
So, to put it in plain words, where women would be imprisoned, men would be killed.
How strange that you should have received thumbs up for a comment that appeared supportive.
AVfM scientists are currently looking into why this may have happened.
I guess I wasn’t showing how much I disagreed with the post. MY apology. I will consider how to do better in the future so please don’t think this is a readers problem.
How do things work?
Well TB, in a court case – whoever fills out the paper work first gets on the attack. Sometimes it comes down to the more money you have and the type of lawyer you get. Judges are just lawyers who were promoted. They don’t see women as someone to have sex with. In fact, lots of women lose in the system also.
I’ll have to get back to you about politicians.
Glenn Sacks blogged on family courts recently. Here’s something from a report on the data Washington State keeps on divorce(apparently one of the few states that do this):
“In 26% of cases in which dad had no risk factors and Mom had one, Dad got full custody. But reverse the sexes and Mom got full custody 44% of the time. When dad had no risk factors and Mom had two, he got full custody 42% of the time. Again, when the sexes were reversed, Mom got full custody 63% of the time.
“So, in divorce court, risk factors like the ones mentioned above have differing impacts on custody depending on whether it’s a mother or a father doing the bad acts. Fathers are penalized more than mothers and the penalty comes in loss of parenting time with the kids.”
Your assertion also does not jive with my own experience.
I know of five fathers personally who’ve been divorced.
Of the five, three had a false restraining order or accusation of child sexual abuse against them.
Three were reduced to every other weekend and wednesdays in their children’s lives.
One shares physical custody but only because his ex-wife is mentally ill; he’s been told that if she looses custody due to her illness the next stop for the kids is foster care.
Of the five, three of the women were verifiably abusive(by my personal experience). One broke her daughter’s arm twice but since she filed the TRO she got the house and complete custody of the children–he’s not even a visitor in their lives.
I dunno… I guess my experience must be completely anomalous…
Oh and one of the three that got every other weekend is about to be downgraded to never by the mother who’s deciding to move hundreds of miles away from him.
Why am I not surprised to have stats thrown at me?
Look all of you say, “We understand there are bad men and we understand there are bad women and bad men when it comes to children”.
What none of you do is measure the families you work with because none of you work with anyone. You just write posts on statistics.
Don’t think I am saying you are bad for this because I too use statistics BUT…… I also get the families and why the stats are the way they are.
This …I want, I want, I want, crap has to stop. The word doesn’t evolved around you, meaning it doesn’t evolved around one interest group.
And there lies the problem.We don’t think long term. We don’t look big picture. Anyone who does is going to see men’s interests just as bullshit as women’s interest. I am not taking a side on this.
Sorry for spelling mistakes. I have to take phone calls of men and women going through this crap all day long. I say many a time, “Please hold on while I post my concerns to groups I think worth while”.
“This …I want, I want, I want, crap has to stop. The word doesn’t evolved around you, meaning it doesn’t evolved around one interest group.”
You know what’s really interesting? If you actually read the piece, I think you’d see that it’s also talking about how women are hurt by the dynamic.
When I originally submitted it to Paul I thought it would be very controversial because the amount of sympathy it has for women caught in this destructive dynamic would be too much for many posters here.
I was pleasantly surprised. Or maybe it didn’t come through all that clearly, who knows.
But if you think that I’m only looking at the male half of this issue, think again. (I’m pretty much incapable of only looking at the male half, of course.)
Firstly, I am surprised you care what I say.Thank-you for this.
You know me womanand I think you are fantastic from your home site. I’m just like you and growing as I do things, that’s all. And that’s the only reason I am challenging what you wrote.
I gained lots and lots from you and you could say you’ve been a terrific role model. I’m just saying things don’t really work this way. (from experience)
Um… okay? Thanks?
Oh, please don’t put a question mark. I am julie. Y’know, a piece of shit when it comes to intellects. But I don’;t care.
The children suffer from the status-quo discrimination against fathers and misandry. The Good Men are deliberately ignorant enablers to further their own selfish goals for female approval. The don’t appeal to average guys seeking truth*.
*not affiliated with The Good Men.
Maybe this is your first experience with generalization. When someone makes a generalization, he knows that everyone doesn’t fit that generalization. This is obvious, but it’s hilariously common for replies to generalizations to be that the generalization isn’t always true. Of course it isn’t. This post is an attempt to put into words and explain something that a lot of us have noticed but haven’t put this much effort into describing.
j, now, were you the one who was with the WKKK? Is that what got you into feminism, or was it your attraction of Marxism or fascism, or maybe other supremacist groups? Oh, right, femifascism IS supreme among all supremacist groups…
Nice work TB!
TMOTS
Brilliant. The most insightful piece I have read in a year.
I learned that there is darkness in myself. I cannot blame all the years when I served feminism as a faithful mangina only on fear. There was also a secret part of me that enjoyed the “harem of approval.” It is true. How does Typhonblue know more about me than I do about myself?
I also learned that there is a glimmer of light in the likes of Josh Jasper. Can they learn to see the pain of the legion of broken men who lie at their feet?
Typhon, please write a book!
A bunch of people asked me to write an article(or start a blog). So I wrote an article.
Now you want a book?!?
Jeeze…
If not a book then at least a few more articles. A few comments here and there do not satisfy the fans of your writing.
“Can they learn to see the pain of the legion of broken men who lie at their feet?”
A lot of broken men and more pain than I ever imagined. Men just close up and linger on, most not even understanding where their pain eminates from; they just know they hurt. That’s why the work here is so important and needs to grow. Men’s Advocacy where there never was any before. It’s not their fault. They didn’t create this monster of emnity from women and legal discrimination.
Good post, but actually…we (most) men do create and prop up this “monster of enmity from women” – it’s called chivalry, branching right out of the real patriarchy (Good Men – selfless, sacrificing and protective men and fathers, placing women on pedestals above us) and most of us can’t even see it for the Trojan Horse it is. I’ve seen more in fathers groups supporting this than recognizing it and fighting this invisible super-enemy in our own ranks.
@Denis
“So…what do you do? Blindly follow the leadership or expose them for their hypocrisy?
IMO, Dawkins is doing a great job.”
You are seeing things through a rear-view mirror Denis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtV22JPjmsk&feature=related
Dawkins is a fanatical atheist and feminist who attacks the existence of God, but who pays relatively little attention to the actual operation of the church itself – many of whose leaders are desperately and weakly trying to redefine religion in order to escape the wrath of people like Dawkins. He is one of the primary Pied Pipers who is fooling politically corrected church leaders into creating Typhonblue’s empty and deceitful “Good Man”.
If you seriously believe Richard Dawkins is doing a good job – in the context of your own beliefs and values as an MRA activist – you have lost all perspective as to who your real friends and enemies are.
You are just looking at ‘the mainstream church’ (many facets of which I, and huge numbers of other Christians, despise as much as you do – and actively oppose). You are leaving out of your judgemental equation real, traditional, faith in the one true God – It is He who Dawkins attacks and despises – not the bricks and mortar of modern churches or the politicized sheep who enter them.
You are suffering from an ‘elephant in the room’ scenario yourself.
Remember Denis – Richard Dawkins is a fanatical feminist and also a close friend and associate of Steve Jones – the academic who fantasizes and writes about the extermination of the human male. Keep your bearings as to who and what is your real friend or foe – and why.
If you’re right then there is nobody dealing with the rot within the church and it’s better to dismantle the whole thing and start from scratch. The mainstream church is huge!
It’s time to think for yourself.
Remember the Cathars…they were good Christians.
“Remember Denis – Richard Dawkins is a fanatical feminist”
More lies………….
Thou shall not lie?
Richard Dawkins sees feminism as a cult, and he is correct.
Hey Karma,
I saw this documentary called “Enron: Smartest guys in the room”.
That Fortune magazine writer said something like…
“Jeffery Skilling apparently found Richard Dawkin’s book “The Selfish Gene” revelatory and the guide for his strategy says a lot.”
Here’s another One Good Man:
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=14052
Magistrate Lifshitz. Jailed a man who couldn’t pay child support.
I can imagine the orgasmic thrill he got as he brought the hammer down on this poor guy.
Jut read the article. A classic mangina!
Send a copy (or link) over to Glen Sacks. I think he would really appreciate it.
Very good stuff. The Beta males are the rulers of today’s world. The Beta males love feminism because it’s critical design is to destroy the alpha male.
This is ridiculous. ‘Beta males’ surely refers to the majority of men. Who have never been and are not now the rulers of the world.
Ah, what I meant by that is that the “manginas” and “white knights” are the true “beta” males. While the majority may be betas today… The alphas are more the MGTOWs. Not because of their ranking with women but from superior clarity, knowledge, creativity, personality, virtues etc. in otherwords by standards beyond human society and social trends. Check out my blog if you are interested in these sorts of ideas. Just go to my web page and click at the top: “The Majestic Blah”.
This article also effectively shows how utterly Egocentric and Arrogant these Manginas and White Knights are. Good work.
@Denis
“If you’re right then there is nobody dealing with the rot within the church and it’s better to dismantle the whole thing and start from scratch. The mainstream church is huge!
It’s time to think for yourself.
Remember the Cathars…they were good Christians.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5wO_rdc75I&NR=1
I totally agree with what you say. And many people are already thinking along these very same lines. There are a lot of men AND women who totally reject the influence of feminism and political correctness in the church – many more than the mainstream media would have you believe.
Some are voting with their feet and moving to the Church of Rome – but many are making alternative arrangements within their existing churches. I have a female relative in the South of England (in Kent) who has been part of such a move – but which has not been officially authorised by the Anglican church leaders.
People are thinking for themselves. Some are moving, some are starting from scratch – but the mainstream church, of its own volition, will eventually become one huge and meaningless house of card. In fact it has long since become one. Doomed to fail, doomed to wither. And good riddance.
But always be conscious of the fact that the original rot was caused by the influences of people like Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones – in antifeminist terms they are the opposite of any antidote to it.
As far as the definition and the influences of the modern day ‘mangina’ or feckless ‘Good Man’ are concerned, Dawkins and his associates would make Hank Pellissier and clan look like a pack of Free mason’s guard dogs.
They are fanatical enemies of God & Men.
Roman Catholics, give me a break. They’re the biggest white knight manginas around and they can’t even blame feminism. Sorry, organized religion is not a friend of men.
Yep and don’t forget all the boys molested over that past many years, or should the MRM ignore that….
People ask why I am athiest….
Religion, communism, feminism, socialism, Marxism – any ism- all the same but different, ALL FORMS OF MASS CONTROL.
I have three main objections to feminism.
1 The political territory which feminism claims to occupy is already covered by classical liberalism. We already have perfectly good theories about human rights and civil rights and political equality, and we just don’t need another one. Under a liberal reading, women are no different from anybody else: there isn’t really any such thing as ‘women’s rights’, any more than ‘left-handed people’s rights’.
2 The intellectual quality of the analysis offered by feminists is desperately poor. Feminists have appropriated the domain of sexual politics for themselves. ‘We are the authority on this matter’, they claim, ‘if you want to know about sexual politics, come to us, and we will tell you what to think. Your opinions are not welcome’. Not only is this a deeply authoritarian attitude, which should arouse our hostility in itself, but having seized power in this area, they have, from society’s point of view, done a spectacularly poor job. Surely the first task of any such organisation would be to produce an analysis, a model of the task domain. Yet not only is feminism’s analysis of sexual relations pathetically inadequate, it is, even worse, dangerously misleading, dogmatic, self-serving and divisive.
3 They are not fulfilling their responsibilities to society. Surely, the role of any organisation which claims to address problems in sexual politics should be, first and foremost, to act as an honest broker. Feminists should be the UN peacekeepers of the sexual landscape, the impartial police who arbitrate in disputes, who identify potential sources of conflict and pour oil on troubled waters. The primary role of any such organisation should surely be to promote harmony, good relations and communication between the sexes. Yet feminists do precisely the opposite. Far from impartial, they act only in their own narrow interests, they regard men as an enemy to be defeated, they stir up hatred and moral panic at every opportunity. They are not police but vigilantes.
Forever married to the outdated Marxist and Psychoanalytic dogmas of the late 1960s, their analysis of issues can never improve. The 1960s counter-culture produced an outlook on life which is deeply anti-social and maladjusted to say the least.
The society in which we grew up, the safest, wealthiest, healthiest and most liberal society in history, is regarded as the root of all evil in the world. The whole society in which we live, our own culture, must be completely razed to the ground. Only then can we rebuild a New Jerusalem from the ashes. To say that this is an irrational belief is putting it mildly. Revolutionary politics is misleading and pessimistic, because it teaches us that social reform is impossible. We cannot change anything unless we change everything. Yet that is the political outlook, derived from the most unsavoury role models, Marx, Lenin and Mao, that the hippies of the 1960s adopted.
Feminism is the Western world’s last surviving bastion of that totalitarian thinking. Feminists have concentrated their efforts on attacking marriage, the family, heterosexuality and men in general. The fact that they think women’s interests will be served by this indicates just how deeply deluded they are.
Coupled with this destructive and irrational hatred of one’s own culture was a peculiar narcissism. Experimentation with ‘alternative lifestyles’ was probably inevitable once a sufficiently wealthy and liberal society appeared. The data is now in, and the results are deeply unedifying. What the 1968 generation – the last surviving remnant of which is the feminist movement – gave us was widespread social collapse. Divorce, fatherlessness, family breakdown, abortion, crime, drug abuse, child neglect, sexually transmitted infections, personal heartbreak, educational failure. Single-parent households living off public funds, leading to an increase in traffic, pollution, housing shortage, taxation and the intrusive power of the State.
The feminist movement has served the short-term selfish interests of middle-class white women, but its effects on the wider society have been catastrophic. They are under the delusion that they are trying to save a misguided world from its own folly. The arrogance of this position is stunning.
There are several reasons why feminist theory is so intellectually bankrupt. One cause is an inherent left-wing distrust of the establishment. Any theorizing done by the male establishment must be rejected. Thus, science and logic cannot be pursued in any honest way. Aspects of mainstream science and philosophy will be appropriated (and then arbitrarily dropped) if they happen to suit short-term political convenience, but that is all.
The second factor is that women are very socially-focused creatures. I know from my own experience that men will discuss science, economics, history and philosophy, but women only ever talk about themselves and other people. They find men’s conversation on these subjects boring and geeky. They concern themselves with the minutiae of personal relationships, almost to the exclusion of all else. This tends to militate against any kind of large-scale theorizing, which the feminist project requires.
A second outcome from this preoccupation with social issues is a desire to fit in and be accepted. This tends to mean that women will latch onto any passing fad or trend. Most of the feminists I have known in my life are interested in every kind of mysticism from astrology to reiki to homeopathy. It’s easier and more fun than reading evolutionary psychology. With a lack of intellectual rigour and a desire to be trendy and popular, every kind of nonsense is actively embraced. This tends to make for very poor theory. Post-modernism comes to the rescue by claiming that every theory is just as good as every other, a notion as intellectually bankrupt as it is possible to get.
Thirdly, there is the dogmatic moral arrogance of feminism. Anyone who dares to ask questions is pilloried as a misogynist. This is a deliberate tactic used to suppress debate and silence criticism. Naomi Wolf recommends that dissenters should be subjected to female psycho-social violence around the middle-class dinner table. At every social gathering, the unfortunate victim will be subjected to scorn, filthy looks and verbal abuse until they cave in and stop disagreeing with feminists. This is an openly totalitarian mindset. It is the middle-class equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. This behaviour can have real and very severe consequences, including the breakup of relationships and damage to people’s mental health. For some reason, feminists seem to think that they are immune from scrutiny or criticism. Such attitudes simply cannot be accepted in a democracy.
Lastly, feminism is a modern-day religion, and its adherents act like any other religious believers. They dare not question the Holy Writ for fear of excommunication. They hold established religious ideas in sacred reverence. Anyone who does not do so is a heretic or an infidel. They create cults of personality around significant past leaders, whose wisdom cannot be questioned. This religious mindset is anathema to free intellectual enquiry, which, again, makes for very poor theory. Once a bad idea has become established, it is very difficult to displace it.
Feminists are not fulfilling their responsibilities towards the wider society because they simply do not believe that they have any; they believe only that society has responsibilities towards them. I don’t have to do anything, I’m already perfect. It is a cult mindset which strokes the ego of insecure and dysfunctional women.
It is long past the time when this bizarre cult must be openly challenged.
Ref: http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2008/06/poverty-of-feminism.html
Now replace feminism with – religion/ISM of your choice – in my post above.
See how that turns out for you people.
eh….not so big a deal in that substitution.
Loved it.
Great article on an important topic. The “Good Man” thing has gotten really painfully transparent and increasingly nauseating. There’s this endless supply of self-righteous men who are obviously getting off by ripping on the rest of us. I’ve been trying to understand and relate to it. There are a lot of younger men who aren’t in good places mentally and are feeling bad about themselves and there’s all these other assholes who use them as punching bags. It’s not helping, obviously. If the guys doing it were really well-intentioned they’d realize what they’re doing isn’t working and take another approach. I think most of them are just pricks, though, and don’t particularly care what the effects are.
@Paul, Maybe an opinion poll on the Good Men MRA week?
Typhonblue, your essay is insightful and eloquent.
I would like to add a thought – like a little gold-leaf burnished onto the toe of the Buddha-image – a thought on how a “Good Man” of this ilk would come into being.
I believe it arises out of the human-psychological need of APPROVAL.
All of us hunger for approval; we rely on the approval of our group; it’s as important to us as food and drink. Mothers use this approval-hunger from the start of our lives – how do you toilet-train an infant? With approval. We learn that early to seek Mother’s approval, to behave in such a way as to get Mother’s approval.
We come to identify “Mother’s disapproval” as dangerous – after all, as children, we depend on her utterly for our survival. If she withdraws her approval, what else might she withdraw – food? Shelter? Might she turn me out to die? Oh, my God! I must be a Good Boy and retain her approval! Of course, we’re not always “good boys,” and mothers aren’t always fair in their granting of approval.
As we grow older, we learn we need to depend on others’ approval: our teachers, our friends, our schoolmates – but most definitely those who have power over us. We could describe this as “getting civilized.” At the same time, we need to push for our autonomy, we need to “break free,” we rebel to greater or lesser extents – but not always successfully, and rarely if ever to the extent that we can authentically get along without others’ approval. We do often change allegiance, meaning we seek approval from another group. And approval is still important to us as adults; we are unlikely to trade with another unless there is mutual approval between the traders.
Mate-selection is bound up with approval as well. If you don’t approve of me, Ma’am, are you going to mate with me? The continuation of the species, of my own DNA, is hard-wired important – it’s survival! And in a species as social as ours, access to a mate is bound up heavily in approval … Some men win a mate’s approval by their “alpha behavior”; some by their positions of power; some by gifts and generosity; contrary to feminist sloganeering, very very few of us mate by force and in spite of the mate’s disapproval.
It is a tremendous bestowing of approval, that a woman will accept you as a mate! It’s very easy for “my mate, the Mother of my children” to become re-cast, in a man’s mind, into “the Mommy” … the most important, if not the sole, source of “Mommy-approval” in his mind. And such a mighty approval becomes a mighty tool for manipulation, when a man lets his approval-hunger get the best of him.
Politics, in a representative democracy, is ALL ABOUT approval. At the political level, approval is expressed by votes – you need the most votes, hence the most approval, to get into office. How do you get that approval? By “being A Good Man.”
I’ve simplified things tremendously, I know. But mightn’t it fit?
BeijaFlor, TB could write a whole other post on this. She once made exactly this point over at Feminist Critics.
Definitely the deepest article I’ve read here in ages.
Great article Typhonblue.
As someone else here in the comments has suggested, I think that some of these guys are stuck in a childhood need for approval and validation. Its interesting that Hugo whatshisname claims that he was a sex addict, as I understand it that is rooted in seeking approval and validation.
hugo is the guy who we eventually find out is the last guy on earth who should be talking to normal people about anything. he’s the guy who’s extra self-righteous and then has some sex doctor turn his outty into an inny. He’s a million miles from sane but ballanger decided to hire him to talk to us. Why? Ballanger’s an idiot.
Poetic and profound!
How eloquently Typhonblue unmasked the The Good Man(gina)’s true colors!
All those white knights in positions of power should read it and hang their heads in shame and disbelief; for, their fig leaves of rationalizations are systematically peeled off here and their true nature laid bare.
If only, they have the intelligence and inclination to understand the message.
@KARMA MRA MGTOW
“Yep and don’t forget all the boys molested over that past many years, or should the MRM ignore that….
People ask why I am athiest….”
You are an atheist because, amongst other things, you have been influenced by the zeitgeist of this era and by the exaggerated statistics of the one-dimensional propaganda constatntly broadcast by the liberal Left. That is why feminists are feminists. That is why climate change fanatics are climate change fanatics etc etc.
As an aside from your rhetoric and labelling, there is a fundamental and massive black hole in your reasoning that you should perhaps consider. What bearing does the warped behaviour of a tiny minority of wicked people who are using the church as a mask for their criminal behaviour have on the existence of God ?
Being a Chrisitian doesn’t guarantee the outcome of a good human being (but it certainly makes it far more likely – where would people like William Wilberforce or Mother Theresa figure in your micro-equation?) .
As stated by the origins of the faith – we all all totally free to accept the morals of Christinaity or reject them. We don’t live in a theocracy. Nobody is going to throw someone in jail for agnosticism or atheism.
In medieval Europe some tyrants did indeed use the name of the church for muderous political purposes – but it was a convenient mask for them that had ultimately nothing to do with the existence or the real message of God.
Put that into perspective with the greatest Marxist, atheist based, tyrannies of the 20th century in which approximately 90 million people were brutally slaughtered.
Put that into perpective with the greatest Marxist based tyranny of all time that is the elephant in the room of our world now – and has to its name its own silent holocaust of countless millions of the unborn, and of the catastrophic demographic ageing & withering of indigeneous populations that is taking place as the currency and payoff of egaltarianism.
Your fellow atheist and an MRA, Denis, believes the members of the Church of Rome to essentially be ‘White Knights’.
I am not a Catholice, but Pope Benedict XVI visited my country, the UK, last summer and made a moving speech in St. Pauls cathedral. In it he was clearly critical of political correctness and darkly warned of the consequences of the thinking by today’s political classes.
The Archbishop of Buenos Aires openly declared that “feminism is a message of division, hatred and death” – on Women’s Day in Argentina several years ago.
Take your eyes off the rear-view mirror and look back out at the road ahead of you about this issue. By knocking Christianity, per se, without distinguishing between the phony and the real you will do your cause no favors.
We are certainly not here to wave a flag for it – and I have reneged on my own suggestion of an apolitical position for the MRA movement that I made when I first joined.
But I just wanted to clear something up.
As far as religion is concerned – don’t become, like the Left and the feminists, just another version of a spoonfed bigot.
I am sorry if I have offended anyone. This is my last posting on this site about religion. I can see it has not been popular. Essentially we are MRA’s – that is the T-Shirt we all wear.
Karl Marx replaced one god with another – himself.
Are atheists better or worse then the religious, do not know don’t care.
Marx is special because he didn’t get bored with obvious nonsense. Most people lose interest with stuff that has no practical application, but not him. Commie talk that ignores the problem of motivation is like me inventing an energy efficient form of transportation that ignores gravity. It’s just stupid.
“…and I have reneged on my own suggestion of an apolitical position”
That should have read (near the end) – “unreligious position”
@Peter
I am agnostic too, borderline atheist if you insist. The reasoning is that if there is a god as defined by religions (all-knowing, all-powerful) then it is immoral of god to allow all the evil that’s happened, is happening and will happen. But as life as I know it, has abundant evil, some of it condoned and promoted by religious heads – as per your opinion they may be acting out of personal beliefs/prejudices, but when they do so in the name of god, they do malign the image of god/religion. If god exists, why allow this evil ? That means god either condones evil or is powerless to prevent it.
Nuff said , in the MRM, there is no room to create rifts among our own brothers, aren’t the feminists already adept at dividing men and keeping them fighting each other while they go and usurp the real trophies ? Whatever the differences among MRAs, religion , abortion, Reps vs Democrats, the most important thing is to band together.
“I am agnostic too, borderline atheist if you insist. The reasoning is that if there is a god as defined by religions (all-knowing, all-powerful) then it is immoral of god to allow all the evil that’s happened, is happening and will happen. But as life as I know it, has abundant evil, some of it condoned and promoted by religious heads – as per your opinion they may be acting out of personal beliefs/prejudices, but when they do so in the name of god, they do malign the image of god/religion. If god exists, why allow this evil ? That means god either condones evil or is powerless to prevent it.”
There’s one teensy little problem with that argument:
FREE WILL.
God gave us free will with the knowledge of the risk of our screwing things up. And we didn’t disappoint.
It seems God can’t win here. If he allows us to do “what thou wilt”, He is condemned for allowing evil. Yet if He were to OVERRIDE our free will to prevent evil, He would then be condemned for being a tyrant.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t! I feel sorry for God, really, what an awful position to be in!
@POD
” the most important thing is to band together.
You are quite right POD. This site and movement has got nothing to do with religion per se. And I intend to avoid it in future (as I had intended to avoid it when I started). The subject of this thread drew it out of me – probably because of the imagery used.
But just to answer the question you raise. If there is a God, why is their evil in the world ?
We live this life to learn. It is a stepping stone – we presently exist on the other side of the ‘tapestry’ as it has been described. Terrible things do happen – often to totally undeserving people (even infants and babies).
But if you had no concept of such things, if they never crossed your mind or field of vision – near to or from afar – life would have no depth or real meaning. To appreciate the good things they have to be contrasted with something else – sometimes something quite awful.
As C.S. Lewis once put it – in a world without misfortune, we might just as well be automata. Happiness & contentment couldn’t exist without awareness of it.
Disappointed to read some of the Peter Charnley posts. I think that there needs to be an article about why MRA’s should keep religion out of it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion/religion, however, angst and infighting caused by the mention of religious viewpoints should be avoided. One can use the Bible, the Koran, etc, to defend MRA, however, this will cause unnecessary angst and infighting that will divide a good movement and prevent its aims from being accomplished.
Not necessarily. We can put personal differences aside and focus our energies on the real enemy – doing so is called team-work, and that is the very thing women have always tried to prevent : men getting together, men helping other men, men standing up for each other. They try very hard (and so far succeeded) to prevent the formation of men’s team which is exactly why there is no large scale MRM, why the MRM has remained so marginal in numbers.
That is what Grace said.
Ya like Grace said
@Grace
There is no angst or infighting about religion here Grace. Just the comment section of this one thread of debate has been used to clear a bit of air. There is no harm in letting each other know where we each stand about this or anything else that might be important to an individual – as long as the subject doesn’t become a cracked record and interferes with other matters.
I intend to say nothing further about religion when commenting in the future. And as far as the significance of my faith to me is concerned – just doing my bit to oppose the influences of feminism in this world, here and elsewhere with my words and with my money when I can spare it, will suffice for me as far as my activities with the MRA movement is concerned.
People like Paul Elam, Bernard Chapin, Angry Harry etc. are the earthly captains of this initial effort to make the world aware of something that is of fundamental importance to vast numbers of people – of all faiths and none. And they are doing a fantastic job.
I have my own ideas as to how God fits into this equation. But I will no longer voice them here. There is no personal clash of conscience for me by saying this – for what is going on through movements such as this, I know to be morally right.
I have something for you to consider.
Instead of seeing religion as the salvation of the MRM, perhaps the MRM is the salvation of religion.
You have a very good point there typhonblue. As the influences of feminism, political correctness and the liberal Left have increased throughout western civilizations, so has faith weakened – along with the traditional family, the role of fatherhood and a fundamental and essential belief in ourselves as human beings.
That is why I am certain that the MRM has both truth and time as inseperable allies in the long term.
The acrimony in reactions to Christianity here are symptomatic of the main thing that creates a headwind against the MRM, that being the male tendency to intellectually peacock. The same dynamic that makes the white male safe to attack at the social water cooler, gives comfort to those who respond to any expression of faith with such venom.
Regardless which helps which….the only thing dividing them is a subset of ill informed narrow minded pseudo intellectuals who are guilty of exactly the same kind of thinking that informs feminists against men…spouting cliches and conventional wisdom claims that make little more than bumper stickers for the depth of their content.
The article is outstanding
I disagree. I have to qualify myself first though. I am an atheist. That being said I have no ill will at all toward non prosthelytizing Christians and do think there is room for all in the MRM.
But I do think that all of us, as men and women in this cause, need to be brutally honest with others and ourselves about the nature of our problems.
Men have big time problems that come right from the heart of Christian churches. BIG TIME.
I appreciate Christians very much who challenge to church to change its tune just as we also challenge the secular world. There are no sacred cows here, nor should there be. And calling those challenges to the church a headwind creating intellectual peacock strikes me as both shaming and unproductive.
Fit for a bumper sticker.
But Paul, you are mixing up who you wish to critique. The church, that collection of lots of morons who have adopted a form of feminism that is far more insidious than the radical obvious kind, is a fine thing to come against.
Im not calling your challenges to the church ANYTHING. Why is it a handicap that atheists are unable to separate Christians from “the church”? Its intellectually lazy.
It is a headwind to me, a Christian, who battles feminism in the church as strongly as you battle it in the secular world. There are MANY like me, and the number is growing parallel to the number of strictly secular MRMs. You alienate us by failing to segregate the object of your ire, when, Christians are not going anywhere, Christians are going to be here, for good. The church? I don’t know, as the institutions(s) exist…maybe, maybe not. But alienating a permanent LARGE group in a society that you claim to have an interest in making some reforms in is counterproductive.
I am a little surprised, the statement ‘I’m an atheist and have no ill will towards non proselytizing Christians is a bit pedestrian for you. It goes with other pat statements like “Jesus was a great teacher and philosopher” and “how can a loving God oversee such evil” I don’t say that to spur a religion debate. I say it solely as stated, I’m disappointed in how pat it is. To qualify it a bit is necessary, truly. Some consider merely stating “Im a Christian” to be prosthelytizing. The non-Christians here are like that, like a raw wound that any mention of faith irritates, whether or not its only made as personal conviction, a preconceived anger and angst against it. Its a bit kneejerk. Its your site dude, Im just sayin.
You are welcome to your opinion. My post stands, and I disagree with your reaction 100% but don’t have the time or interest in the debate.
bumped?
Im unable to reply?
I see it.
“He is just a man. Not a bad man, not a good man, not a real man or a fake man, not a strong man or a powerful man or an aggressive man or a useful man or a useless man. Just a man. A man who sees that words like good, strong, bad, real, fake, powerful, useless and useful are just words the One Good Man uses to divide himself from other men, to make himself special and thus worthy of his Harem.”
So you mean those words have absolutely no meaning? And if they do, that can only mean you’re some kind of backwards, unenlightened Neanderthal? Or a mangina?
What the fuck?
“So you mean those words have absolutely no meaning?”
When they’re used as an adjective to modify the noun man they have a specific meaning and purpose. That purpose is addressed here.
Great article. Spot on.
Putting women on a pedestal OR casting them all as villians = two sides of the same coin.
White knighting and thuggery, ditto.
Men and women are both humans, both flawed, both capable of good and evil.