Resolving the Antithesis of the Manosphere’s and Traditionalism’s Views of Women

Note:  This post makes generalizations about women and men. Intelligent readers know that generalizations of this sort are generalizations: Not all women, and not all men, are like that.

When the Manosphere says NAWALT, which literally means “not all women are like that,” I believe that they really mean “Yes, not all women are like that, but most are, and you’re a fool if you deny it.” In other words, their NAWALT largely ironic. But mine is not. I acknowledge the existence, and the importance, of exceptions.

The Antithesis

Since this is a blog post rather than an in-depth analysis, and since most readers will doubtless possess a degree of sophistication, and since the basic truths of the world are fundamentally simple, I will define the antithesis as directly as possible, shorn of nuance:

In traditional societies of old (that is, through most of human history), most women were believed to endorse the ideals of pre-marital chastity and post-marital fidelity. And for that reason (among others) they were thought worthy of being treated with chivalry.  But the Manosphere says that the modern woman is different: Even if she doesn’t consciously think of it that way, she uses men and discards them when they’re used up. For that reason, says the Manosphere, men must be wary of women. And in extreme cases, MGTOW: Men Go Their Own Way.

Remember now, generalizations are generalizations.

Despite the many problems inherent in the Manosphere, I believe their position on this topic is an exaggeration of a valid point rather than a fundamental untruth. My intuition is that they’re on to something. If your intuition says something different, well, I can’t argue with another’s intuition. But I have to call it as I see it. Many contemporary women are like that. MCWALT.

*

Although we’re definitely traditionalists here at the Orthosphere, we’re not just any kind of traditionalists. Our traditionalism is acknowledging the Order of Being rather than sticking to old-fashioned ways no matter what. We understand how men and women are supposed to relate to one another, and that the traditional idealistic view of women reflects truth. And I’m old enough to know that before contemporary times most women did seem to endorse traditional marital ideals. So the traditionalists were right about women, and the Manosphere is right (more or less) about contemporary women.

The world has changed. So what’s going on? Has female nature changed?  Or is something else at work?

The Answer

I submit that female nature has not changed. In fact, the change in women has occurred because female nature has not changed:

I observe that women are generally conformists. They don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want to make waves. They just want to get on with living as pleasant a life as possible, and this requires having good relations with other people and not feeling like a fish out of water when they listen to our leaders. Most women just want to agree with what the authorities are teaching and get on with having a comfortable existence.

And this need not be a bad thing. When the times are properly ordered, it is good for a woman not to waste her precious psychic resources tilting against windmills when there is important practical work to be done raising the next generation. The ability and desire to raise children well is the unique gift of the woman, and the world is generally better off when most women leave the idealism to the men.

Remember, generalizations are generalizations. Readers of the Orthosphere are different. If you’re reading these words then you’re probably not a conformist. But most of your sisters are.

Many men are conformists too. But manliness is antithetical to conformity. Men, on average are different.

Therefore the problem is solved. The antithesis is resolved: Through most of human history, when the authorities taught the ideals of pre-marital chastity and post-marital fidelity, most women, being conformists, felt allegiance to this ideal. Being human, they occasionally failed to reach it. And those who fail to reach an ideal are tempted to deny it. But most women, most of the time, endorsed the ideal.

But nowadays the authorities preach actualizing your potential, being true to yourself, letting it all hang out, and so on. At least they do so when it comes to interpersonal relationships. When it comes to “saving the planet,” they’re fundamentalist preachers. But when it comes to interpersonal relationships, their only rule is that those who believe in rules are bigots.

And so the conformist women (and, to be fair, men) nowadays generally conform to the de facto ideal of love-‘em-and-leave-‘em. Of course, saying it that way makes you feel like a heel. So the authorities have developed a vocabulary designed to make the unchaste and the unfaithful feel idealistic. But the bottom line is, if God is not god, then I am god. And if I-god doesn’t like what’s happening in his life, he doesn’t have to put up with it. Love-‘em-and-leave’em indeed.

So marital idealism has been privatized. If you want to believe in pre-marital chastity and post-marital faithfulness, go right ahead. And some people still do adhere to this ideal. But adherence to the ideal is strictly voluntary. If you say that others should follow your ideal, then you’re a bigot. So those who adhere to the ideal are a somewhat limited subgroup of mankind.

*

Have men changed? Yes, but not as much. Men are not as conformist, so they change less in response to the changing ideals preached by our authorities. And when it comes to mating, the woman is generally the determining factor. The man is always looking for action, but it’s the woman who determines whether action occurs. Therefore when we analyze the marital climate, women are the more important causal factor.

[Remember, generalizations are generalizations.]

*

So why is the modern woman different? Because she’s a conformist, and so she conforms to the new ideal of selfishness.

Problem solved. Traditionalism is right. The Manosphere is (more or less) right, at least on this point. The world is understandable.

You’re welcome.

*

Well, there is a little more to it. Whenever there’s a paradox the obvious question is, Who’s right? But after you’ve answered that question, there’s another obvious question: Now that I know the truth, which side should I join?

Although both sides are right about this topic, you should join us traditionalists, of course.

Why?  Because the Manosphere’s view of women only teaches you to protect yourself. But a life of self-protection alone is unworthy of a man. The properly masculine man wants to improve the world, even if only a little.

Traditionalism of the Orthosphere variety doesn’t just order men to “man up and marry the woman” (to paraphrase a popular Manosphere saying.) Our traditionalism is not just doing everything like our grandparents did. Instead, we endorse traditional sexual morality and sex roles because they agree with the order of being, the way reality really is. We understand that the man’s job is to lead his wife and that if men abdicate their responsibility en masse then the human race will founder. Although an individual man may decide for honorable reasons not to marry, we reject the policy of MGTOW. A man is a leader and a warrior. He should lead and fight.

How exactly can a man maximize his chances of marrying well?  This is not the place for that discussion, even if an optimal answer existed, which it doesn’t. And isn’t it possible that a man will be badly burned by a contemporary woman? Yes. Some warriors die in battle.

Let’s get one thing straight: Even though it is true that “If you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem,” this does not help you. You are only one person. You cannot solve the social problem to which this post refers. You have to live in the modern world, with all its foolishness, ugliness, and injustice. That’s not gonna change.

So why become a traditionalist rather than a Gamer? Because a man’s greatest act is consciously to identify himself with the true, the good and the beautiful. You cannot change the world. And it’s difficult to change yourself. But, as a first step, can you choose to identify with the true order of being, and the God who is its Author.

86 thoughts on “Resolving the Antithesis of the Manosphere’s and Traditionalism’s Views of Women

  1. Pingback: Resolving the Antithesis of the Manosphere’s and Traditionalism’s Views of Women | Neoreactive

  2. Thanks for this post. I wandered into the “manosphere” as I got started trolling the Reactosphere, but the broken dejection of the average manospherean is off-putting to say the least, even if they have a lot of valid points to be made. No wonder they’re having a hard time getting (or at least keeping) a girlfriend: They’re the pessimist’s pessimist. It might seem like the entire society has gone off the deep end from TV and internet trolls, but I still run into quite a few people who haven’t totally turned to lunacy. I mean, glass half full here: half of marriages survive. From the manosphereans, you’d swear you’d have better luck mounting a frontal assault up a fortified cliff than getting married, but that’s just not true.

    Just recently, a Catholic woman from work was remarking about how she was disappointed with the Roman Church for compromising too much on divorce and remarriage. You still run into conservative women like this running around the wilds of the postmodern city, let alone the country. The manosphere seems to evidence an utter lack of faith in the divine origins and power of the Christian Religion. Those who are genuinely faithful to it above all else have not bowed the knee to Molech, and there never will come a day when everyone has.

    • “From the Manosphereans, you’d swear you’d have better luck mounting a frontal assault … than getting married, but that’s just not true.”

      Actually they’re not that far off base on the point. Keep in mind that a lot of the fifty percent of marriages that survive, as you put it, are thirty years old and older like mine.

      Given the current state of affairs, men run a huge risk in getting married, whereas women not s’much. That’s because, as the manosphereans rightly describe the situation, all the laws on marriage are heavily loaded in favor of women. That being the case, if a young man in the current culture isn’t extremely careful (wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove, so to speak) to court and marry a decent woman, the great likelihood is that she, with the aid of the state, will ruin him. (She will probably ruin herself too, but not before she’s ruined him and perhaps several of his compatriots first.)

      I’m just glad I got married thirty years ago when the situation wasn’t quite so dire. It’s easy (for me at least) to be somewhat sympathetic towards manosphereans and their current predicament. Albeit I hope that once they’ve grown in age and maturity as a whole, they’ll be better equipped to steer their proselytes away from their current extremism regarding marriage and child-rearing. We need more stable marriages, not fewer of them.

      • Keep in mind that a lot of the fifty percent of marriages that survive, as you put it, are thirty years old and older like mine.

        The divorce rate has been around 50% for a long time, and it has not risen significantly in a while, so I don’t think it’s just older marriages keeping the institution afloat statistically.

        Given the current state of affairs, men run a huge risk in getting married, whereas women not s’much. That’s because, as the manosphereans rightly describe the situation, all the laws on marriage are heavily loaded in favor of women.

        I agree that there is too much risk for the man in the modern marriage. I think you could get even many liberals to agree on that one.

        That being the case, if a young man in the current culture isn’t extremely careful (wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove, so to speak) to court and marry a decent woman, the great likelihood is that she, with the aid of the state, will ruin him.

        I think many men heeding this advice is why quite a few marriages do succeed. I think something like 30% of those under 35 are married, so it would seem that many men are simply abstaining from marriage or doing due diligence. Like I said, I think the manosphere makes a lot of good points, but I just don’t buy into the complete cynicism of it. I’m too young to be such a cynic, not to mention wanting to get married myself.

  3. This is a tangential comment (I have little to add to this post; Mr Roebuck has done a splendid job of clearing this particular matter up), but Aristotle, Aquinas and the rest of the Scholastics would turn over in their graves if they knew what moderns meant by “actualising one’s potential”.

  4. Good post. A couple thoughts:

    “So why is the modern woman different? Because she’s a conformist, …”

    Very true, but as you say to follow up, there’s more to it than that. This is barely skimming the surface of a deep-rooted problem too, but female empowerment is a huge factor in all of this; female conformism is bad under the current circumstances because, in part, universal female empowerment equals “strength in numbers,” equals change for the sake of it. I see it all around me all the time, and even the best women – the Traditionalist, Biblical-Christian types – are not immune from it IF there’s not a strong man ever-present in their lives to help them keep on the straight & narrow.

    The Manospherean ship may right itself eventually; I guess only time will tell. But you’re absolutely right: self-absorption/selfishness is not exactly a manly characteristic. Indeed, quite the opposite. Would that more men understood this.

  5. Female conformism is certainly part of the answer, but conformism has roots, and from those same roots also sprouts another part of the answer: female hypergamy. Traditionalism uses the former to keep the later in check, both by shaming its free expression and by satisfying (to some degree) its desire for a higher status male. And, with only the rarest exception, all women are like that, although the intensity of the hypergamous impulse will, of course, vary greatly from woman to woman.

  6. Excellent post.
    “How exactly can a man maximize his chances of marrying well? This is not the place for that discussion, even if an optimal answer existed, which it doesn’t.”

    I think there’s an optimal answer. Join a traditional church and marry only within that church.

    • Yep. This was exactly my advice on my old “nice guys” post some time ago. Stop chasing sluts. Until you’re the kind of man who is repulsed by sluts (on the level of romantic attraction), you will never deserve better.

      • If you think women who go to church are not sleeping around, you are more deluded than I thought.

      • imnobodyOO

        That’s why I said traditional church. The more traditional the better. I’d guess that not many SSPX girls or independent Baptist girls like the Duggar daughters are sleeping around. Nothing is guaranteed but if the point is to “maximize your chances” then…

      • @Bruce

        The radical manosphereans will deny any woman is not sleeping around. They refuse to have any faith whatsoever in the divine power of the Church, or just simple observation. I mean, I related my experience in a traditionalist Presbyterian Church where the girls were basically locked away. Apparently they were sleeping around too (where and with whom is anybody’s guess, I suppose) and I was “blue pill” for thinking they weren’t. To them, there is no way to maximize your chances, so, umm, be hopeless and pathetic and complain about it online I guess.

      • Being part of a religious community and being very devout, I assure you that there are no virgins in my community, which is very conservative in doctrine and ritual. Now I am very close to God and trying to keep chastity but, when I was more promiscuous, I slept with many of them. So please, spare me the fairy tales.

        To them, there is no way to maximize your chances, so, umm, be hopeless and pathetic and complain about it online I guess.

        Nice shaming language but, if saying the truth is being pathetic, I want to be the most pathetic person in the world. My commitment is with the truth and not with rosy lies, not matter what optimistic sound. I am not bitter, life is the way it is, but, as a Christian, my duty is to say the truth. And I don’t mind you say me hopeless and pathetic, as if this was an argument.

        “When the wise man points at the Moon, the idiot looks at the finger.”― Confucius

      • @imnobody

        I know nothing about your religious community and you know nothing about mine, so stop pretending like you’re crusading for the truth. What you are actually doing is slandering the entire female sex in the Christian Church because of your limited experience. To suggest that there are not at least some women wandering around the Church who have maintained their chastity is to essentially claim that the Word of God has went out and returned void.

  7. I disagree with your premise that game is an alternative to traditionalism. I think game (in its worse form) is the opportunistic exploitation of women who have swallowed the progressive pill of equality (or feminism, if you like). Game manipulates women (in to sex) by affirming and then denying these progressive lies (game even has a strategy for this called push/pull).

    Game is not competing with traditionalism, its as much a parasite as feminism is, in fact its a parasite of feminism (its a cynical response, by men, to feminism). To put it crudely, game is another layer of cancer of liberal progressivism (not a competitor to tradition/morality).

    • The only possible good I can see of game is that it gets the non-religious to begin questioning the current system. Many begin there, but not all end there. Through the manosphere, I was introduced to many blogs and thinkers who were traditionalists, and I never would have found them otherwise.

      On a side note, you might be surprised how many people end up in traditional Catholicism or Orthodoxy because of ideas and thoughts introduced by game. Whether or not this is good or bad depends on how you feel about means and ends.

      Please note that I am in no way invalidating what you said about game being a parasite that exploits women. Their “poolside fatalism” is repulsive.

  8. Yes, women are generally conformist, being the XO to men’s Captains. The challenge for men is to be a more commanding presence in their women’s lives than the culture at large, so that they fall into and stay in your orbit.

    Some women, of course, will never want to be in your orbit. Those are the women the manosphere despairs of, and they are the ones whom traditionalists would counsel you avoid, anyway.

  9. Bit of a strawman argument going on here. The manosphere is a pretty big pond and you seem to be highlighting the worst elements of it (MGTOW)

    The issue at stake here is a comprehension of the nature of female sexuality, something traditionalists have been woefully wrong on in the past, hence the rise of Game. Many men aren’t interested in hedonism, want to get married and have a happy life (including one which is sexually fulfilling) and they’re not interested in playing the field. Many men have tried the traditional stuff and it has failed.

    The the main reason why the modern woman is different is because she has choices. Previously, a woman’s options were quite limited, and society practiced hypergamic affirmative action so that beta males could get a slice of the pie. With economic empowerment and freedom from shaming censure, many women would rather live alone than marry some dweeb, an option which was denied to their mothers; and they’re all competing for the alpha males.

    and that the traditional idealistic view of women reflects truth.

    Dude, normally I would point at the sheer numbers of women who “perform” online but then there is the far more disturbing phenomenon of nude/ semi-naked selfies which the majority of women have at one point posted to their boyfriend. A reticent and modest girl is the exception and not the norm. Remember, we’re talking about generalisations. If you guys were on the money, Roissy’s blog would be unread.

    • Bit of a strawman argument going on here.

      I’m just reporting what they say. That’s the majority report in the Manosphere. And I think it has to be so. That’s their unique brand, their sine qua non. Without it, they’re just another bunch of standard-brand conservatives.

      the nature of female sexuality, something traditionalists have been woefully wrong on in the past…

      In the past, there were rules and ideals to keep man and woman in check. Regardless of their natures, both men and women had to honor the ideal, at least most of the time. Traditionalists were not wrong to notice the trend, and to affirm the ideal.

      As for all the public perversion going on, that may be a case of the iceberg effect. The women of better character are out of sight most of the time.

      • Alan, does your wife complain about your research into the manosphere? Mine has. She doesn’t like it. Upon reflection, it is a bit like reading Playboy “for the articles.” She wants to know the profit. I told her it is nice to know in advance when the mass of poor single men are going to rise up and kill all us happily married couples with houses and jobs just for grins. I told her it is nice to know what the culture is like so that we can warn our children. I told her I am a philosopher and enjoy looking at what people think.

        What would/do you tell your wife?

      • My wife is actually indifferent to my blogging activities, as long as they don’t interfere with me doing my duty to our family. She’s relentlessly practical.

      • As for all the public perversion going on, that may be a case of the iceberg effect. The women of better character are out of sight most of the time.

        Really? When the number of median sexual partners for women in a lifetime is 3.1 and for men is 6.1 (and we know that women under-report their number of sexual partners).

        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm

        Are these the women of better character that are the majority of our society and go unnoticed? Or it is the tip of the iceberg the 90% of the mass of the iceberg? Or is this number of sexual partners acceptable for you and the bible says “Thou shalt sleep around but not so much”.

      • I’m just pointing out that you cannot know with certainty that the world is as bad as you fear it is. And besides, what really matters is the part of the world you chose to inhabit.

      • Well, nice reframe. The iceberg metaphor (which you used) is always used as a way of transmitting that the hidden part is much bigger than the visible one. This is demonstrably false, as the stats I linked before prove. So you change the topic and says that this is what you were pointing out. Sorry, you were not.

        I’m just pointing out that you cannot know with certainty that the world is as bad as you fear it is.

        I don’t know who is “you” but if you refer to me you don’t know what I fear or I don’t fear. If it’s other people, you don’t know it either. In addition, the sentence is so vague that it doesn’t have any meaning.

        For me, an N = 1 is too bad, as the Bible says. How many women (and men) do stay virgins until marriage in our times? What is your standard? The Bible or you have any other secular standard about N=3 being not so bad.

        And besides, what really matters is the part of the world you chose to inhabit.

        No. This is the problem with traditional conservatives for the last five or six decades. The liberals are advancing more and more, creating a hell of degeneracy and conservatives retreat into private life, saying “Of course the world is a mess, but my wife and my family are OK. Of course, there are a lot of “bad women” but you only have to find one that is “good”!. And each year, the number of bad women increases and the number of good women decreases but conservatives are too comfortable with excuses and too afraid to criticize women to make a stand, even if the stand is only saying the truth. And each year, the conservatives say the same “You only need one!”. Meanwhile our society goes to hell and the Overton window moves more and more to the left while conservatives say “what really matters is the part of the world you chose to inhabit”.

        What really matters is not my life, nor yours, not what I chose to inhabit, not what you chose to inhabit, because we are only two unimportant human beings. What really matters is the state of society. When you speak of parts of the world, I have lived in Central America for the last 15 years. When I arrived here, this was a very traditional society and now we are as degenerate as USA. Liberals have exported the degeneracy, while conservatives are comfortable with some platitudes: “what really matters is the part of the world you chose to inhabit”, even if this part is getting smaller and smaller.

      • Yes society is rotten. And individuals can’t change it. So you have to choose between cursing the darkness or seeking candles. Don’t call me naive for focusing on the candles; it’s the only for a man to stay sane.

      • Yes society is rotten. And individuals can’t change it.

        Wrong again. This is defeatism. Even the most powerful organization is composed of individuals. Every historical movement has started with a handful of individuals. Conservatives are not the dominant force of USA anymore, but there are still millions. There are a lot of things to do, but if we want to be lazy and comfortable, we can invent any excuse.

        Right now, only a handful of individuals is defying the Left in the Hugo science-fiction awards. And they are winning so far. Don’t get me wrong, the fight is long and will last all our lifetime. But these guys are willing to fight and they are winning (lookup for the Vox Day blog for more details).

        So you have to choose between cursing the darkness or seeking candles.

        False dicotomy. All this emotional feminine language. “Cursing”, “Darkness”, “Candles”. What about saying the truth and fighting for it? I guess Jesus was not candle-y enough with all these statements denouncing his society.

        Don’t call me naive for focusing on the candles; it’s the only for a man to stay sane.

        You are not naive. You are full of excuses. The only way for a man to stay sane is stop deluding himself, saying the truth and start to fight. I don’t know if you are a Christian, but if you are, this is your duty, instead of living a lazy life trying to deny the truth.

      • So you have to choose between cursing the darkness or seeking candles.

        I was referring to your general attitude here, which is that we’re not acknowledging the horror of the modern condition. You come across as cursing modernity and refusing to acknowledge any good. Maybe that’s not your real orientation, but it’s how you come across here.

        Wrong again. This is defeatism.

        Not if it means that one person cannot reform society. And even if reformation is possible, it won’t happen any time soon, Society is too big.

      • Women had no choice in whether or not to honor the ideal because they were regarded as the property of their fathers first and then their husbands. At least they were until the Puritan and Victorian eras; neither of those era’s moralities can be considered Traditional. Women have been the same since they were made and Traditional civilizations largely regarded them as inferior to men because of the general duplicity of their natures.

  10. Christ is risen! An happy Easter Week to you all.

    I think we fail to do justice to tradition (and Tradition) as traditionalists, if we fail to realize that traditionally, great moral thinkers and even inspired texts have repeatedly warned about women in precisely “manospherean” tones – largely along the lines that a man should protect himself, be wary, be guarded, etc.

    Think of the popular song from Verdi’s Opera, “La Donna e Mobile.” “Woman is fickle, like a feather on the wind; she changes her expression and thoughts. Always a friendly, graceful face, but in tears or laughter, it’s always mendacious. He is ever miserable who entrusts himself to her; whoever confides in her is badly guarding his heart. Yet whoever drinks not love from her breast, fails to feel full happiness.” Such observations about women are universal and ancient: that women in particular are deceivers, are far more easily borne about by their feelings, their hurts, their pettiness. A man is normally ashamed of himself for feeling pettiness in the first place, rightly finding it effeminate, and he makes every effort not to show it or to let it run his life. But a woman can be almost eager to sacrifice herself to her thirst for petty martyrdoms. The Church Fathers and even the Scriptures give ample reason to believe that, generally, women will tend to cause trouble and that the chief good of everyone involved – men and women alike – depends upon their being well-provided for and well-submitted to a man.

    You hit on the reason for this, in pointing out that they tend to be conformists. Why are they conformists? Because feelings and self-regard tend to play the larger part for the average women, far outweighing reason and virtue for their own sake. Many, many years’ experience with women has taught me – and most men through history – that a good woman with a lot of self-discipline and humility may with great difficulty be made to consider something from a rational point of view, and choose the reasonable and right thing despite her feelings; this can only happen IF she feels emotionally safe and secure in her family and her husband’s authority and competence. But in general, asking a woman to be truly just and rational, contrary to her feelings or intuitions, and especially as an habitual state of mind, is simply a losing battle. The Church Fathers, the Liturgy, the Saints and Doctors have all simply assumed the truth of this: the traditional Liturgy’s texts for the feasts of women saints speaks constantly of how they overcame the weakness of their sex to the point where they rivaled men in their feats. St. Theresa of Avila and other nuns have spoken of the need for women religious to become “manly” and to cease being flighty, emotionally volatile chicks if they want to have a successful and peaceful community life. Ambrose and Jerome say that women are raised to the dignity of men when they make their monastic profession. The fact that the very word for virtue, used also by the Church, the Saints, Fathers and Doctors, means “manliness,” was worth something to theologians for so many centuries.

    When a woman is not submitted, I think it is clear that they are generally more vicious and depraved than men. A man may have some fight in him, but it’s generally not much more than the willingness to brawl about something, and usually they find constructive outlets in athleticism. A man may have more of a physical sex drive, but he’s looking for physical release and not much more. A woman on the warpath is something far more vindictive and emotionally unhinged; a woman’s promiscuity is rooted more in the emotional than the physical, meaning it taps into an whole other dimension of crazy. None of these observations, fomenting a general mistrust of women – and especially of women who were not submitted quite markedly to a male authority in their lives – are modern or manospherean. They are as old as recorded history, and they are not absent even in the sacred Tradition of the Church – though the Church has proclaimed that IN CHRIST, women have been raised to a loftier state. St. John Chrysostom comes to mind (though there are many other Patristic quotes like his), when he says that in Christ human nature was lifted so high, that even the women who have been baptized into Christ are seen to do things that formerly only a man could/would have done. As Christians we can have higher hopes for our women, because of the assistance of divine grace. And indeed, Christian society came to expect more of women precisely for this reason (though this did not prevent the Scriptures, Saints and Fathers from expressing their warnings nevertheless – sometime read the Ancient and Medieval texts of the Wedding Rite in the various usages of the Latin Rite; the liturgical texts seem to harp and harp and harp on the women, demanding that they be chaste contrary to all their natural inclinations!).

    But, the idea that secular or pagan women are going to be virtuous in any large number? No. At best, they will conform to male authority if it is strong and competent and makes them feel safe. Even then, the conformity will be largely external; women are comfortable with manipulation and secrecy, but will “keep up appearances.” Rare indeed is the woman, especially secular or pagan, who is truly virtuous (i.e., with the right motive), rather than merely pragmatic about her reputation. Valerius Maximus had a popular quote, revealing the masculine appraisal of women, generally, going all the way back to the account of Genesis: “Audax est ad omnia quaecumque amat vel odit femina; et artificiosa est nocere cum vult” (Woman is bold to act for everything she either hates or loves; and she has the craft to do injury as she pleases”). Cicero said “Crede ratem ventis, animam ne crede puellis, namque est feminea tutior unda fide” (“Sooner trust your raft to the winds than your soul to girls; for the waves are safer than feminine loyalty”). St. John Chrysostom, in dialogue with St. Basil the Great, indicated the general and accepted wisdom amongst the Fathers: “For many are the circumstances in society which have the power to upset the balance of the mind, and to hinder its straightforward course; and first of all is his social intercourse with women. For it is not possible for the Bishop, and one who is concerned with the whole flock, to have a care for the male portion of it, but to pass over the female, which needs more particular forethought, because of their greater propensity for sins.” St. Clement of Alexandria quoted the Scriptures and taught that “‘An intoxicated woman is great wrath,’ it is said, as if a drunken woman were the wrath of God. Why? ‘Because she will not conceal her shame.’ (Sirach 26:8) For a woman is quickly drawn down to licentiousness, if she only set her choice on pleasures” (St. Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogue II). The Fathers, Liturgy and Pagan philosophers all opined, quite contrary to Victorian sensibilities (sensibilities which immediately predated women’s suffrage and the modern collapse of society), that women were actually the more lascivious sex and were less inclined to resist their feelings and urges. I think the main thing that has saved women from adultery are mere feelings – fear of shame, fear of punishment, passion for her husband – whereas for man the main things that save him are the moral sense of duty, integrity and fidelity. I think if you depended on these things to keep women chaste, you would often be disappointed, because I have not met many women – even good women – for whom these were major, motivating factors. As traditionalists, I do not think we should shy away from the traditional wisdom of every culture, including Christian culture, that women are more motivated by emotions and less by reason and duty and, therefore, they are usually the more lascivious and passionate sex. We who live in the Kali Yuga (if I can speak that way!) see less evidence of this in our own experience, since everyone is so degraded nowadays. But I remember my great-grandfather, and if men were anything like him in his day, then self-mastery and self-control were almost the defining qualities of manhood; my great-grandmother, a saint and a paragon of self-control compared to modern women (and most men), was still obviously his inferior in these traits.

    And just to show that some things never change, St. Clement of Alexandria had this to say: “Women fond of display act in the same manner with regard to shoes, showing also in this matter great luxuriousness.” Good for a laugh, sure, but the point: women have always been women, and the Tradition is more “manospherean” than you may think. Good men have always acknowledged the virtuous women in their lives, of which (in Christian society) there are usually more than a few, but let’s not be hasty-much in casting the received, masculine wisdom aside.

    • One way to see this is that in contemporary times we are not allowed to notice, let alone criticize or oppose, the unique weaknesses and sins of any people group except sexually normal white Christian males. In such an atmosphere, a stiff dose of reality can unhinge a person, perhaps by making him obsess over the newly-discovered negativities. That is the primary sin of the Manosphere.

      So, on the one hand, the Manosphere does us a service by rediscovering truths and broadcasting them. But it does us a disservice by becoming mostly a newly-minted fever swamp.

  11. IMHO, the problem is that the traditionalist view of women is very modern. In this topic and other topics, traditionalists think they are preserving the wisdom of the ages while they are preserving the progressive ideas of about a century ago.

    It is true that women are conformists. But this is only part of the truth. Women are evil (as men are) and this is the thing that pains to admit to our traditionalist friends.

    Have you read the Bible? Have you read the Fathers of the Church? Have you read the Roman authors? Have you read the thinkers until one hundred years ago? Their view of women is closer to the manosphere than to so-called “traditionalism”. If I have time, I can include some quotes later (now I am leaving my office).

    Traditionalism adheres to Victorian ideas and neo-Victorian ideas about women that are so prevalent in our society (This is why feminism has been especially virulent in English-speaking countries because Victorianism was very widespread in those countries and modern traditionalism and feminism grow from this base).

    • My wife has been studying Henry the 8th. His life and kingdom was rocked by his concepts of chivalry and the fashions of Courtly Love. Courtly Love came after the earlier concept of chivalry. Her initial studies of pre-chivalric literature has yielded some interesting anecdotes- one example was a popular book where a woman walked miles with no shoes, starving and injured, to serve some loved one in distress. This theme of servitude appeared in popular culture before chivalry changed the way women were expected to behave or be treated. I should urge her to keep following this line and come up with more examples.

      • Yes, Earl. In fact, the courtly love appears in the XII century, with the troubadours. It is also the century where Christianity gets feminized. After this, Western Christianity became fundamentally feminine. But Orthodox churches retained their attraction for men.

    • Traditionalism adheres to Victorian ideas and neo-Victorian ideas about women that are so prevalent in our society..

      Only that kind of traditionalism. Other kinds do not.

      Yes I’ve read the Bible, and some of the other writings you reference. But I wasn’t trying to solve the Woman Problem. I was just trying to resolve an antithesis. It is a fact that in some eras womankind pays homage to chastity and fidelity, and in others it does not. I was supplying an explanation,

      • The explanation is easy. Man and woman are sinners and part of this sin is the natural trend to sleep around, which is part of human nature, as a means of propagating the species. If you leave people free, this is what happens in a natural way. So you have to prevent this behavior with incentives/disincentives.

        Traditional societies had a lot of incentives/disincentives to prevent promiscuity and impose chastity/fidelity. You explained only one of them: the ideals of chastity/fidelity (which included religious faith). Not the most important. But there were a lot more:

        – The fact that there were no contraceptives and any sex could result in a new kid (in my opinion, this was the most important disincentive because it kept you from cheating the rules).
        – The fact that people were forced to marry if an unexpected pregnancy happened (“shotgun marriages”).
        – The fact that women didn’t work so they needed marriage for economic subsistence.
        – The fact that men were only forced to support children in the context of a marriage. Bastards were not given child support. There was no the possibility of a woman divorcing a man and receiving cash and prizes.
        – The fact that “loose” women didn’t get married (When my father was young in my country, a woman who has had ONE boyfriend was deemed not marriageable -she has been “touched”. This was the time when boyfriends and girlfriends didn’t have sex).
        – The fact that “loose” women were despised and stigmatized by society (and especially by other women).

        With such a set of incentives, it is natural that women fought to be considered “good women” and not “sl_ts”. And they fought to be identified with the ideals of chastity/fidelity.

        All these incentives were removed by the sexual revolution, the welfare state and women’s entrance to the workplace.

      • Once these material incentives disappeared, the ideal disappeared. The ideal was the less important thing, although, as a Christian, I am aware of the power of religion. But if you want to interpret it this way, I can agree.

      • But isn’t the ideal the reason for the incentives? And so the incentives disappeared because the ideal (generally speaking) disappeared? (Ideals never completely disappear.)

      • And so the incentives disappeared because the ideal (generally speaking) disappeared? (Ideals never completely disappear.)

        No, it was the other way around. The incentives disappeared because of contraceptives. The ideal disappeared because of incentives. The causal relationship is the inverse.

        The ideal of chastity was valid for many centuries. But being human nature as it is, there were always some individuals that had sex outside of the marriage and violated the rules. What happened to these individuals?

        – First measure. Women got pregnant and men were forced to get married (“shotgun marriages”). So the violation was contained.

        – Second measure. If the man flees, the women became a social pariah and lived in extreme poverty and complete social ostracism becoming a cautionary tale for the other women.

        So every violation of the rules was contained because this violation produced terrible consequences or consequences that reinforced marriage. When contraceptives appeared, people were able to have casual sex without consequences. So the old system was unenforceable because you can’t put a policeman in every bedroom (while, before, Mother Nature was the policeman in every bedroom and her punishment was pregnancy). People started violating the rules until becoming mainstream.

        When people were able to have casual sex without consequences, Christianity was inconvenient for them because it made them feel guilty for having casual sex. So a lot of other ideologies appeared. The fact that the lost of Christianity is because of the sexual revolution (and not the other way around is found in this book).

        http://www.amazon.com/How-West-Really-Lost-Secularization/dp/1599474662

    • You are absolutely correct about the obsession with Victorian England and the roots of contemporary feminism. I would call it a fetish actually, which in the dim-witted sometimes extends to the 1950s as well. I think most traditionalist writers fail to grasp the parallels between our age and the Victorians. For an interesting discussion of this, see below.
      http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-girls-with-tattoos-in-our-neo.html

      I cannot agree, however, that the development of courtly love was a bad thing. Romantic love as practiced in the West has been one of our greatest achievements, intertwined with our music (which has no rival), and made possible by our humane religion. The notion that the Church was “feminized” strikes me as overly reductionist. The present dispensation will eventually do away with romantic love unless the trend changes. Thankfully no market trades in one direction forever.

  12. I have identified the Manosphere as a waygate, a stopping station out of Modernity and towards Tradition. Yes, it is in large sectors a cesspool of manipulating Modernity’s idiot women for hedonistic pleasure, but as others have pointed out, if you can get someone to question Feminism, then they are only small nudges away from questioning democracy, Enlightenment, and indeed atheism.

    We need to crack the Modern dogma. The Manosphere is an organic response on the side of masculinity in response to a culture that is trying to purge the world of masculinity. Men who get stuck in it are useless, but those that we can pull into the extreme right from there are much needed recruits.

    Essentially, the dynamic is as follows.

    Men cannot be successful as Traditionalists in the Modern World.

    The Manosphere offers one short term fix: Be a clever hedonist and you can play Feminists like a fiddle because Modernity has made them into computers you can crack with the right code.

    The Reactosphere offers the long term solution: Destroy the Modern World

    Men can only find the true realization of their virility as Traditional men. Hedonistic pursuits are temporary and fleeting with diminishing returns as one ages. It is not enough to find ways around the system, to exploit the system, to short-circuit it… because you are STILL in the system.

    You need to struggle and fight to destroy the system. You must, in Julius Evola’s words ‘Revolt Against the Modern World’!

    • One thing to recognize too, though, is that God always preserves a remnant. Not all have bowed the knee to Baal. There are faithful men, women and Churches. They’re there, scattered in the wastes of the Postmodern dungheap that is our wretched civilization. The manosphere, being essentially nihilist, does not recognize this.

      • Very true. however we have to be sensitive to how damaged many men come to the Manosphere. They have typically had NO Traditional nurturing from parents, church, and certainly not school. Some, in the ‘Men’s Rights’ section of the Manosphere have had their children or livelihoods taken away in joke Feminist Sharia courts. We have to aim to get these people into such communities as you describe, in contact with Traditionalists and moving towards marriage with actual women, rather than the one-night-stands the Manosphere proscribes for their ills.

      • Mark Citadel,

        How can a divorced man (one who’s had his children and livelihood taken away) move towards marriage with a good girl. How can such a man (divorced) marry a good girl and would a good girl want to marry such a man and would her father approve of and allow such a marriage?

    • “I have identified the Manosphere as a waygate, a stopping station out of Modernity and towards Tradition”

      For me it was. The first and most important step is when the Manosphere taught me that the information that all the society had been giving me about the relationship between the sexes was false.

      Once you question part of the official ideology, questioning other parts is not that difficult.

      • So, to paraphrase Galatians 3:24, “The Manosphere was your schoolmaster to bring you unto Tradition.”

      • Yes, it is weird, because the Manosphere is sometimes very untraditional (but part of it tends to tradition). But you can’t hide the truth forever and tradition is the truth, so you can’t arrive to it in unexpected ways.

      • No Alan, the manosphere liberated him from Tradition.

        Lemme Esplain.

        Traditionalism tried to shape female natures through strictures on the woman.Tradition only “worked” whist the strictures were on. Once the strictures were taken off, the traditional approaches to courtship failed. What the Manosphere emphasised is an understanding of unencumbered female nature, especially the components of sexual polarity. What the manosphere did not emphasise is the morality of sexual relations instead it emphasised the empirically observed physical characteristics of it. Hypergamy, swagger, masculine leadership, appearance, etc…..things which are irrelevant to the moral evaluation of sexual relationships.

        Traditionalism denies legitimacy to the carnal aspect of sexual relations and as a result promotes a Platonic dualism separating “spirit” from the “flesh”. Bertonneau’s Eros sees the beautiful person within the morbidly obese woman, Roissy’s Eros doesn’t. And it’s London to a brick that St Thomas agrees with Roissy. The Word was made Flesh and a duality was not present. What we do with our bodies affects our souls as well.

        Roissy leads men back to “low brow” Caveman traditionalism not the stuff of the Chivalric tradition. The problem for Christian men is how to sexually appeal to your wife within marriage A dweeby man with halitosis who gets pushed around a lot is not really gonna turn his wife on, no matter how many meditation on the Psalms he performs.

        BTW, you’re a bit fuzzy on your Traditionalism. Are you a cafeteria traditionalist? Picking the bits that you like and rejecting the rest? Quote:

        Although we’re definitely traditionalists here at the Orthosphere, we’re not just any kind of traditionalists. Our traditionalism is acknowledging the Order of Being rather than sticking to old-fashioned ways no matter what.

        What are you prepared to ditch?

      • What are you prepared to ditch?

        As I thought the context made clear, I was referring to the “placing of women on pedestals.”

  13. Alan:

    Interesting post. But, I think slumlord has identified your blunder. Tradition hasn’t defined, or even identified, female nature. And I’ve not seen any sites in the manosphere in which it is asserted that there has been a fundamental shift in female nature (or male nature for that matter) at any time. The manosphere doesn’t define female nature either. As slumlord said, all the manosphere has done is observe and describe female nature in its present, unencumbered state.

    Human nature has remained constant, Alan. As slumlord said, what HAS changed are the confines and strictures placed on male and female nature in various societal forms. It’s always been the case that men want sexual variety with as many women as possible. It’s always been the case that women want sex with the best man, and if a man she’s having sex with isn’t the “best man” at that time, she will seek out a “better man”. Traditionalism in various forms put fetters on those tendencies.

    So you’ve proceeded from a faulty premise in your assertion that women are “traditional” by nature. They are not. This:

    “In traditional societies of old (that is, through most of human history), most women were believed to endorse the ideals of pre-marital chastity and post-marital fidelity.”

    and this:

    “before contemporary times most women did seem to endorse traditional marital ideals”

    are not descriptions of female nature. Rather, they are descriptions of how women responded to and lived under the restrictions proper society enforced upon them.

  14. Generalizations can be true and still permit many exceptions. Some here would acknowledge that blacks, on average, are significantly less intelligent, have lower conscientiousness, less self-restraint, less ability to defer immediate gratification, etc. It’s arguable that this is true and has a significant effect on society and how society should be ordered. That said, we acknowledge plenty of exceptions and don’t recognize these exceptions as frauds.

    I think this is a relevant parallel to this discussion of women where generalizations are being made, some of which seem very broad.

    The example of Mary aside, Elizabeth was a righteous woman, walking blameless in the ordnances of the Lord.

  15. I think slumlord has it correct here.

    Alan, you’re not describing female nature. You’re accurately describing women’s responses to traditional societal restrictions placed on women’s natures, in particular their sexual natures. Women have forever wanted to have sex with the “best” one man they can get. That hasn’t changed. Men have forever wanted sex with as many women as they can get–sexual variety. That hasn’t changed either. What HAS changed is the nature and character of the restrictions societies put on those sexual natures for whatever reasons.

    I’ve never seen anywhere or any sites in the manosphere which assert there has been a fundamental shift in female nature. Rather, as slumlord said, the manosphere merely observes and describes unencumbered female nature as it currently exists in the West.

    • Perhaps my post didn’t make it clear, but I did say that female nature has not changed. The problem I was seeking to resolve is that the Manosphere and Tradition describe the female differently. Of course “Tradition” is considerably larger and less sharply defined than the Manosphere, but most traditions do not speak of the woman as the Manosphere does. Most traditions speak of both man and woman as sinners needing to be restrained by law, custom, and religion. And recent Tradition within the West has a more chivalrous view of the woman.

      In contrast, the Manosphere has an unbalanced view. It sees the woman as the main problem. While the woman is a problem, it is a mistake to focus on her.

      • It really boils down to sin nature. For a short while in the West, “Chivalry” tended to think of women as somehow less prone to sexual sin than men (I don’t think this period was that long). In the end, though, it must be recognized that women are sinners as much as men are and without social constraint they will sin, and without social constraint on the “alpha” males that have the most success with women, they will essentially hog all the women, especially in the feminist environment where women don’t start settling down until their late 20s, but are sexually “liberated.” However, it should also be noted that the “Beta” males aren’t innocent victims in all this, either. They tend to be more prone to creepy versions of lust (what the manosphereans call putting women on a pedestal) than alphas are, and this only perpetuates their issues with the opposite sex.

        The main problem with the manosphere is boiling this sin nature down to evolutionary psychology. Which, while complaining about it, essentially makes it an immutable charateristic, when incredibly strong spirituality/faith can overcome these inborn tendencies towards evil.

      • This issue here is not whether men or women “sin”, the question at stake is “what is the nature of female sexuality”? The Chivalric tradition did not just claim that females were less prone to sexual sin, it also claimed that women were more “romantic” rather than carnally passionate. Tradition misunderstood the nature of female sexuality.

        The manosphere is a rather broad church, but most of MGTOW crowd are regarded as fringe group elements and there is a stench of “loser-dom” about them. The reason why most of the players have a low opinion of women is because of their experience of them. Sure, there may be some selection bias but you can’t ignore their testimony just because you don’t like what they say.

        Perhaps the most profound statement to ever come out of the manosphere is,

        Success with women is more disillusioning than failure.

        That post from Auster’s blog also contained this little gem,

        It’s astonishing for me to phrase it this way now, but the teachers of Game reintroduced me to the concept of truth.

        Romantic ideals of women may be congenial to many of us, but heresy is not always shocking, sometimes it’s very congenial and it is the truth that offends. Our role as Christians is to live in the truth.

      • The Chivalric tradition did not just claim that females were less prone to sexual sin, it also claimed that women were more “romantic” rather than carnally passionate. Tradition misunderstood the nature of female sexuality.

        I think women like to think of themselves as more romantic, but that might be a product of the tradition. In any case, I have already conceded that this tradition has some errors. Furthermore, I’m pretty sure the Church was averse to the Courtly Love elements within the Chivalric Tradition. After all, it certainly advocated adultery and other sordid things. The Hundred Years’ War was also ignited because a couple of promiscuous French Princesses brought doubt to the legitimacy of the French Monarchy because they took Courtly Love a bit too far with a couple knights.

        Sure, there may be some selection bias but you can’t ignore their testimony just because you don’t like what they say.

        We have acknowledged their testimony. The problem is that you seem to want to have us accept their testimony without considering ours.

        Here’s my testimony: We recently sent my player/cad (he follows a lot of the PUAs on twitter and is a natural alpha anyway) brother to mainstream right Evangelical Liberty University in an attempt to straighten him out. He has been very upset that most of the women don’t respond to his “game” (thank God, I was worried they would and my view of women would have to become very cynical). The ones that he can get to respond usually don’t like being there. You wouldn’t run into these girls if you were the average PUA ever. For one thing, they go to school in what is, for all intents and purposes, the middle of nowhere. Then, when they do go back home, if they aren’t already married, they go back to live with their parents. There are lots of devout Christian girls in their early 20s living with their parents for the precise reason it protects them from sin.

        Now, this isn’t to say the romantic chivalry tradition has these girls right, either: They aren’t swooning for Christian guys who know too much Jesus-approved love poetry and fall over themselves for the opportunity to “White Knight” for them. They’ll usually go along with the guy with “game” right up to the point it becomes obvious he’s just trying to bed them. This makes sense of my experience there, where the girls would fall for some alpha male jock-type only to cut ties with them a couple weeks later and express their total disillusionment with the opposite sex.

        Notably, though, the ones that wind up doing “missions” (or what our modern Church pathetically calls “missions,” anyway) or end up in a religious major of some variety are the most whorish of the bunch. They usually repent if/when they’re caught, though, and are put in some kind of isolation for a while. I wouldn’t want them in any case because the vast majority of the girls in the religious majors are complete heretics.

        All in all, I think Christian guys could use a good dose of sexual realism and “game” instead of the relationship claptrap they peddle that is designed for those already in a relationship. However, the last thing they need is cynicism. We need more Christian babies running around: Lots of them, hopefully in groups of 10 or more.

  16. Pingback: Reconciling Different Views of Women | Donal Graeme

  17. “… I just don’t buy into the complete cynicism of it.”

    Neither do I, Nathan. You & I are pretty well in agreement here, and, truth be told, my experience with the manosphere is very limited indeed. As you pointed out in your initial comment to the entry, the negativism there is very off-putting, which is a big reason why I’m not particularly inclined to fly in those circles.

    Not to single anyone out or anything (not my intention to offend or alienate), but I note that below imnobody says he’s not bitter, while his overall tenor in these threads tells something of a different story. ‘Course, I probably come across as being bitter at times too, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt as far as possible. You’re right though: he’s slandering the entire female sex based on his limited experience, and that’s no good! Last time I was involved in a similar discussion with a young man coming at it from the same basic perspective – “all women are scum-sucking whores!,” more or less – it almost came to blows before I was able to get him straightened out at least enough to restrain himself on the point while in my presence.

    • i figured we agreed more than we disagreed.

      I can understand being bitter. Sometimes, I can get bitter about the whole thing too. However, sometimes we must remind ourselves that we contribute as much to our problems as those around us do. I went to a school with literally thousands of young and virtuous Christian girls around me, who often went to that school specifically to avoid temptations to sin. Through my own ignorance and failures, I wasn’t able to walk away with one of them. I got bitter about it sometimes, thinking, “I’m a virtuous Christian guy who just wants to have a family, etc. Why can’t I succeed with the girls here who purportedly want the same thing?” Well, the problem was I wasn’t much a catch either. Ham-fistedly running around asking girls out without even trying to play their game doesn’t work, whether the girl is a devout Christian or some kind of sex-positive feminist or all points in between.

  18. Manosphere claims to describe bare, unencumbered human nature. In reality, what it describes is one decay mode of a tradition (i,.e American or Western more generally).
    There is no saying what might be decay modes of other traditions such as Hindu, Confusican, Muslim etc etc.

    Larger point is that there is NO unencumbered, bare human nature. Human nature is cultural all the way in. To believe, in bare natures is to engage in socio-bilogical terms that so-called traditionalists should eschew first, before attempting to describe loss of tradition in others.

    • I don’t think you even realise how deep in the rabbit hole you are.

      Larger point is that there is NO unencumbered, bare human nature. Human nature is cultural all the way in.

      That is PRECISELY the argument used by the Leftists to justify “gender reassignment”. I’ll explain it to you since you really don’t get it. Their argument is that sex/race is a social construct which is precisely the same as yours. With enough cultural modification we can be anything we want to be, eh?

      Furthermore, you’re advocating blank-slatism which is one of the foundational principles of the Left.

      You can’t be that dumb, I reckon you’re trolling.

      ….But then again I could be wrong.

    • To say there is no such thing as human nature is to say that there is no such thing as natural ends for humans, thus no objective right and wrong.

      • There is a human nature but that is not exhausted by socio-biological description (that claim is controversial even within bthe evolutionary biology community) and in particular, there is nothing of bare, unencumbered biological nature of man and woman.
        Philosophically, man is defined as rational animal.The socio-biology ignores “rational” part thus I am entirely jusiftied in rejecting the exclusive claims of soci-biology to define human nature.

    • Most moral commands in scripture are given by men to men. Yet women are supposed to apply them where applicable, because they often speak to both men and women at the same time. Can you say for sure that the passage in Matthew applies primarily to men? Men may look at a woman and lust for her body, while women look at a man and lust for his body and/or his lifestyle.

      • I’m sure it applies to women as well. I think with men it’s more the physical side of lust. I suspect it’s more complicated with women.
        I think it’s an incredibly common problem with modern men. Easy access to pornography and female immodesty doesn’t help, of course.

  19. @imnobody – I wonder if you are the same one who used to comment so valuably on my blog. If so, your remarks here are extremely worrying to me. I am concerned that you have gone a long way off track and into a seriously negative mindset. No need to answer – and if you do I probably will not be reading it – just an expression of my shock.

  20. Also, someone above mentioned all the Christian women that sleep around. My response to that point would be that most churches, protestant and (neo) catholic teach de facto (that is, not explicitly, doctrinally defined) anti-nominianism particularly with regard to behaviors that don’t cause obvious, immediate physical harm to someone (that is, they have an almost libertarian outlook on morals that I’m sure someone will tell me comes from the enlightenment.

    • Bruce, yep: ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ & all that. I’ve dealt with it at least … well, a bunch; without fail so far, not a single time has the individual citing the passage (always self-professed “blood-bought Christians”) known the context in which Christ made the statement, nor what he admonished the harlot to do once her accusers had gone.

      When it was advised above to join a traditional church and marry only within the church, my first reaction was “and where is a young man to find a traditional church to join?” ha, ha.

      • Mr. Morris,
        Where to find a traditional church? In my opinion, you look for obvious, visible signs that differentiate a church from the liberal world around it.

        The most obvious, visible sign of traditionalism I believe is female modesty and fecundity. Look for churches where the women dress modestly and there are lots of big families. I know this can be found with independent fundamentalist Baptists and I assume it can be found with Latin Mass traditional Catholics, (FSSP, SSPX, sedevacantists). This also can be found with Mormons.

        Such a church will also usually be attended by well-dressed men not slobs.

  21. >But the bottom line is, if God is not god, then I am god.

    I hope you understand this is not necessarily so. Although this is indeed a fairly common failure mode of Western civ these days.

    It is so tragic that people want to be liberated from the commands of a god just to be enslaved again by their own desires and ego, and not even seeing it as another kind of slavery, but confusing it with freedom.

    Why the heck cannot people be more like say Stoics were today? To focus on that inner freedom that is free from both external commands and internal desires?

  22. This is going to be a long comment.

    Through Free Northerner’s “Lightning Rounds” and Dalrock’s blog I’ve started encountering NRx elements and blogs like these.

    If I’m perfectly honest, I’m essentially a backslidden non-practicing Christian brought up in an Evangelical Reformed tradition with a heavy emphasis on theology. Basically, I think I know better.

    Upon discovering the manosphere though, it unleashed something within me. I was already losing my faith – or just descending into a willful apathy, and the be an “a-hole” mentality works wonders. I’m 26 now and I waited to March of last year to lose my virginity. Since then I have my “notch count” up to 7.

    I however can’t throw Christianity out the window. I have nothing to replace it with and every other worldview fails when examined presuppositionally. (I’m not content with a worldview that rejects the concept of absolute truth in regards to ethics and morality.)

    So I’m stuck in this odd limbo. I still “retain” a Christian worldview, but I live as a semi-hedonist. In fact, I currently attend an Evangelical Christian university. There should be at least some “wife” material all around, but this is where the problem widens.

    Note the Traditional ideas I see espoused here. At my core, I agree with them. I disagree with the manosphere that marriage is gynocentric (Maybe more MGTOW right there) and that LTRs should be shunned, you should become a complete a-hole narcissist, etc. There has to be more to life.

    I actually want to get married. I want kids. I want to do something that will matter in life – I’m still not sure what the hell that would even be. In fact, I want to get married to a Christian or at least a girl who is very traditional. I’m not however prime marriage material – at least financially. Worldview wise, I’m not exactly on fire for God, living for him, or even willing to follow Biblical teachings.

    A lot of it has to do with pre-marital sex. Now that I’ve started doing it, I don’t want go back. I secretly want to find some traditional girl who will put out later on into a relationship, but I already know that’s a red flag. Game works, so to speak, and while these friends with benefits feel shallow and actually somewhat painful after they end, being desired sexually, physically, etc. is something I’ve never had until a year ago. It has however left me unfulfilled.

    If the chance to get married came up, I would do it, but I’m wary considering what I know now thanks to the manosphere. Marriage is actually being put off by what appears to be every girl out there – even in Christian circles. . That noble saying of Alice from the Honeymooners to Ralph of, “Ralph, I’d live in a tent with you.” is gone to knock another blow into my hopeless romantic dreams.

    Are there actually any women out there that you mentioned who want to get on with life and have the comfortable existence?

    Even after I find a wife, what then? As that Francis Schaefer series is so aptly titled, “How then should we live?” The manosphere doesn’t offer much in the way of purpose and finding meaning in life, just how to cope with the disaster that is our current cultural plight.

    I’m very sympathetic to the faith, and I’ve even recently attended a close by Anglican church (Not a liberal one.) but I feel nothing. I know the tenets of the faith and I was raised a Calvinist. I don’t believe.

    What do I do?

    (I noticed that someone mentioned that all or most Christian women sleep around. If that’s the case, point me in their direction.)

    • Hello armenia4ever,

      You speak frankly. I appreciate that. I’ll try to return the favor.

      You are going to have to decide which direction to take. You sound as if you know that the worldly ways in which you are currently stuck lead nowhere. Actually, “nowhere” would be the best place to which they could lead. At worst, they lead to Hell.

      As a Calvinist myself, I may have some insight into your religious dilemma. You may be out-thinking yourself, as I once was.

      As one who was trained in Calvinism, you must know about the distinction between law and gospel. Law is mainly for the God-given purpose of showing us that we are sinners in need of a Savior. But once it has done its work, the law must give way to gospel: although we are sinners, Christ died for us. We don’t get ourselves saved by obeying the law, and we don’t get ourselves unsaved by disobeying.

      [Don’t get me wrong: I’m not an antinomian. There are other legitimate uses of God’s law. But the big one is to show us that we need a Savior.]

      I don’t know if you have faith in Christ. But if you do, you are saved, even if you are going through a season of sin. If you have faith in Christ, remember your Savior. That’s the only thing that can get you out of the mire of sin. You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps. All you can do is look to Christ in faith.

      If you don’t have faith in Christ, it’s not too late to get it. Stop outthinking yourself and look at the real, historical record written in the New Testament. Christ, the Apostles, and their teachings are all as real as a kick in the behind. There are a thousand reasons why the NT could not possibly have been faked. You can take it to the bank.

      Stop focusing on yourself. All you’re gonna see is a rotten sinner. And in that, you’re no different from the rest of the human race. Look instead to someone who can save you. Jesus.

      • “If you don’t have faith in Christ, it’s not too late to get it.”

        Alan, this isn’t meant to be nit-picking. Somehow, I never understand Calvinism. How do you “get” [verb] faith when you’re Calvinist?

      • Well, Calvinism follows what the Bible says: That all mankind is dead in trespasses and sins (e.g., Ephesians 2:1) until God makes some become spiritually alive (e.g., Ephesians 2:4,5) and thereby able to respond in faith when they hear the gospel message (e.g., Romans 10:17).

        Faith is a gift of God, but it is received on the occasion of hearing the Word of God, once one has been made alive (“regenerated”) by the Holy Spirit.

      • Alan, If one doesn’t respond to the gospel upon hearing it or falls away from believing, should he assume he is a reprobate? That he wasn’t chosen to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit?

      • Some people hear the gospel many times, over many years, before they come to faith. It’s not a matter of getting just one chance for salvation. As for those who fall away, many come back.

        Only God knows for sure who the reprobate are.

    • I was in more or less your position thirty years ago. Times have changed, but perhaps not so much that my experience is irrelevant. When I was your age, I was a hedonist who had fallen away from the faith, and who wasn’t exactly prize marriage material. My shortcomings were not only financial, but my financial shortcomings were substantial. Here’s how it worked for me. First I fixed the financial shortcomings. It took about six years, but after that I looked like someone who could plausibly be more than a boyfriend. Second, I found a woman who was much younger than I was. She was attractive, free of party-girl baggage, and eager to skip the ten years of poor and unshaven boyfriends that the culture had lined up for her. There may be fewer women like that now than in the past, but they do exist and they are not all fugly or frigid. You don’t see them because they presently don’t see you (see step 1). Third, once we were married, and particularly after we had had children, my religious kinks began to work themselves out. It doesn’t work that way for everyone, but it works that way for plenty of people.

      Your message suggests that you are an intelligent young man. That’s your raw material for step one. You understand game. In step two you will use that to get a wife, not a wench. And you are obviously not hostile to Christianity, just apathetic, so there’s good reason to suppose that those embers can be brought back to life. You’ve got what it takes, although the complete transformation may take quite a few years.

  23. To Alan and Bruce:

    “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Romans 10:17
    “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes . . . ” Romans 1:16

    Faith always comes the same way: the Holy Spirit acting through God’s powerful Gospel, acting upon men dead, absolutely and completely spiritually dead. But the Gospel is a two-edged sword, as per Hebrews — another topic for another time.

    Whether Calvinist, Catholic, Lutheran, or whatever: faith always and only comes through the preaching of the Gospel.

  24. Very insightful! I was wondering why there is so much talk about the red pill on manosphere like return of kings. I also always thought that they are exaggerating the obvious reality. Being acquainted with traditional view on gender roles and relatiosnhips from the start of my puberty, I always felt myself immune to illusions of “hollywood oneitis love” or “love where man has to lose his mind”. It didn’t stop me from being open in relations and, looking with scorn on modernity, I was interested in smart and beautiful girls whom you can talk freely at least about how most people are stupid and the focus of social interest is demeaningly incredibly stupid and sordid (Kim Kardashian or kanye west or how i met your mother …endless list..). Not being afraid of being rejected by any woman is the key to success, because you understand that being afraid of it is demeaning. I always laughed at modern people and their illusional expectations about love. Nourished by stupid ideals of mainstream they just fail to understand reality as it is, they are more comfortable to perceive it as they want, thus, they fail to learn the lessons, which should be learned easily. Come on, what can you expect from women and men of this age, where putting the photo of your butt in gym (or photo of clearly having fun in the nightclub, which might be even worse than the former) on instagram is not regarded as annoyingly stupid and tasteless. Promiscuity, stupidity, infidelity, ignorance is expected to be inherent in a such society, so you have to be naturally selective. Signs of degeneracy and basicness are very obvious in this age.

    At some point of time, men lost something to strive for. Men started to give up, and both male and female started to give in self-indulgence. Once, men were brighter and women looked with reverence to them and wanted to be their lifelong comrades. Being companion to a hero is how woman becomes a hero. And sex, I think sex is best when it is just an organic part of your life, when sex becomes not sex but a tiny part of your bigger love to reality. Many readers on manosphere just failed to realise those obvious truths of relationships and now act like defensive animals. I think its because of materialism.

    I want to share my one personal observation. I live in Central Asia. It is interesting to observe the influence of modernity on us. We still have tradional marriage roles, we dont have lgbt rights or feminism, men are, ideally, are taught to be masculine and women feminine. So everything is pretty traditional at the first sight. But the real picture is hypocritical and awful. Men are too selfindulgent here, traditional culture takes a backseat, egoism and financial success is praised, criminality is revered among young, ignorance is widespread and low tastes in music (rap and k-pop at worst, while the most “underground” and smart youth listen to some indie metal). However, there are still a lot of decent girls in here. They are not necessarily religious, most of them were brought up in secular families (remnants of atheistic communism). They are faithful, they are innocent, they are naive, they are susceptible. They are the reason why I love my ethnicity and my origins. And many of them are being deceived by idiots, or many of them are being dissapointed by men who are lost in their lives. And I can see the precious innocence of our society is gradually fading away with those good girls being contaminated by bad influence. They are the last thing which we have. Men surely enjoy their femininity and faithfulness (here girls and women often excuse disloyalty of husbands or boyfriends) and do nothing else but enjoy it, consume it, and they will have to pay off for this in near future. Boys are not chaste, most of them begin with prostitutes and then go their own way. Boys see no reason in being chaste. So will do the girls. Innocence is fading away, then feminism will come, which is the symptom of a society without true goals, then lgbt rights. Then will come the suffering, which men here in Central Asia don’t know about but you westerners do. Why bother yourself with holding to traditional roles where discipline is needed, when life has become the consumption. Thanks for your article.

    • Welcome to the Orthosphere, Julius.

      (I presume that “Fromhell” reflects your understanding of the situation your nation is facing. We are all, in that sense, “Fromhells.”)

      Thank you for your testimony. It shows that you understand, and feel, the threat. All of us who are not blinded by modernism are in for a rough time, but we must keep the faith throughout the coming ordeal. Once you’ve opened your eyes to the truth, there is no going back .

    • Julius, your culture still has time. If your men possess the Traditional spirit but have wandered, they are salvagable and can defend against the threatening toxin being exported by the USA and others.

      You need to foment exactly what has been done in Russia. Hostility and hatred of the West. Let Liberal become a dirty word synonymous with foreign imperialism and wickedness. Identify ‘reformers’ in your own country as a fifth column with loyalty to the Globalist cabal. If you do nothing, then Central Asia could be horribly damaged before the West finally expires, but if you stand fast, you can preserve something, a privilege we don’t have. Ours will be a construction project from the ground up among the ruins.

      Most of all, encourage religiosity, and look down upon non-practitioners.

Comment

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s