The misogyny that seems eventually and inevitably to settle upon gamers, and for that matter natural alphas and bitter betas – the cynicism and despair, the ashen mouth – is due to their idolization of their own defective twisted corporeal wants over and above their own true and highest spiritual good. Having vested their hopes in sublunary corporeal goods, naturally their highest spiritual good – upon which all their other goods ultimately depend – goes wanting even as their corporeal desires are never quite met; so that they are in the first place intending illy (i.e., inaptly, as seeking from women what creatures cannot possibly furnish) toward and in re women and in the second doing ill to them, and ipso facto to themselves.

If you are focused on satisfying your own mundane corporeal utilitarian wants (money, power, strokes, orgasms, whatever), you are bound to be dissatisfied, because mundane wants are inherently insatiable (they can ever be sated only as subordinate to the satiation of the fundamental, supramundane, superordinate want). Then you are bound to blame your lover, who has failed to sate them. You are bound to nurse a grudge or two, or three. And that poisons your relations with her, so that she is ever less able to satisfy you. Your resentment and disillusion can then only grow.

Hers too, likewise.

To fall into this sort of idolatry is to mistake the true goods that are to be harvested from women. These goods are those of virtue, which is its own reward: to do good is to feel good. The true reward to be gotten from relations with women is reaped in doing them true good. This entails shedding your attachment to your own petty inclinations for this or that pleasantness, and also seeing through her similar petty inclinations straight through to her true spiritual good, and then doing that good to her, and for her (rather than for yourself).

Mutatis mutandis, what is more pleasant among the goods of this world than to hear from another that you are to her good? So if you do good to a woman (who is not a moral idiot), she will feel it and tell you (somehow) that you have done so, and that she finds you good.

So long as you are focused on what you can get from women for yourself, you are prevented from doing good to women, except accidentally – or except insofar as their neuroses or defects fit beneficently with yours for a time, so that each of you find your defective desires for a while palliated. So you are prevented from enjoying the natural outworkings for your experience of their happiness in you. You are prevented from love. Garbage in, garbage out.

Focus instead on doing women good, without thought of what you might get for yourself as a consequence. Chop wood, carry water.

After all, a gift given in expectation of a fitting return is not a true gift, but a purchase. It is a transaction one might undertake with a whore. Give, rather. Give toward her true good as you honestly see it (albeit not perhaps as she seems to think it), for her sake rather than for yours. Then only will she give back. Give nobly, magnanimously, as one gives who has surfeit of riches.

Chop wood, carry water; do the right thing, whatever may come. Things will then even out for you in the end, in just the way that they should, under Heaven. Whether women end up involved in that, is rather inconsequential in the final analysis.

And this is a key: women are attracted to strong men. What man is stronger than him who looks first and foremost to Heaven, and devil take the hindmost? Men who slaver after women are repugnant to them; disgust them. It is the men who are about other, bigger things, who while not altogether disinterested can therefore take or leave women, and who when push comes to shove might rather do without them, who are the most attractive to women.

19 thoughts on “Philogyny

  1. As usual with religious writers on manosphere topics, this post is extremely ambiguous. You could interpret this in a way that is completely right and good, but you could just as easily interpret it in a way that is immensely destructive.

    • I think that’s true of religious writing on almost anything!

      What would you say is a destructive way to interpret it? The one that occurs to me is that a hasty careless reader might take it to be advocating “white knighting.” It’s rather the opposite; it would be more accurate to characterize it as advocating knighthood, which is not about women any more than it is about dragons or giants or fell adversaries.

      But no doubt I’m missing something obvious, that you’ve spotted right away.

      • Well, the usual complaints are:

        1.) You’re not lambasting women.
        2.) You’re not painting a horrific picture of modern relationships.
        3.) Your suggestions continue the whole depraved system instead of spitefully tearing it down.

        Preaching being good to women now is kinda like preaching tolerance after decades of Vatican II/Obergefell/Bruce Jenner. Teach your son to throw at the batter’s head when she crowds the plate.

      • You know, it’s funny. The basic idea of the orthosphere, and of traditionalist religious reaction generally, is that modern society is profoundly whacked – insane, literally – because it has more and more abandoned the notion of resorting first to the Lord (and the symphony of other First Things attendant upon the very idea of him) in everything. Our attitude toward Left and Right in politics, for example, is Orthogonal to the spectrum that joins them (although, to be sure, it intersects that axis proximal to its rightmost terminus).

        In the post above, I’m suggesting Orthogony to the axis that maps the spectrum with feminist SJW’s on the left (negative!) side and what could be called masculinist advocates of patriarchy on the right. Again, the Orthogonal axis intersects the worldly axis near its rightmost terminus, at patriarchy. But not at masculinism; masculinism, like feminism, is a manifestation of social breakdown, in this case of sex.

        In modern times, Orthogony is revolutionary. Not counterrevolutionary. Counterrevolution occurs within the terms of the Revolution that set up the merely worldly axis of modernism to begin with, and implicitly accepts those terms. Counterrevolution is combat along the secular axis of modernity. Orthogony is more a rerevolution than a counterrevolution. It rejects the sway of the secular axis altogether. It argues that the categories that define the terms of that axis are categorially wrong.

        So it’s funny. I propose a way of dealing with sex that is anti-modern, and that in fact rejects altogether the modern obsession with sex, and the critique you anticipate will arise in response is that it is not masculinist.

      • What do you think? My son has to deal with girls in his sport. Jui Jitsu. One girl has been “crybullying” him. She toggles between excessive physical painful aggression, and diving in front of the ref and crying about faked injuries. She’s driving him nuts.

        I told him what a million fathers told their sons in sports: ring her bell. Give her an “accidental” headbutt. Just like when a batter crowds the plate you play him a little “chin music.” My wife was horrified. But I told him this ain’t church, this is sports, they’re different rules. Girls want to wrestle with boys, girls want to act tough like boys? They should be treated like boys.

        What do you think as a father with a son and daughter?

        I think your answer is an analogy for the bigger picture—where girls are “crowding the plate” on men all over America. Give her the chin music, or appeal to the authorities? Or just hope that your excellent character shines through and everyone sees her for what she is? I also tried to teach him how to manipulate her emotions as a girl (game her, tease her, demonstrate higher social status) but he’s young, and if he’s like his old man, he hates social games.

        It seems your post says that the man should attempt to let his good character show in hopes that the crowd and the authorities will see his virtue and take his side. I don’t think that’s what the “manosphere” wants to hear.

      • Ah, OK. That’s a slightly different question than the one I was addressing in the post. The post was concerned with the Guinevere problem, as it were; your question is about the problem of Morgan le Fay, who (unlike Guinevere) seeks to usurp Arthur’s throne. Morgan le Fay and her sisters are perfectly willing to use their sex in service of their political goals, but they are not too interested in sex as such; they do not want men qua men.

        Guinevere must be won. Morgan le Fay must be defeated.

        Guinevere must be won, but never at cost to the Quest (that would tend to lose her). Morgan le Fay must be destroyed, but not by her own evil sorts of means, for then the people would end ruled by just her sort of moral monster.

        Your son need not break the rules of good sportsmanship to defeat his adversary. Indeed, he ought not to; it would cheapen his victories. He is dealing with a poor sport. The proper response to poor sportsmanship, whatever the sex of the adversary, is superlative sportsmanship. Let your son thrash her impeccably a few times, totally – not cruelly, but without pulling punches on account of her feminine delicacy – and she will probably soon decide that jiu jitsu is not really her thing after all. If she resorts to whining, and that works with the coaches and refs, then your son is in the wrong dojo.

        There are other martial arts, and other dojos. Dojos survive – by the skin of their teeth – on fees from students. It is not in your son’s power to tell his sensei why he is leaving for a competitor, but it is in yours.

      • Thanks for the solid advice.

        It seems we live in the age of Morganna. The age of Hosea. The manosphere believes there are no Guinevere. What is your favorite telling of the Arthurian myth?

  2. If you can find a good woman, you should chop wood and cary water for her; but no man should chop wood and carry water for “women”. This goes double for modern, emancipated women, since what they are emancipated from is any sort of reciprocal obligation to men.

    • I didn’t mean to indicate that men should work for women, or even for a particular good woman. I meant only that they should get on with their work, without thought of what it might do for them with the women.

      “Chop wood, carry water” is a way of saying, “Consider the lilies.” It means, “just get on with your work without thought of what you’ll get from it.” I.e., stay focused on the Kingdom.

      I should have made that more clear.

    • Not caritas without eros, but eros in due subordination to caritas. I never said, “don’t be sexual,” I just said, “stop worrying about sex so much and get on with the important stuff.”

      Caritas as a lodestone is a way of maintaining frame in a proper detachment from the economic details of the circumstances. Not a disregard for them, but a detachment from them. It boils down to doing what’s right in a given situation. That situation might also involve some eros, or not.

      • An Eros without reference to the desires of women is not Eros.

        BTW, many of those who have become misogynistic by pursuing the game lifestyle haven’t done so because of the satisfaction of their desires, rather it is the experience of women that has driven them to it. I’ve treated a few players for a variety of medical conditions and we get to talking about stuff.

        Many of them can’t trust women because they been the beneficiaries of their treachery first hand. Quite a few guys have been disgusted by the fact that even though they’re getting laid, the woman doing it is being unfaithful to her husband/partner/boyfriend. To quote one particularly successful player. How can I trust them when so many of them have cheated on their boyfriends with me.

        As they say, success with women is more disillusioning than failure.

      • I didn’t suggest that there is such a thing as an eros that does not comprehend the desires of women. The notion is absurd prima facie. You were the one who started talking about eros. All I’ve said about it is that it is better, as more apt to reality – ergo morality, ergo practicality – to put caritas prior to eros.

        Nor did I suggest that anyone becomes misogynistic because of the satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) of desires. I said that:

        … [their misogyny] is due to their idolization of their own defective twisted corporeal wants over and above their own true and highest spiritual good.

        Who pins his hopes for happiness on any merely creaturely good is bound to be disillusioned – as you say – when the objects of his desires turn out (surprise, surprise) to be depraved, thus unworthy. But also is he bound to find that merely creaturely goods cannot sate the itch we all feel, and so to suffer disappointment.

  3. Kristor, your description of caritas in a relationship is, in my opinion, a good one, and if followed by both a husband and wife likely to lead to a successful marriage. But I’d query a couple of things. First, is it really that easy, even for someone with a higher spiritual focus, to be as emotionally detached toward his spouse as you seem to suggest in your final paragraph. A married man with children isn’t really likely to have a “I can take you or leave you” attitude toward his wife. First, because caritas itself requires him to turn toward his wife in what he does in his everyday life; second, the fulfilment of his masculine nature becomes bound up with the offices of being a husband and father, and these depend on the success of the marital relationship. More subtly, there is also an undeniable effect on a man of having a wife who respects him and who is willing to give herself to him in a loving way sexually. It seems more likely to me that the “I can take you or leave you” attitude will occur amongst men who have been burned in some way and are less open to committed relationships with women.

    The second query is that caritas requires, at some level, a willingness to submit feeling or emotion to reason or intellect. If you read through some of the “red pill” writings, you quickly discover that the men in these forums believe that women are generally not doing this and are instead following the caprice of feeling, leaving men vulnerable to irrational and unstable treatment from women in relationships. This then raises the following questions: first, how deep does this problem run within the female population and, second, is it an unalterable aspect of a woman’s nature or is it influenced by culture and society. Many in the men’s movement answer that the problem is deep and unalterable. I’d prefer that men try, at least, to influence women positively, not just at an individual level, but at a social one, by adopting the view that the masculine frame (of reason governing feeling) must prevail in society, with women being held to this standard. The masculine instinct to protect women should not extend to protecting women from the consequences of poor, feelings-based decision making, and care should be taken to find those “pressure points” that draw out the better character of women, just as we attempt to do with young men (it is possible, for instance, that some women find a kind of feminine gravitas on becoming mothers and that it is unhelpful for this to be delayed too long).

    • A searching and helpful comment, Mark, thanks.

      … is it really that easy, even for someone with a higher spiritual focus, to be as emotionally detached toward his spouse as you seem to suggest in your final paragraph?

      No. It’s hard as hell. Harder; the hellward path is always easier than the heavenward.

      But I should have made clearer that the detachment in question is not toward the spouse, but toward the desires of the flesh. Not, then, that a husband can take or leave his wife – caritas obviously obliges him never to leave his wife, and always to take her – but that he can take or leave this or that proximal satisfaction of his carnal impulses. So, not “I can take you or leave you (so you’d better be on your peas and queues),” but rather, “I am vowed to take you, and I do; and I am vowed first to higher things than either of our lives, and my vow toward you is taken up in that larger, higher vow, which would suffice for me even if I had never married, and will suffice for me no matter what (sickness, health, poverty, wealth, all others, etc.) befalls our marriage.” It is that higher vow that founds the marital vow in the first place; for it is a vow *to God.* Only in virtue of that vow to God to honor the marriage (and all other moral commitments) properly can a man vow the same to his wife. What good is the mundane vow of a man or woman who avows nothing to God? The question is answered in latter-day divorce statistics.

      The point is not to simply amputate erotic urges from the economy of the psyche, but rather only to habilitate them properly in that economy – so as to avoid the slavery of an idolatrous obsession with them – and to coordinate them properly to the true good of everyone involved: the husband himself, the wife, the children, the in-laws, the polis, et al. That I am solid in my charity toward my wife (and by extension toward my whole world, of which she is for me the chief sign and synecdoche) does not at all foreclose my erotic engagement with her. On the contrary, it should amplify our erotic engagement, ceteris paribus. You could call it Christian Tantra.

      There are to be sure, as you indicate, many factors arising in a wife that can sabotage her reciprocation of caritas. That can make it harder for her husband to maintain frame. Life is tough. It is never tough enough that caritas no longer behooves us; for “caritas” is another way of saying “justice,” “righteousness,” and even “purity.”

      One of the surest ways a husband can sabotage a woman’s respect for him is to subordinate his devotion to higher things to his devotion to her. The subordination must always go the other way, or a woman will feel that her husband is less noble than she. And no one is attracted to want of excellence, also known as vice: weakness. A man who abandons his Quest in order to stay at the castle of the maid he has rescued along the way forfeits the lion’s share of his nobility, not just in her eyes, but absolutely. The trick is to entrain the maid in his Quest, if she be fit for it. It is not an easy trick! Especially since it will involve due care for her true spiritual good, which in the nature of things will certainly necessitate some changes of course, and an enlargement of his baggage train. It’s a lot of work, but the rewards of a substantially enlarged baggage train can be great. Husbands and fathers might do well to consider the huge size of Abraham’s complex, cumbrous baggage train throughout his wanderings, and count themselves blessed.

      As to your last paragraph, it is a category error to expect women to act like men. Men have no real alternative but to take women as they are, and to be to them in return honestly and truly what men are. Men want womanhood from women, and women manhood from men. If they were not different, they’d be useless to each other, qua sexed.

      Are women generally swayed less by reason and more by emotion than men? So the literature of all the ages attests. No doubt the expression of feminine nature is influenced by society – it would be very odd if behavior of any sort took no account of circumstances. But then also, it would be even odder still, and pathological, if such influences reached very deep, so as to deform woman to such a degree that she no longer expressed feminine nature. I conclude that only in the most extreme – the most pathological – cases is woman going to change too much from what she has ever been. The changes that will be evident will be superficial froth, like neologisms arising atop Chomsky’s deep grammar. And many of the superficial changes will be compensations for pathologies inculcated by the whacked moral grammar of modernity, desperate unconscious attempts to regain the center, the norm, the essence, the solid reassuring Real. The aggressively sexual fashion of clothing among young women these days – a relentless arms race to signal submission, sex, sexuality, and so forth – is a case in point. It is a desperate reaction to, and showily belies, the ostensibly accepted cant that women are no different from men.

      I don’t think it’s a problem that women think differently than men. It’s a feature of humanity, not a bug. We won’t be able to fix it, because it ain’t broke. What’s broke is the social and legal system we have lately erected on the basis of the notion that women and men *don’t* think differently. In short, what’s needed is patriarchy. Men and women being what they are, patriarchy is as wired into us as language; so no other sort of system can last. Our attempt to supplant it with something else is already crumbling, only a century or so into the experiment.

      As I have elsewhere said, patriarchy cannot work unless there are some patriarchs available. And you can’t get patriarchs except by starting with men who keep their eye on the whole strategic situation, from 35K’, as the expression goes: the perspective of eagles and of the lower angels, and of the great general officers and kings. To get patriarchs, you need men who think like warriors. So you need lots of warriors. Not soldiers, necessarily, but men trained to the skills of the martial life: endurance, discipline, courage, strength, foresight, coolness, and so forth. Chief among those skills: the art of insightful, happy loyalty to a superior, and the art of courageous, compassionate leadership.

      Women are not built for war. It is absurd to call them to it. Men are built for war. It is absurd for them to fail in their readiness for it. For, let us not delude ourselves: humanity is always at war, if only with the elements and the demons. The mind of the warrior is the mind of the sagacious hunter, of the canny merchant, the careful engineer, the thoughtful farmer, the merciful judge, the compassionate shepherd, the watchful sailor, the percipient priest. It is in short the mind of an excellent man: of the good son, husband, father, patriarch, lord, king.

      The greater the altitude of a man’s perspective on things, the more spacious his comprehension, the more likely is he to see and resort to virtue in any such office, to keep it well, dutifully, and aptly. The limit case is the only one in which a perfection of masculine virtue is possible (at least in principle): the perspective of eternity. The Grail Quest, to which all men are called (and in which all women are likewise entrained, more or less) is the quest for that heaven of life, by which all life is ennobled, and which even now founds and funds even this poor gutted modern life in all its sordid squalor.

      Engage yourself on the Grail Quest, then, in whatever form it takes within your own life’s ambit, and you will discover yourself fit to all the offices meet to your constitution and haply open to your occupation. By your just leadership will you then teach, train, and conform your wards to their own proper offices, at the margin, bit by bit. The frame of the virtuous masculine mind will guide theirs to the virtuous implementation of their own true natures. Everyone then will prosper more and more.

      The bottom line is this: whether or not a man has a rewarding erotic life, it behooves him ever to be an excellent man, and this entails (among many other things, some of them much more important) true philogyny. Not gynolatry; philogyny, the Nicomachean mean between misogyny and gynolatry.

      That’s what I should have titled the post: Not Misogyny, Nor Gynolatry, But Philogyny.

    • Mark, that was an extraordinarily good comment.

      women are generally not doing this and are instead following the caprice of feeling, leaving men vulnerable to irrational and unstable treatment from women in relationships


      The second query is that caritas requires, at some level, a willingness to submit feeling or emotion to reason or intellect.

      Cognitive science has demonstrated that both men and women are predominantly “feels” orientated instead of rationally orientated. I imagine that the feels component for women is slightly stronger. Override of the “feels” requires effort, an effort which can be exhausted by too much override, stress, fatigue etc. Therefore, creating a situation where you are continually trying to override the feels is a recipe for disaster. A morality which co-opts the feels is the way to go.

      Nietzsche’s charge, ” that Christianity gave Eros a poison to drink”, stings because it is true. Not that the current situation is some hoped for Nirvana, as we have gone from prudery to sluttery in a generation. Christianity has a problem with Eros which it is yet to recognise, though I get the impression JPII got it. And the current sexual state of affairs is primarily a result of Christianitiy’s inability to put forth a viable alternative to the prudery/ virulent anti-carnality of the past. Christianity only recognised the legitimacy of the unitive aspect of Eros in the 1930’s.

      One the really interesting insights with regard to the “red pill” is the fact that a woman naturally submits to a man with suitable erotic qualities, and in the absence of such qualities a woman finds submission difficult. Subordination, is not so much an act of the will but an intuitive effect in these circumstances. A Christian marriage which incorporates certain red-pill truths is going to be a hell of a lot easier to maintain than one which believes that Caritas is the only thing that matters because, it goes with human nature instead of against it.


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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.