Translate

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Dalrock Is Not an MRA!


I don't really follow Dalrock, a "Christian" blogger who describes himself as a "happily married" family man while pontificating endlessly about divorce and the perfidious, slutty ways of American women (excepting that paragon of feminine virtue, the often-referred-to-but-never-seen "Mrs. Dalrock").
  
David Futrelle has described him as a "nitwit with a penchant for pseudoscientific defenses of old-fashioned misogyny," but then, that describes 99% of the manosphere. What distinguishes Dalrock is that his targeting and "slut-shaming" of various young hussies is "justified" by his conservative Christian scruples. Not that there's anything new about that, either. I mean, WWJD? (never mind, let's not go there...)
The Scarlet Letter (1926) Poster
Mathematically proven to reduce out of wedlock pregnancies,


The auditory equivalent of reading a blog like Dalrock is the whine of a dentist drill, something I'm willing to subject myself to on a strictly "as needed" basis.

I'm an agnostic, or a nominal Christian myself (depending on the day you poll me) and find faith-based arguments about as fruitful and pleasant as repeatedly sticking my wet finger into an electrical socket. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion, thank God the Founding Fathers. And although I appreciate the pious' concern for the state of my eternal soul, I do wish they'd take my word for it: I'll take my chances.

I am also not very invested in the topics of marriage or divorce, maybe because I have never been married or ever been particularly interested in becoming so. As Groucho Marx once quipped, "Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?" (Marx himself married three times, so he was perhaps not as cynical as that famous quote implies. And that marriage is a socioeconomic contract that benefits many people in many circumstances is patently obvious.)  Of course, I may very well change my mind up the road:

My sentiments exactly!
And I'm a liberal, in the sense that I support every individual's right to organize their personal lives according to their own values, providing their choices do not impinge on the rights of others to exercise the same freedom.

In other words, there isn't much a pompous gasbag like Dalrock has to say that is relevant to me. He is probably younger than I am, yet even in my cataract-clouded eyes, he's a dusty relic.

And last but not least, he simply isn't very amusing. I have trouble following Dalrock because his writing style is so verbose and ponderous. This is a man who takes himself very seriously. (Occasionally he can be oddly inventive: among his contributions to the current vernacular are phrases like "post-marital spinsterhood.") Like most "manosphere" bloggers, he is, in short, an Utter Bore to everyone in the universe except that handful of Angry White Guys who share his particular obsessions and drink from the same wellspring of bitterness... These are the kinds of unlucky-at-love divorcees that, if they corner you at a party, recite variations on the theme "I got the shaft / she got the gold mine" until you are forced to practically chew off your arm to escape.

What I do know about Dalrock -- without even reading him -- is that not only is he a boorish bore, he is a hypocrite of the first order.

Back when I was doxed, Matt Forney tried mightily to make his piece "go viral." The attempt fell noticeably flat. Most of the manosphere studiously ignored it, partly because it (I) wasn't interesting, and partly because most of these pseudonymous bloggers are very leery about publicizing doxings. They know that if they were doxed themselves, they would face the ridicule (at least) or dire socioeconomic consequences (at worst) of being linked to their secret lives online. Being doxed would expose to the world their horrible ideas virulent misogyny, which chances are -- assuming that most of them are functioning in modern society -- is an aspect of their inner psyches carefully cordoned-off from public view.

Not Mister Dalrock! Perhaps he's too arrogant to worry about being doxed. Of course, he's too passive-aggressive to link to Forney's piece directly; instead, he posted several readers' comments that did so. Like many of these guys, he gets his minions followers to do his dirty work. Then he can hold up his clean hands and claim he is only promoting "freeze peach." Cuz that's how hypocrites roll...

Anyway, not to belabor my own story, but all this is in keeping with his recent behavior regarding Rebecca Vipond Brink. Brink writes short, breezy, irreverent pieces for The Frisky, XOJane, and other sites that appeal to young women. Taking umbrage with a piece in which she wrote about dating-while-not-yet-legally-divorced,* he decided to "slut shame" her big-time, and his fan-boys obliged by trawling the internet for any smidgen of dirt personal information about Brink they could dig up and post to his comments feed. The frenzy of comments are vile, obscene, and, well, not exactly "Christian." But hey, Dalrock has a moral duty to subject such harlots to an improving session of "shaming," doesn't he?

The manosphere is all about "slut-shaming" because it's all about "sour grapes." If these men cannot possess a beautiful, intelligent, sexually autonomous young woman for themselves, they can sure as hell try to tarnish her reputation. It's standard, textbook abusive behavior, in other words.

Although "slut-shaming" is a pathetically transparent way that socially impotent men vent their frustration, and Ms. Brink hardly needs anyone to rescue her from being "slimed" on the Internet, it needs to be called out when we see it. I've had a long lifetime of watching men (and plenty of other women) "slut-shame" girls for the "crime" of being sexually autonomous beings: I'm sick of this shit!

Fortunately, the volley of verbal assaults against Brink did not go unnoticed; a small campaign was launched by Adam Lee aka The Daylight Atheist asking that Dalrock's Wordpress site be reported for abuse. Lee admits he didn't expect Wordpress to take any real action, but wanted to send a message that bullies will be socially sanctioned.

Dalrock responded with a self-righteous, pearl-clutching post the other day in which he claimed that it was Dalrock himself -- that fine upstanding Christian husband and father! -- who was being victimized by evil atheists simply because of his efforts to "promote Christian morality." 

It's also amusing to note how distressed he was to be identified as "an MRA." You see, he's not an MRA himself; he's "a Christian" who just happens to have a large MRA readership. There's a world of difference. Bear that in mind while you watch the following clip from Monty Python's "Life of Brian."



Of course, my mentioning Dalrock on my blog is like throwing chum to the sharks. Like most of the manosphere bloggers, who are addicted to any attention whether positive or negative, I imagine Dalrock scours the internet on a daily basis looking for any mention of his name. Oh well, in for a penny, in for pound, I say: Bring on the flying monkeys.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Personally not recommended, but meh! It happens. See How to Survive Your Boyfriend's Divorce if you find yourself in this unfortunate but common situation.

36 comments:

  1. I really, really, REALLY doubt he's actually "happily married." Especially the first part :/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right? Happily married men do not spend endless hours on the Internet complaining about women.

      Delete
    2. Neither do happily married women ;)

      Delete
    3. Do you have in mind a female equivalent of Dalrock? A hetero woman who claims to be happily married, but blogs nearly daily screeds about how evil men are?

      Delete
    4. I was really talking about FeMRAs like Judgybitch and the ladies over at Return of Queens.

      Delete
    5. Well, JB certainly is a hypocrite like dalrock. No way is she a happy person either. Soooo much anger in that woman! She should get a therapist.

      Delete
    6. If she had a therapist, chances are she'd get better -- and that means she would have to leave manosphere. This means she'd lose the only source of male attention and validation.

      Over at an unnamed manospheric blog, someone made an observation that the women of manosphere tend to be unattractive and have "low SMV" (Sexual Market Value -- yep; what with being rapidly aging, multiply divorced single mothers, etc.)

      As much as it pains me to agree with anything said in those circles, after I did a quick survey of the prominent manospherian women, I must concur.

      It would appear that being a "honey badger" and parroting the misogynist spiel of MRA and their ilk is the only way for these women to secure men's attention. Desperation, thy name is FeMRA.

      Delete
    7. JB is an exception, though. She's actually quite pretty for a women her age. I do wonder what kind of marriage and family life she has that would cause her to seek out attention from MRAs.

      Delete
    8. She mentions having a really shitty mom. Mommy issues?

      Delete
    9. Yes, indeed, that's always the question: what kind of marriages do all those allegedly "happily" married Fe/MRA have? I honestly do not know any happily -- or just contendedly -- married people who harbor so much hate for others. There is some internal damage involved there.

      I don't think JB's pretty, though. She looks hard and harsh (and vulgar), exactly as she and as her pseudonym sound.

      It is fascinating that for all the wishful blather about the want of a feminine woman, MRA of all stripes surround themselves with (and draw strength from, apparently) decidedly unfeminine ones. I guess they take whatever they can get -- and they are lucky to get that much, frankly.

      Delete
    10. A admit that Karen Straughan (Girl Writes What) sets off my gaydar.
      Sometimes I think that JB projects everything she hates about her own abusive mother (from whom she's estranged) onto feminists.
      She's also said that her father was abusive, too, and abandoned JB and her brothers as well as too sons from his first marriage. But of course, being a man, JB forgave him.

      Delete
    11. KS is self-admittedly bi-sexual. Also a single mother of three. IOW, a walking paragon of femininity and all womanly virtues, according to the Red Pill / MRA standards. ;) (Seriously, these folks' cognitive blindness is as remarkable as their hypocrisy, with which it goes hand in hand.)

      I didn't know that about JB. It 'splains some things, I suppose. Then again, maybe not. Many of us had crappy and abusive childhoods, but we've managed not to turn our past (and present) misery into a generalized hatred of whole groups of people.

      Given the abuse and abandonment JB suffered in hands of her father, her identification with men looks like some form of a defense mechanism (maybe Stockholm Syndrome?)

      Such damaged people. We all are, of course, in one way or another, but for some the damage is more severe and seemingly beyond a possibility of repair.

      Delete
    12. I think of KS as an honorary man. JB has big mommy issues. So do Sunshine Mary and Sarah's Daughter; both also fear other women taking their men.

      Delete
    13. Wonkette has a pretty snarky post about women anti-feminists on her blog:
      http://wonkette.com/554841/meet-the-ladies-mens-rights-auxiliary#more-554841
      she takes down the women who have taken to Tumblr with signs explaining why they don't need feminism anymore.

      Delete
    14. Oh, this is good, thanks.

      David Futrelle also had a post on it yesterday, where he observed, rightly, that somehow many of these anti-feminist women come from Poland. As a Polish woman myself, I wonder whether these girls (yes, they are all young girls) understand at all what feminism is.

      Historically speaking, Polish women were at a relative advantage with respect to equal rights, in large measure thanks to Communism. For example, equal access to education and employment, and equal pay were a standard feature in the Polish society post-(and in some aspects even pre-) WWII (along with generous maternity leave -- two to three years [yep], easily obtainable day care, and access to abortion, which was frowned upon, given that we have always been a deeply Catholic society, but was legal and relatively unrestricted then; not so now).

      So Polish women did not need or desire feminism (nor heard of it even) for a couple of generations at least. Things have changed dramatically, however, after the fall of Communism.

      The advent of capitalism has brought a resurgence of right-wing ideology in Poland, fueled by greater than ever (and that says something) religiosity of the population. There is a connection between the two, but it's not the time or place to go into it. A greater openness to the West also has made Polish society more receptive to trends and ideas flowing from there. Feminism was one of them.

      A friend who spends half of her time in Poland told me that the word "gender" (yes, English -- the Americanization of the Polish language is one of the scourges of post-communist reality) or its Polish equivalent is becoming a societal taboo in Poland. The prohibitions against its use and any discussions about its significance come predominantly from the religious right wing, which in Poland these days has a serious influence on the young and old alike. Given that the religious right wing is not interested in intellectual or other (honest) explorations of gender issues, I can only assume that its presentation of feminism, which these girls likely latch on to, is what they think they don't need. Their inane statements describing what they believe feminism is would support that.

      That's my (one Pole's) perspective on this.

      Delete
    15. The Blogess also takes on these anti-feminists:
      http://thebloggess.com/2014/07/women-who-are-ambivalent-about-women-against-women-against-feminism/

      Delete
    16. Thank you for your remarks, Ms. Anonymous. It is interesting to hear a Polish woman's observations and opinions about women in modern day Poland. The equal rights granted in Communist-era Poland were, actually, feminist in nature, though that government might not have viewed them as such!

      I find it very hard sometimes not to become discouraged by so many young American women's contempt for and abhorrence of feminism. Their rights and protections are so blithely taken for granted. They have no idea what pre-feminist society in the U.S. was like -- and no desire to know.

      I tried to enlighten some of my younger co-workers one day when I heard them bashing feminists and feminism with the usual insults and epithets. I quietly asked them, "Do you vote? Do you drive to work? Did you enjoy attending your co-ed university? Have you traveled without your father or husband's permission? Do you wish to get a credit card without a husband's co-signature? Do you want someone who rapes you to be put into prison? Do you want to forego giving birth to a dozen or more children? Do you want to be able to keep your job if you have a baby? Do you want to earn a raise without giving Bob (our boss) a blow job?"

      These young women were initially stunned but quickly answered "That was in the old days. It has nothing to do with us now. We don't need feminism anymore. And anyway, all those old dykes/hags/bitches who got us those rights hated men." The conversation continued, though some of these ladies were clearly doubtful that events could change and their privileges and rights could be stripped from them one day. Their main intent was to distance themselves from the hated F-word. I tried to tell myself they were merely ignorant girls, not snotty (and homophobic) ingrates who helped themselves to the rights won for them by decades of hard work by the very same women -- and, unbeknownst to them, men -- they looked down on ... but I failed.

      I agree with your assessment of what young women in Poland "think they don't need," Ms. Anonymous, and I've encountered the same attitude here in the U.S. Unfortunately, such lemming-like inanity is easier for such girls to follow than deductive reasoning.

      Delete
    17. Thanks, Julie. Glad you found my comment helpful.

      I live in the US now, BTW, and see the ignorance of young American women with my own eyes. It is an inevitable effect of, one, a lack of adequate education, and, two, the effectiveness of sustained right-wing propaganda, which turned feminism into a dirty word.

      Even though these young women are fully feminist in their attitudes and outlook on life, they dis-identify with feminism because they believe the propagandist tropes that it stands for hatred of men or sex, or mandatory rejection of traditionally feminine roles, and such.

      Their youth is a mitigating factor, I think. As they grow older and gain more experience in the world (well, if they gain more experience in the world, which is not necessarily a given, I'm afraid), they will likely appreciate the effects of feminism on their own lives a bit more. Or... not. Yes, I am mindful of the fact that age and experience do not necessarily bring wisdom with them.

      Speaking of Polish women: I often shop at a local Polish store in my area, which is owned and operated by two sisters, one of whom is an unmarried (divorced?) mother of two grown children. Don't know the relationship status of the other, but all that's beside the point. During my recent visit there, I overheard one of the salesladies (? not sure what the proper word is; the shop is staffed exclusively by women) saying to another how sick she is of the whole gender equality thing (the Polish word is równouprawnienie), and that is because she'd much rather stay home and be supported by her husband than work for a living. I don't know whether she even has a husband or children, but I can understand this sentiment of a woman who has to work in an unrewarding job and also take care of her family and house.

      This is also what I heard from my own mother growing up. My mom was jealous of women whose husbands made enough money to make it possible for them to stay home. It was a source of her non-ending dissatisfaction with my father and frequent frictions between them (although my dad was an extremely hard-working man, she usually made more money than he did, and ended up supporting him late in life, after he had a stroke).

      I can understand such sentiments of working class women; but blaming feminism for their necessity to work is misguided. Working class women always had to work, even before feminism. At least now they have a shot at being paid decently, on par with men (though reality still often differs).

      BTW, Polish women, like women in most European countries, had the right to equal pay constitutionally guaranteed for decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_equal_work#European_Union.2FEuropean_Economic_Area

      Given the long history of legal, social, and economic equality between genders in Poland, I'm inclined to believe that these young women indeed are "right" that they do not need feminism; but obviously they also do not fully understand what the term means and how the movement was -- and still is -- necessary in countries where women were less fortunate. (There is also a matter of abortion in Poland, which these days is illegal; I suspect that soon enough these young women who do not "need" feminism now may miss its influences after all.)

      Delete
  2. Great post, Cinzia. Thank you.

    "The manosphere is all about "slut-shaming" because it's all about "sour grapes." If these men cannot possess a beautiful, intelligent, sexually autonomous young woman for themselves, they can sure as hell try to tarnish her reputation. It's standard, textbook abusive behavior, in other words."

    This. Their sexual frustrations and jealousy are sadly obvious.

    "[T]hat paragon of feminine virtue, the often-referred-to-but-never-seen "Mrs. Dalrock"' must be as real as Spacebunny, Vox Day's imaginary "sexy" wife:
    http://jamesworrad.blogspot.com/2013/06/vox-day-schrodingers-spacebunny.html

    Without exception, all allegedly "married" Internet misogynists always claim to have "sexy" wives. Because of course, yep. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She seems to have a facebook (space bunny day) with some dog photos and that red photo. As well as a few of her cuddling with a dog. Though no photos of her with vox or any ones that show her face. Eh

      Vox is a shithead of course

      Delete
    2. Yes, I'm sure this is all real. Mhm. In that alternate universe, where VD spends most of his days.

      Delete
  3. Re: slut-shaming on Dalrock

    There are several male regulars on Dalrock who openly brag about sleeping with multiple women (one boasts of his "N" count around 50 or so), yet they are not only ever taken to task for their sluttiness, but they are readily embraced by this pious crowd and their own ongoing attacks on "slutty" women are enthusiastically supported.

    Just another aspect of Dalrock's bottomless hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Men can't be sluts -- the male equivalent is being a coward (according to Dalrock) And if you are over 30 and female you are an elderslut but 40 is young for a man.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dating-while-not-yet-legally-divorced is not exactly legal in most states, not it is generally a consequenceless act. No judge will punish you for it because that would mean that 90% of legally separated people would be in jail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Statistically, pursuing a romantic relationship with someone who is still married (even if he/she is sleeping in the soon-to-be-ex's basement) is a long shot... Obviously, people need time to heal before hooking up afresh, and that "healing" can't even start til the ink is dry. But SOME people (who, me?) have to learn EVERYTHING the hard way!

      Delete
  6. RE Teddy Beale (AKA VD), He has, on occasion posted photos purported to be of "space bunny". They were few, but oddly all of them were images available for purchase from a stock agency.

    Why this is has not been explained.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another great example of MRA hypocrisy is Aaron Clarey aka Captain Obvious (Capitalism). He tries to get people to buy his brilliant books on economics, which are really just anti-progressive, anti-feminists rants and recycled economic information that can be obtained for free. While he's definitely not Christian, he thinks he's dispensing pearls of wisdom to his followers when he's really just repeating the same stuff over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't it what all Red Pillers and game advocates do too (e.g., Rollo Tomassi, etc.)? They package the old, tired and obvious -- with at least half of it slantedly untrue, at best -- in a new shiny box and sell it as "revolutionary wisdom" to the gullible.

      The dimness of manurespherians cannot be overestimated. = Profit!

      Delete
    2. P.S. The whole manurespherian enterprise is not about learning anything new or, God forbid, genuinely improving men's lives -- as in really helping change them for the better -- but about making it easier for the emotionally defective and thus perpetually rejected men to better entrench rationalizations of their life failures. And convincing them, once and for all, that this is indeed The Truf (the easiest task for any snake oil salesman ever, BTW).

      There is never -- never -- a call to critical self-examination and humbly taking responsibility for one's disaster of a life, based on results of such self-reflection. The blame for the misery of those damaged and deranged men is always placed on the shoulders of others, most notably women.

      Therefore what are Poormenz (TM) to do? There is obviously nothing wrong with them, ITATWF* (TM), so the only possible course of action is, first, to acknowledge the indisputable wickedness of women (The Truf of Red Pill, etc.), and, second, to learn to manipulate them (game, etc.) to obtain desired results (sex and sammiches).

      No wonder they lap it up. (= Profit!)

      The fact that it is not true and it does not work -- other than in areas where the advice converges on the old and obvious (improve your body, conversational skills, etc.), available free to anyone everywhere -- has not stopped the lemmings from eagerly swallowing their poisonous Pill, and doling out money for it on top of that.

      What a great racket, when you think of it. Completely safe from failure, as its built-in mechanism of circular rationalizations and fool-proof blamelessness removes any possibility of dissatisfied customers. Because those who feel that they've failed at Red Pill gaming are being convinced, by their gurus and their zealous followers, that the foundations of The Truf are sound (there's evo-psych "science" behind them! or God said so in the Bible!), and so are the advertised methods; it is just that the failing ones are not yet doing it right. = Must buy volume 6 of the Red Pill Guide to Awesome Manhood. If that does not suffice, there are 13 more volumes to purchase and study (some cases are really tough, you know).

      By the time the Poormenz (TM) in question are done with all the RP volumes, they either have a come-to-Jesus moment telling them that they've been scammed all along, or, more likely, continue their triumphant journey toward the cliff convinced more than ever that this is The Man's Path.

      Behold the power of self-serving rationalizations. The manuresphere is a study of it on a grand scale (as are religions and cults and other similar mass delusion-based movements)


      *It Is All The Womenz Fault

      Delete
  8. The depravity of Dalrock&Co. is unceasing.

    Their recent topic of perverted sexual frenzy has to do with a letter a male Christian blogger wrote to his young daughter, praising her beauty and innocence, and hoping to protect her from the worst influences of the consumerist / social media culture.

    Sounds like a sweet and caring thing to do, right?

    Well, by the reactions of Dalrock and Real Christian Men (TM) who congregate at his place, one'd think the father signed a pact with the Devil himself. Actually, they pretty much say so, though not in those exact words. Check Dalrock's recent post "Repackaging feminism as Christian wisdom" and the commentary underneath (if you have a strong enough stomach).

    You will learn there that little girls are women-in-the-making and therefore evil at the core from the very start. Yes, all of them. They are the bearers of sin, and the earlier and the more ruthlessly their Christian fathers start stomping this sinfulness out of them, the better.

    If you thought the slut-shaming of grown women who post stories of their romantic life on the web was unseemly and indecent and not done by normal people anywhere, you probably had no idea that it could be worse (well, I didn't): that we can have a horde of grown men -- Christian men*, no less -- revel (yes) in haranguing little girls in general, and one little girl in particular; along with deriding her loving father for not doing enough to prevent her from becoming a slut, which is pretty much inevitable given that she is a girl and thus a woman-in-the-making.

    One after another, inspired by their Dear Leader Dalrock, they launch into diatribes in which they relish predictions of all the nasty consequences this girl will encounter when (not really if) she succumbs to her sinful womanly nature.

    It is a somewhat new(er) -- to me -- aspect of Dalrockian sadistic misogyny, in this instance tinged with unmistakable shades of pedophilia. I have not seen it before, as I'm a new (and reluctant) reader of that particular blog -- but it is very probable it's not the first time such perverted sexual revenge fantasies with little girls as their objects have been expressed on that site. It's part and parcel of the sick, twisted mindset at work there.

    One can't help but wonder, WWJD? No, really.

    *I know it shouldn't surprise any more, but.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many of the ladies of the manuresphere are "reformed sluts." SD's N>80. SSM was no wedding night virgin and most of her female commentariat have admitted to sleeping with their husbands and a few more before their weddings. (Not that I care about the N; it's the hypocrisy.) Even Elspeth conceived OOW

      Delete
    2. Well, isn't it special... (says the Church Lady, furrowing her massive brow)

      Yeah, their hypocrisy is really something. What's funny is that none of the Real Christian Men (TM) who follow these Real Christian Women (TM) seem to mind. But Evil Feminists (TM) making a similar admission are branded by them as the Satan's spawn. I guess as long as it is One of Us (TM) who sins, things are peachy.

      Sick as it is, their sex-driven frothing frenzy is kinda amusing to watch. Sometimes. Who knew Middle Ages could be fun?

      Delete
    3. Yes. It all seems to go back to sex (or an inability to get some) with these guys. The successful feMRAs --- even the supposed Christian ones --- use a lot of sexy talk and teasing to keep their minions happy. There's JB of course and SSM with her spanky-spank and submission fetishes. If you glance through the comments on any of these blogs, you'll find it can get really crazy late at night when these guys are up doing whatever in their basements.

      Delete
  9. Hey, it's a good day!

    Another Dalrock's poster taken off the streets:
    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jailed-25-years-rapist-who-7762166

    Wonder what Biblical passages he quoted while abusing his victims. I'm sure D-Rock & Co. could point them out with their eyes closed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cinzia: You may want to attempt addressing the subject, not attacking the man.
    More women have grown up with feminist, not Christian principles, in a secular environment. More women than ever have the freedom of careers, to climb the corporate ladder, to have it all. More women than ever are "sexually autonomous" as you say. Women also have more access to contraception, to abortion and to no-fault divorce.
    So why are they all unhappy? Why are 25% of all marriages completely platonic, with another 40% on top of that having infrequent sex ( Dr Helen's figures, not Dalrock's), with a birthrate so low it has to be supplemented by waves of immigrants that are progressively less likely to integrate into Western society? It seems to many men that the Western woman is indeed "sexually autonomous" with everyone except her husband, making marriage a bad deal for men. Men then have a right to say, "No", which they are doing in higher and higher numbers, making women like you butt-hurt when you do finally have an epiphany and "settle down", just like the meme you supplied says.
    You have a right to your autonomy without dispute. Yet you do not, and indeed cannot, seem to fathom that overall, the various sexual revolutions that have led to the rise of feminism as an organising principle have been a disaster, first for women, men and the Western world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Such incoherent drivel.. "women sexually autonomous with everyone except her husband..men say no in high numbers... women realize they have to settle down."

      Delete

Thanks for commenting!