Category Archives: Sociology 101

2866. Manosphere II


I’ve not heard about these radical men for too long. Anyone have news?

I repeat the posting of article 2203. Eric wrote it to inform us of some fallout of Feminism made radioactive by men set on revenge. I share it with readers to remind all of us that the subjugation of women started earlier and conditions will be worse before better.

—2203 by Eric— an insider/outsider view of how radical men view the female nature as corrupt from birth.

Roosters, Gamecocks, and Capons

‘He rules the roost, she rules the rooster’. So it has been throughout history. Radical Feminism, encouraged by the Political Left, imposed a new paradigm which excluded the rooster. But the male gender did not disappear; however types of males who were once on the fringes rose to prominence.

Now a rooster follows the male nature; defending and providing for his roost, while performing other necessary work. But reactions to Feminism gave us the Manosphere which produces the Gamecock, a rooster who is bred for fighting and competition; and the Capon, a neutered rooster whose only purpose is to be eaten. The Manosphere—which once stood for the rights of men and the dignity of women—has fallen under the misogynist trends of these two types. The Gamecock is represented by the Game movement; the Capon from the so-called Men’s Human Rights Movement; both of which deny male/female compatibility, and both of which accept the terms laid down by the feminists as cultural norms. There is considerable homoeroticism latent in both movements, especially among the MHRM.

Both generally hold a form of gender supremacy, but it is the Game Philosophy which has the most pernicious effects on gender relations (the MHRM is essentially the mirror image of male feminism, which produces Capons as well, though of a different sort).

Not only does Game teach men how to disqualify themselves as suitable husbands/fathers, the male behavior it promotes reinforces the same negative stereotypes of men promoted by the Feminists. Why it is also dangerous is because, like feminism, it employs sexuality as a weapon.

Thus, the Gamecock, true to his namesake, treats gender relations as a war—not the healthy spirit of conquest which is part of the male nature—but indiscriminate conquest for its own sake. The Game blogs are replete with ‘relationship advice’ that sounds like psychological warfare. And to underscore the tendency, they despise all men outside of their movement as inferiors.  But stripped of their neologisms, pseudo-scientific rhetoric, and general pompousness, one sees a common thread running through all their writings: a genuine hatred for women in general. This, in spite of their obsession with sex, is deeply apparent. By extension, of course, the Gamecocks feel nothing but utter contempt for traditional masculinity. In fact, being referred to as a white knight or being accused of behaving with chivalry is considered an insult among their ranks—they laugh at men who respect or value women, because (to their minds), the female nature is inherently corrupt.

     By inherently corrupt, the Gamecocks do not mean the corrupted attitudes of modern women miseducated and disinformed by Feminist culture—what they mean, and explicitly state, is that to be born female is equivalent to being born with a corrupted nature. By their logic, it follows that men are completely justified in controlling that nature, either through force and fear because the corrupted feminine nature will not respond to goodness.

CSW [chaste single women] can avoid entanglements with the Gamecock by being, well CSW. The Gamecock’s only relationship goals are sex and control and he has no power over women who value themselves and their sexuality. Foiled in his attempts at manipulation, the Gamecock falls away and focuses his efforts on easier targets. Since he has no capacity to sustain a relationship, he typically has no desire to continue pursuit of anyone who doesn’t feed his narcissism.

The one type of Gamecock who does pose a danger to women is the one who wraps Game in a cloak of Christianity. The Churchian Gamer—and there are many of them—pose a threat because Christian women may be duped by the pretended Biblical sanction to the Gamecock message. Perverting such concepts as female submission, women as the weaker vessel, the husband as head of the household, &c the Churchian Gamecocks coax otherwise well-meaning women into the Game stratagems.

I use the term ‘Churchian’ because it must be understood that the religion of these men and their camarilla of disciples is Game and not Christianity. It actually resembles, in its teachings, contortions of Scripture most closely resembling the Gnostics. A good way for Christian women to avoid the Churchian Gamecock is to note the absence of a central Christian tenet: any discussion of Love. One can literally search in vain on Churchian Game blogs to find this word even mentioned. If a man talks endlessly about women’s Christian duties of things like submission and obedience, without mentioning either love or reciprocal male obligations, chances are he’s been influenced by Churchian Game.

By all means, stay CSW, if you deserve a rooster instead of a Gamecock or a Capon!
——

Separately, Eric adds some history to it.

“I actually coined the ‘Gamecock’ term back in my Manosphere days, and opponents of Game still use it. It used to be that the Manosphere had an element of bloggers who were trying to fix the relations between men and women. There still are a few, but they are a minority.

“I thought the ‘Capon’ term fit for male feminists and their counterparts in the MHRM. The MHRM used to be A Voice For Men but they’ve largely veered into accepting feminism as the norm, but want feminist social/legal standards to equate to men: ‘Equal Injustice for All’ as their opponents aptly describe their position. It’s essentially male feminism that supposedly wants men to be equal feminists, unlike the traditional male feminists.

“Capons are more common in Europe, but it is a neutered rooster (it’s meat is considered a delicacy, they taste somewhat like pheasant LOL). So I thought it was an apt description of these types, since they behave like eunuchs, the same way that Gamers behave like gamecocks.”

——

I welcome all updates to help understand if these Manosphere nuts are still around and promoting the further subjugation of females. I know the Game is still working as vague and unavailable, men acting hard to get.

And again, if he’s listening, thanks to Eric for his commendable work back in May 2015.

20 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Sociology 101

2854. Men Marry a Virtuous Woman


Quoted from post 2847, “The more unique qualities you display, the harder a guy seeks to get you in bed, because the accumulation of your virtues make you more worthy and unique in his eyes.” Her Highness Miss Green inquired about details.

Unfortunately, you gals don’t get to make your own virtues. You only get to shape the opinion of men that you are what each man wants to marry, a virtuous woman, which is each man’s collective measure of whatever he expects out of his mate. IOW, men don’t need marriage until one woman convinces one man indirectly that he can’t live without her. Thus, men shop around for the accumulation of virtues that mean enough to him, and which meet minimum requirement for him to marry.

By definition, a virtue is a quality of yours that one man admires. Who knows what it is? Until one man makes the call for himself, that is, and probably doesn’t reveal it. It’s part of your collection of qualities that make you stand out as different and, hence, particularly attractive to him. Your virtues roll up into your likeability, which unfortunately for female-think falls far short of love as females wish it.

You have virtues that he doesn’t see all that clearly in others. Virtues make you different from other gals; they are how his eyes see and his judgments make you more worthy of attention and desire to bed you first time. Thus, God and Nature puts you in competition with other gals, whether you like it or not.

Your outer features he may admire such as hair, eyes, mouth, facial expressions, figure, legs, classy dresser, personality that appeals to him, or whatever. Men judge women with their eyes first, and your attractiveness is vital. Dress comfortably and a man sees little or nothing to admire. Dress to the nines and you hold his attention while he scans for virtues.

Over time, he comes to admire your inner qualities such as character strong enough to stand up for yourself, ability to earn his respect, smiling countenance, personal likeability, friendly manner, willingness to listen to him, willingness to trust him, silence about who and what you are, use of modesty to protect yourself, unwillingness to give away your most valuable sexual assets, ability to love without giving away the store, ability to use vanity inoffensively to make yourself look better than others expect, potential to be a wife/mother/friend, virginity or nearness to it, and many other qualities worthy of his admiration.

Closing the gap to marriage is far more than just a man’s appreciation of your virtues. But that’s another story for another time.

3 Comments

Filed under boobs, courtship, Dear daughter, feminine, marriage, sex differences, Sociology 101

2850. Gotta Change My Mind Again


For some months or years I’ve been calling the female the superior sex. It’s close but not accurate enough. Hereafter, I will call it the governing gender.  Governance within relationships, couples, and marriages is more functional, easier for women to grasp the meaning and men to accept, and less argumentative than is ‘superior’. Guy is my name, clarity is my game.

——

Natural Law: Females capture and keep a man with everything else but sex; success is far more who she is and what she does than what she has or was. So females waste time, waste feminine effort, mislead men, and relinquish the driver’s seat when they attract with sex or program themselves to be sexy.

 

7 Comments

Filed under courtship, Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Fickle female, How she loses, Sociology 101

2827. Love is Never Enough — 07: More Macro Stuff


Here’s another macro side of love, how the female heart imposes its will indirectly on society and culture. The male nature urges men to better themselves so they can accomplish more and more. It doesn’t mean they let women define ‘better’ or lead them to it. In fact, they resist it. So, women have to work indirectly on both men and their man. Female mystery, lovable personality, and feminine likeability are the greatest assets for women to get their way while programming husband’s motivations with breakfast, dinner, and pillow talk.

Women inherit a special motivational drive at birth. Whatever man they mate with, they want him to become better. Men resist direct attempts to be changed. So women have an indirect way to overcome. They are born motivated to be good. Men are born with the ability to do good, but no incentive to spark actions to do or be good. A woman confirms her goodness by doing good, and when she can get her man to do good, she is the better for it and he has pleased her by becoming a better man. It’s a strong motivation imperative in women, until individuals lose it to popular opinion or male dominance.

I’m fascinated by how Western civilization developed under the influence of Christian love. Before political activists began to kill it off fifty years ago, the public marketplace was crowded with elements of female love: kindness, pleasantness, trust, goodness, and mutual respect between the sexes. How did all that happen when all love emanates from the female heart except for some that originates with a closer study of Christ via a few thousand Christian pastors.

Until something else becomes evident, I credit women for having brought female values, standards, and expectations into the development and marketplace of American civilization. Men discovered the American West, but women civilized it. Without womanly influence and our constitutional system of government using Christian values to deal successfully with denominational differences, we would be another kind of nation today.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture & Politics, Dear daughter, Her glory, marriage, Sociology 101

2826. Love is Never Enough — 06: Love Fades Away


The more I write about love, the more I find women uninterested. I can’t blame them. They don’t want to discover mistakes they may have made, how their heart works, or why they can’t make relationships work successfully. They gain a lot from the mystery that surrounds female love, but it’s an advantage fast disappearing in today’s world.

Unknown or unrecognized by women, female social and domestic influence is deteriorating and sliding toward greater male dominance and an inferior role for females and children. Especially domestically, where love is already shifting from playing the major to playing a minor tune for harmonizing a family. By not understanding how and why their love works, women drift into less and less influence for shaping a brighter future for themselves or ever fulfilling their girlhood hopes and dreams.

If women don’t know the effects of their love on others, they can’t find the gratefulness needed to enable their happiness in later years.

A woman’s love is a mystery to men. They accept and even enjoy it, but it’s a foreign emotion to the male nature. If mothers and teen girls don’t teach boys about love, how to accept it and gain their own advantages with it, then men live by another emotional setup. A combination of motivations where competition, mental and physical dominance, and winning are the main ingredients. Women don’t thrive very well under those conditions. It’s the road to unfriendly male dominance as can be seen in other parts of the world.

The trend for fifty years has been to multiply this effect more with each generation: By design of activists, the public loses its political power, and women lose much more than men. Why? Because love has been removed from the political equation by antagonizing men against women and their main influence, love.

With Christianity under attack, the love of women is too. You can see it in everyday America. Fewer and fewer women attend church to refresh their ability to love. A woman’s love just doesn’t mean what it used to in terms of women getting their way, getting what they want or expect, teaching boys about the need to love, and especially earning the respect of men when trying to form up as more than temporary couples.

Men don’t know or do love unless females teach them and make them like it. At post 2824 I described all love as beginning in the female heart. If it emanates there, what are the ingredients and how do they differ woman to woman? And how does love spread among men? What reflects outwardly that convinces a man to live within the boundaries of one woman’s love and even duplicate some of it in his life? What stimulates men to also love and work to a woman’s advantage? What stimulates men to have kinder hearts and be attentive, loyal, and lovable to others, such as children, neighbors, and work mates? Those functions of love are not embedded in the male nature; women put them there by example.

I for one think we need to answer such questions, if women are to understand what they are losing, which is the political influence of love. The loss of which denudes women of personal influence they need to earn male respect and face off successfully against male dominance. It’s a dribble-down effect, and what changes politically encloses the personal, especially for the physically weaker sex.

18 Comments

Filed under courtship, Dear daughter, How she loses, marriage, sex differences, Sociology 101

2814. Well-liked Article (#67 updated from January 2008)


Subject: Exes, dumpees, and left behinds

Girls and women repeatedly spend time as ex-girlfriend, ex-lover, ex-live in, ex-wife. Whether searching, shacking up, or married, women repeatedly bounce from one misery to another interrupted frequently with love that doesn’t last and often with a new child. First with a guy and then without, and then with a guy and then without, and then….

Males are just males. Mothers, girls, and wives turn them into promising boys and mature men that please or displease females.

Every man expects he will be great as a mate—by masculine standards, that is. Each must be taught otherwise, if female expectations are to be met.

Sexual encounters do not improve men, because sex neither bonds nor changes them for female advantage. The actions and reactions of women withholding intercourse teach men to adopt female-friendly behaviors and try harder to please females.

When there’s a shortage of unmarried sex all across society, it shapes masculine thinking toward goodness and what women appreciate. Trying to qualify for sex by searching for a female’s weaknesses, a man coincidentally learns about her non-sexual strengths and qualities of value to him. His love needs that base, if it’s to endure beyond the fading of lust, infatuation, and romantic love.

The presence of unmarried sex all across modern society shapes masculine thinking against what women appreciate. The ease of bouncing blossom to blossom lures men away from spending very much effort on females and especially the baggage-laden interests of one. Also, male dominance intensifies.

Modern women don’t rise to the challenge of relationship management required to succeed as a couple. Instead, they act less feminine, more masculine, and objectify themselves for trading in the sexual marketplace.

When relationship mistakes and failures become evident, she dumps him before he dumps her. Using that option demonstrates her superiority to her, but it reveals her incompetence in the real world.

Thus, she recycles herself to the dreaded ex side of life. Her lament: ♫Where oh when ♫is my next boyfriend? She sighs and sponges up the sympathy and encouragement of her girlfriends. But the next hook up restarts the cycle.

2 Comments

Filed under courtship, feminine, Fickle female, marriage, sex differences, Sociology 101

2813. IT’S ALL RELATIVE


The purpose of money is your convenience. The purpose of a job is earning your money. Convenience makes appointments and job obligations easier to fulfill.

The clock enables you to schedule your life reliably and teach others to rely on you. By doing so, others make their lives easier and as reliable as you try to make yours.

The result of national wealth is prosperity at your level. Wealth builds as we become more productive creatures; that is, by increasing productivity, aka more output per individual in producing something of value to another. The more that personal schedules fail to provide convenience to others, the less convenient their schedules. The less convenient our schedules, the less productive we become, the less wealth grows, and the less prosperity is available and convenient in home and wallet.

OTOH, as productivity declines, wealth shrinks and causes prosperity to decline. It causes jobs to shrink in number and family budgets to shrink, which reduces the convenience available to couples. It’s another cost to our prosperity induced by Feminism and continued by women grown sloppy in their habits of making and sticking religiously to their own schedules and those of others. Who suffers the most from reduced prosperity? Women and children!

A female habit developed over the past few decades, gained new intensity from the pressures of social media. It now spreads as toxic fumes for business by the Millennial generation. Women have trouble departing whomever they are with at any given moment. As if magnetized, present associates rank higher than those to whom they’re obligated next in their schedule. Tardy for work or appointments is epidemic, and disrespect of others parallels it with equal intensity.

Gals can’t depart present-moment associates—connected by either face or phone—to keep appointments or get to work on time. In the name of children, family, health, accidents, and traffic, any disruption to the lives of others is deemed excusable. Alibis and excuses flourish, and women waste their imaginative talent for lies and distortions.

Being tardy or absent delivers disrespect for others; it inconveniences them to make things convenient for you. However you minimize or deny it, your inconsiderate disruption of their thoughts and schedules generates need for them to adjust, and it sponges them with your disrespect for whatever role they fill in your life.

Women expect tardiness or absence to be excused by good intentions for child care, stable alibis such as monthly period, and routine excuses such as traffic. Unrevealed is lost time deeply involved in social media, where the clock can and is likely disregarded.

Women think all is well, if they fully explain themselves. They expect to be forgiven for the disrespect they show those to whom they don’t show as scheduled. To avoid being called hypocrites, Womanhood sticks together. They don’t judge others who do the same things, and women expect someone else to pay the cost of the convenience they gain with tardiness or absence.

Consequently, the epidemic spreads contagiously because no one treats the disease. Personal convenience comes at the cost of others. It’s much easier for women than men to accept such undeserved gifts.

The bellwether of national wealth fades. IOW productivity declines and wealth shrinks. As wealth shrinks, prosperity declines. As prosperity declines, jobs shrink in number and family budgets shrink in convenience. It’s another cost to our prosperity induced by women and Feminism. Who suffers the most from reduced prosperity? Women and children.

Being tardy or absent delivers disrespect for others; it inconveniences them to make things convenient for you. However you minimize or deny it, your inconsiderate disruption of their thoughts and schedules generates need for them to adjust, and it sponges them with disrespect for whatever role they fill in your life.

7 Comments

Filed under courtship, Dear daughter, feminine, guy, How she loses, Sociology 101, The mind