The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Pro Tip: Don’t Be a ‘Feminist Man’

Posted on | February 15, 2016 | 72 Comments

 

Nora Samaran (@NoraSamaran on Twitter) runs a blog called “Dating Tips for the Feminist Man,” the idea of which is absurd, an oxymoron.

Feminists are women who do not like men, and the “Feminist Man” is either (a) a man who is too stupid to understand that feminists hate him, (b) a man who hates himself, or perhaps (c) both (a) and (b). My advice to young men is to avoid feminists altogether. Feminism is an ideology that appeals to, and expresses the interests of, women who are mentally ill, emotionally damaged and sexually deviant. There are still plenty of sane, happy, normal women in the world, so why would any man waste time dating angry lunatics? A feminist never wants to hear anything a man has to say and a wise man would say nothing to her, except “good-bye.”

To whom, then, does Ms. Samaran direct her advice?

You’re a straight monogamous cismale who identifies as a leftie. Maybe you’re a Marxist or a socialist; maybe you’re an anarchist. You respect women. You would never act like a player. You fall in love with strong, smart, feminist women. You believe that our movements are stronger if they include everyone. . . .
[I]t’s time to consider the connection between your politics and your personal life. Social justice is intersectional; we can’t just fix our economic relationships without fixing our personal and cultural ones.

You can read the whole thing, but this brief excerpt includes the basic premises of Ms. Samaran’s argument, all of which are false.

Begin with Ms. Samaran’s assumption the man who “identifies as a leftie” — a Marxist, socialist, or anarchist — would be “monogamous” because he “respects women.” Left-wing men do not respect private property or the rule of law; why should we expect them to respect women? Socialism is the ideology of parasitical moochers, Marxism is the ideology of totalitarian dictators, and anarchy is the ideology of criminal psychopaths. Any woman who would voluntarily associate herself with such men should consider seeking psychiatric care.

Why does Ms. Samaran believe the man who “identifies” this way would be interested in monogamy? Surely such a man has read Friedrich Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which denounces monogamy as a bourgeois prejudice and condemns the marriage-based family as inherently oppressive, an obsolete remnant of primitive tribalism and medieval feudalism.

Every intelligent person who has studied Marxism understands that this ideology is incompatible with the traditional family. Why should anyone imagine that men who have no desire to become husbands or fathers would be monogamous? How could Ms. Samaran assume that the man who subscribes to such a vicious left-wing ideology “respects women”? Has she never read what Ludwig von Mises said on this subject?

Proposals to transform the relations between the sexes have long gone hand in hand with plans for the socialization of the means of production. Marriage is to disappear along with private property . . . Socialism promises not only welfare — wealth for all — but universal happiness in love as well. This part of its programme has been the source of much of its popularity. It is significant that no other German socialist book was more widely read or more effective as propaganda than Bebel’s Woman and Socialism, which is dedicated above all to the message of free love.

Sexual perverts have always been attracted to left-wing ideologies because they hope that a radical change in the social order will create circumstances in which they have access to whatever deviant pleasures their depraved imaginations crave. Men whose desires are abnormal, or who are unable to find happy relationships with attractive partners under the status quo, will align themselves with radical movements that promise to destroy the status quo. Furthermore, such men are apt to make the cynical calculation that women who are involved in these movements are more sexually promiscuous than women who espouse traditional values. When I covered the 2013 D.C. “SlutWalk” protest, I observed that there were several young men participating in the march, either because their girlfriends had dragged them along for the day, or because they hoped that, by showing their solidarity with the feminist movement, they might “score” with some of the protesters.

 

To think that a left-wing man “respects women” requires a certain kind of  naïveté about the psychology of the type of person whom Eric Hoffer called The True Believer. Anyone who has paid close attention to the behavior of men involved in radical politics (e.g., Karl Marx, who fathered a bastard child by his family’s housekeeper) understands that depraved immorality among left-wing men is the rule, rather than the exception. No American ever seriously expects moral virtue from a Democrat politician (e.g., Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevey, Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, et al.) and what Democrats do routinely is only considered a “scandal” if a Republican does it.

We may therefore surmise that, when Ms. Samaran uses the phrase “respects women” in addressing left-wing men, what she actually means is supports feminism. This is Ms. Samaran’s way of smuggling into her argument the false premise that supporting feminism is synonymous with respecting women, a misguided assumption that cannot withstand even casual scrutiny. I would argue that it is respect for women that motivates opposition to feminism, but no such argument is actually necessary, when all we have to do is ask whether Bill Clinton “respects women” more than did Ronald Reagan. Or, to look at the obverse side of the issue, why did feminists hate Margaret Thatcher but defend Hillary Clinton? Yet feminists have no sense of morality other than the dogmas of their political ideology. Therefore, Ms. Samaran believes, a man who “respects women” is one who supports taxpayer-funded abortion, etc.

“I would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
Nina Burleigh, 1998

Knowing that Nina Burleigh is an atheist who hates Christmas (because she hates Jesus, hates the Bible, and hates Christians), her expression of support for Bill Clinton and abortion does not surprise us. All feminists share Nina Burleigh’s sick worldview — The Culture of Death, as it has been called — which is why feminism is rejected by every intelligent person who believes in God and believes that human life has a transcendent meaning and purpose. Feminists endorse the most hideous cruelty, demanding the deliberate slaughter of innocent life. Feminists advocate every manner of sordid sexual perversion, and they oppose everything that is decent, honest and wholesome in human society.

Who is the “Feminist Man” seeking “Dating Tips” from Nora Samaran’s blog? We must suppose that such a man is a desperate and dangerous sort of pervert. Only a man utterly lacking moral scruples and self-respect would ever knowingly date a feminist, but our nation’s public school system has become marvelously successful at destroying the morality and self-respect of children, so we may suppose that most young men nowadays are dangerous perverts — socialists, Marxists, anarchists, etc. — who would turn to Nora Samaran for advice.

When she first posted her “tips” at a left-wing Canadian site three years ago, the comments turned into a firestorm of criticism from men who, quite naturally, objected to Ms. Samaran’s basic assumptions that (a) men are always to blame for everything wrong with heterosexual relationships, and (b) Ms. Samaran is an expert qualified to advise others on how to conduct their romantic lives. These are the implicit premises of all feminist discourse about heterosexuality. Ms. Samaran is one of those women who seem to believe that, merely by calling herself a “feminist,” she gains the authority to tell other people what to do, no matter how young or inexperienced she may be, or whether her own life exemplifies any ideal a responsible person would care to emulate.

Perhaps the perfect example of this phenomenon is Miriam Mogilevsky, a young mentally ill woman who describes herself as “queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible . . . lesbian with exceptions . . . on the asexual spectrum somewhere,” who does not “experience primary sexual attraction,” but nonetheless considers others (including males, toward whom she has never felt any normal erotic interest) to be in need of her expert advice on the subject of sexuality, which she delivers via columns for the Everyday Feminism blog. Any sane man encountering Miriam Mogilevsky in person would likely avoid having anything to do with her.

 

The more you read what feminists write about sex, the more you realize that “feminist” is just another word for weirdo or loser, and we may assume that the reason feminists constantly complain about male sexual inadequacy is because feminists are such frightening lunatics that no adequate man would ever bother speaking to them.

When Nora Samaran posted her “tips” in 2013, she reacted to criticism of her advice with this revealing comment:

It is stuff I want people who date me to know. . . . And two out of the i dunno maybe ten or fifteen guys I’ve had encounters with in my adult life have been bad at these skills. And I want more of the people I might date in the future to be better at these kinds of skills, so i don’t have to limit my dating pool to only my awesome exes.

Questions: How old is Ms. Samaran? Do most women consider it normal to have had sexual “encounters” with 10 or 15 different partners? Even by the degenerate standards of Canadian feminists, isn’t Ms. Samaran unusually promiscuous? If Ms. Samaran’s “dating pool” included so many “awesome” men, why did none of her previous “encounters” lead to a long-term relationship?

It seems reasonable to assume that Ms. Samaran is what some guys call a “carousel rider,” the type of “pump-and-dump” woman that men are willing to have casual sex with — a quick hookup, or a “friends with benefits” arrangement — but whom no man would ever consider desirable as a lifelong companion. Even a man who is an atheist with no moral objection to fornication would probably hesitate to become seriously involved with a woman who has as many former sex partners as Ms. Samaran does. A woman who has been so often been used and discarded by other men is obviously not a “keeper,” or else some man would have done whatever was necessary to keep her. Does anyone expect a man of quality to choose his wife from among the culls and rejects in the bargain basement discount pile of sexual leftovers?

Think about it this way: A girl who is popular in high school can have her pick of numerous guys who are interested in her. If she chooses wisely among them, it is likely that she will have exactly one serious boyfriend in high school. Well, sometimes things don’t work out, and perhaps she and her high-school sweetheart later break up. She is attractive and popular, however, so she can still be picky as to which guy she dates in college, and expect him to treat her as a serious romantic partner. A woman doesn’t have to be an uptight religious prude to see that casual promiscuity is an activity fraught with heartache and health hazards. Therefore, isn’t it likely that any genuinely attractive woman with good common sense will have had relatively few sexual relationships before she graduates college? And isn’t it likely that such a woman will be married by the time she is 25?

All the feminist activism in the world will never change the fact that young bachelors tend to sort women into two categories:

  1. Potential wives;
    and
  2. Everybody else.

Wise young women understand this, and strive to avoid the kind of behavior that will get them assigned to the “everybody else” category.

Exactly what kind of fool is Nora Samaran, that she could run up a number as high as 15 (!!!) partners without realizing that her “awesome exes” were just using her for their own selfish purposes? She is a typical feminist fool, a future member of the Crazy Cat Lady Club.

It is truly astonishing the way feminists seem to assume that other people, men as well as women, are in need of their advice. If all you want to do with your romantic life is to be a carousel rider, bouncing around from one partner to the next, ultimately dying alone and childless, certainly there are many feminists who are qualified to tell you how to do that. One could cite a long list of eminent feminists — including Shulamith Firestone — who never married and never gave birth to a child. However, if a woman aspires to have a husband and children at some point in her life, she must take into consideration factors that feminists habitually ignore, for example, what do men want?

Feminism is hostile to any suggestion that women should care about men. Everything men do is bad and everything men say is wrong, according to feminists who view all men as complicit in the oppression of women.

“Marriage means rape and lifelong slavery. . . . We reject marriage both in theory and in practice. . . . Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion . . . It may be that sex is a neurotic manifestation of oppression. It’s like a mass psychosis.”
Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1969

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”

— Redstockings, 1969

“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. . . .
“Sexuality is that social process which creates, organizes, expresses, and directs desire, creating the social beings we know as women and men, as their relations create society. . . . The organized expropriation of the sexuality of some for the use of others defines the sex, woman. Heterosexuality is its structure, gender and family its congealed forms, sex roles its qualities generalized to social persona, reproduction a consequence, and control its issue.”

Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)

“From the beginning of second-wave feminism, sexuality was identified as a key site of patriarchal domination and women’s resistance to it. . . .
“While heterosexual desires, practices, and relations are socially defined as ‘normal’ and normative, serving to marginalize other sexualities as abnormal and deviant, the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality derives from its institutionalization as more than merely a sexual relation.”

Stevi Jackson, “Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting Our Priorities Straight,” in Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality, edited by Chrys Ingraham (2005)

“Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”
Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

Because “marriage means rape and lifelong slavery” and all men are “agents of oppression,” according to feminist theory, ultimately heterosexuality is itself a force of “patriarchal domination” that men impose on women through “coercive power,” and it is only an “illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.” Feminists reject the possibility that men can ever be anything other than rapists and oppressors, and yet here we have Ms. Samaran, arrogantly assuming herself qualified to issue “dating tips” for men under headlines like this:

The Opposite of Rape Culture Is Nurturance Culture

Yes, of course! A radical ideologue who advocates killing babies in the womb is an expert on “nurturance culture.” This makes perfect sense to the kind helpless fools who do not automatically laugh at the phrase “Feminist Man,” and who seek Ms. Samaran’s advice:

The opposite of masculine rape culture is masculine nurturance culture: men increasing their capacity to nurture, and becoming whole. . . .
Compassion for self and compassion for others grow together and are connected; this means that men finding and recuperating the lost parts of themselves will heal everyone. . . .
To heal rape culture, then, men build masculine nurturance skills: nurturance and recuperation of their true selves, and nurturance of the people of all genders around them.

What is this gooey, gushy Hallmark-greeting-card treacle? As a father of six who spends a good bit of his time babysitting his two young grandsons, I suppose that I have more “masculine nurturance skills” than any “Feminist Man” to whom Ms. Samaran addresses her “Dating Tips.” Do I need to be lectured on this topic by a promiscuous Canadian radical woman? Well, never mind such doubts, let’s read some more of Ms. Samaran’s profound feminist insights:

I am discovering a secret, slowly: the men I know who are exceptionally nurturing lovers, fathers, coworkers, close friends to their friends, who know how to make people feel safe, have almost no outlets through which to learn or share this hardwon skill with other men. They may have had a role model at home, if they are lucky, in the form of an exceptionally nurturing father, but if they do not have this model they have had to figure everything out through trial and error, alone, or by learning with women rather than men. This knowledge shapes everything: assumptions about the significance of needs, how one ought to respond to them, what closeness feels like, how to love your own soul, and what kind of nurturance is actually meant to happen in intimate space.
Meanwhile, the men I know who are kind, goodhearted people, but who are earlier on in growing into their own models for self-love and learning how to comfort and nurture others, have no men to ask. Growing entails growing pains, certainly, but the way can be smoothed when one does not have to learn everything alone.
Men do not talk to one another about nurturance skills: doing so feels too intimate, or the codes of masculinity make doing so too frightening. If they can’t ask and teach each other — if they can’t even find out which other men in their lives would welcome these conversations — then how do they learn?

Amid the gooey greeting-card stuff here — what does it mean to “love you own soul”? — Ms. Samaran ignores three basic problems:

  1. Feminists hate all men, but they hate fathers the most. The fundamental goal of radical feminism since its inception in the late 1960s has been to destroy the marriage-based family, thus to deprive fathers of any influence on the lives of women and children. Feminists condemn marriage as a slavery, and specifically denounce the influence of fathers as the basis of “patriarchy,” an oppressive institution they vow to “smash.”
  2. Feminists are against “nurturing.” The reason feminists insist on abortion as an essential “right” is because feminists hate babies, who require the kind of “nurturing” that feminists lack the emotional capacity to perform. Caring for others — especially someone as helpless as a newborn infant — requires generosity and kindness, whereas feminism is an ideology that justifies and rationalizes selfish cruelty. Feminism negates all moral values for the sake of a fanatical pursuit of the movement’s idée fixe, a political abstraction called “equality.” How can feminists demand that men be “nurturing,” when feminists themselves reject “nurturing” as antithetical to their movement’s goals?
  3. Feminism is about silencing men. Ms. Samaran implies that some men might have worthwhile things to say about such topics as “how to make people feel safe” and “how to comfort and nurture others,” and yet no one in the feminist movement wants to hear a man speak. Everything men say, feminists mock and deride as “mansplaining,” and so no man with any sense ever talks to feminists. Ms. Samaran laments that men have “no outlets” for sharing their knowledge and skills “with other men,” but why is this? Because feminists have done everything within their power to destroy formerly all-male institutions where such knowledge was formerly transmitted. Feminists demanded that every school, college and university must become coed, and many institutions that were all-male 50 years ago are now majority female. On some of these campuses, feminists demand the abolition of fraternities.

The faculty of public schools are female-dominated, and the policies that prevail in the system are designed to reward girls and punish boys, so as to discourage male academic success. The feminist movement seeks to eradicate male influence in education and culture. Feminists have organized boycotts of male authors, and demand a reduction in the number of films directed by men. Feminists advocate deliberate discrimination against men in order to achieve “equality,” and any man who objects to this discrimination is condemned as a “misogynist.”

In order for a man to be a “nurturing father,” and thus “a role model at home” for his sons, he would have to find a woman who wants to get married and become a mother, but feminist ideology is anti-marriage and anti-motherhood, and therefore few feminists have husbands or children. The man who wants to become a husband and father would be a fool to waste time dating a feminist, who would certainly be obliged to get an abortion if she became pregnant.

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

Not content to abort every child that might accidentally be conceived in their own wombs, feminists seek to deprive men of any role in the lives of children born to other women. Feminists encourage women to divorce their husbands, and to prevent fathers from having visitation or custody of their own children. Insofar as any woman has a husband or any child has a father, these marriages and families represent the influence of “patriarchy” that feminists are determined to “smash.”

 

Here is a headline that feminists everywhere celebrated:

I Aborted My Baby — Because it was a Boy.
. . . I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is. . . .

Every boy is a “monster” and all males are “enemies,” according to feminist ideology, and yet Ms. Samaran seems to believe that “masculine nurturing” is something to be encouraged.

Nora Samaran addresses her lectures to men who “fall in love with strong, smart, feminist women,” as if strength and intelligence are synonymous with feminism. My wife is strong and smart, but she is is a Christian, and I thank God for blessing me with such a wonderful wife. On Valentine’s Day, I gave her a dozen roses and a box of candy.

Feminists hate Christian women like my wife. Feminists don’t believe in love, and feminists denounce Valentine’s Day as “heteronormative,” so I guess nobody gave Nora Samaran roses or candy for Valentine’s Day and, as a feminist, she must be glad she got nothing. This is what men should always give feminists — nothing. The best “Dating Tip” I could give a young man is never to give feminists anything, not even an explanation for why you don’t speak to them.




 

Comments

72 Responses to “Pro Tip: Don’t Be a ‘Feminist Man’”

  1. RS
    February 15th, 2016 @ 10:01 pm

    [I]t’s time to consider the connection between your politics and your personal life.

    No. It’s actually time I consider turning around and leaving, thank you.

  2. RS
    February 15th, 2016 @ 10:04 pm

    Oh, yeah. Monogamy assumes a proprietary interest in one’s mate. That conflicts with the whole Marxist schtick about property interests being a capitalist ripoff. Thus, “Monogamous Marxist” is akin to “Buddhist Christian.”

  3. Mike G.
    February 15th, 2016 @ 10:06 pm

    Wow, just wow. I wish I’d had this advice 20+ years ago…I would have never dated that feminist former lesbian for a year.

  4. RS
    February 15th, 2016 @ 10:22 pm

    The unstated premise to Nora Samaran’s argument is that men must become women in order to have any value in relationships. N.B. her idea of “nurture” is a one-trick pony. The idea the moms kiss the “boo-boo” while dads say, “you’ll be Ok; get back out there” is anathema to her, I’m sure. In other words, “nurture” cannot be comfort and encouragement to be resilient. It must only be the former to be valid.

    In the context of Ms. Samaran’s ideal romantic heterosexual relationship, what this means is she does not really want a “feminist man.” She wants a “lesbian” with a real dick.

  5. Wombat_socho
    February 15th, 2016 @ 10:27 pm

    Or, as expressed so pithily by Karl Marx:

  6. Joe Joe
    February 15th, 2016 @ 11:05 pm

    There is a hell of a lot in your article. Just a few comments:

    1. My guess is that most males go to “slutwalks” to see scantily clad women (a boob is a boob, no matter what her face looks like) and, as you said, to get lucky.

    2. Monogamy IS a female-friendly policy. Men are biologically programmed for many partners. This does not work well for women or for children. The major achievement of the Western world was monogamous marriage. This leads to secure (legitimate) children and the secure transfer of earned wealth and property. This, in turn, leads to a government which protects both family and property rights.

    Women who embrace Marxism simply haven’t thought it through. This poor confused feminist you describe wants the kind of behaviors associated with a system that promotes monogamy from men who have rejected it. I can actually drum up a little–not much, but a little– sympathy for her because she has been so completely led astray from what is in her own best interest.

    3. Yes, we expect far less from Democrat males than we do from Republicans. Perhaps this is a tribute to our superior values: Democrats have none, other than to pander to feelings of the “disenfranchised” groups that they have manipulated into feeling like victims. However, we also expect far less from female Democrats: Hillary Clinton can “slut-shame” and destroy women her husband couldn’t leave alone, and yet she is still a “feminist.” If Laura Bush had done the same thing for Dubya, you can imagine the backlash.

    4. The real secret of dating women is to listen to them and ignore about 75% of what they say. Women mostly talk just to be listened to. However, it is important to know what 25% is important. If the woman in your life gets repeatedly annoyed about something specific–like your not taking out the garbage–then listen to her and take out the garbage. But most of the time, she just wants to know that you’re willing to listen and let her work out her unhappiness in front of you. Let her do that; it is a Godly act to show compassion. But recognize that, most of the time, women don’t want the problem solved: they want the emotional relief of talking about it.
    We also have expectations of women that they don’t understand. Sometimes, for example, we need women just to be with us in the moment and not interpret everything verbally. Women are more verbal and they want to interpret everything in words. Sometimes, men just want to be and not have words destroy it. A loving Christian man tries to understand the differences and deal with them so that the marriage may be successful and in the image of God. A loving Christian woman will also try to understand and modify how she does things in order for the marriage to be successful. A belief in transcendence and a love of God is the key. Politics will NEVER EVER bring you to that point.

  7. CrustyB
    February 15th, 2016 @ 11:20 pm

    I’m a conservative in politics, but I’m a radical in bed. (sprays Binaca Blast)

  8. RS
    February 15th, 2016 @ 11:33 pm

    Plus 1000 for any reference to Binaca.

  9. Harshwalia
    February 16th, 2016 @ 1:02 am

    “Does anyone expect a man of quality to choose his wife from among the culls and rejects in the bargain basement discount pile of sexual leftovers?”

    Gold. Pure gold.

  10. Bernice Reeves
    February 16th, 2016 @ 7:09 am

    ?my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.?….two days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!b507????? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsStandardGetSpot/98$hourly…. .?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:::::!b507…

  11. Fail Burton
    February 16th, 2016 @ 8:34 am

    If I use feminist logic then one does not lecture the men who built civilization on “how things work.” Such logic would dictate I do precisely the opposite of what such feminists advise. If a given feminist wants to claim to speak for all women then I will tell her I don’t take advise from people who’ve never built a railroad trestle, formed a republic or terrible navies and armored divisions which liberated entire nations. From what great well of history is this clown drawing on other than wishful thinking from amidst the luxuries and freedoms I have given her which enable her bizarre delusions of grandeur? The fact women can’t provide the industrial base to create a bronze statue aside, the reason there are no statues of butter-churners or Julius Caesar’s wife should be obvious. Feminism is an ideology of low group self-esteem, not reality.

  12. Fail Burton
    February 16th, 2016 @ 8:35 am

    You can get even more being the capt. of a pirate ship. Think big, bitch.

  13. Ilion
    February 16th, 2016 @ 9:22 am

    My eyes are getting old. Does that say, “Every Wanker gets a share”?

  14. Ilion
    February 16th, 2016 @ 9:26 am

    Men are biologically programmed for many partners.
    No, we are not. This is a lie deliberately spread by the proto-feminists; that is, by the sexually perverted *men* who invented “feminism” for the crazy cat lady types to latch on to.

  15. Ilion
    February 16th, 2016 @ 9:27 am

    So, being a “radical”, you get to the root of the issue.

  16. RS
    February 16th, 2016 @ 10:13 am

    Men are created for one partner. All else is rebellion.

    But what do I know? I’m just a Christian-ist swine.

  17. Jeanette Victoria
    February 16th, 2016 @ 10:40 am

    Women many claim they want a feminist man but in reality they don’t. I’ve seen it over again.

  18. Solid Advice For Young Men From @RSMcCain | The Camp Of The Saints
    February 16th, 2016 @ 10:52 am

    […] I do urge you to take the time and click here to read the rest of Stacy’s essay. […]

  19. Quartermaster
    February 16th, 2016 @ 10:55 am

    Even feminists are disgusted by such girly men.

  20. Quartermaster
    February 16th, 2016 @ 10:57 am

    Fallen man is programed to want many women. It’s a bad deal even for men, even if they don’t pay as high a price as slutty women. God’s way is the best way.

  21. Quartermaster
    February 16th, 2016 @ 10:59 am

    And look at the great experience you would have missed.
    You know how it works. Experience leads to good judgment. Bad judgment leads to experience..

  22. Quartermaster
    February 16th, 2016 @ 11:01 am

    “Your mother is like my thoughts on socio-economics. Every worker gets a share.”

  23. John Pryce
    February 16th, 2016 @ 11:09 am

    It says “your mother is like my thoughts on socio-economics: Every worker gets a share”.

  24. Ilion
    February 16th, 2016 @ 12:12 pm

    Even in Islamic societies — which *deliberately* train up the young men to believe that they are “biologically programmed for many partners” — it is not uncommon to find men who are as sexually chaste as a real Christian is.

  25. TheOtherAndrewB
    February 16th, 2016 @ 12:13 pm

    I especially love the fact that the crazy feminist cannot even narrow down the number of her sexual partners with any precision. It would be like saying “I either ate half a pizza or three whole pies. Don’t judge me!!!!!”

  26. Ilion
    February 16th, 2016 @ 12:20 pm

    Yep — Women who claim that “Men are intimidated because I make more money than they do” always follow up with “Why are you free-loading off me, you loser?” after they hitch up with one who isn’t “intimidated”.

  27. Ilion
    February 16th, 2016 @ 12:23 pm

    Even aside from the mug (*) on the poster, any guy who says, “Hey girl”, in any context, is suspect.
    .
    (*) which screams, “Hit me! I’m an un-man”

  28. John Pryce
    February 16th, 2016 @ 1:13 pm

    The claim is true but misleading. Men are capable of having many sexual partners, and all creatures (among the sentient species, this requires the additional adjective of “all sane creatures”) have a natural urge to procreate. So men would naturally be comfortable with multiple sexual partners.
    .
    Women, who can be pregnant by more than one man at a time only under the most unusual of circumstances, are not so capable.
    .
    That said, sane men with an interest in the future tend to take a vested interest in their progeny, and the most sensible way to do this is through monogamous relationships.
    .
    Further, even among men with a short time horizon, the thought of raising another man’s children is naturally repulsive (made much worse when it is unknowing). So those men who recognize that women are capable of making their own sexual choices understand that – since trust begets trust – the way to ensure that their woman does not do this to them is to be faithful to their woman.
    .
    So both propositions – that men will tend towards sexual multiple partners AND that monogamy is best for both sexes – can be true.

  29. John Pryce
    February 16th, 2016 @ 1:15 pm

    Given the level of investment that marriage entails, it’s not something one engages in lightly, or with the sexual equivalent of “junk bonds”.

  30. Fail Burton
    February 16th, 2016 @ 1:17 pm

    The original lesbian feminists who created this cult didn’t embrace Marxism. Perhaps the most unsung pioneer of this daffy lesbian religion – Monique Wittig – openly rejected it. I think what you’re seeing was an after-the-fact attempt by these early radicals to cobble together some intellectual and academic credibility by cherry-picking whatever made the idea of lesbianism as a back to nature movement oppressed by men seem feasible. In short, a kid breaks a window and then looks for an alibi. Hate and paranoia precedes all else in this ideology. Women like Wittig, Morgan, Rubin, Dworkin, Rich and Butler seem outright delusional.

    What they in fact did is throw cow turds at the side of a barn to see what stuck. They raided Lacan, Foucault, Derrida, Freud, Marx, Engles, Levi-Strauss and put together a patchwork strawman and then that all increasingly gelled into the texts we see today. The disdain preceded the event. Their idiotic gender studies programs look puffed up if they can throw around names and pseudo-science. The truth is lesbian radicals made this crap up out of their dumb heads.

    The other part of this perfect storm was the ’60s counter-culture. For the first time in American history teens had money to burn and lacked the pragmatic direction which drove their less fortunate parents to discipline themselves in rewarding directions. Idle hands are the Devil’s tool.

  31. Ilion
    February 16th, 2016 @ 1:47 pm

    Further, among the so-called men who claim, and wish to act upon the claim, that “Men are biologically programmed for many partners”, reproduction is the very last thing they want to happen.

  32. John Pryce
    February 16th, 2016 @ 1:49 pm

    Generally speaking, I’d say that’s correct.

  33. robertstacymccain
    February 16th, 2016 @ 2:10 pm

    The vast chasm between what women say and what women do in terms of their romantic lives was obvious to me as a college student more than 30 years ago. Anyone who listens to single girls talk about what they want in a guy, and then watch what kind of guys they actually go for, must be aware of this factor. The question is, are women unaware of their own desires, or are they unable to articulate their desires or (as I strongly suspect) are most women hypocrites, who do not wish to admit the truth about themselves? For example, if you ever hear a girl complain that men are “superficial,” in terms of placing a premium on looks in regard to their romantic preferences, be sure to watch how she behaves around good-looking men. Generally, the woman who complains about men being “superficial” will dissolve into a puddle of love whenever a handsome man is nearby. Such women seem unaware of their own superficiality, but hypocritically condemn men for being superficial, and no one ever calls them out on it.

  34. robertstacymccain
    February 16th, 2016 @ 2:27 pm

    “Given the level of investment that marriage entails, it’s not something one engages in lightly …”

    By promoting divorce, feminists have made men extremely careful in this regard. There seem to be an awful large number of women who view marriage as a weapon with which to punish men. Find a guy who makes good money, sucker him into marrying you, have a couple of kids, then destroy his life with a divorce and custody battle, forcing him to spend the next 15-20 years subsidizing your life while you teach his own children to hate him..Of course, feminists would have us believe that men are always to blame for every divorce, the same way feminists blame men for everything else.

    What about decent, hard-working men? Feminist will not even acknowledge that such a category exists. The minute any man attempts to defend himself against feminism’s anti-male hate propaganda, the very fact that he disagrees with feminists is cited as proof that he is a misogynist who hates women.

    So, when feminists find that men don’t want to marry them? His fault! It cannot be that “reforms” demanded by feminists have made marriage a risky choice for men, nor can it be that feminists are the least desirable choices as wives.

  35. John Pryce
    February 16th, 2016 @ 2:33 pm

    Not to complain, but instead of responding to me, you should write more articles.

  36. robertstacymccain
    February 16th, 2016 @ 2:42 pm

    “Men are biologically programmed for many partners.”

    I have always been dubious of such Darwinian arguments. The male sexual response is simpler, and men are more easily stimulated, and this natural trait could be argued as favoring certain forms of behavior. However, polygamy is ultimately only feasible for a handful of Warrior Chieftain types in tribes where violent raids on weaker neighbors provide a steady source of extra wives and concubines for the warrior caste. To make “biology” an argument for male promiscuity raises the question of where the male is to find an available surplus of female partners.

    A society based on lifelong monogamous pair-bonding — premarital chastity and marital fidelity — is ultimately stronger than any other, because it is more stable than any other. What has happened to the West in recent decades is that parents (and other adults) have lost sight of ancient truths, and have failed to instill in younger generations the habits and attitudes necessary to successful family life. Your talk of men being “biologically programmed” — the pseudoscience of Darwinism — is a big part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

  37. Daniel Freeman
    February 16th, 2016 @ 2:48 pm

    Indeed, feminists commonly pervert language to try to make it impossible to even think a contradictory thought. So they redefine an “intact family” to merely be one that actually has an adult male in the home — mom’s latest live-in boyfriend would suffice — and redefine “masculine nurturance” to be feminine nurturance performed by a male.

    That way, if they succeed in their sick Orwellian project, you won’t even have the words to discuss what’s different about a family where the children are all the progeny of the man of the house, without whom their life outcomes are statistically worse.

  38. robertstacymccain
    February 16th, 2016 @ 2:55 pm

    “Seemingly, ‘men, love and cherish your wives’ comes more naturally to men than ‘women, respect and submit to your husbands’ does to women.”

    The problem in much of the West, I think, is that the decline of Christianity has made both men and women less likely to embrace the moral idealism of Jesus. There are men who use certain passages of scripture to justify their own selfish domineering behavior, and this tends to alienate their children. There are also women who call themselves Christians, but who trust their own opinions more than they trust the Bible, and who rely more on their own efforts than they rely on prayer. So both men and women are to blame for the decline of Christian marriage, but I think if men were more truly Christian, the problems with women would tend to resolves themselves.

  39. robertstacymccain
    February 16th, 2016 @ 3:33 pm

    The value of “masculine nurturance” is, as you say, the tendency of men to tell their kids to “get tough.”

    Feminists are forever claiming that men suffer from “toxic masculinity” that prevents us from being “in touch” with our emotions. Yet what women value most in men, emotionally, is a sort of Stoic temperament — not easily discouraged, not prone to complain — demonstrating the mental discipline necessary to restrain our emotions.

    Some things never change. Winners win and losers lose. Women like successful men, and successful men are confident, resourceful and optimistic. Far from being “out of touch” with his emotions, the successful man has simply developed the strength necessary to keep his emotions under control. He has learned to bite his tongue rather than say something foolish, and to walk out of the room rather than participate in an unnecessary argument.

  40. Prime Director
    February 16th, 2016 @ 3:34 pm

    HTFTJ

  41. robertstacymccain
    February 16th, 2016 @ 3:34 pm

    I’ve never made the same mistake twice, because I’m extraordinarily creative in finding new mistakes to make.

  42. robertstacymccain
    February 16th, 2016 @ 3:36 pm

    Well, I was 29 before I married, and I was a Democrat back then, so my youth was spent doing things that my mature self strong advises against.

  43. Jeanette Victoria
    February 16th, 2016 @ 3:37 pm

    When I was dating in 2001 I said I wanted a partner to be more of a man than I was, (I’m a pretty self-sufficient woman who used to tune her own car) and the last thing I needed was some man sharing his feelings.

    But as a rule I don’t think women know what they want. And to fair fair thee days the millennial men are mostly just as clueless.

  44. Prime Director
    February 16th, 2016 @ 3:43 pm

    Creative work is weird.

    What counts as “work”? El Gringo Loco’s job is writing down what he thinks; so, the time he spends reading/ruminating/reflecting isn’t work?

  45. Quartermaster
    February 16th, 2016 @ 3:44 pm

    It’s OK. All us menfolk understand quite well. Have another.

  46. Ilion
    February 16th, 2016 @ 4:01 pm

    I don’t disagree, at least not strongly.

    Nevertheless, it remains the fact that almost all women in the West — and emphatically, most of those who swear up and down that they are not feminists — are in rebellion against the God-ordained role of men within the home and within the broader society. And many men — and emphatically, many of those in high leadership roles in the churches — are encouraging this rebellion.

  47. Ilion
    February 16th, 2016 @ 4:04 pm

    A society based on lifelong monogamous pair-bonding — premarital chastity and marital fidelity — is ultimately stronger than any other, because it is more stable than any other.
    As demonstrated time and again in history.

  48. Ilion
    February 16th, 2016 @ 4:10 pm

    If one calls out such women, most other women — including many who would say the same thing if there were no men around — and a high percentage of the men, will jump on you for being a “bully”.

  49. DeadMessenger
    February 16th, 2016 @ 4:15 pm

    But, we might also add, lots of statues of mother with child (and not just Mary and baby Jesus.) So what does that tell us about what normal non-feminist people consider accomplishment?

  50. Ilion
    February 16th, 2016 @ 4:28 pm

    Several years ago, I was visiting one of my sisters for a week. My oldest nephew (son of my other sister) dropped by to show off his just-born daughter. One of my great-nephews had been visiting me as I visited my sister (that is, he spent most of the week there with us rather than at his own home).

    The great-nephew was 11 or 12 at the time. I watched him watching my nephew (who is his uncle) hold his daughter … and his longing to likewise be a father was so clear and strong to me.

    *THAT* is what men are “biologically programmed for” — to be fathers, to be Patriarchs, to cherish and protect and provide for the small and defenseless.