Who Cares What Women Think?

spankwife

NOTE: This article was originally published at Alternative Right on August 11, 2012. I’m re-posting it here as the site is now defunct.

***

Last week, I Tweeted a series of comments denigrating “men” in the manosphere who go weak at the knees whenever a woman who agrees with them bursts onto the scene. For all the talk about men being dominant and leading women, an awful lot of guys in this corner of the Internet are eager to prostrate themselves before any girl who talks about how much she hates feminism and thinks being white is just swell.

I ended with this:

 

One of my followers, Uland K., took exception to my contention that women don’t matter (as well as my contention that young men are more important than old ones, but that’s another subject entirely). You can read the back-and-forth we had by scrolling down our Twitter pages, but if you want the gist of what I was responding to, you can read this now-infamous anti-PUA screed by Ava Moretti:

Fellas, if you want to halt the destruction of the white race, you need to stop being part of the problem and start embodying a real alternative. So, please, stop taking out your frustration and anger with modernity on us, as if we were disposable blow up dolls. Stop hating us. You can’t win without us. You need us. The war between the sexes is just another way that Jews profit from our decline.

I’ve already mentioned Moretti in passing, highlighting her feminist-style language abuse of labeling any male behavior she doesn’t like as “misogyny,” but I’d like to address this heretical idea that if the alt-right/manosphere or whatever doesn’t stop making women feel uncomfortable, we’re doomed! Finished! Kaput!

 This idea is so far off base, it’s not even wrong.

 The idea that women are important to any kind of ideological or philosophical movement, beyond being in the background as wives and mothers, has zero basis in history. From the time of Sumer up to the 20th century, virtually all great leaders, thinkers and artists were men. Aristotle, Galileo, Michaelangelo, Napoleon: all men. Not to say that all women are incapable of artistic, scientific or military talent; every so often, we get a Marie Curie, a Jane Austen or a Joan of Arc. But by and large, it has been men who were responsible for making history.

The stock feminist response to this is, “Well, were it not for the EVIL PATRIARCHY, more women would have been a part of these movements!”

But would they? IQ testing has shown that while men and women have the same mean intelligence, men have a larger standard deviation, meaning that there are both more male geniuses than female ones, but also more male retards. Lists of the most intelligent people in history are dominated by men, as are the special ed classrooms at elementary schools nationwide. This fundamental difference between the sexes explains everything from the supposed pay gap between men and women to the dearth of female scientists, engineers and CEOs. Where men are driven to succeed (and fail at it most of the time, as most don’t have the ability to), women are content with being… average.

If you’re expecting people who are content with being average and unremarkable to sign up for a fringe political movement in significant numbers, you’re in for a rude awakening.

The reality is that women are by and large herd creatures. Women strive for social acceptance above all else, and almost everything they believe, from what clothes they wear to what figureheads politicians they vote for, is determined by one question: “Is it popular?” The Ava Morettis of the world are exceptions to the rule.

If American/Western women tend to support liberalism and feminism, it’s not because they’re repelled by the “misogyny” of the alternative right or the manosphere, it’s because liberalism and feminism are the dominant paradigms. Were Pat Buchanan to be elected president and alt-righters to take over Congress and the media, 40% of “liberal” women would become racist sexist homophobes overnight, and another 50% would make the shift over the next couple weeks to avoid becoming pariahs. Lord Byron, the Roissy/Heartiste of his time, made this observation back in his 1806 poem “To Woman“:

Woman! experience might have told me
That all must love thee, who behold thee:
Surely experience might have taught
Thy firmest promises are nought;
But, plac’d in all thy charms before me,
All I forget, but to adore thee.
Oh memory! thou choicest blessing,
When join’d with hope, when still possessing
But how much curst by every lover
When hope is fled, and passion’s over.
Woman, that fair and fond deceiver,
How prompt are striplings to believe her!
How throbs the pulse, when first we view
The eye that rolls in glossy blue,
Or sparkles black, or mildly throws
A beam from under hazel brows!
How quick we credit every oath,
And hear her plight the willing troth!
Fondly we hope ’twill last for ay,
When, lo! she changes in a day.
This record will for ever stand,’
“Woman, thy vows are trac’d in sand.”

Attempting to convince such flighty creatures to join the alt-right with logical arguments is like begging escaped inmates to please pretty please come back to the insane asylum.

Watering down the “misogyny” of the alt-right, as Moretti and her beta orbiters suggest, may get a couple more girls to join the Cause, but it will turn off many more men, young men in particular. Ultimately, young men are the key to success for any social movement; it’s they who do the grunt work, who have the least to lose from opposing the popular orthodoxy, who are the most willing to risk their livelihoods and their lives for something they believe in. In a world where every male pursuit from video games to golf is being systematically destroyed to appeal to women, the manosphere is thriving and growing because it is explicitly a space for young men.

And women will always follow so long as men lead.

Trying to “appeal” to women is an exercise in pointlessness. The alt-right’s focus should be on recruiting young men, the fuel of revolution. Once the tide begins to turn, women will flock to the right like groupies swarming an indie rock guitarist who lives with his parents and doesn’t have a job. Don’t get me wrong: it’s not that women should be unwelcome, it’s that they’re unimportant. They are sideshows, not the main act.

This is part of why the men’s rights movement is perennially going in circles. The ultimate enablers of feminism (and liberalism) are not women, but other men. Were it not for the men who supported Christian “social purity” movements like Prohibition in the early 20th century, women would have never gotten the vote. Were it not for horny Boomers who wanted to do it in the road, Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan would have been laughed off as cranky harridans. Were it not for limp-wristed GenX manboys like Kurt Cobain, the Violence Against Women Act would have died in committee.

Behind every Strong, Independent Woman™ is a man making her existence—and delusions—possible. And when that man decides he’s had enough, she’s finished.

I’ve spent the past couple months on a hiking/hitchhiking trip across America, starting in my hometown of Syracuse, New York, and ultimately heading towards Portland, Oregon; as of this writing, I’m in Madison, Wisconsin. In that time, I’ve met a number of my fans; I recounted talking with one of them in a post last week:

While we were chatting in Madison, Mark (not his real name) told me how reading Frost’s Freedom Twenty-Five Lifestyle Guide, along with other blogs like Chateau Heartiste/Roissy in DC and In Mala Fide, encouraged him to quit his shitty, underpaid job at the Chicago Stock Exchange and survive by playing online poker. He makes a decent living in Madison and wants to buy a motorcycle and travel all across America. He doesn’t have the prestige of a big, fancy financial job, and he’ll probably never get married and have kids.

By the standards of mainstream society, Mark’s a loser, and so am I. But neither of us cares.

Mark’s happy, despite failing by “normal” standards, because he’s living life on his own terms. He’s not beholden to a demanding boss or a cunty wife. He doesn’t have to work 80-hour weeks for a pittance. His “workday” begins and ends when he feels like it. He can go out and enjoy himself whenever he wants. And when he decides to go on his cross-country motorcycle trip, he won’t have to beg for two weeks off from work; he can just hop on his bike and go.

Young men are waking up and throwing off their chains. They’re refusing to enable feminism, socialism or liberalism any more. And when enough Atlases shrug, the whole thing will come crashing down. Whether some naysayers think they’re “misogynistic” is irrelevant, because women don’t decide the future; men do.

The bitches are running wild. It’s time to bring in the dogcatchers.

Read Next: Women Are Just as Socially Retarded as Men

Opt In Image
Get My Free E-Book

Learn how to start a blog and make money from day one with this short guide. Also receive twice-monthly updates highlighting my best articles as well as news and special offers you won't find anywhere else.

I guarantee 100% privacy. Your information will not be shared.

  • http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

    “The stock feminist response to this is, ‘Well, were it not for the EVIL PATRIARCHY, more women would have been a part of these movements!’”

    The Australian philosopher David Stove said something along the lines of, “They’ve had a billion chances. They’re going to have to think of another excuse.”

  • http://joselromero.com joseromero639423775jose

    Well said Matt!

  • http://theasdgamerblog.wordpress.com theasdgamer

    “young men in particular”

    Your opinion on this point is irrelevant. Lots of men who blog are older as are a lot of readers.

    “Ultimately, young men are the key to success for any social movement; it’s they who do the grunt work, who have the least to lose from opposing the popular orthodoxy, who are the most willing to risk their livelihoods and their lives for something they believe in.”

    Ultimately, it’s the old guys who have the political connections and money who hire the young men and provide resources to make things happen. Don’t ignore the old guys. If daddy ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.

  • http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/ sunshinemary

    Great essay and all that, but there is one point that really needs to die, and die now.

    IQ testing has shown that while men and women have the same mean intelligence, men have a larger standard deviation, meaning that there are both more male geniuses than female ones, but also more male retards.

    Please everyone, please understand that IQ tests tell you almost NOTHING about the differing cognitive capacities of men and women.

    I have to administer standardized IQ tests as part of my job, so I’m very familiar with these tests. Everyone seems to believe that they are normed separately for males and females but they are not. There is ONE set of norms for males and females.

    How can that be so? It is because when the tests are constructed, if any test question shows a large discrepancy between males and females, it is thrown out. These tests are specifically designed to yield comparable results between males and females. You cannot determine much of anything about the true differences in IQ between males and females from IQ tests such as the Wechsler, Stanford-BInet, and Woodcock-Johnson (all of which I’ve had to administer).

    But don’t take my word for it:

    From Psychology Today:

    “The first, and in many ways most important fact—and one that may surprise many readers as it did me when I first found out about it—is that items showing large sex differences are always omitted from IQ tests such as the widely-used Wechsler. The result, of course, is that standard measures of IQ systematically obscure sex differences in intelligence”

    source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-imprinted-brain/201003/sex-and-iq-dont-ask-we-dont-want-know

    If I had to guess, after years of working with both gifted children and cognitively-impaired children, I’d say that not only do males probably have a wider range, but their overall IQ is probably slightly higher than females’, maybe on the order of 5 points or so (depending on the test, a standard deviation is either 10 or 15 points). But you’ll never, ever be able to measure that with any of the commonly-used IQ tests currently on the market.

    The ultimate enablers of feminism (and liberalism) are not women, but other men. Were it not for the men who supported Christian “social purity” movements like Prohibition in the early 20th century, women would have never gotten the vote. Were it not for horny Boomers who wanted to do it in the road, Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan would have been laughed off as cranky harridans. Were it not for limp-wristed GenX manboys like Kurt Cobain, the Violence Against Women Act would have died in committee.

    YES! Preach!

  • aceofhurtz

    I’m divided on this. On one hand Forney is right that this is a male phenomenon and should remain so.

    On the other hand, Feminism would be nowhere without the vichy males. We should recognize the existence of political allies, especially if they are older mother-hen types that the herd pivots on.

    Forney’s model of female behavior:

    Men lead, women follow.

    If that’s true we really don’t need women. I think the model is more like:

    Men -> Wives/Mothers/Mother Hens/Alpha Females -> Women

    So men are the shepherds, but some women are the sheep dogs keeping the other sheep in line.

  • http://yourwifeisevolving.wordpress.com superslaviswife

    Structure of every primitive and healthy human society:

    Child is born into a household where the mother is permanently present and a father figure or several father figures are also constant.

    Child is female: mother educates her and shows her how life works; she plays with the boys as well as girls until she reaches social-actualization age, at which point girls become cliquey, boys become adventurous and males and females split; she spends more time with other young females and they educate and train each other, under constant supervision of their mothers and grandmothers; she is subjected to male attention as she matures, igniting her own desires and encouraging her to recall how relationships work in her tribe/village; she finds a male to reproduce with and has a child; as she is young, much older females will help her raise her offspring until she’s eventually confident at being a mother and housewife.

    Child is male: mother educates him and shows him how life works; he plays with boys and girls until the girls become cliquey, at which point he and the other boys also separate and start exploring; the old males guide the boys, keeping them out of harm’s way, but, unlike the mother, without discouraging them from engaging in risk-taking behaviours; as the boy becomes older, he is initiated into the actual role of males in the society: he leaves the old men as he left his mother and goes out on hunts, raids or to the farm with the fathers; the young men train and test each other, building upon their skills, observing the fully adult men and developing the necessary tools to become a man; oftentimes the young men must undergo a rite of passage before they are deemed true men; through hard-work, he becomes strong and successful (or dies); he now finds a young, fertile female and mates with her.

    The cycle continues.

    “It takes a village” and all that.

  • tree

    No one’s “behind” femnism, it’s a dynamic thing that involves ideas and people, women and men. People have to understand this if they want to effectively oppose it. On everything else I’m with Matt, manosphere is for Men and women who follow them and w it shouldn’t be made nicer so more women can join, if they feel wronged they can just join feminists or that shrinking group of people who just don’t care.

  • tree

    Autocorrect added capital m to the word men, should’ve been: men and women.

  • http://vitabenedicta,wordpress.com vitabenedicta

    “Not to say that all women are incapable of artistic, scientific or military talent; every so often, we get a Marie Curie, a Jane Austen or a Joan of Arc. But by and large, it has been men who were responsible for making history.”

    And, interestingly enough, those few remarkable women are never the ones who whine about women being excluded. It’s always been mediocrities like Mary Wollstonecraft who do that.

  • http://homeintheshomron.blogspot.co.il Jew who believes in men’s rights

    “The war between the sexes is just another way that Jews profit from our decline.”

    This is absolutely priceless. Trust somebody to always bring Jews into everything.

    I wonder what sort of mushrooms she has been taking…

  • Pingback: Lightning Round -2013/03/12 | Free Northerner

  • baguazhang

    You know you got something good when feminists complain about feeling intimidated or “unsafe” in that space.

  • Stephen

    I like to get fucked in the ass with dildos.

    [CensorBot sez: Gay.]

  • Stephen

    Thanks for correctifying my retardation, CensorBot. I feel better now.

    [CensorBot sez: You're welcome.]