After years of at least semi-regular reading (less regular in recent months), I am finally inclined to distance myself from the part of the web called the “manosphere”. I have come to the reluctant conclusion that these blogs are more harmful than good. The problem is that there is enough kernelated truth in them to suck you into believing the rest of what you’re reading – and this is dire, because the rest of what you’re reading is terrible, often evil.
A related, second reluctant conclusion I’ve come to is that many, if not most, of the men on these sites are not really worthy of much respect, not worth emulating or feeling much sympathy for. I resisted this conclusion for a long time, not wanting to fall into the same category as feminists who use shaming language to keep men from speaking up. But I can’t resist any longer. When you read between the lines for long enough, it sooner or later becomes clear who these men really are and what they’re really about.
For instance, most of the manosphere denizens are perverts. Even at the supposedly “Christian” sites, most of the men are perverts. I mean this not as a pejorative, but in a literal, clinical sense: these men’s ideas about proper sexuality have been perverted; corrupted. On these sites, there is a good deal of posturing about wifely “submission”, but an awful lot of the time this is followed by complaints that a wife won’t “submit” – to her husband’s pleas for sodomy. This very blog entry was inspired by a sordid discussion that I saw at Dalrock’s (a site that I frankly have never been impressed with, viewing the author’s style as whiny and frequently bordering on misrepresentation), in which one commenter was upset and soliciting advice because he expected marriage to be an opportunity to engage in sickening sexual acts, and was disappointed when this didn’t materialize. Another commenter, one I believe to be quite popular, opined that if a woman doesn’t want to perform degrading sexual acts with her husband, she “must not really love him”. I don’t feel any sympathy when these men complain about not getting enough sex.
To echo the opening paragraph: these guys are correct to speak about patriarchy and marital submission – but it’s clear that many of them, if not most of them, are really upset because they couldn’t handle marriage and are disappointed that they can’t command their wives to perform like pornography stars. I don’t believe, by the way, that Pauls’ commands in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 7 oblige wives to submit themselves to degrading, bestial forms of sexuality.
In the final analysis, I agree with the elders at Joseph of Jackson’s church: I would not allow my daughters to date the men who frequent these sites. I *do* want my sons-in-law to be leaders – but if they don’t learn that from their fathers, they will learn it from me. There’s too much poison in the manosphere atmosphere to lurk there long and escape unpolluted. Flee immorality, for bad company corrupts good character.
I would still like to see a Christian – a TRULY Christian – resurgence of teaching on the biblical definitions of manhood, womanhood, and submission, but after what I’ve been seeing in the manosphere, I wonder whether that’s possible. Theoretically, it should be – but in practice, it doesn’t seem to work out. For whatever reason, the men who are most interested in this topic seem to have their own pathologies.
Henceforth, this blog allies itself with the likes of Bruce Charlton, the first blogger I’ve encountered in a long, long time (perhaps ever) who seems truly to share my views and feelings in most ways. Thank you, Bruce! Besides the Thinking Housewife and Orthosphere, I also want to recommend the Russell and Duenes blog. Of late, they’ve been offering some very compelling arguments dealing with foundational issues of government, Christianity and worldview.
I am, in fact, considering shuttering the blog and beginning anew under a different name. I am not certain I will do this, as anonymity is still valuable.