In the vein of ElectricAngel’s last linkfest, and my last post of an essay that influenced me greatly, I’d like to share some links that had an major impact on me, in terms of leading me towards a ‘Red Pill’ worldview. This list is by no means exhaustive; there are others, like many, many posts at Roissy’s blog itself when it was at its best (2008-2009, roughly), including the one EA already shared, and several at the Spearhead in its early days, and some others I can’t recall now. Nevertheless, here are some of them, some of which I stumbled upon long before the manosphere began to coalesce around 2008 – 2009 or so, onwards.
1. Several years ago, a good friend of mine sent me a link to this article at McSweeney’s Internet Tendency, when he saw I’d been very much in the “guy friend” role, with respect to a girl I was smitten with, at the time. It was perfect, and along with the next link, helped the scales begin to fall off my eyes.
2. Shortly after that, I stumbled upon the so-called “Ladder Theory” of male-female relations. It made me realize the futility of, once “friend-zoned“, stuck in the “guy friend” role with a particular girl, of ever thinking one could transition from that to the “boyfriend” position. I realized how often I’d played the “guy friend”, and been “friend-zoned”, stuck there, with no hope of escape, with many girls, through high school and beyond. I resolved never to be a “guy friend” ever again; I ended my friendship with the one girl I was stuck in that role with, at that time, and since then, IRL, the only female friends I’ve had are girlfriends / fiancees / wives of my male friends, outside of acquaintance-level group settings, such as church groups. Apart from that, IRL, I either date women, or have nothing to do with them; no more being the “guy friend”, forever stuck in the “friend zone”.
Now, I don’t think the Ladder Theory is perfect, by any means; one could certainly validly raise “NAWALT!”-type objections about it, and it is from a heathen POV and largely focused on sex, as the prime objective. Nevertheless, I think Christians can mentally translate it into a more appropriate form, and its main point still holds largely true: that men and women think differently, and therefore consider members of the opposite sex in different ways from each other, in terms of sexual attraction / dateability / marriageability, as a result.
3. Some years back, Fred Reed wrote a hilarious piece about marriage in the contemporary context, which made me more aware of the dangers of what we call ‘Marriage 2.0’. And while, as a Christian, I nevertheless believe in the rightness of marriage, and can’t endorse the ‘gather ye rosebuds while ye may‘, pro-fornication sentiment Reed extols as an alternative (partaking of the free milk offered without buying the cow), nevertheless, the points he makes about the dangers of modern-day marriages are as worthy for Christians to consider as for heathens, IMO.
4.-12. When I first stumbled upon this essay by F. Roger Devlin at The Last Ditch, it opened to my eyes to the deficiency of many traditionalist conservatives in comprehending our current social circumstances, and their tendency to unwittingly embrace feminist ways of thinking. The Last Ditch followed it up with an equally excellent six-part essay by Devlin on feminism and the social status quo today:
¶ “Home economics” I, sections 1 and 2: “Two conflicting conceptions of feminine dignity; feminism as male-role-envy.”(May 15, 2008)
¶ “Home economics” II, sections 3 and 4: “Modern neglect of the economic side of marriage; female attraction to ‘providers’ natural and unchangeable.”(May 30)
¶ “Home economics” III, sections 5 and 6: “No property rights within the traditional family; family as primal form of community.”(July 20)
¶ “Home economics” IV, sections 7 and 8: “Consequences of ‘unlimited choice’; reasons for considering marriage an irreversible covenant.”(August 26)
¶ “Home economics” V, sections 9 and 10: “Natural erosion of male role under modern conditions; deliberate erosion of male role by feminism”(October 13, 2008)
¶ “Home economics” VI, sections 11 and 12: “Practical consequences of domestic androgyny and role reversal; What is to be done?” (April 8, 2009)
And here are a couple other great essays of Devlin’s, hosted elsewhere: here, and here, originally published at either The Occidental Quarterly or Counter-Currents Publishing, I believe – both of which have other articles of his on their sites. (Some additional pieces by Devlin on related subjects may be found here.)
(N.B. BTW, for those who may object to the websites that have published Devlin’s work – The Last Ditch, The Occidental Quarterly, Counter-Currents Publishing – because they don’t embrace racial egalitarianism; or who see hints of some similar thinking in Devlin’s work: stuff it! I’m not interested in your complaints; truths may be found in the strangest places. For instance, some of the first scientific research that uncovered links between cancer and tobacco smoking, was done in Nazi Germany. Does that make their findings invalid? Of course not. Anyone who bitches about Devlin’s work being hosted on such sites, or that he appears to hold some opinions in common with them, please keep your opinions to yourself, or risk having your comments deleted or Moohammered / Baahammered, or even being banned from commenting here ever again, if I or my fellow Patriactionaries here feel like it – even if you’re someone I consider a friend. You’ve been warned; keep your objections to yourself – ditto anyone who objects to Fred Reed, for similar reasons. STFU! Thank you kindly.)