Post: #1

New article in Takimag:

http://takimag.com/article/we_have_nothi...james_pell

Quote:For anyone not hip to the latest and greatest online ideological developments, the manosphere is a place for…well, men, if you need that spelled out. Other than that, not a hell of a lot holds it together. On the one hand, there’s the men’s-rights crowd, who occasionally make a salient point or two but mostly come off as a bizarre inversion of feminism. (Protip: Real men don’t complain, they drink Scotch until they can’t feel feelings anymore.) The other side consists of gamers and pickup artists, a far younger, far more attractive wing that revolves around having lots of random sex and mocking fat women on Twitter.

[...]

If Roosh somehow manages to actually get screen time there’s going to be feminist teeth gnashing o’er the land the likes of which hasn’t been seen since…the last couple of weeks or so. It doesn’t take much to get them going, really. But Roosh is just the type of guy that sends the “gender as total social construction” crowd into a furious, white-hot rage. If Elam is your patient but wounded uncle, Roosh is the unrepentant rascal your wife prefers you not hang out with.

Post: #2

^^^lots of white knights in the Comments Section !!!

Post: #3

I'm glad they made a distinction between us and MRAs.

Post: #4

Cool article. I've always wondered why more people on this forum don't read Takimag. It's 100% red pill (even though they allow racist views - if you get offended it's okay no need to write a diatribe about it). The head author of the site, Taki himself, even wrote a piece about the necessity of cheating on your wife. Doesn't get more red pill than that.

Post: #5

"Roosh is the unrepentant rascal your wife prefers you not hang out with."

Heard and been this all my life but not so nicely stated.

Post: #6

Nicholas Pell, the article author, is a friend of a friend of mine (I hate to sound like a name-dropper, but there you have it) and is on our side ideologically. Good to see him writing for Taki now.

I should also mention that Takimag is edited by Jim Goad, who pioneered anti-feminist thought with his memoir Shit Magnet and his zine ANSWER Me! in the early 90's. Gavin McInnes also writes a weekly column for the site, and he's been banging the anti-feminist drum ever since he founded VICE.

Post: #7

Takimag content is usually quite red pill, but the commenters seem to lean older and more traditional.

Post: #8

The article is fine but Taki himself is a goofball and a poseur. Not someone to take seriously.

Post: #9

I understood the title at first as something like "The Manosphere is its own greatest enemy" and nodded in approval. But this interpretation works too. Anyways, very nice article.

Post: #10

(10-26-2013 04:06 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  [...]

I should also mention that Takimag is edited by Jim Goad, who pioneered anti-feminist thought with his memoir Shit Magnet and his zine ANSWER Me! in the early 90's. [...]

trailer park dwellers of the world, UNITE !!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Redneck...sto_(book)

Post: #11

(10-26-2013 04:01 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  "Roosh is the unrepentant rascal your wife prefers you not hang out with."

Heard and been this all my life but not so nicely stated.

I was with a couple of mates the other day, and one of them pointed out that his wife never just says my name but refers to me as 'THAT [full name]'. The other then said his girlfriend does it too.

I'm assuming it's a sign of respect that I threaten their control over their men, as I used to hear it in my teens from parents who considered me a 'bad influence'.

Wear it with pride.

Post: #12

Quote:However, there are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of men who are grasping for the vocabulary with which to discuss the very same issues as people such as Elam, Roosh, and Forney: the changing face of masculinity in the 21st century, what women really want (as opposed to what they say they want), how to go a little bit Galt from the whole dog-and-pony show if that’s your thing, or how to be the kingly patriarch you’ve always wanted to be.

The article is OK, but this is a profoundly clueless thing to say IMO. The changing face of masculinity in the 21st century will be a masculine identity that doesn't depend on female validation. You aren't changing masculine identity by moving it from "giving women what they want" to "giving women what they want."

If guys just wanna get laid, then yeah, they'll have to give women what they want in a superficial sense, women being the gatekeepers of sex. But to me that constitutes an unapologetic pursuit of a male's interest (getting laid in this sense), it has nothing to do with ensuring women get what they want.

Post: #13

Some of the commenters on that thread just do not understand contemporary reality. I'm sure they have nice, stable marriages with kids, and are all full of that "man up" BS so embraced by certain conservatives. Even though they're men, I feel that they cannot really be reasoned with.

Commenter Joe Hargrave is eloquent but not living in reality:

Quote:So what, the woman of your dreams comes along, a perfect partner in every way, and you're going to say thanks, but no thanks, to marriage for the sake of some silly political cause?

Quote:I'm just more convinced than I was before that this whining is not the solution. What do you win when you win a "marriage strike"? The privilege of marrying women you suspect may rob you of half your property if given the opportunity? Either take a risk on that worn-out, antiquarian, unsophisticated idea called "love", or sit down and shut the hell up.

Quote:We don't need the manosphere. We don't need a movement that complains about sexual double standards to respond to a movement that arose as little more than complaints about sexual double standards. We need virtue. Get it from the ancient Greeks if you can't digest the Christian version. Lose the isms and the spheres.

How can you argue with such quixotic notions? Guys we'll just be virtuous and if we all do it together then dagnabbit we'll have the society we want!

Post: #14

(10-26-2013 04:33 PM)Menace Wrote:  

Quote:We don't need the manosphere. We don't need a movement that complains about sexual double standards to respond to a movement that arose as little more than complaints about sexual double standards. We need virtue. Get it from the ancient Greeks if you can't digest the Christian version. Lose the isms and the spheres.

Post: #15

(10-26-2013 04:33 PM)Menace Wrote:  Commenter Joe Hargrave is eloquent but not living in reality:

Quote:We don't need the manosphere. We don't need a movement that complains about sexual double standards to respond to a movement that arose as little more than complaints about sexual double standards. We need virtue. Get it from the ancient Greeks if you can't digest the Christian version. Lose the isms and the spheres.

How can you argue with such quixotic notions?

Yeah, this guy is a deluded idealist who is simply enamored with his own morally self-aggrandizing world view. He's far too busy publicly patting himself on the back with his utopian platitudes to simply do the enlightened thing -- shut up and listen to people.

Post: #16

Great point I hadn't thought of:

"This is the same news outlet that covered “devil worship” in 1985 with nary a trace of skepticism."

On the internet we have outrage farmers. Your Anita Sarkeesians, Jezebels, etc. Look what a man said now! Get mad! Post "Nope!" GIF's! Click again to see if they were approved! Click again to see the sisterhood respond with "This! Just this!" Donate now! Watch the Activia ad 56 times!

But TV is old school. They're fear farmers. Your child could be Satanic Ritually Abused! Driven to murder by Dungeons and Dragons! Your child could be chatting with pervs on the internet! Inviting them over for sweet tea and cookies and if you were just trying to warn her, sir, why did you bring condoms? Your daughter could be bullied online or raped by these rapey raping advocates of rape! Tune in at 11! None of the boogeymen are real, of course. So the TV people had to create them.

They need hysteria. The 20/20 piece didn't run because they don't have a rape victim to connect to the manosphere. Anita Sarkeesian getting nasty tweets isn't going to cut it. They need a pixelated face. Distorted voice. I was drugged... I woke up... he was on top of me... Investigators found the work of "Roosh Vorek" in the rapist's browser, along with an article by "Matt Forney" detailing how (incredulous tone) women... are not worthy of self-esteem. How widespread is this hate movement? The answer... will shock you. Cut to a mom tousling her towheaded kid's hair. Tide has a new solution for stubborn grass stains, she tells you.

20/20 is for old people. A bunch of gibberish about message boards isn't going to cut it. They don't know what the fuck an "online forum" is. You need to scare them. HEY: RAPE! Details at 11. Slow pan over an innocent dorm room. "Janice" was an ordinary college student excited for her freshman year. That was until she met Chad Snatchworthy, a nice guy... with a secret. Chad followed a men's hate movement that's steadily gaining ground all over the country...

We get the old in-out everyone tuned in for. Anchors sign off, look down solemnly. Credits roll. Mom calls her daughter in college. It's 11PM Friday. Voicemail. "Susy honey... I just saw a thing on TV... I want to make sure you don't hang around with those man-cube guys... I sent you some Tide in the care package." Meanwhile dad's jerking it into the toilet thinking of college date rape. Susy's getting her box munched publically in front of the local bank.

That's what they need. Talking on TV about men talking on the internet about women talking on the internet-- boring. Sex it up. ABC: if you're reading this: hire me. I'll make it happen.

Post: #17

(10-26-2013 04:51 PM)delicioustacos Wrote:  snip

If they did hire you to write that show, I'd watch.

Post: #18

dt you just fucking killed it man

Post: #19

(10-26-2013 04:06 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Takimag content is usually quite red pill, but the commenters seem to lean older and more traditional.

thats because I think younger conservatives are too afraid to show their faces.

Post: #20

(10-26-2013 04:42 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(10-26-2013 04:33 PM)Menace Wrote:  Commenter Joe Hargrave is eloquent but not living in reality:

Quote:We don't need the manosphere. We don't need a movement that complains about sexual double standards to respond to a movement that arose as little more than complaints about sexual double standards. We need virtue. Get it from the ancient Greeks if you can't digest the Christian version. Lose the isms and the spheres.

How can you argue with such quixotic notions?

Yeah, this guy is a deluded idealist who is simply enamored with his own morally self-aggrandizing world view. He's far too busy publicly patting himself on the back with his utopian platitudes to simply do the enlightened thing -- shut up and listen to people.

He is a christian conservative white knight, direct result of the conservative media machine. The Sean Hannity's of the world. Its what has completely ruined the conservative movement, the religious zealot white knights, pushing a double standard and doing creepy stuff on the side. Guys like this watch fox news, listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea or willfully ignore the fact Rush is buying drugs in parking lots with shoeboxes full of cash, and most of the other hosts are secretly gay, uneducated or not even conservative at all. They'll call me liberal.

Post: #21

Delicious Tacos,

You are the fucking man.

(no homo)