Post: #1

Anyone else a fan of this website?

They advocate what I would call a "traditional blue pill" world view. On the one hand, they are advocates of marriage and starting a family and of being a productive member of society while red pillers are vehemently against marriage and see society as a sinking ship that one must be escaped from. On the other hand they advocate living an active lifestyle, working out, learning skills, and have articles about how to assert yourself, how to set goals, and the like - very similar to the sort of things you would see in the Lifestyle section of this forum.

Post: #2

Its a good site with a lot of good content but its like Reddit where its extremely blue pill and white knightist. Most of the fanbase of the site are bearded hipsters.

Post: #3

They have some good articles on a number of mandatory man skills (manual labor, fitness, ltr, fashion). I'll take them any time of the day over the joke that is a site like askmen.

Post: #4

(10-14-2013 05:40 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  Its a good site with a lot of good content but its like Reddit where its extremely blue pill and white knightist. Most of the fanbase of the site are bearded hipsters.

Agreed, i use the site though for its old school man advice. I got my hair, hat, and straight edge razor advice from them.

Other than that steer clear of the dating and masculinity advice. This forum is the only source you need.

Post: #5

I learned how to make a snare trap there.

I like the site and I can filter the occasional blue-pill stuff.

Very good content there

Post: #6

Lots of good stuff on that site. I usually point guys to the Art of Manliness who I don't think could handle something like this forum yet. The masculinity promoted there is still more masculine than most of the shlubs in the U.S. will ever be.

Post: #7

It's on my daily blog list, I learned how to deal with bears on that site.

Post: #8

Pretty solid site, in all honesty I was going to start a thread about how askmen seems as if it is written and upheld by women. Its pathetic.

Post: #9

Most of Art of Manliness's posts are written together by the Mormon couple who own the site. "Traditional blue pill" describes it pretty well. One should be highly suspicious of any site about "manliness" that is run by a married man and his wife. All their talk about masculinity has to be safe enough to not offend or go against the "feminine imperative". Dude's wife no doubt has got him by the balls.

Post: #10

My take on this was published earlier this year:

http://www.returnofkings.com/25876/art-o...yle-advice

Post: #11

It's kind of at the forefront of this modern caricature of manhood that tries to duplicate the essence and vigor of their fathers and grandfathers mostly through material mimicry.

It's kind of difficult to explain, but for example one of the last times I visited a friend in x city he was making a fuss about the "man store" I had to see. The conversation went somewhere along the lines of:

"Let me show you the man store!"

"You mean, like a hardware store?"

"No, this one has clothes and stuff.

"Like a hardware store?"

Don't get me wrong, I like artisanal shit and do-it-yourselfer types. But just because you can shave like your grandfather and dress like your grandfather doesn't mean you could pass off as him.

Post: #12

I read it before, good advice about becoming a man who knows how to fix stuff, survive and have traditional vibe, bad advice about becoming a man with a lot of romantic options.

Post: #13

I used to be a daily reader of the site but not really anymore, more due to being busy than not liking the site. That said take whats good about the site and leave the white knight garbage. I like that they advocate going back to men being men, drinking mens cocktails and not spritzers, learning wood working skills and other manly skills, things like that. I even kinda like some of the stuff they say about manly relationships, no queer shit just like its okay to have a buddy and have an emotional connection beyond look at those tits dude. That said ther'es a lot of white knight crap on there as well. Take the good leave the bad but really like some of their stuff on style and straight razor shaving and all that.

Post: #14

It really bugs me when sites are coded in such a way to "take over" you mobile browser. I suppose this is so it generates more clicks.

Post: #15

I just listened to a podcast of a biologist who studied chimps bonobos etc. It's a really interesting podcast if you like this kinda stuff.
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/10/24...s-podcast/

If you listen to the podcast, before the excerpt below, he explains how all human societies are patriarchal, with varying degrees based on culture. Then the following discussion:

Quote:Question: We all see patriarchy not only in humans but in chimps. Is it because males are physically stronger and that they have to do these raids to go get more territory?

Response: It may well play a role, but it clearly isn't enough. And here's why we can say that. The bonobos provide a fascinating counterpoint. Because in bonobos, the males are bigger than the females, so if it was just a matter of strength, the males would undoubtedly be able to dominate the females. But if there are conflicts between males and females, the females routinely win. You could talk about males and females being codominant or sometimes you could say that females dominate the males, but you could never say that the males dominate the females.

There is a case where differences in strength are not enough to account for the differences in social behavior.

The missing piece is the motivation of individuals to get together with other members of their own gender (sex) and form alliances. In chimpanzees and humans, you have this very strong motivation in men to form really effective alliances that fight alongside each other. It's quite clear that that would have paid off in evolutionary time in the context of fighting against neighboring groups.

I think that the very reasonable interpretation of the evolutionary history of patriarchy is that it stems from that tendency. It stems from, essentially, war.

Men now are able to use the alliances that they so readily form in the context of war have come to dominate life within each society.

By the way, one should recognize that patriarchy in this sense of male dominance is cultural in this sense that it depends on the relationship among men or among women at the level of commonal discussion. If you're talking about just a man and a woman alone in their house, then it's quite wrong to think about males always being dominant. There is no consistency there.

It's when you get to the social cultural area that you get the consistency.

The podcast explains how warfare is not exclusively human, but in chimps as well. My summary of the podcast:
Males are expendable (heartiste). Females tend to young, so...
Males fight wars and protect, so...
Males have to form bonds with other males to fight wars, so...
Males have stronger bonds than women, so...
We have patriarchal societies

Notes: I transcribed it, so bold/italics are from me. Also, I did leave out a couple filler words and phrases here and there.

Post: #16

(11-25-2014 01:19 PM)heavy Wrote:  I just listened to a podcast of a biologist who studied chimps bonobos etc. It's a really interesting podcast if you like this kinda stuff.
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/10/24...s-podcast/

If you listen to the podcast, before the excerpt below, he explains how all human societies are patriarchal, with varying degrees based on culture. Then the following discussion:

Quote:Question: We all see patriarchy not only in humans but in chimps. Is it because males are physically stronger and that they have to do these raids to go get more territory?

Response: It may well play a role, but it clearly isn't enough. And here's why we can say that. The bonobos provide a fascinating counterpoint. Because in bonobos, the males are bigger than the females, so if it was just a matter of strength, the males would undoubtedly be able to dominate the females. But if there are conflicts between males and females, the females routinely win. You could talk about males and females being codominant or sometimes you could say that females dominate the males, but you could never say that the males dominate the females.

There is a case where differences in strength are not enough to account for the differences in social behavior.

The missing piece is the motivation of individuals to get together with other members of their own gender (sex) and form alliances. In chimpanzees and humans, you have this very strong motivation in men to form really effective alliances that fight alongside each other. It's quite clear that that would have paid off in evolutionary time in the context of fighting against neighboring groups.

I think that the very reasonable interpretation of the evolutionary history of patriarchy is that it stems from that tendency. It stems from, essentially, war.

Men now are able to use the alliances that they so readily form in the context of war have come to dominate life within each society.

By the way, one should recognize that patriarchy in this sense of male dominance is cultural in this sense that it depends on the relationship among men or among women at the level of commonal discussion. If you're talking about just a man and a woman alone in their house, then it's quite wrong to think about males always being dominant. There is no consistency there.

It's when you get to the social cultural area that you get the consistency.

The podcast explains how warfare is not exclusively human, but in chimps as well. My summary of the podcast:
Males are expendable (heartiste). Females tend to young, so...
Males fight wars and protect, so...
Males have to form bonds with other males to fight wars, so...
Males have stronger bonds than women, so...
We have patriarchal societies

Notes: I transcribed it, so bold/italics are from me. Also, I did leave out a couple filler words and phrases here and there.

Not sure this was the correct thread you wished to revive.

Post: #17

^^ This is an example of the content the Art of Manliness podcast provides (within the Art of Manliness website).

I found it really interesting. While the site may or may not be entirely red pill (is that really possible), the site does provide some excellent content, including this podcast.

I'm all about good websites...and I'm all about good podcasts.

I digress.

Post: #18

The thesis being presented above could explain why honor, oath-keeping, and other such virtues tend to be valued more by males then women. We all know the stereotype of catty girls who secretly despise all their friends and are ready to throw them under the bus.

Post: #19

AOM: It's a very informative site for manly skills & practical knowledge. Good quality presentation as well.

But i'd stick to this forum & Return of Kings as my primary source for masculine guidance & philosophy.