HERE are some strong objections at other sites to what I and others have written here in the last few days. They concern the recent posts on men’s rights, which you can find here and here, and on black rape statistics.

At the Spearhead and In Male Fide, I am accused of a lack of understanding of what men face today. I have not read these posts in their entirety. In fact, I have not read references to me at either of these sites since they stooped to calling me names.

Two female bloggers take strong exception to my post on black rape. In a long entry about false rape accusations against black men during the Jim Crow era, accusations which she says were a result of white female hysteria over sexual relations between their husbands and black women, Alte at Traditional Catholicism says, “Hundreds of black men died that way, and many still do, to promote the cause of White Womanhood.”

Alte, who is black and who often writes interesting entries on feminism and modern life, states in the comments that her entry on racism and feminism was in response to my post on black rape. She writes:

My own personal experiences tell me that white men aren’t as harmless toward black women as often assumed by women like Laura.”

I never said white men were harmless toward black women. I did post statistics on the disproportionate rate of black sexual crimes. Both whites and blacks are victims of these crimes. Alte refers earlier in her post to the “frigid [white] housewife” who is shocked by black sexuality.

 Terry at Breathing Grace says I have insulted her husband. By acknowledging publicly that some black men are rapists, I apparently have accused her husband of illicit attacks against other women. The entry I quoted from Lawrence Auster went out of the way to state that only a minority of black men are rapists, but they commit a disproportionate share of rape.

Terry, who is black, writes:

Few things get me going like the feeling my man (or one of my children) is being targeted, and that’s the very thing that prompted me to take a minute to post today. Secret Agent Man is a big boy and can take care of himself but he didn’t pledge his life, name, and the whole of his worldly posessions to a woman who won’t have his back.

This is strange. If Terry wrote about evil things that white men had done, which she has done in drawing attention to the white men who had illicit relations with black women in the past, I would not consider my husband insulted. I never even came close to calling her husband a rapist. She also writes:

I would never attempt to brush away the realities of disproportionate crime rates among young black men, but this notion of pure white women being under seige from black men is a load of garbage. The white women (and there have been more than 1 or 2) that hit on my husband surely didn’t get the memo that their safety and virtue are on the line simply because he exists!

Now this is very insulting. I have hardly argued for the prevalence of pure white women. But even women who are impure should not face rape. Nor have I ever stated that white women were “under siege” from black men. Many white women are raped by black men. Black women face black rapists much more often than white women do. Neither of these women bloggers appear to be terribly concerned about the very high rate of black rape against both blacks and whites.

                                                                          — Comments —

Bruce writes:

It is typical of those in thrall to political correctness that they purport to be evidential, until the evidence goes against them, then they revert to ad hominem attacks on the motivation of the person who defeated them with evidence. From that point onwards the evidence will be ignored, and speculation on motivation is unconstrained.

Josh F. writes:

I took the opportunity to read the critiques of our critics and I must say, how very predictable. The MRM is simply a male liberationist movement and this cliquish in-group mentality that believes only they have command of the facts on the ground is too comical to comment on. In fact, most of these males have no real battle with any particular woman. The “battle” is largely an abstract one or a battle involving a fellow male. It is clear from the various MRM writings that retreating from the battle of life, absolutely, is the goal of the MRM liberationist movement. Of course, over the long run this retreat  means the disappearance of man.

As a side note, notice how “male tech” is seemingly unable to decipher the meaning of very straightforward words. It reminds me of the many Mexicans I’ve come across that you just know forget how to speak  English when the gringo comes asking for assistance. This is a form of  radical autonomy. These male liberationists, anti-Supremacy by definition, are simply unable to communicate with God-fearing persons.  To have God-ordained free will or the ability to exercise maximum moral autonomy is a foreign and alien concept to these males immersed in a lifetime of radical liberalism.

A reader writes:

Regarding your “frigid white housewife” post on black female reaction to the evidence of high black male rape rates of white and black women: from the perspective of some who lives outside the U.S., the hostility of black American women to white men in particular is very striking. It used to make going through Detroit or Chicago airport a traumatic experience for me, until I learned to cope with it. I have never seen anything similar from black women in the U.K., and I am not sure of the origin.

Reader N. writes:

I’m afraid that, given what you have willingly posted by both Jesse Powell and Josh F., you are in no position to object to namecalling. Now, had you rebuked Josh for his sophomoric misuse of the prefix “homo,” you might have a point. Had you suggested to Jesse Powell that his own lack of knowledge about many legal aspects of marriage requires humility rather than bombast on his part, again you might have a legitimate complaint regarding the reactions to you at Spearhead and In Male Fide. However, you did not do those things. In fact, you have done quite the opposite: you have deliberately posted provocative language on your web site. This is not the first time, either, do you recall the great “men are from Uranus” dustup? 

I shall be blunt: when you post a man’s fighting words on your web site, you should not be surprised if other men come out to fight.  And that is what both Jesse Powell and Josh’s words are, they are “fighting words”, they are the kind of words that if said to a man’s face would produce hostility in return, starting with short, sharp words of anger and possibly going on from there in escalation.

So, here you are, now you object when you are being treated as your site has already treated others. Do you see how difficult it is to be sympathetic, given that you and some of your
commenters by others you posted cast the first rock? If you do not want to get in a fight, do not pick one. As a mother of sons, surely you have taught that lesson yourself a time or two?

Please consider the golden rule that Jesus taught: have you really, truthfully, written about MRA’s as you yourself would like to be written about? Have you really, truthfully posted comments about MRA’s that you really would enjoy having pointed at you? I rather doubt it, in both cases.

Please consider these things. You have written some very poignant and thoughtful postings over the last few years. It benefits no one, least of all yourself, to become enmired in bile towards others.

Laura writes:

Let me correct a few misleading statements you make.

You say that I am “enmired in bile.” Please offer some proof in the relatively small number of entries I have posted about the men’s movement that I am “enmired in bile.” Are you “enmired in bile” toward feminism because you have criticized it? By your standards, I suppose you are. Also, perhaps you could point to any occasions where I have attacked anyone personally from the men’s movement or let any of my posters attack anyone personally from the men’s movement. I have never targeted specific sites. I did in an early post object to the misogynist comments at The Spearhead but this was not an appraisal of the men’s movement at large. So that makes my criticisms distinctly different from the attacks on me at The Spearhead and at In Male Fide. I have never discussed any of the individual authors there.

I am not hurt or crushed that they have attacked me. Nor am I surprised. That was not my point. I did not in the above entry object to being called names. I said I hadn’t read the posts because I was called names, the point being that the hostility directed at me personally was too much for me to read these posts objectively. But I did not object to being called names or say that I was surprised at being called names. I stated a fact. If you wish to prove that I deserve to be called names, please point to instances where I or commenters here have singled out specific men and called them ridiculous or said that others should target them or, as was done at another men’s site not listed here, advocated violence against commenters at those sites.

I won’t attempt to prove to you that I don’t feel deep resentment toward men in the men’s movement since it appears to be a settled conviction on your part. I will say for the record that the reason I began to write about the men’s movement was that other men asked me to write about it. Men whose opinion I trusted wrote to me and asked me to write about the subject. If it had not been for that, I never would have gotten involved because I am so focused on the evil of feminism.

As far as Josh’s use of the prefix “homo,” I defended that in a previous post. I have never argued that men in the men’s movement were practicing homosexuals, nor has Josh. But in their petulant eagerness to be offended, commenters in the men’s movement have interpreted it that way. The idea that I have called men’s movement advocates fags is preposterous.

You refer to the “Men are from Uranus” post, which was never called the “Men are from Uranus” post. This was prompted by a reader’s note about his wife and his point that she helped him to mature. The idea that men are less mature than women has never been seriously argued by me at this site. It amazes me, given the sheer amount of vitriol I have unleashed on contemporary women, that this letter from a reader continues to be viewed as expressive of a deeply anti-male viewpoint. This reminds me of the paranoia I encountered in my college days among feminists. I was a feminist back then and I remember sitting through movies or reading books, perpetually on the edge of my seat for any sign that women might be ‘dissed.’

It is interesting that you are so outraged by the criticisms here of the men’s movement and yet you expend not an ounce of breath on the misogynist comments that are routinely posted at some men’s sites or on the idea, frequently encouraged at these sites, that no woman in this world is worth marrying. I am opposed to these generalizations. I object to them. I will fight these ideas and at the same time never deviate from my main focus, which is the grievances of men and women against feminism, and my desire to see society at large redress these injustices, particularly those injustices against men.

I have expended an immense amount of effort at this site on the plight of contemporary men. I am not tooting my horn, but stating a fact. I have done it out of sincere conviction. I hope that you can point to a single men’s site or publication or popular male author who has offered consistent and repeated defense of traditional women (as consistent and repeated as I have defended men) and sympathized with their isolation in a world that glorifies the powerful, money-making woman. I am eager for your response. I am eager to know that men in the public realm notice our existence. I am eager for you to show me this articulate public defense of the traditional woman who is left in the wilderness of modern life, surrounded by both men and women who tell her that what she does is worthless.

Jesse Powell writes:

Personally, I am glad to see The Spearhead and In Mala Fide take on directly the comments here recently regarding men’s rights; it proves to everyone that the MRM no longer has control over the secular anti-feminist blogosphere. At an earlier time, the MRM felt like it “owned” anti-feminism and was entitled to bully and push around any anti-feminist blogger that dared object to its anti-family male narcissistic agenda. Well, it is now clear that traditionalists aren’t lying down anymore meekly nodding their heads in agreement to MRM nonsense. 

It is now clear that social conservatives and men’s rights advocates are not the same and are not natural allies, contrary to what MRAs tried to pretend at an earlier time. 

It should be remembered, the MRA needs the legitimacy of patriarchy, which they are not entitled to while they continue to scorn patriarchal values; traditionalists most certainly do not need the MRA. It is the traditionalist that has moral authority, not the MRA who openly flouts any allegiance to a moral code higher than their own self-interest.

Van Wijk writes:

A while back In Male Fide posted a very insulting satire of Lawrence Auster in which you were named. He seems to be squarely in the Roissyite camp and needn’t trouble your thoughts.

I have had several debates with Alte at Mark Richardson’s blog Oz Conservative (see this long thread in particular). She is what I would call a globalist Catholic and is, at the very least, indifferent to the fate of Caucasians in the west. Here is a comment of hers that speaks volumes:

Religions (including liberalism, which is a sort of secularist religion) are slowly replacing race/ethnicity as chief allegiance, as national ties weaken and the world becomes more globalized. Traditional Catholics are already a relatively small tribe, so we would be less inclined to further dilute our own influence by splitting down by nationality, race, ethnicity, whatever. We need everyone we can get, and membership is quite onerous, so we’ll be loathe to cannibalize ourselves.

As I’ve said elsewhere, the number of truly conservative non-whites is vanishingly small. Scratch the surface of an ostensibly conservative black and you almost invariably find a liberal with a big racial chip on his shoulder. We should welcome those few who wish to come with us, but they should know that we have nothing to prove to them. If anything, the onus is on them to prove both their conservative bona fides and their acceptance of Caucasian hegemony.

Ilion T. writes:

The thing about the majority of these “men’s rights activists” is that they don’t really oppose feminism, and they certainly don’t want society to make a return to traditionalism; rather, they want some of the promises of feminism — lots of “hot” women willing to sexually service them with no commitment — but without the drawbacks — such as, for instance, women viewing them as being as disposable as they view women. 

What these so-called men are really bitching about is that no one took care to reserve a stash of “quality women” on some upper shelf to be made available to them when they themselves were finally ready to “settle down.” They’re whining at the discovery that if all the so-called men are using all the women as unpaid sexual conveniences, then over time there are no more women left who are not either already married or already “used up.”

Ilion adds:

At the same time, this “Caucasian hegemony” tripe is for the birds — it has no more to do with reality, or conservativism/traditionalism, OR Christianity than “black power” does.

Van Wijk writes:

Ilion wrote: “At the same time, this “Caucasian hegemony” tripe is for the birds — it has no more to do with reality, or conservativism/traditionalism, OR Christianity than “black power” does.”

White people must remain both the majority and the primary culture in their own lands. That is all I mean when I use the term. Someone who doesn’t see this as vital or who thinks it might be fun to be a minority in this country isn’t qualified to lecture anyone on what conservatism is or isn’t.

Josh F. writes:

I just caught Reader N.’s response. Fighting words, eh? Of course, they are. We are in the heart of the battle, right? Why do these males in the MRM believe they are immune from criticism coming from other men?  This collective thinks peer pressure is the way of the man? It thinks it can shame other men into silence by the sheer size of its collective?

Not a single individual in the MRM has said unequivocally that the MRM  is not a white male liberationist movement.

Not a single individual in the MRM has stated that liberal “man” and traditional man are two totally different entities; so much so that only one can be a REAL man.

Not a single individual in the MRM can’t state that he has a unique  command of reality by the mere fact that he has had a desolating fallout with a woman/female.

The MRM leadership must hide the fact that it is a white male LIBERAL  leadership. A liberal leadership that has no standard by which man is defined. Instead, the MRM has as its unspoken motivation, Eve-hate.  The writings reflect this. Couple this with a push towards de facto homo-ism/radical autonomy and it becomes clear who represent the “elite” within the MRM and why “thordaddy,” my postingname at The Spearhead, where I have been banished, is a “barbarian” relegated  to the outer darkness. LOL.

Please follow and like us: