Rebuild respect for men to end the gender wars

Summary: Dalrock discusses respect as a way to end the gender wars. He breaks our dialog out of the manosphere rut onto a new and promising path to the future. It won’t be easy.

“I offer a toast to the future, the undiscovered country.”
— Klingon Chancellor Gorkon in “Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country“.

Road To The Future

 

Dalrock: the road to respect for men

“By portraying men as victims we are acting like girls. That will not help us. We would be better off looking in the mirror and saying ‘we’ve been weak, and that stops today.’” {My comment in this post.}

Excellent point. This is in line with what I had in mind though. I’m not begging for another man’s respect. I’m saying as leaders we need to be respectable. Part of this is being miserly with respect towards other men when due. When our daughters are old enough to seek a husband, we should not behave in the weaselly way of the culture. As in the famous Rules for dating a drill instructor’s daughter (see my rebuttal: Cartoonish chivalry, drill instructor edition).

Likewise we should exhort our pastors to respect respectability in the congregation, especially the younger men who are doing it right but just coming up. We also can lead this by respecting our own fathers and fathers in law. Not a perfect fit, but this is related: Scaring away the competition.

My reply: what leaders?

Now this dialog becomes even more interesting. We have pushed it forward to the points at which we disagree. Unsurprisingly, they concern the undiscovered country, the future. More specifically, about how men can regain their self-respect – and respect of society. Without that, I believe men will continue to withdraw from the “rat race” and no longer be the engine of American society.

(1) “I’m saying as leaders we need to be respectable.”

I agree, but it is a secondary point. More importantly, we should ask who are the leaders of America’s young men (18 – 28 years old). Do they have anyone whom they follow?  Do they want leaders (i.e., to be followers)? Our youth organizations all train boys to be leaders, not followers (and do so badly).

Our recent mass protest movements – the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street – were noteworthy for their rejection of having leaders. That is one reason they were peasant protests, not effective political activism (for details see Occupy & Tea Party are alike, both saving America through cosplay).

The great theme of this series is that the counter-revolution to feminism will come in two forms. First, men refusing to marry women because the risk – benefit ratio marriage is unacceptable. Second, the more powerful counter-revolution will come from groups. Men (and women) standing together, probably asserting new values. As I briefly noted in several previous chapters (e.g., in chapter 6) that like Weimar, we probably have passed the point at which these new groups will be respectable.

(2) “Likewise we should exhort our pastors to respect respectability”

That would be useful. But I’ve been in Baptist churches in the NE and California for 30 years, and I see few 23 year old men. I’ve seen much research on church attendance by age and by gender — but never by both. I suspect that such research (it is out there) shows that young men have low participation in most American churches.

Churches still have a role in molding children and older adults. But America’s major churches have a long road ahead until they become a major force in the lives of America’s young men.

Sailing into the Future

Dalrock: harsh training to create self-respect

“I believe that men give respect automatically as deserved. It begins with self-respect. This process can be accomplished by an individual, but is more commonly done by groups. The Boy Scouts, the imperial British Army (recruiting the scum of the earth, making soldiers feared around the world), the US Marine Corps, the Friekorps, the German Sturmabteilung (stormtroopers) – and perhaps the Proud Boys and Identity Evropa (I know little about the last two, but they should be watched as cutting edge phenomena).” {My comment in this post.}

The boot camp model is a fast food path to respect, and while it is suited to some purposes (e.g., quickly making Marines, forging a sports team) it hasn’t served us well in raising young men. There is a place for such methods, but not in front of the wife and children, and it shouldn’t be a never ending process. I made my case in this regard here: God’s Drill Instructors (language warning.

My reply: harsh training is a path to self-respect

This is the key point of this dialog, the transition from talking about largely futile responses to the gender revolution by men as individuals – to men responding as groups. Standing together to assert their values and their interests.

“The boot camp model is a fast food path to respect”

First, a quibble. I do not believe that is an accurate analogy.

  • Running a successful “boot camp” is the opposite of fast food. It is difficult, requiring trained workers. It takes time. Marine Corps boot camp is 13 weeks of intense full-time training, and is just first phase of their training. In Boy Scouts we had boys for many years, ideally six. That was not a day too long to influence their lives, and we have a low success rate.
  • “Boot camp” is a transformational one-time process. It is the opposite of “a never-ending process.” (IMO that is also true of Game. The idea of using Game on wives is imo delusional.)
  • Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts train children with the help of both mothers and fathers.

My second objection is the key to this discussion. I’m looking ahead to what might happen in the future, leaving behind thoughts about what I would like to happen. I disagree with the dream, don’t act crowd (“let’s wait till the great day when men rise up and smite their whatevers”). While I believe effective solutions are possible, I also believe we have passed the point at which nice methods will have any substantial effect – or are even feasible.

“Boot camps” are an example of effective men’s groups at work. When well-run, they forge men with self-respect and imbued with the group’s values. The harsher the environment the group faces, the more extreme the training of the “boot camp.”

Most of our existing civilian social organizations have failed under the stress of the gender revolution. Creating new ones requires herculean efforts. I expect that they will use tools like boot camps (in some form).

Conclusions

“I offer a toast to the future, the undiscovered country.”
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

Facts and logic are useful for planning, but action will come only from our core essence. What I call our BIOS, our core programming. Pack formation is the early stage of that process. Creation of new values will provide the power. Unless we have more luck than we deserve, this process won’t be pretty.

Much depends on the leaders that create these groups. The West is what it is because in dark times we got men like Charlemagne (the Holy Roman Empire, restoring peace, learning, and trade) and William the Conqueror (enforcing the King’s Peace with his policy of the “strong arm).

In the dark days of the 20th century Germany got Hitler, Russia got Stalin, and America got FDR. That is the harsh workings of the Great Circle of Life. The following describes its working, which applies to a society’s leaders, not just its government officials.

“Every nation gets the government it deserves.”
— Joseph-Marie, comte de Maistre (1753–1821) was a Savoyard lawyer, diplomat, and philosopher. From a letter of 27 August 1811 published in Lettres et Opuscules.

Boxing in the Gender Wars

See the other posts in this series

  1. A return to traditional values.
  2. Men finding individual solutions.
  3. Part 1 – An expert discusses individual solutions.
  4. Part 2 – Discussing women’s responses to men’s solutions.
  5. Part 3 – An expert sees wonders ahead!
  6. Part 4 – An expert: respect is a key battleground in the gender wars.
  7. Part 5 – An expert’s insight: Game is toxic to feminism
  8. Part 6 – An expert describes the road to respect for men.
  9. Coming soon, the answer: A counter-revolution in society.

Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issuesabout feminism, and about marriage.

More insights from Dalrock

32 thoughts on “Rebuild respect for men to end the gender wars

  1. “…the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street – were noteworthy for their rejection of having leaders. That is one reason they were peasant protests, not effective political activism…”

    You couldn’t be more wrong. If the Occupy Wall Street activists hadn’t been making an effective political statement the corporate/government response to them would have been to ignore them rather than the actual response which was to infiltrate, discredit, and destroy them. Those people clearly terrified the oligarchs and had to be destroyed before they made the sheep start thinking about how they were getting fleeced.

    “We need not consult academics to learn successful methods for political reform. The past gives us many proven templates with which to build movements capable of changing the fate of nations.”

    Except they don’t. In reality the only thing any of the prior ‘revolutions’ has changed is which hands are holding the reins and who wears the bankers’ collar. Of course, it isn’t as simple as just refusing to have leaders as the YouTube poster CGP Grey explains in his video, “The Rules for Rulers,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs and the follow-up video, “Death and Dynasties,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU

    The problem comes from the nature of power and the nature of followers. Really, it comes down to the nature of reality and opportunity costs ruling every action, if you want to spend some quality time gazing at your navel.

  2. “Marine Corps boot camp is 13 weeks of intense full-time training, and is just first phase of their training. In Boy Scouts we had boys for many years, ideally six. That was not a day too long to influence their lives, and we have a low success rate.”

    You’re disproving your own statement that boot camp is not a fast-food version of arriving at self-respect. The thirteen intense weeks of boot camp may seem like 13 years while you’re there but it is really inconsequential in comparison to the time spent in Scouting. Obviously, in Scouting, the mentors don’t spend their time referring to the trainees as maggots in order to break down their self-image before rebuilding it but they _do_ spend a remarkable amount of time demonstrating how a man should comport himself. This results in a much deeper change in the long term than the brief period of intense adjustment accomplished in basic training and a few years of military life. Actual deployment is probably counter-productive to the goal of improving one’s self-respect, in fact.

    1. Old Fat Guy,

      I don’t understand your rebuttal.

      (1) “The thirteen intense weeks of boot camp may seem like 13 years while you’re there but it is really inconsequential in comparison to the time spent in Scouting.”

      (a) That misrepresents what I said. I was contrasting intense training programs (Scouts and the Marines) with fast food (McDonalds). I wasn’t contrasting Marines to Scouting.

      (b) If you consider 1300 hours of Marine Training to be like the fast food service at McDonalds, well — OK, then. We have different interpretations.

      (2) “boot camp may seem like 13 years while you’re there but it is really inconsequential in comparison to the time spent in Scouting.”

      The numbers disagree with you. An active Boy Scout at a typical troop spends roughly 500 – 600 hours in Scouting (6 years, each with 11 meetings, 11 outings, and one week of summer camp). Most of it is low key activity, mostly fun and games. The training is done by amateurs (few complete much of BSA’s excellent adult leader training program). That is a dot compared to the 1300 hours of intense training at USMC boot camp, which is “just the first phase of their training.”

      (3) “This results in a much deeper change in the long term”

      I have considerable experience with the products of both programs. That’s not remotely correct. Scouting produces trivial outcomes compared with the Marines. That’s not a criticism of Scouting, which is among the best programs of its kind — and does a lot of good. But we have to be realistic about what it can do with its available resources.

      I was a Scout leader for 15 years, leading a Troop that was roughly 4x more active than the average troop — most of whose uniformed leaders had completed advanced Scouting courses. We did great things with our boys. But I would not make such a large claim for our success.

      (4) “Actual deployment is probably counter-productive to the goal of improving one’s self-respect”

      An interesting claim, quite the opposite from what I hear from long-service officers in the Army and Marines. Your evidence?

    2. Did most of your scout leaders go through position specific training? Wood Badge? National Camp School? University of Scouting? Complete training awards? Earn Scouter Training Award/Scouter’s Key? Become district or council commissioners? If in OA, National Leadership Seminars?

    3. “I was contrasting intense training programs (Scouts and the Marines) with fast food (McDonalds). I wasn’t contrasting Marines to Scouting.”

      You are saying that Scouting is an intense training program? I think you’re confused. You may not have been _intending_ to contrast Boot Camp with Scouting but that is, in the minds of most people I am sure, exactly what you did.

      My claim is that a longer, though less intense, training period produces a more long-lasting impact upon the trainee than a (relatively) short duration, though very intense, training period. Obviously some Scout troops are going to have better results than others. Overall I was certainly greatly impressed by the leaders of my Scout troop as a child.

      “I have considerable experience with the products of both programs. That’s not remotely correct. Scouting produces trivial outcomes compared with the Marines.”

      Scouting produces its outcomes far more gradually and over a far longer period of time. This makes those outcomes more difficult to observe. Longer training times produce deeper, longer lasting effects. Everyone walks out of boot camp thinking that they are going to save the world. That is the intended effect. Which ties directly to my comment about deployment: Once deployed the newly minted recruit gradually discovers that, not only are they not going to save the world, but that what they are doing is almost certainly making the world a far worse place for the vast majority of people.

      Don’t even talk to me about officers and other sleazy professional politicians.

    4. Old Fat Guy,

      (1) “You are saying that Scouting is an intense training program? I think you’re confused.”

      I was a Scout leader for 16 years. I ran a very large and highly successful troop for 7 years. I was a Vice President and Director for a class one district.

      (2) “My claim is that a longer, though less intense, training period produces a more long-lasting impact upon the trainee than a (relatively) short duration”

      That’s quite a vague statement. I’d be interested to see research on it. I assume you are comparing programs of equal hours and resources.

      (3) “This makes those outcomes more difficult to observe.”

      I have seen quite a few young men from both programs, and followed them for a decade afterwards. I’ll go with my observations over your claims. If you have research, I’d like to see it.

  3. Sorry, Larry but still waiting for something new or significant to be revealed and … not buying the boot camp bit at all. While I’m very pro military … a very odd thing has happened over the last dozen or so years that has changed my attitude. So lets let REALITY creep in here a bit, ok. First, Obama started forcing out all military leadership of the old guard and replacing them with political flunkies that owed allegiance to him (Obama), democrats, and the Libtard political agenda. Lets say that was like 2009 or 10. And this took several years and was mostly under the radar … though some did notice. This was done so that when Obama’s criminals wanted to have women in combat … there was no one there to oppose them. And then to allow faggots and lesbians to enlist. Who was there to oppose them ? And then to allow faggots to enlist and then have the government pay for them to be transposed into trannies … and have the government pay for that too. SUCCESS, ALL HAIL THE LIBTARD !!!! Sounds insane but is the truth and is reality.

    So … back to the Boot Camp analogy … what good is a Boot Camp when all graduates go into a system that is controlled by insane socialist man hating Libtards and the graduates have no power over anything ? Think other members of the military could do anything when they allowed homos to enlist ? To allow women in combat ? To enlist and encourage trannies ? And some men … LITERALLY graduated from a real bootcamp and got assigned to find a faggot in the next bunk. AND THERE WAS NOT A FUCKING THING HE COULD DO ABOUT IT.

    I actually had a friend who home schooled his kids and the oldest boy was awesome … eagle scout and heading to college … and I felt sad. That boy was about to be crushed … show up at a university of over 20,000 other students and every single one completely fucked up in the head by society. He was the only one with his head on straight. I was thinking I hope to god he finds a few others to have as friends who aren’t totally gone and that he can survive 4 yrs before caving in and undoing 18 yrs of his fathers hard work raising him. And the truth is … I didn’t and still don’t think he could. HE WOULD BE LUCKY TO SAVE HIMSELF AND HE SURE AS HELL ISN”T CONVINCING THE OTHER 20,000 STUDENT HOW FUCKED UP THEY ARE. In other words … his bootcamp (home schooling, scouts, etc) … wasn’t changing a damn thing. You wanna make changes … you gotta change the power structures and who makes the decisions and where the money comes from and what the money is used for. Obama knew that and used that to subvert the military.

    The real question is … how do you reverse that ? And then how do you get a power structure that actually supports the right behaviors and the right values ?

    1. Mega,

      “Obama started forcing out all military leadership of the old guard”

      I stopped reading at that point. Total nonsense.

    1. Mega,

      “you need to learn how to google, took me 20 seconds to come up with:”

      You found it on the internet, so it must be true! I haven’t seen that belief for years. Yes, you can quickly find misinformation using google. For you, a 2013 editorial at investing.com and an article at Jeff Rense’s website (“Alt News”), which Wikipedia describes as promoting “9/11 conspiracy theories, UFO reporting, paranormal phenomena, creation of diseases, chemtrails, evidence of advanced ancient technology, emergent energy technologies, and alternative medicine.”

      Critical reading takes a little longer. Actual info — from reliable sources — shows that this is a big change in the US military. It’s been long demanded by serving officers and military reformers: holding senior officers accountable for their behavior. And dismantling the General Club, which protects senior officers from investigation and punishment.

      This is wonderful news. Not just in uncovering and punishing routine scandals — corruptions and incompetence that would have been tolerated — but also finding some big scandals. Such as the Fat Leonard corruption, one of the bigger ones since WWII.

      I have not found what started this reform program. But it appears to be internal to the military, not external from DoD or Congressional leaders.

      These bogus “Obama purge” stories began circulating in 2013. In 2015 I posted a look at some of the higher profile cases: Is Obama purging the US military leadership? The answer is “no.” These were are well-deserved actions.

      The news since in the following three years has thoroughly debunked those “purge the military” stories. I didn’t know anyone still believed them.

    2. Mega,

      I re-wrote my reply to your fascinating comment, including more information. Hit refresh to see it.

  4. Creating bootcamps is a strategy invented by countries who needed to create a fighting force quickly. So far the manosphere has been prophets in the mountains. Those seeking enlightenment have gone out to the prophets to hear advice about their own lives. With the exception of a few who have gotten involved with the Alt-Right, most of these prophets have been happy to stay in the mountains. Taking a force of men and training them to demand respect would be a big development.

    What strategic goals would this new army have? Would it be focused on demanding respect from pastors? Wives? What hills should it try to take?

    1. jvangeld,

      “Creating bootcamps is a strategy invented by countries who needed to create a fighting force quickly.”

      Thanks for catching this! The quote I gave was misleading. I’ve substituted a longer one earlier in thread, which shows we’re not talking about actual war.

      “I believe that men give respect automatically as deserved. It begins with self-respect. This process can be accomplished by an individual, but is more commonly done by groups. The Boy Scouts, the imperial British Army (recruiting the scum of the earth, making soldiers feared around the world), the US Marine Corps, the Friekorps, the German Sturmabteilung (stormtroopers) – and perhaps the Proud Boys and Identity Evropa (I know little about the last two, but they should be watched as cutting edge phenomena).” {My comment in this post.}

  5. Respect for men..in the modern day/practically/pragmatically begins with intense and as total as possible disrespect for women. Mentally, spiritually, physically.

    Unflinching, constant, reflexive disdain and unwillingness to cooperate. No exceptions. No excuses.

    Followed by merciless and brutal responses at the very limits of what the law might allow when females get physically abusive.

    That’s what brings respect back in a major way.

    The fact that it causes suffering and pain to the guilty gender is just a nice bonus.

    We need to kill the “Women Are Wonderful” effect and until we can directly rewire.our brains to treat and perceive women as they deserve to be treated and perceived..

    Well a reflexive cultivated antipathy for females is highly rational.

    Dalrock and Larry dont like this idea much though.. they are still trying to Make Women Good Enough. Probably cause they have wives or daughters and the sentiment that entails.

    I hate it for them..

    1. Just a vet,

      “Respect for men..in the modern day/practically/pragmatically begins with intense and as total as possible disrespect for women.”

      Time will tell if you are correct. I doubt it.

  6. Due to a WordPress system problem, a batch of comments were lost in the trash, including this one.

    You are citing the Freikorps and Sturmabteilung as a model? The pre 1920 Freikorps was a singularly ineffective force, and the post 1920 one, surely we all know where it went and what it was used for?

    And then, in the same sentence, the Sturmabtelung? The SA?

    What is this about?

    1. Simon,

      That has to be one of the most astonishing reading FAILs I’ve seen in the 55,000 comments on this website. Take off your blinders and try again.

  7. You are recommending as models in the same sentence the Freikorps and the Sturmabteilung.

    Post WW1 the Freikorps was the backbone of Nazism. Before WW1 it was singularly ineffective as a military force, consisting, with minor exceptions, of undisciplined volunteers and deserters.

    And the Sturmabteilung, the SA, was Rohm’s Brownshirts.

    1. George,

      “You are recommending as models …”

      This is an excerpt from a discussion, responding to specific points raised by Dalrock. But even here it is clear I’m not “recommending”. See the second point I raise about boot camps.

      “My second objection is the key to this discussion. I’m looking ahead to what might happen in the future, leaving behind thoughts about what I would like to happen.”

      If you click on the link to the original discussion — “{My comment in this post.}” — you see the paragraph immediately following the excerpt:

      “Morality is not a factor in pack formation. It is hard-wired into men as a survival mechanism.

      “The more extreme the social pressure, the more extreme the packs that form to push back. In my dark moments I fear that history will say that the Greatest Generation defeated fascists and the Baby Boomers created fascists.”

    1. Waithburn,

      I’ve never heard of it. Sounds interesting. Have you tried it? With what results?

    2. I’ve interacted on twitter with the author, he has built a pretty good community. I have not gone through the program. Those who have like it.

  8. Every one of the commenters is barking up the wrong tree.
    Respect for yourself as a man begins with understanding of things connect you to the natural world and the rest of the universe, and to your history of you as a man relating to other men, across space and time. About honoring your ancestors. And I don’t mean whatever privileges that this, that, or the other family had over one another.
    Until men can reclaim for themselves knowledge that is hard-won, and requires of them patience, they never gain sovereignty over themselves. You do not gain this knowledge with a gun.
    Woodworkers know about this knowledge.
    Metalworkers know about this knowledge.
    Bricklayers and stone workers know about this knowledge.
    And a few artists like me know about this knowledge, and I’m a woman.

    This is really sad.

    1. Sun Village,

      “Respect for yourself as a man begins with understanding of things connect you to the natural world and the rest of the universe, and to your history of you as a man relating to other men, across space and time. About honoring your ancestors.”

      What is your basis for saying that? The first and third seem just weird. True in some times and places, but hardly universal.

  9. I think the two of you are talking about two different things with regards to “boot camps.”

    I think what Dalrock is thinking of is a relatively brief period of intensive training for a specific purpose. They also begin with the subjects either being low or being reduced to nothing in at the beginning of the program. The six years of Scouting, which is not training for a specific vocation, and doesn’t rely in Scouts starting out as worthless pukes, is not really a fit with the other groups listed.

    I think he acknowledges that such groups can be effective in giving men self-respect, but what makes them effective are:
    * They are separated from the rest of society, in particular women and children.
    * They are relatively brief, and have a clear end point after which the subjects are no longer considered worthless, and are indeed considered people of honor.

    Now, how this has been applied to men in Christian communities is essentially keeping the bathwater but throwing away the baby. Married fathers, who should have already merited at least a modicum of respect, are subjected to a never-ending stream of messages of how worthless they are. And this is done in front of their wives and children, planting seeds of disrespect that our cultivated by other cultural forces. And there is no end in sight. There is no set of achievements the married father can accomplish that will turn him from a “worthless puke” to “Marine.”

    Does that mean it’s impossible for there to be a general boot camp like experience that will raise men’s self esteem? Probably not, but the results from these attempts are not encouraging. And it’s probably a poor fit for men who are already (though perhaps flawed) husbands and fathers, who shouldn’t consider themselves, or be considered by others (particularly their wives and children) to be worthless pukes.

    1. John,

      I don’t know what others think. My comment was quite clear. My guess is that, as usual, most of the people giving rebuttals didn’t read it. Let’s replay the tape.

      “I believe that men give respect automatically as deserved. It begins with self-respect. This process can be accomplished by an individual, but is more commonly done by groups. The Boy Scouts, the imperial British Army (recruiting the scum of the earth, making soldiers feared around the world), the US Marine Corps, the Friekorps, the German Sturmabteilung (stormtroopers) – and perhaps the Proud Boys and Identity Evropa (I know little about the last two, but they should be watched as cutting edge phenomena).

      “Morality is not a factor in pack formation. It is hard-wired into men as a survival mechanism.

      “The more extreme the social pressure, the more extreme the packs that form to push back. In my dark moments I fear that history will say that the Greatest Generation defeated fascists and the Baby Boomers created fascists.”

  10. I don’t think you were being as clear as you think you were.

    My guess now is that you were making a value-free observation that “boot camp” type experiences have been successful in bringing men self-respect, and the if men are to regain self-respect, “boot camps” are likely to play a role. You are not taking a position on whether this is a good thing or not.

    I think the confusion comes in that it seemed to be a refutation of Dalrock’s observations of what importing “boot camp” type of experiences in to generalized programs for husbands and fathers has looked like. The heading “My reply: harsh training is a path to self-respect” would lead one to believe it was a defense of boot camps. And the inclusion of the Boy Scouts on your list, despite it being a considerable outlier from the other groups in many dimensions, and your long standing involvement in the group and apparent regard for it, suggest that you think this is something worth pursuing.

    > Most of our existing civilian social organizations have failed under the stress of the gender revolution. Creating
    > new ones requires herculean efforts. I expect that they will use tools like boot camps (in some form).

    I suppose the key question is fleshing out the “in some form” part. The forms that have been attempted so far have been counter-productive.

    1. John,

      This post gave an excerpt from the original dialog, focusing on certain aspects of it. Space precluded showing the full discussion. Nevertheless, it was quite clear.

      (1) “I think the confusion comes in that it seemed to be a refutation of Dalrock’s observations of what importing “boot camp” type of experiences”

      Since his comment follows mine, I don’t see how that is logical.

      (2) “The heading ‘My reply: harsh training is a path to self-respect’ would lead one to believe it was a defense of boot camps. …suggest that you think this is something worth pursuing.”

      Again, that’s not logical. To say that something produces “x” doesn’t mean it is a recommendation. Saying that “murder frees an abused wife of her husband” doesn’t mean a recommendation of murder over divorce. Also, it is directly refuted by my text in this post.

      “I’m looking ahead to what might happen in the future, leaving behind thoughts about what I would like to happen.”

      I repeated this later. If I expect a nuclear war, that obviously isn’t a recommendation.

      “Boot camps” are an example of effective men’s groups at work. When well-run, they forge men with self-respect and imbued with the group’s values. The harsher the environment the group faces, the more extreme the training of the ‘boot camp.’ …I expect that they will use tools like boot camps (in some form).”

      (3) “The forms that have been attempted so far have been counter-productive.”

      I strongly disagree. Both Scouts (BSA and GSA) and the Marine Corps (and the US military’s training in general) have been very productive to most who go through them.

  11. More to my point of disagreements.

    Part of how these boot camps work is by setting these men apart as something different or distinct from the other men around them. There are regular ordinary men, and then there are ”Marines”. They come in as worthless pukes and emerge as something better. It is a relative, rather than absolute increase.

    The one example that doesn’t lean heavily on this is the Boy Scouts, and I agree with the others above that the bond is not as strong as the other examples. Saying “I am a Marine” carries with it an aura of respect and distinction that saying “I am/was a Boy Scout” would have. There is a bond of brotherhood that Marines share that is not apparent in even those who achieve the higher ranks of Boy Scouts for each other.

    And you can even see this in how the Manosphere talks about itself. Alphas / Betas. Red Pill / Blue Pill. There are the enlightened few and the ignorant masses. It’s one of the aspects of it I personally find unappealing.

    But this poses a problem is using this as a tool to raise the self-respect of ”all men,” or men who engage in relatively common tasks like marriage and fatherhood. It creates a hoop for men to jump through in order to gain self-respect and the respect of others. And, given the miserliness of respect, my suspicion is that more and more hoops will emerge. To borrow a term, it doesn’t “scale.”

    Again, perhaps it’s possible to tweak the model so it doesn’t have this problem. But I’m not seeing it.

    1. John,

      “It is a relative, rather than absolute increase.”

      I doubt you can get many people who have either seen or experienced any of these programs, from Marines to Boy Scouts, to agree with that astounding statement.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.