Blogs and websites for men

Coolfinish

What blogs and websites for men do you read?

I've been reading "The Art of Manliness" for a while now and find it very useful for fashion and grooming tips. I also came across an interesting blog called " The Rational Male" which has an interesting take on relationships.

Seriously?

A voice for men.

KomradeBishop

Seriously? wrote: »

A voice for men.

Just be mindful that the founder of that site - Paul Elam - is heavily sexist, bordering on misogynistic:

In that light, I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get **** faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

But are these women asking to get raped?

In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it.

And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

In my opinion their “plight” from being raped should draw about as much sympathy as a man who loses a wallet full of cash after leaving it laying around a bus station unattended.

http://web.archive.org/web/20111103174336/http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/

Elam is an outright scumbag, in my view, for coming out with stuff like that.

Seriously?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Just be mindful that the founder of that site - Paul Elam - is heavily sexist, bordering on misogynistic:

http://web.archive.org/web/20111103174336/http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/

Elam is an outright scumbag, in my view, for coming out with stuff like that.

It’s an inflammatory article which proved quite divisive at the time, but anyone who reads the article can see its fundamental argument presented in the opening paragraphs is one about personal responsibility.

Others may of course interpret it differently.

KomradeBishop

'Personal responsibility' of the victim in this case, i.e. an extremely ugly example of victim blaming, saying that certain women are begging to be raped...It's a short article though, so I encourage anyone who's even a little bit doubtful that this is what Elam meant, to read it; it's pretty clear.

iptba

Seriously? wrote: »

It’s an inflammatory article which proved quite divisive at the time, but anyone who reads the article can see its fundamental argument presented in the opening paragraphs is one about personal responsibility.

Others may of course interpret it differently.

I find the way some people look at the issue (and expect others to look at the issue) quite odd.

For example, when a nail varnish date rape drug detector was developed, rather than be pleased that this was a tool might reduce a crime taking place there were reactions like:

“Whilst Undercover Color’s initiative is well meaning, on the whole,” she said, “Rape Crisis does not endorse or promote such a product or anything similar. This is for three reasons: it implies that it’s the woman’s fault and assumes responsibility on her behalf, and detracts from the real issues that arise from sexual violence.”

http://www.newsweek.com/controversy-over-nail-varnish-date-rape-drug-detector-267126

Rebecca Nagle, one of the co-directors of an activist group called FORCE: Upsetting Rape Culture, agreed, writing "The problem isn’t that women don’t know when there are roofies in their drink; the problem is people putting roofies in their drink in the first place."
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/08/nail-polish-that-detects-date-rape-drugs-proves-controversial.html

Potatoeman

KomradeBishop wrote: »

'Personal responsibility' of the victim in this case, i.e. an extremely ugly example of victim blaming, saying that certain women are begging to be raped...It's a short article though, so I encourage anyone who's even a little bit doubtful that this is what Elam meant, to read it; it's pretty clear.

It does not make it any less of a crime but if something is or was avoidable then the victim should examine their actions.

KomradeBishop

Potatoeman wrote: »

It does not make it any less of a crime but if something is or was avoidable then the victim should examine their actions.

The focus is on Elam personally, as founder of A Voice For Men, and his own sexist (borderline misogynistic) views, not the wider debate he was engaging in.
His article is precisely trying to portray it as less of a crime, and shift the blame onto the victim - it shouldn't even need dissecting for that to be obvious, but here we go anyway - you have parts like this:

Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

Using scare-quotes - "victim" - to imply these women are not actually victims of rape (or not victims of 'true' rape).

But are these women asking to get raped?

In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it.

And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

Mocking women who have been raped in these circumstances, and flat-out saying they are begging, demanding to get raped - which is straight-out victim blaming, and is implicitly shifting responsibility away from rapists, to the women - i.e. implicitly promoting a view saying 'well, they asked for it!', as if excusing it.

Saying:

their “plight” from being raped should draw about as much sympathy as a man who loses a wallet full of cash after leaving it laying around a bus station unattended

Again with scare quotes, as if being raped in these circumstances is not a "plight" - pretty much trivializing rape, especially in comparing the crime of rape, to a lesser crime of losing your wallet, and saying women who have been raped in these circumstances, should draw only a trivial amount of sympathy.

Seriously?

Another blog worth looking at is Thunderf00ts, he's a athiest skeptic who has put up some good articles on athiesm and more recently highlighting true face of feminism.

One more to look at is CAFE, an non-profit canadian charity that provides information on mens issues and rights.
Its outreach programs are frequent targets of violent demonstrations by feminists seeking to silence them. But they've put up some good debates and lectures for viewing.

mods, any chance we could get the feminist attacks against Elam (any by extension avfm) moved into there own thread (or roled into another)?
It would be nice be able to get a list going without it getting sidetracked ?

Seriously?

just noticed the opening posters has been banned, but its still a good topic.

Potatoeman

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The focus is on Elam personally, as founder of A Voice For Men, and his own sexist (borderline misogynistic) views, not the wider debate he was engaging in.
His article is precisely trying to portray it as less of a crime, and shift the blame onto the victim - it shouldn't even need dissecting for that to be obvious, but here we go anyway - you have parts like this:

Using scare-quotes - "victim" - to imply these women are not actually victims of rape (or not victims of 'true' rape).


Mocking women who have been raped in these circumstances, and flat-out saying they are begging, demanding to get raped - which is straight-out victim blaming, and is implicitly shifting responsibility away from rapists, to the women - i.e. implicitly promoting a view saying 'well, they asked for it!', as if excusing it.

Saying:

Again with scare quotes, as if being raped in these circumstances is not a "plight" - pretty much trivializing rape, especially in comparing the crime of rape, to a lesser crime of losing your wallet, and saying women who have been raped in these circumstances, should draw only a trivial amount of sympathy.

There seems to be a very angry tone to the article. Though I agree that people should examine their own actions, I'm not sure what he is angry about...

Earl Turner

Return of Kings

http://www.returnofkings.com/48731/remove-the-man

Wibbs

Personally I find Paul Elam and sites like Return of Kings(sic) angry clickbait nonsense for the most part, designed to rile and rev up this imported American gender war bullshít, by highlighting out the odd good point and throwing a load of crap on top. Handy earner for them too as they get loadsa pageviews and a few of the contributors are busy pimping their ebooks on top of it. The Roosh bloke a perfect example of the breed. And they're exactly like the "feminazis" and "SJWs" they rail against in that they can't handle debate, it's their way or the highway. The only difference is in how they shut down debate. Your more radical feminists do so passive aggressively, your radical manosphere types do so minus the passive part. They're more amusing though, generally less whiny, but then again I have a weird sense of humour...

Check out the aforementioned Roosh's forum. Unless you're bowing to his gospel(and him) you're out/banned. You see a lot of longterm posters with banned under their names and they get banned for the most part for straying from the "path". Hell check out the plethora of animated gifs featuring the Roosh bloke himself. Too many sheep worshipping at his feet, probably getting a little frisson(no homo) if he reps or thanks their post.

Like I say and like all extreme types they can make some good points. Indeed the extremists of all hues can as they're outside the scope of the average, but considering the guff they add in on top, I wouldn't mistake it for anything approaching wisdom, or I'd apply a gimlet eye as a general rule.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

Personally I find Paul Elam and sites like Return of Kings(sic) angry clickbait nonsense for the most part, designed to rile and rev up this imported American gender war bullshít, by highlighting out the odd good point and throwing a load of crap on top. Handy earner for them too as they get loadsa pageviews and a few of the contributors are busy pimping their ebooks on top of it. The Roosh bloke a perfect example of the breed. And they're exactly like the "feminazis" and "SJWs" they rail against in that they can't handle debate, it's their way or the highway. The only difference is in how they shut down debate. Your more radical feminists do so passive aggressively, your radical manosphere types do so minus the passive part. They're more amusing though, generally less whiny, but then again I have a weird sense of humour...

Check out the aforementioned Roosh's forum. Unless you're bowing to his gospel(and him) you're out/banned. You see a lot of longterm posters with banned under their names and they get banned for the most part for straying from the "path". Hell check out the plethora of animated gifs featuring the Roosh bloke himself. Too many sheep worshipping at his feet, probably getting a little frisson(no homo) if he reps or thanks their post.

Like I say and like all extreme types they can make some good points. Indeed the extremists of all hues can as they're outside the scope of the average, but considering the guff they add in on top, I wouldn't mistake it for anything approaching wisdom, or I'd apply a gimlet eye as a general rule.

It's the same reason that UKIP and the BNP have gained traction in the UK; they're purportedly representing a demographic that feels left behind and frustrated. Of course vitriolic assaults on feminism don't help anyone but that's not the point. A lot of men, especially white men feel victimised and that there is noone who's prepared to speak for them. Those of ethnic minorities have campaigners for racial equality and rightfully so but the ultimate side effect is a demographic who will turn to the only group or individual claiming to represent them.

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course vitriolic assaults on feminism don't help anyone but that's not the point.

TBH A, I have no issue with taking modern feminism to task, minus the vitriol, as I find too much of it unalloyed nonsense and provably so. Though too many(and usually the vocal ones) modern "feminists" find proof, debate and questioning misogynistic in of themselves, which tells you all you need to know really. However what far too many of these manism bloggists do is conflate dopey US college feminism with all women. They see an entire gender as an homogenous entity, with subgroups of fatties and SJW and "would bang". It's all terribly adolescent and daft and insulting to men as well as women. The latest meme is "foreign women are better" and the Roosh bloke has made hay with that one. Grass is greener mentality at its finest. Though I would say given America's divorce stats and laws, I'd reckon you'd be daft as a brush to get hitched in the US if you're a guy.

A lot of men, especially white men feel victimised and that there is noone who's prepared to speak for them. Those of ethnic minorities have campaigners for racial equality and rightfully so but the ultimate side effect is a demographic who will turn to the only group or individual claiming to represent them.

Aye that's a big influence alright.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH A, I have no issue with taking modern feminism to task, minus the vitriol, as I find too much of it unalloyed nonsense and provably so. Though too many(and usually the vocal ones) modern "feminists" find proof, debate and questioning misogynistic in of themselves, which tells you all you need to know really. However what far too many of these manism bloggists do is conflate dopey US college feminism with all women. They see an entire gender as an homogenous entity, with subgroups of fatties and SJW and "would bang". It's all terribly adolescent and daft and insulting to men as well as women. The latest meme is "foreign women are better" and the Roosh bloke has made hay with that one. Grass is greener mentality at its finest. Though I would say given America's divorce stats and laws, I'd reckon you'd be daft as a brush to get hitched in the US if you're a guy.

This is one of the biggest problems with movements like this; they inevitable become sacred cows any constructive criticism of which is seen as unacceptable. As you say, ivory tower US feminism is becoming synonymous with feminism as a whole which isn't a homogeneous entity. The problem is that the former is taking root thanks to bloggers, "journalists" and the like (*cough* Una Mullaly *cough*) leading a lot of men to believe that feminism is an enemy to be feared.

iptba

Wibbs wrote: »

Personally I find Paul Elam and sites like Return of Kings(sic) angry clickbait nonsense for the most part, designed to rile and rev up this imported American gender war bullshít, by highlighting out the odd good point and throwing a load of crap on top. Handy earner for them too as they get loadsa pageviews and a few of the contributors are busy pimping their ebooks on top of it. The Roosh bloke a perfect example of the breed. And they're exactly like the "feminazis" and "SJWs" they rail against in that they can't handle debate, it's their way or the highway. The only difference is in how they shut down debate. Your more radical feminists do so passive aggressively, your radical manosphere types do so minus the passive part. They're more amusing though, generally less whiny, but then again I have a weird sense of humour...

Check out the aforementioned Roosh's forum. Unless you're bowing to his gospel(and him) you're out/banned. You see a lot of longterm posters with banned under their names and they get banned for the most part for straying from the "path". Hell check out the plethora of animated gifs featuring the Roosh bloke himself. Too many sheep worshipping at his feet, probably getting a little frisson(no homo) if he reps or thanks their post.

Like I say and like all extreme types they can make some good points. Indeed the extremists of all hues can as they're outside the scope of the average, but considering the guff they add in on top, I wouldn't mistake it for anything approaching wisdom, or I'd apply a gimlet eye as a general rule.

I've heard a lot of men's rights activists complain about the Return of Kings.

Also on places like Reddit, there are separate forums for redpillers and men's rights forums, with quite a lot of people in the latter complaining about the former.

tritium

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is one of the biggest problems with movements like this; they inevitable become sacred cows any constructive criticism of which is seen as unacceptable. As you say, ivory tower US feminism is becoming synonymous with feminism as a whole which isn't a homogeneous entity. The problem is that the former is taking root thanks to bloggers, "journalists" and the like (*cough* Una Mullaly *cough*) leading a lot of men to believe that feminism is an enemy to be feared.

I think that's pretty spot on. The other issue given how vocal these groups are (seems like half of the Irish time opinion pieces sometimes) is the implied double standard they introduce to debate. They'll happily cast a sweeping generalisation at any group- all men are rapists, mras are all misogynists, etc. However when someone makes a similar identification of say feminism they'll skulk back to the mainstream and throw out the 'feminism isn't a hive mind/ not all feminists' stuff. It's pretty depressing to argue with and fairly dishonest. Especially when you see some of those same people sitting amidst the more mainstream proponents masquerading as nice as pie. Mulally and Ivana bacik spring to mind in that space. One of the most frustrating aspects is trying to understand why feminists don't speak out against them- that becomes easier to inderstand when you realise how some of these have managed to pass themselves off as very mainstream so that to criticise them implicitly becomes a criticism of a feminists own position

iptba

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem is that the former is taking root thanks to bloggers, "journalists" and the like (*cough* Una Mullaly *cough*) leading a lot of men to believe that feminism is an enemy to be feared.

I think men can justifiably feel feminism is something that can be feared. Some feminists push all sorts of odd agendas and other feminists won't generally stop them and many other people are afraid also. One recent example is 40% gender quotas for politicians in Ireland: this doesn't seem to be that popular a move but once Ivana Bacik got going, politicians seemed generally afraid to stop her. There are gender quotas in boards in some European countries and it seems quite possible the EU may make rules on this.

Jose Mourinho GOAT

iptba wrote: »

I've heard a lot of men's rights activists complain about the Return of Kings.

Also on places like Reddit, there are separate forums for redpillers and men's rights forums, with quite a lot of people in the latter complaining about the former.

I've read a bit about that "red pill" stuff on a blog called "The Rational Male". A lot of very valid points are made. I don't agree with all of it but there is a lot of merit to it. I agree that women are primarily attracted to masculine or "alpha" traits during ovulation.

ancapailldorcha

tritium wrote: »

I think that's pretty spot on. The other issue given how vocal these groups are (seems like half of the Irish time opinion pieces sometimes) is the implied double standard they introduce to debate. They'll happily cast a sweeping generalisation at any group- all men are rapists, mras are all misogynists, etc. However when someone makes a similar identification of say feminism they'll skulk back to the mainstream and throw out the 'feminism isn't a hive mind/ not all feminists' stuff. It's pretty depressing to argue with and fairly dishonest. Especially when you see some of those same people sitting amidst the more mainstream proponents masquerading as nice as pie. Mulally and Ivana bacik spring to mind in that space. One of the most frustrating aspects is trying to understand why feminists don't speak out against them- that becomes easier to inderstand when you realise how some of these have managed to pass themselves off as very mainstream so that to criticise them implicitly becomes a criticism of a feminists own position

I mentioned this once and was told that someone shouldn't feel the need to apologise for someone else's comments just because they both identify as feminists which is fair enough. However, there's some disparity between the Guardian and AVFM I would think.

iptba wrote: »

I think men can justifiably feel feminism is something that can be feared. Some feminists push all sorts of odd agendas and other feminists won't generally stop them and many other people are afraid also. One recent example is 40% gender quotas for politicians in Ireland: this doesn't seem to be that popular a move but once Ivana Bacik got going, politicians seemed generally afraid to stop her. There are gender quotas in boards in some European countries and it seems quite possible the EU may make rules on this.

Some do and it is truly frightening. The trouble is that we're only getting one side of the story with the other side joining the likes of AVFM in response.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

I'd go onto ROK from time to time and find parts of it great and parts absolutely abhorrent. I like their articles on history, the art of leadership, philosophy and theology. These are top notch. They also push the idea of perpetually trying to improve yourself, which I support but rarely actually abide by (need a kick in the proverbial ***). What I do not like on their site is how they equate being a true man with fornication and taking advantage of damaged women by using psychological techniques. Some of those articles are truly repulsive and make the contributors look like needy little sh**ts. If they really cared about men they might try to mention that fornication destroys the soul and propagating it turns good men into little more than animals. So yeah, mixed feelings on ROK.

Wibbs

Jose Mourinho GOAT wrote: »

I've read a bit about that "red pill" stuff on a blog called "The Rational Male". A lot of very valid points are made. I don't agree with all of it but there is a lot of merit to it. I agree that women are primarily attracted to masculine or "alpha" traits during ovulation.

Actually what actual studies show is that while there is an effect it's quite a small one. It also doesn't put cultural differences into the mix. IE in cultures that are harsher, "masculine" or even very street smart men are going to be the most obvious bet for partnership and fatherhood. In less harsh cultures with a bigger social safety net, these traits would be reduced in value. You don't need to compare warzones and a country like I dunno Denmark, it can be subtler than this.

IE America and Ireland if looked at through squinted eyes and at first glance look very similar culturally. However social support is significantly higher in Ireland by comparison. In the US with the very high cost of medical support, no social welfare as we would understand it in Ireland, less maternity leave(that is a very recent thing there anyway), very much more expensive third level fees that lumber many ex students with huge loans to pay off etc, it makes more sense for a woman to positively select for men that appear to be high achieving/higher earning as an extra "safety net".

Then look at the cultural differences around dating and mating between the two countries. Dating multiple people is par for the course in the US, while usually frowned upon here. Americans marry much younger than Irish people and divorce at far higher rates.

Take even the more radical college "feminism", it's much more in play in the US than here. Sure we have the Bacik types, but in not nearly the numbers an average US college campus could muster. There's much more of a gender war meme going on among your millenials over there.

It's quite the different environment. So given that much, if not the majority of this PUA/Manosphere/Red pill stuff was born of the US culture, IMHO it's a mistake to apply it to other cultures.

iptba

Here's a description I just read on the difference between "red pill" and the MHRM (Men's Human Rights Movement). It seems plausible enough; however I haven't read much "red pill" material so am not best placed to comment

A note on the difference between "red pill" and MRHM

RP and the MHRM are pretty divergent. While they're not mutually exclusive, the foci are radically different.

•RP'ers general approach is that the world "is what it is", that there's no point in trying to rail against it, and accepting that things are what they are is the first step to improving your lot... coming to terms with that is what they call "taking the red pill". Once that's accomplished, it's suggested that the only rational thing to do is optimize your ability to move within the reality you're in (with 'optimize' usually taking on a context of access to greater quality and quantity of sex). In order to do so, it's expected that individuals work on their own "value" to become better, more valuable commodities in the sexual marketplace. At its core it's a philosophy of self-improvement... as such, most efforts are directed inward.


•The MHRM is concerned about things that effect all or most men. Inequalities under the law, attempts to eliminate due process protection exclusively for men accused of certain crimes, lack of funds and interest in aiding men who are in abusive relationships or who have been sexually assaulted, the ever-widening education gap, and so on. MHRAs generally believe that society can be changed if sufficient numbers of people want it to change. Our efforts are largely focused outward.


Basically, the only real area of overlap is that both groups are largely comprised of men interested in the things that tend to interest men.

Slot Machine

Earl Turner wrote: »

Return of Kings

http://www.returnofkings.com/48731/remove-the-man

Racist, sexist, homophobic (for a time, women and gay men were banned from commenting) assholes.

It's more than a little concerning to see sites like this popping up in tGC.

ancapailldorcha

Slot Machine wrote: »

Racist, sexist, homophobic (for a time, women and gay men were banned from commenting) assholes.

It's more than a little concerning to see sites like this popping up in tGC.

Wibbs' post directly after RoK was first mentioned condemned it as clickbait. It's popped up and is worthy of discussion which will culminate in it being panned by most of tGC users.

Earl Turner

Slot Machine wrote: »

Racist, sexist, homophobic (for a time, women and gay men were banned from commenting) assholes.

It's more than a little concerning to see sites like this popping up in tGC.

Of course, because it doesn't toe the pc line it's 'racist and sexist'. And no, gays and women are not welcome there, why should they be? It would be like me commenting on a website for women or homosexuals. My opinion would be neither wanted or welcome.

tritium

Slot Machine wrote: »

Racist, sexist, homophobic (for a time, women and gay men were banned from commenting) assholes.

It's more than a little concerning to see sites like this popping up in tGC.

I don't think it being mentioned would be any more worrying than A voice for men getting a mention or Jezebel being mentioned over in the tLL for example. There are plenty of extreme sexist sites out there, so what if they're mentioned. Its not as if people in the tGC are queueing up to endorse it

9bred4

Stumbled upon this today, not much as of yet! I know the fella doing it

http://oomfitness.com/

PucaMama

Earl Turner wrote: »

Of course, because it doesn't toe the pc line it's 'racist and sexist'. And no, gays and women are not welcome there, why should they be? It would be like me commenting on a website for women or homosexuals. My opinion would be neither wanted or welcome.

because its sexist and homophobic to leave people out for these reasons

Venus In Furs

Seriously? wrote: »

mods, any chance we could get the feminist attacks against Elam (any by extension avfm) moved into there own thread (or roled into another)?
It would be nice be able to get a list going without it getting sidetracked ?

A person who criticises him isn't automatically "feminist", it's perfectly reasonable to criticise him for that quote.
I agree it's not out of line to make the point that people should take precautions to protect themselves and I don't agree with people claiming "Victim blaming" for even the most dubious of reasons, but what he said crosses a line into grotesque territory and it's weird to defend it. Doesn't he use "The happy misogynist" as his pseudonym?

A section in Return Of Kings: http://www.returnofkings.com/category/girls
Wow, vile. And that Roosh guy... no words.

I detest feminism like the idiotic and depressing furore over "the shirt" recently btw - a person doesn't have to agree with that kind of crap to think the above.