The two questions that matter in politics are Who? and Whom?
The wisdom of this old Lenin quote lies in the observation that all politics is tribal. Sexual politics are no exception.
To most in the Manosphere, the battle lines are clear: Men are on one side, women on the other. But this is an inaccurate and unproductive perspective. The true divide is between the traditionalists and their opponents. But, not all who call themselves traditionalists fight for the same side…
For example, here we have Dalrock and commenter Lydia going at it red in tooth and claw, even though both are allegedly Christians fighting for the resurrection of true, biblical marriage and sexual morality in the western world. One would think they would have no trouble putting aside what surface differences they may have to fight their common cause. And yet, Lydia is uninterested in any sort of dialogue.
I suggest you read the entire post, and links therein, but the gist of it is that Lydia is claiming Dalrock is a bad bad man because he says mean things about women, i.e. calling out those who are sluts, unfeminine, unChristian, and poor marriage material. In response to another Christian blogger linking to Dalrock, Lydia writes:
“If the blogger linked is supposed to be an example of someone who appears to care deeply about marriage and the family, you can keep him. I don’t care if he’s a Christian. I don’t care that he knows feminism is false or that lots of Christians are, unfortunately, feminists. (Whoop-de-doo.) Someone that callous and cynical, who freely thinks and talks in the terms of “Game,” who pretty obviously thinks that all women are prima facie sluts, has had his chivalry and his capacity for wonder permanently damaged if not destroyed.”
To which Dalrock responds:
“Lydia’s complaint is that I am being allowed to think differently than than she would permit, and that Zippy is compounding the problem by exposing his male readers to such subversive ideas. Her argument isn’t that the facts I’m presenting are untrue, but that I’m committing a thought-crime against the feminine imperative by acknowledging such a painfully obvious pattern. She is there to make sure no such thought-crimes occur in the minds of Zippy or his readers, lest they too become defective men.”
This is not the sort of thing we’re used to seeing between ideological and spiritual allies. They are not merely haggling over tactics or the details of their visions. There is a vast and unbridgeable gulf between them. We’re left to conclude: One of these two, Lydia or Dalrock, is doing God’s work (take that as literally or figuratively as you like) and one is sowing evil. Lydia and Dalrock surely have strong opinions in the matter. But what are we to make of them? Let’s answer by considering an older, less crude paraphrase of Lenin’s two questions: Cui bono? Who stands to benefit from Dalrock’s perspective gaining traction among the modern Christian community? Who stands to benefit from Lydia’s?
If you are a woman who plans to spend, or has already spent her twenties on the carousel, your loyalties are clear: Lydia’s got your back. She stands firm between you and the Dalrocks of the world who would otherwise be free to call you out on your sin (if that’s a concern of yours) and general poor value as a mate and mother (if it’s not).
If you’re a loyal, monogamous, Christian man who aspires to find a good wife, settle down, and raise a family, Dalrock wants you to know what you’re getting into when you decide to marry a modern “Christian” woman. Lydia wants you to man up and marry those sluts.
But what if you’re – and I will ask my more cynical readers to suspend their disbelief for a second – a true, actual, good woman, seeking to pledge yourself to one man for your life and be a good wife and mother? If this is the case, Lydia is the greatest enemy you will face in this life.
Good women of the world, if you’re out there, take heed: There is a great tidal wave of cynicism, disdain and raw hatred building up in the men of my generation. It is the logical response to what is perhaps he worst generation of women that any culture in any era has ever produced. Over fifty years, women have neglected to fulfill their end of the social contract. Those chickens are coming home to roost. When they arrive, you will see the complete evaporation of the multitude of privileges and advantages that come with living life as a 2012 empowered woman in a world of 1950s chivalrous men. The pendulum has swung out far, and its return will make life very, very difficult for contemporary women.
There is only one way that you will escape the fate of spinsterhood, genetic irrelevance, and poverty: You must differentiate yourself. You must draw a line between yourself and the women who have inspired the men of the world to forsake marriage and decency. You must demonstrate a clear and unambiguous line between the feminists, the sluts, the empowered, the unChristian – and yourself.
Dalrock, and those like him, will give you a chance to do so. The Lydias of the world would deny you that opportunity. By shouting down the men and women who would otherwise call out the behaviour of promiscuous women, they force men to judge your gender as one. In doing so, she makes herself the best friend the slutty women of the world could ever hope to ask for.