I wandered over to HUS and The Private Man and...
They both announce the passing away of Thomas V. Munson. He died yesterday from liver cancer.
I loved to read Munson's comments. They were as long or longer than mine (heh!) and were extremely entertaining and insightful.
From what Susan at HUS says, he was a family man. I also know he was a lawyer.
And we all know he was a king of The Manosphere...
May he rest in peace.
I shall miss his comments, and his outrageous jokes about his various medical treatments.
Although of course I did not know him in real life, I think it would be fair to say that he enjoyed his time here on Earth.
That already is consolation enough for his family and friends, I am sure.
At the end of the day...that's all that counts.
Eternal rest, give unto him...
X3.
37 comments:
I can't believe you're still reading that crap.
Bellita,
Be careful what you wish for...
@ Charm
Ouch,lol.
Back in November, Uncle Tom had some advice for me at TPM.
When drawing out a man, don't initially ask "what" and "why" questions. Rather, who when and where as your lead ins. Keep it 5 to 1. 5 questions about him, 1 about you. Answer his question - then stop. By stopping, you let the silence do all the work. Actors and musicians know the power of silence. He then advised not to ruin the drama of those clipped answers, but allow the man to play Perry Mason, it'll make him feel manly.
Superfluous add on's in conversation were to be avoided. Or as Uncle Tom summed it up
Add on's prevent hard on's.
I'll miss him.
. . . et lux perpetua luceat in eo . . .
ST, I'm sorry for wishing that CD would come back. I had assumed that when she did, she would have something better to contribute than an insult to a man who recently passed away. But I guess I stand corrected!
Bellita,
Thank you for continuing on with the Requiem prayer...in Latin no less!
I am sure Uncle Tom is smiling at that :-)
Don't be sorry...
I do understand CD's aversion to The Manosphere. Afterall, The Manosphere cannot be (and perhaps shouldn't even be) to every woman's taste...
But I must say I found it extraordinary that she would choose THIS post to air her grievances against it. And I do assume that her comment was directed at The Manosphere in general, and not Mr. Munson. At least I hope so.
A man just died. He was a great advisor to many, as JV points out. Perhaps his cronies aka The Manosphere are not to your liking, CD. That's fair enough. Each to his own. But is it really the best time or place to express this on a post designed to be a tribute to the recently departed?
I was referring to HUS and The Private Man. I'm sorry, but lots of people die all the time, and I'm sorry for you if you're grieving for a friend. I guess if you found my comment repulsive you might be able to understand why I would find it repulsive that you mix up a requiem post with garbage like those blogs which are basically designed to lie to and manipulate people.
@CD
I'm just always a bit shocked by your tin ear comments when I haven't read them in a while.
But having also seen, just in the past hour actually, that your idea of a good response to a man's saying that American girls have no charm is saying you want to kick him in the head, I realize that you can't help yourself.
Oh, I don't know CD. In a way, it makes perfect poetic sense. Munsen was both profane and profound.
He connected with a lot of different types of people because of his intelligence, wit and charm. He was respected.
But he is mourned with tears by people who had never met him in real life because he didn't shy away from connecting with people emotionally (His rants were downright passionate) or allowing us to connect with his vulnerability ("The summer I was Jesus Christ" and his journey with cancer.)
The interesting thing about Munson is that his example shows that a man can be married, love his wife and son, show emotionalism and vulnerability yet still be loved and respected in the manosphere. There aren't a lot of real life examples of that type of alpha in the sphere. The high level of respect that he gained may serve others when they are looking for an example of alpha beyond pua.
Maybe I shouldn't make a comment like that on this particular post, but it's kind of hard to care consideration the adulation that gets shown towards posters who make a hobby out of denigrating women. You regularly reference a man who has an entire blog devoted to talking about women in the most filthy and disgusting way.
I'm not talking about the man who died, since I have no idea who he is, but there is a constant stream of negativity, filth, and inappropriateness coming from the so-called manosphere which is an entire universe of problematic in comparison with my comment. So the well-I-never reaction rings a bit hallow, quite frankly.
*considering
@CD
Let me see if I have your reasoning straight. You don't think your comment was bad because the Manosphere is worse?
And we, who are not scandalized by the Manosphere to the degree that you believe we should be, have no leg to stand on when we point out that a comment like yours is just not ladylike?
CD,
"I'm not talking about the man who died, since I have no idea who he is..."
Perhaps this was the first mistake on your part?
This post IS about a man who just died...
And I mentioned HUS and TPM precisely because those are the blogs on which I encountered Mr. Munson.
And as JV tells you, he was by no means the worst character one encountered on The Manosphere. Far from it! Mr. Munson was a very happily married man who never missed an opportunity to speak highly of his wife. As a woman, I find that incredibly worthy of respect...If one day my husband (and children) speaks this highly of me, I would feel so blessed. And it would trump any other achievement I would have accomplished in my life...
I am sensitive to your disdain of The Manosphere, CD. I realise that I shall never be able to 'sell' The Manosphere to you.
But let me tell you (for what it's worth) that I have found it helpful. This is not to say that I agree with every single concept that it preaches. In fact several of my posts are dedicated to smashing some Manosphere theories...
But if The Manosphere can attract decent men like Mr. Munson, I say 'All hail The Manosphere'!
I am not fussy where my sources of wisdom come from. But clearly you are. Believe it or not, I find a certain dignity in that, and I admire this about you. I on the other hand, will take it any way I can get it, and I got (and continue to get) what I needed from The Manosphere.
But alas, I am not trying to get you to change your mind...
All I want (and I have no shame here) is to get you to say some nice words about a man who just died.
It's over. He's dead. Can we bury the hatchet just for one brief second long enough for you to write something nice about him? Just because... he died?
If I may, I'll even cut a deal with you: say something passably nice about Uncle Tom, in the spirit of this post, and I shall never rub The Manosphere in your face again. If you comment about something that rubs you the wrong way, I shall do everything I can to see your point of view and be totally respectful of your 'Manosphere phobia'.
Is this feasible for you?
That would be great, if it is :-)
All right, Bellita and ST. It may be that my comment was inappropriate given the circumstances. If one or both of you are grieving over a lost friend, then this was not the time to start an argument and I apologize. I'm sorry for your loss.
I can't, however, say something nice in memory of somebody who I've never (as far as I know) interacted with. I'm sure you wouldn't ask me to fake grief? But I'm sorry for intruding on yours and will save my opinions on the manosphere for other times and places.
CD,
Thanks for being magnanimous on this one.
Fair enough, if you hadn't encountered Uncle Tom's commenting, no, I wouldn't want you to fake grief.
Apology warmly accepted.
Welcome back to the fold :-)
Hm, I was just thinking about what death and grief actually mean.
It is perhaps a 'selfish' sense of loss (for want of a better word).
We mourn Uncle Tom because we will miss his comments. His wife mourns because she has lost her husband. His son mourns because he has lost his father. His doctor mourns because he has lost his patient. The only one who has lost his own life (and therefore has truly lost everything) is alas, unable to feel that loss, precisely because he is not even here anymore.
We all miss 'bits' of the dead - i.e. the bits that are important to us, don't we? And yet the dead have lost ALL of themselves.
Met TV Munson last November, via the phone. We had some professional acquaintence in common. Very funny guy and some rather extraordinary experiences. And a fine writer with a very broad background. Really enjoyed his comments and hoped he would survive long enough for me to meet him. Didn't happen.As to CD, why don't you fuck off the manosphere blogs?
Senior Beta,
I have. I only comment here because I don't consider it a manosphere blog, and I tend to avoid the posts that are heavily infiltrated by unpleasant men like you.
Oh Dear God do I want to jump into this one.....
Simmering, lids about to blow....
St-
CD is the precise reason you have the MGTOW movement. as i've stated on the Spearhead. "i just don't fucking care anymore."- in reference to women's entitlement attitudes. i seriously do not care if i never get married or have a family (and the number of men that think as i do are growing), i put VERY LITTLE effort in women. yet i do VERY well with women.
most of my post's are simply interactions with women to explain to guys how i talk with them.
i'm not here to say i agree with the content or mannerisms of every 'sphere blog. i always tell guys, "it's easy to be bitter towards women these days, but it's hard to be better." i strive to being better.
but CD's diatribe show the exact attutude men are talking about. HEAVEN FORBID a man assert himself. and we're by and large so sick of it, we just don't care anymore. honestly.
while i sincerely hope nothing but the best for CD and that she find whatever happiness she feels she deserves....it might be best for her to just buy a cat.
@ Danny,
I just realised something...
Bearing in mind that CD has apologised and 'all is well' again, so to speak, I was loathe to step back into this, but I just twigged that this line...
"You regularly reference a man who has an entire blog devoted to talking about women in the most filthy and disgusting way."
may be a reference to your blog.
(I am not 100% sure - I also link to other Manosphere blogs...any of which CD may have been referring to).
Anyhow, this sentence by CD made me realise something. And I think Bell made this point also to her a few months ago. I believe it is worth repeating:
That The Manosphere is actually something that modern men need. It is not really a platform for women to be part of. It is the ultimate 'male locker room'. But having said that, a lot of women have found it useful, if only to understand what men are experiencing, outside of our own social circles. But it is primarily for men to air their own particular gripes and issues to each other. It is an online 'gentlemen's club' so to speak. In this regard, it is not really designed for female eyes, but given that the internet is open to all, this has become so. But that's a good thing!
Bell's point that 'Game' is a 'crutch' of sorts for men who are failing miserably in getting what they should get in a woman, is an important and valid one. Sure, many men are using Game the wrong way, but there is no doubt that most men by a certain age want an attractive, loyal and loving woman at their side. And it simply is not a reality for them. Because women, for a variety of reasons (not entirely their fault) have lost something...
The Manosphere, in educating men on current dating issues educates women too, as a helpful byproduct. Those women who are willing to listen to these men (and agreed, it's not too pleasant sometimes!) can make all the difference.
Your blog may be unpalatable to some (and clearly this is not just a female thing because afterall Metak made the same point), but I think somehow, the point of your blog may have been missed by both Metak and CD. I said this to Metak and I shall say the same to CD: Danny's blog is actually about relationships, not PUA stuff. I think I know the difference between the two by now :-)
In many ways, there is not much difference between what you teach and what Ahol Kay teaches, and I think it is telling that you collabrate with him. But whilst he markets himself as 'Married man...', you do not restrict yourself to the marriage market. Which is fine. That is your perogative. But there is no doubt that your message is just as clear as Athol's.
I have witnessed you throwing men off your blog who are racist/sexist/abusive/otherwise unpleasant, so I know what you are about. Whilst I am never going to 'sell' your blog to CD successfully, I hope I can at least make her see that whilst your blog and The Manosphere in general may not be to her liking, they do serve a useful purpose for those who need it.
The Manosphere is not about women, but I am pleased that it does not exclude women who want to be part of it, despite the fact that women are actually the de facto 'enemy'.
Can CD ask for any better than that? I think not!
It's a good start that men are at least talking to women. Without dialogue, how do we know what the problems are? And how do we go about solving said problems?
By the way, which is the greater issue to you: the fact that CD is so against The Manosphere or her apparent disrespect to TV Munson by way of her failure to react as one would expect to news of his death?
I am curious to know what you think...
Having said all of the above, I do applaud CD for falling on her sword here. I think she was nice to acknowledge that she caused some hurt. For this reason alone, I bear no grudges, as I know you don't either, Danny.
I'm about to go bed. I'll address this in depth at work later. I'm knackered.
@Everyone
ST and Danny might remember a story I shared in an earlier thread. A male friend surprised me by saying that mine was the only Catholic blog by a woman that he regularly read, because it was the only one he had found that didn't hate men. He had grown tired of reading otherwise friendly blogs and being sucker punched by some blatantly anti-male statements. Since he refused to name names or give examples, I had no idea which female bloggers were doing this or what form their sexism would take. But I have a good idea now.
CD, you may not believe this, but your comments were the anti-male sucker punch from a place they were not expected. I know you've apologized (and I've slept on this), so I'm not going to rub it in. But I think it would help you to know exactly why your comment was completely uncalled for, even on a blog that can be critical of some ideas found in the Manosphere.
ST has worked very hard to convince her male readers that she is willing to be friendly to them and hear them out. She wants this to be a blog they won't have to avoid because it is a place they are hated. Your first few comments here greatly undermined that. They were contrary to the spirit and "unwritten constitution" of this blog.
Incidentally, this is also a place that is friendly to women. I can't think of a single hateful comment against women in general that ST has not argued with--even if she argues from a place of compassion that makes her seem like she's letting them off too easily. She goes as far as to tell some men that their comments have made her deeply sad. And as far as I can tell, the men either return to comment in a more civil manner or never come back. Either way is more respectful of the kind of forum she wants to have (and of others' feelings in general) than your first few comments here.
Thanks for your nice words, Bellita.
Much appreciated.
Might I take this opportunity to say, the spirit of this blog is borrowed from yours.
I link/support this blog for a reason.
I've even, on occasion, stepped in and stood up for ST when she was under attack from guys. I have no "anti-woman" agenda, in fact I adore women. My comments are based soley on the state of the SMP. In fact, i'd LOVE for CD to speak to any of my famale friends.
I posted earlier but blogger dicked me over, so I'll repost it later. But for the record, I'd crush an suffer bodily harm to protect ST and Bell. It's not a white knight thing, it's a friend thing. I know if I were beaten and bloody, these 2 women would bend over backwards to nurse me.
I don't take that lightly.
A few words in CD's defense: There is a certain brand of toxic traditionalism in the United States that has survived the Sexual Revolution. It distorts the natural relation between the sexes, putting on kid gloves to treat women like perfumed garbage. The feminist movement, a many headed beast, was right in is rejection of this understanding. Like Neitzsche, this brand of traditionalism sees the feminine sex as sub-human, possessing a lesser dignity (if any); the only thing lower than a woman is a woman who has rejected her femininity. I went to school with some of these characters, ate lunch with them, let them carry my lunch tray, open doors for me, and nod condescendingly when I talked. The manners were nice, the reason behind the manners, toxic. I wanted to rip my hair out and run away into the wilderness, woman going her own way. Reading various posts of CD, I gather that she has grown up beside these toxic traditionalists and had to deal with them in the traditional circles that she runs in. Venturing into the maonsphere, she may be seeing what I have occasionally seen: these same toxic attitudes are repackaged without even the saving grace of fidelity and family.
Danny, I don't see these toxic attitudes in your blog. You seem to me be a product of modern culture- women treated on an individual basis, each given the respect she has proven to deserve. And you are a family man, even if you may never have children of your own. Your blog proudly declares your dedication to and love of your immediate and extended family. That being said, (coming from a subculture where sex is reserved for marriage and usually results in babies), it is a bit shocking at times to watch you go through women like my family goes through chickens (yes, I know the women consent and they like it). Some of the other content of your blog can serve to make a married woman blush. Locker room indeed. It is not at all surprising to me that many women may dislike your blog- some unable to swallow the 'red pill,' others, like CD, unable to stomach the sexual revolution.
"The Manosphere is actually something that modern men need. It is not really a platform for women to be part of. It is the ultimate 'male locker room'. " I agree that men and women today have a strange cultural amnesia and now have to regroup and learn, through sharing and trial and error, how to be Men and Women. On one hand there is the manosphere, on the hand supposedly feminist sites where women exclusively talk about birth, breastfeeding, mothering, and domestic arts (and I've yet to witness any bitterness against men there). We are all trying to figure it out from scratch.
I sympathize with their occasional desire for solitude- I myself am not too keen on discussing Feminine Advise and other Feminine Things (like childbirth and submission) with men. On the other hand, I believe that the sexes imply each other- if you talk about women only or men only, you tend to come out with a distorted view of femininity or masculinity. For this reason, I am deeply grateful for blogs like yours, ST, Bellita, and Danny, for allowing me to test my view of femininity in these waters.
CD, there is no reason for you to read the blogs of the manosphere, but I ask you not to judge us that do too harshly. There is much collected wisdom here ready for one of good will to come and glean from it. I find that what Bellita and Spacetraveler are doing is no different from what members of the Church have always done- gone into dialogue with secular writers to find what truth there is, and claim it for the church (or bring the understanding of the Church to it). Augustine did this for Plato, Thomas for Aristotle, Newman for Hegel, and John Paul II for the phenomenologist movement (although I've heard this debated, JPII definitely adopts their vocabulary.) Other Christians, Pascal and Kierkegard notably, have entered the discussion directly with their writings. We say, nature precedes grace, and grace builds upon nature. Discussing the natural relations between men and women helps us understand sacramental marriage, which in turn helps us to understand the mystical union of Christ and his Church.
Thomas V. Munson and his family will be in my prayers this week. Enough. Naptime.
Thanks for your support as always Danny.
As you know, I do appreciate it!
Amy,
I have some idea as to what you are saying. I can't say I have faced CD's reality as you describe it in real life, but I do have an idea as to how bad it can get in some traditional, especially Catholic traditional circles. And I know it is not pretty sometimes...
But it still does not excuse us women from being our feminine selves. Perhaps 'ignore' is a better strategy rather than 'confront' in this case?
Danny's blog makes me blush too, sometimes. But he knows who he is addressing on those posts, and I am sure it is not me, or people like me (women).
I guess he doesn't like it either when I go on about 'ovulation' and 'cycles' in some of my posts - as I enter the female locker room :-)
But it's nice to coexist in the same space, despite our differences.
"On one hand there is the manosphere, on the hand supposedly feminist sites where women exclusively talk about birth, breastfeeding, mothering, and domestic arts..."
Amy, did you mean 'feminist' or did you mean 'feminine'?
"There is much collected wisdom here ready for one of good will to come and glean from it."
Touché. We make of it what we will...
And TV Munson helped to make it entertaining, educational and useful.
May he rest in perfect peace. Amen.
ST: "I do have an idea as to how bad it can get in some traditional, especially Catholic traditional circles." And this is puzzling to me because this attitude is against Catholic teaching and doctrine... yet it persists.
I too am well aware that I am not Danny's target audience :)
And yes, I meant "Feminist." A certain branch of feminism (from what I gather) went back to nature with the hippies... and you can imagine that babies followed. This led to a new realm of activism: the natural birth movement, resurgence of midwives and home births (which had been suppressed in the USA), breastfeeding, 'natural' parenting, health foods, and alternate forms of education (like unschooling). These women still self identify with feminism, but in reality have left it behind. Mothering has a made them grow into unselfish adults.
Amy,
Ah, does this group include those who engage in the extreme breastfeeding campaign? There was that woman on the Times Magazine cover who was breastfeeding a rather big-for-his-age 4 year old (actually, that in itself might be a good advert for prolonged breastfeeding, I guess!) and there was an uproar about the way in which she was doing it - i.e. not in private, with a rather defiant stance and a glare at the camera, the child was standing up, etc.
"That being said, (coming from a subculture where sex is reserved for marriage and usually results in babies), it is a bit shocking at times to watch you go through women like my family goes through chickens (yes, I know the women consent and they like it). Some of the other content of your blog can serve to make a married woman blush. Locker room indeed."
inregards to my "going through women": how often do you ever read me posting about actual sex with women on my blog? it's kind of an unwritten but understood subject for my site. i found it interesting that you bring this up quickly yet refuse to acknowledge that i often state, "i'm actually in search or a LTR." until i find a worthy woman, i'll do whatever i want. i'm not lying to these women. i don't "pump and dunp" women. as a matter of fact i talk with most of them quite often.
while i appreciate and adore my female readers, my blog was started as a guide to show men that most of the misconceptions they have about understanding women is a myth. my blog is not a religious outlet, my blog is not a "hate site", i work diligently to keep it gender friendly. i want to encourage discussion between the sexes, not quell it.
but my site is first and foremost for and about men and i discuss my experiences with women for them. on occassion i have a female reader that wants a male outlook on relationship matters and i'm always flattered when they ask for my opinion.
what prompted my stepping into this particular thread was the utter hypocrisy of CD's POV- she's using the same vitriol to opine on men and the 'sphere. what will that accomplish? honestly, i run into women like her frequently, i sense the bitterness, smile, and simply leave them be. i'm no longer compelled to engage them in a healthy discussion/debate/exchange. as a matter of fact, i now prefer to simply piss them off even further with opinions i simply don't agree with just to push their buttons.
i judge the character, not the gender.
"Are you mom enough?" was the caption; whoever penned that title was looking for sales. (Ahem) Yes, I prefer to call it "extended breastfeeding." Here is a link to an article on the controversial time article:
http://mothering.com/peggyomara/in-the-news/time-is-on-our-side
Notice the feminist battle tactics and the statement that breastfeeding is "the feminist issue of our time" - - all promoting the nurturing of another human. It is fascinating to watch the movement change... and I for one am grateful for their activism in these kinds of issues and for the laws protecting public breastfeeding in my state.
Pardon me, Danny. In retrospect, the comment (paragraph) directed to you should have been much, much shorter.
I hadn't thought to mention that you are looking for a LTR, it was implied (if only in my mind) by the fact that you highly value family and respect women. Nor had I meant to imply that you "pump and dump" - the tenor of your posts is too honest. You are right, "going through women" was indelicate and perhaps untrue- I'll never really know because you don't tell. I am sorry that you had to clarify these points. I respect your blog as you run it and your person (as far as I know it). And if I am shocked, you are right (and I know it), I am not your target audience. I am sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention.
Amy-
Apology accepted. I appreciate your saying so.
Amy,
I guess this is not my domain (at least not yet) but I found the Tmes cover a bit too 'aggressive'. I am not against public breastfeeding (of course not!) but this campaign seemed too much about the mothers and not about the children they are nurturing.
However I can see that publicity in favour of breastfeeding is a good thing.
Yes, Spacetraveler, the Times cover was very aggressive, exploitative, designed to shock, and off topic. I should have been more clear that the article was written and cover were picked by journalists looking to spike magazine sales, not the attachment parenting communities. Public breastfeeding is, to a certain extent, still taboo in America and the magazine pandered to that phobia. On one hand, any press can be good press. On the other hand, I fear that the negative imaging may repulse women from so called 'attachment' practices and breastfeeding.
The article that I linked to was a response from community with feminist/hippie origins. I should also clarify that this movement has been infiltrated by a large variety of women, conservative and liberal, religious and atheist, who are united in their parenting ideals and convictions. But the leadership within tends to come from the feminist movement.
@ Amy,
"But the leadership within tends to come from the feminist movement."
More's the pity, Amy. They took a good thing (breastfeeding) and ruined it.
Not cool.
Cool, my blog is trash! (Sorry, late to this parade)
Welcome to The Sanctuary, TPM.
"Cool, my blog is trash!"
If it's any consolation (not that you need 'consoling' on this issue of course!), that is NOT the majority view round here.
Whilst I don't agree with every single thing you have said on your blog, I have however gleaned a lot of wisdom from it. Wisdom I don't think I would have acquired anywhere else. And wherever on this blog I make reference to 'Grand Dukes of The Manosphere', know that I am referring to amongst others, you ;)
Post a Comment