The other day I came across an article called “What We Need is a Bunch of Tough Mothers” by a guy named Doug Giles. Giles is a conservative pundit, the man behind Clash Daily, and author of several books, including “Raising Boys Feminists will Hate.” The gist of the article is this: Feminists have turned the US into a country of sissies and now we need a new breed of “tough mothers” to teach our boys to be real men.
As I read the article I could feel my eyes narrow. Although I share Mr. Giles’ opinion of feminists, I was annoyed by his talk of what constitutes a “real man” and deeply disturbed by his proposal that masculinity is something instilled by mothers. The more I read, the more I grew to dislike this fellow. It isn’t his blue pill mindset that bothers me. It’s that he wants to sacrifice you and I to the Great Golden Uterus. Whether or not Doug Giles hates feminists is up for debate, but I can tell you for certain that he hates men.
Doug Giles is a prime example of the traditional conservative, or trad-con, mentality. On the one hand, he decries feminism; on the other, he preaches the gospel of male sacrifice. It is this belief – that men should bow down before the so-called fairer sex – that forms the foundation of gynocentrism. To Mr. Giles, there is nothing more glorious than a man laying down his life for a woman. His adoration of the “Spartan” mother – a woman who demands the sacrifice of her son in war – is but one example of how he glorifies male disposability.
Read along as Mr. Giles enlightens his audience with proverbs about the “Spartan” mother…
“A messenger returned to Sparta from battle. The women clustered around. To the one, the messenger said, ‘Mother, I bring sad news; your son was killed facing the enemy.’ The mother said, ‘He is my son.’ Your other son is alive and unhurt, ‘ said the messenger. ‘He fled from the enemy.’ The mother said, ‘He is not my son.’”
Here’s another example of rowdy Spartan ladies…
“Two warriors, brothers, were fleeing from the enemy back toward the city. Their mother happened to be on the road and saw them running toward her. She lifted up her skirts above her waist. ‘Where do you two think you’re running? Back here from whence you came?”
And then there’s the most famous Spartan mother story…
A Spartan mother handed her son his shield as he prepared to march off to battle. She said, “Come back with this or on it.”
After wading through this quagmire of Oedipal confliction the reader may well ask: Is Doug Giles concerned about men? The answer is No. To Giles all men are competitors for female affection and are therefore his enemy. The reader might also ask: Is Doug Giles, the author of a book about raising boys, the father of a boy? Again, the answer is No. He is the father of two daughters who he happily parades before the media. One half mama’s boy, one half doting daddy, Doug Giles is a gynocentrist to the core.
Giles venerates the mother figure with a level of enthusiasm that would make Anthony Perkins’ character in “Psycho” feel uncomfortable. And he worships the ideal of the virginal daughter with a fervency that would fog up Freud’s glasses. A look at Giles’ website reveals that “Raising Boys Feminists will Hate” is a follow-up to an earlier book he’s written called “Raising Righteous and Rowdy Girls.” Both books reinforce the trad-con mentality that got modern men into the mess they’re in now. To Giles, women are society’s most valuable asset and men are meant to serve as their benefactors, protectors, and lap-dogs. I submit that “Raising Boys that Feminists Hate” is a misleading title. “Raising Boys to Become Gynocentric Drones” is far more accurate.
Listed on the same website is a poster labeled “The 10 Commandments for My Daughter’s Potential Boyfriends.” Yes, for only 10 dollars you too can stroke your wounded ego by threatening your daughter’s boyfriend. News flash to any father dumb enough to buy this thing. If your daughters’ boyfriends are anything like me, that poster is gonna get crumpled up and used as a ball gag. Mull over that mental image.
The only reason Doug Giles isn’t a male feminist is because he needs a steady stream of female validation. Male feminists are masochists. The harder they have to work for female approval, the happier they are. Trad-cons, by contrast, need that reassuring pat on the head like a doggie needs a biscuit. Good boy. Two different sides, seemingly at odds, fighting for the same cause: a society where females have power over men.
For me, the most important aspect of being a MGTOW is the concept of male self-actualization. A MGTOW is a man who pursues his goals without the energy-sucking distraction of providing for women. It is because of the importance that I place on self-actualization that I despise this male sacrifice bullshit. It irks me as much as having to listen to some feminist screech at the top of her lungs about the patriarchy. Whether or not he knows it, Doug Giles and feminists have the same goal, the subjugation of the male spirit.
A man as obsessively concerned with “wimps” and “wussies” as Doug Giles is shadow-boxing some personal demons. And that’s fine. My problem with Giles is that he wants other men to adopt his psychoses. He’s a made a career out of spouting his Yosemite Sam brand of man-up nonsense in books, TV appearances, and articles on his website. For a laugh, check out Clash Daily. It’s a dive into the deep end of trad-con dementia. In addition to the expected swipes at the Left and Center, Clash Daily contains several articles upbraiding evangelical preacher Joel Osteen for not being manly enough. Now I don’t know too much about Joel Osteen. But even if I didn’t like the man, I wouldn’t feel the need to keep tabs on his masculinity. As to why Doug Giles finds Joel Osteen’s masculinity so fascinating, I leave it to the reader to decide. Let’s just say I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Giles has a copy of Jack Donovan’s “Androphilia” tucked behind the row of “Left Behind” hardcovers that he keeps in his office.
Interjection: Yes, the quip I just made just now is meant to derive humor from the idea that Giles is a closeted gay man. Before anybody jumps down my throat I want to make it clear that I am not using homosexuality as a tool for shaming. I don’t know if Giles is gay or straight, and frankly I don’t care. What I’m saying is that the man is conflicted. His Joel Osteen fixation is just one example. The vibe I get from Giles is the vibe I get from the next door neighbor in “American Beauty,” except that Giles has enough smarts to know that a grin beats a grimace when it comes to preaching the gospel of gynocentrism. As for Jack Donovan, I think he’s worth reading, if one is careful to separate the wheat from the chaff. I haven’t read “Androphilia,” nor do I plan to. As for “The Way of Men,” it contains some kernels of wisdom, but the tribalism Donovan espouses, if adopted, would spell the end of male sovereignty.
I could give other examples of why Doug Giles is a poor role model for any man who doesn’t want to be his son-in-law, but why bother. There’s a bigger question lurking in the background, which is this: Can trad-cons who profess to hate feminists, but who work tirelessly to support gynocentrism, ever be considered allies? Or, stated differently: Should MGTOW try to give these men the red pill?
For someone like Giles, the answer is no. He’s too jacked up on gynocentric hooey to be anything besides a gray-haired mama’s boy. But for guys who are still on the fence, the answer is Yes. With a strong caveat.
Yes, because every man should at least hear about the concept of gynocentrism. Acquainting men with gynocentrism is tantamount to male sovereignty. The caveat is that you can’t expect a blue pill man, least of all a trad-con, to change his views.
Giving a blue pill man the red pill should be thought of as planting a seed. The seed you plant may not sprout until years later, when he gets whopped upside the head with an unfair divorce settlement or thrown in jail on a false rape charge. It’s sad that it takes something as drastic as that to wake some men up, but as they say, better late than never.
Before I wrap this up, I am going to state something that I hope will be the chief take away point for any man reading this article. If I have one idea to contribute to the growing branch of philosophy that is MGTOW thought, it is this:
The central column of gynocentrism – the place to attack it with the goal of making it topple – is the column comprised of men. That is, the column comprised of manginas, white knights, and trad-cons.
Manginas are the intellectual wing of male gynocentrism. They’re the unhappy cherubs who whine about male privilege. They’re the bootlicking intellectuals who write tracts pining for the end of what they believe is male supremacy. They’re the traitorous lawmakers who propose misandric legislation like the Rape Fraud bill. How do you combat manginas? By arguing with them at every turn. Don’t let a mangina pass by without telling him how wrong he is. Slowly, but surely, the truth will seep through his thick skull.
White Knights are the physical wing of male gynocentrism. White knights are the ones who run over to kick your ass when you’re having an argument with your girlfriend. They’re guys like the punk in a gray hoodie who took a swing at Jorge Pena for doling out the most satisfying smack in recent history. How do you combat white knights? By hounding them into submission. (That’s hounding, and not pounding. I’m not advocating violence.) This prescription may seem harsh, but intimidation is the only language white knights understand. I say this as a reformed white knight.
Trad-cons fall into both categories. They take the cultural impetus that compels a man to act like a white knight and, with mangina-like dedication, turn it into a half-baked philosophy. Trad-cons derive their sense of purpose by throwing other men under the bus. They get away with the most egregious affronts on male sovereignty by wrapping their bullshit in a flag of their motherland and using God and Country to camouflage their agenda. An especially wily trad-con will go so far as to disguise his proselytizing as anti-feminism.
Men who profess to be against feminism while supporting gynocentrism are like Nazi soldiers decrying the Waffen-SS while serving in the Wehrmacht. I wish we could snap our fingers and wake these men up, so that a man like Doug Giles could see he’s a fighting for the same side as the manginas he ridicules. Sadly, that will never happen. But for younger men who are still on the fence, there might be hope. The next time you hear a man complaining about feminism, let him know that feminism is not the core of the problem. Introduce him to the concept of gynocentrism.
A man who fights feminism believes that he is pulling up a weed. In reality he is only plucking off a leaf. Men will have to wake up en masse, collectively grab a hold of gynocentrism, and pull it out by its roots.
Whether gynocentrism can be toppled without plunging humanity into a second Dark Age is a topic that I hope to write on soon. For now I will simply state my ardent belief that gynocentrism can be toppled and that humanity will better off for having done so. And the way to accomplish this task is by patiently and methodically chopping at its center column, the column that is comprised of white knights, manginas, and trad-cons.
And what if I am wrong, you ask? What if the gynocentric instinct is so deeply woven into our very being that it can’t be fought?
Fight it anyway. Fight it tooth and nail. Even if we have no guarantee of victory. Even if it means that we slip further down the slope. If that should happen, we will regroup and make another rush at the enemy. For, as a wise man once said, in great attempts, it is noble even to fail.