Why is “The Manosphere” Obsessed with Christianity?

Someone asked me here on TDL a while back what I thought about the Christian/semi-neo-conservative slant of “the manosphere”. While this post is not a deep discussion of such, I do want to make it known that I find it … baffling, or puzzling at best.

As a commenter put it here, some of the manosphere is definitively clueless, confused, and acts in ways entirely counter-productive to broader and larger goals. As the commenter put it

These men are anti-life, anti-human, anti-freedom and anti-happiness.

While I wouldn’t say “all of them” fit that bill, or even a majority, I would say a huge chunk, sadly, fit that category. And I would further state that the majority of that “trend”, stems directly from Christianity.

Christianity in particular of all other religions is at odds with man, with life on earth, and especially, with romantic love. Christianity has always espoused a profound hatred of these entities, does now, and always will, until it goes the way of Greek Mythology.

Christianity is a primitive, collectivist, openly irrational substitute for philosophy. “Manosphere” supporters claim that Christian values and traditions build “the foundation” of society : the family.

But this is a pile of horse shit. Not only is the individual the foundation of “society” (always has been, is now, and always will be), but it is precisely these “traditions” that cause so much suffering and hatred today.

Traditions are useless unless and until they correspond to reality. “The family” being the center of any society or philosophy is collectivist in itself. And guess what else has it’s roots in collectivism?

The third wave of feminism. The modern hatred of both genders. (One does not hate the opposite sex without hating oneself, and ones own gender, first).

The reality is, men who rely on Christianity for philosophy and are simultaneously upset with modern feminism, are fundamental allies with who and what they claim to oppose.

Christianity and modern feminism are both collectivist.

In fact, Christianity has a much longer rap sheet of death, destruction, violence, oppression, molestation, and blind hatred.

On a very closely related note, Captain Capitalism published and then pulled a post linking to and praising a post here on TDL. I’ve suspected since that time that he did more searching around TDL and discovered something he didn’t approve of : probably something to do with Christianity.

Part speculation there, but, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

That’s all I have for now, more thoughts in a future post.

Further Reading :

A Men’s Convention, Seriously?

This was a featured post on The Spearhead. The owner is nice. I’ve spoken to him via phone on a few occasions. Not exactly a warm welcome via the readers though, in spite of the fact that The 21 Convention is probably the best thing to happen for young men in recent history. Interestingly, that post sent 2 attendees to the London 21 Convention. Walked in skeptical, walked away 150% happy they decided to attend.

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at TheDreamLounge.net and Declarationism.com.

, ,

28 Responses to Why is “The Manosphere” Obsessed with Christianity?

  1. db March 26, 2013 at 12:58 pm #

    Seriously? That is the most poorly reasoned thing I’ve read on the ‘net in ages. Perhaps a familiarity with the subject matter at hand and a greater grasp of history is important when trying to write on the topic. Your grasp of history is horrific. Your understanding of Christianity is remedial, and one needs to ask, do you even read the manosphere? Good luck…that was awful.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson March 26, 2013 at 2:07 pm #

      Your criticizing reason … and siding with religion. That’s impressive.

      Please, educate me where I am ignorant. I’m all ears.

  2. db March 26, 2013 at 9:17 pm #

    Lol. I’m not criticizing reason because very little was used; they were a mass of baseless assertions. You’ve probably read Dawkins and Hitchens and consider yourself an expert rather than actually studying that which you denounce. Christianity has never espoused a “profound hatred” with the things you list and if you actually took the time to understand what Christianity taught and not present some caricature here, you would see it has great explanatory power for the nature of man.

    Let me give you just one point on which you error. Christianity is not collectivist. It is individualistic. Jesus came to redeem who? Groups? No. Individuals!! If you understood the history at the time, Christianity was the liberating force for individuals because it deemed each individual worthy of salvation form the least to the greatest at a time when men and women were treated as mere chattel. It was the first great movement under the teachings of Jesus who saw the worth of individuals and empowered them.

    And you want to talk about Christianity’s “rap sheet”? That is laughable. The body count under the atheistic regimes of the 20th century far outweighs the deaths in religious wars. In the recently published Encyclopedia of War, the authors surveyed 1,762 wars and concluded that less than 7 percent had religious motivations. The godless regimes of Mao, Lenin, and Pol Pot alone has a body count far greater than the history of Christianity. Remove God and let bodies pile up! For more of an education on this you can start here: http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2012/08/atheists-abandon-religion-causes-war.html and read more of Day’s research on the issue.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson March 27, 2013 at 10:14 am #

      You are one of the “hopelessly confused”, as I call them. Really, deeply, deeply confused and lost.

      I’ve never read Dawkins or Hitchens. The fact that you think I have is puzzling. The little video I have seen of Hitchens leaves me to believe he was a dick, at best.

      Christianity has always had a profound hatred of what I listed, especially romantic love, and the self. I don’t think you understand what I even mean when I say those things.

      Christianity is collectivist to the core. Some people who follow it are less so … I know some myself. But those people are not *the religion*, Christianity.

      Salvation? Salvation from what? No human being in history has ever been born guilty. Christianity makes a mockery of real guilt and morality.

      Your final comment about atheism is the most laughable of all. I’ve heard of people thinking this way but I’ve never actually communicated with someone who does.

      Atheism is not a religion. It is not even a religious position. It is the quasi-opposite of practicing a religion. It’s no religion at all. Its hard to believe people would be so dumb as to lump together various collectivist regimes under the banner of “atheism”, as if all had some unifying religion.

      They certainly had similar, anti-reason, anti-life, murderous, collectivist philosophies. Similar to Christianity as well.

      You need a history lesson, a reality check, and a smack in the face. Christians have slaughtered millions of people throughout history in the name of their god and committed countless other atrocities.

    • Mark Plus April 23, 2013 at 10:56 pm #

      Look, communist regimes took power in countries with larger than previously available populations to begins with (a result of the demographic explosion since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution); the governments had firearms, explosives, trains and aircraft to make the machinery of mass murder more effective; and we’ve also had photography to record some of these slaughters. And the bulk of this happened within about the last four generations, so many witnesses survived to tell us their stories about their experiences. In my teens (1970′s) I got to talk to a refugee from Communist Hungary.

      This gives us a biased picture of the scale of victimization, in other words. Conquerors in premodern times would have their armies wipe out the populations of entire cities, but because that happened so long ago, it doesn’t register with us emotionally the way Soviet mass murders in the middle of the last century do. Ironically the elder of the Chechen terrorist brothers bore the name of Tamerlan one of those premodern conquerors who ordered his soldiers to make a clean sweep of the places they conquered:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur#Campaigns_in_the_Levant

  3. db March 27, 2013 at 10:55 am #

    We’ll leave it there. Your lack of understanding is museum-quality remarkable. On the last point alone you prove your intellectual rigor to know the truth to be completely non-existant in the face of factual evidence. Good luck “Dream”. lol

  4. Free Woman March 27, 2013 at 10:01 pm #

    The Manosphere is also obsessed with Islam. Can’t count how many times I’ve read comments like “Islam will take over the West”, ” European women love being dominating by alpha middle eastern Muslim men”, “Muslim countries are the ones not governed by a feminist elite”, “Muslim men know how to keep their women in line”, “Brothers, there’s a lot we could learn from Muslim men”, etc, etc, etc.

  5. Free Woman March 29, 2013 at 12:17 am #

    “Christianity is a primitive, collectivist, openly irrational substitute for philosophy. “Manosphere” supporters claim that Christian values and traditions build “the foundation” of society : the family.

    But this is a pile of horse shit. Not only is the individual the foundation of “society” (always has been, is now, and always will be), but it is precisely these “traditions” that cause so much suffering and hatred today.”

    I say that the family is the foundation of society, but the individual is the foundation of family.

    Say there was just 1 human individual living on earth. There would be no society because not even a family, what to speak of a society, would have formed from a lone individual. And family or society also would not have been formed if there 2 people on the planet of the same sex. There would have to be a female and male. Then they could create a family and from that family a society could be built. Of course it would be an incestuous one, but you get my point.

    Families are built from individuals. If even one individual is unhealthy or dysfunctional or even unsatisfied in a family, that will disrupt the health, function and satisfaction of everyone else. Therefore individual health and satisfaction is a must for the formation of happy families.

    The main point is that families are formed voluntarily by individuals. The Manosphere wants to force women into mating and family formation according to its own ideals of what they think is the “role of women”.

    To hell with that.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson March 29, 2013 at 9:16 am #

      Hey Freewoman

      I don’t think I agree with your premise about the individual and the family. The logical conclusion of your statement is that single adult men and women are not “part of society”.

      This much is laughably absurd.

      I agree that a rational, loving family is important, and valuable. But individuals are the “unit” of any society, and humanity for that matter.

      Human beings are not families. They are individuals. This is why political philosophy must protect *individual* rights, not “family” rights.

      In fact, there is no such thing as family rights. Families cannot posses rights, only individuals can. Any rights a “family” has stem directly and only from the individuals in it, just like any other organization, business, charity, etc …

      • Free Woman March 29, 2013 at 3:08 pm #

        “I don’t think I agree with your premise about the individual and the family. The logical conclusion of your statement is that single adult men and women are not “part of society”.

        The logical conclusion is in my comment itself. A solitary individual cannot build a society because there are no other humans with which to build it.

        “This much is laughably absurd.”

        What is laughably absurd is the conclusion you reached – that single adult women and men are not “part of society”.

        Nowhere was that implied in anything I wrote.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson March 29, 2013 at 3:17 pm #

          There is a flaw in the “social testing” you are performing here, although I wouldn’t know what to call it.

          Just think about what your comment says. Because one individual cannot create, by definition, a “society” in the absence of other human beings … what, he is no longer the unit of said society once it is created in cooperation with other human beings?

          What, does he get “lost in the mix” once he creates a family?

          And what if he doesn’t?

          Who are you to say it is impossible to create a peaceful and just society in the complete absence of families? I’m not saying we should, or that it is in any way ideal : I’m trying to reveal lunar logical leaps in thought that don’t make any sense.

          Admittedly, your thoughts here are eerily collectivist in the neo-conservative “universal” sense.

          “If everyone was an unbridled individualist the world would collapse!”

          Which is, complete bullshit, and a total failure as an ethical test for man’s life.

    • MC March 30, 2013 at 10:19 pm #

      @Free Woman

      “The main point is that families are formed voluntarily by individuals. The Manosphere wants to force women into mating and family formation according to its own ideals of what they think is the “role of women”.

      To hell with that.”

      “The Manosphere” is comprised of individuals sharing ideas back and forth on the internet, sometimes in person. I don’t think any fraction of them speak for the rest, they speak for themselves. Some of them have sworn off women altogether, while others strive to improve success and relations with women.

      My parents got an arranged marriage, and although they both agreed to the marriage after meeting for a brief period, it’s hardly been a good marriage. I can tell from pictures in photo albums that they did have feelings for each other at one point, but their marriage wasn’t based on love.

      I’ve seen them hug only once ever. I’ve never seen them kiss. I assume other then the times they had to in order to have children, they probably never have sex.

      That’s why when you mention “forced marriage,” I know how horrible an idea that is. Horrible for the women, yes, but also horrible for the men. Being married to a woman that does not desire you, does not love you, and doesn’t want to be there, is not an enjoyable experience. And the man would still have to provide for that non-loving family.

      Those men that want that are far too stupid to see the outcome.

      I actually remember being in middle school and hoping my parents would get a divorce. The children suffer from such a union, so really, nobody wins.

      My older brother is getting his marriage planned early next year. Although they’ll get to date for four months to decide if they actually want to be together, so the practice has changed slightly. They want to get me married at the same time to save on costs. I’m moving out before that happens, not that I would ever go through with it.

      Although my older brother will inherit the house and get what would have been my share of the $75 000 from the land they’ll be selling, it’ll be great to live in a new city, without very much money, figuring out what’s next for my life.

      • Anthony Dream Johnson March 30, 2013 at 11:35 pm #

        Man, reading this comment, I was like no …. noooooooooooooooo! MC is way too smart for that shit!

        Continues reading …. puts on sunglasses … of course. MC is way too cool for that ;).

        Interesting story MC. I’m impressed you were conscious of the desire for your parents to separate so young. I didn’t become explicitly aware of that until high school (when it became abundantly obvious my parents did not belong together).

        • MC March 31, 2013 at 5:27 am #

          @Dream

          “Man, reading this comment, I was like no …. noooooooooooooooo! MC is way too smart for that shit!

          Continues reading …. puts on sunglasses … of course. MC is way too cool for that ;) .”

          Were you thinking I was going to get an arranged marriage? :D

          Unfortunately my brothers are. I’m pretty much the black sheep of the family. I don’t want an arranged marriage, I eat beef and pork, I don’t only want to date Indian girls, and I don’t follow their religion. My mom has actually said “you should have died when you were born.”

          I’ve only been allowed to stay because I pay rent, and it would be shameful for them to kick their son out on the street. I’ve stayed far longer then I ever should have. Self doubt and procrastination on my part.

          I haven’t been entirely sure what I want to do with my life, but when I’m no longer in this place, the answers will come to me.

          Just saving up first + last months rent, then I’m out. Just thinking about it makes me excited :-]

          “Interesting story MC. I’m impressed you were conscious of the desire for your parents to separate so young. I didn’t become explicitly aware of that until high school (when it became abundantly obvious my parents did not belong together).”

          Well they made it so damn obvious, and verbalized it on more then one occasion : ]

  6. Mark April 17, 2013 at 4:30 am #

    I read this blog sometimes, but this post is bad.

    You start by calling names on some group, because they somehow have to do something with Christianity, and tell us your reasons why Christianity sucks balls.
    I’m an atheist myself and I don’t listen to any of the religion crap but having something to do with Christianity is no reason to call them anti-life and more. I don’t even know what Christian lies they’re spreading yet.

    Then you mention that the manosphere says that the tradition of “the family” is a good thing and I assume that its losing ground. And when I look around I can confirm that, there are more divorces and single moms than ever.

    Now im getting interested in what you have to say about this matter. Do you think families are important, aren’t they necessary, do you have any views on the increased number of divorces and single moms, or what do you think of the consequences of these matters?

    Instead of talking about this, you start some grammar Nazi battle about what the foundation of society is. I also think Individuals are the foundation, but individuals make up families as well, both ways have its reasons for being right but for the discussion it doesn’t even matter what is right.

    You follow up by bashing Christian beliefs and traditions more.

    Then you say something about families being the center of society as collectivism, and link it to feminism because its also collectivism. Then some feminist bashing.

    Then you say manosphere people are upset with feminism but that is ridiculous because they both have their grounds in collectivism what makes them allies. This doesn’t make any sense, even if they were both collectivists, they could have different values that wont work together so that can upset them.

    To confuse me even more you say something about a rap sheet of death in christianity. I don’t see this adding any value to the things you said before.

    You end with an (I assume) manosphere/christian blogger that linked to this blog but pulled it because he didn’t approve of your content because you criticize Christianity.

    If your goal was to show us why you think the manosphere is bad, you failed.

    In the end, the only thing I know, is that you hate Christianity, and anyone who has anything to do with it. I still have no clue about the manosphere or its ideas.

    This is a poorly structured post with some flawed logic and a lot of assumptions.

    Please think about the quality of your post before you post it. You’re wasting my time with this shit.

    PS. In the comments I saw you ridiculed a guy:
    Youre citicizing reason … and siding with religion. That’s impressive.
    Also in other comments, the only thing you do is attacking the other person personally, or calling their points bullshit, without actually reacting to the valid points that were made.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson April 17, 2013 at 10:54 am #

      You appear to be one of the clueless “atheists”. Do you even know what that word means? Here’s a hint : 100% of Christians are 99% atheist. They completely reject an endless buffet of religions … and choose only one, unless and until a new one converts them over.

      I think families are important, but they are much less important than the individual. Than individual human beings. Than man’s right to his own life. Than reason, rights, and rationality. Most defenders of “the family” today are in fact it’s worst enemy. They defend it in the worst way possible, much the same as they defend capitalism in the absolute worst way imaginable. They defend the family via “tradition”, “christian values”, collectivism, mysticism, subjectivism, and so on.

      Their defense of the family in human life is a fucking nightmare, and they deserve to be told as such.

      Grammar nazi? Idiot. Objective definitions are about the only thing keeping a tyrannical government from open enslavement, murder, torture, and genocide.

      *Groups* of individuals being the “center of society” is a collectivist statement. There’s no getting around this. A spade is a spade.

      I don’t hate all christians. I respect and admire a number of them. I loathe the religion itself, and keep my distance from the majority of those who follow it.

      Citing reason to defend faith is the pinnacle of absurdity in epistemology. Anyone who does so *at this point*, in civilized society, is open to outright mockery for such fucking stupidity.

      • Mark April 17, 2013 at 5:12 pm #

        You’re too stupid to even have a discussion with.

        Shouting loudest and calling people clueless while not responding to the points they made wont win you any arguments.

  7. Matthew King April 17, 2013 at 10:07 am #

    There is crossover between the two because both manliness and (orthodox) Christianity are undergoing a renaissance. You are smart to be curious about the connection, but you are not curious enough to know whereof you speak. Curiosity leads a man to questions and answers, not public consternation over what he perceives as an obvious contradiction. Maybe the contradiction isn’t between the subjects so much as it is in your abbreviated understanding of those subjects. That humility is the beginning of wisdom, or the start of actually becoming knowledgeable about the kneejerk impulses that cause you to produce posts like the one above.

    You repeat just about every mindless cliché about religion there is. Who exactly told you you were an “independent think[er]“? Your hissy fit against the faithful is the equivalent of a feminist looking at your blog and determining that you have a little penis, or that you are latent gay, and that’s why you talk about dudes so much.

    Now I am certain that isn’t the case with you. What makes you think you can speak about the case with me, a Christian man, who devours uppity little poseurs like you for breakfast?

    Matt

    • Anthony Dream Johnson April 17, 2013 at 10:41 am #

      Do you even lift, bro?

      • Matthew King April 17, 2013 at 3:57 pm #

        Man, you’re even more insecure than I thought. I give this tiny-dick of a blog six months.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson April 18, 2013 at 10:55 am #

          This blog has been online for over 6 years. Given the eternity that is in internet-time, you’re probably spot on!

  8. stevie tellatruth April 20, 2013 at 12:17 am #

    Christianity in particular of all other religions is at odds … especially, with romantic love. — TDL

    I CHALLENGE you to read “Song of Solomon” (Old Testament), and then reassess the above assertion.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson April 22, 2013 at 11:46 am #

      Ya, I probably won’t be doing that, because I don’t care. “Song of Solomon” could be the greatest praise of romantic love in human history — and it would still not change the fact that Christianity in itself is deeply opposed to, and has a bottomless-pit level hatred of romantic love. Romantic love is a celebration of life on earth. It is THIS worldly. It is rooted in individualism, in selfishness, in reason, in reality, in love for one’s self, in admiration for another. It is the exact opposite of everything every priest, preacher, pope, bishop, and child molester has ever, ever, ever stated in history.

      Get. It. Through. Your. Skull.

  9. Mark Plus April 23, 2013 at 10:33 pm #

    Some manosphere Christians commit the same error as the feminized liberal men like PZ Myers. They both think that a necessary connection has to exist between Christian god beliefs and patriarchal values.

    Uh, no, it doesn’t. We can’t observe our tribe’s supernaturals, much less communicate with them, despite what the people on those foolish “ghost-hunting” shows on cable claim.

    But men have had to live with women all along, and we have inherited a body of empirical and pragmatic knowledge, or more accurately wisdom about how men and women behave and the consequences of this behavior in our harsh and dangerous world. If this wisdom tradition tends to put women in the bad light associated with patriarchal beliefs – well, you can’t blame that outcome on the gods, now, can you?

    • Free Woman July 2, 2013 at 12:14 am #

      Patriarchy is collectivism.

  10. Mark Plus April 26, 2013 at 5:33 pm #

    Objectivists don’t have it quite right to hold that Christianity teaches that earthly life sucks, and that it is supposed to suck. Dante Alighieri, who probably never met anyone we would consider healthy, writes in “De Monarchia”:

    “Ineffable Providence has thus designed two ends to be contemplated of man: first, the happiness of this life, which consists in the activity of his natural powers, and is prefigured by the terrestrial Paradise; and then the blessedness of life everlasting, which consists in the enjoyment of the countenance of God, to which man’s natural powers may not attain unless aided by divine light, and which may be symbolized by the celestial Paradise.”

    So “the happiness of this life” is certainly consistent with a Christian world view, at least according to Dante’s understanding of medieval Catholic doctrine. Pick your battles more carefully.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson April 26, 2013 at 7:04 pm #

      Ultimately, Christianity is the butchering, sacrifice, and slaughter of the ideal man : Christ in their case. It is 100% antagonistic at its core, towards man’s life, and his sacred happiness on this earth.

      The fact that Christianity believes human beings are guilty of sin by default, and need “saving”, is repulsive beyond description.

      No amount of interpretations, opinions, narrations, and complications of the matter will change any of this, ever.

Make your mark

More in Independent Thinking (8 of 103 articles)


  This is a great video that just came out from Paleo FX. I ...