Choosing To Not Give In To Schisms

It weighs heavy on my heart when I see men of wisdom and influence swerve away from others that have similar purpose. I feel that the opposition, whether actual or proverbial, benefit from our schisms. I feel that it is often fool hardy that we have allowed unsettled beefs and disagreements push us further away, complicating our arrival at improvements or common goals. People have found it to be satisfying to split off in their own direction but I choose not to give in to schisms.

I have seen men of great aims and decent knowledge find reasons to attack each other. This is especially true of men that have imparted ideas and men that have helped me grow as a man. I give the example of the split of the “Red Man Group”. Yes, there is still a Red Man Group. But it has had many of its notable members “split off” from it due to an alleged breach of privacy and subsequent arguments afterward. (I do not claim to know all of the facts involving any events, arguments, or legal issues. I have only been able to gleam a few actual accusations). I know of many people on both sides of the schism that have helped many men, not just me. Anthony Johnson ( has a unique platform and organization. He has allowed for a collection of men’s voices to be heard. Rollo Tomassi’s ( works are beyond informative. BLL (Gendernomics)( is very entertaining and thought provoking to me. Rian Stone ( helps warn men of the pitfalls of the tradcon upbringing.  Rich Cooper (Entrepreneurs in Cars)( reminds us to take care of ourselves and not fall asleep at life’s proverbial wheel. There are decent people on both sides. I am not a party to either the Rule Zero/Red Morning crews, 21 Studios, or Red Man Group. I am interested in good information and ways to improve myself. I do like competition but I don’t like sniping of gentleman on either side. I find it counterproductive.

Not to exclude anyone but I have it way heavy on my heart that people I know from the blogging world, especially people within the sphere of writers that can be considered “red pillesque”, pro male, or even the red pill adjacent religious types. I have seen informative and entertaining works from many. But I have also seen “unpurposeful” attacks on each other. I have two people whose works that I subscribe to that have started their own schisms, including individual “soldiers” lining up for an occasional skirmish.

I don’t take sides. I wish these people would quash their beefs like it was “olden times” and be gentleman. I have seen shitty feminists (and astrocucks) fund huge failing websites with horrific writing while quality writing from our side of the culture war dies because of infighting. I would rather be the guy that tells you that you are both being assholes than a person who picks sides.

Let’s get back to work. The shittiest people in history are winning because we squabble. If we are going to be separate entities; put our “hate” into our work and leave folks on our side out of it. Go back to helping men and living better lives. Men on the margins and younger impressionable men need the help.

A Homeless Shelter for Castoffs and Misfits


About freemattpodcast

Lead shill for The FreeMatt Podcast
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Choosing To Not Give In To Schisms

  1. Lexet Blog says:

    Funny you write this. I’m working on an article right now that discusses cons in the manosphere.

    Most of the people involved in the groups you mentioned are narcissists who sell snake oil or repackaged advice.


  2. Boxer says:

    Dear Matt:

    There is no schism. “Jack” lied about me months ago, and I ignored and forgot it. He then tried to slink back into my blog, and so I was forced to address his untruths. It’s done, no one cares, and life goes on.

    As an aside, I see another liar has come out of the woodwork.

    Most of the people involved in the groups you mentioned are narcissists who sell snake oil or repackaged advice.

    This loon has been ranting about me for months, despite my never having had a single interaction with him until today. Naturally, no evidence is forthcoming of me “selling snake oil” (or anything else). I’ve never taken money from my readers for any purpose. Never mind that, though. I only hope the next fantasy, dreamt up by this obsessive, will be more creative and entertaining.




  3. Derek Ramsey says:

    “I don’t like sniping of gentleman on either side. I find it counterproductive.”

    First, men, be they Christian or not, must be allowed to disagree and argue. You can’t have rationality without argument. Indeed, the mark of the irrational is the inability to deal with dissent or disagreement.

    Second, though it is possible to argue in bad faith, it is the aggrieved’s right to choose to respond or not (including to forgive). If two men decide to go at each other, anything is fair game, as per the first point. We must respect their right to do so. Moreover, bystanders are not magically sinned against. You may personally dislike the disagreements, but you are not a party to those disagreements. In the context of Matthew 18, it is the responsibility of the aggrieved to decide whether to push their claim. You don’t have a right to be offended for someone else.

    Third, your argument can be construed as tone-policing. There is a certain extent to which strict civility is optimal for pushing your message, and that is correct. All men should be encouraged to leave emotion to the side and stay calm. But there are times when stronger language and emotion are utilized, sometimes even legitimately. Regardless, even uncivil behavior doesn’t override the first two points.

    Fourth, your argument seems to suggest that men should not argue if they know that they cannot come to an agreement. This is a violation of the above points. Moreover, sometimes it takes years for words to convince another person.

    There are a couple of recent examples I’d like to point out. First, honeycomb recently suggested that I stop engaging with lastmod. I declined his suggestion and I believe my conversation with lastmod ended just fine. Second, I was arguing with honeycomb and we both chose to engage until we felt like the conversation was at an end. In neither of this case did we come to terms of agreement, but that’s okay, as per the fourth point above.


    • I follow your sentiments and words. If I can side step my previous comments; I think they both are good writers. I think that their energy can be harnessed for something different.
      I do not wish to be a tone police. Argue if the parties can get something out of it (or if in the arena of debate, someone else get something out of it).
      I dont disagree with your points or commentary. I actually appreciate it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “I think that their energy can be harnessed for something different.”

        I agree, but this is a surprisingly difficult thing to pull off.

        There are a lot of things I could do personally. I could, for example, have a blog that focuses on one topic and attempts to actually reach an audience. Instead I use it like a random notepad without any unified purpose. I run another blog that does have a unified purpose, but I neglect it and it has no readers anyway.

        Boxer, on a number of occasions, criticized Dalrock for focusing his attacks on the wrong people.

        I’m sure I could list many others. People do what they think best, and few do so optimally. I know that I don’t. For every ‘popular’ post I have, there are ~10 that just get a “meh” response.

        I think it takes a strong leader to pull off something like what you suggest, someone who has the time and skills to guide a community. Perhaps that would be a single website with many different authors under the control of a solid, qualified editor. Curated content and skilled moderation. It probably wouldn’t hurt to have professional therapists (or equivalent) involved as well. Given the inherent independent streak that runs through the manosphere, I don’t think that’s the kind of thing that could ever happen.

        The most successful churches use this formula: strong leadership at the top, a group of dedicated elders, a lot of time and effort from participants, and good content. The worst churches also have this formula, but they are infected by bureaucratic thinking. It really depends on the profiles of the people who make up the organization.


  4. Pingback: The Weekly FreeMatt in Review | Free Matt Podcasts

  5. Pingback: Small Schisms and Large Schisms | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s