Down below, Derek writes (to Heidi):
I’ll agree that there are pragmatic people who care only about the message/results (Boxer appears to be one of the few), but these are rare.
Part of the mission of this blog is to attempt to get younger men to think strategically. That aside, I was wrong when I wrote the reply you are here replying to.
Originally, Dalrock would annoy and harass feminists. He did a good job at this. I realized, this week, that he has not done this in quite some time (the better part of a year, by my estimation). Instead, Dalrock has recently devoted much of his time and energy to tearing down antifeminist men: Jason, Bnonn, you, the boys at Warhorn, and the list goes on…
When he’s not doing this, he’s pontificating on chivalry and courtly love, which, incidentally, he’s largely plagiarizing from Joseph Campbell.
Why is he doing this? I have some ideas, but they’re mere speculation.
If Dalrock were devoting the bulk of his time and energy to writing critical theory about feminism, I’d support him, even if he turned out to be a liberal bulldyke from the big apple. In fact, he’s not. He’s wasting time fighting my friends, and that opens him up to criticism, no matter what his identity might be.
I think I could make an ironically good argument for why this is a bad idea, but that’s a post for another time.
I’d be very interested in discussing that, whenever you get around to writing about it. I think it’d be productive and interesting.