About these ads

Anglobitch: “Misandrist women cannot distinguish between Nobel Prize winners and tattooed psychopaths – all are men and thus worthless brutes in their entitled eyes.”

Ladies love psychos — and Psychlos!

We hear again and again from the angry dudes of the Manosphere that women are status-seeking sluts, spending their twenties riding what has come to be known as the Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel and shutting out the hapless beta males who beg for their attention. Indeed, some Manosphere dudes are so convinced by this narrative that they devote their whole life to learning how to be (or at least how to pretend to be)  the the Alphas males that the ladies allegedly prize so much.

Rookh Kshatriya on Anglobitch thinks these fellows – PUAs and “nice guys” alike  — are all wrong about “Anglosphere” women. Far from preferring Alphas, he suggests, these women would rather hook up with smelly, butt-scratching losers. Literally. Here’s his, er, argument:

Because of the puritanical fictions  that prevail in Anglo-American society, Anglo women have become impossible to please by rational means. … the bar has been set impossibly high. The outcome is either misandrist spinsterhood or, more often, what we see around us: a female obsession with the dregs of the male sex.  …

Since no male is good enough for her, all men are flattened into an undifferentiated, priapic horde in the Anglo female’s mind. A king is a jack is a joker… a classical scholar at Yale is suddenly no better than a murderous baboon like Charles Manson. An illiterate tramp with a ring through his nose instantly acquires the same standing as an architect, physicist or surgeon.

Naturally, Kshatriya provides no actual evidence for these odd assertions, but in the wide world of misogyny that’s never a deterrent for a guy with a new dumb theory about the evils of women.

[T]his is what makes Game – so appealing to the logical male mind – so ineffective in the Anglosphere. Misandrist women cannot distinguish between Nobel Prize winners and tattooed psychopaths – all are men and thus worthless brutes in their entitled eyes.  And so all the Gamers’ striving for ‘Alpha’ status is pointless – they might as well stick rings through their noses, grow some dreadlocks and slouch the streets scratching their butts.  Indeed, as many North American commentators claim, their mating chances would probably improve if they did this. ‘Omega males’ doubtless confirm the Anglo female’s contempt for men in general. If she has to have a man, only the worst knave will do.

I’m pretty sure that I’ve seen “Anglo females” out strolling with men who are neither wearing dreadlocks nor sporting nose rings nor scratching their asses, but those sightings must be anomalies.

Kshatriya is convinced that social conservatives are equally wrong about the ladies:

Writers like Daniel Amneus consider female hypergamy to be the ‘glue’ that binds male consent to the social order. …. In the Anglosphere, however, rational female hypergamy has short-circuited due to our cultural bloc’s uniquely puritanical socio-moral conditions. While alphas and high betas trudge home to empty beds or divorce threats, tramps and mass-murderers wade through tons of female flesh without breaking sweat. And so the Anglosphere falls apart around our ears. Yet still David Futrelle exhorts us all to ‘respect women’ and be ‘nice’.

Woah, that was a bit of a surprise ending there.

But obviously I must be doing something  terribly wrong to merit such a mention. I guess I’d better start growing out some white-boy dreads and thinking awful things about women.

About these ads

Posted on October 10, 2012, in alpha asshole cock carousel, alpha males, antifeminism, bad boys, beta males, evil women, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, oppressed white men, PUA, thug-lovers and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 247 Comments.

  1. freitag: If I were to guess…. no one else is paying any attention to them.

    So they are getting a lot of play, from a site which shows them to be the inept, foolish, moronic, and contradictory, fools they are.

  2. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    One of the many stupidities of this is the idea of saying women are misandrists and don’t differentiate between men, and then saying we’d want anything to do with them at all. I dunno, if I had such a serious dislike of men I’d steer clear of them altogether, relationship-wise.

    Or maybe they think (I use the term loosely) women are like MRAs, caught up in hating the opposite sex at the same time as wanting to fuck it.

  3. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    Hey y’all, Ian/Pell’s gone into meltdown on the Speaheader thread! :D

  4. @Sgt Grumbles
    That pic is cool. Is it part of a series?

  5. @kitteh…which thread? i have 10mins to kill on my lunch break

  6. Whoops, sorry, Kitteh, i thought you meant on the Spearhead website…brain has now switched on properly.

  7. He’s figured out that women don’t conform to all the stupid rules he’s learned, almost like they’re people or something, and instead of getting angry with the MRAs and PUAs who taught him a load of BS, he’s angry with women.

    “getting angry with the MRAs and PUAs” and patriarchy – put that in there and you have the MRM in a nutshell.

  8. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    Sorry! It’s this one

    and he’s been totally pwned by Sir Bodsworth

  9. I think Hayashi Sensei. She’s short, has not much lean body mass, and will wipe the walls with him before she mops the floor.

    That’s even better than my suggestion. The only thing that could make her more perfect is if she could knock out a punch of pull ups afterwards. :)

  10. *bunch of pull ups

    (though a punch of pull ups does sound pretty bad ass, if physically impossible).

  11. Fitzy, I read that and thought maybe that’s what a group of pullups were called, like a murder of crows or a school of fish.

  12. @clairedammit – If only!

  13. I think it’s a clench of pull-ups.

  14. So what’s a bunch of trolls called? A riverbed? A sockpuppet? A stink?

  15. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    In Oz we’d call ‘em a whinge of trolls.

    And of course I didn’t just make that up.

  16. A kettle of vultures!

    I, for one, prefer a mutton of trolls, but that’s my Norwegian side talking, and not my internet side. (My internet side likes a “pathetic anger bread” of trolls, but that would be far too tedious to type every time.)

  17. I was going to make some pathetic anger bread once. I don’t remember all the ingredients I had decided on, but they tended toward the bitter ones – unsweetened chocolate, hoppy beer, things like that.

  18. @Kim
    I don’t know. It was posted on Facebook by the Dead Kennedys page.

  19. True story: my boyfriend is a Yale alum, is tattooed, and has been known to scratch his butt on occasion (when it itches, generally). Is he an “alpha” or a “worthless brute”/”dreg”/”baboon”/”psychopath”/”illiterate tramp”/”knave”?

    Also, how the hell does someone throw that many insults to men into a couple of paragraphs and then claim to be speaking against misandry? Sheesh.

  20. If you’re a girl in Pakistan who wants an education and talks to the BBC you’re a terrorist.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11absg/because_some_dingbat_will_think_the_opposite/c6kr5kv

    Upvoted!

  21. I know someone who could make that literary reference tattoo happen. She would probably think it an amazing idea.

  22. Posted on Rookh’s website:

    I do get what Rookh is saying, but I disagree with him that women go out of their way to always choose reprobates and degenerates. For one thing, many women do often choose dull but predictable providers (such as computer nerds, lawyers, doctors, auto mechanics, car salesmen, etc, etc). These plodding types are by no means comparable to mumbling thugs and degenerates, and it is not fair of Rookh to make that comparison. While it is true that to many women, a mumbling, tatooed thug is way more exciting than an autistic accountant, it is definitely not a given that a woman is going to choose a mumbling, tatooed thug over an autistic accountant. An autistic accountant does, after all, have utility as a provider and that defines his purpose. This provider utility has value and is not to be so easily dismissed and brushed aside.

    The key to understanding womens choices is to understand that they are more inclined to accept their reality, their environment and its definitions. They are creatures of proximity – meaning, that they will enter into relations with whomsoever constitutes their proximity. It relates to their solipsism, and the idea that their environment is perceived as reality. As creatures of proximity, women too readily accept the environment and its terms. If they hang with losers, they will choose losers. If they hang with computer nerds they will choose computer nerds. If they work as secretaries at the front desk, they’ll choose from the sales reps and managers that hit on them, or whatever milieu exemplifies their work environment. If they chance upon a pimp, they might become prostitutes. If they chance upon a priest, they might become nuns. Men, by contrast, are more inclined to be independent agents choosing their own proximity and thus, their destiny.

    The bottom line is this. As creatures accepting their proximity, women are too easily removed from the dating market, and this creates a shortage in supply with an excess in demand. So men develop all these complex theories suggesting that women are picky, hypergamous alpha-choosers when the truth is much more likely to be the very opposite. In fact it’s the arbitrariness of women’s choices, not their pickiness, that explains how and why women finish up with the men that they do.

  23. Because clearly women never hang with computer nerds because they are also computer nerds.

  24. Question.

    Does chuckeedee live in China? I mean, it sounds as if, due to people pairing up according to proximity, it results in a surplus of men, because there’s… what? 3 men on every woman born, or?

  25. The key to understanding womens choices is to understand that they are more inclined to accept their reality, their environment and its definitions.

    As creatures of proximity, women too readily accept the environment and its terms

    So, I guess we won’t be hearing any more from the dudes who complain that women are coming into their Man Space ™ and trying to make it more acceptable to them and ruining it somehow? Because women will readily accept the reality of the Man Space ™ and therefore won’t complain about the Manly Space-itude ™ of it all?

    Does not compute. Error, error.

  26. Surely this is just another variation of ‘hot woman’ with ‘ugly guy’ rage?

  27. Well… Rooksh is right that women often end up dating and/or marrying people they work with or people who in some other manner is in their “proximity”. There’s psycological research that confirms this.
    However, the same goes for men.

  28. Slightly unrelated (though I suppose everything is related in a way):

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/10/pubs-clubs-closed-rape-crackdown

    “These are Al Capone type tactics. We will possibly end up prosecuting them for something other than rape. We don’t want them out there committing sexual offences so if they are disqualified from driving or locked up for having weapons this will help prevent rape.”

    Or if they’ve been out raping you could convict them of rape? No?

  29. So, what, the Met has just given up on trying to secure convictions for rape at all and this is plan B?

    That’s B for “bullshit”.

  30. Because clearly women never hang with computer nerds because they are also computer nerds.

    Nor end up with computer nerds/losers/alphas because they are themselves computer nerds/losers/alphas. Why, that might imply that women are individuals with personalities and preferences, and we all know that’s not true! They must just be picking men at random.

  31. Plan Bullshit also includes: “… we do need to educate people that if they go out and get hammered they are vulnerable – vulnerable to being assaulted – vulnerable to falling over and vulnerable to being raped.”

    So thats good. @_@

  32. Dvärghundspossen: “the same goes for men”

    Ah, but you see when men do it they are independent agents choosing their own destiny. Because they’re more logical like that.

  33. … it’s the arbitrariness of women’s choices, not their pickiness, that explains how and why women finish up with the men that they do.

    So when my husband says “I love you,” the correct response on my part is “Eh, you’re OK. You were the best thing that was around at the time.” That’s romance!

  34. Chuckeedee:

    All you have just said is that women tend to chose their partners from among their personal community. Big surprise. And guess what…men, also being members of those communities chose their partners in the same way. People chose their partners from the people around them, people who know them fairly well and with whom they share values and interests. While I’m sure some relationships start when strangers meet at a bar but most of us

    Personally, I think the idea that the perfectly normal process of pairing up being some kind of market and that it should be looked at in pseudo-economic terms is a load of nonsense. Friendship, sexual attraction, love and loyalty develop between potential partners and to reduce something so complex and important to such a simplistic model is insulting to everyone concerned.

  35. @ Ice, I read that last paragraph the same way at first. Then I remembered we were in the manosphere, so of course the woman shortage refers to hot, nubile nymphets (there may be plenty of over-25 hags clogging up reality, but we don’t count). The guy who gets to the hottie first snags her, and every other guy in that environment is SOL (that the woman might made choices to get to that environment in the first place is laughable. Ladies are assigned to go to college or get a job or to an apartment, y’know). Although how this squares with men being “independent agents who choose their proximity” is beyond me. If you choose your proximity, wouldn’t you just move from one environment to the next until you find your elusive perfect woman? Women are obviously just sitting in class or in their office chairs or standing in a restaurant with their with a tray, waiting to be picked up by some random dude who wanders by. All you have to do is get to her first. So if the world works this way, it isn’t women’s arbitrariness that’s getting in the way of a dude getting the girl. It’s his laziness or bad timing. Survival of the fittest, boys!

  36. Jeez…I didn’t finish my first para. Sorry about that.

    Chuckeedee:

    All you have just said is that women tend to chose their partners from among their personal community. Big surprise. And guess what…men, also being members of those communities chose their partners in the same way. People chose their partners from the people around them, people who know them fairly well and with whom they share values and interests. While I’m sure some relationships start when strangers meet at a bar but most of us start off as friends and pair up later.

    Personally, I think the idea that the perfectly normal process of pairing up being some kind of market and that it should be looked at in pseudo-economic terms is a load of nonsense. Friendship, sexual attraction, love and loyalty develop between potential partners and to reduce something so complex and important to such a simplistic model is insulting to everyone concerned.

  37. Wow@chuckdeedee. iI’s rare that one of these specimens works quite that hard to deny that women have agency. Usually they take it as a given that women are passive objects (when they’re not being evil supervillains who run the world) and don’t get all tl;dr about it. it’s like some reality rays got through the tinhat for a second and then they had to arglebargle really really hard to compensate.

  38. @Kim
    Its from Battlefield Earth, Scientology shrill movie by making a VERY BAD (in the amusing way at least) rendition of one of L. Ron Hubbard’s books.

    But back on topic: Just got to ask, how the FUCK is spinsterhood misandrist? I mean, seriously? Unfortunate if the woman in question wanted a relationship, yeah, especially if attempts to get into a stable one fell through, but… misandrist…?

    Sorry if someone already talked about that. Just waking up and probably missed a ton of comments already made.

  39. I have to say, as a “non-native” and not part of the “Anglosphere”, I didn’t get one bit of this:

    [Quote]Writers like Daniel Amneus consider female hypergamy to be the ‘glue’ that binds male consent to the social order. …. In the Anglosphere, however, rational female hypergamy has short-circuited due to our cultural bloc’s uniquely puritanical socio-moral conditions.[/Quote]

    *Hopes she got the quotes thingy right*

    I mean, does it make ANY sense? Not logically, ofc, just language-wise.

  40. And I fail on the quotes. Congratz to me.

  41. Most of the comments here have focused around this sensible and fair interpretation:

    All you have just said is that women tend to chose their partners from among their personal community. Big surprise. And guess what…men, also being members of those communities chose their partners in the same way. People chose their partners from the people around them, people who know them fairly well and with whom they share values and interests.

    This is a sensible and fair interpretation, but it overlooks some key factors. It overlooks the very different priorities that motivate men and women. The basic elements of the motivation perspective were being explored by Sofia when she impersonated a man on an online dating site. Unfortunately, her site (sofiastry) is down at the moment, but the most surprising insight that occurred to her was her realization of the extent to which she found pressure, as a male, to always be “on”… or to cast my own interpretation of what she was saying, to always be in entertainment mode, with toolkit of whitty repartee at the ready. That’s essentially what Game is about… it’s about a man managing his responsibility to always be “on”, to take responsibility for the success or otherwise of a night out. No doubt there are women here who will jump on me with something like “but I’m a computer nerd, I don’t care for witty repartee.” You miss the point. Being the recipient of advances from an ocean of men willing to make like performing seals establishes a fundamentally different way of viewing the world for the audience that judges said seals on their performance.

    A man establishes his purpose as a utility device. A woman, by contrast, has more flexibility in her options. A utility device has limited options. A refrigerator that fails to refrigerate is nothing but a heap of junk. A man that fails to provide, a man that fails to perform, a man that fails to be “on”, or a man that refuses to enlist for conscription, is failing in his obligation as a utility device. He is junk. This is not all his doing… this is culture at work, it is culture that forces all this gunk on him. Personal anecdotes (but I’m not like that) won’t shed any light on this conversation.

  42. Chuckeedee is accusing women of being solipsistic? Seriously?

    Women who are meeting men and dating also feel the pressure of being “on.” Truly. We aren’t just sitting there, stone-faced, with a single arched eyebrow waiting to be entertained. The women you interact with may be doing that, but that’s your shit. You’re a narcissistic gasbag and I seriously doubt that you’re any different on your dates.

    When meeting and dating women also flirt, joke, and feel the pressure to be “on.” This is justa part of dating.

  43. @Mayara

    I’m a native English speaker (British) and I get paid to write (and sometimes edit). It doesn’t make any more sense from a grammatical point of view than it does from a logical one.

    (To quote on this site replace the word “quote” with “blockquote” and [ ] with.)

  44. Oh hey, formatting fail. If you want to use blockquotes then you need the less than/greater than symbols in place of brackets.

  45. What Chuckie forgets is that social interactions between men and woman are not all dating/preludes to sex, all the time. I’d really rather my landlord, my cab driver, and my dentist not go into performing seal looking for sexual attention mode every time they see me, and because life is not a bad movie it turns out that they usually don’t.

  46. themisanthropicmuse

    @Chuckeedee: At best what you wrote is a deepity. You are merely suggesting that women are more likely to form bonds with people they have a higher chance of interacting with rather than those they do not. Wow. Fucking enlightening.

  47. Personal anecdotes (but I’m not like that) won’t shed any light on this conversation.

    Neither will crazy handwaving theories built on just-so stories. More so when you ignore all the ways women are made into “utility devices” (i.e. women who fails to put out, women who don’t want to be a wife, woman who don’t want to be a mother). Even more so when that’s reinforced by the MRA ranting in the OP.

    Enough seriousness. I need a recipe for pathetic anger bread.

    Step 1: Dump flour, yeast, salt and whatever into a bowl. How much? FUCK YOU! THAT’S how much.

    Step 2: Drink a beer. Add a beer. Not the same beer.

    Step 3: Throw the fucking mess onto the table. Punch it. Drink more. Salt with tears.

    Step 4: Toss a shirt over it so you don’t have to look at that shit. Go to the pub while the dough rises.

    Step 5: WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT??! Hit it! Oh, god! Preheat over to 350.

    Step 6: Troll some forums while the dough rises.

    Step 7: Throw that horrible mass into the oven. Bake for 45 minutes. Let it cool. Serve with regret.

  48. It’s more likely for people to pair off with those who they spend a lot of time around and have things in common with? You don’t say.

  49. Correction… I missed the link. Wow. Was commenting on the thing in the OP. I am still asleep it seems. Man that was dumb of me.

  50. @themisanthropicmuse

    Oh, this term’s new to me! Thanks!

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

  51. Oh, and shorter OP: “My diploma is no guarantee of pussy? What good is it then? I’m also taking back my toaster, since the damn thing won’t make a pot roast.”

  52. Spinsterhood is misandry because she could be letting some poor dude who can’t get any bang her; then he’d be getting some.

    It’s not like it makes any difference to her.

    (Man that was hard to write)

  53. Chuckeedee said,

    “This is a sensible and fair interpretation, but it overlooks some key factors. It overlooks the very different priorities that motivate men and women. The basic elements of the motivation perspective were being explored by Sofia when she impersonated a man on an online dating site. Unfortunately, her site (sofiastry) is down at the moment, but the most surprising insight that occurred to her was her realization of the extent to which she found pressure, as a male, to always be “on”… or to cast my own interpretation of what she was saying, to always be in entertainment mode, with toolkit of whitty repartee at the ready. That’s essentially what Game is about… it’s about a man managing his responsibility to always be “on”, to take responsibility for the success or otherwise of a night out. No doubt there are women here who will jump on me with something like “but I’m a computer nerd, I don’t care for witty repartee.” You miss the point. Being the recipient of advances from an ocean of men willing to make like performing seals establishes a fundamentally different way of viewing the world for the audience that judges said seals on their performance.

    A man establishes his purpose as a utility device. A woman, by contrast, has more flexibility in her options. A utility device has limited options. A refrigerator that fails to refrigerate is nothing but a heap of junk. A man that fails to provide, a man that fails to perform, a man that fails to be “on”, or a man that refuses to enlist for conscription, is failing in his obligation as a utility device. He is junk. This is not all his doing… this is culture at work, it is culture that forces all this gunk on him. Personal anecdotes (but I’m not like that) won’t shed any light on this conversation.”

    Why do men feel that they always have to be “on”? Or that they’re some kind of “utility device”? Why would people follow a philosophy so demeaning to both sexes? Men are not objects any more than women are so why play by rules that treat them that way? This all seems to me to be a really savage system of stereotypes and a great many subcultures don’t buy into it. I suppose it might work if you’re looking for the odd one night stand but what if you’re looking for a long term relationship or a life partner? For that you need to be part of a largish, mixed group. I know that our mainstream culture tries to force people to fit into boxes and keep them there but there are ways out if people are prepared to take the risk. The price may be high but if the system you’re in makes you unhappy the price may be worth paying.

    Your comment about men being “junk” if they fail to live up to certain expectations makes me very sad. Sooner or later everyone gets it wrong, gets ill and be unable to support his family, caves under pressure or any one of hundreds of expectations placed on him but that doesn’t mean he’s junk, all it means is that in this case he was unfortunate and needs a little help. I know the kind of damage this kind of bullshit can do, having watched my husband go through it and offered that help I could.

  54. Why do men feel that they always have to be “on”?

    Good timing, Seranvali. I just stumbled on the following post. The seven rules referred to in the following url relate pretty directly to what I referred to as “the very different priorities that motivate men and women”:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/the-current-rules-of-gender-reality/

    These seven rules relate to the context that might be summed up in the one word “on”.

  55. He cited AVfM: I think I just got bingo.

  56. Three things:

    1. Chuckeedee, you might like Norah Vincent’s book “Self-Made Man.” She’s an investigative journalist who lived for the better part of a year as a man. She took her alter-ego through a lot of typical life situations, and came away with a pretty sympathetic view of the trials and tribulations of men in the United States.

    2. As Nobinayamu wrote a few comments up, women do feel the need to be “on.” Just because you see a lovely woman waiting for you for drinks doesn’t mean than an enormous amount of time, effort, and money didn’t go into making her that way. If women didn’t feel the need to impress, you’d see a lot more girls in raggy yoga pants, flipflops, and tank tops over sports bras slopping into clubs on Friday nights. Cosmo and its sisters publications would also run light fiction or pictures of puppies instead of advice on how to wow your fella in the sack (in the same vein, if you think women get bikini waxes just for fun, I’ll be glad to donate $60 and an appointment to the local dayspa so that you can form an opinion based on personal experience). Women are also socialized to be pleasant and accommodating, so while the guy may feel the pressure to keep the date running smoothly, the gal is feeling equal pressure to make him happy by being nice. Vincent pointed out in her book that very few people see dating from both sides of the dinner date table, and that we all assume that the other person has a better deal. The grass(hopper martini) is always greener and all that stuff.

    3. If you wanted to talk about the idea that men are judged by utility, why didn’t you say that? Why throw in an entire quote about how women passively go with the flow in life, and then get disappointed when we didn’t all jump on the two sentences you wanted to discuss? In the United States we are a consumer society, so I’d argue that everyone is judged by their utility. I took a sociology class in college where the professor argued that perceived utility is the root cause of the indifference or contempt that this country feels for the elderly. This ideology had it’s beginnings in the early colonies. The settlers needed everyone to be productive to survive, and those that were old and weak were merely a drain on the resources. I wouldn’t be surprised if this mindset also contributed to our current ideals that men should be strong and rich and women should be perpetually beautiful and fertile.

    Do I think this is bunk? Of course. People should be people, and it’s awful that for different reasons men still feel just as objectified and marginalized as women. I’m sad that the world still wants to cram everyone into their boxes, and doubly sad that it will probably still be this way when my daughter and son launch their own lives in the next fifteen or twenty years. I want them both to be able to determine themselves, and not feel like they have to conform to the norm because someone else expects it. As to how successful they’ll be in swimming against the tide is yet to be seen.

  57. I was brave/foolish enough to follow the link that chucky-doll left us. This is the bit that jumped out at me.

    These are The Rules. We at NCFM break these rules but the rest of the world follows these rules with blind devotion.

    They actually think they are the only ones breaking the rules. They really have no idea what feminism is or does and yet they rail against us.

  58. [blockquote]We aren’t just sitting there, stone-faced, with a single arched eyebrow waiting to be entertained. The women you interact with may be doing that, but that’s your shit[/blockquote]

    A friend of mine used to date a woman who did exactly that. She hardly ever tried to add something to the conversation too. She was as close as you can get to what MRAs apparently describe as the typical woman concerning her dating behaviour et all… which made her a very unpleasant person to have in your social circle.

  59. Chuckeedee, those rules at AVfM are just a rant against straw feminists.

    For example, rule 1 is

    Toward men and masculinity we direct accountability without compassion, which is ruthless. It is respecting men as autonomous and empowered beings responsible for their own decisions and predicaments, but it is not loving men enough to recognize their true vulnerability to forces outside their control and to lend men their fair share of empathy.

    I agree that when men are hurting, they deserve empathy and compassion, just like anyone would. The culture that tells men to always suck it up doesn’t come from feminism, but from hegemonic masculinity, where being “macho” means never showing vulnerability.

    Toward women and femininity we direct compassion without accountability, which is infantilizing. It is loving women as vulnerable beings to be protected, but it is not respecting women enough to recognize their true power, autonomy, and accountability as equal partners equally responsible for outcomes.

    No, feminists are fighting against the idea of putting women on pedestals or infantalizing women. Feminists want women to be judged on who they are than being stereotyped as either saints or sinners.

    Men have the power and women are the victims. For humans with penises, victim is an illegitimate concept. For humans with vaginas, power is an illegitimate concept.

    That is a distortion of what male privilege means. Male privilege does not mean men are never victims. It just means that on the axis of gender, women do not have privilege, although they can have privilege on other axes like race, class, being cis, or being hetero.

    Rule Four: Men are Bad; women are Good. And, therefore . . .

    Rule Five: All Fault Is Male.

    LOL, what? What feminist says that? It’s like NWOSlave wrote this list.

    Rule Six: Females are not subject to critique. A critique of the feminine is “misogyny” and is forbidden.

    No, it’s okay to criticize a woman when she’s wrong. It’s not okay to stereotype all women or take away their rights.

    Rule Seven: In the sexes relationship to each other: men reject victim, embrace shame; women rejected shame, embrace victim.

    This contradicts itself. In our society, being seen as a victim is shameful. Being seen as strong is good. This is also rich coming from MRA’s that think they are victims just because they can’t have sex with “hotties”.

  60. Enough seriousness. I need a recipe for pathetic anger bread.

    Step 1: Dump flour, yeast, salt and whatever into a bowl. How much? FUCK YOU! THAT’S how much.

    Step 2: Drink a beer. Add a beer. Not the same beer.

    Step 3: Throw the fucking mess onto the table. Punch it. Drink more. Salt with tears.

    Step 4: Toss a shirt over it so you don’t have to look at that shit. Go to the pub while the dough rises.

    Step 5: WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT??! Hit it! Oh, god! Preheat over to 350.

    Step 6: Troll some forums while the dough rises.

    Step 7: Throw that horrible mass into the oven. Bake for 45 minutes. Let it cool. Serve with regret.

    leftwingfox, you made my day with this.

  61. Women work so much harder than men to be “on” in social situations. It’s because they put so much effort into it that dim, solipsistic men think it comes naturally.

    Chuck, I promise you, your dates do not roll out of bed in high heels and perfect hair, their ability to make charming conversation comes from practice and effort, and your jokes are not actually funny. It’s all a performance, and apparently it’s much more convincing than your performance, so step up your game.

  62. Does chuckeedee live in China? I mean, it sounds as if, due to people pairing up according to proximity, it results in a surplus of men, because there’s… what? 3 men on every woman born, or?

    It’s all about motivation, my friend. When a man and woman start dating, the man is making a bold, individualistic choice, while the woman is just wandering off with him at random, derp de derp. Men and women are different, you know. Men do things for Reasons, and women do the exact same things for Stupid Wrong Reasons.

    More to the point, Chuck doesn’t want to bone the man, so who cares if he’s “removed from the dating market”? The woman, on the other hand, is now unavailable to bone Chuck. Ergo, she’s a big dumb dummy and he doesn’t even like her, so there.

  63. After reading the title of this post at least a dozen times in passing, all of a sudden my eyes rolled over it and my inner DJ started blaring:

    ENTITLED EYES (clap) They’re WAAAAtching you! (clap clap)
    They see your EV- RY MOVE

  64. Does anyone else see a picture of a phone handset that looks like it’s been watermarked onto John Travolta’s forehead in the post picture?

  65. Oh, and I’ve seen Battlefield Earth and it was rotten. I was hoping it would be so bad, it’s good, like Gigli, but no such luck. John Travolta did a fine job acting in it. The problem was the plot.

  66. Shaenon you make a good point with jokes not actually being funny. I would much rather be with someone who tells no jokes than someone who tells unfunny jokes every few minutes. I know laughter is good for bonding and things but really it isn’t that important.

  67. More to the point, Chuck doesn’t want to bone the man, so who cares if he’s “removed from the dating market”? The woman, on the other hand, is now unavailable to bone Chuck. Ergo, she’s a big dumb dummy and he doesn’t even like her, so there.

    There’s a plot of a dystopian future gay novel in there… Am I the only one who sees it?

  68. @thebionicmommy: Or maybe like Manos: The Hands of Fate? But I probably couldn’t watch that one without Mike & the bots.

    Possibly coincidentally, the next The Gamers movie is going to be subtitled The Hand of Fate or similar.

  69. @thebionicmommy
    “I agree that when men are hurting, they deserve empathy and compassion, just like anyone would. The culture that tells men to always suck it up doesn’t come from feminism, but from hegemonic masculinity, where being “macho” means never showing vulnerability.”

    Yet you give no empathy, instead, you blame it on masculinity. Why is masculinity the problem? Perhaps the problem lies with femininity, or lack there of. Once again man, or masculinity is somehow wrong. Women are perfect.
    —————-
    “No, feminists are fighting against the idea of putting women on pedestals or infantalizing women. Feminists want women to be judged on who they are than being stereotyped as either saints or sinners.”

    Yet in your very first statement you’ve both pedastalized and infantilized women. Masculinity is screwed up, femininity is perfect, (the pedestal). The blame must always fall on man because women are to childlike to be held accountable, (infantilized).
    —————-
    “That is a distortion of what male privilege means. Male privilege does not mean men are never victims. It just means that on the axis of gender, women do not have privilege,”

    Only women are privileged. What law doesn’t favor women over men? Can a woman kill a mans unborn child? Yes. Can a man kill a womans unborn child? No. A man and woman are drunk and have consensual sex. The next day the woman says it was rape. He is accountable for her actions. A man and a woman apply for a job, quota law says a woman must be hored. She gets the job. Privilege, pedestal, infantile.
    —————
    “No, it’s okay to criticize a woman when she’s wrong. It’s not okay to stereotype all women or take away their rights.”

    Criticizing one woman or steroetype all women is the same. Man is bad, man is wrong. However the reverse is promoted. Dontcha read the papers? How about those classes out in missoula? All men must take the men are rapists class and get a 100, (agree with the indoctrination), before admittance. In a normal, non-feminist society only a man who actually assaulted a woman would be required to take a class on not assaulting women.

    You don’t go to AA if you’re not an alcoholic. You don’t get put on probabtion if you haven’t committed a crime. But you DO go to guilty rapist indoctrination class for being a man.
    —————-
    “This contradicts itself. In our society, being seen as a victim is shameful.”

    Being a self annointed victim is the height of power in the modern world. Anita Sarkeesian comes to mind. The self annointed victim of hurty feelings managed a tidy sum of about 170K. Anyone who isn’t a victim is default bad.
    —————-
    Feminism has nothing to do with equality. Feminism has nothing to do with women becoming better since the default position is perfect. Feminism is all about changing men to better defer to women. All feminism ever talks about, this site included, is how men fail women.
    —————-
    @Shaenon
    “Women work so much harder than men to be “on” in social situations. It’s because they put so much effort into it that dim, solipsistic men think it comes naturally.”

    Of course women work harder. When don’t women do more than men? Men are simply solipsistic and ignorant about women hard work.
    —————
    “It’s all a performance, and apparently it’s much more convincing than your performance, so step up your game.”

    Women of course are much better at this as well. Men need to man up and step up their game. The power of the eternal victim. Men need to do more. Women are already perfect.

  70. @thebionicmommy: Or maybe like Manos: The Hands of Fate? But I probably couldn’t watch that one without Mike & the bots.

    No kidding. You know I liked MST3K better when Joel was the host, but I think Mike is great, too.

    Possibly coincidentally, the next The Gamers movie is going to be subtitled The Hand of Fate or similar.

    I’ve never seen The Gamers but based on my five minutes worth of Google research about it, I am going to put that on my to-do list.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,027 other followers

%d bloggers like this: