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.
Whoops, sorry, Kitteh, i thought you meant on the Spearhead website…brain has now switched on properly.
“getting angry with the MRAs and PUAs” and patriarchy – put that in there and you have the MRM in a nutshell.
Sorry! It’s this one
and he’s been totally pwned by Sir Bodsworth
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. 🙂
*bunch of pull ups
(though a punch of pull ups does sound pretty bad ass, if physically impossible).
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.
@clairedammit – If only!
I think it’s a clench of pull-ups.
So what’s a bunch of trolls called? A riverbed? A sockpuppet? A stink?
In Oz we’d call ’em a whinge of trolls.
And of course I didn’t just make that up.
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.)
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.
@Kim
I don’t know. It was posted on Facebook by the Dead Kennedys page.
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.
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!
I know someone who could make that literary reference tattoo happen. She would probably think it an amazing idea.
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.
Because clearly women never hang with computer nerds because they are also computer nerds.
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?
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.
Surely this is just another variation of ‘hot woman’ with ‘ugly guy’ rage?
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.
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?
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”.
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.