American women: Monopoly capitalists of the vagina?
Men are tired of masturbating with the dead hand of capital!
Most manosphere misogynists lean to the right. But every once in a while I’ll run across an MRA who considers himself a man of the left. Today, while perusing the Spearhead, which generally appeals to some of the more reactionary MRAs and MGTOWers, I ran across a most intriguing example of the Manosphericus lefticus.
“Davani” describes himself as “a socialist and a supporter of women’s rights,” explaining that
the last thing I want is some kind of uneducated, barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen woman who I can’t even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.
But Mr. D is a most unusual sort of socialist-feminist indeed. You might call him a Socialist of the Penis. Or, rather, a Socialist for the Penis. As he explains,
I am all for egalitarian culture (e.g., expanding women’s rights), but only if the women themselves are egalitarian. In the US, much more so than anywhere else, they are not.
So what exactly is wrong with these American women, in Davani’s mind? Well, he reports sadly,
The women here are very shallow, and use their rights to penalize, rather than include, the majority of “average” men who don’t make the cut in terms of their looks. Susan Walsh, the author of “Hooking Up Smart,” reports that on US college campuses, 80% of the girls have sex with 20% of the guys.
Oh dear, not this again.
In effect, giving American women contraception enables them to jump on the sex carousel but not with most guys — only with a small number of ‘alpha males’ at the top. This is the problem right here. Moreover, this is at no cost to themselves, because they can abort any pregnancy, while discriminating against the “lesser” males.
Davani is outraged by this blatant elitism on the part of women. He would prefer a far more egalitarian form of pussy distribution – from each, according to her pussy; to each, according to his penis’ needs.
[I]n other countries, women wouldn’t use contraception to essentially eliminate 80% of the guys. Family planning would benefit BOTH the guy and the girl. The girl isn’t looking to hook up with the top athlete or celebrity, she’s also very interested in other, regular guys, who have other good qualities, even if they don’t necessarily pass the “looks” test.
But in America, alas, women have become monopoly capitalists of the vagina.
American women are more shallow and discriminatory in their preferences than most other women, and this has to be taken into account. “Feminists used to get support from men by promising we’d all be getting laid for free” — in a normal society, yes; in this country, only the 20% at the top would be getting laid for free in this context.
So, false advertising, as well.
To the barricades, men! Vive la penislution!
Posted on October 22, 2012, in $MONEY$, alpha asshole cock carousel, alpha males, beta males, evil women, hypergamy, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, pussy cartel, sex, that 80%/20% bullshit, the spearhead, vaginas and tagged alpha asshole cock carousel, alpha males, dating, men's rights, misogyny, mras, sex, the spearhead. Bookmark the permalink. 445 Comments.
Some men not getting laid as often as they’d like is truly the most pressing human-rights issue of our time.
In mainstream media news, men are pigs goes viral
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/academic-men-explain-things-to-me_n_1989615.html
Translation:
“I became a progressive because feminists promised I’d get laid. But I’m not getting laid! Therefore women’s rights aren’t worth pursuing.”
Pretty sure that the argument was “if you don’t demonize sex, more sex will happen, so statistically more guys and gals get to have sex” not “if you don’t demonize sex, women will sleep with you.” And it isn’t discrimination if there isn’t a woman currently sleeping with you. Who exactly do you blame if you don’t currently have a sex partner? All women?
Oh…. right…
Curse you, blockquotes. Those were supposed to end after “looks test”, ie at the part where the comment stops sounding like the rantings of an angry misogynist.
This looks like pre-Second Wave late Fifties to mid Sixties shit. Yet these guys would be indignant if accused of ignoring non-“hot” chicks. What are they, charities?
Manosphericus lefticus–the only other one I’ve seen is youtuber mr1001nights, a PUA type.
@Cassandra
You know what’s silly? For such a long time a woman’s worth was determined by her looks and capacity as a wife. As feminism became more popular, there was the idea that looks aren’t all that matters; men should be interested in a woman’s mind and not exclusively her body. I feel like this is a direct counter to the old patriarcal mode of thought; something the privilaged gender needed to learn to stop the misogyny.
But to these guys, that command has no context. And it must equally apply to the unprivilaged gender. Furthermore, them not having sex is proof that women are taking looks into account, which is unjust and poop. Yet another way in which a regressive group takes the form of an argument from a progressive group and perverts it to suit their own ends. -_-
Honestly, I find the howls of outrage about how evil women are for having sexual preferences funny. It’s a “why is there no White History Month?” kind of thing, an illustration of not getting it that’s so profound all you can do is laugh.
Says, you do realize there’s a considerable difference between attacking female desire, and attacking women with comically inflated expectations, right?
That being said, I believe the reality to be more complex. Certainly; I think he’s right on for the younger folks; female hypergamy is rampant in high schools and college campuses. In my own experience, it tails off fairly dramatically in one’s twenties. Even so, I do indeed think a shadow remains; women generally are harder on men, in terms of looks, than men are of women. There’s misandry wrapped in there somewhere, but it’s enjoined with so much culture baggage and personal inclinations and etc, that I’m not going to bother to try to tease it out.
I feel like theres a common thread here… something along the lines of “You want me to do something? Well, why don’t you do it first then? You’re not going to? Hypocrite. You want a black history month? If we’re so equal, there should be a white history month as well. That’s absurd? Then shut up.”
I’ve encountered folks with this mentality. It has nothing to do with honestly trying to effect positive change, it’s competely about silencing the other party so they personally aren’t inconvenienced.
Count yourself lucky. I once had an article I’d written about anarcha-feminism reproduced (without my consent) on an explicitly misogynist 4chan-style ‘anarchist’ website.
Because hierarchies are only bad when you’re not the one on top, apparently.
I work in the East Coast video game industry, so I actually see this sorta attitude way more than I want to :P
BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Right. I suppose that’s why women are invariably evaluated based on their looks first and foremost — regardless of age, occupation and context. Whereas men are only evaluated based on their looks when in the limited context of acting, modeling and so on.
Hey remember that time that you said the people here were “attacking male sexuality?”
Yeah? No? Not feeling any kind of irony here?
@Steele
… How the hell is “female hypergamy” prevelant in high school and college (going away afterwards) if the guys don’t even have careers at that point yet?
Also, in direct contradiction to:
Look at the recent presidential debates: Candy Crowley got tons of snide comments about her looks and her weight while Jim Lehrer got nothing of the sort. Your statement is the opposite of true.
(I’m really raring for a fight here, aren’t I…)
Where? He means, in Iran? Yeah, sure, I bet boyfriends in that country are all over family planning and contraception.
If there was systematic oppression there you’d be able to see it, you colossal fucking twonk. That even you, the hyper-vigilant pursuer of all the imaginary oppressions in the world can’t even manage to breathlessly invent a slur to get into a huff-wank about illustrates that you haven’t got the smallest atom of a point.
Now either be funny or fuck off Steelebutt.
I suppose that’s why women are invariably evaluated based on their looks first and foremost — regardless of age, occupation and context.
This isn’t true.
You know, there was a very telling study done on OKCupid a while back; Google should provide ample results. Men rated a sample of women; women rated a sample of men. The women rated a eighty percent of the men as “ugly”.
Certainly, I believe the female standard to generally be higher. We are speaking in generalities, of course.
Steele,
Based purely on the amount of men on MRA boards complaining that women are ugly vs. the amount of women on feminist boards complaining about how men are ugly, I would say that the idea that women put more emphasis on looks these days might be a little bit untrue.
See: previous articles on this blog containing quotes about MRAs complaining about “fatties” [ex: heartiste, etc] really with incredible vehemence.
If women with “comically inflated expectations” are sexually active with their partner(s) of choice, then I suggest that their expectations are not inflated at all.
MRA definition of slut= woman who is sexually active but not with them.
If there was systematic oppression there you’d be able to see it, you colossal fucking twonk.
Not in the least, you dolt. There does exist subtle misandry:
http://antimanboobz.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/men-as-the-architects-and-the-oppressed/
Not all misandry (or other bigotry) is staring one in the face.
@Steele:
In that OKCupid study, although women rated 80 percent of men as “ugly,” the majority of sent messages went to men below medium attractiveness.
Meanwhile, though men rated women on a bell curve, 2/3s of the messages went to the top 1/3 of women.
MALE HYPERGAMY (<a href="http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/" ;)
I had to go and see how other Spearheaders had responded to Davani’s comment. Here’s a doozy:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/10/19/the-socialization-of-the-costs-of-sex/#comment-170637
“I struggle too with the idea of restricting women’s rights. I want strong, confident independent women who aren’t barefoot and pregnant.
But.
but.
…[a few paragraphs of "all women are shallow alpha carousel riders"]…
There is no “solution.” If you give women rights and freedom, what you see in the US is what happens.”
*rest of rant outlines ‘solutions’ that would lead to women being ” barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen” and not educated enough to “even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.”*
Steele buddy that link is not the hail mary you think it is
Balding, middle-aged men complain about the lack of “super-model types” at professional conferences, but women are the shallow ones? That is…unconvincing.
Sigh…
source
Also, further down the page:
Steele, you are just wrong.
Women control the media, seriously? Clearly, through media owners such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_murdoch who is well known for his extreme left wing views.
Actually I think it’s less “comically inflated expectations” and more that men tend to overestimate their own good looks, and judge other men’s looks more kindly than they would a woman’s.
Also, what inurashi said. Women expressing their sexuality via sexual preferences? OMG, how dare they, those evil hypergamous bitches. Kiwi girl’s point is relevant too – if a person is able to find sexual partners who meet their expectations, that indicated that the expectations were not comically inflated. If however a person keeps stating strongly held preferences and is consistently unable to find anyone who meets them who actually wants to have sex with them…well, as inurashi said, there you have a huge chunk of the gaming community.
If women with “comically inflated expectations” are sexually active with their partner(s) of choice, then I suggest that their expectations are not inflated at all.
Well and but, here’s the rub – if one then complains about how she can’t find a long-term partner, while simultaneously also only looking at the most dominant of men, I believe the Movement is perfectly entitled to point and laugh.
Steele: “women generally are harder on men, in terms of looks, than men are of women.”
Mindboggling.
It was on this very blog that I first saw the phrase “fractally wrong” and it would seem to apply to Steele here.
Well and but, here’s the rub — because MRAs complain about how they can’t find any kinds of partners whatsoever while simultaneously bitching about ugly women they can’t stand, manboobz is perfectly entitled to point and laugh.
And we will.
Well, this is clearly true. I mean, I for one can’t tell you how many times I’ve marveled at the amount of hair and skin care products my man uses as part of his regular grooming regimen. And don’t get me started on all the make up and clothes!
“the Movement”… heh… so very fitting and unfitting simultaneously. :)
@Kirbywarp Thanks for that, I knew I’d heard those results but couldn’t find them.
This is Steelebutt’s definition of ‘subtle misandry’, according to his pre-written breathless huff-wank:
Steeley, did your entirely fictitious English teacher tell you that subtle meant ‘imaginary super-epic globe-wide conspiracy’ as part of a further conspiracy to make you look unimaginably fucking dim on the internet 15 years down the line or something? Was this before or after she was twirling her armpit hair and cackling like a Victorian villain at how much she was planning on ruining the lives of all men?
At least you provided the on-demand lulz.
@Steele
Were that to happen, I would agree.
Would you also point and laugh at men who complain about not getting women to have sex with them while also only looking at the top percent in terms of physical beauty?
@cloudiah:
I wonder if there’s a special phrase for citing a source that concludes the exact opposite of what you claim… Cause that would apply great here.
So, then you agree we should be mocking the subject of the original post? Because, you know, we’re not the people complaining about not being able to get laid.
Actually I think it’s less “comically inflated expectations” and more that men tend to overestimate their own good looks, and judge other men’s looks more kindly than they would a woman’s.
Well and hmm, this is an interesting statement, Says. I both agree and disagree. I think that the cultural standards of beauty for men are significantly narrower than they are for women. For those men who do fit said standards, I would agree. However, for the men who don’t fit those standards, I think many believe themselves far uglier than they actually are.
@kirbywarp, Yes that would be an “appeal to authority (who disagrees with you)” I think.
Seriously guys, can we put up some kind of Kickstarter to just buy him a fucking tutor already? This shit is unbelievably painful. I will even specify the tutor has to be male, so he has no excuse.
*wanders off muttering “well and but?!”…”WELL…AND BUT?!?!?”* *collapses, twitching*
I assume you’ll be running off to find a blog on which that’s actually happening, then?
Aside – can someone please clearly define what “hypergamy” is supposed to mean? Because I see people using it to mean women going for men on the basis of money or status most of the time, but then sometimes they seem to mean looks, when that happens to be convenient. Most of the time it seems to mean “women sleeping with men who aren’t me, which is unfair”.
“Well and hmm” is the name of my band. I’ve trademarked it. Stop using it Steelepole!
@Steele citations needed. I don’t care what you think, I want evidence. What you think does not automatically translate into what happens in reality.
@thenatfantastik:
Thanks for the transcription. So many wrongs!
Obviously. I mean, look at how music videos cater to teenage males with images of sexy, video games portray women as secondary and sex-interests, and so many movies faile the beschel test. Totally feminism.
Yeah… this is basically a result of women only being useful in their capacity as mothers, and so therefore are the nannies, primary school teachers, and nurses. How many college professors are women?
… Ok, not even gonna touch this one. I’d get conspiracy all over me and that doesn’t come off in the wash.
Isn’t it well-established that feminists use cats to control the world?
I’ll bet you can already taste the thousand troy ounces of gold.
When the record companies went after Napster that was totally feminism at work. I mean, we run everything, right?
It was feminists who made Lars Ulrich want to sue his own fans. We’re just dastardly that way.
Or more specifically, “women sleeping with men aren’t me and who have things I want, which is not fair, so I should get the things and the women”.
@steele:
… How can you get away with just saying this? How far removed from reality could you possibly be? The mind boggles at your semantics just as much as at your syntax.
@CassandraSays I found what seem to be some proper links for definitions of hypergamy, as in these are anthropology definitions (as an aside, what the hell is evolutionary psychology doing by pissing in the pool of other disciplines?)
This suggests the term was created by Levi-Strauss: http://anthropologyguide.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/marriage-hypergamy-and-hypogamy.html
And this social anthropology text also contains the term with a definition: http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=BbgW3oL0YsEC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=hypergamy+anthropology&source=bl&ots=K7rq8t_NIr&sig=OIsOuBzXeVFipNEMJYdlp3X-4Vw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IrmFUImMBIWkiAeb64G4DA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hypergamy%20anthropology&f=false
so the anthropological use appears to be with respect to marriage.
It means “all these supermodels are evil whores because they wont look at me because I am ugly, regardless of my wonderful personality, the bitches.”
I now give you argumentum ad youtube:
… How can you get away with just saying this? How far removed from reality could you possibly be? The mind boggles at your semantics just as much as at your syntax.
Not at all, and if you weren’t so steeped in the feminist Kool-Aid, Warp, you’d see that I’m not so far from the truth. Both genders suffer from body image issues; I don’t deny this. I’ll even grant that, if I recall correctly, the statistics show a higher proportion of female victims. But nonetheless, there is certainly a wider plethora of (culturally-mandated) “desirable” female bodies, female faces, than there are for men. I don’t think this is really arguable.
Well and but, you’ll say, you could plausibly argue that many of these ideals are merely different shades of unattainable. I wouldn’t necessarily, in truth, disagree, because society demands unreasonable perfection of us all. However there are still more possibilities for a woman, than for men.
Oh, Steele’s back and he’s wrong? In other news, water is wet, the sky is blue, and it’s a day that ends in “y.”
The OP sounds like a dude who’s paying lip service to the notion of equality in hopes of getting laid and it’s not working out. Sucks to be him.
Cassandra: I was totally responsible for that Napster thing. My first job in the industry, don’t you know.
Steele, enough with the well and butts. It’s not helping you.
Back up this assertion. Provide examples. I’ll make it easy for you: use popular culture.
“Wider Plethora” is Well and Hmm’s first album — 2nd warning, Steelepole!
@ hellkell
I knew it was you. You brainwashed Lars too, didn’t you?
(If so could you maybe brainwash him to be less obnoxious next? Thanks.)
Cassandra: I tried to make him less of an ass, but it didn’t take. My feminism powers failed on that one.
@Steele:
You are male. You think about women as being attractive, and men as not. Therefore, in your head, women have a wider range of attractiveness.
And yet, in comic books, there is only one type of female superhero (thin). Yet there are a broad range of male bodies that are acceptable (fat, thin, muscular, plain, you name it). In the media, a woman’s looks get comments (Candy Crowley) while a man’s looks are never even mentioned. It simply is not the case that there are a wider acceptable range of women’s looks than men’s. In fact, men’s looks are nearly always irrelevant.
Take a look at the attractiveness of male leads in movies. On the one hand you have your stereotypical attractive, on the other hand you have Seth Rogan. Now look at female leads.
… Uh huh. Your musings are simply not supported by the facts. If you weren’t so committed to a solipsistic view of the word to the point where you can’t even recognize your projection, you’d see I’m not far from the truth.
@Nobinayamu:
Oooh, I used popular culture. Do I win? :D
This dude is saying exactly what Andrea Dworkin said about the misogyny of left wing men. She said the difference between right wing and left wing sexism was a question of how women (as a sexual resource) would be divided among them. I’m sure anyone quoting her is just a crazy man hater though, right?!
Warp, you know, I don’t wish to engage you any longer. You can be wrong by yourself. The hypergamy debate isn’t something that much interests me; misandry has greater casualties. There are greater fights.
@Steele:
k. By the way, how is not going on manboobz any more because we’re all vile been going for the last, oh, couple months?
lol @ the dolts on this website.
i’ve fucked exactly 36 girls in 2012 thus far (all in the 20-35 y/o range). At least half of which think or thought at one point that we are exclusive. And I have friends/cousins who are orders of magnitude more productive in this area than I am. For every guy like me out there, dozens/hundreds of hopeful betas aren’t getting squat (I’ll bet this includes many of the male feminists who post here).
You manboobz can keep denying it to your graves, but the fact of the matter is that a pussy redistribution policy is no less important for the healthy functioning of a society than a money redistribution policy. Men are the ones who create and maintain society, and men who feel like they don’t have a chance (an increasing number) simply drop out. Many who do actually succeed in the sexual market drop out in their own way too, because they don’t actually need to be productive members of society to get attention from women anymore. The incentives are gone.
But again, keep pretending this doesn’t matter. Honestly I don’t know why I bothered writing this post. You people will never EVER get it.
@kirbywarp: Absolutely! Would you like to go for the bonus round?
Who is the female equivalent of Seth Rogan? Kevin James? Adam Sandler? Vince Vaughn?
Even if we were going for conventionally good-looking men in the media there are many different variations on that theme in terms of what a conventionally attractive man looks like. There are tall guys, short guys, big buffed guys, skinny guys, super macho looking guys, more androgynous guys…in fact the only real noticeable exception in terms of being considered conventionally attractive is fat guys, and that’s a cultural prejudice that applies to women too.