>
 |
| Damn you, accursed temptress! |
In a discussion of rape on campus over on Love-shy.com, one of the regulars, a college student, complains that people see him as “creepy,” for no good reason. His tale of injustice begins:
Whenever I’m on campus, I’m eyed by the security guards. Not because I’m dangerous, but because I’m MALE.
Being male and a college student seems to be a crime of sorts.
Let’s stop right here. Bullshit. On most campuses, guys make up half the population. Dude, unless you’ve accidentally wandered onto the main quad of Wellesley College with your dick hanging out, or you’re otherwise acting weirdly or suspiciously, campus security guards aren’t going to give you a second look. Either you’re lying, or you’re imagining things, or you aren’t telling us the whole story.
Back to the comment:
What about the women who taunt the men sexually? I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped, but a LOT of women give blowjobs to professors for higher grades, and trade sexual favors, all because they’re HOT.
Uh, ok, that’s not actually true. Unless by “a LOT” you mean “a tiny number.” But it is an … interesting assumption. Also, starting any sentence with the phrase “I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped” is generally a bad sign, in the same way that Richard Nixon saying “I am not a crook” was a bad sign.
On with the rest of the comment:
And since I’m not HOT, I’m automatically seen as a creepy rapist? Fuck that shit. I respect women, I have NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women. I’m also afraid to express myself sexually, for fear of it taken the wrong way.
Thank you, feminist hags, for making me into something I’m not: a criminal!
Ok. Let’s break this down. You “respect women,” yet you complain about them “taunt[ing] … men sexually,” and assume that “a LOT” of them are getting good grades just because they give blow jobs to profs. You’ve “NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women,” yet given a little bit of internet anonymity you’re happy to call feminists “hags,” a gender-specific insult if ever there were one.
I don’t know. Could it be that women — and, heck, maybe even a few security guards — find you creepy because, uh, you’re walking around angry all the time, full of hatred and resentment towards half the population?
Just a guess.
EDITED TO ADD: More on the “creep” issue here.
>"Roissy doesn't have any power over anybody. He's just some guy with a blog who manages to get laid a lot. The MGTOWers David has exposed on this blog talking about how women are worthless and evil don't have any power either, and they almost never will, due to the fact that they explicitly abjure getting involved in politics or doing much of anything beyond 'surviving.'"the power is systematic and structural, ingrained in the organization of modern culture, and almost invisible to those who hold it: male privilege 101white privilege 101 (pdf link)class privilege 101 (also pdf)
>Power is not about being a threat, and I'm not saying their having power makes them a threat to me, though if they are the sort of MRAs who advance ideas about women not really having a right to own their bodies they are making the world more threatening to me. I am saying that they have more socioeconomic currency in the world, more human capital to spend, than I am given by virtue of being a woman. If you were somehow transformed for one week into a woman you would understand what that means, but since that is not possible the only thing I can ask for is empathy and willingness to consider what it must be like to be harassed and belittled — both by people on the street/in the subway/on the bus/in the workplace *and* by the culture at large — every second you are awake, by virtue of nothing more than *what* you are. It is really quite shocking the kind of disadvantages women face. As Jadehawk is saying, for those in the culturally hegemonic classes, it is easy not to understand this because your power means you don't *have* to, and you can consider your knowledge of the world to be the proper one. "*I* didn't say I "preferred" that, I'm merely pointing out that it seems to be a legitimate question. Does giving 'equality' to an oppressed group open up the *possibility* of them gaining power over you someday? If so, it seems like something to legitimately consider if one happens to be a member of the "privileged" group."This goes back to the selfishness I was talking about before. It's something to legitimately consider if you selfishly want everything to work to your unfair advantage, if you are truly okay with the world being unequal and cruel so long as it benefits you. It is not something a truly enlightened person should deign to bother with. I realize that some MRAs and MGTOW types make arguments like that, but from what I've seen they end up blaming patriarchy on women, which is like blaming African Americans for slavery.
>the power is systematic and structural, ingrained in the organization of modern culture, and almost invisible to those who hold itPerhaps it is. In which case, it'll take a lot more to dismantle structural racism/sexism/whatever than picking on the PUAs, MRAs, and other assorted riffraff on the edges of the 'patriarchy's' power structure. You'd be a lot better off getting involved in politics, concentrating on economic issues facing women and other oppressed groups, etc. than spending so much time and effort on guys who don't and can't do anything besides post on the Internet. You're chipping away at the edges of the "patriarchy" rather than attacking its pillars, so to speak.
>"You'd be a lot better off getting involved in politics, concentrating on economic issues facing women and other oppressed groups, etc"This is what feminism is and does, though! See, right here, you are actually *advocating* feminism and don't even realize it.
>"This isn't really much of a critique of Game, though. "it wasn't meant as one; however, the nature of Game as supporting the sociocultural status-quo while self-admittedly profiting from feminist work makes it a parasitic thing, at best."Yes, yes, I've heard that before. The problem is, most of the really crazy MRAs *outrightly squander* the "power" they were born with. They're not a threat to anybody, even if you think they might have been."MRA's ARE a threat: they're male and for the most part white, and as such they find it vastly easier to have their ideas and thoughts listened to and accepted by the wider culture than the ideas of non-whites and non-males (or even males with non-hegemonic masculinities). It would take less effort for the MRA's to push society back to the 1950's (or the 1850's, for that matter) than it took feminists to get us OUT of them. and their mere existence takes time, energy, and money out of the effort to change society to a more equitable one."Ironically enough, you do realize that many MRAs, *especially* the MGTOWers, hate patriarchy for similar reasons, right? As Paul Elam said, Let the “patriarchs” of the world have their foolish ways. It matters not to me."every single MRA i've ever talked to doesn't even believe in the existence of the patriarchy. however, if this is an example of those who do, he's merely another parasite who won't do shit to help end it, and leaves all the work to the feminists, whom he also despises."Perhaps it is. In which case, it'll take a lot more to dismantle structural racism/sexism/whatever than picking on the PUAs, MRAs, and other assorted riffraff on the edges of the 'patriarchy's' power structure. You'd be a lot better off getting involved in politics, concentrating on economic issues facing women and other oppressed groups, etc. than spending so much time and effort on guys who don't and can't do anything besides post on the Internet. You're chipping away at the edges of the "patriarchy" rather than attacking its pillars, so to speak. "I know I spend a lot of time just talking on the internet, but the fact is that you've just created a false dichotomy. I am fully capable of doing both: indulging my SIWOTI Syndrome on the fringes, and being an activist for more central issues. And some people, who aren't as ill or as dirtpoor as I (the privileges of health and class are powerful indeed) can do so even more than I can.
>Vagrantsvoice, I think another important aspect of a discussion of privilege is that the people without the privilege are the most likely to be doubted, vilified, second guessed, or believed for no good reason to have ulterior motives, which means that it is *important* that people *with* privilege join the fight, ie it is important that *men* talk about these things to other men, as privilege means a man's word is more likely to be believed or taken seriously than a woman's.This is why it is so heinous that MRAs call men like David *manginas*. Men who talk to other men about these things are doing important work, as they know their voice carries more weight.
>Paul Elam might hate patriarchy, but he believes that the current societal structure, the one that desperately needs to be toppled, is a matriarchy, that's how out of touch with reality he is.Many of the MRAs and MGTOWers that hate patriarchy for the reasons put forth don't completely hate patriarchy…they hate the way that some aspects of patriarchy hurts men, but still want to hold fast to the aspects of patriarchy that privileges men.
>I'm a little behind on the discussion here, but to go back to a point you made, vagrant, the herpes thing is a perfect example of how PUAs misuse science in order to fit the world to their preconceptions. More women than men have herpes because it is easier for them to get it.Genital Herpes Transmission in WomenWomen are approximately 4 times more likely to acquire a herpes simplex type 2 infection than men. Susceptible women have a higher likelihood of contracting genital herpes from an infected man than a susceptible man becoming infected by a woman. In other words, if a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection.Why Women are at Greater Risk with Genital HerpesWomen may be more susceptible to genital herpes infections because: * The genital area has a greater surface area of cells moist with body fluids (mucosal cells) than men. * Hormone changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle may affect the immune system, making it easier for the herpes simplex virus to cause an infection.http://dermatology.about.com/cs/genitalherpes/a/genherp_women.htmIf you look at the Reuters story that was the source of Roissy's factoid, it's made clear that women get herpes more easily than men. That's mentioned in the CDC press release as well. Really, Roissy shouldn't be claiming science is on his side if he doesn't even bother to look at a press release for the study, much less the study itself, or to do the 2 minutes of googling necessary to find out his explanation is simply wrong.
>"Women are approximately 4 times more likely to acquire a herpes simplex type 2 infection than men. Susceptible women have a higher likelihood of contracting genital herpes from an infected man than a susceptible man becoming infected by a woman."Genital Herpes Symptoms in WomenGenital Herpes – CDC Fact SheetSo there goes the few Alpha males "giving the gift" to a large number of females who don't fuck anyone BUT Alpha males theory.
>the herpes thing is a perfect example of how PUAs misuse science in order to fit the world to their preconceptions.And they accuse women of being purely solipsistic **roll eyes**
>Lots of great food for thought in this discussion. Since I started reading this blog a few weeks ago, I've come to the realisation that MRAs hate feminism because they think it's a female version of their own ideology. Because these men promote male superiority (not equality), have contempt for the opposite sex, and want to restore all laws to privilege themselves, they believe that's what feminists are after for women. They literally don't understand how a women's movement can have anything other than control of men as an ultimate goal, because they've molded a men's group with the exact opposite goal. Every time I read bizarre claims about feminists considering women superior and wanting to dominate the world, I have to forcibly remind myself that they're approaching feminism as a parallel ideology to their own brand of sexist bigotry. I don't need to tell anyone who knows anything about feminism that this is a massive misapprehension and has absolutely nothing to do with feminist ideology, but it's worth remembering in the context of this blog that this is how MRAs view feminism, and why they feel threatened by it.
>Pam, I like the idea that the both of us independently reacted to that herpes = hypergamy argument by saying to ourselves, "that's bullshit," and heading to Google to find an instant rebuttal. Somehow it makes me think of this: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lalu3ncXh61qzfv2r.gif
>ooh, I *heart* Peggy 😉
>LOL!! And that's exactly what I did, exhale of smoke and all!!Their tired out laments about hypergamy (used in a context that is not actually hypergamy) are getting rather stale.
>Thank you for your responses, Jadehawk and M. It would take less effort for the MRA's to push society back to the 1950's (or the 1850's, for that matter) than it took feminists to get us OUT of them.Perhaps so, but that's not really saying much…the amount of effort MRAs would have to spend to roll back "progress" is absolutely herculean compared to the amount of effort your typical non-MRA man (or woman) would have to spend to do the same. I am fully capable of doing both: indulging my SIWOTI Syndrome on the fringes, and being an activist for more central issues.*Shrugs* fair enough. What you do with your time is neither my business or my concern, especially since I'm not invested in your struggles or causes. By all means, then, indulge your SIWOTI, I suppose I owe you an apology, again, if I have inflamed it. Now, in reference to the herpes thing, thank you for the link, Mr. Futrelle. I do agree that Roissy's case is weakened by that biological fact, though keep in mind that the greater susceptibility of women to VDs like herpes isn't necessarily proof/evidence that they're *not* hypergamous either. Still, it does cast doubt on that piece of Roissy's. Thank you.
>…though keep in mind that the greater susceptibility of women to VDs like herpes isn't necessarily proof/evidence that they're *not* hypergamous eitherThat's a valid point, just as, for instance, lack of evidence to go to trial or to obtain a guilty verdict in a rape trial does *not* necessarily mean that the defendant is innocent/not guilty in actuality or that the complainant has made a false accusation. But MRAs would not likely accept that same logic as I have applied it here.
>Why are feminists so bad at math? The women are not contracting herpes from uninfected individuals now are they?Let's completely ignore the fact that those women who are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes got it from the same % of men with herpes.The fact that they are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes only serves to highlight the case that they are all vying for the attentions of the same small percent of males and it bit them in the ass (so to speak).
>@Pam,Glenn Sacks reported on a study which found that a large percent of rape claims were false. They didn't use lack of evidence to prove these stats, they used the women's own admissions that they were false and further went to a panel of observers to determine if they thought a particular woman was coerced into that admission. If they determined she may have been coerced, the claim was put back on the viable pile. http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1334
>witman, what part of if a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection. do you not understand? I posted that in a comment above; Pam posted the same information with some links; I also posted about this in my latest post. Please read before commenting.And on false rape accusations:http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/mens-rights-myth-false-rape-accusations.html
>Obviously I don't understand the part that conveniently ignores the fact that many women contracted Herpes from half as many men.And I fully understand (NOT) that when a woman claims to be raped, she is 100% credible but when she recants her testimony she is a liar.
>BTW, I read the entire OP and all the comments. I am merely pointing out the rather large elephant in the room that everyone else is ignoring.They aren't getting herpes from non-infected individuals so the hypergamy theory holds water.
>Witman, It's clearly you that has difficulty with math. The point that women can contract herpes more easily than men doesn't prove hypergamy at all.Example:A woman sleeps with one infected male and contracts herpes herself.She then has sex with 20 other men (all uninfected), but none of them contracts herpes off of her. All it proves is that she did sleep with one man who had herpes, not how many other men she slept with.
>And it proves that a small number of men infected twice as many women. The women are not catching Herpes from toilet seats or from un-infected individuals.Do you get the other side of the math coin here?
>Or a large number of women infected half as many men. Unless there are a disproportionate amount of rug munchers who are infected with Herpes, it's sound math.
>Sigh. I'll try to explain this one last time.People, male and female, sleep with multiple partners.Let's say a woman sleeps with 5 guys, 2 of whom have herpes. Meanwhile, a man sleeps with 5 women, 2 of whom have herpes. Even though they've each slept with the same number of partners, the woman is much more likely to end up with herpes from these encounters than the man is.When this happens again and again in a large population, you end up with more women than men having herpes.So the difference in rates of herpes does not in any way prove widespread hypergamy.