>Ha, the stance that women can no more be reduced en masse to slavering, materialistic money grubbing whores than men can be reduced to animalistic sex-starved monsters is ridiculous.
>I am going to leave the same long comment here.-Disgruntled Anthropologist who works primarily with male survivors of gender-based violence in conflict zones"Anthropologist stepping in here to help with the hypergamy discussion:Hypergamy is a real Anthropological term, but the MRA's who use it either don't seem to know what it means, or have not read any of the ethnohistorical context (or even the wikipedia article on it for that matter).Hypergamy, simply meaning (in this case) "women marrying up," is a phenomenon that is present in highly patriarchal or male-dominated societies, which only allow women access to power and advancement through marriage. The rate of hypergamy is greatly decreased when women have access to greater economic and social means of self-advancement. Also, this rate is highly variable from society to society, and depends wholly on what is constructed as "meaningful" or "valuable" in that particular cultural context. Delving further into the issue, one could even look at the (somewhat dated) writing of French Structuralist Claude Levi-Strauss, who illustrated how women have essentially been traded as goods in order to strengthen kinship bonds–which still happens in societies with a monarchy, but not as much since the enfranchisement of women in the West.Also, mate-selection of this sort is limited to the elite within any population–relationships have historically tended to be less rigid in the lower social and economic echelons of most societies. Again, this is highly variable, but it is one of those "truths" born out of several hundred years of anthropology, ethnography, and historiography.The idea that there is a hypergamic conspiracy is more of a post-feminist, post-civil rights "structure of feeling," so to speak, about the changing nature of masculinities in a society that has fewer legal forms of discrimination and segregation that there were in the past. It is born out of a refusal to adapt to a more egalitarian order–instead clinging to archaic ideas of entitlement to women's bodies as property (a la the kinship ideas of Levi-Strauss)."
>In addition, the idea of the 80%/40% ratio of reproduction can be attributed to many diverse institutions, which (the MRA's won't like to hear) have been largely [historically] created by men.- Particular men hording women as possessions: harems, polygyny, bigamy, polygamy, having both wives and mistresses.-Rape being used as a weapon of war, not being a crime, or being used for ethnic cleansing and ethnic humiliation (as is was in Bosnia, in the Congo, and in the Slavery era). Rape also being used to "cure" lesbians. Non-consensual procreation is a large part of why the inequality would exist. Even one of the foundational stories of Western culture is about this: see "The Rape of Europa," and thus the continent is named "Europe."- Men being forced into programs of gender based violence in state and pre-state societies, and not making it to the age of reproduction (yes, men experience gender based-violence every day). These programs include the military, which is overwhelmingly male, and has historically been controlled by male law- and policy-makers, and also includes male-specific massacres (such as often happens in genocidal situations, as it did in Bosnia and Armenia). So again, this is largely (unfortunately) men victimising other men.- *Historically* women have had fewer sexual partners than men, as they have simply had fewer opportunities to move around outside of the home and meet sexual partners. Although, because of other intersections of race, class, etc., certain more privileged men have always had access to more women. This is a double-bind where women are restricted into the roles of sexual "game" and less-privileged men are denied the ability to form relationships.Basically, hypergamy would not exist in societies that did not have vestigial ideas of women as economic units, and did not stratify men as rigidly (which is state violence, not violence of women against men)–so there would be everyone's problem solved!Try at least reading the wiki before misusing the terms of my profession!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy
>I am totally floored by this post I see on Scarecrow's blog Men-Factor titled 'Dirty Skanky Whore with no Brains Who "Puts Out" for Physically Abusive Men is Missing and Probably Dead'. He is talking about Deborah Flores-Narvaez, a Las Vegas dancer, who has been missing for about 2 weeks and was very likely murdered by an abusive ex-boyfriend. Saying he is talking about her is an understatement – he is actually celebrating her fate. He writes: "Good riddance SKANK!One less dipsh*t whore who thinks she is too good for guys who definitely aren’t me since they are not total psychos!One less skank who won’t yell at me in a grocery store, give me a dirty look. One less skank I’ll be falsely accused of killing myself. The only thing women like this do is drive up domestic violence statistics.Say live and let SKANKS die"That's just part of what he writes. http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2010/12/dirty-skanky-whore-with-no-brains-who.htmlWhat kind of person would write a sick, demented a post like this? A friggin' creepy psycho in my opinion. I'm thoroughly disgusted.
>Wow that sure is an intelligent and adult post written by someone who has only equality in mind. I certainly don't sense any psychological imbalance or resentment driving his worldview.
>Yeah, I read that post too. Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling. I may write about it, but right now I don't have much to say except that I'm appalled.
>"Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling. I may write about it, but right now I don't have much to say except that I'm appalled."Well I have something that might cheer you up David.A roomful of manginas vs. one real man.Enjoy!
>What kind of person would write a sick, demented a post like this?One who thinks that the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world owe him, and hundreds of other men just like him (y'know, the "Nice Guys"), the pleasure of their time, if not their company. Never mind the hundreds of not-quite-so HOT HOT HOT chicks… y'know, the ones who serve as obstacle course pilons enroute to get to the HOT HOT HOT chicks… who might offer him the pleasure of their time and company (but maybe not after seeing the "I'm a Nice Guy" emblazoned on his forehead), they don't count. But DAMN those HOT HOT HOT chicks, they only want the elusive "Alpha thugs"!!For men who try to come across like they're celebrating the fact that these "disease-ridden whores" aren't lavishing their attention upon them, they sure do sound angry about it.
>One who thinks that the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world owe himIt could also be one who just wants the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world to leave him alone–i.e not flip the fuck out on him and get him questioned for their murder, among other things. This isn't to go out of my way to defend the guy (for all I know he's making the story up), but as appalling as that blog post was (and I agree with you that it was), it wasn't borne out of some sort of sense of "entitlement." It's unreasonable for a guy to blame women for their choice of boyfriends, but when he starts getting questioned by the police because some woman's boyfriend killed her when he had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, it's not quite as unreasonable–though still unreasonable.
>David Futrelle said… Yeah, I read that post too. Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling. If you really think your posts are so much better, you are wrong. Your blog is also appalling and as I said before, plainly stupid, scornful and totally ignorant about any problem related to men.
>For the record I'd like to say that I do not agree with the 10:25 post that Christine WE says is on ScareCrow's blog.It is appalling to blame victims and it is further appalling to taunt them when they could possibly be dead.I still think hypergamy exists in the West and it is getting more and more difficult for women to marry up as they advance.
>@PamThere are very few HOT HOT HOT chicks left in the west. I am monogamous and find promiscuous people disgusting. Worse than that is when people brag about their prowess.A HOT HOT HOT woman is as modest as she is smart, has her own income and treats men as true equals. My biggest beef with modern feminism is that the gentleman is expected to remain a gentleman but the lady has become a tramp.
>"My biggest beef with modern feminism is that the gentleman is expected to remain a gentleman but the lady has become a tramp."I am not familiar with this aspect of modern feminism. I suppose if you think women making choices for themselves about their own sexual enjoyment=tramps, I can't help you, but really, there is nothing in feminism about how men must be "gentlemen" while the lady is a tramp. Most feminists I know think people of all genders should control their sexual choices and do with it what they please so long as they don't violate anyone's boundaries. For some that means monogamy; for others it means different things. It's about choice, and I don't see what's wrong with that. Yohan, I would *love* to hear what you think "radical feminism" is or what is the least bit radical about any of David's writings on this blog.
>It could also be one who just wants the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world to leave him alone–I don't know about you, vagrantsvoice, but when I want to be left alone, I tend to mind my own business and keep to myself, not try to strike up conversations, such as, "I noticed that we were both buying the same items, and (being the person I am), I made a humorous and smart-ass remark about it". She WAS leaving him alone, minding her own business…HE was the one who intruded on HER time, and found out that the intrusion was not a welcome one. Sometimes when we intrude on someone else's time it is welcomed, sometimes it's not.…i.e not flip the fuck out on him and get him questioned for their murder, among other things.Easy for us to judge that she should not have flipped the fuck out on him, but being that she was, apparently, a young and incredibly beautiful, tall, thin, busty brunette, I wonder how many of these same types of "encounters" she has had, even within that same day, where some guy cracks wise and expects that she should regale him with laughter and attention. Everyone has their breaking point, perhaps this was hers. And I'm sure that she didn't intend to further ruin his day by having him be questioned about her murder.…but when he starts getting questioned by the police because some woman's boyfriend killed her when he had NOTHING TO DO WITH ITThe police did not know at that time that her boyfriend killed her (although they DID mention that the boyfriend was their prime suspect, which isn't fair to the boyfriend, either, but would be a standard first avenue to pursue), nor is it mentioned in that particular story that it was discovered that the boyfriend DID indeed kill her, that was just an assumption deemed as fact by the storyteller. And they certainly didn't question the storyteller because "they had nothing better to do", as the storyteller is wont to believe, they would certainly be remiss if they didn't speak to him, and I think most people would agree with that.And, playing devil's advocate here, not saying that the storyteller DID do it, but how do we KNOW that he had nothing to do with it? Because he says so? I'd be willing to bet that the boyfriend might say the same about HIMSELF.
>There are very few HOT HOT HOT chicks left in the westBut the few that are left in the west are still the prime obsession of MRAs and MGTOWers!I am monogamous and find promiscuous people disgusting. Worse than that is when people brag about their prowess.I am monogamous also, and am neutral about promiscuous people. I don't care to enter into a relationship with a promiscuous person, but others are free to do as they choose, so long as they don't violate MY boundaries. Worse than that, in my opinion, are promiscuous persons who condemn and denigrate other promiscuous persons due to their promiscuity.
>How do you accuse someone of murdering you if you're dead? Did she speak to the cops from the grave? Am I missing something? Pam- You are so right about the police doing their jobs. They'd have to speak to the guy, if only to clear him and move on to the Ex. But they aren't going to let logic get in the way of a full on phallic worshipping festival, complete with female corpse to piss on. Just sickening.
>I am also monogamous, and in fact have been both a feminist and with the same dude since I was in my late teens! Imagine that. I am also not married to him, just in a happy and equal partnership. If you don't want to deal with the difficulties of breaking a contract, Yohan, just don't enter into one. It's not that hard. A lot of the complaints some of the MRA-ish posters here are making sound like they should rightly be aimed at late capitalist culture and materialism rather than at *women*. I don't have a lot of common with the kind of women that get the brunt of these guys' ire either–women who have fully accepted the cultural role of the materialistic clotheshorse–but that doesn't make me *hate* women, it makes me hate the system of materialism and consumption that they're caught up in. It really says something that all these complaints about what the realities and expectations of late capitalism (or "the West" or whatever) do to individuals keep getting caught up in misogyny and turned into anti-woman or anti-feminist rants rather than hitting the real culprits. Feminism did not create consumer capitalism, guys. Far from it.
We Hunted The Mammoth
>Because the ridiculous feminist stance is losing?
>Nice bait and switch 🙂
>PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!
>Ha, the stance that women can no more be reduced en masse to slavering, materialistic money grubbing whores than men can be reduced to animalistic sex-starved monsters is ridiculous.
>Feminist cat ponders how idiotic the herpes and hypergamy discussion has gotten This statement above is plainly stupid.
>I am going to leave the same long comment here.-Disgruntled Anthropologist who works primarily with male survivors of gender-based violence in conflict zones"Anthropologist stepping in here to help with the hypergamy discussion:Hypergamy is a real Anthropological term, but the MRA's who use it either don't seem to know what it means, or have not read any of the ethnohistorical context (or even the wikipedia article on it for that matter).Hypergamy, simply meaning (in this case) "women marrying up," is a phenomenon that is present in highly patriarchal or male-dominated societies, which only allow women access to power and advancement through marriage. The rate of hypergamy is greatly decreased when women have access to greater economic and social means of self-advancement. Also, this rate is highly variable from society to society, and depends wholly on what is constructed as "meaningful" or "valuable" in that particular cultural context. Delving further into the issue, one could even look at the (somewhat dated) writing of French Structuralist Claude Levi-Strauss, who illustrated how women have essentially been traded as goods in order to strengthen kinship bonds–which still happens in societies with a monarchy, but not as much since the enfranchisement of women in the West.Also, mate-selection of this sort is limited to the elite within any population–relationships have historically tended to be less rigid in the lower social and economic echelons of most societies. Again, this is highly variable, but it is one of those "truths" born out of several hundred years of anthropology, ethnography, and historiography.The idea that there is a hypergamic conspiracy is more of a post-feminist, post-civil rights "structure of feeling," so to speak, about the changing nature of masculinities in a society that has fewer legal forms of discrimination and segregation that there were in the past. It is born out of a refusal to adapt to a more egalitarian order–instead clinging to archaic ideas of entitlement to women's bodies as property (a la the kinship ideas of Levi-Strauss)."
>In addition, the idea of the 80%/40% ratio of reproduction can be attributed to many diverse institutions, which (the MRA's won't like to hear) have been largely [historically] created by men.- Particular men hording women as possessions: harems, polygyny, bigamy, polygamy, having both wives and mistresses.-Rape being used as a weapon of war, not being a crime, or being used for ethnic cleansing and ethnic humiliation (as is was in Bosnia, in the Congo, and in the Slavery era). Rape also being used to "cure" lesbians. Non-consensual procreation is a large part of why the inequality would exist. Even one of the foundational stories of Western culture is about this: see "The Rape of Europa," and thus the continent is named "Europe."- Men being forced into programs of gender based violence in state and pre-state societies, and not making it to the age of reproduction (yes, men experience gender based-violence every day). These programs include the military, which is overwhelmingly male, and has historically been controlled by male law- and policy-makers, and also includes male-specific massacres (such as often happens in genocidal situations, as it did in Bosnia and Armenia). So again, this is largely (unfortunately) men victimising other men.- *Historically* women have had fewer sexual partners than men, as they have simply had fewer opportunities to move around outside of the home and meet sexual partners. Although, because of other intersections of race, class, etc., certain more privileged men have always had access to more women. This is a double-bind where women are restricted into the roles of sexual "game" and less-privileged men are denied the ability to form relationships.Basically, hypergamy would not exist in societies that did not have vestigial ideas of women as economic units, and did not stratify men as rigidly (which is state violence, not violence of women against men)–so there would be everyone's problem solved!Try at least reading the wiki before misusing the terms of my profession!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy
>I am totally floored by this post I see on Scarecrow's blog Men-Factor titled 'Dirty Skanky Whore with no Brains Who "Puts Out" for Physically Abusive Men is Missing and Probably Dead'. He is talking about Deborah Flores-Narvaez, a Las Vegas dancer, who has been missing for about 2 weeks and was very likely murdered by an abusive ex-boyfriend. Saying he is talking about her is an understatement – he is actually celebrating her fate. He writes: "Good riddance SKANK!One less dipsh*t whore who thinks she is too good for guys who definitely aren’t me since they are not total psychos!One less skank who won’t yell at me in a grocery store, give me a dirty look. One less skank I’ll be falsely accused of killing myself. The only thing women like this do is drive up domestic violence statistics.Say live and let SKANKS die"That's just part of what he writes. http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2010/12/dirty-skanky-whore-with-no-brains-who.htmlWhat kind of person would write a sick, demented a post like this? A friggin' creepy psycho in my opinion. I'm thoroughly disgusted.
>Wow that sure is an intelligent and adult post written by someone who has only equality in mind. I certainly don't sense any psychological imbalance or resentment driving his worldview.
>Yeah, I read that post too. Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling. I may write about it, but right now I don't have much to say except that I'm appalled.
>New discussion time!Dave, are you religious, atheist, agnostic, spiritual, or something else?
>"Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling. I may write about it, but right now I don't have much to say except that I'm appalled."Well I have something that might cheer you up David.A roomful of manginas vs. one real man.Enjoy!
>This statement above is plainly stupid.Thanks for coming out to play, Yohan, but perhaps you were looking for the sandbox over there –>
>What kind of person would write a sick, demented a post like this?One who thinks that the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world owe him, and hundreds of other men just like him (y'know, the "Nice Guys"), the pleasure of their time, if not their company. Never mind the hundreds of not-quite-so HOT HOT HOT chicks… y'know, the ones who serve as obstacle course pilons enroute to get to the HOT HOT HOT chicks… who might offer him the pleasure of their time and company (but maybe not after seeing the "I'm a Nice Guy" emblazoned on his forehead), they don't count. But DAMN those HOT HOT HOT chicks, they only want the elusive "Alpha thugs"!!For men who try to come across like they're celebrating the fact that these "disease-ridden whores" aren't lavishing their attention upon them, they sure do sound angry about it.
>One who thinks that the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world owe himIt could also be one who just wants the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world to leave him alone–i.e not flip the fuck out on him and get him questioned for their murder, among other things. This isn't to go out of my way to defend the guy (for all I know he's making the story up), but as appalling as that blog post was (and I agree with you that it was), it wasn't borne out of some sort of sense of "entitlement." It's unreasonable for a guy to blame women for their choice of boyfriends, but when he starts getting questioned by the police because some woman's boyfriend killed her when he had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, it's not quite as unreasonable–though still unreasonable.
>David Futrelle said… Yeah, I read that post too. Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling. If you really think your posts are so much better, you are wrong. Your blog is also appalling and as I said before, plainly stupid, scornful and totally ignorant about any problem related to men.
>For the record I'd like to say that I do not agree with the 10:25 post that Christine WE says is on ScareCrow's blog.It is appalling to blame victims and it is further appalling to taunt them when they could possibly be dead.I still think hypergamy exists in the West and it is getting more and more difficult for women to marry up as they advance.
>@PamThere are very few HOT HOT HOT chicks left in the west. I am monogamous and find promiscuous people disgusting. Worse than that is when people brag about their prowess.A HOT HOT HOT woman is as modest as she is smart, has her own income and treats men as true equals. My biggest beef with modern feminism is that the gentleman is expected to remain a gentleman but the lady has become a tramp.
>Eoghan said… YahonDavid is an expert on heterosexual men HanegoDavid is a false prophet on radical feminism…with diapers in case of an emergency.
>"My biggest beef with modern feminism is that the gentleman is expected to remain a gentleman but the lady has become a tramp."I am not familiar with this aspect of modern feminism. I suppose if you think women making choices for themselves about their own sexual enjoyment=tramps, I can't help you, but really, there is nothing in feminism about how men must be "gentlemen" while the lady is a tramp. Most feminists I know think people of all genders should control their sexual choices and do with it what they please so long as they don't violate anyone's boundaries. For some that means monogamy; for others it means different things. It's about choice, and I don't see what's wrong with that. Yohan, I would *love* to hear what you think "radical feminism" is or what is the least bit radical about any of David's writings on this blog.
>It could also be one who just wants the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world to leave him alone–I don't know about you, vagrantsvoice, but when I want to be left alone, I tend to mind my own business and keep to myself, not try to strike up conversations, such as, "I noticed that we were both buying the same items, and (being the person I am), I made a humorous and smart-ass remark about it". She WAS leaving him alone, minding her own business…HE was the one who intruded on HER time, and found out that the intrusion was not a welcome one. Sometimes when we intrude on someone else's time it is welcomed, sometimes it's not.…i.e not flip the fuck out on him and get him questioned for their murder, among other things.Easy for us to judge that she should not have flipped the fuck out on him, but being that she was, apparently, a young and incredibly beautiful, tall, thin, busty brunette, I wonder how many of these same types of "encounters" she has had, even within that same day, where some guy cracks wise and expects that she should regale him with laughter and attention. Everyone has their breaking point, perhaps this was hers. And I'm sure that she didn't intend to further ruin his day by having him be questioned about her murder.…but when he starts getting questioned by the police because some woman's boyfriend killed her when he had NOTHING TO DO WITH ITThe police did not know at that time that her boyfriend killed her (although they DID mention that the boyfriend was their prime suspect, which isn't fair to the boyfriend, either, but would be a standard first avenue to pursue), nor is it mentioned in that particular story that it was discovered that the boyfriend DID indeed kill her, that was just an assumption deemed as fact by the storyteller. And they certainly didn't question the storyteller because "they had nothing better to do", as the storyteller is wont to believe, they would certainly be remiss if they didn't speak to him, and I think most people would agree with that.And, playing devil's advocate here, not saying that the storyteller DID do it, but how do we KNOW that he had nothing to do with it? Because he says so? I'd be willing to bet that the boyfriend might say the same about HIMSELF.
>There are very few HOT HOT HOT chicks left in the westBut the few that are left in the west are still the prime obsession of MRAs and MGTOWers!I am monogamous and find promiscuous people disgusting. Worse than that is when people brag about their prowess.I am monogamous also, and am neutral about promiscuous people. I don't care to enter into a relationship with a promiscuous person, but others are free to do as they choose, so long as they don't violate MY boundaries. Worse than that, in my opinion, are promiscuous persons who condemn and denigrate other promiscuous persons due to their promiscuity.
>How do you accuse someone of murdering you if you're dead? Did she speak to the cops from the grave? Am I missing something? Pam- You are so right about the police doing their jobs. They'd have to speak to the guy, if only to clear him and move on to the Ex. But they aren't going to let logic get in the way of a full on phallic worshipping festival, complete with female corpse to piss on. Just sickening.
>I am also monogamous, and in fact have been both a feminist and with the same dude since I was in my late teens! Imagine that. I am also not married to him, just in a happy and equal partnership. If you don't want to deal with the difficulties of breaking a contract, Yohan, just don't enter into one. It's not that hard. A lot of the complaints some of the MRA-ish posters here are making sound like they should rightly be aimed at late capitalist culture and materialism rather than at *women*. I don't have a lot of common with the kind of women that get the brunt of these guys' ire either–women who have fully accepted the cultural role of the materialistic clotheshorse–but that doesn't make me *hate* women, it makes me hate the system of materialism and consumption that they're caught up in. It really says something that all these complaints about what the realities and expectations of late capitalism (or "the West" or whatever) do to individuals keep getting caught up in misogyny and turned into anti-woman or anti-feminist rants rather than hitting the real culprits. Feminism did not create consumer capitalism, guys. Far from it.
>a lot *in* common. As should be patently obvious to everyone by now, I think a lot faster than I type.