Dating guru RooshV — whose name conveniently rhymes with “douchey” — is convinced that, when it comes to women, smartness is inversely correlated with hotness. As he puts it in a post today, committing at least one logical fallacy in the process:
Femininity is a quality that pleases men. Therefore from the chart we can deduce that educated women decrease a man’s happiness. … Anything beyond a bachelors at a public university is a near guarantee she’ll possess a large basket of masculine traits that will prevent boners.
The “chart” in question is one that RooshV made up himself, and which contrasts the purported sexiness of less-educated women with the purported unsexiness of more educated women. As he explains:
A good test to see if a girl is over-educated is to add the word “sexy” before her job title. If the resulting phrase ignites arousing images in your head, then she’ll most likely have what it takes to satisfy you.
Amongst RooshV’s “boner inducing” job titles for women: Sexy waitress, sexy teacher, sexy librarian, sexy flight attendant. Amongst the “boner softening” job titles: Sexy IT specialist, sexy anesthesiologist, sexy tort attorney, sexy financial analyst.
There are more than a few problems with RooshV’s little list, not the least of which is that plenty of dudes do in fact get boners thinking of “sexy” female IT specialists, lawyers, financial analysts and other smart women. (I’m kind of partial to sexy professors, myself.) And if you don’t want to take my word for it — and MRAs never do — I invite you to investigate the vast amount of porn involving “nerdy girls” or simply girls with glasses (NSFW link).
Also, if you’re going to base your notions of male and female sexuality on which job titles sound like the best sexy Halloween costume, how can you leave out such classics as “sexy nurse” (a job that actually does require specialized education) or “sexy kitty” (which requires whiskers and little cat ears)? And should we conclude from the perpetual popularity of the latter as a Halloween costume that furry women with tails who shit in a box are sexier than the furless standard models?
Also, if you’re a guy who fetishizes less-educated women, and refuses to date women as educated or as well-paid as you are, you pretty much lose the right to criticize women for wanting you to pick up the check for dinner.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>Sexy environmental scientist, eh? Sweet? Now I can collect sexy water samples and do sexy analyses of them. And create sexy maps of super sexy water quality indices.
>Now I can collect sexy water samples and do sexy analyses of them. And create sexy maps of super sexy water quality indices.Presumably this is what happens with Zapp Brannigan is assigned to chart a planet.
>He is the Velour Master.
>@Ozymandias"Lifeisugly is possibly eleven years old? That would explain a lot actually."You'd think David was running an MRA daycare, judging by the maturity level of some of these commenters.
>Presumably this is what happens with Zapp Brannigan is assigned to chart a planet. Yes. Also, like Zapp Brannigan, sexy environmental scientists never wear pants.
>Pointing out that doodz who hate on women for being ugly are ugly is a bit like pointing out that Congressmen who vote against gay rights are gay. It's not relevant, and it's not really good form–except there's the whole hypocrisy thing.
>Feminism only happened because men let it
>Decolonization only happened because the British let it. Doesn't make it less of a moral imperative.
>Some men let it, other men have been crying about uppity women since, well, at least since things started being written down and most likely since long before that.
>Look up the definition of 'educated' and then do the same for 'smart'. Note the difference.Needless to say, if you were a woman you'd probably be extremely wealthy. (Because a successful older man would've married you when you were young and sexy… obviously.)
>Feminism only happened because men let itAnd integration in the US only happened because the group of old white men on the Supreme Court let it. What's your point, beyond an admittedly correct acknowledgment that patriarchy is still alive and well in our culture?Is your point that women should bow down and be grateful to men for treating them slightly less like subhumans? Because fuck that.
>""Douche." Isn't that a gender-specific insult like "bitch" or "whore?" Aren't you feminists always complaining about double-standards? How is using a word like "creepy guy" or "douchy" which is a label used by women or the feminine-minded any different from a man using "gold-digging slut" or "mouthy bitch?""Not all feminists think douche is a good word to use as an insult, especially since it started out as a gendered insult against men, like pussy or cunt.No amount of "useless and unhealthy to women lol" can erase the history of the word. I'm always frustrated when I see that "explanation" because it's frankly retcon bullshit.
>Oh, and "creepy" is used on both sexes, at least in my world.
>i used to love smart women. still do. but the problem is that the smarter the woman, and the more accomplished she is, often that means that she is more demanding and more of a pain in the ass. harder to please, harder to keep happy.
>i used to love smart women. still do. but the problem is that the smarter the woman, and the more accomplished she is, often that means that she is more demanding and more of a pain in the ass. harder to please, harder to keep happy.I know, right! You give these women an education and suddenly they're demanding the same consideration as men. It's awful. Next thing you know they'll get it in their heads that they're full human beings.Educating women was a mistake in the first place, I say.
>I know I am wrong to expect the guy I date to be able to hold a decent conversation on anything, to bathe daily, to brush his teeth and hair, to make some kind of effort to support himself after turning 25…must be that uppity edumucation I got.
>Saying creepy is an insult to men is just being silly, women get called creepy too…in fact if you are constantly being called creepy, then maybe you are!Trip and Elizabeth….don't you know that women are just so gosh darn mean now in days! I mean, if a guy is nice and shows the girl attention she needs to just give him a chance! How dare women have expectations and standards! And educated women just have too many of those things!
>@jupiter, "douche" it is not comparable to the other terms you discuss. "Pussy" and "cunt" are explicit references to genitals. "Bitch" and "whore" apply to behaviors that are only punished in women or viewed as feminizing, whereas the behaviors addressed by "douche" are not ones exclusively punished in men or ones that are seen as automatically masculinized. When a woman is called a "douche", there is no suggestion that her behavior is masculine, whereas when a man is called a "bitch" it is pretty explicit that his act and the term are seen as feminizing. The same applies to the term "creepy". Neither "creepy" nor "douche" is actually a gender specific insult. Even if it is an insult that is applied at higher rates to men, it is not gendered per se, unlike the terms you cite. The term "dick" or "cock" as an insult is a specifically gendered one, however, this still does not get it to the level of being comparable. Social power of the respective groups matters in the level of hurt inflicted by an specified insult. Cracker and the n-word are not equivalent. Breeder and fag are not equivalent. Walkie-talkie and cripple are not equivalent.
>Social power of the respective groups matters in the level of hurt inflicted by an specified insult.This is something the MRAs really need to start understanding.
>No, DarkSideCat, the original insult within "douche" was that it was water made dirty by contact with *female* genitals. It's an insult based on contamination with femaleness.
>Hold on guys, GET REAL. Roosh is right, albeit incidentally.Often very attractive women do not need to rely on an education to get ahead; their looks provide. As such, less attractive females are required to 'get smart' to compete, at least in terms of value. It's how natural selection works. Beauty and brains are rare indeed.I'm generalizing of course, but this unfortunate correlation provides a rational justification for such a chart.
>It's how natural selection works.Conveniently, when somebody uses the phrase "natural selection" while describing human behavior, I take that as a sign that I don't have to bother paying attention to them anymore.Thank you.
>"i used to love smart women. still do. but the problem is that the smarter the woman, and the more accomplished she is, often that means that she is more demanding and more of a pain in the ass. harder to please, harder to keep happy."Yes, I see what you mean. As an evil mastermind, I used to prefer the smart minions myself, but it's such a pain in the ass to get them to do what I say, they're always demanding their fair share of the spoils once I take over the world-Oh, you were talking about relationships not based on misguided assumptions of authority? My mistake. Just ignore me, I'm not a suspicious character at all.
>@Naughty Nomad:Your argument is assuming that women are all scheming from an early age and making a decision about how best "to get ahead." When in reality, women (and men, I assume) spend a lot of time trying to figure out what *we* like. What people look like is related to the things we like, and how other people who like those things generally look, it's not a genetic reflection. That's why men and women who like to get dressed up and go to clubs look one way, while men and women who like to hang out in libraries and drink coffee look another. If you take a person out of the library and dress them like a club kid, they will be as pretty as a club kid. And if you take a person out of the club and dress them like a library-goer, they will look like the other people in the library. See? None of these choices involve natural selection.
>I know I am wrong to expect the guy I date to be able to hold a decent conversation on anything, to bathe daily, to brush his teeth and hair, to make some kind of effort to support himself after turning 25…Most guys do that, more so than women in fact. Oftentimes women are so used to men leading the conversation and entertaining them like children that they would be autistic if judged by the male end of the double-standard. Additionally, many women will leech off of wealthier men to help pay their bills.I guess men are just more tolerant then women of social and economic ineptitude. You're welcome.