There needs to be a Manboobz Addendum to Godwin’s Law to cover those who compare their lack of dating success to, you know, genocide. You may recall the charming Tumblr dude who equated dateless “nice guys” with persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.
And now we have “white and nerdy,” the blogger behind Omega Virgin Revolt taking the datelessness=genocide thing a step or two further. As you might guess from the title of his blog, WAN doesn’t exactly have women beating a path to his door. Not even golddiggers, even though he is, he says, “a widly successful owner of my own business.” Women don’t even want to use him for his money? Why is that? Because he is not a — wait for it – “alpha” man.
Yep, it’s the same old dopey logic we’ve seen so, so many times before: Women won’t date me => therefore I’m not an alpha => therefore women won’t date anyone but alphas. WAN has added one more step to this illogical logic chaim: this makes them the equivalent of genocidal monstere:
The ideology that women act on is the ideology of Pol Pot, of the Killing Fields. Women want non-alpha men purged and intelligence is considered by women to be a lack of alphaness in a man. This is similar to the ideology that led to the killing fields. Many of the millions who were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields were murdered for showing signs of intelligence. That included everything from education to the possesion of wristwatches and/or glasses. If modern geeky hobbies had existed in Cambodia in the 70s, I’m sure that would have been included along with wristwatches and glasses as evidence of intelligence, and anyone interested in geeky hobbies would have been murdered too.
He’s making a could-not-possibly-be-more-strained reference to the whole Alyssa Bereznak/Jon Finkel kerfuffle. Bereznak, as most of you probably already know, wrote a sort of snarky, sort of stupid piece for Gizmodo about her date with Finkel, a champion Magic the Gathering player, and said some mean things about him and his geeky hobby. Pol Pot engineered the deaths of roughly 2 million people, many of them urban dwellers and intellectuals forced to relocate to collective farms in the countryside. Many died of starvation; others were shot – or beaten to death, in order to save on bullets.
So, yeah, Bereznak and Pol Pot are pretty much identical.
WAN continues:
[T] ideology of what women are doing now and what Pol Pot did are very similar. The Killing Fields needed to be opposed for both moral and practical reasons and so must what women are doing now. Rebel at The Spearhead said that women are engaged in a “holy crusade” against men. … The Khmer Rouge was also on a “holy crusade”. As Rebel also said what is at stake is nothing less than civilization itself and your existence and freedom just as it was with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
In an earlier post pretty much making the identical, er, “argument,” WAN takes aim at comedian Julie Klausner, who recently published a memoir called I Don’t Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Faux Sensitive Hipsters, Felons and Others. In her book, and in some interviews about the book, Klausner made some unflattering comments about “beta males” and “immature” men. This sends WAN into a rage:
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would be proud of this cunt. She all but calls for concentration camps for her “useless beta inferior men” who secretly run the world. …
Ah, classic weasel words: “All but calls for.” In other words, she doesn’t actually call for concentration camps, or even rock ‘n’ roll fantasy camps, for men in any way shape or form. Never mind. WAN continues:
Somehow these “straight angry nerds” who are “useless and inferior” took over the world when no one was looking and this cunt says “something needs to be done” about this “epidemic”.
This type of thinking is widespread among women. …
[I]t’s no surprise that a lot of men are saying they think they would be better off with the Taliban running things. While I’m not sure that isn’t just trading one set of problems for another … I understand what these men are thinking. Anything has got to be better than this.
So: Nerdy men are “oppressed” by women who won’t date them. The solution to this imaginary oppression: oppress women for real.
I couldn’t make this shit up.
No, luke123, you didn’t say that. OVR said that.
That’s what he actually said; his not getting laid is equivalent to genocide. And for some reason, you’re here defending that statement by using the hypothetical gender cleansing of the nonexistant Daly-led feminist dictatorship and complaining about what Bereznak wrote.
Since you know all about genocide in the 20th century (where is VoiP?) perhaps you’d like to acknowledge that what OVR said, as quoted by the original post is just a bit… hyperbolic? Give me hyperbolic.
“I thought you left, yzek.”
It’s magical power of question marks addressed to me keeping me there, but don’t worry, I have a flask of +10 Willpower potion somewhere…
The last one I have to dodge: I don’t care about OVR. Your comments already drifted so much from original context, but suddenly it’s ALL about him. And everybody who claims nerdiness itself is handicap MUST be just like him or his supporter, because my friends are nerds and all are doing well.
(And please forgive my English: I olny write technical stuff on daily basis. Sorry.)
Regarding the “nerds can get girls/being a nerd is no impediment to dating” comment, I’d say yes and no.
First, I absolutely agree with Leo Salloum that the whole process is much easier and less painful if you select for people you’re compatible with first, and looks second. Looking for somebody who shares your interests and your world view just seems like common sense, really. But*:
1) Nerd circles, at least where I am, are very much male-dominated. Nerd girls are still comparably rare, I’d say the male/female nerd ratio is 5:1 easily.
2) Nerd culture, surprisingly enough, functions much like its parent culture. In my experience there is always the “alpha nerd” who is the de facto leader of his particular group, maybe he’s the smartest, the most successful, the best D&D player, the most knowledgeable about Monty Python trivia, maybe he’s the only one who has a car or something, or maybe he’s just the most outgoing and dominant, and he’s the one who gets the girls.
Which when you think about it, it says that it’s not about being a nerd or not, it still comes down to being confident and being good at something, standing out in some (positive) way.
So what’s my point? You shouldn’t worry about being a “nerd” or any other stupid label, just look at who you are as a person, think of who you want to attract and why you’re succeeding/not succeeding at attracting them, then you’ve got a plan.
*BTW, I’m talking about real nerds here, not people who call themselves nerds while ironically wearing oversized glasses and Star Wars t-shirts because it’s “trendy” and “cool”, people who are often party-goers and are actually popular. Although I guess most of this stuff applies to them as well.
luke123: There are two issues, and the one is what you pretend you were talking about now. The other is what you asked.
If Mary Daly “suddenly became president” is what you asked. You admitted it was counterfactual. In that one she is suddenly president and tries to wipe out men.
Not at all possible.
The other, which you are trying to argue now is that a wave of violent misandry takes active political action, a la Hitler (Pol Pot is a crappy example, because he needed two revolutionary gov’ts nearby, and having the US bomb the shit of of Cambodia to take power), and turns a campaigning tactic (anti-semitism for Hitler, anti-men for the mythical exterminationist feminist party) into policy.
And while genocides have taken place, they have been against identifiable others. Men are not such an other. It’s not against an outgroup, or a smallish segment of the population (and the Khmer Rouge didn’t set out to exterminate 20 percent of Cambodia, all those other factors I mentioned combined to cause it to snowball).
So arguing that such a thing as a “gendercide” is possible isn’t believable, even in the context of modern genocides.
Can you read for comprehension? I said you can’t genocide the cultural, economic, social, and political majority of your own country. Even in a dictatorship they wield too much power for that to be possible.
Now, what Dictator Daly could do would be to enact actual misandristic laws, which would be a novel thing for the world in general, and she could slowly begin to disadvantage them, over generations. We might even see it become a mirror of China. Do that long enough and actual genocide would be possible. Of course, absent actual magic Dictator Daly is complete fiction, so I suppose she could use *more magic* to do other impossible things.
Why do people like you and Glenn Beck think this actually hides your motives at all?
It’s obviously you who has no grasp of twentieth century history if you think genocide can’t happen. As if a bunch a laws are going to stop anyone. And there is no need to have to support of 50% of the population.
yeah, youre theory of ‘genocides happen just because and its plausible so long as i can imagine it hard enough’ is so rigorous and nuanced.
until you explain the mechanism by which mary daly specifically rises to power in the united states specifically and manages to circumvent the constitution, your theory is pure nonsense.
But what do you think would happen if someone like Mary Daly somehow managed to grab power and instituted a feminist dictatorship ?
What I want to know is: what would happen if Andrea Dworkin rose from the dead and bred a mutant army of zombie-manginas using the stolen sperm of Larry Flint? What if she was receiving secret signals from Hitler’s cryogenically preserved brain? What if Richard Simmons was elected Pope and forced all the Cardinals to wear running shorts?
Clearly, feminism if even more of a threat to humanity than we had previously imagined.
That’s what he actually said; his not getting laid is equivalent to genocide. And for some reason, you’re here defending that statement by using the hypothetical gender cleansing of the nonexistant Daly-led feminist dictatorship and complaining about what Bereznak wrote.
Since you know all about genocide in the 20th century (where is VoiP?) perhaps you’d like to acknowledge that what OVR said, as quoted by the original post is just a bit… hyperbolic? Give me hyperbolic.
Ok. For the record. I am not speaking for any MRA. I think the whole MRA thing is a hate group too, with reactionary tendencies.
I am not defending what OVR or any MRA said. I am saying that feminism is a hate group.
And a lot of those who are active on the internet are bullies who seem to get off an slamming anyone who is not in their clique.
Jezebel and Gizmodo are basically the same site. She was talked about on many blogs, none that I read approved of her publishing someone’s name, and many made the point that she was being weird about the whole Magic the Gathering thing.
yzek: The last one I have to dodge: I don’t care about OVR. Your comments already drifted so much from original context, but suddenly it’s ALL about him. And everybody who claims nerdiness itself is handicap MUST be just like him or his supporter, because my friends are nerds and all are doing well.
That’s not what was said at all, not in either half of your claim (that it only became about OVR lately, or that being a nerd is no handicap at all).
A significant amount was said about aspects of nerd culture, gamer culture, and geek culture, and why those can be detrimental to women finding the inhabitants of any of those problematic.
It was then being pointed out that it’s not universal, that individual nerds (and more than the popular culture seems to think likely) do just fine. At that point the comparison to OVR, and those who share his complaints comes into play. If they are having troubles, when it’s plainly obvious that they think it’s more like Malcom X trying to date at a Klan rally than a personal problem; and they are going way over the top (see my comments to Bill about his defense of OVPs position).
Conflating those two things isn’t helping your position. Arguing that we weren’t talking about him is incorrect.
I don’t know quite what to make of your excuse for your English. Tech-writing demands a clarity at least as great at that in other realms, because 1: it’s mean to inform, and 2: it’s meant to teach.
Given the arcana of the various subjects (and I’ve read a fair bit of technical writing) I’d expect tech writers to have at least a better than average grasp of the written word. Then again, from the complaints I see from by tech-writing friends, and from those who have to get writers to detail the work they are doing, perhaps the problem is more endemic than I’d like to think.
Stupid blockquote fail:
Okay, yzek… let’s try this. If you’re happy in a romantic and, presumably, sexual relationship with your wife. And other posters are saying that they’re nerds who don’t have trouble having relationships, or that they know lots of nerds in relationships, or that they prefer being in relationships with nerds, then doesn’t it stand to reason that “nerdiness itself” is not the handicap to being in relationships?
Doesn’t that mean that there have to be other and additional factors? It can’t, exclusively, be about “nerdiness” right?
Feminism is a hate group. Gender equality is just like invading Poland and killing huge numbers of people.
Both of those are asinine statements.
Okay then. You’re not interested in substantive discussion. I understand. I mean, I’d figured as much this morning with the whole Mary Daly thing, but it’s abundantly clear now. That’s fine. I won’t continue to engage your posts on a serious level. It’s mockery from here on in. It’s cool.
Tell you what, right at the top of the page, the site has a title. It’s about mocking misogyny. That’s what we do here. We mock misogny. If that offends your delicate sensibilities, I suggest you go back to you browser and pick some other site.
Tell you what, right at the top of the page, the site has a title. It’s about mocking misogyny. That’s what we do here. We mock misogny. If that offends your delicate sensibilities, I suggest you go back to you browser and pick some other site.
If the purpose of your empty life is mocking, surely you shouldn’t get all huffy and butthurt if you’re precious feminism gets mocked back at you.
@yzek: I didn’t read all of them. Also…you failed to understand this sentence I wrote:
“get off your ass, find out what attracts women you like…then try and be more like that”
Key phase there is “you like”.
@Nobinayamu: I was meaning if you are a shut-in or you are hostile towards women you aren’t really going to attract them. Making a comparison between genocidal regimes and women tends to make women find you unattractive.
This really isn’t about Cambodia, genocide or Pol Pot. It is a bunch of guys not happy with their station in life and instead of taking responsibility for themselves they would rather exaggerate why they think women are so horrible. It’s textbook projection.
Believing that women should be equal to men (and this includes removing the rarer cases of female privilege) and fighting for that = a hate group.
Damn, this has been an informative day.
If the purpose of your empty life is mocking, surely you shouldn’t get all huffy and butthurt if you’re precious feminism gets mocked back at you.
But without mockery, all I have is cats and chocolate! Oh, and sex. And my family and my career. And my friends. And everything else I do when I’m not on this blog, which includes a fair amount of mockery, but still.
If the purpose of my empty life were mocking, I’d start my own blog to mock misogynists. Or maybe I’d go to a blog full of misogynists and whine about the mean things they say about feminists? Yeah, I’d probably do something like that if my life were empty.
Fortunately, my life is full and I have no problems with people mocking or criticizing feminism. Now are you going to commence with the mockery anytime soon? Or are you just going to keep being a titty-baby who, through his defense of OVR, is basically saying that genocide and blue-balls are the same?
Reading comprehension is your friend. Try it some time.
Show us where we did any of the above. QFT please.
luke123 If the purpose of your empty life is mocking, surely you shouldn’t get all huffy and butthurt if you’re precious feminism gets mocked back at you.
It might help if you actually mocked it. Posting inane hypotheticals (which depend on a host of unstated assumptions) isn’t mockery. Saying “feminism is a hate group” isn’t mockery.
The one is foolishness, the other is a fact claim.
We’ve shown the first to be stupid, on it’s face, and so the question is more why did you present it?
Based on the follow up the logical answer is you thought it helped prove the second.
But the unstate assumptions of the first destroy it in the service of the second. Question… if you believe the MRAs are hate groups, why do you defend them? Saying that OVR has a point… if an impossible thing happens, isn’t exactly making it seem you disagree with his core message.
And it’s his core message we are arguing, he says he can’t get laid because women hate men. That’s his argument. They are “working to destroy civilisation”, in the same way as your stupid Mary Daly idea would be. So you are arguing in concert with a group you say is a hate group.
Why?
Did we just essentially get called fat, caddy bitches who sit around making fun of the men because we can’t get laid?
Eh, I’d rather be a caddy bitch than someone who thinks datelessness is the same as genocide.
Projector Shields: not actually as cool as deflector shields.
You gotta admit, though, if it were even remotely true that would be one hell of a burn. luke123 is on a roll.
If you are saying things like “feminism is a hate group” and getting laughed at, lukewarmiq, you are not the mocker in this interaction! You are the mockee.