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.
About nerds in relationship:
Considering not only result, but effort and time required. I don’t agree that some horrible flaws make difference betwen W&N and other nerds; my claim is that only time is required. Give anyone misery for long enough, and reasonably sane mind starts producing its nasty but ego-protecting tricks.
I won’t take pride from what I’ve done to overcome nerdiness handicap, because that didn’t make me any better – just somehow more acceptable by women. And I repeat myself: I wish to opt out from being an stone trhown at less lucky ones.
Thank you and goodbye.
It is unfortunate that he ended the responses with “most guys think like this” because otherwise I might have actually responded to the rest of it. I *know* the best friend does not think like that. He could not hide it from me for very long.
I tend to agree that these guys who claim that women pay no attention to them really mean that “high-status” (whatever that might mean) women are uninterested in them. Despite what they say, I don’t believe that the OV’s are really pursuing companionship or even sexual gratification… I think they’re really after the status they would get from being in the company of a conventionally beautiful woman, and are frustrated that they can’t. I.e. the OV’s real lament is that he can’t compete with other men (so you get the endless whining about “alphas”).
That’s the vibe I get, too. I remember MRAL once commented that if he ever got a girlfriend, he’d probably hate her. THEN WHY WOULD YOU HYPOTHETICALLY BE DATING HER? Oh, right, to impress other men. Like they care.
The whole thread where Poster explains why WAN is single is awesome. The most amazing part is where he says that WAN probably only goes after the absolute hottest women, and multiple guys respond that of course those are the only women you should ask out! They also all scoff at the notion that women can tell they’re assholes; after all, they try to briefly conceal their hatred and disdain toward women when it comes time to try some PUA move on a hottie, and what woman could see through that?
Then they spend the rest of the thread whining about how mean women are for not going out with them.
Keeps them off the streets, I guess.
I’ll give that flounce by yzek a… say 8.5 for difficulty. Assuming zie sticks the landing, they’ll get a decent score. Bated breath!
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.
commenting on a blog in your spare time equals dedicating your life. well you are just the king of lame false equivalencies now arent you?
dawg nobody here is ‘butthurt’ (really, people still say butthurt?) because we point out the myriad problems with your analogies. maybe if you werent feeling so defensive you wouldnt feel the need to lash out with so many lame cliches?
Sometimes people also take steps to change the miserable situation, and act logically to achieve their goals, instead of beating their heads against the brick walls of their personal dysfunctions while loudly blaming the world for the fact that their heads hurt.
But yanno, that’s probably just my girly nerd mind being all rational and shit.
“Feminisms biggest problem at the moment is that most women actually like men.”
Yes, we… we do like men.
Many straight women like men. Also gay men. And bi people too!
Why is this a problem for feminism, exactly?
Surely as a good feminist you should know that women who like men are ‘gender traitors’. A good feminist should be a lesbian, and not because she likes women, but because she hates men. In order for feminists to get their anti-mail agenda’s realized, they need enough man-haters to support them. According to feminists, women who like men are just to stupid to realize how oppressed they are. In doing so, feminists actually are the greatest misogynists of them all.
Look at this one: http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2011/07/18/a-bit-of-lighthearted-fun/
Basically, according to this feminist, consensual sex between men and women is impossible. I know the article is titled ‘some lighthearted fun’, so I’m not sure is that’s also one of those ‘mocking’ blogs. Probably, but in a different way than this one. Her mocking goes to women who get burned by a relationship with a men. One more potential recruit for the femininist hate movement, she seems to be thinking.
But anyway, if she has her way, male sexuality would be criminalized. All sex is rape.
Yep, these are the guys who lurk through a con full of single geeky women without sparing them a glance (or at least, without sparing a glance that isn’t full of disdain) just so they can silently stalk Felicia Day all weekend from the back of the room. And then whine that they can’t find girls.
YA DON’T SAY. -_-
commenting on a blog in your spare time equals dedicating your life. well you are just the king of lame false equivalencies now arent you?
Why are you so defensive ?
@ Captain Bathrobe: Regarding caddy bitches (as opposed to catty): Once upon a time on a different forum a troll informed the board we were all “caddy bitches who can’t get laid.” It has been my default absurd insult since.
She said nothing of the sort. It looks like she said, from a radical feminist perspective, that fully free consent is impossible when there is no fully free lack of consent. It’s a radical way to examine the concept of “consent”, not a piece of legislation. No one is being criminalized, heterosexuals are not being blamed or mocked, and no one is even being told to stop fucking dudes — it’s basically a thought experiment.
If you actually read what Twisty says, she begins this position philosophically, and refers to how the law makes consent irrelevant, through the assumption of consent. This is more or less correct, if you look at sexual assault case law, and it tends to piss feminists off that this is correct. I’m not positive she actually applies this to everyday life, because she is rather specific in saying “If you’ve never lied back and thought of england, that’s great for you!”. If she doesn’t mean that consent is actually, literally impossible, then I have less than 0 problems with her, and I can’t see why you’d think otherwise. I part ways with her if she does decide to say that, but again, I don’t think that’s the case. Still doesn’t mean feminism is a hate movement, it means some feminists are fucking pissed about the misogynistic state of the world still.
I find it curious that your evidence that feminism is a hate movement doesn’t actually involve any oppression of men, but argument against the status quo.
From the comments on the I Blame the Patriarchy link:
Ooh, the unknowable nature of free will is so man-hating! (Be honest, luke123, did you understand a single word of this excerpt? It’s okay if you don’t; no one here expects you to. ;D)
Ooh, the unknowable nature of free will is so man-hating! (Be honest, luke123, did you understand a single word of this excerpt? It’s okay if you don’t; no one here expects you to. ;D)
She is saying women have no free will. She’s a misogynist.
Heh. The average MRA will read a radical feminist blog about as well as the average second grader will read an article on… say, advanced metallurgical technologies. He might understand some of the words, but the overall meaning will definitely elude him.
Luke123Surely as a good feminist you should know that women who like men are ‘gender traitors’. A good feminist should be a lesbian, and not because she likes women, but because she hates men. In order for feminists to get their anti-mail agenda’s realized, they need enough man-haters to support them. According to feminists, women who like men are just to stupid to realize how oppressed they are. In doing so, feminists actually are the greatest misogynists of them all.
WhahhahahahaHAHAHAhhahahahha
Hoo…!
Damn. Could you share that shit with the rest of the class, because it’s a lot better than anything I can get here in Jersey.
IBTP, is being a mix of serious and sardonic. I don’t agree with her conclusion, (i.e. that it’s not really possible to freely consent because one can’t withdraw it; and that this is true no matter how enlightened the man with whom one is sleeping happens to be), because, as a man, I am not of the opinion that consent isn’t revocable. I’d say that should my partners decide they’ve had enough I’d like to think they know I’ll stop.
The meat of the matter is you are doing what so many accuse Dave of doing. You have taken a single post, and said it represents all of feminism. Ok, if you want to make that fact-claim, support it. Go and find me the other feminsists who are both echoing that argument, and making the one you are extrapolating from it (which, BTW, appears nowhere in the the post you cited. IBTP doesn’t argue that one needs to become a lesbian separatist, she argues that one needs to be an activist against the patriarchy, so that one can have free consent, absent the idea that once given it is good until the male is done having sex).
But anyway, if she has her way, male sexuality would be criminalized. All sex is rape.
Citation needed. Show me the support for this claim of yours, in her text. Because either my grasp of English and argument is failing here, or you are reading into it things which were not said.
luke123:
Ooh, the unknowable nature of free will is so man-hating! (Be honest, luke123, did you understand a single word of this excerpt? It’s okay if you don’t; no one here expects you to. ;D)
She is saying women have no free will. She’s a misogynist.
And the answer to the problem I posed at the end of my last comment is answered.
The lack of clarity with English does not lie with me.
Why are you such a fuckwit?
Yes. You are absolutely right, bless your heart. Good job. *shakes head sadly, pats luke123 gently on the cheek and hands him a snack*
(He tries so hard, I just can’t bring myself to tell him the truth! Poor little tyke. ^^)
VoiP gets up at one in the afternoon and goes to bed at sunup. SORRY PEOPLE
Why are you so defensive ?
did… you actually just i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i me? what did i say about cliches?
guys im really glad that luke is here to explain feminism to us. why do all these dudes think they have access to some secret codex of feminist interpretation that the blog full of feminists doesnt?
“But anyway, if she has her way, male sexuality would be criminalized. All sex is rape.”
Citation needed. Show me the support for this claim of yours, in her text. Because either my grasp of English and argument is failing here, or you are reading into it things which were not said.
It the logical conclusion. I’ll spell it out for you:
if
* consensual sex between a man and a woman is impossible
then:
* all sex that occurs between a man and a woman must be non-consensual
and as we know that:
* non-consensual sex is rape
and
* all sex that occurs between a man and a woman must be non-consensual
then
* all sex between a man and a woman is rape.
So then as:
* rape is a crime
and
* all sex between a man and a woman is rape
then
* all sex between a man and a woman is a crime.
QED
Luke, have you heard the term feminisms? Never mind that your reading comprehension is absolutely piss poor to begin with, but clearly you’ve never heard of this concept. It is quite sad how many individuals associated (or claim not to be associated but repeat the same memes) with the MRA come in here thinking they have the singular one understanding of feminism, and then get even that wrong by failure to actually read and comprehend without a cognitive bias.
I just got here but wow Luke! Have you ever spoken to a woman before?