My favorite incoherent MRA blogger at the moment is our dear friend Christian J from the blog What Men Are Saying About Women. In recent days, Dr. J – famed inventor of the MRA two-dot ellipsis – has delivered up some truly inspired prose. I’d like to share some of the highlights (by which I mean lowlights) from a few of his recent posts.
Here he is, attempting to explain the “hookup culture” of the youth of today:
Women dish it up on a platter in line with their feminist education (free love/free sex mentality) to the alphas as they turn them on, the most, in the hope of either pretending to be carefree and casual about it all or they just have a high sex drive that requires servicing on a regular basis. It’s not that difficult..
No, no, not difficult at all.
Here he is talking about, er, pussy power, and somehow stumbling on to the subject of international finance:
The girls ofcourse have been trained to think that they can get away with just about anything as they possess the magic “V” which has a very high trading component as well as a social exchange rate, not unlike the Euro or an open ocean oil exploration license, but the magic “V”is more mobile and comes with it’s own carrier and operator, batteries not included though. Perfect really, when you think about it.
Here’s the opening sentence of a post of his about chivalry, and how feminists all secretly love it:
As feminism gets messier and even more morose, one does have to wonder what efforts those masterminds of insanity will do to cover their obvious and blatant erroneous experiments on human biology.
I don’t know if it’s even possible for me to get messier or more morose.
Here he is waxing poetic about the dreaded mangina:
[N]o one really considers them to be anything but a waste product, whose relevance is yet to be determined. A pretend girlie-man if you like, who wavers between reality and the dream state of their female masters. A neutered sycophant living on a different plain where reality and fantasy mix to form their delusional, ethereal world..
And let’s finish up with this muddled attempt to call feminists a bunch of lying liars:
We have on numerous occasions, demonstrated the continual lying and misinformation that the feminist hegemony consistently wallows in without what they believe is, in any fear of contradiction.
I have no idea if the second half of that sentence is the result of some sort of grievous editing error, or if he actually thought it made some sort of sense. With Christian J, it’s impossible to tell.
DISCLAIMER: All we wanna do is eat your brains.
We’re not unreasonable, I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes.
I don’t think chuckeedee has even defined what trait he’s measuring with the “bell curve.”
That’s one of the details I’ve been following with great amusement. Apparently there’s an objective scale of human worth, and it forms a bell curve, but the curve is significantly different for men and women in a way he hasn’t explained yet. “Thugs” are low on the human-worth bell curve, but still getting laid like whoa because women won’t honor the scale.
I have to admit, Chuck’s theories are a refreshing break from the usual MRA idea that literally all the women in the world are sleeping only with Brad Pitt (it’s always Brad Pitt for some reason), but it’s still the kind of “thought experiment” that can be disproven by going outside and looking at people.
I believe it’s inversely proportional to the distance between their groins.
Disclaimer: Apologies to the less ferrous among us, for my use of FUCKING MAGNETS! How do they work?
NWO was the one who got mad at everybody for reading stuff other than Star Wars novels, wasn’t he? I’m expanding the Literature section.
This is because black women are ugly, therefore they cannot get even deluded manginas to give them money by sitting in the street and crying.
Disclaimer: I am using sarcasm. And smileys 🙂 🙂 🙂
@Ami,
WAIT! CB! *poke poke poke*
do you have any IMs or FB? 😀
Sorry, Ami. I got distracted. I sent you a message on the Forum explaining my position on these matters, and I’ll try to make it to the chatbox at some point. XD
@Chuckee
the main point is that it will never be one man to one woman – it still finishes up that a smaller proportion of women finishes up servicing the greater number of men.
See, now, as others have already stated, this runs contrary to the current body of MRA literature (such as it is) on the subject. Care to elaborate? Or offer some evidence that this is or would be the case? Just because a prostitute can service 100 guys (what, in one night?) doesn’t mean that this would play out in real life. Why should we believe that a smaller number of women will always service a larger number of men? Evolutionary theory suggests that the opposite would be true. Why is your theory correct and other theories wrong?
This thought experiment of yours seems poorly designed. How would 100 random men hook up with 100 random women? It depends on the assumptions you have about human mating behavior. Yours appear to consist of “women will fuck anyone.” But you haven’t provided any evidence that this is the case, and my personal experience (and, I’m willing to bet, yours as well) suggest otherwise.
Also, as others have said, your criteria for establishing a bell curve have not been clearly defined. What exactly is the bell curve measuring? You have to define it in order for it to be relevant to the discussion.
So, no I haven’t really changed my position that you are a fundamentally lazy, not terribly coherent thinker who dresses up his misogyny with a thin veneer of social science that he barely understands. Pardon us if we fail to be impressed.
Disclaimer: I have wasted several non-recoverable minutes of my life responding to your drivel. Please have the common decency to learn to construct a coherent argument, or even write a coherent sentence, before you respond. Your community college professor will thank me.
Oh, and XD XD XD XD
a thin veneer of social science that he barely understands.
“Barely”?
Actually the D list celebrity thing is predictive enough for me given my demographic and location, and that social stratum and sociolect are surprisingly racially diverse. I don’t think PUAs are predators, just men with specific and perhaps comical mating behaviors. OTOH, that is what has worked for me, without them I’m socially invisible and inaudible. And kindness is often a good approach.
@shaenon,
Disclaimer: How-to courses on homosexuality are taught in all public schools. This is the only way people become gay.
OMG, it’s all true! Here’s the link:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/98-homosexualrecruitment-drive-nearing-goal,536/
a thin veneer of social science that he barely understands.
“Barely”?
Well, Zombie, I think he knows what a bell curve is, but I’m inclined to be charitable. It’s just how I am. 🙂
CB: OK, we can grant him a bare understanding of a tool in stats.
Actually, philosophers use them a lot. Imagine, for instance, a planet that’s exactly like Earth, so like Earth that it’s a copy of Earth: same people, even. The only difference is that, on this planet, water isn’t H2O but has another chemical composition entirely. It behaves just like H2O would, though. After the people on this planet develop enough chemistry to know what water on their planet is made of, when they say “water” they mean what we mean when we say it. Is that the case before they figure out chemistry? Why or why not? After all, all the phenomena are literally identical.
Because, since they’re “at the low end of the bell curve” and they breed more, these “retchworthy” “thugs” contribute to the “devolution” or “degeneration” of the population as a whole. This is standard late 19th century eugenicist fear-mongering, with the fear of women emphasized and the racism toned way down, until all that remains are code words. Chuckadee, who exactly are these devolved thugs? Where do they live, usually? Why are they so retchworthy? Are they just stupid, or are they sub-optimal in other ways too?
After the people on this planet develop enough chemistry to know what water on their planet is made of, when they say “water” they mean what we mean when we say it.
ACK: that typo killed the point of my entire post: “After they develop enough chemistry to know what water on their planet is made of, when they say “water” they DO NOT mean what we mean when we say it.”
Well, Zombie, I think he knows what a bell curve is, but I’m inclined to be charitable. It’s just how I am.
You are a better man than I am….errrr, was. I only inclined to allow he has seen a bell curve once or twice in his life.
When he gets weird, I am more inclined to think that the only thing he knows about bell curves is that it was the title of a (pretty much discredited) book.
DISCLAIMER: Sometimes, there are people who have no need to worry about zombies eating their brains.
As a linguist, they never meant what we mean.
Apologies to those among us of limited perspicacity for my sesquipedalian loquaciousness. 8)
Katz: Eschew prolixity.
@rutee – Wrong!! (again) about the rule of thumb having anything to do with beating your wife. Thank you for playing. NEXT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb
Mag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb#Thumb_used_for_regulation
Herp
*whispers* The comments have moved on, Magdelyns! We’re arguing about whether women tend to choose uglier partners than men now!
I do say, Magdelyn. Your ability at reading comprehension is one of the poorest I’ve ever seen. No wonder you fail to understand basic abstract concepts.
Mags, you’re not actually capable of doing any form of research at all, are you?
http://sobek.colorado.edu/~mciverj/2481_61NC453.html
The text of State v. Rhodes. Of note, the jury verdict did indeed reference the ‘rule of thumb’ in the context of a beating. The Opinion said “Yeah, wife beating is fine if you don’t take it too far, but it’s not about the size of the instrument used, only about the damage cuased”.
If you’d actually clicked your link and read it in detail, you would know what to look for yourself, and I wouldn’t have to produce this for you, and yet, here we are. And why are we here? Because you are stupid, and incapable of reading even your own sources for verification of the facts.
@Bostonian
“No matter how proximity theory is phrased, it is an asinine idea.”
Would that be asinine as oppossed to feminist theory? There’s the pot calling the kettle black.