Jezebel has apparently decided to gin up some page views by running a bizarre, victim-blaming, slut-shaming, skeevily prurient screed on Amber Cole, the 14-year old African American girl who was videotaped giving oral sex to some boys; the video got posted online and, despite the fact that it was, you know, child porn, went viral. The story itself is appalling; so is the screed, written by a guy pretending (for rhetorical effect) that he’s Cole’s father. It reads like something you’d find on The Spearhead.
The piece starts off melodramatically:
I am Amber Cole’s father. I am angry, confused and completely at a loss. I love my daughter. I want to guide her without suppressing her. That is not always easy. Children need protection from their worst inclinations. That is not always easy. I am trying to convince her that the world will still love her if she keeps her clothes on.
Just to remind everyone again: the author is not actually Cole’s father. (And Amber Cole is apparently not her real name.)
The screed quickly descends into an attack on the girl’s mother that reads like something you’d read in the comments section of The Spearhead or In Mala Fide:
She would listen to her mother, if her mother was not busy. Doing something, anything that is not parenting. I want her mother to spend less time being “empowered” and more time being aware and engaged with our daughter.
And it only goes downhill from there. We get a section essentially blaming girls at large for the incident, because they allegedly ignore the “nice guys” who would never make such a tape. We get a section blaming the “mother’s boyfriend, Karrine Steffans or Kim Kardashian” for teaching the girl to be “proficient at such a difficult act. … I want to know why my 14 year-old knows so much about oral sex.”
And then we get a ridiculous race-baiting rant about white feminists and the Slutwalks:
White feminists can teach their own little girls to find empowerment through their crotches – my brown little girl cannot afford to be that carefree and cavalier with her life choices. Slutlife is the hard, lonely vocation of rich, educated, privileged white women who will fuck The World, contract social diseases and still, somehow find a husband. No black woman ever got far being a slut. I want to know what kind of women “slutwalk,” while young impressionable girls of all kinds look on with wonder and admiration.
After placing blame for the whole thing on just about every girl and woman in the world, the author comes to the father:
I am Amber Cole’s father. Don’t ask where I was that afternoon, because you already know. I was at work, just like you. I do not live with her, cannot always talk to her, cannot always be there. Not the way I want, and there are few laws to help me. To protect me and my rights.
Because that’s the real issue here: Father’s Rights.
And then the big reveal:
I am Jimi Izrael. I am not really Amber Cole’s father. But she is my daughter.
You do not think so. But she is your daughter too.
Go read the whole thing. It’s appalling. Then read Jeff Fecke’s takedown of it on Alas, a Blog.
Ironically, Jezebel ran an excellent piece on the subject about a week ago.
WTF, Jezebel? Are page views really that important?
EDITED: I reworked a bit about the (real) father that I originally formulated badly.
*sigh*
I wish that people could distinguish between the lusting over celebrities (which the celebrity culture in this country has been pimping for at least a century!), and lusting over the person at the next coffee table who in most cases is not surrounded by celebrity aura.
The fact that i generally find VM or SB or HJ sexy in media that I consume says nothing about what I find attractive in the people around me–and there is a difference, since most of us know we ain’t gonna be dating the supercelebrity dudes.
Although you couldn’t tell it from some of the celebrity internet spaces where the hating of these men’s (and women’s) actual partners goes on, sigh.
Ithiliana,
Tell me about it! I feel fortunate that my own personality forced me to figure that out at an early age. I’m attracted almost exclusively to male celebrities and women in my daily life.
Well, I was being sarcastic, in response to Broseidon’s suggestion that women are only going for the Justin Bieber, Zac Braff thing these days.
Almost as idiotic as the frequent MRA canard that there are no strong men on television anymore.
>>“She said she likes nerds, so why is she ignoring me and dating the hot guy who wears vintage glasses ironically?”
Because he didn’t use his Charisma as his dump stat?
Also, nerds aren’t generally more nice or intelligent than hipsters.
Yes, women don’t find standard manly men attractive anymore. That’s why the last barge to Ugly Island left with Hugh Jackman, Ryan Reynolds, George Clooney, Viggo Mortenson, and John Hamm on board! Justin Bieber will be taking over the role of Don Draper, per public demand.
To be honest, I haven’t really heard a lot of praise for these guys lately. Opinions seem to range from “not my type” to “overrated”. But hey, glad to be wrong.
Also, nerds aren’t generally more nice or intelligent than hipsters.
1) And I’m the one accused of making stupid generalizations…
2) Then she shouldn’t have said she was into nerds?
1) Not more != Less. That’s the opposite of a generalization, saying group A is not especially nicer or more intelligent than group B.
2) She can be into nerds AND intelligent men AND nice men
1) Not more != Less. That’s the opposite of a generalization, saying group A is not especially nicer or more intelligent than group B.
Ah, got it. Misunderstood that one a bit. My point, though, was that women would rather go for the handsome guy who wears glasses, even though she just said she wanted a smart guy. Your and BlackBloc’s argument seems to be “well, maybe the handsome guy really is just as smart as the nerd!” which is a possibility, I guess, but not really what I was talking about.
2) She can be into nerds AND intelligent men AND nice men
Sure, she can be into all sorts. Has nothing to do with my point. I’m stopping now because this is becoming tedious.
You haven’t heard anyone praise Ryan Reynolds or John Hamm lately? I mean, what’s lately to you? Ryan Reynolds was named sexiest man alive this year. Hugh Jackman won the award a couple years ago. John Hamm has been like standard hot dude for like the last year time. George Clooney is a freakin’ pop culture icon even when he isn’t active. Admittedly, Viggo’s career has slowed down.
Hell, look at the people who have won sexiest man alive in the last decade. I can tell you, they are not of the Justin Bieber type.
This isn’t to say that women universally find classically masculine men attractive, as there is no universal standard of what “women find attractive”. But to assert that women are ditching classic American masculinity en masse to embrace the Justin Bieber ideal is absurd. It’s just more faux nostalgic B.S. to claim that the present day is somehow inferior to a romantic era that never actually existed.
This kind of conversation always seems to slide toward implications that women should be distributing their affections according to any reason other than their own desires.
Maybe it is unfair that more women are into certain types of man than others, but you have to attack that on a level other than “women should be responsible for distributing pussy access fairly.”
I’m not understanding why (yet again) good looks and niceness are being treated as if they’re mutually exclusive qualities (but only in men). In my experience there’s very little correlation between niceness and level of attractiveness. Some of the best looking men I know are genuinely nice, and some of the most unpleasant men I’ve ever met have been very unattractive physically. In most men these qualities have very little correlation. This whole nerdy plain-looking nice guy versus stunningly handsome jerk idea is a comfortion myth invented to make men who are not good looking feel better about their relative lack of romantic prospects. Actually if we were to perform some armchair analysis, it’s not really that surprising that some ridiculously good looking men are very sweet, since they’ve often received positive responses from others their entire lives, so they have no particular reason to feel angry and defensive towards others. Whereas society is often unkind to the ugly of any gender, so it’s no surprise that the scars caused by that combined with male entitlement can make for some really unpleasant men, especially if those men are being fed a steady diet of MRA or PUA bullshit.
Other than that, yeah, dating is complicated – it’s hard to find a good match, and the more non-standard a person is in any way, the harder it becomes. If you have specific interests that your partner must share in order for you to be happy, that may be a small pool. If you have a very specific physical type, again, smaller dating pool than someone whose tastes are less specific. Everyone else who’s looking for a partner has their own idea of what they want, too, so the size of your dating pool is determined by lots of different things, including how closely you fit other people’s ideas of a good match. Conventionally good looking people of either sex tend to have a wider dating pool than less attractive people, as do people who’re charming, socially adept, etc.
There’s nothing wrong with anyone being looks-focused, really, the problem comes when people are being unrealistic about their prospects relative to their own looks, or hypocritical. If somone has very stringent physical standards then that’s fine, they just have to be willing to accept the fact that others may well apply equally strict standards to them.
@Holly: Always.
Because women are just there as public convenience for men! And that should be the focus of our existence………..OR ELSE…………..(*cues ominous music that heralds the onset of the DKM Armageddon).
Comforting myth , not conformation. Need more coffee.
Maybe it is unfair that more women are into certain types of man than others, but you have to attack that on a level other than “women should be responsible for distributing pussy access fairly.”
No, I don’t, especially when assholes like Schwyzer turn around and wonder loudly about where “all the good men” are. Newsflash: They’re all around you. Unfortunately, many don’t look like the Don, so I guess they don’t count.
>>Ryan Reynolds was named sexiest man alive this year.
I loved him in Foolproof, wish he could get more good roles.
And I’d definitely let him crack my safe, if you catch my drift.
“Maybe it is unfair that more women are into certain types of man than others, but you have to attack that on a level other than “women should be responsible for distributing pussy access fairly.”
Also, what does fairness have to do with it? Of course people are entitled to complain about it not being fair, but there’s really no way to suggest that the unfairness be fixed without coercing people into dating folks they’re just not interested in. Sex is not a resource that women own that they are required to distribute in an equitable manner. No one is entitled to a relationship.
Amazing how hard it is for some MRAs to understand that the world (ie women) don’t owe them sex.
Thanks. I needed that.
This kind of conversation always seems to slide toward implications that women should be distributing their affections according to any reason other than their own desires.
Bingo.
Brad Pitt seems like a sweet guy, and despite his reputation for pretty-boy roles, he’s taken a lot of interesting parts in offbeat movies (12 Monkeys, Snatch, Fight Club, Inglourious Basterds, Tree of Life). I guess what I’m saying is that MRAL is right, and I’d rather sleep with Brad Pitt than him. Not that I will be sleeping with either of them, as I’m happily married to a smoking hot guy who’s also the nation’s foremost comic-book nerd.
And yeah, I’m happy to follow this stupid conversation because the original post makes me want to vomit with rage.
“…assholes like Schwyzer turn around and wonder loudly about where “all the good men” are. Newsflash: They’re all around you. Unfortunately, many don’t look like the Don, so I guess they don’t count.”
MRAL, are you laboring under the delusion that you’re not an asshole? Do you think you’re a nice guy? Because you’re really not. You’re whiny, hostile, disrespectful to women and men alike, you have a ridiculously overblown sense of entitlement and a massive inferiority complex. Nothing about that adds up to being a “good man”.
That is not quite logical as personality can have an impact on a person’s looks as Cassandra stated both in just ordinary course of life and when you get to know a person.
A person who you think is unattractive at the start may become attractive as you get to know them.
So, MRAL, how should women decide who to fuck?
Because it appears the only way that doesn’t make us snotty bitches is a fucking lottery.
I’m an exploitative bitch if I like a guy who’s nice to me, a shallow bitch if I like a guy who’s physically attractive to me, a gold-digging bitch if I like a guy who’s successful or talented, and a beta-exploiting bitch if I like a nerdy guy. What’s fucking left?
Apparently if I like a guy who drew QX532A and called it into the redemption center.
What’s left, after you remove the nice, the sexy, the successful, the talented, and the intelligent?
MRAL.
I’m actually not just insulting him, btw.
that’s the genesis of this. If he’s not getting laid, all of us are bitchez, bitches, and HER HOLY/ROYAL HIGHNESSES. Every last one of us. I’m not sure what he plans to change when he finally does, but I’m betting it’s carving out some tiny exception. That’s it. That’s hte only way for any woman to win this game; fuck MRAL. Yet he expects us to give a shit.