The director of the first Human Centipede film – the one about a psychopathic doctor who sews three unwilling and unwitting captives together mouth-to-anus to make a sort of “centipede” — proudly declared that his film was “100% medically accurate.” That is, he found a doctor who was willing to say that if one were indeed to create such a centipede, the second and third segments (i.e., people) would be able to survive, provided that you supplemented their rather dismal diet with IV drips to give them the nutrition they were lacking.
This dubious claim to 100% accuracy came to mind today as I perused a post by the blogger who calls himself Dalrock, a manospherian nitwit with a penchant for pseudoscientific defenses of old-fashioned misogyny. In a post with the whimsical title “We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan,” Dalrock argues that the best “solution” to out-of-wedlock births is some good old-fashioned slut shaming.
Here’s how he breaks down the (imaginary) numbers in a post that is “100% mathematically accurate” – which is to say, not accurate at all:
Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players. The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel. Now we introduce slut shaming. It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all. This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage. This directly translates into fewer fatherless children. This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier. Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her. After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on. This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel. You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.
Why not shame the fathers as well, while we’re at it? Dalrock explains that this just doesn’t make good mathematical sense:
Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players. Now apply shame to the players. Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them. No problem!, says the Gilligan [the social conservative], at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts! But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts. They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation. Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first. This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business. This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.
Well, there’s no arguing with that!
Seriously, there’s no arguing with that, because it is an imaginary construct with only the most tenuous connection with how things work in the real world. “But … MATH!” doesn’t really work as an argument here, since human beings don’t actually behave according to simplistic mathematical formulas.
Film critic note: While the first Human Centipede film offered little more than a workmanlike treatment of a fantastical idea, the recently released sequel, which details the attempts of a deranged Human Centipede superfan to take human-centipeding to the next level, is actually sort of brilliant. If you like that sort of thing.
“Most of the work for the fair sex, outside the home, would be ‘female-friendly’, from daycare caregivers and kindergarden teachers to wedding planners or fashion designers (although gay men would offer stiff competition there), from office receptionists to singers, dancers, or actresses–which, I should think, would arise quite naturally from the men’s entertainment houses (brothels?) anyway. No compulsion, no coercion, and everybody’s happy!”
God, I’d suck at ALL of those jobs. Hate kids, hate weddings. I also can’t design a dress, dance, act, or sing to save my life, and I’m not even a lesbian!
I am much better at what I do now then anything else I have ever done even though I strive every day to improve.
And it is not one of those jobs that he mentions that are “appropriate” for women.
Yeah, crime, alcoholism, and mental illness were non-existent prior to the advent of feminism.
I suspect that Meller thinks feminism is the only real mental illness.
And seriously, Meller? No one cares what you think we want, or what you think is best for us. Not men, not women, not anybody. But keep up with the “renegade male” thing, it’s funny that you think that’s insulting.
Of course women, including many early women’s rights advocates, were instrumental in efforts to reform prisons and insane asylums, and many were active in the Temperance Movement–which began as an effort to curb excessive drinking but led, unfortunately, to Prohibition.
You forgot to blame us for droughts, plagues, famines, and reality TV.
Meller: Firstly, the “prostitution” you cite regarding the uses that sexually loose women would be put to is simply a natural and voluntary application
Strange use of voluntary. Be a floozy, get turned out.
What if they don’t want, “to be put to use”?
As to your view of the world. I’m a man. I don’t like the present world. It’s not feminist/female friendly enough for me.
bionicmommy: There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don’t.
Pecunium: they are three kind of people in the world, those who can count and those who can’t.
DKM@1:16pm
So I take it you’re backpedaling over women who are sexually active without being married being offered to brothels? Good for you, but you’re not fooling anyone as to your original meaning.
You do realize, don’t you that being sexually active does not mean that one has sex indiscriminately? There is a huge difference between having sex with some you like and have chosen to have sex with and having to have sex with anyone who shows up, like them or not. What you are proposing is not the same thing at all and if you think it is that just shows how clueless you really are.
Then there’s your habit of talking about women being useful or being put to good use by you or other men as if women were objects or pawns for you to use and discard, as if you don’t think of them as real people with thoughts, desires and most of all, wills of their own. Women are not here to serve men, they are the prime agents within their own lives and should be able to chose their own path.
I also notice that all of your “female-friendly” jobs are to do with (you guessed it) raising children or serving men. That is not a choice. “Well ladies the only jobs we’ll allow you to do are the ones that fit into your servant or your sex toy roles. Just like you’d be doing at home or in a brothel.” No, not a choice at all. The idea that women might want to do something outside the box you’ve shoehorned them into seems to be beyond your comprehension. Sad really.
Finally, a question. Why do you consider that the expression of a woman’s sexuality must make her a bad person? I don’t understand this because I know so many women who are sexually active without being married who are fine people with a strong moral compass that just happens to be different to yours. Why is it fine for men to be sexually active outside marriage but it isn’t for women. Why is it any of your business anyway?
DKM@4:17:
May I have some cites for all those claims that you made as fact but are, in fact, merely your opinion?
You realize, I hope, that there are plenty of SAHMs who are also feminists. The issue is about having the choice to do as you wish, whether that be a role as a housewife and mother or to have the career of your choice within your own individual desires, ability and education, or some combination of the two.
Also, are you suggesting feminists are over-represented prisons, alcohol and drug rehabs and mental hospitals? Again, I’d like to see a cite for that, because it sounds like hogwash.
““I hate having a dependent partner…”
Cassandra, you are the woman.”
Most male doms feel the same way, Meller. Also, I am not “the woman”, I am “a woman”. I know you’re awfully attached to this idea that all variations in human personalities come down to strong controlling man/dependent adoring woman, but that is because you are a deranged lunatic who talk to dolls.
Also, I personally am experiencing very little stress, as modern society suits me rather well. Sorry to hear that it does not suit you at all – sucks to be you, I guess.
Smug superiority and the knowledge that my life will always be far happier than yours!!!
Cassandra
Indeed. When we had children, my wife made it clear that while she accepted that biology meant that it was probably best if she become the primary childcarer when the kids were still preschool age, she certainly wasn’t prepared to ditch her career altogether.
In fact, she used the evenings and weekends when I was around to study and gain extra professional qualifications, so that when we swapped eight years later and she went back to full-time work while I combined working from home with childcare, her earning potential had significantly increased – and everyone’s benefiting as a result.
Whereas if I’d gone down the DKM route – i.e. of having a fluffy little houseproud SAHM – I’d still be doing the same job I packed in a year ago, I’d probably have had to apply for a management position (which I’d have hated) to ensure I was earning enough, I’d have seen very little of my kids during the week, and my life would have been far worse. Oh, and since this is Mellerland, my wife would almost certainly be having an affair prior to dumping me for being “boring” (i.e. never around).
“she accepted that biology meant that it was probably best if she become the primary childcarer when the kids were still preschool age,”
What does that mean? Do you mean breastfeeding?
Essentially, yes. She tried expressing milk for later use via breast pumps, but never got on with them, so decided that the most direct route was the most efficient. And because this demanded that she was around during the day, it made sense for her to become the main childcarer for that stage.
We agreed upfront that we’d split the childcare 50/50 as far as was possible, with one of us being the main childcarer for nine years, and the other one taking over for the next nine (after which time the kids would both be over sixteen and capable of fending for themselves) – and we’d spend the first nine-year stint laying the ground for the switchover by her working part time to keep her career going, while I’d maneuver myself into a position whereby I could earn a viable living exclusively from home.
Amazingly enough, we’ve stuck to that plan more or less to the letter, despite devising it nearly a decade ago. The only change was that the switch happened a year early, because my former workplace offered a voluntary redundancy scheme, and it seemed silly not to take advantage when I was planning to leave soon anyway.
So, one must be properly trained to be/do what they are genetically hardwired to be/do. Huh. And which Amendment to the Law of Nature is that one, again?
Wetherby@3:19am
That sounds like a good plan. It would require a certain amount of flexibility, but that’s a good thing, not a disadvantage.
I don’t have a problem with women being SAHMs if that’s genuinely what they want and it’s not being in some nefarious way (and let’s face it, the Kyriarchy can be pretty damned nefarious when it puts it’s collective mind to it) forced or “expected” of them. It’s just that it can’t be the only viable option. That’s really not good for one’s mental health, man or woman. I also think it’s really sad that men so often feel constrained to be breadwinners when they feel they would be happier as house husbands, working from home, or whatever suits them better. There don’t have to be rules about who does what. We should be able to shake it up if we want to.
As someone once said “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” and the system should be designed to serve us, not the other way around.
Pam:
I guess we’re supposed to ponder that one. Like a koan. OM.
My wife didn’t want to be a SAHM, and was only prepared to do part of the job (though she remained working part time throughout this) with lots of support. We employed a part-time childminder throughout this period, whose wages more or less amounted to my wife’s income – which seems like financial lunacy, but she was determined not to give up her career.
And quite rightly, because now that she’s back full time that career is racing ahead and she’s earning far more than I’d ever have managed to bring in. In fact, she’s earning so much that I can get away with a pretty low monthly income target – and provided I meet that and do the school runs and feed the kids in the evening, I can do whatever I like the rest of the time. For a writer, that’s a wonderful luxury.
Absolutely. The best system is the one that suits you. Other people’s opinions can certainly be listened to, but they don’t carry any automatic weight. I currently have the best work/life/family balance that I’ve ever had in my life, and no-one can convincingly tell me otherwise – and certainly not people who think that phrases like “pussy-whipped” and “mangina” constitute intelligent discourse.
Wetherby@6:48
I’m glad it works for you both and that you’re so happy with it. It shows how well things can work out if you don’t follow the traditional script. There’s no earthly reason why you should follow the script if you think something else will work better.
Re: name calling and other assorted crap. Don’t let them put you off. It looks like what you have works for you and your wife so to hell with what they say. Why would anyone who’s actually been in a long term relationship or is married take them seriously at all? I sometimes wonder if some of their vehemence isn’t jealousy of those of us who can actually have those kinds of relationships and make them work, particularly over years and decades. It must be especially galling when it’s evol feminists, who they’re convinced are incapable of having good, happy, peaceful relationships at all.
I am NOT a “deranged lunatic who talks to dolls” ! I enjoy dolls for companionship because, and only because,feminist women(?) like you have made long term relationships with real women–when they can be found at all–almost impossible! Dolls (and plush fluffies) are a second choice for me! Even when a real man finds a woman he can love, you butch feminoids (who are often lezzies and man-haters to boot) use your domination of magazines, TV, movies, and other woman-friendly media to corrupt them within a few years and the search begins all over again! You think that I don’t know what has been going on with the feminist bitch lobby for the last four decades or so, but believe me, it is about as subtle as a kick in the balls!
How does it feel knowing that you–and your sisterhood from hell–are inferior to inanimate objects when it comes to pleasing men? I am not the only man who is seeking an alternative to noisy, opinionated, disrespectful, over-educated and pushy FEMINISTS. It will be that much easier when youall are completely replaced with something(s) better. Maybe you will still have well-trained, eager-to-please thoroughly conditioned male (?) eunuchs to do your feminist bidding and make you feel good! More’s the pity!
Plush fluffies and little lady lovelies (collector dolls) are NOT my first choice, just as cyberwives and robocuties wouldn’t be my first choice if they were available for use. I–like other men–prefer real live women! Too bad you manhating bitches (pardon my language) changed them all!!
Feminists may not be represented themselves in prisons, mental asylums, etc. but their effect on the larger society is the breakup of families which gives rise to the pathologies which often drive men–especially if they are vulnerable for other reasons–into institutional care. Since feminism has dominated our culture, c.1970, divorce has increased, with most divorces instigated by wives, and the traumatized orphans (often male), lacking both a stable and happy two parent household to grow in, and consistent, socially positive male role model(s) drift into pathology. This doesn’t happen everywhere–and doesn’t have to–but it happens far too often!
Women–as daughters of feminists–often follow in mother’s footsteps, and their marriages, and their children, are even more f****d up than those of the parents’ generation.
Thanx for the legacy, feminists! Youall sure pitched perfect no-hitters there!
You like your dolls better? Enjoy your dolls.
Meanwhile I’ll enjoy my life as an independent human being. (Like it’s so scandalous that I have a boyfriend and a job. Ooh, wild woman!)
Win-win!
That is the weird thing DKM-if women were following in their mother’s footsteps, since most of the second wave feminists were not the daughters of feminists, why did they become feminists?
This was in the days before the internet, how did it spread?
You know Meller, liking dolls does not make you a deranged lunatic. However, that does not means you’re not a “deranged lunatic who talks to dolls”. If I was to qualify you such a thing, it would primarily be because you do seem deranged (I’m no doctor, and I’m not gonna try to diagnostic you, but your last story really sounded paranoiac) and you a have a deep desire to control the world and particularly women, whom you want to fit into two narrow types:
– fluffy nice virgin-tile-marriage obedient wife
– slutty whore that any man should be able to fuck
And those who refuse do not deserve to live and should be sent to prison, asylum or anywhere where they would be removed from society so we can pretend they don’t exist.
The doll part, well that’s both the funny cherry on top (because you apparently convinced yourself they have some kind of thoughts, feeling or intention) and the most humane, redeeming and nice thing we know about you, because it’s completely harmless, extremely cute and it most likely help you be a happier, less angry man.