An alert reader pointed me to this amazing “map” from the 1830s, posted on Ptak Science Books and originally found here. Described as “A Map of the Open Country of a Woman’s Heart,” it presents a less-than-flattering picture of the supposed shallowness, vanity and selfishness of the female of the species. Click on the pic above to see it full size.
It’s amazing how closely this resembles so many Manosphere “critiques” of evil modern women; the main difference is that it’s a bit more polite in its language. Also, no mention of stinky vaginas.
Manospherians love to talk about “taking the red pill,” as if their ideas are all new and cool and Matrixy. Actually, of course, their ideas are old as fuck. It’s more like they are taking a gulp of Dr. Flimflam’s Electro Magnetic Misogyny Fluid.
Below, another amazing picture also found on Ptak, which presents data on where women’s eyes linger when looking at men. (Again, click on it to see it full size.) I suspect this one would be a bit more confounding to the Manospherians of today, in that it doesn’t show women looking only at the dude’s wallet. The post on Ptak offers a more detailed explanation of what this picture is about.
Meller, you’re so cut off from reality, that how can you say you can judge and predict current events and how they will turn out, when it’s obvious to me you don’t even know what current events and predictions are in the political spectrum you claim to be a part of? Even a lot of conspiracy chasing type libertarians I know are way, WAY more in touch than you.
If it’s just you and your sexy dolls and your pontifications, how will you know what predictions do and don’t come true, anyway? And you still refuse to answer to my response to your challenge Re:Rothbard’s critique of egalitarianism and left-libertarian responses, anyway. Seems that would be easy for you, wouldn’t it?
I know that was a “parable”, but it would have been a hell of a lot more effective if the writer had realized that sharks don’t talk. 😛
Sharks don’t talk yet, but scientists are working on it, FOOD FOR THOUGHT!
I guess the moral of the story is that people who know a lot about a subject don’t know a lot about that subject?
Okay then.
I think that’s about it, Holly, but I also think that in this particular usage the shark is supposed to represent all the.. Um… Unsavory types that we thought we could trust…
You know… They wouldn’t hurt us, we were SURE, cause we read all the books about them. We were so learned and had such good intentions and we just KNEW we were right! But good old racists… Um, sorry, shark fearers – knew to to run, or swim, or have lots of white babies, um, I mean raise properly shark fearing children, on totally not-statist compounds, Um, I mean shark-free swimming safe zones… or something.
I was thinking the shark was a lady shark, but it could definitely be a shark of color instead/also. Or really a shark of any group Meller doesn’t approve of, which creates many sharky possibilities indeed.
But there’s also a wonderful NWO-like distrust of knowledge in there–a pride in ignoring established learning that goes way beyond skepticism and all the way into “the only reliable knowledge is the random biases of uneducated amateurs” wackyland.
Wasn’t Jaws a Great White?
*eyes some of the commentariat and trolls suspiciously*
It’s a shark of many colors, and genders, and orientations, and beliefs, indeed.
But there’s also a wonderful NWO-like distrust of knowledge in there–a pride in ignoring established learning that goes way beyond skepticism and all the way into “the only reliable knowledge is the random biases of uneducated amateurs” wackyland.
Yup. What I love about Meller is all the books he read inside his temporal comfort zone, however, make him learned. He wants both to be seen as well-read and incredibly educated, and to be a proud know-nothing.
Truly, he is a gift that perpetually gives.
P.s. Meller, I have a lot of theories as to what precisely happened to create you in a sociological sense.
Part of it goes into how precisely, Austro-libertarianism ended up mixing itself in with white power conspiracist types, a la the Ron Paul newsletters and “paleo-strategy” and Rockwell deciding the only possible way to stop nuclear war or the damn koch brothers or whatever was to go after the stormfront crowd, at least in part, crossed with Rothbard’s strategical Leninism telling him that the only way to spread his world-saving message of anarchy was to trick racists into voting for Ron Paul. Good history here, and especially in the comments and I’m wondering how exactly all of it was experienced by you. This was, apparently, a very important time, a time you don’t want to escape, so anything you can give me that fleshes out the story will be appreciated, for science and libertarian troll sociology.
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/
Holly Pervocrazy–January 25 2012 @4:13pm: paragraph 2
“…wonderful NWO distrust of knowledge in there-a pride in ignoring established learning that goes way beyond skepticism…”
Is the establishment learning that you cite nothing but carefully crafted lies? Does it promise the exact opposite of intended results? Do its advocates posit other “facts” that turn out to be either grossly incomplete or fraudulent? Does such ‘learning” depend upon its acceptance from listeners by frequent repetition of using warm ‘n’ fuzzy worlds like ‘brotherhood”, ‘equality”, “fairness” (a big one yesterday with the SOTU address given from the big B-O), “rights”, “entitlements”, “vision”, and so on…
I already said that all of my criticisms of crime and misbehavior cited at widely different levels among different groups are directed against the long-term repeated and apparantly incorrigible misbehavior, continued over generations, perhaps even centuries, NOT the race or nationality of the group per se. Again, what predictions can be made, and on which basis?
What am I using up good cybertime for? This post will not be read, if read, it will not be understood, and if understood (even partially) it alleged meaning will be so utterly distorted by your girlygabble replies that nothing can possibly be gleaned from the criticism by an intelligent observer! In short, it won’t be read, if read, it won’t be understood, and if understood (fat chance) it will be be distorted and lied about until I am unrecognisable!
I would rather take my chances with a shark, or even with the cute kittens you sometimes see here on manboobz.com!
In a alternative version of the parable, the scientist suddenly get afraid of sharks. He get out of the water alive, but loose his jobs, because he can’t handle all the getting-near-sharks and thinking-about-sharks his job involves. After that, his wife leaves him for a famous dolphin specialist, and take her puppy with her. He fells into alcoholism and depression and decide to get a new career as a thug. Two days later he kills batman’s parents, then fall in love with Ada Lovelace. They have two kids together, who turned out to be Hitler and Stalin.
The end.
Since I’m pretty sure my story doesn’t make less sense than Meller’s, I think I just proved my point. You win cookies if you can figure out what it was. (I can’t)
I’m also intrigued as to how your own deep, DEEP comprehension issues overlap with your accusations of girlygabble.
Sorry about all the ‘s’ missing. And the ‘loose’. And the rest. And the lack of re-reading before hitting “post comment”. Good think for me the TOEIC doesn’t include any expression, oral or written.
In many ways, I don’t know. But it’s the most internally consistent and practically-applicable set of knowledge available to me.
If you had a rigorously derived alternate educational schema on the offing, that would be interesting. You don’t. You have “it’s wrong to have blind faith in the mainstream, so you should instead have blind faith in the fringe.” How the hell does that help? It’s false skepticism to doubt the academic/governmental establishment and then put absolute trust in the lunatic-fringe-conspiracy-theory establishment.
I’m willing to doubt everything, but that means everything, not “just the stuff that doesn’t fit my biases.”
Hark! Do I hear echos of Scott Adams?
Is the establishment learning that you cite nothing but carefully crafted lies?
In many ways, I don’t know. But it’s the most internally consistent and practically-applicable set of knowledge available to me.
…
By establishment learning, he of course means what he thinks you watch on the View, too.
Well, to be fair, since a majority of school teachers are women, especially from preschool to junior high, our basis of education is in girlygabble! So how the hell can we trust our schools to teach us the truth? I bet 2+2=4 isn’t actually true, just some gossip that women heard from 4 when it was trying to hook up with them!
Think Cracked had an article about someone thinking their being fringy means they are right. Have to check.
Also, what crime and misbehaviour across centuries? What does, say, that even TELL us if things like race mixing or drug use are crimes?
…
Well, I bet you’ve got a nice TOTALLY LIBERTARIAN, ZHINXI!!!! argument for how you’ll keep race mixing NOT CRIMINAL, BUT TOTALLY STOPPED, but I’m pretty sure you’re still big on ending the drug war.
Not that the groups punished more by the state for drug use actually use more drugs, just get punished for it more, but I’m sure you know that, too. The point is, what’s all this criminality, anyway?
NO, go on, please, this is supposed to be your years and years of data that has nothing to actually do with race or gender or nation or anything but OBSERVATIONS!!!
SO GIVE US THE OBSERVATIONS, then.
Have the courage of your empirical, rational, totally observed “convictions,” Meller.
All this talk of sharks makes me want to reread Deep Wizardry.
DKM: I read your post. It makes no fucking sense. Your detachment from the reality-based community is almost complete.
KathleenB–January 27, 2012 @8:05am–
And YOUR posts make sense, I suppose?? In Oz, probably, when Dorothy (or Alice) comes back from her LSD trip! the only thing that any sentient and rational entity can possibly glean from your posts here is that you don’t like me very much. You have company, but not much else!
Why not–amid your usual obscenity–simply repeat “IHATEMELLER” (caps optional) a few dozen times and leave it at that? Ditto other manboobzettes who feel the same way. Youall won’t make any more sense, but you will each feel good after doing this.
Then you, along with the rest of the sisterhood, can tell ME how little sense MY posts make!
David, you really, really need to look at this thread.
Mellertron… why can’t you just let Evan be free to be himself? All of this seems trivial now that we’ve gotten a glimpse into your household : At least, now I know that by engaging you here, we take a little of the edge off you ranting about your Libertarianism to Irene and her sisters, so I guess that’s like harm reduction… but to actually hear the Mellertron philosophy applied to real life… it makes your rantings here really trivial… LET EVAN BE HIMSELF! >:O
Zhinxi, I have no particular feelings about contemporary race mixing. Contemporary women generally, and White women in particular, are so vile and unendurable that I frankly would pity ANY man, even a black one, who attempted an intimate relationship with most of you!
You modern women would probably spawn a lot of ineducable, unemployable, and thoroughly dysfunctional children while you would all be too busy with your “cah-reeahs” to provide any love, guidence, or nurturing anyhow, and they would thus be growing up in homes probably on a par with their ‘mom’s’ shoe collection or her latest book sales royalties whatever the race or nationality of the “parents”! Oh, well, as long as modern women can “have it all”.
More about the war-on-drugs” later, if at all! Have to go now!