So the other day I was perusing the front page of the angry dude blog – sorry, “human rights organization” – A Voice for Men, looking for something inspiring to read. My eyes hit on a promo for a recent AVFM radio show. It was on the topic of feminism, and, apparently, women in general:
Flatworms, eh? You know, those “relatively simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals” without brains, with primitive eye spots that allow them to sense light?
As you know, human rights organizations are widely known for comparing large categories of humanity to primitive worms.
I am reminded of the inspiring words of Martin Luther King:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. And by the fact that they’re not slimy, dirt-eating worms, like all those damn white kids.
This is, of course, from King’s famous “I had a dream – a really weird dream, where all the white people were worms” speech.
Oh, perhaps JohnTheOther and GirlWritesWhat have some highly clever explanation for that whole “flatworm” thing, but in order to find out I would have to listen to their “radio” show. But life is short, it is a lovely, if a bit chilly, Saturday in April, and I would rather have ferrets chew the flesh off my bones while I am still alive than listen to an hour or more of those two, so I guess I will never know.
But no matter, because there was another post on A Voice for Men that caught my eye:
Yes, I said to myself, I will have to find out what Cooter Bee thinks about the differences between intellect and emotionalism. In the course of my day to day life, I often find myself pondering the deeper philosophical questions of human existence, and when I do, I always wonder: What does Cooter Bee think of that? It is rare that I actually get to learn what Cooter Bee thinks on a particular matter of philosophical import. So naturally I clicked on the link.
Here’s what I learned from the esteemed Professor Cooter Bee:
Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them. Women, generally speaking, don’t because indignation, outrage and gut level distaste are rooted in emotionalism. Women do understand base emotionalism and do respond to it in a more predictable way than they could ever respond to reason. They are also more likely to respond appropriately because the message is more clearly understood. Emotionalism is their language.
So, really, there’s no point in actually arguing anything with those flighty ladies.
No need to waste words or knock yourself out reasoning with feminists or even your wife, for that matter, when a short and visceral pronouncement from on high will do and is more effective.
For example, you can just call them sluts:
Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.
Actually, it’s better if you call the ladies sluts over and over and over again:
Slut Walks, “Sex in the City” and the self esteem cult are all attempts to reassure women that even when they behave abominably that the bad behavior has the sanction of the collective and they face no risk of expulsion if they engage in it. To modify the behavior of women, reimpose that risk. The good news is that it can be done in relatively short order. … A stark and unvarnished remonstration from someone in closer proximity will undo the propaganda swiftly. Declarations of “that is disgusting” accumulate. Hearing it once may not overcome Cosmo and she can dismiss it as an isolated raving of a lunatic. If she were to hear it more often, however, she begins to doubt herself and wonder about her status within her more immediate collective.
You can also modify chick behavior by praising them when they act the way you like them to. It’s really quite simple:
Chick language provides us with a construct that we can use. To women something is “nice” or it is “mean”. They use that simple, emotionally based dichotomy because that is what chicks understand. They use it with us and they use it with each other. That is how they evaluate the world. Use it. …
Most women want to be good so tell them what good is in a way they can grasp easily.
What if they disagree with your assessment of what is good? Doesn’t matter, because you are a man, and therefore right:
Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues. Not true. As a man, nature equipped you to make decisions based on merit alone without respect to consensus. … You know right and wrong when you see it.
Are there any good women out there? Yes, Cooter Bee tells us. Indeed, there are several women who contribute to AVFM, so there’s them. Beyond that, Dr. Bee, tells us,
I am of the belief that most women are good, if somewhat misled. They only resist righteousness because they think that any behavior that the collective endorses IS righteous. The rare woman who is capable of moral judgment will select good herself and would not be on the receiving end of harsh moral criticism.
Then again, you still might have to yell at the good women from time to time. Really, it’s your duty – it’s for her own good.
Good women are human too. Even in the seldom occurring event of a temporary moral lapse by a decent woman, your diatribe will be no more severe than the one she administers to herself. Would you do less in the case of a man whose judgment falters?
Thank you, Cooter Bee, for your insights!
I had no idea that going around telling women that they’re sluts was a form of human rights advocacy, but apparently it is. The next time I see a woman standing on the streetcorner trying to get me to sign a petition for Amnesty International, I will simply tell her what a dirty whore she is. I will accomplish more with these words than she will in a day of collecting signatures and donations!
NOTE: Since you bring it up all the time, fellas, you might try to remember that the name of the show is Sex AND the City. Also, it ceased production eight years ago.
—
This post contained some
Ruby, you do not need to respond to everyone individually, especially since a number of us make the same or similar points. If you want to be seen as “not a troll” you DO need to respond to the arguments raised. If you don’t respond, you lose any standing to complain about being called a troll.
Maybe instead of money, women should get Prettiness Grants. Clearly that’s more useful to us anyway.
O_o
Now now people. Ruby has dishes to do and can’t be wasting time finding out how full of shit she is by taking time out of her busy dish washing schedual and answering anyone.
There are so many moochers off of the state who have won trillions in lottery money, it is totally statistically significant guys! Just like Donald Trump is totally an average guy, every man is just like him!
I think with most people its more of a matter of “I am attracted to you and I want to be with you” then “you are attractive and I can afford you”…
So Ruby, how much are you worth?
I’m Donald Trump! (start at about 0:50)
Ruby, Evo-Psych is crap science. It’s what fueling most of your arguments.
Although this isn’t the original peer-reviewed source, things maybe not what you think they are.
http://www.livescience.com/3326-modern-men-women.html
“Researchers at the University of Iowa find that men increasingly are interested in intelligent, educated women who are financially stable — and chastity isn’t an issue.”
I didn’t see where it said “men are interested in the most attractive woman they can afford.”
Maybe men are interested in other qualities.
Good debate, though, Ruby! Good use of feminist ideas and making fun of MRA talking points! Let’s do it again.
So ruby’s in ruby’s world:
a.)never eat junk food
b.)men buy the most attractive women they can afford
c.)women are attracted to money and power and not actual humans
d.)queer people don’t exist
e.)poor people should get help from the government
d.)poor people are lazy and many are poor because of their life choices
There is more but I am too tired to continue
@others
feel free to add to the list XD
Doesn’t she mean the most attractive woman they can afford to maintain? I mean, trumps women must cost him a bundle in cometics and what have you /endsnark
I’m loving the idea of women existing on a Prettiness Economy. Like, I just got my paycheck so I’m gorgeous! I go to the store and exchange two eye-bats and a flirt for my groceries, then a salon and I wink saucily at the hairdresser for a shampoo and cut. She does a good job so I tip her a butt-wiggle.
I bet really rich single women don’t care about looks at all.
I know I don’t.
Oh for fuck’s sake.
The last time you made this stupid argument, I asked you to explain my situation, which, as I recall, you ignored. My boyfriend could absolutely get a job in which he would make significantly more money. He is eminently qualified for such a job. I continue to advocate for him not to do so and instead stay at the less-prestigious, lower-paid job he is in, where he does work that makes him feel fulfilled and happy. Given that higher-paid him is the exact same person, but with more money, how is it possible that I prefer lower-paid him if what I care about, as a woman, is attracting the wealthiest possible guy? Am I just lying? Is my decision part of some long-term wealth-acquisition plot so secret even I don’t know about it? Or, just maybe, is this whole “women are programmed to seek out rich men” argument total bullshit?
(Also, how is it possible that my boyfriend broke up with the former girlfriend who was a successful stripper years ago, despite her entire career being founded on her being a very sexy lady, or that I turned down my very, very wealthy friend when he hit on me years ago because I wasn’t attracted to him? He’s very, very, very wealthy! And yet somehow the fact that I don’t feel romantic feelings about him seemed kind of more important!)
Seriously, it is SO insulting to the vast majority of both men and women when you try to simplify relationships down into some stupid exchange of money for hawtness. I do not know a single person who is with their partner solely for either of those things. I’m sure such people exist, but I am also sure they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the people who are with their partners primarily because they actually like their partners and would continue liking them even if they lost their jobs or became old and wrinkly.
I’ve dated people from every economic level from working-class to uncomfortably rich. Does my prettiness… fluctuate?
Also, fronting is a thing. Today I sounded fine and happy on the phone with my parents. I also have some very interesting marks on my arm from self-injury and barely left my room all day. Just because someone doesn’t seem depressed to you DOESN’T MEAN THEY AREN’T DEPRESSED.
Her terrible outlook that relationships are based on only looks and money is really depressing and utterly ridiculous. XD
Though seriously ruby do you see a heterosexual couple and think wow I wonder how much she costed him? Do people you met explain that the reason they are dating x person is because of their money/looks? Is that how you base your relationships? Are you are attracted to the man with the most money/power in the room?
I wonder if a man would ever want to date a rich woman? Prolly not unless she was really hot, huh? Do interesting people ever get dates, I wonder?
This is fun! Talking about human attraction in a weird way that bears no relation to reality. I’ve learned a lot here.
More questions!
Did your parents base their relationship off of wealth/looks? How do you account for queer people? How do you account for poly people? How do you account for women that have dated poor men or men that have dated unattractive women even if they could date more attractive/wealthier people?
My ex-girlfriend had, and still has, a lot more money than I do. Does that mean she has negative prettiness? A mean, I’ve always thought she was pretty. Gorgeous, even. But the numbers just don’t add up, apparently.
Not that I’m going to shock anyone here, but since Ruby won’t read addressing her is futile so I have to address other… XD
The hilarious thing is that even if you don’t define ‘pretty’ or ‘beautiful’, evopsych doesn’t make sense *within white people culture*. If it’s genetically programmed, it really ought to keep seeking out the same things, yet beauty is a cultural standard which shifts rather frequently. To Ruby’s credit, she hasn’t made one of the usual mistakes of evopsyching idiots yet, trying to come up with an explanatory mechanism for why Heidi Klum or whoever is what men are genetically programmed to mate with (Usually something like big boobs and a slim waist indicate fertility). To which one can just point at Reubens and laugh (If you can laugh maniacally enough at the person, in meatspace, I’m given to understand they explode. But this is very difficult).
Of course, Ruby doesn’t HAVE to make that mistake specially, because her argument is ultimately premised on it.
So, okay, what happens if you are a monogamous straight woman–the only kind of woman that exists in Rubyland–and you fall in love with a man who is as rich as your hip-to-waist ratio can afford or some such bullshit, and you get married, and you have 2.5 kids and get a dog named Waffles; and then get you get suddenly sexier? I dunno, maybe your boobs get massive from the pregnancies? Big boobs make you sexier to every straight man ever born, right? I’m not clear how to place women on the Super Objective Scale of Rubyland Prettiness. But anyway, something happens to get your Super Objective rating from a 7 to a 10. Do you then leave your husband to find a richer one? Or do you have some of those fuzzy… whadayacall’em… feeeeeeelings that keep you attached to the original man?
To get serious for a second–Ruby, saying that women make decisions for different reasons than ordinary reasonable people do is the absolute height of sexism.
Honestly, Jumbofish, I think we both know the answer is going to be some shit that either misgenders or Others gay people. Do you just want her to say that, or what?
Also, no women care about dating physically attractive men; all that matters is their income. This is why women are known for having deep, passionate crushes on movie producers, while being far less interested in the buff, shirtless hunks actually starring in the movies. Once those shirtless hunks amass enough of a fortune, they can become attractive to women, of course, but if they lose their money, no woman will want them anymore. Poor guys who look exactly like Brad Pitt or Ryan Gosling find it absolutely impossible to attract women.
Also, women all find people like, say, Paul McCartney WAY more attractive now than he was in 1965. All those girls screaming at early Beatles concerts were just excited by the thought of how rich he would inevitably someday be.