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
I am kind of loving that he’s picked up the MRA tendency for silly numbers – 80 supermodels. I haven’t had anywhere near 80 sexual partners in total, never mind supermodels. At this point I’m kind of expecting his next move to be a Dr Evil-like “1 billion supermodels”.
Yeah there were many times when he wasn’t trolling that he came across as a likable and fun guy. But then trolling, the persecution complex and the sockpuppeting just ruined everything.
Funny thing is…all the hate laws, like VAWA, child custody, job quota’s, grants of every type is for only women. The list and money spent by law on only women is endless. So for all the lip service, the hatred is clearly in womens court. Only the gender with all the power could possibly have hatred enacted into law.
RE Post-Communism and Feminism, last semester I had a sci-fi/fantasy literature professor who once or twice told about how, during her time in Russia (I think), when she would bring up feminism to a group of women, suddenly the room would go quiet, the door would be shut, and conversation would continue more quietly than before. Fascinating and sad.
I’ve seen a number of episodes of SATS, and it amazes me how people considered it a feminist show or the women sexually liberated.
There was one ep where Carrie dated a bisexual guy. She was OBSESSED with the fact that he’d been with other men. Then she kissed a girl at a party in a stupid kissing game, and completely FREAKED OUT afterwards because OMG she had a slight homosexual experience.
There was one ep where Charlotte dated a creep who just announced out of nowhere that he was gonna have anal sex with her. Like not asking if she was into the idea or anything, just announcing it. Charlotte talked things over with her friends, and EVERYONE agreed that the ONLY thing to worry about here was if Mr Creep was gonna respect Charlotte more or less after having access to her arse. What Charlotte felt about the idea was apparently unimportant.
Everyone was obsessed with marriage. Like, I don’t think marriage in itself is “un-feminist” or anything, I married myself at the tender age of 24… But there’s a difference between a) first finding Mr/Ms Right, and then wanting to marry him/her, and b) wishing that one would find Mr/Ms Right because getting married is SO IMPORTANT and the only goal really worth striving for in life. The SATS chicks, at least Carrie, Charlotte and Miranda, seemed to be pretty much about b.
Tried to watch SATC a few times, always gave up after about 5 minutes. I can understand why the friendship element appealed to people, but it really seemed like a very boring show and not particularly progressive at all. I found it gratingly irritating for reasons I can’t quite explain.
Crap, lost the explanation for that last one. Ah, you can figure it out. Creepiness =/= men only, etc.
“Creepy” is not, and has never been, a gendered insult. I’ve met plenty of creepy women in my time.
Indeed, much of the Western world’s fairytale mythology revolves around the notion of certain types of women being creepy.
The witch who hands Snow White the apple – not creepy at all.
Men are logical and rational, but also believe that they just know right and wrong, no need to think about it, they just know, and that is in no way an emotional reaction. Riiiiight.
Oh my. I’m also confused about where these people derive their morals from. Are they religious as a group? If so, don’t they think that god is the arbiter of moral issues and not them? If they aren’t religious, why so much emphasis on sex before marriage being wrong? Where does that stem from as the consensual, safe practice of sex hurts nobody. This piece has left me with so many questions.
(In the interest of being open about ‘socking, because I worry so much about posting revealing details under my real name, I’ve posted as both Elodie and Arryna before settling on this handle. Er, sorry about that. There are less than a dozen people in my field who go by Elodie, so I worry, but I’m kind of attached to it as my identity.)
Anyway, I have just never been able to understand why “logic/reason” is supposedly massively inherently better than “emotion” ? Why? Obviously Logic is associated with being Male and Therefore Better, but I don’t see what its objective superiority is. Logic isn’t all that great. While I’m generally a pragmatic and practical person, I can’t logic my bad feelings away any more than I can logic myself into feeling great all the time, and at the end of the day I prefer to seek out experiences that make me feel good, rather than choices I’ve made to appease the High God Logic. Even my highly logical career choice in a STEM field was made because… doing things that I’m good at makes me feel happy and satisfied..?
So what exactly is so great about logic? Deductive reasoning and the scientific method are excellent things that I use every day, but I don’t feel the need to sacrifice goats to them. And why is it that people who CRY LOGIC AND LET LOOSE THE HOUNDS OF WAR are generally people who identify waaaaaaay too much with Nikola Tesla?
And yet again, they blatantly ignore the ACTUAL PURPOSE of Slutwalks, which is to call attention to the fact that women are raped wearing all kinds of clothing, not all of which are “slutty,” and that focusing attention on what they were wearing rather than on the man who raped them is counter productive and does nothing to stop rape. But of course, MRAs don’t actually care about stopping rape. They’d rather pretend that it doesn’t happen and women are all lying bitches when they say it does.
@Quackers Oh that rant, oh god! How is misogyny at all like the word uppity? How do those relate in any way?
Also, any man that makes me prove I am not a slut, deceiver, false rape accuser, whatever, is no man I’m trying to date. So please keep holding these impossible “guilty until proven innocent” standards over our heads, but be blunt about them. When you meet a lady, let her know that you need records (that would be impossible to obtain) of her good woman-ness, proving that she is not any of these things you hate. That way she can promptly exit the conversation and not waste any time on the likes of you.
I think this is a backlash of the myth that feminists think that all men are rapists. You know, some who have been brutally raped, or repeatedly raped, I can see that happening to them and I get it. But the vast majority of us do not feel that way. However, when MRAs teach us to be constantly on guard of our lady parts and not walk down any back alleys or wear short skirts lest we be raped, it doesn’t really help wean women off the idea that all men might be rapists, now does it? But hey, I’m just an emotional woman who responds to nothing but pretty colors and flashing lights, what do I know? These MRAs who have been cheated on or went through bad divorces are totally not reactionary at all. This is straight up anecdotal fact here!
@CassandraSays Love the MRAs who try to pretend like they are super flattered and receptive when women they don’t find attractive hit on them. They are allowed to desire and expect 10’s but we have to settle for guys who sit in the basement jerking off to revenge porn with doritos crumbs all over their beer guts. If we admit that we have a type (and, tbqh, women seem pretty varied in their types from my experience, my girlfriends find men who I find repulsive to be adorable, and vice versa), and that we would like to date within that type, we are superficial. But every nice guy deserves a super model.
And uh, there’s an easy way to change your “creepiness.” It’s called learning to take no for an answer, not lurking/staring for extended periods of time, picking up on signals and social cues and accepting them, showering. Haha. No really, the only time I call men creepers is when they’re legitimately creeping. Like those dudes who insist on buying me a drink when I say no over and over again because I don’t want the company that accepting that drink implies, but they keep hanging around, insisting, and eventually call me a bitch for sparing them the 5 dollars the drink would cost… those are creepers. If they’re just phsyically unattractive to me and existing alongside me it’s not a problem. I think these dudes really struggle with accepting rejection and moving on.
Do they even pretend to like it when women they don’t find attractive hit on them? I’ve seen a lot more straight up hypocrisy, to be honest. Not specifically from MRAs, from men in general. The idea that if I, hypothetical dude, would prefer to have sex with people I find attractive, then hypothetical woman probably feels the same way, generally speaking, never even seems to occur to some guys, and when it’s pointed out indignance is a common response.
This is we keep coming back to the whole “women are people” thing, because some people just don’t seem to be able to grasp that simple idea and extrapolate from there, eg. “oh, so I guess most people prefer to have sex with people they’re attracted to, then?”.
I thought that the MRM was just a bunch of angry people on the internet ranting about sluts but now I realize it is actually an intelligent strategy used by the logical men behind the mrm to engage with women who can’t use reason and only react to emotion. I guess that explains why feminism has so much research and evidence and well reasoned arguments behind it. Those crafty women are scheming to use reason and logic to manipulate men into accepting their feminists lies.
Endless citation? I’d like to see one or two. I mean dudes, there are men in Feminsm. You can’t just pronounce to us; we need reason.
As creatures of reason we will just look at your emotional pronouncements and, rightly, dismiss them as being fallacious “appeals to emotion” and so outside the, “socratic search for truth”.
In other words, Citation(s) needed.
Me see no maybe-conflict. Conflict mean. Me see only good-nice blockquote.
Again, this is another example of misogynists claiming that men have a monopoly on a particular trait. In this case it’s reason. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, “Women are emotional, men are logical.” It’s bullshit! Men are more violent, and violence is the result of emotion, not reason. Therefore men are emotional. Promoting the idea that men own logic is a way for men to justify their hoarding of power, keeping it away from women. Fundie religionists are the worst about doing this.
I find it interesting that the “up vote/down vote” king does not mention voting today.
The article was poorly accetped. Traditionalists are fewer and fewer in the MRM.
In comparison, the hard heart of feminism becomes colder and more cruel every day. For example, I wonder if any of you are capable of feeling anything, anything at all, when you see this:
Also, I’ve noticed that the same guys who claim that men are logical but women are emotional are the same ones who claim that men cannot control their sexual urges and cannot be expected to refrain from putting their hands on strangers on the street if they are dressed “slutty.”
Oh noes, the imaginary feminists that live in Antzland are being mean again! How sad.
Antz really? So now, not only are men more logical, they are also the only ones to have the finer sensibilities of compassion and empathy?
Or are you just trying to catch us out for being emotional?
“No, no, you’ve got your simplistic gender essentialist stereotypes backwards” isn’t really helping.
Men and women are both human, and thus both endowed with generous capacities for logic and emotion.
Anthony, I’m a feminist and I cried like a baby at the end of Life is Beautiful.