Categories
a voice for men antifeminism antifeminst women crackpottery evil women FemRAs hypocrisy I am making a joke I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA MRA paradox patriarchy reactionary bullshit sluts the enigma that is ladies

Calling women names = human rights advocacy: A visit to A Voice for Men.

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

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

367 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cloudiah
8 years ago

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.

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

Maybe instead of money, women should get Prettiness Grants. Clearly that’s more useful to us anyway.

jumbofish
8 years ago

Basically, men get the prettiest women their money can afford

O_o

pillowinhell
8 years ago

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.

cloudiah
8 years ago

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!

jumbofish
8 years ago

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”…

pillowinhell
8 years ago

So Ruby, how much are you worth?

cloudiah
8 years ago

I’m Donald Trump! (start at about 0:50)

Lady Zombie
Lady Zombie
8 years ago

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.

Bee
Bee
8 years ago

Good debate, though, Ruby! Good use of feminist ideas and making fun of MRA talking points! Let’s do it again.

jumbofish
8 years ago

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

pillowinhell
8 years ago

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

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

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.

Bee
Bee
8 years ago

I bet really rich single women don’t care about looks at all.

I know I don’t.

Polliwog
Polliwog
8 years ago

Gee, are we back to the argument about sexual attraction? Basically, men get the prettiest women their money can afford, and women get the wealthiest men their looks can afford. This explains perfectly why Donald Trump can attract sexy women. It’s not his looks or personality, it’s his money and power. Yeah, we women are attracted to money and power. This isn’t to say all women are gold digger, we’re not. But we are practical, and we want our children to have every advantage.

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.

ozymandias42
8 years ago

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.

jumbofish
8 years ago

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?

Bee
Bee
8 years ago

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.

jumbofish
8 years ago

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?

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

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.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

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.

Viscaria
Viscaria
8 years ago

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?

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

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.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

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?

Polliwog
Polliwog
8 years ago

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?

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.

jumbofish
8 years ago

@rutee
I personally don’t really care to hear her weird excuse for poly or gay people but I know she won’t answer anyway. I am just pointing out how ridiculous she is.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

Oh surprise, Ruby didn’t answer any question, changed subject and ran away. I am shocked, people.
Anyway, I’m terrible at evolution. I study in an engineering school, surrounded by men all day and here I am, dating a soon to be teacher. And it’s no even like I’m too ugly for engineer students, I was asked out by one of them (well kind of, but that’s another story) but I refused because he was creepy. (ahah, MRA, I called him creepy, I’m worse than Hitler!)
Also I don’t plan to make babies any time soon. (I can barely take care of me, so that would be the worse idea ever even if that was something I wanted)

seranvali
8 years ago

I love how the evo-psyche types never actually mention the real reasons why people marry or choose important, long term partners, little things like (shhhhh) love, friendship, companionship, shared interests, being able to depend on your partner in a crisis and raising kids together. All of it goes by the board because they want to think that partnering is a simple pecuniary transaction, which is among the daftest things I’ve ever heard!

Believe it or not many, many of us have complex, happy, trusting, honest relationships lasting decades.

Pecunium
8 years ago

Big Momma: are people on benefits in the US able to access tuition for free, especially if it seen as ‘vocational’? in the UK and Oz (where i now live), people are able to attend college whilst claiming back to work/disability benefits to retrain.

Generally not. It depends on the type of disability they are getting. If it’s federal (i.e. national) benefits, then no. If it’s state benefits, it depends on the state, and the type of disability. If it’s that one has been disabled in a way that makes one’s specific ability to do a job (say one is a wine blender, and has lost some sense of smell), then retraining may be offered.

But as a rule, they have to pay the tuition anyone else does, AND they aren’t eligible to access vocational retraining funds, because they aren’t considered employable.

Pecunium
8 years ago

Ruby: Weird how you guys take up for people who put undo stress on our safety nets.

Citation needed.

As to the “argument on sexual attraction”. I had let it drop. I merely took the crashing echoes of your silence as an admission of defeat. I see I was wrong.

So… I’ll repeat myself

And this one

That’s four studies which contradict the one you linked to. The other crap you proffered, on the subject of hypergamy, is still crap, and the comments above the first link explain why it is.

But it’s not really about the “sexual attraction” argument. It’s about how you don’t support the personal opinions you present and then pretend are proven “truths”.

Ruby Hypatia
Ruby Hypatia
8 years ago

On to the next topic. You guys really need to calm down from your hysteria. LOL!

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Instead of tone trolling us Ruby, why don’t you move on to the next website, AWAY from us?

pillowinhell
8 years ago

Hahaahahahahahaha! Wut?

Ruby, we listen to the exact same drivel from every troll who comes on here. There’s nothing new to get over excited about. When I called you a cowardly shit it was a statement of fact, not an emotional response.

pillowinhell
8 years ago

Ruby has become tedious, much like the droning of a mosquito in your ear. Anyone else want ruby banned?

pecunium
pecunium
8 years ago

Ruby: Care to actually respond to the arguments presented?

Or are you going to continue emulating trolls?

And, this being a medium where we have nothing but what you present, to act like a troll is to be a troll.

You get to choose your identity.

(and, being a man, I have no uterus, and so can’t be, “hysterical”, but nice use of a sexist insult. The MRM would be proud).

Pecunium
8 years ago

Banned? No. I think the bar should be high. Then again, I was willing to be patient with Brandon for far after he’d outlived his origninality. Ruby’s descent into irrelevance wasn’t much of a surprise. The “rugged individualist” strain of libertarianism tends to have a lot of essentialism, which tends to lead to acceptance of sexist tropes.

But hope springs eternal.

The thin-skinned ability to deal with people who are, understandably, frustrated with her intellectual dishonesty and petty attacks; mixed in with direct aspersions on her opponents character, and honesty… well who can blame people for being a bit acerbic?

Not I.

pillowinhell
8 years ago

True enough Pecunium. What I really want to know, is that if women marry the richest man their looks can buy, how much is Ruby worth? And what will she do when those looks fade and he husband decides to buy a new model?

Pretty much any woman can cook and clean and raise children, but no woman maintains the same beauty throughout a lifetime. Hell, her husband could probably save himself some expense and hire a live in nanny.

But hey, this is clearly the world she wants to live in, always following her husbands gaze.

Bee
Bee
8 years ago

You guys really need to calm down from your hysteria.

What a great feminist statement. I totes take back what I said about you sounding like an MRA in disguise.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

I don’t want her banned. Let’s have moderated until she can cite a real source or prove she’s read and understood people’s rebuttals to her nonsense.

Kyrie
Kyrie
8 years ago

So Ruby, feel like you’ve answered too many questions? Feel free to move on and troll on another subject (or change, but I doubt we’ll see that happen) just like we’ll feel free to remember and remind others that you’re a troll. And dare to ask questions sometimes.

Bee: she probably isn’t, and it’s sad she call herself a feminist and be so sexist.

Btw, I don’t think she deserves to be banned, based on the standards of the blog.

Cliff Pervocracy
8 years ago

I don’t think Ruby’s earned a banning. (I mean, shit, we let Meller post.) Just a “yo, we didn’t forget the last thread” the next time.

I also think that she honestly thinks she’s a feminist. She’s all for women’s equal right to be hysterical and hypergamous… or something.

I think Ruby has some seriously advanced mechanisms to avoid thinking anything through all the way.

pillowinhell
8 years ago

Alright, banned might be a bit much…but really Ruby is very dull whilst we try to spoonfeed remedial human decency 101 to her. I figure it will likely take another decade of that before we can get to any other social justice basics.

And I think rubys made it pretty clear that’s she’s not interested in even listening.

Pecunium
8 years ago

My problem with Ruby is her lack of self-awareness. She thinks the response she’s getting is related to what she says, not how she deals with us.

It’s not that I give a damn that she completely failed on the subject of “what women want/what men want”, it’s that she thinks it’s about that.

When it’s about her lack of honest engagement.

Sharculese
Sharculese
8 years ago

@kyrie

Anyway, I’m terrible at evolution.

‘rock made biology’. that’s all you gotta know

Sharculese
Sharculese
8 years ago

y’know, i don’t doubt that there are ‘moochers’ (to borrow ruby’s childish phrase) on every level of society, from top to bottom. if a few of them are taking advantage of the system, my felling is kind of ‘so the fuck what’. it’s a pretty small price to pay for the benefits of living in a society that takes care of its own.

Pecunium
8 years ago

I’m wth Sharculese: It’s a case of pennywise, and pound foolish. I also think the level/types of enforcement are excessive, in that they make it much harder for people who aren’t abusing the system to use it without being made to feel abused instead of helped.

ithiliana
8 years ago

@Pecunium: Re: Ruby She thinks the response she’s getting is related to what she says, not how she deals with us.

I agree, and note it was true of the more….hmmm…..I don’t want to say mediocre trolls, but the *not so extremely out there in bizarreoh world that they just want to cut/paste rants and mostly could care less what they get in return” (unlike DKM and NWO)…

Certain MRAL and B___n fall into Ruby’s category.

@Sharculese: I agree with you, and would note that the little known or little acknowledged fact about the “social welfare system” in the US is how it’s supported a whole lot of people who wouldn’t have a job otherwise–and yet because it’s so underfunded and people are so overworked and so much of the emphasis in recent years is on finding those terrible moochers that it’s not serving anybody well–either the people who need help, or the people who go into this public job area (don’t even get me started on privatizing it, or I will be forced to post links about what TExas did.).

Back to work…………….

cloudiah
8 years ago

The moochers discussion reminds me of the discussion around voter identification laws in the U.S. In order to take care of the nearly nonexistent problem of voter fraud, they want to make it much harder for everyone — but particularly the poor, elderly, etc. — to vote.

they make it much harder for people who aren’t abusing the system to use it without being made to feel abused instead of helped.

This.
You know that law they passed in Florida to test welfare recipients for drugs? How many tested positive? 2%. The state is now on the hook to pay for the tests for the vast majority who did not test positive. (Leaving aside the question of whether or not people who DO test positive should just starve to death on the sidewalk, which is not something that I believe.)

katz
8 years ago

Oh I’m sorry. Heh. What, should I leave this blog?

Oops, sorry, I didn’t mean you were contributing nothing! Your points about neurological development were very interesting. I meant I was contributing nothing because everyone was talking about serious stuff and I was making a masturbation joke.