Every woman I know who’s tried online dating has gotten all sorts of weird and sleazy messages from guys, from crude sexual come-ons (“sorry for being forward but id love to cum on your glasses :)”) to terrible “sexy” jokes (“So ay girl, you looking for a stud? Because I got the std, all I need is u :)”) to fetish-tastic examples of Too Much Information (“I WISH I WERE A DOG SO I COULD SUCK MYSELF OFF”). (No, guys, appending a smiley face emoticon does not make it ok to be a grotesque douchebag.)
You always wonder what guys like this are thinking. With the dog lover at the end, it’s clear he was trying to rattle a woman who hadn’t replied to two earlier messages of increasing creepiness. With the others, I suppose they think there’s always a tiny chance that some woman out there is as desperate and horny and undiscerning as they are.
What’s stranger are those who lead not with sexual come ons but with blatant misogyny. Do men really think that women melt at the thought of dating a man who hates half the human race? Or are they just looking for yet another chance to mansplain their Men’s Rights bullshit to the world?
Here are a couple of examples of this strange and unsuccessful approach to winning over women which I found on the delightful and disturbing blog The Ladies of OkCupid, which documents the quests of three women searching for love online.
Sometimes the misogyny sneaks up on you, as in this OkCupid profile from a “laid-back” slut-shamer (who was clearly not an English major):
This fellow, by contrast, launches into the misogyny right from the start, suggesting that the woman he’s writing is exceptional, simply because she’s not stupid and illogical like the rest of her gender:
This “edgy” fellow tries to break the ice with some lovely rape jokes:
But the strangest one I’ve seen so far comes from this dude, who uses his OKCupid profile as an opportunity to mansplain why feminism is eeeeeevil:
Oh, and that list keeps going; it’s one hundred items long.
As Jasmine from The Ladies of OKCupid writes,
Delusional and repulsive takes on a whole new level with this one, because I really don’t think he’s kidding. He has every social media outlet known to man with all the same crap, and his profile is HUGE. So either he’s attempting to become the ultimate Canadian troll, or he really thinks there’s a woman out there who exists like this AND would be interested in him, of all people. Really? He offers little more than a receding hairline and an outrageous sense of entitlement in return.
To paraphrase Animal House, delusional and repulsive is no way to go through life.
Happily for The Ladies of OKCupid, and the rest of those ladies seeking love online, not all the messages are like this. For example, take this message about a basic but delicious foodstuff:
Also, the woman who got the message above about that thinking-outside-the-box use for her glasses? She stayed on OkCupid, and is now in a happy relationship with a dude she met there who is not a shitlord.
in other words, youre ranting about the hidden communist influence like any cookie-cutter bircher. why is this supposed to be relevant in 2012?
@Joe,
Yeah, I’ve actually read some Marx, and I never found the part where he advocated the mass starvation of Ukranian peasants. Maybe you could cite that for me?
Stalin and Mao were mass murdering monsters, but to say that Marxism was about dividing people into classes that previously didn’t exist is just silly. Social classes have existed for rather longer than Marxism as an ideology. What Marx did is to point out that the working classes didn’t have to put up with the arrangement.
Marx would probably not have been a supporter of the Russian and Chinese revolutions, because he believed that proletarian revolution could not occur in countries that were not industrialized. That idea that a Marxist revolution could happen in feudal, agrarian Russia would have seemed absurd to Marx. In fact, the Bolsheviks hesitated to become involved in the initial revolt against the Czar because, according to their ideology, Russia was not ready for a proletarian revolution. The Marxism practiced by Stalin and Mao would be scarcely recognizable to Marx.
” the first book to take an in-depth look at contemporary American Indian gender diversity”
stop being terrible at reading things
for what reason besides that its inconvenient to your argument, and because they dont share the traits youve arbitrarily demanded marxism must display?
@Sharculese – whatthefuckever
@A bunch of people – believing in PC / genderized deconstruction / reconstruction of language is NOT a necessary precusor to treating women equally. Or treating trans folks equally, for that matter.
@Cliff – well, okay then. Just so long as you’re not supporting Stalin. ;p
@ Falconer – Ahahahahahahahaaaa!! Okay that was really fucking funny! XD
Which is not to say that I consider myself a Marxist; I’m just not inclined to believe that a guy who talked approvingly about the withering away of the state would have been a fan of Stalin and Mao–any more than Rousseau, from what I’ve heard, would have been a fan of the Reign of Terror.
lol is joe taking his ball and going home
or his he taking his ball and stalking around the edge of the playing field simpering about how were using the word ball wrong?
shit, should i have appended a tongue out emoticon to that so it doesnt look like im really standing behind what i said? was my post not mealy-mouthed enough?
So, Joe, how are we on Jesus?
I mean, sure, he was all ‘love each other,’ ‘don’t hurt anybody,’ ‘hey, you know how you’re supposed to love your neighbor and hate your enemy? Wouldn’t it be cool if we just assumed everybody on earth is your neighbor?’ But guys who said they were following him killed a bunch of epople. And some guys who were all ‘let’s do good things’ –like, say, Gandhi or MLK–cite him too. Does the fruit of the poisontree mean you can’t listen to anything Gandhi or MLK said?
@Joe
Have you ever read Marx? Marx advocated for the eventual abolition of the state. POUM were Marxists. The reason the Soviets didn’t trust them was that they weren’t Leninists, who advocate for state socialism.
Also, let’s see if I’m following your argument correctly.
1. Zie is a bad thing to call yourself
2. That’s because there are only two possible gender identities, which have remained totally constant throughout every society.
3. Obviously, that’s not true. However, the people who have pointed out that it is true were academics in the 60s, who are tangentially related to the Frankfurt School.
4. The Frankfurt School was influenced by the annales school of social science.
5. The annales school partially integrates some Marxist historiography.
6. Marx didn’t believe in a state and wanted everyone to live in limited co-operative communities.
7. However, when Marx was fifty years it the grave, a guy named Lenin adapted his philosophy to include a powerful central state.
8. People who adopted Leninism committed mass murder through a large state.
9. Therefore, though Marx wanted to abolish states, his philosophy is retroactively related to these murders. His philosophy had a small impact on the annales school, which later evolved into the Frankfurt school, which impacted all social sciences, therefore the social scientists pointing out the obvious changing cultural aspects of gender, which you can’t argue against, are wrong. Pointing out true things is wrong if you are tangentially related 150 years backwards and 100 years forwards again to something bad.
10. Your main source for what society should be like, instead of the marxofeminism that has so clearly taken hold, is Orwell, an explicit Marxist who wasa lifelong member of a Marxist party and took a bullet under a Marxist banner. However, despite the fact that your ideal society was described by a Marxist, it’s okay because he was also critical of Leninism. The fact that 60s academics and 2nd wave feminists were also by and large critical of Leninism is irrelevant, because their names weren’t George Orwell.
Do I have this right?
@Sharculese – read the book.
@Bathrobe – I never said those classes did not exist. Go re-read what I actually said.
Basically, my argument is Marxism was the intellectual basis used to justify murdering mountains of people. You can have a late night student chin-stroking discussion about whether Stalinism or Maoism or the Khmer Rouge were REALLY Marxism or whatthefuckever, but who gives a fuck. People who self-identified as Marxists &employed Marxist propaganda were frequently mass murderers who used Marxism as an apologia for that mass murdering. Therefore, I choose not to trust Marxism and all its works. So sue me. :p
Anyone here seen Ken Loach’s movie Land and Freedom? Really good dramatization of the Spanish Civil War. There’s one scene of an assembly in a newly liberated village that is just classic, and he covers the politics of the time & place pretty thoroughly.
And Anders Breivik, a user of MRA rhetoric, killed 69 people.
What I’m saying is, this may not be the logical path that you want to go down.
*However, the people who have pointed out that it is NOT true were academics in the 60s, who are tangentially related to the Frankfurt School.
sorry typo
-Joe
-George Orwell, Why Socialists don’t believe in fun, 1943. http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/work/essays/fun.html
-George Orwell, Peace News, January 27, 1939.
What the crack kind of transphobia did I wake up to…
Um fuck no boy, you don’t know shit about trans people so stop talking for them mkay? Some people transition to feel more comfortable with their own body, they id whatever gender before transitioning (if they do).
Also no one is asking you like or use genderqueer pronouns on yourself, words change society changes. Deal with it.
why would i do that when the description pretty clearly states that its not at all what youre claiming its about? wouldnt that be a waste of my time?
or do you not know the difference between ‘contemporary’ and ‘historical’? because, yeah, i’m totally aware that a lot of contemporary queer native american communities use the two-spirit tradition as a catch-all framework. i can also tell the difference between that and what ‘two-spirit’ means, because i have this ultra secret skill called ‘reading for context’
@cloudiah
i have not, but ive read antony beevor’s the spanish civil war, which does a fantastic job of capturing the human side of the war, so im pretty much lauging at joe’s blithe generalizations about the internal politics of the republican forces
@ugh – No, I haven’t read Marx. Life is too short. I’ve judged Marx by the deeds of those who claimed to be following him. I judge most people by their deeds rather than their words.
If I have done Marx a disservice, and he wanted to abolish the state (altho’ thats the first I’ve ever heard of it, so I suspect you may be full of shit) well he’s long dead, so he probably can’t hear me say “Sorry chap” if I’m actually wrong about his works.
No, I’ve been arguing against the use of the word “gender*” in reference to humans, I identified (repeatedly) THREE sexes: male, female, intersex (of which the last is kind of a catch-all for a minority of people who differ from male / female in a variety of biological ways, including neurobiology).
*And I’m against the concept it signifies, i.e. a set of roles bundled together and assigned to that “gender”. The whole concept of “gender”, “gender roles”, “deconstruction / reconstruction” thereof just smacks of manipulation.
Humans have a bio-sex at birth, that can be modified later for those people who really don’t feel right with their birth sex. That reality should not get confused with an endless fountain of psychosocialogical jargon, that derives at least in part from sources that have brought the world a great deal of misery.
That’s my argument. Everyone here disagrees with me. Fair enough, you’re allowed to disagree with me. I’m not Stalin. :p
I don’t think you even know what genderqueer means, they don’t identify as men or women why would they use pronouns for women/men?
Misgendering trans people is not respectful of their lives at all you fuckwit.
Go take your cisplaining somewhere else kay?
“I’ve judged Marx by the deeds of those who claimed to be following him.”
Again, given the movement that you’re affiliated with, this is really not a smart argument for you to be making.
You can have a late night student chin-stroking discussion about whether Stalinism or Maoism or the Khmer Rouge were REALLY Marxism or whatthefuckever, but who gives a fuck.
Evidently you do, because you were more than eager to tar anything smacking of Marxism with the Stalinist brush. It’s really not a stretch to say that certain ideologies lend themselves to differing courses of social action. As a parallel, I am not about to dispose of Darwinism just because some assholes have misappropriated his theories for their own self-serving social agenda. Marx was wrong about many things, but he was also right about quite a few things as well. Why throw that out because of Stalin and Mao? It’s like refusing to drive on the autobahn, because Hitler.
“I mean, sure, I could do the absolute minimum amount of work to learn about a subject before rambling on about ridiculous conspiracy theories, but think of all the identity-policing I’d miss out on!”
But you just said you’re judging Marx by other people’s deeds.
But, fuck it. You have fun making weird arguments about Marx, and I’m going to let people tell me what their gender is and what their pronoun preferences are and behave accordingly. Like a decent person.