Over on Patriactionary, a proudly reactionary and patriarchal Christian blog, the blogger who calls himself electricangel is angry at himself – for not being an even bigger douchebag than he already is.
You see, he’s just heard from his wife that one of her friends isn’t happy about hitting the big 4-0. Apparently, his wife’s friend
broke down in tears, sobbing uncontrollably. What had hit her was the realization that she was 40, with no husband, no children, no prospects of either, and she was staring at a future of loneliness.
His reaction to this news?
I wish I could tell you that an evil smile of vengeance crept across my face, and the children this woman discarded were getting their revenge upon her. That this was payback for riding the cock carousel for years, always aiming at the guys she wanted, not the guys she could get.
But alas, hidden deep inside in his tiny misogynistic heart there remains a tiny fragment of sympathy.
But I cannot tell you anything other than how saddened I was at her tale, and how this sadness will rip out the hearts of so many women who did not set out to become lonely, childless spinsters, but whose families and societies removed the strictures on their behavior so that their own lack of self-control was left unbounded. This will be the ongoing social disaster of coming years.
I did say it was a tiny fragment.
But he still wants to use this woman’s story for his own ends.
In discussing this woman, I am insistent upon her becoming an object lesson to my wife, and especially for my wife to tell the beautiful, smart, virgin young women close to her about what happens to carousel riders. Life is a coin you may spend any way you like, but you may only spend it once. This woman spent it on an amusement park ride. Now the park is closing, she has been thrown off the ride, and faces 45 years of solitude.
Yeah, because no woman over the age of 40 is capable of ever finding a date or a mate.
Yeah, because her sadness at hitting 40 is going to last for the rest of her life.
Oh, and the bit about “the children this woman discarded?” She didn’t “discard” any children. She simply didn’t have any. She’s not “discarding children” any more than those with penises instead of vaginas are “discarding children” each and every time they masturbate to orgasm.
In the comments, not everyone is quite so restrained as electricangel.
“I don’t even know this woman and I’m pissing myself laughing at her,” writes one commenter going by the name Friendzone. “Fuck her.”
Take The Red Pill is equally unsympathetic:
I have NO sympathy for this woman whatsoever. Just like most Modern Women, she bought into the feminist deception with eyes wide open with never a thought about the future. Well the future has arrived and it looks a lot like a cold, lonely one for her – just like the cold, lonely youth and young adulthood that MOST men have had and continue to have.
Karma has come due, and the bicycles have realized that they don’t need fish, either.
When women like her are young, they treat decent men abominably – being as cruel and sadistic as they can be when rejecting an ‘unwanted’ man’s advances – simultaneously, they enjoy being ‘free whores’ for every player, dirtbag, and Alpha thug who crosses their path; then when they reach their thirties and are little more than ugly, repellent, diseased trollops (often with some thug’s illegitimate spawn or two in tow), they complain about ‘the lack of good men’.
Others adopt Electricangel’s more, er, mature approach. Will S. decides to be a pompous dick about it, while patting himself on the back for his enlightened attitude:
Indeed, it is proper to not gloat, but rather mourn what we have lost, as a society, and feel sorry for those who have made poor decisions – and try to help others not make such poor decisions, by pointing to unfortunate examples, that at least others might learn something from them.
Sometimes, schadenfreude is tempting, but we Christians do generally know better than that.
Because patronizingly exploiting someone’s (probably temporary) sadness to make other people feel shitty about their own lives is such a moral thing to do. Is faux sympathy better than no sympathy at all?
Our friend Sunshinemary jumps on the “let this be a lesson to the rest of you sluts” bandwagon:
We need not mock such women, but we need to hold up their tales as cautionary examples to other young women. The older women themselves cannot face that their lives should serve as an example of what not to do, and they will rationalize it forever.
Electricangel expounds on his plan to use this woman’s apparent misfortune for his own ends:
I am using her as a vector to drop comments to my wife about the dangers of the carousel. Next is the overt suggestion that she talk to some young women about this friend specifically.
Uh, I guess you don’t let your wife read this blog, huh? Because if I discovered that someone close to me was talking about me in such a creepily manipulative and patronizing way, that person would no longer be a part of my life.
Electricangel replies to Sunshinemary:
Yes, those who did not prioritize children will have their genetic tendencies to that behavior removed from the gene pool. Women do not have the sexual options that men do, and not letting them know this early and often is crushing.
But they must be pointed to, and shown as examples. I understand people who will laugh at and mock them; I thought I would. It’s just the enormity of a waste of a life, and the lives she threw away, and the realization that this is just the tip of huge iceberg that has gripped me.
Yes, EA, you’re such a deeply moral person. Posting an “I told you so, you whores!” post on your blog is no doubt exactly the way The Lord would like you to handle this.
In a later comment, he reiterates his plan to use this woman’s story to increase the insecurities of his wife:
I do not feel guilty at all about using this woman’s example to drop pellets of manosphere logic on my wife. It has the side benefit of my wife starting to ask me (because she’s asking herself) “What do I do to bring value to the relatinship?” It is a good thing.
First it was a sad thing, now it’s a “good thing.”
How exactly is this better than gloating? No, scratch that. How is this different than gloating?
“Okay, can anyone parse this for me? I’m not sure whether “meat market” is literal or metaphorical, so I can’t tell whether he’s complaining that feminists are capitalists when it comes to goods and services but not to sex, or that feminists are capitalists when it comes to sex but not when it comes to goods and services.”
It is very simple if one is actually interested in the text being read.
Why is it that unleashed market forces, that is supply and demand are deemed to effect the optimal price on the sexual market but nowhere else.
So you’re not an MRA, you just hate young women. I hope you realize that the problem with MRAs isn’t the name. It’s the misogyny.
There is no “pricing mechanism” for human social interaction. Some people connect with people. Some of these connections lead to sex. This is not a video game. It does not follow any consistent set of rules.
Lynching is a felony too. That doesn’t make it okay when KKK members say it’s a good idea.
No, it’s because what you describe is more similar to d3’s loot system that to actual thousands of human interactions.
When you talk to women, do you roll Charisma-adjusted THAC0 against their Assertiveness Class?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
What the hell are you talking about? Who decides these tiers? Does your tier change the font color your name shows up in?
And yes, if you don’t want a woman to dump on you, tell her you’re uncomfortable. You don’t have to fantasize about her getting poor loot drops from the Life AI.
Since when are Randian economics even a thing? I’m pretty sure Atlas Shrugged didn’t contain an in-depth academic update to common economic graph calculations.
Oh, I can answer this! “Unleashed market forces” don’t affect the optimal price on the sexual market, because there is no such thing as a sexual market.
Hope that cleared things up!
Do you have a link to this? Just wondering.
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/nice-guys-finish-first-without-pickup-gimmickry/
You have this backwards. Supply/demand is the basis of all modern economic formulas, while “people liking people they like” is the basis of romance. Other than misogynists, pretty much nobody has ever said that supply/demand is the optimal basis of romance.
Please note that “Wanting to only have sex with people you like” is not actually rooted in free market economics.
In other words, GRR YOU CRITICIZING MISOGYNY MAKES ME ANGRY AT WOMEN!
Dude, 90% of this exchange is taking place between you and a straw feminist in your head. No one here thinks that the choice of who to have romantic/sexual relationships with is in any way comparable to market economics.
Yeah, I can definitely understand how you read “Treat women like people; put the same work into yourself that you’d expect of a prospective sexual partner; try to develop confidence” as “You’re worthless if you don’t get laid.” I can understand this because you are obviously not very smart.
@DYOR:
““hellkell
If my husband wanted to talk to me about the cock carousel, I’d think he’d lost his mind. And if he tried to use that as a tool to keep me in my place, buh-bye.”
Why do you choose to hide your past? Scared he might judge you? You’re an empowered woman. No man should lose their mind when he meets a slut. Who cares about her slutty past, these are for fun not wife material. Why didn’t you tell him earlier in the relationship and give him a choice to discard you or keep you. Maybe you didn’t want to get dumped? LOL”
Okay, this is just confusing. Where did Hellkell write that she tries to hide her past?
My husband knows that I’ve slept with lots of people before him. It’s no secret, it’s nothing I’m “hiding”. But if he started saying things like “you rode the cock carousel before marrying me!”, yeah, I’d thought he’d lost his mind, or was making some kind of joke.
@Wondering
The article you linked was “men can have sex by being themselves, and don’t have to learn how to manipulate women from internet misogynists.” Do you disagree with that?
There is no sentence saying that men who don’t have sex are bad in any way.
See, this is why links are good, Wondering! Because when we see the link we can tell exactly how full of shit you are when you say stuff like:
and the answer would be yes, that is indeed a hallucination on your part!
Amanda Marcotte: “You have more fun when your friends are having fun, right? Apply the same attitude towards dating, and you’ll become immediately hotter.”
Through the Wondering filter: “I HATE YOUR PENIS AND I HOPE YOU DIE FROM LACK OF SEX BECAUSE YOU ARE A DIRTY MAN CREATURE, NOW I WILL GO HAVE SEX WITH ALL THE GUYS WHO BEAT YOU UP IN HIGH SCHOOL, MWAHAHAHA.”
@katz:
I almost completed an art minor. The art history is boring. “Here’s a dead white guy. Here’s another dead white guy. Here’s the 37th painting of the Crucifixion that we’ve seen this semester. Just for variety, here’s a dead white gal.”
Maybe it was my program, but I saw more art by dead brown people when I spent a few hours in the Smithsonian than I did in college. Of course, I found the architectural achievements of dead white people a lot more awe-inspiring than their paintings.
The oil painting was great. I am informed that glass-blowing is dangerous and sweaty, but fulfilling. Clay is sloppy. Life drawing involves less being embarrassingly excited around nude people than I was afraid of.
I couldn’t ever balance a chemical equation.
So…we need safety regulations for dating and sex now? Antitrust laws? Intellectual – erm, sexual – property protections? What?
/ facetious
Seriously, I’m confused about why you think pure supply-and-demand applies in the “sexual market” even on your own terms. If supply and demand were the only rule in play, the “value” of single heterosexual men in the eyes of single heterosexual women would depend solely on the number of single heterosexual men in existence, not on factors like their age and/or prior sexual experience(s). Yet those are precisely the factors you’re decrying – not only for existing, but for being substantial barriers to (your) dating life.
Your argument lacks internal logic. (Also external logic, but let’s start simple.)
“So you’re not an MRA, you just hate young women. I hope you realize that the problem with MRAs isn’t the name. It’s the misogyny.”
I don’t hate young women. Is it impossible for you to parse that one can be critical of an action, without being critical of the actor?
“There is no “pricing mechanism” for human social interaction. Some people connect with people. Some of these connections lead to sex. This is not a video game. It does not follow any consistent set of rules.”
There is indeed a pricing mechanism for social interaction. This manifests itself in how much am I willing to pay of my time/relations/possesions/alternatives to spend time with this person.
“Lynching is a felony too. That doesn’t make it okay when KKK members say it’s a good idea.”
This makes no sense. It is not criminal to write stupid things.
“When you talk to women, do you roll Charisma-adjusted THAC0 against their Assertiveness Class?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?”
Let me guess. You have had plenty of sexual encounters, you are fairly popular with people? Lots of friends?
Try being told that you are just a porn-abusing basement troll a couple of hundred times first.
“What the hell are you talking about? Who decides these tiers? Does your tier change the font color your name shows up in?”
So, why is it that Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt can walk from woman to woman, as an illustration. There is indeed some men who are much much more attractive than others.
“And yes, if you don’t want a woman to dump on you, tell her you’re uncomfortable. You don’t have to fantasize about her getting poor loot drops from the Life AI.”
I have a simpler solution. I don’t waste any of time on them. Now if they could only stop demanding sympathy when they are subjected to the very same things that they subject others to.
“Unleash your market forces, baby” is not actually a good pick up line, Wondering. That may be your problem with the “first tiers.”
@Dani
What you’re missing about W’s theory is that people have intrinsic tiers, set by the game engine based on how many heroes are in your party and the difficulty you’re playing on. If you take your sexual partner back to town, you can sell them to the blacksmith for an amount based on their tier. Thus, one Legendary man is more valubale to a group of female adventurers than three Uncommon men.
Makes perfect sense, it you live in the World of Warcraft.
So, when’s the troll-splosion gonna happen for this one?
Actually, that’s not at all what you did, but I’ll address the problematicity of both points:
1. No, you aren’t horribly flawed if you’re a virgin at 25, so when someone says so it’s a pretty ignorant and mean thing to say. Maybe such a person, like myself (a virgin at 24), is simply shy an introverted. I doubt you’ll find women saying such things on literally every internet forum, however. In your case, though, I’d say your generalized anger at women is a personality flaw, and you should really work on it before trying out a romantic relationship. Women can probably tell if you’re some frothing misogynist, and I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they don’t like that.
2. The second example is not problematic because you don’t deserve sexual attention that people don’t want to give to you. I would disagree with the phrasing that a lack of sexual attention means you deserve none. However, I doubt anyone has said that to you.
My favorite bit of this is that Ayn Rand explicitly argues in Atlas Shrugged that, when it comes to love and sex, people seek out their own highest versions of themselves, for good or bad. Thus folks who don’t value themselves very much end up with partners who don’t value themselves, and people who value themselves highly end up with partners who value themselves highly.
(I should point out that for Rand, “self-value” is based on what one has actually accomplished, versus what one can talk up about oneself. Thus folks whose accomplishments stand on their own have high self-value and wind up with similar partners, while folks who talk a good game but inside have a deep sense of inferiority and know it’s all puff end up with similarly inferior-feeling folks. And folks who are all “it’s no use, I have nothing to contribute to the world that anybody would want ever, I’ma die alone” …end up alone.)
@Wondering:
“Do you have a link to this? Just wondering.
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/nice-guys-finish-first-without-pickup-gimmickry/”
I just read the article. This is basically what she says: She thinks PUA culture is toxic and misogynistic. So she comes up with some advice that she thinks is better, non-toxic and non-misogynistic.
She does NOT say that the only reason that people can’t get laid is that they’re toxic or misogynistic. She simply thinks that you’re likely to end up that way if you get immersed in PUA culture, and that this won’t actually help your prospects.
Giving advice to people who have trouble getting dates or getting laid only makes sense if you assume that at least some people with these problems have them because they don’t know how to behave. If you thought that all people in unwanted celibacy were “worthless”, why on Earth would you try to give them dating advice?
No one is demanding sympathy from you. We’d really rather you just go away.
I hate murder not the murderer I hate gay sex not gay people! Sounds funny? These things are linked because its one group doing one action. Insisting they are not just sounds odd because actions are a part of humans. You can’t really ignore the fact that a person is behind those actions.
Wait, I think I’ve figured it out! Men are in different tiers because they are all actually made of cake. There are also different tiers of women because they are part of another cake. This theory doesn’t quite explain why the first tier is the more desirable part of the cake but I’m working on it.
Also constantly rambling about the “meat market” isn’t going to get you dates dude.