Complementarian Loners, a relationship blog of sorts run by two kinky but reactionary Catholics (and which I’ve written about before), describes itself as “primarily a blog of ideas.” The main idea seems to be that women are awful, worthless creatures. Surprisingly, it is CL, the female half of the blogging team, who is often the most vociferous on this point.
In a post unironically titled “Tits or GTFO (a.k.a. How Women Ruin Everything),” CL defends the regular harassment women face when entering – sorry, “invading” – “male spaces” online. As she writes:
Too many women will waltz in and expect to engage everyone, with no sense that perhaps they should just hang back once they’ve had their say if they even have it. They talk and talk and talk, derailing conversations, going off-topic usually to talk about themselves, until all that’s left is a room full of clucking hens and all the smart guys eventually get fed up and leave.
They want to be considered equals yet prove they do not deserve it both by showing that what they really want is to be up on that pedestal and that they are incapable of rational thought.
I have to confess that I have never actually seen this happening in any “male space” online, though I’ve seen numerous female spaces invaded and overrun by blabby mansplainy guys, often of the MRA persuasion. That’s certainly happened often enough on Reddit, where virtually every woman-centric subreddit from TwoXChromosome to Feminism has been rendered almost useless for discussion, a process depicted symbolically in the gif below.
Meanwhile, over at the “male spaces,” women are all too often shut down and/or run off by obnoxious dudes calling them bitches and worse and demanding nude pictures. CL, for her part, finds this all rather wonderful, and suggests puckishly that Complementarian Loners might well adopt a similar “policy” to deal with gals who won’t stop disagreeing with her shut up.
There’s a reason the only people we have banned on this blog are women and a couple of manginas. These people don’t know when to shut up and have no sense that they’re wearing out the welcome mat – also known as being entitled. … I’ve lost whatever patience I had for it and I don’t like to see insightful comments lost in the kerfuffle of women clamouring for validation.
So, perhaps a new policy for women should be, since they refuse to apologise or drop anything, tits or GTFO.
Sure, that might be seen as demeaning. But these women are asking for it through their behavior:
If a woman is making no sense and adding nothing to the discussion, while making it all about her, defending other women, being a special snowflake and NOT wanting to learn anything, she is a liability and worthless in that forum, so she has reduced her worth to only sexual. Therefore, she should just be sexual and show her tits to show she has something to offer.
Really? Because I’ve run across a lot of awful guys online who continually say things that make no sense, and I’ve never once thought that this “reduces their worth to only sexual.” I think it just means they are incoherent assholes with terrible, terrible ideas.
But no, in CL’s mind, women bring this sexual harassment onto themselves. Not only that, but the harassment is good for them:
Men do not do this to women; women do it to themselves. Due [to] their lame, banal talking, they show they are only good for sex. Showing her tits is a humbling and reminds her of her worth. With any hope, it makes her think and realise that in order to be more than a sexual object, she must STFU or prove herself able to be rational.
CL, your argument here isn’t exactly, you know, rational to begin with; you’re essentially demanding that the women you disagree with transform themselves into people who are irrational in the same way that you are.
I am embarrassed for my sex. It makes me cringe to see how they ruin everything once they get their claws in, and how little they really seem to care for men and male spaces. We all want our own spaces free of drama. Perhaps they don’t realise that it is they who create all the drama, but apparently this is what women seem to want.
Yeah, it’s not like angry dudes online are ever known to conjure drama out of thin air (*cough*avoiceformen*cough*).
Of course, when those poor MRAs start having fits over nothing, we need to remember that the poor babies have been treated so badly by the ladies of the world:
Women need to understand that MRAs and MGTOWs are disgruntled, angry, and frustrated with good reason … These are men who have loved, and their anger is proportional to the love of which they are capable.
Well, that’s your theory. My theory is that, by and large, they’re a bunch of entitled assholes.
In the end, CL brings it all back to one famous naughty lady and her love of apples:
If only women would stop this fight. If only women would submit to male leadership and stop this urge to control everything. Alas, it seems unlikely that most will ever be able to see, but it is sad how bad things have gotten, how cursed the world is, by dint of the daughters of Eve and our disobedience.
That’s right: Because Eve bit an apple, it’s fine to sexually harass women online when you don’t like what they say.
Of course, CL is perfectly fine with offline harassment as well. In the comments, she laments that fact that dudes can’t call a woman a “whore” in a bar these days without that woman getting mad, and suggests that women working in male arenas – sorry, women “playing at being construction workers or what have you” – just learn to appreciate this sort of “jocular speech” from the fellows.
Blessed are the sexual harassers, because women talk too much.
Can we cast Baleful Polymorph on the trolls and turn them all into kittens?
Huh. But women are the ones with a propensity for drama, right?
NWO: what kind of mindless automaton–one who spouts whacked conspiracy theories or something else?
@penis control before the Fall discussion: Cliff @ the Pervocracy had a great blog post about how penises do not make men into sex werewolves and I am inclined to agree. When have we ever voluntarily controlled our heartbeat, or our eyes to focus. There is a big difference between total control and control of how we deal with our bodily desires and needs. You can voluntarily control your anal sphincter for a certain amount of time before you will involuntarily shit yourself. You can, however, choose where to shit- you are not forced to squat over your cat and cover him with feces. Same thing with an erection. Many times, the arousal will subside if you can remove yourself from the arousing situation. But even if the erection stubbornly persists, you are still not allowed to rape someone.
A lot of people act like either EVERYTHING is a choice or nothing is and therefore they are not responsible for their actions in any situation.
But the truth is that, while certain physiological responses are involuntary, how you choose to respond to these responses is inevitably within your complete control.
Don’t forget about pelvic cleavage photos, those are really sexy. In an effort to make myself interact more like a man (as explained by CL), I will henceforth assume that a man has nothing of value to tell me unless he shows me his sexy bits. And those bits better BE sexy.
No no no. If the bits are sexy, you can dismiss what he has to say because he’s just a dumb pair of pecs who’s only good for sexing up. If the bits aren’t sexy, you can dismiss what he has to say because non-gorgeous men are gross.
It’s the perfect system!
@hellkell
In case you didn’t know, a conspiracy can be a fact. Just because you’ve been conditioned to blurt out the phrase conspiracy theory by the state just shows your gullibility. If it isn’t state approved, you scream “tin foil hat!” Women are easily fooled, that’s why the state loves women.
If we considered that the trolls on here were only good for sex then I would never have sex again… even if they were of the body type I’d find attractive, they’d be put into the category of “was hot but then they opened their mouths”. 🙁
On the subject of Lilith:
http://manalanextdoor.com/lilith
http://manalanextdoor.com/girl-s-next-best-friend
(The artist is also the creator of the wonderful “Strap-On of Womens’ Rights” poster that I have in my uni room… 😀 )
And because cute:
Stonecipher Beadsman is indeed one of our returning trolls, not trying very hard to avoid detection, as the name is a reference to Lenore Stonecipher Beadsman, the heroine of David Foster Wallace’s Broom of the System,
Banned, even though I did sort of enjoy SB’s stories about pooping.
I see NWO doesn’t understand the difference between constrained will and constrained actions.
But in any case, if it was more important to God that Adam and Eve have free will than that they not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, he has little basis to complain that they used the free will he gave them to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. He made his choice in setting up the Eden situation and now he has to deal with consequences…which he had perfect knowledge of beforehand, of course, so he has even less basis for complaint.
Here’s a little OT for the collective genius to debate. Was 9/11 an inside job and the buildings were brought down by explosives or did planes bring them down. I suggest you do a little research. Or will you just cluck what the state told you?
Is there anyone who can see how similar David and CL are?
Victim blaming!
Now see what you made YHWH do! You made him curse you to toil in the fields, and to all kinds of pregnancy and childbirth risks! Oh, and you made him curse you to attack every snake you ever see, ever again (that one may not have taken, I think we may have made our save)!
So you go! Go on! Live your own life! Don’t love YHWH! That’s all right! He’ll have the lake of fire all piping hot for you when you die! But if you choose to give up your free will and let him take control, you’ll get to sing his praises for all eternity! Don’t worry, you won’t ever get tired!
NWO – Free will doesn’t count for a whole lot if you don’t have any information. Without knowledge of good and evil, how did they know that disobeying God was bad? In a world without death, how did they know that “thou shalt surely die” was a punishment – or that punishment was something they should want to avoid? And at no point did God say “and all thy children unto the last generation shall suffer as you do”.
If you get right down to it, God condemned the entire human race because two infants got into the cookie jar.
People chose to eat from the tree, but God chose to booby-trap it. Why couldn’t He have just decided people could have knowledge and Edenic happiness? He’s *God.* He ought to be able to make these things happen.
HI Slave – why did God give his children the gift of free will and then punish them for exercising it. Seems somewhat sadistic.
NWO: free will can’t exist, unless God is not all-knowing. If he is all knowing then he would know what would happen and therefore it is still his fault and he has no right to be mad for setting them up to take a fall. And what about that fucking serpent? You are telling me that god creates this serpent to exist just to tempt Eve and this fucking snake is apparently smarter and better at arguments than god?
You are seriously arguing that god got outsmarted by a fucking snake. Orrrrrrrrrrr, maybe this is all just a bullshit story to blame all human suffering on women.
Oh and I doubt that sexytimes were going on in paradise- no children are mentioned in the bible until after the Fall, so unless humans are like pandas in captivity, sex and pregnancy seem to have come after the whole tree of knowledge thing.
And seriously, in what universe does growing and birthing a 7-10 lb infant with a huge head they cannot even hold up for several months after birth NOT HURT LIKE HELL?
Pain in childbirth as punishment, my ass. Unless god rearranged female anatomy just to be an ass, I am pretty sure that is how women just ARE by default.
@Dualityheart: Yeah I read that post too, and commented on it. As I remember it though (it was a long time now since I read Augustine, but once upon a time I read a lot of his writings for a university essay I was writing) he never excused rape or said an erection made you lose control over your ACTIONS. The point was merely that you can’t decide whether to have an erection or not, it’s naturally embarressing to have a body part which you can’t control voluntarily, and therefore sex and genitals are shameful.
You make a good point about heartbeat though. Maybe he only thought it was embarressing to have no control over what happens somewhere on the outside of the body, but not the inside?
Augustine had some fucked-up views about sex for sure. One good thing though was that he argued that a woman cannot lose her virginity through rape, only through voluntary sex. If you place a lot of moral value on virginity, it makes sense that it should be something that the woman controls, not something that can be stolen from her.
i for one, can’t imagine owlslave worshipping a god who wasn’t a raging asshole.
SMT in a nutshell. 😛
I like Free Will. I try to be a good person by my own (strict) standards*. And if Heaven and Hell exists and then I can be happy in Hell knowing I never intentionally** oppressed certain minorities, and never in the name of some divine wanker.
* Be kind, polite, and think well of people (in a nutshell). Also, I’m able to wear booty short bikinis if I want. 😀 Not that I ever wear booty shorts***, but I have that option.
**I can’t say I never acted on terrible cultural memes without realising it though 🙁
*** The term ‘booty shorts’ makes me smile.
He definitely seems to have imagined God in his own image.
And seriously, in what universe does growing and birthing a 7-10 lb infant with a huge head they cannot even hold up for several months after birth NOT HURT LIKE HELL?
Pain in childbirth as punishment, my ass. Unless god rearranged female anatomy just to be an ass, I am pretty sure that is how women just ARE by default.
Well, when you consider that infants’ heads are so huge in order to house their gigantic human brains, it makes a kind of sense that painful and dangerous childbirth is the price we pay for commanding godlike knowledge. Carl Sagan made that observation in The Dragons of Eden. But that makes it less a curse on women and more of a noble burden we undertake in order to let humans be, well, human. Obviously the misogynists responsible for the Garden of Eden story had to spin it to be more in line with their prejudices.
BTW, for those of you asking about The Eden Incident in earnest, the explanation is very simple if you’re willing to look at it in its original context, instead of trying to fit it into our modern, monotheistic interpretation. It’s all connected to my explanation of The Other People above.
Remember that Yahweh was just one of the Elohim. Not omnipotent, not omniscient – humans really could surprise him if he wasn’t paying attention, and he actually retreated from battle once because he couldn’t defeat iron chariots. Why did he throw Adam and Eve out? Because he was scared, and he said as much to the other Elohim: And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Genesis 3:22, New International Version)
@Dualityheart: It’s not obvious that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. It’s not even obvious that omniscience requires determinism. Maybe God can somehow watch all actions from some point independent of space-time, and thus knows everything, but human beings still act with free will.
The problem with God and free will would rather be his omnipotence. If God really created everything, he must have created all of space-time. That would include all human actions. To combine the idea of omnipotence with so-called libertarian free will you have to imagine that God hasn’t really created everything, just made a little corner of space-time and let it unravel from there with the assistance of humanity. But that’s problematic to reconcile with his benevolence, since presumably the world would be a better place if he created everything himself.
One idea is that God actualises all possible worlds that are above a certain threshold in goodness. If so, it’s just our tough luck that we don’t live in the best one.
Anybody here ever read the “Lucifer” comic series? In that one, God has to actually leave Creation for free will to exist. He kinda wishes he could watch it in action, but He’s such a powerful force for order, he breaks any randomness just by touching it.
He also owned a Plymouth, because he drove Adam and Eve from the garden in a Fury.