Most manosphere misogynists lean to the right. But every once in a while I’ll run across an MRA who considers himself a man of the left. Today, while perusing the Spearhead, which generally appeals to some of the more reactionary MRAs and MGTOWers, I ran across a most intriguing example of the Manosphericus lefticus.
“Davani” describes himself as “a socialist and a supporter of women’s rights,” explaining that
the last thing I want is some kind of uneducated, barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen woman who I can’t even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.
But Mr. D is a most unusual sort of socialist-feminist indeed. You might call him a Socialist of the Penis. Or, rather, a Socialist for the Penis. As he explains,
I am all for egalitarian culture (e.g., expanding women’s rights), but only if the women themselves are egalitarian. In the US, much more so than anywhere else, they are not.
So what exactly is wrong with these American women, in Davani’s mind? Well, he reports sadly,
The women here are very shallow, and use their rights to penalize, rather than include, the majority of “average” men who don’t make the cut in terms of their looks. Susan Walsh, the author of “Hooking Up Smart,” reports that on US college campuses, 80% of the girls have sex with 20% of the guys.
Oh dear, not this again.
In effect, giving American women contraception enables them to jump on the sex carousel but not with most guys — only with a small number of ‘alpha males’ at the top. This is the problem right here. Moreover, this is at no cost to themselves, because they can abort any pregnancy, while discriminating against the “lesser” males.
Davani is outraged by this blatant elitism on the part of women. He would prefer a far more egalitarian form of pussy distribution – from each, according to her pussy; to each, according to his penis’ needs.
[I]n other countries, women wouldn’t use contraception to essentially eliminate 80% of the guys. Family planning would benefit BOTH the guy and the girl. The girl isn’t looking to hook up with the top athlete or celebrity, she’s also very interested in other, regular guys, who have other good qualities, even if they don’t necessarily pass the “looks” test.
But in America, alas, women have become monopoly capitalists of the vagina.
American women are more shallow and discriminatory in their preferences than most other women, and this has to be taken into account. “Feminists used to get support from men by promising we’d all be getting laid for free” — in a normal society, yes; in this country, only the 20% at the top would be getting laid for free in this context.
So, false advertising, as well.
To the barricades, men! Vive la penislution!
Some men not getting laid as often as they’d like is truly the most pressing human-rights issue of our time.
In mainstream media news, men are pigs goes viral
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/academic-men-explain-things-to-me_n_1989615.html
Translation:
“I became a progressive because feminists promised I’d get laid. But I’m not getting laid! Therefore women’s rights aren’t worth pursuing.”
Pretty sure that the argument was “if you don’t demonize sex, more sex will happen, so statistically more guys and gals get to have sex” not “if you don’t demonize sex, women will sleep with you.” And it isn’t discrimination if there isn’t a woman currently sleeping with you. Who exactly do you blame if you don’t currently have a sex partner? All women?
Oh…. right…
Curse you, blockquotes. Those were supposed to end after “looks test”, ie at the part where the comment stops sounding like the rantings of an angry misogynist.
Manosphericus lefticus–the only other one I’ve seen is youtuber mr1001nights, a PUA type.
This looks like pre-Second Wave late Fifties to mid Sixties shit. Yet these guys would be indignant if accused of ignoring non-“hot” chicks. What are they, charities?
@Cassandra
You know what’s silly? For such a long time a woman’s worth was determined by her looks and capacity as a wife. As feminism became more popular, there was the idea that looks aren’t all that matters; men should be interested in a woman’s mind and not exclusively her body. I feel like this is a direct counter to the old patriarcal mode of thought; something the privilaged gender needed to learn to stop the misogyny.
But to these guys, that command has no context. And it must equally apply to the unprivilaged gender. Furthermore, them not having sex is proof that women are taking looks into account, which is unjust and poop. Yet another way in which a regressive group takes the form of an argument from a progressive group and perverts it to suit their own ends. -_-
Honestly, I find the howls of outrage about how evil women are for having sexual preferences funny. It’s a “why is there no White History Month?” kind of thing, an illustration of not getting it that’s so profound all you can do is laugh.
Says, you do realize there’s a considerable difference between attacking female desire, and attacking women with comically inflated expectations, right?
That being said, I believe the reality to be more complex. Certainly; I think he’s right on for the younger folks; female hypergamy is rampant in high schools and college campuses. In my own experience, it tails off fairly dramatically in one’s twenties. Even so, I do indeed think a shadow remains; women generally are harder on men, in terms of looks, than men are of women. There’s misandry wrapped in there somewhere, but it’s enjoined with so much culture baggage and personal inclinations and etc, that I’m not going to bother to try to tease it out.
I feel like theres a common thread here… something along the lines of “You want me to do something? Well, why don’t you do it first then? You’re not going to? Hypocrite. You want a black history month? If we’re so equal, there should be a white history month as well. That’s absurd? Then shut up.”
I’ve encountered folks with this mentality. It has nothing to do with honestly trying to effect positive change, it’s competely about silencing the other party so they personally aren’t inconvenienced.
Count yourself lucky. I once had an article I’d written about anarcha-feminism reproduced (without my consent) on an explicitly misogynist 4chan-style ‘anarchist’ website.
Because hierarchies are only bad when you’re not the one on top, apparently.
I work in the East Coast video game industry, so I actually see this sorta attitude way more than I want to 😛
BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Right. I suppose that’s why women are invariably evaluated based on their looks first and foremost — regardless of age, occupation and context. Whereas men are only evaluated based on their looks when in the limited context of acting, modeling and so on.
Hey remember that time that you said the people here were “attacking male sexuality?”
Yeah? No? Not feeling any kind of irony here?
@Steele
… How the hell is “female hypergamy” prevelant in high school and college (going away afterwards) if the guys don’t even have careers at that point yet?
Also, in direct contradiction to:
Look at the recent presidential debates: Candy Crowley got tons of snide comments about her looks and her weight while Jim Lehrer got nothing of the sort. Your statement is the opposite of true.
(I’m really raring for a fight here, aren’t I…)
Where? He means, in Iran? Yeah, sure, I bet boyfriends in that country are all over family planning and contraception.
If there was systematic oppression there you’d be able to see it, you colossal fucking twonk. That even you, the hyper-vigilant pursuer of all the imaginary oppressions in the world can’t even manage to breathlessly invent a slur to get into a huff-wank about illustrates that you haven’t got the smallest atom of a point.
Now either be funny or fuck off Steelebutt.
I suppose that’s why women are invariably evaluated based on their looks first and foremost — regardless of age, occupation and context.
This isn’t true.
You know, there was a very telling study done on OKCupid a while back; Google should provide ample results. Men rated a sample of women; women rated a sample of men. The women rated a eighty percent of the men as “ugly”.
Certainly, I believe the female standard to generally be higher. We are speaking in generalities, of course.
Steele,
Based purely on the amount of men on MRA boards complaining that women are ugly vs. the amount of women on feminist boards complaining about how men are ugly, I would say that the idea that women put more emphasis on looks these days might be a little bit untrue.
See: previous articles on this blog containing quotes about MRAs complaining about “fatties” [ex: heartiste, etc] really with incredible vehemence.
If women with “comically inflated expectations” are sexually active with their partner(s) of choice, then I suggest that their expectations are not inflated at all.
MRA definition of slut= woman who is sexually active but not with them.
If there was systematic oppression there you’d be able to see it, you colossal fucking twonk.
Not in the least, you dolt. There does exist subtle misandry:
http://antimanboobz.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/men-as-the-architects-and-the-oppressed/
Not all misandry (or other bigotry) is staring one in the face.
@Steele:
In that OKCupid study, although women rated 80 percent of men as “ugly,” the majority of sent messages went to men below medium attractiveness.
Meanwhile, though men rated women on a bell curve, 2/3s of the messages went to the top 1/3 of women.
MALE HYPERGAMY (<a href="http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/"😉
I had to go and see how other Spearheaders had responded to Davani’s comment. Here’s a doozy:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/10/19/the-socialization-of-the-costs-of-sex/#comment-170637
“I struggle too with the idea of restricting women’s rights. I want strong, confident independent women who aren’t barefoot and pregnant.
But.
but.
…[a few paragraphs of “all women are shallow alpha carousel riders”]…
There is no “solution.” If you give women rights and freedom, what you see in the US is what happens.”
*rest of rant outlines ‘solutions’ that would lead to women being ” barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen” and not educated enough to “even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.”*