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!
Or more specifically, “women sleeping with men aren’t me and who have things I want, which is not fair, so I should get the things and the women”.
@steele:
… How can you get away with just saying this? How far removed from reality could you possibly be? The mind boggles at your semantics just as much as at your syntax.
@CassandraSays I found what seem to be some proper links for definitions of hypergamy, as in these are anthropology definitions (as an aside, what the hell is evolutionary psychology doing by pissing in the pool of other disciplines?)
This suggests the term was created by Levi-Strauss: http://anthropologyguide.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/marriage-hypergamy-and-hypogamy.html
And this social anthropology text also contains the term with a definition: http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=BbgW3oL0YsEC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=hypergamy+anthropology&source=bl&ots=K7rq8t_NIr&sig=OIsOuBzXeVFipNEMJYdlp3X-4Vw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IrmFUImMBIWkiAeb64G4DA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hypergamy%20anthropology&f=false
so the anthropological use appears to be with respect to marriage.
It means “all these supermodels are evil whores because they wont look at me because I am ugly, regardless of my wonderful personality, the bitches.”
I now give you argumentum ad youtube:
… How can you get away with just saying this? How far removed from reality could you possibly be? The mind boggles at your semantics just as much as at your syntax.
Not at all, and if you weren’t so steeped in the feminist Kool-Aid, Warp, you’d see that I’m not so far from the truth. Both genders suffer from body image issues; I don’t deny this. I’ll even grant that, if I recall correctly, the statistics show a higher proportion of female victims. But nonetheless, there is certainly a wider plethora of (culturally-mandated) “desirable” female bodies, female faces, than there are for men. I don’t think this is really arguable.
Well and but, you’ll say, you could plausibly argue that many of these ideals are merely different shades of unattainable. I wouldn’t necessarily, in truth, disagree, because society demands unreasonable perfection of us all. However there are still more possibilities for a woman, than for men.
Oh, Steele’s back and he’s wrong? In other news, water is wet, the sky is blue, and it’s a day that ends in “y.”
The OP sounds like a dude who’s paying lip service to the notion of equality in hopes of getting laid and it’s not working out. Sucks to be him.
Cassandra: I was totally responsible for that Napster thing. My first job in the industry, don’t you know.
Steele, enough with the well and butts. It’s not helping you.
Back up this assertion. Provide examples. I’ll make it easy for you: use popular culture.
“Wider Plethora” is Well and Hmm’s first album — 2nd warning, Steelepole!
@ hellkell
I knew it was you. You brainwashed Lars too, didn’t you?
(If so could you maybe brainwash him to be less obnoxious next? Thanks.)
Cassandra: I tried to make him less of an ass, but it didn’t take. My feminism powers failed on that one.
@Steele:
You are male. You think about women as being attractive, and men as not. Therefore, in your head, women have a wider range of attractiveness.
And yet, in comic books, there is only one type of female superhero (thin). Yet there are a broad range of male bodies that are acceptable (fat, thin, muscular, plain, you name it). In the media, a woman’s looks get comments (Candy Crowley) while a man’s looks are never even mentioned. It simply is not the case that there are a wider acceptable range of women’s looks than men’s. In fact, men’s looks are nearly always irrelevant.
Take a look at the attractiveness of male leads in movies. On the one hand you have your stereotypical attractive, on the other hand you have Seth Rogan. Now look at female leads.
… Uh huh. Your musings are simply not supported by the facts. If you weren’t so committed to a solipsistic view of the word to the point where you can’t even recognize your projection, you’d see I’m not far from the truth.
@Nobinayamu:
Oooh, I used popular culture. Do I win? 😀
This dude is saying exactly what Andrea Dworkin said about the misogyny of left wing men. She said the difference between right wing and left wing sexism was a question of how women (as a sexual resource) would be divided among them. I’m sure anyone quoting her is just a crazy man hater though, right?!
Warp, you know, I don’t wish to engage you any longer. You can be wrong by yourself. The hypergamy debate isn’t something that much interests me; misandry has greater casualties. There are greater fights.
@Steele:
k. By the way, how is not going on manboobz any more because we’re all vile been going for the last, oh, couple months?
lol @ the dolts on this website.
i’ve fucked exactly 36 girls in 2012 thus far (all in the 20-35 y/o range). At least half of which think or thought at one point that we are exclusive. And I have friends/cousins who are orders of magnitude more productive in this area than I am. For every guy like me out there, dozens/hundreds of hopeful betas aren’t getting squat (I’ll bet this includes many of the male feminists who post here).
You manboobz can keep denying it to your graves, but the fact of the matter is that a pussy redistribution policy is no less important for the healthy functioning of a society than a money redistribution policy. Men are the ones who create and maintain society, and men who feel like they don’t have a chance (an increasing number) simply drop out. Many who do actually succeed in the sexual market drop out in their own way too, because they don’t actually need to be productive members of society to get attention from women anymore. The incentives are gone.
But again, keep pretending this doesn’t matter. Honestly I don’t know why I bothered writing this post. You people will never EVER get it.
@kirbywarp: Absolutely! Would you like to go for the bonus round?
Who is the female equivalent of Seth Rogan? Kevin James? Adam Sandler? Vince Vaughn?
Even if we were going for conventionally good-looking men in the media there are many different variations on that theme in terms of what a conventionally attractive man looks like. There are tall guys, short guys, big buffed guys, skinny guys, super macho looking guys, more androgynous guys…in fact the only real noticeable exception in terms of being considered conventionally attractive is fat guys, and that’s a cultural prejudice that applies to women too.
@ANON:
Congratulations for being a douche!
@ANON, Okay, go ahead and drop out, don’t let the door hit you on your way out. Bye!
Of course since men are so much less shallow you find that gay men are egalatarian, valuing many different appearances…
Except, oh wait, much of the gay scene is the most exclusive and poisonous cult of youth outside of Japan. Hit 22 and youre past it, hit 30 and you may as well be dead.
Well that makes at least two of us.
This is just wrong, even if this data is true, that 80% of the women sleep with only 20%, which obviously isn’t but anyway, so what? Women are free to sleep with who they want. Why would that be a problem? Unless of course if you’re a really entitled person and belive you “deserve” sex