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!
*Cloudiah! I can’t even fawn without making a typo.
Biot,
I disagree somewhat. A lot of sexuality is based off of value. The more value you have the more you can demand. Value in the sense of “what do you bring to the table”. This is why you rarely see models with fat slobs or CEO’s and actors with the “common folk” (for lack of a better term).
If I am physically fit, reasonably intelligent, financially sound and generally an interesting person, I can demand a lot from a partner. My expectations and standards are higher because I have more people vying for my attention. If I have 100 people trying to date me, I can be choosier than if I only had 5.
@Moneyball,
Yikes. Gross.
I would not date somebody who talked openly about assigning value to people.
“Good news Comrades! We’re redistributing pussy”
“Yay”
“It’s in stage two of our third Five Year Plan, so about twelve, thirteen years.”
“Uh…”
“You can hang on that long, can’t you?”
“But…”
“In further news, our crippling shortages of tissue paper, tube socks and hand cream all seem to be worsening. We’ll be fixing those in the forth Five Year Plan. That’s all the news, Comrades, so death to Capitalism, and have a super day!”
Only if you consider dating someone crappy to be better than being single. You can be as choosy as you want no matter how much “value” you have.
Steele’s grammar is something we find
hard to follow, but he doesn’t mind.
“Well and but” is the phrase
that we’ll hear now for days.
Steele, you can’t write – and that’s being kind.
It’s true that the more conventionally attractive someone is the more people they’ll probably have wanting to date them, generally speaking. The thing is, though, if there are 100 people all asking me to date them and I’m not particularly interested in any of those people, that’s not actually doing me any good from a sexual/relationship point of view. Whereas if there are only 5 people who want to date me, but they’re all people who I’m really attracted to, then that’s an awesome situation to be in, much more awesome than the first scenario.
inu,
That’s fine. We are all entitled to our dating preferences.
Denise,
Very true. You can be as choosy as you like. However, the person with 100 people wanting to date, marry or just sleep with them will have more options and more choices than the person with only 5 people wanting to date, marry or sleep with them.
Except it’s not going to help you if you radiate “women are commodities” and “entitled prick” vibes. Which is exactly what that paragraph does.
David – “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’m not even it’s “according to” where women are concerned, for this loathesome creep. It’s more like “from her, according to his wishes.” Her wishes don’t count. The very idea that she is more than a life-support system for genitalia (which he seems to hate anyway – pussy is just as revolting as cunt to me) never crosses his mind.
Gods, these stinking misogynists are disgusting. It makes me so glad I’ve never dated, that the only person who goes with the word sex for me is Mr Kitteh. I keep having to remind myself that these dirtbags are a minority and an extreme one at that, and that worthwhile human beings outnumber them. The regulars on this blog are a good reminder of that.
Wow, this thread has drawn some interesting trolls.
I think what this guy is saying is that while he would find educated and articulate women much more entertaining to be around, if voluntary sex slavery is what it takes for him to get laid on a regular basis, then he’s willing to make some sacrifices. What a swell guy.
CassandraSays,
In a perfect world, yes. However, the chances of that scenario happening seems more like wishful thinking. A more likelier scenario is 100 people want to date you, 80 of them you aren’t attracted to, 10 of them you are attracted to but they have some flaw that is a dealbreaker and 10 of them are datable.
The person with 5 people wanting to date them would be 3 of them are unattractive, 1 is but has a dealbreaker and 1 is datable.
In the end, the more attractive you are (physically, mentally, character, personality, etc…) the more chances you have to date thus the better chances you have of finding someone that is datable.
Thus, making yourself more attractive will net you more chances to find someone suitable for you.
Also! If there’s one particular person who I really want to be with, and I happen not to be their type, then having 100 other people who I’m not into asking me isn’t actually going to make me feel any better, since the one who I want still isn’t interested. Basically this whole “value” thing is pointless unless feeding your ego is more important to you than anything else.
Relationship math problems!
This is bizarrely appropriate to be reading while watching the debates.
What these idiots don’t realize is their stunted views of relationships and attractiveness. Beauty has no transitive properties and you can’t own it, dipshits. If you relate to people because of their perceived “value,” you’re a dumbass who deserves a miserable life.
The problem seems pretty obvious. If 80% of the women are having funsies with 20% of the men in their younger days, that leaves 60% of the men out of the picture. Later on in life those same woman want love, affection and dedication from that 60% of men whom they previously treated like vermin.
The 20/80 number seems pretty accurate particualrly when you look at the divorce stats. Women initiate divorce something like 80% of the time. Why? The answer is self evident. In their younger days the women were fucking millionaire jonny quarterback, (jonnys harem). Now the poor dears have had to lower themselves down and marry joe average and they feel entitled to millionaire jonny quarterback and plain old joe doesn’t measure up.
How many times have women said to each other and themselves that they can do better? What is it about women that they can do better? Are they nicer, more loving, more loyal, kinder, more giving, more altrustic, more empathetic? All we ever hear is how a man is lucky to have her. Has anyone ever heard, read or said that a man can do better, or she’s lucky to have him? Why? Because women have a pussy. What other reason could there be for women thinking like that?
Every single man in the world wants a woman whose had sex with only him, because that means she’s sexually loyal and emotionally loyal to him alone. No amount of social engineering will change that. Nor should it. If women are being disloyal sluts, what possible reason could there be for men to treat women as anything else?
Feminists tell women it’s their right to have sexy time with those 20% of men. Feminists tell women to be sluts. Feminists tell men they’re bad for calling women sluts. It’s a crazy world when sluts demand praise and men are shamed for calling shameful behavior shameful.
They always seem to forget that not everyone has the same tastes, and that subcultures exist. 100 frat boys who’re like younger versions of Mitt Romney want to date me? That does me no good at all, no matter how much “value” it might indicate that I have.
Human value is not objective, nor is it a number line.
Seriously, what bizarre world do these people live in that there are a severely limited number of dating candidates in the world?
Let’s say that one out of a hundred people is a potential match for A, and 5 of a 100 are for B, and we’re in Bizarroworld where this is somehow consistent over any sample of human beings.
Guess what? A can still get five dating prospects by meeting five hundred people! Or thousands by going on a dating service with hundreds of thousands! Would person A have suddenly become an “Alpha” by virtue of knowing more people?
CassandraSays,
I hardly see this as feeding my ego. In fact, I see it as deflating it. We are all imperfect and we all have flaws.
If you want to be with someone, but they don’t want to be with you, then you need to accept that and maybe you will find someone for you in that group of 100.
hellkell,
No, I can’t own a partners beauty. I would want them to own it. Just because you think beauty has no “transitive properties” (whatever that means in this context), that doesn’t mean people don’t value it (in themselves or in a partner).
There are multiple ways to relate to people. I hardly have these debates with my friends and family. I usually relate to them with movies, music, life experiences, traveling, listening to what is new in their life, etc…
@CassandraSays
It indicates that Dinky!Mitts have good taste (you seem charming and intelligent), but also slightly strange taste given that they are attracted to personages with opposing political views (I’m assuming, as most non-troll commenters here dislike Romney for various reasons).
There’s also the fact that if I get the impression that someone is walking around assigning “value” to people in that way then I’m definitely not going to date them. It’s a fatal combination of nerdy, creepy and manipulative that pushes all my gtf-away-from-me buttons.
“According to my calculations you should definitely want to have sex with me. Also your options are limited to X, so you should keep that in mind if you’re considering rejecting me.”
If you keep saying, women only want to date powerful/handsome/rich men, I’m going to have to assume you don’t like yourself much. As in, “The only reason a woman might spend time with me is if I spent a shitload of cash on her.” Ewww. Bad morale, fellas. If you’re married to the idea that conventionally handsome men are the only ones who get laid (pfffft), well, once again, morale issues — and you might be as shallow as you’re claiming women to be –the women you can see, that is, the others don’t count….hint, hint, you’re shallow and need to work on yourself.
P.S.
Why would you want a woman to settle for you? That’s fucked.
Why take away birth control? So that a woman has to stay with a man for financial support? Do you really want that? MRA’s call that sperm-jacking, while Mr. D. seems to think of it as a best-case scenario for a budding relationship.
inu,
And nobody said human beauty was objective.
“The only reason I have a functional social life is because I carefully avoid talking about my creepy-ass views on human relationships in all fora except anonymous message boards.”