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!
*slowly bumping head off wall*
Who the hell are you talking about getting approached in public? Yourself? Fine, if you like that. But anyone who does that to me is automatically iln the Fuck Off, Sleazeball category. It may not occur to you that there are plenty of people (of whatever gender) who find that sort of thing creepy as hell.
Ugh,
Umm…no.
It’s “I want to be with someone that has their financial situation in order so they don’t put me in the awkward position of asking me to pay down their debt”
or maybe “I want to be with someone that earns enough money so when we decide to go to some romantic destination, I can have some help with the costs instead of paying for everything myself”
Yeah, I just love it when strange dudes approach me in public. /sarcasm.
Who let Brandon back in?
A bloke who approaches women on the street and starts looking for a date or just attention isn’t the wonderful catch he fancies himself.
Man, can you imagine the constraints on that data?
“Subjects were asked how many strangers initiated conversation with them per year, not including strangers who were conducting business or transactions, unless said transactions were carried out in such a tone that creepy internet dudes might consider to be flirtatious, discounting the ones in which the flirtation was probably just being nice and there was no possibility of sex, but also counting interactions with acquaintances and friends of compatible sexual orientations who may have been building intimacy for possible sexual contact, unless said friends just defined intimacy in a different and less sexual way than the observers, or in which they valued sexual intimacy in such a way that is not consistent with traditional models of attractiveness or sexuality.
This data was divided by the time spent with access of people, adjusted for accessibility in body language, local social norms, ethnic politics, place, relative sexual orientation of general population, and fifty million individual factors onle ascertainable by talking to the actual people doing the approaching.”
This is a bulletproof thesis proposal, right here.
So, cool, you value fiscal stability very highly in a partner. Now explain what that has to do with the notion of people having “value” independent of your personal preferences.
(Hint – your priorities are not necessarily universal, and other people’s must-haves and dealbreakers may be different to yours.)
princessbonbon, exactly what I was thinking. If by romantic destination, he means Thailand “for the beaches” we have a winner.
“I want to be with someone that has their financial situation in order so they don’t put me in the awkward position of asking me to pay down their debt”
If you for real can’t envision a relationship in which you trust the other person enough to never ask you to spend money you’re uncomfortable spending, and not accept your no when you refuse to spend the money, then your potential SO’s finances are the least of your problems.
@Ugh, CassandraSays
It’s just demographics mostly. Age, sexual orientation, intelligence, religion, political leanings. That takes care of most of the pool right there. Then you have preferences: the small percentage of people willing to tolerate a body like mine, tolerate moderate to severe mental illness, being not a “simple country girl”* etc. Heh, I haven’t found a way to quantify the fact that human beings tend to just not like me; maybe I should start collecting data. :-p
*shockingly unpopular in these parts.
Like, if you need someone to have specific conditions in her life so that she won’t violate your boundaries, and want to vet people for these conditions rather than being willing to back out of a relationship with someone who violates your boundaries when and if they do it, you should look into assertiveness councilling.
Kittehs,
And there are plenty of people that welcome people talking to them in public. What is your point? You can think it is creepy all you want, there are enough people that don’t find it creepy and are usually very warm and friendly in return.
Ugh,
Public is a lot of things. The street, nightclubs, pizza parlors, coffee shops, libraries, mall shops, etc…Hell, most people also hang out with their social group…in public.
So wait, in order for it to not be creepy, it would have to be somewhere private…right? I doubt people are just going to start randomly knocking on peoples house doors to meet them and not be creepy at the same time.
@Nepenthe
Not gonna lie, humanity also has an extremely bad track record in the “determining people’s intelligence without knowing them” game.
Based on what data?
Yes, Brandon, and in only one of those places would I maybe be amenable to meeting someone. Otherwise you’re just some schmuck who wants something and fucking up the flow of my day.
@Brandon
LOL, for real. Has it occurred to you that there are models of human relationships other than “Approach random strangers in public, have sex” and “Approach random strangers in private, have sex”?
I can see coming to the conclusion that if you’re, say, a leftist atheist with green hair in the middle of the Bible Belt that might mean that your dating options would be limited, and much more so than in NYC or LA. What I’m not seeing is how you’d come up with concrete numbers to measure how limited/extensive those options were.
Also adding my vote to the “yep, it’s B#$@%$n” poll.
Hey Brandon, you still pre-screening for feminists while you’re busy hitting on women in public?
Ugh,
“assertiveness councilling”? Why can I get more?
Now you’re shifting the goalposts. “Talking to people in public” is not the same thing as “approaching people” the way you were talking before. Talking to people in a non-sexual, non-dating way is a totally different matter from the skeevy hitting-on crap you were talking about before. I have no problem talking to people in public. I do find men approaching, ie. trying to flirt or show any level of sexual interest, creepy. And I am hardly unusual in that.
@Brandon
Signs point to yes. Most therapists will help you work on setting and asserting boundaries.
Kittehs: one of Brandon’s specialties is goalpost shifting. You can get whiplash from how fast they move.
hellkell,
Well, you sound like a miserable, unhappy person and I hope never “bump” into you because you clearly would be so hostile to a random stranger.
Brandon, seeing as your a manipulative creep who trolls in support of hate sites, reacting badly to you when you approach would actually be the correct reactions.
Aw, Brandon, I haven’t missed you a bit.
OH, NO A RANDOM ASSHOLE DOESN’T WANT TO BUMP INTO ME, THE HORROR, PEOPLE. THE HORROR.