Blog posts by the New Misogynists I write about here often seem to be little more than combinations and recombinations of a relatively small number of very bad ideas. Today, let’s look at a blog post from a “conservative libertarian” and creepy Nice Guy ™ who identifies himself only as TIC, which combines a bit of “consent is hard” and “women only like bad boys” with some muddled notions from Evo Psych to conclude that women are such mysterious creatures that no one could possibly know what they really want — and so therefore it’s women who are the ones who are really responsible when they get raped.
It’s an argument that bears a strong similarity to the stories rapists tell themselves to excuse their actions. When people describe so-called Nice Guys ™ as creepy, this is why: in a lot of ways, they think like predators. In the case of TIC here, exactly like predators.
TIC starts off by ridiculing the notion that “no means no.”
Women are notorious for always warning men that “no means no”. For us men who have dealt with enough women, we know this to be pure malarkey. If “no” always meant “no”, many men would die virgins. There would also be fewer rapes as a result, because for once women would mean what they said instead of talking in indirect code language.
And now the victim blaming begins in earnest:
Women, many times, bring rape upon themselves. They purposely reject men, even ones they are interested in, in order to get him to chase her. Since women love to be the prize and the center of attention, leading a man on a wild goose chase through all sorts of hoops and mind games is all too common in today’s society.
Now, if this were actually true it would be, well, sort of annoying for straight men who don’t like jumping through hoops. TIC, though, seems to have convinced himself that the fact that some women play coy in the dating world somehow makes it literally impossible for men to tell when and if they’re raping a woman.
What this does is blur the line between what is acceptable for a man to do to a woman and what is not…because once we can all agree that women want to be chased, we can understand what a predicament it puts men into. Since “no” does not always mean “no”, there is no real way for a man to know when to stop his advances upon a woman.
TIC now pulls out some half-baked Evo Psych to bolster his alleged argument:
My theory as to why women give such pieces of advice goes back to dark triad genes or the lack thereof. You see, when a woman tells a man that he should just be himself, or to respect women, or to give them compliments, or that “no means no”, what she is actually doing is bullshitting the male. This is a weeding out mechanism that women use in order to ensure that men who don’t get it never will.
He follows this up with a fairly standard Nice Guy ™ whine.
You see, women do not want nice guys to propagate their genes. They do not wish for them to be successful with women. This is why advice coming from women is never good; it has been sabotaged from the get-go.
Well, actually, If women are telling Nice Guys ™ that “no means no” because they don’t want to have sex with these Nice Guys ™ aren’t these women, however mean you think they are, communicating what they want pretty clearly?
TIC moves on to another standard Nice Guy ™ complaint: that women actually get to turn down men for sex. Never mind that men also have the right to refuse sex with anyone they want. To the dedicated Nice Guy ™, the fact that women can say “no” means that they’re the ones running the show. And doing a terrible job of it, to boot.
Women have the power and control in the dating scene. This is important to note because it means that any and every problem with society in the context of female-male relations falls on the shoulders of women themselves.
And we’re back in Evo Psych-land again:
If women decide to start dating men who are genuine, nice, and honest, then that is what most men will become. Since women, however, are only attracted to males with dark triad genes, that is what most men strive to be. The ones that do not either are alone or being used.
Therefore, women are responsible for getting raped:
[S]ince women have decided to make men chase and act in an overly-aggressive fashion in order to get sex, the rape culture pervades society. Make no mistake about it, women invariably cause most rapes.
Oh, but ladies, TIC isn’t necessarily blaming you personally for being raped. You may be a perfectly virtuous woman. It’s all those other ladies who created the rape culture that got you raped.
Now, this is not to say that specific individuals who are victims of raped caused it or even desired it. The point is that women overall have created an environment in which only sexually aggressive, narcissistic, abrasive men are seen as sexually attractive (these traits are what women interpret as being “confident”).
They have created an environment in which “no” doesn’t mean “no”, it actually means “try harder, keep going, I want to be chased, I want to feel wanted even though you’ve already made it clear that you want me. I want to play games and toy with you until I’m satisfied.”
Huh. I thought women were only interested in aloof dudes who insult them and refuse to buy them drinks, not with supplicating so-called betas falling over themselves to chase women. At least that’s what all the Pickup Artists keep telling me.
But no. In TIC’s world, women are mysterious creatures who delight in mystifying men, and men have no choice but to try, and try, and try again.
Men are constantly placed in awkward, unsure situations because what women want is always esoteric.
If women are so “esoteric” how is it that so many of them manage to end up in relationships with people they love? Surely at some point they must have managed to convey to their partners what they wanted.
Should he approach? If she rejects him, should he continue his advances because that’s what she may want deep down? Who knows?
Who knows? You should know, dude, and if you don’t, you should find out. Seriously, if you honestly can’t tell if a woman wants to make out with you, or have sex with you, or even just watch an episode of Mad Men with you, STOP WHAT YOU’RE DOING and USE WORDS to ASK HER what she wants.
If you ask if she wants to have sex and she says no, assume she means no, and don’t have sex with her. And don’t assume she said “no” because she thinks you’re a spineless beta for asking. Seriously. If a woman really wants to have sex with you, chances are infinitesimally slim that she’s going to change her mind and throw you out simply because you actually asked her if she wants to have sex. (And if she is that sort of person, count your blessings that you’re not dating her, and move on.)
If the woman you’re pursuing is such a flighty game player that for some perverse manipulative reason she won’t say “yes” when she means “yes,” DON’T HAVE SEX WITH HER. Assume that anything short of a clear “yes” is a “no.” And maybe think about dating someone who can communicate what she wants more clearly.
If you assume that ambiguity means no, the worst that can happen is that miss out on having sex with someone who’s up for having sex with you, but who for some reason can’t or won’t tell you what she really wants. A missed chance to have sex is not the end of the world. If, by contrast, you assume that ambiguity means yes, the worst that can happen is that you rape someone. Err on the side of caution. Don’t err on the side of rape.
Unfortunately, like most of those who pretend that consent is somehow more complicated than quantum physics, TIC doesn’t actually seem much interested in figuring out the alleged mysteries of consent. He seems more interested in providing an excuse for men who want to pretend that consent is so hard, and women such mysterious creatures, that they just can’t help raping women.
For many men, leaving things to chance is not an option. They will continue to press the issue in order to find out the woman’s true intentions.
“Press the issue.” That may be the creepiest euphemism for rape I’ve run across yet.
Thus is the nature of women: enablers of the very thing they claim to despise the most.
No, it’s the nature of sexual predators to pretend that a clear verbal “no” from the target of their sexual advances means “keep pushing,” and, indeed, that any response short of a punch in the nose is evidence that their victim “really wants it.”
Rapists like to pretend that they somehow “misunderstood” the signals their victims gave them. But there’s good research showing that this just isn’t true – and that the predators know it. As Thomas Macaulay Millar has pointed out in a much-cited post on the Yes Means Yes blog, predators can read the signals from their victims just fine. It’s just that they don’t like what their victims are trying to tell them – that is, no. “[T]he notion that rape results from miscommunication is just wrong,” Millar writes. “Rape results from a refusal to heed, rather than an inability to understand, a rejection.”
And this is where predators and Nice Guys ™ find common cause. Predators don’t really care what their victims want, and will keep going regardless of whether or not they get a clear message to stop; pretending that women are mysterious creatures unable to convey what they want gives them a perfect excuse for their predatory behavior.
Nice Guys, by contrast, may not actually be confident enough to believe that the women they fixate on will ever say yes to them. And so they’re drawn to the same specious arguments about the alleged “esoteric” nature of women that predators spout — because these half-believed arguments enable them to pretend that ambigious signals — or even flat-out no’s — are yeses in disguise.
TIC’s argument doesn’t explain rape culture. His argument is rape culture.
WishfulThinkerz: I never called myself a thinker. That’s like saying that David Futrelle called himself a boob. I’m calling the community of Man Boobz commenters Wishful Thinkerz, because they believe that men and women are the same.
Ah… so you aren’t paying attention. No one here is saying men and women are the same. What we are saying is the differences the MRM/MGTOWS/PUAs ascribe are bullshit.
We also believe they ought to be equal in opportunity and treatment. Again, something our detractors deny.
But you know that, because you aren’t new, just ever hopeful that you can rise to the level of a DKM, or an Owly, or even a talacaris.
Scrapemind (scraping the bottom of the barrel?) was one of the dreariest of trolls back in the day, as well as never knowing whether to do the “hahah I’m trolling to upset people,” “I’m so superior and playing intellectual games,” “oh this is really real,” or “I’m part of the group, true!” variety of trolling. He seems to have tried them all.
I can’t remember who scrapemind is. Is he the guy who comes here because he’s too cheap to pay a proffessional Dom?
I randomly googled him and now I’ll just post the first coherent thing that came up:
”
Sadly, the man boobz are not as funny if you read them charitably. But can you really enjoy your yuks if in the back of your mind you know that you’re only pretending that they are bizarre?
TA ta ta TA, ta TAAA! PUPPY POWER!!”
Shiraz, that description fits most of our trolls! 😀
Kitteh, so far I’ve only seen three movies with Audrey Hepburn and cried at two of them.
But I’m a happy crier and a sad crier, I cry because something is pretty and I can feel the tears in my nose because I see someone being really nice to an old lady. But that’s not a bad thing, at least I don’t think it is.
Which Audrey Hepburn movies were they, TomBcat? I think I’ve only seen this and My Fair Lady all the way through. Started watching Charade and Funny Face but couldn’t get into them at all – not because of her, just the stories didn’t appeal (and Fred Astaire as her romantic lead? Urgh).
Some of Scrapemind’s other hits.
August 18th, 2012
The idea that male gamers are involuntarily celibate forever-alone virgin nerds is perfectly consistent with the idea that female gamers are attention-seeking floozies, Cassandra, if rather than trying to get into the male gamers’ pants, as you say, the goal of the female gamers is to say, “Ha! You put in kindness coins in hopes that sex would fall out, sucker! Now I have all your coins and I am going to withhold sex from you! MWAHAHAHAHA!” Hope this helps.
November 15th, 2012
Heterosexuality is patriarchy, no? But this site is full of boring old liberal feminists who think that heterosexuality is a valid lifestyle and is just the way some people are, rather than fun radical feminists who entertain me by saying that heterosexuality can and should be abolished.
P.S. I realize that it might seem like bisexual erasure that I’m discussing the heterosexuality of Typhonblue, a bisexual woman, but I’m not going to pretend that the heterosexual desires of bisexuals are somehow “queer” (ugh) just because the subject of desire isn’t exclusively heterosexual. Bisexuals are both heterosexual and homosexual, rather than, as some bisexuals fancy themselves, neither heterosexual nor homosexual: That would be asexuality. Pansexual, omnisexual, polysexual, multisexual, sapiosexual, “queer”, et al., are made-up bullshit.
This is the result of his scraping his mind, or shoe, or something.
Ugh. Sorry guys, didn’t mean to summon trolls. If I was going to do that I’d summon something more amusing.
Scrapemind, Typhon Blue can kiss my ass. We all know what MRAs think of men who have the slightest bit of a lean towards womens rights or anything that remotely results in a better than shit outlook for women. At best she’s calling him a white knight.
But be sure to run back and tell her all about how you bravely and totally out of the blue defended her honor.
It must be Dreary Old Troll day, The First Joe’s turned up to necro the Angry Gamer thread.
I’ve seen How To Steal A Million, My Fair Lady and Breakfast At Tiffany’s.
I love My Fair Lady, though I can’t stand the ending, for one because Shaw didn’t intend it to be like that but mostly because she says he can abuse her so long as he doesn’t ignore her. But in my mind they stay friends and she either marries no one or Freddy, that makes me feel better.
I like Breakfast At Tiffany’s mostly for its weird moments and the cat.
But yeah, as far as off-putting counter parts go, A-Team’s Hannibal tops Astaire in my book any time.
Also, scrapemind scraped his mind at guessing my gender by googling my deviant art account. Creeping elsewhere is Not. Fucking. Cool. (Now, Ice Warriors, those are cool)
Scrapemind is an idiot; I’m beginning to warm up to Clara.
You’re blathering about women’s dating experiences without actually familiarizing yourself with them? I wish I could be surprised, but alas, this is quite common.
Ah, the old “misogyny is women’s fault” chestnut. Anyone got those BINGO card generators handy? This guy seems like a sure winner.
@Kittehserf
Um, he’s only the sexiest space cowboy ever! Did you not watch Firefly? I can’t remember if you’re one of the nerdy members or not.
@Shiraz
Sadly, that doesn’t narrow it down much :-/
I’m late to the party. And am not up to reading 200+ comments at the moment.
I do hate the argument that women are asking to be raped because no means maybe/yes.
BS.
When I say no I do not mean chase harder. When I say no it is not because I am an evil conniving woman who is part of the evil conniving women club to trick men. I say it because I mean no.
I’m glad I missed the troll. I can’t even right now. I got into an argument online about whether Daniel Tosh’s rape comment to a attendee was funny. So, my patience with BS is gone. Super triggered today.
Hi: Kittehserf……or are you a regular that changed their name. ………..
Kitteh….
Melody — yeah that’s the same Kitteh. And internet hugs if you want them.
Hi Melody, yep, Kittehserf = The Kittehs’ Unpaid Help. Easier all round! 😀
@emilygoddess – nope, never watched Firefly, I’m not one of the nerdier of the members, at least when it comes to sf/fantasy/tv/film. Cowboys means Wild West to me, and cowboys robbing trains means Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. 🙂
Did you guys see that Fox is trying to ban selling homemade Jayne hats?
How the hell can they claim a hat of that design is their intellectual (snicker) property? It’s hardly a design that didn’t exist before Firefly; it’s a variation on a very, very widespread design. And unless they’re suddenly going to start selling the things themselves, wtf should they care anyway?
*growls*
Ah, next fox will try to go after cosplayers. How dare you make your own costume! You must wear a mass produced one we made!
@Kittehs
Maybe it’s about using Firefly trademarks to sell the things? Still stupid.
It’s Fox, it’s bound to be stupid.
A shame Murdoch’s our biggest export.
Too right.
I wish we could export Rinehart, Katter, Abbott, etc, etc … preferably to an uninhabited island.