Leave it to Roosh V’s Return of Kings blog to publish the most reprehensible thing I’ve yet seen related to the Boston Marathon bombing.
In a post with the lovely title “The American Woman Has Hit An All-Time Low,” guest blogger Samseau offers some thoughts – that is to say, wild, unsupported speculation – about the widow of bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and uses that as evidence in a case against American women as a whole, declaring her “a profound marker in the decline of the American woman.”
Samseau bases much of his, er, theorizing on the facts that Tsarnaev was a Muslim immigrant while his widow, Katherine Tsarnaev, nee Russell, was “common American female stock.”
According to most accounts, the two met in a nightclub, and Samseau – his head filled with PUA fever dreams — imagines the scenario:
Although it is unclear how he seduced her, my guess is that he got her with some Muslim game: intimidating gazes, ramrod straight stances, bottle service, congregating with all of the other jacked immigrants in the nightclub with their top two shirt buttons undone, and then inviting girls back to his table to talk.
Most likely they both frequented the same nightclubs when he noticed her, and made a few attempts to get her back to his place before he went for the close. Given that she was an American woman, she put out right away as she did for so many other men in her freshman and sophmore years.
Wouldn’t you hit it? I know I would.
Samseau is somehow able to conjure all this up from the one widely reported fact that the two met in a nightclub.
But it’s what he manages to conjure up from the reports that Tamerlan Tsarnaev physically abused his wife that really takes Samseau’s post over the top. (TRIGGER WARNING in what follows for Samseau’s strange apologia for domestic violence against women.)
Noting that Tsarnaev was arrested for domestic violence against another girlfriend around the time Katherine Russell started dating him, Samseau concludes that “Katherine knew this guy was a piece of shit from the get-go, but most likely willfully ignored it in favor of her lusts.”
Oh, but Samseau is just getting started. He then posits that because
Katherine was a young American woman, she most likely did not see Tsarnaev, or any man she was banging, as anything beyond fun. But because Tsarnaev was a violent man, using force, coercion, and beatings to keep her from straying. Any hint of infidelity resulted in some kind of punishment for Katherine.
Samseau, while registering polite disdain towards Tsarnaev’s alleged violence towards his wife, also seems to regard it as something of a necessity:
I am not surprised that it took the violence of Tsarnaev’s level to keep a young and beautiful girlfriend in Boston. I know that hookup culture well, and girls actively dump and cheat on men whenever they so please. Men are more likely to be pump and dumped than the women are.
Yes, that’s right, he’s arguing that the only way to keep young and beautiful American women from cheating is to beat them. Adding insult to injury — quite literally — Samseau goes on to argue that this is how American women secretly like it.
Thus we reach the disturbing conclusion of this story – Katherine was not a victim, she was not a special case, she was an ordinary American woman who represented her culture in every way, and that is precisely why she betrayed it. She was given everything a woman could want in life, and instead she choose to find something, someone – anyone – who could take it away from her. Unsatisfied with her life of being catered on beck and call, of whim and notion, she was drawn to the first man who would remove it all and place chains around her – even if that man hated the country who raised her. …
And since Katherine was nothing more than an “All-American girl,” it is reasonable to conclude that most American women are exactly like Katherine – unhappy with their spoiled lives who would gladly give it up just for a chance to be enthralled by a powerful man. The women of this country have no more loyalty to the land that raised them, but instead are opportunists looking for a chance to submit in pleasure.
Samseau follows this appalling victim-blaming bullshit with a version of the standard-issue Nice Guy ™ Lament:
Until that opportunity comes, they will hate on all men who try to be anything good towards them, and act out against them – by denying them sex and relationships, by throwing them in jail with trumped up charges, by stealing their money under the pretense of marriage – until they are forced to stop. And it doesn’t take much to stop them – even a welfare bum like Tsarnaev could do it.
Oh, but Samseau isn’t exactly recommending that American men beat their girlfriends – because this would be bad for them. For the men, that is.
Now, I do not think any man should go around beating women just so he can keep them. This is obviously a shitty, destructive way to live that will only cause you more pain and unhappiness in the long run. Any woman that requires beatdowns in order to remain faithful is a garbage woman who will never make you happy. And yet with the extreme shortage of eligible American women, what is a good American man supposed to do?
Samseau ends his post with a suggestion that American men leave the country to some foreign paradise where women aren’t so, well, American. Which is, I suppose, a better alternative than advising men to stick around and beat up women. Be thankful for small mercies, I guess.
I love how knowing basically nothing about this woman gives Samseau the ability to describe her likes, dislikes, relationships, etc in such a way. It’s like he either stalked her for years without being noticed…or he is just pulling misogynistic fiction from his bowels.
I wonder which is closer to the truth?
Hmmm…
Shaenon, I was going to write the same thing…if there is such a thing as “Muslim game”* I’m pretty sure bottle service isn’t a part of it. I know a lot of Muslims and while some of them drink (generally the less devout ones for obvious reasons), alcohol isn’t exactly what I think of when I think of Islam, you know?
Although I don’t exactly associate good posture with Muslims either, as this guy apparently does with that “ramrod straight back” stuff. I mean, I know some Muslims who have excellent posture but I don’t think it’s a tenet of the faith.
Seriously, all laughing at the ridiculousness aside, I honestly wonder how these guys can deal with the cognitive dissonance their beliefs must cause without their heads exploding. I mean, simply the “domestic violence isn’t that common and it is usually female on male, not male on female!!!” stuff combined with the “all American women need to be beaten to be kept in line” is astounding.
*LOLOLOL
It’s because ladies seceretly control all men with their vaginas.
If a man beats a woman, she might be too scared to leave him for another man. But it’s more likely she will leave him to get out of the abusive relationship.
That’s how I feel. Part of me is like “Good riddance!” if they leave the US, but the other part of me doesn’t want women in other countries dealing with our MRA/PUA expats.
This is how those guys work:
She wants to have sex with me? What a slut!
She won’t have sex with me? What a frigid bitch!
I was wondering how long it would take before someone shifted the blame to a woman in their lives. I think it was 2-3 days before they started focusing on the mother.
Don’t worry about those who propagate the the “chicks dig jerks” meme; their mountains of evidence are no match for your equalist assertions.
6/10, would laugh at again. Use of “evidence” was particularly funny.
@InconvenientTruth
I supposed it would be too inconvenient to ask you for an actual citation, which should be incredibly easy to find because of the amount of evidence, right?
PS when I say citation, I mean science journal, not MRA forum
Fixed that for you!
Truthy’s WORD should be enough! Go question his manly TRUTH is MISANDRY
/sarcasm, obvs.
Troofy, stop sending up flare’s from Mom’s basement, we don’t care.
I’m quite interested in Truthy’s definition of ‘jerk’. Because most of the jerks I’ve met:
Have redeeming qualities that far outweigh the quantity and quality of their jerkhood
Are not actually jerks but tend to be a little rough and enjoy gentle teasing (without going too far)
Been a delicious seasoning for food.
Well, ok, there are genuine jerks, but I generally call them ‘wankers’.
*puts money in the swear jar*
When I’m driving, a jerk is “anyone going faster than me.” I have to assume that a jerk for Truthy is “anyone having more sex than he is.”
@ bagelsan Well played, though I still think the score you’ve given is a little conservative; I thought the use of the word “evidence” without any attempt at citing evidence was riotous, and would say 6.5/10.
Also, any of the hetero ladies here dating a notably awesome non-jerk? I am. Yay for MRA tropes not actually playing out in real life, and double yay for Sir Baby (whose existence doubles as brain bleach for this poppycock…)!
Broadly speaking, western women do suck. Again, since logic and reason typically eludes the people that comment here, I’m talking about western women as a group. Exceptions do exist (and the following list may or may not describe you personally, so don’t get your panties in a bunch). So what is wrong your typical Western woman?
1) Bitchy, entitled attitudes, or just poor attitudes in general
2) A great percentage of them are significantly overweight. If I were 40 or 50 pounds overweight I wouldn’t be complaining about how women don’t give me the time of day, but to merely point out that it’s preferable to sexually desire a woman with a BMI under 30 is a misogynistic hate crime according to the commentariat here.
3) Their relationship philosophy could be summed up as it’s the man’s job to defer, serve and cater to them. They have an exhaustive laundry list of requirements for what they want in a man, but when it comes to what they’re supposed to bring to the table, all they think that’s required of them is that they show up. And they are doing you a huge favor just letting you be in their presence. Reciprocity is a foreign concept to them. Can you imagine if every man had an Infinite Jest-sized list of things they required in a woman and didn’t put any care or concern into what they should contribute to a relationship? Even if you decide to let her be the boss and attempt to “serve her” she will eventually come to see you as weak and dump you anyway. The best relationships are 50/50 in that each person is pulling their weight and contributing equally to the partnership. With too many women today, it’s almost like a service relationship. You are the waiter/cashier and they are the customer. Which of course does not work in the long run because eventually she will be repelled at the doormat-like behavior that is produced when you try to cater to her every whim and sideline your own needs and desires. You can only get away with being assertive and strong if she perceives your value to be way higher than hers, i.e. you’re Tom Brady/Brad Pitt and she’s a secretary.
4) A lot of times it’s really like walking a tightrope. If you make one mistake, if you fail even once to say the right thing, have a dumb moment, or you do something in a less than elegant way, you get kicked to the curb. I’m not talking about major dealbreakers like abuse, repeatedly getting caught in lies or other irresponsible, reckless behavior, but just generally being human and not being suave, sophisticated and debonair at all times. You get dropped like a hot potato over superficial, silly stuff without any kind of larger consideration as to what sort of man you are, what you bring to the table, what kind of partner you would make in terms of being kind, supportive, generous, having character and integrity, having a good job, etc.
5) Just as guys in their teens and through their twenties focus solely on looks and ignore a woman’s character and other personality attributes, women start off preferring the bad boy because of the excitement that is generated by being with him. And it used to be in generations past that as they got older they realized what was more important for long-term success in a relationship…a guy who was responsible, mature, employed, supportive, kind, etc was a better long-term bet. But nowadays they stick with this bad boy mating strategy long past their teens and early twenties. Ironically, the guys that would make good boyfriends, husbands and fathers get no slack at all in dating situations with women, they are on zero-tolerance probation, but the guys that are absolutely not quality relationship material get plenty of rope to do whatever they want.
6) due to items 1-5, there is just generally a paucity of relationship-quality women in the West.
So at a certain point it’s kind of like “Why bother?” Western women today in general have poor attitudes, are not nurturing and kind, and are not appreciative of good qualities in the men that they date. It seems like the only way you can keep a woman around is to have significantly higher social value than her, i.e. the Brad Pitt/secretary example. Then you can treat her anyway you want.
Sigh. What vile chunks of slime mold they are, those Rooshians.
@BabyLawyer:
Well, it’s funnier with context. He refuses to cite evidence, since we “wouldn’t read it anyway.”
So any use of the word evidence by Joe is extra-funny.
Also, if you say CIA–oops, sorry, C1A–it’s hilarious.
But I’ll let Joe explain that one.
@Howard
Is Joe the same poster as Inconvenient Truth?
Also, it would be SUPER handy if I could refuse to cite evidence in court in my law practice on the grounds that the judge “wouldn’t read it anyway.” Talk about finding efficiencies and streamlining costs! These dudes are ONTO something.
@BabyLawyer: No, they’re just trolling at the same time, in the same neighborhood. But they’re both equally annoying and tendentious.
But one of them wears tinfoil and lives on a boat.
Also, any of the hetero ladies here dating a notably awesome non-jerk? I am.
Yup! Me too. He’s not even jerk-esque, he’s just perfectly lovely.
Let me get this straight:
– American women put out early and all the time.
– American women punish good men who don’t beat them by denying them sex.
– Men beat women to keep them from cheating, but this means the woman is garbage and not the abusive dude because who could blame a man for doing this?
…Is anyone else seeing the contradictions here?
(As for MRAs leaving the US to seek out foreign women, don’t bother. We don’t want you either :D)
D. – expecting consistancy is MISANDRY
@bagelsan
Concern: Let’s just say, theoretically, that mine is hilarious, self-confident and does not spend the majority of his time on MRA/PUA forums; does this mean I’m actually just blindly riding the alpha male cock carousel? Help, I need to find a beta before I turn 26 (and therefore used up and hideous) in August 🙁
But… I thought logic and intelligence was their forte and women and “manginas” were stupid and illogical?
Truthiness, if chicks actually dug jerks MRAs would have nothing to whine about.