Hey, everybody!
So you remember that post a couple of days ago, that one in which I quoted Jason Gregory’s most peculiar dating advice for angry men? You know, the one in which he suggested that men rebuff women who are interested in them with a long and rather nasty assortment of misogynistic insults? You know, like these:
Tell her that she isn’t interesting, that her soul is dog-shit and that she has nothing to offer other than boobs and booty, that she is a piece of shit and a total failure as a human being, that you don’t find her attractive and that she isn’t even good enough to be a cum-bucket.
And he went on like that for several more sentences. You can read the whole quote in my original piece, or in his original post on A Voice for Men.
Well, it turns out I totally misinterpreted Jason Gregory’s post, according to an unbiased and neutral outside observer named Jason Gregory, no relation to the original Jason Gregory, who’s written a post about it on his blog.
Hold on, I’m being told that this second Jason Gregory is in fact also the first Jason Gregory.
Anyway, according to Jason Gregory, even though Jason Gregory did explicitly tell men to “tell her … that her soul is dog-shit” he didn’t really mean to tell men to “tell her … that her soul is dog-shit.”
No, he only hypothetically meant this. He was just trying to suggest was how mean the ladies are when they turn down men.
What he was really trying to express, he now says, was that
men need to learn self-respect and to value their selves in totality—including the importance of valuing their sexuality.
Pretty weird how that came out in the original post as
Tell her that she isn’t interesting, that her soul is dog-shit and that she has nothing to offer other than boobs and booty, that she is a piece of shit and a total failure as a human being, that you don’t find her attractive and that she isn’t even good enough to be a cum-bucket.
But, he insists, his aim was really quite noble. As he explains now, he wasn’t just trying to stand up for the dignity of men — he was trying to protect women from having their inboxes filled with dick-pics.
I wrote that men should stop giving away cock like it’s worthless. Perhaps if men valued their sexuality, they’d be less inclined to inundate women with emails, messages, and pick-up lines. Perhaps if men actually valued their sexuality, the ladies at Jezebel wouldn’t be so inclined to complain about all the free-cock oppression. Perhaps if men actually valued their sexuality, men wouldn’t degrade themselves by harassing, begging, and inundating women with dick pics and pleas for their attention and affection.
Indeed, he went on to argue, it was not he who was the real misogynist, but me. J’Accuse!
This might seem a hard case to make, what with the whole “tell her … her soul is dog-shit” bit and numerous other remarks in his original post, like, for example, his description of women who actually enjoy sex:
You may be able to find a few coked-up girls who really get into it—the kind of girls who end up with sweaty hair, mascara, and cum dripping down their cheeks, but those girls usually have emotional disorders and are simply trying to bury their emotional problems in various sorts of drug induced escapes.
And who can forget his suggestion that men make their dates “pay for a juicy sirloin to replace all the jizzed-out protein” they cause to be jizzed out?
But apparently I am the true misogynist because I ran my post making fun of him during my pledge drive. Which makes me a “misogyny pimp.”
This is where the mocking of misogyny becomes misogyny. He doesn’t care about the women who bother to read his blog. Though he may have a few days in which he invites women and other commenters to share and cry about their troubles, any good pimp knows the importance of faking like he cares. Any good pimp knows how to manipulate the emotions of “his bitches.” …
[H]e doesn’t care about why men are sending dick pics and bombarding women with emails and messages through online dating services. He’s not looking for solutions to these problems. He’s not saying that men who do such things may lack self-respect because the value of male sexuality is often viewed as less-than-worthless in our culture.
Wait, what? I don’t care enough about men who harass women so I’m a misogynist?
Exploiting women is a form of misogyny … In this way, Boobz has more in common with an abusive pimp than he has with any heroic slayer of misogyny. Boobz is the misogyny that he mocks. Boobz is a misogyny-pimp.
QED, I guess. Apparently quoting misogynists, mocking misogynists, discussing misogyny, taking notice of misogyny in any way … makes one a misogynist. At least according to a guy who apparently thinks that the only women who really “get into” sex are “coked-up girls” with “emotional disorders” and “cum dripping down their cheeks.”
You’ll notice that last line in Jason’s quote links to a video; that link is from him. It’s a clip from the film Bad Santa. As Jason makes a point of mentioning several times, that’s where he got the “your soul is dog shit” line.
But if you watch the clip you’ll notice one thing about that line, in its original context in the film — it’s not surrounded by a paragraph full of vile misogynistic abuse. Nope, that stuff is all Jason Gregory.
This is the actual heading of Mr Gregory’s blog. HOLLER, indeed.
His “interpretation” of David’s OP is impressively wrong.
David’s clearly saying that Gregory’s dog-shit speech is the source of the giant dickishness aspect, but Gregory pretends David is saying men are being giant dicks by merely “taking the liberty of telling a woman no” (how high toned!).
Disingenuous bullshit or massive reading comprehension fail?
Cracks me up that they’re in that order. Important things first, amirite?
I found this Jason Gregory blog: http://www.whoisjasongregory.com/my-christian-blog-page.html I don’t think it’s the same guy, but it makes as much sense.
Wow. That Jason Gregory is a real asshole. One, he’s back-pedaling. His original post on AVFM was not about men valuing their sexuality. It was about how women whine when they get harrassed on dating sites and when they get dick-pics; and that men sending these things make women feel “entitled.” And that getting harrassed and dick-pics is “female privilege.” He actually says:
And of course, he pulls out the whole “hell hath no fury” cliche.
Second, he totally misrepresents David’s previous article.
No, telling women their soul is dogshit is being a giant dick. And I have no idea where he gets anyone here saying men aren’t allowed to say no to sex.
Ninja’d by Brooked 🙂
What is up with this “small business” descriptor. We had that…Michael troll on here the other week who mentioned they had their own business and lived ON THE BEACH. (see http://manboobz.com/2013/11/18/dalrock-on-why-men-should-avoid-women-whove-wasted-a-lot-of-courtship-and-used-up-their-most-attractivefertile-years/comment-page-7/#comment-402586 )
Are the troll guy and Jason Gregory the same dude? Because this bit from his blog sure sounds like Michael troll’s focus on women having meaningless lives:
And this bit shows his racism:
Did I miss the unveiling in the previous thread?
If we’re assessing how men and women take rejection (in a totally heteronormative sense) then my general observations seem to be that women ask “What is wrong with me?” and men will as “What is wrong with her?”.
Women assume that rejections happens because it is some flaw in us, men assume rejection happens because their object of their desires can’t recognise a good thing when she sees it/she is a hypermagous b*tch!/women only date arseholes/*insert cliches here*
The difference is that men are taught that they are entitled women’s, time, attention and bodies and have seen a million Hollywood films where the unconventionally attractive, nerdy guy gets the superhot girl.
Women are taught that attention and validation from men is the ultimate goal and that everything we do/are should be about appealing to them and appeasing them. We never see the unconventionally attractive nerdy girl getting the superhot guy. We are never told that no matter what we look like we deserve to be loved by a man. We only ever see the superhot girl get the guy, so if we don’t get the guy it means we have fallen short of this ideal and that this is a failing in us.
“The difference is that men are taught that they are entitled women’s, time, attention and bodies and have seen a million Hollywood films where the unconventionally attractive, nerdy guy gets the superhot girl.”
Not just them. “Getting the girl” is like a reward for protagonists. Movies make it seem like winning the affections of a woman is just an inevitable consequence of doing something else. And it happens SO FUCKING OFTEN that people believe it, believe they’re entitled to women if they have any kind of merit.
Only movie I can remember that did’t do it was Disney’s Hunchback of Notre-Dame. And that was because the lead guy was hideously ugly, and Disney hates ugly people.
And even when we consciously know that this is such a toxic double standard, know it intellectually, it’s easy to find how internalised that self-doubt – even self-disdain – is. We can get evidence of being loved even though (gasp!) we aren’t the superhot woman (sorry, girl) and yet have a hard time overcoming that lousy, niggling, under-the-surface sense of I am ugly, I am not worthy, I am not likeable, how could he possibly like or love me?
Yes, I am speaking from experience.
ugh. Once again, the MRA dissapoint, evenw hen I thought I ewas beyond that.
Taking a moment to examine it from their self-centered and entirely lacking in empathy viewpoint, I can almost, Aaaaaalmost understand their ideas,(in this case.) but only barely, and only if I squint funny and stop thinking too hard.
Namely, Rejection sucks, and because woman get more (unsolicited) attention they tend to reject men more often. Then on another point, this guy sees how much attention woman get, and becomes jealous. “arn’t I as valuable as some of these woman? why do they get all the attention? If woman sent me random pics of their junk I would be happy!” Heck! I even give him points for consistency, in that he seems to apply the same old slut shaming ideas to men as well as woman. Props for that Basic bit of logical consistency im not used to seeing in the typical backwards MRA style.
Of course, thats as deep as the rabbit hole goes, and It ignores the plainly apparent, such as how woman do not *ASK* for boatloads of attention/dickpics, that the woman getting the attention HAS to reject the majority of people by sheer value of of the sheer number. (assuming a perfectly ‘standard relationship here.) and that even should she enjoy random nude pictures, Its still kind of creepy to get them without *ANY* kind of contact.. and thats assuming she *LIKES* them. if she doesn’t, then thats like assuming all men want random nude pictures. (And no, They dont, for any of you MRA or otherwise who think they do. What you appreciate, doesn’t translate to other men by default just because its a stereotype.)
Even worse, Woman have to deal with the more abusive people far more often. people who think that being ‘hurt’ for ‘doing all the perusing’ gives them a right to be an asshole to the woman in question. I Dunno, Maybe this is just me venting, but I get the feeling this guy wouldn’t like the attention so much if he were in a woman’s position. (free Unsolicited attention is worth its price, I suppose?)
Oh, that is hilarious. Yeah David, he knows you are but what is he? (Other than extremely vile and particularly dim)
Meanwhile, I have “Swimming the Seas of Pene” to the tune of Tears for Fears, “Seeds of Love” stuck in my head. *snortle*
“Retired gigolo”? Oh, BROTHER. >snort< How fucking desperate were his "clients"?
And this confirms every ill opinion I've ever had of putzes who majored in philosophy.
As for the part about rum: That figures. And now it's put me right off rum. Thanks a lot, Jason, you soul-of-dogshit!
@shayla
I know you said no details, but I want to let you know it’s not really directed at you as a poster, but at the words you wrote in a totally innocuous and factually true comment. I regretted posting that comment when I woke up this morning.
I don’t think you’re wrong, men like this tend to react awfully when a man hits on them. Of course homophobia is in the mix there, but deep down they understand too how being hit on by a man can be intimidating — but they choose not to empathize. Even if it were a woman, “attention” with a complete lack of respect for your humanity is something very few people would actually enjoy. People don’t send strangers dickpics because they think the other party will be happy about it, it’s to shock and dominate and everyone involved knows it.
@eli, Please don’t worry about it! 🙂 If they were capable of bothering me I wouldn’t post here. I’m actually a bit proud, if they don’t like one of my comments I must be on the right track.
Uh oh. Looks like she may have to change her number and email address. Dropping him was the right decision. Keeping him at bay is gonna be the hard part.
If he might be serious about showing up, alert campus security. As for the calls and texts, ignore them, completely. Even narcissists give up eventually (took a year but he did finally get the message)
So sorry you and you roommate have to deal with that, auggz. Do stay safe.
The fact that he really feels he’s in the position to accuse anyone else of being misogynistic (while using a freaking pimps-and-ho’s analogy) is fucking mind-boggling.
So that long-ass paragraph of nonstop verbal abuse was supposed to represent how women reject men? Or how ANYONE rejects ANYONE? Is that really what a “no” amounts to in this guy’s eyes? And he wants to talk about ENTITLEMENT? Dear god, I just. I can’t.
You’re talking specifically putzes, right? Because I half resemble that remark. 😛
Although I’ll probably flunk out once I start upper division because I don’t understand how anyone takes the categorical imperative seriously.
Bahahaha. I find it ridiculous how he keeps solemnly referring to you as ‘Boobz’, as if he’s writing a rejoinder to an academic paper authored by ‘Boobz, M’. What a self-important idiotic wanker.
I LOVE how an MRA’s solution to the problem of men sending too many dick pics isn’t, “Hey men, we should stop sending dick pics.” It’s, “…God, women are awful, aren’t they?”
I love how they keep saying this. They just can’t fathom the notion that any man might actually like women, or care about them.
@barrakuduh
“Women are awful” is the MRA response to EVERYTHING.
Wait, is Jason Gregory the guy who complained about the “violence against” Google search?
@moldybrehd,
No love for the brown penises?
@Cassandra,
Maybe he’ll make a documentary about whether hot Japanese scientists are funny.
@Argenti,
I mean, there’s a lot of misogyny on the left and I’ve definitely seen it directed at conservative women, but when that criticism comes from the right it’s meant as more of a gotcha than an attempt to fix the problem. And I’ve seen people on the right claim that disagreeing with conservative/pro-life women means we’re bad feminists or something, so yeah.