Sometimes I hunt the misogyny, sometimes it wanders up right up to me and says hello.
Today’s post is an example of the latter. Below, a slightly edited comment that someone left for me this morning. It’s a response to a post of mine about a dreadful post on Return of Kings in which a fellow calling himself Billy Chubbs argued, with absolutely no evidence, that a recent high school shooter was driven to murder because of his “probable sexual frustration,” Chubbs went on to argue that young women are “selfish” because they don’t have sex with guys they’re not attracted to.
Anyway, my new commenter – posting under the name “whogoesthere?” – thinks that I and the other commenters here were being too hard on Chubbs’ “very good argument.” And so he deposited this giant rant, which in many ways is even scarier than Chubbs’ original.
He’s a tad verbose, so I’ve trimmed out some stuff that isn’t relevant to his general, er, thesis. And I’ve also taken the liberty of adding a few paragraph breaks and bolding a few of the best (i.e. worst) bits.
When men don’t get the women they want they turn to violence.
Not a good start here, because this just isn’t true. In this case, the phrase “not all men” is, for once, appropriate. Most men don’t get violent when they’re turned down.
This is established all over the animal kingdom and offers a good example about how it applies to humans, that snotty girls who keep their sexual treasures to all but a few males cause the remaining males to snap. …
Animals do all sorts of things that humans don’t do, and we can’t always learn from their behavior or assume that it relates to our own lives.
Or maybe the Evo Psych crew is just looking at the wrong animals. When banana slugs can’t find a partner to have sex with, they simply fertilize themselves. There’s a lesson here, I think, for the angry incels of the world: you can’t always get what you want, and when you can’t, sex with yourself is better than murder.
High school is a massively sexually charged winner take all environment. … Today’s high school is basically an ongoing audition for a porno video and the guys and girls who don’t make the cut can only sit at home and masturbate.
wat
It’s demeaning and hits a major blow to a person’s sexual identity to not be invited to frolic with the beautiful people.
Somehow most people, regardless of gender, manage to survive even if they’re not frolicking with Charlize Theron and/or Channing Tatum.
I’m sorry but almost no men go on wild shooting rampages if they have a beautiful female in their keep.
In their keep?! Also, no. Charles Manson was surrounded by beautiful young women. Yet he orchestrated multiple grisly murders.
The only guys that do so are bank robbers and thieves, generally guys at a later stage of life more fixated on money.
wat
Human beings naturally assess the amount of sex going around them and judge themselves in relationship to the amount and type of sex others are getting.
You know, you can’t actually tell how much and what kind of sex someone is having just by looking at them. Yes, there will always be people in the world having more sex with you. And some of these people are having sex with people you would probably like to have sex with. There are also people who are smarter than you, funnier than you, who can play chess or kickbox better than you, who have hundreds or thousands of times more money than you do.
That’s life. Life isn’t fair.
This makes sense because from a reproductive standpoint sex is coveted, and sex with beautiful thin, young women are the most coveted. Being the first to spoil these young women sexually is viewed reproductively as a guarantee of parentage, thus this is why males instinctively covet and burn with passion for these females.
Ah, yes, it was only a matter of time until the creepy pedo-justifying Evo Psych assfacts made their appearance. Not all men “burn with passion” in their pants for virginal high school girls.
This is why we have “morality” which is in its essence is a promise not to flaunt or indulge in sex moreso than the lowest man or woman in your tribe. This is what is meant when people say “morality went out the window.” They mean someone with more sexual prowess is openly indulging in sex and broadcasting it to stimulate the jealousy of the underclasses.
I’m pretty sure that’s not what people mean when they say “morality went out the window.”
This teen killed people cause he thought that beautiful girls were out of reach. The high school environment merely rubbed it in his face. Yes drugs to treat ADD might’ve eroded many of the impulse control functions in the teen, but the rage against the high school was still the gasoline.
[citation needed]
He might’ve had a picture or two taken with a girl next to him, but oftentimes those high school girls lie and simply eat up the male’s offerings without granting sexual access, but grant it to a random stud.
How dare young women choose who to have sex with, and who not to!
I’m not saying the girl he killed deserved it, it’s only that when you are in that frame of mind you cannot tell who is having more sex than others and you simply fill in the gaps with rage.
Wait, so if she had turned him down he would have been justified in killing her?
The beautiful girl simply represented everything that the teen couldn’t get. The steady love and wild sex of a valuable young girl.
Yeah, I think you’re confusing high school with porn again. His rampage lasted roughly a minute and a half. He shot her because she was there.
All the other theories posted on this site seem comical, self-righteous and weirdly off-point. It’s like you’re assessing the situation as an asexual senior citizen or righteous prude.
Not a lot of “prudes” here. Just people who find the “women need to have sex with ‘nice guys’ or these ‘nice gys’ will kill you all” to be a somewhat problematic argument.
Generally men want sex with young thin beauties who validate their existence.
Some men do. But most men, among those who are sexually attracted to women, aren’t as neurotically fixated on this small slice of the female demographic – women in their teens and early twenties who are somehow both virginal and sexually “wild” – as manosphere men seem to be. And most people don’t base their entire self-worth on whether or not they’re having sex with beautiful people.
Some men prefer women older than them. Some like women who are fat. Plenty of men don’t fixate on a particular physical type and are attracted to all sorts of different women. Believe it or not, whogoesthere, there are lots of men who are more interested in what’s in a woman’s head than they are in whether or not she matches up with some particular checklist of physical attributes.
If society removes all of the social pathways to attaining such a beauty, such as making prostitution illegal, increasing shame for men who seek sex, rewarding females and males called manginas who identify and mock the sex seekers and so on… this will lead to depression in men and all of the behaviors surrounding it, including shootings. Sounds pretty much like a logical line of reasoning to me.
And that’s the problem. It’s not actually a logical line of reasoning at all. It’s more like a sort of blackmail.
Men don’t kill women because they can’t have “the steady love and wild sex of a valuable young girl.” Sometimes men kill women because they feel entitled to have sex with these “valuable young girls” and become bitter and enraged when they can’t find a “valuable young girl” who agrees with them on this particular point.
It’s not the lack of “sexual access” that’s the problem. It’s the notion that your desire for “sexual access” means more than the right of that person to say “no.” It’s the notion that society has done you wrong because you can’t (at least at the moment) get laid. It’s the idea that your desire to have sex with a particular kind of woman somehow trumps the right of other people to live.
I mean, what the fucking fuck.
Oh, by the way, there’s no evidence that the shooter in question – Karl Halverson Pierson – was motivated by sexual frustration. His intended target was the school librarian, who is also the school’s debate coach. Pierson was obsessed with debate, and had some sort of grudge against the coach.
undfreeland seems pretty convinced that what he believes is perfectly representative and what everyone here has told him is outliers and exceptions.
He’s either a lulztroll or exceptionally resistant to any perspective that doesn’t match his. Either way it’s getting harder to believe there’s much point engaging with him.
And FTR his reductive view of the “dating market” being purely based of conventional beauty & money sells MEN short too. If we internalise that crap then we place way too much importance on other people’s perceptions of our relationships, and not enough faith in our own reasons for liking a particular person. This is where crap like “you can do better” and “punching above his weight” can be horrible ideas that reduce relationships to a scorecard and convince men that their acquisition of a female companion is being rated and judged like some kind of Olympic event.
I know of all the women I’ve dated, their level of adherence to conventional “prettiness” has only been one of many factors that drew me to them. In my younger years I thought that’s because I had weird taste in women, but it’s become apparent to me that I placed less value solely on appearance than my contemporaries when I was younger.
Oh, undfreeland.
Yes, because nothing says “I acknowledge the individuality and intellect of each woman” like this:
Or this:
Nothing there about the joy of being with someone who gets your jokes, someone who challenges your opinions, someone who introduces you to new ideas and enthusiasms. Just longing for the validation that comes from being loved (not loving her, too – just being loved) by a beautiful woman. No working on a relationship, no mutually giving and receiving happiness; just sitting back and basking in the glow of her regard.
Yup, that totally sounds as if you like women as people. No commodification of the ladies here!
The “quality women” thing brings back memories, though. Oh, that great day when I turned eighteen and the USDA assigned my classification. I *almost* missed being Prime because of my chest size, but the inspector decided to let me slide. Granted, when I turned thirty I got downgraded to Choice, but nothing will erase the triumph of the day when I learned that I was truly a quality cut of woman.
Do you not know how healthy relationships work? It’s not one person admiring the other. It’s two people who are compatible and actually like each other. Try seeking someone you like as a person instead of someone to admire you.
I don’t think you’re as polite and funny as you think you are. You have yet to speak of women as if we were humans beings. We’re not blow up dolls with pulses. We can’t be lined up and arranged by numerical value. I’m not sure why it’s so hard for you to understand and accept that we are sentient, three dimensional people.
“You’re nice but…” is code for “I don’t like you.” Women have to use a soft no for the sake of safety. That’s why women say that. It’s not said because nice men aren’t attractive. It’s not said because you’re nice. It’s not that you’re being friend zoned. It’s that women can usually sense when the man she’s talking to harbors sexist thoughts. Trust me. There are red flags. If you start seeing us as fellow human beings, women might not feel the need to get the hell away from you quickly and safely.
Is there still a boring troll here?
Antidote to boring troll.
Ooh, now we’re on to the Europe is a magical, progressive monolith portion of the morning! Since Wetherby, IIRC mentioned Pounds as currency I’m guessing he’s British. The notion that there is the UK is some highly sophisticated non-misogynist land is ridiculous. Google “lad culture.” Recall that a woman got a bunch of rape and death threats for campaigning to get Jane Austen on their money.
Even if monoEuropelith is so much more progressive than the US, I thought that
If men are compelled by biology to only care about a woman’s looks, it shouldn’t make a difference whether or not a country is progressive.
I smell sock.
Or, at minimum, the smell of a willfully stupid troll.
I’d do more arguing, but I have to get ready for my shift.
It’s because the FDA doesn’t exist in the UK. Quality women there don’t know that they’re quality because they don’t have the Prime stamp on their asses, and that’s how Wetherby was able to secure one for his exclusive ego-boosting use.
I don’t suppose that a change in their moods could have led them to sleep with you. Nah. I don’t think your ego could handle that.
There are like 100 posts in this thread of women discussing what they find attractive in a man, which undfreeland completely ignored to focus on Wetherby and how attractive he must be. But he’s not a misogynist, guys! And he’d never adhere blindly to an ideology!
Can you even hear yourself? You really don’t see women’s value beyond your ability to fuck them, do you?
1) Saying “I’m not misogynistic” isn’t a magical talisman that erases the misogyny in your other statements.
2) You only touted the “benefits of feminism” to men. You barely even mentioned women while you were singing the praises of a movement for bettering our lives. Saying “I like feminism” is also not a magical talisman.
Again, the fact that you view women only as props for your own self-esteem does not mean all men do. Again, many men actually enjoy the company of women for its own sake. Again, you are fucking pathetic.
It’s been explained to you already. It’s almost like you don’t actually want to know.
All of the UK is MISANDRY!
Don’t tell Elizabeth that, I think she might cry.
BAHAHAHAHA! So we can add “fucking ignorant” to the list of your redeeming qualities.
Friendly reminder that bell hook’s name is not capitalized 🙂
@Thread, speaking of creepers: if anyone is in the Boston area and would like info about a known rapist/abuser in the fandom and poly scenes, I can pass it along. He assaulted a friend of mine and she’s unwilling to let him become a “missing stair”.
We need some kind of database for rapists, like the one FetLife members have been keeping (offsite, because you’re not allowed to warn people on FetLife itself).
It is extremely disingenuous of you to devote entire posts about random troll comments alongside your posts about AVfM, as though they are in any way equivalent in their influence on the MRM.
Can we put together some sort of a collection to send Woofy the pompoms that he needs to be the very best cheerleader he can be?
Woody, champion of AVfM. He may not be the hero they want, or the hero they need, but he is without a doubt the hero they deserve.
@undefreeland
“I merely wished to present a my point if view, which I feel is relatively unique.’
From what I grasped, it is amazingly cliché. Your conception of relationships read like the 30sec clip of a luxury car ad. All the complaining is about you not being the square jaw dude driving along with his pretty blond wife looking at him adoringly. Your loss if you have internalized all that idiotic mass marketing spiel about what success, love and happiness look like. They are selling you an illusion because they cant sell you the real goods. It should sadden you that not only you see women as a commodity you can grade, but yourself as well in the process. I suggest you grow up. The right car, the right clothes, the right job, the right look don’t buy the love that supposedly is the ultimate validation that one is worthy. Teenagers look for validation, grown-up look for love.
Woody, sweetie, this is getting really sad.
Oh, Woody. *Shakes head*
This site is for mocking misogyny. A lot of the time that means mocking MRAs but it’s not exclusively MRA mocking.
You know that ban Woody for being boring idea I had?
Whatever happened to that?
At least let’s give him a troll challenge. Like he has to provide us with a trivia fact about cute animals. That would make his posts so much more interesting.
I’m going to pull an academic to refute our troll.
First: http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/21/1/5.short
International Preferences in Selecting Mates
A Study of 37 Cultures
The entire study is behind a pay wall slash Uni login, but I have access.
From the abstract: ” Multidimensional scaling of the cultures yielded a five dimensional solution, the first two of which were interpreted. The first dimension was interpreted as Traditional versus Modern, with China, India, Iran, and Nigeria anchoring one end and the Netherlands, Great Britain, Finland, and Sweden anchoring the other. The second dimension involved valuation of education, intelligence, and refinement.”
In short, the study found that they could distill the results into five axes of attractiveness predictors, which for the most part, varied widely between countries, cultures and time. The only axis they could find any consistency with was the value attached to earning potential and physical attractiveness, with women valuing resources and men valuing physical appearance.
However, when you take into account that most of the countries that provided data for that particular axis are industrialized and patriarchal (money is a value system in and of itself, the value of a person is based on how much money they obtain, masculinity is affirmed by money, the socialization of which is hard for even feminists and others aware of the influence to resist) , you start to question their assumption that it is innate or biological. Indeed, one of the studies in their meta analysis refutes the ‘innate biological’ assumption.
Female Status Predicts Female Mate Preferences Across Nonindustrial Societies: http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/41/1/66.abstract
Basically, in non industrial cultures that are less patriarchal, where men are less socialized to view their value in contrast to women and femininity and base their value on their ability to obtain and keep both money and women, women value men’s access to resources less.
“Domestic authority is associated with greater importance placed on appearance relative to resources, whereas ritualized female solidarity is associated with lower importance of appearance relative to resources. ”
Women with power and access to resources of their own (or who live in a society or in a way that does not value money for money’s sake) don’t care about whether or not their partner is ‘rich and successful’ and so they value physical and personality traits more. In other words, how much women value access to resources varies widely!
tl;dr Traits that people consider attractive vary widely across countries, cultures, time and individuals! Troll is full of shit 😀
Poor baby, he’s sitting there singing I Want You To Want Me at the top of his lungs in Elam’s direction and does Pauly even notice him? No, he does not. Woody has been fanzoned.
This is vomit inducing, and yet, vaguely funny:
“The admiration of a beautiful woman brings about the most sublime and joyous feelings in life. To experience it frequently, and uncomplicated for prolonged periods… I can’t even imagine such bliss.”
Yeah um, “uncomplicated and for prolonged periods…” **snicker**
Also, how would you know admiration from a beautiful woman brings the most “sublime and joyous feelings in life”? You admitted you can’t even “imagine such bliss.”
I wonder if he knows most women don’t have time to sit around all day carrying some insecure guy’s delicate ego in her hands like a baby chick. Christ, how boring.
In the meantime, what do you do when you go home with this dream woman and there’s no guys around to envy you for being with her? What do you do then? Can you reassure yourself that she will feel compelled to stay by your charm and wit? Can you give her mind-blowing sex? Does she take you out, knowing all her friends what to sleep with you? Or will she realize you don’t see her as fully human when you just stand there staring at her with drool on your chin in the middle of your living room?
I just want to know how these guys think this shit works. They never seem to get past the standing around and being envied by male peers portion of their fantasies.
That sex unfreeland referenced earlier sounded totally unsexy. Like, the women were feeling a bunch of negative things, maybe fustrated and then, “Oh hell, why not have sex with this loser, he’s already here.” I’m sure they didn’t call him back the next day.
Isabelle, seconded. Does anyone remember that Good Charlotte song with the chorus that was like GIRLS DON’T LIKE BOYS, GIRLS LIKE CARS AND MONEEEEEY?
Because Undfreeland’s point of view is roughly as sophisticated and original as that.
So whogoesthere (WGT) thinks: If society removes all of the social pathways to attaining such a beauty, such as making prostitution illegal,
It’s so rare we see someone so unabashedly advocating for child prostitution. Recall that his rant is about a high-school student, and how such women are “The most desirable of women”, whom “every man wants”, and whom the lack of “access” to will lead to “understandable” sprees of killing*” because men are getting to fuck such “treasures”, because prostitution isn’t legal.
QED, women of that age must be allowed to work as prostitutes, for the good of all.
I wish that was more hyperbolous than it seems; all the snark I could muster still doesn’t do much to reduce the fundamental lack of empathy and humanity in the parent comment. WTG is one evil bastard.
This is also the easiest way to tell rigorous evo psych from pop evo psych; is there even the barest effort to make sure that the ‘innate’ traits being studied are true across cultures? No? Welp, boom, null hypothesis.
And it holds double-true for pundits. How can you tell me this is universal if you can’t even convince me that 51% of the world believes it/acts that way/likes that?
re senior citizens and fucking: Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy were married for… 60 years? I think it was was when Cocoon came out (they were in their late 70s, early 80s) someone asked about their sex life. As I recall the reply it was, “well, it happens a bit less now, and it takes a little longer to get going, but it’s still really good.”
(I hope this is the right thread, if not it’s related).