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.
They program in a “don’t fuck undfreeland” code at the factory, that’s why his life is so terrible.
I think that falls under the third law of robotics.
Why would any rational driven over-acheiving independent person want more government?
Because they understand that them as has, gets. Because things like clean water, roads, airports, untainted foods, etc. aren’t things we can prevent with the power of the individual purse.
Because, to quote Adam Smith (you might have heard of him, had some interesting ideas about economics):
and only the power of the gov’t to investigate, and punish, such collusion can prevent it.
Because it is in my interest to see that people aren’t poor, nor that they are left unwell. It’s a positive good, to all, to reduce the level of inequality between the haves and the have nots (though in the short term the haves won’t notice; until the have nots have had enough; then we see France in 1798, or Russia in 1918, or Italy in 1928).
So a rational person is not in favor of “dismantling Gov’t,” or discarding regulation (or enforcement) just because it’s “big gov’t”.
To continue with Mr. Smith’s observations on things related to why we need gov’t:
That, of course, isn’t something “market forces” can correct because:
“As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
undfreeland: In fact, what I frequently observe is feminists distressing over men’s preference for thin women, and then asserting a woman’s right to be attracted to whomever she chooses.
This sentence sums up the enture failure in your resoning.
I don’t know a single feminist who says, “men who like thin women are evil”. What they say is, “men who insist that all women be thin are perpetuating an evil” (note, BTW, the subtle, but important differences in the use of the word evil).
I don’t care what women look like. I do have some preferences for body type. Yes, the present beauty standard is in that spectrum (but over to one side, not near the mid-range of “attractive”).
Guess what… it doesn’t make any difference to me, unless all I’m doing is “standing on the corner, watching all the girls go by” o/” (to quote the song).
So saying, “the cultural beauty standards are unfair” and “People shouldn’t be shamed for whom they choose to partner with/have short term fling/pick up for a weekend of raunchy fun” isn’t at all incompatible with each other.
All that is required for a women to be attractive is a reasonable level of physical fitness.
Got 1: a citation for that and 2: a definition of “physical fitness”. I know some, “fat women” who can run you into the ground, bike rings around you, horse a 500 lb motorcycle off its side, and then run it through a series of chicanes before dropping 900 feet of altitude in a couple of miles of twisting roads, before they go rock-climbing.
By anyone’s standards they are physically fit, but they are also nowhere near, “thin” and would be happy to tell you they are fat.
So I’m calling bullshit on that, “reasonable level of physical fitness” being all that’s needed.
the liberation of women has been a good thing, but to deny that low-status men loose out with feminism is ludicrous.
Citation needed sport. Because I do deny it. Go for the Gusto; prove to me how ludicrous it is.
I am with cassandrakitty on the believably of undfreeland given he can’t even keep his stories straight over a short period of time.
Go away troll, you’re tedious & smarmy.
No no, I are totes serious supporter of feminism who has sadly accepted the inevitability of women not fucking me because they all want Christian Grey. Why u no believe me? I is sincere person.
I really don’t see how that’s so had to believe.
Speaking of women needing to be a “reasonable level of physical fitness,” this comic?
Really undfreeland? You can’t comprehend why we’d be skeptical of your feminist chops? After vomiting pseudo-science, confusing your preferences for universals, and demonstrating you’re very creepy and heinously sexist? I don’t like to play “No True Scottsman”, but when a person considers women little more than walking Vaginas he’d like to fuck I don’t generally consider that person to be a supporter of feminism.
Y u no c how sincere I am? I am smart troll, totes convincing.
Ooh hey undfreeland I want to hear more about how open-minded I am, because that didn’t skeeze me the fuck out or anything.
undfreeland:
No, life is not a bar fight. It just, it really isn’t. If that is all your life is, well, that’s actually really fucking sad. I’d probably pity you if you weren’t such an asshole.
See, the thing is, people aren’t “adjusting to lower and different expectations” when they have sex and/or relationships with people who you deem unattractive. It’s not settling, it’s people being attracted to who they are attracted to.
No you didn’t. You talked about your exes like they were things and not people.
So, we’re expanding the definition of “conventional attractiveness” to include a wide range of traits that includes just about everyone? That’s convenient.
Except, of course, for those who’s relationships weren’t built on an initial physical attraction.
These two sentences contradict each other. If attraction is subjective, and different people find different things attractive; then, no, you can’t say physical attraction can be quantified on some sort of objective scale.
No, are issue with Nice Guys ™ is that 1) they believe they are entitled to a woman and 2) they think if they put enough niceness coins into a woman, sex will fall out an 3) they think friendship with a woman is some kind of shitty consolation prize rather than valuable in and of itself.
Really? Are you serious? “R*tard?” What are you, like 12. Fuck off wit your ableism.
It’s because you aren’t influenced by media, Viscaria. It’s a magical power that only bi and pan people have. Yay, we’re awesome because we’ll fuck anything with a pulse! Go team go!
I would bi-five you (JOKES) but I’m too busy having sex with men I’m not attracted to. Or something.
undfreeland: For the record, I think evo psych is bullshit. If we disagree about the realities of the dating market, it is because I have a more realistic and objective attitude about it than than most, which is why I won’t address the supposed counter examples to my claims.
Aren’t you special. So much self-valorisation in so small a package. It is nice, however, for you to so blatantly admit your intellectual dishonesty.
The essence of what I’m saying is, you want to ruin the manosphere, legalize prostitution.
Which is where there isn’t any MRA activity in Britain?
Oh, wait, fuck…! there is! Shit, another good theory ruined by facts.
Undfreeland,
Here’s a secret for you. Nothing you’re saying is original or even remotely thought provoking. It’s a very exaggerated and distorted view of hetero-normative social pressures. One used by PUAs and MRAs in general to excuse their actions and basically the fact that they are horrible human beings. In real life people are individuals. They have their own tastes, feelings, desires, keys… etc that don’t really resemble the actual pressures the media pushes on people, much less what you and the PUAs are insisting everybody has.
So please stop thinking you know how the world works. It’s a misogynistic view. That’s why people don’t believe you are really a supporter of feminism.
Let’s borrow Woody’s pompoms and go find Russell Brand, I hear all women want to fuck him.
There is nothing wrong with having a type and that type can totally be tall, thin and gorgeous.
More power to you.
But don’t tell us you respect or are capable of loving the women you want when you are willing to emotionally abuse and manipulate them for the sake of your ego and your boner.
That’s just bullshit and it makes me feel sad for those women that they have to deal with men like you who don;t care about their happiness one bit.
Well, I am. LGBT rights, reproductive rights and access, equality of in the workforce, equality of pay, title XI, sexual harassment laws, recognizing the existence of rape culture, I support all those things. I like this site because it calls out terrible examples of misogyny that I believe are dangerous to society.
I don’t see how I could be any more of a feminist. I suppose like most ideologies, those that don’t tow 100% of the party line, or point out consequences of their beliefs, consequences that far outweigh the benefits, were just never true believers.
*benefits that far outweigh the consequences.* Ha ya’ll are going to give me hell for that.
OMG, Mammoths, how did you MISS halfeatengod a few pages back?
a toxic combination of narcissism, stupidity and entitlement (sadly a triumvirate of attributes I see a lot of lately in Millennial-age folks
Gee, thanks. I’m sure YOUR generation was the type where all the women were pretty, the men were intelligent, and all the children above average.
Do people take psychedelics anymore? I feel like questing after cosmic truth had a lot to do with my own and a lot of my contemporaries’ awakening to different perspectives and developing true empathy.
…are you for real? I thought you were a joke the Golden Generation made!
Somehow the dividends of the feminist movement seem to have fallen on deaf brains. I am still trying to figure out why this is.
I dunno. You tell me, buddy, you’re the generation what birthed us.
RE: undfreeland
To experience it frequently, and uncomplicated for prolonged periods… I can’t even imagine such bliss.
GEE I WONDER WHY. YOU BEING SUCH A NICE GUY AND ALL.
I don’t see how I could be any more of a feminist.
Dude, you admitted you mocked a woman for her engineering degree and see her sleeping with you as proof you should be an asshole to women. That’s, like, the antithesis of feminism right there.
“I don’t see how I could be any more of a feminist. I suppose like most ideologies, those that don’t tow 100% of the party line, or point out consequences of their beliefs, consequences that far outweigh the benefits, were just never true believers.”
Like most cults, feminism expects absolute conformity even on the details. It’s about social control as much as about policy.
undfreeland: For those denigrating my inclination not to address anecdotal examples of couplings, it is only because those examples generally involve loved ones, and I do not wish to accidentally insult anyone here.
So you’ve been doing it by intent? Good to know.
However, I question every ideology. Pragmatism, not dogmatism, is the correct path,
Which is why you don’t bother to examine the presented arguments which contradict the dogmatic pronouncements you’ve made.
These are just a few examples.
Cool stories, bro.
Well, not really. Either they are true, in which case you are so pathetic that you need to brag about being an abusive shit to get laid, or you are willing to lie about being an abusive shit to get laid; in the strange belief this will somehow validate bullshit claims.
So, which is it… honestly a shitstain, or eager to make people falsely believe you are a shitstain?
Either way, just a glop in the diaper of life.
And out comes the feminist hive mind bullshit.
You are getting even more predictably stale.
So get the fuck out, troll. No one invited you and no one wants you here. I don’t give two shits how watered down you think your views of women as people should be allowed to be to still be called a feminist. Thinking that my body really is mine own does not make you a super special ally. That should be a given.
You opinions are ill formed and utterly worthless.
Keep them to yourself or go back to whatever PUA cesspool spit you up and frolic with the other douchebags. You ain’t getting any cookies here for not being the worst misogynist ever. That’s like being the least rotten tomato in the compost pile.