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.
Shut up, Woody.
“I mean, isn’t one of the complaints amongst ya’ll about Nice Guy dipsticks that they only want to sleep with very attractive women them despite not being attractive themselves?” – Undfreeland
No, this is not our argument. This has never been the argument, though some people might personally say it, because we are not all one “feminist” monolithic block.
Nice Guys only want to sleep with very attractive women despite not being DECENT HUMAN BEINGS WHO CARE MORE ABOUT PERSONALITY THAN LOOKS, LIKE THE REST OF THE HUMAN RACE. Heck, even the worst patriarchal societies at least care if the woman can cook and comes from a reputable family.
That is our complaint.
You were with that beautiful woman for a month. Had you treated her as a person, not as just a beautiful thing to take your breath away when she walked in the room but also as a brilliant woman who took your breath away when she spoke, you might still be with her. At minimum you’d have been with her a lot longer.
The most conventionally GORGEOUS man I knew, who was loaded and Brad Pitt esque, was also a necrophiliac. Seriously, he could only get boners by reading police reports. He stayed single because he’s a decent guy who’s just a little f’ed up in the head, and would turn down gorgeous women all the time because he didn’t want to deal with that conversation. Like everyone out there with a fetish, his tastes predated his attractiveness.
And yet again you say “rarely,” yet everywhere else it is black and white. Either conventionally attractive, straight women will only ever date conventionally attractive wealthy straight men and vice versa, or you were wrong to assume that Wetherby was lying about being poor or conventionally unattractive.
Now, if you were to come in here saying “Most people in our culture seem to be like x,” we would probably still refute it, but we’d not be attacking you like this because you’d at least be acknowledging that this is mostly sociological (obviously, since Khoisan culture selectively bred themselves for enormous butts and long labiae, and most pre-industrial societies glorified pudgy, untoned women, this must be true). You’d also be acknowledging that humans are NOT a monolithic block, and that many, many people that you find beautiful are attracted to body types that you don’t consider so. And that even more– actually, most– will overlook any physical flaw, including full-body burn scars, paralysis preventing sex, even atypical genitalia (such as a man without a penis, or a woman with one), if the personalities mesh.
I are totes feminist until it interferes with my boner, at which point feminism becomes the thing that has made my boner sad – bad femism, bad! Bad boner-oppressing consequences!
100% feminist, me.
Woody! Awwwwwww, there he is. Wookit at how cuuuuute!
Yeah guiiiiiiizzzzzzz, how come we won’t let undfreeland into our Feminist Clubhouse!? He’s totes a real feminist cause he says so! No, no, stop reading into the things he says. He isn’t a misogynist, he likes to mock them too! He said so! Ssssshhhhh…. ignore that stuff he wrote about the sexual marketplace and how negging women is good. If you don’t let him into the cult- I mean Clubhouse!- you’re all a bunch of mean meanie pants!
Oh, Woody.
You do give me a chuckle.
Still think a troll hoop would be fun for him (um, us) though.
Cassandra,
Remember, according to his comments upthread feminism is only good because it helps men like unfreeland get with hotter chicks and gives religion a sad.
Empathy, how does it work?
No, I’m pretty sure without feminism liberating women’s sexuality I would have been laid a lot less. Nothing in feminism keeps me personally from getting laid, I don’t think, but it does break down monogamous expectations that once benefited the very lowly in industrialized societies.
My own complaints, which are directed more at fate and my own and other’s susceptibility to social programming that hasn’t kept up with feminism, are not about about not getting laid at all. They are about not being attractive to the women who I’d most like to have sex with most and whose presence in my life would fill me with purpose. I do not count myself amongst the dregs.
What I don’t understand is why he expects us to care.
(Especially when he’s making less sense than most people make when they’re high as kites.)
That makes one of you.
So… It’s about having sex, then? (aka, getting laid, btw)
Does anyone else smell that? What is that SMELL? I can’t quite put my finger on it…
It isn’t just classism, but it seems… related. Somehow.
That’s a shame. A bit of self-knowledge might do you some good.
Decent people have a purpose of their own.
Fuck off.
Look, everybody! Woody said something that wasn’t effusive praise of some other MRA! Let’s give him a hand for showing some individuality, yeah?
RE: B
The most conventionally GORGEOUS man I knew, who was loaded and Brad Pitt esque, was also a necrophiliac.
Wow, damn. That’s… that’s one hell of a cross to bear. Eesh. I feel bad for that dude.
RE: undfreeland
it does break down monogamous expectations that once benefited the very lowly in industrialized societies.
You do realize that monogamy is a not the standard in the world as a whole, right? Polygamy is.
They are about not being attractive to the women who I’d most like to have sex with most and whose presence in my life would fill me with purpose.
Dude, you’re an asshole. You say you’re a feminist, but I don’t care about your beliefs; I care about your actions, and you’re a confessed asshole. No shit you’re not attractive to the women you want most. Most women are not attracted to assholes, and they certainly don’t want to keep long relationships with them of their own free will.
I do not count myself amongst the dregs.
If it means being far away from you, I am HAPPY to be dregs.
Do most people have a specific set of sexual characteristics they find attractive in the opposite sex? Sure. For you, it’s pretty broad– physical fitness. For me, it’s a willingness to put up with my shit, beards, long hair, and effeminate faces on stocky bodies. For some women, it’s the ability to provide for them. For my conventionally attractive coworker, who only dates men who make less than her, it’s someone who needs to be cared for. These are all valid things to be attracted to, and I am not wrong for not liking chiseled jaws, and you are not wrong for not liking overweight woman. That is not why you are acting misogynistic.
You are misogynistic because you think that ALL women want a specific, culturally-reinforced ideal despite all evidence to the contrary. You are self-centered because you believe that all men must share your sexual preferences despite all evidence to the contrary.
Again:
“Most women in Western society seem to be attracted to fit, tall, strong-jawed, well-dressed men with money, and most men seem to be attracted to any woman who is slim, toned, and healthy looking, though of course there are exceptions”– maybe inaccurate (hard to tell without studies), but okay. Not inherently misogynistic, qualifies the statements (most instead of all, defines physically fit, includes that there are exceptions), uses “seems to be” because you don’t have non-anecdotal evidence.
“All that is required for a women to be attractive is a reasonable level of physical fitness. Men must be fit, tall, have good facial structure, style and economic status.” Bad. No qualifiers. Does not allow for exceptions. Does not consider that our culture has it’s own idea of what are attractive traits in men and women, different from other cultures (the fact that you fail to acknowledge culture is why you are accused of being an evo-psych type). Irrational, since it denies fetishism, non-Western culture, and dealbreakers (for example, no matter how fit she was, you would probably not be sexually attracted to a woman who refused to shower or brush her teeth until she smelled like moldy cheese, or one who spent the whole time you were having sex talking about a conversation she had with your mother about your childhood potty-training).
Can you understand the difference?
I just picked some grape tomatoes from my garden and can’t decide to dress them with a little olive oil, salt, pepper, basil & a few dried chili flakes
Or
add some radishes and dress them with sesame oil, rice vinegar, soy, scallions & (fairly mild) shaved jalapenos
I have some young arugula & lettuces I was going to serve them on with a little crusty bread.
Help me decide?
(I’m testing to see if blockquote is the right tag for quoting here… If it fails or summons a monster into your home, I’m sorry.)
How is a complaint about “not being attractive to the women who I’d most like to have sex with” not one about “getting laid”? I assume you want to be attractive to them so they will have sex with you… Or do you just want them to want you so you can stroke your… ego.
And you know, making women something whose presence in your life would fill you with meaning isn’t a good thing. Find purpose in yourself. And see women as people and not symbols of your self worth.
I would run away so fast from someone who wanted me to be the one thing that gave their life purpose. Eek.
Undf doesn’t seem to have any theory of mind. Which admittedly, seems to be a failing in a lot of the bigots we see around here. Undf, you should try the smarties test and see if you pass.
undfreeland: I must admit. I envy you sir. 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.
Good grief. Love can be sublime. But the “beauty” is arbitrary. I’ve dated women who run the conventional gamut, from “ugly” to “model”. They were all, to me, attractive. I would say I found most of them beautiful.
That isn’t what made it sublime. That was the love aspects of it.
But truth be told, I’ve had some of the same sorts of feeling from doing archery, or riflery. I’ve had it from playing pennywhistle in a jam-session (Skynard’s “Gimme Three Steps” and “Sweet Home Alabama” are kick-ass tunes for freewheel whistling). Watching the sunset on the Pacific, as the tide comes in at Pelican Cove, or sitting on a BTR, with a couple of Ukranian soldiers while eating a sandwich and shootting the shit as the birds flit about the steppe; looking at the night sky through a set of Night Vision Goggles and seeing so many stars the constellations couldn’t be seen (while meteorites No One Else Could See were streaking across that panorama), or going to sleep in the Iraqi desert while Scorpio was dragging his tail in the Milky Way… all of those were like that too.
The reason you can’t imagine such bliss is your stunted view of what’s worthwhile.
Piratejennie: I’d go with the former.
RE: cassandrakitty
I would run away so fast from someone who wanted me to be the one thing that gave their life purpose. Eek.
My rapist was of that type. One of the things that got me through the recovery process was the knowledge that cutting him out of my life made me sob like a baby and claim I’d broken his belief in love. (Seeing what he believed loved to be, I can only hope that without it, he never tried to groom a teenage girl again.)
RE: pecunium
But truth be told, I’ve had some of the same sorts of feeling from doing archery, or riflery.
Ditto. I love my husband dearly, he’s my man, but if our relationship were to end one day, I can still feel bliss. I feel it with my other system members, being happy and having a dance party together. I feel it when I write a good story, or make a comic that helps people. Hell, I’ve felt it while hiking mountains, by reading a good book, by laughing so hard I keeled over and cried.
@ LBT
Yeah, I was going to say, a lot the stuff this dude is saying was making my think of the way you’ve described your rapist. It seems to be a feature of the type that they have no idea how creepy their fixation is for the people on the receiving end, or how unfair it is to put that sort of burden on someone’s shoulders.
@katz
Thanks! I think that’s what I’m going to go with since I just found the first cucumber hiding & I can add a little lemon juice.
Sorry if that was a ham-fisted attempt to talk about something else, I was just so dreadfully tired of the roundabout I thought I’d inject a little levity.
Not trying to step on anyone who still wants to bat the chew toy, I’m loving the responses.
Shoot, posted before I saw your comment LBT.
I apologize for my insensitivity.
@undfreeland
You could be more of a feminist by treating women as people and not as sexdolls whose only value is their appearance. This is not a small detail, treating women like people is like the most basic notion of feminism, and if you can’t agree on that then no, you’re not a “true believer”.