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.
Fibi
http://imaninja.com/
I know, I know, the shame! I might have given him a sad boner and everything!
BWAHAHAHAsplutter
… Fibi, can I have that keyboard cleaner back, plz?
“Why? Are you taken”
“No, I’m just not giving.”
Oooooh! I better prepare to use that line.
It’s pretty damn terrifying the thought that you might upset the feelings of a guy whose car you are stuck in the back of.
What katz said.
Ditto.
Funny thing is, I wasn’t really scared at the time – probably naivete, but I didn’t think of rape, as far as I recall. It was creepy, yes, but I was as much offended as anything else. Possibly that was because I was on an errand for work, only about a fifteen-minute drive, and in the city. I’d be fucking scared if it happened now, though.
kittehserf, you have my sincere and heartfelt sympathies; I’ve had the old married guy with child hit on me at work, but not the random taxi driver…I think I need to aim higher LOL! You are indeed the queen of creepy come-on lines LOL!
Good luck to you 🙂
LOL no worries, Leisha – it was nearly thirty years ago and doesn’t have any emotion attached to the memory, other than “blech”.
Being hit on by older guy at work, that’s awful! Was he a customer or a co-worker?
There’s an old guy comes into my hairdresser’s salon who might do the sort of “I’m a lonely harmless old man” type of hitting. I can’t be rude to him – my hairdresser’s very fond of him – but at least, as I told her the other day, if he does try flirty stuff, I’ll just tell him he’s too young for me. Which, as it happens, is hand-on-heart truth, and has the added value of being totally baffling for most people. 😛
“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.”
THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS. How can anyone ever think that their high school girl fetish is more inportant than another persons life. Anyone WHO tries to justify murder in this manner is horrible, horrible person.
For people who think that females shouldn’t have pretty basic rights like protection from DV, reproduction rights, and access to education and fair employment opportunities, their list of “rights” for guys is laughable.
Fucking seriously, they think they should have a “right” to any female they choose? Under what philosophical system could that ever be called a right. Not even libertarianism would support it.
Oh kittehserf, I was 19 years old at the time and he was 41 years old, married and with a young child. I was so naive (my first full time job), and he took advantage of that. I was just a friendly kid but he made me feel like it was my fault. I had no idea what was going on and yet felt guilty when I realised what was happening. I started to wear pants instead of skirts, long shirts instead of short tops, flat shoes instead of high heals. Most of all, I began checking my own behavior, because I thought I had done something to bring it on. Unfortunately, the benefit of age and hindsight has shown me that I was just young and naive, but I wasn’t supposed to be…I was supposed to know what was going on, as opposed to the 41 year old, married father who was hitting on a girl young enough to be his daughter, or at the very least, his niece.
Anyway, there are other examples of this stuff, this wasn’t the only example of this kind of behavior that I encountered socially and in the work place.
It isn’t that I encountered this stuff often, but it happened enough for me to realise that women ‘generally’ suffer this crap all the time. It’s just a shame that it is so socially accepted.
I have actually had MRAs say to me “where you really that traumatized by that situation?”. Well regardless of how they think I should have reacted it really upset me and taught me a really strong message about dealing with men…one I have never forgotten.
Having said that..my husband is the most wonderful man on this planet (to me) and I have always had a wonderful relationship with my father, brother and every other man in my life. I am not a man hater…
Wow… I wish I could do MISANDRY like those guys! I mean, they’re really PRO, aren’t they?! The horrible horrible things they say about men! Pro level, I say. Damn, not even in my wildest dreams………
“Top this all off with the fact that we live in a society whose media teaches young men that a beautiful women is indeed all the validation they need in their lives, all the while presenting an unrealistic and, for most, unattainable standard of beauty, and you can begin to see how extreme frustration could result in young men.”
Hmm, which group is actively fighting the marrative that beautiful women are a prize? Which group is calling for more realistic body diversity in movies? Oh yeah, FEMINISM.
The most glaring problem with this attitude is that it cannot possibly be reciprocal.
The claim is that men should have something very much like a “right” to sexual contact – in particular, sexual relationships with the women they deem most desirable among all of the available women. One very important feature of this claim is that women who don’t meet whatever standard they are referring to will be ignored by the men making these choices.
If they claim that men and women are equal, or something very much like it, then that must mean that women have some equivalent “right” to choose to have sexual relationships with the men they prefer, and only those men. And a matching claim to ignore all of the men who don’t fit their preference – however that preference is arrived at.
And that simply doesn’t work within the framework as these clowns propose it. Obviously it cannot possibly be based on any concept of equal rights and freedoms of both men and women. Otherwise the argument can’t be made in the first place. Because men and women have equal rights to choose who they do and who they don’t spend time and have sexual relationships with.
I have a feeling that most of these blokes have genuinely never thought through the idea that such claims entail a “right” or freedom for themselves. Let alone that their claim for sexual rights/freedoms automatically, and actively, denies any such rights or freedoms to women. Of course, there is the minority that explicitly says that women don’t/shouldn’t have any such rights but they’re not the ones I’m thinking of here. I’m thinking of those who are so blinded by the vision of their own shiny bright freedoms and opportunities they have never thought about how that relates to others’ rights and freedoms.
The worst part is, even if -as these guys don’t give up on doing, we talk about the menz- you buy the horrible 90s-movie perception of reality where all that matters for men is getting laid, with hot young ladies. And young ladies are “selfish” (as in having a say in whoever you feel attracted to, as opposed to “what’s fair”) and throw themselves into the arms of wealthy studs. And if you acknowledge that there are some cultural environments where men feel pressure to be sexually active (with women — specifically beautiful women). And that the unattainable standards of beauty displayed by (most of) the media/advertisements negatively affect non-wealthy-stud-men self-esteem (not women, we’re immune to that).
Even then, you just have the nice-guyish (not quite)naively-sexist blabber. And using any common sense (spoiler: feminism), reasonable people will protest the media, rebel to the absurd expectations of sexual prowess of your environment and culture, and question the photoshopped-western standards of beauty.
But you gotta be a giant piece of entitled shit to demand it be fixed by “hot chicks providing free (or paid) sex to whoever demands it”, because the poor-menz are sexually frustrated.
That’s plain misogyny: to acknowledge a problem you have as cultural but still blame women for it because they don’t mitigate it it by fucking you (well, also excluding women’s subjetivity and experiences from the whole analysis).
Bahahahahaha, I’m sorry. This is too funny. Seriously, manospherians, I don’t know where you’ve been getting your education regarding biology/human evolution/anthropology/critical thinking, but ya’ll need to ask for your money back.
Every time I see one of these rants, I’m reminded of this music video:
Gah, Leisha, that’s skin-crawlingly horrible, not to mention damned scary. 🙁
For which those women will be forever grateful. Being invisible has some benefits.
For more reinforcement of the “women as sex gatekeepers” notion, here it comes.
“With mounting excitement we are rapidly counting down to A Voice for Men’s First International Conference on Men’s Issues. Activities initiate on June 26, at 1:00 PM EDT”
–Paul Elam
Ewwww …
I just want to clarify that I never said men had any kind of right to women’s bodies. The benifit to society of feminism far out weigh the sexual frustrations of low status, unnatractive men, and I was merely pointing out that unless a solution to that is found we will continue to see a sharp gender divide on a number of issues crucial to that project.
As to the recent discussions about “nice guys.” I do struggle to understand feminists’ very harsh critique of them I’ve rarely met men who felt more entitled to women’s bodies than those who were actually very successful with women due to their looks. And these regurally laid men certainly did not posses the respect for women that nice guys also lack.
As far as “nice guys” go, though. I fail to understand them as well. Sexual attraction is so obviously different than friendship and women make the difference so apparent. If a women likes you, she makes things easy. How can men possibly reach maturity wondering “does she like me yet” and trying to do favors etc to initiate attraction. It’s absurd, and I speculate that many of these men are a form of masochist. They desire unrequited love and martyrdom for the cathartic release ofemotional pain.
I don’t know about that…libertarian ideals seem blessedly unconcerned with the rights and well-being of anyone who’s not already at the top of the social heap. Not recognizing financial coercion as a form of force, etc.
I’ve always been suspicious of libertarianism on the grounds that it’s most popular with middle-class white dudes, Women, POC, and the poor tend not to favor it. Anything that primarily appeals to the haves in society can’t be TEH ULTIMATE EQUALIZER it claims to be.
Undfreeland, if the “solution to that” involves challenging the cultural patterns of sex as a commodity, guilt-free sex for women, stopping the pressure to have frequent-wild-with-hot-teenagers sex for men, body acceptance and leaving aside the glorification of impossible female beauty, etc., I think you can count most feminists in. And this includes making these fellas understand that the world does not owe them hot girls to have sex with, so their frustration only originates in their entitlement.
I’m sorry to break it to you, but all that “dating market” “settle for below average” “low status” “high value” and all that college-movie-crap is not real, and quantifying fuckability-traits seems to be one of the things making these guys feel so cheated and frustrated.
As for the “nice guy fixation”, I am sure that there are many sexist douchebags out there having regular sex -the kind puas fantasize of becoming-, and I don’t think anyone likes them here either. I guess the nice guys just make it too obvious in their complaints how fucked up their worldview is.
Surely the biggest benefit of feminism — for someone with this sort of attitude — would make the issue of “unattractive” men of equal concern to that of “unattractive” women.
I doubt that feminism alone can do much about “low status” because that, to me at least, raises issues of class. (Of course, I could be completely misunderstanding “low status” here. I have a horrible feeling it could mean something like allocating prestige on daft issues like car ownership when it’s lined up with “unattractive” as a personal quality. But I’ve been wrong before so I’m not much fussed.)
Undfreeland,
Your original post on this thread could easily be summarized as “of course murder is wrong but I see where he’s coming from!”
You erased the feelings and desires of women as well as how our culture harms us. Like others pointed out you somehow see the rigid standards of beauty we’re expected to live up as frustrating for men. No mention of how it warms women by encouraging eating disorders and painful, expensive, possibly dangerous cosmetic surgery. Nope. It harms the poor menz because they’re not fucking lots of “10s” Just because you aren’t advocating rape and murder doesn’t mean you haven’t displayed male entitlement here. If your take away from a that virulently misogynistic rant was “men have it so rough” you are a part of the problem.
Also, perhaps most annoyingly you cloaked your words in pseudoscientific babble. Of course you didn’t back up any of your claims with any evidence. I keep hearing this notion that all women who aren’t completely hideous have “an array of suitors” available at any time. Unless you’re counting catcallers as suitors that doesn’t reflect the experiences of the vast majority of women. I’m aware of no research that backs up this claim. Yet it persists.