Never doubt the ingenuity of the internet’s misogynists in coming up with new reasons to hate a woman they’re already inclined to hate.
Actress and geek icon Emma Watson has been near the top of the new Misogyny hate list all this week, in the wake of the speech she gave at the UN gently praising feminism and suggesting that traditional gender roles aren’t always such a good thing for dudes either. She’s made this point before, declaring in a Tweet last month that
Gender equality not only liberates women but also men from prescribed gender stereotypes. #heforshe
— Emma Watson (@EmmaWatson) August 18, 2014
But wait, the Red Pillers of the internet declare: Watson is herself dating a hunky jock rather than a “bald scrawny impoverished poet.”
WHERE IS YOUR FEMINISM NOW?
According to the UK’s Daily Mirror, Watson is currently dating a fellow Oxford student who also happens to be 1) gigantic 2) a rugby player and 3) handsome. As The Mirror put it
Matt was dubbed Oxford’s most eligible bachelor and was previously named the best looking player in his on-field position by the university rugby team’s Twitter account.
I know, you’re probably not exactly shocked – shocked! – to discover that a famous actress is dating a handsome dude. But in the Red Pill precincts of the internet, the regulars think they’ve got their CHECKMATE FEMINISM.
Right wing “journalist” and blogger Robert Stacey McCain triumphantly cackled
All the hot babes like Emma Watson are crazy for guys who don’t fit “prescribed gender stereotypes,” right? So you will probably be surprised to learn that Emma Watson is dating a
bald scrawny impoverished poetthe biggest jock at an elite university. …In other words, an Alpha male, the epitome of “prescribed gender stereotypes” from which Emma Watson says we need to be liberated.
Smart young fellows figure out that listening to what women say is less important than watching what women do. Women are constantly saying they want sensitive Ashley Wilkes types, even while they’re actually going crazy for the Rhett Butler types. …
When all is said and done, the basic human sex instinct is still as simple as, “Me Tarzan, you Jane.”
On the Red Pill subreddit, the regulars celebrated what they saw as a great victory over feminism. Redpillbanana seconded McCain’s “analysis.”
As a man in our new feminist world, you are liberated from your gender stereotype and have permission to be vulnerable and human. And women have permission to dump you for the next nearby alpha male who decided that he doesn’t need to be liberated from his gender stereotype.
Other Red Pillers made sure that everyone knew that they didn’t think Emma Watson was all that hot anyway.
WOULD NOT BANG.
Meanwhile, proudly racist, woman-hating dating guru Heartiste offered these, er, thoughts on the matter, in his trademark, er, style:
Feminism long ago abandoned any pretense to logic or internal consistency. It’s nothing but feels all day, every day, with an extra helping of feels. Watson’s rationalization hamster, like most rodents residing in the brains of her callow ilk, is 700% thigh and 800% glutes. A swole spinner on the wheel of ego-masturbation.
Ok then.
So how do you respond to this sort of thing? Point out that Watson was previously dating a guy who most Red Pillers would probably consider a big ol beta? Post examples of conventionally hot actresses who’ve dated “nerds” and intellectuals and otherwise not stereotypically macho men – from Marilyn Monroe (playwright Arthur Miller) to Christina Hendricks (nerdy actor Geoffrey Arend, who’s not even as famous as her).
But what’s the point? All you have to do is step outside to see examples of happy couples who don’t fit the “me Tarzan, you Jane” stereotype the Red Pillers are so desperate to assure us is the One True Way.
The human heart and libido are complicated things. Yes, some feminist women date macho dudes. And some traditional women are drawn to nerds. Some women date men who make more money than them; others date guys who are broke. And a lot of women don’t have clear “types” at all. (Watson doesn’t seem to.)
It’s also worth pointing out that, well, you can’t always judge a book by its cover. A gigantic rugby player who is ferocious on the field may be a teddy bear in private. And scrawny nerdy dudes can be horrible people (e.g. Woody Allen).
Feminism doesn’t deny that some women – including some feminists — are drawn to macho men. What feminism says is that traditional gender roles are not the only way to do things.
Emma Watson can date whatever kind of person she wants to date. It’s her own damn business. That’s feminism.
Wow, I would have named that cat Spock.
He looks like a Vulcan kitty.
He wasn’t my cat (he passed over a few years ago) but yes, his full name was Off-License! I never did find out why. 😀
I looked after him for a few weeks while his owner was overseas. Scariest looking cat, but he was a sweetie.
Shut up, Woody!
He looks like a Vulcan kitty.
He looks as if his head is going to spin around and he’s going to spew pea soup all over the room.
@robert
Is this the one? http://kateordiecomics.com/archive/theres-two-sides-to-every-story/
You think he looks scary there, try this one!
But this is more his usual level of evil – occupying whatever chair I’d been using.
Kim, yes, that’s the one. Thanks for finding it; my link-fu is weak.
FWIW, I showed it to my seventeen year old son as a cautionary ‘what not to do ‘ example.
Shame this was (presumably) before the internet got taken over by cats. He could have been Grumpy Cat’s friend, Disapproving Cat.
Cloudiah, I just read the Robot Hugs strip you posted.
Oh my good ness. That is so good. I’d like to print out hundreds of copies, laminate them, and distribute them at local high schools (with appropriate remuneration and credit to the artist, of course).
He could, cassandra!
PS I just used my modly powers to make those oversized pics into links – if anyone else wants me to do that when their pics come out huge, let me know.
One of the many things I love about the community here is that I can post something that makes me feel things I cannot articulate beyond “Argle! Bargle! Frustrationwrong! Grr, grr, argh.” And someone will perfectly encapsulate my feelings in a couple of sentences.
And then a troll will come along, and many more words will pour out in a lovely cascade of clarity and humour, and pictures of kitties (and sometimes octopi) will appear, and all will be right in my world again.
LBT, I’m sorry that your family of origin is such a festering wad of pus. Kid, I love that you are so sarcastic. It was good to hear from you.
The response to seemingly alpha guys turning out feminist and generally pleasant would be regarded by redpillers as “naturals who have had no problem with women that’s why they don’t need the redpill but every other male who isn’t like that needs the redpill and actively fight to be an alpha.”
“Seemingly alpha guys” don’t exist, because the whole system is rubbish, based on a study of wolves that got it wrong in the first place, something the researcher himself acknowledged. So what redpillers think is just shit piled on crap anyway.
A handful of women writing love letters to serial killers says something about the true nature of literally every woman ever. A handful of men actually BEING serial killers says absolutely nothing about the true nature of men. Not all men, amirite? /sarcasm
I do find it fascinating how often these guys not only undersell women, but also men as well. In their minds there are only three types: alphas, betas, and women. They reject the complex and ever-growing topic that is human sexuality in favour of deeply simplified “facts” that they can spout, usually in an attempt to shame anyone who doesn’t follow their line of thinking.
I mean, what does ‘alpha’ actually mean? All right, let’s take it to mean ‘top dog’. Someone could be alpha, or top dog, socially, but a total failure in their career. They could also be the reverse. Or they could be a creative alpha, but have poor social skills. They seem to define alpha as someone who is a) big and strong b)plays sports c)needs to force his ‘masculinity’ on other people. Yet you’ll notice a great variety of happy partnerships among people. They’ve stereotypes Mr. Boyfriend here as the classic jock; aggressive, big, hunky, lording over Nice Guys. But who is to say that Emma and her boyfriend didn’t meet and bond at a University book club, discussing Shakespeare? It’s that classic ‘Nice Guy’ complaint: dumb jerks get girlfriends, smart nice guys don’t. Women want to be treated badly, kind men don’t get dates.
It’s painful because of how naïve it actually is. Different women will value different things in a partner, the same as different men will value different things. One woman might like the athletic and hunky type, another might like a guy who is very career-driven. One might be very taken with a creative man with lots of geeky hobbies. Another might like the tall, dark and handsome man, whereas her friend has a preference for baby-faced blondes. Some women might enjoy a man who is a little more aggressive. Some women prefer a man who is more patient and gentle. Some women like pick-up lines, some women hate them. Some women want to be romanced, some women just want filthy, filthy sex. The list is endless.
If they actually bothered to grow up a bit and try interacting with women on a genuine level, rather than trying to ‘trick’ women with their game, they might actually notice these things. Some people will connect, some people won’t. Emma might date the hunky jock type, yet her next relationship could be with a software engineer who writes sci-fi in his spare time.
They’re trying to discard their Nice Guy/White Knight past, yet the resentment is still too near to properly let go. Has it occurred to them that maybe their shallow judgments, and their misogyny, is the reason that they only meet superficial women and most decent-women won’t give ‘em the time of day? Nah that would require them to actually fess up to their problems rather than insinuate that “women” have inherent gender deficits – wanting to be treated poorly rather than respected. It might force them to look at their own history and realize they weren’t that ‘nice’, rather passive-aggressive and sycophantic.
I know people who get a lot of dates, yet their relationships are consistently short-lived and unhappy. I know people who’ve only dated a few partners, yet all their relationships have been wonderful and mutually nurturing. And I know the reverse of that as well. I suppose it’s easier just to deal in simplifications. Meh.
In a very large number of cases, their lives would become infinitely easier by doing the exact opposite of what MRAs/PUAs/”incels” recommend. Instead of regarding women as mysterious and unattainable Others, actually try making friends with them. The really stupid thing is that online networking has ensured that this has never been easier, no matter how socially awkward you might feel yourself to be.
And yes, if you have a dozen dates in a row and they all end up going disastrously wrong for the exact same reason, that in itself might provide the teensiest hint that the problem isn’t with the dates. It’s one of the reasons I found that “incel” blogger (whose name I won’t mention to avoid summoning him in a puff of sulphur) so pathologically fascinating – after posting what must be one of the most off-putting dating ads of all time (which basically made him out to be an abusive, intolerant and utterly humourless control freak, so at least he scores props for honesty), he sounded genuinely surprised both at the general lack of response and the fact that the two or three dates that it produced didn’t turn out to be with potential soulmates. Naturally, it was all their fault.
Relevant: “I think our pickup methods may be garbage.”
Without dredging up the past thread too much, this was pretty much exactly my thoughts for the guy who claimed women laughed at him every time he tried to ask them out. I’ve known a lot of women in my life, and have not known a single one who would openly laugh at being asked on a date. At least, no one older than 15. Not even if she thought the asker-outer was a major dweeb.
If this is really happening to this man all the time, he should probably have a good, long look at his approach and figure out what he’s doing that’s so funny. Because “HAHAHA” is almost never the response to a perceived sincere request.
(If I were to take a guess: I wonder if the asker-outer is hitting on a girl at a bar/party, getting rejected, watching her from a sulky distance, and assuming that any laugh she produces through the rest of the evening MUST BE about him.)
I was curious about how every woman he asks out on a date knows he’s a virgin. Is his social circle – assuming he has one – entirely made up of people he went to school with? Is he wearing a chastity belt outside his jeans? Is he blurting out PLEASE COME OUT WITH ME I’M A VIRGIN? That at least would produce laughter, albeit of the incredulous/embarrassed/horrified variety …
I’m actually quite horrified that the Mr. Nice Guy ™ who wrote the blog post envious of Horrible Henry the abusive asshole is a medical resident studying psychiatry. Not that doctors or psychiatrists or therapists can’t be assholes. (Quite the contrary, I’ve worked with a few of them.) But, c’mon, man, it’s not like you haven’t studied how abusers and predators operate! And still, he’s blaming the abused women and not the abuser. I hate the idea that this guy’s probably also going to be treating women, some who have probably have been or are being abused by their partners. And he’s probably going to do a lot of damage. Ugh. And the whole “I’m not saying that women are objects to be rewards to Nice Guys ™ and that Nice Guys ™ deserve sex from women for being nice, but why don’t Nice Guys ™ get sex from women and why can’t Nice Guys ™ be rewarded a woman-thing prize for being nice?” Ugh, again.
And I’m still not sure how who Emma Watson is dating somehow disproves feminism.
To be honest, I don’t know that the guy writing it is anything like that. I’m just amused by the way that he is trying to make one point, misses it by a mile, and ends up making an entirely different point in conclusion to his own premise. It’s a bit wonky.
Like, I understand that being told that you suck, forever, for complaining about being lonely is not going to be a nice thing to be told. I understand that people who are in shitty situations and desire things they don’t have will want those things very badly, and if they ask for help, the least useful thing in the world is for them to be told that they are bad-wrong people for wanting what thy want.
But this is where the entire thing sort of collapses in on itself – I’ve never felt that discussions of Nice Guys actually do that – but in the words of the author from Unimaginative’s article?
Which is the authors logical, reasonable conclusion to reading this:
(text qoutes from Feminispire, article Nice Guy Syndrome And The Friend Zone, which the author comments on).
Yeah, that article is literally worse than the guy who murdered hundreds of people in a blood orgy to satisfy his desire for power and destroyed so many souls and being that he forsake his humanity, and warped into a twisted amalgamation of spite, malice and hatred.
But no, the conclusion to reading other people go on about Nice Guys and variations thereoff is…
That’s the a jump in logic and conclusion so hard, so fast, so furious that it could cross the Atlantic.
I’m going to quote a large section now:
That’s… that just does not follow from the actual articles and actual thesis and actual discussion about this entire thing. It’s just… I’m not a fan of this phrase and I don’t like using it, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything really be more for a “But what about the meeeeenz?” than this. And I am a man. And even I’m going “Come off it”. It’s one long post that ends up as:
“Oh, I know you’re complaining about my entitlement to your body but I desperately desire companionship and warmth because evolution has instilled in me a desire for these things, and I don’t think I’m entitled to them, but I see you out there hanging out with That Other Guy, and I’m just so much better than him, so why don’t you give me the things I want and need?”
And then, at the far end, the tone shift that’s been sort of building all this time just kind of surfaces and you end up with:
and it’s just… “Sure, the manosphere is often toxic and angry and professes to have some pretty warped views on women, but hey, guys, you know, if you pay attention and filter it, the advice is totally better than all that feminist anger directed at you, so go for it and read it and maybe if you have a bit of a soul filter out some of the toxic stuff along with the advice, but the most important thing anyhow is that people have actual resources to solve your problems, so go use them, hurrah!”
That’s when you kind of realize that the reason someone can write a long post that references, multiple times, that relationships and love is just like having a job is that to the person writing it, it is. There’s no actual difference between holding down a job and finding a lover, both involve finding the tools needed to solve a computational problem that will end with the result you want.
And that’s when anyone else reading it is forced to go: “So, you’ve learned nothing and still consider women just a problem to be solved in a way that gets you what you want. Great”
I swear, next time I hear a dude saying that all women are crazy because all his girlfriends were, I will point out that he was in the driver’s seat when those ladies went ’round the fucking bend.
This study is pretty good. http://www.scribd.com/doc/216896183/Psychopathy-and-Victim-Selection-The-Use-of-Gait-as-a-Cue-to-Vulnerability
There were plenty of previous studies using the ever-present college students as subjects but they weren’t terribly conclusive. Using a smallish number of people who were prisoners convicted of violent crimes who also scored highly on the psychopath scale came up with a definite result.
I know I’m late to the conversation and this was said and done several pages back, but it pisses me off on so many levels I just have to address it.
This assumption is dehumanizing and insulting to inmates and their loved ones alike. You don’t know why those people are in prison, and considering how fucking many people are in prison in the US for minor drug charges, false arrests and so on, making an assumption that ‘being in prison’ is the same as ‘being an irremediable monster’ is horribly and egregiously wrong. Factor in the fact that trumped up charges and unlawful arrests disproportionately affect black and brown folk, and I’m smelling the faintest waft of not-so-thinly veiled racism coming off of your assumptions.
And then to imply that their spouses, lovers, friends and family can’t even write to them without being labeled damaged or defective themselves? FUCK YOU.
Tia and her kids would like to have many four lettered words with you.
http://www.vrcpitbull.net/dog/wp-content/themes/vrc_theme/images/pit_bulls_and_parolees_banner.jpg