Who knew that deep down, Men Going Their Own Way were really secret romantics?
In the midst of a tirade against the “childish, immature, cruel and narcissist[ic]” women of today, one Redditor Going His Own Way posits that it is men, not women, who are the truly romantic ones.
In a post on the MGTOW subreddit, FloydMayweatherGOAT declares
Men have superior intellect, Men work harder,Men are stronger, Men are more moral and kind, Men are more romantic,
As for the ladies:
Women only have wet holes to offer and that isnt even that grand.
Huh. That doesn’t really sound very, well, romantic.
They’re all just illusions , take away the make up, perfume, done up hair and fancy clothes and ask yourself what is she really offering me? Women are worthless in my opinion … I will ignore every Woman and view her as beneath me from this day forth. Men stop being intimidated by Women, You are better than Women in Every Single way. Destroy the illusion.
Not sure any of this is really helping your “men are more romantic” argument, dude, but I am definitely in favor of your plan to personally ignore all women from this day forth. Perhaps while sitting in a hut on one of these lovely islands?
Go forth, young MGTOW, and go your own damn way already!
In the meantime, I have made some more lovely greeting cards inspired by FloydMayweatherGOAT’s romantic philosophy.
Some people responded while I was writing the previous message, so…
Closet Shaming
…I wasn’t aware that was a thing, so I didn’t think of that angle.
Okay, I accept that I probably went there accidentally and therefore what I wrote was most likely unacceptable. I apologize.
Mr…er…ah…Goat seems to be using a definition of the word “romantic” with which I am not familiar. He seems to think it mean “to denigrate women, whine about women, and loudly declare that you’ve given up on women while posting online about how much you hate women.” It seems to be from the same dictionary that Donald Trump found his definition of “respect.”
No woman is offering this goober anything and if men were so superior, they wouldn’t fall to pieces when they cannot force women into life long free service to them.
Go your own way, manbabies. No one wants anything from you but your absence.
Bye, Felicia.
There’s an Isaac Asimov story “What is this thing called love?”
The premise is that some aliens abuct a man and woman to study human mating habits. Unfortunately the only prior research the aliens have to go on is a copy of Playboy. Needless to say the woman (and the man for that matter) are less than impressed with the aliens attempts to recreate a ‘romantic’ atmosphere.
The irony is, having read through the comments in that reddit thread, the aliens still had a better understanding of human interaction than our MGTOW friends (the aliens did at least speak to the the woman when they realised they’d messed up to ask where they’d gone wrong).
What the …
HIs opening statement is does not even reach the criteria for just being wrong:
Even in the most crude sense all humans are, topologically “just wet holes”
*sigh* Of course women cannot afford to be romantic. They have to be cautious.
One women out of ten is raped nowadays and we all know it. We also know that rapists don’t have the word “rapist” written all over their face. Of course women won’t fall in love at first sight.
Imagine you have a big bowl of candy. You know one out of ten is poisoned but you don’t know which ones. Will you dare taking a big handful and eating? No. Women are not romantic because they have to be realistic if they want to survive.
I am a historian. What exactly do you find so outrageous about that article? Nothing out of the ordinary, as far as I can see. It argues a certain perspective and one that is pretty much in keeping with current approaches, so where do you see his glaring lack of qualification?
From a political perspective, he seems actually pretty obviously pro-LGBT rights, and clearer in connecting his theses with a stand on contemporary issues than I’m used to from historians’ statements. So while it might not be the most ground-breaking stuff ever…it’s pretty standard quality given the context it is published in. And in the end it’s applying ideas that are currently quite common and have proven quite useful in historical analyis of cultural issues.
Moreover, I fail to see how he’s denying intersectionality here.
This is hilarious:
http://deadline.com/2016/10/danny-elfman-trump-stalks-hillary-video-1201837083/
I’m actually starting to worry about how Trump will treat his family once he loses. When he didn’t like his hair-loss surgery, he famously tore out chunks of Ivana’s hair and raped her. The next morning he asked her, “Does it hurt?” (Ivana later took back her story — but it’s still out there for the world to read.)
So if hair-loss surgery leads to violence, how will he react to losing the presidency to a girl?
@LittleLurker
Saying that Thiel’s work is “in keeping with current approaches” isn’t exactly a stunning endorsement, and only helps reinforce the (actually quite mistaken) idea that “same-sex intercourse” being part of an identity is an entirely modern invention created by an identity politics movement seeking to segregate itself from mainstream culture. It’s fairly reminiscent of the kind of double-think that blames ethnic minorities for the existence of ghettos while still enforcing the legal or cultural norm that forces them there. It’s also fairly reactionary-revisionist, denying the idea that anything remotely resembling an LGBT identity has existed anywhere in any culture prior to 1920’s America. His work helps guide actual revisionism, in which non-cis-normative/hetero-normative identities throughout history are treated as being something “different” and thus can’t be claimed as proof that there has ever existed anything but the action of intercourse.
As for denying intersectionality, Thiel is a “drop the T” advocate, claiming that trans struggles are distinct from, and hence a distraction from, the gay identity politics he pretends is born of Greenwich Village rather than millennia of existence and persecution.
PS: #NeverComplacent. #GetOutThereandVote.
@LittleLurker
My problems with the article are numerous, namely
1) How identifying as gay is automatically equated with being a part of the Gay culture and community.
2) The assertion that there is only one Gay Culture, whether it was found in 1920s Berlin or 1970s Greenwich Village, wallpapering over the differences in the experience of LBGT individuals of Color, of a non-middle-class upbringing, etc. (hence my observation that the author is apparently unaware of the concept of intersectionality)
3) The assertion that an LGBT individual must satisfy a certain quota of ideological stances, in order to be considered truly Gay.
4) The attempt to draw an arbitrary line in the sand between men who have sex with men (MSM) and gay men, and to minimize the experience of MSM.
I am not defending Peter Thiel, but I am struck by how much the article reads like a denunciation of a disgraced cadre for being a “counter-revolutionary”.
@HawkAtreides
The “he” that LittleLurker is referring to is the author of the article, Jim Downs, not Peter Thiel.
@Ariblester that was a delightful article indeed! It could be summed up as “old white cishet man becomes history professor on other people’s backs.” I love your observation about intersectionality and it’s one that I’ve felt for a while now – obviously there would have been gay people who couldn’t afford to get themselves to Greenwich Village, and who had to stay in their towns, working. Does that make them Not Gay™?
I really loved that valentine that David made with the two fuzzy felted hearts. Beautiful.
As this is a thread about horrible men this seems an appropriate to post this.
UK mammotheers may have heard that Ched Evans was acquitted on his retrial. I was going to post something about that, but this person has written a pretty good summary that more or less gels with my views.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/
That Ched Evans case is revolting. It just goes to show that men with money and power are above the law. He’s getting married now according to yesterday’s papers. What kind of woman would marry such a self serving, arrogant and aggressive monster? Maybe it’s just to make out he’s a nice guy?
@ Virgin Mary
I understand where you’re coming from; but I don’t think getting away with rape is exclusively the province of the wealthy. It’s not like this case is unique and there’s a plethora of convictions otherwise.
So, I’ve just had a look at the faculty page of James (Jim) T. Downs, author of the Peter Thiel article.
His areas of specialization are listed as: U.S. History, African-American Studies, History of Medicine and Public Health. He has written a book entitled Connexions: Histories of Race and Sex in North America.
I’m now left even more confused about how he managed to put aside so much of his areas of expertise when writing that article. Was he deliberately trying to appeal only to White, urban progressives, or…? Aargh.
@ Kat
Man, that was so creepy! But I did enjoy the extra sound effects when the Donald had his way with that poor chair.
@alan
But, just like Trumpydump said, when your a star you can do this sort of thing, just like Jimmy Savile, Bill Cosby, Adam Johnson… because their famous you are expected to want their attention and groping.
@RosieLA
To be fair, Jim Downs is not old. He is probably also not het.
And so down the rabbit hole I go, trawling through Google to find out more about this man and his writings, and I stumble upon this review of his book, Stand By Me: The Forgotten History of Gay Liberation with this enlightening quote:
Well, then.
@Ariblester – Whurps, my misread. Shoulda had my Frosted Flakes first.
I gotta read these threads more carefully. I found what you’re talking about,
Here, for anyone else who doesn’t want to wade through all the walls of text in that thread, is the confession, from “jeffersonjackson.”
@Snowberry
I am not going inot the split attraction modell discource with you, bc that is definietly a landmine.
(no I do not think that sex is the be all end all to any romantic realtionship. I just think that separating romantic attraction and sexual attraction and trying to define them this sarply and trying to find some kind of definition that fits everybody is not helpfull to most people in my experience. If it is helpfull for you by all means use it, but as you said yourself armchair diagnosing others is not a wise thing to do)
I am just saying that attributing a hatred of women to supressed homosexual desire ( be it romantic or sexual) has been used against gay men- to patologise their attraction -by homophobes since for ever. That’s it. I know you probably didn’t mean it that way. these are just things we blurt out ,bc these are such common thorpes, and we don’t notice them.
Also men who are not straight or cis are not automatically exempt from misogny. Nobody is. Everyone absorbs these things, even it if affects evrybody differently.
@David Futrelle
I don’t usually read reddit.
Surprisingly, jeffersonjackson seems to have a conscience. Because of that, he’s not going to commit sexual assault again. He seems to have learned from his mistake and his regret seems genuine.
Hello.
So, if we combine a wet hole with a vagina dentata, do we get a Sarlacc ? They have seen to much star wars…
Have a nice day.
@Peter Thiel article
Just based on the title, I thought it was going to be something about bi/pan erasure… But no, that was much more stupid. Wow. In addition to everything else, this in particular pissed me off:
@Jim Downs
You do know that GAY WOMEN exist, right? Roughly half of all gay people, in fact? Fuck’s sake, that whole wall-o’-text didn’t feature the words “Women” or “Lesbians” even once.
Or is that the point – that you’re denying me my identity because I’m not part of the men’s group?
Some fucking “Advocate.” *annoyed GLaDOS noises*