The WHTM PLEDGE DRIVE is almost over! WHTM is ad free and entirely dependent on folks like you for its continued existence. If you appreciate it, please DONATE HERE NOW! Thanks!
By David Futrelle
So there are a couple of videos up on YouTube that simulate what it would be like if you were to encounter all of your Tinder dating matches in real life instead of on your phone’s tiny screen.
In one, a young women was confronted with a line of 30 men and told to swipe left or right as they presented themselves to her one by one; she swiped left — that is, she rejected — most of the men. After sitting down and talking to the remaining men individually, she decided she didn’t want to go on a date with any of them.
In the other video, the genders were reversed, and a man had to pick potential dates from a group of 30 women. He ultimately found one he was interested in going on a date with, and got her number.
The first video of the choosy woman seems to have sent Daily Stormer writer Octavio Rivera into a rage. (It’s not clear if he watched the other video.) As he sees it, she’s not hot enough to be rejecting all these men.
“The woman is a 4 at best,” he complains in a recent post on the site, though my guess is that most people would consider her perfectly attractive.
Her face is the kind of face that gets ruined with an extra pound or two – jawline just can’t hold up. Her facial expressions denote bipolar disorder.
Despite her below average status, this slag is so entitled that none of the 30 men were good enough for her.
And the men who were her possible dates, Rivera goes on to complain, helped to feed her sense of entitlement by treating her with too much deference.
Women think they’re some kind of royalty nowadays. Treating them as such doesn’t help. You have to bring them back to earth.
Being all giggly and “te-hee nice to meet you your majesty” is not masculine and it reinforces their princess complex.
Back in the good old days, Rivera asserts,
good, average men had access to women and created their own families without having to play these games. Giving women agency as if they were something other than property was a grave mistake that needs correcting.
And if female agency is the problem, Rivera concludes, the only way to fix the situation we find ourselves in today is to remove that agency.
“Rape is the solution,” he writes, putting the words in bold.
Think about it. This slut was surrounded by like 30 men that wanted to have sex with her. Those men were subjected to stupid hoops and games and ended up gaining nothing and wasting a lot of time. It would have been easier for them to rape her, be done with it and move on towards productive stuff. …
Make Rape Legal Again? It would save so much trouble.
He even has an idea as to who, specifically, should be the first to suffer from this new policy, suggesting that the
government-sanctioned public gang-rape of Ariana Grande would probably be a good thing to strike fear into the hearts of blackface thots, though it may represent a sanitary risk to the men doing the rapes.
He then begins to imagine what his own personal rape utopia would look like.
Once the government has been purged of Jews, we will have to debate the merits of rape punishment administered by the public, or whether we should have professional rapists, or even rape-machines in order to remove the human element from the corrective rape.
In the meantime, he urges his readers to make rape memes — and to come up with an easily recognizable (and memeable) “patron saint of corrective rape” who could help convey “the salvationist nature of rape.”
Now, it would be easy enough to dismiss Rivera’s post as a joke, albeit one in extremely poor taste, especially given his call for memes at the end. But Nazis have a long history of using jokes as a way to get their ideas out there into the world without having to take full responsibility for their awfulness.
And in fact, a now-notorious style guide prepared by Daily Stormer editor Andrew Anglin urged those writing for the site to hide their serious intent behind a veil of ironic jokiness.
“Most people are not comfortable with material that comes across as vitriolic, raging, non-ironic hatred,” Anglin wrote. “The unindoctrinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not” — even though, he made clear, they really aren’t joking at all.
While Rivera may not think that the government should immediately begin work on literal rape machines, it’s pretty clear that he really does feel that women shouldn’t be allowed much of a say in their choice of dating partners — and that they definitely have no right to reject the men he thinks they should be dating.
Unfortunately, it’s not only the famously misogynistic Nazis of the Daily Stormer who feel that way. These are views shared to some degree by many if not most incels and Men Going Their Own Way. And they have a disturbing resonance with a surprising number of men.
Indeed, this spring, after a self-identified incel deliberately ran down pedestrians with his van in a busy neighborhood in Toronto, killing ten, a number of prominent men – among them Canadian psychology-professor-cum-self-help-guru Jordan Peterson and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat – began to wonder aloud if the real problem underlying incel rage wasn’t aggrieved male entitlement but the excessive pickiness of women who for some reason don’t feel like dating the sort of maladjusted men who think mass murder is a reasonable response to sexual and romantic frustration.
In an interview with the New York Times, Peterson said the solution to this unjustified female pickiness was a system of “enforced monogamy” that would i somehow – he was a bit vague on the details – compel women to date and marry men who currently have trouble finding partners. Douthat, drawing on a blog post by George Mason University economist Robin Hanson, suggested that “sexual inequality” was as serious a problem as economic inequality and that some sort of “redistribution of sex” might be in the offing. Both think the root of the problem lies in women’s poor sexual choices.
Now, both Peterson and Douthat would be aghast at the suggestion that their solution to what they see as women’s unreasonable refusal to date certain kinds of men bears any resemblance at all to Rivera’s only semi-ironic proposal of mass rape.
Indeed, Peterson has insisted that women wouldn’t be forced to do anything they didn’t want to do – which makes one wonder why he used the word “enforced” at all. How exactly does he think this new monogamy will come about, especially since it would require women to date and/or marry men they now, often with very good reason, reject. Would there actually be much of a difference between Peterson’s sexual utopia and the Handmaid’s Tale’s Republic of Gilead?
Maybe the real difference between Peterson’s “enforced monogamy” and Rivera’s rape robots is that Rivera has taken his ideas to their logical conclusion, and Peterson has not.