Category: hypocrisy

Categories
creepy douchebaggery hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles

Is Reddit a magnet for pedophiles?

A much preferable kind of creep.

So the question I have it this: Does Reddit have some sort of powerful magnetic attraction to the pedophiles and pedophile defenders of the world, or is pedophilia and/or pedophile defense simply endemic amongst the young male tech geek demographic that’s so heavily overrepresented on Reddit?

This is a question that naturally sprung to my mind after reading a couple of recent posts in ShitRedditSays, documenting Reddit’s strange sympathy with the child porn enthusiasts of the world. A woman stands up on Reddit and declares herself a feminist? She’s a “bad person,” a “female supremacist,” an “utter piece of shit.”  A man is jailed for possession of child porn? He’s being unjustly persecuted for a “victimless crime.”

Fxexular on ShitRedditSays has assembled a roundup of some the most disturbing comments in a thread devoted to the aforementioned man jailed for possession of CP. Amongst his finds:

Heavily upvoted comments comparing viewing of child porn to smoking weed and playing Grand Theft Auto.

A comment with 15 upvotes suggesting that the perp should only get “a stiff fine and a few weeks of community service … for a crime the judge himself probably committed half a dozen times on any given weekend.”

A comment with nearly two dozen upvotes lamenting that the child porn possessor is going to have his “life ruined over socially non-normative pictures. … this is a predictable outcome of a corrupt government which is obsessed with its own power.”

But these are just the tip of the pedo-defense iceberg. Take a look at the thread itself, where you will also find heavily upvoted comments from Redditors comparing the “persecution” of pedophiles to past persecution of gays and witches; an unintentionally ironic comment lamenting the cruel treatment of a perp who is “only 26” years old; and a comment making perhaps the strangest argument I think I may have ever seen anywhere about anything:

My core problem here, as a computer scientist, is that any photo he had is really a bunch of zeros and ones… which for anyone who is at all familiar with binary, is a number. Basically, by outlawing the storage of some form of data, we have said that it is illegal be in possession of certain numbers. Yes, these might be huge numbers that you don’t encounter in your daily life, but they are still simply numbers.

In a different thread on the same case, another Redditor gets 75 upvotes for comparing child-porn-possessing pedophiles with African-Americans in the era of the Civil Rights movement. Here’s the comment itself; here’s the ShitRedditSays thread discussing it. And here, for good measure, is the same commenter offering a Redditor who’s confessed to molesting his sister advice on how best to avoid prosecution.

Meanwhile, in an unrelated thread in Reddit’s Videos subreddit, pedophile (sorry, ephebophile) Redditors mount an all-out attack on a girl who had the temerity to complain about skeevy Redditors masturbating to pictures of herself she put in a private album on the internet when she was 14.

In ShitRedditSays, jamie11 collects together some of the creepiest comments, including these:

“Fuck yea she is developed AND judging by her smug smile, she is loving every second of this. Sure she says “OMG, so creepy herp derp” but in reality it is kind of a big EGO boost. EDIT: in b4 misogyny accusations!” [+7]

“She is an attention whore. She is really dumb. She will probably ultimately profit from this in the model/porn/coors girl industry.”[+10]

“Shes much hotter when shes quiet.” [+32]

The numbers in brackets indicate the numbers of upvotes.

Again, tip of the iceberg.

EDITED TO ADD: I hadn’t noticed before, but r/mensrights has  its own discussion of the child porn case. It’s pretty much what you’d expect: Possessing child porn is just a “thought crime” that doesn’t hurt anyone.

The creepiest fellow of the lot is probably logrusmage, who offers this defense of the child porn possessors of the world:

consider that a majority of “kiddy porn” are pictures of sexually mature females taken by said females for boyfriends that got leaked on the internet or via text, where the female happens to be under the age of consent.

When someone points out that, um, the fact that these pictures are “leaked” means that the subjects of said pictures didn’t consent to them being put online (and, also, they are below the age of consent), logrusmage offers this rebuttal:

Consent is not needed for something that does not directly effect someone. Like looking at them. … Looking at a picture of someone does not require their consent.

Presumably he’d be fine if someone secretly filmed him picking his nose while taking a crap and put it up on r/creepydudespickingnosesonthecrapper.

 

Categories
antifeminism evil women false accusations hypocrisy I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny MRA reddit violence against men/women

Men’s Rights Redditors: Guys who kill their exes — who can blame them?

A couple of intriguing quotes from Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit.

The topic at hand: A Redditor claims an ex falsely accused him of rape and caused him various other problems and basically acted like a shit. No one, of course, can possibly know if the guy is telling the truth, but the r/mr regulars all assume the alleged false accuser is guilty until proven innocent. (And maybe not even then.)

Naturally, some of the regulars use this as an opportunity to discuss how completely understandable it is when guys kill their exes.

Really, in this misandrist world, dudes murdering their exes is totally like slaves murdering their masters. Illegal, sure, but who can blame them? At least that’s how texaswildfires sees it:

 

Yep, in his mind, dudes today are totally in the exact same situation as slaves in the antebellum south — so when a guy murders his ex, the person you should feel empathy with is the murderer.

Naturally, both of these comments got upvotes, because that’s just how r/mr rolls these days.

 

Categories
douchebaggery hypocrisy MRA reddit

Some douchebag is impersonating me on Reddit; r/mr mods won’t ban him

So some douchebag is impersonating me on Reddit. I post as manboobz. He (or she) posts as manboobz_. (That is, with a little underscore at the end.) Luckily most of the faux-manboobz’ comments are fairly easy to tell from mine — this is not someone with a great sense of subtlety — so at least some of the regulars have figured out that this bonehead is not actually me. Not all of them, unfortunately.

As impersonating someone else is a violation of Reddit’s rules, and an asshole move to boot, I politely asked the Men’s Rights subreddit’s mods to ban the faux-me. Here was the response:

Stay classy, AnnArchist!

Categories
creepy hypocrisy idiocy misogyny pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles reddit

Mod of Reddit’s Jailbait subreddit shocked – shocked! – that dozens of commenters there were begging for nude pics of a 14-year-old

Ugh. It’s the Jailbait subreddit again. If you’ve been following any of the discussions that have recently been swirling around Reddit’s popular subreddit dedicated to the posting of technically-not-child-porn pics of underage girls, you probably ran across the standard Jailbait apologia: The pics there aren’t nude pics, and besides, most of them were originally posted on the internet by the girls themselves. So it’s all good clean fun, I guess.

It’s going to be a little bit harder for the Jailbaiters to use this bullshit argument in the future. A day or so ago, you see, a Jailbaiter calling himself TheContortionist posted a pic of his (alleged) 14-year-old ex-girlfriend’s ass in a thong. Naturally, the regulars demanded more. The OP noted that the only other pics he had of her were nudes.

So literally dozens of the regulars – I counted around 70 in all — begged him to PM the nudes to them.  And … apparently he did send some of them the pics, at least according to a r/jailbait moderator with the charming handle I_RAPE_PEOPLE.

I can only hope that some of the requesters were FBI agents.

Here’s a screenshot of the whole disgusting thread (SFW; in an earlier NSFW screenshot posted to Reddit virtually all of the comments you see downvoted here still had net upvotes).

TheContortionist’s post (and the Jailbaiters’ reaction to it) was first brought to the attention of non-pedo Redditors by Me_bender in ShitRedditSays, then brought to the attention of the rest of Reddit by SRS regular HPLovecraft.

Naturally, this being Reddit, the r/jailbait apologists are still insisting that, hey, even though something like 70 people in r/jailbait publicly requested PMs of child porn, this sort of thing is officially frowned upon by the subreddit’s mods, so, you know, not to worry. As CapNRoddy put it:

The existence of r/jailbait does not mean nudes of children. Those are against the rules. Those posters broke the rules.

And then of course there were various iterations of this non-argument, set forth here by im_only_a_dolphin:

You know what I do about /r/jailbait?

I don’t visit it. Bam. Problem solved.

If by “solved” you mean “ignored, because I don’t give a shit about crimes that harm people other than me,” then I guess, yeah, that is “problem solved.”

I’ve been taking these quotes from the sometimes surreal discussion of the issue on the WTF subreddit. That discussion also produced this rather surreal exchange with I_RAPE_PEOPLE, the r/jailbait moderator I mentioned earlier:

 

Meanwhile, in another discussion of the topic elsewhere on Reddit, voidsong managed to get more than a dozen net upvotes for a comment that attempted to place the blame for the pics in r/jailbait on “daddy’s little angels slutting themselves up and taking pictures in the mirror” (and, of course, their parents).

I can only hope that the authorities are investigating these creeps, and that the Reddit admins are cooperating fully with them.

Categories
$MONEY$ antifeminism hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA pussy cartel reddit sex

Legal prostitution will hurt women, and that’s good, says allegedly pro-woman MRA

If only all women were whores!

A lot of MRAs maintain that they’re not anti-woman, just antifeminist. Heck, one new contributor to Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit has put that claim in the name he chooses to identify himself by: ProWomanAntiFeminist.

Alas, his comments don’t quite live up his moniker. PRAF (for short) launched his Reddit career a couple of days ago with a series of comments, all of them upvoted by the regulars, arguing that prostitution should be legalized — because he thinks that would be bad for women. “[L]egal prostitution reduces women’s economic advantage over men,” he argued in his second comment. Why? According to PRAF, because prostitutes offer men a better deal on sex:

[P]rostitutes give men no strings attached sexual satisfaction reasonably and anonymously for a set price. Without the man having to jump through arbitrary hoops to “impress” the girl, risking an “oops” pregnancy, or (god forbid) getting married.

When sex and female companionship is a man’s objective, prostitution is an efficient and cost-effective option that many women don’t want to have to compete with.

In other words, prostitutes break the back of the dreaded Pussy Cartel — or, as PWAF would call it, the “sexual trade union.” Not only are wives and girlfriends more costly in the long run for men, but they’re also not actually obligated to have sex:

Married women get unfettered access and control over male resources, and they don’t even have to put out. Girlfriends get some access to male resources, dependent on how attractive she is and how desperate he is.

Simply paying up front for sex is so much more convenient:

Prostitutes offer a dependable, no strings attached experience for men.

And so we come to what PWAF sees as the big payoff here:

Legal prostitution reduces the desperation of men, mandating that non-prostitute women have to bring more to the table to secure male resources.

I suggest you read that last sentence over again, because it’s a doozy.

Even by his own daffy logic, PWAF is advocating something that he clearly sees as anti-woman — or at least anti “non-prostitute women,” as he so charmingly puts it.

Might want to rethink that name.

Of course, given PWAF’s familiarity with MR lingo and logic, I suspect that this “new” commenter is actually a very old commenter under a new name.

I’d suggest he go back to his old one.

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women evil women hypocrisy misogyny MRA oppressed men reddit

“Feminism was born out of a PR campaign to get women to smoke cigarettes” and other fun “facts” from Reddit

Typical feminists, according to Reddit

A redditor called fxexular has put together an amazing compilation of fun “facts” about feminism from assorted Redditors. It’s a bit like reading the descriptions of an elephant offered by six blind men who are also drunk misogynist assholes. Among my favorites:

feminism, at best, focuses on relatively trivial female issues instead of grotesque male issues and at worst is pure man hate.

feminism. Where the most privileged people in society can whine about their “oppression of opulence.”

Feminism is about strong males using law to further marginalize weak males.

The ruling class uses feminism as a tool to keep men, young men and boy’s down

It’s like pissing in a bucket of water – piss enough, and you’ll dilute the water to mostly piss. “Feminism” is a bucket of piss these days, from all the crazy and ignorant that attached to it over the years, especially the past decade when it became a fad.

feminism destroys men’s confidence and sense of satisfaction in being male.

every feminist is a abuser or a abuser apologist or a shield for other abusers.

Feminists don’t even think of men as human.

Most women and feminists view gay men as accessories.

these feminist nut cases have only one goal: total female supremacy at the expense of men. Fuck every last one of these haggard harpies. Fuck ’em all.

I used to hold doors, I dont anymore. I just let it slam in the face of whoever is behind me b/c I have been publicly embarrassed by many a feminist for being polite.

Feminists are like witches, but this isn’t the The Land of Oz, Dorothy. There are no “good” feminists.

Brainwashed weak feminist men are a favorite of feminists. They don’t treat them very well, but they use them to great effect.

i’m mad as hell at the way men are treated by the feminist gynecocracy

The people who dismiss /mr are like abusers; they’re looking for any excuse to piss all over something they know is logical and true because they can’t handle it emotionally.

Many feminists do hate men and want to emasculate them. While I’m thankful for the few who don’t I feel that their silence allows the groups like NOW to exploit men and women alike for their own aims.

I know it sounds good to believe that feminism was always about equality but go and read up on the first wave suffragettes. They were basically domestic terrorists in many cases.

The feminism of the 60’s also lead to the vitriol hatred of men.

I suspect that the butt-ugly women who started feminism in the 60’s were confronted for the first time with an efficient mating market (after the sexual revolution), and they couldn’t stand “losing” to the pretty girls

[Feminists’] entire shtick is to repeat misinformation and when that fails bust out the unsubstantiated personal attacks

Yeah, no irony there!

I think this one is my favorite, though:

I will never socialize with feminists after I learned the darkness of their philosophy.

Most of these quotes are from the Men’s Rights subreddit. Every quote in fxexular’s list that I went to look at in context had gotten more upvotes than downvotes. So they must be true!

EDITED TO ADD: Oops! Forgot the link. I added it above. And here is is again, just in case.

Categories
$MONEY$ alpha males antifeminism bad boys evil women hypocrisy incel men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA nice guys oppressed men patriarchy reactionary bullshit the spearhead thug-lovers

Gödwindämmerung: Women who won’t date nerds are like Pol Pot

Note to angry dudes: Women not wanting to date you is not the equivalent of this.

There needs to be a Manboobz Addendum to Godwin’s Law to cover those who compare their lack of dating success to, you know, genocide. You may recall the charming Tumblr dude who equated dateless “nice guys” with persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.

And now we have “white and nerdy,” the blogger behind Omega Virgin Revolt taking the datelessness=genocide thing a step or two further. As you might guess from the title of his blog, WAN doesn’t exactly have women beating a path to his door. Not even golddiggers, even though he is, he says, “a widly successful owner of my own business.” Women don’t even want to use him for his money? Why is that? Because he is not a — wait for it – “alpha” man.

Yep, it’s the same old dopey logic we’ve seen so, so many times before: Women won’t date me => therefore I’m not an alpha => therefore women won’t date anyone but alphas. WAN has added one more step to this illogical logic chaim: this makes them the equivalent of genocidal monstere:

The ideology that women act on is the ideology of Pol Pot, of the Killing Fields.  Women want non-alpha men purged and intelligence is considered by women to be a lack of alphaness in a man.  This is similar to the ideology that led to the killing fields.  Many of the millions who were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields were murdered for showing signs of intelligence.  That included everything from education to the possesion of wristwatches and/or glasses.  If modern geeky hobbies had existed in Cambodia in the 70s, I’m sure that would have been included along with wristwatches and glasses as evidence of intelligence, and anyone interested in geeky hobbies would have been murdered too.

He’s making a could-not-possibly-be-more-strained reference to the whole Alyssa Bereznak/Jon Finkel kerfuffle. Bereznak, as most of you probably already know, wrote a sort of snarky, sort of stupid piece for Gizmodo about her date with Finkel, a champion Magic the Gathering player, and said some mean things about him and his geeky hobby. Pol Pot engineered the deaths of roughly 2 million people, many of them urban dwellers and intellectuals forced to relocate to collective farms in the countryside. Many died of starvation; others were shot – or beaten to death, in order to save on bullets.

So, yeah, Bereznak and Pol Pot are pretty much identical.

WAN continues:

[T] ideology of what women are doing now and what Pol Pot did are very similar.  The Killing Fields needed to be opposed for both moral and practical reasons and so must what women are doing now.  Rebel at The Spearhead said that women are engaged in a “holy crusade” against men. … The Khmer Rouge was also on a “holy crusade”.  As Rebel also said what is at stake is nothing less than civilization itself and your existence and freedom just as it was with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

In an earlier post pretty much making the identical, er, “argument,” WAN takes aim at comedian Julie Klausner, who recently published a memoir called I Don’t Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Faux Sensitive Hipsters, Felons and Others. In her book, and in some interviews about the book, Klausner made some unflattering comments about “beta males” and “immature” men. This sends WAN into a rage:

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would be proud of this cunt.  She all but calls for concentration camps for her “useless beta inferior men” who secretly run the world.  … 

Ah, classic weasel words: “All but calls for.” In other words, she doesn’t actually call for concentration camps, or even rock ‘n’ roll fantasy camps, for men in any way shape or form. Never mind. WAN continues:

Somehow these “straight angry nerds” who are “useless and inferior” took over the world when no one was looking and this cunt says “something needs to be done” about this “epidemic”.

This type of thinking is widespread among women.  …

[I]t’s no surprise that a lot of men are saying they think they would be better off with the Taliban running things.  While I’m not sure that isn’t just trading one set of problems for another … I understand what these men are thinking.  Anything has got to be better than this.

So: Nerdy men are “oppressed” by women who won’t date them. The solution to this imaginary oppression: oppress women for real.

I couldn’t make this shit up.

Categories
alpha males antifeminism beta males creepy evil women hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny nice guys oppressed men reactionary bullshit

A Nice Guy’s lament: “First, they came for the rapists … .”

You’ve all seen the famous quote attributed to German religious leader Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the communists,

and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Now one embittered “Nice Guy” on Tumblr who goes by the name joetomcollins has written his own version, with feminists as the Nazis, rapists as the communists, and, well, just read it yourself:

When the Feminists came for the Rapists,

I remained silent;

I was not a Rapist.

When they locked up the stalkers,

I remained silent;

I was not a stalker.

When they came for the Players,

I did not speak out;

I was not a Player.

When they came for the men who they got bored of,

I remained silent;

I wasn’t some one they were bored of yet.

When they came for me, the nice guy,

there was no one left to speak out.

So, yeah. Let’s think this through a little bit. When Niemöller made his now famous remarks, he was expressing his own sorrow for not standing up to Hitler when he started arresting Communists. So is joetomcollins suggesting that he – and we – should have stopped “the feminists” from going after rapists and stalkers?

Joetomcollins doesn’t say, but he does have a lot more to say on the evilness of feminists and stuck-up women in general:

[I]f I’m going to be the bad guy no matter what I do… might as well get it the fuck out the way right up front.

I might as well ENJOY being the villain.

The FemeNazi messsage is LOUD AND CLEAR!

I am an average normal guy. I am never going to be good enough.

Especially in NYC where you only personalities you get are native “rats” who have learned to survive to being ruthless, and Type “A” psychopaths who come here to conquer everything.

Dude, if you don’t like the people in New York, then maybe, just maybe, you should move out of New York. It’s a high-pressure place and, well, you don’t seem to respond well to pressure, let’s put it that way.

He continues on with a refrain that I suspect will sound awfully familiar to a lot of you:

Man hasn’t had the ability to choose his woman for at least the last 150 years. The woman chooses the man. ALWAYS.

Now even showing interest is offensive to the FemeNAZI.

We aren’t talking about DOING anything but telling someone you think they are attractive. If a guy YOU liked rejected you, he would be Satan incarnate, but when a woman rejects a guy…

“HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER!!!”

“HOW DARE HE THINK HE WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!!!!!”

… and we’re supposed to nod sheepishly and apologize for bothering you as we leave with a smile.

When I read shit like this I have to wonder: who exactly are you approaching, and what exactly are you saying to them? I’ve made some awkward passes in my day, but I’ve never gotten this response from anyone.

Could it be that you’re a dick? Your post seems to suggest that you are — an angry, self-obsessed dick almost completely lacking in self-awareness and empathy.

I mean, seriously, comparing your inability to get laid to the fucking Holocaust? Your bad luck with women to the murder of millions? Douche move, my man.

If you embrace your dickhood, as you seem to want to do, and become much more straightforward about your sexual desires, instead of trying to hide behind a nice-guy facade, you might actually get laid more often than you’re getting now. But you’re not likely to get a lot of repeat customers. And for good reason: no woman wants (or deserves) to be saddled with all your bullshit.

So let’s assume, for the purpose of argument, that you’re not a full-blown dick; you’re just a horny young guy on a sexual losing streak lashing out at women for your own failures. Let’s assume you are willing to work on actually reducing your dickishness. (Readers: All I ask is a little temporary suspension of disbelief.)

Reading your account of your romantic failures, and bearing in mind that most straight men don’t get this sort of response from the women they approach, there are several possibilities:

  1. either you are exaggerating the alleged awfulness of the rejections you’ve gotten, or
  2. there is something desperately wrong with your approach — perhaps you’re cornering women in elevators at 4 AM, or otherwise transgressing their boundaries in inappropriate ways — or
  3. the women you are approaching are, you know, bitches.

You really only have two choices here: you can spend the rest of your life wallowing in bitterness at women, or you can reconsider your approach. Find some woman you are friendly with – one you are not obsessed with fucking – and explain to her what’s going on, and ask her where you think you’re going wrong. If it’s your approach, learn to better respect people’s boundaries and read their body language; some women don’t want to be bugged by anyone when they are, you know, on the way to work. If it’s your selection of women, select different women.

And stop posting tirades on the internet about how women are a bunch of evil Nazis out to oppress you and your poor lonely penis. You know how, when you jump into cold water, your genitals shrink in horror from the cold? Something similar happens to the vaginas of most women when they read shit like you just wrote.

Categories
$MONEY$ bad boys beta males evil women hypocrisy misogyny nice guys oppressed men PUA sex sluts

Is she really going out with him?

This is a bit of a rant inspired by some of the discussions of my recent post on Susan Walsh.

Let’s say you’re a young, horny, lonely heterosexual guy. You’re walking to the store to buy some, I dunno, pretzels, and you see the woman of your dreams walking arm in arm with some hideous toad of a man. You say to yourself: how is it that a nice guy like me can’t find any girl who will return my phone calls, while ugly boy here seems to have won the girlfriend jackpot? If you’re Joe Jackson, you write a song about it:

Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street

From my window I’m staring while my coffee grows cold

Look over there! (Where?)

There’s a lady that I used to know

She’s married now or engaged or something so I’m told

Is she really going out with him?

Is she really gonna take him home tonight?

Is she really going out with him?

‘Cause if my eyes don’t deceive me,

There’s something going wrong around here

A lot about the world seems desperately wrong when you’re young, horny and alone. But maybe in this case there is something that you’re missing. Maybe the ugly dude is charming as fuck. Maybe he’s a brilliant thinker. Maybe he’s awesome in bed. Maybe she’s shallow and materialistic, and she likes him just because he’s rich. Or maybe there’s nothing redeeming about the guy – intellectually, sexually or financially — and the woman in question simply has horrendous taste in men. It could be any of these things.

But here’s the thing: no matter how wounded you feel, whom this woman goes out with is really none of your business. She doesn’t have to have a good reason to be going out with him. It’s not your call. The world doesn’t owe you a hot girlfriend, and this particular woman has the inalienable right to go out with whoever she chooses, even if you personally feel ill at the thought of them doing it. Women you find attractive aren’t obliged to date men you think are appropriate for them.

A lot of guys in the manosphere seem to have hung on to this young-man’s anger and sexual jealousy. But instead of somehow turning their resentment into a catchy song, and then moving away from the rock world to a more jazz-inflected sound, these men cultivate their resentments. And talk about them endlessly.

Soon they’ve developed the uncanny ability to demonize any woman who makes any romantic choice – other than picking them. If a “hot” women is dating an ugly dude, well,

He must be rich! All women are filthy golddigging whores! She’d never give a decent, hardworking beta like me a second look!

If the same woman is dating  a conventionally handsome man, the reaction can be just as strong:

She’s a shallow bitch!  They always go for the alphas! She’d never give a decent, hardworking beta like me a second look!

Weirdly, a lot of manosphere dudes also get angry about the sexual and romantic choices of women they aren’t interested in at all. If a woman they don’t think is all that hot is with a conventionally handsome man, it’s still the woman to blame:

Ha! She’s punching above her weight class, looks-wise. I guess any bitch can get laid, while a hard-working beta like me doesn’t even rate a second look. But eventually he’ll dump her and I will laugh and laugh. Live it up now, bitch, because you’re going to end up alone with a bunch of cats!

This is the thing that’s weirdest to me. Getting worked up about a woman you like who’s dating a loser? I can understand that. I did that, a lot, in my twenties. But quite a few manosphere dudes – and women like Susan Walsh who are manosphere-adjacent – seem somehow deeply affronted by the notion that any women could hook up with a man either lower or higher on that universal 10-point hotness scale so beloved by PUAs and other manosphere dudes.

Walsh speaks of “equilibrium” in the “sexual marketplace” (or SMP as she and her fans like to abbreviate it), and seems to consider any deviation from it to be a moral failing – of the women involved. (The slut-shaming is strong with this one.) Her idea of “equilibrium,” as I mentioned in my last post on her, is one in which fives date fives, tens date tens, and female sixes and sevens know better than to try to get the attention of male eights and nines by wearing low-cut dresses and “slutting it up.”

But here’s the thing. If you’re going to try to mix economic terminology into your dating advice, it helps to actually know what the terms mean. Market equilibrium, as Wikipedia handily summarizes it,

refers to a condition where a market price is established through competition such that the amount of goods or services sought by buyers is equal to the amount of goods or services produced by sellers. This price is often called the equilibrium price or market clearing price and will tend not to change unless demand or supply change.

Guess what? Insofar as the dating world is a marketplace, it’s already at equilibrium. Potential daters size up their prospects, and make a guess as to who is and who isn’t “in their league.” Those who are aiming too high (setting their price too high) and not hooking up with anyone (selling themselves) may end up lowering their standards (lowering their price) to make a sale (get laid).  Some products (people) appeal to a wide demographic; others to a nice market. Some have better marketing then others. Some products look good at first glance, but turn out to need a lot of repairs. All this is mighty familiar to students of economics. This is how markets work.

Of course, the dating world is even more complicated and messy than economic marketplaces. But in a lot of ways it really does act like one.

The interesting thing here is that Walsh and her followers aren’t thinking like capitalists at all. Essentially, they’ve decided that they know better than the SMP they so love to talk about, that their imaginary 10-point scale should predict who chooses whom better than those who are actually doing the choosing. That’s not capitalism; that’s a Soviet style command economy. It’s not the way marketplaces work, and it’s not the way the dating world works.

Guys: if no one is buying what you’re selling, you could try to change what you’re selling so that it appeals to buyers more. Or if you are confident in your product you can simply wait until a more discerning buyer shows up.

Or you could sit by yourself stewing  in your own bitterness and blaming everything on the bitches. Much like the jealous narrator of David Bowie’s classic Queen Bitch, only much less sexually ambiguous. And, frankly, much less appealing. In this song, Bowie manages to make sexual resentment somehow glamorous.

I would like to apologize for talking about this song and bitter manosphere dudes in the same sentence. But I’m still posting the video. This is Bowie, in 1972, performing it live, and fucking killing it:

Categories
hypocrisy man boobz forum misogyny MRA reddit

The Man Boobz Challenge meets The Men’s Rights Subreddit

It would be nice to be able to respond to this steaming pile of bullshit on Reddit’s Men’s Rights Subreddit, but I have been banned there for the crime of including the subreddit in my “boob roll.” (I’m not going to set up a sockpuppet account to comment.)

MR redditors are of course allowed to comment here, as are the moderators of that subreddit. Even though they are boobz.

Here’s the thread in the Man Boobz Forum in which Holly posted the Man Boobz challenge.