So I got this picture from a reader yesterday. And this explanation:
I’ve been lurking your blog for about a month now, and a few weeks ago, after a day of reading a particularly large amount of your posts, I had a strange dream about this guy who sits on a train and describes some STDs he caught in great (and terrifying) detail to whoever is silly enough to listen. His goal is to dissuade other men from making the same mistake he did — having sex with women. Because to “Hamish the Lover” … all women are dirty and evil and should be avoided at all costs.
Sounds kind of familiar, doesn’t it?
The [person] Hamish was talking to in my dream … realized the irony that the sex Hamish had probably [sucked, not] because of the women, but because Hamish is a selfish, inconsiderate, lazy asshole — but he’s so focused on The Evil of Womenz that he will probably never realize the truth for himself.
I thought it was awesome that even my subconscious laughs at these guys.
(And yes, I even had the dream in cartoon style…)
Sometimes you don’t need Freud to interpret your dreams.
Do any of the rest of you have your own MGTOW dream lovers? Or any other signs that the boobz have invaded your subconscious?
Do MGTOWers get their notions of modern romance from old Smurf cartoons? I’m beginning to think they do. As you may remember, the world of the Smurfs was an all-male bastion until evil Gargamel created the creature he called Smurfette from a mixture of
Sugar and spice but nothing nice…A dram of crocodile tears…A peck of bird brain…The tip of an adder’s tongue…Half a pack of lies, white, of course…The slyness of a cat…The vanity of a peacock…The chatter of a magpie…The guile of a vixen and the disposition of a shrew…And of course the hardest stone for her heart…..
Initially an evil, deceitful brunette, Smurfette was transformed by Papa Smurf into a glamorous (and less obviously evil) blonde. At which point Smurfs young and old began falling in love with her, supplicating themselves before her Smurfy beauty. Even Papa Smurf himself had the Smurfs for her, as you can see in the video above – even though, as her co-creator, he was basically her father. Ick. Sometimes Smurfette played her smurfy suitors against one another, inspiring them to even greater depths of supplication.
MGTOWers, and a lot of MRAs, basically see this as the basic paradigm of romance: men jumping through hoops to even get noticed by stuck-up women who need do nothing but exist in order to garner male attention. In the Smurf world, this was because there was only one Smurfette in a village full of lonely Smurfs. In the real world, in which men and women balance out more evenly, well, MGTOWers and MRA recreate the weird Smurfy imbalance by simply declaring most women undateable – too old (if they’re over 25 or 30) or too fat (with BMIs over 25). Hey presto! Now men, much like Smurfs, can compete against one another for the same small number of women, making almost everyone miserable in the process, especially themselves.
In Smurf world, of course, Smurfette is chaste and pure; she may kiss the boys but that’s about it. This hardly comports with the MGTOW notion that women are all slutty sluts, bedding down with every thug-boy and alpha male who makes their ‘ginas tingle, to use the peculiarly offputting parlance of the misogynist set. Natually enough, a few creative internetters have reimagined Smurfette as a Smurfslut. Warning: this video may destroy your image of Smurfette forever. This one’s worse.
Oh, and for an interesting discussion of the misogyny and apparent anti-Semitism of Smurf creator Peyo, see here.
In the spring, a young man’s fancy lightly turns to thoughts of love. And, at least if he’s straight, vaginas. Even if this young man happens to be a not-so-young man, and one who is defiantly Going His Own Way and thus theoretically immune to the vagina’s siren song. At least that’s the case with one regular over on the Happy Bachelors forum who recently set forth some intriguing theories on vaginas. Specifically, vaginas older than 25. What “Superbad” calls his “Golden Vagina Rule” is pretty simple: “Don’t trust any vagina over 25.” As he explained in a recent thread:
Social commentary written (or spoken) by a woman whose vagina is over 25 years old can be considered mostly bullshit. Null and void. And here is why. You cannot expect a woman, whose primary function is to make babies (aka attract men), to be anything but bitter or dishonest after her eggs and looks start to go. …
And why is this? According to Superbad,
when a woman’s sexuality declines (whored out, dried up vagina, menopause, postpartum depression, psychologically-induced frigidity, insanity, etc.) that she starts blaming men and talking a lot of hate and nonsense.
Just a few quick notes here: Female sexuality is not a finite resource; you cannot use it up by having sex on a regular basis. Nor do vaginas dry up like dead flowers when a woman passes the age of 25. Generally speaking, when a woman is interested in having sex with you, and you don’t just shove your dick in her without so much as a “how do you do,” lubrication is not a problem. If it is, for whatever reason, you can purchase bottles of lubricant at the local drug store. (This is also, FYI, how people are able to have butt sex.) Also, the average age of menopause is 51, not 25; though many believe menopause kills libido and “dries up” the vagina, this is probably a myth.
Oh, and also: mocking women for aging and/or suffering postpartum depression is not just a douchey thing to do, it’s practically psychopathic. Yes, physical beauty fades – eventually – for women and men alike. But having a complete and utter lack of empathy for your fellow human beings is an unattractive quality at any age. Speaking of unattractive beliefs, let’s continue:
The down side of people living longer, is that most women are going to be ugly for vast majority of their lives. That is obviously going to breed resentment and animosity. A woman’s time in the sun is brief. A man becomes more powerful with age. But a woman never gets any prettier. … Feminism has become a way for the uglier, older, less-fertile women to CONTROL young, virile girl’s orgasms and their sexuality.
At this point I feel I should remind Mr. Bad that the word “virile” actually means “manly,” in a general sense; more specifically, it means “capable of functioning as a male in copulation.” If you are interested in women with such capability — hey, let your kink flag fly! – there are several options available to you. (One of them may involve the purchase of equipment; they will all involve the lube I spoke of earlier.) If this isn’t what you want, you may wish to reword your post, and perhaps any dating profiles you may have put up on DoucheMatch.com or PlentyOfCompleteFuckingAssholes or wherever the fuck you may have put them up, so as to ward off any possible confusion on this point.
Superbad continues:
If you think women hate men; trust me, they’d just assume [sic] claw each others eyes out. And here is where a happy bachelor differs. Older men don’t feel the need to compete with younger men. Older men feel a bond with younger men. It is our duty to teach them and pass down any knowledge. We live in a world where the enemy is no longer a bear or tribal war. The enemy is packaged as pretty as a peacock: MARRIAGE. It is a way to sell the old vagina.
Yuck! Send that old hag to Carrousel!
Let’s try to work out the logic here. According to Superbad, marriage is a dastardly plot by evil feminists to bind men to vaginas over the age of 25, and presumably the women hosting them as well, who by definition are dried-up, whored-out ugly monsters (both the women and the vaginas, presumably).
Feminists are also trying to “CONTROL” the sexuality of young, fertile (yet also virile) women/vaginas, presumably by keeping them from having sex with … Superbad, who, as a Man Going His Own Way, doesn’t even want to be with women in the first place?
The ideal world, evidently, is one in which men of all ages get to have sex with under-25 vaginas (and their women), and are free to reject outright all women/vaginas older than that. In order to accommodate men of all ages, of course, these young women/vaginas will have to have sex with lots of different men. This will, of course, make them, by Superbad’s reckoning, “whores.”
Forget the old virgin-whore dichotomy; in Superbad’s sexual utopia all women/vaginas will pass through three stages: starting out virgins, they will, for a brief period in their late teens and early twenties, be whores; then, after the age of 25, they will be consigned to the whore-heap of history and become hags.
Superbad has it all figured out. And, as he explains in another comment, these poor gals will have no one but the feminists to blame:
[N]on-fertile women (read: ugly, old, bitchy) are always mad when they see young girls worshiping our cocks… old habits die hard. women are lazy. feminism requires women to get off their fat asses, work, and compete with smarter/stronger beings. most get a taste of “feminism”: working retail and getting fvcked/chucked monthly… and then end up online, looking for a “real man”. but, unfortunately, all the boys that the last generation of femi-turds raised are wimps. so, ladies, here is the game plan. get on your knees when young (so we can rent your mouth and vagina) and THEN, later, wise up, get angry, and MAN UP… and live alone with your cats. Feel free to get online as an old bat and “school” us men. LOL
Yes, Superbad has appended a “LOL” to the tail end of his comment, as if it were some sort of Internet-age equivalent to the more traditional Q.E.D. (Pro-tip: It’s not.) Still, his comments did make me LOL a little, or at least chuckle quietly to myself. Not with you, Superbad. At you.
NOTE: If you didn’t get that reference to “carrousel” earlier, perhaps this scene from Logan’s Run will jog your memory:
TRIGGER WARNING: Graphic descriptions of sexual assault; rape apologetics.
Journalist Lara Logan recently appeared on 60 Minutes, giving the harrowing details of the brutal sexual and physical assault she sustained at the hands of a mob while covering the protests for (60 Minutes) in Cairo this past February.
When news of the assault first hit the internet, you may recall, it seemed to open the floodgates of misogyny and racism. Looking at one Yahoo News story on the attack, I found hundreds of vile comments – some blaming Logan for her victimization, or doubting it ever happened; others using the assault as an excuse to spout hateful filth about Arabs and Muslims in general. In the “manosphere” itself, the reaction was predictably appalling, with many MRAs not only mocking and belittling the victim but using the case to push their own retrograde agenda. (See my post here for more details.)
Even within this context, the reaction of blogger Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide stood out for its sheer nastiness; I wrote about it here. In his first post on the subject, Bardamu mocked the victim, declared that “she had it coming,” then suggested that she probably hadn’t been raped at all. Based on no evidence whatsoever, he speculated that she may have just “made the whole thing up to garner attention and sympathy from the weepy, chivalrous masses. “
Bardamu has now used the occasion of Logan’s new CBS interview as an excuse to mock the victim again — calling her, among other things, an “idiot,” a “moron,” a “strumpet” and a “fake-breasted tart” — and to repeat his contention that she wasn’t “really” raped at all. Indeed, he says, the interview has “vindicated” his skepticism about the rape. Why? Because in her interview of 60 Minutes, Logan had spoken about being penetrated by the hands of her attackers. Bardamu evidently finds this highly risable, and somehow manages to convince himself that Logan was merely groped:
But seriously, “they raped [you] with their hands”?
Look, I’m no scholar, but even with feminists’ constant re-defining of rape, I know for a fact that rape has to involve a penis. Specifically, an penis entering an orifice without invitation. If you didn’t get a dick forced into your mouth, vagina or asshole, you didn’t get raped.
Logan and CBS’ deliberate vagueness about the “sexual assault” back in February was no doubt calculated to make people imagine the worst possible scenario that could happen. A line of hairy, creepy men pulling a train on her. Triple penetration at all times, the hairy sleazy monkey-men shooting jizz in every hole in her body, donkey punching her every time she tried to resist. In reality, she probably got spit on a few times, had her butt slapped, and had her silicone tits felt up. That’s not rape, you strumpet, that’s Spring Break in Cancun!
It’s hard to even know where to start with something this appalling. First of all, as a few dissenters pointed out in the comments on Bardamu’s post, it is still rape – “real” rape – when you are penetrated with fingers, bottles, or any other foreign object. When Abner Louima was brutally sodomized with the handle a bathroom plunger by New York city cops, that was rape, real rape. And what Logan says happened to her was real rape too.
As Logan tells the story of the assault, she and her crew were caught in the midst of a mob. Men grabbed her, groped her, and literally tore the clothes from her body. As she describes it:
I feel them tearing at my clothing. I think my shirt, my sweater was torn off completely. My shirt was around my neck. I felt the moment that my bra tore. They tore the metal clips of my bra. They tore those open. … [T]hey literally just tore my pants to shreds. And then I felt my underwear go.
Some men began beating her with sticks and others, with their hands, penetrated her. In this and the following passages I’ve bolded the statements dealing specifically with the sexual aspect of the assault. Logan again:
I didn’t even know that they were beating me with flagpoles and sticks and things, because I couldn’t even feel that. Because I think of the sexual assault, was all I could feel, was their hands raping me over and over and over again. …
They were tearing my body in every direction at this point, tearing my muscles. And they were trying to tear off chunks of my scalp … not trying to pull out my hair, holding big wads of it, literally trying to tear my scalp off my skull. And I thought, … I am going to die here.
This assault lasted 25 minutes. Logan says:
[T]hat’s when I said, “Okay, it’s about staying alive now. I have to just surrender to the sexual assault. What more can they do now? They’re inside you everywhere.” So the only thing to fight for, left to fight for, was my life.
Ultimately, Logan was rescued and rushed to the hospital. Logan continues:
I stayed there for four days, which was hard. My muscles were so unbelievably sore, because they were literally stretched from the mob trying to tear my limbs off my body. My joints, every joint in my body was distended. And then they, the more intimate injuries, the injuries, the tearing inside. And the mark of their hands, their fingers all over my body, cuts and everything you could imagine. But no broken bones.
This horrific account bears very little resemblance, it hardly needs to be said, to Spring Break in Cancun.
Naturally, a number of the commenters on Bardamu’s site manage if anything to be even more vile than Bardamu himself.
McGlothin suggests that Logan probably enjoyed the experience:
It’s not impossible that she went all the way to orgasm when the testosterone filled raging men fingered and groped her. That would explain the vagueness of her description: she was way enjoying it so much that she could not remember precisely what happened except that they molested her manually.
This gynbot just wants attention, and is playing the “Arabs are animals” routine for brownie points. She probably got groped a little, in a way that she has never been groped before, and she may be reacting to the fact that she may have gotten a thrill out of it.
She was raped by their hands? LOL. A pretty blond like Logan probably spent her youth getting gang banged by alphas. In this case the men were beneath her (dirty sand niggers) but even they didn’t penetrate. She’s probably more upset about her bruised ego than her bruised body.
Bardamu wrote his post, I should note, before the interview aired, and before anything beyond a few quotes from it had been published. But it is telling that he has not bothered to go back and watch or read the full account. Not that it would matter; he made up his mind on the case a long time ago, and I doubt that anything could change it. Like many in the “manosphere,” Bardamu and his fans see only what they want to see, and use their imagination – and their prejudices — to fill in the rest.
The blog A(n)nals of Online Dating is, like a lot of things involving online dating, both hilarious and horrifying at the same time. The blog catalogs the highly ineffective habits of the most clueless and/or offensive would-be romancers online. I’m sure there are terrible female daters out there as well, but the blog mostly focuses on the dudes, many of whom are not entirely dissimilar from the sorts of guys I write about here all the time: angry, undersocialized misogynists who desire women (or at least their vaginas) as much as they hate and fear them. Luckily for the women of the online dating world, most of these men make their odiousness so plain that it is unlikely they will ever score even a single date.
Here are a few of my recent favorites.
Bachelor Number One I’ll call the Master Debater. He sent the following missive to at least one woman online, hoping, apparently, to spark a little discussion, and perhaps a little romance:
I love to debate. I feel that Im very good at it. I see the Feminist Movement as a CIA funded political agitation mechanism. Many men feel that the Feminist Movement is anti-male, but I feel that its anti everybody. It hurts everyone that comes into contact with it.
My question to you is, would you be able to offer a rebuttal to what I just asserted without resorting to personal attack
Able, or willing? I think any number of potential respondents would be more than able to offer a critique without resorting to namecalling. But what would be the fun of that?
Let’s move on to Bachelor Number Two, a guy I’ll call Mr. Optimistic, a fellow who actually thinks he can cajole twentysomething women into having hot sex with him by, among other things, suggesting that women over 31 are unfuckable monsters. (Hint: Withfew exceptions, women under 31 will eventually be women over 31.) In his dating profile, Mr. O explains that ladies messaging him should be:
reasonably tall … passionate and intelligent so as to be good company, sexually liberated, and attractive – really attractive, fat chics need not apply (hehe, I’m so self-amusing).
Evidently they need not be sticklers for correct spelling or grammar. Mr. O goes on to explain that he wants a woman who earns her own living, but doesn’t mind him bossing her around. As he puts it, he wants someone:
Capable of holding a steady job but without making it your #1 priority – since it could interfere with our sexual activities. … If you can accept that I’m responsible for taking charge and my decisions will be final, don’t take yourself too seriously and thinks the world of me.
He wants a gal who is family oriented, but open to threesomes:
Family oriented but not anytime soon … open to spontaneous sexual activities (you know, outdoors sex, the odd 3-some with a cutie we pick up somewhere or one of your girlfriends), likes the outdoors (nudity optional), and doesn’t complain when I go fishing with the guys.
And she can’t be in a hurry about the whole family thing. After all, he wants a few good years of fucking before his wife hits the age of 31 – what he says is “the expiration date for most women anyway.”She should be:
ready to have children only after 30 and proving yourself to be a faithful wife and a loving woman, prepared for the duties of a good mother, have class and know when it’s time to speak up and when it’s NOT the time to do so, instead of a stuck-up naggy b!tch who can’t shut up, sociable, know how to please the sexual drive of your partner (little things such as giving me a call when you’ve gotten a new set of sexy lingerie to surprise me), and know that gifts are little treats and rewards, and not a never-ending desire to be pampered.
‘
Interesting how quickly his disquisition on family values turns into kvetching about “naggy b!tch[es]” and then, just as quickly, into the tritest of sexual fantasies. In any case, he explains, while she should be willing to spend money on lingerie, she should otherwise be a thrifty sort with
good spending habits, no ridiculous credit card debts and a sense of home economy; I’m not planning on changing my excellent lifestyle, and I plant to eventually be able to give my children an excellent education – and that’s not possible without good savings and planning. This will also help teaching them to earn their own achievements, respect their parents, and not be spoiled brats.
Also, no pets:
You should also understand that pets are simple money pits that only serve as something lonely women occupy themselves with so that they don’t have to connect with their husbands.
But hey, he’s not picky:
I’m attracted to all kinds of women, redheads, brunettes, black, white, latinas, you name it, as long as they’re attractive. Not attracted to fat women, and that includes the infamous “curvy” (a word that used to mean actual curves, not fat), and “a few extra pounds,” regardless of your supposed “inner beauty.” Sorry 🙂
The final smiley really nails it for me. If I were a woman – and a few years younger, and not so fat, and bisexual, and into outdoor sex, and both debt- and pet-free, and willing to put my life into the hands of a guy who can’t spell the word “chick” — I’m sure I’d be begging the guy for a date.
No mystery, these guys.
It’s hard to compete with Mr. Optimistic here, but Bachelor Number Three, the guy I’ll call No Beefcake, comes pretty close. His strategy for winning over the ladies? Ranting about how women on Plenty of Fish are a bunch of delusional fatties.
I can honestly say the selection on here is mostly scary to me. I have no problem with single moms or girls that are other than stick thin. But for real, if you are gargantuan and just gross … please don’t waste your time with me.
I’m no beefcake but I am healthy and I am getting tired of creepy girls wondering “where all the good men are” when its clear that they have either been eaten by those same girls, or are in hiding for fear of being mistaken for a 7-11 corndog. I am not Arnie, nor would I want to be but I do have biceps and a fairly flat stomach, if you have a massive muffin-top and can’t take care of yourself why set yourself up by hiding behind deceptive photo angles? Just because you have cleavage does not mean you have nice boobs. We’re gonna find out eventually, why lie now? Every woman’s profile says they demand “honesty”, how many actually offer it? Self delusion is not attractive, except to the worst quality guys.
Biceps, a “fairly flat stomach,” a raging hostility towards women. Is that all this fellow has to offer? Not by a long shot! Did we mention that he owns his own home?
I am a homeowner with a couple of promising careers, a well developed intellect, a decent body and a serious disdain for drama, game playing and bullshit. Therefore I do not feel the need to “capture your attention” with something artificially witty and intriguing. How about you show me that you have what it takes to hold an intelligent conversation for ten minutes, or that you actually care about your future, and could be entertaining and fun for me as well?
So, do you have what it takes to hold an interesting conversation with No Beefcake? Possible topics include:
1) home ownership and why it is the backbone of the American Dream
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
So the guys over at MGTOWforums.com – who want nothing to do with women but somehow can’t stop talking about them all day every day – have some interesting theories on why some women like porn so much, sometimes to the point of addiction.
According to the aptly named womanhater, it’s because they’re picking up tips; apparently, the better women fuck, the better they can fuck guys over:
Women (a few exceptions aside) see sex the same way a lumberjack sees a chainsaw – a useful tool. If they’re ‘addicted’ to it then my guess is that they’re in fact just studying it because they know it is their competition and they’d better learn how to do it like the men they hope to manipulate and extort want it. It’s like any other form of physical performance – you get better by watching the professionals. There’s not a man among us whose swing wouldn’t improve if we spent several hours a day watching professional golfers.
True, at least that bit about golf. Based on my admittedly limited exposure to her work, I’m not sure that all the skills that one can learn from watching Sasha Grey necessarily translate all that well to non-gang-bang situations.
Are they really addicted to porn or are they desperately trying to keep up with the sheer number of men who watch porn? Are these harpies so insecure that they have to overtake men in everything? It’s pathetic. There’s already a number of women who are drinking themselves retarded trying to keep up with men that they think are power drinkers.
But are they really watching all the porn they say they’re watching? Shade47 is suspicious:
When women look at porn they see pixels on a screen. Just some more attention whoring from women looking for a new angle to reel men in.
Almsot every trashy girl Ive met claims to be into porn but when you look at her internet history its all retarded girl games on flash websites and shit. You know they arent covering their tracks by deleting browser history because that would involve understanding computers.
Damn these computer-illiterate, flash-game-loving, only-pretending-to-like-porn slatterns!
AC101202, by contrast, is convinced that a lot of women actually do love porn, or at least the more nasty and degrading parts of it – “facials, ass in the air, DP etc.” Why? Evolutionary Psych 101, dude! Because their reptilian cave-lady brains just love gangbangs:
Pre-civilization, women thousands of years ago spent their days getting nailed by dozens of guys. We all know here a majority of women have rape fantasies …
Women who are managers, in positions of power, probably get off most watching degrading actions performed on women. Their lower reptilian brain likes seeing women treated like sex objects, since the women who reproduced best were the one’s who learned to enjoy gangbanging.
Now, I’m no evolutionary psych expert, but, er, what exactly is the evolutionary advantage of facials? I’m pretty sure you can’t get pregnant from semen on your forehead, in your eyes or, say, up your nose. (At least I never have.) Perhaps someone better schooled in evo psych and the general evil of women could explain that to me.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
Antifeminists regularly charge feminists like me with assuming men and women are the same. Which is a bit silly. I don’t know any feminist who assumes men and women are the same, whether the differences are due to biology (I can’t grow a baby in my belly) or culture (women are far more likely to while away their evenings reading or writing fanfic about Sam and Dean). I think the confusion amongst the antifeminists on this point stems from the fact that the specific things they think are different between men and women are often nothing more than sexist nonsense, and feminists can’t help but point this out.
No, if you want to see the ways men and women really are different, it helps to start with actual data rather than a bunch of retrograde sexist assumptions you pull out of your ass. The folks behind the OkCupid dating site have lots of data – users of the site fill out detailed profiles and answer countless questions about themselves in order to find others like them – and they know how to crunch it. Which means they can tell you with a great deal of precision what the men and women who use their site think about all sorts of things. Which is why OkCupid’s blog is so often a source of wonderment.
Take the latest post – thanks to Feministe for alerting me to it – which presents an assortment of creative charts — like the one above, depicting some of the actual differences between men and women on the site.
Who knew that men who mention “poetry” in their profiles were more likely to be into rough sex than dudes who talk about “boating?”
And what about guys who are into both poetry and boating? There must be some. I mean, many of my favorite poems involve Nantucket, a small island reachable only by boat.
Most of the rest of the charts in the latest post don’t specifically contrast men and women, but are interesting in all sorts of other ways. (You may have to change some of your assumptions about vegetarians.) If you want more on gender differences (not to mention intersting stuff on race), I’d suggest looking back through the OkCupid blog’s back catalogue. Here’s an interesting post on The Mathematics of Beauty. And then there’s this classic, which is probably a big part of why the fortysomething women I know who’ve used the site have gotten so, so many messages from horny guys half their age.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I love the OkCupid blog
And so, I think, will you
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
It’s not hard to find misogyny on manosphere sites. Hell, on some sites, like The Spearhead or MGTOWforums.com, it’s hard to find a discussion that’s not overflowing with misogyny.
In the meantime, I present: a cat trying to jump onto a dresser. (In the interest of fairness, I should point out that cats can also do this.)
Maybe I’m just being cranky. There may well be some genuinely interesting misogyny I missed in either or both of the threads I linked to above. If you find some, feel free to post it in the comments.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
Be careful, gals. With warmer weather coming, don’t be tempted to wear skimpier clothes. Because female sexuality works the same as body heat on a cold winter’s day: the more skin you show, the more heat – literal and figurative – leaks out. Eventually, you will run out. And that’s bad news, possibly for you, and definitely for your future husbands. (And really, they’re the only ones who count.)
That, in any case, is the theory of one traditional-minded Men’s Rightser calling himself Alucin. In a blog post today he mused about the differences between traditional religious women and, you know, all those filthy “western” sluts wandering around exposing sexy bits like their legs and their … hair. (Not their leg hair, their head hair. We’ll get to leg hair in a minute.) Alucin writes:
Orthodox Jewish [and] Muslim women [cover] their hair and other parts when in public. The ideal is that they save their sexuality for their husband. Only their husband can see their hair, legs, cleavage, and experience their sexuality.
All well and good, Alucin says. “Western women,” by contrast,
fully display their sexuality, and tend not to value virginity or other traditional sexual morals. Then, when married, they turn into dowdy, asexual androids, gaining weight and wearing their man’s clothes. And forgetting to shave.
They give none of their sexuality to their husbands. It has already been used up. She says that she owns her sexuality, but in fact it was the zillion guys she’s been with who have owned her sexuality. Her sexuality has been farmed and mined.
A western woman’s sexuality is for everyone
but her husband.
Here’s one of those horrible hair-showing western harlots singing about hot cleavage in the summertime. (Just so you don’t get too confused by the lyrics, I’m pretty sure the song is from the point of view of a guy missing his girlfriend.)
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
The video above, which has been making the rounds of the manosphere, is one of the creepiest and most off-putting things I’ve seen since watching Dogtooth a couple of weeks ago. Actually, I take that back: Dogtooth was much less creepy and off-putting. I was so repelled by what I saw in this video that it literally took me several tries to get through the whole thing. And no, it’s not some weird misogynistic rant by the likes of Bernard Chapin. Oh, no no no. The misogynists of the world are as repelled by the video as I am, though for radically different reasons. Titled “Dear Woman,” the video was actually put together by a couple of self-described “conscious men” who think they’re doing a great favor to the women of the world.
To which I can only say: Guys, stop it, you’re not helping.
If you can stomach it, the video is worth watching in its entirety. If not, here’s what you’re missing: The video is the work of a couple of New Age gurus — Arjuna Ardagh and Gay Hendricks, Ph.D – who, with the help of a little gaggle of guys, have written a little manifesto “apologizing” to the women of the world for all the bad shit done by men to women over the centuries. Or, as they put it:
I feel deep love, great respect and a growingsense of worshipfor the gifts of the feminine. I also feel deep sorrow about the destructive actions of the unconscious masculine in the past and present. I want to apologize to you and make amends for those actions, in order to bring forth a new era of co-creation with you.
The first step in “making amends,” evidently, was to gather together a group of men – some of whom seem to have been roped into it in the middle of a garden party — and to somehow convince them to read out loud the entire text of this manifesto. (The full text is here, but it’s much creepier when it’s read out loud.)
There is something about this manifesto, and the men reading it, that is so “off” that it may well make your skin crawl, and make you wonder how many of the men in the video have dead bodies secreted away in the crawl spaces under their homes. A female friend I showed the video to could only make it through the first couple of minutes before switching it off in horror; one commenter on Metafilter reported that it “made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, and not in a good way. Eeew.”
The creepyist, skin-crawliest part of the video has to be the section in which the assembled men talk about women’s bodies:
I honor the beauty and integrity of your body. When we worship each other through our bodies with awareness and devotion, there are no boundaries to the love that we can generate. I feel sorrow that men have used your beauty as a form of commerce in prostitution and pornography. In the grip of lust we have often lacked the skills to ask gracefully for intimacy or to take ‘No’ for an answer. I take a stand against any form of enforced or soulless commercialization of woman’s beauty, andI respect that your body belongs to you.…
I honor your capacity to listen to your bodyand its needs for food, rest and playtime.
I feel confident that I speak for many when I say “ewww.” Somehow I’m reminded of Saturday Night Live’s hot-tub-loving “lovers.”
It’s worth pointing out that the written manifesto refers to men and women “nurture[ing]” one another’s body; apparently no one noticed that the dude reading this passage in the video had turned nurturing into “worship.”
As one commenter on Metafilter put it:
“We worship women” sounds like something Buffalo Bill would have said if he had a PR agent. My guess is that they’re sickos who seem really earnest at first but it turns out that they’re actually trying to collect used tampons for onanistic purposes or something.
So what is it, aside from all this worshiping, that makes the video so creepy? Part of the problem is that these “conscious men” are, in their own way, as patronizing and sexist as any manosphere dudes “mansplaining” about how all women only want to fuck alpha guys. Women, in their view, are inherently peaceful earth-mother types. “I commit now to … honoring the spirituality of the divine feminine,” the guys tell us. “Ihonor your deep connection to the earth.”
The manifesto is overflowing with this kind of shit. No matter how “New Age” these guys think they are, these are some truly ancient, and quite thoroughly retrograde, notions.
But that’s just what makes them wrong and misguided. What is it that causes viewers to pick up that whole serial-killer vibe?
I think the answer to this can be found in a book called The Gif tof Fear by security expert Gavin de Becker. The book attempts to explain why our intuitions about creepy people are so often correct. There’s a good reason you feel uneasy around certain people; that’s your unconscious picking up on real, if hard to pin down, signals of danger.
De Becker also lays out some of the techniques predators use in an attempt to allay the suspicions of those they’re trying to victimize. One of the sneakiest? The unsolicited promise, which often means the very opposite of what is said. When someone tells you, out of the blue, that they “aren’t going to hurt you,” it’s often a very good sign that that’s exactly what they’re going to do. When someone feels the need to tell you, apropos of nothing, that he “honor[s] the beauty and integrity of your body” and “respect[s] that your body belongs to you,” you may well want to run screaming.
Even more than the unsolicited promises, I think it’s the unsolicited apologies in the Dear Woman video – so similar in intent to unsolicited promises — are a large part of what is setting off alarm bells in so many viewers. When a young guy in the video takes personal responsibility “for dragging you into … wars, and for the rape, murder, broken hearts and damaged families that resulted from them,” that’s just plain … weird, given that (unless he’s some young despot I’ve never heard of) he’s not actually responsible for any of this.
The “unsolicited promise” is similar to what de Becker calls “loan sharking” – offering unsolicited “help” in order to make victims feel obligated in some way to their unwanted helpers. In the manifesto/video, this “help” is abstract, but the strategy seems to be the same:
From this day, moving forward, I vow to treat your heart as the sacred temple it is, and I commit to honoring the feminine in you and me and in my relationship to all life.
Uh, who the fuck asked you to treat anyone’s heart as a “sacred temple?”
The manifesto/video is also filled with examples of “forced teaming,” another strategy favored by predators who want to convince their victims that they are in fact working together to do the very same thing:
I know that by leaving the past behind and joining hands in the present, we can create a synergy of our strengths. Together, there is nothing we cannot do.
But there’s something else about the video that adds to the sense that something is not right here: no matter how earnest all the men in the video are trying to sound, none of them (except perhaps the two ringleaders) seem to really believe the ridiculous things they’re saying. Instead, they seem to be, with varying degrees of insincerity, mouthing a series of essentially meaningless New Age platitudes – in short, simply saying what they think women want to hear.
No one is buying this bullshit, guys. Give it up.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
