Thursday, May 20, 2010

The Misandry Bubble - Part 5!

This is getting exhausting. I'm hoping to hack through a little quicker and finish this up in six parts at the most. ...maybe seven.

Contrary to their endless charges of 'misogyny' (a word that many 'feminists' still manage to misspell), in reality, most men instinctively treat women with chivalry and enshrine them on exalted pedestals.
Okay, he's totally got me there. I'm always typing "misogny" and not catching it until the little red squiggly line shows up.

I don't want to be enshrined on an exalted pedestal! I want to be just a person. When you're on a pedestal no one takes you seriously if you want to do anything un-princessy. Also, the whole "women were lucky just not to starve in the gutter" thing from a bit back doesn't sound very pedestal-y to me.

When well-known 'feminists' openly state that 90% of the male population should be exterminated, the unsupported accusation of 'misogyny' is a very pure manifestion of their own misandric projection.
Okay, I think those feminists are insane too, although I also think there are about twelve of them and they all comment on Twisty Faster's blog. But let's not get them mixed up with the people who are "feminists" in a very meaningful sense and yet do not support genocide.

To provide a helpful analogy, "I hate Christians because Fred Phelps says disgusting things at soldiers' funerals. Fucking Christians!"

(This is only a test. Had this been an actual Internet Atheist post, the word would be spelled "Xtians.")

On the second charge of being a 'loser who cannot get laid', any observation of the real world quickly makes it obvious that men who have had little experience with women are the ones placing women on pedestals, while those men who have had substantial sexual experience with women are not.
Then you must be Wilt Fucking Chamberlain. Anyway, I think the very existence of Eurosabra disproves your point.

Having sex with a large number of women does not increase respect for women, which is the exact opposite of the claim that 'feminists' make. Again, this charge of 'loserdom' is merely the psychosexual frustration of 'feminists' projected outwards, who express surprise that unrelenting hatred by them towards men is not magically metabolised into love for these particular 'feminists'.
I don't think that anyone's claiming being a man-whore makes you a feminist. But having a satisfying sex life, whatever "satisfying" means to you, does seem to make guys more likely to respect women. Although there's a certain chicken/egg effect there.

One Sentence Wonder: "Saying someone doesn't get laid is a stupid way to argue, and I bet you don't get laid."

Despite my explanation of this predictable Pavlovian response, the comments section will feature misandrists use these same two slurs nonetheless, proving the very point that they seek to shout down, and the very exposure they seek to avoid. My pre-emption will not deter them from revealing their limitations by indulging in it anyway. They simply cannot help themselves, and are far from being capable of discussing actual points of disagreement in a rational manner.
Wow, you said inflammatory things and you predicted people would get inflamed. Good job, Miss Cleo. By the way, this is my fifth page of actual points of disagreement.

Once again, remember that this should be taken no more seriously than if uttered by a 10-year-old, and there is no reason to let a 'feminist' get away with anything you would not let a man get away with. They wanted equality, didn't they?
I want to call "treat them like a 10-year-old, treat them like a man" a One Sentence Wonder, but under this guy's worldview it might not be.

And sure, let's have some equality. Let's pine for the days when men were chattel and even ugly and unpleasant women were guaranteed a man by the system, and let's say that men are worthless when they turn 35 or fuck more than 3 people, let's demand that divorcing women be able to just walk away from their children, let's talk about how you should ignore everything a man says, and let's say that it's no big deal when men get raped and they're probably lying anyway.

Or let's not. Because I don't believe any of the things in the above paragraph are good ideas at all. That's not how feminism works.

The greatest real misogyny, of course, has been unwittingly done by the 'feminists' themselves. By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer. [...] By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation.
Whereas you have no responsibility whatsoever for your words about rape victims. And could you sound a little more like a wife-beater with this "you made me do this to you, bitch, I tried to be nice to you and what did I get" shit? Put on one of them sleeveless white undershirts and you'll be ready for Lifetime.

Chivalry greatly increased a man's prospects of marriage, but the reasons for this have been forgotten. Prior to the modern era, securing a young woman's hand in marriage usually involved going through her parents. The approval of the girl's father was a non-negotiable channel in the process. If a young man could show the girl's parents that he would place her on a pedestal, they could be convinced to sanction the union.
Actually, a lot of the time they'd sanction a union with anyone halfway decent just to get the girl out of the house. (See, here I go talking about The Past like it's some unitary thing that never changed with time and place.) Or in other parts of The Past, the man's parents would work it out with the woman's parents, and tough beans if she turns out to be a 1.

Hence, many men are still stuck in the obsolete, inobservant, and self-loathing notion that chivalry and excess servility are the pathways to sex today [...] and the term 'White Knights' can apply to the entire group. Their form of chivalry when exposed to 'feminist' histrionics results in these men harming other men at the behest of women who will never be attracted to them.
My still slightly sore vagina begs to differ.

Although I do have to commend him for applying the "you don't really hold those beliefs, you're just kowtowing before the oppressor" logic to men. That's quite equitable of him.

An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled 'Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda'.
I'm just putting this one up here so you can admire the gracefully crafted prose.

At this point, readers may be wondering "If things are this bad, why don't we hear anything about it?". Indeed, this is a valid question, and the answer lies within the fundamentals of male psychology. Most beta men would rather die than be called a 'loser' by women (alpha men, of course, know better than to take this at face value).
Then how come so many "alpha men" are actually decent to women? Although I guess this depends how you define "alpha." Is an alpha a guy who has satisfying sex and social lives? Because I know a bunch of those, and they're decent to women and never go on about their horrible oppression. But somehow I think they must be secret betas. Somehow. If I squint real hard.

...shit, squinted too hard, ice cream headache.

Hey. Why would alphas feel oppressed, if being alpha gets you everything you want? Can't complain about chicks ruining your life when you've got chicks in the palm of your hand.

Alpha men have no incentive beyond altruism to act as they benefit from the current climate, and thus my altruism will be limited to putting forth these ideas.
Oh, I see. You're a real humanitarian. Some altruists give to charity, some volunteer, some teach or care for others, and some write long essays on the Internet about how sluts and alimony judgments and rape investigations are like Hitler.

Is it just me, or do the specific areas of his rage tell a little story? Women should be forced to marry men while they're young and attractive, not when they're all "cougary" and used-up... women are cheating sluts, cheating is worse than rape... accusations of abuse are mostly false, and anyway the abusers were totally pushed into it... divorce lawyers are Nazis!

All this, however, requires me to believe that he actually got a woman to marry him. So I guess we can disregard this ludicrous speculation.

Any serious movement has to start a think tank or two to produce research reports, symposiums, and specific policy recommendations, and the few divorce lawyers who were compelled by their conscience to leave the dark side have to be recruited as experts. Subsequently, televised panel discussions have to be conducted at top medical, business, and graduate engineering schools (where young men about to embark on lucrative careers are approaching marriage age, but know nothing about the law), documentary films have to be produced, prominent victims like Mel Gibson, Paul McCartney, Hulk Hogan, and Tiger Woods have to be recruited as spokesmen, and visibly powerful protests outside of divorce courts have to be organized.
...Hulk Hogan? HULK HOGAN??? I uh. I what. I um. You broke me. See what you did. Guh.

Also, Hulk Hogan and Tiger Woods cheated on their wives and Paul McCartney on his fiancée, and that's worse than rape.

Other than that, great plan! You get started right away on that and I'll check back in a bit to see how it's going.

61 comments:

  1. It's not enough that women be enshrined, the very pedestals they're placed on must be exalted as well!

    Also, most men didn't practice chivalry. It was a knightly code of conduct. Mostly to do with conduct in battle. The ideal of chivalric love was for a knight to dedicate himself to the wife of his lord, loving her from afar.

    So even then, chivalry didn't result in sex.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, this:

    Again, this charge of 'loserdom' is merely the psychosexual frustration of 'feminists' projected outwards, who express surprise that unrelenting hatred by them towards men is not magically metabolised into love for these particular 'feminists'.

    Shows a fundamental inability to understand that women can have goals other than "acceptance by men". Like, dude, feminists don't want your love. I think all feminists would want from this guy is to keep him the hell away from all women ever.

    ReplyDelete
  3. More pot-shot commenting:

    in reality, most men instinctively treat women with chivalry and enshrine them on exalted pedestals.

    It says something that this statement is, for me, the most conclusive evidence that this person is not actually talking about the planet Earth. I mean, given all the prior batshittery.

    (This is only a test. Had this been an actual Internet Atheist post, the word would be spelled "Xtians.")

    (Pity the standard Internet Atheist isn't aware that X is an old, traditional abbreviation for "Christ". It's of a vintage of, I don't know, trying to insult people's religion by drawing Jesus fish at them.)

    Then how come so many "alpha men" are actually decent to women?

    Are they, in this guy's book? I'm honestly not sure if this guy is distinguishable from the folks who believe that assholes get all the women and actual decent guys are left out in the cold, but maybe it's the ranting about "betas" that puts me there.

    It seems to me that "jerkish asshole" is a minimum criterion for "alpha" to the screed-writer. I can't say I know many of those, because I prefer to arrange my life to not associate with jerkish assholes as much as possible, by, for example, not driving in Massachusetts.

    (That is not actually why I don't drive.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hilarious! This dude's "manifesto" is so ridiculous I can't even feel rage-y toward it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm starting to think that the self-labeled "Beta Males" are mostly guys with deeply flawed personalities who scare away normal people. They have trouble finding dates because their prospective pool (women who aren't scared off) is far to small. And when they do find someone, well, she's probably just as screwed up as he is, so it's usually a disaster.

    And then they look around, and see that 80% or more of their male friends are in the same position (can't get a date or marriage, is a disaster when they manage to anyway) because they scare off the normal men too. And they start thinking that this is the way things are for everyone in the world.

    Since there's plenty of evidence that people do get laid all the time, but it's mostly not them, it's a completely reasonable conclusion that a small number of men get all the women. And they come up with all manner of theories as to why this is so, based on what they see. And sometimes, recommendations based on those theories on how to make it *not* so.

    But they're completely wrong due to a fact which they're unaware of: They're *not* actually the majority or anywhere near it, and they have no clue how the majority lives because they're trapped in a subculture of losers and assholes (both men and women) that has little significant interaction with anyone outside of it. Basically, in the larger society they're not actually the Betas by their own label system; they're really Omegas.

    I say this because the reality which I lived in during my childhood and the reality which I live in now both bear very little resemblance to ordinary life for most people, but unlike some people for which this is the case I'm unassuming and observant enough to be aware of it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Holly - you said in part 1 that "this is just a mockery, not a rebuttal. You know the old adage about wrestling a pig?"

    May I suggest that the pig is beginning to lure you in? Sorry for my part, standing on a tuft of grass in the stye shouting "well this tuft is clean!"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wait...so he considers himself an alpha?

    ReplyDelete
  8. A quick skin through quickly reveals two major flaws in what this dimbo 'Holly' is writing.

    1) She claims that Game does not work, yet is so worried by it, that Game sites are on her 'enemies list'. Yet, she doesn't see that contradiction.

    So, does Game work, or doesn't it?

    2) She is ignorant of the fact that for marriage, a man wants a woman who has had very few sexual partners. Being a slut and then trying to demand that a man put 'lipstick on a pig' is ignorant of your customer. Men do want to pay full new-car prices for a 10 year old Yugo.

    Capice?

    Also, Hulk Hogan and Tiger Woods cheated on their wives and Paul McCartney on his fiancée,

    But if a woman cheats, that is OK?

    Plus, Elin assualted Tiger. She should be in jail. That you condone this shows you to be a biased femmroid, who just wants to get away with wrongdoings.

    ReplyDelete
  9. *Men DON'T want to pay full price...

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1) She claims that Game does not work, yet is so worried by it, that Game sites are on her 'enemies list'. Yet, she doesn't see that contradiction.

    And I'm sure the fact that Game sites tell men to act like douchey date-rapists isn't a factor at all.

    This "Game" crap won't work on any woman truly worth having. But I worry that a lot of hapless, basically nice dudes are gonna get sucked in and try it, and then they'll be FUCKING UNBEARABLE to be around until they figure out it's bullshit. That's my "worry". I can't speak for Holly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've been reading these aloud to my fiance, and just wanted to mention that as I am doing so, he is buffing my toenails. Lamenting that my pinkie toenails are too small to get properly shiny. I did not suggest that he do so, or say anything that remotely had to do with my toenails.

    I just thought it was a funny juxtaposition.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This "Game" crap won't work on any woman truly worth having.

    Wrong. You don't understand how women think.

    Game works better, the better looking the woman is. If you had any exposure to the sexual market, you would know this.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, also: historically, guys who saw me as a gatekeeper who needed to be tricked into sex...were awful in bed. Nobody who wins a trophy asks it what it wants, is what I'm saying; they just hold the trophy and go "WOOOOOO!" and then run off to celebrate with their friends.

    Guys who actually wanted to get to know me and didn't see me as a gatekeeper to maneuver around (or see me as a slut if I had sex with them without a protracted battle of wits first) have typically been awesome in bed. A+, would fuck again.

    And the whole PUA culture is about teaching men that women are trophies. One more reason to hate Game.

    ReplyDelete
  14. One more reason to hate Game.

    You clearly have no idea what Game is.

    For starters, you would have no way of telling if a guy was a natural, or if he learned 'Game' recently.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!"

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wrong. You don't understand how women think.

    Dude? I'M A CHICK. Nice try, though.

    And as for "exposure to the sexual market": I've picked up people in clubs (some were one-nighters, some turned into relationships, some fell somewhere in between); I've met people online (some were one-nighters, some turned into relationships, some fell somewhere in between); I've slept with and/or dated friends-of-friends, people I've gone to school with, and people I've worked with. How 'bout you? :)

    The issue, I think, is that we differ on the concept of "women worth having". I say a woman worth having is one who's attractive, smart, confident, and self-sufficient. PUAs think a woman worth having is one whose enormous rack will make their friends jealous. To each his own, I guess.

    I'm just happy that my healthy self-esteem and high number of past sexual partners makes guys like you run in the other direction.

    ReplyDelete
  17. For starters, you would have no way of telling if a guy was a natural, or if he learned 'Game' recently.

    And that's relevant how?

    ReplyDelete
  18. a man wants a woman who has had very few sexual partners

    Wrong-o. Some men do, sure. Mostly either because they're scared about diseases, or because of quaint beliefs about "purity". Other men, however, prefer experienced women, because sexually experienced people generally make better lovers. (Assuming that they aren't the type to simply randomly screw nearly anything that moves. But few people are actually like that.)

    Men do not want to pay full new-car prices for a 10 year old Yugo

    What the hell does that even mean in this context? Men haven't bought wives in anything remotely resembling recent history.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm finding myself reminded of my basic philosophy that caring about what "a man" wants is a total waste of time. Generic men are probably, like most generic people, boring and tedious and involved in things that just aren't interesting.

    Starting from a basic position of dealing with what I want means that I spend my time surrounded by good people who are only occasionally dull and as a rule have engaging pastimes, making it that much the more likely that I'll run into specific, non-generic men who are plausibly interested in me.

    Like the one anon suggests, the folks who are just interested in bagging a generic woman really don't deserve someone specific.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dude? I'M A CHICK. Nice try, though.

    I knew that, dimbo. The statement stands.

    You have no idea how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you know how women think.

    A 10-year-old is not capable of writing a textbook on child psychology. Similarly, most women cannot predict female behavior, or discuss it in a detached manner. That is why no woman has ever written a dating book that is useful, but men invented Game, which IS effective.

    You have a lot to learn about how women think.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So... it would also follow that men don't know how men think, and therefore "the Game" probably harms men. They just don't see it, 'cuz they're, you know, men. :rollseyes:

    Nice logic fail.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So... it would also follow that men don't know how men think, and therefore "the Game" probably harms men. They just don't see it, 'cuz they're, you know, men. :rollseyes:

    You have no capacity for logic.

    There are a fair number of men who understand both sexes. Hence, creation of advanced tactics like Game.

    But women don't understand MEN or WOMEN, as is demonstrated here. Women are no more capable of understanding the adult world, than children are.

    Get a clue, dumbshit.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Man, I've got to stop reading the Internet. Where do people get off being so rude?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh, dear. My bad, for assuming that "10-year-olds can't write a book on child psychology" was simply a badly written metaphor, and based on the rest of it you meant to imply that groups of people can't be relied on to discuss things about themselves in a detached manner simply because they're by nature not detached from it. I don't know if that's true, but it's certainly a reasonable basis for an argument, and one which I've seen used in the past. If that were the case, then the original logic fail still stands.

    But no, you meant that metaphorically women *are* 10-year-olds. While acting with all the maturity of a 10-year-old yourself. Hmm. Would I be correct in assuming you are a woman?

    But hey, I can sort of see where that idea comes from. 18-24 Year-old women, who are the biggest "prizes" for those who care about such things (I'm a guy, and I certainly don't) are often immature twits. But this isn't because they're a woman - 18-24 year-old men tend to be immature twits too. And this is probably because modern parents try to "protect the innocence" of children in ways that screw them up when they become adults, and it takes time for them to unlearn what their parents did to them.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dude, that's basically like saying someone who's never read Lord of the Rings is incapable of understanding Middle Earth. Bubbleworld is an ahistorical fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 18-24 Year-old women ... are often immature twits. ... 18-24 year-old men tend to be immature twits too.

    That's some really dickish counter-trolling you've got going there

    ReplyDelete
  27. ...I don't know why I was pretending to be polite. I should have said, "Since by your own logic you are obviously a woman, and women aren't capable of understanding the adult world, then you aren't capable of making an argument which resembles anything you just said. Therefore you obviously didn't say anything at all."

    ...In case that's too subtle, that's a parody of some of the kind of batshit insane "logic" I've seen here recently.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ok, i'll threat you as an idiot, because you're threating me as an idiot. That's equlity.

    therefore:

    fuck off, shithead.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ok, i'll threat you as an idiot, because you're threating me as an idiot. That's equlity.

    Okay, making the same spelling mistake twice - making it clear that Anon believes that "treat" actually is spelled with an "h" - after blibbering about how stupid women are? That's pretty funny.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The anons in this really need to start assigning themselves names so I can tell who's yelling what. No registration required, no need for the name to be one you use anywhere else on the Internet, just give me some way to follow you.

    Anon - Game doesn't work, but it's still evil because it makes particularly bitter and sexist losers out of the guys who try to make it work.

    No, I don't think it's okay when women cheat! But I don't think the spokesmen of the "cheating is worse than rape" movement should be cheaters, is all.

    Yes, women who beat their husbands should go to jail. I agree. Misogynists always seem to think feminists will argue the exact opposite of everything they say, when in fact I don't hate men nearly that much.

    Childish? "Dimbo?" Really? If you keep demanding a calm and reasoned response to everything while you run around yelling random insults like a crazy monkey, all I can say is... you're a poophead who likes to sniff poop and then you eat the poop.



    Not Me - I'm 24! Sorry to hear you think I'm probably an immature twit.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ Holly: "Often" doesn't mean always, and aside from calling people "poophead" you probably aren't. ;-) Besides, I don't even know if I really believe that; while it's true enough in my experience, as I stated earlier I'm well aware that my experience is often not reflective of the larger reality. I just wish that the kind of people who write things like The Misandry Bubble realized it might be the same for them.

    (Of course, that doesn't stop me from complaining about "the way things are" as I happen to experience it.)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hey. If women are like 10-year-olds, and you want to bang women... what does that make you?

    ReplyDelete
  33. *snicker* Oh, I wish I thought of that one.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous at 12:47: "Game works better, the better looking the woman is."

    Ah. So when women we can't see say that it doesn't work, you can just dismiss them as probably ugly.

    I find these PUA guys to be so alien. I worked with two guys with the same name, which we'll call Keith. A nice guy and a PUA type; all of the rest of us men in the office called them Good Keith and Bad Keith, respectively. Good Keith usually had a long-term relationship going on. He had some troubles, but they were normal ones. Bad Keith never had a decent relationship. He had several short ones, all with women who were apparently horrible to him (at least to listen to him tell it.) I suspect the women he managed to get actually were pretty bad. It's not like he was picking them for personality. Getting sex was always a goal for Bad Keith, and always a huge struggle, which we heard way more about than we wanted. He was talking about buying a RealDoll when I left.

    It would be so sad to be so fixed on sex that it blocked having real relationships with actual, individual women. And you don't even get much sex that way, either; at least compared to a married man. I can see where the frustration comes from, and it's obvious how it leads to resentment and anger.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I don't want to be enshrined on an exalted pedestal!

    Yeah, but c'mon. With the right historical roleplay accoutrements, that could be _hot_. ;)

    (Sorry, that's all I got. Don't have your patience for this "misandry bubble" crap, and the troll in your comments is boring me to tears.)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Women are no more capable of understanding the adult world, than children are.

    Get a clue, dumbshit.


    I wonder why this person would need an elaborate system of rules and trickery in order to convince women to be with him?

    It is a mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I know it's a pretty self-selecting bunch reading this post, but it's still heartening to see the ratio of clever folk to trolls. I mean, it's much better than I would've expected. But then, I live in a big city with a famously small-town mentality, so perhaps I'm jaded.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mousie00: Sorry for my part, standing on a tuft of grass in the stye shouting "well this tuft is clean!"

    No, what you're doing is lying in the mud oinking.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Mousie's been arguing in good faith. There's a fine line between trolling and doing that with a questionable argument which Bubble Dude would like to manipulate, but so far as I can tell Mousie's still on the right side of it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. LabRat - Thanks, I really appreciate that, especially since I think you'd really like me to shut up. As Holly suggested, shutting up now.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Nope. I'd like you to get exactly what I'm trying to get across, not shut up. :)

    ReplyDelete
  42. LabRat - I suggested Mousie00 stop posting on the previous thread because he just kept digging deeper and painting himself into a corner and backpedaling harder and other strained metaphors. I didn't tell him to stop posting everywhere though, but that particular conversation was getting unproductive and pissing everyone off.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I think instead of Hulk Hogan, they should get Macho Man Randy Savage to be the spokesman for this new movement. It's obvious he's more manly than Hulk, because he recorded a song to that effect ("Be a Man, Hulk"), plus he has the word "macho" in his name. He could do another rap album to raise public awareness of the misandry epidemic. It'd be awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hole-y is a ButtSlutMay 21, 2010 at 8:53 PM

    Wait, Butt-slut claimed that Game does not work.

    Riiiiight. That is what they all say.

    Roissy explains why chicks dig jerks. Butt-slut could educate herself here.

    Men are the only humans who ever left the animal kingdom, it turns out.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I really, seriously can't tell whether you're just one of my friends giving me a hard time. I even have some suspects.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Holly, I understood you meant the one topic, and it was excellent advice. LabRat, I think I get you now, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  47. lastnightsclothes, I always think of Macho Man when I eat Slim Jims.

    Holly, HIABS may not be one of your friends, but he's definitely someone who's just giving you a hard time rather than trying to persuade anyone. If you respond in the spirit it's offered, you may get tired of typing "POOPHEAD".

    ReplyDelete
  48. So... if that were taken literally, it would mean that women are animals and men aren't. So they're different kingdom entirely, let alone species.

    So hetero males are a form of fungus which are into bestiality and pedophilia? Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  49. there is no reason to let a 'feminist' get away with anything you would not let a man get away with.
    I manage not to let a feminist get away with anything I would not let a man get away with, whatever that means, without being a raging missajunist.

    Now, is "being nice to women" paying for dinner, buying them presents, etc., or is it behaving in a way that maks the woman in question happy?

    * * *

    I'm starting to think that the self-labeled "Beta Males" are mostly guys with deeply flawed personalities who scare away normal people.
    "Starting to"? Where've you been?

    This "Game" crap won't work on any woman truly worth having.

    Wrong. You don't understand how women think.

    Game works better, the better looking the woman is.


    That's not really the same thing, unless you think "truly worth having"=="good-looking."

    Oh, wait. Oh. Oh, I see. Ok, yeah, you, uh, you have fun with that.

    Women are no more capable of understanding the adult world, than children are.
    I suppose once it's been long enough you no longer even want to get laid.

    It would be so sad to be so fixed on sex that it blocked having real relationships with actual, individual women. And you don't even get much sex that way, either; at least compared to a married man.
    According to Bubble Boy, though, married women don't sleep with their husbands.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Can people stop using the phrase "any woman worth having"? You don't "have" a woman. You spend time with her, you do stuff with her. Such language implies that women are commodities, and supports thinking about women as trophies and "sportscars that you can stick your dick into."

    ReplyDelete
  51. Holly: I posted the comment before I surfed over to the other thread. I agree it was getting to the "nowhere productive" place, but it's still important to me to draw distinctions between him and...

    ....This dude. Who is still making me split my fucking sides with the whole "accuse women of being childish and reactionary while calling people butt slut". And I'm totally in the "is a parody troll" camp.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Can people stop using the phrase "any woman worth having"? You don't "have" a woman.

    Sorry, I think I was the first one to use that phrase in this thread. I just meant "have" vs. "fuck"...I should've said "worth being in a relationship with".

    FWIW I also refer to myself as "having" my bf. We have each other. I mean it affectionate-like, not as an ownership thing (or, okay, maybe as mutual ownership with nobody being the boss of anyone) but I can't expect others to know this.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @ Anonymous 2:14 AM

    FWIW I also refer to myself as "having" my bf. We have each other. I mean it affectionate-like, not as an ownership thing (or, okay, maybe as mutual ownership with nobody being the boss of anyone) but I can't expect others to know this.

    The context of the sentence itself also matters. I think there's a difference between, "we'll always have each other," and "a woman worth having." The latter is much more objectifying.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Can people stop using the phrase "any woman worth having"? You don't "have" a woman. You spend time with her, you do stuff with her. Such language implies that women are commodities, and supports thinking about women as trophies and "sportscars that you can stick your dick into."

    "Having" a person is a standard form in English that doesn't connote possession or objectification. You can have friends, lovers, acquaintances, allies, enemies, colleagues, co-workers, bosses, elected representatives, passengers, patients, and parents without any of those people being reduced to commodities. The verb "to have" can either indicate ownership or relationship.

    A "friend worth having" hasn't been turned into the equivalent of a trophy, either.

    If you think specific people are objectifying women in this conversation, that's another matter (I haven't read all the comments; Trolley McButtslutpants makes my brain turn off). But that would be a problem with the attitude of the person in question, not with the phrase.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I don't think anybody was deliberately objectifying women (who isn't an anonymous troll). However, in this context; referring to an abstract, fungible woman; in a society which often objectifies women in their relationships with men; I maintain that the phrase "a woman worth having" is objectifying.

    "I have a boss/parent/spouse/whatever" refers to the relationship that one has with another person - boss, parent, spouse, etc. You don't "have" the person, you have the relationship. "I have a woman" objectifies the person.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Again, this charge of 'loserdom' is merely the psychosexual frustration of 'feminists' projected outwards, who express surprise that unrelenting hatred by them towards men is not magically metabolised into love for these particular 'feminists'.

    I suppose we should be happy that for once a man who hates feminists, ehr, 'feminists' is not actually saying we're all man-hating dykes? But, seeing as declaring us all lesbians would actually undercut his argument about how women are getting one over on men, maybe not. For the record, it's not my "psychosexual frustration" with not getting laid by dudes that makes me detest this sort of guy. Because, yes, I actually am a feminist who is a lesbian (Just because it's a mostly-inaccurate stereotype for feminists doesn't mean we don't exist, after all). Any of my "psychosexual frustration" would come from not getting laid (often enough) by women not men. Although I will own up to having to remind myself of all the non-arsehole men I know whenever I run across this sort of thing lest I become a man-hater.

    ReplyDelete
  57. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "The anons in this really need to start assigning themselves names so I can tell who's yelling what. "

    I bin sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  59. This Misandary Bubble is really one giant puss-filled festering blister, isn't it? And the trolls here are like high school boys who draw penises on their desks to make the teacher mad! (I, too, enjoy similes and metaphors.) Bubble Boys: maybe you could give up on women and try to enjoy something else? Like cars or cookies or jigsaw puzzles?

    ReplyDelete