We hear again and again from the angry dudes of the Manosphere that women are status-seeking sluts, spending their twenties riding what has come to be known as the Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel and shutting out the hapless beta males who beg for their attention. Indeed, some Manosphere dudes are so convinced by this narrative that they devote their whole life to learning how to be (or at least how to pretend to be) the the Alphas males that the ladies allegedly prize so much.
Rookh Kshatriya on Anglobitch thinks these fellows – PUAs and “nice guys” alike — are all wrong about “Anglosphere” women. Far from preferring Alphas, he suggests, these women would rather hook up with smelly, butt-scratching losers. Literally. Here’s his, er, argument:
Because of the puritanical fictions that prevail in Anglo-American society, Anglo women have become impossible to please by rational means. … the bar has been set impossibly high. The outcome is either misandrist spinsterhood or, more often, what we see around us: a female obsession with the dregs of the male sex. …
Since no male is good enough for her, all men are flattened into an undifferentiated, priapic horde in the Anglo female’s mind. A king is a jack is a joker… a classical scholar at Yale is suddenly no better than a murderous baboon like Charles Manson. An illiterate tramp with a ring through his nose instantly acquires the same standing as an architect, physicist or surgeon.
Naturally, Kshatriya provides no actual evidence for these odd assertions, but in the wide world of misogyny that’s never a deterrent for a guy with a new dumb theory about the evils of women.
[T]his is what makes Game – so appealing to the logical male mind – so ineffective in the Anglosphere. Misandrist women cannot distinguish between Nobel Prize winners and tattooed psychopaths – all are men and thus worthless brutes in their entitled eyes. And so all the Gamers’ striving for ‘Alpha’ status is pointless – they might as well stick rings through their noses, grow some dreadlocks and slouch the streets scratching their butts. Indeed, as many North American commentators claim, their mating chances would probably improve if they did this. ‘Omega males’ doubtless confirm the Anglo female’s contempt for men in general. If she has to have a man, only the worst knave will do.
I’m pretty sure that I’ve seen “Anglo females” out strolling with men who are neither wearing dreadlocks nor sporting nose rings nor scratching their asses, but those sightings must be anomalies.
Kshatriya is convinced that social conservatives are equally wrong about the ladies:
Writers like Daniel Amneus consider female hypergamy to be the ‘glue’ that binds male consent to the social order. …. In the Anglosphere, however, rational female hypergamy has short-circuited due to our cultural bloc’s uniquely puritanical socio-moral conditions. While alphas and high betas trudge home to empty beds or divorce threats, tramps and mass-murderers wade through tons of female flesh without breaking sweat. And so the Anglosphere falls apart around our ears. Yet still David Futrelle exhorts us all to ‘respect women’ and be ‘nice’.
Woah, that was a bit of a surprise ending there.
But obviously I must be doing something terribly wrong to merit such a mention. I guess I’d better start growing out some white-boy dreads and thinking awful things about women.
If women are never pressured to be “on” why do all these assholes (mostly male, always strangers) come up to me in public and demand that I smile*? Why is it I never in my life have seen this happen to a man?
Because the men are already putting in the proper effort to be “on.” Anytime you pass a man in the street, he is smiling and skipping and tipping his hat, doing his darndest to charm everyone he meets. You never see a man who’s just walking along like he needs to get somewhere. Only lazy women do that.
And the men who exhort you to smile are the most “on” of all. Without fail, they are attractive, charming, cheerful fellows. They definitely do not get angry and start yelling shit at you if you fail to acknowledge them.
Going back a bit, this whole thing of how women just pair up with the nearest available male, while men use logic to go to great lengths (distance-wise) to find a female mate has finally explained a mystery! Thanks Chickadeedoodah!
I, along with everyone I know, gets those constant emails of “hi! I’m a beautiful 18 year old girl from (insert “exotic” country here)….”. They are clearly all directed to men (always a girl, talking about how handsome the receiver’s “computer profile picture” is, etc.). They are never directed toward women and I have always wondered why, but now I understand! And since the “girl” is fake, it all finally makes sense! The scammers understand men like Chuckles does.
@drst – Actually, my husband used to get the “Smile!” command when he was younger. His default expression is kind of stern, and he doesn’t laugh or grin at just anything – it has to be really funny or make him really happy. When he was in his teens/twenties he had a quite a few older women tell him he’d be a nice looking boy if he smiled, and occasionally other guys would give him a “What’s your problem? Lighten up!”
He’s the only guy I’ve known who’s gotten that particular type of social bullying, though. And I think it was mostly because he was a slight guy in his youth (he’s five feet, seven inches and used to weigh around 120-130 pounds) that everyone felt comfortable pushing him around. Maybe it’s perceived vulnerability that the “Smile!” people act upon. Or maybe they’re just jerks.
That’s the second guy I’ve heard about being told to smile by strangers on the street (in two days), and both of them have been described as “serious” or “stern” or “angry” looking. You’d think that people *wouldn’t* poke at someone who appears to be angry!
Chuckeedee wrote:
Later, Chuckeedee bloviated:
So which the fuck is it: are women too picky pressuring men to perform, or are they willing to accept any old junk provided it’s handy and nearby?
If you’re going to formulate a Grand Unified Theory to couch your misogyny in, at least make its logic internally consistent.
INTERNALLY CONSISTENT LOGIC IS MISANDRY.
Well, duh, cloudiah, because my scented candles are logically consistent.
nwologic: Criticizing culture is criticizing all men. Criticizing an individual men is the same thing criticizing all men. If a man criticizes all women, it means all women think that all men are wrong. This is why women think they are all perfect.
@Gametime
Some day the MRM really needs to have a summit or something to sort things out between the “women only fuck alphas and that’s terrible,” “women only fuck alphas and that’s awesome,” “women are sluts who fuck everyone,” “women are sluts who never fuck anyone,” and “women only fuck thugs [racist version] and/or guys with dreadlocks [slightly less racist but still definitely racist version]” factions.
As we know, MRM philosophy, such as it is, all boils down to “bitches ain’t shit.” The actual reasons are unimportant as long as that sacred principal is upheld.
Ah, Chuckeedee and his pretentious, pseudo-intellectual blather! How I’ve missed thee!
(Not really.)
@Owly,
You don’t go to AA if you’re not an alcoholic. You don’t get put on probabtion if you haven’t committed a crime. But you DO go to guilty rapist indoctrination class for being a man.
Yes, I had to watch a film on the dangers of drunk driving in my high school driver ed. class, yet I had never driven drunk. But where’s my parade?
As an aside, the constant use of the word “doncha” and similar leads me to suspect the Owly is, in fact, Sarah Palin. That would actually explain a lot.
Does Slavey get a redacted version of this site, where large blocks of text are blacked out?
He is amazingly adept at replying to sentence fragments with his interpretation being the exact opposite of what the entire sentence actually conveys.
“But you DO go to guilty rapist indoctrination class for being a man.”
Really? Who makes you go? What happens if you don’t? Where are they held? Are they public? How often are they held? Is there a cover charge? What’s the age limit for attendance?
@chibigodzilla,
When called out on context-free interpretations, Slavey has famously declared “there is no context!” Most of the time, I think he genuinely believes it.
@whataboutthemoonz,
It’s like traffic school. Any male who fails to submit proof of attendance to his local feminist indoctrination center has to register with Big Daddy Government, kind of like a sex offender. He is then barred for life from any but the most menial jobs, such as milk machine repair.
@lauralot
Okay, after watching that clip from Battlefield Earth, I retract my statement that Travolta’s acting was good and only the script was bad. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, so I forgot how much he chewed the scenery in that movie. I almost felt bad for Travolta watching it, like I was embarrassed on his behalf.
Whatboutthemoonz, the University of Montana requires that all students take an online course called Personal Empowerment through Self Awareness and take a quiz before they can register for spring classes. Note: all students. And a 100 is not required. It’s here, although you have to be an student to take it. (I was going to take it for grins and report back, but alas.)
It reminds me of the privacy awareness classes I had to take every year when I worked for a bank, even though I had never violated anyone’s privacy. Also, I didn’t even have access to that information. All banks think that all of their employees are always wrong. Banks think that they are perfect.
Yup! Although those probably (a) took more than 20 minutes and (b) did not enter you in a drawing to win a $500 gift certificate. So clearly we can see that male UM students are vastly, vastly more put upon than both their female counterparts doing the exact same thing, and everyone else ever, what with the incredible horror of having to sit through 20 minutes of material you might not find deeply fascinating and possibly being given free stuff.
And a person could never pass that test while believing the answers are untrue.
I guess now we know that these folks may be on to something.
I had to sit through chemical hygiene training and not only does my lab not work with any chemical but ethanol, I don’t do wet work at all. I detest the insinuation that I might cause a chemical disaster that would require the university to be evacuated! I haven’t even caused the evacuation of a room yet!
I would have a big drink of dilute ethanol out of sadness, but the point of chemical hygiene training is that we’re not supposed to do that. 🙁
That captcha is awesome, chibigodzilla. Prove you’re human indeed.
In a normal, non-feminist society only a man who actually assaulted a woman would be required to take a class on not assaulting women.
And only people who have already run someone over with a car should be required to take a driving instruction class.
(I say this sarcastically, but NWO actually does think drivers’ licenses are part of the communist plot against him. Sigh.)
At a job I had a few years back, all new employees had to undergo a week-long mandatory training program that was, basically, “how to have a job.” It did not matter what position you had been hired for – from the bottom all the way to the top, everyone had to sit through a week of instruction on important topics like “how to send an email,” “how to spell-check documents you write,” “please do not be a giant asshole to your coworkers,” and “watching porn at work: please don’t!” It was thrilling, let me tell you. And yet, somehow, I endured, despite coming into that job entirely capable of sending emails, spell-checking, not being a douche, and not watching porn. It’s almost like sitting through the occasional kind of boring thing is a thing that adults deal with all the fucking time and not some sort of horrific injustice – and as if some of those boring things are actually kind of important!
Question – why does Travolta have wires up his nose in that picture? Was this some kind of half-assed Hubbard attempt to replicate the Fremen?
(I’m also curious about why he has a phone booth symbol on his forehead.)
@whataboutthemoonz
“But you DO go to guilty rapist indoctrination class for being a man.”
“Really?”
Yes Really.
———-
“Who makes you go?”
College, basically the state.
———-
“What happens if you don’t?”
You can’t go to college.
———
“Where are they held?”
At the college.
———
“Are they public?”
Colleges are supposedly public facilities so I guess it’s public.
———
“How often are they held?”
At the beggining of the school year.
———-
“Is there a cover charge?”
Not that I know of, however, colleges do get a big old hunk cash to indoctrinate men/boys.
———
“What’s the age limit for attendance?”
Whatever age you are when you enter college.
———
Here’s a link.
http://sexual-harassments.org/university-montana-steps-sexual-harassment-prevention-video-tutorial-classes/
Just the pictures alone tells the tale. Just look at those evil men. And yes they are all white and all straight men. Disgusting isn’t it. Funny how when you go to the college picture website it abounds with diversity. Not so much here though, which would be propaganda in of itself. So our opening scene is white men are bad and white women are victims.
As I told you way back in april when the dear colleague letter was first penned by that feminist swine, colleges are now their own state if you will. They have their own laws. Guilt is assumed and innocense must be proven. A difficult task to say the least, particularly since the judge, jury and executioners will be drawn from the feminist, womens studies student body.
Under the new rules a man cannot confront his accuser because under Title IX that would be discrimination causing undue stress to a woman hindering here ability to attend college. Also, a third party can accuse a man, as in, if a woman sees a man with another women and she percieves he is harrassing her she can cite him. It is forbidden for him to even know who this accuser is. Colleges are now a feminist police state with their own rules. A classic kangaroo court. Guilt is assumed and you cannot confront your accuser, or even know who your accuser is. For a man that is.
Here’s a fine quote from the website… “Sexual harassment can be as mild as a general lewd joke to as severe as rape or a physical attack, however, the important thing to remember about sexual harassment is that it is unwanted and unwelcome.”
That’s right, a lewd joke can be sexual harassment. I guess if you tell a joke and the woman is in a good mood you get a pass, but if she’s in a bad mood, the man gets the boot. Also, since an unknown third party might overhear. Ya never know.
Now of course all women really aren’t like that, but what about the 5% who are? They can surely do one hell of a lot of damage. And let’s be honest, probably about .5% of men are lunatics, and conversely about .5% of women are batshit crazy. They can do a ton of damage as well.
Can anyone here honestly believe that guilt being assumed, and unable to confront or even have your accuser identified is a good thing? Since men would never want this kind of tyranny in colleges, this denial of basic rights falls squarely on the shoulders of women to correct.