Categories
alpha asshole cock carousel alpha males antifeminism beta males evil sexy ladies evil women imaginary oppression it's science! men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men paranoia PUA red pill

Red Pill Theorist alarmed by the prospect of women freezing their eggs, having sex in their 40s

Dirty scheming bird women!
Dirty scheming bird women!

So the manosphere blogger who calls himself The Red Pill Theorist has managed to work himself into a tizzy over a Wall Street Journal piece by a woman who — gasp! — froze some of her eggs in her 30s in order to give her more time in which to find the right guy with whom to have kids.

In her op-ed, titled “Why I Froze My Eggs (And You Should, Too),” Sarah Elizabeth Richards wrote:

Between the ages of 36 and 38, I spent nearly $50,000 to freeze 70 eggs in the hope that they would help me have a family in my mid-40s, when my natural fertility is gone. For this baby insurance, I obliterated my savings and used up the money my parents had set aside for a wedding. It was the best investment I ever made.

Egg freezing stopped the sadness that I was feeling at losing my chance to have the child I had dreamed about my entire life. It soothed my pangs of regret for frittering away my 20s with a man I didn’t want to have children with, and for wasting more years in my 30s with a man who wasn’t sure he even wanted children. It took away the punishing pressure to seek a new mate and helped me find love again at age 42.

I have a lot of reactions to this op-ed, ranging from “damn that’s a lot of money” to “that’s kind of a sad way to look at your past relationships” to “congratulations to you, I guess, but I don’t think this is really a solution to the work-life dilemma faced by most working would-be-moms.” (See here and here for discussions of this latter issue that are a lot more informed than my gut reaction.)

The Red Pill Theorist had, well, a different reaction, worrying that egg freezing could become a “grrlpower-enabling” technology, much like the birth control pill before it, and predicting that evil Democrats will soon demand that it be covered by Medicaid.

His real worry? That egg freezing will allow women to have sex with a variety of men into their 30s and even — gasp! — their 40s without “settling down” with the hardworking betas who’ve been waiting patiently on the sidelines for a chance to score a little nookie with the ladies before these ladies get completely old and ugly.

If women begin freezing their eggs en-masse at thirty, and embark upon fifteen more years of debauchery, watch out.  The current trend of beta misery, female misery, and alpha ecstasy is only going to get worse.  Now 30-35 year olds with a lick of sense leap off the carousel with all the alacrity they can muster.  But what if they don’t have to?  They’ve got frozen eggs, and early-thirties women can be decent looking.  There’s going to be a massive increase in the supply of female sexuality in the dating market.  We all saw how well that worked out for women in the sixties.

The Red Pill Theorist imagines that somehow these gals will manage to stick those poor, pitiful, endlessly used and abused beta schlubs with the bill:

In the future, there won’t just be divorce-rape.  There will be pre-divorce rape.  Crafty college gals will extract financial resources from their beta boyfriends to freeze their eggs, and then unhaapyness will set in, and the beta will be stuck with the bill.

His grand conclusion:

Egg freezing is one more brick in the wall of total sexual marketplace deregulation. Bit by bit, the chains that once encircled the hypergamic beast are falling away.  There’s never been a better time for men with options, never been a worse time for men without them.  …  It’s the next sexual revolution, except this time, women 30-40 will get to have some ill-advised fun.

Imagine that. Women in their 30s and 40s. Having fun. The horror!

241 replies on “Red Pill Theorist alarmed by the prospect of women freezing their eggs, having sex in their 40s”

@katz

Bleh, of course. When I first read that I assumed the non-bizarro definition of “racist” and thought they’d been arguing with the regulars, which’d be pointless really but at least sort of noble.

But no, I suspect you’re right about it being a case of “white people don’t run everything and not everything is about white people and this racism must end!”

Reasonable men and reasonable women need to form an alliance against the abuse/violent/military/industrialist patriarchy and the abortionist/Mind Control/anti-family matriarchy.

… wait.

abortionist/Mind Control/anti-family

I think you may have feminists confused with brain slugs.

Meh, it’s possible that he’s an “anti-racist” who actually goes around telling white supremacists to stop using the N-word or whatever, but if he’s hung around there long enough to consider it a Thing He Does and didn’t get a) banned or b) chewed out so badly he flounced away in misery or c) both, then he must agree with them on enough points to pretty well be a white supremacist. Those sites aren’t exactly known for supporting a great diversity of opinions.

Mind control?

Sorry, that’s the Furrinati you’re thinking of, not feminists.

As for checking out any brand of the Democrats … why would I bother? Mercifully for me I do not live in the US. Much as I’d love to live where most of my friends are, there are WAY too many things about the system there that mean anyone not wealthy is going to be in deep shit sooner or later. I’ll stick to dealing with the idiot politicians in my own country, kthx.

About the abortion business – like Argenti said, you’d never have been born, so your current earthly self wouldn’t exist to care. I do believe in the soul, and I think it would simply live its life in Spirit and grow up there, same as if the fetus aborted naturally (which, btw, counts for the majority of “abortions” – the spontaneous ones). Oh, and don’t presume from that comment that I’m Christian or follow any religion: I most emphatically do not.

I was debating white supremacists. I am not a racist. I will debate any racists who come on here. I also won’t tell them I’m here.

Pope John Paul I was very conflicted about birth control, and so am I. In the Wikipedia article about his moral theology, he seems to have had a conservative position on abortion. Of course the Church would have been a bit more liberal if he had not died, and perhaps this would even be a good thing. The fact is, it did not happen.

Yes I privilege the concept of life over the quality of life. It’s a major cultural dispute in our time, and since separatism is likely not a workable idea, it’s one of the many things we have to compromise on.

One commenter disparages Democrats for Life. The Religious Right and the manosphere also doesn’t like democrats for Life. Liberal and libertarian rape culture mysogynists pretending to be feminists also don’t like Democrats for Life. Yes I do see a conspiracy at least at the highest levels between feminists and mysogynists, at least in some factions. Dalrock, a writer on the manosphere, discusses the Religious Right as being secretly aligned with feminism. Andrea Dworkin discusses the alignment of right-wing women and men against liberal men who victimize women. Both writers are very different but are interested in the role of right-wing women as key power brokers in society. I see this as a positive thing (I don’t like Sarah Palin though).

Yes liberal discourse dominates feminism. Yet liberal feminists want the government to regulate a lot of aspects about people’s lives. When it comes to abortion though they act like the government has no right to tell anyone what to do.
My thinking may seem less organized and more unclear than most writers here. In real life I’m a much better communicator. When I release my treatise on gender relations everyone will be surprised that it’s me. I am experimenting with a revolutionary style of artistry in intellectual discourse. It comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. Like the Old Testament prophets. At least it takes the attention off the amoral idiot Red Pill theorist, whom this article was supposed to be about.

@Katz

I used to read a lot of white supremacist stuff before I turned to to Manospherian types for my dose of how-do-these-awful-people-exist, and they actually do seem to realise that they’re vastly outnumbered and will tolerate just about anybody sufficiently racist. Big splits:

Muslims will destroy Western society and Jews are okay because Israel is the one “civilised” part of the East vs. Jews are behind everything, Muslims are okay because we think of them as really sexist vs. both Muslims and Jews are awful

White nationalists vs. keep non-whites around for slavish labour

White people are the best in every way vs. Jews and East Asians are way smarter than white people but inherently evil

Libertarian laissez-faire capitalists vs. those who propose heavy government checks on capitalism because of how corrupt and Jewish capitalism is

Christian Identity vs. Catholics vs. Evangelicals vs Atheists vs Asatru/Neopagans

Boneheads vs ultratraditionalists

People who focus on white-v-non-white vs. people who insist on making a million different racial categories within whiteness and ranking them

Those Other societies are so sexist because non-whites are barbaric vs. with this liberal multicultural Jewish etc. agenda, you can’t even be sexist anymore!

Hitler was kinda cool vs Hitler was really cool vs let’s not talk about Hitler because even tho he’s kinda cool it’s a bad look

and so on and so on. . . hate seems to have a way of bringing people together :

Dalrock, a writer on the manosphere, discusses the Religious Right as being secretly aligned with feminism.

Has the modern Right forgot that conspiracy theories other than false flags exist? At least have some creativity.

Liberal and libertarian rape culture mysogynists pretending to be feminists also don’t like Democrats for Life.

Pro tip – troll less obviously.

Lowquacks, brilliant description of the white supremacist blogosphere.

Hey dipshit troll: misogynists, racists, homophobes and trans* phobes = despicable. Forced birthers fall right into that collection.

You value the concept of live over quality of life, eh? So the idea that something might live, might come into existence, weighs more with you than the life of someone already here, already a separate human being?

I’ll take quality over that any day. I’ll take the woman you’d force to give birth against her will over the fetus-that-might-develop-into-a-person any day. I’ll take an early exit over being kept in a vegetative state or coma or immobility, over anything that traps me in this body, cut off from the world, any day.

And in case that nonsense about your pseudo Democrats was aimed at me: I repeat, I’m not USian. It’s all academic except insofar as I care what misogynists like you do to all the not-cis-straight-men in the US with these foul ideas.

Go fuck a whole garden of cacti. Your mealy-mouthed trolling doesn’t disguise anything, you fake, scummy creep.

Yes liberal discourse dominates feminism. Yet liberal feminists want the government to regulate a lot of aspects about people’s lives. When it comes to abortion though they act like the government has no right to tell anyone what to do.

Oh word, it’s almost as though feminists’ political ideology is based on more complicated ideas than “should the government be involved y/n.”

My thinking may seem less organized and more unclear than most writers here. In real life I’m a much better communicator. When I release my treatise on gender relations everyone will be surprised that it’s me.

Yeah, we’re all on tenterhooks, champ.

Pro-Patria Truthiness: Yes I privilege the concept of life over the quality of life.

This is the major moral failing of the Conservative Movement. It’s how they can be “Pro-life” while allowing the poor to starve, and privileging the rich over everyone else.

Extremism in the defense of virtue is a vice.

Pro-Patria Truthiness: You don’t actually take much of a stand.

Yes I privilege the concept of life over the quality of life. It’s a major cultural dispute in our time, and since separatism is likely not a workable idea, it’s one of the many things we have to compromise on.

In what ways do you see, “compromise”, being needed? I.e. what things do you think each group much give up to attain that which you see as the happy medium which is closest to the moral ideal?

Pope John Paul I was very conflicted about birth control, and so am I.

Actually, he wasn’t. The politics of the Curia were conflicted, he was trying to decide on either a papal bull, or an encyclical saying it was a moral issue to be resolved by the individual. He was going to endorse it (another thing he wasn’t conflicted on was those who were ordained who violated their vows. He was going to issue a bull allowing Catholics to be Masons, but defrocking any priest who had been one, because that violated the vow of obedience. Had he been pope the scandals of abusive priests might have been a bit differently handled, but I digress).

His position on abortion seems to have been more liberal than the church at the time. The latter is a bit harder to show, since what writings/sayings we have from him on the subject much be weighed against the fact that his discussion of the topic (in a durable form) was before he was pope, and so had to be, more or less, in keeping with the doctrine at the time.

Because I have to go to work, and so won’t have time to bandy words with you I will clarify what the actual argument I am making (which is not about abortion, or birth control).

You can’t claim the authority of The Moral Position of Catholicism to support your view. You can claim the present catechism of The Catholic Church, but that is a very different thing.

The moral question is, very much, in debate; and there are large strains of the catholic moral tradition which, very much, support birth control, and are; at the very least, ambivalent about the condemning abortion out of hand, even if we accept the doctrinal position that ensoulment takes place at conception (which is a belief The Church has only espoused for about 130 years).

Also, this being a country where the State and the Church are separate, you need to articulate a reason for limiting either, which follows a legitimate state interest, not one of personal morality; based on religious belief (render unto Caesar, and all that).

Pro-Patria Truthiness: I am experimenting with a revolutionary style of artistry in intellectual discourse. It comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. Like the Old Testament prophets. At least it takes the attention off the amoral idiot Red Pill theorist, whom this article was supposed to be about.

Did you just pull a, “you are all ignoring the subject of the post”, while boasting of how you derailed th conversation? That’s rich.

My thinking may seem less organized and more unclear than most writers here. In real life I’m a much better communicator.

Sorry charlie, this is real life.

I also find it hard to believe that in a deliberative medium such as writing, that you are less persuasive than you are in speech. Unless you have some amazing charismatic gift, which overrides the muddy vagueness of your expressed ideas, the ability to look at what you are trying to say, and edit it before putting it out before the public should polish your thoughts.

And you are planning a treatise to put it all into “real perspective”, when you admit to being less organised and unclear than people who are commenting on the fly (all I do is look for typos, the stuff I write here is all a first draft response).

That might merit some meditative reflection

I’ve yet to figure out how supposedly ‘benevolent’ patriarchy is actually all that benevolent, since the main problem with patriarchy (benevolent or non) is marginalization of anyone who doesn’t fit in to relatively narrow definitions of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. I’m not even talking about LGBT+ issues, I’m just talking about (white) straight, cis-folk who don’t fit those categories.

And who gets to make the definitions of ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ anyway? Why does it get to be a religious authority? Christianity may be the most followed religion per the CIA World Fact Book (look, I can use citations!), but even then we’re only talking about roughly a third of the world’s population. And last I checked, one third was less than a majority…

If I’d been the original Red Pill Theorist, I’d have been more worried about the spermjacking opportunities which egg-freezing presents. I mean, ladiez, it’s going to be so much easier than mucking around with a turkey baster. Just get the medical centre which has frozen our eggs, to just thaw a few, add the jacked sperm and that poor beta sucker is paying child support for 20 years. /bwahahah

Ooooh, ProPatria is ‘conflicted’ on birth control. What a humane, reasonable, open-minded piece of right-wing shit he is.

so, Pro-Patria, are you conflicted about pain-killers? When you get a headache, do you take a pill or is it God’s will that you suffer? Have you been vaccinated? Or do you leave it to God to decide whether you catch certain illnesses? Do you wash your hands after urinating or is it God’s will whether you contaminate your food before eating it? ‘Cos I’m betting that you’re all with the medical interventions when it’s your choice, your body & your health.

It’s always bloody birth control, ismn’t it, that suddenly leaves you all conflicted? Because, let me guess, it’s not you who could get pregnant. So you can be all self-righteous about something that doesn’t affect you.

Although to be honest,PP, I wouldn’t be too surprised if you didn’t do the handwashing thing,since thinking through the consequences of your ideas and actions doesn’t seem your strong suit.

I’m amused by the way PP Truthiness keeps coming back to words like “real” and “true”, like the use of them totally legitimizes and qualifies everything he says. “Real” women, “real” perspective, “true” gender relations.

Yes I privilege the concept of life over the quality of life. It’s a major cultural dispute in our time, and since separatism is likely not a workable idea, it’s one of the many things we have to compromise on.

PREMA? aka Pro Equality MRA?

@OP: the most important human rights movement of this century, folks. *gag*

I, for one, and getting reeeeal tired of the “sexual marketplace” model and the idea that I am cheating someone by choosing who I have sex with. MY VAGINA IS NOT A COMMODITY, you disgusting, creepy motherfuckers. (Go ahead and accuse me of “creep-shaming”. You should be fucking ashamed)

Also, fuck you and your “divorce rape” bullshit.

@Cloudiah

in the vast majority of cases, the person ultimately receiving the money is the one reducing a man’s need for affection and sexual intimacy to sex.

So now sex workers are forcing men to hire them? Do men have any agency at all in Esmay’s world?

@ProPatria

I’m anti-choice on abortion though.

Probably shouldn’t have one, then. By the way, how often do you give blood? Are you an organ donor? How many unwanted children have you adopted?

I am currently working on a treatise about the true nature of gender relations. It won’t be done for a long time most likely. I’ll be posting on a variety of feminist and manosphere blogs in order to generate ideas; also to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

I think you may have overestimated how many fucks other people give about your ideas. Also, your research will be a little lacking if you think all you have to do is ask blog commenters what they think. You don’t even seem to be including people who don’t identify as either feminist or MRA – the majority of the population isn’t even included! Sounds like a quality treatise, right there.

My one and only goal is to increase the protection of life to whatever extent is feasible in current society.

“Life” as in biological life signs, but not “life” as in “quality of”.

But go ahead and ally with the radical pro-life movement in your attempt to marginalize us moderates.

The pro-choice movement is not actually about you. Also, you’re not a moderate.

I must defend their freedom to feel that way.

That’s not what you said, though.

@Kittehs

I really want to see an Oglaf of this scene.

Really? It sounded an awful lot like rape, to me.

@Aaliyah

Also, I’m very sorry if I’ve triggered anyone’s arachnophobia. I can get triggered really badly myself.

Thanks. My arachnophobia is better than it used to be (hypnosis works really well for me), but my anxiety also manifests around food being “contaminated”, so your post and the ensuing discussion have freaked me the fuck out.

@ProPatria

and it will be interesting for you all to follow their reaction

Again, you assume we care more than we actually do.

Also, I don’t think “marginalized” means what you think it means.

Dibs on “mind-control matriarchy” as a band mane!

But it is the place of the Church to ensure that people get a chance at this life on Earth.

Which is why they encouraged condom use in the portions of Africa with high rates of HIV infection. Right?

The Religious Right and the manosphere also doesn’t like democrats for Life. Liberal and libertarian rape culture mysogynists pretending to be feminists also don’t like Democrats for Life.

Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are Nazis. Yay I can logic!

Yes I do see a conspiracy at least at the highest levels between feminists and mysogynists, at least in some factions.

LOL IRL

Yet liberal feminists want the government to regulate a lot of aspects about people’s lives. When it comes to abortion though they act like the government has no right to tell anyone what to do.

This is your argument? “You support government regulation of X and Y, therefore you must also support the regulation of Z”? You may align your beliefs with such rigid, absolute thinking if you like, but some of us can accept a little nuance.

Andrea Dworkin (who I am informed converted to christianity shortly before her death)…

I doubt this. As far as I know, she was Jewish and remained so.

I’ve always found this obsession with last-minute conversions and renunciations weird, and the fact that here it’s a Jew who’s supposed to be converting (with all the historical pressure on Jews to convert this brings along) adds an extra garnish of gross to it.

PustulentPatriarchy:

Keep your goddamned self away from women. That way you won’t have to be all upset about birth control, or about abortion.

Simple, innit?

The conversation about birth control has been interesting, but birth control doesn’t actually bother me too much; it’s a necessary evil.

I really hate that “pro-lifers” use that as some sort of proof of how sanctimonious and gracious they are. “Look at how giving I am! I might sort of sometimes think it’s totally ok for a woman to decide what happens to her own body, but only if she’s in real real peril, none of that ‘it’s really unhealthy for the pregnancy to continue’ mumbo jumbo. I mean, it IS really sad that most people won’t prioritize a fetus’s life over a fully formed, currently living lady (who might already be mother to someone else) but, I’ll let those slutty ladies not die SOMETIMES!”

This of course, is also demonstrative of the amount of wishful thinking anti-choicers engage in, because it sounds nice-ish (or at least less sinister and misogynist than “if you don’t want to die in childbirth, keep your legs shut you slutty ladies”) in theory, but as soon as you start thinking about how to apply it in real life it totally falls apart. How will we ensure that all abortions are in fact actually for the life of the mother, and not just because some irresponsible lady who probably has lots of sex (and enjoys it! The nerve!) decides at eight and a half months that she’d really rather not be a mom? How can we know it will REALLY be life and death and not just the difference between suffering a lot more severe medical issues and just the initial ones that made the pregnancy dangerous in the first place? And how exactly do you plan on restricting the abortions? Some kind of lawful approval system? What happens if someone files a request for an abortion but while waiting for the paperwork to get processed, approved and sent back, time marches on and the mother dies? And who will approve or deny the abortion requests? A medical professional? Who will help them process the files? Where will the money come from in order to pay these workers?

This is actually a morbidly barbaric idea because rather than allow people to make decisions for themselves when their own lives are on the line, you would prefer to tie the hands of doctors up in so much paperwork that they can’t do anything, while families and friends watch their loved ones die painful deaths. This is monstrous. I’m having a really hard time figuring how that’s “pro-life”.

I am currently working on a treatise about the true nature of gender relations. It won’t be done for a long time most likely. I’ll be posting on a variety of feminist and manosphere blogs in order to generate ideas; also to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

If there’s any chance that you’re not just trolling for lulz, consider this. Nobody on any of the blogs you’re commenting on has agreed to help you generate ideas for your “treatise”. You have assumed that you can use these people, feminist and MRA, just because you want to. This does not suggest that you are well qualified to produce a solid ethical treatise on any subject.

Also, from an editor’s POV, your writing is terrible. It’s messy and often incoherent, and you use far too many words to convey a very limited amount of information. I hope you’re intending to pay someone to impose some sort of order on your vague ramblings for you and not just assuming that they’ll do so because you want them to, which seems to be your approach to the idea-generating part of the process.

Also, things that are not news to any feminist but apparently are to ProPatria — making abortion illegal just ends legal (and thus more or less safe) abortion, illegal, dangerous, abortion will pick up.

And ProPatria? At least pecunium and I know a fair amount of Latin, plenty of other’s here are familiar with Rome’s pater familias shit. It isn’t some moderate gentle patriarchy, it’s tyranny.

I am experimenting with a revolutionary style of artistry in intellectual discourse.

Oh dear. So far your prose has been a tad purple, so I second CassandraSays’ plea that you hire an editor.

So… pro-life = pro-forced-pregnancy. No? You believe in forcing pregnant people to remain pregnant, whether they want to be, whether or not it is in their best interest to be, etc. You also don’t believe quality of life is important, just whether or not someone has vital signs.

I’m just re-stating it for my own understanding, because this boggles my mind.

Speaking of “if someone has vital signs” what about cases where the fetus will either be stillborn, or die soon after birth? Eg anencephaly (warning, there are no non-graphic images of fetuses or newborns without brains, it’s an impossibility)

Yes, or the case in Ireland of that poor woman who was condemned to death because the fetus that was miscarrying anyway still had a heartbeat.

So come on, PustulentPatriarchy: tell us why a fetus matters more than the pregnant person. Tell us why, if it happens to grow up and end up pregnant in its turn, it suddenly becomes less important than it was when it was in utero.

It’s because people with uteri aren’t as important, isn’t it? It’s because they are mostly women and women aren’t people at all, they’re men’s property and breeding machines. You can blather about a kinder, gentler patriarchy but this is what it, and your anti-choice, forced-birth ideas go back to.

Piss off, forced birther and misogynist.

Tell us why, if it happens to grow up and end up pregnant in its turn, it suddenly becomes less important than it was when it was in utero.

Turn and turn about, I presume. Provided you don’t think too hard about it.

But that really is their position. When you were a mere foetus, we were willing to force a woman to dice with death because your life was so important and valuable. Now you’ve become an all grown up woman yourself, bad luck. Pregnancy might kill you or cause permanent injury or looks like it will kill you or cause you permanent injury – your own life is less important than the possible life of this as yet unknown foetus. And it really doesn’t matter that a particular foetus has no chance at all of life or of living more than a few weeks or months after the birth, it is still more important and valuable than the grown woman’s life or her opportunity to end this pregnancy and have another with the chance of a real live baby at the end of it.

I cannot believe that I’m still having these arguments 40 years on from the first time.

Personally I’m sick of pretending that the feelings of people like ProPatria should have any impact on my private medical decisions.

comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

… is pretty well not how we Jews think about our prophets (they do a lot of afflicting the comfortable, but it’s a rare one who actually comforts the afflicted). Keep your sanctimonious bullshit off my religious forebears, thanks.

Yeah, I got the impression there’s a high proportion of assholishness among OT prophets. Didn’t Jonah crack the shits because God didn’t smite whatever town it was he’d been telling to mend its ways?

That’s a great pic, Aaliyah.

@Kittehserf- You’re right on about Jonah, but all of the Bible professors I’ve spoken to about the topic have convinced me that the book of Jonah is supposed to be satire. Really weird satire.

It’s less that the prophets are assholes, per se. It’s more that they’re worried about collectivist problems of morality more than individual ones. As such, you see far more of them exhorting people who are behaving badly to mend their ways than offering succor to individual widows, orphans, etc. (with the notable exception of Elijah)

Also, the phrase “comforting the afflicted” to me carries connotations of loving those who are debased. And Jewish morality is duty based, more than love based. One can hate one’s neighbor with a fiery passion, but must still treat him AS THOUGH he loved him, with decency and respect. In Jewish teachings, it is far more important to do what is required to maintain the social order and follow God’s law than to react with an overabundance of feeling.

How did I miss this before?

“When I release my treatise on gender relations everyone will be surprised that it’s me. I am experimenting with a revolutionary style of artistry in intellectual discourse. It comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable.”

*giggle fit*

Pre·ten·tious —
Adjective. Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
Synonym: showy.

I dunno, I guess some people aspire to be pretensious

M Dubz – ta for the clarification, that’s interesting!

Johah was satire? Ỡ_ō

Good thing they didn’t do standup then. I’d hate to have whoever wrote that doing scripts.

It’s actually really funny when you look at it from the context of the other prophetic books.

Most prophets grumble about being charged with delivering prophetic messages, Jonah RUNS AWAY. Most prophets preach for DECADES to the Jews and nobody listens to them. Jonah spends three days with the Assyrians (Ninveh is an Assyrian city) and they repent. They repent SO HARD that they are putting sack cloth and ashes on their cows. All of the other prophets would be THRILLED for someone to actually listen to them, but Jonah throws a shit fit. And so forth.

That is funny, in context! 😀

I’m suddenly seeing the prophets’ version of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch – “They ignored you for fifteen years? Luxury. My lot tarred and feathered me every day for seventy years and then ran me out of town on a mange-infested camel with wind!”

This is your argument? “You support government regulation of X and Y, therefore you must also support the regulation of Z”? You may align your beliefs with such rigid, absolute thinking if you like, but some of us can accept a little nuance.

How dare you challenge Tea Party logic. Obviously “all” government services are bad, unless I, or he, or someone else, says so, and then it only counts if the right people agree! lol

I am currently working on a treatise about the true nature of gender relations.

Its been done already, its called “Sex At Dawn” (The short version of the title), and, whoops… it only only calls into question the claims of very prominent “experts” on the subject, but, unless you assumes its all just dead wrong, undermines pretty much every definition of “normal” that almost anyone here might think “fits” the real model of human sexuality and relationships (or, at least if asks some seriously hard questions about the “standard model”, not the least being, “If you exclude everything that doesn’t fit the model, and then, on top of that, do things that actually change the behavior of the people being observed, how do you can you claim it actually models anything?”). Mind, so would an examination of historical relationships, how marriage differed between even western cultures, etc., especially over time.

Pretty much the only thing you can take from the book that “might” imply any sort of hard and fast rule is, “Humans, for various reasons from power mongering, to property ownership, to just plain making shit up, and convincing others to follow, are very good at adapting to damn near any idiot model/system/standard of inter-relationships, and sexual practices, that we can think of, even when they are destructive, and will construct whole houses of cards, explaining why its a perfectly reasonable system, and every other model is somehow worse.”, assuming, of course, you can even get they to admit something is broken in the first place. The only valid question then becomes – how do you come up with model that makes things better, for real, and not just for the people who claim it works? And, well.. the current “nuclear” model exacerbates cases of jealousy, leads to greater chances of poverty, since there is no extended family, and very little “community” to provide for raising kids. It engenders excessive competitiveness, even between partners, causes various social disorders, including those which are abuse generated, and even leads to insane decisions, like it being considered “reasonable” for parents to next to abandon their kids, in favor of their own dislike of each other, thereby cutting their resources in half, creating emotional confusion, etc., all because having a temper tantrum, and leaving, is more “adult” than trying to make sure your kids won’t be screwed over “first”, even if you do, in the end, you decide staying would be a bad idea (never mind when staying is the worst idea, like with physical abuse).

So.. Yeah, somehow I doubt your “treatise” will be any more useful, and probably even less so, than a lot of the recent “evolutionary psychology”, coming out of places who use self selected, college students, most of whom probably come from at least semi-similar social ranks, and have other high degrees of similarity, to make wild assertions about what is “normal”, and how it got that way. The people that study the genetics involved tend to class 90% of that branch of science as little more than hand waving, navel gazing and fiction writing. Bets on your own “treatise” receiving more acclaim than an entire field of science in the same people’s eyes, and for precisely the same reason – because making assertions, especially from data collected in a self-created vacuum, which excludes most of the entire planets populations, and all outliers (like obscure tribes, with *very* different views on the subject) does not give you a clear picture of the human psychology. On the contrary, it is not much different than polling Tea Party congressional members about their opinion of socialized medicine, and claiming it applies to anyone other than *those, and only those* people. :p

And, you can’t get more “self selected”, than the sort that care enough about these subjects to reply to blog posts, and are willing to waste time doing so, while having the actual access needed, to even be aware of them. Asking your neighbors (the equivalent of asking the other people on your campus, and assuming those are not a biased sample too), isn’t any better. Parsing out real facts on the subject is very hard to do, most people don’t have the resources or time to do so, and thus, nearly *everything* on the subject comes from biased data, taken from nearby sources, while, often, ignoring entire continents, or even, 90% of the rest of the people in the country the data is collected from.

You would get more information, statistically, from having a color blind person count the number of grey jelly beans, in a jelly bean factory.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.