Categories
antifeminism chivalry citation needed dude you've got no fucking idea what you're talking about matriarchy rape culture scott adams

Scott Adams: We live in a matriarchy because men have to get permission for sex

Matriarchy in action?
Matriarchy in action?

The Paris attacks have inspired cartoonist and opinion-haver Scott Adams to reflect on some of the true injustices in the world today.

Specifically, the fact that in the United States, men often pay for dates, yet cannot have sex with women without getting their permission first.

In a blog post that is incoherent even by his standards, Adams compares the male-dominated societies of the Middle East with what he describes as “female-dominated countries” like the US.

In his mind, American men live in a matriarchal dystopia in which women force men to pay for dinner and open car doors for them:

When I go to dinner, I expect the server to take my date’s order first. I expect the server to deliver her meal first. I expect to pay the check. I expect to be the designated driver, or at least manage the transportation for the evening. And on the way out, I will hold the door for her, then open the door to the car.

Weird, because I’ve literally never had a date like that. And even if all this were true, as a general thing, it wouldn’t be proof that the US is “female-dominated.” Chivalry is part of patriarchy, not proof of matriarchy.

When we get home, access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman.

Er, dude, that’s how sex works. Both sex partners have to agree to it, otherwise it’s rape. And men have veto power when it comes to sex just like women do. Women aren’t allowed to force themselves on unwilling partners any more than men are.

If the woman has additional preferences in terms of temperature, beverages, and whatnot, the man generally complies. If I fall in love and want to propose, I am expected to do so on my knees, to set the tone for the rest of the marriage.

What a romantic fellow, proposing to a woman even though she’s some kind of spoiled princess who has preferences about room temperature and refuses to have sex when she doesn’t want to have sex.

Also, Adams wants everyone to know that when he talks over women in meetings, it’s not that he’s a sexist, it’s just that women talk too much.

Women have made an issue of the fact that men talk over women in meetings. In my experience, that’s true. But for full context, I interrupt anyone who talks too long without adding enough value. If most of my victims turn out to be women, I am still assumed to be the problem in this situation, not the talkers.

But really, the problem is that ladies just won’t shut up amirite fellas high five!

The alternative interpretation of the situation – that women are more verbal than men – is never discussed as a contributing factor to interruptions. Can you imagine a situation where – on average – the people who talk the most do NOT get interrupted the most?

Uh, yes. Because that’s not just a hypothetical “situation.” It’s the way the world actually works.

I don’t know if the amount of talking each person does is related to the amount of interrupting they experience, or if there is a gender difference to it, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis. 

Unfortunately for Adams, this is a hypothesis that’s been repeatedly disproved. Men talk more than women in meetings, yet are more likely to interrupt women than women are to interrupt them.

Weird how Adams, who thinks of himself as a rational sciencey guy, didn’t even bother to do the 30 seconds of Googling that would have shown that his “reasonable hypothesis” was a crock.

Speaking of weirdness, Adams goes on to suggest that he might turn to terrorism if no one gives him a hug. Literally.

So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn’t religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I’m not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I’m designed that way. I’m a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.

NOTE TO SELF: Do not invite Scott Adams to any party without also inviting this dude:

Capturefreehugs

Or maybe don’t invite Adams to any parties at all.

322 replies on “Scott Adams: We live in a matriarchy because men have to get permission for sex”

@Paradoxical Intention

Laughed my way through that entire Storify link. It’s sad too, but oh so funny.

@Buttercup Q. Skullpants

Non-murdery hugs are up there with some of the best kinds of hugs there is. 🙂

@Argenti Aertheri

Yay! What specific pronouns do you prefer?

Our third person personal (sing.) pronouns are “han” (male) and “hon” (female). The suggested gender neutral pronoun is “hen”. It originated in the 1960s but has become popular just within the last few years, finally entering the official dictionary in April 2015. This has turned out to be so incredibly controversial in later years, even going so far as to one major national newspaper actively banning gender neutral pronouns. That decision led to disobedient journalists sneaking “hen” in here and there, and eventually they changed their policy so that they now allow gender neutral pronouns in all contexts except for strict news articles. I’d like to see some research into exactly why this is so controversial.

Jo, “I know a restaurant where there are two menus. One has prices, the other doesn’t. I assume WHTM readers can figure out who gets which…”

WHERE?! Sounds like my kind of restaurant!

The only dinner first dates I’ve been on, I take out my card when the bill comes in order to signal that I’m perfectly happy to pay for my own portion without making a big awkward deal out of it. The guy has always said something along the lines of “no, I got it.”

So, what is a woman supposed to do in that scenario? Do we insist on paying anyway? Do that and we’re going to be thought of a emasculating. It’s also social convention – not just on dates but in a variety of scenarios – to only put up a small protest when somebody offers a gift. You’re supposed to accept and say thank you.

To men who love to complain about being expected to pay for dinner I say, you need to be part of the change too. Women alone can’t do it. Men need to accept offers to split the bill without seeing at as an attack on their masculinity.

Unfortunately, talking money is awkward and nobody wants to bring it up on a date. Maybe “who do you think should pay on a date” should be an online dating profile question. The answers could be a) the man pays b) the person who asks pays c) you should split the cost. I know I’d only be interested in men who picked b or c.

@wwth

When similar issues occur in my life (fairly rare), I sometimes accept and sometimes refuse based on the context. For example, if my rich in-laws want us to come visit them in the US, they’re paying for the flight tickets or it won’t happen. If it’s my birthday and my parents take me out for dinner, they’re paying. I’ve refused for example when my wife’s grandmother wanted to cover an entire cab ride for 3 people, and probably some other times that I can’t remember right now.

However, if people were constantly trying to pay for my dinner because of my gender or some other more or less permanent quality about me, I wouldn’t be too happy about that. I’d probably refuse every time. But, as you say, this is not just up to women. I also would never offer to pay for a woman’s dinner just because she’s a woman. I wouldn’t give her any reason to assume I would pay, either.

Actually, I’ve been in a situation once where I was going out to dinner with a woman and I wasn’t sure if she would expect me to pay. My solution in that case was to discuss with her beforehand what restaurant we would go to, and take that opportunity to ask (something like) what kind of price range she could handle.

is this true? maybe he was writing in satire??? its really hard to believe, but i guess not so hard considering all the crap going around 🙁

I’m not gonna have time to catch up before trapeze, but no worries Kat — I figured kitty dad was a nice pair with animal aunt! And is whatshisface still mayor of Pittsburgh? Cuz I was there for Snow-apocalypse and fear he’ll find some way to screw it up.

So since I’m coming to this one late, I’m sure this has been covered a few times but…
when he says “hugging” he means “fucking” right?

I’m glad I realized (i.e. had it explained to me) years ago that Dilbert was shit and that Adams was a shit person or this post would have been very disappointing for me.

The following story retells the true events that took place two weeks ago:

Where I live, there are more than a dozen gates accessing the various sections of homes from the resident parking. They require keys though at any given time there are at least two that have someone’s key broken off in the lock rendering them useless if not propped open – which is really hard to do with the weight of said gates and the fact that the association in their great wisdom, has decided to remove anything that might feasibly be used to prop open the gates…something about it being an issue of liability and voiding insurance or whatever…the place is like Fort Knox but with a ton of darn gates. There’s also a shortage of ‘open’ parking that is supposed to be used by guests but mainly is taken up by residents who have more cars than can be parked their garage and/or covered space, sometimes it’s just because they want to have a shorter walk to their residence’s section. Add to those problems the allowing people to double park and park in the fire lane and suddenly it’s pretty darn difficult to try and carry a bunch of stuff from your own car to your own section gate – which is the problem I had two weeks ago, and wouldn’t you know it was also that gate’s turn to have someone’s key broken off in it. This time I had the cart thing I use when bringing in groceries, which couldn’t fit between the cars and the only possible way to get myself around and to the gate was through landscaping…a couple of guys pass by, looked my way and had to have seen me puzzling over the situation, but continued on their way, the ice cream was melting, the frozen foods getting more un-frozen by the minute, and I was about to start pushing that cart around until I found a gate I could get to when a couple of extremely nice, sympathetic, and HELPFUL ladies on their walk saw me and helped get me through the landscaping without anything dumping onto the ground. Then one of them went through their house and out the back so they could open the gate from the inside for me because key = broken in lock = no way to get in unless someone did so. I made them cookies. Chivalry isn’t dead, the name has been changed to “common courtesy” and its friend “showing kindness to your fellow human”.

And another thing…Scott Adams is a douchecanoe. (thanks and shoutout to the person who introduced that term here on WHTM somewhat recently and reminded us that it’s an awesome word to use when applicable!) He should spend the rest of his life having every word he says to others sound like the teacher from “Charlie Brown” to them, totally unable to communicate and everyone getting frustrated and walking off, leaving him forever. alone. In a place where the temperature is never comfortable without the proper clothing or access to any. And lotsa legos.

OK so Manospherians say “no refugees, no ferrner men” and say “they left their women”folk” and kids behind to “enjoy the spoils of a developed nation” but, but, but… since they are all about MEN’s rights, freedoms and liberties to enjoy and do whatever the freak MEN want to, sans the burden of women and “child support”, wouldn’t it actually follow for them to support these refugee MEN? I would think they would be nobly stirred from within to support their brothers in need, no?

Scott Adams: “Women have made an issue of the fact that men talk over women in meetings”.

Jo | November 22, 2015 at 11:10 am

@Virtually Out of Touch: Poland!
__________________________

Right. And Roosh loves that country and its “feminine, traditional women”.

Adams’s redpiller views are nothing new. In a comic strip from 1991 (!) he referred to “the ugly single male” as “the most feared and hated creature on Earth”, and stated that “only a maiden sacrifice can end the horror”. Who would have thought that /r/ForeverAlone and thatincelblogger were around in the 90’s?

Oh, and he also loves Donald Trump, seeing him as a modern-day version of the Founding Fathers and Jesus.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/14/dilbert-creator-on-how-trump-is-like-the-founding-fathers-jesus.html

Re: douchecanoe

I always thought douche insults were misogynistic. Douche just means “wash” . Washing is a positive thing so using “clean” as an insult doesn’t make sense. But douche has come to mean vaginal washes in English and its associated with vaginas. That its twisted and used as an insult particularly for men means that anything associated with the vagina is seen as bad and an insult.

That particular blogpost by Adams is part of a whole series. Read the others and you’ll understand it better. This Mammothhunterperson simply posted snippets of a post, puts them out of context and tries to be funny. It’s actually pathetic and cheap.

….just don’t have sex, and then also simultaneously don’t be a violent asshole. What’s the problem?

Kailibigot Bonin | November 22, 2015 at 2:20 am
I think he is communicating on behalf of men something a lot of men feel.

https://scontent.fsjc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10592996_969816679755908_858337578011683504_n.jpg

it’s all so heterosexuality based so it doesn’t exactly fit my frame work. Correct me if I am wrong but the things he is saying are no different than the complaints women will voice about finding suitable men.

I don’t see any women going “If I don’t get a man to hug me, I’m going to become a suicide bomber”.

I don’t see any women lamenting that men have the right to not have sex if they don’t want to have sex.

I don’t see women complaining that men expect anything of them.

However, I do see women here in this comments section who are saying it’s not right that men are simultaneously complaining about having to do all these things, and at the same time seeing not doing them as an attack on their masculinity.

What I see in the article is a man saying “It’s awful that women control everything because of standards of how to treat all women set upon men by other men”, which is, for lack of a better word, bullshit.

Women are not a monolith, we can’t all be treated the same way, just like all humans can’t be treated the same way. Everyone likes different things. What works for some cannot work for others, and yet, Adams is whinging that AWALT.

the key is finding someone suitable for the purpose you establish. Yes there are lots of men who are looking for sex with women on a very casual contingency basis.

And there are lots of women who want to have casual sex too. Your point?

I think the problem here is that many cishet men expect every woman they’re attracted to to be into casual sex. They want the women they’re attracted to to just fuck them and they don’t want to have to do the whole dating thing.

There are options in the dating world nowadays that facilitate this, but rather than take them, men like Adams would rather complain about how they have to do all the dating hoopla instead of getting a fucking OKCupid account like the rest of us and specify they’re looking for casual sex.

They’re complaining about a problem they don’t want to do anything about, and then turning around and saying it’s all women’s fault that they have this problem. It’s stupid and childish, and I’d like to believe that most people understand that.

Granted, there are some women out there, like myself, who want to get to know a person before they engage in any sex, casual or not. But that’s the beauty of online stuff, you have the opportunity to talk before you meet, and you get a profile’s worth of information on that person as well. It’s a hell of a lot easier to figure out what kind of a person they might be. It’s not always right, and people do lie about a lot of things on profiles, but it’s usually a lot easier, and safer, to suss out.

What he feels is that women take this availability of sex and turn it into leverage. They make demand on partners because they have wider opportunity. These demands do not reflect emotional needs or desires, but men have to have emotional needs or desires beyond the casual contingency in order to pursue for them what becomes an elevated relationship while the women can remain non-committal.

https://scontent.fsjc1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/12227195_969816786422564_5734101260311920697_n.jpg

I’m going to have to stop you there, because you’ve just reached critical levels of wrong.

Women don’t make “demands” of their partners. Women don’t use sex as some sort of bargaining chip. What Adams and other men who agree with him are seeing as “demands” is women trying to compromise.

Believe it or not, from day one, women are brought up to believe that men’s feelings and desires come first and foremost. What you’re seeing is a generation of women who have finally been told it’s okay to want to deal with your own feelings and desires too, and that if they aren’t being met, then there’s something wrong.

they can have sex that for them is casual contingency, but in order to access that platform and win her selection process he has to develop an emotional attachment she doesn’t have to evidence.

What the fuck is this word salad?

“Men have to be attached to women in order to have sex with them, but women don’t have to care about men?”

What the fuck did I just read?

The fear is fear of a woman who can have casual contingency sex without reciprocal affection.

It’s not that. It’s fear of a woman saying “No, I don’t want to have sex with you”.

Adams literally says we live in a “matriarchy” because “women control when they have sex”. He literally believes that because women have the right to say “No, I don’t want to have sex with you”, that women control the world, and he’s angry about it.

Never mind the fact that men also have the right to veto sex if they don’t want it, but this gets swept under the rug for some macho “men like sex, men want sex all the time!” bullshit that alienates asexual men and male rape victims.

It’s a fear of the exact woman he is looking for in his hypothesis. The presumption is that one person in any relationship needs the other person more or has more affection, love, or desire than the other. the desire is to be needed more by his partner than he needs that particular partner. It’s apparently quite common though different genders have different ways to express it. the opposite desire is to be needed less by a partner that you need in particular. this is the desire to “win” a partner. to have a partner fall in love with you and not what you represent.

Again with the word salad. My brain isn’t working properly this early, can someone translate?

I legit have no fucking clue what this person is trying to say here. I apologize if English isn’t your first language, but I can’t make out what you’re trying to say.

Once, on a date with my soon-to-be-husband, we asked for the bill, and the waiter handed it to my husband. In the waiter’s presence, I took the bill, took a credit card from my wallet, and handed both to the waiter. The waiter returned with the receipt and gave it to my husband… and my husband handed it over to me to sign.

Folks, I calculated this guy’s tip as ‘the bare decent minimum, then a hair less’.

Also, here’s a wacky thing: In my last sexual/romantic relationship my girlfriend wanted to have sex before I, a man, did. And despite the “fact” that women “control access to sex” I was not required to have sex with her before I wanted to. Weird, huh?

I’ve been both a server and a diner, in most places the server will ask the table if they are ready to order yet and start scribbling whatever the first person to open their mouth says, because they are busy and in too much of a hurry for that turn-based nonsense, it only makes them hate you more.

Did anyone else get the creeping, horrifying suspicion that (in Adams’s paradigm) men have to be the designated drivers because it’s assumed they’re getting the woman too plastered to drive (or consent)?

@Paradoxical Intention

Good, you noticed Kailibigot Bonin’s utterly baffling post too. I wrote a lengthy reply to it, but you already said everything much more elegantly.

@Kailibigot Bonin

Everything PI said. Also, stop making excuses for Mr. Dilbert. This is not an isolated incident that needs to be read in the best light possible, this is Adams being his own damn self, writing sexist shit like the sexist shit he is.

And yeah, your prose makes Zebediah Killgrave look yellow. Tone it down, dude.

I skipped even replying to that Kailibigot person’s comment because I really wasn’t sure what it was saying.

I see we’ve got a second Adam’s fanboy in here crying context! though.

That particular blogpost by Adams is part of a whole series. Read the others and you’ll understand it better. This Mammothhunterperson simply posted snippets of a post, puts them out of context and tries to be funny. It’s actually pathetic and cheap.

Seriously, what context is this

So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn’t religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I’m not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I’m designed that way. I’m a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.

not horrible? I can’t work out any context that paragraph could go in that doesn’t sound like he’s saying that sexual frustration causes men to become killers. The implication of that is always that it’s women’s duty to give affection and/or sex on demand to men so that they don’t kill people, or if we’re not going to do that we’re supposed to at least be understanding and sympathetic towards them.

How is this

The alternative interpretation of the situation – that women are more verbal than men – is never discussed as a contributing factor to interruptions. Can you imagine a situation where – on average – the people who talk the most do NOT get interrupted the most?

I don’t know if the amount of talking each person does is related to the amount of interrupting they experience, or if there is a gender difference to it, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

not misogynistic? In what context could this possibly not be interpreted as saying that women talk too much and that’s why men interrupt them? Even though that’s been proven to be completely false.

If you’re going to insist that Adam’s is being taken out of context, please do explain what the context is. Since he’s a known reactionary misogynist crank, I’m not going to be giving him extensive benefit of the doubt.

And BTW, David never really copy pastes entire blog posts. He always picks out the most mockable “snippets.” MRAs tend to ramble and nobody has time to sift through their crap unless they’re doing this professionally. It’s not like Adam’s is being singled out and picked on here.

That particular blogpost by Adams is part of a whole series. Read the others and you’ll understand it better.

Just read the past 5 blog posts of his, nothing to do with his idiotic ‘global gender war’ piece (which, FYI isn’t called ‘part 2’ or ‘part 3’,) so either provide a link to the ‘proper context’ or fuck off.

This Mammothhunterperson simply posted snippets of a post, puts them out of context and tries to be funny. It’s actually pathetic and cheap.

Oh I see! Thank you so fucking much for enlightening me. You see, I thought for sure that Scott Adams said that “if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something.” but now that you’ve explained to me the proper context, suddenly this is totally an acceptable thing to think and totally isn’t seething with entitlement!

/sarcasm

Ninja’d by WWTH. and fed to the blockquote mammoth.

In never ceases to amaze me how many people think ‘well you see that horrible shitty thing said was actually taken out of context so that automatically makes it perfectly fine’, provide zero supporting evidence and expect to convince anyone.

“The alternative interpretation of the situation – that women are more verbal than men – is never discussed as a contributing factor to interruptions.”

Really? REALLY? Obviously this far from the most objectionable thing he says here, but…REALLY? How can someone actually say this with a straight face? Dude, that’s already the default position. What you’re seeing now and whining about is women finally pushing back. “never discussed” my ass.

I always thought douche insults were misogynistic.

-Virtually Out of Touch

I dunno, I always thought they were kinda great since they could be specific about somebody or something being bad for women. Under normal circumstances a douche is useless at best and actively harmful at worst.

Of course, anal douches also exist, but I don’t think they’re equivalent.

I have sometimes had people pointedly giving the bill to him. I have even ordered us drinks in a bar, paid for them, and had the bar person hand the change to him.

I sometimes wonder how much of this is sexism on the servers part, and how much is learned defensiveness. From a risk analysis point of view it may be safer for them to always defer to the dude, because the worst case scenario in this situation would be probably getting the stink eye from the couple, maybe a cynical remark, and a smaller tip. Because women are socialized to minimize slights against them and that kind of thing.

On the other hand, if they defer to the woman and the male half of the couple is a swaggering, macho, touchy asshole, then they are going to get exploded at, the asshole screaming slurs and expletives at them for DARING to question his masculinity by allowing his woman any semblance of autonomy. Plus maybe getting swung at or having the couple refuse to pay/demanding to see the manager, etc.

@John The Snipper, you must be Adams’ sockpuppet, he’s always whining about people who call him out on his misogyny not understaaaaaanding that he writes the undeniable truth! If only people would read, they would understaaaaaaaaand he’s not a sexist asshole at all, just a reasonable man being reasonable against the hordes of matriarchal bitches throwing temper tantrums!

I sometimes wonder how much of this is sexism on the servers part, and how much is learned defensiveness. From a risk analysis point of view it may be safer for them to always defer to the dude, because the worst case scenario in this situation would be probably getting the stink eye from the couple, maybe a cynical remark, and a smaller tip. Because women are socialized to minimize slights against them and that kind of thing.

On the other hand, if they defer to the woman and the male half of the couple is a swaggering, macho, touchy asshole, then they are going to get exploded at, the asshole screaming slurs and expletives at them for DARING to question his masculinity by allowing his woman any semblance of autonomy. Plus maybe getting swung at or having the couple refuse to pay/demanding to see the manager, etc.

Yeah, of all places were institutional sexism occurs, I’m inclined to give waitstaff the most benefit of the doubt. It could be an official policy they can’t change; it could be a lesson they learned the hard way.

Clearly Scott Adams is a man of science and he times the amount of time each speaker talks for, and takes note of which proportion of those speakers are male to ensure that everyone has an equal amount of time to speak before getting interrupted, and said interruptions are based purely on objective,measurable criteria and not something as nebulous as a subjective view that the person is not saying anything of value. This obviously must be the case, for someone as scientific as Scott Adams must already know about the studies that show that women are perceived to be speaking more when they actually take up a third or less of the total speaking time, and would not want to allow this unacademic, socially-imposed tendency to bias his actions. /sarcasm

Still not caught up, and have a basement cat to go give some love to (basement cat is our newly indoor stray), but dhag — ze/zir. And I think, in English anyways, the controversy is a simple “but I don’t wanna change! Anyways, they’re weird!” and then it descends into various bigotries.

I love the “context!” argument because it implies that his communication skills are so phenomenally bad that not only are his blog posts completely incomprehensible without additional context not provided in the post, but it’s impossible to tell from the post itself that additional context is required.

How bad is the comments section on Adams’s blog? Classic WHTM troll NWOSlave is there, and he’s one of the most sensible commenters.

Seriously. He’s over there pointing out that xenophobic wars of cultural assimilation are not the sole province of patriarchal Muslim cultures, in fact they’re kind of a common thing in Western history, and everyone else is denying it. Holy crap, the guy who thinks Greek myths really happened and the sinking of the Lusitania was a feminist plot has a better grasp on history than Scott Adams and his fans.

This is so sad.

I still like the Spivak pronouns, but it appears I’m in a minority.

As for “douche” as an insult, I think besides whether it’s icky/useless/harmful, it’s a word where you can draw out the “oo” sound and almost hiss the “sh” sound to emphasize your disdain. By an AMAZING COINCIDENCE, “Roosh” also has this quality.

“I dunno, I always thought they were kinda great since they could be specific about somebody or something being bad for women. Under normal circumstances a douche is useless at best and actively harmful at worst.”

– Store bought chemical kind, sure they’re harmful.

“Also, here’s a wacky thing: In my last sexual/romantic relationship my girlfriend wanted to have sex before I, a man, did. And despite the “fact” that women “control access to sex” I was not required to have sex with her before I wanted to. Weird, huh?”

– I don’t know what universe the Manosphere lives in but in mine and your’s I assume most people in relationships are empathetic and take into consideration the desires, needs and yes “feewings” of their partners, and there is a mutual reciprocation between the two.

“Once, on a date with my soon-to-be-husband, we asked for the bill, and the waiter handed it to my husband. In the waiter’s presence, I took the bill, took a credit card from my wallet, and handed both to the waiter. The waiter returned with the receipt and gave it to my husband… and my husband handed it over to me to sign.

Folks, I calculated this guy’s tip as ‘the bare decent minimum, then a hair less’.”

– The Manosphere interprets the waiter’s behavior as “misandrist” for assuming your hubby-to-be as your financial slave, bid doer and princess enabler.

Nequam — most of my dislike for Spivak is that E is my legal first initial. So, E says is, to me, more like using my name than a pronoun, which just makes the other uses weird to me. And it shortens to em, so it just gets all kinds of odd.

Also, Z is a poor neglected lovely letter.

Kailibigot Bonin

I think he is communicating on behalf of men something a lot of men feel. it’s all so heterosexuality based so it doesn’t exactly fit my frame work. Correct me if I am wrong but the things he is saying are no different than the complaints women will voice about finding suitable men.

Uh, it’s not about “finding suitable women” he’s voicing, he’s saying that after a man paying for dinner, and opening doors, somehow the woman still has the power to say no to sex! And this means women have all the sexual control.

the key is finding someone suitable for the purpose you establish. Yes there are lots of men who are looking for sex with women on a very casual contingency basis. What he feels is that women take this availability of sex and turn it into leverage. They make demand on partners because they have wider opportunity.

Wow, this is a whole lot of bullshit. So, to you, “those bitches can get all sorts of men for meaningless sex, so they have to make men work for it?”

These demands do not reflect emotional needs or desires, but men have to have emotional needs or desires beyond the casual contingency in order to pursue for them what becomes an elevated relationship while the women can remain non-committal.

I… What? To me this reads as… Wait… are you saying “The hoops women make men go through for sex have nothing to do with emotion, but they STILL also make men develop an emotional attachment before she’ll put out, but she’ll still feel nothing?”

they can have sex that for them is casual contingency, but in order to access that platform and win her selection process he has to develop an emotional attachment she doesn’t have to evidence.

Well, you must have meant what I said above because this is a repeat of it… Dude.

The fear is fear of a woman who can have casual contingency sex without reciprocal affection.

OK, you’re using “contingency” way too much.

It’s a fear of the exact woman he is looking for in his hypothesis. The presumption is that one person in any relationship needs the other person more or has more affection, love, or desire than the other. the desire is to be needed more by his partner than he needs that particular partner. It’s apparently quite common though different genders have different ways to express it. the opposite desire is to be needed less by a partner that you need in particular. this is the desire to “win” a partner. to have a partner fall in love with you and not what you represent.

This isn’t what he’s saying at all. What the hell? How does whining that he expects to pay for dinner, drive, open doors, and at home she gets to decide on whether or not she has sex translate to “women can have more sex with random dudes off the street who launch their penises at her, so women hold this over men’s heads and make them dance! DANCEI SAY! Therefore men have a fear that women just don’t love them as much as they do.”

You wanna know a secret? If a man complains about women being able to choose, he’s really only talking about women he chose first.

“Yes there are lots of men who are looking for sex with women on a very casual contingency basis.”

News Flash! There are also plenty of women who want no strings attached sex. All you have to do is find them, and the internet and adult friend finder has made that so much easier.

I really don’t see what the problem is.

Well… that was an epic block quote failure. 🙁
Take two!

Kailibigot Bonin

I think he is communicating on behalf of men something a lot of men feel. it’s all so heterosexuality based so it doesn’t exactly fit my frame work. Correct me if I am wrong but the things he is saying are no different than the complaints women will voice about finding suitable men.

Uh, it’s not about “finding suitable women” he’s voicing, he’s saying that after a man paying for dinner, and opening doors, somehow the woman still has the power to say no to sex! And this means women have all the sexual control.

the key is finding someone suitable for the purpose you establish. Yes there are lots of men who are looking for sex with women on a very casual contingency basis. What he feels is that women take this availability of sex and turn it into leverage. They make demand on partners because they have wider opportunity.

Wow, this is a whole lot of bullshit. So, to you, “those bitches can get all sorts of men for meaningless sex, so they have to make men work for it?”

These demands do not reflect emotional needs or desires, but men have to have emotional needs or desires beyond the casual contingency in order to pursue for them what becomes an elevated relationship while the women can remain non-committal.

I… What? To me this reads as… Wait… are you saying “The hoops women make men go through for sex have nothing to do with emotion, but they STILL also make men develop an emotional attachment before she’ll put out, but she’ll still feel nothing?”

they can have sex that for them is casual contingency, but in order to access that platform and win her selection process he has to develop an emotional attachment she doesn’t have to evidence.

Well, you must have meant what I said above because this is a repeat of it… Dude.

The fear is fear of a woman who can have casual contingency sex without reciprocal affection.

OK, you’re using “contingency” way too much.

It’s a fear of the exact woman he is looking for in his hypothesis. The presumption is that one person in any relationship needs the other person more or has more affection, love, or desire than the other. the desire is to be needed more by his partner than he needs that particular partner. It’s apparently quite common though different genders have different ways to express it. the opposite desire is to be needed less by a partner that you need in particular. this is the desire to “win” a partner. to have a partner fall in love with you and not what you represent.

This isn’t what he’s saying at all. What the hell? How does whining that he expects to pay for dinner, drive, open doors, and at home she gets to decide on whether or not she has sex translate to “women can have more sex with random dudes off the street who launch their penises at her, so women hold this over men’s heads and make them dance! DANCEI SAY! Therefore men have a fear that women just don’t love them as much as they do.”

You wanna know a secret? If a man complains about women being able to choose, he’s really only talking about women he chose first.

@Argenti Aetheri

“Also, Z is a poor neglected lovely letter.”

This is true, but if we start using it more commonly it will throw out the frequency curve for letter use in English, hampering the work of cryptanalysts everywhere. Won’t someone please think of the cryptanalysts?!

(NB. I’m totally in favour of gender neutral pronouns for those who desire them, although it will take time for me to learn how to use them and be comfortable with them – after nearly forty years of using a binary system, I hope I can be cut a little slack if I’m making an honest effort!)

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.