Punctuation is Misandry!

Over at Captain Capitalism, a rave review of Roosh V.'s new compendium The Best of Roosh, Part I.

First of all, Capt. Cap warns other self-publishing entrepreneurs that "until I get counter reviews, the book reviews will be limited to a tit for tat mutually beneficial relationship."  Ah, so that's how "peer review" works in the manosphere!

In defense of Roosh, whose self-editing tends to be as haphazard as his personal grooming, The Captain asserts that he, personally, likes the typos.  In fact, the more of 'em, the better! 

 I'm taking a religious stance with this in that I believe men are sick and tired of the predominantly female-dominated publishing/correcting-ones-english-at-the-expense-of-ideas industry.  I truly believe that with online publishing proper grammar will finally be ranked below "ideas and content" as it should have always been until academian charlatans came in insisting their knowledge of "dangling participles" was more important than pioneering lines of thought.  The more and more typos I see, overshadowed by intelligence, innovation, creativity, and just plain cleverness, the better for the publishing industry and readers.

I didn't realize until now that careful proof-reading compromised the creative expression of men's "ideas."  Now I see how I have been not only stifling, but indeed virtually castrating, my male students by insisting that they learn to observe the conventions of "academian" English.  For years, I've been trying to persuade them that "proper grammar" would strengthen their power to persuade readers, but am now chagrined to learn that I had it all ass-backwards.

This is why I cannot fear the New Misogynists.

And also because of this:

Roosh ‏@rooshv 26 May

The Best Of Roosh has been downloaded 3,250 times. 136 of you purchased it. :)

Expand

Is Matt Forney a Closeted FA?

I ran across this graph right after making the mistake of reading a "fat rant" by Matt Forney.  For a guy who professes to find fat women repulsive, he sure spends a lot of time fulminating about them.

I'm perplexed by the obsession with fat girls.  I don't find extreme obesity attractive or "healthy" either, but I don't find the people who suffer from this to be "undeserving of love" or deserving of abuse ("shaming," "shunning").  Nor did it stop me from falling madly in love with a guy who was once pushing 400 lbs (he's slimmed down considerably since, courtesy of two bouts of oral cancer).  I've never thought it was my mission in life to persuade prospective sexual partners to eat less (unless, perhaps, we were sharing a pizza LOL).  Nor do I begrudge my thin friends their svelte physiques (unless we're browsing the sales racks together).

My "fatness" is my personal issue.  It's between my doctor and me -- and a handful of intimates in whom I choose to confide.  Unless some random stranger is forced to sit next to me on a crowded plane, I fail to see why my girth affects him in any real way.

If it's a matter of his being offended aesthetically, well boo-hoo.  I'm potentially "offended" every single day I venture out in public:  I happen to think anyone over the age of eighteen who wears a baseball cap looks like a moron.  I am not a fan of the shaved head + goatee look either.  I loathe clothing with logos on it.  Public spitting turns my stomach.  And don't get me started about all the truly terrible writing I have to read!  

For the most part, I try to ignore these affronts to my delicate sensibilities because (1) they're trivial, and (2) otherwise I would be in a chronic state of rage -- and that's just not a place where I want to live (not to mention it's worse for one's heart than cheerfully schlepping around an extra fifty pounds).

The fact that Matt Forney and his readers don't want to fuck women who look like me isn't really a problem for any of us, is it?  In fact, if my rotund body actively and magically repels them, it's kind of a plus in my book.

Look, kiddos, let me lay it on you:  No person is obligated to be physically attractive to another person.  You are not "owed" a supermodel girlfriend despite what television commercials have been teaching you.  The sooner you get this reality through your noggins, the better off you'll be.  The only body a person gets to control is his/her own -- and even then, not always (see cancer, above).

Perhaps the crux of the issue is that misogynists don't recognize women's personal autonomy.  In their infantile minds, every woman is put on the earth for the sole purpose of pleasing them.  It's a little bit narcissistic, wouldn't you say?   

Still, the way they natter on about how teh fat kills their boners!  Although they claim that they enjoy joking about fat women, they don't seem to be having much fun with it.  Indeed, the topic sends them into paroxysms of rage.

And what really enrages them is that when they do decide to "bang" a fat chick (out of sheer desperation, apparently), those "ugly bitches" don't want to be banged by them.  How dare an "imperfect female" reject them!  How dare anuglyfatchick have any standards of her own?

It seems like Mr. Forney spends an awful lot of time haunting the "fatshionista" blogs and stewing about the fact that a lot of these young women manage to have some well-documented sexy fun despite their excess poundage.  Personally, I love seeing a fat girl rocking a bikini.  That is not because I think all fat girls should wear bikinis, or because every fat girl turns me on (some do / some don't), but because, well, why the hell shouldn't she? 

Self-acceptance and self-confidence do not encourage people to be fat.  Probably the opposite is truer.  People who like themselves tend to be more active and socially engaged, as well as more tolerant and compassionate of others. 

And I am willing to lay odds that if Forney and Friends tried to publicly "shame" these girls they would be met with great belly laughs of derision.  Personally, if someone jeered or tried to humiliate me within my earshot, in a bar or a club or anywhere but from a fast-moving vehicle, they'd get a dose of their own medicine. 

Some people speculate that Forney is a closeted gay.  I don't know about that, but I'm beginning to wonder if he isn't a closeted FA. (That's "Fat Admirer" in BBW circles, a subculture I suspect Matt Forney is already quite familiar with). 

Anyway, I stole the graphic from Helen Boyd's En/gender site.  I used to read her blog faithfully and participate in the forum, but after a while, suffering from "trans ally fatigue," I fell away.  I am now adding her to my blog roll as a personal reminder to check in more often.  I am so annoyed that I missed her recent trip to my city.  I would have enjoyed going to the event.

Isn't Baking Soda Just A Little Bit Beta?

Guess what the lead story was today on Return of Kings:

a.  5 Feminists Who Will Kill Your Boner
b.  5 Steps To Achieving Killer Abs
c.  5 Big Ass Books to Read Before You Die
d.  5 Surprising Uses For Baking Soda

It is really cute!  First the author, Mikael, assures his skeptical readers that he doesn't expect them to actually own any baking soda because  "Well women use [it] for baking, let’s get serious we’re men, we don’t bake, we go to the store. But being as men don’t generally bake, not every man has baking soda in their home as a bachelor, and you should."  

Re-read the previous passage and consider the following information:  Mikael has a B.A. in English Literature.  He even has his own blog, in which he writes about Education ("Learn More While Doing Less").  He even has a job that allows him to listen to his Ipod all day so that he can "multi-task" on his employer's dime time.  Pretty sweet.

All right, never mind the comma splices and run on sentences, Mikael's got some damn good tips about baking soda.  Of course, being a woman of advanced years, this wisdom has already been passed down to me over the ages through my mother and grandmother and about a bazillion newspaper fillers.

Anyway, in case, being a guy, you haven't considered baking soda since you constructed that volcano in fifth grade, baking soda has a number of possible uses:

1.  Deodorant

I'm not sure why someone would want to use baking soda as deodorant, but I suppose if you're stuck on the edge of the Empty Quarter, where soap, water, and basic grooming products are unavailable but where baking supplies (perversely) abound, and you don't mind the inevitable "grit factor," this works.  At least it works according to Roosh, who apparently dealt with this particular application in some length back in 2011 (I must have missed that essential pearl of Roosh wisdom).  "It is good to know in a pinch one always has options."  Indeed!

2.  Tooth Whitener

I've actually used baking soda as an ad hoc dentifrice now and then.  I've never been impressed with the results though, and it leaves a weird residue on your teeth.  Don't over do it, at any rate:  You don't want to grind off all your enamel.

3.  Mosquito Bite Treatment

"Mosquito's [sic] suck plain and simple."

Hmm...  I'm very allergic to mosquito bites, and in desperation have tried just about anything to alleviate the itch, including baking soda.  Unfortunately, I didn't find it any more effective than bleach, toothpaste, alcohol, or camomile lotion.  Icing followed by cortisone cream works best for me.  Better yet, avoid getting bitten in the first place.

4.  Refrigerator Deodorizer

"Let it absorb the stank [sic] of your horrendous cooking leftovers."  Wait a minute, I thought a real man doesn't cook (that's the second function of females) --. or else, when he does, he's a much better cook than any woman could hope to be.  I've actually wasted boxes of soda to prevent my frig from offending, but I find as with 4. (above), prevention (i.e., throwing away "stanky" food) is more effective than treatment.

5.  To Extinguish a Fire

"Just throw a whole boat load on it and boom, fire be gone."  

As someone who has started more than her share of grease fires over the years, unless it's a very small fire, you still need a portable fire extinguisher.  Or a Cosco-sized bag of baking soda.  Just sayin'.

There you have it.  Were you as "surprised" as I was?

Performance Anxiety

N.B.  It was only after I had posted the following that I found David Futrelle over at manboobz had coincidentally posted a response to the same topic. 
_________________________________________________________________

Yesterday, I was in a tanning salon waiting my turn at one of the beds.  (I want to build up a little melanin before our trip to Mexico).  To my annoyance, all there was to read in the lobby was Cosmopolitan magazine, the one magazine I cannot stand to look at.

Although there was much to admire about Helen Gurley Brown, I have always detested Cosmopolitan.  Not only for the content, or lack thereof (since it is dedicated almost exclusively to the various Geisha like arts of pleasing men), but for its style (which, BTW, Nora Ephron skewered brilliantly in a piece for Esquire many years ago).  Brown stepped down in 1997, but the magazine only seems to have gotten more obsessively focused on the need for women to cater to men in the bedroom, with shameless headlines screaming "Tease Him and Please Him!" "Foreplay Men Crave!" and "His Butt."  Every issue features at least one article on how to gratify men sexually.  Cuz these days the way to a man's heart is through advanced fellatio technique. 

So it was surprising to read over at ROK that "You've probably noticed that most women haven't got the tiniest interest in pleasing us.  The large majority of women believe that getting naked and allowing us to stab their insides with our manly part is pretty much all they have to do when it comes to having sex."  Well, you can't blame Cosmopolitan for not trying!

The article, by someone who calls himself Alex "The Player" Matlock, invites readers to identify the type of bad sex that they are (probably not) having.   He believes it is important for the Rooshites to know this because it's only "fair" and "natural" and besides, "Judging is important because it allow us to understand exactly what it is that we want from a sexual encounter."  Ah, if wishes were horses...!

Who is Alex Matlock and why should men listen to him?  According to his website, Mr. Matlock is working on his PHD -- and he spells it like that, all in caps -- in Social Psychology.  He chose Social Psychology because he thought it would help him understand women better.  He even shared a flat with three girls once, not to "bang" them, but to deepen his knowledge of the feminine psyche.

Although he assures us that he has "banged a lot of chicks," he has found that most of their performances fall short of the mark.  And because Roosh and his ilk love lists (also tables, graphs, flowcharts, and diagrams), Matlock methodically lists the five types of women in order of most (1) to least disappointing (5).

1. The one that tries too much (aka The Disaster) 

This girl is guilty of trying too hard. She moves out of sync [because the guy establishes the tempo, presumably].   She has the highest percentage of male genitalia injury [sic], breaks condoms, and makes guys lose their boners. That’s just one more reason to avoid “taking advantage” of heavily inebriated women. Why do I suspect the sarcasm quotes to be Roosh's touch?

2. The one that’s scared (aka The Virgin) 

I thought these guys wanted sweet, inexperienced girls?  But the so-called virgin is just scamming a fellow.  She makes a guy feel guilty by acting as though she doesn't know what she's doing.  Plus she only allows penetration in the missionary position.

3. The one that doesn’t move (aka The Starfish or The Doll)

Matlock suggests that because she doesn’t do anything that disrupts the actual lovemaking... she will probably have many more orgasms than #1 and #2 simply because she lets the man do his thing.  Matlock rates such women as "average" in the performance department.  And I rate Matlock's understanding of what makes a woman orgasm "below average."

4. The one that does something (aka The Girlfriend) 

Experienced enough to "put a smile on your face."
5.  The Pornstar
The ultimate girlfriend experience.  (Probably a regular Cosmo reader.)

Is it my imagination, or can I feel the editorial hand of Roosh in every piece that is posted to ROK?  Like Helen Gurley Brown and Hugh Hefner, his persona infuses everything.  But Roosh is no Hugh Hefner, and the glory days of magazines like Playboy and Cosmopolitan, which were once the authorities on How To Perform One's Sex, are over.  The only reason they linger on is that the one thing that doesn't seem to change is the sexual performance anxiety many young men and women suffer from.

And here's a picture of the author with two "chicks."  Not surprisingly, he's selling PUA too.

Alex Matlock is an expert in dating and woman psychology. This is the sort of stuff he discusses on his blog and in the free eBook he gives out. If you want to increase your success with women, visit ThePlayerGuide.com - a place where the dating mindset is thrown out the window in favor of more direct and fruitful methods of meeting and seducing women.

My Message to Incels

A commenter on Manboobz shared a link to a documentary called "Shy Boys," in which the director, Sara Gardephe, interviews several "Incels" (involuntary celibates).  Because Incels tend to be ready "converts" to Game, I watched it with interest.

The fact that most of the young men describe themselves as "ugly" is really striking to me because, really, none of them are.  In fact, I thought the long-haired dude was quite pretty in a rock star way.  Yet they blame their lack of success with women primarily on an imaginary defect in their own physical appearance.  Of course, girls do that too, and to such a degree that we hardly notice.  I don't remember boys being so self-critical in the past, however.  I am sad to see men starting to share women's neuroses about their looks.  Body dysmorphia is a form of equality I don't welcome.

As for their disgust of female genitalia, it reminded me of Victorian art critic John Ruskin, famously unable to consummate his marriage because he was so horrified by the sight of his beautiful bride's genitals.   

Somehow I cannot judge these boys too harshly.  Truth be told, I've never been enamored with the sight of my own bits, and recall how unpleasant I found it when a Nurse Practitioner insisted I examine my own cervix with the aid of a mirror, speculum, and flashlight.  Working in an abortion clinic, I saw hundreds of vulvas, of course, and I gradually lost my revulsion to my own.  So my first Rx for these troubled lads is more exposure to real women and less porn.  

I cannot even be too hard on the way the Incels in the documentary refer to "fat girls" as scraping the bottom of the barrel in the sexual marketplace.  They are simply parroting what the entire culture is teaching us, so why should we expect them to challenge the standards of the day?  It takes self-confidence to buck the system.  I refused to date fat boys when I was an undergrad even though (or because) I weighed 170# myself.  Being discriminated against did not make me compassionate or tolerant -- the opposite, in fact. 

Was I so different from these guys at the same age?  As a teenager, I would go six weeks without speaking to anyone.  I was so shy that some days I simply couldn't muster the courage to go to school, instead whiling away the hours sitting alone in parks or aimlessly riding buses.  One day, when I was about seventeen, I realized "This won't do," and started to force myself out into the world.  But it took many more years before I overcame my almost crippling shyness, and I only managed to do so by acts of will, challenging myself with activities that caused me the greatest degree of manageable anxiety.  

I finally figured out that my self-consciousness was basically egocentrism.   I found that the more I attended to another person, the less "shy" I was.  Perhaps it was this realization that drew me towards work where I had to perform service for others.  In a professional role, I could finally let go of myself.

I still remind myself, when I feel the old social awkwardness and anxiety creeping up, to focus, focus on the other person.  Ask questions.  Then listen.  Reflect on what he/she is saying.  Get over yourself!

Ironically, "game" is probably the worst way for these fellows to overcome their issues.  I wish I could share this with Incels.

Finally A Country That Will Appreciate Roosh!

Having soured on the Romanian scene, Roosh announced he will shortly be landing in Moldova.

Moldova is the poorest country in Europe, with 80% of the population living below the poverty line.  It is known for its excellent wine, high crime rate, systemic corruption, and staggering rate of prostitution.  According to one source, the poverty in Moldova is so acute that two out of three Moldovan women resort to prostitution at some point in their lives.  Moldova, not surprisingly, is a prime source of women sold into sex trafficking.  (If you are interested, PBS Frontline did a documentary last year about this -- but I warn you, it is heart breaking.)

In other words:  lots of young, thin, blonde, desperate women to be had for pennies on the dollar.   It should be Roosh's idea of "poosy paradise."

One caveat, Roosh:  Moldova also has one of the highest rates of antibiotic resistant infections in the world.  So don't forget to wash your, uhm, hands.

Roosh: PUA Most Likely to Join the Taliban

Roosh hasn't been having so much fun in Romania lately.  Fortunately, out of hardship and suffering, great insights are born.  Roosh has been pondering The True Nature Of Women, and he is now ready to share some of his Deep Thoughts.

"Water takes the shape of the container it fills."  This is the metaphor Roosh has chosen to illustrate how women adapt to the cultures they live in.  He is so captivated by this "water for women" metaphor that he repeats it over and over.  And over.  (Be warned:  Roosh's habit of repeating inane metaphors is likely to trigger a migraine in sensitive readers.)

Roosh, as he frequently reminds his readers, is "a man of science" (that is, he has a B.S. from the University of Maryland with a biology major), so he certainly must know as much about the properties of H20 as he does about women.

"I believed the properties of water were in part tied to its location, that water from the East could mimic by only a small degree water from the West, but never be just like it. I was less experienced when I had this belief, for now I know better. Water that has been boiled into steam still has the molecular properties of water, and once the atoms cool down, it will readily take up its more familiar form."

Doesn't that sound like something Sheldon might say on "The Big Bang Theory?"  I mean, if Sheldon were a really angry and delusional misogynist?

Anyway, Roosh moves on to prove his theory in singular Rooshian fashion by explaining how, after years of lauding Poland, he was dismayed to find the girls of Warsaw to be as wickedly self-involved as the girls of Toronto (and they are the worst, as you may recall).  Fortunately, a short train ride away from the capital took him back to the land of the sweetest, most feminine, and reliable women an armchair sex tourist could dream of.  Away from the corrupting influence of the big city, Polish women retain their more pleasing genetic qualities.  

Cuz the "container" (i.e., the city) "shapes" "the water." 

Got it?  Good.

This theory has been challenged in Romania, however. 

Even in Cluj, which Roosh describes as a second-tier city, "No girl in Cluj asked me to buy her a drink, but two girls yelled at me. One because I didn’t move from her “spot” in the bar and another for a trivial reason that I forgot as soon as her neck cocked back and forth while yelling at me like she was a black American girl. What caused them to get so angry at me when no girl in Bucharest or Iasi have [sic] even given me a sneer?"

I'm not sure, Roosh.  Maybe because in a small city club, you stuck out more as an outsider and an interloper?  Maybe because you wandered into a dyke bar by mistake?  Maybe because you believe believe "yelling" is something "black American girls" do?   There are so many possible reasons for a woman to yell at you, I can hardly begin to speculate.

Roosh finally concludes that the girls in Cluj enjoy such "a surplus of men from all over Europe" that they have been allowed to get away with being rude to strange men.  Because in Roosh's mind, all women should defer to their social betters (= men, especially Roosh).  Can't they recognize a returned king when they see one?

Then Roosh muses, "Would a girl display a single negative trait if it prevented her from finding a good man or living a comfortable life?"  (The short answer to that is: Yes! Yes, she would!)

 "Water takes the shape of the container it fills."

So you have (already) told us.

"I appeared on four separate Romanian TV channels, soaking in local fame, trying to get easy lays. I was recognized more times in the ensuing two months than I ever have in Washington DC. When a girl stared at me, I wasn’t sure why she was looking, but I hoped it was because she knew of me, and it would help get into her pants as in the fashion of American celebrity culture. Very early on I get a big surprise—girls who knew of me and my writing played some of the hardest, most lethal game I’ve seen in my life. One girl stood me up. Another was testing me to the point of frustration, as kind as I was to her. Another tried to put words in my mouth, serving up challenges when I wasn’t doing the same. And then I would meet a girl who did not know me, often in the same venue, and she would be the nicest girl in the world, not unlike my first experience in Poland. I have no doubt that the girls who acted bitchy to me would be sweet to the next guy that came along afterwards, suggesting there was a sort of switch that women could flick depending on the circumstance they found themselves in and the man they were meeting." 

I hate to say I told you so, but didn't I warn you that Romanian "celebrity" was going to be a double edged sword?   There you are on television, announcing to your hosts your intent to "game" the local women, and you're surprised that the women who recognize you decide to turn the table?  Why does it surprise you that women dislike being conned, manipulated, or "played" as much as men do?  

For ten years, Roosh has done everything he can do to Be A Somebody.  In the process, he has tossed away his education, his family, his cultural heritage, and his professional prospects.  He has squandered peak years, when he could have been building a meaningful career and emotionally intimate relationships, in order to bask in the admiration of adolescent boys (of various ages). It has got to burn.

As for that peculiar "switch" women have, that mystifying ability to go from "nice" to one fellow to "bitchy" to the next?  Hmm...  Is it possible they just don't like you, and the more they know about you (via all those TV appearances), the less they like you?

"Water takes the shape of the container it fills."

Yeah, yeah, enough with the water / container.

Roosh is bitter now, now that he realizes "Every woman on this planet, regardless of her education or background, [harbors an inner]  bitch, a cunt, a slut, a golddigger, a flake, a cheater, a backstabber, a narcissist, and an attention whore that is dying to get out and that, if certain conditions arise and she is placed in a certain container at a certain temperature, will thrust her worst upon you, and this, I’m afraid, is the true nature of women."  Furthermore, even the most angelic woman is hiding inner excrement; she is a dormant volcano waiting to unleash harm.

The solution Roosh offers to his fellow misogynists:  Society needs to start putting constraints, limitations, and shackles on women's unbridled freedom of behaviors and choices by force, through application of law or shaming.

Wait a minute!  Where have I heard all this before?

I give you Daryush "Roosh" Valizadeh: The PUA most likely to join the Taliban.


"Water takes the shape of the container it fills."

"Water takes the shape of the container it fills."
 
"Water takes the shape of the container it fills."

"Water takes the shape of the container it fills."

(No matter how often you repeat that, it still sounds lame.)

Whatever Happened To...?

Whatever happened to the Feminist Victim Fund that Roosh set up?  It's been over a month since any commented over there.  Have they reached their mark?  Did they even raise a dime?  Or did everyone lose interest, like, immediately?

I wanted to ask over at Manboobz but they were busy talking about real victims (of the tornado) and I didn't want to seem like a completely insensitive jerk.

Is Evil Crazy?

Yesterday on Manboobz, a new commenter was called out for dismissing MRAs as "crazy."  Her feelings got hurt, and she flounced off the board, which was a shame, because it could have been a great learning moment for her.  It certainly was for me.

For one reason, it reminded me of how pejorative the word "crazy" is, and I should know.  I recently "unfriended" an acquaintance who had commented on Facebook (and I paraphrase here) that I needed to get my head examined before I lost my medical insurance.  Yeah, it hurt my feelings.  And also, was that ever a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  

Suffice to say, I am hardly a paragon of mental health myself.  I struggle with chronic depression and anxiety, and sometimes my girlfriend warns me that I am "going off the deep end."  I have more than a touch of OCD, and have been medicated for panic attacks on occasion. Overall, however, given the genetic hand I was dealt, the circumstances I grew up in, and some of the god-awful choices I have made, I have managed pretty well so far.  But I digress...  

My point here is that I know firsthand that to disparage people who suffer from mental disorders is cruel and unfair.  I know that the vast majority of people with psychiatric diagnoses do not commit crimes and do not intentionally hurt other people.  I know that psychiatry cannot fully address the nature of "evil," nor is psychiatric treatment in itself a solution.

The kerfuffle at Manbooz yesterday, as well as a brief exchange with Zosimus the Heathen (see comments), also made me reflect on how the language we use not only expresses, but shapes, our thoughts.  It was one of my favorite discussion topics in graduate school.  Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, anyone?

Spiritually, I would have to describe myself as a skeptic.  While I enjoy attending church, and often derive sustenance from it, I am not a Believer.  I sometimes envy others their faith even as I soundly reject their attempts to instill it in me.  I don't have a personal conflict with this.  When it comes to religion, I have zero interest in converting anyone else to my point of view.  Indeed, I deeply love and respect a number of people (including My Most Beloved) who happen to find comfort and guidance in what I personally consider a lot of hooey.   

However, my lack of belief in supernatural causality does run me aground when it comes to the concept of "evil."  I have found myself labeling much of what I read in the manosphere as "evil."   And I think I need to look at this habit, which is a kind of intellectual "shortcut," a lot more carefully.  What do I mean when I call Roosh or JudgyBitch or Paul Elam "evil" people?

James Knoll, a psychiatrist, recently posted in Medscape:

What most of us label as evil is, in the final analysis, extreme selfishness.  When we lack a clear understanding of something that frightens us, we call it "evil," which temporarily allays our anxiety. Our nerves settled, we believe we have become clear about the nature of the problem, and then we may go about defending ourselves against the "other" we have just created. But this defensive posture may all too easily transition into a preemptive strike -- the result of projecting onto the "other" the aspects of our own psyches that we hate or fear the most.  That a killer considers his self-centered interests more important than your life is not due to some supernatural evil force; it is simply supremely egoistic...  [italics mine]

If anything keeps me kicking, it's the way life continues to remind me that I have so much yet to learn.

Not a Feminist, I Assume

Almost every manospherean writer claims that just because he/she is anti-feminist, that does not mean he/she is a misogynist.  Of course, the writer will then proceed to demonstrate his/her fear and hatred of women in the most fulsome manner.

A few months ago, right wing conspiracy theorist Pete Santilli, on behalf of American women, demanded an apology from Alex Jones for his "disgusting remarks" promoting rape.  But better not assume from this gallant gesture that Mr. Santilli himself is not a vicious misogynist.  
  
I read today that he has announced on the air that he wants to shoot Hillary Clinton in the "vagina."  One might think that her "head" or "heart" would be more lethal targets.  If it is agony, not immediate death, he wishes to inflict, why not her "stomach" or her "knees?"  He wants to shoot Bill Clinton and Barack Obama too, but does not specify that it is their "testicles" that should be blown off.

He chooses Clinton's vagina because this is the organ that represents the very essence of misogynistic loathing and longing.  Like Phil Spector, he wants to penetrate her with his phallic gun before he sends her into oblivion.  It's so fucking telling.  And it's so fucking chilling.  And I'm so fucking sick of reading and hearing about this kind of shit.  And now I've used up my entire f-word allowance for the day, damn it.

Roosh Can't Have My DFW!

One of my best friends is a former boyfriend I'll call "Max,"  if by "best" you mean the kind of friendship that doesn't require much maintenance.  In other words, Max and I will go for months without contact; then he'll suddenly swing through the front door unannounced, with a parcel of DVDs and CDs in his hand, demanding a drink and the next six hours of my time.

We're close enough friends that I served as the officiant at his wedding.   

Anyway, Max was a terrible boyfriend: a lazy, lying, mooching pothead (and I would say that to his face, and I often do).  He hasn't changed much, but somehow those qualities are more tolerable now that we are not romantically involved. 

Not that Max and I ever had a great romance, mind you, except insofar as I briefly wished it to be.  What Max and I shared was a common taste in music, and a mutual passion for one artist in particular.

Shortly after Max and I broke up, he learned I had played some songs by the same artist for another lover, and he was devastated by what he took to be the worst form of infidelity.  How could I squander something so intimate and significant on a roll in the hay?   Years later, he still brings it up: the betrayal of it.

You have to understand:  When Max turns you on to a singer or a band, to a movie or a book, he is giving you the very best part of himself.

I'm not as territorial as Max is, but I have the same tendency to guard what is precious aesthetically and emotionally.  That's why when Roosh twittered a reference to David Foster Wallace the other day, my hackles went up.  No!  No!  No!  You of all people cannot have my DFW!

 

Roosh ‏@rooshv 11 May

Truly great speech http://ow.ly/kP5ll  Too bad he didn't listen to his own advice

It was with some relief, then, that I noticed that Matt Forney had posted a link to a review by Vox Day of Wallace's Infinite Jest, in which he suggests Wallace killed himself because he realized he (Wallace, that is, not Vox Day) was a terrible writer. 

Much has been written about why Wallace hanged himself.  He had valiantly struggled with severe depression throughout his life.  The sudden epiphany he was a "terrible" writer was almost certainly not one of the reasons.  As always with the manosphere, I suspect that there is a certain amount of projection going on here.

I'll concede that Wallace is not an easy read, and certainly not everyone's cuppa, and Infinite Jest is a bit intimidating, partly because of its length, but also because Wallace is not afraid to make demands of the reader.  You have to give Wallace the wheel, so to speak, and then just hang on to your seat.  I don't know if I would have been willing to put in the effort if he hadn't already won me over with his hilarious anthologies of essays and short stories.  I recommend starting with "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again" (especially if you have ever been on a cruise).

Yes, Matt Forney et al., Wallace does use a lot of "big words."  Thank goodness for the dictionary in my nook.  Oddly enough, some of us wordsmiths actually relish the opportunity to expand our vocabularies.

It's so reassuring to see Matt Forney hates Jonathan Franzen too.

Sperm Jacking; or, Learn to Love Latex

Roosh has repeated categorically that he will not have children with an American woman, while in the next breath he glorifies "raw dogging" as many women as possible, including women he frankly detests.  A few months ago, I felt compelled to remind his impressionable young male readers that unprotected sex was likely to lead to unplanned fatherhood.  I figured Roosh would delete the comment;  in fact, that comment may have led to his blocking my IPO.

Back when I worked at an abortion clinic, I would sometimes ask young girls (15-16 year olds, typically) why they hadn't used contraception, and the answer was usually to the effect, "I didn't want a baby, so I didn't think I could get pregnant."  This kind of magical thinking is a part of the adolescent's natural egocentrism, of course, which often leads to lamentable consequences.  Some adolescents are exceedingly responsible about their behavior, but we can't expect that most will be, and it's not their "fault" when they're not.

By the time a person is in his early twenties, the prefrontal cortex has had a chance to develop and get connected with the rest of the brain.  That's why "21" is a reasonable age at which to grant legal adulthood.  Unfortunately, our pesky sexual impulses continue to override common sense for a long time to come.  It may take years of experience to understand that "something that feels so good" may not, in fact, "be so right."

The Misogynists talk a lot about "sperm jacking," whereby devious women trick unwitting men into impregnating them, thereby guaranteeing the mother the right to suck her victim dry of child support for the following eighteen years. Unlike most of the manosphere fodder, it's not a baseless fear.  It does happen.

Late last night, as I was leaving the athletic club I've recently joined, I was waylaid by a young fellow working the front desk.  (Part of becoming a fat old lady is that everyone under 30 now perceives me as a maternal figure, which is kind of touching but also kind of annoying.)

While I was trying to browse the pool schedule, the kid launched into a story about his personal travails with his "baby mama."  In the span of twenty minutes I learned all this:  He had once been a happy chap with a promising career as a Red Bull sales representative. Apparently Red Bull has aphrodisiac qualities I was hitherto unaware of:  Every day, flocks of pretty girls laid siege to his cart, demanding free samples.  To his surprise (and mine), there are Red Bull groupies.  As a result, the poor guy had more pussy than he knew what to do with.  And all of this went to his head (and nether regions).

One lass came back for more than the Red Bull.  She told him she was a 22 year old university student on the pill; as it turned out, she was an 18 year old high school dropout who had decided to have a baby.  Six weeks later, he learned he was going to be a father.  And that's when the nightmare began.  Because allowing for hyperbole, even if only half of what he related to me was true, she (and her parents) sounded like absolutely terrible people.

The kid didn't want this pregnancy and he wasn't consulted, but he was willing to "man up" and take responsibility.  Over the past two years, his efforts to establish a relationship with the child have been thwarted, yet he has grown emotionally attached to the child, and would like to be a good parent.  He and his parents have already poured $18,000 into the legal system in an effort to gain more access.

He was practically in tears last night because he had just learned his son had been taken to the ER with a dislocated elbow.  My eyebrows shot up:  How did that happen?  Well, the child had been trying to play with his mom's laptop, so mom had picked him up by one arm and swung him away from it. "Poor little guy!" the young man fretted.  "I hope you're documenting everything," I said.

I also said, "I hope things get better.  Don't give up.  Your son needs you in his life."  I was trying to say all the right things, but what I really wanted was to quit listening to this saga.  It was harshing my post-workout mellow.  I also resented hearing this kind of story right now; when I am so furious with the MRM, the last thing I want to entertain is the notion that men do have some legitimate grievances, and Father's Rights are definitely an area where changes are called for.

Obviously, forcing anyone into parenthood is unethical, to say the least.  As a woman, I know that being pregnant against one's will is like being pushed on to a train you can't get off of.  Desperate women will risk death to jump off that train.  Knowing this as I do, how can I not feel some measure of sympathy for guys secretly giving their pregnant girlfriends abortifacients?  It is unfair.

Biology is unfair in general.  The legal system is sometimes unfair to men.  It sucks, but that's the way it is. Meanwhile, as Annie Sprinkle says, "Learn to love latex!"

The (Literal) War Between the Sexes

I was idly browsing the comments in Roosh V today.  It was the familiar topic of how poorly the charms of American women compare to those of Eastern European women.   Ho-hum.  Roosh is doing a lot of recycling these days.  The fans themselves seemed a bit weary of the subject, like they were just going through the motions.  

However, one young man (I assume) did write something that stuck in my head all afternoon, to the effect (and I paraphrase here) that he really wished American women would get with the program, figure out how much they were hated, and start making themselves more pleasing "before civil war breaks out."  

Now it's not uncommon for these guys to propose, uhm, forceful means to resolve their frustration, i.e., a Spearhead post not long ago calling for the sexual enslavement of single mothers, or gathering up all the fat girls into forced labor camps to work off those unsightly extra pounds, or that poor Incel guy who wants "the government" to require pay women to go out with him.  I suppose forcefully imposing their collective will on more than half the population doesn't seem that far out to them (as long as they don't factor in all those beta and omega men who would surely balk at seeing their female relatives, friends and colleagues carted off).   

Roosh himself has hinted rather darkly that "things" were reaching some sort of tipping point; that "things" were going to get "uglier" in the near future.

Actually, I've run across a lot of similarly ominous warnings from the online misogynists.  The following is plucked from The Spearhead in January 2010:  "May your words provoke a reaction.  I grow impatient for the coming war." 

And then I was introduced by No More Mr. Nice Guy to Eivind Berge's blog, wherein he declares "Feminism versus MRA is an irreconcilable difference that can only be resolved by violence."   

Berge was recently charged with inciting violence by Norwegian authorities, but the charges have been dropped.  In the process, however, his sanity was brought into question by nearly everyone he knew, an understandably harrowing experience that he describes in Kafkaesque detail -- but which leaves this reader pretty much convinced he is indeed one crazy barrel of lutefisk possibly brilliant but definitely disturbed individual.  

This ordeal, and the resulting sense of betrayal from Berge's point of view, led him to "repudiate" his own family, a familiar theme with other MRAs.  Sooner or later, their misogyny drives everyone away, and destroys all intimacy... they get increasingly isolated... their mental disorders get worse and more entrenched...

I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry, or buy myself a shotgun.  Where are these gathering storm clouds but in their own fevered imaginations?  And what would this final showdown look like?  I mean, where would the battle lines be drawn and what would their tactics be?  And what would the final outcome be?  It sounds like the premise of a really awful sci-fi movie.  Or a video game perhaps?

Although I'd like to dismiss all this as adolescent bluster and blowing off steam, I'll admit this kind of talk makes me uneasy, and I hope that the SPLC continues to monitor these websites carefully.  

Update:  I read today that radio host Pete Santilli announced on the air, "I want to shoot Hilary Clinton in the vagina."  

Being Outrageous

If anything characterizes The Way We Live Now, it is the cult of celebrity.  It seems like almost everyone wants to be famous.  We crave recognition so badly that many of us don't care what it takes: better notoriety than anonymity.  And because we live in a day of unparallelled opportunities to self-publish and self-promote, people often have to scream to be heard above the din of competing sources of input.  One way to stand out above the fray is to be Outrageous.  

One recent commenter on Manboobz alluded to this as a way of explaining the "manosphere."   For the most part, it's an internet phenomenon, which has linked various and numerous unhappy and disenfranchised white men.  Unable to form a coherent platform, they have united behind a common enemy, which they call "feminism" but which really is femininity in general (including, as we have recently seen, female children and transsexual women).  Much has already been written about this elsewhere, and much more eloquently than I could.

 Members of the manosphere post, for the most part, anonymously.  They have to, because to openly espouse the views they claim to hold would be to commit social and professional suicide.  

A handful of leaders do identify themselves (Roosh V aka Daryush Valizadeh, Paul Elam, Matt Forney aka Ferdinand Bardemu), and a few have had their true identities made known against their will (Roissy "Heartiste" and the guy who went by "violentacrez").  Of course, any semblance of a "normal" life is over for them: they are now officially and irrevocably married to their online personae.  In some ways, they have paid the ultimate price for their narcissism (or "martyrdom" as their acolytes might frame it).   

Yet in order to maintain readership, they must keep producing more of what their readers want, which is ever more outrageous material.  The "outrage" comes from the overtly hateful nature of their ideas, the hateful expression of these ideas, and sometimes from a potent and disturbing stew of fantasy, entitlement, resentment, and violent retribution.  In other words: hate porn.

Then there are people like JudgyBitch, who is torn between the demands of her compulsive exhibitionism and the need to protect her personal life.  From what I have seen, exhibitionism usually trumps prudence in these cases.  Hence, she uses pseudonyms, but "vlogs" on YouTube; being recognized and outed is but a matter of months.  And that is not a threat, since I have neither the means nor the interest in doxing her.  It is simply a prediction and perhaps a warning.  We may enjoy the anonymity of the internet, but we are foolish indeed if we think that it is guaranteed.

Personally, I'm not sure the threat of exposure is an entirely bad thing.  Perhaps it's a reflection of my age, but I don't hold anonymity to be sacrosanct.  The internet is not the confessional.  A blog is is not your analyst's couch.  Writing about, or for, other people affects them. Words can be as influential and powerful as actions, and they should be treated as such.  People should be held accountable for what they say.  Free speech is not free of consequences.

Right now the Internet is The Wild West and anything goes, so naturally it is a fertile ground for the worst of people and the worst kinds of people, but in time I am confident we will develop some respect for its power; we will demand and adopt standards of behavior and responsibility.  Meanwhile, we are left with vigilante groups like Anonymous, which is perhaps better -- or perhaps worse -- than no moral order whatsoever.

At the same time -- and getting back to the title of this post -- I do understand the merciless thirst for recognition, and how blogging plays to that.  That's because I understand The Quest for Immortality and The Denial of Death.  What's more human and existentially poignant than to counter the inevitability of death by howling in protest?  Of course, ranting and raging avails us little -- often makes everything worse in fact -- but it makes us feel powerful, and distracts us from the unbearable knowledge that all of this -- and all of us -- will be dust in a hundred years.   

As one hostile commenter unkindly and needlessly pointed out, I have a very "obscure" blog.  Indeed, I'm thrilled if five people look at it a day.  I'm pleasantly puzzled by the number of visitors I do get. I'm not trying to make a name for myself here, much less a profit. I'm just practicing my writing skills, and I find it more motivating to write for an audience (even if it's only an imaginary, potential audience).  

Like Hansel and Gretl, I've littered my blog with so many crumbs that it would be fairly easy to figure out who I am, if anyone cared (and I am very, very sure that no one does).  And not that it matters because it really, really doesn't, in part because I am not only old, but also (like my heroine Jane Eyre) plain and poor and obscure and have no family or reputation to protect.  Also, when I write critically about the New Misogynists, I only write what I would say to their faces, given the opportunity.  I would be happy to meet with Roosh V or Janet Bloomfield in person and tell them what I think. Hell, I'd buy the first round!

However, a few years ago, I had a very different blog.  It was a kind of confessional, recounting with humor and some salacious detail a year spent pursuing casual encounters on craigslist.  (Frankly, I was more than a little inspired by A Round Heeled Woman by Jane Juska.)  Well, as you know, Sex Sells, even sexual escapades as weird and pathetic as I was often describing in my crazy little blog.  

As my readership took off, I found that more and more I was living my life in service to my blog.  Consequently, I was engaging in behaviors that were increasingly humiliating and risky (both to my physical and emotional well being) just to have something to regale "my readers" with over their morning coffee.  It got a little out of hand.  Sometimes I said and did things I didn't really believe in or feel good about, just for the "copy."  Inevitably, I got more than a little burned out.  And, as fun as it was to shock and delight a lot of random strangers in cyberspace, I had to let it go.  (Also, I happened to meet someone I loved, thereby putting the final kabosh on pursuing or reporting what I might call "My Slutty, SluttyYear.") 

This experience gives me a little personal insight into -- and real sympathy for -- why and how a phenomenon like JudgyBitch is born.  I imagine she's been bored and flailing about for something beyond family responsibilities to give her life meaning and purpose.  Maybe she's always been the kind of gal with plenty of outrageous opinions, the kinds of opinions that are offered more for shock value than real insight ("the life of the party" so to speak), and now she's found a way to get a lot more attention for them.  The validation comes from making people gasp (Oh no she didn't!) rather than making them reflect or engage in honest debate.  She's found a forum where she is made to feel exceptional ("A woman in a man's world") and is accorded special recognition and privilege as such.  As she is egged on, she goes farther and farther out on the limb, she exposes more and more, her position becomes more and more tenuous, she seems more and more deluded...  But that attention!  That masculine attention!  It is as addictive as crack, and she just can't stop.

Dinosaurs

In response to my comment that the only way I can cope with the MRA/PUA crowd is to remind myself that they are merely dinosaurs bellowing piteously as they lurch into oblivion, a clever blogger who also comments on Manboobz posted a link to the "Extinction" scene in Disney's "Fantasia." 

As I watched it, I realized that I'd seen this before, and that the visual image I was describing had been formed and implanted in my brain while watching "Fantasia" as a child  fifty years ago.  

I find myself muttering "Dinosaurs!" a lot these days, and usually in reference to people more or less my own age -- which is not so very old, mind you -- who can't or won't grasp that the greater social environment has changed, and however much they moan and roar, it's not ever going back to accommodate them.  I cannot remember the exact quote, but something like "shuffling backwards into the future" comes to mind.

And I ought to know.  Every day, I'm painfully aware of my increasing obsolescence.  It hasn't been a smooth, gradual decline either:  within the last decade, I went from being at the top of my game (whatever game you can think of) to playing bingo with a hearing aid in the back of a church basement (figuratively).

The bitch of it is, I know how tiresome I am being whenever I launch into a story about the ways things were -- I can see it in my students' and younger colleagues' eyes -- yet I cannot stop myself.  I want them to know.  I have something important to share here: the ways things are compared to the way things were.  I was there!  I know!

It doesn't matter what the topic is:  abortion, feminism, Islam, neighborhoods, technology.  Whatever, I must dive in and insert my historical perspective.  Because that is all I have to offer now.  And I cannot bear to be completely silenced, not yet. 

Women Who Hate Women

Ann Coulter, watch out:  there's a new anti-feminist female provocateur emerging, and she's just as blonde, skinny, and outrageously mean-spirited as you are!  PLUS she's younger and -- dare I say it? -- even prettier.  Yes, Mirror, mirror on the wall:  it's JudgyBitch (catchy moniker!) AKA "Janet Bloomfield."  She's a self-described stay at home mom, reported to be from Canada, with an undergraduate degree in film theory.  She is affectionately referred to as "Drunky" on another anti-MRA blog because she is rumored to enjoy her booze.  Allegedly.  And God knows I'd be the last person in the world to condemn her for that!  However, if alcohol is behind this brand of vitriol, she might want to reconsider blogging-while-drinking, cuz this lady is one mean drunk.

I will admit that one of my guiltiest pleasures is indulging my morbid fascination with really evil women.  Male serial killers, architects of doom, and genocidal maniacs are a dime a dozen, but when a woman is truly horrible, she gets my attention.  Hence my addiction to Deadly Women, or any stories about the likes of Myra Hindley, Elisabeth Bathory, and, most recently, Jodi Arias.  Make of this predilection what you will -- I cannot defend it -- but clearly I'm not alone.  

Of course, women don't have to be practicing Black Widows to fascinate me.  They only have to think like sociopaths.  

I just spent an hour on one of Janet Bloomfield's blogs and I was impressed.  There aren't many women out there with the balls to claim prepubescent girls "ask" to be molested in exchange for candy, cigarettes, or limo rides.  In fact, Bloomfield has a lot to say about so-called rape and the women who invent it, but it boils down to her conviction that rape is a "fantasy" concocted by women too fat and unattractive to get real men to fuck them.  Nice, huh?  Bloomfield writes for A Voice For Men (presumably, in between mothering her three children, proudly crafting her husband sandwiches, and pouring herself just a little more chardonnay malbec). 

To get the full flavor of Janet "JudgyBitch" Bloomfield, you have to watch her Youtube channel; every narcissist has one these days.  The smug expression, the professionally cut and streaked blonde bob, the odd vocal affectations all scream a carefully crafted facade of upper middle class white privilege, and so enhance the appeal of her misogynistic rants immeasurably. 

OK, it's easy for me to understand why someone can "judge" members of a perceived inferior class -- morally reprehensible, but it follows a kind of self-serving logic -- but to turn on one's own class is a very curious phenomenon to me.  What does a woman gain by allying herself with her oppressor?  Does she believe, on some level, that by disavowing her own vulnerability as a female (and the mother of females)  and taking on the perpetrators' point of view, she wins special entitlements and protection?  Is this some variation of Stockholm Syndrome?  Armchair psychiatrists want to know!

And how does the adolescent daughter of such a woman react when the kids at school mention they watched her mom on the internet?  How do the other mothers feel about JudgyBitch as a mother and potential role model for their own daughters?   

Now I don't know if Janet Bloomfield is a pseudonym as she claims it is, but when a person posts videos on YouTube, doing everything  she can to garner a sliver of attention from the boys, she is bound to be recognized by someone, sooner than later.  And although she claims no fear of reprisals (from her husband's employer, from the college where maybe she will get a Ph.D. some day), I can predict with grim certainty that the wildly irresponsible claims and downright evil ideas she has posted about rape and pedophilia will not be easy to sweep away.

Oh, that's right:  JudgyBitch doesn't give a shit what other people think of her (unless it's Paul Elam, perhaps).  She's like the Courtney Love of the manosphere!   Now where'd I put that corkscrew?