If you missed Bill Moyers' interview with Julia Angwin, the author of Dragnet Nation, it's well worth watching. The worst news? It's pretty much impossible to "opt out."
Friday, March 14, 2014
What American Women Watch On Netflix
So over on Return of Kings, a fellow who goes by the commanding handle "General Stalin" posits that a gentleman can know a lot about a lady by her Netflix queue.
That's probably true, and the same goes for a person's library record. Every time I pass the pleasant young man at my local library's circulation desk, I have to avert my eyes because he knows more about me than my doctor does.
Anyway, General Stalin claims to have a unique insight into the psychology of American women because a girl he "casually dated" left her Netflix password on his laptop. Not only did he get to enjoy months of free streaming, he knew exactly what his ex and her roomies were watching (and presumably thinking).
That General Stalin is one nosy dude! Not to mention cheap. And it occurs to me that confessing to this seems oddly more embarrassing than once failing to return a library book, but I digress... Truth be told, I would have been sorely tempted to behave in a similarly dubious fashion, especially if I had some "unfinished business" with the ex.
The General summarizes his findings as follows:
First, young American women watch a lot of "sexually deviant movies and documentaries." The General was dismayed to find that "a small group of average white single American girls, who grew up in nice neighborhoods with good families, cared far more about sex than romance. I hardly ever saw a romantic comedy or critically acclaimed tear-jerker on there."
I'm not a young woman, but even when I was I generally loathed romantic comedies and treacly melodramas (with a few notable exceptions). But I did, and still do, treat myself to the occasional kinky documentary. Ever since my ten year old psyche was permanently scarred by "Mondo Cane," I've had a predilection for viewing the bizarre margins of human behavior. I have watched more than one documentary about "sex dolls", for example, a phenomenon I find morbidly fascinating.
Second in popularity, according to General Stalin's informal survey, were independent movies with "strong female leads" especially those that featured women overcoming perilous situations, like "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo." This makes perfect sense to me. People (not just women) enjoy watching characters they can identify with who use their wits and fortitude to triumph over evil. From this, the General concludes that "single women want to be fucked raw and treated like filth by bad-boy miscreants, but they also want to make these men suffer for not showing them respect and honoring their strength and independence." WTF? I would come to the opposite conclusion. Both men and women love watching horror and suspense for a number of reasons, but the desire to actually be a real victim (or perpetrator) is not one of them.
I've already confessed that horror and true crime are my guilty pleasures. My Netflix queue is jammed with unwatched "Disappeared" and "Deadly Women" episodes. Ann Rule books are my "go to" trashy reading. I scare the bejeezus out of myself for an hour, then turn on the lights and realize how safe and cozy my life actually is, have a hot cup of cocoa and sleep like a baby. Sadly, my partner does not share my passion, so I have to indulge myself when she is not around.
Finally, the girls whose Netflix viewing he was obsessively monitoring had a taste, broadly shared by the American public, for "Reality TV."
OK, I agree with General Stalin, that is just plain indefensible. I'm proud to say that I never watch Reality TV shows. Except for the ones about plucky dwarfs and adorable polygamists.
BTW, why can these guys never discuss American women's media tastes without referencing Sex and the City, a show that has been off the air for a decade? It's beginning to seem like a kind of tic.
General Stalin describes himself as "a passionate but misanthropic cynic who is tired and beaten down by the shortcomings of Western civilization, currently living a life of quiet desperation." I feel his pain.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm right in the middle of "Blue is the Warmest Color,"and I'm just getting to the "good parts" if you know what I mean (and I know that you do).
That's probably true, and the same goes for a person's library record. Every time I pass the pleasant young man at my local library's circulation desk, I have to avert my eyes because he knows more about me than my doctor does.
Anyway, General Stalin claims to have a unique insight into the psychology of American women because a girl he "casually dated" left her Netflix password on his laptop. Not only did he get to enjoy months of free streaming, he knew exactly what his ex and her roomies were watching (and presumably thinking).
That General Stalin is one nosy dude! Not to mention cheap. And it occurs to me that confessing to this seems oddly more embarrassing than once failing to return a library book, but I digress... Truth be told, I would have been sorely tempted to behave in a similarly dubious fashion, especially if I had some "unfinished business" with the ex.
The General summarizes his findings as follows:
First, young American women watch a lot of "sexually deviant movies and documentaries." The General was dismayed to find that "a small group of average white single American girls, who grew up in nice neighborhoods with good families, cared far more about sex than romance. I hardly ever saw a romantic comedy or critically acclaimed tear-jerker on there."
I'm not a young woman, but even when I was I generally loathed romantic comedies and treacly melodramas (with a few notable exceptions). But I did, and still do, treat myself to the occasional kinky documentary. Ever since my ten year old psyche was permanently scarred by "Mondo Cane," I've had a predilection for viewing the bizarre margins of human behavior. I have watched more than one documentary about "sex dolls", for example, a phenomenon I find morbidly fascinating.
Second in popularity, according to General Stalin's informal survey, were independent movies with "strong female leads" especially those that featured women overcoming perilous situations, like "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo." This makes perfect sense to me. People (not just women) enjoy watching characters they can identify with who use their wits and fortitude to triumph over evil. From this, the General concludes that "single women want to be fucked raw and treated like filth by bad-boy miscreants, but they also want to make these men suffer for not showing them respect and honoring their strength and independence." WTF? I would come to the opposite conclusion. Both men and women love watching horror and suspense for a number of reasons, but the desire to actually be a real victim (or perpetrator) is not one of them.
I've already confessed that horror and true crime are my guilty pleasures. My Netflix queue is jammed with unwatched "Disappeared" and "Deadly Women" episodes. Ann Rule books are my "go to" trashy reading. I scare the bejeezus out of myself for an hour, then turn on the lights and realize how safe and cozy my life actually is, have a hot cup of cocoa and sleep like a baby. Sadly, my partner does not share my passion, so I have to indulge myself when she is not around.
Finally, the girls whose Netflix viewing he was obsessively monitoring had a taste, broadly shared by the American public, for "Reality TV."
OK, I agree with General Stalin, that is just plain indefensible. I'm proud to say that I never watch Reality TV shows. Except for the ones about plucky dwarfs and adorable polygamists.
BTW, why can these guys never discuss American women's media tastes without referencing Sex and the City, a show that has been off the air for a decade? It's beginning to seem like a kind of tic.
General Stalin describes himself as "a passionate but misanthropic cynic who is tired and beaten down by the shortcomings of Western civilization, currently living a life of quiet desperation." I feel his pain.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm right in the middle of "Blue is the Warmest Color,"and I'm just getting to the "good parts" if you know what I mean (and I know that you do).
Now This Is Scary
 |
| Looks like A Nice Guy, doesn't he? |
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Too Funny Not to Share
If you haven't seen the new website of "Femgoddess" Desiree Meyers-Liebowitz, it isn't for her lack of self-promotion on twitter. She only has one post up so far, but it's designed to create quite a stir in the PUA community: "The Five Ugliest Pickup Artists". It's a much funnier (and much meaner) riposte to the Return of Kings post that started me on my own road to ruin over a year ago.
My initial question was, Who exactly is Desiree sending up? Because she seems to be making as much fun of the "fat acceptance movement" and the "BBW" scene as she is of the New Misogynists. In other words, I was pretty skeptical that Desiree Meyers-Liebowitz was the unapologetic cuckolding feminist fatty that she claimed to be.
I had no idea who the creator could be of (what I initially assumed was) this brilliant caricature, or even his/her gender. For if "The Five Ugliest Pickup Artists" she eviscerates in her post represent the average woman's worst nightmare, Desiree's online persona is custom-built to be the average manospherean's fever dream of what a "feminist" is: A "gender studies" major, she has scored herself a "beta" lawyer husband "Harold" who, when not busying himself in the kitchen, is rubbing her feet and, indeed, embracing every inch of her gloriously wanton, gluttonous self, while she lolls on the couch stuffing herself with cheetos and entertaining a stream of eager swains.
Then I did a little "research" (that is, idlestalking googling) and I learned that Desiree has been lurking in the manosphere for years, even posting on Il Douche's Forum in 2012 (back before he decreed that vaginas defiled the Inner Sanctum*). So it appears that she has either been "trolling" these guys for quite a while, or else Desiree Meyers Liebowitz really is "for real."
It doesn't matter either way, I guess. My only question for Desiree at this point is, What took you so long? And what will you post next?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* And before he thought to explicitly exclude "homos" or even ban his own members if they stooped to respond to a female commenter who had somehow slipped through security. Are there no lengths to which this freak won't go to maintain "ritual purity?"
My initial question was, Who exactly is Desiree sending up? Because she seems to be making as much fun of the "fat acceptance movement" and the "BBW" scene as she is of the New Misogynists. In other words, I was pretty skeptical that Desiree Meyers-Liebowitz was the unapologetic cuckolding feminist fatty that she claimed to be.
I had no idea who the creator could be of (what I initially assumed was) this brilliant caricature, or even his/her gender. For if "The Five Ugliest Pickup Artists" she eviscerates in her post represent the average woman's worst nightmare, Desiree's online persona is custom-built to be the average manospherean's fever dream of what a "feminist" is: A "gender studies" major, she has scored herself a "beta" lawyer husband "Harold" who, when not busying himself in the kitchen, is rubbing her feet and, indeed, embracing every inch of her gloriously wanton, gluttonous self, while she lolls on the couch stuffing herself with cheetos and entertaining a stream of eager swains.
Then I did a little "research" (that is, idle
It doesn't matter either way, I guess. My only question for Desiree at this point is, What took you so long? And what will you post next?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* And before he thought to explicitly exclude "homos" or even ban his own members if they stooped to respond to a female commenter who had somehow slipped through security. Are there no lengths to which this freak won't go to maintain "ritual purity?"
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Is This the Worst Relationship Advice Ever?
A couple of weeks ago, our favorite "Game Master" challenged his readers, "Are You The Player Or Are You Getting Played?"
There are only two roles that can exist in any male-female relationship:
(This post seems deliciously ironic in light of the fact that it was quickly followed by the writer and his co-conspirator Tuthmosis "playing" the entire Roosh V and Return of Kings readership, as though to drive home the point in the most humiliating manner that this "zero-sum game" is not confined to sexual relationships.)
The man who is "a winner" gets to establish all terms, chief among them "the frequency and depravity of sex," the opportunity to "degrade her in bed to your satisfaction."
Wow. Let's just get past this unfortunate choice of words -- this is Roosh, after all -- and concede (for the 100th time) that this is a person who not only hates women, but really hates the sexual act itself. For how can one person "degrade" another without degrading himself? How morally bankrupt and perverse is a person who perceives the act of sex as an opportunity to "degrade" another human being?
"There is no other role that you can fill. There is no 50/50."
In fact, I have seen (though thankfully few) relationships in which the individuals involved DID take turns exploiting and humiliating each other tit for tat. But I didn't get the impression either party was enjoying himself/herself much.
A relationship in which one party pulls all the strings all the time is going to get tedious even for (indeed, especially for) the one in charge. That's why it strikes me that doms have a much harder "job" than subs do. That's why there is always a bigger market for "tops" than "bottoms."
"Remember that time when you started off as the player, but then you got played in the end? I know why that happened. It’s because you stopped giving her the game that got her in bed in the first place."
Now here Roosh actually touches on something that I can recognize as a kind of truth: To keep the other's interest, especially in the early stages of a relationship, one must remain a little at bay. It is human nature that we don't value what is too easily obtained. Courtship is a series of small tests; it is a dance in which one partner steps forward, the other back (and reverse). And even later, if and when commitment and trust are established, the roles of "giver" vs. "receiver" tend to fluctuate. Among many contented couples I have seen, one partner is always more "in love" than the other, and that works well too -- so long as the power balance is not too lop-sided. 50/50? Probably not realistic. 20/80? Not uncommon at all.
I also think Roosh has a point when he claims women dislike "needy" men who force them to run the show. My impression is that passivity and "instant attachment" are, indeed, huge turn-offs to most (although not all) women. Whether this reflects an intrinsic quality in women's natures, I don't know, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility. My personal observation is that, while it is true that "neediness" in a man is more of a turn-off to women than the other way 'round, it doesn't follow that most men are looking for a "sex-bot" in the flesh, either.
To keep the spark alive, both parties must be stimulated by a sense that they do not possess "all" of their partner. And whether male, female, or other, people in a coupled relationship need to work to maintain their individuality and "personhood" for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is pragmatic. Relationships never last forever. Unless both parties perish simultaneously in a fiery crash, one is likely to predecease the other. If the survivor has completely given himself away, built his or her life entirely around another, what will be left to sustain him? Another reason is that a relationship without any tension or conflict whatsoever is about as exciting and as "sexy" as a tepid bath. Predictability is the death of romance, and what could be more numbingly predictable than a relationship in which one person calls all the shots all the time?
What frustrates me about someone like Roosh giving relationship advice to young men is that he is someone who has never been in an intimate relationship himself (sorry, one night stands just don't count). It's even worse than celibate priests acting as marriage counselors, because Roosh actually hates women. (And while the Catholic Church as an institution treats women badly, I don't assume its individual clergy do.) It's like taking financial advice from a person who (looks like he) lives in a trailer park.
And if there's one thing I'm pretty sure about after examining the readership of these self-appointed authorities is that most of them really do want relationships. Of course, if you're a lonely, horny 17 year old, a casual "bang" (or even a series of them) sounds great, but I expect their dreams are a little bigger and better than that: They want beautiful girlfriends who understand them and want to have sex with them because they love them for who they are.
Isn't that what everyone wants?
I really hate to see impressionable minds prematurely embittered by cynical advice like this because their dreams are not impossible or permanently out of reach -- although following "game" theory is the worst way to achieve them.
There are only two roles that can exist in any male-female relationship:
- The player
- The person who gets played
(This post seems deliciously ironic in light of the fact that it was quickly followed by the writer and his co-conspirator Tuthmosis "playing" the entire Roosh V and Return of Kings readership, as though to drive home the point in the most humiliating manner that this "zero-sum game" is not confined to sexual relationships.)
The man who is "a winner" gets to establish all terms, chief among them "the frequency and depravity of sex," the opportunity to "degrade her in bed to your satisfaction."
Wow. Let's just get past this unfortunate choice of words -- this is Roosh, after all -- and concede (for the 100th time) that this is a person who not only hates women, but really hates the sexual act itself. For how can one person "degrade" another without degrading himself? How morally bankrupt and perverse is a person who perceives the act of sex as an opportunity to "degrade" another human being?
"There is no other role that you can fill. There is no 50/50."
In fact, I have seen (though thankfully few) relationships in which the individuals involved DID take turns exploiting and humiliating each other tit for tat. But I didn't get the impression either party was enjoying himself/herself much.
A relationship in which one party pulls all the strings all the time is going to get tedious even for (indeed, especially for) the one in charge. That's why it strikes me that doms have a much harder "job" than subs do. That's why there is always a bigger market for "tops" than "bottoms."
"Remember that time when you started off as the player, but then you got played in the end? I know why that happened. It’s because you stopped giving her the game that got her in bed in the first place."
Now here Roosh actually touches on something that I can recognize as a kind of truth: To keep the other's interest, especially in the early stages of a relationship, one must remain a little at bay. It is human nature that we don't value what is too easily obtained. Courtship is a series of small tests; it is a dance in which one partner steps forward, the other back (and reverse). And even later, if and when commitment and trust are established, the roles of "giver" vs. "receiver" tend to fluctuate. Among many contented couples I have seen, one partner is always more "in love" than the other, and that works well too -- so long as the power balance is not too lop-sided. 50/50? Probably not realistic. 20/80? Not uncommon at all.
I also think Roosh has a point when he claims women dislike "needy" men who force them to run the show. My impression is that passivity and "instant attachment" are, indeed, huge turn-offs to most (although not all) women. Whether this reflects an intrinsic quality in women's natures, I don't know, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility. My personal observation is that, while it is true that "neediness" in a man is more of a turn-off to women than the other way 'round, it doesn't follow that most men are looking for a "sex-bot" in the flesh, either.
To keep the spark alive, both parties must be stimulated by a sense that they do not possess "all" of their partner. And whether male, female, or other, people in a coupled relationship need to work to maintain their individuality and "personhood" for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is pragmatic. Relationships never last forever. Unless both parties perish simultaneously in a fiery crash, one is likely to predecease the other. If the survivor has completely given himself away, built his or her life entirely around another, what will be left to sustain him? Another reason is that a relationship without any tension or conflict whatsoever is about as exciting and as "sexy" as a tepid bath. Predictability is the death of romance, and what could be more numbingly predictable than a relationship in which one person calls all the shots all the time?
What frustrates me about someone like Roosh giving relationship advice to young men is that he is someone who has never been in an intimate relationship himself (sorry, one night stands just don't count). It's even worse than celibate priests acting as marriage counselors, because Roosh actually hates women. (And while the Catholic Church as an institution treats women badly, I don't assume its individual clergy do.) It's like taking financial advice from a person who (looks like he) lives in a trailer park.
And if there's one thing I'm pretty sure about after examining the readership of these self-appointed authorities is that most of them really do want relationships. Of course, if you're a lonely, horny 17 year old, a casual "bang" (or even a series of them) sounds great, but I expect their dreams are a little bigger and better than that: They want beautiful girlfriends who understand them and want to have sex with them because they love them for who they are.
Isn't that what everyone wants?
I really hate to see impressionable minds prematurely embittered by cynical advice like this because their dreams are not impossible or permanently out of reach -- although following "game" theory is the worst way to achieve them.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Candy Darling, Born Too Soon?
I have always adored Candy Darling, one of Andy Warhol's
"superstars" of the sixties. While she was enjoying her 15 minutes of fame, I was in middle school, too
young to see her movies, but I recall her face on the movie posters and in the Vogue spreads, and thought she was the
absolute pinnacle of feminine glamor. I don't think I realized she was transsexual at the time; I don't think I knew what a transsexual was back then.
What really impresses me now is how a chronically broke, homeless transsexual (back in
the days when cross-dressing was a crime), who slept on couches and
subsisted on party leftovers and speed, could always look so... perfect? What also really impresses me now is what a dry wit she had. She is the funniest (and best) element of any of those old Warhol movies, especially Women in Revolt, which was meant to be satire of the burgeoning women's liberation movement (but which doesn't seem so satirical to me now).
Candy Darling was born and raised a beautiful "boy" on Long Island, and she turned herself into Kim Novak. In fact, she outdid Kim Novak. She was the inspiration for two Lou Reed songs, and her iconic death bed photo (she died of lymphoma, age 29) has adorned many a wall and record cover.
 |
| That wasn't just role playing: She really was dying. |
A documentary about her life, Beautiful Darling, made by her best friend Jeremiah Newton in 2010, is now available on DVD. Obviously a labor of love, it left me with a lot of unanswered questions, and a hunger to know (and see) more. Sadly, it is likely to be the last word on the unfulfilled promise of her brief life.
Femitheist Divine Lives On!
A couple of years ago Paul Elam posted rather hysterically about the suicide of a "radical feminist" who had been advocating, among other drastic measures, the castration of men and the worship of the feminine principle, apparently never pausing to consider that her series of Youtube videos might be a blatant and fairly elaborate hoax.
It's been a couple of years since she was doxxed and then "faked her own suicide", but Femitheist Divine is still producing Youtube videos and until quite recently, was still engaging with MRAs. And she is still the "feminist" a lot of gullable manosphereans love to hate.
She was very young when she started to troll the Young Misogynists, BTW -- well under 21 at the time. I'm not sure if her relative youth says more about her precocity or the dearth of creative outlets available to teenagers in rural Arkansas.
Many of the manospheans have finally figured out they are being royally pranked by this naughty Southern Belle, but they're still pissed off. They know that the world is divided into two groups, The Players and The Played, and, as the last kerfuffle on Return of Kings demonstrates, they don't like finding themselves in the latter category -- no, not one little bit!
I've only watched bits and pieces of her oeuvre, but my own distinct impression is that Femitheiste Divine is neither "evil" nor "mentally ill" and that she still finds that making fun of the boys of the manosphere can be pretty diverting.
It's been a couple of years since she was doxxed and then "faked her own suicide", but Femitheist Divine is still producing Youtube videos and until quite recently, was still engaging with MRAs. And she is still the "feminist" a lot of gullable manosphereans love to hate.
She was very young when she started to troll the Young Misogynists, BTW -- well under 21 at the time. I'm not sure if her relative youth says more about her precocity or the dearth of creative outlets available to teenagers in rural Arkansas.
Many of the manospheans have finally figured out they are being royally pranked by this naughty Southern Belle, but they're still pissed off. They know that the world is divided into two groups, The Players and The Played, and, as the last kerfuffle on Return of Kings demonstrates, they don't like finding themselves in the latter category -- no, not one little bit!
I've only watched bits and pieces of her oeuvre, but my own distinct impression is that Femitheiste Divine is neither "evil" nor "mentally ill" and that she still finds that making fun of the boys of the manosphere can be pretty diverting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)