Ha, the stance that women can no more be reduced en masse to slavering, materialistic money grubbing whores than men can be reduced to animalistic sex-starved monsters is ridiculous.
-Disgruntled Anthropologist who works primarily with male survivors of gender-based violence in conflict zones
"Anthropologist stepping in here to help with the hypergamy discussion:
Hypergamy is a real Anthropological term, but the MRA's who use it either don't seem to know what it means, or have not read any of the ethnohistorical context (or even the wikipedia article on it for that matter).
Hypergamy, simply meaning (in this case) "women marrying up," is a phenomenon that is present in highly patriarchal or male-dominated societies, which only allow women access to power and advancement through marriage. The rate of hypergamy is greatly decreased when women have access to greater economic and social means of self-advancement. Also, this rate is highly variable from society to society, and depends wholly on what is constructed as "meaningful" or "valuable" in that particular cultural context. Delving further into the issue, one could even look at the (somewhat dated) writing of French Structuralist Claude Levi-Strauss, who illustrated how women have essentially been traded as goods in order to strengthen kinship bonds--which still happens in societies with a monarchy, but not as much since the enfranchisement of women in the West.
Also, mate-selection of this sort is limited to the elite within any population--relationships have historically tended to be less rigid in the lower social and economic echelons of most societies. Again, this is highly variable, but it is one of those "truths" born out of several hundred years of anthropology, ethnography, and historiography.
The idea that there is a hypergamic conspiracy is more of a post-feminist, post-civil rights "structure of feeling," so to speak, about the changing nature of masculinities in a society that has fewer legal forms of discrimination and segregation that there were in the past. It is born out of a refusal to adapt to a more egalitarian order--instead clinging to archaic ideas of entitlement to women's bodies as property (a la the kinship ideas of Levi-Strauss)."
In addition, the idea of the 80%/40% ratio of reproduction can be attributed to many diverse institutions, which (the MRA's won't like to hear) have been largely [historically] created by men.
- Particular men hording women as possessions: harems, polygyny, bigamy, polygamy, having both wives and mistresses.
-Rape being used as a weapon of war, not being a crime, or being used for ethnic cleansing and ethnic humiliation (as is was in Bosnia, in the Congo, and in the Slavery era). Rape also being used to "cure" lesbians. Non-consensual procreation is a large part of why the inequality would exist. Even one of the foundational stories of Western culture is about this: see "The Rape of Europa," and thus the continent is named "Europe."
- Men being forced into programs of gender based violence in state and pre-state societies, and not making it to the age of reproduction (yes, men experience gender based-violence every day). These programs include the military, which is overwhelmingly male, and has historically been controlled by male law- and policy-makers, and also includes male-specific massacres (such as often happens in genocidal situations, as it did in Bosnia and Armenia). So again, this is largely (unfortunately) men victimising other men.
- *Historically* women have had fewer sexual partners than men, as they have simply had fewer opportunities to move around outside of the home and meet sexual partners. Although, because of other intersections of race, class, etc., certain more privileged men have always had access to more women. This is a double-bind where women are restricted into the roles of sexual "game" and less-privileged men are denied the ability to form relationships.
Basically, hypergamy would not exist in societies that did not have vestigial ideas of women as economic units, and did not stratify men as rigidly (which is state violence, not violence of women against men)--so there would be everyone's problem solved!
Try at least reading the wiki before misusing the terms of my profession!
I am totally floored by this post I see on Scarecrow's blog Men-Factor titled 'Dirty Skanky Whore with no Brains Who "Puts Out" for Physically Abusive Men is Missing and Probably Dead'. He is talking about Deborah Flores-Narvaez, a Las Vegas dancer, who has been missing for about 2 weeks and was very likely murdered by an abusive ex-boyfriend. Saying he is talking about her is an understatement - he is actually celebrating her fate. He writes:
"Good riddance SKANK! One less dipsh*t whore who thinks she is too good for guys who definitely aren’t me since they are not total psychos! One less skank who won’t yell at me in a grocery store, give me a dirty look. One less skank I’ll be falsely accused of killing myself. The only thing women like this do is drive up domestic violence statistics. Say live and let SKANKS die"
That's just part of what he writes. http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2010/12/dirty-skanky-whore-with-no-brains-who.html
What kind of person would write a sick, demented a post like this? A friggin' creepy psycho in my opinion. I'm thoroughly disgusted.
Wow that sure is an intelligent and adult post written by someone who has only equality in mind. I certainly don't sense any psychological imbalance or resentment driving his worldview.
Yeah, I read that post too. Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling. I may write about it, but right now I don't have much to say except that I'm appalled.
"Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling. I may write about it, but right now I don't have much to say except that I'm appalled."
Well I have something that might cheer you up David. A roomful of manginas vs. one real man.
What kind of person would write a sick, demented a post like this? One who thinks that the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world owe him, and hundreds of other men just like him (y'know, the "Nice Guys"), the pleasure of their time, if not their company. Never mind the hundreds of not-quite-so HOT HOT HOT chicks... y'know, the ones who serve as obstacle course pilons enroute to get to the HOT HOT HOT chicks... who might offer him the pleasure of their time and company (but maybe not after seeing the "I'm a Nice Guy" emblazoned on his forehead), they don't count. But DAMN those HOT HOT HOT chicks, they only want the elusive "Alpha thugs"!!
For men who try to come across like they're celebrating the fact that these "disease-ridden whores" aren't lavishing their attention upon them, they sure do sound angry about it.
This isn't to go out of my way to defend the guy (for all I know he's making the story up), but as appalling as that blog post was (and I agree with you that it was), it wasn't borne out of some sort of sense of "entitlement." It's unreasonable for a guy to blame women for their choice of boyfriends, but when he starts getting questioned by the police because some woman's boyfriend killed her when he had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, it's not quite as unreasonable--though still unreasonable.
David Futrelle said... Yeah, I read that post too. Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling.
If you really think your posts are so much better, you are wrong. Your blog is also appalling and as I said before, plainly stupid, scornful and totally ignorant about any problem related to men.
There are very few HOT HOT HOT chicks left in the west. I am monogamous and find promiscuous people disgusting. Worse than that is when people brag about their prowess.
A HOT HOT HOT woman is as modest as she is smart, has her own income and treats men as true equals. My biggest beef with modern feminism is that the gentleman is expected to remain a gentleman but the lady has become a tramp.
"My biggest beef with modern feminism is that the gentleman is expected to remain a gentleman but the lady has become a tramp."
I am not familiar with this aspect of modern feminism. I suppose if you think women making choices for themselves about their own sexual enjoyment=tramps, I can't help you, but really, there is nothing in feminism about how men must be "gentlemen" while the lady is a tramp. Most feminists I know think people of all genders should control their sexual choices and do with it what they please so long as they don't violate anyone's boundaries. For some that means monogamy; for others it means different things. It's about choice, and I don't see what's wrong with that.
Yohan, I would *love* to hear what you think "radical feminism" is or what is the least bit radical about any of David's writings on this blog.
It could also be one who just wants the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world to leave him alone-- I don't know about you, vagrantsvoice, but when I want to be left alone, I tend to mind my own business and keep to myself, not try to strike up conversations, such as, "I noticed that we were both buying the same items, and (being the person I am), I made a humorous and smart-ass remark about it". She WAS leaving him alone, minding her own business...HE was the one who intruded on HER time, and found out that the intrusion was not a welcome one. Sometimes when we intrude on someone else's time it is welcomed, sometimes it's not.
...i.e not flip the fuck out on him and get him questioned for their murder, among other things. Easy for us to judge that she should not have flipped the fuck out on him, but being that she was, apparently, a young and incredibly beautiful, tall, thin, busty brunette, I wonder how many of these same types of "encounters" she has had, even within that same day, where some guy cracks wise and expects that she should regale him with laughter and attention. Everyone has their breaking point, perhaps this was hers. And I'm sure that she didn't intend to further ruin his day by having him be questioned about her murder.
...but when he starts getting questioned by the police because some woman's boyfriend killed her when he had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT The police did not know at that time that her boyfriend killed her (although they DID mention that the boyfriend was their prime suspect, which isn't fair to the boyfriend, either, but would be a standard first avenue to pursue), nor is it mentioned in that particular story that it was discovered that the boyfriend DID indeed kill her, that was just an assumption deemed as fact by the storyteller. And they certainly didn't question the storyteller because "they had nothing better to do", as the storyteller is wont to believe, they would certainly be remiss if they didn't speak to him, and I think most people would agree with that. And, playing devil's advocate here, not saying that the storyteller DID do it, but how do we KNOW that he had nothing to do with it? Because he says so? I'd be willing to bet that the boyfriend might say the same about HIMSELF.
There are very few HOT HOT HOT chicks left in the west But the few that are left in the west are still the prime obsession of MRAs and MGTOWers!
I am monogamous and find promiscuous people disgusting. Worse than that is when people brag about their prowess. I am monogamous also, and am neutral about promiscuous people. I don't care to enter into a relationship with a promiscuous person, but others are free to do as they choose, so long as they don't violate MY boundaries. Worse than that, in my opinion, are promiscuous persons who condemn and denigrate other promiscuous persons due to their promiscuity.
How do you accuse someone of murdering you if you're dead? Did she speak to the cops from the grave? Am I missing something?
Pam- You are so right about the police doing their jobs. They'd have to speak to the guy, if only to clear him and move on to the Ex. But they aren't going to let logic get in the way of a full on phallic worshipping festival, complete with female corpse to piss on. Just sickening.
I am also monogamous, and in fact have been both a feminist and with the same dude since I was in my late teens! Imagine that. I am also not married to him, just in a happy and equal partnership. If you don't want to deal with the difficulties of breaking a contract, Yohan, just don't enter into one. It's not that hard.
A lot of the complaints some of the MRA-ish posters here are making sound like they should rightly be aimed at late capitalist culture and materialism rather than at *women*. I don't have a lot of common with the kind of women that get the brunt of these guys' ire either--women who have fully accepted the cultural role of the materialistic clotheshorse--but that doesn't make me *hate* women, it makes me hate the system of materialism and consumption that they're caught up in.
It really says something that all these complaints about what the realities and expectations of late capitalism (or "the West" or whatever) do to individuals keep getting caught up in misogyny and turned into anti-woman or anti-feminist rants rather than hitting the real culprits. Feminism did not create consumer capitalism, guys. Far from it.
How do you accuse someone of murdering you if you're dead? And not only that, how dare she inconvenience that poor innocent bystander by being murdered!! Couldn't she have picked a better time for it, say, on a night where she was the ONLY one shopping in the supermarket?
Pam- You are so right about the police doing their jobs. They'd have to speak to the guy, if only to clear him and move on to the Ex. Or, like is told in the story, to find out if he saw anyone/anything suspicious in the store or parking lot, etc. Yes, I am sure that being questioned by the police doing a murder (or any other) type of investigation has GOT to be overwhelming, and I don't blame the guy for whoofing his cookies at their feet, but cut them some slack, for goodness sake, because you'd want them doggedly pursuing an investigation if YOU were the victim of whatever crime!
I wouldn't worry too much about her. If there's one thing feminism has taught us is that all women are STRONG, PROUD AND INDEPENDENT! She doesn't need any help or sympathy from men. Certainly a mere man can't "handle" her. I'm sure she'd go all Xena on a man if he tried something.
bishopsinister said... I wouldn't worry too much about her...
ScareCrow's comment on his blog about Deborah Flores-Narvaez is badly worded.
We still do not know what happened. She disappeared - her whereabouts are unknown.
More than 2000+ people are missing in USA alone and she is not more or less important than all these other missing people.
What is so special about her disappearance?
Generally said, nobody deserves to become a victim of a crime.
-----
This woman is 31 y.o. and according to her own internet profiles (true or not?) she has a high education.
It seems she preferred - her own decision - to become a low-life dancer in a strip show (entrance fee USD 39,-) and to socialize obviously with the wrong people.
It is said in various reports her boyfriend is violent, beating her up from time to time and there are reports she is or was pregnant and nobody knows who is the father etc. etc....
This is gossip and speculation in the news. If true or not we do not know.
Police says, her boyfriend has nothing to do with her disappearance however.
Her life-style cannot be considered as stable and safe. It's about living as a woman in a twilight zone full with paid sex and thugs.
And now, she disappeared. So what?
That's her risk if something goes wrong and for sure not my business.
CHRISTINE WE said: "He's trying to say that he doesn't give a shit about female murder victim's either. Or any woman."
Why the hell should we care about women, especailly feminist leaning women, when it's clear they don't give two shits about men? My bicycle doesn't need your fishy scales.
Christine WE, I am floored about it to and I blogged about it as well. He marginalizes those women to death (there are more than one mentioned). The first instance the woman was smashed in the face with a cinder block and died, and all this guy could blog about was "she yelled at me in the grocery store, she yelled at me in the grocery store." And he thinks her story is an example of how HE was marginalized and therefore HE does not care about these deaths. It's astounding. Time is fleeting, madness....takes...it's wait, what? No I don't want comedy in this post. It's so serious, this guy. I mean he claims that he is a NICE GUY and that women only like psychopaths. Oh, no, only women HE thinks are hot that reject him. There is nothing nice about him, so his theory fails. He did not write what the woman said in the store to him, not that it mattered, but she was a stripper and men take liberties with her and violate and attempt to violate boundaries most of us hold in tact, for hours on end nightly. Sex workers often times HATE men, and some claim that they all do. But others will wink and nudge and go "no way baby, that's feminists that hate men." but they fucking hate them. Why is that? So some woman that snaps at some man at the store should die, or is not deserving of life. That marginalizes women to death. These women are not people to them. I have already gone on and on this is too long, and my feelings on this, well there is no end in site. I wrote a long blog and it's still not enough.
It's easy to see why women are creeped out by him and the others responding above. There are good reasons why these men are rejected by women. Their own excuses for it are laughable.
It's amazing that AGAIN I have to explain this, but I will try AGAIN.
Men hear from women constantly they want nice guys. So young, dumb guys do this and they are rejected, over and over again. The are called creepy, used as emotional tampons while the bad boys get the action. As the years go by and as time goes on they become less and less nice.
Ask yourself who are the most active in the MRA community? Usually guys who have been screwed over by the feminist courts, cheated on, lost their kids, or guys who are close to them. In other words they are the damaged of the system the feminuts have put in place. These guys have been fucked over by the "enlightened policies" of feminsts too many times. You can only kick a dog so many times.
Now, I know you feminist believe that men should take any and all abuse, disenfranchisement, rejection, and ridicule a woman dishes out, but eventually men will not be so kind in return and that is a big part of the MRA movement.
After all the shit these former nice guys endure they start hanging up their nice guy capes. Why not? No woman wants to be rescued by them anyway.
The smart ones learn game, treat women like shit and do quite well with the women. None of the guys I know who are assholes have any problem getting women. None of them.
I know this doesn't fit your narrative or your views about feminism and the world at large, but this is the reality for the vast majority of men. How you feel about this reality that men live is irrelevant.
So why should men give a shit about this woman? On a blog where men are relentless mocked by you feminists, why in the hell do you expect the men here to give 2 shits about women?
You man haters have been at it for the last 60 years. You should expect some blow back.
The shameless hypocrisy is rife how feminists believe it's all fine and dandy to have a movement that bashes/criticises/demonises men 24/7 365 days a year and keep it prevailing for 60 odd years. Then have the audacity to think the MRM should not be validated or existent.
Feminists these days are narcissistic shameless hypocrites who actually and truly believe they are the gender police.
The feminist movement has already done too much damage to the relationship between men and women as a whole. It has generally convinced women these days to have major trust issues towards men. It's bothersome to see the future of this poisonous cause
Because the ridiculous feminist stance is losing?
ReplyDeleteNice bait and switch :)
ReplyDeletePAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!
ReplyDeleteHa, the stance that women can no more be reduced en masse to slavering, materialistic money grubbing whores than men can be reduced to animalistic sex-starved monsters is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteFeminist cat ponders how idiotic the herpes and hypergamy discussion has gotten
ReplyDeleteThis statement above is plainly stupid.
I am going to leave the same long comment here.
ReplyDelete-Disgruntled Anthropologist who works primarily with male survivors of gender-based violence in conflict zones
"Anthropologist stepping in here to help with the hypergamy discussion:
Hypergamy is a real Anthropological term, but the MRA's who use it either don't seem to know what it means, or have not read any of the ethnohistorical context (or even the wikipedia article on it for that matter).
Hypergamy, simply meaning (in this case) "women marrying up," is a phenomenon that is present in highly patriarchal or male-dominated societies, which only allow women access to power and advancement through marriage. The rate of hypergamy is greatly decreased when women have access to greater economic and social means of self-advancement. Also, this rate is highly variable from society to society, and depends wholly on what is constructed as "meaningful" or "valuable" in that particular cultural context. Delving further into the issue, one could even look at the (somewhat dated) writing of French Structuralist Claude Levi-Strauss, who illustrated how women have essentially been traded as goods in order to strengthen kinship bonds--which still happens in societies with a monarchy, but not as much since the enfranchisement of women in the West.
Also, mate-selection of this sort is limited to the elite within any population--relationships have historically tended to be less rigid in the lower social and economic echelons of most societies. Again, this is highly variable, but it is one of those "truths" born out of several hundred years of anthropology, ethnography, and historiography.
The idea that there is a hypergamic conspiracy is more of a post-feminist, post-civil rights "structure of feeling," so to speak, about the changing nature of masculinities in a society that has fewer legal forms of discrimination and segregation that there were in the past. It is born out of a refusal to adapt to a more egalitarian order--instead clinging to archaic ideas of entitlement to women's bodies as property (a la the kinship ideas of Levi-Strauss)."
In addition, the idea of the 80%/40% ratio of reproduction can be attributed to many diverse institutions, which (the MRA's won't like to hear) have been largely [historically] created by men.
ReplyDelete- Particular men hording women as possessions: harems, polygyny, bigamy, polygamy, having both wives and mistresses.
-Rape being used as a weapon of war, not being a crime, or being used for ethnic cleansing and ethnic humiliation (as is was in Bosnia, in the Congo, and in the Slavery era). Rape also being used to "cure" lesbians. Non-consensual procreation is a large part of why the inequality would exist. Even one of the foundational stories of Western culture is about this: see "The Rape of Europa," and thus the continent is named "Europe."
- Men being forced into programs of gender based violence in state and pre-state societies, and not making it to the age of reproduction (yes, men experience gender based-violence every day). These programs include the military, which is overwhelmingly male, and has historically been controlled by male law- and policy-makers, and also includes male-specific massacres (such as often happens in genocidal situations, as it did in Bosnia and Armenia). So again, this is largely (unfortunately) men victimising other men.
- *Historically* women have had fewer sexual partners than men, as they have simply had fewer opportunities to move around outside of the home and meet sexual partners. Although, because of other intersections of race, class, etc., certain more privileged men have always had access to more women. This is a double-bind where women are restricted into the roles of sexual "game" and less-privileged men are denied the ability to form relationships.
Basically, hypergamy would not exist in societies that did not have vestigial ideas of women as economic units, and did not stratify men as rigidly (which is state violence, not violence of women against men)--so there would be everyone's problem solved!
Try at least reading the wiki before misusing the terms of my profession!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy
I am totally floored by this post I see on Scarecrow's blog Men-Factor titled 'Dirty Skanky Whore with no Brains Who "Puts Out" for Physically Abusive Men is Missing and Probably Dead'. He is talking about Deborah Flores-Narvaez, a Las Vegas dancer, who has been missing for about 2 weeks and was very likely murdered by an abusive ex-boyfriend. Saying he is talking about her is an understatement - he is actually celebrating her fate. He writes:
ReplyDelete"Good riddance SKANK!
One less dipsh*t whore who thinks she is too good for guys who definitely aren’t me since they are not total psychos!
One less skank who won’t yell at me in a grocery store, give me a dirty look. One less skank I’ll be falsely accused of killing myself. The only thing women like this do is drive up domestic violence statistics.
Say live and let SKANKS die"
That's just part of what he writes. http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2010/12/dirty-skanky-whore-with-no-brains-who.html
What kind of person would write a sick, demented a post like this? A friggin' creepy psycho in my opinion. I'm thoroughly disgusted.
Wow that sure is an intelligent and adult post written by someone who has only equality in mind. I certainly don't sense any psychological imbalance or resentment driving his worldview.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I read that post too. Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling. I may write about it, but right now I don't have much to say except that I'm appalled.
ReplyDeleteNew discussion time!
ReplyDeleteDave, are you religious, atheist, agnostic, spiritual, or something else?
"Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling. I may write about it, but right now I don't have much to say except that I'm appalled."
ReplyDeleteWell I have something that might cheer you up David.
A roomful of manginas vs. one real man.
Enjoy!
This statement above is plainly stupid.
ReplyDeleteThanks for coming out to play, Yohan, but perhaps you were looking for the sandbox over there -->
What kind of person would write a sick, demented a post like this?
ReplyDeleteOne who thinks that the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world owe him, and hundreds of other men just like him (y'know, the "Nice Guys"), the pleasure of their time, if not their company. Never mind the hundreds of not-quite-so HOT HOT HOT chicks... y'know, the ones who serve as obstacle course pilons enroute to get to the HOT HOT HOT chicks... who might offer him the pleasure of their time and company (but maybe not after seeing the "I'm a Nice Guy" emblazoned on his forehead), they don't count. But DAMN those HOT HOT HOT chicks, they only want the elusive "Alpha thugs"!!
For men who try to come across like they're celebrating the fact that these "disease-ridden whores" aren't lavishing their attention upon them, they sure do sound angry about it.
One who thinks that the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world owe him
ReplyDeleteIt could also be one who just wants the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world to leave him alone--i.e not flip the fuck out on him and get him questioned for their murder, among other things.
This isn't to go out of my way to defend the guy (for all I know he's making the story up), but as appalling as that blog post was (and I agree with you that it was), it wasn't borne out of some sort of sense of "entitlement." It's unreasonable for a guy to blame women for their choice of boyfriends, but when he starts getting questioned by the police because some woman's boyfriend killed her when he had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, it's not quite as unreasonable--though still unreasonable.
David Futrelle said...
ReplyDeleteYeah, I read that post too. Most of the posts on his blog are basically dumb sexist/antifeminist/misogynist jokes. But this is something else entirely, just appalling.
If you really think your posts are so much better, you are wrong. Your blog is also appalling and as I said before, plainly stupid, scornful and totally ignorant about any problem related to men.
For the record I'd like to say that I do not agree with the 10:25 post that Christine WE says is on ScareCrow's blog.
ReplyDeleteIt is appalling to blame victims and it is further appalling to taunt them when they could possibly be dead.
I still think hypergamy exists in the West and it is getting more and more difficult for women to marry up as they advance.
@Pam
ReplyDeleteThere are very few HOT HOT HOT chicks left in the west. I am monogamous and find promiscuous people disgusting. Worse than that is when people brag about their prowess.
A HOT HOT HOT woman is as modest as she is smart, has her own income and treats men as true equals. My biggest beef with modern feminism is that the gentleman is expected to remain a gentleman but the lady has become a tramp.
Eoghan said...
ReplyDeleteYahon
David is an expert on heterosexual men
Hanego
David is a false prophet on radical feminism...with diapers in case of an emergency.
"My biggest beef with modern feminism is that the gentleman is expected to remain a gentleman but the lady has become a tramp."
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with this aspect of modern feminism. I suppose if you think women making choices for themselves about their own sexual enjoyment=tramps, I can't help you, but really, there is nothing in feminism about how men must be "gentlemen" while the lady is a tramp. Most feminists I know think people of all genders should control their sexual choices and do with it what they please so long as they don't violate anyone's boundaries. For some that means monogamy; for others it means different things. It's about choice, and I don't see what's wrong with that.
Yohan, I would *love* to hear what you think "radical feminism" is or what is the least bit radical about any of David's writings on this blog.
It could also be one who just wants the HOT HOT HOT chicks of the world to leave him alone--
ReplyDeleteI don't know about you, vagrantsvoice, but when I want to be left alone, I tend to mind my own business and keep to myself, not try to strike up conversations, such as, "I noticed that we were both buying the same items, and (being the person I am), I made a humorous and smart-ass remark about it". She WAS leaving him alone, minding her own business...HE was the one who intruded on HER time, and found out that the intrusion was not a welcome one. Sometimes when we intrude on someone else's time it is welcomed, sometimes it's not.
...i.e not flip the fuck out on him and get him questioned for their murder, among other things.
Easy for us to judge that she should not have flipped the fuck out on him, but being that she was, apparently, a young and incredibly beautiful, tall, thin, busty brunette, I wonder how many of these same types of "encounters" she has had, even within that same day, where some guy cracks wise and expects that she should regale him with laughter and attention. Everyone has their breaking point, perhaps this was hers. And I'm sure that she didn't intend to further ruin his day by having him be questioned about her murder.
...but when he starts getting questioned by the police because some woman's boyfriend killed her when he had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT
The police did not know at that time that her boyfriend killed her (although they DID mention that the boyfriend was their prime suspect, which isn't fair to the boyfriend, either, but would be a standard first avenue to pursue), nor is it mentioned in that particular story that it was discovered that the boyfriend DID indeed kill her, that was just an assumption deemed as fact by the storyteller. And they certainly didn't question the storyteller because "they had nothing better to do", as the storyteller is wont to believe, they would certainly be remiss if they didn't speak to him, and I think most people would agree with that.
And, playing devil's advocate here, not saying that the storyteller DID do it, but how do we KNOW that he had nothing to do with it? Because he says so? I'd be willing to bet that the boyfriend might say the same about HIMSELF.
There are very few HOT HOT HOT chicks left in the west
ReplyDeleteBut the few that are left in the west are still the prime obsession of MRAs and MGTOWers!
I am monogamous and find promiscuous people disgusting. Worse than that is when people brag about their prowess.
I am monogamous also, and am neutral about promiscuous people. I don't care to enter into a relationship with a promiscuous person, but others are free to do as they choose, so long as they don't violate MY boundaries. Worse than that, in my opinion, are promiscuous persons who condemn and denigrate other promiscuous persons due to their promiscuity.
How do you accuse someone of murdering you if you're dead?
ReplyDeleteDid she speak to the cops from the grave? Am I missing something?
Pam- You are so right about the police doing their jobs. They'd have to speak to the guy, if only to clear him and move on to the Ex.
But they aren't going to let logic get in the way of a full on phallic worshipping festival, complete with female corpse to piss on. Just sickening.
I am also monogamous, and in fact have been both a feminist and with the same dude since I was in my late teens! Imagine that. I am also not married to him, just in a happy and equal partnership. If you don't want to deal with the difficulties of breaking a contract, Yohan, just don't enter into one. It's not that hard.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the complaints some of the MRA-ish posters here are making sound like they should rightly be aimed at late capitalist culture and materialism rather than at *women*. I don't have a lot of common with the kind of women that get the brunt of these guys' ire either--women who have fully accepted the cultural role of the materialistic clotheshorse--but that doesn't make me *hate* women, it makes me hate the system of materialism and consumption that they're caught up in.
It really says something that all these complaints about what the realities and expectations of late capitalism (or "the West" or whatever) do to individuals keep getting caught up in misogyny and turned into anti-woman or anti-feminist rants rather than hitting the real culprits. Feminism did not create consumer capitalism, guys. Far from it.
a lot *in* common. As should be patently obvious to everyone by now, I think a lot faster than I type.
ReplyDeleteHow do you accuse someone of murdering you if you're dead?
ReplyDeleteAnd not only that, how dare she inconvenience that poor innocent bystander by being murdered!! Couldn't she have picked a better time for it, say, on a night where she was the ONLY one shopping in the supermarket?
Pam- You are so right about the police doing their jobs. They'd have to speak to the guy, if only to clear him and move on to the Ex.
Or, like is told in the story, to find out if he saw anyone/anything suspicious in the store or parking lot, etc.
Yes, I am sure that being questioned by the police doing a murder (or any other) type of investigation has GOT to be overwhelming, and I don't blame the guy for whoofing his cookies at their feet, but cut them some slack, for goodness sake, because you'd want them doggedly pursuing an investigation if YOU were the victim of whatever crime!
I wouldn't worry too much about her. If there's one thing feminism has taught us is that all women are STRONG, PROUD AND INDEPENDENT! She doesn't need any help or sympathy from men. Certainly a mere man can't "handle" her. I'm sure she'd go all Xena on a man if he tried something.
ReplyDeleteGo girl power.
Random Brother.
What the hell are you even talking about?
ReplyDelete@ Pam
ReplyDeleteRefer to Christine WE's first post on this thread, and yes it's a little late.
Random Brother
Pardon,
ReplyDeleteThat should have read at M
refer to Christine WE's first post on this thread.
Random Brother
Loads of feminists critique this "independent women" idea, including myself:
ReplyDeletehttp://switchintoglide.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/independent-women-privileged-feminist-ideologies-and-ableism/
It has a lot more to do with the neoliberalism and capitalism in which BOTH men and women are caught up in the present moment.
Bishopsinister, I know what *issue* you were talking about, but I still don't know what the hell you're even trying to say.
ReplyDeleteHe's trying to say that he doesn't give a shit about female murder victim's either. Or any woman.
ReplyDeletebishopsinister said...
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't worry too much about her...
ScareCrow's comment on his blog about Deborah Flores-Narvaez is badly worded.
We still do not know what happened. She disappeared - her whereabouts are unknown.
More than 2000+ people are missing in USA alone and she is not more or less important than all these other missing people.
What is so special about her disappearance?
Generally said, nobody deserves to become a victim of a crime.
-----
This woman is 31 y.o. and according to her own internet profiles (true or not?) she has a high education.
It seems she preferred - her own decision - to become a low-life dancer in a strip show (entrance fee USD 39,-) and to socialize obviously with the wrong people.
It is said in various reports her boyfriend is violent, beating her up from time to time and there are reports she is or was pregnant and nobody knows who is the father etc. etc....
This is gossip and speculation in the news. If true or not we do not know.
Police says, her boyfriend has nothing to do with her disappearance however.
Her life-style cannot be considered as stable and safe. It's about living as a woman in a twilight zone full with paid sex and thugs.
And now, she disappeared. So what?
That's her risk if something goes wrong and for sure not my business.
@ Chriswtine WE
ReplyDeleteCHRISTINE WE said: "He's trying to say that he doesn't give a shit about female murder victim's either. Or any woman."
Why the hell should we care about women, especailly feminist leaning women, when it's clear they don't give two shits about men? My bicycle doesn't need your fishy scales.
Random Brother
There are virtually 1000s of organizations, which care solely for women - in every aspect of life you can imagine.
ReplyDeleteMany of those women-only organizations are heavily sponsored using taxpayers money.
Required are millions of USD and Euro every year again and again as feminism is non-productive and is frequently running out of money..
It is wrong to say, men are doing nothing for women. - The majority of taxpayers are men.
Without their taxes which are partially used for funds most feminist organizations would not exist.
That's very much different with the MRAs. They pay their expenses out of their own wallet.
Christine WE, I am floored about it to and I blogged about it as well. He marginalizes those women to death (there are more than one mentioned). The first instance the woman was smashed in the face with a cinder block and died, and all this guy could blog about was "she yelled at me in the grocery store, she yelled at me in the grocery store." And he thinks her story is an example of how HE was marginalized and therefore HE does not care about these deaths. It's astounding. Time is fleeting, madness....takes...it's wait, what? No I don't want comedy in this post. It's so serious, this guy. I mean he claims that he is a NICE GUY and that women only like psychopaths. Oh, no, only women HE thinks are hot that reject him. There is nothing nice about him, so his theory fails. He did not write what the woman said in the store to him, not that it mattered, but she was a stripper and men take liberties with her and violate and attempt to violate boundaries most of us hold in tact, for hours on end nightly. Sex workers often times HATE men, and some claim that they all do. But others will wink and nudge and go "no way baby, that's feminists that hate men." but they fucking hate them. Why is that? So some woman that snaps at some man at the store should die, or is not deserving of life. That marginalizes women to death. These women are not people to them. I have already gone on and on this is too long, and my feelings on this, well there is no end in site. I wrote a long blog and it's still not enough.
ReplyDelete@booboonation,
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to see why women are creeped out by him and the others responding above. There are good reasons why these men are rejected by women. Their own excuses for it are laughable.
@ Christine WE
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing that AGAIN I have to explain this, but I will try AGAIN.
Men hear from women constantly they want nice guys. So young, dumb guys do this and they are rejected, over and over again. The are called creepy, used as emotional tampons while the bad boys get the action. As the years go by and as time goes on they become less and less nice.
Ask yourself who are the most active in the MRA community? Usually guys who have been screwed over by the feminist courts, cheated on, lost their kids, or guys who are close to them. In other words they are the damaged of the system the feminuts have put in place. These guys have been fucked over by the "enlightened policies" of feminsts too many times. You can only kick a dog so many times.
Now, I know you feminist believe that men should take any and all abuse, disenfranchisement, rejection, and ridicule a woman dishes out, but eventually men will not be so kind in return and that is a big part of the MRA movement.
After all the shit these former nice guys endure they start hanging up their nice guy capes. Why not? No woman wants to be rescued by them anyway.
The smart ones learn game, treat women like shit and do quite well with the women. None of the guys I know who are assholes have any problem getting women. None of them.
I know this doesn't fit your narrative or your views about feminism and the world at large, but this is the reality for the vast majority of men. How you feel about this reality that men live is irrelevant.
So why should men give a shit about this woman? On a blog where men are relentless mocked by you feminists, why in the hell do you expect the men here to give 2 shits about women?
You man haters have been at it for the last 60 years. You should expect some blow back.
Random Brother
@richard/bishopsinister...you didn't need to explain it again. I know your opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe shameless hypocrisy is rife how feminists believe it's all fine and dandy to have a movement that bashes/criticises/demonises men 24/7 365 days a year and keep it prevailing for 60 odd years. Then have the audacity to think the MRM should not be validated or existent.
ReplyDeleteFeminists these days are narcissistic shameless hypocrites who actually and truly believe they are the gender police.
The feminist movement has already done too much damage to the relationship between men and women as a whole. It has generally convinced women these days to have major trust issues towards men. It's bothersome to see the future of this poisonous cause
So many morons in one place... wow.
ReplyDeleteSo many narcissistic feminist bigots in one place...wow
ReplyDeleteI've posted my thoughts on Scarcrow's post here:
ReplyDeletehttp://manboobz.blogspot.com/2011/01/murder-and-male-resentment.html