Connie Chastain, whose column is found in this space every Friday, is taking a well-deserved week off. So, I apologize in advance to our readers, to the blogosphere, and to the universe, because you're stuck with me today.
It has long been my suspicion that the self-righteous, snarky, screeching banshees who plop their lazy asses behind computer screens at our major dailies and insist that "masculinity" -- traditional notions of maleness -- needs to be redefined in order to reduce "rape," are not just out of step with the way most women think but are at least borderline psychotic. To illustrate this, consider two items, ripped right from today's news.
First, there's Redefining masulinity is key to stopping rape. The author is clearly one of the aforementioned screeching banshees. Read the inanity for yourself. Or better yet, skip it, because it's just more of the same old feminist cow dung they've been shoveling for decades: masculinity is terribly flawed, and rape is a manifestation of this flawed maleness, not, as I always stupidly assumed, a criminal mentality.
But read this part carefully: "Why these men believe it's ok to rape or sexually assault a woman or girl is bound up in conceptions of gender normativity and the imbalance of power between men and women that flows from such assumptions: Masculinity is associated with dominance and virility while femininity is deemed passive."
Get it? Dominance and virility are manifestations of a toxic masculinity -- the fabled (in reality, imaginary) "rape continuum" and "rape culture."
Now, compare that typical radical feminist tripe with the recent female college grad's "fuck list" which has gone, as they say, viral. In it, a young woman named Karen Owen rates her sexual encounters with a number of male college athletes, complete with names, photos, and penile descriptions. Be forewarned, the link we provide redacts the names and faces but not the penile descriptions.
It goes without saying that if a male had written the "fuck list," he'd be figuratively strung up by the balls across the blogosphere, especially by women. But since a young woman wrote it, there is a chorus of, you go, girlfriend! instead. This, you see, is female empowerment -- humiliating, in a most public way, specifically named young men who are barely more than boys. Nice. Remember, we can only have equality when we hold women to a lower standard than men. Right? I mean, right?
But that pernicious double standard is not the point of this post. We need to focus on something Ms. Owen wrote (and, no, it has nothing to do with length or girth).
Remember the comment in the feminist's anti-male piece about "dominance and virility"? One of Ms. Owen's "fuck list" criteria for rating the boys is the following: "Aggressiveness: points were given if the Subject displayed aggressive behavior and an alpha-male mentality of assuming control of the given situation; points were deducted severely if they simply lay there or did not act assertively."
Read it again: ". . . points were deducted severely" for passivity.
Now, tell me, which piece is more representative of the thinking of women, the feminist's or Ms. Owens'?
Here's the dirty little secret those feminist writers can't stand to admit: the vast majority of women want men to be dominant, virile, and aggressive -- in short, they want men to act like men. Men oblige, because it improves their mating chances -- period, end of story.
Moreover, the vast majority of women know that dominance and virility and aggressiveness have nothing to do with rape. Rape is the product of a criminal mind, not garden-variety maleness.
And here's the dirtiest little secret of all: most of those feminist writers who slam maleness when ostensibly writing about rape aren't opposed to rape nearly as much as they are to men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
More evidence here: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/561877622.html
Interesting comment about the "fuck list" over at Reddit MensRights by thetrollking:
"What is even worse in my opinion is how there seems to be a informational wall between the sexes. Girls get together and gossip about all of this but guys have no idea about how girls ranks and structure men into a hierarchy unless you read PUA sites. I didn't know about alpha/beta dynamics until I started reading evolutionary biology and then found PUA sites...but every girl in my highschool and college does. When I saw woman after woman talking about alpha this or that, I didn't understand. Now I do. I gotta say that it really pisses me off for women to talk about how they want non aggressive and dominant men and then turn around and chase after and reward said men with attention and affection and well sex too. Feminism really is a society wide shit test. Whats worse is how women LIKE to see men dominate other men, whether in fights or on a playing field. Just ask yourselves something guys, have you ever heard a woman say this,"I think scars are sexy?" They leverage the male emotive/affection vacuum to make men beat up other men for the amusement of the female herd. Just look at some of these young boys who are killing themselves because of this."
There is much to praise about this column and this site, but I wish you'd lose the gratuitous references to women you don't like as being "fat". That's just plain childish, not to mention inaccurate: there are plenty of skinny women who display all the negative traits this site deplores.
While I agree with the article, in the interest of good taste, I think people's weight should be left out of it.
Oct 1, 2010 9:33:00 AM
It is an interesting comment, but all that pua/alpha/beta stuff is a bunch of hooey. Some young women might want to hook-up with guys like this:
http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com/
But I severely doubt that's who women eventually choose to father their children. And sex that doesn't produce offspring doesn't count as far as evolution is concerned.
"Women can't stop rape. We've been trying for decades.
From the early days of the women's movement in the late 1960s and 1970s, feminists have launched anti-rape campaigns."
No, actually they haven't.
That assumes that people are wired to be attracted to sex differently based on whether they are using birth control. I highly doubt this to be the case. As far as wiring goes, sex is sex.
It's very true that women choose *mates* differently than they choose *bedmates* ... but that's a part of the underlying dilemma of mate selection that women face. Matt Ridley summed it up well in "The Red Queen" as follows:
"“There has been no genetic change since we were hunter-gatherers,
but deep in the mind of the modern man is a simple male hunter-gatherer rule: Strive to acquire power and use it to lure women who will bear heirs; strive to acquire wealth and use it to buy other men’s wiveswho will bear bastards. It began with a man who shared a piece of prized fish or honey with an attractive neighbor’s wife in exchange for a brief affair and continues with a pop star ushering a model into his Mercedes. From fish to Mercedes, the history is unbroken: via skins and beads, plows and cattle, swords
and castles. Wealth and power are means to women; women are means to genetic eternity.
Likewise, deep in the mind of a modern woman is the same basic hunter-gatherer calculator, too recently evolved to have changed much: Strive to acquire a provider husband who will invest food and care in your children; strive to find a lover who can give those children first-class genes. Only if she is very lucky will they be the same man. It began with a woman who married the best unmarried hunter in the tribe and had an affair with he best married hunter, thus ensuring her children a rich supply of meat. It continues
with a rich tycoon’s wife bearing a baby that grows up to resemble her beefy bodyguard. Men are to be exploited as providers of parental care, wealth, and genes.”
"The Red Queen", p. 244.
Anonymous - "But I severely doubt that's who women eventually choose to father their children. And sex that doesn't produce offspring doesn't count as far as evolution is concerned."
If you've got the time and inclination to learn more about the issue, I'd encourage you to read through Novaseeker's blog archives (you can get there by clicking on his name with one of his posts, and then clicking on the link to his unfortunately "moth-balled" blog).
In my opinion, he provided the best examination of the nature of male-female relationships that anyone individual has done.
It's not really the stuff of the FRS, but it's fascinating in it's own right.
Oct 1, 2010 11:20:00 AM
Except his own citation contradicts his position. Some nerdy computer programmer is a better "provider husband... who can give those children first-class genes" than some Jersey Shore meatclown. With the rare exception of professional athletes, big muscles don't make money.
Ah.
The money part is different from the genes part.
The ideal combo is a rich provider husband but the genes of the bodyguard. Why? Because the bodyguard's genes have a MUCH higher likelihood of being replicated down the line, if the kids have his attractiveness to women. That kid gets the benefits of being raised with the money and privilege of having a rich father, while at the same time having the kind of "raw sex appeal" genes that the bodyguard has (the kind of guy whom even the wife of a wealthy, high status man will fuck for fun). This is called the "sexy son" idea -- the genes of the sexy body guard are more likely to result in a sexy son, who is himself more likely to replicate his own genes -- perhaps in the wombs of women who are married to rich men who can invest well in the offspring to boot!
Your genes don't care about smarts/wealth and so on. They care about being replicated. And sexy men have more replication chances than homely, rich men do.
"Your genes don't care about smarts/wealth and so on. They care about being replicated. And sexy men have more replication chances than homely, rich men do."
Genes aren't capable of caring one way or the other. However, women are now capable of having sex without getting pregnant. Which is where all this falls apart. Nor does this assume that people are wired to be attracted to sex differently based on whether they are using birth control, because it is not assuming that behavior is determined by such wiring. The genes of the bodyguard scenario is not only an unlikely behavior, but even from a standpoint of gene propagation is far from ideal. Physically attractive men might have more sex, but that doesn't mean they have more children.
Anonymous - ”Genes aren't capable of caring one way or the other. However, women are now capable of having sex without getting pregnant. Which is where all this falls apart.”
The genetic-based “under-pinnings” of human attraction and sexuality is far to involved to try to explain here (again, I recommend Novaseeker’s blog). Yet, even today, upon examination, there is ample empirical evidence to suggest that they are still strongly in-play.
But, the key issue here, as it fits in with a discussion of false rape allegations goes back to what Pierce brought up in pointing out the apparent hypocrisy of gender-feminists imagining this idea of “rape culture” based upon normal traits of masculinity, while it is quite clear that women are themselves sexually attracted to those same traits of masculinity.
As a simple example, men are hard-wired to “pursue” women for sex. And, when they are honest about it, women enjoy being pursued. For many of them, being pursued by a confident, assertive (aka socio-sexually aggressive) man is quite arousing.
Where this tends to come into play WRT rape vs. consensual sex is in the interpretation of more assertive male sexuality – especially after the fact.
To try to suggest a quick example of this, consider how a young women who has been drinking at a party, has had her inhibitions lowered (is more controlled by those still-functioning biological drives) finds herself sexually attracted to a more assertive man, to the point hat she gladly agrees to sex with him. But, then, the next day, now operating on a more rational/thinking level she suddenly finds herself regretting the encounter.
Well, to her, and most “rape culture” believing gender-feminists (and Social Conservative Christian types as well), the man’s assertiveness is remained as his unrestrained sexual aggression (her own desire for him conveniently forgotten) which resulted in him forcing her to have sex with him (and, at least from the perspective of how she is now viewing things, feeling that is would not be what she would have wanted to do had she not been drinking, against her will). Thus, the very masculine trait which had sexually attracted her becomes the very same trait that demonstrates that he is an aggressive predator of women – a rapist!
This subject is way too complicated to do it justice within the confines of a single post. But, I hope I’ve given you some glimpse into how innate human “drives” might lend themselves to being reinterpreted as “rape culture”.
From my perspective, attraction is hard-wired and is based on reproductive fitness overall. It isn't rational -- although what one *does* about attraction is, of course, rational to differing degrees depending on the individual.
A man who has much higher sexual access to women of all sorts has high reproductive fitness from the genetic point of view simply because he gets more opportunities to have sex -- he gets to execute the "male strategy" more effectively than most other males do (a strategy focused on high volume, rather than a high probability of outcome in any one given case). Sure, many of those encounters in this time may be un-fecund, but that doesn't make him less naturally attractive to a woman today. In fact, she may decide to cuckold her husband with him when she is in her fertile period (which generally tends to be when she is randiest ... more hard-wiring) -- which is programming designed to grab the genes of the sexy guy to help produce sexy sons. Even Lady Diana Spencer is widely rumured to have been having an affair with her bodyguard -- the scenario is not THAT uncommon.
A rich man who has the ability to provide and assist with child rearing is also, of course, reproductively fit from the nurturing/provision point of view. Much better in that respect than the bodyguard is. But it's even better, from the female perspective (as her strategy is a low volume, high focus on each chance, strategy) to combine the two -- probably with different kids -- so that the woman has the benefit of the high fitness of her husband from the nurturing/provision point of view combined with the high pure genetic fitness from the bodyguard in terms of pure, raw sexual attraction. If she herself is a smart cookie as well, and can bequeath intelligence to both of her kids independent of her husband's genes, she may end up with the bodyguard kid being both smart, rich and sexy -- a trifecta she may not have been able to pull off just with her husband's genes (and certainly not just with the bodyguard's genes), and one which certainly improves the chances of her own genes being replicated down the line compared to the base case.
Again, this isn't "rational action". What is personally experienced is simply attraction. Whether it is acted on is always the choice of the actor -- people aren't robots. Yet, generally you will find that when women have affairs they are with men who have higher "genetic value" than their husbands do (i.e., are just plain sexier, leaving aside their value as "mates"). This is explained well by what Ridley has written there, even if in the woman's own mind she is just having an adventure.
Your genes indeed "don't care", but they *do* program you to act in their own interests (getting propagated), whether that matches your rational interests or not. Of course, given the nature of evolved behavior there is a lag between what our genes encourage us to do and what is best for us to do in today's context. Hence our genetic impulse to crave sweets and fats -- something which probably made sense over 10,000 years ago, but is a maladaptive craving today for most people in the industrialized world, yet a craving all the same which we choose (or not) to overcome. Sex and sexual attraction is the same -- women are attracted to the specific kinds of men for specific "uses" as their genes programmed them at the time we were programmed to crave sweets and fats -- yet not all women will act on these attractions and so on. Some will, however, and the genetic justification which underlies the craving is easy enough to see (as Ridley, again, points out), even if we may see it today as maladaptive given the current social, technological and economic context. Attraction wiring doesn't catch up that fast, really.
I think i just saw the ultimate example of men being deamonised , i was sitting ( with my gf ) watching a soap in the uk coronation street , which right now is portraying an attempted rape storyline , one of the characters said during a prime time show watched by millians that " most men wont take no for an answer " so it seems that the idea of most men being potential rapists is getting more and more fixed in the public mind, i was stunned, truly stunned tonight.
"This subject is way too complicated to do it justice within the confines of a single post. But, I hope I’ve given you some glimpse into how innate human “drives” might lend themselves to being reinterpreted as “rape culture”."
Oh, I agree with that, but not all of this evolutionary psychology bullshit.
Hey, I got quoted on FRS...awesome.
I gotta say guys, your site is a testament to a superb blog design and mission. YOu cover one singular topic but do so with depth and understanding that isn't found on most MRA oriented blogs...if this is even MRA I am not sure. But I have been reading for awhile and think what you do is great.
About my comment. I don't know the age of you guys, but Im mid 20's now. My freshman year, at 22, of college I had conversation after conversation with guys and we simply shook our heads and asked, "why are all these girls mimicking Sex and The City?"
It wasn't just that either. You would think the ability to get laid on a campus with ~60% women would be a cake walk. But instead what happens is that the top guys, the ball players and really rich kids, would pick up their phone and send out a mass text to 50 girls and get laid that night and every other night with a different girl or two or three. While the rest of use guys, even alot of frat guys that I was friends with, spend our nights and weekends going from house party to bar to bar hitting on everything that moves and then still spending most nights alone and drunk. I have known frat guys that went months between hook ups while the lonely nerds got laid once a year if that.
There are two issues here. Female hypergamy, or the fact that women marry and sex upward in the social hierarchy. Or roughly 80% of women chasing after the same 20%, which if you look at the latest std studies it bares out. Last one I saw was for herpes and it looked at males and females between 16-25 or some age range like that and what did they find? 20% or 1 in 5 women had herpes, while 11% or one out of ten men had herpes. Do the math.
Secondly, so many of us guys, whether because of feminist mothers, sisters or platonic friends made the mistake of believing what women say with regards to sexual attraction to men.
I remember seeing a older guy say that if you want to get married you should listen to womens advice, but if you want to get laid you should listen to mens advice...and his advice was to either pick up weights, a sport or a guitar.
As far as the alpha/beta stuff, it isn't perfect and isn't solid. Put me next to a 6'5" man and he's a alpha if we are determining status based on height. Put him next to shaq and he's a beta based on the same criteria. That's the trick to understanding it, recognize the context.
Great article and great site, keep up the good fight.
Hey, I got quoted on FRS...awesome.
I gotta say guys, your site is a testament to a superb blog design and mission. YOu cover one singular topic but do so with depth and understanding that isn't found on most MRA oriented blogs...if this is even MRA I am not sure. But I have been reading for awhile and think what you do is great.
About my comment. I don't know the age of you guys, but Im mid 20's now. My freshman year, at 22, of college I had conversation after conversation with guys and we simply shook our heads and asked, "why are all these girls mimicking Sex and The City?"
It wasn't just that either. You would think the ability to get laid on a campus with ~60% women would be a cake walk. But instead what happens is that the top guys, the ball players and really rich kids, would pick up their phone and send out a mass text to 50 girls and get laid that night and every other night with a different girl or two or three. While the rest of use guys, even alot of frat guys that I was friends with, spend our nights and weekends going from house party to bar to bar hitting on everything that moves and then still spending most nights alone and drunk. I have known frat guys that went months between hook ups while the lonely nerds got laid once a year if that.
There are two issues here. Female hypergamy, or the fact that women marry and sex upward in the social hierarchy. Or roughly 80% of women chasing after the same 20%, which if you look at the latest std studies it bares out. Last one I saw was for herpes and it looked at males and females between 16-25 or some age range like that and what did they find? 20% or 1 in 5 women had herpes, while 11% or one out of ten men had herpes. Do the math.
Secondly, so many of us guys, whether because of feminist mothers, sisters or platonic friends made the mistake of believing what women say with regards to sexual attraction to men.
I remember seeing a older guy say that if you want to get married you should listen to womens advice, but if you want to get laid you should listen to mens advice...and his advice was to either pick up weights, a sport or a guitar.
As far as the alpha/beta stuff, it isn't perfect and isn't solid. Put me next to a 6'5" man and he's a alpha if we are determining status based on height. Put him next to shaq and he's a beta based on the same criteria. That's the trick to understanding it, recognize the context.
Great article and great site, keep up the good fight.
are you still an equalist (equality) minded fool?
Rape is not about sex but control and is committed by criminals. Speaking as a middle aged woman I prefer a Neanderthal to a metro sexual. If a man can’t take charge, then I have no interest in them. I have 2 male dogs that are neutered; I certainly don’t want a neutered human male.
Post a Comment