Science Corner: Why some self-obsessed douchebags hate the ladies so much
I'd do me. Why won't those bitches?
Well, this explains a few things:
Narcissistic Heterosexual Men Target Their Hostility Primarily at Heterosexual Women, the Objects of Their Desires, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (July 29, 2010) — Heterosexual women bear the brunt of narcissistic heterosexual men’s hostility, while heterosexual men, gay men and lesbian women provoke a softer reaction, according to psychologist Dr. Scott Keiller from Kent State University at Tuscarawas. This is likely to be due to women’s unparalleled potential for gratifying, or frustrating, men’s narcissism, the author concludes. They are crucial players and even gatekeepers in men’s quests for sexual pleasure, patriarchal power and status.
More here. The actual study here (subscribers only).
Yes, like a lot of psych studies, it was based on a relatively small sample of college students (104 undergraduate men, to be exact). But after this post yesterday – and, you know, the entire content of this blog — it’s hard not to think that Keiller is on to something.
Posted on August 9, 2011, in douchebaggery, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, oppressed men, pussy cartel, reactionary bullshit. Bookmark the permalink. 506 Comments.
Meller: I realise this is hard for you to understand… It’s not personal, and you aren’t a special flower; possessed of The Truth.
There is NOTHING in my posts, about feminism–if read and understood correctly–which justifies such abuse!
Au contraire, mob petits choux You, when taken as read (as opposed to the charming self-delusion that you are merely speaking the simple truth) are entitled to far more abuse than you receive. The idea that you are sharing with us the reasonable truth and only our blinders keeps us from seeing the paradise you want to bring about (which paradise involves the subjegation of women; even if you don’t get lucky enough to live to see the rise of sexbots and artificial wombs so you can kill off most of the women on the planet) is folly.
And it’s hateful, and it’s evil.
You are not thoughtful. The things you’ve said about killing women are but one exemplar. Either you really believe that (which I think more than slightly possible, given the rank hostility in your apparent nature), or you lack the insight to comprehend that so over the top a reductio ad absurdem has to be couched in ways that make it plain it’s nothing more than a thought experiment.
You lack the skill with words to manage that.
I don’t think there is any, mutual respect with anyone here who disagrees with you. Anyone who refers to those who disagree with him as, “housepets,” is not showing respect for them, or their arguments.
As to courtesy, you have shown little, if any, and gotten (at least from me) far more than you deserve (just look at the dismissal of Kirtsenmh as being emotional because she’s on the rag [which I know to be very much not true, but that's irrelevant, as it shows a lack of respect for her words, rather that you are attempting to say she is rendered incapable of thought by virtue of being female: that or the attempt to what, shame me? Discredit me, by making reference to my being a vet. Is this supposed to be a snark that I am living in some PTSD world of Apocalypse Now, or The Hurt Locker? It's of a piece with the insult you tossed at Kirsten, or the jibe [with errors in spelling and grammar] at Rutee. Lacking in both respect and courtesy),
None of the courtesy I am showing has been grudging. If you should like me to drop civility, you have but to ask. I will not, however, blow smoke up your ass and pretend the illogical spewings of your mind (which you take the time to compose, and have the option to consider before posting) are other than the dreck they are. I will continue to consider them deliberate, as you have had the time to deliberate on them before sending them to the world, that we may judge you on them.
You are not brilliant. You are not set upon by evil forces. You are small-minded, petty, and delusional on the nature of the world. If being told these things is painful, well the truth hurts.
You believe that a woman who is subservient to men is the only acceptable female. She should be happy in her deferrment to him, she should be, compliant. You have said that if this does not come about then the expectable (and desireable) course of action is to kill them.
Ergo I’d Say VoiP summed you up pretty well.
“All men, except the most brutish, desire to have, in the woman most nearly connected with them, not a forced slave but a willing one; not a slave merely, but a favourite.”
“I believe that equality of rights would abate the exaggerated self-abnegation which is the present artificial ideal of feminine character, and that a good woman would not be more self-sacrificing than the best man: but on the other hand, men would be much more unselfish and self-sacrificing than at present, because they would no longer be taught to worship their own will as such a grand thing that it is actually the law for another rational being. There is nothing which men so easily learn as this self-worship: all privileged persons, and all privileged classes, have had it.”
Let’s try another “r” word. How about “regressive”?
Pam wins thread.
David Futrelle,
Thank you for citing passages (single paragraphs or less out of how many dozens of pages in toto?) that you-and your fellow manboobz.com contributors-find objectionable.
I believe that I stated in other posts that this was NOT ADVOCACY, it was extrapolation. It involved the possible, even likely, actions of men-three to six generations from now-who are very much like ourselves in many ways, being unrelentingly confronted by the hideous spectacle of so-called “women” constantly making them out to be enemies! Man the ‘oppressor’, man the ‘slavemaster’, man the ‘rapist’, man, the ‘abuser’, man, the ‘adversary…Cyberwives, Virtual reality, and abandonment of such horrid she-shrikes for something better is certainly understandable under the conditions, which feminists are creating today in a small(?) way, and tomorrow in a much larger way!
Firstly there is such a thing as a self-fulfulling prophecy. All of my posts indicate a preference of the exact OPPOSITE of the feminist “future”, a future of love, harmony, co-operation, and empathy between the sexes, as opposed to the feminist “ready-to-fight” power struggles, which I consider loathsome. Men will, however, whether I like it or not, take the feminist position of woman-as-enemy seriously, until, yes, horrible as it, when they can be replaced, they will be! I wasn’t-and would NEVER-advocate this development, but I appreciate its inevitability given the attitude of feminists even on manboobz.com!
How often have MY posts been attacked, NOT so much by paranoids(?) like Pecunium, but by people who mistakenly saw my prediction and understanding as advocacy? The male response-which we are already seeing beginnings of today, like video games- for a tragic development that needn’t come about! I regard life as precious, peace as a core value to any society, and I regard “liberty as the mother, not the daughter, of order” to quote Proudhon; one of the very few socialists in history who ever had anything worthwhile to read! Could such a person actually WELCOME the murder of women-even feminists-like you, and some of your readers, impute to me? Today’s feminists should stop insisting upon male “change” and should start changing themselves! Changing themselves BACK to what they were before the 1970′s would be a good first step, and the sooner the better!
Men have appallingly enslaved, forced into exile, or killed enemies (mostly other men) by the uncountable millions in the past for far less reason than man-hating, bitter, castrating, and vicious feminists are giving us today (and tomorrow).
I still hope for something better, but if my crystal ball is as cracked as everyone else’s, then men, by the millions, perhaps even billions, will see themselves-and each other-cornered by a vicious ENEMY, and the final outcome of feminism and gender equality will play itself out-but it will NOT be the fantasies of Betty Friedan, Robin Morgan, Gloria Steinem, Angela Davis, Andrea Dworken, Valerie Solanas (thought I forgot her, didn’t you?), Kathleen Mackinnon or Susan Brownmiller…
Life or Death, it is THEIR choice, not men’s generally, and certainly not mine!!
Wishing you…
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
DKM: You didn’t answer my question. Earlier, you said this:
How is enslavement/extremination/forced exile of feminists a “legitimate” subject of discussion?
Rutee, if you are still capable of reading–apprahending from a page of printed matter some accurate and complete idea of its verbal contents–everything that I said to darksidenight will, I hope, answer your objections. I never mentioned “slavery” or “servitude, you did!”
Yes, I used the words because you already described them in what you want. You want women who do what you tell them to do. All this ‘complementary’ bullshit is a smokescreen to cover for that.
And it erases the gay, and the bi. How do you respond to gay people? To bi people with someone of their own sex?
“Women in my view are complementary, NOT competitive, they seek a relationship of quality, NOT equality”
You don’t actually talk to many women, do you? Because even the ones that never identified as feminist still want a relationship of equality, IME. It’s not all women, but it’s hardly enough to say that women are the outlier.
“When women and their men work–and play–in mutual love and attachment, the feminsit notions of ‘oppression”, power struggles, and gender (as opposed to class or race) conflict have no meaning! ”
Now that’s just absurd, are you seriously trying to say that all ‘romantic’ endeavors are free of oppression and related pressures? ARe you familiar with Thomas Jefferson?
single paragraphs or less out of how many dozens of pages in toto?
Yeah, they’ve said dozens of things that aren’t unreasonable! Now let me just find that list of Dworkin quotes…
You can see things others can’t. You can see things others don’t want to.
Your extrapolation is half-gleeful, half-reluctant, but you didn’t do this all by yourself. Your enemies forced the decision upon you.
You can see things others can’t. You can see things others don’t want to.
Your extrapolation is half-gleeful, half-reluctant, but you didn’t do this all by yourself. Your enemies forced the decision upon you.
In the end, it’s really up to them, right?
http://wadsworth.com/history_d/special_features/ilrn_legacy/wawc2c01c/content/wciv2/readings/wciv2readingshitler2.html
The first is borked; the second is OK. DAVID, CLEANSE THIS POST OF THAT WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
Wow… Meller says wiping women out is legitimate” topic for discussion,” and inevitable if women don’t shape up and do as he tells them, and I’m paranoid when I say he’s a misogynist scumbag.
Now, if I thought it was likely that some large group of men was going to try pulling that off… then it might be a legit claim.
But Meller… You’re a knob. A silly man, living in a sad (and somewhat pathetic) prison of your own making. You want the mythical women of the past, who doted on men, and didn’t have any personal desires save making the Lord and Master of the House (that sacred castle) happy.
Never was, and never will be. You, with the odd fantasies of how, in 60-180 years men will rise up and put those bitches who won’t make sandwiches and do the dishes and wash the floors and make the beds, and fuck like bunnies whenever told it’s time for sex, will just have to accept that.
And, so long as you keep spouting off about how you love women (but only those who are willing to be your compliant slaves; and happily), you are going to be reminded of what you said; and of what you keep saying (see above, where you repeat that you “don’t want it to happen, but that if women don’t, “come to their senses” and do what you tell them, well it’s game over).
Wow, DKM, that’s a new low. I write a very reasonable post about how powerless people use underhanded means to meet their needs, because that’s all they can do, and your response is “Are you on the rag?”
What are you, 12?
Anyway, as Pecunium alluded to upthread, I am most emphatically not menstruating because I’m 14 weeks pregnant, asshole. Not that it makes a difference or is any of your business.
Also, I’d love to know what your answer is to my question. Do you really want a partner who’ll lie to you, cheat you, deceive you, and manipulate you? Have you really thought this thing through?
Kristin: He doesn’t want a partner who will do those things.
He wants a partner who is happy being subordinate, and supplicative, and servile.
He wants a happy slave. Not superficially, but actually. Someone who has her entire sense of well-being dependent on his goodwill, and moods.
And if everyman can’t have that… kill the bitches.
Kristin,
Think ‘real-life Stepford Wives’, which he believes was the reality of the way women used to be, and not that these “real women” of the past actually acted upon those thoughts, feelings, wants, desires, aspirations, etc., that were separate from those of their husbands and would use guile and manipulation in an attempt to obtain their separate wants and needs. No, back when women truly LOVED men, they willfully and cheerfully denied and eradicated their own personhood, because how selfish and unloving would they be otherwise.
Yeah, I kind of figured telling DKM “people tend to do x in x situation” wouldn’t make sense to him, as he doesn’t really think women are people. I think I have greater respect for the autonomy and independence of my dogs than he does for female humans.
Grade A stuff. I’m unusqetoinably in your debt.