« Meretricious Legal Grandstanding Move of the Day | Main | Sexism, Misogyny, Misandry? VC Asks, You Decide »

July 01, 2010

Women, II

It's got to be rough being a man in a world where women are either manipulating you or condescending to you (13th paragraph, peoples).

I blame feminism and an uncaring, gyno-normative societal construct.

Posted by Cassandra at July 1, 2010 10:41 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3756

Comments

I am scarred for life. Who can I sue? The meritocracy?

Please Advise.

Posted by: Cricket at July 1, 2010 11:24 AM

I'm beginning to think that a large part of the world spend most of their time projecting their issues onto other people. Misery loves company :p

Posted by: Cassandra at July 1, 2010 11:37 AM

I've been thinking a lot that all the men's and women's studies departments could be replaced by one overarching field: Gender Resentment Studies: how to blame all your unhappiness on the opposite sex.

Can you imagine what the world would be like if people would just quit bitching and work on being happy?

Nah, me either :p

Posted by: Cassandra at July 1, 2010 11:45 AM

But Cassandra, there's no money in making people happy - other than prostitution. Other than prostitution, there's no money in making people happy. Well, then there's Viagra and other pharmaceuticals. So other than prostitution and pharmaceuticals, there's no money in making peope happy. But let's not forget ice cream and candy too. And movies, and video games, and beer... OTHER than prostitution, pharmaceuticals, junk food, the entertainment industry, alcohol...

Posted by: Smart Grunt at July 1, 2010 12:11 PM

*snort*

OK, that one made me feel considerably less grumpy :)

Posted by: Cassandra at July 1, 2010 12:27 PM

And don't forget self-serve frozen custard.

Posted by: Delaware Joe at July 1, 2010 12:42 PM

"gyro-normative societal construct"... does that mean we're all rotating around a fixed axis? Oh, wait...

Posted by: Cousin Dave at July 1, 2010 12:53 PM

Which one is paragraph 13? I read the thing and all I got out of it was this:

Forty-five years ago Wyndham's signs are everywhere. It is notorious as western society moves even more striking as men slip in my interviews with the bankability of the modern more boisterous manifestations of masculinity — even war, that most sexual intercourse itself is in fact, not biologically necessary. There is a movie that we of the male sex finished. I wonder?

Me too wonder, I think.

Posted by: spd rdr at July 1, 2010 12:58 PM

Sexual intercourse itself is on the way out. I have written elsewhere about the sudden (historically speaking) ubiquity of fellatio among young people. This is a genuine social phenomenon of our times. Its significance in this context is that fellatio is an act of condescension by a woman towards a man. The subtext, as we say nowadays, is: "I am not willing to engage in sexual congress with you. However, to maintain your affections, and pacify your beastly masculine nature, I will do this." ...

Am I the only one to be tortured by surreal visions of some poor, benighted paleoconservative screaming, "Oh yeah! Yeah! Condescend to me baby..."?

OK, probably so. Admittedly I have a warped sense of humor.


Posted by: Cassandra at July 1, 2010 01:06 PM

"gyro-normative societal construct".

WHAP WHAP WHAP!!!! :)

Posted by: Cassandra at July 1, 2010 01:08 PM

In my ridiculous opinion (IMRO), I think there's a segment of the population that actively enjoys feeling like they're victims. In the good old days, we called these people 'masochists'. I generally refer to them as 'whiners'.



Here's a clue for you, if you complain that "the man" (or "the government" or "Christianists" or "the moonbats" or "the wingnuts" or whatever your personal bugaboos are) are keeping you down, then your choices SHOULD be:

a) do something about it

b) shut the hell up

Sadly, the common modern response is:

c) WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
IT'S NOT FAIR!!!

Posted by: MikeD at July 1, 2010 01:15 PM

"gyro-normative societal construct"

Is that where, um... you know...the thing with the swing?

Posted by: spd rdr at July 1, 2010 02:58 PM

The male sex is finished.

Yup. Just like there are no more wild places (paragraph 11).

I hope he kept his day job after he graduated from the Close Cover Before Striking School of Prognostication and Pontification...

Posted by: BillT at July 1, 2010 03:03 PM

"...visions of some poor, benighted paleoconservative screaming, "Oh yeah! Yeah! Condescend to me baby..."
OMG! Don't tell me there is another tape of me at...

Oh wait, paleoconservative?

Never mind...

Posted by: Eliot Spitzer at July 1, 2010 03:42 PM

What gets me about essays like that one (and it's not the best example of what I'm talking about) is that you have a guy who is bemoaning the feminization/death of whatever-the-hell-it-is-this-week in a manner that would make men in the world he's grieving for tell him to suck it up and get a freaking grip on himself.

I always find myself thinking "Surely there's a balance here, big guy". I find many of the excesses of feminism lamentable but Jeez, Louise! People have always had to fight for what they want. I just don't think we have to fight nearly as hard as our parents, or grandparents, or great grandparents. And yet we complain so much.

Our pressures are different. I'm reminded of something AF Wife said to me privately a while back. It was about this book ("Guyland") she had recommended to me. I read it and had a mixed reaction - the author definitely points out some real problems with the way boys are growing up these days but on the other hand I think he overgeneralizes a bit. Anyway, she observed that boys growing up in 3rd world countries where they have to become men early on and assume major responsibilities don't exhibit the drift, angst, and aimlessness of boys in industrialized societies.

They don't have the time or the luxury to act that way!

I think we suffer more from an embarrasment of riches than anything else. Too much ease, too many material things, not enough challenges. And then when we are challenged or encounter a rough patch, we whine about it!

Posted by: Cassandra at July 1, 2010 03:51 PM

Why am I suddenly reminded of Spike Jones? "You always hurt (sproing!) the one you love (squeeeek)..." Seriously, yeah, Derb took a particle of truth and blew it up into a huge flimsy balloon just begging to be popped. And yes, part of our problem is that boys aren't challenged in ways that aid their development and that they are ready for, neither physically nor mentally. And I blame this mostly on nanny-staters -- a coalition of which organized feminism is only a part.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at July 1, 2010 04:08 PM

I blame this mostly on nanny-staters -- a coalition of which organized feminism is only a part.

I see most of this as a response to affluence and complacency. Industrialized societies do this - they get comfortable and then risk and pain and illness and just plain bad luck (which were taken for granted in less advanced countries) suddenly seem like something a perfect system can somehow eliminate.

We work so hard to be comfortable and then we fall victim to our own success in a way - or our children do, if we're not careful.

Posted by: The Silky Pony at July 1, 2010 04:17 PM

. . . oh, shoot, I broke a nail . . .

Posted by: Texan99 at July 1, 2010 05:08 PM

There is no shortage of men with the traditional male attributes--honor, loyalty, bravery--in the third world. Fortunately, we still produce enough of our own to fight them off.

Posted by: ken in sc at July 1, 2010 07:23 PM

The possession and use of things that go "BANG" rank up there with ice cream, too, and pretty boats, whether row, sail, or motor.

For the actual topic, some people should spend more time paying actual attention to their partner. When not having sexual relations would be an aid in doing this.

Posted by: htom at July 1, 2010 07:57 PM

Mike, the whole idea of a meritocracy is to validate whining and entitlements.

I learned that in one of my philosophy classes.

"You deserve a break today." Even fast food jingles are not safe. "Have it YOUR way."

As to misery loving company, well, missy, I am cheerful. Happy, even.

But if you rain on my parade, I deserve an umbrella.

Posted by: Cricket at July 1, 2010 09:59 PM

This is relevant, perhaps: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/are-men-necessary/?src=twt&twt=NYTMotherlode

INTERESTING comments from the resident rabid feminists...

Posted by: FbL at July 1, 2010 10:41 PM

"I blame feminism and an uncaring, gyno-normative societal construct."

Well now, there's a pretty little turn o' phrase. Me likee!!! ;-)

Posted by: camojack at July 2, 2010 12:38 AM

I think we suffer more from an embarrasment of riches than anything else. Too much ease, too many material things, not enough challenges. And then when we are challenged or encounter a rough patch, we whine about it!

But you don't see that in historically military families. The ones that still exist.

So you have to ask yourself, Cassandra. Why were they able to keep their traditions but not the 200 million other people out in the country?

The answer is simple. They got sabotaged. It wasn't just a natural result of youth making mistakes and forgetting their parent's lessons.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 2, 2010 01:44 AM

...suck it up and get a freaking grip on himself.

That's backwards.

Posted by: BillT at July 2, 2010 02:05 AM

That's rich. A British math geek whines about the USA's state of demasculinization in the post industrial era.

Just another log for the paleoconservative fire, like his more recent Case Against Female Suffrage.

Why is this guy taken seriously?

Posted by: Craig at July 2, 2010 07:40 AM

FWIW, I think the term "gyno-normative" is a keeper.

Posted by: Craig at July 2, 2010 07:55 AM

A while back, after reading yet another comments section where a man asserted that the world would be a better place if women weren't allowed to vote and not one person challenged him, I did a lot of research on gender voting patterns.

I spent about 3 days looking at various data sets, longitudinal studies, etc. The data isn't straightforward because you have to adjust for the fact that there are more eligible female voters than eligible male voters.

People attribute a lot of things to sex b/c they fail to eliminate the influence of other factors. If sex were the only (or even the most important) factor influencing how people vote then how do these morons explain the fact that up until the 1960s the vast majority of women voted Republican?

Because they did, inconvenient as that little fact may be to guys who are perfectly willing to see fundamental rights abridged on the basis of sex - but only if they are the privileged sex.

You can't just look at gender - you also have to look at factors like marital status, parental status, income, etc. There have been MASSIVE shifts in all these factors over the past 50 years.

But people love simplistic answers. In a simple world, we don't ever have to think.

Posted by: The Silky Pony at July 2, 2010 07:59 AM

...I think the term "gyno-normative" is a keeper

Thanks :) I was rather pleased with it. I expect it will be useful in mocking sexist twits like the ones in Fuzzy's NYT blog post.

Posted by: The Silky Pony at July 2, 2010 08:02 AM

Cricket..."the whole idea of a meritocracy is to validate whining and entitlements//I learned that in one of my philosophy classes"

I'm not following the cause-and-effect here...Why would meritocracy encourage whining and entitlements?

Posted by: david foster at July 2, 2010 08:59 AM

Why would meritocracy encourage whining and entitlements?

How do you think it got to be a meritocracy in the first place?

Posted by: BillT at July 2, 2010 09:38 AM

Why is this guy taken seriously?

By whom? Oh sure, there are nutjobs who will follow anyone, but most of society kind of looks at this guy and says "Well, you HAD an interesting point to begin with, but now you've gone off the deep end."

His problem seems to be conclusion jumping. I.e. he's got a study, or data finding of A. He then takes finding A and concludes Þ. He's no longer on the same alphabet. And how does he get from A to Þ? I dunno, some kind of reverse polarity hypernuclear thermobaric logic (or as we called it in my day... "the crazy").

Posted by: MikeD at July 2, 2010 10:21 AM

after reading yet another comments section where a man asserted that the world would be a better place if women weren't allowed to vote and not one person challenged him,

I've seen that too, Silky Pony. I found it more than a little disheartening to realize that people still hold such attitudes. :(

Posted by: colagirl at July 2, 2010 10:22 AM

There are days when the Internet depresses the living Hell out of me. But then I look at my glossy, full head of hair and perfect teeth and I feel better about life.

Heh.

Posted by: The Silky Pony at July 2, 2010 10:41 AM

My Little Pony: Would it make a difference if you did your research on a traditionally liberal city with women voters, then one with conservative voters and do a comparison on Quality of Life Issues in each four years after?

Or would you need to be groomed again?

Mike, the idea of rewarding someone on the basis of their instrinsic goodness annoys me. The incentive to serve isn't based on 'what is in it for me' but a sincere desire to help others.

We have an elementary school that is persisting in this nonsense by rewarding good deeds, and the kids are thinking the only reason to do something worthwhile or to behave is to get a reward.

Posted by: Cricket at July 2, 2010 03:38 PM

I'm sorry Ms Cricket, but I don't actually follow. Could you explain? I'm a touch confused by your statement.

Posted by: MikeD at July 2, 2010 04:08 PM

Why is this guy taken seriously?

Pays off for the transnational progressives to keep them as pets.

I would have said that no men need apply to vote either.

In fact, democracy is overrated by every standard, except the one that counts. There is not yet something better. But we're working on it, don't worry. Soon may hap we will be ruled by wise and objective AIs. Or there will be communal telepathic governance like a hive.

Human technology has done much to change human social experiences. And yet it has far more to go.

Personally, I think if you took a vote of all 6.5 billion or so humans on this planet on whether the human species needs to improve, there'd be an even chance that you couldn't get a majority to vote yes.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 2, 2010 07:19 PM

Speaking up for the Derb, here. I find his writing to be witty and educational. I read everything on his site as soon as it shows up. "Prime Obsession" was wonderful. Owhell, they don't like him at National Review, either.

Posted by: Justthisguy at July 2, 2010 10:45 PM

I admire Derb myself. What I like about him is his radical honesty. He tells it like he sees it; if he's wrong, he's honestly wrong. And sometimes he is, but he doesn't hide it from you behind some false consensus. He just tells you what he thinks.

I like that in a writer; indeed, in a man.

Posted by: Grim at July 2, 2010 11:18 PM

FWIW, I don't have an opinion on him one way or another.

I just think this particular essay was off base in too many ways to count. I never think much of any of those "OMG IT'S THE END OF " essays. Some are better reasoned than others but this one wasn't even well reasoned.

It's pretty ridiculous to pronounce the end of sex in an era where people are not only still having sex but having more and more varied kinds of it.

It's pretty ridiculous to pronounce the end of war right before the U.S. gets involved in not one but TWO wars and - mirabile dictu! - young men not only step up to the plate but perform admirably.

It's pretty ridiculous for a man to decide for himself why girls/women engage in oral sex. How the hell would he know? If anything, young girls feel pressured to perform acts I was only peripherally aware of at that age because of porn, just as they feel pressured to have boob jobs at 18 and depilitate themselves. If any aesthetic prevails here it is one driven by and for the benefit of men, not women.

Where he ventures into trying to explain women's behavior/attitudes he doesn't just miss the boat but the entire ocean. This, for instance, is just plain silly:

In my interviews with countless fans, it became clear that for teenage girls, the boyish but androgynous look was the one they preferred in their idols — smooth, hairless, lacking traditionally adult, masculine physical attributes, and, by implication, sexually unthreatening.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Did I mention, "Dumb?" Good.

Teenaged girls like movie stars who remind them of .... gasp .... teen aged boys (you know, smooth, hairless, lacking traditionally adult, masculine physical attributes)? I did, as a teen. As an adult I like craggy, masculine looking men with big jaws, lots of chest hair, and muscles. It would be weird for me to be attracted to men who look younger than my sons.

Sorry guys. He may be a fine writer - I wouldn't know. But this essay just makes no sense no matter how you slice it.


Posted by: Cassandra at July 3, 2010 08:27 AM

We have an elementary school that is persisting in this nonsense by rewarding good deeds, and the kids are thinking the only reason to do something worthwhile or to behave is to get a reward.

I agree with you, Cricket. If the goal is to raise a bunch of little narcissists, that's a great tactic. If it is to teach virtue, not so much.

Posted by: Cassandra at July 3, 2010 08:29 AM

How the hell would he know?

hey, you never know, maybe he tried it out on a guy before.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 3, 2010 09:05 AM

If the goal is to raise a bunch of little narcissists, that's a great tactic.

Well, they did spend decades refining the technique of mass production and indoctrination in order to create the New Ruling class. Or as ICBS said, the Rulers of the Universe (no, he did say that about the next generation, including his children. I'm not making this up).

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 3, 2010 09:08 AM

Mike, you asked me a fair question and I have been supremely busy in canning the fruit of the vine.

First of all, the meritocracy as such, is a selection process. I see the entitlements or whining as a means to achieve status as a mandarin. We have done this with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and really, any other who yells loud enough to be heard.

If one uses testing to select the best and brightest, and people claim there is a racist aspect to testing, it won't be on knowledge but on an entitlement because of one's race...not on what one knows.

I saw that in the case of the firemen who took the tests and passed...and the accusations were that the test was racially biased. HOW? Justice Sotomayor was the judge who heard that case before her appointment to the Supreme Court.

This is a rather 'all over the map' sort of post. I apologize for that, so if you want to email back and forth, I will put my *true* email in the field, because it is something I would LOVE to talk about and get some feedback on.

Posted by: Cricket at July 4, 2010 05:43 PM

A meritocracy is only as good as the standard by which merit is judged and recognized.

The internet, thus, is not one meritocracy but numerous different ones all jumbled together with open and free borders (mostly).

Some regions judge merit based upon academic degrees. Others judge merit based upon age or political party. Others judge merit based upon skin color and racial superiority. Others judge merit based upon combat time or simply seniority.

So on and so forth.

The real trick to meritocracy is to figure out how to recognize real merit and advance it without prejudice or subjective bias. That's the same problem with all kinds of government, really, human fallibility.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 4, 2010 07:41 PM

Btw, don't put your true email in the fold. Cause it makes a link. Google bots and various other agents actively search the net for email links and collates them. It is all automated.

The low tech defense is to actually print out your email, separate out the @ symbol with trash characters, and then no automatic program would be likely to catch it and feed it to their spam masters.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 4, 2010 07:43 PM

Mike, you asked me a fair question and I have been supremely busy in canning the fruit of the vine.

Sorry, I was eminently unclear. I meant, why was the comment on meritocracy directed at me? Not offended or upset here, I just don't really understand, since I don't believe I said anything regarding meritocracies. I just complained that most folks would rather whine about stuff that do something about it. And I posited that those people actively enjoyed playing the victim.

Like I said, I'm not worried about it, just confused as to why you directed your comment to me.

Posted by: MikeD at July 6, 2010 10:45 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)