« 'Phants! | Main | To Sleep....Perchance To Dream. »

January 06, 2014

There's Someone For Everyone...

...and these gentlemen must be the perfect match for all those women who fall in love with prison inmates:

Next, she demanded men to let her pull out their teeth.

'I THINK U HAVE TOO MANY TEETH SO LET'S MEET UP AND I CAN FIX THAT. I CAN FIX THAT BY PULLING OUT ONE OF UR TEETH,' she wrote in capitals for added crazy.

They were still undeterred so Reed tried tactic three: Talking utter nonsense, partly because of 'the mental and emotional toll' the social experiment had taken on her. However, that didn't work either.


On the otter heiny, this sort of thing probably explains a lot of material on PUA/MRA sites. Funny how often we find exactly what we're looking for...

Repeatedly.

Posted by Cassandra at January 6, 2014 08:22 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4930

Comments

Proving again why angling is an art dependent upon choice of chum, bait, fly, lure, and why the measures of the hooks on the Rockwell scale don't matter.

That women should be so inveterate in re-discovering this particular male property proves something more here than that which is obvious about men. It's that women can never feel good about themselves without proof of a differently preposterous creature.

Posted by: George Pal at January 6, 2014 02:18 PM

Possibly they assumed she must have a hell of a sense of humor -- and as it turns out, she really must. :)

Posted by: Grim at January 6, 2014 04:31 PM

That women should be so inveterate in re-discovering this particular male property proves something more here than that which is obvious about men. It's that women can never feel good about themselves without proof of a differently preposterous creature.

OK, you've lost me George. We're looking at a subset of a subset (men who are desperate enough to respond to a crazy woman, as a subset of men who are on OK Cupid). So clearly we're not looking at anything that could be reasonably extrapolated to "men", "all men", or even "most men".

Likewise, the woman who did this is an even tinier subset of a subset (female writers who write fake profiles to see if there is some threshold below which no - or few - men will take the bait, as a subset of women who are on OK Cupid). So again, clearly we're not looking at anywhere near the sample size that would allow a reasonable extrapolation to "women", "all women", or even "most women".

So how does any of this tell us anything obvious about either men or women?

Posted by: Cassandra at January 6, 2014 04:47 PM

It's that women can never feel good about themselves without proof of a differently preposterous creature.

If we follow this logic, then the same insight applies to men in general, given that some men go on and on (and on... and on... and on...) about women who like bad boys, women who like inmates, etc? :p

The point of this post was that any group has its share of nut jobs. I'm really not sure how we got from what I wrote to broad (pun fully intended) generalizations about "women"?

Posted by: Cassandra at January 6, 2014 04:50 PM

Possibly they assumed she must have a hell of a sense of humor -- and as it turns out, she really must. :)

That's certainly possible!

Posted by: Cassandra at January 6, 2014 04:52 PM

Some years ago, a man in Germany advertised for someone who wanted to be eaten. The would-be cannibal received a number of offers, and finally accepted one.

(If I recall correctly, he complained that too many of the replies came from people who were not serious.)

The authorities in Germany did not approve of this venture in population control, and prosecuted the man as a murderer. (Even though he had tried to choose wines that went with his meals.)

If you run into one of those people who thinks that the "consenting adults" standard settles everything, it can be fun to tell them about this case.

All this proves, I suppose, is that in a large population, there will be a few people, men and women, who are many standard deviations out from the normal.

Posted by: Jim Miller at January 6, 2014 05:21 PM

If you run into one of those people who thinks that the "consenting adults" standard settles everything, it can be fun to tell them about this case.

This is generally the problem I have with Libertarianism. There are tons of cases out there where people do really, really perverse (and harmful) things that simply aren't rational. I suppose if we say that they are free to hurt themselves and no one should intervene unless someone else is hurt too, maybe I could buy off on it. But somehow I really don't think that we should tolerate people killing and eating other people, even if the main course is the only one supposedly "hurt".

All this proves, I suppose, is that in a large population, there will be a few people, men and women, who are many standard deviations out from the normal.

That's really what I got from this story.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 6, 2014 05:35 PM

Cassandra - We are in agreement on the main point -- and I suspect that we agree that the Internet has made it easier for people with, uh, unusual but harmonious beliefs to find each other.

Posted by: Jim Miller at January 6, 2014 05:43 PM

I just wish there were a way for these guys to meet those interested-in-inmates women and precipitate each other out of the pool.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 6, 2014 05:46 PM

I just wish there were a way for these guys to meet those interested-in-inmates women and precipitate each other out of the pool.

Heh :) Me too.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 6, 2014 05:49 PM

"OK, you've lost me George. We're looking at a subset of a subset..."


"If we follow this logic, then the same insight applies to men in general"

Cass,

Yes, we (including me, are). Why you should assume I went extrapolating berserko all of a sudden I haven't a clue. Honest, I realize not all women are X, not all men Y, and all the Zs are not representative.

I followed that logic implicitly in my use of the term 'differently preposterous' – applicable to each sex – equally - if you like.

Finally, I see it's only January 6, and you are taped, laced, and ready to rumble. I must get into shape this year.

Posted by: George Pal at January 6, 2014 06:03 PM

Finally, I see it's only January 6, and you are taped, laced, and ready to rumble.

No, I'm really not. I picked this story because it seemed fairly safe - kind of like an elephant photo.

Why you should assume I went extrapolating berserko all of a sudden I haven't a clue.

This is what made me think you were extrapolating:

That women should be so inveterate in re-discovering this particular male property proves something more here than that which is obvious about men. It's that women can never feel good about themselves without proof of a differently preposterous creature.

How do you get from a story about one woman to "women can never feel good about themselves without proof of a differently preposterous creature" without extrapolating/generalizing?

Posted by: Cassandra at January 6, 2014 06:19 PM

It was not an extrapolation to all women but a recognition of a subset of women who mine for horny, caddish, fearful, louche, gamers in the malestrom to give themselves a superiority that they have, otherwise, no claim to.

It is just one story you take note of; forgive me if I note the stories (and women) are legion.

Posted by: George Pal at January 6, 2014 06:53 PM

It is just one story you take note of; forgive me if I note the stories (and women) are legion.

George, I don't know what's got you so upset, but this story isn't worth it. I thought it was funny, and didn't mean to hit a nerve. If I said something insensitive, I apologize.

None of this is worth it.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 6, 2014 07:20 PM

I think you guys might be looking past one possible reason.
Just sayin'.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at January 6, 2014 07:36 PM

It is just one story you take note of; forgive me if I note the stories (and women) are legion.

Well, a Roman Legion was typically about ~5,000.

Out of ~150mm American women, I'm willing to believe that applies to ~5,000 of them. :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 7, 2014 08:55 AM

BINGO :p

Posted by: The Availability Heuristic at January 7, 2014 09:27 AM

Cass,

It's not upset that I am, it's nostalgic. There was a time a man could go an entire lifetime and never encounter even one virago. harridan, shrew, dragon, termagant. Nowadays you can't escape them. Just the other day the irrepressible Mo Dowd at some Are Men Obsolete confab:
"So now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is, ‘You know we need you in the way we need ice cream — you’ll be more ornamental.’

And the academics and The End Of Men papers. And... the MSM, and on and on and...

I'm not going quietly.

Posted by: George Pal at January 7, 2014 09:59 AM

Yag,
Since women aren't Roman soldiers lets go with the second definition: "a vast host, multitude, or number of people or things". If my reckoning is right I put it at 16,349,481 women.

Posted by: George Pal at January 7, 2014 10:01 AM

You know, it's hard to explain puns to kleptomaniacs because they always take things literally.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 7, 2014 10:06 AM

‘You know we need you in the way we need ice cream — you’ll be more ornamental.’

I'll grant you, there was a time when men didn't hear this from women very often. Of course, that's because during this time women were hearing it from men. So there's that...

At the same time, Academics and the MSM are representative of a heck of a lot less than 10% of women. Until I turn on the news, I hear that type of sentiment from not a single woman I know. But then, maybe that's just the quality of women I run around in.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 7, 2014 10:17 AM

There was a time a man could go an entire lifetime and never encounter even one virago. harridan, shrew, dragon, termagant. Nowadays you can't escape them.

Welcome to real life, George. Or at least, life as women have always known it. Hugh Hefner was spouting all sorts of poisonous nonsense about women in the 1950s, and men have been saying completely awful things about women being useless and stupid and inferior for as long as I've been alive.

Get used to it and argue back to those people. I haven't done made any of those arguments (in fact, I've refuted them too many times to count) and I'm not to blame for the existence of random morons on the Internet. Try dealing with me - with what I've written. You're not striking back at Hannah Rosen or Maureen Dowd by going after me.

I get it. Everyone's angry. Everyone wants to strike a blow for .... well, something.

The problem is that I read crap like that EVERY DAY from conservatives: women are worthless parasites. We've never contributed a single thing to civilization (wow... really?), we would starve if men weren't around to feed and clothe and protect us, we aren't any good at math or science.

And you know what? If you leave out all the meanness and nastiness and pointless put downs, I'll even buy off on half of that proposition because I happen to believe that men and women need each other.

Slamming women is mainstream commentary on conservative sites these days, and you're offended because a few loons like Dowd and Rosen are saying things you've not used to hearing? How is it you grew up in a world where you were shielded from the kind of stuff we've heard all our lives?

Posted by: Cass at January 7, 2014 10:32 AM

One more question, George, and I'd really appreciate a serious response: why would you even want to live in a world where men are protected from offensive speech and women are not?

Posted by: Cass at January 7, 2014 10:34 AM

Cass,

I ask for no protection. I am not offended. Anyone, women included, may spout ideological dogma or say whatever appeals to their militancy and fragile egos. But I will respond. In this matter I was responding to Alli Reed (and her ilk not to the entirety of women and most certainly not you specifically).

"Slamming women is mainstream commentary on conservative sites these days, and you're offended because a few loons like Dowd and Rosen are saying...

You have the world not as it is but precisely upside down. A few "conservative" sites v the a few loons. Those loons are merely flesh and blood embodiment of the zeitgeist. Academia bows to feminism, as does the MSM, the government, the administration, the legislation, the military, the entertainment industry, the publishing industry.

The time of the equality of women, legally and socially, had been achieved some time ago. If the remoter past still blights women's spirits, well... nothing I can do about that. As for now I stand athwart the zeitgeist and say enough.

On a personal note 1:
I noted once Rebecca West had observed of the sexes: "women are idiots, men are lunatics". With that tiny patch of brain not reserved for what men are always thinking about, I determined that Ms West did not think all women idiots all the time, nor all men lunatics all the time. I trust, that when I am slipshod and use 'women' without modifier, that you will grant me a doubt and think me more discerning than simple-minded

Personal note 2:
"Try dealing with me - with what I've written. You're not striking back at Hannah Rosen or Maureen Dowd by going after me.

I should like one instance of my having gone after you. If you have some inference in mind then I'm sorry you've made of it something I would never even imply. I have always thought us agreeing in kind but differing in degree. I hope you believe as much.

Posted by: George Pal at January 7, 2014 12:45 PM

George, America doesn't bow to feminism any more than it bows to militant blacks or gays.

Last time I checked, men are still firmly in control of academia, the media, the entertainment industry, all branches of the government, the military, the publishing industry, etc, ad nauseum. I don't actually have a problem with this, as I strongly suspect (and have always suspected) that if large numbers of women ever actually wanted control of any of these groups (as in, "Not only wanted control, but were actually willing to do what was needed to gain control"), they would have a pretty fair chance of getting it.

Just as, if men actually cared about having all male teachers and all male schools or making sure exactly 50% of custody awards went to men, they'd get off their butts and do something about it. The fact is that they really don't care all that much. Like Dowd, Rosen, et al, they just like jawboning about it.

Talk is talk. Action is action.

When people really care about something, they usually do something about it. When I see these folks blathering but not doing what would be needed to make their pipe dreams come true, I conclude that whatever they're blathering on about today isn't really a priority to them. They'd like someone else to make it happen, but they're not willing to make it happen.

So it is with the dumber of the feminists. They whine a lot but don't control much of anything (unless living rent free in way too many men's minds is a form of control, in which case maybe they do run the world now). The things they actually care about, they tend to have taken action on. If men (or women like me) disagree, we should organize the like minded and take action.

Posted by: Cass at January 7, 2014 01:42 PM

I should like one instance of my having gone after you. If you have some inference in mind then I'm sorry you've made of it something I would never even imply. I have always thought us agreeing in kind but differing in degree. I hope you believe as much.

I don't really know what to believe. I post a silly story about one woman putting up a fake profile on a dating site and writing an article about it, and somehow that gets translated into "women aren't happy unless they can feel superior to someone who's ridiculous in other ways than they are". When I try to get some clarification (because I honestly couldn't see how one gets there from what I posted), you tell me that you're nostalgic for a world in which you never had to listen to idiot women saying things you don't like and you're going to push back.

So - logically it seemed to me - I point out that this post maybe wasn't the place to push back against Rosen or Dowd and you tell me that you weren't pushing back against them, but against Reed (who didn't say any of the things Rosen or Dowd did).

This leaves me wondering what Rosen, Dowd, or mouthy women have to do with the story I posted? I didn't bring those things up. I just responded to them when you did.

I am confused. I did think you understood that both men and women have their share of morons, but your comment (and the heat with which you often discuss women's many failings, but never men's) didn't convey a sense of balance to me. You've admitted wishing that you didn't have to deal with women like Dowd and Rosen, and that (as you put it) you're not going down without a fight.

I just can't understand what this post or anything I've written here has to do with that fight?

Posted by: Cass at January 7, 2014 01:51 PM

Those loons are merely flesh and blood embodiment of the zeitgeist.

Again, maybe I just run in better circles, but the MoDo and Rosen seem less an embodiment of the zeitgeist than they do people who are railing about something because they aren't.

They seem like people who have to tell you they are in charge. Which, of course, means they aren't.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 7, 2014 02:03 PM

I'm going to try to explain how I see things in hopes that perhaps that will help.

When I started blogging in 2003-4, I lampooned radical feminists fairly often. I wasn't aware that they had any counterpart among men, so the vast majority of my critical writing was directed at feminists.

Over the years, I slowly became aware that there was actually a counterpart to radical feminism on the conservative side of the house. Up to that time, I had carefully limited the sites I visited. For a variety of reasons, I never read the popular conservative sites.

When I began to branch out, I was shocked at much of the commentary: conservatives calling women sluts and whores just because they disagreed with them. Conservatives wishing we could just repeal the 19th Amendment (because blacks and Jews never vote Democrat! Just those pesky women :p). Conservatives writing long posts about how all of civilization - all of it! - was built by men. Women made no contribution whatsoever - we were essentially superfluous.

One wonders who was raising and teaching the children and caring for the elderly parents of the Civilization Builders, or how they would have ever found the time for all this admittedly wonderful Building if they had had to feed and diaper the kids, pay attention to their education, instill morals in the rugrats? I yield to no one in my admiration and gratitude for all men have accomplished over the centuries, but it really seems churlish (and foolish) to imagine that Civilization would have just marched right along with no one paying attention to the next generation.

So slowly, gradually, I began objecting to the "sluts and whores" rhetoric I saw on the right, and the really deplorable stuff from the MRA/PUA crowd that so many popular conservative sites were linking to with great relish and approval. I started pointing out that raising a generation of me-first, amoral men was just as much a suicidal act as pretending that men are "so 5 minutes ago" or denigrating their very real contributions.

I generally make exactly the same moral arguments whether I'm criticizing radical feminists or men employing the flawed arguments of radical feminists (disparate impact, special pleading, arguing the other sex is superfluous, etc) because the issues are the same in both cases. But I only get pushback when I criticize a guy - when I use exactly the same arguments to refute some feminist, I get a chorus of agreement.

I happen to think both are wrong and both are causing the problems you cite. So I don't get the asymmetrical outrage, except perhaps as a function of people just naturally sympathizing with their own sex. But that's not a great position from a moral perspective - it's simply identity politics.

That's where I'm coming from on this.

Posted by: Cass at January 7, 2014 02:31 PM

They seem like people who have to tell you they are in charge. Which, of course, means they aren't.

Bingo. These are the same folks who write articles about why the op-ed pages are dominated by men. So obviously they're in charge???

FWIW, I pretty much dismiss anyone who starts an opinion piece with "The End Of...." as silly. There is no "end of men" - that's just crazy talk, especially when men continue to be in charge of literally every major institution in this country and around the globe. I can't point to a single country run by women, or a single government.

It's delusional, and I really don't understand why that sort of thing would be met with anything other than eye rolling and the world's biggest yawn. But then I don't understand why so many men rail at feminists 24/7 and ignore Hugh Hefner's "seminal" (pun fully intended) manifesto (ooh! another pun!) against traditional marriage and the 90000 other pernicious cultural influences that are undermining families and marriage either.

The selective outrage is beyond my understanding, and tribalism is going to be the death of us. Whoever came up with divide and conquer really knew their stuff.

It's working. On us. Just another distraction to keep us from focusing on the real dangers.

Posted by: Cass at January 7, 2014 03:08 PM

Cass,

"men are still firmly in control of academia..."

Come now, stop feigning obtuseness, only coquettish works for women (oh damn – I've done it again). Men in control does not preclude a feminist agenda. Was it not male dominant Harvard that gave up Larry Summers to a mouthful of feminist harridans – for stating the obvious. I could go on and on but as my life's work, or even druthers, are not political, cultural or social remedies I haven't the examples at hand to clinch this side of the argument. I suspect you are well acquainted with them though.

"When people really care about something, they usually do something about it."

Do what" Pass another LAW - the ever burgeoning US code stuffed with a thousand pages of codes to balance, re-balance, micro balance, equality? If ever I thought myself even remotely responsible for another inane law I would seriously consider seppuku. As I do not I would suggest the lawmakers mull it over. Men are starting to do something – all that's left to them – dropping out of school, marriage, the military, churches, and PoCo institutions of all sorts.

"I don't get the asymmetrical outrage, except perhaps as a function of people just naturally sympathizing with their own sex."

Outrage? My original comment:
"Proving again why angling is an art dependant upon choice of chum, bait, fly, lure, and why the measures of the hooks on the Rockwell scale don't matter.

That women should be so inveterate in re-discovering this particular male property proves something more here than that which is obvious about men. It's that women can never feel good about themselves without proof of a differently preposterous creature."

Not a scintilla of outrage there; merely an observation which I hereby amend:

That some women, too many women, should be so inveterate in re-discovering this particular male property proves something more here than that which is obvious about some men. It's that some women, too many women, can never feel good about themselves without proof of a differently preposterous creature."

There! Copacetic?

Posted by: George Pal at January 7, 2014 03:40 PM

Disagreeing with you, George, is not "feigning obtuseness". Nor, I assure you, was it intended as any kind of flirtation.

If you should find at some later time that you're able to have a discussion without the personal insults, I'll be happy to re-engage on the actual merits of the topic.

Posted by: Cass at January 7, 2014 04:15 PM

I get it. See the tease, ignore the argument.

Posted by: George Pal at January 7, 2014 05:10 PM

That some women, an incredibly tiny proportion of women, should be so inveterate in re-discovering this particular male property proves pretty much nothing more here than that which is obvious about an incredibly tiny proportion of men. It's that some women, this incredibly tiny proportion of women, can never feel good about themselves without proof of a differently preposterous creature.

This, I think, is more acurate.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 7, 2014 05:28 PM

About the only "larger point" that this says to me is that there is some number of women greater than 0 that has forgotten that somewhere there is always a man who is completely batshit insane.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Crazy Paws.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 7, 2014 05:35 PM

YAG,

It's only more accurate with the stipulation that the tiny proportion is loud and holds sway, influence, and control, much beyond their numbers. Theirs are the shrieks and hammers. You don't get a man fired by pure hissy fit; you have to wield power to do that.

Posted by: George Pal at January 7, 2014 06:22 PM

The original post took swipes at women dating/marrying prisoners, and guys that apparently favored a good looking women no matter how she was described as a person.
Observations:
- while I don't understand why, there are apparently women that are either sympathetic or desperate enough to 'settle low.' Very sad.
- sooo, some guys only think with their little head. *@surprise!@*

Hi Cass,
"Slamming women is mainstream commentary on conservative sites these days, and you're offended because a few loons like Dowd and Rosen are saying things you've not used to hearing?"
> ?!? . . . (full disclosure, regard myself as libertarian towards others, personally socially conservative, and mostly close to Tea Party on fiscal & constitutional issues)
>>> what conservatives are throwing rocks at 'women,' in general, rather than 'radical feminists?' If a person is socially conservative, then they ought to favor stable nuclear families, which are *always* centered around the mother of the family. There really aren't more than a handful of either assholes or fanatics that genuinely think a woman shouldn't be allowed in any position for which there are fully capable (and yes, again, I oppose women in 'real' combat units like infantry).

Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at January 7, 2014 09:42 PM

Mike, I've been doing this for a long time now (over 10 years). I try to cover a variety of topics while avoiding confrontations or singling out other bloggers. I've done so on occasion, but usually prefer discussing ideas rather than singling out specific bloggers.

Over the years, I've posted several times about suggestions that the 19th Amendment be repealed, sometimes made in a "Ha ha I'm just joking... but seriously, women should not be allowed to vote because they're destroying America and are to blame for big government" (a claim that ought to make FDR spin in his grave, especially as the vast majority of women voted Republican during his 4 terms in office), but other times made entirely seriously.

I've written about several prominent conservative bloggers - these are mega sites with a lot of traffic - calling women who write things they don't agree with sluts and whores. Rush Limbaugh did that with Sandra Fluke (and was quoted approvingly), but there are copious other examples. He had no evidence that she was a slut other than his own astonishingly ignorant and embarrassing ignorance of how the Pill works (you have to take it every day to avoid pregnancy even if you only have sex once a month). Again, surely her (very weak) arguments can be refuted on the merits without calling her a slut? That's not a refutation of feminism.

The National Review has featured not one, but several bloggers openly calling for the repeal of the 19th Amendment (again, apparently blacks and Jews deserve the vote even though a far higher percentage of them vote Dem - just not women). Google will pull them up - they were widely covered on several mainstream conservative blogs and I wrote about one of them here.

That's not anti-feminist - it's just plain anti-woman. I would never tolerate (and hope I would actively oppose) any suggestion that men as a class of people be deprived of the vote. I would never tolerate suggestions that men are taking "our jobs" (I've seen this one several times, but have never written about it here) or that - despite the fact that the vast majority of Congressional seats are held by men - that women are responsible for big government.

These aren't anti-feminist arguments. They're aimed at all women. James Taranto in particular has written many times that the Pill or education are responsible for the decline of marriage. Most women at one time or another have been on the Pill. I was - after I married and for a while before. It had nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with not bringing children into the world until you're prepared to care for them. And his articles blaming women working and getting educations for pretty much every social problem have been addressed here many, many times. You can find them using my search box.

Finally, I don't recall ever seeing a suggestion that women shouldn't be allowed to work at jobs they're qualified for. I personally oppose allowing women into the combat arms and have written many, many posts arguing against that policy over the years.

I've seen several suggestions that the natural order of things is for men to work and women to stay home. It's an ahistorical view (as I've pointed out several times - a sizeable proportion of women have always worked outside the home: this was true even before feminism came along) but a fairly common one. I don't actually have a problem with that argument, FWIW. I don't view it as anti-woman unless someone argues that the law ought to prevent women from working. I don't recall ever seeing that argument.

The most vitriolic and broad-based (pun fully intended) posts I've seen have come from the PUA/MRA crowd. And I would never have known about any of these posts, had they not been repeatedly and approvingly linked to by mainstream conservative blogs. I've seen things I never thought I'd see on a supposedly conservative blog. For instance, an article comparing the cost of hiring a prostitute in several major cities.

Now last time I checked, that was still illegal in this country. And it's certainly not socially conservative in any sense of the word. It marks the only time I've written another blogger and asked to have my site removed from his blog roll.

I fully realize that my policy of trying not to call out other bloggers by name except in rare cases hurts my credibility. It's a policy I've struggled with many times over the years. Rightly or wrongly, I have sometimes tried to avoid the nastiness and reflexive hostility that results from criticizing the person instead of refuting the argument.

But I accept that no one should have to take my word for any of this. I suppose I could be just making it all up (despite having linked to several of these articles to make a point).

Posted by: Cass at January 8, 2014 06:35 AM

Hi again Cass,
Guess we may disagree on the prevalence of the conservative 'anti-women' posts.
Cheerfully agree Limbaugh is an Asshat (his career has been very strange. He did a lot of 'good' work MO he was simply mocking obvious fools; for several years now he appears to have begun believing Dem press releases that *he* is a legitimate arbiter of policy).
> maybe my own reading preferences have screened out some of what you're describing; I won't waste my time or energy with jerks on line.

I'll also cheerfully disavow any other putative conservative/libertarian Asshat that that runs down women; I simply cannot understand why any rational man would belittle women in general, or any specific woman because she's female. That's *dumb!*
That said I also have some issues with individual 'aggressive' (my characterization of those that denigrate men for simply being male) feminists, and also those pundits that stridently adhere to extreme positions.

Looks to me like this is one of those situations where we (or any other commenter here) mostly agree, but perhaps shade the issue a little differently, or choose different words to describe similar views.

Very Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at January 8, 2014 08:08 PM

Looks to me like this is one of those situations where we (or any other commenter here) mostly agree, but perhaps shade the issue a little differently, or choose different words to describe similar views.

Grim and I run into that all the time :p

He notices (and is bothered by) things that I don't notice. And I pay attention to things that he doesn't.

I suspect this is a good thing: people pay the most attention to things that concern them most. Our threat perception is affected more by things that threaten us directly (or, by extension, threaten what we hold dear). Men's interests and affairs matter more to Grim, and so he pays very close attention to any stories about progressive policies that affect men.

All of us filter information. There's just too much to take in, otherwise. That's why I value talking to men - you all pay attention to different things and have a different perspective that is natural and appropriate....for men. But it's not necessarily the whole picture. Likewise, I think men benefit from talking with women because we see things differently from most men. But we don't see the complete picture either - our perspective, though also natural and appropriate for women, is just a part of a larger reality. There's no "right" or "wrong" in my mind about which things ought to be noticed. Just different filters.

True story. During the 19th amendment debate, I commented at another site that I frequently saw male bloggers and commenters on conservative sites longing for the good old days when women (their wives, sisters, mothers, friends, co-workers) weren't allowed to vote. Another commenter - male - immediately jumped all over me, saying he had NEVER seen that happen. Ever.

Just a few days earlier, I had been on another site reading the comments and guess what? One (male) commenter started on the "repeal the 19th" nonsense and this very commenter immediately chimed in in agreement, as did several other commenters :p I started to say something at the time, but decided it wasn't worth it. The real irony was that seeing someone I liked go with the herd (and more disturbingly, the possibility that he really did think women shouldn't be allowed to vote) was a BIG part of what made me notice the issue in the first place.

I don't write about or react to most things I see. After all, it's the internet: if you go ballistic every time you read something stupid or objectionable, you'll never get anything else done. But it really amazed me that someone (and I actually like this person - still do) could be so oblivious.

I think we all have somewhat of a selective filter. I can see that conservative guys are really bothered by demeaning portrayals of men in popular culture. But their perception is very skewed - they gloss right over the many, many flattering portrayals (obviously these are the "correct" ones :p) and only see the bad ones. I understand why they're upset, having spent literally my entire life seeing women portrayed in very demeaning ways.

Guys don't see that, though. My own husband used to complain every now and then about the "bumbling male" stereotype, and I always agreed that these tropes were irritating and disrespectful. What he couldn't see was how pervasive negative portrayals of women are on TV.... until he went to Afghanistan and didn't see TV for a whole year.

One of the very first things he said when he got back was, "Wow. I never understood what you were talking about until now. Being away from TV and movies for a year really opens your eyes."

I don't get upset that somewhere on the internet, conservatives are saying dumb things. That's a given. Both parties have their share of jerks.

I get upset when I've read the same thing several different places over a period of time and see that it's becoming a theme. I don't get upset when one person says something bad about women. That quite literally happens at least once a day. I do pay attention when I see a man spouting this nonsense, see other men agreeing, and not one person disagrees. That's the kind of thing that will generally make me want to write about a topic.

Blogging definitely affects how I filter information. When I'm reading op-eds or posts, in the back of my mind I'm usually thinking, "Is this something worth writing about?" Unless I have something at least somewhat different to say, I won't write about it. If I'm not sure exactly what I think, I often write about it. If I know exactly what I think, believe the issue is important, but don't see anyone else saying the same thing, I will almost ALWAYS write about it.

That's a pretty important filter, because it means I don't write about the vast majority of things I read. And that could easily give the impression (and I think it does) that the things I write about are all I care about or notice. But that's not true at all - there are lots of topics I care deeply about but I think the same thing as every other right-leaning pundit who has already chimed in. I don't see the point of adding an identical voice to the choir.

This is getting long, some I'm going to split it into two comments...

Posted by: Cass at January 9, 2014 07:31 AM

Probably the biggest reason I blog is that I enjoy seeing different perspectives.

I suppose I could only associate with people who think exactly as I do, but that would bore me to death in about 20 seconds. I don't believe - and have never believed - that I know it all and my perspective is the only correct one. I learn from the comments of people who read my posts - both those who agree with me but came to that position by a different road, and those who think I'm smoking crack and try to convince me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

For many years, few women commented here at VC. Women would email me all the time and most of the time I was saddened by how much they would have added to the conversation. Sometimes I've been able to convince them to chime in. I really do think conservatives have a huge image problem with female voters. It's killing us.

And too many male conservatives have no idea how awful the things they say sound to women. They sound disrespectful and callous and frankly, not terribly thoughtful. If I think that - as someone who agrees with conservative policies 90+ % of the time, how must we sound to women who only agree with conservative policies 60 or 70% (but who might be persuaded, if we'd just treat them with respect)?

My kids all vote rethug, and they have all told me at various times that they are sometimes embarrassed at the trash talk from conservatives. My sons are both happily married to good, strong women and they are both pretty disgusted with a lot of the rhetoric from conservatives.

They agree with the ideas. It's the obvious contempt that rankles. It bothers me too, and I hope I never back down from saying so because this country needs to move in a different direction.

I want to be proud of that direction.

Posted by: Cass at January 9, 2014 07:51 AM

George,

Squeeky Wheel != Power.

After Harvard, Larry Summers ended up as the Director of the WH's National Economic Council.

Look upon the feminist's works ye mighty, and DESPAIR! :-)

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 9, 2014 05:56 PM

I remember the Larry Summers/Nancy Hopkins kerfuffle very well b/c I wrote several uber-outraged posts about it and then spent the next year or so mocking Nancy Hopkins and her vapors to within an inch of their miserable lives :p

Because nothing says, "I'm a New Age liberated Female and I AMSO JUST AS TOUGH AND SELF ASSURED AS ANY MAN!!!!11!ELEVENTY!" like hyperventilating and almost blacking out (HEY! is that anything like cultural appropriation?) when a fellow academician puts forth a hypothesis you don't agree with.

The thing is, that incident bothered me too but the truth is that people in public positions get fired for offending the wrong people all the time. It happened to be feminists this time, it could be transgendered Arctic wolverines next time, or atheists, or any of the other squeaky wheel groups out there who specialize in outrage and offense-taking. Heck, it could be one of the fringe right wing groups that call for people to be fired from their jobs for displaying insufficient deference to their sacred oxen.

Agree he shouldn't have been fired, but let's face it - this is Haaahvahd (that bastion of progressivism) we're talking about. The President of the college represents the college, and consequently he simply doesn't have as much latitude as lesser beings.

Same thing happens in the military and a whole lot of other institutions. You're not an induhvidual anymore - you're speaking "for" your employer so long as you're on the clock (and often when you're off the clock).

Posted by: Cass at January 9, 2014 07:08 PM

Hi again Cass,
Additional observation:
"And too many male conservatives have no idea how awful the things they say sound to women. They sound disrespectful and callous and frankly, not terribly thoughtful. ."
> one of my all time favorite 'co-commenters'/Surberbans (followers of Don Suber's blog) was Carolina Kathy. She up and left because one of the regulars (a guy) said something insensitive. Guys can be insensitive jerks.

Very Best Regards,

Posted by: CAPT Mike at January 11, 2014 11:05 PM

It's funny - IRL, I work in a heavily male dominated industry, but I've had very few problems with male co-workers or clients. The vast majority of the time I've been treated respectfully and the few exceptions usually involve people who treat *everyone* badly. Ironically, in many cases these folks treated me better than some of my male co-workers.

I don't know if that's because I'm female (I rather doubt that) or simply because I react differently.

Over the years I've had a few abusive commenters. I've been hacked several times (by women both times, I suspect, but I can't prove that) and stalked twice (one woman, one man). I've gotten quite a few disturbing emails that I just deleted without reacting to them. All of these have been from men.

But IMO I have suffered no worse treatment than than men have to deal with. I have pretty strong opinions on why this might be: one is that women often withdraw or retreat (or worse, publicly let people know it upsets them) and that essentially rewards the bullies. They want attention - my take has always been, "Why give them what they want?"

But while I've had few problems at VC, I can count quite a few conservative blogs that I won't comment at and in some cases don't even read any more because the commenters are so rude and nasty to anyone who dares to question the consensus view. Though I can and have been able to defend myself, the benefits are just not worth the effort.

I have no interest in dealing with jerks if I don't have to. I'll gladly defend my own turf, but don't go looking for fights. I've noticed here that women seem more hesitant to comment in the first place than men, and that bothers me a great deal.

I suspect my personal experience differs from the general experience of women on the 'Net. Part of this is that I've always kept VC small and relatively under the radar. When this site used to get around 2000 visits per day, policing the comments got to be a full time job. That's one reason I've quit so many times - past a certain point, you find yourself putting more in than you get out of blogging and when that happens, it's time to reassess priorities.

Megan McArdle comes in for some of the most unbelievably vitriolic and petty abuse, but she has a LOT of traffic. So do Michelle Malkin and - to a lesser extent - Ann Althouse.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 12, 2014 12:21 PM

But while I've had few problems at VC, I can count quite a few conservative blogs that I won't comment at and in some cases don't even read any more because the commenters are so rude and nasty to anyone who dares to question the consensus view. Though I can and have been able to defend myself, the benefits are just not worth the effort.

This right here is why I really cut back on my internet commenting activity across the board. It's not just political--people (men and women both) can be nasty and start fights about literally *anything,* as anyone who has ever been in any fandom knows. One of the reasons why VC is one of the few sites I still comment at all at is because the comment section here is so civil :)

Basically my time is limited and I prefer not to spend it arguing with people whom I will never meet who think intelligent discussion = screaming and calling names. There's enough nastiness in the world; no need to subject myself to more.

Tempers flare and break
Winning move is not to play
Don't read the comments.

Posted by: colagirl at January 13, 2014 09:09 AM

Basically my time is limited and I prefer not to spend it arguing with people whom I will never meet who think intelligent discussion = screaming and calling names. There's enough nastiness in the world; no need to subject myself to more.

Yep. I used to make a point of standing up to these folks when I encountered them because it bothered me to think they were getting away with their behavior. But there seems to be a never ending supply online - after a while, I decided to pick my battles and engage only when I thought there was a decent chance of making a point or encouraging people not to act that way.

For better or worse, I have the best chance to do that here at VC. Unfortunately, since I've chosen to keep the site small, I'm not doing much to influence the larger conversations on the web. But hopefully this site fills a niche.

Many days - weeks, even - I am so close to giving up and just deleting the site. Comments like yours give me hope, so for that I thank you :)

Posted by: Cass at January 13, 2014 09:27 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)