Street harassment, and the logic behind the Burqa

Tags

#misogyny, feminism, gamergate, mra, street harassment

There are more posts about street harassment these days then there are stars in the sky, so I don’t often say anything myself. However, one author who has written repeatedly about the article stands out. Not because she is saying anything new, but because she is writing for the conservative, decidedly anti-feminist National Review. It’s akin to a liberal writing about the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy: the words somehow carry a lot more weight if they are coming from an unexpected source.

Because Christine Cristo, no matter how much she may believe in supply-side economics, voter suppression or bashing feminazis, still has to walk the streets of a crowded urban area as a young woman. Catcallers don’t exactly check voter registration cards before letting loose, and so she experiences the verbal abuse as much as a young female writer for Jezebel would.

More than that, she notices the online abuse that also ignores partisan lines, which brings us to the anonymous, largely atheist, rabidly misogynist commentators who make up the online MRA/Gamergater “movement.”

Why the online misogynists are so stoked about the viral catcalling video — besides their jumping on any opportunity to send rape threats to any woman who doesn’t know her place, of course — goes back to the weird logic on how the woman is at fault for daring to be attractive (despite the woman in the video’s relatively bland attire.) As one of these men reveals:

She wears a tight jean revealing her magnificent a** to the world and doesn’t make any effort to hide it. The description tries to pretend she is wearing some modest and anonymous combination . . .  Well, the black doesn’t changes reality [sic] and she also has no problem sticking her booty out there.” [Cristo then adds:] In fact, many comments under the YouTube video make a reference to Roberts’s jeans, implying that if she wore baggier pants, the men would have left her alone, apparently not realizing that might as well be Iranian morality police logic.

I’ve long said that one useful thing about these little men of the MRA/Gamergater universe is that they lend such insight into the inner workings of their close cousins in religious orthodoxy. Unlike the latter, the MRAs/Gamergaters can’t just wave their hands and say “God wills it” to explain their hatred of women, even though the misogynists of evangelical Christianity, orthodox Judaism and fundamentalism Islam are motivated by *precisely* the same misogyny. Because MRAs/Gamergaters have to be more honest with their thought process, they by extension tell us what motivates the religious fundies as well.

So here, we have the thought process behind the burqa. Women are at fault for “sticking it out there,” which means wearing anything no matter how casual or dowdy which shows she has a feminine form. Therefore, that feminine form must be repressed. And this is why oppressive anti-female dress codes are enforced by orthodox Evangelicals, Mormons, Jews, and both Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Not because God told them to. Not because there is a burning bush declaring it must be so. But because the very male and very misogynist religious leaders hate the feminine form.

As the MRAs/GGs prove, this attitude of hate extends even to atheists who have no God to hide behind. Instead of ignoring women on the sidewalks the way we urban dwellers ignore every other goddamn person on the sidewalks, they take the appearance of the feminine form as an affront. The “why” of this still eludes me, but there it is.

And finally, it’s remarkable that the new misogynists are turning even a fluffy publication like Cosmo and even a nominally anti-feminist mag like William F. Buckley’s creation into more feminist-friendly environs. The new misogynists are the problem, and as much as Cristo may hate to admit it, feminism is the solution.

Week 7 NFL thoughts

Tags

#football, #nfl, #sports

Most surprising NFL team in 2014: Buffalo Bills. Not the Cowboys nor the Cardinals, both of whom had the pieces in place and if anything, had unfairly and unlucky mediocre records last year. The Bills have somehow pieced together a winning record (so far) using nothing but spare parts and duct tape. If there is a fan base more deserving to see their team play in January, I can’t think of which it might be. If the Pats collapse, as I feel they will, then the division is the Bills’ to lose. [update week 10: I stand by this, other than the bit about the Pats. They may still buy themselves a wild-card spot yet.]

Most disappointing NFL team in 2014: New Orlean Aints. I think it’s time to revive the moniker. How can a team with a Manning-level QB be so awful every year after their championship? It’s easy to point fingers at the defense, but Brees’ offense has been anemic at best as well. They’d be lucky to win the worst division in the league this year, but probably can’t even manage that due to the completely average and unremarkable Panthers. [update week 10: How you feel about this depends on how you feel about the referee’s call which cost them the game today. Personally, I think the worst aspect of NFL gameplay is seeing beautiful, miracle plays get completely cancelled by relatively minor penalties, such as some asshole on the other side of the field holding, or this defensive back flopping NBA-style after the Saints receiver barely touched him. That said, the Saints are not going to make the playoffs this year.]

Most overrated team: New England Patriots. Their record is better than they are, with their ridiculously cushy schedule so far as of week 7. Most of their wins have been less than ringing, with even the pathetic Jets coming within an ace of victory during the final drive, and the worst team in the NFL coming within a touchdown. Brady is in twilight, Gronk has been inconsistent at best, the wideouts are a confused mess. Only a halfway decent defense is letting them win — and who ever thought the Patriots of all teams would be relying on the defense? The Bill+Tom love story of Foxborough may finally be winding down. [update: well, not so much anymore. Brady exhibits that quality only elite-level players have: when faced with mounting losses, he only gets madder and more determined instead of more demoralized.]

Most underrated team: KC Chiefs. Yes, I am biased, but hear me out. Their only really shameful loss was to the lowly Titans, and that was the first week of the regular season when most of the pistons weren’t firing yet. But the offense learned quickly, puting up very respectable showings against the Broncos and the Niners, two of the strongest squads in the league. They blew out the Pats (see above) and squeaked out a road win against the always-dangerous Chargers. New TE Kelce is mentioned in the same breath as Tony G, and RB2 Knile Davis is proving almost as dangerous as his future-hall-of-famer colleague. And Eric Fisher is looking much better on the O-line his sophomore season. The wideouts remain an issue outside of Bowe, but this offense is still miles ahead of where they were last year. The D is not as overpowering as the first half of the 2013 season, true, but that is a tough standard to beat. [update: 3 weeks later, and this is even more justified than when I first wrote it. The running game was largely denied today, but they still found ways to find the win. The 2013 Chiefs were a one-trick pony. These Chiefs are decidedly not.]

Best team as of week 7: Dallas Cowboys. It was about time Jerry’s ‘Boys finally earned their “America’s Team” moniker. Romo always took more flak than he deserved. For instance, last year he put up 48 points against the red-hot Denver Broncos, and yet he still got blamed for the loss after the defense let Peyton run wild on them to the tune of 51 points. Dallas fans perhaps think he plays linebacker as well as defensive coordinator in addition to QB; I don’t know. And say what you will about Jerry Jones, but at least he is actually a football fan and a fan of his own team, unlike so many other NFL owners who will remain nameless. Jerry Jones is always celebrating in his owner’s box when his team is ahead. Many other owners are emotionless either way, probably too busy counting empty seats and wondering if they can jack up beer prices as opposed to caring about the product they are putting out on the field. Anyway, they are shaping up to be the 4th-quarter team to beat. [update: I stand by this. And Romo once again proved how underrated he is by his team’s relatively poor performance during his absence. The NFC conference finals will see the ‘Boys represented. Who their opponent will be is unclear as Carson Palmer may have torn his ACL again.]

Worst team as of week 7: Oakland Raiders. Hopeless. Disorganized. Blundering. Yes, this is the team those fans deserve. At this point, it seems that too many players have simply gotten used to losing and have accepted it, same as their former head coach before he was unceremoniously cashiered over the phone after week 4. No wonder they may be moving back to LA in a year or two. Interim head coach Tony Sparano, taking a break from his New Jersey mafia duties, and promising rookie Derek Carr seem like the only ones still trying, but they can’t do anything on their own. At least the fans can take solace that Matt Shaub isn’t their QB. Perhaps that can give them comfort during their weekly knife fights in the parking lot. [update: not exactly much arguing against any of this, is there? Maybe at this point they are just intentionally gunning for the #1 draft pick for their first season in their new city next year.]

Most likely Superbowl matchup as of week 7: Yes, it is pointless to make this sort of prediction this far out. That said: Broncos/Cowboys. Cowboys win 37-27. [update: I stand by this.]

Race and white people

Tags

#race, #racism, #white people

Here, Slate writer Jamelle Bouie discusses a new PBS series featuring white people talking about race. Bouie expresses amazement at how rarely white people discuss race, but he shouldn’t be amazed. Once a white person opens their fool mouth about race, they’ve automatically lost. So, we learn to shut up about it. The people featured in this documentary apparently illustrate why.

With that said, this idiot white boy will now talk about race.

I work in an office where I’m usually the only white person around. The office’s neighborhood is roughly 50/50 black and Hispanic. I live in a neighborhood that is also majority Hispanic and my child is half-Hispanic. And let me tell you, I am the only person around who never talks about race. There is no scenario where my speaking about race IRL in any capacity could be considered even remotely appropriate. My coworkers and the clients, on the other hand… they are blunt about race to a degree that would make any white liberal head for the fainting couch. It’s shocking because I have been trained all my life to never breathe a word about race, and here, everyone is commenting on each other’s race as baldly as they would address their hairstyle, their kids or their favorite sports team.

I don’t mean they are constantly going off on racist tirades, although there is some of that too. It’s just things like remarks about how all Mexicans are with their kids, or how all black people behave a certain way, or a Hispanic coworker asking blunt questions about a black coworker’s hair that had me wanting to hide under a desk. But in such a multiethnic neighborhood, with blacks and Hispanics of varying origin rubbing elbows, it’s just part of the daily conversation. The things heard around my workplace’s neighborhood would get any white person run out of polite society faster than Donald Sterling, and they are no big deal.

And maybe it is for the best that white people have learned to STFU about race. As the PBS show seems to prove, and as the movie Borat did before it, there are legions of white closet racists. They do go off on racial rants, but only to those closest to them, and only in person — we all know what happens to white people who commit such racist talk to email, or who get secretly recorded on the phone. In public, it’s very different. White people either essentially take the fifth when race comes up or, if backed into a corner, mouth P.C. pablum so bland that it could pass for a university’s diversity mission statement.

Of course, it’s all crap. White people are just as racist as everyone else.

It is my belief that we all harbor racist tendencies. It is baked into the human condition, based on the tribal nature we share with the other primates. In order to have a functioning civilization, we have to ever be on guard against this primitive drive just as we guard against actually acting out violent impulses against someone who wronged us, or guard against the desire to act out sudden lustful impulses we have towards strangers or coworkers. We should not be ashamed about having racist impulses any more than we should be ashamed to have rage or lust — all of these urges are hardwired into our primitive animal brain. It is the constant job of our higher, human cerebrum to self-police these impulses before they become problems.

Conventional wisdom holds that only racism held by white people “matters.” This is because white people are better off economically than blacks and Hispanics. This is true for some extent, but it’s pretty easy to think of examples where this rule does not apply. For instance, if President Obama were racist against whites or against Hispanics, that would clearly be a problem. Or racism held by Asians could also be an issue as they are also economically privileged.

But most of all, I don’t think shaming white people or encouraging white guilt is the healthiest long-term solution anyway. Pretending that white people are supposed to be these enlightened beings without a single racist thought in their heads, lest they be exposed and shamed out of society, is in an odd way demeaning to minorities who are held to no such expectations. I don’t know what the better solution is, but until then, I will go on with my typical cracker’s tight-lip, radio-silence, change-the-conversation strategy. It’s the only strategy we got.

Ebola is proving just how worthless our elites are

Tags

#ebola

Our current rulers on top of the political, financial, health care, media and university worlds sure do love letting us proles know just how elite they are. They pay each other staggering salaries and bonuses; they give each other endless ridiculous awards and trophies celebrating their eliteness at black-tie dinners where the only proles in attendance are the servers and security guards; their PR machines serve to always remind us how well they are running things for our benefit — never mind your stagnating salary and declining quality of life, of course.

The problem is, when it comes to actually running anything, our current rulers absolutely suck. They suck balls.

Earlier, I discussed a pathetic moron named Nancy Snyderman, an Establishment figure trained (but no longer practicing) as an MD, who decided that quarantines don’t apply to her despite her exposure to a known Ebola patient. After she was caught, she issued a typical Establishment non-apology where she declared herself healthy (!) and, furthermore, blamed the incident on her very much non-elite crew members. Because I’m sure they forced her out of quarantine at gunpoint.

But as awful and arrogant as Snyderman is, her incident is small potatoes compared to the ongoing catastrophic failures with political leaders such as Obama and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, as well as health care leaders such as CDC Director Tom Frieden and Texas Presbyterian Hospital head Jim Berg. Their genius management of the American Ebola Patient Zero case has lead to two nurses also being infected via eminently preventable incidents, another being allowed to fly in a commercial airline flight before someone decided it might cause slight problems, and — this is so sad I’m laughing — yet another health care worker allowed to go onto a cruise ship after handling Ebola specimens. Bang-up job there, guys! I sure feel safe with the situation in your capable hands!

They are just as incompetent with this as they are with the Middle East, the economy, or managing a goddamn subway service or police department. Oh, they are great at extracting money from us proles and then congratulating themselves over their eliteness at the Met Gala or at Davos, but when the time comes to actually do their goddamn jobs, all they can do is 1) duck, 2) put out press releases telling us what a good job they are doing and 3) blame the inevitable bad outcome on someone else.

For comparison’s sake, let us turn to Nigeria. This is a war-torn country beset by their own version of ISIS, Boko Haram, psychotically evil thugs murdering and raping civilians in the name of Shaitan Allah. As opposed to America, they are on the same continent as the Ebola hotspots, with porous borders allowing easy travel to and fro. And, Nigeria is a developing country. To put it mildly, they do not have the same resources as America. Yet they are still beating the virus, mainly because their leaders stepped up instead of stepping aside to the latest black-tie fundraiser while blaming someone else. Nigeria is now on the verge of being declared Ebola-free. If only America could declare the same thing!

Basic guys are a thing too, even if we don’t call them that

Tags

#basic, #basic guy, #buzzfeed, #gender, #nymag

A few days ago I offered unsolicited dating advice to a basic girl, in which I suggested hiding her basic-ness until she sealed the deal, same as how we guys have to hide our crazy until the same.

But is basic an acceptable term? Here, Noleen Marone with New York mag points out how basic is inherently a gendered insult, or at least semi-insult. It basically (heh, see what I did there) means a young American female with very specific and stereotypical tastes in clothing, friends, diet, Pottery Barn and, above all, Pumpkin Spice Latte.

“Basic” really is used by a put-down, most infamously by Buzzfeed recently as they were laying into it hard. And as Marone ultimately points out, it’s really an excuse to call a woman a bitch.

It’s a shame because “basic” really does describe a certain type of person. After all, we all know plenty of basic girls. And you know what? We also know plenty of basic guys.

The basic guy also is not known for noncomformity. He is always in a cap, logo T-shirt and long shorts or else jeans, depending on the weather. On his feet are either flip-flops or dad sneakers. Instead of Pumpkin Spice Latte and white wine, he is into beer, with a preferred list of microbrews he orders instead of the Bud Light he looks down on — never mind that his preferred microbrews are probably owned by the same giant corporation anyway. The basic guy will join up with his buds from college to watch the local sports team, drinking his favorite microbrew, before often having to leave early to get ready for bed. He too hates the nightclub scene, avoiding any drinking establishment that does not have multiple TVs tuned to various sports channels. He likes to tinker with manly things such as cars, although he will never be an expert at it.

He is as much into ESPN.com as his distaff counterpart is into Radar Online. The basic guy would never have an ironic handlebar mustache, instead existing somewhere in the spectrum between clean-shaven and full beard, with the goatee as an acceptable alternative. He will either have a beer tap in his man-cave, or else will want one. The biggest event of his year is the annual camping trip with his friends. And like his counterpart, he very rarely has friends of the opposite gender. The basic guy’s musical tastes are essentially frozen in time from his high school and college years. He will never wear a suit unless forced to, and will then always look uncomfortable in it. He too wants kids and a suburban home with a two-car garage, although he doesn’t express it like the basic girl does. When he has kids, he would voluntarily wear a Baby Bjorn and also buy an SUV, assuming he doesn’t already have one.

Basically, envision Darius Rucker from the ’90s band Hootie and the Blowfish and there you go: the most basic man to have ever walked the earth in a T-shirt and denim cap.

Yet these guys never really get a gendered slur, if they get a slur at all. “Dull” or “boring” are rarely used to describe them. Instead, they get described as “solid, dependable family men.” They are just as utterly predictable as basic girls, yet don’t get called out on it. People look at basic girls and laugh. People look at basic guys and simply don’t care.

So, yes. Next time a Stopera at Buzzfeed trots out the next “basic bitch” listicle, ask why you never get one for men. And maybe, the “bitch” part of the insult really is the more important word for them.

Our Elites Suck, part 3,561a: Medical Edition

Tags

#arrogance, #ebola, #establishment, #nancy snyderman, #nbc

A woman named Nancy Snyderman, chief NBC medical correspondant, Friend of Bill (Clinton) and card-carrying member of the landed aristocracy we called the Establishment, was exposed to a confirmed case of Ebola while in Liberia. As per standard protocol, she was placed on a 21 day house quarantine, same as anyone else would get with a known exposure.

Naturally, this would not do. You see, no virus would dare infect a member of the 1%! Only commoners and people who don’t have their own wikipedia pages get infected. The Ebola virus knows its place! So she went out, violating her quarantine, to get some takeout food. Because it’s ok if we unleash Ebola within shouting distance of the nation’s largest city. What could go wrong?

But I haven’t even gotten to the best part of this tale of one of our Übermenschen  who lord it over us proles: her “apology.”

As a health professional I know that we have no symptoms and pose no risk to the public, but I am deeply sorry for the concerns this episode caused.

Besides the usual “sorry you were offended” tone these non-apologies from our enlightened masters of the Establishment always take, note the galling arrogance in declaring she KNOWS that she poses no risk to the public. That statement proves Snyderman is dangerously incompetent as a physician. She should have had her license yanked by the California board of medicine, except fortunately her license is no longer valid as she no longer actually practices medicine.

If there’s one thing a medical professional know, it’s how rare you can say you “know” anything. Telling a patient you “know” for a fact that they do or do not have Ebola, or cancer, or a heart attack without doing any testing is stupidly arrogant, a dangerous disservice, and a surefire way to earn yourself a malpractice suit.

And to apply this level of stupid arrogance to yourself in some self-serving non-apology is even worse. How dare she! I am not exaggerating when I say this horrible person is a disgrace to the medical profession.

I can rest assured that she will receive some accountability for her incompetence, gross malfeasance and overall stupidity. And by that I mean she will receive no accountability whatsoever and will enjoy the privileges of being a media who’s-who and an Establishment member into a ripe old age.

Atheists vs. Muslims in the liberal world

Tags

#atheism, #islam, #skeptic, bill maher, isis, muslim, terror

A definite tension between two liberal constituencies, atheists and Muslims, has been brewing for some time. Liberals traditionally have valued non-believers as trusted allies against Christian conservatives. However, they find it troubling when atheists also go up against Islam, despite the fact that any honest atheist would have to be opposed to Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism. But unlike attacks on the latter two, they find criticism of Islam racist.

This came to a head with that famous confrontation between conventional liberal Ben Affleck, and atheist figureheads Sam Harris and Bill Maher on the latter’s show a few weeks ago. Harris and Maher were arguing that Islamic extremists are even worse than Christian conservatives in assailing liberal values we hold dear, such as equal rights for women and religious tolerance. Affleck, in turn, basically fell back to the usual racism charge. How dare they question a culture that is not our own. Racist!

Worse, conventional liberals say, daring to say a negative world about Islamic extremism only gives ammo to the neocons who look for any excuse to bomb brown people. Indeed, some liberals compare Harris and Maher to racist Southern whites for this reason, giving aid and comfort to the Cheneys of the world the way the latter gave aid and comfort to the KKK even if they were not actual members.

Glenn Greenwald is perhaps the ultimate enforcer of this prohibition of criticism of Islam. Greenwald, who is of Ed Snowden fame, lays down the law here:

Beyond all that, I find extremely suspect the behavior of westerners like Harris (and Hitchens and Dawkins) who spend the bulk of their time condemning the sins of other, distant peoples rather than the bulk of their time working against the sins of their own country. That’s particularly true of Americans, whose government has brought more violence, aggression, suffering, misery, and degradation to the world over the last decade than any other.

And by “extremely suspect,” he means “racist.” In case you weren’t able to figure that one out.

Greenwald’s rabid anti-Americanism was made explicit in this quote (and, thus, his true motivation for encouraging Snowden to make his leaks). I doubt Affleck shares his hatred for America, but if critics of Islam are fellow travelers with the KKK, then by the same logic Affleck is a fellow traveler with this virulent enemy of Affleck’s country.

The problem is that Islamic extremists really are far, far worse than our homegrown Christian fundamentalists, and no amount of America-hating can change that fact. Our religious crazies want to ban abortion, reduce women’s rights and teach creationism in school. Their religious crazies want to execute heretics, literally enslave women and annihilate New York City. Christian fundies believe that other types of Christians are wrong. ISIS believes that other types of Muslims should be executed. I think it’s possible for one to acknowledge this teensy difference in magnitude between the two types of crazy without having to join the Republican Party.

And no, America’s various misadventures in Iraq and Syria are not the malfeasance of a Christian nation. In fact, there is no such thing as an explicitly “Christian nation” in the world anymore, unless you want to count Vatican City. On the other hand, most Muslim countries have it explicitly written into their laws or constitution that Islam is the official state religion and the country is subservient to Islam, Allah and/or the Prophet Mohammed. Besides would Greenwald or his ilk really try to accuse Obama of being an evangelical Christian? No, all of our ill-thought campaigns over there have been triggered by the distilled hate and evil of groups like al Qaeda or ISIS, groups who make even our most batshit Jesus freaks look like Neil deGrasse Tyson by comparison.

This does not mean at all that crazy is somehow baked into Islam, or the Arab world. A thousand years ago, after all, the roles were precisely reversed: Christian Europeans were the backwards, primitive, bloodthirsty ones while the Arab world was relatively peaceful and enlightened. The Arabs also regularly kicked the barbaric Christians’ asses during the Crusades. And who knows? In a thousand more years, maybe the pendulum will swing back the other way again and prove Greenwald right.

But that isn’t relevant to our day-to-day lives right now. What is relevant is that the pendulum of crazy as of 2014 is wayyyyy in the direction of the Muslim world, and acknowledging this doesn’t make you a neocon or a racist. It makes you right.

No, don’t “be yourself” in the dating world.

Tags

#basic, #dating, #xojane, relationships, women

The woman pictured above — single, in her 20s, employed, intelligent, articulate, all great things to be in the dating world — posted an article on xoJane about how she cannot get anyone on dating sites to even message her back.

I have good news for her: this is an easy problem to solve. But first, let’s discuss the problem.

If that is her profile pic, what on earth did she expect? I would left swipe too. She’s 26 going on 40. She presents as the mom of the guys her own age. She is PTA, minivans and cul-de-sac McMansions to guys in their 20s who are looking for beer, bachelor crash pads and seductresses straight out of Maxim magazine. Her text description goes on about cooking, iced coffee, her 4-year-old niece and Muppets, a description which surely was as attractive to men, as a guy going on about World of Warcraft and My Little Pony would be to women. This is not a knock on her physical attractiveness at all as she does has a lot to work with — I get that she isn’t a size 0, but that is no excuse to get no action. It’s more a knock what she’s doing with what she’s got.

In other words, she is following the worst dating advice possible. She is being herself.

If you get right down to it, few of us are really first-date material. Imagine two people going in to a first date as if they were married for 10 years, talking about the mundane bullshit they really care about instead of putting up the expected first-date facade — both would be activating their emergency escape plans before the appetizers arrived.

Yeah sure, most men are going to be into video games, sports, zombies and weird sex fantasies of one kind or another, whereas most women like the author above are going to be into pumpkin spice lattes, watching Hulu with the cat and Nutella. But just as guys learn the hard way to keep their nerdiness or weirdness out of the picture the first few dates, so girls too must learn to keep their basic-ness out of sight and out of mind until the relationship has already started.

I mean, yes, we guys all know in the back of our minds that eventually, the relationship will get to the point where the heels, the racy panties and the wild nights out will be retired in favor of sensible shoes, granny panties and evenings binge-watching Netflix… we just would prefer to keep the fantasy alive for as long as possible. Similarly, I’m sure women would prefer to keep the inevitable discovery of his Madden habit, porn stash and Walking Dead obsession to as late a date as possible.

If we were all upfront about who we were right off the bat, the human race would cease to procreate.

So, on to the easy answer to her problem: Stop being herself on her profile. The rest follows.

Ditch the PTA-mom pic from above in favor of something inspired by an Esquire photo shoot. Let the hair down (she has long hair, although her profile pic would never let you know), show herself out with friends and having fun in life, and lower herself to showing cleavage. It’s sad how men are, but one cannot overstate the effect cleavage has on us — letting the girls out to play pretty much never fails. Emphasize in her profile how much she loves nights of fun, partying, not wanting kids anytime soon, and living life carefree. Of course it’s all bullshit, same as the profiles of the guys she wants to respond to her. It’s just how the game is played. There really should be a disclaimer or something on okcupid, but either way, just wait until you “seal the deal” before the presentation of your peanut-butter smoothies and Muppet collection. Perhaps then, he would finally feel comfortable to lay on you the 420 habit and NY Giants fanaticism he’s been hiding. Ah, relationships.

So beta it hurts

Tags

#alpha, #beta, #pua, #salon, relationships

I realize the title and subject of this post steals liberally from the PUAs… but the term “beta,” as well as “alpha” and “omega” to describe human personality, predates their thing, so I’m running with it.

To oversimplify things, there are three general types of people: the “alphas,” the ones who are leaders, headstrong chargers, careerists, moneymakers, extroverts, but also often unempathetic or even sociopaths, and generally are the “takers” in a relationship. Then there are the “betas,” nurturers, caregivers, quiet and introverted people who wind up being the “givers.” And then there are the “omegas,” roughly translated into “complete losers,” people not worthy of our consideration and who will be ignored for the rest of this post except for one interesting historical fact: the Nazis persecuted omega males too, along with the Jews and Russians all the rest, calling them “asocials.” You didn’t know that, did you? The reason why: absolutely nobody cared. Because they were omegas.

Anyway, what brought about the title of this post: this guy, writing for (where else) Salon, who is so beta it hurts. (Leading PUA “Heartiste” is going to have a field day with this guy. Heartiste is thoroughly wicked, yes, but at least has an IQ over 100, which makes his blog a compelling window into the nature of the heart of darkness within humanity.) The title of the writer’s Salon article is “My doomed mission to make her happy,” and no more beta statement has ever been uttered.

You see, in a typical alpha/beta relationship, the beta really does derive their happiness from how happy they make their partner. We see this all the time in typical hetero relationships where the wife is the beta: she will go on and on about how she bends over backward to make him happy. We also see this in tales of wives cheated on: they invariably complain about how much they tried to make the cheating husband happy, as if this would make him less, as opposed to more, inclined to cheat. The weirdly compelling and dastardly site She’s a Homewrecker serves up daily examples of what I am talking about, slavishly beta housewives wondering how their oh-so-lovely alpha (or omega) husbands could ever cheat on her considering how much she tried to make him happy.

With wives, we consider them being beta the default. With husbands who behave this way, like with the Salon writer, we shake our heads sadly and wonder how he could become so pathetic, as we should. But the question is: Why don’t we also shake our heads with these doormat beta wives?

Consider some of these quotes from him: “If each of us is a fortified castle, she had just raised her portcullis. I rode forth on my horse, without armor.” “Maybe the white tea was an arrow that pierced her heart, for a few days later she made the first move, and soon we were in love.” “My mission to make her happy was deep and active. I thought of birthday presents months in advance.”

If one of your girlfriends were saying the exact same thing about some guy, wouldn’t you want to just slap some sense into her?

Sure enough, one year into their marriage: “One night when I told her over a candlelight dinner how beautiful she looked, she responded with irritation, “So am I supposed to say something romantic now, too?””

She had fallen out of love with him. This is the fate that befalls all extreme betas. I don’t know if she was cheating on him by this point, but I would assume so. And his response was to double-down on his servile nature to please her.

PUAs are correct about one thing: this sort of beta attitude truly is repulsive to most women. But, it is repulsive to most men as well. If you go too far towards beta on the sliding scale, nobody will respect you because you really are just a doormat. And that is the hidden truth about alpha/beta (and the real heart of what I am getting at): it is a spectrum. Going too far in one extreme, or the other, is incompatible with a healthy relationship.

Yes, in many (most?) successful relationships, hetero or homo, one partner will be more alpha and one will be more beta. But as with so many things in human life, things fall apart when taken to the extremes, in either direction

If you choose to be a complete beta doormat like this doormat, your relationship is as doomed as if you are a sociopathic abusive alpha who lets his fists do the talking. I don’t want to blame the victim, but on the other hand, if you allow yourself to be a doormat (like this guy did, like so many She’s A Homewrecker wives did, or as I did myself at one point to an ex-girlfriend), you will suffer pain and suffering unimaginable.

Men and women who find themselves in this situation: for God’s sake, the answer is right in front of you. Stop making their happiness your happiness. Stand up for yourself. It’s easy! It only took me four years to do with that other relationship…

Atheism and misogyny

Tags

#amanda marcotte, #atheism, #misogyny, #skeptic, feminism, mra

The other day, Amanda Marcotte decided to rile up the anti-woman MRAs once again by pointing out the deep misogyny problem inherent with atheist mucky-mucks such as Dawkins, Harris, Maher and the late Hitchens. She wonders why atheism has to be like this when the religion they mock is so deeply misogynist.

But I think she’s putting the cart in front of the horse. Religious men are not misogynist because of religion; religion is misogynist because it’s run by men*. Same as atheism, with the sole exception that atheists cannot hide behind God to explain their disgust toward the female gender. In other words, the hatred of women came first; the excuses came later, for religious nutsos and skeptics alike.

But the fact that the atheist world, including its leaders as well as the MRAs/PUAs, have to explain away their bigotry towards women makes them so fascinating. Instead of waving their hands and saying “God” (or “Allah,” etc), they have to give us their real reasons… which makes them great case studies into the psychology of hate.

For some atheists like Sam Harris, misogyny is more of a casual thing, a side dish, a snide attitude of dismissal. Harris is routinely attacked by liberals for being Islamophobic, which I don’t understand… of course an atheist is going to be Islamophobic, it is there in the job description of atheism along with being Christophobic, to coin a term. But Harris and Dawkins both share a “pipe down little girl, and leave the thinking for men” attitude.

For other atheists, mainly the MRA and PUA “communities,” that attitude of dismissal is replaced by white-hot rage. I blogged about that before here, but if I had to sum this blind, malignant hate all up in two words, those two words would be “Rebecca Watson.” She gets more hate than the average serial killer, and I am not exaggerating. More on what I’m talking about at this earlier blog post, where I linked to this gem of a quote which sums it all up:

“I fail to see how refusing to believe in God leads to the ‘logical conclusion’ of abandoning the belief that women exist to serve men.”

Straight to the point, and no God to hide behind. I love it.

* Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know: “Not all men.”