OPPEC

by Belle Waring on June 9, 2011

Recently Pajamas Media’s own Anthony Klavan got some attention in the blogosphere with his moronic provocative contention that men’s bad behavior, ranging from tweeting pictures of their tighty-whities to serial forcible rape, is all the fault of…women!

I blame women. No, really. Women — by which I mean each and every single member of the female gender — you know who you are — need look no further than themselves to explain why Weiner-types behave toward them in this fashion. We men are always hearing complaints from women about how badly we treat them, what pigs we are, how pushy and abrasive… on and on. But what these same women conveniently fail to mention is that this stuff really works on them!….
So, then, ladies — what do you expect? All we guys want is for you to love us. If this is the sort of guy you follow after in droves, this is the sort of guy we’re encouraged to be.

Now, it’s very likely that I’ll be assassinated by a crack team of female ninjas before I can hit “post” (they are all hot 22-year old Japanese women who may also subject me to intensive questioning, should anyone in the Valley be at a loss for movie ideas.) But I am about to reveal a huge secret here: OPPEC. That is, Other People’s Pussy Economic Consortium. Note that the “People” who own the pussy in this case are the women themselves, contrary to traditional usage. But think about it: women, taken as a whole, have control of all the pussy in the world. That is some valuable assets right there. What could be more natural than the formation of a cartel?

So, yeah, we have bi-monthly secret meetings and stuff. Sometimes pussy output among married women has to be steeply ramped down to allow for appropriate levels of sluttiness among college students. (Explains a lot, amirite?) And you’re probably thinking there are fights. It’s true that fake nails, those feather hair extensions, and big Prada sunglasses can sometimes be found on the conference room floor. Catfights are rarer than men imagine though. Women have two options and are surprisingly decisive, generally: soul-crushing social exclusion and slitting the offending chick’s throat on the spot. (Hot, drunk Scottish women are often recruited for anything involving a lot of knife work.)

Naturally there are disagreements; Natalia Vodianova, who represents both Russia and Ukraine, is often accused of dumping. Too many tall, impossibly beautiful Natashas, with cheekbones one which a man might easily break his heart, giving it up all at once can depress the value of shorter, but still gorgeous, Filipinas (represented by Riza Santos). And there is often friction between the Ethiopian and Eritrean representatives over who controls the crucial output of light, sweet African women. American women can rest assured that they are ably represented by Beyoncé, who is a canny negotiator despite the fact that the US is a net importer of pussy from Mexico and other nations, and given current trends is likely to remain so over the long term.

So, yeah, but at the end of the meetings some situations have to be handled, usually in large classes because it would take too long. Often something comes up like “53-year-old, divorced, former warbloggers who appear to have forgotten the existence of Iraq and now lurk on MRA forums and troll Pandagon” and all the ladies hit this one button in unison “BZZZZT,” and that’s it. No pussy is distributed to these guys at all.

As to why proven assholes continue to get showered with pussy, one must remember that the decisions are to an extent emergent from the mass of women, in a dictatorship of the proletariat kind of way. As such, questions such as, “is the guy hot” and “is he hung like a horse or what” and “does he spend all day repeatedly, charmingly hitting on every woman around him in a way that makes her feel special in ‘the area’” and “is the guy hot, or what seriously” come into play. And finally, as to why women allow themselves to get into the situation in which they are raped, this is a little tricky to get across, but, THEY GOT FOOLED, MOTHERFUCKER! THEY DIDN’T THINK THE DUDE WOULD RAPE THEM. THAT’S KIND OF THE WHOLE MOTHERFUCKING POINT. HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU ANYWAY? So, that’s pretty much it. Wait, I think I hear breaking glass downstairs, I’m just going to go check.

{ 206 comments }

1

IM 06.09.11 at 8:36 am

>i>crack team of female ninjas before

Is that a Pynchon reference or what?

Amanda will have a field day with that, Klavan being such a “nice guy” and all.

2

Glenn 06.09.11 at 9:01 am

Ummm….why bother, really? Do you think his ‘view’ is anything more than an attention stunt? And if it’s anything more genuine that that, do you actually think anything other than a very, very small minority would take it seriously let alone agree with it? Of course, I tend to ignore dogshit on the sidewalks…

3

Emma in Sydney 06.09.11 at 9:26 am

Glenn, don’t know if this will help, but my guess is that Belle was trying to amuse other women? Worked for me, there was guffawing all over the place.

4

Matt 06.09.11 at 9:27 am

Am I down with the ideas expressed in this post?

Yeah, you know me.

5

bert 06.09.11 at 9:34 am

Doug Stanhope, filmed as he convinces another roomful of people that he’s not, in fact, the new Bill Hicks.

6

Alex 06.09.11 at 10:21 am

However, there is clearly no prospect of the Organisation of Asshole-Exporting Bloggers from reducing its output targets any time soon.

7

Glenn 06.09.11 at 10:22 am

Emma, thanks. Didn’t realize it was funny, though I thought it might be an attempt. God, I’m getting old…

8

Latro 06.09.11 at 10:31 am

Amazing. Another Nice Guy rant on why Nice Guys finish last, with standard misogyny. Film at 11 :-P

9

Tomas 06.09.11 at 10:39 am

“So, then, ladies…” is the new “I am not racist, but…”

10

chris y 06.09.11 at 11:16 am

Didn’t realize it was funny, though I thought it might be an attempt. God, I’m getting old

You must be. I’m 60 and I thought it was drop dead hilarious. Probably shouldn’t have read it at work, though.

11

marcel 06.09.11 at 11:48 am

I think this may top Belle’s (and I suspect the Internet’s) previously best post.

I the price of this quality is a low rate of posting (here), I guess we will have to learn to live with it.

12

john b 06.09.11 at 12:19 pm

Whenever time ends, the final paragraph may well prove to be the best paragraph ever written by anyone, ever.

13

sg 06.09.11 at 12:30 pm

Do you guys at OPPEC have pillow fights too? In, like, your underwear? Because I’m pretty sure I’ve seen you doing it on TV.

14

sg 06.09.11 at 12:30 pm

that was an Australian gender-neutral use of “guys” there, obviously. Please don’t send the ninjas after me. Unless they’re armed with pillows!

15

politicalfootball 06.09.11 at 1:09 pm

The underlying economics of the cartel are outlined in an old joke about a little girl and boy comparing various possessions to see which has better stuff. The punchline is delivered by the girl’s mother, who tells her daughter: “Don’t worry sweetheart, with what you’ve got, you’ll be able to get as many of those as you want.”

16

Bloix 06.09.11 at 1:29 pm

“assholes continue to get showered with pussy”

I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around that visual image.

17

Scott Martens 06.09.11 at 1:33 pm

I note, in passing, that the domain name “pussycartel.org” is available, and I am actively trying not to think of ways to use it.

18

Bloix 06.09.11 at 1:34 pm

PS- what I would like to see sometime is a blogging match between Belle Waring and Michael Berube. It would blow the tops of our heads off.

19

garymar 06.09.11 at 1:37 pm

Any blog post with the word “pussy” in it always makes me laugh. It makes me think of a lovable, furry creature.

But I think “cooter” is even funnier. Feral and secretive.

20

mark f 06.09.11 at 1:42 pm

Doug Stanhope

is just as much a “woooooah, I’m hardcore un-PC!!” asshole offstage.

21

William Timberman 06.09.11 at 1:44 pm

As a child raised in the shadow of my Presbyterian forebears’ Angry Grandfather, Greek mythology never made a lot of sense to me. (What were these kinky folks up to anyway, and why would anyone think they were gods?) As a young man given to what I thought of as noble sentiments toward the opposite sex, Graves’ White Goddess seemed to clear things up a bit. It wasn’t until I was in my thirties, and married, though, that I read a book — I forget the author’s name — which asserted that pornography is Aphrodite’s revenge, and all the pieces suddenly fell into place. I’ve been a sort of equal opportunity pantheist ever since.

Given that personal history, would it surprise anyone that in reading Belle’s post now, as an old geezer with his fires long since damped, I hear the voice of Pallas Athene?

22

Substance McGravitas 06.09.11 at 2:00 pm

Ummm….why bother, really? Do you think his ‘view’ is anything more than an attention stunt?

No.

23

William Timberman 06.09.11 at 2:03 pm

And for the gentle readers out there who are also professors of English, please imagine the first and third sentences in my first comment already re-jiggered to stick an “I” in somewhere after the first comma. The poet who said no ideas but in things, understood — sometimes in pursuit of an idea, we elbow the grammarian aside. The editorial pause is supposed to help us with that, but blogs have a way of undermining even the best of intentions.

24

Felix 06.09.11 at 2:31 pm

This post is brilliant.

25

Substance McGravitas 06.09.11 at 2:48 pm

Ummm….why bother, really? Do you think his ‘view’ is anything more than an attention stunt?

Let me rephrase what I said above: YES. Also too read the comments there if you have an opinion on whether or not it’s a pose.

26

Bruce Baugh 06.09.11 at 2:50 pm

Belle, this really was fantastic work. I laughed so hard, and greatly appreciate the service rendered.

27

Teri 06.09.11 at 2:58 pm

Gee if women incorporated their uteri as suggested by a the ACLU of Florida
http://www.incorporatemyuterus.com/ and beccame members of the cartel could we then embargo Republicans until we fix health care, social security and taxes? Or would we subject to monopoly legislation (not really plausible because “other sources are available”. Something to think about?
Teri

28

Bill Benzon 06.09.11 at 2:59 pm

So, Belle, about the breaking glass, was it the hot Japanese super-ninja women or was it the girls practicing their superhero moves?

29

P O'Neill 06.09.11 at 3:08 pm

30

Rob in CT 06.09.11 at 4:17 pm

Excellent snark. The last 1/2 of the last paragraph, while excellent on its own, detracts a bit from the snark factor, what with it being serious and all. It should be read aloud to Anthony Klavan by Samuel L. Jackson (when you need someone to say Motherfucker, accept no substitutes), followed by – what else? – a bitchslap. ;)

31

Rob 06.09.11 at 4:25 pm

Nice post. Klavan’s argument is pretty dumb, and the rebuttal is surprisingly straightforward. However, I wonder why the “THEY GOT FOOLED, MOTHERFUCKER!” explanation often comes across as quite unconvincing for [some] men. I mean, it’s a pretty sensible and obvious explanation, but it seems that [some] men have a hard time believing that assholes are that difficult to spot.

I wonder if this is because assholes (of the rapist persuasion, at least) only really hide it when they’re around women. As a result, they have relatively few male friends, or tend to be friends with the kind of men who are OK with that kind of thing (other assholes?). When I think of male assholes I have known, their one unifying characteristic they have is that I studiously avoid their company (and I have freedom to work and socialise with people I like). The alpha male assholes I encountered at school set the template for the kind of people I’ve made sure I don’t hang around with.

At this point, I have two potential problems. Either a) some of my friends are actually assholes and are hiding this both from me and from the women they may be abusing, or b) none of my friends are assholes, but that doesn’t mean that assholes don’t exist, or that other people are equally able to avoid them.

Previously I had always assumed that this was a power issue – assholes are obviously assholes, but only some people can materially afford to be picky about who they associate with. Belle and Klavan both disagree with this view; Klavan argues that women know that assholes are assholes, but paradoxically fail to avoid them, and Belle argues that women don’t know that assholes are assholes at all, and couldn’t avoid them even if they wanted to. I’ve no idea who is right, except that Klavan seems to be very short-sighted in his view.

32

ScentOfViolets 06.09.11 at 4:31 pm

The Secret Cabal Of Women is nothing new, in fact, it’s been done many times before. In – of course – the fantasy/sf genres. It goes back at least as far as Leiber’s “Conjure Wife”.

Yes, any man who stumbles onto the conspiracy in that one is eliminated :-)

33

Lemuel Pitkin 06.09.11 at 4:51 pm

The Secret Cabal Of Women is nothing new, in fact, it’s been done many times before. In – of course – the fantasy/sf genres. It goes back at least as far as Leiber’s “Conjure Wife”.

Um, it goes back a bit further than that.

34

Salient 06.09.11 at 5:07 pm

Beyoncé’s status as our country’s representative sheds new light on her well-meaning-seeming but otherwise inexplicable piece of work Run the World (Girls):^1^ it was either an act of whistleblowing on the cartel, or an intimidating advertisement on their behalf, it’s hard to tell which.

^1^my previous theory was “what is this trying to be, Lysistrata as performance art?”

35

Delicious Pundit 06.09.11 at 5:31 pm

Well, if that wasn’t light sweet crude, I don’t know what is.

36

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.09.11 at 6:35 pm

Are teh bi-monthly sekrit meetings held twice a month or does “bi-” refer to something else. AFAF.

37

bianca steele 06.09.11 at 6:40 pm

It could have been worse. He could have said because you’re bewitching us into wanting you.

38

bianca steele 06.09.11 at 6:48 pm

Also Belle’s post kind of explains the mostly nice guys who tell you every day when you eat lunch with them how hot some other woman is and how a woman that goodlooking would never spend time with a guy like them. They’re addressing the cartel.

In that case, though, it’s a mystery why Klavan bothers to publish when he could just address the cartel more directly, by harassing women he knows for forcing men to be jerks and causing rape and all that stuff.

39

Anonymous for now 06.09.11 at 6:49 pm

Rob. I feel for your question. The fact is this: Assholes live camouflaged amongst decent men. The way they do this is through the “patriarchy,” or “the rape culture.” Which is a lot of things, but in this case, I refer to the fact that most men, when sexually inclined toward a woman, will advance on her sexually until stopped.

So, a nice guy advances sexually until the woman backs away from him or says “no” or refuses her phone number.

The asshole advances sexually to any woman at any time, knowing that eventually one of them will get tired of him pestering them and let him have his way.

The asshole (I know from experience) will, no matter how many times he has offended, no matter how many times he has failed to apologize, usually not have his offense mentioned to his face, and will have everyone make nice to him and ignore the way he behaves when alone with women. You know why? Because he’s a “nice guy.” Just ask anyone. We re-camouflage the assholes so they can keep being assholes.

40

soullite 06.09.11 at 6:52 pm

Klaven is a dick; I seriously doubt he mistakes himself for a ‘nice guy’ in any sense of the term. He is also right, and the women here are making the mistake of projecting their intelligence onto women at large. Women, like all individual subgroups of people, are mostly idiots. Most people are flat out stupid and have no capability to judge others whatsoever. Just as most people will mistake being pretty for being ‘good’ and being loud for being ‘smart’, most women will confuse being a total asshole with having confidence (obliviousness is generally a more accurate diagnosis).

You’re basically judging what you think other women would do by the standard of what hyper-educated, very intelligent would do.

Also: Why should men take any of your complaints seriously if you ridicule the most widely-held complaint that men have about women? Giving people something to hang their hat on – a reason to simply dismiss everything you have to say if they so desire – is always a mistake. A lot of men won’t need that reason, but a lot of them will and you’re giving it to them. Nobody actually expects you to be able to ‘do’ anything about the complaint, but acting defensive the moment something you disagree with gets brought up and screaming ‘RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE’ to shut down all conversation is the biggest reason nobody sane even bothers talking to you all anymore. People who need you in their political coalition will talk to you and rabid lunatics who want you chained to a stove will talk to you; few other people will bother at the moment.

41

dsquared 06.09.11 at 6:54 pm

Giving people something to hang their hat on

Wasn’t that what got Anthony Weiner in trouble in the first place?

42

dsquared 06.09.11 at 6:55 pm

also

biggest reason nobody sane even bothers talking to you all [ie women] anymore

I am not entirely sure that this is true.

43

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.09.11 at 6:56 pm

Because if it’s teh other thing then I have my chauvinist pig friend has a crude joke they’d like to make about sekrit handshakes.

44

ScentOfViolets 06.09.11 at 6:59 pm

Sorry Lemuel, what you have the is not a conspiracy; it’s all up front. But more importantly, it’s only a cabal of some women. The stuff I’m talking about has as it’s premise that all the women are in on it – and secretly.

That being said, I’m sorry to say it’s been my experience that as a group, women aren’t as up front as they could or should be. Also, they have memories for wrongs that make Confederacy nuts look like happy-go-lucky let-bygones-be-bygones type of guys :-)

45

Patrick 06.09.11 at 7:08 pm

To soullight, regarding ” Most people are flat out stupid and have no capability to judge others whatsoever. “

This gets it exactly backwards. Most people who think they have a “capability to judge others” are ipso facto, “flat out stupid.”

I doubt that there is a single most widely held complaint about women, but it seems strange that you’d instance this in a post that starts by claiming that men and women are widely variable. Just because the majority of white people complain that black folks aren’t capable of being citizens in a democracy (they used to, and at some level conservatives still do), doesn’t mean that we have to take the complaint seriously, except perhaps as a symptom.

46

bianca steele 06.09.11 at 7:11 pm

soullite @ 39 could be worse. He could be saying “women are (all) idiots; (all) the women here are making the mistake of assuming the intelligence they’ve perceived in (presumably all) men is something they themselves possess.” As for the third paragraph, I don’t think it could be worse; I already have no idea what it’s supposed to mean. The biggest complaint men have about women is that they aren’t demure enough and cause roues to pursue their (the men’s) innocent daughters through corruption of the culture? Or what?

47

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.09.11 at 7:21 pm

,,,women here are making the mistake of projecting their intelligence onto women at large,,,
Translation: Women think other women aren’t idiots. They are wrong.
Why should men take any of your complaints seriously if you ridicule the most widely-held complaint that men have about women?
Translation: Men think all women are idiots. Women are wrong to dismiss this complaint. Ironically because then men won’t take them seriously.
A lot of men won’t need that reason, but a lot of them will and you’re giving it to them.
Translation: Therefore it is all the fault of women.

48

Substance McGravitas 06.09.11 at 7:32 pm

Nobody actually expects you to be able to ‘do’ anything about the complaint, but acting defensive the moment something you disagree with gets brought up and screaming ‘RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE’ to shut down all conversation is the biggest reason nobody sane even bothers talking to you all anymore.

If OPPEC leadership takes it up at the next meeting it’s possible all women around the world will cease the behaviour a crazy person on the internet has identified. OR MAYBE THE SCREAM QUOTA WILL RISE.

49

bianca steele 06.09.11 at 7:33 pm

@46
Thanks. I didn’t know he meant “women are idiots.” I thought soullite might have meant “women wear short skirts” or “women wear pants” or “women wear makeup” or “women don’t wear makeup” or “women won’t keep their mouths shut” or “women won’t speak up for themselves but expect men to read their minds” or “women don’t accept their proper place in society as assistants and secretaries” or “women don’t try hard enough but blame their lack of promotions on ‘society’” or something along that line. You know, that “if you don’t dress properly you shouldn’t be surprised that you aren’t taken seriously.”

I find it amusing to ponder deeply on the world soullite posits in which women are simply idiots and men simply don’t like talking to them and if women won’t just shut up and go away they simply have brought their distress on themselves because the men will like them if they stop deliberately annoying the men.

50

tomslee 06.09.11 at 7:34 pm

Can I just say that my friend Anthony Clavane, author of the excellent Promised Land: the Reinvention of Leeds United (see here), which everyone should read, has nothing in common with Anthony Klavan at all? Thank you.

51

marcel 06.09.11 at 7:41 pm

Tomslee:

Are you sure that Klavan is not just his (i.e., Clavane’s) internet pseudonym for making provocative remarks?

52

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.09.11 at 7:52 pm

re: “Women are idiots”

In soullite’s defense, I may have oversimplified. For example he may have meant that the widely-held complaint is “women aren’t sucking my PENIS right now. Because they are idiots.”

I hope that helps put soullite’s comment into bettar perspective.

53

tomslee 06.09.11 at 7:54 pm

@marcel. Absolutely 100% sure.

I know you were joking, but I really don’t want there to be any confusion. When I read the post I did think that surely Klavan must have been writing a humorous piece that BW had misunderstood. Sadly not.

54

Henri Vieuxtemps 06.09.11 at 8:19 pm

Soullite’s saying that most women and most men are idiots. Narcissistic assholes like Weiner, Strauss-Kahn, and Schwarzenegger get laid, yes, but they also easily get elected, they are respected and admired by women and men alike. So, the conspiracy is wider than you think.

55

MPAVictoria 06.09.11 at 8:24 pm

What men really mean when they say that women don’t like nice guys is that women don’t like them. I have been there and it sucks but we all need to stop projecting.

56

jack lecou 06.09.11 at 8:30 pm

Rob at ~#31:

On the “hidden asshole” problem: I think it’s probable that all the permutations exist. I.e., someone who is, in actual fact, an asshole might appear to be so or not appear to be so in many different situations or to different people, all more or less independently. So some assholes might end up revealing themselves to be really obvious assholes to their partners, but never to their friends (of either gender). Other assholes might be judged really obvious assholes by their male friends, but not by women they meet casually at parties. Or maybe they’re really obvious assholes to women at parties, but not to women they consider friends (who might even know about the asshole-at-party thing, but make allowances or have a different perspective on it). Etc., etc.

It’s actually worth asking what someone even means when they talk about someone being an asshole. I think one of the many ways cretins like Klavan are wrong is that some dude they think is an asshole might be viewed by, for example, a woman who dates him as perfectly sweet and exactly what she wants. (And she might even be right!)

So Klavan’s complaint that “women” complain about assholes, but also like to date assholes is sort of meaningless. What if it’s not the same assholes in both sets? It might be that most of the genuine assholes women are complaining about are invisible to Klavan: the ones that do creepy, boorish or violent things, but only to women, and usually when Klavan isn’t looking (or when he’s doing them himself), so he just assumes they’re Nice Guys. Meanwhile, the “assholes” he sees women with are just people Klavan doesn’t like for whatever reason but most of whom might actually be perfectly decent to their partners.

57

Patrick 06.09.11 at 8:51 pm

Yes indeed, Mr. Lecou. I once asked a feminist environmental writer how she could be good friends with Edward Abbey, because of the misogyny that shows up in his writing. The answer was simple, “He’s not that way with me.”

She went on to say that he listened when she called him on it and that he was working on it.

58

Lemuel Pitkin 06.09.11 at 9:07 pm

one of the many ways cretins like Klavan are wrong is that some dude they think is an asshole might be viewed by, for example, a woman who dates him as perfectly sweet and exactly what she wants. (And she might even be right!) So Klavan’s complaint that “women” complain about assholes, but also like to date assholes is sort of meaningless.

Interviewer: Butt-Head, I have a question for you. I noticed that you often say, “I like stuff that’s cool.” But isn’t that circular logic? I mean, what is the definition of “cool,” other than an adjective denoting something the speaker likes?

Butt-Head: Huh-huh. Uh, did you, like, go to college?

I: You don’t have to go to college to know the definition of “redundant.” What I’m saying is that essentially what you’re saying is “I like stuff that I like.”

Beavis : Yeah. Huh-huh. Me, too.

BH: Also, I don’t like stuff that sucks, either.

I: But nobody likes stuff that sucks!

BH: Then why does so much stuff suck?

B: Yeah. College boy! Huh-huh, huh-huh.

59

ScentOfViolets 06.09.11 at 9:21 pm

So Klavan’s complaint that “women” complain about assholes, but also like to date assholes is sort of meaningless. What if it’s not the same assholes in both sets? It might be that most of the genuine assholes women are complaining about are invisible to Klavan: the ones that do creepy, boorish or violent things, but only to women, and usually when Klavan isn’t looking (or when he’s doing them himself), so he just assumes they’re Nice Guys.

Perhaps he means the more commonsensical interpretation, i.e. that these women know perfectly well the gentlemen they’re seeing are lying scumbag bullies to other people, but not to them. And they’re perfectly okay with that.

If so, it doesn’t speak of these types of women now does it? Really, there are quite enough misogynists, creeps and sexists; one doesn’t have to shout down every complaint against women as being illegitimate. Men as a group are more likely to share traits than they are cross-group with women and some of those traits are less than wholly admirable, but the converse is not true? Really? Pull the other one; it’s got bells on.

And anyway, I’ve already pointed out two of these well-known traits.

60

Substance McGravitas 06.09.11 at 9:27 pm

Really, there are quite enough misogynists, creeps and sexists; one doesn’t have to shout down every complaint against women as being illegitimate.

Which complaint about all women should I corner an individual woman with? I want to help!

61

ScentOfViolets 06.09.11 at 9:31 pm

I can’t help you there, Substance, probably because I never said anything about this. But tell me, I’m genuinely curious: could you quote where I said any such thing as you’re trying to imply? I know you’d never deliberately misstate anything I’ve said ;-)

62

bianca steele 06.09.11 at 9:33 pm

Klavan’s complaint sounds less like something a nice guy would say than it sounds like my mother, especially “Women — by which I mean each and every single member of the female gender — you know who you are — need look no further than themselves to explain why Weiner-types behave toward them in this fashion,” and this is consistent with something I remember Jonah Goldberg praising Klavan for on The Corner some time back.

63

jack lecou 06.09.11 at 10:51 pm

Perhaps he means the more commonsensical interpretation, i.e. that these women know perfectly well the gentlemen they’re seeing are lying scumbag bullies to other people, but not to them. And they’re perfectly okay with that.

Well, that’s obviously something that happens all the time, but not the situation I was addressing. What you’re describing sounds like an issue that is somewhat orthogonal to Klavan’s complaint: AFAICT, he’s saying, “women are responsible for the behavior of assholes because women like to date those assholes,” NOT something like, “women who choose to date men who treat other people badly are not behaving well themselves.” Those are very different statements.

If so, it doesn’t speak of these types of women now does it? Really, there are quite enough misogynists, creeps and sexists; one doesn’t have to shout down every complaint against women as being illegitimate.

1. I [thought I] was careful not to claim that there was any single phenomenon at work here. Klavan is wrong because that’s one of many things that’s going on, not because it’s the only thing that happens. The whole point is that there are all kinds of “assholes” (in all kinds of different situations, for all kinds of different reasons), so generalizations are dangerous.

2. I don’t see where you got the idea that this has anything to do with value judgements about dating choices, or holding women blameless if they date assholes. Obviously both men and women can be bad people or make bad decisions or encourage bad behavior. That’s equality. But judging individual people based on their dating choices isn’t very interesting.

Men as a group are more likely to share traits than they are cross-group with women and some of those traits are less than wholly admirable, but the converse is not true? Really? Pull the other one; it’s got bells on.

I don’t even know what you’re getting at here. If I’m reading it right, both that statement AND the converse sound weird to me and unlikely to be true. Did I imply something to that effect?

64

ScentOfViolets 06.09.11 at 11:31 pm

Well, that’s obviously something that happens all the time, but not the situation I was addressing. What you’re describing sounds like an issue that is somewhat orthogonal to Klavan’s complaint: AFAICT, he’s saying, “women are responsible for the behavior of assholes because women like to date those assholes,” NOT something like, “women who choose to date men who treat other people badly are not behaving well themselves.” Those are very different statements.

Let me try again then: I think he’s saying (and I agree to some extent) that (some) women are attracted to men who treat other people badly – whatever they may say about “nice” guys. That to me seems the more commonsense interpretation. Cue the usual glib sociobiological, er evo-psych explanations. Well, at least they’re better than the “scream and leap” sort, though barely.

And yes, this happens often enough that one can make a comment to that effect.

I don’t even know what you’re getting at here. If I’m reading it right, both that statement AND the converse sound weird to me and unlikely to be true. Did I imply something to that effect?

I do not mean to imply that you’re doing this; just that I see a double standard coming into play with women (and men) who have no problem with typing group behaviours so long as it’s the right group. Point out that if you’re going with such weak types, well, here’s what women do and these same women (and men) will howl with outrage that you’re stereotyping.

Actually, there’s a lot of beefs on both sides that never seem to get settled. Though one side seems to get a notably more sympathetic public hearing. That’s nothing new, of course; Thurber was even able to make a living at pointing them out.

65

pogonisby 06.09.11 at 11:42 pm

This is brilliant.

Do you disagree, however, with the assertion that women do have power over men, and the power they have is different in kind from male power?

Note that I do not assert that women’s power is compensatory or even equal, just that it’s real.

66

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 12:30 am

I think he’s saying (and I agree to some extent) that (some) women are attracted to men who treat other people badly – whatever they may say about “nice” guys. That to me seems the more commonsense interpretation.

Well, yes, that probably is a lot more sensible, but it’s an awfully generous reading of what Klavan wrote.

The part Klavan leaves out is the “(some)”. There’s really nothing in his post to indicate he’s only talking about a subset of bad actors, and a lot pointing in the other direction. He’s lumping all women in together and blaming them collectively for selectively breeding a race of creeps (“it’s Darwin 101″).

Also, Klavan doesn’t seem to mention the part about treating OTHER people badly. He is specifically talking about how men treat women (“to explain why Weiner-types behave toward them [women] in this fashion”, my emphasis, and this is obviously all brought on by the sending allegedly unsolicited underpants pictures to a woman. He also references Strauss-Kahn, Schwarzenegger…)

And again, it’s women (and men) as a lump – there’s nothing in there to indicate that he’s even distinguishing between someone treating women badly in general, treating his date or partner badly, or treating women who aren’t his date or partner badly. The women who complain about creepy men are implied to be exactly the same women who date creepy men (and the creepy men are all the same as well).

I think even your reinterpretation is somewhat problematical on the last point.

67

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 12:50 am

Perhaps. But he also doesn’t strike me as someone who can communicate his thoughts very well in writing. I don’t claim to be much better, but that’s my particular take on what he’s trying to say. That is, he comes across as someone who thinks he has a legitimate reason to be resentful[1], but he just doesn’t say his words very well.

[1]And you know, the reason I was in a band was exactly the reason most guys back then were in a band – it was all about what the ladies wanted. An awful lot of whom were stone liars about their likes and dislikes, btw, which is sort of what the man is getting at.

68

vacuumslayer 06.10.11 at 1:30 am

Sooooooo the fact that you were in a band solely to score pussy doesn’t make you shallow and manipulative? Interesting.

69

The Modesto Kid 06.10.11 at 2:23 am

Finally, some useful advice for preventing sexual assault.

70

Antti Nannimus 06.10.11 at 2:26 am

Hi Belle,

Okay, my sincere congratulations, you have now won the Internet.
[standing ovation] [clap clap clap clap clap] [throwing bouquet]

However one minor little niggle– didn’t Aristophanes demonstrate in “The Lysistrata” in 411 BCE that this pussy boycott will not actually completely work, at least in the short term, unless you also get monopoly control of all the hands?

Have a nice day!
Antti

71

may 06.10.11 at 2:40 am

oh my hormones made me do it.

those old women who get raped?doesn’t happen?
yes it does.

how about boys? doesn’t happen?
young men?
mature men?
girl children? boy children?

babies,male and female?

nevah.

if it does then it must be because they are so alluring(and they know it).

so it’s not the fault of the poor hapless testosterone driven two legged animal in rut.

is it?

rape is a crime of will to power.

an expression of the utter contempt of the person used.

defending the rapist enables future rapists.

72

Belle Waring 06.10.11 at 2:45 am

Phew, it’s a good thing I was woozy from the ether that whole time or I might have been tempted to respond to something in this thread! In the end I was let off with a sanction.

73

Belle Waring 06.10.11 at 3:03 am

Oh God, OK. 69: we remain satisfied with the quality of our product and are firmly convinced that temporarily satisfying substitutes will, in the end, prove uncompetitive.

74

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 3:15 am

Perhaps. But he also doesn’t strike me as someone who can communicate his thoughts very well in writing.

No, he’s not very articulate. But I’m not sure there’s that much room for misinterpretation.

One last observation: take his point that the phenomenon of women being attracted to men who treat them poorly is so dominant that it actually represents some kind of implacable evolutionary force. That’s hardly compatible with an innocent little observation that a few people here and there get off on dating jerks for whatever reason. It’s a declaration that multitudes of women are straight up attracted to dickishness. (The whole evolutionary frame* really does not seem to me to admit of the possibility that, of all the women who have knowingly dated a creep or six, that the vast majority simply get fooled initially; and/or get stuck in abusive or codependent relationships for a multitude of reasons having nothing to do with the inherent Darwinian desirability of dickishness; or that dickishness itself may be a big turnoff for almost everyone, but jerks both are common and have a lot of OTHER qualities, so women might be frequently attracted to them for completely different reasons and simply let their hormones win out over good sense (and/or balance their priorities differently); etc., etc.)

—–
* Which is incredibly ridiculous for a number of other reasons too. For one thing, his proposed solution to the phenomenon of [sentient, adult] men who behave poorly toward women is to encourage womankind to collectively organize some kind of coordinated, long-term, world-wide selective breeding program to eliminate this supposedly evolved trait from the male race. Like the above, that is a pretty fundamental conceptual problem that shines through independent of whether Kravan is using his words very well or not.

75

Antti Nannimus 06.10.11 at 3:27 am

Okay 72: I concede your point. Well played!

76

sg 06.10.11 at 4:12 am

Actually Belle I think I’ve uncovered the flaw in your masterplan here (don’t tell the ninjas). I think we can all agree that the product in question itself requires regular servicing, and in the majority of cases this service can only be provided by people who will never be admitted to OPPEC. At some point the smooth functioning of your sinister cabal is going to start to go a bit haywire without regular servicing and, ah, lubrication of the important parts.

So it becomes a battle of wills. And contrary to popular ev-psych myth, I have a strong suspicion that the members of OPPEC are actually quite weak-willed when it comes to allowing the product to remain in an unserviced state…

77

Belle Waring 06.10.11 at 4:47 am

This might have presented more of a problem in Ancient Greece, where double-headed dildo technology was not readily available to chaste matrons. With the proliferation of mail-order, non-judgmental sex toy stores I feel technology has turned the tide decidedly in our favor. I think convincing our lesbian sisters to join us in this effort, wielding strap-ons when necessary, will prove surprisingly easy.

78

Belle Waring 06.10.11 at 4:49 am

Y’all would start raping each other left and right, as every small-scale experiment has shown. Better start learning to avoid assholes!

79

Belle Waring 06.10.11 at 4:52 am

You know, that was a shitty thing to say on an open forum where there are surely male rape victims. I apologize, guys, and realize you did nothing to contribute to your being sexually assaulted by some dirtbag motherfucker. Sorry.

80

Steve Williams 06.10.11 at 5:04 am

‘One last observation: take his point that the phenomenon of women being attracted to men who treat them poorly is so dominant that it actually represents some kind of implacable evolutionary force. That’s hardly compatible with an innocent little observation that a few people here and there get off on dating jerks for whatever reason.’

I pretty much completely agree with what Jack Lecou has written here, but I especially wanted to add to this sentence. When Klavan says ‘I mean each and every single member of the female gender — you know who you are’, I see no reason not to take him at his word. He’s taken the idea of ‘The Gangster’s Moll’ and ‘The Bully’s Girlfriend’ from Central Casting, applied it to 3 billion women, and then used it as a stick with which to beat all of them generally, and – not distinguished in any way from anyone else – those women who have (allegedly) been hurt by the predators he mentions; lest we forget, an African hotel maid who was allegedly the victim of a serious sexual assault, a woman who allegedly received an unsolicited sexual text message, and the pregnant wife of the supposed perpetrator.

It might be easier to chalk this up to a misunderstanding, a lamentable failure to adequately express adequate ideas, if he didn’t give every impression of being a man who read ‘The Game’ once, and has decided that that’s all the info he needs about women, thank you very much.

81

Steve Williams 06.10.11 at 5:07 am

Tom Slee @50

‘Can I just say that my friend Anthony Clavane, author of the excellent Promised Land: the Reinvention of Leeds United (see here), which everyone should read, has nothing in common with Anthony Klavan at all? Thank you.’

Just to make clear, I think this guy’s name is actually Andrew Klavan, so nobody should receive any more opprobrium than that which they might naturally receive as a Leeds United supporter.

82

Antti Nannimus 06.10.11 at 5:13 am

Hi,

Thanks for your concern, Belle, please go to bed now, and don’t forget to take all your meds. Then come back and see us again tomorrow.

Love,
The Internet!

83

Harald Korneliussen 06.10.11 at 6:43 am

> When Klavan says ‘I mean each and every single member of the female gender — you know who you are’, I see no reason not to take him at his word.

I do. It’s flamebait, plain and simple. Does Klavan think every single woman is incapable of seeing through asshole “alpha” types? No. He was just angling for some feminist writer to tilt and screed and make herself look ridiculous, and lo, it worked! (This makes Klavan one kind of asshole, though not in a sexual way, that at least one woman failed to see through).

Because while it’s hard to be sure with all the “light sweet crude” of oozing sarcasm from Belle W, it looks like she’s denying the power women have to define the male gender role through their preferences, and the problems men have with it being done in unsympathetic ways. By playing the “OMG you’re blaming the rape victims” card, no less.

84

bad Jim 06.10.11 at 8:14 am

I think that following a cheap Bordeaux with a cheap Rhone was a mistake, because

denying the power women have to define the male gender role through their preferences, and the problems men have with it being done in unsympathetic ways

makes me want to howl at the moon, which wouldn’t be a problem if it hadn’t set a few hours before.

Perhaps I’ve been living under a rock, but I don’t think women’s preferences have had fuck all to do with defining my gender role or those of my peers. Women have certainly had considerable influence over the way I treat women, since that’s inherently reciprocal, but not over the way I code, wield a wrench or a pencil, whether I dress right or left, or which jeans I wear.

I’m a white guy. The world is arranged to suit me. If I turn on the tube I get to choose which channel titillates me: violence, female nudity, or defiant stupidity. Unfortunately, the last choice predominates.

85

Harald Korneliussen 06.10.11 at 8:32 am

Yeah, you have been living under a rock, bad Jim. Denying that women have more than a little say in defining men’s gender roles (as well as their own) is just plain ignorant. To put a feminist spin on it (not that it isn’t absolutely true): it is also insulting to women, to claim that they are so utterly powerless and wimpy that they’re incapable of influencing men.

86

dsquared 06.10.11 at 8:36 am

the power women have to define the male gender role through their preferences, and the problems men have with it being done in unsympathetic ways.

If I knew we were going to be having a consciousness-raising seminar I’d have brought my bongos.

87

Harald Korneliussen 06.10.11 at 8:58 am

Can’t say I’m suprised at all these attempts at ridicule (with references to posh foodstuffs, in case I forget this is CT).

I don’t know what you thought you were going to be having, Daniel Davies, but I had hoped for something better than getting into a snarking contest with academics.

88

Belle Waring 06.10.11 at 9:20 am

I don’t know what you thought you were going to be having, Daniel Davies, but I had hoped for something better than getting into a snarking contest with academics.

I’m so sorry Harald, but I think you might be commenting on the wrong blog.

Also, thanks for your concern, The Internet, but it is daytime here in Singapore. I went to bed at a perfectly reasonable time, when it was 11am on America’s east coast. Totes reasonable. I didn’t even sneak peeks at the comments from my phone.

89

dsquared 06.10.11 at 9:40 am

I don’t know what you thought you were going to be having, Daniel Davies, but I had hoped for something better than getting into a snarking contest with academics

You might have had better luck, then, with “APT on Nussbaum”, “Fritz Scharpf On The Eurozone Mess” or “Should The American Economic Review Drop Double-Blind Peer Review”. A post about “The Other Peoples’ Pussy Economic Consortium” was always going to be a bit of a waste of time for a chap like yourself.

90

Harald Korneliussen 06.10.11 at 11:06 am

I’ve been reading (and on rare occasions, posting) on CT for half a decade now, so I know what to expect, no need to lecture me about it. I know it’s some good and some bad. I guess I sometime just don’t agree with you about what’s funny and not. Attitudes like bad Jim’s [the idea that poor, ickle women's attitudes can be harmful to us big, manly patriarchs is laughable!] didn’t use to bother me, but for various reasons they do now. Sorry for trying to get something worthwhile out of this post.

91

Phil 06.10.11 at 11:10 am

There was this guy at the office where I used to work, who I’ll call Ned. Ned clearly believed he was charming and well-liked. He wasn’t: he was loud, slow-witted, thick-skinned, rather too obviously in love with himself, and generally a bit of a laughing-stock. He used to hang around the woman I worked with, who I’ll call Karen, making remarks which ranged freely from mild pleasantry to borderline indecent[1]. I could never understand why she put up with him.

But rewind and look at it another way: he was cheerful, he was confident and outgoing, some of the things he said were funny & most of the rest were flattering. From her p.o.v. he was basically a net positive. He might be nursing ulterior motives, but as long as he didn’t actually proposition her – which wasn’t going to happen in an open-plan office (although see [1]) – where’s the harm?

Why do (some) women (appear to) like (men who some other men think are) manipulative bastards? Because (it’s true of many) women (that they) like (the company of) men (and women) who are confident, outgoing, cheerful and attentive. (This just in: men are not entirely dissimilar.) The fact that some men are only being all nice and confident and attentive because they Want Something IYKWIM AITYD, while other men look quiet and shy and miserable but are really nice and likeable and trustworthy when you get to know them, is just the story of m^W^W^W^Wtoo bad.

[1] He wasn’t always too clear on the borderline thing. I walked in on an uneasy silence once; he’d been talking about some dental treatment he’d been having, which involved some wadding being rammed up inside my jaw… highly painful… I’m not very keen on having things rammed up inside me… What about you, Karen?

92

Phil 06.10.11 at 11:12 am

That’ll teach me to try the caret-W delete-word gag on the interwebs. The idea is that I typed “the story of m” and then deleted the previous four words. Funny now, yes?

93

maruda 06.10.11 at 11:29 am

Really liked this post but I still ask for a free pony with my day dreams. (11)

94

marcel 06.10.11 at 11:37 am

A question for Bad Jim who wrote:

I’m a white guy. The world is arranged to suit me. If I turn on the tube I get to choose which channel titillates me: violence, female nudity, or defiant stupidity. Unfortunately, the last choice predominates.

The last sentence is unclear. Does it (the last choice) predominate among the range of possible or of actual choices?

95

MR Bill 06.10.11 at 11:52 am

I’m amazed no one has brought up “Lysistrata” yet. Belle, this is genius.

And, as a gay guy, sometimes it seems the assholes (in the sense of abusive/narcissistic/selfcentered/sexist/whatever guys ) prosper, and the shy, really nice guys are eclipsed, in terms of relationships.
Yeah, this is a common complaint…
And note that some gay men refer to their nether orifice as a ‘man pussy’, much as that creeps me out. OPPEC would have some competition, anyway.

96

Down and Out of Sài Gòn 06.10.11 at 12:36 pm

I put Andrew Klavan down as a boilerplate “offensive contrarian”. You get them sometimes, especially among war bloggers – people whose solution to the Palestine process is to exterminate all the Palestinians. The formula is simple:

(1) Take some perceived sort of conventional wisdom, then turn it on its head for maximum shock.
(2) Turn the offensiveness up to 11, regardless of how much this is appropriate or amusing.
(3) Puff it up to 1000 words.

Klavan may congratulate himself for being provocative, but I see this formula as the mark of mediocrity.

I’ll add one thing – I don’t get this “nice guy” meme. “Nice” can be good or weak, but isn’t it more important that the man is ethical or decent? Mr Fitzwilliam Darcy may not have been the nicest person, but he was a scrupulously honorable gentleman, and made an excellent husband for Elizabeth Bennett.

97

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 12:59 pm

denying the power women have to define the male gender role through their preferences, and the problems men have with it being done in unsympathetic ways

Sure, okay, but assuming that Belle isn’t in fact kidding on the square about OPPEC, how is this supposed to work? Women (1) need to alter their preferences somehow in order to (2) commence a coordinated multi-generational project to breed rapists, stalkers and ass-grabbing co-workers out of the species?

I mean, yes, obviously individual women have free choice (fn1) in picking their mates and partners, but that’s actually the very “power” Klavan is attacking: he thinks women should suborn their preferences and desires for the collective good (because it’s high time that womankind stopped forcing men to act like louts!). How, exactly, is all the rest of this power exercised?

Also, I’m all ears with regard to how womankind currently exercises its collective dating preferences in “unsympathetic ways”. Do go on.


fn1. Ideally, anyway. YMMV depending on jurisdiction and local custom.

98

Henri Vieuxtemps 06.10.11 at 1:08 pm

I suspect that the success of assholish approach is better explained by a large number of attempts, rather than by common female preference.

99

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.10.11 at 1:09 pm

Denying that women have more than a little say in defining men’s gender roles (as well as their own) is just plain ignorant.

So’s leaving the toilet seat up.

Anyways, you were saying something about ignorance regarding the power women have to define men. Would you care to elaborate?

100

Maria 06.10.11 at 1:15 pm

I kept finding my trigger finger itching to hit the ‘like’ button as I read Belle’s post & some great comments.

As to the invisible asshole problem, it’s plain to me and to many/most women that many a Nice Guy can become a Date Rapist given booze, opportunity and a sense of entitlement. I’ve found the optimal way out is to talk him down, appease him, manoeuvre yourself out of the situation with no one’s cover blown.

It is extremely galling , to say the least, that this approach relies on all the feminine wiles and sexist crap that is part of what creates the situation in the first place. Secondly, the talking down approach means DR wakes up the following morning as NG, probably a bit hung over, and none the wiser about who he is.

101

chris 06.10.11 at 1:57 pm

it looks like she’s denying the power women have to define the male gender role through their preferences

I thought the point of the post was to point out that without an explicit cartel, it’s difficult to effectively wield a power that is dispersed among 3 billion people.

Even worse if it only operates over multi-generational time scales.

Blaming one woman for the (supposed) effects of the collective actions of 3 billion other women is dumb, at best. (If you know it’s senseless and try to do it anyway, it becomes something worse than dumb.)

The secret to understanding women is that there is no secret to understanding women; they’re different from each other, so understanding one gets you almost nowhere toward understanding another. Some men are very resistant to accepting this (maybe because it’s so depressing if your goal is to develop the ability to get any woman to do whatever you want them to do), but it’s true.

102

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.10.11 at 2:06 pm

Disclaimer – I find my impulse control today to be lower than average. What follows may be offensive to some and reader discretion is advised (to make up for my lack thereof).

re: the Nice Guy meme.

Some of the subtleties that may have been missed:
1. Teh origins are from self-labelling. Are there women who complain that they can’t find a “Nice Guy”? Sure. Is this population of significant size when compared to the number of men who self-identify as “Nice Guys” that can’t catch a break on teh Pussy Market?
2. The requirements to qualify as a “Nice Guy” then are self-identification. That’s it. You can be the slimiest asshole ever – and pretending to care about some hot chick’s problems so that you can get into her pants – that makes you a “Nice Guy”.
3. Assholes are swimming in pussy? Well if you control for other factors such as “is the guy hot, or what seriously”, is this still true? Sure we all know some dirtbags who have landed a woman they clearly do not deserve, but plural of anecdote,,, I mean it’s not like non-rapist, non-asshole douchebags don’t get laid* – but I guess it’s not notable**.
4. Some people aren’t ready for relationships and/or fear commitment and they self-sabotage. Falling for someone grossly inappropriate is a classic method that this manifests. And it’s rewarded with attention and drama. So maybe the fact that that one girl who always ends up with guys that even she knows are bad for her, well just maybe it’s about her and nothing to do with the undifferentiated and interchangable assholes she dates.
5. And there you are saying “#4 is EXACTLY MY POINT! Women claim to be wanting relationships when all they want is to star in their own personal made-for-tv movie!” Uh – well some women may be doing that but categorizing women in general by this small subset is like calling all men exactly 5 foot 4. And besides, who’s really the idiot in those cases***:
- the woman who is manifestly not ready for a meaningful relationship of any sort, accomplishes that by dating jerks and gets sympathy for the inevitable catastrophe that ensues;
OR
- teh Nice Guy who recognizes the pattern and while claiming to care about the well-being of said woman, enables it in teh hopes of her recognizing that he’s her true soulmate.
6. All of that said, teh heart has reasons which reason knows nothing of. Fr’instance, I have incredibly conventional sexual preferences. I ascribe to society’s profoundly disturbed ideas of beauty. And yet I find myself constantly returning to the embraces of Andrew Klavan’s morbidly obese and hideous mother.

* For moar anecdata on this point, ask your mom about me.
** Unless you’re asking your mom about me. I’m very memorable in teh sack.
*** All other things being equal of course. If the woman happens to be a Juggalo or is Megan McArdle than it’s a different calculus.

103

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.10.11 at 2:34 pm

,,,then it’s a different,,, you know what? Nevermind. Karrext spelenigs is teh least of my worries.

104

Marcellina 06.10.11 at 3:40 pm

“53-year-old, divorced, former warbloggers who appear to have forgotten the existence of Iraq and now lurk on MRA forums and troll Pandagon”

For this alone, I would nominate you for any prize you wish to be up for.

105

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 3:42 pm

One last observation: take his point that the phenomenon of women being attracted to men who treat them poorly is so dominant that it actually represents some kind of implacable evolutionary force. That’s hardly compatible with an innocent little observation that a few people here and there get off on dating jerks for whatever reason. It’s a declaration that multitudes of women are straight up attracted to dickishness.

Or that it’s correlated with something they do desire and they either confuse those qualities or just don’t care, etc.

I’ll cheerfully concede that your interpretation may well be the correct one. My point was that he writes so badly (and provocatively, for that matter) that it’s hard to tell what he is really trying to say or what he really believes. Dialing up emoting to 11 rarely clarifies anything, I’ve found.

106

Substance McGravitas 06.10.11 at 3:47 pm

I put Andrew Klavan down as a boilerplate “offensive contrarian”.

No, he’s the standard American right-winger-on-the-internet who’s willing to mouth the sentiments behind the policies. People actually believe the things he is saying. He’s certainly trying to rile people, but you can do that while being sincere. If you follow what he says and what he writes, he is a genuine asshole, not a pretend one.

107

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 3:48 pm

It might be easier to chalk this up to a misunderstanding, a lamentable failure to adequately express adequate ideas, if he didn’t give every impression of being a man who read ‘The Game’ once, and has decided that that’s all the info he needs about women, thank you very much

That may be true. But he does bring to mind the notion that you can’t point out how say, child support laws are extremely unfair to men as a group (and ironically, sexist as all get out) without a violent reaction to the contrary.

A reaction that in the end often boils down to the equivalent of the likes of AIPAC accusing anyone of not completely and unreservedly “supporting” Israel of “antisemitism”.

108

dsquared 06.10.11 at 3:50 pm

But he does bring to mind the notion that you can’t point out how say, child support laws are extremely unfair to men as a group (and ironically, sexist as all get out) without a violent reaction to the contrary

I bet you actually can do that.

109

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 3:53 pm

And, as a gay guy, sometimes it seems the assholes (in the sense of abusive/narcissistic/selfcentered/sexist/whatever guys ) prosper, and the shy, really nice guys are eclipsed, in terms of relationships.
Yeah, this is a common complaint…

Sure you’re not a bombthrower, a contrarian, or just a disgusting lowlife ;-)

110

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 4:02 pm

My point was that he writes so badly (and provocatively, for that matter) that it’s hard to tell what he is really trying to say or what he really believes. Dialing up emoting to 11 rarely clarifies anything, I’ve found.

Well, fair enough. But I’m not seeing any reasons we’d be obligated to spend much time puzzling out what he “really” believes. His piece was laughably idiotic, inflammatory, and notches itself neatly into an existing corpus of similarly stupid and vile Nice Guy philosophical treatises. If he’s not writing what he really believes, that’s his problem.

Yes, sometimes there’s a case to be made for the possibility that an author can be read in a slightly more generous light to better effect, but that’s really not the case here. Even if we’re not supposed to trust the plain meaning of the words (and they’re pretty plain; really, go reread the passage Belle quoted), the animating concepts of the piece are still completely ludicrous. There’s just nothing salvageable there.

111

geo 06.10.11 at 4:03 pm

There’s a highly relevant website on the subject of What Women Want, from an evolutionary-psychology/vulgar libertarian/male-chauvinist perspective: the obnoxious but intriguing and sometimes actually enlightening Roissy in DC, http://roissy.wordpress.com/. Anybody know it?

112

dsquared 06.10.11 at 4:04 pm

Yes, sometimes there’s a case to be made for the possibility that an author can be read in a slightly more generous light to better effect, but that’s really not the case here.

Quite. Intellectual charity should be exercised in interpreting people’s meaning, but it has to be a hand up, not a hand out. This guy is one of those “intellectual charity cases” where continuing to give him the benefit of the doubt is just “enabling” his intellectually self-destructive lifestyle.

113

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 4:04 pm

I suspect that the success of assholish approach is better explained by a large number of attempts, rather than by common female preference.

Ah, I think we’ve got at least a partial BINGO! here. Certainly it’s the case of the being the sex that has to ask, and not the sex that gets to accept or reject puts a little extra strain on men. Or do I have to say (some) men and (some) women in the same way I’d no doubt be forced to say that (some) dogs have four legs ;-)

Again to point out that on some issues women – sigh, as a group – are favored on some issues or exhibit some less than desirable characteristics shouldn’t be controversial. How about this oldie:

Denying that women have more than a little say in defining men’s gender roles (as well as their own) is just plain ignorant.

So’s leaving the toilet seat up.

Funny thing that, but it seems that the default seems to favor women. There’s an obvious solution – I happen to think it’s just plain ignorant to leave the lid up. What a surprise, of the women I’ve lived with over the years, at least 80% have just as much trouble with this one as guys supposedly do with leaving the seat up. And when caught out at this, women have just as many weird and weak self-serving justification as the cruder sex does to the other arrangement :-(

114

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 4:08 pm

But he does bring to mind the notion that you can’t point out how say, child support laws are extremely unfair to men as a group (and ironically, sexist as all get out) without a violent reaction to the contrary

I bet you actually can do that.

I’d really liked to be proven wrong on this one. But the sad fact of the matter is, at least four times in five this is what has happened in my personal experience. Anecdotal data, sure. But I don’t have anything else to go on.

115

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 4:13 pm

Yes, sometimes there’s a case to be made for the possibility that an author can be read in a slightly more generous light to better effect, but that’s really not the case here.

I’m not trying to be generous. I’m trying to be accurate. A couple of days ago I inadvertently switched the meanings of conjunction and disjunction in mid-lecture without realizing it, to the considerable confusion of my class.

116

dsquared 06.10.11 at 4:15 pm

Go on then, I’ll try and do it in a post on CT next week, which I will get ghostwritten by a committee member of a British fathers’ rights group who I know. But first, let’s agree some ground rules for what’s going to constitute a “violent reaction”.

117

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 4:23 pm

Again to point out that on some issues women – sigh, as a group – are favored on some issues or exhibit some less than desirable characteristics shouldn’t be controversial.

You might do yourself a favor by thinking about it from the other direction.

I don’t think you’ll find anyone objecting to the idea men do frequently suffer indignities and stupidities under our patriarchal cultural regime. I’d even say one of the cornerstones of feminism is the observation that the patriarchy screws us ALL over, one way or the other.

But it’s stretching the point to claim that the flipside of those situations represents some kind of advantage or privilege for women.

For example, you’re implying that because it’s somewhat burdensome for men to always have to be the one doing the asking, it must be easier for women. (I presume this is one of the issues you feel women are “favored on”.) But why in the world should it be any better to always have to wait to be asked? It just sucks in different ways.

118

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 4:27 pm

Go on then, I’ll try and do it in a post on CT next week, which I will get ghostwritten by a committee member of a British fathers’ rights group who I know. But first, let’s agree some ground rules for what’s going to constitute a “violent reaction”.

I like the way you think sir. Before, not after. For starters, how about any comments about men being lowlifes who are just looking for a way to get out of their obligations? How about you? Any suggestions?

119

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 4:30 pm

For example, you’re implying that because it’s somewhat burdensome for men to always have to be the one doing the asking, it must be easier for women. (I presume this is one of the issues you feel women are “favored on”.) But why in the world should it be any better to always have to wait to be asked? It just sucks in different ways.

Doesn’t this presuppose that women don’t have the option to ask? I find that one hard to believe. Whereas I know that the lonely hearts I speak of won’t be dating any time soon if they just wait for a likely woman to pop the question.

120

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 4:32 pm

Doesn’t this presuppose that women don’t have the option to ask? I find that one hard to believe.

I don’t.

121

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 4:40 pm

Doesn’t this presuppose that women don’t have the option to ask? I find that one hard to believe.

I don’t.

What the!?!?!?!?! Explain please. I’m guessing this where we’re going to hear some sort of unfalsifiable speculation about “society” and the draconian sanctions it imposes on those who violate this rule.

Which, oddly enough in the rare cases I’ve seen where women actually do ask, has never actually happened.

122

dsquared 06.10.11 at 4:41 pm

how about any comments about men being lowlifes who are just looking for a way to get out of their obligations?

Hmmm, the haggling begins … Nice opening bid but there’s no way I can agree to that, because everyone, including the guy I am hoping will write the piece, will agree that there are some men who are lowlifes looking for a way out of their obligations – it’s just a fact. In order to be convinced that a violent reaction was common, I would need to see comments broadly in support of this view forming more than, say, 25% of all comments by identifiable women. I’d also want to impose some sort of standard of vehemence and/or stereotyping.

123

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 4:50 pm

Hmmm, the haggling begins … Nice opening bid but there’s no way I can agree to that, because everyone, including the guy I am hoping will write the piece, will agree that there are some men who are lowlifes looking for a way out of their obligations – it’s just a fact.

Well, yeah, and if I say that dogs are four-legged mammals, you can rebut by pointing to three-legged dogs (we have one ourselves).

Iow, I’m assuming a modicum of good faith here. And in this particular case whether men are or are not just seeking a way to evade responsibility is irrelevant as to whether or not the law is fair, yes? Claiming that marijuana users just don’t want to be hassled and that is the reason they support decriminalization may be true in the main; but it has nothing whatsoever to do with draconian drug laws.

Any additions you’d want to offer up yourself? As opposed to modifications of what I’m proposing?

124

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.10.11 at 4:57 pm

I happen to think it’s just plain ignorant to leave the lid up. What a surprise, of the women I’ve lived with over the years, at least 80% have just as much trouble with this one as guys supposedly do with leaving the seat up.

Which then constitutes incontrovertible proof of your personal ability men’s ability to shape women’s gender roles. And it’s the fault of men everywhere if a toilet lid ever gets left up.

I’m not arguing that people aren’t lazy – rather the opposite. That this power women have to define the male gender role through their preferences sure sounds plausible, until you think about it at all.

125

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 5:05 pm

Which, oddly enough in the rare cases I’ve seen where women actually do ask, has never actually happened.

Well, mostly I’d say it just isn’t done (much). There’s no reason there’d need to be any particular sanctions at all. I think that’s how norms work sometimes.

Of course, if it’s an anecdata war, I have certainly heard tell that women can, on occasion, get “shot down” a lot more brutally – perhaps especially if they’re the women nobody has been asking.

126

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.10.11 at 5:06 pm

Also too, teh follow-up to women’s magical powers of influence:
To put a feminist spin on it (not that it isn’t absolutely true): it is also insulting to women, to claim that they are so utterly powerless and wimpy that they’re incapable of influencing men.
Whereas it is totes reasonable to claim that men are so utterly powerless before the lure of pussy that they should be expected to behave like sociopaths. The only moral or ethical consideration in this case is about why women are forcing men to be such jerks.

127

dsquared 06.10.11 at 5:07 pm

And in this particular case whether men are or are not just seeking a way to evade responsibility is irrelevant as to whether or not the law is fair, yes?

Not really, because it is the existence of deadbeat dads that accounts for a lot of the draconian powers of child support authorities; also, a lot of perceived unfairness basically consists in a remarried man who considers himself to have a two-child family and a two-child ex-family, wanting his “current” children to have the sort of material lifestyle of kids in a two-child family rather than a four-child family. Now I wouldn’t personally describe that as “seeking a way to evade responsibility”, but nor would I think it wholly unreasonable for someone else to do so.

128

marcel 06.10.11 at 5:40 pm

Scent of violets wrote:

So’s leaving the toilet seat up.

Funny thing that, but it seems that the default seems to favor women. There’s an obvious solution – I happen to think it’s just plain ignorant to leave the lid up. What a surprise, of the women I’ve lived with over the years, at least 80% have just as much trouble with this one as guys supposedly do with leaving the seat up. And when caught out at this, women have just as many weird and weak self-serving justification as the cruder sex does to the other arrangement

I agree with you on this, and my wife has never made an issue of it, esp. once I pointed out the phenomenon known as toilet aerosol, This is over and above the reduction in Yucch from the lower frequency of having to reach in and rescue items that fell into the toilet.

(I may have to double post because this does not look correct in the preview below — we’ll see)

129

roy belmont 06.10.11 at 6:14 pm

The “roots” of sexual pathology are tacitly assumed to be some kind of causeless “malfunction”, but possibly, maybe, the deep-psych trauma of circumcision is having much to do with this.
The patriarchy being “staffed” by traumatized boys who, because of having been wounded, in infancy – with no means of comprehension let alone response – in that most vital of areas, never making it to full, “upright”, maturity.
And since this is all unconscious, invisible, and culturally taboo as well, it sounds absurd. But it is maybe not absurd. It is maybe what is going on.
The sickness of the old visited upon the young, continuously, until it’s simply the way things are.

130

john b 06.10.11 at 6:50 pm

Is it OK to make “yer mum” jokes, in a post-feminist male context? Cos if so, I ascribe to society’s profoundly disturbed ideas of beauty. And yet I find myself constantly returning to the embraces of Andrew Klavan’s morbidly obese and hideous mother. is winning. And if not, it isn’t.

131

john b 06.10.11 at 6:59 pm

Oh, and having grown up in a single-mum, three-sisters family, I naturally put the seat down. At home, the seat put itself down because it was installed in a “too far forward” fashion that made my male friends fear cock-guillotining, . But it was her house, so complaining would’ve broken hospitality norms. This doubtless explains my subsequent lfie, Dr Freud.

132

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 7:20 pm

Which then constitutes incontrovertible proof of your personal ability men’s ability to shape women’s gender roles. And it’s the fault of men everywhere if a toilet lid ever gets left up.

Well, that’s something of a nonsequitur! Or would you care to quote the bit where you think I made that claim?

The point I was making, since you didn’t get it the first time, is that when the seat is left up, the complaint is that men are lazy/thoughtless/crude beasts. Rather that people are lazy/thoughtless/crude and women can act just as badly in similar situations with just as pathetic a set of self-serving serving justifications as ever men put forth.

133

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 7:24 pm

Rather that people are lazy/thoughtless/crude and women can act just as badly in similar situations with just as pathetic a set of self-serving serving justifications as ever men put forth.

This is correct, so far as it goes, but it makes me wonder who you’re arguing with.

134

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 7:30 pm

Which, oddly enough in the rare cases I’ve seen where women actually do ask, has never actually happened.

Well, mostly I’d say it just isn’t done (much). There’s no reason there’d need to be any particular sanctions at all. I think that’s how norms work sometimes.

Of course, if it’s an anecdata war, I have certainly heard tell that women can, on occasion, get “shot down” a lot more brutally – perhaps especially if they’re the women nobody has been asking.

Ha ha. Nice try. But no, you made the claim that “women don’t have the option of asking”. And since you made the claim, it’s up to you to support it. Not on me to prove that you’re wrong. I’m merely pointing out that you have made no attempt to justify this, and indeed in my personal experience that just ain’t so.

135

Substance McGravitas 06.10.11 at 7:32 pm

The point I was making, since you didn’t get it the first time, is that when the seat is left up, the complaint is that men are lazy/thoughtless/crude beasts.

I’m glad we’ve hit the substantive part of the thread.

136

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.10.11 at 7:33 pm

Well, that’s something of a nonsequitur!

I’m sorry, I thought you were replying to my comment at #99. I raised the toilet seat in order to address something that I needed to get out.

To be clear, here’s my version of teh timeline:
#83 Harald says something about people being ignorant of the power women have over male gender roles.
#99 I contest this by pointing out that they can’t even get most of us to lower the toilet seat – teh classic example of something women care about and men ignore.
#113 You cite it to explain how women are also bad at bathroom etiquette because they also leave the lid up

If there’s a non-sequitur in this chain (noting that the thread is about someone blaming women for men’s bad behaviour) it’s yours.

But if you want me to provide a non-sequitur, I am happy to oblige.

137

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 7:39 pm

Not really, because it is the existence of deadbeat dads that accounts for a lot of the draconian powers of child support authorities; also, a lot of perceived unfairness basically consists in a remarried man who considers himself to have a two-child family and a two-child ex-family, wanting his “current” children to have the sort of material lifestyle of kids in a two-child family rather than a four-child family. Now I wouldn’t personally describe that as “seeking a way to evade responsibility”, but nor would I think it wholly unreasonable for someone else to do so.

Just as the existence of marijuana users justifies a lot of the draconian powers of the BATF?

I think we’re talking about two different possibilities for unfairness here (and actually, I think the example of a father wanting to pay for two kids rather than four is not an example of unfairness.) What I have heard about unfairness in this issue is that women have the unilateral power to decide whether or not to have children in the event of a pregnancy. Which is okay, insofar as it goes. What is not typically held to be fair is the absolute and unilateral claim they have on the putative father’s income. Even if the couple has agreed beforehand not to have children. Even if there has been an agreement beforehand, the man has had a vasectomy, and the woman is on the pill at the time conception occurred.

At any rate, that’s what I’ve most often heard. Your version seems to be essentially that the man wants to break a contract after he’s signed on the dotted line.

138

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 7:50 pm

I’m merely pointing out that you have made no attempt to justify this, and indeed in my personal experience that just ain’t so.

Well, I’ll let the anecdata hash it out then. Not much use arguing about something like that. You’re either aware in principle that social norms can confine people’s behavior — often without actually being punitive — or you ain’t. (Though as I pointed out, there’s plenty of punishment handed out too, especially to those who most suffer under the current arrangement.)

(I’d add that this is largely missing the point – that being that it’s rarely constructive to interject something like, “oh yeah, well, women have it easy sometimes too”; doubly so if the thread is originally about some dude trying to tell women they’re entirely responsible for the bad behavior of all the poor confounded male animals.)

139

chris 06.10.11 at 7:58 pm

Not really, because it is the existence of deadbeat dads that accounts for a lot of the draconian powers of child support authorities

Maybe so, but if the law is fair, the same powers are available to deploy against deadbeat moms.

Of course, as long as men are statistically more likely to (a) have higher incomes and (b) not have the child(ren) living with them for as much time out of the year, they’re going to be statistically more likely to be required to pay. But that would be the case even if the laws were completely fair — inequality isn’t synonymous with unfairness if the circumstances of the groups being compared are actually different. Fairness requires treating similarly situated individuals similarly, but that will tend to lead to treating statistically differently situated groups statistically differently.

140

Uncle Kvetch 06.10.11 at 7:59 pm

Just as the existence of marijuana users justifies a lot of the draconian powers of the BATF?

Um…no, not at all. “Deadbeat dad,” by definition, implies “neglected child.” Unless you can point me to the equivalent of the neglected child in someone smoking a joint, this analogy makes no sense.

141

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 8:00 pm

Well, that’s something of a nonsequitur!

I’m sorry, I thought you were replying to my comment at #99. I raised the toilet seat in order to address something that I needed to get out.

To be clear, here’s my version of teh timeline:

#83 Harald says something about people being ignorant of the power women have over male gender roles.

#99 I contest this by pointing out that they can’t even get most of us to lower the toilet seat – teh classic example of something women care about and men ignore.

#113 You cite it to explain how women are also bad at bathroom etiquette because they also leave the lid up

If there’s a non-sequitur in this chain (noting that the thread is about someone blaming women for men’s bad behaviour) it’s yours.

This is where I get to sigh, right? Because I don’t care what your version is. I care about what actually happened. I care about quotes. Ever hear about this thing called “cut & paste”? Because here’s what actually happened:

Denying that women have more than a little say in defining men’s gender roles (as well as their own) is just plain ignorant.
So’s leaving the toilet seat up.

Funny thing that, but it seems that the default seems to favor women. There’s an obvious solution – I happen to think it’s just plain ignorant to leave the lid up. What a surprise, of the women I’ve lived with over the years, at least 80% have just as much trouble with this one as guys supposedly do with leaving the seat up. And when caught out at this, women have just as many weird and weak self-serving justification as the cruder sex does to the other arrangement :-(

Please. Don’t try to be snarky and then claim that other people are being unreasonable. You said that leaving the seat up was “ignorant”; I pointed out that this Just Ain’t So, though a certain type tries to make it out to be, and often in a way that reflects poorly on both sexes rather than on people in general.

142

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 8:05 pm

You said that leaving the seat up was “ignorant”;

I think you may have forgotten to copy the second part of his quote there. You know. The substantive part. Dragon-King’s summary seems somewhat more accurate to my eye.

143

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 8:05 pm

Just as the existence of marijuana users justifies a lot of the draconian powers of the BATF?

Um…no, not at all. “Deadbeat dad,” by definition, implies “neglected child.” Unless you can point me to the equivalent of the neglected child in someone smoking a joint, this analogy makes no sense.

Um…no, not at all. “Deadbeat dad,” by definition, implies “neglected child” – and it is the father’s fault. That’s rather the whole point of the fairness issue. So yes, I can give you the equivalent: The “deadbeat dad” isn’t hurting anyone, any more than someone smoking a joint is hurting anyone.

144

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 8:11 pm

To the contrary, Jack. But feel free to post it, and feel free to demonstrate why you think this is so.

And btw, to attempt to use the line of reasoning, “If women are so all-fired powerful, why can’t they get men to do X” is – dare I say it, ignorant. There are powerful institutes and agents who are all the time trying to get their way on some point or another and failing to do so a significant fraction of the time. “If the government is so powerful, how come people speed/ignore traffic signs/smoke a joint/etc.” is silly, and obviously so.

145

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 8:19 pm

To the contrary, Jack. But feel free to post it, and feel free to demonstrate why you think this is so.

We’re talking about quote 99, the remainder of which goes:

Anyways, you were saying something about ignorance regarding the power women have to define men. Would you care to elaborate?

Seems to me that’s saying more or less what Wangchuck claimed it does.

“If the government is so powerful, how come people speed/ignore traffic signs/smoke a joint/etc.” is silly, and obviously so.

Right. Obviously silly. Kind of like Klavan’s article and the handful of half-hearted defenses that have appeared in this thread. Which — and I’m just guessing here — is why Belle’s post takes a somewhat…satirical stance, and why folks like Wangchuck aren’t necessarily bothering to deploy their most rigorous arguments. Possibly you haven’t noticed that yet.

146

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 8:23 pm

Er, no Jack. If someone posts points A, B, and C, and I only quote A and only respond to A, you have to show how my response is a non sequitur to point A (which I’m guessing you’re conceding did not happen in this case).

You don’t get to say that because I only quoted A and only responded to A that is was a non sequitur because it was not a response to C.

Frankly, I’m having a hard time believing that you don’t get this. Or do you get it, but are now taking sides in way that is making my original point for me ;-)

147

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 8:28 pm

“If the government is so powerful, how come people speed/ignore traffic signs/smoke a joint/etc.” is silly, and obviously so.

Right. Obviously silly. Kind of like Klavan’s article and the handful of half-hearted defenses that have appeared in this thread.

I don’t think you’re getting it, Jack: the government is obviously an extremely powerful organization, in fact, one of the most powerful there is. And yet, they cannot seem to compel uniform obedience on such petty matters as traffic and marijuana offenses.

So to claim that the government doesn’t really have all that much power because significant numbers of people routinely violate these ordinances is, well, silly. And ignorant ;-)

Now does this make sense?

148

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 8:30 pm

Er, no Jack. If someone posts points A, B, and C, and I only quote A and only respond to A, you have to show how my response is a non sequitur to point A (which I’m guessing you’re conceding did not happen in this case).

I seem to recall something earlier today about trying to read with a generous interpretation in order to glean the author’s real meaning (if it’s not too difficult). Hmmm. Where was that?

It seems pretty clear, to me at least, that what you now call Wangchuck’s “Point A” (which consists in it’s entirety of the short sentence, “So’s leaving the toilet seat up.”) did not actually constitute any kind of freestanding “point” at all, but was instead simply a playful lead-in to the meat of the argument, such as it was, in all it’s rhetorical glory.

149

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.10.11 at 8:32 pm

You said that leaving the seat up was “ignorant”; I pointed out that this Just Ain’t So

Well actually you didn’t. You just said that woman do something similar. But let’s pretend that you’re exactly right on that point. U R STILL RONG.

Teh context of the entire discussion is about women being at fault for men behaving like assholes. Teh specific sentence (which has been addressed by other commenters in this thread) was about the power women have to define the male gender role through their preferences.

150

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.10.11 at 8:34 pm

Although in your defense, Scent ofViolets, I can not explain what Chewbacca is doing on Endor. But I will agree that it’s a woman’s fault.

151

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 8:36 pm

So to claim that the government doesn’t really have all that much power because significant numbers of people routinely violate these ordinances is, well, silly. And ignorant ;-)

And to claim that womankind has the power to reshape the male psyche and genome to its own purpose? Totally sensible? [Deep, serious voice:] Deserving of only the most sober and logically rigorous responses?

Get it yet?

152

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 8:39 pm

Sigh. “You don’t understand; our amps go up to 11.”

Look again at what I had to explain to Jack; if I quote one point and only one point, and respond to just that point; you don’t get to claim that it’s a non sequitur because it’s not response to some other, nonquoted point.

Ironically, quoting that bit about how leaving the seat up is “ignorant” and then going on to explain why an argument of the form “if you’re so smart, how come you ain’t rich” type doesn’t follow would have been a non sequitur!

Oh, it just occurred to me – do you know what a non sequitur is?

153

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 8:42 pm

No Jack, I don’t. You’re not making any sense that I can tell in trying to infer a connection between those two statements. You also seem to be getting a bit worked up, so let’s just cool it for a while.

154

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.10.11 at 8:43 pm

and why folks like Wangchuck aren’t necessarily bothering to deploy their most rigorous arguments

I’m flattered but I’ve already yelled PENIS, made rude comments about moms and attempted a RickRoll. That’s pretty much my stock in trade. All I got left after that is dirty limericks and verse of questionable meter.

155

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 8:50 pm

Look again at what I had to explain to Jack; if I quote one point and only one point, and respond to just that point; you don’t get to claim that it’s a non sequitur because it’s not response to some other, nonquoted point.

The point is that what you responded to wasn’t actually a point. Not even a supporting one. It was (it clearly seems to me) a little throwaway lead in. Barely even a sentence.

You don’t get to pick such a fragment out of context, label it a “point”, introduce a wholly new topic by rebutting the “point” you just invented, and then quote that fragment as evidence that your whole response wasn’t, indeed, a non sequitur.

156

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 9:00 pm

No Jack, I don’t. You’re not making any sense that I can tell in trying to infer a connection between those two statements. You also seem to be getting a bit worked up, so let’s just cool it for a while.

There is no connection. Let’s start over again with the sequence of events from the beginning:

1. Klavan posts absolutely ludicrous argument that women are responsible for bad behavior because they’ve selectively bred men to be that way and they should cut it out.

2. Belle responds with over the top satire.

3. Comment thread ensues, much of it similarly mocking and tongue in cheek (right next to the venom glands…).

4. One or two comments take a half-assed stab at defending Klavan (“no really, women have pussies, so they do have the power to remold the male race if they want; you’ve got to admit that because having power is feminist“).

5. The mocking tone of the thread evaporates at once and the only possible interpretation of all further posts is as very serious and logically rigorous arguments. Pointing out logical flaws in those not-satirical-at-all “arguments” is an important public service which will be welcomed by everyone!

157

chris 06.10.11 at 9:02 pm

What I have heard about unfairness in this issue is that women have the unilateral power to decide whether or not to have children in the event of a pregnancy. Which is okay, insofar as it goes.

Well, I have a bit of a problem with this, but it does seem to be the lesser evil. I do think that everyone (of either sex) should have the right not to reproduce, which includes the right not to have someone else obtain their gametes and use them without the person’s permission, and that sex shouldn’t be considered a waiver of that right; but if the only alternative to involuntary parenthood is involuntary abortion, then that’s not much of an option.

What is not typically held to be fair is the absolute and unilateral claim they have on the putative father’s income. Even if the couple has agreed beforehand not to have children.

I agree, as far as this goes, but it’s such a rare (if not completely hypothetical) case that it’s hardly outrageous for a legislature to have not addressed it.

In theory, the payee doesn’t have any claim on the support proceeds anyway; they’re for the benefit of the child, and the amount will always be strictly less than the child’s needs (unless the payee is totally disabled or something like that). In practice… well, maybe if you could prove that the money wasn’t actually being used for the benefit of the child you could get the award reduced, but it might be difficult to prove.

158

bianca steele 06.10.11 at 9:30 pm

I am now inexplicably feeling somewhat guilty for my own uncharitable reading of Klavan’s post. He has a right to the kind of ultra-charitable reading I would after all give a passage by Kant. It’s not at all the case that the violence of his prose makes it only natural that people would respond casually, or that the incoherence of his prose makes it preferable to dismiss it all as garbage altogether. Thus, I withdraw the accusation that his argument is essentially against women’s natural inclination to give it up when presented with the natural and unreconstructed animal behaviors of the unreconstructed human male. He was simply making a humorous observation, very much like Jerry Seinfeld.

159

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 9:45 pm

The point is that what you responded to wasn’t actually a point. Not even a supporting one. It was (it clearly seems to me) a little throwaway lead in. Barely even a sentence.

You don’t get to pick such a fragment out of context, label it a “point”, introduce a wholly new topic by rebutting the “point” you just invented, and then quote that fragment as evidence that your whole response wasn’t, indeed, a non sequitur.

You’re right, Jack. By and large, it’s considered bad form, and I don’t. And I didn’t. How about we talk about the (lack) of response to what I said earlier:

I do not mean to imply that you’re doing this; just that I see a double standard coming into play with women (and men) who have no problem with typing group behaviours so long as it’s the right group. Point out that if you’re going with such weak types, well, here’s what women do and these same women (and men) will howl with outrage that you’re stereotyping.

So what happens? Something that looks an awful lot like racefail over on liverjournal last year is what happens: While trying to show otherwise, someone makes a weird sexist statement about how leaving the seat up is “ignorant”.

I respond by pointing out that no one would think calling of calling women ignorant, selfish slobs for failing to put the lid down, or if they did, would be (rightly) excoriated for making it a gender thing instead of a people thing. And so ironically – a word I’d tried to avoid using because I thought I’d overused it already – the person was making my case for me.

Now, are you going to acknowledge that maybe I do have a point after all? Or are you so swinging mad punch drunk that for you to admit you were wrong has become an affaire d’ honneur? Because if that’s the case, I really don’t care to discuss anything any further with you.

160

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 10:02 pm

What is not typically held to be fair is the absolute and unilateral claim they have on the putative father’s income. Even if the couple has agreed beforehand not to have children.

I agree, as far as this goes, but it’s such a rare (if not completely hypothetical) case that it’s hardly outrageous for a legislature to have not addressed it.

We can argue over the definition of “rare”, I suppose, and trot out supporting evidence. [1] But the fact remains that the scenario I outlined is unfair . . . no matter how rare it is.

In theory, the payee doesn’t have any claim on the support proceeds anyway; they’re for the benefit of the child, and the amount will always be strictly less than the child’s needs (unless the payee is totally disabled or something like that). In practice… well, maybe if you could prove that the money wasn’t actually being used for the benefit of the child you could get the award reduced, but it might be difficult to prove.

Yes, and “in theory”, police are supposed to treat claims by men of domestic abuse and violence on the part of their spouses every bit as seriously as what usually gets reported when it’s the other way around. In fact, the split is about 50-50, gender-wise for domestic abuse and violence. Which is just what you’d expect if you go with the idea that people are people first, and male or female second. But how often does female-on-male domestic abuse get reported :-(

[1]More anecdotal data – my daughter’s mother was in Family Services for almost two years before she couldn’t take any more. One of the scenarios that happened with a fair bit of frequency was women talking Girl Talk with her about how they had deliberately gotten pregnant just so they could spite their men and collect child support from them. I don’t mean to imply that this type of story stood out for any particular reason; I heard a lot of stories that lead me to believe that these were for the most part not saintly poor people bearing up with Fortitude, God, and Family, but rather some seriously messed up, and frankly vile individuals. They made bad decisions, and they paid way to much for them, that I’ll agree with. But they didn’t innocently make those bad decisions for the most part, and they didn’t make them with any sort of good motivation in mind.

Which is one of the reasons why I don’t consider myself to be a “liberal”.

161

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 10:03 pm

So…Your point is that using the word ignorant like that was offensive to you?

That’s cool.

If that’s the thrust, I guess it’s not a non sequitur as such. I think you must admit it’s a little off the main topic though, all the more so because you decided to approach that point from left field with banal observations about how women can do annoying stuff like that too. Might have been easier just to say you were offended in the first place.

In addition to being more straightforward, it might especially help avoid the impression (from that and other exchanges here) that you’re using any opening to shoehorn in the point (dare I say, a rather non-sequitur point) that women can be bad people too.

Also, if it was just the one word used in (even tongue-in-cheek) reference to men like that, why all the stuff about that sentence being a “point” when it clearly wasn’t?

162

geo 06.10.11 at 10:03 pm

bianca: women’s natural inclination to give it up when presented with the natural and unreconstructed animal behaviors of the unreconstructed human male

Instead of making the obvious and tasteless joke that I (alas) have never encountered this allegedly natural inclination in the aforementioned circumstances, I’ll make a (very slightly) more highbrow and (perhaps) not quite so obvious and tasteless reference to the infamous poster supposedly seen in Berlin in 1968, which read:

Comrades! The oppression of women by men has lasted 50,ooo years! Why can’t it last another 50?

163

ScentOfViolets 06.10.11 at 10:12 pm

So…Your point is that using the word ignorant like that was offensive to you?

That’s cool.

No, you’re still not getting it (shades of Racefail). The point is that calling men ignorant for failing to put the seat in a certain position, and doing it in such an unthinking way when going with a similar formulation would be obviously unthinkable and asinine is making my case for me.

But I guess that since you get to decide what’s off-topic and what’s not, I’ve just been mischievous, frivolous, and gratuitously snide to boot.

I’ll let you have the last word then, but since you can’t summon the grace to make any sort of admission that you’ve been treating me badly, well, I’m not going to bother to reply to anything else you might have to say unless you make a frank – and frankly grovelling – apology.

Later, Oaf.

164

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 10:37 pm

The point is that calling men ignorant for failing to put the seat in a certain position, and doing it in such an unthinking way when going with a similar formulation would be obviously unthinkable and asinine is making my case for me.

I got that. Calling men ignorant in a way where we wouldn’t ever consider making a similar remark about women = offensive/unfair/bad form. Possibly you are even intimating that this is a problem endemic to feminist argumentation. I don’t necessarily agree that that’s quite what occurred in this instance, especially that last part, but I hear you. Loud and clear. Really.

It’s just, sorry, but I’m just still not seeing how it actually ties in to the meat of this particular thread in any way. (Or how you justify your claim that that sentence constituted a “point”, rather than merely a [n arguably offensive] fragment.)

(And “treating you badly”? Really? You think this back and forth of words on the internet is abusive or something? Geeze. I guess it’s just as well Dragon-King didn’t deploy any of those limericks…)

165

jack lecou 06.10.11 at 11:12 pm

Yes, and “in theory”, police are supposed to treat claims by men of domestic abuse and violence on the part of their spouses every bit as seriously as what usually gets reported when it’s the other way around. In fact, the split is about 50-50, gender-wise for domestic abuse and violence. Which is just what you’d expect if you go with the idea that people are people first, and male or female second. But how often does female-on-male domestic abuse get reported :-(

Reading that generously, I agree: certainly ALL credible complaints of things like rape or domestic abuse should be pursued by the authorities as vigorously as resources allow. And systematic under-reporting by male victims of such crimes is a real problem.

BUT.

The fact is that the threats and tribulations do not just balance out all 50-50: For example, man-on-woman domestic abuse is actually rather a graver problem than the reverse (for one, it’s undeniably – empirically – deadlier). Nor I think is there any analog to the rape-culture (yes, participated in by members of both genders) that enables and protects male rapists. Nor do men (as a class) find themselves on the wrong end of a systematic wage or career advancement gap. Etc. Etc.

So criminal investigations are one thing, but as far as discussion and awareness building goes, I would have to say that to amplify and give perfectly equal attention to men’s complaints (about, e.g., a few lonely hearts who are not getting asked out enough, or some evil ex-wives making them pay ill-gotten child support) would be doing a grave disservice to the, frankly far more dire and universal, plight of women everywhere – who have to worry constantly about an essentially endless list of shit. (Like, keeping a close eye on their drink at a party, or the rest of the list of daily routine precautions to try to avoid being blamed for “letting” some dude turn them into a crime statistic.)

In short, the fact that men do indeed suffer (and get raped and abused) is — while tragic and worth doing something about — NOT actually something that needs to be brought to everyone’s attention every single time there is a comment thread on the internet about bad male behavior.

166

sg 06.11.11 at 12:46 am

Belle, your suggested solution to the problem of an inadequate servicing regime is interesting, but I don’t think it’s going to last. Sure, in your planning committees you think you’ll be fine, but that’s not how it’s going to work in practice. The product we’re discussing here needs a more delicate fine-tuning than the double-headed dildo can provide, and preferably by a qualified serviceman.

As proof of this, let’s consider this simple idea: next time I go on a date [with a girl I'm already shagging - anything else would be a little impolite], I’ll tell her as soon as I arrive that “sorry, I’m a bit out of sorts tonight, so we’d best use a dildo.” I’m pretty sure her feelings on the matter would be obvious [though a polite attempt made at hiding them]. And I don’t say this because my servicing skills are somehow special; it just happens to be a common expectation women have of men that they be able to get it up and fuck hard.

So I reckon your strike will soon run into a scab problem.

Regarding the toilet seat issues, I suggest the Japanese solution: automated toilet seats. Surely you guys have all worked out by now that there is a robotics-based solution to every problem of social interaction?[1]


fn1: yes I know this contradicts all my previous paragraphs.

167

Kevin 06.11.11 at 1:09 am

In moderation and not a ‘f-ck’ or ‘pu–y’ in sight?

168

Kevin 06.11.11 at 1:10 am

ok. I get it — original message: “it’s friday – regularly scheduled SoV threadjack.”

169

Belle Waring 06.11.11 at 1:59 am

If Scent of Violets considered himself a liberal, he and I would be cheering for the same team. And that would be horrible. But as it is, it’s like he’s a Yankees fan and a Dallas Cowboys fan rolled into one terrible fan of all that is evil. Phew, that was a close one y’all!

170

marcel 06.11.11 at 2:46 am

1) Compliments to BW for inspiring one of the weirdest and most entertaining comment threads ever.

2) On glancing at the post for, maybe, the 10th time, the following lines caught my eye (as they are just above the fold):

But think about it: women, taken as a whole, have control of all the pussy in the world. That is some valuable assets right there. What could be more natural than the formation of a cartel?

I have a mental image of the Monty Python sketch for the masculine counterpart of BW’s cartel, OPECC (Organization for Pretty Extreme Control of Cock). In this skit, the pythons (a nice image in and of itself) walk around stiffly, cheering each other on and offering encouragment to hang tough while they wait with increasing impatience for women to come around and accept their demands. Women, it turns out, generally find the situation increasingly enjoyable as the level of harassment and danger has plummeted and the men look ever more distressed.

171

ScentOfViolets 06.11.11 at 2:56 am

Whereas Belle Waring is just another kind of Republican – “I’m ‘liberal’, so I must be fair, opened-minded, and on the right side of history. By definition.” Don’t worry Belle, the next time you leave the lid up (and we all know that you do) I won’t say that it’s because you’re a typical slovenly, unhygienic, and inconsiderate woman. I’ll say it’s because you’re behaving typically for Belle Waring ;-) Night y’all!

172

sg 06.11.11 at 5:48 am

The linked Pandagon thread was a nice, tidy reminder of why I gave up on reading Pandagon years ago. Arrogant claims to be smarter than everyone else, conservative ideals of masculinity masquerading as the “nice guy” meme, some woman bragging about how tough her husband is, and a troll so bad it can’t pass a Turing test. Oh, what a pointed reminder of the horror that is a Pandagon comment thread…

173

e julius drivingstorm 06.11.11 at 8:14 pm

“I just want to break even” – Richard Manuel (I think).

174

bianca steele 06.12.11 at 7:12 pm

me @ 68
Wow. It turns out there were men actually doing this (reported in the Times on 6/7 and 6/8 but in the Boston Globe just today): seeking out women who were communicating with Weiner and contacting them over Twitter to give them advice, and possibly also letting Weiner know they’d contacted these women in such a way that he’d defriend them. I can only say, whether or not the law as it exists now protects those women from roving bands of vigilantes who essentially stalk them, I feel they should consider themselves to have a legitimate complaint. People like that could conceivably do real damage to the famous person they’re targeting too.

175

bianca steele 06.12.11 at 7:33 pm

I’m also at a loss as to why this is now a discussion about child support; surely no one is arguing that women who tweet famous men will likely soon have child support claims against them?

176

Substance McGravitas 06.12.11 at 7:35 pm

All women have to deal with all arguments about anything involving male/female relations all the time.

177

ScentOfViolets 06.12.11 at 8:10 pm

Hey Bianca, thanks for the reference back to #68, which I missed the first time around:

Sooooooo the fact that you were in a band solely to score pussy doesn’t make you shallow and manipulative? Interesting.

Chuckle. You are quite free to find a quote where I claimed to be otherwise at that age. Also, nice attempt at diversion, which was that yes, women – at least, at that age – will act at variance to what they say they want. Meet a girl at a party who says she just wants to meet a “nice, guy, someone who’s smart” and she intimates that you just might be that guy tonight . . . until she asks you point blank what you’re in school for. Say something like physics or engineering, her manner chills somewhat while at the same time she says “You must be really smart”. Girl code for “FOAD for wasting my time, creep.” Shortly thereafter she finds an excuse to be somewhere else.

Ah, but tell that same girl you’re just messing around in college and that right now what you’re really into is “your music”, let her ask the obvious “Are you in a band?” so that you can reply in the affirmative, and you’re in like Flynn.

Need I comment on the obvious duplicity on the part of the woman? Something that’s so obvious that tens if not hundreds of thousands of young men get into bands every year for just that reason?

Which, you know, is kind on point, given the rant that was being pooh-poohed by a sub-par satire way past it’s sell date well before the current century?

178

bianca steele 06.12.11 at 8:23 pm

Yes, meant @38. But what is your point, SoV? That women should stop grooving to rock music because it’s dangerous to the men who are in bands? I’ll take your word for it that successful rock musicians were primarily in it for the chicks. I’d guess, however, that there are men who would do it anyway because they love to make music. Are you going to take responsibility for women stopping grooving to rock music when men like to play rock music and make a living at it–and need people to buy their records if they’re going to make a living?

And what you’re saying is that the women men approach at parties tend not to be interested in physics. Again, I’ll take your word for it that they aren’t just expressing, “I really hated physics myself,” and are really totally focused on the conversation as a purely sexual negotiation, not anything like a regular conversation in which they get to have opinions without worrying about whether their opinions flatter you. But you’re concluding that ALL women hate physics students from the fact that the top two women in the room aren’t interested in dating physics students? You teach what again?

The thing about bands may be geography specific.

179

ScentOfViolets 06.12.11 at 8:27 pm

Oh, and as to your other question, Bianca, you might want to go back and reread this thread.

Reflexive support of a rather rigid and stale feminism is sooo 20th century. Just like, come to think of it, reflexive support of Israel is now considered well past it’s sell-by date. Or admitting to liking “Friends”.

What do you want to bet that, just like you, the target of Belle’s rather poor effort is not in the top one tenth of one percent of the wealth and income distribution?

180

bianca steele 06.12.11 at 9:05 pm

SoV:
Has anyone ever told you that you have an interesting sense of relevance? I haven’t read anything by Willis, but I don’t see any relevance there to what I wrote, so maybe you have in mind a Frank-style attack on pop. culture. In fact, I thought you positing the possible existence of a non-null set of pop stars who–perhaps, like Klavan–want to make money appealing to the baser instincts of the audience while insuring that their art is judged as moral and that they can’t by caught by Frank’s critique.

181

dsquared 06.13.11 at 6:11 am

What I have heard about unfairness in this issue is that women have the unilateral power to decide whether or not to have children in the event of a pregnancy. Which is okay, insofar as it goes. What is not typically held to be fair is the absolute and unilateral claim they have on the putative father’s income

oh gaaaawwwwwd. Well in that case our bet is off, because I am certainly not going to be able to find someone to ghostwrite an article on such a god damned stupid point of view.

182

Alex 06.13.11 at 9:37 am

Suggested title: “How Could Someone With My Views On Women Get Into an Acrimonious Divorce?”

183

jack lecou 06.13.11 at 1:49 pm

Is it just me, or has SoV @177 confessed to owning a time machine? (In order to construct the control group for the very scientific experiments conducted by his college-age self.)

And speaking of burying the lede, I think the other real news there is that young women (who are all the same) are obviously the only people, EVER, to either fib politely about their personal desires to someone they’re having a casual conversation with, and/or to decide they’re not interested in someone after talking with them for awhile.

With everyone else, of course, initially listing off a couple of generic qualities that someone you’re talking to at a party happens to think he possesses constitutes a Binding Contract to Get It On.

184

jack lecou 06.13.11 at 1:50 pm

Or, I guess twin experiments might work. Sort of adds a whole new dimension to the story.

185

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.13.11 at 5:36 pm

Let the record show that I am not immune to being prodded.

I guess it’s just as well Dragon-King didn’t deploy any of those limericks…

Oho, a comment from ScentOfViolets
Perhaps I should read before I file it;
To know if it goes in
The reg’lar trash bin
Or if it’s more suitable pour la toilette.

186

ScentOfViolets 06.13.11 at 5:58 pm

What I have heard about unfairness in this issue is that women have the unilateral power to decide whether or not to have children in the event of a pregnancy. Which is okay, insofar as it goes. What is not typically held to be fair is the absolute and unilateral claim they have on the putative father’s income

oh gaaaawwwwwd. Well in that case our bet is off, because I am certainly not going to be able to find someone to ghostwrite an article on such a god damned stupid point of view.

Oh gaaaawwwwwd. Rather than return the salute and say something along the lines about how breaking a contract because it is “unfair” is completely idiotic, I’ll simply note that a) no reason was given for why this point of view was stupid, and b) at least one other person agrees with me on the fairness part.

I get it – you were going to advance an obviously idiotic point of view about fairness because you expected it to be renounced as such, and so that makes people who say such things look even more like moronic troglodytes. I expected better of you, Daniel.

As I said, reflexive defense of a stale ideology is just soooo 20th Cen ;-)

And as for you, Jack, do you have something you want to say to me?

187

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.13.11 at 7:00 pm

SoV says women love misdirection,
And lie about what draws their affection.
Also feminism is dated,
And our satire deflated.
He’s half shotgun and half cryptosporidium infection.

188

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.13.11 at 7:31 pm

This is where I get to sigh, right? Because I don’t care what your version is. I care about what actually happened. I care about quotes. Ever hear about this thing called “cut & paste”? Because here’s what actually happened:

Go ahead and sigh. It’s pretty clear that you don’t care what about any versions of anything that don’t align perfectly with your microscopically narrow view of teh world.

Even if we take your unbelievably asinine position – that you are only trying to point out that women are hypocrites for wanting teh seat lowered and yadda yadda yadda.

OBSERVE:
1. My “non-sequitur” statement about how women not lowering the lid for you is the same as men not lowering teh seat for them – a demonstration of the lack of ability people have to influence others.
2. That is sort of an important point in teh context of the discussion at the time.
3. In order to accept your version of “reality” with “quotes” – you have to completely strip all context from my original statement about toilets. You have to consider the toilet seat statement in isolation from teh thread.
4. And yet, and yet, and yet. You didn’t balk about teh “non-sequitur”-larity of teh original toilet seat mention – you only did so when I tried to tie it back to the ongoing discussion. Why? Maybe because you love calling women hypocrites too damn much to let the opportunity pass.

189

jack lecou 06.13.11 at 8:04 pm

And as for you, Jack, do you have something you want to say to me?

No, can’t think of anything especially at the moment. Why?

190

jack lecou 06.13.11 at 8:10 pm

#187 may be the best limerick I’ve ever read; at the very least, the only one to work in cryptosporidiosis, which is surely a singular honor.

(But women can get crypto too! They’re no better than men! Feminism is so last century!)

191

ScentOfViolets 06.13.11 at 9:48 pm

Well then, Jack, I’ve got nothing to say to you. So don’t bother addressing me. You know what you’ve got to do if you want things to be otherwise.

192

jack lecou 06.14.11 at 2:21 am

Wait, this is the “treating you badly” thing? You’re still on that? By Cthulhu’s Geometrically Impossible Goatee, I don’t see how you can possibly be serious.

In the all the hours I’ve wasted on the internet, and of all the strange sights I’ve seen, I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen anyone demand an apology from someone who apparently merely had the gall to engage them in discussion. And a rather bland discussion at that.

So, no, I don’t have anything to say to you on that matter. If that means you’re gonna take your ball and go home, well, gee whiz. Do what you gotta do!

193

vacuumslayer 06.14.11 at 3:54 pm

You are quite free to find a quote where I claimed to be otherwise at that age. Also, nice attempt at diversion, which was that yes, women – at least, at that age – will act at variance to what they say they want.

So, basically you’re saying that women and men are guilty of doing pretty much the exact same thing. What’s your problem again?

BTW, women are allowed to have preferences. They’re allowed to prefer slacker arty types to smarty nerdy types. IT’S OK for them to do that. It doesn’t mean all women have the same preference.

Just a heads-up…an awful lot of butthurt is showing through in your complaints.

194

Antti Nannimus 06.15.11 at 1:03 am

Hi,

Here, at this point in time, we finally have an opportunity to do a GREAT service for all humanity. Can’t we at least put this toilet seat issue to rest forever?

I grew up in a family of seven brothers, plus a father, a mother, and a bitch dog. No sisters. Can you guess what we all had to assume was the default position of the toilet seat?

Yes, if you fell in, you had no one to blame but yourself, and we all came to instinctively understand this is NOT a gender issue.

Have a nice day!
Antti

195

ScentOfViolets 06.15.11 at 2:30 am

Well, Antti, I’m more of a “everyone remember to put the lid down” sorta guy, for hygienic issues – including dropped articles – and otherwise. But then again, I grew up without indoor plumbing :-)

196

Antti Nannimus 06.15.11 at 2:54 am

Hi S of V.

I also grew up without indoor plumbing, and we all knew if we were not careful, those dropped articles and particles might end up on the seat. Nobody wants to sit on that! Leave the toilet seat up! Everybody wins!

Antti

197

Henri Vieuxtemps 06.15.11 at 5:47 am

Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at six o’clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of ‘ot gravel, work twenty hour day at mill for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would thrash us to sleep with a broken bottle, if we were lucky!

198

NomadUK 06.15.11 at 11:10 am

I only do that to my children if they leave the seat up.

199

Nigel 06.15.11 at 12:16 pm

I grew up with an outside toilet. The shed the toilet was in was full of spiders. Layers and layers of webs formed over decades filled every available space embedded with the remains of generations of drained and mummified insects and small birds, bats and mice. I was terrified of spiders. THERE WAS NO SEAT TO LEAVE UP BECAUSE THE SPIDERS KEPT STEALING THE SEAT.

200

jack lecou 06.15.11 at 3:13 pm

When I was a kid, I recall we had a 5 gallon bucket in the chicken coop. It DID have a seat nailed to it, but no lid. Or you could cut out the middle man and head straight down to the rocky beach – all the way below the tide line, please.

Dead serious.

201

jack lecou 06.15.11 at 3:37 pm

Correction: 10 gallon bucket.

202

Steve Williams 06.15.11 at 3:46 pm

We never used a toilet, because we had to eat our shit for nutrition.

203

Dragon-King Wangchuck 06.15.11 at 6:06 pm

And when it comes right down to it, it’s the seat’s fault that the lid keeps slamming down on it. I mean really, toilet seats are so needy – always having to be joined at the hip to the lid. Can’t toilet lids have some private time to watch (water)sports?

204

jack lecou 06.15.11 at 6:42 pm

We never used a toilet, because we had to eat our shit for nutrition.

Well, if you had the equipment for it, it was considered polite (polite to the person who had to haul the bucket, that is) to do your #1 on the compost pile in the vegetable garden, so I guess that’s kind of the same thing.

Also: Don’t remember the spiders being that bad, but maybe that’s why the seat was nailed down. And the hens would scold you a bit.

205

AntiAlias 06.15.11 at 8:18 pm

Oh, thread went unexpectedly lulzy!

206

fish 06.16.11 at 1:34 pm

Rather that people are lazy/thoughtless/crude and women can act just as badly in similar situations with just as pathetic a set of self-serving serving justifications as ever men put forth.

This is the classic “why can’t white people call blacks n***ers?”

Comments on this entry are closed.