Wonderful fights between narcissism and worthlessness

Objective Truth and Other Derailing Tactics

on October 28, 2012

[Trigger Warning: A LOT of misogynistic tropes and language on this post]

Spent today being bed-ridden and catching up on some http://manboobz.com/ while fighting the illness demons. There were plenty of great, depressing, holy-shit-I-think-a-human-believes-this posts Futrelle was bringing to light, but one was especially interesting. And by interesting, I mostly mean bizarre. It was a post regarding Susan Walsh (http://manboobz.com/2011/08/04/susan-walsh-chartbreaker-part-2/), a blogger I admittedly don’t know anything about, who had a really bizarmazing chart as part of an article entitled “The Economic Effects of Promiscuity” that manboobz already featured, described as “In an attempt to sketch out the economic costs of sluthood, Walsh cobbled together an extravagantly convoluted mess of a flow-chart based on little more than a few bad assumptions and what she insisted was common sense.” It’s worth checking out too, reading like a car crash of conservative and Men’s Rights views on what happens when a woman DARES to have sex that flies in the face of their value structure.

The chart in the above link, however, was a weird attempt to glossy up complete opinion as science by presenting it as a chart. It has a lot of gross assumptions behind it, first and foremost that women and men can be boiled down to a universal attractiveness number from 1 to 10, and THREES are sleeping with EIGHTS?!?!?! It’s presented as a handy visual guide to what we ALL KNOW is true, namely that the sexual revolution of the 70s weakened marriage (so many assumptions tied to this one; marriage is automatically preferrable to non-marriage, this wasn’t women freeing themselves from bad or abusive marriages but rather promiscuous women being freed to go get slutty all up in society [FEMINISTS!!!]), this lead to more promiscuity in general because, duh, out-of-wedlock sex is promiscuous, and returned us to a less equittable sexual power dynamic from caveman times that marriage had helped to equalize. Because all men are powerless when confronted with a cute girl and can’t be faithful if there’s more than one woman in existence near them. Unless she put a ring on it. In Walsh’s article the weakening of marriage and strengthening of promiscuity also means women can date “up,” which is tied entirely to the 1-10 ranking (a 4 now has a chance with a 7, which she didn’t when…. marriage?) and flies in the (so very assumed) natural tendency of 9s to date 9s, 7s to date 7s, and 2s to be happy they snagged a 2 and we don’t beat them for being so god damn ugly. UGH. It’s tied to an article also trying to argue opinions on sexual dynamics in terms of economics. SEXUAL economics. Which reads as though the birth rate dropped out and humans are dying off(this is a hypothetical, despite actual people in the world believing this is currently happening) and we fed a bunch of dating reality shows to a computer to figure out how to save the human race. Fun aside: in bullshit chart #1, Walsh ties delayed (or ELIMINATED! ! !) marriage to delayed (OR ELIIIIIIMINAAAAAATED ! ! ! ! ! ! !) having of children, which is then immediately tied to declining birth rate, which is an economic cost, that combined with men going to prison means EVENTUAL ECONOMIC STAGNATION!!!!!!!!!! (That last use of Caps Lock and ten exclamation points is actually hers, no shit)

Again, I’ll admit this has been my first, and so far only, exposure to most of these sexual economics ideas, and while there are a lot of echoes of misogynistic tropes (which I tried to bring up above), most of the arguments were so bogged down on economic talk as to be impenetrable. I’ve read a bunch on game theory (the feed women input until sex theory, not the mathematic one) and the general ideas around it, and the idea of the “sexual marketplace” strikes the same misogyny chords as (and seems to be a part of?) game theory. But it’s such a bizarre use of science, to the exclusion of the people being “studied” by it, and at a certain point reality. It assumes if we had all of the variables we could predict every person’s actions, which may very well be true , but when you’re debating the idea of women’s choice by trying to quantify the number of atoms in her hair fibers and what that says about her choice in men, you’re so far afield of the point. It reminds me of the debate around free will. Do we truly have it if a universe identical to ours had the exact same conditions down to the subatomic particles and electro-magnetic forces? That question fascinates me. But when we’re discussing whether people should be held accountable for their exercise of free will, I don’t care whether the concept is an illusion, and it’s derailing to discuss.

In a comment thread on http://glpiggy.net/2011/08/05/boobzmans-argument-without-an-argument/, a rebuttal from a Men’s Rights Activist to Futrelle’s piece on the chart, Futrelle comes on to debate a bit, mostly a point that is apparently popular to this idea that women dating up is leaving 80% of men out in the cold (the cold most likely being not getting a yes to every sexual advance, sometimes virginity). There’s further quantifying of the fact that people are literally seen as sex numbers from the writer of the rebuttal: “If marital rates were higher before the Sexual Revolution then that would imply that there was more equal pairing. I mean, why would 8’s mix with 4’s just for the hell of it?” This exchange and one following about whether all women are hypergamous see Men’s Rights Activists taking the ball of “We can state cold hard truths that apply to all members of X” and run to the fucking endzone with it. MRAs love to do it with feminists, who are all the same writhing, evil hydra of misandry of course, and it’s a central tenet of the numbering system. But it also helps this idea that there are biological “truths” (because the points being argued as biological truths can sometimes be citing statistics that only prove a percentage of people behave a certain way) that are true of all humans, or all women, or all people going through X or Y.

This sentiment of putting biology before people just becomes increasingly absurd as it is further contextualized, focusing on the minutest facets of biology, to the exclusion of other biological trends, mutations, and (HERE’S THE BIG ONE) society. So often talk of society only occurs in reference to a collection of humans all following and/or responding to the same biological trend, and rarely is society causing anything itself. It’s how you can have a discussion of primates being attracted to swollen, red asses and use it to explain men loving women in a red dress but not cover the fact that society decided pink was for boys before it decided that pink was for girls. It’s how you can have a discussion of American women, almost as undefinable as global women, as though they are a homogenous group.

I want to have a paragraph here that says, “No group is homogenous.” for a full page, but I’ll hold back. But that’s really important to understand. No, really. People can’t agree on an encompassing definition of feminism, or atheism, or theists really, which are mere labels, and people think they can state a truth or trait about an entire gender, 51% of the world population, that isn’t anthropocentric (or transphobic, when people say, “Well can’t we all agree that women have vaginas?”), that crosses all cultures, all races, all lived experiences and family histories, all socio-economic classes, and applies to EVERYONE. Okay, alright, MAYBE there’s one or two exceptions, but you know I’m right! *Assumed trait of all women* is just how it is!

Ah, but yes. All American Women are Not to be trusted! All Women are whores! All Women have control over All Men simply due to having a vagina! All Women have a vagina!

Technology further complicates this, of course. In an information age where most heavy-grade lifting is done by machines, the natural biological strength advantages of an average male over an average female are receding faster than the god of the gaps. But I think what makes this science talk around sex so bizarre to me is the fact that it obscures understanding. These are things that feel as though they should be quantifiable, and they are being quantified until you lose sight of an important fact: you’re trying to describe the actions a human being will take, a person, assumedly at least 18 to boot, and using SO. LITTLE. And while it echoes societal misogyny and social norms so often, it’s still legitimately shocking to read someone state, “That woman is a 4. That man is a 7. They do not belong together, and in fact there is no reason they are together other than the weakening of marriage by the sexual revolution.” Which is also for them to assert, “I am objectively correct. If you have different beauty standards, you are wrong *AND/or* I have completely correctly interpreted society’s standards of beauty, and they are worthwhile to apply.” And to assert, “Enjoying the same activities is nothing. What is a book, what reads a book, what is book. There is no love, only a biological numbers game. All elderly people, especially those past procreation age, do not have relationships for love, only economics, due to inaction, and/or for their spawn.”

And, because I don’t think I could intone robotic human talk while also integrating frat-boy misogyny any better, a commenter on Walsh’s chart : “The point is that most men can get sex from women who are 2-3 ranks below them fairly easily. That’s not to say that all female 7s are quick to put out for male 9s and 10s – only that the average male 9 will be able to easily find a slutty female 7 if he wants. And when a female 7 hooks up with a male 9, it means a male 7 will probably have to settle for a female 5 if he wants to get some.

The problem for average beta guys – say, guys in the 5-6 range – isn’t really that they can’t find girls below their level for sex; it’s that most of the girls who are that far below them don’t give them boners. They’d prefer girls at their own level, of course, but those girls are putting out (or holding out ) for male 7s and 8s.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: