men are monsters
June 11, 2015 § 1 Comment
Most feminists think men are monsters. That is the logical implication behind virtually everything they’re arguing. It’s almost as if feminists would be disappointed if men didn’t behave like monsters, but putting that aside, what Dr. Ruth is arguing really isn’t that crazy.
Women apparently lack the imagination or empathy sufficient to recognize what the miserable mating ritual they impose on men is like from the other side of the gender aisle. Women routinely forget, if they ever knew, that men either initiate relationships or they stand a very high probability of never having sex; never having wives or girlfriends; never having children; and never meeting basic psychological, emotional, and social needs that everyone has.
Unlike women, they can’t just expect to sit at a bar, smile and expect potential applicants to appear out of the ether and attempt to qualify for their intimacy while they nitpick and judge them like an employer at the height of the great depression. They don’t have a cadre of friendzoned but hopeful orbiters on facebook liking every moronic duck face picture they post and showering them with undeserved attention. They can’t very well expect to simply post a poorly written Okcupid profile in which they prattle on and on about how they are a “foodie” or how much like the like Wes Anderson movies and be rewarded for this by forty new offers for sex, intimacy, and relationships every week.
Men live with a far greater risk of falling into a social chasm which doesn’t even exist for most women. Men either successfully adhere to whatever gender role women impose or they remain socially and sexually invisible by default. They have no intrinsic value conferred on to them by virtue of their genitalia. They are by default as worthless and invisible as all those homeless men we ignore when we fail to consider the possibility that men being three times as likely to be homeless might actually be a gender issue. If you have a penis, nobody is going to ride in and save you. No woman is ever going to throw you a life preserver. In gender equality land, you’re on your own.
So, if this is how it is, then it’s men who are constantly and forever on the hook for risking socially and reading women’s minds. Unlike Ms. Watson, who can expect men to make their intentions known in no uncertain terms, men are forever doomed to having to figure out what women want when women don’t even seem to know.
This is the dynamic that women impose by virtue of their refusal to accept the responsibilities of gender equality as well as the rewards. So I guess women have to worry about sending mixed signals since they have made it his responsibility to read them, yeah?
How crazy is what she has suggested? She’s saying don’t send mixed signals. Given the miserable circumstances, I’d say that’s good advice. Forget rape for a moment and consider the moral implication of intentionally doing this to men when women are so tremendously empowered socially against them and when men face increasing risks for not being able to read women’s incoherent social cues in order to achieve something that is basic to human well being.
It’s cruel, manipulative, and shitty. It’s actually hideous. It’s like taunting starving people with food to remind yourself of how wealthy you are. Men are perfectly capable of controlling themselves because they are not monsters. They are rational moral agents just as women presumably are. But one wonders why it’s only men’s moral agency which ever receives scrutiny.
Was Dr. Ruth saying men are monsters? Or was she asking women not to be monsters?