Skip to content

Are women cruel?

October 25, 2009
by
Courtesy istockphoto.com

Courtesy istockphoto.com

Growing up, like most North American women, I was taught to fear the lascivious male predator and his many motives, and succumbed to certain notions of victimhood regarding female biological weakness. As I began to get seriously interested in dating, my mother ambiguously alluded to men lacking a certain kind of control, and condoned female purity and her cryptic warnings translated into, “Men are sexual animals. Keep your legs shut even if you think you’re in love.” This coupled with a consistent stream of news stories regarding sexual assault, rape, and a general archetype of the male perpetrator taught me to be wary of a man’s capacity for cruelty.

Personal experiences also compounded my notion of the woman as victim. It was as serious as sexual assault on a train, and as seemingly trivial as cumulative relationship experience — myself as the giver, the male as the recipient of my devotion, and love. I always seemed to be the sacrifical party, the one that seemed to love more and the one that seemingly suffered more heartbreak at the end.

Introduction into the Roissysphere completely reframed the narrative for me. Women were manipulative creatures, unable to exhibit sexual control, and emotionally flighty. My favourite band of all the time (and arguably the best, full stop), The Smiths, often feature lyrics about heartbreak, albeit in an absurdly comic way:

Pretty girls make gravesCourtesy crashrecords.co.uk
I could have been wild and I could have  been free

But Nature played this trick on me

Another man, he takes her hand
A smile lights up her stupid face
(and well, it would)

I lost my faith in Womanhood  

 

 

 

Morrissey croons about being falling prey to a beautiful woman, who ignores him in favour of another man, disspelling the ideal he projects on her. When she is united with the rival lover, he depicts a smile lighting up her “stupid face”; perhaps the man was a bad-boy Alpha, and not the self-pitying white knight.

In ‘William, it was Really Nothing’, Morrissey depicts the betadom most men find themselves resigned to:

How can you stay with a fat girl who says “oh, would you like to marry me, and if you like you can buy the ring”, she doesn’t care about anything.

Morrissey explicates, “I thought it was about time there was a male voice speaking directly to another male saying that marriage was a waste of time… that, in fact, it was ‘absolutely nothing.”

My knee-jerk reaction to those lyrics, and the concepts in general, is personal offense. I grew up with idea that I, as a woman, was something to be sought after, won over, chased down, and maybe, eventually convinced to resign myself to someone. Morrissey inverts the narrative of the female victim into the female oppressor, while the male suffers under her fickle rule. Maybe a little beta, but hey, he’s a stud. He even cavalierly jokes about his ‘Girlfriend in a Coma’ with something that sounds like victory at worst, and apathy at best.

So, are women cruel? Personal experience dictates the absolute opposite, as I’ve had the worst habits of making myself into a doormat (thereby executing very poor Girl Game by not making the man qualify). I think in spite of all Morrissey’s plaintive lyrics, and accusations made in the Roissysphere, men have worse habits of being too emotionally distant and not giving up their entire ‘selves’ up to their partners, like women are prone to do. What I think the Roissysphere does successfully attain is stripping women of projected ideals, especially that of the Madonna, which is pretty healthy in my view. The heartbreak in these songs, and I think the bitter disillusionment most men experience with women in general, result from the very same spoiled idealizations.

Women are fallible, and weak, yes, but certainly not especially cruel.

Courtesy crashrecords.co.uk
103 Comments leave one →
  1. October 25, 2009 12:59 am

    The phrasing is off. Women are victims of alphas (by victims I mean women give sex away and dont get commitment in return) , and are cruel to betas (making the betas work towards them, and not giving anything in return)

    So 99% of men are betas = women are mostly cruel. Any man knows what Im talking about.

  2. Il Capo permalink
    October 25, 2009 1:04 am

    men have worse habits of being too emotionally distant and not giving up their entire ’selves’ up to their partners

    you mispelled Alphas in the sentence above. It should read: “Alphas have worse habits of being too emotionally distant…”

    Alphas are “cruel” to women.
    Women are “cruel” to betas.
    Women can be “cruel” to omegas, but they usually find them so creepy that they don’t interact enough.

    I thought you knew this, it’s kinda basic if you have been paying attention at Roissy’s.

  3. Sofia permalink
    October 25, 2009 1:08 am

    I see what you guys are saying, but you’re equalizing beta with being virtuous. It goes against all practical truths that most men people are virtuous. Most men are emotionally distant, Alpha OR beta. It’s part of being a man and being able to compartmentalize things. Men develop very distinct ego boundaries and status as individuals in their formative years, whereas women don’t develop this until much later, thereby making us more dependent (symbiotic?) with the people and environment that surround us. It’s an issue of being men and women, not alpha or beta. Men are crueler in love by virtue of their independence.

  4. October 25, 2009 1:47 am

    Alphas are “cruel” to women.
    Women are “cruel” to betas.
    Women can be “cruel” to omegas, but they usually find them so creepy that they don’t interact enough

    When I look at my behaviour with men who don’t interest me I can rationalize it as appropriate, yet with further examination I see that looking through men as if they aren’t there and being kind yet dismissive could come off as cruel. Contrast this with my behaviour with men who catch my attention and you’ll see two different women. Crap – shitty revelation.

    Sofia not to pick a battle but in reply to my post about submission you said the following:

    can be opinionated, difficult to deal with, and emasculating to the sort of oblivious lower-IQ fellow who’s had the misfortune of attempting to verbally joust with me.

    If that’s not cruel what is it?

  5. Waffle permalink
    October 25, 2009 1:53 am

    As a man, I agree with this post. Girls are generally more likely to give up their entire selves to their lover/partner.

  6. October 25, 2009 2:00 am

    As a man, I agree with this post. Girls are generally more likely to give up their entire selves to their lover/partner

    Granted, however men who complain about women being cruel to them are men who have interacted with women who think they are too good for them. In these cases women can be cruel albeit unknowingly.

  7. October 25, 2009 3:51 am

    Men and women can be cruel in different ways. Men are more likely to leave their woman for a younger girl. women are more likely to leave a man after a financial hit like a job loss. However, women clearly come out ahead in divorce court.

    On the subject of men being emotionally distant, There are men that can meet a woman’s physical needs (hours of backbreaking labor, risking his life to protect her.), OR her emotional needs (sympathy, empathy, and a general shoulder to cry on) Women don’t understand these two types of characteristics are mutually exclusive.

    It’s important to realize that most type 1 guys don’t CHOOSE to be cold and emotionally distant. It’s a coping mechanism we use to adapt to our environment. (I admit to being a type 1 guy. In fact I take it to such an extreme that other guys have commented on how bad it is.) Usually from the liberal use of physical and mental abuse. And it takes decades to cultivate. So don’t think that just because you bumped uglies a couple of times that he’s suddenly going to start bearing his soul.

    Also, it’s important to realize which type of man a woman needs. Because if a woman chooses incorrectly, she’s going to be pretty miserable.

  8. October 25, 2009 5:12 am

    On the subject of men being emotionally distant, There are men that can meet a woman’s physical needs (hours of backbreaking labor, risking his life to protect her.), OR her emotional needs (sympathy, empathy, and a general shoulder to cry on) Women don’t understand these two types of characteristics are mutually exclusive.

    Well isn’t that black&white.

  9. Il Capo permalink
    October 25, 2009 6:36 am

    Most men are emotionally distant, Alpha OR beta

    True BUT:

    If the man is alpha, GIRLS care, hence he’s cruel.
    If he’s Beta, GIRLS don’t care, hence he’s not cruel.

  10. Il Capo permalink
    October 25, 2009 6:40 am

    looking through men as if they aren’t there and being kind yet dismissive could come off as cruel

    That’s not cruel. Cruel is using the guys you are not interested in to get your attention fix by misleading them or making them pay for dinners and sh!t. If you ignore them you are not cruel.

  11. October 25, 2009 8:06 am

    I would consider women can be cruel as a rule in one avenue and one avenue only: love.

    Justifiably.

    The only circumstance in which a person can get away with acts of repeated cruelty such that a man is bitter about it or her, is because the man in question allows this cruelty. This is the same for women and men. We can be so thirsty, so needy of whatever they have to offer us from attention to sex to love that this cruelty is not even needed but begged for in our behaviour.

    You are the masochist that accepted it and you have no right to cry rape after you consented to, after you have asked for it with your behaviour. It is your fault as much as society’s if you don’t know what you are getting into. It is your fault if you ignore her or him when she gives five million signals explicit and implicit that he or she is not into you.

    You have said, ‘Use me, please. It will hurt me but I want it so much that I don’t care. I need it. The only real cruelty you can do me is breaking up with me. Please drag it out painfully as long as you can tolerate me, instead, because I will never leave you.’

    I don’t think a man should be excused for being weak. He’s a man and that’s not what he’s supposed to be. Men As I’ve seen in Game, cruelty to them teaches them the lesson they’re meant to learn most of the time and that they should have learned if they were not being stubbornly oblivious. The nature of women is right in front of your face. The ideal of masculinity is right in front of your face. It has been there for you and you have ignored it over and over.

    The man who has undeserved cruelty directed at him is the exception, not the rule.

    Yes, I have been cruel to any man who disappoints me after I gave him anything of myself. I give it at a high price and in return: what does he give me? Nothing?

    What does his promise to care for me mean if he can’t hold a job, has no productive or creative passions, isn’t suited to home life or housework and I earn much more than he does? What does his commitment mean if he reeks of desperation? What does his ‘sensitivity’ mean if he doesn’t understand my true feelings or nature at all and ignores what I’m actually saying? What does his love mean if it’s obvious he gives it indiscriminately to any good-looking woman, when his primary motive is sex but he is dishonestly attempting to attain it through love? What is he as a man — or a human being, even — if he has no values he will stand up and fight for? What does his flabby, unexercised body mean to me especially when he indulges in no behaviour that you can call masculine? He is nothing but words and tears. He is nothing but a mass of quivering, action-less feelings. The word ‘love’ from his lips is a lie that you shouldn’t return.

    Don’t lie to women. The majority of modern men are not men and deliberately and stubbornly oblivious to this. How many, really, aspire to be the best they can be? It is hard to find a good man, regardless of where he is on the “alpha”/”beta” hierarchy. If a person has had an opportunity to be cruel to you, you have misjudged them and you have allowed that abuse. The horrifying modern exceptions to this can lie in corrupt legislature and courts. Otherwise: the responsibility is mutual.

    Yes, it is mutual.

    So which option do you prefer?
    A) All women say ‘no’ to men they could conceivably be cruel to (i.e. the majority).
    B) Women tolerate (for most occasions: a limited time) men they could be cruel to to give these men some small measure of what they want. The extreme under this category would be prostitutes.

    I’m going with A) these days. But if you don’t see why A) is the most selfish option for a woman these days in terms of rates of celibacy in men, then…

  12. October 25, 2009 8:22 am

    It’s a good idea to look at the opposite sex through a prism of it being a force of nature that one must master. For women, this comes early, as Sophia writes: a man can hurt you, beat you up, rape or kill you, or just take advantage of you and leave you with a slutty rep.

    But for some reason, men either seldom did, or only recently ceased to, regard women as a force of nature to be mastered as well. Hence all the white-knighting, beta supplication, etc. that lead to disappointments and plaints of womens’ cruelty.

    Bu the way, U2′s lyrics to “So Cruel” are worth checking out.

  13. lovelysexybeauty permalink
    October 25, 2009 12:14 pm

    Interesting post. On both sides (Roissysphere game and perhaps even among us here on GirlGame), it’s never easy trying to see things from the other side’s point of view. It’s easier to just say that oh, women are like xyz, and men are like xyz. And ignore the fact that both sides make decisions in more complex way.

    Sofia, I think I know what you mean about men coming across as very cruel when they don’t return a woman’s shows of love back. I’ve spent my whole life seeing other women do this, and having their hearts broken.

    Some of these women become bitter and start to treat men badly, or just get messed up in the head. Other women learn from their mistakes and don’t take relationships too seriously until they get true commitment. (Some guys call this playing games; I’m still not sure how to explain this to those types of guys so that they understand that women aren’t just driven by tingles and actually do a bit of decision-making analysis too.)

    If an Alpha is a guy that treats women like crap, are women out there so masochist to keep on going for it forever? It will wear her out at some point, and she’ll have to find a happy middle ground.

    Even Roissy has talked about showing vulnerability and a softer (Beta like) side at times. Just this Friday he talked about how he almost lost his prior girlfriend because he kept on bailing on her to cheat with someone else. He hasn’t explained yet why he didn’t just tell both women that’s the law of the land (probably because most sane people will not stick around, if there’s one “Alpha” there are many others who won’t do that crap).

  14. novaseeker permalink
    October 25, 2009 12:17 pm

    Men are crueler in love by virtue of their independence.

    I would take issue with your assertion that our greater emotional distance results in cruelty. It is really simply the male way of being. It isn’t cruel, in my view, because cruelty requires deliberate action — to be cruel is to be deliberate. Our greater emotional distance is not deliberate, it is simply male, and it can alleviate somewhat over the course of a relationship with effort, if the relationship is worthwhile. In fact, I would say it’s just as easy to pathologize the female tendency you note as being to throw themselves fully into relationships — perhaps this is the aspect that is not healthy, rather than the natural male emotional distancing, particularly in early stage relationships?

    What I think the Roissysphere does successfully attain is stripping women of projected ideals, especially that of the Madonna, which is pretty healthy in my view. The heartbreak in these songs, and I think the bitter disillusionment most men experience with women in general, result from the very same spoiled idealizations.

    I agree that it is healthy to strip women of an idealistic picture — this is what underlies much of the current anti-male tilt in the laws that concern male/female relations. However, this realistic view of women also serves to reinforce our general tendency to remain at a greater distance emotionally, and in fact justifies it.

  15. lovelysexybeauty permalink
    October 25, 2009 12:25 pm

    I tend to believe that everyone does what they do because they’re just trying to do what’s right, or what makes them happy.

    So if a person comes across as cruel, I really think about: are they doing this just to be mean? Even if they are, why? Is it because they think all women are bad and they are just trying to get back at us? Or am I totally misinterpreting them and they’re just making a very strong comment?

    Not sure what I’m trying to say… I think “cruelty” is more of a perception by the person receiving the behavior.

    Sometimes “cruelty” is just the other person’s style, or the other person doesn’t realize they’re being cruel. And sometimes, people try to be cruel and it doesn’t really work (like when they say something and it’s so preposterous it comes across as a teasing joke).

    It’s like the neg… is that cruel? Or is it just making light fun of how imperfect the world is? And our crazy value-judgements? The neg, in some ways, reminds us to not take things so darn seriously or personally. :-)

  16. lovelysexybeauty permalink
    October 25, 2009 12:30 pm

    @novaseeker

    It is really simply the male way of being.

    That’s really good. I think everyone needs to realize the other person may not be doing something to be mean. And even if they are, so what? It’s up to each of us to decide if we can live with that behavior or not.

    Better would be for both (men and women) to try and meet the other halfway. Accept my need for independence, and I’ll accept your need for reassurance sometimes (not only pure Alpha brusqueness).

  17. Luvbuay permalink
    October 25, 2009 2:04 pm

    I have had many girls tell me that they just want to be friends and hang-out with me or other men because:

    (sic) “women are such bitches” “they are so mean always being creul to each other” while “men are just so easy to get along with, there is no drama, everything is relaxed and easy”

    The girls I hung out with would ofter tease each other by saying “rrrow”! (imitating an angry cat lashing out with it’s claws. The kitty cat is good symbolism for the woman: soft and cuddly, but watch out for those wicked claws when you least expect it, and no mercy for the poor mouse or squirrel, she will have fun playing with the poor mouse before chewing it’s head off…they way she does to men.

    The above sentiment has been reflected from many girls I’ve known and it is an accepted fact. It is curious that you are so naive about it. You must live a very sheltered and pampered life.

    There was an Elizabeth Bathory, an infamous historic figure that is the epitome of cruelty. Although the politicallly correct mainstream media tries to suppress it, there are constant examples everyday of female cruelty, sex abuse, child molestation, cutting off of penises (I can hear the wicked female snickers from here), and the like.

    THere are countless examples of women taking advantage of men, conniving, ruining their lives, subjecting them to indentured servitude after using them to father children, bearing false witness in rape cases and condemning innocent men to unfathomable torture, humiliation, gang rape, death, and ruined lives, all to get even for some perceived slight. I mean it’s sociopathic, no remorse, just perversely criminal. So don’t you dare say that women are not cruel because you will loose all credibility.

    Please, you sound so sheltered, naive, and ignorant. Please consider this a critique, a constructive criticism, if you will.

    Are men cruel? YES. Are women cruel? YES. Are women less cruel? It could be argued that “The Female Is The Deadlier of the Species”

  18. Tupac Chopra permalink
    October 25, 2009 2:23 pm

    “What teeth are to a tiger, deception is to women and children. Deception is always the price of slavery.” — C.S.H.

  19. Tupac Chopra permalink
    October 25, 2009 2:37 pm

    Bhetti:

    The nature of women is right in front of your face. The ideal of masculinity is right in front of your face. It has been there for you and you have ignored it over and over.

    Bullshit. The mere existence of the entire seduction community refutes this view.

    Until recently, men were fed a steady diet of pretty lies regarding female sexuality and relationships. Feminism was part of the engine in the Pretty Lie Manufacturing Co., but just as much a co-factor were all the dissimulators squirting their squid ink to keep their personal “sins” swept under the carpet.

    Virtually no females were willing to admit to themselves (least of all to others) the dark side of their natures. If, for instance, a man were to say “women are drawn to violent bad-boys”, the tut-tutting would be deafening: “That’s not true! You’re just bitter! And if there are women like that they are OBVIOUSLY mentally disturbed and therefore don’t count, etc.”

    Much of society is just a collection of Pretty Lies, or fictions, meant to grease the wheels of social interaction.

    The problem is that some men actually bought into the Pretty Lies because they were, well, pretty. Thoughtful, idealistic men who were cognizant of Man’s fallen nature would have felt that a more “noble” or “fair” accounting of human behavior was something to aspire to.

    But as FeministX so succinctly put it, feminism et al was really just a huge shit test. It culled the aforementioned men, men who would not have had relationship difficulties in a previous age, in favor of the smaller number of selfish sociopaths who resisted any sort of cultural indoctrination. This state of affairs was of course beneficial to alpha-chasing women. It did their dirty work for them beautifully.

    So, who are YOU to wave your finger?

  20. October 25, 2009 2:41 pm

    Women and men have both been cruel to me in my life. Starting from youth my female relatives and my own mother have treated me like the scum of the Earth.

    It doesn’t pay to be nice in this world. Nor is it safe to be starry-eyed and naive about what certain people are capable of when you give them the opportunity. I’ve taken to not befriending most people and being a total introvert and outcast. There are wonderful men and women out there who do not want to be cruel, and I prefer their company.

    And Bhetti, while I would say that sometimes the responsibility is mutual, in cases where one is often helpless such as a parent-child relationship, the responsibility should rest solely on the perpetrator.

  21. Doug1 permalink
    October 25, 2009 3:02 pm

    Sofia–

    I think in spite of all Morrissey’s plaintive lyrics, and accusations made in the Roissysphere, men have worse habits of being too emotionally distant and not giving up their entire ’selves’ up to their partners, like women are prone to do.

    It’s quite absurd Sofia for you to equate men’s tendency to be more emotionally distant and less emotionally submissive with being cruel. Cruelty is a deliberate act or at least a headless one in the face of some implicit duty. As well while men in generally may be, on average, more emotionally distant than women, probably only alpha men or men towards that side of the spectrum at least who are less likely to “give up their entire selves to their partners”, which I’ve described as being less emotionally submissive. In fact in this later case I think you’re generalizing from your own emotional tendencies far too much to women in general. Though when men are able to and do run game really well “tight game” yes that dynamic does tend to occur.

    You have left completely out of the equation girl girl cruelty; i.e. girls social clique cruelty. Girls creating in and out groups as a kind of mania, yeah in grade school not to mention junior high and high school, but thereafter in life. Though thereafter it’s easier to avoid. Still in all kinds of social circles it’s women that are enforcing clique rules and hierarchies far more than men are, and often do it with real emotional cruelty.

    Although women commit violent and cruel acts a lot more than is believed, yes there men do far more than women. However the proclivity of men to use violence to achieve dominance and to do so sometimes cruelly is extremely well known, openly discussed and vigorously policed. Whereas that of women tends to get far more excused, far less shamed, and is much less policed. It gets a free pass a much higher percentage of the time.

    Sticking just to emotional cruelty, I don’t know which sex does more of it. I do know that women tend to be attracted more to men who are both more capable of being emotionally cruel to them (due to having ready other female alternatives for example) and more prone to it, due to their more alpha nature a la Roissy. So it probably is as was more or less said by others above, that alpha men are more emotionally cruel than most females who are more emotional cruel than most beta men. In the last case they’re less so both out of less opportunity to be (they’re in lower demand) and less tendency to be. Meanwhile here too we hear all about male (alpha male) emotional cruelty to women in chic flicks and romantic movies generally, but far less about female emotional cruelty. Songs though are a place we do; that’s true.

  22. October 25, 2009 3:13 pm

    Tupac:
    Most men simply opt out and take the easy road. Most men don’t change the status quo. Most men are sheeple. It doesn’t matter whether it is feminism, misogyny or anarchy at the helm of their ship: they get steered just the same.

    What is the difference in personality between a man like you whom the scales dropped from your eyes and a man who denies reality because he has been fed it, despite the evidence that piles up before him. Evidence that is there if he only seeks it?

    If this is an age of inquiry and a disbelief in God, then what’s the excuse? There’s no point idealising men who want to believe what they want to believe. They’re stupid, wilfully oblivious, rationalising and/or stubborn. Really. That doesn’t make them horrible people. That does mean they’re asking for it because we don’t live in a world where people are angels. We can’t expect to be treated softly. We are responsible for our destinies. I don’t excuse what I bring on to myself because I want it to be true or because of ideals I have. That’s why I can theoretically apply it to others.

    Hope: yes, not addressing the context of parent-child relationships.

    No, I don’t want to be cruel again. It’s poisonous.

  23. October 25, 2009 3:45 pm

    I don’t think a man should be excused for being weak. He’s a man and that’s not what he’s supposed to be.

    I’ve always hated that notion of man being incapable of being weak while women get to be weak and have men fall all over themselves to save their asses. Let’s try this, we get to show some damned frailness once in a while without being shamed for it, and you girls learn to rescue your own asses without bothering men.

    For some reason Bhetti, your comments seem to induce some bitterness within me. Maybe I am cruel when the beta penalty brake doesn’t engage and specter of of guilt doesn’t haunt me.

  24. Ferdinand Bardamu permalink
    October 25, 2009 4:17 pm

    “Serial or sex murder, like fetishism, is a perversion of male intelligence. It is a criminal abstraction, masculine in its deranged egotism and orderliness. It is the asocial equivalent of philosophy, mathematics, and music. There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.” – Camile Paglia, Sexual Personae

    I and others have argued that women tend to be AMORAL, which is often confused with IMMORAL. AMORAL means “without morality,” a total and uncompromising devotion to one’s own self-interest. Men, on the other hand, tend towards being MORAL or IMMORAL. When women are cruel or kind, it is usually because they perceive it to be in their best interest. Men are far more likely to be cruel for the sake of being cruel (see above Paglia quote) and kind for the sake of being kind.

    As an aside, I concur with Novaseeker and Doug1 that emotional distance != cruelty. It’s how guys are.

  25. Sofia permalink
    October 25, 2009 6:32 pm

    Aoefe,

    can be opinionated, difficult to deal with, and emasculating to the sort of oblivious lower-IQ fellow who’s had the misfortune of attempting to verbally joust with me.

    If that’s not cruel what is it?

    IQ isn’t inherent to being Alpha or Beta. In fact, most high-IQ types are considered “beta”. I do it to anyone (men or women) if they try to talk to me with some chip on their shoulder like I don’t know any better, but this is most often the case with men who patronize more often out of habit.

    LSB,

    I totally agree with you about women who have been hurt too much developing a commitment complex that men interpret as game playing.

    Novaseeker,

    It isn’t cruel, in my view, because cruelty requires deliberate action — to be cruel is to be deliberate.

    This is a good point!

    But, stripping women of their idealization I don’t think should necessarily equate to being more distant. Maybe a bit more wary of us as human beings.

    Luvbuay,

    It’s pretty much established that male crime is higher than female crime. Having said that, instances of female molestation and the image of the conniving woman is often much more sensationalized; if it were men in these sitations it would be a piece of everyday news trash. Reason being it’s not traditionally seen in the female capacity to commit those actions.

    Doug,

    Re: female cruelty.

    Luvbuay touched on this briefly. Honestly, I haven’t been subject to it, though I know it exists as phenomenon in pop culture (movies, t.v., music, etc.) Men have hurt me more (in love), but not in a cruel way, in an unknowing way.

    F. Bardamu,

    That’s a great quote, and interesting too. Hmm, I’ll have to dwell more on this topic… Though, my perspective is thwarted since I study philosophy, and therefore logic and virtue, so I see these things through a philosophical framework now.

  26. aliasclio permalink
    October 25, 2009 7:08 pm

    When women are cruel or kind, it is usually because they perceive it to be in their best interest.

    I’ve heard this said by Gamesters before, and I disagree – not that either of us has any proof, so far as I know.

    When women are cruel, it’s far more likely to be the result of the passions of the moment like anger or jealousy (even if there is some calculated act involved, like arranging for a group to gang up on some enemy), than because they perceive it to be in their self-interest. As for female kindness, for better or worse it too tends to be motivated by passion of one sort or another – including the passions of pity, guilt, maternal affection, as well as the more obvious passions of sexual love.

    There are women who calculate the effect of their kindnesses, or in your words, offer it out of self-interest, but they’re more likely to be the ones who strike you as unfeminine: the gold-diggers, careerists, and “hoes” so often excoriated on roissy’s website by his readers. If there’s any calculation involved in the ordinary woman’s kindness, it’s most likely to be the hope of winning regard and praise from people they love or admire. Perhaps that counts as “self-interest” but it isn’t quite the kind I think you meant.

    Now, I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that much of this is probably true of the psychologically average, ordinary man as well. He isn’t likely to think of as many small kindnesses, but he may offer large ones like investment advice, or help with a move, or changing a flat tire for an old lady stranded on the road – that sort of thing. I suppose one difference may be that he isn’t as likely to hope to win affection out of his kindnesses.

    Another difference between men and women concerning kindness and cruelty: men are more likely than women to plan and if possible carry out large-scale idealistic schemes for the improvement of the lot of their fellow-men. This is where men’s greatest kindness AND greatest cruelty are most likely to be activated. Female Robespierres and Marxes are as rare as female Jack-the-Rippers.

    On the other hand, women have a gift for organizing practical small kindnesses on a large scale – that is, affecting the lives of many people but concerning smaller issues, like cleanliness and health. Women may not have been responsible for many great medical discoveries, but it was they who organized and reformed hospitals and the daily care of the sick in the western world.

  27. Doug1 permalink
    October 25, 2009 7:49 pm

    DA

    For some reason Bhetti, your comments seem to induce some bitterness within me.

    Your shtickt, whether by conscience design or by trial and error and liking the result, seeks and sometimes succeeds to induce a mothering, hugging mode in a fair number of girls.

    Sharp minded Bhetti isn’t emotionally buying it in a guy 6 years older than her, but rather is simply left with turned off or worse.

  28. October 25, 2009 9:01 pm

    Weakness by men is accepted and encouraged. To overblown proportions. It is in fact expected by the entitled woman and taken advantage of. The ones mainly being hurt by being non-strategically weak is men. They don’t know how to even work frailty, without actually getting hurt. And you know why? It’s not really in their nature. They don’t just know how to work frailty.

    A woman makes an intricate, intuitive and subtle art out of it.

  29. October 25, 2009 9:24 pm

    Heaven and earth,
    Must I remember? Why, she would hang on him
    As if increase of appetite had grown
    By what it fed on, and yet, within a month—
    Let me not think on’t—Frailty, thy name is woman!— Shakespeare

  30. October 25, 2009 9:29 pm

    I’m having a hard time believing that women are supposedly amoral, or less moral than men.

    What would be the biological basis of this? What hormones would women have in more abundance compared to men to drive us to be like that? What complicated interplay between the brain and other decision centers of the body make women act in self interest, while making men act out of dedication to some greater set of causes? (Which by the way, the idea of morality or ethics change all the time any way?)

    Personally, I have dedicated my life to living in the most morally and spiritually sound way possible. This is my life’s purpose. It’s not easy, for sure, especially since “the right thing” isn’t always obvious (e.g., don’t act s*xy since that provokes temptation vs. act s*xy without doing anything because it celebrates the sensual nature of the body).

    I have rarely talked about this side of myself here or in day-to-day life (except when in spiritual settings) because it’s between me and God really. But I am a girl, and some of my closest friends are like me. *We always try to do the right thing, including when we will get absolutely no credit for it. In fact, we get more crap from people about it than anything (e.g., “Why don’t you drink alcohol?,” “Why are you waiting until marriage?”). But we are dedicated to a greater purpose, and that’s most important.

    Also, don’t a lot of people believe in the idea of karma nowadays any way? People who attract negative energy tend to experience it, while those that do right tend to attract positive energy. There are many people who get away with being ‘bad’, but I think it’s more one of those things where we don’t see where they’re hurting… or the true ‘bad’ will come in a big explosion later. Or they’ve done so much good that it counteracts the bad. Karma is a complicated concept, especially if you start studying the more esoteric parts of Buddhism and Hinduism. Just throwing that out there.

  31. October 25, 2009 9:37 pm

    Aoefe,

    The Smiths are toootally more poignant than Shakespeare. Duh.

    LSB,

    I know where you’re coming from. I know this sounds ridiculous, considering I’m still very young, but I got more flack for being a Good Girl than being a quasi-bad girl. It comes across as really immature and childish for not being able to handle your vices and balance a functional life.

  32. Doug1 permalink
    October 25, 2009 9:40 pm

    aoefe–

    yet with further examination I see that looking through men as if they aren’t there and being kind yet dismissive could come off as cruel. Contrast this with my behaviour with men who catch my attention and you’ll see two different women. Crap – shitty revelation.

    No aoefe. That’s quality behavior. Certainly the second is. The first might be a little too dismissive to not have a bit of a cruel chill to it. A bit, only. This is kind girl territory mind.

    Calls for skills though. “kind yet dismissive” requires skill to work on getting the dismissing done while being reasonably kind.

  33. October 25, 2009 10:01 pm

    Sofia – To this day I don’t understand the huge @$$ reactions some people have to my not doing some of the typical mainstream vices. When I decided to be more social and less judgmental years ago, I learned little ways to avoid having to explain myself or seem like a weirdo, etc. It’s pretty funny how nowadays, people seem to be admired more for “breaking the rules” than they are for following them. Or they don’t realize that much of the world thinks and acts differently, and they somehow survive and are happy even.

    By the way, in the philosophy world is “embodied mind” popular at all still? Back when I was in college I really, really enjoyed reading the theories of George Lakoff (linguist) and Mark Johnson (Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought). I tried to read Chomsky too, but couldn’t follow him lol. I liked the ideas of mapping the great philosophical concepts (ethics, morality, etc.) to the actual physical experiences that build the brain; the ideas of physical metaphors mixing with language and stuff. All this is my lost passion… my girly swirly brain decided to go have more “thoughtless” fun for the past few years. What a nice and surprising way to remember all of that again :-)

  34. Doug1 permalink
    October 25, 2009 11:04 pm

    conscious design.

    Shoot me.

  35. October 25, 2009 11:07 pm

    “But as FeministX so succinctly put it, feminism et al was really just a huge shit test.”

    Umm, I’m not gonna let that golddigger get the credit for repeating my insight verbatim.

  36. Doug1 permalink
    October 25, 2009 11:13 pm

    JB–

    I’m not hostile but I’d like proof.

    Link please.

    Link to you, predating link to her.

    Then I’ll credit you for a great (but overstated) insight.

    Where I promiscuously post, and this comes up. As it tends to.

  37. October 25, 2009 11:27 pm

    Your shtickt, whether by conscience design or by trial and error and liking the result, seeks and sometimes succeeds to induce a mothering, hugging mode in a fair number of girls.

    While I like the mothering, hugging mode, I’m well aware that this blog isn’t exactly the best means of achieving that. I’d down right obvious that I’m for all intents and purposes, I’m the de facto troll, and that the girls here have no intent on hugging trolls.

    but rather is simply left with turned off or worse

    I assure you that I had no desire to turn her on. It’s just that Bhetti induces a degree of bitterness within me that the other girls just don’t seem to invoke. It’s one thing to disagree, but it’s another to be pissed to the point where you’re actually angry.

  38. Ferdinand Bardamu permalink
    October 25, 2009 11:34 pm

    Clio:

    When women are cruel, it’s far more likely to be the result of the passions of the moment like anger or jealousy (even if there is some calculated act involved, like arranging for a group to gang up on some enemy), than because they perceive it to be in their self-interest. As for female kindness, for better or worse it too tends to be motivated by passion of one sort or another – including the passions of pity, guilt, maternal affection, as well as the more obvious passions of sexual love.

    There are women who calculate the effect of their kindnesses, or in your words, offer it out of self-interest, but they’re more likely to be the ones who strike you as unfeminine: the gold-diggers, careerists, and “hoes” so often excoriated on roissy’s website by his readers.

    Who’s to say that self-interest and “passions of the moment” are mutually exclusive? What I’m talking about isn’t a conscious process – it’s buried deep in the bones of every woman, as surely as any other visible process such as breathing.

    You’re also conflating “self-interest” with “selfishness.” The former doesn’t preclude kindness and charity towards others – the latter does. That is the difference between normal women and golddigger/careerist types.

    If there’s any calculation involved in the ordinary woman’s kindness, it’s most likely to be the hope of winning regard and praise from people they love or admire. Perhaps that counts as “self-interest” but it isn’t quite the kind I think you meant.

    It does, in the broadest sense (which is what I was thinking of).

    Another difference between men and women concerning kindness and cruelty: men are more likely than women to plan and if possible carry out large-scale idealistic schemes for the improvement of the lot of their fellow-men. This is where men’s greatest kindness AND greatest cruelty are most likely to be activated. Female Robespierres and Marxes are as rare as female Jack-the-Rippers.

    On the other hand, women have a gift for organizing practical small kindnesses on a large scale – that is, affecting the lives of many people but concerning smaller issues, like cleanliness and health. Women may not have been responsible for many great medical discoveries, but it was they who organized and reformed hospitals and the daily care of the sick in the western world.

    You’re arguing something else entirely. Female Masculinist, one of my Spearhead colleagues, wrote an essay on this topic.

    LovelySexyBeauty:

    I’m having a hard time believing that women are supposedly amoral, or less moral than men.

    What would be the biological basis of this? What hormones would women have in more abundance compared to men to drive us to be like that? What complicated interplay between the brain and other decision centers of the body make women act in self interest, while making men act out of dedication to some greater set of causes?

    It’s quite simple – women, being physically frailer then men, are at greater danger of being raped/killed/abused/what have you in the wild. Because they are at much greater risk, women put their self-interest first and foremost – the ones who didn’t didn’t survive. As Fred Reed put it, men are romantics masquerading as realists while women are realists masquerading as romantics.

    Personally, I have dedicated my life to living in the most morally and spiritually sound way possible. This is my life’s purpose. It’s not easy, for sure, especially since “the right thing” isn’t always obvious (e.g., don’t act s*xy since that provokes temptation vs. act s*xy without doing anything because it celebrates the sensual nature of the body).

    I have rarely talked about this side of myself here or in day-to-day life (except when in spiritual settings) because it’s between me and God really. But I am a girl, and some of my closest friends are like me. *We always try to do the right thing, including when we will get absolutely no credit for it. In fact, we get more crap from people about it than anything (e.g., “Why don’t you drink alcohol?,” “Why are you waiting until marriage?”). But we are dedicated to a greater purpose, and that’s most important.

    1) One individual doesn’t disprove a trend.

    2) Amorality != evil.

    3) Women’s native amorality doesn’t mean they are completely incapable of being moral, just as men’s propensity to morality/immorality doesn’t make them incapable of amorality (cough cough *ROISSY* cough cough).

    Also, don’t a lot of people believe in the idea of karma nowadays any way? People who attract negative energy tend to experience it, while those that do right tend to attract positive energy. There are many people who get away with being ‘bad’, but I think it’s more one of those things where we don’t see where they’re hurting… or the true ‘bad’ will come in a big explosion later. Or they’ve done so much good that it counteracts the bad. Karma is a complicated concept, especially if you start studying the more esoteric parts of Buddhism and Hinduism. Just throwing that out there.

    LSB, you might as well be asking why people don’t go to church anymore. This is the Age of Darwin. God is not only dead, maggots have consumed His flesh.

    Sofia, LSB:

    I know this sounds ridiculous, considering I’m still very young, but I got more flack for being a Good Girl than being a quasi-bad girl. It comes across as really immature and childish for not being able to handle your vices and balance a functional life.

    To this day I don’t understand the huge @$$ reactions some people have to my not doing some of the typical mainstream vices. When I decided to be more social and less judgmental years ago, I learned little ways to avoid having to explain myself or seem like a weirdo, etc. It’s pretty funny how nowadays, people seem to be admired more for “breaking the rules” than they are for following them. Or they don’t realize that much of the world thinks and acts differently, and they somehow survive and are happy even.

    In Sodom, where everyone is a sinner, the virtuous are considered to be freaks.

  39. October 25, 2009 11:54 pm

    lilgirl: It isn’t black and white. It’s a continuum and the more a guy has of one type of quality the fewer he will have of another. The type of man that will die to protect a woman is the type of guy that does not and CANNOT experience the full range of human emotions because doing so would jeopardize his ability to do his job. These men are also more likely to be impulsive, physically aggressive, and sexually aggressive. (Not me. Thank god.)

    And it ways it can be very helpful.

    Example: If a woman is criticizing a man for being cold and emotionally distant, he isn’t going to have any problem dumping her for someone who’ll accept him for who he is.

  40. October 25, 2009 11:58 pm

    Doug, sadly my Google-fu is rather weak so I was only able to find two references:

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/the-myth-of-the-medieval-bbw/

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/feminism-as-sexual-selection-strategy/

    I believe there was a comment going back several months (which I refer to in the 10/06 entry) but I can’t find it.

    Regardless, after doing some research, I did not originate the idea (or at least I wasn’t the first to publish it.)

    http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2008/04/pick-up-artists-and-feminism.html

    But certainly Miss No Shame deserves no credit here whatsoever.

  41. aliasclio permalink
    October 25, 2009 11:58 pm

    You’re arguing something else entirely. Female Masculinist, one of my Spearhead colleagues, wrote an essay on this topic.

    No, I’m not. I brought up broader examples of male and female types of kindness and how they work in society. That wasn’t LSB’s original issue, of course: she was writing about the ways in which men and women may be kind or cruel in conducting affairs of the heart. But once you proposed that men are more likely than women to be kind or cruel for disinterested reasons (Men are far more likely to be cruel for the sake of being cruel (see above Paglia quote) and kind for the sake of being kind), it was not illogical to bring up the broader social forms that male kindness might take, and to suggest female variants of the same. Just another aspect of the differences between male and female kindness and cruelty.

    Your suggestion that women’s seeking for affection in performing kindnesses for others is a reflection of their self-interest, though no doubt an unconscious one, leaves open the question of just how much self-interest there may be in even the most altruistic man who carries out great reforms or produces remarkable inventions.

    Your evo-psych. explanation for women’s self-interest isn’t much of a proof of anything, either. Don’t the Posse members generally agree that men’s good deeds and accomplishments are largely the result of their desire to impress women? If so, what’s the difference between that and women’s form of self-interest?

    Self-interest is part of our animal natures, male and female alike.

  42. October 26, 2009 12:11 am

    Who’s to say that self-interest and “passions of the moment” are mutually exclusive? What I’m talking about isn’t a conscious process – it’s buried deep in the bones of every woman, as surely as any other visible process such as breathing.

    Very interesting discussion, I love when these conversations ramble around my conscious thoughts throughout the day. Self-interest hmmmm? I can only examine myself and as kind, and as nice, and as interested in others as I may be at the root of it is self-interest. How am I perceived by the world? By my family? By my friends? I want their perception to be flattering of me, perhaps I care too much what others think. Being raised in a home of ‘quality’ folk I have adopted many of their fine attributes by nature of close proximity. How would I have turned out if I had been raised by people with less inclination to be tasteful, generous or kind towards others? I would be motivated by self-interest no more no less it would simply look different and perhaps appear cruel. I get a pay-off for the way I behave, which says to me self-interest is involved. I reserve lack of self-interest for the Mother Theresa’s of the world.

    It’s quite simple – women, being physically frailer then men, are at greater danger of being raped/killed/abused/what have you in the wild. Because they are at much greater risk, women put their self-interest first and foremost – the ones who didn’t didn’t survive.

    I am not offended that women are more prone to self-interest, what Ferdinand says make sense in terms of survival. Revelations about my nature only cause me to be more conscious of what truly motivates me and allows me to be more honest to myself and thereby to others/men. Cool.

  43. October 26, 2009 1:33 am

    Many women can indeed be deliberately cruel, but most of the suffering I have experienced at women’s hands has been through their dithering, capriciousness and inability to reject me outright: carelessness, not cruelty. I suspect the experience of most men, at least of my social and educational level, is the same.

  44. October 26, 2009 1:49 am

    I suspect the experience of most men, at least of my social and educational level, is the same.

    Maybe it’s me, but I think I’ve been spared from female cruelty, especially in the past five years…

  45. msexceptiontotherule permalink
    October 26, 2009 7:04 am

    Women also have developed a penchant for cruelty to others of their same gender, and the example I like to use is the one where woman a is approached by woman b who is a friend of hers with news that A’s boyfriend or similar man in A’s life has made an attempt to hit on B while A was not immediately present to be able to witness the event. Rather than believe B who is A’s friend, regardless of whether or not the friendship is one with a very long history or not, A will inevitably choose the guy and get rid of B. I’m less concerned with women’s capacity for cruelty towards men right now due to situations in my life, and more interested in why women are the way they are towards other women. It seems like the only women who have the kind of friends seen in shows like “Sex in the City” are only found in the variety of portrayals to choose from that are found on tv series or movies as well. It’s something I’m having a rough time trying to assess the presently available female friends I have for their ability to fit my social group that will be needed to avoid being alone for re-entering the world of social interaction that is surely something I will face in the time ahead. Since it’s taken me this long to start talking to people strictly via online in formats such as blogs, I couldn’t say when exactly I’ll be going forth into the real world, but these things take time to prepare for, and right now I’m having difficulty with how to accurately determine what constitutes as a friend in the female sense of the term. I don’t see going into the later part of the process with a group of guy friends possible or just something advisable if I can’t first find women friends that I can incorporate into my life in general.

  46. October 26, 2009 7:47 am

    My girl friends who I love and who love me (there are four) I have gleaned from either work or from my past ltr relationship. I find it interesting that not one of my good friends is single, and have wondered if it’s because I identify most strongly with women who believe family is number one. Single women who I’ve run across in my years as a single person have no appeal for me. My friends love living vicariously through my dating experiences and I’m sure in many ways helps them reconfirm their desire to stay happily entrenched. :)

    Ms. Excpetion do you have women friends left over from your married days? Or better question yet did you have good friends from those years? And if so what happened to them? I lost friends after my break-up to be sure, but the ones that stuck by me are more precious than silver.

  47. msexceptiontotherule permalink
    October 26, 2009 8:55 am

    The only female friends that are remaining are from the time up to when I got married and two that I met when I was married but not as part of another couple who my husband and I were friends with. It’s not that the friends we had as a pair and were part of a pair too weren’t good friends, but when I wasn’t part of something like they were because of his death, there wasn’t a lot to involve me in as a single when the majority of our time had been doing things as a group of other couples before. I’ve made numerous attempts at reaching out to the women who I’d been friends with independently, and my husband had his own friends that he’d hang out with and met on his own so it wasn’t like we only had friends that were couples as our only friends once we’d married or before even. I’ve encountered difficulty getting myself past the initial point of regular contact that goes well for a while but starts to have problems when they’re feeling like they’re supposed to say something but don’t want it to be the wrong thing which leaves them without saying anything at all – which has seen a huge jump in frequency because of the anniversary coming up and no one knows what to say to me about that whole situation. I’m starting to feel like everyone is getting out their kid gloves to handle the next month and a half of interacting with me, in preparation for it. My mother in law sent me an email I got today and was the first in months, asking me to call her so we could talk about having me come out to visit the family around “that day” next month. Is it bad for me to want to email her back saying that I’d rather eat glass than visit? Not that I’ve done it yet, but what else am I going to tell her? It’s not like I’ve got a ton of people to hang out with and who would provide sufficient distractions for me as an alternative. What’s a girl to do when she’s in a stage of life where the normal places to meet friends are far back in the rear view mirror on the road she’s traveling? I don’t really want to go to groups that are for people who are grieving losses similar to the one I’m dealing with, since it seems like the last place I’d find people who could get me into thinking about stuff so I DON’T have to focus on what’s gone like I do every day as it is. I’ve accepted that life is not fair, but I was hoping that was a lesson which I would not continually be reminded of. Whoever said that when you’ve accepted things that are part of life for everyone in some degree is when you’ll be able to find your own life experiences with the positives already around you must not have meant it to include applicability for ne. I go from wondering if I’ve done things that God is now punishing me for despite the fact that I can’t remember anything I’d be punished by God for doing, to believing that my finding people to surround myself with that I can count on and consider friends is less likely than it is for me becoming a total recluse and throwing out everything I own that can be used for contact with the outside world, and then wishing there was an easy way for me to die too, just because it would be easier than all other options look from where I’m standing now.
    I lost someone who was a very close friend after she made some choices in her life that I, as her friend, had to be honest with her about my feelings on these choices because that had been asked of me by my friend. After telling her how I felt like she asked, she became upset that I did not support the decisions, even though I did support her as my friend. I just couldn’t say I thought that a life where she spent 45 minutes a week with her daughter because she was working in two strip clubs and was using drugs which was not something she’d done in the past to my knowledge – was the greatest idea or a good plan for her to have going on in her life. Should I have lied to her and said that those things were fine, as long as she didn’t get involved in these things till she was in over her head? I couldn’t do that and still feel like I’d been the best friend I was capable of being, so my honesty cost me dearly, which happened about a year before my wedding which I would have loved to have been able to have her there for, even though she hadn’t been in the country so that I could attend hers – which she later divorced from for reasons I would have assumed she could have found out about by having a relationship with her husband for a decent period of time and should have questioned when he started rushing her to get married to him. But that’s a story for another time.

  48. October 26, 2009 9:41 am

    Ms. Exception I can only promise you one thing – you will one day feel differently than you are feeling right now. The only contant in life is change and this goes as much for emotion as it does for life’s circumstances. The choice you made to be honest with your friend is honourable, she lost out, not you. I hesitate to enter a discussion regarding God and what’s happened to you in life because it’s only my view and honestly may or not be valid for you. I will say this, I don’t believe death itself is a punishment for anyone including the victim. There are far worse things I’m afraid – evil walks the earth not the heavens. Enough said.

    Love and friendship will find you I am confident in this simply because you are you.

  49. novaseeker permalink
    October 26, 2009 9:48 am

    Your evo-psych. explanation for women’s self-interest isn’t much of a proof of anything, either. Don’t the Posse members generally agree that men’s good deeds and accomplishments are largely the result of their desire to impress women? If so, what’s the difference between that and women’s form of self-interest?

    Self-interest is part of our animal natures, male and female alike.

    Yes, but what counts as self-interest is somewhat broader for men than it is for women, because women are more concerned with the security of their own persons and that of their children. This is relatively less of a concern for men, which “frees men up” to have concerns about the broader picture to a greater degree than women. This is the basis for what you wrote to the effect that men tend to also be the social theorists and crafters and revolutionaries — we have the luxury of worrying about such things because we are more secure in our persons, whereas women are much more concerned about the minutiae of life because this area is less secure for you all than it is for us. As a result, that does make women’s self-interest more parochial, on average, than men’s. This is reflected in the goals and tactics of the women’s movement as well — all about women and children and fuck all about men, other than areas in which men directly impact women.

  50. gunslingergregi permalink
    October 26, 2009 10:08 am

    ””””’Since it’s taken me this long to start talking to people strictly via online in formats such as blogs, I couldn’t say when exactly I’ll be going forth into the real world, but these things take time to prepare for, and right now I’m having difficulty with how to accurately determine what constitutes as a friend in the female sense of the term. I don’t see going into the later part of the process with a group of guy friends possible or just something advisable if I can’t first find women friends that I can incorporate into my life in general.”””””””’

    And that was cruel.

    Mout tm

  51. Doug1 permalink
    October 26, 2009 10:42 am

    msexceptiontotherule–

    I don’t really want to go to groups that are for people who are grieving losses similar to the one I’m dealing with, since it seems like the last place I’d find people who could get me into thinking about stuff so I DON’T have to focus on what’s gone like I do every day as it is.

    I would that that such groups are exactly where you should go, among other things. Other giving men and women will have, or come to want to have, the same desire to move on that you do, or similar.

  52. msexceptiontotherule permalink
    October 26, 2009 11:52 am

    doug,

    But the problem is that I’m looking for company that won’t commiserate alongside me, and am looking for company that can distract me with things to live for.

  53. October 26, 2009 1:01 pm

    are women cruel? who cares. not to me they ain’t. They don’t want my foot up their ass.

    here’s more good lyrics:

    Sweetness I was only joking when I said by rights
    You should be bludgeoned in your bed

    And now I know how Joan of Arc [Hillary] felt
    Now I know how Joan of Arc felt
    As the flames rose to her Roman [pashtun] nose
    And her Walkman [ipod] started to melt

    Bigmouth, bigmouth
    Bigmouth strikes again

  54. novaseeker permalink
    October 26, 2009 1:14 pm

    One thing I will note is that it is ironic that the opinions of a flaming homosexual guy like Morrissey are being paid much attention. I mean, I liked The Smiths back in the day as well, but I always saw his lyrics as an admixture of very dark humor (it was almost a parody of depresso-rock) and whining about the straight world. The lyrics Sofia quotes, for example, I am pretty sure are written from the perspective of a gay man trying to convince a straight man to abandon women in favor of men. It’s odd, therefore, to take lessons about the overall attitudes of (straight) men towards women from lyrics like those.

    I mean the humor of some of his lyrics is unmistakeable. Girlfriend in a Coma is one of those. Another one is “There is a light that never goes out” — it’s a parody on straight romantic love, with its over-the-top imagery (“and if a ten tun truck kills the both of us, to die by your side, well the pleasure, the privilege is mine…”). I mean he is making *fun* of straight romantic love stereotypes there, it seems to me, from the perspective of a very gay man who thinks all of this stuff is stupid and a trap for men and so on … because he isn’t attracted to women.

  55. gunslingergregi permalink
    October 26, 2009 1:53 pm

    ”””(”and if a ten tun truck kills the both of us, to die by your side, well the pleasure, the privilege is mine…”). ”””””

    How is that over the top?

    Take that shit at face value.

  56. October 26, 2009 2:03 pm

    novaseeker

    One thing I will note is that it is ironic that the opinions of a flaming homosexual guy like Morrissey are being paid much attention.

    meh. they pay attention to collegeboy and bitey beaever.

    ooh! funtime lyrics teehee!

    I’ve seen the future, I can’t afford it
    Tell me the truth sir, someone just bought it
    Say mr. whispers!* Here come the click of dice
    Roulette and blackjacks – gonna build us a paradise
    Larger than life and twice as ugly
    If we have to live there, you’ll have to drug me

    *collegeboy’s Lhasha Apso

  57. The Iconoclast permalink
    October 26, 2009 2:06 pm

    I think on the average, men are more likely to help a defeated rival or at least refrain from doing him further harm while women are more likely to believe the rival is an evil person and deserves anything bad that happens to him/her.

    Basically most men in the western world have at least some trace left of the idea of chivalry//protecting the helpless//while moral teaching for women has focused more purely on sexual matters.

    The cruelty often shown by groups of women to the odd girl out is well known.

    As women gain more power in society there needs to be a female equivalent of the idea of chivalry.

  58. October 26, 2009 2:19 pm

    Firepower,

    I was also going to quote Bigmouth Strikes Again, but thought nobody would pay attention to more italicized text.

    Nova,

    It’s true — the absurd melancholy really does highlight that he’s parodying all of this stuff –but I would rather wilfully ignore that Morrissey is gay :c

    There are also parts of “There is a light that never goes out” that feels very genuine, like when he croons, “I never, never want to go home, because I haven’t got one anymore.” His lyrics are just so emotionally evocative, and dreamy. In spite of the cavalier attitude regarding serious subject matter, it’s still capable of inducing something very cathartic inside me.

  59. novaseeker permalink
    October 26, 2009 2:44 pm

    There are also parts of “There is a light that never goes out” that feels very genuine, like when he croons, “I never, never want to go home, because I haven’t got one anymore.” His lyrics are just so emotionally evocative, and dreamy. In spite of the cavalier attitude regarding serious subject matter, it’s still capable of inducing something very cathartic inside me.

    Oh definitely. When I first heard the song, my thought about the lyric was this: he is talking about a gay teen or young man who gets thrown out of the house by his father and who is drifting, and hanging on to the person he is with for dear life. It is a very evocative song, and there’s more than one thing going on with it, as is the case with quite a few of his lyrics really.

    ”””(”and if a ten tun truck kills the both of us, to die by your side, well the pleasure, the privilege is mine…”). ”””””

    How is that over the top?

    Take that shit at face value.

    Well, to me it’s the juxtaposition of the graphic description of violence with the language of devotion that, for me at least, sets it off as being an ironic lyric intended to be a bit over-the-top. Normally lovers don’t express their devotion in such graphic terms, and I think he’s using that language there to make it stand out and make people think about the nature of devotion and so on. But as I say above, there’s much more than one thing happening in that lyric.

  60. October 26, 2009 2:52 pm

    The cruelty often shown by groups of women to the odd girl out is well known.

    As an outcast girl I’ve experienced only subtle forms of cruelty by my peers, because most girls are not so blunt and in-your-face — they only talked about me behind my back. Whatever was said usually never made it back to me, because I was such an outcast that I was not privy to any gossip.

    I was also never naive enough to trust others with personal information. I went to a private high school for rich kids though I was poor, but I told no one about my background. I stayed so under the radar that when my classmates found my personal website (not school-related) in my senior year, no one even cared. They probably thought, “She’s weird and chats up with weird people online,” and that was that.

    A lot more cruelty is experienced by girls who are not completely outcast and still want to be a part of a social group, so they will put up with nasty behavior from other girls to be accepted. All the pettiness, cattiness, backstabbing, plotting, etc. I avoided because I did not belong to any group.

  61. novaseeker permalink
    October 26, 2009 3:14 pm

    Well, to me it’s the juxtaposition of the graphic description of violence with the language of devotion that, for me at least, sets it off as being an ironic lyric intended to be a bit over-the-top.

    Not to belabor a point, but of course now that I have been thinking about The Smiths I have re-listened to some of the tracks I haven’t listened to in a while. It seems to me that the theme of using violent imagery, whether in connection with love or not, is a consistent theme in Morrissey’s lyrical style. A few of my favourite examples:

    Burn down the disco,
    Hang the blessed DJs,
    Because the songs that they constantly play
    Say nothing to me about my life ..

    On the Leeeds side streets that you slip down,
    Provincial towns that you jump around,
    Hang the Dj, Hang the DJ, Hang the DJ …

    Truer words were ne’er spoken it seems to me. And also in Panic, where it again assumes a humorous, over-the-top ironic tone:

    Ask me, ask me, ask me …
    Because if it’s not love,
    Then it’s the bomb
    That will bring us together …

    Just a consistent theme. Margaret on the Guillotine (about Dame Thatcher) comes to mind as well.

    Sorry for the slightly off-topic post, but once I get going on Smiths lyrics … oh well.

  62. October 26, 2009 3:36 pm

    Sofia

    Firepower,

    I was also going to quote Bigmouth Strikes Again, but thought nobody would pay attention to more italicized text.

    thanks for the compliment. i’mused to attention.

    bonus points if you determine the song/band name of my other quote.

  63. October 26, 2009 3:45 pm

    Ha, Novaseeker, the second song is Ask!

    Firepower,

    Don’t know, didn’t ring any bells, probably not The Smiths, therefore it’s immaterial to me.

  64. October 26, 2009 3:55 pm

    you are so kwl.
    still, i knew
    you’d never get
    the correct answer

  65. October 26, 2009 4:00 pm

    This is a good one, too.

    spending warm summer days indoors
    writing frightening verse
    To a buck-toothed girl in Luxembourg

    Firepower,

    What do you expect? I am still pretty much a teenager. Apathy is my default response to things I feel insecure about or threatened by.

  66. October 26, 2009 4:11 pm

    Sofia

    Firepower,

    What do you expect? I am still pretty much a teenager. Apathy is my default response to things I feel insecure about or threatened by.

    I’ll state with certainty
    I’m apathetic about apathy.

    But, your admitting your method for coping is likably kinky – in a revealing sort of way.

  67. October 26, 2009 4:18 pm

    Firepower,

    Do you just want to me to admit that you’re likelier smarter than me and I don’t understand your esoteric, but seemingly knowing, references into my psychology? Because I will.

  68. novaseeker permalink
    October 26, 2009 5:02 pm

    Ha, Novaseeker, the second song is Ask!

    Heh, misreference touche.

  69. October 26, 2009 5:06 pm

    Hope…interesting words by Sallie Krawchek, a senior financial executive, about her own school experiences:

    seventh grade: tougher than Wall Street?

  70. novaseeker permalink
    October 26, 2009 5:07 pm

    This is a good one, too.

    spending warm summer days indoors
    writing frightening verse
    To a buck-toothed girl in Luxembourg

    Yep, I see that as being the same as “William, It Was Simply Nothing”. He’s a gay-leaning bisexual guy pleading for to ask him out so he can leave women aside. It’s pretty anti-female it seems to me.

  71. October 26, 2009 5:47 pm

    JD –

    Uh…thanks for the explanation there, sport.

  72. Tupac Chopra permalink
    October 26, 2009 7:10 pm

    Ferdinand:

    As Fred Reed put it, men are romantics masquerading as realists while women are realists masquerading as romantics.

    Such a great quote.

  73. October 26, 2009 8:11 pm

    Slightly off topic for a moment folks… but still slightly on topic.
    I’ve noticed something, when people(the regulars) comment here, the comments are often longer with more flowery wording and longer sentences.

    When the same people comment on one of the male centered blogs, the comments are often short and str8 to the point with perhaps more thesaurus grabbing words thrown in here and there.
    I have no beef with the way people write on either blog. I kinda like the differences to be honest. Am I the only one who sees this?

    Fun fact: Chic Noir has taken to using the word dystopia at t once a day :)

  74. October 26, 2009 8:15 pm

    tupac and firepower are the exceptions of course.

  75. gunslingergregi permalink
    October 26, 2009 8:29 pm

    I think my brother from another mother is still waiting sofia.

  76. October 26, 2009 8:36 pm

    Bhetti I don’t think a man should be excused for being weak. He’s a man and that’s not what he’s supposed to be.

    Wow, I see things a little differently. Six billion people and not all of us will fall into neat little boxes. Some men are weaker than others. I don’t have a problem with men who cry but he better not do it in public* or very often. Now DA’s trolling where he constantly puts himself down…. No he makes me dryer than the Sahara. There is no way I could be with a man who has so little drive and focus.
    *exception of course a few that come off the top of my head are death of a loved one, extreme pain or watching a very sad movie like The Passion of The Christ .

    Thursday the suffering I have experienced at women’s hands inability to reject me outright: carelessness, not cruelty.
    DA Maybe it’s me, but I think I’ve been spared from female cruelty,
    @thurday and DA- This could be because of you have traits that make you likeable or bring out the mothering nature of (some)women but not the lust side.

  77. October 26, 2009 9:05 pm

    Even someone like Mother Theresa, Jesus, Gandhi, Mandela, etc. could be looked at as having acted out of self-interest. What type of self-interest? Selfish devotion to being impressing God or being at peace with the universe.

    Without self-interest of some sort, we would all just become completely apathetic. Even men who do things supposedly out of wanting to help the greater good are acting out of wanting to please the universe – feel like they were good men.

    Self-interest is not so easy to describe. The whole idea of morality, right and wrong, is hard to describe. This is why religion focuses so much on it, I think!

  78. October 26, 2009 9:08 pm

    The idea of nirvana and moksha, which are related sort of (I think, I’m not super spiritual deep girl)… relate to the idea of acting out of complete self-interest.

    Meaning, act so that you have no attachment to your actions… you care about nothing… you give up all ideas… you let the universe go as it may. Or, you act in a way that causes no reaction whatsoever.

    It’s beyond the grasp of human thought in many ways… beyond language… beyond cognition.

    Any way… some people think creating scientific discoveries to help the greater good makes them an amazing person, others think selfless devotion to raise one’s child is great. Not everyone has the intellectual capacity to create great breakthroughs… are they not great people as well? Aren’t they trying to make a difference in their own small way?

    Update: I think this is what some of the early true feminist were bothered by. Just because a woman doesn’t create nuclear energy to create a cold war where detente keeps everyone from fighting, and focuses instead on raising her children and loving them, shouldn’t make her less of a person. Everyone needs a mother. Yes, today many men and women are not fulfilling the parent role too well, their kids are more like accessories to show off. But still…just throwing that out there, I donno.

  79. October 26, 2009 9:52 pm

    chic: A list of exceptions is fun. I would add ‘or his dog dying.’

  80. October 26, 2009 10:09 pm

  81. slumlord permalink
    October 26, 2009 10:36 pm

    LSB
    Without self-interest of some sort, we would all just become completely apathetic. Even men who do things supposedly out of wanting to help the greater good are acting out of wanting to please the universe – feel like they were good men.

    Wrong.

    The Zen master of virtue acts out of a desire to be good; not out of a desire to please a higher being or himself. Being good is good for its own sake. Once you have seen the vision all else is chaff.

    Thursday:
    most of the suffering I have experienced at women’s hands has been through their dithering, capriciousness and inability to reject me outright: carelessness, not cruelty.

    Probably more self-absorption than cruelty or carelessness. The average “nice” girl who wants to dump a nice guy has conflicting emotions. She is torn between sexual repulsion and emotional attraction. She wants to reject the lover and not hurt the friend. It’s easier to square a circle. She wants to get rid of him but doesn’t want to hurt his feelings(never mind that the sexual rejection per se s like a stake through his heart) , and therefore, acts in a way which optimises her happiness. LJBF is the solution to the psychological problem. Remember it’s about keeping the hamsters running around in her head happy, it’s not about the man

  82. October 26, 2009 11:22 pm

    bhetti chic: A list of exceptions is fun. I would add ‘or his dog dying.’

    In the states, the death of a pet is sometimes major. Felt by the owner as deeply as the death of a parent or child.

  83. October 27, 2009 12:10 am

    @slumlord – My second comment sort of agrees. I think very, very few are at a spiritually advanced state to act without any expectation or self-interest. Lots of people think they are though. And then they are surprised when they get really harmed from the repercussions, or they start to doubt themselves. Their gut emotions reveal they haven’t really overcome their natures after all.

    Doing good sometimes feels very, very bad…the high road is a rough one!

  84. October 27, 2009 4:58 pm

    chic noir & Bhetti: I’ll make you a deal. If you wont talk about where and when a man can show fear or sadness, I wont talk about where and when a woman is supposed to be ready with my dinner.

  85. October 27, 2009 6:02 pm

    I’ll make you a deal.

    Actually, my deal is that if I as a man cannot show sadness and fear, then women aren’t allowed to show it either. What’s good for the goose is always good for the gander…

  86. October 27, 2009 8:45 pm

    JD: Heh, that ‘dog dying’ was in fact a reference to a post at roissy:
    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/something-flew-in-my-eye/

    Dinner’s ready whenever you want it, darling?

    Showing emotion by itself isn’t being weak.** Allowing someone to abuse you because you won’t stand up for yourself is.

    ** Recall that the primary reason why a man’s emotion needs to be finely controlled is because of how badly it could go wrong if he’s angry.
    Recall that the primary reason why emotion should be controlled is because it makes you vulnerable to those who would abuse it.

    DA: Equality on this front might be fine. Too many men I’ve seen so much more openly emotional than me, and more manipulative, and clumsily transparent with it. It’s disgusting, encouraged and embraced. I cry in privacy, attempt to keep my troubles to those who wish to hear about them (HINT,HINT) and plead a headache if I’m caught. I don’t share emotional content promiscuously in my life and don’t have much tolerance for anyone doing it inappropriately. It’s all mollycoddling and it’s imbalanced: women tend to use their emotional shows for socially appropriate purposes.

    People choose the person who matches them.

  87. October 28, 2009 4:10 pm

    Bhetti: You’re changing your story. Your remarks were about where and when its ok for a man to be sad. If you wanted to talk about where and when men were supposed to be angry, you should have talked about where and when it’s ok for men to be angry.

    Not that it’s ok for anyone to say what other people should be thinking and feeling.

  88. October 28, 2009 8:22 pm

    JD: Sorry. I know I do that.

  89. Don't Ask, Don't Tell permalink
    October 29, 2009 1:13 pm

    As a woman I find attitudes like Bhetti’s and LovelySexyBeauty’s appalling. LSB also wrote something on her blog about how to bring out the alpha in your man by not indulging his hurt feelings.

    Really, you people need to learn EMPATHY.

    I’ll tell you when it’s OK for a man to be sad — when he is!

    We are all individuals who have been through circumstances in life that are unique to us. Therefore various new circumstances trigger us in different ways and we all need to process our emotions.

    I feel sorry for any man who gets with a woman (cold, heartless, unfeeling) who does not allow him to feel what he does or who does not empathize and apologize when she has hurt him.

    What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    If you want people to empathize with you, you will first have to start by empathizing with them – male or female.

  90. October 29, 2009 3:54 pm

    Believe what you want.

    I’m trying to figure out what brings out my cruelty and what is it that bothers me. I’m usually full of empathy, which is why I can’t do psychiatry as a specialty.

    I suppose the difference is I can sense the difference between genuine suffering — which I see often and want to heal — and emotional manipulation. I hate it when a woman tries to do it to me as well. When I do feel emotions, I do hide them if I feel I’m going to cause a real negative reaction in whom I’m speaking to and manipulate in a way that is ‘unfair’. I plead headaches if I’m caught crying, which I do privately or unobtrusively. I tend to despise in people what I’d despise in myself, which is why I’m harsh.

    I also have less patience for suffering that is self-inflicted in a wilful, stubborn way.

    This is not a world of ‘should’s. It’s a world of ‘is.’ Action causes reaction and it’s good to be honest about what these reactions are. The same person who gives you a shoulder to cry on, will be the person who cannot truly bear your suffering.

    Solitude by Ella Wheeler Wilcox

    LAUGH, and the world laughs with you;
    Weep, and you weep alone.
    For the sad old earth must borrow it’s mirth,
    But has trouble enough of it’s own.
    Sing, and the hills will answer;
    Sigh, it is lost on the air.
    The echoes bound to a joyful sound,
    But shrink from voicing care.

    Rejoice, and men will seek you;
    Grieve, and they turn and go.
    They want full measure of all your pleasure,
    But they do not need your woe.

    Be glad, and your friends are many;
    Be sad, and you lose them all.
    There are none to decline your nectared wine,
    But alone you must drink life’s gall.

    Feast, and your halls are crowded;
    Fast, and the world goes by.
    Succeed and give, and it helps you live,
    But no man can help you die.
    There is room in the halls of pleasure
    For a long and lordly train,
    But one by one we must all file on
    Through the narrow aisles of pain.

  91. Don't Ask, Don't Tell permalink
    October 29, 2009 4:47 pm

    “I suppose the difference is I can sense the difference between genuine suffering — which I see often and want to heal — and emotional manipulation. I hate it when a woman tries to do it to me as well.”

    And yet this entire site is dedicated to teaching women how to emotionally manipulate men.

    Men are simple. They want to keep it real. The realer you are, the more he’ll like you.

    Bhetti –
    You’re being caught by the spam catcher due to your excess of commentary at the moment.

  92. Don't Ask, Don't Tell permalink
    October 29, 2009 5:14 pm

    ARE WOMEN CRUEL?

    No, just the women at this blog! LOL!

    “I suppose the difference is I can sense the difference between genuine suffering — which I see often and want to heal — and emotional manipulation. I hate it when a woman tries to do it to me as well.”

    And yet this entire blog is dedicated to teaching women how to emotionally manipulate men!

    Men are simple. They like to keep it real. Keep it real and he will love you long time.

    (I’m assuming you and the other contributers are in your 20s. You’ve got a LOT to learn about men and life in general…)

  93. October 29, 2009 8:26 pm

    Bhetti: I also noticed that earlier you said men didn’t know how to be strategically weak, and twice afterward you’ve said that men were being emotionally manipulative.

    Please clarify this.

  94. October 30, 2009 2:00 pm

    Sofia

    Firepower,

    Do you just want to me to admit that you’re likelier smarter than me and I don’t understand your esoteric, but seemingly knowing, references into my psychology? Because I will.

    Even though total surrender
    is sweeter in bed
    with candles
    & handcuffs

    This will have to suffice.

  95. October 30, 2009 4:18 pm

    JD: chic equated weak to sadness about what I said. You can scroll up for context, which is that his display of emotion means nothing if he is of weak will or character and does not back up this display of emotion with his actions.

    Aye?

    So a display of emotion if it is meaningless is an attempt to be manipulative. This attempt is a failed one. When I say ‘emotionally manipulative’, I mean he is using his displays of emotion to manipulate, rather than successfully producing the intended emotional response.

    What there is low tolerance for is weakness, not what he feels. Two very different things.

    EDIT: Understand that being weak — man or woman — means they will be taken advantage of. Not by me. But they will.

  96. Altan permalink
    November 1, 2009 5:25 am

    “My knee-jerk reaction to those lyrics, and the concepts in general, is personal offense.”

    Thanks for the insight. Now i understand that a woman will not only disrespect a presentation of beta maleness, furthermore they get offended by it.

    Gender cruelty is tends to vary a much in different settings

    Alpha males are cruel to females of all types
    Females are cruel to betas of all types

    If you would put into statistics, women could be labelled more cruel as there are much more betas lying around. For me, those interactions are not necessarily “cruel”, they are adopted ways to filter out the losers in an effective way.

  97. Altan permalink
    November 1, 2009 5:32 am

    Another reason against labelling gender interactions as like “cruel” and such is this statement:

    “I think in spite of all Morrissey’s plaintive lyrics, and accusations made in the Roissysphere, men have worse habits of being too emotionally distant and not giving up their entire ’selves’ up to their partners, like women are prone to do.”

    Those guys are exactly the type of guys who score most with women. It is not cruel or unmoral, its the way things worked out to be all along

  98. December 18, 2009 1:58 pm

    The problem is that men are no longer taught how to be masculine, the PUA community can and does teach how to take on the attitudes and do everything the traditionally masculine male does, but when your goal is to score with women, the concept of chivalry doesn’t come with the “How to Act Like an Alpha package.” This leads to women getting hurt.

    Where women shot themselves in the relationship foot, was they claimed to want the traits of beta men, and men believed them. Women have then done nothing to really correct the myth. I told one of my feminist friends the other day, women are holding each other back, because half of you want to finish ushering in the feminist revolution, and the other half just want to get married, have kids, and be happy. As long as you are fighting each other the “Alpha” PUA’s will continue to hurt women, and women will keep hurting Betas by giving them the double standard. (sleeping with Alphas, but claiming to want Beta traits)

    “I don’t want to ruin our friendship” No crueler words have ever been spoken to a man.

  99. gunslingergregi permalink
    December 18, 2009 2:12 pm

    ”””””””””””””’“I don’t want to ruin our friendship” No crueler words have ever been spoken to a man.”””””

    It is only when you have options that you create for yourself that words like that become not cruel but helpfull in your quest to find a woman. Do you want a woman that doesn’tt want you? Do you want to beg and plead with her about what you can do to make her like you?
    She was doing you a favor.

  100. December 18, 2009 2:51 pm

    I agree, but I’ve also had to listen to Beta friends bemoan this kiss of death.

  101. gunslingergregi permalink
    December 18, 2009 3:54 pm

    Well if she really wants to be friends flip the switch. Sexually neg her friends or ask to be set up with them. Ask her advice on the chick who wants to tattoo your name in her neck and if you should encourage her to do so. Ask her about some chick trying to put your dick on retainer by buying you a new car and if you should accept the gift.

  102. Markus permalink
    June 12, 2012 2:51 pm

    “Women are fallible, and weak, yes, but certainly not especially cruel.”

    I strongly disagree. Maybe not you (Sofia) necessarily, but in general they are. They know what hurts men (and other women) and they use it to their advantage. But this is a free country and you are allowed to be in denial.

Trackbacks

  1. Sluttiness implies consent; or, how feminists encourage violence against women « In Mala Fide

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers

%d bloggers like this: