Misogyny Behind the Keyboard, Part 2.

As I’ve said previously, I visited a lecture organized by feminists on the 19th of September. The lecture was about the popular issue of women expressing their opinion publicly, and getting shouted down.

Here is part one of my analysis of the lecture, which covers Elin Ørjasæter’s part:

Misogyny Behind the Keyboard, Part 1

The second part of the lecture was conducted by Martine Aurdal .

Unlike Elin Ørjasæter, she didn’t agree that only young women receive sexual insults. All women do. While all men do not. And this, combined with phone terror, threats and female-specific feedback, leads to many smart women quitting the public sphere.

She also said that discrimination because of religion or disability feels worse if you are also female.

Also, “girly” is the worst insult to a man. Since men are unwilling to be girly and feminine, it means feminism still has a long way to go.

Last, but not least, she concluded by saying that oppression is different now than it was in the 70s. In the 70s, the oppression was very obvious and simple, and the solutions were simple. But today, when we have done away with all the obvious oppression, the oppression has turned more “hidden” and “structural”. As a result, poor women can’t eliminate it with simple, clear-cut mandates anymore.

The first point is addressed in Misogyny Behind the Keyboard, Part 1. Women and men do get different insults, because they have different sexualities and care about different things. Women might get more comments like “whore”, “slut”, “ugly” and crude sexual offers. Men might get more comments like “virgin”, “small dick”, “probably a rapist” or “you can’t get laid”. Sexual insults directed at men are different, but they still count as sexual insults, even if they don’t revolve around wanting to fuck him[1]

The third point is half-right. Yes, men don’t like to be called feminine. In Norway, women entered the traditionally male professions more than men entered the traditionally female ones. Women can wear male clothes, but men can’t wear women’s. However, there is a simple explanation to why this is not misogynistic.

For one, one can look at this issue from the opposite side, and conclude it’s misandric just as easily. Why is it socially acceptable for a woman to wear anything a man can wear, but the opposite is not true? What is holding men back from entering all those traditionally feminine professions? Why is it still less easy and less acceptable for a man to stay at home and raise his own kids? [2]

But I don’t think it’s misandric, either. It is, as feminists refuse to admit, nature itself. Nature, by its nature, is sexist in both directions. One, men can’t have babies. Two, men have to work to get into women’s pants, while women can get laid pretty much at any time. And I think this leads to the fact that women are allowed to take on male roles and be masculine, while men can’t take on female roles and be feminine. A woman who takes on a male role can both fulfill her female role (have a baby) and a male role (build something). A man taking on a female role loses his masculine use and never gains the feminine one. He neither builds nor gives birth. A woman who dresses and acts like a man is still a woman and her sexual value is barely diminished in absolute terms. A man who acts like a woman has single-handedly broken his SMV, which largely depends on his actions anyway. In short, I think men’s unwillingness to be feminine has something to do with the fact that he could use all the value and power he could get , while women have “value to burn” .

I would say men do themselves a big favor by refusing to let go of what makes them different from women. And women should not be offended by that. Especially in a country like Norway, where everyone is already soft and female-friendly. If they treat you nicely, you should respect your differences, instead of demanding these people become exactly like you as well. If you respect this factor for the Muslims, why not men?

The last point is beyond funny and the explanation is obvious to anyone who knows anything about sexual dimorphism and feminism.  Of course the “oppression” has gotten a lot more hidden and structural once all of the obvious ones were legislated away. There is only so much laws can do. Laws can call whatever you want rape, but it won’t make you feel better about that regretted one-night stand. Laws can punish companies and individuals for all sorts of “discrimination”, but they can’t eliminate the mental sexual dimorphism and all that it implies. You might as well try to pass a law that says falling in the downward direction is illegal.


[1]My understanding of this is based mostly on American forums and comment threads and less on the Norwegian ones. However, I think the presence of two-way sexual shaming in any Western culture is telling us something.

[2] And please don’t respond with “If it hurts women, it’s misogyny; if it hurts men, it’s misogyny” . That makes misogyny unfalsifiable, and thus in the realm of religion.

This entry was posted in Feminism, Men, Politics, Women and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Misogyny Behind the Keyboard, Part 2.

  1. tteclod says:

    Regarding gender-variable anti-social behavior (footnote 1): it appears you conflated insults and threats. Sexual threats towards both genders involve implied or explicit loss of sexual self-determination. Sexual insults generally imply sexual depravity or diminished sexual fitness. Due to dimorphism, the threats and insults must be tailored to the gender in the same way that a threat to my atheist “soul” has no meaning: you can’t threaten to cut off a woman’s dick, for instance, or incite the same fear by threatening to mutilate a man’s chest.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Nah, I know the difference between threats and insults. I just talked about threats in Part 1, so I didn’t say anything about them in Part 2. The lecture was about both of those things. If something is still unclear, feel free to point it out.

      • tteclod says:

        Such rapid response! Here is where the clarity of your writing fails.

        “Sexual insults directed at men are different, but they still count as sexual insults, even if they don’t revolve around wanting to fuck him.”

        As I explained earlier, insults address sexual fitness. Sexual fitness evaluations of women by men thus include insults such as “whore,” “slut,” and “ugly,” but DO NOT include crude sexual offers. Insults are meant to dismiss and shun women, not threaten sexual assault.

        In the public sphere, these different communications imply different consequences. For threats, independence and self-direction are at stake; for insults, shunning is the implied punishment. This male tactic against women (shunning) is particularly effective against the presumption, which you also make, that women can “get laid” at will. If men become sufficiently circumspect regarding the sexual motives of women, they will also become substially more cautious and willing to decline sexual offers. The foolishness of a “slut walk,” for instance, is that women who actively identify as slutty risk rejection in a sexual market that otherwise favors their gender. Slut walks are meant to combat the insult, “slut,” but the reality is that “slut” and similar insults are a sexual cue by BOTH men and women to men that sexual congress with particular women entails risk out of proportion to the reward.

        The key concept for comprehension is that insults are meant to reduce or eliminate chances of sexual success, and should not be confused with any desire for sexual congress. This is the conflation to which I refer.

        In the context of the public sphere, such insults address the trust men should place in a particular woman. If a woman is a “slut,” then the implication is that she cannot be trusted. Trust, in the context of public conduct, is critical to public support. Likewise, accusing a man of sexual inadequacy signals inability to be assertive when assertiveness is necessary for the public good. Both are signals from sexual fitness communications with implications in politics.

        What I, as an American, find troubling about such discussions is that they impinge upon constitutional freedom of speech, assembly, and the press. These discussions imply that insult is threat, when it is not. While I agree that you are clear regarding your comprehension of this distinction, it is not wholly apparent that you comprehend the underlying foundations or the overarching implications, hence my comment.

        I enjoy your posts. Continue your excellent effort.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I’m not entirely sure if crude sexual offers are insults or not. Sometimes they seem like their purpose is to tease and cause hurt. Sometimes it appears aggressive and meant to threaten. One is something like “I bet you’ll love my black cock” (I had something like that sent to me once). Or maybe “Stop blogging, all you’re good for is sucking cock of men like me”.
        You can insult a woman by attacking her sexual or relationship value. But you can also insult or tease a woman by implying she has no other value except for the sexual. Because she has nothing of value to say, is stupid, etc. Both can work.

        I’m not sure I understood this part though:
        “While I agree that you are clear regarding your comprehension of this distinction, it is not wholly apparent that you comprehend the underlying foundations or the overarching implications, hence my comment.”

        I do know that an insult is not a threat, and yes, I think it’s alarming that these feminists are agitating for something by blowing this issue up. I’m not convinced at all that this is some enormous problem for women. Credible threats are already illegal here and we don’t need an extra law just because some women are pu**ies who need police to defend them against words.

    • Thanatos says:

      Your analysis is charmingly pedantic. I mean that as a compliment.

      You have analyzed the difference between a threat and an insult down to an almost autistically-fine point. These types of analyses are the things that just and comprehensible laws are made of. Bravo.

  2. Pingback: Misogyny Behind the Keyboard, Part 2. | Truth a...

  3. Eric says:

    For one thing, I haven’t observed that American women do very much to avoid the types of men you’re describing. It seems like most American women actually feel it some kind of social ‘status symbol’ to have a ‘stalker ex’.

    For another, I totally disagree with your feminist premise that ‘the personal is political.’ It is NOT. It doesn’t make any kind of sociopolitical statement when a bunch of dirtbags insult or make catcalls at women; nor is a similar statement when femihags use Shaming Language against men. It’s rude, antisocial behavior that ought to be suppressed by social, not political, means. It’s that kind of polarization—driving the genders into what’s tantamount to opposing political factions—that’s really crippled the state of gender relations over here.

    • Thanatos says:

      I agree with most of what you are saying,except,I am mystified by the tack of your criticism. Were these statements about the personal and political and the political nature of shaming language directed at men said on another thread by this individual? I’m not reading it here either in the text or the subtext.

      If I’m missing it, would you point it out via quotation of the text block in which it occurs? I suffer from nearsightedness and it is early morning where I am at. It is possible I have missed it.

      • Eric says:

        The quote was: “Both are signals from sexual fitness communications with implications in politics.”

        It has nothing to do with so-called ‘sexual politics’ (there is no such thing: it’s a feminist chimera).

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