Any viewpoint can be taken to the extreme. Feminism can sometimes be more anti-man than pro-women. And even the most extreme views have sympathizers. For instance, the Boston bombers had female fans who thought they were dreamy.
WF's article wrote:Rodger and others like him believe that sex is a reward to be earned, not a consensual activity between adults who respect each other...
I'm not seeing how these two are incompatible. Respect has to be earned. So if you get sex by getting women to consent, and you only get consent by getting women to respect you, and you only get respect by earning it, then you get sex by earning the kind of respect that entices women to consent … so in the end, you earn sex. The author’s complaint is nonsensical.
These views are just extreme versions of very common, socially acceptable ideas about women and sex. Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable, but some of the sexist ideas in his manifesto are, unfortunately, not the invention of a madman. They're the norm.
It is not proven in the article that sexist ideas are the norm. The extreme views are definitely sexist, but the "normal" ideas addressed aren't sexist.
The fact that there are different standards for men and women only reflects biological realities, not a sexist agenda. Virginity probably came to be prized in women because sex (for them) leads to pregancy, which has an effect on her life and her body in ways that are incomparable to men. Parents didn’t want their daughters to bear the burden of children alone, have their lives ruined, etc.; and potential husbands wanted to know that their children were their own. Also, because sperm is much more “disposable” than eggs/wombs, women have more value in terms of reproduction than men. They’re not as expendable. Placing a higher value on women is sexist?
Not only does it not seem sexist, but I don’t see how placing higher value on women not having sex somehow leads to or is even compatible with the idea that men “normally” think they’re owed sex. You have two opposites being “prized” here: virginity (not giving it up) and sexual “reward” (giving it up). It’s as if no matter which position guys take relative to women having sex (should/shouldn’t), they’re damned either way.
And that’s evidence that some want to blame men more than they want to make sense.
I first heard about “pick up artists” as a social phenomenon (and not merely a character in stories) via the Mystery Method, the book and the reality show it spawned. I didn’t read the book, but I watched the show. They took geeky, awkward guys and showed them
how to improve themselves first, giving them reasons to be self-confident and to like themselves, and then showed them techniques for breaking the ice and making conversation, skills which some men don’t have and find terrifying. So far, this is a positive thing. And yes, they progressed from conversation to making out, but so what? That’s part of human life. Somehow, guys and girls inevitibly get together. They hook up. I think a woman respects a man who can approach her, talk to her, make her laugh, and then convince her to take it a step farther. And I believe they don’t respect men who can’t do these things out of fear. It’s not about objectifying women, but how to make it easier to engage in this necessary social function without which reproduction would not happen. To describe this in nefarious terms ignores the fact that women and men must hook up somehow. There is a game component to it, with competition between other males (and other women). And you can win or lose.
Now, I don’t like the word “target” to describe women, nor some of the attitudes of the guys described in WF’s article, but it’s certainly not the norm. What’s normal is for guys to pursue women and sex, and for women to either consent or reject. That's hardly sexist.
If women were expected to be the ones who seduced and chased guys, all this would be viewed differently (maybe guys should complain about the double standard ... but being whiny would risk not being sexy to women). What would change? Well, women's motives wouldn’t be questioned like guys' motive, for instance. Feminists don't think it's wrong for a woman to pursue a guy; it's empowering role reversal. The fact is that guys bear most of the burden for being able to make a love connection happen, to initiate it. That’s not to say women shouldn’t be the initiators, but that it’s considered an essential skill for guy, not optional. And that’s not just a male perspective, but also the perspective of women who naturally want to be wooed and courted. They don’t get all dressed up for nothing. They don’t compete against each other for nothing. They’re competing for male attention and approval. (And that can become unhealthy, too. Like I said, anything can be taken to an extreme.)
But it is without a doubt healthy for guys to learn the basic social skills of how to talk to women, and convince them to have sex with them. Our race literally depends upon it. And sometimes, it does feel like a “prize” or “reward.” So what? Men valuing women highly--and valuing women's opinions of them--is the opposite of misogyny.
But people have to turn this into male-bashing somehow. There must always be a villain (beyond the actual villain).
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
