White Male Victims: Boo-Fucking-Hoo

[JimC]

Call me, Ishmael...

[Red Celt]

I just noticed this thread. That particular "nice guy" post was addressed by Girl Writes What...



Which has a video response from NoelPlum99

[Gallstones]

I just noticed this thread. That particular "nice guy" post was addressed by Girl Writes What...

Geezus I loathe that woman.

[Tero]

I didn't get past 3 min. She uses a lot of words. What's a friend zone?

[hadespussercats]

I just noticed this thread. That particular "nice guy" post was addressed by Girl Writes What...

Geezus I loathe that woman.

I'm surprised to see her quoted as often as she is. I don't see the draw.

[Tero]

I had to google. I blame Rachel and Ross.

[hadespussercats]

Ah. My very important Duckie post was lost when the server crashed.

Oh, well.

I can't decide if I feel passionately enough about it to rewrite it.
But I can tell you one thing-- it's a whole hell of a lot easier to feel passionate for a young Andrew McCarthy ( ) than a young Jon Cryer. Even when Andy McC is playing a vapid rich kid. Sorry, Jon.

LOL - yeah, the chicks always did seem to dig Andy mcCarthy.

But, when I read the "Duckie is a Predator" bit of that stupid article, I busted out laughing, at the same time as I felt horror that there are people out there that would actually consider the behavior exhibited in Duckie's character in that movie to be "Predatory."

It seems to boil down to these ApeLuster's belief, which they likely don't even acknowledge themselves, that if a man gets emotionally upset at being rejected by a woman, that he is doing something wrong.

And, there is no recognition by these Apelusters that there are cultural customs that occur in dating and relationships -- and, that it might be cause for a teenage boy to think a teenage girl might be interested in him if certain signals are sent. They seem to equate this with men "expecting that any woman they're interested in must sleep with them."

All right, then, since you responded, this isn't exactly what I wrote the first time out, but here goes:

I remember, for years, people (girls and boys, or women and men, alike) chiding Molly Ringwald for not choosing Duckie over Andrew McCarthy (seems telling that Jon Cryer's character is the only one who gets called by name. Telling of what, exactly, I'm not sure.)

Because Duckie was "so nice," and "really went out of his way for her," and he "deserved to win the girl in the end."

Well. If you've watched the movie as often as I have, you'd know that while Molly R is certainly affectionate towards Duckie in a friendly way, she is clear, time and again and in no uncertain terms, that she will never want to have the sexytimes with him, and he really oughtta just back off. She cares about him enough that she doesn't break off the friendship over it, but you can see there are times when she's really frustrated with him, and she lets him know. In words. No expecting him to read her mind about it or anything.

She is interested in Andrew McCarthy. Which, well, I've gotta say, that era of Andrew McCarthy (even more his character in St. Elmo's Fire, but still) makes my knees weak and my heart all aflutter. I don't know why. It's not like he "deserves" it-- but deserving it just isn't how romantic attraction works-- as evidenced by the countless time the goofy girl with the heart of gold doesn't win the guy of her dreams. That's just the pissedness of l'amour.

And Andy McC's character steps up to the plate, goes to the prom stag so he can tell the girl in the homemade dress (the really godawful homemade dress, incidentally, but whatever, it's a moment ) that he's "always believed in her."

So it's not like Duckie's getting tossed over for some frat-boy rapist or anything. Which he realizes (FINALLY!) when he tells her to go after him, so they can make out in the rain.

And THEN, Duckie gets the sexy eyes from a richie girl at the prom who likes his duds, and the audience knows that this goofy but great guy who tried too hard is going to get interest from women who see him and feel the sexy feelings.

Happy endings all around.

Now, if the movie had stopped dead at the scene where he's pulling the fire alarm at her work so she'll come deal with him instead of being able to talk to anyone else, I'd agree he would seem predatory. But that's not who he is. He's a boy, who makes some mistakes learning how to love people. He doesn't "deserve" Molly Ringwald. But he's not evil.

[Red Celt]

I just noticed this thread. That particular "nice guy" post was addressed by Girl Writes What...

Geezus I loathe that woman.

I'm surprised to see her quoted as often as she is. I don't see the draw.

She makes good videos?

Personally, I'm against men's rights movements in the same way that I'm against women's rights movements... purely, because the choice of gender is an unnecessary one. I'm for human rights movements... and the separation by gender makes as much sense to me as separating rights-activism by eye-colour.

So any "men's rights" movement leaves me all "meh!". Having said that, when comparing the two, the men's rights people (of those that I've seen) are a damned sight more "central" than those vocalising for women's rights movements. In other words, they are much closer to humanists. I just wish that they'd drop the whole gender-bias.

[Red Celt]

I just noticed this thread. That particular "nice guy" post was addressed by Girl Writes What...

Geezus I loathe that woman.

I'm surprised to see her quoted as often as she is. I don't see the draw.

She makes good videos?

Personally, I'm against men's rights movements in the same way that I'm against women's rights movements... purely, because the choice of gender is an unnecessary one. I'm for human rights movements... and the separation by gender makes as much sense to me as separating rights-activism by eye-colour.

So any "men's rights" movement leaves me all "meh!". Having said that, when comparing the two, the men's rights people (of those that I've seen) are a damned sight more "central" than those vocalising for women's rights movements. In other words, they are much closer to humanists. I just wish that they'd drop the whole gender-bias.

[hadespussercats]

I just noticed this thread. That particular "nice guy" post was addressed by Girl Writes What...

Geezus I loathe that woman.

I'm surprised to see her quoted as often as she is. I don't see the draw.

She makes good videos?

...snip...

Yeah, I don't see it. I don't see what makes them good. And I'm not even necessarily talking about the politics here, though I disagree with her in many ways. But I find the videos themselves underproduced, poorly delivered and dull as dirt. I'd happily watch someone I disagreed with if they incited some passionate responses in me as a viewer, but this lady? Snoozefest 2012. Ill-advised, ill-spoken snoozefest 2012.

[Red Celt]

But I find the videos themselves underproduced, poorly delivered and dull as dirt.

It's a webcam post, not a Hollywood production. What does it matter, how well produced it is? The nature of the beast (video blogging) is precisely what she delivers.

Ill-advised, ill-spoken snoozefest 2012.

Evidence, please. If you don't like her, fair dos... but ill-advised? As for ill-spoken... it is obvious that she writes a script and reads it aloud to the webcam. In that regard, they can be considered lacking a certain "oomph", as they lack spontaneity... but she makes her point well (whether you agree with her or not).

[Robert_S]

She's the white knight of my inner douchebag jerk!

Just as certain feminists are the heroines of women's inner manipulative bitches.

She also makes a good point now and then.

Yeah, I've been on both sides of the "friend zone" and neither one is very fun at all, except when the person with the major feelings accepts the situation as it is and make a conscious decision based calm rational and detached weighing of the pros and cons of continuing the friendship. As long as the other person doesn't abuse the situation, it can work out quite well.

[Audley Strange]

While the concept of "Making the personal political" was indeed a doctrine of Feminism, I'm not sure it was meant that every single trivial whine and moan from anyone with a cunt or those who are mutilated to pretend to have a cunt, or those with cunt envy, or those who are so desperate to slip inside one that they will gladly demean themselves should be considered equally important.

When they spoke of equality they did not mean that we should enable sociopaths, gleefully allow people to spread terminal diseases or have baseline educated egoists attempt to tear apart an entire field of potentially misused scientific research and defend her because of her beliefs even when everything she got wrong.

There is a phrase "strawman feminist" it is applied to those who have created in themselves a caricature of feminism. Currently in on the net those promoting Feminism loudly are amongst the stupidest, retrograde, self obsessed, lazy cunts imagineable. Any man or woman worth their salt would recognise this is little more than the spoiled whining of those who are wifully retarding themselves in perpetual adolescence. Their version of feminism is a strawman, designed not to be taken apart, but rather as a trap by which those who can reason against them are the enemy.

This is not people fighting for equality, this is people who refuse to or cannot accept the concept of self responsibility, which is, I think something that would horrify many real activists for women's rights.

They are the strawman feminists. They have created a strawman of feminism one which claims women are weak and fragile and must be protected from penises words t-shirts and whatever else they want to whine about while they're on the rag. They are weaklings and runts.

That kind of feminism doesn't just hate men it hurts women too.












]

[Robert_S]

The article does make a couple points though:

You don't get to blame the person for your upset at them not being attracted to you. That's goes for all genders though.

She also mentions a Taylor Swift song:

The Dejected Unknown Piner

You have no idea who he is, but he's made up this whole story in his head about how he's just a sad shy Nice Guy that you can't even see because you're SO BLIND to anyone who isn't a football player etc etc etc. By the way, you're adults, so there are no football players involved here.
Likes: Reddit. MEAN BUT TRUE.
Dislikes: Football players, talking to girls
Pop culture muses: Taylor Swift. Did I just blow your mind? Women can be Nice Guys, too.

BTW, sometimes those grapes actually are sour.

[Audley Strange]

I agree that you owe nothing to someone who may be attracted to you but not you them.

There. Reasonable statement yes?

Now how about if I then said I'm sick of women thinking even if you do find them unattractive you mustn't be forthright about that. You can't just dismiss them outright, "No Simone, your friend is a miserable fat dog of woman, that is why she remains single." You have to placate their fragile emotional states because they act like children when confronted by uncomfortable truths.

That is, to me an unreasonable extrapolation from the first statement, it is using a negative opinion, an offensive one at that, based on a reasonable assumption in order to attempt to divert the attention from the idiotic hatred. However it is idiotic hatred, but that's the whole point. It takes a self admitted subset of the duality of men (the sneaker ones, not the ones that slap your ass) then breaks that subset down into categories based on some characters the author seen on some flicks once.

I can do that. Should I say that it's annoying when girls who you don't find attractive don't take the hint then go on to categorise all of them as The ones worth fucking and the worthless ones? Should I then break the worthless ones down into some mad bitches in some movies?

No. Of course not. It would be sexist drivel and would be rightly called out as such, it wouldn't even be considered "just a joke" especially by most people within the A/S networks. Why should we give a free pass those who support the converse?