My god, but the stupid is past burning...

[pecunium]

I am going to assume you are all sitting down for this.

I am going to assume you have neither liquids in your mouth, nor delicate objects near to hand.

Because I have, I think, encountered one of the most incomprehensible arguments of Libertarian MRA... nonsense is too generous. Words fail me.

First... realise that Roissy thinks this thing was a good observation on male female relationships.

Second, and this is the part which is hard to fathom... this guy is arguing that... no, I can't sum up; it would take too long. I'll have to quote him.

Rape is equality

It's not hyperbole. It's not poorly phrased (thought, expressed, whatever rationalisation you might like to get around the bald-faced horror of that concept) he defends it in comments.

His thesis is that men have money, power, social leverage, etc, and women are taking it away from them, so; to balance the books, and establish a truly equal footing men need to take something from women. That would be sex. If you take away men's resources and status in the interest of "equality" then we need to introduce sexual coercion to reestablish sexual fairness, if not equality, and, "Rape is making the best of a bad job and men know this instinctively. And it does not take an awful lot of men with my mindset to make life as unpleasant for women as it is for men. Think about it -- do you women really want equality? If you you aren't willing to put up with men demanding the equal right to have sex anytime we want just as women can, then doing things such as forcibly dissolving Norwegian companies who don't have at least 40% women in the boardrooms and other affirmative action is probably a bad move.

The buried ideas in that are croggling. When you read further, in the comment you see that women have gotten what equality they have not because it is just, but because they have stolen it (by force... he's a Libertarian, so the gov't passing a law which prevents discrimination is a taking, a la Rand Paul. There is a whole lot of evil in that.

When you parse out his thoughts, they boil down to women aren't really people.

For every female beneficiary of affirmative action there is, by definition, a male victim. I am not just speaking for myself. , I think he's trying to say women aren't actually capable of being competent at anything, esp. when I see, "still you are saying that it is more OK for a man to be forcibly stripped of his money, status and power in the name of "equality," because he doesn't really "own" it, while a woman's assets -- her body -- is inviolable because she owns it. So you are saying that a man cannot even in principle own anything valuable and inviolable that the opposite sex wants. I am arguing that those assets are morally equal and that if it is OK use affirmative action to redistribute male assets to women, even if men have earned these assets though superior motivation and harder work because we desperately need them to attract a mate, and probably because of superior ability on average in many profitable fields, then it is also OK for men to forcibly take what we want from women, which is sex. ."

Note the weasel words, "probably because of superior ability on average." The mind boggles. The thing in there which is so sad is the idea that the only thing women want is material goods.

Hogwash. I have never been rich. I have never been more than tolerably comfortable. This has not kept me from having a fair number of women find me interesting, and sexually desirable. I have even (shock of shocks) been able to have a moderate amount of romantic, and some purely libidinous, success with women I was interested in. Not having to put up with, "some Alpha's cast-offs" as Roissy and Berge seem to think ought to be my light (I'm no Cary Grant, no Brad Pitt and no Donald Trump. I am not an asshole to other men, nor a jerk to women. By the model they have I am supposed to be teaching myself to enjoy enforced abstinence as a way of life, so I can stop suffering the, "pangs of dispris'd love. If this my life has been so abstinent as all that, I'll be happy to live in the monastery).

What really irritates me (the equality = men are losing out so women need to be raped thing doesn't irritate me. It makes me both angry, and pitiful. Angry that this little twit can be seriously arguing it [even as a gedanken experiment and pitiful that he is so pathetic in his failures) is that he can believe this would somehow make things equal. He doesn't really seem to think it would make things better.

Which means he doesn't think women should be equal. Since he is a libertarian, and so thinks all people should be allowed to do what they will, and holds that women aren't entitled to equality (at least not in a world worth living in) it must therefore follow that he doesn't really think women are people.

Which is, actually, so blindingly obvious from the get go that I wonder at my being upset enough to waste all your time pointing it out.

But, to close, lets posit a little thought experiment of our own... would Eivind Berge be willing to have been born a women, in the present age where they are, by his lights, in the catbird seat; they have "forced" equality economically, and situational superiority sexually/emotionally.

Anyone want to take the bet he wants to be a woman? I'd even be willing to offer odds.

Comments

[packbat]

Wait - if that's his attitude towards affirmative action for women ... what's he going to do to my po' black ass?

Edit: Ah, I didn't read the comments. Nice to see that he's (completely not) consistent.

[voidampersand]

It's Social Darwinism -- survival of the most ruthless. It's not that women aren't people. In his world, all persons are out only for themselves, and all transfers of resources are based on manipulation and exploitation. The baby brainwashes and browbeats his mother into giving him milk. This not only denies the value of cooperative behavior, it denies its very existence. Everything is competition. This is great, of course, for sociopaths who want some rational excuse for their cooperative deficiencies. But it's not just sexism. For them, it's exploitation all the way down.

[onyxlynx]

This. (As what I could articulate was destabilizing to silicon, I'll have to remember this.)

Man

[skip-hunter.livejournal.com]

everything I have read about PUA's even from those who no longer do it finds that it turns dudes into that. they way they "get over" on women id to eseentially turn them into objects, and if you do that, you have to be able to explain why or admit you are a souless creep.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Samuel R. Delany has said that sex as a substance/commodity is the beasis of a lot of people's approach, but if you explain it to them clearly, they will see that it's nonsense. I guess this guy's an exception.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Oh, you don't even need to go that far. Would he be willing to be raped by another man? (My comment on his blog was about his assumption that only women get raped.)

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

No, because (as he explained [I read all the comments]), it's different. Men raping men isn't morally neutral, because men don't have anything of value in that exchange. There is no power imbalance being redressed, so forced sex isn't acceptable.

Shorter... women aren't people, men are; so assaulting them is wrong.

[amberite2112.livejournal.com]

"Anyone want to take the bet he wants to be a woman? I'd even be willing to offer odds."

hey, i'm a tranny. i can almost certainly state; WE DON"T WANT HIM.
don't try to pawn that excrement off on us. he is singular, and should remain such.
no other trans-person i know has that...confusion about why women want to have sex, with men, with each other, or any combination you or he would care to think up.
so, please, rethink that last. please.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

I don't think it was meant as a gender dysphoria situation, just from the power POV. That he would want to be one for that. Or have that power.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

I just occurred to me that this guy ought to try pregnancy on for size. I mean, since he's wanting equality...

[ricevermicelli.livejournal.com]

I am hung up on the first piece of illogic. I may stay there for quite some time.

Okay. I've brewed myself some tea and I'm still hung up.

So, men have power, money, status and social leverage. And women have less of these things (on average). Women have been attempting to gain power, money, status and social leverage, and this (in Berge's argument) appears to be a zero-sum game - they have to take it from men.

I don't buy that power, money, status etc. are zero-sum commodities. But if they were, for the sake of argument, when women acquired some, that would make things more equal.

So when Berge says that men have to commit rape in order to redress their losses, that isn't reasserting equality, that's reasserting the upper hand. On a societal level, that's a fairly accurate description of rape's overall effects. Most of us, however, agree that those are bad things.

I don't think Eivind Berge wants to be a woman. I think he hates and fears women so deeply that he can hardly speak to us. In fact, I would bet that Eivind Berge is the guy who explains to all of his friends that other people are nice to attractive women just because they're pretty and he's not superficial like that, he's mean to them on principle because they deserve it. This speech probably also includes a section arguing that he knows pretty women are all evil because they won't sleep with him. If, by some chance, Berge actually has gotten laid, he almost certainly caught his partner wanting something - an orgasm, emotional intimacy, a goodnight kiss, a little help when her hands are full, whatever. In conversation with Berge, this desire features as Exhibit A in the evidence that women are selfish. Berge thinks that men who fulfill these desires for the women in their lives are suckers. He desperately needs money, power and social leverage to attract a mate because he hasn't got anything personal on offer. This mass of neuroses serves as an excuse for never, ever actually having a conversation with anyone female.

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

This comment is awesome and wonderfully articulated.

[ann-totusek.livejournal.com]

My guess is that the reson he's failed sexually, is because well, he's failed sexually. He may end up being a PUA, but because he's technically extremely unskilled,has a very small penis, and in general is an complete and utter asshole and fucktard, he may be able to make an initial pickup, but no one ever comes back for seconds.

I'd be willing to allow as rape may be a male right...as long as concealed carry and use at any level of force of any caliber (and/or a taser/mini-guillotine combo pack available at fine retailers near you!) is considered a female right.

[amberite2112.livejournal.com]

i like that weapon!

[runs off to see which of my friends can build one]

[sihaya09.livejournal.com]

Here via rm. I've got nothing but boggle and don't really have anything to add because clearly nothing is going to get through to that dude. He really, honestly believes that women have always had complete bodily autonomy and control over their sexual usage and, to add insult to injury, this mythological factor is our main "worth."

I just wanted to say thanks to you for writing about it because I love it when I see a dude say "hey, this is not okay, and here's why."

[cleverthylacine]

Gotta second this, not that I'd have expected any less from pecunium, who is so awesome.

[fluffthebunny.livejournal.com]

I think I can safely speak on behalf of all the transwomen who've crossed over in this direction, when I say that we don't want this asshat over here either.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

The point was that, for all he claims women have it better; in the here and now, he wouldn't swap for that state of being.

In short, he doesn't believe what he says, rather he knows it's a load of bull.

[dianyla.livejournal.com]

I... uh...

I have nothing to say. Wow.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

One of the things I've learned, my ducklings, what with my mental breakdowns and all, is there are things that Just Can't Be Understood, so don't bother.

Like this guy, fer instance.

[ruthless1.livejournal.com]

I don't even think he is human. He's a Dalek in human form.
For the life of me though, I cannot imagine what kind of experience he had as a child that would lead to this kind of world view.

[amberite2112.livejournal.com]

don't try.
i'm sure it will hurt if you do.

[royeh.livejournal.com]

OMG, as they say.

Some guys will never "get it",
Nor, should they.

[evilrooster.livejournal.com]

Terry, thanks for standing up against this. It sounds like he's in his own pocket universe, one of those ones where any woman disagreeing with him can be entirely tuned out. (It's entirely possible that any man who disagrees with him can be as well, but there's a somewhat higher chance that men might be allowed to be human and rational than women.)

I also think he has some serious values problems if he thinks money or possessions are as important as bodily integrity. The thought experiment there is where he's given all he wants of the former two, robbed of the last one, and asked if it's all OK.

Speaking personally, I would not be attracted to a man who was not (a) my superior in some areas, and at the same time (b) able to acknowledge, respect and delight in my superiority over him in others. I don't think Berge has that definition of equality. I think he dreads that it would mean that he would not be respected, rather than that he would both give and get respect. Sadly, with his attitude, he's not likely to be attractive to a woman who could teach him the delights of an equal relationship.

Poor lad. He's like a writer who, upon being rejected, prefers to rage against the publishing industry rather than go back and improve his writing.

[sylphslider.livejournal.com]

To this kind of man, any woman who disagrees is a hairy-armpitted slavering Feminazi and any guy who disagrees is a limp-wristed, screaming queen.

[luna-torquill.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, I believe he doesn't think women are people. I'll go one further, though -- I'm not entirely sure he feels *men* are people. There's so much self-loathing in his comments; the example that caught my eye is "Without external things a man's body is worthless, while a woman has great intrinsic value just because she is female." According to him, men have nothing valuable other than their (presumed) ability to collect material goods, which is bestowed upon them by the structure of our society. Intellect, physical prowess, compassion, none of it matters if it can't earn you cash or its equivalent. At least that's what he says women think, and I suspect he believes it as well.

I've never seen sexual frustration turn into such an involved pathology, but I have to wonder whether that's what happened. If he really thinks of the world by laws of the jungle -- mating rights -- rather than in terms of building and maintaining strong interpersonal relations and the physical structures of civilization, he must have a very unhealthy obsession with sex. I can't even imagine what must have formed his worldview, but this guy needs serious therapy, not just to address his misogyny (that would be enough!) but to start unraveling the deep-seated bitterness, frustration, and self-esteem issues he seems to have. Not to mention his twisted view of sexual intimacy.

As for not making the world better, just "equal" -- the jungle is about survival, not about building a better future. Live long enough to reproduce, and you succeed. Legacies other than genetic ones are for wimps.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I've seen it before. I've read Roissy; who has at least as twisted a view of male/female relations.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I've reported the guy for violating Blogspot's TOS. I think advocating rape may just qualify under the site's hate speech guidelines.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Please keep us posted on how that turns out. No matter which way it goes, it will lead to some interesting conclusions.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain

(Richard III, Act 1, Sc. 1)

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

This comment gets a gold star from me.

[sylphslider.livejournal.com]

Of course this is complete stupidity, which is why I am not commenting on it save for two things:

1) Libertarians embrace a political philosophy that automatically has them behave in racist and sexist ways. Even if they don't believe they are racist or sexist, their votes are for a racist and sexist mode of government. Therefore, I tend to distrust anything a Libertarian has to say.

2) If this man thinks that any woman can get sex at any time then he is sorely mistaken, and he is being unbelievably sexist to men. Men do have control of their own libidos (at least, most do). To indicate otherwise is ridiculous. Not to mention, it is actually possible for single women to be turned down or married women to be in situations where for one reason or another, despite wanting to, they can't have sex. Like, if their spouse is too sick to do so and they're not willing to cheat.

So yeah, Mr. Man can go shove it up his arse, sideways.

[amberite2112.livejournal.com]

thank you for the insight into Libertarian thought. i could not figure out why my ex-bf, raised buy an active-in-the-party Libertarian (step-dad) and a hippie mom, kept coming up with these jokes and attitudes that were both deeply and subtly sexist and racist, to the point where, when i challenged him on them, and pointed out the problem, he couldn't see it because the individual words were innoffensive, it was the combination that made them dangerous.
for example "spicy cat" is what he calls his take-out chinese food, even after i repeatedly asked him to stop using that phrase, at least in my presence.
among other reasons, this is why he's my ex.

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

Pity the police can't have a watch list that includes guys like him to check up on in cases of sexual assault.

The man gives me the creeps.

His arguments are so illogical that they don't really deserve rebutting, but I'm glad you dragged his nastiness into the cleansing light of day.

[amberite2112.livejournal.com]

'Pity the police can't have a watch list that includes guys like him to check up on in cases of sexual assault.'
i wish the same, but isn't this a little too close to thought-police?
where does that line get drawn? if no one has come forward to say he actually *DID* something to them, other than his ideology, what would they have on him?

[elf]

I have stopped being shocked at such diatribes and moved on to amusement.

I know how well such men deal with the idea of "how about I find you a reasonably-attractive woman who'll agree to have sex whenever you want, providing you agree to have sex whenever she wants?" Because. Um.

Funny how none of these guys ever mention exactly how much sex-on-demand they're talking about. And how they brush off the idea that women could want sex. (Because as you say, women aren't people to them. They're prizes in the testosterone olympics. And they aren't supposed to have desires of their own, especially not *physical* desires.)

[amberite2112.livejournal.com]

' And they aren't supposed to have desires of their own, especially not *physical* desires.)'

nope, no standards must apply. because then they'd have to exert an effort to meet them. and their fear is that they can't.

[lwj2.livejournal.com]

Bug-fuck nuts, I'd say.

And if he gets within a long shot of either of my daughters, well, it's a long shot.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I am reposting this comment (it was anon) to completely strip it of identifying info.

Wow.

This has been a strange day of mixed emotions for me, having just read the statistics for MST and PTSD.

Then I come along and read this person's addle-pated blather that forcibly reminds me why my soul is broken. Nothing 'justifies' rape. Nothing.

Sigh...

I take nothing away from any man or woman- I earn my own keep. I am intelligent- and, in spite of the scars I bear, have a relatively realistic-to-optimistic outlook most of the time.

But when I read words like that, I want to curse every single person who has that sort of rotted soul and send them straight to hell.

I am a human being who happens to be female. I have a right to be here.

What they said.

[celamity.livejournal.com]

I am a Norwegian woman. I am not considered attractive by conventional standards. I live off of the application of my acquired skills and my brain. I support my husband, who is unemployed and no more conventionally attractive than I am (and yet, somehow, I look up to him, and he looks up to me).

By that guy's logic, should I be raping my husband?

That guy is utterly toxic, and I am glad I no longer live in his home town. (One of his other posts rejoices in the recent death of a cop.)