House of Eratosthenes

When female-centered women and the Uncle Tims who go along with them are the only authority on men, fatherhood and sexuality, the agenda quickly pushes aside men’s needs or rights, and allows injustice to flourish…

— Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream — and Why It Matters, Helen Smith, Ph.D., p. 144.

He thought about it, he went home, he cried like a bitch, told his wife what he was thinking about it, got interviewed about it later, cried during the interview (2:36), and then started smiling as he was crying (2:57)…

I understand there is a societal expectation that we’re supposed to all line up and start calling this a “REAL MAN” or something. I can see that from the comments in the YouTube page. Like Bill Maher said, and one of the few things out of him that drew any kind of agreement out of me: We live in a society dedicated, first & foremost, to making women nod. And I’m sure this does that sometimes. But the fact is, it’s just disgusting and gross.

Yes there is some truth in it. Men — people — pay more attention to other people who are pretty, and because of that there is a possibility that some valuable life-experiences could be lost. How tragic is that? That’s really for each individual to decide for himself, or herself. I mean, let’s be realistic about it, sitting in front of a computer typing words onto a screen on a beautiful July day is tragic in exactly the same way. But I see that didn’t stop anyone from typing hateful rejoinders into the YouTube channel. It won’t stop anyone from speaking out in support or in disapproval of what Mr. Hoffman had to say, or of what I’ve had to say about what he had to say. Much of life is a bunch of choices about opportunities, time commitments and costs. All choices can be made stupidly. That’s part of life.

Why are we lining up to beat up on the men who make that choice questionably? Because it’s safe to beat up on them? How cowardly. Women have been doing the same thing for quite awhile, have they not?

It is sometimes said that when women make comments to the effect of “all men are alike,” what they really mean is “all the men we prefer are the same.”

My suggestion for Dustin Hoffman is, if you think it’s a bad move to confine your attentions to women who are pretty, then don’t do that. Maybe I should expect actors to miss out on this truism, but all things in life do not have to be high-drama. If you see something busted in your own back yard, it’s always an option to just fix the thing in your own back yard and leave everyone else out of it.

Related: Thought this comment from Severian, a “footnote” really, made an important distinction that is overlooked all too often:

”the right facts”…being…that attractive people really do get lots of breaks the unattractive don’t, including that little extra burst of attention they get when they first open their mouths. “The wrong conclusions” are that attractiveness keeps people listening, and that ideas have nothing to do with it. The truth is what Morgan says: I’d happily look at Jennifer Anniston all day long, but only if she keeps her mouth shut. [emphasis mine]

BINGO. Yes. Attractiveness gets people listening, but it will never keep people listening unless they’re in a localized social situation, actually trying to get some tail…in which case, the meaning behind the word “listening” becomes a matter of legitimate question.

I’m really not sure what the proportion is, of men who have high-school memories of unrequited attraction toward an object of affection who doesn’t even seem to know they exist. I don’t know how I could go about guessing that. I’d hope everyone knowledgeable, regardless of their biases, could agree it’s over sixty percent. Ninety seems reasonable, might even be a bit low. But at least sixty. So I think it takes real chutzpah for anyone, male or female, to start up the hand-wringing and the water-works about these poor poor ugly women who can’t get attention. It looks to me like the old argument about forcing employers to hire people, or keep them on when they’d rather fire them: What is the objective? You want attention from people who aren’t actually inclined to give you the attention, like you want to work for someone who’d prefer you not be working for them? What’s the appeal? Why would anyone prefer to be placed in such miserable situations? Seems to me to be a confusion between quality and quantity. Those two things are not interchangeable. You can only reciprocate attention to one person at a time, or maybe a bit more than that but not too much more; you can only work at so many jobs.

Personally — because I’m a misogynist, no doubt– I get a real kick out of watching liberals twist themselves into intellectual and emotional pretzels over “lookism” (yeah, that’s a real word). I think it’s hilarious that though they can’t wait to decry “prejudice” and “stereotypes” in every other situation, anywhere in the world, they have zero problem with the “hot girls are dumb” cliche. You could go off on an Andrew Dice Clay-level rant about what a dimwit floozy, say, Christina Hendricks is, and not even the most ostentatiously nose-ringed feminist will say boo. (Say it about Sarah Palin, of course, and they’ll beat you to the gutter, dropping f-bombs like it’s Dresden).

Indeed, as you’ve pointed out, Our Betters seem to have so far embraced the “hot girls are dumb” cliche that they instinctively assume the opposite must be true, that a frightful hag like Madeline Albright must be wiser than the rest of us because her face could stop a clock at forty paces.

Here’s a novel idea, comrades — instead of immediately picking out which people to pay attention to based on nothing more than a superficial scan (unattractive? check! wears birkenstocks? check! carrying Apple logo equipment? check! must be a Very Serious Person), try treating individuals on their merits. I’ve found that both looks and brains are pretty evenly distributed across the spectrum. If she’s cute but dumb, enjoy the view. If she’s cute and smart, then for God’s sake talk to her.

Or, you know, you could post a hand-wringy diary about it on Daily Kos, about how you almost worked up the nerve to talk to her but didn’t, because her shoes might’ve been real leather, and meat is murder, and so the point is that you’re a great person. It’ll get you a bunch of likes from girls that might not be all that great looking, but hey, they’re smart, right? And most importantly, they noticed you. [blush, stammer, drop eyes]
- Severian | 07/11/2013 @ 11:12
If you could make a list of subjects on which the militant leftists have successfully infiltrated the hearts-n-minds of the sincere centrists, who claim not to identify with any ideological point on the spectrum and really do mean it…I think this thing might very well make the top spot. The lower-information “indies” mostly agree lock-step with militant lefties on the entirely unfounded stereotype that an ugly woman must be some kind of a genius just because she’s ugly…or at least that, for presuming she is one, you must be some kind of wonderful. And certainly, that for pointing out that pulchritude and competence are entirely disconnected and unrelated attributes, you must be some kind of creep — even though, intellectually, anybody who gives it a moment of quality thought will understand that this must be true, since there is no way for it not to be true.

There are smart pretty people, smart ugly people, idiotic pretty people and idiotic ugly people…the latter item of this series having disproportionately deluged our positions of power, based on several decades of this lazy thinking that we can pull in the cream of the crop of available talent, by simply resolving to be more accepting of ugly (liberal) women. With their fat and/or wrinkly-leather faces. And silly clownish-looking pantsuits. And annoying, screechy voices. If you could somehow scientifically examine and assess the decisions they actually make, you’ll find they’re sub-random decisions, consistently worse than what you’d get out of a roll of the dice. Janet Napolitano insisting the system worked…that’s a perfect example.
- mkfreeberg | 07/11/2013 @ 11:22
And let’s examine the nice folks who WROTE and lobbied the…um…revisions to alien spouse laws. (also known as the disingenuiously nicknamed -“mail order bride– for the traditional obfuscation reasons)
- CaptDMO | 07/12/2013 @ 08:12

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Dustin Hoffman is an Uncle TimThursday, July 11th, 2013

Dustin Hoffman is an Uncle Tim
Thursday, July 11th, 2013