When the Feminists came for the Rapists,
I remained silent;
I was not a Rapist.When they locked up the stalkers,
I remained silent;
I was not a stalker.When they came for the Players,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Player.When they came for the men who they got bored of,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t some one they were bored of yet.When they came for me, the nice guy,
there was no one left to speak out.
Self-pity has a new king.
30 Comments
So where on the stupidity scale would you put this post?
I’m sorry, Daran, but you’re not even in the running — the poem I quoted is so much stupider than the post of yours you linked to, it’s like being asked where on the scale the work of a professional ballerina compares to me doing jumping jacks. You’re just not on the same scale at all.
As for your post, I agree with a fair amount of it, disagree with other bits of it. Not for the first time, I’m stuck by how much you and I have in common, although you’re much more courageous about discussing personal things online than I am.
Compared with a professional ballerina? That’s a first for me.
I’d be a lot less courageous if I was as invested in remaining in feminism’s good graces as I guess you are.
The way I see it is that feminism has a huge hate-on towards the people they label “Nice Guys (TM). People like me. We’re the acceptable target. So I view your post much the same I would one entitled “The single stupidest thing any coloured has ever written” coming from a culture of bigotry toward dark-skinned people. Even if the thing written were spectacularly stupid, I’d still see the post as a bigoted attack on dark-skinned people generally.
Do you interpret the first line of the poem as expressing solidarity with rapists? A racist would assume the same if a black man wrote that line in a rant against white hegemony. I suspect, however that you might see it as a reference to lynching, both the historic murders and the rollovers that continue to this day in criminal justice and media arenas. At the very least you’d give him the benefit of the doubt.
Giving Collins the same benefit, I suggest that the intended meaning of the first line would be better conveyed as “First they came for the Lacrosse Players”, and the overall sentiment as expressing the view that feminism has identified certain classes of oppressed people as acceptable targets, and in so doing, has become oppressors of those people.
That’s his message, albeit expressed with more overt anger and less logical coherency. I agree. As one of those people, I find feminism terribly oppressive. And given the similarities between you and me, I really don’t understand why you don’t find it oppressive too.
I don’t understand it, but I accept it. Your feelings, and the feelings of other male feminists, pro-feminists, and feminist supporters, are perfectly valid. But so are mine and so are the feelings of the men I advocate for.
I find your suggested equivalence between all dark-skinned people and “Nice Guys (TM)” to be pretty without merit.
Someone becomes labeled a “Nice Guy (TM)” because of their own stated beliefs, not because of the color of their skin or any other irrelevant feature. Holding someone’s opinions and beliefs against them is not the same as holding someone’s skin color against them.
I try to give you a compliment, and you immediately turn it into a weapon to use as a personal attack against me. Sadly typical behavior for you.
I’ll concede that. A better analogy would be between “Nice Guy (TM)” and “upperty”. A dark-skinned person might avoid that label by acquiescing to his oppression, or by being particularly meek, passive or “well-spoken” in objecting to it.
Did really it rise to that level? It was snippity, I agree, as well as irrelevent and a distraction, and for those reasons, I withdraw.
Oh tu quoque. Fact is, we’ve been snipping at each other for years. It’s difficult behaviour to resist, for you as well as for me, and you’ve certainly no claim to the moral high-ground here.
By the way, I switched the theme because the previous theme didn’t do blockquotes in comments. WTF is up with that?
I’ll agree we both snip at each other. Let’s try to stop.
The “uppity” thing is based on the idea that we can make a universal judgement of all black people based on their skin color; the implicit assumption is that all Black people have, inherently, a proper low station compared to white people. Getting above that station makes racists call you uppity.
That is fiction. Black people aren’t inherently inferior or lower-station, and never have been.
“Nice Guyhood” isn’t fictional. There is a real, commonplace, and misogynistic line of thought which goes along the lines of “women never go for nice guys like me — they only like jerks who treat them badly.” I don’t know if it exists in the UK, but I’ve personally heard men say just that, on multiple occasions. It was very nearly common wisdom when I was growing up.
Inherent black inferiority is fiction, and any critique based on it is racist. In contrast, misogyny is real., and criticizing misogyny does not make one a bigot. So your comparison is, again, nonsense.
Much better. I like the new theme too.
Yes let’s try. And while we’re on the subject. Sometimes you say or imply things about us which go way beyond snippiness, and into the realm of outrageous falsehood. For example to claim that “someone who as a general rule is always on management’s side (not just one company or industry, but management in general) whenever there’s a conflict of management and union on virtually all issues… is someone who, it’s safe to bet, has core conflicts with progressive beliefs” as a justification for claiming that ballgame “is in now meaningful way a progressive” is to attribute that corporatist viewpoint to him. As even a cursory look at his writings on the subject will show, that’s not merely false, it’s a 180 degree reversal of the truth. Please stop doing this. I don’t think we do this to you, but if we have, then I apologise, and we’ll try to stop too.
I’ll respond to your substantive points shortly.
Actually, Daran, I don’t believe “digging into the archives to find some arcane slight committed against someone else many months ago” counts as not being snippy.
[Timestamp changed to avoid crossposting issue.]
Likewise there’s a judgment made about socially inept and otherwise men that they remain in their place.
I’m not sure what the common wisdom was when I was growing up. I wasn’t ‘in’ with other boys enough to have ever had such a conversation. Nevertheless I agree the attitude you describe is prevalent within the culture.
It’s a stereotype, but like many stereotypes there’s at least a germ of truth in it. I have seen men with women literally* fighting over them even as they, the men, jerk them around over and over.
*That’s literally literally: actual physical violence and threats of violence between the women concerned.
It’s also not the whole truth: There are plenty of women who avoid jerks, and plenty of genuinely nice men who are successful with women. But it’s certainly very understandable to me that some men come to the stereotypical view that they do.
The analogy I see here with black people is with the views racists and progressives respectively take about the problems endemic in some black communities. Racists attribute these problems to black people’s character. Progressives attribute them to the social environment.
The feminist critique of Nice Guys(TM) focusses is a critique of the latter’s character. The social backdrop is never considered.
Racists would argue that criticizing criminality, thugishness, and fecklessness with black communities does not make one a bigot. They’d be right about that. What makes it bigotry is the attribution of these problems to black people’s character while disregarding their circumstances.
Before I respond, could you reread the above sentence? It seems to me that to make the sentence make sense, either you meant to write “conflating” rather than “criticizing,” or you meant to write “within” rather than “with.”
I strongly suspect the latter — you meant to say “within” — but just to be cautious, please clarify the sentence. Thanks.
Yes. Within.
Most insults are irritating at the time, but are soon forgotten. But some continue to rankle. That one does for me, even though it wasn’t against me. So if we’re going to wipe the slate clean, a retraction would help. And you’re similarly invited to raise any past offenses by us, if they are still salient with you.
*shrug* I don’t keep track of these things, Daran.
In comment #7, your out-of-context quoting distorted what I wrote.
To set the context, here’s what I wrote in the post:
I believe it was clear that I was accusing Ballgame, not of anti-labor or racist beliefs, but of being an anti-feminist.
I stand by that. Feminism is one of the core principles of progressive politics, and if you’re an anti-feminist, you’re not a progressive.
My guess is that you’re now going to say “Ah-hah! You used an analogy! That proves that you’re being unfair by objecting to someone analogizing feminism to the Holocaust!” But I’m hoping you won’t say that. We’ll see.
“Gee, I know of a Jewish person who’s greedy and rich. So there’s a germ of truth in anti-semitic stereotypes. Also, I met a black person who was stupid and lazy. Therefore, there’s a germ of truth in racist stereotypes.”
Yes, there are individual women who fall for jerks; no, that doesn’t mean that misogynistic bigotry has a germ of truth in it.
The lie is that virtually all women are like that. Anecdotes don’t magically convert that lie into being true.
It’s very understandable to me that some people are antisemites. Given many of the popular (not universal) beliefs about Jews in many cultures, that there are some antisemites is inevitable.
But that doesn’t make it bigoted to criticize the characters of antisemites.
Just because we can understand the cultural reasons that some people say misogynistic things, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold their misogyny against them, or think less of their character because they’re misogynists.
That doesn’t mean that I’m not interested in hearing about the social conditions that create nice guys. But I don’t consider those social conditions to be excuses. No one is forced to be a Nice Guy (TM). And if I’m not interested in the social reasons for the misogyny I object to, that doesn’t make me an anti-male bigot.
Nor do I think that feminists are morally obliged to feel sorry for the misogynists (which seems to be what you want) before they’re allowed to object to or criticize the misogyny. I think it’s unreasonable of you to demand that.
Similarly, an anti-racist objecting to racist behavior isn’t obligated to always fully consider and describe the social factors leading to racism. Sometimes — often — it’s fine to just criticize the racism.
Actually my response is to express surprise. Surprise at the interpretation you’ve put on your own words, and surprise that you think it clear. It wasn’t clear to me; I don’t think it was clear to ballgame.
In response to the remarks you made in the post, which you quote above, you were challenged by Robert:
This lead (skipping over a couple of intermediate exchanges) to the comment I quoted. In fact the immediately preceding sentence:
strikes me as a far more accurate description of ballgame’s position on the wage gap than general anti-union/pro-management stance you clarified was anti-progressive.
So no, I didn’t think this was a metaphore. I thought this was literally what you meant. In a thread in which you were defending a position typically taken by unions (that there is a wage gap attributable to sexism) and ballgame defending one typically taken by management (that there isn’t), a literal interpretation seems quite reasonable.
Feminism is much more than a principle. It’s a set of principles, practices, beliefs, theories, analytical norms, discoursive norms, and institutions. There’s nothing wrong with feminism’s stated principles. And you won’t find a thing against them in ballgame’s writing, or mine for that matter. It’s the rest of the edifice where the rot sets in.
Since we agree that analogies are admissible argumentation, let me offer another. There’s nothing wrong with the principles of socialism, but if the hegemonic practices, beliefs, theories, analytical norms, discoursive norms, and institutions of socialism are modeled on Soviet style communism, then there’s a problem. For you to denounce ballgame as antifeminist, is akin to a Soviet apologist denouncing George Orwell as antisocialist.
Yes, yes, feminists are eeevvviiiiillll.
I’ve heard this tune before, Daran. It bores me. You could construct a case that any large movement that actually gets anything done is awful, and you’d be right; inherently, any large-scale movement is going to include a large number of assholes, people who are cruel, people who have all the usual list of human flaws.
This is true of feminism, of unions, of the anti-racist movement, of the LGBT movement, of charitable NGOs… examine any genuinely large movement closely enough and you’re certain to discover that the “rot” has set in.
Actually, I pointed out that some analogies are unreasonable, giving the example of “someone analogizing feminism to the Holocaust” as an unreasonable analogy. (You probably thought that was a perfectly reasonable analogy and thus didn’t catch my meaning.)
The effect of analogizing Nazism and feminism isn’t to have a reasonable, respectful conversation with people of different political views than your own. It’s to make it clear to those people that your interest isn’t in having a discussion, but in using the discussion as a vehicle for expressing your utter contempt for them, and your belief that they are Nazi-like moral monsters.
Of course, analogizing feminism to Stalinism, as you just did, is the same.
Nice post, Daran.
For what it’s worth, I also bridle at Nice Guy bashing. We discussed this WAAAAAY back in the Debate Annex.
I value freedom of mind and generally value freedom of speech. To that end, I object to the idea that we should condemn people for their lust. Or for expressing that lust (within appropriate time/place/manner restrictions). Or for refraining from expressing that lust. Admittedly, speech can make members of the audience uncomfortable; that’s the nature of speech. I defend my right to control my body, including my right to secure my body against assault. But does my right to control my body extend to controlling your thoughts about my body? That’s not my current view, anyway.
As far as I can tell, the Nice Guy dynamics are as follows: Evolution gives many guys — including socially awkward guys — a sex drive. Yet their awkwardness leads to frustration. Sometimes this frustration gets expressed as hostility toward the objects of their affections. Is this so different than when people who have money anxieties project their hostility onto the rich?
Admittedly, Nice Guy behavior causes many women to feel uncomfortable. Some of the discomfort arises because women must regularly confront the fact that guys lust after them when the feelings are not reciprocated. Some of the discomfort may derive from the surprise realization that people who they thought here platonic friends had heretofore unexpressed feelings for them (that are not reciprocated). And some of the discomfort may derive from the fact that these Nice Guys do not merely express lust, but also a kind of entitlement to women’s affections. All of this promotes frustrations in women.
So here we have two frustrated parties. Why is only one side of this dynamic worthy of compassion, and the other worthy of ridicule? Wouldn’t compassion be the more appropriate response for each side?
OK, let me give another analogy that might be less offensive.
Noam Chomsky is a person who embraces the principles of democracy while criticising its institutions. Would a defender to those institutions be right to call Chomsky an antidemocrat?
Here I’m analogising Feminism with Democracy. Is that OK?
Your argument, it seems to me is as follows:
1. Premise: You cannot be a fooist while criticising the institutions of fooism.
2. Premise: ballgame criticises the institutions of feminism
3. Conclusion: Therefore ballgame is not a feminist.
Perhaps I’m wrong that this is your argument in which case please clarify. But on the working assumption that this is your argument, I agree that it is valid, but I dispute the first premise.
To make the argument that your first premise is wrong as a generality, I offered a counter-example, i.e., a person who I thought you would be unlikely to disagree was a fooist, and who you would probably also agree criticised the institutions of fooism. It’s actually quite hard to think of such counterexamples, and the only one I could think of at the time was Orwell in respect of Socialism. Sorry if that offended you, but your offense is a self-ad-hom. That you were offended has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the argument.
Nevertheless, I regret the choice, because it gave you a way of evading the argument.
Wow, if it wasn’t for the final sentence, you would have managed a WHOLE ENTIRE POST without insulting me or calling me a liar.
* * *
As I said before (and you didn’t respond to), all large-scale human institutions have some good and some “rot” in them. That’s inevitable.
At the same time, some institutions — such as Stalinist Russia, or (if you ask Chomsky) the US foreign policy establishment — have so much rot in them that either there’s no good left, or any good that exists is vastly outweighed by the rot.
If I understand your views correctly, you and (I believe) Ballgame would say that any fair, objective assessment of modern-day feminism would determine that the rot has so overcome the good that the only truly feminist view is to oppose modern-day feminism in virtually everything it says or does. (Just as at one time the only reasonable view was to be anti-Stalinist, or as Chomsky might say that the only reasonable view right now is to be anti-USA).
If that analysis is correct, then you are correct; a reasonable progressive could be opposed to, in effect, everything about modern feminism.
On the other hand, it’s also the case that sometimes an institution is in fact a net positive; although it has some rot (as all human institutions do), the rot is not the only important thing about the institution. But people who are ideologically opposed to that institution will nonetheless claim that the rot now predominates the institution.
For instance, many conservatives argue that they agree with the abstract goals of climate science, but that the current climate science establishment is completely corrupt and full of rot.
Now, it’s certainly true that climate science — like all human institutions — has some rot in it. But what’s really going on, imo, is that conservatives have a strong ideological bias which causes them to vastly exaggerate that rot, and to ignore or minimize everything praiseworthy or valuable about climate science. If I’m right about that, then it’s fair to call those conservatives anti-science, even though they claim to support science in the abstract. (Indeed, if you ask them, they’ll claim that they support the ideals of science more than the scientists themselves do.)
When it comes to your views on feminism, I think you and Ballgame are more analogous to the conservatives who are anti-science than you are to Noam Chomsky or to anti-Stalinists.
By the way, Daran, you still haven’t responded to comment #13.
Nobody Really, how is it contrary to the ideals of free thought and free speech, for people to be criticized for what they say?
I don’t object to men feeling lust, or being socially awkward. I do object to misogyny.
Nice Guy (TM) isn’t the state of feeling lust and being socially awkward; it’s saying something like “women don’t like nice guys like me, they only like jerks who treat them badly!”
I agree that there’s some crossover there. But there are also tons of men who feel lust and are socially awkward, but nonetheless don’t become misogynists. Conflating all shy, lustful men with Nice Guys (TM), as your argument seems to do, isn’t helpful.
Complaining about the distribution of wealth arguably has a legitimate goal. The goal isn’t to be bitter at rich people; it’s to argue for a better society than the one we have. It’s not inherently monstrous to argue that we should have a distribution of wealth that’s more like the Netherlands, for example, in which rich people are forced (through taxes) to share a larger proportion of their wealth.
But “sex with attractive women” is not “money,” and that’s where your analogy falls down. Can we say that in a fairer society, attractive women should be forced to have sex with men who don’t get laid often? No, that is a monstrous view.
More fundamentally ,conceiving of sex as if it were money, and women were wealthy people — the transactional model of sex — is extremely problematic. That kind of thinking is not only inaccurate, it creates a set of myths that does a lot of harm to women and to men.
The edifice of feminism = its “principles, practices, beliefs, theories, analytical norms, discoursive norms, and institutions.”
The rest of the edifice other than principles = its “practices, beliefs, theories, analytical norms, discoursive norms, and institutions.”
Do you see any reference to people there? No. That’s because I wasn’t talking about the people of feminism AKA feminists. Misrepresenting my arguments like this is another way of evading them.
The rot starts here: You may recall that you recommended this as a definition of Patriarchy that feminists actually used (as distict from how antifeminists construe the concept.)
According to this definition, men are empowered, elevated, valued, and centered, while women are disempowered, deprecated, devalued and marginalised. Now this is not a bad description of how gender opperates at the top of the social heap. If you’re planning to become a legislator, then being male will probably help. However you better also be smart, socially competent, educated, affluent, or middle-to-upper class, because if you aren’t any of these things, man or women, you have no chance.
It’s at the bottom of the social heap that this description breaks down. Poor young black men are not empowered, relative to poor young black women by being incarcerated in large numbers; they are disempowered. The male victims of gangland violence in Cuidad Juarez are not centred in the Human Rights discourse; they are marginalised to the point of erasure. Social care offered to women but denied to equally needy men serves to elevate the former relative to the latter, while the attention given to missing white women in the media is a strong indicator of which victim characteristics are most valued.
The problem is not that Johnson doesn’t know these facts about how gender operates at the bottom of the social heap. Well he may not know some of them, but he knows many of them. The problem is that they do not inform his higher level analyses. The end result is that men who are erased in mainstream society are also erased in feminists description of that society.
This – the erasure of a gender-oppressed group – in feminism’s overarching description of gender-oppression is in my view quintessentially antiprogressive. Pretty much everything else which is structurally wrong with feminism, flows from this.
That’s what I’m saying. What I’m not saying is that Allan Johnson is evil, or anyone else for that matter. Making judgments about the person is simply not something I’m interested in.
Yes, I know. Earlier this evening I was out delivering a drumming session to a group of children, many of whom are social work referals. After that, I remained on-hand to offer feedback and guidence to the teen section who are learning to lead themselves without need of an adult. After that, I lead the adult band which includes several people with learning difficulties.
Sometimes you got to take a break for internet-warrioring in order to get shit done. Right now, its quarter to midnight here in Scotland, and I’m off to bed.
Fair enough. People should feel free to criticize Nice Guys for what they say. And people should feel free to criticize the critics for their lack of compassion.
I agree that seeking a better distribution of wealth is a legitimate goal. But I also think that seeking a better distribution of sex is a legitimate goal. Consequently I’m open to considering legalizing prostitution, decriminalizing homosexual conduct, state recognition of homosexual and polyamorous unions, decriminalization of fictional (e.g., computer-generated) depictions of sex with minors, etc.
To me, the arguments justifying redistribution of wealth and of sex mostly differ in degree and logistics. I believe that people are burdened by not having sufficient material resources and by not having sufficient sex. I think that it impinges on people’s autonomy to compel them to part with money against their will and to have sex against their will.
On balance, I think the burdens of compulsory progressive taxation are less than the burdens of poverty, whereas the burdens of compulsory sex are greater than the burdens of being sleepless in Seattle. But the distinction is practical, not moral. Similarly I generally support policies defending free speech and refusing to enforce marriage proposals – not because speech is harmless or breaching marriage contracts is harmless, but because the harm of regulating these matters is likely to be greater than the benefit.
I didn’t mean to make that analogy. I merely meant to argue that bitterness in the face of frustration is a familiar dynamic, and that one possible response is to look past the bitterness and express compassion for the frustration.
That said, I believe that concepts of supply and demand help illuminate the dynamics underling a variety of phenomena, including the phenomena of selecting sexual partners. David Brooks reviews some of the research supporting this theory in the first chapter of The Social Animal, and I find this stuff more compelling than the arguments set forth in the linked texts.
Fair enough; no obligation.
After all, racism’s bad stuff. Racism prompted the young Malcolm X to express hatred for white people. On the other hand, Dr. King expressed love. He was under no obligation to do so; he simply chose that route. It’s an option.
The thought of “compulsory sex” as a social policy turns my stomach, n.r. I feel dirty even discussing it.
I realise an emotional reaction isn’t an argument, but it does seem to me that the “burdens” of “compulsory sex”, i.e., state-sanctioned rape wouldn’t just be greater than the burdens of compulsory taxation. They’d be different in kind – more like the burdens of military conscription.
I also find “the burdens of being sleepless in Seattle” to be a trivialising characterisation of the hurt I suffered.
It frustrates me that the discourse surrounding “sex redistribution” tends to consider prostitution and legalised rape as the only options. In response to the proposition that “feminism isn’t a dating service”, I wrote:
Help for the unemployed can come in a lot of forms, but rarely if ever do leftists advocate that we compel individuals to employ the unemployed. The kind of help for dating-incapable men that I had in mind would be analogous to helping the unemployed by enabling them to acquire the skills to become attractive to employers.
Gotta go now. I will try to find time to respond to the post Amp wants me to, but I’m actually quite busy in RL now, and will be until next week.
I apologize. When expressing unconventional thoughts on touchy subjects, I have difficulty knowing what tone to strike.
Libertarian Susie is a prostitute in Nevada. The State of Nevada has a program that provides lump sum payments to people with low income, and finances this program via taxation on people such as Suzie. Suzie hates this program and the taxes she pays; it sears her very soul. Joe qualifies for the program and uses the money to buy sexual services from Suzie. Net result: The state compels Suzie against her will to do something she finds repugnant. And she has sex with Joe, something that would not have happened if the state had not intervened.
Does this story turn your stomach?
I’ve often made the same analogy to military conscription. Recall that one of the origins of taxation was the homage that vassals paid to feudal lords, often in the form of personal military service. Gradually this obligation was reduced to simply sending money.
Nevertheless, we still have policies to compel people (thus far always men) to use their bodies for the interest of society, provided society feels sufficiently threatened to require this measure. So if society were facing the extinction of the human race, it’s unclear to me that we wouldn’t require women to breed. True enough, Handmaid’s Tale depicts an icky world – but ickier than war?
Hey, I offered more alternatives than that! For example, I suggest that the state could recognize polyamorous relationships. Upon reflection, however….
Admittedly it’s barbaric to imagine a governmental policy that would attempt to interfere with a woman’s choice regarding who she enters into sexual unions with. The idea that the state would intervene to try to get creepy loser guys laid seems over-the-top.
But why does every Westernized nation prohibit bigamy?
In the absence of prohibitions on bigamy, we observe that women of varying social status choosing to marry high-status men, even if the men are already married. When bigamy is banned, high-status men can still get married; they marry high-status women. And the women who might otherwise have married the high-status men presumably go on to marry men of lower status. In other words, prohibitions on bigamy reflect a social policy to promote the interest of lower-status men and perhaps higher-status women at the expense of higher-status men and lower-status women. Put bluntly, prohibitions on bigamy are state (and social) policies that help lower-status men get laid.
That’s great, and might well meet with the approval of many parties to this discussion.
I question how much it would help, however. As I noted above, I believe that the model of supply and demand helps explain many aspects of the process of selecting sex partners, just as it explains many aspects of the labor market. Nevertheless, I suspect the demand curves differ.
What drives the demand for labor? As a first-order approximation, I expect that employers are motivated to maximize profits. If they think that Joe’s productivity will exceed Joe’s costs to the employer, the employer will be inclined to hire Joe. And the employer will be inclined to continue hiring people like Joe until the laws of diminishing marginal returns catch up with her. Now, if you make the labor force more productive, the laws of diminishing marginal returns won’t catch up until later in the labor supply curve – that is, you increase employment.
To what extent do these same dynamics apply to the market for sex partners? Yes, if you make people more attractive, I expect that more people will be willing to enter the market for sex partners, and that some people who are in the market will be willing to take on more sex partners. But I suspect that we hit diminishing marginal returns pretty soon. After all, Walmart has been willing to hire 2 million+ people on the theory that it’s profitable to do so. But, while Walmart’s drive for profits is unlimited, a woman’s drive for sex isn’t. At some point, a woman’s need for sex is sated, and eventually even large increases in the supply of desirable sex partners will produce only small increases in the supply of sex. Better training may influence WHO gets sex, but it may not influence the overall supply.
Moreover, globalism is on the march. Globalism had tremendous consequences for the labor markets, but not so much the market for sex partners. Until now. Today, if every US woman moved to Asia it still wouldn’t offset the gender imbalance there. Soon the global demand for female attention will become more acute than it ever was before.
Who knows? Because they will be in such demand, maybe women in Asia will achieve higher status than ever before. (And maybe homosexuality among men will become more acceptable than it ever was before.) But I have darker fears. I suspect we’ll be looking back with nostalgia on the days when we were worried about how sexual frustration manifested itself in bitter internet tirades.
Then again, if you don’t believe that the dynamics of supply and demand have any bearing on this kind of thing, then perhaps there’s nothing to worry about….
I’m still reading, but work is a higher priority today, so I either won’t post here today or won’t post until quite late.
Oddly, your work is a higher priority to me, too. Respond at your leisure — or not.
After all, I didn’t expect that you’d be able to respond the same day that I posted my comments — given that I posted them at 10:37pm. (Is this website hosted in Bangalore or something?)
If you think so, then don’t participate in spreading the meme of which that very conflation is the infectious, language-modifying core.
Tangentially related: Guys act nice when observed by attractive women.
Post a Comment