Letters to the Editor
-
Trolls
Has anybody else noticed that the consequence, importance and accuracy of any article Broadsheet links to is in inverse proportion the violence of the troll feeding frenzy that ensues? This article is a complete piece of fluff, its inanity only matched by its predictability, and Broadsheet's resident clusterfuck of trolls goes nuts.
If it were actually possible to identify people I would support removing the anonymity in comments, but it just isn't possible short of requiring credit cards and/or confining comment to Premium subscribers only.
What I totally fail to grasp is why the trolls hang here, day after day, obsessively reading material that they KNOW they are going to find violently objectionable.
-
This is a juicy article
full of the stuff I am interested in- changing gender roles, hot young women, passive men, bad boys winning.
yet, i am damn near speechless.
While I generally agree with the arc of the summary, there are some problems with it.
There is some conflation of several concepts that probably do need to be separated out.
For one thing, hot young guys will always be chased by young women for sex.
As women get older, they realize the price they can get for their tackle, which is where dating comes in.
But every date lately, for me at least (if I am PERMITTED to go from personal experience), seemed to me to be an opportunity for her to be contemptuous to me because i got 'suckered' into the old ritual of paying for her. So it is a no win for me when it comes to a lot of women, who want the romance of courting, but are contemptuous of the guys courting them. Maybe it doesn't happen to everyone, maybe it's the wrong women I was courting.
But it does go back to the argument some posters were making that men get condemned for having an opinion, and they get condemned for not having an opinion.
You can certainly have non-wimpy assertive guys who wear skirts and makeup. Or you can have wimpy passive men who play video games and who bend to women's whims and tell them what they want to hear to get them into bed (typically called 'liberal' men).
One of my past and consistent criticisms has been the way in which women choose the guys they sleep with. This still holds in this day and age- with women choosing those guys who get them hot, in essence thinking with their genitals (the exact thing they accuse guys of doing). This selecting is to the exclusion of most other characteristics by which they choose guys. This is not necessarily a problem until the girl gets pregnant or falls for the guy and the guy is already two counties away doing the next girl in his black book.
And again, the more respectful polite but not so hot guys are sidelined. These guys of course get resentful, then they are considered to be avoided by women because their (by now rightful) resentment towards women and the women's bad choices begins to affect their own ability to find attractive girls.
It is almost like a good respectful guy is considered (by women) lucky to get any girl because he was not good enough to get a hot girl. It is all broken and explains why books like "The Game" are more popular than ever. The guys know the pickup artists are the only ones winning these days. As I once described about some of my renters, in the same period when three of us guys in the house had one girl between us, the players in the house did 14 girls between them, a ratio of 21 to 1. So of course the bad experiences women have with the players is what 'defines' women's experiences with ALL men and why they conplain guys never call (CLUE: the players are already doing the next girl).
So it is back to the WAY OF THE BASTARD. The only difference with these passive young guys described in the article is that they still hold out romantic hope (as I did in my 20s) that the right girl will show up. By their thirties they will come to realize this does not happen, and that the guy must put on an 'act' to get any decent girl.
All sad, really. The girls are in charge and the girls delliberately make the wrong choices, falling for the users and players, then complain and blame men for their choices.
-
@Canuckistan
The trolls read these columns just to get their panties in a bunch. The self-righteous froth they're able to work themselves into makes them feel better about themselves.
I pretty much read the trolling for the same reason, but I usually point and laugh.
-
I agree Canuckistan
What I totally fail to grasp is why the trolls hang here, day after day, obsessively reading material that they KNOW they are going to find violently objectionable.
Why does the NAACP monitor hate sites?
Why do Jews monitor the sites of anti-semites?
Of course bob, if you want a site where everyone is going to agree with you, you can head to Pandagon where they ban people for having a contrary view. That's always an exciting read.
-
If we have an opinion we're bullies and abusers. If we don't we're being passive aggressive. Go fuck yourselves. The cost benefit isn't really worth it anymore.
If most men REALLY could believe this then the problem would in a sense be solved. Women seem more than capable of that trick, but it doesn't seem that straight men are, for the most part, so it seems we are stuck with it at least until biological changes are made, or maybe not. Given men's ability to do whatever it takes to get somewhere with women it may be possible to produce the perfect feminist drone by social means alone without bioengineering. In fact by the sounds of some of the women here there are already a lot of them in existence now.
-
Welcome, Brightstar!
I can't believe you waited this long to chime in. It just wasn't a proper nonsensical debate without your input.
It must really be hard for you, not being able to have sex with the kind of women you think you deserve, and then feeling angry and resentful about it. That's really what every single one of your posts boils down to, doesn't it?
Makes me chuckle.