Ah, Carolyn Hax, Style columnist for that paragon of post-truth propaganda, The Washington Post, has been the subject of tender ministrations here at the Chateau before. Well, she’s back for some more very special lessons.
In her advice column, (goddamn she gets paid for this shit?), she dispenses her wisdom to an astute emailer who wonders why chicks dig jerks.
Washington, D.C.: How come if a woman has dated both “nice” guys and abusive guys, you’ll find out that in just about every case, her longest relationships have been with the abusive guys? Why do so many women require some form of drama to remain entertained in a relationship, and do you find this to be childish behavior?
Carolyn Hax: Not as childish as attributing this to women as opposed to people in general, and lumping all women as opposed to addressing some of them who have a similar set of circumstances, and blaming the victims instead of the abusers.
But other than that, I’m right there with you.
If you are a guy, and if you are angry that women aren’t receptive to you when you see yourself as a “nice” guy, and you believe these women are instead receptive to abusive guys, then maybe it would be productive to consider that you’re harboring attitudes about women (and men, for that matter) that aren’t really “nice” at all.
The emailer is, of course, correct. Any man with a lick of experience with women will know the score — hot babes often spend their prime years in the carelessly aloof arms of assholes. Hax surely knows this in the primitive part of her brain, but the sophistic hamster-driven part is the one writing her insipid advice columns, and so she squirts tepid fembot anti-generalization shibboleths right on cue when someone shines a glimmer of reality in front of her face.
Hax, the truth that makes you so uncomfortable, and which will now gleefully be retold to maximize the pain this will cause you should you stumble across this post, is this:
Chicks, particularly the hottest chicks men want to fuck the most, are irresistibly drawn to assholes. Uncaring assholes, to be exact. There is a simple explanation for why so many men of varying virtue and character and success with women make this oft-repeated claim, and no recourse to lame excuses about “blaming the victim” or “bitter beta males who aren’t really as nice as they say” are needed. That simple explanation which eludes you is that the observation is true. Occam’s Razor never did give nothing to the feminist, that she didn’t, didn’t already deny.
Let’s deconstruct Hax’s reply for shits and giggles.
“Not as childish as attributing this to women as opposed to people in general”
Fallacy of gender equalism. When forced to ponder female mating behavior that is less than angelic, feminists will often resort to the “Yeah, but he does it too, Mom!” form of argument. It’s not a very good debate tactic, but it’s made even worse by the fact that it’s a lie. Men are not attracted to asshole girls. Men are attracted to sweet, feminine, hot girls with minimal drama. The holy fucking grail of chickianity is the drama-free, faithful, feminine and beautiful babe. That more than a few of these beautiful babies bring drama with them is sometimes not enough negative externality to turn men off from fucking them. Or even marrying them.
Women, on the other hand, will often fuck assholes even when those assholes bring nothing else of value to the table except their aloof and indifferent charms.
“and lumping all women as opposed to addressing some of them who have a similar set of circumstances”
Women, and especially fembots, cannot distinguish between rules and exceptions. Thus, they are prone to mistakenly and hilariously refuting general rules on the basis that exceptions exist using the highly Socratic argument known as “proof by indignation at lumping”. In this formulation, noticing a general trend is the equivalent of “lumping”, and lumping is the impotent brain blurt of bitter betaboys and losers. For no man who isn’t a failure with women could possibly notice general tendencies that the female sex shares. Right? See, it’s ipso facto all the way down.
“and blaming the victims instead of the abusers.”
If the girl is choosing to stay with the “abuser”, then she’s not a victim. Victims aren’t normally happily in love with their tormentors. And it’d help if you slippery cunts would clarify what exactly you mean by “abusive”. Plenty of assholes don’t raise a hand to their lovers, but tease, mock, and patronize them in such a way that polite society socialites would publicly denounce for the edification of their SWPL tribe, but then secretly masturbate to with the blinds drawn. If the man is truly bad news, then the girl who stays with him deserves some of the blame for her predicament. That’s right, mothafuckaaaaaa. I said it. I meant it. It’s out there.
“But other than that, I’m right there with you.”
Snark: the universal feminist response to anything that rattles their exquisitely manicured worldview.
“If you are a guy”
It’s time to take back the word man. “Guy” has become the semantical substitute for nebulous eunuch-type humanoid. It is a neutering affectation.
“and if you are angry that women aren’t receptive to you when you see yourself as a “nice” guy, and you believe these women are instead receptive to abusive guys”
It’s telling that she puts nice in scare quotes, but doesn’t do the same with abusive.
“then maybe it would be productive to consider that you’re harboring attitudes about women (and men, for that matter) that aren’t really “nice” at all.”
And here we get to the shriveled black heart of the archetypical thundercunt. If a man notices something about women’s nature that could be construed as unpleasant, he is a woman-hating loser. Since there are no negative generalizations — or any generalizations at all — that can be made about women, it stands to reason that men who do so have issues.
Hmm, now what other modern day leftie newspeak designed to thwart honest discussion about heretical social realities does this remind you of?
The anti-SWPL in the exchange above who shocked the world with his plain speaking about what his lying eyes were seeing emailed Hax again for a clarification.
Washington, D.C.: So you’re saying that there’s no segment of women that require drama to be entertained, and I have an attitude problem for disliking drama? Again, when you confront a woman who has been in abusive relationships, which is relatively common, why are their abusive relationships the longest relationships they have? You’d think that the relationship with non abusive men would be the longer relationships, right?
Carolyn Hax: Not if you know anything about abusive relationships. If they were easy to resist and easy to leave, nobody would be in them.
And if you don’t see that men get into relationships with abusive women, and stay with them long past the point of reason, and generate enough drama per couple for a Lifetime movie marathon, then you’re not looking for information, you’re looking to score points.
Sounds like Hax is backpedaling on her original claim that the emailer is a bitter “non-niceguy” with woman issues. So she’s now agreeing with him that women enter abusive relationships. Hax, keep your feminist talking points straight. Is the man who generalizes about women a loser, or are women victims for being so honestly generalizable?
This canard that women can’t resist or leave abusive relationships is utter bullshit. Funny, women seem to have no trouble at all resisting the come-ons of non-assholes, or leaving relationships with beta boyfriends. Where will she go? To whom will she turn? What about the chance he might stalk her? Those questions never come up when the man she’s leaving is a man she doesn’t love.
And what is it with Hax’s contention that men get into relationships with abusive women? Is this imaginary belief supposed to refute the emailer’s original point about women devoting the best years of their lives to long term relationships with assholes? She sounds befuddled by the inconsistencies in her logic. Attention all planets of the fembot federation. The hamster has assumed control. The hamster has assumed control. *squeak!*
The projection by Hax is astounding. Is she looking for information, or is she looking to score points? So far, we have her on record as accusing the emailer of having an attitude problem with respect to women. Sounds like Hax is open to a bracingly fresh and candid discussion! Not.
Men prefer to get into relationships with hot women. Hot women, by virtue (or by vice) of their expanded options in the sexual market, sometimes have bitchier attitudes than less attractive women who must compete by winning men over with sparkling personalities and easier access to their pussies. This does not mean hot women are bitchy all the time, or to all men, but many of them will be bitchy to men they are dating if they feel the men aren’t the best they can get. Nor does this mean those men prefer their women to be bitchy to them; men would much rather hot babes not act bitchy, but will resignedly put up with the bitchiness if she is the hottest they can have at the moment. Men do not chase bitches for the sake of their bitchiness, but women will chase assholes for the sake of their assholery.
Hax, if this wasn’t clear enough, here’s a clue. The reason there are widely-held stereotypes about women chasing after assholes all out of proportion to a few anecdotes about fetishistic men who chub for bitches is because…
wait for it….
here it comes….
Do you think stereotypes materialize out of thin air? Here’s another stereotype for you: cunty urban yentas are the last source of advice a man who wants to understand women should turn to.