As a transethnic Japanese man (assigned white race at birth) I feel we need to reclaim the SLUR weeaboo like other discriminated against minority groups have done in the past (nigger, faggot, gooksy-wooksy, woman etc)
So you’re white and you’re
1. Spelling out racial and homophobic slurs.
2. Telling actual Japanese peoples want they need to do.
You’re not Japanese. Go away.
white people are fucking horrible
crackers are so desperate to be oppressed. Seriously! get your cracker ass off the planet
Trust a white person to turn being born white into a white supremacist society a into oppression because you want to colonise the lived experiences and identities that aren’t yours.
weeaboo is a slur lmao! This is why no one likes white people
Oh my god.
YOUR ETHNICITY IS NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. IT IS A FACT OF BIRTH. YOU CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO ONE ‘ETHNIC” GROUP JUST BECAUSE YOU “FEEL” JAPANESE.
AND WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN.
“OH I IDENTIFY WITH TRADITIONAL JAPANESE CULTURE AND BY THAT I MEAN ANIME AND SUSHI.”
People who are transethnic invalidate the experience of Western-born POC everywhere. You’re saying we’re really white, essentially. BECAUSE YOU IDENTIFY WITH “JAPANESE CULTURE” you’re Japanese? What does that make us, then? hrmmm?
“we need to reclaim the SLUR […] like other discriminated against minority groups have done in the past ([…] woman)” -had to edit out all of the racist slurs.
Since everyone has covered the transethnic bullshit this racist fuck is spewing, can I take a moment to point out that this misogynist thinks the word “woman” is a slur.
Open notes. ctrl-F “diva cup”
omg seriously pads and tampons should be free to all people who menstruate because it’s not something we want to buy and they’re so ridiculously expensive we’re down like 20 bucks every month which adds to about $240 a year and we have to spend it and people who can’t don’t and it’s not our fault so they should be free
we should just stop buying them and bleed on everything they love
BLEED ON EVERYTHING THEY LOVE.
But yeah they should be free and especially not taxed as a luxury.
By Amanda Marcotte, AlterNet
Posted on December 11, 2011, Printed on December 13, 2011
Is there a rift in the anti-choice movement? A recent story in the New York Times centered around Ohio Right To Life’s unwillingness to lend their support or endorsement to a bill banning abortion from the time a heartbeat is detected in an embryo certainly makes that clear. As reproductive rights activists have noted for a couple of years now, there’s a war breaking out between two anti-choice groups, the incrementalists and the absolutists. Both largely agree on the goals of the movement, which is a complete ban on all abortion, with severe restrictions and possibly bans on contraception as well. What they disagree about is tactics. Incrementalists view themselves the more mainstream branch of the movement, and they focus mainly on chipping away at abortion rights. They’re wary of taking the fight to the courts, who tend to routinely shoot down any legislation perceived as an out-and-out ban on abortion.
The absolutists, on the other hand, claim this is a failed strategy and want to come out of the closet as full-throated soldiers in the war on women and sex, by directly attacking Roe v. Wade and taking the fight beyond abortion to contraception. Absolutists have managed to go around the more mainstream anti-abortion movement, passing legislation and gaining ground in the Republican Party. They’ve even managed to make Democrats cower, as evidenced by the highly unusual decision of the HHS to overrule the FDA’s decision to make Plan B available over the counter.
Who are some of these absolutists? Here’s a snapshot of some of the organizations that are demanding not just immediate challenges to Roe, but also want a rapid escalation of the war on women’s right to contraception and other forms of basic reproductive health care.
Who are some of these absolutists? Here’s a snapshot of some of the organizations that are demanding not just immediate challenges to Roe, but also want a rapid escalation of the war on women’s right to contraception and other forms of basic reproductive health care.
Personhood USA. This is the umbrella group for various state activist groups pushing to get “personhood amendments” onto the ballot. Unlike most anti-choice organizations that push for a variety of actions, Personhood USA has only one ostensible goal, to amend state constitutions to get fertilized eggs defined as legal “persons”. Behind this seemingly simple goal lies a radical agenda. Not only would personhood amendments ban abortion, but they would also make it illegal to treat ectopic pregnancies, save women suffering incomplete miscarriages from dying of sepsis, open up criminal investigations of miscarriages, and ban IVF and research on stem cells, personhood advocates have repeatedly suggested that it should also be used to ban the birth control pill and the IUD, which they incorrectly argue work by killing fertilized eggs. The radical nature of the initiative made it impossible to pass in Mississippi, arguably the most conservative state in the country, giving incrementalists ammo in their argument against the absolutist approach.
Live Action. That absolutists can’t get their agenda past the voters doesn’t mean that their radical approach is a failure, however. After all, they don’t have to win over voters so long as they control the Republican Party on the choice question. Live Action provides some of the best evidence of the success of the absolutist approach. Live Action openly supports the absolutist agenda, putting their support behind personhood initiatives and attacking Planned Parenthood not just for providing abortion, but because the organization is willing to provide STD and contraception information to minors and self-identified sex workers.
Early in 2011, Live Action launched a series of deceptively edited videos that managed only to prove that Planned Parenthood follows the law, provides perfectly legal health care to minors and self-identified sex workers, and immediately complies with reporting laws regarding the abuse of minors. Even though they did nothing but prove that Planned Parenthood obeys the law and standard medical ethics, Live Action still managed to compel a national crisis over Title X funding offered to clinics who provide contraception services that culminated in the Republicans threatening to shut down the federal government if contraception subsidies weren’t immediately halted. This, even though 77% of Republican voters support contraception subsidies. The word “abortion” was thrown around a lot to justify this attack on Title X, but at the end of the day, Live Action and the Republicans were attacking contraception, as Title X legally cannot subsidize abortion.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB presents itself simply as a support structure for American Catholic churches, but a large wing of the organization is devoted to lobbying for extremist anti-choice policies that are often far beyond anything being asked by incrementalist anti-choice activists. Conservative media threw a fit when Nancy Pelosi described this group as “lobbyists”, but the term is utterly accurate. The USCBB does spend a great deal of time and money lobbying for severe restrictions on abortion and contraception access.
The USCBB lobbies for an overturn of Roe, but that’s only the tip of their anti-choice advocacy. They exploited the health care reform debate to try to push for Congress to prevent private insurance companies from covering abortion care. They have taken a strong anti-contraception stance that makes fallacious, unscientific claims about contraception, including claiming that contraception artificially induces an unhealthy state (something actual medical experts would strongly argue against) and making unscientific claims about how contraception works. Currently, they are demanding that religiously affiliated organizations that take taxpayer money, such as hospitals and universities, be allowed to deny contraception coverage to the female employees, many of whom aren’t even Catholic. They are also fighting the Obama administration’s choice to give groups who offer complete health care to trafficking victims grants instead of giving them to Catholic organizations that refuse contraception or abortion referrals for women who have been forced into prostitution, suggesting that their main concern isn’t getting women out of trafficking situations, but blocking them from having healthy and consensual sex lives after escaping forced prostitution.
Ohio ProLife Action. As described in the New York Times, Ohio Right to Life refuses to support a bill that would ban all abortions after a heartbeat is detectable, not because they don’t wish they could, but because they believe it’s a political loser. The heartbeat is less extremist than personhood initiatives, but that’s like saying it’s less dark at 10PM than midnight: technically true, but not particularly relevant. The heartbeat bill is a direct assault on Roe v. Wade, and Ohio RTL wants to wait until the Supreme Court is even more conservative before challenging Roe.
Meanwhile, the heartbeat bill is far more extreme than the simple abortion bans that were in place prior to Roe. Medical exceptions were available prior to Roe, and if a woman showed up in the emergency room with an incomplete miscarriage, doctors were allowed to save her life by removing the failing pregnancy. Under the heartbeat bill, doctors would be forced to wait until any kind of pulse in the embryo had ended before intervening, which would put women at risk of sepsis and would like result in unnecessary deaths—-all the save pregnancies that were unsalvageable to begin with. Ohio RTL likely realizes that it’s hard to endear yourself to voters when you stand up for torturing or even killing women for having incomplete miscarriages, so Ohio ProLife Action was formed to support this attack on women’s right not just to choose, but to survive a pregnancy gone wrong.
Susan B. Anthony List. Anti-choicers fallaciously claiming to be supportive of some “older” form of feminism have been around nearly as long as conservatives supporting racist policies while quoting MLK, and so the SBA List is doing nothing new with their ahistorical claims that irreligious, childless Anthony would have, if she was alive today somehow miraculously supported their highly religious assault on abortion rights. But SBA List stands for a lot more than a simple overturn of Roe. In the name of Susan B. Anthony, who aligned herself with the 19th century “voluntary motherhood” movement that turned into the birth control movement, the SBA List has expanded into assaults on contraception access. SBA List has worked strenuously to defund contraception programs both on the national and international level. They claim to do so out of opposition to abortion, but in reality, the funds that they object to that go to Planned Parenthood and the United Nations Population Fund are used strictly for non-abortion reproductive health services. UNFPA does not provide abortion services or referrals, but because they prevent women from dying of botched abortions and offer contraception services, SBA List opposes them. Even under Roe, doctors were permitted to treate women suffering from botched abortions, but SBA List embraces a far more radical vision than a mere repeal of women’s right to legal abortion.
In addition, SBA List put together a pledge for Republican presidential candidates to sign that hinted at a strong anti-contraception agenda with calls for the HHS and NIH to be staffed with “pro-life” leadership. Under George Bush, such leadership did more than simply oppose abortion, but fought against expanded contraception access at every turn. SBA List’s request for more of the same would endanger HHS regulations requiring insurance companies to treat contraception as preventive care that should be offered without a co-pay to insured women.
Leslee Unruh with the Alpha Center. Leslee Unruh is a one-woman machine of anti-choice extremism in South Dakota. Unruh was instrumental in getting complete abortion bans on the ballot in South Dakota not once, but twice (both were voted down). Unable to get an abortion ban in South Dakota the honest way, anti-choice South Dakota legislators, who appear to hang on Unruh’s every word, passed a law requiring women to seek “counseling” from anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers before being allowed to have an abortion. Unruh’s CPC was clearly the one that they had in mind, as it’s right down the street from the Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls that is the sole provider of abortion in the entire state. The legislation would basically force women to go through Leslee Unruh and her staff before they could have an abortion.
If you go to Alpha Center and aren’t pregnant, you’re still out of luck, because they certainly don’t offer contraception counseling for those who wish to avoid pregnancy. In addition to being anti-abortion, Unruh is an outspoken anti-contraception activist who claims that the birth control is “playing God” and that women should forsake contraception because Unruh personally would like to see “more babies”. In addition to her CPC, Unruh runs the Abstinence Clearinghouse, which lobbied heavily for abstinence-only education during the Bush administration and now sells materials denouncing contraception, premarital sex (and premarital kissing), and even masturbation, even going so far as to threaten young people who send sexy text messages with claims that doing so causes depression and suicide.
American Life League. The American Life League is an oldie but a goodie. Just as the Tea Party couldn’t get started without some long-standing far right organizations feeding them radical ideas, ALL led the charge of the hard-right turn of the absolutist anti-choicers. Before personhood amendments were even on the anti-choice radar, ALL was demanding not just an overturn of Roe, but also an overturn of Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that legalized contraception for married couples. ALL has an annual anti-Griswold event called “Pills Kills”, where they charmingly argue against legal contraception on the grounds that it supposedly kills marriages. The theory is that sexual encounters that don’t make babies somehow drive couples apart, a theory that the 99% of American women who have used contraception at some point in their lives would find hard to believe.
ALL doesn’t even bother with claims that they object to contraception spending because of poorly established links to abortion. This is a group that uses scare quotes around the term “reproductive health services”, implying that a woman getting a Pap smear in order to prevent dying of cervical cancer is not receiving legitimate health care, but is instead participating in some kind of anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-God conspiracy. In addition to objecting generally to women’s reproductive health care, ALL fights mandatory vaccination, linking pages that claim falsely that the MMR is made from aborted fetuses, and that these aborted fetuses cause autism. For “pro-life” people, they heavily support increasing the incidence of often-fatal disease such as cervical cancer and preventable childhood illness.
The entire anti-choice movement of Kansas. Maybe it was because Operation Rescue kept getting away with consorting with violent people and known terrorists. Maybe it’s because they were aided and abetted by district attorney Phill Kline, who abused his power to get the private medical records of abortion patients, which had information in them that miraculously became available to people who had absolutely no right to read them, such as Bill O’Reilly. (Kline’s license to practice law in Kansas has been indefinitely suspended due to his unethical behavior.) Maybe there’s something in the water in Kansas. For whatever reason, the Kansas anti-choice movement brings the concept of extremism to a new level.
Unlike Ohio RTL, Kansas RTL offers full-throated support to a personhood amendment, as part of their interconnections with American Life League. They claim that this will “restore” personhood to fertilized eggs, but in fact this law would be far more extreme than anything that was in place prior to Roe. The Kansas Coalition for Life continues to brag about the daily harassment they dealt to Dr. George Tiller, even though the harassment campaign culminated in an assassination of Dr. Tiller while he was in church in 2009. Instead of showing remorse for the role they played in painting a target on his back, KCFL moved on to the next target, Dr. Leroy Carhart, creating fliers with descriptions of his offices in nearby Nebraska with pictures of the doctor prominently displayed. Kansans for Life seems relatively mild compared to these two, but they still support defunding Title X subsidies for contraception. They also trade heavily in conspiracy theories around former pro-choice governor Kathleen Sebelius, accusing her of destroying evidence against Planned Parenthood in one of the various harassment lawsuits that anti-choicers in the state have filed against the organization.
By ordinary American standards, incrementalists are already radical, with their willingness to make abortion increasingly difficult to get while working towards an eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade. But by anti-choice standards, incrementalists are beginning to look almost moderate, simply because they have patience when it comes to stripping women of basic human rights. Unfortunately for them, the wild-eyed fanatics that want to strip all abortion rights and contraception and do it now are gaining prominence and power, and the fealty of conservative politicians who are afraid of looking “soft” on sexually active women.
Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon. She is the author of It’s a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.
They’ve all been discredited and they are all notorious for lying. How anyone falls for their propaganda and emotional manipulation is beyond me.
Across the United States, women are being denied needed reproductive health care because their hospitals, HMOs, pharmacies, employers and health care providers are using religious doctrine or moral beliefs to restrict access to medical information and services:
A woman who has just been raped arrives at a hospital emergency room. “What if I become pregnant from the rape? Is there something I can do to prevent it?” she asks. “I’m sorry,” the ER doctor says, “but we aren’t allowed to give you emergency contraception. It’s against the religious doctrine of our hospital.”
A mother of two is about to deliver her third child. “My doctor says my high blood pressure is so dangerous that I shouldn’t have any more children. I’m planning to have my tubes tied right after I give birth,” she tells the nurse who is helping her fill out paperwork for admission to the hospital. “I’m sorry,” the nurse says, “but our hospital has joined a religious health system and it has banned tubal ligations.”
A young woman goes to the pharmacy to refill her birth control prescription. The pharmacist on duty refuses, saying “I believe birth control is the same as abortion and you will go to hell if you use it, so I will not dispense it to you.”
A 40-year-old woman comes to a hospital emergency department and is diagnosed with a dangerous ectopic pregnancy. But the ER staff refuses to end the pregnancy, out of fear they would violate the religiously-sponsored hospitals ban on abortions. Instead, they put her in an ambulance and send her to another hospital.
These scenarios, all based on real-life stories, illustrate the daily obstacles women are facing in trying to obtain reproductive health care. All of the services in question are legal in the United States. But none of these women was able to actually obtain the needed reproductive health care in a timely manner because their health care providers were able to cite personal moral beliefs or institutional religious rules and refuse to provide the care.
The intersection of law, medicine and morality in the American health system poses a serious threat to reproductive justice. When religious doctrine or a health provider’s moral beliefs can override a woman’s need for reproductive health care, she suffers a violation of her basic right to manage her reproductive capacity. She is denied the right and access to safe, respectful and affordable contraceptive and abortion services.
Unfortunately, public policymakers have all too often protected the religious freedom of health care providers, at the expense of the patient’s religious freedom and right to reproductive justice. Hospitals affiliated with conservative religious entities (such as the Roman Catholic Church, Baptist Church and the Seventh Day Adventists) operate one in every five hospitals beds in the United States. By lobbying Congress and state Legislatures, these hospitals have won the right to refuse to provide abortions or sterilizations, while still holding licenses to serve the general public and remaining eligible to receive more than $40 billion in public funding each year. In several states, Catholic hospitals are campaigning against proposed state laws that would require them to offer emergency contraception to rape victims.
More recently, individual health providers – including pharmacists, physicians and nurses – have campaigned for, and in some cases, won the right to use religious or moral beliefs to refuse care. Instances of pharmacist refusals to fill contraceptive prescriptions have been reported in 19 states. A case being litigated in California has highlighted another aspect of this intersection of law, medicine and morality in the United States. A lesbian couple was denied access to assisted reproductive technology by a group of physicians who were all Christians and did not approve of lesbian parenting.
Congress and the Bush administration have also introduced conservative religious beliefs into government health care programs and funding streams, by promoting abstinence-only sexuality education and censoring government web sites so that they provide incomplete or inaccurate information about condom use to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases.
Groups committed to reproductive justice are working to fight the intrusion of religious doctrine and moral beliefs into medical care in the United States. The MergerWatch Project is assisting community-based activists who are trying to stop the spread of religious health care restrictions when nonsectarian community hospitals merge with hospitals that have religiously-based service prohibitions. The project also works on the national and state levels to protect consumer access to vital reproductive health services and prevent the use of religious concepts in government health policy. To learn more about the project, and what you can do to stop this threat to reproductive justice, visit our website at www.mergerwatch.org.
You can learn more about religiously-based health restrictions by visiting the websites of the organizations with which MergerWatch collaborates regularly. They include:
• Catholics for a Free Choice, www.catholicsforchoice.org
• the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, www.rcrc
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, www.prch.org
• National Women’s Law Center, www.nwlc.org
[So your dogmatic “morals” are more important than my life? All I have to say is:]
Here are some specific behaviors I have witnessed in guys who think they’re “too nice” when actually they’re “unpleasant.” Is this you?
-For some reason, you think “nice” means “completely devoid of sexual energy.” When you’re attracted to someone, you treat her like you’re her brother. Her brother the priest. Her brother the elderly Victorian priest who is actually a large stuffed animal. Then when some guy comes along and does a little thoughtful flirting and actually gets her attention, you think “Man, that guy’s a jerkface.”
-When you say you’re trying to figure out “what women want,” you actually mean you’re trying to figure out what this one specific woman you’re friends with and have had a crush on for three years wants. (That one’s easy, by the way. The answer is “not you.” Now move on.)
-You don’t know many women. Having been passed on by the six or seven ladyfolks you see on a regular basis, you are now ready to assume that all women are deeply broken individuals who don’t know what’s good for them. Somehow you think that treating all women as freely interchangable mentally damaged goods is compatible with being “nice.”
-You’re one of those guys who wishes he lived in the Arthurian era — which is to say an era that never actually existed — and who actually uses the word prithee. You practice some sort of demented Hollywood version of chivalry. When women are creeped out by this, you assume they don’t like nice guys, rather than assuming more accurately that they have no desire to get involved with your little love-LARP.
-You’re not actually nice. Ask yourself this question: All these nice, thoughtful things you do for women you have crushes on, do you do them for your friends whose panties you don’t want to chew off? Do you remember everyone’s favorite pizza topping? Listen to them bitch about work? Tell them when you see something neat on ThinkGeek that you think they’d like? Getting extra attention from someone who’s generally nice is flattering. Sitting under the laserlike niceness focus of someone who’s usually oblivious is actually pretty unnerving.
-Finally, the most common affliction: searing, blinding desperation. There’s a big, inviting grassy area between being a schmuck and being an Alpha Jerk, and it’s called “self-confidence.” It’s nice for picnics! Seriously, if there’s any one thing that’s universally attractive to men, women and intersexed individuals of any and all types, it’s confidence. People like people who like being the people they are. The sort of guys who worry about being “too nice” don’t want to be who they are. They want to be Someone’s Boyfriend, as if that will solve all their personal problems. That’s as off-putting as real, true niceness is attractive.
Ah, the ever-present problem of ‘Nice Guys.’ It plagues the population as a whole and feminists because the typical reaction is ‘but this just proves you’re a man-hating feminist!’ Ah, the things that anti-feminists describe as ‘manly’. Rape, sexual harassment, spousal abuse. I mean, you’d think they’d have a higher estimation of the men they revere as flawless.
Onto Nice Guy Syndrome. See, maybe the title is misleading at first. The point, though, is, that the men targeted by this concept aren’t actually nice. What happens is, boy likes girl. Girl does not like boy, for whatever reason. Girl chooses other boy who turns out to be, in Nice Guy’s opinion, a jerk.
Nice Guy then says any of these things.
She has ‘issues’. That’s why she chose him.
This one is problematic because of the stigma of ‘issues.’ The crazy, overemotional woman is so whenever she’s upset and the man doesn’t particularly want to deal with it so he says something along the lines of ‘take a chill pill’ or the newly popular ‘calm your tits’ or even ‘chill out slut’. Case in point, chill. Your needs aren’t important, nor are your opinions. If you are upset about something you’re being emotional.
I’m not upset about it, the calm, rational man who always knows best, so clearly you’re just over-reacting.
Any girl who goes for the jerks is not worth your time. Move onto someone worth it.
Oh, good. This just strikes me as funny. ‘You’re worthless! Now, why won’t you go out with me?’ The important thing to note here is the single distinguishing factor of a ‘jerk.’ Not necessarily that he actually is a jerk to the woman, but that Nice Guy does not like the guy. Evidence of jerk-hood does not have to be given.
He is a jerk because he took the woman from the Nice Guy even if the woman never claimed to like Nice Guy.
But I offered you advice on boys! I let you cry on my shoulder at every break up! I loaned you my pencil in Math class! I was nice to you! We were friends!
This one is particularly eyebrow-raising because apparently friendship=relationship and sex/relationship is owed the moment one becomes friends.
But I asked you out five times and you said no each time! See, clearly you’re the jerk!
This image does a particularly good job of illustrating the ‘but I asked you out!’ argument. Apparently if a guy likes us, we are obligated to, optimally, like him back. If we don’t like him, we must give good reasons. We simply cannot say no. If we simply say no, it is not enough and we are just playing hard to get. And must be pursued, even a bit creepily, like this fellow here. This plays into rape culture quite nicely as when a woman says no, it is not important to listen.
Ah, it’s no big deal. She’s a whore anyway. I’m better off without her.
First it’s important to note that for a girl to be branded a ‘slut’ or a ‘whore’ it is not necessary to sleep with someone. This is true even for the good youth group girls who parade their ‘Virgin is not a dirty word’ t-shirts around high school hallways and wear their abstinence rings everywhere. Amazingly, these slurs have absolutely nothing to do with sexual habits. All that is necessary is for someone to deem you mean. I remember the first time I was called a whore. I don’t remember why. I think I was standing up to the cheerleader for being rude or something.
I remember turning around, never having kissed a boy, and pointing out the logical fallacy. I also remember being laughed at. Silly, it’s got nothing to do with your sexual habits. You can be a whore if -
- someone doesn’t like you for any reason whatsoever
- you date someone that someone else doesn’t like
- you turn down the ‘Nice Guy’
- you have big breasts.
- Any other reason.
Well, I have to have some standards.
I’ve heard this one plenty of times and have come to see it as a defining hallmark of the Nice Guy. I’ve been told, times-aplenty, that I’m undateable because I’m fat (BAHAAHAHAHAHA). I’ve heard guys say that they don’t like dating fat girls because fat is unattractive and unhealthy. I’d just like to say that if you make that statement in this society, wherein every girl takes up too much space, you have absolutely no reason to whine about not having a date. Only skinny girls, right? So that eliminates most of the pool, as most of us, even if NOT fat, think we aren’t at the right size. Also, when guys turn down a fat girl and then turn around and whine endlessly about all the girls being taken by jerks.
What they mean, of course, is ‘all the skinny pretty girls are taken!’ And since, if you SAY something like ‘I only date skinny girls,’ girls just might talk to each other, you shouldn’t be surprised when you, sizeist prick, become undateable to us women. You know, because we have to have some standards, too.
The point behind Nice Guy Syndrome is that the guys aren’t actually nice. They’re misogynist pricks. Under every comment and rant that they make about the women who didn’t choose them is that women don’t really know what’s good for them. That’s why they choose the jerks after all! If they knew what’s good for them, they’d have chosen the Nice Guy, who, as we can see, has a lot of gems to say about the One Who Got Away. Here’s the thing, though.
I’ve heard a LOT of guys, scorn on rejection, talk about these ‘bad girls’ and their deep-seated need to be loved by ‘jerks’. It’s a popular theory, but I have never heard another girl confirm this. ‘I just love to be treated like crap!’ Nope, never heard it. Sorry.
You know why? We don’t like going out with jerks. Sometimes we accidentally choose them, because we’re people who make mistakes. We don’t have some deep desire to be treated like crap. And please don’t offer up evidence like, ‘but girls go back to abusive relationships ALL THE TIME!’ Abuse is complicated, and it’s not a fair example. Also, way to enable the abuse and make it her fault that she’s still trapped in it. Good job.
Here’s the thing, guys. Yes, guys. The ones who think I’m just picking on the lonely guys who can’t get women. If you find yourself saying these things after you’re rejected by a girl, listen real close:
come a little closer.
Got your attention?
YOU’RE NOT ACTUALLY NICE.
You could have been rejected for any reason. Maybe it’s about her. Maybe it’s about you. If you said those things or thought them, it’s probably about you, because it turns out being called worthless sluts who don’t know what’s good for them is NOT romance-central for us. And take the clue, in case you’re writing me off right now as some radical feminist completely out of touch with reality.
Ask some women about this issue. Seeing as how we’d know. Take the hint. If you quit being a misogynistic jerk, maybe she’ll go for you. If she doesn’t, that’s not an excuse to call her a slut or a whore or suggest that she really doesn’t know what’s good for her, or talk about how she has ‘issues’ because oh yay, the thought that women with mental health issues aren’t worthy of your affection is just delightful. See how it’s really just men who make these arguments, and a tiny minority of women with internalized sexism?
See how countless women are cheering YES, YES, YES when we talk about Nice Guy Syndrome? The hint. It has slapped you in the face. Take it.