"Too terrible to even be funny" should be The Motte's official tagline.
>Before the modern era, people did not spend much time alone. This applied to men and women as well.
I get the feeling that there exists only four time period-places (all Western) in reactionary minds-- Roman/Greek era (noble, but gay), Dark/medieval ages (bad because church but maybe good because hierarchy and some notion of family values?), Victorian-to-post-WWII (obviously superior, women & minorities knew their place) and *these days.*
I twinge when I hear people lament about "these days" or "the modern era," like people in the past weren't the same kind of dumbshits as today, except without an internet connection, worse living standards, and most of all, widely-accepted discrimination.
> Before the modern era, people did not spend much time alone. This applied to men and women as well.
All of human history before, say, the year 2000 or so was basically just endless wall-to-wall rape but uh sure. Chaperones!
> When you blame women who are victims of sexual assault, they get angry because you're taking them away from their precious chads
I literally cannot parse this. How does blaming women for being victims of sexual assist take them away from anyone? Why would they want to stay with the Chads?
I understand all of those words but that sentence makes no sense!
Edit: I read the post and your summary is accurate and yet, so is my response.
Apparently I speak fluent incel, so let me explain. Part of the incel/rightwing mindset is the idea that the Chad/Alpha can get away with anything, where the Incel/Beta would get accused of rape for giving a Stacy/Female a handshake, the Chad/Alpha can get away with fucking the whole [no incel equivalent]/cock carousel.
So I think this means that if you tell women the reason they get raped is their own fault for drinking/dressing in anything sexier than a burlap sack/going out without a chaperone, the women are afraid they can no longer be fucked by Chad/Alpha, so you are taking away their sexual power to pick the Chad/Alpha over the Incel/Beta, so they get mad.
You are confused because you miss the core assumption that women are fine being raped by Chad/Alpha men. And by telling women it might be their fault, you are removing their power to pick who they get raped by (In the mind of the incel, a chad can't rape a woman because she wants it from chads, as an example see Trumps grab them by the pussy bs).
Why do women want to be raped by Chad/Alpha men? For their superior genes/seed, social power, money, resources, jawline, penis size, hairline, etc, pick whatever the person explaining this to you is most insecure about (IQ is not allowed as a pick, high IQ makes sex less likely to these people).
... I feel dirty now. Somebody please tell me im wrong... please.
...in other words, women will consent to sex with attractive men, and that's bad?
In a sexual harassment training I had to go to for work, I had to deal with men who are not incels joking about how the real rule is that whether it's harassment or not depends on how attractive the harasser is. I wanted to hit them.
I think what they are saying rather is that women will not complain if an attractive man crosses a boundary (eg aggressive flirting at work, or I guess rape) but would complain if an unattractive man does the same thing.
If you believe that BS, then the rest of the post sort of makes sense.
I think /u/soymeiser misses something about how to characterise this stuff.
What soymeiser describes is an uneasy mix of the social conservative view that women should cover up if they don't want to invite unwanted sexual attention, and the incel/rationalist/evo-psych view that it is natural for women to invite 'allegedly (but not genuinely)' unwanted sexual attention, even if such women then claim that they have a right to walk around town without being hassled in the street.
Both and other unmentioned aspects of the question play a part in its answering, but I think the distinction is important: there are people who would argue the former side and still never do the grab-assing themselves; on the latter side you will have people who will claim the grab-assing is natural but never personally do it (feminists rationalists I have read have done something like this). There's not a vice versa here but you can picture the scenarios.
What makes sense of these diverse opinions, I think, is the notion of selectively assigning autonomy.
I was going to go deeper with that but it'd all be the sort of psychological speculation I abhor, so let it be as it is. Whateverthefuck that could mean.
It was normal for single women to be accompanied by chaperones, which
was a form of supervision and also a tool to prevent false rape
accusations.
Not a tool for controlling their reproductive choices? Not even a
tool for preventing rapes? No, it was those dang false rape
accusations that plagued society until we finally thought to supervise
women.
Look, chaperones naturally evolved out of cavemen days where women used to paint false rape accusations on cave walls. Cave walls obviously were the domain of women, as they are basically vulva shaped. That is why after a certain period in time, there suddenly are no more cave paintings, as the beta chaperones are looking over the women while the chads hunt mammoths.
(/s and utter bullshit obv).
E: more ontopic for the motte person, did this person just forget that population density was not that high in the past?
Similarly, it's not having their accusations listened to that makes them "emotional wrecks", not, you know, being raped and assaulted.
For this guy, what actually happens to women doesn't matter, everything comes down to managing their fragile hamster wheel psyches.
“Things were so much better back when women were controlled,
corralled, and chaperoned by men! Protecting their fragile feminine
psyches from dangerous strangers who might injure their emotions! Now
all these sluts single young women are allowed to live on
their own, and when they inevitably have sex they regret, their
hysterical female mind can only cry out”Rape!” as a response. But of
course when offered the perfectly reasonable suggestion of becoming
demure, homebound, proper ladies again, they refuse, because the call of
the cock carousel is too strong.”
I’d say there is ample evidence that rape accusations without
evidence are currently well regarded. Just look at the Kavanaugh
scandal, for example.
This very common take is so frustrating. There were many witnesses
with relevant evidence. The Senate simply ignored them:
Ms. Ramirez’s legal team gave the F.B.I. a list of at least 25
individuals who may have had corroborating evidence. But the bureau — in
its supplemental background investigation — interviewed none of them,
though we learned many of these potential witnesses tried in vain to
reach the F.B.I. on their own.
I’ve noticed that a lot of conservatives do this. They conflate, “I personally did not believe her” with “she’s obviously been proven to be a liar” and tend to proceed as if everyone already agrees with the latter.
This is gold
This is… too terrible to even be funny?
Not a tool for controlling their reproductive choices? Not even a tool for preventing rapes? No, it was those dang false rape accusations that plagued society until we finally thought to supervise women.
“Things were so much better back when women were controlled, corralled, and chaperoned by men! Protecting their fragile feminine psyches from dangerous strangers who might injure their emotions! Now all these
slutssingle young women are allowed to live on their own, and when they inevitably have sex they regret, their hysterical female mind can only cry out”Rape!” as a response. But of course when offered the perfectly reasonable suggestion of becoming demure, homebound, proper ladies again, they refuse, because the call of the cock carousel is too strong.”/s
One of the comments:
This very common take is so frustrating. There were many witnesses with relevant evidence. The Senate simply ignored them:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-new-york-times.html
I guess the answer to The Gender Question is ubiquitous surveillance?
11 points 3 days ago
Normally /r/sneerclub posts are about highly downvoted posts that represent the absolute worst.
But wtf /r/themotte I was expecting this post to be -20 or so. Not +11!!!