Dissident Of The Month

The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic, speaking broadly, is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what might be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king’s command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true.

Via Audacious Epigone.

Before clicking the link, can you guess which stout-hearted, free thinker said the above? Was it Galileo? Solzhenitsyn? Perhaps some lesser known Medieval monk? What brave soul grips the sword and presses the shield against the rampaging bloodlust of the stupid, deceitful, witch-burning mob?

Hint: It wasn’t Lena Dunham. Nor Hugo Schwyzer. Nor Rich Lowry. It certainly wasn’t a typical SWPL plucked from the soft ensconcing of SWPLdom.

This one person and a few lonely allies is supposed to fill the Cathedral with fright? You scoff. But it only takes 10% of a population, committed to an idea, to change the course of history. Raise your shield, for your enemies are not as invincible as they seem, even now when they hurl themselves at you tooth, claw… and underbelly.

The Modern Sexual Market In A Picture

Met online? Check.

Beta herbling? Check.

Chubby American woman on the wrong side of 30? Check.

Pretentious SWPL photo? Check.

Rode the cock carousel until age limit was reached? Check.

Two people settling for each other when options have run out? Check.

From this article, a treasure trove of dating tawdriness and romantic bleakness confirming many CH maxims.

I was 30 years old, just out of a long-term relationship and no longer interested in playing the field. It was time to settle down with the right man, get married and start a family. At the urging of several friends (and my worried mother), a strategy was settled upon: I joined Match.com and JDate, a website for Jewish singles.

What followed was a series of bad dates worthy of a romantic comedy: stupid sexual remarks, too much alcohol consumed (by them). A surprising number of men high-fived me, for reasons that remain unclear.

You can read the rest at the link, if you have the stomach for it. Warning: it’s bad. Here’s a taste:

I quickly realized that the popular women seemed to know something I didn’t; they were clearly attracting the sort of smart, attractive professionals who had been ignoring my profile. Being hypercompetitive, I wasn’t about to let some bubblegum-popping blonde steal the neurotic Jewish doctor of my mother’s dreams.

Here’s some advice, ladies, straight from the lords of the Chateau, and you don’t even have to reverse engineer online dating by making dummy JDate profiles and Excel spreadsheets to benefit from this advice:

1. Don’t get fat.

2. Don’t be ugly.

3. Don’t act like a man or a bitter feminist.

3. Don’t wait until you’re over 30, rode hard and tossed away wet, to start looking for a serious partner worthy of marrying.

See how simple that is? 1,2,3,4. Voila, love! But I suppose the simplicity is the problem for you girls. There’s no way to hamsterize the advice into something palatable to your egos.

PS As a bonus, here’s some CH advice for the men:

1. Don’t be a beta.

2. Don’t act like a woman or a manboob.

3. Learn game, bust a move and date the women you really desire before you’re forced to settle for the above.

Yours in Yahweh,

CH

Boring Women

A reader asks,

What advice would you give when one finds himself on a first date with a fuckable woman (7ish) who is incredibly boring? Boring in the sense she has little to say, and only responds passively to a variety of stimuli. I had two such dates three days apart and found myself starting to beta-ize myself (still somewhat new) to establish some connection and procure what I was after (finishing 1 for 2, though the 1 was not what dreams are made of). I know this is not the answer.

To be fair, I am not particularly funny, but I am a psychologist and skilled at opening (which can work for and against me as the frame is set).

Is she acting bored, or is she genuinely boring? The distinction is important. Exciting women can be brought to bored lows in the company of boring men. A woman who passively responds to stimuli could have in her possession such a wealth of experience with men that it takes a lot to get her invested in any one particular date. (This is a problem if you date sluts.) If that’s happening, the problem is fixed by challenging those women. You can spark a girl right up by teasing her, or by doing something unpredictable.

If the girl is actually a boring person, then two possibilities about her person come to mind: one, she’s not very bright (stupid girls don’t often have interesting things to say, nor are they adept at moving conversations along) or two, she’s introverted, and would have a lot to say if you know how to motivate her to open up.

Men typically repsond to boring (and bored) women by trying extra hard to perk them up. This is the beta male strategy, and it almost always fails, (at least on the timelines we’re interested in), because VALUE is lost when it looks like you have to work to entertain a girl. So we know what you have to avoid: you must avoid the impression that you’re trying to get her to liven up.

If the girl is boring because she’s stupid, go caveman. Dispense with the chit-chat and grab her for the bumpngrind. Dumb girls respond well to primitive courtship displays.

If the girl is boring because she’s shy, you say to her that you know what it’s like, but you have hope for her because you’ve learned from experience that shy girls usually have a lot of interesting things to say once they feel comfortable enough to share it. Tell her to take her time blossoming like a flower, because once the floodgates open you don’t want to drown in it all at once. You refer the slow pour.

If the girl is bored because you’re too beta for her, well… read the archives. Time to amp up the teasing, cocky/funny, mild insults, venue bouncing, agreement and amplification, etc etc. Draw situational women into your orbit to build jealousy plot lines. Flirt with the waitress in full view of your date.

If the girl is boring because she has nothing to say (regardless of her level of smarts), you need to improve your rapport game. Start by learning the “love test routine” and get this chick glowing with girly excitement!

Bonus pointer: Refrain from calling out a girl for being boring. This tactic hardly ever works when you’re already on a date with her. IF you do want to hit her with that, try to dress it up as a backhanded compliment, eg: “It’s so nice to be with a girl for once who is Ok with just sitting next to you quietly and not feeling like she has to say something amazing every five seconds.” That’ll get her hamster spinning furiously.

The Mind Of The Manboob: Hugo Schwyzer Case Study

What deranged psychology motivates the defecatory self-flagellating of masculinity-hating manboobs like Hugo Schwyzer? At first glance, they seem broken souls driven to assume guilt for imagined evils committed by the group to which they ostensibly belong. They side with freaks who hate their kind. They mouth empty-headed platitudes and brazen lies with such alacrity one wonders if they can any longer distinguish reality from fantasy. They relish the whip coming down on their backs and the backs of those remotely like them with sick masochistic zeal.

Hugo Schwyzer is a cartoonish copypaste of the manboob archetype. He’s such a vile and transparent emissary for the reject crowd, that you really have to wonder if it’s all an act. I imagine there are at least a few sufficiently brain damaged co-eds who lap up his runny shit to make it all worth it. I bet he’s still leveraging his prof power dynamic to score illicit tail on the down low. It would explain his behavioral similarity to closeted gays who rail against homosexuality.

Or maybe he’s a True Believer. If that’s so, he’s an even bigger pud than I peg him for. At least one can understand, if not condone, a fraudulent shucking and jiving act to off-pitch feminist tunes in order to dupe dumbo conformist leftoids still in the bloom of youth to give up the goods. But a guy who dances like this with his junk tucked between his legs because he actually enjoys two-stepping like a spaz eunuch? It beggars comprehension.

So we must delve deep into the neural swamp of the self-annihilator, on a journey of adventure to darkest manboobery, to examine up close the stunted, sniveling, fetal id crouched like Gollum at the center of their twisted psyches. For to understand one’s enemies is to hone the precision of one’s ridicule aimed at them. You can plunge the soulshiv into the outer folds of the prefrontal all day long, but the delusional crackpot will merely incorporate legions of á la main ego-assuaging dendrites to rapidly bridge the wound in response. The killing blow comes at last when you have located Smaug’s lone, unjeweled breastplate — revealing an open pathway to the core leprotic force animating the multitude of ego layers — and held the gom jabbar wickedly, tantalizingly, against the defenseless, quivering, pustular infant monster within. Only then, will you have hit the mother of all nerves.

Chuck, over at GLPiggy, offers a diagnosis of Schwyzer’s underlying manboob illness.

Hugo Schwyzer’s latest piece is typical.  What you first have to understand about anything that Schwyzer writes is that he’s attempting to alleviate his own guilt by painting every transgression of white men against others as a systemic issue in which we are all complicit.

Schwyzer has done a lot of screwy things in his life so he believes that it is now his job to throw all other white men under the bus.  He avoids trying to deal empathically with white men by harping on “white male privilege”.

Guilt alleviation. The one emotional compulsion, above all others, that appears to guide and channel the self-annihilator’s moral preening, if not his moral compass. Schwyzer has had, as he has himself admitted, a number of “improper” affairs with his female students — affairs of the sort that would send the typical self-identifying feminist into a tailspin of scattershot histrionics about the “white male power structure” if done by any man other than a mewling manboob who effusively apologizes for his pleasure as penitence to his femcunt overladies. But Schwyzer retains just enough charm and traitorous gusto to keep his erstwhile feminist foes safely within his orbit of self-congratulatory sympathy.

But does Schwyzer really feel guilt for his naughty sexcapades? I’ve known quite a few womanizers in my life, and one thing I can say about them is that none were genuinely guilt-ridden over their scores of intimacies. None felt any pressing need to convince the world that their peripatetic love, or the behavior of men who do the same, was exploitative badness. They are healthy men at peace with their natural, masculine desire. Sure, they may occasionally pretend to introspection when in the company of finger waggers or glaring wives, but one could tell that was all for show. There was enough wink wink, nudge nudge to remind of their sanity.

So, no, I don’t believe that Hugs Shyster feels guilt, real guilt, for his past (and probably present). Most self-annhilating whites (and it is mostly whites who suffer from the appalling condition) don’t act out of guilt; they act out of a crass, surging impulse to step on their closest co-ethnic competitors in order to lift themselves up. Narcissism of small differences, and all that. They are, before all else, status whores, even if they don’t realize it themselves. And the status points that count will change depending on the context one finds oneself, or the context in which one deliberately inserts oneself. In Schwyzer’s case, he has been, and is, surrounded on all sides by clucking man-haters, women who loathe male desire in all its permutations save the one which can be wholly choreographed by feminist puppeteering.

The irony of it all is that Schwyzer has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to apologize or repent for, whether to himself or to others. His leverage of his occupation’s high social status and situational dominance to seduce young women by giving them what they want is no less part and parcel of the natural evolved order of romantic interlude than the woman who keeps herself trim and dresses sexily to capture the appreciation of the high value men she desires. You can argue that Schwyzer imprudently crossed an ethical line peculiar to academia, but what you can’t argue is that he acted immorally, strangely, misogynistically, or with patriarchal hate in his heart toward those women who welcomed his wooing.

But if suppressed guilt is the real motivation (and I concede that the possibility exists in the most egregious cases of manboobery, such as that evidenced by Schwyzer), then Chuck is right to identify the mechanism as an ego-salving one which attempts to shirk the blame off to an entire group as indicative of a “systemic issue” instead of manfully accepting sole blame for one’s individual failings (as one sees them). But the full-blown narcissist will have nothing to do with taking responsiblity for his actions when a whole world of patriarchal privilege and cultural constructivism is out there which will take the blame for him.

A second theory of manboob mind is that the proselytizing self-annihilator (and by extension, group-annihilator) suffers from a case of pathological altruism. Pathological altruism is likely an acute manifestation of biologically inherited leftoidism. While there is no proof to date that political bias is genetic in origin, evidence is mounting in favor of the hypothesis. Pathological altruism is a mental illness that possesses psychological dimensions not unlike Stockholm Syndrome, which compels the afflicted to heal the world’s hurt, and to demand inclusion for the world’s monsters and failures, no matter what cost to oneself (or, more likely, to one’s taxpaying compatriots). It is liberal universalist perfectionism run amok, and it eventually devolves, as it must, to subverting normality and truth and beauty and to sanctifying deviancy and lies and ugliness. (And genocide, if you look at the historical record.)

The motivation of those who hold themselves Messiahs to the Monsters can often be murky to the untrained eye, but the motivation of those who are actual monsters is clearer. The designs of the latter to institute not just the social acceptance, but the social desirability, of degenerates and degeneracy stems from a survival instinct. To be cast to the metaphorical icy wastelands is metadeath, and in the ancestral state of nature the casting out would have meant real death. But what to make of monster apologists like Hugo Schwyzer who, superficially at least, don’t immediately provoke disgust in people? What motivates them? If the pathological altruist theory of manboobery is correct, then “normals” who suffer from it are motivated by the warm, dopaminergic good feelings they receive from “fighting oppressors” and “lifting the oppressed”. It’s a savior complex that earns brownie points the more self-indicting its message. This is similar in function to how the handicap principle operates.

Which leads to the third theory of manboobery: subversive status whoring.

Ultimately, if evolutionary biologists are correct, pathological altruism (PA) will subordinate to the genetic imperative for status accrual, for all human traits are merely more or less successful evolutionary experiments cobbled together under ecological pressures to maximize survival and reproduction. PA might have been socially adaptive in small hunter-gatherer tribes, but in the modern context of atomized city dwelling that pushes millions of humans shoulder to shoulder, PA becomes more individually adaptive while also becoming more societally maladaptive. Now we are right back to the original speculation that manboobs are, in their own bizarre fashion, raising their status within their postmodern milieu via the mechanisms of narcissistic martyrdom and shared blame redistribution to the entire group in which they putatively belong. PA is, in a sense, a sneaky fucker strategy, a cheater’s ploy, which relies for its success on the existence of a strong, commanding overculture to parasitize. Once that culture is gone and the gutter filth are in charge, there is no longer any gain from letting your freak flag, or your freak-enabler flag, fly.

The manboob with PA disorder may sincerely believe in his good intentions, but he is actually a servant carrying out ancient genetically-coded algorithms that will redound to the benefit of his personal social status and, hence, his reproductive fitness. You scoff at “reproductive fitness”, but in fact this tact appears to have worked for Schwyzer, who, if his claims are to be believed, has enjoyed an ample supply of nubile, young, gullible feminist libtard majors.

We come to the fourth theory of manboob mind, and perhaps the most cynical of the theories: That manboobs like Schwyzer don’t believe a word of the crap they brownly vomit; that their bleatings are a minstrel show for the tiny niche of ideological sympathizers who fortuitously happen to be decked in the plumage of alluring boob and ass that all men, even revolting manboobs, want to defile. (Almost) every male endeavor has its female groupies, and manboobery is no exception, (except when the manboob is so physically deformed or dispositionally neutered he cannot even hope for gnarled table scraps left behind by greater manboobs than he).

The feigned male feminist act doesn’t even have to find fruit among its intended audience for it to be a successful mating strategy. Schwyzer could get no play from the Jizzebel crowd, but it won’t matter as long as attractive women closer to his social circle observe the laurels he receives from thousands of anonymously obese feminist skanks thankful for his words which soothe their scorched feelings of self-worth. All he has to do is humblebrag a little, shit on the “right” sorts of men, and sit back as innate female desire for preselected men works its magic. For all we know, Schwyzer may be a stone cold dominating quasi-rapist in bed with women, once he is free to drop the “this is what a feminist looks like” charade. And how much you want to bet the women he fucks — or fucked, I hear he’s married — are slender, height-weight proportionate, facially attractive women on the fertile side of the wall? Lindy West wept.

A corollary to the fourth theory of manboob mind — the theory that manboobery is a cynical ploy to attract niche female attention — is the notion that manboobs deliberately scheme to rearrange the contours of the sexual market so that their types have more access to women. It’s a strategy to clear the field of competitor males. It’s obviously not possible to literally clear the field of other men (unless you imprison them or kill them), but it is possible, through silver-tongued verbal calisthenics, to build insular social contexts that delineate and ostracize outsiders from insiders, and attract women simpatico to one’s message, much like the growth of a religious cult. The key to this mate competition strategy is to execute it with sincere-sounding passion, creating emotional states that coax the girls to be more open to the manboob’s wiles. An actively promoted, pro-femcunt system allows manboobs like Schwyzer to successfully compete with other men, whereas in a sane, anti-feminist, anti-sophist culture he would be at a distinct disadvantage competing against manlier men who eschew the mincing dishonor of passive-aggressive subterfuge.

Finally, we come to the fifth theory of manboob mind, and one I include for purposes of thoroughness rather than insight, as it shares obvious common threads with the previous four theories: Manboobs are simply bigoted against those not like them, which amounts to being bigoted against their betters, and will tirelessly do or say whatever is necessary, no matter how inconsistent or hypocritical, to bring down those they irrationally hate. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why a guy like Hugo Schwyzer would reflexively perceive the majority white male contingent as the Other.

In summary, here are the five primary theories of manboob mind, in no particular order of probability or explanatory power:

1. Guilt complex
2. Pathological altruism
3. Status whoring
4. Mate competition strategy
5. Raw bigotry

These theories don’t have to be distinct entities; they can overlap, and they probably do. A status whoring manboob on the make for chubby feminist love might harbor guilt for some strange perversion he committed in his past. A bigoted hater might also be a pathological altruist who goes livid when the subject turns to inequality, and if you think those two emotional states are contradictory, well you just don’t know the leftoid mind very well. Let’s say internal consistency is not their strong suit.

It wouldn’t be CH if we didn’t punctuate a SERIOUS post with a goofy coda, so to head off those jesters salivating to bombard the comment section with theories they deem to be the most obvious explanations, yes, manboobs like Schwyzer may just be acting out revenge fantasies birthed in the crucible of some punch to the jaw they took by a frat bro when they were striplings making their way through a man’s world. You could call that theory of manboobery, “Punchuated Equilibrium”. Those slights of youth have amazing staying power to warp the adult mind. Hate for normal, healthy men can germinate in such seething soil. You’d not be far from the mark to guess that a lot of the more monstrous manboobs nurse grudges from some rejection they suffered by a girl who never reciprocated their LJBFery in the way the manboobs hoped. But instead of turn against normal women or themselves, they shifted their hate beams to those men the girls liked.

As a theory of manboob mind, I don’t buy this tact. For every skulking manboob with a distant humiliation fueling his misandry, there are a thousand men who suffered similar high school slights who never went the egregious manboob route. Something else, some other psychological misfire, has to gird the ancient grudge, to give the grudge its unusual outsized power. And that is where you have to dig deeper, to the transgendered id, where the murmuring heart of the manboob pumps sewage through his buttplug-shaped cerebellum.

PS Schwyzer and his ilk might just be garden-variety closeted gays, which I know will be the preferred theory of a lot of tradcon types who have a hard time fathoming the queer workings of the manboob mind. But that’s a dismissive assertion that’s hard to subscribe to when there are years of evidence, past and current, that the Hugo manboob under the microscope has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, the sexual company of women. We don’t live in an age where gay men need a parade of beards to function in society.

PPS Feel free to include your theories for the existence of nauseating manboobs in the comments. If there’s a better theory out there than the five presented here, we’d all like to hear it.

Women Prefer Taken Men

Ah women… saintly creatures. The fairer sex. Daddies’ little princesses. And also more likely than men to be homewreckers.

Do women prefer men who are attached?

“Everything was the same across all participants, except whether their ideal mate was already attached or not,” says Burkley.

The most striking result was in the responses of single women. Offered a single man, 59 per cent were interested in pursuing a relationship. But when he was attached, 90 per cent said they were up for the chase.

Men were keenest on pursuing new mates, but weren’t bothered whether their target was already attached or not.

This shouldn’t be news to veteran readers of CH. We of the illuminati already knew, from years toiling in the field, getting our dicks dirty, that women:

1. love to CHASE CHASE CHASE aloof men who aren’t readily available

2. love preselected men other women love, and

3. love the drama that necessarily accompanies stealing a validated man from his girlfriend or wife.

Really, if feminists were smart (asking a lot, I know), they’d realize their worst enemies aren’t laser-guided ego-targeting truth bombers like yours truly, but other women who will claw, scratch and passive-aggressively sabotage their way over the messed tresses of their sexual market competitors. Politically, women may be a united front, but privately they are at each other’s throats. And they attack with their knives sheathed, plausible deniability and rationalizing hamsters their greatest allies in this total war of gene delivery vessels, which makes them all the more potent adversaries.

The Manjaw-ification Of American Women: Science!

CH has been at the forefront of noting a trend among Western, particularly American, women toward masculinization. This “manning up” by secularized post-industrial women is prominent in both their physical features (fatter, manjaw-ier, bigger framed) and their personalities (bitchier, more entitled, less fecund, more prone to binge drinking). A theory was put forward that the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse, among other downstream effects they have caused, have pushed women away from their essential femininity, via exact mechanisms poorly understood as yet.

Genetic alteration does not seem a likely candidate, because it is mathematically impossible for alleles coding for manlier women to sweep through a large population in a couple of generations, unless some cataclysmic event were to wipe out the majority of people. Adaptation to cultural stimuli is likelier, though that leaves us wondering how it is culture can physically change the shape of women’s jaws to resemble Christmas nutcrackers. Some sort of biological insult, like a toxin or estrogen in the water or BPAs or high fructose fattening syrup, could be the culprit. Or maybe it’s an epigenetic phenomena — the response by protein-coding enzymes to environmental stressors, such as that of becoming financially self-sufficient, being surrounded by supplicating beta males, and riding the alpha cock carousel until closing time.

Some of you naturally will ask, “But are your personal suspicions supported by the evidence? Are American women really getting more masculine?” A fair question! And for that, we may turn to… science! (She pleasured me with science… ) A reader writes:

As you noted in one of your posts there seems to be a manjaw-ification of women. However, actual evidence, besides anecdotal, has not been found, yet.

This TED Talk by Amy Cudy, an associate professor at Harvard University, put me on track of possibly starting to find this evidence.

http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are.html

In this talk she presents the ideas from one of her published articles (Carney, Cudy & Yap, 2010) in which she tested the idea of power posing influencing behavioural outcome. The authors not only wanted to show that indeed assuming a specific pose gives rise to a stronger or weaker feeling of power, but they went one step further to actually measure testosterone and cortisol levels in the test subjects. Here is where it gets interesting!

Power posing did positively relate to the feelings of the test subjects and they showed that strong power poses increases the level of testosterone and decreases the level of cortisol, and weak power poses decrease the level of testosterone and increases the level of cortisol in both men and women. From this they conclude that the body can influence the mind through the endrocrine system, as testosterone is linked to power and cortisol to stress. (Before it was only believed, as we know in the community, that assumed psychological frames can create new beliefs and behaviours, eg. faking confidence breeds confidence.)

This got me thinking about the effect of these changes in levels of testosterone in children. One would assume that growing up as a powerful young Man the testosterone level is boosted due to physical behaviour resulting in an Alpha male. But the reverse would also be true. By being controlled/shamed/pussyfied young men will experience a decrease in testosterone resulting in a Beta or worse.

Now if one would apply this logic to young women, as Cudy allows because effects were the same in both male and female test subjects, we can conclude that putting young women in physicaly powerful situations/behaviours it would increase their testosterone levels and vice versa.

One of the goals or outcomes of feminism is that young women are learned to behave and act like men. By displaying this more powerful physical behaviour, following the earlier logic, they will exhibit increased testosterone levels and thus develop more mannish features, like manjaws. Also, by keeping young boys on a leash and not allowing them to physically explore their masculinity their testosterone levels are stunted, resulting in more feminine features. Ultimately leading to a more androgynous society.

One of the criticisms could be that these changes are quite small, but hormonal levels only need a very small change to have large effects, especially in children and over a long time.

By pointing you towards this article I hope to help solve the mystery on why women are turning into men and men into women on a physical level, causing some of the problems that we are seeing as the redpill community.

“Power posing influencing behavioural outcome.” Now where have I come across that idea before? Hmm….. lemme think…. oh yeah!
YET AGAIN, science proves a core game concept. How about that? ♥♥♥♥♥♥

This reader’s inference — that the social expectations of feminism and the accumulated effect of grrlpower SWPL parents who push their daughters in the same direction as their sons induces physical as well as behavioral changes in girls and boys through hormonal mechanisms that tend toward androgynizing the population — deserves serious investigation. It’s time to pull out the calipers and assays and begin measuring the geometry of jaws and testosterone levels in Western women by generation and over lifetimes. If it is true that power posing influences not just behavioral but physical outcome, then we can boldly assert that

FEMINISM MAKES WOMEN MANLIER.

And that, my friends, will finally and once and for all, kill the rancid ideology deader than dead, because no woman in her right mind wants to be manlier. This bizarre epoch will come to be seen as a time when women were led so far astray that they became, socially and biologically, men. And men, for their part, became manboobs.

No One Is Entitled To Commitment

No One is Entitled to Commitment: Why We Should Mock the Great Girls of OkCupid

“I don’t really have a lot of sincere girl friends, nor boyfriends. Most men say I am great, but then don’t call back.”

Those are the words of a solemn, Skrillex-sporting young chick in her dating profile, a profile that recently became the first post of 2013 on Great Girls of OkCupid. GGOKC, Kerry Id-Baker wrote, serves up “a roster of self-proclaimed ‘great girls’ who are actually total sluts;” in quotes culled from each woman’s profile there are familiar laments about being “too intimidating,” getting stuck in the “fuckbuddyzone.” There are also expressions of sheer rage and man-hating threats of violence: “all I want you to do is Lorena Bobbitt yourself, so you know what it’s like to live without penis privilege.”

Great Girls of OkCupid is a “dispiriting catalogue of desperation and man-hating entitlement,” writes Larry Penii for the New Statesman. Pathetic and infuriating in turns, the profiles selected for inclusion elicit gasps and manly chortles – and they raise questions as well. Is it right to mock these aggrieved and clueless young women, particularly the ones who seem less enraged than sad and bewildered at their utter lack of committed romantic success?

“This is the ugly bullying of those who already feel like losers,” says Arnie Fagg, a columnist for the Guardian who writes frequently about femininity. “It’s immoral to place them in the 21st Century equivalent of the medieval stocks to be mocked, abused and humiliated.” In an email, Fagg suggested that GGOKC could be “potentially dangerous,” driving those who are at a “low ebb emotionally” over an edge, from where mainstream feminists like Amanda Marcotte and Hugo Shyster have already leapt.

Without entirely dismissing Fagg’s concern that some young women’s rage or despair could be worsened as a result of GGOKC, there’s a lot more to the site than mockery. What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the lovelorn malcontent; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of female romantic entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young women who were told that if they were great, then, as Larry Penii puts it, they feel that men “must be obliged to commit to them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young women feel cheated and used. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to men’s resources and long-term commitment in exchange for rote expressions of sexuality, these girls have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Romance Fairy. And while they’re still hopeful enough to put up a dating profile in the first place, the Great Girls sabotage their chances of ever getting a husband with their inability to conceal their own aggrieved self-righteousness.

Great Girls of OkCupid provides an excellent opportunity to reiterate a basic truth: there is no right to romantic commitment. (Except, of course, with one’s own self.) Generations of children have misunderstood Thomas Jefferson’s line that we have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. I was one such kid; when I learned those words in fourth grade (in 1976, the bicentennial year), I marched home and told my mother that I was owed joy. Mama firmly set me straight on the distinction between the right to want and the right to be given, and I have taken this lesson in rehashing cliches to heart ever since. Great Girls need a similar sort of come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse them, once and for all, of their insistence that in a just and democratic society, charming, reliable penis ought to be distributed equally to every Tara, Haley, and Deb who demonstrates a minimal level of sexiness. (And then I need a come-to-Jesus talk to disabuse myself of the notion that switching the places of Dick and Harry in the well-worn Tom, Dick, and Harry phrase is the height of creative writing.)

Romance with other people may be a basic human need, but unlike other needs, it can’t be a basic human right. It’s one thing to believe that the state ought to provide food, shelter, and health care to those who can’t afford these necessities of survival. It’s another thing to say that the state should ensure that even the hideous and the clueless have occasional relationships provided for them by others. While in Britain, a few local governments have sent aging and cranky women on trips to LA to see romance workers, aka gigolos, citing psychological need, not even the most progressive Europeans have suggested that anyone is entitled to have their romantic longings reciprocated. GGOKC reminds us just how many young women are outraged at this reality that pretty faces, femininity, and commitment-worthiness are not and never can be equally distributed.

Arnie Fagg and others suggest that it’s “immoral” to make fun of young women whose greatest crime seems to be that they’re stuck at the sad intersection of Not Hot and Dimwit. The plea to replace mockery with understanding is a familiar one; it’s what lies behind the calls to stop using the word “slut,” because women find it shaming. But in the case of Great Girls of OkCupid, disdain isn’t rooted in meanness as much as it is in self-preservation. While only a small percentage of these girls may be prone to imminent psychosis, virtually all of them insist, in one way or another, that men owe them. Mockery, in this instance, isn’t so much about being cruel as it is about publicly rejecting the Great Girls’ sense of entitlement to both relationship commitment and sympathy.

Besides the near-universal sense that they’ve been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Great Girls is their contempt for men’s sexual interest. They rage about being “pump and dumped,” and complain about the hours spent fucking men without being given so much as a candlelit dinner in return for their investment. Sexuality, they make clear over and over again, is a mere tactic, a tool that they were promised would work to give them access to men’s economic and emotional resources. Their anger, in other words, is that their own deception didn’t work as they had hoped. It’s a monumental overask (?) to expect men to be gentle with the egos of women who only feigned noncommittal sexuality in order to get commitment.

So how should we respond, when, as Penii writes, “sexist twatwaddery puts photos on the internet and asks to be loved long time?” The short answer is that a lonely twatwad is still a twatwad; the fact that these girls are in genuine pain makes them more rather than less likely to mistreat the men they encounter. A rage rooted in anguish is no less dangerous because it comes from the Great Big Sad Place. For that reason alone, we shouldn’t make women’s pain into men’s problem to solve.

Do these women need dating profile makeovers? Yes, obviously; making an effort to have both good grooming and good manners is seldom a waste. What the Great Girls of OkCupid need far more than feminist braggadocio, tramp stamp removals and binge drinking rehab, however, are two essential reminders. No one is owed committed love. And no one who uses sex as a strategy for romance has the right to complain if she ends up with neither.

This Chateau Heartiste article reprinted from its original publication outlet.