Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Vox Day: Women just bitch about objectification for attention

| »
Dr. Tara C. Smith
Dr. Tara C. Smith

So, a few weeks ago, I commented on a blog post by Vox Day wherein he spewed his typically sexist spiel over Aetiology’s Dr. Tara Smith complaining when she had the very possibility of her being a good scientist be casually dismissed because of her looks. Rather than address any of Dr. Smith’s points, Vox rather chose to declare that she was really just bitching about it to get attention, because that’s all those silly vain females want, anyway. It was apparently inconceivable to him that she might actually have been irked at being objectified.

Well, guess who’s back?

The godless gamma

I know many alphas and even recovering deltas working on their Game find it impossible to comprehend the full depth of cluelessness about women possessed by the average gamma. But I doubt it will surprise anyone that a self-described "liberal skeptic, rationalist and atheist" who entertains "a passion for science" doesn't grasp the very first thing about women.

Yes, because when a woman is irritated at some dolt dismissing any possibility of her having a career other than being a Hollywood pin-up babe on the sole basis of her aesthetics, she’s obviously just flattered. And hiding it. Underneath her venting. For some reason.

Vox must be just incredibly in-tune with the female mind, because that makes absolutely no sense to me.

I have absolutely no doubt it doesn't. Because like most gammas, the poor lad thinks that women essentially think like men, except of course for their greater purity of character. He simply cannot fathom that women view everything through the perspective of their own sexual market value.

Did we fall into a Möbius strip of argumentation, here? Vox, who apparently believes he knows what other people think better than they do, asserts that women who bitch about being reduced to eye candy simply do so in order to garner more attention, because they’re all just desperate for flattery and acceptance by their male sexual superiors. I, drawing from my perspective as a non-male supremacist, rejoin that women are not actually as grotesquely superficial as his distorted views make them out to be. Vox then restates that, well, yes, they are. (“So, there,” basically.) What next? Should I merely reiterate that he’s got his head locked up his proudly masculine ass?

There isn’t really much left to say at this point. Firstly, his accusation of my being a “gamma” would probably be quite trenchant if only the whole idea of “Game” weren’t so facially ridiculous*. Secondly, if Vox truly is incapable of recognizing that a woman who rants about being taken for a talentless bimbo based solely on her bodily aesthetics might not actually be feeling all warm and fuzzy inside at the thought, then he really is naught but a hopeless cause at this point.

* I understand the sense behind the general idea of “Game”; strangely enough, women do tend to act more favorably towards men who don’t crowd them whilst reeking of desperation. (It’s the primary cause behind the amusingly ironic phenomenon of gay men being hit on by straight women, something that I’ve seen more than a few straight males lament about.) But “Game” takes the idea to a whole other level of outright dickishness, acting as a tool to promote the skeevy practices of pick-up artists, to the point where any sensible and confident woman would and should simply dismiss the cad out-of-hand.