'Treat Us Human'- (Yeah, whatever.) A Conceptual Trap from the Nice Gals at Heartless-bitches.com
A reader recently wrote me about my Preemptive Strike on heartless-bitches.com.
Xiaoyu writes:
I had read the rebuttal on the whatever flaming bitch from hell site that someone pointed to. I thought long and hard. They seem to make sense. ('Flaming bitch from hell.' Laff! That's not half bad! -- NG)
Oh here it is, http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/ng.html
Well. A lot of it makes sense. However, I think they have overlooked the fact that people do fall in love. Some people are more passionate then others, but that doesn't really make them losers. Everyone does crazy things when they are in love. Being passionate is a good thing.
They also informed me that women don't wanna be seen as sacred, they just wanna be seen as human. I think most of us nice guys are guilty of that.
Yes, she's right- their argument does seem to make sense. And it's also a logical trap to believe in it. Here is why...
My paraphrased response, with some later elaboration:
>They also informed me that women don't wanna be seen as sacred, they just
>wanna be seen as human. I think most of us nice guys are guilty of that.
No, I think it's more accurate to say that 'women' as a bloc don't have a consistent portfolio of wants- and their individual portfolios change on an hourly basis. Half of them want to be bought and pampered like courtesans while secretly dreaming of being in respected positions of authority. The other half want to be in respected positions of authority while secretly dreaming of being bought and pampered like courtesans. (That's over-generalizing, but you get my point- there is no way in hell of pleasing a woman. She always wants a bigger, better deal. A man might have one goal in life- but a woman might have three, all contradictory.)
Oh, sure- Heartless-bitches say they want men to treat them like they're 'human'- but they also go-on to basically describe everyone who disagrees with them as some sort of retard... they obviously don't view themselves as 'human' because being human means necessarily being *fallible* and being disagreed with! When people choose to deviate from the heartless-bitches self-consistent system of principles, they're 'losers', 'cry-babies', 'retards', whatever. They clearly choose to deny their own flaws while insisting that everyone else on the planet has personal issues. They lack the art of introspection, and as a result they don't see themselves as fully, horribly, human, do they? Heh, how can we be expected to treat them as human when they view themselves as right 100% of the time? For all their self-styled insight and brilliance about everything, they just don't get it. And they will never get it without discarding their shoulder-chips!
Yes, their arguments look consistent… but that's because they are all "self-consistent
arguments". What do I mean by this? Well, it's simple: every deluded religion
and lunatic ideology is based on self-consistent arguments. Here is an example
of a self-consistent argument: 1: Earth was created by little green aliens from
Dimension X. 2: Little green aliens from Dimension X are invisible to us mere
mortals. 3: If you can't prove to me that little green aliens from Dimension X
don't exist, I've got to be right about them.
See? The logic of point 3 seems
to flow gracefully from the preceding points, but it's obviously based on crap!
Many of my arguments rely on outside facts and statistics or concrete personal
experiences. When I say 'women suck', I'm actually prepared to back-up that statement
with some form of logic and facts. All they have are deconstructive insults pretending
to be facts within a self-consistent framework that happens to be dressed-up and
entertaining for people to read. Theirs is an enterprise which runs on the bile
of readers who are rather peculiarly over-proud of their own readiness to fling
poo.
This, they would smirk with pride, is 'irony' or 'satire' or 'sarcasm'.
But contrary to what they'd smugly retort however, thinking people would tend
to agree it's actually not irony or sarcasm or satire. Nor is it even a
sign of being remotely adult. Where is the irony in celebrating one's own pig-headedness?
What is ironic about celebrating one's inability to respect others? Loudly acclaiming
one's own dysfunctional personality and using it as an excuse to attack others
is NOT ironic or sarcastic or satirical- it is actually indicative of a rather
toxically pathological level of intolerance and boorishness. The only laughter
it would generate would have to stem from a sick sense of contempt; a sense that
this contempt is what makes them stand above everybody else.
'I'm a bitch'
gives a woman the license to lash-out with her most abusive and vicious tendencies-
much in the same way that 'I'm a kid' justifies a 6-year old in hurling her dolls
around the room every time she throws a temper-tantrum. Frantic in their search
for a cheap 'n easy model of empowerment, these chicks have seized upon 'I'm a
bitch' as their liberator and savior. Their simple solution to anything and everything
they face in life: fuck-over everyone who isn't me. This isn't 'irony'
or 'satire' or even a sign of intelligence-- it's thinking strictly in
lowest-common denominators. An HB is obtuse enough to think that being authoritative
and being authoritarian are the same thing. That being respectible is the same
thing as being an intimidator. Oh, those might FEEL like one and the same, but
they are not. If it's too challenging to grasp the complexities of the world,
then an HB uses crude shit-headedness and labels it 'making my own rules' or 'I
do what I want' or some other pithy, macho-sounding, self-affirming twaddle. She
makes a frenzied dash to verbal-abuse and convinces herself it is because of her
superior wit and firey forcefulness. But, most tellingly, once a woman embraces
'I'm a bitch', she becomes less-able to draw a distinction between 'authoritative,
strong behavior' and 'sociopathic, nut-house behavior'. Of course, it's useless
to suggest this to the hyperventilating HB-- balanced introspection of any type
is cocksuckery; the sport of jerk-offs and lamers. Indeed, the only discernable
irony on their site is that they bandy-around their childish outbursts to prove
their own superior nature- and then go-on to claim that everybody else
needs to grow-up.
If you ever need to feel superior, just fuck-over everyone around you. Furthermore, you're never wrong about anything you say or do. If you actually think like that, then you are sadly in need of being educated on the fundamental points of how to join the ranks of adult human beings. Speaking of which...
'Treat us as human' is a fine catch-phrase they can use to disrupt
any male adherence to generally-agreed-upon standards of polite behavior or morality...
But it is a logical trap to believe it.
They never exactly explain what they
mean by 'treat us human', and they probably never will. They certainly don't mean
'treat us like women', they don't mean 'treat us like men' either.
If we treat them like women, it's 'patronizing' and 'condescending'- so they don't want to
be treated as women. Heh, but if we treated them like men, they'd run the risk
of having their faces severely rearranged- a man couldn't behave like they do
without getting his jaw smashed. Furthermore, if we treated them like men they'd
probably kill themselves after 10 minutes. No way do they want to leave the trademark
perks of the exclusively-female safety zone such as unquestioned moral superiority
and total righteousness about pretty much everything-- and multiple taboos against
beating the crap out of them. No no no, they demand to be treated yet differently.
What 'Treat us human' means is for us to treat them in some kind of vague, separate,
'human'-labeled category that only THEY can define! *Snort*, oh please!
This goes directly back to the idea of women having a selective interpretation
of the English language whereby 'bastard', 'sexism' and 'chauvinist' can only
be applied to one gender. 'Human' means something other than 'man' or 'woman',
obviously. Tell me: what is a human if neither man nor woman? Not even
they are prepared to tell us without listing a bunch of subjective things
that only they can say they're not getting enough of!
When they say 'treat us human', it is agitprop doublespeak. What they really mean is "treat us however we demand to be treated- whatever the hell it might be at that particular instant in time. Only WE can dictate how that might be. *You* have to be the one to figure it all out because if you don't know how to treat us, we certainly won't tell you." Like the entire set-up of their site, the 'treat us human' shibboleth is actually one big, fat self-serving ruse. A nice little deceptive Möbius-strip of fraud they've got- and anybody else is always to blame for whatever happens.
At this point, I think we can all rest-assured: like most female logic, what heartless-bitches say is pure garbage and reflects more who they are rather then who we are. Thinking-up clever insults is not a sign of a sophisticated mind, it is a sign of callowness and intellectual bankruptcy. Desublimated as they are, such high-strung chicks reveal to us more about themselves than any self-respecting person really wants to know. (And, most of all, you shouldn't take their hot-air too seriously or you're a loser for doing that...)
Just remember: despite their assurances to the contrary, there is no pleasing them. It's their hobby to be pissy all day long, for crying out loud. Thanks for writing. -- NG.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...the criminality of women is largely masked criminality." -- Otto Pollak.
Return to NiceGuy's American Women Suck