Creepy Guys

Lately, I’ve been thinking about all of the misandry in our modern culture that seems to be so ubiquitous and yet completely accepted and unquestioned. Girl Writes What brings up a lot of excellent points regarding these issues, which is why I thought I would make my first video under this account as a response to her.

Anyway, there are two frequently used words that I feel essentially express misandry, a hatred of men, and I wanted to talk about both of them.

The first of these is the word creepy. Now, if you’re a woman like me, you have probably said this word numerous times and never gave it a second thought, you have probably encountered guys that just seemed off in some regard or that repulsed you on some level and thought of them or even referred to them, at least behind their backs, as being creepy. I know that I have called guys creepy or at least thought of them in that way, without really analyzing why.

Once I took the time to reflect a bit on the kind of guys who get called creepy and the kind who don’t, I decided that I would refrain from thinking of men as creepy and try to assess them on a more conscious level. Ultimately, I realized that being “CREEPY” has more to do with women’s emotional reactions to a man than anything wrong about his character.

Guys get called creepy not because the merit of their character on any kind of objective level. The reason a man is typically called a creep is because certain women find him unattractive, while the supposed creep finds those women attractive. Which is why the term is misandrist by its nature, because it projects danger, aggression, or nefarious motives onto a man for the sole reason of being found unattractive to women.

Some of you may be thinking that there is more to it than that, that creepy guys say scary things, act in weird ways, act in inappropriate ways. Sometimes certain inappropriate behaviors get labelled as creepy, but it usually has more to do with the guy who is saying or doing those things than the actions or words themselves. It you think back on the men you have encountered in you life, you can probably recall men who have been flirtatious or have even acted downright crudely, and because they were attractive or charismatic men, they didn’t seem creepy at all, but rather charming and sexy. You may also recall other men who were called creepy for far more benign behavior because they were socially inept or physically unattractive.

Women simply can’t concede that they find a man unattractive for shallow reasons, reasons which if your examined them, are no more enlightened than a man’s attraction towards big boobs or a shapely butt. So women elevate their own desires into some profound character judgement: they just know that this unsexy guy is really a serial killer, while this handsome charmer must have a heart of gold.

It relegates a man’s character to nothing more than what women think of him, of how pleasing he is to women, which is why the idea of creepiness, at least how it’s usually used, is so derogatory against men.

It also ties into all of the fury that feminists express about men propositioning women and the controversies over women dressing or acting provocatively. I mean, it is no secret to anyone with a bit of common sense that women have many things to gain by acting provocatively, by wearing sexy clothing, by flirting, by making sexual jokes or by making themselves seem available. They can gain not only a potential mate, but gain the positive attention and ego boost that this attention provides. In our modern culture where many taboos against that kind of behavior in women have disappeared, or at least heavily declined, there are fewer drawbacks for women acting in an overtly sexual way. Modern women can have their cake and eat it too.

This is where the “CREEPS” come in. There is one downside of flirtatiousness that has not been eliminated, the fact that a woman making a spectacle of herself in public doesn’t just gain the attention of hot guys, but also of men who she doesn’t find attractive. When an unattractive guy starts to express a romantic interest, that is when he becomes creepy in her eyes. That is when she turns her own shallow desires into a judgement of a man’s character, where she perceives his attraction toward her as creepy, and she interprets his expression of that attraction as hostility.

That is why Rebecca Watson became so offended when she was asked to go on a coffee date. You see, Rebecca Watson gives lectures at skeptics’ conferences. She has acted provocatively at conferences before this one–during one conference, there are pictures of her laughing with dollar bills stuffed down the front of her tank top.

But when a guy asked Rebecca Watson to have coffee with him at a conference, she became outraged. She announced, “it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me.”

She went on to say that she felt “THREATENED” by his advances and warned other men that this is not how you should treat women. If you want to learn more about Rebecca Watson’s hypocrisy, you should check out Thunderfoot’s video that I’ll link below.

So, because this poor guy creeps her out, he obviously must be dangerous, he must have bad intentions. Why is he creepy? Well, because she finds him unattractive. When a sexy guy flirts with her, it isn’t sexual harassment, it is empowering. Go ahead and stuff some more dollar bills down her bra. It is only when the unattractive or socially inept guys don’t behave like eunuchs that it becomes an unsafe space for women.

Now, there’s another word, in addition to creepy, that has become little more than an attack on men in our society. That word is objectification. I will discuss that term in my next video, so stay tuned.

Girl Writes What – http://youtu.be/a9XDb0nxSO4

Thunderf00t – http://youtu.be/cKKQdJR7F_I

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Creepy Guys

  1. “Women simply can’t concede that they find a man unattractive for shallow reasons,”

    Which women are those? Me and my girls also talk about how guys look and what we find hot. Maybe its a generational thing but I’ve never heard a woman make excuses for the shallow attractions. Physical attraction is the first and necessary step to the deeper stuff.

    • That’s interesting, I wonder if it is a generational thing. I live in a college town, and the “creepy” accusation is used ad nauseam.

  2. If someone gets a creepy vibe from someone, male or female, its best to avoid them. Sometimes it turns out those people are child molesters, even rapists.

    Some people just get intuitive feelings about other people and sometimes they are right. Some people are more intuitive than others but intuition can be developed. Of course sometime intuition is wrong too but better safe than sorry.

    • I think the idea you’ve expressed here is very dangerous. What is intuition? It’s just the emotions you have about someone gathered from all the subconscious and unanlyzed biases you hold. “Creepy” is not some inherent trait people have, it’s just a judgment you make about that person. Often your “intuition” tells you someone is creepy because they have few social skills, or because they come from a different economic background, or because they are from a different subculture (“weird” or “creepy” are synonyms for people who are somehow different from you). You should never blindly accept your “gut feeling” about a person’s character, because it means you are not being honest with yourself about the deeper reasons you have drawn those conclusions.

      Science has shown that there is no magic bullet for being able to spot rapists or murderers at first glance. It just doesn’t exist. There’s confirmation bias at work here–99% of the time you rely solely on intuition, little do you know that you are wrong about the person you are judging. But 1% of the time, you find out that a person you judged really was dangerous (or you know someone who experienced that, or you know someone who knows someone who experienced that). So without realizing it, you use that 1% to justify the 99% while thinking that your intuition is very accurate.

      The data also shows us that in most cases, rapists and child molesters are not strangers who strike your intuition as “creepy.” Most rapists and child molesters are trusted friends or family. Often they are pillars of the community. They project a personality that is friendly, wholesome, trustworthy. People feel comfortable having them watch their kids. Women feel comfortable letting them into their houses when they are alone. And you know what? When a person who has blind faith in intuition hears that this charismatic person who did not set off their intuition alarm molested a child or raped a woman, they think, “That can’t be right. My intuition would have told me after all these years if he was that kind of guy. My intuition can’t be wrong…so they must be lying.” That’s why the idea of a magical psychic intuition ability is dangerous. It distorts reality to fit the preconceived conclusions you’ve made based on superficial judgments.

  3. Not buyin’ it. A few guys that I sussed out as “weird” and “creepy” ended up being child molesters. I’ll stick with my creep-radar.
    But your right about some people not picking up on it and allowing them into their homes. The strange behaviour of 1 in particular really rubbed me the wrong way but this couple (with kids) I was living with didn’t even see it. Or they saw it and thought, “ok he’s a bit odd but a nice guy”.
    That’s what I’m sayin’. Some people have a more developed sense.
    And even if some go undetected by most, I’m wiling to bet there’s at least 1 person that crossed their path that thought, “somethin’ ain’t right about that bloke”.

    • So female rapists and pedophiles who don’t look like they’re psychos are outright ignored, because everyone is ultra-guarded at the mere thought of male predators, and not at all at the thought of female predators. Some even think it’s impossible, or “isn’t sexual the same way as male pedophiles”. Before 1986, female perps of pedophilia weren’t even studied.

      In 1985 and 1989, a scientist in gender stuff decided (without proof) that women obviously don’t have “perversions”, and thus “proved” that trans women were only male fetishists fetishizing the very idea of being female and going too far. Because obviously, women don’t have sexual thoughts about their appearance.

      • Did I say I have spot on intuitive insight about every single person I meet? Nope. Its subtle art/science that can be developed and refined further and further. As humans we know we are fallible and wrong about many things also. Regarding pedophiles my intuition was spot on with 2. Maybe I met more and didn’t know it. Maybe I didn’t.
        Don’t rely on me to keep your kids safe. Take responsibility as a parent and you’ll be able to sleep soundly at night. This might mean never allowing your child to spend time alone with any other adult, as well as keeping a watchful eye on your spouse (or baby mama/baby daddy, girlfriend/boyfriend, date, etc if you’re that far gone to bring strange adults into our child’s life in the name of “relaaaaaationships”).

        “In 1985 and 1989, a scientist in gender stuff decided (without proof) that women obviously don’t have “perversions”, and thus “proved” that trans women were only male fetishists fetishizing the very idea of being female and going too far. Because obviously, women don’t have sexual thoughts about their appearance.”

        Don’t know what you mean by “sexual thoughts about one’s own appearance” but trans women are not women. They are men. As far as fetishizing the idea of being female – could be. You’d have to ask them about that.

  4. “Don’t know what you mean by “sexual thoughts about one’s own appearance” but trans women are not women. They are men. As far as fetishizing the idea of being female – could be. You’d have to ask them about that.”

    I’m a trans woman, and I’m a woman, thank you.

    “Don’t know what you mean by “sexual thoughts about one’s own appearance””

    As per his experiment, it would be akin to finding your body sexy. Sounds like something no women would do?

    “As far as fetishizing the idea of being female – could be. You’d have to ask them about that.”

    The experiment guy is named Raymond Blanchard, and he’s known in the scientific gender community as an asshole. He made assumptions about women not being perverted (in fact: biologically unable to have fetishes), which he got out of thin air (no control group whatsoever), just to “prove” that trans women aren’t really women (and of course, he proved no such thing, at best he proved that trans women have a sexuality).

    He’s infamous for being the director of the CAMH’s gender identity branch or whatever they call it (Center for Addiction and Mental Health, previously The Clarke Institute) in Toronto, Ontario. Infamous because he apparently hates the people who go see him, and it shows in how they’re treated. Trans people who have any choice in the matter avoid going there as if it was a gore dentist from a horror movie. It’s possible to find more humane treatment elsewhere, but it’s a crapshoot and possibly not covered by insurance. I’m amazed he’s receiving government funding for his work.

    His friend Kenneth J Zucker directs the same gender thing, but for minors, same place. He’s also infamous for basically being someone with a disguised ex-gay practice for young kids (parents bring them their too-feminine boy to make him “act manly”, and vice-versa for their girls) – as being feminine or masculine has little predictive value on transsexuality (No one would have guessed I was trans as a kid, I was not very masculine, but not really feminine either – and it has zilch to do with why I transitioned or knew I was trans).

    This assumption that women can’t have perversions/fetishes of any kind, ties with the assumption that, since “women don’t want sex” (and never fantasize about it), and they’re obviously unable to be evil, unlike men (crimes women do are always some man somewhere’s fault), they won’t ever be convicted as pedophiles. Double the deification for a mom. Moms can NEVER be evil…

    I’d say the middle ground should be the norm. Not super-guarded like men are accused of pedophilia at the slightest thing and fear being alone with a minor without a videotape to prove their innocence. And not “this won’t ever happen” like society’s attitude towards women and pedophilia. Just a healthy dose of concern.

  5. “I’m a trans woman, and I’m a woman, thank you.”

    Thank me for what? By woman do you mean that you are biologically “female”? Because you are not.

    “Don’t know what you mean by “sexual thoughts about one’s own appearance””

    “As per his experiment, it would be akin to finding your body sexy. Sounds like something no women would do?”

    Doesn’t make any sense and I fail to see the connection with transexualism or what connection he tried to make between that assumption and trans people.

    Children get molested because of irresponsible parents. Period.

    One set of parents in the scenarios that played them out before my eyes allowed their children to be alone with this guy. They were responsible for their children in other areas, except for this one. They also did not believe this guy’s ex wife when she told them that he had molested his own kids. They thought that was an argument she used just to get custody of the kids during their divorce battle.

    Sure, people make things up sometimes. But regardless, would you ever let your kid alone with a person who’s ex-spouse accused them of incest/child molestation?

  6. “Thank me for what? By woman do you mean that you are biologically “female”? Because you are not. ”

    I am, the brain is biological, it’s wired as female, and voila, biologically female. Can’t get more biological than your brain’s very seat of identity structure (an unchangeable part of the brain post-birth – it’s course is set then, and no hormones (presence or lack) or upbringing will change that).

    “Doesn’t make any sense and I fail to see the connection with transexualism or what connection he tried to make between that assumption and trans people.”

    He’s the inventor of the term autogynephilia, the love of oneself’s as a woman. What he calls the unnatural fetish of being aroused at the thought of one’s own female body – something that seems pretty benign in cis women (non-trans women). He only sees it as pathological in people who have been born with a penis. He also thinks no women are aroused by their female body.

    And lest it be called a “universal condition”, it’s something that only happens in a portion of his sample. The other ones he called homosexual transsexuals. Basically trans women who are so feminine pre-transition that they become women for more gay sex, but with hetero guys (there’s more of them). Or so he claims.

    It might make sense if we were entirely-pragmatic hypersexual creatures who have no seat of the identity in the brain, and no reaction to endocrinological stuff (hormones, quantity and type), but with real people in real life, it doesn’t make sense.

    Testosterone was quite literally poison in the quantity I had it (now I have it in quantity 0, which is lower than cis women), for me. It was making me much more depressed, giving-up-on-life depressed. And it gave me acne. Not much else. It was a huge relief to get it down to zero. Men would not react so well to having zero testosterone.

    So either way, he makes it into an either-or situation where you’re either so sexually perverted that you’re aroused with the image of you as female and go too far, or you’re so sexually perverted that you transition to have sex with more men. And if you claim you’re neither types, he says you’re lying.

    How’s that for a scientific theory. He can’t even be proven false. People who don’t fit his theory are just liars.

    “Sure, people make things up sometimes. But regardless, would you ever let your kid alone with a person who’s ex-spouse accused them of incest/child molestation?”

    I’d not let my kids with anyone I couldn’t personally vouch for. Second-hand information would be treated like newspaper stuff. With a big grain of salt. It’s not unique to this, but I always seek to verify stuff for myself, regardless of the trustfulness of the source, if the information matters at all (if I don’t care one bit, I won’t check).

    Critical thinking isn’t something I had to be taught to do, it’s my basic modus operandi to life. Some people find it annoying because I don’t follow the already-laid-out model of common sense. Nothing beats knowing for yourself and choosing based on that instead of “do it like others” sheep-talk conformist stuff that saves you a bit of time but robs you of agency (you’re no longer an individual who makes choices, you’re just someone following a Lego build plan).

    I find that this kind of thinking (which leads to a lot of outside-the-box thinking when it’s seen as the best solution, something rarer with other people) is common to people with asperger’s syndrome.

    I’ve always questioned the “accepted wisdom” that women are more moral than men, women are less criminal than men, women are less violent/evil you name it than men. And of course, women are more nurturing than men. As such I never considered mothers more competent than fathers on the basis of their sex (maybe on the basis of actual observed individual performance, but then its no longer about the sex category). I also never considered fathers or male individuals overall as more dangerous sexually or physically, wether towards adults or children.

    Personally, I don’t want children. Too time-consuming, and too much something I wouldn’t do. Thankfully I’ll never conceive one, and I won’t adopt by accident either. I’ll happily be a genetic dead-end, whatever that means in the grand scheme of things.

  7. “I am, the brain is biological, it’s wired as female, and voila, biologically female. Can’t get more biological than your brain’s very seat of identity structure”

    Yes you CAN get more biological than that – by being born with ovaries and eggs.

  8. “Maybe it matters for husbandry and breeding, but it doesn’t for living in a free society.”

    Free society or not. You are NOT a biological female, no matter how loud you rant and rave about it. I’ve nothing at all against trans people and their “freedom” to do anything anybody wants to their own body, but let’s call a spade a spade here. You were born biologically male and no amount of surgeries can change that.

    • I don’t need any surgery at all. I’m female, and that’s that. I simply need exogenous hormone pills to maintain a good hormonal balance.

      It’s funny that you seem to have more invested in my *not* being female than I have invested in being seen as female socially (legally is something else).

      I was born biologically female, because absent my brain, the rest of my body is a flask mass of nothingness, only good as organ transplants. I could be infertile from birth, unable to ever have sex, let alone conceive, and I’d still have a sex identity (yes gender identity is a misnomer), just like everyone else.

      Menopaused women are female, even though they’re infertile. XO Turner women are female, even though they lack a second X chromosome. AIS women are female, even though they actually have testicles at birth. And finally trans women are female, even though they actually have penises at birth.

      Because how you identify socially is not determined by your genitals, or your last chromosome pair, or wether you can produce eggs or sperm (currently or in the past). A free society couldn’t care less if you (individually) reproduce, or how you do it, as long as it’s at or near replacement rate.

      You want to police womanhood in a stringent way (as do many feminists and conservators) the way the rich want to police richness in a stringent way in the film In Time (where time is a currency, at 25 your “clock” activates, you never age, but you have 1 year left unless you “earn” more (then you die once it’s at 0), the rich have centuries worth, the poor have very little – and do everything in their power to prevent the poor from having upward mobility).

      NOBODY wants to police manhood that way. Nobody even cares, except in countries where men really, truly, do have it better. Trans men are accepted as men because we always welcome more cannon fodder. Trans women are accepted with less ease as women because they’re seen as usurping the aristocrat role women have (as opposed to the worker-class role men have), without having it as a birthright, like all good aristocrats do.

    • If you are for freedom then just respect someone’s freedom to call themselves whatever they want. Schala isn’t hurting anyone by calling herself a woman, and she certainly isn’t hurting you. So just respect her self-identification. Don’t make such a big deal out of something that has no effect on you, but does have an effect on her.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s