Now This Beats All Hell!
Please refer to the immediately foregoing post, titled Digging Deeper into the Grain.
Today, the scene replayed itself. In my stat log, I again observed a spike of incoming traffic to the CF article Ideas Which Go Against the Grain. But this time, the referring source was a Finnish blog called Ihmissuhteet: http://tinyurl.com/56wnlk
So go there, and see what is going on. Now, for me the Finnish language is a black wall of mystery—on a par with ancient Egyptian or Aramaic. It is not a bit like the familiar French, German, Spanish and Russian. Still, I was able to gather this much:
A men's activist in Finland, by the name of Henry Laasanen, has recently published a book (in 2008) called Naisten Seksuaalinen Valta, in which he elaborates a thesis very similar to what I outlined in Ideas Which Go Against the Grain. The blog post on 'Ihmissuhteet' contains; a.) a link to my CF article, and b.) a brief discussion somehow comparing it to Henry Laasenen's book. (If only I could understand Finnish!)
I was naturally intrigued, so I did some quick research on Henry Laasenen, and came up with this (in English): http://tinyurl.com/5nlhub
. . . and also this (in Finnish): a catalog description of Laasenens's book: http://tinyurl.com/2eqk36
Saving the best for last: I didn't notice at first (and I nearly overlooked it), but after a little more digging I discovered to my surprise that the blogmeister of 'Ihmissuhteet' is none other than Henry Laasenen himself!! Pleased to meetcha, Henry! ;-)
In conclusion, I would say this: Ideas Which Go Against the Grain is simply a counter-feminist essay. It is in no way "scientific", nor does it pretend to be so, and whoever might critique it from that standpoint would be barking up the wrong tree.
Today, the scene replayed itself. In my stat log, I again observed a spike of incoming traffic to the CF article Ideas Which Go Against the Grain. But this time, the referring source was a Finnish blog called Ihmissuhteet: http://tinyurl.com/56wnlk
So go there, and see what is going on. Now, for me the Finnish language is a black wall of mystery—on a par with ancient Egyptian or Aramaic. It is not a bit like the familiar French, German, Spanish and Russian. Still, I was able to gather this much:
A men's activist in Finland, by the name of Henry Laasanen, has recently published a book (in 2008) called Naisten Seksuaalinen Valta, in which he elaborates a thesis very similar to what I outlined in Ideas Which Go Against the Grain. The blog post on 'Ihmissuhteet' contains; a.) a link to my CF article, and b.) a brief discussion somehow comparing it to Henry Laasenen's book. (If only I could understand Finnish!)I was naturally intrigued, so I did some quick research on Henry Laasenen, and came up with this (in English): http://tinyurl.com/5nlhub
. . . and also this (in Finnish): a catalog description of Laasenens's book: http://tinyurl.com/2eqk36
Saving the best for last: I didn't notice at first (and I nearly overlooked it), but after a little more digging I discovered to my surprise that the blogmeister of 'Ihmissuhteet' is none other than Henry Laasenen himself!! Pleased to meetcha, Henry! ;-)
In conclusion, I would say this: Ideas Which Go Against the Grain is simply a counter-feminist essay. It is in no way "scientific", nor does it pretend to be so, and whoever might critique it from that standpoint would be barking up the wrong tree.
posted by Fidelbogen at 6:52 PM
12 Comments:
Yes, the book's name in english is "Female sexual power". The book is about "what women's sexual power is all about?" and "what effects it has in the society?" It is based in social exchange theory. The idea is same kind like you did in your blog post. The basic idea is that there is more demand for women's sexuality in society, which gives women power, and gives women somekind of benefits and somekind of costs for men.
You should also read this
http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf
@Henry: Thanks for dropping by! Yes, it is interesting that such a similar idea is occurring (or finding resonance) among so many people in so many places. That, surely, is a sign of the times. . .
And thank you for the PDF link. I just love PDF files—I have a huge library of them—and I will look forward to looking into this one later in the day. . .
Fidelbogen,
Welcome back.
The PDF link mentioned in the comment was the same I sent you a month or two back.
@Bhanu: Thanks for dropping by. It's good to be back, I feel refreshed. . . but still kinda rusty. . .
Hello.
I am a foreigner living in Finland, and have had extensive experience with women here, and also have observed with an outsider's eye.
Have not read Henry's book, and doubt it will ever come out in english. It is enough for me to read the drivel in Helsingin Sanomant, in the link you gave, to side with henry. Here are some quotes and my comments.
The text clearly shows the shaming thrown onto average men, and the trial of the others to belie the famous "fuckers vs suckers" post's truth. One can also see the fight of the average joe to stay in his dream world.
“The question presented to the panel is based on an argument put forward in a book by Henry Laasanen on the "sexual power of women", according to which women hold the upper hand on the heterosexual coupling market. “
Just go out to an evening venue on a saturday, and compare the average and over woman to the average and over man. Tell me that there is equality. Unless you are an ideologist, or a PC freak, or a brainwashed drone, I believe this will be impossible.
“As Laasanen sees it, women's sexual power imposes costs on men and confers unfair benefits to women.”
Let’s start with this: How many women buy two salaries worth of diamond rings to the man they propose to?
Let’s start with this: How many women offer to buy men drinks?
“Over one in four members of the panel did not take a definitive stand on the question, while 21 per cent agreed that women do have more sexual power, as Laasanen perceives it. However, many of those who answered in the affirmative still questioned the basic premises of Laasanen's theory.”
Questioning basic premises is no problem, discussion provides evolvement. This 21 percent is the percentage who sees things as they are, and are not afraid to tell it.
“"If we define sexual power in this way, then that is the case, but does that have any relevance?", asks editor Matti Kalliokoski. “
Hahaha… Typical evasion… We can define sun as hot.… does it have relevance?
“Researcher Anna Rotkirch, for her part, feels that Laasanen's work is moderate, and that its theoretical criticism targets social constructionism. She says that the arguments put forward in the book have been familiar to evolutionary biology for a long time. “
Evolutionary biology, ethology, and especially evolutionary psychology will give the readers an extremely crude, rude but true explanation of human behavior. Especially in the sexual and power context.
So, lets continue,
“"Among mammals, the female is the more selective gender in sexual relationships, and because the females have partly the same criteria for making choices, it follows that certain males get many females, and some are left with none." “
So, what did Henry say wrong?
That for the average male, the woman’s sexuality is a difficult to attain commodity? That women hold power because they are the supplier to the average male?
Let’s read again: “certain males get many females, and some are left with none”… does this not mean that Henry is right when he says women have the power(over average joe)?
And notice the way of stating “some are left with none”.. as it is a normal thing, and these men have no value whatsoever, for future reference.
“ Musician Tommi Liimatta says that facts are not dependent on opinions.
"It is a fact that pussy makes even an organised world go around. You shouldn't need a reseracher to establish this fact." “
Someone who speaks the truth.
“Many of the respondents criticise Laasanen for not sufficiently taking female sexual desire into consideration. “
Average and over females have a desire for the top 5% males and since they have almost unlimited choice in the rest of the male population, they will settle down for a member of the rest, once it is clear the %5 will not commit.
So sexual desire, especially in the years of fun, are definitely not directed to the 95% of the male population whose attractiveness does not fulfill the “stud” criteria
“"Don't women have any desire? Hello! And what's a coupling market? Something like a reindeer roundup?" asks author Riina Katajavuori. “
Shaming.
Well… If women would have similar desire as I, I would not risk rejection to get laid almost every time, and I would have women approaching me more.
Women’s desire is reserved for the top 5%. Been there done that. Have seen so much that I can say, yes, it is a reindeer roundup, with women getting in line to be the belt notch of multiple 5% guys, only to one day settle down and make the life of the committed man a misery because he does not measure up to the short flings she had with the higher ranked man.
Women have desire… It is just important to define what king of desire to what kind of man…
“"I certainly think that both genders want sex", says musician Steen1. “
Question is with whom.
Average woman wants sex with the top male.
Average man wants sex with average woman and top woman.
Top man wants to have sex with average woman and top woman.
So we can see that the average man is pretty much left in a no sex zone, and the average woman aims always higher.. As long as her youth and beauty permits.
Hypergamy, anyone?
“Paula Tuovinen, the director of the Theatre Academy of Finland, says that women are sex objects so often that the group of women who live in involuntary celibacy is a subject that has been hushed up.
"Women have desires too - both before and after the time that insemination has occurred." “
BOOOO HOOO HOOOO….
So men not getting laid is natural while women not getting laud is a social catastrophe? What about telling women to stop looking at the mountain peaks but enjoy the fruits in the plains they are living?
What about telling women that for once they should take the matters in their hands and start approaching men for friendship, sex, dates, curiosity, instead of giving the ultra communicative “Undercover Sex Signals” (Leil Lowndes)
What about telling women that sexuality is part of a relationship and pleasuring your man is also a responsibility?
What about telling women to take matters in their own hands and initiate sexual acts in a relationship, instead of getting angry at the committed man for not initiating at the right time, right moment, right intensity, right words, right place, or initiating at the wrong time, wrong intensity.. blab la bbla..
What about telling women that men do not read minds, and we cannot know that you like if you do not let us know?
What about telling women that we are human too, and also need those loving words, and sexual attraction is lost if a man feels he can’t do right?
What about talking about your feelings instead of giving hints in a guessing game?
What about not looking at us in disgust when we ask you to pleasure us with your mouths and then expecting us to go down on you?
What about not saying “you need to deserve it” when we ask for a handjob ever so rarely, when you have talked on how sexually adventurous you were in your youth?
Women need to know we are not magic shining poles with a hint of a brain walking around.
We are humans with needs and emotions, desires, and most of all, preferences and… wait.. .and… wait… BLOODY STANDARDS.
And that the penis is not a soldier ready to die for the woman whenever she wants to.
“Laasanen's theories are criticised as being one-sided.
"As is the case with market theories in general, the sexual market value theory is ideological wordmongering, which does not look beyond individual behaviour. Collectively, the sexuality of both is produced by a society governed by men, and reinforces its power structures", says Professor Martti Koskenniemi. “
1. Not all women are like that
2. Men do not define sexuality, women do. Women are the gatekeepers to sexuality and have always been. What this professor says is brainwashing.
3. We see what happens when women’s sexuality is not restrained. Man’s sexuality is naturally restrained by women (different for the top 5%). Women’s sexuality has no restraints. Thus it is natural that a society will strive to balance this fact in order to survive.
“ "Whose sexual power is it, when the presumed targets of the use of power - men - define which women have sexual power?" asks painter Silja Rantanen. “
Once again, women want all 100%... the average woman has more sexual power than the average man, basically because average man is not her target but she is the target of the average man.
Who has more sexual power? In a world where men are supposed to earn more but women have 4 times more spending power? (80% spending in Us done by women.. 20 % by men) Why do you think that is? Because women are so successful thinkers?
Any woman which is not butt ugly has sexual power if she lowers her so high standards.
If a woman claims she has no sexual powers, maybe she should take her eyes away from men ranking 4-5 ranks higher in attractiveness – over a scale of 10 – and look at her level plus 1 or 2. Not even suggesting to look at a lower level, that ain’t happening.
“Male sexuality cannot be narrowed down to biology alone, says Professor Mikko Lehtonen. “
Ever was a teenager with testosterone? Ever?
And the reason so many men died in wars to protect their women and children was not due to a conscious thinking act to run into machine gun fire. It was due to ingrained biological urge to protect family. Love is biology.
“ "Laasanen's claim is dangerous, in my opinion, because it portrays men as creatures completely at the mercy of their own desires. The same kind of male or female image appears in arguments according to which women, with their sexy attire, somehow provoke, and in a way compel men to commit sex crimes", says Maija Vilkkumaa. “
Now, resolve woman of every single bit of responsibility in the context of unwanted acts.
Never, never women are responsible.. Not even if they tease a man to the point of insanity.
“ Author Johanna Sinisalo does not want to take a stand on the matter, because she feels that a more precise question would be "are men the helpless slaves of their own libidos?"”
Are women not taking advantage of that?
“The question also raised emotions. Some questioned the very starting points of Laasanen's research.
"I am just amazed at the pitying concern of Laasanen and others toward men who ‘can't get a woman', as if everyone had some kind of a ‘right to have sex'. Yawn", says essay writer Antti Nylén.”
Compare to the comment about women not getting laid.
So, if everyone does not have a right to sex, does every woman have a right to bear children? To have a husband?
Or does every woman have a right to be respected by the top men whom she easily has sex with? To eb respected by the average man to who she turns once her prime beauty is gone?
You entered a beautiful scenery here, Antti.
“"And that is truly, in the view of the researcher, a problem worthy of attention in today's society - a problem for which a societal solution should be found? Get a life", says Soila Lehtonen, editor-in-chief of the publication Books from Finland. “
He has a life other than chasing tail, or other than chasing the 5% top men just to get laid.
He is a man who thinks, and being here for some time, I can tell you that in this wild jungle, the man who thinks is the man who gets scourned at by women.
You either got to think in lines of feminist mantra, or you have to present an accompanying attitude of assholeness to balance the thinking and show you are a higher being.
“"What is completely weird is Laasanen's notion that only men have sexual desire! That women simply sell the goods, for which men incur expenses. Oh. Dear! Free brothels for these kinds of men, or inflatable women at state expense", says semiotician Vaula Norrena”
Allright.
If sex is not a good but an mutual sharing of physical needs, then why does the average joe not get laid when he is horny and the woman is horny but needs to prove his worth? All the while the top dog gets laid by the same women.. even during the time average joe is busy proving his worth?
Sex, for the 95% of the non-sexy male population is a commodity they got to work for, if not buy indirectly.
What we see here is,
1. Feminists blabbering as usual
2. Average Joe’s who do not want to see the truth.. On how they are betrayed, on how they have to pay for something that was enjoyed by the top dogs for free
3. The Top Dogs wanting to continue the illusion of the Average Joe, to enjoy the benefits of being the Top Dog.
4. Women afraid that the Average Joe will see the light, and the insane deal he is presented with.
Please see that the Average Joe is not the 40-60% man.. It is anything which is not close to a sexual god.
To add to my last comment, I have seen few trends, which also match trends in other places,
- The men who have been with many women, are either staying single, and them marrying young, or they are looking for foreign or church going women. Not too many of them are after the independent and strong, sexually liberated woman, and they do not have the best opinions about them either. I am talking about men with three digits.
- Men who have been so-so with women marry early, usually the first traditional woman they find, which is also rare.
- Many average men have very high contempt and disregard for their women, and openly call them sluts and whores, and call them easy women. Women running around, "we are sexually free, yippie yeah" does not really make the men respect them. Now you will call, Average Joe as desperate and shame him, but do not forget, Average Joe is the man these women will marry in the end. Thus women are cutting their own lifeline.
- and from many men you do not get these opinions unless you formulate the questions very carefully (as not insulting the locals etc), or prove your worth, or there is alcohol involved.
the average man is living in a sexual misery here, until he is chosen as husband (what then happens is a mistery to me, but 50% divorce rate says something), the man who is somewhat deemed attractive by women is enjoying a life full of sexual adventure, and these men are few and far in between, their guts hated by the rest of the men, and also by the women - women who still bed them though....
@zb: It's a pity that Henry Laasenen's book will probably never appear in English. . .
Strangely enough, I somewhat agree with the remarks which question the idea that men are "slaves to their desires." That is: I don't think it needs to be that way, and also that a cultural revolution (of sorts) might arise from this. I guess this makes me a revolutionary thinker! ;-)
Correction: I should have said z.g. rather than "zb".
“Paula Tuovinen, the director of the Theatre Academy of Finland, says that women are sex objects so often..."
The Feminists have made women into sex objects far more then any men ever have at any point in history.
@CC: Uh. . . Paula Tuovinen sounds like a robot running off at the mouth. I wish that she and her sisterbots would do the world a favor and run off at a cliff, instead!;-)
Oh gosh, that wuz cruel! But y'know, for my money that's the only way to get the job done with a thing like feminism:
Make believe you are swatting flies!
Slowly. . slowly . . . oh so slowly. And greased lightning on the finish! ;-)
"The Feminists have made women into sex objects far more then any men ever have at any point in history.
This, for me, triggers a train of thought. Think of that numerous class of female citizens who hype their "sexuality" in order to manipulate the male animal.
Now, it is perhaps ARGUABLY valid to assert that such women are not making themselves into 'sex objects' by their chosen behavior — but here I am being generous to the feminist side by way of rhetorical concession.
However, I see no room to dispute that such women are making MEN into plain and simple objects, at the very least. And quite possibly *sex* objects in particular, depending on how you wish argue the meaning of that expression.
Yes, they are undeniably making men into objects by manipulating male sexual emotions—but are they treating men as sex objects per se? Or does "sex object" refer narrowly to an "object" that you (theoretically) wish to have "sex" with? Or is the question moot?
But whichever way you settle the point, there is no question that such women are treating men like OBJECTS — or "objectifying" them, as the feminists would say. That much is safe to conclude.
Now what I want to know is whether such women, in view of how they treat men, have any moral entitlement to be regarded as other than so-called "sex objects", or any right to complain in the event they are so regarded?
AND. . .under the circumstances, do the feminists have any logical platform from which to disparage or depreciate male grievance in such a case? And supposing they do treat male grievance in this manner, would they subsequently have any moral platform from which to leverage moral advocacy on behalf of the women in question?
As an afterthought to my foregoing comment, why is it nearly always the case in feminist thinking, that the ULTIMATE or FINAL moral onus is upon men rather than women?
This, as we know, has always been the case. Historically, women have been regarded as "children" of a sort, and not entirely responsible for their behavior - and alike to children, treated with a certain leniency.
Feminism, it would seem, does not want this state of affairs to change in any fundamental way. It is of course "empowering" when you can schluff off moral accountability onto somebody else, and feminism wants women to be empowered, so I reckon this makes perfect sense under the circumstances. . .
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home