Mike Stone and the Traditionalist Oppression of Low-Status Men

Last month, a kid from a Minnesota high school named Mike Stone made national news for successfully asking out a porn star to prom. Apparently, none of the girls in his area accepted his simple invitation to be his prom date, and so he got the idea to ask out hundreds of porn stars on Twitter. Megan Piper, a young starlet, accepted his invitation because she had never been to prom herself. Amid the fanfare,  the school board found out, and promptly banned her from attending.

Megan Piper (19) and Mike Stone (18).

Now this post wouldn't be complete without an analysis of the societal reaction to this kid's breaking out from the shackles of rejection. Many bloggers in the manosphere, yours truly included, have documented the harsh treatment low-status men suffer from all corners of society. We have also noted how psychotic and panicky some people, mainly women, become when a low-status man acts "out of key" with his status.

In addition, I think that America, at present, is set up as an anti-fun society, and this is the result of a weird combination of ancestral Puritanism and middle-age-bitch feminism. Just check out this screed from Ms.  district superintendent:

"This prom date will not be allowed to attend the Tartan prom as her attendance would be prohibited under Tartan's standard prom procedures and would be inconsistent with two school district policies," Phillips writes.

Notice how there isn't even a hint of happiness or, "this is cool, but we can't allow this" in the writing. It's just an emotionless, mechanical rejection, oh-so-similar to the rejection he faced at the hands of so many of his female "peers." The reaction of his parents was one of embarrassment and shame, instead of support. The only people backing him up were his male peers, because they know how hard it is to get women, and are much more in touch with things.

So you see how society is setup to be against male liberation, and especially low-status male liberation. This is part of their whole hysteria against porn- it frees men of some of their desperation. Traditional society is set up to step on low-status men as much as possible, which is why I'm against it.

Where is the outrage at the women who rejected him? Where is the "embarrassment" at the community for providing no woman was willing to go on a prom date with him? He's not a bad-looking guy. As usual, none of the blame is heaped on the women, but this guy suffers all the ill effects of not having a date. He turned to Twitter because no one in his community was giving him a break. They should be embarrassed at themselves, not him.

Here's his twitter. He's hosting his own prom with the girl on May 12, and is having some sort of fundraiser for it. Of course everybody's jumping on board now that he's famous. Kid could use a different getup and maybe lose some weight, but otherwise he's okay.

Problems with the "Don't Generalize" Dogma

Say a man somehow manages to get out of a toxic relationship with a woman. This may be a sexless beta-orbiter type situation where he was subjected to emotional manipulation, or it may be something more serious like an acrimonious divorce. The man is aware that this particular woman is toxic, and should be avoided. Without any exterior guidance or warning, however, he is bound to get into a similar situation again. Why is this?

The oft-cited example is of men who are brutalized in divorce court, only to line right up for marriage again. Some of these men have multiple strings of child support and alimony obligations. Other less extreme examples include the eternally-clueless beta, who keeps getting "lets-just-be-friend"-ed over and over again, without learning. Heartiste recently had an admittedly good post on this very topic, attempting to distill why it occurs.

Of course, what Heartiste doesn't mention is how many "alphas" are caught up in the same type of thinking. I know of very few "alphas" who do not get into emotionally abusive relationships with women. The core problem seems to be a societal hegemony of the "don't generalize" dogma. How many times have you been shut down by the armies of "don't generalize" people, also known as the NAWALT people, both male and female, every time you mention harmful female tendencies?

It's a problem of frame. Of course one shouldn't assume that all women are abusive because one woman is abusive. But somehow this gets twisted into seeing every new woman as a blank slate, and not remembering  the warning signs from previous experiences. I think society encourages this unhealthy attitude, which is why you see men falling into the same traps over and over again. The whole "this time it's different" belief is a natural tendency in humans that needs to be fought, not encouraged.

Fallacious "you don't have it that bad" arguments

"You don't have it that bad" is one of the arguments used against dateless men that really irks me. I recently saw a discussion where someone raised the typical comparison to starving people. Typically implied (or like in this case, directly stated) is that the dateless man is just a crybaby who needs to get over himself. In other words, "man up!"

It is a meaningless comparison, because it can be used to justify silencing any complaint that a person might have with the society that he or she is in. Anyone with a vested interest in the status quo can tell someone being marginalized by it to shut up because they don't know how good they have it.

Moreover, it's a strawman, as dateless men aren't saying that they have it as bad or worse than someone without limbs or food. Who invokes this argument? Usually someone who is losing the rhetorical battle and has to resort to emotional appeals to win people back. In a cinch, it works, with some sufferers erroneously buying into the premise and admitting that they maybe don't have it that bad. Of course, others see this red herring for what it is, and heated attacks then start flying left and right, legitimate discussion disintegrates, and sufferers end up even more self-loathing and frustrated than they were before. In short, they got trolled.

This argument is nothing new, and its continued successful application is a testament to its effectiveness. For instance, it was often used on depressed people before depression was recognized as a psychiatric disorder that could be treated. It goes without saying that the results were often tragic. The same problem is happening now with those suffering from involuntary celibacy and love-shyness. They try to get help, and all people do is tell them to "man up" and that the problem is entirely their own. The sufferers never get a break and keep getting told by uncaring assholes that their problems don't really matter. What the people espousing this nonsense don't realize is that when you tell a person that a serious problem they suffer from does not matter, you're telling them that they don't matter. It doesn't take a genius to see why this doesn't end well.

In the end, this is a shaming tactic, and a deplorable one. Those using it should be treated with as much contempt as someone telling a suicidal person "jump!"

Edited to add: The concept I'm talking about is known as relative deprivation in sociology. There is an interesting Wikipedia article on it.

P.S. The follow-up to the "Controlling vs. Dominant Behavior" post is coming. Stay tuned!