From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Subject: The Sheaffertron on Trial
Date: 18 Jul 92 20:46:51 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


The Rational People versus Robert Sheaffer
 
Exhibit One: Sheaffer's definition of "envy."
     The concept of "resentment" is very important to Robert;
afterall, he wouldn't have written a book about it if it wasn't.
Resentment, in Robert's terms, is the motivating force behind many of
the ideologies, movements, and persons he opposes-- feminism,
socialism, and the like. Needless to say, he sees resentment as a bad
thing. The following bit about 'envy' uses the same terms he usually
applies to 'resentment.'
 
sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul9.215802.21079@leland.Stanford.EDU
> > >
> >>Why does everyone feel the need to knock people who are 
> >>beautiful? My experience is that attractive people are
>
> It's called "envy," i.e., malice and spite directed at those
perceived as
> enjoying an advantage that you feel bad about not having.
> 
 
Exhibit Two: Resentment in Action
In article <b58l1vn.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert
Sheaffer) writes:
>
>So, you think it's utterly bogus to suggest that women choose
a"dominant
>male" when they can?
>
>I suppose you know of plenty of attractive women who say, "I don't
want
>to go to bed with that gorgeous guy over there in the gym, the one
>bulging with muscles. I'm more interested in that little mousey
fellow,
>the one who looks like Woody Allen. Yes, the guy getting pounded
overthere
>in the corner." Is THAT what the world looks like to you?????
 
     If Robert is making the case that women are physically attracted
to men who are muscular, healthy-looking, and athletic, well, that's
no surprise. Many women are. Many women aren't. And many women,
surprise surprise, take personality into STRONG consideration-- I
haven't run into too many who throw themselves at bodybuilders.
 
     The incredulousness (the five question marks and the
capitalization) in the "If THAT what the world looks like to you?????"
closer indicates that Robert evidently considers the possibility that
women might not like bodybuilders-- and instead, might be attracted to
nicer, less muscular men-- to be as remote and fantastic as the
reality of flying saucers.
     And judging from the tone of this note, it seems that Robert
regards the situation as he sees it-- that woman should have the gall
to choose mates they find attractive, rather than go for the
considerate nerds-- as a bad thing. This observation is supported by
the next piece of evidence.
 
Exhibit Three: More Evidence of Resentment in Action
sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> I suggest that you read "Smart Women, Foolish Choices".
> 
> Colleges are filled with bright, considerate, nerdy guys who can't
get dates,
> while jocks who have meat for brains find women falling all over
them.
> 
     The passion is evident; Robert regards muscular men who are
attractive as "jocks with meat for brains," and evidently sides with
he "bright, considerate, nerdy guys." (Julie Brown had a funnier line:
"Superman with a lobotomy."I also recall, back in high school, the
nerds tended to see the situation in terms of biological determinism,
or, in Stephen Jay Gould's phrase, 'cardboard Darwinism.')
     I've already mentioned that, in physical appearance, Robert's own
appearance is significantly closer to the 'Woody Allen' stereotype
than, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Harrison Ford. Nothing wrong
inthat; a lot of women find Woody Allen attractive. (I seem to recall
a psychiatrist having written a book about how a number of his female
patients had dreams about Woody Allen. Can't recall the title, tho.)
 
     But it doesn't seem a stretch to gauge Robert's appearance and
the venom he throws into his 'nerds versus jocks' struggle, and
understand that there's a great deal of resentment against the jocks
in his mind.
> Then after being treated like dirt by the 'dominant males' they
crave, these
> women complain to each other about how badly men treat them.
 
     Note also the use of the word 'crave,' conjuring up images of
drooling, hyperventilating women greedily eyeing the bodybuilders' 
broad shoulders, massive cocks and tight butts.
     I also detect a definite tone of smug satisfaction at the bad end
these 'foolish' and craving women come to when they choose the 'wrong'
men. Ohh, the _nerve_ of those wanton women!
 
The Summation to the Jury:
     This brings Robert to a strange contradiction. On the one hand,
he maintains that women are biologically motivated to be attracted to
muscular men. This would imply that this attraction is not a
completely conscious "foolish" choice for women. (It also fits in with
the myth that women are more driven by their biologies than men are).
Then how could Robert justify his evident anger at women for making
this 'foolish choice?'
     Similarly, he faults feminists for denying the biological basis
for a lot of human behavior, and thus acting against their own
intrinsic needs. This implies exercise of choice and free will. But
the above case is a 'foolish' choice that, he maintains
simultaneously, has a strong biological basis. We seem to be reduced
to gibberish.
     And, getting  back to  the issue  of 'resentment  against
achievement,' is seems that Robert resents the apparent fact (well,
apparent to him, anyway) that women are biologically determined to be
attracted to men who don't look anything like himself. How could
hepossibly be resentful against the fairness of natural selection? And
why doesn't he simply adapt to the environment, go to a gym, bulk up
on carbohydrates, proteins, and electrolytes, and work himself intothe
Lou Ferrigno league? 
     But he doesn't do this; rather, he badmouths the people who have
the advantage as "jocks with meat for brains." (NB: If you ask Marvin
Minsky, we _all_ have meat for brains.)
 
The Prosecution's Case:
 
     Robert's complaints about women and feminism are based
significantly on his resentment of women. There is a significant
reason to believe that this resentment is based upon problems in his
social life; Women don't choose men like him as mates, he claims.
     The resentment thesis is supported by the evident spiteful anger
in his evident feeling that any harm that comes to them is a deserved
result of this 'foolish choice.' 
 
     The degree to which this resentment has clouded his reason is
evident when he rejects his own standards of evidence (only peer-
reviewed journals, and not popular Women's Studies books), and turns
to _any_ evidence that might support his spite (_Smart Women,
Foolish_Choices_, _Sexual Personae_).
 
     His ongoing citation of Camille Paglia as an influence adds to
this theory as well. In several interviews, Paglia has said that she
felt slighted when feminist scholars were promoted and got more
prestigious appointments, and that her book, _Sexual Personae_, is her
'revenge' against them. Paglia is obviously motivated by 'resentment,'
perhaps far more than nearly any feminist Robert can cite. It would
seem a contradiction for a man who complains so stridently
of'resentment' in others would be so willingly unaware of the _openly_
_professed_ resentment in an authority he cites. However, given the
pathology outlined above, we have an explanation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"Best Reason Not to Vote for Perot-- If he wins, it might encourage Bill 
Gates to run."