Thursday, November 4, 2010

Stunning photographic proof of the historical oppression of men




I have discovered stunning new proof of the historical oppression of men. In these photos, from mid-century America, we can see clearly how men are humiliated, annoyed and otherwise held down by The Woman. Just look at the expression on this man's face as the wily female emasculates him, assaults his ear, and makes him listen to her blab on and on about clothes.

These photos obviously predate the Second Wave of feminism in the 1960s and 70s, but that just shows how sneaky the feminists are. I blame women's suffrage. You give them the vote, and the next thing you know, they'll be wantonly adjusting their girdles, wearing wrinkly stockings, and poking their fingers in your ear.

For more of these deeply disturbing photos, see here.

14 comments:

  1. Ummmmmm.....what if he doesn't want her to touch him? Why is it laughable when a man receives unwanted attention and touching? Why is he portrayed by yourself and others as being a big baby if he says "don't touch me"?

    Reverse the roles, what if it was a man doing that to a woman? Would you be writing things like "oh look at how hte poor woman has to suffer" or would you post some outraged diatribe about how this is a form of assault?

    The double standard is pretty effing sad

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you can find a similar collection of photos in which the woman is the "victim," I will happily mock it as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well... in these photos he's described as her "escort." Presumably they are at least friends, since her touching is referred to as "an open show of affection." I don't know about you but I don't ask my friends permission to touch them (that sounds wrong, but you know what I mean... I hope). I certainly don't ask my boyfriend's permission to touch him in public (again, I know that sounds wrong, but I mean innocent touching).

    David didn't say the man is a "big baby" if he says, "don't touch me."

    He's talking about the media's regulation of women's behaviour. Women are supposed to modify their actions in consideration of the man.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David, feminism take issue with men looking at, talking to and touching women without verbal consent .. wasnt it feminists at Duke that introduced the, "can I now touch your breast?", "Can I now move my hand to your waistline?" system of feminist approved verbal consent intimacy between couples?

    In fact, hasn't feminism basically criminalised any unwanted interaction between men and women?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The photo caption doesn't exactly say, "you should not touch your escort without his permission." It doesn't say, "any unwanted show of affection could violate his personal boundaries."

    Rather, it says, "Any open show of affection is in bad taste." That is, it doesn't matter so much what he wants, as what third party observers will think. Such affection, "usually embarrasses or humiliates him." Again, it doesn't matter what he wants as an individual. It matters what everybody else thinks of him.

    It's not that she's treating him in a way that is demeaning or objectifying. It's her, a woman's, very familiarity with him, a man, that sullies his image in the eye of the public. It's her being anything more than arm-candy.

    Also: consent is sexy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @David Futrelle:

    "If you can find a similar collection of photos in which the woman is the 'victim,' I will happily mock it as well."

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  7. @David Futrelle:

    "Why not?"

    So that's why you wrote this article. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Dave--

    Well the thing that gets me about your post, is the tone, esp. here --

    "...we can see clearly how men are humiliated, annoyed and otherwise held down by The Woman. Just look at the expression on this man's face as the wily female emasculates him, assaults his ear, and makes him listen to her blab on and on about clothes."

    This is just marinated in sarcasm sauce. The message I clearly get from it (your post, not the pictures or the captions) is that this man is somewhat of a whiney asshole because he's irritated by the woman's attention; that in fact, he (and every man) should be grateful for any and all attention from women.

    When sexual harrassment really came to national attention here (80's?), there was a huge outcry about how women didnt have to feel flattered or obliged by any male attention paid to them. That they didnt have to feel as though they had to accept advances...

    Why isn't the same thinking applied to men who recieve the same types unwanted attention from women?

    And as far as finding "a similar collection of pictures.." why should I? It's not my job to clean up your half assed commentary. You aren't interested in presenting any gender issues in any salient way, you appear to be more interested in mocking mra's and anti-feminists (not the same thing btw) and being genuflected to by the feminists than you do in actually debating, or ffs even raitonally discussing anything that may not fit in your tidy little box of feminist ideology.

    @Christina--

    "Well... in these photos he's described as her "escort." Presumably they are at least friends, since her touching is referred to as "an open show of affection." I don't know about you but I don't ask my friends permission to touch them (that sounds wrong, but you know what I mean... I hope). I certainly don't ask my boyfriend's permission to touch him in public (again, I know that sounds wrong, but I mean innocent touching)."


    If this were said by a man, even with your well intended caveats, he'd be labelled as, or at least suspected of being, a date rapist.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They're on a date. She touched his ear. Big deal. If you look at the rest of the photos the guy is depicted as being equally horrified and oppressed by her adjusting her girdle, sitting awkwardly, talking about clothes, talking to the headwaiter, wearing wrinkled stockings.

    Again, if the roles were reversed, I would find the pics equally silly. In the real world, if a woman accused a guy of date rape because he touched her ear on a date, I'd say she was full of shit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yet again, it is necessary to point out that David's entire blog is an attack on the men's rights movement. Every article he writes reflects that intention. This article brings up a retro photo montage not to criticize the attitudes of a bygone era, but rather to neutralize the ideas of MRAs in the current era. Why would David associate these pictures with MRAs? Because MRAs speak out against the public emasculation of men in popular culture. They speak against cultural misandry, which can be seen in sitcoms, movies, magazine articles, commercials, print advertisements and the musings of many popular political commentators. But it's not just MRAs that speak out against the misandric portrayal of emasculated men. Many others have noticed it too.

    What about dating and relationships? How does emasculation manifest itself there? Well, many men's activists, MGTOW and even a few PUA will point out that a woman will lose respect for a man who allows her to walk all over him. He has to demonstrate to her that he's valuable as a mate if he wants to attract her (or if already in a relationship with her, to remain attractive to her). How is he going to do that if he doesn't establish some boundaries about what he considers to be demeaning behavior?

    MRAs often point out that 2/3 of divorces are filed by women. Feminists respond by claiming that the wives were merely exiting an abusive relationship, but in fact the role of the man's emasculation in that broken down marriage is central to explaining its breakdown. If there was disorder, shouting, fighting, verbal abuse in the relationship, it indicates a total lack of respect between the spouses. We don't talk enough in this culture about the lack of respect that women show to men; rather, we ridicule the very idea that wives should show respect to their husbands. It is in the interest of both men and women to care about ending the corrosive and disorderly effects of male emasculation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John Dias said...
    Yet again, it is necessary to point out that David's entire blog is an attack on the men's rights movement. Every article he writes reflects that intention.


    I have no idea really why David was starting this blog.

    It is NOT the typical feminist blog/forum, otherwise my postings would be deleted and my ID would be banned already after a few comments.

    However David so far did not delete any of my postings as far as I know - and this is somewhat unusual behavior for a male feminist.

    David is a freelance writer, he writes about various stuff, often in no way related to feminism.

    http://dimflash.blogspot.com/2007/06/introduction.html

    I guess, similar to other aggressive journalists, David is merely searching for new stuff for his writings and he is doing this by going a very provocative way. Why not, he gets paid for it.

    Maybe David can tell us more...

    ReplyDelete
  12. David's entire blog is an attack on the men's rights movement.

    They're finally catching on!

    I was amused by the way that the man in the photos is getting pissy over very minor things, but the captions tell us that it's the woman's fault. And that, actually, is quite relevant to the MRM.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Its good to look at these ideas in retrospect and laugh and learn, if you are unable to detect the equivalent absurdities in todays media (the sexes have been reversed), culture and law as I mentioned above or chose to ignore them you are not accessing the culture accurately or are a hypocrite.

    Its easy to assess these things in retrospect, especially if you are taught to assess and critique them in a class, its another thing to see and call them as you see them happening.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis