 |
| Technique ... not ... working! |
Here's another one to add to the list, from Ashmead on the MGTOW proboards forum:
Having read Esther Villars book, one of the stand out sentences was that if you shave a woman's head and remove all the make up, the only difference is a fatter body (breasts included), wider hips and her vagina. ...
Try it - when you see a 'hot' female, imagine them without the dyed hair, lip gloss, eye liner, foundation, high heels (longer legs), expensive clothes, perfume etc, really DECONSTRUCT the illusion.
It takes ALL the power away.
And you're left with.... their personalities... oh well.
Some of the other fellows chime in with their observations. shade47 asks:
how could men take anything seriously that looks like a flabby 15 y/o boy when you shorten the hair and take off the makeup.
avoidwomen concurs, adding:
It's no surprise then that I find porn repulsive. Women really do look ugly(and almost all the same) in their birthday suit without all their clothes and makeup.
But it is dontmarry who takes the whole discussion to a new level. Strip women of clothes, hair and makeup, he argues, and you're not just left with women's personalities:
You're left with what you started with - just a piece of meat.
Only this time, it's less visually appealing.
A toilet is still a toilet, before flushing or after flushing.
You don't thank the toilet for its companionship, or appreciate its personality.
All you need to do is use the toilet. Use it.
So there you have it. Women are just meat toilets.
Somehow I suspect that dontmarry isn't going to be fending off a lot of marriage proposals from the women of the world.
--
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
LMAO, the comment under the picture is great. She is really beautiful.
ReplyDeleteThey really put Gloria S. to shame - Fish without a bicycle can't even compare with the toilet reference. Nice.
You know who else shaved women's heads...
ReplyDeleteThe comment about finding 15-year-old boys more attractive than women is... possibly more revealing than the commenter intended.
ReplyDeleteIt's telling that they go straight from "women really aren't all that different from men" to "women are ugly and gross." Do they think of themselves as disgusting, hideous, hateful bags of meat? No wonder they're so cranky all the time. I guess they console themselves by reflecting that they may be repulsive meatbags, but at least they're not *fat* repulsive meatbags like *some* genders we could name.
Man, those guy really are kind of like deeply closeted gays. Only in this case they are deeply closeted heterosexuals.
ReplyDeleteAnd the meat toilet guy? Sounds like serial killer material *shudder*
I agree, Natalie Portman looked totally hot with her head shaved :9
the only difference is a fatter body (breasts included), wider hips and her vagina
ReplyDeleteAnd of course nobody finds any of THOSE things attractive!
Shaenon, I think they think they are repuslive meat bags with compelling personalities.
ReplyDelete*snicker*
ReplyDeleteI don't wear makeup or heels or perfume or pretty clothes; I'm a tank-top-and-cargo-pants-and-hiking-boots kinda girl. And I have a shaved head. Looks like I'm naturally adapted to protect myself against this flavor of misogynist. I make myself repulsive to them without even trying!
I shaved my head to raise funds when my grandfather had cancer. Two feet of blonde hair gone, and guess what? It's the best I've ever looked. I've kept short hair since then.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't wear makeup.
Misogyny shield: activate!
PS. Natalie Portman is amazing. This is pretty much my favourite thing on the internet:
Natalie Portman Uncensored Rap
"Women really do look ugly(and almost all the same) in their birthday suit without all their clothes and makeup." In other words, he thinks naked women are universally unattractive? Then perhaps he should try different porn. The sort that only contains naked dudes.
ReplyDeleteYour blog keeps me amused.
ReplyDeleteThese guys are ridiculous. I thought they were homophobic as hell- but here they are talking about their distaste for women's bodies?
Or maybe its just those nasty Western women, you know...
Women look all the same naked?
ReplyDeleteHave they seen naked women?
One of my favorite parts of seeing naked people is all the little differences they have: birthmarks, scars, the way their fat distributes itself, weird protruding bones, hair or lack thereof, tattoos...
"One of my favorite parts of seeing naked people is all the little differences they have: birthmarks, scars, the way their fat distributes itself, weird protruding bones, hair or lack thereof, tattoos..."
ReplyDeleteOMG that's objectification. You are not seeing them as people, only an object.
Condemn this feminist immediately!
Ozymandias
ReplyDeleteWhen the only women you've seen naked is in porn I can get that misconception.
Hm, temptation to shave head rising...rising...
ReplyDeletenicko81m-- Here is a helpful guide.
ReplyDeleteNot Objectification: "Naked women are cool and have unique features."
Objectification: "Women only exist for the sole purpose of making me feel funny in my pants."
Kave-- Even in porn there are women with large breasts and women with small breasts and skinny women and fat women and "alternative" women and butch women and women with those distressing long red fingernails. Unless you are BLIND, you should be able to tell them apart.
Nick has a lot of funny ideas about feminists.
ReplyDeleteOMG that's objectification. You are not seeing them as people, only an object.
ReplyDeleteEnjoying the sight of a naked woman (or man, obviously) is not necessarily objectification, and feminists don't generally think it is.
Unfortunately, the term "objectification" is sometimes been co-opted by conservative, moralistic, sex-negative forces in our culture to condemn any portrayal of women as sexual beings.
Now, the quotes in David's post, the ones that claim that without their bodies women have nothing going for them - THAT is objectification.
Ozymandias said:
ReplyDelete"Not Objectification: "Naked women are cool and have unique features."
"Objectification: "Women only exist for the sole purpose of making me feel funny in my pants."
Unfortunately a heterosexual male most of the time is falsely accused of objectification just for having his sexuality. Male sexuality is nearly illegal these days in political correct rules.
triplanetary said:
"Enjoying the sight of a naked woman (or man, obviously) is not necessarily objectification, and feminists don't generally think it is"
Are you sure about that? Why do feminists make it into such a big deal than? If only a small minority of men do it, feminists wouldn't feel the need to shout in their angry little soap boxes about.
The thing is that feminists seem to accuse all men or the majority of men or a very large number of men all because of their sexuality. Even when a man shows no sign of thinking that women are only good for sex, just him showing interest in the female body will have accusations slapped on him left, right, and centre.
The objectification hype more so demonises male sexuality than it does any good.
Professional porn seems to have the same woman with different wigs on. Maybe it is just me or I am blind. *walks into the door on the way out thinking it was open*
ReplyDeleteWhat's the feminist perspective on lesbian porn? Are women oppressing each other? OMG!
ReplyDeleteWhy is it only evil or oppressive when it's men having sexual feelings of appreciation towards a human body?
Elizabeth-- Maybe I'm uncommonly good at finding weirdass porn?
ReplyDeleteNick-- Kindly start arguing with the people actually in the discussion, as opposed to the imaginary feminists in your head.
No one is accusing anyone of objectification for having a sexuality. "Politically correct" rules mostly tend to cover things like not pressuring people into sex/a date/whatever, not using positions of power to coerce people into sex/a date/whatever and requiring an active 'yes' instead of merely the absence of 'no' (or, God help us, a 'no' and a short skirt) to do sexual things to people's bodies. Note the nongendered terminology: women who break these rules are equally condemned by sensible feminists.
Basically, it all boils down to consent. If expressing your sexuality requires people not to consent, you have a problem bigger than the Internet can solve.
The sex-positive feminist position on lesbian porn (I'll let the radical feminists speak for themselves) is the same as their position on any porn: critiquing it if it enforces unrealistic beauty standards, gender role expectations or ideas of sexuality, or is otherwise problematic, but mostly okay with it as long as everyone involved is-- that's right-- consenting.
Again: no one wants you to not want hot women. That would be stupid. People want you to acknowledge that women have worth outside their hotness, and critique messages in the culture that imply that women's only value is their pussy. That's all.
Considering the vast array of porn out there, I would say no...I think that humans are pretty weird (which is actually normal) when it comes to sex.
ReplyDeletenick, there is no "feminist perspective" on porn. Some feminists hate it, some are indifferent to it, some like it. Most feminists I know enjoy porn, or at least some varieties of it.
ReplyDelete"as opposed to the imaginary feminists in your head."
ReplyDeleteLOL
So are you going to claim that many feminists don't make a big deal out of objectification? To make a big deal out of something, you have to believe it's a common problem right? Like most of the male population only see women as sex objects?
"Again: no one wants you to not want hot women. That would be stupid. People want you to acknowledge that women have worth outside their hotness, and critique messages in the culture that imply that women's only value is their pussy. That's all."
I think the majority of men acknowledge that there is a lot more to women than sex. That's why relationships and marriages exist.
Anyway, shouting it out to men all the time as in believing you have to remind men every 5 minutes; only shows extreme paranoia and mistrust towards men. Which all relates to misandry
What's the feminist perspective on lesbian porn? Are women oppressing each other? OMG!
ReplyDeleteWhat's most curious about this question is your assumption that the actors are the only people involved in a porn movie. The fact that a porn movie stars two women doesn't mean there aren't men behind the camera.
As such, the standards for lesbian porn are going to be largely the same as those for straight porn, and as David says, those standards are a matter of personal conviction. Feminists can be pretty divided on the subject of porn.
Anyway, shouting it out to men all the time as in believing you have to remind men every 5 minutes; only shows extreme paranoia and mistrust towards men.
That semicolon is bothering the hell out of me.
But anyway, feminists aren't shouting about objectification all the time because they mistrust men. They talk about it all the time because it happens all the time. You took my last post to mean that I was claiming objectification doesn't really happen much. That's not what I said. I said that appreciating a person's body is not necessarily objectification. Objectification of women happens all the damn time in our culture.
wow triplanetary, I didn't know feminists had magical powers which allows them to telepathically read men's minds.
ReplyDeleteIt happens all the time, right? ROFL
Saying that it happens all the time is proving my accusation towards feminist paranoia. Mistrust towards men
If men claimed male oppression by expressing that many women only see men as financial objects, would they get laughed at? Particularly by feminists?
ReplyDeleteWould we get people like David saying that I have never ran into these women so that means they don’t exist or it’s all the man’s fault for running into these women?
There is a totally different standard for feminists when the complaint is coming from the other side of the fence. But wait, feminism is an equality movement :D
The objectification is made apparent through cultural expression - TV, movies, books, anything - and through cultural attitudes that are deemed mainstream and acceptable. When men say things like the quotes in David's post, you don't have to read their minds to see that they objectify women. Your bullshit comment about mind-reading is an asinine attempt to dodge that rather obvious fact.
ReplyDeleteIf men claimed male oppression by expressing that many women only see men as financial objects, would they get laughed at?
Yes, because it makes no goddamn sense. First of all, men have the power in this culture, so male views of women do far more damage than female views of men. This is a point that MRAs have serious trouble understanding. It's an issue of privilege. Those inside the privileged class (which, on the matter of gender, is cisgendered men) can't in fairness piss and moan about the hurtful things said about them by those in the unprivileged class. They do it all the time, however, be the privileged class in question whites, men, Christians, the wealthy, etc. Because they feel entitled.
All that aside, however, this "financial objects" business is idiotic nonsense anyway. Let's start with the fact that, in the US today, women are almost as likely as men to be employed outside the home. 47% of the US workforce, to be exact, is women. I honestly don't understand why MGTOWs cling to this silly notion that women are financially leeching off their husbands.
Second, in eras past when women by and large weren't employed (actually, I should say *middle and upper class women* by and large weren't employed), this was not by choice. Women were at one time legally barred from owning property or signing a contract in countries like the US and England. They had no choice but to be financially dependent on men. And that was a deliberate construct of the patriarchy. Women fought for the legal rights they needed to be financially independent. If all they wanted to do was leech, they wouldn't have bothered.
There is a totally different standard for feminists when the complaint is coming from the other side of the fence.
No there's not. The standard is "your claims must make some fucking sense." Claims of objectification make sense - it's all over the place in our culture. Turn on the fucking TV and you'll see it.
Would we get people like David saying that I have never ran into these women so that means they don’t exist or it’s all the man’s fault for running into these women?
ReplyDeleteIf you feel obligated to provide financially for your partner, and hate your partner for it, that is your fault. Yes, a given girlfriend might dump you for it. That's a good thing. Clearly she's not the girlfriend for you.
No matter how many women you try to date want to leech off you financially (I'm not even going to make any claims as to what the percentage might be, because it's irrelevant), you owe it to yourself and to them to keep looking until you find one that doesn't.
Oh, but I'm sorry, it's hard and takes time and involves a lot of rejection. Excuse me while I wipe away this tear. Guess what? Everyone goes through this, men and women alike. 90% of the women I date don't work out for one reason or another. It's not because 90% of women are awful or leeches or anything - we're just not compatible for various reasons.
And that's the case with almost everyone. That's just how dating works. It takes a lot of time and effort to find a partner who's compatible with you, and you're not going to get into the pants of everyone you meet along the way. Those supposed "alpha males" you see who get all sorts of poon are not getting in the pants of every woman they meet, either. They just meet a lot of women.
From where I'm sitting, it just looks like MRAs are bitter about all the effort it takes to get laid. But it's not because women are all amusing themselves with depriving you and manipulating you. It's because you have to find someone with whom you can make a connection.
So my point is, even if most women WERE leeches (they're not, but even if they were), you'd still be able to find one who weren't if you really wanted to.
Try it - when you see a 'hot' female, imagine them without the dyed hair, lip gloss, eye liner, foundation, high heels (longer legs), expensive clothes, perfume etc, really DECONSTRUCT the illusion.
ReplyDeleteHe does realize that pretty much all men who've been in long-term relationships with women have seen them without all the makeup, clothes, heels, perfume, and even (gasp!) with their natural haircolour, right? Like, that's not a deconstruction of the illusion- that's what a woman looks like fresh out of the shower after she spent the night at your place. And yet somehow, the men they're with still manage to find them sexy. But it's probably due to their Manly Willpower or something.
@nicko81m:
ReplyDeleteIt isn't paranoia or misandry. It is about personal safety. Sorry, but there seems to be a small minority of men who can't seem to get the idea that looking too hard is almost as bad as touching, and that touching is right out. You might want to read this essay, because she said it way better than me.
"If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety."
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
Good link. I can already hear the MRAs coming to whine about how oppressed they are by a woman's right to not talk to them if she doesn't want to.
ReplyDeleteThe general MRA complaint is that women have complete control over every social interaction because they can brush you off or try to get you to go away if they don't want to talk to you, and, horror of horrors, you are supposed to comply! What kind of world are we living in when women can decide what they're going to do and who they're going to talk to?!
What MRAs aren't quite grasping is that men can do this too. If a woman approaches me on the train and I don't want to talk to her, I can turn and look out the window. See? The woman is not in control of the social situation. We share control.
But of course if I ever do that, that will decrease the number of vaginas that I might be able to put my penis in! So really it was the woman secretly exerting control with her wily genitals! ^_^
Sexist men want to have control when the other person in the social encounter is a woman. These men will get angry at women who don't want to talk to them or reject their advances. They feel entitled to seize a woman's attention and time whenever they want it. MRAs might deny this is a problem, but you'll see it all the time if you're aware of it happening around you.
This sense of entitlement, which is widespread in our culture, is the reason rape is always a looming threat for women. MRAs whine about how they're not a rapist so why should they be looked upon with mistrust? Tough cookies, MRAs. We men are members of a privileged class. The unprivileged class has every right and reason to view members of the privileged class with suspicion.
I am out of here very soon. I want to reply to other post in here and post in other threads, but time is short
ReplyDeleteAnyway
atuinsails
Do you think I’m overreacting
This is a quote from the article you presented. In contrast, let's see different...but same
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352835/John-Lewis-Konstantinos-Kalomoiris-sues-sexual-harrassment.html
Anyway, there is much I want to say in here and other threads but I will leave it until next time.
All I can say now is keep the humour rolling feminists.
No matter how many women you try to date want to leech off you financially (I'm not even going to make any claims as to what the percentage might be, because it's irrelevant), you owe it to yourself and to them to keep looking until you find one that doesn't.
ReplyDeleteTo add to the above advice, when you find one that doesn't, keep in mind that she might be looking for someone whose idea of a relationship with her is a partnership, not a lord and serf style arrangement.
If a woman approaches me on the train and I don't want to talk to her, I can turn and look out the window. See? The woman is not in control of the social situation. We share control.
ReplyDeleteBut of course if I ever do that, that will decrease the number of vaginas that I might be able to put my penis in!
Gee, I hope you didn't shell out too many $$ for PUA lessons on the "Art of Game", as you obviously didn't listen or take proper notes!! Doing what you have described above will actually INCREASE the number of vaginas that you might be able to put your penis in!
"The objectification hype more so demonises male sexuality than it does any good."---Nick
ReplyDeleteExactly.
"Objectification of women happens all the damn time in our culture."---Triplanetary
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, if a man doesn't desire/go after women 24/7, there's something wrong with him (he's gay, asexual, shy, low confidence, ugly, no social skills, an idiot, etc.).
"These men will get angry at women who don't want to talk to them or reject their advances."---Triplanetary
Then feminists shouldn't slag and label men that don't respond or reject women's advances. Men have the right to turn down women for dates, sex, affection, or what have you as well and don't have to put up with the accusations, labels, and caustic scorn that is exhibited here as well as any where else.
Then feminists shouldn't slag and label men that don't respond or reject women's advances.
ReplyDeleteWhat reality are you living in, man?
"And yet, if a man doesn't desire/go after women 24/7, there's something wrong with him (he's gay, asexual, shy, low confidence, ugly, no social skills, an idiot, etc.)."
ReplyDeleteSo true! It’s really too bad that our sexist culture enforces this oppressive lack of options for men and shames them if they do not fit into the narrow box of what men are “supposed” to be like. Things would be better if folks would listen to feminists and gay rights activists when they argue that just as women want to step outside the rigid gender roles that have been handed down, men too deserve the opportunity to embrace a wide variety of possible expressions of their gender and sexuality. Glad to see that's you're coming around to the positive things feminism has to offer for men as well, Wytche.
"Then feminists shouldn't slag and label men that don't respond or reject women's advances."
No problem. Done and done. If a man rejects my advances, I just accept it and move on. Why is that even an issue for anyone, anyone at all really? It's not rocket surgery.
> People have the right to turn down people for dates, sex, affection, or what have you and shouldn't have to put up with accusations, labels, and caustic scorn anywhere.
ReplyDeleteFTFY
@nicko81m:
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me say that I think you have gotten this a little turned around.
I feel for Mr. Kalomoiris. He did everything he could to bring this woman's actions to the attention of her superiors and was eventually forced to quit. He doesn't deserve to be characterized in the press as over sensitive or that he should be happy any woman would pay attention to him as his age.
Unfortunately, he isn't going to get a sympathetic ear in the US, because most women in the US face the same tactics that John Lewis are using against Mr. Kalomoiris to try and save their company and to keep from giving him any money.
What I was talking about is the paranoia women are forced to use in order to feel safe. Do you think I want to be afraid that some guy is going to say something completely inappropriate when he approaches me on the street?
Unfortunately, street harassment is so pervasive in American culture, that they have websites for reporting it in Washington, DC, Boston, Chicago, and an umbrella website (http://www.ihollaback.org/). Here women can post photos of men who have a history of street harrassment (which isn't a crime unless you can track down witnesses and a cop and keep the perpetrator around all at the same time) so other women know to stay away from them.
So yes, very sorry for Mr. Kalomoiris. Get back to me the next time a big, hairy biker dude/dudette yells from his/her motorcycle that he/she would love to give you a rough ride while fondling his/her crotch, then talk to me about paranoia.
"Glad to see that's you're coming around to the positive things feminism has to offer for men as well, Wytche."---SS
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't. In fact, I would say that the shaming language has increased in the last couple of decades alongside feminist entitlement attitudes. I know women that are card-carrying feminists that employ the "if you are over 30/40, male, and single, there's something wrong with you" tone both in public and online. There's many other things as well, but that goes without entering a vast diatribe about it.
FYI, this site is just a symptom of bashing men for anything that doesn't fit in the narrow spectrum of gender feminist approval.
I know women that are card-carrying feminists that employ the "if you are over 30/40, male, and single, there's something wrong with you" tone both in public and online.
ReplyDeleteThis is a deliberate misrepresentation. The issue that feminists keep running into is that there are a lot of men over 30 who are single but don't want to be single, but continually refuse to acknowledge that they might be at least part of the problem. Instead they blame women and/or feminism. That is a problem.
If a man is over 30 and single because he wants to be single, and doesn't have all the fucked up notions about women that MRAs and MGTOWs have, there's nothing wrong with him. One of the big clues that a single, older man is not a puerile, sexist manbaby is that generally such a man will have female friends.
The problem is with older men who want to date but, for any number of reasons, have never successfully done so. I feel for such men - or rather, I would if they were 5 or 10 years younger. But if they manage to hit 30 (or especially 40) without committing to some personal growth in order to be more socially functional, it's usually because they blame women for it. And that's ugly.
"This is a deliberate misrepresentation."---triplanetary
ReplyDeleteThis is deliberate bullshit. You're pawning off and avoiding the core issue.
"Instead they blame women and/or feminism. That is a problem."
Of course, feminism is never to blame for anything.
"And that's ugly."---triplanetary
ReplyDeleteSo are the comments from women who mock single men in the 30s/40s.
Nice try, but you can't deny the sentiment that's out there from embittered women who constantly slag men as "selfish" and "irresponsible" for not settling down. Among other things. Hell, it's even become fashionable to view them as mentally ill or even potentially dangerous.
Who has the bad attitude, again? And why would a man be shamed into a relationship with someone like that negativity?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWytch,
ReplyDeleteDo you have close real life female friends?
If you are unable to have a friendship with a woman what makes you think you are able to have a sexual relationship with a woman cupcake?
As far as how bachelors are perceived the same goes for spinsters. Just that word should tell you sometime but it won’t because you lack the ability to empathize, hence your lack of relationships.
There is a solution to your problem of course. Stop being such an ass and people will start liking you!
If you do have a sincere social dysfunction I encourage you to get help. Help is out there for you cupcake if you only try.
In fact, I would say that the shaming language has increased in the last couple of decades alongside feminist entitlement attitudes.
ReplyDeleteCorrelation/causation?
I know women that are card-carrying feminists that employ the "if you are over 30/40, male, and single, there's something wrong with you" tone both in public and online. There's many other things as well, but that goes without entering a vast diatribe about it.
1. Citation needed. The plural of anecdote is not data.
2. Who is issuing these cards? I would like one!
FYI, this site is just a symptom of bashing men for anything that doesn't fit in the narrow spectrum of gender feminist approval.
You know who doesn't fit in the "narrow spectrum of gender feminist approval"? Misogynists. Especially ones who are outright assholes about it. Otherwise, anything goes.
Wytche, the fact that you personally have encountered feminists who are judgmental jerks about men being single when they're in their 30s and 40s simply means that you've encountered some feminists who are judgmental jerks. You use this one small incident as an excuse to ignore the actual philosophical underpinnings of feminism, which do in fact offer men increased opportunities for self-expression of gender/sexual identity. I'm a feminist and I'm over 30 and I'm single--what the hell business do I have judging anyone else who's single and over 30 or 40 or whatever? In order for you to make a case that there really is a strong strand of feminism that places importance on men getting married once they're past 30, and shaming them if they're not interested in pursuing women 24/7 like they're sex robots, then you're going to need to present some sources besides "These MEAN feminists I talked to once!" Like, for example, a link to a published article, or a book title. Because actual, real feminists view the idea that men are universally tireless, ravenous sex-starved beasts is oppressive to men, just as the idea that women universally don't like sex and only "give in" to it when they want something else (money, emotional attachment) is oppressive to women. Both may apply in a few cases, but neither applies in all cases, and insisting that they do is sexist.
Like I said, this isn't rocket surgery. Too bad it still seems to be over your head.
Penultimate sentence in penultimate paragraph: "is" should be "as."
ReplyDeleteOf course, feminism is never to blame for anything.
ReplyDeleteI blame feminism for Sarah Palin's success. CURSE YOU, FEMINISM!!!!
So are you going to claim that many feminists don't make a big deal out of objectification?
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't the claim that was made at all. The claim that was made was the sexuality is not equivalent to objectification, and that even feminists know this.
To make a big deal out of something, you have to believe it's a common problem right?
No. You simply have to believe that the repercussions are substantial enough to warrant your attention. This could be an issue of frequency, but it could also be an issue of magnitude.
"In order for you to make a case that there really is a strong strand of feminism that places importance on men getting married once they're past 30, and shaming them if they're not interested in pursuing women 24/7 like they're sex robots, then you're going to need to present some sources besides "These MEAN feminists I talked to once!" "
ReplyDeleteIt was that feminist who yelled at him for opening a door for him. And then complained when he didn't save her from a mugger.
"It was that feminist who yelled at him for opening a door for him. And then complained when he didn't save her from a mugger."--Jupiter9
ReplyDeleteThat's a good summation of cognitive dissonance with your typical feminist. One of many, I should think. Ersatz indepenence on one hand, but when the shit hits the fan demand a man to rescue them---even though they dished out misandry at toxic levels before.
"Citation needed. The plural of anecdote is not data."---SS
ReplyDeleteSo many of you do this so much with anecdotes. Do you realize that? And if I do provide links, you'd dismiss them with rationalizations, I'm sure.
"Correlation/causation?"
Are you in serious denial of shaming language and entitlement temperments from feminists, or just full of shit? I mean, really? This site is only the tip of the iceberg here. You've even employed shaming language and snipets like this:
"Too bad it still seems to be over your head."
Actually, it's over your head, but unlike your facetiousness I'm being earnest. You really don't get it. You don't want to see it in yourself.
"You know who doesn't fit in the "narrow "spectrum of gender feminist approval"? Misogynists. Especially ones who are outright assholes about it. Otherwise, anything goes."
Translation: "Misogynist attitudes are what I say it is and what I don't like as a feminist, and anything I don't agree with."
"I'm a feminist and I'm over 30 and I'm single--what the hell business do I have judging anyone else who's single and over 30 or 40 or whatever?"
Why don't you say that to the posters around here that have this mentality? Or anyone else on the 'Net?
You can start with David himself.
@wytch
ReplyDelete> if I do provide links, you'd dismiss them with rationalizations, I'm sure.
Try me.
That's a good summation of cognitive dissonance with your typical feminist. One of many, I should think. Ersatz indepenence on one hand, but when the shit hits the fan demand a man to rescue them---even though they dished out misandry at toxic levels before.
ReplyDeleteYeah, this doesn't really happen is the main problem with your argument.
You always claim you have all these links and evidence, Witchy, and then you say you won't show your precious evidence to us because we'll just laugh at it or dismiss it or otherwise damage your fragile ego.
ReplyDeleteSounds like a bullshit cop-out to me.
And since you asked, yes, I am denying that “feminists” (by which I mean the preponderance of women and men who self-identify as feminists, and particularly those people who take the idea of feminism seriously enough to take time to write about it and expound upon it) regularly shame men for not getting married and for not adhering to the narrow ideal of masculinity that you described. That’s the claim you made. I’m saying you’re wrong about that. I think that the only basis you have for making your assertion is your personal experience with some women who were both feminist and also mean to you. Your personal experiences are not sufficient basis for generalizing on a whole movement of people that encompasses millions of women and men over the past century or so. That’s why it’s important to go to the sources, and see what actual feminists themselves have said about whether men who don’t get married deserve to be shamed, and how masculinity should be defined or expressed.
Me: "I'm a feminist and I'm over 30 and I'm single--what the hell business do I have judging anyone else who's single and over 30 or 40 or whatever?"
ReplyDeleteWitchy: Why don't you say that to the posters around here that have this mentality? Or anyone else on the 'Net?
Um... why would I? Does anyone need validation from me for their life choices? Do you? If I encountered someone on the net who was saying that there's something fundamentally wrong with men who stay single past their 30s and 40s, I would be quick to tell them they're full of shit--problem is, I haven't personally encountered this. Ditto for the attitude that something is fundamentally wrong with a man who doesn't chase tail 24/7 like a sex-crazed hyena. And guess what? I frequent a LOT of feminist websites.
> Sounds like a bullshit cop-out to me.
ReplyDeleteOr to put it more concisely, "bluffing".
Bluffing only works if you're playing a game where you can win before someone can call your bluff.
Discourse is not such a game.
"Sounds like a bullshit cop-out to me."---SS
ReplyDeleteYep, I knew you would say that. You bullshiter, you.
Believe me, I have a few. Of course, I'll predict exactly what you will do next---dismiss them out of hand.
"Your personal experiences are not sufficient basis for generalizing on a whole movement of people that encompasses millions of women and men over the past century or so."
Just like your personal experience with MGTOW not sufficent for generalizing them as well? Hypocrite. BTW, I base my observations on hundreds of convesations and interactions with men and women, not just mine. Pulling that "That's just anecdotes" card is no longer impressive nor does it come across as convincing. Try harder.
"I frequent a LOT of feminist websites."
I have as well.
"Yeah, this doesn't really happen is the main problem with your argument."--Triplanetary
ReplyDeleteIt does, you're just in denial. Put your money where your mouth is.
@wytch
ReplyDelete> Believe me, I have a few.
Believe me, you're bluffing.
wytch -- "put your money where your mouth is"?
ReplyDeleteYou're the one making the claim about feminists; you provide the evidence.
And while you're at it, some evidence for your other claims.
"Sounds like a bullshit cop-out to me."---SS
ReplyDeleteYep, I knew you would say that. You bullshiter, you.
Wow, you said some bullshit, and you predicted that it would be called bullshit. You must be psychic.
Believe me, I have a few.
I don't believe you.
Of course, I'll predict exactly what you will do next---dismiss them out of hand.
Perhaps because you know they're bullshit?
Just like your personal experience with MGTOW not sufficent for generalizing them as well? Hypocrite.
First of all, I haven't (yet) made any generalizations about MTGOW in particular. Please note, however, that making generalizations about them is quite allowable as long as you've demonstrated that you're well-versed in the views that they themselves endorse and try to promote. This is what David Futrelle does: reads what they actually say, then makes generalizations about them. If you want to make generalizations about feminists and feminism (and not be accused of bullshitting), then you must demonstrate that you are familiar with what feminists actually say about themselves and their views. You've failed to do that.
BTW, I base my observations on hundreds of convesations and interactions with men and women, not just mine.
Oooooo. HUNDREDS.
Is that supposed to be impressive? Conversations with WHO? What kinds of interactions? Is this just a roundabout way of saying "A lot of posters on my favorite internet forums say so"? See, this is why you have no credibility.
Pulling that "That's just anecdotes" card is no longer impressive nor does it come across as convincing. Try harder.
I'm not impressed that you're not impressed by the "it's just anecdotes" response to anecdotes. The fact that you find this argument "no longer impressive" simply means that you've encountered this argument frequently, and rather than modifying your own behavior to be more in accord with the accepted rules of evidence-based debating, you simply dismiss it. Guess what? That doesn't change the fact that IT'S STILL ANECDOTES and anecdotes are still not data.
The question at hand, lest you've forgotten, is whether it's accurate to say that feminists generally endorse shaming men for not living up the narrow ideal of masculinity you described above. Your continued attempts at deflection are noted, and taken down as evidence for the "Witchy is full of bullshit" hypothesis.
Let's review the basics again: you said that feminists like to shame men for not living up to a narrow ideal of masculinity. This is a false claim. But, in the spirit of open and fair debate, I gave you a chance to substantiate your claim and show that you base that claim on something besides the voices in your head. You bluffed and deflected. Then your bluff was called, and you had nothing. You couldn't put up. When you can't put up, it's usually wise to shut up.
@SallyStrange
ReplyDeleteCareful, cupcake's brain might explode when presented with so much actual reasoning.
"You're the one making the claim about feminists; you provide the evidence."---David
ReplyDeleteNo. She's the one asking for links---I never obligated myself to them. I said I COULD provide them, but never said I would or not.
And if I did, she'll act as if it's all anecdotal anyway, when if she had provided links that proved something to this thread she'd consider it gospel.
Consider your own reading comprehension suspect, btw.
"You always claim you have all these links and evidence, Witchy, and then you say you won't show your precious evidence to us because we'll just laugh at it or dismiss it or otherwise damage your fragile ego."
ReplyDeleteTypical feminist shaming bullshit; "you men and your fragile egos!"
You can't handle the truth. That's your ego projection talking.
"Is that supposed to be impressive? Conversations with WHO? What kinds of interactions? Is this just a roundabout way of saying "A lot of posters on my favorite internet forums say so"? See, this is why you have no credibility."---SS
ReplyDeleteI could say the same thing about feminists making noise online---in fact, you are proving me right all along. That is, if I provided online discussion you would consider it as "no credibility."
You walk into your own traps in way.
"IT'S STILL ANECDOTES and anecdotes are still not data."
But when feminists site sources and date, of course, it's data!
"Let's review the basics again: you said that feminists like to shame men for not living up to a narrow ideal of masculinity. This is a false claim."---SS
ReplyDeleteLike Hugo Schwyzer, Michael Kimmel, Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, Jackson Katz, David Futrelle, Catherine Mackinnon, and many other feminists who look down their noses at masculinity that doesn't fit their version standard of what it should be?
You certainly like making claims of fragile egos, which are usually directed toward men, correct?
I realize that's an apples and oranges comparison, but it looks like you are on your way with the the august company I mentioned.
Feminists only accept what they believe is correct and healthy masculinity to them. Am I making a generalization? Yep. But exceptions do nothing to dismiss that broad based truth. And you, so far, however been persuasive at all.
"Of course, I'll predict exactly what you will do next---dismiss them out of hand."
ReplyDelete"Perhaps because you know they're bullshit?"---SS
Again, you keep proving me right. You won't accept any info I provide.
This is too easy, and you are too much of an egomanic to accept you are going down in flames.
Gosh Witchy, are you trying to say that your ego ISN'T fragile? Doesn't look like it from over here. But I really take exception to your implication that most men have fragile egos. I don't buy that at all. I've met many men with strong healthy (but not overdeveloped) egos.
ReplyDeleteIs the fact that you have a fragile ego related to the fact that you have a penis? Personally I doubt it, and I think you're being sexist towards men when you imply otherwise.
Anyway, you haven't actually provided any information yet--just named a few names, without providing any relevant quotes or links--so your theory that everyone's going to dismiss your evidence is still unproven, because you're too much of a coward to actually test it out.
It's just words on a screen Witchy. You aren't actually going to die if people tell you that they think you're wrong.
avoidwomen's comment is pretty telling:
ReplyDelete"It's no surprise then that I find porn repulsive. Women really do look ugly(and almost all the same) in their birthday suit without all their clothes and makeup."
1. Porn is criticized for the women all looking the same. Generally, pornstars all have a similar body type and try to go for the same looks. Skinny, shaved pubes, dyed hair, etc.
2. Women in mainstream porn are wearing a ton of makeup!
3. This guy has probably not seen many naked women outside of porn.
I suspect many more men find a totally naked and natural woman a grossout than would ever admit it. Look at all the bitching that goes on when a pr0n model has pubes or lacks makeup.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't even get me started on the foot fetish. There's a reason women always have to wear at least shoes, whereas the man can wear nothing.