Cosmetics: An evil plot to fool the men of the world into thinking that ladies are pretty
Evil female deceiver at work
Ladies! You may think you’ve got the men of the world fooled, but the guys over on MGTOWforums.com can see right through you! As dontmarry puts it:
Everything that a woman does is deceitful. From makeup, push-up bras and high heels, to fibbing about her dick count or proclamations of ‘I don’t mind marrying a poor man’ (oh yes you do).
That’s right, ladies! We know those eyelashes aren’t real! We know your cheeks aren’t really that rosy! And your lips aren’t really that red! And your boobies aren’t really … um, what was I saying? I got distracted thinking about boobies. Anyway, you’re all a bunch of liars! I bet some of you even wear Spanx, which are a tool of Satan.
Also, that thing he said about the dick count. Stop the lies! We demand dick count accuracy!
Posted on September 21, 2011, in $MONEY$, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, oppressed men. Bookmark the permalink. 572 Comments.
$300/month on makeup sounds a bit steep, unless she has skin problems that make the drugstore brands a minefield. I can relate somewhat, and it’s true that you can burn alot of money looking for the right stuff for your situation. But once you got a good brand loyalty going you should be able to rein it in a bit. Of course, factor in the not-makeup makep up – cleansers and sunscreens and whatnot- and it can go back up. I have acne-prone skin and what I spend on a sunblock that won’t make me break out boggles the mind.
“Chuckee, do you realize that blitzgal is paraphrasing MRAL’s views in this quote? No. You think blitzgal holds those views.
If you’re going to lecture us about how smart you are, you might want to demonstrate being able to understand what other people are saying.”
Thank you. Also, your handle is hilarious.
I need to finally as this noob question. How do we blockquote here???
<blockquote>quoted stuff</blockquote>
(It’s less-than, then the word “blockquote”, then greater-than to start, and less-than, slash, “blockquote”, greater-than. I mostly wanted to see if i could get the escape characters right.)
I’m surprised that anyone could spend $300 a month on makeup. Some of it is very expensive, yes, but most products last for a long time. Even if you dispose of makeup every few months as recommended, $3600 a year on makeup seems outrageous for an ordinary woman. I wear makeup daily and tend toward expensive brands. I would estimate I spend about $500 a year on makeup, lotions, cleansers, and so on.
Sweet.
wtf are you prattling about AACC? You better check your own comprehension abilities before you criticize others’.
And who was responsible for that?
Snowy, you have caught me in a lie! I did not clearly state my morning height and evening height. I haven’t measured myself in years, but I’ve measured everything between 5′ 1″ and 5′ 2″, at different times of the day, too, so it would be more honest to say I’m 5′ 1.5″. Only it sounds absurd to say that, like it’s cute when a kid tells you they’re 9 and 3/4, but really weird if I say I’m 31 and 1 month.
Now, what shall my punishment be? XD
DISCLAIMERS:
1) Argument Fallacy; suckers choice.
2) Misanderist tropes; men aren’t dumb beasts who only respond in binary reflex to stimuli.
My wife wears makeup because she wants to appear more professional at work. For women, it can be like wearing a clean shirt and a tie would be for men. Since her clients are primarily severely mentally ill men, presenting herself as sexually appealing is not really to her advantage. Of course, all workplaces are different and everyone’s mileage may vary, but the fact remains that she emphatically does not wear makeup every day to appeal to men. Before her current job, she wore none at all.
Overly simplistic, incredibly trite and demonstrably false. Chuckeedee have you ever put on makeup that wasn’t for the stage/theater or part of a halloween costume?
Silly Nobinayamu, we’re just not smart enough to grok his superior intellect, don’t you know? You need to stop arguing like a liberal and start reading more Ann Coulter. Or something.
Kristin, I think reading chuckeedees comments is more than punishment enough.
Captain, I’d have less of a problem if he’d at least hedge his bets a bit; use a few modifiers and that “superior intellect” to work. Speaking in such absolutes about something that you barely understand…
I mean, yes, it’s classic chuckeedee. And goodness knows next week he’ll have contradicted everything he’s written in the past two days and moved on to some new theory of why women suck expressed with his customary pleonasm.
But it costs nothing to use modifiers and their use will keep the gears of that bike nice and lubricated when you, inevitably, have to begin your retreat.
Do be specific, instead of waffling in unsubstantiable [oops, big word] abstractions. “To role-play, to play a “type” of woman, as in feeling sexy and attractive…” provides a comprehensive spectrum that covers pretty much all possibilities, from “making a statement” through to the good Cap’ns wife’s example of dressing for work (just as men wear suits for work). Your thinking seems terribly linear and one-dimensional. You must be a liberal.
DISCLAIMER [seems we still need it after all]: Apologies to the less gifted among us, for my use of big words. I find it more economical to write this way.
chuckeedee: Fallacy of False dichotomy. I really have to wonder at the circles in which you travel that such as this is considered, “intellectual”.
Perhaps a course in basic logic would help (a good English 103, or Phil 10X, Introduction to Ethics will do; if you are feeling up to it you could try Symbolic Logic, but that’s almost like math).
DisclaimerI use short words and simple grammar when I need to make my views plain to the meanest understanding.
Ah.. the NWOSophist: Holly didn’t answer my question the way I wanted her to, so I can pretend I am answering.
Pecunium disagrees with me, therefore he thinks anything a woman says/does is right.
Never mind that I don’t think anything a woman does is “OK, because it was a woman.
Here’s one example in which I most plainly said a woman was wrong: Laurie Klein is an idiot, who ought to have been arrested, and had her carry permit yanked.
So, argument disproved. And NWOslave still pretends to answer questions.
are we back to discussing my purported intellectualism, instead of the topic at hand? And grammar? Good grief.
Are men “role-playing” when they put clothes on as well, then?
*eschews deception, daubs self with woad*
Chuckyfuckwit, we are calling you a pretentious wanker. Not an intellectual. An intellectual would know the difference, for starters.
yes… they are making statements as to how they live their lives and what they value. Refer to my previous comment in brackets:
unsubstantiable … wow… chuckeedee has managed a neologism.
I’m so proud, our baby is growing up.
and your point is?
Back… chuckeedee, you never stopped. That’s the entire point of your disclaimer, to promote your mighty intellect; so spare and economic with words, and powerful in ideas.
Now, you might actually look at the comment; and try to explain away the fallacy (false dichotomy) but no, you’d rather pretend I attacked your grammar.
I really have to wonder at the circles in which you travel that such as this is considered, “intellectual”.
as far as i can tell, its because capt. bathrobe called him pretentious, and chuckeedee, not really understanding what that word meant, took it to mean he was being too high falutin’
Neologism? Google “unsubstantiable” and you will see that it is nothing of the sort.
If your definition of “deceptive” includes every situation in which a human being is clothed, it is then meaningless to say “women are deceptive”. You could, instead, say “women put clothes on” and make yourself clearer. But then it would be obvious what a load of drivel you’re typing and it would be rejected by the JEPN.
I take it back, Hershele, you had it right all along. Sheesh.
Chuckeedee, you aren’t using big words; you’re using too many words.
“Abstraction” is not a big word and neither is “unsubstantial.” I shudder to think of what kind of company you keep if think this vocabulary is illustrative of a rigorous intellect.
You say precious little and use a lot of words in which to do it. No one here is confused or impressed. You know what would impress me? If you went back to that absured bell-curve “thought experiment” and actually laid out the data behind that the concept, i.e. which traits in men and women were being measured by said “bell-curve”. Would it still be bullshit? Absolutely.
But at least there would be some effort involved. Because, right now, between your idiotic proximity theory and your insistence that you have some unique and definitive understanding about how women approach cosmetics and make up, your posts are not only a prime example of pleonastic writing, your thought processes are also lazy as fuck.
And grammar? Good grief.
if you are going to stutter on about how advanced your writing is, your ability to form sentences should be under scrutiny, yes. particularly because its clearly minimal.
chuckeedee:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=YZ7&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22unsubstantiable%22+definition&oq=%22unsubstantiable%22+definition&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4492l23909l0l24318l27l23l4l0l0l0l264l3198l1.12.6l19l0
all of 4,700 hits. It may not be unique to you, but it’s a neologism.
But you are right, it seems you aren’t up to coining neologisms yet…
who cares? Once again, we have liberals trying to force the conversation into Bush driving a car into a ditch, as per previous example I posted:
[cue sound of crickets chirping?]
Chuckeeedee: Who, apart from you, is talking about Bush, Fannie Mae, etc.?
People here are being on topic to the points you are bringing up .
That you are wrong, or engaged in fallacy has nothing to do with your politics, but completely with your arguments being, wrong/fallacious.
Chuckee’s boring, let’s talk about bears again. Bears roll in dead things to mask their own scent, the lying shits.
Colouring your hair, putting on make up, getting breast implants and so on are all LIES. This is why I feel no sympathy when guys lie to women about how much money they have to get in to their pants.
Another linear thinker, plodding along in autistic fashion. Where do you people get your education from? Metaphor, examples, all these things play their part in explanation and rhetoric. No wonder America is spiralling down the gurgler.
BTW, even as a men’s advocate, and somewhat of a recovering misogynist, I think a lot of the stuff you quote on this blog is retarded, but what’s wrong with this quote? How can you deny it’s lies? As for how many men she has fucked, well, I just assume she’s lying and multiply it by 3.
People have raised substantive issues, here, Chuck. It’s you who are fixating on your admittedly abominable writing style. I, for one, am willing to concede that even a shitty writer may have a point. I haven’t seen that to be the case for you.
But go on calling us liberals and quoting Ann Coulter, as if that proves anything.
I wear makeup when I want people to be nice to me and like me more, that people react that way when I wear makeup is not my fault and it’s tiring to fight the problem 100% of the time.
It’s all part of the lady-shuffle, like people treat me better when I wear more supportive/less comfortable undergarments, when I ask for things *cutely,* and pretend to be less competent than I really am.
Most of the time, I don’t, but sometimes I just want the guy to fix my air-conditioner or change my car battery and feel like he’s doing me a solid, because he is, and if eye liner is the price of that good will, so be it.
I’m just lucky that, 1) I’m able to shuffle effectively when it suits me, and 2) I’m unlikely to be physically harmed when I choose not to.
Chuckee, I’m prattling about this exchange:
you, quoting blitzgal:
you, going off on her for saying “hot women are obligated to fuck every man who wants them”:
Completely missing the fact that she was paraphrasing MRAL. So you’re actually going off on MRAL.
When I pointed this out, blitzgal’s reaction was:
Where exactly did my reading comprehension go wrong, again?
Oh yeah, and about my bad sex with a “10”: it was consensual, so it was 50% my responsibility, 50% hers. Did you have some other answer in mind when you asked that leading question?
I third that $300 a month on makeup seems odd… mainly because that’s been a sizable chunk of my *rent* for the past couple years. Even if that’s actually the norm, I’m not able to afford it.
Referring to what you wrote as “overly simplistic, trite and demonstrably false” is neither waffling, nor abstract. What you wrote was overly simplistic because it starts from the flawed assumption that every time a woman puts on her clothing or covers a pimple with concealer that first, and foremost, she is thinking about what she looks like to men. It also conflates fashion and clothing. I would expand on this but I doubt you could follow me. For now, let’s just stick to what might actually penetrate that thick haze of unearned self-importance and, I don’t know probably Old Spice, that swirls about your head.
The idea that highlighting features and concealing flaws, when applied to how average women use cosmetics, is a form of deception is absurd. This is why I asked you if you’d ever applied make up outside of a costume. Clearly you have not or you’d know how ridiculous the idea of eye-liner as a form of deception, really is. I’ve seen professional makeup artists do some fairly amazing things at photo shoots. Their work takes hours and hours to achieve. You don’t have to take my word for it; look up one of Kevin Aucoin’s books on Amazon. The man made Isabella Rosselini look Barbara Streisand and made up Grace Jones to look like Marilyn Monroe. The idea that the average woman in her bathroom mirror before her work day/date night/brunch with the girls, is doing anything of the sort is fucking laughable.
As for the second part, saying that women are role-playing a “type” in order to feel sexy and attractive does not in fact cover a “comprehensive spectrum.” Not even close. “Sexy,” quite often has jack-shit to do with projecting a professional appearance. In fact “sexy,” even inadvertent “sexy” can be an impediment to projecting a professional appearance. Also, it isn’t “role-playing” if a woman actually is a professional with the full expectations of her occupation and standards of dress to consider. This is the real world, dude, not Halloween. Women aren’t out playing “Sexy Accountant” when we go to work. There are also women who use clothing and cosmetics for the purpose of “making a statement” in manners that, once again, have nothing to do with being sexy and attractive for men. See the serious fashionistas that populate many cities. Take a look at the harem pants, and slouchy tunics, and grey nail polish and explain to me how that has anything to do with being attractive for men. Or, even better, explain to me how all men find the same kinds of clothing and make up attractive. There’s so much more but I need to go back to working on this presentation.
The thing is, chuckeedee, you’re kind of an idiot. But much like the whole “…thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters…” thing you actually managed to hit on something that’s not entirely untrue. Sexy and attractive, both as concepts and ways in which women dress, do not and cannot exist in a vacuum. They are cultural and can take in to account the opinions and desires of men. But men are not a monolith so what actually is “sexy and attractive” to them varies wildly. You’re also ignorant of the fact that women dress and present themselves, as often as not, for the benefit and judgment of other women. Yes, women also have culturally influenced ideas about what makes other women attractive and even sexy. These ideas also don’t exist in a vacuum and are deeply influential.
What you wrote is bullshit because it starts with a single, flawed premise –women only dress with men in consideration. And that idea is overly simplistic, trite, and demonstrably false.
Poor chuckeedee. No one wants to participate in his derail. Awww. Perhaps you should take your ball and go home. Or, you know, stay on topic while making salient points and logical arguments.
Or take your ball and go home.
I wholeheartedly applaud this graceful turn of phrase, but I suspect LYNX. You call that Axe across the pond, I think.
I’m thinking he’s more of an Axe kind of guy. It goes better with his douchebaggery.
Ninja’d by MissPrism! :)
Ha ha! That’s priceless!
You two are funny.
Actually, I figured Old Spice because he’s such a Coulter fan and, demographically, that puts him in his 40s/50s. But, you’re right, “Axe” would have been better for the bit.
Also, hellkell, my sister and I did contact the Corporate HQ. The home office/dispatcher was trying to get to me first, before the corporate rep. Apparently this is an ongoing issue with their techs. Lovely.
Some of the comments that I make, feminists might inadvertently agree with.
Sorry, I’m still hung up on this line. “Inadvertently?” Do feminists not have control over whether they agree or not? Also, the possibility of this happening is vanishingly small.
[cue sound of crickets chirping?]
Yes, three minutes with no response, a clear sign that you’re being ignored.
Another linear thinker, plodding along in autistic fashion.
That’s what you think of staying on topic? Bicycle applesauce hamster rollerblade monocle! There, I’m brilliant!
chuckeedee: You are complaining that we are missing your metaphor?
What we don’t find compelling is your analogy. You have said we are what… derailing to mock your language and grammar?
It’s a bad analogy; you are the one who introduced it (and your putatory intellectual bona fides). So trying to show that we are suffering from getting lost in the weeds, and further trying to imply that we are somehow suffeing from, “Liberal Derangement Syndrome” by using “Bush Blaming” as your analogous behavior; in the form of a side-door ad hominem…. weak.
If you want to speak metaphorically, use metaphors, if you wish use a similie, make a similie. If you want to be anything close to thought of as educated, call things by their names.
If you want to be seen as an intellectual, show some intellect. It’s not formal education one needs (it’s not as if I have any degree post high school), it’s rigor. It’s putting one thing in front of the other, and seeing to it the conclusions follow from the premises.
That’s a fuck-ton more important than grammar, or word choice, and it’s what you, consistently fail to do.
That’s why we consider your disclaimer risible, because the words it follows give it the lie; and you fail, even in the teeth of the evidence, to attain any comprehension as to why.
Good, because the guys need to know they’re not Karl Hungus, and this ain’t Logjammin’.
Oh, a Lebowski reference. My day is seriously complete.
Katz: Some of the comments that I make, feminists might inadvertently agree with.
Sorry, I’m still hung up on this line. “Inadvertently?” Do feminists not have control over whether they agree or not? Also, the possibility of this happening is vanishingly small.
I think perhaps he has misplaced the modifier:
Some of the comments that I make,inadvertently , feminists might agree with. is probably more correct. It may even be what he meant. Lesser mortals, with merely common; even linear, intellects are confounded by the complexity of his speech; he is veritably Tacitus in the modern day.
he is veritably Tacitus in the modern day.
As a classicist, I resent that
As one familiar with the classics, I appreciate the resentment.
“abstractions” is actually a word, not that chuck used it right though. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstraction?show=0&t=1316715373
Chuckadee, your unsubstantiated anecdotes being used to draw bizarre analogies suggests you could certainly use more linear thinking. Or, you know, just thinking in general.
All available evidence suggests that women dress the way they do for a variety of reasons, of which being attractive to the opposite sex is but one. It’s almost as if their motives, in general, aren’t all that different from men’s in this regard. Imagine that.
I’m still waiting for chuck to substantiate his claims with something empirical. I see it still isn’t happening. Oh, wait, using data correctly is a liberal debate tactic. Duh.
[cue sound of crickets chirping?]
It’s in Texas, so sort of.
It’s a hell of a lot more than I’ve ever paid, but I don’t work anywhere near that nice. All I know is what she paid and the reaction she gets. It’s fucking ludicrous.
Obviously we need to become more acclimated to the stunning stupidity that is cheukee. The three whole minutes that passed while we mulled over what kind of idiot he is, so we could respond appropriately was ass-u-me-d to be some sort or devastating argument.
What I especially like is certain men’s belief that they are entitled to precise and accurate information regarding the weight, height, age, sexual history and parental status of any random woman that they happen to lay their eyes on.
On the $300 a month, back when I bothered to use make up, that was the cost for the stuff I got because I bought the stuff at a department store. Depending on what kind you go for (I picked Benefit because that is what the guy told me to pick), you can easily spend more than $300 to start and then another $300 depending on how fast the stuff runs out.
I am Sephora’s website and the most expensive of their liquid foundations is $62. The powder one is anywhere from $8 to 59. They also have cream and something called loose foundation that I am not going to bother on looking at. That is just one type of make up.
These are definitely good products however they are very expensive. And in some careers, it is the kiss of death to be seen using anything less then the very best. So if she was in a situation where she had to maintain a certain image, she is stuck.
What I especially like is certain men’s belief that they are entitled to precise and accurate information regarding the weight, height, age, sexual history and parental status of any random woman that they happen to lay their eyes on.
Amused, please see my modest proposal for this issue earlier in the thread. (Places tongue firmly in cheek.)
who cares? Once again, we have liberals trying to force the conversation into Bush driving a car into a ditch, as per previous example I posted:
chuckee, do we need to add chronology to the list of things you dont understand. if you bring up your writing, youre the one who started it. first equals first. this is not hard, why are you struggling with it. when we respond by pointing out that your writing isnt nearly as complex as youve convinced yourself it is, that youre in fact a lazy incoherent writer who dresses up his back-of-the-envelope sociology with words he doesnt know how to use, were, y’know responding to you. responses come second. first, then second. keep at it because once you master that, we can move on three and maybe even four events and a row!
and seriously, have you moved on to just whining about how the mean nasty liberals wont coddle your pwecious widdle autodidact brain everytime we point out your huffing your own emissions. because thats pathetic, even for you.
I thought that seemed astronomical too, actually, and asked immediately how that was possible. She said it was low based on her talking to a relatively upscale uh…. what is it. MAkeup representative who was a friend of hers. I already know poor people can’t afford this shit, natch. But she’s getting hassled for ‘too little’, and well, yeah. MRAL seems to think that women just walk out of bed looking like Her Royal Highnesses with amazing looks they use to make men suffer or whatever the fuck his exact claims are on what hot women do. It’s not true. Time and money goes into that shit. And I gotta be honest, even without makeup she looks fantastic. Still gets shit for wearing ‘too little’. I chalk at least part of this up to the class of the place.
I’d be outright boondoggled if she were in a tech company, I’ll be honest, but she isn’t. Also, it’s Texas, I assume that’s a factor.
Don’t get me wrong, I can see dropping $300 at once easily. Several times a year even. But unless you,re covering Joker-style facial scars that $62 bottle of foundation should last more than a month. If you got a job that can require not just makeup but $3600 per year of the finest skin paint just to be presentable at the office you should go back and renegotiate that shit into your salary. I’m not sure I’d find that a reasonable expectation for any woman whose job doesn’t involve sudden, frequent, unpredicatable television appearances on behalf if the company. And in that case they’d best be explicitly paying for it.
Reasonable or not, is the expectation more onerous than unemployment?
You know, I wonder how long this pressure to wear makeup to work would last if HRs had to come up with explicit policies and reimbursement procedures.
You know, I wonder how long this pressure to wear makeup to work would last if HRs had to come up with explicit policies and reimbursement procedures.
…or if it was men being pressured into it.
Katz’ obviously not because she’s still there. But I’m not sure I like that argument, unless the rather onerous cosmetic requirement is clearly disclosed before you get the job. But if she and the coworkers are repeatedly getting shit for not having the right look, it sounds like not so much. How much should my boss’ opinion of what a lady should look like cost me before it’s his problem again? If multiple women are spending hundreds of dollars a month and practicing every day day and still not getting it right,then put together a style guide, offer some classes and wait for the lawyers to call.