About these ads

Matt Forney: When we call women fat sluts, it’s because we care!

Matt Forney, your argument sounds dubious at best.

Hey, ladies! You know how the dudes of the so-called manosphere are always saying horrible shit about you? They’re not doing it out of hate. No, no, they’re doing it for your own good! In a guest post on the blog Freedom Twenty-Five, Matt Forney offers women his own brand of tough (alleged) love:

The manosphere is frequently accused of being misogynistic because we mock fat girls, disdain sluts and criticize the behavior of modern women. … But scientific studies and common sense both show that women are generally happiest when they’re physically fit, chaste and focused on their families instead of their careers. Women who are virgins are exponentially less likely to divorce; women with BMIs in the normal range are more likely to have fulfilling relationships instead of being pumped and dumped; women who throw their lives into their jobs are less happy than those who become wives and mothers.

If you follow the link back to his post you will see how Forney has carefully footnoted all these assertions. For example, his line about women who aren’t fat having better relationships links to this carefully constructed academic study.

Oh, wait, that’s actually a link to a discussion on Yahoo Answers that’s full of alleged wisdom like this:

Fat women have to settle for less for the same reason that people: in wheelchairs, poor people [especially men], balding people, or single people with children have to settle for less. They have less to offer on the dating market, so; there is a much smaller pool of people willing to date them. And the people who are willing to date them are usually of lower quality.

You can’t argue with that kind of SCIENCE.

Forney continues:

Basically, for women, the modern feminist consumerist lifestyle is a path to misery and loneliness.

[Citation needed] [And by “citation” I don’t mean “some dude spouting shit on Yahoo answers”]

In light of that knowledge, ask yourself this: who are the real misogynists? The ones who are guiding women back onto the path to happiness, or the ones encouraging them to destroy themselves through poor life choices?

Here’s an example of Forney “guiding women back onto the path of happiness,” taken from an earlier post on his own blog:

Bashing fat girls is all well and good, but how many of us have taken the fight to the enemy? By not viciously rubbing their hideousness in their faces, we are encouraging fatties to blimp up even more. Silence implies consent.

Back to his Freedom Twenty-Five post:

The fact is if you defend and excuse away womens’ bad behavior, fully aware that they’re harming themselves, you don’t truly love them. If you want to avert someone from traveling down the path towards death and destitution, you’re going to have to get in their face and risk hurting their feeeelings. In that sense, not only do we in the manosphere love women, we perhaps love them more than any other men in the world.

The manosphere is a space for men, but it also doubles as a mass intervention for the female of the species. Stop crying about your hurt feeeeelings and listen up, ladies. You might learn something.

Matt Forney, you’re a shithead.

I say that out of love.

About these ads

Posted on October 18, 2012, in antifeminism, douchebaggery, evil fat fatties, imaginary backwards land, it's science!, misogyny, PUA, shaming tactics, sluts and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 160 Comments.

  1. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    Plus the hypocrisy level, of course. Ordinary looks and tolerably groomed (I’d want a bit more than tolerably – it sounds borderline not-very-clean) are fine, but when a man like that demands model-level beauty and grooming and mindless devotion from a woman, then he automatically descends to Stinking Ugly Creep level. And I don’t mean physically.

  2. I just wanted to draw attention to a specific comment in the linked article, and add my own eloquent and thoughtful response:

    He [Forney] is the perfect feminist strawman for people trying to embarrass the manosphere.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  3. Nah.

    Matt Forney is unattractive precisely because of the combination of his personality and appearance.

    If he were an entitled jerk that he is, but looked like a male model, there’d be someone shallow out there for him. There are people in the world who care only about looks, and a lot of them are even hot themselves.

    If he were a good open minded person, there’d be a lot of people out there who’d date him just the way he is. Personality, compassion and mutual connection are the most important things in a relationship for many a person, regardless of the potential partner’s matching the societal ideals of attractiveness.

    But when you got nothing to attract a deeper person (no compassion, no open mind, no greater understanding of the world, no self awareness), AND (no qualifications to attract a shallow person: no money, no conventional beauty, no steady employment, no status, ect.), who the hell will ever want you?

    Nobody should ever throw rocks. It’s wrong. But when people who live in glass houses throw rocks, it’s extra hilarious.

  4. It’s like if he were a man who required his whole family to attend church every Sunday, Wednesday and Friday night to boot, because those who don’t are whores, sinners and destined for the fire pits of hell, but he, personally, would stay at home to watch football.

    I wouldn’t want a relationship with someone with such strong religious views in the first place. But if he were to walk the walk himself, I’d, at least, respect his sincerity and consistency.

  5. Runner’s Zen: Nobody should ever throw rocks. It’s wrong. But when people who live in glass houses throw rocks, it’s extra hilarious.

    And that entitles you to throw rocks because?

    I don’t know quite what to make of the implicit standards of, “objective” good looks you have in their either, “If he were an entitled jerk that he is, but looked like a male model, there’d be someone shallow out there for him. There are people in the world who care only about looks, and a lot of them are even hot themselves. “.

    I know lots of people who think men who look like his are hot!!!!. If all they care about is looks, they’d be willing to bang him like a cheap drum.

    So you are building a glass house, just to throw stones from.

  6. @pecunium

    From personal experience, I’d say that most people who are vehemently into the conventionally hot look, are seeking status and social approval as much as arousal. We all know what conventionally attractive means and we can all recognize it, even if we’re aroused by something else. Those who are genuinely aroused by conventional beauty, without caring about the status such a partner would bring them, generally don’t beat others over the head with the supposed universal superiority of their standards. This guy Matt, obviously, wants a mommy, a sex toy AND an object to show off without being a glittery status symbol himself. In the context of his mocking girls on his blog for nothing else, but their looks and requiring his girlfrind to be conventionally hot (and threatening abuse if she ever slips in that regard), his own looks do matter because they expose him as a hypocrite.

    I’d be erecting a glass house from which to throw stones, if I were a conventionally unattractive person who required conventional beauty in a partner while laughing at Matt for being the same.
    As it happens, I’m a person of entirely average appearance (by societal standards) who happens to be strongly attracted to a type that is not considered beautiful by most people. And even though, it’s nowv pretty clear that I am only able to have chemistry with people of that certain type, I don’t find it necessary to mock anyone who doesn’t fit that certain type. People who have stringent standards might be closed minded, but those of them who don’t even come close to reaching their own standards while mocking others who fail in that regard, are laughable.

    I don’t feel superior to high school drop outs. Some of them are wonderful people, and many have done well for themselves. But a high school drop out who mocks anyone without a Ph.D. is more laughable than a Ph.D. who does the same.

  7. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    I read Runner’s Zen comments as pointing out that Forney is yet another man who expects conventional beauty – or rather, the incredibly narrow conventions set by the advertising industry – in any woman, yet doesn’t feel the slightest whiff of inconsistency in being a long way from the male equivalent. It’s not about “Ooh look he’s fat!” to my mind, just “He’s a great example of double standards and hypocrisy.” Nothing wrong with his appearance; it’s the clash with what he expects of women that makes him both laughable and offensive. I don’t really think that’s throwing rocks at him.

  8. Runner’s Zen: From personal experience, I’d say that most people who are vehemently into the conventionally hot look, are seeking status and social approval as much as arousal.

    Goalpost moving.If he were an entitled jerk that he is, but looked like a male model, there’d be someone shallow out there for him. There are people in the world who care only about looks, and a lot of them are even hot themselves.

    Nothing in that requires the people who care only about looks to care only about, “conventional looks”.

    Those who are genuinely aroused by conventional beauty, without caring about the status such a partner would bring them, generally don’t beat others over the head with the supposed universal superiority of their standards.

    Whut? That’s the whole point of, “That person isn’t hot.” It’s people saying anyone who doesn’t find their sense of “attractive” to be “Teh Bomb!” is wrong. It’s why the MRA types are hung up on Brad Pitt. They think they are protesting the people whom they think are beating them about the head and shoulders with expectations of conventional attractivebness.

    I’d be erecting a glass house from which to throw stones, if I were a conventionally unattractive person who required conventional beauty in a partner while laughing at Matt for being the same.

    Nope. You are building a glass house because you are pretending to know all sorts of things about Matt Forney which you don’t.

    Is is a catch? I don’t think so, but it’s got nothing to do with his looks, it’s got to do with his words. Pretending his looks are relevant to that, is exactly the same as MRAs slagging feminists for being fat/ugly, etc..

  9. thebewilderness

    I think the problem with citing personal experience as universal experience is fairly obvious.

  10. @TheKitteh’s Unpaid Help,
    Yep. That’s exactly what I am saying.

    @ pecunium,

    Nope, haven’t moved the goal post at all. If it seems that way to you, it’s because you were arguing against what you thought I was saying rather than what was actually there.

    I’ve never made fun of the boy’s looks, but simply pointed out that he doesn’t reach his own standards of personal beauty.

    Yes, there is such a thing as conventional beauty standards. If you don’t know what they are, consider yourself very lucky.

    Of course, nothing requires people who are only focused on looks to be aroused only by conventional beauty, but if they have ANY specific standards, mock people who fall short of those standards and fail to reach those standards themselves, they are laughable hypocrites. It’s just that Matt’s standards for women happen to coincide with those of conventional beauty and ultra conservative morality. And yet, Matt himself fails miserably in both regards. That is funny to me.

    Perhaps I got Matt Forney all wrong, but I only judge him based on what he writes on his own blog. Yesterday I took a looksie, and I’ve seen numerous posts mocking people for being fat and having the gall to not hide in shame, mocking women with unconventional hair cuts, rejoicing in Jen McCreight being bullied off the internet, calling her an ugly bitch in several posts (I wasn’t able to find any clues for any other reasons he might have had to dislike this girl), mocking fathers who get separated from their kids through divorce, mocking men who aren’t very good with the opposite sex, expressing hatred towards the elderly ( for being old and not knowing shit about shit), promoting rape culture, and bitching about his own mother being entitled just like all the other women (she privately expressed a wish to see him be more positive about life).

    Of course, it’s his words and not his looks that make Matt a disgusting human being. But in light of his words, his looks are hilarious.
    It’s like… You remember when a string of ultra right wing anti gay rights politicians were found in motels with hired boys, one after another? The GLBT community had a lot of fun bringing it up for a while. You do understand that they weren’t making fun of these men for being gay, don’t you? These politicians were disgusting because they promoted discrimination against the GLBT community. But turning out to be gay was hilariously pathetic in light of their political activities.

  11. “I think the problem with citing personal experience as universal experience is fairly obvious.”

    Sure. But there is also logical reasoning and common experience shared by many.
    Most kids in middle school will tell you that conforming to conventional standards is common among their peers as a way to either avoid being bullied or to gain popularity. Therefore, we can infer that conforming to conventional standards can be used to gain status. According to logic and modern psychology, people are a lot more protective of their constructed public image than they are of their core values. That is because core values don’t need as much protection. If being kind to the elderly is important to me, I won’t be much shaken if you think I’m lying about volunteering at a nursing home. I still get to be kind to the elderly, no matter what anyone thinks. If being thought of as someone who is kind to the elderly is important to me, than being told that others don’t see me the way I want to be seen is going to be very upsetting. I can’t retain an image without others seeing me the way I need to be seen. So… it’s reasonable to suppose that someone who goes on and on about how he/she won’t accept anything but certain level of conventional beauty in a relationship is moved more by the need to protect an erected image than by personal preferences.

    In his blog, Matt goes on and on AND ON about how disgusting and worthless fat bitches are (and bitches with shaved heads, and bitches who are dressed the way that Matt doesn’t like, and old sluts with cats and sluts from Indiana whose faces he finds unattractive). In my opinion, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”, is a reasonable default assumption, in this case.

  12. Runner’s Zen: Where did Forney make any claims about what men need to look like?

    Where did you, in the comment I quoted (twice) say, “conventional beauty,”?

    Of course, it’s his words and not his looks that make Matt a disgusting human being. But in light of his words, his looks are hilarious.

    In light of his words his looks are irrelevant.

    The rest of both comments seems to be a lot of special pleading to convince us we ought to assume Forney holds men to a standard not evidenced.

  13. “Runner’s Zen: Where did Forney make any claims about what men need to look like?”

    Huh? Nowhere that I’ve seen. I did see him shame men on his blog for failing to learn ‘game’, but haven’t noticed much about male appearance. I don’t even know what you’re trying to argue anymore. He is not focused on the appearance of men, but on that of women, and he thinks he is entitled to a “hot” chick. That’s the point.

    “Where did you, in the comment I quoted (twice) say, “conventional beauty,”’

    I’m not sure what you mean. What Forney describes in his “personal add” screams conventional beauty. Are you talking about my first post about Forney? I don’t make any claims about HIS looks at all. In my second post that is in response to you where I talk about his looks, because you chose to focus on them, I say “male model” in the first line of the second paragraph. Fashion models are the pillars of conventional beauty, as upheld by societal narrow standards, no? I list Matt’s shortcomings in the 4th paragraph of the same post, one of them being “no conventional beauty”. Does that clear it up a bit? Again, you seem to be arguing with someone or something you made up in your head.

    “In light of his words his looks are irrelevant.”

    I disagree. In my opinion, sexual histories of those who seek to limit sexual expression of others are relevant. Religious piety of those who seek to use religion as a sword is relevant. And the appearance of a person who uses the appearance of others in order to rank them is relevant as well. It’s a was to see if the person is a hypocrite in addition to being a douchebag.

    “The rest of both comments seems to be a lot of special pleading to convince us we ought to assume Forney holds men to a standard not evidenced.”

    1. The royal “we”. Heh.
    2. What are you talking about? The subject of the article is an entitled douche who doesn’t seem to be aware that women could have preferences at all, when it comes to men’s physical state. And since Forney is quite clearly a homophobe, he isn’t attuned to the fact that men might judge men based on looks either.
    Now, it’s possible that you are making good points. But since you decided to throw them out there without a context and in response to something that made them non sequiturs, I’ve no way of appreciating them.

  14. The inclusive we, unless you are trying to say that I am the only audience for your argument.

    It’s possible you aren’t paying attention to what I wrote.

  15. Percunium is right in that he’s not being hypocritical if he has no special standards for male appearance. He just has a pretty serious double standard. In fact it’s not hypercritical at all if he thinks all or most of a woman’s worth is in their appearance and a man’s is unrelated to appearance.

    It seems similar too, to what BlackBloc was saying in the D’Souza thread. About people who see themselves as superior thinking the rabble (in this case, women) need rules to keep them in line, but the rules don’t apply to them.

  16. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    I look on it as hypocrisy in the sense of “people” not “men vs women”. Double standards and hypocrisy are twinned, for me, in this sort of thing. Whether that’s the exact sense of hypocrisy I don’t know, but the whole double standard and “I can be a slob but you’re required to be a model” thing reeks of it, for me.

  17. In my experience many sluts are skinny the majority I would say fyi Matt Forneycator.

  18. irissy53

    many sluts are skinny the majority I would say

    1. Citation needed.
    2. Fuck off, you asshat.

  19. Oh look, we have today’s necromancer!

  20. Did I miss David/cats/ferrets’ post offering a prize for Necromancer of the Week?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,469 other followers

%d bloggers like this: