 |
| Technique … not … working! |
The horny straight dudes who decide to go all MGTOW — that is, to Go Their Own Way, avoiding women — often find themselves facing what we might call the MGTOW Paradox — that is, they hate the sexy ladies, but the sexy ladies keep giving them boners. So many of them go to great lengths to figure out how to make women appear disgusting to them. We’ve discussed some of these techniques before.
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.
>"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!" "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.
>"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."–Jupiter9That'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."—SSSo 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> 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.Yeah, 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.Sounds 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?"Witchy: 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. Or 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 Yep, 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."–TriplanetaryIt does, you're just in denial. Put your money where your mouth is.
>@wytch> Believe me, I have a few.Believe me, you're bluffing.
>wytch — "put your money where your mouth is"?You'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."—SSYep, 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.
>@SallyStrangeCareful, 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."—DavidNo. 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."Typical 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."—SSI 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."—SSLike 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.""Perhaps because you know they're bullshit?"—SSAgain, 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. Is 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:"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. And 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.
If you think of women as toilets, don’t be surprised when they think you’re an ass.
If you think of women as toilets, don’t be surprised when they think you’re an ass.