>
 |
| Future evil feminist, developing her evil mind. |
Say what you will about those Men Going Their Own Way, but they have proven themselves again and again to be experts on the enigma that is woman. Over on MGTOWforums.com, the commenter calling himself AC101202 may not be able to spell the word “handsome” or use the correct form of “it’s,” but he knows what women want and why they do what they do. What do they want, what do they really really want? Dudes to boss them around and maybe even oppress them a bit. Because oppression = love.
Women love being controlled and oppressed. Like children, they are the happiest when they know their boundaries. … Women are overgrown children, hence why they relate to children so well. Like children they need (and occasionally admit that they like) men who (fairly and non-violently) tell them what their place is and keeps them there, and in the process show that they are protecting them and value them.
Alas, not all women are able to find themselves oppressive bossy dudes of their own. These unfortunate lasses all too often become feminists. And instead of learning beauty secrets from their happily oppressed sisters, or from any of the many fine periodicals devoted to the subject, some of these ladies start trying to — get this — improve their lady brains. And that’s where all the trouble begins.
Because feminists are mostly physically ugly they cannot attract strong well-off hansom men with their shit together. Because they are usually ugly they compensate for their physical short-comings by working and developing an intellect, and because they are jealous of other better looking females, they seek to restrict their actions by passing anti-prostitution laws, laws that restrict free-speech to keep women from selling the image of their bodies etc… You will rarely ever see an attractive women protesting against cheer-leading, or outside a Hooters. That’s because they, unlike the fat pudgy feminists, can profit from selling their image.
AC101202 doesn’t spell out all the implications of these developments for nice, thoughtful guys like himself, but I will. You see, since women only have sex with alpha male thugboys — those non-thugboys who claim to sleep with women are obviously all lying — nice guys are also forced to develop their minds (though not, evidently, forced to learn how to spell). This doesn’t do them much good, though, given that the ugly smart girls out there that might have otherwise been captivated by their giant brains have all been infected with feminism, and have managed to convince themselves that they don’t actually want dudes bossing them around. (Though they do, they really really do.) What can a poor boy do — except to declare he’s had enough of women, and then prove how little he needs or cares about these foul harridans by spending every waking moment complaining about them online.
Poor AC101202 ends his comment with a lament:
To be fair I would be lying if I didn’t admit to being jealous of the alpha male bad boys who attract women easily. I wish I had their look and natural charisma. I’m also pretty sure the reason most smart people tend to be physically weak, especially in youth is because genetically they are programmed to compensate for their physical short-comings. However, I would never lobby to pass legislation to restrict people’s sexual behavior. I’m quite happy watching this society collapse under the weight of it’s own human stupidity.
Continue Going Your Own Way, young man. It is the only solution.
—
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.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>laws that restrict free-speech to keep women from selling the image of their bodiesWhat is he even talking about? Feminists do tend to raise issue with the kinds of images of female bodies that appear in the media, and the way those images are used. But unless I missed the Get That Supermodel a Damn Sandwich Act of 2010, feminists have never managed to push through any laws restricting the way women can be portrayed. Nor would they want to.I suppose it's possible he's talking about pornography, but feminists have a) also never managed to pass any significant legislation regarding that, and b) aren't as commonly opposed to it as they used to be, and certainly don't spend a great deal of energy on it. because genetically they are programmed to compensate for their physical short-comingsGod, I'm always fascinated by MRAs and their obsession with evo psych. A whole book could be written about the topic.
>I am fascinated by the mental gymnastics needed to believe that "working and developing an intellect" is a bad thing for women to do.
>Smart people are smart because they spend their time reading and studying. Athletic people are athletic because they spend their time outside, playing sports and exercising. I bet if AC101202 put down the damn Chee-tos and went for a run or a swim or took an aikido class, he'd find himself much improved by the experience – he'd be healthier, feel better about himself, perhaps even become more attractive and would certainly have less time to feel sorry for himself. 'Cause I guarantee you, that 'alpha male' has a gym membership. And has figured out the grand secret to life – women are people, too! And in fact, you don't even have to be a J. Crew model to get a date with a woman! Be interesting and interested in her – bam! There's 75% of the work done for you.
>Lady Vic – it might help old AC101202 a bit if he wasn't trying to tell women their place all the time, too.
>Not that I'm defending this guy, but you really need to work on your reading comprehension…"But unless I missed the Get That Supermodel a Damn Sandwich Act of 2010, feminists have never managed to push through any laws restricting the way women can be portrayed."What you missed was the "they seek to" portion of the sentence. Seeking to restrict access (to anything that plays off beauty and sexuality, porno being an example. FHM another.), is relevant, as it would demonstrate the attitude he is trying to portray them as having. One does not need to succeed at passing hateful or bigoted laws to be hateful or bigoted. Simply trying is more then enough proof.This is in the same vein as my pointing out NOW opposing presumptions of shared parenting in divorce demonstrates them (and the ideology they claim to be perpetrating this opposition in the name of), as being about misandry, female privilege and not anything close to equality. The fact they seem to be failing in their opposition does not negate the demonstration of those attributes in the actions they take.
>The "seek to" is ambiguous: it could refer to "restricting [better looking females'] actions" or to "passing… laws". But syntactical problems are hardly the worst sin here. Also: sir, you may call yourself intelligent, or you may spell handsome phonetically, but unless you are Zombie George Bernard Shaw, you cannot do both.
>I am currently unaware of any feminist driven legislation that would restrict access to pornography. Some feminists have a philosophical objection to pornography, but I don't think they're trying to pass any laws. Now, the Christian fundies… those are the people currently trying to get rid of porn. I'd say they hate it more than the average third wave feminist.
>Kratch, yes there are some anti-porn feminists. But that wing of feminism was probably at its strongest about 20 years ago. These days you'll probably find more feminists actually making porn than protesting it.
>One does not need to succeed at passing hateful or bigoted laws to be hateful or bigoted. Simply trying is more then enough proof.Assuming you're right about which clause(s) "they seek to" applies to, feminists don't try to pass those kinds of laws either. So we're back at square one, in which both AC101202 and yourself are full of shit.
>So Lois Griffin is a feminist…Who knew?
>Actually the get that supermodel a sandwhich act is real. Several european countries have minimum weights below which it is illegal to be a runway model. I can't remember if anywhere in the US has that yet. I mention this only to inform–I identify feminist and am not sure how I feel about it.
>Has there been legislation on BMI for models in Europe? I know of attempts to get the industry to accept voluntary codes of conduct in the UK, while a group of Spanish fashion designers imposed restrictions for a Madrid show, but I don't think these are the same things as legislation.And it's worth noting that these appeared less in response to feminists and more to well-publicized deaths of some young, emaciated models.
>Well, the supermodels were a bad example (incidentally, there aren't any restrictions here in the US) because it's not just an issue of censorship, it's an issue of health and job safety. It's very controversial for employers to put demands on their employees that affect their health in any industry.So tell me, MRAs, what are feminists trying to censor?
>Yes, searches on 'skinny models banned from catwalk' and similar terms tends to turn up the 2006 Madrid fashion week a lot, but not much else. It was notable in one article that other fashion shows declined to impose the same restrictions for reasons to do with freedom and non-discrimination.However, my Google-fu might not be strong. Is there some strand of legislation or voluntary codes I have missed?
>triplanetary communist wrote:"God, I'm always fascinated by MRAs and their obsession with evo psych. A whole book could be written about the topic."We too are quite fascinated by your kind and your men and women are the same and biology isn't real schpeel.Perhaps it's easier for the physical and mental runts of the world to buy into the idea that everyone is born equal and that some are just being held back by evil satanic cultural forces than to accept the idea that they are just born to be stupid and weak.
>Perhaps it's easier for the physical and mental runts of the world to buy into the idea that everyone is born equal and that some are just being held back by evil satanic cultural forces than to accept the idea that they are just born to be stupid and weak.Yes, I find that sociology and anthropology are just defense mechanisms for stupid people. Because that's how you establish academic disciplines, by being stupid.
>Evil, there is a difference between the claim that there is no significant difference between men and women as groups and the claim that everyone is the same.Most of the supposed differences between men and women mentally have fallen away with closer examination, for example the claim that men are better at science or the claim that women are more nurturing.As far as the often pointed to brain differences, if I hammer all day, everyday, the section of my brain responsible for hammering will grow. This does not mean I was destined from birth to be a hammerer.
>I love the idea that feminists are somehow communists. Since you know I personally am fiscally moderate I don't see how this fits in at all
>As far as the often pointed to brain differences, if I hammer all day, everyday, the section of my brain responsible for hammering will grow. This does not mean I was destined from birth to be a hammerer.Butbutbut girls play with dolls and boys play with play tools! And since we all know children don't absorb any outside influences whatsoever, that must mean that "play with dolls" is written in the female DNA!Also, "don't be a scientist" is written in female DNA. The thousands of years of systematically barring women from such fields* has nothing whatsoever to do with it!*And viciously attacking those who ignore you and do it anyway. See: Hypatia
>David: don't you have anything better to do than to pick on mentally handicapped people?
>No, he doesn't.
>Now I suddenly want to protest cheer-leading. But I guess that would just mean I'm ugly. (Obviously). Seriously, though, I'm surprised you were able to even pick apart AC's argument at all. I found the logic in it to be completely…nonexistent. But then again, maybe that just makes it easier to pick apart.
>"Not that I'm defending this guy,"I did specifically say I wasn't defending this guys position. I just believe that when one person says "X seeks to do Y", the appropriate response is not to rebut with "X has not done Y". A failure to acknowledge this difference between "to seek" and "to succeed" needs to be pointed out.As to laws passed regarding porn…"In 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling in R. v. Butler which incorporated some elements of Dworkin and MacKinnon's legal work on pornography into the existing Canadian obscenity law. In Butler the Court held that Canadian obscenity law violated Canadian citizens' rights to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if enforced on grounds of morality or community standards of decency; but that obscenity law could be enforced constitutionally against some pornography on the basis of the Charter's guarantees of sex equality."So you can't claim it's never been done. But David is correct when he says "Kratch, yes there are some anti-porn feminists. But that wing of feminism was probably at its strongest about 20 years ago."Which is why I specifically noted at the very beginning of my first post that I did not intend to defend this persons view.