>
 |
| Sean Connery would NEVER wear a dress. |
The Men’s Rights and MGTOW movements are about as hetero-focused, and simply hetero, as it is possible for any large, almost exclusively male, group to be. Sure, once in a while a stray MGTOWer will joke nervously about going gay, simply as a way to get some sex without having to touch one of those evil, stinky ladymonsters, but the chances of this actually happening are about as remote as one of those “ex-gay” ministries actually making someone “ex-gay.” Still, most MRAs and MGTOWers profess a certain tolerance towards teh gey, at least when it takes the form of gay men; lesbians, not so much.
But once in a while this facade of (partial) tolerance cracks a bit and we can see some of the homophobic nastiness within. Like, for example, when Daniel Craig — the current reigning James Bond — puts on a dress for an International Women’s Day video highlighting the many injustices the women of the world still face.
On The Spearhead, head spearheader W. F. Price introduces the video to the assembled masses with something of a shudder, describing it as “an unfortunate move that could result in career difficulties down the road” for Craig.
A number of Spearhead commenters are similarly horrified about Bond in Drag, but it is the commenter called Firepower who really brings the hatred up to 11, dropping one of the “f-words” and fantasizing about some quite literal gay-bashing.
The deliberate desecration of a cock-swinging MAN icon like Bond is a calculated, deliberate move – like putting lipstick on Javier Bardem in that stupid Haitina AIDS Liberal commercial.
ANY male that subjects himself to this feminizing humiliation by his enemies deserves feminizing.
Craig’s Bond is faggy anyway.
Sean Connery not only would’ve NEVER posed for these drag pics, he would’ve told the gay publicist to “sod off and suck my knob, mate.”
Then punched him.
This sterling analysis earned, at last count, 102 upvotes and only 6 downvotes from The Spearhead commentariate.
Here’s the video in question:
—
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.
>It just never fails to floor more how mind-bogglingly ignorant these MRA's are. I wonder, when they were in school, did they spend all their time fantasizing about raping their history teacher, instead of learning history? Men in Ancient Greece wore dresses and liked to mock Persians for their effete customs, which included the wearing of pants. Yes, at that time, there were only two ways for a man to go about without damaging his reputation as a stud: in the nude or in a dress. A blue dress, quite often. Pants were considered effeminate and not worthy of a man. In Renaissance Europe, "real men" wore tights, high heels, jewelry and perfume. At that time, nothing affirmed a man's masculinity as forcefully as his display of a shapely leg — which means it was a source of extreme anxiety to about 99% of men. At the court of Louis XIV, the manliest of male courtiers wore pastel silks, frilly lace, powdered wigs, high heels and make-up. And before any MRA idiot starts snickering about these men's supposed girliness, it needs to be pointed out that these men engaged in swordfights in that getup. Sword-fighting while wearing high heels: if that's not badass, I don't know what is. Oh, and lest we forget, pink was considered a masculine color almost until the 20th century. But what all these societies had in common was that for a man to appear as a woman was thought to be a "desecration" of his cock. At the same time, there is no way to desecrate a vagina, as it's already profane to begin with.So basically, "Firepower" proved the PSA's point: As long as we continue to perceive the application of female attributes to a man as humiliating or belittling, we can't claim that we've achieved equality between the sexes.
>It's also incredible how insecure these men are in their much-vaunted masculinity. So much so that just seeing another man feminized makes them feel threatened.David, Captain Bathrobe, and myself all have MRA commenters here calling our masculinity into question. Apparently they can't conceive of the fact that we don't give a shit. It's an amusingly toothless insult.
>see my bf dresses in drag, and is as straight as they come. He's also a gear head who spends most of his time under the hood of a car. So how do these guys deal with that kind of dichotomy? Does it make their brains melt into a pile of goo?
>Wouldn't Sean Connery asking some bloke to suck his knob be kind of, um, gay?
>No sir, Sean Connery would never be caught dead in a dress. http://www.agonyboothmedia.com/images/articles/Zardoz_1974/cap471.jpg
>Or in…whatever this is:http://cinepub.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/zardoz.jpg
>I think the costume designer for Zardoz simply bought up the costumes that didn't make it into the final cut of Barbarella.
>Sexy man in a dress is still sexy. Rawr. I'm sorry, were you guys saying something?
>Oh, does this mean I can finally put my favorite quote ever to good use? "Penis is evil! The Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill! Zardoz has spoken."Mmmm… Loincloths.
>"I think the costume designer for Zardoz simply bought up the costumes that didn't make it into the final cut of Barbarella."And I think you're a Grade-A nutcase with nothing better to do than think he's funny.
>Zardoz! My roommate will never forgive me for making him watch that 🙂
>How do you like my knee high pleather boots, Trebek?
>Don't let them find out about Enduring Love or Love is the Devil! …woops.
>Amused::: So basically, "Firepower" proved the PSA's point: As long as we continue to perceive the application of female attributes to a man as humiliating or belittling, we can't claim that we've achieved equality between the sexes. :::Bingo!
>Did anyone but me think Daniel Craig looked extra hot in a dress and makeup? Or is it just me?
>As if their views on courtship weren't evidence enough, here is further evidence that these doods can't figure out the difference between media and reality. Hint: Daniel Craig is not James Bond; he only plays James Bond in the movies, and Daniel Craig is not wearing a dress in any of the James Bond movies he has made.Clairedammit, I totally agree. Few things are hotter than guys who are comfortable in a dress.
>David, Captain Bathrobe, and myself all have MRA commenters here calling our masculinity into question. Apparently they can't conceive of the fact that we don't give a shit. It's an amusingly toothless insult. Well, it only has teeth if you let it. I think it's the measure of how truly liberated a man is–not that fake liberation they peddle on the Spearhead and elsewhere–if he can endure attacks on his masculinity without it really bothering him that much. Freedom from the strictures of the masculine ideal is something I wish for all men, everywhere–even our MRA friends. That's true liberation.
>"I think it's the measure of how truly liberated a man is–not that fake liberation they peddle on the Spearhead and elsewhere–if he can endure attacks on his masculinity without it really bothering him that much."—CBTranslation: "It's okay for a man to be a proverbial punching bag because he's masculine if he's an emotional masochist, but if he fires back he's an misogynist asshole."Think of it this way—if women were attacked for the feminity and told they should let it slide, would they have a right to be upset? Think carefully."Freedom from the structures of the masculine ideal is something I wish for all men, everywhere–even our MRA friends. That's true liberation."Really?And what masculine idea is this? Not one of you are remotely qualified to make that determination. In all serious, I'll let you on a secret—MGTOW isn't about men being policed about what they do with their masculinity or what "real men" should be. The latter is always someone wanting someone expecting that man to shape up, probably not for his own benefit.
>Think of it this way—if women were attacked for the feminity and told they should let it slide, would they have a right to be upset? Think carefully.Well everyone has a "right" to be upset about whatever they want. That's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is a choice to value traditional gender definitions at the exclusion of individual freedom and happiness, or a choice to reject those gender definitions.Getting back around to your poorly executed attempt to point out some nonexistent double standard, I want just as much for women to be freed from the shackles of femininity as for men to be freed from the shackles of masculinity. Feminism, especially in the past few decades, is an attempt to deconstruct gender and, ideally, to help society move past gender.
>@SallyStrange, clairedammit, and thewhatifgirl:Just here to voice my confirmation: Guys in dresses/skirts are hot. We need more of them.
>wytch wrote:Translation: "It's okay for a man to be a proverbial punching bag because he's masculine if he's an emotional masochist, but if he fires back he's an misogynist asshole."Since when do I not fire back when my masculinity has been questioned? I just do so in a way that says "sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree here." It's much more effective and satisfying than the usual chest puffing and feces throwing that men usually do when their masculinity in questioned. Your mileage may vary. I'm also not in any way saying that you don't have a right to be upset when someone questions your masculinity. I'm simply saying that you don't have to get upset, not when you come to realize that the traditional masculine ideal is a crock. So, when someone says, in effect, "Ha ha! You don't live up to some stupid, outdated idea of masculinity!" you are free to respond, as I do: "You're right. I don't. So what?" Kind of stops the other person cold, don't you think?And what masculine idea is this? Not one of you are remotely qualified to make that determination. Tut, tut…careful with the shaming language there, partner. We're men–isn't that qualification enough? We were raised in much the same way as you (probably), with the same expectations put on us. We don't live in caves on Mars with our ears plugged. In all serious, I'll let you on a secret—MGTOW isn't about men being policed about what they do with their masculinity or what "real men" should be. The latter is always someone wanting someone expecting that man to shape up, probably not for his own benefit. I'm glad. Truly I am. That means that we have more in common than you think. The difference between us is that you see women in general and feminists in particular as the source of men's problems, and I do not. I agree with Amanda Marcotte that the solution to the problems you identify is more feminism, carried to it's logical conclusion of gender equality. The problem is, the MRM and MGTOWs insist on attacking a straw feminism that encompasses everything that they see as bad. It seems a very unproductive and unfulfilling way to be. I've chosen to be a feminist because I see it as being in my interest to do so. Patriarchy really does hurt everyone. I want to share this world with women who are free, strong, smart, and liberated–not pseudo-submissive, resentful, and passive-aggressive. Feminism promotes the former, patriarchy the latter. Which do you choose?
>"Not one of you are remotely qualified to make that determination."I think you'll find we are.But yes, I do find the 'mangina' pussyfication talk more funny than hurtful. It's like, 'whatever'.
>Translation: "It's okay for a man to be a proverbial punching bag because he's masculine if he's an emotional masochist, but if he fires back he's an misogynist asshole."I usually interpret it that if he fires back he's not very secure.The real translation should be: "A liberated man has nothing to prove and is therefore not hurt by attacks on his masculinity."
>percy,Yours is a more concise summary of what I was trying to say. Thanks.
>Yours too, trip.