We’re taking a brief trip outside the manosphere today to take a look at a little posting I found on Jesus-is-savior.com – which, as far as I can tell, is not a joke site — on the evils of women wearing pants.
No need to dilly dally around with jokes; let’s just get right into it:
One of the most controversial subjects in America’s churches today is pants on women; but there is NO controversy if you believe the Bible. 1st Timothy 2:9 clearly instructs women to dress MODESTLY, i.e., of good behavior. A woman’s clothing says MUCH about her character. I guarantee you that women who approve of abortion (i.e., murder) also see no problem with women wearing pants.
Except, one presumes, while they are getting these abortions.
At this point the author, one David J. Stewart, quotes disapprovingly from a song by rapper Chingy, also on the subject of pants, specifically jeans. I won’t bother to quote all of the lyrics; you can get the gist of Chingy’s thesis from this brief excerpt:
Damn Girl
How’d you get all that in
Dem Jeans
Dem Jeans
Here’s the video, if you wish to double-check this transcription.
Stewart continues:
Only a rebellious woman, who deliberately disobeys the Word of God, would wear pants. … Pants on women are adulterous in nature, and cause men to lust and sin. Jesus made this clear in Matthew 5:28, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Women who wear pants deliberately cause men to lust, and commit the sin of adultery. …
The average person today scoffs at the idea that Rock-n-Roll, Satanism, and immoral sex go hand-in-hand, but they certainly do. When Rock-n-Roll came to America, so did pants on women become mainstream. Naturally, feminism, witchcraft, abortion, and homosexuality came as well. Rock-n-Roll is straight from the pits of Hell. ALL rock-n-roll women wear pants.
Ah, but it turns out we haven’t really wandered too far from the manosphere after all – and not just because of the mention of feminism. No, what strikes me about Stewart’s argument – aside from the fact that it is completely batshit – is that it is not really very different than the arguments advanced by the critics of the Slutwalks: that the “immodest” dress of women causes men to “lust and sin.”
One of the most common complaints I’ve seen in the writings of the antifeminist slutwalk critics is that women want to “do what they want to, and dress how they want to, without facing any consequences,” as if women who dress in ways these men find arousing have in fact committed some sort of sin that requires punishment from, if not God himself, then from the rapists of the world.
The slutwalk critics invariably insist they’re simply passing along useful advice to women – don’t dress slutty or you’ll get raped – but the talk of “consequences” (and the choice of that word) shows pretty clearly that the real impetus behind the strangely vehement attacks on the slutwalks is the desire to punish women for dressing, and more importantly, doing “what they want.”
Say what you will about the folks behind Jesus-is-Savior.com, but at least their position on the evils of pants is consistent with their overall fundamentalist ideology. The slutwalk critics don’t really have an excuse.
EDITED TO ADD: And, conveniently enough, here’s some douchebag on Reddit making this exact slut-shaming “argument.” Pro-tip: I don’t think “responsibility” means quite what you think it means, dude.
Thanls, ShitRedditSAys, for pointing me to this. And to MFingPterodactyl for the sensible response.
“I can dig that. I’d argue that you can probably have a happy life and relationships even if you are a misogynistic asshat but I get your point.”
Well, you’re certainly welcome to give it your best shot. It seems to have worked wonders for Meller and NWO. Can’t you just feel their happiness through your monitor?
Gin and tonics: the Drink of Champions.
Johnny B, are you being deliberately obtuse, or does it come naturally? There’s a shit-ton of context that you’re ignoring here. Get caught up before you comment, please.
dkm you seem to have confused yourself into thinking im trying to engage with your arguments. im not. i dont even really think you present arguments so much as angry arm-flailing abut those mean nasty feminists who wont let you bully and enslave women the way you want to. but thats beside the point, i decided a long time ago your a creepy delusional loser and pretty much all thats left is to point out whether youre being less or more of a tool at any particular point (the answer always turns out to be more).
as capt. bathrobe says “arguments are down the hall.”
“In other words, you’re making shit up and hoping your guesses stick. Good luck with that, it’s all you’ve shown you’re capable of doing.”
“you should be ashamed if you’re a slimy little git who’d defend those things because feminists are the ones saying they’re bad, as you are.”
“What I won’t do is indulge any titty-baby whining about “shaming language” and name-calling.”
“Johnny B, are you being deliberately obtuse, or does it come naturally?”
“i decided a long time ago your(sic) a creepy delusional loser and pretty much all thats(sic) left is to point out whether youre being less or more of a tool at any particular point”
Thanks for making my point for me. Now I KNOW I’m right. The pattern is always the same, whether it’s myself, NWO, DKM or someone else. They come here with certain ideas and views which disagree with the “gang” here, who then respond with insults and ad hominems. It’s never been the so-called “trolls” who engaged in name-calling and abuse first, it’s always been one of you. If that isn’t the definition of a pack of bullies, I don’t know what is. Have a nice day.
Oh, btw? For all your feminism, you don’t seem particularly happy. You seen mostly bitter and angry, emotionally damaged people who spout off at others on the internet because you don’t have the power or the courage to do it in real life. I can’t even be angry at you, the whole thing just depresses me.
Go ahead and ban me for not falling in line. I’m actually glad I’m not one of you.
as capt. bathrobe says “arguments are down the hall.”
Yes, room 12A, just along the corridor. Though I can’t take credit for Monty Python.
johnny_b the last time someone got banned here it was because he snapped a screw and started ranting about putting fat people in concentration camps. seriously, youre not a martyr, nobody is fooled by your routine.
Johnny_B, I speak just like this to people in real life. Trust.
And, for what it’s worth, I enjoy my life thoroughly. I have a wonderfully loving and supportive family, a diverse and enriching circle of friends, a career that I love and that I truly believe is making a difference in people’s lives, an active social life, financial independence, a bunch of kick-ass shoes, and lastly -but not least- a man that I love, just as he is who loves me just as I am.
Nothing is perfect. But it’s a pretty great life.
“The pattern is always the same, whether it’s myself, NWO, DKM or someone else. They come here with certain ideas and views which disagree with the “gang” here, who then respond with insults and ad hominems. It’s never been the so-called “trolls” who engaged in name-calling and abuse first, it’s always been one of you. If that isn’t the definition of a pack of bullies, I don’t know what is. Have a nice day.”
Get the fuck out, then. You don’t add anything of interest or value to the discussions and you’re obtuse to point of opacity.
in dkms case at least, the name calling thing is also patently not true. he can’t post here without bringing up how he thinks all feminists are vile, evil harpies/shrews/she-vipers/banshees. seriously, johnny, did you check before you clambered up on your high horse?
Shorter DKM: I never said it, and I never suggested it, but if I did say it what I meant was perfectly harmless, and justified, and any one who read what I didn’t say and refused to agree with it deserves the hell I didn’t describe.
Shorter Johnny B: Asshole men should be allowed to be assholes, but reply to their substance with anything he thinks is impolite and you are being uncivil, and he’s willing to insult you to enforce that civility.
Johhny, if you are so happy… why don’t you sound it?
And, other than making a descriptive comment on your words/attitudes (i.e. you are misogynistic), where have I called you names? When did I first mock you?
I find it interesting that you are so aware of who insults whom first. How far back in the record did you go to find those details? Because NWO was being insulting long before I arrived. MRAL came out the gate with insults. Meller is nothing more than a typing factory for hateful invective. I think you are confusing honest opinions, and the rough and tumble of debate (which you pretend to enjoy, but really seem to be bothered by when people actually apply to you).
This isn’t a mutual appreciation club. Most of of have managed to offend other members of the community, at least once. Some of us have been moderated for crossing lines.
None of us has the ability to ban anyone. That’s Dave’s call, and he’s done it damned rarely. Even the most egregiously tedious (see Meller and NWO) are allowed to post. The only one who comes to mind as being banned for being dishonest (as opposed to abusive) is Eoghan, and he’s allowed back, if he admits to being Eoghan (this seems to hurt his pride, so he tries, every so often to come back by stealth, but his hobby-horses, and rhetorical tics are hard for him to suppress for long).
So I think you aren’t very clear on several of the concepts.
1: this is a place with a lot of feminists. That means being an anti-feminist is a tough row to hoe.
2: this is a place which is (actively) anti-misogynist. That means being a misogynist is going to be an even tougher row to hoe (it also means some people who aren’t misogynists, but are just poor with words, or have a specific issue on which they are have misogynistic beliefs, are going to be accused; perhaps too quickly, of being misogynists. But this isn’t a problem limited to this board. Go to the Spearhead and say that perhaps the best interest of the child ought to be the gold standard for custody disputes,and see how long it takes to be called a feminazi and/or banned).
3: you think 1 and 2 are bad things. I think 2a is a minor problem, but it’s not unique to here, and well worth the rest of the show.
Let’s see if I have my DKM translator correctly calibrated
feminine = obedient, house servant, sex toy, child care taker, that is not a fatty and does not wear pants
Also you women better be an obedient, house servant, sexy toy, child care taker, that is not a fatty and does not wear pants or men will rise up and enslave you to do so.
Do I got it?
I think guys should wear (loose) skirts, because when they wear pants I can check out their ass and have LUSTFUL THOUGHTS!
Not kilts tho, those show your legs and have the rep of being unaccompanied by underwear so LUSTFUL THOUGHTS! They’ll have to be full-length skirts.
Seriously why are men allowed to wear what they want? Even the Bible admits women can be adulterous too. I mean, I enjoy my lustful thoughts, but it’s for my own good!
The internet: it’s not for the faint of heart. If you step into the middle of street fight, you may expect to get scratched a bit.
Seriously, the “civility” lament is truly the most tedious refrain from our guest commenters here. You know what? I’m a great big meanie on the internet, especially when entitled jackoffs who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground barge in and expect to school everyone on civility, especially when they can’t be bothered to understand the context. Talk about being a presumptuous asshole.
I’m an asshole on the internet, and I know it. The question, johnny_b, is do you know that about yourself?
Of course, Frank Zappa said it far better than I ever could:
Not me, I just post videos of kittens.
Ef ah cannea wear me kilt, Ahl wear neathin’ at ahl!
CB: I’m probably more tolerant of dickwads and assholes on the net than I am in person. Typing out my thoughts tends to reduce the amount of colorful comment about motives and attitudes I acquired in the Army.
Eh, I’m a mouthy bitch IRL. I’m happy, have friends and a great husband. Thing is, I don;t really have to use the mouthy bitch part all that much, since I rarely run into blatant assholes IRL. On here, you all come in and start immediately with your nonsense.
cynickal: I hate to be the bearer of sad tidings: There are people who hate kittens.
I’m just the opposite, Pecunium. My day job involves being compassionate and empathic. Here is where I give vent to my dark side…(cue scary music and/or Darth Vader theme).
Unpossible!!!!
Hey Captain, you want to hear the kicker? My day job involves being charming, solicitous, and accommodating with healthy doses of humor and an emphasis on trouble-shooting. Of course it also requires really effective communication and the ability to read people very quickly.
I still don’t suffer fools. Unless they’re paying me.
I think there are a lot of guys, MRAs included, who are just generally pissed off right now because they were sold a bill of goods by popular culture. They grew up on The Donna Reed Show, or Everybody Loves Raymond, or whatever was on, and they really came to believe that starting a family would mean being King of the Castle. They thought “wife” would mean mommy/sexbot who would turn a blind eye to their immaturity, laziness, and sleeping around, as long as they controlled the cash flow. They absorbed all of the messages about how women are either dainty flowers who only want True Luv and are too pure for sex, or they’re sluts who only have sex because (insert pathology here), so you don’t have to respect them anyway. That, if nothing else, women stop being sexual after they give birth.
This kind of thinking seems to come pretty naturally to teenage boys, regardless of their cultural milieu, mostly because they’re insecure and ignorant and young. But we make it worse here in the U.S., because our culture deliberately sells people a bill of goods about gender relations- usually whatever makes money for the moment. If “girl power” sells, we sell that. Then we take advantage of the backlash against girl power to sell Britney Spears and Bratz dolls. Meanwhile, traditional attitudes change little in the general populace, all while economic reality keeps giving real-live people more freedom from traditional roles. End result = widespread confusion and anger, mostly on the part of the most privileged.
These guys are like scared little boys in a world they don’t understand, and don’t want to understand. It’s safer in TV Land, where there’s always roast beef and apple pie and a Bettie Draperesque Stepford wife waiting for you when you get home.
Sorry that was more of an essay than a comment.
“Thanks for making my point for me. Now I KNOW I’m right. The pattern is always the same, whether it’s myself, NWO, DKM or someone else. They come here with certain ideas and views which disagree with the “gang” here, who then respond with insults and ad hominems. It’s never been the so-called “trolls” who engaged in name-calling and abuse first, it’s always been one of you. If that isn’t the definition of a pack of bullies, I don’t know what is. Have a nice day.”
I said you were wrong, and the nature of your wrong meant you were stupid. That’s not ad hominem. Ad hominem is “You are stupid, therefore you are wrong”. NWOSlave has engaged in plenty of name claling. You missed his little outburst against trans people last week, f’rex. But more to the point, he calls us communists all the time, and he thinks feminist is an insult. DKM constantly calls Sharculese and the other men here ‘crybaby manginas’, and imputes to all women the reason for their disagreement as being their period.
Responding with venom against venom is not bullying, by any stretch. Nor is insulting someone.
“Oh, btw? For all your feminism, you don’t seem particularly happy. You seen mostly bitter and angry, emotionally damaged people who spout off at others on the internet because you don’t have the power or the courage to do it in real life.”
onoez, the troll thinks I’m an emotional trainwreck, whatever shall I dooooooooooo.
Meller thinks I’m a PTSD-addled headcase. I know because he told me so.
All I ever did was quote his own words, and point out how loathesome his comments about the glorious world which would come about when men rebel against their feminist overlords and kill all but the really pretty ones the high-powered men will get to keep as sex-slaves.