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.
“PS–I, at this late date, DON’T know all about you, and until your behavior changes (as a group), I am not sure that I even want to! DKM”
David K. Meller
“Even a small percentage of blacks–or anyone else–need to be antisocial to make their company or association exceedingly unpleasant, if not dangerous! All of the rest of you, may be very good people!”
David K. Meller
So, the change in behavior has to affect the group in its entirety. The group that he doesn’t really know, can acknowledge on some level is not a monolith, but is certain deserves to be treated as hive mind rather than individually.
Priceless. I prefer the “I hate Black people and their ugly hair,”-types, personally. Soft bigotry is hard enough to feel out and deal with in daily interactions; I like my real racism up front.
I love this shit. Also, his email (at least at the time he wrote this, it’s a few years old) is his name and birth year at yahoo dot com. I’m surprised it’s not aol or juno.
Anyone know anything about these intsitutions he’s talking about? If you can guess what “Some very interesting non-libertarian critics of Post-Constitutional America” means, you get a cookie!
Tasty, tasty survivalism.
His solution is space travel.
Werner von Braun??
Don’t think of DKM as hypocritical…we prefer, “Apolitical!”
If hatred goes up, World War 3 must come down…but that’s not my department, says DKM.
This is rich:
He’s trying his hand at science. Incidentally, despite these “messages from God,” he’s a global warming denialist.
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.
1) I’m generally a happy person. Or I try to be – Life, the Universe and Everything sometimes conspire to keep me from that, but I regard happiness as a life goal.
2) Not gonna argue the emotionally damaged – I am. I think everyone is, in some way. if you come out of life with no scars, you really haven’t lived, you just marked time.
3) My family would disagree with you on the ‘not in real life’ thing.
I wonder if Johnny_B will still try to defend DKM? “Certain ideas and viewpoints which disagree with the gang here” indeed.
If he wants to explore space, let’s stuff him in a can and fire him into it.
What a vile, repugnant, sorry excuse for a human being.
is ‘long night of lies’ supposed to be a play on night of the long knives that he fucked up because hes a dumbass
actually, dkm probably thinks the night of the long knives was a good thing
Hey DKM, what’s your opinion of this movie? KNOWLEDGE is, after all, POWER.
Uugh, never google “hitlar” unless you want to hate yourself.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1005121802210
DKM IS GOING HIS OWN WAY
INTO SPAAAAAACE
nobody tell dkm who pays for space exploration
wait no. everyone tell him.
Who pays for space exploration? Could it be… taxation?
All of the quotes here merely show how civil and thoughtful I am in trying–with varying degrees of success, everywhere but–so far–here, to find common ground with people who hold different ideas, I think that common victims of the NWO have more in common with each other than we have differences, and these points in common will help everybody (worth helping sooner or later).
As far as being a “racist”, wrong again! I condemned the uncivilized behavior of nonwhites when it was visible and prevalent enough to endanjger White people, I did not, and would never condemn people for their race, nationality, or background per se, the way racists do with race! On the contrary, if and when they behave themselves, they are more than welcome as neighbors, employees–or employers, tenants or landlords, students or teachers, etc, NOT because a despotic and extravagant government says so, but because they are being contributors, not destroyers!
I called for White people to work against the NWO and the banking/diplomatic/media criminal oligarchies whose plan is the universal enslavement, if not desturction of all of us. I call for White people to organize in OUR OWN INTERESTS for the same reason that nonwhite people (and Zionist Jews) organize to promote THEIR OWN INTERESTS! Unless you are willing to call nonwhites “racists” for so doing, you can’t call Whites racists for doing the same thing for the same reasons.
So some noisy hack above (I forget who) is getting a Ph.D in Modern European history. All that means is that the media/academic apparat of the NWO (funded by sundry tax-exempt foundations like the Ford Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute for International Affairs, Rockefeller Brothers fund, Bilderbergers et al are paying for, and getting one more tame, brainwashed, bought-and-paid-for shill in some university or media outlet tomorrow to continue to bamboozle the sheeple. It says nothing about David Irving’s qualifications as a historian, and at this late date, given the kind of “graduate education” we have, says nothing about yours! I would take Dr. Irving’s word over yours any day, precisely because he faced PRISON for his research. Have you, comrade candidate Ph.D?
Whenever and wherever I could, I have sought out PEACEFUL solutions to conflict, and have eschewed violence. I have supported the more traditional ways people (of all races and religions) have done things except when these traditions were manifestly harmful (e.g. female genital mutilation) while the wisest, most patient, and most thoughtful tried to find ways to integrate modern ways with tradition. Taliban hostility regarding education for women?—look at its effects on MODERN SOCIETY in the West and you see why I have my questions about it. If I hate feminism–and feminists–maybe I have my reasons, and no, I don’t want a harem of “fucktoys”, domestic slaves or porcelain dolls!–still less do I see this as an enviable human future. But a future described by any posts at this website wouldn’t even be a human future, it would be giant insect like hive where women completely dominated a population of drone (more-or-less-castrated) “males” who would be disposed of as soon as new ones became available! Heck, women would even dominate the Armed Forces and law enforcement activity…Nice going!
You forgot to mention that the alleged “neonazis” of stormfront.org took my criticisms of Hitler more intelligently and patiently than anyone on manboobz.com took my criticism of feminism. A few had some strong disagreements when I called the KKK obsolete for White men’s interests (I thought racial egalitarians like you people would be in seventh heaven about that, although I guess that you can’t please everybody–and really shouldn’t even try. Similarly, they expressed some disappointment that Ron Paul–and his supporters, were not as overtly WN as they were, but hey, we aren’t going to do EVERYTHING for them. Other critics of the way the NWO is taking over the world have to do some of the work themselves…I still think that WNs, libertarians, and paleo-conservatives have more in common–especially with a common enemy–then we ever can have in common with either the Stupid Party or the Dumbercrats!
Note to the forgetful: I only started calling my fellow posters on manboobz.com “communists”, bolsheviks”, or “comrade” after YOU started calling me “racist”! I find namecalling and mudslinging exceedingly disagreeable, but I am not a doormat! If attacked, I will respond, to the extent of the attack. Since you decided to access my other posts elsewhere, none of you see one area where I resorted to argumentum ad hominem–although I certainly expressed my disagreements, when called for, in strong and pungent–though NOT obscene–terms!
Each of the statements which you termed “racist” were only simple and clear statements of fact. Africans, wherever they are, the USA, the UK, France, Canada, or even in the Carribean or the African landmass itself, have consistantly shown a MUCH higher rate of violent crime–both against their fellows, and against nonBlacks–than Whites or Pacific rim Asians–to name two examples. The reasons may be environment, they may be geographic, they may be cultural, they may be–and probably are, to some degree, (horrors!!), even genetic, but the fact remains–over generations of time and the entire WORLD–that there is the hugh increase in the amount, and perhaps the intensity of violent crime! That is no more racist than noting that “water is wet” or 2+2 =4! Does this justify enslaving them, killing them, or even collective punishment against them? OF COURSE NOT! Does it justify people. certainly Whites, but even decent and harmless Black people, from taking appropriate and necessary precautions and engaging in necessay defence? Absolutely!!
Read what I actually write, not what you want to imagine–or hallucinate, I don’t know at this point–that I write. My opinions are challenging enough, interesting enough, and sometimes “over-the-top enough to be open to strong disagreement without making me out to be a monster, I never called anyone a “communist” when I first posted here. I deliberately started name calling when many of you people did it, for no real reason. Even if I was a “racist”, my observations were just as sound–or unsound–and I could live without the slurs! I respond with ad hominems, if at all, only when provoked. My natural position is that the politicians and lamestream media people (where there are too many feminists anyhow) whom I hate are MUCH BETTER than I am at it and I would like to keep it that way. I also believe that people who engage in name calling–like polticians and media clowns–do so because they are too ignorant and dull to actually debate the issues at stake!
Getting back to the original topic–I still think that women look more attractive in dresses and skirts (oreferably below the knee), wearing ruffles, ribbons, or flowers, walking and dressing in ways that emphasize their feminity and the qualities it embraces, than they could look in slacks! I prefer makeup to be applied modestly, if at all, to emphasise the more attractive features of the female face (and perhaps hands), and a certain degree of modesty is becoming in ladies of all shapes, sizes and ages!. Nothing will convince me that feminism, or even the cult of the modern woman, can lead to any improvements here.
You women (even feminists and modern women) don’t like us men dressed–and behaving–like louts and bums, do you? Men have the same objections, with even greater reason, in OUR objections to women “wearing the pants”; much less your horrid “slutwalks”. But that is a matter for another post.
wishing everyone…
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
hey dkm im a jew. do you think putting me in a camp in reckless antisemitism or acceptable antisemitism. this is relevant to how hard i am going to laugh at your clownish white supremacism.
You forgot the Rothschilds in your list of Illuminati. Other than that, fuck off.
“Getting back to the original topic–I still think that women look more attractive in dresses and skirts (oreferably below the knee), wearing ruffles, ribbons, or flowers, walking and dressing in ways that emphasize their feminity and the qualities it embraces, than they could look in slacks!”
Then dress your Real Doll that way and leave the rest of us out of it.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go make a bonfire out of my collection of vintage 40s and 50s dresses.
DKM wants to go to space!
Okay, a joke’s a joke, but some things – and this is one of them, mind – are too horrible to be funny about. I get teary-eyed just thinking about the idea.
*Shudder*
Wow, you really are thoughtful and civil in conversations with racists, David K Meller. It’s so tender how you point out to them that their deep racism is a tad distasteful to someone of your moderately racist sensibilities. Very beautiful.
I mean, I kind of feel like criticizing the idea that women have the autonomy to wear pants if they’d like and criticizing the KKK and Hitler for maybe being a little bit over the top are so different as to not be comparable in any way, but what do I know? I’m an affront to god. (Because of pants.)
Meller: Care to define “behave themselves”, as you mean it in “, if and when they behave themselves.”
Ladies and germs, I present the wonderful Katharine Hepburn.
My, well, he certainly has, um, interesting ideas about what constitutes peace and freedom. It sounds a lot like war and oppression against people he doesn’t like.