Apparently, or so I’ve learned from the manosphere, every single thing that women do is designed to torment men. Yesterday, we learned that women with jobs are leeching off of men just as much as women without jobs.
Further proof of female perfidy can be found in a recent post on the popular manosphere blog In Mala Fide with the provocative title Provocative Female Attire is an Assault Against Men. Guest poster Giovanni Dannato lays it out for anyone who needs convincing:
When a woman walks down a crowded sidewalk in revealing clothing, she is forcing herself on every man nearby.
The woman fully understands the powerful biological drives of men. She knows they cannot ignore her, not even if they want to.
Amazingly, the fact that a woman might show some cleavage does not automatically mean that she wants to have sex with every single man who sees her.
She has chosen to advertise herself to everyone passing by, but she is looking only for a few men. The wealthiest, the most famous, the most powerful men she can attract. …
There’s an old elementary school custom…when you bring something tasty to class, it’s understood that you should put it away unless you intend to share it with others. …
Likewise, a woman who puts her goodies blatantly on display is making false advertisements. Nobody supposes or expects that she could share herself with her entire audience—not even if she wanted to.
That’s right. Women are like gum. Or that pizza Spicoli had delivered to him in class in Fast Times at Ridgemont High that the mean Mr. Hand forced him to share with everyone. And if you gum-pizza-ladies are not willing to share yourself with every horny man (and, presumably, lesbian) who happens to notice you in your slut uniform, you are committing a terrible infraction.
Oh, sure, wearing a totally cute outfit is not specifically against the law, but, as Dannato reminds us,
looking for refuge in explicit written law is inherently disingenuous. …
[W]omen exposing themselves without intent to reciprocate the attention they attract is impolite and inconsiderate – an act of aggression in which they use the power of their sex as a weapon.
So how can men defend themselves against such evil feminine perfidy? By yelling “hey, whore! How much?” or “can I squeeze those titties?” or “Can you give me directions to Pussy Avenue?” Because street harassment – sorry, catcalling – is
a defense mechanism used by lower status men against women flaunting themselves publicly – for the benefit of millionaires only.
What else are men supposed to do?
[M]en are effectively strapped down, gagged, and muzzled while females can flaunt and taunt with impunity. For many men this pretty much sums up every single day of an entire lifetime at school and at work.
And women won’t even admit that when they put on a cute outfit and leave the house that they’re doing it to torment men.
Western Women don’t just abuse their incredible sexual power, they pathologically lie about their inability to understand the effects and implications of their actions. In fact, they seem to derive a sort of sociopathic pleasure from being able to sow unpleasantness and discord without consequence – all while playing innocent. They express their contempt and hatred for men even as they troll the populace for providers. Their enormous power comes without responsibility and they love it that way.
And now these evil women have come up with an even-more-dastardly-than-usual way to torment men “[i]n the most vengeful, derisive, and mocking way they know how.” Yep, you guessed it: The SlutWalks. Large groups of women tormenting men with sexy clothes in unison!
Apparently overwhelmed by contemplation of the sheer feminine evil of the SlutWalks, Giovanni ends his post abruptly at this point.
I admit I don’t have the patience to wade through the comments. If any of you do, please post any of your findings below.
EDITED TO ADD: Ironically, Ferdinand Bardamu (the guy behind In Mala Fide) aids and abets the evil sexy-woman assault on men with his own retro porn site Retrotic. NSFW, of course. And if Dannato’s post is to believed, not safe for straight men generally.
NOTE: This post contains sarcasm.
Now I have Sir Samuel Vimes, the Duke of Ankh Morpork and commander of the City Night Watch suddenly in my head.
Ankh only apparently, duh.
Kyrie: He makes a big deal (here and there) about the need to be “Christian” once again. At least in manner, if not in actual belief.
Blue Jean:
Which, I understand, was what the British hoped would happen when they showed it to him.
PFKAE: You mean Blackboard Monitor Vimes?
Please do not sully the good name of Samuel Vimes by in any way associating him with the Mellertoad.
Yep. 😛 He had the power to erase words.
Which, I understand, was what the British hoped would happen when they showed it to him.
True, Hershele, which is why many denounced the Zimmerman telegram as a British plot and accused the British of making it all up just to get the US in the war. However, US spies confirmed that the German govt. had indeed sent the telegram, and what’s more, the Mexican govt. had considered the proposal and rejected it. The sinking of the Lusitania by German forces pretty much sealed the deal. It’s kinda hard to stay neutral when one of the feuding sides is not only sinking your ships, but actively encouraging your neighbors to declare war on you.
Blue Jean: The sinking of the Lusitania did not seal the deal. That happened in 1915. The Zimmerman telegram in 1917.
The reason for the Zimmerman Telegram was that Germany had decided it needed to resume unrestricted submarine warfare, which it had ceased in 1915 after US reaction to the sinking of the Lusitania. They expected the US to enter the war if they resumed; and were sure they would lose if they didn’t choke off Britain’s supply lines.
So they hoped to keep US forces stateside by getting Mexico to join the war on the part of Germany; thus opening a third front, on the US doorstep.
And, to be fair to Germany, the deal with Mexico was conditional on the US declaring war. Germany’s position was that they were at war, and there really wasn’t any such thing as, “neutral” shipping as food/cloth/metal were all being put to the war effort.
In the days of limited war, when a gov’t could supply; apart from weapons and specialised equipment, the army without any real drain on the foodstuffs, clothing, building materials, there was some justification for the difference between, contraband, and legitimate cargoes.
Britain and England, were also engaging in a total blockade of Germany, with all commerce being declared “contraband”, so the only substantive difference was the means of enforcing the blockade.
Oh SNAP! Women are also players in the game and you know it. Besides, some women just looooove bein’ a tease. Nothing wrong with that, but unwanted attention from us menz is par for the course. Every rose has its thorn, baby.
And stop equating drive-by catcalls with rape. That’s childishly melodramatic.
How do you define “tease”?
Why is that?
I don’t play your game. And yeah, sure, some women also play the ‘game’ of shaming other women. But that’s not what you mean, is it? You mean the women you catcalled, right? Funny thing, being catcalled isn’t exactly a very active thing, is it? So how do you know they’re playing?
“I’m being deeply disrespectful and annoying and nobody have stopped me” != “Everyone is fine with what I do”
But you seem to almost realize what I’m talking about:
“some women just looooove bein’ a tease.” (=>most of them don’t)
“unwanted attention ” (=> as in, they don’t want it. Period)
You’re right, that would be a bit too much. Care to tell when I did that?
Be a nice boy and spare me your pet names, and please go fuck yourself with this rose.
Be a nice boy and spare me your pet names, and please go fuck yourself with this rose.
Ouch! In more ways than one. 😉
Blue Jean: The sinking of the Lusitania did not seal the deal. That happened in 1915. The Zimmerman telegram in 1917.
Pecunium; You’re right. My knowledge of the causes why the US declared war on Germany. In any case, Germany was pretty much screwed.
Blleugh! “My knowledge of the causes why the US declared war on Germany (is lacking).”
Thou shalt not blog on Nyquil.
Nameless Coward: Oh SNAP! Women are also players in the game and you know it. Besides, some women just looooove bein’ a tease. Nothing wrong with that, but unwanted attention from us menz is par for the course.
Even accepting, for the purpose of argument, that some women like to tease, what gives you the right to harass women who aren’t playing that game.
Blue Jean, not a problem. Most people are confused about it because the broad strokes are all that get taught. There is a school of thought that the US entering the war made the aftermath worse, because Germany wasn’t forced to admit defeat; they were able to blame the sudden onslaught of fresh forces, without the populace actually thinking the had lost.
i dont actually know that much about wwi, much to my chagrin. i have my dad’s copy of the first world war by john keegan, and i keep meaning to read it. is that a good one?
Sharculese: It’s good, so too is “The Great War in Modern Memory” by Fussell. A recent book is “On the 11th Hour of the 11th Day of the 11th Month” which is about the tail end of the war, and how the allied powers were putting men into the meat grinder up the the very last minute, even though they knew for about a month that an armistice was coming.
Lyn MacDonald’s books are great, but they are voluminous. It’s an incredible work, a large part of which is drawn from interviews.
Those are what come to me off the top of my head.
The irony of Meller is that when he by very rare chance hits a real issue, it is always an issue leftists were on first and better.
I highly recommend some of Eugene Debs speeches and comments about WWI, imperialism, and militarism (Debs was actually charged with and convicted of sedition over it and spent years in prison, leftist anarchists, unionists, and socialists were jailed and deported by the thousands).
@pecunium
thanks.
i wanna read the great war in modern memory, but i’m saving it until after i know more about the war in general. on the subject of the end of the war, ive got gregory dallas’s 1918. do you know anything about that one?
No. I’ve got some books on Canada in the war too, I’ll look at them when I get home tomorrow, and make some recommendations.
awesome.
now that i think about it, the only book on that era i’ve ever actually read is a peace to end all peace, which was super interesting, and also super validating as im a churchill-hater, but not the most expansive book on the subject.
OK, so, we have multiple men who are attracted to women in this thread, right?
Pop quiz – how many of you feel assaulted when you see women in sexy outfits? How many of you would prefer never to see sexy women walking around, if you knew for a fact that you were not going to be able to have sex with them?* How many of you would prefer it if women just stopped wearing sexy clothes in public at all?
*I know that in some cases this assumption would be entirely incorrect, but just for the sake of argument.
honestly, my libido is pretty faint. i’m on a college campus, so i see women walking around in sexy outfits and i’m like ‘hrm, nice’ and then i turn my attention to something else.
but, um, i honestly don’t give a fuck what women wear in public. it’s up to them. i’m not gonna notice unless one of them has one of the things i pick up on, like good color coordination or extremely excellent hair.
Weather permitting I would like it if women stopped wearing clothes in public.*
On a more serious note, Women’s clothes don’t seem any sort of assault at all†. I enjoy them. I like the sexy ones, and the ordinary ones, and even the ones meant to make a statement. I am reasonably certain that I am not going to have sex with any of them (for values of any that rely on the fact that I don’t know them and so have no expectation they will stop in their tracks and tell someone to have me cleaned and brought to her tent).
*In New York State any one may go topless. In San Francisco (and Berkeley) it is unlawful to be obscene. Nudity is not, by itself, obscene, and so one may be starkers in public without legal repercussion.
† Stripes and plaids, and certain day-glo colors excepted.