As you may be aware, Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide has taken a brave and bold stance against “fat chicks.” That in itself is not very surprising, or interesting, really. But in a recent post he offers a take on the fat acceptance movement that betrays an strange bit of … paranoia, maybe?
After a few uninspired swipes at “fat-assed she-beasts and big-titted blubberboys” and the “femilosers” on Tumblr who recently batted around an anti-“fat chick” post from his blog, he makes this strange pronouncement:
These histrionic little girls are full of it. They don’t want fat acceptance — they want to FORCE men to be attracted to their endless rolls of fat and their cheesy crotch creases. Fortunately, their emotional delicateness will ensure that they will fail. We are the Patriarchs, and we’re coming to take back what’s ours. Beware.
Ferdy, don’t worry. The fat chicks of the world aren’t going to FORCE you to lust after them, and wouldn’t even if they could. I haven’t conducted a poll or anything, but I’m fairly certain that the fat women of the world are just fine with you not being attracted to them. Heck, I’m pretty sure most skinny women would prefer that you not be attracted to them either. They really don’t want your lucky charms.
Also, the weird little bit at the end there, the thing about “coming to take back what’s ours?” In The Incredibles, they called that “monologuing.” I don’t know quite what motivates so many manopshereians to want to talk like comic book supervillains. But it is sort of adorable.
Ruby, overpopulation? Really? Please do explain.
And cloudiah, stop being silly, we all know only dragons lay eggs! Poor people give live birth like sharks, duh.
I have two kids, and my family isn’t exactly rolling in the dough. I was afraid that if I waited to have money before kids, then I might not get to have kids at all. For me, the tradeoff of wearing second hand clothes and only eating almost all generic food is worth it for the joys of parenthood.
“There’s a reason men with no money and no source of income have a hard time getting dates.”
Unless they’re an artist? Or is that some other sort of “of means”?
The best sources of calories in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle are either plants, or meats that can be gathered rather than hunted (shellfish gathered from a beach, small fish caught in traps or nets). Hunting is high-prestige because of the skill required, but the most unreliable food source in most environments.
Also, being a good hunter is not really analogous to being rich. It seems like a wiry, strong guy (preferably with a bloody deer carcass in the back of his truck?) would trip more “evolutionary” signals there than a guy with an expensive car and designer sunglasses.
The whole point of hunter-gatherer societies is that without agriculture, there’s not much specialization; without specialization, there’s very not much trade; and without trade, there’s no such thing as wealth.
I really recommend “Guns, Germs, and Steel,” or alternatively any anthropology textbook ever.
Just check out this poor with her brood. And another! The poors have no self control at all.
This is terrible! I am clucking in disapproval. Luckily, there is a modest proposalto solve the problem of those poors and their broods.
RE: Ruby
My husband was born to a poor teenage single mother. I really don’t think he would appreciate your statements, especially since I don’t think she got a choice in the pregnancy.
Ruby:
Not really? I mean, not the result as such. Humankind has evolved from something else, and that is a partial (not complete) explanaton for what we currently observe about the species, but “result” makes it sound like the process is complete, among other problems.
Another result of evolution is that we’re exceptionally mentally flexible and learn most of our behaviors rather than inheriting them–this is why cultures vary so greatly across the planet.
Flexibility is, itself, an adaptive trait for humans. We do a huge number of things by cognition rather than instinct (you can observe this by, um, existing for a few minutes). That’s what makes us so awesome.
…And as a side effect, that’s what makes us capable of choosing our partners in ways that have a lot more to do with cultural and personal preferences than they do with robotic instinct.
Yeah Ruby…coming from a poor bitch with a brood of two kids…go fuck yourself with a chainsaw.
Stupid bitch, you sit there and spit on me? I’m the one who’s sweat supports herself and her kid, no help. You have a husband supporting you. Take your fucked up, moldy and downright insulting to the human spirit ideas and find a rock to crawl under. Either that or try getting off your ass and living on your own sweat with your children. Let’s just see how much better you really are. Because what I’m doing right now breaks a lot of people.
Oh, just in case it wasn’t clear, or if there are new people who don’t know my standard mode is snark, my last post was meant as mockery of Ruby. Sorry if that wasn’t clear!
Cloudiah, I wish Rubys viewpoint was anything but what it is. You, on the other hand are just fine.
Phew! Mostly I wanted an excuse to post pictures of chickens because they’re so pretty. 🙂
I like chickens! My main goal in life is to figure out some way to actually own a couple of them. But the city won’t let us keep them….
Ruby, get a job and a life and go learn something. You’d think you’d know when to quit spouting yoru ignorance and simpleminded theories, but no.
As someone who does not want children, you can cram your applause sideways with walnuts, cupcake.
@cloudiah: That second picture! Chickmunks!
I ARE DED OF CUTE
Cloudiah — the chickens were adorkable, and a much better brood than Ruby’s. I almost think she’d support Swift’s “modest” proposal >.<
Pillowinhell — as my mother put it every time my brother and I wanted some new pet — "we aren't zoned for chickens!"
Yeah.. I might have to tell stinky kid that myself. I got half a pet store here myself!
Lol!
…And I STILL want chickens……..
Chickmunks is my new favorite word. Also, adorkable.
You know… Ithink I’m going to tell Beloved he’s adorkable, just to see what happens…
And if I get a good reaction (like him chasing me around the house) its going to become a newly favored word
I specifically said the woman doesn’t want the marriage either!
But how can that be women always want marriage
@katz — Crap, I forgot that wanting to have some say in the husband makes her a stuck up bitch…nevermind!
I didn’t invent adorkable btw, I’d kind of figured you guys would’ve heard it before.
But women are just biologically wired to want one amiright?
Really? But chickens are not very clever and they are assholes, not unlike Ruby.
P.S. There is no overpopulation issue, there are enough resource to provide for the basic needs of everyone as things stand, it’s an issue of distribution. Children in wealthy nations use far, far more resources than those in poor countries. A person in an “undeveloped” country could have twenty kids and they would not be anticipated to use the amount of resources as Ruby’s child*.
*I was going to refer to her child with comparably dehumanizing terms as she did, but I wouldn’t do that to an innocent kid, not kid’s fault their parent is a classist, imperialist, racist assface
@darksidecat — your PS is exactly what I was hoping she’d walk right into denying. Things I’ve recently discovered? Walmart outputs more CO2 than the bottom *50* countries combined. So yes, we each use way more resources than anyone in the few countries that have birth rates substantially above replacement rate. And anyways, those countries? If she has 20 kids she might end up with 10 adult children, they’re not really caught up on child mortality rates either, maybe worry about that first?
Is Ruby racist as well as classist though? She managed not to come out and say that it’s those other people in those other places who are overpopulating, which is more than most people presenting that argument manage.