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.
That thing with thinking the poor are second class citizens seems to be a common MRM trend, John/Pell was trying that the other night (goodness was proving him repeatedly wrong fun though). And Brandon sounds like a real piece of work, worse than NWO even maybe. Though that would be quite a feat.
Vindicare, I can’t find your link, my only guess is you were sock-puppetting at the time and it’s under an SN I’m not searching for, want to just provide it here? Also, the post is titled “Friend-zoning Out” — there’s nothing “so called” about the title of the post.
Ruby said:
”
We are the result of Evolution, right? Humans have been around for about what, 200,000 years now? When did the Neolithic Revolution begin? I believe roughly 10,000 years ago. So most of human evolution took place while we were hunter/gatherers. Our maternal cave ancestors needed to mate with men who were good hunters (men of means) so as to have their children provided for (with meat which was the best source of calories). Of course we women inherited this same behavior. There’s a reason men with no money and no source of income have a hard time getting dates.”
Most hunter gatherer nutrition was (and in traditional societies, still is) provided by women who gathered vegetables, did very small scale farming, fished using basket-woven traps, hunted small scale game, snakes, moths and birds. Traditional Aboriginal Australians seem, as far as we (and they) can tell have been living this way for around fourty thousand years (a conservative estimate). The women and children did this while the men largely talked about religious and ritual matters, organized large scale ritual events painted (which women did too, they had their own dreamings to maintain) and occasionally hunted diprotodon and other megafauna and later kangaroos. The meat the men hunted was a tiny part of the traditional Aboriginal diet. They were by no means vegetarian but most of the game they ate was small and caught by women and kids. They may have had trouble in times of serious drought or climate change but they are still with us and some still live the traditional lifestyle.
I’m getting really tired of the idea that men went out and hunted the mammoth and women stayed back at the cave all day minding the kids. Sure, they did the majority of the care of girls and very young boys but that that sure as hell wasn’t all they did. It’s a daft C19th idea perpetuated by male anthropological fieldworkers who rarely even spoke to the women, much less, spent time with them and found out what they did with their time. Anthropologists threw the idea out decades ago and it’s time everyone else followed their example.
M Dubz
*polishes sunglasses*
*coughs expectantly*
Ladies.
Pillowinhell
My mother raised me and my sister in Circumstances. She’s the strongest and best person I know. I’d like to shake your hand if I could, because I’d guess you are going through what she went through.
Ruby:
Fuck off.
Ummmmm, for the person (Ruby?) who thought that hunter-gatherer women of the neolithic chose their “mate” by selecting the best hunter: That is, according to my knowledge, as an archaeologist of the Near East (where the “Neoloithic Revolution” happened, if you like to employ such big words), a pile of bullshit.
Some facts:
Humans live, and always have lived, in groups. Packs, herds, flocks, whatever dehumanizing term you prefer. They do not live in pairs, and it stands to reason that early humans weren’t entirely monogamous. So the “mate” that the “females” selected might have been another every other week.
Also, there is no proof, or even the slightest supporting evidence that only the men hunted while the women gathered fruits and berries and stuff in an Allan-and-Barbara-Pease-sort of style. It is much more likely, and makes infinitely more sense economically, that able-bodied men and women hunted together while the old, the disabled (and yes, they existed and were supported by the group) and probably the currently pregnant cared for the children and maybe did some berry-gathering.
Consequently, what the able-bodied grown people of the group hunted and gathered was shared with the group. So, having best possible hunter as dad would give the resulting child little to no advantage over the other kids of the group.
There is no reason why a neolithic woman would select the “best hunter” for sex.
>Traditional Aboriginal Australians seem, as far as we (and they) can tell have been living this way for around fourty thousand years (a conservative estimate).
Aren’t those “traditional” Aboriginal Australians the result of natives being pushed out of the habitable belt of the island? It’s sorta like how the slash-and-burn cultures in South America are the result of natives being pushed off more fertile lands… so as far as we can tell, that proposed span of time is bullshit in this case.
Plus it seems that some hunter-gatherer cultures, like the Inuts, have a much more open and flexible sexual life and marriage customs that contradicts that assumptation of guided choice born out of evolutionary needs. Like marriages that were agreed upon by the parents during the children’s infancy.
There’s also all those central asian nomadic cultures that tended to
And finally the whole notion that none-western iron-age and stone-age cultures are somehow mysteriously closer to a natural state of being is completely wrong.
Kakaniam: Aren’t those “traditional” Aboriginal Australians the result of natives being pushed out of the habitable belt of the island? It’s sorta like how the slash-and-burn cultures in South America are the result of natives being pushed off more fertile lands… so as far as we can tell, that proposed span of time is bullshit in this case.
Nope. Australia has been, for at least 30,000 years, inhabited in all it’s area. There were not, in the modern sense, “habitable” areas and wastelands, because Australia doesn’t have any native plants suitable to agriculture in the same way Asia, the Americas and Europe do.
And finally the whole notion that none-western iron-age and stone-age cultures are somehow mysteriously closer to a natural state of being is completely wrong.
Good thing that’s not what was being said.
“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.”
I’m sure as a representative of the female condition it makes you the authority in the matters of attraction. Don’t be upset, I’m sure there is a fat chick out there somewhere for you.
Now that you mention it, I notice.
I stopped wearing heels when I quit the law firm and started my own business. I decided my business my rules, and the first rule would be “never wear uncomfortable shoes again.” I have more pairs of ballet flats than any one person ever needs, but no heels.
The closest thing to “heels” in my footwear-wardrobe now are the heels on my figure skate boots, which are of course required for proper skating. And only about an inch high. And have an entire metal blade between them and the ground.
(I know not everyone is uncomfortable in heels. I am, though.)
Oh noes, you said that David might date fat women in the future. That would be the worst thing ever, amirite?
/sarcasm
All right, then let’s do a poll. Fat and skinny women of manboobz, say “yea” is you care about Ferdinand not being attracted to you.
I’ll wait.
Nay.
BTW, The Science of Sex Appeal is airing on the Science Channel tonight.
Oh, joy unbounded.
Hey Ruby, will that show also tell me how big my brood will get? How many broodlings can I have at one time??
Since you’re such a righteous person, maybe you can type real slow and tell me all about my bad decisions? I still haven’t had mcdonalds in a few months.
Nay.
@Ruby — take notes then, some of us poor people don’t pay for the Science Channel after all.
Nay, nay, and thrice nay.
Like this?
Ahh that movie! I still can’t decide if it’s terrible or terrifying. (Reasons not to date film majors, you’ll end up watching lots of questionable movies)
Kakanian said:
“>Traditional Aboriginal Australians seem, as far as we (and they) can tell have been living this way for around fourty thousand years (a conservative estimate).
Aren’t those “traditional” Aboriginal Australians the result of natives being pushed out of the habitable belt of the island? It’s sorta like how the slash-and-burn cultures in South America are the result of natives being pushed off more fertile lands… so as far as we can tell, that proposed span of time is bullshit in this case.”
No, not generaly. Obviously sometimes aboriginal people have been moved from their lands and put into missions and “christianized”. That happened with huge numbers of people, some were, as you say, simply displaced and put on land they couldn’t use because it was unknown to them and they didn’t know the Land or it’s Dreaming. Traditional Aborigines, live on their own land or have returned to it after an absence. That’s what makes them traditional. Without knowing the Dreaming of the land on which you live it’s not really possible to live a traditional lifestyle unless someone is prepared to teach you and the group will accept you.
Also some of the white settlers went in for wholesale genocide and massacred whole communities, so there is nobody left in certain parts of Australia who know that place’s Dreaming.
“Plus it seems that some hunter-gatherer cultures, like the Inuts, have a much more open and flexible sexual life and marriage customs that contradicts that assumptation of guided choice born out of evolutionary needs. Like marriages that were agreed upon by the parents during the children’s infancy.”
Of course, sexual practices and marriage customs differ widely from culture to culture. There may be both cultural and biological reasons for a particular tradition being set up as it as been. And there are some that are completely baffling.
“There’s also all those central asian nomadic cultures that tended to”
Tended to what?
“And finally the whole notion that none-western iron-age and stone-age cultures are somehow mysteriously closer to a natural state of being is completely wrong”
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I just happen to have pursued this line of study and have a number of Aboriginal friends of various backgrounds who are happy to talk about their experiences and family histories. There are a large number of western educated Aboriginies who manage to live in both cultures. Another point. Aborigines are not Amazonians. Their cultures are vastly difficult and so are their histories.
There’s also the point about ethnographic analogy, which is a useful tool but it has vast problems associated with it. People tend to make vast assumptions without any real basis. That’s another reason I’m talking about the Aborigines. They are possibly the oldest hunter/gatherer society to which we have access and we can go out there and talk to them, and ask questions. They may not be as they were forty thousand years ago but they’re the ones most likely to know what that kind of society might have looked like and functioned.
(short rant) The whites are STILL deliberately moving Aboriginal people away from home and breaking up communities – In Dubbo just last year the Houso kicked everyone out of a suburb, moved them to whatever accommodation was available in other towns, and sold off the houses (to white people of course).
Magpie,
That’s horrifying. I really thought we were past that kind of racist bullshit. We still have the NT intervention so I guess I was being far too optimistic. I really hate this crap! It makes me both angry and ashamed.
It wasn’t officially stated as against Aboriginal people, but that was the effect. Like the policy in my town banning drinking in the CBD, but the council allows the winegrowers to hold a expo inside the no-drinking area.
Don’t get me started on the NT intervention – sending the army against Australian citizens…
Itrarely is stated as being against Aborigines. There’s legislation against that but they always find an excuse that’s considered acceptable.
On a positive note, the Aboriginal medical centre in my town now has a birthing centre! Way cool!