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.
Somehow them working at Walmart means they’ve earned respect but anyone else working at Walmart has done nothing significant with their lives. They treat it as if men are the only ones doing noble things and working noble jobs, and that no man works a shit job at all. And you know, the only way to do something noble is through your job. Being a good, selfless person who helps anyone who needs is is not someone worthy of respect, esp if they don’t have a good job.
pillowinhell: A reasonable counter arugument might be made that liberatarianism simply doesn’t exist in a strong enough form to really see where it goes?
The US had a largely libertarian society in the late 1800s. It wasn’t so great for the fair distribution of much of anything.
Libertarians tend to apply the idea that the examples one can find don’t count because there was some sort of gov’t interference, and so it was all doomed.
The real doom to libertopia is that it requires no one be venal.
Sharculese: It’s not that they are special snowflakes (or not just that). It’s that they believe the core idea (that people will not be venal), and so all the rest follows (a cynic might say they don’t care if people are venal, because they think they will be at the top of the heap; and all the people on the bottom will be there because they deserve it).
Then they point at the stories/theories/anecdotes, the way that a fundie points at The Bible, to prove that the God s/he worships is true.
Ruby: Cliff, funny how you can twist what I say to make me look like I hate poor people in order to suit your prejudice. Mothers with a lot of kids have referred to them as their brood. It doesn’t matter what their financial status is. So nice try.
I have to side with Cliff on this one.
1: It’s more than just one comment.
2: The connotations of “brood” when referring to a group, as opposed to a single unit are not the same.
3: The social connotation of referring to another group, esp. a marginalised one, as having, broods, is quite different from referring to one’s own children.
4: The context of, “my brood”, is not the same as someone making a sweeping statement about how bad it is for, “the poor”, to be, “having broods”.
5: You made a direct comparison to yourself having kids (plural), and the poor “having broods”, while decrying the excess of people in the world.
Which means you were saying that your contribution to keeping the world population at it’s present level isn’t as problematic as the contributions of poor people.
Put all of those together (even absent the first) and your use of the word brood is denigrating the poor, for nothing more than being poor.
Now why has Ruby this weird sn? Because Hypatia was a feminist martyr or because she was sex-negative and (ir… no, I don’t say that 😉 ) raped?
Vindicare: That’s a shite argument.
What Ruby has said is more than enough to deal with. Speculating, in a way meant to underhandedly attack her, is cowardly. If it was an attempt to finesse someone to agree with your puerile pretense of psychological prognostication, it was ham-handed.
Why, one wonders, don’t you ever engage in actual discussion?
I suspect it’s a lack of intellectual talent, perhaps even capacity. I also suspect that you don’t engage because you don’t have the chops to stand up to having ideas (as opposed to quips) responded to. It’s true that you can’t lose if you don’t fight, but you can’t win either.
As gadflies go, you aren’t much. To make the sort of quips you toss out sting, they have to be topical, and relevant. That requires wit.
Internet libertarians annoy me too, but honestly, I still prefer them to you “Privilege is so bad…:cry: Global justice? Derailing!!!!”-people (and yes, even Randians are better).
Vindicare don’t you have a rape apologist conference to attend or something? Better hurry, you wouldn’t want to be late!
I can see why you would think that. It’s much easier to argue with people who are wrong.
I’m not arguing with you, all I write here has a therapeutic value for me, but you won’t understand that…
Sure we will, you don’t realize how many, trolls, non trolls and in between have down the same thing. (of course, there are trollish and non-trollish way to use Manboobz in a “therapeutic” way)
Vindicare: You aren’t reading much also. We noticed (and mentioned) that you aren’t arguing.
But if a public wank makes you feel better, enjoy. It’s not as if you’re actually managing offense. That would take effort, and you are either unwilling to make the effort, or lack the talent.
Either way it’s the same to me.
…but I’m fairly certain that the fat women of the world are just fine with you not being attracted to them.
If that was the case there wouldn’t the fat feminist shaking their hands in righteous fury.
If that was the case there wouldn’t the fat feminist shaking their hands in righteous fury.
Right… It’s a charming idea you have that the people who are upset are actually hot for the people who hate on them. Perhaps this is a double-whammy of projection (that “feminists” hate the MRM/etc; AND lust for the assholes who say they are repulsive).
Of course this ignore the not-fat people who are saying this is wrong too.
So, that’s three strikes. You’re out.
“landplanets”
I wanna be a waterplanet.
#wheredeydodatat
AHAHAHAHA! HOW ABOUT NO? I’m not fucking someone that’s a douche for any reason.
The Patriarchs… sounds like a band with a theme of hipster sexism! Or a movie… “The Patriarchs… coming Summer 2012… to take back what’s theirs! *explosions*”