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.
Really? Have the genes responsible to being attracted to “means” been isolated? Have there been experiments demonstrating that women who have not been exposed to any social conditioning whatsoever are attracted to men of means? Have the half-assed “studies” that supposedly prove this distinguish between actual sexual attraction and considering a man “marriage material”? Are there scientific, controlled studies that prove women aren’t attracted to to appearance, intelligence or personality?
Ruby, the problem is, saying women are genetically programmed to be attracted to men of means basically implies that all women who aren’t gold diggers (ugh, that term really leaves a bad taste in my mouth) are fighting against their very genetics. In order to… what, exactly? It doesn’t make any sense.
As for power in a relationship, your point is great, but the problem is MRAs don’t see it that way. And there are plenty others who don’t either. Hell, even now it’s still seen as some sort of attack on a dude’s masculinity for a woman he marries to not take his last name.
PsychoDan: I add real cheese too, natch. (I like Romano to give it a little flavor…never been a fan of Swiss, but that’s purely personal preference.) But if I’m making it from a box I add the powder, too.
Of course real cheese also makes it more expensive, so that may be prohibitive in some situations.
Also, has anyone noticed how NWO doesn’t seem to think there exist women who don’t wear heels? I myself never really learned how to walk in them. My mom wouldn’t buy them for me when I was a teenager because she said I was already too tall and by the time I was making money to buy my own shoes, it didn’t really seem worth the trouble. I have exactly two pair that have any kind of modest heel on them at all.
And dude, ever think maybe some women wear them in order to try to live up to an unrealistic expectation? I’m not even going to try to point out that there are plenty of people who make fashion choices based on what will make THEM happy, fuck all to anyone else, because in NWOland, women doing something that isn’t to please men = misandry.
RE: Katz
One of the biggest sads I have over leaving New Zealand was how plentiful and (relatively) cheap Edam cheese was. You could get big two kilo bricks of it for cheaper than cheddar!
RE: Ostara321
Sssh! Nobody tell Slavey that men used to (and sometimes still do) wear heels! His head might explode!
@ Ruby- Yeah, I’m going to second the request for a definition of “means.” I’m attracted to intelligent, ambitious men who know what they want out of life, but I spend a lot of time falling for philosophy majors and programmers, one of which is an EXTREMELY non-lucrative career path, the other of which usually leads to a comfortable but not terribly opulent lifestyle. Bankers and finance types usually give me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach (not because finance is inherently bad, but it usually comes with a really shit attitude). Am I just a broken woman, or are you just wrong?
Cheese may be the most delicious thing in the world.
NWO has, in the past, claimed that all women wear see-through blouses and micro-miniskirts all the time, and also that all women routinely wear bikinis to shopping malls. By NWO standards, “all women wear heels” is at least closer to reality.
(But yeah, I couldn’t walk in heels even back when I could walk. I’ve always been a “sneakers whenever possible” sort of gal, but given that I’m also a “jeans whenever possible” sort of gal and a “comfy t-shirts with something geeky on them whenever possible” sort of gal, I’m pretty sure I very thoroughly don’t exist in NWO’s universe.)
RE: katz
You remember those old Christmas commercials with the tagline “Behold the power of cheese”?
Yeah. Those guys knew what they were talking about.
I really wonder what sort of alternate reality he’s living in. Even assuming all women would be cool enough with their bodies to wear bikinis (which happens to skinny and fat women, again, thanks to fat hate) it’s not practical to wear a bikini to most places that aren’t beaches or swimming pools. Especially if it’s winter and you live in a northern area. Even at my most desperate for attention, I never wanted to wear a bikini to a mall or a micro-miniskirt anywhere because they aren’t comfortable (for me) and in the winter I’d freeze my ass off.
Moreover, if you don’t like the see-through blouses dude, petition the designers and clothing industry. I’m not exactly thrilled either that just about every other article of clothing I buy tends to need another article of clothing underneath it in order for my clothes to do what they’re supposed to do and cover my damn body. I guess though this is a diabolical plot from the gynocracy and not, you know, big clothing manufacturerers being cheapskates.
The perfect illustration of what we’ve often discussed in these comment threads. To guys like this, “all women” = “women appropriately attractive enough to make me want to fuck them.” No other women exist. They don’t even SEE them.
And in fact they demand that other women be invisible.
“As for power in a relationship, my point is that no one should dominate the other.” — buy Ruby, what if one partner *wants* to be dominated?
“Sssh! Nobody tell Slavey that men used to (and sometimes still do) wear heels! His head might explode!”
Since you’ve now told him, let me provide some proof — Louis XIV, King of France in red high heels circa 1700. NWO, would you like to argue with the King of France?
What I mean by, “means” is the ability to provide. It’s beneficial to children that their fathers can financialy support them. As I’ve said before, though it got ignored, the ability of men to financially provide for potential children is hardly the only thing women look for in a mate, but it is important. Women want to give their children as many advantages as possible.
Ruby, you’re still assuming two things: one, that all couples intend to make babies; two, that all babies are planned. You have heard of a shotgun wedding I assume? That thing where a woman’s father finds out she’s pregnant out of wedlock and forces the baby’s father to marry his daughter regardless what the mother and father to be want?
I’m curious how that’ll get twisted to be the woman’s fault. And since that seems to difficult for MRAs to grasp, answer the first assumption at least — what about couples that either don’t intend to have children or can’t have children?
Lesbians look for a man’s financial success when they hook up? o.O?
It’s beneficial to children that their parents can financially support them.
Parents want to give their children as many advantages as possible.
Why gender it?
Women also can’t provide for themselves and always want babies amiright?
I’m curious how that’ll get twisted to be the woman’s fault.
Spermjacking, duh.
Poor parents aren’t inferior, and they aren’t less loving. Having children while poor isn’t an act of evil in the slightest. Rather than attack poor parents, how about attacking the lack of social safety net, lack of living wage, etc. The poor, and other oppressed an marginalized parents/parents of oppressed or marginalized children aren’t wicked for breeding, it’s the social system that denies opportunities to oppressed and marginalized people that is wicked.
But katz, I specifically said the woman doesn’t want the marriage either! Still though, what about couples that either don’t want children, or can’t have them? (Am I tempting the fates that I’m going to get ev-psych about how duh all women want children even if they can’t have them?)
@Cliff, I think that’s the answer to “why gender it” too — because ev-psych.
I’m wasn’t attacking poor parents. But now that you mention it, darksidecat, IMO it’s not a good idea for them to have a brood of kids. Of course, with the world being overpopulated, I don’t think anyone needs to be having a brood. As for people choosing to not have children, I applaud them. I and my husband only had one kid. I wish more people would follow our example.
Rich people have kids.
Poor people have “broods.”
I admire your restraint in not saying “litter,” I guess.
Anyway this still doesn’t explain why it’s gendered. If I want my children to grow up in a wealthy household, I can:
A) Marry a rich man
or
B) Get a high-paying job
Seems like B is the option that gives me more security and flexibility. Of course, under a patriarchy it’s easier for a woman to find a rich man than a good job, but that’s kind of a problem if you’re a feminist.
Poor people are animals? Poor babies hatch?
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.