Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women evil women hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy rapey sexual harassment sluts

Immodesty Daze: The Thinking Housewife thinks “immodest dress” is a form of violence towards men

From Liberty University’s dress code for women (and, evidently, mannikins). Click on the picture for more details.

We’ve heard before from numerous MRAs and MGTOWers and other backwards dudes that women who dress like “sluts” deserve to be raped. You may remember my post about the patriarchy-loving MGTOWer who calls himself Drealm, who thinks that immodest dress is an assault on men, because it excites them without giving them the opportunity to, well, rape the women who so cruelly give them boners. In Drealm’s mind, almost any form of clothing on a woman that in any way shows her shape is suspect – as does uncovered female hair.

Obviously, I think all of us will agree that certain kinds of clothes are inappropriate in certain settings – no one of any gender should be teaching kindergarteners wearing nothing but a thong – but invariably those who complain the most about women wearing “immodest clothing” have a much broader notion of “immodesty,” which includes things that most of us just consider “clothing” – shorts, short skirts, any top that shows even the tiniest amount of cleavage. (Click on the picture above to see more about Liberty University’s dress code for women.)

Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is not confined to religious fundamentalists and weird dudes lurking in the dark corners of internet. Recently, Laura Wood, the self-identified Thinking Housewife behind the blog of the same name, has declared that “immodest dress is a form of aggression.” The heart of her post is a reposted comment from a reader posting under the name of Arete, arguing that immodest dress is a form of violence towards men similar to and in some ways even worse than actual violence from men towards women.

Immodest dress is analogous to male violence. Men who flaunt their muscles and crush beer can’s with their fists (not that I have seen much of that lately) are telling the weaker world around them, “I could crush you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.We’ll see. Depends how much you annoy me.” Women are stronger than men in this one way – the sight of their women’s bodies is overpowering to men. Immodest women are saying to men, “You could have sex with me, if I let you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. It depends how much you annoy me.”

Both behaviors are flaunting the power that one has over another weaker being and both behaviors used to be considered uncouth.

But as the myth goes: only men have ever been violent towards women not the other way around (women have no power over men whatsoever – don’t you know!) and so now that we have entered the great age of woman – when she will get her revenge for all the injustices against her by men through the ages – both real and imagined — she has decided to take her “pound of flesh.” But instead of a swift cut right above the heart like Shylock she wants to get men where it really hurts– tease and taunt with the sight of her own body, forever reminding men of their weakness before female power.

So apparently a woman giving a man a boner by wearing an outfit less modest than a nun’s is worse than a dude literally punching a woman.

Laura’s comments make clear she agrees with this basic assessment, though (in a moment of generosity towards her own gender) she acknowledges that some women may not be conscious of the enormous power they wield over men every time they put on a tank top.

In the comments, Fitgerald expresses his enthusiasm for Arete’s thesis:

This is sooooo true… as a male I can ABSOLUTELY attest to this. …

As a celibate male I must actively work at constraining sexual response to females flaunting their wares.. “You could have sex with me, if I let you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t.”.. yeah right. If I was an alpha male – strong, thin, tall, tanned.. definitely — I’ll also have to be honest and say it does piss me off, but suppressing ordinary human responses is part and parcel of not only being a civilized human being, but a Christian which constrains me further. …

Women are the sexual power brokers. They can and do decide with whom they pair and mate with. Men are essentially powerless save those few well endowed “alphas” (rich, physical specimens, powerful) who are like kryptonite to many women. Any male that is half-aware knows the look: “Yes.. look at me.. I’m sexually desirable. See my power. Feel my power..” Oh, then the look away: “But you aren’t worthy of me.” Happens EVERY day.

Yep, another misogynist furious that women get to choose who they have sex with. Dude, SO DO GUYS. If two people are having sex, both of them have to agree to it. Otherwise it is rape. Everyone is their own “sexual gatekeeper.”

Robin offers a mild dissent, noting that some of the “immodest” dressers may be victims of sexual abuse. But they still deserve “righteous judgement,” at least when this judgement is ostensibly tempered by “love.”

I was once one of these women: a female friend was loving enough to take me bra shopping as a thirty-three year old adult and teach me about covering my body so as not to invite further abuse. Other people waited patiently and said nothing; this was a disservice to me as I could have transformed more quickly if people would have had the confidence to open their mouths and teach me the truth. Others condemned me without knowing my story, and I withdrew in offense.

While it is true that immodest dress is a form of aggression in feminist women, I want to bring to light that sexual abuse of young girls has become so prevalent that many women we see walking around today dressed as prostitutes may still be ensnared and imprisoned by their victim mentality brought about through no fault of their own due to horrendous acts of abuse against their bodies as children. I believe it is important that these women do not experience condemnation, but rather righteous judgment in love so as to bring about repentance from this behavior so that they may be healed and be examples to others.

Laura feels the need to reiterate that some women and girls really have no excuse for being slutty sluts:

I know teenage girls who are sweet and innocent, and have never been abused, who dress like tarts. It’s everywhere. They see it and they imitate it.

I’m interested how Laura knows that these girls haven’t been abused. Does she know the intimate details of all of these girls’ lives? Or does she just have powerful Abuse-dar?

Mary, meanwhile, argues that the real villains here aren’t women – but evil feministy feminists.

I have too many female friends who have had their hopes dashed/hearts broken/been humiliated at the hands of average-looking, low status guys to buy that women have all the power. These average young women were doing what they thought they were supposed to do, what they were told everyone was doing – having premarital sex, that is. They were told by feminists that it was as fun for them as it was for the men if only they would get into the spirit of it, that it would lead to ultimate happiness, that it would benefit them. Many girls of average attractiveness are giving themselves away, sometimes over and over again, to unworthy men and to their own heartbreak, while the strains of “Your Body is a Wonderland” play in the background. I don’t call that sexual power. That men are more vulnerable to visual cues doesn’t make all men innocent, just as some women’s extreme immodesty doesn’t make all women sexual power brokers. …

That’s what’s so diabolical about today’s extreme immodesty: many of these women are just trying to be relevant.

Apparently the readers of The Thinking Housewife, like many MRAs and other manosphere dudes, seem to have forgotten almost entirely the old stereotype of the hairy-legged, man-hating feminist; these days, they seem to assume that any woman who wears skirts above the knee and doesn’t hate sex is a feminist.

Setting aside the ridiculousness of the “sexy clothes are an assault on men” argument generally, I can’t help but wonder how many men out there – beyond Drealm and Franklin and assorted religious fundamentalists  – actually, honestly feel “assaulted” when they see a woman they find attractive wearing something that shows off her figure. Somehow I suspect that most straight guys who are interested in sex  – including most of those railing endlessly about evil sluts online — actually find this sort of thing … pleasant. Most of those guys complaining about immodest dress would, I think, feel rather disappointed if women actually decided to cover up – and not just because it would rob them of yet another excuse to demonize the ladies.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

147 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Amnesia
Amnesia
9 years ago

Dear God, my fundamentalist teenage years are coming back to haunt me! *hides under bed while clutching the cat*

Leave me alone! Legal abortion is necessary! Everybody is responsible for their own sexual impulses! Stop condemnation of non-mainstream standard sexualities and gender identities! Down with submission! Up with birth control! I don’t care if my bloody bra strap is showing! The pastor is not always right! MASTURBATION IS FUN! *takes a deep breath and peeks out* Phew, it’s gone away. Thank God.
Excepting the fact that I know really well what’s in the Bible now, those years did me few favors.

As far as policing women’s clothing goes, there’s some verses about the Lord finding it detestable when men wear women’s clothing and vice versa (strange considering there doesn’t seem to be any real definitions of what women’s or men’s clothing is supposed to be), a few about women letting their beauty come from virtue rather than the way they look, and Paul insisting that women should wear head coverings but men shouldn’t when they’re being all spiritual-like. The justification for policing women’s clothing like this seems to come from Paul’s verse about not being a stumbling block to others. Of course, the enforcement is completely one-sided, as nobody seems to be asking women what traits in men cause them to stumble.
So, basically, the Bible doesn’t actually back them up on such stringent dress codes.

Shaenon
9 years ago

I love the irony of guys whining about how women don’t have to put any effort into their looks to be attractive while also lecturing them about precisely how they should dress.

Seraph
Seraph
9 years ago

there’s some verses about the Lord finding it detestable when men wear women’s clothing and vice versa (strange considering there doesn’t seem to be any real definitions of what women’s or men’s clothing is supposed to be)

As long as the sexes are kept in their separate uniforms, that’s all that matters.

Morgan
Morgan
9 years ago

The immodest dress is aggression comparable to physical violence is quite the hypothesis. I hope the various MRA people who think of this are prepared to go the very long haul, because as everyone here has proven, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny at all.

I had some fun and followed the link to the Liberty Uni. page and had a look. I wonder how many young women actually go there? But then — Jerry Falwell. That pretty much says it all for me.

Also, the more I read this blog, the more I feel almost as depressed towards the Manosphere’s attitude towards masculinity as I do toward their attitude towards women.

@Valerienorth — If there is one thing that would make the top-five lists of things that I really hate with my “male” body and drive my own gender dysphoria, morning wood would be one of them with absurd ease. UGH!!!!

TK
TK
9 years ago

Well, it’s common knowledge that most straight women can’t resist a man in uniform. So… Why do these MRAs hate our troops, firefighters and boys in blue? And, of course, freedom.

waitemadison
waitemadison
9 years ago

Very simple…put blinders on the men, like Victorian horses…their stares offend women.

Jules
Jules
9 years ago

but can anyone actually picture a jeans and sweatshirt free campus?!

I can. Because I graduated from Oral Roberts University, which had the same damn dress code back in my day.

It was really awesome to have to wear skirts/dresses every day while carrying an armful of books the quarter mile from the dorms to the buildings that held classes and chapel. No arms free and in a skirt. In Oklahoma. Where the wind comes sweeping down the plain.

My skirt blowing up in my face was super modest, I assure you.

I got sent back to my room for such hideous violations as wearing a racer back tank top (straps were wide enough, but it still showed my bra due to its evil shape in the back) and wearing a skirt with side slits that weren’t quite to my knees.

At my graduation, I wore a wraparound skirt and a midriff-baring, tied-on halter top. It was like a swimsuit, it was so small. After it was over, I walked around campus like that–didn’t even wear my graduation gown.

Because I’m a wicked, spiteful assaulter who wanted to hurt men with my secksie abs.

Jules
Jules
9 years ago

Also I wore red cowboy boots.

Because FOOTLOOSE.

Fembot
Fembot
9 years ago

These poor MRAs. They can’t rape women, beat ’em, or kill ’em whenever they want. Women these days want to be treated like (GASP) human beings. Oh, the misandrist oppression continues.

Fembot
Fembot
9 years ago

@ Morgan

I’m not a man, but I love morning wood : D

Fembot
Fembot
9 years ago

“Women are the sexual power brokers. They can and do decide with whom they pair and mate with.”

This is such bullshit. As a woman, I have been rejected many times. I’ve been refused sex when I initiated, I’ve had my heart broken, I’ve been told “let’s be friends,” etc. And I am a pretty attractive woman. But guess what? Men have agency. Men have standards, preferences, and choice. They’re NOT wandering around with erections desperately searching for a friendly hole.

This reminds me of the bullshit MRA mantra of the Alpha cock carousel. 80% of women are only sleeping with 20% of the men, preferring to spend their youth in an Alpha’s harem rather than with some hapless Beta. WHAT. THE. FUCK.

I am married. Most of the people I know are married or in LTRs. A few are divorced, but they’re certainly not out of the game forever. If only 20% of the men in this country were getting laid, I think everyone would notice.

katz
9 years ago

My favorite mannequin is the last one, with the giant baggy 80’s T-shirt and Spandex shorts. Nothing says sexual temptation like a shirt large enough to conceal the existence of your entire torso.

Just wait till Liberty University realizes that, under their clothing, everyone is COMPLETELY NAKED.

anodos
anodos
9 years ago

Oh God, I grew up believing some of this scheisse. It’s taken years to break down that “you’re responsible for how men react to your body!” mentality. Fortunately, my somewhat-conservative college has a drama department, so any effort to police students’ clothing dies a painful death (except in choir, dammit). Hurrah for actors in tights and not much else wandering down the halls. :3

Kind of pisses me off that this is especially a (conservative [optional]) Christian phenomenon: as was pointed out earlier, Jesus did say, “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out.” Weirdly, he didn’t say anything like, “If that hot chick who lives across the street causes you to stumble, castigate and threaten her until she covers her shoulders.” Wonder why.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
9 years ago

[quote]Many girls of average attractiveness are giving themselves away, sometimes over and over again, to unworthy men and to their own heartbreak, while the strains of “Your Body is a Wonderland” play in the background.[/quote]

I’m trying to work out the key issue in this sentence. It is that girls (what age?) who aren’t that attractive are having sex? Is it that this occurs repeatedly? Would it matter if this happened to worthy (huh?) men? Would it be okay if each girl had sex with more than one worthy man? Or is the crime against taste that is John Mayer? If they give themselves away enough times, do they disappear? If not, what bits go? Or, should they be charging?

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
9 years ago

Sorry, quoting fail there.

Kakanian
Kakanian
9 years ago

>Setting aside the ridiculousness of the “sexy clothes are an assault on men” argument generally, I can’t help but wonder how many men out there – beyond Drealm and Franklin and assorted religious fundamentalists – actually, honestly feel “assaulted” when they see a woman they find attractive wearing something that shows off her figure.

To me, it seems that they still have not come to terms with the fact that erections are not really something a man can control, and they despise that.

CrazyLadyBlues
CrazyLadyBlues
9 years ago

Is it just me or is the “acceptable” outfit in one of the Liberty Uni’s dress codes rather alluring (in as much as as a frankly miserable looking mannequin in ill fitting garments can be). I mean the White sleeveless top and long black skirt.

BigRed
BigRed
9 years ago

Obviously, I think all of us will agree that certain kinds of clothes are inappropriate in certain settings – no one of any gender should be teaching kindergarteners wearing nothing but a thong…

Actually? I disagree! While I agree that some clothes are inappropriate in certain settings, I disagree with the example. I’d argue that teaching that human nakedness is normal and nothing to be ashamed of is something that gets ignored far too much, and if a kindergarten teacher decided to teach children naked, I still wouldn’t see the problem (for the children, that is…that parents that have been taught to be afraid of nakedness might freak out is something else). Apart from this: wouldn’t teacher and children in little to no clothing make any issues of getting muddy, spilling things etc make much easier to deal with?

If you wanna use an example, how about: it’s inappropriate to perform surgery in a t-shirt and shorts, because of the very objective infection risk.

CommonNonsense
CommonNonsense
9 years ago

Wait. Wait. Jeans are unacceptable?

Damn, there went 90% of my outfits. Not that I think the shorts and one pair of capris I own are going to be LESS, erm, assaulting.

Jessay (@jessay)
9 years ago

So THAT’S why I’ve been able to sleep with every single man I’ve ever found attractive and have never been turned down once.

Now, if I’m assaulting men by wearing tank tops when it’s disgustingly humid outside, men are assaulting me by having really sexy, thick eyebrows. You dudes better pluck those things because I simply cannot control myself around you and you damn well know it!

Lucille
Lucille
9 years ago

‘while the strains of “Your Body is a Wonderland” play in the background’

nwoslave
9 years ago

Women telling men how to act is good. Men telling women how to act is bad. 5000 years trying to civilize women, wasted. Women seem determined to act like animals in heat. I guess eventually the motto will be, “if ya can’t beat em, join em.” I wonder what all men acting like animals in heat will look like?

blitzgal
9 years ago

Wait. Wait. Jeans are unacceptable?

Yes, because people can see where your genitals are. That means you are assaulting them.

viola
9 years ago

I could give you cake. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. It depends how much you annoy me.
You could natter about the game with me, if I let you. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. It depends how much you annoy me.
I could steal your pen. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. It depends how much you annoy me.
I could make this point even clearer. Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. It depends how much you annoy me.

AbsintheDexterous
9 years ago

I know I’m biased here as I think being active in spandex is an unpleasant sweaty hell, but to mandate the spandex/shorts combo? No thanks. I’m actually surprised that they allow the tight spandex at all, even covered in shorts. I suppose, though, if you have to be covered from neck to knee, it’s one other option.

What I don’t get is the skirt slit section. The “acceptable” skirt slit doesn’t look any lower than the “unacceptable” one that’s at the knee. Are there people running around with rulers to measure? They didn’t even do that when I was in Catholic high school, where the basic rule was if one could see your underwear, it was too short.

Howard Bannister
Howard Bannister
9 years ago

Here’s the breakdown:

“Women, you need to accept that every second of your day needs to be controlled by me. What you wear is controlled by me.”

And then he complains about how women control him.

…Projection much?

Jules
Jules
9 years ago

Are there people running around with rulers to measure?

It’s easy: you use a credit card or student ID. Horizontal, not that slutty vertical way which would allow you a little more knee. And it applies in the front and the back (an issue for chicks like me who have bubble butts).

In my experience, it’s enforced if they don’t like you or if it’s egregious. I had tattoos, so I was targeted a lot. Most of the time, no one asks for the enforcer to prove it. You have to haul ass a total of half a mile, change into something acceptable, and not be late for class. You get called out, you take off running back to your room, or you risk making your life hell by turning yourself into a target for authoritarian snitches. .

I once got in trouble in the cafeteria on a Sunday. I lost my place in the omelet line 🙁

Dvärghundspossen
9 years ago

@Amnesia: I don’t really think there’s anything in the Bible about cross-dressing. I remember reading a conservative Christian magazine once, and they had this letter page where you could ask for advice. One guy asked if cross-dressing was a sin, and I remember the editors had to go to ridiculous lengths to interpret some verses as implying this was the case.

Cliff Pervocracy
9 years ago

Deutoronomy 22:5 – A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

However, being as that’s in the Old Testament along with “don’t mix wool and linen” and “don’t eat pork” and “don’t shave your beard” and all the rest, it shouldn’t apply to Christians anyway. Don’t keep kosher? Then you might as well cross-dress.

Anthony Zarat
9 years ago

You do realize that Wood is one of you, right? She is a conservative sworn enemy of the MRM. She is a feminist man-hater, although she does not know it:

Wood spends her days shaming men and boys into accepting their role as ATM machines and disposable appliances who exist only for the benefit of women.

Feminists spend their days screeching at government to legally force men to accept their role as ATM machines and disposable appliances who exist only for the benefit of women.

How are you any different?

While it is fun to watch my enemies engaged in fratricide, I should point out that Wood compared the display of physical power with the display of sexual power. She never mentioned power being exercised. So, the following is a false statement that slanders a person for saying something she did not say:

“.. wearing an outfit less modest than a nun’s is worse than a dude literally punching a woman ..”

No she does not say that. To say that she said this, when she did not, is a falsehood. What do you call people who falsely accuse others of things they never did? Feminists. Again, you have lots in common with Wood.

There certainly is something wrong with Wood’s thinking, but it has nothing to do with domestic violence or sexual coercion. Here is what is wrong with Wood’s thinking:

1) There is NOTHING wrong with a man (or woman) crushing cans with his (or her) hands. He (or she) can do whatever he (or she) wants with his (or her) own body. Doing this is not a threat and it should not be a crime. Only a liberal feminist would attempt to criminalize strong men (but never strong women) for displaying their physical power.

2) There is NOTHING wrong with a woman (or a man) displaying her (or his) physical attractiveness. She (or he) can do whatever she (or he) wants with her (or his) own body. Doing this is not a threat and it should not be a crime. Only a conservative feminist would attempt to criminalize sexy women (but never sexy men) for displaying their sexual power.

Sort of “nothing to see here” situation, as far as I can tell. One fool talking about absolutely nothing to another fool. You should form a feminst fools club.

ostara321
ostara321
9 years ago

Shorter MRAs: ladies we don’t want to have sex with are assaulting us with their hideous visage. Ladies we do want to have sex with are assaulting us by not fucking us every time we think they look hot.

I continue to be in awe at how ego-centric one must be to assume that EVERYTHING total strangers do is all about their boner.

Freemage
Freemage
9 years ago

Ye gads, this is teh Stoopids. I’m genuinely insulted by a bunch of assholes (male and female, go equality?) who think that, because I have testes, I’m unable to control myself upon seeing a hint of cleavage, losing all willpower instantly. GUH!

Totally OT:

Shaenon, looking at your avatar, I have to ask–are you THAT Shaenon? Because if so, your posts here are yet another reason I fanboy you.

Dvärghundspossen
9 years ago

@Cliff. Ah, I see. And you must have a little fringe on your cloak, and it should be of this and that colour, etc.

Dvärghundspossen
9 years ago

Last time I got cat-called by some guys I was on my way to a club to meet my husband. I was wearing a tank top, hot pants, fishnet stockings, boots and a jacket. I just ignored the guys while they were going “Hey, beautiful!” and stuff like that. Suddenly one of them says to his fellow men: “Hey, that’s a DUDE!” The other goes “Are you sure?” and he’s like “Yeah I’m POSITIVE!”. They all went completely silent.

Now I wonder whether I somehow double-assaulted them by wearing slutty clothing while looking vaguely male. Like, first I assault their heterosexuality and then I assault their homo/trans-phobia? How evil!

Ruby Hypatia
Ruby Hypatia
9 years ago

Not too long ago I watched Blackboard Jungle on TCM. In it a male teacher saved a female teacher from being raped by a student. When he told his wife about it, she asked him if the teacher had, “provoked it.” Here’s the conversation I took part in on the subject on the IMDb:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047885/board/nest/168137709

Amnesia
Amnesia
9 years ago

Oh, good, Cliff got the verse for me.
Also, those examples are pretty specific. The no cross-dressing thing comes from just that one verse in the Old Testament from a book of the Bible that non-kosher people generally ignore. What gets me, though, is Paul’s 1 Corinthians 11 spiel about women having to cover their heads when they pray. Has anybody ever been in a church that insisted on women wearing hats during prayer times? There are all these supposedly biblical guidelines about not wearing short skirts, tank tops, etc., things that I have never seen condemned in the Bible, not even in a ‘thou shalt not showeth thy shoulders’ way, but the gender-specific rule we actually find in the Bible, and in the New Testament, no less, is ignored.

Not that it’s a good rule. I mean, even in my full-on fundie-phase, my reaction to that passage was pretty much ‘WTF Paul?’

ronalon42
9 years ago

Modesty was a real brainfuck for me growing up. It really boils my blood now. I am pretty much always dressed immodestly (by these and my old church’s standards) and I don’t give a flying fuck. It took me a long time to be secure in my body just because it is a woman’s body and I don’t apologize for that anymore. And I am not looking for sex (my husband provides that just fine thanks) nor am I expecting compliments or favors from people due to my (presumably) distressingly sexy appearance. I just like them. I like the way they look and I like the way they feel and the way I feel in them. And they can my daisy dukes if it bothers them that much. 😛

Modesty is so subjective in the most impossible way. I think it is better to become somewhat desensitized to viewing people’s bodies/ skin. I can appreciate lightly clad women and men I find attractive, and I can also look at bodies I am not particularly attracted to without feeling anything negative about them no matter what they are wearing. Just people’s bodies.

I want to move somewhere that women can be topless (New York, San Francisco, maybe others). I would walk around topless all summer (SUNSCREEN).

ronalon42
9 years ago

Ugh so many typos… its 2am here for me sorry. Should be “they can kiss my daisy dukes…”

Sure there are more. Ah well

feministgamer
feministgamer
9 years ago

I remember being pulled out of my 5th grade class, brought to the principal’s office with a herd of other girls and, one by one, we were judged and then sent to the library for the rest of the day. Our school did not have air conditioning and I had the audacity to wear shorts that rested above the knee instead of below it. The reasoning they gave us? Boys!

I spent the entire day in the library. I was 10. When I was allowed to go back to my classroom at the end of the day I was told that I missed an extremely important math lesson.

I didn’t miss crap. It was robbed from me.

jennydevildoll
9 years ago

Basically they have it set up (in their heads) that they can explain any possible thing a woman does as a)wrong and b)deliberately done to antagonize them. Women are “violent” because they’re dressing too sexy, yet plenty of these guys see women in modest attire and dismiss them as not being sexy enough or “brainwashed” by the feminists to be like men. Women who have sex are sluts. Women who don’t are stuck up princesses passing them over while they wait for someone better. Women who work outside the home are evil feminist harpies out to take away everything from men. Women who are housewives are “parasites” who want to lie around all day and take everything the man works for. Etc. etc. There’s absolutely no point in any of these women wasting time pandering to these men because sooner or later they’ll fall into the “evil” category. It’s unavoidable.

Of course, even other men don’t fare much better, if they disagree (or even if they’re able to form a healthy relationship.) they’re “manginas”, “alpha jerks”, etc.

Shaenon
9 years ago

Shaenon, looking at your avatar, I have to ask–are you THAT Shaenon? Because if so, your posts here are yet another reason I fanboy you.

Probably. There aren’t a lot of Shaenons out there.

Dracula
Dracula
9 years ago

For fuck’s sake Zarat, if you’re gonna live in fantasy world, why not pick one that makes you happy? Is it because we don’t have the technology yet? Just use your imagination dude, that’s what you’re already doing anyway.

Shaenon
9 years ago

Also a baffling one from Antz in which he suggests that Laura Wood is “one of us”; never mind the fact that her whole blog is basically devoted to castigating feminists — she is also a feminist, according to Antz bullshit argument. Antz, alas, actually believes the stuff he posts.

A lot of MRAs seem to honestly believe that “feminism” means “anything that’s potentially beneficial to a woman, or harmful to a man, or possibly just something that bugs me personally.”

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

AntZ needs to get off the internet and seek professional help.

Dracula
Dracula
9 years ago

And of course NWO is here, making veiled rape threats.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

NWO, it’ll probably look a lot like the MRM.

profeministsweatervest

“Flaunting their wares”! Oh, no, there’s no objectification of women going on here. Nope.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

Antz, honey, women who are strongly opposed to feminism and who frequently say so, using actual words, are not feminists. This really isn’t complicated – do try to keep up.

cloudiah
9 years ago

About Antz, well, the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

About NWO, I think I’ll just take advantage of the fact that he’s on moderation delay to never scroll up to read what he’s spewed.