Hey, ladies! You know how the dudes of the so-called manosphere are always saying horrible shit about you? They’re not doing it out of hate. No, no, they’re doing it for your own good! In a guest post on the blog Freedom Twenty-Five, Matt Forney offers women his own brand of tough (alleged) love:
The manosphere is frequently accused of being misogynistic because we mock fat girls, disdain sluts and criticize the behavior of modern women. … But scientific studies and common sense both show that women are generally happiest when they’re physically fit, chaste and focused on their families instead of their careers. Women who are virgins are exponentially less likely to divorce; women with BMIs in the normal range are more likely to have fulfilling relationships instead of being pumped and dumped; women who throw their lives into their jobs are less happy than those who become wives and mothers.
If you follow the link back to his post you will see how Forney has carefully footnoted all these assertions. For example, his line about women who aren’t fat having better relationships links to this carefully constructed academic study.
Oh, wait, that’s actually a link to a discussion on Yahoo Answers that’s full of alleged wisdom like this:
Fat women have to settle for less for the same reason that people: in wheelchairs, poor people [especially men], balding people, or single people with children have to settle for less. They have less to offer on the dating market, so; there is a much smaller pool of people willing to date them. And the people who are willing to date them are usually of lower quality.
You can’t argue with that kind of SCIENCE.
Forney continues:
Basically, for women, the modern feminist consumerist lifestyle is a path to misery and loneliness.
[Citation needed] [And by “citation” I don’t mean “some dude spouting shit on Yahoo answers”]
In light of that knowledge, ask yourself this: who are the real misogynists? The ones who are guiding women back onto the path to happiness, or the ones encouraging them to destroy themselves through poor life choices?
Here’s an example of Forney “guiding women back onto the path of happiness,” taken from an earlier post on his own blog:
Bashing fat girls is all well and good, but how many of us have taken the fight to the enemy? By not viciously rubbing their hideousness in their faces, we are encouraging fatties to blimp up even more. Silence implies consent.
Back to his Freedom Twenty-Five post:
The fact is if you defend and excuse away womens’ bad behavior, fully aware that they’re harming themselves, you don’t truly love them. If you want to avert someone from traveling down the path towards death and destitution, you’re going to have to get in their face and risk hurting their feeeelings. In that sense, not only do we in the manosphere love women, we perhaps love them more than any other men in the world.
The manosphere is a space for men, but it also doubles as a mass intervention for the female of the species. Stop crying about your hurt feeeeelings and listen up, ladies. You might learn something.
Matt Forney, you’re a shithead.
I say that out of love.
“I think the problem with citing personal experience as universal experience is fairly obvious.”
Sure. But there is also logical reasoning and common experience shared by many.
Most kids in middle school will tell you that conforming to conventional standards is common among their peers as a way to either avoid being bullied or to gain popularity. Therefore, we can infer that conforming to conventional standards can be used to gain status. According to logic and modern psychology, people are a lot more protective of their constructed public image than they are of their core values. That is because core values don’t need as much protection. If being kind to the elderly is important to me, I won’t be much shaken if you think I’m lying about volunteering at a nursing home. I still get to be kind to the elderly, no matter what anyone thinks. If being thought of as someone who is kind to the elderly is important to me, than being told that others don’t see me the way I want to be seen is going to be very upsetting. I can’t retain an image without others seeing me the way I need to be seen. So… it’s reasonable to suppose that someone who goes on and on about how he/she won’t accept anything but certain level of conventional beauty in a relationship is moved more by the need to protect an erected image than by personal preferences.
In his blog, Matt goes on and on AND ON about how disgusting and worthless fat bitches are (and bitches with shaved heads, and bitches who are dressed the way that Matt doesn’t like, and old sluts with cats and sluts from Indiana whose faces he finds unattractive). In my opinion, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”, is a reasonable default assumption, in this case.
Runner’s Zen: Where did Forney make any claims about what men need to look like?
Where did you, in the comment I quoted (twice) say, “conventional beauty,”?
Of course, it’s his words and not his looks that make Matt a disgusting human being. But in light of his words, his looks are hilarious.
In light of his words his looks are irrelevant.
The rest of both comments seems to be a lot of special pleading to convince us we ought to assume Forney holds men to a standard not evidenced.
“Runner’s Zen: Where did Forney make any claims about what men need to look like?”
Huh? Nowhere that I’ve seen. I did see him shame men on his blog for failing to learn ‘game’, but haven’t noticed much about male appearance. I don’t even know what you’re trying to argue anymore. He is not focused on the appearance of men, but on that of women, and he thinks he is entitled to a “hot” chick. That’s the point.
“Where did you, in the comment I quoted (twice) say, “conventional beauty,”’
I’m not sure what you mean. What Forney describes in his “personal add” screams conventional beauty. Are you talking about my first post about Forney? I don’t make any claims about HIS looks at all. In my second post that is in response to you where I talk about his looks, because you chose to focus on them, I say “male model” in the first line of the second paragraph. Fashion models are the pillars of conventional beauty, as upheld by societal narrow standards, no? I list Matt’s shortcomings in the 4th paragraph of the same post, one of them being “no conventional beauty”. Does that clear it up a bit? Again, you seem to be arguing with someone or something you made up in your head.
“In light of his words his looks are irrelevant.”
I disagree. In my opinion, sexual histories of those who seek to limit sexual expression of others are relevant. Religious piety of those who seek to use religion as a sword is relevant. And the appearance of a person who uses the appearance of others in order to rank them is relevant as well. It’s a was to see if the person is a hypocrite in addition to being a douchebag.
“The rest of both comments seems to be a lot of special pleading to convince us we ought to assume Forney holds men to a standard not evidenced.”
1. The royal “we”. Heh.
2. What are you talking about? The subject of the article is an entitled douche who doesn’t seem to be aware that women could have preferences at all, when it comes to men’s physical state. And since Forney is quite clearly a homophobe, he isn’t attuned to the fact that men might judge men based on looks either.
Now, it’s possible that you are making good points. But since you decided to throw them out there without a context and in response to something that made them non sequiturs, I’ve no way of appreciating them.
The inclusive we, unless you are trying to say that I am the only audience for your argument.
It’s possible you aren’t paying attention to what I wrote.
Percunium is right in that he’s not being hypocritical if he has no special standards for male appearance. He just has a pretty serious double standard. In fact it’s not hypercritical at all if he thinks all or most of a woman’s worth is in their appearance and a man’s is unrelated to appearance.
It seems similar too, to what BlackBloc was saying in the D’Souza thread. About people who see themselves as superior thinking the rabble (in this case, women) need rules to keep them in line, but the rules don’t apply to them.
I look on it as hypocrisy in the sense of “people” not “men vs women”. Double standards and hypocrisy are twinned, for me, in this sort of thing. Whether that’s the exact sense of hypocrisy I don’t know, but the whole double standard and “I can be a slob but you’re required to be a model” thing reeks of it, for me.
In my experience many sluts are skinny the majority I would say fyi Matt Forneycator.
irissy53
1. Citation needed.
2. Fuck off, you asshat.
Oh look, we have today’s necromancer!
Did I miss David/cats/ferrets’ post offering a prize for Necromancer of the Week?
Why does this matter? I am a man and so feminist say mean things to me all the time but I do not value them or their opinions.
It really does not matter.
@London Pilgrim
Have you tried… NOT being sexist?
You are just everywhere today, aren’t you? This was posted in 2012. Come on back to the top of the queue, perhaps.
As for why it matters, Forney’s got an audience so when he bad-mouths women, people listen. It’s not about being sad that he’s “saying mean things”
I think this a case of shifting threads because his ass was getting so thoroughly handed to him on the last one he infested….
I know this is old but just wanted to point out that the guy, Matt, is now obese and visibly pushing 300 pounds…he’s also still unmarried and single…