Back in the day – way, way back in the day – dudes opposed to women’s suffrage loved to depict suffragettes as ugly spinsters (that is, when they weren’t depicting them as sexy young women using their feminine wiles to manipulate men into supporting suffrage). We looked at some examples of this yesterday and noted that, when it comes to dismissing feminists as uggos, some things never change.
But why, oh why, are feminists so (allegedly) ugly? Or, to turn the question around, why are so many (allegedly) ugly women (allegedly) drawn to feminism?
Well, we’re in luck, because some manosphere dickwads have stepped forward to provide us with possible explanations.
Over on Freedom Twenty-Five, the “red pill” Casanova who calls himself Frost offers this theory:
Feminism is the set of ideologies whose aim is to redistribute the natural allocation of access to desirable men. It is Marxism in the Sexual, rather than Economic Marketplace.
Frost is so proud of this sentence of his that he puts it in bold, as I have. He continues:
The ultimate goal of the Feminist is to create a world in which all women are as hideous and awful and dead inside as they are, so that everyone can have an equal timeshare in the alpha harems, and everyone’s fatherless offspring can be raised by the same uninspired bureaucrats in the same grey-walled, concrete and plate-glass buildings.
I can confirm that this is indeed the ultimate goal of feminism; we talk about it at all the secret meetings. The penultimate goal? To get Sleater-Kinney back together again.
Frost breaks it down:
– Feminists tend to be some combination of fat, old, ugly, abrasive, and slutty.
– Feminists want to convince men that we should be attracted to fat, old, ugly, abrasive sluts.
– Feminists want to convince women that it is OK for them to be fat, old, ugly, abrasive sluts. They want desirable women to become fat, old, ugly, abrasive sluts, so that the feminists no longer look so bad in comparison.
– Related to (1) and (2), Feminists want to convince men and women that it is immoral for men to not be attracted to fat, old, ugly, abrasive sluts.
This is why Feminism is working so passionately to ruin American women. [Who benefits] from the widespread adoption of feminist beliefs that destroy our once-slim, once-feminine, once-nurturing women? The answer, first and foremost, is the women who were already destroyed to begin with.
Feminists know that, in a monogamous world where everyone pairs up with an equally desirable mate, they could only ever earn the favour of weak, bottom-feeding men. Feminist ideology, i.e. the hysteric and childish whining about Patriarchy, Shaming Language, and Socially Constructed Gender Roles, is no more than the set of rationalizations with which they seek to drag the rest of womankind down to their level.
Over on the blog of a fellow named Anatoly Karlin, meanwhile, a commenter calling himself fcomp has a similar theory to explain why so many feminists are (allegedly) fat fatties.
If you think about it, there is a strong rationale [sic] self interest between feminism and the increase of female obesity. If feminism is to be defined as increasing the societal power of women, then it would serve them well for their to be more obese women.
Go on.
The desirability of a women to a man is far more objective then subjective. If women were to be, across the board, more attractive, if all women became, at minimum, 6s, men who ended up marrying 6s, the men who would be the lowest in male desirability in such a society, wouldn’t nearly be as unhappy as men who end up marrying 1s in our society.
I’m not quite sure that fcomp really understands how averages work. Lake Wobegon aside, you can’t actually have a world in which all women are above average in “objective” desirability.
The logical result of that, is that in such a beautiful society, ironically, the value of female beauty would become far less valuable, and beauty would be far less desired. If there isn’t a chance that one might end up with a landwhale, I suspect that most men would hardly bother with stuff like game and the like. I would imagine that such a society would experience little sexual discrimination, but at the same time, be very anti-female, in the sense that women who are competitive with men in economically productive fields would be quite successful, but at the same time, “feminine virtues”, a females capacity attracting men, the only area in which women surpass men, would be far less valued.
If all women are beautiful, then no women are beautiful?
There is a upper cap on female attractiveness, which are the feminine ideals hardwired into us by evolution, but there is no downward cap. … [F]eminism is intrinsically a downward trend because the only thing a beautiful women can do to that makes herself more desired in a society, is to reduce the amount of beauty in that society.
The blogger on whose blog this muddled comment was posted, Anatoly Karlin, is so impressed with fcomp’s theory that he highlights it in a post of his own, adding
This is why your typical Third Wave feminist or rape activist is fat, has a manjaw, or is otherwise unattractive.
If you are ugly, devaluing beauty is not bad evolutionary strategy.
On a blog called Misanthropy Today, meanwhile, Dan Y. is not only convinced that (most) feminists are ugly; he also seems bitter that anyone would dare criticize him for calling women ugly.
[M]ost women who try to guilt us out of using looks as a criterion for judgment tend to not be very attractive. It makes sense that someone lacking in a certain perceived quality would want to dissuade others from assigning value to that quality, and would want those who possessed that quality to be humble and not flaunt it. It also seems extremely self-centered and petty to try to convince others to think and feel a certain way just so we can marginalize our lesser qualities. …
Feminists’ cries of outrage at man’s obsession with physical beauty are not altruistic. They are … upset that other women are benefitting from a quality that they don’t and probably never will possess. Their own perceived value relative to better-looking women will inevitably increase if looks are dismissed as unimportant.
Apparently, suggesting there’s more to a person than conventional attractiveness = shallow and petty. But basing your judgment of a particular women largely on whether or not she gives you a boner is the height of sophistication.
As these guys show again and again, real ugliness is more than skin deep.
You are wrong and I am right. QED.
Thanks for the publicity BTW, always appreciated.
Because you know, no conventionally attractive person, male or female, has ever in history lamented being treated like they must be stupid, shallow or incompetent and wished they could be treated as a person instead of their appearance. Nope. Especially not pretty women, like Anne Hathaway, Scarlett Johansen, Jodie Foster, etc.
Also no one on earth is ever attracted to fatties. EVOLUTION! Never mind Reubens, the Greeks, the Venus of Willendorf, Ron Jeremy, or the Museum of Fat Love, etc.
And yet women who all go for alphas (whatever the hell they are) are shallow and should be prevented from acting on their desires. Because that makes sense.
What the fuck? I’m sorry but these guys’ arguments just plain don’t make sense. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m gonna go listen to Le Tigre and go out of my way to date old fat abrasive…actually, I’m not even going to jerk to this. These guys are just too stupid to merit even mockery, I’m just gonna go listen to Le Tigre.
So do they not think Jane Fonda was ever attractive, or are they convinced that she only became a feminist when she got older?
Seems to me the reason that MRAs go on and on about how ugly feminists are is because feminists aren’t interested in men like them and they’re annoyed about it so they pretend that they are the uninterested ones, their excuse being that feminists are ugly. Classic “sour grapes” aregument.
And this totally makes sense when paired with their complaints about how women only go for Brad Pitt look-alike alpha thugs.
Yep. No hypocrisy here!
Aworld’s first three words sum it up nicely.
Yeah, I’m going to need more convincing than just “the assertion exists, therefore it is right,” there.
@Naira
I dunno, Brad Pitt seems like a pretty cool guy in interviews, polite, respectful, not a misogynistic douchebag. Oh wait, he has sex, which automatically makes him one of tha cocks on the alpha asshole cock carousel doesn’t it?
No MRAs, really, we are interested in human rights, social justice, that sort of thing. We really don’t give a crap about your boners.
Are you trying to say that your thinking a pair of Hooters’ employees are more attractive than a single woman, whom you can’t really see more than the eyes of, is proof that all feminists are, “ugly”?
Are you saying there is only one feminist in the world?
If so (and also if not) you are stupid: QED
Wait, is the first guy saying that until feminism came around, women didn’t get old? *cocks head* *falls over* Looking at this from a different angle doesn’t help either.
And if he thinks that ugly didn’t exist before feminism, he should take a gander at some photos of my family members circa 1880. Yikes.
Evidently AK cares more about getting attention than about making valid points.
Surprising no one.
O/T, but still weird: so there is this statistician who works for the NYT named Nate Silver who does something with polls and has calculated that Obama has roughly a 85% chance to win, and suddenly all the Republicans come crawling out of the woodwork to discredit him. One of them, Dean Chambers, runs a site called “Unskewed Polls” which predicts a landslide in which Romney wins, including winning in Oregon.
So far, so normal. But Dean Chambers doesn’t just claim that Nate Silver is biases and/or wrong–he claims that he’s way to skinny and effeminate to be any good at numbers. This isn’t even implied; he flat out states this.
See here: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles
Oh, AK. If you think posting pics will bolster your, uh, “argument,” you are so so wrong.
Most of the bilge in the OP made zero sense, typical MRA shit. They’re so cute when they think they’re smart.
That one d00d seems to be a bit confused about what the word virtue means. Capacity to attract men is not actually the definition of virtue. Yanno?
I’m pretty sure Hooters has some feminist employees.
Also I need to rant about this, so be warned, I am about to switch into all caps mode:
GENETICS ARE NOT A FUCKING DETERMINING FACTOR IN HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY YOU FUCKING MORONS. PRETTY MUCH ALL PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH DONE TOWARDS NATURE VS. NURTURE HAS INDICATED A VERY STRONG TENDENCY TOWARDS NURTURE BEING THE DOMINANT FORCE IN DETERMINING HOW WE END UP IN LIFE. NOT TO FUCKING MENTION THAT SAYING IT’S FOR THE SURVIVAL OF MANKIND IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE FOR YOUR BIGOTRY. YOU WANNA KNOW THE ONE THING THAT HAS HELPED US SURVIVE BETTER THAN ANYTHING YOU NINCOMPOOPS SAY EVOLUTION IS DOING. MOTHER.FUCKING.CIVILIZATION. THAT’S RIGHT, HUMANS ARE SOCIAL CREATURES, AND THAT MEANS WHATEVER MAKES SOCIAL INTERACTION BETTER FOR EVERYONE IS BETTER IN THE LONG RUN, AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT FEMINISM IS PRETTY MUCH ALL ABOUT EXACTLY THAT. BUT KEEP BURYING YOUR HEADS UP YOUR OWN ASSES, YOU LOT SEEM TO BE EXCEEDINGLY GOOD AT IT!
Ok, that’s enough, I feel a bit better now, but yeah, evopsych don’t real guise, and if you say it does, you deserve to be dropped into the middle of a forest with naught but a fig leaf and left to your own devices to see just how well you fare in your so called alpha evolutionary superiority.
I think Hooters might be a breeding ground for either feminists or bitter women who don’t like men much.
Remember that study a few years ago about how women who identified as feminists were less likely to agree with anti-male statements? I always thought the explanation was fairly straightforward: both feminist and non-feminist women tend to get hurt by the patriarchy, or at least hear about other women getting hurt by the patriarchy (e.g., victim blaming in rape, being ignored in group discussions, DV), which often manifests as getting hurt by a man or men. Feminists can talk about patriarchy, about socialization and hierarchies and change but non-feminist women can only talk about men.
I did a post about how Romney is going to win because Nate Silver is a Girlyman?
It wasn’t much better than that. The actual arguments he makes about the polls, are worse.
Of course. Men are allowed to judge women based on their looks, because of boners and biology. Women are not allowed to judge men on their looks, because that’s unfair and shallow This double standard is okay, because I said so, that’s why!
/MRA Logic
Jeez Dean, get your stereotypes straight. It’s the skinny and effeminate ones (aka the nerds) who are good at numbers. Muscular and masculine men only use their heads for smashing beer cans. Duh.
And there was an arrest of someone for trying to vote twice in Nevada… a Republican.
@ aworldanonymous – + at least five or six internets.
I, for one, have crushes on Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marchotte. Guess that makes me a mangina.