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.
Hey MRA’s, I’m not going to listen to anything you say until you show us your tits!
Quote from Frosty the Strawdogman: “They want desirable women to become fat, old, ugly, abrasive sluts”
Pointing out the obvious here, if they’re old and ugly and sluts, they’re still sexually active. So that means they’re not ugly to at least one other person. But hey, logic is not a talent in the MRA toolkit.
Another point, just say women all become a minimum of 6 (on whatever scale/set of attributes, doesn’t matter). Do MRAs really think that their sex/relationship chances will improve? Because, clearly, all the problems that MRAs have with sex is due to women not being desirable enough. Amiright?
@ray – pretty much. Or I know their girlfriend or wifes, or I lived with them, or they have children. If youre in a pretty open group of friends discussions about sex are commonplace.
No really, these assholes sound like the Woody Allen character in “Casino Royale,” that 1967 movie that spoofed James Bond films. Woody played a villain who wants to use “biological warfare to make all women beautiful and kill all men over 4-foot-6-inch (1.37 m) tall, leaving him as the ‘big man’ who gets all the girls.”
You guys have poor character and hate women. Blame feminism for your crap relationships with gals all you want…but it’s all on you. Based on your posts, you don’t seem to know many people — and that’s a big problem. Look inward, fellas. Introspection is good for the soul — well, if you happen to have a soul.
What I don’t get is how they think there’s a standard definition of hotness. I have three brothers, all fairly close in age (24, 22, and 17). They were all raised in the same house, with the same parents, the same values, went the same schools and churches, same Boy Scout troop, watched (mostly) the same movies and TV, played the same games, etc. But they have very different opinions about what makes a “hot” girl. The older one is consistantly attracted to butch girls (who nearly always turn out to be lesbians, which is so unfair…how my straight brother ended up with more lesbian friends than his actually lesbian sister I will not understand). The middle one has always been attracted to girls on the “chubby” end of the spectrum, and his fiance, who he is over the moon in love with, is certainly not skinny. The younger one, who has finally started noticing girls in the last couple years, seemed to be more attracted to the skinny girl-next-door type, yet his first girlfiend is a solidy-built punk (aestheticlly only; she seems like a sweet girl).
That’s three boys of the same generation of who have more in common than not, and they have wildly different notions of attractiveness. There are a lot of guys out there that I know would be devestated if “fat” girls were suddenly all skinny, or “manly” women suddenly became all feminine. Not to mention that one glance at an art book or history book blows this entire theory out of the water…different types have always had their advocates, and they all existed long before an established feminist movement, anyway.
If I were sophisticated, here is where I’d insert that French phrase about people having their own tastes or whatever, but I totally forgot it. Sigh. And I just finished that Tim Gunn book, too.
The MRA logic would be that men can never not have sex with people, so if everyone were ugly, they’d be forced to have sex with ugly people! Like how if you could only get shitty food, you’d have to eat shitty food!
@ozy: “I’m pretty sure Hooters has some feminist employees.”
I can vouch for at least one. One of my coworkers in one of the research labs in which I worked was a former Hooters employee. Not only was she a feminist, she was only a wonderfully competent scientist and went on to go to business school, where I am sure she continues to kick ass. I’m sure she would have blown the minds of Frosty and Anatoly and the rest of the MRA bunch.
…as well as that of some feminists. Unfortunately, in the course of the very justified criticism of societal enforcement of rigid beauty standards, judging women by how well they fit those standards, etc., some of “my own side” sometimes slips into animosity against women who *do* fit those standards, assumptions that they must be shallow or unintelligent, or are somehow automatically “on the other side”. I’ve caught myself doing it in the past, and I’m not proud of it and try to work on it. I may question my coworker’s past choice of employment (or not – I don’t know what her situation was and under what circumstances she made that choice, so I don’t feel entitled to judge), but it says nothing about her brains, her competence, her worth as a person, and whether or not she can be a feminist.
And wordsp1nner, I think I know where you were going with your comment (certainly working at Hooters is likely to lead a bunch of less-than-enjoyable experiences with male customers), but my coworker was also far from bitter, and liked men. I know you weren’t going for that, but “bitter woman who dislikes men” is another stereotype that my coworker did not fit and does not deserve.
Neurite–sorry. I should know better to generalize like that. Your friend sounds like an awesome person.
The MRA logic would be that men can never not have sex with people
So…do I get to blame Evolutionary Psychology (the stupid pop-culture version) for spreading the notions that men are programmed to indiscriminately spread their seed, are totally visually stimulated, and naturally seek out teenagers (or close to it) as sex partners because they’re most fertile? Or did MRAs just infect the discipline from the start? Is this a chicken-and-the-egg type thing? Because every once in a while I get linked to some article in Maxim or (god help me) Psychology Today and it’s virtually indistinguishable from a post you’d read in the manosphere. (Well. Okay, the spelling and grammar are usually better. And there are a lot less “wh***s” and “c****s”.)
Is this the right place to ask where “hotties” like Hedy Lamarr or Jayne Mansfield fit in with their unfeminine, too-clever-for-their-own-good, scientific qualifications and achievements?
I suspect they might not fit in at all. I have visions of springs sproinging, smoke blowing from ears, MRA hair frizzled – from the classic finger in the powerpoint cartoons.
I believe the saying you’re looking for is “Chacun a son gout.” Plus or a minus a few diacritical marks I don’t feel like copy-pasting at the moment.
I challenge the MRM to make an actual, logical argument.
Seriously. Give me the fucking red pill. If everything is as obvious as you say it is, lay it out.
wordsp1nner – no worries, I was trying to indicate in my post that I realize that wasn’t actually what you meant (without being even wordier than I already am). If I understand you right, what you were going for was that, if anything, working at Hooters would leave a woman *more* likely to be feminist and aware of the need for feminism, by coming face-to-face with some of the uglier repercussions of patriarchy. (Did I get that right?)
It’s just that, in alluding to that, your post started *sounding like* it was invoking the “bitter, man-hating” stereotype – most likely accidentally! – so I wanted to address that head-on. But I realize that you *personally* weren’t likely to have meant it that way. So, if anything, overcaution on my part, not neglect on yours.
Oh, and yes, she is definitely an awesome person. Got me to rethink some of my own preconceived notions, *and* was super-handy to have in the lab because yay competent coworker.
Competent coworkers are worth their weight in gold. And yes, I do think that exposure to the atmosphere at a place like Hooters might make for more feminism, but pointing out the need–but that without feminism, I do think many women exposed to that much misogyny will come out not liking men very much.
I’ll just say that my first job taught me a lot about institutional sexism and racism when they fired the incompetent white, male, asshole general manager and passed over the latina assistant manager who kept the damn place running for another incompetent white man. Who managed to drive the assistant manager to quit.
And someone the first incompetent asshole got his job back after they fired the second guy.
“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
This quote always gives me the heebie-jeebies, because of the underlying assumption that unattractive women shouldn’t have access to the mainstream.
Karalora wins the internet
Feminists are preventing women from becoming immortal! It all makes sense now!!!
@ Karalora
Ah, yes! That’s the one! It’s all through the book, but I can never remember it.
I get so jealous of people who can drop all those French and Latin phrases. While I’ve (finally) learned what a few of them mean, I’m not at all confident that I’ll remember them correctly (or be able to pronounce them properly). The first time I read through a Christopher Hitchens book, I had to keep my internet browser handy so I could scramble to translate all the Latin cliches. My language skills include only the few bits of Spanish that any person in a border state picks up over time (um, any person who bothers to listen…sadly, I’ve met a couple people who are so racist that they take extreme pride in having lived in CA their whole lives without learning a word of Spanish). Well, that and a handful of Japanese phrases that I picked up during my anime phase, but I wouldn’t ever use them for fear of a) sounding like one of the silly, obnoxious anime fangirls people love to hate, and b) humiliating myself in front of someone who actually speaks Japanese, or, worse, offending them by imitating the worst of the Gwen Stefani type appropriation.
I mean, even if all feminists were objectively awfully horrendously ugly old hags, that wouldn’t make an iota of difference to if they deserved to be listened to or not, but seriously, I know a whole heap of incredibly conventionally attractive young men and women who proudly call themselves feminists.
I thought the hairy-legged overall-clad awful feminist-who-doesn’t-please-my-penis was a second-wave stereotype, anyway. Aren’t third wavers all cute punk-rock-looking riot grrls in their first year of university who come off as somewhere between a real-life Daria and Scarlett Johansson’s character in that awful film about cheating on the SAT, who, like, totally want my dick, but they’re being such bitches about it, bro, y’know, college lesbians amirite?
Actually can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not… Portlandia’s alright and Corin Tucker Band’s okayish and Wild Flag aren’t too awful or anything but I was just too late for Sleater-Kinney 🙁
Off topic, but just read in the news about Sharon Osbourne getting a double masectomy. I wonder how long before the manosphere starts gloating?
No, no, khymchanur, you’ve got it backwards: feminists are trying to make women immortal so that all the women are old. Thus will dawn the Femtopia—a word that is not a place but an era—an era of old, abrasive, slutty, butch women ruling the world and having adventures and not giving a shit about any MRA’s peenfeelings.
It’s not just that HFCS is a sugar, it’s fructose, and fructose has a different metabolic pathway to being used as energy. It’s better at making fat than other sugars are; so when one is using fructose as the main energy source, and one has a surplus, it becomes fat more readily.
At a guess, this is a way mammals who need to overwinter took advantage of fruits as a food source; but that’s just blue sky-theorising as to an evolutionary mechanism for the facts.
Shiraz: I wouldn’t say Casino Royalle was spoofing Bond films, as it was the first of them.