Categories
antifeminism creepy evil women grandiosity I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny playing the victim

MGTOWer: Wearing makeup turns women into Darth Vader

You're not fooling anyone, evil makeup-wearing girl!
You’re not fooling anyone, evil makeup-wearing girl!

On MGTOWforums.com, Marcus20 offers a dire warning for all of his fellow Men Going Their Own Way who may not yet be Going Their Own Way thoroughly enough.

This is a gender war. Some men don’t know there’s a war. But almost every man feels something is wrong.

Some men who know there’s a gender war haven’t identified all of the weapons that are being arrayed against them.

One of these weapons is a wyman’s make-up.

Make-up is an unconventional weapon, and it’s often unrecognized as a threat.

That’s right, fellas. These women will stop at nothing to deceive and control you. Even if that means resorting to (gasp!) eye shadow.

WAKE UP to the MAKEUP!

[I]magine, if you please, a man with his face covered in war paint. Consider the men at the end of Apocalypse Now. Consider the warriors of the Sioux, the warriors in African tribes. Consider modern American soldiers.

Why do warriors wear face paint? The reason isn’t only camouflage. There is a psychological component to the mask.

You see paint on a man’s face– and you immediately and correctly identify him as a threat. But put the same paint on a woman’s face, and your reaction is quite different.

We are so accustomed to seeing women wearing paint that it never strikes us as odd.

Actually, I’m pretty sure if I saw a woman painted up like the dudes in Apocalypse Now I might give her a second look.

But there used to be widespread opposition to women wearing make-up. In Oliver Goldsmith’s Vicar of Wakefield, published in 1766, the vicar vigorously disapproves of his wife and daughters preparing various washes and powders for their faces. The Bible mentions “painted Jezebels.” At one time, make-up on a woman’s face signaled to all that she was a prostitute.

Today, make-up is accepted. Ho hum. Nothing to see here . . . The best weapon is one your enemy doesn’t see.

They call it “concealer” for a reason! For it conceals the dark and evil heart of the modern woman! Or something.

Imagine an average-looking girl, just reaching adolescence. She puts on make-up– and she is attracting the attention of boys, when she wasn’t before. It takes her but a moment to realize they are attracted not to her–whoever she is, she doesn’t know herself– but to her paint.

She concludes that men are attracted by paint. It immediately, and from the beginning of her sexual interactions with men, makes her relations with the opposite sex less real. She is always aware that the paint on her face is manipulating him.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure that “paint” doesn’t have much to do with any of this. I think it might just happen to have something to do with the flood of hormones coursing through the bodies of adolescent boys.

Day after day, for years, for decades, she paints herself as if she is a thing: and she becomes soulless.

That also happens if she puts on cute outfits. If you stare too long at a cute outfit, the cute outfit stares back at you!

The more you think about this, the more you realize that this is terrifying. Imagine if you — a man — painted your face everyday and presented that face to the world as if it’s yours. Immediately, you will feel disassociated from yourself. Immediately: scheming, lying, deceit become easier. Even murder becomes easier.

Er, what?

Roughly 90% of murders are committed by men, and I’m pretty sure very few of them are wearing makeup at the time.

Villains wear masks. Wearing a mask makes it easier to do evil. Darth Vader and even your typical bank robber . . .

The mask allows a woman to act out her evil impulses while telling herself the lie that she herself isn’t doing it.

That’s right. You start by putting on a little lipstick and mascara, and the next thing you know you’re destroying peaceful planets with your Death Star.

It is absurd for a man to allow himself to be attracted by paint.

Better to be repulsed by women who wear make-up. To see them as clowns. To see them as strange masks. To see the mask as the truth of what she has become, after a decade of painting her face: a lie that she wears everyday. Because after years of wearing a mask, you become it.

The same thing happens with other things you wear. After years of wearing underwear, you become underwear! After years of wearing socks, you become a sock! After years of wearing hats, you become a hat!

My niece, age five, recently attended a make-up party for children her age. She now owns a make-up collection. She is five years old and already wears a mask.

Isn’t there something disturbing about that?

Well, yeah, but not for the reason you think.

Look at youtube. There are videos that have millions of views — all about eleven year old girls who use massive amounts of make-up (and time) to make themselves look like Barbie or a doll or a cartoon character.

(And women still tell me: “Just wait — you’ll find someone who shares your interests.” What?)

Actually, I’m pretty sure you won’t find a woman who shares your interests, dude, given that one of your interests is writing posts about how wearing makeup turns women into Darth Vader.

Today we have girls, age five, wearing make-up … I therefore predict an even more soulless horde of wymen in our future.  …

I submit that women would be much less evil if they never wore masks. I submit that women would be much more humble as to their true attractiveness and therefore, less entitled, if they never wore masks. I submit that men would be better able to judge who is really beautiful if women never wore masks. …

The first step is to stop being manipulated by paint. Look behind the mask — and the face isn’t there.

Uh, no. That’s not reality you’re talking about here. That’s the movie Eyes Without a Face.

Naturally, the eminently sensible fellows at MGTOWforums.com applaud Marcus20’s lucid analysis of how makeup turns girls and women into Sith Lords.

“Since everything within a woman is a motherfucking lie, it makes sense that the outside would be as well,” writes the aptly-named Womanhater.

ANY twat who claims to be ‘equal’ and yet wears make-up is a fucking hypocrite! The ENTIRE purpose of makeup is to feign sexual arousal and attraction – red lips, blushed cheeks, etc. all signal men on a subconscious level that the twat is sexually attracted to you. This in turn makes the uninitiated blue-pillers in our ranks turn into putty in their hands. The ONLY reason a twat wears make-up is to have an easier time manipulating you or extracting resources from you. Period. Full stop.

MrWombat, perhaps inspired by neo-Nazi nonsense about “blood in the face,” suggests that clever use of concealer can indeed conceal women’s essential dishonesty:

Makeup is crucial to being able to lie face-to-face to someone. Normal people blush when they lie, blanch when they have taken an emotional hit. Foundation conceals that, and women consciously feel foundation to be a mask, a disguise, a defense.

I eagerly await Marcus20’s analysis of the Big Lie that is the Wonderbra.

358 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CassandraSays
CassandraSays
11 years ago

I like the idea of talking about makeup to keep the troll bores away, but I fear that the conversation about Lolita will lure them back in out of a need to defend poor Humbert.

@ katz

While I wouldn’t say that I blame Lolita for the shit it’s spawned – it’s not Nabokov’s fault that some readers were too dim to understand his book – I will agree that the offshoots are mostly very unpleasant. In fact that only other cultural product that I can think of that even references that book that isn’t horrible is Reading Lolita In Tehran.

Also I really hope this isn’t going to turn into a conversation about how actually lolicon is totally OK and how dare people want to censor it by not liking it and so on, which kind of happened last time it came up here.

(I think Lolita fashion looks rather silly, and the fact that dudes have subverted it and turned it into a fetish is gross, but it isn’t in quite the same category of ick as sexually explicit manga about child rape.)

WeeBoy
WeeBoy
11 years ago

Kiwi Girl – I am in Wellington… Oooh Oooh, kiwi Manboobz meetup!

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
11 years ago

Speaking of the mind-boggling invisibility of the sexual coercion of children by adults: I once read The Letters of Abelard and Heloise for a class in Western Literature and was not a little bothered that the “timeless love story” was actually about a scholar who used his authority as a private tutor to coerce his student into sex.

Happy spoiler: the dude deservedly gets his wang chunged by her relatives, but for reasons only partly related to being a rapist.

katz
11 years ago

I think Lolita fashion looks rather silly, and the fact that dudes have subverted it and turned it into a fetish is gross, but it isn’t in quite the same category of ick as sexually explicit manga about child rape.

You’re right, I shouldn’t have lumped those two together.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
11 years ago

@ katz

I totally get the frustration with what was really quite a good book having spawned lots of mostly unrelated crap, or crap that’s related in a “you clearly did not understand this book” way. With Lolita fashion, I think it looks silly, but the initial impetus behind it was kind of cool, which just makes the fact that it’s become a fetish for creepy dudes even more frustrating.

(A lot of the first generation of girls who wore Lolita fashion were actively trying to resist the oversexualization of young girls by wearing deliberately childlike and not at all revealing clothes. Which is why, although I rarely get irritated with fetishes, that one bugs me, because it’s such a blatant fuck you to the girls who started the whole thing.)

katz
11 years ago

A lot of the first generation of girls who wore Lolita fashion were actively trying to resist the oversexualization of young girls by wearing deliberately childlike and not at all revealing clothes.

Well, THAT backfired. Interesting as an illustration of rape culture, though: Even if you’re deliberately trying to do the opposite of being sexy, whatever you do will just end up being sexualized.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
11 years ago

Yep. It’s depressing to see attempts at resistance appropriated, and even more depressing to see the subsequent generations of girls playing along with it. Not that I’m blaming them for doing so, it’s just depressing to watch.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

I meant David Prowse there- JEJ just did the voice. Mind you, this probably makes Prowse even more evil, as a man with a West Country accent pretending to speak with The Voice of Doom.

OMG just think of the opportunity Lucas missed by not letting Prowse do the voice. Darth Vader could have sounded like a pirate!

katz
11 years ago

I totally get the frustration with what was really quite a good book having spawned lots of mostly unrelated crap, or crap that’s related in a “you clearly did not understand this book” way.

I also feel that way about all the “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”-type stuff: Our cultural love of this work has degraded to the point where you just have to mention it in the same sentence with some other nerd-culture infatuation and everyone will love it.

Kakanian
Kakanian
11 years ago

Ah, I found it.

While reading the article, I could not stop thinking of this image.

http://s17.postimage.org/9xac6ix4f/makeup.jpg

BlackBloc (@XBlackBlocX)

A lot of people have trouble with unreliable narrators. But I feel there’s a difference between litterature and film in that area. As untrue as it actually is IRL, the camera has the aura of detached, objective observer. If you’re doing an entire film as POV then I would certainly consider the possibility of unreliable narrator and I wouldn’t feel as cheated by it, but when the camera is third party (which is 99.9% of the time) I feel there is an implicit claim to objectivity. Tricking your audience this way feels as cheap as getting a jump through the “cat jumps out of cupboard” method.

(Similarly, if there is no framing technique to indicate the contrary, like in Memento, or explicitly vignetted flashbacks, I feel that time implicitly moves forward in film. I really hated the ‘twist’ in Saw 4 for that reason.)

Some Gal Not Bored at All

@BlackBloc

Well Blair Witch 2 is basically a movie about trying to uncover the truth of what happened by watching a video recording of the night no one remembers so the idea that what the camera sees may not be the whole story is pretty much there from the beginning. I think most unreliable narrator movies signal that the camera is less than objective through something meta like that. It might be a lazy way to do it and I can see an audience being bored, but not cheated.

hrovitnir
hrovitnir
11 years ago

Oo, Weeboy and Kiwigirl are in Wellington? Me too! I can never keep up with the comments so am pretty lurker-y but would be so keen for a makeup meetup. Don’t wear makeup 99.99% of the time but love playing with it for funsies, the drag-ier the better. ^_^

cloudiah
11 years ago

I want to go to Wellington for the makeup party! No fair! WHY IS NEW ZEALAND SO FAR AWAY FROM CALIFORNIA?!??!

Neurite
Neurite
11 years ago

BlackBloc: Of course with film you have the additional option of having the camera unmask the unreliable narrator – i.e., have an actual voiceover narrator whose narration contrasts with what the camera is showing you (and, as you said, we assume by default that the camera is showing us what is actually real). That’s an option that you don’t have with a book, and sometimes this approach can be used to some really neat effect. The movie version of A Scanner Darkly, for example, used it very nicely to show us [SPOILER] the breakdown of Fred/Arctor.

thenatfantastic
11 years ago

@BlackBloc @Some Gal

Some films do unreliable narration well, especially if it’s made obvious for a more comedic/light effect. The one that springs to mind is The Rules of Attraction which shows a scene from one character’s POV, and their interpretation of events, followed by the same scene from the other character’s POV, with an entirely different spin on it. The book does the same.

Neurite
Neurite
11 years ago

Hey, cloudiah, you’re in California too? You should come over for tea sometime!

thenatfantastic
11 years ago

(^when I say POV there I mean literal POV, with narration.)

katz
11 years ago

I think people just have a hard time recognizing unreliable narrators, too. In literature, people’s assumption that what the protagonist thinks is what the author thinks can be incredibly strong and difficult to break.

I think there may be an element of people wanting to feel superior to/smarter than the authors they read and finding it more fun to think they believe stupid things than to accept that they may have been clever enough to imagine how someone else thinks.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
11 years ago

Catching up here but:

Molly Moon — ooooh, female FSMs, makes perfect sense now!

Some Gal Not Bored at All

@thenatfantastic

My favorite part of the Rules of Attraction book were the chapters in French that said exactly the same things as all the others just in French (my sister had to translate them for me and she was really weirder out by what I was asking her about since I didn’t give her much context).

@katz

In literature, people’s assumption that what the protagonist thinks is what the author thinks can be incredibly strong and difficult to break.

Don’t get me started on Shakespeare and “to thine own self be true.” I can rant for a very long time. 🙂 You’d think people would get it better since so many children’s books (which everyone pretty much starts on) are obviously not the (probably middle-aged) author and, for unreliable narrators, a lot of children’s lit relies on the unreliability of children.

cloudiah
11 years ago

We should probably do a manboobzer slumber party where we do each other’s hair/makeup and then watch & critique movies. 😉

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

cloudiah – OMG yes!

Make it next year, eh? I’m hoping to be in LA sometime then. 🙂

katz
11 years ago

Don’t get me started on Shakespeare and “to thine own self be true.”

Everyone quotes Shakespeare out of context, so it always sounds like they all came from his Big Book of Stuff I Think, but it boggles the mind that anyone could think that Polonius was supposed to be a fount of wisdom.

katz
11 years ago

Make it next year, eh? I’m hoping to be in LA sometime then.

Ooh, goody.