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 donβt know there’s a war. But almost every man feels something is wrong.
Some men who know thereβs a gender war havenβt identified all of the weapons that are being arrayed against them.
One of these weapons is a wymanβs make-up.
Make-up is an unconventional weapon, and itβs often unrecognized as a threat.
Thatβs 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 isnβt only camouflage. There is a psychological component to the mask.
You see paint on a manβs face– and you immediately and correctly identify him as a threat. But put the same paint on a womanβs face, and your reaction is quite different.
We are so accustomed to seeing women wearing paint that it never strikes us as odd.
Actually, Iβm 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 Goldsmithβs 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 βpainted Jezebels.β At one time, make-up on a womanβs 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 doesnβt see.
They call it βconcealerβ 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 wasnβt before. It takes her but a moment to realize they are attracted not to her–whoever she is, she doesnβt 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, Iβm pretty sure that βpaintβ doesnβt 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 itβs 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 Iβm 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 isnβt 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.
Isnβt 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: βJust wait — youβll find someone who shares your interests.β What?)
Actually, Iβm pretty sure you wonβt 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.Β β¦
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. β¦
The first step is to stop being manipulated by paint. Look behind the mask — and the face isnβt there.
Uh, no. Thatβs not reality youβre talking about here. Thatβs the movie Eyes Without a Face.
Naturally, the eminently sensible fellows at MGTOWforums.com applaud Marcus20βs lucid analysis of how makeup turns girls and women into Sith Lords.
βSince everything within a woman is a motherfucking lie, it makes sense that the outside would be as well,β 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 womenβs 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 Marcus20βs analysis of the Big Lie that is the Wonderbra.
Aww! π
My BFF lives there and we’re hoping to do a trip to Chicago together, by train, so we can go through the Colorado mountains. All depends on saving up the $$. (Where’s a poor beta male to sponge off when you need one?)
I think the assumption of a reliable narrator is built into the nature of stories. If someone is telling you a story, you assume that the story they are telling you is the real story. Not necessarily real history, but the story they mean to tell. If someone says “And then they ran out through the back door,” you don’t say, “Aha, I see you are an unreliable narrator whose perceptions of events in the story they are telling may be incorrect,” you say “Hey! You said there wasn’t a back door and they were trapped!”
Narrators in books are the storytellers. We assume that they are telling us what really happened, even if they aren’t yet telling us everything that happened so as not to spoil the fun. A narrator who lies to you is quite a leap, and I wouldn’t expect people to make it just because children’s books are sometimes written from a POV not the authors. Within the book, the child-protagonist is telling their own story. Someone who misunderstands their own story is a complicated idea.
(Fiction isn’t lies. It’s stories, and the difference is important. Lies pretend to be facts – stories were never about facts in the first place.)
It isn’t a iie, but it’s the narrators’s side of the story. I remenber Blairwitch 2- I was shocked ( I read it as the narrators lying to themselves) but wasn’t at all upset by that turn.
I think the unreliable narrator thing is the only thing that barely salvaged the movie 300 for me. You’re like “WOW this is super racis– oh, jk, it’s just the narrator who’s super racist. Yay?”
@viola
I think you conflated two of my points. 1) The narrator’s voice is not the author’s. This is obvious is kid lit where, say, a middle-aged woman is not a ten-year-old boy, and 2) There are unreliable narrators throughout kid lit or places where, through limited third person, the narration describes something differently than how in actually happens in the fictional world.
Children in children’s books (even the narrators) constantly misunderstand and the narration presents the misunderstanding as what actually happened only to have it corrected later. The narrators are unreliable ALL THE TIME and many IRL children see where the narrator is wrong and guess the reveal. It is part of the fun (or was for me as a small child). I just finished re-reading the Ramona books and Ralph S. Mouse and without misunderstandings presented as fact and then corrected, those books would be maybe 7 pages long. The Little Princess indulges in this once or twice. Harry Potter, Series of Unfortunate Events, the Uglies books and Hunger Games do the same thing for a slightly older audience. The narrators aren’t lying in every case (and how much the unreliable narrator is a “liar” or just mistaken is a part of the character of the narrator), but they are wrong. What they tell you is part of the narrative, but not what “actually happened” in the story.
My point is that we grow up on unreliable narrators and somehow, in the transition to adult literature, lose the ability to deal with them. This seems counter-intuitive to me.
Unreliable narrators are part of fiction. They are part of telling a story. They are no more lies than fiction is, which isn’t really a lie either. That was my (jokingly put) point.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
@laisa
Yeah, lie was meant to be hyperbolic for untruth, and also to apply to Humbert Humbert who is a liar. How much he believes his own lies is up for debate, but he certainly wants to share his side of the story, his side of what he did to Lolita and to look better than he is.
@Bagelsan
I would say that it almost salvaged the movie for me personally (although it was stunningl put together and entertaining enough), but I know exactly what you mean.
viola: Well, we assume the narrator is reliable unless we are given clues otherwise. An unreliable narrator without any clues, where the revelation that the narrator’s been lying/spinning/deluded/confused just dumped on the reader at some point, is bad storytelling. But if a story gives us reasons to suspect that the narrator might not be reliable (whether made clear from the beginning or slowly revealed through reasonable clues in the narration itself), an unreliable narrator can certainly be good storytelling.
Whether that’s presenting them as video footage from which people try to piece together past events (Blair Witch 2), or having a narrator who has difficulty interpreting social clues due to his autism (The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time), or having the narrator be addicted to a drug that is stated to affect the brain and perception of self and reality (A Scanner Darkly), or framing the story as the confessions/justifications of a murderer written in jail, who is then also immediately revealed to be a pedophile (Lolita)… many ways to do it, some maybe better executed than others, but all are at least trying to give the reader hints that they might have to apply their own interpretation to what is being narrated beyond just the literal face value.
@WeeBoy and Hrovitnir I work in Wellington Monday – Thursday. Any ideas how we can PM each other or something? I’m hoping David will give me access to the forums.
Kiwi Girl — try emailing David again if it’s been awhile since you applied, he simply missed my email at first and was apologetic when I emailed a second time, so some of the applications do get lost in inbox clutter. Some of our trolls have had access (not the more vile trolls though), so I can’t imagine he’d refuse you access!
Thanks, I just emailed him again. π
I’m on the forums! I have Thursdays and Saturdays off. Although I’m going back to uni (yay!) so if it takes like a month to organise this I’ll be free more. ^_^
Although I just checked in there and FYI I’m Fenriswolf on there, not Hrovitnir. π
We used to allow trolls in the fora, but we don’t anymore. They are now guaranteed 100% troll-free!
Hooray!
Hurrah! No trolls!
/facepalm I misread the posts as meaning I had to email David to get him to register me….
One of the most disturbing things I’ve seen about Lolita was the comentary on NPR, which is quoted on at least one cover, ” for all its controversial subject matter, Lolita is one of the most beautiful love stories you’ll ever read. It may be one of the only love stories you’ll ever read.”.
What The Fuck?
When that was read to me last night I sat there in shock. Stunned that 1: Someone could get that from the book, and 2: that framing it that way is being done on the cover.
Eew.
If there’s going to be a get-together in the L.A. area, please give me enough notice to figure out bus routes! I know I’m not as active here as some of y’all, but it would be great to talk about cats, food, and sewing in person! (And make fun of MRAs, if there’s time.)
Ugh. There is a looong history of both men and women using makeup. The reason people were writing against it is because it was everywhere, for heaven’s sake. The Vicar wasn’t like “Oh look at this thing that only my family is doing!”
Man, all you kiwi boobzers are making me wish I was still living in Welington! π
Also, Lolita. I have never understood people being startled by the concept of unreliable narrators; I treat pretty much ALL narrators as unreliable. I wrote an essay on how Lolita’s voice was taken from her (she very rarely speaks in the book, just gets paraphrased by Humbert Humbert) and was shocked that in all my searching, I couldn’t find anyone else having done an essay on the subject. I DID keep running into literary criticism treating Lolita as the seductress though. D: NO! NO!
Re: Lolita I just don’t even. The narrator is basically like “Hi I am a huge pedophile but the little girl was totally asking for it!” and the audience just kind of nods along with that reasoning. WTF.
You’d think that her being almost too old for him at 12 would have been a clue.
You’re not in NZ any more are you LBT? I too am amazed that you couldn’t an essay along those lines. >_> Is yours online somewhere?
I’ve always avoided Lolita because it sounds triggering as fuck – your descriptions are both cementing that impression and intriguing me. Hmmmm.
I’ve never looked at Lolita – from any angle it’s so NOT a book I’d be interested in reading. For some reason I always thought it was about Humbert being obsessed with Lolita from a distance; I had no idea it was about rape. I’m sickened but glad I know about it now.