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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

358 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 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
7 years ago

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

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
7 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
7 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
7 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
7 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
7 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

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
7 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
7 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
Some Gal Not Bored at All
7 years ago

@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
7 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
7 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
7 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
thenatfantastic
7 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
7 years ago

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

thenatfantastic
thenatfantastic
7 years ago

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

katz
7 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
7 years ago

Catching up here but:

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

Some Gal Not Bored at All
Some Gal Not Bored at All
7 years ago

@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
7 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

cloudiah – OMG yes!

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

katz
7 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
7 years ago

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

Ooh, goody.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Aww! 😉

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?)

viola
7 years ago

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.)

laisa
laisa
7 years ago

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.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
7 years ago

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?”

Some Gal Not Bored at All
Some Gal Not Bored at All
7 years ago

@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.

whataboutthemoonz
7 years ago

Polonius was [not] supposed to be a fount of wisdom.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Some Gal Not Bored at All
Some Gal Not Bored at All
7 years ago

@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.

Neurite
Neurite
7 years ago

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.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

@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.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

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!

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

Thanks, I just emailed him again. 🙂

hrovitnir
7 years ago

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. ^_^

hrovitnir
7 years ago

Although I just checked in there and FYI I’m Fenriswolf on there, not Hrovitnir. 🙂

katz
7 years ago

We used to allow trolls in the fora, but we don’t anymore. They are now guaranteed 100% troll-free!

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

Hooray!

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
7 years ago

Hurrah! No trolls!

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
7 years ago

/facepalm I misread the posts as meaning I had to email David to get him to register me….

pecunium
7 years ago

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.

Karalora
Karalora
7 years ago

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.)

inkhat
7 years ago

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!”

LBT
LBT
7 years ago

Man, all you kiwi boobzers are making me wish I was still living in Welington! 🙁

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!

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
7 years ago

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.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

You’d think that her being almost too old for him at 12 would have been a clue.

hrovitnir
7 years ago

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.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

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.