I‘m beginning to wonder if every single complaint from manosphere misogynists comes back to their rage at the fact that women get to decide who can have sex with them. Take the following comment from MGTOWforums.com. The ostensible topic of conversation? A study reporting that women tend to feel more stressed than men at work. Watch how deftly MGTOWforums “senior member” 7 Deadly Sins turns the topic from “women in the workplace” to “my sad penis.”
They wanted to work so now they’re working. Oh work is too hard and stressing you out? Too bad. You wanted to be career whores, right ? Enjoy. If you give women what they ask for, they still want more. Who cares if they’re stressed out? They can always get dicked down and take some of the edge off. Men can’t get sex whenever they “feel” like it. Nobody cares what you whores think or feel any more.
Damn. That’s some pretty intense boner rage there, dude.
Ewwwww!
Say, though … if they made it low, but kept the jeans narrow, would it hobble the idiots who have to sit with their knees spread a metre or so apart? That’d make it worth while.
Cassandra: no butt tribe fistbump!
It does seem that Hammer pants are back, God help us all.
I don’t understand why it is a thing either… Actually, no, the one group of people I’ve seen who look awesome in saggy jeans is tomboy lesbians, and I think that may just be because tomboy lesbians are so awesome in general they can cancel out the pant-sagging.
Reminds me of those Indonesian(?) fishermen’s pants one sees, with the crotch halfway down the calf. Or rather, “sees for sale in Ishka or Oja’s,” since I’ve seldom seen anyone wearing them, thank goodness. Practical for getting on and off trams, trains and your general urban environment, not.
I never got the saggy pants thing. In my dads generation, boys seen dressed like that were doing it because they couldn’t afford to clothe everyone individually. So it was likely that the guy wearing baggy pants was wearing hand me downs from his father or older brothers. It was something of a mark of shame to publically display such poverty. Same went for ripped jeans. What kills me is that I have to pay more for jeans with holes in them than a pair without.
I can’t see myself doing the ripped jeans look. Slashing looked great four hundred years ago, but no, this variation doesn’t work for me …
Oh, just remembered a clothing fail story from a book on men’s fashion: young bloke in the 1630s, in Italy, I think, who had a suit made and didn’t think to get the slashes stitched (his tailor must have been another idiot or a rip-off merchant). Young bloke wore said suit and of course it was fraying everywhere; he looked like he was covered in cobwebs.
Ha, that print is back to front – the sword should be on his left side, as should the cross of the Saint-Esprit on his cloak.
Kitteh, I think he has a bigger problem than being left handed. Where are the rest of his feet?! He’s a strapping big man, with size six womens shoes on!
Come to think of it, his legs from mid-thigh look like they belong to someone half his size!
I think its fair to say that whoever drew that picture did not take lessons in human anatomy. The porportions are wonky (like his head is waaaaay too small) and something doesn’t quite jibe in the anatomy of how he’s standing. That part is a little hard for me to tell given how much cloth the man is wearing.
I thought they left the slashes unstitched for some reason…
The pic is by Abraham Bosse, and I’d be surprised if he didn’t have lessons. It’s more to do with fashions in art and clothes, I’d guess.
When slashing first came in, a hundred + years earlier, it was ratty, genuinely torn clothing worn over (probably stolen) good clothes; the German landsknechts were noted for it (they featured in the sack of Rome in 1527 – nasty lot). Clothes that had small cuts, pinking, all over the surface were unstitched, but with the long slashes being worn by this time, they were trimmed and edged with braid. Men’s clothes of this time were still pretty bulky – the doublets were heavily lined and stiffened, though not nearly as much as Elizabethan clothing.
/fashion geek
However here is someone who looks better even allowing for stylistic convention … 🙂
He is certainly a very fine looking man, and the fashion suits him well.
Yes to both! I always liked that high-waisted line.
I got all excited the first time I saw that painting. It’s at Chiswick House in London, and all I knew (this was in the pre-Net days of 1989) was that there were pics of him and Anne there. It was the first portrait of him as an adult I’d seen where he was wearing civvies instead of armour, and I sneaked a few shots-with-flash while the guard wasn’t looking.
The church behind him is still there; it’s St-Paul-St-Louis, in the Rue Saint-Antoine. He had it built. Been there, too! 🙂
This is the matching one of Anne.
Ok that shirt/corset/thing is awesome, the lace is lovely, but wtf are those things on his feet?! It looks like what would happen if someone stepped on your foot…that was made of play doh.
Love the almost certainly unboned but silly stiff shirt/jacket/upper layer.
Hehe, so much fashion discussion.
Hey! I’m in Welly – remember the makeup thingy that never eventuated? That was with you, right? We must follow through one day. 😀
Oh my, so bad. They are the most unflattering things ever!
You’re not wrong!
Okay, the baggy pants thing is one of those things that happens when a subculture gets appropriated by the dominant culture:
1: In prison in the U.S., budgets are deliberately kept low. Thus, there’s generally a lack of specific sizing of prison uniforms, and similarly, they don’t have good elastic (and belts of any sort are right out, for safety reasons). If you don’t happen to insta-fit one of the few sizes available, you’re given the next size up and have to make do. This means that a lot of guys in prison walk around with slightly oversized pants, causing them to sag down.
2: In black, urban America, because of the oppressive and blatantly racist nature of the American police state, having been to prison isn’t necessarily a mark of shame–it often means you were more loyal to your gang than to yourself (since you went to prison instead of ratting people out). So former inmates, in order to display their cred, would wear their pants in a similar fashion; it also shows a certain solidarity with those still inside prison.
3: Hip-hop culture often adopts gang culture symbols for marketing purposes. So rappers started wearing the style, too (the first wave to do so was mainly made of former inmates who were also rap artists; then the fashion spread to those artists who simply adopted the trappings of gang culture).
4: At this point, two things happened, as frequently does with subculture fashion. One, the fashion spread to the dominant culture. In specific, to the same white, middle-class suburban youth who are the dominant market for ‘mainstream’ hip-hop and rap music. Two, an exaggeration of the original style–increasingly low-hanging crotches–cropped up in order to further differentiate from the appropriated style. This is usually how the cycle runs–eventually, the style hits the outer limits of practicality, and is superceded by a new style; I figure we’re getting close on the baggypants thing.
Oh, as a side-note: In discussions about this, you’ll occasionally hear someone blather on about how the low-slung pants in prison is how a ‘prison b****’ (an inmate who trades sexual favors for protection and boons) announces they’re ‘open for business’. This rumor is a lovely trifecta of homophobia, racism and prison-rape apologia. Don’t buy it, and don’t spread it.
Freemage eww no that’s not an idea I’d ever spread.
But I also think how the black angle is racist. Because white “skid row” people also dressed this way, due to poverty, but we’ll overlook that, because Black people go to prison because Black. The idea is especially troubling given the ubiquity of the fashion among POC and the fact that Black men are presumed criminal on sight. I don’t doubt that there’s something to what you just posted, but the whole thing revolves around black men in prison that doesn’t sit quite right with me, it plays into the dominent tropes too well.
It also plays into the idea that Black people should not have their own culture and be able to stand in solidarity with each other based on that culture because they should be striving to be seen as more pleasing to white culture, and adopting our ideals.
@freemage- That is fascinating, thank you for sharing that fashion history!
@Valerian:
Supply and demand. Also read this.
@Fade: I start with Protagoras’ famous statement
“[the individual] man is the measure of all things”.
While in principle never refutable, for matters of fact it doesn’t sound realistic anymore in the 21st century [insert man on the moon blabber], we just know that empirical evidence and formal proofs are sources of knowledge; skepticism about these methods has become intellectually disreputable.
Even when we find a severe flaw in the human reasoning process, subjectivity of factual statements doesn’t follow. For example in the Monty Hall Problem you can still choose other lines of attack and finally get even very stubborn people to recant their wrong beliefs (e. g. with the “999 doors with goats” argument or simpler, we can just play the game).
But reg values and moral judgments, Protagoras’ statement seems more plausible than ever before.
For example let’s take our fellow blogger JudgyBitch, she thinks what happened in Steubenville isn’t a big deal and that the punishment for the two guys is excessive (also check out the posts “Why don’t we have a Dumb F*cking Wh*re Registry? Now that would be justice.” and “You weren’t raped. You’re a wh*re. Join the club.” which add several new interesting aspects to the discussion…).
Now how do you change her attitudes?
No… you won’t proceed like if she were wrong about the Monty Hall Problem! You’ll call her out and if that doesn’t help, you’ll mock her, then shame her, paint her as the “bigot she is” and bash her until she keeps quiet.
“Wrong” convictions that are challenged in this way don’t disappear, they only become hidden and may find other ways to express themselves, which of course you will want to suppress, too.
This is the problem with “we don’t want people to be sexist dickwads”, traditional methods like social norms or laws don’t get someone to BE something, you’ll only succeed in silencing people. Some ignoble feelings like our rage boner will come up natural in some people and since feelings beget convictions…
@freemage:
How weak must your position be that you have to resort to burning such a straw man? Do I still not engage in sufficient self-sabotage?
@Kittehs:
Then I’ll retract that claim and say “motivate” instead of “compel”.
But how much of a difference does it make if other parts of your brain are involved, too? The brain as physical system goes from one state to the next and what if the processes in your frontal cortex result in wrong decisions?
@hrovitnir:
The Daily Mail (very respectable newspaper, one of the finest worldwide) wrote that Bethany McKee “lured the victims to her friend’s house with the promise of sex and video games”…
If I look at this Joshua Miner guy, I wonder, if aside from the usual alpha-, beta-, zeta- and omega-male classification, we should introduce a new category..?
I would suggest kappa-male, for a criminal male who uses the physiological hybristophilia of women to his advantage. And like the alpha-male has beta-males in his pack, the kappa-male commands lambda-males. So the lambda-male in that case would be Adam Landerman. Another example would be Charles Manson (kappa) and Charles “Tex” Watson (lambda)…
Ah, what else… oh yes, since when is using “female” as an adjective considered wrong?
OK, now I know you’re trolling.
Please don’t. I don’t want yet another bullshit definition about something that never happens to have to remember in order to decipher little trolly hate-screeds. (See: Hypergamy, incel, code mauve etc.)
When you talk about women as adjectives and men as nouns. Even as a completely innocent stylistic affectation, it’s gramatically incorrect. What’s actually so hard about typing ‘women’ instead? It’s even got fewer letters.
Why are so many dillholes prepared to go to the hilt to literally use language incorrectly? WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT TO YOU?
ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha*wheeze*ahahahahahahahahahaha
Did he just call The Daily Mail one of the finest Newspapers worldwide?
Aww, it learned to Google and found a quote from a long dead Greek guy.
Sure they do. And feelings are not the only thing that generate convictions. Logic and experience are hugely important. Look at Rob Portman. His feelings about gay people were far less weighty with him than the experience of having a gay son.
I don’t care that people have homophobic thoughts nearly as much as I care that they not act on that homophobia and hurt others. Yes, I want them silenced, because speaking bigotry aloud hurts people. Nobody has ever thought that passing a law would change people’s minds, just their actions. That’s the only thing the law has ever been able to control.
Funny thing, when the law and the culture (i.e. “traditional methods like social norms and laws”) start treating certain bigoted beliefs as if they are shameful and should not be articulated, people who simply hadn’t thought about it much – the vast majority – who have just accepted what the culture had previously taught them, start changing their minds.
And yes, the die-hard bigots will rise up and pull shit like passing Prop 8 and DOMA, but we come back and fight them again.
There’s a reason you MRA trolls have to hide in tiny corners of the internet. If you said the crap you spew aloud in company or in public everyone would be horrified and you know it. I think sometimes that’s why you guys troll here so much. It’s finally a chance to say what you’re thinking somewhere that isn’t a protected MRA enclave. The problem of course is that we still find you as repulsive as the people you hide these views from in the meatspace.
@Jaro- When you start out with a screed like your first comment, we already know how you feel about women, and men, and their proper interaction. Stop trying to cloak it in pseudo-intellectual bullshit. Your equivocating is not welcome here.
Also, they call it the Daily Fail for a reason.