When you look at the above picture — a group portrait of the Congressional freshman class of 2013 — what’s the first thing that pops into your head? Maybe something along the lines of “there sure are a lot of white dudes in that picture!”
Not if you’re “Emmanuel Goldstein” over at Roosh V’s Return of Kings blog. No, he looked at that same picture and thought: American women sure are a bunch of worthless attention whores!
Why? Because some of the women in the picture have the temerity to wear … bright colors!
[N]ot one man appears in bright red, blue, pink or yellow. For the men, it gets about as radical as a light grey suit … The women, on the other hand, have never met a gauche shade of neon they wouldn’t wear. Why are American women so hell bent on attention whoring, precisely in the places where they say they want to be taken seriously? Why do women ‘fight for equality’ by swapping outfits with Bozo the Clown? Why are old white women so desperate to show us their wrinkly cleavage?
I’m not exactly sure how you’re defining “cleavage” here, EG, but I’m not really seeing a lot of it in this picture. Well, none, really. None cleavage. I see one outfit, possibly two, that might under some circumstances reveal a small amount of cleavage.
Not that it really matters, as EG’s outrage is purely for show.
He quotes the late paleo-con Lawrence Auster, who also professed to be similarly outraged by women and their terrible breast-baring clothes.
The way many women dress today, with half their breasts exposed, is an expression of total disrespect for men. Men are left with three possible responses. To grab the woman, which is illegal; to ogle the woman, which is socially unacceptable; or to affect not to notice the woman at all, which is emasculating. A culture that normalizes such female behavior—i.e. not only not noticing or objecting to it, but prohibiting any objection to it—is extremely sick.
Really? Men suffer because sometimes they see cleavage and they’re not allowed to grope or drool? Oh, you poor, poor fellows! Should I prepare the fainting couch?
EG then turns to Laura Woods, the self-proclaimed Thinking Housewife, who once declared
revealing dress in professional settings [to be] a last-ditch effort by women to salvage their femininity. They are living daily lives of masculine aggression and drive. They are pressured to destroy their inherent selflessness and desire to serve. They make their breasts appear overblown, near-to-bursting balloons as a way of diverting attention from what they have become.
Near-to-bursting balloons? Apparently Woods has been watching too much office-themed porn.
Naturally, EG agrees wholeheartedly with Woods:
Hers may be the most potent explanation yet. I have surmised as much about the ubiquity of the color hot pink, as a microcosm of this drive, and it’s popularity as a marketing tool to women. It is an impossibly ugly, tacky hue, yet women love it. These women are not feminine in any meaningful way, yet they think that having a vagina is something to be proud of. Wearing hot pink is akin to liking an anti-Kony group on Facebook to feel like you’re doing your part to fight genocide.
Wait, what?
Wearing hot pink is akin to liking an anti-Kony group on Facebook to feel like you’re doing your part to fight genocide.
I’m tempted to stop here, because there’s no way he can get any dumber than this.
But then I remember that I forgot to mention the one man who EG sees as the “male analog to the women I describe.” That is, the male analog to those whorish congresswomen and their oh-so-revealing pantsuits. His name, EG tells us, is
Buzz Bissinger, a GQ contributor who later checked into rehab for a shopping addiction. … Oh, it turns out he’s had some homosexual encounters as well. I’d love to see a straight man test the bounds of ‘equality,’ and dress like these buffoons, and still keep his job.
Damn those bisexual men and their bisexual style privilege! Straight men truly are the mostest oppressed of the most oppressed!
Anyway, here are a couple of pictures of Mr. Bissinger, the male analog, evidently taken while he was on the job:
As you may have noticed, he’s not exactly the “male analog” to the pantsuited congresswomen above, given that in the middle picture there he seems to be wearing NOTHING BUT HIS UNDERPANTS AND SOME WRISTBANDS.
You don’t see that a lot in the Congressional Women’s Caucus.
Are these people seriously this worked up over someone else’s favorite color?
I wonder what they think of gay pride. Actually I don’t want to know.
I think gender essentialism is a big part of the misogyny. If men and women are different, then why not put them in some sort of a hierarchy? I tend to think people think it’s “Men and women are different” and then “this is why I justify my misogyny”.
Also, I think it’s funny how I often hear the “males are superior, look at nature, they are always more colorful and bigger, like peacocks” from people like this. But by that logic that would make today’s women the master gender.
Also, these people don’t realize that there have been cultures where it’s not like this. Actually many. Look at the history of men’s fashion in France… Or most European cultures.
I just saw a gifset of female lionesses backing lions in corners, roaring at them and stuff. And covered in blood after taking down a kill.
Yeah, look at nature. Women were made to _kill_. This is clear.
@freemage: The way I think about hypnosis, the key element is attention. Like, a person at a stage show who acts like a chicken: They’re doing a chicken impression; they’re acting. Because obviously they are, what else could they be doing? They aren’t possessed by a chicken spirit.
The thing is, they’re not currently paying attention to the fact that they’re just pretending. So, when asked later they won’t report it that way, and the performance is more organic than it would be if that awareness was on their mind.
For therapy, I’ll say first, don’t devalue the automatic association of relaxation with something like breaking an addiction. And, from my understanding, hypnotism is especially useful for things like breaking habits… nail-biting, that sort of thing. Things you do but don’t pay attention to.
Regarding memory, it always seemed bizarre to me that recovering memories was ever associated with hypnosis, given the fact that suggestibility is so important there. Tell a hypnotized person “We’re going to uncover a buried memory!” means they’ll probably start making up a buried memory so they’ll be able to uncover it.
Ataturkism is the desire of Turkish nationalists to have an American dad who will at one point say “‘Atta Turk!” because of something good they did.
@Marie, I think you’re thinking of Anarachnidism, which is the ideology of having spiders in all windows.
@Howard
No no, you have to look at female penguins and human women, never compare the gender politics of humans to things that make women look awesome. That’s misandry. And not natural, because humans aren’t animals, except when comparing them to animals that make women look bad. It’s only natural.
Mesmerism is all about untidy mermaids!
Collectivism – An ideology related to collecting things.
Pacifism – Related to the study of the pacific ocean.
Gigantism – Related to the study of ant dancing.
Fabianism is about teen idols.
Breaking news!!! There’s now been a correction to the assertion that feminism is about femininity!
Which I think brings us back full circle to Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits.
Wait wait wait, feminism is about masculinity and power?
I know, it’s complicated SittieKitty, but I think we have to defer to the intellectuals over on Reddit.
Lot of men in that pic.
:psyduck:
So now things are the opposite of their etymology?
Well, that explains all the “I’m not a feminist or a masculinist, I’m an egalitarian“s on reddit who want nothing to do with equality.
Tulgey, explains the “That’s not sexism/Racism/whatever!” they keep saying too
I love the MRA rants that are just nothing but some guy being angry that women don’t feel bad about themselves. Damn women, standing on the Capitol steps like they belong there!
Am I weird if my first response to this was “Why do you consider this to be a good thing?”
@Howard Bannister
That’s a cute kitten 😀
@tulgey
Of course XD
@kirbywarp
Not weird. I think men’s fashion sounds terribly boring, even if one likes to wear black/grey/blue suits. All the time? it’s got to get old.
This is the bit that really, really pissed me off. What the fuck? First off, how is “grab the woman” one of three choices when seeing cleavage on a woman? You don’t see “run around gibbering like a baboon” or “go home immediately and bake a cake” on there, these are things that the poster felt are the three most reasonable possibilities for action. And the first on the list is sexual assault.
If a completely naked woman walked into my room right now, my first thoughts wouldn’t be “should I grab her boobs or not?” My first thoughts would be “why is there a naked woman walking into my room,” but I digress…
Second, it’s just more of those “men are slaves to their sexual attraction” the demeans men way more than anything these guys imagine feminists do… And worse, this behavior is called “manly,” being prevented from ogling is “emasculating.” You literally cannot retain your identity as a man without staring slack-jawed at the sexual organs of every single person you might be attracted to.
And finally, with the cherry on top of this shit sunday, is the declaration that a culture which frowns upon men sexually assaulting and harassing women, which speaks out against men who are so fucking obsessed with boobs that they can’t function when a pair are in visual range (covered up, not covered up, or even just hinted at), is sick.
*melts*
That kinda explains why they think the men fully covered in suits is a good thing, kirbywarp.
The MRAs think if the men saw one anothers body parts they would have to either grope them, ogle them, or ignore them, eh?