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.
@Marie:
I was trying to imagine what that picture would look like if everyone were wearing bright colors, like pink or plaid that I see men wear at parties… It would look more like a group of people than a group of politicians. I think that’s fine, but who knows? Maybe there’s some solidarity or something in wearing similar attire, something that lends a seriousness to the job.
If so, is it even possible for women to choose to wear drab clothing? Everyone would complain about their looks… How they must be so boring and unpleasent. There is literally nothing a congresswoman can do to fit in…
@thebewilderness:
That is hilarious enough that it is now my head-cannon. The MRM, step into the world of fascination with other people’s genitals.
What kirbywarp said. That’s a really good deconstruction actually.
Cubism – it’s about a Chicago baseball team
I read through the comments on the linked post. If you want to see racism, sexism, evo-psych bull, and PUA advice all rolled up in one… Why? Why would you want to see that?
atheism – it’s about a hypothetical ocean with a lisp
solipsism – pretty sure it’s about solar eclipses
antidissestablishmentarianism – errr… Auntie Dis’s tables and dishes aren’t getting washed because her niece Anne is late coming home due to her boyfriends.
Marie:
Here’s some men’s fashion that’s anything but boring (some of it is downright ridonkulous):
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2013/06/versace-spring-2014-menswear-collection.html
Huh…went into this thinking it was going to be “men are oppressed because women can wear bright colors in professional settings,” but it turned out to be worse somehow…
You people crack me up. Feminism = femininity, jaysus.
I seldom read the full screeds of these fools, but I don’t need to. It made me want to throw something just getting the general idea! There is so much bullshit about women not being allowed to dress “like men” in professional jobs in the US from what I’ve heard, and to a lesser degree here… someone complaining about women dressing in a feminine manner is so fucking ridiculous!
Basically (a) fuck you, if I did a suit job *shudder* I would be as masculine as possible, and I bet you wouldn’t fucking like it. (b) Cleavage? Do you just draw imaginary boobs on every woman you see? Because there ain’t no cleavage in that photo. (c) It’s a *bad thing* that men are judged so much for not being plain, and your approach is not helpful, idiots.
I tend to think the former, since that thinking is so deeply ingrained in most people, even a lot of very feminist woman. Makes me sad and grumpy.
Yup. What the actual fuck, really. Grabbing someone because of the way they look is never an option, arsehole. Not everyone is as fucking pathetic at you, and for the millionth time, there is a fucking big difference between looking and ogling. Stop being deliberately obtuse, you embarrassment of a man.
And the idea that it’s emasculating to not in some way harass women daring to have breasts in public is really goddamn telling.
New Pierre!
(Warning: While this strip is very goofy, it does also depict sexual harassment.)
solipsism: It’s about amazing lips.
If women politicians and businesswomen wore clothes styled more like the men’s clothes, that’d probably be misandry as well.
Now, I hate to reccomend any one place to MRAs apart from “away”, but is Hawai`i the land of gender equality, with men in business and politics free to pick loud clothes?
Also, I’d be surprised if there weren’t a few Southern politicians in the photo in ostentatious boots and belt buckles. And look at all those garish bright ties! How can anyone take you seriously when you’ve got a silk ribbon tied around your neck pointing to your genitals! Those silly men.
These should all be in an MRA dictionary, because they’re all awesome and it would be hilarious to substitute them whenever you see them. Make about as much, if not more, sense than MRAs usually do.
@Katz
Link in the description of the new Pierre strip is displaying incorrectly.
A Pickup Artist’s Guide to Seducing a Sandwich
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/06/a-pickup-artists-guide-to-seducing-a-sandwich/277314/#disqus_thread
Idealism: its about advertising the fact that you deal cocaine.
Argh. On Comicfury you have to manually turn on HTML for every individual comment; I haven’t found a way to just turn on HTML all the time.
Pierre! And Poutine comes to his defense!
Catholicism: a state of being addicted to felines.
Bullionism: belief that everything originated from a infinity flavored bullion cube.
Agapism: mind the gap?
Atomism: everything is a tom cat.
Depression: the process by which ironed clothes come to be wrinkled again.
Yay Poutine! Cats will rescue us all!
If anything, the fact that these women are wearing suits is man-like enough. I suggest some cute summer dresses.
So that’s why cats like yarn so much!
Populism — how one becomes popular
Monarchism — the love of monarch butterflies
Capitalism — a need to captialize ALL THE LETTERS (pun very much intended)
Wanna guess what section I’m on? XD
It had to be collected somewhere, they were just too funny!
Leninism: a method to allow entry for Leonard and Leonard only.