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.
The blockquote monster is hungry tonight.
I was under the impression that the old Safesearch settings was filter-nothing > filter-images-only > filter-images-and-text and wouldn’t help much in letting content that’s not quite worksafe per se but not porn thru? I don’t know. Perhaps the internet’s just getting pornier?
I remember it as having settings for safe search strict, moderate and off, same for images or web pages generally when you set your preferences; it defaulted to moderate. It was certainly more useful that way than it is now. Time was I could search for a photo of a nude, for instance, and not be flooded with porn; now there’s no way to search for anything with “nude” or “naked” in the terms without getting all the ewwnothanks stuff being the majority.
If you really want to wear colorful suits, men, it’s up to you to not make fun of and emasculate other men who choose to wear outfits that aren’t colorless. It’s really that simple. There are plenty of prominent male fashion designers who I’m sure would just love to dress you. No need to take it out on the women who express themselves through color.
Forgot to add your definition of Catholicism was the winner. 😀
Reblogged this on iheariseeilearn.
It’s not fair! Back in evolutionary times, male cave-senators did all the peacocking. Now look at them, standing around all drab and emasculated, unable to ogle or grab.
Is there anything more omega than a United States senator?
Katz, this is the first time I have seen the article that Voice for Pierre was based on. I like the fact that the worst fate us Western women can expect is to live in a luxury house that we own. Since we don’t have to care for her son (who is an ENGINEER because women can’t be ENGINEERS) we have the free time to dedicate to hobbies, cats and friends. Oh the horror! How can I cope not being married to her hypocritical son.
Pictures!
Finally finished the jumper for my hairdresser this week, and here she is wearing it today. She was planning to team it with a fancy belt and black boots for a party tonight. I hope she takes pics!
Also tonight’s photocomposite: Miss Rochelle gets a cuddle.
I think that those guy’s ties are just as colorful as the ladysuits up front, it really is more about the conventions of businesswear than about wait why I am taking any of this seriously
I swear to god, these people don’t exist in the real world – they just create their own wherein the sky is red, water is dry, and women exist to friendzone all these fedora’d losers.
America’s Founding father’s wore tight pants, wigs and Cuban heels. Oh, and he’s a tid-bit from ABC News:
“RuPaul is giving it a twirl and walking the political catwalk to disprove once and for all that he’s not presidential candidate Ron Paul.
The confusion started four years ago when the actor, model and drag queen was mistaken for libertarian-leaning presidential candidate Ron Paul, 76.
Despite the obvious physical contrasts and their 25-year age difference, the star of “RuPaul’s Drag Race” was peppered with questions mostly concerning her presidential platform. “They get confused when I tell them that my platform is six inches and is covered in rhinestones,” a flabbergasted RuPaul, 51, said.
His mission is simple. He’s in New Hampshire to have his picture taken with the Texas congressman so America can once and for all not confuse the two, although he concedes that his pussycat wig and high heels do make a fierce political statement.
“Our founding fathers wore wigs, did you ever think about that,” said the performer who was born in San Diego as RuPaul Andre Charles.
The drag queen diva says he’s best suited to serve America by finding its next drag queen superstar.
When asked what Ron Paul’s drag name would be, RuPaul quickly retorted “RuPaul.”
@SittieKitty
Thanks 🙂 feeling much better after sleep. I’ve just got a lot of stuff today, including finishing the cake I was whining about earlier. And helping my dad move.
@Dvarghundspossen
Ditto. Along with many other things I don’t understand about misogynists, I don’t get how they can’t just think “ok she’s hot. Ok now I’m going to go finish my errands” Or do they just feel the need to verbalize it :/
@kittehs
Which only makes it sound awesomer! 😀
D’awww. so cute!
This is one of those perennial things I don’t understand. Most of us, when we see a hot person (especially scantily clad), can enjoy looking at the hot person and then go on with our life. We don’t need to stare at them so long they get uncomfortable and we certainly don’t need to grope them or throw a shit-fit because they got off at the next subway stop and didn’t have sex with us.
@kittehserf: I was totally trying to make up a word. I thought of unosexual, but that sounds like making card games sticky and left out the polyamorous. Fidel is faithful but I thought of it more in the trust aspect. I dunno, it is clunky and unused.
Unoamorous: a more literal love of uno?
I also remember the moderate safe search. I wonder if they gave up because of inconsistency? That or maybe people were unclear on the expectations and Google/Bing got tired of trying to explain that moderate safe search did not mean a complete lack of naughty bits.
@argenti Glad to help in any way I can!
Neo-dadaism: Liking your stepfather more than your biological father.
My original comment went into moderation, not sure why, but anyhoo — America’s Founding Fathers all wore wigs, Cuban heels and snug pants. And, so what, misogynists?
Stop policing the genders, dudebros. And no one cares that the sight of boobies turns you into blithering idiots.
Most of these MRAs consider it axiomatic that any cishet woman can have sex with any cishet man she wants to at any time, if she offers, by virtue of men being “unchoosy.” Pair this with the assumption that women are only looking for sex insofar as this will land them a lifelong relationship with a breadwinner, and it starts to become clear why they think it’s discrimination for women to wear low cut tops and why they think that “alphas” are hoarding all the sex. It’s a neat trick as it renders everything Woman’s fault, even, ultimately, assault.
These guys don’t have room in their brains for the idea that many cishet women enjoy occasional recreational sex, or at least see men they’re attracted to but can’t just walk up and proposition, but that much like most men, women will tend to seek out longterm/stable partnerships (serial monogamy is just practical, in most societies, for everyone involved). It’s female hyperchoosiness that is keeping them from sex, not their personalities or toxic beliefs about human sexuality.
If Women do not want their clothing to be a topic, something noted about. Like that reporter asking Hillary Clinton who her favored designer was, These women need to make clothing choices that make their choices in clothing not note worthy. This photo makes it clear that female senators are SCREAMING “I’m different, look at my clothes”. This is a very real very conscious choice by these women. I won’t say the choice is wrong. These women’s choices have gotten them into the halls of power. I will say that the choice of clothing is a real choice with both positive and negitave affects. I will not deny these women’s agency by attempting to shield them from the affects of their choices.
Wearing a color other than black or dark gray is literally SCREAMING. The things I learn here…
Does that mean all the men who are wearing colorful ties and shirts are screaming for attention as well, or is it ok for them because they are men? I need to get to make sure I get the rules right.
That was painful to read, truly, genderneutral.
“…I will not deny these women’s agency by attempting to shield them from the affects of their choices.”
Eessh.
It’s just too easy to offend if your a woman, seriously. We have to go around saying, “I am wearing a particular color, please don’t assassinate my character because of it. Please?”
Jesus Christ.
genderneutrallanguage, please, go out and research this for us. Tell me about the differences in men’s fashion and the differences in women’s fashion. I don’t know if you’ve done this before, but why don’t you go out and try to find a woman’s suit that’s plain (black, grey, navy), looks good, fits and is comfortable, and isn’t sexualized. Then head out to a men’s clothing store and do the same. Time how long each takes you. Then come back and pontificate on how easy it is. I’ll wait…
GNL: Do you really expect us to toss that word salad for you? Shut up.
No, ironically he’s denying the men’s agency to choose a reaction that isn’t the result of calling men base creatures with no control. If I believed this bullshit about how men only have those three reactions available to them… I don’t think I’d ever go outside, I’d be too worried about assault.
Is this a riddle? A failed attempt at a haiku?
Learn to grammar, asshole.