The gentlemen bloggers of the Manosphere — particularly those obsessed with pickup artistry, a.k.a. “game” — like to pretend that they’re part of some sort of reactionary intellectual renaissance. Indeed, some have even convinced themselves that they’re part of a new “dark enlightenment.”
These intellectual pretensions are undercut rather thoroughly by the often puerile content of their blogs, in particular the bloggers’ obsession with cheap insults of the “yeah, well, you’re a fattie who can’t get laid” variety. Indeed, sometimes this seems to be their only real response to their many critics.
Some of these “dark enlightenment” intellectuals have discovered that crude, cheap, offensive insults garner more attention from the wider world than their sad attempts at serious philosophy. Witness some of Matt Forney’s dumb, attention-seeking provocations aimed at “fat girls” and female self-esteem.
Now “game” guru Roosh Valizadeh has decided to gin up some pageviews by launching a week-long assault on fatties, which began on Monday. In a post on his Return of Kings blog announcing the start of “Fat Shaming Week,” Roosh argues, with the utmost insincerity, that this is a public-minded intervention designed to make the world a better place:
We at ROK fully understand that the reason women are so against fat shaming is because it works. Mocking someone for lazy and slothful behavior is one of the best ways to motivate them to change and appear more pleasing before our presence. If a fat woman goes to the bar with attitude, thinking she’s a great catch, but several men check her for that arrogance by calling her a grenade launcher, do you think she’ll feel comfortable the next day for her scheduled cupcake and ice cream binge?
Even setting aside the fact of Roosh’s extreme assholery, this is simply not true. Fat shaming doesn’t work. In fact, as a recent study by Angelina Sutin at the Florida State University College of Medicine in Tallahassee found, it can actually lead to weight gain. Looking at data from more than 6000 participants in the nationally representative longitudinal Health and Retirement Study, Sutin found that
Participants who experienced weight discrimination were approximately 2.5 times more likely to become obese by follow-up … and participants who were obese at baseline were three times more likely to remain obese at follow up … than those who had not experienced such discrimination. These effects held when controlling for demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity, education) … .
She concludes:
The present research demonstrates that, in addition to poorer mental health outcomes, weight discrimination has implications for obesity. Rather than motivating individuals to lose weight, weight discrimination increases risk for obesity.
In other words, fat shaming makes people feel like shit, and it causes them to gain weight, not lose it. This is obvious to anyone who thinks about the subject for more than a few seconds: after all, we live in a society in which fat shaming is ubiquitous, and rates of obesity continue to rise.
But of course Roosh isn’t really interested in making anyone’s life better except his own. Indeed, it’s fairly clear that what’s really motivating his little campaign is a desire for revenge on the women who have turned him down over the years. He more or less comes out and says it:
Hurting people’s feelings is the quickest way to get them to change, as any man who has been rejected by women can tell you (we can get laid today only because we’ve adapted to being shamed and punished for our appearance and beta male behavior over the course of many years).
Huh. Does Roosh really want to create a world full of bitter, angry women who are essentially female equivalents of him, using and manipulating men for their own pleasure without remorse?
Well, no. I’m sure he didn’t think it through that far. He just wanted an excuse to post a bunch of crap making fun of fat women.
So what sort of public spirited content did Roosh offer his readers during Fat Shaming Week?
A post urging men to take unflattering pictures of fat women without their permission — and post them on Twitter in order to shame them.
A post, evidently inspired by Matt Forney’s “Why Fat Girls Don’t Deserve to Be Loved,” titled “5 Reasons Fat Girls Don’t Deserve Love.” In it, semiliterate dating coach Christian McQueen explains, among other things, that “fat girls” smell (because “[i]t’s impossible to be that fucking fat and be able to wash your ass properly”), are bad at sex (because he cannot find their vaginas “unless I roll you around in flower [sic] and look for the wet spot”), and eat too much. He concludes:
Your fatness is the human version of a dead hippo, a beached whale, or to put it more bluntly, a human size cupcake: spongy on the outside, round and full of crap.
Really? Where exactly are you buying your cupcakes, dude, because normally cupcakes are delicious.
Another “humorous” post compares “fatties” with wild animals and suggests ways to kill them if you’re the victim of a “fatty attack.” Douglas writes:
Fatties tend to have poor hygiene habits so physical contact can be unsanitary. Their physiology provides many unique difficulties to overcome. Their thick skull is an effective counter to blows to the head. Their bulk is a good defense against projectile weapons. While big game cartridges such as .300 Winchester magnum and .338 Lapua can put a fatty down, a man would have a difficult time explaining to a grand jury why he was packing such a weapon outside of Africa.
“Emmanuel Goldstein” contributes “5 Ways To Bully Fat Sluts On A Date,” full of hilarious suggestions like “Go Bike-Riding Together” (because fatties can’t ride bikes!), “Go For A Hike Together,” (because fatties hate to walk!) and “Go Ice Skating Together” (because she’ll fall through the ice!).
There are several more “fat shaming week” posts up; they’re equally puerile.
Roosh and his pals have also taken their campaign to Twitter, posting such gems as these, using the hashtag #fatshamingweek.:
#FatShamingWeek selfish cunts. Children from fat mothers probability wise, are dumber, fatter, more prone to depression. Wipe de sperm off.
— Francis Begbie (@BegbieBegbie) October 8, 2013
https://twitter.com/Beppo_Venerdi/status/387635431283515392
https://twitter.com/JacquesJournal/status/387844928052543488
https://twitter.com/RealCMcQueen/status/388494710580326400
https://twitter.com/Feisty_Woman/status/388458961705250816
https://twitter.com/EsotericTrad/status/388331081344487425
Even Tom Leykis, the semi-popular radio misogynist, has gotten into the act:
#FatShamingWeek what a great idea! If your girl looks like a human Cinnabon or a Butterball, make her feel like shit! http://t.co/cjbLvvNKeB
— Tom Leykis (@tomleykis) October 11, 2013
Happily, the hashtag has been pretty much taken over by feminists and fat acceptance activists and other people countering the douchebaggery of Roosh et al.
And the only real media coverage the campaign has gotten — from Buzzfeed and The Daily Dot — has focused on the sheer douchebaggery of the fat shamers.
So it seems that the main effect of Fat Shaming Week has actually been to advance the cause of Fat Acceptance, not to undermine it.
Brilliant, dudes. Just brilliant.
Weird thing: I never got carded until I was too old to be carded… The age that they say they’ll card you at is 25 in stores here, and I was never carded until after I’d turned 26…
Speaking of… I cannot articulate what is wrong with this article, but I feel like it’s seriously flawed. Anyone better with words have any ideas? It’s been really bugging me that I can’t articulate why I dislike it…
Halfway through the first part of that article and the first thing that grossed me out was the “whose genitals you want to lick” – way to lose your audience, alleged psychiatrist.
There’s also the assumption that everyone is interested in other people sexually, whether they’re admitting it or not. Hello, I don’t want to look good for men or women; I do look good to the one person who cares. By this argument, we can’t wear clothes we like, either, without being dishonest or something.
And with the article’s title the fail begins…
Another thing: this whole article is just word salad. I can’t even figure out wtf they’re trying to say in half their sentences.
And this was just laughably stupid/ baffling:
What’s that bullshit about having a stroke? Why would I run away from men who said they feel better wearing makeup? What a fucking stupid piece of rubbish this article is. Can’t have women even thinking they do something to please themselves, oh no. It’s all got to be about the menz.
For someone who’s spent a good part of their life immersed in the goth, visual kei, and glam rock subcultures this is like reading dispatches from another planet. Also, fun fact! Shiseido makes foundation for men.
SittieKitty – I’m reading it, and this is what I’m coming up with”
– It’s upholding a gender role by saying that “men wearing makeup is wrong”. Quote: “How would you like to live in a world where men had to wear make up? “Oh, I love make up on a guy, especially eyeliner.” Of course you do, you’re having a stroke. Ask it this way: how would you like to be in a world where men said,” oh, I feel so much better about myself when I’m wearing makeup.” You’d run for the nearest totalitarian regime.”
– It presumes that everything a woman does is for men, and that women have absolutely no choices in the matter. It presupposes that if women choose to wear makeup it’s for a dude, and if a woman chooses to NOT wear makeup, it’s ALSO for a dude.
– “WHAT ABOUT THE MENZZZZZZZZ!” vibe. Quote: “I think the answer is supposed to be, “it’s empowering to women”, but you should wonder: when more women enter a field, it means less men did, and if the men stopped going there, where did they go? Why did they leave? I assume they aren’t home with the kids, right?”
– More gender stereotyping, in order to imply that the only reason things change is because men let them change, and that any improvements in the well-being of women is because of dudes. Quote: “This works in reverse, too, take a field traditionally XX-only, like nursing, and, huh, what do you know– at the time where nursing is more powerful than it has ever been, there are also more XY in it than ever. But who made it more powerful? It wasn’t nurses. And if you’re playing that game, ask if the reason “sexy nurses” as a fetish dropped out somewhere around the 90s had nothing to do with females finally getting control over their sexualization but exactly the opposite, men came in and unsexualized the joint.”
– It basically implies that as soon as a woman comes by and plays the same game, all the men don’t want to play anymore, and all a woman wants is power, power, and more power. But power only comes from dudes, and hence women fuck everything over.
In other words, it’s a “men do everything for women, women can’t do anything themselves, the only reason women get anywhere is because of a dude”. It’s akin to the “men hunted the mammoth for you ladies”.
Does that help?
I mean: how does this jackass explain people who loathe the idea of sexually attracting other people in general, regardless of gender, but wear makeup?
Can we get TMI for a minute. I like putting eyeliner on men. As in, REALLY like.
Alice – great takedown.
I wonder how this loser would account for all the cultures, apart from the subcultures today, where makeup for men was a thing? Might make their little head asplode.
kittehserf – “Oh, you subconsciously want to do it for a dude! It’s nature, damn it!”
Cassandra – whoo, that’s a TMI idea I like! (The putting-on, not who’s doing it, I mean.)
Alice – LOL I wonder what herpaderp shrink would feel if he* knew The Dude would be just as happy if I didn’t wear makeup? I don’t wear it at Home, that’s for sure.
*assuming Writerus Idioticus is a bloke, too lazy to look for a byline
Well, the first obvious nonsense in that article is this:
For the love of god. If the question was “Is slavery wrong?” would he go “Everyone agreed that slavery is wrong! Obviously slavery is therefore right!”? He’s clearly an attention troll who’s fixated in the special-snowflake “if everyone hates my opinion, that’s because they can’t handle the truth” mentality.
When you get a bit further down it turns into boilerplate antifeminist babble, Jessica Valenti is the anti-Christ and so on. Not worth trying to analyze, really.
Excellent Alice! Thank you.
This, so much, out of everything, is what bugged me.
I mean, the article is pretty bad in general, but it was just very confusing and I couldn’t figure out how to word it… especially since there are things on that person’s blog I don’t mind, but it was just so… yeah. It really really bugged me when I first read it and I couldn’t think of anything to say but that it was super misogynist.
kittehs – Well, I don’t wear make up most of the time, out of choice and laziness, so… 😛
I’m still trying to figure out why I’m having a stroke.
Because of excessive arousal, possibly? I mean, I did mention that I really like eyeliner on men.
I guess it’s the super hardcore version of saying that someone was so hot looking at them gave you a nosebleed.
I sometimes like makeup, I sometimes don’t, but I like it because I like the way it looks, or doesn’t look… not because someone else does… I really just don’t understand his whole premise I guess. I don’t understand the idea behind it, I don’t understand why gender essentialism, ijdgi.
SittieKitty – No problems. It’s really obnoxious, in the “women can’t do anything for themselves” kind of way. I swear the thesis really is “men are the center of the universe, and if you disagree with me, it’s because you’re a stupid woman who doesn’t know any better, now shut up and make me a sandwich, I know you want to”.
katz – I’m reading it as “you’re too stupid, obviously the only person who likes makeup on dudes is really mentally “.
DAMN IT. Should be [insert your choice of slur for people with mental disabilities here]
Roughly speaking, any argument of the form “whether or not you should do a thing that doesn’t affect anyone but yourself is predicated on some other person or outside factor” is always going to be wrong. Doesn’t matter if he makes the most well-reasoned argument in the world, “I kinda felt like it” is still going to be a valid counterargument for why you in particular should do that thing that you felt like just then.