Fellas, make up your minds! Are feminist ladies wily seductresses out to entrap innocent men using the power of their sexiness? Or are they evil uggos who never get laid?
While the zeta males over at A Voice for Men lament their alleged victimization at the hands of an alleged undercover feminist honey trap, who allegedly lured them into skeezy behavior by, among other things, crossing and uncrossing her legs, our old friend Heartiste once again assures his readers that feminist ladies are icky fugs:
A powerful shiv to the bloated gut of feminism is to remind normal, attractive women of the gross, ugly, and deranged feminist women (and their effete male lackeys) who purport to speak for all women. Women are nothing if not herd followers, and if it’s made clear to the Normal Majority of women that feminists are unbangable fugs no worthwhile man would touch with a manlet’s micropeen, then the herd will change course and leave the losers in its dust.
Hate to break it to you, dude, but you’re not the first person to try to defeat feminism using the brilliant strategy of calling feminists ugly. It never works.
You know what’s sexiest about every single one of those men listed in the above posts?When they whisper sweet words like : compassion, equality, “no justice, no peace”, abortion rights, equal wages and ” black lives matter”.
Whew! Those words just get a girl all revved up!
I’m gonna have to go take powder, now.
I think it’s kinda hilarious the way they try to deny their unhappy, meaningless existences and reinforce their dumbshittery by telling each other women are worthless.
And they wouldn’t want to bang most of us anyway.
I mean, sure, the hatred is vile and all. But I’m sort of glad they’re putting it out there in all its undeniable irrational douchitude. That way, everyone who isn’t a jackass* can join us in pointing and laughing at them.
* Apologies to Equus africanus asinus, a fine animal of infinitely more worth than Heartiste and his little friends.
Having seen a picture of Fartiste (real name: James Wiedmann), I really do have to chuckle at his use of words like “effete” and “manlet”.
I’m going to guess that “micropeen” is also a projection.
To Fartiste, “effete” is a code-word for homosexual.
To the rest of us, “effete” is what he puts in ‘e mouth.
GrumpyOldMangina, is that spoken in a ridiculous Italian accent? If so, I nailed it!
When you attack the appearance of your opponent instead of their actual argument, then you have committed a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem attack. When used, an ad hominem attack generally signifies that the attacker lacks valid points against their opponent, and that they need to resort to nonsensical arguments to distract from the total non-validity of their own argument.
It’s a very old joke that was first made about Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s VP, after he made a speech labeling Vietnam War opponents as “effete intellectual snobs.”
Hi, Bill. You seem to have stumbled into a site that is dedicated to mocking people like Fartiste whose opinions and lives are a total non-sequitur. Why don’t you go teach your kiddie friends how to logic — it might be useful to them.
I LOL’d.
Fun thing about Bill’s little spiel; while it’s kind of technically true occasionally, the same thing can be said about people who launch into overly-patronizing speeches about logical fallacies in response to an argument that isn’t meant to be a logical syllogism.
Bill, it’s difficult to tell what you’re referring to exactly, so I’ll ask straight out: are you referring to Heartiste’s ‘feminists are ugly’ argument?
I also assumed that Bill was referring to Heartiste’s argument that feminists are ugly and therefore bad. Bill, was that right?
I’ll apologize in advance if Bill was referring to Heartiste’s argument. I have a bit of a bugbear about people who are super focused on naming logical fallacies, especially “ad hominem.” I’ve seen it misused so many times I basically automatically assume the worst when I see it… which is very unfair of me.
Here’s the obvious thing that none of these asshats seem to know. It isn’t a secret. I thought everybody knew.
Ugly people get laid too and beautiful people also go without sexual satisfaction. People really do find things like kindness and wit attractive.You do not need to be a model to be charming or interesting. People find a variety of attributes sexy and see far more beauty in other people than Fartiste will ever understand.
Even if you are drop dead gorgeous, brilliant and positively perfect in every way, you’re still going to be lonely at least some of the time. Even if that were not so, sex is not the end all be all. Your happiness and your self worth should not be based on how many sexes you have accumulated or how many people think you’re pretty. The world does not work the way these odious litter leavings think it does. It’s much nicer.
GrumpyOldMangina,
I thought Bill was talking about Fartiste. After all, he’s the one making the “Ha ha you’re ugly” argument.
He was, wasn’t he?
Bill?
I was in fact referring to Heartise’s argument.
Yeah, sorry for being twitchy, Bill.
It was the lecturing tone that I was responding to (and I believe everyone will acknowledge I’m an expert on lecturing tone), But he could have been talking about Fartiste, I suppose, in which case, my apologies, Bill. If not, you sounded like a pedantic shit.
I guess the point is that we here have long since concluded that Fartiste is incapable of making a logical argument, so that analyzing his logical failures seems … well, a wasted effort.
I’m sorry if I’m twitchy, but for the last 24 hours or so I’ve been over on the GQ site (comments on Jeff Sharlet’s article) arguing with a posse of MRAs including Attila Vinczer and Janet Bloomfield and I’ve just been accused of being the moral equivalent of the KKK for using the phrase :Toxic Masculinity” which they think is the equivalent of racist and anti-semitic slurs. So I’m probably not making the tone adjustment from there to here very well.
On the humorous side, some of them apparently think I’m one of Dave’s sock-puppets.
Attila called me the Antichrist, and I was flattered until I realized he thought he was talking to David.
I’m not sure that I would characterize Heartiste’s argument is an ad hominem, really. The problem with ad hominems is that they are irrelevant. “She’s ugly, so she’s a bad politician!” is an ad hominem; but to Heartiste, whose definition of a good woman is an attractive one, “she’s ugly, so she’s a bad woman” is logical enough. If, y’know… really really gross.
Atilla just wrote this about me.
“Frankly, of all the people I have encountered throughout this world, you are the most horrid despicable evil freak of nature. The only true explanation, is you were severely abused as a child.”
Well, I must be doing something right.
Clearly the way to deal with someone you suspect was abused is to verbally abuse them. Nailed it, Atilla!
He… He can’t seriously be suggesting that there is no worse kind of person than one who is a survivor of child abuse, can he? I actually want to vomit.