We’ve met “Ian Ironwood” before, the prolific red pill mememaker with a fondness for retro images and retrograde sexual politics.
Today, I’ve assemble what you might call a little meme essay made up of images he’s posted. Prepare yourself in advance for a BIG IRONIC SURPRISE TWIST ENDING!
Oh dear, I’ve kind of spoiled the surprise. Oops.
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan!
I had no idea that “idealism” consisted of thinking of women as little more than vagina delivery systems. I guess that’s what the red pill teaches you, huh?
These memes can be summarized as:
‘Eww! Vagina cooties!’
Aww…
Also, if one’s vagina is literally the most interesting thing about a person, either they are very, very uninteresting (I’m a terrible bore, so my genitals very well could be the most interesting thing about me), or they have a rather fascinating vagina. Like an O’Keefe painting come to life, or some shit
@Viscaria
1)Interesting is a word I use, no doubt problematically, to describe women, who fall outside of certain, rigid definitions of attractiveness yet are nevertheless attractive to me. Fat, muscular, older, of color, the like
2)Personality can be viewed as a subset of one’s physical ‘looks’. For example, a ‘rock chick’ with the piercings, and the tats, and the mohawk, and such forth fan be physically attractive due to her ‘interesting’ appearance choices tied to her ‘interesting’ personality
And now that I’ve splained all over a perfectly good joke, I’ll see myself out…
@IP
Always a New Yorker in my heart, but not in location, I’m afraid
@Falconer
Welcome back, Finn!
No need to posit anything other than spending hours watching TV, movies, listening to music, going to school, hanging with the guys, and being generally regarded better by society. I have a brother the same way, and none of that made him that way. He just enjoyed being the “oldest son” and therefore superior to his sisters (and his younger brother), all of whom were as capable as he was, but were told otherwise.
Society tells these things to young boys every day; he’s just saying what is usually just unspoken in the different treatment between men and women.
Just looking at those shoes hurts my feet.
@Axe
Oh sure, fair enough. But I’m guessing you don’t like announce “I like interesting women!” to all the lucky vintage-bestockinged ladies you meet.
This is such a lovely bit of wordplay that it brightened my afternoon. Tip o’ the hat to you, Alan.
@Viscaria
Me? Chat up a woman? To her face!? Don’t even joke about that! I’d likely pass out from sweat dehydration before I finished that sentence
Max is my spirit animal
Worse: Zombifying Vagina Goo! That’s why vaginae are so much more fascinating than all the rest of their bearers…and also why they have the power to sap and impurify men’s Precious Bodily Fluids!
“This is why we talk to you”. So we can snack on your carotid artery?
@IP – I’ll be driving through NY/NJ in two days, can I wave at youse guys? Be careful not to fall prey to a Redpill lure or a roving Daily Storm pickup team!
@Alan – What freemage said. I suppose next they’ll be whining that double standards are an extra burden that lazy feeeemales just expect men to carry for them.
It just goes to show the patriarchy is bad for men. If all these MRA types only see men as rampaging animals hell bent on shooting their load all day, isn’t that insulting to men who have actual interests, even if they are Airfix kits, model trains, football and beer!
It reminds me of some of the Christian Right views of men as potential rapists, because women are showing too much ankle and men are uncontrollable.
Do MRAs think the most interesting thing about them is their shrivelled pox ridden dicks?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2014/07/quoting-quiverfull-rape-is-natural/
I’m always confused by these MRA memes, like they don’t appear to fulfil the criteria of being memetic and use way, waaaaaaay to many words. And don’t involve cats. Men confuse me, I think it’s time to return to my speed run of The Secret Of Monkey Island. Guybrush Threepwood might be a successfulish pirate but he certainly isn’t an alfalfa douchbag. Possibly why he is still so beloved by gamers of all genders? Hmmm?
I don’t mean to kinkshame, but “A Foot of Cleavage” is the oddest erotica site I’ve ever visited.
@Axecalibur
Please don’t do that.
@Dali
Fair enough
VAMPIRES! I knew it! Only parasitic bloodsuckers would be after one thing!
http://24.media.tumblr.com/8069eaa4a139486749ce516d0b5c1bd1/tumblr_my6r1uEeFu1rp0vkjo1_500.gif
Apologizes to vampires everywhere.
“We only want you for your vagina… but it’s not that special “princess”.”
I’m getting mixed messages.
This kind of thinking is honestly fascinating to me. Why would you be interested in vagina, but not the person attached to it? A vagina is a piece of flesh, nothing more. If that’s all you want, you might as well warm up a piece of ham, slather it in oil and then fuck that.
I mean, genitals only become interesting when they’re attached to someone I find attractive (which includes me finding them interesting as a person). I don’t fuck you because of your dick, I fuck your dick because of you.
Red Pillers keep going on about how a woman has to be thin, pretty, obedient and willing to bend over backwards to deserve their dick, yet they claim to care for nothing except a warm hole.
It’s puzzling, truly.
Complains that men aren’t treated fairly as human beings and are the victims of sexism…
… makes a whole batch of memes pretending that “all men” are one and the same, and are only after vaginas and whatnot.
Ya know, if they want to put an end to feminism, they should try and find a way to give mass to irony. Given how much of it they throw at us every day, we’d be crushed.
@Blackrising
If only they would just stick to fleshlights and actually Went Their Own Way.
“Always have options!” surprised me. I had no idea Mitt Romney was such a player.
@varalys
I love me some Guybrush Threepwood.
Of course I’m an opportunistic lover! I’m a greedy pansexual according to a good chunk of the LGBT community and lots of straight people.
I date people who aren’t cis dudes for the opportunity to date someone who doesn’t consider me as anything more than a vagina that they can abuse. And what a wonderful opportunity it is.
Ian Ironwood is trying to make us think that all men are like him — or at least who he says he is at the moment.* If he succeeds, this will (at least in his mind) serve the purpose of making him appear less odious (I’m just one of the crowd, baby!) and thus more popular with women (You’re not going to do any better than me, baby!).
When women say that if that’s true, women need to (1) hire only women, and (2) look elsewhere for companionship, he ignores us. Because he’s got an argument, damn it, and just the one argument, damn it, and he’s not giving it up.
*Does Ian Ironwood says something very, very different to the women in his life? Something along the lines of You know I don’t mean that stuff? Like all the misogynistic right wingers do when cornered?
Hey, Ian, like Fox News, I’m just asking questions.
http://jezebel.com/331294/barbara-walters-10-most-fascinating-people-of-2007-was-actually-fascinating
Is it just me or does that last meme look like the two dudes are giving each other bedroom eyes?
Unrelated to that, I can only assume that “loving idealistically” means that they do not fall in love with a person, but with an ideal, a perfect woman who gorgeous 100% of the time and never has to put any effort into maintenance, strokes their ego tirelessly, does all of their chores and laundry, makes them food, acts like a pornstar for them and only them, never requires anything that costs money, and never expresses any kind of opinion of her own. And then of course when the women they come across fail to live up to this ideal, they’re stupid worthless [insert plural slur of choice here].
The whole “men love idealistically, women love opportunistically” thing meshes with the “women can never hurt a man with options” thing better than it might first appear, in an in-universe sort of way. It’s a line of argument that I associate with Rollo Tomassi and his blogroll, and it goes something like this: men love idealistically in the sense that they love women for their intrinsic characteristics (cup size, waist/hip ratio, hair color, length, and texture, number of previous partners), while women love opportunistically in the sense that they love men for their extrinsic characteristics (social status, income, learned skill in projecting an arrogant attitude). This means that if a man, in his idealism, reveals some defect or weakness to his wife in the hope that, since she loves him for who he really is, she will be willing to support him in whatever way he needs to be supported, the same as he would if the positions were reversed. The wife, loving opportunistically, will interpret this display of weakness as her husband admitting that he no longer has the same extrinsic characteristics that he once had, will divorce him. Since there’s no realistic way to go through your whole life without ever allowing someone who lives in your house and sleeps in your bed to see you in a moment of weakness, a man should be prepared for his wife to leave him by knowing that he “has options”, that he should easily be able to find a new woman with the same characteristics that attracted the old one, and should make sure that his wife is aware that she isn’t actually all that special to him so that she’ll be less likely to stray.
Pretty stupid, I know, but in my opinion reading this stuff is more interesting and less scary if you try to follow its internal logic.