By David Futrelle
Here’s a new one from the incel cesspit known as Incels.co: Women shouldn’t have the right to vote because they can already get whatever they want by using the hypnotic power of their sexy bodies on men.
In a post titled “Females Should NOT Vote,” an incel called COPE GmgH writes
Why should a female that only needs a passable body to succeed in life … care about freedom.
They don’t need to create something to have a good such [??] and for that reason they don’t care about freedom to own private property, freedom of speech.
Think about what kind of policies females push, the only thing they care about is undermining ugly men to eliminate them from the dating market and fuck the chads.
The states have become stronger because females have “been given” more political rights and female nature is submission, just like females don’t really negotiate for higher wages, they also don’t negotiate to have more rights.
Let’s throw some slightly veiled antisemitism into the mix:
And my fellowcels already know which elite wants females to have rights. Strong state is the enemy of mankind.
And there you have it.
As ludicrous as this argument is, it’s not that far off from an argument made by Warren Farrell, the intellectual godfather of the Men’s Rights Movement, who thinks that men are basically rendered powerless (or at least feel powerless) whenever they catch sight of a shapely female ass.
Incels’ terrible ideas about women don’t just appear out of nowhere; they take much of their inspiration from Men’s Rights and “Red Pill” ideology. Incels and MRAs aren’t exactly the same thing, but their ideas largely come from the same garbage dump.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
I have no idea if this is a female, but it is a shapely ass:
And you say men like to loose control when they see one? XD
Still looks like a more fun ass to play with than what the incels have in mind.
What if I’m over the wall and don’t have a sexy body? Can I vote then?
Um, I kind of do care about freedom of speech, and I’d imagine most other women do as well. Fellow women, do you care about freedom of speech?
Also, aren’t incels constantly complaining that women have too much in the way to rights?
Somehow I don’t remember that slogan from any of the feminist activism I’ve been involved in. I remember lots about abortion access and reducing wage gaps, but nothing about removing ugly men from dating markers.
Classic “small government” conservative, wants small government for himself but not for anyone else.
Wait, then why are you constantly angry about feminism if women aren’t trying to get more rights?
This whole thing is just weird. It’s like they took all the usual incel bullshit, inverted about half of it, and let it dry. Incels generally complain about women trying to get rights, and now they’re complaining about women not trying to get rights, but kept all their weird stuff about the sexual marketplace.
@WWTH
And what if I’m under the wall but not sexy? Then can I vote? Who will determine which women are able to vote?
@ redsilkphoenix
Whilst I do love me a donkey; if you want actual ass asses, various museums are having a ‘best bum’ challenge.
And also cats.
https://www.artfixdaily.com/news_feed/2020/07/08/5416-museums-battle-on-social-media-over-best-cats-mystery-objects-and
Why, indeed? Why should a woman want to be something other than a literal slave to a man? Why should she care about freedom, if having a “passable body” is all she needs to secure herself a master to serve?
It’s interesting that “freedom to own private property” was the first place this incel’s mind went when trying to think of freedoms. Freedom of speech is talked about a lot, so of course he brings it up, but ownership of property was his first thought. I’m not sure if that’s because he thinks women should be property, or if he’s so immersed in capitalism that “freedom to own capital” goes completely unquestioned in his mind.
Evangelicals will say the same thing, but evangelical women report that they have to fight themselves to submit as a general rule. Submission does not actually come naturally to them, despite believing fully that a woman’s God-designed place is under her father/husband. Even a woman who wants desperately to be in her “natural” place finds it unnatural to demure constantly, and there is a thriving business amongst high-profile evangelical women to help counsel other women on how to overcome this and submit anyway.
tl;dr: incels don’t know what they’re talking about when they discuss evopsyche biotruffs
@Alan Robertshaw
If you are ever in Boston, Massachusetts, at Faneuil Hall there is a painting of George Washington that I always found a bit laughable:
I can understand depicting him with his horse, but I always found it a bit odd how they chose to make the horse’s butt so prominent, as opposed to its head. Anyway, that’s my nomination for the best bum challenge.
@PoM
I read it as “women want socialism which means no private property,” but that might have been giving incels too much credit.
These jackwagons also think most women are hideous and unworthy *eye roll*
@ naglfar
You got me intrigued! So I did a bit of research. Here’s the supposed story.
The city of Charleston commissioned an artist called John Trumbull to paint a portrait of George Washington. He duly did so. However the city rejected it because it showed Washington at Trenton not Charleston (which they hadn’t actually specified in the contract). So they refused to pay him unless he redid the painting but with Charleston.
Trumbull did redo the painting; but with the horse about to crap on the town.
?resize=1200%2C994
But it seems “Washington is a horse’s arse” was not a unique sentiment amongst artists at the time; or maybe just artistic solidarity with Trumbull? I’ll have to check the dates.
Hope the tradition continues for Trump’s official portrait.
Ooh, and now I’m reminded of the Clinton one.
@Alan Robertshaw
It seems likely that the painting at Faneuil Hall is probably inspired by the Trenton one or reflecting a common view, as the one at Faneuil is by Gilbert Stuart, better known for a partially completed painting of Washington he made which was the source of the image on the US one dollar bill.
Regarding the Clinton portrait, the creator of that one famously said that Clinton was the “most famous liar of all time.” Not so anymore, I guess.
@ naglfar
I’ve put a call out to some of my art expert friends to see if they can shed any light on the subject.
As for unfinished presidential portraits; I think this one is especially poignant. I have a thing for uncompleted artworks; they can have really moving stories behind them.
@Alan Robertshaw
I’m also interested in unfinished music, like Mozart’s Requiem in D Minor or Mahler’s 10th Symphony. I have somewhat mixed feelings about latter day attempts to complete these works in the style of the original composers, but I do enjoy seeing the different ways of reconstructing music from unorganized manuscripts.
@ naglfar
Don’t get me started on A.I.!!!
@Alan: I was hoping someone would bring up the best bum competition.
How badly do you think it would blow these idiots’ minds if they heard about it and then discovered that the majority of the bums being nominated are men’s?
@Alan, these unfinished artworks are certainly poignant – see Adrian Brandon.com ‘Stolen’ – “This series is dedicated to the many black people that were robbed of their lives at the hands of the police. In addition to using markers and pencil, I use time as a medium to define how long each portrait is colored in. 1 year of life = 1 minute of color. Tamir Rice was 12 when he was murdered, so I colored his portrait for 12 minutes.”
@ rabid rabbit
Ooh yeah. And we could rub it in further by going all Ludovico Technique on them with this.
I think “such” in this case is used in the sense of “the subject which was previously mentioned”, i.e. it refers to “life” in the previous sentence. English may not be OP’s first language.
@ rabid rabbit
Oh, I posted the wrong video. I was thinking of this one. It pains out that, in western culture, the male form was seen to represent beauty until about the C18th. Then it shifted to women. But all those supposed traditional western men from classical times that MRAlt-right types idolise, would actually have been staring in admiration at men’s bums. I wonder how they’d rationalise that?
@ lizzie
Are you familiar with Shaun Leonardo’s work? He’s done some amazing stuff on that theme. I won’t post any images as they can be a bit intense; but well worth checking out. I would say they were prescient. They seem almost to be recording recent events, even though they were produced ages ago. But of course, police murders of black people is hardly a new thing.
But speaking of unfinished; you probably know this one. For those who don’t; this guy had just found out he was being drafted to Vietnam. The look on his face is powerful enough. Then you wonder why he never came back for the second sitting; and it hits you.
@Alan Robertshaw, Rabid Rabbit
It seems even today many heterosexual men do like to admire the bodies of other men. This seems to be why men’s magazines have so many pictures of shirtless muscular men and straight porn has so many shots of male actors’ penises. So although the culture has shifted, the idea of men admiring other men’s bodies has stuck around in some forms, though fewer would admit it. I’d imagine incels could rationalize it as that they think men are superior in general so it would be superior to look at a man’s butt.
Then again, alt rightists don’t seem to know much about the western civilization that they claim to love. Like how the Greeks had gay sex all the time.
I think Trump’s portrait can only be done justice by Joe Coleman.
https://joecoleman.com/ (NSFW in places)
@some chud:
Oh, really? What, exactly, do you think the suffragists were doing back in the nineteen-teens then?
@Naglfar:
Transporter accident?
By taking away voting right from Chad, would be my guess.
You need to appear before an all male panel somewhere and convince them that you aren’t sexy enough to efficiently manipulate men in social settings.
But the suffragists were ugly women, which we know because of all the reliable (male-produced, which is the same thing really)
propagandahistorical documents depicting them as such, so they obviously did not have the sufficient miniskirt power levels required to subvert democracy. Remember, women were given (Given! Typical.) the vote at the same time Communism (a known globalist plot) was making itself known (give or take a few years, it’s fine), so obviously it was all the culmination of a fiendish plot to wharble garble garble.@Alan
And the Greeks, who came up with the theories of the perfect male body we still mostly follow, thought that overlarge genitals were ridiculous.
@Naglfar
I often wonder how people like this, who doubtless enjoy porn, deal with the dicks. I mean, I think it’s pretty clear that one reason pseudo-lesbian porn is popular is that it gives straight guys two women and no icky penises, but they put on strap-ons so clearly they’d want a/your dick if only they could get it, so you don’t have to feel inadequate or worry that they could get by without you… But surely they must come across porn where, even unconsciously, they find themselves thinking that they prefer looking at that actor’s dick rather than that other actor’s one?
Men’s reactions to dicks is actually one of the things I found most fascinating when I was flipping through the Hite Report on Male Sexuality recently. Well, one thing that’s fascinating is how it’s definitely of its time: the answers are definitely not from today. But there’s a constant thread of “I’m definitely not gay” tied with strong statements (from the same guys) of “The male body is definitely esthetically superior to the female body, and a well-shaped dick is definitely better than what women have (which is why I don’t go down on them, ew).” In this day and age, I can’t imagine many manly men explaining how dicks are visually great, for fear of coming across as gay. Explaining how it’s great to have a dick, sure (which is probably the same thing as explaining that one is a dick), but going on about how great they look and how superior they are? Even saying “No homo” won’t save you these days.