A feminist by the name of Jenables left the following comment on my Rant on the “Objectification” of Women.
Something tells me you aren’t looking hard enough, because there are certainly famous women and models who financially support charities which help women who have been abused. However, a refusal to see is a refusal to see. Not all feminists are ugly, old and irrational. All would like society to recognize women more as people instead of things. You are young, and perhaps lucky enough to have not witnessed the effects of reducing women to objects..in the words of Jean Kilbourne ” objectifying someone is ALWAYS the first step in justifying violence against them. This tactic is intentionally used in the military; how on earth else can a regular person justify killing someone else? By not thinking of them as human, not addressing their humanity at all. Of course woman want to feel good, of course it’s nice to be told we are attractive… But that shouldn’t be our only goal or definition of self worth, and right now that’s the message i see a lot of. And you may not have the frame of reference to understand that it’s ingrained in you. You are going to have to be open minded and very conscientious to not turn into a scumbag. Please note that nothing I’m saying indicates that women should repress their sexual freedom, unlike you..” men define a slut as a girl who touches too many penises and too easily, and not as a girl who wears a short skirt” and by the way, maybe you should google slutwalk in relation to that statement . Never hurts to educate yourself, does it? See, i was just going to call you a shrimp dick and be done with it, but i realized it’s not really fair if someone has a narrow view and had been subjected to a bullshit mainstream media all their short life. Besides, you would label me as an ” unattractive feminists cry about “objectification” it’s the same deal as a when a child throws a tantrum: “If I can’t be objectified, then all you non-ugly girls can’t be objectified either!”. You would be more secure in your beliefs that the only thing that a woman can offer is her image, and any dissenting opinions stem from her image not being up to par. I’m not sure you will understand my point given you clearly quantify women by attractiveness and see nothing wrong with that, but hey, unless you have the same system for the men in your life, that’s hardly equality, is it?
I’ll keep this short:
1. Famous actresses and models overwhelmingly donate to climate/environmental issues (best example is the Miss Earth paegant) or to combating HIV/AIDS (eg. Miss Universe) or poverty and hunger in the Third World. You do not see them campaigning for feminist issues in the 1st world. I’m sure you could find isolated examples, but the exceptions only prove the rule.
2. You’re blaming my “evil” views on the mainstream media, when it’s actually the opposite. The mainstream media is extremely white knightey and feminist. It’s pretty clear that you’ve stumbled onto this blog without having been previously exposed to the Manosphere. Checkout the blogs of Heartiste‘s or or Solomon the Rationale Male‘s if you are as open minded as you claim you are.
Miss Universe Ximena Navarrete
3. As for the Slutwalks, I should clarify. The use of the word slut in the context of clothing is overwhelmingly from females to fellow females. It’s a way of making the attention the other girl has gotten “not count”. The guys who judge a girls promiscuity by the skimpiness of their clothing are the guys with the least success with women who believe the female definition of a slut. Rapists and the Toronto policeman no doubt fitted into the Beta or Omega category (my guess, at least 90% of the male population are), hence where the issue stemmed from. In reality at night at a party or a club you just cannot tell whose easier then who by they dress (tattoos and piercings and drunken antics are a different ballpark).
4. The reality is, that the system that feminism opposes is a one that serves the interest of attractive women. The reasons feminists are ugly is because feminism repels attractive women because it doesn’t benefit them. Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking. If modern feminists were successful, attractive women would be facing a hell of a lot more competition to land the commitment of her “Mr Big” or “Prince Charming” and trust me when I tell that you the average cute girl on the street knows this deep down, hence why her and none of her peers attended Slutwalks, which I witnessed with my own two eyes.
5. Your last sentence compels me to point you to Manosphere blogs. You’ll find plenty under the Evil Patriarchy list to the right. Start with the three I mentioned in point 2. People of both sexes rank women first and foremost by their sexual attractiveness, it’s instant, the sight of an attractive women fires up the same parts of our brain as does snorting coke and it’s not because of the media, the same has been observed in newborns (Google it, I’ve run into it and similar multiple times). White knight male feminists who say otherwise are lying to appease you and get into your pants and deep down you know, which is why you don’t want to fuck most of them. MEANWHILE, both sexes rank men by their Alphaness, basically their confidence, charisma and their social dominance.
Former Miss Universe Jennifer Hawkins
6. I don’t give a fuck if it’s equal or not because like it or not, because unlike women a man’s looks only make up a fraction of his overall sexual attractiveness. The top of the pile for men will always be guy who reminds girls of James Bond (the hormonal effects of the pill will dampen this burning desire for raw masculinity, but only to a certain extent). The top of the pile for women will always be the girl who reminds guys of Adriana Lima. In a business or in an academic context it’s a different story, but this is the sexual marketplace we’re talking about and on the basis of probability you’re either fat (assuming you’re from an English speaking country) or plain looking.
7. The reason myself and my fellow “Manosphere” bloggers always attack the rampant physical unattractiveness of modern feminists is because they’re flies in our ears. These women (by the sounds of it you included) are sexually invisible to us, we don’t want to fuck you because you don’t give us boners, but you keep begging and begging to “change the culture” and somehow make us want to fill you with out Alpha seed. Imagine if the biggest creep/loser/beta male you knew kept begging you to JUST give him a shot, that’s what it feels like to be charismatic guy with his shit together when he’e constantly confronted by you and your feminist sisters. Even if we we wanted to, our respective evolutionary guiding forces repel us from wanting to fuck the creepy loser/ugly girl. I’m sorry doll face, but no matter how far the feminists go, they will never be able to make the men you most strongly desire (the George Clooneys, the James Bonds, the hot guy with the motorcycle, hell even the Justin Biebers) want to commit to you. If you’re lucky, 15 minutes in heaven is all you get.
Adriana Lima
Sometimes I feel sorry for girls, bar plastic surgery they’re stuck with the genetic hand they’re dealt with. You can’t say Little P Dog doesn’t have a big heart.
Miniature p, i can tell you things to back up my assertions, but you are not going to hear them, because it’s easier for you to label me a feminist within your narrow definition of what a feminist is, decide no cute girl would ever attend a slutwalk, and perpetuate the opinion that the only thing a girl wants or needs is to be sexually attractive. Guess as women get older they have nothing to offer? Like your mum, for example. She’s gotta be older, probably not sexually attractive anymore, right ? So what makes her relevant as a women? Anyways, you seem to think you’ve crushed me, but you are actually just proving my point. I’m not really interested in talking with someone who CAN’T see my opinion because they don’t understand that I’m entitled to have one, being that apparently my life objective is to get men to try to Fuck me and eliminate my competition, as a women. You don’t read as a confident alpha male, you read as a desperate insecure boy trying hard to be one. I’d tell you to grow up, but i don’t really give a Fuck. Maybe after you get rejected for the two thousandth time you’ll get it, maybe not. One question: are you saying there is no downside to objectifying women? For them, not you.. I’m sure you grew up being told constantly how amazing and special you are not being allowed to walk to the store and play outside and getting participant trophies for doing nothing all your life so it may be hard to answer that question, if you can’t pull your head out of your ass. Oh, and just so you know, re-stating your opinion only proves you have one, and opinions are like assholes…. Everyone has one, most are full of shit.
You’re using strawmen to bring the topic of discussion away from the sexual marketplace. Nothing matters besides your looks, femininity, promiscuity and overall pleasantness of personality. Your achievements and success however great they may be are 100% irrelevant in the sexual marketplace beyond this. If this were a consideration of your credentials to be a tenured professor at The Wharton School then you’re gender and looks or what have you would not be relevant, but this isn’t and they are. You haven’t bothered to argue what men do and don’t find attractive in women based on our evolution, so I will assume you accept them as fact and are up to date on the research (I have no idea if you’re a regular lurker of sites like mine or a random who stumbled upon it without a frame of reference).
The reality on the ground is, the women who hate hate hate the objectification of women are NEVER the ones who are being objectified. Never. “If I can’t be objectified, then nobody can!” – your rationalization hamster. Attractive women are sex objects, attractive men are social dominance objects. It is made perfectly apparent the desperateness to which ATTRACTIVE women WANT to be objectified that the positives outweigh the negatives. This will repulse you at first, but think objectively about the behaviours of attractive women. Go take a look at their Facebook profiles and you’ll see exactly what I mean, attractive young girls going out of their way to be objectified. I sympathise with the plain girls who want the boners of men to respond to their intelligence and achievements the way women are attracted to men, but alas our evolution has robbed said women of that possibility.
The entire objectification of women speech emanating out of Women’s Studies lectures is what the following addresses:
“Feminism is the set of ideologies whose aim is to redistribute the natural allocation of access to desirable men. It is Marxism in the Sexual, rather than Economic Marketplace.” – http://www.freedomtwentyfive.com/2012/06/why-feminists-are-ugly/ A fellow member of this corner of the net said this definition was unfair to Marxism, which I agree with since we’re both on the (centre) Left and because the post ignores the driving economic and profit motivated forces behind feminism, but it has its merits for the basis of this discussion. Attractive women want to be objectified, feminists don’t like that women are being objectified, but none of them are being objectified themselves, it is not their problem and therefore not their place to rain on the parade of attractive women (if they’re not motivated by redistributing to them the attention of the men they desire, which they are). Just to clarify again, I am strictly talking about the SMP here, not your accomplishments as a human being which have zero relevance to this discussion concerning females.
I think I’m wasting my time here. Instead of debating the points I actually articulated in these two posts you’ve engaged in pointless diatribes which have nothing to do with rigorous debate. Either contest the individual points I’m making without using strawmen and extending the argument beyond the sexual marketplace or don’t bother replying. I actually like having intellectually rigorous discussions, if it hasn’t already been made obvious to you I’m trying to goad you into one but so far you’re not taking the attack on your ego investments very well (http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/denial/), hence the lack of rigor in your rebuttals.
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – 7-15-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen