Skip to content

Posts categoriezed as Gender Issues

Sexy Magazine Covers – A Case Of Faux Oppression

Sexy Magazine Covers – A Case Of Faux Oppression published on

If you want evidence of how few genuine problems western women have to complain about, just look at the way feminists fulminate at certain magazine covers. You know the ones I mean, the ones that show women whose images trade on sex as if they were, er… women whose images trade on sex.

The most recent example of this porridge-brained idiocy is, of course, the Lana Del Rey cover for GQ’s Men of the Year issue. There was much hand wringing about young Lana’s nudity as compared to the alternate covers which showed male recipients like Robbie Williams wearing suits. The entire thing was decried as sexist, misogynist – all the usual crap – and I’m sure that somewhere on the internet the many ghosts of Andrea Dworkin were yelling hysterically that such “objectification” leads to violence against the wiminz…

What the female supremacists are deliberately ignoring is that there are, obviously, several valid reasons to portray Del Rey in such a radically different way from the fellas.

First, Del Rey would look stupid wearing Robbie Williams’ suit, especially if he was still in it at the time.

Second, GQ stands for Gentlemen’s Quarterly, not Gelding’s Quarterly, and is hence a magazine for which the audience is primarily men who still retain some sort of sexual interest in women. That a mostly male audience might want to see a relatively attractive young woman wearing no more than some tacky jewelry and nail polish should neither surprise nor offend any but the most stridently anti-male.

The third reason is that we are talking about a woman whose public persona is a highly sexualized one. This is Lana “My pussy tastes like Pepsi Cola” Del Rey – it aint The Flying Nun! The men on the alternate covers, on the other hand, are a bunch of British wankers who, apart from Robbie Williams, have images that have little to do with sex, sex, and more sex. As for Williams, maybe at one time the girls might have wanted to see the inexplicably popular popster in the altogether, but those days are past. As for the other guys…er, who are they again? Unless they are sex symbols in the UK, their modesty is of little import.

The ink had barely dried on Pepsi Cola’s cover when the feminuts went bonkers over Rihanna’s cover for the American version of the same magazine. Rihanna appears, if not naked, then certainly not as well covered as Ben Affleck and Channing Tatum . Why such a disparity? Has misogyny struck again? Is it another sign of America’s “War on Women.” No. I suspect that, much like young Lana, the sexual nature of the photo has something to do with the young woman’s persona, her image, the way she has chosen to present herself to her public. Call this a wild theory if you will, but I am pretty sure the lasciviousness of the cover has something to do with the fact that the subject is someone who sashays around singing about S&M while shaking her pert little ass all over the place!

Fact is, women who are in the business of titillation will be portrayed in a titillating way, and that aint misogyny, that’s just both the girls and the mags getting what they both want. When Aung San Suu Kyi turns up on one of these covers wearing nothing but a pair of earrings and a diplomatic smile, the feminists will have something to get genuinely pissed off about. Until then, this is just another case of western feminism claiming to see female oppression where everyone else sees some good looking young woman doing what most feminists can only dream of doing – showing off her beauty while she still has it.

This Is Why I Think Twitter Is Full Of Morons…

This Is Why I Think Twitter Is Full Of Morons… published on

Like most intelligent people, I am rather ambivalent about a place that reduces conversations about important topics to something that makes even a sound bite seem expansive — but sometimes even the Pigster feels like being a wiseass in less than 140 characters, so I have recently joined this stupid thing called Twitter.

After a day or two of waiting for Britney Spears and Justin Bieber — or their ghost writers — to say something even vaguely interesting, I decided to do a search for men’s rights. The results reinforced my opinion that twitter is a good place for wiseguys to throw bon mots at one another, but definitely not the place for intellectual debate. (Yeah, yeah, I know Stephen Fry isn’t dumb, but for every member like him there are dozens like Ashton Kutcher.)

Anyway, here is a screencap of the top results, the more inane comments have been marked in red.

So much stupidity and ignorance crammed into such a small area – it’s like a phone booth full of Tea Partiers!

 

 

 

Misogyny is now okay

Misogyny is now okay published on

As of last week, misogyny is now okay. It is permissible, it is acceptable. This strange situation has arisen because misogyny no longer means hating women as a class. In fact, it doesn’t even mean hating two or three women. It has nothing to do with hatred.

As the world saw when the Australian prime minister lost her cool and spent several minutes blithering about the concept, whatever its meaning in the dictionary, misogyny is now no worse than saying something that is a little sexist towards women. In fact, it doesn’t even need to go that far : just standing a few feet away from someone who holds up a sign calling one – and only one – woman a bitch now falls under the definition of misogyny.

This change has been coming for years now. From the comic series Marvel Divas being called misogynist for focusing on its heroines’ personal lives; to Sports Illustrated being called misogynist for featuring scantily clad women on its covers; to the great pundit and scholar Elton John calling Americans misogynists for being reluctant to vote for a bad-tempered asshole who is hated by half the women she works with, the word has been hurtling towards irrelevance for quite a while now.

But due to her position of power and her prominence as a feminist figure-head, it is Julia Gillard who has pushed it over the finish line. From now on, when you hear a man called a misogynist you will know that he is probably not such a bad person after all. He has probably committed a mere peccadillo, a minor infraction, the gender politics version of wearing a lime green suit to a funeral. He is probably an okay guy who once stood behind George Sodini at a Starbucks, or who once giggled at an off color joke – he is probably not someone who thinks women shouldn’t have the vote, and he is probably not about to walk into a gym and blow away women simply for being women.

Which brings me to the word’s definition as it now stands in The Universal Dictionary of Real-Life English …

misogyny : the holding of an opinion, or the carrying out of an action, to which some woman, somewhere in the world objects. E.g., preferring action movies to romantic comedies

In keeping with this new definition, every time one of the more unpleasant of my MRA brethren is accused of misogyny, I will realize that he has probably just done some little thing of little importance and I will not waste my time going “Tut, tut. Who’s a bad MRA, then?”

What women think of this destruction of a word once used to warn them of actual danger is another matter altogether, but not being a woman I can’t comment – in fact, doing so would probably be misogynist of me.

Explains a lot about women…

Explains a lot about women… published on

According to researchers  from the University of Bonn, higher testosterone levels in men lead to greater honesty. Seems that if you give guys some extra T they are less likely to lie! This could mean that, since men have more testosterone to begin with, men are innately more honest than women. Hey, that’s the way most people see it when it comes to aggression, why not when it comes to this?

 

More here

Why and How the Plutocracy is Destroying Patriarchy in the Lower Classes

Why and How the Plutocracy is Destroying Patriarchy in the Lower Classes published on

One of the most persistent and least-questioned feminist lies is that patriarchy and the plutocracy are partners in the oppression of just about everyone and everything on the planet.

The truth of the matter is that patriarchy – here defined as a social system in which fathers have more influence over the family unit’s thoughts and behaviors than mothers do – is a terrible danger to the plutocracy. Once you realize this, it becomes much easier to explain one of the most puzzling aspects of modern society – why a male-dominated society is so clearly and heavily anti-male and anti-father.

For reasons of clarity, here is my basic argument…

Premise One

The plutocrats have the intellect to know what will benefit them

Premise Two

The plutocrats are interested primarily in their own welfare

Premise Three

The plutocrats have the power to mold society to their liking

Conclusion

Providing that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, it is probable that the plutocrats will do what they can to make their lives easier, regardless of the damage inflicted on others.

Given the obviousness of the premises and the cogency of the reasoning, I fail to see how anyone could not agree with the conclusion. Yet somehow, as obvious as the premises are to most leftists, the actual conclusion never seems to occur to most of my fellow travelers. Blinded by ideology, they refuse to see that the plutocracy wants working class and middle class families to retain their patriarchal element about as much as I want to take a swim in a river full of bacon-loving piranhas.

So, having established that the bastards act primarily in their own interests and that they have the power to destroy the patriarchal element in the working and middle classes, how do we know that it is in their interests to do so?

Why it is being done

The plutocracy benefits from the obliteration of the patriarchal element by replacing the authority of the more rebellious parent with the authority of the more compliant parent. For the most part, it is men who rebel, men who fight back, and men who are more likely to teach their kids not to take any crap from the higher-ups. Even in families where neither parent invests much time in explicitly telling their kids these things there will be numerous messages taken on board through simple modeling — “This is how the parent with the most influence does it,” think the kiddies, “so this is how I will do it.” Get rid of dad, and you have removed a significant source of resistance.

How it is being done

The tactics are numerous, but they can be boiled down to three basic strategies.

1 – Portray men as unnecessary parents

This is not a hard thing to do when you control the television, movie and publishing industries, and when you have your willing allies in the feminist movement writing articles and books filled with pseudo-intellectual claptrap giving these biased portrayals “validity.” Fill the screens with male idiots who don’t know which end of the baby the diaper goes on, fill books and women’s magazines with lies about how easy it is for a single woman to raise kids by herself, and pretty soon you have a multitude of women who see fathers as optional accessories and a legion of men who see no point in becoming something as useless and redundant as a dad.

2 – Encourage the break up of families

For servants of the plutocracy who claim to be left wing this is an easy task. In addition to the negative portrayal of fathers, you simply turn out a torrent of movies, television shows, ads, and books portraying husbands as disposable buffoons who can’t even remember the color of their wives’ eyes, much less their birthday. Add to that the making of excuses for women who cheat on or abandon their husbands, and the next time a marriage is experiencing difficulties there is a greater chance that the wife will simply dump her husband.

If you are a servant of the plutocracy who claims to be right wing you have to be rather cautious about this. As many of your followers have an honest desire to keep the family unit intact you can’t be too proactive. You must limit most of your contribution to simply shutting up when the so-called left wing media portrays husbands as disposable buffoons, and sitting on your hands when your constituents ask you to make divorce harder and less profitable for both wives and their lawyers. In the end, the plutocracy gets its way and the illusion that you really do believe in “family values” is preserved.

3 – Make it harder for men to remain active parents once the marriage ends

Part of this job has already been done by painting fathers as inadequate parents. Add to this a media that portrays child abuse as a male dominated crime despite the statistics showing that it is the opposite which is true, the continuing perception that children “naturally” belong with the mother, family law judges who have spent the last thirty years listening to feminist propaganda, and you have a ready-made excuse to almost automatically hand custody of the kids over to the parent less likely to raise them to not take so much of your shit.

It’s that simple, and it’s what is happening around the developed world even as you read this.

I should point out that this destruction of patriarchy at the family level does not necessarily lead to an actual matriarchy at the community level. Just because moms run the community’s families doesn’t mean they run the community itself – ask a black man from a ghetto if you don’t believe me – but it does mean that you will have a weaker, more compliant bunch of peasants to push around. And to the psychopaths who run the world, that is all that matters.

Primary Sidebar

Secondary Sidebar