Eek! A Man Might Have A Sexual Fantasy About You!
Hysterical feminist Amanda Marcotte finds yet another reason to be horrified about men and male sexuality, and this time, it's men ogling regular women's Facebook photos! Marcotte writes on The Daily Beast:
On the other hand, there's an undeniable ick factor to the idea of men getting off to pictures you posted for your friends to platonically peruse. No one wants to think of their male friends (or worse, their coworkers or bosses) projecting them into sex fantasies.
Me? I'm fine with it, and completely flattered that a Marine officer in Afghanistan is sending me a Friend of the Corps (FOTC) tank top. I'm going to have Gregg take a photo of me in it so I can e-mail it to the guy.
As my dad once told me, "Worry if they stop looking."
Anyone else suspect Marcotte would cheerfully send such men to prison if she could catch them at it?
mf24 at April 17, 2010 9:57 AM
The word I would use is "gleefully."
Amy Alkon at April 17, 2010 10:12 AM
Holy non-worries, Batman! You can get set your Facebook so no one but your friends can see your pictures. I do. You could also try not posting them if it bothers you that much.
This is so totally a non-issue.
And the word I'd use is "delightedly!"
Patrick at April 17, 2010 10:35 AM
Oooh. YOu know the older I get the more it tickles me to even remotely suspect some guy is ogling me for fantasy files. hehehehehe.
The flip side of her bitching will come along in a few years. When the "patriarchal and oppressive ogling" stop, when the only dreams of her in mens minds are nightmares (OMG I walked in on Gramma NAKED! EEEEEEEEEEEK)...that is when she and her fellow harpies start insisting that they do ogle and fantasize about them again, chop chop, or face the feminista wrath and be forced into their new PC compliance. snicker.
Or is it the typical reaction to the wrong guys ogling her? The ones she doesnt consider worth her attention, respect or toenail clippings. Ewwwww he DARES fantasize about me??? Off with his head mwahahahha
Damn but lust is so much fun. why not ogle, be ogled and just ride that rush? why make it so damn complicated and hateful?
rsj at April 17, 2010 10:45 AM
Hmmm...I wonder how long it would take if...
Nah, this far-fetched, but it would be hilarious.
I was just thinking...suppose the guys on this blog with Facebook started showing interest in feminist sites on Facebook, saying all the right things like, "I'm a man who respects women," "the most attractive part of a woman is her mind," and whatever else it is that male feminists say.
Then gradually, we could have some correspondence with Amanda Marcotte, and eventually become Facebook friends with her.
Then one day...we could then post some comments on her photos like, "DAY-UM, nice rack, woman!"
Her worst nightmare will have been realized.
Patrick at April 17, 2010 10:57 AM
My view on this is that what you don't know won't hurt you. I WOULD be really creeped out if a guy came up to me and was all, "yo I love jacking off to your facebook pictures," and I'm sure that most women would be too. For guys it would be like if a female friend/coworker came up to you and said "Hey so I've been fantasizing about marrying you and I used photoshop to make albums of what our kids would look like, wanna see?" It's one thing to do/think these things, another to express them in a way that makes someone else feel uncomfortable.
Shannon at April 17, 2010 11:26 AM
"Or is it the typical reaction to the wrong guys ogling her? The ones she doesnt consider worth her attention, respect or toenail clippings. Ewwwww he DARES fantasize about me??? "
Guys think this way too. If an unattractive girl is trying to text them or talk them in a bar, then she's a psycho/stalker/obsessive; if she's hot then the attention is flattering. It's just human nature-people like attractive people.
Shannon at April 17, 2010 11:31 AM
One wonders if her own husband gets in trouble for ogling her.
Sio at April 17, 2010 11:38 AM
Problem: On the other hand, there's an undeniable ick factor to the idea of men getting off to pictures you posted for your friends to platonically peruse.
Solutions: 1.Don't post photos on Facebook.
2.Don't friend people you wouldn't want
to see such photos.
This reminds me of those women who have profiles on dating sites and then whine that the men are judging them based on their photo. Or women that go to bars (like one of Amy's particularly memorable columns) and complain that men hit on them. If it bothers you, don't put yourself in situations where the problem is likely to arise. If a random man on the street accosts you in broad daylight and tries to grope you, that's not really your fault. But if you're in a bar and a man comes on to you, either reject him and move on or don't go to bars. In the same vein, if it bothers you that someone may possibly have a sexual fantasy involving one of your intended "platonic" photos, don't put the photos up. But, I know, I know, you should be able to do whatever you want without men making pests of themselves, but isn't it smarter to try to control what you do rather than everyone else's reactions?
NumberSix at April 17, 2010 11:39 AM
>>I'm going to have Gregg take a photo of me in it so I can e-mail it to the guy.
Do we get to see it, or do we have to buy it from Amazon? Heh, heh.
irlandes at April 17, 2010 12:20 PM
As long as I'm not personally informed by a guy that I'm a favored entry in his mental files* (Fiance excluded natch) I'm okay with the vague knowledge that some guys somewhere find me to be fuel for lust. I'm a realist, it happens on the net and it happens IRL.
*Yes this has happened twice. Once when a guy thought it would be the ultimate compliment and once by a guy who felt the need to confess his guilt. That is skeevy and very much unappreciated.
Elle at April 17, 2010 12:27 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/04/17/eek_a_man_might.html#comment-1708971">comment from irlandesCute, irlandes! If it's a good one, I'll post it here.
Amy Alkon at April 17, 2010 12:39 PM
Ooh, Amy's gonna be posting pics of her Advice Hotness in a tank top...snort, oooh, yeah...I'm gonna be totally spankin' it. Oh, baby...grunt, snort...work it, Amy...oh, yeah...advise me...
Patrick at April 17, 2010 12:44 PM
Patrick.
Yuck.
You so nasty...
Do it again.
Juliana at April 17, 2010 1:31 PM
I'd say she only wrote this because it is something she supposes happens, and somehow it causes that strange sensation in her knickers. That she probably hates herself for. What an idiot. You could do the same thing on flickr with lots more variety... But why does she suppose that guys aren't just going to go for the real thing? It's free, and for what reason does she believe that guys even care? Because one guy replied back to her by backpedaling to escape her wrath?
More repressed than any Victorian...
SwissArmyD at April 17, 2010 1:55 PM
This is awesome! Has anyone asked her the simple question "are you an idiot?" Feminism has become a rallying cry for ugly women desiring the attention that attractive women get...
She reminds me of the uptight girl that is in some of the pictures that I look at when I'm perusing...(I saw her picture...yeah, I think she's trolling for guys that have the "angry librarian" fantasy...). I wouldn't include her even if my thumb drive died...
In other news, there is a very cute Amanda Marcotte running around...
Things that feminist men say:
-If women were in charge there wouldn't be war.
-Women are smarter than men.
-Men should accept women for who they are and what they look like regardless.
-Anal sex would be lots of fun, I picked out a nice strap-on for you to use on me.
Red at April 17, 2010 1:56 PM
Ms Marcotte has been hoisted by her own petard before. Her first book, "It's A Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide To Politically Inhospitable Environments", was published by Seal Press in 2008. In keeping with the jungle & women theme, the original cover proposal showed a gorilla carrying a blond woman off into the jungle. When she previewed it on her blog, her readership was horrified at the blatant racism. The cover was changed. Months of groveling apologies from Amanda & Seal Press followed. When the book finally came out with the PC cover, progressives everywhere were shocked by the 50s-comic-style illustrations inside (scantily-clad blond Amazons beating up dark-skinned savages & so forth). The sexism! The racism! More groveling apologies for her white privilege, & a promise that the 2nd printing would have NO illustrations, so that no one could be offended.
The whole story (gorillas & Amazons included) is nicely chronicled here:
http://dennisthepeasant.typepad.com/dennis_the_peasant/2008/04/amanda-steps-in.html
Martin at April 17, 2010 1:58 PM
The last smart feminist was Camille Paglia. Since then, its been idiocy, entitlement, and self pitying women as victims whining.
If you ever want cheap free entertainment, call an outspoken feminist an annoying wench and watch her burst into flames.
Robert at April 17, 2010 2:19 PM
I like "G-rated smut"--oxymoronic. The thought police are coming right over.
KateC at April 17, 2010 6:01 PM
My word, what an egotist she must be.
On another note from the article--I can honestly say that I've satisfied my curiosity as far as modern porn is concerned. A friend of mine used to manage an adult book store and the movies ran constantly.
I haven't looked at any of the amateur porn sites for comparison, but the last professional porn I saw bored me. All those totally hairless barbie dolls somehow managing to make fucking sexless. I hope the amateur stuff is better, but I'm not inclined to check.
Like music, I prefer the stuff I came of age with. The X-rated Canterbury Tales, The Devil in Miss Jones, Caligula...
Ahem. Anyways, this woman has spent too much time fantasizing about men fantasizing about her. She and the rest of the world just needs to get it through your heads that it's all about ME!
Pricklypear at April 17, 2010 6:35 PM
I have a confession when I was younger - I did look at the Sears catalog in the lingerie section with out then intention of buying anything. My thoughts where lustful. How those models must feel knowing that their posing was being used to sell bra and panties but to titillate some young boy. I know apologize to those models now.
Next I would like to apologize to those teenager girls who sat next to me in school........
John Paulson at April 17, 2010 9:02 PM
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
- R. Limbaugh
So true.
Jerry Katz at April 17, 2010 9:23 PM
Because Rush himself is such a good-looking specimen. I hate that quote.
Sam at April 17, 2010 10:09 PM
Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot - always got a kick out of Franken getting away with that title. It's not libel when it's true.
AliceInBoulderland at April 17, 2010 10:28 PM
"As my dad once told me, "Worry if they stop looking." "
My Dad did too, Amy!
She always gets on a tear about imaginary boogie men. She wrote an entry about white men trying to marry Asian women all being 'Asian fetishists', a memorable one about a pencil sharpener that demeaned women, and imagined all kinds of things about what happened at Duke--I still remember her diatribe about that. Judge, jury and executioner.
She ought to get a life.
http://dennisthepeasant.typepad.com/dennis_the_peasant/real_wimmen/
Enjoy.
crella at April 17, 2010 11:28 PM
Jerry Katz:
If you're going to quote it, get it right. "Feminism was established so that unattractive, ugly women could have easy access to the mainstream of society."
You also have to remember that this statement was spoken by a man who went through high school without a single date. This is according to Millie Limbaugh, Rush's mother. Also, at the time of this statement, Limbaugh had already been divorced twice, both times at the initiative of his wife. This is according to David Limbaugh, Rush's brother, who also hinted that the divorces were sought due to Rush's sedentary lifestyle. And according to Limbaugh himself, one of those wives made him file for unemployment as he was living on junk food (which he purchased through the use of credit cards at convenient stores), able-bodied and too lazy to even mow his own lawn.
So, for those of us who don't agree with Limbaugh's statement and find it shocking that he would even say such a thing, we can perhaps understand why a bitter, lifelong loser in intimate relationships (divorced three times to date) might have a somewhat biased point of view toward women.
Patrick at April 17, 2010 11:48 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/04/17/eek_a_man_might.html#comment-1709031">comment from SamBecause Rush himself is such a good-looking specimen.
Men and women are not held to the same standards due to each sex's varied preferences. Women prioritize money and mojo; men prioritize beauty.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2010 12:13 AM
I do understand that men and women prioritize different things, but on the other hand, if you're going to pursue a rail-thin supermodel, it behooves you not to be an obese slob. Expecting your wife to watch her figure with hawk-like attention, while yours resembles the Michelin Man's is hypocrisy.
True, women might prioritize different things. However, that doesn't mean looks aren't irrelevant. If you value looks enough to make sure your wife has a good figure, you ought to hold yourself to the same standard.
Patrick at April 18, 2010 2:33 AM
Patrick - don't let your jealousy and hatred color your view of reality.
The bulk of "feminist" women are not attractive. The only way for them to get noticed is to guilt men into sleeping with them, or hang around in dark bars and hope for the best.
brian at April 18, 2010 6:12 AM
Brian, have you ever been guilted into sleeping with a feminist? Where did you hear this ridiculous load of bullshit?
You don't even know most feminists, yet you've decided they're ugly? There's a word to describe people who generalize a population, you know. And you don't know who, among your acquaintances, are feminists. And let's not forget, not all feminists are women.
By the way, Rush Limbaugh didn't say that most feminists were ugly and unattractive. He said it was established for the purpose of allowing them easy access to mainstream of society, which is not the same thing.
Incidentally, he's wrong. Feminism was first established because women had no property rights. They also didn't have the right to vote. Those were ideas whose time had come. In fact, they were long overdue.
Rush is a liar, but that is no big revelation. He doesn't know why feminism was established, and drawing upon his lifelong resentment of women, he contrived a reason. And like most responsible people, I make it my business to correct lies.
Sorry to hear you're against women being allowed to own their own property and cast votes. Also against the nursing profession, started by feminist Florence Nightingale, who also worked to get nurses instituted as adjuncts to the military.
Patrick at April 18, 2010 6:41 AM
We all know that emotional porn in the entertainment industry never, ever, ever results in a woman fantasizing about male actors (even the ones that need to shower badly, not that I'm taking about Robert Pattinson).
Trust at April 18, 2010 7:10 AM
I have no idea who Amanda Marcotte is. It wouldn't bother me to know some stranger out there uses my pics for "entertainment"...but to come into work and have the guy in the office next to me confess that he jerks off to my pic every night might have some of that "ick" factor this woman was talking about.
karen at April 18, 2010 7:13 AM
I have no idea who Amanda Marcotte is.
Me neither. Nor do I care.
It wouldn't bother me to know some stranger out there uses my pics for "entertainment"...
Me neither. But one of the most flattering things that was ever said to me by a guy (younger than me, but so what) was, "When I have sex with myself, you are there." He was very matter-of-fact about it, and said it to me one night after a gig, when I had just broken up with my then-boyfriend, and was feeling particularly shitty about just about everything. Made my whole week, that young man did, and I love him for it to this very day. And this was B.F. (Before Facebook)!
Flynne at April 18, 2010 7:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/04/17/eek_a_man_might.html#comment-1709126">comment from PatrickI do understand that men and women prioritize different things, but on the other hand, if you're going to pursue a rail-thin supermodel, it behooves you not to be an obese slob.
It would be nice if you weren't an obese slob, but it behooves you not to be poor.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2010 8:07 AM
Patrick, you're an ass. But then we already knew that.
Amanda Marcotte and the gender feminists of the 1960s had nothing to do with property (which women have always been allowed to own in the US), or being employed, or being nurses...
Gender feminism was created by the same mindset that brought you Maoism. That there are no innate differences between people, and that anyone who thinks so must be "re-educated".
Male "feminists" (the kind of men that Marcotte pines for) are male by way of genetics only. They figure that if they suck up to the shrieking harridans that they'll get sex.
Rush is completely right - feminism as it is presently constructed was created by women such as Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin to get society to accept them. Being unattractive and stupid is no way to go through life, but they found a way to make it profitable.
I've never been guilted into sleeping with a feminist, but I went on a date with a girl who turned out to be one. The date lasted five minutes. After she yelled at me for holding a door open for her, I was pretty much done.
That's what modern feminism is about - not "thank you" when a door is held, but "I have arms, you know!".
Glad to see you fell for the equivalence they were hoping to draw in the minds of mundanes when they named their new venture after the one started by Susan B. Anthony. Just like you no doubt believe that the modern race hustlers are ideological descendants of Martin Luther King Jr.
brian at April 18, 2010 8:36 AM
I don't think I've ever seen a Facebook picture that brought me to that level of arousal. There are better websites for that.
In 1981, shortly before I graduated from a very liberal private college, I was at a party. There was a guy there with his very obnoxious feminist girlfriend. He chose this time to declare that he was a male feminist. A hush came over the crowd, and I don't know what the rest of my friends thought, but what went through my mind was something like, "Dude. No pussy is that good."
Steve Daniels at April 18, 2010 8:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/04/17/eek_a_man_might.html#comment-1709132">comment from brianfeminism as it is presently constructed was created by women such as Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin to get society to accept them.
Andrea Dworkin was really ugly, but McKinnon is not, and was actually quite attractive when she was younger:
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/50432737.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A147FF90CC0B6C43E7AF57D481940222C2386F69F9DA08ECB88B01E70F2B3269972
There's a special ghetto that the women's studies wimyn rule at the university. Perhaps this was more of a desire to be on top, nonsexually, of course, fueled by hatred of and jealousy of men, and combined with an inability to make it in the "secular" world (a reason for ghettoizing -- so one can rule one's ghetto, at least). Your thoughts?
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2010 8:44 AM
Blanche Devereaux said it best:
I don't want to be treated equal. I want to be treated better!
LL at April 18, 2010 9:04 AM
Don't leave out Mary Seacole's contributions to the nursing profession during the Crimean War (contributions that were often disparaged by Nightingale who felt herself to be socially superior to the Jamaican born Seacole).
Conan the Grammarian at April 18, 2010 10:37 AM
I'd just like to point out that many states and territories id allow women to vote and own property before the womens movement started.
Also one ofthe first things the womenmovment did was to remove the right of women in Utah to vote for not voting to end polygamy on their own.
Most of the players involved in the womens movment dont give a fuck about women, they want power.
It int about giving women as individuals choice, its about a few women as individuals making 'the right' choices on behalf of all women
lujlp at April 18, 2010 10:39 AM
brian, I love how you change the parameters of the discussion and get all wounded-feelings and hyper-insulting every time you lose an argument.
I didn't insult but because you cannot perceive dissent as anything but a personal attack, rather like the obese drug-addicted chronic liar Rush Limbaugh, you need to get personal when you're on the defensive and recognize that you're wrong.
Rush did not say anything about "the current wave of feminism." He just said "feminism." As such, his statement is wrong, like it or not. And given his pathetic history with women, it's not hard to see why he would say such a thing about a movement intended to promote equality of women.
I mentioned waves, and social historians, such as Rebecca Walker (who is an attractive feminist, in a wholesome, ethnic sort of way, Rush Limbaugh's assessment of the women supposedly advanced by feminism to the contrary) show us that feminism really came in waves. The first wave was dominated by the Suffragettes and Suffragists had nothing to do with a woman's looks. As the name implies, it had to do with property rights and the right to vote.
The second wave, which reached its heyday in the 60s to the late 80s, had to do with ending discrimination. This would be around the time that Rush Limbaugh made his statement, as he got his start in 1987. So perhaps you're not against the right to vote for women and own their own property, but merely in favor of discrimination against women, such as in the workplace?
The third wave, beginning in the nineties, had to do with the perceived failures of the previous wave. The point of the third wave is valid in that it overlooked women of ethnic minorities and social status beyond upper middle class.
That is what the feminist movement is about, the vindictive and bitter denunciations of a lifelong failure in the venue of intimate relationships notwithstanding.
Patrick at April 18, 2010 11:17 AM
Incidentally, regarding Limbaugh's statement, no matter how much you wish to believe Limbaugh's lies, what is that intended to suggest? That only attractive and pretty women should have easy access to the mainstream of society?
I find his statement incredibly ironic, considering he was divorced twice due to the fact that he refused to find work and sat loafing around the house: "Girls, if you want a successful marriage, let your husband do what he wants to do."
So, had Roxy McNeely and Michelle Sixta left Rush alone do nothing all day and sponge off them, they would have enjoyed a successful marriage.
Perhaps, if either one of them had hung onto him long enough to enjoy Limbaugh's eventual success...but then that didn't work for Marta Fitzgerald.
Patrick at April 18, 2010 11:29 AM
"I mentioned waves, and social historians, such as Rebecca Walker (who is an attractive feminist,"
I'd do 'er.
Steve Daniels at April 18, 2010 11:31 AM
For somebody who has described herself as a "cum-guzzling boozehound", she certainly has her panties in a wad about the prospect of women being projected into sexual fantasies. Hmmmm.... a boozehound who will guzzle cum. Can't imagine anyone having a sexual fantasy about that.
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2005/09/03/dear-racist-fucks-who-complained-about-looting/
scroll down to comment #74
Philly at April 18, 2010 11:43 AM
I'd do 'er.
Yeah, but would she want ya to?
o.O
Flynne at April 18, 2010 11:44 AM
"I'd do 'er.
Yeah, but would she want ya to?"
Therein lies the happiness of pursuit.
Steve Daniels at April 18, 2010 11:49 AM
Patrick - if you knew fuck-all about Limbaugh, you'd know that when he uses the words "feminist" and "feminism" he's talking about the gender-feminist movement of the 60s that was centered on the ERA and Abortion rights.
But that doesn't fit your narrative of Limbaugh-hatred, so you deliberately conflate the feminist movement of the 1850s,which was primarily geared towards universal suffrage with the feminist movement of the 1960s which was primarily interested in sexual liberation.
And again when I decide that your prevaricating has gone on long enough, you accuse me of taking your ignorance personally.
Of course, you just read the press releases and believe that it was about "ending discrimination in the workplace" which had all but been accomplished in the late 60s. The 90s (so-called third wave) seems more interested in marginalizing men completely than in achieving anything positive for women.
What's interesting is that the women coming of age now are reacting very badly to the entire idea that they ought to denigrate men just for the sake of "ending the patriarchy".
And finally, in case you missed the memo, it's been scientifically shown that attractive people have more access to the mainstream of society. It's called biology, bitch.
brian at April 18, 2010 1:28 PM
you'd know that when he uses the words "feminist" and "feminism" he's talking about the gender-feminist movement of the 60s that was centered on the ERA and Abortion rights.
If that's what he means, then he should say that. Patrick is right about Limbaugh's statement: it is false. If he had said "the gender-feminist movement of the 60s that was centered on the ERA and abortion rights," then that could be argued to be true. But he didn't. Probably because it didn't make a good soundbite. You can argue that "what he meant was..." all day, it doesn't change what he said.
But that doesn't fit your narrative of Limbaugh-hatred, so you deliberately conflate the feminist movement of the 1850s,which was primarily geared towards universal suffrage with the feminist movement of the 1960s which was primarily interested in sexual liberation.
I find it amusing that you think someone has to work that hard to twist things around to reflect badly on Rush Limbaugh. It's not all that difficult. I don't think Patrick was "deliberately conflating" the two feminist movements (please correct me if I'm wrong, Patrick); I think he was, as I said above, pointing out that Limbaugh's statement was false. It doesn't matter that he meant the movement of the 60s if he just uses the word "feminism," which encompasses the entirety of the feminist movement, starting in the 19th century. Again, you can argue intent until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the actual words of the statement.
"ending discrimination in the workplace" which had all but been accomplished in the late 60s.
What the hell does "all but been accomplished" mean? It hasn't even been accomplished today (and men are getting their own kind of discrimination in the workplace now). You're weakening your argument with ridiculous statements like that.
NumberSix at April 18, 2010 1:56 PM
Show me the institutionalized sex discrimination against women.
The fact remains that the second and third feminist movements have nothing to do with improving the lives of women, and everything to do with creating strife and harming men. What freedoms have they gained for women? Abortion on demand, and the disconnection of sex from relationships and commitment. Some victory.
It is, simply, get-even-with-them-ism. The mantra of Amanda and her miserable band of sycophants is "men have run things for so long, now it's our turn."
brian at April 18, 2010 2:44 PM
I don't really care if men and women prioritize different things, I still hate that fucking quote. (Anecdotes don't equal data, but I am thin, wouldn't date someone fat, make more money than my wonderful boyfriend and we split some things but really I pay for most of our dates.) Brian (I'm asking because I think you'll know, I'm not being snarky) wasn't that quote from when Rush was primarily a comedian? If so, he wasn't engaging in political discourse, he was going to for laughs. It just rubs me the wrong way to hear a fat unattractive man target fat unattractive women for his comedic material.
I'm sorry your date yelled at you for opening a door. Thats just bad manners.
Sam at April 18, 2010 3:23 PM
Here's a news flash. Rush Limbaugh is smarter, more successful, more truthful, and gets laid more often than Patrick. Just sayin'.
Nolo Contendere at April 18, 2010 3:44 PM
"Men and women are not held to the same standards due to each sex's varied preferences. Women prioritize money and mojo; men prioritize beauty."
Yeah, but we still know when you're ugly. I fear that statements like this cause men to believe that if they bring home a decent paycheck, they don't need to exercise or eat right. Women may prioritize money and power, but we still don't want to go to bed with a fat slob....even those who DO don't really like it (believe me, I've heard the trophy wife horror stories).
lovelysoul at April 18, 2010 3:51 PM
"Women may prioritize money and power, but we still don't want to go to bed with a fat slob"
Well said lovelysoul!
-----------------
I've never seen a feminist worth fantasizing about. That is all I'll say about that.
Robert at April 18, 2010 4:05 PM
"There's a word to describe people who generalize a population, you know."
Yes, more that one word, actually: anthropologists, economists, sociologists, epidemiologists, statisticians, etc.
The Enlightment occured some time ago, and brought with it wonderful techniques in gathering and analyzing data about populations. Check it out!
Spartee at April 18, 2010 4:06 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/04/17/eek_a_man_might.html#comment-1709207">comment from lovelysoulI fear that statements like this cause men to believe that if they bring home a decent paycheck, they don't need to exercise or eat right.
Men who bring home a "decent" paycheck probably do need to do all those things -- relative to how good-looking and otherwise good their partner is.
Guys who bring home their pay in their jet can probably look however the fuck they want.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2010 4:11 PM
I think it's still in proportion to how hot the wife is, and rich men usually want very hot wives. Beauty is a commodity, and these women start to think that they deserve someone who is rich AND better-looking. The second husband is usually better looking than the first. Golddiggers are greedy, not blind.
Besides, she may marry for money, but if he's a fat slob, she'll go out of her way to avoid sleeping with him, which defeats the whole purpose for the guy.
lovelysoul at April 18, 2010 4:21 PM
Here's a news flash. Rush Limbaugh is smarter, more successful, more truthful, and gets laid more often than Patrick. Just sayin'.
Whose post was this? I'm assuming it's at least a semi-regular here because of the tone. And because the Latin means "I do not wish to contend," which is amusing given the statement above it. Mea culpa if this is actually someone's handle, but it just seems a little too cutesy for that.
she may marry for money, but if he's a fat slob, she'll go out of her way to avoid sleeping with him, which defeats the whole purpose for the guy.
Good point, lovelysoul. That seems to be the thing about gold-digging women, or at least the ones who are successful at it: they are aware of the sacrifices they are making for their end pursuit. Bringing home his pay in a private jet won't turn the guy into someone she wants to have sex with; it may just make it more bearable for her considering the trade-off.
Show me the institutionalized sex discrimination against women.
There's still discrimination, brian. There will always be discrimination in the workplace, because the workplace will always contain at least a few idiots. Discrimination will never go away in people's minds (especially the discrimination that lives only in people's minds, like so many sexual harassment cases seem to these days) no matter how many laws are passed to prevent it. That was my point, not that it's so haaaaaard for women in the workplace even today. I can't stand the whiny feminists any more than you can. This is what caused the upswing in discrimination against men in the workplace. There are now men in offices that are afraid to say hello to a female coworker for fear that she takes offense and reports him. As long as there are idiots in the world (both feminist and anti-feminist alike), there will always be some form of discrimination. The legal distinctions seem to lie with who is perpetrating it.
NumberSix at April 18, 2010 7:26 PM
The mantra of Amanda and her miserable band of sycophants is "men have run things for so long, now it's our turn."
So true, and it drives me up the frickin' wall. LL said it well above when he/she (sorry, don't know which) quoted Blanche Devereaux. Though Blanche made no bones about being a Southern belle princess, so I forgive her for it.
I agree with Sam above, too. A woman who yells at a man for opening a door for her is a boor. No, I don't need a man to open a door for me, but, being the good Southern girl that I am (part of the time, anyway), I appreciate it when he does. It's just plain polite to thank someone when he does something nice. I open doors for people all the time if I get there first and there are people behind me. It's just good manners.
I read a Carolyn Hax column a while back where a guy was writing in bragging about how he treats women as equals: he never pays for her dinner, he never opens doors, etc. I forget what he was even asking ("Why can't I get a second date?" probably), but he was expecting her to tell him he was just so evolved and these women weren't appreciating him. She gave him a pretty good smackdown. Men like that are another unfortunate effect of that brand of feminism. Special treatment masquerading as equal treatment makes me want to yack.
NumberSix at April 18, 2010 7:36 PM
"Yeah, but we still know when you're ugly."
Larry King has been married nine times. Just sayin'.
Steve Daniels at April 18, 2010 8:10 PM
And can you prove that Larry King's various wives thought he was better-looking and sexier because he was rich? Like I said, people decide what's important to them and sacrifice the rest if need be.
NumberSix at April 18, 2010 9:22 PM
His marriages never last either. The women stick around long enough to have a kid or two, then they find a reason (such as "sleeping with my sister" - which the sister's probably in on for a cut of the settlement, my guess), take a few million, and go find someone hotter and younger.
Larry King is the epitomy of the kind of delusion I'm talking about. These guys actually believe their money makes them physically attractive too -that these women actually *love* and desire them.
They may love him in a fatherly way, but look at her and look at him. How can anyone (besides him) think she's hot for him. Money can be an aphrodisiac, but it doesn't perform miracles.
lovelysoul at April 19, 2010 4:30 AM
Incorrect. The specialists you describe do not broadbrush. They do, however, point out what is more statistically likely. But...unlike bigots, the allow for the possibility of variance.
Patrick at April 19, 2010 7:14 AM
Patrick, argueing about what feminism should mean as opposed to the definition it has gained due to the actions of man hatiting haprpies who call grade school boys "gang rapists" is like back when the skinheads were losing their movment to the neo nazi's and arguing about what skinheads 'really' stood for.
Its too late, the defintion has changed in the minds of the general public. Feminism is no longer seen as a movment for womens equality.
And quite frankly I think its too late or the normal feminist to wrest control away from their lunitic fringe
lujlp at April 19, 2010 9:19 AM
I have to agre with luj here... the language doesn't always evolve the way we want it to. Time was when the word "hacker" was a term of respect among software people. But you can't use the term that way anymore because of the way the usage has changed in the popular lexicon.
Cousin Dave at April 19, 2010 9:55 AM
Or perhaps the definition has changed (IF it has been changed, which I doubt) due to the opinions of assholes with deep-seated resentment towards women because of their inability to score a date all through high school.
Rush Limbaugh is actually a case in point.
And brian, NumberSix is correct. You twist the definition of "feminism" like a balloon animal, then hysterically claim that this is what Limbaugh means when he says "feminism." This is so implausible and completely unsupported, I don't even need to argue against it.
Patrick at April 19, 2010 10:59 AM
Marcotte is a man-hating whacko...not that feminism has anything to do with that. She would be crazy if she was a tea-partier...
I monitor Feministing every single day, and I have noticed a very strange trend: Noone is commenting. Feministing is dying a slow death, and Jessica Valenti got out at the right time. I don't think women want to identify with that type of entitled gender feminism anymore. If you want to see alot of commentors, go to Jezebel...that site has tons of readers.
Third wave feminism is on the way out. Hopefully, true equality will replace it.
mike at April 19, 2010 11:47 AM
That's what I've been saying here for awhile, Mike. These kinds of feminists are dinosaurs. Pretty soon, they'll be gone. The word "feminist" should probably be retired with them.
lovelysoul at April 19, 2010 12:20 PM
I love Jezebel mike! Is that type of feminism (they identify themselves as such) fine with you or are you monitoring them as well?
Sam at April 19, 2010 12:58 PM
>>Men who bring home a "decent" paycheck probably do need to do all those things -- relative to how good-looking and otherwise good their partner is.
>>Guys who bring home their pay in their jet can probably look however the fuck they want.
Good one, Amy.
No one mentioned what Limbaugh actually said in that era. He actually said, "Feminazis". He stopped when he was told he was losing female audience by using it.
irlandes at April 19, 2010 4:56 PM
In older times, affluent people did not consider their children educated until they spent a couple years in other cultures. This is because it is impossible to understand your own culture until you have lived in a totally different culture, and seen the differences. Then, when you began to understand how much of your own culture is artificial and not universal, can you begin to understand your own culture.
Most modern women have no idea how nasty they are to men. They believe they are doing what is right and good.
As far as men ran things, now its our turn, usually that involves a psychotic viewpoint that men have screwed everything up, with no awareness of the good men did historically.
Here is an essay I keep on HD:
This is not an original idea. How many times a day do you hear that men are just plain no good and the planet would be better off without them? Ten times a day? A hundred times a day?
Any woman who can find nothing good to say about men is mentally ill, when we examine the evidence all around us; over us; under us. The very fact most women even exist is a direct result of the work of men, and I do not mean supplying genetic materials.
Walk over to the window and look out. Everything you see out there was either made or invented by men, and usually both made AND invented by men.
The streets. The street lights. The sidewalks. The cars; trucks; and motorcycles driving by. The electric wires. The telephone wires. The cable TV wires. The water pipes under the ground. The sewage pipes under the ground. The storm sewers. Anything else you see out there that is made by humans was invented or made by men.
The floor or carpet you walked on to get to the window was almost certainly installed by men. The window was installed by men. The wall the window is in was installed by men. The foundation of the building was installed by men.
The electrical wires in your building were installed by men. The telephone was invented by a man. The computer and its software you are using to read this was invented by men.The climate control which keeps you comfortable was invented and developed by a man.
If everything made or invented by men were removed, you would be looking at native plants from the entrance of your cave. And, you would be hungry and cold and wearing rabbit skins.
If you want to see what it’s like when women are in charge, visit your local slum, preferably at midnight if you dare. Every town over 10,000 people has a well known place like this.
The yards will be unmowed and littered with junk. Houses will be boarded up. Burned cars will be lying in the streets. Nobody has a job; except for prostitution; pimping; burglary; and dealing drugs. Every house you see is a female headed household.
Find the best part of your town, where the streets are clean, the yards are well maintained; the houses are in great shape. Most of these houses belong to male headed households.
For forty years, every male has had to listen daily to a litany of male failings and evils. Yet, everything I have written here is absolute truth.
###
When I originally wrote this, I had not thought it out very well. In truth, if it weren't for men, most women would not even exist. It was men who invented vaccinations which stopped the great decimating epidemics of history. It was men who opened the New World for more than trivial indigenous matriarchies.
irlandes at April 19, 2010 5:08 PM
Another whiny feminista. Same shit, different day.
mpetrie98 at April 19, 2010 5:59 PM
"Any woman who can find nothing good to say about men is mentally ill, when we examine the evidence all around us; over us; under us. The very fact most women even exist is a direct result of the work of men, and I do not mean supplying genetic materials."
Irlandes, I just have to say that I've recently learned, thanks to Amy, what you are doing....and what my ex successfully did for years. It's called "gaslighting". You mix just enough truth into your statements to cause doubt in anyone reading. We know, somehow, that it's bullshit, but there's so much there, we can't directly counteract your views.
Your writing doesn't prove anything but your own selective observations and opinion that men are superior and that women should be eternally grateful and deferential. Yet, anyone close to you might actually start to believe your manipulative views.
Frankly, this, added to the stories you so often tell about young women being attracted to you, gives me the creeps. You're obviously torn about whether to cheat or not, and I feel rather sorry for your wife, who sounds like a lovely woman for her age. You've even written about how great your sex life still is...when she's lying down, at least. But I wonder how easy it can be for her living with a man who has such a distorted view of women.
lovelysoul at April 19, 2010 6:01 PM
Irlandes that's just plain silly. You could just as well trump that whole post by saying that men wouldn't exist unless a woman had given birth to them and cared for them until the age of self-sustainability...basically you need two sexes to make things work.
And all the female headed households you're talking about? It's not like the men of the slums are off at college or have migrated to suburbia. They're mostly on the streets, in jail, or dead, leaving their children to be brought up by female-headed households. This is much more of a socioeconomic problem than a gender one.
What's ironic here is that your logic and message is basically the same as is promoted by feminism: that one sex is somehow superior to the other. You're basically Amanda Marcotte with a Y-chromosome.
Shannon at April 19, 2010 6:05 PM
Nice picture of McKinnon, Amy. But the photographer was too late: she was already bitter, apparently.
mpetrie98 at April 19, 2010 6:19 PM
Lovelysould: "Yeah, but we still know when you're ugly. I fear that statements like this cause men to believe that if they bring home a decent paycheck, they don't need to exercise or eat right. Women may prioritize money and power, but we still don't want to go to bed with a fat slob....even those who DO don't really like it (believe me, I've heard the trophy wife horror stories)."
That's one reason I'm trying to lose weight. Other women would say "you need to be nice" or some such. But "nice" is like vanilla ice cream: relatively bland, and it's everywhere. I know I gotta shape up or ship out. Thank you for your honesty, by the way.
And then, there are some people who are just unattractive, period. It's the kind of thing that makes me wish we were all born blind, so that all of us would have a chance. (But then, how in the world would we be able to take showers?)
mpetrie98 at April 19, 2010 6:27 PM
LS. in the US men hear every day, all day of their lives how disgusting and evil and inferior they are. Like most women, you don't notice, because it is not directed at you. I told the truth about what men contribute, and you emit meaningless psychobabble. Go pound sand.
irlandes at April 19, 2010 8:59 PM
LS, I forgot to mention that one thing I have learned living in Mexico is not only aren't American men collectively as bad as they are reputed to be. Collectively American women don't even deserve them.
There are exceptions of course. A small percentage of men are pure trash, these are the guys most of you women sleep with, because the Nice Guys are B-O-R-I-N-G.
And there are some women who are excellent. Most of them marry young and stay married.
Women in Mexico are well aware you don't deserve
AM. Also the PI and, um, Thailand.
One of the men I convinced to Get The Hell Out says his Ukrainian honey, half his age, told him American women don't deserve American men. They do deserve Russian men.
irlandes at April 19, 2010 9:16 PM
irlandes, I'm not denying your point (I have said repeatedly to people that visiting aliens watching television would think that men are incompetent idiots), but you do sound a bit off the rails when you say things like "In truth, if it weren't for men, most women would not even exist" and "The very fact most women even exist is a direct result of the work of men, and I do not mean supplying genetic materials." You come off as a woman-hating lunatic. You might be more effective in convincing people you're right if you didn't sound so ragingly angry toward women. Or at least American women, since most of us are so awful. I was with you here: A small percentage of men are pure trash, these are the guys most of you women sleep with, because the Nice Guys are B-O-R-I-N-G.
Not so much here: And there are some women who are excellent. Most of them marry young and stay married.
I would wager that in this, the twenty-first century, most "excellent" women aren't married young. They forge their own identities before finding someone to share their lives with. Women who marry young (I'm talking like early twenties young) nowadays have a tendency to become Mrs. Somebody rather than just Somebody (to paraphrase our hostess). There have been studies that say that the most stable marriages are those in which the couple was at least twenty-eight. You were right that those women tend to stay married, but not about them marrying young (unless you consider twenty-eight "marrying young.")
NumberSix at April 19, 2010 10:58 PM
"LS, I forgot to mention that one thing I have learned living in Mexico is not only aren't American men collectively as bad as they are reputed to be. Collectively American women don't even deserve them."
You obviously prefer subservient women, and you are eager to grasp on to any anecdote, such as the Ukraine woman's saying, "American women don't deserve American men," as PROOF of your views.
To me, that sounds like something that a woman in a subservient position would say to impress her man. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not evidence that a) it's true, or that, b) deep down, she even genuinely believes this. Get her away from her man, where she can speak freely, and you may hear a different story.
The whole talk of women "deserving" men is creepy. What does she have to do to "deserve" her relationship? How does she have to be or perform? Why aren't men held to the same standard of being "deserving"? You sound as if men are deserving just by being born male.
I'm an American woman, and I have a relationship of equality. Neither of us are subservient to the other, and it's a wonderful relationship. I don't treat him badly, and he doesn't treat me badly. If one of us is hungry, one of us (or both of us) will cook. If one of us notices the toilet is dirty, we'll scrub it. There's no "assigned" gender tasks. There's nothing specific that either of us must do to "deserve" each other. We simply love each other and show that every way we can.
Yet, I get the impression that you think women should defer to men, and jump when they say jump. Talk sweetly. Put out whenever he wants it. Look the other way if he strays. Cook, clean, and do all the housework. This makes her "deserving" of being graced by a male presence.
You're right, that's no longer how most American women (or men) think, or what they desire. I assure you that if I started acting like some subservient Geisha girl around my fiance, he'd probably call off the wedding! He loves that I have sharp mind and can talk to him as an equal.
So, don't presume to speak for all American men. I agree with you that no man wants to live with a bitter, harping shrew - but that's not how most American women are, even those who don't "get married young and stay married." There are plenty of us who are "deserving" of being in a relationship...just probably not the kind that you would want.
lovelysoul at April 20, 2010 4:10 AM
Geez, LS, take potshots at all the world's women while you're at it...
crella at April 21, 2010 6:09 AM
Leave a comment