The idea that feminists are hypocrites is probably viewed as an axiom by most of the readers of this blog. One of their greatest hypocrisies is the fact that they attack male sexuality as exploitative, sexist, patriarchal, oppressive, etc., yet at the same time they glorify female sexuality of all kinds.
Over at Feministe, Jill Filipovic posted an entry that is essentially just a picture of World Cup players in their boxers. Now, what do you think would be this cunt's* reaction would be if a magazine posted pictures of female soccer players in their underwear?
That was a rhetorical question, as she would of course lambaste them for "sexism" and "objectifying women."
*Yes, I used the dreaded c-word. Considering that feminists refer to people such as myself as "asshats" and "douchebags," I believe I am justified in referring to them as cunts. Also, I don't fear political correctness.
reaction would be if a magazine posted pictures of female soccer players in their underwear
ReplyDelete- - -
This is really pointless. Objectifying men isn't really a problem, because alpha behavior is more important than looks. Holding up pictures of super hot men without the influence of alpha traits is similar to men holding up pictures of mildly attractive women who happen to know how to cook really well.
Let me guess. Your one of those women who uses her "intuition" to make snap judges about men who walk by.
Delete"That guy doesn't have big muscles, so he probably doesn't have a girlfriend, so he must be desperate, so he must want sex badly, which means he is a rapist."
"to men holding up pictures of mildly attractive women who happen to know how to cook really well."
ReplyDeleteAnd feminists, such as Jill, would probably complain about such pictures as well.
Both the man-o-sphere and feminists complain about almost everything the opposite sex does. both movements seem to be built on complaint and negative instead of positive.
ReplyDelete"Objectifying men isn't really a problem"
ReplyDeleteThis says it all, ain't it? Sums up the whole feminist mentality neatly. Worths reading a couple of times.
Doing anything bad to men isn't really a problem because [insert illogical hate-based diatribe disguised as valid argument].
This is what Jill said:
ReplyDelete"Eh, not bothered by it. I think it’s perfectly defensible to appreciate the male form — to find it sexy and attractive. And I think there are different levels of social power at play that do really make oggling half-naked dudes different than oggling half-naked women."
It worries me that feminists like Jill think its OK to objectify men because they are "admiring".
While they clearly assume men objectify women to hurt them.
She also concludes that because men have more power than women it makes it worse.
Technically by her logic one can take a gay man with a higher position than his partner and assume that if he objectifies him its worse than his lower power position partner doing the same.
I'm sure Jill would complain that if men lost their power, they would be lazy and that its bad for women, economy and everybody. Can't win with a feminist bitch like her.
Objectifying women isn't problem anymore than men as far as I'm concerned take it how you will. I have no issue with objectification its part of life.
Feminists like Jill on the other hand are hypocrites