The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Why Feminists Hate Beauty (And How Capitalism Makes Fairy Tales Come True)

Posted on | March 21, 2016 | 77 Comments


Grace Kelly is arguably the most beautiful actress in cinematic history, yet what if she had never gone to Hollywood? Keep that thought in mind the next time you read a Harvard feminist ranting against “the psychology of female objectification,” or denunciations of “the male gaze” in media.

“The male gaze, which refers to the lens through which mostly white, heterosexual men are viewing the world, is a lens of entitlement.”
Kelsey Lueptow, “4 Ways To Challenge The Male Gaze,” 2013

“Making all the Princesses beautiful, while all the villains are obese or ugly, the Disney Company reinforces the idea that one’s physical appearance is a manifestation of one’s personality. . . .
“The protagonists of these films fulfill unrealistic expectations of beauty, which are then perpetuated as the norm to mainstream society. Giving young girls the idea that they must be beautiful or they will not succeed is incredibly harmful.”

Melanie Greenblatt, “The Heteronormative Objectification of Women in the Disney Princess Films: A Study of Brand Advertising and Parents’ Perceptions,” 2013

“Western beauty practices not only arise from the subordination of women, but should perhaps be seen as the most publicly visible evidence of that subordination. . . . They are justified by tradition, as in the popular wisdom that women have always wanted to be beautiful and that it is natural for men to be attracted to ‘beautiful’ women.”
Sheila Jeffreys, Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West (2005; second edition, 2015)

This kind of feminist rhetoric implies:

  1. Male admiration of female beauty is inherently wrong;
  2. Such “objectification” is not a natural expression of human biology, but is instead “socially constructed” and thus fundamentally political, a manifestation of “male supremacy”;
  3. There is no such thing as beauty, but rather only an artificial preference for certain types of female appearance based in male supremacy and reinforced through media messages.

Feminism’s attack on The Beauty Myth (Naomi Wolf, 1991) would have us believe that Hollywood producers, Paris fashion designers, Madison Avenue advertisers and other sinister forces of patriarchal capitalism have conspired to brainwash us into believing that some women are more beautiful than others. “All Bodies Are Beautiful” has become a popular feminist slogan, and skepticism is impermissible — a ThoughtCrime.

Any man who doubts this ideology — aesthetic egalitarianism, we might call it — will find himself denounced as a misogynist. Men are wrong to prefer Kate Upton to Lena Dunham, according to feminists who wish to silence male praise for beauty, because feminists believe that men’s enjoyment of beauty is harmful, oppressive, sexist. This anti-beauty message has been a core component of feminist rhetoric since 1968, when the Women’s Liberation movement emerged from the New Left and staged its first public protest against the Miss America pageant. Beauty pageants “epitomize the roles we are all forced to play as women,” the protesters declared, proclaiming that “women in our society [are] forced daily to compete for male approval, enslaved by ludicrous ‘beauty’ standards we ourselves are conditioned to take seriously.”

Notice the words “forced,” “enslaved” and “conditioned,” used to imply that these “ludicrous ‘beauty’ standards” are imposed on women against their will. Are women “forced” to play these “roles”? Do women “compete for male approval” because they have been “conditioned” to do so? Before you answer, consider this: No one is offended if we say, for example, that Warren Buffett is rich, Stefan Curry is tall, or Vladimir Putin is powerful. The scale of values by which men are measured in terms of status and prestige is not controversial. There is no “social justice” movement of men complaining that women are attracted to millionaires, athletes and other high-status males, whereas feminism routinely stigmatizes the normal preferences of heterosexual males.

A radical egalitarian ideology derived from Marxism (many feminist leaders of the 1960s and ’70s were “Red Diaper babies,” i.e., children of Communist Party members), feminist theory assumes that every observable inequality between men and women is unjust and oppressive. The propaganda of such a movement requires that women’s lives be depicted as an endless nightmare of suffering, and that males be demonized as enemies who cruelly inflict this oppression on women.

Feminism is a cult and, like all other cults, seeks its recruits among vulnerable young people who are in some way alienated from society.


Feminism’s quasi-religious cult belief system explains to the young recruit that her antisocial resentments — toward her parents, her siblings, her classmates in school, her ex-boyfriend — are entirely justified. Her feelings of self-pity and anger are rationalized by feminist ideology, and she is encouraged to focus her anger on targets designated by the cult leaders. She is supplied with a vocabulary of jargon (“rape culture,” “heteronormativity,” “phallocentrism,” etc.) that makes her feel morally and intellectually superior to those outside the cult. Once she has learned to view life through the warped lenses of feminist theory, it is impossible for her to relate normally to others. She becomes disdainful of anyone who does not share her fanatical devotion to the feminist cause.

Eric Hoffer’s 1951 classic The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements shows how political cults like feminism operate. Yet our education system does not make Hoffer required reading for high school students, to inoculate them against the True Believer mentality. Nor do taxpayer-supported schools ever expose students to anything written by the most articulate critics of the feminist movement. No public high school in America would assign, for example, Christina Hoff Sommers’ Who Stole Feminism? or Carrie Lukas’ The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism. There is a vast library of books by women authors — Danielle Crittenden, Carolyn Graglia, Helen Smith, Dana Mack, Daphne Patai, Mary Eberstadt, et al. — who in one way or another dissent from the anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology of radical feminism.

“The discourses which particularly oppress all of us, lesbians, women, and homosexual men, are those discourses which take for granted that what founds society, any society, is heterosexuality. . . . These discourses of heterosexuality oppress us in the sense that they prevent us from speaking unless we speak in their terms.”
Monique Wittig, “The Straight Mind,” 1978

“I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980

“In contrast to young women, whose empowerment can be seen as a process of resistance to male dominated heterosexuality, young, able-bodied, heterosexual men can access power through the language, structures and identities of hegemonic masculinity.”
Janet Holland, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Sue Sharpe and Rachel Thomson, The Male in the Head: Young People, Heterosexuality and Power (1998)

“There are politics in sexual relationships because they occur in the context of a society that assigns power based on gender and other systems of inequality and privilege. . . . [T]he interconnections of systems are reflected in the concept of heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm. . . .
“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”

Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

“Only when we recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed, can we truly understand the nature of sexism. . . .
“Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle.”

Laurie Penny, “How to Be a Genderqueer Feminist,” 2015

Feminism assumes as it premise that women constitute an oppressed class, “a sexual caste subordinated to the dominant ruling sex, man,” as Barbara Burris and her comrades asserted in their 1971 “Fourth World Manifesto.” Or, to cite a more recent source: “The sexual caste system privileges male heterosexuals over everyone else,” according to Professor JoAnne Myers, co-founder of Women’s Studies at Marist College.

This radical worldview is now widely accepted at elite schools like the University of Southern California, where the executive director of the USC Women’s Student Assembly calls for the “dismantling of our capitalist imperialist white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy.”

Let us now return to the question: What if Grace Kelly had never gone to Hollywood? You must understand that it was only the modern technology of cinema (invented by Thomas Edison in the 1890s) which eventually made it possible for the entire world to admire the beauty of Grace Kelly. Born in 1929, the third of four children of a prosperous Irish Catholic family in Philadelphia, she was 23 when she signed her first Hollywood contract for $850 a week. Two years later, she won the Academy Award for Best Actress. Two year after that, the 26-year-old star retired from acting to marry Prince Rainier of Monaco, and Princess Grace became the mother of three royal offspring, Caroline, Albert and Stephanie.


Feminists who denounce the “heteronormative objectification” of Disney movies for promoting “unrealistic expectations of beauty” would have us ignore the implications of Princess Grace’s biography. We now take for granted the technology that took Grace Kelly from Philadelphia to Hollywood to the royal court of Monaco, just as we take for granted the technology that permits a blogger in his pajamas to critique the theories of Harvard students and tenured professors. This technology — produced by a system known as capitalism — is phenomenally powerful and innovative, and capitalism liberates human beings in amazing ways.

Capitalism pays our bills, capitalism feeds our children, capitalism funds the enterprises that provide us with the means of communication and transportation by which an Irish Catholic girl from Philadelphia can become European royalty. Capitalism makes fairy tales come true.


Well, why does Professor Jeffreys scoff at the idea that “women have always wanted to be beautiful and that it is natural for men to be attracted to ‘beautiful’ women”? Why does she put “beautiful” in quotation marks, as if the meaning of this word was somehow suspicious or misleading? Or why would other feminist professors speak of heterosexuality as “a highly artificial product of the patriarchy,” by which men “access power through . . . hegemonic masculinity” within “a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm”?

“[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
Pat Robertson, 1992

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, an ideology profoundly hostile to everything that brings hope and happiness to human life, including both capitalism and beauty.

Here at the desk in my home office, I am surrounded by stack of books about feminist theory: Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality by Peggy Reeves Sanday (1981), The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory by Marilyn Frye (1983), The Creation of Patriarchy by Gerda Lerner (1986), Toward a Feminist Theory of the State by Catharine MacKinnon (1989), Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler (1990),  Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim (2002), Theorizing Sexuality by Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott (2010) and Modern Feminist Theory: An Introduction by Jennifer Rich (2014), to name but a few. None of these books, however, are actually helpful in understanding human nature. In fact, we have reason to suspect, confusion is a common result for the many thousands of young students who are indoctrinated in feminist theory in university Women’s Studies courses every year. Why do we need professors teaching theory, when the truth is so simple?

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply . . .”
Genesis 1:27-28 (KJV)

No student at Harvard (annual tuition $45,278) or Yale (annual tuition $47,600) is taught this truth. It is unlikely a student who believes the Bible would go anywhere near Harvard or Yale. The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved, and no Christian parent would send their children to such infernal institutions, where perverted professors teach satanic doctrines to corrupt the souls and poison the minds of youth.

Feminists reject any suggestion that there is anything natural about human sexual behavior, instead believing women are “coerced into heterosexuality” because of “the power men have in society.” Feminists believe “that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories,” and this denial of any natural basis for heterosexual attraction means that male admiration of beauty — and women’s pleasure in being admired by men — can only “arise from the subordination of women.”

Because feminists are “without natural affection” (Romans 1:31), they seek to destroy human happiness. Feminists hate love itself.




77 Responses to “Why Feminists Hate Beauty (And How Capitalism Makes Fairy Tales Come True)”

  1. Fail Burton
    March 21st, 2016 @ 5:35 pm

    Lesbian love is a purer love and plus there’s no point in putting a corset on a barrel anyway. So I would change that to lesbian love is a forced compulsory oppression due to mismanagement of fat cells. And then there’s the mental illness of radical feminists to consider, who seem to think everyone outside the West is a make-up free lesbian with unibrows or something.

  2. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 21st, 2016 @ 5:55 pm

    Had Grace Kelly not gone to Hollywood, she almost certainly would not have become Princess of Monaco. And the odds of her been driving on that road in the Principality back in 1982 would have been exceedingly small.

    Her dad was a successful contractor in Philadelphia. She probably would have married some successful handsome guy and had a very different and possibly not so bad life. Not as glamorous as the one she had and most of us probably never would have heard about her.

  3. robertstacymccain
    March 21st, 2016 @ 5:58 pm

    I am not anti-lesbian. I am not anti-fat.

    What I am against is an attempt to convince young people that self-interested rationalization is “social justice” by furnishing them with an ideology that fosters irrational animosity toward innocent people whose only “crime” is being born male.

    What I am against is a totalitarian climate in academia that banishes critics of feminism from campus and systematically discriminates against males in the name of “diversity.”

    What I am against is allowing the inmates to run the asylum and implement policies that make it impossible to challenge their authority.

  4. robertstacymccain
    March 21st, 2016 @ 5:59 pm

    Yeah, and nobody ever dies in Philadelphia.

  5. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 21st, 2016 @ 6:06 pm

    Most women do not look like Grace Kelly or Beyonce. Most men do not look like Cary Grant or Denzel Washington (I am just throwing some examples out there). Looks are not everything, Danny DeVito his a Hollywood star, so to speak. There are plenty of male and female actors who manage to have careers that do not have what you would deem “movie star” looks. There are individual people who are uniquely attractive, for a variety of reasons, who tend to go to Hollywood (some would call it mojo). While looks are not everything, the evidence suggests they certainly help and are often the tie breakers on other aspects of talent.

  6. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 21st, 2016 @ 6:07 pm

    Just being in Philadelphia is a slow death in itself.

  7. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 21st, 2016 @ 6:12 pm

    Beauty is more than just looks. Have you seen a still image of a beautiful person and then actually heard that person speak and the illusion is completely destroyed? What about the opposite? When a person seem ordinary and then over time because beautiful (because of something about that person). There are so many components to it.

  8. JosephBleau
    March 21st, 2016 @ 6:33 pm

    I’m always struck by the tension between these 2 tenets of radical feminists:

    1. An unreasonable sense of entitlement, fostered by the patriarchy, has given men wholly unreasonable standards of female attractiveness, forcing women to obsess over their looks to an unfair degree. If men weren’t such oppressive pigs, they would find beauty and sensuality in all female bodies. (This, despite the fact that most men are attracted, to one degree or another, to most reasonably healthy and fit women of their own age group or below).

    2. All (or nearly all) men are so disgusting and unattractive that it is unnatural for many (perhaps most) most women to find men attractive.

  9. Steve Skubinna
    March 21st, 2016 @ 6:34 pm

    Any movement or idea that exhorts one to “love yourself” I immediately dismiss as unworthy of further attention.

    I do not “love” myself. Neither do I hate myself. And neither do I “accept” who and what I am. A moment not spent trying to be better than I am, or at least fighting the urge to be worse, is a moment of my life wasted. I expect that I will go to my grave never having fully lived up to the standards I want for myself, and that’s a damn sight better than not having the standards at all, or not trying to meet them.

    Such movements are, without exception, either created by or oriented towards sociopaths.

  10. Steve Skubinna
    March 21st, 2016 @ 6:36 pm

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

    However not even Emerson would have accepted that the contradiction you highlight is a foolish one.

  11. Steve Skubinna
    March 21st, 2016 @ 6:37 pm

    “On the whole, I’d rather be in Philadelphia.”

  12. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 21st, 2016 @ 6:52 pm
  13. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 21st, 2016 @ 6:54 pm

    For all their jabberwocky about “body image” you know many Lesbians would kill to have Grace Kelly as opposed to your typical angry feminist.

  14. NeoWayland
    March 21st, 2016 @ 7:02 pm

    I’m still going to say “Not all feminists…”

    Having said that, I certainly agree that certain RadFems hate themselves and project that hate into everything they see.

    This wouldn’t matter except they demand that everyone shares their hate.

    You should see their reaction when I say “Not all men…”

    (Yes, I have been known to use my powers For Good)

    It’s almost as good as the reaction I get when I tell them about all the amazingly wonderful things that the free market has given them.

  15. robertstacymccain
    March 21st, 2016 @ 7:23 pm

    I’m still going to say “Not all feminists…”

    Well, OK, not ALL Muslims fly commercial jetliners into skyscrapers. And not ALL Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, either. For that matter, there were many ranking Wehrmacht generals who disliked Hitler and disagreed with his polices.

    The problem with hanging this on “certain RadFems” — beyond the fact that I have cited dozens of them, nearly all of whom are or were university Women’s Studies professors — is that the the entire feminist movement as we know it today began with “certain RadFems” circa 1968. That is to say, today’s so-called “mainstream” feminists are the intellectual heirs of Shulamith Firestone, et al., and there is no way to divorce “mainstream” feminism from this extremist legacy. Where or when did you ever see Amanda Marcotte or Jessica Valenti criticize any other feminist as “too radical”?

    The answer: Nowhere, ever.

  16. OrangeEnt
    March 21st, 2016 @ 7:33 pm

    So let me guess, she’s obese and ugly, right?

  17. Sockpuppet Nora
    March 21st, 2016 @ 7:39 pm

    There’s this obsession amongst women to be admired by all men. When they look into the mirror and don’t like that they see, the first they want to blame is society.
    ‘I don’t feel beautiful because you don’t find me beauitful.’

    There’s this constant calling for ’empowerment of women’ by men and the media. Why should they do their mothers job?

  18. NeoWayland
    March 21st, 2016 @ 7:42 pm

    There are women who don’t think of feminism as a movement, anymore than American is a movement. They don’t pay much attention to the “leaders” because they aren’t looking for public validation or attention. They aren’t about the politics.

    Believe it or not, some of them are even Democrat. And pagan, not that it should matter.

    Their label is not the same because they think it means something different. Something that is very close to something Sojourner Truth once said.

    ?If women want any rights more than they’s got, why don’t they just take them, and not be talking about it.?

  19. mole
    March 21st, 2016 @ 7:54 pm

    How you look can be a valuable clue to the sort of person you are.
    Why do outlaw Bikers have the same “look”?
    Why do rappers all favor the same look?

    If i see an obese person I can assume a couple of things, they probably lack self discipline, and are likely to be depressed.

    If i see a body builder i can probably assume they are focused, but may be able to assume they have a certain amount of narcissism in their makeup.

    Now im prepared to change any of those assumptions after Ive interacted with people, but the “rush from judgement’ is an extremely stupid offshoot of the whole SJW, “lets not judge anyone” culture.

    If someone has purple hair, is obese, smells bad, is frothing at the chops and is carrying a “die CIS white men” sign (with 3 spelling mistakes) Ill assume shes probably not wife material.
    Shallow of me i know,.

  20. Steve Skubinna
    March 21st, 2016 @ 8:25 pm

    Hey, she’s not even acquaintance material.

  21. RS
    March 21st, 2016 @ 8:32 pm

    The fascinating thing with these feminist diatribes about female beauty, is they reveal a complete ignorance of the history the feminine form going back centuries. Ruebenesque was not an insult at one time.

    And, no. Beyond a certain point, i.e. morbidly obese and unhealthy, the Patriarchy really thinks you look fine, and further cannot understand why it takes three hours to pick out a pair of shoes to go with that divine new Vera Wang you bought, because we’re late for the dinner reservations now, dammit!

  22. Fail Burton
    March 21st, 2016 @ 8:35 pm

    Sorry, but the worst radical feminists appear to be addicted to not doing exercise and probably go through more Ace bandages for their knees in a year than the New York Knicks have since 1960. They routinely look like 17th century dead Cornish fish-wives thrown overboard after being taken as slaves by raiding Turks who have poor night vision.

  23. Fail Burton
    March 21st, 2016 @ 8:40 pm

    Fat is in fact a sign of character. I’ve ridden thousands of bike-miles, done 1100 crunches a day (that takes 45 min. alone), jumped rope, the whole nine yards. It takes grit and discipline to keep fit. Amazingly, Bolivians seem to have no such epidemic of “glandular” problems. Maybe that’s cuz they still walk.

  24. Jackson Jones
    March 21st, 2016 @ 9:01 pm

    To some degree beauty standards are socially constructed, change from era to era, and across cultures. There is little doubt that the ideal body type for women has changed just over the last few decades, from curvy to athletic, or even boyish as evidenced by the young women walking runways, and seen in the pages of fashion magazines, and the facial features are usually smaller, and refined, the classic white “Nordic” look. Black and Asian women go out of their way to emulate the look of white women via plastic surgery, straightened, or died blonde hair, etc. Now, this is not to say there is a sort of universal idea of what beautiful is that cuts across cultures and races, and as an example of this we can say Caribbean born pop star Rhianna is a beautful woman, even though she’s not built like a white woman in any way, no matter where she is.

  25. Adam G. Yoksas
    March 21st, 2016 @ 9:24 pm

    Stacy, do you have any proof that these feminists hate Grace Kelly? Do you have any text or any author that has ever shamed her for the choices she made?

    I’m thinking that feminists aren’t about shaming Grace Kelly for becoming a prince’s housewife as much as they are about shaming women who become our proletarian working-class housewives. And this is where your analysis of feminism as an anti-capitalist movement isn’t really clear to me.

    Now I’ve noticed this whole pro-capitalist angle you’ve been doing on the Sex Trouble series lately, and it makes me wonder if you have truly looked at the relationship between Marxism and feminism. Yes, associations exist between the movements but, then again, I’ve seen that kind of connection in pretty much every conspiracy theory.

    But if you have done any reading, surely you realized by now that feminism didn’t /promote/ communism; it wanted to /replace/ communism.

    It seems to me that feminists aren’t so anti-capitalist. They put on a good show, but they also seem very comfortable with what we might call “bourgeois values” (and before you criticize me for filling your blog with Marxist spew, Richard Weaver used the term as well). The reason is rather simple: you can’t hate something you aspire to become.

    I have not read one “Marxist-feminist” who didn’t eventually throw Marxism under the bus in favor of feminism. Two theorists in particular, Alison Jaggar and Catherine Mackinnon, have pretty much admitted in print that Marxism was flawed from the start because it viewed history as material class conflict, and not esoteric gender conflict. The divorce between feminism and communism was pretty much finalized in the 1980s.

    After all, it was the 1980s that gave us another princess, Princess Diana. And maybe you know something I don’t, Stacy, but I haven’t seen many criticisms of Diana coming from these “Marxist-feminists.” If anything, the voices coming from the women’s magazines made her up into a veritable Antigone figure: a tragic heroine that invokes their deepest sympathies.

    Gender media critics hate on the way the whole princess thing is packaged and sold, but that doesn’t mean that they, themselves, don’t want to be princesses. The truth is staring us right in the face with Ms. Fabello’s contempt: “Just shut the fuck up and do good work.” Now who else would say that other than someone who thinks as Marie Antoinette does about the sans-culottes?

    Now I know you are a conservative, Stacy, so I’m not going to try to convince you that Marxism is good or truthful. But at least consider that serious Marxists (like these guys at don’t want anything to do with feminism. They see that behind the rhetoric of concern for the workers and the exploited, feminism isn’t about tearing down the bourgeoisie as much as it is about becoming the bourgeoisie.

    If capitalism is so bad, why do they want more female CEOs? If the professional rat race is so dehumanizing, why do they want more women to enter the rat race? If the laborer is alienated from labor, why do they encourage women to labor on software development and engineering that they subsequently become alienated from at the whim of their bourgeois masters?

    Is it because, perhaps, they secretly admire the bourgeoisie, the princesses, and pretty much everyone else who can post legitimate class superiority?

  26. CrustyB
    March 21st, 2016 @ 9:26 pm

    Hey guys! Check out that woman we’re all programmed by the mass media, Hollywood, and the cosmetics & weight-loss industries to desire! Whoo-boy! Ha-cha!

  27. LinKurosawa
    March 21st, 2016 @ 10:12 pm

    And all these crazy SJWs still drool over what they consider an ideal man.

  28. LinKurosawa
    March 21st, 2016 @ 10:16 pm

    Wars have been fought purely over the beauty of a woman, and for all the bullshit SJW’s spew they still wet their panties at the sight of what is considered an ideal man like a shirtless Chris Pratt or Chris Hensworth in the new female ghostbusters, most of them are also quite happy to receive attention from a man provided the suit is actually attractive, but someone that’s average or ugly? GET AWAY YOU OPPRESSIVE PIG, MALE GAZE, MALE GAZE, SOGGY KNEES RAPEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

    If men aren’t interested in you, its because you’re probably a shitty human being like 90% of these cultists who treat men like shit then wonder why nobody wants them.

    You used Dunham as an example, regardless of how she looks, she just comes off as an awful abrasive person.

    Never mind the sheer narrowness of these arguments, sexuality is so much different nowadays, people find all sorts of stuff attractive.

  29. Finrod Felagund
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 12:03 am

    Philadelphia: the city that booed Santa Claus.

  30. Finrod Felagund
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 12:06 am

    I had to smirk at Dunham whining like a stuck pig because she’s supporting Hillary and getting guff from other leftists for it.

  31. Finrod Felagund
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 12:07 am

    A lot of times, ugly has nothing to do with physical appearance.

  32. Fail Burton
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 12:53 am

    Let’s be honest: if Grace Kelly was as fat as a little pig, James Stewart may have been the murderer, having used some type of enormous fulcrum to heave his love out of the window after he said “What’s that in Apt. 345?”

  33. Fail Burton
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 1:00 am

    What makes you think an insane heterophobic ideology based on lesbianism is rational?

  34. Fail Burton
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 1:02 am

    There are no such tenets; radical feminism is radical lesbianism.

  35. Joe Joe
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 2:24 am

    Have you seen this Rhode Island bill? Even if you don’t live in Rhode Island, you can be prosecuted for a single internet post:

  36. robertstacymccain
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 5:31 am

    The idea that our behavior and preferences are “conditioned” by media requires us to ignore a few crucial facts, including:

    1. Not everyone is glued to their TV tube, mindlessly viewing whatever the producers broadcast.
    2. How is it that feminists have escaped the programming which they claim has blinded the rest of us?

    Oh, you see, feminists are superior to everybody else — their consciousness has been raised — and we are therefore in need of their enlightened lectures. It’s these preachy sermons that I resent, as if I hadn’t been capable of critical thinking before Melissa Fabello was even born. Dear God, I was entertainment editor of my student newspaper in college, and aced dramatic theory in 1982!

  37. Quartermaster
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 5:34 am

    Like it or not, no matter how pretty the face, if she’s obese, the obesity is what will be noticed. Feminists are fighting against human nature, and wars of that sort never turn out well for those waging them.

  38. robertstacymccain
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 5:51 am

    “… if you have truly looked at the relationship between Marxism and feminism.”

    Catharine MacKinnon’s Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989) is the best-known example I could recommend to understand this connection at the theoretical level. The history of modern feminism (i.e., beginning with the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 1960s) demonstrates how the movement originated within the radical New Left. You might wish to read Daring To Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967-1975 by Alice Echols, which was published the same year as MacKinnon’s book. Echols is a socialist feminist and criticizes what she calls “cultural feminism” as a divisive tendency on the Left.

    Both of these books were published before the fall of the Berlin Wall, at a time when the Democrat Party had been stunned by the loss of three successive elections (1980, ’84, ’88) and the academic Left (to which both MacKinnon and Echols belonged) was busy trying to figure out what had gone wrong. The collapse of the Soviet Empire, the end of the Cold War and the election of Bill Clinton helped the Left recover its momentum and morale during the 1990s, an era when many of today’s 35-44-year-old liberals were being indoctrinated in academia.

    Keep in mind that no one under 35 has any real memory of the Cold War, and very few have ever studied that era from an anti-Marxist perspective. Instead, young people have been taught “history” by left-wing Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers who were on the wrong side of the great struggle against Soviet imperialism.

  39. robertstacymccain
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 6:23 am

    “To some degree beauty standards are socially constructed …”

    What is under critique here, actually, is not “social construction,” but rather media influence.

    It is important to understand how recent a phenomenon modern media is. Prior to the second half of the 19th century — when photography and advances in print technology made the illustrated newspaper or magazine a mass phenomenon, we cannot speak of “media culture” (in terms of its influence on ideas of beauty) in a meaningful way.

    During the 20th century, fashion photo magazines and motion pictures emerged as significant influences prior to the first World War. However, movies with sound (talkies) were not widely available until The Jazz Singer in 1927, and color movies did not become common until a decade after that. So it was not until the late 1930s, really, that we can really see the modern media environment in all its Technicolor glory, and it was not until the late 1940s that television added its influence.

    So this development of modern media took about a century, from roughly 1850 until 1950, and prior to 1850, it is very difficult to argue that aesthetic opinions of women (The Beauty Myth, as Naomi Wolf called it) were in any way shaped by media. Yet men still discerned gradations of beauty among women, preferring the more beautiful, and women still wished to be beautiful. Capitalism has merely responded to (and profited from) these entirely normal human interests. While I am all in favor of a critical posture toward media culture, and a historical understanding of modern development, feminism does not approach these subjects without bias. Feminism always seeks a didactic message — “How does this demonstrate the oppression of women?” — that produces history as propaganda.

    What is actually being attacked by feminist critiques of beauty culture is not the excesses of advertisers or TV producers. Rather, feminists are attacking heterosexual men’s ordinary attitudes and behaviors, making arguments that could easily be construed as intending to convince women that all men are awful, and that heterosexuality is inherently oppressive. If men are so uniformly bad that every problem experienced by women can be blamed on “male supremacy,” exactly what is feminism other than evangelical lesbianism?

    We have to ask questions — who, what, where, when, why and how — about the emergence of radical feminism circa 1968 to understand any of this. What was happening in the 1960s? Well, the Cold War had gotten hot (the U.S. was fighting the Vietnam War) and popular culture was shaking off the Judeo-Christian restraints of moral decency that had hitherto limited widespread exposure to pornography and “sexy” images in the media. To go back and look at “pin-up” art from the 1940s and ’50s is to behold a quaint and old-fashioned mentality, when an illustration of a young woman in a swimsuit, or with her legs otherwise exposed, was considered quite “racy.” After the mid-1950s, when Hugh Hefner’s Playboy first made nude photos a mass-market phenomenon, this old-fashioned restraint gradually receded. The Hayes Code in motion pictures was dropped, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that effectively legalized hard-core pornography, the contraceptive pill became commercially available in 1960, and by 1968, the “Sexual Revolution” had been under way for several years.

    The feminist protest against the Miss America pageant in 1968 happened in a specific historical context. The phenomena that gave rise to this movement simply did not exist two decades earlier. In 1948 there was no Pill, and to the extent that pornography existed, it did so despite harsh repression. The Comstock Laws practically criminalized the distribution of obscenity via U.S. Mail, and perhaps except for some grainy 8mm films (which one needed a projector to see) or materials imported from Europe, almost no one in the United States had ever seen graphic pornography.

    So, in 1948, there was no radical feminist movement, but in 1968 there was, and unless we understand what happened in the decades prior to 1968, the anti-Miss America protest cannot be understood, nor can the movement that erupted after 1968 be accurately interpreted outside of its historical context.

  40. Quartermaster
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 7:44 am

    Such a law would never stand constitutional scrutiny. Alas, the courts are lawless now, and there is no telling what a leftard judge would say about this.

  41. LawanaDWatkins
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 7:47 am

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!oi1135????? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsHour/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:::::!oi1135……

  42. Quartermaster
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 7:49 am

    An illustration of Marxists vs Feminists is similar to the fight between Trotsky and Stalin. They’re simply two different sects that hate each other and view the other as heretical.

  43. Quartermaster
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 7:54 am

    I differentiate between pretty and beautiful. A woman can be quite pretty and anything but beautiful. Elizabeth Taylor, for example, was reputed to be quite an ugly woman even in her youth.

  44. Art Deco
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 8:17 am

    The disreputable Mr. Sailer has a law of feminist discourse: the whole point of any arguments of said nature is to advance the idea that,come the revolution, someone who looks like the speaker will be considered hotter.

  45. Art Deco
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 8:27 am

    I’m going to wager that if she’d been the well-to-do wife of a Philadelphia businessman, her children would have generated fewer embarrassments through the course of their adult life. So far, it’s up to three divorces and three bastard children for the Grimaldi trio, not to mention employment as a model for one of them. Don’t know what to make of the fact that the current occupant of the Monegasque throne did not marry until he was 53 years old. Nice looking wife, though.

  46. marcus tullius cicero
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 8:27 am

    …Feminist and Lesbians hateful bunch of rejected garbage want revenge against men that did not accept their “ugly” body and mind!

  47. DeadMessenger
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 9:41 am

    Ever looked back through your high school yearbook, at the picture of someone that you thought was the shiznet at the time, but now you realize he wasn’t all that great?

    By contrast, I knew a guy in skewel that was not at all good looking, and was, in fact, totally goofy looking. Fast forward through college, where brah became a doctor. Saw him at my ten year reunion, and he was breathtakingly handsome, with Hollywood good looks.

    Go figure.

  48. DeadMessenger
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 9:49 am

    Which brings up something that the horrible Roseanne Barr once said, “What women have got to understand is that nobody gives you power, you just take it.”

    But I must say, I have found this to be true in my professional life. I’ve also found that power is not always what it’s cracked up to be.

  49. Elmer The Jones
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 12:58 pm

    Those infernal horn-rim glasses have inspired me to create “SJW Hitler”, AKA “National Social Justice Hitler”.

    Someone tweet this to Ms. Fabello :

  50. Elmer The Jones
    March 22nd, 2016 @ 1:04 pm

    The inspiration came from the infamous Melissa Click, as seen in her recent comeback volley in the Washington Post :