Thursday, June 6, 2013

Feminism as an excuse for being ugly

Apparently last month there was a three-day celebration of feminism at the University of Cambridge. The pictures on Facebook are well worth a look due to their concentrated stupidity. I just want to talk about one particular issue, and it might be a somewhat controversial one, at least in the mainstream media.

Ask yourself whether you have ever seen a good-looking feminist? I certainly haven't. I don't want to stoop as low as Roosh V with his post on the "ugliest feminists of America", but it's hard not to notice that the "intellectual" leaders as well as the typical follower isn't exactly the kind of woman you'd fantasize about having sex with. Somehow I get the impression that "feminists" like to influence other women to look less attractive, i.e. as unattractive as they themselves are. Why they do it I don't really know, but it could be that they are simply envious of better-looking women, which makes them want to work towards a future were all women are unattractive. This is all just conjecture, though, but I wouldn't know how else to explain this phenomenon.

Let's have a look at this picture:

Oh, it shouldn't?
Try an experiment: Look at this picture for a few seconds, and afterwards then cover that girl's armpit with your index finger. You might find that she suddenly looks significantly more attractive to you. I would be quite surprised if I was the only guy who had this reaction.

One of the big issues with feminism is that it doesn't acknowledge biology. There are obvious biological differences between men and women. Further, men don't really make a mental effort to decide what they find attractive. It's a visceral reaction, and you just can't help it. Body hair is a turn-off, especially when it's dark. Sure, dear feminists, go ahead and stop shaving your legs and arm pits! The consequence will simply be that men will avoid you even more. Or do you want to tell us what we're supposed to find attractive?

What's your opinion? Do you like hairy armpits? Let me know in the comments below!


  1. Only the fact that the creator of Gender studies is a known pedophile should raise an ocean of red flags.
    But nop, seems legit, let's revolve life, laws and studies around a theory created by a psycho.

    Fore more info google John Money

  2. Idk if this a good example. Men's disgust for armpit hair must be culturally conditioned, as evidenced by the fact that women grow it at all. It would've been weeded out by evolution if it turned off all men at a genetic level.

    1. I'm not sure I follow your logic. It takes very little effort for women to shave their armpits, so even in a world in which half the women didn't grow hair in that area, they could easily level the playing field. Further, evolution is in play. Maybe read up on our humanoid and anthropoid ancestors. You'll probably be amazed to learn that they were significantly more hairy than us.

      Nowadays, men generally grow more hair than women. However, does a male ape have more hair than a female one? No. They are both covered almost completely with hair. Going back to humans, I have certainly never seen a woman with hair on her back or neck, or chest. With men all of this is common. Lastly, you might be familiar with the fact that (natural) blondes are seen to have greater sex appeal. Your experience may also tell you that blondes have softer hair, and fewer hair, than brunettes.

      So, where does this leave your "cultural conditioning" hypothesis?

    2. Replying to the anon: mate, the media put the kind of chicks in ads and movies that men find hot. We like hot, slim blondes with shaved legs and armpits and nice tits and that's what they put on the cover of Maxim or on page 3 or in porn. If it was so totally random, then why don't they start shoving fat chicks with hairy armpits down our throat?? Nature beats "culture" any day of the week. Heck, look at that laughable fat acceptance movement: does this make men want to bone them?

    3. Hey, anonymous user at the top! Are you a man or a woman? If you're a woman then you don't know men and if you're a man then I want to ask you one thing. Do you prefer women who shave their arm pits or those who don't. Of course I mean all other factors being equal so don't try to pull off some lame "I rather fuck a Jessica Alba with hairy arm pits than a shaved HIlary Clinton" shit. Do what Aaron writes about in the post and cover that chicks armpit with your thumb. i thought AAron was joking but that chick went from being gross to fuckworthy in an instant. if you're a guy and think you can oppose "cultural conditioning" then why don't you get turned on by women who don't shave their legs and armpits? I can't help it but I just find it gross. Nature trumps culture.

    4. Beards have gone in and out of fashion, so it seems some things can be culturally conditioned. White skin was considered absolutely essential to female beauty a hundred years ago, yet now tan is preferred. In the 16th century, a man's calf was considered the locus his sex appeal, and men with good calf's ruled women's hearts.

      While obviously our notions of beauty are not totally random, at least some aspects of beauty for both sexes depends on meanings that pertain to specific cultures. White skin meant you didn't work in the fields, so it came to mean high status.

      Clearly, notions of beauty are not just about sex appeal, but include elements that have little to do with sex appeal, without us being all the time aware of this.

      Shaving armpit and leg hair probably does make women more attractive even if it is artificial, because it emphasizes what men find attractive in women, like make-up, so it isn't completely artificial. Just as a woman without make up can still be very attractive, I have no doubt men could get used to women with arm-pit hair and find them attractive.

      The woman in the pic is right - arm-pit hair shouldn't perturb anyone. That it does is indeed culturally conditioned. Just as a female face without make-up shouldn't actually perturb anyone, and doesn't. However, for a girl to have arm-pit hair will mean she is less attractive than she could be, even if no one is actually perturbed by her. There is, after all, a middle ground.

    5. I can't quite tell whether you're dishonest or simply clueless. Yes, there are fashions regarding beards. However, I don't think there was ever a time where it was consensus that beards were considered ugly. In fact, you may say that nowadays beards are not trendy. But on the other hand, some of the most in-demand male models (from young to old) have quite extravagant beards. This means that it's safe to assume that (some) men grow beards to make themselves look more attractive. On the other hand, was there ever a time when women didn't shave their arm pits in order to attract men!?

      Oh, make up is popular for a reason too. Maybe google for "supermodels without makeup". The differences are quite staggering. You'll be surprised.

    6. I don't think you understood my original comment. I'm asking: if it's such a disgusting trait, why do women grow armpit hair at all? Of course as a guy I prefer shaved armpits, but I was born into a culture where that's the norm.

      Suppose I was born 100,000 years ago when no one shaved anything. People still had sex, didn't they? In fact a lot of the personal grooming habits that we view as essential today simply didn't exist, especially for common people, in the recent past. Until less than a century ago it wasn't uncommon for people to bathe only once a month, and perhaps less during the winter. And yet men were still attracted to women, still fell in love with them, and still started families with them.
      Writings from those periods don't even mention in passing how disgusting everyone must've been, probably because that level of filth was culturally accepted as a fact of life.

      I'm not suggesting that we go back to those habits, but I say if some woman chooses not to shave her armpits, let her. I won't even bother to criticize her, I'll just move on to any of the million other women who conform to my culturally conditioned taste.

      Besides, most of the college feminists who do this are only doing it for attention anyways. They want you to be outraged, I say stop paying them any mind.

    7. But if you think within a bigger box, you may have to wonder how it happened that we went from being covered in fur to exhibiting very little hair. Think about that for a moment.

    8. Yeah but we didn't lose it all, did we? Pubic and armpit hair still serve some purpose by way of wicking sweat away from the folds of the human skin (probably something that was more necessary in the days before frequent bathing).

      There really is no practical argument for women not having armpit hair. It's merely a style choice that the vast majority of Western men prefer.

    9. Our standards of beauty have undeniably changed over the years, barring elements like facial symmetry and waist-hip ratio. I would imagine that in the days before cheap shaving cream and disposable/electric razors, shaving body hair was a luxury and reserved for the elite and/or those who had the resources to employ/enslave others to wait on them hand and foot, cosmetic purposes included.

      Of course, in those days, you pretty much accepted what was sexually available if you couldn't find/enslave/rape someone else. Everyone among the "commoners" had weather-beaten faces, missing teeth and probably more than a few warts. Looking/smelling good was clearly a luxury in the days of subsistence farming and the like.

  3. I guess if i was Jeffy from RSd I wouldn't care what the women i bang look like but otherwise i think that guys prefer women who shave. feminism as an excuse for being lazy? That's probably more like it. then again feminist women seem to not even want to get laid so if that's the case then it doesn't matter what they look like. I mean look at that one for instance: Who cares if she doesn't shave!

  4. I get the overall point you're making but I agree there are probably better examples than armpit hairiness as a trait men innately find attractive or not. From what I understand it's one of those things that's varied through history and cultures. Some shaved, for various reasons, some didn't give any thought to it. Better example would have been if the girl had a giant nose or a giant hairy mole on her chin.

    1. I'm not sure I follow. If you're born with a giant nose, your only resort is cosmetic surgery. On the other hand, presumably every woman past puberty grows hair in her armpit. Thus, you have the choice to conform to standards of beauty, or you are lazy and demonstrate to the world that you don't care that you're unattractive.

  5. It's not important whether the woman is a feminist or not. A PUA said once, "Attraction Isn't A Choice" and a lot of guys frequently talk about LMS (Looks Money Status). If you have good looks+money+high status then women are going to be attracted to you.

    Fortunately, you can bypass that... It's true that attraction isn't a choice for women but attraction IS a choice for men. Why?

    Because you can:

    A - elicit her emotional process of being attracted to a guy.
    B - link that process to you.

    So, even though at first she isn't attracted to you, you can CREATE that attraction.

    So, attraction IS a choice... for men.

    1. BS, you need to de-PUA and get back to reality. Read Aaron's PDF "Debunking the Seduction Community".

    2. What's this with the recent Ross Jeffries' bullshit on the blog? David DeAngelo was blabbing on about "attraction in not a choice", but his promise was that by adopting certain behaviors you would start to appear attractive to women who otherwise wouldn't find you attractive at all. This is nonsense, though. DeAngelo certainly doesn't advocate looks, money, status.

      Second, Jeffries is all about "eliciting values" and the NLP stuff you describe. However, NLP is a pseudo-science, and the related discipline of hypnosis has no scientific backing either. Do some research before you regurgitate what your "gurus" tell you.

      The attraction of looks/money/status is pretty much universal. Yes, there are differences, and a woman that only picks you because you've got money may well get her sexual satisfaction somewhere else. You can't create attraction, and this works both ways. Just as women are attracted to good-looking men, men are attracted to good-looking women. Or would you seriously claim that you have to convince yourself to be turned on by some girls. Well, I'd assume that if you've only ever gotten ugly girls, it takes some Viagra and/or alcohol. But don't worry, I know a LoveSystems instructor who in all seriousness boasted about his "LMR routine" that would just last as long as Viagra kicked in, so you're in good company.

    3. There is actually a large body of scientific literature on hypnosis. Just take a look on Google Scholar. Granted, it's still rather unclear what it actually is, but many things can be achieved with it nonetheless. That's not to say, however, that it can be used with any effectiveness for seduction.

      And NLP has a lot of bullshit in it, but there are some valid ideas in it as well.

    4. Isn't the crux of the matter that hypnosis only works if the subject is willing to play along, and that the hypnotist does little more than give the subject the approval to act?

    5. That is one of many theories, but in my opinion an inaccurate one. I think the subject has to be willing participant in the process, but hypnotic phenomena themselves are real. It may be easy to simply play along with a stage hypnotist when he tells you that you're Michael Jackson, but not quite so easy to fake pain control. I myself have on occasion used self-hypnosis to get drunk without drinking.
      There is also evidence that hypnotic hallucinations are distinct from simply imagining something.

    6. There were studies according to which people start behaving as if they were drunk long before the effects of alcohol kick in, so I don't think this is a very good example. The same is true for pain, to some degree. Have you ever seen a kid bumping his head for the first time? It will not start around crying but might look around, confused as to what to do, and if mommy comes, is all upset and overprotective, then the kid knows that it has to act in a certain way.

      I think that a lot of pain is complete exaggeration. Heck, I once had to get something done with my teeth, and the dentist was a cool guy, so I said to him that I'd like him to not sedate me because I wanted to experience how painful it was. It was a minor inconvenience. Yet, many people are terribly afraid of going to the dentist.

    7. There is a huge difference between stage hypnosis, where the subject might act out of approval of letting go, and therapeutic hypnosis, but there is more to that. It is astonsihing to see what people will do just because you tell them to do it. I don't mean that they do what they wanted to do all along just because you give them permission. I mean, doing something for no reason other than the fact they were told to.

      I'll give two examples:

      -Stage hypnosis: a woman is told that she "suddenly feels sad, extremely sad", and starts crying. When asked by the hypnotist why she is crying (to justify her reaction), she simply states, while continuing to cry "I don't know".

      -Personal experience: My mother went to a hypnotist to help her let go of her deceased sister. Going in, she was wearing one of her sister's bracelet and had been depressed for days. The next day, she took off the bracelet, and her mood was back to normal.

      I understand people's perplexity towards hypnosis, but there is definitely something going on there. The thing is, we don't really know how to test it properly. Also, people are different, one might need one suggestion, and another one might need three sessions or five. There is no standard with people.

    8. Thanks for this clarification. I don't want to deny that there can be individual experiences that seemingly confirm hypnosis, or any kind of "alternative" medicine. However, this is part of the problem. As long as some procedure hasn't been verified in a randomized controlled trial, I'm content with attributing individual experiences to placebo effects and self-delusion. This is also a problem with all kinds of psychotherapy, because it somehow turned out that just talking to a person you trust has beneficial effects, and it doesn't have to be a psychologist.

    9. Well, hypnosis is actually about triggering placebo effect, which is useful in the sense that many problems like self-esteem or depression are nocebo effects themselves. Chaos magic rituals might also work, I guess ;)

  6. Gloria Steinhem used to be hot...that's about it though...

  7. Too bad for the girl in the picture that she won't shave her armpits, really lowers her attractiveness. She looks quite cute otherwise!

  8. I wonder what's next? Compassion for third world countries as a reason to shower only once per week?

  9. Aaron what do you think about all that sexual stuff some "guys" out there talk like "Girls want Sex as bad as you want it...", "girls have a stronger sexual drive as man", "they think more about sex than man do..."

    Do you think girls are different than men sexually? If girls wouldnt be as sexual as men, then men are the ones who would be in a demanding position in order to get satisfaction.

    1. No, there isn't much difference. However, just because women enjoy sex more doesn't mean that they enjoy sex with any (!) man more.

    2. Will you be going more in-depth with this on a future blog entry? I suppose this is part of debunking the PUA myth that with the right training any average-looking man can get any woman to enjoy sex with him.

    3. I've made a note, but I can't make any promises at this point. My life is quite busy, but I will explore the topics I've recently covered in greater depth.

  10. For the guy who said if hairy armpits wasn't appealing it would've died out.

    You disregard to process of maintenance. Unless you assume people shouldn't bath, wash their clothes or brush their teeth? Heck, even men shave to a degree.

    As for Feminism, Feminism was created for one reason. Women having the same (yet ultimately MORE) rights than men.

    This, however is flawed thinking. Women cannot have the same rights as men, as men and women are not the same.

    I often tell women "what's wrong with looking after children while men work?"

    "What's so shameful about not having a career?"

    "What's wrong with accepting a man's decision?"

    The fact is the issues that Feminists have are issues MEN would have.

    This implies that Feminists think like MEN, therefore they are more MASCULINE that the normal woman.

    So I ask: What's so attractive about a masculine women?

    Absolutely NOTHING.

    Testosterone is a masculine trait (i.e. it increases with muscle use and subsequently increases body hair). It also increases sex drive (remember when I mentioned women initiating sex was masculine in a previous post?)

    If you were an effeminate man perhaps you would find muscular women with hairy armpits attractive? Then again I'd suggest why not just date a man as we naturally have more testosterone anyway.

    The fact is what goes on INSIDE ultimately happens OUTSIDE. A masculine woman can NEVER be attractive...because women are supposed to be feminine.

    P.S.: As a side note, it's interesting that the Manosphere is a reaction to Feminism.

    If Feminists are women behaving like men, guess what the Manoshpere is?

    1. I agree when I see a woman who looks like a "guy" (for example butch lesbian), I'm not attracted by her.

    2. Yeah, feminists are basically women who have internalized the male value system. They have an ego issue with doing what society wants them to do, because they actually think that being a guy is better. So they try to force society to have them do what it wants men to do.

  11. It is surely embarrassing when some of the seemingly brightest people in the country can be so stupid. I have known a fair number of these female Cambridge graduates, and frankly they do not tend to be hot, so obviously they need Feminism (i.e. special treatment).

    The girl with the unshaven armpits above is surely engaging in some sort of Fitness Test, but again, any woman who thinks that she is capable of dictating what men find attractive is as bad as Knut attempting to decree what the Sea should do.

    If that is the level of intelligence on show at Cambridge, the sooner it is dissolved the better

    1. The problem with Oxford/Cambridge and other elite universities is that they are not so much about smarts but mainly serve the purpose of perpetuating the class structure. This is why interviews are so important for admissions, because if you only looked at grades or standardized test scores, you might end up admitting more than a few token yokels in. Universities started out as little more than drinking clubs for the elites, and little has changed in this regard. Holding a degree from a "renowned" institution says much more about your socioeconomic class as well as your ability to jump through hoops, but not so much about how smart you are.

    2. Hi. I'm the girl in the picture you used.

      While I appreciate you and your commenters' attempts to gauge my level of attractiveness, you also might find it interesting to know that, while a lot of men object to body hair in theory (and in cases like this, where all you have is a woman's picture up for scrutiny, rather than her presence and interaction), I've never actually had any difficulty attracting men in my day-to-day life. Make of that what you will.

      After this campaign, I ended up writing an article for one of the Cambridge student papers - you might like to read it:
      (The title and byline are a bit extreme; they were put in by the editor, not me.)

      Aside from the hair issue, I wanted to reply to this comment, because it's just factually incorrect, and a damaging view to perpetuate. The reason Oxford and Cambridge interview applicants is the exact opposite of the one you give; it's an attempt to look at a student's raw potential, regardless of how well they've been taught. Because A-levels are so driven by mark schemes, it's easy for a good teacher to coach mediocre students into top grades, and for talented students to underperform through bad teaching. The interview is an attempt to circumvent this, precisely because it's not about jumping through hoops, but, for the most part, about reacting spontaneously to unseen material.

    3. Thanks for chiming in! However, let me point out that we were not so much concerned with your level of attractiveness as we discussed, among other things, the effect of hairy armpits to the perceived attractiveness of women in general. In general (!), hairy armpits are less attractive than shaved armpits. That there may be some guys out there who don't object to hairy armpits does not refute this general fact. Surely, such a bright up-and-coming young woman like you who will soon have a (Cantab.) behind her name should be able to make this distinction and look beyond her own horizon.

      Secondly, dear Virginia, I should point out to you that it is occasionally worthwhile to question official doctrines. If Oxbridge really wanted to allow more sons and daughters of the plebs entrance to their holy grounds, they would admit more of them. However, as a quick look at the statistics shows, graduates of "public schools" such as Eton and Marlborough are grossly overrepresented. Of course, you can now make the argument that the sons of the rich are simply smarter and more hard-working than the sons of the 99%, but you surely don't believe in fairy tales anymore, or do you?

    4. The girl is actually repulsive - least of all because of theunderarm hair.

      She won't shave her armpits, which takes about five minutes, but she will spend an hour or so every day, probably for the rest of her life, applying expensive makeup on a face which is proportionally grotesque (manjaw). She senses this, and that is of course why she does it.

      Her whole appearance and demeanor exude self-absorption with appearance. She wants to look "cute", but also wants to offend men - who perhaps aren't genuinely as interested in her as other members of her cohort, as she discovered in adolescence - by a token gesture of socially-approved beastliness.

      Sad fact. Underarm hair is merely an amusing, self-imposed blemish on a character irreparably warped by feminism and defeat in the 'liberated' sexual marketplace.

      She doesn't need feminism - whatever that is in 2013 beyond institutionalized shaming of men - but a simpler time when her homeliness would not have impelled her to disguise low self-esteem under layers of makeup, cheap fashions, and cheap shots at male appetite.

    5. "While a lot of men object to body hair in theory (and in cases like this, where all you have is a woman's picture up for scrutiny, rather than her presence and interaction), I've never actually had any difficulty attracting men in my day-to-day life. Make of that what you will."

      You must be deliberately missing the taken aback looks that these men give you once you raise your arms.

      After this campaign, I ended up writing an article for one of the Cambridge student papers - you might like to read it:

      "The reason Oxford and Cambridge interview applicants is the exact opposite of the one you give; it's an attempt to look at a student's raw potential, regardless of how well they've been taught. Because A-levels are so driven by mark schemes, it's easy for a good teacher to coach mediocre students into top grades, and for talented students to underperform through bad teaching. The interview is an attempt to circumvent this, precisely because it's not about jumping through hoops, but, for the most part, about reacting spontaneously to unseen material."

      Then why is it that Oxford and Cambridge only select to interview applicants based on a certain criteria of grades and test scores? Why not interview everyone that applies? After all, everyone has "raw potential" that can be gauged.

      Furthermore, while grade inflation and teaching incompetence is a problem, your "Good Will Hunting" fantasy thinking is simply unrealistic. A teacher that "coaches" "average" students into good grades is a good teacher. And most underperforming students are not secretly talented individuals being "held down" by an incompetent teacher (otherwise, how do you explain the high achievers in the classes of these "bad teachers"?).

      Most college interviews are for shallow reasons. The interviewer, through face-to-face interaction, is attempting to gauge whether the applicant "fits in" with the college (i.e. is the applicant a conformist?).

  12. The 'feminists are ugly' thing is SO old. As is this 'controversy' about women who do not remove body hair. Not all feminists refuse to remove body hair, and having ones natural body hair does not make one ugly. These are very obvious realities. It is all down to cultural conditioning, and yes, I accept that most men want women to remove most of their body hair. But women who do not are not automatically ugly, or feminist (hippy women for eg - often hairy, often not feminist).

    1. Women who don't shave their armpits are certainly less attractive. But feel free to debate reality.

    2. No mate, YOU find them subjectively less attractive, this is 2013, are you entirely ignorant about history? There has never been an objective measure of attractiveness, I went to Ghana this year, and where I went to had an objection to blokes going topless, due to Judeochristian influence, and a local girl actually swooned when she saw my chest hair, basically because the locals don't have body hair so much, she also had hairy legs, and that was considered an unusual mark of attractiveness and maturity.

    3. Read Nancy Etcoff's The Science of Beauty. Despite all the "postmodern" talk about the relativity of everything, there are some clear factors of attraction. Symmetry is one example, youth is another. Cuteness --- I'm talking about the term as it is used in science --- is a third one.

      Wait, here's the link to save you some work:

  13. Let me tell you that in China women do not shave their armpits. Look at this hot scene from a very popular movie. And European women weren't shaving them either just some 50 years ago. So it's just a cultural thing really. I've heard older men say that they find shaved armpits ugly. The same goes for pubic hair.

  14. The point isn't that armpit hair is attractive to men, it's that women don't have to spend their time fixing themselves so they can attract men.

    1. So you think women should be able to attract a man by doing absolutely zero work, not even spending half a minute to shave their armpits? I hope you are aware of the wish list many women have when it comes to men.

  15. Edit. UGLY women need feminism. Because... The purpose of feminism is for women to steal power from men. Attractive women have plenty of power. Fat ugly women do not, so they created feminism.

    Not sure why you hate on rooshv so hard. Is it that his blogs have 4x the readership?

    1. In case you didn't notice it: I have a hard time catching up with my blog and forum, and that's not because my time management skills suck. Bottom line: I'm popular enough for my taste. What I don't like about Roosh is that he barely gets laid, yet pretends to be a player.

  16. I have the opposite problem. All women around look weird, like they are mutated or something. Almost all have some bizarre self-mutilations like pieces of metal protruding from flesh or paint injected into skin (why would anyone do something like that oneself?).
    Rubber legs everywhere, lack of biologically correct body hair patterns.
    Then some weird substances painted on face, changed hair colour.
    What the fuck? It's like I'm on site of a nuclear plant disaster or something.
    I'd rather be forever alone than sleep with any of these degenerate mutants.

    As for natural-looking body being invention of femists. It certainly wasn't invented by a woman. It was more like their boyfriends being like "Why are you doing stuff like this to your body? Look I don't do stuff like this to my body. Can't you be a normal person like me?".

    Obviously the specimen on the photo is disgusting because heir colour certainly isn't real and she has some disgusting shit smeared on her face.

    Anyway, about a question of why removal of sexual features is prevalent? Because not-shaving can't sell depilation and shaving tools, so any magazine sponsored by the fashion-cosmetic industrial complex will present shaving as normal and desirable. The same with smearing faces with filth.

    By the way, I hate women who use discrete make-up and natural looking to pretend they are pretty or beautiful when they are not so genetically. Fucking poseurs, pretty people club should be reserved for those who were born into it.
    When I look into a mirror I see a genetic angelic face. I hate the idea of getting conned into relationship with some genetically inferior slime.

  17. Is this a joke? If it is, it's pathetically unfunny.

    Firstly, NEWSFLASH: You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist. So your point about feminists being merely 'unattractive' females is completely redundant. Plenty of men are feminists. Attractiveness doesn't come into it.

    You demonstrate a pathetic ignorance, a disgusting shallowness and colossal short sightedness. You clearly haven't grasped the mere concept of feminism: it's about EQUAL RIGHTS. It's about an equality that is, would you believe it, beneficial for both sexes. Feminism questions and attacks the forces which throughout history have created binary oppositions between the sexes, and serves to deconstruct them. Ideologies which have plagued conceptions about gender differences, about what 'femininity' and 'masculinity' should be. Biology is irrelevant, these are cultural constructions. You blindly fall into what you have been sold by the media as 'attractive', and you simply cannot claim it to be 'natural'.

    Read a book. Try to understand, try to empathise. Feminism is not trying to 'steal power' it's about generating a BALANCE of power, which currently does not exist. Think about the wage gap. Think about FGM. Think about the abominable pressure on young girls to be sexy, and the pressure on young boys to be macho. Feminism celebrates diversity and equality, values which I'm not sure you even understand.

    Not sure why I've even wasted time posting this, because evidently you're the kind of moron that judges someone on whether they remove certain parts of their own body hair or not. Women will be glad you avoid them, because it will save them the time of having to interact with you to realise what a total airhead you are, which is, I can assure you- extremely unattractive.

    1. I can't believe how stupid you are. Sure, there are some male feminists. We refer to them as manginas, and it's partly because they lack the insight to stand up for themselves. Feminism isn't about equal rights at all, just like the Church gives a crap about upholding morality (with an army of child molester, no less). Did it ever occur to you that women live longer, work less, are hardly ever affected by homelessness, or have the legal system on their side when they want to divorce their husband and take the kids? What about "equality" in higher education? Nowadays there's 1.5 women for each man in the tertiary sector. Yet, there is still affirmative action for "women and minorities". However, I never witnessed any kind of support for men in fields that are dominated by women. How come, if you cunts are all for equality?

      If you think that "sex" is a social construct, then someone should slap you hard with a biology textbook, seriously. What do you think makes women grow tits? Do you think it might have anything to do with hormones, or is it just because we treat little baby girls differently than little baby boys?

      There is no wage gap once you take qualifications and experience into account. Or do you think some chick working as a shopping clerk at Gap should make the same as a highly trained software engineer at Google? If that software engineer was female and as qualified, she would make the same as her male colleague. As simple as that.

      Oh, you talk about female gender mutilation (FGM). That's funny, because last time I checked there was something called "male circumcision" aka male gender mutilation which involves having part of your penis cut off. Of course you feminists don't give a flying fuck about that.

      Instead of reading ideological drivel you should do something else: think. Yes, that's right, remove that fucking dildo from your vagina while you're engulfed in the SCUM Manifesto or the Vagina Monologues and ponder over something strange called "facts".

  18. Seriously, you're the one spouting ideological drivel. You're a misogynist. I am not a misandrist. Feminism is not misandristic.

    I can assure you that I am all for equality, and I consider male circumcision to be an equally important issue to FGM- in fact, it's a perfect example of the way in which BOTH genders suffer due to the cultural forces I was talking about above.

    There's no need to be so rude. Try to read some real theory on gender studies, and also, just for a minute, consider what you're saying in the CONTEXT of history. As a feminist, I'm not having a go at you for being a man- feminists don't 'hate' men! Many, many feminists are men- intelligent men. It's clear from your comments about this that you are ideologically driven, and full of disgusting, irrational hate. It's bizarre, pathetic and sad.

    1. So why don't you feminists don't campaign against male circumcision? How many girls are getting circumcised in the US every year? Probably zero. How many guys are affected?

      Yes, please do read up on history. Then tell me how many million men died in wars. Surely the number is several orders of magnitude higher than the number of women. Also, you feminists only ever look at men who were part of the elite. Look at the average guy instead, and then tell me how they were ever more advantaged than women. Feminism is a complete joke. No matter if you'er a man or a woman, if you're a feminists you are by definition stupid and a hypocrite since you disregard all facts that would question your ideological view of the world.

  19. I've actually never read the Vagina Monologues or the ‘SCUM Manifesto’. I've read academic essays. I have a First Class degree from a top university in my subject; I'm more qualified to talk about feminism than you are. So don't patronise me, or tell me I need to be 'hit in the face with a biology book' (thanks) because you're mistaking sex and gender to be the same thing. Sex, as in the organs that make us male or female, is different to gender, which is what we PERCEIVE 'masculinity' or 'femininity' to be. THESE are culturally constructed. And the pressures which are the result of these constructions affect BOTH men and women. So the ideas that claim men should look and behave in a certain way, and that women should look and behave in a certain way- these are what I mean when I talk about constructions, not bodily organs. Feminism is thus progressive for both sexes. It’s about NOT judging people based on pre-conditioned ideas about their gender, which is exactly what you do here on this blog (you verbally attack and bully a girl for having let her underarm hair grow. It’s ludicrous).
    You want facts? Women managers in the United States are paid 81 cents for every dollar earned by male managers. In Australia, the gender pay gap is widening, with male university graduates now expected to earn on average $5,000 per year more than their female counterparts. I could go on, but there really is no point in arguing over which sex has ‘suffered the most’ throughout history. Because it is a fact that patriarchy does exist, it always has, and it still does, throughout the world. In many eastern countries women are still considered second class citizens; they do not have the same rights as men. You simply cannot argue with this. Feminists fight for equality- this is beneficial for everyone. Unless of course, you’re a fascist!
    Anyway- what's so hilarious about all this is that you PROVE that there IS a great need for feminism, simply by the existence of this blog. You seriously think that it's ok for you to post a photo of a person you've never even met, to attack her verbally and publicly for for her own personal choice not to remove a bit of her body hair? You think that is an acceptable way to behave- to treat another person as if she is merely an object for your own satisfaction?!
    You're exhibiting exactly the same kind of attitude that has existed in previous times, which says that women should simply look pretty, and be seen and not heard. Come on! In 2013, women aren't going to put all their efforts into catering for these outdated requirements. This girl is studying at Cambridge- she doesn't give a shit what you think about her appearance! That's the point- you objectify her, attacking her for not living up to your idea of the 'ideal' woman, merely in terms of her visual appearance. You see women as sexual objects rather than as people- human beings, who should have the same rights as you do. She has every right to choose not to conform to any ‘laws’ of ‘beauty’ (beauty itself is always a construction, which is evidenced by the changing ideals throughout history. It is a recent expectation placed on women to remove parts of their body hair) by choosing not to waste her time on hair removal- which is painful, and expensive- just to please shallow individuals like yourself. It’s the equivalent of her having a go at a man for letting his beard grow. How dare he!
    What’s important is that both men and women should be able to choose what they do to their bodies, and not have to give in to pressures driven by constructed ideas about what is ‘acceptable’ for men to look like, and for women to look like. It’s all total bullshit. Life is too short. I was going to say it would be nice if you stopped vomiting up all this vile misogynist hate onto the internet, but actually, you’re doing feminism a favour, because you’re simply proving that there is still a great need for it, for change, and for better education.

    1. So many words, so little content.

      If you've got an evening to spare, then please read Karl Popper's critique of psychoanalysis, and then ask yourself how this might apply to feminism and it's inane theories.

      I wonder what your major in college was. It couldn't have been anything involving critical thinking because otherwise you wouldn't have made such a fool out of yourself on my blog. Don't believe me? Here, watch this:

      - if you acknowledge that there are biological differences, then why do you think that "gender" is merely a "construction". Surely biology would play a role too, wouldn't it?

      - Read up on the pay gap myth. If men are paid more, it's because they are more qualified and have more experience. Surely it's fine that Marissa Mayer is one of the highest-paid CEOs in the world, but if a male CEO makes more --- again, look at achievements and experiences for an explanation --- then it's an outrage.

      - Looking at graduates, you have to take into account that wages are determined by supply and demand. If you're a guy in IT you'll probably be making a lot more money than a girl who majored in gender studies and who can only get a job at Starbucks. However, she had received all the support she could have wanted. It was her choice to not care about mathematics and sciences. We've got equality of opportunity. What you want is equality of outcome. Tell me, why should a barista at Starbucks make as much as the guy whose fine-tuning the database system at your bank?

      - Where are the fact about the patriarchy? You tried making a point about the gender pay gap and you failed miserably. Put your "first class degree" to good use and tell me why you only look at some dubious averages instead of taking experience and qualifications into account.

      - What rights do women lack? Seriously, you sisters are so screwed up that you don't even realize that you've fucked yourselves over royally with feminism. Are you aware that in the 70s a family could get by very well on just one salary. What's the current situation? I mean, after you feminists managed to undermine the family unit and fought for equality in the workplace? Now you work your shitty jobs at Starbucks while your mothers had six hours a day to groom their dog and read some light literature. (I'm exaggerating, but you surely get the point.)

      - Unshaved armpits aren't sexy. Sorry. But go ahead and try to fight nature. I mean, you feminists also try to tell men that they have to date older women and single mothers, so just tell them they've got to bang fatties and fuglies, too. Normally, you'd tell young girls that if they want to get a decent guy they've got to look nice.

    2. I'm not done yet. Here's more:

      - Women mock men of low social status. Where's the outrage there? We men, though, think that a woman who doesn't shave her armpits isn't as attractive as one who does. Sounds quite plausible to me. What was your point again?

      - if she's got something to say, she should say so. That person even wrote a comment on this blog, but she quickly retreated. She was wholly unconvincing. Poor little girl. Oh, and if she didn't "give a shit" she surely wouldn't have wasted her precious time to comment on this blog. Further, elite universities are not for the smartest but primarily for the rich. I've met enough extremely dull people who went to "elite" universities. If you went to one yourself, you might be able to confirm this. Oh, wait, you did a degree in some gender bullshit thingy, so forget what I just wrote. Thinking independently is clearly not your strong suit, so the few PR speeches of your chancellor surely helped convincing you that you're one of the future movers and shakers.

      - That girl uses one aspect of her physical appearance --- her unshaved armpit --- to make a point. So, why would I then ramble about the patriarchy and whatnot instead of stating the obvious, namely that it's not very attractive when young women don't want to shave their armpits. Also, I think you have to be quite stupid to make some kind of statement based on your ugly hairy armpit. Presumably this girl wants to attract an attractive partner, too. But if she choses ideology as a companion instead, then more power to her.

      - The "ideals" of beauty didn't change quite as much as you think. Nancy Etcoff wrote an interesting book on that topic, called "Science of Beauty", if I recall correctly.

      - Okay, we men want that our women shave their armpits and legs. You women want that we make a lot of money so that you can spend it. Again, where is the outrage? Oh, and you shallow women want tall men. Ideally 6 feet and above. When we men say that we want young, attractive women, we're sexists who objectify women --- and somehow when you women say that you want at tall man with a fat wallet, then you're not objectifying at all. But, hey, who gives a fuck about logical inconsistencies?

      - Men with beards are attractive. Women with hairy armpits aren't.

      - Sure, she can chose whatever she wants. All you feminists can. But then don't tell us men what we're supposed to do either. It seems you feminists don't like that men are on a "marriage strike" and that more and more of us give the finger to society, and refuse to marry some washed-up single mom, or don't buy into the bullshit of having a "career' anymore (women are falling hook line and sinker for that one, though).

      - Better education? Yeah, if I were you I'd ask for a refund.

  20. Just because men don't like ugly, fat bitches (there's nothing wrong with that) doesn't mean ugly, fat bitches hate men (aka feminism).

    Feminism is probably for ugly women. just like black people have their movement, racists have their movement. Usually disadvantaged people have a movement. I believe feminism wasn't started because they wanted power like attractive women and I don't care if you think otherwise. Feminism now may be about power but not before.

    As an ugly, fatty myself I don't like men either. Yes I can lose weight and fix myself up but I chose not to. And yes that is my problem and my fault but guess what? You men get what you dish out. For example..

    Fat women and ugly women like myself mostly get ignored by I ignore men also.
    Men don't like ugly, fatties like myself and I don't like men either.
    Men are usually bitches towards ugly, fatties like myself and so I act like a bitch too.
    Have you ever watched youtube videos of lesbians (which are usually ugly and fat like men say) fighting men? Whoever started the fight doesn't matter because I bet a million dollars if she was petite, feminine and especially attractive the man would have let that shit slide. No I don't care if YOU would have said something or done something most men take shit from attractive women compared to unattractive women. So if a man wants to fight or hits me first then I will fight or hit back. Once I was at a supermarket and the attractive female cashier told the other cashier, who's a male, that she didn't want to do him a favor. Yes she was mean, but I know her and she's nice to me (no she's not gay or you probably knew that since I said she's attractive) and guess what he did? He smiled then laughed and said "wow that was mean, you're mean". If she was fat and ugly she would have gotten her teeth knocked out.

    When I need a favor done, when I need help, when I need a ride home, when I need cashi can assure you that a man wouldn't be there. Nothing wrong with that. Absolutely NOTHING.

    Men are usually my friend. Men and I are NOT lovers in any way shape our form. Just....friends.

    If I sound misandrist then I don't apologize I'm just sharing my experience. So no I'm not a misandrist
    I'm just one of the guys :-)

  21. OK so let me get this straight, you complain about a woman having hair under her armpit and then you go on to talk about biology? That is a contradiction. I didn't take my time to read the rest. For the record, I am not a feminist, but complaining about female body hair and then going on to talk about how 'we should all stick to who we are biologically' makes no sense.

    1. You should have read the rest of the article, dear.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.