Baby wigs on girls are misogynist gender policing that must end now. Baby wigs on boys are straight up hilarious! A lesson in how to be joyless and hypocritical.

5 Jul

baby hat

I have a thing for funny baby hats.  I think they’re just about the cutest thing in the world, it seems like I’m not the only one. Pinterest and Facebook are awash in pictures of babies in cute little hats.

http://pinterest.com/forhazel/baby-hats/

Some hats have ears attached:

bunny

Some have stems and leaves:

strawberry

Some have horns:

horns

And some have hair:

leia

bob

I’m not really much of a fashion person, but I understand that clothing can be a lot of fun, and a wonderfully expressive way of signalling aspects of your identity.  The endless rows of fashion magazines I see everywhere around me confirms that lots and lots of people really enjoy telling stories about themselves with clothing.

mags

What you wear signals so many different things about who you are.  This isn’t really controversial, right?  Clothing provides the world with clues as to who you are and what you value.

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/research/workshops/orgs-markets/archive/HeathPaper.pdf

One of the most fundamental markers of identity for humans is gender.  Am I boy or am I girl?  99% of the time, we know the gender of any given human because of particular social clues we have all agreed signal one gender or another, with all kinds of exceptions thrown in here and there and lots of evolution and divergence tolerated.  Contemporary critical theory, and feminist critical theory in particular, confuses socially agreed upon signals about gender to mean that gender itself is socially constructed.

Usually, long hair and a skirt signal “woman”, but not always.

kilt

Long hair and a skirt.  Anyone confused about gender?  Nope. Long hair and a skirt do not a woman make.

https://www.boundless.com/sociology/understanding-gender-stratification-and-inequality/gender-and-socialization/the-social-construction-of-gender/

One of the most famous theorists putting forth the idea that gender is a social construction is a woman named Judith Butler.  I spent many painful hours during undergrad trying to wade through her nonsensical writing, always suspecting that her obfuscating language is really just a cover for the fact that everything she says is complete and utter bullshit.

Here’s a sample:

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

confused

What the fuck does that mean?

It means that class systems are not just based on money, but on differences in political power and social status.

Oh wow.  Really?  What a great insight!  Class systems are about money, power and status?  Glad you cleared that up, Judith, you moron.  I can’t wait for her to figure out that lower class people have LESS money and power and status than upper class ones.  That will be a fine day in political theory, no?  The average kindergarten kid knows the difference between rich and poor, but whatever.

Butler is brilliant!  Guggenheim Fellowship!  Rockefeller!  Yale University Brudner Prize!  Tells you a lot about the state of the humanities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler#Selected_honors_and_awards

Butler’s writings about gender are just as lucid and clear, and I’ll spare you the pain of reading them.  Her theory comes down to this:  there are no innate gender differences.  And also, science is a lie.  She had to chuck that one in to deal with the fact that oh, oops, there actually ARE scientifically valid gender differences apparent at birth.

Butler could have argued that babies are aware of their social conditions AT birth, and then strive to act all girly and shit, which makes about as much sense as her idea that science is inherently sexist and biased.  But what do I know?  I got a D in Feminist Theory.  Actually, I really did get a D in Women’s Studies.  It’s the lowest mark on my transcript.  My final paper was on Martha Stewart and how in building a billion dollar empire around homemaking she was attaching value to unpaid domestic labor and re-legitimizing the work of housewives.  Didn’t go over well.

martha-stewart

Oh well.

So, what are some of the innate gender differences we can observe in infants?

Here’s a big one:  baby boys prefer balls and trucks to dollies and stuffed animals.  And the reverse is true for baby girls.  And these are INFANTS.  They can barely hold up their own heads, never mind play with toys.

looking

At just 3 months old, the newborn boys already fixed their eyes on the toys associated with their gender.

http://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks.html

The theory is that hormones are responsible for boys preferring toys that suggest vigorous activity and girls preferring toys that suggest nurturing and caretaking.  It’s likely correct, too, because girls exposed to elevated levels of male hormones in the womb demonstrate an affinity for boy toys.

British researchers found that girls with a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who experienced abnormally high levels of the male sex hormone androgen while in the womb, prefer to play with male-typical toys.

girl

Here’s another big difference, observable within HOURS of birth:  baby girls are more able to maintain eye contact and respond more to external stimuli like sounds and touch than baby boys do.

http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/emot/weinberg.dp.gender2.pdf

From birth, girls are more emotionally expressive than boys.  Sadly, that may have a lot of do with why baby boys are so vulnerable, dying at a much higher rate than baby girls.  Baby boys have a fragility that baby girls do not, and baby girls are able to illicit caring responses more effectively.  The most important thing new parents of baby boys need to know is that the little guy is sensitive and vulnerable to not having his needs met because he can’t express them as effectively as his sisters.

Extra cuddles for little boys!

http://clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/content/full/2000080008v1

Ok, so what does this have to do with baby wigs?  Baby wigs are designed to do a couple of things:  mostly, to make us giggle hysterically and turn Facebook into a gleefest of adorable babies, but also, to signal to the world what gender your baby is.

toupee

There are only about a million ways to signal gender, but hair is one of them, and it happens to be excruciatingly endearing to see babies in wigs.

toupee 3

toupee 2

Really, it’s all good fun and just cute and sweet and totally charming, right?

Count on Jezebel to see misogyny in the most innocent of things, and apply a wicked double standard at the same time.

baby bangs 3

http://jezebel.com/someone-invented-a-baby-wig-so-your-little-girl-wont-672938177

So the princess dogma is starting at such a young age that a newborn’s natural (downy-headed) state is somehow undesirable? …  It’s not only unnecessary, but also pretty much insane, to start forcing cosmetic enhancements on a child too young to even have hair on her head.

Yup.  Rail against the Princess dogma, but give baby boys in toupees a miss.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.  Wigs only matter when baby girls wear them.

Why does it only matter when girls wear wigs?  Because it forces the gender-is-a-social-construction camp to confront the fact that GENDER IS NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION AND YOUR WHOLE THEORY IS BULLSHIT.

That required an all-caps screamfest.  It’s not just annoying and irritating and stupid to cling to the idea that all the differences between boys and girls are the result of social conditioning, it actually causes real harm.

To baby boys.  Parents who honestly think boys and girls can be treated identically with no consequences, who think infant boys and infant girls have the exact same needs are going to short-change their sons.  Let’s say you have a rule that says “when the baby is startled and cries, pick the baby up and offer a soothing and calming response”.

That’s a good rule.

cuddling baby girl

A car backfires and your infant daughter immediately cries and begins searching the room for your face.  She holds your gaze.  You can see she is afraid.  So you calm her and soothe her and let her know that she is safe.

boy waking

A car backfires and your infant son doesn’t respond.  He is confused.  What was that?  He is afraid, but he doesn’t quite understand how to signal that.  He may whimper but he won’t look around for you, so you think he’s alright and carry on.

He’s not alright.  He is just as frightened and in need of comfort as your daughter.  If you begin with the assumption that boys are different from girls FROM BIRTH, you will go to your little man and give him exactly the same comfort as you would your daughter.  Let him know that he is safe.

The idea that gender is socially constructed HURTS little boys.  Feminists like to spin gender construction as something that hurts little girls in particular – that’s why they focus on wigs for girls and not boys.   In doing so, they are helping to create a climate in which boys are short-changed from birth and girls get an unfair advantage in parental responsiveness from birth.

Nice.

It’s not enough that feminist theory hates men.  How sick do you have to be to hate babies?  To advocate for a theory that refuses to recognize infant males as being vulnerable and fragile and in need of extra attention?

daddy baby boy

In 2009, the male infant mortality rate was 7.01 compared to the female infant mortality rate of 5.75.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_08.pdf

There are a number of reasons that babies die, and every death is a tragedy.  It is unconscionable that any of those deaths occurred because the parents didn’t respond to their little sons, thinking that boys act just like girls, until society teaches them otherwise. Infant boys do not respond to cues the same way that girls do.  They need extra attention and care.

The truth is that the little boys who will eventually grow to be bigger and stronger on average than their sisters begin life at a disadvantage.  Grown men may be strong and sturdy, but baby boys are fragile.

Treat them gently, and give them more affection and love than you think they need.  And take lots of pictures of them in darling hats!

chicken

Hahahahah!  He’s a roast chicken!  That is hilarious! Why did the chicken cross the road?  To get on the baby’s head, of course.  Too cute!

Lots of love,

JB

38 Responses to “Baby wigs on girls are misogynist gender policing that must end now. Baby wigs on boys are straight up hilarious! A lesson in how to be joyless and hypocritical.”

  1. Lyna July 5, 2013 at 15:38 #

    The roast chicken hat is just soooo adorable!

    Like

  2. Radical Suburbanite July 5, 2013 at 16:27 #

    That first picture is the cutest thing I have ever seen.

    I was born premature and was a twin so I only weighed 3 lbs at birth. My twin, a boy, was slightly smaller than me and didn’t survive. I was put up for adoption and was born at a time when it wasn’t known that babies needed to be held when they were born. I spent two months in an incubator and had no human contact other then when I was fed during that time. It’s probably a small miracle I survived and, amazingly, wasn’t a sickly child. But I have always wondered why my brother didn’t make it. Was it considered even less necessary to nurture him because he was a boy? It has crossed my mind but I’ll never know.

    Like

  3. M3 July 5, 2013 at 17:08 #

    “The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.”

    Like

  4. aimeemcgee July 5, 2013 at 20:56 #

    JB, my family is full of boy babies – your observations about the less well developed responsiveness ring so true to my experience with all the nephews.
    A cute aside: my mother is a knitter of creative jumpers. As you know little children’s outfits don’t wear on on one kid, so we circulate them from one child to the next in age appropriate bundles.
    My eldest nephew, a strapping 26 year old was heard to say sadly “but that was my jumper” when his 4 year old son came out in the jumper with the T. Rex (complete with bloody fangs) on the front

    Like

  5. LostSailor July 5, 2013 at 21:20 #

    Feminists like to spin gender construction as something that hurts little girls in particular – that’s why they focus on wigs for girls and not boys. In doing so, they are helping to create a climate in which boys are short-changed from birth and girls get an unfair advantage in parental responsiveness from birth.

    That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Feminists will always be up in arms about any perceived “harm” to girls and women, even if the “harm” has to be invented. They will remain silent on harms to boys and men because that is one of the goals of feminism. The other goal of feminism emerges when they try to argue that “patriarchy hurts men, too, and the solution is more feminism.” This is the force behind the “gender is a social construct that can be changed” meme. Taken together, what we see is an effort to “de-gender” men or, in other words, make them think and act more like women. Destroy masculinity, and you have a default where women will control men.

    Or, at least, that’s the plan…

    Like

  6. Natalie July 5, 2013 at 21:26 #

    Ok, firsrt of all? That roast chicken hat? SLAYED ME. Love it. That would give me hours and hours of joy and I would need constant reminders not to nom on my behbeh’s head 🙂

    But second of all, I do kind of see the point the feminists make when the girl child is the only one with a before and after shot. Before and after shots are designed to show how the ‘after’ shot IS SO MUCH BETTER with product X!!! The boys are just hilarious with their little Donald Trump wigs and they illicit laughter and cooing from adults, but for the girl it’s patently to improve her looks, as implied by the before and after. Plus the girls aren’t dressed in crazy wigs, they’re in pretty ones. So I get it, in that sense. It’s nothing to be humourless over, but that is a little unfair.

    You know what I’d like to see? A girl baby in a crazy Cher wig. Something big and bold and designed to inspire laughter and delight like the boy wigs, rather than something just straight ‘pretty’. Or a boy in a Ken doll style hairdo, something to ‘groom up’ the boys, because that’s hilarious too!

    Like

  7. judgybitch July 5, 2013 at 22:16 #

    Very thoughtful reply.

    I would imagine that from a marketing perspective, the wig must look weird in the box, so putting a with with/without wig shot is just a way of showing what the impact will be.

    As for looking better, ALL babies look better with adorable hats on.

    And the Princess Leia hair is a total riot. I made my babies wear Yoda hats. And we had an awesome jester hat with bells on it. So hilarious.

    Baby Yoda

    Like

  8. Ed July 5, 2013 at 23:02 #

    /The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways

    Aka going from the idiocy of Marxism…

    to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure,

    to Faucault

    and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects

    and fucking with Foucault

    {in the same way that Spann fucked with Hegel (by removing the dalectic) to make him fascist or Klages fucked with Nietzsche (by removing the Super Man) [Protip: both Spann and Klages were explicitly fascist.] thus taking Foucault’s theory of what is, what will be, and the relationship between them (which is analgous to Hegel’s Dialectic or Nietzsche’s will to * only using different archic variables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism) and making it fascist.

    And to be explicit: yes, any feminist theory that does not see structures of power as complex and dynamic is as fascist as the Nazis or the Italian fascists, and for the same reasons. (brilliantly explained by Polanyi in the Essence of Fascism http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/library/essence_of_fascism.php Essentially, a disconnect between [in Hegel’s terms bc it’s easiest for me] the universal and the particularity, but for the Christian Polanyi between the individual and God.)}

    to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

    lead to a theory of the world in which some groups are perpetually persecuted by other groups.

    (not mentioned but interesting to note: this ability to claim continuous persecution is, within a true Foucaultian perspective, an enormous source of power in the Battle for Truth. But it only remains a source of power as long as it is not recognized as such. Hence the need to never acknowledge it as a source of power, and the numerous contradictions within pseudo-Foucaultian theories concerning freedom of speech. [Though that could also be because of ignorance. All modern anti-liberal (liberal in the classical sense) thought is essentially that people only experience a small part of reality and that if we could know the totality of existence we’d have a different opinion, ie, what Philosophy argues in the Consolation of Philosophy http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14328, ie the core of almost all secular argument in the west for the past 1489 years. (though that gets a bit screwy post-Shakespeare because the bard was uneducated but very influential)])

    tl;dr Feminism literally contains the same contradictions that Nazi and Italian fascism did only stated in different terms.

    Like

  9. B July 6, 2013 at 01:42 #

    When my son was born- he was in NICU for two weeks. It was devastating! The nurses were so kind to us though. Making sure mama and papa got plenty of cuddling and bonding time with him. Even though it was 6 years ago, I remember the nurses putting emphasis on that sweet time with our baby boy. One of the nurses told me that baby boys needed that extra care. It was the worst when we couldn’t hold him (he spend a lot of time in an incubator). Considering his illness, we’re thankful he was only there for 2 weeks. Bonding helps, a lot.

    Now he’s a happy healthy 6 year old boy! Building towers, roller-coasters…and chasing his little sister with swords lol.

    I can’t imagine life without him. I love my little guy so much.

    (I think the baby wigs are hilariously adorable btw)

    Like

  10. judgybitch July 6, 2013 at 01:44 #

    You’re so lucky to have a nurse who was A) aware that boys need that extra care and B) not crippled by an ideology of perfect equality.

    So glad your baby made it. There’s nothing as terrifying as a seriously ill child.

    Like

  11. Robert July 6, 2013 at 05:43 #

    It would really help if you had a single page with just titles as links to all of your articles, sorted however you want (most recent on top would work for me). I sort of remembered a few paragraphs that I was trying to find, but searching never got me to the post that I needed.

    Otherwise, great site!

    Like

  12. Janet July 6, 2013 at 06:23 #

    I have always thought that there are obvious physical differences between men and women, so why is it SO TERRIBLE to think that there might (usually, but not 100% of the time) be some mental/emotional differences as well?

    Like

  13. Feminism Is A Lie July 6, 2013 at 09:28 #

    Perfect reply, absolutely perfect.

    This whole passage reminds me of sad, sad attempts of high schoolers using big words to make their essay sound more professional and valid, giving no actual thought to whether their argument was grounded in fact and logic. Feminists probably think if they just use big words they can be on the same intellectual level of scientists and other big-thinkers who actually contribute something worthwhile to society. Yet they reject evolutionary psychology because it doesn’t fit in with their ideology. Yes, that’s surely how science works.

    Like

  14. Tom July 6, 2013 at 13:22 #

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3379584

    Like

  15. judgybitch July 6, 2013 at 13:24 #

    404 when I hit this link but maybe it’s just my phone?

    Like

  16. Spaniard July 6, 2013 at 14:30 #

    Off topic

    I keep on thinking what women mean when they say they like the “bad boy” and what men mean when they say they like the “bad girl”.
    Again, the female concept is a bunch of confusion and wag the dog while the male concept is clear.

    “Bad girl” = slut. But not necessary bitch. A slut can have a kind character, and a prude or a respectable wife can have a very bad attitude. There is no correlation. Men probably love sluts but men do not like bitches. At all. Maybe a little joking bitchiness like JB’s. That is OK.

    “Bad boy” = womanizer?, PUA? master BDSM?, pimp?, torturer?, batterer?, rebel?, psycho?, criminal? guy with tattoos? drug addict? bully? bodybuilder? the jerk who get them pregnant and runs away? What the hell women mean with that concept of the “bad boy”?
    By the way: are single moms deeply in love with the jerks who ran away? Probably yes.
    According to this, men should never ever take responsibilities over pregnancy if they want to still loved or respected by the women they got pregnant? Men who take responsibility over pregnancy are seen, by pregnant women, as “nice guys”, to “puke of”, blands, etc?

    If women are really so masochist it is not better the heavy Islamic kind of policy to women, like in Saudi Arabia? Why feminists complain about that if deep inside they would love to wear a burka in the streets and being half naked saleves in a harem?

    It seems that the “bad girl” archetype has only sexual connotations but the “bad boy” goes beyond: it has something to do with bad treatment and total lack of respect.
    In any case all the female speech about any concept is always full of a mix of lies and truths, like Satan’s speech. “Do not hear him, Father Carras!”

    Sorry for the long off topic but I needed to share this.

    Like

  17. Spaniard July 6, 2013 at 14:44 #

    This is very interesting. I agree. There is something paralel in the contradictions of feminism and contradictions in fascism.
    One side of feminism is cultural marxism and the other side is pure Nietzsche (but not the Ubermensch but the Uberfrau) Well… “feminazi”.

    Happens the same to fascism: a mix of marxism and Nietzsche. Mussolini was a marxist originally and, probably, he always thought he was an heterodox marxist all his life.
    If you explore the Spanish fascism of the 1930s (Falange Espanola) you will see there is a deep respect for Karl Marx ideas. Falange Espanola always thought Marx was right in origin but not in development. It went “off the rails”.

    Like

  18. Feminism Is A Lie July 6, 2013 at 15:09 #

    I sort of feel like the “bad boy” idea is a misguided woman’s idea and attempt at getting an alpha male…maybe? And then when they realise they’ve got the wrong guy, these women don’t reevaluate their choices, they try to “reform” the men, but of course that never works out, so in the end it’s the guy’s fault and the women keep making the same choices. I don’t know, it’s just a theory, I never really understood the whole bay boy thing anyway.

    Like

  19. Emcee July 6, 2013 at 17:56 #

    I might be able to see where they were coming from if they were trying to be considerate of a possible transgender baby (if that’s possible? Either way, it would be once they grow up). But they’re not. Whether not you believe that gender is socially constructed, I have yet to hear a clear and convincing argument demonstrating why that is INHERENTLY bad.

    Off-topic, but it’s the same with objectification and gender roles, as per patriarchy theory. Why is objectification of people inherently wrong? Why are gender roles inherently oppressive?

    Like

  20. Spaniard July 6, 2013 at 18:01 #

    Well, I do not understand it either. Probably because “bad boy” = NOTHING. It is just more wag the dog. That is why I made that contrast with the clear and so concrete archetype of the “bad girl”. Yes, the “bad girl” is a slut and a heart breaker. And lot of men fall for her (including me) But men fall for her sex appeal and her tough attitude (Lola-Lola, Lolita, Gilda, Mae West, Katerine Tramell, etc) not because her nasty attitude. That is so repulsive to men. Has no logic any man could love an unbearable witch.
    But when women talk about the “bad boy” I used to think (back in the 80s) that it was kind of John Malkovich as “Viconte de Valmont”: a sex predator but a gentleman, and with a high romantic sense. But it seems what women actually mean (present day) with the “bad boy” is just a rough pimp. Valmont, after all, with all his talented and bright conversation, and his deep passion and gentleman manners, would be, for 2010s women, just a pathetic “nice guy”.
    So, today women are classless.

    Like

  21. Spaniard July 6, 2013 at 18:44 #

    This is funny. All the construction and objectification of the male, is a female product. And men had buy that product. For ages.
    The “real man”. Who is the “real man”?: Jesus (by the way, I heard a pretty girl saying that Jesus Christ was a “nice guy”) or Satan? The good boy or the bad boy?, the father type or the jerk? the invader or the defender? the bully or the protector of the weak? the fire-fighter or the bomber of cities?, the one who loves or the cold hearted?
    In women’s mind all of them are the “real man”. So, men, trying to please women, run after this “real man” idea which a total contradiction. And then, the result is really terrible. But, of course, women do not want to be objectified. That is offensive.

    Like

  22. Bob Wallace July 6, 2013 at 20:18 #

    Those binkies that look like vampire teeth or mustaches crack me up even more than hat pictures.

    Like

  23. Tom July 6, 2013 at 21:34 #

    It is your phone.

    We investigated whether women ever engage in token resistance to sex–saying no but meaning yes–and, if they do, what their reasons are for doing so. A questionnaire administered to 610 undergraduate women asked whether they had ever engaged in token resistance and, if so, asked them to rate the importance of 26 possible reasons. We found that 39.3% of the women had engaged in token resistance at least once. Their reasons fell into three categories: practical, inhibition-related, and manipulative reasons. Women’s gender role attitudes, erotophobia-erotophilia, and other attitudes and beliefs varied as a function of their experience with token resistance and their sexual experience. We argue that, given society’s sexual double standard, token resistance may be a rational behavior. It could, however, have negative consequences, including discouraging honest communication, perpetuating restrictive gender stereotypes, and–if men learn to disregard women’s refusals–increasing the incidence of rape.

    Like

  24. judgybitch July 6, 2013 at 21:39 #

    Very interesting. I will have to open it on my computer

    Like

  25. Marlo Rocci July 7, 2013 at 00:14 #

    I’m just surprised that Jezebel didn’t chime in with just kill the male babies before they rape. Although I’m sure there’s a Jezebel article to that effect coming.

    Like

  26. Exfernal July 7, 2013 at 00:45 #

    The quality of journalism presented by Natalie Wolchover is, to put it mildly, disappointing. In another article she tries to explain why there are dynamic deviations from ideal gender parity among humans, that begin at birth, if not earlier.

    Why is there a natural gender ratio of 105 boys born alive for 100 girl infants?
    It was proposed about half a century ago that Y chromosome-carrying sperm (which produces boys, of course) swims faster, carrying less DNA “ballast” than the other kind.

    This hypothesis was recently tested on cattle using appopriate tools.
    Was it so difficult to find?

    She also never mentions Trivers-Willard hypothesis – a very politically incorrect (PDF link), highly controversial topic among evolutionary psychologists. What is the most probable explanation for most of of it? IMO: gender-differential early miscarriage.

    A sidenote: An example how blind pursuit of vanity (SILICON BOOBIES!) often hurts future kids.

    As for cute kiddie images, no comment. Fatherly instinct is deeply dormant, so no reaction.

    Like

  27. Emcee July 7, 2013 at 02:03 #

    Was it women who defined was a “real man” is? I’m not so sure. I agree that “In women’s mind all of them are the ‘real man'”. The heart wants what the heart wants, right? But why is it women’s fault, that men have always tried to please women by becoming something that is vague and relative in the end? How is that a “female product”?

    Like

  28. Spaniard July 7, 2013 at 10:53 #

    It is a female projection. Then, becomes a “Cosmopolitan topic”. And men buy it.
    Men are stupid for doing it. That is not question about it. But men are more naif. Women are stupid but manipulative.

    And talking as Jesus as a “nice guy”… I can imagine a modern woman in the shoes of Magdalene in that danferous moment against the crowd. Jesus has just saved her from lapidation and then, this modern woman thinks:
    “Oh! he is such a nice guy. Probably he can’t get laid and he has mommy issues. By saving me he want to gain points with me in order to shag me, that is for sure. But, no way… he is done. I feel pity for him. Not even a pity shag I would give him. If he would treat me like a real man, like a manly man, and he would throw stones to me, like everybody else, I woul get wet on my knickers and I would go after him and having a sahg. After all… he looks too sweet, but he is handsome. He just needs to know how to treat hot gals like me…”

    Like

  29. Spaniard July 7, 2013 at 11:19 #

    Oh! I have just read this is and is so fantastic!: “Single moms and the men who love us” by Missinglemama.

    “I think one of the best things about being a single mom is this: We get to weed out the jerks. Quickly! WHETHER WE WANT THEM OR NOT. The players run away screamiing while the good guys stick around. Pretty sweet bonus for all of our hard work. Don’t you think?”

    Thanks God, the stupidity of women is so over their manipulative mind that they give us all the information.

    Like

  30. Exfernal July 7, 2013 at 16:36 #

    In short: yet another “red flag” to avoid for a long term relationship.

    Like

  31. Exfernal July 7, 2013 at 20:30 #

    Spell-check faults: “appopriate” and “of of” inside link labels.

    Like

  32. Emcee July 7, 2013 at 22:31 #

    I don’t think just any women would think that way. Idiots with no concept of empathy might, radical feminists might. I like to think that women in general aren’t so tasteless.

    Like

  33. Kitsunegari July 9, 2013 at 01:54 #

    ERMAGERD BABEHS IN HATS!!!!!

    ….and the rest of your post is good, too 😉

    Like

  34. Jack Strawb January 6, 2015 at 13:24 #

    “We found that 39.3% of the women had engaged in token resistance at least once.

    The other 60.7% are lying.

    Like

  35. Jack Strawb January 6, 2015 at 13:27 #

    “By the way: are single moms deeply in love with the jerks who ran away? Probably yes.”

    Not after they run away and stay away (and it’s hardly because they’re jerks). Then that “love” turns very quickly to hate. Of course, that in turn strongly suggests these women didn’t love these men very much to begin with, but only the feelings those men instilled in them.

    Like

  36. Jack Strawb January 6, 2015 at 13:32 #

    It’s hilarious that she thinks men want women who have had children by other men. There are exceptions, of course, as well as there being more men who are willing to settle for them than really want them, but it’s one of the big rules.

    Through about age 30 I can’t remember more than one guy I knew who considered a woman having children anything other than a deal breaker.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Baby wigs on girls are misogynist gender policing that must end now... | Viva La Manosphere! - July 5, 2013

    […] judgybitch.com […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: