Archive | Fat RSS feed for this section

Well, well, well – look at this. Is the conversation about #rapeculture starting to take on a shade of sanity?

16 Oct

These two articles are only tangentially related to the main story today, but they demonstrate just how schizophrenic mainstream, feminist-influenced media has become.

This is Maria Kang, the mother of three children, who is *gasp* not a lardass, and who feels like other women can make the decision not to be lardasses themselves.

The horror!

maria

She got called all kinds of names by women who feel “fat-shamed” by Maria and her three gorgeous sons and her sculpted abs and Maria is just such a bitch to point out that when it comes to weight, for most of us, it’s “your body, your choice”.

Blah blah blah BEAUTY STANDARDS blah blah blah FAT ACCEPTANCE blah blah blah SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION blah blah blah….

http://jezebel.com/fit-ab-baring-mom-issues-faux-pology-over-judgey-faceb-1445844576

Nothing particularly surprising about that, except when you consider it next to this article about Melissa McCarthy.

melissa

Now all of sudden the bitchy whiners are on the opposite side of the fence.

HER COAT IS TOO BIG WHY DIDN’T YOU OVERTLY SEXUALIZE HER WE CAN’T SEE HER TITS OH MY GOD THIS IS SEXIST AND FATPHOBIC AND I DEMAND TO SEE MORE SKIN

http://www.thegloss.com/2013/10/10/fashion/melissa-mccarthy-reese-witherspoon-penelope-cruz-shailene-woodley-elle/

What

The

Fuck?

Could you pick a goddamn side here?  Are we sexualizing actresses and forcing them to display their bodies in a totally demeaning way that simply needs to stop, or are we not?  Is it only acceptable when fat women are sexualized? Why would that be?  Do we have an agenda here, whereby fat lumpy women are the only acceptable objects of sexual desire?

The incoherence is turning the conversation about bodies and objectification and sexism into a joke that even the thickest plank can recognize.

And the same thing appears to finally be happening with #rapeculture.  We have the “new Steubenville” all over the news today, with two young teenage girls alleging they were raped by local football stars, one of whom happens to be politically connected.

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/12/4549775/nightmare-in-maryville-teens-sexual.html

It’s the same story, all over again.  Daisy liked Matthew and she found his attention flattering.  Daisy and Paige got hammered one night and Daisy texted Matthew and a meeting was arranged.  Everyone drank a whole lot of alcohol and sex happened.  Rather than pledging his undying love for Daisy, Matthew took her home and left her semi-conscious on her front lawn in freezing temperatures.

That was a dick move, for sure.

But what if it hadn’t happened that way?  What if Matthew had tucked her into his bottom bunk and wrapped her up in his favourite flannel sleeping bag and greeted her the next morning with some toast and tea and asked her to go steady?

couple

Would it still be rape? Or just a hilarious story they recounted to the cheerleading squad about how it all began?

http://judgybitch.com/2013/10/10/hypothesis-its-only-rape-when-he-doesnt-fall-in-love/

Maybe Matthew did rape Daisy.  Maybe it all went down just as the two girls claim it did.  Maybe it was straight up voracious sexual predator takes down innocent prey. The trouble with that story is that the PREY MADE HERSELF VULNERABLE.

Cue the screams of “victim-blaming”…. Don’t fucking bother leaving your comments on this blog, because I won’t publish them.

seatbelt

Wear your seatbelt.  It’s a sensible precaution if you get in an accident.  The accident may not be your fault, but it will be your fault if you get severely injured by failing to take that reasonable precaution.

Wear a helmet when you ride your bike.  It’s a sensible precaution if you get in an accident.  The accident may not be your fault, but it will be your fault if you get severely injured by failing to take that reasonable precaution.

 

It’s not victim-blaming.  It’s victim-preventing.

And finally, some voices come out of the dark to state the obvious:  Emily Yoffe at Slate earned herself a mountain of hate by writing The best rape prevention: tell college women to stop getting so wasted.

 

Young women are getting a distorted message that their right to match men drink for drink is a feminist issue.

As soon as the school year begins, so do reports of female students sexually assaulted by their male classmates. A common denominator in these cases is alcohol, often copious amounts, enough to render the young woman incapacitated. But a misplaced fear of blaming the victim has made it somehow unacceptable to warn inexperienced young women that when they get wasted, they are putting themselves in potential peril.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/10/sexual_assault_and_drinking_teach_women_the_connection.html

Emily’s solution to this problem is to try and move the cultural conversation towards attaching shame and stigma to being black-out wasted.

I don’t believe any of these statistics will move in the right direction until binge drinking joins smoking, drunk driving, and domestic abuse as behaviors that were once typical and are now unacceptable. Reducing binge drinking is going to require education, enforcement, and a change in campus social culture. These days the weekend stretches over half the week and front-loading and boot and rally are major extracurricular activities. Puking in your hair, peeing in your pants, and engaging in dangerous behaviors have to stop being considered hilarious escapades or proud war stories and become a source of disgust and embarrassment.

Fair enough.  It really is getting rather nauseating, watching drunk young women act like base animals in the street. This girl is actually shitting on the sidewalk, in full view of pedestrians.

shitgirl

Seriously?  Gross.  Her friend joins her a few minutes later to urinate on the same piece of sidewalk.  Disgusting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2461512/Swansea-woman-pictured-defecating-street.html

I’m delighted to see Emily at least tackle the problem, but “stop binge drinking” is not going to work anymore than prohibition worked.  The real solution is for both women and men to have a sense of loyalty and solidarity with their friends.

You never leave your man behind.

Or in this case, your woman.

It’s deeply ingrained in male culture.  The Marine who drops back to help a little boy finish his 5K race.  I defy you not to cry.

That feeling used to be part of female culture, too.

You play for a team, and you keep each other safe.  Every person I know who is over the age of 30 greets that idea with “well, duh”.  Why don’t young women do this anymore?  Why don’t they protect each other, not from “ooh scary rapists lurking everywhere”, but from their own impaired judgement?

It must be partly because women simply don’t think they should be held responsible for impaired judgement, but also because the mantra of “strong, independent woman” forecloses the possibility of “stupid, irresponsible girl”.

Daisy and Paige were stupid.  Paige is now coming forward with her story, claiming the boys “separated them and made them drink more”.  Oh really?  So they forcibly dragged you into separate rooms and sat on your chests and poured alcohol down your throats?

Really?

I doubt it.

http://jezebel.com/the-second-alleged-maryville-rape-victim-speaks-it-wa-1446110042

Daisy and Paige let each other down.

Apparently, there is video footage of at least one couple having sex.  Perhaps it really does show an assault.  Perhaps not.  Whatever it shows, that shouldn’t stop us from pointing out that girls like Daisy and Paige and the Steubenville girl and every other girl who wakes up after a night of shit-faced idiocy feeling ashamed and grubby and used played a part in her own degradation.

Thank you, Emily, for bringing the conversation more into the mainstream.  I hope she doesn’t get fired for stating the obvious, but you know, I won’t be surprised if she does.  Wait ‘til Amanda Marcotte reads that piece!

witches

There’s gonna be a storm of cackling witches over at Slate, out for Emily’s blood!  Poor dear.  Take a page from the British Bulldog, and hold fast.

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

Winston Churchill

Lots of love,

JB

Food = Love. Careful now. That’s a trap set by the patriarchy to encourage meaningful relationships, and we can’t have that!

26 Sep

 

walmart

 

Captain Capitalism has a theory that people whose political inclinations tend to lean left are less physically attractive than those who lean more to the right. According to the Captain, looking physically attractive takes work and effort and leftists have a strong tendency to look for someone else to blame for their problems, including having a huge ass and a muffin top that makes the People of Walmart look positively lithe.

 

I do NOT believe liberals and leftists are born uglier than their average conservative counterpart. It’s not like they’re genetically inferior or anything. What I am talking about is that they put A LOT LESS EFFORT into their physical appearance. Ergo, this is not a criticism of their basic, physical beauty, let alone their genetics, but it IS a criticism of their psychology. You could take that Prius-driving, 45 year old, gray haired, super skinny yoga woman who never wore make-up, never did her hair up, give her a make over and she’d come out looking just fine. Just as you could take the cowering, tubby orbiting beta with the Seth Rogen beard, through him in the gym for 3 months and have him come out looking just fine.

 

But that’s the not the point.

 

The point is to your average leftists such working out and maintenance requires effort. That AND the added risk they may still “fail” in attracting a mate. It is their pure hatred and fear of effort and competition that not only drives their political and economic ideologies, but also drives their “romantic” or “mating” ideology.

 

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2012/09/why-leftists-tend-to-be-uglier.html

 

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos/

 

I don’t want to discuss Cappy’s theory per se, other than to point out he cites some research that suggests he may be on to something, and that more feminine looking women tend to be Republicans. It’s colloquially known as the “Michele Bachmann” effect.

 

michele

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112001758

 

What I want to discuss is how an entire worldview can play out in various aspects of one’s personal life without necessarily any awareness on the part of the actor. Liberals may not realize that in blaming the “Man” for why they have a shitty job, they are also providing the justification for not hitting the gym, but the relationship exists nonetheless.

 

sandwich

 

And I want to discuss that in the context of the woman who made 300 sandwiches for her boyfriend after she made him a sandwich and he told her she was on her way to earning an engagement ring, because to him, the act of making a sandwich was an act of love. And why else do you get engaged if not for love?

 

To him, sandwiches are like kisses or hugs. Or sex. “Sandwiches are love,” he says. “Especially when you make them. You can’t get a sandwich with love from the deli.”

 

http://nypost.com/2013/09/24/i-wooed-my-man-with-a-sandwich/

 

It’s actually pretty funny to see the feminist ladies at Slate’s Double XX blog and Jezebel try to understand how a woman, ANY woman, could possibly want to indicate her love for a man, and make that the basis of a potential marriage.

 

Who does that? Who shows a MAN they are loved and then thinks love is something that can sustain a marriage?

 

Amanda Hess is particularly hilarious trying to parse out the relationship between love and actions that demonstrate love.

 

How do we make sense of love in the time of “I’m 124 Sandwiches Away From an Engagement Ring”? The traditional romantic structures that previously organized our physical and emotional connections to other people are crumbling fast. Nobody buys one another root beer floats anymore. Everybody’s touching everybody else before they marry anyone. There are no boyfriends here. In the face of all this romantic disruption, some lovers are frantically constructing new frameworks—diamond-fishing sandwich blogs, for example—in a desperate attempt to reduce our strange and wonderful human experiences into another rote mechanical exercise. Stop. Love each other. Eat sandwiches. Don’t trade either of them for anything.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/09/25/just_300_sandwiches_for_an_engagement_ring_stephanie_smith_s_300_sandwiches.html

 

Don’t trade either of them for anything.

 

How can she not see that sandwiches and love are ONE AND THE SAME THING? Love is not just something you say. It’s something you do. Every day. For the rest of your life. For someone else. If you’re a heterosexual woman, that someone else is going to be a man.

 

couple

 

And there’s the problem.

 

It doesn’t have to be a sandwich. It can be anything. Pizza. Cookies. Bread. A different handmade pasta every day for 300 days. Those things take skill, though. The beauty of a sandwich is that anyone can make one, regardless of their familiarity with the kitchen and the tools therein.

 

What it takes is a particular mindset. Your whole worldview needs to change to do something like make 300 sandwiches. You have to put the other person first, and take time out of your day, every day, to make a special effort to please another person. You think about their comfort and feelings and well-being and you put those things ahead of your own, not forever, not always, not in every single situation you will ever confront in your life together, BUT FOR THE TIME IT TAKES TO MAKE A SANDWICH.

 

minutes

 

What is that? Maybe 15 minutes? 15 minutes of your day, every day, is dedicated to the care of the person (man) you love.

 

And that’s just too much to trade, is it?

 

How sad. It’s not hard to imagine Amanda’s response, is it?

 

Well, what does he do for ME fifteen minutes a day? Get out the spreadsheets and start tabulating. 15 seconds to open the door for me. 45 seconds to go to the bedroom and fetch my purse because I have my boots on already and I forgot. 3 minutes to select an excellent Shiraz for our evening meal (South Africa! Try South Africa!). 8 minutes to run a hot bath and fill it with vanilla scented bubbles.

 

Keep careful tabs, and if he doesn’t hit the 15 minute absolute perfect trade-off mark, then fuck him and his sandwich. Chuck it in the trash. We’re after perfect equality, right? And the best way to achieve that is to be a temporal bean-counting bitch.

 

garbage

 

Yeah, okay. Good luck with that.

 

Jezebel wonders just how piss-poor a sandwich can be offered. If you’re gonna make someone a sandwich that he interprets as a gesture of love, then you want to put the LEAST amount of effort into that as possible, right? And maybe even try to trade off for blow-jobs instead?

 

Even though we now know, collectively as a Lady Monolith, how to please men, collectively as a Man Monolith, a few loose ends were left untied in Smith’s piece. Namely: how complicated a sandwich are we talking here? Would Eric still light up Stephanie’s ring finger if she just half assed the last 124 sandwiches by making him a pile of peanut butter on folded bread monstrosities? What is the minimum number of ingredients required for Eric to count it as 1/300th an engagement ring? Are there any substitutions for sandwichmaking? What’s the sandwich-to-blowjob conversion rate (my boss suggested that 1 BJ is worth 2 4-or-more-ingredient sandwiches; I’m inclined to agree)?

 

http://jezebel.com/lady-earns-engagement-ring-by-making-300-sad-sandwiches-1383822830

 

bitter

 

Where on earth does the stereotype of feminists as sulky, sour, bitter, loveless bitches come from? It’s such a mystery. There is just so much love and affection in that quote, isn’t there?

 

Let’s look at some of the comments. They’re so cute!

 

cassiebearRAWRU

Deli sandwiches don’t have love?

Why the fuck would I want love in my sandwich? That just takes up room that could be used for sliced jalapeños and bacon. Yesterday 12:46pm

 

Straight up denial. Food is not love.

 

food

 

quashitlikeitshot

Exactly. I am a great cook, and my husband loves my cooking. He has never, ever, once made me feel bad for not cooking. There is a difference.

This guy is an ass, and he can certainly kiss mine. Yesterday 1:02pm

 

Point right over the head. He never made her feel bad. On the contrary. He told her that the love she put into making to sandwiches was NOT going unnoticed, and that he was prepared to love her forever.

 

 

Wenchette

This morning I made a piping hot cup of disappointment for my husband. Rich black disappointment, tinged with regret and a sense of impending loss, served piping hot with two sugars and some cream. Yesterday 12:47pm

 

This is funny in the way that watching socially impaired people try to interact is funny. You feel awful at the same time. Schadenfreude. That’s what the word really means. You laugh at someone’s misfortune, but at the same time you feel absolutely terrible for them. The second part has to be there in order for the word schadenfreude to be the correct choice. Laughing at someone’s misfortune is just sadism.

 

Trust me. My father speaks German as a first language and it always drives him nuts when people confuse sadism with schadenfreude.

 

This comment made me laugh, but at the same time, holy fuck, what a bitch! I feel sorry for her and her husband.

 

One commenter acknowledges that buddy in question is no slouch in the kitchen, but it has no effect on the Jezzie ladies.

 

young man cooking food in the kitchen

see you in rach-hell

I guess I’m the only person who has read her blog and realizes that their relationship seems fine, he cooks an equal amount for the both of them, and it’s not really as serious crazy-woman-desperate-to-get-married-to-a-misogynist as this article makes it sound.

Some might say the idea is sexist. “A woman in the kitchen—how Stepford Wife of you!” a friend argued. I say come over for dinner, and watch E whip up roasted duck breast with a balsamic and currant sauce with a roasted parsnip puree and shaved pickled beets in no time, and you’ll see who spends more time in the kitchen.

Some say I’m just desperate to get engaged. Hardly. I don’t have to be. E didn’t say “cook me 300 sandwiches or I’m leaving you!” He gave me a challenge—a dare, to some degree—and the type-A, Tracy Flick side of me can’t stand being challenged. I will prove to him and the rest of the world I can make the 300 sandwiches.

 

Seems hyperbolic to me. Yesterday 1:22pm

 

Nope. That kind of reasonableness won’t play here.

 

InterrobangUsee you in rach-hell391L

Her premise is revolting. That her husband cooks changes nothing about the fact that her blog is about making enough sandwiches to “earn” an engagement ring.

 

Or, you know, maybe that demonstrating the willingness to care and make an effort to provide for the other person is mutual? Seems like Stephanie has the better deal here, with Eric pureeing parsnips to go with roast duck.

 

Seriously, these women just can’t STAND the idea that any woman would demonstrate love by providing food for a MAN even though he obviously takes the time to provide food for her.

 

That is what brings me back to Captain Capitalism’s theory. Women who embrace feminism don’t seem to be able to perceive that they are encouraged to blame men for all their problems and actively hate men, and simply REFUSE to make a fucking sandwich because severe cognitive dissonance kicks in and it is impossible to reconcile all the contradictions of feminism as a philosophy.

 

“We don’t hate men” claim the feminists.

 

But make them a sandwich? Oh hell no. That will be interpreted as love and we love men so we can’t do anything that shows we love men.

 

head

 

Remember my advice on how to pick a wife? I mentioned providing food as being a critical condition, and I am now inclined to believe it may be the ONLY flag you need to look for.

 

http://judgybitch.com/2012/11/16/how-to-pick-a-wife-advice-for-single-men/

 

Food = love.

 

A woman who doesn’t provide food for you doesn’t love you. She doesn’t have to be Julia Child. Anyone can make a sandwich. Anyone can order pizza. Anyone can fry bacon.

 

“Make me a sandwich?”

 

It really means “do you love me”?

 

I’d listen to the answer very carefully. A woman who refuses is likely very much a feminist, even if she won’t use the word to describe herself.

 

And that’s not a woman you want.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 

 

 

Clothing stores for fat people? Hooray! Clothing stores for thin people? You fat-phobic, bigoted asshole!

8 May

 

The two stories I’m writing about today popped up almost back to back in my inbox.

 

af

 

One is about the asshole CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch, who is pursuing a niche marketing strategy (which has never happened before in the history of the world).

 

Niche marketing?!? What’s that?

 

Oh, is that like when you create a website that specifically caters to women?

 

Oh, never mind.

 

Here’s the story:

 

http://jezebel.com/abercrombie-doesnt-want-gross-fat-people-wearing-their-489583439

 

Written by Madam Lardass herself, Lindy West.

 

Lindy

 

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” [CEO Jeffries] told the site. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.”

 

Abercrombie & Fitch doesn’t even MAKE clothing above a size 10 for women because ASSHOLES, obviously. And we are talking an American size 10, which is pretty fricking roomy.

 

See this chick, with her beefy thighs and huge belly and rolls of back fat?

 

size 12

 

She’s a size 12. That’s how fat you have to be before you can’t shop at A&F.

 

One of these ladies can shop at A&F. The other one can’t.

 

fat and thin

 

This has nothing to do with what constitutes beauty. Lots of men prefer a size 12 woman, as long as she is fit and firm and has a pleasing hip to waist ratio.

 

prefer

 

This is about a business targeting a very specific market and offering exclusivity. Why? Because you can charge a price premium, that’s why. It’s not a novel concept. Why do people go to Starbucks when they can get pretty similar coffee at 7-11 for a quarter of the price?

 

http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/generic.shtml

 

Starbucks sells the Special Snowflake illusion. Why there are 87 000 possible drink combinations! For a mere $5, we will brew something that meets your exacting and exquisite taste. It’s all for you! And only you!

 

snowlfake

 

http://www.neatorama.com/2010/08/21/starbucks-facts-it-has-87000-possible-drink-combinations/

 

Of course, Starbucks sells 8.2 million cups of coffee every day, so the odds that you ain’t really that special are pretty good. Cognitive dissonance, anyone? Oh who cares.

 

I’ll have a Non fat half caf triple grande quarter sweet sugar free vanilla non-fat lactaid extra hot extra foamy caramel macchiato, please.

 

starbucks

 

A&F follows a similar strategy. They want young, attractive, cool people to buy their clothes and part of the value is that ONLY young, attractive and cool people CAN buy their clothes. Actually, anyone a size 10 or under can buy their clothes, but you will feel young and attractive and cool because MARKETING.

 

You will look like a giant asshole, but you will feel super amazing and A&F will laugh all the way to the bank.

 

ellen

 

Now, here’s the next story:

 

http://jezebel.com/finally-you-guys-a-friendly-plus-size-store-for-men-493080534

 

Okay, so A&F are jerks for excluding fat people, but Destination XL is awesome for excluding thin people?

 

It’s all part of the same mindset: have your cake and eat it too. From the looks of it, eating cake is something Lindy does on a regular basis. Jesus woman, have a slice. Not the whole thing!

 

cake

 

We can have stores for fat people, and stores for all people, but we can’t have stores for thin people.

 

gym

 

We can have gyms for everyone and gyms for women, but we can’t have gyms for men.

http://jezebel.com/jackass-suing-his-gym-for-their-442-women-only-hours-pe-476604412

 

We can have clubs for everyone, and clubs for women, but we can’t have clubs for men.

 

ladies

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-301932/THE-WOMEN-BEHAVING-BADLY-OVER-MEN-ONLY.html

 

We can have hockey teams for everyone, and hockey teams for girls, but we can’t have hockey teams for boys.

 

http://judgybitch.com/2012/12/03/girls-only-league-ok-boys-only-league-no-way-you-sexist-pig/

 

We can have rights for humans and we can have rights for women, but we can’t have rights for men.

 

http://jezebel.com/5941876/mens-rights-activists-shocked-that-their-misogynistic-posters-are-being-torn-down

 

What’s curious about all these particular examples is that they are all on the wrong side of history. Fat people are a biological anomaly. Humans were not intended to be fat, which probably explains all the negative health consequences that come along with choosing to eat until you can’t move.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/effects/

 

Men are more physically competitive and enjoy sports, especially organized team sports, far more than women. Excluding them from gyms and hockey teams in the hopes of making women more competitive and more like men is a losing proposition.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201303/using-athletics-close-the-gender-gap-in-politics

 

Men control most of the political structures and institutions in the world and that doesn’t look like it will changing any time soon. Women don’t WANT that power.

 

Young women are less likely than young men ever to have considered running for office, to express interest in a candidacy at some point in the future, or to consider elective office a desirable profession.

 

http://www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/Girls-Just-Wanna-Not-Run_Policy-Report.pdf

 

In other words, women don’t want to do any of the hard work to create, maintain, oversee and strategically intervene in an economy or society, but they would still like all the privileges that come with doing the work.

 

Oh, okay. That seems reasonable.

 

You know, there IS one way to have your cake and eat it, too. Gobble that sucker down, and then puke it back up. There. You ate your cake, and you still have it, too.

 

barf

 

Of course, we recognize that particular behavior as a mental illness: bulimia. Eventually, it will kill you. But hey, at least you’ll be able to shop at Abercrombie & Fitch!

 

Feminism: it really is a mental illness.

 

And I think I’ll make a cake now.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 

%d bloggers like this: