Tag Archives: ManBoobz

Disney Princesses are kind and pretty and that’s bad. Disney Villainesses are evil and cruel and that’s awesome! Disney Princes don’t count for anything at all. Feminist Disney theory is hard!

4 Jun

This is Merida.  She’s an awesome little ass-kicking archer who has one or two ideas about how to save her realm from disaster, and they involve comfortable clothing and a distinct lack of concern over her hair (which is completely fabulous).


Unlike other Disney Princesses, Merida was lauded by the feminist media because she doesn’t give a hoot about icky things like love and romance and boys.  Boys?!?!  Ewwww.  Gross.  We don’t want to be encouraging our own little princesses to think that family and love and children and marriage and men might be a key part of their happiness.  Get married to a man you love and then have children?  How dumb is that?


Jezebel got so horned out over the drawing of an underage girl, they started imagining having sex with her.  Merida could be a lesbian!  Imagine what we could do with a lesbian!  Nothing to see here, folks.  Grown women lusting over an underage cartoon drawing of another woman.




In the movie, Merida is 16 years old, just on the cusp on becoming a woman.  Disney recently issued a new drawing of Merida in which she has aged a bit, and her form has taken on a decidedly more feminine, womanly silhouette.


Cue the outrage!  16 year old girls don’t grow into lovely, shapely women!  That’s bullshit!  She can’t be slender and willowy!  That doesn’t happen.  La la la I can’t hear you biology!


Had they chunked Merida out, made her a fat little sow, and chopped off her hair, I am sure Disney would have been applauded and adored!  Fat acceptance!  Defiance of heteronormativity*! Hooray!

big red

One shivers to think of the lesbian fantasies a fat Merida with short hair would elicit.

*heteronormative means understanding that most people are heterosexual which is obviously a big fat lie

Shamefully, Disney caved and withdrew the new drawing of Merida.  That’s actually very troubling.  At least the executives at Disney pointed out the total hypocrisy of equating Merida with what she wears or how she does her hair.

That image doesn’t represent a ‘new’ Merida replacing an ‘old’ Merida: it’s just another iteration of Merida, who is much, much more than just red curls and a green dress. The gussied up Merida on the coronation invitation is Merida gussied up for one of the most important events of her princess career. That she’s a little more sparkly for the party is not a heresy against her independent and spirited self – I consider myself independent and spirited, and I wore the sparkliest gown that I could find when I got married, because of course I did.


Disney Princesses come in for a whack ton of criticism for caring about men and marriage and love, but the biggest crime the Princesses commit is being thin and pretty.


And it’s true.  The Princesses are slender and beautiful and the features that humans tend to perceive as the most beautiful are greatly exaggerated.



Jasmine’s eyes are huge and her hair is impossibly fluffy and long and her limbs are so slender and her waist is so tiny and oh my!  Real women look nothing like Disney Princesses.

Of course, the Princes are always depicted as normal, proportional, utterly realistic male human beings, right?

No emphasis on strength?


No impossible beauty?


No chiselled jawlines?


No ridiculously broad shoulders and narrow waists?

snow white

No smooth pectorals?


No bulging biceps?


No washboard abs?


And Princes never, ever have great wealth and power and prestige to trade for the Princesses beauty, right?


It’s curious that Jezebel will go to town on the Princesses for being unrealistically beautiful and kind and pretty and thin, but when it comes to the Villainesses, the choir falls silent.

evil queen

The Evil Queen is every bit as slender and beautiful as Snow White.  Why, she’s the second fairest in the land.  How do you deal with being the second prettiest girl in the room?  Well, you murder the prettiest one, obviously.


The live action movie Snow White and the Huntsman failed precisely because Charlize Theron is so much prettier than what’s-her-face.


Cruella deVille?  Scrawny little bitch, ain’t she?  And she turns puppies into coats!


Glenn Close did a marvellous job bringing her to life.  She’s not at all unrealistically beautiful.


Maleficent?  Size zero evil.


And Angelina Jolie is so totally average.


The hypocrisy of all this just drives me mad.  The only difference between the Villainesses and the Princesses is that the Princesses are kind and they love a man.  The feminist outcry over body image is nothing but a smokescreen.  If feminists cared about unrealistic body images, they would care just as much about how the evil women are portrayed and about how the men are portrayed.


Pretty young women who are kind and love a man.  That’s the story feminism hates.  The story they do not want little girls to hear.  They want the heart of that story carved out of every little girl’s chest and brought to them in a  box.


It will never work.  The Huntsman for one, refuses to carry out the Evil Queen’s dirty work.  And the Princess won’t stop loving the Prince. It’s in her nature.


And nature is a difficult force to reckon with.  It hardly ever ends well for those who try.


Biology always wins.  Beauty wins.  Love wins.


Your beauty does not have to be extraordinary.  Just make the most of what you have.  Try.  Beauty and the Boobz anyone?


Disney fairytales are beloved because they are true.  Be kind, be loving, be generous, be as pretty as you can be.  That’s how you capture the heart of the Prince.

naveen & tiana

That’s how you live happily ever after.

Lots of love,


Male booksellers unite in a call to end the sexist objectification of men’s bodies on the covers of romance novels. Enough with this six-pack shit!

28 May

In the wake of radical feminist groups in the UK calling for an end to sexist, objectifying “lad mags”, radical masculinist groups have united calling for an end to sexist, objectifying “romance novels”.

cover 1

The Lose the Lady Porn campaign by UK Masculinism and Object is calling on high-street retailers to immediately withdraw romance novels and magazines featuring pornographic front covers from their stores. Each one of these stores is a workplace. Displaying these publications in workplaces, and/or requiring staff to handle them in the course of their jobs, may amount to sex discrimination and sexual harassment contrary to the Equality Act 2010. Similarly, exposing customers to these publications in the process of displaying them is capable of giving rise to breaches of the Equality Act.


High-street retailers are exposing staff and, in some cases, customers to publications whose handling and display may breach equality legislation. Displaying romance novels and pornographic magazines (under the guise of “fitness”) in “mainstream” shops results in the involuntary exposure of staff and, in some cases, customers to pornographic images.

cover 5

Every mainstream retailer which stocks romance novels is vulnerable to legal action by staff and, where those publications are visibly on display, by customers. There are, in particular, examples of staff successfully suing employers in respect of exposure to pornographic material at work. Such exposure is actionable where it violates the dignity of individual employees or customers, or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. We therefore call on such retailers to urgently heed the call to Lose the Ladies Porn.


UK Masculinism director Kurt Banyard said so-called ladies porn fuelled sexist attitudes and behaviour by portraying men as “sex objects”.

cover 3

He told the BBC the images caused “real harm”.

“They promote sexist attitudes and behaviours – attitudes which underpin a view of men as mere utilities that can be used and discarded by women at will,” he said.

cover 7

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) said: “Major retailers understand their responsibilities to staff and customers.

“BRC members don’t sell anything it isn’t legal to sell and they have long followed joint industry guidelines, as well as taking their own independent voluntary action, to make sure that front covers which may concern some people are displayed discreetly.

cover 4

“Our members regard their stores as family-friendly environments which is why conversations with staff and customers about what they believe is appropriate will continue.”


Here at JudgyBitch, we applaud Mr. Banyard and all his followers for their well-guided and well-intentioned demands to censor the lustful, degrading and dehumanizing impulses of female sexuality, and while we understand that women will always hunger for a tall, handsome, partially clad man sporting impressive abdominal muscles, we agree with Masculinism that these images should remain part of women’s interior monologues and the general public should not be forced to look at men’s bodies in a way they may find uncomfortable and disturbing.

Especially all you fat little fuckers.


It’s not fair you chubby little fucks should have to confront images of what real, desirable men look like.  There is no excuse for popping off to the local newsagent to pick up a jumbo bag of Cheetos and two litres of cola and then have to look at the image of a man who clearly eats nothing but egg white and spinach omelets.

cover 2

And what is up with all these “celebrity” magazines with scantily clad men on the covers?


“Fashion” magazines with topless men?  Bullshit.


“Fitness” my ass.  These magazines are nothing more than an excuse to slobber over men’s firm bodies, and quite frankly, it’s disgusting.


Women’s sexual impulses and their demand for men who adhere to a rigid standard of beauty that celebrates strength and power is undermining our entire society by creating a hostile environment for fat, slovenly men who can barely drag themselves off to the chip shop for that final 4000 calorie snack they need to meet the demands of their pointless desk jobs.

Well, except for all those men who don’t have pointless desk jobs.

work crew

At the end of the day, romance novels paint a very damaging portrait of men as heroic, stoic and ridiculously fucking hot, and women’s absurd sense of entitlement to male sexuality must be censored and stamped out, for the benefit of us all.

cover 8

Only when we are all completely neutered and divorced from our most basic pleasures, particularly those pleasures which are visual, will be have a society in which all individuals are considered equal.

Equally boring, uninspiring, dreary, tedious and insipid.  So yay for UK Masculinism!

End visual pleasures!  Crush sexuality!  Destroy beauty!  Kill all of it!

Just remember lads, this can’t be a one-sided battle.  If you want images of hot men gone, you’ll have to give up images of hot women, too.


What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  You don’t want to come across as a pack of raging hypocrites, now do you?

Good.  I knew you cared about equality.  Fair is fair.


And all is fair in love and war.

Lots of love,


Way to miss the fucking point, idiot! Manboobz fails kindergarten math. Big surprise there.

13 May


The goal of kindergarten math curriculum is to prepare children for first grade math. Some key skills include:

To count by rote at least to 20, but preferably a little beyond.

The concepts of equality, more, and less

To count backwards from 10 to 0.

To recognize numbers

To be able to write numbers

To recognize basic shapes

to understand up, down, under, near, on the side, etc. (basic directions)

To have a very basic idea of addition and subtraction

It also helps to expose the student to two-digit numbers.

So Manboobz has posted a spectacular retarded take-down of my post on the age of consent.  In his first sentence, Futrelle writes


British barrister Barbara Hewson caused a bit of a stir last week when she called for the age of consent in Britain to be lowered to 13 so as to end the alleged “persecution of old men” like those arrested in the wake of the recent Jimmy Savile scandal, which revealed a widespread culture of sexual exploitation of underage girls (and some boys) at the BBC in the 1970s.

And then two paragraphs later, writes

Uh, Judgy, in case you missed the point of the whole debate here, we’re not talking about women. We’re talking about girls. In the case of  BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall, one of the victims that he has admitted to assaulting was nine years old at the time. Nine. Savile’s youngest alleged victim was an eight-year-old boy, and dozens of his alleged assaults were upon children in hospitals.

Now class, today we are going to talk about the concept of greater than and less than.  We’re going to use Alfred the Alligator to help us understand.  Alfred will always eat the number that is the biggest, so we turn his mouth towards the bigger number.  Okay?


Which number is bigger?




Did you pick 13?  Yay!


Lowering the age of consent to 13 would still make any sexual activity with a 9 year old completely illegal! 

David’s commenters have quickly concocted a narrative about how the suggestion that the age of consent be lowered to 13 allows pedophiles to abuse children of any age, and furthermore, that in claiming 15 year old girls might have had some knowledge of what they were doing, I am explicitly supporting the rape of children.

Which obviously means the entire MHRM is nothing but a giant cover for child rapists.


Futrelle then complains about my use of photos of underage girls dressed up to look much older (and not dressed by ME, I might add), naturally without any context whatsoever.  Uhm, Futrelle, the discussion was about adding age gap considerations and a mistaken age defense to existing age of consent laws, which is ALREADY IN EFFECT in many American states.



Age gap considerations make it EASIER to prosecute pedophiles (both male and female) while avoiding Romeo and Juliet cases of two young teenagers engaging in consensual sexual activity.  If anything, my post supports fine-tuning the law to go after ONLY predatory adults.


Finding a way to deal with women who are abusing young men sexually has become a fairly pressing concern.  And again, age gap and mistaken age defences HELP with determining which relationships are likely to be predatory.  A seventeen year old girl with a fifteen year old boyfriend is different from a forty year old woman with a fifteen year old boy-toy.


I find it interesting that when women parade around their much younger boy-toys, the culture is completely silent on the question of whether or not the women are abusing their power over these men.




Sam Taylor Wood began screwing Aaron Johnson when she was 41 and he was just 19.  No outcry there.  Quite the opposite.  They met when Wood cast Johnson in the film Nowhere Boy, which she directed.  No power differential to exploit there, huh?



That’s just some good old fashioned cougar power.


Double standard much?

Futrelle is obviously an idiot, but there is a more important cultural conversation he is inadvertently hitting.  In attempting to link the MHRM and women who don’t like feminism all that much with pedophilia apologists, he is admitting, more or less, that he has run out of valid, rational, logical arguments against the ideas and realities we are asking him, and by extension, the whole culture, to confront.

No one in their right mind thinks anyone who takes sexual advantage of hospitalized children is anything but a predator, and yes, we want those individuals prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But that does not automatically make every relationship between and older person and a younger person an abusive, exploitive relationship.  If we’re going to give the ladies with their trophy-boys a pass, then men should get the same pass.

29 year old Lauren Pope can bag an 18 year old boyfriend and not raise any eyebrows.


32 year old Carolyn Flack can hit the sheets with 18 year old Harry Styles, and that’s just some massive lady triumph.


And you know what?  I agree.  Those 18 year old boys know what they are doing.  They are responsible for their own choices.  And really, it’s none of our business, right up until the moment they get dumped and then cry foul.


In One Way or Another, Nikki McWatters recounts her experience as teenage groupie chasing after rock-stars.

As a young teenager, Nikki formed a group with her catholic school friends. The aim? To bed as many rock stars as they could. And so began her experience as a bed-hopping, drug-experimenting groupie at the age of just 15.



And if Nikki were to turn around now and claim that she was abused, I would make the same call.


15 years old is not a child.  Nikki knew exactly what she was doing when she went after Duran Duran.  And Karin Ward knew what she was doing when she went after Gary Glitter.

Turning these girls into “victims” is just another way of saying women are never, ever responsible for their own decisions.  We can always blame men.

Quite frankly, the game is getting tiresome.  At some point, the feminist brigade is going to have to concede that women are actually humans with agency and responsibility.  That won’t be easy, but let’s keep our faith shall we?

math is hard

One day, they will figure out that 13 really IS greater than 9.  Grade One math is gonna be a bitch.

Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: