Archive for October, 2014

Ever had to force yourself to watch something all the way through even though you desperately didn’t want to? Yeah, happens every so often, though nowadays if I think something’s terrible I tend to just stop watching it. Unless there’s money involved. I sat through two and a half hours of Adam Sandler’s Funny People (the most misleading title in the world) because I’d paid to see it at the cinema. If not I would have gladly stopped watching after half an hour.

Sometimes, though, sitting through painful videos is the only way to get all the knowledge you need in order to truly be able to understand and criticise it. You can’t throw a critical eye or try to analyse anything if you haven’t watched it all, otherwise your knowledge base is not good enough. Sometimes, you have to watch it two or three times in order to really get a grasp on it. That’s what I had to do with that ridiculous Oppressed Majority I took a look at a few months ago.

But there’s a new video doing the rounds at the moment and it’s polarising opinion all over the place. It’s a feminist mouthpiece (of course) that aims to highlight how little we care about women’s issues or how the fact that one little swear word is somehow seen as more taboo than raging sexism against women and girls.

Yep, I’m talking about this delicious piece of feminist buffoonery:

I have no idea who FCKH8 are but, one thing’s for certain, this video they’re promoting like shit makes them out to be fucking moronic.

Oh, disclaimer warning, they don’t see anything wrong with the word fuck? That’s cool, I’m going to spend as much time as possible in this blog calling them fucking morons because fucking morons is about as good a phrase as I can find to describe the fucking moronic idiocy of this video.

Now, I swear like a cunt in most of these blogs, but I’m 28, it’s kind of allowed. Is there something disconcerting about these kids swearing? Yeah, I guess, but I remember when I started to ‘rebel’ and swear I wasn’t much older than these girls, so to remonstrate about that particular fact would be pretty hypocritical. They talk in the video about ‘things worse than the word fuck’, I kind of agree with their assertion – the bullshit propaganda they spout in this video certainly is worse than the word fuck.

Worse still, people are actually buying into it! Not everyone, in fact a lot of people aren’t buying into it but, unfortunately, a lot of people are.

The way I see it, there are 4 key reasons why I think this video is fucking bullshit and why the people behind it are fucking morons:

  1. The swearing.
  2. Bullshit propaganda.
  3. Teaching young girls to hate boys.
  4. Teaching young boys to hate themselves.

Now, point number 1 is pretty easy for me – it’s definitely not the worst thing about this video. Do I like swearing? I actually don’t, which is pretty hypocritical considering I use it in pretty much every blog entry. But, in my everyday life I very rarely swear. I obviously don’t do it in my job (I’m a teacher, have a I mentioned that?) and I generally don’t use swear words when I’m talking to people, unless it’s my best mate. I know some people have really taken the video to task over this aspect but, in my opinion, there really are worse things happening in the world then a young girl saying fuck. That’s possibly the only point I agree with this video on, I just happen to think they’ve gone about it in a fucking moronic way.

2) Bullshit propaganda.

This is what happens when feminism and feminists are allowed to go unchecked. The ‘facts’ presented in this video have been debunked so, so, so many times before that the fact they still persist is, in reality, a massive feminist victory.

I’ve been on the fence before about feminism, I even said in my last blog that I don’t think the entire concept of the movement is flawed. Well, it’s videos like this one that move me closer and closer to just giving up on that last little sliver of optimism I have.

Feminism is poison, I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it, it really is poisonous. What’s more worrying, to me, than these young girls swearing is the fact that they are already being force-fed these lies, because that’s what they are, at such a young age. Can you imagine what they’ll be like in 10 years when they’ve been told they’re nothing but victims?

I’ve heard people say ‘feminism is losing’ and it’s something I massively disagree with. Feminism is fucking powerful. When something ‘sexist’ happens it’s not the anti-feminists that are making the headlines with their rhetoric, it’s the feminists.

Let’s look at Ray Rice, when video evidence emerged of him knocking his wife out it was the feminist movement that basically got him fired from the NFL, forever. The incident was months old but the feminists screamed and screeched until they were blue in the fucking face until he was removed from the NFL.

What did the feminist movement do when Kelly Brook laughed on morning television about punching two of her boyfriends? What did the feminist movement do when Hope Solo was allowed to continue playing international football despite being arrested for domestic violence? They sat on their fucking arses and kept their dirty fucking mouths shut. You think feminism is losing? How can it be when it’s powerful enough to ruin a man’s career?

No, feminism is still massively powerful, which is fucking moronic when you consider how few women actually identify as feminists. One of the greatest feminist tactics is fear. They use it on other people and they use it on themselves. When they don’t like what other people say they label them misogynists, they label them as sexist, they make people scared to say what they really think. On top of that they use false statistics to backup their claims, they manipulate and inflate anything they can get their grubby little hands on to make it sound like they are the poor little victims. They make people scared to criticise them for fear of being labelled as unworthy, inhuman scum.

Then, just to add on another slice of victimhood, they use fear on themselves, they present themselves as scared little cherubs who can’t go a day without being harassed or threatened and they appeal to the good, human nature of people who don’t like seeing people threatened. They victimise themselves on a regular basis and, the worst part is, it fucking works. Professional victims, nothing more.

The propaganda spouted in this video has been debunked numerous times by numerous different people.

The wage gap:

Rape statistics:

Whilst they don’t mention domestic violence stats specifically, they do mention the word ‘violence’ so I thought fuck it right in the arse and included it:

These are the same fucked up, false, debunked statistics that have been the focus of feminism’s public agenda for decades. The problem is that, because of the fact that no-one wants to criticise feminism and be accused of being sexist, it’s insanely difficult for these stats to be dismissed without the people doing it being harassed themselves.

There was a TV show over here in the UK a few weeks ago, I can’t remember the name, but it involved a young man challenging Laura Bates on the domestic violence statistic that allows her to state ‘more than two women are killed every week due to a significant other.’ The actual number for 2013 (I believe, could have been a different year) was 72. Not that that makes it ok , it just means that Laura Bates is a fucking liar.

What happens if every study out there is, in some way, biased or has its own agenda? Well, by accepting the fact that there are different studies, no matter the findings, it at least opens a discussion on these crimes instead of having to stomach seeing the same feminist bullshit being presented as fact.

What was the response? She actually tried to insinuate that trying to get to the bottom of statistics and be completely truthful would, in some way, hurt victims of domestic violence or some bullshit. She basically told him to stop trying to find the truth and just listen to what she says. The crowd’s reaction? They cheered her. They actually fucking cheered her! That’s how much power feminism has, they can literally tell people not to try and look for the truth and they’ll be cheered!

The fact they’ve now recruited young girls into their campaigns leads on to the next point:

3) Teaching young girls to hate boys.

Some of the girls in the video are as young as 6 years old, what exactly are you telling them when you present such a fucking moronic one-sided video? You’re telling them, from the age of 6, that they are and always will be the victims. Nothing they do is of their own accord, it’s always because of sexism. It doesn’t empower young girls, it tells them that there is nothing they can do in life, it tells them they are weak and helpless and need to have their hand held by their Fairy Godmother which, in this case, is feminism. It’s sickening.

These young girls are being told that, at every step of the way, boys and men are fucking them over, taking away what’s rightfully theirs, destroying any sense of identity they might have outside of ‘patriarchal values’ and other bullshit that will ruin them as they grow older. Telling a six year old girl that she will be probably be raped, or that she’ll have to walk to her car whilst constantly being afraid is not a good move, it’s a fucking moronic move dictated to them by a fucking moronic movement.

They’re being taught that boys and men are untrustworthy, sexist, monolithic, rapey pieces of shit. Putting that kind of information, which just happens to be fucking false, in a young girl’s mind is not empowering, it is not done to help them, it is not going to turn them into strong, independent women who can make it in the big, bad world. Instead, it’s going to turn them into whiney, needy, egotistical pigs who will think they deserve special treatment simply because they’re a woman. It’ll poison them, simple as that.

What should we be teaching young girls? We should be teaching them that they can do anything they want if they are willing to work fucking hard for it. We shouldn’t be teaching them to find invisible excuses if they aren’t getting paid enough, we should be teaching them to do whatever they need to do to make themselves happy. We shouldn’t be teaching them that the wage gap is down to inherent sexism, we should be teaching them that the type of career they go into will affect the wage they get. We should be teaching them, you know, common fucking sense.

The use of children in this video is fucking disgusting, not only for the reasons stated above but because it delivers a completely one-sided look at the nasty side of human nature. Women rape, they molest, they abuse, they are capable of being sick, depraved cunts, but this video doesn’t teach girls that, it teaches them that they are not in control of their lives, it teaches them that no matter what they do they cannot take control of their own destiny without the help of a poisonous movement that claims to have their best interests at heart. It teaches them that boys and men will always, always be holding them back.

It teaches them to be victims.

4) It teaches young boys to hate themselves.

Not only does it teach young girls to hate boys, it teaches young boys to hate themselves. It teaches them that it is inherently within their DNA to be sexist pricks who will always hold women down. It teaches them that if they are upset when being called ‘a girl’ than it’s because they’re pricks who think less of women. It’s nothing to do with, you know, not actually being a girl and everything to do with how much of a cunt they are.

This is the side of feminism I despise most of all, the complete denial of men’s issues and, by proxy, the complete removal of male victims of anything. It also promotes the idea of women as completely innocent at all times, guilty of nothing and victims of everything. It does nothing to empower women and everything to hold them down as perpetual victims, way, way more than men ever could.

By outright denying men even have problems, or that women are capable of causing them, it teaches boys that, actually, their problems are no-existent or of little importance compared to women’s problems. It’s worse that this same video claiming to empower little girls is actually demonising little boys. ‘Teach boys not to rape’ what the fuck kind of fucked up, deluded message is that sending to young boys? Telling them to stop raping young girls? That rape is only ever a crime that affects women? What happens in 10 years when that biased, myopic rhetoric leads to a teenage girl raping a teenage boy because he didn’t know how to say no and she didn’t give a fuck anyway? Simple answer is it eats away at him inside. Where can he go? I don’t know, and neither does feminism because it simply doesn’t care.

One sided ‘facts’ are the worst side of feminism. Then they have the temerity to claim they work for men’s rights too, that feminism helps everybody? Fuck off, feminism barely helps women. It’s a pretty weird way of operating a movement that claims to help everyone and then spends the entirety of a 4 minute video demonising and shaming one of the groups they claim to be helping.

Feminism only ever gives a fuck about men’s issues through the lens of feminism. And guess what? Feminisms lens is fucked to shit. Feminism doesn’t care about men’s issues. If it did it wouldn’t use fucking bullshit statistics like this video uses in order to shame and demonise young boys for crimes they haven’t fucking committed!

To be fair to the video, they do include one boy at the end. Does he help draw attention to men’s and boy’s issues? No, does he fuck, he simply accepts as a token male mouthpiece to further promote the fucking bullshit video on another, supposedly ‘male friendly’, level. This is how feminism helps men, it tells them that if they weren’t such Goddamn fucking misogynist pricks then all their troubles would disappear.

Boys and men do not need feminism, they need feminism to get fucked and stop pretending they give a shit. They don’t and the sooner they admit it, the sooner everyone sees it the better this world will become. If feminism gave a shit about men this video would not exist, the use of bullshit, outdated, misleading statistics wouldn’t be used to further a campaign of hate.

But, but NOT ALL FEMINISTS ARE LIKE THAT!! Once again, the ‘nice’ feminists, the ones who aren’t ‘like that’ are not the ones making videos like this. If the nice ‘feminists’ truly gave a shit why are they letting this kind of video go viral, why are they letting their movement, their movement they claim is about equality for all, peddle a video that does nothing for gender relations, nothing at all? Grow the fuck up, stop paying lip service to a phrase that you think shows you care, if only a little, about men’s issues and start being a bit more vocal about the fuckery that is feminism.

I think I’ve reached my zenith, this is the point in which I wipe my hands of being nice, I stop trying to give ‘nice’ feminists the benefit of the doubt. If you want to show you care, stop letting the fuckwits behind videos like this be your mouthpiece, stop them using false, demonising statistics that do nothing but break down gender relations, stop letting them use young girls as tools to push their fucked up, poisonous message, stop letting them depower young girls and present them as lifelong victims.

In other words, stop being fucking feminists and tell them to fuck off. You hide behind feminism, whether intentional or not, because you benefit from its sexism, you benefit from its constant insinuation that men are bad, it allows you to get away with deplorable behaviour because you’re a woman, it teaches you that you only need to play the victim and you’ll get what you want, it undermines real victims of serious crimes with its diluted definitions, it undermines male victims of serious crimes with its ignorance.

Men, we’re better than this, we’re smarter than this, stop pandering to a movement that doesn’t give a single fuck about you. Women, you’re better than this, you’re smarter than this, stop allowing yourselves to be infantilised, stop allowing yourselves to be victimised by a movement that, in all reality, doesn’t give a single fuck about you either. Feminism is a fucking moronic movement full of fucking morons. FCKH8? No, fuck feminism.

Man, rant fucking over.


So, I’ve had this particular blog entry in the back of my mind for quite a while. I started it ages ago but since then, this stupid thing called life, well, that and other blogs, has got in the way! I’ll tell you how long it’s been, this should have been the next blog after my ‘1 year anniversary’ blog entry. That was the 25th of August. Yeah, a long time. Blogs on rape culture and female entitlement pushed this one to the back of the line. But, never mind, I’m writing it now and that’s all that matters. Unfortunately, I can’t use any of the stuff that was already pre-written because it’s horribly out of date, but never mind, I’ll just start from scratch.

I wrote a blog a few months ago about thin privilege and how I thought it was all bullshit. I still think that but there was one aspect that I never really touched upon in that article, the idea of fatphobia. Now, to me, the concept of fatphobia is just as stupid as the concept of thin privilege. Fat people are generally the butt of any jokes when it comes to weight, but they are not the sole targets and to think otherwise is simple victimhood. Thin people may not be targeted as often (or maybe they are, I really don’t know) but they are targets.

Anyone who reads this blog, and has read it for a year, knows that I make my anti-feminist views pretty clear. I’m not anti-equal rights, I just find the feminist movement to be a mish-mash of horrible people and misguided policies. However, that doesn’t mean I think the entire concept is flawed. I’m beginning to think it’s beyond repair, at least in any way that would make it appeal to men, but there are some facets of it that I think are heading in the right direction. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think feminism understands men, at all, but it is trying to be somewhat more inclusive. That doesn’t mean I’m renouncing my ways and becoming feminist, just that I can see some semblance of sanity in some of the stuff they say.

So, when I found an article that carried this headline:

Fat Men Are a Feminist Issue

I was actually impressed, I thought I’d maybe found an article about men that was going to approach the situation in a decent way, perhaps a more measured way.

But that was stupid of me. You see, not even fat men are safe from the utter victimhood of feminism. Not only is fatphobia all about hating women and wanting to police their bodies (which is so fucking stupid) but:

what I’ve realized recently is that in some ways, the fatphobia that fat men experience is also a result of misogyny.

So there you have it, right from the horse’s, fat, mouth (the author calls herself fat, I’m certainly not going to miss the opportunity). Apparently, when we take the mickey out of fat men it’s because we hate women. Not all the time, but often enough. I’m not going to qualify every point I make with ‘but that’s not all the time’ because that would be stupid and time consuming. So just assume I’m not talking about every single instance of fat ridiculing, just those ones that are relevant.

I mean, that is such a bullshit statement but, in a way, I truly admire it as well. Come on, the amount of mental gymnastics it must take to spin this issue to be about misogyny is awe-inspiring. Literally nothing is about misandry, nothing. I could say ‘I hate mushrooms’ (which I do) and some deluded feminist would somehow twist that round and say ‘well, mushrooms are shaped like umbrellas, societal norms dictate women are the ones who purchase and use umbrellas in the rain. By not liking mushrooms you’re showing a blatant disregard for women’s health needs in the rain. Basically, you want them to get wet.’

Actually, I do want them to get wet, but it won’t be from the rain (boo-yah, that was a sex joke!)

Anyway, this is modern feminism, this is why this blog exists, because of moronic things like that.

But why do I think it’s stupid to suggest fatphobia is about policing women’s bodies? Well, the fact that this article is talking about fat men should be all the answer you need. We ridicule fat people of both sexes, to say that ‘fatphobia’ (which in and of itself is a stupid term, much like thin privilege) is solely limited to women is, yet again, an example of feminist victimhood. And anyway, the word policing is so stupid, the police actually exist to uphold laws, no matter how fucked up they are, there’s no law about what you can and can’t eat (apart from other human beings and shit) so to suggest otherwise is batshit. Yeah, people can try and tell you what the correct things to eat are but, at the end of the day, they can’t enforce it so, no, they aren’t policing your body, they’re simply being patronizing cunts. Ignore them and move the fuck on.

Anyway, fat men are ridiculed because we hate women, apparently. Right, cool. Apparently:

Fat men are often perceived as possessing “looser morals” or less discipline, traits historically ascribed to women and femininity.

Never mind the ‘traits historically associated with women’ line, it’s more the ‘fat men are less disciplined’ line that I like. Does she realise that, actually, having no discipline is precisely the reason they’re fat in the first place? Literally speaking, fat people eat more than they should, when that little voice in their head says ‘well, I’m pretty full now’ a fat person generally ignores the shit out of it and carries on.

No discipline is a very valid reason that fat men are fat. How you can spin that round to somehow be based on hatred of women, because historically women are seen as loose is insane! We see fat men as being looser or lacking morals because that’s exactly what they are. A fat man gets fat because he eats too much, therefore lacking discipline when it comes to eating. But then, this is a feminist writing this article, so of course it can’t be as simple as that.

Let’s drop some personal truths. I’ve spoken briefly about my weight in a previous blog, but I’ll repeat here. I’m 28, in the last 10 years my weight has fluctuated massively. I tend to operate on a 5 stone scale, at the moment I’m pretty fat, but at times in the past I’ve been 3, 4, 5 stone lighter. If I went in the gym every day for the next 6 months and started eating right I could pretty easily lose those that weight again.

At no point have I ever thought that jokes made about my weight were because my body was becoming feminised or because I was somehow invading the ‘breast space’ with my moobs. They make jokes because it’s not natural for my body to look like this, no matter how much you piss and moan otherwise. I put on weight simply because I don’t care about being disciplined in my diet. Simple as that.

There is some science addressed to this article, but I’m going to skim over it and get to the social implications. The science bit may be all well and good, and I have seen it on other websites and pages that fat men do produce more estrogen, but that’s not really what I want to address. I want to talk about the mental gymnastics of the rest of the article and how Virgie Tovar (the author) seems to think that jokes about fat men are rooted in misogyny.

So, number 1) Chemical feminisation:

The main point of contention here is that, apparently, fat men make better lovers because they can last longer.

Tovar says:

Because fat people have been taught that our bodies are wrong and unattractive, I’ve found that self-consciousness can be a major factor in achieving orgasm during sex.

So let’s just ignore the scientific research and go for social stigma. I’d hazard a guess and say most people find fat bodies unattractive. Hell, I have a fat body and I don’t find it particularly attractive. I’m not saying that there aren’t those out there that prefer the larger lover, but to say that scientific evidence is inherently flawed and that, really, it’s all to do with nasty society is pretty much a typical feminist tactic of ignoring something that actually gives a solid foundation for an answer and replacing it with ‘the feels’

I’m sure self-consciousness can be a major factor in achieving orgasm, but to suggest it is the only reason, and not that simply coupled with others is ludicrous.

Tovar also takes issue with the idea that fat men are ‘less masculine’, as the report suggests, and states that:

Her statement calls into question the gender and virility of fat men, a tool that is based in the cultural understanding that for a man to be perceived in any way as woman-like is a source of shame.

I like how she’s completely disregarding science in order to shoehorn her own agenda in. The use of the word ‘apparently’ in the scientific report allows Tovar a convenient way of ignoring scientific research and saying ‘science is wrong, I’m right’.

A fat man to be perceived as a woman is a source of shame? Hardly, but it is fucking annoying. Do you want to know why? Because men are not women, and vice versa. I hate this stupid assertion that men getting upset when being labelled women is somehow related to an inherent hatred of women. It’s pathetic, blanket victimhood. I’ve been mistaken for a woman before, numerous times. Mainly because I have long hair, so from behind people just assume I’m female. It still happens in my 20s and, yes, it still pisses me off. Not because I’m some misogynist cunt but because I’m simply not a woman. Cultural understanding? Sure, why not just try and claim that society itself hates women.

I do find it funny that calling a male-to-female trans ‘he’ when they have transitioned is some horrible slight worthy of crying over, amid screams of ‘don’t misgender me’, yet a man being upset about being likened to a woman is somehow not the same.

  1. Fat Castration

Yeah, seriously. There’s a scene in Austin Powers that involves a fat man not being able to find his penis:

So, how is it linked to misogyny? Because, apparently, according to Tovar, it’s all to do with the idea that a fat man not being able to find his penis is somehow infantilising, a trait we’ve reserved for women:

It literally represents the idea that fat men cannot find their penis (a level of condescension typically reserved only for women, by the way) or that they haven’t seen their penis in years, or are otherwise metaphorically castrated by their fat.

Fat castration is a term that Tovar herself has made up, It’s not a feminist theory, it’s not a theory of any kind, it’s literally something that has been made up with the express intention of showing how fat men are in fact a feminist issue, because laughing at a man who is so fat he can’t find his penis isn’t because it’s just funny, it’s because we hate women.

Tovar states 2 things about fat castration. 1) it’s infantilizing and 2) the ‘missing penis’ represent cultural anxiety about sexual differentiation.

The leap from ‘you can’t see your penis because you’re so fat’ to ‘we’re treating you like an infant, we also treat women like infants, therefore making fun of fat men is misogyny’ is a feat of mental gymnastics that, in all honesty, should really be applauded. I mean, yeah it’s absolute insanity to make a leap of logic that flawed, but the attempt itself deserves some credit.

I’ll make a point here that I’ll come back to – we still define a man, and what it is to be ‘masculine’ on the size of his penis. We all do it, whether it’s obvious or not. That little fact plays more into ‘fat castration’ than inherent misogyny.

Tovar goes on to suggest that a fat man not being able to find his penis creates some kind of gender confusion, as a penis is the main definer of a man. She goes on to say that fat alters the way genitals look. Er, like, no shit Tovar! These memes don’t exist because society doesn’t know that fat affects the way genitals look, they exist because of that very reason. We laugh because it’s not normal for a man to not be able to see his penis. A penis is not just a sexual organ, it actually serves a daily purpose. We laugh because not being able to see your penis actually stops you functioning as a man, as a member of the human race.

We also laugh at fat women’s fannies, don’t we? We make jokes about them being cavernous and having their own gravitational pull. We don’t do that because we think a woman’s vagina is a danger spot, we do it because the idea of a woman’s cunt (sorry, that sounds wrong even typing it!) being so big it can swallow an entire person is surreal and, therefore, not-funny-but-you-can’t-help-but-laugh hilarious!

She even manages to get a nice dig at porn in here, too:

We are constantly bombarded with genital uniformity in porn (where many people get their greatest exposure to sex education), when in fact there is a veritable genital cornucopia out there!

I have to say that I don’t know what type of porn Tovar watches but, actually, female bodies in porn are extremely varied. Male bodies, especially penis size, generally tend to stay the same, but even then there is still a difference between the sizes. Yes, most of them are above average but they do not all fit the same mold. Porn is not, in my experience, full of genital uniformity. I’m guessing mainstream is probably the place where that happens but, any streaming porn website will show you, mainstream, mass produced porn is not the hot topic any more. Most of my friends (women included) prefer home-made porn or some other niche market where there definitely is a wider range of body types.

Shall I tell you who I think promotes the most genital uniformity? Magazines like Cosmo and other trashy rags that claim to be for women but actually do nothing but tear down a woman’s self-esteem in order to convince them to buy the shitty products they advertise. The best thing to help out the body confidence of women? Get rid of shitty ‘women’s mags’, the same way the feminist harpies got rid of lad’s mags.

Nobody is saying that a man’s identity is becoming feminised, or that we are unable to distinguish them as men because they can’t find their penis, we are laughing because they become unrecognizable as humans, they become items of ridicule to their perceived slobbishness, their lack of discipline. The fact that they cannot find the one organ that is the main definer of their sex does not mean we see them as less of a man because we hate women or we think it leads to some confusion about gender, we laugh because we put a man’s worth in his penis and not being able to find it makes him worthless.

It’s got nothing to do with women and everything to do with how we still judge a man’s worth on his penis size. Your condescending, arrogant, victim-creating attempts at making this all about women have, once again, taken the focus off a genuine men’s issue and tried to make it all about you.

We judge a man by his penis, even feminists. This has nothing to do with women and everything to do with men. You’re right, fat men probably should be a feminist issues, especially as feminism claims to ‘help everyone’, but, as usual, what could have been a real attempt at highlighting the way we still hold the value of men in relation to the size of their penis, in the way we’ve moved away from defining and holding a woman’s value on their bodies and their bodies alone, becomes a oh-so-obvious attempt at making women the victims. Puh-lease.

Tovar says of fat bodies:

These are things that are easily adjusted for during sex, and do not affect a person’s gender identity, sexual orientation, or attractiveness.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say they did.

3) Moob development.

Ah, I thought this would make an appearance. Apparently, finding moobs ‘disgusting’ or suggesting that surgery is a way of correcting them is, again, somehow indicative of inherent misogyny and fear of the ‘feminisation’ of men’s bodies.

I love this bit:

Like the aforementioned “missing penis” meme, this seems to draw parallels between compulsory heterosexuality and body size as it is subtly policing the boundaries of sexuality by pointing out that only women should have breasts.

I love how feminists think not liking something is trying to ‘police’ it. Here’s the thing, the police uphold the law, that’s what their job is, they have a standard set of rules to follow and they have to uphold them (no comments about police corruption please). When you ‘police’ a woman’s body you are essentially vocalizing a set of opinions that no-one, and I mean absolutely no-one, has any power to enforce.

Having a preference is not to ‘police’ anything. I’m constantly being told to cut my hair (it’s long, have I mentioned that before), I’m constantly being told that ‘you’d look so much better with short hair’. Have I cut my hair short in the last 10 years? No. Why? Because, despite what these people say, they have no way of enforcing their comments, they are merely opinions that I can ignore.

When feminists use the word ‘policing’ it suggests that we are somehow ordering them to do something and that they have no power within themselves to oppose it. How infantilizing is that? Tovar talks about fat castration being infantilising to men, yet feminists constantly infantilise themselves in order to play the victim.

Stop using the word ‘policing’ if you want to be taken seriously. Nobody is ‘policing’ you, people are being douchebags and trying to impose their own personal values on you. If you don’t have the stones to puff your chest out and tell them to fuck off then maybe you shouldn’t be on the internet writing blogs.

Only women should have breasts? No, of course everyone has breasts, in terms of the muscles and tissue. However, women are the only ones who use their breasts to feed babies, therefore women are the only one whose breasts look like that. Making fun of moobs isn’t saying ‘you have breasts, only women should have breasts’, it’s saying ‘your breasts don’t look like a man’s breasts should, they look like a woman’s. We laugh because a man doesn’t need that much fatty tissue in his breasts because he doesn’t need to use them to help a developing life form.

As a man, you should be attracted to them, and if you have “moobs,” then you are confusing heteronormativity by blurring the culturally sanctioned bifurcation between men’s and women’s bodies.

Confusing heteronormativity? So, men are so fucking thick that they’ll see a man with moobs and think ‘oh my god, only women should have boobs, but this guy has boobs, I’m so confused!’

Ha, again that entire process of thought is laughable. We don’t ridicule moobs, or ‘bitch-tits’ as I once heard them called, because we’re desperately trying to distract ourselves from finding them attractive, we ridicule them because men are not supposed to have boobs that developed. It’s really that simple.

Truth: All humans have breasts!

Awesome, and yet feminists seem to stay eerily quiet when the issue of breast cancer in men is brought up. Funny that, a topic only gets appreciated when it fits their argument. Actually, not funny at all but entirely predictable.

She then goes on to give out some spiel about objectification and how the ‘male gaze’ becomes confused when male breasts are above the normal limit or some shit like that. Seriously, she’s actually suggesting that men aren’t going to be able to tell the difference between moobs and actual breats and that, somehow, we’ll all start objectifying moobs and become disgusted with ourselves or something. Mental gymnastics of sufficient quality to win a gold medal!

Because fat bodies – regardless of gender – are constructed as less physically able, fat men are consequently seen as threatening masculine dominance.

Constructed? What one earth…? Like, how can you say that fat bodies are ‘constructed’ as being less physically able when, like, they are less physically able? Here’s an experiment for you, take a fat person and a relatively fit person and make them run 100 metres. I shouldn’t have to tell you who wins.

How do fat men threaten masculine dominance? If anything those men are absolutely no threat whatsoever. Are men so weak that those who are out of shape and unable to perform to the same standards as physically able men are somehow threatening? When did being less able at something become threatening to those who are more able? Mind blown!

She comes to the same conclusion she posited at the start:

The anxiety that fat men are becoming women or exhibiting traits historically ascribed to women, I believe, is at the heart (of at least some) of the fatphobia that fat men experience.

Victimhood central. She then says that misogyny is only partly to blame for the ridiculing fat men get. I’m going to put my two pennerth in and say none of the ridiculing fat men get is because of inherent misogyny. It’s simply because fat men are seen as less worthy of humanising. They embody traits that do not help with the further development of the human race. They’re lazy, ill-disciplined, lacking motivation, greedy, gluttonous slobs whose only thoughts are whether or not they should all 8 of the donuts they’ve just bought.

It’s a much, much more complex issue than simply fat men = misogyny. Tovar had to literally invent a term in order to show how fat men are a feminist issue.

What does it say about feminism when a woman has to literally invent shit in order to place herself, and all women, as the victim? It says it’s a movement that cannot bear to let men have their own issues, it cannot bear to let us discuss men’s issues as simply men’s issues. It suggest that feminism literally views women as so weak and fragile that everything and everyone hates them, that every ill of the world is a direct result of the way we belittle them. It shows an inherent narcissism within certain feminists that they cannot bear to not be involved, to not gain just a little bit of sympathy.

They are willing to hijack what should be an important discussion about men’s health (because, funnily enough, not being able to find your penis to go to the bathroom isn’t natural) and turn it into a ‘oh, poor wimmenz, look how much we’re hated’ spiel that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Fat men are not natural, trust me I am one. Moobs are not natural, they are an excess of fat that we don’t need. Not being able to find your penis is not natural, it’s a sign that you’ve eaten too much and not done enough physical activity.

This is a brilliant example of the way society sees fat people:

We laugh at them because they can’t go for very long without food (junk food, by the way), we laugh because they see their life as the passage between meals, we laugh because they do unorthodox jobs that we wouldn’t normally expect people to do. Not a single insinuation there that his body is feminised.

Fat men are not a feminist issue, your narcissism and victim culture are what makes them a feminist issue. Not everything is a feminist issue. The sooner you realise that and stop making every issue about you, like some pathetic, whinging playground child, the sooner you might actually start addressing some real issues like, you know, the abuse of children by women. Now that’s a fucking feminist issue!

Pretty provocative title, right? Yeah that’s the point. See, if you want to raise the ire of people in an instant it’s all about the combination of words you use. Telling someone to fuck off is a good way of alienating their fans pretty much right away. I know if someone was to write an article with the headline “Iron Maiden are shit” I’d be the first one in line calling them a cunt.

I have no idea who Matt Walsh is, I think I read a story of his a few months ago about something-or-other (I can’t remember, I read a lot of stuff) and it was pretty good, seemed to stand out as something a little against the grain, didn’t pander to the masses. However, since then every time I’ve seen one of his articles linked there always seems to be some kind of agenda or message behind it, particularly when it comes to the shaming of men. Views about marriage, chivalry and the kind of life a man should be living seem to crop up in his articles.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m misremembering what I think I’ve seen and am unfairly attributing this kind of shit to Matt Walsh. If that’s the case, I apologise. Having said that, the content of his previous works have no bearing on the article I’m looking at tonight. I’m approaching this fresh, not influenced by previous works or anything like that.

Of course, this is all entirely personal, I don’t claim to speak for anyone else aside from me (and never will do), so if you agree then that’s awesome, if you don’t then that’s awesome as well. What I don’t like is the assumption that Matt Walsh knows how men should behave, knows what men should be doing with their lives. It’s the implied assumption that he knows anything about my life, and therefore how I can improve it, that pisses me of.

What am I talking about? This particular entry of his:

Now this is from June but I don’t think it’s lost any relevance, even if I am writing about it 4 months later. Has he revised his views in the months since this was published? Possibly, I don’t know. However, at some point in the past he held these views, so that’s what I’m writing about. I don’t think they’re unique to him either.

First off, the title is a pretty big red flag to me:

Dear single dudes: it’s time to man up

The use of the phrase ‘man up’ is automatically making him sound like a bit of a cunt, particularly as he’s talking about ‘single dudes’, a category I fall into. Immediately suggesting I’m somehow doing something wrong by being single, somehow I’m not fulfilling my ‘masculinity contract’ or some other arbitrary measure of masculinity? Yeah, good start, moron!

Unless, and this would be pretty brilliant, it’s a scathing attack on society’s obsession with single men? That would be a good way to garner immediate hatred, write a provocative title and just wait for all the angry men to flock around before going “haha, tricked you, this piece is all about why ‘man up’ is a bullshit phrase!” That would make him seem less like a cunt.

But no, he’s actually just being a cunt. He starts out by recalling a conversation with a friend about a possible relationship that leaves him confused, before linking to an article that states no-one really knows whether they’re going on a date or just hanging out:

The funny thing is, that article talks to both men and women, has both men and women contributors, seems to suggest that both men and women are unsure of what constitutes a date anymore and yet it’s Walsh’s opinion that it’s a man’s job to ‘man up’ and do something about it?

The article he links to also suggests gender roles still play a part, with 69% of men and 55% of women agreeing that men should pay on the first date. There’s also research out that states over 50% of women wouldn’t consider a second date if the man didn’t pay on the first. That, and the thought even among feminists that men paying on the first date is still something desirable (for completely acceptable and logical reasons, of course) leads me to sympathise with the men who now simply ‘hang out’ with women. If ‘hanging out’ instead of ‘going on a date’ means that they get to keep some of their hard earned money instead of wasting it on entitled princesses who judge their worth based on their relationship with women then, yeah sure, I’m all for ‘hanging out’. Matt says close to 70% of people don’t know whether they’re on a date or not.

All men’s fault? Hardly. So why, in his infinite wisdom does he follow up that link with this:

I guess that’s because most of you are too busy “hanging out.”

What is that, guys? How old are we?

So, it is all the fault of men, after all. “But, John” I hear you cry. “Matt’s blog is geared towards men, of course he’s going to address them in this kind of article.” Well, even if that is true, and I have no idea if it is, that doesn’t mean he can’t appeal to women as well, or at least appeal to the men who read his blog that it’s not entirely up to them to change.

A while ago (last year, I think) I wrote a blog about domestic violence and companies who promote anti-domestic violence campaigns. . One of the main points of contention was the audience of each intended campaign. I’ll give you a quick breakdown of how it worked:

Geared to women: know the signs of an abusive partner. Get out while you can!

Geared towards men: know the signs of abusive men, and the signs that you might be becoming abusive yourself. Stop it, before it’s too late, you violent cunts.

Ok, so I added the bit about being violent cunts, but it was pretty much implied anyway. Do you see the problem? Yeah, when anti-domestic violence campaigns are targeted at women, it’s all about how they can prevent themselves being the victims. When they’re geared towards men it’s all about how men themselves can stop being abusive bastards, and if you’re not an abusive bastard then stop other men being abusive bastards.

It drives forward a narrative, much like rape, where men simply cannot be victims. Avon were one of the companies I talked about in the blog last year. Some people were disgusted with their one sided campaign and took them to task over it on their Facebook page. Avon’s response: ‘our main consumer base is women, so we’ll address them as victims’. Yeah, it was that callous. Things are changing, thankfully, but the overwhelming number of mainstream campaigns exclude male victims, despite hundreds of research papers that show domestic violence to be rather gender neutral.

So how does that link to Walsh’s article? Well, he’s doing exactly the same thing. He’s appealing to men as if they are the problem, rather than telling them to spot these traits in women, he’s telling men they are the problem and it’s theirs to fix. In the same way Avon’s exclusion of male victims tell men they aren’t victims, Walsh’s attitude here is telling men that there is no other perspective, no other point of view. It’s not women, it’s not a problem that pervades modern society, it’s not a problem that could probably be solved with a little bit of communication but rather a problem that requires men to look inwards and think ‘why am I being such a cunt?’ Yeah, shaming a man by comparing him to a child is a cast-iron way of getting men to back your way of thinking.

I’m not going to do a paragraph by paragraph breakdown of this article, Christ I’ve done enough of those recently, but I am going to highlight some choice words and how I think it’s, once again, excusing women of owning up to their dubious actions and shames all men with a problem that’s probably got nothing to do with them.

When did men become so afraid to make a commitment, to take the lead, to say what they want, to make long term plans, to set goals, to pursue, to talk about the future?

Perhaps when women stopped being 1950s housewives? This is the problem with modern society, and I include feminism and all manner of social justice movements in that. We’re constantly told that women are strong, independent, un-needing of a man and free to do whatever the fuck they want to do with their lives. Awesome, it’s a long time overdue. But, on the other hand, men are still constantly pushed into gender roles that women have, largely, long escaped from. Is it any wonder men are getting a bit fed up with dating when they’re being told one minute that it’s ok to not pay on the first date, that it’s ok to let a woman ask them out on the first date, that they don’t need to always be in control and then the next being shamed for not paying on the first date and not being the one to ask a woman out and not being the one to take control (I’m looking at you, Emma Watson)?

We tell women time and time again that they can have children whenever they want, if they want. They can build a career and then worry about a family, they can ‘have it all’. Yet, we still don’t seem to offer the same kind of advice to men, and if we do, it’s usually followed by a good deal of shaming.

Time to end the nonsense, gentlemen. It’s time to be grownups. It’s time to be men. I know this term really offends a lot of people nowadays, but truly, fellas, let’s man up.

Yeah, let’s man up, let’s bear the weight of the world on our shoulders. Because not dating, not wanting to make a commitment, being perfectly content with just hanging out with girls and going for casual hookups instead of meaningful, committed, long term relationships is the definition of childish. If you aren’t in a committed relationship then you aren’t a grown up, if you aren’t in a mutually exclusive partnership with a long term goal and career aspirations then you simply aren’t a man. Sorry, Matt Walsh, you’re coming across like a bit of a cunt.

It’s 2014, I’m 28 and have been single for a long time. Why? Well, it’s certainly nothing to do with how ‘manly’ I am, it’s just that I haven’t found a woman who I want to spend the rest of my life with. I’m sure she’s out there, and I’m sure one day I’ll find her, I’m hoping I find her, but for the moment I’ll continue doing what  I’m doing. If that means casual hook-ups then that’s exactly what I’ll do and I’ll not give a fuck what you think.

Yeah, fellas, let’s man up. Let’s pretend that phrase doesn’t have so many negative connotations. Let’s pretend that phrases like ‘man up’ don’t dismiss and minimize men’s suffering. Let’s pretend phrases like ‘man up’ or ‘real man’ aren’t feminist tools to shame men for being men. Let’s just pretend men aren’t being men because they aren’t in a proper, committed, grown up relationship.

Here’s a question, a famous feminist once said ‘women need men like a fish needs a bicycle’, we’re constantly told that a woman’s worth is not decided by her relationship with a man. If that’s the case, then why is a man’s worth tied directly to his relationship with a woman? Why is it such a problem, or indeed why is it a man’s problem, to ‘fix’ this ‘hook-up’ culture?

This is why this line of thinking is so ludicrous. When you take women out of the equation, when you remove or minimise their contribution to the fucked up way we date nowadays you are, again, telling men that everything is their fault. You are treating men like villains and women like delicate little fairies who are incapable of knowing what they’re doing. That’s offensive to both men and women. By asking men ‘why don’t you take the lead anymore?’ you imply, however implicitly, that women have somehow failed in their new ‘equal’ duties in the relationship stakes. Women are just not good enough to take the lead, to make the decisions, to pay, so fuck it, let’s go back to the chivalrous days of yore. There’s a problem with that, though. Society has moved on, why hasn’t your definition of what a ‘man’ is?

I’ll tell you want I think a man is in 2014: caring, compassionate, loving, protective (not because she’s a woman, simply because it’s the right thing to do), heroic, driven, devoted, committed, responsible, reliant, good natured, powerful and sympathetic. Newsflash – you don’t need a woman in your life to be any of those things.

He goes on to say that, after meeting his wife:

We defined our terms.

We made our goals clear.

We were open with each other.

We spoke about the future.

We used words like ‘marriage.’  

Notice the key word? The pronoun ‘we’. So, he wonders why there are no men who take the lead, yet in his own relationship he doesn’t take the lead, he works things out with his partner. Confusing, no?

The key to a good, open, honest relationship is communication, I don’t think anyone with half a brain would disagree with that. So why is Walsh advocating one thing and then doing another? Why is he lamenting the loss of the ‘real man’ and then not being the ‘real man’ in his own relationship? Why is he blaming men for the ‘hook-up’ culture, shaming men for not wanting to settle down, for wanting to ‘hang out’ and have some fun before looking for anything more serious? Why is he not apportioning some of the blame to women? If we are truly wanting to live in an equal society why do we constantly relieve women of any obligations when it comes to self-reflection?

I talked about this in one of my previous blogs, the fact that we are constantly telling men how to live their lives, constantly telling men what to do and what not to do, how to be a ‘real man’ and treat our women right, yet we hardly ever get the same diatribe directed towards women. Is it because they’re too incapable to understand any better? Is it because they’re so weak that any criticism of their lifestyles might result in us damaging their ‘feels’ or resulting in them becoming overemotional? Yeah, what kind of bullshit is that?

Women are more than capable of self-reflection. They’re tough, strong, independent people who can take a hit on the chin when it calls for it (metaphorically, not literally), so why do we continue to coddle them and tell them it’s not their fault? Why do we blame the big ol’ nasty man?

Here’s some brutal honesty for you: if you ‘aren’t ready for something serious,’ then you need to go get yourself ready and leave these ladies alone until you do. You can’t go out and have sex (I mean, ‘hook up,’ as the middle schoolers at the lunch table might call it) and then claim that you ‘aren’t ready for something serious.’ It’s too late, friend. Sex is something serious.

‘Leave these ladies alone’. Again, it’s the poor old ladies who are suffering, suffering from the dearth of real men who should be locked away until they are ready to engage in a real committed relationship. No consideration that those ladies might be just as guilty as the men of contributing to this ‘hangout’ culture where people aren’t sure if they’re on a date or not. No consideration of the negative qualities that many women exhibit, solely focused on how men can be better and, until we are deemed fit and useful to society we should spare these poor ladies from our immaturity.

He finishes with this sorry excuse of an analogy, comparing men to aeroplane pilots:

“Attention passengers. This is your captain speaking. I just want to tell you that, like, I don’t want things to get weird or whatever, but I’m not really into being a captain right now. I mean, yeah, I chose to take a plane full of souls up 32 thousand feet into the air at a cruising speed of 600 miles per hour, but I don’t want you think that this is, like, official, you know? I’ve got your lives in my hands, but I don’t want this to get serious. In fact, actually, look, I’m just gonna bail now. I’ve got my parachute. You don’t but that’s your problem. I got what I wanted out of this. So, uh, yeah. Bye. Enjoy your fiery demise!”

Why is this such a bad analogy? The pilot is actually a job, being a man isn’t. Walsh spend this whole blog telling us how easy it is to be in a relationship, how it takes commitment honesty, openness, understanding and a large portion of maturity yet then compares it to a rather stressful job.

Matt Walsh does not speak for me. Yes I’m single, but me not wanting to be in a relationship is not because I need to ‘man up’ and stop being such a cunt, it’s because I’ve yet to find a woman who, I think, is compatible with me. I’ll hang out with whoever I want to hang out with, I’ll fuck whoever I want to fuck, regardless of what Matt Walsh think.

Women are not exempt from this particular facet of society. They play their part in the confusion over modern dating rituals. We need to stop treating them like children, stop implying they’re too stupid to fully understand their contribution, too weak to really be able to change their behavior patterns. One throwaway paragraph is not enough, Matt, we need to challenge this with the same vigour and desire we do men.

Dating is hard enough as it is, it doesn’t need sanctimonious articles like this to shame men into being someone they’re not, while at the same time giving women a free pass to continue living the carefree life they’re currently living. Either everyone can live free and die hard, or no-one can.

Simply put, when it comes to men and women and the whole dating ritual, it can, in my experience be summed up in one sentence, a sentence that Matt Walsh doesn’t stray too far from.

Women shouldn’t settle for anything less than perfection, men should just be thankful women are giving them attention and should do anything and everything in their power to keep that attention, lest women find it elsewhere.

I will spend the rest of my life with a woman, I just haven’t found her yet. Matt Walsh doesn’t know anything about me, yet thinks he can dole out relationship advice, advice he doesn’t even follow himself, on how I can improve myself. Sorry, Matt Walsh, you’re a cunt.