"How to Cure a Feminist in 4 Easy Steps"

[ВАЛТЕР]

I mean we all know Maxim is patriarchal horseshit, but this is pretty fucking ridiculous even from them. "Turn her into an actual girl" wtf?

This is from a ten year old article apparently...but really popular on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=339568466095802&set=a.310925765626739.81142.295984247120891&type=1&theater


http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/03/meanwhile-in-maxim-how-to-cure-a-feminist-in-4-easy-steps/


Meanwhile, in Maxim: “How to Cure a Feminist in 4 Easy Steps.” (http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/03/meanwhile-in-maxim-how-to-cure-a-feminist-in-4-easy-steps/)

Image via Professor Yesi King:
“So according to Maxim in order to “cure” a feminist and turn her into a “real girl”, you have to feminize and pornographize her…Yes this image was really in Maxim magazine and no thanks Maxim, I’ll pass.”
Bonus: comment from a friend, Tessa:
“I am laughing really loudly at this. Firstly, every version of this girl is beautiful. And secondly, if one were to dig just an inch deep into the origins of what is considered ‘girly’ as of this moment, he would see cunning marketers of previously unneeded products all the way. A screaming example: shaving one’s legs etc was not introduced as a norm till about may be a century ago or so, and for thousands of years before that femme fatales did just fine a la naturale. So it’s all a matter of taste and culture, ladies and gentlemen. And yes I did research, it is my pet peeve!”
…and from another comment by Tessa:
“The hungry zombie look in the eyes of a girl on the right is a disservice to both men and women. Because in real life attractive, intelligent, healthy women don’t have the hots for the type of men who would look to Maxim for instruction on how to be a man.”
After looking into this (it’s hot on Facebook, where Professor King’s share has 2300 comments (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=339568466095802&set=a.310925765626739.81142.295984247120891&type=1&theater)), it’s a 10 year old article. And, apparently, a timeless issue:
http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Screen-shot-2012-03-30-at-12.51.48-PM.png (http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Screen-shot-2012-03-30-at-12.51.48-PM.png)
My take: I’d rather go out with a bicycling, vegan, anti-war feminist (save the corporation-fueling, death-hurrying cigs, though) than a conventional, sitcom-watching woman.
Good thing then that those aren’t the only two choices, and that we all have contradictions, and that life and particularly love can’t, and shouldn’t, be reduced to action figure attributes.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That's sick.

[Halert]

http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2012/03/28/7018320229_61f2398dbe_b.jpeg
Here is the full article. It's sick indeed, it has been proven that people can't tell apart quotes from men's magazines and interviews with convicted rapists
http://jezebel.com/5866602/can-you-tell-the-difference-between-a-mens-magazine-and-a-rapist?

[The Feral Underclass]

That's just fucked up on so many different levels.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I mean we all know Maxim is patriarchal horseshit, but this is pretty fucking ridiculous even from them. "Turn her into an actual girl" wtf?

This is from a ten year old article apparently...but really popular on Facebook.


Oh man that's absurd! Fuck Maxim... it takes work to not have actual nudity but still be more sexist than Playboy and shit.

Here's another male cultural creator's opinion which helps as a sweet chaser to that vile Maxim bs.

http://www.upworthy.com/48-reporters-asked-this-guy-the-same-dumb-question-about-women-his-response-absolutely-perfect

[Aleister Granger]

.... the fuck.... is this....
I thought this was from that place 4 channel or whatever its called until I realized it's real.
Is it real? Do people actually support this? What the fuck

[bcbm]

whoever lived in my house before i did had a maxim subscription and in over a year and a half has neglected to change the address, so we get maxim at my house every month. it is always terrible and sometimes sickeningly so

[Reticential]

The amount of misrepresentations of feminism is depressing. I've seen this image posted a few times from people who think it's just a 'joke' not realising it just perpetuates and propagates the bullshit.



whoever lived in my house before i did had a maxim subscription and in over a year and a half has neglected to change the address, so we get maxim at my house every month. it is always terrible and sometimes sickeningly so

A year and a half is a long time not to have a go at your postal service...

[Comrade Jacob]

"...an actual girl".
What the fuck is that? Can we get a definition?

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'd rather be with an unshaven vegan militant over some submissive self-hating zombie any day.

[Aleister Granger]

Last I checked (and I've made sure), an "actual girl" has a vagina, as differentiated from a penis. If a human has a penis, then they're an "actual boy."

If there's another definition that I'm unaware of, someone please inform me.
EDIT: Not forgetting the mixed gendered, that is.

[bcbm]

Last I checked (and I've made sure), an "actual girl" has a vagina, as differentiated from a penis. If a human has a penis, then they're an "actual boy."

If there's another definition that I'm unaware of, someone please inform me.

some girls have penises and some boys have vaginas though.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'd rather be with an unshaven vegan militant over some submissive self-hating zombie any day.

Though, at the same time, the coding of certain women as "submissive self-hating zombies" is as much part of contemporary patriarchy as its flip-side description of the "undesirable" "pseudo-woman" feminist. So, y'know, when a supposed feminist walks by the "clurb" and thinks, "Jesus girl, put some pants on, it's January in Canada!" it needs to be problematized.

So, like, if we look at the original image, and rip the women pictured from their context, there's no reason that all concerned couldn't be militant feminist vegan communists: getting off on cars, while weird, isn't necessarily incompatible with cutting off a yuppies dick and feeding it to him. The one truly problematic statement of course, is the bit about "a man completes me". Part of me hopes this was an intentionally Freudian thing on Maxim's part (penis envy, lack, etc.) - unintentionally pointing to the need for the destruction of patriarchal family, and to weird Shulamith Firestone Dialectic of Sex politics.

ANYWAY!

I'd love to see this spun around: "How to turn a dick-for-brains jock into a militant communist gender-rebel!" or something to similar ends.

[xxxxxx666666]

Last I checked (and I've made sure), an "actual girl" has a vagina, as differentiated from a penis. If a human has a penis, then they're an "actual boy."

If there's another definition that I'm unaware of, someone please inform me.

You are wrong, there are people who are transsexual where, to use your terms, the "girl with a vagina" is mentally a boy and "a boy with a penis" is a girl and I/we support the rights of those who want to change sex to do so.

Also, there are people who are born as hermaphrodite, these people have organs, though sometimes non-functional, of both sexes and they should likewise be treated as the human begins they are.

And no one should force any definition of gender on anyone, yes, it's as ok for anyone to be, well, whatever, they choose to be, a girl, boy, sissy, homosexual, etc. as long as they choose to be, not forced.

These gender sterotypes that are considered "normal" by capitalists are disgusting, no one should view another human begin as a "girl" or whatever stupid label the capitalists want to label another human begin as, but as an equal comrade.

[Jimmie Higgins]

ANYWAY!

I'd love to see this spun around: "How to turn a dick-for-brains jock into a militant communist gender-rebel!" or something to similar ends.

I'd take: "how do you turn mysogyistic sociopathic maxim editors into feeling humans" for a start.

[Aleister Granger]

You are wrong, there are people who are transsexual where the "girl with a vagina" is mentally a boy and where "a boy with a penis" is a girl and I/we support the rights of those who want to change sex to do so.

Also, there are people who are born as hermaphrodite, these people have organs, though sometimes non-functional, of both sexes.

And no one should force any definition of gender on anyone, yes it's as ok for anyone to be, well, whatever, they choose to be.

These gender sterotypes that are considered "normal" by capitalists are disgusting, no one should view another human begin as a "girl" or whatever stupid label the capitalists want to label another human begin as, but as an equal comrade.
I was trying to be simple.

[xxxxxx666666]

I was trying to be simple.

Ok, I'll be simple: your "actual boy" and "actual girl" definition of gender is wrong, there are those who don't fit those definitions, for example: genderqueers.

[Sea]

"There's be no more wars if all the penises were cut off! ARGH!"

What the fuck are these people thinking? Everybody knows that the official position of the International Feminist Conspiracy is that there'd be no more penises if all the wars were cut off, not the other way around. Gosh.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Last I checked (and I've made sure), an "actual girl" has a vagina, as differentiated from a penis. If a human has a penis, then they're an "actual boy."

If there's another definition that I'm unaware of, someone please inform me.
So your response to a misogynist article is to post a cisnormative/transmisogynist comment? :mad:

[waqob]

The picture is funny lol

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

just to echo the above - what the shit???

[Le Socialiste]

The picture is funny lol

We must not be looking at the same picture.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The picture is funny lol

Degrading women into sex-object babushka doll levels?

Your sense of humour is pretty suspect.

[Fourth Internationalist]

We must not be looking at the same picture.

Degrading women into sex-object babushka doll levels?

Your sense of humour is pretty suspect.

I don't think they're laughing in agreement with the picture, but rather at the absurdity of it.

[Fourth Internationalist]

So your response to a misogynist article is to post a cisnormative/transmisogynist comment? :mad:

Why must one make a mad face? It would be more productive to reply to them as to why they were wrong and not call them or their comment a result of any sort of phobia. All that does is put one into a defensive mode and not willing to learn, especially not from the person who said that they were being misogynistic (especially if one views themselves as a feminist, being called this wouldn't make them open up to constructive criticism). That's how I'd feel, at least, if I was called something like misogynistic or homophobic.

[Reticential]

(especially if one views themselves as a feminist, being called this wouldn't make them open up to constructive criticism).

Surely misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism and all kinds of discrimination that are as destructive as they obviously are should be called out. Being left-wing certainly doesn't make people immune from reproducing patriarchal or any other kind of institutionalised bullshit. If someone says something misogynistic it should be pointed out. And if anything the 'mad face' sort of softens the blow as emoticons are hardly literary cannon...:eek:

Also the person you quoted didn't call the person a misogynist/cisnormative, but their comments which did in fact leave the poster room to explain themselves. Which may or may not be just semantics...but hey.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Surely misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism and all kinds of discrimination that are as destructive as they obviously are should be called out. Being left-wing certainly doesn't make people immune from reproducing patriarchal or any other kind of institutionalised bullshit. If someone says something misogynistic it should be pointed out. And if anything the 'mad face' sort of softens the blow as emoticons are hardly literary cannon...:eek:

Also the person you quoted didn't call the person a misogynist/cisnormative, but their comments which did in fact leave the poster room to explain themselves. Which may or may not be just semantics...but hey.
I am not against correcting the person. I stated that in my post. The point in my post was how to address (to 'call out') such a person in that type of situation.

[Reticential]

The point in my post was how to address (to 'call out') such a person in that type of situation.

Sure I will agree that in some situations where it is solely text-based communication people do not always respond in a way that might be constructive, or any help in to reducing the likelihood of the same behaviour being repeated in future. But the fact that this forum actually takes such a strong stance against cisnormative/transmisogynist shit is really fucking positive. I assume they reacted in that way because there was emotion behind their post. Personally, I don't think that response was a good example of people replying non-constructively. Waqob should have thought before posting (which I'm also not saying you disagree with.)

[Quail]

I don't think the mad face in the post in question was excessive. Bear in mind, people get pretty sick of having to call out the same stuff repeatedly and although it might seem better to have an explanation, writing out the same explanation repeatedly does get tiresome.

[Le Socialiste]

I don't think they're laughing in agreement with the picture, but rather at the absurdity of it.

They never said that, though. They said - and I quote - "The picture is funny lol." Is it possible they were laughing at the absurdity of it? Sure, but that was never explicitly stated. Given this, you can't really blame us for attacking this user.

Edit - And Quail hits the issue right on the head: many of us are tired of repeating the same argument time and again. It can get pretty disheartening watching supposed leftists/allies put out all sorts of sexist, misogynistic rhetoric. What's even more frustrating (at least for me) is when others dismiss the concerns of women as "petty" or "nitpicking," as if they're distracting from the real issue(s) confronting the struggle at hand. Add to that the fact we're on an internet forum, and shit gets fairly tiresome. Patience runs out, and I can't really blame folks for it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Surely it's better to ask for clarification, rather than second-guessing people and making assumptions either way?

It has the benefit of challenging people without necessarily raising their hackles and making them defensive (which is what people do when they are "attacked"), which regardless of their views will make them less amenable to logical argument.

[Alonso Quijano]

Based on given profile I would not refuse going out on a date with a woman like that. That being sad, I guess I'm not an actual man, so that's not surprising that I'm attracted to non-actual women.

(From the same people who brought to you "you're not actual working class"...)

[Alonso Quijano]

They never said that, though. They said - and I quote - "The picture is funny lol." Is it possible they were laughing at the absurdity of it? Sure, but that was never explicitly stated. Given this, you can't really blame us for attacking this user.

Edit - And Quail hits the issue right on the head: many of us are tired of repeating the same argument time and again. It can get pretty disheartening watching supposed leftists/allies put out all sorts of sexist, misogynistic rhetoric. What's even more frustrating (at least for me) is when others dismiss the concerns of women as "petty" or "nitpicking," as if they're distracting from the real issue(s) confronting the struggle at hand. Add to that the fact we're on an internet forum, and shit gets fairly tiresome. Patience runs out, and I can't really blame folks for it.
If anything, feminism IS the real issue. It's the mother (no pun intended) of all oppressions. Misogyny is the most basic form of class division. I think that even according to Marx materialism began more or less with women regarded as property. I don't see how anyone who can treat his mother/sister/girlfriend/daughter as inferior can truly speak against oppression.

If you practice division in your own home, how can you fight divisions outside of it?

[Firebrand]

Real girls have free will
Real boys shouldn't be intimidated by that
Real women exist independently of male approval
Real men know real women are much better company than barbie

[Marshal of the People]

The picture is funny lol

No it isn't, how is the disrespect and sexualisation of women funny. Most feminists don't dress like the picture they look just like your average person they aren't unshaven, vegan tomboys they are normal (if there is even such a thing as normal)! A lot of feminists are male myself included, so please don't say that is funny when it is an extremely sexist, misogynist and hateful article!

[Rugged Collectivist]

I wonder if the author/editor ever actually thought about how creepy the premise is. "How to seduce a woman by creating a false persona and slowly trying to change her personality". I don't think it's an actual how-to guide but still.

[Quail]

Real girls have free will
Real boys shouldn't be intimidated by that
Real women exist independently of male approval
Real men know real women are much better company than barbie
I appreciate the sentiment behind this, and maybe it is based on the "real girl" part of the title of the article, but I think the whole idea of "real men" or "real women" is really problematic. Everyone is a real person.


No it isn't, how is the disrespect and sexualisation of women funny. Most feminists don't dress like the picture they look just like your average person they aren't unshaven, vegan tomboys they are normal (if there is even such a thing as normal)! A lot of feminists are male myself included, so please don't say that is funny when it is an extremely sexist, misogynist and hateful article!
I'm an unshaven, vegan tomboy :lol:
But whether that is considered "normal" or not, it shouldn't matter. Feminists, like all women and indeed people, come in all shapes and sizes and make all kinds of choices. Women shouldn't have to fit a certain set of criteria to be seen as attractive, and men certainly shouldn't be encouraged to "turn" those who don't meet the usual criteria "into real girls" in order to maximise their appeal to other shallow men.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

...I hate the idea of 'normal', it feels so limiting and open to abuse.

As for the OP; ick, argh, yuck, fuck off Maxim

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm pretty sure he was laughing at the absurdity of the picture. :mad:

But in all seriousness it is a disgusting and sexist article that reminds one of the attempts to "fix" homosexuality and the fact they use a model who fits the sexist ideal of what women are "supposed" to look like is just insult to injury.

It reminds me of this awful shit comic about the difference between real gamer girls and "gamer gurrrls" (whatever the hell that is) and it's like "so they both just happen to be tooth pick thin and have large breasts?" :lol: Idiots. :glare:







:) I like emoticons.

[Was tun, wenn's brennt?]

Women shouldn't have to fit a certain set of criteria to be seen as attractive

A few things: is it okay for men to be held to societal standards of beauty? Because it's certainly not only women who are made to feel insecure. And, sorry, but we all have our own ideas surrounding what we consider to be attractive so we do expect people to fit a certain criteria to be considered attractive. That is, if people don't look/behave a certain way we will not find them attractive.

[Quail]

A few things: is it okay for men to be held to societal standards of beauty? Because it's certainly not only women who are made to feel insecure.
No, but this article is about "how to turn a feminist into an actual girl" not "how to turn *insert supposedly unattractive male stereotype* into an actual man" so naturally the responses are probably going to touch more on female beauty standards than male beauty standards. Especially given that in this case, being a feminist, i.e., fighting for women's liberation, is being stereotyped as something unattractive.


And, sorry, but we all have our own ideas surrounding what we consider to be attractive so we do expect people to fit a certain criteria to be considered attractive. That is, if people don't look/behave a certain way we will not find them attractive.
There is no universal criteria determining who is and who isn't attractive though. There is more to attraction than just the way that people look, and everyone has things about them which are attractive in one way or another.

[Was tun, wenn's brennt?]

Especially given that in this case, being a feminist, i.e., fighting for women's liberation, is being stereotyped as something unattractive.

Yeah, I've been told it is "unmanly" to refer to myself as a feminist -- by females.



There is no universal criteria determining who is and who isn't attractive though. There is more to attraction than just the way that people look, and everyone has things about them which are attractive in one way or another.

Right, and if you'll read my post again you will see that I never said attractiveness was solely dependent on physical appearance. We will have to agree to disagree on the point that everyone is attractive in one way or another; I've met numerous people who are ugly through and through.

[Quail]

Yeah, I've been told it is "unmanly" to refer to myself as a feminist -- by females.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is. There isn't an equivalent article about male feminists (that I know of - if there is, find it and we can discuss it then). I don't agree with anyone having to conform to a certain ideal based on gender, but this thread is specifically about a misogynistic article so I don't know why you're trying to make it about men.


Right, and if you'll read my post again you will see that I never said attractiveness was solely dependent on physical appearance. We will have to agree to disagree on the point that everyone is attractive in one way or another; I've met numerous people who are ugly through and through.
Well, you were talking about standards of beauty, which generally refer to appearance. My point was that in reality there is no universal beauty standard; everyone has different ideas of what is and isn't beautiful so someone you think is "ugly through and through" won't be to someone else.

[Was tun, wenn's brennt?]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. There isn't an equivalent article about male feminists (that I know of - if there is, find it and we can discuss it then). I don't agree with anyone having to conform to a certain ideal based on gender, but this thread is specifically about a misogynistic article so I don't know why you're trying to make it about men.

Which is it? Are you not sure what my point is or are you positive I am trying to "make it about men?" My point was that I was agreeing with you and citing my real-world experience to relate. I didn't think that would be so difficult to understand...



Well, you were talking about standards of beauty, which generally refer to appearance. My point was that in reality there is no universal beauty standard; everyone has different ideas of what is and isn't beautiful so someone you think is "ugly through and through" won't be to someone else.

Funny, I am pretty sure I said they exact same thing about people having their own ideas about beauty. But you go on ahead and pretend I didn't so you can be "right" and I can be "wrong". :wub:

[#FF0000]

yo when someone comes through and says "well hey what about men" people are gonna regard you with a lil suspicion like you have some ulterior motive (because people who roll through like that often do this).

That's where this is coming from.

[Was tun, wenn's brennt?]

No ulterior motive here. Quail said something about how they didn't like how women are expected to live up to a societal standard of beauty. I was simply asking if they felt that only applied to women. If people want to feel attacked by that, well, that's on them.

[#FF0000]

No ulterior motive here. Quail said something about how they didn't like how women are expected to live up to a societal standard of beauty. I was simply asking if they felt that only applied to women. If people want to feel attacked by that, well, that's on them.

Nah if someone feels "attacked" (that's not the word but hey, let's use it) it's because people come through just about every discussion about feminism and issues affecting women and ask "WELL WHAT ABOUT THE MEN" and completely side track things.

I don't think that was your intention but saying "well what about them men" is one of those things that makes people around you brace for some some terrible, dumb shit, sort of like "I'm not racist, but...".

and of course it applies to men. I've never, ever heard a feminist even come close to suggesting that men should be held to some standard of beauty or anything like that. Images of men and women and what they mean are deconstructed and criticized all the time.

[Quail]

Which is it? Are you not sure what my point is or are you positive I am trying to "make it about men?" My point was that I was agreeing with you and citing my real-world experience to relate. I didn't think that would be so difficult to understand...
It didn't really come across that way at all, but okay. I meant I wasn't sure why it was really relevant to bring up men's beauty standards in the first place, since we were talking specifically about a sexist article about turning feminists into actual girls.


Funny, I am pretty sure I said they exact same thing about people having their own ideas about beauty. But you go on ahead and pretend I didn't so you can be "right" and I can be "wrong". :wub:
You said:

I've met numerous people who are ugly through and through.That pretty unambiguously seems to suggest that some people have no redeeming features. I'm not saying I'm attracted to everyone, rather that I can see why other people might be attracted to them.

[Quail]

No ulterior motive here. Quail said something about how they didn't like how women are expected to live up to a societal standard of beauty. I was simply asking if they felt that only applied to women. If people want to feel attacked by that, well, that's on them.
It did seem like a bit of a loaded question. No feminist is going to argue that something which is harmful to women would not also be harmful to men though, and unfortunately discussions about women and misogyny do often end up getting non-constructively derailed somehow to being about men so you'll have to forgive me for treating your post with some suspicion.

[Was tun, wenn's brennt?]

Nah if someone feels "attacked" (that's not the word but hey, let's use it) it's because people come through just about every discussion about feminism and issues affecting women and ask "WELL WHAT ABOUT THE MEN" and completely side track things.

I don't think that was your intention but saying "well what about them men" is one of those things that makes people around you brace for some some terrible, dumb shit, sort of like "I'm not racist, but...".

Point taken. You're right, it wasn't my intention, but, again, point taken.


and of course it applies to men. I've never, ever heard a feminist even come close to suggesting that men should be held to some standard of beauty or anything like that. Images of men and women and what they mean are deconstructed and criticized all the time.

You must not have met many of the trans-excluding/general hate of men, crowd. They are a comparatively small fringe group but they do exist. For the sake of clarity, this is not meant to be taken as me saying such people are representative of the Feminist movement as a whole.


You said:

"I've met numerous people who are ugly through and through."

That pretty unambiguously seems to suggest that some people have no redeeming features. I'm not saying I'm attracted to everyone, rather that I can see why other people might be attracted to them.

I also said that we all have our own ideas of beauty. But I guess when you completely disregard that I can see how you would fail to realize that I was speaking only for myself.


It did seem like a bit of a loaded question. No feminist is going to argue that something which is harmful to women would not also be harmful to men though, and unfortunately discussions about women and misogyny do often end up getting non-constructively derailed somehow to being about men so you'll have to forgive me for treating your post with some suspicion.

Sorry it came across that way. And here I was thinking computers and the internet would make conversation easier :lol:

[#FF0000]

You must not have met many of the trans-excluding/general hate of men, crowd. They are a comparatively small fringe group but they do exist. For the sake of clarity, this is not meant to be taken as me saying such people are representative of the Feminist movement as a whole.


Naw I'm aware of them. That's something entirely different than what I'm talking about here, though.


I also said that we all have our own ideas of beauty. But I guess when you completely disregard that I can see how you would fail to realize that I was speaking only for myself.Damn son that isn't how you handle an obvious misunderstanding c'mon.

[Quail]

I also said that we all have our own ideas of beauty. But I guess when you completely disregard that I can see how you would fail to realize that I was speaking only for myself.

I didn't disregard it, I just didn't read it properly. Sorry.

[Was tun, wenn's brennt?]

Since a post of mine started to derail the thread I feel obligated to post something to at least attempt to get it back on track:

I'm not the least bit surprised that Maxim would publish something like this, their magazine has always been a bunch of trite, posturing garbage. This kind of reminds me of the meme that often gets passed around that generally features a photo of a chubbier gal and says "real women have curves". Women are women, curves or not, hairy legs or not, meat in their stomach or not.

Personal aesthetics dictate that I prefer a woman (where dating is concerned) who shaves and is neither too large nor too small, I don't care about dietary preferences but a working brain and sense of humor are non-negotiable. However, I don't for one second think that every woman has to see to it that they fit the category just described and I'm certainly not going to shame them if they don't.

Coincidentally, one of my friends just submitted her portfolio to Maxim with the hopes of being a featured model. I asked if she had considered being a Suicide Girl and she said she had but chose not to because, in her words, "vag shots are too much for me."

[La Comédie Noire]

Look, obviously physical attractiveness plays a part in who people are attracted to, but it's that women are judged solely by that criteria above all else in everything they do, even places where romantic feelings should have no basis. They're like books that are only judged by their covers.

So when a man is like "what about me?" it's like "yeah what about you? Maybe women don't find you physically attractive, but you can still amass prestige and get laid for thousandths of other things besides your looks."

Just think if no matter what you did or thought or felt people still judged you primarily for one aspect of yourself.

No one's saying society doesn't put expectations on men, it's just they have a diverse number of ways they could fulfill those expectations.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A few things: is it okay for men to be held to societal standards of beauty?
That's kind of derailing in this particular thread, don't you think?

[#FF0000]

That's kind of derailing in this particular thread, don't you think?

already been dealt with lol

[Bea Arthur]

Utterly disgusting trash. Anybody who doesn't immediately see that has serious issues!

[Gia]

Whoever put togheter that picture must be a clueless idiot, and for those who just shrug it off as a "joke", they also must be ignorant fools. Into an "actual girl"? Are you fucking kidding me?! So the very definition that they give of being a "girl" (read not a woman, oh no, that would mean they are adults just like men, thus being equal to them in a way), is a body dressed in lingerie, devoid of personal will and individuality, basically a sex object for them to enjoy, right? Then I'd much rather prefer not to be an "actual girl", and I'll stick with being a feminist woman with principles and a personality.

Gahh, sorry for the rant-ish comment, but this actually annoyed me, the biggest reason being that this kind of thing is quickly to be deemed as a " (true) joke", and if you voice your disgust toward it, you're accused of having no sense of humor. What if was "How to turn a militant, civil rights and social equality activist black person into an actual "nigga" (sorry for using this term, I'm just trying to build the context) who knows their place", would it have been tossed aside as a joke? But then again, Zimmerman is still a free man, so I guess that says it all in this case.

What a bunch of bullshit.

[Alonso Quijano]

Gia, I agree with your post except for one thing - you don't have to apologise, Comrade.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk