Offended by the Tide

I’ve recently had the displeasure of reading another angry, exquisitely violent rant from another angry woman marinated in the toxic spew of feminism 2.0. 

In summary, it is a woman’s response to another article, posted here, from a man who claims to be a feminist, who is ashamed to admit that (shocker!) he still likes to look at beautiful women, and is aroused by the sight of them. 

Holy fucking fuck, Batman!

She goes off on a long, angry, violent rant about how she’d like to physically assault and torture this man for being so obtuse as to admit the truth – that men, horrifyingly enough, are attracted to beautiful women. 

I will leave it to Judgy Bitch to disassemble the hypocrisy of a person who spends as much time decrying violence against women as the author does, who then turns around and promotes really horrible amounts of violence towards men for something so petty as them liking to look at beautiful women.  JB does a good job dissecting a world view where one-way violence is acceptable to the likes of these angry modern feminists, and concludes, as I have numerous times, that feminism 2.0 isn’t about equality; it’s about superiority.

The modern iteration of feminism, which I call feminism 2.0, is a supremacist movement, desiring a world where women have all the power and privilege, and men have all the responsibility to ensure that women’s every need and desire is met.  But I’ll leave Judgy Bitch to talk about that. 

The concept that she wrote about in her article that I want to discuss is the part where she is shocked that millennia of evolutionary forcing for men to find the most fertile, healthy women to bear their children has lead men to use visual cues to find those women who are most attractive and therefore desirable.  It is no coincidence that the things that men find most attractive in women; large breasts, physical fitness, and a good hip to waist ratio, are also the best way to determine a woman’s fertility and fitness to be a mother. 

I liken this to someone being shocked and offended that the tide came in despite their wishing very hard that it wouldn’t, because the similarities in being appalled or surprised by either phenomenon are amusingly similar.

You may as well stand in opposition to the tides, as King Knute tried to do so many centuries ago, than try to stop eons of biological  conditioning in men to favor beautiful women. This isn’t a choice for men to do this – we do it even if, like the author of the target article, we consciously try to stop it.  It is in our biological hard wiring.  It is part of our lizard brain.  We can’t control it any more than we can control our heartbeat or our need to sleep.  She is angered by that, and refuses to understand that she is not trying to undo some socially-created patriarchal institution – she is trying to unravel the basic fabric of human biology; the very things that are necessary for our species to continue to exist!

If it weren’t for men “objectifying” women, as she spins it, our species would have failed to exist eons ago.  She’d better thank her lucky stars that her father once “objectified” her mother, or else she would never have been born. 

She rather reminds me of a more earnest, less intelligent, and less ironic King Knute, raging against the incoming tide; telling it how she would rather it didn’t wax twice a day, and how its failure to bend to her will on how things should be is offending her; angering her; filling her with so much rage that it is making her violent.

At least King Knute wasn’t seriously of the opinion that he could influence the tides, and was merely pretending to try to do so in order to make a point about the power of men.  This woman seriously thinks that she can. 

The part I don’t get is why she would want to???

Why would any woman want to stop men from admiring beautiful women?  From desiring them?  From, as she puts it, “objectifying” them? 

If I found out that everywhere I went, people were looking at me with desire, undressing me with their eyes, and desiring to be with me, I would not be angry at all - I would be flattered.  It is our biological imperative to be desired; to be sexual in nature, and to have other people want you sexually.  It’s how our species has continued to exist despite countless pressures otherwise.  

So why is this woman so pissed? 

And so it comes down to it, in the end, to the same thing that most of these angry, violent rants from feminism 2.0 boil down to:

Sour grapes. 

Yup, its no coincidence that feminists tend to be ugly as fuck.  Not physically ugly, necessarily, but ugly in a way that seeps through her physical façade.  Though she’d never, ever admit it, secretly, deep down in her lizard brain, she isn’t mad because men are undressing her with their eyes, or wanting her sexually – and why would they?  She’s walking around with a perpetual grouch on – always angry, and always showing that to the people around her.  She’s mad because they are doing those things to other women and not her.  Because they won’t bend to her will, and cater to her needs, she thinks men are all pigs: obsessed with beauty and physical fitness, and ignorant of the things that make a woman truly beautiful, like being an angry, violent, supremacist harpy shrew, like her, and she just can’t understand why she isn’t appealing to men.

She can’t get a man, and since she is a perfect little fucking princess who deserves to have an obedient, beaten-down Prince Charming cater to her every whim, she’s pissed.  Since modern society, and feminism 2.0 in particular, has made sure that a person’s problems can never be their own fault, she’s looking for someone to blame, and who better to blame than a man who admits his true desire for a woman who cares enough to be beautiful?

We don’t want to be with ugly, shrieking harpies who would break our fingers with a hammer if we don’t please her, and that pisses her off. 

Here it is in a nutshell – men care about physical beauty.  It isn’t everything, by a long shot, but it is a sign that the woman possessing it cares enough about your needs and your desires that she’ll work to fulfill them.  We are visual creatures.  That’s why men look at porn, while women read it.  We see women that are beautiful and desire them because beauty is a good indicator that she cares, and a woman caring is important to us.  Newsflash, sweetheart – we don’t want to be beaten-down Prince Charmings.  We want to be self-determinate individuals who have a right to search for self-actualization and happiness that doesn’t revolve around pleasing you.  We want a relationship where we get back what we put into it – when we do nice things for you, we’d like to have you do nice things for us in return.  I know that this is shocking, and I know that your first reaction to this is going to be “PATRIARCHY!!!1eleventy!” but hear me out – I know what I’m talking about.

And here’s the most important part – we won’t, all of us, necessarily give up on a woman because she isn’t physically beautiful, but if you aren’t, try being nice, for fuck’s sake.  It will go a long way to your being desired instead of avoided like the plague, and then you won’t have to be so damned angry all the time.