Almost two months ago, I replied to this RIDICULOUS, anti-male-libido, anti-natural, biology-loathing, down-right hateful, irrational and illogical feminist RANT, which I suggest you read, in order to understand what I'm so unrelentingly and loudly responding to below:
After two months of it saying "Your comment is awaiting moderation", I know that the blogger doesn't have the backbone or intellectual honesty to allow it, so I'm putting it here instead:
Excuse me? Richard Roeper is just as bad as boorish construction workers who yell misogynistic, annoying, harassing things at you as you walk by minding your own business? How do you figure? That quote of his up there is his view on what most men care to see when looking through such magazines as Glamour and Vogue, and, frankly, I agree. What I take offense to is him calling it sexist, like an ingratiating coward, at the end. His statement actually sounds quite realistic. Why else would they look through such magazines as those, unless they're trans-gendered (nothing wrong with that)? And where do you get the effrontery in comparing him to sleazy perverts that approach you with offensive requests on subways?! What are you talking about?! You just SLANDERED the man!
And in regard to the quote itself, which you hate so much and call “degrading,” I have to ask: would you care to see a lineup of obese, hairy men wearing nothing but briefs on a poster in the subway? That wouldn’t be inappropriate and grotesque to you? It sure would be to me, and I don’t think either of us should be most unfairly called sexist or mean for feeling that way. Taking the subway in the morning is bad enough without being surrounded by half-naked, unattractive people. At least on television you can change the channel, for Pete sakes. And, no, such comments are NOT naturalized in our culture anymore. Guys get their heads bitten off for saying MUCH less than he does there, believe me. And more and more do I witness and hear of guys agreeing with extreme feminists on such issues of sex and sexuality, either because they’re attracted to them and want to get on their good side, or just because they’ve become ashamed of being attracted to women of a certain physique, and/or for their own biological urges of – dare I say it? – seed-spreading in general that radical feminists hate so much and wish to tyrannize over with their contemptuous, anti-libidinous ideals. The reason being for all this loathsome, unwarranted shame is that, most unfortunately, and most frighteningly, radical feminism has become mainstream feminism, and, I fear, worst of all – the new Christianity.
What a lousy blog!
Aaaaah, that feels better. If that's what feminism is all about now - an expression of insecurity by women who don't feel that they fit the mold of what men find most attractive, and so lash out against them by throwing shame on their biological urges and the preferences and inclinations of their sexual prowess - then FUCK FEMINISM! It is no better than any foul dogma. It carries with it everything that is wrong with Christian doctrine, for it is puritanical in nature and stems from resentment. And for the record, I always hated the expression "boys will be boys" too. For it demeans and degrades men as being mere children because of their instinctual, sexual urges, and if that isn't sexist, then the word "sexist" has no meaning. The proper saying should be, "MEN WILL BE MEN!" And no amount of heavy-handed feminist preaching, and ostentatious, disingenuous outrage and filthifying is ever going to change that. Christina Aguilera is hot, Rosie O'donnell is NOT. Megan Fox is hot, Queen Latifah is NOT. (Unless, of course, the guy has a fetish for obesity, which would make him the exception, not the norm.) And that's ALL...there IS...TO IT! This isn't the 17th Century anymore, and there is no going back! And even if we could, that would STILL entail a preference of physicality, so there will always be women feeling alienated regarding the matter. There's no getting around it, only getting OVER IT!!
And fuck Marxism too! It doesn't work in reality and the 20th Century, and North Korea today, are proof of that. The Communist Manifesto, though quite economically sound and moral, gives way too much power to politicians, who, for the most part, are parasitic scum. Marx had no foresight. Marxists play a serious game of cognitive dissonance, just like religionists do. They're in a perpetual state of denial. I don't know about you, but I don't wanna live in an Orwellian world. I just thought that I'd add this last part in because it's been bugging me ever since I took Marx, Marxism and Post-Marxism during my Honours BA almost 2 years ago. You see, it's not so much Marxism that I have a problem with, which looks good on paper, but rather Marxists, who should know better, but try their hardest not to.
"'Faith' means the will to avoid knowing what is true." - Nietzsche