Sunday, July 07, 2013

Men Improve, Feminists Excuse

There had been something gnawing at the back of my head regarding this post from a feminist/"college health educator," advocating that your obesity was not your fault.  It finally dawned on me in the shower;

Men look to improve themselves, correct the error of their ways, and become better people.

Feminists look for excuses for their continued gluttonous and slothful behavior.

Politics, economics and sociology aside, if you look at the Manosphere vs. the "feminist-sphere" the Manosphere has an entire section dedicated towards health, working out, eating right, and self-improvement.  Heck, we even have entire blogs dedicated towards working out and health.

Feminists do not.

Matter of fact they perform the most insane mental acrobatics I've ever seen in intellectual dishonesty, lying to themselves, and rationalization.  Going so far as to blame society for daring to having values, standards and the audacity to judge. 

I've meandered into this rabbit hole before, and I theorize that it is laziness that drives this.  It takes less effort to use words and concoct weak mental rationalizations than it does to commit to a life-long part time job of physical self-improvement.  I've also theorized in the past this is why leftistism and feminism usually go hand in hand.  Lazy people (feminist or not) LOATHE and FEAR

performance and

It explains why they're not only physically unappealing, but usually rely on government subsidy for their livelihood, job or profession (for example academia, the non-profits that receive government grants, women's studies departments at public universities and their constant political demands to have the state replacement the husband as the main financial provider).

Regardless, the end result are two philosophies that are starkly different and shows which group is truly more moral, selfless and altruistic - the men.

Men could, we COULD, just sit on our asses and complain all day.  And many men do.  But isn't it funny, that the most "extreme," "radical" and (guaranteed-to-be-accused-of) misogynistic fringe of the male world in the form of the Manosphere constantly beats it into the heads of its readers that to impress and make women happy they have to hit the gym, work hard and dedicate their lives towards self improvement?  Yes there is a element you do such things for yourself, but in the end, don't fool yourself, it's primarily for the women and the theoretical children you might have some day.

I ask, where is the feminist equivalent?

Even those mindless women's magazine you can pick up at the grocery store have articles and sections about maintaining health and beauty!  But no, not the group that claims to be first and foremost for the benefit of women.  No, they much prefer to bury their heads in the sand, ignore reality, even try to villainize it, and sit and pontificate from their offices in academia new and creative rationalizations as to why they're wasting their one shot at life.

In the end, as an economist, I don't care.  There is ALWAYS equilibrium.  Every decision has a commensurate consequence and it will all balance out in the end.  Because no matter how much feminists hate work, discipline, and competition, and no matter to what lengths they go to rationalize those things away, in the end (and by end, I mean their death bed) they will have to face the fact had they spent a fraction of the time self-improving, working out or working hard as they did concocting excuses, their lives would have been immeasurably better.

But who am I to get in the way of obese, miserable and hate-filled people?


Anonymous said...

Step 1: Do what Feminism tells you to do.

Step 2: Be miserable, sooner or later.

Step 3: Blame men.

Step 4: Go back to step 1.

Anonymous said...

y'know something...

I was reading an article on rape...

He goes against allot of feminist dogma but seems allot more interested in helping women not get raped. Wouldn't you rather your sister or daughter read that than some drivel by Marcotte that ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS now go to the SLUTWALK to prove how evilllle men are and you don't have to do a thing for your self defense because the world owes it to you to be safe. It seems like feminism is okay with sacrificing individual women while spreading it's ideology...

adiaforon said...

Remember, though, that those fashion mags for the ladies tend to skimp on real improvements in favor of cosmetic ones. Not all that far removed from the endless spate of DVDs for women, focusing on yoga, aerobics, and other "fun" workouts.

Rather than hammer home the two main points about losing weight and toning:

1. Shovel less junk food into your mouth.
2. Work up a sweat to where your metabolism is burning fat, and then lift weights.

I see this every day in my local gym. The "fun" classes and the cross-trainers are almost exclusively women, while the men are at the free weights. The odd woman I see pumping iron usually has my respect, because she's more toned and is working to strengthen her bones for later in life. (I'm surmising.)

Long Duc Dong said...

No, I think feminist will go all the way to their graves in denial and stay that way forever after.

AnonymousBosch said...

I posted this on the Roosh Forum about the same topic yesterday. I think it's useful to think about:

A guy was talking about various health problems that impact his fitness and wrote this:

"On bad days, I have to dope myself up before going to the gym, but I still go. I look at people with fat bodies that have no structural damage and shake my head. What the fuck is wrong with these people? I'd kill to have their body."

My response:

I'm in the same boat. The thing to remember is you're naturally highly-resilient, meaning you can endure a great deal of pain and trauma before your willpower is compromised and you fold.

Low resilience = small traumas create big issues. People like that are genuinely and meaningfully traumatised by small things where it would require something enormous to generate the same reaction in us. As annoying as it is to accept, it's, unfortunately, very real.

I think women were originally encouraged to mature by developing 'strength of character' - the classic female-centric childrens books were usually about girls learning to be resilient women. Now, of course, women are encouraged to remain children forever in the name of empowerment.

The natural progression of this is exactly what we're seeing in society now: people with low resilence are trying to set up a model where it's actually considered immoral to treat people with variant resilience levels differently, and suggest the idea that people who actually have their shit together enough to not lose it over insignificant, petty crap are unfeeling monsters and powder kegs waiting to explode, so really need to open up and cry about their problems to 'heal', ie. be as weak as they are. They can't even begin to comprehend that we are honestly unfazed by that which doesn't kill us.

Hell, If I were to voice my honest opinion in the public sphere that low resilience is a clear sign of an unhealthy mind - I actually consider it a form of depression - and clearly correlates with the coddled and spoilt children of privilege, then you can imagine the outcry from the fat and lazy social justice brigade who'd try to dox me on the spot.

AnonymousBosch said...

Following on from that, Feminists encourages Low Resilience in women, because it empowers them. It sounds illogical, but bear with me:

Following a class model, the more resilient a community, the more it will be expected to bear. Men usually have high level resilience as individuals, but for women to succeed, they need men to have low level resilience as a community: isolated, uncomplaining wage slaves.

This is the Ideal: train men to accept their lot by controlling the discourse and encouraging sensitivity, and - and this is where PC language is far more dangerous than people believe since its goal is to limit freedom of thought and expression - you eventually will create a class who literally do not know how to complain about it.

Often the most productive groups are comprised of a weakly resilient leader, mildly resilient middle managers, and highly resilient subordinates. It's a reversal of what our success-driven model teaches us, but that's the reality. You can how women then easily rise in the chain of command above men.

Poorly resilient people need to believe they are brilliant and trash their subordinates for failure - the pattern is born out of a class schism. Then, when the leaders fail, we call their lack of resilience 'sensitivity'. Those with higher resilience are thought of as beast of burden ie. "works like an Ox."

If this interesting difference ie ever enunciated openly - they'll call their weakness a "gift" of "creativity" and "sensitivity". High level resilience is then obversely and ironically derided as lacking in strength! Strong is weak, weak is strong - pure Orwellian doublespeak. Examples are practically anything that comes out of a woman's mouth with regard to their own gender: 'survivor', 'empowered', the victim as 'strong', 'anything a man can do a woman can do better', etc.

This doublespeak is why men will get labelled 'cold' and 'callous' by women, because we don't cry over literally breaking a nail. That example is deliberate because you have to consider the chain of entitlement they're crying over... thinking of what they've lost... which is a bauble crafted by the creative labour of their 'lessers', ie the men who built society and keep it functioning.

The myth of feminism is that they're seeking 'equality'. The reality is what I've just described.

You can also apply this model to explain favouring immigration: resilent immigrants are perfect beasts of burden.

Anonymous said...

If you eat like a pig,

You'll look like a PIG

Anonymous said...

Not related o this post but wanted your opinion on this

Eric Mueller said...

Feminism would be fine if they just did their thing and left everybody else alone. The fact that they want everybody else to drop down to their level and be exactly like them is what makes them trouble.

James Roberts said...

"You are doing amazing things, whatever they are. Seriously! Whatever you are doing with your precious time and brainspace (reading, writing, working, creating, studying, caretaking, being nice–contributing to society in any small way"

This seemingly innocuous statement is a perfect example of the BS put out by today's left that is taking this country down. This professor is telling her young audience that they are amazing for doing rather routine things and should be proud of every little action they take every day and very many of them internalize this message. I see and hear this all the time, mostly from women: my "amazing" friends" doing "amazing" things. As if planting a garden or backpacking 15 miles were not done millions or even billions of time a year by very ordinary people.

And what the heck is a college health educator anyway? It is no wonder tuition is skyrocketing when the universities have people like this on their staff, most likely making close to 6 figures for spewing out feminist, feel-good drivel

Matt said...

Thank you for pointing this out.

Call us selfish, call us childish - certainly a lot of the manosphere is about becoming more attractive so men can have more sex - but at least it's about becoming more attractive.

The womanosphere has none of that, and the little improvement advice it gives is so bad as to be counterproductive. Do you know there's actually a bestselling book called, "Why Men Love Bitches."


Bob Wallace said...

Men created, maintain and advance civilization. Many women do nothing but whine and complain and blame everything on men.

Take The Red Pill said...

Bob Wallace said...
Men created, maintain and advance civilization. Many women do nothing but whine and complain and blame everything on men.

Womyn DO like to put curtains on windows and then endlessly fuss over the 'view' that they created, don't they?