Categories
alt-lite antifeminism evil sexy ladies FemRAs FeMRAsplaining intellectual dork web makeup is a lie misogyny rape rape culture reactionary bullshit sexual assault sexual harassment slut shaming toxic masculinity

Women wearing “makeup that hints at orgasm” can’t complain that men leer, Intellectual Dark Webber Heather Heying argues

Toxic female prepares for battle

By David Futrelle

So who’s more toxic: A dude who spends every lunch hour staring at women passing on the street like a hungry lion eyeing a wounded gazelle, or any of these women who take a moment to tell him to “stop staring at me, you creep!”

If we follow the logic set out by Intellectual Dark Webber Heather E. Heying in her recent piece on “toxic femininity” in Quillette, it would be the women. At least if they’re wearing makeup — because makeup “invites” male attention and it’s wrong for women to chastise men who give women the lustful gazes that they’re (supposedly) signaling they crave.

Heying, a former evolutionary biology professor at Evergreen State College, declares that it’s an “ancient truth” that

[s]traight men will look at beautiful women, especially if those women are a) young and hot and b) actively displaying. Display invites attention.

Apparently, any time a young hottie puts on flattering clothes and a bit of makeup, she’s basically advertising that she’s open for business, sex-wise, much like a female mandrill presenting her swollen red ass to the nearest monkey Chad.

“Hotness-amplifying femininity puts on a full display, advertising fertility and urgent sexuality,” Heying proclaims, writing about human females in much the same way, I imagine, that she’s written about the sex lives of the poisonous frogs she’s studied in the wild.

It invites male attention by, for instance, revealing flesh, or by painting on signals of sexual receptivity. This, I would argue, is inviting trouble.

So you’re saying these women are asking for it?

No, I did not just say that she was asking for it. I did, however, just say that she was displaying herself, and of course she was going to get looked at.

I’m not quite sure how that’s different from saying “she’s asking for it,” but never mind.

The amplification of hotness is not, in and of itself, toxic, although personally, I don’t respect it, and never have. Hotness fades, wisdom grows— wise young women will invest accordingly.

So dressing like a dirty slut isn’t toxic, it just makes you a dirty slut, which Heying definitely isn’t, unlike all you dirty sluts being all dirty and slutty out there with your dirty slut outfits.

Femininity becomes toxic when it cries foul, chastising men for responding to a provocative display.

Ah, of course, femininity becomes toxic as soon as women point out the bad behavior of men.

Heying dials back her rhetoric for a moment to assure her readers that, yes, she does believe that there are some male behaviors that it’s legitimate to complain about.

Every woman has the right not to be touched if she does not wish to be; and coercive quid pro quo, in which sexual favors are demanded for the possibility of career advancement, is unacceptable.

Alas, she follows up this bit of uncharacteristic reasonableness with a big ol’ “but.”

But when women doll themselves up in clothes that highlight sexually-selected anatomy, and put on make-up that hints at impending orgasm, it is toxic—yes, toxic—to demand that men do not look, do not approach, do not query.

Wait, what? “Make-up that hints at impending orgasm?”

As best as I can figure it, she thinks that whenever women use any makeup that reddens their cheeks or lips they are doing so because this redness is a simulation of the “sex flush” that many women experience during, well, sex, and that typically starts to fade after an orgasm.

Of course, cheeks also turn red due to embarrassment, sunburn, vigorous jogging, cold weather, falling into a vat of tomato soup. So maybe all that a woman with blusher on her cheeks is trying to signal is that due to her balance issues it’s probably not a good idea to take her on a tour of a soup factory, at least not without securing her with a sturdy rope first.

Also, “sex flushes” don’t only affect the face; they also tend to redden necks and chests, among other places. So for women to really convey just how totally into sex they hypothetically are, shouldn’t they cover every visible inch of skin with red paint, like this sexy lady here?

The wings are a nice touch too

But I digress. Heying continues her tirade against mean hotties being mean to men.

Young women have vast sexual power. Everyone who is being honest with themselves knows this: Women in their sexual prime who are anywhere near the beauty-norms for their culture have a kind of power that nobody else has.

Weird that very few of these women are able to use this supposedly vast power to command much higher salaries than, for example, their much older and much less sexually appealing male bosses.

They are also all but certain to lack the wisdom to manage it. Toxic femininity is an abuse of that power, in which hotness is maximized, and victim status is then claimed when straight men don’t treat them as peers.

Why shouldn’t men treat women as peers? What does “hotness” have to do with it?

Creating hunger in men by actively inviting the male gaze, then demanding that men have no such hunger—that is toxic femininity.

No one is demanding that straight men cease being attracted to — hungering for — women; they’re simply asking that men treat the women they’re attracted to with simple courtesy and not openly drool over them like creepy creeps.

Subjugating men, emasculating them when they display strength—physical, intellectual, or other—that is toxic femininity.

“Subjugating” men for “displaying strength?” Where is this coming from? What the fuck are you even talking about?

Insisting that men, simply by virtue of being men, are toxic, and then acting surprised as relationships between men and women become more strained—that is toxic femininity.

No one is claiming that all men are toxic “simply by virtue of being men.” Yes, it’s true that all men in our culture are taught some toxic attitudes and encouraged to display some toxic behaviors. But that doesn’t make all men predators or creeps.

Many men consciously or unconsciously reject the toxic aspects of masculinity — while holding on to other aspects of masculinity that they and many others (including most feminists) find appealing. Terry Crews is about as masculine a man as you can get — and he’s speaking out against toxic masculinity.  I don’t know any feminist, male or female, who has a problem with him; I’ve seen Men’s Rights Activists call him a “cuck.”

If every young woman who complains about creeps staring at them is guilty of “toxic femininity,” at least in Heying’s mind, are there men guilty of toxic masculinity as well?

True, she does explicitly acknowledge that toxic masculinity is a thing. After all, there are men out there who sexually assault women. But she’s willing to absolve most men of any degree of blame.

“Yes, toxic masculinity exists,” she writes, before moving on to the inevitable “but.”

But the use of the term has been weaponized. It is being hurled without care at every man. When it emerged, its use seemed merely imprecise—in most groups of people, there’s some guy waiting for an opportunity to fondle a woman’s ass without her consent, put his hand where he shouldn’t, right? That’s who was being outed as toxic. Those men—and far, far worse—do exist. Obviously. But wait—does every human assemblage contain such men? It does not.

Well, pretty much any human assemblage with more than a handful of men in it is likely to contain at least one toxic asshole who likes to grope women without consent. Hell, our president is one of these men, if his own boasts (not to mention the accusations of numerous women) are anything to go by. Kind of hard to argue that “toxic masculinity” is super duper rare when the top elected official on our country is about as toxic as a man can get.

This term, toxic masculinity, is being wielded indiscriminately, and with force. We are not talking imprecision now, we are talking thoroughgoing inaccuracy.

Indeed, she suggests, if you talk about “toxic masculinity” too much, many people will leap to the conclusion that “all men are toxic.”  Never mind that this isn’t actually happening in the real world.

While Heying is convinced that every young woman who puts a little rouge on her cheeks is “inviting trouble,” she cuts men a lot more slack. Indeed, at the start of her piece she literally gives human males credit for not murdering babies.

No, really. She starts the piece by noting that male lions, as is well-known,  will “kill the kittens in a pride over which they have gained control.” This, she acknowledges, is pretty “toxic” behavior. But

[g]iven the opportunity, the vast majority of modern human males would do no such thing. … the vast majority of men would not and could not kill babies, nor rape their grieving mothers.

Good to know.

So, to summarize: in order to be convicted of toxic femininity in the court of Judge Heying, all a woman needs to do is to put on a spot of makeup and then complain if men leer at her.

In order to be convicted of toxic masculinity, by contrast, a man has to do one or more of the following:

  1. Grind on or grope a woman without her consent
  2. Rape a woman
  3. Demand sexual favors for career advancement
  4. Kill some babies

With such divergent standards, it’s no wonder that she thinks “toxic femininity” is much more common than “toxic masculinity.”

It’s also no wonder she’s considered part of the “Intellectual Dark Web,” because arguments like hers deserve to be sent back into the darkness from whence they came.

135 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
StaceySmartyPantsTwiceRemoved
StaceySmartyPantsTwiceRemoved
3 years ago

This post and all these comments so hits home perfectly for me tonight!
Oh wow I have been on the phone and running around way too late but for such a good reason!

I am going to do the most amazing act of resistance against slut shaming tomorrow! This is going to take all kinds of extra time but my super-sweet boss and manager OK’d it and we are going to do it.

Tomorrow my outfit is going to be just full body liquid latex! We are going to put me in silver. I’ve worn it once full body before to a party but did not do my face (which takes a LOT of preparation like taping your eyebrows); you have to be so super-careful when you do your face but it looks just so cool when it’s all continuous. We’re going to color my hair metallic silver so I’ll be completely 100% Silver Stacey! 🙂

My sweet boss said not to worry about the phones tomorrow; she doesn’t have many clients and she and my manager can do that and I and just take care of hostessing, because I’ll be so cool and cute she wants me doing that. She said she doesn’t want me doing more than two hours hostessing wearing full latex so that I won’t get uncomfortable but that she loves the idea and says that clients will be like totally charmed.

My friend is coming to the salon at 1100 to put me into it. We are not busy tomorrow and so we have plenty of space in our spa area that we can use to set up. My boss said that’s totally fine and was so sweet and said not to worry about making a mess because it’ll be so worth it, and that as long as I’m willing to hostess like that she and my friend will clean up and my manager will watch out for me and make sure I’m OK. So tonight my friend and I were up late getting all the stuff ready. She had the latex from last Halloween and at first we were afraid we didn’t have enough but she found an extra bottle of it. I still had some ProShields and bottom covers and thank goodness my friend still has enough of the silicone stuff we will need to shine me up once I’m completely into it. I have some strappy silver heels that I know will fit even with it on my feet (because even with the four coats it’s not super thick).

I am so happy. But this is so VERY much an act of resistance for me because that’s ALL I am wearing, aside from shoes and jewelry and it’s obviously like super skin tight (because I’m sealed in).

@Gaebolga
your words helped me understand and feel that this is not just so fun but me resisting.

I didn’t see David’s post about that awful Heather Haying article earlier because my friend and I were getting our stuff ready to make me Silver Stacey tomorrow. But then we got back to my apartment and I was texting my boss and I saw it on my phone and I wrote real quick before we finished getting our stuff ready.

So this is completely perfect because, yes, Professor Heying, Stacey is going to be “actively displaying”. VERY much so! And yes, I am definitely one of the women who “doll themselves up in clothes that highlight sexually-selected anatomy” but it’s for ME and for our wonderful clients and the super-glitz amazing atmosphere that makes our salon. So there.

Oh wow I am so sorry this is so long! Sorry just excited. So is my kitty Mittens because she is scampering around.

Diptych
Diptych
3 years ago

@StaceySmartyPantsTwiceRemoved: oh, gosh, thank you – I’m very glad that struck a chord!

Katiekitten420
Katiekitten420
3 years ago

Epronovost, your 2nd paragraph really resonated with me because I’m very insecure, I always have been and to me the difference between looking appreciatively and leering disgustingly is huge. I’m the type of woman that enjoys being looked at, and I often do dress up to invite it.

I’d speculate that most women don’t mind being looked at appreciatively, even if it’s apparent. They may not desire it like I do, but I think very few women are offended in any way by men finding them attractive. Whats offensive, and never pleasant even to me,(and I’ve had a few nights when I went to a club or something and cried when I got home cause I felt like everyone thought I was ugly that night)is men looking at you like a piece of meat, or an object that’s there solely for their pleasure.

This comment is 80% for lurkers, because I’m so sick of hearing people(mostly men)say women are always getting all dressed up and sexy and then when men look at them they get so angry and bitchy and nasty. No mother fucker, I am literally the opposite of that.

I’ve had hundreds of hour long(sometimes even longer)conversations with people who flirted with me on the NYC Subway(and a few times it even became something?)I love it when(men or women)people who are kind and polite flirt with me and/or compliment me whether I want them physically or not. They could literally be the ugliest person to ever exist and it would still make me happy if they were kind and polite.

So all these MRA’s and incels need stop with that bullshit, women only want men who are as hot as Brad Pitt(for some reason still a common go-to for them)to even think about approaching them. Lots of women like their beauty to be appreciated, they just don’t like being seen as less than people.

kupo
kupo
3 years ago

@Weird Eddy
I’m sorry for putting that image in your head! Honestly, though, every time I hear about Evergreen College it’s something backwards and messed up, so maybe that’s a good mascot for them.

Edit:
@KatieKitten420

They could literally be the ugliest person to ever exist and it would still make me happy if they were kind and polite.

So much this. The “it wouldn’t be creepy if he was cute” argument pisses me off. None of this is about looks and besides, you would be surprised which people I find cute, because they’re often not conventionally attractive.

occasional reader
occasional reader
3 years ago

Hello.

It invites male attention by, for instance, revealing flesh

Ooh ! I understand now why men display flesh too ! It is for getting women attention ! That explains the dickpics sent on the net ! Thank you evolutionary biology ! I am sure women who receive such pictures are immediatly turned on and can not restrain themselves to jump on the sender.

“ancient truth”

Ah, ancient truths… They are as scientific as “ancestral oriental medecines” which can cure all your diseases, especially those you do not have.

and of course she was going to get looked at.

As long as you go out of your home, there is a great chance for you to be look at. Unless you live in a world where people have detectors implented in the head that make their head immediatly turn away if their line of sight might cross another human. Must be fun in a crowded public transportation, with your head spinning like a swift top.

Well, tomorrow is national day here. I am eager to see those sexy fireworks, displaying far too much fleshy fire to be honest (obviously toxic fireworks trying to get my attention).

Have a nice week-end.

Dvärghundspossen
3 years ago

I was excited about getting rid of said underarm hair when the weather started warming up. “Let’s get this annoying stuff out of the way,” I thought, tired of looking at it, but lo and behold – I’d forgotten how ugly I find naked armpits. I shouldn’t say “ugly,” but they look like plucked chicken skin. I guess armpits just look weird to me in whatever capacity I find them. ?

I actually have almost hairless armpits by nature. I only have little wisps of blond hair that aren’t even visible unless you look closely. I’ve joked about how patriarchy should give me a medal or something for my supremely feminine armpits, since female armpit hair is so disgusting but also females shouldn’t be “high maintenance” and spend time on their looks amirite?

Weirwoodtreehugger hits it on the head as usual… You can’t have it both ways! Either women will be “tempting”, or women will be annoyingly “ugly”. You can’t complain about both!

OOOOOOR…. maybe there’s a perfect state of plainness in between “ugly unshaved feminist” and “tempting seductress”? I propose that we immediately spend millions of research dollars finding out precisely where this golden mean lies, and then force all women to look precisely like that!

Dvärghundspossen
3 years ago

Stacey: I bet you’re gonna look awesome!

Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
3 years ago

I’d speculate that most women don’t mind being looked at appreciatively, even if it’s apparent. They may not desire it like I do, but I think very few women are offended in any way by men finding them attractive. Whats offensive, and never pleasant even to me,(and I’ve had a few nights when I went to a club or something and cried when I got home cause I felt like everyone thought I was ugly that night)is men looking at you like a piece of meat, or an object that’s there solely for their pleasure.

For me, this is very true. I have no objection to being looked at, to be found attractive, or to people flirting with me – as long as they treat me like a human being. That means – don’t come up to me in a bar and grab at me like I’m the last Krispy Kreme. Don’t get angry when I don’t want to go home with you right then and there – you can’t buy me, you don’t own me, and I decide where I go (again, unlike a Krispy Kreme). Don’t tell me “what you’re going to do to me” like you are deciding which Krispy Kremes go in the box.

In summation; you can grab at, buy, and eat different flavours of doughnuts and the doughnuts will not object. That’s because doughnuts do not have consciousness and the power of self-determination. I am not a doughnut, and treating me like one is the fast route to getting your ass kicked. If you remember that, you can flirt with me as much as you like and we’ll get along swimmingly.

Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
3 years ago

And now I’m hungry

Katiekitten420
Katiekitten420
3 years ago

Thank you Violet. You made me literally LOL! I have no clue why those few words”and now I’m hungry”just made me burst out cackling. I’m sure the majority of the reason is because I’m incredibly stoned but thank you for that cuz it was pleasant and in these times I can use all the pleasant I can get.?

Katiekitten420
Katiekitten420
3 years ago

Also Stacey I am rooting for you and also envious of you, lol, that sounds so awesome! I’ve never been in a position where I could be covered in pure silver latex and it sounds awesome to someone like me! I have a bit of a exhibitionist streak, a picture of college-age Katie should be in the dictionary next to the phrase “please look but don’t touch” LOL.

I’m one of those very petite bird boned people and it took me a long time (well compared to my female friends when I was young) to get my curves so when I did I lost my mind and started walking around three quarters naked all the time.

Maybe I’ll Google and see if I can find out if I can be covered in shimmery latex for like a birthday or something cuz that sounds kind of fucking awesome, thanks for the idea

ChimericMind
ChimericMind
3 years ago

Because of all the games I played, I internally had a twitch response when I saw the word “rouge” and was thinking loudly IT’S SPELLED “ROGUE”, then stepping back and realizing “wait, no, it’s actually the make-up and not sneaky back-stabbers”.

Ceevee
Ceevee
3 years ago

Someone sounds jealous of better looking women…

Lumipuna (nee Arctic Ape)
Lumipuna (nee Arctic Ape)
3 years ago

Dvärghundspossen:

I propose that we immediately spend millions of research dollars finding out precisely where this golden mean lies, and then force all women to look precisely like that!

And if it turns out physically impossible, I guess Stacey could look golden and someone else could look mean.

WWTH:

Cats have kittens. Lions have cubs. If you’re going to use a completely unrelated animal species to say something about human behavior, at least get some basic facts about that species down.

Clearly, humans should be compared to goats, because they have kids.

David:

Kind of hard to argue that “toxic masculinity” is super duper rare when the top elected official on our country is about as toxic as a man can get.

I suppose technically, the President being a creep doesn’t prove that being creep is common, but a creep being President proves that being creep is socially normal.

Schnookums Von Ghostface Fancypants Killer
Schnookums Von Ghostface Fancypants Killer
3 years ago

“Intellectual Dark Web” has got to be the strangest euphemism for “Pulled it out of my ass” that I’ve ever seen.

Moon_custafer
Moon_custafer
3 years ago

@ calmdown:

Including the part about simulating arousal with blush and lipstick. Can’t these people come up with anything original?

Reminds me of a conversation I saw years ago on the internet in which someone was confusing the rest of the commenters by griping about all the “explicit sex scenes” in the Harry Potter books. It eventually turned out that this person had a definition of “sex scenes” broad enough to include *any mention* of someone blushing when in the presence of their crush.

Talonknife
Talonknife
3 years ago

@Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky

The only similarity between me and a Krispy Kreme is that both might be cream-filled.

I’m so sorry for this joke.

Katamount
Katamount
3 years ago

I think I’m going to just repost @calmdown’s post because she nails exactly what I was thinking:

This is almost exactly what Jordan Peterson said about women and makeup in his Vice interview. Including the part about simulating arousal with blush and lipstick. Can’t these people come up with anything original? (And by the way, Peterson also basically said they were “asking for it” but called it some euphemism like “being hypocritical.”)

This is pure coattail riding to make a buck. Of all the sell-out, greedy, spineless, feckless, brainless horseshit to come up with, this goddamned asshole raids the lobster traps of the internet’s premier future flame-out? Are you kidding me?

Forgive me if I’m in a bit of snit today, but the rollback of the sex ed curriculum in Ontario is really grinding my gears. I saw the writing on the wall for the Wynne Liberals more than a year ago; the slow crawl of a PC government to power was something I saw coming. What was not a certainty at the time was that the inevitable PC Premier was going to start playing grab-ass with social conservatives and rip twenty years of social progress out from beneath the feet of vulnerable students. For what? A few votes of humanity’s walking talking worst instincts? Reactionary throwbacks too wedded to stereotypes and bigoted tradition to consider LGBTQ Ontarians as their fellow citizens.

Twitter was having none of it last night, with EdTheSock leading the way to #PartyLikeIts1998. I chimed in on the sister hashtag #SexEdFail to point out all the wonderful things I learned in my Grade 9 Health class about LGBTQ issues:

comment image

That’s right. Nada. Zero. Zip! ZILCH!
NOTHING! I had to go out of my way to understand what it was that the LGBTQ community, and especially the trans and gendernonconforming folk, face as their daily life. We had one, ONE trans kid in my school of 2000 and I remember when she was profiled in the Toronto Star as a courageous person for living as she wished. I also remember giggling at the article because I was an asshole and Jade was kinda awkward and gangly and I remember Dale Callender being one those weirdos in his late-30s early-40s who clearly peaked in high school and never wanted to leave so he became a youth counsellor. The guy could pull of some great dance moves though.

But this is what we’re regressing to with this rollback on the curriculum. If I had known a little something more about trans individuals, I would not have had that reaction to that profile. I didn’t know Jade; she was two grades behind me. I knew no trans people personally. And I was poorer for that.

And these people, these effing people that opposed the changes have the gall to excuse their obvious homophobia and transphobia with “it’s just political.” “It’s an agenda.” “It’s ideology.”

I couldn’t openly admit being a bisexual man until I was well past university. I’m not ideology. I’m not an “agenda.” I’m not some special interest group that can be casually dismissed or used as red meat to turn out bigots to polls. I’m a person. Jade is a person. And we’re citizens of this province and this nation, and we won’t be relegated to stereotype and second-class citizenry.

Fuck all these people for the harm they’re doing.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
3 years ago

I don’t mind being checked out. But being checked out is different than being leered at. Men often pretend that it’s impossible for them to know whether they’re just looking appreciatively or ogling. That’s bullshit. I learned that staring was rude when I was four. A preschool classmate and I were staring and pointing at a girl because she had no arms. The teacher saw us and gave us a little talking to. I learned my lesson after that and didn’t stare at people anymore. If a four year old can learn this basic etiquette lesson, so can a grown man. Even a socially awkward one. I was a socially awkward kid. My parents even considered starting me in kindergarten a year late because I was behind in social skills. But ultimately decided not to hold me back because I was otherwise appropriately cognitively developed enough to start school. So, if a socially awkward four year old can learn not to stare, yes, a grown man damn well can too.

ellesar
ellesar
3 years ago

Of course, cheeks also turn red due to embarrassment, sunburn, vigorous jogging, cold weather, falling into a vat of tomato soup.

I used to be very into long distance cycling, which makes one very very warm, rosy and sweaty, but even total creeps did not tell me I was trying to look orgasmic!

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
3 years ago

@Stacey

I’m glad I could be of help.

Victorious Parasol
Victorious Parasol
3 years ago

It’s interesting to note how the makeup rules can change for women depending on where you’re living. In South Carolina, I did the full schmear – lips, cheeks, eyes, etc. – for work. In Texas, I started out with a lighter version of my SC face, then stopped in my first year of marriage, in part because Mr. Parasol confessed that he didn’t like the taste of makeup, and he thought I was prettier without it. I think the last time I wore cosmetics was at my father’s funeral, and that was more about fitting in at a Southern funeral than anything else.

StaceySmartyPantsTwiceRemoved
StaceySmartyPantsTwiceRemoved
3 years ago

@Dvärghundspossen

Oh thank you so much! You are so sweet. I hope so and will do my best but it is going to be so fun.

@ Katiekitten420

I so appreciate your super-sweet supportive words! I will think of you here with me like we were super-sexy elegant silver girls together charming everyone who sees us! 🙂

Yes you should look into it! There’s lots of stuff online that tells you how and how to do it safely, as well as what you need besides the latex and how to prep before it goes on.

Oh I love your birthday idea! What if you put yourself in ALL silver and then put on just a single pink satin bow? Since it’s your birthday *you* could be your present to yourself, maybe? 🙂 Or whatever you like!

We have started here! They colored my hair first and it’s about done…we thought that made more sense to do before going into the latex. I can’t wait to be all glossy silver and out front hostessing!

TheKND
TheKND
3 years ago

Ok, personal story:
I worked in a retirement home.
We had a lady of almost 94 who demands every day after washing, which she can’t do herself due to her trembling hands, to be painted perfectly with a bit of powder, rouge, lipstick and nail polish.
This woman has never married and I find no life partner or children in her past. She always worked and was rather successful.
Did that elderly lady ask for that to be “provocative”? Or to “attract attention”?
NO! She thought it made her look pretty and she wanted to look pretty because it made her feel nice!
I hate this insane narrative that all women do is just for the sake and targeting of men. It’s just pandering to that sad demographic of young, angry men who have never had a single female friend (and I mean real friend. The kind who walks out of the shower in nothing but a towel on you on accident and you both start laughing and make jokes about it for the next 10 years).

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
3 years ago

@Mish:

https://longreads.com/2018/07/12/petersons-complaint/

“The Great Mother aborts children and is the dead fetus; breeds pestilence, and is the plague; she makes of the skull something gruesomely compelling, and is all skulls herself. She is progenitor of the devil, the ‘strange son of chaos.’ She is the serpent, and Eve, the temptress.”

Freud would have a field day with this guy. So would Sophocles, author of Oedipus Rex, in all likelihood.

The emptiness of Peterson’s pronouncements, as Nathan J. Robinson writes at Current Affairs, “should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.”

“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”. Clearly Peterson has chosen what’s behind Door #2. The odd thing is, academia is supposed to be rife with BS detectors, yet Peterson isn’t promptly drummed the fuck out of there with a complimentary parting gift of a dunce cap.

The context is a profoundly impoverished intellectual and political climate where the feeling of truth is more meaningful than truth itself. That’s the context in which Peterson’s ascendency was as predictable as it is humiliating for anyone clinging on to the idea that there might be a few drops left at the bottom of the barrel of moderate conservative thought.

That’s the thing — there was never anything in the bottom of the barrel of “moderate conservative thought” but “truthiness”. And really, what is a “moderate conservative” anyway? Someone who wants blacks and women and unskilled laborers enslaved, just not too much?

I’d say this phrase perhaps best sums up Peterson and his fanbase:

a waste of good drugs.

🙂

%d bloggers like this: