The fellows at The Spearhead are still talking about lady literature — by which I mean, why ladies totally can’t write for shit. This time, they’re taking on the lady poets.
Contrasting a poem by former US poet laureate Kay Ryan with Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Kubla Khan, The Spearhead’s W.F. Price proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that men are the best poets. And then Price takes it one step further, contrasting a video of Kay Ryan’s reading of another of her poems with Dylan Thomas’ passionate (if slightly overripe) reading of his “Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night.”
While I can’t take issue with Price’s methodology here – comparing a couple of random poems by a female poet most people have never heard of (but who apparently represents all female poets ever) with legendary poems by two of the world’s most famous poets – I wonder about his choice of male poets here.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge? Dylan Thomas? Sure, they wrote some awesome dude poems, for their time. But they’re long dead, Daddy-O, and we men of today demand poetry that speaks to our lives. Who better speaks to men today than the tag-team of Shaggy 2 Dope and Violent J from the Insane Clown Posse? And which of their poems speaks to men today better than their most famous work, “Miracles?”
Here are some selections from this fine piece of work — and because, by Price’s rules, any poem by a person of a particular gender obviously represents all poetry from people of that gender, this wonderful little poem represents all male poetry. (Not to mention all poetry written by insane clowns.)
We don’t have to be high to look in the sky
And know that’s a miracle opened wide
Look at the mountains, trees, the seven seas
And everything chilling underwater, please …
Pure magic is the birth of my kids
I’ve seen shit that’ll shock your eyelids
The sun and the moon, and even Mars
The Milky Way and fucking shooting stars
UFOs, a river flows
Plant a little seed and nature grows
Niagara falls and the pyramids
Everything you believed in as kids
Fucking rainbows after it rains
There’s enough miracles here to blow your brains
I fed a fish to a pelican at Frisco bay
It tried to eat my cell phone, he ran away
And then, in this poem’s most famous lines, Shaggy 2 Dope (or perhaps Violent J, I can’t remember which is which), takes on the miracle of magnetism:
I see miracles all around me
Stop and look around, it’s all astounding
Water, fire, air and dirt
Fucking magnets, how do they work?
And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist
Y’all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed
But as wonderfully as these lines read on the printed page, it is Insane Clown Posse’s performance of this poem (which they have set to music) that really brings home how motherfuckingly miraculous these two poets, and by extension all men who have ever written poetry, really are. So here is that performance:
As yet another great male poet, MC Hammer, once put it: “You can’t touch this!”
But, just to be fair, here’s some chick reading her dumb poem:
Picture of Samuel Taylor Coleridge by Jason Towers, from here.
Man Boobz’ first FRIDAY NIGHT OPEN THREAD DANCE PARTY is now open for business. Most threads here are pretty open, but this one will be even more so. Talk about whatever you want, link to interesting shit, link to your own blogs, go wild!
Or you can talk about this: Earlier today I was listening to the song Dusseldorf, by La Dusseldorf, one of my favorite Krautrock bands, and I started thinking about bands that write songs referencing their band name in the lyrics and/or the titles of the songs. (In the song “Dusseldorf,” the word “Dusseldorf” is repeated probably a hundred times.) Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of other bands that have done this:
Women who might just decide that they don’t really want to have sex with some dude who keeps going on about how men are the most oppressed group in the world.
Responding, apparently, to a comment in an earlier thread suggesting “that being publicly vocal about the way men’s rights are trampled on and ignored is a great way to lose the opportunity of getting laid,” manifesto writer Kuppers argues that it just ain’t so — but when it is, just bite your tongue for as long as it takes to get into her pants.
He starts off with a strange variant on the notion that there are plenty of fish in the sea. If you feel that women won’t want to have sex with your Men’s-Rights-espousing self, Kuppers suggests, it’s
because your brain was conditioned in a small communal/tribal setting. A group of angry women was a serious threat to your prospects of reproduction. As you know, women often act like herd animals, and view acceptance and appreciation from their peers of their choice of man to be important. This is completely moot today. There are millions of fish in the sea.
Aside from that final truism I have no fucking idea what he’s talking about. I don’t recall growing up in anything that might possibly be considered – literally or figuratively – a “tribal setting” ruled over by a group – sorry, a herd – of “angry women” hell-bent on keeping me from reproducing. Is this a common experience? Also, I have precisely zero interest in “reproduction.” Indeed, I sort of make it a policy to only have sex with women who are at least as interested in preventing reproduction as I am.
On to point two in this curious document, which is that ladies love dudes with strong opinions:
Women, while they do not always explicitly say so and sometimes contradict so, sincerely do appreciate a man who has strong internal beliefs and principles, and does not compromise that for the sake of assuaging someone else’s sensitivities, including theirs. A man who is willing to pretend he is something he is not, isn’t attractive on a deep masculine level to women.
True, up to a point, but you might want to keep all that shit about women being angry reproduction-threatening herd animals to yourself. That might not go over so well on your first Starbucks coffee date. Or ever. Protip: Misogyny aside, very few people want to get with people who refer to sex as “reproduction.”
But if your desire for sex outweighs your manly desire to be truthful about your obnoxious beliefs, well, that’s all good too – if by “all good” you mean “you can still have angry sex with women you despise if you just keep your pie hole shut for a few hours.” Or, as Kuppers puts it in his third and final point, which he apparently doesn’t realize completely contradicts point number two:
The kind of woman who a) wants you to be subordinate to her crazy foaming feminist nonsense, and b) has no tolerance or patience for your concerns, is not worth anything more than a cheap, well-protected fuck anyway. Fine, keep your mouth shut for the couple of hours it takes to get her into bed, but you’d be mad to pursue anything more serious with a woman like that.
Dude, do you have a moment to take a quick survey?
So AskMen.com just put up the first segment of its annual 3-part Great Male Survey. Filled with strange assumptions and sometimes creepy questions, it’s a survey that reveals at least as much about the survey makers as it does the survey takers, and what it reveals ain’t good: it seems to have been written by a jaded ex-romantic ( or a committee of such) only a few short steps away from full-blown MGTOW-hood.
The survey starts off with a fairly innocuous question about basic compatibility, but quickly veers off course with question #2:
How important is it to you that your wife/future wife signs a prenup?
Hold on a second, daddy-o! We haven’t even determined if the little missy has “wife potential” yet — as question #3 puts it.
After one more question about marriage, the quiz moves on to cheating and then (perhaps inevitably) to the issue of divorce:
Do men get screwed by the courts in divorce?
Then it’s onward to kvetching about what a naggy shrew your partner is (assuming you haven’t already finalized the divorce):
Followed by the classic “Would you dump a girlfriend if she became fat?” (Just in case you’re wondering, ladies, nearly half the American guys in last year’s survey said “yes.”)
Next we get to what we might call the “creepy controlling asshole” portion of the survey. After asking whether we’ve ever snooped through our partner’s email or Facebook messages, they pose this doozy:
That quiet clattering you hear is the sound of a thousand creepy dudes Googling to see if this is possible – and, if so, the best place to put the chip.
After several more questions about Facebook and the internet, a few badly conceptualized questions about romance, and a bunch about sex, the quiz moves on to some good old-fashioned slut shaming, asking men to quantify the number of sex partners a woman is allowed to have before they consider her “promiscuous.” Ladies: you’ll be glad to know that 41% of American dudes who took the survey last year consider any women with more than 9 lifetime partners to be dirty sluts – sorry, “promiscuous.”
Then of course it’s on to an attempt to quantify exactly when women start getting all old and ugly:
Yes, one of the possible answers is “18.” You may be slightly reassured by the fact that zero percent of last year’s survey takers gave that answer. Six percent said “20,” though, and 24% said “30.”
Then we have this curiously worded question on workplace sex:
So the idea that your partner might be a big higher up on the old org chart isn’t even a possibility? What is this, 1962? Did they borrow this question from Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl? Or find it scribbled on a napkin on Don Draper’s desk just before he impulsively proposed to his new secretary?
So Esquire magazine recently posted a list of “The 75 Books Every Man Should Read” on their website. Esquire being Esquire – that is to say, a men’s magazine that had its glory days in the era of Mad Men and that seems to be aimed mostly at old farts (and aspiring old farts) — only one book of the 75 was written by a woman. (That’s 98.67% male, for those of you with lady brains who can’t do the math.)
The internet being the internet, some people noticed that the list was a wee bit heavy on the dudes, even for a men’s magazine, and pointed this out. The bloggers at the Joyland Publishing blog suggested that while the books on Esquire’s list were “mostly fantastic,” it might behoove men to pick up a book or two written by a woman once in a while. And so, with the help of some of their readers, the two assembled a list of “250 Books By Women All Men Should Read.” (Why 250 and not, say, 75? Because they got a lot of suggestions.)
Here’s a little one-question quiz for you all: What title did W. F. Price at The Spearhead give his post on the controversy?
A) “Some Great Suggestions for Books by Women You Guys Might Want to Read.”
B) “Did You Know There Are Female Authors Besides The Chick That Wrote Harry Potter?”
C) “Feminist Publishers: Force Men to Read Women’s Lit”
Yep, the correct answer is C, of course. Apparently a couple of bloggers suggesting some books by women that men “should” read is some kind of Gestapo-like imposition upon men by “Feminist Publishers.” Price grouses:
[I]it strikes me as rather mean-spirited of females in the publishing industry to denounce even ineffectual efforts to introduce men to literature. By all accounts, publishing has come to be dominated by women, and men are reading far fewer books than women these days. Given this state of affairs, you’d think that the women in the industry might be a bit gracious and let the boys pick and choose which titles interest them.
But of course that won’t do, because feminists must find fault with any and everything men are involved in. …
The implication [of the Joyland Publishing blog post] is that men should be forced by political pressure to read female writers (sometimes these feminists come off as whiny, annoying girlfriends complaining that “he just won’t listen to me!”).
Or, you know, it might just be that the writers of the blog post, and those who wrote in with suggestions, really enjoyed the books in question and thought that dudes might just enjoy them too. Sort of like when a friend tells you that you should totally watch the movie Dogtooth, because it is so fascinating and creepy and awesome. Or when I tell you right now that you should go watch Jane Austen’s Fight Club on Funny or Die.
Naturally, the comments from Spearheaders were even more ignorant and obtuse than Price’s post. The basic theme: Bitches can’t write for shit (as far as I know).
In case you think I am offering an unfair characterization of the, er, debate, here’s one Spearheader’s contribution to the discussion:
when a man says “no, I won’t read your literature”, you have to respect that, bitch.
I basically do not read anything a wimminz has written, not even in my favourite genre of science fiction, because every single time I have tried they have been unmitigated fucking crap full of feminazi girl power bullshit and emotional baggage and basically very little hard SF…
I never read anything written by women unless it happens to be instructional and related to work. Pretty much all the fiction I’ve ever read is by and for males. If I read some non-fiction for fun it’s always got a male author. I realized a while back that my cd collection is about 98% male. When I was a kid I never thought about it, it just came naturally. Now that I’m older I intentionally avoid anything by women.
It’s always,er, instructive to see what some random guy who apparently reads mostly instructional manuals has to say about the literary controversies of the day.
There were, of course, more thoughtful analyses, like this earnest comment from the excitable, exclamation-point-happy David K. Meller:
Women write for an audience of their own level–to wit themselves! Most men are simply too intelligent to be interested in what passes for literature scribbled by women! …
Correct me if I am wrong, but is most woman’s “literature” one more kvetch klatsch of women–or girls–getting together to complain about, to defeat, or to evade the workings of us evil, letcherous, abusive, horrible M-E-N! There is no point in men reading such drivel …
There may be better days coming; when women are once again taught the arts of pleasing men, in their creating a comfortable environment for the chosen man in their lives, and when they again will use their ability to read to discover new and better ways to do this, and their ability to write to communicate these truths to others of their sex! Until that happens, literacy for women, much less dominance in authorship, editing, and publishing has been, and is, a BLOODY MESS for everyone, especially men!!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!! David K. Meller
Yes, women should really only be allowed to read and write if they are reading or writing instructional manuals on how to cook and give better blow jobs, possibly at the same time.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!! to you too, good sir.
Speaking of which — the blowjob bit, not the PEACE AND FREEDOM!! — the commenter calling himself dragnet suggested that young men such as himself were simply too busy to read much of anything. They have other priorities:
The vast majority of my reading is for work, research, and classes. …
Frankly, I’d rather be getting laid than reading a novel after a grueling work week. The three or four hours I sometimes have free on the weekend when I’m not working or working out or sleeping or eating, I’d rather be out with my friends or getting serviced by whatever girl I’m with at the time.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a penis, must be in want of some girl to service it.
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!1!!
Anyway, ladies and manginas, any good lady books you want to suggest for the dudes of the world?
So what’s more appalling – the fact that groping on trains is so common in Japan that two-thirds of young women commuters have had to endure it themselves, or the fact that a small number of train cars have been set aside for women in a fairly half-assed attempt to curtail some of this groping?
For a lot of MRAs, the latter. The subject came up on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit recently, inspiring some of the regulars to fulminate against this allegedly misandrist outrage. Fatalistic pulled out the n-word and this facile comparision:
Here’s what I’m seeing here: “At least we let you in the back of the bus, nigger.”
ExpendableOne, meanwhile, managed to work in a staggering number of standard-issue MRA complaints into this one sentence:
I think it’s discrimination and subjugation entirely based on misandry, negative male type-casting/stereotyping and anti-male heterophobia.
To keep it short they exploit and propagate fears not only demonizing men in society but also terrorizing women and scaring the shit out of them making them more paranoid than they need to be.
And then they do it for money.
How would that work exactly?
1) Get groped
2) Set up women-only train cars
3) ???
4) Profit?
Given that the Men’s Rights subreddit is one of the few Men’s Rights forums online that is not completely overrun with misogynist fanatics, there were others who responded more reasonably. Alienblonde noted:
In Japan it’s a massive problem where school girls get groped by older males on trains in peak hour.
Happened to me in Europe too when I was back packing. Some old Spanish guy sat beside me and decided to feel me up.
Women shouldn’t have to deal with this and unfortunately, until it stops happening, I think [women only train cars are] justified.
Naturally, this being a Men’s Rights forum, she quickly found herself the focus of a game of “blame the victim.” Fatalistic accused her of “[j]ustifying discrimination with this all men are potential criminals feminist dogma.” When she pointed out that she was not, in fact, doing this, he moved on to castigating her for not making a public scene when she was groped:
You should out the people who actually do these things rather than treat the rest of us as criminals by default with disgusting bigoted policies and the back of the bus mentality.
When she pointed out that this could have put her in more serious danger, he merely scoffed:
You would have to be paranoid and spoonfed the most egregious of feminist women are helpless, men are unstoppable beasts that need other men with guns to drag them away dogma to believe that all but the most psychopathic would persist or try to harm you if you outed them to a crowd for their actions.
Yes, because obviously her heterophobia needs to be glorified… Penises are so disgusting and scary, obviously women should totally be justified in fearing them and there couldn’t possibly be any kind of misandry involved with such contempt, befuddlement or “helplessness/horror” to the mere sigh[t] of male anatomy. /s
Yep, if you’re a woman on a train, not wanting to have some random dude pull his penis out and rub it on you is “heterophobia.” Who knew?
In the case of the subway flasher, the alleged perp did indeed flee when confronted. (He was later arrested.) That’s pretty much the best-case scenario. But it’s hardly the only possible result, and it’s understandable why a woman riding the train to work (much less one backpacking alone in a foreign country) would hesitate to publicly accuse a groper of groping her. Having women-only train cars cuts down on the number of times women are put in this difficult situation.
Yes, in an ideal world, there would be no need for women-only train cars. In an ideal world, men wouldn’t grope women on trains.
Our friend Trogdor005 has returned with a new manifesto on the greatness of men and the utter suckitude of women. It’s inspiring stuff, rendered extra HEROIC through his use of CAPS, BOLD TEXT, random “quotes” and “italics,” and, from time to time, red lettering.
Trog starts by setting forth a now-familiar thesis: Men do everything, and women are just useless parasites. As he puts it:
Men … are survivors, innovators, explorers, fighters. Most importantly, we men have the ability to ADAPT to changing conditions and environments … something women are incapable of for the most part. …
Take away all the take-out/fast food, automatic cars, cell phones and place one of these self-proclaimed “strong and independent” women out in the wilderness with nothing but the clothes on her back and watch how quickly she starves to death or gets eaten by a bear/lion/tiger/hyena/snake/shark, whichever comes first.
Especially if she’s on her period. Bears love menstrual blood. Sharks, too. Whereas the average man could easily knock a bear out with a swift left hook to the jaw or fend off a shark some sort of clever shark-killing tool he’s managed to fashion out of seaweed, jellyfish and his Speedos. That’s because men are HUNTERS:
[T]he average man is a natural hunter thanks to instincts ingrained in his brain by evolution and (barring injury) can fend for himself. Women on the other hand are PARASITES that depend on, and live almost exclusively off of, MEN for their survival. Even today with all of the technology that we have, women are still COMPLETELY and HOPELESSLY dependent on men.
Trog then provides a long, long list of the things MEN and only MEN do. Some highlights:
– It is MEN that create and service the cars, trucks, and SUVs that women drive to/from work, to/from their “thug” lover’s place, to/from the mall, etc. …
– It is MEN that create and service the computers that women use to hop on Slut-book/MySpace and do their attention whoring.
– It is MEN that build and assemble the couches, sofas, recliners, and other furniture than women use to sit on their fat asses watching shows like “Oprah”. …
– It is MEN that toil and sweat in the fields in scorching temperatures, collecting the raw vegetables/fruits that are then shipped to the grocery stores that women visit.
– It is MEN that work in dangerous unsanitory conditions inside the meat/butcher plants to provide safe meats to the fast-food/take out chains that women frequent.
– It is MEN in the form of police, security guards, and soldiers that provide women with a “safe atmosphere” in which they can walk around freely at night.
– It is MEN in sweat shops halfway across the world, working in some cases for nothing but a meal, that produce the “designer clothes” women buy and wear.
– It is MEN in semi-trucks that transport all of the goods I just mentioned (except real estate of course) to their intended destination and “keep the machine turning”.
– It is MEN that set up and maintain the necessary electrical, telecommunications, and sewage “grids” that make “civilized life” possible….
– And finally, it is MEN who venture deep into the deadly, hazard prone “diamond mines” located in remote locations to retrieve the raw stones which are necessary for, and later cut to create the shiny looking object that goes in THE RING
The bottom line is, women need men, but men DON’T need women.
So here is a collection of pictures of Women Who Do Not Exist, in the World of Trogdor:
Trogdor follows his list of Things That Only Men Do with another familiar MGTOW fantasy:
And of course, if things go total “Road Warrior” on us and the electrical, financial, and transportation grids finally fail altogether, women will be in an even more untenable position. I suspect they will be getting raped, robbed, and otherwise not be safe in “the streets”. The police will NOT help, let alone “other” men … who will not have forgotten all the abuse these same women imposed on them in years past via “divorce”, “child support”, “false rape accusations”, “sexual harrassment”, and “I cheated on you … I love you _____ but I’m not IN love with you”. Aside from the contempt for/distrust of women that will have been built up over the years in such a scenario, most men will simply be too busy trying to survive to the next day to give a fuck about some “desperate” single mom that comes to their front door begging for food.
Has anyone else noticed just how much MGTOWers love talking about how bad women will have it when The Shit Hits The Fan? How much they enjoy fantasizing about women being robbed and raped in a lawless world? How much Trogdor seems to relish the notion of single mothers (and presumably their kids) starving to death?
Trogdor continues on, suggesting that our future looks a lot like “any African country where lawlessness reigns.” Naturally, he manages to throw in yet another reference to women “in constant fear of being raped or robbed every time they are walking thru the streets.”
He ends with this happy picture of the End Times:
The smart men will expat before shit hits the fan and watch the entire debaucle from a safe distance. The “thugs” will not go anywhere and will simply rob the women to deal with their “food shortage” issues. The manginas will cower in the corner like pussies … unable to grasp reality, and will also be robbed of their food, water, and possessions by the “thugs” and “bad boys”. The real losers will be women in the end (as it always is following these “Feminist” periods of history … look what happened to women in Babylon, Greece, Egypt, Rome, etc), I suspect many of them will be reduced to fucking for food. …
I’m not really quite sure I’m willing to accept the dire prognostications of someone who can’t spell the word “debacle.”
So comments kind of blew up this past week – hello, 673-comment thread! In one of the recent giant threads Holly suggested that maybe it’s time for Man Boobz to start its own forum, or set up some kind of real-time chatroom or IRC channel. I’m thinking she may be right, but I’m not sure the best way to proceed.
Here, as I see it, are the best options:
Regular Friday and Saturday night “open threads,” plus “open threads” during the week when it makes sense – say, when a thread gets really really long and/or people start chanting “open thread! Open thread!” in the comments. (That could be the batsignal, as it were, for me to post an open thread.)
An actual forum. It looks as though setting up a free forum through something like Invision or proboards or some other free forum host would be pretty easy – though I’d love to hear from people with experience doing this before I proceed. Would you guys be interested in this? What would be the best host to go with? Would it make more sense to host the forum myself? (If so, I would definitely need help.) I sort of love the idea of a forum, but I wouldn’t want it to siphon off too much energy from comments on the blog itself. I’m torn, and any thoughts/advice you guys have would be greatly appreciated.
I’m thinking at the moment that the best idea would be to start with open threads and see how they work before setting up a forum. But if enough of you want a forum that might be the way to go.
As for the other ideas from Holly – a chatroom or IRC channel – I have to admit I have no idea what would be the best option here, assuming there are enough of you interested in this to make it work. I’ve got plenty of experience as a forum-user but I’ve never used IRC or really participated in more than a tiny bit of chat. Not sure what the best options are for a real-time chatroom, or for IRC, so … advice, please!
In any case, I’m psyched about the possibilities here and want to do whatever will best facilitate conversation amongst you guys. And if any of you want to volunteer your time and/or experience, let me know!
In light of some recent discussions here, I thought this cartoon seemed relevant. I got it from my new favorite Tumblr blog, Comically Vintage. It’s astounding how many of the comic panels posted there — especially those from melodramatic 60s-70s romance comics — apply to the arguments in and around the manosphere today. Perhaps because the world in which these guys live is as imaginary and out-of-date as the fantasy world of 40 or 50 year-old Romance comics.
And while we’re on the subject, here’s a bonus cartoon. Here, crawling from the primordial soup, is the world’s first PUA! (Granted, he hasn’t quite worked out all of the tenets of modern Game, but, hey, he’s still a lizard. Just as human evolution took millions of years, evolving something as complex as modern PUA theory takes time.)
Hmm. That fish over there has sprouted legs. Is that an IOI?
You can always count on men’s-rightser-turned-conspiracy-maven Henry Makow for sound and sensible commentary on the sexual and social mores of today.
Oh, wait, it’s not Opposite Day. You can count on Henry for loopy misogynist paranoia.
Henry recently took a trip to Toronto, where, he explains,
signs of the elite’s psychological attack on heterosexuals are everywhere. Young females are the main victims.
His evidence for this? He noticed some people fundraising for a program designed to help girls in the Third World. He read about a conference of feminists in Winnipeg. (No, it’s still not opposite day: in his mind these things are terrible for girls.) Oh, and he read about one oddball couple that is raising their kid to be genderless.
All this leads him to conclude, naturally, that the powers that be are trying to make women obsolete. Huh? Let’s let him explain it, because I sure can’t:
WOMEN BECOMING OBSOLETE
If a woman will not accept her husband’s just leadership, she does not love him. …
A woman loves by surrendering power to her husband in exchange for his power (protection) expressed as love. Men want power; women want love. …
Masculinity is defined by power. Power = penis. Empower women and you give them a psychological penis. You neuter them.
Well, damn. That doesn’t sound good. Who exactly is giving women these psychological penises?
By sabotaging their gender identity and their faith in marriage, the Illuminati are transforming females into their sexless worker-drones and amateur whores.
Oh, right. Those guys. Those guys must be really, really busy.
Anyway, back to Henry’s trip to Toronto:
Most of the young women I saw on the street clearly defined their self-worth in terms of sex appeal. …
But they seemed to regard male attention as predatory. They were like amateur streetwalkers who were both too self-enamored and gender-confused to relate to males.
There’s also a chance that these women looked at Mr. Makow and thought, “huh, a weird angry dude old enough to be my father is staring at my tits like they belong to him. I will definitely not be having sex with him.”
Oh, and apparently ol Henry has heard about the Slutwalks:
Yet they will actually demonstrate for the right to behave like sluts without suffering any consequences. Their younger sisters are also being sexualized and look like Brooke Shields in the film Pretty Baby.
Um, THAT’s your cultural reference? Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby? Not, I dunno, the Bratz? And seriously, if you want to reference a 70s movie that creepily sexualizes underage girls, at least be a little original about it: go with Jodie Foster, in Bugsy Malone.
If you’ve never heard of Bugsy Malone, or simply want to remind yourself of its icky weirdness, the trailer below should help.
Ol Henry again:
The Illuminati are turning young women into mutants, unfit for marriage, and unfit for motherhood.
They are fit only to betray themselves and their society as cannon fodder in the New World Order.
Our world is increasingly zany because it is controlled by a Cabalist satanic cult, the Illuminati.
Dude, way to totally sell yourself short. The world is zany because of people like you. And the producers of Bugsy Malone.
