Men Are Man-Prettier Than Women
Here’s one of my least favorite Shit-A-Myths. It’s so sneaky and seemingly fucking harmless, I don’t think there’s a man on Earth who hasn’t said it without a second thought.
“Men are big and ugly while women are graceful, beautiful, and attractive.”
Women are none of those things. Women are clumsy, monkey-lipped, and gross.
I don’t know who the fuck started this myth. It was probably some 17th century Mangina — which just proves how awesomely powerful men are. Even when firing on only half their cylinders, Mangina men can fabricate lies that last through the generations. That’s manly!
There’s just one thing. It isn’t true.
Women are not better looking than men. Women are not better or as good as men at anything. Watch me unfold this like a deck of cards. You ladies out there — who shouldn’t fucking be out there and who are frothing at the mouth right now with anti-homosexual and anti-Semitic epithets for yours truly — be prepared to go fuck yourselves because I took all the Jokers out of the this deck.
Proof #1
The male of every other species on Earth is the more attractive one; from flora to fuck-off insects and fish. How about male peacocks — nature’s pimp? They look completely awesome. They look so incredible and man-jestic they should all just have sex with each other until nature figures out a way to get rid of those dumpy looking female peacocks.
Ever heard of a lion? Fuck off.
Proof #2
I can count the number of classical works of beauty and art of the highest antiquity that feature women on my penis. One. There’s only the Mona Lisa and as everyone knows that’s not even really considered all that great a painting. It’s just famous because of that book.
Michelangelo’s David, Van Gogh’s Self Portrait in a Grey Hat, da Vinci’s Man in the Circle Thing; each one an unforgettable masterpiece and all featuring men. If women were so fucking attractive, you think they could at least make a cameo in the art history of an entire species? Is it laziness or ugliness? When women are involved, it’s always both.
Proof #3
Women are so embarrassed at the idea of touching their own ugly asses, they won’t even admit it. Fuck, I admit that at least once a day. There could be no other possible reason for that shame.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the myth stated at the beginning of this dissertation requires clarification. It should not read, ‘Men are big and ugly while women are graceful, beautiful, and attractive,’ but should instead probably say something like, ‘Women will believe any excuse you tell them to get laid because they’re whores, even if a lifetime of mirrors is telling them the exact opposite.’
That even rolls off my man-tongue better; probably because I’m not choking on bile.
Related Articles:
August 30th, 2006 at 1:44 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Sounds like a historically shite, politically correct anglosaxon soap. And all soaps are crap. ‘Cept for some the women in them though, well the latin ones :).
Don’t get me wrong, they still suck at acting.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:52 am - IP Man-Hash: 4d84ec709d3bf
I know the intellectual rigor of this board is a lot higher than most other blogs, and so I realize I may have been lazy with my train of thoughts, So let me try to be more clear here.
Spear chucker is derived from, specifically, the hunting methods of african blacks.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spear+chucker
It was most likely COINED by slavers who were armed with superior weapons, most likely Muskets. ( I am taking a guess at the weapon, given that european soldiers were required to carry muskets by the start of the 17th century, prior to even the first slave being traded in america see
http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/HisArmur.html
and
http://innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html
And this is only midly relevant, but an amusing read for the mindset of the times…
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
I am aware of some of the history of slavery, and that slavers didnt actually hunt slaves, but rather bought them from the local market. I should have said slave TRADERS, who were the european buyers of
slaves that likely coined the phrase.
Wolfe, The economics of slavery are an interesting topic but one has to admit that american slavery was, in general, an anomaly in history due to its vast size, and that slavery in general is not of greater economic benefit than superior methods of market forces.
http://www.mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_2/3_2_1.pdf#search=%22economi cs%20of%20slavery%20mises%22
But I will grant that it was economically advantageous for the local african market to sell the their “slaves” to europeans and arabs, rather than keep them locally. As for the trade being run by Arabs, the primary source for slaves was intertribal warfare within africa, and these slaves ( or identured
servants ) then became a commodity that arabs were willing to buy. Did this put the arabs in charge of the slave trade, or were they middlemen/merchants ( north and south, black and white slaves)
(Neither position is morally defendable, I just cant find a reliable reference one way or the other that does more than state that arabs were involved… help me out with a link if you have one)
I was not giving gwallan permission to use language how he wishes. I cannot give or take permission for how anyone speaks, as it is there right to express themselves however they wish (josh included)
I was merely trying to point out that I was unlikely to reach the conclusion that it was not meant to be a racist remark on Josh’s part.
I wasnt trying to twist history Wolfe, I just didnt think it was relevant to my point concerning the use of the term Spear Chucker, which is only incidentally linked to Slavery, However, your implication about my wanting slavery to continue in the 21st century is a weak insult and from what Ive read of your posts, beneath you, especially given that slavery does continue in todays world
( not to mention the belief amoung many mens groups today that divorce and punitive alimony agreements are enslaving men, though that may well be a case of volcabulary choice)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4534393.stm
Gwallan, Yes, There was a character on MASH named spearchucker jones ( I had to google it though, and yes he was black and he threw javelins in college according to the story, and his character was quietly removed after less than a handful of episodes, though he did appear in the book, and original movie ) That has no bearing on my assertion that Josh’s comment is racist. In Canada where I am currently residing, They use the term upchuck, close to chucker, and I’ve never seen anyone Vomit a spear, so how is it be a cultural reference? I am again unlikely to come to the conclusion that spearchucker is being used in any manner except one to promote racism, which was the point I was trying to make.
My original post, which got this all started, was that Josh, by implying that the views of this site, and gwallan’s in particular are unimportant and irrelevant, Specifically:
“I sincerely hope that you can get some perspective soon and realise that your attitudes are nothing but degrative to society”
And
“If you read back to one of the posts on this site you will see a surprisingly good quote ‘Many, butstupid’, this describes the whole sexist movement and this site in general perfectly. … I personally believe that your feelings are rooted in either upbringing or rejection, either of these cases are tragic but do not warrant this despicable behaviour.”
( I deleted the obvious point about JOsh being ashamed of being male)
ANd FInally
“Spear Chucker, if you eventually manage to find me and enclose on me from the four points of thecompass and two vertical orientations, please point yourself out to me first, I will happily take thepleasure beating you down from your perch with a huge smile on my face” ( I couldnt Decide if this was a threat or not so I went with threat, given the tenor of Josh’s post)
Never minding Josh’s Obvious Personal Bias that its ok for women to behave this way, He is implying that he is morally superior to gwallan and the other readers of this site (myself included) by disagreeing with these views. He then neatly undermined his “higher moral position” with the use of a racist and derogatory term like spearchucker, a low moral choice.
Admittedly, Gwallan, I could have assumed that Josh’s Use of the term spear chucker was not meant as a slur, and rather a local, unrelated term (the fact that he put it in quotes caused me to wonder), but frankly it annoyed me too much. Not so much the term itself, but rather the apparent moral dicotomy of his position.
As for Cultural Imperialism, are you not doing the same by assuming I am an American? Or is it simply an easy way to attack someone, just because you are not American?
I admit that I do assume that native english speakers are living in a”western Culture” which are derived from classical greek and
christian cultures. And Australia is most definately a “Western Culture”. We could assume that on the internet we create our own culture, above that of our local ISPs, But then we come back to the fact that most internet users are still primarily North American ( and an internet search says Spear Chucker is racist ) SO where does that leave us?
For the record, I am an AUstralian-Canadian with an American-Canadian Wife, and I have travelled extensively outside of north america ( and been bitten in the ass by the cultural differences )
I try to make a point not to impose any one culture, so your pointing the possibility that I might be doing it did make me pause. But by couching the cultural reference with the slavery reference you switch the argument from cultural to historical, and it becomes a knowledge question, not cultural, and then only reflects on what a nation chooses to teach about history, not cultural references ( since history is recorded for anyone to study, from anywhere in the world )
{jokingly} You could claim it was Intellectual Imperialism, but that has a really shitty implication of superiority and I would expect to be promptly beat upside the head with a proper history book.
My point was not to flame, gwallan (honest), it is was to point out the moral dishonesty of Josh’s comments. It just seems i did a piss poor job of it. And NOW I am writing a bloody essay to try and defend my position. argh
Finally, Female, The difference between serfs and slaves : Serfs differed from slaves in that serfs were allowed property for themselves and could not be sold apart from the land which they worked.
Essentially ( not unlike modern government ) The serfs worked the land and the owners of the LAND collected a tax, a percentage of their crops and labour.
August 30th, 2006 at 4:20 am - IP Man-Hash: d61d7b2a879bb
Wolfe I would never say that the Republicans don’t salivate over cheap labor for their business interests, I know this about my party. And they are open about it.
What gives me shit fits is the Demoncrats have this image of being the party of the poor, downtrodden, minorities. They say border control is racism, yet coming here illegally is puts them in such shithole, slavery like conditions.
If the Demoncrats gave a fuck about Mexicans, they would be telling them get citizenship the fucking legal way so you don’t become a slave.
August 30th, 2006 at 5:10 am - IP Man-Hash: 6ecb2f896d6dd
Most of those mexicans coming here are doing much better than in their homeland. So how can it be that bad? No I ain’t no stinking democrap.
And why should we learn their language?
We didn’t do that for any other immigrants.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:55 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Wow, a lot of superb responses. Excellent. My compliments to you all.
I will respond in separate posts, to each thread of debate. This first to Female.
@Female, No, serfs would be a more accurate characterization of how Australians were treated over the [quasi-criminal] colonization period than “slaves”. I’ll try and fire something up on that on my blog, and you are certainly welcome to present whatever evidence you have (no, a TV documentary is pretty weak) and persuade me I’m wrong. Serf is pretty brutal too, just different in status from slave. Read up a bit, THEN tell me I’m wrong and why. (or why I’m right).
@Female: Of course, yes, they were ‘criminals’ (alleged and real), and the first ones were transported into the unknown. That doesn’t make them slaves. Sorry, it doesn’t. It’s a different thing. Very different.
Perhaps this will help you grasp it. (and it’s evil; I oppose it). A slave is a valuable item of property, transported and purchased to fill an economic need. A slave is wasted only in the sense that a human soul is deemed to be worth less than the 20 or 200 # paid for the same.
A serf is freer — but of far less value, particularly outside the labor contract. A serf (or bound criminal) may indeed be ‘wasted’ and killed in a hostile land since there is little capital investment inherent.
Please note clearly: I vehemently oppose such views of human beings (or even dogs). That doesn’t mean that our societies, collectively, didn’t view people that way in the past.
Language is important. Serf and Slave are different.
-wolfe
August 30th, 2006 at 2:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
I’m skipping John’s response in this post. John, see below.
@Billy Yes, prejudice against the Italians, Irish (and in the southern US and North of ‘49, the French). All Catholic, and all faintly “other”.
On your black man/white woman views, yeah, maybe.
Amen, brother Sony.
@Sonofsuns”Wolfe I would never say that the Republicans don’t salivate over cheap labor for their business interests, I know this about my party. And they are open about it.”
Yeah. For me, I’m a conservative/libertarian. We all have our biases. I’m glad to see another conservative (I hope you are c and not just R!).
You are 100% right about the Democrats (no, not Demoncrats; please, let’s be adults here) and their attitude to minorities. They use them.
To the degree that a political plantation exists, it’s founded and funded by Democrats.
-wolfe
August 30th, 2006 at 2:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Here we discuss slavery in cold, rational terms. Let no one mistake our discussion for an emotional or moral acceptance of such a grotesque evil.
@John: An outstanding response. Welcome indeed. I don’t entirely agree with you, but you are deploying logic and thought in a coherent fashion.
What I most love about your post is that it attempts to discuss rather than argue. You readily admit the shortcomings in your arguments; I shall endeavor to do the same.
This, you will admit, was largely down to arbitrage, and the immense post-Armada capability of the British to churn out relatively inexpensive ships with skilled (partly) ex-RN crews.
You do, however, have an interesting point, and my outlining the reason for it does not diminish its likely validity. Just simply accept this: It wasn’t a relative lack of morality that drove the size of the slave trade, it was economic factors.
“help me out with a link if you have one (on arab involvement on slave trade)”. We agree they were middlemen. Sorry, I’ve no great link for you; I simply don’t have time. Yes, that’s a copout. Sorry. But at least I acknowledge it. If you feel this is an important point to discuss, let’s return to it and I’ll work on research as I’m sure you shall.
I do know Arab-run slavery continued into the 20th and almost certainly the 21st century, though it became entirely driven against blacks, rather than the earlier Barbary white/black slavery.
We do know that modern intense, organized opposition to slavery (of any race) first arose in the UK amongst Christians in the 18th century, and exploded in the 19th.
@John: On Josh, I think he is an ass, and an insincere one at that. You, by contrast, have been a new poster that has come back with logic, politeness, and rationality. My hat is off to you sir.
I do not recall doing so, but it is certainly highly possible. (I looked, couldn’t find it. I’m sure it exists, given your coherent arguments).
I therefore apologize, and revise and extend whatever remarks I made. No, I do not imply or state that you are a supporter of slavery. In any sense. Quite the contrary.
Please do understand: a lot of idiots post on this site. I have tended to become pretty cutting — against you, Luka, Female, and umpteen idiots. Sometimes unfairly, but, I think, overall for the good of the site.
Slavery: a vicious form of predation on human souls, not least of which is the slavemaster’s. To be fought everywhere.
-wolfe
August 30th, 2006 at 2:22 pm - IP Man-Hash: 109bcf0dfd9d2
John, thanks for including me in your post. It obviously added just that little bit more to the considerable effort I can see you had already put into your indepth comment, and I appreciate that. Thanks also to wolfe for clarifying serfs/slave distinction. I can’t think why at this stage, but there is a reason I don’t believe they were serfs…I may post on this later.
Re: Spear Chucker.
This has nothing to do with vomit. If it did, the word ’spear’ would not appear before ‘chucker’. I also think the word ‘chucker’ is more commonly a derogatory term for someone who doesn’t bowl correctly when playing cricket.
To know the true meaning of ’spear chucker’ we would need to find out the historical origins of when it first appeared. However, I don’t think that is very often necessary to do in order to find out exactly what people mean.
We just need to know who said the term and what the words mean to the speaker; the person to whom the speaker addressed the term and the speakers assumptions regarding the receiver’s comprehension of the words.
Spear chucker is a derogatory racial slur, possibly from the 70s, also used to denote indigenous Australians. The term was addressed to gwallan, an Australian….I therefore think it’s highly probable that Josh believes gwallan is Aboriginal.
August 30th, 2006 at 6:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Ab originis. They are the true ozzies, aren’t they? You all white meat are tenants on their yard. hehehe
February 16th, 2007 at 8:02 am - IP Man-Hash: 82ef1f6f2aafa
comparing male humans to peacocks? lol what a dope Proof 3 is a big lie, women masturbate too and some admit it
So you only tell women theyre good lookin to get laid huh, you sound gay to me , maybe you should try men
Im a woman even if i can see WOMEN are the more beautiful of the 2 sexes. Naturally.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:03 am - IP Man-Hash: 82ef1f6f2aafa
women look MUCH better naked. All you have is a big thing between your legs hanging. saggy balls.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:07 am - IP Man-Hash: 0f1749703c4e2
Look at how much sense that makes.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:18 am - IP Man-Hash: 82ef1f6f2aafa
where does this hatred of women stem from?
February 16th, 2007 at 8:19 am - IP Man-Hash: 82ef1f6f2aafa
if we’re so pathetic and inferior you shouldnt be threatened by us. If you opened this site you obviously are worried about something.
February 16th, 2007 at 8:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Presumptuous assumptions. Isn’t assumption supposed to be the mother(nota bene!) of all fuckups?
February 16th, 2007 at 8:55 am - IP Man-Hash: 0f1749703c4e2
women are the mother of all fuckups
February 16th, 2007 at 9:20 am - IP Man-Hash: 001a1de92075b
Viruses are inferior forms of life, but that doesn’t mean sensible people aren’t very concerned about avian flu. (I don’t say this to equate women to viruses; I do say it to point out the flaw in your thinking, if I may use that word loosely).
-wolfe
June 26th, 2007 at 10:53 am - IP Man-Hash: 48ed4d1f98cdf
WHO is would ever feel threatened by YOU, a Woman. You know why women are pathetic? Well, lets take you for example, you are on this website why??? Well, I will answer that; you feel threatened by the truth of women which makes you want to try to change that.
Let me make it simpler to a female brain:
YOU FEEL THREATENED BY THIS WEBSITE BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU, A WOMAN, LOOK LIKE THE COMPLETE DUMBSHIT THAT YOU ARE.
Women think that they are perfect, when actually you can’t do a goddamn thing right.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:45 pm - IP Man-Hash: b3b94b0a03f3d
Yeah, that’s why Playgirl is such a hit and Playboy is tanking.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: b8405237488c6
There aren’t as many fags as straight guys and women can’t get attention from a magazine. Playgirl is a bad business model, probably thought up by a woman.