|
by Zseni 04/10/2007, 8:38pm PDT |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Damn those Weinsteins! wrote:
Zseni wrote:
I was watching an episode of Maury the other day where the abused wives of abusive husbands were separated from their spouses for a day. The (brutish, terrible!) husbands went off with a gigantic muscled negro to learn about how it felt to be dominated, and the wives were treated to makeovers to improve their self-esteem. {Irrelevant aside: Firefox believes that "negro" is a misspelled word. Also "faggots". "Rough-n-tumble" passes without comment.} The audience loved it - to them there is nothing more reasonable than putting sadists into the hands of a sadist, and rendering up passive appeasing bodies to the gods of the salon, where they sat still for two hours, and became pretty.
Yeah, go figure, you hate beauty salons.
I hate being forced into this fucking cliche, but I bet that makeover shit does more for them than you would like to admit. Hot chicks rule, they know it, everyone knows it. Why not try to be hot, if you're a chick? Then you get to rule. Look at Naomi Campbell. She's hot, she beats the shit out of ugly chicks every single day. You never hear about some maid beating up Naomi. It can't happen.
Besides, what else are these girls going to do for ONE DAY? Take some idiotic self-defense class so next time Bubba comes home with a few in him she puts up a pathetic fight and gets beat even worse? Go work in a warehouse and pretend to be a lesbian? Sit home and watch fucking Maury all day?
I say more power to salons and getting these women out of the house and into some sort of supportive environment. At the very least, it's keeping them from making godawful documentaries about how empowered they are.
The gift of beauty - given to you by professional beauty-makers, in arrangement with an entire cultural engine which determines what beauty looks like this season - is a gift of supreme powerlessness. Hot chicks rule but the ruling is pointless; everything that makes them hot also makes them dependent on dudes who want hot chicks.
Dudes are not going to stop wanting hot chicks any time soon, so hot chicks do have that going for them. But, you know, I don't give a shit what Naomi Campbell's maid does or does not do. I'm interested in chicks who, not being hot, are nevertheless successful. I'm interested in hot chicks who are successful in spite of their hotness. I'm interested in abused women who buy guns and learn how to use them, so the next time that fuckin pig lifts a hand to her, he dies.
Imagine with me the radical and completely non-passive beauty of a woman who can't be abused! She is pretty sure her life and pleasure are considerably more important than some dude's desire to abuse her. So she kills that dude, and every other dude who takes a shot! Guys are usually terrified and grossed-out by the concept. Fussbett once gave me a long talking-to about how women innately do not possess this sort of violent instinct, and his was an uncommonly reasonable and level-headed approach to this piece of theory. It's always characterized as "violent", but of course there is no urge more primitive than self-preservation, and it's beyond me - why on earth people keep expecting women to have civilized well-behaved self-preservation instincts. Sure, she can drink roadkill slurry on Survivor so she can win a million bucks - but kill a guy who's threatening her life? That's insane!
Well, you asked, and I'm telling you: a woman's innate drives are nowhere near as important as her health, safety, and happiness. So I would not take those beatdown ladies to a place where their dependence on men is further enriched; I would take them to the range, and explain to them that they don't have to let anyone fucking touch them if they don't want to be touched. Are they scared? Do they balk? The gun maybe might blue-moon hurt you, honey, but that prick beats your ass in every night.
Andrea Dworkin also floated this idea. It was extremely unpopular, especially amongst women. This, too, fascinates me. Innate or not, popular or not, I don't buy that it's a bad idea, and I will never allow it to be characterized as "irrational." |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Boys are a huge problem. by Zseni 04/10/2007, 2:26pm PDT 
Re: Boys are a huge problem. by Furcifer 04/10/2007, 3:17pm PDT 
Re: Boys are a huge problem. by laudablepuss 04/10/2007, 4:00pm PDT 
Re: Boys are a huge problem. by Furcifer 04/11/2007, 8:30pm PDT 
Re: Boys are a huge problem. by Mischief Maker 04/11/2007, 9:36pm PDT 
I thought in England private schools were shitty and public were exclusive NT by Mischief Maker 04/10/2007, 6:15pm PDT 
Explanation by Mischief Maker 04/10/2007, 6:16pm PDT 
Re: Explanation by Fullofkittens 04/10/2007, 6:57pm PDT 
It's bad. NT by Real lesbians are ugly. :( 04/10/2007, 7:14pm PDT 
Re: Boys are a huge problem. by Damn those Weinsteins! 04/10/2007, 8:11pm PDT 
Pfffff. Americans. NT by Quentin Beck 04/10/2007, 8:28pm PDT 
Re: Boys are a huge problem. by Zseni 04/10/2007, 8:38pm PDT 
Re: Boys are a huge problem. by Mischief Lifetime Network 04/10/2007, 9:23pm PDT 
Re: Boys are a huge problem. by Jhoh Cable o_O 04/10/2007, 10:30pm PDT 
Shoot yourself a smile! by Quentin Beck 04/11/2007, 2:16am PDT 
in middles ages plump was attractive, hot skinny is a modern construct NT by refuge of fat chicks 04/11/2007, 2:56am PDT 
You're thinking of the late Rennaissance. In the middle ages, by Zseni 04/11/2007, 6:38am PDT 
The ancient greeks considered small penises attractive. See: all of their art. by Jerry Whorebach 04/11/2007, 9:51pm PDT 
real power is complaining about company emails (then being ignored) NT by Flavio 04/10/2007, 9:04pm PDT 
I have to admit this made me laugh. ~_~ NT by Jhoh Cable o_O 04/10/2007, 10:31pm PDT 
IF you were human NT by Flavio 04/11/2007, 8:39pm PDT 
I was young and I needed the money. NT by Zseni 04/11/2007, 6:39am PDT 
|
|