[2Wycked]

I recently had the displeasure of being stuck in line at the local grocery store, behind some woman who bought over 200 bucks worth of groceries. I commented to her, asking how big of an army she was feeding. I started looking through the magazines on the rack – of course, all women’s interests. I fingered through the latest issue of Cosmo, read that interview with Kelly Osbourne – surprise! She claims her new boyfriend loves her and she appreciates his love – no mention of her love for him.

Regardless, I read an article that made me shake my head. Let me step through the history of the magazine, the Betchdel Test and The Last Psychiatrist’s take on women in the media.

A Review Of Cosmopolitan Magazine

Helen Gurley Brown



Cosmopolitan magazine began as a small outfit targeted at families. It was focused on women, with articles on house decoration, cooking and beauty tips. It transformed into a literary magazine in the mid-1900’s, with short articles, essays and poems. It turned into the cesspool it is now when Helen Gurley Brown took over as editor-in-chief in the 1960’s. Remember, this Brown woman published “Sex and the Single Girl,” a 1962 book that encouraged pre-marital sex and financial independence for women. She transformed it into a cultural powerhouse, writing openly about sex, love, relationships, beauty tips and celebrities. She would run controversial articles about rape and domestic violence. Her magazine has a notorious reputation in intellectual circles for constant bending of facts to slake hamster thirst.

The magazine was explicitly feminist at first and remains a feminist magazine. She strongly extolled the virtues of the Sexual Revolution, invasions of male-dominated professions and ripping up of gender roles. She was fairly inconsistent, as she said,"If you [woman] aren't a sex object, you are in trouble." The magazine causes much consternation in the feminist world, as one feminist scarily put it, "it isn't radical fare, but does some good work." Really? How fuck can a woman talk about positive relations with men while coming from a radical standpoint?

Let's step through some feminist criticism about the magazine. Many women, when they identify as feminists later in life, comment on how glamorous the women were on the cover and how they wanted to emulate those women's lives. Once reality sets in that only the most attractive of women will get and keep alphas, they need to backtrack and revise their thoughts of Cosmo. They complain how the magazine plays on the insecurities of women - well, no shit! It is a business, they need to sell magazines to exist. There is little criticism about the intellectual content of the magazine, just complaints about beauty standards and pleasing men.

The pleasing men is disturbing - it speaks how delusional feminists are about reality. A common claim is that it is really a men's magazine - that there are so many heterosexist tips that is really is just about pleasing men. Note the narcissism here - they think men should stick around because they love the woman for who she is. It is foreign to them to treat people they love well - if you want to keep your boyfriend, you step your game up. Regardless - and this a common feminist complaint -they complain it is gender discrimination because men's magazine's are all about men doing for themselves.

It got into a fairly brutal Facebook debate (I LOVE trolling Facebook) with a young feminist who wrote a thesis on the sexism in men's magazines. Her thesis was that men's magazines promote autonomy from women, while women's magazines promote dependence. I ethered her arguments with using just one old edition of Men's Health I had. I pointed out literally over 100 different references to pleasing the woman in your life. I further pointed out the context for much of the advice in the magazine is for getting and keeping woman. She pointed that out in her review of female-targeted literature but ignored it in her review of male-targeted literature.

I was surprised the hamster wheel didn't get a speeding ticket from the Facebook police. She was angry, depressed and bitter all in one post. All she could do was blame my male privilege for not seeing the world like her. She got constellation of approving remarks - including a bunch of dudes - saying I was trying to get her riled up. While that is true on one hand, I was serious. Nobody could believe I was being serious - to them, it was self-evident she was right. One fat bitch said that she didn't even need to write the thesis, she should an A+ for being a feminist.

An Overview Of The Bechdel Test



Okay, back on point - the Bechdel Test. It was presented in a cartoon by Alison Bechdel. Do note Bechdel is a lesbian. That right there should tell you why she hates female-targeted movies - 98% of women are attracted to men.

She claims to only watch movies in which:

1. Has two or more women;
2. Who talk to each other;
3. About something other than men

Only a few critics use her approach as most movies would fail the test. This website uses the framework and claims 53% of movies pass their test - but note that they haven't reviewed all movies. I linked to the review of the Hangover 3, which passes the test, but I just saw the movie and I don't even remember the dialogue they cite.

This test is ridiculous for two reasons: it does nothing to ensure substantial female input in a movie and ignores the reality of heterosexual women's lives.

A common complaint, linked up to this test, is that there are so few female directors. They claim if there was diversity (women) then there would be more "realistic" fare for women. They are right that if they were more female directors, the arcs of movies would change a bit. However, this argument ignores to key points: male perception & narcissism. Men are the far more perceptive sex. They have to be - you can't succeed with women if you don't, on some level, understand women. Since men are attracted to youth & beauty, women can get away with ignoring reality, until they get fat or ugly - a key reason for later-in-life feminists. Second, is narcissism. Since women don't live out these lives in real life, but see themselves as capable as them, they use the media to self-aggrandize. I will leave this point for now and draw on The Last Psychiatrist to illuminate this point.

Feminist Nina Power once remarked that the test is foolish because real-life doesn't track the Bechdel test. I only have access to her snippet online, but I would develop her point like this: Women watch movies like Bridesmaids over G.I. Jane because movies like Bridesmaids speak to them. While I strongly suspect her analysis tracks traditional social constructionist rhetoric (she blames socialization for women's inability to be serious like some men) it is good, as she realizes this test is downright laughable because real life fails the Bechdel test. Lesbians, of course, take issue with the test because they don't talk about men sexually like heterosexual women do. The pull of the alpha male is more important than discussing the potentiality of an afterlife. We have had some spirited debates on just about everything on this forum - could you see women doing the same? Do you see a female version of this forum?

Don't Hate Her Because She Is Successful



This already long, even by my own talkative standards, so let's just segue into a recent post by The Last Psychiatrist -I will abbreviate him as TLP going-forward. I won't be reviewing the article, but I will be bringing up a comment I made on the blog. Note I have more than a few handles and this is one I usually comment on blogs like his - it is FL. Also, note I wrote a comment about how I don't believe in PUA - I only did that to soften the blow of my post.

Quote:

That's why movies like "The Hunger Games" cause so much controversy. It is not because women and feminists are fighting for whatever, it is that women don't want to be strong and independent in real life, they want to watch other women do it and live vicariously through the media.

Becoming strong and independent - or whatever you want to be seen as - is work and you might fail. However, you can demand that fictional others do the work in the short and controlled atmosphere of a TV show or movie. You can always tell what a feminist wants to be seen as, because she will agitate for more female scientists/rock stars/lesbians in the media.

My commentary here is important to my broader point. Feminists kvetch so hard for appropriate media standards because they aren't those people in real life. They have low self-esteem and don't get the men they are attracted to. They want some overweight, unattractive woman have a sexy man fall in love with that female because of her intelligence and confidence. Part of this is the deep internalization of what they desire in men, part of this they know this would never happen in real life. They need to be able to curl up on their couch, eat their Haagan-Dazs and watch other women do what they can't do in real life.

Quote:

Of course, reality is more boring than fiction, so Sandberg causes much consternation because she highlights that hard work and sacrifices a person has to make to reach the heights of corporate America. The fact that women achieve these "successes" simultaneously highlights the real sacrifices in life you must make to get there while also blowing up feminists clinging to excuses like sexism and misogyny for their failures - or, more probably, their banal mediocrity.

This is key. Let's focus on my bolded part. Sandberg caused much hamster discomfit because of the fact she had to work so hard for so long to get her job. Sure, part of her promotion was because of her vagina, but she did do a lot of work in the corporate trenches. Most women have serious delusions about success in life.

Let's briefly consider Isla Fisher's role in "Confessions Of A Shopaholic." Yes, I had some simpy behavior in the past and agreed to watch this abortion. In the movie, Fisher's character, in her very first article for a magazine she writes an article that blows up and goes seriously viral, making her a celebrity. If that isn't narcissistic, then call me a male feminist. That isn't delusional - that is beyond fucked up. That NEVER happens in real life. It highlights the delusions women have in real life. They don't understand hard work and how it relates to life. They fall back on BS theories like male privilege as to why the vast majority of CEO's are men.

More importantly, they do get hard work on some level, but don't want to blame their work ethic for the fact they are probably just average. Look the covers of Cosmo and see women hyper-identifying with these women. I have heard women say they live their lives vicariously through their female celebrity they like the most. Unable to come grips that, in all likelihood, they are an average woman, they create fantasy worlds in their heads so their hamster can roam free and pretend.

Quote:

If sexism isn't holding them back, then reality flushes to their consciousness and their identity of an oppressed woman is threatened. That's why cries of misogyny - take Julia Gillard, for example - become more insistent, impassioned and hateful. You are attacking their identity if you tell them what mostly likely is holding them back is themselves. Feminists will reframe and use the "3.5 billion" defense and claim you are attacking all women.

Unable to comes to grips with reality, they fall back on claims of sexism. We have seen this in the Adria Richards imbroglio. She needs sexism in order to function as a human. You saw how delusional she was when she overreacted to those innocuous jokes. She doesn't exist in reality, but in another world where she is a champion of women (remember the Joan of Arc tweets?) who is saving the world from oppressive men.

There will never come a day when feminists, writ large, believe in reality. They need the mystical powers of hamster imagination live out the lives they could never have in real life in their head.

Fully Digesting The Red-pill



I will end this here, even though I have a lot more to say (I will probably break this into two separate RoK posts with much more commentary) so let me finish with a lament.

You know, there has been some controversy on the boards in the past month about the increasingly critical and potentially misogynistic threads and comments. On one hand, I get the anger & frustration. I, myself, have high blood pressure and get very incensed on a daily basis. I need to work on that.

On the other hand, people need to take the red-pill fully & come to terms with reality. Women will never live up to their claims of being men's intellectual equals or anything. I was raised to believe women were just as smart, if not smarter, than men and they were afraid to express their intelligence around men because men are intimidated by female smarts and accomplishments.

Sigh. The psych breakdown is this: I am fundamentally insecure about my intelligence and accomplishments. I am attracted to men. I fear their disapproval. If I talk about intellectual matters, I may meet disapproval. I not only fear disapproval, but I fear him on some level. He must feel the same way. Therefore, he fears my intelligence & accomplishments.

At the end of the day, we should not aspire to become psychological equals of feminist and trapped in the anger stage of acceptance. We need to push forward into the sublime acceptance of reality. It is one step a time and this forum isn't just a great resource - it might be the best resource online for men.

As for relationships with women, I personally do plan on getting married and having kids. No need to educate me about the deficiencies of family law - been there, done that in class. However, as much I enjoy gaming women & hooking up, the playboy lifestyle isn't for me. I am good-looking and have good career options, but the lifestyle strikes me personally as lacking.

I will never criticize another man for his choices, as it is based on personal preferences. Routing back to women and hatred, you can't ever have a positive relationship with a woman if you haven't come to terms with the red-pill. Even in just a pick-up & fuck situation, your ill view of women will bleed through at some point. Don't pretend you can fake it for that long - women often think they are papering over their misandry. It isn't fooling anybody.



We will do what we can against feminism. I plan on fighting for father's rights in my professional life. I have been and will continue to learn game. I will educate myself on the realities of America. However, there is a tipping point. Consider this Biblical quote:

Quote:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

This is very salient to my point. When you come to terms with the red-pill you accept hypergamy as real and unchangeable. There need be no anger over women preferring alphas to betas. You need the courage to confront your demons, face them down and become a better man. Yet, most importantly, you need the wisdom to understand what you can and can't do. You can't regret what you don't decide. This is difficult and reflects on your maturity.

Bringing this full circle, when dealing with women and feminists you need a serious level of grounding. Coming to terms with red-pill is the first and most important step. In order to have positive relationships with women - relationships of any kind - you need to work through your issues. It can be a long and arduous endeavor - but one that will always be worth its weight in gold.

Understand Cosmo hurts women and infects them with all sorts of feminist bullshit. Remember the Bechdel test when considering feminist critiques of media's depictions of women - remember the test fails in real life. Understand women don't live in reality, they need females in media to be the women they could never be. Come to terms with red-pill so you can enjoy life and the women who populate your life.

[BortimusPrime]

(06-09-2013 12:43 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

Sigh. The psych breakdown is this: I am fundamentally insecure about my intelligence and accomplishments. I am attracted to men. I fear their disapproval. If I talk about intellectual matters, I may meet disapproval. I not only fear disapproval, but I fear him on some level. He must feel the same way. Therefore, he fears my intelligence & accomplishments.

This is often what puts the nail in the coffin for smart guys when they try to meet girls. As a self-proclaimed genius...
I are teh smrt
...who's been around lots of other self-proclaimed geniuses I know that smart people like to DHV by talking about intellectual matters. The beta assumption is that if girls are equal, then it's possible to impress them with displays of intellect. As you said, girls are insecure about their frivolous interests, and the quickest way to piss off an insecure person is to be seen as poking at that insecurity.

[iknowexactly]

Just think of them as children: self-centered yet open, insightful occasionally but short-sighted almost always, carefree except when frustrated, and inspiring protectiveness and adoration despite intermittent thoughtless viciousness.

Don't be insane enough to think of them as equals.
Or deluded enough to debate. Others said it here: You can't change her mind, only her mood.

[2Wycked]

It is true that you can only affect a woman's mood.

It is sad that is how to reach a woman? Too bad, but it is reality. I think a lot of guys struggle with this, thinking they can engage a woman logically - but it always fails.

(06-09-2013 03:23 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Just think of them as children: self-centered yet open, insightful occasionally but short-sighted almost always, carefree except when frustrated, and inspiring protectiveness and adoration despite intermittent thoughtless viciousness.

Don't be insane enough to think of them as equals.
Or deluded enough to debate. Others said it here: You can't change her mind, only her mood.

[Hades]

Hate to derail the thread, but do any of you guys watch Breaking Bad or The Walking Dead?
I'd like to see a post about why the "empowered" women on the show have such hugely negative 'fan' bases.

Personally I was happy when bitchy Laurie died in TWD (definitely was not alone in this respect) and I hope to hell that Skyler dies in Breaking Bad. I quit watching that show because she was such a nosy (and incredibly stupid) bitch. I mean, seriously, you can be a badass zombie slayer who keeps his family safe in an apocalyptic world or a badass meth dealer stacking mountains of paper but your women will still be nagging bitches who do nothing but hurt your bottom line and operation. When Walter White acts out, he kills a man with his genius batman gambits and secures his multi-million dollar empire, when Skyler acts out she has two fags while a month pregnant and fucks her boss. What the hell?

I think it's related because in these shows it's easy to identify with the men, they are innovators, developers, and explorers in a hostile world, while the women do nothing but navigate and exploit personal relationships. Since writing "empowered" women in hollywood involves making them insufferable cunts, while writing good male roles (antiheroes, etc) involves a nigh-pinnacle of masculinity, it's easy to see why these shows would be (and are) better once their stupid women eat shit and die.
Yeah the shows rile me up a little

[Nonpareil]

One good thing about Cosmopolitan? It can be used to secure pussy.

(06-09-2013 11:53 AM)Hades Wrote:  

I think it's related because in these shows it's easy to identify with the men, they are innovators, developers, and explorers in a hostile world, while the women do nothing but navigate and exploit personal relationships. Since writing "empowered" women in hollywood involves making them insufferable cunts, while writing good male roles (antiheroes, etc) involves a nigh-pinnacle of masculinity, it's easy to see why these shows would be (and are) better once their stupid women eat shit and die.
Yeah the shows rile me up a little

The great female characters on TV are from period shows like Mad Men (talking about Joan and Megan, not Peggy who is a whiny ingrate) or medieval dramas like Game of Thrones. If it takes place in modern times, chances are she's a manjawed, slutty, manipulative cunt, because that's apparently what 'empowered' means.