The Manosphere is not as Shallow as You Think, or Girls, Don’t Stress Out About Your Looks

Ladies,

The manosphere (at least the PUA part of it) has a reputation of being kind of shallow, rating women from 1 to 10, saying things that will make women freak out over tiny barely visible wrinkles, promising them they’ll hit the wall hard at 30… But despite that, I just don’t buy it. I observe many things that tell me that the manosphere men are not as terribly shallow as they let on.

Here’s a list of 9 Ugliest Feminists in America. Made by Roosh. To be honest with you, some of them are not all that ugly.

The fat one is just fat.

And Jessica Valenti is probably the prettiest of the people on the list, but I wouldn’t rate myself above her judging just by looks.

Others have some flaws in their faces, but nobody is disgusting to look at. I could probably find much uglier feminists if I could see them all.

Although I’m sure Roosh finds these women ugly quite honestly, RooshV forum has this  thread. It’s a thread about 40-something women, with lots of pictures. Some guys responded saying they are not hot enough, but many said something along the lines of “I would smash most of them”. Some even said that most men wouldn’t refuse, if one of these women walked over to them and offered sex. Yet most of them don’t look younger than their age, and aren’t perfect beauties. They just look like they take care of themselves, and dress hot. One man said:

“I’d put all these chicks through a wall from banging them so hard. There’s something about an older chick that’s just way more seductive than a younger girl. They’re not nearly as hot, but there’s an intangible factor of fuckability present that is just not seen in many 20 year olds.”

Also, there were times when some sweet, non- manhating women showed their faces in the manosphere, and did NOT receive any bashing of their looks, despite being plain or old.

I’m convinced of two things.

One. Inner beauty matters very much. Pleasant character and good morals will take you far, if you’re only a 5. It might not make a man attracted to you, if you don’t pass his boner test. But if you pass it, good character will add to your appeal. And bad character will subtract from it greatly. This is, in my opinion, especially true for girls in the middle of the SMV scale, 4-7.

Two. Most women (and men) are pleasant looking. Or can be. Fitness, good clothes and taking care of yourself properly means pleasant looks for pretty much anyone, except the truly deformed people and 1s on the SMV scale. There is no reason to worry about being ugly if you’re just normal. Look at rabbits in the forest. Very few of them are weird-looking or deformed, and it’s the same with humans.

However, knowing you aren’t ugly doesn’t mean shooting out of your league is a great idea. Manosphere men often tell women to settle if they want to be happy, but I hate that word. It shouldn’t be called settle. It should be called seeing beauty where you were blind to it previously. Just like most women are pleasant looking, so are most men. We’re just nitpicking too much in both.

So, if the manosphere guys are not so shallow, why do they attack the looks of women they don’t like? Well, I have an idea. I think they do it because it works, and don’t mind fighting dirty.

It doesn’t work because it’s used all the time, it’s used all the time because it works.

I once called a woman a slut for being a bitch to me, because it still works on many women, even if they deny it. I don’t actually slut-shame, and don’t look down on promiscuity per se.

So… stop worrying about impossible beauty standards. Event the manosphere guys don’t have them. They are relevant nowhere, except maybe Hollywood and modeling. Take care of your looks, have great character, and see beauty in others.

This entry was posted in Beauty, Feminism, Women and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to The Manosphere is not as Shallow as You Think, or Girls, Don’t Stress Out About Your Looks

  1. M3 says:

    The Private Man has dating tips for women, and one of his golden rules is for women to simply stop looking for reasons to disqualify men and start looking at the good things a man has that she wasn’t looking for right off the bat. Since women’s attraction is based on a confluence of factors (looks nonwithstanding) they risk ejecting countless men that would be great/perfect fits, if it wasn’t for the original sin of not being Brad Pitt.

    http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/a-dating-exercise-for-women-amazing-follow-up/

    And yes. I have personally said the Jessica Valenti is a very hot looking femininst and i would do her.. tho it would probably require duct tape over her mouth so i didn’t have to hear about the evil’s of patriarchy.

    Oh she’s married?

    Lucky him. ;)

  2. M3 says:

    My above comment was in relation to the eloquent way you phrased it:
    “It should be called seeing beauty where you were blind to it previously.”

    • emmatheemo says:

      I know ;) And what Privateman suggests is a great exercise, and I think I’ve been naturally doing it starting from my teens. Still had a period of bitchiness, but it was deeper than just being unfriendly. Indeed, if you look well enough, most men are pleasant-looking, at least, and there is no need to rate most men as “below average” :)

  3. Tor says:

    The woman above Valenti has one of teh least appealing attitudes I`ve seen. I ahve seen pics of her on feminist sites before in connection with feminist crap she has wrritten and her personality and the way it comes across in the pictures is just cryptonite to attraction.

  4. Eric says:

    Most women’s attitudes suck, regardless of how they look.

    I often hear mRAs like RooshV say that there is something wrong with MGTOWs for not wanting sex with women. Actually, I wouldn’t mind having it women, but whatever females today are, real women they are NOT.

    For example, I look at Jessica Valenti’s picture and, sure she’s above-average looking. But check out the pics of her here:

    http://www.mrafront.blogspot.com/2012/08/jessica-valenti-pretty-face.html

    Do you see one photo here where she doesn’t come across as a skanky lesbian? I couldn’t want sex with a woman like that, neither could any normal male.

    • emmatheemo says:

      You sound like one of those rare less-visual men ;) I noticed that some men are less swayed by a woman’s looks and don’t jump into bed with them as readily as other men. They also have higher standards for women’s behavior and won’t even do a hate-fuck.
      I like these men for their emphasis on meaningful things, but they are hard to reel in with just sex/looks. Lol

      I don’t mind Jessica’s skanky lesbian photos, but I do mind some of her views, like reversing the burden of proof in rape cases. Awful!

      • Eric says:

        Emma:
        I do wonder how rare that type of man really is, though.

        “…won’t even do a hate-fuck.”

        I have never done one. In fact, one reason I dislike PUAs so much is it seems to me that rewarding women with sex for bad behavior is the same as encouraging it.

        “I like these men for their emphesis on meaningful things, but they are hard to reel in with just sex/looks.”

        If more women really felt like you do, I doubt there would be much need for an MRM! LOL

      • :-p says:

        I’m sure I could go out this morning and pull a thirty year old within a couple of hours and bring her back and fuck her. I have no desire to because :
        1/ I have little or no sexual attraction to women that age.
        2/ Having sex with women of that age is tantamount to allowing myself to be raped.
        Indeed, to most normal men 30 year old hags are unattractive and cannot compete with 13 year old hotties. Slurp!

  5. Lamont Cranston says:

    “Manosphere men often tell women to settle if they want to be happy, but I hate that word. It shouldn’t be called settle. It should be called seeing beauty where you were blind to it previously. ”

    Your point stands. But to pick a nit, I thought that “settling” was a term from the femosphere. Hypergamous women don’t want to “settle” and resent when they have to. Am I wrong?

  6. Brian says:

    “So, if the manosphere guys are not so shallow, why do they attack the looks of women they don’t like? Well, I have an idea. I think they do it because it works, and don’t mind fighting dirty.”

    Once you’ve spent enough years being on the wrong end of women fighting dirty, you’re bound to wise up sooner or later and start to recognize how to play the game by the new rules. Granted, some of the degree of bashing appearance on women is probably overcompensation from anger at being shamed for decades about being shallow if you care at all about appearance. “She weighs twice as much as you? Why can’t you love her for what’s on the inside, you shallow bastard!”. Once you come to understand that “unconditional love” is a lie being shoveled out by women who want to get what they want/need, without caring about his wants and needs in return.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Interesting. I didn’t think it was because of shaming men about their preferences.
      Thing is, everyone has got some preferences. This is what I call irreducible, essential “shallow” traits that you absolutely need in a partner to fall in love with them or be attracted to them, rather than just being friends with them. Even very non-shallow (by human standards) people have a few.

      But speaking of unconditional love, I think it can exist, sort of :) It’s kind of a trick, but once you pick the right partner, love for them can be unconditional in practice. If you picked extremely well, they won’t disrespect you.
      Love doesn’t mean tolerating their bad behavior, or treating them nicely unconditionally. It also doesn’t mean staying no matter what, rewarding bad behavior.

  7. Apollo says:

    Most men are quite visual, but we are more accepting than some women might believe if they only listen to the bluster of some PUAs. We are not as harshly critical of wmens physical beauty as your average women is for example (when they are not playing “fake friend” at least).

    And attitude does also play a part in what we find attractive. One of the reasons why I find Feminists so repulsive, similar to Roosh, is because of their attitude. Combative, snarky, bitchy, mean…. just all around unpleasant to spend any time around. They are basically like men in womens bodies, only weak simpering men that another man couldnt respect. No feminine sweetness and big doses of a pale simulcra of masculinity – its like a one-two boner killing combo.

    Barring any unfortunate deformities, a woman who takes care of herself (dont get fat), keeps her hair long, dresses like a woman (dresses, skirts, etc) and who acts in a feminine “ladylike” manner (sweet, nurturing, pleasant to be around, with some sense of decorum and self respect) is going to find it hard not to attract men while shes still young. Who’da thunk women comporting themselves like women would attract men?!?

    And as regards the Roosh article, also dont forget that it was intended as a troll job to antagonise Feminists and get them to comment and visit the site in order to collect info on which locales had more Feminists. Theres a post on RoK about it.

    • emmatheemo says:

      That’s what I’m reading right now in a book – men are both visual, and don’t have very high physical standards. Sounds almost like a contradiction, but there we are.

  8. FuriousFerret says:

    Emma,

    In America everyone is sick and fat because our diet is horrible. Many people give up because they don’t really want to see and acknowledge that the cause is the food products we consume.

    You are spot on with:

    “Two. Most women (and men) are pleasant looking. Or can be. Fitness, good clothes and taking care of yourself properly means pleasant looks for pretty much anyone, except the truly deformed people and 1s on the SMV scale. ”

    Most people are attractive when they take care of themselves. But Americans are addicted to their food drugs. This hurts women’s value more so than men because women’s sexual worth is tied up in their beauty. This leaves a minority of healthy people and the competition for the healthy women is intense.

    I firmly believe if Americans got their diets under control and the obesity levels went back to 1965 levels, a lot of these problems would be solved in terms of body image.

    The reason you have the fat acceptance movement is simply because people don’t know how to get thin because the companies and government are feeding them false information.

    Also, you are viewing this whole thing through Norweigan eyes. In Norway, feminism is much more about equality than feminine domination like it is in the States. Scandinavia has always had women play a more important simply because there wasn’t enough people to let half the population not pull their weight. Women had to competent while the men where fighting, etc, etc, so when feminism came along, it had a historical place.

    Being ultra macho will hurt you in the dating game in Norway where as it’s required in America.

    • emmatheemo says:

      You’re right, I heard American and Norwegian women like different things. Thanks for your input.

    • just out of interest, women ‘pulled their weight’ all through history. Check Proverbs 37 and see what was expected of the “good woman’ whose worth was ‘above rubies’. It was an impossible workload, but even taking it as an ideal, it implies that men made the family money, brought it home and women cannily invested it and together they built something lasting and powerful, placing their kids in good marriages and apprenticeships, too.

      Come the 19th century, you get the Industrial Revolution and the very sudden creation, not rise, creation, of the middle class. A created society has to rapidly make up rules, since no centuries to evolve them, and given the middle class came up from the lower ranks, they tried to ape their betters and somehow invented the concept of ‘respectability’ . In turn and coupled with economic factors, this created, for the first time in history, the wholly decorative woman. Never had their been such a thing before. Seductive Delilahs were always seen as evil. The idea that a man’s wife should have essentially no function and no libido, be his ‘skylark’ and ‘squirrel’ scampering about (cf A Doll’s House) infantile, coy, provocative, cute, vulnerable, all those words bandied about by Men’s rights guys as eternal and Darwinian etc, were a complete invention of the Industrial Age.

      And the result was widespread insanity, as women were forced to deny their sexual impulse (and go mad like ‘intemperate and unchaste’ Bertha Rochester in Jane Eyre) and their intelligence and even basic utility. Woman after woman developed agonizing stomach pains and were diagnosed with ‘hysteria’ and given daily morphine, spending their lives in stupor. And this was repeated in the 1950s as the bored housewives living the feminine mystique went mad and were dosed with Valium. Only a Stepford robot can live the way these men’s rights guys desire.

      Coyness and provocativeness and vulnerability are useless attributes and would have constituted a positive danger up til the Victorian age. Such a worthless, lazy and vain female, focused only on pleasing a man for a while and desperately fearing aging, would have never married in previous times. She couldn’t ever have handled the enormous demands on her time. The biblical texts that the poor creature Roissy (and do people actually know where he takes that name from?) loves so much actually stressed that beauty was vain, dangerous and to be distrusted.

      We should remember that additionally, in the ‘olden days’ everyone had their place and their jobs were their titles: Baker John, Blacksmith Paul, Mistress Baker Anne etc. Knowing your place meant knowing your worth, your value and everyone had value, everyone was needed. The iNdustrial Revolution left people floundering, trying to create new jobs in a fast paced world, no longer fitting easily into hierarchies. People, men especially, became more fragile, everyone just became “Mr’, how to demonstrate your ‘will to power’ since this is what life is? (and only what life is). How to show who you are? By dominating someone else, by becoming the little Hitler boss, the petty tyrant, the Master Of The Home.

      Many men have been fragile ever since, hence this call for women to weaken themselves, even to play dumb. Especially true in the States, because you dont have the class system which can give you an identity. You struggle for identity and try to define it by dominant relationships, putting down stronger, more confident men as ‘manboobs’ or ‘beta’ when they are the ones who have shown a truly Darwinian ability to adapt. If those who have failed to adapt will lose what little power they have, then naturally, they will try to regain it by undermining the men and women who have seized it.

      Men’s rights guys are dinosaurs.

      Well, I enjoyed that!

      • Emma the Emo says:

        That’s an interesting interpretation of the Industrial Revolution. I’m in the process of studying history of that period right now, and will be sure to check how much truth is in it.

        It’s correct that women were not sitting around looking pretty most of the history. Not even during the industrial revolution. Most people were never so rich as to afford the luxury of sitting around being decorative. I also don’t buy the idea that women not working, or working at useless jobs is the natural order of things. Who works at what work depends of what jobs are available in whatever society you find yourself in. In some societies it’s very convenient to have the man go out to work, and for the woman to stay at home with the kids. It raises wages and lowers the amount of people not having any work. Being a homemaker and child-rearer is work too, so I don’t think you’re being fair to those MRAs who say this is a good road for a woman to take. And some MRAs (I’d call them equality MRAs) actually demand that women not be housewives, but instead work out of the home. I think you will find most MRAs object to the infantile “ideal” of a woman you say they want.

        Then you say the industrial revolution turned men into petty tyrants because old job identities were gone. I’m sorry, but this sounds like typical feminist truth-twisting. A feminist never directly lies, they take a 80% truth and add 20% misunderstanding (a long term observation of mine). It might, for example, be true that a man who is not needed will feel insecure. Not being needed means he can (and will be) replaced, thrown away and then perish. But then add the idea that this insecurity means he’s a controlling abusive tyrant, or COULD potentially be, and you have intelligent people nodding their heads. But really, all combinations are possible and happen – job title and high emphasis of being master of the home, no job title and high emphasis on being master of the home, job title and low emphasis on being master of the home.

        Also, I’m not sure what you mean by saying “manboobs” having a true Darwinian ability to adapt. Perhaps you meant “who’s on top of the social chain right now”. Whoever reproduces best is the one with a true Darwinian ability to adapt. So far, that is people from poor countries and the religious, not western white feminists. They might not be on the top of the chain now, but in the future they very well might be. Especially considering that we don’t have infinite oil. A lot of what we take for granted now will be gone someday, and then other people might come out on top. Social changes happen a lot faster than evolution, which is why I wouldn’t advise anyone to gloat about their “Darwinian” evolution when merely speaking of being socially approved.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Forgot one detail. You said this:

        “The idea that a man’s wife should have essentially no function and NO LIBIDO, be his ‘skylark’ and ‘squirrel’ scampering about (cf A Doll’s House) infantile, coy, provocative, cute, vulnerable, all those words bandied about by Men’s rights guys as eternal and Darwinian etc, were a complete invention of the Industrial Age.”

        I emphasized the “no libido” part. The sentence was long, so I didn’t notice this at first. But you can’t be serious, if you think MRAs think women have no libido, or if you think MRAs WANT a woman with no libido. That’s pretty much the opposite. I think what the majority seems to want can be summed up thus: a woman who is easy to get for them, but hard for everyone else. A loyal one-man slut. However, it is only one trait they most want in a wife.

  9. PUABadGuyAlphaMaleSuperiorToFemales says:

    I would say prime for most women is 15-19, through a small percentage can make it to 21

  10. I HOPE YOU LIKE IT REDONKULAS.COM

  11. Zander says:

    Man, this Redonkulas guy Terrence Popp is an idiot. I don’t know what he does for a living but he could be a poster boy for lowering the minimum wage. He needs to go to the Gym.

  12. John says:

    He’s a male prostitute in a Gay bar. The dude hates women that’s for sure. Manup and take care of your kids. You give the rest of us hard working guys a bad name crybaby.

    • Marty says:

      Take a walk in his shoes. Before you judge him put his boots on. Go ahead. Take that first step and let us know how much of a fuckin’ breeze it was. Can you deal with the pain? Regardless of your own circumstances or the pain you carry, go ahead and run your lickers on how much things suck. So either shut your cock holster or put the boots on and lace them bitches up.

  13. I march hard, shoot straight and always speak the truth. Math dont lie and reality is a harsh mistriss. I have fun with numbers coming out that will absolutly destroy you. and as for the GYM I am almost 45 and have 12% body fat not bad.

  14. Marty says:

    Crybaby? Before you can judge, walk in his shoes for a mile. Then let me know how it feels. Regardless of your circumstances or anybody else’s for that matter, put his boots on and take that first step. Do you have the fortitude to do it? Most men are terrified to face themselves and their fears. Can you face another man’s nightmare? Go ahead and try it. I doubt you make it the first mile. Gay boy!

    • Andy Murdock says:

      Well how about he just supports his children instead of trying to get out of it.

      • redonkulas says:

        well mr murdock, I understand you point of view. but supporting also means getting access to your children. the system strips the male of his children and forces him to surrender 1/2 to 1/3 of his take home pay. This option should only come into effect if the male does not want 50/50. . Now Mr murdock I do not want to go all troll on you.but, I do take care of my kids, i drive 2000 miles a month to see them and every day I miss out on being with them I die a little inside. The system is unfair, discriminatory, and has systematically destroyed the family. 85% of all inmate in prison had no father figure at home. But I bet most of there mothers got “Child support” for them.. A lot of good it did them. You foolish mortal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s