Why Feminists Are Not Even Hot, Ever

Seriously though, they’re not. I don’t mean the run-of-the-mill feminist on Twitter-verse, nor even the scores of impressionable young women empowered by the cinematic display of strength and independence of Melissa Benoist’s Supergirl and Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman. Some of them are hot – I admit that. But I am not talking about them. I mean to speak about the theorists: those behind the lectern, in the armchair, or occupying the faculties of Gender Studies, Women’s Studies, Sociology, or even some less fortunate faculties for Philosophy. I mean to speak about the intelligentsia of feminism, those who give the trajectory for this craziness. Now I could be wrong here: I mean, I might have missed some hotties in the midst, but from what I have seen, they have all been smashing a lot more than the patriarchy – it looks like they been smashing down too many hamburgers, or cigarettes and bottles of Jack. Rosie the Riveter they are not. Just consider the evidence:

Sally Haslanger

Rebecca Kukla (AKA Cuckla)

Katherine Manne (ironic last name)

Heidi “I Nose Feminism” Savage

Judith Butler

Lisa “Cut My Own Hair” Guenther

Kathie Sarachild

Andrea Dworkin (she oddly looks like Earl Sinclair in this pic – you know, that dinosaur from that 90s television show)

Betty “Punch Drunk” Friedan

Justin Weinberg ( He’s feminine enough to count, no?)

So what gives? Statistics alone should dictate that we should get at least a passable 6.5 on the scale of hotness, but we’re shooting a lot of 3s, and they get 2 just for being female. These numbers just don’t make sense unless we think that there is reason why hotties are under-represented amongst the feminists. And so I theorize: Feminists grew up in a discriminatory system of sex-selection that privileges the do-able, which then marginalizes the less-than-appealing to isolation, speed dating and perpetual virginity; hence, feminists were left hurt and embittered by the system that oppressed them; and so armed with The Feminine Mystique and whatever the hell Judith Butler is talking about, they resisted and rejected their oppression, declaring their autonomy from both it and all men. Now because feminists have no power or control within this system, nor over men (betas don’t count), they seek to control the way other people see the system and men, which then pushes feminists toward the educational system, particularly the university, because at least there someone will have to pay attention to their nagging whining crying sour grapes criticism.

So that’s my theory. Red pilled, I know. But it is to keep in mind that feminists don’t really want their feminism: They would have been happy donning the apron, pregnant and making sandwiches, for the domesticated role is built into the natural makeup of women; but they’ve been excluded and hurt by men’s unfair, evolutionary psychology, the one that favours silly things, like a symmetrical face and a passable feminine appearance. Thus, feminists are victims of a cruel nature and evolution; and it is our job, as social justice crusaders, to correct this under-privileging, giving the most marginalized and ugly a chance for happiness – that is, a chance at a man.

So what do we do? Well, I’m calling on single men to solider up and date the un-date-ables. You don’t have to actually do anything – just date them. Or paper bag them. Or whatever else.

But just take them out so that they feel included and don’t radicalize, kinda like how we are told to treat Muslims (see link). Otherwise, we allow for the conditions that create Haslangers and Dembroffs, which is no good for anyone.

So boys, it’s time to man-up. Not me, of course, because I’m married (thank God), but for the rest, the trumpet of duty calls. Yes, it’s time to take one for the team.

The end.

31 Comments

  1. This is the dumbest post I’ve ever read on this site. Don’t get me wrong, I love satire and think feminists are essentially heel clicking Nazis, but this isn’t even funny.

    Worst of all I’ll never get those minutes wasted reading back. Fail.

    • Most American men would prefer Hitler and the Nazis to man hating Hillary and the feminists.

  2. This is an unhelpful article. Surely this site is better than this (and I speak as a conservative)?

  3. You could also have mentioned/shown Jennifer Saul, Helen Beebee, Elizabeth Anderson, Christina Van Dyke, etc. Honestly, Justin Weinberg appears quite handsome in the photo, but then I’ve been called Flaming Bob…

    • Because it’s unkind, and I think you should treat people decently even when you disagree with the about politics. Unkindness makes me sad, especially when it’s dressed up as somehow cool or hip, or worse, righteous. Why *aren’t* you “triggered” by it, and since it’s on my mind, why do you use the word “fag”?

    • I certainly wouldn’t want to make you sad, Anony. Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I will strive to do better in the future.

      Fag.

    • Fideist — Could you calm down a bit, please? You asked why other people were, as you put it, “triggered”. I gave you a sincere answer. Maybe you didn’t really want to know the answer to your question. But I wanted to know the answers to mine. Instead I get “fag”. I suppose that’s what I deserve for expecting too much from the internet!

  4. If the so-called feminists (of the left) had done their homework like they were supposed to, they would have taken into full consideration the writings of (not-so-hot) authors like Rand, Isabel Paterson, Anscombe, and Foot, but love-of-wisdom doesn’t seem to be the defining characteristic of so-called feminists of the left. It doesn’t please me in any way to say this; it’s such a tragedy of wasted intellectual resources that I wish it were much different (and more Randian-Aristotelian-classicalliberal).

  5. And, hey, at least Rand has hot chicks in her novels. Do we see ugly chicks all that often as heroines in cinema? Is the lack of hot chicks due to sexism/lookism or due to perfectly normal cultural expectations of beauty in artistic productions? 😮

  6. Note the absence of Martha Nussbaum who not only has better looks but has a reputation based on Aristotelianism and not feminism. Susan Sontag? I hear her novels are self-indulgent, overrated crap (and that there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter).

  7. I also have the impression that women *become* less pretty/uglier when they convert to feminism, or become more deeply involved in feminism. Possible explanations are: the feminist anti-feminine aesthetic, and the physiognomy of suspicion, bitterness, indignation, and plain unhappiness (character traits that feminist theory helps to develop).

    • I didn’t know kate Perry, but a quick google search seems to confirm what you suggest. Let us know if you know anyone famous who has become more attractive after abandoning feminism.

  8. Of course, just to make sure we are not hypocrites, everyone writing and posting on this blog will need to provide a verified picture of themselves.

  9. If gratuitous cruelty and ad hominem are good indicators of where the moral compass of the right points, I’ll just continue being a loony leftist, thank you very much.

  10. Grow up manchild.

    I’d fuck everyone on this list if they wanted. Because having the confidence to not worry one jot whether they’re on some rightwing teen boy’s “10/10 Would FAP to this” list is super attractive.

  11. We need the author of this piece to provide pictures of all the women and men he or she has slept with so we can assess whether the author is any better.

    • Some of us offer comedic relief. Others offer something more intellectual. You’re welcome to chime in on my blogposts if you’re looking to critique something.

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)