Maxim explains “How to Cure a Feminist”
Given that we live in a feminazi gynocracy, with evil feminasties controlling all that we see and hear, it’s amazing that something like this ever found its way into print. This is from Maxim, in 2003. I found it here. Click on it to see it full size.
In the interest of accuracy, I would like to note that the woman pictured below might not be an actual feminist, as her armpit hair appears to be fake.
From Maxim, 2003.
NOTE: This post contains
Posted on December 13, 2011, in antifeminism, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, idiocy, misogyny, reactionary bullshit, that's not funny!. Bookmark the permalink. 521 Comments.
>>What he’s pointing out is that believe it or not, there are markets in dating just as there are markets in material commodities.
There ought to be a name for the fallacy that consists purely of rephrasing the original thesis in a slightly different manner and using that rephrasing as evidence of the original thesis.
Ahhhhh markets. Really good at providing functional medium-sized bread boxes or whatever. Really bad at important things like clean air and water or understanding the motivations of an entire gender(s).
@Kollege Messerschmitt
That bothered me too. What is with this really pervasive view that women don’t actually enjoy sex, just for the sake of sex?
But it (and the oral question) also made me laugh, because what sex acts I enjoy or do not enjoy is not really something I share with someone on the first date or upon first meeting or anything. So I’m not really sure how it can be associated with my perceived value as a hookup or potential girlfriend.
Viscaria, I think the theory runs “if women liked sex, they’d all be fucking me, and they aren’t, QED”
(Now watch as my pet cactus shows up)
I also liked how a woman loses points if she knows how to apply makeup to enhance her looks. The “correct” answer is that a woman should look the same with or without makeup. Apparently the genius who designed this test doesn’t realize that even models and actresses tend to look more conventionally attractive when made up.
And I’m not really concerned about my dating “market value” since I am (A) married and (B) still asked out on dates all the time. I think this is what some MRAs and PUAs find infuriating, the fact that women have better options. So, even if a woman had a “perfect” score on this test, fitting their stereotypical idea of attractive, which apparently means having tiny hands, a submissive personality, and anime-style eyes, they’ll just remind her that she better settle now before her market value declines. The impotent fury at women who may not need them is so transparent. It’s pathetic. Who on earth wants a partner that sticks around only out of low self-esteem?
The make up question was one of my favorite:
Technically, answer 3 is true for me. However, since I don’t wear make-up, that’s not exactly proof I have a face that could launch a thousand ships. (hint: I don’t)
I guess that like that like old and fat women, I’m undatable!
BTW, maybe it’s because I don’t use any, but I’m very bad at noticing make up. So, could someone confirm (or not) my hunch? On the two pictures, it seems to me that the left one has more make-up (and hair trimming) than the right one.
Actually, answer 2 works for me as well. Last time I had make-up, I looked like a murderous pregnant cheating widow, and the time before that I looked like a witch. Both on purpose.
…
Maybe 1 is true too, in light of this memory. I couldn’t say.
There ought to be a name for the fallacy that consists purely of rephrasing the original thesis in a slightly different manner and using that rephrasing as evidence of the original thesis.
Not to mention opening it with “believe it or not” or some such.
Feminists take PUAs wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too seriously. They should just be laughing/mocking/ridiculing them as their *game* consists of nothing but corny pick-up lines. Here’s an idea: READ their material and when a guy tries it on you,ask him if he learned from said PUA manual.
that’s basically what’s going on in this thread dude. (and um, y’know. this site) did you read it before you decided to throw in your usual brand of content-free contrarianism? do you need a pat on the head for noticing things?
pua shit actually helped me with a girl once.
i used to be a kaplan instructor. as part of the application process you have to do an audition where you prepare a fake lesson on some subject you know. it can be anything and you get points for creativity. (i did ‘how to operate an arc welder’. my favorite was ‘how to pick out the perfect melon’) one dude had a lesson called ‘how to meet women in a bar’ that was all about’angles of approach and indicators of interest and kino. making fun of that shit to the girl i saw the next night definitely helped.
Sharculese,
When I went to visit a FWB, he had one of those e-books about “how to pick up women”. He asked me my opinion on the matter, and I basically tore it to shreds. Because it’s crap! Also, it’s really dehumanizing and shitty, and also sort of hilarious. You can play your numbers games, and eventually, something will work out, but you can’t magically control people. Funny how that works!
noname:
Stephanie:
Me:
ozy:
Example of why it’s not harmless silliness:
ahahahaahah
“Feminists take PUAs wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too seriously.”
Yeah, teaching dudes how to stalk, harrass and ultimately rape women is just giggles and funsies!
have YOU ever read their material?
Thanks, Kyrie, for providing direct rapetastic quotes.
Kyrie: Anyway, if “dressing sexy when other people than husband can see you” and “noticing sexy people” (just noticing discretely, not even mentioning) is failing as monogamy, then you’re right, monogamy is probably dead.
And always has been. Just look at the ways in which fashionable women spent money on clothing in the “good old days” that NWO likes to prattle on about.
But he’s got, “the truth” which means he doesn’t have to think anymore.
Holly: NWO, if someone’s brain is telling them that the CIA had put a chip under their skin (and, let’s be clear here, there is no chip), then their brain is telling them something that’s not true.
Or that the Rothchild’s were funding international feminism and Title IX had a police force with unlimited jurisdiction.
Kyrie: That second one is terrifying. He’s just straight-up telling guys to rape women. There’s no other possible interpretation.
katz: I just knew of the digital angel and grabbed the first link that popped up. …OK, admittedly, some of those results are pretty hilarious, but none of them are NWO’s mind-control website.
Google results are not the same for everyone anymore. I was reading a paper on it recently. Fellow had people he knew enter the exact same string at the same time; they got different results. If he changed browsers, or used a different profile on the same machine, different results.
So NWO may be telling the truth.
That’s actually fascinating. What if, after searching for examples of women being evil for years, Google has built him a profile that says “this person likes to read about women doing bad things, put those hits at the top of the list”? And then he assumes that a. that’s reality and b. everyone else is seeing the same thing and lying about it.
Did they really post an article mentioning a tv show that had been off the air for fifteen years?
Crissa, don’t forget, the article is from, like, 2003.
>>When I went to visit a FWB, he had one of those e-books about “how to pick up women”.
I don’t know about you, but for me that would automatically trigger the need to reevaluate whether that friend is worthy of my benefits, if you know what I mean.
Why should any man bother with feminists in the first place (except the renegade-male political housepets widely infesting university campuses and internet blogs like manboobz)? The same political/ sexual blinders that predispose her into being a feminist probably also work against a relationship with you (unless you’re a lezzie, and we don’t have to even go there from here) in the first place.
Years of envy of advantages of being male, both (occasionally) real, and more often imagined, makes the gender-egalitarian female (feminist, or “modern woman”) so unattractive, pushy, boring, opinionated, and ill-tempered that any kind of relationship that a healthy man would want-and deserve-from a real woman would be almost impossible in her case. Can you imagine what it would be like once she gets on the subject of careers for women-even after marriage? You are studying e.g. legal philosophy and she wants to be a police detective or a trial lawyer. You are studying mathematics and she wants to be a chemical engineer. You take it from there!
“Anything you can do, I can do better”…
They don’t call them “bitches” for nothing! They are either incurable, or just not worth the damn effort. Seek out and enjoy REAL women for a change. Even if the sex is good (SOME modern women pride themselves upon being highly “sexual”) the rest of her personality and temperment is just so anti-male and envious/resentful that she is about as much fun as a bad case of ptomaine or influenza; not necessarily deadly, but very painful and unpleasant!
” Can you imagine what it would be like once she gets on the subject of careers for women-even after marriage? You are studying e.g. legal philosophy and she wants to be a police detective or a trial lawyer. You are studying mathematics and she wants to be a chemical engineer. You take it from there!”
Are you of the opinion that people never marry based on shared interests or profession? Cause out here in the real world I see that a lot. Or are you claiming a woman would get it into her head to suddenly pursue a career COMPETIN’ with her husband just to piss him off?? In the real world, plenty of people to marry people that share their interests.
Also, you’re doing this on Christmas?
Go get some cheer!
BlackBloc | December 20, 2011 at 10:12 am
>>When I went to visit a FWB, he had one of those e-books about “how to pick up women”.
I don’t know about you, but for me that would automatically trigger the need to reevaluate whether that friend is worthy of my benefits, if you know what I mean.
………………….
Same here. I’d be all… Is there some… reason for this? I mean, I did download some to spork at one point, so there might be an excuse, but you gotta wonder, man!
Zhinxi-25 December 2011 @ 11:20 am
It is wonderful if a couple love each other, and even marry, because of shared interests. It is simply awful how feminists-NOT women-are so arch-competitive, envious, and just plain bitter that they would sabotage their own relationships-and the men who love them-solely to ‘piss him off”! That is probably one of the differences between normal women and feminists.
This isn’t my idea! Far too many men have been unpleasantly surprised by encounters with modern women whose envy with, and rivalry toward men was so intense that they ruined what could have been good pairings!
Not my idea!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! And good cheer to you!
Meller, even NWO is taking the day off from the hate, so far. Hint, hint.
“‘“Anything you can do, I can do better”…”
Meller, since this is Christmas, here is my gift to you: my boyfriend is (very) good at math, and I don’t think I can do that better than him. Also, memory. He has a great one, and I have a terrible one.
Happy kittens to everybody!
X-mas day@ 1:41pm-
Happy kitties to you too, hellkell!