Could Feminists(and male suppporters) be Angry because they are ugly?

**SiliconMagician** · May 13 2012, 10:17 AM

In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.

Makes sense.. I mean here's a pretty accurate description of your average feminist.

If it came to be widely understood and socially acceptable to acknowledge that, due to hormonal imbalance, genetic glitches, or gross environmental insult, 90% of radical fems are lesbians or manjawed atrocities, and 90% of manboobs are closet cases or soft, pillowy micropeens, the general population would be less likely to seriously entertain their insipid drivel.

Now imagine you stomp through life as one of these howling feminists or putrid nancyboys, like Grendel disturbed by the sights and sounds of normalcy all around him. You sense, in your darkest secret thoughts, that most people are repulsed by you, want to have nothing to do with you, would be embarrassed to be seen with you. How do you think that would affect your mental state? First, you would seek out others like you. Monstrosity loves company. Then, you would lash out at anything normal, elevating the wicked and deviant while eroding confidence in the good and beautiful, twisting cherished moral standards that work adequately to sustain a normal population into bizarre, exaggerated facsimiles manufactured solely to do the bidding of your freak cohort.

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/

Grendels disturbed at the sight of normalcy all around them.

It is awful funny that most feminists are ugly hags.

**Catenaccio** · May 13 2012, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

Makes sense.. I mean here's a pretty accurate description of your average feminist.

Grendels disturbed at the sight of normalcy all around them.

It is awful funny that most feminists are ugly hags.

You site an outrageously inappropriate, unscientific and outright sexist blog as a source? Should I be surprised?

**MisLed** · May 13 2012, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Catenaccio

You site an outrageously inappropriate, unscientific and outright sexist blog as a source? Should I be surprised?

just like NOW's or Planned Parenthoods. LoL

**Catenaccio** · May 13 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by MisLed

just like NOW's or Planned Parenthoods. LoL

Deflection at best. We both know the source in the OP is vile. Regardless of your opinion on either of your mentions, they're more professional in presentation.

**SiliconMagician** · May 13 2012, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Catenaccio

Deflection at best. We both know the source in the OP is vile. Regardless of your opinion on either of your mentions, they're more professional in presentation.

Vile? Since when was discussing evolutionary psychology and the actions that it heavily influences vile?

You turn your nose up at hard science distilled into rhetoric you don't like.

Sexist rebellion is the natural outcome of the establishment of a matriarchy that yokes men into a form of voluntary servitude yet leaves him no legal protections against the theft that is divorce.

**Catenaccio** · May 13 2012, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

Vile? Since when was discussing evolutionary psychology and the actions that it heavily influences vile?

You turn your nose up at hard science distilled into rhetoric you don't like.

Your quote makes random conjecture. It attempts, sort of, to quantify. It makes no reference to science. Any mention is tenuous at best. It's an opinion piece. One written with the most vulgar of language. It's far from a 'source', far from professional.

**Maple_Leif** · May 13 2012, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

Makes sense.. I mean here's a pretty accurate description of your average feminist.

Grendels disturbed at the sight of normalcy all around them.

It is awful funny that most feminists are ugly hags.

How this relates to an actual debate i am perturbed by. Calling into question the attractiveness of someone in relation to their beliefs on social and gender specific roles in society is beyond me. Yet not only was this called into question but then to be considered humorous is another thing. To say that "most feminists are ugly hags" is not only a hasty generalization but a crude attempt at an argument. I find it hard to believe that sexism is a direct cause of the attractiveness of a person and refuse to acknowledge this to be fact when your source is a sexist blog in itself. Not only is your proof discredited but it makes you appear to be a hyprocrite. To criticize women feminists by siting a sexist blog screams "HEY, im sexist! Men rule!" yet you were attacking sexism in the other direction. Therefore your argument is completely irrelevent to any sensical minded reader.