Onward feminist progress!

Vanessa Friedman of the New York Times is ecstatic, convinced that the new Pirelli calendar featuring 12 months of feminists is a sign that we are finally creating a New Feminist Man (LSFW, and Not Safe For Your Lunch): The 2016 Pirelli Calendar May Signal a Cultural Shift

Along with Playboy’s decision in October to end nudity in its pages, the Pirelli pivot seems to give real substance to the theory that we are at a flexion point in the public objectification of female sexuality.

Friedman’s fantasy is that since the Pirelli calendar is given to an exclusive group of opinion leaders, this will usher in a new era where women’s achievements are what will make them sexy.

[this is] the first time the attraction of the subjects is in their résumés, not their measurements.

This isn’t just stock feminist delusion, it is also an excellent example of Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism:

The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

This is also about feminist territory marking.  Tire shops are a male space, and changing the calendar is about marking these spaces as female:

And as Ms. Zimmerman said: “Women have a disproportionately loud voice compared to their male counterparts. And for those women it is no longer socially acceptable to walk into a high-end garage that sells Pirelli tires and see a calendar with naked girls on the wall. You’d drive right out again in that Mercedes you came in with.”

This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Fantasy vs Reality, Feminist Territory Marking, Sailer's Law of Female Journalism, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

155 Responses to Onward feminist progress!

  1. Minesweeper says:

    I saw the calendar, wanted to vomit.

  2. Minesweeper says:

    The womenz certainly wont have to worry about it adorning the walls of the local garage any more and offending their sensibilities.

    If you need a swift purgative for food poisoning, it will certainly help.

  3. Minesweeper says:

    In other news, I really dont recommend anyone bar the most feminist homosexual men look at the calendar, even then, you should prepare for counseling.

  4. Minesweeper says:

    Sorry, I meant “emetic”.

    Although the calendar just might have a purgative effect also. YMMV.

  5. Pingback: Onward feminist progress! | Manosphere.com

  6. enrique says:

    I’m waiting for the George Costanza calendar for women, (as well as the specialty/fetish dating website) that focuses on *strong, independent, financially successful, yet short, and/or bald, and/or fat men–whom women should love for the sake of their success (and commitment to feminist principles).

  7. Pingback: Onward feminist progress! | Neoreactive

  8. Minesweeper says:

    The male equ in the link above. Dont know if you need to approve D or not ! Its a link from facebook 9gag.

    Will try again : https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/12249584_1414804821866570_9129194331999808182_n.png?oh=8a52574c9e22434483c350a77e8abca5&oe=56E59571

  9. Regular Guy says:

    Words seem to have such a strong influence on women’s emotions to the point they feel that “saying it makes it so”. This way of looking at the world allows them to experience The Word in a different way than men, but unfortunately this makes them easily deceived. They want to believe that masculine behavior is nothing more than a social construct so could then manipulate it with adolescent demands. You can tell they feel their own loss of SMV to the degree it drives them to say the most laughable things. It’s repulsive, but at the same time amazing to see how crazy women can be.

  10. enrique says:

    exactly! “STOP FAT SHAMING CURVY MEN” Also, “real men eat potted meat and drive crappy cars…to and from their blue collar job”

    Also, as I once posted on Rollo’s blog, any man dating should make clear, despite all the past trips to Spain and Hawaii and the sports cars…he is looking to marry, settle down in a quiet town and just be a homebody with a regular ol’ pick up truck. Those “fast and furious years” of buying expensive jewelry for his g/f, the expensive, pampered trips to foreign lands…”that’s the OLD me”.

  11. Regular Guy says:

    Come to think of it, I’ve never looked at a calendar of hot chicks and said to myself, “I should go buy X product”. However, this is a special case I would think of avoiding Pirelli tires the next time I need rubber on my bike. Mission accomplished, Pirelli. Be sure you thank your marketing department.

  12. theasdgamer says:

    How about “Stop shaming nice guys!” as an anti-shaming slogan? No, it’s not gonna work anymore than attemps to shame men for not finding fuglies attractive, but it will show how silly the feminist shame-attempt is if it’s framed properly.

  13. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    These women are completely delusional. No amount of emotional abuse inflicted on men and boys through brainwashing is going to change male biology.

  14. Minesweeper says:

    From Ronins link above, for all you lovely ladies out there, we are thinking of you this one :

    They are fine figure’s of men.

  15. You’d drive right out again in that Mercedes you came in with

    That her husband likely paid for…

  16. Minesweeper says:

    And they are carrying it off with aplomb.

  17. Minesweeper says:

    My original link above that wont display, now should (thank you google), ladies feast your eyes :

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    From time to time on this and other blogs, men will ask “How much farther can the insanity go?”

    The answer is, “A lot farther than you think it can”, as this latest failed fitness test shows. Yes, this is a sh*t test and Pirelli management has failed it.

    PS: I’ve run Pirelli tires and they were good, but now I’ll be buying something else.

  19. Miserman says:

    Magazines like Playboy are touted as “exploiting women,” but the women were not exactly forced with threats of violence to pose nor are they threatened today. Feminism talks freedom for female sexuality then criticize men for taken women up on it.

  20. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    PS: I’ve run Pirelli tires and they were good, but now I’ll be buying something else.

    I tried a set of their Scorpion AT tires on my pickup 15 years ago. While they were passable off road, I don’t think I got over two years out of them before they started picking up every nail and screw in the road and I had to replace them. They just didn’t wear well.

  21. Bike Bubba says:

    Well, you’ve got to admit that for once, there are tires on some of the models for the calendar, specifically Miss Schumer. She’s not quite ranking up there with the Michelin Man, but it’s a lot closer than a traditional Pirelli (or Ridgid) calendar.

    And whatever one thinks of the traditional calendars, I really can’t wrap my mind around why anyone would want a calendar laden with poorly dressed executives and such. You look at the June page, and think “Gosh, she’s responsible for my whole division and could fire me at any time. Guess I’d better skip buying tires and get back to work.” You have to really, really buy a fairly strict line of thought to go for that one.

  22. Regular Guy says:

    @ Miserman

    Unattractive women need the “Exploitation of Women” narrative because threads the needle of inhibiting attractive women’s ability to compete in the Sexual Marketplace while reducing division in the Sisterhood of the Feminine Imperative. The faux concern feminists have for women who use their attractiveness to get ahead is nothing more than peer pressure tactics to bring these women back in line with the herd’s collective bargaining power.

  23. Minesweeper says:

    @”Bike Bubba says: December 1, 2015 at 11:49 am
    Well, you’ve got to admit that for once, there are tires on some of the models for the calendar, ”

    Brilliant ! I hadn’t made the connections, very apt indeed.

  24. Peter Blood says:

    Annie ((((Leibovitz)))) as is customary for this kind of thing.

  25. Peter Blood says:

    You really need to add trigger warnings for the links to Vanessa Friedman and to the NYT calendar pics.

  26. Novaseeker says:

    Women like Friedman are the female equivalent of betas — “men should be attracted to me for the reasons I think they should be attracted to me> It’s all delusional, calendar or not. The reason Playboy went off porn is because porn has moved on, long ago now, from traditional peddlers, and Playboy can’t compete with it, so it either has to do something else, or perish. As for Perrelli, yes they can use it to sell overpriced, underquality tires to gullible women, while these same women praise them for doing so. It’s priceless, really.

  27. john03063 says:

    The homely girls like Friedman need feminism, just like all of the models in the calendar. You rarely see a hot girl complaining about the way she’s treated….

  28. Yoda says:

    And as Ms. Zimmerman said: “Women have a disproportionately loud voice compared to their male counterparts

    Believe this I could

  29. @RegularGuy
    This is a persuasive argument I’ve seen before. The sexual market inflation out there seems amazing. Men still in their 20s that are pursuing women that are grandmothers. I know of obese women that have been married 4 times by the age of 30. Liz Burton, eat ya heart out.

  30. Panzer101 says:

    There are several comments from alleged men praising Amy Schumer for her “beauty.” I’m just trying to understand the psychology here. Even in my most beta days of yore I could not have lied to such a degree and said, “Oh yeah, she’s hawt.” Have they actually changed the way they understand beauty through years of brainwashing or are they just straight up lying, hoping they will get brownie points from some ugly feminist hag?

    They’re like the guy from 1984 who learns to say 2+2=5 and mean it with all his heart.

  31. Caligula says:

    I’m sure the mainstream press will provide accurate, unbiased coverage of gender issues. After all, practically every editor now has a (free) copy of an essential guide to “fair and accurate language”:

    “Unspinning the Spin: The Women’s Media Center Guide to Fair and Accurate Language” was mailed to every member of the American Society of News Editors. It has a preface written by Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan, who co-founded the Women’s Media Center in 2005 (along with Jane Fonda) to raise the visibility and decision-making power of women in media.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-womens-media-center-language-advisory-balancing-20151201-column.html

  32. Cecil Henry says:

    Be honest ladies.

    The big reason you resent the picture is because to get a man, having a Mercedes won’t help.

    But being the woman on the wall will.

  33. The rising tide of feminism has managed to lift even those faces that could sink a 1,000 ships.

  34. Looking Glass says:

    Thankfully, I didn’t click the links. I’m having a bad enough day already.

  35. Looking Glass says:

    Feminism: Showing off faces that would send a 1000 ships back to port!🙂

  36. TomG says:

    Far from ending the “public objectification of female sexuality”, it chose to emphasize it on unattractive women… old, fat, ugly. And worse, some of them are nude. If ordinary women are to be featured, formal clothing with a lot of makeup and proper lighting is the first step. This stark photography that tends to be shocking with controversial liberal feminist personalities is the wrong approach entirely.

    If Pirelli wanted to do right, it should have not put out a calendar at all. This goes into the dumpster immediately.

  37. LeeLee says:

    In a way, it’s a good thing. The goal of feminism has been to turn obscure truth and destroy beauty for some time now, and looking through some of those pictures just makes that just crystal clear.

    Women will always want to be beautiful. To an extent, women will listen to feminist lies like: it doesn’t matter if you’re a little/a lot fat, beauty doesn’t fade with age don’t worry, etc because it takes some of the pressure off. And women like to have the pressure off. But at the end of the day, they still want to be pretty. And to see it like this! It exposes the liars and their many lies.

    That picture of Amy Schumer. I feel sorry for her.

  38. Joe says:

    Yoko Ono? Jeebus. She was fugly in the 60’s. And yeah, Amy Shumer. Oh my.

    On the other hand, it’s nice seeing aging leftist icons exploit other aging leftist icons and to lie to them about still being hot. There is a pathetic-ness to it that makes me guffaw. “Your tits… they’re so… intellectually accomplished. I can’t believe these were there at the 1973 ERA NOW rally where you burned your bra with Ellie Smeal. you know, that really turns me on. Now tell me how Bella Abzug stood up for a woman’s right to choose at the Women’s Peace Encampment.”

    Oh yeah. So hot. Soooo attractive.

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    Have they actually changed the way they understand beauty through years of brainwashing or are they just straight up lying, hoping they will get brownie points from some ugly feminist hag?

    Well…

    They’re like the guy from 1984 who learns to say 2+2=5 and mean it with all his heart.

    That’d be Winston Smith after he’d been to Room 101, if I remember right.

    1984 is a book continues to grow in relevance. I urge men to read it. It’s not that long, a single man or man with no children could read it over a weekend. It is a good lens to use when looking at feminists and other SJW’s.

  40. paddy says:

    See, if ugly women were in charge, there would be less war, because Helen of Troy would have been a cougar!

  41. Looking Glass says:

    1984: The cautionary tale of British collapse… used as a guide-book. Orwell knew he subject well.

  42. Cadders says:

    Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

    This calendar will simply be replaced with one that features gorgeous, sexy, hot, fast…..cars.

    What feminists, and women in general don’t seem to realise is that for an increasing number of men, their real competition is not other women, it’s no women at all.

  43. The Tingler says:

    Googled Vanessa Friedman because I wanted to know how educated a person has to be to write an article that stupid. Graduated from Princeton, by way of Phillips Exeter.

    That’s how educated you have to be to write a sentence this stupid: “And for those women it is no longer socially acceptable to walk into a high-end garage that sells Pirelli tires and see a calendar with naked girls on the wall. You’d drive right out again in that Mercedes you came in with.”

    Princeton, ladies and gentlemen.

  44. Regular Guy says:

    The idea there would be no war if women overtly held the reigns of power of every high office in the world is simply ridiculous. I, for one, believe there would be even MORE wars, drawn out engagements and petty conflicts. Hostilities throughout the world would have no decisive victor but instead, once enough men were killed on each side in the numbers that would make continued war efforts unsustainably catastrophic, the conflict would simply move to social media with catty snippets of, “Your country’s men would have fought harder if you b*tches weren’t so ugly and fat”. Week-after-week of highly televised diplomatic blunders (that could have been avoided with a masculine sense of knowing when to project power and when to shut up) would make any hope the public had diplomacy to vanish like a fart in the wind.

  45. enrique says:

    Regular guy: Your comments on the “Exploitation of Women” could be in the Red Pill bible. So true. Close cousin to that claim of women/feminist types is that (particularly white) men that want foreign women (Asians and Latinas that are sexier, more feminine) are only doing so because they “want a subservient” woman, etc. Of course White Women, who lead the charge, fail to see the Howard Dean-ian racist undertones to such comments (“Republicans only see blacks when they are the wait staff”). White women have NEVER had a problem stereotyping non-white women to serve their own purposes.

    As a husband of a “strong, independent, Latina”, I always ensure I point out how racists such comments are, when made by WW. Usually coupled with, “They are just more feminine, sexier, polite, respectful and make better mothers…..oh, I’m sorry…did that offend you?”

  46. Anonymous Reader says:

    Princeton, ladies and gentlemen.

    Princeton, alma mater of Michelle Obama if I remember rightly.

    Princeton…where Woodrow Wilson is about to become an unperson.
    http://www.worldmag.com/2015/11/take_down_of_a_liberal_icon

  47. Pingback: Onward feminist progress! | Reaction Times

  48. The unbelieveing eye says:

    This calendar is the ugliest piece of misogyny I have ever seen.

  49. Random Angeleno says:

    I agree Pirelli is overpriced crap. Went thru a set years ago … when new, they were outstanding, I mean really outstanding. But they wore out way too fast, I don’t think I got even 20k miles out of this set. Was very disappointed that I already had to get a new set within a year.

    Think more consumers are wising up to the idea that Pirelli isn’t for the common folk, this brand is only for the rich who can afford to change out tire sets every 6 months to a year depending on how they drive.

    Pictures not even worth the ships they sink. Probably makes good birdcage liner.

  50. regret says:

    This is the first time I would have preferred to see a calendar on the radio.

  51. The Tingler says:

    “Princeton…where Woodrow Wilson is about to become an unperson.”

    In liberalism, the young eat the old. In 100 years, all statues of current liberal icons will be torn down for being insufficiently anti-racist, sexist, etc. (especially if they’re white). Today’s SJW is tomorrow’s irredeemable bigot.

  52. I’m guessing the tire buying demographic is changing and Pirelli is cashing in on its perceived status.

    Increasingly higher earning young women with cars, increasing single high income women and divorcees with husband out of the picture.

    Overall it might just be a little indicator of the beginning of male economic decline and Dalrock’s assertion of a lack of provisioning signalling. I’m certainly sure the last thing women want to do is buy tires.

  53. How about a trigger warning for naked Amy Schumer, huh? Anyone know if it’s safe to pour bleach directly onto your eyeballs?

  54. “That’s how educated you have to be to write a sentence this stupid: ”

    Who cares about the men who have to spend all day in that shop? What they want doesn’t matter, any more than what their lugwrench wants matters. They exist to serve women, nothing more.

  55. Women of means that drive high-end cars are morons, they’re going to put on the car what the dealer tells her to put on the car, the dealer is going to put them on at a handsome premium and the woman is going to hand over her AMEX (or her Husband’s) to pay for it without a thought about a calender with ugly or beautiful women on it.

    Just guessing, but I think any woman of means or without means would rather see beautiful, young, fit women on that calender rather than the fugglies that are depicted. A very, VERY small sampling of feminist fatties with their rage pent up would be the only demographic that favors ugly, UGLY women on the calender, not one of them with a husband. For feminist reasons they like this. Progress and out of some notion to stick it to men. But rest assured even they are subject to biological imperative. Even an ugly woman (and the feminists being Lesbians even more so) knows an ugly woman when she sees one and biology takes care of the rest, especially as regards Serena Williams, yuck. Lesbian feminists, in spite of their notion this calender is good, would rather see young beauty. They are NOT getting down with their jackhammer vibrators and a copy of the Pirelli calendar tonight, trust me.

  56. http://therationalmale.com/2015/12/01/the-tyranny-of-biomechanics/

    The Bigger Narrative

    There’s a much larger story being sold here than a fat comedienne’s rationalizing her nude form as championing “authenticity” or “realness”. What we’re observing, yet again, is the frustration of women being able to optimize their inherent Hypergamy against what our evolved biology dictates for them.

    I’ve written extensively on the conflict between an idealized Equalism and human beings’ evolved predilection for Complementarity. Whenever there is a new ‘outrage’ over “body shaming” or “fat shaming”, with a Red Pill lens we can see what this conflict represents: The frustration women experience, and the anxiety of insecurity they feel when presented with the prospect of not being able to optimize their Hypergamous impulses because simple biology selects them out based on their physicality.

    No doubt Leibovitz believes in her rationalization that she’s shooting artful nudes without the mythical ‘male gaze’ in mind, but she knows on a visceral level the form of every nude woman in art throughout history has been rendered with the intent of replicating a beauty that inspires arousal (thus the ode to the pin-up). The simple hard-coded fact of nature is that the form of a semi-nude woman, by order of degree, stimulates the area of the male brain associated with tool use and thereby objectification. On a limbic level, sex with beautiful, arousing women is literally a problem to be solved by the male brain.

    Leibovitz gets this. In fact she banks money on instigating the deliberate contradiction that human biology poses to her own (and a larger society’s) ego-investments in blank-slate Equalism. The root of this prefabricated indignation rests in women’s existential doubt of optimizing Hypergamy. That doubt conflicts with the uncertainty of establishing a social order that will force men to act and be influenced by idealized Equalism rather than their evolved biology.

    In other words, the latent purpose of this social order is to force men to comply with women’s sexual strategy, irrespective of their evolved sexual arousal cues.

    The ostensible want for an ideal Equalism, or a dubious gender parity, is really the cover story for the want of 100% consolidated control over their ability to optimize Hypergamy by literally controlling the sexual selection choices men are able to make for themselves.

  57. @ Rollo,

    Rollo, what do they care what masculine men think? They show us little regard, us men that prefer young beauty. They can’t redefine for us what our biology drives us toward )and away from which is THEM) and still I wonder, why would they care? These are learned women, they have to know they can’t redefine our own masculine chemistry, nor I contend, their own. This is vanity, perhaps, but what do they care what WE think? Other than to make us vomit by publishing vomitous pictures of ages, ugly, slutty women?

  58. @Jim, from my article:

    T-Rex Wants to Hunt

    T-rex doesn’t want to be fed; he wants to hunt. You can’t just suppress sixty-five million years of gut instinct. – Dr. Grant, Jurassic Park

    Sexuality, families, and men did not come about because of society. To the contrary, sexuality, families, and men are what made society possible in the first place. – Pook

    These are some excellent examples of the conflict I’ve described above here. The Equalism of Annie Leibovitz – the dubious societal idealism that hopes these fundamental, biological underpinnings can be overridden by a self-defined higher order cognitivism – will always lock horns with the T-Rex that represents human biology. Annie and the rest of the prophetesses of gender equality are only, symbolically, trying to feed the T-Rex of evolved gender dynamics in the hopes he’ll stay in the paddock, behave himself and only occasionally put on a good show for the customers.

    However, even in the hopes of that a contrived, idealized gender Equalism will ever pull the teeth of the T-Rex, the same evolved need women have for Hypergamous certainty informs the concept of what that ideal “equality” should look like. The T-Rex is women too.

  59. JDG says:

    <emMinesweeper on December 1, 2015 at 11:29 am

    LOL

  60. Anonymous Reader says:

    regret
    This is the first time I would have preferred to see a calendar on the radio.

    Thread winner.

  61. retrophoebia says:

    She’s illiterate. She says “flexion” and means “inflection.” Princeton, turning out our media elites.

  62. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Just followed the link and saw the pictures. Good Lord. With business savvy like this, Pirelli’s next move will be to slash the tires right before they try to sell them to us.

  63. Anonymous Reader says:

    Wait, Amy Schumer is in multiple pix? What, wasn’t Lena Dunham available, too?

  64. Yoda says:

    Watching feminist icons for 800 years I have.
    Andrea Dworkin grace a calendar she should,

  65. Boxer says:

    Amy Schumer isn’t terrible looking, but she doesn’t have a nice pinup body. Serena Williams would look OK if she weren’t such a masculinized cougar. The rest are just bizarre. Really. Look at the March entry. It’s two dykes, one of whom looks to be about 70, and the other about 16.

    Feminists really don’t understand men at all.

  66. Nancy Pelosy says:

    I thought it was a wildlife post when I saw it. Serena Flamin Williams. WTF. All men (even gays lol) would pay that primate to keep its clothes on. Like mannish primitive muscles. Yuck. WTF would pay for this. Boycott ugly cult-marxist Poo-ellii tyres.

  67. Novaseeker says:

    Feminists really don’t understand men at all.

    I think the point is to stick it in men’s eyes — as in either (1) “fuck you, men, we don’t care what you think about what good looking is” (except, of course, when it comes to brass tacks, individual women who aren’t gay do care a lot because they have to) or (2) we’re the ones buying the tires, so we’ll take a calendar full of feminist images, because your tastes don’t matter due to our stronger purchasing power — in other words another case of “fuck you, men”, but in an economic key rather than a sexual one.

  68. Anon says:

    The delusion is astronomical (and is evidence of Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism).

    In reality, the level of female perfection that a man needs to see to get aroused is rising.

    In an age of HD Internet porn, a still picture of a perfect 10 in a calendar or magazine probably does not do it anymore.

    Any topless scene that we saw in a movie from our adolescence, if seen today, seems like “Was that what I was all excited about?’.

  69. Anon says:

    The layers of delusion are several :

    1) Most of these ‘successful’ women are only such because of government fiat, AA, and other feminist resource-transfers.
    2) To say they are hot is, of course, insane.

    So the success is artificial, and then they think that their achievements make them hot (while still having them pose nude rather than in professional attire).

  70. Anon says:

    Tingler,

    Googled Vanessa Friedman because I wanted to know how educated a person has to be to write an article that stupid. Graduated from Princeton, by way of Phillips Exeter.

    Very few women become MORE useful to society by attending an elite institution.

    The 10% or so who do study a useful field and succeed in that field on their own merits, are more than dwarfed by the 40-70% that actually become overtly useless or harmful to society from the credential and the ego/delusion it gives them.

    Net net, affirmative action and feminism means that the amount being poured into educating women is a negative-return investment.

  71. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Boxer

    Amy Schumer isn’t terrible looking, but she doesn’t have a nice pinup body. Serena Williams would look OK if she weren’t such a masculinized cougar.

    You’re overlooking the single worst pick of all. Yoko Ono? Who already tried posing nude once, and when she had the benefit of youth on her side? Everyone who saw that is still trying to recover.

  72. @ Rollo, @ Novaseeker,

    You gents are learned men, but it sounds like, from your patient explanations to the beseeching masses that these women, hate us though they may, STILL want US, to want THEM. In the end, my feeling is, the fuggly-feminists (who are the girls no one took to the prom) are unwanted and not happy about it, so their aim, if they cannot be wanted by anyone, is to make those who are wanted, who are content, who are happy with their women, to make everyone else miserable. As a bonus, to get everyone at each others’ throats. Am I close? They want a man to want them, they can’t have it and they are PISSED off. Well, they aren’t changing the biological imperative of anyone here, but if they weren’t so miserable, they could find beta/gamma company. Being miserable IS a choice and a living for these women, I guess. Thanks one and all. I know the results, but the path to the result, gender wars, baffles me. SO unnecessary and sad.

  73. Dragonfly says:

    ““It would be a huge disappointment,” Ms. Neshat said, if Pirelli 2017 were to “abandon the idea of the women who define modern life, and go back to sexy girls who are too young to have accomplished anything.””

    This quote above is quite telling in the article… showing their obvious despise for “sexy girls” “too young to have accomplished anything.”

    It’s always the older women (or unattractive/plain women) who seem to really despise the younger women being shown or popular for their beauty or sexiness.

  74. grey_whiskers says:

    @Panzer101, @AnonymousReader, @Looking Glass —

    “He gazed up at the enormous thighs. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Bertha”

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dragonfly
    It’s always the older women (or unattractive/plain women) who seem to really despise the younger women being shown or popular for their beauty or sexiness.

    The intrasexual competition between women is always quite ruthless, and nothing anger-scares a post-Wall spinster like a fertile pre-Wall single woman.

  76. @Dragonfly,
    “It’s always the older women (or unattractive/plain women) who seem to really despise the younger women being shown or popular for their beauty or sexiness.”. Concur, but the older, feminist and blatantly or closeted lesbian activists would still rather have the young and traditional beauties in the calendar and in their beds than Serena Williams and the rest of those mannish trolls selected by Perelli.

    Even a feminist has a biological imperative toward feminine beauty.

  77. Spike says:

    Just googled the photos. What has been seen cannot be unseen….
    Amy Schumer is looking more like the Michelin Man than a Pirelli girl, certainly. As for the rest, huh? It’s some arty thing I nor any other man understands.

    @Dragonfly,”Too young to have accomplished anything” is hilarious, when you consider that Schumer is a bad comedian who would have pulled political favors to have maneouvered herself into showbiz. Serena Williamss – okay, she plays tennis, but she plays a game. She doesn’t do anything for humanity other than that.

    It seems to me that the women assembling this calendar have a massively overrated view of their influence on the world, quite delusional.

  78. They Call Me Tom says:

    Only thing that would keep me from looking more than Amy Schumer, is if Lena Dunham was mentioned. So I’m not bothering to click any links.

  79. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    The Tingler [December 1, 2015 at 2:37 pm] says:

    Googled Vanessa Friedman because I wanted to know how educated a person has to be to write an article that stupid. Graduated from Princeton, by way of Phillips Exeter.

    That’s how educated you have to be to write a sentence this stupid: “And for those women it is no longer socially acceptable to walk into a high-end garage that sells Pirelli tires and see a calendar with naked girls on the wall. You’d drive right out again in that Mercedes you came in with.”

    Princeton, ladies and gentlemen.

    Princeton, or Harvard, or whatever: a lot of buildings on a big campus, see; empty vessels into which one could fit any gaggle of humans, engaged in any activity whatever. It’s something akin to how there is a marine snail, and its shell — that which is living in the shell, however, might be a goby fish or a hermit crab, with the snail long demised and rotted away. The mere continuity of occupation of the university campus’ offices by people with multiple degrees doesn’t mean that Princeton (or Harvard, or whatever) still is what it was. The snail of honest intellectual inquiry on university campuses (in the Humanities, at any rate) died long ago & rotted away, to be replaced by the gobies of Gender & Queer Studies and the hermit crabs of Social Justice.

    Never mistake the shell for the snail.

    Just sayin’

    Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)

  80. I just puked in my mouth. Thanks Dalrock and special thanks to the Pellegrino water I am drinking because you definitely don’t want to click on that link if you are eating eggs.

  81. BradA says:

    They won’t sell or even give away too many copies this year. I bet none will end up on the walls of auto repair shops, except possibly for a temporary publicity stunt.

  82. pukeko60 says:

    Typical SJW entryism. The goal is to change the calendar. The purpose of the calendar — which is encourage mechanics to push Pirelli Tyres — is forgotten. The core market (men who use spanners) is forgotten.

    And if it fails, it matters not, because narrative.

    These people destroy things. They almost took out Mozilla. They took out Ada (programming language). They have almost ruined Ubuntu, and are working on Debian. Do not even let them into the room. There are far better pictures in the analog photography groups on Facey than Leibowitz. Because most photogs — at least the amateur ones — want to capture beauty, not celebrate ugliness. In scenery, in humanity, and on the street.

  83. Rum says:

    It occurs to me that no more than one in a thousand modern ladies have any notion of how a tire is changed, or how it is made, or anything about the design of a Mercedes (anymore than its status signaling value).

    No poem or love song was ever inspired by a woman that looked anything like Amy Shumer. And she knows it. Oh yes, she knows it.

  84. jg says:

    @Rollo
    I think their strategy is finally beginning to work. I am seeing more and more quality dudes with chicks that are way beneath them. And not just ugly chicks with money who get himbos.

  85. MV says:

    OT: A newest piece of IslamicState propaganda (totally authentic, according to a high pentagon official, who wished to remain unnamed;)

  86. Katharine_Di_Cerbo says:

    New York Times Wedding announcement for Vanessa Friedman and her husband: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/16/style/weddings-ms-friedman-mr-stewart.html
    Just a bunch of pretentious posturing.

    To women like her, feminism is really just about ego glorification. She went to THE most exclusive schools in the country from childhood through college (no exaggeration) thanks to her father’s connections, so she wants to live in a world where she can be top dog based on the frivolous positions (fashion editor at the Financial Times lol) she’s “earned” thanks to her pedigree. The alternative would be having to work hard to share status with a bunch of other women based on things like character, attractiveness, enjoyable demeanor, etc.

    The other day I read a different article in the NY Times about the woes of Ivy League graduates losing status after giving up work temporarily to care for infants.
    Here is the article: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/i-wanted-to-stay-home-with-my-son-so-why-would-i-lie-about-it/

    And here is a top comment:
    “Been there, done that. Ivy educated undergrad, ivy graduate degree, voted most likely to be on the cover of Forbes by my classmates – until I gave birth to my son and couldn’t bear the thought of leaving him. Like the author, I came to find a sense of peace and security in my decision when he was about a year old.
    However, flash forward 12 years and two more children later, and I am now working part-time from home consulting small businesses while the kids are at school and feeling pretty darn jealous of colleagues who didn’t opt out and even more embarrassed at school reunions. I don’t know what the answer is, but I would encourage the author to make her leave of absence shorter rather than longer. I wish I could show my daughters how high they could fly instead of only tell them.”

    This woman is disgusting. She is longing for euphoric personal gratification, and she is claiming that missing out on it is bad for her children. And she is implying that men automatically get this gratification while still getting to take good care of families, but this is not true. Everyone has to face trade-offs, and men who prioritize career glory above all else pay a price in the form of family problems, too.

    When people hide a rabid desire to enhance their own status behind a transparent veil claiming to further the common good, they need to be exposed. They themselves don’t typically even realize it’s what they are doing, so efficiently do they convert their status-hunger into perceived victimization and oppression.

  87. gunslingergregi says:

    whats interesting is that the number one way to increase womans self esteem after having kids would be not making their bellies look like a frankinstein movie with the c section
    but that would be real change i guess
    from what i have seen it can’t be anything but intentional is there some sort of psychological basis to it or some book that was written to do it?
    and is it changing?
    could that be part of the reason to wait on having kids for some woman
    if you could advertise no disfigurement from have a kid
    would that then help woman be more open to having a kid
    since a lot of womans value is based on looks and they know it

  88. desiderian says:

    Nova,

    “‘fuck you, men, we don’t care what you think about what good looking is'”

    Sure, but keep in mind it’s the same “fuck you” as the bitter beta saying “fuck you women for digging jerks,” when in reality what women actually dig is a masculinity that the betas themselves could provide if they weren’t so solipsistic.

    Likewise for these women and their lack of femininity. By posing nudish, they could be groping their way back to it.

  89. enrique says:

    Katharine: Good points. I live around a bunch of these types of women and what amazes me is how completely self-absorbed they are. As a Red Pill aware guy (before there even was the RP), married to a foreigner, I’ve always seen right through them, but just assumed other women nodded in agreement when they hear these “Ivy” types talk…glad you have the lenses to see them for what they are. Men that talk like that, in whatever equivalent you can think of, would have other men rolling their eyes, and calling them a douchebag.

    YAC YAC: Agreed on high end universities and college more in general now. They’ve oversold their value (literally and figuratively), and as you note, those high end ones (Ivy and pretend Ivy ones, Southern Ivys like Duke, UVa, Tulane, etc) don’t carry the same weight as they used to, not only because they’ve well earned bad reputation and simply housing projects for precious snowflakes, but because even their own peers (millennials whatever they are calling the 18-25 years now) have no idea about most of the world around them. Outside of the Northeast types, I bet 90 percent of 18-25 year olds have no idea who Woodrow Wilson is, enough to even BE offended. Is Luster Lost, if no one is paying attention in the forest?

    The Academic Industrial Complex is simply a machine that’s purpose is to continually employ liberals and society’s non producers. Women’s and Africana studies have zero value outside of their world, and no utility outside of academic and in some cases, government work.

  90. enrique says:

    speaking of pinups, 18 year old Kylie Jenner reflects back on her life: ““I feel like I’ve already lost parts of me, like, my youth,”

    Which means, it’s time to pose in latex: https://www.yahoo.com/style/being-kylie-jenner-sounds-depressing-and-confusing-143649471.html

    btw, if that’s 18, wow. They are overall a good looking bunch of women, but boy does she look 35 already.

  91. She’ll hit the wall early and take to doing more and more perverse acts and deeds to maintain attention. She’s just the latest and there are plenty of other attention whores growing up to take her place. And so it goes..

  92. elmertjones says:

    Reminds me of a funny story. Back in the early 80s I worked in a machine shop. They had the infamous “Snap-on” tool calender featuring comely lasses posing with various tools. In that industrial atmosphere men would look at the calender briefly before getting back to work in the grease and fumes. So I drew a “no jerking off” sign with a guy yanking his rod in ecstasy. Had a red circle with a slash through it. Everyone loved it. The sales guys would brings customers to the shop just to show them the cartoon. While feminists think men trade sexist jokes the reality is we like to laugh about anything that makes fellow men look like idiots. It’s how we share our pain.

  93. PuffyJacket says:

    The only thing missing from this calendar is that 93 year-old knockout that what’s-her-nut was yapping about.

  94. Modsquad says:

    Pirelli figured out a way to get free PR from the New York Times. Kudos to their marketing department, you can’t buy this kind of coverage. Hot 20 year old women don’t have the money for upscale tires let alone a decent car, but wealthy, cosmopolitan battlecruisers do.

    “Look at you baby, 55 years old and so accomplished. Your master’s degree in psychology and that study-thing you published 15 years ago is driving men wild with passion. Put a Pirelli ring on your wheels and let the world know you’re married to success.”

  95. Gunner Q says:

    “Pirelli figured out a way to get free PR from the New York Times.”

    And no doubt is learning there IS such a thing as bad publicity. Women don’t care about car tires. Men do. Dalrock casually mentioning his Scorpion ATs is not the kind of thing you will ever see in a female forum.

    Men will now associate Pirelli’s products with Dunkin’ Donuts and the battleaxe who cleaned him out in court. The company might as well run a “this is what she’s buying with your chilamony payments” calendar.

  96. J1J2 says:

    Strange how the amount of “objectification” that women engage in toward men just happens to be what is morally justified: “anything beyond what we do to you is immoral”.

  97. Tomasz G. says:

    @elmertjones – well, I wouldn’t call it “sharing our pain”. I think joking about the “loosers” who jerk off is just another strategy to qualify for pussy. You’re the nice guy, who is eligible to qualify for a “real” woman, “not like the other man”.

    I’m against masturbation not because (as I was) it’s a “thought-rape” (or stare-rape), or because it sacrileges the holy “Dignity of the Woman”(tm). I just think you should be above it. Just don’t debase yourself.

    Don’t hate (other?) manginas. They’re in fact very unfortunate people. Like this pastor jailed in Iran. I am not outraged, that his hideous landwhale dumped him, and destroyed what he must have identified as his reputation. I feel sorry for him, because he ever chose such a wife in the first place. And that he felt some urge to look at pornography (is it so easy to obtain in jail?). Or maybe it was “yoga pants”, like once mentioned here? It’s like the poor alcoholic’s son, who thinks “I will be the same as my dad. This is stronger than me”.

    And then, we want to get “our angel’s” absolution and perform confession. Hypergamy doesn’t care, poor (christo-)manginas… Show too much weakness, and you’re out of the boat for a swim with the crocodiles.

    I used to “struggle” with “self-abuse”, but once I realized they are not angels, and sex is just a pleasant massage that keeps the marriage together – “Jesus freed me from it”.

    I wonder if the clergy ever gets this. The celibacy is good, but it’s not enough. A priest “juxta cor Iesum” should not only be “GHOW” sex-wise. He needs to have the right mindset – what would be today unjustly called “misogyny”. To be respected, he needs to be the Alpha out of her league, not a dump beta orbiter in a postion of “spiritual” authority, whom she can use a an useful tool (read: idiot) against the even lower husband.

  98. Chris says:

    “Serena Flamin Williams. WTF. All men (even gays lol) would pay that primate to keep its clothes on.”

    The enlarged deltoids and thickened facial muscles of both Serena and Hope Solo – as well as the latter’s obvious inability to control her temper – make it obvious that they, in fact, know what it’s like to be one of us, because they have the same levels of testosterone that we do. I believe Solo even failed one of her drug tests some years ago.

  99. bios says:

    Trying to convince the public that a homely, or at least semi-homely, woman is attractive really started in the 70’s. Barbara Streisand is one of the first examples who springs to mind. Feminists of average to below average looks greatly admired her to in those days. It’s a testament to how far we have fallen that she now looks pretty bangable compared to what’s on display now. At least she had a decent body in her youth, unlike say Lena Dunham.

    Another example is Meryl Streep. Supposedly most men in the 70s didn’t find her particularly attractive and neither did most Hollywood producers. She wasn’t ugly, but at least she was feminine.

    So yes, things have definitely got worse in this front.

  100. bios says:

    Re:Meryl Streep. She wasn’t beautiful, but at least she was feminine.

    It’s hilarious how women think their careers are attractive. When I was working as a barista in the early 00’s at the age of 23, I slept with a couple of women in their mid to late 40’s who worked nearby that were ‘successful’. They thought I would be impressed with their cars, fancy apartments, invitations to dinner etc. All I wanted was easy sex with no strings.

    Feminism has made them so clueless about men, yet they think they are authorities.

  101. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    I was considering Pirelli tires when my current set wears out. But after reading this article about their supporting various SJW causes, I will pass. Same for Guiness.

  102. Dragonfly says:

    @Jim Christian “Even a feminist has a biological imperative toward feminine beauty.”

    I’m sure you’re right about some of them, that’s why they work so hard to say beauty and youth and sex appeal in a woman doesn’t matter (or should be covered), because they know they’re working against truth. But I think it’s more than just feminists who think this way. Anonymous Reader got it right when he concluded that it’s an intra-sexual competitiveness where they want to make the younger, more beautiful, more desirable women at a “disadvantage” so that they level the playing field against them.

    @gunslingergregi – Women don’t have to lose their beautiful bodies by having children, it’s very very possible to still wear a bikini after having multiple kids… it just depends on the individual woman’s incentive and drive to get her body back and confidence. Just look at Vox Day’s wife… 4 kids and can wear a bikini and looks MUCH better than most 20-30 year olds these days.

    Yes, most women let themselves go, but it doesn’t have to be that way at all. If they’re disciplined enough, and understand the basics of their body/exercise, they can still have an amazing after baby-bod.

    After having 2 babies myself, and still was able to wear a bikini last summer, I’m finding it fairly easy.

  103. JDG says:

    trans·ves·tite
    transˈvesˌtīt,tranzˈvesˌtīt/Submit
    noun
    a person, typically a man Western woman, who derives pleasure from dressing in clothes appropriate to the opposite sex.

    FIF the dictionary

  104. BradA says:

    Which clothes are inherently female and which are inherently male JDG? How do you base that decision?

  105. infowarrior1 says:

    “‘fuck you, men, we don’t care what you think about what good looking is’”

    Even though it is rooted in the fact that beauty signals biological quality. Scientific studies bear this out.

    Like for example the link between symmetry and sexual dimorphism.:
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002106

    The fact that beauty standards are universal and objective. And encompasses the entire body thereby making the whole body as one whole ornament.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7572_supp/full/526S11a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20151008&spMailingID=49722261&spUserID=MjA1NzcwMjE4MQS2&spJobID=780989504&spReportId=NzgwOTg5NTA0S0

  106. JDG says:

    Which clothes are inherently female and which are inherently male JDG? How do you base that decision?

    It’s based on the fact that most women in Western countries dress more and more like men then women of previous generations, and they occupy men’s spaces while behaving in a more masculine manner then women from previous generations.

    Cause women can do anything men can do:

  107. Read Esthar Vilar Brad.

    Women’s clothes emphasize their shape and being open and available. They are light and colorful and fun and relaxing. In a word…feminine. Thus skirts covering exposed underwear fitted tightly with even tighter sweaters to reveal the bosom. No or tiny pockets so as not to interfere with the view. Her role is an ornament or rather, bait to a very dangerous trap that we call “marriage.”

    Men’s clothes do not emphasize his shape and are often dark colored and loosely fitting in case he needs to move quickly or do battle. He has deep pockets everywhere to emphasize his role as a useful utility.

  108. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Great Post! Mr.’D’. I use Pirelli tires on my everyday driver and Pirelli P-Zeros on my baby.I will admit that they are expensive(especially the P-zeros……220mph rubber). I was at Ferrari/Maserati of Ontario yesterday and that calendar was the talk of the shop.The entire consensus was “”WTF is Pirelli thinking?…this is disgusting””. Normally the dealership gives away the calendars for free to their clients,as I am one.Not this time.The owner has a whole box of them that he has put into storage in the backroom and told me that ..”I am sending them back to the company as no man in his right mind would hang this shit in his ‘man cave'”.I agree.There is no way I am going to hang something like that in my garage or office.I am also going to be forwarding a personal letter to them to let them know how disgusted I am with them!

  109. MarcusD says:

    My Wife Isn’t in Love With Me Anymore
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=989820

    Having Kids Before Marriage Does Not Increase Divorce Rates
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=989799

  110. hoellenhund2 says:

    You gents are learned men, but it sounds like, from your patient explanations to the beseeching masses that these women, hate us though they may, STILL want US, to want THEM.

    Who’s “us”? Such women have one very specific and serious complaint about the mating market, namely that roughly 32-36-year-old, high-status, high-earning, tall, handsome, established, urban men – a tiny minority of the male population – are in no hurry to practice so-called “assortative” marrying with their female “peers” i.e. carousel-riding, ageing, unfeminine, snarky, bitchy career women with disappearing ovaries, make-work government jobs and lots of college loan debt. That’s the only thing that actually bothers them about the mating market. The rest of their complaints about “rape culture”, “street harassment”, “Peter Pans”, ” jerks”, the “male gaze”, unfair beauty standards, young men getting “addicted” to online porn, “cyberbullying”, the “glass ceiling” etc. are simply bullshit with no purpose other than to provide opportunities to vent, and to serve as a merit badge to mark themselves as believing feminists.

  111. Damn those are some sexy cankles! Some man should wife that up!

  112. PokeSalad says:

    Well, might make a nice dartboard. If you could keep your eyes open long enough to throw.

    …but in all, the ‘strong, independent women’ are still in competition with one another, vying for (Alpha) male attention. The harder they fight the FI, the more they confirm its truth….like a struggling animal worming its way deeper into the snap-trap.

  113. 2084GO says:

    And as Ms. Zimmerman said: “Women have a disproportionately loud voice compared to their male counterparts. And for those women it is no longer socially acceptable to walk into a high-end garage that sells Pirelli tires and see a calendar with naked girls on the wall. You’d drive right out again in that Mercedes you came in with.”

    I’ve never seen naked pics on any business’s walls. Has anyone here?

  114. BradA says:

    JDG,

    Are you saying that clothes then are a social construct? How far back do you go for what is male and what is female clothing?

    Jesus didn’t where a suit of course, but what could easily be considered a dress today. Was Obi-Wan Kenobee less manly with a cloak? Scottish dress includes a kilt, which looks a lot like a skirt. I wouldn’t wear one, but are they inherently transvestite?

    Women’s jeans have a different cut, as do other variants.

    I am not trying to argue the issue, just find the core base for it. What you are noting seems like more of a social construct. A quick Google search indicated that pants only started being quite common in the West in the 8th century. What changed men’s clothing at that point if pants are inherently male? Why did it only shift for men?

    I have found that many with really core doctrines haven’t really thought them through, but it is worth thinking through both the foundation and implications of our views so we can avoid an improper or even just unproductive focus.

  115. BradA says:

    2084GO,

    Were the previous calenders really “naked” or just scantily dressed? My bet is the latter as few businesses are going to risk a lawsuit today on that topic.

    How many bear commercials feature the new batch of “fine women” to convince men to drink? I have not seen one, but then I only watched limited sports these days so perhaps you know of more examples of women who are not hot being used to sell to men.

  116. theasdgamer says:

    @ Nova

    I think the [feminist] point is to stick it in men’s eyes — as in either (1) “fuck you, men, we don’t care what you think about what good looking is

    To which the proper response is “lol”. What they say is gay. Boring. Irrelevant.

  117. Gunner Q says:

    BradA @ 11:09 am:
    “I am not trying to argue the issue, just find the core base for it. What you are noting seems like more of a social construct.”

    It is a social construct but an important one. When men and women dress the same, the inevitable effect is androgyny. I would go so far as to say androgyny is an abomination, a malicious confusion of human sexuality. We can discuss the details of how the sexes should dress differently but meanwhile, they MUST dress differently one way or another.

    About the details, I’m with JDG. Women should dress (and act) to be pleasing to men. Especially if they ever want a husband. Stupid girls today don’t realize or care how easy their lives could be if they’d just invest some affection and thoughtfulness in a decent man.

    “I wouldn’t wear [a kilt], but are they inherently transvestite?”

    I do wear kilts on occasion but not often because of the gender confusion in the California Gay Area. Most people will only know you by your appearance.

  118. JDG says:

    Brad are you saying that women do not dress and look more masculine then they did in previous generations? You haven’t noticed how female attire trends being less feminine while attempting to imitate men in appearance?

    Are you saying when it comes to clothing we should just forget about any masculine / feminine expectations?

    For the strong independent woman who wants to signal how powerful she is:

    Nope, nothing masculine there /sarc.

  119. JDG says:

    And sadly, it isn’t just the clothing.

  120. JDG says:

    What changed men’s clothing at that point if pants are inherently male? Why did it only shift for men?

    Why are only men allowed to teach the Word? Why are men stronger than women? Why do women wear dresses but not men? We’re not the same. People used to know that.

  121. MV says:

    I guess clothes were first invented to protect delicate body parts from cold, sunrays and thorny bushes. And since women have two more delicate body parts than men (attached to upper torso), “discriminatory clothing” was a logical, practical solution.

  122. 2084GO says:

    Throughout history human attire has largely been androgynous and more or less interchangeable until the invention of pants (pantaloons) which were originally designed for women, by the way. When I look at teens today its not that girls are dressing like guys or guys like girls, but that both are dressing in ways that are just tacky. Neither have any taste (but did we at that age) and both love black, which is not an attractive color for clothing, Don’t get me started on tattoos and eyebrow piercings! They look bad on both both (all? how many are there?) sexes.

    But I have to say I do not at all appreciate the sexual objectification of women in the media and public sphere and don’t want my wife, sisters or daughters dressing to sexually attract men. Its not their role in life to sexually attract random men in public. Same goes for my boys, one of which was already hit on by an older gay man when he was shooting hoops down the street. I also catch older women eyeing him and he is only 14. A very tall 14, but 14 nonetheless.

    “Meryl Streep. She wasn’t beautiful, but at least she was feminine.”

    She was beautiful in Kramer vs Kramer and looked great for her age in Mama Mia. Of course, lighting, makeup and all that. And I have some black buddies who think Serena Williams is bangin’. That means “hot” to you white folks out here.

  123. 2084GO says:

    @bluepillprofessor,
    “Women’s clothes emphasize their shape and being open and available. They are light and colorful and fun and relaxing. In a word…feminine. Thus skirts covering exposed underwear fitted tightly with even tighter sweaters to reveal the bosom. No or tiny pockets so as not to interfere with the view.”

    Not my daughters. Not on my watch!

    @Dragonfly,
    “It’s always the older women (or unattractive/plain women) who seem to really despise the younger women being shown or popular for their beauty or sexiness.

    The intrasexual competition between women is always quite ruthless, and nothing anger-scares a post-Wall spinster like a fertile pre-Wall single woman.”

    Not even close. Its parents and other adults who don’t want to see their daughters, nieces, neighbor’s kids’ lives being ruined by an oops pregnancy at the age of 16, or earning a living from her sexuality by 18. I take it none of these commenters have teenage daughters? If you do, as a father, how do you feel when you see your daughter sexily dressed in tight clothing? Do you say, “Daddy thinks you should make it tighter honey. After all, you want to catch a man, don’t you?”

  124. Dragonfly says:

    2084GO – I thought it was understood that we were talking about young women – not minors. I totally understand your worry over your daughters, and I agree, it would signal the wrong messages if it was inappropriately sexy. Your girls would be noticed for the wrong reasons, and signal to men that they’re promiscuous or ok with being used.

    There’s a huge difference between classy and trashy. Modesty doesn’t have to exclude being sexy, youthful, and attractive, a lot of it depends on your definition of what is sexy. Long hair, a smiling face, and clean, well-tailored clothes can look sexy.

  125. JDG says:

    From the comment section at Pokesalad’s link:

    About 5 years ago an aircraft carrier with over 3,000 sailors of which about 300 were women that was watching Korea’s coast line and came back 8 month’s later with more than 30 of the female sailors Pregnant.

    1st – I’m not sure “female sailor” isn’t an oxymoron (more transvestite behavior IMO).

    2nd – Feminist progress continues. Women have come a long way … baby.

  126. JDG says:

    sexy = immodest = slutty

  127. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    bios [December 2, 2015 at 2:41 pm] says:

    “Trying to convince the public that a homely, or at least semi-homely, woman is attractive really started in the 70’s. […]”

    Indeed. Which brings me to Sex And The City, which as everybody knows, was a TV show about A City. Just sayin’.

    Anyway: I have always been of the opinion that Sarah Jessica Parker is (was: SJP + Wall, now), at best, merely average looking. In fact, just, meh, plain-jane. Like, a 6 maybe. And so, whatever else may be true about that TV show, I was always left scratching my head at the shared public delusion about her alleged sexy beauty, etc., etc. As they say in France: donnez moi un break.

  128. 2084GO says:

    ” I thought it was understood that we were talking about young women – not minors.”

    What’s the difference? A 17 year old isn’t a young woman AND a minor simultaneously?

    Yac-yac, I’ve never heard SJP’s SATC character described as “beautiful”. I think part of the appeal of that show, for its fans anyway, was that none of the 4 characters were drop dead gorgeous. In fact, a regular theme was having to compete with younger, hotter Manhattan models for men. The show did a good job of exploring the NYC SMP from the point of view of regular looking, albeit thin, career women.

  129. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    @ 2084GO [December 3, 2015 at 6:53 pm]

    … – fair enough. I am not explaining myself very well. Here, this gets closer to my point:

    “But Parker, 43, has had a hard time dealing with the news that men do not find her as attractive as advertisers do, claiming the result of the Maxim poll was “brutal” and also affected her husband, actor Matthew Broderick.”.

    So: why is it that a woman whom a lot of heterosexual men find, um, unattractive, is/was being hypersold to heterosexual women (who, after all, are the targets of these advertising campaigns) as OMG Hawt “I’d tap that” PHAT FMN attractive? As if.

    But then, I am posting this in the comments section at Dalrock’s blog, so I am sure a few of the regulars and among the lurkers around here have a likley answer or two. Yep. No doubt.

  130. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    “Likely”. Whatever.

    Anyway, here: don’t click through any of the links here: https://www.google.ca/search?q=Sarah+Jessica+Parker+sexy. (Some things cannot be unseen.)

    She’s sexy in a swimsuit at 50? Yah? Right? Uh-Hunh. Ok, yo. Sure, yo. Whatever, yo.

  131. 2084GO says:

    She was attractive the first season of SATC and had a great, fit body throughout. But by no means was she gorgeous nor have I ever heard anyone say so. Her character on the show was really into fashion and thus her name got equated with style, but not natural beauty. Something like Jackie Kennedy. Appreciated for her fashion sense, not her facial features. I think its you who have this stuff confused, not the advertisers.

  132. feeriker says:

    “Women have a disproportionately loud voice compared to their male counterparts.”

    Reading that statement literally, there are words used to describe such women: “bitch,” “harpy,” “harridan,” “nag,” “scold,” “shrew,” “termagant” … and these are just a few of the more polite ones.

  133. 2084GO says:

    Alright, alright I finally clicked on the link. Serena has the best butt and hip to waist ratio. Natalia Vodianova looks the most regal and Tavi Gevinson (whoever that is) is the youngest and cutest. 3 out of 12 ain’t bad?

  134. Oscar says:

    Pirelli makes some kickass road and track tires for motorcycles. If I owned a superbike, a set of Supercorsas would be near the top of my list, if not at the very top. For dual sports (like mine), I prefer Continentals, Metzlers and Avons.

    As for this dumb publicity stunt: it won’t last.

  135. BradA says:

    JDG,

    You shifted the goalposts a bit. I just asked some specific questions. I did not justify any current action. The woman in jeans you posted farther up looked more feminine, likely because she had a chest. The one you just posted was missing that and had an attitude as well. Different question.

    I am not sure about whether pantaloons first came for men or women, I just know they weren’t present prior to a certain point.

    Throwing in other things, like preaching the Word is a red herring. Those Scriptures say nothing about whether women can where pants or men can wear cloaks.

    I guess you do not have much to back up your position then.

    Gunner Q,

    I would agree for the difference. Some of that can be achieved quite easily for all but the smallest chested women, especially if they have an feminine attitude to carry with it.

    About the details, I’m with JDG. Women should dress (and act) to be pleasing to men. Especially if they ever want a husband.

    I would completely agree with that, though it has nothing to do with my question. I still find my wife quite attractive in jeans, so it is not the pants that kills it for at least some of us. But then I do have those wife goggles, so maybe she is really ugly….

    I doubt that though, especially since she has not ballooned out like most her age and is unlikely to do so.

    I just wanted to know the exact reasoning behind the argument. I wasn’t trying to argue, just find out base assumptions.

    I do think women in dresses look more attractive most times, but not in the same way they do in long hair. I also would hate wearing pantyhose and I could no more force that on my wife than I would accept her pushing me to wearing a tie. I remember a preacher I liked arguing for that as making a man better in the past (wearing a tie) and I didn’t buy it then. Comfort has some value as long as it is tasteful.

    I am not sure what I would think about yoga pants, though I have definitely seen them on some that were as bad as the pictures in the calendar in the OP. Though some of those wearing yoga pants need far more than just a wardrobe change.

  136. Dale says:

    JDG and Dragonfly

    Masculine versus feminine clothing is not a recent invention. Deut 22:5 mentions this, as Brad well knows as I have told him a few times before.
    And Brad’s point about clothing styles changing has also been addressed before. Regardless of the culture, everyone knows what is men’s and women’s attire. Just ask, “What should a man wear, so that no one thinks he is trying to dress like a woman?” And vice versa. Everyone knows the answers, other than a few lying / stupid people.

    @2084GO
    I think you got confused by poor terminology. As DragonFly touched on, there are two ways to be attractive to men.

    1) Sexually promiscuous: e.g. showing abundant cleavage; useful for suggesting to men around her that she is easy, good for a quick sexual relationship, but useless for marriage.

    2) Feminine (aka beautiful): E.g. showing very little or none of her breasts, but having form-fitting (not necessarily skin tight), feminine clothing, long hair, and a ribbon or flower in her hair. Useful for communicating that the cads who want a quick fling should go elsewhere (due to no sexually promiscuous image), and also communicating that they are good for marriage, due to their knowledge of how to be a woman and willingness to do so. Yes, there is more than one way to be feminine, but that example should point the correct direction.

    One woman blogger used the terms “sexy” and “beautiful”, respectively, for the two above.

    You are wise to forbid your daughters the first. You, or some women, had better teach them the second if you want a masculine man, who is mature enough to know and understand his own God-given desires and strong enough to fight the feminist peer pressure against those desires, to think your daughter might be worthy of marriage.
    Be warned that less than 1% of Canadian women know how to do the second. I assume similar numbers for American women. Consider attending a church dominated by immigrants from East Europe, or sending her to Ukraine for a vacation. She can learn by example.

    May God guide you in your role as father.

    YAC YAC
    >I was always left scratching my head at the shared public delusion about her alleged sexy beauty

    I’m with you on this one. I thought she was fairly ugly. The young-ish brunette was the prettiest of the bunch.
    Apart from the aging actress, the fairly ugly actress, and the masculine actress, I thought the writing in the few episodes I watched was very poor / boring. As a man I find it surprising the show lasted. But I suppose the aging women who watched enjoyed the delusion of 30-40 year old women being in demand.
    They really should marry young, and let the “young wife goggles” take a firm hold on their life-long spouse.

  137. JDG says:

    You shifted the goalposts a bit.

    Brad I disagree, but if I did it wasn’t intentional. I’m too tired to go back and read it again right now.

    I just asked some specific questions.

    As did I. My questions were prompted by your questions. Why would you even need to ask them? You’ve got eyeballs, and you know what is written in Deuteronomy.

    The woman in jeans you posted farther up looked more feminine

    More feminine? I guess this answers my question above. She may look female (breasts), but certainly not feminine. She is a woman trying to look masculine and beautiful at the same time. It’s a perversion. I suspect your thinking has been assimilated with modern standards.

  138. 2084GO says:

    Men and womens clothing (and jewelry) throughout history have been similar. Kiminos, dhotis, lungis, skirts, robes, pantaloons, etc. I think pantaloons were designed for women so they could more modestly ride horses or something.

  139. 2084GO says:

    Katharine_Di_Cerbo what perceived benefit do you feel children by having a stay at home throughout their live until they leave home? I see clear benefits for not being raised by single parents, but no clear beneficial outcomes for having one parent stay home all the time. I see a lot of kids who don’t even appreciate it. But the ones with stay at homes and the ones where both parents worked outside, the end results in terms of adult outcomes are similar.

  140. BradA says:

    Dale,

    Masculine versus feminine clothing is not a recent invention. Deut 22:5 mentions this, as Brad well knows as I have told him a few times before.

    I asked why pants were inherently male. Nothing more, nothing less. Deut 22:5 doesn’t deal with that. I don’t shop for women’s clothing much, but I recall Amazon having a women’s and men’s section every time I go look there for clothing. I could never imagine wearing my wife’s pants (even if I were the same size) as they would look feminine to me, in spite of being pants.

    You are focusing on the wrong target here in your dislike for me.

    JDG,

    No big deal. I just wondered about the foundation for what you were saying. I did not see the picture of the woman in the jean’s jacket as non-feminine, though the business one did portray a whole lot more since you would likely not know the sex of the picture if the head were chopped off. (Though it did have a metrosexual feel to men, likely part of the problem you do note.)

    I cannot find a Scripture that says any specific piece of clothing is male or female. It is possible I am missing something, but I haven’t seen it. The Deut reference says clothes that pertain to a certain sex. Is my wife sinning when she wears a pair of socks I no longer use because they have lost their elasticity? Or are socks reserved for men or for women?

    Yeah, I am thinking deeper than many here, but that is often the norm. I expect many of you don’t realize the thinking aspect of my approach to life. I think things through, and that is very uncommon in today’s world. It doesn’t mean I am always right, just that it is how I work through issues. Part of it is because I am always challenging my own positions to make sure I remain accurate. Kind of a system self-test.

  141. 2084GO says:

    Dale, I was mostly responding to
    bluepillprofessor says:
    December 3, 2015 at 12:08 am

    Read Esthar Vilar Brad.

    Women’s clothes emphasize their shape and being open and available. They are light and colorful and fun and relaxing. In a word…feminine. Thus skirts covering exposed underwear fitted tightly with even tighter sweaters to reveal the bosom. No or tiny pockets so as not to interfere with the view. Her role is an ornament or rather, bait to a very dangerous trap that we call “marriage.”

    Let’s see, tight sweaters to reveal the bosom? Open and available?

    Any daughter-dads on here object to this or are you as ambivalent as the real life dads of teenage daughters I know?

  142. BradA says:

    2084GO,

    You are full of bunk. Many kids didn’t share the harm being latchkey did to them, but it had an impact. An impact does not get removed merely because a survey hasn’t found it. Though I do question your assertions as I have seen enough studies indicating that having two parents working is not helpful.

    You also err in not knowing the proper role for a women in a marriage. It is not to make her own way, but to support her husband. Eve was made to support Adam, not to either compete with him or just to be another Adam with boobs. A women who works outside the home will have a bigger challenge doing that. It may be necessary, but it is definitely not the desirable state of affairs and the family will pay for it.

    My mother had to work and I came home to an empty house. I survived and even thrived, but I know I would have done better had she been able to be home when I got there. Saying I did “just as well” is a lie. (She was a single mother, a situation she caused, but the principle remains.)

  143. BradA says:

    You also make a false choice between unisex clothing and very revealing clothing. I used to think modesty required a woman to not show any indication of a chest (though I personally enjoyed seeing it), but I have mellowed quite a bit there and I no longer hold to the foolish idea that a woman must seem to have a flat chest to be modest. Showing curves and showing cleavage are two different things.

  144. 2084GO says:

    BradA, do you have daughters? What about “open and available”? How would you spin that?
    “You are full of bunk.” Now, now, calm down. I Katharine_Di_Cerbo because her comment alludes to some benefit kids should obtain from having a SAHM and I want to know what that benefit is, in her view. Do the kids appreciate it? Desire it? You are of an earlier, kinder, gentler generation and the kids today are well, different. They don’t seem to give a rat’s ass and would prefer their own space when they come home from school. Sure, for babies and toddlers a stay at home parent is needed. Beyond 10? Kids today don’t want it. They do not grow up appreciating it.

  145. Opus says:

    I am proud to say I have never seen a Pirelli calendar nor a copy of Playboy, and it has to be said that it would be considered inappropriate for desk-bound mechanics or even Her Majesties Counsel to have such a calendar on their Chambers wall, or a copy of the magazine in their briefcase – we have to suffer such indignities as Van Goch for twelve months a year and a copy of the Times. What however of The Sun for they too have dropped their topless model from Page 3 – perhaps a bit too down-market for work, yet I can recall a time when a topless model on their page 3 – aged fifteen and above – before the idea that a fifteen year old girl photographed naked should one have a copy be a crime comparable to Murder – was considered a mark of liberation; as if nudity was as delightful and as normal as the Nudists – freezing in the all-together of an English Spring day – claimed it to be.

    Is this the end of nudity in Calendars? Of course not – Nude Calendars are burgeoning for can there be a female institution that has yet to have its own Calendar Girl – frequently Calendar Grandmother – calendar with middle-aged women clearly in the buff but tastefully and artistically covering all vital areas. This is tease in the way Pirelli and Playboy weren’t but from women one would not have paid to strip. Most recently (and I have downloaded the available pictures) the Women’s Rugby Football Club of Oxford University have all stripped off – largely back views – but what exactly is the message behind the calendars of lumpy girls – that behind each butch undergraduate is a sexually desirable woman? – or is it the reverse? Certainly when I was a registered player with the F.A. the idea that we men would strip off for the same would have been treated perhaps less with derision – though certainly that – and more with a denial of suspected Homosexual intent.

    Some while ago I was looking at the on-line version of a weekly paper of a town whose name I choose to forget (alright it is the one where Princess Pocahontas is buried) and was struck by the juxtaposition of two articles: in the first: barmaids at a local pub had gone al-fresco for a Calendar; in the second: a report that the statue of a weeping woman situate outside the local woman’s refuge centre had for the third time been cruelly vandalised. I leave it to others to draw the moral.

  146. Obsidian's Mug says:

    Are Canadians more comfortable with public nudity than Americans, Opus? European beaches are always a culture shock for me. Entire families nude or half nude. I can’t imagine going nude in front of my family or having them nude in front of me beyond a certain age.

  147. Opus says:

    @Obsidian’s Mug

    Not being either Canadian or American I have some difficulty in providing an adequate answer to your question. What I can say is that there is a tendency (entirely understandable) for North Americans to perceive Europe (in which they include Great Britain and Ireland) as homogenous. This is not really so even though these days we all drive Mercs, buy from Ikea and holiday on the same beaches. Certainly when I was in America I was surprised, almost shocked, to observe – when the weather got hot – young women stripping down to a one piece bathing suit as if auditioning for a Grace Kelly or Marilyn Monroe movie. In Europe the women wear Bikinis; two piece, one piece or even no piece. The Germans – especially the men – are keen on naturism – FKK – much as they had been in the 1930s and if not naked will be wearing thongs, the British are somewhat more inhibited and regard male wearing things as somewhere between pretentious and perverted, but the French regard nudity as natural. Beaches are marked as being Textile or non-Textile friendly. A lot of swinging goes on on these beaches.

  148. 2084GO says:

    “Women have a disproportionately loud voice compared to their male counterparts.”

    “Now, with a little money in her pocket, she starts gettin’ a lil’ heavy voice…”

  149. BradA says:

    2084GO,

    You will have to do more proving if you are going to claim a SAHM has no additional value. Though you seem to be jumping around a bit.

  150. 2084GO says:

    Brad, I don’t have to “prove” squat. I haven’t made an hypothesis. I asked Katherine a question. You butted in between. I’m still waiting for Kathy’s answer. I have no dog in the fight. I’m sure staying home benefits a lot of mothers. I’m sure their kids have their own take.

    “Certainly when I was a registered player with the F.A. the idea that we men would strip off for the same would have been treated perhaps less with derision – though certainly that – and more with a denial of suspected Homosexual intent.”

    Because you’re a man. Posing nude is supposed to be something that women do to please men. Read the above comments regarding this calendar.

    “Some while ago I was looking at the on-line version of a weekly paper of a town whose name I choose to forget (alright it is the one where Princess Pocahontas is buried) and was struck by the juxtaposition of two articles: in the first: barmaids at a local pub had gone al-fresco for a Calendar; in the second: a report that the statue of a weeping woman situate outside the local woman’s refuge centre had for the third time been cruelly vandalised. I leave it to others to draw the moral. ”

    Are proposing that some men are mad that women are posing nude so they took it out on a statue? Why would men be mad that women pose nude?

  151. BradA says:

    You butted in between.

    You are too short for this ride. Everyone here gets interrupted at times. Go to private email or a moderated debate if you want an exclusive conversation. Don’t throw out comments you don’t want a response to. Or start your own blog and heavily moderate the comments.

    This is Dalrock’s blog, not yours. He is free to correct me. You are not.

    I have taken better arguments than yours and I am still here.

  152. 2084GO says:

    Regarding these hoity toity expensive tires, they are just like all others on the market.

    The ruthless unity in the culture industry is evidence of what will happen in politics. Marked differentiations such as those of A and B films, or of stories in magazines in different price ranges, depend not so much on subject matter as on classifying, organising, and labelling consumers. Something is provided for all so that none may escape; the distinctions are emphasised and extended. The public is catered for with a hierarchical range of mass-produced products of varying quality, thus advancing the rule of complete quantification. Everybody must behave (as if spontaneously) in accordance with his previously determined and indexed level, and choose the category of mass product turned out for his type. Consumers appear as statistics on research organisation charts, and are divided by income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique is that used for any type of propaganda. How formalised the procedure is can be seen when the mechanically differentiated products prove to be all alike in the end. That the difference between the Chrysler range and General Motors products is basically illusory strikes every child with a keen interest in varieties. What connoisseurs discuss as good or bad points serve only to perpetuate the semblance of competition and range of choice. The same applies to the Warner Brothers and Metro Goldwyn Mayer productions. But even the differences between the more expensive and cheaper models put out by the same firm steadily diminish: for automobiles, there are such differences as the number of cylinders, cubic capacity, details of patented gadgets; and for films there are the number of stars, the extravagant use of technology, labor, and equipment, and the introduction of the latest psychological formulas. The universal criterion of merit is the amount of “conspicuous production,” of blatant cash investment. The varying budgets in the culture industry do not bear the slightest relation to factual values, to the meaning of the products themselves.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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