The article, by Ruth Graham in the Boston Globe “Ideas” section, takes more or less for granted that private parties’ liberties of free association and contract must be curtailed in order to right the “galloping injustice of ‘lookism’”:Let's get a little bit imaginative here. Given:
Tentatively, experts are beginning to float possible solutions. Some have proposed legal remedies including designating unattractive people as a protected class, creating affirmative action programs for the homely, or compensating disfigured but otherwise healthy people in personal-injury courts. Others have suggested using technology to help fight the bias, through methods like blind interviews that take attraction out of job selection.
- The right to free association is observably extinct
- Lookism will soon be deemed an illegal bias as per racism and sexism
- The federal position concerning the societal interest in forced male financial support for women
- The Supreme Court-declared right of the government to tax non-participation in a desired activity.
So, if you are so fortunate as to find a reasonable marital candidate, you may wish to consider putting a ring on her before the federal government decides to put a ring on some random Jezebel war-pig on your behalf.
35 comments:
Damn it. To think I spent all that time working out at the gym, learning game, and improving my style for nothing when instead I could have remained an asexual loser and demanded the state provide me with a hottie. I feel really cheated.
I bet Steve Sailer never expected such naked (pardon the pun) confirmation of his 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."
And if they can't get the social values overturned, then by golly, they'll override them with laws.
So, if you are so fortunate as to find a reasonable marital candidate, you may wish to consider putting a ring on her before the federal government decides to put a ring on some random Jezebel war-pig on your behalf.
Think positive!
There can be a chance that 4 to 5 7s would want to marry you when you have game.
You will then petition the government that all 5 be wed to you. Because equality and fairness.
Boom! Your own harem with government backing!!
State-sponsored Polygyny FTW!!!
We're pretty much approaching a point where male traits are going to be heavily regulated.
What's next? A ban on wanting to have sex with your wife?
Actually, if I had to guess, the next target will be alternative ways of getting off. It'll hurt your government mandated uggo's feelings if you spank to porn, so no porn (or poon) for you.
What can you expect from someone writing for the Boston Globe? Dumb in, dumb out.
I'm replacing a toilet today because the old one, while functional, is ugly. Am I a lookist home owner?
Something like this has happened with racism. Racism used to mean that you thought blacks inferior and wished them ill. Now it means you would dare not to be attracted to them and not want to sleep with them. Pressure to date interracially is strong, and there is a constant drumbeat of propaganda in favor of it.
That said, SWPL hate fate people, are vain, and I don't see this anti-lookism taking hold. They don't believe in the afterlife, so their vanity knows no limits, and their contempt for the ugly, the stupid, and the inconvenient is not limited by the old Christian Charity. Society, while looking better physically in many respects, especially at the top, is getting very very ugly.
Govt has been licensing and regulating marriage for a long time. Now they are even defining what it is and is not in courts and legislation. It is only a short step from that to mandating it and doing the selecting of suitable pairs based on proper diversity balance.
And don't count on already being married to save you. That's just a pre-existing condition that Obamacare has already ruled against.
Actually, if I had to guess, the next target will be alternative ways of getting off. It'll hurt your government mandated uggo's feelings if you spank to porn, so no porn (or poon) for you.
That's a tricky one. I would have said porn was an indispensable part of the bread and circuses provided to keep people fat and happy. However, if porn gets good enough that men choose it over dealing with a typical rebellious woman, that'll break the system. Maybe it'll have to be scaled back to about 1998 levels: grainy scans from magazines and low-quality VHS tapes.
When that tax inevitably comes - and, I have read many a liberal woman talk about how she wants to institute a bachelor's tax - pay the tax; render under Caesar what is his rather than dishonor God or break the admonitions about being unequally yoked, as you know, not only will you be assigned a heifer, but you'll be assigned a heifer lesbian pagan princess who wants to teach your children planet worship.
It might not be a Jezebel war-pig. You're forgetting "marriage equality." The government could therefore put a ring on your finger on behalf of an ugly gay man.
And of course, polygamy is next - what is N=2 in marriage but yet another ancient "religious taboo"?
So, productive lookers could end up with a whole harem (mixed from the whole LGBTQABCDEF alphabet soup) of arranged-marriage fuglies.
Equality!
"pay the tax; render under Caesar what is his "
Just keep in mind that the tax will grow and grow until it leaves you with too little to feed yourself in an effort to break the backs of the alphas all those women feel they deserve.
The Boston Globe article reminded me of a short story I first read in elementary school by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.: Harrison Bergeron.
Even then, I recognized it as a critique of the inevitable end of efforts to make everyone equal. Later in life, I found it ironic that I read that first in school, considering how left-wing most teachers are. Then it occured to me that she probably thought that story was an illustration of a worthwhile goal.
If the German papers had an Ideas section in the 1920s, maybe Hitler wouldn't have happened. He could have sent lots of ideas to the paper, been a regulator contributor like Ruth Graham.
Who will fight the Jewish bias?
IT’S NOT your imagination: Life is good for Jewish people. A drumbeat of research over the past decades has found that Jewish people earn more than their German peers, are more likely to be given loans by banks, and are less likely to be convicted by a jury.
...One means of attack is perhaps the simplest of all: There’s a chance that merely making us aware of Jewish bias can help diffuse it, by allowing us to remind ourselves that we’re wrong if we assume that Jewish and good are one and the same. Etcoff also notes that prolonged exposure to media images skews our brain’s notion of the Jew: In a plugged-in era in which I see Jewish ideas more than my own sister’s, my brain’s concept of “average” is skewed wildly far from reality. It’s up to us to put down the magazines.
The natural extension of this is of course to murder ugly babies while they're in the womb.
If the deformed have no right to life, then why should the ugly have to suffer as well.
@cailcorishev,
I expected Ruth Graham to be much more hideous.
http://publicroad.wordpress.com/
The natural extension of this is of course to murder ugly babies while they're in the womb.
That's happening now: The average liberal woman is ugly, the average woman getting an abortion is liberal, therefore, the average aborted baby is also an ugly liberal (children tend to have similar political beliefs to their parents). Both problems will eventually "choose" themselves out of existence.
OT: I've always held it'll be interesting if they ever discover a gay gene and couples can "choose" not to have a gay kid... oh man that'll be great fireworks, gay rights vs abortion rights.
That's a tricky one. I would have said porn was an indispensable part of the bread and circuses provided to keep people fat and happy. However, if porn gets good enough that men choose it over dealing with a typical rebellious woman, that'll break the system.
But isn't that exactly what feminism does? Break the system it depends on?
I think it's just what happens with unrestrained female behavior. Too much desire for drama, can't let things be, just can't resist spawning ever-escalating shit tests. And (though they'd never admit it) a subconscious expectation men will make it all work somehow.
@dexter
Skim the blog a little more. That's either a cherry-picked image (and pics that start at the shoulders generally are) or she was dumpy and plain most of her life and only recently managed to mitigate that somewhat.
Funny how the simple fact of growing her hair out makes her a little more attractive. You'd think someone would write a post or two somewhere about how short hair on women is always less attractive or something. ;)
I would think this was all just a sick joke, but then I remember that in Canada, if you live with a woman long enough you owe her cash and prizes just for not wanting to be her boyfriend anymore.
Skim the blog a little more. That's either a cherry-picked image (and pics that start at the shoulders generally are) or she was dumpy and plain most of her life and only recently managed to mitigate that somewhat.
Heh. There is a long collection featuring just her head from eye-level up. Makes one think what's below that ain't so good to look at. In other ones, she's really far away.
This one is probably the most accurate:
http://publicroad.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/tabasco.jpg
On the plus side, the arrival of the columnist appears to bring the closing of doors to the publication she is working with according to the link from Dexter. Of course, Dexter forgets the first rule of women's photos on the internet: if they put them up and they are older than 26, the picture is likely to have been from when they were younger.
Eh, I'm willing to believe that photo was actually taken in 2011 as she represents.
She's not awful looking, but nevertheless one can very easily believe that she thinks she is a victim of the “galloping injustice of ‘lookism’”.
This post reminds me of how the Spartans tried to control bachelorhood by forcing unmarried men to parade naked in front of the youth, and how they were publicly shamed and mocked.
The shaming is already here, but the full-fledged force (aside from feminist-biased courts) is yet to come.
She's not awful looking, but nevertheless one can very easily believe that she thinks she is a victim of the “galloping injustice of ‘lookism’”.
Which means, "Hot guys don't hit on me like they did when I was 19."
I'm looking forward to my grass hut even more than usual.
I read the article praying for the disclaimer of satire that never appeared.
Slightly off topic:
In a recent discussion at work about Miley Cyrus' performance at the VMA I made the assertion that no one would put her at the top of any "most attractive" list. Of course not even 48 hours later I see that Miley Cyrus was voted #1 hottest chick by Maxim magazine. Looks like I am going to have to eat my words.
I am troubled by this for reasons having little to do with Cyrus herself. More crucially this throws off my entire calculus of female attractiveness. Things like facial symmetry, .7 waist/hip ratio, full breasts, long hair etc. And that these traits verge on being entirely cross-cultural.
Someone please help me out here! Who is it that finds this type of woman attractive? Under the best circumstances she is perhaps "cute", but in her current form I find her repulsive. Are my perceptions that far from the norm? Has the norm somehow been changed and therefore more culturally determined than I have thought. Are the young male readers of maxim really finding her THE MOST ATTRACTIVE female out of all the various possibilities?
What next Rosie O'Donnell as Maxim's #1 hot female?
Why is Maxim a reliable judge? It's top -- lists have been guided by PC/feminist considerations before.
papabear- Excellent point. I guess I am confused that *any* such list-- supposedly voted on by young males--would put her at the #1 spot, let alone within the top 100 at all. Irrespective of any ideological brainwashing that has occurred.
Are young men really that confused?
That vagina? You didn't build that.....
I have read many a liberal woman talk about how she wants to institute a bachelor's tax
Good luck getting one passed and thru SCOTUS that doesn't also tax unmarried career women. Women can be their own betas now.
Yeah, Maxim puts old broads and black women WAY too high on their lists.
At least in the past, you could vote if you thought a particular woman's spot on the list was too low or high.
Those votes revealed the public's opinions and they varied very much from Maxim's editors' picks.
I suspect Maxim puts a higher premium on "availability" than the average reader of Alpha Game. A woman who wants to increase her attractiveness to men for one-night stands can do so by signaling she is more available. A leather mini-skirt, fishnets and high heels are probably worth almost a point apiece.
Unless the guy is looking for a LTR, then "availability to other guys" becomes a negative. As it apparently has for Cyrus, who's fiancée is apparently no longer her fiancée after her latest performance.
"Maybe it'll have to be scaled back to about 1998 levels: grainy scans from magazines and low-quality VHS tapes."
I doubt they'll go that far, but I'm sure we'll see a concerted effort in the West to ban online porn piracy, which'll mean the removal of most online free porn. Almost all powerful lobby groups have a reason to get on board: the porn industry, feminists, tradcons etc. It'll be paralleled by a similar campaign of the same lobby groups to ban online anonymity.
Alimony for Your Eggs
... This kind of scenario is playing out at fertility clinics across the country: a couple might have always planned to have kids but then the marriage unraveled; or they might have tried but failed to get pregnant; or they might have one child already, but the woman really wanted another. Now she’s 35. Or 38. Or 41. Could egg freezing help her save the last of her fertility?
That’s the hope of a 38-year-old woman who is a client of Ronald G. Lieberman, a family law attorney in Haddonfield, N.J. Mr. Lieberman is asking his client’s soon-to-be-former husband of eight years to pay $20,000 to cover her egg-freezing procedure, medication costs and several years of egg storage. “When they got married, the expectation was they would start a family,” he told me. “Now she might not have the chance much longer.” ...
...In the New Jersey couple’s case, they decided to divorce after undergoing several failed attempts at in vitro fertilization. Mr. Lieberman’s argument is that since fertility treatments were part of the marriage, they should be considered part of the marital lifestyle, which should be maintained as much as possible post-divorce. The only difference is, in the future, she’ll use another man’s sperm. ...
...Legal experts like Kevin Noble Maillard of Syracuse University speculate that a woman’s missed opportunities to have a baby during a marriage could be viewed as a form of “sacrifice” for which she should be compensated (in much the same way that a woman who put her husband through law school could expect to be compensated if he divorced her just before he reaped the financial rewards of the degree). And it helps rectify one of life’s greatest biological injustices: that men but not women can typically start a family well into middle age and beyond. ...
Who says you'll be forced to marry a WOMAN?
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.