A woman in leggings proffers fresh slabs of meat — and the hungry are supposed not to resent it

FROM Mike King at The Anti-New York Times:

It is as amazing as it is amusing to behold just how easily the fairer sex can be manipulated by the unseen dominant men who control the levers of culture. A century ago, after propaganda legend Edward Bernays (cough cough) linked cigarettes with “women’s rights ™,” loony ladies everywhere just had to show the boys that they too could take up the unhealthy and dirty habit. Youse gals sure showed us, didncha’ ya now!

Fast forwarding to the 1960’s, Deep State feminist icons Betty Friedan (cough cough) and Gloria Steinum (cough cough) managed to convince stay-at-home mothers that they were being “oppressed” ™ — and that true fulfillment was to be found not in home and hearth, but by working 9-5 at a “career.” How did that work out for you burnt-out workin’ gals, eh? Are youse happy sitting in traffic, slaving away at work, dealing with office politics, and coming home burnt out to your empty apartment, cat and sex toy?

And observe how year after year, the moment some limp-wristed faggot in Paris or Milan declares the new “style,” right away the more fashion-minded women will bust out their magic plastic cards to shop till they drop. As for those “ladettes” who are as lacking in modesty as they are in fashion conscious[ness], the accepted trend now is to wear skin-tight “leggings” — aka “yoga pants” as everyday wear for everything from going to the gym, to school, to a restaurant, or even to their jobs! Skin-tight leggings make a young lady (and in an increasing number of cases, an older woman) look like one part slob and, for the “hotter” ones, one-part slut. And they are totally “normalized” now.

Think about it. Would we not consider the flaunting of a plate of juicy steak and roasted potatoes in the face of a starving man to be a form of psychological abuse? Is the constant public flashing of barely concealed hips and buns in the face of a healthy man who is powerless to touch them any different? As a society, we believed understood that once. But now, with out-of-control women ruling over us (their unseen Jewish masters way above them) our young men — excluding the “hot” studs who now claim the lion’s share of these demented whores — have to accept the daily torment of seeing these slobbish sluts taunt them with what they can’t have. Though your normal baby-boomer reporter here must confess to instinctively gawking at quite a few of these ubiquitous booties in leggings (and being subsequently banished, for days at a time, to the doghouse of the all-sensing and lovely Mrs. King as a result); it is still a disgrace.

Enjoy the shameless and slovenly flaunting of your “assets,” your permanent tattoos, your drinking binges, your “hook-ups,” and your “liberation” while you can, ladettes. The day is coming (and quickly) when said assets will start to droop a bit and the lustful eyes of those male “hotties” will turn their gaze to something a bit younger. Before you know it, you’ll be alone, childless, burnt-out from your shitty job and miserable — all as planned by forces beyond your understanding.

— Comments —

Susan Anne Whites writes:

Most clothing worn by females today is immodest and vulgar and unladylike, and Feminism is mostly to blame for the shameful and whorish clothing (and behaviour) of the majority of females today who have been indoctrinated by the Women’s Liberation movement to think that casting off all restraint and propriety is “empowering” and “liberating.”

What feminist claptrap!

The feminist response to Maryann White’s letter (hundreds of them protesting clad in leggings) was predictable, selfish and pathetic.

Honourable men (and there are many) could not possibly view such vulgar females as “ladies.” Such feminist protests could be called “Sluts on parade.”

Maryann White’s suggestion that women should wear jeans instead of leggings is not the solution because jeans are also immodest and unladylike.

Nevertheless I am glad that she had the courage to raise her concerns about immodesty. I commend her.

Lydia Sherman writes:

You said it perfectly, Susan: jeans aren’t any better!! I remember in the 50’s everyone wore them, but only on the beach and the farms, never to church or to go shopping.  I think the common wearing of pants began with the farm kids and then the designers had to find a way to market their clothes to people who weren’t interested, so they looked at what they were already wearing (torn jeans) and manufactured them.  Many people were uncomfortable by then with dressier clothes, and had grown up in the casual jeans and shirts so the designers had a problem selling their stuff.

That’s just a theory. Plus they sexualized the jeans, and pants, whereas before, they were not shown as a desirable outfit. I remember in the movies the actresses never had scenes from behind if they wore pants in the scene. Now even the Hallmark movies show the rear end fully outlined in jeans and the camera is not careful to show the women in their best light. I noticed one scene where a couple were walking up some steps into a house and the camera was right on her rear end, up under!!!   There is only one reason I watch any movie, it’s for the scenery and the houses. The clothing is terrible. I recently watched a Christian movie called “Princess Cut” which had a great message, but not one scene that I could detect, had women in skirts. Granted it was about a country family running a farm, but they weren’t careful not to show the worse parts of the women’s physique–as you know, the rear end is the biggest part of our bodies.  Victorians were content to cover it modestly with skirts.

We didn’t wear jeans in our rough country lives for fashion, but we put up with them because of their function, and if we wore them to school in winter, it was under our dresses and we couldn’t wait to get to the bathroom to remove the jeans before anyone noticed we were wearing them.

Please follow and like us: