Subtle Ways to Tell Your Man He’s a Sexist Prick

We’re all too aware of how (hetero)sexist and obnoxious Askmen.com could be, but this was too good (or should I say, bad) to not highlight. One of their many features is a “Top 10″ list of advice, ranging from money problems to relationship tips – including their most recent Top 10: Subtle Ways to Tell Her She’s Getting Fat.
That’s right, how to deceive your partner into losing weight. This includes a slew of shame tactics, including:

  • Buy her clothes that are too small (manipulation!)
  • Serve her small portions of food (starvation!)
  • Rig her chair to break under her (WHAT!)

Telling straight dudes that they should a. be turned off by their SO’s weight gain to begin with and b. encouraging them to emotionally manipulate them and go as far to potentially injure them by rigging their fucking chair is reprehensible.
Send an email to the site and give them your “Top 10″ of why they should take that feature down. And don’t be subtle about it.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

114 Comments

  1. UntouchableFace
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Um, there’s a wide, gaping hole between having “an opinion on [one's] partner’s appearance” and sabotaging said partner’s chair to fall apart.
    I’m also speaking of the commenters, many of whom strongly implied that if a man doesn’t like that his girlfriend has gotten fat, that means he’s an asshole.
    No one here is saying that you (or any other individual) has to find them attractive regardless of their weight.
    They kind of are, what with comments basically saying they should find the “person” attractive, and not their body, etcetera.
    Final note… I’d love to see a picture of you and BDR and of this author Thomas Foley (unfortunately, I’m striking out as it’s such a common name)… because my experience has been pretty steady that many men expect more of women than they do of themselves…
    I’m six feet tall, maybe a bit taller in shoes, depending on the type. I weigh 145 pounds, blonde hair (worn long), blue eyes, 2 earrings, tattoos on back.
    I have pictures, but I am loath to just splatter them on a site visited by hundreds upon hundreds of people. Not out of any self-consciousness, mind. I’m just generally a very private person.
    Unfortunately, those of us who are a little more measured and balanced in our view of the world often get overshadowed by loudmouthed jerks like yourself. Oh, well…
    Again, there’s nothing “jerky” about having standards. If someone finds something attractive, and someone doesn’t fit it, there’s really no reason to expect they’d still be attracted to that person at that point. At least physically.
    I don’t remember which Knocked Up article it was, I just remember the venomous comments.

  2. khw
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    lol, mine too!

  3. puckalish
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Um… could you actually quote, for me, the places – or just mention who said them – where there’s something wrong with finding someone unattractive? Because, well, for me, I’ve read twice something roughly related to what you’re stating here… but both times, it was related to suggesting that the individual didn’t stop being attracted to their partner, but felt the social pressure of wanting to be associated with an attractive (thin, etc.) partner in order to gain a certain degree of social status.
    I mean, personally, I think it’s kind of shallow to see your partner put on some pounds and suddenly decide that the most important issue is that s/he is no longer attractive to you – and then, to jump to harassing her/him about it with deceptive and manipulative tactics like dismantling household furniture.
    Yeah, so that’s really JERKY, actually… Standards… well, they may be shallow, but not so jerk-ish as what the article’s actually talking about…
    You, well, I’d consider you a jerk for coming on here and feeling like your rights are violated because folks are suggesting that being manipulative and cruel is not good for a love relationship. That’s definitely jerk material.
    Oh, and regarding your height… seems like you’re a little underweight. I think you should hit the gym a bit, because you owe it to women to be at least be fit-looking… I can’t imagine that, at 145 and 6′, your arms are even mentionable, not to mention your muscle mass in general (I mean, even smalled framed 6′ tall men should fall in the 149-160 range, according to my ideal height/weight charts). Earrings, tats and hair are kind of irrelevant to the conversation. Though, while you mention the long hair, I wonder how lustrous it is and how much care you really put into it. Because poorly maintained long hair on men, particularly lanky men, can be a real turn off…
    As for me… well, I’ve been with bigger women and smaller women and… despite that I teach martial arts and love being fit – I’m more interested in the soul for which that body’s just a vehicle. That, for me, is what’s really hot. But I’m also sure that you can find someone who shares your “values.” Probably not here, though…
    Really final note: you said “up front.” Did you read the article? Is there anything “up front” about it?

  4. marcella
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    So I’ve sent an email to Consumer Relations at Dr. Pepper, as they are the main advertiser within this article. I’ve let them know that this article insults women and that I will not be drinking their products anymore. (It kinda pisses me off cause if and when I drink soda, it is usually Diet Dr. Pepper.)
    But maybe this was just another subtle way of telling me I’m getting fat and that I should lay off the soda, even if it’s diet. If so, it’s genius!

  5. UntouchableFace
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    I mean, personally, I think it’s kind of shallow to see your partner put on some pounds and suddenly decide that the most important issue is that s/he is no longer attractive to you – and then, to jump to harassing her/him about it with deceptive and manipulative tactics like dismantling household furniture.
    Look at it like this:
    Assuming that the relationship with your partner also includes a physical element, it’s pretty silly to act as though physical attraction isn’t a factor in it.
    If you are no longer physically attracted to your partner, that will impact the physical component of the relationship, which will have a negative impact on the rest of it.
    You can deny that, or argue it, or claim that the emotional component is more important than the physical, but, I would find them to be equally important. You need to be both emotionally and physically attracted to your partner.
    If you don’t have both, your relationship is going to fail. How can you physically be with someone who no longer does anything for you physically?
    Yeah, so that’s really JERKY, actually… Standards… well, they may be shallow, but not so jerk-ish as what the article’s actually talking about…
    There’s nothing “shallow” about wanting a partner you’re physically attracted to.
    You, well, I’d consider you a jerk for coming on here and feeling like your rights are violated because folks are suggesting that being manipulative and cruel is not good for a love relationship. That’s definitely jerk material.
    I’d say “jerk material” is insisting that any man who has a problem with his partner getting fat should be dumped immediately.
    Oh, and regarding your height… seems like you’re a little underweight. I think you should hit the gym a bit, because you owe it to women to be at least be fit-looking… I can’t imagine that, at 145 and 6′, your arms are even mentionable, not to mention your muscle mass in general (I mean, even smalled framed 6′ tall men should fall in the 149-160 range, according to my ideal height/weight charts). Earrings, tats and hair are kind of irrelevant to the conversation. Though, while you mention the long hair, I wonder how lustrous it is and how much care you really put into it. Because poorly maintained long hair on men, particularly lanky men, can be a real turn off…
    I don’t owe anything to women, because I don’t really engage in romantic relationships anymore. So there.
    I actually take very good care of my hair, if you must know, as I’ve worn it long for roughly 20 years.
    As for me… well, I’ve been with bigger women and smaller women and… despite that I teach martial arts and love being fit – I’m more interested in the soul for which that body’s just a vehicle. That, for me, is what’s really hot. But I’m also sure that you can find someone who shares your “values.” Probably not here, though…
    Again, denying that physical attraction is an important component to a relationship is just an outright lie.
    Really final note: you said “up front.” Did you read the article? Is there anything “up front” about it?
    Most men that aren’t attracted to fat women will make this clear from the outset.
    Hell, the fact alone that the woman they’re dating wasn’t fat when they started dating her should be enough to suffice.
    If they wanted a fat woman, they’d have pursued one in the first place.

  6. Betty Boondoggle
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    UntouchableFace – so you’re saying that men are immature and can’t love a woman who’s body naturally changes over the course of time, because she doesn’t look exactly like she did when they met (but I’m oh-so-sure HE does.)? Sounds pretty assholey to me.
    Sounds like he should probably grow up and break up with said woman if he’s so unhappy and still exactly as physically fit as he was when they met. I mean, women are worthless unless they stoke your fire, amiright?

  7. puckalish
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

    Hey, look, moron, I know it’s easier to counter the argument that “men shouldn’t consider physical appearance,” but no one is making that argument.
    Further, as pointed out above, except in the case of injury or illness, bodies don’t change rapidly, allowing for plenty of time to engage the issue without resorting to pure jerkitude… if a woman’s shape is really SO IMPORTANT to you.
    Oh, yeah, and since you’re not interested in relationships, why are you so invested in this issue?
    As far as the “shallow” thing, I used the word “may,” I also made it clear that this is MY OPINION. I’ve been involved with women who are, in MY OPINION, way too wed to physical appearance over emotional connection and that’s just NOT FOR ME. Maybe it works for you… great, go ahead with your bad self… I still think you probably need to build up your muscle mass if that’s the case, though.
    And no one suggested that having an interest in being attracted to one’s partner is grounds for being “dumped immediately.” On the other hand, folks have suggested that being a manipulative prick who buys clothes that are too small, leaves photos of big-titted chicks lying around the apartment or dismantles furniture to make a point IS GROUNDS FOR DUMPING. Because that’s cruel, insensitive and kind of undermines the whole “emotional connection” thing you still seem to think is a component of a healthy relationship.
    You keep arguing against a point no one is making, do you get it yet? You still can’t point out one person who’s said that it doesn’t matter if you’re attracted to your partner, but that invisible enemy is the only person against whom your arguments would hold any water.
    You DO KNOW that the only “DTMFA” comment was made regarding a woman whose boyfriend is pressuring her to get COSMETIC SURGERY to increase her breast size through such mature tactics as leaving photos of other women around the house “surreptitiously.”
    Regarding your final statement… This post is about an article… the article is about tactics that are ANYTHING BUT UP FRONT. That’s what everyone (but you) is talking about. So, really… get over yourself…
    Or don’t… I don’t really care, just wanna set the record straight… and, apparently, it doesn’t matter much for your (admittedly nonexistent) love life.
    Be well! Err… I mean “so there!”

  8. Alexandr
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Who the hell knows what they were googling at the time, but BDR and gentleman explorer’s only reason for being at this site was apparently an ancient post from 2005 about a fairly disturbing sex toy called Real Doll.
    http://www.feministing.com/archives/004313.html#comment-234445
    Here’s BDR’s comment from that post:
    “BDR said:
    I have a question. Suppose these lifelike dolls are perfected to a point where they physically respond and can perform other domestic functions like cooking and cleaning. Suppose these things were priced at around ten thousand dollars. What percentage of men would prefer to marry a real woman vs. purchasing one of these dolls? Also, does anyone find it interesting that the rate for American men divorcing wives met in other countries is minuscule compared to American men who marry American women? If someone were to do a cost/benefit or risk analysis for an American man marrying an American woman, how do you think that would turn out when weighed against other options?
    Also, a woman with a vibrator or dildo absolutely creeps me out. And I feel compassion for all of the Cinderella’s, Pretty Women and what ever other delusions you poor ladies are forced to grow up with. God knows with rising obesity in this country it must be hard to look at a barbie doll.”
    Please take BDR’s previous post and main interest in even having visited this site into account before you start taking any advice given by him with regards to health/relationships/sex/body ideals/women seriously.

  9. puckalish
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    Oh, re: “shallow”… I mean shallow in terms of its synonym “superficial;” in other words, “concerned only with the obvious or apparent”… yeah, so being concerned enough with a partner’s weight as to dump him or her because of weight gain would, for me, be almost the definition of “shallow.”

  10. UntouchableFace
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Hey, look, moron, I know it’s easier to counter the argument that “men shouldn’t consider physical appearance,” but no one is making that argument.
    Further, as pointed out above, except in the case of injury or illness, bodies don’t change rapidly, allowing for plenty of time to engage the issue without resorting to pure jerkitude… if a woman’s shape is really SO IMPORTANT to you.

    First off, making ad hominem arguments doesn’t really further your point, it just makes you look ignorant.
    Moving on, you say no one is making that argument, but then you turn around and imply that anyone who dares want to be physically attracted to their partner is flawed.
    Oh, yeah, and since you’re not interested in relationships, why are you so invested in this issue?
    I don’t have to be a director/producer/actor/etc to critique movies.
    his post is about an article… the article is about tactics that are ANYTHING BUT UP FRONT. That’s what everyone (but you) is talking about. So, really… get over yourself…
    Again, the fact that the person involved got involved with a woman he found physically attractive, it would stand to logical reason, that if her body was radically altered (such as getting fat), that that would be outside his standards of attraction.
    Though, considering you’re getting all worked up, I’d advise you to get over yourself instead.
    yeah, so being concerned enough with a partner’s weight as to dump him or her because of weight gain would, for me, be almost the definition of “shallow.”
    “So being concerned enough with a partner’s opinions/anything emotional you didn’t like/etc would be the definition of shallow”.
    See how easy that was?
    It’s so easy to say “Oh, liking someone’s physical body is shallow!”. Well, liking someone’s brain is just as shallow, as it’s still a part of them they can’t readily change.
    Dumping someone because they voted for a president you didn’t like/support things you don’t/whatever is no more or less shallow than dumping them because you’re no longer physically attracted to them.
    UntouchableFace – so you’re saying that men are immature and can’t love a woman who’s body naturally changes over the course of time, because she doesn’t look exactly like she did when they met (but I’m oh-so-sure HE does.)? Sounds pretty assholey to me.
    No, I’m saying men are not under any obligation to be stuck with someone they aren’t physically attracted to anymore.
    If someone isn’t what you want, why would you expect them to stay in a relationship that’s not what they signed up for?
    If a man suddenly changed in a way a woman found unacceptable, would you expect her to “love him anyway”?
    Sounds like he should probably grow up and break up with said woman if he’s so unhappy and still exactly as physically fit as he was when they met. I mean, women are worthless unless they stoke your fire, amiright?
    That’s such fail, amiright?
    In a romantic relationship, you have two components. One is emotional. The other is physical. Can you have that second component if you’re physically repulsed by your partner? I’m thinking “no”.
    Also, nice attempt at telling men to “grow up”. If a woman is adamant in what she wants in a partner, would you tell her to “grow up” (infantilizing her in the process) and tell her to settle for something she doesn’t want, instead?

  11. puckalish
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Actually, I called you a name. That’s more of an insult than an ad hominem attack. If I were to say that you’re a shallow prick who is too insecure with himself to commit to a relationship with another person, that would be an ad hominem attack. That’s not what I said, though. I just insulted you. One word : moron. Sorry if I hit too close to home.
    Moving on… physical appearance is superficial – as in, it resides on the surface. Even if one’s character were simply the way his or her brain looked, it would not be superficial, as it resides within the person. However, one’s character tends to be a lot deeper than simply the physical characteristics of his/her brain. If you don’t get that, cool. Whatever.
    I don’t think it’s wrong to let physical attraction guide one’s love life to some degree – in fact, I think it’s necessary (again, to a degree). However, if your entire argument for dumping and/or terrorizing your partner hinges on external features/appearance, yeah, I think that’s pretty shallow. If you can’t think of a better way to state your dissatisfaction than by buying clothes you know are too small for her, then you’re not just shallow, you’re an ass who is in severe need of learning to interact with other humans.
    If someone breaks up with someone else simply because of how the someone else voted, that, too, is superficial, as in, it’s a judgment based on a very surface experience. If one were to dump one’s partner because his/her reasoning behind voting one way or another led to a conversation that revealed more incompatibility between the two, that’s another story, but that’s not what you said.
    I’m of the opinion that simple “deal-breakers” like being registered to vote one way or another or having a BMI over a certain number prevent individuals from actually getting to know what is beneath the surface. Surface = superficial. Get it yet? And I did make a distinction between being “superficial” and being a “jerk.”
    Final point which you don’t seem to be getting. The OP and the comments on this thread are not talking about whether or not it’s okay to be attracted or not attracted to someone else based on appearance. The article referenced in the original post is about using manipulative and deceptive tactics to harass one’s partner regarding her weight.
    If you are ever in a romantic relationship again and your partner resorts to scheming in order to get you to change a part of yourself, I would suggest you move on, because that is not a healthy behavior for an intimate partner. If you read what people were actually saying, you’d see that. However, you can’t even single out one person stating what you seem to be arguing against (ie, that it’s somehow wrong to let your attraction be determined by physical characteristics). Further, that’s not what the OP was talking about and is only tangentially related to the AM top 10 posting.

  12. puckalish
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    “So being concerned enough with a partner’s opinions/anything emotional you didn’t like/etc would be the definition of shallow”.
    Um… mind you, I mean “shallow”, once again, in terms of being overly concerned with surface characteristics. It has nothing to do with whether or not the individual can change (as the surface is often easier to change than what’s inside… which is why it’s not strategic to be superficial).
    Almost by definition, opinions, emotional behavior, etc. are NOT superficial, as they lie “beneath the surface,” as they say. Geez… maybe I was right on target with the “moron” jab (see, that’s an ad hominem attack).

  13. Vanessa
    Posted March 23, 2009 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Sorry folks, troll is gone!

  14. leota529
    Posted March 28, 2009 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    Whoa! This is insane! We are such a manipulative species…

174 queries. 0.928 seconds