According to Forbes‘ 2014 figures, Kate Upton made a hefty $7 million for selling and objectifying her body as one of the world’s most famous models. She is just one more high-profile representative of the literally tens of thousands of women around the world who engage in similar work for substantial remuneration.
Yet feminists blame male desire and the overall “patriarchy” for the “sexism” of the modelling industry. Upton and her colleagues are never excoriated for why they happily pose for a camera and make such a “misogynist” enterprise possible.
I am not against fashion modeling, bikini modeling, or pornography. There is also nothing inherently wrong with a woman making serious money from her sexual appeal, provided we all realize that such an appearance is artificially enhanced through cosmetics and technology. But serious, cutting questions need to be asked here.
Feminism has a massive problem with letting women off for their deliberate engagement with an industry it describes as inveterately sexist and demeaning. This is not because feminists like these women; deep down, they hate them profusely. Changing the focus to the models, however, forces feminism to concede that women, far from being patriarchally oppressed automatons, willingly engage in putting a price on their bodies. They enjoy the attention, adoration and lifestyle, not to mention the money it brings them.
Fundamentally, as a feminist, you can’t blame an invisible patriarchy or men in general for the “woes” of the world when women have a choice and then make that choice, like with modelling in skimpy or no attire, or selling themselves on the street instead of taking a waitressing job. This is not Fantine in Les Misérables. These women in the fashion and prostitution “professions” are not going to starve, or have their children starve, if they don’t take these jobs.
The only natural conclusion
If we take feminist “logic” to its proper end, Kate Upton is one of the biggest disseminators of institutionalized misogyny in the world. More people see Upton’s top-heavy but otherwise slim body splashed upon paper or online than know Roosh’s neomasculinity philosophy, let alone peruse my less well-known words in a particular week on ROK. So where are the attacks on her? Or on Gisele Bündchen, Heidi Klum, and Adriana Lima?
Blaming anorexia on the patriarchy’s obsession with female weight control, feminists? Well, what about Kate Upton? She parades her body incessantly and is the beneficiary of constant digital alteration to make her appear “perfect.” She also wears prodigious amounts of make-up, which gives other women an additional reason to believe the illusion and that they can never meet her standards of beauty.
So who’s subtly encouraging these girls to pray in front of the porcelain goddess in a bid to lose an extra pound or two in vomit? The average man who buys the $8 magazine or the woman, like Kate Upton, who makes the image on the front cover possible?
Let’s be clear here, Kate Upton is merely a surrogate, albeit perhaps the most famous one at the moment, for the wider body of women who are even more culpable for what feminists hate than the men purchasing print media or watching a TV program. It takes hundreds of thousands of men to admire what just one Kate Upton does, remember.
If they blame women, the smokescreen disappears
We need to dispel the notion that feminists are not aware of their profound internal contradictions. They are. But the decision to blame normal male sexual desire and forget the female collaborators, like swimsuit models and pornographic actresses, is a political one. Leaving the women out allows feminists to spin the overarching narrative that whatever they do not like is either solely because of men or helped by women who couldn’t possibly know better and are therefore spectacularly blameless.
The best way to clear a room filled with a putrid stench is to open the window (and door). Ironically, by abrogating all female responsibility for the selling of the female body, feminists are infantilizing women one hundred times more than what the manosphere has ever been accused of.
Whereas neomasculine men acknowledge a woman’s responsibility for showing her cleavage or spreading her legs, those opposing us seek to deny that women have the capacity in their cerebral cortexes to take such simple actions.
Just another day on ROK
Next time you see Kate Upton’s breasts accosting you from a newsstand or Sports Illustrated (let’s just hope you’re reading it for the athletes), reflect on what I’ve written here. Apply it to the rest of your life, your experiences, actions and those of others. You will always find not just a kernel of truth but a whole field filled with it.
Men and women are all consensual participants in the sexual marketplace, including where it spills over into the work of multibillion-dollar industries. This is especially so for the only ones (modelling and pornography) where women routinely earn more than men.
There is a limit to what obfuscation and tangential paths can achieve for feminists. If you pick up one end of the stick, you’re picking up the other end, too. The only fair way for SJWs to attack male sexual desire is to vilify the females who choose to satisfy it. And since the birth of time, women like Kate Upton have been fulfilling that role with their eyes completely open to what they are doing.
If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh's book Free Speech Isn't Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.
Read More: How To Become A Better Misogynist