I recently watched American Psycho, a movie based on the novel written by Bret Easton Ellis. The movie is about the descent into madness of a delusional psychotic named Patrick Bateman, who is a serial killer either in his head or in reality — the story is intentionally vague on that point. There were some very curious political intrigues surrounding the book and film, beginning with a successful protest by NOW against the book’s publication by Simon & Schuster (Vintage ended up publishing the novel in 1991) due to its allegedly misogynistic nature, and continuing through the production of the film in 2000. This led to a deal whereby production of the movie was handled both directly and indirectly by feminists, which was probably accepted by Ellis as the only possible way to get the story onto the big screen.
Feminist director Mary Harron and lesbian writer Guinevere Turner collaborated to write the screenplay. Harron directed the movie, and Gloria Steinem lobbied actors to influence who should be cast as Patrick Bateman. Ultimately, Christian Bale got the part, and right around the same time Steinem married Christian’s father, David Bale. It is undeniable that a feminist clique had a great deal to do with the production of the film, and this can be seen quite clearly in the end product. Although this may have profoundly changed the nature of the story, the resulting film is valuable for the insight it gives us into feminist psychology regarding men.
One thing I noticed while watching the film was an uncanny resemblance to the Mad Men TV series. The attention to clothing and grooming, the uniform corporate atmosphere, and the callous, sociopathic behavior of the men all reminded me very much of Don Draper’s life. Mad Men, which is also written largely by women, portrays men in essentially the same light as American Psycho, that is, as soulless beasts driven only by lust and greed.
As I am not a woman, and can merely imagine what goes on in the female mind, I can only speculate as to whether this is actually how women view men. Perhaps it is a uniquely American phenomenon, but amongst women there seems to be something approaching worship of this twisted masculine ideal – veneration at the very least – and I don’t think men in general are aware of this, because they are too preoccupied with another cult.
The film opens with an elegant and very effeminate dinner, at which the impeccably dressed and clean-shaven men of Pierce & Pierce (where Bateman is VP) make crude, politically-incorrect jokes while blowing hundreds of dollars and eating exotic animals. They are caricatures of men operating against a feminine backdrop of elegant dining, replete with dapper waiters, exquisite dining linens, cutlery and artistically arranged dishes. In the next scene, Patrick Bateman goes through his daily routine, which includes applying cosmetic concoctions to his body and face, doing exercises to improve his appearance, and grooming himself for another day at the office. This scene borders on pornographic, as Christian Bale’s nude, toned, and waxed body is constantly on display. Again, the backdrop is distinctly feminine, with a gorgeous bathroom, a tanning booth, and an array of cosmetic products. One gets the sense that Bateman, the serial killer, embodies everything that women desire.
Aside from his preoccupation with his appearance, Bateman is obsessed with 1980s pop singers, such as Phil Collins and Whitney Houston. When he isn’t obsessing over trivial details and trivial culture, he murders people and has sex, often at the same time. Patrick has no personality to speak of, nor does he have any real humanity. His emotions all stem from two basic instincts: a drive for status and an insatiable lust for both sex and blood. In the narrative, Bateman states that he is flesh and blood, but he is not really there. He can be felt and seen, but beyond the material, there is no substance to him. It is here that I suspect we might find the greatest divergence between the feminist interpretation of the tale and Ellis’s intent. To feminists, Bateman is the patriarchy; a mechanical, inhuman force, devoid of warmth or human frailty, but incorporating all the forbidden desires of women. Perhaps it is the story of Eve, and Bateman himself is the serpent, but if so Adam is strangely absent from the narrative.
In The Spearhead many of us have commented on the issue of Victorian ideals and how they have had a profound effect on our culture. We often write of the pedestalization of Western women, and how this has directly led to many of the problems afflicting us today. The ideal of the blameless, chaste woman, who is neither real nor human, remains a potent cultural icon. In fact, outsiders might even suggest that there is an element of religious veneration inherent to this cultural trait. Many men and women have discussed this aspect of the Anglo psyche, but there is another side to the Victorian ideal that we too often neglect. There is the necessary complement, and I am starting to understand that women, too, have an idealized vision of men that is every bit as unnatural and inhuman as the Victorian doll on the pedestal that has led to our reluctance to treat women as the flawed, fallen human beings that they are.
If anything offers a counterpart to the woman on the pedestal, it is the depraved, dangerous, bestial man portrayed by Patrick Bateman. His dark, compulsively acquisitive, violent and sexual nature is the nemesis, and also the consort, of the asexual paragon of virtue and light that we have fashioned as the essence of femininity. If Lucy Manette, the angelic heroine of Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, is the archetypical female goddess as imagined by a male artist, then Mary Harron’s Patrick Bateman, dripping with bloody murder and raw sexuality, is the male god as imagined by the female artist. He is insane, soulless and hellbound, yet Bateman is more demon than damned, for he is not a fallen human so much as he is the recrudescence of hell on earth. It is an oddly similar, yet sexually inverted, theme to the Hindu relationship between Shiva and Kali.
The more we delve into feminism and its elemental concepts, the more apparent it becomes that we are struggling against a meta-religion that is deeply ingrained in the Anglosphere’s psyche. Perhaps we will have to accept that we dissenters are actually heretics who are leaning on pillars that support the entire edifice of our civilization as it has emerged following the 20th century. We are, after all, challenging the fundamental concepts of ourselves as men and women, without which we would have to start over with something entirely different. Perhaps, therefore, it is our responsibility to make some effort to articulate a replacement. More and more, I see feminism as a challenge to us men to do just that, and at this point I don’t see that we have an alternative.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 75 comments… read them below or add one }
An excellent choice for a movie commentary.
I originally saw the movie in a theatre, and it had quite an impression on my mind. However, at the time I thought of the character and the movie mostly to be a criticism of consumerism, uncontrolled hedonism and the yuppie culture of the 80s, and didn’t think it had much to do with critiquing men in general.
I mostly thought that Bateman was very cool in a way — the perfect “alpha male” to emulate, — anti-Betaman, if you will — if you don’t count e.g. the murders and the shallowness of personality. Success with the ladies or in the corporate environment doesn’t have much to do with ethics. Mergers and inquisitions, indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually, murders and executions was the quote, but close enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It was both, right? He said “murders and executions” and the woman heard “mergers and acquisitions.”
I think the original book was more of an indictment of yuppie materialism, but the movie, I think, focused more on gender/sexual elements. The men are entirely – with the exception of the bum – inhuman in one way or the other. It is a very strange movie, but I liked it and am glad I took the time to watch it.
You’re correct, there’s been almost a decade since I saw the movie.
I just remembered that the flippant version would have been mergers (in the “intimate relations” sense) and inquisitions (“torture and killing”).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I remember watching this movie ages ago and I remember finding it very funny. The bit where he is screwing the escorts whilst flexing his biceps shouting out: “OOOH Look at him!”
And the bit where he bites that chicks leg with a psychotic look on his face.
Very good review of the film though!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Important work, Welmer. This is just a sketch, of course, but I sense a vein of truth-gold in this line of inquiry. I will give this some thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To follow up:
I mean to say that the concept of an unattainable, archetypal male perpetrated by women mirroring the well-known unattainable archetypal female of the Victorian age perpetrated by men has the smack of revelation. Something that’s never, ever occurred to me, but which immediately rings true in a way I know not, even in a brief pop-culture inspired post such as this.
Again, great stuff.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The more we delve into feminism and its elemental concepts, the more apparent it becomes that we are struggling against a meta-religion that is deeply ingrained in the Anglosphere’s psyche. Perhaps we will have to accept that we dissenters are actually heretics who are leaning on pillars that support the entire edifice of our civilization as it has emerged following the 20th century.”
Very astute observations, and that’s part of my own motif with Feminist Apocalypse (although I’ve sadly neglected for a time).
Feminism’s roots are deeper than just the 20th century, however; it is, in part, an extension of female supremacy, Western, the dualism of the myth of the pure moral woman and the corrupt man that has to prove himself even he has no chance to win the heart of a “chaste” lady. It’s codified form of what has been a heavy strain running through Western culture way before anyone from a Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Jessica Valenti came on the scene.
And there is something that I want to state about this:
“More and more, I see feminism as a challenge to us men to do just that, and at this point I don’t see that we have an alternative.”
I can say that finding a new way and state of being; it has to entail eroding away the forces that would have us compelled to self-obligation to the point of irrational sacrifice for matriarchy’s power. Men have to be on their own side and seriously question any “principle” that will lead them to exploitation and dissolution
Whatever that might manifest, until then, men will not gain any legitimate real ground for themselves, individually or otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“If Lucy Manette, the angelic heroine of Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, is the archetypical female goddess as imagined by a male artist, then Mary Harron’s Patrick Bateman, dripping with bloody murder and raw sexuality, is the male god as imagined by the female artist.”
I did something years ago in conversation. I remember quoting a lyric involving a black magic compact, blood-drinking, and murderous thoughts to an ex-girlfriend because she was curious. I was very reticent to do so because I thought it would give her a wrong impression and didn’t want to act as if I approved of any of that.
She described it as “hot.” Need I say more.
Several people know about Elizabeth Bathory; most men certainly don’t idolize or defy her as a symbol and envoy of a blood demigod to be eroticized, or if so, only as an adolescent style fantasy and nothing more.
It seems so many Western women think the male counterpart a bit too intriguing for comfort—just look at the advent of serial killer groupies and women who lionize cold and brutal men with status.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women are the gender who write romantic letters to incarcerated murderers they have never met. Men do not do this.
There is something more going on than fear. They do not just fear these inhuman extremes of masculinity. They are intrigued, dare I say excited.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It should be pointed out the authors of both Feministing.com and Pandagon.net are huge Mad Men fans and waste inordinate numbers of electrons (but few brain cells) on lengthy commentaries on that TV program.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Zammo
What I found funny was that someone at Feministing wrote an angry letter of complaint to the writers/producers of Mad Men for its chauvinist male stereotypes (not because it’s anti-male sexism, but because it wasn’t showing these stereotypes in a negative light.)
They got a response from the producers who are themselves feminists, basically telling them that they’ve got the wrong end of the stick.
Since then, they’ve gushed over the show.
Despite the fact that it’s not actually any -different- from the show they got all pissed about for its chauvinism.
When they presumed the show was produced by chauvinist men and/or anti-feminist women, they criticised its content. Now that they know it’s produced by feminist women, they celebrate its content, but that content itself has not changed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah, team vagina in action.
Pussy powers are go!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Beautifully written commentary, and definitely an unusual take on the film.
As an aside, almost every guy I know really likes this movie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I read the book. The below was it satirical intent.
“However, at the time I thought of the character and the movie mostly to be a criticism of consumerism, uncontrolled hedonism and the yuppie culture of the 80s, and didn’t think it had much to do with critiquing men in general.”
It was anti-materialism, hedonism, (and to me, social facades), which truly took off during the 80′s. There was an entire page dedicated to describing his clothes and accessories at one point in the book, and the ultra violence was more extreme.
Here is a link to a dad fighting for custody of his kid taken to Brazil by his mom.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=34476691�
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When they presumed the show was produced by chauvinist men and/or anti-feminist women, they criticised its content. Now that they know it’s produced by feminist women, they celebrate its content, but that content itself has not changed.-Snark
This mentality is like porno. The feminazi establishment gets their drawers in a bunch over it, claiming that it’s “rape” and that women are being “exploited” and “objectified”, but if it’s produced, directed or written by women then it’s all nice and peachy, nothing wrong with it in any way. Too bad the remainder of mankind doesn’t come to the same conclusion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul Bernardo latched onto the book and used it as a sort of manual to live by. Obviously he didn’t get its satirical intent.
(Paul Bernardo is a serial killer, who with his wifes helped, kidnapped, raped and tortured young women. The kicker: The wife is now out of jail. Pussy pass taken to the extreme. Google the story. Its sickening. Even female serial killers get treated with kid gloves.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Talking about sociopaths. Heres a link just for Lady Kraime (okay, I made that one up, I ran out of ryhmes).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34475573/ns/world_news-europe
Where did you put it LR? Tell us, we won’t rat you out. Is it in your son’s room hanging above his bed?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have written a fair amount of fiction, mostly with the help of a very hard nosed mentor that made it his sometimes sadistic mission to berate every last vestige of conceit from my pen.
I’ll never forget my first phone call from him after reading one of my short stories. “People don’t like being lied to,” he said, “so at least tell the reader up front that it’s all about you. In the meantime, shit-can this narcissistic crap and do it over.”
Of course his point was the writing I offered was indistinguishable from my own ego, that every character, every line of narrative was unauthentic and self absorbed. And of course he was right.
I haven’t read American Psycho, or seen the movie, but as a read in and between the lines of your analysis, I see what could be another explanation behind the story and how it’s told.
I wonder if there is perhaps something more, like simple and unfettered projection, in these “caricatures of men operating against a feminine backdrop of elegant dining, replete with dapper waiters, exquisite dining linens, cutlery and artistically arranged dishes.”
To begin with, the trappings of fine dining and wealth are a product of masculine energy and creativity. Each item, down to the detail of artistically arranged dishes, is more masculine than feminine. It is entirely possible to me that the attempt by Harron and Turner is simply an unconscious attempt to claim ownership to those things, creating a backdrop that is more projective than literal.
But the image of a preening, sexually empowered killer, unsatisfied with visible power and in the dark and secretive pursuit of absolute dominance, is much more telling. As to “intentional” ambiguity of what is real and not real, some things just speak for themselves.
All this says a lot more about the writers personal pathology than it does fictional characters as a social statement. And I think it led you to a very understandable moment of uncertainty, as you relate with, “As I am not a woman, and can merely imagine what goes on in the female mind, I can only speculate as to whether this is actually how women view men.”
My money is on the notion that this is not how women view men. I know, sure as I say that, a woman (or a man) is likely to contradict me, but I am still not buying that the “men” in this project represents an interpretation of the modern masculine through female eyes. It is the interpretation of the modern feminine, the writers projective denial fueling every nuance.
I picked up on this in the Mad Men series quite some time ago. The men in that show are clearly nothing more than the manifestation of a woman’s ego in whiskers. The show isn’t really an indictment of masculinity, but an expression of unsatisfied female desires and ambitions.
We have seen this clearly in feminism on a more universal scale with women who condemn masculinity at every turn and then 100% emulate the aspects of masculinity they purport to abhor.
So what I am pretty sure I will be left with after reading the book, which I will go ahead and do, is just a fictionalized account of the writers secretive, frustrated machinations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul, the novel is written by a man, but the screenplay was written by women — feminists no less. If you’d like to both read the book and watch the movie, and then make a comparison, that would be very enlightening.
I think I will do that. My observations were based on your interpretation of the movie, ergo the screenplay, and not the book. As you know, frequently one has little to do with the other.
Have you read the book?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That was an excellent alternative reading of the film, Paul. I can see both sides of this – and I think there’s even enough wiggle room for synthesis here
I remember reading a short story in a newspaper some time ago. I can’t remember who wrote it, but it was some feminist non-entity. It was written from a man’s point of view, supposedly. Except I couldn’t relate it to myself nor any man I have ever known. Almost every other thought this guy had was racist or sexist in some way; he explicitly thought of other people as garbage, etc. And it was full of these little witticisms and asides that female writers think make their writing look sophisticated. It simply was not how men think. What occurred to me at the time was, this is how feminists think that men think. And they’re way off the mark.
The synthesis I would propose runs something like this:
Feminists observe men’s behaviour.
They then try to ascertain the motivations/internal decisions and thought processes which lead to this behaviour.
However, lacking ‘male minds’ as such, they only end up with the motivations and thought process which would lead them to the same behaviour.
Hence they attain only female motivations for men’s behaviour.
It’s known as fundamental attribution error – the attributing of cause to another’s behaviour based on what is observed. A husband may come home after a really shitty day and just want to go to bed. His stay-at-home wife, being unaware of the tribulations of his day, chalks this up to him being unfeeling and unloving. ‘Why doesn’t he want to have sex? He must not love me any more. Perhaps he’s cheating.’ etc.
I agree that these mischaracterisations are also a form of feminist wish fulfillment: that they wish to glory in the perceived power of men. And perhaps they overstate this power, linking it with an innately inhuman, exploitative condition. Lacking insight into the male mind, the only explanation they can find to account for male behaviour is that which would produce similar behaviour in women, through the female mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In my opinion, this is a question of world intelligence waning and waxing.
Remember the Fathers of the America Constitution: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Those seven men represented a waxing period of intelligence: never before had there been so many men of great talent united toward a common goal.
(Another such time in History appeared in Classical Greece)
It would be just about impossible today to gather that many great minds: we are in a period of waning intelligence driven by the ultimate stupidity: feminism.
We, as a species, may be condemned to remain in the lower spheres of intelligence from now on: the human species, at least in the West has seen its mind destroyed by a satanical majority.
We have come to the point where reproductive organs have become toys. Sex, instead of being a simple reproduction tool, has become the “raison d’etre” of human life. Humans behave more and more like animals.
In fact, I even think that some animal species have evolved beyond us. We may no longer be the most intelligent species on the planet.
We came down from tress a few million years ago. Soon, we will climb back up into our trees and let another species take over: humans have failed.
I just hope that the next intelligent species will not know about feminism, for feminism is what destroys all forms of intelligence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The light side of female sexuality is the ability to inspire, heal, and reproduce with warriors committed to furthering humanity’s progress.
The dark side of female sexuality is all about trying to “tame,” but eventually submit to, ravaging beasts.
The former is a supremely powerful creative force for furthering the progress of humanity.
The latter makes sense from the perspective of the “selfish gene” but is an unmitigated disaster for society and humanity’s progress.
Patrick Bateman is the Alpha Male multiplied by 10,000 as perceived by the dark side of female sexuality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In a world where
“Christian Bale got the part, and right around the same time Steinem married Christian’s father, David Bale”
Brett Easton Ellis is considered literature – and movies are made to celebrate the fact
and reward The Celebrated Author.
mout
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another brilliant analysis.
We are struggling against an elemental force, but I don’t think it’s religious.
Wealthy democratic societies inevitably embark on suicidal wealth redistribution. “A democracy…….can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury…….The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”……Alexis de Tocqueville
The historically unprecedented Western policies of wealth redistribution from men to women, encompassing affirmative action, support for single mothers and no fault divorce, have freed Western women to act out of pure self-interest. Western entitlement feminism is the solipsistic female mind untrammeled, unmasked. The result is a hyperbolic trajectory of female self-interest that can be stopped only by the removal of the factors that drive it – wealth, democracy, male altruism.
This has all happened many, many times before. “Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein……Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters. …..Cato the Elder 234-149 B.C
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jabherwochie
Thought I’d lend a hand since I write lyrics (musician). Brain, sane, insane, lain, bane, cocaine, complain, entrain, explain, chain, gain, feign, domain, sprain, stain, contain, constrain, campaign, cane, arraign, airplane, octane, profane, etc. Let me know if you want more LOL.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rebel may well be correct. There have been period in history that are regarded as ‘golden ages’ such as the enlightenment and the renascence and other periods were superstition was the norm. I doubt things where that clear cut with definite boundaries. May be it does all rather reflect one’s point of view. But that said there does seem to be a waxing and waning as Rebel suggests.
I found Welmer’s analysis and the additions that followed very interesting. What I would like him to comment on nature and role of the Victorian male archetype and how that fits into his overall picture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“David Brandt December 18, 2009 at 10:06 am
Jabherwochie
Thought I’d lend a hand since I write lyrics (musician). Brain, sane, insane, lain, bane, cocaine, complain, entrain, explain, chain, gain, feign, domain, sprain, stain, contain, constrain, campaign, cane, arraign, airplane, octane, profane, etc. Let me know if you want more LOL.”
Copy and pasted to my mental file cabinet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SCARY.
Feminists originally tried to banish the book, by complaining to publishing companies that were going to print it.
Then, feminists took over and directed/wrote the movie?
And high-ranking feminists at that?
That is just scary to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The feminist angle advanced in this post, developed from the admittedly interesting background details concerning Steinem, et.al. surrounding the genesis of the film, misses the salient point: Bret Ellis is a total fag. Yes, I realize he is one of those that has said, “I really don’t like to classify myself/I don’t subscribe to traditional definitions of sexuality”, but then, Ricky Martin and Boy George said exactly the same thing in interviews at the time when they were most famous. I don’t know who they are trying to fool – high school girls, perhaps. [Any man that doesn't immediately step up to the plate and declare he is heterosexual, or "hedges his bets" when the topic comes up, is queer - take it as an axiom.] This makes any views expressed in his creative endeavors suspect. At any rate, you can’t expect anything but a grotesque parody of masculinity, steeped in pop culture vapidity, from a homosexual. Everything will be fashion conscious, snarkily ironic, and vacuously distorted. For more proof, look at Ellis’ previous books, “Rules of Attraction” and “Less Than Zero”. Faggy undertones and immorally based mimicries of contemporary collegiate maleness abound – and there were no feminazis in even nominal control there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Snark
I agree that these mischaracterisations are also a form of feminist wish fulfillment: that they wish to glory in the perceived power of men.
Exactly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Feminism = penis envy taken to psychotic extremes.
Before the ladies can “strap it on,” the true owners need to be … divested.
Very perceptive, Welmer!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fascinating that American Psycho can still inspire such wildly different interpretations and reactions.
Feminists can either hate it or love it, and the same applies to men.
Is controversy a sign of good art or what?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Feminism = penis envy taken to psychotic extremes.”
I disagree. I think feminism is about
1. Getting more of our society’s resources while adding less value to it.
2. Freeing women of responsibility and accountability for their actions.
3. Burdening men, and society at large, for women’s individual shortcomings.
Doesn’t have anything to do with penis envy. I happen to think that’s a childish stereotype.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You sound like one of the retards raving about Smoot-Hawley.
Why don’t you actually learn history, idiot.
Really. Rome ended with an Aristocracy that tried to kill one powerful general to many, and then lead to a dictatorship.
The Aristocracy was the initiator all the way in Romes transition form a Republic to an Empire.
So keep repeating the idiocy teacher taught you to sing for a pat on the head.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“At any rate, you can’t expect anything but a grotesque parody of masculinity, steeped in pop culture vapidity, from a homosexual. Everything will be fashion conscious, snarkily ironic, and vacuously distorted. For more proof, look at Ellis’ previous books, “Rules of Attraction†and “Less Than Zeroâ€. Faggy undertones and immorally based mimicries of contemporary collegiate maleness abound – and there were no feminazis in even nominal control there.”
I’ve known several brilliant, insightful, and enlightened gay men. Sometimes, “they are not all like that” is more than a reflexive ego defense mechanism. You won’t always notice the strong, intelligent gay men, because they generally don’t advertise they are gay. Their identity is not wrapped up in gay culture. I found the book to be brilliant, maybe not profound, but insightful non the less.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“and can merely imagine what goes on in the female mind, I can only speculate as to whether this is actually how women view men.”
Globalman to Welmer…nothing goes on inside the female mind. Women view men, even the good women, as a provider and protector, someone to give and give and give TO them…..the only difference is the good ones actually give something back in return. One of the biggest mistakes I made was to talk to women and ask them what they are thinking and feeling, what they want etc. That they all said similar things made it sound true to me. What I didn’t realise was the lies were uniform. I did that for 32 years. I recommend against it now.
“More and more, I see feminism as a challenge to us men to do just that, and at this point I don’t see that we have an alternative.”
I think this is really worth talking about. Obviously I have found my own solution. Strawman recapture. Get my own apartment. Only woman who gets a key is the cleaner. That I run my own business and can make money without participating in the ‘corporate world’ any more as an employee makes a big different. John Nada has found his own solution as well.
I think men will find their own solutions to their problem of feminism. Some men may join together to form companies or co-operatives and go out and do business like any other competitive company. But I think each man must think for himself as to what he chooses to do. And then be responsible for his outcomes. We all know most women can’t think for themselves or be responsible for their outcomes so men will pretty soon dominate the economic world again.
As for movies. It is blatantly obvious that hollywood is feminising men through characters like Christian Bales here. What is not so obvious is that men were ‘masculinised’ in the same way by the ‘tough guy hero’ type of stories we have been subject to throughout history up to and included Clint Eastwoods spagetti westerns and Dirty Harry. What men look at now with fond memories and ‘nostalgia’ was also programming….just different programming that we had come to know and love. When I talk to some of these feminsed young men they can see nothing ‘wrong’ with acting pretty much like women. They see nothing ‘wrong’ with their extreme attention to how they look, their effeminate words and expressions and actions. For them this has become ‘normal’ and those of us who are more ‘masculine’ seem to them to be ‘strange throwbacks of a forgone era’. That they are being manipluated and people are being turned into a kind of androgenous genderless society is lost on them. Most are taking their soma and being happy enough about it. It is only those of us who see something ‘wrong’ in all this who ‘object’.
As men decide who it is they wish to be, they might want to keep and eye out for the ‘puppet masters’ who are pulling the strings of presenting ‘desirable images’ to them.
Snark December 18, 2009 at 5:17 am
“They are intrigued, dare I say excited.”
Snark, women MARRY serial killers. Dick Masterson has a lot to say about this. It’s all about attention whoring and gina tingles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What you are doing here is describing the difference between a root cause and its ultimate effect, not two conflicting ideas.
It is pretty clear to me that “penis envy” is intended euphemistically. It is just a colorful way of describing a neurotic form of envy about men based on the perception that their lives are all about big money and dancing girls, when the reality is that most men trudge through their lives with their heads down, trying to survive and taking care of a family.
That pretty much describes feminism to a “T”
And that has very much resulted in the three points you made.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“the more apparent it becomes that we are struggling against a meta-religion that is deeply ingrained in the Anglosphere’s psyche.”
In many societies, what we would call ‘their religion’ is merely the framework through which they see their world. Hawaiian ‘religion’ is nothing more than the accepted explanations for the natural phenomena around them, for example.
What you are touching on here is the framework built by our history. The existing framework needs to go. But I also don’t have a better one with which to replace it. And there kind of has to be SOME framework.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rebel,
Quote:
“We, as a species, may be condemned to remain in the lower spheres of intelligence from now on: the human species, at least in the West has seen its mind destroyed by a satanical majority.
We have come to the point where reproductive organs have become toys. Sex, instead of being a simple reproduction tool, has become the “raison d’etre†of human life. Humans behave more and more like animals.
…
We came down from tress a few million years ago. Soon, we will climb back up into our trees and let another species take over: humans have failed.”
According to you, we are animals. Why should you expect us to act like anything else?
As for Welmer’s Post, he said:
“Perhaps, therefore, it is our responsibility to make some effort to articulate a replacement. More and more, I see feminism as a challenge to us men to do just that, and at this point I don’t see that we have an alternative.”
You are operating under the impression that we need to look to something “new” to solve this problem. I operate under a different paradigm that we need to look back to understand why this is so bad. If you operate from an evolutionary mindset, then this is simply another turn in the evolutionary wheel, and whoever is superior will come out on top and maintain dominance until something better comes around. I find this idea silly at best and insulting at the worst.
So as Welmer suggested, why don’t we offer an alternative? Here goes:
Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Eph 5:3,4 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
Eph 5:21-26 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Go look up the word reverence.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Col 3:8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
1Ki 2:2 I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man; And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Mic 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
Pro 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
1Ti 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
1Pe 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Pro 17:27 He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.
Pro 3:1-4 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.
That’s all I have off the top of my head. Why don’t we try doing this according to the principle that men were created in the image of God? If that is so, then we have a high standard to live up to, and any woman who thinks she can fill the role better is foolish at best.
Best regards,
Joey
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oops forgot this one. It’s the sum of the matter!
Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Joseph-
Your going to have a hard time around here. I hope your God gives you the strength to persevere in the face of doubters and skeptics. The only biblical quotes I care about are direct quotes from Jesus. Were any of those direct quotes from Jesus? I ask in all seriousness. I only care for his words.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Christians skip over all the parts where Jesus talks. Listening to that dude might deflate their dysfunctional sense of moral superiority.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Feminism teaches women that masculine men are evil.
Heterosexual women are still attracted to men.
Therefore, they think that the more evil a man is, the more male he is, and therefore the more attractive he is. Sick, but true.
Such women actually can’t handle a normal man because he behaves in ways that contradict the “men are evil” thesis. Their buggy social programming (feminism) causes error messages to flash when a man is kind, generous, law-abiding, or (horror of all horrors) … a Nice Guy. “Hmm, he must be gay.”
“Nice Guys are just psychopaths in disguise” is the subliminal message of “Take back the Night” and other forms of femmie agit-prop. Once it’s accepted that All Men Are Evil, Masculinity is Evil, and Evil is Masculinity, then women naturally are turned on by evil guys and repelled by “wimps” who don’t kill people.
Turn on the TV during prime time and flip through the channels. Women are now the main audience of TV, and the highest-rated shows are crime shows. These aren’t documentary shows about real crime, which affects poor minorities in disproportionate numbers. These are shows about the fantasy criminals that women want to mate with.
They are clever upper-class men, usually white, who lead the police on a wild chase for 60-minutes-minus-commercials. They are amoral and charming psychopaths who enjoy profiting from evil and hurting people. The victims are disproportionately women – most real-life murder victims are men. The investigators usually include a Clever Woman who outwits the perps, often by exhibiting deductive and scientific skills that are rarely possessed by a female in real life.
In reality, a minority teenage dropout with a gun is far more likely to be a killer than a young-to-middle-aged upper class white guy with an IQ of 130 or more. The “perps” on TV are idealized versions of masculinity as perceived by feminist writers and viewers. Evil, but smart and cute. Yummy, if you are a chick.
It’s “TV programming” in more ways than one – women watch this stuff for several hours per week and are imbued with the “Men are Evil” and “Evil is Masculinity” memes. This distorts their perception of reality and makes it dangerous for men to associate with them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Joseph,
I understand your religious point of view and I do respect it.
We don’t see the world from the same point of view, that’s why our perspectives are different.
I am not against your belief that we have been created with a purpose, but I find myself quite unable to “believe” in anything. It just does not stick.
My point of view is that we are very likely the progeny of our monkey ancestors.
In my humble point of view, it is not right to place a label “God” when we don’t understand how things work , because it means we quit searching.
We are a species in the making. We caught a virus and now we are receding. Somewhere, we took the wrong turn and we end up in the ditch.
We’ll pick ourselves up and get going again. Somehow.
For now, we are going through a Dark Age from which we may emerge or not. All our own doing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nemo,
That comment was so good that I’m saving it to a notepad file on my desktop.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A society that glorifies criminals, thugs, murderers and the like is one that just begs to descend into a gheeto. Which is already happening.
Also, I found that, for people to bitch to high heavens about sexbots, they find a male robot so hot. And, just like aristocracy, they are really vicious to each other but the sisterhood comes first. It comes before their husbands, their families, their childs, etc.
And they wonder why we are upset.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Joseph, Rebel, Jabherwochie:
I would actually enjoy a Spearhead entry on women in the bible. A little old school religious perspective would be interesting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Richard
Yeah, that is scary as hell. Perhaps we underestimate just how tight a grip feminism has around america’s throat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jabherwochie,
Don’t worry about me, I have thick skin. As for Jesus,
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
And don’t worry, being a christian means you have no moral superiority. Jesus Christ does however, and we have him. He’s all I’ve got realistically.
Rebel:
I completely understand where you are coming from. I don’t agree with it, but I do understand. My point of view is that the “virus” you speak of is actually sin and it is our behavior that has been the reason for our physical and psychological deterioration. I simply believe the Bible and it promises which say that God will renew us and our land if we turn to him. My only point in quoting you is that if we evolved, then life has little meaning other than what “we” assign to it. That can change from generation to generation. Changes should actually be celebrated from this point of view. If you approach it from a Biblical perspective then, women and men are essentially out of control (women are just seeing a large jump in behavioral deterioration).
Best Regards,
Joey
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gen’l Butt Naked,
I would be happy to oblige if Welmer approves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that would make a very nice contribution. The only thing I try to avoid in regards to religion is proselytizing or otherwise advocating one religion over another on this site. However, factual analysis of scripture or objective comparisons are perfectly fine; I am a big fan of laying out the facts and letting people choose for themselves. And to be honest, I find the subject fascinating, as I’m sure plenty of others do.
If you’d like to make a submission, simply get in touch with me through the contact form to send it over.
Esther Vilar’s contention is that women are forever engaging in ways to reduce men into being their slaves, and that whatever conceptions we may have about our more noble purposes and motives, if we can identify women as being beneficiaries and ourselves as providers, then we can be sure those attitudes were developed and programmed into us by the women in our lives. This fits neatly into H.L.Mencken’s view that all ‘first rate men’ are bachelors – they have seen through woman’s net, cast first by their mother then by later female acquaintance (and nowadays female imagery in media).
More pertinent to the OP, here’s what she has to say about our views of ourselves in the book ‘The Manipulated Man’. See how closely her language resembles that of the characters described in American Psycho.
In her view, all the imagery we are being subjected to serves only one purpose, and that is to make men submit willingly to being women’s slaves. If we accept her view, then we read too much into what their wider thoughts on the nature of things are, or if they are projecting.
Rebel may well be adopting the wisest response, not least because it is the most concise (a recommendation in itself): believe nothing they put before you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Paul Elam…
I was itching to get through the thread so I could write about projection. I instead defer to your superior exposition.
I would add that feminist portrayals of patriarchy conform to the same form of projection. It springs from a female understanding of how male power functions. Unfortunately a thoroughly collectivist mind is inadequate to an understanding of how the individual empowers him or her self.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
After reading a little of Vilar’s ‘Manipulated Man’, an alternative suggests itself.
If, as she contends, men have been conditioned to serve as women’s slaves by women’s wiles, then the road ahead is nothing less than the abolition of this slavery. We are amongst the first to recognize that slaves are what we are, and that it is our senses of obligation, duty and guilt that serve as our chains. To free ourselves, we need to act on the following:
1) recognize that our ‘need’ for intimacy with a woman is engineered through a lifetime of conditioning. Men do not need to have a woman in their life any more than a drug addict needs his drug.
2) tear marriage as it is commonly understood to the ground. Not just the legal aspects, but the psychological aspects as well. It’s business and should be treated as such. Rip out all the romantic goo.
3) Insist that children see as much of their fathers as they do of their mothers. The first 2 points will never be achievable unless fathers have access to their children’s minds – especially their son’s. Women have too much of a vested interest in the upbringing and education of children, and through the use of praise and disapproval can turn young men into their servants. Women will subvert their children for their own ends just as readily as insiders will subvert stock exchanges.
4) Monitor and measure all media for denigration of men. Publish numbers and compare. Get it out in the open.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OHHHHH now I can’t dislike any of you nearly as much.
American Psycho stays dust-free and used often in MY movie collection! It’s a fantastic film and since I’m a lover of horror and suspense it’s one of my favorites. (Yes, he imagined the crimes. At least that was the pretense).
I think the vapid and shallow “creatures” (the men) in the movie probably are a great example of how women see men. We sort of see them as these one-dimensional, shallow beasts that are led by their pride and their dicks. In all sincerity…it’s not far from the truth about a lot of men today.
I never considered that this movie was somehow a “female projection” in any way, but I suppose it could be…..however Christian Bale definitely would not be my idea of a “gorgeous God” by any means. Blech, he’s not attractive at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, see, in the sentence before this you actually admitted that this is how women view men. Men are not actually like this at all, but it’s how you, as a woman, view us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Internetwood
And you sound like one of the retards raving about the pleasures of spending other peoples money: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”……..President Barry Soetoro
Smoot-Hawley was about trade protectionism, btw. I don’t see any connection, other than that Smoot-Hawley was a bad idea and so is wealth redistribution.
The data on wealth distribution in the US is not hard to find. 1% of US taxpayers pay 40% of all income taxes. The top one tenth of 1 % of taxpayers pay 20% of all income taxes. About 40% of workers pay no income tax at all and many of them pay negative income taxes due to the EITC. Of that group, many make no Social Security or Medicare contributions – their FICA payments are made for them by “the government†– i.e. other taxpayers. I could go on, but you get the picture.
I guess I hit a nerve there. I’m always willing to learn, so what history are you referring to?
That’s my history lesson? Hur hur.
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s moneyâ€â€¦â€¦..Margaret Thatcher
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nice review.
As “a soulless beast driven by lust and greed”, as well as the someone who has a “drive for status and an insatiable lust for sex”, I know that these are characteristics that make women wet. Women want a man who will fuck them well, impregnate them, and then have the resources to ensure a safe and comfortable upbringing of the offspring. I think in many way female desires are that basic, as are the male desires to impregnate as many women as possible.
Women love watching movies like this, as well as Mad Men, because it fuels their fantasies about their perfect man: well groomed but still ruthlessly driven to sex and power. They love the combination of sexual danger and power.
I personally love fucking as many hot women as I can…I can never get enough. I know that women are drawn towards men with strong sexual personalities, if they know how to channel and present it correctly. For me, it is innate desire for endless conquest. I also need to be in charge of other people and do not want others telling me what to do.
As far as violence and sexual passion, strength and power, just look at most of the great military men in history, such Julius Caesar or Khan. They both loved conquering women as well as entire peoples. They were both ruthless in their own ways. Women were naturally drawn to them too.
I think this movie shows, like Mad Men, that feminists, despite all their public whining about men, are secretly drawn to the same ancient masculine characteristics that have always attracted women, such as strength, power and sexual passion. I have fucked more than one feminists in my time, and I always found it amusing how quickly they can descend from being a “strong, independent woman” to a submissive creature dreaming of white picket fences and babies. But it only happens if you know how to use your cock, mind and strength with them. First and foremost you need to fuck them into complete submission, fuck them like they have never been fucked before, especially given the fact that they most likely only had sex with , frightened, submissive beta types. Otherwise you will end up as a despised kitchen bitch while they fantasize about guys like the character in this movie and wear out their vibrator’s batteries while doing so.
Fucking a few feminist is always an interesting sport every now and then…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, I am well aware that I admitted this could be how women see men. However, I like how you immediately dismiss the possibility that those things may be true. At least I can admit things about my own gender. It looks like you cannot.
We often see men as “simple” like the whole business card scene of the movie, for example. The men go on and on about fonts and colors and design….lol…and obviously it was meant to be a parody on male peacocking because MOST women laugh at that scene and it’s not because the whole business card war is the “funny” part.
It’s because men compartmentalize ONE thing (like the business cards) and can turn it into a way bigger thing than it is. A mere business card is suddenly the equivalent of them whipping out their dicks and comparing size. Women don’t really take “little things” like sports scores and business cards to be how we “peacock”. Women have to do it BIG. Big houses, beautiful babies, and a gorgeous husband. Women peacock by showing off their LIVES.
Men can take one stupid little thing and twist it into a show of their manliness. This is one of those old stereotypes that happens to be true and also baffling to women. We think “Who cares about silly old business cards…..men are so silly” but I guess to men it’s like arm wrestling or throwing the spear that kills the lion.
I didn’t say it’s a “bad” thing, but yes women may view men this way and it’s not “all in our heads” either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello, Charles.
Charles, you stated the truth and the lie to close together. You need to pad it out a little more.
Wealth distribution is not income taxes….. of course your “income taxes” ignore Social Security Taxes, so they aren’t really income taxes at all actually.
So let’s talk about wealth distribution. The top 1% own around 35%… I don’t care enough to look, of the wealth in the country.
Amazingly, they pay(actually they don’t, you are ignoring Social Security Taxes, and other taxes as well) 40% of the taxes!
I could get way more detailed, but really why bother?
I’m not getting any TARP money, and the top 1% is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Reading the rest of Charles mumbling, I realized that Charles is aware that FICA exists.. but only when it benefits him!
Charles, I can see that you are a real straight-shooter. You ignore or acknowledge a fact, depending on whether it benefits you or not. That’s SMART.
Charles even uses “government speak”, like calling FICA TAXES “contributions”. I think we are all aware of the price for failure to make our mandatory “contribution”.
Such absurd word-use leads me to think Charles is either a government employee or an oldster. So which is it, Charles?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@InternetWood
One small problem with The Spearhead is no edit function. I intended to write “The data on income taxes in the US is not hard to find.” No lie intended.
I am no more enthusiastic about TARP than you are. I resent the greed and the excesses of the apex alphas. But the abhorrent behavior of a relatively tiny number of amoral men should not be seen as an indictment of capitalism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good point! I have been making payroll for my business for long enough that I have absorbed the propaganda.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s sad because Atticus Finch and Charles Ingalls were both idealized versions of the authors own fathers, and are two of the best “male” characters aver committed to paper.
Women can write good men if they chose to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Very interesting post! I just bought a copy of the book because of it, and when I’m done reading I’ll rent the DVD from Netflix.
Thanks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It was anti-materialism, hedonism, (and to me, social facades), which truly took off during the 80’s. There was an entire page dedicated to describing his clothes and accessories at one point in the book, and the ultra violence was more extreme.
The movie on my list of things to see one day.
The book, however, is something I read and enjoyed years ago as a very clever satire on yuppiedom and the obsession with labels in the 80s.
The violence in it I found an interesting counterbalance to the banality of his (Bateman’s) fixation on designers and their products.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One of my favorite movies. I need to read the book though.
Ditto what Racer X said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their animalistic instincts. Therefore the most aggressive Women’s Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else.”
&
“I think the vapid and shallow “creatures†(the men) in the movie probably are a great example of how women see men. We sort of see them as these one-dimensional, shallow beasts that are led by their pride and their dicks. In all sincerity…it’s not far from the truth about a lot of men today.”
David: I had quite a successful father who had, we found out after he died in a road accident in his forties, a lot of women on the side. (He was a fairly prominent lawyer and had been on TV. I now realise why so many women were interested in him.)
However, the price of his success was that he travelled a lot, and was not around to “teach” me how to be a man. Strangely, reading feminist attacks in the 1970s and thereafter on “typical” men helped give me ideas about how to be a man.
I have often said that I learned how to think like a man by reading feminists. Another thing: women are inclined to denigrate their own sex a lot. I remember reading in a mainstream women’s magazine that “we women” feel like failures because “we” were born women! One of my woman teachers at school referred, with contempt dripping, to a “female” on an advertisement. This sort of thing is very telling.
Still running game on my wife, with great success. She told me the other night that she would not be having sex with me ever again (this is one of her lines – my response is usually “I’ll remind you of that the next time you have your legs in the air”.)
Anyway, I woke her up yesterday morning with a few sharp spanks on the bottom. Sex was provided a bit later.
Marriage game – I wish I had know about this ten years ago.
As I get older, I am less inclined to play along with the public bullshit too. One of my married male staff told me recently that he liked to watch TV while he did the ironing. My reply: “I don’t do ironing. I have a wife for that.”
I repeated this story to my wife, who was annoyed initially. Later, she asked me if I had really said that … clearly it titillated her.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Welmer, I don’t get the sense that you read the novel because the film was, overall, a faithful representation. I don’t write that in one-upsmanship, I write it because Patrick Bateman is obsessed with his appearance, social status and morbid (literal) detail of sexual conquests and murders. The pop-cult refs to Whitney Houston and Phil Collins are actual essays in the book. Curiously – and you might have hit on something, intentional or not – I love the novel but did not like the movie. There was something about the film that was off-putting, and I think it was its tone.
Patrick Bateman appears in three Ellis novels: The Rules of Attraction, then American Psycho, then Glamorama. While most Ellis readers assumed that Patrick was making it all up, in Glamorama, he’s described as having spots of blood on his clothing, which casts that into doubt.
For those who’ve not read it, I couldn’t recommend it more: it is laugh-out-loud funny and horribly disgusting. The passage regarding the dead hooker and the rat who came up through the toilet is arguably the most nauseating thing I’ve read, apologies to de Sade and ’120 Days of Sodom.’
Perhaps the problem is that the film is about a narcissistic psychopath, whereas the novel includes the same, but covers much more ground. Bateman is a fanatic about his appearance, and the novel is well-known for its catalogue, via Patrick’s dialogue, of how he keeps up his appearance. The second “chapter” of the novel is called – as I recall – “The Routine” which lists, with every movement, how he takes care of himself when grooming. I’ve not read it in 10 years, but his obsession with his appearance was, in a sense, the prehistory of Metrosexualism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I thought upon my first and second reading’s of Am. Psycho, that Batemen was several parts Byronic hero, combined with sociopathy. I had not thought of the eerie resemblance to mad men…also the effeminate nature of the grooming and status obsession. if anything, bateman represents both a female derived notion of man but also a female imagining of a man and his masculinity…a notion they can only recreate albeit poorly…..and never truly understand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
a notion they can only recreate albeit poorly…..and never truly understand.
Yeah, it’s way off the mark.
Like aiming for a target and shooting themselves in the foot.
Because all this shows is that, if feminists were men, they would be Patrick Bateman.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
His pride is “I do”. Her pride is “he does”. – Nietzsche
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s clear that characters like Patrick Bateman and Don Draper are women’s greatest fears and fantasies realized – their ideal alpha male archetype – “at once threatening and thrilling”. Feminist blogs which incessantly rail about rape and sexual abuse are obsessed with Mad Men and muted in their criticism of Draper’s sexism (more apologetic than anything) when they aren’t swooning over him. A few seasons back there was a scene where he forcibly fingers a woman to teach her a lesson. Did women and feminists object to this aggressive and non-consensual sexual assault? Did they scream that this was about “power” and “not sex”? Nope, they thought it was totally hot:
http://jezebel.com/5035776/mad-men-don-draper-dominates-dames
Just proves that feminism and it’s contradictions are about attracting alpha males while screening out betas. In the matriarchy there are two sets of rules for two sets of guys, and women switch back and forth to maximize intake of sexy alpha cock, while minimizing icky beta attention. Betas are “sexist” losers who “rape” and “harass”, you see, while alphas are “sexy” “misunderstood”, “passionate” men who “dominate” and “ravish”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 3 trackbacks }