Getting your eyebrows waxed only makes you a fag if there are no tits involved.

26 Nov

I almost made this post a part of the Why I Hate Men series. What I’m about to relate is really that bad.

The Esquire recently came to New York for a visit sporting hair longer than I’ve ever seen on him. He’d been growing it out for several months, but apparently, shortly after returning to California, he got tired of looking like a member of the Volcom street team and decided to go get it cut. The Esquire, a connoisseur of absurd experiences like myself, decided to head over to a new barber shop located near his office, a barber shop called the Alpha Male Barber Spa. Yeah.

He arrived at the AMBS (I’m really into FLAs lately – that’s four-letter acronyms to those of you who aren’t hip to the facts) at 10 AM on a weekday and was promptly offered a glass of scotch and a cigar, because that’s what top dogs are all about, AM booze and stogies. For some reason (maybe he’s only a beta male) he declined the offer and then set about waiting and watching the other men undergo eyebrow waxing, mini-facials, and manicures.

Eyebrow-waxing? Mini-facials? MANICURES? I know, I know. You’re thinking what I’m thinking: Is this a new barber shop for the gays? Haven’t those already existed in LA, San Francisco, New York, and Chicago for, like, a decade? Wait, do gay guys even care about being alpha males? What the hell is going on here? What the geniuses who own the Alpha Male Barber Spa have figured out is that men, who are falling prey to the machinations of the beauty industry in ever greater numbers these days, have been longing for a way to go metro without the taint of faggotism that surrounds traditional salons or barber shops in gay neighborhoods. These men need a place where they can get themselves club-ready without having to rub elbows with women or homos. These men need tits and football with their vanity services. These men need to waste absurd sums of money and treat women like sex objects at all times in order to let people know they’re fucking alpha dawgs! Ruff ruff!

Hence the AMBS, which is, in effect, the Hooters of barber shops. In addition to attractive young women and insincere flirting, the AMBS offers flat-screen TVs at every station so that patrons (oh, sorry, this place is high end — clients) can watch “the game,” door-to-door service (because alpha males don’t fucking drive themselves to get haircuts), brow waxing, mini-facials, “hand detailing” (the non-homo — because it’s automotive — term for a manicure), and royalty-themed packages (The Duke, The Crown Prince, His Majesty, The Emperor), some of which include a cheese and fruit plate. And the services are just as expensive as those at regular salons ($40 for a haircut, $280 for the Emperor package), because alpha males won’t settle for anything but the very best (read: most ostentatiously expensive).

Well, not every guy is runnin’ shit. There are plenty of men who, while they would still like to take advantage of the opportunity to engage in fruity grooming practices without the fear of being called homos, haven’t yet made it into the alpha male tax bracket. Hey, not everybody is a fancy-schmancy San Diego lawyer. Enter Gregg Wilhelm’s outfit, Too Hotties. Too Hotties operates on the same principle that AMBS does: boobs and sports bring facials within the purview of the kind of guy who cracks open a Sam Adams Light after a hard day at the office, takes a swig, and then looks at the bottle with an affirmatory nod. But Too Hotties provides the experience at the level of the everyman, the industrial ice dispenser salesman, the guy who watches Sports Soup, the guy who wants the opportunity to treat women like extras in his own mental spy/action movie but doesn’t quite pull in the bucks for scotch and cigars or door-to-door service.

Too Hotties offers a lot of the same services that AMBS does, but in a decidedly more Coors Light environment. They, like the AMBS, do gray-coverage hair coloring, but their service has an extra manly name (Color Camo, because dyeing your hair is faggy unless you can find a way to relate it to Rambo), and, instead of cigars and single malt, they kick down root beer and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches (I swear). They also do kids’ cuts, so you can get yer little man up to speed on what women are here for. No word on whether that’s related to the root beer and PB&J bar (though I suspect not since the photos on the site feature men rather than children chowing down on sandwiches). As if all that weren’t enough, they also offer XM Radio (so one needn’t tear oneself away from Howard Stern for the time it takes to get a manicure), video games, and pool tables.

Too Hotties is truly a barber shop for the Renaissance man. Just check out this mission statement:

In the haircutting world, men have very few choices. They may either go to a major haircut chain where they never get the same stylist twice or they can set an appointment at some girly salon. Neither one gives a man the kind of options he really wants…

It was this realization that inspired three gentleman to found Too Hotties. They wanted to create the ultimate barber shop for men. Not only would they recieve the best haircuts of their lives from the hottest stylists, they would also enjoy complimentary hot towel treatments, hot cream razor neck shaves, before and after shampoos and shoe shines. This would be a place where men would be free to hang out, watch sports on a huge wide-screen plasma screen, shoot billiards, play video games, read magazines, access broadband internet and help themselves to all they could eat at the free PB&J bar. No other man’s barber shop like this had ever been created before. They wanted men to feel spoiled and comfortable in every way and that is what they did. Too Hotties was that dream and that dream has now become a reality.

No shit, man. Who wants to go to some girly salon? What’s more repugnant than having to associate with girls in a way that would imply that you have something in common with them? Men need the freedom to engage in the same activities that they deride women for without having to confront the fact that they’re doing so, and — thank Christ — there are “three gentlemen” out there ready to help them do so. Three gentlemen who know that there’s no better way to show the world that you ain’t no fag (AKA woman) than by engaging in a little good ol’ sexual objectification. Three gentlemen who know that, when women are decorations, men can relax in the knowledge that the wall between humans and objects remains intact, even while displaying levels of vanity that would shock Blake Lively.

Who are these “three gentlemen”? The Too Hotties story is really the story of one man’s vision, and that man is Gregg Wilhelm. Gregg’s inspirational story (also from the site’s about page):

Gregg’s goal is to make a life changing impact in the lives of 50 people through faith, family, business, and philanthropy. His motto: “No one is twice as good, or twice as smart, so I’ll work twice as hard.”

Career highlights: After advancing into upper management and shattering many company records in the insurance industry, Gregg started and owned a highly successful insurance brokerage. After years of travel, Gregg started a family and has spent the last 15 years with Culligan Water where he hired and trained Bill and Chad, and they became a team, and unstoppable force, now turning their full attentions to building Too Hotties, and doing more men’s haircuts than anyone else in America. Gregg has planned and dreamed of starting a franchise since age 14.

Wow. Clearly, Gregg aspires to clienthood at the AMBS. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a man’s plans to provide other men with haircuts expressed in such lofty, aggressive, ridiculous language (and in the third person, no less). But I’m left with some questions. Who the fuck are Bill and Chad? Why do we only get their first names? Are they his sidekicks? Protégés? What are their dreams? How many people’s lives do they intend to make a “life changing impact in”? And speaking of that, why is Gregg limiting himself to changing the lives of a mere 50 individuals? Why not change the whole fucking world, one boob-laden hot lather shave at a time? Considering his achievments in the insurance and bottled water delivery sectors, I feel pretty confident in my surmise (did you know that the noun form of the verb surmise is surmise?) that Gregg’s a real go-getter. I think he can do it.

* An aside: I’m willing to bet $100 that I can correctly guess where at least 50% of the franchises are located. Play along. I’ll say Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, and a few random joints across the South. I checked. The locations: Vegas, Phoenix, and spots in Texas, Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, and Virgina. I win. E-mail me for the address to send the $100 to.

** Do NOT leave this page without clicking the Too Hotties link and checking out the photo section. It’s fucking hilarious. There’s one of the “three gentlemen” with their “girls” that will blow your mind.

Bookmark and Share

62 Responses to “Getting your eyebrows waxed only makes you a fag if there are no tits involved.”

  1. berryblade November 26, 2009 at 3:46 AM #

    So why isn’t there a salon for women where I can go smash bongs, guzzle vodka and play my Xbox?

    Oh right….
    I really hope shit like this never takes hold over here.

  2. Imaginary November 26, 2009 at 8:25 AM #

    What the fuck is a “girly” salon? As far as I know, “girly” just means has tits and a cunt (I like that word better than vagina). So apparently these repugnant establishments have giant boobs on the front of them, and bleed out the taps once a month. That’s a seller.

    A note on the photographs, don’t you just love that the girls look like they’re so disgusted with them they’re going to puke? If I ever got a job there, I’d vomit on everyone’s hair.

    9-D, you’re awesome!

  3. Andrew November 26, 2009 at 8:46 AM #

    This concept is ridiculous. I loathe settings where I feel like I am paying women to be nice to me, especially when I know they have to or they’ll get fired. Moreover, I wouldn’t want a fairly attractive girl inspecting my scalp, shaving my back, and shining my shoes. I wouldn’t want to lounge in this area either, not with a bunch of other random dudes who legitimately want to be there.

    That being said, there aren’t enough places that offer a legitimately good barbershop experience: hot lather, straight razor, etc. These guys have it all fucked up though. I like X-Box, I like women, I like pool, I like having my shoes shined, I like haircuts, and I like PB&J, I even like Sports Soup, but not all at once, not with random people, and not where you’re frustrated at the women for not attempting to seduce you and they are frustrated with you because you’re a loser.

    On the other hand, If I found out these girls actually gave really good haircuts (because nobody actually does) I would go just for that. You can’t really put a premium on a consistently good haircut.

  4. Jenn November 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM #

    I think it would really chap their hides if I showed up for a cut in one of those places. Shit, scotch and video games sounds way better than Cosmopolitan magazines from the 90s. But them womens don’t like anything but girly mags and some shit. Wev.

    Oh, and fuck you Phoenix. I hate this city.

  5. lizor November 26, 2009 at 12:22 PM #

    “Three gentlemen who know that, when women are decorations, men can relax in the knowledge that the wall between humans and objects remains intact, even while displaying levels of vanity that would shock Blake Lively.”

    You rock.

  6. factcheckme November 26, 2009 at 2:23 PM #

    LOL because men dont have enough “choices”and “options” in life. thats the real problem. this whole thing made me laugh and laugh. thanks.

  7. winter_lights November 26, 2009 at 4:22 PM #

    I don’t even get this. Who do they think would look at that name and realize it was a barbershop?

  8. Dale November 26, 2009 at 4:41 PM #

    wa. I can’t imagine men who are reading fashion magazines and chatting with other men. This sounds very funny. But, I don’t think people will ever make one salon that has video games or stuffs that men can do. In our generation, women are more into fashion and styling than men. That’s why, salons are meant to be for women not for men.

    Thanks.

    • Nine Deuce November 27, 2009 at 2:45 AM #

      I have a feeling the magazines are more like Sports Illustrated and Men’s Health rather than fashion magazines.

  9. rsrott November 26, 2009 at 5:22 PM #

    Oh that picture was so horrifying!

    I clicked on the “employment” section, just to satisfy my curiosity as to whether the application process required submitting a hawt pic of yourself. And guess what? They ask for your myspace and facebook profile!

    I don’t live anywhere that Too Hotties has locations, but we have a similar place locally. It is the low-end version of the spectrum though – $10 haircuts and the “hottest” women in town! Every time I hear a radio spot for them, I think “ok, so now there’s a Hooters for grooming, what’s next?”

  10. polly styrene November 26, 2009 at 6:47 PM #

    In the haircutting world, men have very few choices.

    This is not true, there is a THIRD WAY. Yes dudes, buy some clippers and cut it yourself. This is what I did when I grew disenchanted with paying £30 a throw to be humiliated in a salon.

    However if berryblade ever opens a chain of salons, I shall be there.

    • Nine Deuce November 26, 2009 at 7:01 PM #

      Yeah, it might go over well. I think she should give it a shot. Berryblade, do you dream of owning a franchise?

  11. factcheckme November 26, 2009 at 7:50 PM #

    oh, i forgot to click on the link. having now clicked on it, i can report that they carry “lady killer” hair products. and the PB&J bar just makes me laugh. WTF?

  12. berryblade November 27, 2009 at 4:51 AM #

    @Polly & NineDeuce

    You know it. It’ll be even better cos it will use fair trade non-tested on animal vegan hair shit. And instead of magazines I’ll have a collection of feminist literature.

    My amateur haircutting degree doesn’t count does it? :P

    I’m getting all excited thinking about this hahah.

  13. isme November 27, 2009 at 5:02 AM #

    “What the fuck is a “girly” salon? As far as I know, “girly” just means has tits and a cunt (I like that word better than vagina). So apparently these repugnant establishments have giant boobs on the front of them, and bleed out the taps once a month. That’s a seller. ”

    Lol!

  14. polly styrene November 27, 2009 at 9:00 AM #

    The application form for Too Hotties asks for ‘years experience in hair’ (fair enough) and then -oddly – for ‘previous employer if less than 2 years’ . So they only check out your previous experience if you say you have less than 2 years? What is to stop you lying then?

  15. MariaS November 27, 2009 at 5:13 PM #

    (Clicks link). Hang on, if they don’t want to go to a “girly salon”, why are they going to a salon full of “girls”? (Well, that’s what I infer from the row of pictures of women acting as site menu links). Oh, I see, if it’s women as handmaidens then that makes all the difference. Women in their proper place – not a place *for* women.

    The “pictures” link doesn’t have pictures of men’s hairstyles – y’know, proof of the quality of service on offer, the talent of the hairdressers – but loads of images of women tending to men in a myriad of ways, smiling as they do so. I bet the woman polishing a man’s shoe is smiling, even though you can only see her hands.

    “Kid’s cuts … Feel free to bring your kids” – only pictures of boys shown. Elsewhere it says that they do provide haircuts for women and children (presumably of both sexes) too, followed by the words:

    “Men, enjoy a shampoo and scalp massage before and after your haircut”. You god-kings, you men; no other kind of human gets special massages. Hmm, your haircut perk is having a woman touch you, twice. (And having her cleavage bobbing around your head too, which is the clear unspoken message of many of the pictures on that site).

    Can’t believe how blatant it is – there’s even a picture of two women embracing each other and smiling out to the camera, hinting at “girl on girl”.

    Beard trims: “Touching up your beard is just the very beginning”. OK, stopping reading now.

    Can’t decide whether this is more about selling women’s submissive service to men, or more about making the grooming & pampering stuff as ultra-hetero as possible. Twisted mix of both I think.

  16. Andrew November 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM #

    “Can’t decide whether this is more about selling women’s submissive service to men, or more about making the grooming & pampering stuff as ultra-hetero as possible. Twisted mix of both I think.”

    I think this is spot-on, which is why the idea actually repulses me. There is nothing about paying women to be nice to me that makes me feel like a “god-king”, but the faux-submission of the whole thing makes me wonder if their intended purpose is actually having its effect. That is, do men walk away from these places feeling really proud and suave or do they walk away feeling like pervs for paying women to flirt with them?

    I am not suggesting that this is empowering to women, but to me it seems like it certainly emasculates men once one realizes the exchange that is taking place.

  17. Saurs November 28, 2009 at 1:46 AM #

    Andrew, most dude-bras don’t care whether the women they’re paying (to do their hair or, for that matter, to have sex with them) enjoy the task at hand. In fact, if the job appears degrading enough, it’s probably doubly pleasurable to have it performed (and in public! In front of other cool dude-bras!) and not at all emasculating.

  18. buttersisonlymyname November 28, 2009 at 1:57 AM #

    Who’s the Esquire? If you don’t mind me asking…

    • Nine Deuce November 28, 2009 at 2:55 AM #

      My best friend. His identity shall remain a secret.

  19. isme November 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM #

    “Andrew, most dude-bras don’t care whether the women they’re paying (to do their hair or, for that matter, to have sex with them) enjoy the task at hand. In fact, if the job appears degrading enough, it’s probably doubly pleasurable to have it performed (and in public! In front of other cool dude-bras!) and not at all emasculating.”

    Or in the words of the Bloodhound Gang “A lapdance is better when the stripper is crying”.

  20. Andrew November 28, 2009 at 8:05 PM #

    Treating a girl like shit can have it’s stimulating effects for some people, I suppose, but I just don’t see how a man can feel like he’s really “putting her in her place” while shelling out money for the privilege.

    No matter where the worst offenders get their role models, whether they be pimps, wife-beaters, or jackasses in porn films, none of them are “paying” for the chance to be in that role, whereas the man paying to get his shoe shined (or his dick sucked) is.

    Maybe it requires a certain level of cognitive dissonance, they pay, forget they paid, act like they didn’t, and when they are done convince themselves that they wouldn’t have had to.

    As for the cool dude-bras who sanction this behavior, I feel like this is just an example of the beta male, like the female, being sacrificed for the alpha male’s entertainment.

    Example: “Hey, lets get so and so all fucked up, tell him it’s cool to talk shit to a bunch of bitches, smack them and shit and get him some lap dances and see if he goes with it.”

  21. Saurs November 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM #

    …I just don’t see how a man can feel like he’s really “putting her in her place” while shelling out money for the privilege.

    A woman’s place within the patriarchy is perpetually and forever as a member of the second (sex) class. That is irrespective of whether or not a man is currently paying for his blow job or forcing a blow job on a woman or begging and harassing her until she gives him one to shut his trap.

    My point was that it’s not particularly emasculating, from the point of a view of a heterosexual man, to have a woman’s tits in your face, even if you are, in fact, paying her for that or any other “service.” As a woman’s tits are, by default and like the rest of her body, on display at all times anyway, to be judged worthy or unworthy by any man who happens to be nearby, the cognitive dissonance you’re speaking of doesn’t actually exist.

    Treating a girl like shit can have it’s stimulating effects for some people…

    It’s the basis for this and all other patriarchal cultures. So, yeah.

  22. Saurs November 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM #

    Just to add, I think it’s pretty obvious that the “freedom” Too Hotties, AMBS, and their kind offer dudes is not, actually, the freedom to play X-Box or pool or eat tons of free sandwiches whatever their websites’ mission statements are on about, but the freedom (at a very minimal price) to ogle and sexually harass smiling, submissive, good-looking young women outside of a strip club and away from the attendant implications of patronizing a strip club. (Obviously, some incredibly sensitive, cool, liberal dudes can’t bring themselves to visit a strip club or a brothel. And while they, like, totally support a woman’s right empower herself through her own sexual exploitation and a man’s right to rape trafficked women, because they’re, like, not fascists or anything, they purport to having “strong” “political” and “ethical” feelings about stripping and prostitution. Hence, the popularity of naked or nearly-naked cafes, Hooters family restaurants, “ladies’ nights” at taverns, and “sexy” male salons, all less worrisome to cool, liberal sensitive dudes who care about women’s liberation but love pussy.)
    Too Hotties offers this worry-free, guiltless, happy-goodtime bring-along-the-kids sort of tit-ogling, and you can get a very macho, thoroughly heterosexual doodicure, to boot, should you visit. Absolutely nothing emasculating about it, if you believe the gimmick. For that matter, I can’t really picture the sort of dude who thinks paying a woman for a blowjob or a lapdance is emasculating, anyway. I mean, isn’t that what Real Men do? Television, magazines, films, radio, porn, newspapers, books, and history tell me so.

  23. Taybeh Chaser November 28, 2009 at 11:20 PM #

    Would just like to add my voice to all the other, presumably female, commenters who indicated interest in a women’s salon offering hard liquor and video games :).

  24. Saurs November 28, 2009 at 11:30 PM #

    Ooh, my apologies to Nine Deuce for a triple comments, but:

    As for the cool dude-bras who sanction this behavior, I feel like this is just an example of the beta male, like the female, being sacrificed for the alpha male’s entertainment.

    Example: “Hey, lets get so and so all fucked up, tell him it’s cool to talk shit to a bunch of bitches, smack them and shit and get him some lap dances and see if he goes with it.”

    I sort of doubt that the bulk of harassment and abuse strippers (and women, in general) endure is the result of a wily and ironic plot conceived by Alpha Males who condone said abuse purely as a device to get their friends to humiliate themselves by acting inappropriately, inhumanely, and counter to the Alpha Male’s own feelings. I mostly think people “talk shit to a bunch of bitches, smack them and shit and get [themselves] lapdances” because they hate women, desire sex with women, hate women for desiring sex with them, and don’t consider women human enough to treat them as such. Strip clubs are one, but by no means the only, such safe environment for open displays of this hatred.

  25. Andrew November 29, 2009 at 2:36 AM #

    Saurs I feel like you are right, to be honest with you. The problem I am having though is that the people I hang out with are not necessarily very feminist, or even aware of the contours of any brand of feminism. They think being a feminist is the equivalent of being annoying. They are also either typical (a) jocks, (b) douchebags, or (c) liberal dudes. But I don’t think we have ever talked about how awesome it is to pay for sex. I even showed one of the more “bro-ey” ones the TooHotties website and he thought it was kind of lame.

    This is what makes me think this kind of thing is really targeted towards a more “beta” demographic that don’t understand certain dating realities (i.e., that women need to be treated like people before they genuinely like you) and so think this is just a “cool” opportunity.

    Truth be told, I would rather get my haircut from an old school barber or a gay guy, play my own xbox, make my own PBJ, drink my own beer, meet my own friends at a bar and socialize with girls I actually liked. I feel like guys who are secure and sociable enough can do these things and thus, wouldn’t be interested in a gimmicky “boobershop”.

    Maybe we are the exception, as I can definitely picture, ad infinitum, the kind of guys you are describing.

  26. berryblade November 29, 2009 at 5:08 AM #

    @isme
    “November 28, 2009 at 4:58 am
    “Andrew, most dude-bras don’t care whether the women they’re paying (to do their hair or, for that matter, to have sex with them) enjoy the task at hand. In fact, if the job appears degrading enough, it’s probably doubly pleasurable to have it performed (and in public! In front of other cool dude-bras!) and not at all emasculating.”

    Or in the words of the Bloodhound Gang “A lapdance is better when the stripper is crying”.”

    No wonder why I hate that band so fucking much.

    @Taybeh Chaser

    Well I’m all booked up now being close to Christmas, but I’m sure I’ll find a spot for you :P
    Hahahha

    ‘Strip clubs are one, but by no means the only, such safe environment for open displays of this hatred.’

    As someone who’s related to someone who owns a strip club (much to my often vented and hateful distaste) I can’t say that statement could get any truer.
    When the punters are down having a smoke-o all they can talk about is how bitch XYZ had saggy tits or a flappy cunt etc etc (I’m just wondering how a vagina could be flappy, I mean, I’m no lady part expert, but I’m pretty sure it’s the vulva they’re talking about.) Fuckers.

  27. Saurs November 29, 2009 at 7:39 AM #

    Hello, Andrew. I’ve been reading this weblog for quite some time (although I’ve never before commented), and as I’m familiar with your past commentary, I’m not specifically questioning your feminist credentials.

    In my original comment, I was addressing your use of the word “emasculating.” I get the sense that you think regular dudes don’t like or condone the casual every-day minor sort of sexual exploitation of women, or that such exploitation is reserved for men whom you refer to as beta. (Presumably Alpha Males are so hard they eat women whole and skip tit-ogling altogether.) For example, you say that:

    But I don’t think we have ever talked about how awesome it is to pay for sex. I even showed one of the more “bro-ey” ones the TooHotties website and he thought it was kind of lame.

    Lame, but not depressing, offensive, and tasteless? Not enough nudity, perhaps? Are you saying that your friends purchase sex from prostitutes, but that they consider such activity so common and every-day that it doesn’t warrant any particular commentary?

    This is what makes me think this kind of thing is really targeted towards a more “beta” demographic that don’t understand certain dating realities (i.e., that women need to be treated like people before they genuinely like you) and so think this is just a “cool” opportunity…

    I feel like guys who are secure and sociable enough can do these things and thus, wouldn’t be interested in a gimmicky “boobershop”.

    That there are hypothetical Alpha dudes who might feel disgust at said boobershops, not because they oppress women, but because boobershops are tacky, don’t cater to their worldly lifestyles, or make them feel pangs of classist or racist antipathy does not negate the fact that boobershops are a product of patriarchy and that they are not emasculating, at all, according to our culture’s (false) construct of masculinity. If anything, they reinforce classic masculine privileges — the entitlement to act aggressively towards and dominate (especially sexually) women and other, lesser men — like by purchasing a woman’s time and company in order to ogle her, whether you’re openly using her for sex or because she’s giving you a foot massage. That, in our culture, the concept of masculinity also allows for chivalry — the “protection” from certain unsavory aspects of male chauvinism, privilege, and violence of select women, still deemed mentally and physically inferior to the gentleman who is selfishly acting chivalrous towards her or attempting to gently seduce her — doesn’t alter that either and, in fact, produces “certain dating realities” (id est, not immediately letting on to an attractive stranger you’ve met at a pool hall with your friends that you’re a misogynist douchebag in the earnest hope of bedding her).

    I mean, I think it’s great that you’re willing to let a “gay guy” get close enough to you to cut your precious locks but such personal anecdotes about you and your open-minded friends doesn’t really change the fact that patriarchy exists and that none of us are exempt from it, not even super-cool dudes who make their own sandwiches and are definitely not emasculated, unsociable, adenoidal, or beta. This is like saying a pierced, tattooed, “alternative” goth nude model is somehow not the same and totally classier and way more empowerfulized than her brainwashed, “trashy,” “slutty,” blonde, Playboy compatriots.

  28. Laurelin November 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM #

    “Strip clubs are one, but by no means the only, such safe environment for open displays of this hatred.”

    Safe for whom?

    http://www.object.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=29

  29. Laurelin November 29, 2009 at 4:19 PM #

    Doh, misread Saurs’ comment completely- sorry Saurs! That’ll teach me to rush in when half-asleep.

    But I recommend reading the testimony of lapdancers on the link I linked to anyone under the illusion that lapdance clubs are safe places for women and girls.

  30. RenegadeEvolution November 29, 2009 at 4:29 PM #

    I wish I could watch the game and have a beer while getting waxed…I’d far prefer that to mineral water and “the view”…

  31. Andrew November 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM #

    Saurs

    1) Alpha males are entirely patriarchal, especially since their entire definition is based on a gender inequity that results in an unequal distribution of power. I won’t dispute that with you.

    2) As long as patriarchy is the foundation on which society stands, it would be hard not to find something in it that didn’t reek of that privilege. Patriarchy does not exist in a vacuum, however; it exists with other forms of exploitation, namely capitalism.

    For me, this discussion gets stale pretty fast if we only scratch the surface: the barbershop reinforces mens traditional privilege to ogle women, have men served by women, etc. I am not disputing that. But what is interesting to me is this kind of establishment’s likely clientele. I don’t think the real exploitation here is taking place along gendered lines, but instead is feeding off general traits of males who can’t get this kind of attention in the traditional ways.

    Something may be patriarchal, and exploitive in another way as well. I think the fact that the kind of men who would come to this place would identify in groups low on the socially desirable level is evidence of this.

    In short, while everything you say is true, I am not making any of these points to chip away at any patriarchal paradigm the article was being viewed from. Unlike traditional marriage, or rape culture, where there is a more unified male culpability, I just think this kind of thing is more complex. It isn’t using women for their own inherent “value” (like rape), but for their ability to attract and exploit a “beta type” male.

  32. Saurs November 29, 2009 at 8:35 PM #

    Andrew, I understand that the Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too, and I do realize that your discussion in the thread about Alpha and Beta men is related to Nine Deuce’s reference to Alpha men in the post.

    It may very well be true that boobershops, as we’ve been calling them, deliberately and consciously cater to insecure, unsociable men, whom the proprietors recognize as being socially inferior and incapable of normal human interaction. (NB, however, that the overwhelming majority of men and women are incapable or less capable of normal human interaction with one another given that they live within patriarchy.) However, women’s bodies, when they are used to advertise something or to attract potential consumers (and they are always used to market something), are not used exclusively for the purposes, as you say above, of attracting and “exploiting” a beta man; women’s bodies are used to sell anything and everything to anyone and everyone, including bestial, hulking Alpha Men and every conceivable woman who represents some demographic, somewhere. Tits within advertising is an utterly ubiquitous phenomenon.

    If Too Hotties was a dating or an escort service, I’d get your point — clueless and ignorant men are given an opportunity, for a fee, to interact with attractive young women; nothing new there. What sticks in your craw, I gather, is that these men have to pay for innocuous flirtation, and within an incredibly tacky environment, and that having to do so implies that they are losers and have the low self-esteem we associate with losers. But aren’t young women forever hired, in any men’s market, as “hostesses,” “greeters,” receptionists? I can’t go to a car dealer, an autoparts store, a men’s clothing store, or any sports arena without being “greeted” by young women in close-fitting uniforms whose job description is to flirtatiously engage with (usually male) customers. Do Alpha Dawgs find this repulsive? Are “regular” dudes comfortable with it because they’re not actually paying the women themselves?

    I just don’t see how it’s men who are being exploited in this scenario. Women get paid to do many demeaning things, more much demeaning than cutting hair while wearing a low-cut top, I suppose, but whether they are being paid to strip, cut hair while looking sex-ay, perform sexual acts on video… “male” “sexuality,” however it is perceived, and even if it’s a niche market, is always the driving force, because one can exploit those unchecked, unreflective, and de-humanizing desires and perversions for profit.

  33. Ben November 29, 2009 at 8:46 PM #

    This is so obviously stupid and pathetic (in my opinion) that it doens’t even merit spending any intellectual energy on, so I have to ask, why do care so much about something so stupid? We live in era when people do very stupid things for stupid reasons like claiming to lose kids in air ballons or crashing white house dinners. None of this deserves the attention it gets, but then again, I guess that’s why people do it.

    • Nine Deuce November 29, 2009 at 9:03 PM #

      If you don’t think making fun of something absurd is worth writing a blog post about (which took a grand total of 30 minutes), don’t do so.

  34. polly styrene November 29, 2009 at 9:32 PM #

    It’s quite funny Ben, which is why shallow people like me read.

  35. polly styrene November 29, 2009 at 9:35 PM #

    Treating a girl like shit can have it’s stimulating effects for some people, I suppose, but I just don’t see how a man can feel like he’s really “putting her in her place” while shelling out money for the privilege.

    Andrew have you ever been in a restaurant or shop where someone is rude to the person serving them? Loads of people feel that the fact they’re paying someone to do something makes them superior, because they have the money to pay that person who is doing a job they (the rude people) see as “menial”. Fact.

  36. Andrew November 29, 2009 at 9:44 PM #

    I think the difference is that the “alphas” would consider these interactions corollary to, and not the object of, whatever action they are undertaking. You could take the cheerleaders out of football and people would still watch, if you take the women out of this barbershop the enterprise goes under.

    If this “boobershop” downplayed it’s emphasis on women and emphasized all of it’s other creature comforts, I would put it in the same category as the ones you list. It would be just another case of objectification that was tolerated by society. However, since women are obviously it’s main selling point (like hooters, as opposed to a random vegas club with lots of beautiful hostesses) I have to argue that the exploitation is being directed at more than just women.

    Maybe there isn’t a real difference between exploiting women for all men’s “benefit” and exploiting women for the purpose of exploiting other men.

    I wouldn’t consider it inherently anti-feminist though, if men were told that paying for these kind’s of privileges (economic coercion) is an infantile way of gratifying their desires. That if they want to be the kind of person who attracts women, they should actually make an effort to be attractive themselves, rather than bait the disadvantaged with the hope of economic freedom. For example, practicing the kind of reciprocal intimacy that was discussed in the last post.

  37. Saurs November 29, 2009 at 9:47 PM #

    Upon re-reading my last comment, I fear that I have strayed from my original point and have become obtuse, so I want to quickly reiterate:

    The owners of Too Hotties and its kind are not in the business of emasculating socially inferior men. Emasculation is the wrong term, absolutely.

    Male patrons of Too Hotties know that, for a price, they can temporarily purchase the opportunity to replicate a traditionally patriarchal relationship (sex-based domination of a woman) with one of the women working at Too Hotties. You or I or Joe Blow next door may think such men are stupid, misogynistic losers – they aren’t “winners” because they can’t truly “win” a woman’s “real” affections through “normal” social functions. Whether the business of sex is, in fact, under patriarchal norms, a competition, anyway (women lose when men get to fuck them either by trickery or by force), is irrelevant here, because Too Hotties reinforces normative masculinity – women are physically on offer and men can buy, take, borrow, or steal. Apart from literal emasculation (castration), women aren’t capable of figuratively emasculating men; other man can and do emasculate other men. However, one is not being emasculated when one possesses the knowledge that, as a man, one can always buy the company of a woman or force oneself on a woman if one can’t “win” her the good old-fashioned way; Too Hotties banks on this universal knowledge of male superiority. There is no parallel for women; even when a woman purchases a male stripper, she’s still in a subordinate position, cock dangling in her face.

    If men are victims in this arrangement, and if capitalism is responsible, it is only because porn culture is replicated through capitalism, and that make us all losers because we can’t opt out of either.

  38. karinova November 29, 2009 at 10:06 PM #

    I think I’m feeling Andrew, in that I could see how a truly “bro-y” (ie: Alpha Male Dick) type could look at this and unconsciously think, “Pshaw, I don’t need this. Bitches love me. This shit is for Betas.” Only it would come out as, “Ha ha, lame!” I could totally see these places just stratifying dudeguy “masculinity” even more. They’re a perfect setup for AMDs to maintain superiority over Betas. (*chuckle* “I bet you think strippers like you too!”) Tentative pansyboys go to Too Hotties. A true pro of the Dickish Arts (ie: Applied Cognitive Dissonance) would go to a straight-up strip bar, the sleazier the better, where you can objectify women who are really vulnerable (as opposed to just pretending) for serious in front of Real Dudez. I mean, Too Hotties? They don’t even let you choke the hairdressers!

    So they could function like training wheels: they’re a place to get used to the stripclub mentality, but they have a stigma of lameness that encourages you to move beyond them ASAP.

  39. karinova November 30, 2009 at 12:27 AM #

    I just want to clarify that when I say “alpha/beta,” I’m talking about Alpha and Beta Doodz. Which I possibly just made up. To my mind, they’re both Beta Regular Humans (that is, they’re both “insecure, unsociable men… socially inferior and incapable of normal human interaction”). Maybe I just made that up too? Okay: the Beta Dood is beta within the Dood heirarchy; he’s an Alpha Dood wannabe. He’s not effortlessly comfortable being an overaggressive, misogynistic, insensitive dick; he’s working on it. And being seen/judged (by alphas) to be actively, visibly working on it? Makes him beta.

    So without getting into who’s being exploited (hint: the women*), I think the idea that the Alpha Doodz would simply see the women as “corollary” to the generally luxurious haircutting environment could make sense in a maintain-the-self-denial kind of way. It’d be beta to obviously be going there specifically for the hotties, so you can tell yourself (in order to see/display yourself as alpha) that the hotties are simply a de facto part of this hedonistic men-only space. If there’s booze/rootbeer and XBox, you’d be going there even if there were no hotties, right? Same with the NFL cheerleaders. And even strip clubs, where men can tell themselves that the objective is “socializing with the bros.”
    I feel like it wouldn’t work nearly as well if you just took a regular straightrazor/shoeshine/sports-on-the-TV barbershop and replaced the grizzled old barbers with hotties in low-cut tops. The cognitive dissonance (I don’t have to expend effort/cash to get the flattering female attention that I, um, just paid for!) would be too much. Which may be why Hooters has been slowly dying since it debuted? They’ve probably only lasted this long because of the signature hot wings.

    ____
    *Okay, yeah, the men are being exploited… as consumers. That’s par for the capitalist course, and isn’t salient here. For one thing, consumers are recognized as human. These women are being exploited as product.

  40. Saurs November 30, 2009 at 2:03 AM #

    I think the difference is that the “alphas” would consider these interactions corollary to, and not the object of, whatever action they are undertaking. You could take the cheerleaders out of football and people would still watch, if you take the women out of this barbershop the enterprise goes under.

    I agree that the existence of Too Hotties depends entirely on cleavage, Andrew, and I agree with the bulk of your last post in general. Thank you for the clarification, and thanks to karinova for input on the cognitive dissonance of strip bars versus the softer, less strippier sexy salons.

    I wouldn’t consider it inherently anti-feminist though, if men were told that paying for these kind’s of privileges (economic coercion) is an infantile way of gratifying their desires. That if they want to be the kind of person who attracts women, they should actually make an effort to be attractive themselves, rather than bait the disadvantaged with the hope of economic freedom. For example, practicing the kind of reciprocal intimacy that was discussed in the last post.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “bait the disadvantaged with the hope of economic freedom” or how it relates to men attracting women. Are women the disadvantaged when they’re baited into relationships with men who would otherwise being paying for it? I’m hopelessly confused, apologies.

    I don’t agree that men are “economically coerced” into purchasing their sexual fantasies when they cannot get them through other (free) means, because there is no real parity between the freedom of a john to buy a woman when he wants to and the freedom of a prostitute to decide she’d rather starve than give another blow job.

    If a man’s sexual fantasies are brutal, violent, or unusual enough that he can’t find a woman to participate freely in them, but he can find a pornographer willing to film them or a prostitute who will perform them if he pays her enough, he is not being victimized or coerced. He is in the privileged position of being (quasi)legally free and able to de-humanize someone else for his own fleeting satisfaction.

    Also, I kind of think heterosexual men do want to attract women by being attractive, but they have no idea what women find attractive and they are far too frightened to examine their pesky and unattractive male privilege. They are, however, seemingly incredibly moved by evo-psych bullshit about Alphas and Betas and ancient hunter-gatherer protective masculine bullshit that misogynists frequently peddle to insecure, emotionally immature, sex-starved, dudes.

    Okay: the Beta Dood is beta within the Dood heirarchy; he’s an Alpha Dood wannabe. He’s not effortlessly comfortable being an overaggressive, misogynistic, insensitive dick; he’s working on it. And being seen/judged (by alphas) to be actively, visibly working on it? Makes him beta.

    Karinova, you’ve got a stronger stomach than I have to analyze these Alpha/Beta male relationships to any degree of detail and without losing your mind. I think I’ll chalk up my inability to completely and coherently comprehend this dynamic to my utter fucking boredom with heterosexual men and their endless pursuit of pussy through shallow, puerile games of oneupsmanship.

    So they could function like training wheels: they’re a place to get used to the stripclub mentality, but they have a stigma of lameness that encourages you to move beyond them ASAP.

    Got it, totally. So, do you think the owners of Too Hotties see their businesses and have consciously marketed them as gateways to BDSM sex-slave cathouses, or as jolly goodtime funzones for middle-aged, middle-class slightly balding dudes (like themselves, if the photographs are anything to judge by) who secretly think they’re being emasculated everywhere else by politically correct harpyish shrews and who just want a place they can hang out and fart around while good-looking women who look like their daughters and aren’t dressed too provocatively stand around and bend over a lot?

    If there’s booze/rootbeer and XBox, you’d be going there even if there were no hotties, right? Same with the NFL cheerleaders. And even strip clubs, where men can tell themselves that the objective is “socializing with the bros.”

    Get what you’re saying, but fuck if I have a difficult time believing someone actually, sincerely, in their wimpy little heart-of-hearts, thinks cheerleaders and strippers just happen to be on the premises of an all-male, all-heterosexual establishment, and they’re not totally being paid to give dudes boners, and that said boners aren’t completely being paid for, in whatever round-about way you like, whenever you shell out for a ticket or a drink.

  41. Andrew November 30, 2009 at 2:45 AM #

    Saurs,

    Sorry for any confusion. By my “economic disadvantage” comment I was hoping to illustrate that men, ideally, should not use money to buy things from women that shouldn’t have prices on them, like affection, or a slavish mentality.

  42. karinova December 1, 2009 at 1:56 AM #

    So, do you think the owners of Too Hotties see their businesses and have consciously marketed them as gateways to BDSM sex-slave cathouses, or as jolly goodtime funzones for middle-aged, middle-class slightly balding dudes (like themselves, if the photographs are anything to judge by) who secretly think they’re being emasculated everywhere else by politically correct harpyish shrews and who just want a place they can hang out and fart around while good-looking women who look like their daughters and aren’t dressed too provocatively stand around and bend over a lot?

    Heee! I think you know what I think!!
    How… can I put this? I think those three guys are their very own self-sufficient Dood Heirarchy.
    IfyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkyoudo!

    I think (smile fading now) those guys may just have stumbled onto a freaking gold mine.

  43. karinova December 1, 2009 at 2:01 AM #

    Oh, and, when I say “move beyond them,” I mean move beyond tame and acceptable boobershops– into strip clubs. (Which apparently need no justification beyond “hangin’ with the bros,” if any. I assume the cognitive dissonance is easier to ignore when you can actually grab their asses and whatnot.) Not beyond strip clubs into fetish clubs. Necessarily.

  44. Michelle December 1, 2009 at 5:01 PM #

    Honestly – I don’t think insecure men would go to these boobershops. I think men most likely to step into strip clubs – would be most likely to go to boobershops. I’ve known insecure guys that felt uncomfortable going into strip clubs and even salons because they felt the women working at these establishments are superficial – which made them uncomfortable. I think insecure guys are more likely to sit at home wanking to porn than go out and look for prostitutes or women to ogle at because they aren’t getting any.

  45. Rian December 1, 2009 at 10:41 PM #

    I’m confused about what type of guy would go to a place like this. Is it the same guy who watches the Victoria Secret’s Fashion Show and thinks that cheap, ugly shit is sexy?

  46. James December 2, 2009 at 3:14 AM #

    “** Do NOT leave this page without clicking the Too Hotties link and checking out the photo section. It’s fucking hilarious. There’s one of the “three gentlemen” with their “girls” that will blow your mind.”

    The one in the middle looks distinctly stuffed.

  47. dorothy black December 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM #

    great read. and who knew!? we’re still too third world for that shit to take off for really reals here :)

  48. asexualguy December 6, 2009 at 5:24 AM #

    Some elderly guys were asked why they went to a particular old fashioned barber and not a hair salon. They explained that they’d be embarassed or uncomfortable asking a woman to clip their nasal hair and ears. I haven’t heard anything about the topless hair salons that were around once. They fizzled out? Plus, an escort who currently offers beauty treatments while naked or was it topless, said it’s very rare for anyone to ask for it. Can’t imagine myself going to those or anywhere else with mirrors, unless… Yes, like other people I’d pay extra for a place with booze, or nitrous oxide like my dentist.

  49. Brian January 2, 2010 at 11:50 AM #

    Also, I kind of think heterosexual men do want to attract women by being attractive, but they have no idea what women find attractive and they are far too frightened to examine their pesky and unattractive male privilege. They are, however, seemingly incredibly moved by evo-psych bullshit about Alphas and Betas and ancient hunter-gatherer protective masculine bullshit that misogynists frequently peddle to insecure, emotionally immature, sex-starved, dudes.

    Hey, those evo-psych books come with a “find true love or at least get laid” moneyback guarantee. I ain’t seen an examinin’ male privilege book what does that. It’s just good economic sense.

    But otherwise, you’re right about all of that.

  50. polly January 2, 2010 at 11:54 PM #

    Hey, those evo-psych books come with a “find true love or at least get laid” moneyback guarantee.

    Really?

    Men: not smelling unpleasant is a good first step. I say that as a neutral onlooker.

  51. Brian January 3, 2010 at 2:55 PM #

    Really?

    A lot of the pickup artist books rely on evo-psych, and offer money back guarantees. When you know someone talks out of both sides of their ass, you’d be foolish to trust in their offer of a moneyback guarantee, though.

  52. polly January 3, 2010 at 6:02 PM #

    I might buy one and try it Brian. Do they work for women picking up women?

  53. elaine January 4, 2010 at 11:05 PM #

    I tried to watch the ‘Too Hotties’ ad, but between laughing uncontrollably whilepuking, I almost asphyxiated, so I didn’t make it to the PBJ and rootbeer part. Sounds like someone knows the true, as opposed to chronological, average age of their target clientele, though.

  54. shrimpeyes July 10, 2011 at 4:08 PM #

    I can’t imagine PB&J being a big draw. To me it’s evocative of all those years as a single mother feeding my kids on a Wal-Mart paycheck. How could anyone feel like a high roller while brushing Wonder bread crumbs off his shirtfront before reaching for his wallet with jammy hands?Well, on second thought, it does sort of add to the schmuckiness of the whole endeavor.

  55. Andy July 29, 2011 at 1:19 PM #

    Hey 9-2 (and to all other radical feminists), I’ve been reading some of your posts for quite some time now. I’m a gay man who also resents the white-heterosupremacist patriarchy that runs our world. So my question to you is this: what do you think about gay men? Surely they don’t belong with the rest of those dick-measuring, capitalist scumbags? I must say though that I’m getting quite critical of our (gay men’s) increasing role in cultivating/perpetuating materialism among women (especially within the fashion scene). Please reply.

    P.S.
    Have you heard/seen the Spike Channel’s Manswers series? It’s also full of grotesque material worth vomiting to.

  56. Isme July 30, 2011 at 12:49 AM #

    “So my question to you is this: what do you think about gay men? Surely they don’t belong with the rest of those dick-measuring, capitalist scumbags?”

    In my own experience, although it seems reasonable to assume that a persecuted minority would tend to support other persecuted minorities, this doesn’t tend to be the case. People are very good at recognising injustices committed against them, but there’s no reason why this would make them better at recognising the ones they commit themselves.

    It seems to me that few people fit neatly into persecutors and persecuted, most people have some privilege over others than came abuse, while being part of some minority group or other and being mistreated due to it.

  57. skeptifem August 3, 2011 at 6:24 PM #

    Andy
    As an IBTP certified radical feminist, I can say that some gay men are to be lumped in with those dick measuring capitalist scumbags, and some aren’t. The percentage that understands the problems of patriarchy seems to be higher among gay men than het ones, so that is awesome. There are some scummy gay dudes out there, like the gay guys on America’s Next Top Model or Perez Hilton. I am sure the reason the media embraces them is less than wholesome. Even the most patriarchy affirming gay dude has their safety at risk as a by-product of being perceived as feminine for being gay, so the struggle is a shared one.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Just the links: more stuff I’ve been reading 2 « Urocyon's Meanderings - November 30, 2009

    [...] Rage Against the Man-chine * Getting your eyebrows waxed only makes you a fag if there are no tits involved. (Part 1) [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 492 other followers