Here is her Youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/user/Shoe0nHead

She has a LOT of subscribers and talks anti-feminism.  I have a theory here, at least why some attractive women would be anti-feminists.  There is the usual one related to wanting the attention of men, and I think generating responses akin to the traditional white knight view, where it is about trying to get laid.  By apparently siding with men’s issues, and being attractive, you get a LOT of men interested in you.  So, I see this as one.

But, deeper than this, what I can see is an attractive woman sees feminists totally undermining any advantages an attractive woman would have in getting a man.  Feminists work against the interests of physically attractive women, by getting men to get an increasingly unfavorable view of women and also by driving down standards by which an attractive woman would have a competitive advantage. In short, this second one isn’t just about the tactical side of personally getting men into you, but also the strategic side of the frame of mind being one of what is attractive.

Please feel free to share any thoughts you have on this.  I may be off, but I think I have seen something.

Part of what put this thought in my head was ShoeOnHead rating about feminist rage against Barbie dolls.

I would say, as a heterosexual man, and with MGTOW stuff, I am becoming aware of how I am reacting to things based on how my biology is wired, which I can’t say really has my long-term interests at heart.

It’s something about their sarcastic personalities towards feminists and the way they present themselves.  It also might have to do with my attraction to younger-looking women in general, I dunno.  I said the same thing not long ago about someone I know on Tumblr who’s rather popular, named “Krissi Pookie.”

I know I should tread carefully, as most women are still feminist and rebellious by nature, but at least they’re aesthetically pleasing…not like the feminazi bulldykes on parade.

EDIT: Shoot, I’m actually not sure if “Boxxy” and “Shoe0nHead” are the same person or not.  I’m getting conflicting sources here.  They look and sound EXACTLY the same, though.

Basically if your are ugly, you are less likely to find a man to leech off.  But if you are hot, your chances of “easy” work are much more promising than the hard kind or work men have to face.  It’s a much better deal for her to manipulate a man into taking care of her than trying to get a tough, good paying job to take care of herself.

Besides,  I love the idea of equality if it means no more abusive practices against men.  But this is not the kind of equity they desire.  It’s all about enjoying the benefits without taking on the risks.

The way I see it, you have to be all man or all woman.  Women should not decide to be part man and part women and get any respect

I will answer properly but this is precious:

Deep down I highly doubt women care much about equality and feminism.

Which is why feminism has absolutely nothing to do with equality and never has.

kizell wrote:

Deep down I highly doubt women care much about equality and feminism.

Which is why feminism has absolutely nothing to do with equality and never has.

Correct.   I think feminism is more about man shaming.  Another masterful portrayal of manipulation,  the one thing we know women thrive on.

@iliveagain, This is a great video.

Even in her “Boxxy” days, I thought she was cute as well. (I believe I was a senior in high school when she got famous, if not shortly after.) It’s something about their sarcastic personalities towards feminists and the way they present themselves. It also might have to do with my attraction to younger-looking women in general, I dunno. I said the same thing not long ago about someone I know on Tumblr who’s rather popular, named “Krissi Pookie.” I know I should tread carefully, as most women are still feminist and rebellious by nature, but at least they’re aesthetically pleasing…not like the feminazi bulldykes on parade. EDIT: Shoot, I’m actually not sure if “Boxxy” and “Shoe0nHead” are the same person or not. I’m getting conflicting sources here. They look and sound EXACTLY the same, though.

Thanks for the last note.  I didn’t think they were the same woman, but they are similar.  They both have that cute, younger-women look that is appealing to men.  And add showing interest in things men are into, and you get a following by default.

Ravishing Rick Rude on YouTube also pointed this out about the Bellas doing the same thing:

What I see thinking from a MGTOW perspective is how much of human interaction is based around human sexuality.  When you look to step away from all that (I would say part of MGTOW at least has this in it), you see how much of it is focus and fixated on that.

kizell wrote:

Deep down I highly doubt women care much about equality and feminism.

Which is why feminism has absolutely nothing to do with equality and never has.

Who really cares about equality? Almost everyone just wants the world to be more favorable to them.  You have some guilt-ridden upper class folks who buy into “egalitarianism” and try to promote it, as to placate their guilt, and show themselves to be able to intellectually relate to the lower class folk.  You will get upper class folk in all different movements who end up feeling a need to have followers, so they push, “people of my type unite!” and then push a big and long persecution story of how they have had it rough, to get peons to line up behind their label, so they can get what their money can’t buy them, fame and respect by a large crowd.  They also have a desire to have a utopia on earth, so they will push for different issues.

When I say this, I speak about what is going on now.  There were actually justified civil rights movement in the past, where African-Americans were lynched, that is understandable.  But what we have now in the SJW side of things is a dislike of the current culture and values individuals have, and they want to change that.  Egalitarianism is merely just a way to make that more presentable.  No one really actually campaigns for egalitarianism, they just say they are one, because if you are gaining power, you want as much as can be that is favorable for you.