Fem Versus Fem

Ethika Politica has just published an article titled “The Real War on Women—Followed To Its Logical Conclusions”. I am going to be extremely critical of this article, dissecting it piece by piece in severe detail, so first a disclaimer: I am a feminist. I mean this in the sense that women should have the same social, political, and economic opportunities and responsibilities that men do. I do not mean this in the sense that women are in any way better or more deserving of anything than men.

There is no denying that there is a War on Women, in not only this country, but throughout the world. One cannot turn on their TV, read a newspaper or magazine, or even check their Twitter feed without seeing the violent verbal assaults on females that are taken for granted.

I deny it (and I’ll be returning to this topic in a moment). To make a comment specifically about things like Twitter feeds, yes, there are violent verbal assaults on females that are taken for granted on some parts of the internet. But there are also such things directed toward men, Christians, atheists, muslims, buddhists, hindus, jews, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, moderates, anarchists, homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, punks, goths, emos, nerds, geeks, dorks, jocks, preps, whites, blacks, indians, asians, teenagers, and the elderly. People who make such attacks are called trolls. Their entire goal is to get a rise out of the group they’re bad mouthing. Don’t feed the trolls!

And, consequently, the phrase, “War on Women” has been being strewn about like condoms at a public middle school.

If the strewing about of this phrase is supposed to be a bad thing, you’re only contributing to the problem. And while someone in middle school having sex isn’t a good thing, if they’re going to do so, it’s better for them to do it with condoms than without.

What is the “War on Women”? Whether it’s the commonly accepted misogyny in the media, the promotion of birth control, or the repression of it, the referring to women in the public eye as “MILF’s”, “cunts”, or “prostitutes”, or even the low blows about their weight or appearance; you name it, and whichever you believe it is, it’s there.

This is just defining the “War on Women” into existence. What if I believed that it consisted of nothing more than the sale of chocolate to women? Bam, there it is. A war. Her examples also don’t work – just look at all the public outrage directed at people like Rush Limbaugh and Dom Imus. When public figures refer to women in a disparaging manner, society rails against it, not accepts it.

But these few more recently witnessed attacks on women are merely the wages of the real War on Women, a one-sided war which has been fought for years, and whose army has no intention of surrender.

Yeah, ok. I’ll go get my fatigues and combat boots. Has the author not noticed the rise in popularity of women like Hillary Clinton?

Femininity, not just femininity, but true femaleness, in its purest, most natural, genuine form, is being attacked. It is downright hated.

I missed the biology lesson that talked about a One True Femaleness (TM). Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Real life-giving, life-affirming, God given femaleness is being ragingly stamped out, and those who posses this trait (females) are punished and forced to change. Under the guise of equality with men, those who claim to advocate better, or equal, treatment for women, are actually not treating them equally to men at all. They are treating them worse.

Oh. I guess this is about how God apparently intended all females to have similar personality traits which are distinct from all men. I’ll call all the female kung-fu practicioners and tell them that they’re behaving counter to how God wants them to behave – being loving and caring all the time, no matter how much enjoyment they might get out of competitive physical activity. The author can pay my medical bills when they kick my ass for being sexist.

Notice how with regards to our Armed Forces, for example, even the most conservative of narrators will never neglect to say, “… Our men and women in uniform…” when addressing the topic. Women. Women. Women are being enlisted into the armed forces in droves, and are told that they can serve just as their male counterparts do.

Because they can serve just as their male counterparts do. Or do you think that no women are just as physically capable as men are?

But if this is the case, why are the women immediately turned into men in order to be acceptable for the position they seek? Why are they de-feminized?

They’re…not? News flash: women in the military have breasts, vaginas, and ovaries.

Why are they put on the Pill? Why are they forced to dress in drag? Why are they required to turn off all sensitivity and nurturing instinct?

No women are “put on the pill”. No one is forcing them to take it. They choose to. Regarding sensitivity and nurturing instinct, have you never read any of the numerous stories of soldiers comforting dying comrades? And why in the world do you think military fatigues count as “drag”? Would you rather that female soldiers be allowed to wear long, flowing skirts or dresses that would hinder their movement in vitally important combat situations? What do you have against pants? Do you have the same objections to kilts?

Why, after inflicting both physical and psychological pain on themselves in an attempt to ensure their safety by being “one of the guys”, are they still threatened with misogynistic treatment, and even rape?

While such things are of course horrible, its not the military’s policy to do this – individuals are to blame for the recent military rape scandal, not “the military”. But it should be pointed out that military women aren’t trying to be “one of the guys”, but “one of the soldiers”.

I’m not saying that many women cannot outperform men physically. They can and they often do.

That’s good, even though you seemed to imply that earlier.

But why must they? When did it become so taboo for a woman to simply say, ”Sure, I can do that, but I’m not going to”?

It’s not taboo at all! Women say this all the time – look at all the women not in the military, not in sports, etc.

Society tells women that they can do anything a man can do—if they become like men.

There’s tremendous variation in personality type, intelligence, and physical ability in both men and women. There is no “like men” or “like women”.

Women in the Armed Forces are just one example of society’s overlooked and accepted War on Women. Civilian women are just as victimized, but in a different (yet still the same) way. In order to obtain and retain approval from society they are dead set on being the polar opposite of the physically adept, and consequently, forced masculinized, women mentioned above.

Ok, so if a woman is physically adept, it’s wrong; and if she’s not, that’s wrong too? What are women supposed to do?

They have decided that they will be “women”, or at least, what society says women should be. They are reared to please a man (and I use the word “man” loosely), and simultaneously, are taught to “do anything they want”. As it turns out, though, women can only do anything they want if they are man pleasing while they do it.

Perhaps the author was taught this way, but if she was, she’s the first example I’ve seen. None of my female friends are anything like this. I have no clue where this idea is coming from.

These women too, are forced to forgo their femaleness. They are put on the Pill without question, and told that they are now “feminists”.

Again, no one is being forced to take the pill.

Exactly how shutting down the very essence of femaleness, her reproductive system, which is so pivotally different than a man’s, is feminist is still utterly baffling to me. Again, she has been masculinized. She has had her cycles made into a mere caricature of their once perfection, or removed completely,

Perhaps the author enjoys bleeding every month, and not being able to have sex without worrying about an unintended pregnancy, but there are women who don’t enjoy these things. News flash: women like sex. Second news flash: women don’t enjoy bleeding. Third news flash: women don’t like unintended pregnancies.

and has been told that she must also be a ready and willing masturbation tool for whatever stray man she happens to be fostering at that point and time. Society not only expects this of women, but prefers it. How is this not an assault on women?

What??? This is so ridiculous I don’t even know how to respond. See the first news flash above: women like sex.

Not only is her pesky femaleness now in check for the convenience of men (i.e., society), but she is also a worker. A very hard worker. She will not fall ill every month and need to take to her bed to care for her body.

I’ve never seen any example of a woman taking time off work, or “taking to her bed” because she’s on her period. Also, a woman being a hard worker is good, because anyone being a hard worker is good.

She will not usually become pregnant, but if she does, rest assured she will continue standing for eight hours a day at a cash register or stocking shelves. She won’t breastfeed or bond with her child, and she won’t ever simply stay home and rest.

Ever heard of “maternity leave”?

There’s another crucial part of femaleness that is regularly under attack: Breasts.

Oh noes – hide the breasts, they’re under attack!

Breasts are another strikingly female, and even outwardly visible sign of difference from males.

Except for women who have small, or even almost nonexistent breasts. And except for men who have large breasts.

All female mammals basically have breasts.

And no female non-mammals have breasts. So citing non-human animals at all seems irrelevant.

They have a way to nurse their young, culminating their own sexuality and reproductive cycle.

Males can lactate too, you know (although they usually don’t).

Women’s breasts have had more emphasis placed on them by society than ever before, but not in a good way, not in the way that honors life and the breasts’ ability to nurture it. Instead, due to rampant pornography, they have been reduced to a mere caste of breasts. They, in all of their plastic, nonfunctioning glory, now exist to remind the female hating, un-masculine men  that they are still technically men, as they possess male genitalia, and therefore aid in enough of a hard-on for the “man” to satisfactorily jerk-off in his basement.

An attack on pornography. I’m not surprised. News flash: many men (including myself) greatly prefer natural breasts. Second news flash: many women enjoy pornography. Third news flash: most men (and women) masturbate in the bathroom or bedroom, not the basement.

Breast implants have been wildly popular for years with women who feel they need to please men by as closely resembling a mannequin as possible.

I’d just like to suggest here that the author actually talk to men about what kind of woman they like. Cause this is silly.

Here’s the brilliant twist, however, that really gets me: While women are flocking to have their breasts artificially augmented, those with naturally large breasts are flocking to have theirs artificially reduced, touting the phrase “back problems” right and left.

Mello AA, Domingos NA, Miyazaki MC. Improvement in Quality of Life and Self-Esteem After Breast Reduction Surgery. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 19 September 2009.

Conclusion: Both self-esteem and quality of life significantly improved after breast reduction surgery.

O’Blenes CA, Delbridge CL, Miller BJ, Pantelis A, Morris SF. Prospective Study of Outcomes after Reduction Mammaplasty: Long-term Follow-up. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery February 2006;117(2):351–358.

Conclusions: The long-term results of reduction mammaplasty indicate that this procedure is an effective method to reduce or alleviate both physical and psychological symptoms associated with macromastia. This study shows that this procedure should be covered under Canadian medical insurance plans.

Science is fun, isn’t it?

This detestment of life and womanhood does not even stop at human women. On the contrary, female animals, because they have no rights, no voice, and no impetus to fight back, yet are indeed still female, are a prime target for the hatred and violence geared toward women.

Here is where the author goes on a rant about the atrocities committed toward animals – but oddly enough, only female animals. She doesn’t mention all the male cows, pigs, and chickens that are routinely slaughtered for our consumption; nor does she mention the bulls artificially masturbated for impregnation purposes; nor does she mention the castration of other bulls, turning them into steers. She even writes: ” Their lives are misery manifested, and they experience this because they are female.” (emphasis mine) While there may be a good case for vegetarianism or veganism (and I think there most certainly is a good argument for at least reform of food production facilities), the author is merely co-opting arguments for their practice in order to support her unrelated position.

It is a war that goes much deeper, and is far more evil, harmful, sexist, and which has an intense desire to not only demean, but destroy, all females.

This is a comment near the end of the article which I find perhaps the strangest in the entire article. Men like women, why would we want to destroy them? And men want women to like us, so why would we want to demean them? I can only conclude from the tone of this article that the author wants to shift this supposed war on women in the other direction, and wage a counter-war on men. But that’s counter-productive, and just as bad as the war on women would be, if it existed. Here’s to real equality.

Advertisements

Tags:

6 responses to “Fem Versus Fem”

  1. Gil Sanders says :

    People who make such attacks are called trolls. Their entire goal is to get a rise out of the group they’re bad mouthing.

    Not always. They’re called “activists” these days.

    And while someone in middle school having sex isn’t a good thing, if they’re going to do so, it’s better for them to do it with condoms than without.

    How exactly does that work? We create the problem with the “Sexual Revolution” of the 1960s and now it’s best to just go with the flow? I don’t think so. If it’s not good then fighting against that system of thought is the best thing we can do. Pragmatism fails because it does not solve the problem, it only encourages it.

    I’d respond to more, but I am low on time here.

    • Robert says :

      Not always. They’re called “activists” these days.

      An activist troll is still a troll 😛

      How exactly does that work? We create the problem with the “Sexual Revolution” of the 1960s and now it’s best to just go with the flow? I don’t think so.

      No, we should not just “go with the flow”. We should educate our children about the possible negative consequences of having sex at a young age. But it’s not feasible to watch all of our children 24/7, especially since children are naturally curious. Think of condoms in middle schools as “damage control” for those instances which slip through our fingers.

  2. Gil Sanders says :

    An activist troll is still a troll

    WORD. In effect, that’s the level of their intelligence but unfortunately, it’s not an intentional “trolling” on their part.

    No, we should not just “go with the flow”. We should educate our children about the possible negative consequences of having sex at a young age. But it’s not feasible to watch all of our children 24/7, especially since children are naturally curious. Think of condoms in middle schools as “damage control” for those instances which slip through our fingers.

    Would you teach abstinence? I can sympathize toward using it as a form of “damage control” to some extent but I am still skeptical of that approach because we’re still freely providing such services to children. How do you think someone of their stage of intelligence will interpret that as? Do something good and you get free candy. Do something good and you get free condoms. There’s a psychological problem that we need to resolve here. Plus, I’d argue that there are problems with forcing taxpayers to pay for immoral activities. You’d need to advocate a form a consequentialism to show that this can be approved.

  3. Robert says :

    Would you teach abstinence?

    Ehhhh….yes and no. I wouldn’t teach the “absolutely no sex before marriage” position, but I would encourage people to be more cautious in selecting sexual partners, and to only engage in sex when it will be emotionally fulfilling for them.

    How do you think someone of their stage of intelligence will interpret that as? Do something good and you get free candy. Do something good and you get free condoms.

    I think a middle school aged child would give at least some consideration to social norms. So I guess you could say we need to lead by example here.

    Plus, I’d argue that there are problems with forcing taxpayers to pay for immoral activities.

    Protecting children from pregnancy and STDs where they would otherwise be at risk isn’t immoral unless you subscribe to deontology of some sort. Maybe I’ll write a critique of deontology sometime. 😛

  4. Prinz Eugen says :

    Ha, I don’t know whose post was more inane her original or your “response.” Her post was hysterical and ironic for someone who finds corporate capitalism “hot”. Your response was even worse, typical liberal assertions contrary to all the evidence as well as tedious hairsplitting remarks. It seems as though you just like to hear your thoughts for your own sake like you have some great insight into the world. Really spare us.

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

%d bloggers like this: