Sunday, November 19, 2006

Fun with feminist heresy.

Entry for Saturday night (after sunset), 20 August, 2005

First, an article from Yahoo. Then, my response.

A neo-feminist's view of abstinence

By Elizabeth Sandoval Fri Aug 19, 7:24 AM ET

I don't want to have sex. Clarification: I do want to have sex, but only with my husband. And I don't have one of those yet.

No, I am not an ultraconservative who is cohabitating with a houseful of cats and TiVo'ing Lifetime movies. I'm a middle-of-the-road 32-year-old who likes tattoos and loud music. And yes, I am cute (I've been told by friends and strangers alike). So you can put aside the notion that I'm bitter about not being offered the chance to have sex.

What I am is a neo-feminist. Definition: "One who respects her body so much that she won't allow it to be used as someone's playground."

Handsome Man at a Bar, you think I'm cute? Thanks. Do you appreciate me or the idea of having sex with me? Because your thinking has likely been influenced by the cavortings of Samantha and Co. in the "city" or the women in most rap videos. I am not those women. If you want a workout, go get a one-day pass at Bally. It's free.

Members of the "Sex is Natural and Fun and If It Makes You Happy, It Can't Be That Bad" club want sex so badly that they willingly and repeatedly live out the following scenario: Things go "great" for a month or two. Sex quickly becomes a part of your interactions. Maybe he even meets your parents. And then, well, things just change. He dumps you or you dump him.

Regardless of why the relationship died, you are now one of many women whom he could point out on the street. "See her?" he can tell his buddies. "She's cute, huh? Yeah, I had her." I never want to be "her."

The "You Have to Know if You're Sexually Compatible or the Marriage Will Be Doomed" club will argue that one out of two marriages end in divorce, so you have to know that you're sexually compatible before you can even contemplate marriage. Well, maybe one out of two marriages end in divorce precisely because people are too free with sex. Many people don't take time to establish real communication with one another. It's false intimacy.

Many women today are weak-minded in that they readily accept society's portrayal of sexual norms. The people on The O.C. are doing it. Paris Hilton, as she's hosing down that Bentley, appears ready to do it. And more important, many people they actually know are doing it. The sheer prolificness of sex seems to make the decision for them. Women are non-self-respecting because they willingly sacrifice such an important part of their being for just a few moments of pleasure. And they're oblivious because they don't contemplate the profoundness of sex.

Women give it up as if it's nothing. When in fact, it is everything.

Elizabeth Sandoval is a writer who lives in Los Angeles.


Now, my reply:

When reading this article and looking at some of the very nasty responses that were in the discussion thread, I had two thoughts. The first was that she is only halfway there. Not only do women need to stop letting men use them as disposable entertainment, but women also need to stop bowing to the almighty gods of immodest "women's fashion," which is nothing other than to serve as visual entertainment for men, for the purpose of advertising to men that they are available to be used as disposable entertainment.

The second was in reply to all of those who tried to justify themselves by saying that sex is natural and everybody is doing it, and that contraceptives are the cure-all for what ails recreational sex. It is terribly ironic that the original femi-nazi movement has actually caused the problems associated with men using women as disposable entertainment, sometimes by force.

1. They say that sex is a natural biological function driven by millions of years of evolution. Then they tell women that it's perfectly ok to dress like sluts and flaunt their sexual availability in front of men, while telling the men they have no right to react the exact way that millions of years of evolution would have programmed them to act. Stupid.

2. They say that women don't need men, that children don't need fathers, and that every woman should be able to "decide" that they want to have an abortion instead of being a mother. Then, they turn around and say men have no right to insist that they have the same right not to be a father. They cannot save their child's life if the woman decided to murder their baby. Nor can they insist that the woman get an abortion. Instead, they get taken to court and forced to pay child support. Gee, class, guess why the murder of a pregnant woman is an almost weekly occurrence on your local, state, or national news? It's not rocket science.

3. And feminists did this, also - they insist that the life of a man's baby has no value, then they wonder why men extrapolate this thought to its logical end: a woman's life has no value, either. The femi-nazi revolution has not decreased the beating and murder of women - it has increased it a thousand-fold.

4. They did more than take themselves "off the pedestal." They rolled themselves around in the mud. Now they wonder why women are looked down on in art and videos and computer games and music as whores and bitches and sex objects with no other value. Why? Because they have made it so that they in fact don't have any other value to men.

5. And they have so denigrated the position of women that when a woman tries to hang on to her dignity and have a mature relationship with a man, they find it can no longer be done. The femi-nazis have taught him well - women don't need men and men have no obligation towards women, they say. So, why should a man commit himself to supporting a wife and family? The feminists have not opened more options for women. They have decreased our options. Men now expect to get free milk, and since there are plenty of cows out there who are happy to oblige, decent women are passed by - and society is crumbling under the enormous costs. Even those men who pay child support still leave impoverished children and broken homes - either economically impoverished, emotionally impoverished, or both. (By the way, the femi-nazi position is a lie. Children need parents of both sexes.)

6. And speaking of stupid femi-nazi positions - yes, the sexual urge is a biological reality that begins when a girl is a teenager. So why do femi-nazis teach that women should go to college, establish a career, and then, maybe, get married and have children? Shouldn't that be the other way around? How about get married, have children, and then select a career and go to college? I have written about this before, but it's worth saying again, because apparently the femi-nazis all flunked high school biology. Child bearing years for human females are from 15 or so to 30 or so. Once you get to your mid thirties your eggs are getting defective and your cycles are no longer stable. The epidemic increase of hyperactivity, learning disabilities and physical deformities are a direct result of this idiotic philosophy - not to mention the thousands of weeping infertile women who thought they had "plenty of time." Lies, lies, and more lies. And I don't know about you, but when I was 18 I didn't have the foggiest idea what would be the perfect career for my life. And frankly, I think it's fairly idiotic to insist that teenage girls should decide to toss away the main childbearing years of their lives in the hopes that technology will be there (and affordable) for them later. The truth is you only have a set number of years (15-20) to have children. Then, you have about 30-40 years to have a career. Guess which nature/god/evolution decided should be first? And, more to the point - promiscuity, abortion, disease and infertility are non-issues for us who chose the right order. Ask the suicidal women in their 30's and 40's who can't conceive how much their career is worth in the great scheme of things.

7. The femi-nazi teaching that women should not commit themselves to a family relationship and should instead farm out their children to institutionalized care by minimum wage workers is a subset of the above point. Femi-nazis are so petrified of the idea of a family unit that functions with mutual reliability that they would rather sacrifice their children on the altar of their careers than entertain the prospect that maybe, just maybe, children need their mothers to be their primary caregivers when they are preschool age - and maybe, just maybe, it should be a man's job to support his family during this time. (But of course now they won't, since the femi-nazis have spent the last couple of decades telling the current generations that they don't have to and shouldn't have to.)

8. And finally, it is the height of hypocracy for femi-nazis to insist that they have done things things so that women can choose to live thier lives the way they want, and then denigrate and ridicule women who choose of their own free will not to buy into the femi-nazi teachings. Apparently, the only choice we're allowed to have are the ones they decide to choose for us.

But this author above, and many people I know, and of course myself, have had it up to here with this stupidity. It's time for the tyrrany of femi-nazism to end, and real choice to be restored to women - if it can be.

There it is, class - neofeminism: the radical idea that evolution/god/nature made men and women differently, that the life of every man, woman, and child has value, and - get this - women are not just disposable entertainment after all. A religious life is not an abnormal, repressed life. And, the most insidious idea of all: men can generally be trusted, are physically and mentally needed by their offspring, need women in their adult lives, and - oh, my! - are likewise needed by women (Gasp!)

It's heresy, I tell you - heresy! So go out there, class, and enjoy being heretics! Just watching the femi-nazis spit and sputter is worth the effort.

No comments: