USA Today, 3/3/99, citing the US
Census Bureau, reported that the number of people
currently married has fallen to an all-time low.
While not specifying the age at which one is
considered an "adult", the paper showed a
graph comparing the various marital statuses in 1970
and 1998. Since 1970, the percentage of married
adults has fallen from 68% to 56%. One might say that
the feminists are well on their way to accomplishing
their objective of destroying marriage.
Against the backdrop of the Great
Impeachment Circus of 1998-99 with its revelations of
the marital infidelities of the US president, and all
the hypocritical moralistic posturing that went with
it as moral paragon after moral paragon bit the dust
after past maritial lapses came to light, no small
amount of dialogue has been generated on the subject
of marriage. One must wonder whether the institution
of marriage is a robust enough vessel to contain all
the bitterly conflicting expectations and demands
placed on it. Face it, any company that put out a
product that self-destructed over 50% of the time
would not remain in business for long.
A phrase that began to be used
repeatedly during the 13 month long nightmare of the
Bill-and-Monica show was "culture war."
Either our culture seems to be a war with itself, or
we have two or more separate and distinct subcultures
within the larger culture. This is certainly true on
the topic of marriage. The website http://www.cyberparent.com/women/marriage.htm has a whole list of articles on women's
view of marriage. One of these Marriage: Why are women leaving marriage in
droves? goes into some
depth about the expectations that "society"
creates in the minds of both men and women regarding WOMEN'S
role in marriage. I found the whole thing rather
banal and cliche-ridden. Sadly, the author claimed to
be a male:
Oh, my, my, my," says
Society with a capital "S," while
wringing its hands and shaking its head, "If
we could just get those women back to the farm...
If we could just get that genie back in the
bottle..."
Is it true?
If we could just get these
women back to the farm; if we could just get
women to stay home again, would they be afraid to
leave marriage because the kids might starve?
If we could just get those
women under control again, reverse those child
support laws, and go back to the old ways, would
everything be better?
If we could just return to
the "good ol' days" when men were men
and women were women and everyone knew their
place in marriage, would marriage work again?
Obviously, we do have two totally
different cultures around here somewhere. I keep
wondering where these alleged "independent"
women hang out. Unlike the women represented in these
articles, I have yet to actually meet one in person
for whom marriage, and "true love", and
"happily ever after" was not the ultimate
goal. The myth of the "independent woman"
is compellingly attractive, but so far I have yet to
find a confirmed sighting of one. And
"independence" is a very relative term. On
one web site I ran across the statement by a woman
that men were "nice to have around --
sometimes." So are Mariachi bands -- sometimes.
Maybe these 3rd wave feminists have gotten over the
spit-in-your-face independence of "A woman
without a man is like a fish without a bicycle",
but being regarded as a marginally useful household
appliance seems hardly worth all the effort that goes
into a relationship.
Then there's the grisly gauntlet of
dating. And here is where I find the situation
portrayed in the article cited above to be exactly
reversed. All the women I've ever encountered in a
"dating" context had been told a whole lot
by "society" about what she
"should" want and what I was like, and none
of it rang true.
I've lost track of the number of times I've
been in Bob's shoes. Progressively thoroughout the
80s and 90s "dating" seems to have become
an endurance test to see just how much offensiveness
and contempt a man will put up with from a woman and
still come back for more. Particularly when
juxtaposed against the claim that women are the
"feelings experts" and the
"relatitionship experts", or against any of
the concepts of "love" or even affection
prevalent in our culture, the actual behavior of
women has become so bizarre that it almost defies
explanation and understanding.
Despite the best efforts of the
heterophobes and the lesbian separatists, men and
women are still attracted to each other and women, at
least, still seem to regard "THE
Relationship" as a kind of holy grail. But
somewhere along the line any notion of mutuality or
reciprocity seems to have gotten lost in the fiction
of historic male power and privilege. The old
Victorian notions of female sexual disinterest and
male sexual depravity recycled into the legal
mechanisms of Sexual Harassment, Date and Marital
Rape, and pornography-as-violence-against-all-women
have further suppressed the expression of female
sexuality and pathologized and criminalized male
sexuality. And millions of women sit around and
wonder why they can't get a date.
Hardly a day goes by that I don't
see more evidence, another example, of how women have
completely lost touch with any sense of men as human
beings, and with any notion about what is or might be
attractive to men. Apparently, many women believe
that men thrive on abuse and that the more abrasive
and unpleasant a woman can be toward a man the more
he will "Love" her. Such thinking does not
impress men with women's general level of
intelligence. The female method of talking feelings
and situations to death is in direct conflict with
men's tendency to deal with things as simply as
possible. Having to explain to a woman why the
situation depicted in the above cartoon is so
incredibly obnoxious, offensive, demeaning, and
infuriating to men seems ridiculous to most men. How
in the world ANYONE could expect someone to listen to
this kind of crap and not begin to detest the person
putting it out is simply incomprehensible. The only
possible conclusion is that the woman is completely
devoid of social graces, arrogant and contemptuous of
men to a degree which is almost impossible to
believe, cruel and sadistic in many respects, and
none too bright.
Thousands of examples of this kind
of immature, self-centered and narcissistic world
view can be found on the web. For Valentine's Day
1999, msnbc.com posted an article entitled "Dating Myself: Remembering how to date
again is not like riding a bike". After the obligatory
modern-woman/single-mom assertion that she was
perfectly happy being single and raising her daughter
alone, the woman went on to describe her desire to
"reinvigorate the date."
"About a year ago,
someone I met at a dinner invited me out on a
date." ...
"This is how it went:
We met at a dinner and talked to each other and
then we talked to other people. I thought he
seemed nice and attractive though he did not
inspire that breathless, pheromone-filled instant
response. (Those are usually reserved for men I
discover are either happily married or
homosexual.) Three days later, he called, I
answered, we chatted and he asked if I wanted to
go out for dinner. Just like that. I even
accepted and we were on for Thursday night. This
is strategically a good night since it is not
burdened by the significance of a weekend or an
unencumbered next day, Thursday is a sincere
night without being an officially romantic one.
" ...
She then went on to describe her
preparations for "the date" which included
lying to her 6 y/o daughter about why she was
dressing up and putting on makeup to spare her
daughter the "complications" of "Introducing
an insignificant man into the picture..."
"I kissed her goodbye
and drove to my date. Let me say this again, my
dinner date. At a fancy restaurant downtown. For
one panicky moment I wondered if I would actually
remember what this date of mine looked like. He
had a mustache I think. I assume he will remember
me."...
"We met at the bar. He
recognized me which was a good thing because I
only half recognized him. I wanted to feel the
rush of flirtation inspired by chemistry, but
only felt the rush of exhileration inspired by
getting acquainted — less with
him, as it turned out, than getting reacquainted
with myself as a datable woman.
"...
"THE OUTCOME"
"Nothing much came of
that date. We went out a few times. He even
kissed me. He wanted things to move much quicker
than I, not sexually which I can handle, but in
terms of “life integration."...
"Many single mothers
have no interest in a Big R relationship but
would love to go on a date. Here are some rules
for dating a single Mom:
- Don’t push for
meeting the kids.
- Pay for the date.
- Make the plan. One
option, as with children, is to give a
choice — would you like to go to
Paris or would you like to see a movie?
— and let me decide.
- Single mothers are
pathetically grateful for small gestures
but since we are so constrained by the
circumstances of our lives, you
don’t have to worry that we will
leap to conclusions and assume that a
flower means a marriage proposal.
- Offer to pay for the
babysitter. Even though the offer will be
refused, it is a lovely gesture.
- Limit your own
expectations about her availability
— twice or three times a month is a
big deal."
Again, from the male point of view
it is unfathomable that this woman, or any woman,
could be so self-centered and narcissistic that she
would regard the entire purpose of a "date"
as being "...getting reacquainted
with herself as a datable woman." And
women complain about men turning WOMEN into
objects!!!! Do women REALLY have to have it
explained to them that the ENTIRE REASON a man would
ask them out on a "date" is because that
man has the desire to become something MORE than an "insignificant
man" in that womans life?!!!! If so, no
wonder "relationships" are going down the
tubes.
What is fascinating about this
woman's account is the strange mixture of traditional
expectations of gallantry, generousity, and
take-charge attitude from a man ( pay, plan the date,
offer to pay for the babysitter) combined with her
new-age attitudes of liberation ( being perfectly
satisfied with her life as a single mom, being able
to "handle" sexual "intimacy" but
NOT "life integration" ). Particularly
offensive in light of women's constant harping on
wage parity and supposed male obsession with money,
is the suggestion in the plan-the-date
"rule" that the type of man this woman
would consider a "datable man" is one with
the financial resources to be able to offer a trip to
Paris with the same ease that most men could offer a
movie.
This woman's attitude is a perfect
example of a very significant and destructive
disconnect between the way men view
"dating" or "a date" and the way
women view dating. Again, from the male point of
view, it seems rather amazing to have to explain that
any activity which meets the needs and expectations
of only one of the participants while frustrating the
needs and the expectations of the other is going to
be regarded as a "bad deal" by the one
whose needs are being treated with contempt and is
going to raise some very realistic resentment and
animosity.
Men generally regard "a
date" as a mechanism for getting to know someone
with whom they have more than a passing interest in
developing more of a relationship. If the woman makes
the fact known that she considers the male to be
nothing more than "an insignificant man",
most men have have no shortage of other things to
spend their money on and will no doubt choose to do
just that. So, from there very beginning, there is a
sense that the woman is behaving in a fraudulent
manner: she is taking advantage of the man on false
pretenses. It is clear from this woman's description
that she regards "a date" as an opportunity
to dine on expensive meals, or take expensive trips,
at someone else's expense. A very fundamental
conflict in male/female relationships is that where
women seem to see this as an entitlement which is
nothing more than their just due, men see it quite
differently.
The much lamented lack of available
"dates" for women stems directly from this
phenomenon. She herself wants to be treated as
somehow significant, as a "datable woman" (
whatever that means ), yet at the same time does not
see the need for this regard to be reciprocal. Of
course, we all know what this perceived differential
in the value of companionship is based upon: the
unspoken, or nearly so, implicit possibility of sex.
Another great example is from a singles ad posted on the web by a woman from Georgia, USA.
Okay, so I went to the
"tips on writing ads". That helped! I
am a divorced 46 year old FEMALE, 5'4",
120lbs. (give or take 5lbs. [constantly]). I
always thought that was what "The Battle of
the Bulge" meant. I know you will want my
measurements so I'll go where no woman has ever
gone before and tell you. Just had them taken
last week. 36-26-35. I was told that I was one
inch from being perfect. The person who said
this, you have to understand, did not know of my
sharp tongue, at the time. I work for a
Periodontist as an assistant. If I had but one
wish in life, it would be for happiness. I am
seeking to find someone out there who is honest
to a fault, not too hard to look at, rather tall,
great personality, loves to pamper women, opps,
erase that, I meant, loves to pamper a woman,
knows how to give and take, will understand that
most women will, one way or the other, get in
that last word, understands that sex is not
everything (I realize that will exclude 90% of
you guys), understands that sex is an important
part of things, (what can I say, I'm a woman,
you're not suppose to understand what that
meant), likes to stay home and watch movies and
cuddle, would rather walk in the rain than weed
the garden, knows plenty of GOOD jokes, can
listen as well as talk, have most of their own
teeth, knows how to hold up there end of an
intelligent conversation and has great come
backs. I know, I sound like an awful person, but
I'm really not. I'm a very giving and caring
person. Sometimes to a fault. And I will end this
application with one old saying. Which is
"When I'm good, I'm good, but when I'm bad,
I'm real good." Now, name that tune. ;->
Now first of all, let's look at the
fact that a woman who places an ad in an
INTERNATIONAL forum might be realistically classified
as "desperate." However, like the
narcissist only interested in dating herself
described above, she feels the need to obscure this
fact. Let's "deconstruct" this woman's ad
and list the things that she is demanding of a
potential relationship versus the things she is
offering in return. Her "conditions" or
"rules" are:
- Her one wish in life is for "happiness"
( Wow! That makes her unique. Sure glad she
told me that. Tells me a WHOLE lot about her.
- Honesty to a fault. (
nothing wrong with that )
- "...not too hard to
look at, rather tall, great
personality..." ( Wow! Another
unique revelation. Since most women are
looking for repulsive short trolls, she
obviously won't have much competetion for
those remaining tall, good looking men with
great personalities.)
- Loves to pamper women.
No. Wait. ONE woman - her. ( Hey, this
woman is getting more "special" and
unique with every condition. Since so few
women want to be pampered and instead would
rather knock themselves out pampering a man,
all those guys out there seriously suffering
from lack of a woman to pamper will surely
trample each other beating down this woman's
door. )
- Will just accept the fact that
she is always going to have "...that
last word."
- Understands that sex is not
everything. "( I realize that
will exclude 90% of you guys. )" (
Can we say "men think with their
penises"? )
- Understands that sex is an
important part of things. "(what
can I say, I'm a woman, you're not suppose to
understand what that meant)" ( Can
we say "feminine mystique". )
- "likes to stay home
and watch movies and cuddle, would rather
walk in the rain than weed the garden, knows
plenty of GOOD jokes, can listen as well as
talk, have most of their own teeth, knows how
to hold up there end of an intelligent
conversation and has great come backs." (
Can we say "yadda, yadda, yadda"? )
Ummm. Makes ME want to offer her
the choice — between a trip to Paris or a
movie — and let her decide. Some good
samaritan needs to suggest to this woman that she
retake her "tips on writing ads" course.
Even she, herself, realizes how bad her ad sounds
when she says "I know, I sound like an awful
person, but I'm really not. " A poor dumb
male, thinking only with his penis and not with
"both sides of a female brain", would ask WHY, if she knows that her
ad makes her sound like an "awful
person" she went ahead and POSTED IT.
However, all this proves is that men
REALLY DON'T understand women at all.
Now let's look at the list of what
she is offering in return for all these sterling male
qualities:
- divorced ( and likely
bitter about it ) 46 year old ( high
milage ) FEMALE, (why all capital
letters? ) 5'4", 120lbs. (give or
take 5lbs. [constantly]). I always thought
that was what "The Battle of the
Bulge" meant. ( Great, so hanging
around with her will mean constantly having
to field the question "Do you think I
look fat?" ) I know you will want my
measurements so I'll go where no woman has
ever gone before and tell you. (Oh, you
daring and mischievious devil, you. ) Just
had them taken last week. 36-26-35. I was
told that I was one inch from being perfect.
- a sharp tongue ( can be
vicious and emotionally abusive if
"provoked" by the suggestion that
anything about her is NOT
"perfect")
- contempt and dismissal of 90%
of men because they like sex - A LOT
(more than she does) .
- demand for sex that meets HER
needs, despite the fact that she has already
made it clear that she has no intention of
respecting or meeting the MAN'S needs or at
least any of the 90% of men who place a
different level of importance on sex than she
does.
- being a very "caring
and giving person" ( Fooled me. )
- being "very good"
when she is being "bad". ( An
obvious sexual innuendo promising much which
the entire rest of her ad makes it clear that
she has no intention to deliver, plus
indication of a shame-based view that sex is
"bad".)
If this is an example of a woman
thinking with both sides of her brain, it's really scary to contemplate how
stupid she might be if she wasn't using her
capabilities to the fullest extent possible.
These two women are examples of the
"rear guard" of the gender war. Each of
them illustrates some of the paradoxes which now
poison male-female relationships. What they have in
common is that they are both seeking and want to
exercise a uniquely female form of power: sexual
power. The younger woman, the single mother, views
having a man ask her out as confirmation of her
sexual power as a "datable woman": i.e. one
who can set the "rules", regard a man as
insignificant, demand that he pay and do all the work
involved in dating, and expect nothing in return
except perhaps sex. I'm sure it would be impossible
to get this woman to see how her attitude guarantees
that the only type of man she will encounter will be
of the "buy her dinner or a trip to Paris - get
laid" mentality. Or how women like her reinforce
all the most negative stereotypes which men hold of
women.
Even more disturbing is the fact that this image is
being promoted by very influential media- MSNBC.COM,
the partnership between Microsoft and NBC - as the
idealized "new woman." Her contention that
"Many single mothers have no interest in a Big R
relationship but would love to go on a date. "
reinforces the old stereotypes of divorcees as
somewhat "loose women" who will spread
their legs for a man for the price of a meal. And she
is very clear in warning off men who might want to
integrate themselves into her life. The man who did
her the great favor of reaffirming her sexual power
to attract men and be able to demand money and gifts
from them with the hint of possible sexual favors
given in return may have been a much better candidate
for the type of husband that women claim to want than
the woman's ex-husband was. However, she reverses the
situation shown in the cartoon above. While he wants
to meet her kid and integrate himself into her life,
she is looking for "...that breathless,
pheromone-filled instant response..." and
"... that rush of flirtation inspired by
chemistry..."
One could very accurately say here that this woman is
"thinking with her pussy" while the man is
"thinking with both sides of his brain."
This would be tolerable and probably not even
annoying in a world where the cartoon above did not
exist. However, the negative stereotyping of males
and the blaming of men for the choices of women are
what has made this into a gender WAR. This woman
would like to be treated with respect and regard for
her feelings and circumstances, yet the notion of
reciprocity seems beyond her ability to grasp. Again,
from the male point of view it is impossible to
understand why women cannot see how it would only
take a very few encounters with women like this to
convince a man that women generally view sexual and
intimate relationships in the same way that a
prosititute does: sex in exchange for money or gifts
or trips to Paris. Then when he treats the next woman
he encounters as these women literally demanded that
he treat them, that woman gets hurt and offended.
The middle-aged divorcee presents an even more
confusing mix of modern and traditional values. The
only things she offers in her ad are related to her
sexuality - her measurements, her contention that
they are "almost" perfect, a picture of
herself in an evening gown ( or lingerie ) showing an
ample portion of cleavage, and the promise to be
"very good" for the man who could entice (
bribe ) her to be "bad." She makes it clear
that sex will be on her terms, not his; that she will
ALWAYS expect to get her way ( the last word ); makes
a veiled threat of verbal and emotional abuse ( sharp
tongue ); and tries to belie the desperation which is
obvious in her placing an ad in an international
venue when only thousanths of a % of the potential
readers are in her geographic vicinity. All in all,
it is a very sad picture of a woman trying
desperately to hold onto her sexual power and avoid
having to face the realization that she has
essentially none.
Thus is the face of womanhood of the 1990s and beyond
which men must confront. And it's a picture which
will turn the stomach of any decent man. More that
any other gender related "gap" of the
gender war, these women are the primary agents in
creating what might be termed "the compassion
gap." To use the phrase which has now become
"fighting words" in any conversation about
the relationships between the sexes, when it comes to
their isolation and loneliness these women did indeed
"ask for it."
The last time I found myself in Bob's situation, I
didn't just regret not having gone bowling with the
guys. I asked for the check, threw the money on the
table, and walked out. Men indirectly give women
permission to bash them, and keep on bashing them, by
putting up with it. If an ad or article like the ones
I've quoted above annoy me enough and there is a
means of responding which doesn't cost me any money,
I "deconstruct" what they've said and
challenge them on it. I am one male who does NOT give
women permission to keep on being unbearably
obnoxious and offensive toward me either directly, or
indirectly by bashing ALL men.
In many respects, I hold ALL women accountable for
the excesses of feminism because, while they may not
have actively participated, they have been quite
content to ride along on the coattails of the
feminist extremists while men were being beaten down
with shame and guilt. The clear and direct benefit to
women has been to make men even more pliable,
apologetic, and willing to sacrifice their own wants
and needs in order to "please" women. Bell
Hooks nailed this phenomenon on the head.
"A lot of women want to use feminism as a means
for success in their careers and power in public
life, then when they go home, they want to re-enter
the space of traditional femininity. The personal
will always be political,"
Women have had a few golden years during which they
have been able to have it both ways. They have been
able to gain economic and political power without
relinquishing one bit of their traditional sexual
power in relationships. A fascinating example of this
was reflected in the attitudes of recent female
graduates from one of the eastern Ivy League
colleges. While they expected to make as much money
as any of their male classmates, they also expected
to marry men who were both older and more successful
than they were.
This is a perfect example of how the absolute
untruths in feminist theory have set women up for
some bitter disappointments. The absolute blind faith
in the mystical power of men to generate income rests
on the absolute denial of the way in which the entire
culture was structured to provide income to men FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING FAMILIES.
My college roomate provided the perfect example of
this about 25 years ago. He went to work for a major
insurance company as a computer programmer trainee.
In those days all computer training was OJT - the
experienced programmers did all the teaching. One day
my roomie's trainer told him to send a message
addressed to the trainer's console. What he had done
was to render his console ineligible to receive any
messages. My roomie, being a real smart ass and
none-too-bright, sent a message regarding the sexual
habits of the president of the company with dead
bears. The message showed up on the main operator's
console as an error msg. When my roomie went to work
the next day, first thing he was called into his
supervisor's office. There was a stack of printouts
on the guy's desk with line after line of roomie's
smart-assed mistake.
His boss told him: "IF you had a wife and
children to support, we would give you another
chance. But you don't, so hit the road."
Before this whole social transformation took place,
it was clearly understood in all segments of society
that men were responsible for protecting and
providing for women and children. Some percentage of
a man's wages was therefor dependent to the degree to
which he was living up to this responsibility. What
the wage-parity hysterics will scream down
immediately is any attempt to compare the wages of
NEVER-MARRIED men and women. Even as long ago as the
1950s, never-married career women made as much or
more than their male counterparts. It was also a well
known fact that married men made more than single
men. This was in the days when most businesses
considered themselves part of the community and that
they also bore some responsibility for community
stability.
ALL this has changed in the past quarter century.
As the "men's movement" has stumbled around
in the dark seeking a voice, it has done so in the
complete shadow of feminism. Caught off-guard by the
unexpected vehemence of the man-hatred which has
always been an integral part of feminism, but from
which many women who call themselves
"feminists" are seeking to distance
themselves today by adding qualifiers like
"equity feminism" or "gender
feminism", men have waivered between the
"not guilty" and "mea culpa"
positions. The rising tide of anti-male sentiment,
man-bashing, and culture-wide character assassination
of men has kept men off balance for the past 35
years.
Finally there does seem to be a rising backlash
against feminist extremism. Not the kind depicted in
the paranoid rantings about delusions of persecution
contained in Susan Faludi's "Backlash: The
Undeclared War Against American Women", but a
more directed and fact-based examination of the
disastrous consequences to society of allowing a
bunch of spoiled little would-be princesses run loose
unchecked in their demands.
The results of the denial of female sexual power and
the biological underpinnings of it are beginning to
come home to roost. As this first generation of this
"second wave" of feminism reaches the
mid-point of its life-cycle, women like the
middle-aged divorcee above are having to confront the
fact that they have no real sexual power any more.
Men who have achieved the financial success and have
all those desirable personality attributes which she
demands are becoming fully aware that they are just
as desirable to 25 y/o women as they are to 45 y/o
women, and that the 25 y/o women are a lot more
attractive to THEM.
By destroying the essential foundation of courtesy
and respect formerly part of "dating"
relationships, women have invited men to treat them
with the same contempt that women have been showing
to men for the past 3 decades. Men like R. Don
Steele, author of "Steel Balls", are
promoting an approach to women which is equally
ruthless and exploitive to the one which women have
been pursuing toward men since the late 1960s. Men
like myself, who have fought long and hard against
the exploitation and counter-exploitation cycle which
has created the gender war, are beginning to say
"You GO, guy." to such men.
To those bleeding hearts who say "Yes, but two
wrongs don't make a right", I simply point to
every woman who justifies her man-hatred of today by
pointing to historic "oppression" of women.
As I learned from dealing with alcoholics and their
families, those who tolerate sick and intolerable
behavior are, to that extent, responsible for it.
Men's tolerance and willingness to not "fight
back" have not so far resulted in lessening the
attacks on men one bit.
The failures of feminism are far less due to the
inability of the feminists to convince men to change
their behaviors than to the fact that WOMEN have not
changed theirs. The gender war is therefor an
indirect attack on women by attacking men for the
very things that most women still want. The more that
men's ability and willingness to give women what the
majority of women still want is destroyed, the more
frustrated and willing to attack men those women
become. Thus, men are under attack from both sides.
Thus, the sexes are trapped in the paradox created by
the fact that men have traditionally done women's
dirty work for them. The people most harmed by the
runaway abuse of Sexual Harassment law, expanded rape
definititions, and the finding of Domestic Violence
and abuse in every unkind word or gesture or even in
coming home late to dinner, are not the men sitting
in prison, but the women who men are beginning to
avoid: women who might like to see themselves as
"datable women", or middle-aged divorcees
desperate to hide their desperation.
Attempts to shame men over their loss of sexual
interest, play on their insecurities, and Viagra
prescriptions aside, men who have successfully cast
off the old macho male stereotypes, as women have
been demanding that we do, are discovering some major
unexpected benefits. Now we are free of having to put
up with offensive and obnoxious women simply because
they hold sexual power over us. They don't anymore.
Women who have completely bought into the fictional
notion of men's insatiable sexual appetites, and the
denial of any role that women play in the sexual
dance made necessary by wiping the notion of
"she asked for it" out of the cultural
knowledge bank, are finding that they have forgotten
HOW to "ask for it" and as a result aren't
getting any of "it." There has even been a
clinical term coined for it - ISD, Inhibited Sexual
Desire. As male sexuality has been criminalized, and
hatred of sexuality become ever more of a cultural
institution, the hard work necessary to maintain a
level of libido has become increasingly unworth the
effort.
The net effect for women has been two-fold. As long
as they continue to rely entirely and exclusively on
the passive strategy of attraction and abuse the
sexual power they have, they are automatically
sorting out all but the most aggressive males. Thus
their attitudes become self-fulfilling prophesies as
they make themselves so obnoxious that any man who is
capable of sensitivity and warmth cannot stand to be
around them. Thus, in order to attract men AT ALL,
even the most aggressive ones, they have to resort to
more and more extreme measures of emphasizing and
calling attention to their sexual attributes. The
real "Beauty Myth", just like all other
feminist myths which absolutely refute any role that
women take with their own decisions in shaping the
outcomes of their lives, is that ANY of these
standards are imposed from the OUTSIDE, by PATRIARCHY
or by the culture as a whole. The truth is that they
are the primary methods which WOMEN USE TO COMPETE
for that commodity so desired by women - MALE
ATTENTION.
By the absolute denial of sexual power which the
feminists have demanded, and by denigration of this
power by worshipping men's traditional economic and
political power and elevating it over sexual power
and literally forcing women out of the homes to seek
it, feminists have stripped women of their
traditional power base. The society which would have
given my old college roomie another chance if he had
"a wife and family to support" no longer
exists. Women's choices to stay at home and raise
their children have been essentially destroyed. And
women are now saddled with BOTH sets of traditional
role expectations, they do indeed have to be both
beautiful AND successful in careers or business
because FEMINISM HAS "OPPRESSED THEM" into
HAVING to "have it all" before FEMINISM
GIVES THEM PERMISSION TO BE HAPPY.
About all I can do is look on these poor fools who
have fallen for this hoax with a mixture of
bemusement and contempt. My pity has all been used up
because these people have aggressively and viciously
pursued these ends. They are NOT helpless VICTIMS,
but the active agents and authors of their own
unhappiness.
