An old observation, but worth restating
If men are commonly more promiscuous than women, it is only because the culture allows it, she said. Fredell was here to turn society around. “It’s extremely countercultural,” she said, for a woman to assert control over her own body. It is, in fact, a feminist notion. Conventional feminism, she explained, teaches that control of your body means the freedom to have Sex without consequences — sex like a man. “I am an unconventional feminist,” Fredell said, in the sense that she asserts control by choosing not to have sex — by telling men, no, absolutely not.
The ladies at ProWomanProLife point out that much of modern feminism, as opposed to classic feminism, seems to be infused with a certain…indignation or repulsion where a woman’s reproductive system is concerned. A woman is not, it seems, “liberated” until and unless she has taken measures to deactivate what is, for her body, a natural and expected process — i.e. her fertility cycle, ostensibly as a means to engaging in the same manner of casual sex that men are able to. In other words, feminism has stopped being about the equality of women as persons*, and has mutated, in a certain sense, to being about making women into men without penises.
Of course, at the same time, it has become about suppressing distinctly masculine traits as well, as we can see effected in, for example, many a school around the world, where physical play has been discouraged or all but outlawed in the name of “safety” (and, methinks, for fear of litigation).
I’m reminded of a joke about the clothes of college students which, as the comedian would have it, eventually all become of one colour — some variant of gray — because it is of course more economical to repeatedly wash the coloured clothes with the white clothes. In a certain sense, that is what is happening through the actions of modern feminism; all the little things which make men and women vibrant in their uniqueness from each other is being stripped away and reduced to a dull gray in the name of a false notion of equality.
And yet at the same time as it is seeking to do this, our culture — ever mired in contradictions — has elevated sex (and then an unthinking, random derivation thereof) to the status of Holiest of Holies. This is, in some respects, what could be termed a positive feedback reaction; increased promiscuity underscores the need for more and “better” birth control options, while the range of more and “better” birth control options encourages people to discard traditional sexual morality in favour of increased promiscuity. Some might dispute the latter half of that sentence, but even a casual glance at rates of, say, teenage pregnancy or common-law cohabitation over the last half-century will show that this has been exactly the case, or that there exists — at least — a strong correlation in this regard.
And out of all of this, what has emerged? In some respects, we’ve come to an age where women are now more objectified than ever. Watch an episode of Law and Order from its first few seasons that dealt with a sexual crime, and then watch an episode of the same series that deals with a similar sort of crime from one of the last couple seasons. For a chaser, do the same experiment with an episode of CSI from its first couple seasons that deals with a sexually-driven crime, followed by an episode of CSI: Miami dealing with the same subject matter.
In each example, the latter will feature more explicit material, almost to the point of eroticism in the case of CSI: Miami. And in addition to detracting from the show, what is demonstrated by this observation? Do long, panning, multi-angle cuts of dancing strippers really serve to advance the plot of a police procedural drama? Methinks not, and yet such imagery has become commonplace today, whereas a decade ago it would have seemed out of place.
Funnily, the only weapon that women have against this continued (and accelerating) sexual objectification is the one that modern feminism rejects most fiercely: abstinence. We’re told, ad nauseum, that “no means no,” are we not? And yet, one hardly hears of feminists encouraging women to exert that ability to say “no” on a regular basis, as a lifestyle framework. What better way for a woman to exert control over her own body than by telling any interested sexual partners that they’ll just have to wait. It’s a pretty good way to weed out the losers, I’m told.
* I make this distinction because were the issue solely about women having, as persons, the same rights (legally and morally) as men, birth control would never have emerged. Recognizing and embracing a person’s “personhood” (if the Reader will permit my clumsy language here) is about recognizing and embracing all of a person, both the ways they are alike to us and the ways in which they differ from us. Equality, as it should be understood, is not a question of rote function, nor is it a question of raw capabilities, but instead a recognition that while obvious differences do exist between any two groups, there is nevertheless a common, intrinsic, an inalienable value to both groups that cannot be diminished or infringed upon.
No Comments Comments Feed
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The comments are closed.