Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
If the email is registered with our site, you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password. Password reset link sent to:
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service

Women Today (or Why Gender Bias Destroyed Femininity and Masculinity)  

rm_debluvz2fck 55F
232 posts
4/12/2014 10:27 am
Women Today (or Why Gender Bias Destroyed Femininity and Masculinity)


A blond, beautiful, talented (read able to pick and portray the roles she is given rather than having Shakespearean scope) actress decided to dive into the pool of feminist<b> philosophy. </font></b>We can all relax, as the sharks circled and the piranhas finished her off. The question, though, stands: was there any merit to her argument?

Said actress (you can google it if you want the names, as another responded and won't be mentioned by name either) stated that we undervalue femininity. Valid point, but she added details to her argument. She discussed how her mother stayed at home, nurtured her family, cooked, and was a valuable person who would be dismissed today as not materially contributing to society.

Interestingly enough, this part of her argument is one that has long been an issue feminists have failed to address. Is a woman who chooses to remain in the home, nurturing and raising her while her supportive partner provides for the financial needs of their family living up to her potential as a woman less than one who is career driven, has no , and would need a fire extinguisher at the ready if she tried to turn on the stove?

To be inclusive, feminists must view the various roles that women choose to take in their lives as having value of their own. This is an issue that feminists have had with women who stay at home with their families, and they have stretched it to women who participate in the pornography industry. Women who stay at home or work in pornography are not only not living up to their potential but are taking other women down by building men's expectations of what a woman should be. Women should be willing to stay at home and raise their husband's progeny. Women should cater to a man's every sexual desire. That some women enjoy filling just these roles does not debase them, but it does lead the feminist to value them less and feel judged by their failure to live up to their standards.

Feminists blame the women in pornography for sexual assault. If your joy in having sex in its many strange and deviant fashions leads to the exploitation of other women, you are to blame. Taking the responsibility from the men who engage in this exploitation and forcing it on women who are enjoying their sexuality is the act of generations of priggish and borderline asexual women. Men do not perpetrate sexual assault based on pornography or exotic dance. Perpetrators of sexual assault have control issues that manifest themselves in the sexual degradation of others. Blaming the victim, the feminists have become those they purport to be struggling against.

And back to the actress of the day. She wasn't advocating for pornography but rather the other end of the spectrum, the wholesome, baking mother. Her fault was not in overvaluing the contributions of one female gender role but in feeling that taking any other role as a woman was inherently wrong. A woman needs to be a woman and a man needs to be a man was the gist of her argument. She seeks to limit the roles of women and claims that relationships between women and men only work when the man is the knight in shining armor and the woman, by default, the damsel in distress. This is where she went a little too far and fell prey to both shark and piranha.

As a beautiful actress, on the older edge of being in her prime based on the industry but not yet being chosen for the mother of teens roles, she can still be of the naive mindset that one falls in love and can depend on that person entirely. Society today does not support that assumption. Angelina is still with Brad, but Brad is not with Jennifer for that to have happened. Relationships do not always last, and one (female or male) must maintain the capacity to provide for oneself and rescue oneself when danger arises. Earning a paycheck, pumping your gas, changing a tire, and packing and moving everything from your home to your new one are things everyone needs to do. Knowing what you will do if there is an earthquake/hurricane/flood/ tornado/fire, your mechanic and doctor's contact information, and who to contact for your taxes if you don't do them yourself are all essential pieces of wisdom. No one should need a knight in shining armor to save the day, but they can add a nice flavor to the day when they are around and about.

Gloria Steinem had a quote that I loved even as a and bought on a button when I was at an amusement park, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” We don't need each other, even when we compliment each other and the sexual chemistry is there (Lesbians, to be sure, don't even need men even that much).

But that doesn't say that finding a good pairing isn't nice. I'd argue that a woman needs a man like a bottle of wine. Not all of us like wine, and not every vintage, bottle, or grape will work for each of us. I'm looking for the perfect Barbera. Someone else might like something a little sweeter. We just all need to work on our best pairing.

CynicusMaximus 52M
1844 posts
4/13/2014 8:31 pm

I wanted to reply to this earlier, but i also wanted to give someone else the opportunity to do so. Partly, because i do feel a little silly speaking about feminism as a hairy knuckled man.

I do think we can find an equal balance between the sexes without one diminishing the other. For that to happen.. unfortunately a lot of ignorant old men just have to die off.
I'm speaking of the ones who believe that a woman can simply shut herself down to protect itself from an unwanted birth and using the bible to limit a woman's right to health care.. all while keeping viagra and penis pumps covered by the same healthcare.
These are the same old men who claim we've lost our ability to be men's men.. we haven't lost that ability at all. We just lost the ability to be chauvinistic assholes.
None of this means we have to become a bunch of metrosexuals that sculpt our eyebrows or wear sandals with shorts...
But i think it can happen.


rm_debluvz2fck replies on 4/13/2014 11:16 pm:
Seems that everyone who read it didn't feel a need to comment or didn't know what to say.

I do have my own philosophy of the vibrator that I'll share another day. It does directly address the old man chauvinist blocking equality.

CynicusMaximus 52M
1844 posts
4/14/2014 7:27 pm

Wait... you can't just go straight to another Pakistani Law Fumble after teasing this story.. not because there's a vibrator involved but now I'm just wondering what the context is.


rm_debluvz2fck replies on 4/14/2014 8:13 pm:
Philosophy of the Vibrator is posted. Hope it meets your approval and/ or outrage.

Become a member to create a blog