Take the question of monogamy, for example. Feminists would have us believe that the marriage scenario with the woman as a submissive doormat was down to a male agenda. But who is it that really wants marriage? Who is it that really wants monogamy? I don't see feminists arguing for free love and promiscuity. On the contrary, they see depictions or expressions of female sexiness as demeaning.
Feminism is remarkably close to Christianity in its attitudes towards sex. God says sex is evil, but tolerable within marriage, as long as the man's on top and no one enjoys it etc. The last part is a necessary concession to Mother(fucker) Nature. God realises, no doubt, what Tom Waits so brilliantly expresses as 'You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but it always comes roaring back.' You can't stop people fucking each other, and even if you could, you wouldn't want to. You'd be cutting yourself off at the knees, so to speak.
Anyway, the gurus of femi-dingbat-ism are also somewhat anti-sex, decreeing that it's demeaning to women and even damaging to their physical and psychological health if practised in excess, for example for money. They also realise sex ain't going away and that, more importantly, they want a good servicing themselves from time to time as well as kids down the line, so like the silly old God of religion, they have to find a compartment where it's tolerable. Feminists will tell you that sex is ok within a loving relationship. Love makes sex beautiful and uplifting. Feminist hysteria against prostitution, pornography and all promiscuous behaviour would seem to reflect a view that sex without love is dangerous and evil. Note, if you will: Love being exclusive and monogamous. Compare with the Christian notion that sex outside marriage is sinful and evil. Note, if you will: Marriage here being exclusive and monogamous. Hmm...
Strange bedfellows, feminism and religion.
An interesting little aside: Note that the same people who regard gender roles as a social construction don't seem to see romantic love as one. Funny, that. Nature is full of evidence of biological gender, but love is hard to see there. Unless you're a Christian. Hmm...
Strange bedfellows indeed, feminism and religion.
If feminism was what it claimed to be, then you'd think that it would fight against the straightjacket of monogamous marriage and similar exclusive relationships. People owning each other, having exclusive claims on each other is hardly conducive to independence, is it? But feminists don't like to share their lovers with their lovers' other lovers any more than any other western women do. Nor do they take at all kindly to promiscuous women. Women who do express their sexuality freely, unchastely, immodestly face the harsh judgement of their sisters. They're dismissed as victims of abuse. They're ignored on the basis of 'false consciousness.' They're showered with insults for treading on a sister's territory.
Evolutionary psychology has a good explanation of monogamy. When you produce one egg a month for as long as stocks last, you're going to be pretty selective about who gets to fertilise it. You're going to be looking for good genes in a potential mate. Having found that mate, you're going to want to monopolise him until he's fertilised an egg (at least), which means competing against rival females who'd do the same. Discrediting them - calling them filthy sluts on the basis of promiscuity, for example - is just part of that strategy.
Males on the other hand, who produce zillions of spermatazoa, are hardly served by monogamy in terms of getting their genes reproduced. Why keep pumping sperm into the same hole before you know it's even fertile? It makes much more sense to 'carpet bomb' and secure some hits that way.
The two women I'm currently fucking don't like the situation one iota and want it changed. Their strategies are different. One pouts and appeals to my sense of gallantry.
TAMARA: (making a face that says, 'I'm only a poor weak little woman. Be kind to me.') I know I don't have the right to ask it of you, but I'm asking anyway.
She's actually very dignified about it. I almost hear an orchestra start up in the background.
The other one creates a poisonous atmosphere, which is hard to get away from, as we're practically neighbours.
CINDY: (making a face that says, 'I do have the right to sexual exclusivity no matter what you say because I'm a woman and that's just the way things are.') Fuck you how could you I'm sick of the sight of you get out come back I'm not finished that bitch you bastard fuck you.....
It takes all my strength of will not to get sucked into either one of these pussy traps. I'm convinced that women have used this awesome emotional power throughout the ages to impose monogamy and shape the society we live in. I don't blame them. It's in their genes.
So here's the scenario: Sisters are empathic and supportive to each other as long as they're doing things according to a feminine code of conduct, but mercilessly damning as soon as one of them steps out of line. This code of conduct, uncriticísed and fully supported by feminism, closely resembles Christian virtue. In fact, I can't tell the difference.
Strange bedfellows, feminism and religion. But maybe not so strange after all. They both serve the real feminine agenda: monogamy. Perhaps they're just two fancy words for pussy power.
So let me get all this straight in my tiny mind: You tie yourself down with rules about monogamy, chastity and modesty (and shrilly demand that everyone around you respects them and adheres to them), then wonder why you don't feel free. It must be the fault of men, The Patriarchy, glass ceilings and all the other bogus shit. Anyone or anything but you yourself. You're looking anywhere and everywhere but in the mirror.
Religious dingbats often defend their hocus pocus with the argument that 'His ways are greater than ours.' You just have to accept things, and if they don't make sense (which they don't), then it's because logical reasoning has no value in the face of some dusty old crap that a bunch of dingbats wrote down in the year dot. It's in the book, so it must be true. I say, fair enough. Just keep it out of my neighbourhood.
Feminists just change the subject. They want us to accept their non-reasoning and nonsense without discussion. And it's in my neighbourhood.
I say no. Let's change the subject back.
This was the fucking gospel according to Professor Ron.
No comments:
Post a Comment