Why do I bother?

RMM why do you spend time arguing agaisnt feminism in general and feminist comic bloggers in specific? If you're really such a manly secure man why are you so threatened by strong women? Are you some kind of pervert is that why you defend cheesecake so much? Are you just really a mysogonist asshole with a tiny dick? Dont you have a job? Dont you have a life? Dont you have anything better to do than to spend all day pounding on a keyboard insulting people?


I get these kinds of questions all the time. And to be honest, sometimes I wonder myself. I mean why bother?

Well theres a lot of reasons. Take a look at this exchange that "derek" and I had over at Big Mikes Blog

I got a Big Problem with people calling cheesecake art objectification. First of
all Witchblade aint a real woman, so she cant be objectified. Second the whole
concpet of "objectification" is rooted in a Female-positive/Male-negative world
view. If I look at a woman walking down the street and I think to myself, Damn
but shes got a great set of tits, most would consider it objectification
right?But that reaction is as natural, as instinctive, and as human as possible.
You and me, we've been programmed by millions of years of evolution to do just
that. Im not even sure men could "suffer objectification like women" as we
respond differently to a womans gaze than vice versa.

I mean really,
think about it, men regularly show more skin than women do, more comfortably.
Hell we'll pull our pants down and pee in public without even thinking of it.
Part of equality among the sexes is accepting the difference between the sexes.
One of these differences is men and womens differing approaches to sex,
sexuality, and what turns them on. If a woman meets an attractive man for the
first time and he asks if she wants to have sex, she'll be insulted, if a man
meets an attractive woman for the first time and she asks if he wants to have
sex he'll be estatic. In order for there to be any form of equality among the
sexes women and feminists will have to start learning to accept men as men, and
stop expecting them to behave like women.

Rational Mad Man:

"Theres nothing wrong with... going to the beach to
see the pretty girls in bikinis."

Uh, yes, there is. Going to the beach
to go swimming and bask in the sun is fine. Appreciating the attractiveness of
the women while you're there is fine.

Deciding to go to the beach to
leer at women trying to enjoy themselves is sleazy.

"... I got a Big
Problem with people calling cheesecake art objectiification. First of all
Witchblade aint a real woman, so she cant be objectified."

Witchblade is a visual representation of a woman. Objectify the representation, objectify the group.

"Hell we'll pull our pants down and pee in public without even
thinking of it."

No "we" don't. I sure as hell have never exposed myself or urinated in public and would be mortified if anyone I knew did. As would, I imagine, the police.

"In order for there to be any form of equality
among the sexes women and feminists will have to start learning to accept men as
men, and stop expecting them to behave like women."

Point. But the problem with that is that we can't tell which behaviors we are born with - are a product of thousands of years of evolution - and which are forced upon us by our environment.

Until we can nail that down, our only recourse is to try and treat everyone as equally as we possibly can.

And RMM, I don't want
it to seem like I'm attacking you, as the discussion thus far has been
wonderfully civilized, but I had to speak my piece.

Now derek understand I dont think you were atatcking me, and I'm not attacking you. But at the same time your comments represent a contunuing crime against manhood that I can't let stand. Lets look at your comments a bit more fully shall we?

Uh, yes, there is. Going to the beach to go swimming and bask in the sun is fine. Appreciating the attractiveness of the women while you're there is fine.

Deciding to go to the beach to leer at women trying to enjoy themselves
is sleazy.

First of all, notice the language. "leer" is defined by the dictionary as;

To look with a sidelong glance, indicative especially of sexual desire or sly
and malicious intent.

A desirous, sly, or knowing look

Notice how the word itself is defined, and that written into the defintion is the idea that sexual desre and malicious intent are related. Then of course the sentiment is finished up with the use of "sleazy".

SO here we have a 23 year old guy, (at least according to his profile) a guy who should by all rights be enjoying his life to the fullest, and celebrating his sexuality and sexual adventures, who has soemhow been brainwashed into beliveing that appreciating the female form is sleazy, and pernicious.
He has in fact, been brainwashed into beleiving that his own desire is harmful. That even appreciating a woman as a sexual being, even in the privacy of his own head, is sleazy. SO twisted and subverted is his natural sexuality that this poor bastard actually beleives that going somewhere for the purpose of appreciating female beauty is wrong.


Yet if his friends invited him bird watching, or whale watching would he consider that leering? Would that too be sleazy? Of course not.

Now you may be thinking, "well generally whale watchers dont want to have sex with the whales" and although I have never gone whale watching, I sincerely hope your right. But in order to ask that question, to even concieve of it, you have to come from a perspective that sexual interest itself is inherantly bad. In other words you have to believe that watching something for the simple sake of appreciating its beauty is somehow different and somehow more noble than watching something to appreciate its beauty while at the same time experiencing feelings of arousal.

But it gets worse, it gets much worse.

Witchblade is a visual representation of a woman. Objectify the representation, objectify the group.

Think about that statement. Really.
Did you ever have a poster of a hot chick above your bed? Was the point of the picture that she was hot and nothing else? You have objectified all women. Not some, all.
You ever read playboy for something other than the articles? You have objectfied all women.
Ever fantasize about having sex with a movie star, because she was hot and for no other reason? You have objectified all women.

SO here we have this kid, born and raised in America, the land of freedom and opportunity, and he has been indoctinated itno beleiving he has no fundamental right to his own fantasies. That he, becasue of his sex, can never explore those fantasies, that he can never appreciate a womans body, unless he first receives permission. That somehow his own inherant sexuality can not be expressed without casuing harm. Even if all he does is jack off in the bathroom to a picture of a woman he, by allowing himself to indulge in his own private fantasy, he is hurting all women, everywhere.


Does that sound healthy to you? Does that sound like sexual equality? Does that sound like the thinking of a free man? Yeah, me neither.



So how does a man get fooled into thinking his sex's every desire is pernicious and damaging, how does he get conviced of an ideology which makes him choose between feeling like a mental rapist or of supressing his every sexual desire? How does such a repressive and sexist philosophy get sold to those it harms?
In the name of equality of course.

Point. But the problem with that is that we can't tell which behaviors we are born with - are a product of thousands of years of evolution - and which are forced upon us by our environment.

First, he has been trained to accept that we can't tell what the differences are between men and women.His basic premise seems to be that all so called sex differences are really social contructs, and that as such we have to get rid of them all, in order to understand what the differences between men and women are. This idea is the basis for so much of whats wrong with feminism. You hear this idea espused in one form or another by virtually every feminist alive. sometimes its stated as
1) there are no differences between men and woman other than social expectations
or
2) there are differences obviously, but these are purely physcial, minor, and have no effect on abillity, interest, etc.
3) there may be fundemental differences between men and women but since we dont know what they are or which seeming differences are actually societal in anture we should act as if there werent any.

Now when you point out all the major, mental, physical, psychological, sexual, hormonal differences, or differences in body mass, or bone and muscle density or differing rates of mental devlopment or anything else then they gotta start pulling out the rhetoric.

"Well I know it looks like men are bigger and stronger, and at the outliers that is true but theres a larger overlap between the sexes than there are differences between them. "
OK so in other words, they have different medians, different, ranges, different maximum and differnt minimums for each variable, and yet becasue theres a lot of overlap in the middle, there aren't actually any differences? Well of course theres a lot of overlap, we are both humans afterall, what would be neccesary for feminists to understand that sexual differtiation is exactly that? That it seves a purpose, that if the two sexes weren't in fact different, there wouldn't BE two sexes?

Think about it this way, theres a whole lot of overlap between wolves and dogs as well, and we know they are two completly different species, so how far can we really expect men and women to deviate from each other?

By the same token we see in every animal species across the board that has sexual diferntiation, those two sexes take on different roles in order to cooperate most effectively. Now those roles are not the same for all species, nor am I suggesting that humans should conform to any specific sexual role. My point is that in all of those species, there are differences between the sexes which exist in order to help them fulfill that role.



More to the point, even assuming everything derek has said was true, even if we couldnt tell what the differences between men and women are; we're not talking about social behaviors such as assertiveness, or asking for directions, we are talking about his right to fantasy. His right to choose what he wants to see and what he wants to feel. I dont have to decode sexual-political messages to know whether or not I think a woman is hot, I jsut have to be honest with myself, and give myself permission to feel whatever I do.

Until we can nail that down, our only recourse is to try and treat everyone as
equally as we possibly can.

But of course, when we're discussing sex that isnt possible is it? I mean no
matter how comitted I am to equality, I can no more force myself to view a man
with lust than Mad Thinker Scott can force himself to look on a woman with lust.
So right or wrong, whenever I look at jill, the redhead down the hall, at least
a part of me is going to be saying, "damn Id love to see her naked"
It doesn't matter if shes my boss, or my secretary, or my wife. It doesnt matter if I think shes a bimbo, and idiot, a savant, a genius or anything in between. It doesnt matter if I like her as a person or hate her guts, Im still gonna look at her and think "Id love to get between those legs"

I mean I love my wife, I respect her, and I know damn well shes smarter than I am. Even so, when shes wears certain outifts, and I look at her, I dont think, "wow what an amazing and intlligent woman who is every bit my equal" I'm thinking "god her ass looks good in that"

Is that objectification? Afterall Im not thinking of her in terms of my wife, or life partner, I'm not considering her intelligence or her wit, Im just looking at her ass and getting aroused.
And yet, I know I do in fact respect her, do in fact love her, and do in fact value her as a person. Just not at that moment, at that moment, I aint really thinking. Now a feminist would probably read the preceding paragraph and say "yes you were objectifying her" me, I just say I'm being a man and reacting exactly the way nature designed me too.

And theres nothing at all wrong with that, in fact its because of this, among other reasons, that our relationship is healthy.

Now my point is, if a reasonably intelligent young man can be so twisted by feminist ideology, that he doesnt even realise he is willingly abdicating his right to fantasy and to be comfortable with his own desires, without even realising it, it says a lot about what has happened to our
society.

I have a lot to say about the overall demasculating and neutering of America, but I just got an Alfredo Chicken pizza delivered, and Im gonna go over to my wifes office and objectify her while I eat.

I'll leave y'all with this last bit of wisdom by one of this countries greatest observers.

Well that's great! That sets a legal precedent. Does that mean I can sue Dan
Folgerburg for making me into a pussy in the mid-70's. Is that possible, huh?
Huh?! "Your honor, between him and James Taylor, I didn't get a blow job 'till I
was 27 years old. I was in Colorado wearing hiking boots eating granola. I want
some fucking money right now!