>
 |
| Oops. Wrong picture. |
A fiftysomething British woman is seduced and abandoned (and ripped off to the tune of £40,000) by a twentysomething con man, and it’s all the fault of … feminism? The Elusive Wapiti, a right-wing Men’s-Rightsy blog, writes about the case of one British woman let herself be charmed by a sweet-talking young fellow on Match.com and, despite an endless stream of obvious lies from him which should have kept the alarm bells in her head ringing continuously, agreed to meet him in South Africa, and ultimately hand over a huge chunk of her life’s savings to him. Her actions were incredibly stupid; the story is pathetic and sad.
And according to The Elusive Wapiti, feminism is to blame. And it actually kind of is. But not for the reason Wapiti thinks:
Today’s exhibit is a Brit named Caroline Gates-Fleming, a twice-divorced middle-aged woman desperate to maintain her relevance in a culture that, thank you feminism, shackles feminine worth to her ability to attract a man.
Huh? Apparently I’m not up-to-date on the latest anti-feminist stereotypes. I thought feminists were all supposed to be man-hating lesbians, living alone with their cats and their “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” posters. But apparently it’s feminism — not, say, our sexist society — that makes women feel like they’re nothing without a man. Wapiti continues:
Hilarity ensues when a being that is accustomed to easy-come-easy-go male attention since the age of 15 experiences the shock of watching her attractiveness slowly die, after decades of taking it for granted and kicking perfectly good men to the curb.
The “perfectly good men” are her ex-husbands, though I’m not sure how Wapiti has determined that she cast them off for no good reason. No matter, Wapiti is just warming up. He returns to his main theme: Feminism bad!
[T]hanks to feminism, the old morality that once protected women from the siren song of their gonads has been stripped away. Used to be that women in their late 40s / early 50s were respectable housewives and grandmothers in stable if somewhat less than satisfying marriages, and slut-shaming and other social conventions kept them there, safely ensconced.
Ah, the good old days, when women stayed married, no matter how miserable they were, and gave up their sexual desires once they hit, say, the age of 47.
Now we discover that supposedly mature women instantly morph into priapic young boys–subbing vulvas for penises of course–given the right stimulation to their egos and hopes of emotional intimacy long since gone.
Damn you, evil feminism, for convincing women they might possibly have sex in their late 40s or — gasp! — older! Quite possibly with younger men! I mean, it’s not like men in their late 40s ever want to have sex with women younger than they are. I have never, ever heard of that happening, ever.
EDIT: Added a sentence in the second paragraph to make my point clearer.
>It is totally bizarre that this situation obviously is the result of feminism, but the author can't reason through why. It's like he thought "excellent, something bad, feminism! No need to pause to think of a reasonable explanation why, I'll just use the first thing that pops into my head."Because of feminism this woman was free to get divorced, free to have a sex life (gasp) past her forties, and free to be swindled by a younger man. All good things.
>Thats a pretty foolish position, given that female hypergamy is the norm. Theres nothing wrong with the shoe on the other foot.
>"Used to be that women in their late 40s / early 50s were respectable housewives and grandmothers in stable if somewhat less than satisfying marriages, and slut-shaming and other social conventions kept them there, safely ensconced. "Oh yes, that was a much better deal for women. (sarcasm) If an argument actually uses slut-shaming as a positive, well, it's pretty self-explanatory what's wrong with the entire viewpoint…On an aside, I'm reading a bio of the Duchess of Devonshire. Apparently, it was considered okay by the husbands for the high society women (18th century) to be adulterous as long as it was (1) private vs. public and (2) she had already produced an heir for her husband. Kind of puts a whole dampener on that older housewife = controlled non-sexual object in the good ol' days meme…
>Still waiting of David to show his readership some if the real issues.Why keep them in Plato's cave David?
>@EoghanIf you're going to try to be snarky, at least try to make sure your statement makes sense. Otherwise it's too easy to make fun of you:"Still waiting on David to show his readership some of the real issues.Why keep them in Plato's cave, David? "Your welcome…
>"in a culture that, thank you feminism, shackles feminine worth to her ability to attract a man"makin' up the "rules" of feminism as they go…….. *headWALL*"…and slut-shaming and other social conventions kept them there, safely ensconced."Incarcerated might be a better word.But let's not bring up social conventions and such used to "keep women in their place", as that would be politicizing."The "perfectly good men" are her ex-husbands, though I'm not sure how Wapiti has determined that she cast them off for no good reason."Nor how he has determined that she cast them off. I may have missed the "who cast who off" part in that particular article, but all I saw was that she surmised that those marriages broke down because her husbands were weak, not that she initiated the breakup."Ah, the good old days, when women stayed married, no matter how miserable they were, and gave up their sexual desires once they hit, say, the age of 47."Whew, thank goodness I'm over 47 and need not worry about my sexual desires getting in the way of my relationships!!I would have thought that it would be the men who were miserable, you know, having to stay married to someone who had no sexual desires and all…but WAIT!!….that's the way they WANTED it, and still do, apparently! Must be quite a conundrum to want someone to desire you sexually at the same time as you want that someone to have no sexual desires at all.
>"Because of feminism this woman was free to get divorced, free to have a sex life (gasp) past her forties, and free to be swindled by a younger man. All good things."Exactly, Sandy, they are all good things because she was free to make her own choices, good or bad. At least the one person, Dan, commenting on EW's article seems to 'get it', as he says, "Well, EW, this is what happens. When you allow people to make choices, the side effect is that some people will make the wrong ones. You seem to suggest that the best way to handle that problem is to not give people choice. I disagree."Though I don't know if it's that EW is suggesting that the best way to handle that problem is to not give people choice as much as it's to not give women choice, as God knows there's never been a man who has made a bad choice [sideways glance]
>Even if this guy left her, she'll always have her cats. Some of you feminists might want to beat the rush and buy yours now.Random Brother
>Today's exhibit is a Brit named Caroline Gates-Fleming, a twice-divorced middle-aged woman desperate to maintain her relevance in a culture that, thank you feminism, shackles feminine worth to her ability to attract a man.Goodness! I think we've found the problem here. Mr. Wapita has actually mistaken patriarchy for feminism!Now, all we have to do is dash over and explain that one of the original goals of feminism was to dissociate a woman's social (or "feminine") worth from her sexual or marital appeal and status. I'm sure he'll be reasonable about it and absolutely delighted that he was mistaken! Sometimes misunderstandings happen, you know.Even if this guy left her, she'll always have her cats. Some of you feminists might want to beat the rush and buy yours now.Wait… what?Did Bishop Sinister just insinuate that cats are better and more faithful company than men? That seems a bit… misandrist. Although they are definitely fuzzier.