In a recent post, dotty reactionary antifeminist Sunshine Mary offers her thoughts on an idea that has become something of a cliche in the Manosphere, and which she agrees with roughly one thousand percent: that “[r]egardless of what feminism may purport to be about, the result of feminism is that women have been reduced to being nothing but sex objects.”
What on earth is she talking about? She quotes one of her readers, someone called Just Saying, explaining the peculiar logic behind this assertion in a little more detail:
Feminists lost long ago. Men are in control – at least the ones that understand. We get to call the shots – now instead of being able to keep house, have children, and cook (very, very few women can cook these days) women are ONLY sex-objects. It is the only thing they have to offer to a man, that will get a man’s attention and to hold it for a while. And we don’t have to marry them to get it …
Feminism has brought about all of the things they say they hate – women today only bring sex to the equation. So I have to thank Feminism – I doubt that young women would be as skilled, or as open to oral sex, anal sex, and every other type of sex, without it. And for that, I say, “Thank you Feminism.” If there were a patriarchy, I doubt they could have ever come up with something as beneficial to men. No one would have believed women were that dumb.
The Sunshiny One uses this as a starting point for a bizarre post purporting to show that “feminism has also reduced many women to being childless careerists who must purchase other women’s reproductive capabilities.”
But let’s forget about Mary for now and take a somewhat deeper look at this whole “feminism reduces women to sex objects” argument — which only makes sense if, like Just Saying, you define the worth of women as consisting only of 1) sex and 2) “housewifely duties” like cooking, cleaning, and bearing children.
If you simply ignore all of a woman’s other abilities and accomplishments, and basically her humanity, well, I suppose you could say that the worth of a woman with no interest in cooking, cleaning, or children was “reduced” to sex.
But what a strange way to look at the world, to base your judgement of a person’s worth on a small subset of human interests and abilities and to condemn them if they aren’t enthusiastic experts in these pursuits. You might as well go around dismissing everyone who’s not a proficient accordion player.
The other strange thing about Just Saying’s argument is that it doesn’t even make sense on its own terms; it requires a willful blindness as to how the world works these days. Women make up roughly half the workforce today. Yet babies are still being born and raised. Meals are still getting cooked. Homes are still getting cleaned. It may not always be a wife in a traditional marriage doing all the cooking and cleaning and baby-raising, but couples — and single parents — are making the arrangements they need to in order to get all these things done.
So is the “feminism reduces women to nothing more than sex objects” simply an indication that certain kinds of men — and women — have a hard time recognizing women as full human beings?
Well, to some degree. But I’m pretty sure that even the most backwards thinking misogynists of the manosphere recognize that there’s more to women than cooking, cleaning, baby-making, and sex.
No, I think their attempts to reduce women to these things stem from their own defensiveness over the gains of women — and not just in the workforce, and in politics, and the wider culture.
Consider how Just Saying describes the sex-having women of today. They’re no shrinking violets. They’re not passive receptacles. They’re “skilled … open to oral sex, anal sex, and every other type of sex.”
In other words, they’re women with sexual agency. They’re women who are engaging in sex for their own pleasure, for their own reasons — not simply as a lure to capture a man to marry.
And I think this makes a lot of men deeply uneasy — especially the sorts of men who inhabit the manosphere. That’s why so many of them are so quick to shout “slut” at the very same women they’re so obsessed with pursuing.
That’s why, when they’re lucky enough to find a woman who’s enthusiastically in charge of her own sexuality, they have to pretend to themselves that sex is all she has.
CassandraSays: I think the evil feminist witchcraft cancels out the holy feminine cleaning, so your bathroom would then be left in some kind of purgatory-like neutral state.
Purgatory-like neutral state with added dust sounds like my bathroom.
Sorry, feminism, for the delicious tortellini and meatballs I made for dinner tonight.
M.H.: way to miss a fucking point. Do you practice?
So if women have lost all their power and men are in control, why did I just spend two days over on Ally Fogg’s blog arguing with a bunch of brainless MRA’s who were screaming about how men have no power and OMG TEH WIMMINZ GET EBBRYTHING FROM TEH SOCIETY!
I mean, seriously. Pick a lane and stay in it!
Auggziliary, ha! Who hasn’t? You know, I was talking to my old man the other day (ok, I was arguing with him; only God or a decent shrink could know why I bother anymore) and he let loose with a barrage of “Well, I stayed in a dead marriage for FIFTEEN YEARS because of you kids, the least you can do is be GRATEFUL!”
and I was like, hm, well– sorry to hear that. If that is true, I wish you’d gotten a divorce. None of us ever asked you to be miserable. Nobody’s going to thank you for it now.
Sunshine’s going to have the same reckoning someday, I think, when the blog love stops being enough to fill in the cracks. My folks coped with Jim Dobson. I guess Sunshine latched onto the manosphere.
I’m bloody glad my idiot parental unit left. Yes, it meant Mum and I were stuck in a low-income life (uni was never going to be affordable for me) but given IPU’s financial incompetence, it’s unlikely we’d have been better off if he’d stayed. And that’s about the only possible good thing he’d have had to contribute, by that time, the cheating creep.
Not even sure what the point (such as it were) of Just Saying’s post was supposed to be.
So, some manosphere dudes like him aren’t getting married because women won’t cook for them. Um, so? That people don’t have to get married if they don’t want to is a revelation?
Also, women are having sex (with guys who aren’t him, I’m sure). And this is a bad thing. Because reasons.
Wow, flawless argument, chap. So logic. So Mangrysphere.
Mangrysphere – love it. Not least ‘cos it’s easy to read as mangy. 🙂
Mangrysphere!
I say this every time, but the whole “I don’t want modern women!” thing always reads like the person is screaming “well then, I quit!” after just being very publicly fired. So what? Why are women supposed to care if men who would expect us to be their personal maids don’t want to marry us if we refuse to do so?
Exactly – the men who scream about women having minds and preferences and independence and all the rest of it are saying nothing about us, and all too much about themselves. They’re all just Mellers, wanting slaves or life-size dolls.
Or, alternatively, we live in an era in which people who’d make totally incompatible life partners for each other are able to choose not to get together. How is that not a good thing?
It’s like the reaction they’re hoping for is the woman goes “NOOOO!!! Those men I had no interest in whatsoever are refusing to marry me! DAMN IT! Now I see the error of my evil feminazi ways!!!” But the reaction they actually get is women pointing at them and guffawing uncontrollably.
Because they don’t give a shit about compatibility, only about being able to own a domestic and sexual slave? Or some of ’em don’t even grasp that there is such a thing? Incompatibility means there are a couple of humans with differing interests, tastes, characteristics, after all, and admitting to that would be admitting that women are people. Womenthings are just supposed to mould themselves to the Real Human™ who’s selected them. If they don’t, they’re faulty.
And then you have sad individuals who’re desperate for validation like Sunshine Mary jumping in to say “it’s true! all women’s lives would be meaningless if there were any men who didn’t want to marry us! just like mine is!”. And the circle of dumbassery is complete.
Wait. I cook most every night (I count nuking leftovers in the microwave as cooking) and do some housework (like dish washing) every night.
Shit. I have failed the feminist God.
I’m sorry feminist God! I’ll learn how to eat off dirty dishes for the rest of life!
I guess the feminist god wants us all to live off of the kind of instant ramen that you can eat in the container it comes in.
::shifty eyed::
How does the feminist god feel about frozen pasta that you nuke and take out of the plastic tray?
I think the feminist god is A-OK with that pasta.
Oh please, there is no such thing as feminist god.
She’s feminist goddess.
🙂
The whole thing just makes them sound like such cranky losers. Women these days don’t know how to cook! And also they like sex! Which I have to pretend I’m happy about in order to hide my existential scream of horror! And did I mention that nobody has offered to make my dinner yet?
Learn how to cook yourself, you lazy asshole.
I have a cold, so I’ve done nothing but fuck around on the internet all day and the house is a mess! Bless me, oh feminist god, for I am following all of your teachings.
There isn’t a microwave big enough …
Do we know if it’s a feminist god or feminist goddess? Surely we’re talking about Ceiling Cat here.
Ladies, please: Feminist Goddess, right?
Because it’s getting harder and harder to find women who are willing to put up with his kind of bullshit.
I think they honestly believe (or desperately want to believe) that they’re saying what most men are thinking, and that men as a group are refraining from marriage because “modern women” are terrible. And since marriage is what women live for, we’re going to be real sorry when no man will have us.