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.
If men as a group are refraining from marriage, who is it getting divorced? 😛
Great Ceiling Cat, I just look at these lackwits and thank you that I have never met any, nor run the risk of being involved with them.
If you can’t find a woman who will agree to marry you that totally counts as your refraining from marriage, right?
I generally don’t respond on feminist sites anymore, but I do want to address this.
1. I am not part of the manosphere. I am often incorrectly labelled as a femra. This is quite inaccurate, as my entire worldview is at odds with many MRA beliefs. However, I do agree with them on some points (the necessity of reforming divorce laws, the idiocy of the “rape culture” myth, and a few other points). I am a Christian patriarchalist; most MRAs oppose the idea of a patriarchal social structure.
2. I understand that male feminists see women as having value beyond their sexuality. Christian men do, too. However, most men are neither feminists nor Christians, and Just Saying represents a growing number of men who are concluding that modern feministic women are too much of a hassle and that it is better just to use them for easy sex. You needn’t shoot the messenger here; I don’t particularly like that fact. I do, however, lay the blame for it squarely at the feet of feminism.
3. Women very well may be in charge of their sexuality, but it is rather odd that this plays out in the context of a rapidly dropping marriage rate and sad stories in the Atlantic about not being able to find a husband. Most women don’t identify as feminists, but they do participate in the modern sexual market place that came about because of feminism; these are women who do want to marry some day. Unfortunately, thanks to feminism, more and more men are disinclined to marry. This will be a net loss both for women and for society as a whole.
4. And finally, to Mr. Futrelle’s point that babies are still being made: have you checked out birth rates recently? No group other than Hispanics is reproducing at or above replacement level. Of those children who are born, many are raised by single mothers or in divorced homes. Some do okay but most suffer because of it. This is not merely my opinion; the effects of divorce and single motherhood on children has been extremely well-studied; those effects are both numerous and entirely negative.
Also, am I supposed to be offended that some asshole who only sees me as a housemaid and a self-warming fleshlight isn’t going to marry me? Really, MRAs, that’s your argument?
*facepalm*
It’s so odd how some women don’t want to get married! This must mean that they’re unhappy with their sexual freedom, somehow. If it doesn’t then how will Mary’s life have any meaning?
Given overpopulation, birth rates going down is a good thing.
@ Alice
Now think how lulzy all this looks from the perspective of someone who’s already married (to a decent guy who doesn’t expect her to wipe his ass for him because he’s too lazy to do it himself).
CassandraSays – I can imagine, although obviously, I’m not married. I’m happy about that.
Also, re: birth rates — every single time that argument comes up, I’m reminded of people on Stormfront crying on how minorities are causing white genocide by breeding more. So I tend to think of it as inherently racist when that argument’s used.
I like how something that is usually done for vagina-havers’* pleasure by teh menz is now seen as evidence of how vagina-havers having NO SAY in their sexehtimes.
(*Usual caveat that MRAs and FeMRAs are cissexist and homophobic as anything so this is the way they see the world)
I could almost see the drop in the birth rate as being worth mentioning if the US was one of those countries where that’s an actual problem that’s going to bust the social security system if not addressed, like Japan, but from an economic perspective it doesn’t matter whether the babies being born are Hispanic or of any other race, as long as they exist.
I have no affiliation with white nationalism. And if anyone complains to you about minorities breeding, you might point out to them that neither Asians nor Blacks are reproducing at replacement level either. Only Hispanics are reproducing above replacement level and they are technically considered to be white, no? So the Stormfront argument does not make much sense here.
Having said all that, I disagree with you that there is any overpopulation problem in this country.
Serrana, can haz black bean burger recipe plz? *adorable face*
“Breeding” is such a lovely word to use when describing people, no? Especially when you’re a nice white lady talking about POC and trying to convince everyone that you’re not racist.
Oh MOTHERFUCK she’s here. Who wants cheesy popcorn? I just got a recipe for sriacha popcorn too which I shall enslave my boyfriend to make.
If you provide the cheesy/spicy popcorn I’ll provide the caramel variety.
(With many apologies to the feminist god – it’s OK if I bought it at Trader Joe’s, right?)
You wrote a post agreeing with him.
Sunshine Mary, do you know what overpopulation means, in scientific terms?
Overpopulation doesn’t mean “too many babies”. It means “not having enough resources for everyone who is currently living on this earth”.
The world IS suffering from an overpopulation problem, because we’re fast running out of resources to feed us all, for example. It’s not about whether we can all find land to live on, it’s whether we can get food to eat, fresh water to drink, etc.
The American lifestyle is not sustainable. If everyone lived like us, we’d need several Earths. Just the cattle raising alone takes up numerous resources. And the amount of trash! And water! Etc.
THAT’S what it means, when scientists say overpopulation.
thenatfantastic: Black Bean-Portobello Burgers with a gluten-free option. These are really, really good.
I think Mary is the kind of person whose response to the idea of overpopulation is “but there’s plenty of room in Montana”.
“This country” is not the whole world. You do realize that everyone here is not in the U.S., right?
CassandraSays – That’s what I’m thinking too. I’ve heard way too many people who say that because everyone on Earth can live on a piece of land the size of Texas (IIRC) that overpopulation is not a problem. It pisses me off, as a science-loving person.
I totally less than three you Serrana!
QFTing this from Ceebark.
By the way Mary, I was raised by a single mother (who was also a feminist!) and you claim that children raised this way inevitably end up on the scrapheap of life. Please explain how I have a good law degree, got while I was working 40 hours a week too, and now work for Google and also tutor law, and my sister is working for one of the biggest banks in the world, while my nine year old sister is the top of her class (as I was, consistently) – even though we’re working class? Because something just doesn’t jive here.
Oh and BONUS POINTS Mary – how is ‘liking oral sex’ bad for people?
Don’t pick on Sunshine Mary too much1 She might stop posting! She’s my current all-time favourite blogger.
Hey that new name is making me wary about what my fake-husband might do!