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.
Sunshine Mary leaves me perplexed. She’s moaning about women being reduced to sex objects but anyone who lurks on her blog knows that she enjoys being treated like a sex object.
In recent posts, she’s commented on:
How she wants her husband to “bang” her
How women become depressed unless they receive regular injections of semen
How it’s wrong for women to say no when their husbands want sex
How she likes it when her husband treats her like a blond bimbo
She’s also posted a sex chart showing how many times she and her husband, Holy Hand Grenade, have had sex this year: http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/come-together-to-avoid-falling-apart-the-benefit-of-default-yes/
And, on her old blog she posted BJ tips and photos of her crotchless panties.
That cannot be a True Feminist recipe, as it does not call for dudebro tears.
Reverse peristalsis ahoy!
May I be permitted a small derail?
I’ve just paid an exorbitant amount for new glasses (exorbitant because my prescription is so high, insult to injury added by the fact that the NHS realise I need to spend about £200 more on my glasses than normal people so offer me a £14 voucher to recompense this), which I won’t get for two more weeks since no one in the UK is qualified to make my glasses, given that they’re so strong, and basically my bad eye (the one that is -0.5 weaker than the other one) has decided, apparently, to crap out until I get my new glasses so I have to look at everything with one eye shut now.
Sorry for derail but it’s bear pissing me off.
On the Mystery of Mary, it all makes sense once you notice that the common element is a desperate need for male validation.
::dies laughing::
FFS, is she referring to that faux-study about how good semen is for women? ::rolls eyes::
About the minorities breeding comment: I want to be nice and think Sunshine Mary was quoting me, as I was using the phrase myself to refer to people on Stormfront who think like this. But seriously, Hispanic =! white.
The overpopulation thing I already debunked. Yay science!
I’m willing to give Mary the benefit of the doubt (I know, I know) and assume she was paraphrasing the Stormfronters when she said “breeding”.
@JustJulia, while her “wives shouldn’t say no” stance skeeves me, I’m not comfortable lumping consensual kink-type submission in with patriarchal submission. There’s nothing inherently wrong or un-feminist, IMO, with wanting your husband to “bang” you or wearing crotchless panties.
Public health notice – please do not try to actually inject the semen (ie with a needle) as results cannot be guaranteed.
When women have choices it’s scary –
they can have sex and then not get married.
MRAs think it’s bad
cause it makes boners sad
But why should we care, Sunshine Mary?
I’m fine with Mary having a kink, the problem is that she seems to feel the need to justify it to herself by pretending it’s universal.
Also, whoever gave the recipe for Siracha popcorn — DAMN YOU I HAVE TO MAKE THIS
thenat – damn, that sucks. £14, how pathetic – let me guess, that’s what they offer for everything? As in, regardless of what someone’s having to spend? That’s like our “rent assistance” from Centrelink, a grand $56 a fortnight.
Is it extreme long sight or short sight, for you? Is astigmatism thrown into the mix? That always makes things even more fun.
Where are your new specs having to come from? Europe? The US?
Unhelpful suggestion: wear a pirate patch over the eye you have to keep closed!
QFT.
TMI: Sir and I have fun involving breaking in new knitwear. Do I go around insisting that everyone should do so? Do I?
Dammit go out and use my knitting patterns, you godless heathens!
I get that, but JustJulia’s post (and other posts I’ve seen when Sunshine Mary comes up) veered a little closer to sex-shaming than I was comfortable with. How do “bj tips and photos of her crotchless panties” support the assertion that she “enjoys being treated like a sex object”?
Yeah, last time this came up I had to smack someone for getting all “lol she wears crotchless panties and she’s, like, old!”, so I get why it bothered you.
Emily Goddess,
I agree there’s nothing wrong with wanting your husband to bang you or wearing sexy panties. I’m guilty of both these things. I was just pointing out the dichotomy in her posts: She complains that feminism has reduced women to sex objects, yet she’s constantly flouting her own sexuality and telling Christian women that providing sex is their God-ordained duty.
Her brand of Christianity reduces women to sex objects/cooks/maids/babymakers.
Well, thing is, “flouting” your sexuality isn’t actually reducing yourself to an object. Some people just love to TMI, and I do think that can stem from a desire for external validation sometimes, but that’s not quite the same thing as objectification.
It’s Bumshiney’s hypocrisy that’s the thing, as usual with misogynists, feMRAs et al. She’s anti sex as far as everyone else goes, she’s anti women in general, especially the idea of women having their own sex lives and preferences (and approvingly quotes JAQer about how terrible it is that women enjoy oral or anal sex) but then trots out her own kinks. Like, make up your mind, willya?
It reads more the other way round to me, as in “I have this kink and I feel a bit guilty or uncomfortable about it, so if I think of it as a universal female thing then I won’t have to feel weird about it any more”.
PS flaunting, not flouting.
I think the assumption here — for both Just Saying and Sunshine Mary — is that women shouldn’t be reduced to nothing more than sex objects. Instead, they should be reduced to babymaking, house-cleaning, meal-cooking sex objects (but only if married).
I’m not sure where “blogging” fits in all this for Sunshine Mary. I assume it’s ok only insofar as it doesn’t interfere with her real duties,or provide her with any sense of self-worth or anything like that.
Either way, it comes across that women being individuals and having different aims in life, different desires (sexual and otherwise) from herself and her interpretation of the Bible is something she just can’t cope with, doesn’t it?
Was it Mary or some other Christian misogynist ladyblogger who said that she needed to wait for her husband to give her permission to reply to comments? Again, if that’s your personal thing that’s fine, but the moment you start universalizing it then it becomes a problem.
Bingo, David. Women having a sense of self-worth is anathema to all these varieties of misogynist.