“The funny thing is that the vast majority of your followers who like this post with an implied (or express), “You go, girl!” won’t even bother clicking the link to my post and find out just how much you twisted my words and avoided the subject at hand for fear of self-inducing outrage at “the most insulting thing on Tumblr.”
I think you’re probably lucky that the majority of her followers didn’t click through to read the OP.
It’s pretty clear you have a distinct conception of what it means to be human, form communities, and coexist with other humans. And the strong implication of your post is that women are actually sub-human.
My overabundance of cynicism has led to many journal debates in which I’m making the point that women are “all the same” or “a dime a dozen” as a result of them having sacrificed their chastity for feminism. My glib response being, “Why should any man buy the cow? The cow gives away the milk for free. And if she doesn’t, the cow next to her does.” Many people focus on the sex-aspect of that comment, but consider another aspect: when sex is the only thing a woman brings to the table (and let’s face it, in this day and age, that is all she brings to the table,) what does it matter who the woman is? And why should the man commit to her, given the enormous costs of doing so, when he can just trade her out like a used car?
If you want to make the more interesting (and coherent) argument that all people are the same, then I would actually be on board. Because my ontological view is that people generally are the same, the same structure of intentionality and epistemologically coherent actions. But it seems like you’re interested in ontologizing women as beings purely toward sex. I mean, this reading doesn’t seem to diverge radically from the on the face of things look of those words I quoted, right? You say that women are ‘all the same,’ and then go on to talk about how the only thing they bring to the table is sex. I guess that’s one strictly biological definition of what it means to be a woman, to have those sex organs. But you’re ignoring the idea of a woman being a human being, then, if she’s merely a walking sex organ.
Let’s pause on your (frankly absurd) implicit argument that women are sub-human. You talk about social mores.
For almost a decade since, I’ve been wary of extending simple courtesies to women for mainly because I don’t want to risk the headache of her going off on a tirade about how she’s an “independent, empowered woman that can open her own doors.” Nowadays, I rarely even bother with courtesies of that nature unless it’s for a woman of 50 years or older. And if you’ve got a problem with that, take it up with Ms. “Rare Occurrence.” Because she’s poisoning the well for the rest of you.
This whole line of thought is some weird, windmil tilting, obviously malformed sort of argument that seems to exist only for provocation because you cannot possibly believe in something so stupid. I mean, you obviously know how to use a computer, so you possess the basic motorskills and logical aptitude that requires. You have to see this for what it is, this ridiculously peevish, oversensitive, caricatured depiction of women and the extension of social rights. I mean, at least if it were the 1980s and you were a terrible stand-up comic, this would be topical? You’re telling me you’ve never done something for someone only to have it turn out poor for whatever reason. But it’s only with regard to women that you want to avoid the ‘headache’ of a woman going off on a tired against you? Are you afraid she’s going to take off her bra and burn it in front of you, too?
You ask an obviously rhetorical question, but I will make the uncouth display of answering it.
As I have asked before, doesn’t it seem to anyone else like women want to be treated like dehumanized sex objects? Why should he treat her as anything but?
It seems pretty clear to me that basically -everyone- wants to be a sex object in that everyone wants to get laid. It’s really great. It feels awesome and it’s fun. Your constituting women as being merely sex objects, which seems to have a long and shameful tradition in your line of ‘thought,’ is unrelated to any woman’s actions. Didn’t your mother ever tell you to treat everyone with respect? It’s the basic idea underlying the whole of society. I’m not going to make an historical argument about how people have treated other people as objects because it suited their (the objectifiers’) purposes to. That people generally dehumanize and objectify other people when they rape, murder, enslave, or simply act a fool toward them. I’ll just say that you’re probably young and angry and you do not really believe what you’re writing, and I feel really sorry for you. Good luck.
