Green Room

Leftist Feminists Proudly Embrace Sluthood, Objectification and Subjugation of Women

posted at 5:00 pm on August 1, 2010 by

My latest post at NewsReal:

There is a new ‘hot topic’ at various alleged Feminist sites that exemplifies yet another reason why leftist self-named Feminists should really be called Femisogynists. Their agenda is purely a political one and it’s one that is actually harmful to women. The end now justifies the means to the point that the new in thing to do in Leftist Feminist/Femisogynist circles is to “embrace sluthood”. No, really. A most recent example from that hotbed of objectification and subjugation of women disguised as feminism, Feministe.com:

I had never thought of my self as a Casual Encounters kind of girl. I’d read them on occasion, sure, out of fascination, horror, horniness. I’d even, once in a long while, in lonely desperate moments, posted an ad, not with the intention of actually meeting anyone, but because sometimes knowing you have a bunch of bad options that you’re rejecting feels better than feeling like you have no options at all. And it was that exact state I found myself in one Friday night last fall, after having been blown apart yet again by some minor rejection that felt so huge it sent me to my bed. I hadn’t showered or shaved or left the house in days. And so, glass of wine in hand, wearing a robe and dirty sweatpants, I posted an ad just so I could watch the replies come in and feel like I had some kind of choice in the world. That somebody wanted me, even if they were gross and I’d never want them back.

Um. Where to begin? Her article, term used loosely, entitled My Sluthood, Myself, is meant to show how empowering and wonderful it is to embrace always-have-antibiotics-on-hand sluthood, yet, in reality, it shows anything but. Maybe it’s just me, but if I was feeling icky and hadn’t showered nor shaved in days, I’d, you know, shower and shave, for starters. I would not post a random “hit me up for a booty call, total stranger” ad. As you read on, her own words belie her “I’m so empowered” false persona: she admits she is desperately craving being wanted and loved. How on earth does random sex, with strangers no less, achieve that? It doesn’t. What it does achieve is objectification, in the really bad way.

I’d like to think that old school feminists, many of whom were honestly trying to achieve some good, didn’t burn their bras in the hopes that women would start unhooking them for every Tom, Dick and Harry in some demented quest for acceptance and fulfillment.

The article goes on, filled with cliches such as “triggers” – femisogynist new-speak for “I want to read this so that I can get outrageously outraged and claim victimization” – and more words that belie the author’s intent. Or what I can only assume is her intent. It seems as if she was trying to make a case for “sluthood”, but she only managed to prove why it’s harmful to women as a whole and that her grip on sanity may very well be Andrew Sullivan-esque. Her conclusion contains this (bleeping of cuss word, mine):

I’m telling you this because our policymakers would rather girls get sometimes-fatal diseases than be perceived as condoning sluthood. I’m telling you this because it’s important for everyone to understand: Sluthood isn’t a disease, or a wrong path, or a trend that’s ruining our youth. It isn’t just for detached, unemotional women who “f**k like men,” (as if that actually meant something), consequences be damned. It isn’t ever inevitable that sluthood should inspire violence or shame. Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling.

Firstly, a total straw-man – excuse me, straw-woman – argument. People who are against free (as in tax payer funded) universal birth control for all, of course, want girls to die! Because they are mean old Rethuglicans and subjugate-y old prudes and stuff. Probably racist somehow, too. Sigh. Secondly, it did not appear to be very healing or soul-fulfilling to the author, her false face of bravado notwithstanding. The good old “liberating” line is a fallacy as well. It’s just the new version of “sexual empowerment” which has done far more harm to women than good.

Once again proving their idiocy, leftist feminists/femisogynists cry “patriarchal oppression” at the drop of a damn hat, yet they choose to embrace lifestyles, under the self-defeating veil of sexual empowerment, that are actually geared toward and beneficial to men. And, you know, totally harmful and denigrating to them. This encouragement of “sexual empowerment” or “liberation”, the obsession with “it’s okay, just use birth control and do whatever feels good”, the pro-abortion agenda that treats a pregnancy as an inconvenient punishment that must be aborted, and the trying to turn sluthood into a politically correct lifestyle, all have resulted in the dehumanization of women and the denigration of womanhood itself.

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: By encouraging women to focus on sexual “equality”- or now “liberation” – they’ve taken away any requirement that women be treated as something other than a sexual toy. Why would anyone respect you as a human being, if you don’t respect yourself? Jaclyn of Feministe,  who defines herself by her sexual acts only and with the words  My Sluthood, Myself, has yet to learn that lesson. As do the leftist feminists who encourage and enable such dangerous – emotionally and physically – thinking.

—–

(Originally posted at David Horowitz’s NewsReal)

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her newsreal stuff here

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That entire article and all the comments just made me very sad. And then very happy I’m in a solid relationship with a wonderful woman who is sane. But my heart goes out, in a weird way, to those women. Somehow it reminds me of the flaggelants, the guys in the middle ages that were so consumed by sin they’d whip themselves constantly. I almost feel like I could hear them whipping themselves mentally and then saying, ‘no this is wonderful, I’m so happy!’

Dark Eden on August 1, 2010 at 6:22 PM

Sex is like a keg party. If you and those you want to party with can’t afford the beer and “party favors,” find a workable alternative, and don’t have the party. Don’t go trying to add some kind of fee so a bunch of folks not even invited to the party underwrite your beer budget.

If these ladies (and I do use the term loosely) want to pull a train on Saturday night, fine. But if I’m not in the bed next to her, I don’t want to pay for her condoms or her inevitable multiple STD tests. This does not make me anti-sex, this makes me anti-subsidizing-a-party-to-which-I-am-not-invited.

As for the “sl*ttiness” itself, if you act like an animated, self-warming Fleshlight, expect to be treated like one. I’ve learned that lesson the hard way. Men will do everything to you and more that you let them get away with.

Sekhmet on August 1, 2010 at 7:09 PM

I’m guessing that woman had a shattering rejection after she gave it away too quickly in the first place. She obviously learned nothing. She should try dating for a while with no sex. I guarantee she will find a worthy man, and probably sooner than she thinks!

rockmom on August 1, 2010 at 8:45 PM

This is a woman with some serious self image problems. She is convinced that all she deserves are one night stands and techno encounters with rejects, so she has no choice but to make them sound like the right thing to do. Ick!

College Prof on August 1, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Oh, I call this the Janeane Garofalo syndrome or “How I became a feminist because I hate myself.”

College Prof on August 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM

I’d like to think that old school feminists, many of whom were honestly trying to achieve some good, didn’t burn their bras in the hopes that women would start unhooking them for every Tom, Dick and Harry in some demented quest for acceptance and fulfillment.

There were no old school feminists honestly trying to achieve some good back in the 1960s–at least not in the movers at the top.

Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan all came from extremely dysfunctional homes. The feminist movement was not given momentum by well-adjusted women who only wanted to be respected and given equal treatment.

In her book Home By Choice, Brenda Hunter details family life for three well known feminists of the 60s. She draws on Marsha Cohen’s book The Sisterhood. (I don’t have that book, so I’ll quote Hunter).

Betty Friedan’s parents evidently fought like cats and dogs. Her sister said their mother had

“a complete inability to nurture….We really absolutely did not have a mother loving us.” ….Betty’s mother was intensely critical of her and made Betty feel both unwanted and ugly…As an adult Betty went into psychoanalysis to work through her rage at her mother.

While Germaine Greer’s father was off fighting in WWII, her mother was home flirting with other servicemen. She felt like her mother never liked her.

According to Cohen, Germaine would come to describe her childhood as filled with pain and humiliation. Not only did her mother beat her viciously on occasion, but she hit Germaine with “passion” and “for no good reason.”

There are other examples of the wholesale rejection Greer felt from her mother. Greer also state in Daddy, We Hardly Knew You that her father “never once” hugged her.

Gloria Steinem’s father abandoned Gloria and her mother when she was eleven several years after her mother had a nervous breakdown.

From then on, Gloria not only coped with her father’s absence, but also cared for her disturbed mother. The two lived in a run-down house overrun with rats.

INC on August 1, 2010 at 10:50 PM

The feminist movement has toxic roots. That is why it remains toxic to this day.

INC on August 1, 2010 at 10:50 PM

This is a feminist quote from a site http://zena.secureforum.com that now seems to be defunct. I saved it several years ago as very revealing of the heart of the Left:

The 1960s women’s movement came together when women in the anti-war and civil rights movements noticed that their feelings of exclusion and exploitation were not uniquely individual but were, instead, shared. Through consciousness raising groups, women in society then discovered that their situations in marriage, child-rearing, sex, work, culture, even language were not unique but similar, and that the cause of their suffering was not themselves but something systemic and political called sexism or patriarchy.

In each instance we uncovered that “the personal is political,” i.e., the experiences, feelings, and possibilities of our personal lives were not just a matter of personal preferences and choices but were limited, molded, and defined by the broader political and social setting. They feel personal, and their details are personal, but their broad texture and character, and especially the limits within which these evolve, are largely systemic. In this sense, the contribution of the New Left was to say that we suffer a “totality of oppressions,” systemically based, entwined, and all needing to be eliminated via a “rev0luti0n” in existing institutions, and the creation of new liberating ones.

INC on August 1, 2010 at 10:55 PM

The Feminists have always been about politics, and never about women.

They assumed, as did the rest of the Left, that if you tear down the system, then your problems will be solved.

This is why they do things that appear to be totally contradictory–such as not protesting Ted Kennedy or Clinton when they used and abused women.

It’s not about women. It’s about an ideology.

INC on August 1, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Found a working link to The Personal Is Political that I quoted above.

INC on August 1, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Wait, sorry. The Zena quote referenced The Personal Is Political, but they are two separate pieces.

INC on August 1, 2010 at 11:02 PM

STOP with the feminist crap! Please. Feminists suck. Let it go.

Connie on August 1, 2010 at 11:02 PM

I obviously take issue with the link to Tammy Bruce in which she says the left hijacked the feminist movement. The Left always has been the feminist movement.

INC on August 1, 2010 at 11:07 PM

INC on August 1, 2010 at 11:07 PM

And vice versa.

Connie on August 1, 2010 at 11:54 PM

Steppenwolf did a good song about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_e8FbiIA1c

GnuBreed on August 2, 2010 at 6:38 AM

I disagree that feminism is not about women and only about politics. Ask your mothers. Don’t take the changes for granted. It’s easy to focus on the negative but don’t forget the positive.

Ironically, I came across an item yesterday about some daughter of a now dead rockstar who is a super feminist but is now spreading the message that being a feminist doesn’t mean acting like the worse type of guys:

“Mellor is the daughter of Gaby Salter and the late Joe Strummer, lead singer of The Clash.
….
Feminist beliefs
Mellor describes herself as a feminist and believes that it was right for earlier generations of women to reject those traditionally female pastimes associated with housework.[3] However she also believes that attempts to demonstrate equality with men by emulating male behaviour have damaged women’s self-respect, culminating in the harmful ladette sub-culture. Consequently, she believes, it is now time for women to reclaim some of those traditionally female pastimes.” http://goo.gl/cNTM

Blake on August 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Besides being amoral, rutting with anonymous random losers is hideously dangerous.

Let’s just say the kind of guys trolling websites for women, ain’t all upstanding citizens who are just going to go, “thank you maam” and walk out the door, never to be seen again.

It’s revealing how the amoral are always hopelessly naive about the nature of the world. Ignorance and amorality go hand in hand.

NoDonkey on August 2, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Why are the lefties still using the paradigm of the old, white, woman hating, change fearing guy from the 1950s and 1960s? The hippies have ingrained this character so deep into the minds of moderns that it is still being used even though that bogeyman no longer exists. In fact, the man of that description has been replaced by the hippies who raled against the men of that stereotype. Yet, here are the freakin’ youth of today still fighting a battle against the non-existent establishment enemies of the sagging old hippies. Unbelievable.

allstonian on August 2, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Have these women never read “Looking for Mr. Goodbar?”

doppelganglander on August 2, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Blake on August 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM

I agree, Blake, as a woman of that period, I can attest to how things were, but I do believe it is about political power, which is really what everything is about…
Back then, women really WERE 2nd class citizens…the slaves and workhorses of every movement. We were paid less then even now, and expected to get married when we graduated college…
I left the movement when I realized that they truly didn’t have woman’s “choice” in mind–they only wanted you to make THEIR choices…if you wanted to be a housewife–you were looked down upon.
The woman’s movement ended up throwing the baby out with the bathwater….

lovingmyUSA on August 2, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Discretion?

AshleyTKing on August 2, 2010 at 5:48 PM