Femisogynists Shocked To Find That They’re Raising Slutty Daughters
posted at 10:13 am on August 13, 2010 by Cassy Fiano
Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:
There’s a new nightmare on the block for femisogynist moms. Now that they’re all grown up and settled down with teenage daughters of their own, they’re shocked to find out that the sexual empowerment they’ve been championing for decades has backfired on them. How has it backfired? Well, the femisogynist moms are finding out that sexual empowerment has really turned their daughters into slutty teens.
Canadian magazine Maclean’s examined the phenomenon in a controversial article titled “Outraged Moms, Trashy Daughters: How did those steeped in the women’s lib movement produce girls who think being a sex object is powerful?” Confused moms who label themselves as feminists can’t understand why their daughters label themselves as sex objects, sleep around, and demean themselves yet call it empowerment.
But the generation that grew up reading Our Bodies, Ourselves is most apoplectic over what they see as the unrelenting pressure on girls to be sexual, and not on their own terms. “I’m so deeply pained to see where women are today and how girls—and I mean girls—are being groomed to believe their purpose in life is to be sexual beings that please men,” says Nancy Vonk, the co-chief creative officer of Ogilvy & Mather in Toronto and the mother of a 16-year-old daughter. Vonk recalls wearing satin hot pants when she was 15. “But it was a different time,” she says. “Back then there was at least equal premium put on intellect and what was in your head. It was the opposite of ‘Go out and please men.’ ”
Kate Lloyd, the director of program and service development for the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario and an academic coach to teenage girls, says the heightened sexual activity concerns her. “A blow job is just like shaking hands. It’s ridiculous,” she says. “But their attitude is: ‘We’re emancipated; we’re liberated; we’re in control, don’t worry.’ They see being able to hold that type of sexual behaviour over the boys as power; I see it as giving their power away.” But one 19-year-old girl sees the double standard facing girls as more complex. “If men have a lot of sex it’s a good thing, but if women have a lot of sex it’s a bad thing,” she says. “Men have a biological imperative to spread their genes. But that should not be a reason to control women.”
So basically, the 60s era of sexual empowerment was OK, because they weren’t trying to “please men”. They were taking control of their own sexuality. Wearing skanky hot pants was groovy back then. But these girls, they’re just sleeping around! They dress like whores! They’re slaves to the men!
It was just fine for the femisogynists to dress and act like sluts when they were growing up. It’s not OK for their daughters to do it, though. What’s the difference to them, though? And why are they so confused about how it happened?
One culprit for why girls are so hyper-sexualized these days can be traced right back to the extreme sex education being taught in our schools, with the charge being led by femisogynists to keep the sex ed coming. Girls have been taught by the adults in their lives to embrace their sexuality, have been lovingly encouraged to explore their sex lives in new and innovative ways. The feminist extremists gush about the brilliance of giving their daughters vibrators, they teach middle schoolers how to have good sex. Planned Parenthood distributes sexually explicit brochures to Girl Scouts and teach 10-year-olds about anal sex. Children are inundated about sex from extremely young ages about sex, something that the femisogynists encourage, and yet they can’t understand why teenage girls are sleeping around?
Next year, 12-year-old Sasha explains to me, they will learn how to put a condom on a broomstick (she says this without a trace of embarrassment, just a polite smile). Across the city, nine-year-old Marcus, who lives in a beautiful 18th-century house on a canal, has been watching a cartoon showing him how to masturbate. His sister, 11, has been writing an essay on reproduction and knows that it is legal for two consenting 12-year-olds to make love. Her favourite magazine, Girls, gives advice on techniques in bed, and her parents sometimes allow her to stay up to see a baby being born on the birthing channel.
Then there is Yuri, 16, who explains to me in perfect English that “anal sex hurts at the beginning but if you persevere it can be very pleasurable.” When I ask whether he is gay, he says “no” but he has watched a documentary on the subject with his parents.
This kind of sex ed is apparently going to be compulsory for all children beginning at the age of 5 this year in the Netherlands, and this program is being praised as the kind of program we need in the United States.
When this is what we are teaching our daughters, then how can there be any surprise when they turn out to be putting that knowledge to very good use? The other problem is that we have given our children a complete lack of boundaries when it comes to sex. Take abstinence before marriage, for example. It has become socially unacceptable for parents to tell their children to wait until they’re married to have sex. It’s not the “cool” thing to do, just like it isn’t “cool” to expect your high-schoolers not to drink. They’re going to do it anyways, so might as well teach them to be safe, right? But here’s a question.
If we take away the boundary of abstinence before marriage, then what’s the next boundary? 18? OK, so maybe that’s too old. Let’s say 16. But what if the teen says they’re ready for sex at 15? What about 14? Or 13? Where do you draw the line? The reality is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere. It is inappropriate for children to be having sex, but we’ve been indoctrinating our children that sex is OK for decades.
And we’ve also been indoctrinating girls to believe in some other harmful things as well.
The femisogynists gender bigots have been trying fervently to brainwash girls that men are oppressors, that the male patriarchy is trying to keep them down, and that chivalry is sexist. Forget restricting sex to marriage — if you believe all of that, you don’t even need to restrict sex to love. Nowhere in the article did any of the mothers even mention the words “love”, “marriage” or “family.”
The fascist feminists have been engaged in serious social engineering over the past few decades, subverting marriage and family. The word “father” is also noticeably absent. Femisogynists have tried very hard to make sure that fathers no longer have any say in a girl’s sexuality. But now that some of those activists have grown up and started families of their own, they’re realizing that they maybe don’t like the results so much.
And of course, we can’t forget about abortion. Abortion opened the door to sex with no consequences. It opened the door to men being able to use women and not have to deal with the responsibility of the possibility of a child. We let the sex genie out of the bottle, and for a while, femisogynists cheered it. But it seems like some of the femisogynists moms aren’t liking what they’re seeing.
It used to be that men had to prove their love and commitment before having sex. But femisogynists instead told women that they were better than that, that having sex like men made you empowered. Decades later, we’re seeing the results of this social experiment.
It’s ironic, isn’t it, that the very people who manufactured the social experiment are now the ones complaining about how it all turned out — and, as usual, taking absolutely no responsibility for the disaster.
Recently in the Green Room:
- Real question: Does Obama’s budget fund overseas abortions to protect endangered animals?
- Photo of the day: Crimea now belongs to Russia, at least on Russian propaganda TV
- Vatican: Pope Francis wasn’t talking about same-sex relationships; Update: “Civil unions” explained
- RNC ad: Crying infant greets Obama’s new debt-laden budget
- Update: Grayson dismisses ‘erratic’ wife after abuse allegation