Thursday, March 30, 2006

In the life of every budding feminist man or woman, there comes a moment that I like to call the "What The Fuck, Sister?" Moment.

This is the moment when the young feminist first encounters a vehemently anti-feminist woman. What the fuck, says the feminist. Why would a woman want to campaign against her own social and political equality? Why would a woman speak out against the very people who are fighting to protect her basic human dignity?

While there may be some psychological or sociological answers floating around, it remains very difficult for most of us to get inside the head of an anti-feminist woman, just as most people would be hard pressed to really understand the mind of a black KKK supporter. But every once in a while, an anti-feminist women will open a window into her mind and allow us to peer cautiously inside.

One such window can be found in this charming letter from Missouri state Representative Cynthia Davis, an anti-contraception activist who explains to us how all sexually-active women are whores:
    When I was listening to the debate last week I wondered what kind of man would want to enjoy free sex and then expect her to provide for her own contraceptives? These are the kind of men who want free whores. Any man who would be so low life as that does not deserve to have any woman love him. Smart women will stay away from men who use them and abuse them.

    Why is it that most of the e-mail letters I get on this topic is from men? I have concluded that the chemicals and drugs are their way to have all the goodies and not pay the price. When you encourage this behavior, you create more of it. In other words, if the state starts paying for contraceptives we will have more babies than if we just teach people to not expect free prostitution from poor people. Don't you think having to pay child support for the next 18 years is a suitable disincentive?

    ...

    The irresponsible men love it when women think they are supposed to give away free sex without any consequences.
It may seem obvious to some, but this letter filled in a piece that had been missing for me.

Women like Rep. Davis believe in the virgin-whore dichotomy in such a literal way that I actually never really got it. They believe that any woman who is has sex is a whore, in one way or another, and thus the real crime of a sex-positive feminist is that she's not charging enough.

From their perspective, the real problem with feminism is that it's driving down prices. Every man who is sleeping with a willing, eager, sex-loving woman is one less man participating in the bidding war for the untouched cooters of virtuous anti-feminists. Every man who finds an independent and sexual woman is one less man who can be bribed into life-long providerhood by the promise of some shame-faced, awkward fumblings on the wedding night. If word gets out that women may actually enjoy sex, then how the hell is a gal gonna get paid?

It's not actually about tradition, morality, gender roles, or any of that other crap. It's about a pack of snotty hookers getting pissed off that the bitches on the other corner are undercutting their rates.

So how does that feel, folks? The morality crowd thinks that all women who have sex are whores, and all men who have sex are johns. You're either selling sex or buying it.

For the menfolk, how does it feel to know that no woman ever wants to have sex with you? Women don't want sex, they want to see how high a price they can set before you'll wander off to find cheaper pussy. You think your girlfriend or your wife likes being with you? Well, Rep. Davis and company think her arousal is set by your pocketbook.

For the womenfolk, how does it feel to know that you will be the subject of insults and slurs if you dare to have sex without demanding payment? You better get a diamond ring out of him up front, or else you're a cheap slut who deserves to be punished with STDs and pregnancy. How does it feel to know that your "morality" is defined by the rates you charge?


UPDATE: Posted this as a diary over at DKos, just to see what would happen. Getting some interesting comments so far.

12 Comments:

At 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WE WANT PRENUP!, Yeaah
It's something that you need to have
Cause when she leave yo ass she gone leave with half
18 years, 18 years
And on her 18th birthday he found out it wasn't his

But I thought girls were after personality?

 
At 4:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You want a real feminist mindfuck? Talk to them pro-life "feminists." Oh yes, they do exist. They even have a community over on the Almighty Soul Swallowing eLJay...

http://community.livejournal.com/feminists4life/profile

They make my head hurt like whoa.

P.S., Shimmy, you gonna be headin' MN-way at all this Summer ya think? *love & missin' ya*

 
At 7:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a prolife feminist. What's it to you?

 
At 7:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Author have you been watching the Howard Kaloogian loveliness?

Howard went to calm, stable Baghdad
Now it's Ankara, not calm, stable Baghdad
Now that Saddam’s gone, it’s calm, stable Baghdad
Now, it’s such a delight; so get the story right
...
That cute gal in calm, stable Baghdad
Lives in Ankara, not calm, stable Baghdad
So if you say “cheese” in calm, stable Baghdad
Chances are you’re in Ankara
...
Howard wants to be the new Duke Cunningham
Will he win election day
If we spread rumors that Busby is gay?
...
So tell the truth of calm, stable Baghdad
No, there’s no such place as calm, stable Baghdad
Been a long time gone, calm, stable Baghdad
Why did calm, stable Baghdad get the works?
We’re led by stupid, fucking jerks.

Zaphod, http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/002505.html

 
At 7:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey chica! Long time no shmooze!

I don't know when I will next be back at Park, but day-yum have I been missing you folks. I follow your eljay with much interest, though I tend to lurk rather than post comments.

As for the anti-choice "feminists," they do indeed make one's head hurt like whoa. It's amazing how some people can support policies that simultaneously increase abortions and violate women, yet can refer to themselves as "pro-life" and "feminist" with a straight face.

 
At 11:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A friend of mine just moved to New Hampshire for this project: http://www.freestateproject.org/

Anyone have any comments on it?

 
At 12:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't think of any policy I support that increases abortions, unless it's my (wavering, the more teenagers I meet) mandatory sterilization policy.

 
At 12:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

*opposition to mandatory sterilization

 
At 10:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mmm, lurking...

We miss you too. Did you see the latest pictures of the Child? He's getting so big *tear* He's been saying "Circus! Circus!" since the commercials for Shrine Circus have been on. I keep telling him he has to ask Daddy to take him because Mama would kill the clowns because they will indeed bite her and throw her in the basement.

 
At 7:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damn! My wife hates sex with me?



Would someone please tell her that so that she'll let me get a decent night's sleep once in a while!

:P

 
At 5:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sarah: The child is much too cute. It must be stopped, before it controls us all.

Zepp: It sounds to me like your wife is suffering from a hysterical condition, brought on by what I can only assume is a dangerous level of contact with lesbian feminist abortion doctors. These sinful creatures deceive women into believing that they can and should ENJOY the sexual act.

The best way to protect the sanctity of your God-ordained hetero-union is to help your wife realize that sex is a chore she must perform for you, not a mutually enjoyable experience that brings joy to your marriage. A perfect way to do this is to make sure she is pregnant at all times. Forcing her to "bear the consequences" of every single sexual encounter will help her to associate sex with physical discomfort and pain. Your marriage will be saved.

 
At 1:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those of us who hoped McCainism's vegetative state wouldn't be persistent forever:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040200391.html


McCain Softens Language on Jerry Falwell
The Associated Press
Sunday, April 2, 2006; 5:58 PM


WASHINGTON -- Potential presidential candidate John McCain says he longer considers evangelist Jerry Falwell to be one of the "agents of intolerance" that he criticized during a previous White House run.

The Republican senator from Arizona will be the commencement speaker in May at Liberty University, the Lynchburg, Va., institution that Falwell founded in 1971.



In this photograph provided by "Meet the Press," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., appears during the taping of "Meet the Press'" Sunday, April 2, 2006, at the NBC studios in Washington. (AP Photo/Meet The Press, Alex Wong) (Alex Wong - AP)

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Dr. Forbush Thinks
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall
Bring it On!


Full List of Blogs (20 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share
Tag This Article


Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)

2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb

3. Tag This Article

"We agreed to disagree on certain issues, and we agreed to move forward," McCain said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

In 2000, as he sought the Republican nomination that eventually went to George W. Bush, McCain said: "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

 

Post a Comment

<< Home