Okay, so today on the way to the movies I saw a ten or so year old girl who was wearing a playboy shirt that said "I *heart* making
boys cry." Now setting aside the wince inducing implication of a ten year old girl wearing a playboy shirt, seeing the shirt made me think
about the brand of "Girl Power" currently being sold in our stores and broadcast on our airwaves. The thoughts were not pleasent.
Okay...I'd like to first of all say that I'm not talking about positive "girl power" messages. All the "Girls can be doctors, lawyers, or even
the president" stuff is fine and probably neccesary. There's no real logical argument for restricting female career choice, and I don't think
that anybody in this community has any problem with women achieving whatever it is that they can, and choose to, achieve. Some of us
might not want to DATE a successful woman because of the ego damage it can cause and because successful people tend to be type 'A'
personalities, but most of us who feel that way recognize that this is our problem not theirs and it doesn't mean we don't have respect for
women who are high achievers.
But that type of "girl power" seems to be in the minority these days. The once admirable goal of achieving parity of opportunity between
men and women has been horribly mutated into some sort of twisted forum for inciting what amounts to a gender war. "I enjoy making
boys cry." That's not some sort of positive message like "Why are you looking at my chest when my best asset's in my head?" it's an
angry challenge to the right of men to live peacably and a claim of superiority. It's not just this one shirt either. All over the place we see
the cheering of females beating up men (Buffy, Alias, Xena) females outsmarting men (Half of commercials these days) and the
promotion of the idea that the defeat of a male by a female is always justified and always worth celebrating. Certainly outside of the
James Bond films we don't see anything like parity in intergender conflict. A woman training to kill her ex-husband in "Enough" is a
celebration of "girl power." Any man who would consciously attempt to attack his female stalker would be considered vile. No in movies
where women antagonize men their defeat is always an absolute last resort and rarely premeditated.
Of course any person of sound mind will agree that advocating female violence against males is a bad idea. As irritating and potentially
dangerous as those ideas are they are but symptoms of the larger disease, which is the radical feminists favorite weapon of the double
standard. Feminists LOVE the double standard. Be it a rally to integrate the citadel AND create a female only public school in New York
City or proclaiming that 1/4 of women are sexually assaulted by men they are dating AND that we should not restrict female sexual
expression and dating in the same article, feminists spit out double standards like ball players with mouths full of tobacco.
Which brings us back to violence. The timing of seeing that shirt was funny, because it came on a day when I had been reading a bunch
of rants against male on female violence. My take on the matter is that if some girl goes around trying to make boys cry she deserves
whatever she gets. The whole "don't hit a girl" thing makes sense if it's "never strike a woman first." But then again one could expand it
to "never strike another person first" and it would still make sense. The fact of the matter is that feminism preaches violence against
men at the same time denouncing male attempts at self defense. If I walk up to Dwayne Johnson (WWF's The Rock) and slap him in the
face, I would count myself lucky if all I ended up with was a bruise. It wouldn't matter if he called me a dickless wonder or a cunt first
either. Yet women continue to slap and abuse men much larger and stronger than they are without any fear of retribution. I love to make
boys cry is a disturbing message not only because it is a violent message but because the counter message "I love to make girls cry" is
one that would NEVER be allowed on a shirt. There is profound inequity here.
Another really nasty tenant of radical feminism is the manipulation of the past. The idea that marriage is an evil construct is revisionist
history. Yeah some women had horrible marriages and sure many felt repressed and unfulfilled, but that is no more the fault of marriage
than it is the fault of the individual husbands that many of those women loved. Judging behavior of the past by standards of the present
is ludicrous. If a loving husband tried to prevent his wife from working because he thought it was a bad idea and would humiliate him, or
tried to prevent his daughter from dating out of fear, that does not make him a bad person. It just makes him a human being living in
flawed times. As we all are.
So I guess what I'm trying to say with all this is that as men our desire to defend ourselves from feminist antagonism is not really
chauvinistic or anything but neccesary. The feminists have declared war on the male gender, it's right there to read on that little girl's
shirt, or in every new commercial that comes out where the clever female outsmarts the dull male, or in Maureen Dowd's column two
days a week in the New York Times. The feminists think they can win this war too. They have decided to turn sexuality from a mold they
are forced into into a weapon to achieve social dominance (Attempts to legislate male sexuality these days surpass most legislation of
female sexuality in the recent past, while female sexuality is a tool to be used to overthrow the opressor) We are confused and divided
right now. We don't understand what the hell is going on and for the most part we are trying to cope with a world breaking apart
underneath our feet. Women have a legitimate desire for opportunities and we must respect that. But at the same time we can't let them
use their current momentum to advance pernicious and repressive agendas. That is what I think this community does to a small degree.
It says that it is possible to support EQUALITY without retiring your penis. If people complain about parts of the charter like the whole
"We don't want to date successful chicks" part it's just because they don't understand it. Maureen Dowd can whine all she wants about
how tough it is to have both career and man but the fact of the matter is that she could probably find someone if she wasn't such a huge
bitter bitch. People say that girls are taught to repress academic success in order to attract men. Gee...anyone ever heard of geeky boys
being beaten up or not getting laid until they're in their thirties? What's the difference there? It's not like girls are going wild for boys who
can calculate quadratic equations in their heads (trust me on that one). The argument that successful women can't find men but
successful men can find wives is flawed because successful women only want to marry MORE successful men. If CEOs were unwilling to
marry their secretaries a lot less of them would have families.
I know that this is an old rant and I didn't form it really well, but that shirt irritated me and I had to get a bunch of stuff out there. What
do you guys think? Is a gender war of sorts brewing? Will this conflict peter out or will it be stoked and supported until it causes a serious
rift between the sexes? If so will the men be able to resist female sexuality and organize to the point of being able to win? (And if push
comes to shove the men WILL win. Testasterone is a lovely ally in aggressive action. Women may have nurtured civilizations but only
men have brought them to their knees)
What will the legacy of our generation be? The unification of opportunity for the sexes or the rending
of humanity along chromosomal lines?