In Response to the Previously Mentioned Article:
Admittedly, I compared feminism to retardation just to get your attention so you would read my article. But don't stop reading now if you were hoping that that was the conclusion I would come to in this article. The conclusion remains, but please, be sure you read carefully so you know exactly what about feminism that I think is, well, retarded. Now I will re-quote sections from the book The Whole Woman by Germaine Greer that the author from intellectualwhores.com also quoted and agreed with. Hopefully I can convince you otherwise.

It could be argued that women's increasing economic independence removed part of the rationale for marriage. If a husband is one who supports a wife and children he is fast becoming obsolete--not because of feminism but because it takes two pay packets to run a home with 'all modern conveniences The voluntary stay at home wife is now the prerogative of the rich man only. Pg. 245

The absurdity of the notion that there is someone 'out there' for everybody is obvious to anyone who has thought about it more than five seconds. Women's lives would be a lot easier if they started from the opposite premise, that there is nobody 'out there' and they might as well get on with life and work. Pg. 246

Wedding as pantomime has largely replaced wedding as sacrament. People who have lived together and found it good simply decide to have a party. Pg. 255

Facts are facts. Yes, women have become, as a whole, more economically independent. And, in the past, it was true that this was a primary goal of marriage for women... that is, to be economically stable and secure. But if money was the real reason someone got married, they missed the point of marriage. The definition of a husband, oh my naive feminazi Greer, is NOT ONLY one who supports his wife and children. Supporting your family is but one facet of a husband's responsibilities. HOWEVER, even if the wife makes a boatload of money, even more than the husband, the husband STILL ought to contribute equally in proportion (*ahem* there's that equality word again). Oh, I see you just said it takes two pay checks to run a home full of modern day conveniences. So how has the husband therefore become obsolete? Oh yeah, whoops. I'll forget I said that... for now.

I have thought about the notion of there being someone out there for everyone for far more than 5 hours much less 5 seconds and I cannot conclude that the notion is absurd. It may well be that person is out there, but who is to say you will ever find that person? When was that ever guaranteed? As a result, some people may indeed live a life of singleness. And that is just as fine. Because it is certainly better to never marry than to marry with someone you ought not to; just so you can live up to the social idea that you are a failure as a man or woman if you do not marry. Perhaps you can save yourself a heartache or two by starting with the assumption that there is no one out there. But that in no way makes the former assumption absurd. The latter assumption is merely a way of "playing it safe" with your emotions. Because in the latter's way of thought, if you have no expectations, you cannot be let down by having unmet expectations. In fact, you may even cherish the moment all the more when you do find "that one" that is meant for you because you weren't expecting it. That all may be, but again, how does this nullify the possibility that there is someone out there for you?

For those who don't know, here is the definition of pantomime: Communication by means of gesture and facial expression. So what she is saying here is basically that marriage today has become only a symbol that two people have found it acceptable and/or pleasing to live together. Hopefully I'll remember to come back to this later on, but for now I'll let it stand alone.

To quote the writer of the article in question, he states, "That's right women, unless you are at the top of the woman food chain you'll probably have to work anyway, so what's the point of getting married?"
Woah, woah, woah. Calm down there little fella. If you think the reason people get married is so they don't have to work... you are seriously misguided and I hope you never get married. Love is a very real force in the world, not just lust. Lust runs rampant, yes, and apparently you have allowed the presence of the lust to blind you to the real love that is out there. And that is ultimately the reason for marriage. For two people who are truly in love to come together, supporting each other through life, and raising a family if they so desire. Marriage is about two people becoming one. Uh oh, I might have said too much. More on the reasons for marriage to come in my conclusion.

Back to Germaine. In post industrial societies it is individuals who marry; the nuptial agreement is seen as involving two people only. Even the children they may have together are not party to the agreement between spouses. That agreement has been reliant from the first on the intensity and durability of the sexual attraction between them. If the sexual attraction should lose its potency, if another attraction should eclipse it, the marriage is deemed dead. Such a system is bound to fail; no person can guarantee to be sexually attracted to another for as long as they both shall live. Sex is too anarchic a force and fat too responsive to fantasy to serve as the mortar holding together the building blocks of society. . . modern marriage is fragile because the demands made upon it exceed the tensile strength of the initial sexual bond.

Studies of the frequency of sexual intercourse between the spouses are neither numerous nor reliable, but they all demonstrate the same pattern. The frequency of marital sexual intercourse declines precipitously after the first year before leveling out to a steady, shallow decline. Wives are not sexy. Male sexuality demands the added stimulus of novelty. pg. 258

I'm sorry, but I have to be honest here and say that I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I read this. Here seems to be the whole underlying problem of marriages in America today and why so many end up in divorce. It has become clear to me that people have forgotten why humans get married. Now, here we have Germaine telling us that is the sexual attraction between the two that is the bond that holds the marriage together. Whatever! When two people are in their 70's and have been married for 45 or whatever years, I hardly think it's the sexual attraction that is keeping them together. Marriage is a partnership, not a All-U-Can-Get Free Pass for as much sex as you want. I have long held the belief that physical attraction is a key element to a relationship. But that's only where it starts. It's the physical attributes that is generally the first thing people see in others. It doesn't take but a few seconds to determine if someone is attractive physically or not. It takes much longer however to determine if their personality is attractive. Physical appearance is what focuses your attention on a person. And then you start to learn about them. Believe me on this. For example (not using names), I once thought WomanA was absolutely gorgeous when I saw her for the first time. But then, she did one thing and suddenly she became FAR less attractive. What did she do? She opened her mouth. She was dumb as a brick. So explain this to me Germaine? I thought it was all about sexual attraction? I beg to differ. You can have the hottest body on the planet, but if you're a total loser or completely idiotic/stupid, there is no chance I would want to marry you. Sure, some people are in it just for the fun times in bed. But that's exactly the problem. That is absolutely, 100% NOT why you should get married and if it is, you are doomed to fail and eventually get divorced. I agree with her that marriage cannot sustain the demands of it if the only thing holding it together is sexual attraction. No, there must be something more.

I wish I had copies of these studies she mentions. But the results would fall in line with the real truth behind it all. If sex decreases steadily after the first year, that would seem to me that that was the central reason for these couple to marry, at least for one of the two. The first year seems great... doing it at every chance you get. But wait! You found out you can't stand this person outside the bedroom! Uh-oh. Should've thought of that before you jumped into something as serious as marriage. Marriage is not a gimmick. It is not something to just try out and see if you like it. It is not an entitlement to a life of fun. Marriage is a commitment. It is indeed a sacred act, a sacred union. It is hard work. But in the end, if you know what you are doing, it is so definitely worth it.

A few men hate all women all the time, some men hate some women all of the time, and all men hate some women some of the time. Pg 281

I don't know what this is supposed to prove. First off, I would like to say that deep down, I probably don't hate anyone. Yes, I do strongly dislike some people and certainly would never want to become their friends. Hate is a rather strong word. So, with replacing the word hate, then yes, there are some men who dislike all women either some or all of the time. I hope to God they never get married. Not for their sake as much as the poor sap who marries them. And it is a safe bet that all men dislike at least 1 woman somewhere. But by the same token, it is an equally safe assumption that all men dislike at least 1 other man somewhere. For me, it's easy. Just look to the Clintons. I think Hillary and Billy are both two-faced, back-stabbing, blatant liars who are interested in only themselves. So I ask again? What does this prove? It proves nothing. In another book of hers, she says that "Women have very little idea how much men hate them." Huh? Wow, she really needs to get over this phobia that all men are out to get her and that all men are scumbags. Yeah, it's true. A lot of men are scumbags. Correction. A whole hella lot of men are scumbags. And it is a sad exposition of the state of our culture today. Something has been lost. And we continue to lose more and more of it every day it seems. There is a very important lesson to be learned here. And that is no one, absolutely no one, is perfect. You cannot by no means please any one person 100% of the time. We all have our flaws. But to condemn marriage, or as Germaine would seem to be doing, condemning all men because of the mistakes all people make seems a little foolish to me. Are we to stop striving for perfection because no one has ever done it yet? Heck no. We keep trying to live the best we can. But we cannot do that until we get off our high horses and realize that we ourselves are not the most important person in the world. We need to care about others in the same way we care about ourselves.

Here's a whacked out quote for you: ...boys grow up convinced that they are lovable regardless of their appearance or their behavior. The saddest, smelliest, most shambling male individual still imagines that women will find him attractive and is prepared to act on that assumption. And he considers himself entitled to criticize any and all aspects of a woman's appearance as harshly as any other male. Pg 291

The biological truth is the opposite, all biologists know that males are defective females. Though external genitalia are the expression of that chromosomal defect, their removal will not alter the chromosomal fact... Pg 65

How do you argue with such idiocy. What about all these extra large women you see wearing spandex? How screwed up in your head abut your appearance do you have to be to do this? I think Germaine is confused here. Women are typically more concerned about their appearance. As a result, I'm sure there are some pretty butt ugly guys out there who think they are God's gift to women. But on the same token you cannot honestly believe this doesn't apply to women too? This problem is without a doubt a direct result of the person's upbringing. I beg of you all you parents out there. If your kid is starting to pack on the pounds, get on them about it! Don't let them continue on and then tell them how pretty or handsome they are. And even if someone is ugly and they know it, then what? They can no longer have an opinion about what looks good or not just because they don't care enough about their own appearance? Their opinion surely doesn't carry much weight regardless though. Like a midget complaining about how stupid it is to be tall. Are you really going to care about their opinion on height?

I'm almost ashamed for even responding to the biology quote. Who determines which combination of chromosomes is defective? Who says either is a defect? They are but 2 options. I'd like to know what determines a defect. The dictionary definition of a defect is An imperfection that causes inadequacy or failure. I don't have attached earlobes. Are my ears then defective? I can hear just as good as any other person. So, how does being a male somehow make me less human? This is so ridiculous, I'm stopping here for a moment before I vomit...

Note to reader: I seriously did take a break from writing at this point because I was so disgusted.

Comments

Get the prime real estate for your comment, be the first to reply!