Categories
antifeminism boner rage evil women hypocrisy ladies against women mansplaining men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny reactionary bullshit sexualization

Sunshine Mary: “The result of feminism is that women have been reduced to being nothing but sex objects.”

The good old days?
The good old days?

In a recent post, dotty reactionary antifeminist Sunshine Mary offers her thoughts on an idea that has become something of a cliche in the Manosphere, and which she agrees with roughly one thousand percent: that “[r]egardless of what feminism may purport to be about, the result of feminism is that women have been reduced to being nothing but sex objects.”

What on earth is she talking about? She quotes one of her readers, someone called Just Saying, explaining the peculiar logic behind this assertion in a little more detail:

Feminists lost long ago. Men are in control – at least the ones that understand. We get to call the shots – now instead of being able to keep house, have children, and cook (very, very few women can cook these days) women are ONLY sex-objects. It is the only thing they have to offer to a man, that will get a man’s attention and to hold it for a while. And we don’t have to marry them to get it …

Feminism has brought about all of the things they say they hate – women today only bring sex to the equation. So I have to thank Feminism – I doubt that young women would be as skilled, or as open to oral sex, anal sex, and every other type of sex, without it. And for that, I say, “Thank you Feminism.” If there were a patriarchy, I doubt they could have ever come up with something as beneficial to men. No one would have believed women were that dumb.

The Sunshiny One uses this as a starting point for a bizarre post purporting to show that “feminism has also reduced many women to being childless careerists who must purchase other women’s reproductive capabilities.”

But let’s forget about Mary for now and take a somewhat deeper look at this whole “feminism reduces women to sex objects” argument — which only makes sense if, like Just Saying, you define the worth of women as consisting only of 1) sex and 2) “housewifely duties” like cooking, cleaning, and bearing children.

If you simply ignore all of a woman’s other abilities and accomplishments, and basically her humanity, well, I suppose you could say that the worth of a woman with no interest in cooking, cleaning, or children was “reduced” to sex.

But what a strange way to look at the world, to base your judgement of a person’s worth on a small subset of human interests and abilities and to condemn them if they aren’t enthusiastic experts in these pursuits. You might as well go around dismissing everyone who’s not a proficient accordion player.

The other strange thing about Just Saying’s argument is that it doesn’t even make sense on its own terms; it requires a willful blindness as to how the world works these days. Women make up roughly half the workforce today. Yet babies are still being born and raised. Meals are still getting cooked. Homes are still getting cleaned. It may not always be a wife in a traditional marriage doing all the cooking and cleaning and baby-raising, but couples — and single parents — are making the arrangements they need to in order to get all these things done.

So is the “feminism reduces women to nothing more than sex objects” simply an indication that certain kinds of men — and women — have a hard time recognizing women as full human beings?

Well, to some degree. But I’m pretty sure that even the most backwards thinking misogynists of the manosphere recognize that there’s more to women than cooking, cleaning, baby-making, and sex.

No, I think their attempts to reduce women to these things stem from their own defensiveness over the gains of women — and not just in the workforce, and in politics, and the wider culture.

Consider how Just Saying describes the sex-having women of today. They’re no shrinking violets. They’re not passive receptacles. They’re “skilled … open to oral sex, anal sex, and every other type of sex.”

In other words, they’re women with sexual agency. They’re women who are engaging in sex for their own pleasure, for their own reasons — not simply as a lure to capture a man to marry.

And I think this makes a lot of men deeply uneasy — especially the sorts of men who inhabit the manosphere. That’s why so many of them are so quick to shout “slut” at the very same women they’re so obsessed with pursuing.

That’s why, when they’re lucky enough to find a woman who’s enthusiastically in charge of her own sexuality, they have to pretend to themselves that sex is all she has.

246 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Howard Bannister
8 years ago

(Or, as we say in Sweden, (throwing proverbs around me in this thread TOO) “smaken är som baken – delad”: Taste is like the butt – divided.)

This is soooooo something I’m going to say at some point today.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

I’m with Argenti here. If Mary wasn’t hurting other people I’d feel sorry for her, but unfortunately she is. In fact, she keeps trying to damage other people’s perfectly happy and functional relationships as a way to justify her own not-so-functional one, and while that probably is a coping mechanism it’s not an ethically acceptable one.

kittehserf
8 years ago

Makes you wonder if there’s a bit of old-fashioned envy in Mary, doesn’t it? Trying to tear down what others have and she wants but can’t have with Douchey McDouchebag.

Someone should remind her envy’s one of the seven deadly sins.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

I think JudgyBitch may be the only person on the internet more ragey than Elam. Damn, that is one seriously unhappy woman.

(Comments on Marcotte article.)

sparky
sparky
8 years ago

Sunshine Mary seems to be confusing two concepts: 1. one individual person not caring what others think of zir and 2. one person getting angry about misogynist prejudicial bullshit.

Those two things are different.

La Strega
8 years ago

I note one of SSM’s commentators posted:

“There are studies showing that when you carry a baby, you absorb some of its DNA into your body where it remains forever. The child will be a part of you always.”

Is this even remotely true? I don’t even know how to google this.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Um, so? Unless the absorbed DNA is hurting me in some way I’m not sure why I should care. Does it cause cancer? If not, don’t care.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

It might be? Given how rhesus incompatiblity works, it wouldn’t surprise me. Other than the risk to an Rh- pregnant person and the fetus, I don’t see how it matters though.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

That DNA thing has the distinct whiff of assfax.

gingerbread
gingerbread
8 years ago

Ooops, looks like I strayed into the ManHate site.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Which site is that?

katz
8 years ago

Yes, gingerbread. Now shoo, you’re interrupting our demanding schedule of man-hating.

kittehserf
8 years ago

Aww, gingerbread doesn’t know the difference between “men” and “misogynists”. Isn’t that cute?

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
8 years ago

Gingerbread, if you’re trying to get a rise out of us, you’ll have to do better than that. “You hate men” is so old you’d have to carbon date it to pinpoint its origins.

katz
8 years ago

Let’s not get off-topic, ladies. Which man shall we hate next?

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

I saw “gingerbread” and was expecting an adorable house. I is disappoint.

kittehserf
8 years ago

I’d wouldn’t have thought gingerbread would be too fond of men. Or at least, very short ones in red tunics.

http://youtu.be/FpBJih02aYU

kittehserf
8 years ago

*I wouldn’t

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

And here I thought that was mocking the manosphere as being men full of hate.

I vote we hate pecunium next, because he hates mangos. (Note, don’t hate pecunium, he’s awesome, despite hating mangos)

SittieKitty
8 years ago

La Straga,

“There are studies showing that when you carry a baby, you absorb some of its DNA into your body where it remains forever. The child will be a part of you always.”

Is this even remotely true? I don’t even know how to google this.

Not quite? When you carry a child some of its tissue gets into your blood stream. If you aren’t incompatible with it it’ll likely just float around. If you are, then you produce antibodies that could affect what happens with your next pregnancy (See: Rh incompatibility and hemolytic disease of the newborn). But your DNA doesn’t like, absorb the baby’s DNA or anything, just your body will have some pieces of tissue floating around in it for a while.

1 8 9 10
%d bloggers like this: