One of the most impressive ideas I’ve ever heard was put forth by Christopher Hitchens in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian. He believes that we always profit from debating our opponents as the act of responding to one another propels us towards the ultimate truth. Based on my experiences, Hitchens is absolutely right. Just as doing sets of bench presses cause our muscles to grow, the mind is strengthened by the process of intellectual exchange. Interaction with our enemies makes us fitter.
All of this is undeniable and essential to the marketplace of ideas, but, sadly, the situation today is far different than it was in the past. Political correctness has eroded both civility and the possibility of dispassionate contention. Should one contradict the inflexible views of the cultural Marxist, then one is dismissed as a spouter of “hate speech” as opposed to someone who may have a legitimate point-of-view. There’s little likelihood that this will ever change as unfettered response negates the possibility of indoctrination which is exactly why PC became practiced in the first place. Only by labeling their foes with a name—such as hater, racist, homophobe, sexist, and/or misogynist—can leftist anti-liberals win the moral high ground allowing them to overlook the arguments made against them. The tossing of isms is a horrific replacement for logic and accuracy because they are rehearsed and tell us nothing about real people. Resorting to such a tactic only illustrates weakness; a weakness of which we on the other side have long been aware.
Their strange perception of the world is rarely an outcome of reality or reason. I think that a lot of their positions satisfy psychologically for one reason or another. Their skewed predilections supply them with a crutch throughout life. Spinning webs of conspiracy and fable alternately stimulate and sooth, and also are a way in which to control their environment. For this reason, we can never hope to convince them of anything at all. Our battles are chiefly of indirect benefit alone. They are a way in which to persuade intentional or unintentional observers as to the rightness of our cause. Hearing us or seeing our words may be the only intellectual diversity to which some students every encounter. We should not blame younger people for repeating mindless non-sense if mindless non-sense is the only information they have ever received. We offer them an alternative; without it, they’ll think that submission to white guiltists, female supremacists, emotioniacs, socialists, racists, and those who think that Majdanek is a synonym for America is their only option.
In no area is debate more tenuous than with the feminists and their coveted myth of women’s oppression. Their privilege renders them far above any fray. We make logical arguments while our foes brand us as woman haters and sexists. Our responses to isms are ignored as they continue to go about the business of remaking the justice system, society, and our personal relationships. Yet, like most other situations, there are always deviations from the set pattern. One such irregularity occurred today when I got a response to a piece that I wrote about the ridiculousness of regarding women as oppressed. I have no idea who or what the person is, but one of the guys termed him a “mangina”[i] which is probably true enough. At any rate, I thank him for his rejoinder because his words helped crystallize my positions and I’ll respond to him momentarily.
Ironically, the idea that women are not oppressed received independent confirmation from the Baltimore Sun. If there were any truth to the idea that men sit atop the social hierarchy then one would not expect them to have published Ms. Dombrowski’s scathing criticism of the patriarchy, but they did. My response, however, was rejected. The editor told me, “Thanks for the offer, but I can’t use this on the op-ed page.”[ii] Shouldn’t my genitalia have opened the door to privilege?
Are Women Objectified?
Let’s go over this again: women are not objectified by men…period. We know this to be true as men do not gaze or interact with women in the same manner they do objects. Allow me to ask my brothers reading this as to what objects they affix their “male gaze” as they do women? I am sure the answer is none. Men behold women in a fashion unlike anything else on earth. One examines the fairer sex differently from the way one studies a monitor, an oven, a refrigerator, a hose, a book, a building, and a car. No, women are clearly not objectified by men. No object absorbs a man’s attention like a woman. One becomes habituated to many things but never women. Objectification is an argument so poor that it cannot even stand up to a puppy’s first breath.
The argument was raised that women looking at pictures of themselves in magazines is also a form of objectification [I know, I can’t believe it either] but this is false as well. Those women who gaze at other women are perfectly aware of their being flesh and blood as opposed to objects. For whatever reason they may come to ogle a picture, their eyes do so with the realization that what’s on the page is a person and not a thing. Being a compulsive shopper or consumer is certainly is shallow in my estimation, but one does not become an object by participating in such activities.
If we define objectified as meaning “appreciated for” then we can find some common ground on the topic. Men appreciate women for their youth and beauty, but they are not dehumanized by our doing so; no more than men are dehumanized by women appreciating them for their wealth, status, and security.
The Comfy Patriarchy Means…
That there is no patriarchy. Radical feminists pathologically refuse to acknowledge how blessed and easy their lives are, but, when pressed, they occasionally admit that the patriarchy is not an oppressive system in any of the traditional meanings of the word. One made mention to me that we do not live in a Planet of the Apes society but remain a patriarchy nonetheless. If the patriarchy commits crimes that we cannot see, hear, or catch then it isn’t much of a patriarchy at all. One cannot be oppressed in a society in which one has been given an infinite number of rights and benefits. If it looks like the good life, feels like the good life, but one’s own internal inadequacies prevent them from enjoying it, then it remains the good life. These feminists should learn to be more critical of themselves and take it easier on those around them. They’ll be much more happy and productive if they do.
Some, like Susan Faludi, have argued that men are harmed by the patriarchy, but this cannot possibly be true for the reasons she outlined. Pressure to conform to the standards of masculinity is something that troubles few men. What we really long for is the right to be ourselves which is exactly the opposite of what Faludi and many others hold. Competitiveness, vigor, valor, and responsibility are manly virtues even if they are found in women as well. With therapism and emotion celebrated over bravery, honor, and effort, our society has become the complete antithesis of a patriarchy. That our society is closer to being a matriarchy than anything else is a very real cause of frustration to many men.
The Real Misogynists:
That women wish to raise children is not a social construct. It is an effect of biology shaping personality. This was known to Simone de Beauvoir who said: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”[iii] Things haven’t changed since she died and they won’t for as long as we remain humans. Linda Hirshman wrote Get Back to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World in which she insists that women stop putting their own needs and desires before her leftist-socialist ideals. Here we see once again why “feminazi” is such a rich and valuable term of description. When women, or anybody else for that matter, disagree with these totalitarian types they are quick to dismiss their opinions as arising from false consciousness. It’s their way or you’re an ism. Why can’t they just respect other people’s diversity? Thinking that women don’t know what’s actually good for them is the height of condescension and misogyny. That they need imbalanced feministas to make their decisions is absurd. In this way, feminists, the self-proclaimed protectors of women, are the oppressors. Free men, who only expect women to be no more or less responsible than ourselves, are falsely accused in the hopes of obfuscating the issue. If women want to stay home or work they should make the decision for on their own, and not out of a concern for what the media, society or some pathetic harpies think.
Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He is the author of Escape from Gangsta Island, and is currently at work on a book concerning women. He can be contacted at veritaseducation@gmail.com.
[i] Why couldn’t I think up a great word like that? Drats.
[ii] Email sent to me on January 26, 2007 by Mike Cross-Barnet, Op-Ed Page Editor, Baltimore Sun. No need to put his email address on here as he was nice enough to forward it to the Letters to the Editor department.
[iii] Schwarzschild, Maimon. “Liberty and Autonomy for All.” The New York Times. June 15, 1986. Here is the link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DEFD71638F936A25755C0A960948260
