Feminism is utterly based on the principle that reality can be ignored through sheer human willpower. If you ever bother to actually pay attention to their BS, it will become readily apparent that they aren’t arguing based on anything as rational as logic or biology. (Both those things are instruments of heteronormative patriarchy, apparently.)
Stacy McCain does us all a service by regularly pointing out feminist insanity, and this post is a bit short so I thought I’d take a clue-by-four to some of the quotes he pulls out, since we can’t expect him to do all the work, now can we? Also, I have personal reasons to be offended at feminists who are dissing PHC. It’s not my alma mater, but I know several women who are graduates of that fine institution, and I suspect that nobody at Salon can say the same.
First off, poor Katie is obviously not a well-educated scholar of Christianity or the Bible, because if she were, she would know that the Biblical word translated “helpmeet” is applied to women… AND to God Himself. So take your subservience and suck it, dearie. You obviously don’t understand the first thing about Biblical submission. Of course, a great deal of mainstream Christianity ALSO has difficulty understanding submission and headship, but in rather the opposite direction as Katie McDonough assumes. So, um, that overlap between Christian “fundamentalists” and secular culture? Nope, actually, it’s secular culture that’s overlapped most of the Christian denominations in the US.
But, of course, the value of a woman’s sexual purity isn’t going to go away even if Christianity vanished tomorrow – because it’s rooted in reality, not in wishful thinking. There are many, many reasons why different sexual standards have been applied to men and women over the ages, and of course feminists ignore all of them as inconvenient facts able to be dismissed if only the feminist belief system could be imposed upon all people everywhere.
So instead of listing them, I will merely point out that the Christian heteronormative patriarchy – and that’s exactly what it is, and we Christian women like it that way, thanks – was the patriarchy that meant a woman could look forward to having a man of her own, rather than having to live as part of a harem of concubines. And it is in the former domains of Christian heteronormative patriarchy that women have the most comfort, safety, and freedom than at any other place or time on the face of the Earth. Comfort, safety, and freedom that is starting to erode now that it’s not supported by the patriarchy that created it… but that’s a different blog post.
But let’s take a look at “when a woman loses her virginity, she loses something” which is a supposedly pernicious idea apparently constructed by society or something, as Hew Li-Sha thinks. Well. Let’s see: is it possible to “lose” your past experience? Possibly barring head injury followed by amnesia (which erases merely one’s memory of the experience and not the fact that it occurred), obviously not. Experiences cannot be lost. However, the state of not-having-experienced something, on the other hand, ceases to exist as soon as one does have the experience in question. That’s why the word “virgin” gets applied to realms of experience entirely outside of sex, to describe one’s first time doing something. So yeah. Virginity can be lost because time is both linear and permanent. Sexual experience? Nope. Women can and do lie about that, of course, but there’s no going back once you’ve become… experienced. This is not something that society just up and decided to arbitrarily determine. You got beef with this? That means you got beef with the whole space/time continuum, and I really don’t think it cares. First times are important to people. The more important the experience, the more important the first time. And – news flash! – sex is really important to the vast majority of humanity. So yeah, that alone means virginity is going to be an important concept.
Of course, what makes feminists mad is that there are still sectors of society in which peer pressure is aligned to support women’s chastity, unlike the other sectors of society in which sex-positive feminism has contrived to actively shame virgins into hopping into the sack as soon as possible so that they can lose the stigma of virginity. Huh. You know what? Let’s take a look at biology. Women like sex. (Anybody who says different is either misinformed or Doing It Wrong.) Therefore, resisting the urge to go find someone to boink is somewhat difficult, requiring the exercise of willpower against the brute animal lusts of the body, whereas finding someone to boink (for a woman who’s not so disfigured as to be totally repulsive) is very easy. Which, do you think, ought to be regarded more favorably by a reasoning, sentient being? Controlling one’s biological drives, or giving in to them at every opportunity?
Consider dieting. Hunger, like sexual desire, is a basic function of human bodies. Yet, people who eat whatever they feel like at any given time are likely to become fat and malnourished. Children must be abjured to eat their vegetables; and prevented from gorging themselves sick on candy. People are expected to use their reason – their intelligence – to direct and guide the physical appetite of hunger. Even people who think the USDA needs to take their pyramid/plate and stuff it where the sun don’t shine think that people have to use their intelligence to guide how they sate their biological drive to eat tasty things.
Feminists and promiscuous men alike would very much like it if women would consistently fail to apply the same standard of reason and intelligence to the physical appetite of lust. And if a woman dares to instruct other women in the dangers of handing out sex for free, recommending that young women use their reason to guide their sexual choices, and telling them how men are likely to respond to various life choices… Well! That’s oppressive, or something. A real feminist doesn’t, apparently, intelligently evaluate her options, oh no. She gives into her base animal drives however and whenever and with whoever she likes, and if men respond to her choices in a way that later deprives her of options she wishes she still had, well, that’s the MEN’S fault, and they should shut up and do as they’re told, and society should arrange itself to her personal liking. For equality!
And poor dear Erin McKelle seems to be unaware that penis-in-vagina sex actually is a special type of sex that’s different from all others. I suggest that she consult a basic biology textbook covering the reproductive habits of mammals, in which she will find that penis-in-vagina sex is the one kind of sex that regularly leads to new mammals appearing. Did her parents somehow neglect to give her The Talk about where babies come from??
Look: I’m blonde and a klutz who has trouble opening unfamiliar doors, but even I’m not that stupid. I understand the principles of cause and effect and biological reproduction and I’m not gonna whine at society as if “social constructs” have any actual control over physical reality! And, you know, I’m also okay with men having their own values and interests and not bending to my every whim, which seems to me to be a basic prerequisite to acknowledging them as human beings equal in dignity to myself…