V-Day and the Degradation of Women

As I write this column, it's two days past Valentine's Day. When it's published, it will be nearly a week after the day. So I write my reflections on the day knowing full well that by the time anyone reads them, they will be passé and outdated. If I were a little more prescient, I would be able to think of a good subject and actually commit to writing the article before it's long overdue. As it stands, I'm going to talk about Valentine's Day as you read this on February twentieth.I'm sure you've all read things about the origins of Valentine's Day being obscure and how there was a St. Valentine but no one knows what the poor man did to be honored now with an overabundance of pink hearts and cheap gifts taking drugstores by storm. Nevertheless, we celebrate Valentine's Day happily and cheerfully, eating lots and lots of happy chocolates and wearing pink. Valentine's Day is a day of love.

Some, however, view Valentine's Day as a day of not so much love. We sometimes abbreviate Valentine's Day to V-Day, but once again the lovely radical feminists of the world have hijacked even this simple abbreviation to fit their own agenda. V-Day is now a day of campaign against violence purported by men against women and celebration of a certain unmentionable female organ. Please don't ask me what the V stands for; being a woman as yet un- liberated from an overpowering male patriarchy, some things still do make me blush.

V-Day, for these radicals, is a day of celebrating your genitalia, if you are a woman. If you are a man, please do not mention your naughty bits, but feel free to partake in one of the many V-Day campaigns that include shouting the name of genitals across college campuses in a show of liberation. To a feminist, being a woman means being a collection of organs, and liberation means talking about these organs.These feminists, however, hate men, so although they love talking about certain inappropriate places, one wonders what they actually do with them. On the other end of the spectrum, however, we have the young liberated heterosexual feminists - those who keep magazines like Cosmopolitan and Vogue in business - who like to see themselves as nothing but the unmentionable body parts above the waist.

There's a third important part to the point I really will make, soon - men. I love men, especially one wonderfully attractive Gadfly writer in particular. But some men are downright awful, and, if we'll judge by magazine subscriptions again, these are the ones that read - and that particular verb is a stretch for this situation - magazines like Maxim and FHM, or worse, more downright disgusting pornography. These men think of women as sources of pleasure, or, as a glance at any of these magazine covers will tell you, large breasts. This leaves you with what seems like a logical conclusion - if both the self-proclaimed "modern man" and the liberated feminist reduce women to nothing more than a few particular body parts, they should get along fabulously, right? There's something odd about this. Women's liberation started as a movement to secure suffrage for women. That accomplished, they began to try to liberate themselves from the clutches of horrid men who try to keep them chained up as baby makers and living washing machines. So, by a long process of making themselves uglier and uglier and more and more demanding and less and less giving, they pushed away men who were willing to make life-long commitments of love and support and instead attract men who are willing to make weekend long commitments of sexual arrangements. The simple story is that they felt like objects so they tried to liberate themselves until now they are still merely objects except they actually want to be this time. Confusing, isn't it?

To make a long story short and bizarre motivations simpler, the woman's equality movement was marked by a desire to make men and women equal. But that cannot come about by reducing men and women to nothing more than physical creatures. Men and women are both guilty of seeing their sexual drives as the most important power in their lives. They incorrectly view a physical attraction toward another human being as the most powerful force a person can experience. As humans, our souls are profoundly connected to our bodies, but our bodies cannot become our identities. We are not simply sexual organs; we have minds and souls and if we are ever going to bridge the gender gap it will be through our capability to connect intellectually and spiritually rather than physically. These higher things bring us out of ourselves into a greater realm, and through this transcendence we will connect in a serious and profound way. Meanwhile, the extremist radical feminists try to bring equality for themselves by shouting about their genitals.

We must take ourselves seriously as humans. The men that should truly outrage women fighting for equality are not the ones who are looking for a stable marriage but the ones who view women as nothing more than a convenient means of pleasure. And women who try to flaunt their bodies to get ahead in the world should realize that this, too, is only pushing our society further apart. It's odd, though, that as women have become more 'free' men, at large, have become more leering, lusting and disrespectful.

Since the women's movement is now simply liberated bodies, men adapt by taking advantage of this new liberalism to satisfy their own objectionable appetites. This gradually but effectively erodes the stability of our culture. This liberation has given rise to a whole generation of young women unwilling to partake in the earthly lesbian culture of their mothers and grandmothers. Since, however, these same tree- loving man- haters have destroyed the thought of settling into a happy marriage and contentedly bearing children, this current generation has to satisfy its matronly urges vicariously through the Lifetime channel and hopeless dreams of a perfect wedding, stable marriage, and life in a large, suburban home. Of course, as most sitcoms will tell you, this is stifling and oppressive. So women have moved from the medieval state of legally being a man's property to the modern state of still being a material object but without the legal mess of that archaic institution, marriage. This is a helpless circle of false liberation leading to real captivity.

There is a gap between the sexes out there; any second grade child will tell you that boys are girls are different. But we'll never unite humanity by degrading ourselves to a collection of animal-like people searching for a little sexual stimulation or satisfaction for their raging biological impulses. The only way men and women will ever treat themselves as equals is if we emphasize that which transcends the animalistic and enhances the soul. Men and women truly fighting for an authentic equality should strive to remember this.

An interesting subject. One that causes much confusion and has easy answers. (to me)

Men and women are different. Each may be more suited to certain tasks, and can be selected over someone not well suited to a task.

This means that Women will be selected every time over men for jobs at HOOTERS. This means that a male might be selected over a female for a task requiring heavy lifting (although, women are better at lifting than men on average). This means that one should not just go by sex for selection to any job/task/office/etc, but should be selected by their experience and demonstration of ability in the selected area.

Now, on relationships and female equality.

A male can open the door for a female, or an older person, or a younger person, or a blind person, or your favorite star.

It is a matter of RESPECT and is a matter of WILL of the person and not law. Laws don't make anyone do anything.

We humans have been given FREE WILL, but liberals and democrats seem to equate FREE WILL with IF IT CAN BE DONE, DO IT, RIGHT OR WRONG.

Intelligent, loving, caring humans have FREE WILL, and make the choice to do or not do something because of RIGHT or WRONG.

I don't have to fix the garbage disposal, the kitchen faucet, the light in the oven, but for the person I so love, I CHOOSE to do it.

That is the bottom line, I CHOOSE... based on RIGHT AND WRONG. Based on being a gentleman and having respect for all life.

It is not because I think you are weaker that I open the door for you. It is because I have faith and believe in God. It is because being loved means you feel invincible, in a sense, and would do anything for the one that gives you that feeling. It is because I put you first, above me, in all things. Because you make me feel like I am first, in all things.

For to be first, one must be last. If you want to be praised, you must first adore. If you want to be happy, do things to make someone else happy.

Love God, then one another as yourself, and you don't need any other rules, any laws, any liberation.

The woman I love (BTW, I do not say "I LOVE YOU" to her, it isn't needed. DEEDS, NOT WORDS.) is liberated.

But not in the Feminine liberation movement type of liberated.

First, she is a very fragile human package that I have accepted the responsibility for handling. Violation of trust, honor, promise, respect mean the package will be removed. It takes time to earn the right (IMO) to hold that package in your hands and care for it.

Just as in employment, RESPECT is something that is earned over a certain amount of time, but can be destroyed in one second. Be very careful.

Second, She is a person, an American, FREE and BRAVE. If having a relationship or marriage or friendship means that person is no longer FREE..... then it is a prison sentence.

Allow her to walk beside you as equal, instead of dragging her along, and she will welcome that arm around the waist or shoulder.

Again, to be CHRISTIAN means to use 'will' to choose GOOD (choose GOD). To see all humans, male and female as EQUAL, in GOD. Then to choose behaviour that suits the situation and promotes more GOOD.

If you CHOOSE to put others first, you will be amazed at the results.

If you make laws telling people how to treat others based on some stereotypical pattern which that particular law is supposed to eliminate, you have a real CONTRADICTION on your hands. Telling me I CANNOT open the door for a woman out of respect, because it is the law and would be treating her as weaker means another UNENFORCEABLE LAW on the books, and not much else.( women, weaker....????? only we men could have made that up. We know that we like them to 'act' weaker, but actually be the real strength in a relationship, don't we guys???????)

Know what we did for VALENTINE'S DAY??????? We went out at midnight and scrounged through dumpsters behind the toy store. She does wonderful, loving things with the items she finds. She breeds dogs and gives toys away with the dogs when she sells thems. She gives a blanket with each dog sold when it's cold weather. She cleans the items and gives them to children. She likes sparkly flashy laser-ey toys, hearts, and stuffed toys and collects them.

WHY DID I SPEND V-DAY night standing in cold weather beside a dumpster.......?

Because it is what she wanted to do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.