The reality of sex [is] of male lust and women being aroused by male lust. It attracts women. It doesn’t repel them. - Camille Paglia
Neofeminists don’t see the world as the rest of us do, but rather through some strange arrangement of distorting mirrors and lenses which causes them to perceive nightmarish horror and degradation where the rest of us just see life. And while rational people understand facts as things to be worked with, dealt with and lived with, neofeminists think of them as obstacles to be removed, circumvented or denied. For example, many if not most of you have probably already seen this video of Australian hurdler Michelle Jenneke:
The video has gone viral, with thousands declaring her the “sexiest hurdler ever”. And, predictably, neofeminists with nothing real to worry about are whining about it all over the internet, bleating about “objectification” and moaning, “Why do men sexualize everything about women?” and so on. Never mind that many women found the young lady appealing as well; never mind that many women and gay men talk in much the same way about attractive male athletes. Never mind that Jenneke clearly enjoys the attention, and that real feminists should be happy that young men aren’t threatened by a woman who could probably run circles around most of them. Never mind that, judging by the comments I’ve seen, her youth, exuberance, confidence, personality, spirit and smile have won her far more fans than her physical charms. The problem these twisted, bitter women seem to have is not that men find any particular female characteristic or set of characteristics attractive; it’s the fact that sexual attraction exists at all. In the dark little holes they use for minds, human beings “should” relate to each other by arbitrary, egalitarian, gender-neutral criteria, with the most valued being “intelligence”. Their emphasis on this rather dubious measure of personal worth derives from the fact that they imagine themselves to possess it in greater degree than others, a belief which is disproven by their rejection of reason and objective fact and their failure to recognize that if their parents had regarded “PIV” (their ludicrous term for coitus) with the same disgust they do, they wouldn’t be here to calculate the relative proportions of dolls, subject advertising to “feminist analysis” or bloviate about the “male gaze”.
If everyone had just agreed to ignore these women’s deranged fantasies when their disconnection with reality became hideously apparent roughly 25 years ago, they’d be nothing more than a fringe group today (occupying a position on the credibility ladder somewhere between young-Earth creationists and those who insist that the moon landings were faked). Unfortunately, many other feminists refuse to denounce them due to a warped sense of sisterhood, much as those “good cops” we keep hearing about refuse to denounce the “bad apples”. Still others are in denial about their existence, or else believe they’re far less numerous and influential than they actually are. But worst of all are the men who enable them, either because neofeminist rhetoric provides a powerful excuse for tyranny, or because they’re pathetic lap-dogs who embrace the dogma as a means of sucking up to women. Here’s a fine example of the latter, a bitchy attack on another female hurdler which would rightfully be described as misogynistic had its author not larded it in prudish pap:
…Lolo Jones…has received far greater publicity than any other American track and field athlete competing in the London Games. This was based not on achievement but on her exotic beauty and on a sad and cynical marketing campaign. Essentially, Jones has decided she will be whatever anyone wants her to be — vixen, virgin, victim — to draw attention to herself and the many products she endorses. Women have struggled for decades to be appreciated as athletes…But Jones is not assured enough with her hurdling or her compelling story of perseverance. So she has played into the persistent, demeaning notion that women are worthy as athletes only if they have sex appeal…[she] posed nude for ESPN the Magazine…[and] appeared on the cover of Outside magazine seeming to wear a bathing suit made of nothing but strategically placed ribbon. At the same time, she has proclaimed herself to be a 30-year-old virgin and a Christian…If there is a box to check off, Jones has checked it. Except for the small part about actually achieving Olympic success as a hurdler…
What’s “demeaning” is a man having the colossal gall to tell a woman how she “should” act, but writer Jeré Longman assumes it’s OK for him to do so as long as he parrots neofeminist drivel. It’s also pretty astonishing that he claims Jones “has not achieved Olympic success” despite the fact that she qualified for the Olympics twice, which is exactly two times more than he has. Her real sin in the neofeminist catechism he embraces (for what reason, only he can say) is not that she failed to win a medal, but rather that she dares to be a sexual adult woman instead of an androgynous parody.
(Thanks to Hal 10000 for inspiring this column by pointing how much the Jenneke video “controversy” reminded him of my column “That Is So Hot!”)