March 25, 2014

Female Self-Esteem: The Devil to the Small Dick

From the sex blog O School

Why men who think women should "shrink to fit" need to grow

This blog was created by a woman, for women, with a focus on sex life and exploring the female orgasm. It was meant to further the pleasure of my fellow women out there, as sexual health is an important part of life and a women's sexual pleasure is not always taken under consideration if even taken seriously. You may notice that this post is not in line with the topic of the blog. Not quite. And yet, it had to go up, because when I read one of the most offensive and inaccurate pieces of writing I've ever come across, it could not go unaddressed, and where better to address it than right here in my by-a-female-for-the-females blog. 

If you can stand it, read the piece of work that this post addresses:
 The Case Against Female Self-Esteem

Once you've finished that, the following will make sense.

Ps: Dear men, unless your views align with the author's in the essay above, I am not talking to you. 

My response: 

Some would call you a chauvinist for some of the claims you make in your article. Whether that’s true doesn’t interest me. What is clear from these claims? - You are confused.

Your premise, it seems, is this: In a man’s world, (and no one is arguing about the fact that society is still patriarchal) women who possess the qualities that you associate with self-esteem are so unattractive to men, that it is ruining the social dynamic of the country. Women who embrace these characteristics have abandoned their rightful place (the kitchen? Cave? I forget the word you used) and by doing so are both ruining society and their own happiness because, in addition to no longer being able to have relationships with the men they’re repelling, they can no longer find any sort of happiness within themselves because the things they prize - their careers, their independence, their accomplishments - are worthless and, aware of this worthlessness, they are now doomed to easing their pain with anti-depressants or other mood altering substances, in lieu of a man.

Your claim that “most” women (you used the word girls, but while I respect your artistic license I also acknowledge that you were perfectly aware of the fact that your word choice is only acceptable when referring to members of the female gender under a certain age, the same way the word “boy” implies a male of a certain age, and seeing as how your article is talking about employment, sex, reproduction and other things that “girls” are obviously not yet candidates to participate in, your word choice is, while cutting, inappropriate. Hope you don’t mind if I employ my artistic license now…) are operating on such a severe level of depression (regardless of what you claim the cause is) that the only way they can function is via pharmaceuticals is ridiculous. This is hyperbole at best. The argument you make though, that women are using these drugs and pain killers as substitutes for a man, which she should be using to sooth her deep, deep depression, is actually quite senseless, as you’ve made a pretty stupid mistake.

You claim that women are substituting anti-depressants for the relationships they should be having with men that should be the relief from their depression. But in the case where they’re taking all these drugs just to keep their heads from exploding, the reason they’re so fundamentally unhappy is they’re lacking that relationship in the first place. But if drugs are the substitute for men, and men are merely a relief for an already existing depression, then clearly the lack of their presence couldn’t be the cause. Men in your solution do not equal happiness. They’re simply being used, the way drugs are allegedly being used, to block out, numb out, or otherwise alter the woman’s mood so that she doesn’t notice that she’s unhappy. So the question becomes, even with a man, why would a woman be unhappy? Dissatisfied? What could the…ahem…problem be…?

You read that book…right? 

Oh my, was that cheeky? Now I’m just being mean. I must be having that emotional and exclusively female reaction, because goodness knows men don’t react when confronted with things that are offensive, disrespectful, or untrue. 

Also, cheeky women like sarcasm. 

But I digress. Back to your arguments…

You also talk about women, their so-called accomplishments and how they do not compare to a man’s, thus, making women undeserving of this thing called self-esteem. There are two main problems with this, so I’m going to attack - oops. I mean acknowledge - (confident women lie sometimes, too) them separately. 

First, you confuse the meaning of self-esteem with being accomplished. Esteem is respect or admiration, thus self-esteem is merely having respect or admiration for one’s self. One does not need to be terribly accomplished in order to possess such a basic thing as self-esteem - also known as self-respect! Respect! That is a key word here, but we’ll come back to that later. One does not have to go out in the the world and have it’s very turning depend on one’s shoulders. Otherwise, people (oh yes, men too) would allow themselves to be demeaned, humiliated and otherwise mistreated after each and every failure by any and everyone (oh yes, including women!) because without a long and impressive list of accomplishments, they would feel worthless as human beings and, with no respect for themselves, would of course not require respect from others. I’ve been alive for quite a while and never have I had a man walk up to me and say, “Hello, my name is Tom, I just lost my job, please slap me, pee on my shoe, and if you’re in the mood, rape me in the ass with a wooden stick because I’ve lost my right to my self-respect. Now that I no longer believe I’m worth anything, do as you wish with me.” The idea that humans should not have self-respect is ridiculous. Your ability to believe in your worth as a person, if limited to your accomplishments, would mean that only 1-5 percent of people, both male and female, could rightfully claim to have self-respect/self-esteem (yes! I’m using them interchangeably, because they are!) being that they are the most accomplished humans alive. Anyone else would not be entitled to think anything of themselves, meaning that most people, including you, would have to shut the fuck up at all times, bow their heads to Jay-Z, BeyoncĂ© (ps: she’s not a man), Obama, and anyone else who had ever accomplished anything more than they had in their lifetime. Now I don’t think you believe that 95% of the population should have NO respect for themselves if their resumes do not measure up to the president’s, and I seriously doubt the president would waste his precious time fighting for the freedom and protection of worthless people. So clearly, there is something more to worth/respect/esteem than accomplishment. So your argument about “most” men holding more important jobs than “most” women? It has no place in an argument about self-esteem.

But while we’re on the topic…

It’s interesting that you would start off an essay about a male dominated world and then bring up job inequality as though it’s some kind of smoking gun. As you said, this is a man’s world. You call the shots. You hold the cards. When women accomplish the same things a man has accomplished, she has worked twice as hard to earn half as much along the way (maybe quadruple if she’s a woman of color) and even then you don’t pay her as much. God forbid she ever truly be on “equal” footing. She isn’t - not yet. But not because she isn’t as smart, as driven, or as capable as her male counterparts - it’s because she is living in a world that is dominated by men, that wishes to remain that way! She is swimming against the current! Your argument that women’s positions in the world do not mean as much as men’s - even if it were true - means nothing. This isn’t natural order. This isn’t one party’s inability to play the game as well as the other’s. This is evidence of the game itself being fixed

In short - you are trying to argue that women don’t deserve self-esteem because it requires achieving something that she lacks the ability to earn. But really, even if self-esteem were about said achievements, it isn’t that she cannot achieve these things because she is a woman, it is that you have constructed a system that tries to prevent her from doing so. 

That is the social structure. You cannot take a social structure that seeks to prevent women from having equal opportunity and use the lack of equal accomplishment as evidence of anything but the state of the society itself. 

Now that I’m done with the hair-brained arguments. The real reason I say you’re confused?

You don’t know women.

You don’t know how we think. You don’t know what we want. And you clearly don’t care - but that’s okay. We do

That’s what it really means when women say that in today’s society - where even though women do not receive equal pay for equal work, they can survive and even thrive without belonging to their husbands or their fathers - if you see them with a husband it means they want one, they don’t need one. It is not about YOU. It isn’t about what it means for YOU, a man, that a woman now has the ability to think about what she wants instead of what she needs to survive first. Women can decide what makes them happy. What they’re passionate about. Pursue careers that interest them, whether its painting, singing, cancer research - whatever! Being someone’s tuna sandwich maker is not fulfilling for every woman, or even most.  

There is no reason for the unnecessary leap you take from women having the ability to pursue personal goals that don’t involve men, to women becoming sluts on pharmaceuticals who see men as material objects like purses or shoes. It’s almost as though you’re saying, if women don’t need to say yes to every man that jumps out of the bushes and proposes in order to be safe from the man hiding in the bushes that wants to rape her, that her ability to be safe to live her life without a necessary male companion and choose the one she wants makes her see men as objects.

But wait…isn’t choosing a partner an option that men have always had? So…either you admit that choosing a partner out of want rather than need isn’t quite like choosing a fashion accessory, or you admit that all men view women as material objects, and that’s how you know that the ability the choose partners for themselves has made women do the same. 

Not having to sit around brushing their hair waiting for a man to choose them probably isn’t the only reason that women are able to be…what’s the word?…secure with themselves, but it’s probably a contributing factor. And you dislike this, right? You hate self-esteem in women? You love insecure women, you say.

You really have to wonder what it means that a person likes their partners insecure, weak, and inferior. 

These qualities, by the way? They aren’t all tied up in self-esteem. Respecting yourself doesn’t mean you walk around with a superior arrogance. It does, however, mean that you aren’t going to willingly be degraded or abused. 

You prefer partners that will willingly be degraded and abused?

You talk about vulnerability. Vulnerability is not the same thing as weakness and inferiority, nor is it about being insecure. Vulnerability within the scope of romantic relationships is a choice. That’s what makes it valuable. Men are not expected to make themselves vulnerable and accessible to every single woman that crosses their path. Why then, should women be expected to make themselves vulnerable and accessible to every man, before he has earned the privilege of her trust. 

Why? Because not doing so means he isn’t attracted to her? Something about his penis being deflated?

Surprise: In this new world where women no longer need men to survive, we no longer center our lives about the best ways to attract the opposite sex. So your opinion, your attraction to us, unless you have earned a special place in our hearts through love, care, trust and respect - is worthless. 

That’s the biggest mistake you make. You base your argument around the fact that a “confident, strong, independent” woman is something that a man doesn’t like, and assume that the culprits reading are going to gasp, run out to Bloomingdale’s and buy aprons upon the realization. The women you describe are not thinking about men like you. And the reality is, that it isn’t their problem - it’s yours. 

Not only are you mistaken about women treating men as though they’re fashion accessories to be picked up and chucked with the changing seasons, you’re also unfortunately unaware of the fact that even ambitious women with a stake in their personal futures know what turns them on. They aren’t suddenly ignorant about what kind of a man they want and need. One who can, in and sometimes out of bed, dominate. 

I hear this time and time again. That women have become too strong, too hard, and are no longer “letting” men be men. Honey, if I have to “let” you be a man, you aren’t one. That penis deflating visual sure does look a lot like castration to me. 

Do I detect that someone’s feeling emasculated? 

When women had no choice but to pair up with men and obey, they didn’t have the option of being themselves. They had to be quiet, docile, humble - or else. So even men who weren’t quite alphas, who weren’t exactly the top dogs, could feel that way at home around their worshipping little women. But with less women walking around and acting like Betty Draper, suddenly more men are realizing that they aren’t quite Don. And now you’re asking, what? That we allow you to go back to pretending that you are?  Pretend to be less opinionated, outspoken, independent. Stop doing these things, so that you can feel like you are the big, smart, strong men that deep down women know they really want you to be. 

I’m not going to argue and say women don’t want those things in men. But they want them to actually be those things. Not just feel like they are because she’s doing him the favor of keeping quiet more, arguing less, and worshipping at his feet.

The real issue, it seems to me, is that women having choices means men suddenly have to measure up. And men aren’t used to being looked at like doggies in a window - the way women have been for centuries. They’re used to doing the choosing. And the judging. And the deciding about. Maybe now, on the other side of the glass, they’re realizing that maybe it isn’t all that fun. Maybe without holding all the cards in relationships they’re being exposed to unpleasant things, like oh say, rejection. Is that where this feeling of being objectified is coming from? Do you not like it when women look at you and judge you based on your body type, your face, the whiteness of your teeth, whether you’re tall, short, fat, skinny, before even speaking to you? Or if a woman breaks up with you because you can’t satisfy her in bed? Feels a little…degrading…doesn’t it?

Don’t you worry. Any woman worth having is going to want to get to know you based on who you really are. You know, you thoughts, opinions, your personality, your values, your interests and your goals. Things like that. In the meantime keep your head up and make sure the superficial ones don’t mistreat you. And even if you do get taken a time or two and a women only pretends to want something genuine from you but is really just after the nookie, do not despair. One or two women taking advantage of you is not a reason to allow yourself to slip into a deep, dark depression. At least you’ll still have your respect. 

You may have to be a little guarded. Because time is moving forward, not back. Women are not trapped. Women can decide. Women can, and do, reject men nowadays if they do not meet their expectations. Men lacking even basic respect for women - watch out. Men who hate the women that rejected them in high school - be afraid. Men with big mouths compensating for small dicks - beware.

Of course, when you think about it, mutual respect isn’t really that hard a concept…is it? Surely if you stopped looking at the female sex as the equivalent of blowup dolls, just asking to get raped if only it wasn’t for the pesky little legal system it wouldn’t be that hard to get a date with a woman who has even basic levels of self-esteem. And if you weren’t so busy trying to push her down to a lower level of existence in order to validate your manhood, she probably wouldn’t have to assert herself and verbally castrate your ass, as people typically don’t lash out unless they’re being threatened, and why is threatening a women’s autonomy the only way you know how to be a man? You can dream all you want of going back into the cave, but you will be sitting in that cave with a bunch of other narrow minded men because women are through with the cave, and just like you we are only interested in going into the kitchen for one reason - because we’re hungry. Not because we’re someone’s domestic slave. 

How it was in the time of the caveman, it will never be again, because now we have all these nifty things like Wing Chun and automatic weapons, so that even if social contact theory was to suddenly fall apart, at least one of your like-minded raping and murdering men would get his ass kicked or capped for attempting it.  

Like it or not, times have changed.

You’re so concerned with the natural order of things? Here's an idea… 



Post a Comment

Follow Me

Twitter Facebook Google Plus RSS Feed Email Pinterest

Blog Archive

Copyright © Brilliant Bitchin' | Powered by Blogger
Design by Lizard Themes | Blogger Theme by Lasantha -