See, I knew I was a good catch

Dear Readers, I rest my case. Feminists, far from being ugly man-hating bitches who are only angry because they can't get laid, not only report better relationship satisfaction than their non-feminist counterparts, but a better sex life, too:

Abstract Past research suggests that women and men alike perceive feminism and romance to be in conflict (Rudman and Fairchild, Psychol Women Q, 31:125–136, 2007). A survey of US undergraduates (N = 242) and an online survey of older US adults (N = 289) examined the accuracy of this perception. Using self-reported feminism and perceived partners’ feminism as predictors of relationship health, results revealed that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier relationships for women. Additionally, men with feminist partners reported greater relationship stability and sexual satisfaction in the online survey. Finally, there was no support for negative feminist stereotypes (i.e., that feminists are single, lesbians, or unattractive). In concert, the findings reveal that beliefs regarding the incompatibility of feminism and romance are inaccurate.

As reported at The Globe and Mail.

Isn't it great to be right? Look at that sea of nodding heads. Of course people in feminist relationships are happier and have better sex. Let's count the many reasons why:

1. Because feminists believe in equality, they are more likely to work at and achieve partnerships that are satisfying for both people.

2. They are less likely to fall into those stereotyped gendered behaviours that are the source of so much sitcom relationship angst.

3. They are more likely to see their partners are individuals and people first, rather than as representatives of a type.

4. Because feminists have by and large discarded the tired old stereotypes about what women and men are supposed to want, they are freer to explore what it is they actually do want. For example, most feminists believe that women like sex just as much as men do, and for the same range of messy, sometimes glorious, sometimes selfish, sometimes ignoble reasons. Feminists, by and large, do not believe that all women only like sex as part of a committed relationship within which they can explore intimacy with a beloved partner, and without which they can't be bothered (and don't label any woman who doesn't fit the stereotype a "slut"). It is a lot easier to have a lot more fun having sex with someone who is not lying back and thinking of England.

"What are you talking about, Andrea?" Sorry. I assumed you knew that until the 20th century, it was considered psychologically pathological for a woman to enjoy sex at all, to the point where a woman who conceived out of wedlock was considered mentally ill by default and committed to an asylum; and where women who showed evidence of libido were subjected to psychiatric "treatments" revolving around the application of caustic liquids to their genitals. Those of you who are female are surely well aware of the stock-in-trade in the women's magazine industry and most self-help books relying on the same tired old stereotypes, now slightly updated to allow women to enjoy sex so long as it is with their One True Love (trademarked by deBoers), and a path of true intimacy, enlightenment, and deep emotional sharing. Women, after all, are still the Angels in the House, and as such are not permitted to have an animal nature.

Except that the feminists I know have thrown all that out like the garbage it is.

5. Feminists by definition do not believe that men are innately more intelligent, more interesting, or more important than women. Study after study has shown that despite whatever gains we think we've made, when an objective observer watches men and women interact, most women still serve men, unconsciously and reflexively, and most men act as if they still expect it. It ought to go without saying that any relationship in which only the happiness of one partner really counts is a relationship that ultimately will make no one happy. It ought to really go without saying that any sexually intimate relationship in which sex is still defined as "male partner has orgasm during penetration" (the traditional definition), which by default makes male experience central to the relationship and relegates female experience to the margin, will eventually suck for both parties.

What do you say, Dear Readers? Any reasons I have overlooked?

But wait! There is a outcry from the peanut gallery!*

Josh Taylor from St. John's, Canada writes: Every woman and man should be into equality. All the self proclaimed 'feminists' I met in college were just plain bitter. They are taking years of abuse that they didn't suffer out on the one man who is nice enough to tolerate them. Nuff said.

Uh huh. Well, Josh, speaking from my own experience, all of the men I've met who had problems with feminists were misogynistic pea-brained twerps, deeply threatened by any woman not willing to assume the doormat position.

Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Most women ARE feminists. Men who want to know what women really think of them should watch THE LIFETIME CHANNEL or THE VIEW, or . . . simply eavesdrop on women-only conversations at restaurants (and other places, obviously). Turns out 'the news' for men isn't good, but it's important for men to know what most women really think of them.

Yes! Because the women on The View are the secret heads of a worldwide feminist organization that coordinates our daily activities through seemingly mindless entertainment, all to achieve the eventual goal of the coming Matriarchy!

James Cyr from Balmertown, Ontario, Canada writes: joanne dewey: that 'traditional' definition is based on my meetings with so-called feminists and thus is well based in fact. They came across as belligerent, agressive, rude and rather obnoxious. They came across as having a chip on their shoulder and having something to prove.

What are you saying exactly, James? Are you calling me belligerent? Are you? Come over here and let me show you belligerence, you .... I mean, aww sweetie, I'm so sorry you've had such a rough time with girls not seeing your obvious charms and your inborn natural need to dominate. Come over here and let me bake you a pie. I can't imagine what about your personality might provoke a belligerent, rude or obnoxious response in feminist women.

Does it count as having "something to prove" if I insist on hanging my own shelves but then cover them with crafty stuff?

Vladimir Kolcza from Toronto, Canada writes: I think that many people harbour stereotypes about 'feminists' because so many such stereotypes populate government offices and service counters. Surely I am NOT the only one to have noticed (along with my wife) that the 'feminazi' stereotype is fulfilled daily by LEGIONS of women emplyed in the provincial (Ontario) and federal public sectors. The manly short hairstyles, 'outfits' that would identify tham as 'crossdressers' were the genders reversed, absolutely glamourless, no make-up, surly attitudes and manly behaviours PRETTY MUCH ADD UP to fulfill the stereotypes. A friend who works in the Ontario Public Service (a woman) has long maintained that no woman is too stupid, too fat, too unmotivated, or too manly to NOT be hired by female public service 'manager', since so many of the latter are over-employed for their skills levels and threatened by any and all women who do NOT fulfill the 'feminazi' stereotype. The problem with 'stereotypes' is that - just when you've made a convincing case that a stereotype is JUST a stereotype - a stereotype walks into the room. FACT: The 'feminazi' profile is MORE than fulfilled by a significant proportion of female public servants. The truth sometimes is not very pretty, but that does not make it any less true.

Vladimir, on behalf of female civil servants throughout Ontario, I can only offer our deepest, most heartfelt apologies on the lack of glamour in our professional wardrobes. What can I say? We don't get paid much. And our manly behaviours! No excuses about income could possibly cover for our obvious lack of femininity on the job. Why I can't recall the last time I made anyone coffee or ordered in sandwiches for meetings, or giggled at some tired joke. What is this world coming to?

joe cormorant from Canada writes: I don't think an arrogant self-absorbed bitc& is sexy. Sorry, I just don't.

Fortunately, Joe, this arrogant self-absorbed bitch doesn't think you're so hot either.

Gogh Forit from Canada writes: Let me get this straight. The authors of the study are feminists and they concluded that feminists are sexy. No bias there. Pure scientific study at work here. I mean why would anyone question the credibility of this life altering piece of science. And just what is a "feminist" man. Is that a guy who has no testicles or simply that he's not allowed exhibit any male behaviour whatsoever.

Well, Gogh, speaking only for myself, yes, that is exactly what I require of feminist men. Castration. No male behaviour whatsoever. In fact, let me just hand you this padded bra and we'll make the transformation complete. (I'm just pretending to be straight, you see.) It gets complicated when the man I've just castrated has to wear a dildo ... never mind.

Harbinger from Out West from Prince George, Canada writes: And all this time I thought God created feminists to give ugly women jobs. Boy! Was I wrong.

Boy! Were you.

Pete Flint from Andover, MA, United States writes: Feminists are always ugly man-hating dykes. Possibly the most physically unattractive group on the planet. Most dogs have more appealing features. Plus, they are usually fat and braless, which makes normal humans puke at the sight of them.

Pete, thank you for this clarification. This certainly explains why I have that odd aroma following me everywhere I go. I thought it was just the subway that stank, but now I know: it's because normal people puke at the sight of me. It's a good thing I work in the civil service, where I am surrounded all day by other unglamorous, manly, stupid, bitter, fat feminists.

This is what a feminist looks like.

And hanging off my right arm in both pictures is the direct and incontrovertible proof that, at least once about five years ago, I had sex with a man.

~~~~~

*The peanut gallery is the on-line discussion on the Globe and Mail site. I haven't seen such a collection of feminist stereotyping since the days I used to post regularly on the BUST boards. And I haven't had so much fun mocking people in I don't know how long. Far as I'm concerned, if you're going to go on the public record with such outlandish sentiments, then you deserve every bit of flak you get.

Posted by Andrea at October 22, 2007 7:25 AM under Female Trouble

EMAIL this entry

(comments fields are below this section)