In Defense of Bitterness

Caveat Lector: This post is long. Pack a lunch.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that an anti-feminist jackass in possession of a public forum, must level charges of bitterness. To be fair, the charge is often correct. This does not win anti-feminists any awards for perspicacity, however. I'm afraid it doesn't take a brain surgeon, or a dental hygienist for that matter, to deduce that those who are protesting what they perceive to be the ills in society are at least momentarily disgruntled, if not thoroughly embittered. Unfortunately for anti-feminists, while declaring that one's opponent is bitter may be a valid observation, it isn't the "look at me, Ma" hands-down argument-stopper they present it as. "I've sussed you out, person with a complaint, and I've decided you're dissatisfied" really isn't that stunning a point to make. If feminists were completely happy with the status quo, we'd be off somewhere doing things other than pointing out how unhappy we are with the status quo. We're smart like that.

What Anti-feminists Assume Are the Causes of Feminists' Anger or Bitterness:
Where anti-feminists (hereafter AFs) fall far short of reason is in their diagnoses of the causes of feminists' bitterness. It's rather amusing to hear/read the causes listed, actually, because in AFs standard-issue determinations of the reasons behind feminist dissatisfaction exists a veritable parade of their ignorance regarding the nature of feminism. So, let's start with the dictionary definition of feminism, shall we?

Feminism,n.
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : the movement organized around this belief
- fem·i·nist /-nist/ noun or adjective
- fem·i·nis·tic /"fe-m&-'nis-tik/ adjective

Fairly clear-cut, I think. Nowhere in that definition does it say that feminism considers it a prerequisite for membership that one is: fat, ugly, lesbian, man-hating, shrewish, whorish, or frigid. Yet these are the causes most often cited as the cause of a woman's feminism. These alleged causes of feminism are often combined in fun, and unexpected ways. (On one memorable occasion I was told that my feminism is secondary to my being a frigid whore. While I'm certain that being a frigid whore must be a truly unpleasant experience indeed, I am not one. Nice try, though.) Men, of course, are considered to be either emasculated in some way, or desperate for women's attention if they are feminists. Those aren't in the definition either. For the moment, however, I'd like to concentrate on the perceived causes of feminism in women. In most of these terms, the supposition is that a woman is unable to get a man's sexual attention, and therefore seeks self-esteem as a replacement for a man's (very limited, sexual) esteem. Yet the most basic premise of feminism is, again, that women are, or should be, the political, economic, and social equals of men. It is not that women are acceptable substitutes for the much-more-desirable men who are either unavailable or disinterested. Let's talk about the "Oh, that'll shut her up" words one by one.

- Fat: I am sure there are feminists who are fat. Approximately 50-60% of the adult population of the United States is fat. It stands to reason that some of those fat people will be feminists. However, if we assume that fatness causes feminism, then it reasonably follows that Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell are feminists. See how silly that is now? Feminists have no problem seeing fat as a personal health issue. It is the AFs who consider a woman's girth political, based on their supposition that it is incumbent upon women to be decorative, and the current fashion in developed nations for women to be thin. Because fat women do not meet the AFs current requirements for women to be essentially fuckable art, AFs consider it their right to abuse fat women. Feminists reject the idea that women exist solely for the viewing pleasure of men; when AFs try to punish women for their personal health issues, feminists will oppose them.

- Ugly: Ugly is highly subjective, but the standards of physical beauty are such that most people, man and woman alike, fail to meet them. So, most people fall somewhere along a continuum from "not beautiful" to "who is that person being hunted by angry villagers with pitchforks?" The statistical probability is that some of those unbeautiful people will be feminists. Again, the basic philosophical differences between feminists and AFs with regard to women's beauty are present in this accusation. Feminists reject the idea that women exist for decorative purposes. When AFs attempt to punish women for being ugly, feminists will oppose them.

Just for fun, let's see if you can pick which one of these two people wrote pro-feminist arguments based on their personal beauty.
A)
B)
Hint: If you picked the ugly guy, boy are you ever wrong.

- Lesbian: Ah, lesbians. The simultaneous dream and nightmare of the patriarchy, and I'm afraid the patriarchy's slip is showing a bit in the openly expressed fear that women can find sexual fulfillment in each other's arms. Some women can, but if you're an AF, and you can't get a woman to agree with you, or to sleep with you, you really shouldn't assume that the woman in question is a lesbian. She may very well be, but statistics show that the sexual preference that's preventing you from "getting any" is most likely an aversion to cretins. Just so you know. To my knowledge there has never been a study on this, but I would hope that the vast majority of lesbians are feminists. Correlation is still not causality, however, as we have seen with Messers Limbaugh, Falwell and Schopenhauer. AFs assume that women's sexuality rightfully belongs to men; women who make an end-run around male sexuality must therefore be somehow "bad." Feminists reject this notion, and posit instead the radical notion that women, as free adult humans, own their own sexuality, and may share that sexuality with any other willing adult human.

- As for the man-hating business; let's not feel so special, huh? Hatred is hard work, and women, just like other people, like to know that their work is going towards a worthwhile cause. There are precisely two men in the world whom I hate, and those men had to work long hours over a period of years to earn such devotion from me. Feminists view most men, like most women, as neutral others until they have said or done something to elicit some sort of emotional response. The response varies according to the behavior and the feminist's preferences. Simply having been born male is rarely sufficient cause for feminists to begin the labor-intensive work of actively hating you. Ironically, while there are women who simply despise any all men, those women are rarely feminists. They are generally the passive-aggressive avowed non-feminists that AF men consider so safe and charming. The kind of women who consider men congenitally idiotic, and incapable of, say, knowing that socks live in the sock drawer are far more likely to hate men than the average feminist. Some random moron who says a transparently misogynistic thing to me in passing can hope for my disdain, or even shock if s/he's exceptionally gifted in the art of misogyny, but evoking true hatred will require a much more concerted effort and real commitment on the part of the misogynist. No claiming the prize if you haven't done the work, Sparky.

- shrews/bitches/viragoes/termagants, etc.: These terms denote ill-tempered women. AFs have wed themselves to the notion that women must be absent of will and mood, all the while assuming that any expression of emotion from a woman must eminate from an unwell uterus. The word Hysteria means "illness of the womb," which is how doctors used to diagnose women's anger before feminism forced them to consider the wild possibility that some women have justifiable anger. It would certainly benefit the patriarchy if women were so easily categorized as having no right to emotion, nor any physical abiltiy to generate emotion when in a healthy state, so that any expression of emotion could be termed an "outburst." Feminists reject the philosophy that women are meant to be ever chipper and docile, and instead assume that women are people, and that people often have emotions. (I am particularly fond of the word "termagant," so if you're an AF reading this post, do feel free to use that word as a descriptor for me.)

-Whores/sluts/tramps, etc.: Ah, yes, the fear that feminine sexuality, when not properly contained and controlled by a single man, is likely to rip a whole in the time-space continuum causing the universe to collapse in on itself. Like lesbians, women who take control of their own sexuality, using it for their own purposes rather than the breeding purposes of the church, government, or extended kin-group are truly frightening to the average AF. I cannot prove this, but it has long been my belief that fears of sexually free heterosexual women and of homosexual men stems from the same basic philosophy of the AF: Heterosexual men are the sexual power in the world,proven by their ability to gaze upon objects of desire, and occasionally stick their phalluses into those objects. When heterosexual men become the subject of the lascivious gazes of those who are by default lesser, or those who welcome phalluses into their various orifices, masculine authority is threatened. Feminists reject the link between the phallus and the eyes, recognizing that those humans born with vulvas also have eyes. Feminists similarly reject the notion that sexuality is, or should be, a purely male heterosexual privilege.

- frigid: There are people in the world who cannot respond sexually, regardless of stimuli. These people are rare. The charge of frigidity is based upon the notion that women's sexuality is purely passive, and that women should respond to any man who finds them attractive enough to elicit an erection. This notion has served the patriarchy well over the centuries. When women were traded as property in an institution known as marriage,for example, which was always far less sacred than profane, and generally involved some sort of real estate deal between a woman's husband and her father. This notion continues to serve the patriarchy in what is known as the rape culture. Men don't have to feel responsible for assaulting unwilling women if all women are willing, do they? But when a woman appears who is demonstrably unwilling, a wrench is thrown into the patriarchal works, and this situation demands explanation. The explanation given is often that the unwilling woman would be medically incapable of sexual response in any circumstances. This logic is similar to saying that a person, upon being offered spinach once and refusing, is medically incapable of enjoying Ice Cream. Feminists reject the idea that female sexuality is either passive or non-existent. Feminists also reject bad logic.

The Actual Causes of Feminists' Anger or Bitterness:

As previously defined, feminists believe that women and men are, or should be, political, economic, and social equals. Feminists become angry or embittered when evidence presents itself that women are being treated as lesser beings than men, and therefore as lesser beings than they themselves are. This evidence is still ubiquitous in modern society, and therefore feminists have ample opportunities to be angry. As I have said in comments elsewhere, there is a belief in this society that it is somehow still OK for people to say things about women that would earn them a much-deserved FBI file were they to say those things about any other subset of humans. Imagine David Brooks demanding that white men, or native americans, or black people refuse to educate themselves, refuse to find paying jobs, and stay at home in the kitchen "where the real power is" and tend to children, for the good of the children, and because those white men, native americans, or black people really like doing service work better than being educated and paid workers, and that he has scientific surveys that prove that those white men, native americans, or black people really can't do the high-powered, public work they've been doing for the last forty years or so. Besides, other people would find their ignorance and penury sexy, and that's always good. Let's assume that Steven E. Rhoads, asshat professor of political science at UVa published a book demanding that the public treat melanin differences seriously, because he did a study proving to him that black people are better child-care workers than white people. Imagine aforementioned asshat were telling black students in his university that they should major in something that would help them do the serving jobs they were designed by God to do even better, as he admits to telling his women students. These are recognizably outrageous ideas, and demonstrably false, but are ideas being put forth with regard to women by elderly white men on a regular basis, all the while being justified as "science." Except that scientists disagree, recognizing that the modern Eugenicists are both "proving" things that are contrary to experience, and are using studies which fail to consider any philosophically inconvenient possibilities.

After hundreds of years of struggle, women continue to be told that they are not smart enough or strong enough to do "men's jobs," and when it is pointed out to AFs that women clearly can do men's jobs, because they've damn well been doing them for centuries, we are told that we shouldn't do them "for the children." Except that half of our children are daughters, and the other half are sons. And we believe that both our daughters and our sons benefit from a world in which men and women are treated as well as their actions and characters demand they should be, and one in which both men and women are educated to the extent of their ability and interest. So, when you tell a feminist to quit school, and bake cookies for the children, she gets angry. And she thinks about her mother, her grandmother, and her great-grandmother all going off to work in the world, all getting the best education available to women of their time, and all leaving her with a torch to pass to her own children, and then she gets angrier still. And all that anger is good for her, because it tells her that she has not internalized the poor self-esteem that our society works so very hard to instill in her, and that she has a chance to bring up children (or not, as she pleases) that will also regard themselves with an eye to reality, rather than patriarchal fantasy. It's inconvenient for AFs that feminists continue to be angry, and express that anger, but feminists reject the notion that we exist for the convenience of our ideological enemies.