Article by Big Deal (Blog) /
August, 2009 /
Click here to view original /
As a purely logical system, feminism is actually quite brilliant. It can explain just about anything in it’s domain very quickly and precisely. This is not something I wish to undermine. I appreciate the strengths. My objections have nothing to do with the actual logic. It is in the application.
Any system run by logic reaches a dead-end at similar points. A most simple example is feminism of the self vs feminism of the group. The contradictions are staggering. A point acknowledged by the author, Lauren Rosewarne. Hence the title.
Lauren is an intelligent, feminist. Perhaps surprisingly, most feminists are also. Emotionally, I have some sympathy for her situation. From a distance (a large distance), I believe I can identify. I have no objections to the emotional output that being in a situation, such as Lauren was, would provide. I object to the connection of emotion & feminism. It is clearly irrelevant.
I haven’t explained the basic themes. Lauren is in love with a married man. Simple fact, the book could have ended there. No morality need be entered into. An entire layer of needless junk has been piled on top of this simple fact.
Further self acknowledged points: would rather ‘have him’ than have written the book; would still ‘be with him’ if she could; tried to own him via sex “otherwise, what’s the point?”; tried her own affairs while ‘with him’, “didn’t work, was pretending”.
The terms I have tagged, ‘have him’ & ‘with him’. At the end of the day, these are schoolgirl terms. Emotionally, they have some meaning. A certain amount of trust (often blindly believed to be total trust) is often extracted from this situation. In that sense, the terms are valid. Objectively, the terms clearly indicate the act of sex is an act of ownership. There appears to be no moral worth in pursuing this particular point further.
I was amused by the complete lack of attention on possible female motives. It was instantly assumed that both females, the author and the wife, were intent on dictatorial possession. I find the point at which one chooses to abandon a system enthralling. It is usual to play the ‘his desire/outcome is the same as my desire/outcome’ game. If his desire is sex ‘on the side’ (another indicator of ownership, nudge nudge), so it follows. If his desire is to control via sex, so it follows. blah blah. A passive observer may do best by acknowledging the reactionary nature of feminine desire. The logic, otherwise, drops off a cliff. It was dumped by the author within one assumption.
‘Cheating’ on the married man with other men – “Didn’t work, I was pretending”. A giveaway that, in hindsight, sex for the author was only about possession. This, however, is a poor reading of the situation. Hindsight is a very ugly beast. Lauren’s view is a complete cheapening of her own needs at the time. It is all too common to believe that if one feels emotionally less – that it was valueless. She would need to further acknowledge that she was trying to lever pleasure, jealousy, power etc. The feminist mind endlessly complicates matters of sex far and beyond what is necessary. The passage of time rips opens this already sizeable rift. Whatever happened to the feminist logic of sex for sex’s sake? Has been conveniently forgotten, or alternatively disproved (credo: in relation to author). Take your pick. A severe retrograde step.
A noble attempt by Lauren Rosewarne to tackle a tricky subject. The honesty of the approach is to be commended. She is an expert in an archaic language – ‘contemporary’ feminism. The best possible attempt has been made to work within this frame. She has taken the approach as far as
anyone could – the long road to nowhere.
Sex is, as always, the singularity upon which feminism flounders. It literally disintegrates before one’s eyes and becomes meaningless. Feminism is in dire need of better theories. This book does not provide any hints of such. It is trapped in time and can only offer an expert view ‘of the day’, to be eventually superceded.
To accept the stupid logic being peddled herein, I would have to accept the counter-logic. The author’s picture of a woman is a pathetic creature who clearly trades sex for love. In this paradigm, it must be accepted that a man should cheat, lie & steal his way to sex. Lest he be stuck with this whiny parasite for the rest of his life. The inevitable dawning moment on the woman ( & we are talking about a fully grown woman, the word ‘girl’ is very divisive ), that she was used for sex – is a necessary evil under this method. IT IS A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. The proponents are dumb, and out of touch with reality. They live in a land of make-believe. In this sense, Lauren Rosewarne is clearly a ‘girl’.
Contemporary feminism is garbage. It’s conversation is jaded & stagnant. The language is trapped in a victim/offender mentality. When this is not valid, the system runs off the tracks. Pointless morality is it’s constant companion. It is a poor bedfellow. Smelly, fat & demanding. It shows no sign of leaving the house. Ugh.
Read this book if you enjoy examining your own faeces.