Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Vive la Différence

Stacy wades into the weeds of academic feminism again for this morsel: Feminists Against Heterosexuality
So, Jenika McCrayer wrote an article for Everyday Feminism, which was called to my attention by Aurelius Pundit:
Indeed, it’s a special slice of crazy:
Jenika McCrayer explains why men who are sexually attracted to women with breasts are misogynists.
McCrayer explains that “under a patriarchal system… we’re taught to believe that the female body exists solely for a man’s sexual pleasure and entertainment.” She then explains several reasons why liking breasts is a bad thing.
My bold.  Really, the effect of this is to simply make all men bad, and even a lot of women (women check out other women's breasts as much as men do; their motivation to do so may be slightly different).
First, “It Dangerously Conflates Attraction and Fetishization.” She explains, “breasts are not solely for aesthetic or sexual purposes. They have a function. And there are painful consequences to fetishizing body parts associated with womanhood.”
More than that, “it’s cisnormative to equate breasts with femininity and womanhood. Not everyone who has breasts is a woman, and not all women have breasts.”
Normal men like normal women in a normal way. Normal women take this for granted, but feminists aren’t normal women.
Homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species (which is the scientific way of saying that men and women have significantly different bodies).  Every difference that I can think of offhand (breasts, chins, hips, gait, and size and general muscular development) is regarded as a point of attraction (or detraction if the characteristics are wrong) by the opposite sex, but none so much as breasts. Why? I don't really know; evolution doesn't speak to me, but I would suggest that breasts are the most obvious.
Now, as we have explored before, the reason for female humans to have permanently swelled breasts from puberty on (a trait not shared by our great ape near relatives) is not entirely clear, and indeed, as I often say of biology, when you have competing hypotheses, all of the above can be a valid answer, but certainly as signals of reproductive readiness and attractiveness is a real possibility.

We could also throw in the "Big Butts" hypothesis, by suggesting that large boobs perform as fat storage, a sign of health and good nourishment, and the promise of good maternal ability.
Anyway, if liking women's boobs is sexist, I'll plead guilty, but we'll have to agree on what sexism is:

Prejudice or discrimination based on sex

Guilty. When I meet a woman, I expect them to be less physically strong than a man of comparable size, and more verbose than the average man. They may well prove me wrong, but as working hypothesis, it is true often enough to be a useful guideline.

Prejudices are simply a way of sorting the world into useful bins.

But different does not imply superiority. Evolution (or God, if you prefer) designed men and women to serve different roles. You may chose to ignore those roles, but you should expect resistance from the majority of people who conform to them, and no satisfaction from nature, who doesn't give breaks to anyone for being politically correct. 

You may even be one of those rare square pegs of nature that don't seem to fit into the standard round holes. For that, you have my sympathy, but don't expect me to help make society over in your image, and don't expect nature to encourage us to do so.

Wombat-socho of The Other McCain is on board with "Rule 5 Sunday: Not Long Before The End."

No comments:

Post a Comment