Round and round in lopsided circles they twirl. The loopy, loony left have absolutely no idea what true equality looks like. The Age and Sydney Morning Herald has been at this for an age but is still wanting.
In what can only be described as a disorientated and flustered piece of fiction, feminist Kasey Edwards has attempted to grasp hold of the faux fem-narrative that’s slipping at pace through their fingertips. Try discussing ‘reverse sexism’ with any of our fem-friends and you’ll see their eyes widen in rage.
“It’s not how sexism works,” she writes in a huffy, foot-stamping tantrum tirade. “To suggest that complimenting a man on his hotness is in any way comparable to the sexualisation and objectification that women live with every day is to be willfully blind to the inequalities in our society – it’s an insult to women’s lived experience.”
It’s not though, is it? Quite simply, it is pointing out that remarking on any human’s hotness is equal. It’s equally flattering – or outrageous – depending on your worldview. But whatever your worldview is, one human being has to be equal to another by definition of equality. Please keep up.
If women get special treatment, that is not equality.
Also in the ambition of equality, man’s lived experience is equal to women’s, so if a man says he feels objectified we should listen with equal interest. Or do we, by this bizarre lopsided logic, only listen to women?
“We simply do not view men’s sexuality and physical appearance the same way as we do women’s,” she writes.
She is, of course, being sexist. In a world of true equality a man and woman each have fifty per cent of importance in a sexual equation. Therefore viewing a man’s sexuality and physical appearance and giving it a big lusty tick is commensurately objectifying as doing the same to a woman.
She rants about “the utter dehumanisation of women”, which unmasks her own bias.
She raves about “the reduction of their entire being to their appearance,” which only serves to display insecurity.
“We see this in the way men often try to silence and discredit women with insults based on their appearance, such as being fat and unf***able. Underpinning these insults is the idea that if a woman is not sexually attractive to a man, she has no purpose,” she says.
This is a humongous hop, skip and lurch to reach her destination ideology.
No one who believes in true equality thinks that – and no woman with confidence confuses her purpose with her physical appearance. The two are not interlocked, except if you’re a triggered feminist attempting to prove your point.
Decent men don’t believe that women exist purely for their sexual gratification and it’s time perma-screeching fems stopped pretending they do.
Sexism is sexism. We have not arrived at true equality until this team comprehends they are dragging us backwards and we no longer have to use the word “reverse” to preface discussions on this concept.
Irony alert: Facebook has banned The Spectator Australia for 24 hours for using the cropped version of a 27-year-old advertisement shown below as the original illustration for this story — an advertisement that was deemed fit for display more than quarter of a century ago but that those pillars of morality (and data thieves, enablers of fake news, ISIS propaganda boosters, friends of necrophiliacs and willing accomplices of despots) at Facebook have declared is simply too naughty to be seen. The image has now been replaced.We’re keen to see if Mark Zuckerberg’s equivalent of the Saudi religious police also decide Michelangelo is filth.
Illustrations: Flickr/Calvin Klein.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.