While our planet is replete with landscapes of unimaginable beauty, I must admit to being a compulsive heterosexual for whom the rest of the natural world pales before the beauty of the vast majority of females. I recall reading Naomi Wolf’s “The Beauty Myth” which suggested that the Fashion Industry, motivated by a lust for profit, had made most every female in our Western World feel inadequate if she did not meet the emaciated standard endorsed by that industry. I think of the early death of the anorexic Karen Carpenter and am saddened, her lack of self-esteem apparently exacerbated by an uncaring mother. But the myth which emerged from Wolf’s book and others, a myth tacitly accepted by many contemporary Feminists, is that Male sexuality is inherently toxic, inherently oppressive. As with most every aspect of the Leftist world-view [i.e.,”systemic” White racism, social “equity,” etc.], this entails a gross simplification of the complexities of what it means to be human.
As I drive along my city’s streets in summer, I am constantly distracted by the flowing hair, beautiful legs and dazzling smiles of females whom I shall no doubt never meet. Do I see each and every one of them as a unique, complex human being? Of course not, as they are but momentary blips on my consciousness. Do I approach women in my personal sphere with the same degree of superficiality? Of course not, as they are far more than a mere image on my retina. Yes, there are men who treat all women as mere sexual objects and that is despicable. But there are also women who prey on men with large bank accounts, and that is equally so. The issue of Male Sexuality, as every other aspect of the Human Condition, needs to be approached on an individual basis as a moral issue rather than through the lens of the gross generalizations obsessively promoted by the Left.
While Hollywood, the Fashion Industry, etc., promote images of female beauty that might leave many women feeling inadequate, most men find the vast majority of women beautiful in one way or another. Karen Carpenter was beautiful. What man would not be enchanted by those sparkling eyes, that gorgeous smile and amazing voice? And of course she was in no way obese! Was her early death the result of the cruelty of a systemically patriarchal society or of her own psychological frailty?
Yes there are decidedly unattractive women whose physical appearance inspires little interest in most men. While many of them will end up in wonderful relationships, are the odds they had to overcome a product of Heterosexual Man’s inherent superficiality or of the simple, ineradicable facts of human Biology, facts which Feminists, as is customary on the Left, interpret as inherently oppressive. It is a toxic perspective from which attractive females are deemed to be, in the parlance of the day, “privileged.”
“Thin privilege,” for example, has lately become an issue, conspicuously obese Women claiming to be victims of an arbitrary Male bias. As a result, the Miss America pageant has decreed that physical beauty is no longer an issue in its selection of a winner and certain magazines [i.e., Sports Illustrated] have begun pushing the narrative that overweight women are just as attractive as the slim. Yet the irrepressibly rational Bill Maher, who still seems to consider himself a “liberal,” mocks the status of victimhood granted such women, claiming that obesity is demonstrably unhealthy and that men have every right to prefer the women of their choice. Like myself, he seems to find the Left’s devotion to inclusiveness, which asks us to ignore radical differences in human biology, intelligence, behavior and achievement, a form of insanity.
The species is rife with diversity beyond the categories acknowledged by the Left [i.e., race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.]. But just as none of the above tells us anything of substance about the “character” of an individual, so also a woman’s physical appearance tells us nothing substantial about who she is. Yet in preferring the physical attributes of some women over others, are Men being superficial jerks or simply responding to perfectly natural inclinations? Obviously every relationship is unique and needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Those based purely on sexual attraction will in most cases fail while that attraction is clearly the basis of millions of others that appear to be truly loving and mutually rewarding. That the male biological urge at the heart of such relationships is in some Feminist minds a mere tool of Oppression is truly simplistic. But this is hardly surprising given that the Marxist narrative that has come to dominate our culture is interested in Oppression and little more.
Women are absolutely entitled to pursue the lifestyle of their choice. Any Male who disagrees is a jerk. But just as various past societies, simplistically assuming Biology to be deterministic, limited Women to certain roles on that basis, so today’s Feminists, ignoring the impact of Biology altogether, impose equally arbitrary expectations on those they purport to represent. They are, that is to say, not so much interested in Freedom for Women as in the realization of their political agenda, an agenda based upon the demonstrable lie that Men and Women are basically, biologically indistinguishable.
She who decides to devote her life to the support of her husband and the rearing of her children, however rewarding she may find those endeavors, is a mere mindless dupe of the Patriarchy to many Feminists. A ludicrous aspect of their agenda is their drive for statistical parity with Men in various positions of power, while in no way seeking such parity in a host of subservient occupations that are dirty, dangerous and life threatening [i.e., construction, coal mining, the military, etc.]. It is a brazenly biased definition of social “equity” which seems to have metastasized throughout the Western world, a bias leading many in both the mainstream media and the “intellectual” community to declare the sexual offenses of one such as Harvey Weinstein to be “typically” male! Yes, all Men are capable of Rape! It is a grossly irrational declaration comparable to the post-George Floyd narrative that all White cops are Racists, yet it is the sort of ridiculous generalization that has come to dominate the discourse of those who consider themselves the enemies of “disinformation.” Truly ridiculous!