Cassie Jaye’s Red Pill

I recently watched The Red Pill, Cassie Jaye’s documentary on the Men’s Right Movement (MRM) and Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), and I found it rather a sad commentary on how far our culture’s view on the sexes is from where it ought to be.

The video seemed to have a twofold purpose: showing Cassie’s journey from being a feminist who viewed the MRAs as likely enemies or idiots to a not-feminist with sympathy for the MRAs and documenting what the Men’s Rights Movement was and what issues were important to these men.  Ms. Jaye honestly showed her transformation and struggles to accept new-to-her facts and ideas. She listened and gained new understanding, and the audience could follow her along the path from rejection to acceptance or at least a state of being more opening and questioning about the narrative.  Jaye interviewed many MRAs, sympathizers (including women), and even people who oppose the Men’s Rights Movement.  The documentary was well done and easy to watch.

However, I didn’t find The Red Pill as informative about the Men’s Rights Movement as I had expected. Being already rather red-pilled myself, the men’s issues that the MRAs were so concerned about bringing to the world’s attention weren’t as surprising news to me, as they had been to Jaye.  I felt sorry for these guys, but what I wanted to know was: what solution do you propose for this rotten state of affairs?  Maybe they go into detail on their websites, but I haven’t had the time or inclination to look that up. The documentary didn’t answer that question.

One MRA leader made the point that if it weren’t for the Feminist Movement, the Men’s Rights Movement wouldn’t need to exist.  That because things have been thrown out of balance, skewed in one direction, that the MRAs arose to be a counter weight to, hopefully, even things out.  He said he was sorry that the MRM needed to exist at all.

A feminist who was interviewed remarked that the MRM was just a reaction to the Feminist movement.  She was correct about that, but wrong about the motivations or reasons behind it.  It isn’t that the men “feel threatened” by women and their new so-called “freedoms” and “power.”  It is that to put themselves in a position of power, feminists have attempted to crush men under, to denigrate, and to be hateful towards men.

Many of the MRAs seemed happy to let women keep all the freedom and power they have, but want men to be treated equally.  One of them began his journey into the Men’s Rights Movement from being a male feminist.  Part of what they had to say bothered me; it’s not that men don’t deserve to be treated with the same dignity as women — of course they do — but some of the men seemed to lament that the burdens that have typically fallen to men still fall on masculine shoulders such as tough, dangerous jobs, being relied on to be the provider or even that women typically get custody in divorces because women are thought to be better at caring for children.  These men seem to be complaining that they have to suffer things like this because they are men and that it isn’t fair.

It is normal and natural for men to do the hard jobs and to provide; it is something they are much better suited for than women and usually feel called to do.  It’s really the flip side of women complaining that they are disadvantaged by having to be the ones to bear children.  It’s like some of the MRAs want a male version of feminism, a liberation from traditional male roles, rather than a return of women to more traditional roles.  No thanks.  Everyone needs to accept that each sex has both disadvantages and advantages, both weaknesses and strengths.  There really are traits that are more dominant or common to one sex or the other.  We cannot be the same no matter how much people try.  And everyone would be a lot happier if they would stop trying.

Also, all the unfair things that happen to men in family custody and child-support battles were called out in need of reform.  The problem here is that they are right in describing this all as a problem, but the solution isn’t in some sort of band-aid of court reform.  Men and women need to stop the behaviors that lead to this sort of difficulty: in other words, return to Christian morality, get married and stay married and only have children in that context.  Unfortunately, as long as people choose not to follow that model, there will be no good answer to what happens when two people who aren’t going to stay or get married have kids.  It’s a guaranteed disaster with far-reaching consequences.

Jaye, as a feminist, expected to confirm that the MRAs were misogynists, and she was surprised to be disproved.  Coming from a completely different perspective as an anti-feminist, I expected I would be sympathetic to the MRAs, but I felt less sympathetic than I thought I would.  I understood some of their complaints, especially against what feminists have done to our society and to men, but when they turned to what sounded like a rejection of traditional male roles and started to sound like the male equivalent of feminists, they lost me.

***

Here is Cassie Jaye explaining why she no longer calls herself a feminist:

Advertisements

Why Mother’s Matter… or do they?

 

After reading Vox’s Why Mother’s Matter and the ensuing comments, I’m left feeling not particularly hopeful about the state of affairs between the sexes.  It was the comments not Vox’s post that I found troubling.  A few women dared to post and were pretty much told to shut up, accused of “bitching” and trying to “shame” men (though there were some positive responses).  I thought the women’s responses, mostly agreeing with Vox but just adding their perspective, were reasonable.  In a nutshell: if you expect women to change, to return to more traditional ways and submit to men, you men had better change too.

Vox affirms the importance of mothers, especially full-time mothers, in raising the next generation and being instrumental in fighting the culture war,  but many of the responses were apparently from angry, bitter men who hate women.  Men claim to be the rational, unemotional ones, but often come across as big crybabies and respond quite irrationally (and even emotionally, though it looks different from women’s emotion — newsflash: anger is an emotion too). They claim women are the needy ones, but whine about their needs and how they can’t get what they want out of life.  They feel justified in outlining what women are doing wrong and should change, but get all bent of of shape if a (gasp!) woman notes some ways men should change.  If you want to offer constructive criticism to the opposite sex, fine, but you better be able to take it too.

Our current cultural state, feminism, etc. has ruined things for BOTH sexes.  If you want to restore Western Civilization, stop making the opposite sex your enemy — that’s just playing into the feminist tactic to divide and conquer. Stop crying victim and refusing to recognize that women too are victims in this.  And if you’re a man who says this isn’t true and that men have been the worse victims and that a woman can’t possibly understand what’s it like to be a man in this world today, well, maybe, but what makes you think you have a clue about what it’s like to be a woman now?  There’s a reason men are sterotypically seen as clueless about women.

I’ve recently been thinking about humility and how lack of it contributes to many of the problems in our society and specifically, how it affects women.  Lack of humility leads to women resisting being put in a “lower” position to men and the idea of submitting to or serving a man in any way.  Hierarchy is seen as evil.  Part of this is feminist indoctrination of course, that even the most conservatively raised woman has picked up from the surrounding culture to some extent.  But it also stems from the desire to be special or important (and who doesn’t want to feel this way at least sometimes?).  Everyone seems to want to be a leader, an achiever, to accomplish great things.  No one wants to serve or admit that they’re not as good as someone else.  No one just wants to wash the dishes and change diapers — things that on the surface accomplish nothing of lasting value and have to be done over and over again — and never hear a word of affirmation.

Being told that one is only fit for lowly things isn’t exactly a charming proposition.  Men who reject feminist women and want a meek, little wife, but complain about women as stupid bitches who must be put in their place are idiots.  Who would want to sign up for a life full of drudgery, be considered unimportant, and get to be, not a life-partner or equal companion, but little more than a dumb slave?  You want women to return to traditional ways?  You better make it sound more attractive than the fantasy of power and success held out by feminists.

There has to be a benefit for women to giving up their freedom and independence, and let’s be honest, a woman today is taking as big risk on today’s men as a man is taking on today’s women (statistics aside about women initiating more divorces – they might be the instigator but they’ve just ruined their own lives too).  Pretty much everyone is damaged goods in some way and no one wants to get hurt.  If today’s women have been trained to be over-critical of men and have too-high, unrealistic expectations of men and marriage, today’s men aren’t exactly the most attractive, paragons of virtue either, not exactly the kind of strong men who would inspire life-long devotion and submission.

If you men want to be served and submitted to, you have to offer something in return, and yes that includes fidelity, security, and at least a little affection.  Sensible women will settle for less than perfection (a lot less); they’ll give up ideas of romance or having a soul mate or even a good friend in their spouse — and considering the lies woman have been led to believe, think what a hard pill that is to swallow.  Even for women who aren’t so sensible, is it really all their fault that they’ve been fed a pack of lies all their lives?  There are plenty of women who “wake up” and realize this.  I’d say a little humility on all sides could help, starting with not demonizing the other.

Having the sexes at each other’s throats isn’t the way to ensure the survival of Western Civilization.  Vox is on the right track to recognize the importance of mothers and give them a little credit for the hard work they do.  Some of his commenters however have got it all wrong.  The relationship between the sexes is so messed up I don’t know how to fix it —  but I’m only woman after all, what would I know?

Education and the Benedict Option

Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option has received a good deal of commentary recently.   Certainly we are living in post-Christian times.  This review makes me more interested in reading it.

In Fearing Dreher: Why the Benedict Option Scares Christians, Thomas Ascik writes:

But it is most interesting that Mr. Dreher barely talks about the curriculum of public elementary and secondary schools. He emphasizes, instead, the peer culture of the school environment. Christian parents may try very hard, but everything can be undone by “the toxic peer culture” of public schools. In addition, the parents themselves may neither understand nor be capable of resisting. The effects are pervasive. Mr. Dreher quotes communications to him from parents of children in public schools who describe the startling number of public-school students who have come to believe that that they are transgender or bisexual. In the bluntest statement of his whole book, and one aimed directly at Christian parents, Mr. Dreher asserts that “two or three hours of religious education weekly is unlikely to counteract the forty or more hours spent in school or school-related programming.” The conclusion: Christian parents should remove their children from public schools.

A senior in a large public high school located in a major western city recently told this reviewer that he did not know any Christians at his school. Now, since there are obviously students there who are Christians, that means that the Christian students never identify themselves as Christians nor say or do anything identifiably Christian. Plainly, those students think that a public school is not an environment where it is appropriate or even permissible to be an open Christian. So, we may ask, if you never express who you really are, aren’t you inevitably changing who you really are?

***

In order to combine Christian education with an education in the liberal learning of Western civilization, Mr. Dreher endorses the classical Christian school movement and gives both Catholic and Evangelical examples. If such schools are too expensive or not available, the alternative is to homeschool.

I couldn’t agree more that the public schools in our country are a disaster and the best thing you could do for your kids is to keep them out.  Here are a couple recent examples of the sort of negative influences in school he’s talking about.

A Florida teacher demanded her 9th grade student remove a cross necklace that she was wearing.  The teacher’s room is full of LGBT posters and rainbows.  She’s allowed to proselytize the kids, but the kids can’t even wear a symbol of their faith?  Although the girl obeyed the teacher’s demand at the time, she and her parents aren’t taking this without a fight:

Together with her attorneys, this brave ninth grader is asking for the right to express her faith, which is already guaranteed to her by the Constitution. Students should never have to check their beliefs at the school house door — or anywhere else for that matter.

Emily Zinos writes “A ‘transgender’ kindergartner registered at my kids’ school. That’s when the madness began.”  She goes on to describe what happened in her school district: the school’s attempts at accommodation, the “trans” kid’s parents suing anyway, school sponsored meetings telling the rest of the parents they had to comply and when these parents funded a meeting to counterpoint the school’s presentation, “Well over a hundred local pro-LGBTQ protesters came to the presentation, prompting the local police to send a sergeant and two patrolling squads as protection.”  Because tolerance, folks!

The rest of Ms. Zinos’ article is interesting, especially that a group of feminists has joined the fight against transgender activism because of common ground of ensuring the rights of biological women.  Here is her conclusion about what’s happening in the schools:

institutionalizing gender ideology will require that schools ignore the evidence that it causes real harm to children. You can’t extol the virtues of gender ideology and question its soundness at the same time. By celebrating transgenderism as a valid identity, schools are promoting a body-mind disconnect that may very well bring on the gender dysphoric state they were attempting to prevent. And when the widely accepted “affirmative” medical treatments of gender dysphoria in children are both poorly studied and glaringly injurious, we have nothing to celebrate.

We’re building a school-to-gender-clinic pipeline that will feed this new pediatric specialty with young patients. There are now more than thirty gender clinics specializing in youth across the United States, and the young patients who are under their care are often given bone-destroying puberty blockers at eleven, potentially sterilized with cross-sex hormones at sixteen, and permanently mutilated by plastic surgery soon after that.

Make no mistake, schools that endorse and celebrate transgenderism as valid are endorsing child abuse.

Given examples like those (and those are only two, only the tip of the ice berg where trans-issues are but one problem among many), I’d say Dreher isn’t wrong about the state of education in America.  He also opines that most of the American colleges may be beyond saving – unless they are replaced by truer places of secondary learning.  What about his other ideas?

Mr. Dreher, who visited the Benedictine monastery at Nursia, Italy, in preparing his book, holds that the Rule is a “manual of practices, and its precepts simple and “plain enough to be adapted by lay Christians for their own use.” He derives eight main principles from the Rule and states why each would literally be a godsend for Christians in the modern, secular world. Against the disorder and loss of tradition of the modern world, the first principle is that it is order—ordered daily life, rather than today’s randomness—that sets the stage for “internal order.”

The second is prayer. “Prayer is the life of the soul,” Mr. Dreher quotes a Benedictine monk, and time must be set aside for it. The monastic emphasis on regular, daily prayer is the precisely needed antidote to the maniacal busyness of the contemporary world. Echoing the standard understanding of the role of prayer in Christian life, Mr. Dreher suggests that “if we spend all our time in activity, even when that activity serves Christ, and neglect prayer and contemplation, we put our faith in danger.”

Third, against the intellectualizing of everything today, Benedict’s Rule understands that the involvement of the body in manual labor is an essential part of human work. Again, Christians today, having been forced out of some of the professions, may have to resort to more labor by hand, Mr. Dreher concludes.

Fourth, contrary to the supreme modern principle of satisfying one’s own desires, “relearning asceticism—that is, how to suffer for the faith—is critical training for Christians living in the world today and the world of the near future.”

Fifth, even that most monastic principle of stability—that is, staying in one place—has some relevance to lay Christians, for what is the overall benefit of our constant mobility?

Sixth is community, the human architecture of a monastery, but also of a family, a neighborhood, a city, a society, and a polity. We readers might add to Mr. Dreher’s analysis the observation that we now increasingly live without a sense of shared life, without a “collective consciousness,” as Emile Durkheim put it. We are “free, equal, and independent,” but, pace John Locke, we are alone.

Seventh, contrary to Mr. Dreher’s critics and to a true understanding of the Rule, hospitality is a daily duty not only of monastic life but also of lay Christian life. Pilgrims and visitors are to “be received like Christ.” But hospitality, like all the virtues, must be practiced with prudence and according to the other principles of the Rule. A visitor cannot disturb or disrupt the community.

Mr. Dreher adds an eighth principle—balance, partly derived from the Benedictines but also from his own reflection and observation. By being too strict, some Christian communities have fallen apart or become “cultlike.” On the other hand, since abandonment to the will of God is the goal, Christian communities cannot be based on “spiritual mediocrity.”

Feminists: Treating the image of history’s most important and holy woman with disrespect empowers women!

If you thought the recent women’s march was bad…

US feminists are being one-upped by the vulgarity and blasphemy of the Argentine feminists.  International Women’s Day was just marked in the US by encouraging women to protest “inequality” and stay home from work or otherwise shirk responsibilities, not by staging a “bloody fake abortion on a woman dressed as Virgin Mary.”

Feminists in pink masks pretended to commit an abortion on a woman dressed as the Virgin Mary outside a northern Argentina cathedral as part of an International Women’s Day protest last week…

Meanwhile, in Buenos Aires, participants in an International Women’s Day march tried to set the city’s cathedral on fire. They attacked a lone man who held a Vatican flag and tried to defend the cathedral.

Or maybe those US feminists are still in the running:

At the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. in January 2017, a protester carried a sign depicting Our Lady of Guadalupe as a bloody vagina.

Yet again these “ladies” show their priorities.  How does insulting an important female holy figure further female “empowerment?”  Perverting and insulting the image of the Virgin Mary doesn’t exactly translate into empowering or respecting women.

A Day Without [Feminist] Women

One is tempted to say “good riddance.”  The only impact they’re likely to make unfortunately is to hurt other women who are forced to take the day off to watch their kids who can’t go to school because so many teachers took off that schools had to be closed. Many of these women will be of lower incomes who cannot afford to miss a day of work or pay for extra childcare.  It’s also possible that some of the women who strike today will lose their jobs — tomorrow may be a repeat DayWithoutJobs (as it was for those immigrants who decided to take the day off without permission).  I’ve seen several comments saying this could actually help businesses weed out the crazies – ‘ah, they’ve identified themselves; that makes it easy to pick who’ll be in this next lay-off!’

According to protest spokeswoman Cassady Findlay:

the action is aimed at highlighting the effect of women on the country’s socio-economic system and would demonstrate how the paid and unpaid work of women keeps households, communities and economies running.

“We provide all this value and keep the system going, and receive unequal benefits from it,” Findlay said.

Findlay said it is important for white women to be in solidarity with minority women… “It’s when women of all backgrounds strike and stand together that we’re really going to see the impact.”

Unlike the Women’s March, Wednesday’s protest focuses on the absence of women, who are being steered to local rallies and community groups and away from work or shopping in stores or online. Organizers also are asking women to wear red to signify love and sacrifice.

What exactly do they mean by “unpaid work”? Homemakers and stay-at-home moms?  So you’re going to not bother to feed your children today?  Let the kids run in the street so you can lie on the couch snacking and binge-watching Netflix?  Let your home become a pigsty?  This proves what exactly?  How is this supporting any cause?

Most families do appreciate the women who help to run things and take care of them.  Ask most men and they’ll express gratitude for what their wives do (and insist they’re very happy they don’t have to do those things!).  Sure, sometimes women are taken for granted in domestic settings, but how often does anyone, female or male, get praised to high heaven for the work they are expected to do for their jobs?  The unequal benefits women supposedly receive for their work is a feminist propaganda point that has been disproved so many times it’s like beating a dead horse at this point.  Feminist Christina Hoff Sommers goes over the facts again here.

How about about wearing red to signify love and sacrifice?  Sounds nice doesn’t it?  But how does spitefully refusing to do your jobs (whatever they may be) and ignoring your responsibilities prove your worth  or demonstrate love and sacrifice?  Selfish whining, self-importance, and grown-up (sort of) versions of temper tantrums sound like the opposite of love and sacrifice to me.

Despite platitudes about solidarity among women, let’s not forget that women of all backgrounds aren’t actually welcome in this protest.

It’s being billed as “A Day Without a Woman,” but apparently only pro-union, pro-choice, anti-Israel women who can afford to skip work need apply… Like the Women’s March, however, the event is embedded with political messages that many women may find objectionable.

The Day Without a Woman manifesto includes strong support for unions, a “living wage,” “fair pay” and “solidarity with the sex workers’ rights movement,” without explaining what those policies entail.

One of the group’s premier partners is Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, which effectively shuts out pro-life women, said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America.

“Does Planned Parenthood, a main sponsor of the Women’s March, approve the closing of schools and putting unnecessary burdens on women, especially working mothers who rely on a regular school schedule?” said Ms. Hawkins. “Are they OK with children from low-income families who will go hungry on Wednesday? Women’s empowerment shouldn’t rely on putting other women and children in precarious situations just to make a point.”

Aside from the slew of parents complaining about school closures, there have been plenty of other criticisms.  One writer claims that ‘A Day Without a Woman’ is a strike for privileged protesters:

Make no mistake, March 8 will mostly be a day without women who can afford to skip work, shuffle childcare and household duties to someone else, and shop at stores that are likely to open at 10 and close at 5. As for wearing red, what is the dress code, exactly? Are you supposed to wear your pink pussy hats, too?

***

A Day Without a Woman seems especially poised for unquantifiable results, given the diffuse nature of its platform.

 Any male who complains about having to pick up the slack left by striking/boycotting women can count on plenty of eye-rolling invocations of the popular refrain “I Drink Male Tears.”

Meanwhile, for the millions of women who have no choice but to show up and meet their responsibilities on March 8 (and every day), it will be business as usual.

Which, when you stop to think about it, is kind of the point, isn’t it? At least it should be. We are nearly half the labor force now. We are just as important in the workplace and to our families’ fiscal welfare as men. All things being equal (which is what we’re after, right?), we are too essential to play hooky.

That’s why the idea that women should take a day off en masse to make a political point is both self-defeating and vaguely insulting. It’s meant to highlight how crucial we are, but its very premise also suggest the opposite: Women are expendable. A Day Without a Woman plays into the idea that we entered the workforce not to support ourselves and our families but to combat boredom or to boost our self-esteem. For all but a very few affluent women, that’s never been the case.

Demonstrating yet again that they don’t actually care about real women, their children or their families, privileged feminists Strike and March and Protest to end imaginary wrongs. They don’t even have concrete objectives or policy suggestions to end these supposed injustices, much less notice or care about the true injustices in the world today.

Did those garden-variety feminists just get used?

Sarah Perry writes of the so-called Women’s March: “Everything The Women’s March Movement Wants You To Believe About It Is A Lie; the worldwide event had very little to do with uniting and defending women—and everything to do with promoting a progressive, radicalized agenda.”

Of course it did.  How many un-thinking women were duped?  How many people actually believed the mainstream media (i.e. fake news) spin that this was a noble cause we should all get behind?  Ladies (and Gentlemen), it’s time to stop focusing so much on the feels and turn your brains on.

The intersectional feminism of the March wasn’t immediately visible. Straight, white women were tolerated, but certainly not exalted. The organizers wanted to make sure the march “[was] led or centered around women of color, or it will be a bunch of white women marching on Washington.”  As a result, some feminists couldn’t help but feel that the real agenda of equality had been hijacked in favor of an illiberal liberalism.

This is the kind of double-speak at which the Left is so adept: where differences are celebrated, but only if they’re the right ones; where partisan mitosis continues until the only causes left to champion are those of the transgender, bisexual, Muslim illegal immigrant trying to get a late-term abortion.

***

Among those participating in the historic March were those whose lack of information on its actual agenda had profiteered the Left and its monolithic, make-no-concessions narrative. With enough pink and some language on social justice, the organizers had rightly predicted women adhering to a basic definition of “feminism”—the theory of equality of the sexes, regardless of their views on Sharia or the unborn—would clog the Metro stations with their signs.

These women have come to learn that their diverse and disordered march had been coordinated in large part by a capitalist pro-abort [Cecile Richards of PP], an Islamic misogynist [Linda Sarsour], and one very rich man [George Soros].

Feminists: Down with female objectification (unless we’re objectifying ourselves)!

More proof (as though we need it) that the women of this country are seriously confused, at least the most vocal elements are.  The early women’s rights movement may have made sense, but ceased to do so a long time ago.  Just like the leftists, feminists have no consistency in what they preach and protest about, and apparently no ability to think with anything resembling logic and reason.  If they did, the “Women’s March” on DC would have seemed ridiculous.

And the celebrities and pop culture many of these women embrace would be seen as derogatory towards women.  They simultaneously condemn and celebrate two sides of one coin.  They shout to the world, especially men, “don’t objectify us, don’t define us by our body parts” while at the same time presenting themselves as sex objects and defining themselves by their body parts (except when “tolerance” insists that they accept “trans-women” — and not very convincing cross-dressers like Stephen Crowder!).

Victoria Cobb of the Family Foundation made these observations on the so-called “Women’s March:”

The thing about vulgarity is that for most people, the novelty wears off when we grow up.  The use of these words proves nothing except possibly that we lack the creativity and class to have conversations of substance and meaning.

I fear that much the same principle applied to those that attended the misnamed “March for Women.”  Given everyone appeared to be angry for different reasons and the march itself had no centralized purpose, it left a void that vulgarity filled.  Sign after sign used words and images that should make us cringe.   Rather than symbolizing some liberation of women, it should embarrass us.  Does it represent our gender to be unable to express our specific, legitimate concerns with this administration with civility?  I get that our new President hasn’t exactly set a high bar in this arena.  I just find it odd that those that dislike him so much gladly follow him into the gutter.

Rather than organizing an anti-Trump rally, organizers tried to make it the summation of what it is to be a woman.  The only problem with that plan is that in today’s gender-confused society, it’s very hard to describe what it is that makes one a woman.  If visuals in D.C. yesterday are any explanation, womanhood comes down to the existence of a uterus and the ability to kill the next generation of girls.  This left the march with conflicting messages because on the one hand, it is the uterus that defines “womanhood,” but on the other hand, even a uterus doesn’t guarantee your exclusive stake on a women’s locker room or shower room.

An even more recent example of their inconsistency: Women who protest female objectification and decry “rape culture” singing praises for the domination of women, glorification of rape and domestic abuse of women in films like 50 Shades Darker.  Mary Ann Kreitzer and Jamie Fuller tell us why “Love is Not Grey ” and why they “Won’t be Seeing Fifty Shades Darker and No Real Feminist Would”:

Tell us again, girls, how crude and misogynistic Donald Trump is as you slobber over the sick messages of these male domination/rape films? …  Haven’t we been there in the past? I thought we’d advanced from the all-women-are-sluts-who-really-want-to-be-raped era. Guess I was wrong. On the other hand, is it possible that liberal women like those at the Women’s March agree with the message? They were certainly lewd and crude and…well… slutty at the March.

***

I won’t be going to see the new Fifty Shades of Grey movie and here’s why. We as women have spent the last 50+ years fighting to be seen as more than sex objects. We have demanded equality to men in the work place. We’ve fought to have our partners stand by our side at home and pitch in around the house. We’ve dug ourselves out from this idea that women should be the sole caretakers of our children. We want to be equal to men in all ways (well not me- we aren’t equal- women fill the gaps that men can’t and vice versa – but that’s a whole different discussion).

Why, then, are women clambering to see Fifty Shades Darker? What does that say when we promote a movie that not only objectifies women, but creates this idea that every woman fantasizes about being dominated?
***
Before you rush out to see Fifty Shades Darker this Valentine’s Day, consider this: we as a country were outraged at the idea of a presidential candidate making crass and inappropriate comments about women. We as a country (well some of us anyway) supported a march on the capital protesting rape and domestic violence on women. We as a country have fought for women to be on the same level as men in the work place, in society, and at home. Why, then, would any of us want to see a movie that does nothing more than demote women to sex objects and elevate men into a place of dominance over us?

Don’t forget ladies: if the fictional Christian Grey assaults a young woman in highly demeaning ways, that’s cool, but if Donald Trump is caught on tape more than a decade ago making a demeaning comment about women, that calls for months (years?) of outrage and condemnation.  The best way to combat “jerks like Trump?”  Definitely go see 50 Shades Darker and be vulgar and slutty in public.  Yep, that will definitely put a stop to men viewing women as worthless except as sex objects.