Representing Women

I’ve noticed that highly intelligent women who are anti-feminist have a tendency to examine their own nature and proclaim conclusively that feminists are full of shit, limiting social functionality to biology. And while feminists are inclined to be much more aware of the nuances—and more often the expanses—that make women different from each other, it seems we occasionally participate in variations of this projection, most likely because it is an internalized device of patriarchy.

And this is a serious shortcoming. I can’t even begin to understand how one can not recognize falsely attributing her own characteristics to other women as essentially intellectually dishonest, if not a heinous betrayal of the emerging recognition of the female sex in its complexity. For example, I’ve come to the conclusion (even with zero experience) that I am not designed for sex without commitment. I know what I am; I am sure I harbor the most declaredly primal of cravings and behaviors, but even in hypothetical expressions of sexual freedom, monogamy is inevitable and ultimate—if not initially, then gradually. However, I would never impose these characteristics on another woman and assert that it is her nature simply because it is mine, or infringe on her rights and freedom to satisfy the criteria for her sexual contentment, or—most importantly—assess the validity of her womanhood.

Qualifying oneself as the archetype produces results of a deeply fallacious perspective and can only breach intellectual honesty. It amuses me the same way do those who believe in evolutionary psychology (yuck) yet are so ready to dispose of the qualities evolved over thousands of years that result in contrary evidence.

One thought on “Representing Women


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s