Before my dad married my mom (stepmother for biological purposes) he told me that if I want to eat, I need to know how to cook. We went to the laundromat early on Saturday mornings, and sometimes during the week, washed and folded clothes and ate donuts in the process. We cleaned the house often enough to not live like complete savages. We went to the grocery store and got well balanced meal items. That was the norm to me, men being able to take care of themselves. When they got married, she definitely improved upon our habits and we would eat home cooked meals more often, cleaned more often and more thoroughly. We were less savage, but it wasn’t like we were fish out of water. When I went to my uncle’s house, he was usually the one cooking, not exclusively, but most of the time I saw food prepared, he was the chef.
This to say, societal norms for gender roles were not reinforced in my environment. I grew up seeing strong men and women that typically played to their strengths for the stability of the relationship and each other’s sanity but not so much on TV. Maybe I was just watching the wrong shows, but they all seemed to portray the male as a clueless cave man, fully reliant on women…or they showed women that tended to the home, fully reliant on the financial support and leadership of their husbands. Other than the Cosby Show, there weren’t examples of reality that I could point to on the screen. Despite this, I always knew reality involved hybridization for relationships to actually work in the real world.
Recently, I stumbled across this YouTube channel that is run by a female misogynist. Initially, I’d see these little clips of her saying something that made sense or giving a stat that was unflattering to women. I assumed, because she is a woman, that she’d be fair and balanced, understanding of both sides of the equation so I watched a few full episodes. Nope, she may believe what she says, but it sounds like she’s pandering to the involuntarily celibate crowd to get more views and possibly dates. My ignorance to this type of woman made me dig a bit deeper into it and of course, there are psychologists who write about them. A few of them break them down into types, but I doubt all female misogynists fit snugly into any one box.
Most Black people that have paid attention to politics the past 35 years or so, have a less than favorable opinion of Clarence Thomas. Count me in that group. The reason is that Clarence is to Black people what these female misogynists are to women. When the message of hate for a particular group is echoed by a member of that group, it justifies the idiocy in the mind of those outside that group. Also, those people are given a larger platform to echo their self-hatred, ingratiating themselves with the same crowd that looks at them like a problem, while never actually looking at themselves as a problem. This young lady, Pearl, talks about how women have the most value when they’re young, having a high body count makes you worthless as a woman, women need to just shut up and serve their men and that virginity is a prize possession. At the same time, she never sees fault in how men behave. If they’re cheating it’s because of the woman, they’re sexless, woman did that, they’re not achieving, woman’s fault again, insecure, you guessed it, the woman’s fault.
Add Some Reason
Now, if you’re willing to think past the things you may agree or disagree with, you’d be able to see the flaw in her stance, and that of all misogynists, not just the female brand. The funny thing is, she has men on her show, that agree with her wholeheartedly, but they’d never agree with the implications of what she’s saying. Those implications being women control their destiny, happiness, and self-esteem. For some men, this may be the case, but if it is, they shouldn’t be misogynists at all. Misogyny like this is equivalent to being thirsty and pissing in all of the drinking water. If anyone should be a misogynist, it’d be someone like me. In my household, I am the primary for everything; cooking, cleaning, child raising, I am a successful business owner, and I am able to find time to write this blog and create music as well. I am not made or broken by the action or inaction of women…yet I value women the way these weak ass guys and female misogynists should value them.
This particular female misogynist placed the bulk of any woman’s value in her vagina. Assuming she isn’t completely stupid, she’d quantify her own value in this way as well. I’m sure she believes she brings more to the table than an orifice. If the only value a woman has is low mileage on her vagina, then how is she also responsible for the success, failure, fidelity and happiness of a man? It takes an oversimplification of male emotions, desires, goals, intelligence and values to think the male ego is dependent on how much sex a woman has had before a man meets her. Again, believing that is the case also means the value of women, regardless of mileage, is high across the board because they are influencing men of all types. It would essentially translate to; male value being tidally locked to the value of his woman’s vagina and none of these folks are going to agree with that at all.
I have to take a break to ask…who the hell is looking to marry virgins these days? I’ve been a virgin, and I’ve had sex with a virgin, not the most exciting time and none of us got married. If I placed all of my personal value in the vagina I’m with, I for damn sure don’t want it to be one that is uncomfortable and in pain, or awkward as hell. No thanks, I’d rather have my vagina with some experience and know how.
The one aspect of this misogynistic theory of value that I believe holds a bit of merit, if we’re being honest, is the perceived value over time. It goes both ways though, and it has little to do with preexisting mileage. I’m going to use cars as an example to keep it nice and easy. When I was younger and buying cars, I only purchased used cars with low mileage. My first car had plenty of miles, the drivers side door didn’t lock, and after about 2 months the speedometer stopped working. I kept it clean though. Every time, no matter how nice the car was, I was excited to get the car, and the first couple of months/years, I’d pamper the car and put the most miles on it, then my driving decreased to as needed only. I’d swap it out for a newer car and repeat the process, driving it for no reason and often initially then as needed only. Over time, my perceived value of all cars has steadied because I’ve driven a lot. Now, I primarily lease new cars with no miles, but I still follow the same driving patterns. That to say, overall mileage is less important to me than my mileage with the vehicle. I think that most men are like this with cars, and vaginas.
Back to these female Benedict Arnold’s and Clarence Thomas’s. I personally don’t care how these types of people feel, they’re all entitled to their opinion. The double standard is that they devalue women yet link male value to female value and claim male value is higher, yet somehow dependent on how women treat them. It’s a strange argument that I’m sure is somehow rooted in religion. Religion has made literal the story of Adam and Eve, despite the obvious flaws in logic. As such, women have been looked at as the catalyst to the fall of man, the reason for original sin while never holding Adam accountable for his part in the story. Let me reiterate I don’t believe in that story at all, but the bulk of people on this planet subscribe to an Abrahamic religion. The actions of men and women are never treated equally. Sexual promiscuity in women is demonized, while it is celebrated in men, that to me is completely irrational, so for this particular double standard, I’m team ladies!