A Modern Woman

Over the past month (since I left Terrence) I’ve received several offers of dates and relationships from various men who read this blog. I’m not looking for a new boyfriend right now but it seems I should clarify what it is I look for in a man when I am, which will hopefully stem the flow of offers from guys who really don’t have it.

I am a very high-quality woman. I know that sounds arrogant, but let’s consider the facts:

• I'm slim (whereas 62% of American women age 20 to 74 are overweight)
  
• I'm attractive (my new picture has been rated more attractive than 86% of the women on Hot or Not -- and the women who upload their pictures are a self-selected sample that is probably already biased towards being more attractive than the general female population)
  
• I'm relatively young (whereas 82% of American adult women are over 30 years old)
  
• I'm intelligent (IQ tested at 145 when I was a child, which is 3 standard deviations above the mean -- higher than 99.85% of the population. Even if I've gotten dumber as I’ve aged I'm probably still at least a 130, which is higher than 97.5% of the population.)
  
• I’m educated (whereas 77% of American women do not have bachelor's degrees)
  
• I have my financial *bleep* together (no debt, perfect credit history, 6+ months living expenses saved, adequate insurance, self employed)
  
• I have a strong libido and love having sex (my lover *never* has to beg, unless it's for me to let him get some sleep!)
  
• Most of my interests tend to be more popular with men than women: science fiction, libertarianism, blogging, politics, economics, guns, gambling, etc.
  

Given that self-improvement is an ongoing project of mine this list will continue to grow (I'm currently working on adding bilingual, very physically fit, well-traveled, higher income, and fantastic cook to the list). So even when "relatively young" (an important criteria for most men) drops off that list, I should have added enough other things that my overall dating market value should remain the same or even improve.

I realize that some of you will find this post depressing because you'll realize that you don’t qualify as a high quality man and thus won't be able to get a high quality woman. You have a few options:

1. Lower your standards and stop pursuing women who are out of your league. There are lots of fat single mothers out there who can't find dates either.
2. Look in the developing world. If you're literate with a home computer and an internet connection you are very wealthy compared to the rest of the world. Citizenship or legal permanent residency in a rich country makes you more attractive to women in poorer countries. Your value on the dating market is thus much higher there.
3. Self-improvement! I used to be a fat unattractive college dropout who couldn't get her life together. Now I'm thin, attractive, and successfully self-employed after graduating. You can make yourself over into a higher-quality man capable of winning a higher-quality woman too.

Thanks to everyone who e-mailed or commented their offers, it's nice to feel wanted. Although I'm not looking for a new relationship right now (don't worry, I'll blog about it when I am), hopefully this post gave those of you who are interested a better idea of your chances in the future.

We Have A Benevolent Communist Dictatorship In Our Home

This country has been brainwashed into thinking that socialism is bad. They say (sneering) it will lead to communism!"

My Name Is Tony, And I'm An Anti-Neo-Feminist

Feminist-minded people who won't use the label "feminist" have nothing on the sexist folks out there who run like the wind from the word "anti-feminist". I don't blame them. The word "anti-feminist" sounds ugly, like the person wearing the labeled is opposed to women. Unfortunately for them, what it sounds like is what it is.

The desperation to avoid the label "anti-feminist" reaches pretty silly levels, as this post at IWF demonstrates today. (Hat tip, PA.) The story is about a group of Notre Dame anti-feminists who claim that they are "reclaiming" the label "feminist" according to Pope John Paul II's instructions. Because nothing says "feminist" like the head of a group that petulantly refuses to accept female membership, due to the cooties factor.

The group calls themselves the Edith Stein Project, and naturally the flashpoint for the organizing is to oppose the showing of "The Vagina Monologues" on campus. IWF may not have any obsessions bigger than hating this play, which says to me that they view making women feel shame about our bodies as the linchpin in their anti-feminist worldview.

This Edith Stein Project is one of the more common flavors of anti-feminists pretending to be feminist by co-opting the language but not understanding the concepts. This effort to "reclaim" feminism is the same one as Feminists for Life, they happened upon the term "sex object" and assumed, wrongly, that the problem with being a sex object is the sex part, not the object part. Contraceptive use and abortion are offered up assaults on women's dignity.

The purpose of the conference is two-fold. The conference will begin by discussing ways in which our dignity as women is under attack in our culture, featuring presentations on eating disorders, violence against women, contraception, abortion, and other issues.

Interestingly, one of the common complaints on IWF is that "The Vagina Monologues" reduces women to our vaginas, which means that merely admitting you have one in public somehow erases the rest of your being. Clearly, they're trying to confuse people on what the feminist concept of objectification is. Objectification is reducing someone to an object, end of story. Allowing that women are full human beings with desires and bodily functions that they have the agency to control, which is what reproductive rights advocates do, is not objectification.

However, slapping a purity ring on a girl's finger and telling her that she should only "give herself" to her husband is in fact sexual objectification. Having sex with someone is not the same as "giving yourself". The concept of giving is that one person transfers ownership of their property to someone else, who is free to do with it as they see fit. So the phrasing then means that the woman who gives herself is transferring ownership of her entire being over to her husband's use as if she were nothing but an object, and the sexual contact is just the ceremony of his taking use and enjoying his brand new warm sex toy/breeding machine.

Having sex with someone and being able to do so without him gaining control over you as if you were a piece of property is anti-objectification. Having the government, your husband, or some mysterious god lay claim to your uterus and tell you that it will be used as he sees fit instead of how you see fit is objectification. Having sex with 100 men because you want to is anti-objectification. Hanging onto your virginity because you know your entire worth to your future husband is based only on the nature of your hymen instead of the content of your character is objectification. Any use of the term "sex object" that implies that the way out of being a sex object is to relinquish power or control over your life and become a breeding machine is misdirection. Being told to give up control over yourself for the use of someone else is being objectified.

Jessica Valenti has a new article out in the Guardian about the attempts to turn a philosophy that is fundamentally disempowering and objectifying into a new form of feminism, with the modesty movement. Jessica and I talked some about her article when I was in NYC and she said that while it was fun to write, it was depressing to talk to some of the women who were pushing this movement because they somehow had convinced themselves that playing what Jill Soloway calls "hide the bunny" with men is empowering.