Hairy Legs

So, while I was planning to make a different post, I was surfing through some MRA sites, and via feminist scum, I ended up getting into a debate with Amy, a young feminist on her blog, Scorpio Risen.

I stumbled across her rant about Society's "Patriarchal Oppression" that "expects" women to shave their legs, and got into it a bit with her. Before I get into the specifics, I will say that Amy does deserve some credit for allowing dissenting opinion on her blog, and that even though it's obvious she's quite the angry young female prone to vulgar invective, she has thus far been pretty cordial in response to my challenge to her rant.

The following is my reply to her last response to me, with her arguments in italics:

Personally, I could give less of a fuck about making myself attractive for males.

Than why are you angry at all and feel the need to rage about the conventions of society that are basically in place because females are primarily concerned with making themselves as attractive and desirable as possible? And if you really don't care, than are you a lesbian? And if you are a lesbian, are not at least concerned about making yourself attractive to other lesbians?

Hawaiian Libertarian, you probably won't be surprised, but I disagree with you. "Femininity is the specific traits women have for expressing their DIFFERENCE from the male gender." That's not true. Femininity and masculinity are not about both genders expressing their differences, they are the guidelines imposed, and drip-fed as ideology, from an early age, exaggerating any natural differences, and to maintain the patriarchal status quo.

Your indoctrination in feminist denials of the differences between the sexes couched in post-modernist gobbledy gook is complete.

Males and Females are different in many, many different ways. The differences in gender are merely the evolution of the species designed to complement each other to providing a well balanced environment for raising the next generation of the species.

If the mindset of society was more liberal to choosing to shave or not to shave, rather than simply expecting women to be shaved, then I suspect less women would shave, and more men would be less judgemental.

Here's a newsflash: Men will NEVER be "less" judgemental.

Neither will women.

Judgementalism is a trait that is inherent in us as a species. Even if NO women in the west were to shave ever again, and we men accepted and even learned to prefer it (as it is in some European countries), we would simply be judgmental about some other aspect of the female physical appearance in determining whether or not we would want to pursue any particual female. "She has beautiful leg hair, but her ass is still too fat and her boobs sag."

Judgementalism is how we ALL discriminate whether or not a person would be suitable for mating.

If more men quit working and collected welfare and got fat and lazy, do you really think you and the rest of the females in the West would be "less judgemental" about dating/marrying/hooking up with said loser? Somehow, I don't think so.

You mention competition amongst women for male suitors. You do have a point there; women aren't particularly expected to be competitive, except for trying to attract males.

You are too focused and worried about what society "expects" women to do. Much of the expecation is what you women put onto yourselves for your own reasons.

Are you really suggesting that we are not superior to other animals? And therefore, our social patterns must follow suit? And by the way, genders are socially constructed, whereas sex is biological, so perhaps you should ensure your terms are correct ;).

I'm not suggesting that at all. I merely do not deny that the biological imperative that exists in all of us to procreate to ensure the survival of our species is non-existant or nullified simply because we are capable of abstract thought -- the trait that does make us superior to all other animal species on the planet.

Just because we can think beyond instinctual impulse does not mean such instincts don't exist, nor does it mean they do not play a powerful role in influencing our thoughts and our actions.

No matter what your feminist influences tell you, I will never agree to this idea that genders are socially constructed, as if they are some seperate entity from sex. I've observed too much innate differences with my own eyes to believe this notion.

We are different from each other because we both have different reproductive organs and varying levels of hormones that influence and control our responses to stimuli. That is why women are more prone to crying at emotionally intense situations while men are more prone to clamming up and "avoiding" or "not talking about it." You women actually feel better from "talking it out" while we men just get a sick feeling in our stomach when you tell us "we need to talk about us!"

Patriarchy IS an artificial construct. But it's NOT a system solely designed for men to oppress women for their own benefit.

It's a trade off system between men and women in which women agree to share their reproductive lives with men in exchange for men supporting them. It's a system that evolved to control female sexual desires and limit it to a lifetime monogomous arrangement, giving the male relative reassurement that the children of their marriage are his.

In exchange, he will than be motiviated to work hard and support his family, secure in the knowledge of the paternity of his children. It is a social contract.

Women's liberation movement and feminisim is all about rejecting that social contract. You feminists look at the deal and say, "I don't need you men to support me, so I will NOT allow you to control my sexuality."

When you reject the artificial model of Patriarchy, you get what we now see in modern society. An epidemic divorce rate and millions of single mothers raising men who are no longer motivated to become providers for their families that they would have become under the influence of the Patriarchal model of society.

Hence, women now outnumber men in college, and boys are failing and dropping out of high school in record, unprecedented numbers.

Why bother working hard to achieve career success when a woman doesn't need me for nothing but my sperm to whelp her children and extract child support from me while alienating my kids from me and denying me any parental rights and responsibilities?

Modern, feminist women who have the mentality you demonstrate on your blog want nothing to do with the Patriarchal contract. Fine.

So you're free as you want to be. You have the pill, you have the freedom to abortion, and you no longer have societal wide condemnation for "living in sin" or even sleeping around with multiple partners. You can even have kids from different fathers and cut them out of the kids lives, take child support from them and recieve welfare support...and yet you still rage against "Patriarchal oppression?"

You already have the means to reject Patriarchy and not suffer the consequences of ostrasization and extreme poverty of women who once did when Patriarchy was the dominant model of relations between the genders.

Walk around in your mini-skirt with hairy legs and guys will most likely avoid hitting on you - which is what you want, right?

But notice who gives you the nasty looks, snide comments and snickers behind your back about your hairy legs...your fellow sisters.

That's not "Patriarchal oppression." That's peer pressure from your fellow females - all wrapped up in playing the competitive game of attracting potential mates.

Whether society abides by Patriarchy or Matriarchy, the biological imperative to breed will still compel women to attract men, and you will still have SOME kind of social norms or "rules of the game" when it comes to competing for potential mates.

If not hairy legs, there will be some other aspect of your physical appearance that other women will find some means of differentiating themselves from the competition in the game of mate attraction.