A friend of mine sent this article with the comment that this is what people who have abandoned thought are thinking these days. He also asked if are we living in a dystopia? Some of our fellow citizens are, I’m afraid.
Why heterosexual relationships are so bad for us, according to a sex researcher
If you have bought into the narratives of the Left this kind of thinking may seem clear to you. If you don’t know much about the Left’s narratives or you are a person who thinks for yourself, this will seem truly bizarre.
First, according to the author, the definition of a healthy relationship is one that results in an orgasm. That’s her only measure of a healthy relationship. I wouldn’t make that my one and only measure of a healthy relationship. I think it is a rather shallow definition, but then it comes from a person who thinks rather shallowly.
She also makes a bizarre statement that a gender reveal party led to a wildfire and a wedding to the outbreak of coronavirus infections. So, this makes all weddings and gender reveal parties bad? This is proof of nothing. There is no logic to it, but then people are not taught logic anymore. However, if you understand the new progressive mantra, established five minutes ago, is that gender is whatever you want it to be today, then you will understand this person wants to attack “gender reveal” parties. One can’t have someone else (parents, doctors, the laws of biology, etc.) determining your gender before you have the opportunity to define it for yourself.
And, of course, the author sees men as bad for simply being men. This is a progressive mantra that we’ve seen ratcheted up for decades. When a man acts like a man it is considered toxic masculinity. She says men don’t open up emotionally, so that also makes them bad. In other words, men need to be more like women to be good. Men are less emotional than women; we all know that, but she wants you to believe that everything would be better if men were just more emotional. Really? We don’t need that contrast between men and women? I thought progressives tell us we are supposed to celebrate diversity. Can’t we celebrate the differences between men and women and the unique qualities each has to offer?
Sometimes we all need a man to act like a man, but this woman doesn’t think so. She didn’t say it in this article, but she would probably say our notion of men and women is just a social construct. Men and women, progressives tell us, have been taught wrongly about what it means to be a man or a woman. But then I think this woman is trying to make a new social construct, one that doesn’t make that much sense to me and one that I do not want to be forced into. I’d counter her argument with this: when men don’t act like men, families fall apart. That’s a big part of our society’s problem today; too many men have bought into the notion that they shouldn’t act like men because men acting like men is toxic and rarely ever good. And so families are literally falling apart because men are buying into this notion and abandoning their traditional roles. But I don’t imagine the author cares about families falling apart. She is too caught up in tearing down icons of the past and replacing them with the Left’s new social construct which as I said was developed five minutes ago.
Men are cruel, insensitive, and boring, she also says. And women who don’t see their men in such a way are stupid according to the author. So, everyone, men and the women who love them, are wrong? Who made her the judge of all relationships? I wouldn’t take advice on relationships from this nit-wit. Some men actually are cruel, insensitive, and boring, but then so are some women. Furthermore, many men are the opposite of cruel, insensitive, and boring. What is the point of making such a statement other than to stereotype men and paint them as all bad? Again, I thought our progressive betters don’t like us to stereotype people? Isn’t that what racists, bigots, homophobes, and the like do?
She continues to pile on saying men are taught to objectify and hate women. Where is her proof that men are taught to hate women? I wasn’t raised that way and I don’t know anyone else who was raised to hate all women. Certainly it is true for some men (a very small percentage), but then I also think it is very clear this woman is teaching others to hate all men. Is that not a problem? Why is it that she wants us to think hate is a problem exclusive to men? Can’t she see the hatred in her own words?
I would agree with her that the objectification of women is a problem. It’s been a problem in most cultures throughout history, but both men and women contribute to that problem, at least they do in our society. I think she doesn’t recognize that. Again, it’s a problem exclusive to men in her opinion. I’d say she’s been raised to hate men and to consider herself a victim of men along with supposedly outdated social constructs; we must blame men for all women’s problems and being a victim somehow makes her good (which is yet another ridiculous progressive mantra).
People today do not think critically any more. They don’t know how to think. I see this when I discuss any topic other than the weather with liberals. When I spoke with my priest recently he thought a big part of our problem is that we just let our emotions drive our thoughts. This woman seems to hate men and the feeling is so strong that she lets that feeling drive her thinking. When I debate people such as her and present facts or draw conclusions based on facts, they double down on their feelings. She won’t counter your facts and won’t present any facts or logic of her own; she would ignore your facts because facts are not relevant to her. Ben Shapiro’s line is that facts don’t care about your feelings, but to people like her feelings are everything. This whole article is based mainly on how she feels (kind of warped in my opinion), along with a single data point regarding orgasms. Such a person would never admit she was wrong because it is what she feels and what she feels must be true; there is nothing more true to her than her feelings.
People like her are considered progressives, but I’d say this thinking is regressive. G.K. Chesterton talked about the “democracy of the dead”. He believed we should listen to and learn from the wisdom of our ancestors, but folks today only know what they feel today and for them the halcyon past is a regressive era that needs to be destroyed. I feel sorry for the author because she is just falling in line with the kind of godless distorted thinking that is rampant in academia today. My friend is right when he asked what kind of sick dystopian society have we created when people are taught to think like this woman?