Defining feminism

It ought to be obvious, beyond remarking, that a woman should be able to sleep with whom she wants, when she wants, as often as she wants, without danger and without shame.

Yes, I\’d like a pony too.

The bit that seems to have been left out is \”with those who would like to sleep with her\”.

How about this for Timmyism:

It ought to be obvious, beyond remarking, that Timmy should be able to sleep with whom Timmy wants, when Timmy wants, as often as Timmy wants, without danger and without shame.

Quite apart from the danger likely from wifey of such a social creed, again, it\’s rather left out the question of consent, of those who would sleep with me.

10 thoughts on “Defining feminism”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    There are two problems with that. The first is even if she gets the consent she wants, asking to do this without danger is utterly f**king stupid. You cannot go around sleeping with people without running some risks they are going to be arseholes (who may well beat you to a pulp etc etc). Especially as it is obvious that some women like a little danger.

    No, it shouldn’t happen that way. But it does. We work hard to minimise it – as we should. But it will never go away.

    The bigger moronic-ness of this comment is the bit “without shame”. That demands more of a commitment from the rest of us. Anyone is allowed to sleep with whomever they like (as long as they consent) and they are free to view it anyway they like. But so are the rest of us. If I want to call someone a slut because they behave like a slut (notice the gender-inclusive language there), it is my right to do so and I intend to continue to do so.

    Actually I don’t, but I think I am about to start.

    The point being, she has the right to think her own thoughts. She does not have a right to stop anyone else thinking theirs.

  2. Why not just cut to the chase and say women should be able to do whatever they want? That would seem to be the gist of it.

    Anyway, it’s married women who most want to limit the behaviour of single women, not oppressive males.

  3. I think the general consensus, among single men anyway, is there can never be too much female promiscuity.

  4. “without shame”

    Shame is directed from society, and it is up to the individuals that make up society to decide, not a Femminist. To demand otherwise is to attack freedom of speech, thought.

    Ergo, Femminists must convince, persuade us all at an individual level.

    Not sure if all Femminists will have the patience.

  5. Well judging by her photo, Zoe Williams is a dreadful old boiler, so this looks more a bit of Bridget Jones-esque wish-fulfilment than any form of feminist polemic. “Dear Comment is Free, I always used to think these letters were made up, but you’ll never guess what happened to me in a stationery cupboard at GMG head office with hunky Colin from Advertsing…”

  6. The funny thing is that lots of women have no problem doing this stuff. There’s boards on the internet which have lots of women available for hook-up sex.

    The thing for Polly Filler writers is that there are thousands of people who can knock this stuff out, so the things that keep them there aren’t just reputation, but social contacts and image. When they talk about “society”, it’s really the polite society of middle class, middle aged women that read their stuff, who would not like to be associated with a predatory woman.

    PAs, shop girls and nurses don’t have this problem. They can fuck around all they like because their customers don’t care that much what they get up to, and no-one is going to replace them for it.

  7. Hmm… The Guardian doing Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s defence for him? (Names have been changed to etc)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *