3 ms·
I'm not here to defend the theory, but c'mon - you're inventing a strawman here. The very first sentence says "...many women have lost touch with their natural
by WorldWideWayne 11y ago
I'm not here to defend the theory, but c'mon - you're inventing a strawman here. The very first sentence says "...many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts." Nothing in that article says anything about the "only natural way".
Nobody is arguing about the point of feminism either. Everybody knows what feminism is about, but how many people know who funded the first feminist groups and why?
- viraptor 11y agoThe whole article goes on and on about how this is the natural way. It goes on to define what the essence of a heterosexual contract is (exchange of power). That women shouldn't challenge men. How now the only thing women can provide is sex. ("Now that love and marriage have been "discredited,"") Sure it doesn't explicitly say it's the only way. But it's the only way it presents and doesn't leave space for any other way either, so this is the straightforward conclusion. The article doesn't have to present this any clearer.
- WorldWideWayne 11y agoThe whole article does not go "on and on" about anything. Everything you talked about is just in the first section. The last 2 sections talk about bankers and the media. You've also quite obviously misunderstood the sentence that you quoted because nowhere does he say that the "only thing women can provide is sex". First of all, in that sentence he's criticizing the logic of a reported conversation between two women talking about feminism and his conclusion at the end of that section is spot on ("Permanent love is not based on a woman's sex appeal, or personality or achievements. Ultimately, it is based on self-sacrifice. We love the people who love us.") and if you don't think so, then you're just being obstinate.