Thursday, December 17, 2009

What Women Need According to WaPo

For anybody who has read my blog at least once before, it must be pretty obvious that I'm not the kind of a person who reads The Washington Post regularly. However, I do skim through it every couple of months to see what depths of idiocy its so-called journalists can reach. Today, an elderly indivudual named Richard Cohen has come out with an article titled "Why is there no female Tiger Woods?" where he offers a clumsy recitation of most idiotic myths about female sexuality.

Like many patriarchal losers of his ilk, Cohen cannot accept the simple fact that women might have sex for pleasure. This is why he goes out of his way to convince himself that the only reason why women have sex is to have babies. Conversely, the reason why women don't have sex is in order not to have babies. Cohen pretends that he doesn't know that modern methods of contraception allow women to avoid the danger of every sex act culminating in a pregnancy. This quasi-journalist is desperate for an explanation why nobody has had any sex with him for the past couple of decades. The sad thing is that his pathetic search for this idiotic explanation has to be done publicly, and the poor readers of his newspaper have to witness these embarrassing efforts at convincing himself that nobody wants him because of some obscure evolutionary designs: "Women seem not to have the evolutionary urge to couple with cheaply dressed strangers. They have a stronger need to mother — to have a child and then raise that child. . . Since recreational sex can lead to diapers, women have to be prudent. As they say down at the Fed, they have to consider the out years. This is why women more than men link sex to love and commitment. I'm not saying that all of them do or all of them do all the time. I'm just saying that there seems to be few women who behave as Tiger Woods did. Even women who have no moral compunction against multiple affairs draw the line at a number somewhat below Tiger’s." One can practically smell the desperation of this poor man, who is falling all over himself in order to keep believing that women haven't cheated on him, or if they did, at least it wasn't that often or with that many people.

I have noticed that men, who insist on some special link that women make between sex and love/commitment, usually are the ones absolutely incapable of offering even marginably passable sex to anybody. It is as if they were saying: "I can't offer you sexual satisfaction because I suck in bed. But I can offer you marriage and access to my wallet. And since you are a woman, that is what you need, right? Sex isn't that important to you, right? Please tell me it isn't. Please please somebody just tell me that women don't really need sex! Pwease, pwetty pwease!!!"

This image of constantly cheating men and women who have their noses perennially stuck in a baby's diaper is so near and dear to Cohen that it blinds him to one simple reality. If it were true, then who the men would cheat with? Unless the cheating man in question is gay (and there has been no suggestion that Tiger Woods is), then for every act of cheating by a man, there needs to be a woman present.

Cohen ends his article with a childish outburst against the group of people he sees as his biggest enemy: the feminists. He blames feminists for the fact that many women have discovered that sex is fun and does not have to be sacrificed to the needs of moth-eaten fools like this journalist. Cohen thinks that if he repeats something enough times, it will eventually come true: "The reason the Glass Ceiling has not broken is that women have other priorities — maintaining relationships and being a mother. This is the way it is, and this is the way it has always been." Note the hysteria in these last sentences. "It has to be this way because I can't deal with the thought that women might have other priorities. If they do, then what is my role in life? Who will need me?"

The answer is clear. In today's world nobody except an irrelevant rag like The Washington Post needs outdated chauvinists like Cohen. And the reason we still encounter the glass ceiling everywhere is not that we are only interested in babies and relationships. It's that wherever we go and whatever we attempt to do, we encounter a condescending jerk like Cohen  lecturing us on our needs.


Anonymous said...

I figured part of this out when I was a kid, when I was told that "only men cheat."

I thought about it for a moment, then realized that there had to some women there (generally) for the men to cheat with, and if it were only one in the whole world that they were all cheating with she must be really tired.

That little thought experiment right there, when I was 10 or 11, was one of the things that convinced me that a lot of what the the adults around me were telling me was pure bull.

And it was. But it wasn't until later that I figured out the whole concept of "cheating" was largely crap, but that's another story for another time.


Clarissa said...

If you could figure this out when you were a little kid, why can't so many adults realize this simple truth? At the very least, if they want to work as journalists, could they avoid these tired senseless cliches? So annoying.

tinfoil hattie said...

I always thought all these men cheated with that one "town slut," a concept to which I was introduced while watching a film in 12th grade sex ed class. The theme of the film was VD, and the cause of VD? That slutty, trampy girl from the next town over. They showed all these wholesome, handsome guys and then the last line of the movie, as the camera closed in on the swinging hips and heavy make-up of the town slut: "Is this ... your daughter?"

Come to think of it, I believe it was narrated by Richard Cohen.

Clarissa said...

Are you serious?? This was sex ed??
This would be funny if it weren't so disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Cohen's explanation is lame, but he's right about not having nearly as many sex scandals where the main participant is female. What is your explanation?

Clarissa said...

There are less sex scandals involving women because there are less prominent, well-known women in sports, politics, etc. This is not to say that the sex scandals involving women are non-existent. remember the hue and cry involving Princess Diana's very modest sex life? And the endless speculation about Hillary Clinton's sex life? And Britney Spears? Paris Hilton? I could go on and on with this list. In the areas where women are allowed to participate and rise to prominence, there are just as many female sex scandals as there are male.

Of course, the nature of these scandals is different in that women don't have to pay for sex. But that's a whole different story.