These days, I feel nothing but utter contempt for feminists. So NOW’s review of Super Bowl ads is just another illustration of the absurdities of feminist ideology. Two comments of that review are worth mentioning as particularly insane.
Insane comment #1: On the ads in general: “I don’t mind the number of male-oriented ads. In fact, I will get worried when the ads are more female-oriented. I prefer to think that not many women care about the Super Bowl.” Well, over 40% of football fans are women. But such feminists would prefer to cling to their rosy image of women as gentle and peaceful rather than acknowledge the readily-available fact that women like bone-crunching football!
Insane comment #2: About the FedEx — “Cast Away” spoof: “Good to see a woman be on top of things, showing the man that he should have been smart enough to open the package.” Ah, so it’s okay to see men belittled and mocked in commercials — that’s funny. But, as all the other comments make clear, to see any woman as the butt of a joke is sexist. (In fact, my use of the word “butt” and “woman” in the same sentence is probably sexist… Oh the shame!)
Unfortunately, rabid feminism is often found in Objectivist circles as well. In his third article on Objectivism and homosexuality, Chris Sciabarra presents Carolyn Ray’s views sexism within the Objectivist movement:
Underlying many of these discussions of homosexuality are important epistemological issues, according to Carolyn Ray, an Objectivist philosopher. Ray insists that “conceptualism”–which she views as “the epistemological piece of Objectivism–makes it easier to think through pretty much everything.” Ray argues: “Taken seriously, conceptualism eliminates the possibility of clinging to realist Categories to protect the oldest of training and prejudice, and new information can seep in and make sense. It fosters an openness of mind that is the extension of the openness of classifications. For people who don’t understand conceptualist epistemology, no matter what you say, all of this [discussion of homosexuality] is going to remain a complete enigma, as you can plainly see by the fact that they are willing to call names, throw rocks, and pass laws.” And similarly, Objectivists who fail to grasp central epistemological principles end up with “a strong sense of spoiled entitlement with regard to their own immediate grasp of all things knowable, and a penchant for fits of rage. I’m still hearing lots of slurs, from Objectivists, about nonheterosexuals, usually used with the intention of insulting heterosexuals. With the worst offenders, my opposition is usually met with redoubled efforts to insult women. However, what dismays me the most, personally, is that most of the slurs against males are derived from slurs about just plain ol’ females. Homosexual males, who not only share the female preference for males, but who are also stereotyped as being like females in other respects, are automatically devalued. A sissy, after all, is a boy being accused of acting like a girl. There’s something inherently wrong with being a girl, that makes homosexual males a problem. . . . So the ugly truth is that people who would like us to believe that they are the epitome of heterosexual maleness, are behaving hatefully toward homosexuals, bisexuals, and, most especially, women.” It is for this reason that Ray maintains: “Fair and respectful treatment of homosexuals isn’t getting off the ground until it happens for women, and that’s going to be a long time coming if Objectivists’ and libertarians’ idea of freedom is to be able to slander half the human race for having vaginas.”
This is the most absurd characterization of the Objectivist movement I’ve ever heard. The mind boggles.
UPDATE: As there has been some confusion, I should make clear that Chris Sciabarra is not endorsing Carolyn Ray’s views in the quoted paragraph, just reporting them.