KLo has gone and discovered that misogyny is a problem because of feminism .

This will be painful. This column is not recommended for pregnant women, not-pregnant women, not-pregnant men, pregnant men, sentient humans, chordates, carbon-based lifeforms, inanimate objects, or indeed anything, anywhere.

KLo begins in the 1960s, when, of course, everything that was good became bad.

I t’s the summer of talking about the summer of ‘68. And back during that infamous summer, there was sex — an encyclical on sex, that is: Humanae Vitae , from Pope Paul VI, issued on July 25. Its message is being heard and misheard as much now as then. It would be for the benefit of all — Catholics and non-Catholics alike — to give it a 40th-anniversary look.

Of course! Because there’s been no more forward-thinking organization committed to gender equality than the Catholic Church. I hear that by the year 3655, they may actually take up the discussion of whether women can be priests, but it may be another 10,000 years or so before they decide in the affirmative.

Even Jessica Valenti, author of the new book He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know , might find it more helpful than she’ll care to let on.

Oh, God.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops in Rome, said recently that “the encyclical is not simply a ‘no’ to contraception but also a defense of the dignity of woman against whatever might degrade her greatness as a person, wife and mother, reducing her to an object of pleasure.”

Yeah, that sounds exactly like the Jessica Valenti I know — completely opposed to contraception, supportive of women’s greatness being defined by her being a person, wife, and mother — all three, you know, equally important. That’s Jessica to a T, only the opposite.

What — Jessica might ask — does a Catholic priest know about women’s liberation?

Wait for it.

Well, let me ask Jessica a question: What does the West actually know about so-called women’s lib?

What does anybody know about anything? Why does the sun shine? Why do birds suddenly appear, ev’ry time that you’re near? Why? The 25th letter of the alphabet, that’s Y!

It knows that a culture of contraception has left women in a predicament where . . . well, let me let Valenti herself tell you about it. In her new book, she writes:

In my sex-having lifetime, I’ve been on the Pill, used NuvaRing, condoms, and female condoms, and considered getting an IUD just so I wouldn’t have to worry about birth control for another five years or so. I’ve taken emergency contraception. The job of being responsible, at the end of the day, has always been lain with me. Because I’m a woman. It’s our responsibility to have safe sex: birth control pills, diaphragms, spermicides — sh*t [sic — KLo evidently was scared of the cursing], we even have to convince men to wear condoms! I say it’s crap.

Agreed. Gentlemen, there’s no reason on God’s green earth that you can’t put a condom on. I mean, it’s just common decency, for criminy’s sake. If and when the male pill goes on the market, then we can revisit this, but until then, you’ve really got one option, and if you’d prefer your one night stand/girlfriend/fiancée/wife not get pregnant, and she’d prefer she not get pregnant, wearing a condom is a good way to ensure that happens.

Right, KLo?

The lady’s got a point. But it’s not men that are the problem. It’s the whole sexual-revolution outlook.

Yeah, the “whole sexual-revolution outlook,” from the idea that women’s satisfaction with sex matters to the idea that women who have sex outside of marriage are not tainted wanton harlots to the idea that people should be able to plan their reproductive outcomes. Obviously.

Valenti adds:

Birth control has long been used against certain women — women of color, immigrants, and low-income women — as a way to control them. There are groups that put up billboards in low-income, minority communities urging women to get sterilized for cash (seriously). And a long history of sterilizing women because only certain (white) women having babies is considered desirable.

What a way to live. Valenti is clearly not happy about it. She even notes, complaining about the slow development of male contraceptive drugs: “Because it’s not like women undertake any health risks at all using countless levels of hormones, things stuck up our chocha, and the like.”

Which is why, of course, Valenti is pro-choice (because she doesn’t think women should be coerced to use or not use contraception, just that they should have the right to choose to do so), and why Valenti is pro-male pill, because for frack’s sake, after fifty years it’s frackin’ time.

At any rate, KLo is terribly, terribly concerned about all three of the problems with the pill that Valenti rightly identifies, and not so concerned about the, you know, total loss of control over women’s reproductive destiny the elimination of the pill would engender. There’s no attempt at cost/benefit analysis here, because while Valenti looks at birth control and says, “Well, this is good, but there are a few problems,” KLo looks at it and says, “This is the tool of Satan, and even feminists acknowledge that it is not in fact perfect.”

But KLo is not content merely to show that the pill is not without its problems. No, she goes on to take on that most sacred of feminist sacred cows: Cosmopolitian .

Thank you, Jessica Valenti. That message is a far cry from, say, this month’s Cosmo , which announces that the “one exception” to the rule that “The Pill has many positive effects” is that it might not be good for your bones. (No mention, of course, of your mental health or the quality of your relationship(s).)

Because the pill will make you crazy, and a slutty slutty slut. And men don’t marry women who have sex before marriage, if by “don’t” you mean “do.”

Reading Valenti’s book, I found it hard to keep out of my mind something I read on her feministing blog recently. A writer there was livid that Maureen Dowd had quoted a Catholic priest in her New York Times column , on marriage. “Dowd has stooped to a new low,” she wrote, in consulting a priest.

Of course, Samhita’s objection was , “I don’t think you have to have experienced things just to comment on them, but I do think relationships is one of those things that is frequently case by case and very much based on experience.” And of course, there isn’t going to be a female Catholic priest giving her opinions, because, you know, there aren’t any. And that’s an issue; there’s no way a priest can be fully aware of a woman’s perspective on marriage, especially as it regards her role as a baby machine/helpmeet.

But that’s just muddle-headed girly thinking. KLo knows what women need.

As it happens, a few good priests may be exactly what feminism is looking for: some holy men with inspired guidance.

Oh, Jesus. Yes, what feminism needs is a man’s perspective on what women need. That’s exactly what feminism is about! That, and looking for awesome shoes. Chicks love shoes.

If you’re a woman getting angrier by the word as you read this, do yourself a favor: Instead of getting mad, psychoanalyzing me until your overworked Blackberry thumb gets tired, pick up a copy of one Karol Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility . Do a little Googling on “Theology of the Body .” Take a little time for considered reading and reflection. In this context — yours and mine — what Humanae Vitae has to say is truly radical:

Conjugal love . . . is total [pleno ]; that is, it is a very special form of personal friendship whereby the spouses generously share everything with each other without undue reservations and without concern for their selfish convenience. One who truly loves his spouse not only loves her for what he receives from her but also for her own sake. This he does joyfully, as he enriches [his beloved] with the gift of himself.

Truly radical indeed. It’s batting about .750, near as I can tell. Yes, love means caring more about your beloved than yourself, and putting their needs above their own. But it’s also interesting that first, Pope John Paul II argues that marital sex should be “without concern for their selfish convenience.” Which is, of course, a very interesting way to view sex: not for your enjoyment. Now, I’m all for being giving in sex, all for putting your partner’s needs as paramount. But that means, to be blunt, that your partner should be having fun — that she should be having sex for her own selfish convenience. And that his and her “selfish convenience” also includes not having sex today, and not having sex for the sole purpose of procreation.

Read that, and be honest with yourself: Do you really want to tell me I’m crazy to believe it — crazier than, say, Helen Gurley Brown’s legacy?

Yes. You are. Own it.

Browse on over to Cosmo on the newsstand with me:

Why? Cosmo has nothing to do with feminism, and everything to do with enforcing patriarchal norms of female subservience and unattainable beauty standards. Not a feminist in America believes that Cosmo is awesome.

But all right, I’ll bite: what does the anti-feminist magazine have to say that will pwn the feminazis?

SEX POLL: 30,570 Dudes Tell What They’re Dying for You to Do in Bed.” [To all of them? That’s one long month.]
. . .

How Dirty Is His Mind? Filthy, to Be Exact. You’ll Be Shocked . . . and Intrigued
. . .
WHY MEN CHEAT IN AUGUST

Ah, so Cosmo is yet again running a variation on the “What YOU Can Do To Keep Him Happy in Bed” message that they’ve been running for the last 30,570 issues. (The answer for women is the same as for men: actually talk to your partner and listen to what they say, and then put that knowledge into action. You’re welcome.)

Now, I could go off on a long and bitter rant about how Cosmo is all about reinforcing the idea that women are here for men’s enjoyment, and that a woman is only good insofar as she can fulfill a man’s needs, and how it’s sort of the opposite of a feminist perspective on sex — that would have a lot more articles on “How HE Can Keep You Happy in Bed” — but what’s the point? KLo has evidently decided that Cosmo is somehow what women want, and the only people who can keep women happy are Catholic priests.

Forty years ago this summer, Pope Paul VI predicted that men will lose respect for women. They will “no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium.” The man would reach “the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”

Way to go out on a limb there, Pauly. What gave you that idea, the previous 10,000 years of gender relations? Men have been encouraged to consider women as “mere instrument[s] of selfish enjoyment” for thousands of years. At least, some women. The sluts. The “bad girls.” The women, in the words of Rick James, “you don’t bring home to mother.” The only alternative, is absolute purity — women must be virginal, without taint, without knowledge of other men, without their own desires, merely ready to be venerated as a respected and beloved companion who does the dishes and pops out the kids.

Could Pope Paul have been predicting the August 2008 cover of Cosmopolitan ? Isn’t what he was describing today’s reality? And isn’t that something Jessica Valenti would join me in thinking is pretty bad for women (and, indeed, for everyone?)

Oh, God, KLo, let me try to explain this. Jessica Valenti and other sex-positive feminists are not opposed to women having sex, nor to women desiring sex, nor to women being able to chart their own destinies. They are not opposed to this because frankly, women do like sex, and do want to have it, even outside the confines of marriage. What Valenti and others like her want is for the power relationship with regard to sex to be balanced, for women’s needs and desires to be considered equal to men’s — and for a woman who has engaged in sex to be considered, well, pretty normal.

The fact is that in a relationship, there are many men, and more all the time, who don’t care if their partner has slept with one or one hundred people. If the latter number draws concern, it’s because of fears of being inadequate, not fears of being with a horribly tainted woman. Men are able to love, partner with, and yes, marry these women, and treat them as beloved equals, because they know that it’s no more just to say a women who played the field is unlovable than to say a man who played the field is — and we never, never argue that a man who has slept with a hundred women is a man that women should shun.

Which is kind of right there in the title of Jessica’s book, KLo.

Elle declares in its most recent issue that “The Pointy-Toe Shoe Is Back!” How about human life and dignity? How about — are we ready for this four-letter word? — “Love”? Do I have some takers? Don’t hate us because we’re Catholic — we’re happy to share with you something that really works. The Good News is for sharing.

KLo, look: I’m glad you find Catholic doctrine to be a positive in your life, glad you feel that you are best fulfilled by following its guidelines vis a vis sex and marriage. I’m pro-choice on sex, and that means that I want people to live lives that make them happy and fulfilled. If following a traditional mindset on marriage makes you happy, and you’re able to choose that free of coersion, then great.

But the traditional, virgin-until-honeymoon, mother/wife/baby factory model is not right for all women. The vast majority of women will want to have sex before marriage, as they have since time immemorial.  For that group, it is wonderful that they are now able to do so without fear of an unwanted child, and with less opprobrium and hand-wringing all around. And the women and men who are, indeed, having sex and enjoying it are probably not reading Cosmo to tell them how. They’re simply living the life that makes them happy. This works for you, KLo, and that works for them. Stop trying to tell them it doesn’t.

6

You recommended