The media outlet that is best known for espousing anti-Trump and anti-Republican bias published an op-ed that works against their liberal narrative when it comes to the current state of feminism. That's right; I'm talking about CNN. Left-wing professors with degrees in feminism-related studies insist that women have been held back by the patriarchy and want the rest of the world to believe they are seeking equality. When in reality, women on the left such as the author of this op-ed are perfectly content to use their sexuality as a weapon when it suits them.
Picking and choosing when it matters that your a woman is very convenient and seems to fly in the face of the idea that they are against people being co-opted and controlled by suggesting that if women withheld sex, then they could force their political views. The author suggests women around the United States turn against their partners and use sex as a bargaining chip in the political arena by going on a "sex strike" unless their demands are met.
The author, Wednesday Martin, wrote, "It’s time for a revolution. At the polls, and in the bedroom. And in our understanding of who women are, sexually and otherwise. Given the tight interweaving of economic and political power with sexual entitlement, female sexual autonomy has never been more urgent, and women’s sexual pleasure has never been more political. Let’s consider what it might mean to go on a sex strike of sorts — to get what we want, rather than give what we think we owe others."
Related coverage: <a href="https://thegoldwater.com/news/40776-Opinion-MSM-Bias-on-Florida-GOP-Headquarters-Shooting-Shows-Globalist-Agenda">Opinion: MSM Bias on Florida GOP Headquarters Shooting Shows Globalist Agenda</a>
What happened to the war against objectifying women? Martin, a woman, seems perfectly content to acknowledge their sexual differences are indeed to staunch that they could be mobilized to exact political change. Martin goes on to write,
"Sex and status are linked. Where men have the tightest grip on resources and power, our society (including the women in their lives) will prioritize their pleasure — and create false narratives about what women deserve, sexually and otherwise. To wit: in 2018, the number of female CEOs of US Fortune 500 companies dropped 25%, to 24 women total among hundreds of men leading industry, tech, manufacturing, and other sectors. On a more workaday level, according to World Bank data cited by TheGlobalEconomy.com, the US ranks an unimpressive 76th out of 180 countries worldwide for female labor force participation."
What about the fact that more men are homeless, do more poorly than women in school, fill more prisons, and larger numbers of men are victims of violent crime? Or how about the fact that men have been instrumental in bringing about the freedom we enjoy today by dying in wars or inventing revolutionary technology that empowers women such as hygiene products? We can go tit-for-tat with which sex has it worse all day, the reality is that the majority of men aren't US Fortune 500 CEOs, so why is that even relevant?
Related coverage: <a href="https://thegoldwater.com/news/35597-President-Trump-Reinforces-CNN-as-the-Enemy-of-the-People-Per-Extreme-Bias-and-Hatred#36025">President Trump Reinforces CNN as the Enemy of the People Per ‘Extreme Bias and Hatred’</a>
Martin doesn't stop there; she takes it a step further by adding race to the equation,
"American women, particularly women of color, continue to earn a fraction of the dollar that white men do — 63 cents for black women; 55 for Native women; 54 for Latinas. Even worse, we are 104th out of 193 countries ranked for female political participation (beaten out by Namibia, Burundi, and Belarus, among others). These numbers are astonishingly low when we consider that the US is the world’s largest economy. Those who can’t lead or even earn on par must serve. And in America, in restaurants, in businesses, and in bed, it is women who serve men."
The ridiculous part of the whole idea is that Martin herself admits that using sex as a way of enacting change is not the answer to gendered inequalities. So what is it the answer for? I can tell you the answer; the answer is that Martin wants women to mobilize, withhold sex from their partners, and use the most sacred form of intimacy two humans can share as a bargaining chip. It sure sounds to me like she is objectifying women.
Related coverage: <a href="https://thegoldwater.com/news/40575-Bomb-Hoax-Deaths-0-Chicago-Murder-2018-448-Don-t-Get-Sidetracked-By-False-Flags">Bomb Hoax Deaths = 0 - Chicago Murder 2018 = 448 - Don’t Get Sidetracked By False Flags</a>
Martin continues, "Resetting the balance, so women no longer provide service sex is not in itself a comprehensive answer to gendered inequalities, of course. But making sex female-focused and female-pleasure-centric could begin to force other shifts in thinking in important ways. When we cease to consider what women like and want as foreplay and reframe it as the main event, for example, we begin to challenge, from the most intimate and private and emotionally powerful place, a long-accepted, deeply believed but nearly invisible worldview, and make an impossible-to-miss statement about who and what counts."
"In the ancient Greek comedy by Aristophanes, the character Lysistrata urges women to go on a sex strike to get men on both sides to end the Peloponnesian War. In our case, a sex strike against service sex can be a powerful statement — that female desire, a metric of agency like women’s votes, will be heard."
I don't even know what to say to this; I don't even know what Martin expects to hear? Good idea? Great job? If a "sex strike" were to take place, it would be more likely to ruin relationships that supposedly bring their partner around to their point of view. Here is a little secret coming from a man, if you want to withhold sex and use it as a bargaining chip then I refuse to play. I'll just flip over the gaming table on my way out and walk away. There are plenty of fish in the sea.
Tips? Info? Send me a message!