.
♦ Part Three, the last part of bitching about women as sparked off by the Ann Summers party I went to, for previous posts in this rant read Part 1 and Part 2. I feel more like writing something else but hey, I did promise I’d finish this off, so on we go…
A new contender appears!
This girl, who I shall name ‘Femme’ decided to add her two pence to the little debate. And it goes a little something like this (huh)* [*ten points if you get the 90s pop reference ;]
Femme: So why do you pity women, Fractal? Because it is truly hard at times to achieve female orgasm? Whilst I think Ann Summers parties are largely very daft and do not help feminism at all (they’re more of a hindrance), I’m not sure they should mean pitying the entire gender.
Fractal: Well, I said that to bait a certain someone who argued that Andrea Dworkin’s nasty opinions of men could be forgiven because she had a bad experience due to a man and I wondered if this person was willing to excuse such a sweeping statement as me saying I pity women given my mother’s history of violence towards us as children, not to mention drug abuse, that often had very misandristic connotations. I don’t really pity women, at least, no more than I pity men.
Femme: Perhaps you’d be a feminist if it weren’t for your mother?
Fractal: I’m an egalitarian, either way. I think I’d dislike the term ‘feminism’ even without my background. I’d never want any opinions linked with the extremist fringe of feminism if there were an alternative (such as gender egalitarianism). I’d hate any association with Greer or Dworkin.
Blacksilk: Well I pity the female gender as it entails such brainless crap like feminism, and ‘grrl power’, and being an ‘Independent Woman’ who’d still end over backwards for a shag. And shoes.
And by the way, I’m sure that there are men who have orgasm trouble too, not to mention the whole ‘penile dysfunction’ and size issues to worry about. And the size thing is in a large way a problem made worse by women.
Also I’d say that if AS parties are all like the one I went to they hinder society more than feminism. A good deal of what they said there is right up feminism’s street. I don’t see how AS parties hinder feminism, however. Could you elaborate?
Femme: As I see it feminism is about empowering women and making them able to have equal roles in society. So I don’t see how Ann Summers’ parties, with all the silly lingerie and sex toys, really help women transcend the objectification of society.
Blacksilk: Has feminism ever tried considering that maybe I don’t actually want to be empowered? I don’t believe I’m not equal. I don’t believe in this feminist idea of ‘empowerment’. I’m perfectly empowered enough, thanks.
And this is just one of several reasons why I say feminism is so sexist towards women. It says that women should be empowered and should want to be empowered. And if it turns out that you don’t agree with this idea then obviously you’re just a puppet of the patriarchy!
Feminism has an idea set in stone of what women should want and how women should be. And I find that sexist in the extreme and highly offensive. I refuse to be told that I’m not a ‘proper’ woman, I refuse to be told that I’ve been duped into being a puppet to ‘male oppressors’ simply because I’ve a different view or act in a different way to what most feminists would like me to do.
And as for Ann Summers, whilst I dislike the parties (due to their screeching ‘girl power’) I in fact like the shop. I like the lingerie. Hell, I like lingerie overall, not just theirs. And I like sex toys too. Lingerie makes me feel all sexified and it makes me look pretty good. And there’s no harm in simply looking good. As for sex toys, they give sex some more variety and fun (it’s fun by itself of course, but that’s not the point) and again that’s hardly a crime. Wanting sex and to be sexy, wanting to have fun and pleasure with a man, does not mean I’m any less independent, nor that I’m an ‘object’, nor ‘oppressed’.
If there’s anything at all wrong with this touted ‘objectification of women’ (if it exists at all) this is it: that we shouldn’t react by trying to desexualise the female gender in order to overcome inequality, but that we should instead be promoting the equal sexualisation of men.
Fractal: Why does no-one complain about male objectification? It certainly exists: tall, dark and handsome, muscled and so on.
And more to the point why is objectification problematic as long as that’s not the end of it? If Blacksilk doesn’t objectify me in the least, for example with fantasies and thoughts, then we have a problem in our relationship. It’s treating someone as means to ends. There’s no inherent problem with that attitude (you treat shopkeepers that way every time you buy from them) as long as they’re not purely treated that way.
Seeing someone as an object of sexualisation is no issue, seeing them as only that is. Both genders have serious problems with confining beauty standards. For example, Body Dysmorphic Disorder, according to statistics, is equal in its victims.
♦ Femme never replied to either of these two last comebacks. I think she had nothing further to add to the debate, which is a shame as I was rather enjoying the chance to have a nice intellectual wrestle. Perhaps this post will stir up a few feminists from the dredges of our gender. Who knows? Either way I’m sure it won’t just be something as an unusual as an Ann Summers party that riles me over this subject in the future.
But for now, back to the sexies….. ♦
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 27, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Why Women Disgust Me - Part 2 « Blacksilk’s Boudoir
[...] in next time for the third part of this little anti-feminist, Ann Summers-related tirade where we shall see the debate between [...]
December 28, 2007 at 2:20 pm
maviscruet
…oh christ, it’s a series…
I’m obv. the kind of bait you wanted to attract. Go on, then. Shall I do this post, just to get us started?
> SEX IS NOT A CRIME
Well, *duh*. None of us would be here without it, for a start. But good on you for putting that pic up, cos, y’know, theres a lot of people who want to ban sex, and that. Yeah.
Seriously, what is the point of that picture? Rape is a crime, sure (and for the most part, you have those smelly old feminists to thank for what little protection we have against that). Sexual harassment is a crime (ditto). Some of us would quite like to make paying prostitutes for sex a crime, some of us think that mainstream porn distorts sexual relationships and is pretty harmful (an example: it’s interesting that your image equates “sexiness” with being v. skinny and plastered with makeup), but are you actually implying that feminists want to ban sex? Cos that’d be big news to a whole lot of people.
(An aside: A lot of Andrea Dworkin’s views were pretty extreme, but she never said that all sex = rape. As far as I can tell, the argument is that true consent is only possible when both parties are in an equal position of power, and this is less likely to be the case in a society where male privilege is the norm. See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp )
> Fractal: I’m an egalitarian, either way. I think I’d dislike the term ‘feminism’ even without my background. I’d never want any opinions linked with the extremist fringe of feminism if there were an alternative (such as gender egalitarianism). I’d hate any association with Greer or Dworkin.
This makes me kinda sad, cos I believe that feminism and egalitarianism are essentially the same thing, or at least working towards the same ends. Surely these egalitarians aren’t too crazy about, say, the pay gap either? Or the lack of anything close to equal representation in positions of power, or street harassment, or the abuse of women under sharia law, or beauty industry bullshit, or sex trafficking, or female genital mutilation, or vulva-prettifying cosmetic surgery, or the UK’s LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT rape conviction rate, or nuts magazine, or heat magazine, or bratz dolls, or the conditions in the sweatshops that make the bratz dolls, or the erosion of our right to choose, or the fact that waaaay more girls than boys get aborted in some countries, or the way that steven tyler = teh rock but courtney love = oh noes disaster zone!, or the boys in the guitar shop who treat me like I don’t know what a plectrum is…or all the other big ways and all the other small ways, all around the world, in which women do NOT get treated equally. Calling it “feminism” is useful cos, frankly, it’s a lot shorter. It also a way of suggesting that these things are, in a subtle way, connected. But if you believe in equal rights, then you’re pretty much a feminist. Although I suspect you don’t want to hear that.
Do black people back away from speaking up for their rights cos they don’t want to be associated with Malcolm X?
I know I’m really engaging with Fractal’s argument here and not yours. I’m gonna try and rectify that now, tho.
Blacksilk: feminism = brainless crap!!!!!!!!!!LOL :D :/
me: uhhhhhhh NO!!!!!!!!!!!1!!! U R RONG. >:( O+ w00t!
But let’s agree on something! Ann Summers parties sound dreary. As for it being women-only – it probably makes good economic sense. Would you agree that the atmosphere would have been rather different had men been allowed in? And that some of those present (your good self excluded, of course) would have been rather less comfortable in that situation? And consequently these fine ladies may perhaps have been significantly less inclined towards the purchasing of one or indeed any of Ms. Summer’s wide and no doubt thrilling array of sexual requisites upon that inclement occasion?
Ah, the commodification of sex. It always brings out the Victorian in me. :) You don’t actually need any of that stuff, you know. People are sexy. Not baubles, just PEOPLE. Try it! It’s fun! Have sex with a person today!*
*so long as yr both consenting adults and etc. etc. etc. maviscruet accepts no liability for …anything.
> I don’t believe I’m not equal.
Really? I have no idea whether you’re ignorant or just extremely lucky, but I’m actually rather jealous. Let’s swap realities.
> I don’t believe in this feminist idea of ‘empowerment’…feminism is so sexist towards women. It says that women should be empowered and should want to be empowered. And if it turns out that you don’t agree with this idea then obviously you’re just a puppet of the patriarchy!
Empowerment is such a vague word, and I have no idea what it’s supposed to mean in the context you’re talking about. Is it even supposed to mean anything? Sounds like therapy-speak to me. Eurgh. Am I empowered? Fuck knows. Do I care if you’re empowered? Um, maybe? It sounds like quite a nice thing, whatever it is, so, yeah, hooray for empowerment. Empoweration to everyone! It seems a bit odd that you can have a beef with such a nebulous concept. Does it mean something more concrete to you?
> Feminism has an idea set in stone of what women should want and how women should be.
This = not true. Jeez, all along feminists have been trying to fight *against* that kind of didactic crap. Maybe there are one or two dungaree-wearing dictators out there who resemble the strawfeminist you’ve constructed in your head, but we have a word for them: idiots. And they’d be idiots no matter what they believed in, and it’s usually best to ignore them. Being a sane feminist, I’m not at all bothered what you do, but would prefer that you didn’t hurt anyone whilst doing it, whatever it is.
(Thing is – when everyone has their own definition of “hurt”, it gets complicated. There’s no great big secret feminist manifesto to do this for us, unfortunately; we have to think for ourselves…Fuck, maybe we could use a didactic dungaree-wearing dictator! Then we could REALLY get things done!)
There. Look what you’ve just started. Happy now?
Peace out,
mave. x
December 28, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Blacksilk
@ maviscruet: “SEX IS NOT A CRIME Well, *duh*. None of us would be here without it, for a start. But good on you for putting that pic up, cos, y’know, theres a lot of people who want to ban sex, and that. Yeah. ”
I just liked the picture. Is there some kind of problem with that? I like to have a picture to liven things up and that was the only vaguely well-made thing I could find.
“it’s interesting that your image equates “sexiness” with being v. skinny and plastered with makeup), but are you actually implying that feminists want to ban sex?”
How do you know she’s skinny? You can only see half her face! And its not *my* image! Its some French advert for a club night if you must know. Hey, I know, why don’t you criticise every other image on my site for petty reasons? That’ll be fun! I have a penis made of bread on here somewhere if you’d like to tell me how silly that is…
Further is it worth adding that in the very first post of this little series I was complaining about the skinny = sexy thing. Or did you even read that far before pulling out the bitching?
And of course I’m not implying that. That would be what is technically known as “stupid”.
“This makes me kinda sad, cos I believe that feminism and egalitarianism are essentially the same thing, or at least working towards the same ends.”
If it’s truly about equality, and I have yet to meet a single feminist that doesn’t tell me it is (though I’m aware this doesn’t cover everyone), then why call it ‘feminism’? The name itself implies a bias.
“me: uhhhhhhh NO!!!!!!!!!!!1!!! U R RONG. >:( O+ w00t!”
…..I see.
“As for it being women-only – it probably makes good economic sense. Would you agree that the atmosphere would have been rather different had men been allowed in? And that some of those present (your good self excluded, of course) would have been rather less comfortable in that situation?”
Actually though I agree that some may have been more uncomfortable I myself was actually a lot more uncomfortable in the single-sex variety. I was looking forward to seeing the male attitudes towards the whole thing, seeing which were even brave enough to turn up. And the all-female, ‘grrl power’, ’sisters are doing it for themselves’ attitude you got without them was rather terrifying.
“You don’t actually need any of that stuff, you know. People are sexy. Not baubles, just PEOPLE. Try it! It’s fun!”
Oh I know. Sex without all that stuff is perfectly good, as I say. Even BDSM can be done without them (though I fail to see how you can really do bondage without stuff). But I quite happen to like my sex toys, so does my lovely man, and they make things even more varied and fun. For us. I know they’re not up everyone’s street.
“Really? I have no idea whether you’re ignorant or just extremely lucky, but I’m actually rather jealous. Let’s swap realities. ”
I don’t feel unequal. That’s it really. And frankly even were I, as long as I’m happy with that, does it matter? See I can’t stand this thing of “Hey there’s a woman who’s perfectly happy with life and doesn’t feel oppressed! She’s clearly wrong and must be made to feel unhappy, repressed and angry!”
“Empowerment is such a vague word, and I have no idea what it’s supposed to mean in the context you’re talking about. Is it even supposed to mean anything?”
Its strange that no-one, including yourself as a feminist, seems to actually know what it means. Why then is it brought up constantly in debates about feminism? I’m not saying all feminists, of course, but even your average woman on the street know about it and she’s got it from one of you lot.
“This = not true.”
Yes, all right I was over-generalising and you’ve caught me. I would’ve thought it easy to understand the type of feminist I was referring to, the context of the posts should give that, the kind that forces ‘empowerment’ on people.
“the UK’s LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT rape conviction rate, or nuts magazine, or heat magazine, or bratz dolls… or the way that steven tyler = teh rock but courtney love = oh noes disaster zone!, or the boys in the guitar shop who treat me like I don’t know what a plectrum is…or all the other big ways and all the other small ways, all around the world, in which women do NOT get treated equally.”
Nuts and Heat share the same problem, which is not sexism, but which is hooting anti-intellectualism and shallow mindless idiocy. Like Big Brother. As for the rest folowing it seems these are fairly small concerns. I too have suffered the ‘plectrum’ treatment in a geek shop, but then so has a male friend of mine suffered it in a cosmetics shop. It works both ways. Can I ask, and this intends no sarcasm, have you considered any of the ways in which men (in big and small ways) get treated unequally? I’d be interested to see if you acknowledge that this happens.
“Calling it “feminism” is useful cos, frankly, it’s a lot shorter. It also a way of suggesting that these things are, in a subtle way, connected. But if you believe in equal rights, then you’re pretty much a feminist. Although I suspect you don’t want to hear that.”
It’s shorter? That’s your argument? Seriously? (Or as you might prefer me to say “O RLY?”).
As for equal rights = feminist I’m sure there are many men, who get persecuted in their own ways (See Quixote’s story above), would disagree. As would I. As would, I think, even some feminists.
Oh and I put your post back into one piece for you
December 29, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Fractal
“…oh christ, it’s a series…”
Oh Christ, so are your comments and you also lack the ability to tell it’s a series from the fact that the first part had “part 1″ in the title (of the first post) and you lack the command of English needed to realise that one capitalises proper nouns (I could chalk it to a spelling mistake, but I doubt).
As to your defence of Andrea Dworkin, she was, in fact, committed to the idea that all sex in our present situation is rape (due to a kind of gender gap that meant all penetrative sex resulted in female subordination in our society) and fighting to correct the gender gap was something that had no end. I’ll leave you to add two and two, but given your display of linguistic skills so far crashes short of the beach, I’ll guess your mathematical skills do too.
As to your point regarding egalitarianism; yes, some feminists are egalitarians, some are not. Andrea Dworkin, I do not imagine, would have much sympathy for a friend of mine who, at school, was accused by a rather messed-up girl with a long history of overt self-harm, suicide “attempts” and wearing goth clothing of raping her. He was suspended, socially ostracised and returned with no formal apology from the school. She received no expulsion, no punishment and no recommendation for any psychiatric attention was put forward. Somehow, I also doubt MacKinnon would either.
I accept that several feminists have showed support for the men’s movement, Wendy McElroy, for example. That is all well and good, but as long as a neutral term like egalitarian is there, I would feel no need to say I am both a masculinist and a feminist (besides, most feminists do not).
And yes, while I don’t know black people who do not stand for their rights because of Malcolm X (which isn’t analogous to what I’ve said), I do know many who’ll call themselves “racial rights activities” to avoid association with their more unsavoury branch.
I feel no need to engage further with the unadulterated crap you write, or to even think of what I wrote above as engagement with your, well, let us call it ‘intellect’ for argument’s sake (as I don’t think you’re the sort of person who goes in for intellectually vigorous discourses that might challenge, rather than brutishly reinforce, your world view). One little piece of advice, though, I cannot speak for Tyler, but if you honestly think that the reason Courtney Love’s not considered “teh rock” has more to do with her being female than her near complete lack of anything remotely resembling talent then I pity you (more so) and must inform you that your tastes are aberrant.
December 29, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Biskie
“I cannot speak for Tyler”….
but you “do not imagine” that Andrea Dworkin would have much sympathy for someone accused of rape.
On what do you base this?
And please do not equate “someone who has a long history of overt self-harm, suicide “attempts” and wearing goth clothing” with someone who is likely to make false accusations of rape. There is no reason why these factors would be linked.
December 29, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Fractal
Ah, the pseudo-intellectual from the Guardian pages. Normally, I’d be more engaging here, but I’ve seen your style so I’ll be rather more stand-offish.
“I cannot speak for Tyler”….
but you “do not imagine” that Andrea Dworkin would have much sympathy for someone accused of rape.
On what do you base this?
On the face that while I am relatively unfamiliar with Tyler’s music (my area of knowledge in music is Classical) whereas I’m pretty comfortable discussing all major non-fiction publications of Dworkin’s (not just her Wikipedia page), an array of articles and her fiction (which is hardly canon literature, but c’est la vie). I feel I have something of a basis here.
‘And please do not equate “someone who has a long history of overt self-harm, suicide “attempts” and wearing goth clothing” with someone who is likely to make false accusations of rape. There is no reason why these factors would be linked.’
I didn’t. However, if you tell me that when a girl who has a history of severe mental illness compounded with noted attention seeking tendencies linked to said mental illnesses accuses an otherwise well-behaved, high-grade schoolboy of rape and there is no evidence for this beyond her say-so then confesses it was false that there should be no further psychiatric evaluation of this girl, even if the gender politics were removed from the situation then I’ll hazard an (educated) guess that if you have any training in psychiatry or psychology, it probably isn’t from a university that’s making good points on the broadsheet league tables. If a male made an accusation on that scale towards another male, with such a background, things would’ve been different.
So yes, her self-harming she wore like a badge, her suicide attempts never seemed to work and statistics note that females, while less likely to actually attempt suicide, are more likely to stage one. As to her “lifestyle choice”, I think Anthony Burgess in Clockwork Orange has already said what needs to be said of subcultures.
The link was that her self-harm, her clothing and her staged suicide attempts (one who seriously means to kill oneself rarely fails for over 4 years) were all attempts to draw attention to herself. The rape accusation was likewise an effort to absorb attention, it’s arguable not even her most dramatic.
I wonder why you defend self-harm, faux suicide attempts and goths. Any of the terms apply to your behaviour?
Knight takes Queen. Check.
December 30, 2007 at 12:47 am
Biskie
So you didn’t know Andrea personally then. No, I didn’t either.
It’s hard to know what other people would do, say or feel. I wouldn’t be so sure myself. People are often very different in real life.
I do not defend self-harm, faux suicide attempts or goths. But neither do I associate any of them with false accusations of rape. I know people who have self-harmed, I know people who have attempted suicide. They are some of the best people I know but they have had very, very difficult lives. I don’t know any goths and it’s not really my style.
“a girl who has a history of severe mental illness compounded with noted attention seeking tendencies” – this is a far better description, but it’s only the attention seeking part that might be a factor in her false accusations. It is not generally associated with severe mental illness.
The girl sounds very ill. She definitley needs help.
December 31, 2007 at 12:40 am
Fractal
“So you didn’t know Andrea personally then. No, I didn’t either.”
Do you honestly think that means one cannot adequately know the thoughts, feelings and responses of an individual?
Here, to show you the sort of misandry she biled forth out of her mouth:
Q: People think you are very hostile to men.
A: I am.
I believe it’s an interview that’s been re-published in Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed. The odd thing compare this to a white male who says:
Q: People think you are very hostile to women.
A: I am.
or
Q: People think you are very hostile to African-Americans.
A: I am.
Compare the general acceptance of such statements.
It doesn’t help your case much that when presented with an obvious victimised male, you immediately show your empathy towards the female perpetrator. I wonder, are you willing to show sympathy for, say, Henry Lucas, who, after years of physical and sexual abuse from his mother killed her? My guess here is that, like many liberals with whom I’ve debated this sort of point, you’re probably selective with this sort of sympathy. Further, like Primerib on the Guardian comment pages who writes with a clear misandry while challenging the notion that all feminists are misandristic, you are a counter-example to your own case.
That is not to say she didn’t need help. Ultimately, though, she needed to be expelled, there is only so much one can take before the needs and welfare of others outweigh the needs of the individual in question.
December 31, 2007 at 1:10 am
Sealion
Interesting blog… The Dworkin quote ‘all sex = rape’ seems to come up a lot, which is interesting because she never said it. She has always attributed it to Hugh Heffner and Larry Flynt who were reacting against feminist attempts to demonise the porn industry and set up a strawman that could be easily derided. What she actually said was less controversial. For instance….
“No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse–it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.
The whole issue of intercourse as this culture’s penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the “all sex is rape” slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don’t think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.”
Dworkin was radical, and there is much that I don’t agree with, but for someone who spoke out against the gender separatists of the movement and lived a large part of her life with a man she gets a lot of shit for being ‘man hating’.
December 31, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Biskie
Dworkin married a man, not just lived with one. That’s a very counter-intuitive move on her part.
“It doesn’t help your case much that when presented with an obvious victimised male, you immediately show your empathy towards the female perpetrator.”
I wasn’t aware that I did. I am very sympathetic to anyone who is falsely accused of anything. Their gender doesn’t come into it. But some people are really fucked-up because of what has happened to them. This doesn’t excuse their behaviour but it can go some way to explaining it. I don’t know the girl you’re talking about so I can’t comment further.
And I’m not a liberal. I thought that was obvious from my views on SM sex.
And I love men. Well, not *all* of them of course. Some of them aren’t very nice, same as some women aren’t.
December 31, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Fractal
Sealion,
No one here has actually claimed Dworkin said that “all sex is rape”.The initial emergence of that reference was in order to refute it (via the snopes argument). Why her position on sex was brought up has not been shown. I made the closest claim to that, such that other things Dworkin has said effectively commits her to that claim (but have made no claims about her awareness of such a commitment, she didn’t really fully unpack her own arguments). As to whether these claims are always consistent with other claims she made is difficult to decide, Dworkin herself waxed and waned in the radicalism of her statements.
As to her misandry, well, as I quoted above, she was and it wasn’t a secret. Again, Dworkin’s consistency of position here is questioned by several. It is, however, of little relevance as she would have consistently needed to deny hostility to men generally (or, at the very least, not affirm it so openly).
February 3, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Liz
I dont feel at all unequal to men.
But women in general (not feminists all of them) treat you as less than them cos they dont like ur clothes or shoes. Lets start treating eachother as equels before we start ranting about how men treat us.
February 3, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Blacksilk
@ Liz: I quite agree. Women can be so very hierarchical.
December 6, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Lap Dancing « Blacksilk’s Boudoir
[...] Besides, I know I’ve covered this ‘women as sex-objects’ thing before, but it bears repeating. People objectify others every day. As Fractal has said on this blog before: [...]
June 18, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Blacksilk and her Boudoir « Blacksilk’s Boudoir
[...] dislike modern feminism, in fact I have a rather low opinion of women in general, though this is not overly strong, I like [...]