time comes undone

This little gem comes to me from my cuntacular net friend Keri. The original site is down, but I managed to clipmark it before the surge:

Bravo, Alex Kochno. You’ve managed to entertain and delight a couple hundred feminists while simultaneously legitimizing their cause! Maybe if I had a big male brain I could be doubly counterproductive too.

This presents a golden opportunity to talk about so many recent news items and experiences I’ve encountered on the topic of the gender wars. Just look at the letter. One has to wonder what moves this little republipig to take the time to send something so vicious. Is it backlash against perceived attacks on his values? Is it twisted emasculation fears? Is it hate? I’d say he’s just a troll, but trolls know better than to use their own email address.

I guess the most important feature of this letter to me is that he takes such satisfaction in belittling us stupid cunts. It’s one thing to assert female inferiority, it’s another thing to do so with glee. There’s a recent NYT blog post on “Misogyny vs. Sexism” that asks the question of whether the two can be separated. When we read articles like that describing acid attacks and stoning victims in those other sexist countries, we all get it: those backwards foreigners really hate women, with a ferocity that is hard to understand.

And yet we lack the awareness to turn the same scrutiny to our own culture. When Maxim runs pieces like “Get grossed out by the five unsexiest women alive” and the interwebs explode with cries of “Yeah, what an ugly bitch!” instead of cries of outrage, it smacks of the same stupefying hate that we decry everywhere else. That’s right, I’m drawing a parallel between literally stoning to death and symbolically stoning to death undeserving female victims; they are two points on the same trajectory.

And Sarah Jessica Parker did not deserve this culturally sanctioned hit piece, no matter what anyone says. No women’s magazine would dissect every physical feature of an average working actor. On the contrary, all the articles are about correcting their own appearance to avoid becoming target practice for the likes of Maxim and their readers! Parker is a beautiful woman who has never said anything to invite spontaneous criticism, but that’s besides the point. She wears what she was born with. What’s next Maxim? Get grossed out by the five unsexiest cleft palates? Look and barf at these mastectomy mamas? These are morally equivalent lists.

Granted, a rag like Maxim is written to appeal to human trash anyway: guys who read Maxim, measure female worth on a 10-point hotness scale, think warthogging is really cool, love to say “I’d hit it with a brown bag over her head,” and generally epitomize the lowest dregs of humanity. But Maxim is just an amplification of the pervasive objectification and brutal dehumanization of women in our culture. We accept it as common for people to delight in making women feel ugly, stupid, and worthless. It’s emotional and sociological terrorism.

I have so much more to say about this topic, but it’s time for all good little cunts to go to sleep.

I have come to understand a truth that eludes many people. It is a radical concept. Many aren’t ready for it. It will shock the world. Brace yourself. Here it is:

Attraction follows love.

A lot of folks have this backwards. They believe that initial attraction is a necessary prerequisite for entertaining the possibility of love with someone. Wrong! Here’s how it can and should work. You meet someone. You allow yourself to know that person, and for them to know you. And then, maybe, you fall for that person. If that happens, they will become desirable to you. You notice features you never noticed before. The beauty they had all along will be revealed, when you’re ready to see it.

1. “This is naive/sentimental/idealist bullshit.”

It’s true that I am talking about an ideal of love, but it’s not idealist. It’s attainable. If I speak it it’s because I’ve known it. You don’t have to be a fan of Meg Ryan movies to acknowledge the universality of what I’m saying here.

2. “People have a right to their preferences. I have a type and there’s nothing wrong with that.”

Fine, but your “type” is holding you back. You’re limiting your opportunities for a true and enduring connection. Why not increase your odds?

3. “It’s impossible to fall in love with someone you aren’t physically attracted to anyway.”

People fall in love sight unseen all the time on the internet these days. Real love with real symptoms: butterflies in the stomach, heart palpitations, consuming thoughts, agonizing worry, professions of commitment, the works.

4. “Men are visual creatures, you wouldn’t understand, the peni wants what the peni wants, bla bla bla…”

Don’t make this about men or women. There are actually men who agree that attraction follows love. I have a name for these men. I call them “the good ones.” Men are just as capable of transformative love as women are. And the result is the same.

5. “You talk a big game, but you wouldn’t ‘entertain the possibility of love’ if the person you met was the elephant man.”

Yes, I would. It works if you work it, people!

6. “Sounds like you have a holier than thou attitude problem.”

Partially true; I believe any philosophy that makes you more accepting of other people will uplift you as a human being. But I consider that to be secondary to the point. The real benefit of my way is that I am more likely to discover happiness. When the world is your dating pool and your heart is open, you are more likely to meet someone incredible. If that doesn’t make sense to you, then I guess you should continue following the peni.

In Conclusion:

Attraction follows love is a high ideal. You may not be ready for it, but I fully believe that all come to my way of thinking in the end, as age ripens wisdom.