Well-meaning men who metaphorically put themselves into my shoes differ from transvestites and transwomen only by degrees. Identification with the dilemma of womanhood is but a short hop to masculine sexual guilt and the Oedipus Complex. To be a woman really isn’t so bad when one is a woman. To be a man forced into a submissive or subordinate role to another man is not equivalent to being a woman.
I am familiar with the Feminist lament that men goad each other with feminizing insults. The reverse also applies. Girls and their catty remarks are often the faint praise of “masculine” characteristics such as strength and intellectual ability. Deep down us girls all know that such characteristics in a woman are not particularly attractive to secure young males, but rather only to those who identify with women or who desire that women switch roles with them, to include men waning in their physical and mental prowess, which happens to us all.
While surely it gets tiresome to be a man whose sexual advances are often rejected, the solution is not for women to become more sexually aggressive. It will not ever be the more feminine women who become that way except in fantasy. Rather, it will be the more masculine women, and as such won’t be the ones promoted by media as sexy she-warriors, in service to consumerism.
Putting ugly and aggressive women into positions of power will always have the result of the actual not metaphorical oppression of younger, more feminine, and more attractive women. Female power mongers, like male power mongers, don’t like sexual competition. While women might not comprise the majority of “rapists,” women often recruit men by proxy to perform such dreadful roles, thereby suppressing their biological competitors, whether in the case of outright war or invasion or in mere neighborly territorial disputes. The “fairer” sex doesn’t actually look out for each other except in terms of policing social mores and “the pussy cartel”. The myth (and statistical sleight-of-hand) of selection bias toward females is merely a self-preservation strategy (being that females are generally less physically likely to inflict permanent injury to another, given inferior physicality).
Rape and violence toward women is always a means of lowering her sexual market value, both physically and psychologically. The same applies toward male victims of rape and violence. However, the notion that women are somehow better equipped to protect other women from men is a dangerous fallacy, steeped in Oedipal and masculine sexual guilt.
Objectification of woman as an animal or set of orifices is not a sin, in a vacuum of other motivations, but rather merely a crime in terms of failure to provision and protect such a female as a result. Our irrational and subconscious behavior is not going to go away simply by social diktat. We all, at least for now, have emerged out of one of those orifices, and perhaps retain memory of the smells within our subconscious. No amount of forced chivalry or pedestalization of women is going to erase that reality.
Reality does not justify masculine sexual guilt. Preservation of entrenched power is the only motivation for enforcing guilt onto men alone for having sexual impulses.
Similarly, possessiveness and protectiveness of one’s females is not racism. Neither does reducing such a female’s sexual choices. If men are responsible for protecting and provisioning women, then women are obligated to show a little loyalty, gratitude, and respect for those efforts. Conversely, men who fail to do those things can expect to lose their younger and more attractive women to less-evolved, less mammalian male competitors down the road.
However, non-protective, non-provisioning men will get to keep their harpies, termagants, shrews, and useful female idiots; or the reverse may apply, until a stronger male animal comes along.
It isn’t realistic however to expect that stronger male animal to prefer the emasculated male in a skirt over the young fresh biological female.