A passive aggressive rebuttal

This post is written in response to a Facebook post shared by a friend which included a link to this article. 

Yesterday, a humid and sunny Monday afternoon, I was walking to an appointment which required me to pass a liquor store. On the front shop window, fastened inside but facing out, was a promotional poster for an alcoholic beverage. On it were the words in big writing “Irresistible Temptation”, accompanied by the image of what looked like a swimsuit model, similar to this image but with more cleavage and more make-up. The store was open but that is probably not relevant, except for the fact that I feel ashamed for not going into the store and commenting on this ridiculous form of advertising. This is on a main road with multiple schools for all different ages of children, and both genders. This is a road on which parents drive their children home from school, and traffic is such that you are often slowed, or stopped, right outside this particular store. In this day where we are fighting the perception that rape is a woman's fault, she was asking for it, next time wear more clothes, stories of unbelieving authority figures etcetera this 'irresistibly tempting woman' image is hurtful, dangerous and not to mention disgusting and unimaginative. What is really being portrayed to all the schoolchildren walking home in their uniforms? 'Go on, take her if you want her - it's out of your control and not your fault that she is so irresistibly tempting'.  

So this morning when I saw this shared post, which opined that this article by Camille Paglia was thoughtful and reasonable, I have to admit I almost immediately took offense. But dutifully I read the article; I have already stated that I have come from a biased position and this article just made my position more fierce. The writer has been described as an 'anti-feminist feminist' but also seems to be a dissident atheist and a confused Democrat, which I think means that her self-perceived job is just to stir the proverbial s***. However, when this type of writing is shared, it perpetuates ideals that stand in the way of true and meaningful gender equality.

Okay, so let me get started on my comments in relation to this article.

1. Firstly, the title ..."And it always will be." Thanks for that pseudo-psychic opinion there. 
2. "Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life?" No, considering the onus that western society puts on women to get married, have babies, stay at home and play obedient wife. 
3. "And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women." What about strong female role models? What do they look like? And why do we need a sense of ourselves 'as women'; why not just human beings or people? Maybe I'm missing something here. Furthermore, I cringed at the use of 'dissident' in this context but I admit I initially read it as a comment on lesbians in general, where she could be talking about specific lesbians who have a tendency for dissidence (?). 
4. "[some women have]...found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamor. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. In today’s punitive atmosphere of sentimental propaganda about gender, the sexual imagination has understandably fled into the alternate world of online pornography, where the rude but exhilarating forces of primitive nature rollick unconstrained by religious or feminist moralism". Who says that is the 'true feminine mystique'? Is this a super-hero movie now? Now, we cannot be true feminists without being sexually explicit and overt beings. Also, what is implied here is that those ugly feminists and religious moralists are to blame for the (harmful, largely misogynistic and unrealistic) pornography industry. As an anecdotal side note, four out of the six middle-managers at my (science-based) workplace are women, and none of them (as far as I can tell) 'project sexual allure' or 'glamour'. I'd be kind of uncomfortable if they did, wouldn't most normal people?. Doesn't that only happen in movies?
5. The author implies that feminism generally is guilty of "stereotyping, belittling, or demonizing men". Sure it is, in some forms, but that in itself is a stereotype. There are other stereotypes in here too, obviously.
6. "History must be seen clearly and fairly: obstructive traditions arose not from men’s hatred or enslavement of women but from the natural division of labor that had developed over thousands of years during the agrarian period and that once immensely benefited and protected women, permitting them to remain at the hearth to care for helpless infants and children." Not because of religion, no. Surely the blame is shared here. Also this (some of these contain repetition). For good measure, Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Also Deuteronomy 22:28 - If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. I could go on. But remember, morals come from the God (!).
7. So men invented everything useful. Ever. Yeah right.
8. "After the next inevitable apocalypse, men will be desperately needed again!" Duh - I'm not sure who is disputing this. Though I'm also not sure about the use of the words 'inevitable' and 'desperately'.
9. "It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work..." At this point I am convinced the author has confused correlation with causality. Imagine a fully qualified woman and a fully qualified man turning up today, to a job interview for a bricklaying position. Both are also equal in fitness and for argument's sake, in body size and shape (it's possible). Who would the employer hire (I'm not insinuating any particular answer)? The fact that men usually do this work is not necessarily only because women find it harder or don't desire to do it. 

I know I have fallen victim to the intended s***-stirring here. But I couldn't stop myself, especially after seeing that ridiculous poster yesterday. And especially for you: 30 amazing woman in 2013.