Sexism affects ALL women. Frankly it affects the entire world. However, the malevolent ill-treatment of women is a constant reality for all women. And being a mother does not exempt you from your own son’s degradation. Exhibit A: the post below describes an attempt by a sexist boy within #GhanaTwitter to degrade all women, that goes horribly wrong.
The Beginning
The conversation begun over contesting objectification. Sexual objectification of women means that men are socialized to view casual sex through a lens that does not encourage preserving women’s status as persons.
(excuse the typos casual* sex)
The Event
In an attempt to degrade women, the boy behind the user name @jonboi_alberto, creates a binary where women are either bitches or hoes. Leaving no room for non-gendered slurs that retain women’s humanity.
The Pre-Climaxx
In line with previous Twitter Clap Back. I inquire: Out of the category Bitches and Hoes used to describe women, which one does your mother fall in?
Climax
To remain logically consistent with a misogynistic binary of women being bitches and hoes, and to continue to hold on to degrading women and call me a “hoe”, this boy replies that his mother is “the bitch”.
Post Climax
So then I gloated.
Moral of the Story
I wanted to document this fight because:
1. Misogynists are often not the sharpest tools in the tool box.
2. Being a mother will not exempt or save you from being included into predetermined categories of women’s dehumanization.
3. Internet fights are actually spaces of contest where opposing ideas are presented to an observing audience. It is important that misogynistic ideas receive push-back.
4. Remaining free as the oppressed requires us to be able to live outside of the fear of degradation. I am not afraid to be called a bitch, or a whore, or an ugly feminist. It will not silence me. I also encourage oppressed people whose physical and/or emotional safety are not threatened, to venture into a world where slurs are simply a source of amusement.
5. Sexists are so desperate to degrade women, so drunk on patriarchy, that when backed into a corner they will degrade even their own mothers to be able to degrade women.
The End
Asaase Yaa Mma 
“I don’t care about casual sex. I care about treating women as objects. As human fuck toys. And how you’re socialised to do so as men”
LOL.
Funny coincidence finding this blog a few hours after I replied a tweet with “but being a woman ontologically entails being a sexual object”. You need to realise that women are designed to be sexual objects (and maybe something more).
In real life, I think a woman should be more than a mere sexual object, but she will ALWAYS be a sexual object. I use this phrase “more than a sexual object,” to mean “a sexual object plus something else.” A woman by nature is always a play-toy for a man, and she is only valued as an individual should she choose to cultivate that individuality in a way that is valued by others. By that I mean, if a woman has nothing appealing about her beyond her body, then she is merely a sexual object. If she is hot and can make jollof from scratch, then she is more than a sexual object.
To make a grammar analogy, men are the nominatives and women are the objects, whether in sex, work, society, entertainment, domesticity, or anything else. Even if a woman should pursue a man, she is still wanting to be taken herself, thus presenting herself to become another object in a man’s toolbox. This is totally cliché, but remember that a man is a key and a woman is a lock. A master key can open many locks, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is worthless. This is the way we are wired as human beings, and no amount of legislation or marching in the streets will change biology. And this is why the most hurtful insult you can tell a woman, even as a joke, is that she is ugly. She can accept being called a bitch, a whore, or an idiot, but a woman cannot tolerate being considered ugly no matter how light-hearted the jest or how close a friend you are. Why is this? Because being ugly directly depreciates her sexual market value.
A woman by definition is meant to be viewed sexually. Notice how young women have the worst hairstyles and revealing clothes? Even my spinster aunt regularly gets a perm and won’t go to the bank without her makeup. But then they turn into true elderly women. Gray-haired women try to look presentable, not hot, because they know their time of sexual desirability is long past.
Don’t make it seem as if seeing women for the sexual objects that they are is such a bad thing. If a woman is wise, she will use her sexuality for a long-term investment instead of short-term one-night stands and frequent random casual sex. She will retain her virginity (ideally) and marry young to a man who can both provide for her and be someone she respects. (Interestingly, this is the origin of expensive engagement rings. LOL.) If a young woman has a financially stable husband, then she has no need to go to college or pursue a career. Leftists will scream that women should be able to pursue a career if she wants, but people who make that argument miss the point entirely. For one thing, being a responsible adult is more about doing what you should instead of what you want. A woman has a stronger innate connection to her family and therefore should spend her life investing in them. Why wouldn’t a woman want to make her husband’s life easier by preparing him dinner? Why wouldn’t a woman want to stay home with her children instead of incarcerating them in daycare?
Patriarchy is a natural law, not a philosophy, and to topple it would be like defying gravity.
Oda E.
PS: You seem to handle the “you’re ugly” mentions at you on twitter really well. You really dey try for that side. God bless your hustle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Patriarchy is no more “natural law” than white supremacy is “natural law”. Interestingly, bigotry attempts to use the same tools to justify ideas that necessitate identity based superiority. Everyone is TIRED of whites, men, straight people trying to use scientifically illiterate conceptions of nature as a means to justify monopolizing social institutions and accumulating power at the expense of others. There is nothing “natural” about slavery, about exclusion, about sexism. It is all culturally and socially designed which is why different countries and societies have different understandings of gender relations and women’s inclusion.
Please don’t use grammatical analogies to capture the supposed essential characteristics of human beings. While grammar is nice and complex, human beings and our relations are far more complicated. Women will NOT always be sexual objects. I would encourage reviewing the differences between sexual objects and sexual subjects. The mechanisms through which a person is used as a means to an end is not “natural” or inherent to human relations, it is a developed exploitative attitude based on cultural myths. Many of which you espouse in this paragraph.
Just because you may personally devalue women such that you erroneously think that a person’s worth is contingent on their body, or their cooking abilities does not make it so. People are intrinsically of worth. ANd their worth exists whether or not you possess the capacity to appreciate it.
In terms of the key and lock analogy I am amazed that a baseless metaphor is able to be so circulated as fact. I could also easily make up an analogy claiming that since the mouth eats the banana (where the mouth is the vagina, and the banana is the penis) it is people with vaginas who fuck the ever-lasting life of people with penises. I could also extrapolate and declare that on this basis: the mouth/banana metaphor women are sexual subjects, and men are sexual objects. I won’t do that, because I don’t possess sexist, rudimentary understandings of penetrative sex and human relations. To be frank, human and sexual relations are far more than what occurs in between our legs. Essentially, penile-vaginal penetrative sex does not adequately describe complex human sexual relations and I wish the extrapolations would stop. To be even more frank, that’s not what happens during penile-vaginal sex. Sure the penis may enter the vagina, but vaginas are active as well. The vagina is rich with muscles, and it envelops and grips the penis providing much needed friction for both persons to enjoy. This is why people with vaginas may do kegel exercises. To make the vagina more powerful, to make the vagina be able to grip and loosen inserted body parts/objects better and to make orgasms more pleasurable. So now the key and lock analogy only works if you’re sticking your penis into an inactive hole. But not a good analogy considering vaginas are layered, muscled, active sexual organs pumping, gripping, and tightening voluntarily to bring about pleasure.
Sexist Gender stereotypes attempts to tell us who we should be as individuals. Feminism allows for us as humans to transcend that and to create a life that we deem individually acceptable to us. In terms of women marrying as a means to economic stability that has been thoroughly addressed on this blog. Many women do not want to be sexually inexperienced, uneducated clueless people who depend on men for a means of survival. Again you are regurgitating cultural myths on what women and men should do. Society should not confine men and women to these involuntary roles.
I am confident that legislation and marching will change sexist cultural attitudes. I am confident because I have studied history and have seen and witnessed women’s social status increase dramatically with advocacy. Indicating that patriarchy is NOT biological like you say but rather socially constructed and thus destructible. Even if patriarchy is biology like you state, then prepare to see a group of organized, disciplined, educated Ghanaian women and men fuck biology up.
In quest for liberation, we will be successful.
Peace,
Obaa Boni
LikeLike
The banana analogy was funny. Very funny, I haven’t genuinely laughed like this in a while so I figured I’d start off this reply and say thank you. I won’t even attempt cherry-picking it to debunk the idea. That will take away all the humour.
Let us leave White Supremacy and Homosexual debates out of this one. I’m sure we might even be on the same page on both subjects. You address that point in such a manner that makes it seem like being sexist makes you a potential racist, or homophobe. I hope that’s not what you meant, and I hope I misunderstood.
And I’m not even sexist. LOL.
The fact of the matter is, you’re right. Most men objectify women. But the feminist narrative falsely assumes “objectifying women” is something directed AT women. You guys have concocted a fantasy land of oppression, where men are going out of their way to treat women like objects out of some sense of personal hatred or vendetta towards them.
This same narrative also falsely assumes objectifying women is a bad thing. The assumption that it must be a bad, terrible thing underlies all your slinging of the accusation, ignoring the fact that women regularly objectify themselves, men and each other. I read your interview over at Melanin As Love. You support pornography and yet hate the idea of women being treated as sexual objects, and then claim I “devalue women such that (I) erroneously think that a person’s worth is contingent on their body.” You totally absolved yourself of the need or desire for personal introspection on this matter. You make it sound like it is the worst crime on Earth, and often use it to lead to and justify your false narrative about domestic violence. All, again, while ignoring an entire half of the equation in the name of equality. However, we both have to consider what is it that men do with objects.
Generally, we LOVE and APPRECIATE our tools for helping us to build better things in our grand designs in life. A woman’s role in a man’s life is to provide her sexuality, femininity and childcare duties so that the man’s work in the external world will be supplemented and it brings them both to new heights of happiness and satisfaction. This is not sexist, and there is a reason it was done this way for nearly 6,000 years. If a woman has taken her exclusive sexuality, feminine charm and wifely duties off the table, then she is offering nothing but her vagina.
So, given that this is how women act today (which you clearly support), her role in the Hierarchy Of Man Tools is to play the part of “fun way to let off steam.” Which, of course, is absolutely a vital and necessary part of a man’s life, especially if he is the more industrious kind of man, and having this outlet for sexual energy will allow him to continue the projects that feed, house, inform, and keep safe the entire rest of the world. Needless to say, if men were not properly building and maintaining the infrastructure of this planet, it would completely fall apart. Women will never do it, and no amount of either feminism or mens’ rights activism will change this. Since women are no longer helping the world the way women are supposed to, they have made themselves into tools of man’s pleasure that play no less an important role in my life than eating or sleep.
We do thank you guys for that though.
Oda E. Rex
LikeLike
lol these are just psychic ominous future predictions. I can’t even engage
LikeLike
Fair enough.
And by the way, the lock and key analogy refers to the stud/slut sexual “double-standard” complex, and has nothing inherently to do with vaginal muscles or what penetrates what. I’m gonna go ahead and assume you’re being blinded by feminism to the basic concept of this analogy because you give off the vibe of a really smart woman.
Oda E. Rex
PS: Are you busy next Saturday? We could grab a drink or two you know. LOL.
LikeLike