Michael Deacon has had a pop at feminists, and he's very correct.
A female journalism student once asked me how I'd feel if a daughter of mine became a glamour model. I said if she were 18, she could do whatever job she chose, no matter what I felt. And that's the difficulty facing today's feminists. If women are to have the same freedoms as men, feminists can't easily complain when some women exercise those freedoms in a way feminists disapprove of.
Quite.
But hardcore feminists don't work on the realities of human female behaviour. Their latent concern, whether they mean it to be viewed as such or not, could be construed as more a punishment of men, who they appear to despise above all others.
Alluring images of women seems to be what truly angers them, not necessarily for the fact that women are wont to exercise their freedoms in a way which is hugely in their favour, but because some man, somewhere, might gain enjoyment from it.
We're not just talking highly successful women who have earned fortunes out of what God gave them, either. Deacon references Abi Titmuss, and he could have chosen a multitude of others who have benefitted greatly, not from being humiliated, but from the empowerment of wealth and of being adored from afar. It's moot as he could point to everyday females in any town in any country (though it's odd that feminists are quite happy to applaud feminisation of women in countries such as Iran when the mood takes them).
I challenge any male reading here to have attended a fancy dress evening where their partner wasn't trying to look as feminine and attractive as possible. Anecdotal, I know, but I have been to such events, many times, with many partners over the years, where a prize was offered for the best costume, yet women will invariably reject the idea of dressing in something imaginative if it doesn't make them look damn good.
In making themselves candidates for modelling, the idea of untold wealth is merely a future fantasy for many women. The urge to be admired is far more strong, and for very good reason.
It's human nature. Men like to appear commanding and manly (even if they are a 9 stone weakling) whereby women will always want to be the belle of the ball, and fiercely do they compete to be just that. It's a hard-wired character trait bestowed by their genes and the primeval urge to attract a strong and caring mate.
And this is what feminists are so angry about. Denied any possibility of being dubbed the most lovely in any gathering since they were kids, they are deeply opposed to others being able, and willing, to attempt just that.
So they take it out on those who are able. Viciously at times. Shorn of masculine approval themselves (sometimes even shunning it altogether), they dedicate their time to derogating women for doing what they are very happy to enjoy, even for wearing clothes that they wish to wear, and cursing the men who adhere to their own DNA in appreciating the view.
If it were up to jealous feminists, women would all be wearing potato sacks and shunning make-up, short skirts, heels etc, in case it brings back memories of how piss poor they have always been at doing as nature intended themselves.
And in so doing, they would seek to restrict potentially lucrative opportunties for women, to intimidate others into changing their instinctive behaviour and dress, and to discourage males and females from enjoying what each other has to offer.
In short, feminists are anti-social and derogatory to the natural life experience of the majority of women they claim to protect.
It's ironic that, while feminists will point to the need for women to be seen as more than just a pretty form - and should, instead, be appreciated for their inner beauty - those who direct anger at beautiful women aspiring to be admired, are so petty, vindictive, spiteful, and inwardly ugly.
