Objects vs People

Society has long argued for the fair & equal treatment of women.  One of the claims against men is that they treat women like objects, a prize to be flaunted and shown off.  A status symbol.  A powerful man has beautiful women, therefore if a man has beautiful women, he is important – right?  They are given the titles of “womanizer” and “player”, told that they are careless, heartless creatures incapable of love.  That they don’t know how to feel.  The statistics of men who leave their wives are staggering.  They drop them for younger, wealthier, more beautiful women.  As a result, women are constantly intrigued by the game of keeping a man, ever striving to outdo any other female who could be in his life and pose as a possible threat.  Men’s indiscretions fuel the hatred that runs between women in general, that sense of competition, of dominance and control.

Instead of meekly accompanying the man to his banquets, card games, and important functions, only seeking to make him happy, these women on the arms of powerful men are insecure, constantly feeling threatened by the possibility of being replaced.  After all, he deserted his previous mistress for her, who’s to say that he won’t leave her for the next office assistant or secretary straight out of law school?  Is there any guarantee that these women have a secure position in these mens’ lives?

Now step back from the situation a moment and evaluate.  Here we’ve pointed out the typical behavior that stereotypes men – that of a player, constantly seeking to achieve new women as trophies, objects.  The term “on the market” used to describe women who are “available”.  Take the opposing point of view now.

For centuries, women have held the power to seduce, to control, to undo men.  It’s said that behind every successful man there is a good woman for that reason.  Men may be the ones with women hanging off of their arms, the ones flaunting their exploits, the ones seeking constantly to score a better woman.  But on the same hand, women are ten times as vicious.  At least men have the decency to make their reputations known.  Sure, they may be bragging about how many women they’ve slept with, but they’re being honest.  Women on the other hand, may lead a man on for months, years even, giving every indication that her heart belongs to him while she is out pursuing ten other men.  Her husband may never find her dalliances until it is too late to reverse the cycle.

Fueled (unjustly so) from the constant competition among women to keep their men, there comes this contest to score as many men as possible.  After all, what more a sign of a woman’s vitality, youth, and beauty than the number of men she’s been involved with?  Doesn’t it indicate that she is desirable and to be looked up to if she’s had half the country wrapped around her little finger?  Think about this a moment.  Somewhere here there is very screwed up logic.  Why is it okay for women to treat men as conquests and objects to be gained in a search for fame, but it’s not okay when men do it?  Why are the men the ones with the reputation for being heart breakers?

In all honesty, the reverse could be true.  As I stated, at least men are upfront most of the time and honest.  Even if they never say anything to the woman they are with, they will not hide the reputation that precedes them – one of an interest in the art of seduction.  The term rake was used to describe men who sought women purely for the purpose of gaining such a reputation.  In that sense, the women were nothing more than objects to them.  The point however was that the women knew, unlike with the reverse, where women string a man along and lead him to believe that he is the best and only in their world, only for the man to find out that she said the exact same words to hundreds of others.  And we wonder why men say women are fickle and to be distrusted.