Jessica Valenti, founder of the vaguely pornographic sounding Feministing.com, has decided that there is no such thing as virginity in America's young girls and the Today Show is entirely pleased with itself to give her a national TV venue from which to say so. Never mind how silly it all sounds.
On April 22 Valenti and Today pushed the idea that sexually active girls should not be thought of as a problem, that an expectation of virginity is harmful, and that religion is a baneful influence on young women today. Valenti says that if young men can have their sexual exploits given a wink and a nod, then so should the sexual activity of young girls.
Naturally, being a good left-wing, feminist, Valenti draws all the wrong conclusions and advocates all the worst solutions to address the real problems in American society. Just as naturally, NBC gives a legitimate stage for her absurd proclamations and ill-thought-out prescriptions.
Glaringly, Valenti doesn't seem to worry much about sexually transmitted disease and how woefully prevalent it is today in American girls. One might think the STD rates alone would be a good enough reason to argue that sexually promiscuous girls is a bad idea, but not so for the Today Show and Jessica Valenti.
Why is it that feminists have to be so ridiculous with their nouveau pronouncements, anyway? Is it that they think the only way to become the next "it girl" in feminist studies at our kitschified universities is to come up with the most silly analogy they can imagine that can be pawned off as "scholarship" and then to sell it with a straight face like it's gospel? Is it that schools are now more interested in the new way to look at things than the right way? Is it that innovation is now prized above truth?
What ever the case, I am struck by the fact that even as she keeps saying it, Valenti doesn't seem to waste any time actually proving her case. Valenti says several times in her op ed for Today that there is "no such thing as virginity" but never really explains what she could possibly mean by the obviously silly phrase.
This is not to say, however, that Valenti doesn't make any good points in her piece. Unfortunately, for any female that would have the misfortune to take her teachings to heart she draws all the wrong conclusions from some of the harmful social propensities she observes. She too easily shrugs off the over sexualization of our nation's children and wrongly denies the danger it presents -- one of which is the growing rates of STDs in girls that I mentioned above. And forget about gender roles. She doesn't imagine there is such a thing.
Like the myopic feminist she is, Valenti mis-analyzes the different social treatment of boys and girls. For instance, Valenti rightfully sees the double standard of expecting girls to stay virginal while winking at the sexual aggressiveness of boys. But instead of suggesting that boys should have that aggressiveness tempered by respect for family, trustworthiness and responsibility as a mate, and stability, she swings wildly to the wrong conclusion by saying that as a society we should afford girls the same sexual aggressiveness as we do boys. She opts for anarchy instead of common sense.
This smacks of the typical feminist idea that boys and girls are exactly the same and that the differences between them are merely societal constructs. Of course, it never occurs to this woman that if we were to have a society where girls are just as sexually aggressive as boys, we'd have no families at all, no stability for children and a nation of frustrated, unhappy citizens. Naturally, Valenti refuses to accept the salient fact that women want a stable mate with whom they can stay for the rest of their lives so that their children will be well cared for, not a constant revolving bedroom door through which parades a never ending series of thoughtless and little thought about men.
There are biological differences between men and women that Valenti and her radical feminist friends purposefully misconstrue. Men's aggressiveness is aimed at propagation of the species and it is society that is meant to temper that animal passion. Women are meant to nurture and raise children by nature, so their propensity is to look for stable, caring men that will commit to them and them alone. This, in turn, will create a stable home environment for the raising of children (not to mention keep STD rates lower). But Valenti's ideas would destroy that delicate balance and, in the long run, materially harm the American family.
So, will NBC offer the opposing view on its Today Show? Let us not hold our breath in expectation.
(Photo credit: The Grand Valley Lanthorn)