ONTD Political

Jada Pinkett Smith: The War on Men Through the Degradation of Woman

3:37 pm - 12/06/2012
jada smith

How is man to recognize his full self, his full power through the eye’s of an incomplete woman? The woman who has been stripped of Goddess recognition and diminished to a big ass and full breast for physical comfort only. The woman who has been silenced so she may forget her spiritual essence because her words stir too much thought outside of the pleasure space. The woman who has been diminished to covering all that rots inside of her with weaves and red bottom shoes.

I am sure the men, who restructured our societies from cultures that honored woman, had no idea of the outcome. They had no idea that eventually, even men would render themselves empty and longing for meaning, depth and connection. There is a deep sadness when I witness a man that can’t recognize the emptiness he feels when he objectifies himself as a bank and truly believes he can buy love with things and status. It is painful to witness the betrayal when a woman takes him up on that offer. He doesn’t recognize that the create of a half woman has contributed to his repressed anger and frustration of feeling he is not enough. He then may love no woman or keep many half women as his prize. He doesn’t recognize that it’s his submersion in the imbalanced warrior culture, where violence is the means of getting respect and power, as the reason he can break the face of the woman who bore him four children. When woman is lost, so is man. The truth is, woman is the window to a man’s heart and a man’s heart is the gateway to his soul.

Power and control will NEVER out weigh love.

May we all find our way.
J



Originally discovered on the blog Make me a Sammich: On Being a Woman in the USA, but was originally posted Dec. 1, via Jada's Facebook
_________

OP: I really enjoyed this, poignant, short, powerful... Love the picture especially, how Will and their daughter are visible; you can clearly see the support she has, and I just love it. X-posted to ONTD; sorry to the mods for the first failed entry submission, this new format is killing me.
ms_maree 7th-Dec-2012 01:42 am (UTC)
I appreciate her sentiment to an extent.

But...personally, I'm not a window to a man's heart. I'm not a goddess or an incomplete woman. I'm not the spiritual anchor to any man. I'm not here to be some type of spiritual mother-earth, keeper of all that is good for men.

I'm a human being and I deserve respect because I'm a human being.
cindyanne1 7th-Dec-2012 01:57 am (UTC)
I think I know what you mean. I don't like the idea that because women are a certain way, that makes them responsible for making a man a better person. He should be a better person on his own.
ms_maree 7th-Dec-2012 02:02 am (UTC)
My sister whose in this new age, pseudo-christian sect kept telling me that men need women to carry their emotional burdens, because we are best built to hold them and express them because of our connection with fertility or whatever. And men are best built to be protectors and warriors and such for women, so this spiel up ahead sounds very similar to me.

The reason my sister kept on telling me this, was to talk me out of dating a woman, because women are for men. And by denying this I'd be forever unhappy.
wingstar102 7th-Dec-2012 02:13 am (UTC)
As a Pagan, I can tell you as my opinion, that you are a Goddess regardless. The Goddess is who She is, male or no male. And since we are all part of the Divine, you sure don't need a man to be complete. :)

Edited at 2012-12-07 02:13 am (UTC)
cindyanne1 7th-Dec-2012 02:15 am (UTC)
Oh, that's just screwed up. :(

And this all also reminds me of a book I read called "Fascinating Womanhood." I was completely boggled (in a bad way) by that book. When I wasn't laughing uncomfortably, I was rolling my eyes.

Here's an excerpt from that book:

Self-Dignity: Essential to happiness in marriage is self-dignity. Does your husband ever speak to you harshly, criticize you unduly, treat you unfairly, neglect you, impose on you, or in any way mistreat you? The important thing is not what he does but how you react. Do you shrink back as if struck by a lash? Do you go into your shell? Do you pay him back with a cutting remark? Or, do you fly off the handle with an ugly temper? If you react in any of these ways you will cause yourself unnecessary grief and lessen your husband's love for you.

No man likes an ugly temper, nor does he want a woman he can walk on, or one who will retreat into her shell and feel sorry for herself. He wants a woman with some spunk--some hidden fire, a woman he can't push around. Some men even admire little spitfires, women who are adorably independent and saucy, whom they can't put down with even the most degrading remark.

In Fascinating Womanhood the method of handling wounded feelings is called childlike anger, spunk, or sauciness. It will teach you how to handle a man's rough nature without pain, without friction. You can, in a flash, turn a crisis into a humorous situation, so that the man may have the sudden impulse to laugh. Instead of hurting marriage, childlike anger can increase love and tenderness.


I mean... what the pure hell?

So basically the way men treat women is based on how women react to the men and what the women do for the men and what the women are to the men? Is that what we're supposed to believe here?

No, I don't buy it. Men need to be and act like decent human beings because they are decent human beings interacting with other decent human beings. And everyone needs to respect each other. I shouldn't have to be or act a certain way just to bring out the best in a man or make a man feel complete or whole.
ms_maree 7th-Dec-2012 02:19 am (UTC)
In Fascinating Womanhood the method of handling wounded feelings is called childlike anger, spunk, or sauciness. It will teach you how to handle a man's rough nature without pain, without friction. You can, in a flash, turn a crisis into a humorous situation, so that the man may have the sudden impulse to laugh. Instead of hurting marriage, childlike anger can increase love and tenderness.


OMG, this sounds like a 'manic magical pixie girl'. We're here to be childlike and humorous to make men feel good about themselves.

I shouldn't have to be or act a certain way just to bring out the best in a man or make a man feel complete or whole.

Exactly.

maladaptive 7th-Dec-2012 02:56 am (UTC)
The important thing is not what he does but how you react

Yeah, DTMA. You couldn't make a more obvious case for "get away, quickly!"

*reads rest of blurb*

What.
moonshaz 7th-Dec-2012 04:34 am (UTC)
What everyone else said (re: Fascinating Womanhood). Plus, about this line:

"No man likes an ugly temper, nor does he want a woman he can walk on...."

Excuse me. There most certainly ARE men who want EXACTLY that. I'm fortunate to not have ever gotten entangled with one, but I know damned well that there are plenty of them out there. So that, right there, is totally false. In addition to all the other bs inherent in all of this.

[Edited to fix borked html]

Edited at 2012-12-07 04:39 am (UTC)
lickety_split 7th-Dec-2012 04:15 pm (UTC)
It will teach you how to handle a man's rough nature without pain, without friction. You can, in a flash, turn a crisis into a humorous situation, so that the man may have the sudden impulse to laugh.

...... This sounds like an abusive relationship.
bleed_peroxide 7th-Dec-2012 07:09 pm (UTC)
Fuck that noise. He'll talk to me like the adult that I am, and I'm sure as hell not going to be cute and "spunky" when he's talking to me like I'm a piece of shit. Fuck anyone who abides by this policy or tells women to let their men walk over them like this.
the_gabih 9th-Dec-2012 02:04 pm (UTC)
The important thing is not what he does but how you react.

If you react in any of these ways you will cause yourself unnecessary grief and lessen your husband's love for you.

adorably independent and saucy


leaf_collector 7th-Dec-2012 02:00 am (UTC)
ia
I feel like she's trying to meet teh menz 1/2 way (if that makes sense?), but it's like, "ok, that's nice and all.... But when are teh mez going to do that?"
edit (again): but I also get the impression she's trying to say "this is not just an issue for women, it fundamentally effects men too, duh." Maybe she took the 'mother earth route' because that's how she relates to will idk. sorry for the edits, i have all these feels.

Edited at 2012-12-07 02:10 am (UTC)
ms_maree 7th-Dec-2012 02:12 am (UTC)
Yeah. It's a nice sentiment, it's poetic and I get the appeal. But personally, I don't like being defined as a 'window to a man's heart' because I'm not interested in being involved with men. Men are not the centre of my universe and I do not expect men, or any man to see me as the centre of the universe. I'm just me.


I'm probably articulating it wrong.
leaf_collector 7th-Dec-2012 05:14 am (UTC)
I think you're articulating it very well, actually. As you said, the sentiment is nice, applied to a broader picture of love/completion/equality/something-idk... even though in itself, it's problematic in a lot of ways.
cindyanne1 7th-Dec-2012 02:24 am (UTC)
I think she's trying to say that men should let women be free to be themselves, because women who are themselves can be more of a true partner to the men... so the men are in fact cheating themselves of a true partner experience if they demean or devalue women.

I think that's what she's trying to say. And in one sense I agree. I just don't like the idea that a man needs me to be or act a certain way for him to suddenly wake up and be a decent person. I don't think Jada is saying that per se, but it can be interpreted that way.
kitanabychoice 7th-Dec-2012 05:12 am (UTC)
Your first paragraph is how I interpreted this. I agree that the message is kind of convoluted, but I agree with the sentiment that men are cheating themselves of equal partners by participating in misogyny.
maynardsong 7th-Dec-2012 12:46 pm (UTC)
Exactly this. And that's why I said what I said way up thread.
natyanayaki 7th-Dec-2012 02:12 am (UTC)
I reacted similarly.
hinoema 7th-Dec-2012 04:38 am (UTC)
This. They need to get their own shit together, not depend on our Sailor Window powers.
keestone 7th-Dec-2012 03:23 pm (UTC)
MTE

On one hand, a group of people who feels their status/power/identity depends on objectifying, subjugating or trying to make them lesser is a group that has diminished itself. On the other hand, it's not the purpose of the other group to make them better. And there's way too much history of patriarchy using the excuses that they're "honoring" women, or that women are inherently more spiritual or morally good to restrict their rights.

This is why gender essentialism sucks.
hammersxstrings 7th-Dec-2012 03:59 pm (UTC)
yeah this. i appreciate the piece. but it's still not all about the men.
This page was loaded Nov 23rd 2014, 8:56 pm GMT.