Biology is back, big time--but it wasn't men who tried to kill it
Janice, thanks for another great article! I'm a relatively new subscriber. However, as a fellow Canadian, I want to say that, in my mind, you are a national treasure. Your depth of knowledge regarding the history of feminism is essential to helping us understand the path that led us to where we are today. Hopefully, that understanding will also guide us in shifting course, and give us a chance to move toward a place of relative sanity.
This is not just timely, but important. I knew the trans-madness we are in regarding gender was created by feminists. They fracked gender to liberate themselves from traditional obligations, but fracking is a destructive process that does tremendous damage to the (social) environment. Today, they throw their hands up and wonder how it came to this? They are risible, but it is their very identity as women that protects them from criticism; and like women (by-and-large) refuse to take accountability - because why should they? We have a cultural hangover as a society which means we cannot bear to attack them, even if the old rules no longer apply. And attack them we must. I say "we", but that's really you (and other women) while men like us gratefully cheer you along. You give us hope. Your writing helps us with our grief and sadness. What have we learned from this? Horrible ideas must be not only challenged, they must be mocked as they otherwise lodge, festering in the body - and dislodge, blocking arteries and veins of our society.
I loved a girl once, briefly (draw your own conclusions). It is rare for me to be so enamoured by a young mind so electric and gifted. The next time I saw her was on Twitter, double-mastectomy completed and new name. You see, she's a man now. So I keep the photographs I had of before she engaged in the destruction of her body and remember. This tragedy is permanent and accelerating like a runaway train. Once a bad idea exists in the world, you cannot un-invent it.
Janice, I always appreciate your insight and experience in the area of feminist thought. As an engineer and pragmatist, I am always at a loss when I encounter work by Butler et al. I recall trying to read something from one of the French post-modernists in the early 1990s (t was all the rage) and I couldn't past a few pages and all I could really say was 'what the fuck is this'? It was literal gobbledegook and any of it that was comprehensible (not much) was very obviously sophistry. I still cant get past the fact that anyone at all would consider it anything more than pulp for recycling. Do the people that read it and take it seriously (academics, 'philosophers', intellectuals, etc ) REALLY think that incoherently, and/or get some emotional meaning from gibberish? I can understand why we are where we are today IF people were taking that shit seriously.
"now-familiar assertions about gender as a social and cultural construct."
And the wheel turns, another circle. They push one concept until it comes back to bite them.
Very well said Janice. It is amazing how such bizarre statements can now be made and people don't even flinch. I am guessing it is just like a good salesman who knows that the fastest path to a sale is to acquire a series of "yeses." Once that series of yeses takes place the salesman knows he can ask for just about anything. Feminism seems the same. They start with a series of yeses and have now gotten so bizarre that people don't lift an eyebrow! Your call to action is perfect. Stop agreeing with the salesman and kick her out the door! She is nuts.
I love natural women. My wife is one. You go Aretha!
Yet further evidence, if any were needed, about the destructive role that universities now play. The so-called "grievance" subjects of gender, race, sexuality, and religion have taken over the universities, including STEM fields, in their entirety. They are no longer institutes of learning and research, but are now institutionalized grievance political parties and nothing more. Grievance party politics are upheld and enforced by the ever expanding DEI bureaucracies, who now run the universities. Professors of what were once actual fields of study are today no more than servants, very frightened servants. I can't tell you how glad I am to be out of it.
Thank you Janice for re-focusing the gender debate back where it belongs - on biology. There are now several generations (of men and women) that have been wandering around in the wilderness their whole lives after having mistakenly taken the 70s "equal rights" demand at face value.
"Until they do, their complaints about the attack on natural women will ring hollow. "
Most women will never do so unless there is a significant social pressure to do so. Wise, masculine men need to have the dominant influence in society. There's a lot that can go wrong with men in charge, but at least society has a fighting chance. With women dominating over men, you are guaranteed this endless nonsense until society breaks down to the point where many people lose their comforts and distractions.
If you try to make men and women equally in charge of all society, it will always tilt toward women because the men will simp.
Traditional gender roles are important, but in a general way. It's not good to be too strict about it, which sometimes happens in fundamentalist religions. But it's not good to be too loose, either. Men and women are like a ying-yang symbol. The man's side is mostly masculine (let's say black) with a small amount of femininity (white). The woman's side is mostly feminine with a small amount of masculinity. The small dots will vary in size among individuals, but if they become too large, the person is disordered.
I was born in the 80's and I never would have said something like this until recent years, seeing all the problems we have. Men need to be the head of house holds and women need to not see this as a problem, but to desire and love it.
I think it's fair to say that academic feminists conserve the post-modernist's tradition of bad writing.
Apart from your cavalier disregard for wonton abuse, I couldn't agree more. Feminists just twist the increasingly tortured narrative to justify whatever privilege they are seeking to secure or defend. What is so disappointing is how many women are content to go along with it, provided it benefits them in the short-term.
Thanks, Janice. It is not infrequently the case, when these fits of outrage break loose, with their recriminations, accusations, and yelps of pain, that the participants do not know what they are talking about. The outraged speak, or write, before they think or track down information. In keeping with their astonishing ignorance and superficiality, they have no "oops" moments--no flinching, as Tom says in his comment. They give themselves A for effort, and then it is on to the next one, with high fives all around. Thanks for giving them the grade they earned.
One of the oddities of the older feminists, "terfs" apparently, is that they seem to think that men should join them in their battle. One that is in fact between different forms of feminism. The really odd bit is that the main "terf" problem with trans women appears to be that they are simply the same universally predatory evil bastards they believe all males are. It seems curiously self defeating to seek allies from a group you simultaneously label universally bad and frequently predatory.
As you have chronicled here and elsewhere both the ideology and "alliance" between feminism and LGBTQ (etc.) Has only very recently been broken, ironically when a few men decide to challenge gender and be "women"
It is curious that there is not anything like the hoo ha about the girls and women seeking to pass as men, in fact the larger number here in the UK.
And what are the "sex based" rights? Well thus far they seem to be about toilets and prisons.
I have a friend who has been for decades a writer for TV and Radio. In recent years he always submits scripts in his female "non de plume" (an old device in literature) because otherwise it won't get past the first base. I suppose that sort of discrimination is the more hidden "right" women may need to protect.
Poe's Law is a force of nature when it comes to pseudointellectual gibberish like academic feminism, gender theory, etc.
'Authors' in these fields are little more than jargonauts on a sea of obfuscation. The operating principle seems to be that a naive reader will assume that, since she can't really make any sense out of what's been written, that the writer must be on a higher plane of intelligence.
Oh yeah, it's back in spades and you ain't seen nothin yet.
I have a happy surprise for you, above you speculate "Perhaps we will soon hear that men’s natural masculine qualities are also to be celebrated, their biological roles defended, and their single-sex spaces restored." And I have the great pleasure of recommending the most recent episode of the "Maiden Mother Matriarch" podcast, hosted by Louise Perry and featuring as guest Helen Joyce. Full scale recognition of 'the reality denying nature' of feminism and yes - a call to recognize male attributes and to establish and defend male spaces.
That podcast makes a similar argument to yours here and not at all in a tentative way, the bell has rung on social construction, even in the darkest pits of feminism, it's dead.
It May Be Cold Outside, But It's Sure Hot In Here.
I believe Aretha's song should be re-named 'You Make Me Feel Like a Momentary Participation in an Ontological Illusion,' a much catchier title.