Nobody panics when progressive jokers blather on about something they call "toxic masculinity." But one little mention of toxic femininity -- AKA feminism -- and everyone loses their minds.
Which isn't quite true, because their minds are already lost by virtue of believing in feminism to begin with.
Bob are you suggesting that feminism is intrinsically pathological? Yes, precisely -- certainly in its contemporary manifestations. There was a time -- perhaps fifty or more years ago -- when a healthy man could be excused for falling for the rhetoric, if only to get these shrews to shut-up for five minutes.
But today there is no excuse: feminism is a sickness (or a symptom of one; stay tuned to discover witch!). It isn't healthy, least of all for women and girls.
Moreover, since femininity can only be artificially detached from masculinity, it is the cause and consequence of sick men as well. It is why we can never trust a "male feminist." Think it: a male feminist doesn't know. He can never be a member of the Club, nor is he aware of the Code. And yet he's proud of it, like it's some sort of virtue!
But ignorance and stupidity are never virtues.
Does Bob sound angry this morning? Well, first of all, Bob is never angry, so you're just projecting again.
Wait -- are you suggesting Bob is some kind of saint or something?
Definitely not. He is not "above" anger, just way beyond it, into something resembling... how to put it... how about cold nausea? As usual, Dávila speaks -- and retches -- for me:
Our spontaneous revulsions are often more lucid than our reasoned convictions.
One who does not share our repugnance does not understand our ideas.
And an old standby that is always worth regurgitating:
Moral indignation is not truly sincere unless it literally ends in vomiting.First of all, if you think this problem is correctable -- let alone by politics -- you don't understand the nature of the problem, much less its magnitude. Conversely, if you do understand the magnitude of the problem, it ironically confers a kind of peace, if only the peace of resignation.
We all know people who have grown up and transitioned from illiberal leftism to liberal conservatism. How do we know when we can truly say to the convert:
GABBA GABBA WE ACCEPT YOU ONE OF US!
Easy: when they are literally sickened at the thought of their old self.
Anyway, after completing yesterday's post, I plucked an old book from the shelf called Feminism & Freedom, and it's full of grade-A insultainment. I think we might have discussed it a number of years ago, but I don't remember. Therefore, my bad memory is your good fortune.
Surely no body of ideas is wrong about everything, as I imply feminism is.
How can a theory be wrong about everything? Easy: just begin with a first principle that is impossible, and everything follows as a matter of logic:
Any theory whose basic assumption about human nature is completely erroneous -- as I argue is the case with feminism -- is indeed bound to be wrong about everything else.
Okay then, why is it wrong? What's the big error? Why, it's so simple, a child can understand it -- unless the luckless child has sick parents who prevent her from seeing it:
Feminism is a program for making different beings -- men and women -- turn out alike....
More precisely, feminism is the thesis that males and females are already innately alike, with the current order of things -- in which males and females appear to differ and occupy quite different social roles -- being a harmful distortion of this fundamental similarity.
In short: reality, i.e., the order of things, is a harmful distortion. Which means feminists are hallucinating. For gender differences are obviously real.
So, how does one transform reality into something it isn't? The "patriarchy," as powerful as it is, is not powerful enough to eliminate reality. Rather, we need something more powerful than man (let alone woman). I know! The State! It can do anything. Supposing males are always trying to dominate this or that hierarchy,
The only agency that can prevent males in a human group from dominating it is a more powerful human group.
True, but doesn't this just mean we'll ultimately be bossed around by male feminists -- whom we already know we can never trust? Un-men such as Clinton, Obama, Biden -- or Bezos, Dorsey, & Zuckerman?
Sure. You got a problem with that? Ultimately,
one group's intervention in the affairs of another to strip its males of power does not transfer power to the females of the subject group; the real power goes to the dominant members of the dominant group -- who will be males if males are more interested in dominance than females.
Call it betocracy: rule by weak but sneaky beta males instead of a strong and transparent alpha.
To be continued...