A Woke Woman is Just a Woman, Only Worse

Nowhere is the difference between reality and the tenured more stark than with regard to genetically based sexual differences. This breach with reality has only grown more dire as a result of the feminization of academia, which is decidedly not to say it is feminine. 

Rather, it is a toxic blend of feminist ideology with a total lack of insight into what a woman actually is. For which reason we have a woman sitting on the highest court in the land who can't define what she is. Of course, she will be the first to acknowledge the signal importance of having a woman on the Supreme Court, even if the woman were a man. 

Now, Ketanji Jackson happens to be stupid, but not all feminists are stupid. Rather, feminism (especially its third wave iteration) renders the person who believes it stupid, as does any ideological second reality. 

Conversely, first wave feminism is so reasonable that a man could have invented it, since it's just an extension of the principle that all men are created equal, e.g., , securing legal and political rights, access to higher education, equality of opportunity, etc.

But third wave feminism represents a pathological denial of human nature and a complete plunge into a fantasy version of reality. It is the leading edge of wokeness, for it revolves around all the ideological buzzwords we've come to loathe such as diversity, equity, inclusion, intersectionality, oppression, gender, pronouns, patriarchy, microaggressions, and all the rest.

Surprisingly, Wade (a former NY Times writer) wades right into this ideological bog and sees it for what it is. He begins with the commonsense observation that 

Of all the ways in which genetics shapes the foundations of human societies, none is more visible than the difference between men and women.  

Remember, political correctness is a war on noticing. Over the past two decades we've seen it devolve to wokeness, which has gone from the mere denial of reality to a fully fleshed out substitute version of it: not seeing what is there is one thing, but seeing what is not there is frankly delusional -- for example, seeing a woman when you're obviously looking at a man -- or seeing a King when you're looking at a highly effective president.

Again we go back to the first principle -- and Primordial Error -- of liberalism, which is the idea that we have no intrinsic nature, but rather, are blank slates that are written on by environmental influences. Thus, what we call a woman was just socialized -- one might even say duped -- into being one. But the real dupes are the ones who pretend their gender was assigned by culture instead of being dictated by biology.

Eh, this subject is so stupid and tedious that I don't know if I even want to get into it. Consider what these ideological dunderheads say:

Men not only invented the maternal instinct, according to feminist theorists, but also constructed gender as binary, all for the devious purpose of maintaining white supremacy.

It gets even stupider, but I'll spare you. But it is no surprise that academia is ground zero of this explosion of stupidity, since this is where the rise of ideologically committed woman has been most visible (and risible). As Heather MacDonald -- now, there is a proper woman -- has noted.

Female dominance of the campus population is intimately tied to the rhetoric of unsafety and victimhood.

Now, "safe spaces," in which one is safe from disagreement, is something no man could invent and still be a man. Another hopelessly sane woman, Amy Wax, writes of how

the values of the nursery and the kindergarten have now been elevated to the paramount considerations and the old traditional and traditionally masculine values of truth-seeking, of argumentation, of reason, evidence and objectivity have been downgraded.

Ironically, a third wave feminist is very much like a woman, only worse, just as a third world dictator is like a man, only worse, for both are warped and distorted versions of their archetypes. Indeed, this is precisely why delusional third wave feminists are most likely to regard President Trump as a third world dictator.

Like I said, tedious stuff. 

Another clearly sane woman, Helen Andrews, writes of the not so great Great Feminization to which we have been subjected, especially since our first female president, Barack Obama: "Everything you think of as 'wokeness' is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization." 

Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently.... 

Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. 

But silly women become dangerous when they are not confined to English or gender studies departments, but when their ideas escape from the sandbox of academia into the real world, for example, the legal system:

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic....

If the legal profession becomes majority female..., Judges will bend the rules for favored groups and enforce them rigorously on disfavored groups, as already occurs to a worrying extent. It was possible to believe back in 1970 that introducing women into the legal profession in large numbers would have only a minor effect. That belief is no longer sustainable. The changes will be massive.

"Oddly enough, both sides of the political spectrum agree on what those changes will be. The only disagreement is over whether they will be a good thing or a bad thing." Oh, it will be bad -- or worse, downright cringey, as in Dahlia Lithwick's breathless celebration of these changes as “an explosion of bottled-up judicial girl power” -- as if she's talking about the latest Taylor Swift release instead of the Supreme Court. 

Again, the problem is not women, but a denial and ideological transformation of womanhood:

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be... oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it?

No good at all, since truth is the telos of the intellect. If not, to hell with it: let's rumble! 

If the Great Feminization poses a threat to civilization, the question becomes whether there is anything we can do about it.

Perhaps the problem will solve itself, since these woman are too preoccupied with their their cats and kings and climate justice to bother reproducing.