Some days, my jaw drops at what they have become. From mothers as the guarantors of the innocent child's safety, to mothers as child murderers. It's as if the whole mammalian-level of human compassion that is supposed to originate in the brain's limbic system has gone missing (big-time) in such women.
I am originally Canadian, Pamela. And I am very deeply shamed that since 1988 there has been no abortion law on the books in Canada, meaning that abortion is legal there until the moment of birth.
Personally, I always liked being female, Mary Rose. Wouldn't have it any other way. I was the one girl in my class who refused to join in the chorus of, "Well, I was a tomboy. I NEVER played with dolls". I did. And my brother played with his train set. I admitted it; this was a normal thing to have done. But then again, I attended schools that practiced academic-ranking, and I always wore the head girl medal. So no one messed with my comments.
I have long stated bold as brass that I am not a feminist -- never have been -- and I am quite proud of that. I treat both males and females as individuals (I hope). It never made the least logical sense to me, for one thing, that feminism was actually saying women were second-class and so they wanted to be men instead. Shooting themselves in the foot! But they didn't see the irony.
You are to be commended. I fell for the b.s. I wish there were more women like you to be role models for what has become a generation of uber-aggressive male-wannabe male females. :( That being said, I always did embrace my femmy side and enjoy women things. I may have been a tomboy and I am an athlete, but it has nothing to do with being "like men." It did when I was young, though.
I am middle aged now. It rather shocks me to see the large numbers of young masculine women and feminized men. An upside-down world. The evolutionary gods would not approve. This time, the entire West is shooting itself in the foot.
I am a writer, as well as having other roles. I am toying with writing a "Welcome Back to Reason" book. And inviting the dissolution of feminism.
Don't go back there, Mary Rose. It was a Marxist set-up. Glad to have you in this corner.
Absolutely. I completely repudiate the social Marxism that has been imposed (Color Revolution style) on us. No way will I ever go back. It took me a long time to go from an indoctrinated lefty to where I am now. It's kinda like, once you finally escape, you can't go back. Like quitting smoking or drinking, etc. I love the idea of your book, and the subject. Women are not happy as a whole. Of course we aren't. Our nature has been so messed with. "Don't nurse your babies, our formula is better," "Let us innoculate your kids, your milk doesn't build immune systems," etc. Then the lie we were told that women should be in the board room, not the home. As if raising a happy and well-adjusted human isn't the biggest and most important job. We bought it. Well, too many of us did. I will never go back to that mindset. I consider myself apolitical. I am also astonished (at age 60) at the masculine women and feminized men. I also think they have put hormones in the water.
I salute you, Mary Rose! It is not easy to change paths. In fact, it takes a lot of courage to do so. Especially if the bulk of the people you know remain on the other side. Can be a lonely row to hoe. And you may open yourself to Cancel Culture. I have a lot of respect for anyone who does this. It's what I call the Awakening, and it means one more person is out there saving our Western civilization, simply by their stance.
I have an education, and I raised children, both. My husband was paying the tail-end of my student loans and the mortgage, while I nursed (and attached to) our children for their first years. It was the kind of trade-off we needed to do, for everyone. I strongly agree with you that the most important job is raising children well.....because if this does not happen, both those children and society are going to pay a price. It is the foundation of everything else! I weep when I see infants left for 60 or more hours per week at daycares.
I do what I can. You do what you can. Collectively, we may yet turn this beast around. Best wishes.
Thanks, A. There was (and is) a very high cost. Lost most of my friends, but retained the good ones. Moved out of California, which was key for me, to a red state where it's not so politically-charged, and they don't let criminals run rampant in the streets and get away with murder (so far). And I mind my own business, but I might write what I know as well one of these days. Talk about having been right in the thick of things too, and knowing how it is. I experienced and journaled about what happened at the community college I worked at, being taken over by CRT and the Trans agenda. That would be a fun tell-all. Just thinking about it at this stage.
De nada; share the wealth; praise the lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
I've been following the peregrinations of feminists and feminism for some time. Some important principles, values, and insights therein -- as Canadian suffragette icon Nellie McClung once put it, no nation rises higher than its women:
But it also encompasses a great deal of toxic dogma and antiscientific claptrap. I've never read "Professing Feminism" -- by a couple of women, Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge -- myself, but they seem to have some pretty damning criticisms of it:
"The authors, however, demonstrate that these problems have existed since their ideology’s inception, and were particularly common within Women Studies programs. The authors wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students."
You might also "enjoy" another article by one of the co-authors, Koertge, who had some choice criticisms of the many "feminists" who have "repudiated logic":
NK: "I wish I could end the story of the feminist critique of logic on this happy note. Unfortunately, however, some feminists have claimed that not just the homework exercises but the very enterprise of characterizing the formal structure of logical inference cannot be separated from sexism, racism, and totalitarianism. And in her new book, Words of Power: A Feminist Reading of the History of Logic, Nye concludes that while men are master of logic, women are more inclined to be masters [pic] of reading (p. 184). If Nye is right, women students would be well-advised to stay away from logic classes. The skills that logic purports to teach are socially deleterious and thank goodness women have little aptitude from them."
"Thank goodness women have little aptitude" for "socially deleterious" logic ... 🙄
The rot in "feminism" goes rather deep. Moot whether Stock's "reboot" is even possible, whether we shouldn't just put a wooden stake through the heart of it, and put all of the "women's and gender studies" academics out to pasture. Jury is still out.
"The rot in 'feminism' goes rather deep. Moot whether Stock's 'reboot' is even possible, whether we shouldn't just put a wooden stake through the heart of it, and put all of the 'women's and gender studies' academics out to pasture. Jury is still out."
Yes, yes and yes. I am coming from the viewpoint that there is little use in critiquing all of these women's studies and Feminist writings because at their foundation, all of them suppose that feminism exists as a valid and good concept. Then they argue the fine (and often silly) points within that structure.
I give no credibility to feminism from the start. Modern feminism from 60s/70s America was simply another Neo-Marxist theme to be pursued as a tactic of social breakdown through gender avenues. It has little academic validity when you shear off all the ramblings and obfuscating dialogue. What a bore they are! Although the feminist scam has certainly supported in high style many a haughty feminist "academic" or writer. THAT has been their main motivation, after social destruction.
At heart, the concept known as feminism was nothing more than a theme of manipulation meant to weaken the structure of male/female relations, weaken protective organizations such as military and police services, and weaken the family -- first and foremost.. Therefore why grace it with pseudo-academic approaches?
I am always a bit amused that so many of the "progressives" seem to believe that without their much-vaunted feminism, women would be back in the caves, As if feminism has saved women from some horrible fate. Not so at all. The 1950s/early 60s might even be considered something of a Golden Age in that women could confidently bear children, stay home to raise their children rather than farming them out to total strangers at daycares from infancy onwards (has anyone ever read Bowlby's Attachment Theory?). And be supported by the father on one household salary which was able to cover all the essentials. Fathers even stuck around! Oh, bliss! Half the population was not on anti-depressants, lives more readily found meaning, and male children did not grow up hearing their own mothers denigrate them for being male. How can anyone argue that this was not a far healthier society? Divorce rates low, children more secure, abortion a rare situation, and middle class an affordable possibility for more families. Mothers back to work if it suited them, when the children were far enough along in age.
I have lived as a graduate student, a wife/mother, and as a working woman. There are trade-offs in most aspects of human life. Nothing guarantees perfection at all times and to all people. But since we need to build general social cultures in order to live beyond chaos, my opinion is that we siphon out the feminist rot and return to the evolutionary principles which served us better. And hey, hey, ho, ho....I would even suggest a large dollop of Judeo-Christianity. I am fine, too, without female clergy. The feminist outrage button was never implanted in me. Thank goodness.
Though I can state that the concept we know as feminism is not what drives health and happiness, nor is it to thank for authentic progress. Have feminists actually looked around at the state of society in terms of normalized promiscuity, badly supported children and unhappy women? Heck...unhappy men too. Very unhappy. Why has it been believed for the past 60 years that all of this somehow leads to nirvana? The evidence says the opposite is actually the case.
Though I'm something of an optimist -- "accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative". 🙂
As mentioned, I think there are a number of important insights in feminism -- at least in the early "waves" before postmodernism rotted out much of it -- that might "redeem" some of the philosophy and its proponents.
Of particular value I think is the concept of "gender", at least as an umbrella term for sexually dimorphic personalities, behaviours, roles, and expressions -- for which there is a great deal of evidence. You might have some interest in my efforts to put the concept on a more scientific footing:
But where too many "feminists" have gone off the rails and into the weeds is by insisting that the whole concept was hatched in the inner sanctums of "The Patriarchy!!11!" 🙄 for the sole purpose of "oppressing" women. Apropos of which, you might also have some interest in this paper by Marco Del Giudice, now of the University of Trieste but previously at the University of New Mexico, on "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender":
MDG: "Because feminism is the dominant ideological influence in the study of sex and gender, this chapter takes a critical stance toward feminist theory and research. However, my goal is not to write an anti-feminist pamphlet. There is no doubt that feminist scholars have made valuable contributions to psychology and brought attention to important themes; evolutionary psychologists like myself have long recognized this. .... The trouble begins when an entire field or discipline aligns in the same ideological direction, so that certain domains of research become 'sacralized' and hence systematically distorted (see Winegard & Winegard, 2018)."
🎯
It’s incredibly sad that women accepted this evil.
Some days, my jaw drops at what they have become. From mothers as the guarantors of the innocent child's safety, to mothers as child murderers. It's as if the whole mammalian-level of human compassion that is supposed to originate in the brain's limbic system has gone missing (big-time) in such women.
I am originally Canadian, Pamela. And I am very deeply shamed that since 1988 there has been no abortion law on the books in Canada, meaning that abortion is legal there until the moment of birth.
We wanted SO BADLY to be like men. That hasn't worked out so well, has it?
Personally, I always liked being female, Mary Rose. Wouldn't have it any other way. I was the one girl in my class who refused to join in the chorus of, "Well, I was a tomboy. I NEVER played with dolls". I did. And my brother played with his train set. I admitted it; this was a normal thing to have done. But then again, I attended schools that practiced academic-ranking, and I always wore the head girl medal. So no one messed with my comments.
I have long stated bold as brass that I am not a feminist -- never have been -- and I am quite proud of that. I treat both males and females as individuals (I hope). It never made the least logical sense to me, for one thing, that feminism was actually saying women were second-class and so they wanted to be men instead. Shooting themselves in the foot! But they didn't see the irony.
You are to be commended. I fell for the b.s. I wish there were more women like you to be role models for what has become a generation of uber-aggressive male-wannabe male females. :( That being said, I always did embrace my femmy side and enjoy women things. I may have been a tomboy and I am an athlete, but it has nothing to do with being "like men." It did when I was young, though.
I am middle aged now. It rather shocks me to see the large numbers of young masculine women and feminized men. An upside-down world. The evolutionary gods would not approve. This time, the entire West is shooting itself in the foot.
I am a writer, as well as having other roles. I am toying with writing a "Welcome Back to Reason" book. And inviting the dissolution of feminism.
Don't go back there, Mary Rose. It was a Marxist set-up. Glad to have you in this corner.
Absolutely. I completely repudiate the social Marxism that has been imposed (Color Revolution style) on us. No way will I ever go back. It took me a long time to go from an indoctrinated lefty to where I am now. It's kinda like, once you finally escape, you can't go back. Like quitting smoking or drinking, etc. I love the idea of your book, and the subject. Women are not happy as a whole. Of course we aren't. Our nature has been so messed with. "Don't nurse your babies, our formula is better," "Let us innoculate your kids, your milk doesn't build immune systems," etc. Then the lie we were told that women should be in the board room, not the home. As if raising a happy and well-adjusted human isn't the biggest and most important job. We bought it. Well, too many of us did. I will never go back to that mindset. I consider myself apolitical. I am also astonished (at age 60) at the masculine women and feminized men. I also think they have put hormones in the water.
> "As if raising a happy and well-adjusted human isn't the biggest and most important job. ..."
Indeed. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the nation".
Clearly, some people have been falling down on that job .... 😉🙂
I salute you, Mary Rose! It is not easy to change paths. In fact, it takes a lot of courage to do so. Especially if the bulk of the people you know remain on the other side. Can be a lonely row to hoe. And you may open yourself to Cancel Culture. I have a lot of respect for anyone who does this. It's what I call the Awakening, and it means one more person is out there saving our Western civilization, simply by their stance.
I have an education, and I raised children, both. My husband was paying the tail-end of my student loans and the mortgage, while I nursed (and attached to) our children for their first years. It was the kind of trade-off we needed to do, for everyone. I strongly agree with you that the most important job is raising children well.....because if this does not happen, both those children and society are going to pay a price. It is the foundation of everything else! I weep when I see infants left for 60 or more hours per week at daycares.
I do what I can. You do what you can. Collectively, we may yet turn this beast around. Best wishes.
Thanks, A. There was (and is) a very high cost. Lost most of my friends, but retained the good ones. Moved out of California, which was key for me, to a red state where it's not so politically-charged, and they don't let criminals run rampant in the streets and get away with murder (so far). And I mind my own business, but I might write what I know as well one of these days. Talk about having been right in the thick of things too, and knowing how it is. I experienced and journaled about what happened at the community college I worked at, being taken over by CRT and the Trans agenda. That would be a fun tell-all. Just thinking about it at this stage.
You're going in the right direction. Even though -- I agree -- it really hurts at times. I try to think of it as growth.
100% growth. IMHO also.
Can I pre-order that? 😉🙂
But you might have some interest in another book in the same vein:
"The Splendid Feast of Reason":
https://www.amazon.com/Splendid-Feast-Reason-Jonathan-Singer/dp/0520239113
Highly recommended -- just re-reading it now in fact.
As for "feminism", something of a very mixed bag. ICYMI, you might "enjoy" Kathleen Stock's argument that it is in serious need of a "reboot":
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/feminist-reboot-camp
Thanks for the suggestions, Steersman.
I hope to see common sense rule again. And the patterns which make humanity healthy. We've been going in the wrong direction since at least the 60s.
De nada; share the wealth; praise the lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
I've been following the peregrinations of feminists and feminism for some time. Some important principles, values, and insights therein -- as Canadian suffragette icon Nellie McClung once put it, no nation rises higher than its women:
https://isabelmetcalfe.ca/enduring-spirit-of-the-famous-5/
But it also encompasses a great deal of toxic dogma and antiscientific claptrap. I've never read "Professing Feminism" -- by a couple of women, Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge -- myself, but they seem to have some pretty damning criticisms of it:
"The authors, however, demonstrate that these problems have existed since their ideology’s inception, and were particularly common within Women Studies programs. The authors wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students."
https://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/07/27/professing-feminism-noh/
You might also "enjoy" another article by one of the co-authors, Koertge, who had some choice criticisms of the many "feminists" who have "repudiated logic":
"The Feminist Critique [Repudiation] of Logic"
Noretta Koertge
https://philpapers.org/rec/KOETFC
NK: "I wish I could end the story of the feminist critique of logic on this happy note. Unfortunately, however, some feminists have claimed that not just the homework exercises but the very enterprise of characterizing the formal structure of logical inference cannot be separated from sexism, racism, and totalitarianism. And in her new book, Words of Power: A Feminist Reading of the History of Logic, Nye concludes that while men are master of logic, women are more inclined to be masters [pic] of reading (p. 184). If Nye is right, women students would be well-advised to stay away from logic classes. The skills that logic purports to teach are socially deleterious and thank goodness women have little aptitude from them."
"Thank goodness women have little aptitude" for "socially deleterious" logic ... 🙄
The rot in "feminism" goes rather deep. Moot whether Stock's "reboot" is even possible, whether we shouldn't just put a wooden stake through the heart of it, and put all of the "women's and gender studies" academics out to pasture. Jury is still out.
Thank you again for your many links. Appreciated.
"The rot in 'feminism' goes rather deep. Moot whether Stock's 'reboot' is even possible, whether we shouldn't just put a wooden stake through the heart of it, and put all of the 'women's and gender studies' academics out to pasture. Jury is still out."
Yes, yes and yes. I am coming from the viewpoint that there is little use in critiquing all of these women's studies and Feminist writings because at their foundation, all of them suppose that feminism exists as a valid and good concept. Then they argue the fine (and often silly) points within that structure.
I give no credibility to feminism from the start. Modern feminism from 60s/70s America was simply another Neo-Marxist theme to be pursued as a tactic of social breakdown through gender avenues. It has little academic validity when you shear off all the ramblings and obfuscating dialogue. What a bore they are! Although the feminist scam has certainly supported in high style many a haughty feminist "academic" or writer. THAT has been their main motivation, after social destruction.
At heart, the concept known as feminism was nothing more than a theme of manipulation meant to weaken the structure of male/female relations, weaken protective organizations such as military and police services, and weaken the family -- first and foremost.. Therefore why grace it with pseudo-academic approaches?
I am always a bit amused that so many of the "progressives" seem to believe that without their much-vaunted feminism, women would be back in the caves, As if feminism has saved women from some horrible fate. Not so at all. The 1950s/early 60s might even be considered something of a Golden Age in that women could confidently bear children, stay home to raise their children rather than farming them out to total strangers at daycares from infancy onwards (has anyone ever read Bowlby's Attachment Theory?). And be supported by the father on one household salary which was able to cover all the essentials. Fathers even stuck around! Oh, bliss! Half the population was not on anti-depressants, lives more readily found meaning, and male children did not grow up hearing their own mothers denigrate them for being male. How can anyone argue that this was not a far healthier society? Divorce rates low, children more secure, abortion a rare situation, and middle class an affordable possibility for more families. Mothers back to work if it suited them, when the children were far enough along in age.
I have lived as a graduate student, a wife/mother, and as a working woman. There are trade-offs in most aspects of human life. Nothing guarantees perfection at all times and to all people. But since we need to build general social cultures in order to live beyond chaos, my opinion is that we siphon out the feminist rot and return to the evolutionary principles which served us better. And hey, hey, ho, ho....I would even suggest a large dollop of Judeo-Christianity. I am fine, too, without female clergy. The feminist outrage button was never implanted in me. Thank goodness.
Though I can state that the concept we know as feminism is not what drives health and happiness, nor is it to thank for authentic progress. Have feminists actually looked around at the state of society in terms of normalized promiscuity, badly supported children and unhappy women? Heck...unhappy men too. Very unhappy. Why has it been believed for the past 60 years that all of this somehow leads to nirvana? The evidence says the opposite is actually the case.
👍🙂
Though I'm something of an optimist -- "accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative". 🙂
As mentioned, I think there are a number of important insights in feminism -- at least in the early "waves" before postmodernism rotted out much of it -- that might "redeem" some of the philosophy and its proponents.
Of particular value I think is the concept of "gender", at least as an umbrella term for sexually dimorphic personalities, behaviours, roles, and expressions -- for which there is a great deal of evidence. You might have some interest in my efforts to put the concept on a more scientific footing:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/a-multi-dimensional-gender-spectrum
But where too many "feminists" have gone off the rails and into the weeds is by insisting that the whole concept was hatched in the inner sanctums of "The Patriarchy!!11!" 🙄 for the sole purpose of "oppressing" women. Apropos of which, you might also have some interest in this paper by Marco Del Giudice, now of the University of Trieste but previously at the University of New Mexico, on "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender":
MDG: "Because feminism is the dominant ideological influence in the study of sex and gender, this chapter takes a critical stance toward feminist theory and research. However, my goal is not to write an anti-feminist pamphlet. There is no doubt that feminist scholars have made valuable contributions to psychology and brought attention to important themes; evolutionary psychologists like myself have long recognized this. .... The trouble begins when an entire field or discipline aligns in the same ideological direction, so that certain domains of research become 'sacralized' and hence systematically distorted (see Winegard & Winegard, 2018)."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
Agree completely.