Fabulous essay! Feminism has absolutely thrown baby out with the bath water, but that's not surprising when grievance ideologies are committed to self-perpetuation. There can be no end goal - or at least, no feasible end goal, because ultimately feminists can't force men and women to behave alike and make identical choices.
Circling back with a question for some clarification. In the piece you claim that you do not need a special ideology to liberate women. One might argue that "the politics of a common humanity" is itself an ideology. How would you respond to this rebuttal?
I love the tie to Chesterton's Fence. So few understand that. Because when they tore down the patriarchy they assumed it was only there to restrain women....the fence got in their way.
But what the patriarchy did more was to contain the worst men. So when women ripped down the fence, they ripped down the structures that constrained the worst male inclinations.
The patriarchy was there to control the men much more than to control women.
Womens "liberation" was part of Soviet subversion tactics and polarisation is the prime message of post-structuralisn and postmodernism, which are subversive memes. How far do you think that outside forces are responsible for the turmoil in Western society? The myth that the Cold War has been won has given the bad guys the keys to our media, civil service and academia. See https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/forget-gender-polarisation-is-the
There is always going to be some distance (socially, financially, intellectually, etc) between a leader or leadership class and the masses aka regular folks: the first things that come to mind for me are, say, the difference between the Roman patrician generals and their soldiers, or even a wealthy gentleman like George Washington and his ragtag band of rebels.
But when it comes to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s (most especially of the sexual variety), there is an almost "from a different planet" massive social chasm between the leaders of 2nd-wave feminism and your average woman. The leaders and theorists were all for the most part urban, secular, leftist intellectuals high up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, looking to express themselves through words and thought, all with a social and financial cushion under them, more interested in tearing down social barriers and leading some sort of "revolution" rather than quotidian things like marrying and raising a family. And as with so many of the '60s revolutions, we can see that all this liberation benefited a small sliver of the population (once again, mostly urban, secular and middle-class or better), while offering pain along with a few dubious rewards to the rest of the people downstream: destruction of families, cultural crassness, and for me the two most damaging aspects: convincing women that "freedom" means some corporate job, so being a VP of Marketing is liberation while being a mom is oppression; and all this drunken and drug-addled promiscuity that so many people have felt pressured into exploring, when it can be so disorienting and soul-damaging (not that I haven't enjoyed it!)
But really the main point I wanted to make is: not only is there a larger distance in post-60s Left movements between the leadership class and the people they're supposedly acting on behalf of, but this may be the only political/social movement in history where the leaders so brazenly and obviously HATE the people they claim to be liberating.
Just as the Marcuseans dripped with contempt and condescension toward the proles they were supposedly leading to enlightenment, modern feminists have nothing but loathing for the "normal" average (never mind conservative) women who just want to build happy lives centered around marriage and children.
Their idea of "a common humanity" is one where we all live in the rubble of our civilization (the only possible form of Equality besides the grave), overseen of course by the vanguard class of philosopher-kings blessed with "critical consciousness" who bear a striking resemblance to Soviet commissars.
(Just discovered the essays here of Warby & Dale, they are all excellent!)
Great article. You've covered a lot of ground and covered it well.
One point of contention i would like to make however:
"The second bullshit claim was that the problem is male oppression. Every single legal advance for women has relied on male votes and male endorsement."
The main point is correct, but i have issue with the "votes" and "endorsements" here. First of all, voting is rigged. So, there is that. Secondly, votes can be bought and the populace can be psychologically manipulated, as if we didn't know this before, #COVID1984 showed us how. I guess my point here is that there was a distinct plan to bring about the social change. It was not organic and the intentions were (and are still) utterly nefarious: destroy the family unit, indoctrinate the children in government schools, collect more taxes and ultimately destroy social cohesion. On the surface, yes, it does appear that men voted and endorsed these ideas. It's probably partly true, due to general ignorance, more so however, it was manufactured, a construct. Nonetheless, your main point is still valid.
Beauty and subversion relate well in literary terms, as with Herman Hesse's Siddhartha. The glamorousness associated with the feminine - the feminine as subversive - has no completion. There is no feminist vision posing the end of the world. This masculine domain while prevalent is polarized between Marxist and eschatological forces in which the masculine Is exposed as incapable of resolving them both to the satisfaction of the feminine.
This has to be one of the most misleading, misinformation filled, self-valorising, cognitive dissonance filled, confirmation bias evoking, eisegetic essay I have ever read. That’s why I like Substack, it gets me out of my filter bubble and provides challenges to my perceptions and opinions. I will eventually write a response essay or something because I don’t want to just leave this baseless seeming, unconstructive comment and move on. However, It’ll be a while before I can get to writing it unfortunately.
Fabulous essay! Feminism has absolutely thrown baby out with the bath water, but that's not surprising when grievance ideologies are committed to self-perpetuation. There can be no end goal - or at least, no feasible end goal, because ultimately feminists can't force men and women to behave alike and make identical choices.
All the essays in this series have been good. This one is *especially* fine.
Haven't read yet but so far each installment has been excellent. Really looking forward to digging into this one as well!
Circling back with a question for some clarification. In the piece you claim that you do not need a special ideology to liberate women. One might argue that "the politics of a common humanity" is itself an ideology. How would you respond to this rebuttal?
I just discovered this Substack and I am now reading it rather than doing what I should be doing. 💗
I love the tie to Chesterton's Fence. So few understand that. Because when they tore down the patriarchy they assumed it was only there to restrain women....the fence got in their way.
But what the patriarchy did more was to contain the worst men. So when women ripped down the fence, they ripped down the structures that constrained the worst male inclinations.
The patriarchy was there to control the men much more than to control women.
Effing brilliant!
You reverse compiled decades of self supporting lies, in the most clear and concise way imaginable.
THIS right here, is why Substack is the place to be! Otherwise I might never have found your essay.
Womens "liberation" was part of Soviet subversion tactics and polarisation is the prime message of post-structuralisn and postmodernism, which are subversive memes. How far do you think that outside forces are responsible for the turmoil in Western society? The myth that the Cold War has been won has given the bad guys the keys to our media, civil service and academia. See https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/forget-gender-polarisation-is-the
There is always going to be some distance (socially, financially, intellectually, etc) between a leader or leadership class and the masses aka regular folks: the first things that come to mind for me are, say, the difference between the Roman patrician generals and their soldiers, or even a wealthy gentleman like George Washington and his ragtag band of rebels.
But when it comes to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s (most especially of the sexual variety), there is an almost "from a different planet" massive social chasm between the leaders of 2nd-wave feminism and your average woman. The leaders and theorists were all for the most part urban, secular, leftist intellectuals high up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, looking to express themselves through words and thought, all with a social and financial cushion under them, more interested in tearing down social barriers and leading some sort of "revolution" rather than quotidian things like marrying and raising a family. And as with so many of the '60s revolutions, we can see that all this liberation benefited a small sliver of the population (once again, mostly urban, secular and middle-class or better), while offering pain along with a few dubious rewards to the rest of the people downstream: destruction of families, cultural crassness, and for me the two most damaging aspects: convincing women that "freedom" means some corporate job, so being a VP of Marketing is liberation while being a mom is oppression; and all this drunken and drug-addled promiscuity that so many people have felt pressured into exploring, when it can be so disorienting and soul-damaging (not that I haven't enjoyed it!)
But really the main point I wanted to make is: not only is there a larger distance in post-60s Left movements between the leadership class and the people they're supposedly acting on behalf of, but this may be the only political/social movement in history where the leaders so brazenly and obviously HATE the people they claim to be liberating.
Just as the Marcuseans dripped with contempt and condescension toward the proles they were supposedly leading to enlightenment, modern feminists have nothing but loathing for the "normal" average (never mind conservative) women who just want to build happy lives centered around marriage and children.
Their idea of "a common humanity" is one where we all live in the rubble of our civilization (the only possible form of Equality besides the grave), overseen of course by the vanguard class of philosopher-kings blessed with "critical consciousness" who bear a striking resemblance to Soviet commissars.
(Just discovered the essays here of Warby & Dale, they are all excellent!)
Great article. You've covered a lot of ground and covered it well.
One point of contention i would like to make however:
"The second bullshit claim was that the problem is male oppression. Every single legal advance for women has relied on male votes and male endorsement."
The main point is correct, but i have issue with the "votes" and "endorsements" here. First of all, voting is rigged. So, there is that. Secondly, votes can be bought and the populace can be psychologically manipulated, as if we didn't know this before, #COVID1984 showed us how. I guess my point here is that there was a distinct plan to bring about the social change. It was not organic and the intentions were (and are still) utterly nefarious: destroy the family unit, indoctrinate the children in government schools, collect more taxes and ultimately destroy social cohesion. On the surface, yes, it does appear that men voted and endorsed these ideas. It's probably partly true, due to general ignorance, more so however, it was manufactured, a construct. Nonetheless, your main point is still valid.
Thanks again for the great article.
Beauty and subversion relate well in literary terms, as with Herman Hesse's Siddhartha. The glamorousness associated with the feminine - the feminine as subversive - has no completion. There is no feminist vision posing the end of the world. This masculine domain while prevalent is polarized between Marxist and eschatological forces in which the masculine Is exposed as incapable of resolving them both to the satisfaction of the feminine.
This has to be one of the most misleading, misinformation filled, self-valorising, cognitive dissonance filled, confirmation bias evoking, eisegetic essay I have ever read. That’s why I like Substack, it gets me out of my filter bubble and provides challenges to my perceptions and opinions. I will eventually write a response essay or something because I don’t want to just leave this baseless seeming, unconstructive comment and move on. However, It’ll be a while before I can get to writing it unfortunately.
Yes -