What Is It You Find That's So Unattractive?

By Rich Kozlovich 

Today Noel S. Williams posted this article, Passport Bros: 'I wish they all could be Filipina girls' saying:

Nowadays, the misguided Gen Z chicks get a kick out of rejecting any tradition, even pleasing standards of classical beauty..... Confusedly, they are still spending on so-called “beauty” products......So why are they getting so ghastly ugly? Is it so their skin-thin facade mirrors their inner ugliness?  

They are using beauty products to intentionally project an unglamorous vibe, that’s why. 

In some twisted way that only a mixed-up feminist could understand, it is a perverted manifestation of their futile “I don’t need a man” independence movement. To prove it, they use beauty products not to veil blemishes, but to enhance them. They want to turn men off, and it’s working.

Well, hey, c’mon man. Just because a woman may have issues with depression, anxiety, gender confusion, is unemployed with her credit cards maxed out, and spends her money on weed, tattoos, dyes her hair in unnatural colors, never met a man that wasn't seriously flawed, is an overweight vegan due to her lack of impulse control and insists on telling everyone  how to fix the country....... you seem to think that’s unattractive?  Imagine that.   You may find her picture among Powerline's This Week In Pictures, which was the source for most of this.   

It's The Discipline Stupid!

By Rich Kozlovich

Over at American Thinker Joseph Cotto published this piece, The Problem With Leftist Women noting:

Leftist women show a striking tolerance for infidelity that sets them apart from their conservative counterparts.

He went on to describe the differences between women with traditional values versus the hypocrisy of these leftist harridans, which exposes the real issue behind their lack of happiness.  It's their lack of discipline that creates their unhappiness.  They lack discipline because they lack stable foundational values.  Adults in many ways are just large children. 

Brats are out of control children whose parents refuse to place or enforce borders on their conduct.  Children need structure.  Borders need to be put in place and enforced in order for them to be content…… and on an emotional level they actually want those borders.   Children are bad for a reason; it's the job! It's the job of parents to straighten them out. How else can they understand their are some things that are unacceptable otherwise?   That's when values are created.  

Well…truth be told, that desire for structure, values and understanding is genetic, and that need never really goes away.  When that need isn't fulfilled you get a life filled with chaos.  

The left has created a mentality of “if it feels good do it”!  In women they promoted a mentality of “you can have it all”, and "we don't need men".  Once they embraced that they threw all the traditional values out the window, irrespective of the inevitable negative consequences.  Huge numbers of women in western civilization have bought into it, and they keep making the same wrong decisions over and over again. 

This has been the consequence of leftist schemes to destroy the foundational structure of a stable society, the family.  As a destabilized society is far more easier to take over and control, which is the real goal of leftists. 

These attitudes expressed by leftist women in this article are antithetical to what men actually want, and as time goes by men are becoming acutely aware they’re on the dirty end of the stick.  They're tired of it, and it’s genetic! 

When it comes to women, young men are stupid, but most will get over that with time.  But women are all Eve’s daughters, and for these leftist misfits, time is not on their side.   These younger men who are embracing this insanity will at some point be over 30, and when that happens the brain restructures itself, and a large number of them will become far more conservative, will find and marry women with traditional values, and these leftist women will be all alone, and hopefully their genetic code will be lost to time.

 

Sixth Wave Feminism

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog

First wave feminism, which ended with the right to vote, was the only successful feminism out of all the ideological waves that have since then washed ashore on the rocky shores of modernity. Second wave feminism left behind broken families and uncertain relationships that men and women struggle to unhappily navigate while third wave feminism gave us identity politics, Hillary Clinton, the #MeToo movement and abortion as the apotheosis of female identity.

Fourth wave feminism took women out of feminism and replaced them with men in dresses while fifth wave feminism dispensed with even the pretense of feminism and instead hollowed out what was the left of the movement and replaced it with radical leftist causes like BLM, Hamas and crushing capitalism. If second wave feminism had been accused of being Marx in a dress and third wave feminism, Marx in a pantsuit, fourth wave feminism was a Marxist man in a dress and fifth wave feminism was Marxism in which the involvement of women was limited to advocating for Marxist causes and accepting that rape was the fault of capitalism, not the rapist.

The trouble with the latter ‘waves’ (itself a reworking of a Marxist concept) was not unique to feminism. The same crisis arrives with every identity movement infiltrated by the left which begins by appearing to advocate for a particular group, when it is actually recruiting members of that group to advocate for it, and then proceeds through its ‘waves’ to eliminate that group.

What feminism did to women is what Marxism also did to the working class, what Jewish leftist movements did to the Jews and what the Latinx movement began doing to the Latino men it had once recruited. And what every separatist Marxist movement will eventually do to its base.

The paradox of Marxist activism is that the movement in its ultimate fulfillment has no room for differences or individual identities, yet can only grow by appealing to the solidarity of oppressed groups (and if they’re not oppressed yet, convincing them that they are or ought to be). Eventually the bait is switched and what seemed like empowerment becomes disempowerment. The ultimate test for the true believer is to abandon the particularistic wellspring of their activist passion for the party discipline of the larger movement and its promise of salvation for mankind.

Identity politics replaces old identities with new ones. The new identities it creates and champions are only a means of destroying the old. And then once the new identities have become old, it is their turn to be deconstructed as oppressive systems to be replaced by newer identities still. Feminism began by pitting women against men, then pitted different women against each other, and then finally pitted men claiming to be women against women.

The details may be unique to women, but the pattern appears across leftist movements.

Feminism being older than more recent arrivals like civil rights movements for minorities or gay rights, is also further along the waves of betrayal and closer to its own elimination. The other group closest to it in age, campaigners for Jewish rights, can best appreciate its dilemma. Jewish activists, like feminists, have been faced with the choice between their people and the Left, and much of the professional feminist and Jewish activist class have chosen the Left.

And yet the 2024 election provided solid evidence that growing numbers of women (and Jews) are rejecting the identity extinction mandated by their movements. The blow dealt to the transgender movement and its demand that the female sex disappear into a black hole of pronouns, chestfeeders, vagina-havers and similar euphemisms by women has staggered it.

The rejection of fourth wave feminism with its resentment of white women, the BLMing of feminism and the evocation of transgender men as the ultimate women, along with fifth wave’s feminism’s insistence that rape required understanding, not punishment, and that the ultimate fault lay with systemic racism, the justice system and capitalism, left behind an empty space.

What next wave might fill that void and what would ‘sixth-wave feminism’ even look like?

The trouble with ‘feminism’ was always the ‘ism’. Marxism and the leftist movements it influences view the world through the lens of oppressors and oppressed, victims to liberate from systems rather than individuals making their own choices. Politics is the study of power and viewing everything as a power relationship creates perpetual conflict between people.

Defining people as a thesis and antithesis leaves no room for human relationships on any other terms. It’s what ultimately destroys every leftist relationship with anyone on the outside and with each other by eventually making everything into a zero sum purity test over the right to power.

The politicisation of the personal is at the heart of leftist totalitarianism. But escaping it requires leaving behind ideological formulas for the more complicated mysteries of human relationships.

There are actual abuses and societies based around oppression, but the problem with leftist movements is that viewing all interactions as a series of power relationships, they can conceive of no other kind of society and out of that they turn liberation into oppression. Human relationships should not be subjugated to the political, rather liberated from the political.

And if there is to be a sixth wave feminism, it ought to liberate women from politicisation.

Any feminism based along the lines of Marxism will deprive women of choice by politicising those choices and then demanding that they conform to its ideology, it will deconstruct women and then eventually define womanhood as a problematic construct and seek to replace it.

If feminism is to be based on an ‘ism’, it ought to be individualism.

Collectivist liberation is just another form of oppression. The only freedom it offers is the passage to another kind of conformity. The ‘waves’ of feminism redefined what a woman was supposed to be until in their final redefinition a woman was truly a man. A true feminism would allow women their individual choices and recognize that women are not all the same.

The true ideal was already written in the Declaration of Independence as a return to the ‘right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ that the first feminists had sought before the Marxists came in and put the movement on the path to nullifying freedom and womanhood.

Women have come to exist for feminism rather than feminism for women. The final feminism would be a liberation from feminism.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.  Thank you for reading.

 

Feminists for Human Extinction

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog  

After the majority of Americans voted for the economy over abortion, furious feminists have announced that they will no longer date, marry or have children.

Call it slow motion misery and mass suicide.

In the past, Americans protested by refusing to pay taxes, now leftists are protesting by refusing to have children because of their frustrated eagerness to kill those same children in the womb.

What began as a last minute election gimmick by the Kamala campaign, which decided that its best strategy for winning the election was dividing us by sex, is now poisoning our culture, and further ruining relationships between men and women. And the media is spreading the poison.

CBS News, NBC News and the Washington Post are only a few of the many mainstream media outlets that have taken it on themselves to promote South Korea’s 4B movement to Americans with its ‘four bis’ or ‘four nos’ calling for no dating, no sex, no marriage and no childbirth.

Rather than report critically on a movement that is hateful and destructive, the media has chosen to advocate it as a valid response to their candidate of choice losing an election. Promoting self-harm among psychologically vulnerable populations is supposed to be off limits, but as with transgenderism, the media will push self-harm when it’s self-harm of the right kind.

The media’s push for 4B comes as national levels of loneliness and unhappiness are rising. 1 in 5 Americans recently reported feeling lonely much of the day. Social isolation is more than just an emotion, it can lead to substance abuse and suicide. And a fundamental cause of social isolation is the fracturing of family ties and friendships over politics and culture war issues.

Democrat media outlets have spent years encouraging people to fight over politics at Thanksgiving. Now the media would like to help kill relationships between men and women. Why settle for alienating children from their parents when they can make sure those children will never be born and that there will be no more families to celebrate Thanksgiving?

South Korea’s 0.78 birth rate per woman put it in a state of voluntary extinction even without the 4B movement and American feminists would like to join them by making themselves extinct.

Like all social contagions, 4B spread across TikTok in short clips of hysteria and occasional self-mutilation followed by vows to accept the tenets of the new feminist movement. Some American 4Bers are planning to boycott men only during the Trump administration while others appear to be making a lifelong commitment to remaining unhappy and alone.

Refusing to marry or start families doesn’t hurt Trump, or even most Republican voters who tend to be older and married. Instead it extends the gender war that Kamala had built the closing days of her campaign around to encompass the human relationships of her supporters.

The divisiveness of the Kamala campaign led to a massive backlash and a multicultural coalition that propelled President Donald J. Trump to a record victory. The 4B movement and the media promotion of it is a sign that the Democrats and their media are doubling down on divisiveness.

And no divisiveness is more fundamental than a call to end all relationships between the sexes.

The sex divide has always been a core part of the feminist movement. The end stage of feminism lay in the contention that “all heterosexual sex is rape” and that anything short of homosexuality was the systemic oppression of women by men. The same feminist activists promoting 4B have also labored to revive Andrea Dworkin’s reputation on TikTok.

Being married to a man, Kamala presumably does not agree with the 4B worldview, but, like previous male and female leftist candidates, exploited divisions between men and women to advance her political career. At the nadir of her campaign, a Kamala rally brought out Michelle Obama to tell men that if they voted for Trump, they were voting to kill women.

“A vote for him is a vote against us,” she told men.

A majority of suburban white women still voted for Trump, but the 4B movement shows how much damage Kamala and Michelle Obama have done to some of their own loyal base.

The Obamas had spent their career dividing us by race, but in the closing of the Kamala campaign, tapped into ugly rhetoric meant to convince women that men were their enemies.

Michelle Obama clearly does not believe this, but like transgenderism and other social contagions, encouraged mistrust, alienation and self-harm among some women to win.

What does victory look like for a 4B movement?

Kamala and Michelle have contrived to create more division and loneliness. How does dividing men and women win elections? The essence of leftist politics is division. And division naturally creates angry and unhappy people. While racial divisions do that, separating the sexes, ending marriage and children breaks up relationships so fundamental to human existence that the lack of them ensures a state of perpetual unhappiness and eventually the extinction of the species.

And what is abortion, but slow motion extinction anyway?

There were over 1 million abortions in America in 2023 compared to 76,000 COVID deaths. That same year America’s birth rate fell to a record low. The current 1.6 birth rate is below replacement rate which means that America is already slowly going extinct. The mobs of migrants invading the country are there to replace us as the Europeans are being replaced.

And the same feminists who don’t want women and men to marry and have children, who want to kill babies in the womb, also want to open up our borders to a mass migrant invasion.

Feminism in America is advancing national extinction by various means. What its leftist members fear above all else is a national revival at whose center lies the family.

Whether it’s abortion or 4B, feminism is another arm of the leftist plot to end America.

Across every sector and arena, leftists are responding to Trump’s victory by doubling down on dividing us and on convincing us to give up on living our lives, in order to destroy America. 

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading.  

Assaulting Women is the New Feminism

Daniel Greenfield December 18, 2023 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Last year, Payton McNabb, a teenage girl, was seriously injured while playing in a high school volleyball game against a transgender male athlete in North Carolina. A year later she’s still struggling with partial paralysis and constant headaches, and has trouble learning.

If Payton expected feminist groups to side with her, she was disappointed. Instead the Feminist Majority Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Ms. Magazine, denounced the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” bill meant to protect teenage girls like her.

The Feminist Majority Foundation, along with Feminist Campus, Equal Rights Advocates, Girls Inc, Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund, Trust Women, United State of Women, and the National Organization for Women, and numerous feminist groups signed a letter attacking the federal ‘Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act’ for daring to protect women from suffering the way that Payton and other female athletes had.

A dozen organizations with “women”, “girl” or “feminist” in their names were dedicated to the proposition that womens’ sports should be eliminated and that any women or girls who play should be ready to suffer catastrophic injuries from 220-lb. ‘transgender’ male athletes.

Beating women and denying their existence is the new feminism. So is raping women.

In the wake of the Hamas rapes during the invasion of Israel on Oct 7, some have wondered where the feminist organizations are. The answer is that they’re supporting the rapists.

Feminist Front coordinated a statement claiming that “Palestine” was a “feminist issue” and complaining that “Palestinian boys and men have been falsely portrayed as bloodthirsty terrorists, rapists, and savages”. The statement was signed by the Global Women’s Strike, Feminist Uprising, Black Feminist Future, HEART: Women and Girls and other socialist organizations.

When feminist groups weren’t outright supporting the rapists, they were ducking the issue.

The few feminist groups that addressed the Hamas sexual assaults either offered generic statements, such as the National Organization of Women’s press release condemning, without any specifics, “the use of rape as a weapon of war”, or tried to split the difference, like Women for Women International equating the Hamas rapes and murders of Israeli women, to Muslim women suspected of carrying bombs being strip searched by Israeli authorities.

The Global Fund for Women “unequivocally” denounced “all forms of sexual and gender-based violence worldwide” including in “Israel and Palestine”, condemned Hamas and Israel for “the violent bombardment of Gaza” and demanded an investigation into “sexual and gender-based violence committed against Israeli and Palestinian women.”

Some feminist organizations parroted the leftist line calling for an end to Israeli attacks on Hamas. The Women’s Environment & Development Organization (WEDO), established by former Rep. Bella Abzug, the first Jewish congresswoman, republished a statement from AWID titled “feminist demand: stop the massacre in Gaza” and called for “decolonization”. WEDO issued no statement about the massacre and rape of Israeli women by Hamas Jihadists.

Anyone still surprised had not been paying attention to the trajectory of a movement that denies women exist and upholds the right of men who claim to be women to beat and even sexually assault women.

Feminist groups demand that transgender sex offenders should be locked up together with women and champion “non-carceral” and “restorative justice” solutions for rapists.

“Palestine” is a feminist issue. So are “decarceration” programs that put rapists right back on the street along with transgender sports. What isn’t a feminist issue anymore is protecting women. Asserting that women, as opposed to “bodies with vaginas”, “pregnant people” or “bleeders”, exist is now a radical position from a marginalized group of ‘TERFs’.

Feminism didn’t just turn its back on Israeli women: it turned its back on women.

Most feminist groups shifted away from criticizing the Islamic abuse of women after 9/11. And those who did not were accused of Islamophobia. It’s now routine in socialist circles to decry the “weaponization of women’s rights by the far right”. By that they mean any reference to not only Islamic misogyny, but transgenderism, crime and any issue except abortion and pay parity.

Legitimizing rape became a feminist cause long before Oct 7. Especially when perpetrated by certain groups. Social service workers and law enforcement personnel who tried to investigate Muslim sex grooming gangs in the UK were denounced as “Islamophobes.”

End Violence Against Women, a British coalition of feminist groups, for example argued that the “depiction of some forms of gender-based violence, especially FGM, as exceptionally ‘barbaric’, is similarly driven by a white supremacist worldview.” The basic position that mutilating young girls is wrong is now white supremacy leads to FGM becoming feminism.

Critics correctly note that feminism failed Israeli rape victims, but whom didn’t it fail?

Feminism now means demanding that men in dresses should have access to battered women’s shelters. There is talk among feminist scholars about opposing Title IX, the foundation of womens’ sports, because it excludes transgender men. Apart from relentlessly campaigning for abortion, what does the feminist movement even do anymore that’s related to women?

A feminist movement that won’t protect battered women, trafficked girls in Europe or womens’ sports in America is certainly not going to stick its neck out for women assaulted by Hamas.

Why should a movement that lets its own daughters be beaten care about Israeli women?

What happened to the feminist movement is fairly similar to what happened to liberal Jewish organizations in America. The particular cause was traded for the general one and groups abandoned their origins and responsibilities to chase after the latest trend in the leftist movement. There are many organizations with “Jewish” or “Women” in their name, but few that actually advocate for Jews or women. Most of these groups just use the pretzel logic of intersectionality to explain why the cause they’re fighting for, which has nothing to do with Jews or women, and is sometimes dangerous to them, is actually a Jewish or feminist cause.

And that is how you end up with Jews for Hamas and Feminists for Rape.

Vulnerable groups provide a certain cachet to a movement, but movements by design are also likely to perpetrate the same abuses that those groups were fighting against. Misogyny and antisemitism were always bound to resurface in a mass movement. The acid test was whether feminist and liberal Jewish groups would remain loyal to their mission or the movement.

They chose the movement.

The rise of Islam inverted the roles of victim and perpetrator. Anyone attacked by Islam became an oppressor. And since women and Jews are both targets of Islamic abuses, the movement accepted the moral inversion that rape and genocide were progressive, and that the oppressors were anyone who complained about terrorism and female genital mutilation.

The feminist movement let down Israeli women, American women, European women and most women. It exists now to campaign for abortion, the hijab, men entering the ladies room and the moral superiority of people from cultures where women have no rights and no freedoms.

Assaulting women is the new feminism. The real feminists are the brave and stunning men in dresses and Islamic rapists and groomers. Feminism is Hamas terrorists breaking into Israel. It’s Steve spiking a ball into a teenage girl’s face. It’s calling women “bleeders”.

You’ve come a long way, baby. Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.  

 

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading. Tags: feminism, Left, recent, Terrorism, transgender

Feminists Were Against Single Sex Spaces, Before They Were For Them

By Daniel Greenfield  July 14, 2023 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Before anyone worried about a 300 lb bearded man sharing dressing rooms, saunas, and sports teams with the fairer sex, the war on single sex spaces was being waged by feminists.

During the 1970s, feminists demanded access to all-male clubs and insisted that female sports reporters had the right to interview half-naked male athletes. The consensual single-sex male space had all but disappeared in the new century except as a distant memory. The triumph of feminism further atomized male spaces and communities while leaving female ones intact.

By the next decade, books like Hannah Rosin’s ‘The End of Men (and the Rise of Women)’ forecast a world in which masculinity had been reduced to an evolutionary dead end. Such hollow triumphalism still persists in some feminist circles, but, as any biologist could have explained, the end of men foreshadowed the end of women.

Men and women cannot in the long run exist without each other either biologically or societally.

The feminist movement is using the same tactics against women that it did against men. Feminism was not a preference for women over men, as its useful idiots thought, but a profound hostility to the family and the biological duality on which it was based. When feminism campaigned around the idea that women were no different than men, too few understood at the time that what it really meant was that neither men nor women existed as unique beings.

Once the end had come for men, it would also come for women.

The opposition of some feminists to the transgender movement may be courageous, but it’s also hypocritical and self-serving. Did feminists really think that male single-sex spaces would be dismantled while female single-sex spaces would be left intact? The feminist movement, like every other leftist identity politics cause, consisted of chauvinists and leftists. The chauvinists believe in the supremacy of the group while the leftists believe in abolishing the groups.

Much as the black nationalists of the civil rights movement broke off from the liberal consensus when it diverged from their racial supremacism, some feminists have broken off into TERFs whose hostility to men has only sharpened when confronted with the transgender movement.

The Left weaponizes out-groups against in-groups, not because it loves the out-group, but because its hatred of the in-group makes it a useful lever for destroying all the groups. It does not believe in any group. It finds, defines and sometimes creates disadvantaged groups, leads their causes and then abandons them. It does not believe in races, genders, nations, sexualities or any of the distinctions that it weaponizes only to dismantle them.

The paradox of identity politics is that it is wielded to eliminate races, genders, sexualities and nations. After every new civil rights struggle has been won, the new struggle dismantles the old. The transgender movement is only the latest iteration of a familiar phenomenon that supersedes each redefinition with a new redefinition that takes away the newly won achievements.

A new oppressed group always comes along to expose the old oppressed group as oppressors. And the cycle of oppression, struggle and liberation begins again.

Single sex spaces for men were attacked for representing male privilege. Now single sex spaces for women are attacked on the same grounds. The universalization of gender classes women with men as ‘cis’ oppressors of the transgenders. And, when the time comes, the transgenders will be denounced as the oppressors of the non-binaries or the asexuals.

Why settle for crossing gender when you can mix and match or abolish them entirely?

In the identity politics paradigm, only some can be the heroes, but everyone, from Holocaust survivors to the grandchildren of freed slaves, will be made into villains.

The Left’s goal is to destroy the categories whose divisions it exploits. Universalization, its underlying mandate, eliminates not only the divisions of the moment, but all divisions. The male club, the female dressing room and all the sanctuaries that separate the sexes, have to go.

The resistance to the transgender movement has been far too rooted in feminist chauvinism and hostility toward men. Its assertions of victimhood are falling on deaf ears because a new class of victims has emerged. A truly meaningful resistance requires remembering what it is that makes men and women different, and what the ‘gender binary’ really offers to all of us.

Unless we reunite the way that the Left divided us, we will be splintered by the infinite divisions and subdivisions of identity politics. The natural divisions of sex are not only healthy, they are meaningful, and they show us that men and women are incomplete without the other. When these divisions are shattered, instead of upheld, new divisions will form without end.

The feminist mantra that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle still haunts a ‘gender critical’ movement that is entrenched in its hostility to men and loves women only as victims. A negative vision of women as victims inspires only resentment and is doomed to fail. The idea that women can be men has proven to be equally disastrous as a generation of teenage girls aspires to become men by cutting off body parts and mutilating themselves into masculinity.

Women and men can only survive the Left’s assault by standing together, not pulling apart. A feminism based on hostility to men and masculinist movements based on hostility to women just accelerate the breakup of the family and civilization. The only path forward is not Gloria Steinem or Andrew Tate, it’s not women hating men or men hating women, but the reunion of the sexes.

Men and women are different. The dynamic complementary relationships that form within romantic bonds, families, workplaces and intellectual dialogues from those differences make humanity what it is. Cultures, like Islam, that repress and sideline women, are hopelessly impoverished and incapable of constructing a civilization based on anything other than rape and murder. And an ‘End of Men’ culture is too busy wallowing in feelings and empathy to make the hard decisions it needs to move forward. Its streets are overrun with criminals, its borders with invaders and its geopolitical map with rival powers. Its infrastructure is collapsing and its institutions are running on inertia. Civilization needs both men and women.

Women and men humanize each other, give each other purpose and meaning, and introduce ways of thinking and acting to one another that do not come naturally to the other. Secure men and women also respect each other’s differences and the need to retreat into single sex spaces for dignity, modesty, companionship and the surroundings of people who are like them.

Single sex spaces are an important element of sex differences. They allow men and women to retreat to places where they temporarily do not need to accommodate a very different sex and can socialize on the familiar and natural terms of their biological natures. To permanently abide in single sex spaces is fundamentally unhealthy, but to reject them entirely is destructive.

Beyond the physical differences that make athletic competition across the sexes into an absurdity in many arenas, men and women need a balance of being in the company of those they naturally understand and those whom they have to challenge themselves to understand.

To be who we are, we need single sex spaces, and to be more than we are, we join with the opposite sex. Feminism and the transgender movement, in line with the leftist universalizing tendency, deny the ways we draw strength from similarities and contrasts. The constant insistence on diversity above all else is a nihilistic destructive impulse that destroys all.

We must know who we are in order to bridge differences. Similarity and diversity are both important. Without diversity, we do not grow, and without similarity, we are torn apart.

Women and men draw strength from who they are, the iconic models of their sex, the cowboys and princesses, the soldiers and nurses, to become husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, to become the best of their selves so that they can offer that ideal to each other in a true partnership that is the basis of a marriage, of a society and of a civilization. 

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. 
Thank you for reading.

Drew Barrymore the feminist prostrated before an enthroned man in a dress is a sight to behold

By Olivia Murray

The scene between Drew Barrymore and Dylan Mulvaney was like something out of an Arthurian legend where Guinevere clasped at the hem of her knight’s tunic, or a film that hearkens back to Hollywood’s earliest era where the gentle housewife fell in line with the 1950s iron-fisted husband:  A woman on her knees, pleading with a man as he sits on his throne of superiority; the spectacle all seemed rather misogynistic if you ask me. (One could reasonably expect a kissing of the signet ring would be next.)  Predictably, this event set conservative outlets abuzz because of its sheer ridiculousness — Barrymore advertises herself as a feminist and advocate for women. However, the text from the tweet above got me thinking: is this switcheroo really the “sneakiest trick the patriarchy ever pulled”? I’d argue it’s not.........To Read More....

There's No Substitute For Mom?

Guest Author 

I was listening to Dr. Laura (Schlesinger, a psychologist with a call-in show) on Sirius radio, who related that she had been on talk shows during which she conducted impromptu audience polls in response to attack questions by hosts.

Hosts would object to her traditional views on raising children with a full-time mother in the home, and on parents remaining in otherwise failing relationships until the kids are grown.

She would respond to these attacks with a question to the audience (which I will relate imperfectly): 

All of you suddenly die today. The next thing you know you are back in the world as a small child. In which circumstance would you rather find yourself (and she would direct the audience to stand for their preferred choice): cared for by (1) a day care center; (2) a baby sitter; (3) a nanny; (4) a non-working mother who stays home for you?

Each time NO one chose anything other than the stay-at-home mother, even though the audiences had a wide age range from young to old and surely included many committed "feminists."  Dr. Laura concludes that despite all the rhetoric about women "having it all", everyone knows in their hearts that there is no substitute for a mother's love and constant presence in raising children.

Obviously she is a controversial figure because of these views. But it is hard to argue with her when families increasingly break down, and when women find that "having it all" is often an illusion. Someone or something important is often left behind: a broken marriage, a lost child or children.

And according to Dr. Laura, most people know this in their hearts, whether they admit It or not.

(Now I duck my head for incoming bottles and bombs)

What does a woman want?

Freud's question remains unanswered 

Mar 26, 2022 Michael D. Shaw

 

While Sigmund Freud is hardly the first to be troubled over this matter, he is the most famous for pondering: 

The great question that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is 'What does a woman want?' 

Nearly 100 years after this quotation was uttered, are we any closer to an answer? 

Just a few days ago, a Black female candidate for the US Supreme Court refused to provide her definition of what a woman is, to a questioning female senator. The reason she was willing to answer in this absurd manner was, of course, to keep her liberal bona fides intact. If she had given the correct biological answer “A member of the human species with two X chromosomes,” she would have upset the forces which serve to undermine society. 

But then, this particular judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, also demonstrated a profound sympathy toward pedophiles, who surely prey upon little girls. Yet, several media outlets, including the execrable New York Times, praised Jackson for how she comported herself during the hearings, and condemned the questions she was being asked. 

That conservative Supreme Court candidates, starting with Robert Bork, followed by Clarence Thomas, and all the way through to Amy Barrett, were treated far worse matters not. 

However, the worst element of Jackson’s hearing occurred when she claimed to be unfamiliar with the landmark case of US v. Virginia (1996), which prohibited the Virginia Military Academy from discriminating against women by its male-only policy. This case is considered historic since it shattered barriers in the long male-dominated military sector, and featured a majority opinion written by feminist icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

Moreover, this case is well known to many people outside the field of law. That an appeals court federal judge could claim to be unfamiliar with it is preposterous. Bear in mind that there is no good spin on this. Jackson either lied, or is as dumb as a bag of rocks. 

Yet, the reason she lied is simple enough. If the case broke down barriers for women, a previously unnecessary question raises itself: Who and what are these “women” who are now protected from this discrimination? 

Thus, I echo Dr. Freud. If someone who wishes to be a member of our Supreme Court cannot define what a woman is, and this disgraceful charade is allowed to stand, what DOES a woman want? Why didn’t millions of women scream in protest at this outrage, which denies their very existence? 

You might as well also ask why did only a pathetic handful of women complain about the ascendance of a “transgender” female swimmer (complete with male equipment) to the heights of the NCAA? 

You might as well also ask why so many “soccer moms” and others who would otherwise support conservative political principles would oppose the re-election of Donald J. Trump, presumably because he is “mean” and a “bully.” That Joe Biden is hardly a pleasant fellow, and has displayed annoying and weird habits, including smelling little girls’ hair, and alleged inappropriate activity with his own daughter does not seem to matter. Certainly, it is not sufficient to counter the animus against Trump.

One can hardly imagine that these women who evidently favored Biden over Trump are pleased with the current state of affairs. 

Thus, women’s sports are under siege, as is the very definition of “woman.” Two existential threats are raised, and the silence is deafening. amid the cheers of officialdom. Women’s lib, indeed.

Marxian Leadership Played Cruel Hoax on Liberal Feminist Women

  Mychal Massie March 21, 2022 @ Daily Rant

Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden’s Supreme Court nominee is a reminder that for all of the boastful bravado regarding the elevation of women, Marxists along with their Democrat sycophants hold women in the lowest of esteem.  She also reminds me of just how “man dominated” Marxists are from the top down.

What I find interesting is how ignorant liberal, feminist women to this reality despite the lies they tell themselves and gullible your girls to the contrary.  Let me explain what I base my point of view upon.

The superlatives mouthed about this rabid neo-Leninist woman have nothing to do with judicial competence. They do however, have everything to do with her being crayon out of a box crayon colors.  Marxist front groups supported by the Democrat Party claim that her having been a public defender is worth a gold star.

Melanin content is not synonymous with judicial aptitude in any scenario I can reference.  Her being a proponent of infanticide speaks to her Erebusic depravity not her skill as a jurist; and her shameful record of leniency towards child predators points to a predisposition that is not supported by laws in America.

She is positioned, and I predict will be the first female Supreme Court Justice with her Crayola crayon hue.  I would be insulted, if the test of my judicial capacity were predicated upon being a crayon color juxtaposed to my being a fierce and uncompromising defender of the Constitution.

I would be deeply offended if the chants of praise were based upon my not supporting the Constitution. I would especially feel that way if my self-esteem were based upon being the first crayon color woman to sit upon the highest court in the land.

But, why would Biden’s kind change how they viewed woman now.  The wild-eyed liberal crazed feminists can make any erroneous claim the want, but at the end of the day they are nothing more than a pieces of meat to the Marxian cultural agenda.

I have to laugh every time I hear some liberal feminist claiming another of their kind is a “strong, independent, brave woman.”  I think to myself: “That’s a crock of vomit mixed with the substance that comprises encopresis sans micturition.”

If Hollywood women were are “so strong and independent” why did do they have to sleep with directors and producers to get a role in a movie?  If liberal Hollywood women are so admirable why are they expected to murder their children to keep their jobs?  Or is that their demented definition of “independent and strong?”

These women love to talk about the great and all-powerful Hillary.  I ask you, if Hilary is so powerful and such an independent woman why was the nomination taken from her in 2008 and given to Obama?  Or are we supposed to forget that the Clinton team had dirt on Obama that was reputed to be so devastating that it would force him from the race?  Somehow, said information quietly disappeared.

The Marxian elements responsible for stealing the election from President Trump in favor of a stuttering stammering, diaper wearing, cognitively impaired, molester of women, (who if the Catholic Church leadership had any moral fiber) would be excommunicated, could have just as easily stolen the election for Hillary in 2016.

Pelosi may be Speaker of the House, but as such she is little more than a toothless old sot suffering from tardive dyskinesia and some pronounced form of hebephrenia.  In brief, she’s a toothless old dog who wags her tail when the true Marxian leadership gives the order.

Obama single-handedly made it possible for Title IX protections and the enforcement of standards of equipoise between within male and female sports to be circumvented and then completely abandoned.

Thus the doors have been opened for a man to simply claim that he’s a woman and compete in female sport of their choice.  The women have been dealt a damning blow of unfairness while the Marxian male dominated leadership of Democrats ignores the injustice, as the likes of Will Thomas the supposedly transgender swimmer is rewriting the female swimming records using the name Lia.  The women being injured by this travesty are forced to remain silent under threat of losing their scholarships if they speak out.

Liberal feminists would do well to read “The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know and Men Can’t Say” by the late Phyllis Schlafly and Suzanne Venker.

Together Mrs. Schlafly and Mrs. Venker detail exactly the point I am making here, i.e., the liberal feminist movement has been a cruel trick perpetrated upon gullible women by the enemy of our souls. It has resulted in reducing said women to pieces of meat to be used and abused to the pleasure and will of the male dominated leadership of the Marxian theology.

Take action and share this!

About the Author

Mychal Massie

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of a conservative Capitol Hill think tank; and a former member of the think tank National Center for Public Policy Research. Read entire bio here

 

Can Feminism Destroy China?

Daniel Greenfield December 26, 2021 @ Sultan Knish Blog

China’s one-child policy suppressed the birth rate with forced abortions and political terror for a generation. Only allowed one child, many Chinese families chose to abort their baby girls.

The deficit of 40 million female babies is now the specter stalking Communist China.

China’s aggressive military moves against Taiwan and India are a desperate gambit by a corrupt Communist elite facing domestic social instability and millions of men who can never marry.

But while the focus has been on too many Chinese men, it’s the too few women whom the regime is starting to fear. The Communist society is being forced to reckon with the social problem of supply and demand in the marriage market. Women, formerly despised, are now in the driver’s seat, with the bride’s family demanding tens of thousands from prospective grooms.

That price is putting marriage out of reach for a whole other category of poorer men.

But what really has the Communist elite worried is not the high price of marriage, but the growing number of professional women who aren’t interested in getting married at all.

And many of those who do are getting divorced, leading the regime to impose a 30-day cooling off period after there were more divorces than marriages recorded in China in 2019.

The big question for Communist leaders was whether they could defeat the West economically without becoming so much like it that they would have to adopt its society and its politics. The fall of the Soviet Union was a cautionary tale about the dangers of western liberalization. And China appeared to have avoided the pitfall, suppressing its democracy movement and maintaining a Communist oligarchy even as it outperformed America in the marketplace.

But Xi and the Communist leadership fear that they just delayed the inevitable. China is seemingly more powerful than ever, its people are nationalistic, Hong Kong has been consolidated, and Taiwan is expected to follow, making One China into a reality.

And yet the Communist leadership shows every sign of panicking, cracking down on entertainment and tech companies, and purging its own oligarchy on a monthly basis.

Despite the outward allegiance to Xi and the Communists, the country’s rising middle class is westernized, individualistic rather than collectivist, intent on having fun and stocking up on all the latest consumer gadgets, instead of sacrificing and laboring in the cause of Communism.

The falling marriage and birth rates are the obvious symptom of China’s new social feminism.

Marriage licenses have fallen to a 13-year low and the birth rate has hit a 43-year low. With only 12 million babies born in 2020, the old mathematical joke about the Marching Chinese now falls flat. Like the rest of Asia, China is aging, and its workforce is falling by 0.5% a year.

China's 1.3 birth rate looks worse than those of America or Europe, but unlike them, the Chinese birth rate isn't being artificially inflated with a huge population of immigrants.

While the Communist leadership has tried to apply economic fixes to a social problem, a recent survey in one rural area found that only 60% of young women wanted to get married while 82% of men did. The combination of an aspiring professional female workforce with the sex-selective abortion caused by the one-child policy has made China’s gender relations uniquely horrible.

In America, as in most first world countries, women are more interested in marriage than men. The reversal of the gender stereotype in China is a tribute to how the country’s toxic mixture of traditionalism, Communism, and consumerism is playing out in its dysfunctional society.

Communist China made marriage and child-bearing into a political duty. The rising affluent middle class that navigated the suicidal peaks of exams, pursue shallow escapism and luxury goods in the off hours from their stressful office jobs, and have little interest in children.

The Communist regime is taking notice. In typical leftist fashion, it's fighting the problem as an ideological threat, arresting feminists and banning the 6B4T keyword, a South Korean feminist movement that urges women not to marry and to avoid conventional beauty standards.

But China’s problem is coming less from the traditional activist woke feminism, which the regime will have little trouble stamping out, but the larger economic shift in gender roles.

52.5 percent of students in Chinese colleges and universities are female. That's not quite as extreme as the 60/40 split in the United States or the even more extreme gender gaps in some European countries, but in a decade or two, China may catch up to us there as well.

Religion may be declining in America and Europe, but the Communists had done their best to stamp out faith in China and replace it with party loyalty. And then it replaced starving rural labor with mega-cities and mega-buildings filled with office drones who have no meaning or purpose in life beyond purchasing the latest iPhone, listening to the latest hit or watching the latest show.

The single career women who have redefined the culture and politics of America and Europe are on the rise in China. In interviews they express a disinterest in marriage and family. They enjoy focusing on themselves, shopping, socializing and traveling with little interest in the future of their country or their society. They seek no meaning beyond the luxuries and comforts of life.

And the marketplace in China, much like in America and Europe, caters to them as a cultural and economic force because of their spending power and role as social media influencers.

China’s entertainment landscape is filled with shows that are culturally, rather than politically, feminist. The Romance of Tiger and Rose, with some 900 million views, features a matriarchal society where men are not allowed to study or work, and are cursed when boys are born. The joke here is not just a reversal of China’s past, but a possible preview of its demographic future.

Had China retained its former society, the growing economic value of girls would have led to a reverse gender gap, but the growing shift from rural subsistence farming to the urban office workers of the middle class means that the gender gap is being overshadowed by falling birth rates. The new society spends less time calculating the price and profit of marrying off children and worries about the imminent disruptions of a child on a young urban couple’s quality of life.

China, despite its Communist hierarchy and total control of the economy and society, is caught in the same conjoined cultural and economic trap as the first world. On the verge of realizing its aspirations to becoming a first world power, China is stuck reliving the price that Japan, the last Asian country to try and become a military and then economic superpower, paid for its wish.

The Cold Warriors of the eighties were wrong in believing that economic success was impossible without freedom and democracy. But they were generally right in believing that any country that wanted to economically defeat us would have to become us. They just failed to properly understand what becoming “us” really meant. It’s not democracy or freedom.

America, like its other first world counterparts, is becoming less free, and more political. When people say that our politics is downstream of our culture, what it really means is that much of our politics is about a culture rationalizing the way that it wants to live. The abandonment of religion, family, character, and all traditional values, is not just a Marxist conspiracy, it’s the self-indulgent behavior of overgrown children who decided that they never want to grow up.

In the Communist heartland, under a Marxist system built to reinforce the opposite qualities, a surprisingly similar revolution is taking place. The Communist regime, which believed it had total control over the lives of its people, has gone from mandating abortions to offering families the opportunity to have three children. The labor force is shrinking, the marriage and birth rates are falling, and the Xi regime can’t figure out how to turn back the clock and preserve its power.

Communist China’s history is one of grandiose planned efforts that blew up in the party’s face. One of its worst famines occurred when Mao decided to have the populace wipe out all the sparrows, leading to an infestation of insects that the sparrows had kept in check. Such subtle checks and balances pervade the natural world and human society, but the Marxist view of the universe is incapable of taking into account the complex and paradoxical nature of reality.

Mao’s inability to grasp the nature of the sparrow, the imminent obstacle in the ecosystem, is nothing compared to the inability of his successors to understand the relationships of men and women. Human nature, always elusive to ideologues, has brought down every Communist plan for world domination before, not through force of arms, but the hubris of its miscalculations.

Xi believes that China’s Communist regime is different even as demographics are undoing his mandate of heaven. While this century has been heralded as belonging to China, studies suggest that China's population will drop by 50% by 2100. While 732 million may be nothing to sneer at, much of that will consist of its rapidly aging elderly population.

By 2050, 336 million Chinese elderly will form a bloc larger than that of the United States. If the birth and marriage rates keep dropping, a Communist gerontocracy will preside over failing dams, mega-cities, and a shrinking empire of senior citizens and single career women as the “barbarians” in the Muslim hinterlands with stronger birth rates sweep in.

Communism claimed to be able to harness history, but history always has the last laugh. 

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tags: China, feminism, recent

Share This: Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Linkedin

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Democrat Feminist: Humans Are Either Male or Female: 'Everything Else Is a Lie'

By Susan Jones | December 8, 2021

When men insist they are women, then compete in women's sports -- defeating female competitors by virtue of their different physiology -- it's time to say stop, says a woman who describes herself as a registered Democrat.  Kara Dansky, the president of the Women's Human Rights Campaign, told Fox News's Tucker Carlson Tuesday night that she's a "registered Democrat" who has "made common cause with many Republicans that are fighting back against gender ideology."

"We're seeing the total invasion of women's spaces -- prisons, bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms and sports by men on the basis of their so-called female gender identity.  “And what I really want everyone to understand is that words like ‘gender identity’ don't have any meaning. They really don't. I mean, they're defined variously, inconsistently and vaguely in ways that don't make any sense,” Dansky said.............To Read More........

 

Biden Admin Praises Taliban’s 'Openness' to Women’s Rights

Daniel Greenfield December 08, 2021 @ Sultan Knish Blog

In 2001, the Taliban blew up the giant Buddha statues. Now they’re charging tourists five bucks each to go see the statues that aren’t there. Considering the Islamic knack for destroying statues, tombs, historic buildings, and anything that isn’t a mosque, tourism can be tough.

Fortunately the Taliban have the opium business to fall back on.

While officially the Taliban deplore drugs, their takeover was partly backed by the country’s drug lords who were eager for an end to America’s war on drugs. Planting season has arrived and everyone is expecting a lot of drug money to start flowing into the Taliban’s terrorist coffers.

The Taliban response to international complaints has been the familiar drug shakedown.

“If the international community recognizes our government and we receive aid and development assistance, then poppies will definitely disappear,” a Taliban governor told the media.

Former U.S. administrations had offered aid in exchange for suspending the drug business. And while Afghanistan’s only real cash crop didn’t go away, the Jihadist bosses of the opium OPEC were willing to occasionally reduce production in exchange for cash from Uncle Sam.

The Biden administration is directing over a hundred million in aid to Afghanistan, but what the Taliban really want is the $9 billion in money from the former government they had overthrown.

That includes the $1.3 billion in gold sitting in Manhattan vaults near Ground Zero.

The Taliban would like that gold, but so would the families of the victims killed by the Taliban’s Al Qaeda allies on September 11.

The 9/11 families had sued the Taliban and won $7 billion in damages. But back then the Taliban didn't have money just sitting around in downtown Manhattan.

That's no longer the case.

Biden's problem is the familiar one facing the Obama administration over judgements won by terror victims against Iran and the PLO. How do you funnel money to the terrorists without letting their victims get hold of it? The answer is that you pay secret ransoms or send “humanitarian aid”. Withholding money from terror victims to pay terror bosses looks tacky, so just turn the money into ransom for American hostages or medicine for crying local children.

And so despite the fact that the Taliban negotiate with all faiths other than their own in bad faith, the Biden administration is still negotiating with the terrorists who broke every previous deal.

A week after Thanksgiving, some of Biden's boys from the State Department, USAID, the Treasury Department, and assorted spooks, flew off to talk turkey with the Taliban in Qatar.

The assortment of departments and agencies in the delegation to the terrorists was an interesting one. The State Department's diplomats love to appease terrorists, USAID is there to dole out "humanitarian aid", the spooks are there to ask the terrorists for info on the other terrorists, and the Treasury Department is there to discuss economic sanctions.

And how to bypass them.

All it takes is certifying that the Taliban are nice folks now and it’s time to work with them on feeding and clothing the Afghan people, not to mention educating the girls of Afghanistan.

A week after the Taliban banned women from television, Biden's State Department spokesman Ned Price released a statement praising the Taliban's "openness to engaging with the international community on full access to education".

Price further claimed that the Islamic terrorist group which closed most schools to girls had actually "welcomed efforts to verify and monitor progress to enroll women and girls in school at all levels."

The Taliban, apparently, also "asked for support in the education sector."

Preferably in the form of cash, heroin, or Black Hawk helicopter parts.

According to the Taliban, 75% of girls are back in school. And if you believe that, you probably work for the State Department.

The Taliban’s newfound feminism is as suspect as that of Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Biden, but they want money and Joe Biden wants to give it to them.

The levers for extracting that cash are a combination of blackmail and victimhood.

The Taliban will cash in on opium while the people starve. And then ask for money in exchange for shutting down the drug trade and then getting the people something to eat. The remaining Americans and Afghan visa recipients are also hostages who can be traded for more dollars.

That’s another reason why so very few of the visa recipients ever made it to the airport. And why the majority of those who did had no visas and no vetting, but probably did pay off the Taliban.

The Taliban can only make so much money from charging tourists to see the missing Buddhas.

The last year should have been a comprehensive education in why the Taliban can’t be trusted. After agreeing not to conquer Afghanistan, they went ahead and did it anyway. While they were doing that, the Biden administration, which is almost as trustworthy as the Taliban, assured the media, which is almost as trustworthy as the Biden administration, that everything was fine.

Now everything is fine again.

When the Taliban aren’t beheading members of female sports teams, they’re showing a great deal of “openness” to “engaging with the international community” on their feminism.

They’ll even field a fully progressive approved all-female sports team of men in burkas.

The Biden administration promised to leave Afghanistan, but the United States never leaves anywhere. Aside from taking in tens of thousands of Afghans into our country, we’re still on the hook for feeding, clothing, and educating the Afghans in Talibanland, not to mention Pakistan.

Even once the Taliban get their billions and their UN seat, we’ll still be sending them aid.

In December 2000, the State Department boasted that it had sent $113 million in "humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people". It further bragged that the "United States is the largest single donor of assistance to Afghans, and has a long record of providing such assistance."

All the while it acknowledged that the Taliban were mischievously harboring Osama bin Laden.

That money stolen from American taxpayers covered "food, housing, health and education programs" for the Afghans. And the State Department shamefully bragged that "of every ten dollars" in aid, "nine dollars is a United States contribution."

Next year the Taliban contributed four airplanes directed at killing thousands of Americans.

Having learned nothing in twenty years, the Biden administration and its career diplomats expect Americans to continue funding a Taliban welfare state.

This time the Taliban really believe in feminism, they insist. This time they’re really committed to fighting terrorism. And this time they surely won’t host another terrorist attack on America.

As long as we pay them enough.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tags: Afghanistan, Biden, Islam, recent

Share This: Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Linkedin

 

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

 

Feminism Without Women

Daniel Greenfield September 29, 2021 @ Sultan Knish Blog

 50 years after Ms. Magazine was founded by Gloria Steinem, the prototypical feminist magazine decided to erase women by referring to them as “birthing people” and “people with vaginas”.

Once the champions of newspeak jargon like “herstory” that was supposed to emphasize the role of women, Ms. Magazine and the Feminist Majority Foundation are now erasing women. After generations of accusing men of objectifying women by reducing them to body parts, the professional feminists are eliminating women entirely by reducing them to body parts.

Ms. is short for Miss which was itself short for Mistress. At some point, the magazine will have to be renamed to Xer or They. And the Feminist Majority Foundation owes its name to yet another romance language name for women creating a movement named after women without women.

Can there be a feminist movement without women? Will feminism have to be renamed Xerinism or Theyinism?

In 2020, 55% of white women voted for President Trump despite a drumbeat of denunciations of “white women” in the previous election. White women had built the feminist movement which then read them out of the movement. But black women, championed as the new face of feminism, have been replaced by “black birthing people” by the Feminist Majority Foundation.

What is the purpose of feminism without women except to prevent “birthing people” from birthing?

But feminism often didn’t have very much to do with women. The term was coined by the mad French socialist Charles Fourier who also believed that women should have four husbands and that human beings would grow to be seven feet tall and develop tails. More seriously, he envisioned the end of the family and collectivist living that influenced the nightmarish socialist utopias that used him as a model.

As one critic noted, Fourier envisioned abolishing marriage and using women for "sexual services" that would be "bought by society as a whole to further industrial or general economic productivity". It’s easy to mock Fourier’s deranged ideas, but his central premise of replacing marriage and the family with a collectivist system is still at the heart of modern feminism.

Fourier, like most leftist ideologues, reduced women to an abstraction, a cog in a social machine, and his contemporary counterparts abstracted the abstraction. Birthing people is the natural outcome of reducing people to a group and the group to an abstraction.

The current feminist abstraction, in which gender is a state of mind and the best way to reinforce that is by erasing the existence of women, is no less insane than Fourier’s utopian society of 7-foot-tall women with tails living in communes and practicing industrial prostitution. When you don’t deal with the reality of people, life becomes a science fiction novel written by inventing new ways of living to solve the social problems of human nature.

Leftist theories ignore human nature and blame social problems on the failure of everyone to accept their theories, abandon their genders, private property, and religion, and grow tails.

The radicals insist that they’re liberators because they reduce everything to power relations. It was simple enough in the 19th century to reduce life to simple binaries of the rich and the poor, men and women, white and black, and declare themselves the champions of the oppressed against the oppressors. In a multicultural society, the binaries become more complicated.

But leftist ideology is a machine for simplifying human complexities into the same binaries.

Intersectionality splits diversity into new diversities, subdividing each category into the oppressors and the oppressed. It was inevitable that intersectionality would come to condemn women as the oppressors within the entire category of women and then eliminate the category.

And it’s not just happening to women.

Latinos are being replaced by Latinx and divided by race. The “white hispanic” is denounced as an oppressor. So is the white gay man within the gay category. Even black men are being reinvented as the oppressors in the black category.

Or as one site put it, "Straight Black Men Are the White People of Black People".

And women, apparently, are the white people of birthing people. Can you blame feminism for turning its back on women after they turned out to be the oppressors?

Feminism, like every other ‘ism’ and every identity politics movement, was not concerned with the rights of women, but with social utopia. Identity politics is just a multiplicity of front groups for the same movement which co-opts group struggles in order to construct a totalitarian state.

"Would it not in that case be simpler for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?" Bertolt Brecht rhetorically asked the East German regime after it warned that the people must win back the confidence of the government.

But the Left does this sort of thing all the time. Having dissolved the white working class, it still claims to fight for the working class because it elected minorities as the new working class. Now it dissolved women and elected birthing people as the new women. That’s easy to do if you believe that all of life, including women and the working class, are just a set of premises, a category someone invented, a few lines in a thesis statement.

Like the way Columbus, Ohio abolished Columbus Day, but kept its name, Ms. Magazine and the Feminist Majority Foundation, not to mention the numberless other feminist organizations, are getting rid of women, but still keeping the “W” word, Ms. and Feminist in their names.

The ACLU rewrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s quote, “The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity” to eliminate “woman” and “her”, but it hasn't renamed the ACLU Women's Rights Project that Ginsburg co-founded.

The leftist advocacy group understands the emotional power of the “W” word. When it calls Ginsburg a "champion for abortion and gender equality", the phrase has curiously little power compared to a “champion for women”. Replacing women with “birthing people” only to champion the ‘unbirthing’ of their babies is a typically self-nullifying proposition. As is championing “gender equality” while eliminating the gender that might be in need of equality from the proposition.

There’s precious little dignity in fighting for “birthing people” and “people with vaginas”.

Feminism without women is as hollow as class warfare waged by trust fund hipsters. And yet the Left must destroy that which it champions in an act of ritual ideological sacrifice.

Back to the Fourier days, the purpose of feminism was the elimination of women, much as the purpose of the civil rights movement had become the elimination of black people, and the gay rights movement the elimination of gay people. The Left doesn’t fight for equality, but equity, laboring to remake society by remaking people in its ideological image. Identity politics gains its apotheosis from reinventing identity so thoroughly that the original identity ceases to exist.

And its problems cease to exist with it.

But bereft of any new ideas, identity politics only revisits what it claims to want to escape, resurrecting the plantation for black people and the harem for women in the name of progress.

The reversion to slavery and oppression promises to usher in a new age that abolishes all distinctions between human beings in which we will all, perhaps, inhabit a Fourieresque world of seven foot tall socialists with tails living in communes, but the age never actually arrives. It’s much easier to erase women or human nature from language than to actually change reality.

Feminism can act as if women no longer exist, but the realities of biology will outlive the unrealities of leftist ideology.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tags: culture war, feminism, recent

Share This: Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Linkedin

 

 

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center