443 Comments

A world in which motherhood is valued as much as other worthwhile careers?

Expand full comment

What other worthwhile careers?

Expand full comment

I understand the necessity for income, however I find the dignity of motherhood sits outside of notions of work and salary. Particularly as our financial systems crash around our ears and currencies devalue, motherhood retains something vital, hopeful and sacred.

I can understand the eye roll of solo mothers desperately wrangling finances because I’ve been there. The future of motherhood requires a collective re-imagining of the dignity of the human race. A whole brain (thinking McGilchrist here) recognition that we can shift if we choose to place our attention on peace not war, on collective wisdom not psychopath leaders, on positivity not negativity, on healing not criticism, on balancing agency and manoeuvring the world with collective harmony and oversight. Mothering and mothering wisdom is needed more now than ever.

Expand full comment

"Particularly as our financial systems crash around our ears and currencies devalue,"

The Iraqi dinar is going to revalue at an astronomically high rate and those who have invested in it are going to be multi-millionaires.

Expand full comment

Alleluia.

Expand full comment

The perfect answer.

Expand full comment

"Conservatives" are constantly in the media crying about the "sexless generation" and the "population decline" and yet they never talk about UBI (Universal Basic Income), or if they do it's in a disparaging way (communism!!!). Forget about valuing and paying people to be mothers. Although if they are really concerned about the "population crisis" it might have to come to that. And by that time, nobody's gonna wanna have kids.

Expand full comment

Countries with similar policies that you describe have not seen significantly raised birth rates

Expand full comment

Yes I know. I mentioned that in another comment. People "just aren't that into" having kids anymore.

Expand full comment

In what sense? Paid? By who?

Expand full comment

^When you don't understand the meaning without examples, it's a sign that you're in need of more life experience.

Expand full comment

Was simply wondering was meant by "valued" - as in the definition being used. Asking for clarification is called being intellectually responsible. Also take issue with motherhood being thought of as a career like any other. Tends to lead to thinking of it as unpaid labor/slavery and other musings of victimhood.

Expand full comment

Yes, you're an intellectually responsible person lacking life experience.

When you've experienced and gained appreciation for a lot more of the ways that being valued (and not valued) is expressed, you'll understand.

Expand full comment

Wow, you're very presumptuous. You expect people to understand what you mean when you express yourself vaguely. If they request clarification, then you assume they must be lacking enough life experience to impose their views on your empty words. Fair enough 😅

Expand full comment

Words carry, by nature, multiple meanings. And sometimes the meaning of a particular collection of words transcends the words used and lives, instead, in context and tone. To ask for clarification, examples, or further definition means only that the speaker failed -- at least at some level -- to effectively communicate the meaning intended.

A reasonable response would be to supply the examples and amplify the meaning.

To fail, again, to do that is to essentially admit that the speaker can't.

Expand full comment

Yes, in your world of lack of life experience, where all have the same level of understanding of life (in other words, only in your head), that is undoubtedly true.

Alas, in the real world, in the experienced world, sometimes what the answer to your question is, is "Everything".

And we don't have time to explain Everything to you.

You'll just have to live it yourself, and come to your own version of understanding. As it should be.

Expand full comment

That is funny.

I could almost think you're serious, even when it's quite obvious that your extraordinarily dry sense of humor is pushing the reader to believe you're really so completely clueless & incapable of explaining what you were 'attempting' to say.

Very funny!

But obviously, given our far greater life experience, we know exactly what you were REALLY saying. And it was hilarious!

Expand full comment

Probably by governments if populations decline enough. Also, in Islam a man is supposed to pay his wife for breast-feeding their babies. It's in the Quran and part of sharia law, though largely ignored.

Expand full comment

Do you think that pregnancy should be a paid occupation and if it is not is it tantamount to slavery?

Expand full comment
May 5·edited May 5

Should it be a paid occupation? Maybe. But it doesn't matter what I think or anyone else thinks. We are probably going to get to that point sooner than later if the people who keep crying about the "sexless generation" and "population implosion" keep up their shrill antics. There are some countries that have already tried paying people to have kids hoping it would increase birthrates but if I remember correctly, it didn't work. It seems that people "just aren't that into it" anymore. So if this turns into a "crisis" - which some people seem to think it's going to, we might see more governments, or private institutions, offering payment for people to have kids. Will it work though?

Expand full comment

Yabbut... it is. If you value Motherhood as much or more than other careers, then it is so valued. The value you assign to it is the only value which counts. Just as your choice, re: motherhood, is the only choice that counts.

If I or anyone values it more or less than you do, so what?

It's still your choice which you make according to how you value the thing being chosen.

And if at some later point, you run across an idiot who sneers at your choice, forget 'em and move on. How they feel about how I choose to live my life is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Expand full comment

Kid, in a society, each of us is greatly impacted by how everyone else values things.

if you don't understand how that is, you will.

Expand full comment

You confuse economics with true value, my son. They are different things. How you value Motherhood is separate and distinct from how the value of a bag of flour is set.

Perhaps it's the use of the same word to convey different meanings which baffles you.

How I value an afternoon with my friend is different than the price set for a new car.

Give that some thought....and try again.

Expand full comment

Probably depends on whether we will be able to defend and define women as a classification at all - partly because of the war on our words defining what the sexes are - but also because of the technological trends toward removing the maternal functions from the female body experience.

If all goes well and women can remain women - I think it’s probably time to think more in terms of effective complementarity between the sexes rather than competition.

Expand full comment

On complementarity.....In a certain kind of feminist journalism, I keep coming across warm-hearted acknowledgements that Masculinity and Femininity are complementary polarities in any sane conception of The Good Life.. And that when things go wrong, they are often better understood as resulting from a kind of Faustian tango between the sexes than as a simple case of one sex always doing wrong by the other. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance

Expand full comment

Complementarity is a movement inside American Evangelical Christianity which boxes people into stereotypical gender roles.

Expand full comment

I am as far away from American evangelicalism both ideologically and geographically, as possible. I can see a logical complementarity between the sexes. Where the complementarity starts and stops can be entirely negotiated within couples I would think ?

Expand full comment
May 5·edited May 5

I know. That's why I'm surprised to see this term "complementarity" used by non-American non-Evangelicals. I suppose I should have used "Christian" instead but even non-Christians are using it? I hope not. Sad if it's seeped into the wider culture. Having to "negogiate" outdated stereoptyical gender roles is a red flag.

Expand full comment

"Complementarian" in evangelical Christianity is a theological concept regarding what Scripture says about male and female roles. It has nothing to do with human rights or women's rights, etc. If you do not believe that Scripture (the Bible) is the sovereign and sufficient Word of God then complementarian likely will not mean much.

Expand full comment

That's why I'm surprised to see it used outside of that context.

Expand full comment

thats beautiful and I entirely agree. I have created an experimental space called C-Lab( https://theclab.substack.com/) in which I explore the notion of a cycles informed society and what that would mean.

Expand full comment

I think there’s a phrase for that. Feminism reactionary? Reactionary feminism?

Expand full comment
May 4·edited May 4

Complementarity is a movement inside American Evangelical Christianity which boxes people into stereotypical gender roles.

Expand full comment

Well said, Mary Jane. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Feminism was conceived to counter the dominant male culture. Now both sexes seem hopelessly lost, so we need a common redemption strategy. We'd want to acknowledge what is unique that male and female bring to the table but allow the social structure to reflect the actual physical and mental overlap. Human-ism rather than Femin-ism.

Expand full comment

More a return to being human. In fact, the battle may be to remain human, either male or female.

Expand full comment

Sorry, George. That’s exactly what you said. I missed your last sentence. So I agree with you.

Expand full comment

No kid. Women didn't originally object to men being in charge of most things so much as objecting to what men did with that power, namely denying women equal rights.

--They didn't originally object to men being in charge of banks. they objected to not being able to get their own bank accounts.

--They didn't object to male-dominated professions, but to being denied the opportunity to compete with men on equal footing.

To the extent that men suffer from feminism, they have brought it on themselves.

Expand full comment

Except that the women who developed feminism ALREADY had superior rights to most human beings. They wanted to be equal to the highest ranking men in society. They wanted to become the men they married. Except for, you know, being eligible for the draft and stuff like that. All the benefits of the highest ranking men in society, none of the obligations. That's not equal footing.

There were certainly women's rights movements that ALSO believed that legal doctrines such as coverture did more harm to women than good. They sometimes allied with the feminists on common goals. But it came from a completely different motivation and worldview. The alliance ended as soon as that particular law was changed, as such alliances always do.

Expand full comment

You're really blaming women for wanting equal respect and consideration. Amazing. 🤦🏼 That's just harmful to women's interests, and society's interests, because our society always does better with the sexes on equal footing power-wise.

You sound exactly like the women who argued against women getting the vote. Over 100 years ago.

Expand full comment

You are deeply attached to the idea that feminism is women wanting equal respect and consideration. It's not. It just isn't. That idea isn't found in ANY of the feminist writings from any era. I've looked. Extensively. You have yet to cite a single feminist writer who makes that claim and backs it up with specifics that neither denigrate mothers nor traditional women's work nor poor women.

When 129 women died in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, the feminists were nowhere to be found. It was an alliance between the labor unions and the women's rights movements that fought for changes that such a thing would never happen again.

Yes, the mothers crying over their dead daughters didn't much care about getting the vote. They cared about survival, and they evaluated (correctly) that their daughters would be just as dead with the franchise as without it.

Feminism is NOT what you think it is.

Expand full comment

Yeah if you want to try to redefine feminism, the burden is on you to show it's warranted. I think the suffragettes' feminism meets my definition for the most part, and the parts that don't, like overt claims to "moral superiority", didn't survive the tests of time in mainstream feminist thought.

If replacing "feminism" with "women's rights" floats your boat, go for it, but in that case I'm interested in your full definition of women's rights. Don't worry, it's not to pick nits, I'm pretty sure I'd agree with whatever you came up with, and you might even convince me to shift to using your terminology and conceptualizing.

And if "women's rights" is, as I suspect, partly a rebranding to escape your male misogynist buddies' hatred of the word "feminist", you should admit that.

Expand full comment

Sure, I'd be happy to do a side by side comparison of women's rights vs feminism. I'd do them in columns, but that's not supported by this medium.

Feminism: Has a hierarchical view of human worth. Each individual man and woman is competing for a spot on a linear measure of human worth. Worth is largely defined by a combination of achievement, independence, and conquest.

Women's rights: Views human beings as inherently valuable, regardless of sex. Rejects the concept of competing for worth.

Feminism: Views men as a threat to women. Believes that the best way to achieve equality is for women to be an equal threat to men.

Women's rights: Views men as partners to women, and has high standards for what that partnership should look like.

Feminism: Generally suspicious of male-female relationships, considering them inherently dangerous to women. Some advocate female separatism, others advocate for simply making sure men are always kept in their proper place as servants.

Women's rights: Believes that a healthy relationship between men and women is one of mutual support and sacrifice, with each bringing their unique strengths to helping each other. Rejects the idea that anyone should be a submissive servant to their spouse.

Feminism: Vengeance based. Believes that women have been oppressed since time immemorial, and the only way to make that right is oppress and control men for the foreeable future. Fantasizes about the utopia that would result if men could be simply eliminated. Celebrates women abusing men as a form of justice.

Women's rights: Love based. Believes that women and men are inherently partners, and aberrations from that norm need to be addressed as aberrations. Absolutely reject abusive dynamics, regardless of who is the abuser. Recognizes that toxic relationships can develop in which BOTH are the abuser.

Feminism: Believes that pregnancy and childbirth is a terrifying and frequently fatal event that oppresses and frequently kills women. Aspires to free women from the horrors of giving birth.

Women's rights: Reveres the female ability to bring life, and celebrates it. Acknowledges and seeks to reduce the risks associated with childbirth, but also recognizes the power and joy therein. Recognizes that there are health benefits to childbirth as well as risks.

Feminism: Believes that all differences between men and women are social constructs deliberately developed to oppress women. These differences must be destroyed by demanding femininity from men and masculinity from women. Masculinity in men is "toxic", and femininity in women is a betrayal of the sisterhood.

Women's rights: Believes that there are inherent differences between men and women and that's okay. Celebrates the balance of masculinity and femininity in both men and women, recognizing that it's different for each individual. Also recognizes that in the aggregate, healthy men tend to be more masculine and healthy women tend to be more feminine. And that's okay.

Feminism: Sees sexual dimporphism as an inherent threat to women, and a bad thing that must be conquered.

Women's rights: Sees sexual dimorphism as a physical reality, with no particular moral implications. Recognizes that certain aspects of sexual dimorphism create inherent vulnerabilities in women, and works to support social structures that protect women in these vulnerable areas. Recognizes that certain aspects of sexual dimorphism create inherent vulnerabilities in men, and works to support social structures that protect men in these vulnerable areas.

Feminism: Hedonism based. Each individual woman should pursue her own pleasure, disregarding the effect it has on anyone else, including her own children. Seeks to destroy any and all norms that might interfere with this goal, even if it has catastrophic effects on children and more vulnerable women.

Women's rights: Justice based. Seeks the best outcomes for humanity as a whole. Recognizes that prioritizing individual feelings over net functionality tends to produce a nonfunctional and miserable society. Recognizes that protections that are vital for more vulnerable women may be seen as restrictive or oppressive for healthy, single, wealthy upper class women. Accepts this tradeoff as necessary for the greater good. Constantly seeks to reassess the proper balance, recognizing that utopia will never be achieved.

END COMPARISON

I could honestly go on and on. Feminism and women's rights are occasionally allies for specific goals, but they're in outright opposition in other areas. This goes back to the very beginning.

For example, from the Declaration of Sentiments:

"He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes, with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband."

There is a LONG history of an abusive man coercing his female partner into committing crimes with him or for him, then blaming her when the authorities come around. It's a relatively common abuse dynamic that continues to this day. Those laws that the early feminists found so oppressive were a PROTECTION for the lower class women most likely to be targeted by this particular kind of abuse. Those protections were greatly valued by actual women's rights activists, who understood the power dynamics involved. The feminists, surrounded by servants and powerful relatives, neither understood nor cared about how cancelling these laws would harm women. The women being harmed were "lesser" women, and didn't matter.

I support women's rights. I will ally with feminists on specific issues. The radfems in particular have been fantastic about raising the alarm about the transgender scam. I appreciate their work. The Seneca Falls feminists were a bunch of selfish twits, but I agree with women getting the right to vote. I'm perfectly happy to ally with virtually anyone for a particular goal.

That's how alliances work. The US and the Soviet Union allied to take down the Nazis. This didn't mean that the US was best buddies with Stalin. Defeating Nazis didn't magically turn Stalin into a nice guy. It was a temporary alliance for a specific goal.

I support anything that leads to greater flourishing of the species homo sapiens. Powerful women is a huge part of that goal. But feminism? No. It's a destructive ideology. I ally with feminists only on the occasion when they happen to be pursuing a goal that is consistent with my goals. We don't have to agree on the ideology behind it to get shit done together.

Expand full comment

Materially, women don't need men anymore. What physical overlap is there? Dominance countered, now we're all lost as you say. Very curious what this brand of humanism looks like.

Expand full comment

Not sure what you mean. Of course men and women still need each other. As long as we remain homo sapiens, a sexually dimorphic species, that won't change.

There are certainly people who want to "free" us from bodies through. The techno-gnostics aka transhumanists are creepy.

Expand full comment

If you mean in order to reproduce, ok. But that's not really happening anymore so much. Women out earn men until they have children. If they have children. The future is female, haven't you heard? Which just means male without babies.

Expand full comment

The future is non-existent if reproduction ceases. At least, there's no human future.

Expand full comment

That precisely what I'm saying. If the future is female, the future is non-existent. We agree.

Expand full comment

Well, we might spontaneously commence parthenogenesis before we completely go extinct, but I'd say the odds are somewhat, but not hugely against it.

Expand full comment

Techno-gnostics? James Lindsay? Borysenko already debunked his ridiculous theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7QMt__JA2A

Expand full comment
May 5·edited May 5

Briefly skimmed your source. Here's a quote from the debunking: "Imagine not understanding that the Jews created Jesus in order to control the Gentiles."

THAT'S the one with the sensible theory debunking a ridiculous theory? Alrighty then.

Expand full comment

Taken out of context. Anyway, her point is that Lindsay and Logan are wrong. Lindsay from his "atheist" perspective and Logan from her Christian. They are wrong about what Gnostacism is, its role in "the culture wars", wrong about The Law of Attraction, Transgenderism and lots of other things. Boryasenko goes undercover in Socialist Zooms and Queer and Education Zooms. You can hear straight from their mouths what they want and what they do. It has nothing to do with a Gnostic cult in anyway. That theory is clownish.

Expand full comment

I never had to go undercover. I was a believer. It's definitely a Gnostic cult. If you go in deep enough it gets outright explicit. I was taught for years that the Gnostics were a spiritually enlightened group of Christians who were persecuted for many things, including their reverence for women. Laughable in hindsight.

Expand full comment

Women don't need men to sit around with other women in grass huts. But if they want roads, plumbing, buildings, bridges, big factories pumping out things like tampons and hair dryers, they might want men around.

Expand full comment

What does "materially" mean in this context? If all men were to disappear from the earth today, the women would likely be dead in less than a year, whereas most men would live out their natural lives if the situation were reversed. There aren't enough women qualified to maintain the electrical and sewer infrastructure, nor enough women truck drivers to ensure the groceries keep coming.

Expand full comment

When the men go off to war, women do everything that men claim to be too difficult for women to do. When the men come back from war too disabled to function, women take up the slack. The basic right that women require is to NOT be physically, mentally, emotionally, financially and sexually abused. As a “not all men” man, what are you doing to stop these many aspects of male violence against women and children?

Expand full comment

Their natural lives would be rather short. Men get pretty self-destructive when women aren't around. That's why married men live longer.

Expand full comment

I 100% percent agree! I just meant the status quo in terms of overwhelmingly being a part of the labor pool or dependent on the state.

Expand full comment

Women certainly do need men to supply the energy (including food), remove their trash and to maintain the structures and technologies that they rely on. They just think they don't because they don't see the places where this work is being done or the people (men) who are doing it.

Expand full comment

'Redemption' is the right word.

Expand full comment

The feminism imagined by Mary Wollstonecraft I hope. Where men and women are both chaste and put each other and their domestic spheres first, not career and worldly gains. Men and women can only cultivate virtue in tandem.

Expand full comment

Yes🙌🏼🙌🏼

Expand full comment

Idealistic but I’d love to see a world where the strengths/values of the feminine are valued as much as those of the masculine

Expand full comment

Sounds great. Let's start with women valuing the strengths/values of the feminine instead of being told they're shameful and/or weak for doing so. In my life, these messages have come exclusively from other women.

Expand full comment
May 7·edited May 7

Boy does this ever resonate with me. I keep telling my stay at home wife that she has the most important job that anyone could have. It's when she talks with her career-driven (women) friends that she feels nagging doubts about "wasting her degree".

Expand full comment

It’s really hard to be a smart, ambitious woman at home. These women are my primary audience as a writer (and I am one and I’m friends with many too.)… the cultural messaging is strong that strong, capable women do not do the work of caretaking or homemaking.

Expand full comment

Shannon Hayes book "Radical Homemakers" was incredibly helpful for me. Link below to her website

http://theradicalhomemaker.net/

Expand full comment

You were personally told "valuing the strengths of the feminine" was shameful and weak? Or were you told they were not economically valuable under Capitalism?

Expand full comment

Both. Feminists despise femininity from an ideological perspective. Uber-capitalists don't like anything they can't commodify and sell.

Expand full comment

So we're back to these so called "feminine strengths" not doing anything to pay a womens' bills. Great.

Expand full comment

Sure they do. They just have to be commodified. Childbirth is paid work as long as it's a gestational carrier to manufacture a baby to order for a wealthy person. Caring for children is paid work as long as it's someone else's children. Medical work for both humans and animals disproportionately female. All the caring professions are vastly disproportionately female. Most of education is disproportionately female. Food preparation. Cleaning.

Most of the the traditional feminine arts that build on feminine strengths can absolutely be commodified. But it creates a major loss of efficiency and lower quality outcomes.

Expand full comment

I already covered these commodified "traditional feminine arts" in another comment;

Someone else:

" The feminine work of caring is not even seen as work (if you don't work an outside job you're "not working"), and being an at-home mother, even if for a short time while your children are young, is considered very low-status and is countercultural thing to do for an educated woman.

Masculine values/qualities are things like outward achievement/action, efficiency, productivity, control, structure, logic."

Me:

--- This is due to economics. If "feminine work" was valued then we'd see some economic compensation but even "care jobs" which are paid, are paid low. The only "feminine work" that seems to get adequate pay is in the sex industry like stripping, porn, OnlyFans, escorting, prositution, etc. And even there, it is only a certain type of woman becoming very wealthy in the industry. What does that tell you?

Expand full comment

I have never quite understood the world view that values career success above domestic success. To my mind, the role that women play as gatekeepers of reproduction and family life is THE center of power. All of this career BS only has value insofar as it provides the resources to enable that.

That isn't to belittle wage-earners. A family needs resources to thrive, just like a car needs gas to move. But the gas is meaningless without the car. The car is the gas station's entire reason for being.

Expand full comment

🙌🏼🙌🏼

Expand full comment

We are now living in that world. How one feels is now more important than whether or not one can think.

Expand full comment

But can people get paid for their feelings? Value is about economics.

Expand full comment

Are we not already seeing that, though, through an emphasis ( an over-emphasis) on openness, fluidity and feelings over boundaries, discipline and reason/rational argument?

Expand full comment

Hopefully you're referring to a 1950's standard of regard for masculine values, because if you're referring to their regard in 2024, I'd say you're aiming way too low 💀

Expand full comment

Who would you like them to be valued by?

Expand full comment

Capitalism.

Expand full comment

Can you say more?

Expand full comment

We've already had this convo. It's probably coming down the pike that if "society" or "government" or "private industry" or "nations" or "culture" want babies to keep being produced, they are going to have to pay people to do it.

Expand full comment

I don't think that will work.

Expand full comment

I think some people might take the bait but by then it will be too late and most people won't want kids, paycheck or not.

Expand full comment

I see. True.

Expand full comment

Hi all - so the first comment on this thread is "A world in which motherhood is valued as much as other worthwhile careers." It has a lot of likes and there's no wonder why! The comment illustrates a central reality where the masculine is being culturally valued over the feminine: women thinking working outside the home is the only valid feminist choice. The feminine work of caring is not even seen as work (if you don't work an outside job you're "not working"), and being an at-home mother, even if for a short time while your children are young, is considered very low-status and is countercultural thing to do for an educated woman.

Masculine values/qualities are things like outward achievement/action, efficiency, productivity, control, structure, logic. Feminine values/qualities are being-ness, creativity, chaos, inner work, intuition, etc. (We all have both of these energies within us, by the way, to different degrees - not trying to be reductive here.) In our society there is a strong bias toward the masculine and a devaluing of the feminine. There is so much strength and power in feminine energy and qualities if we'd only acknowledge them; instead we're focused on ways of living that center the way men tend to exist in the world, not women.

I know I didn't clarify counterpoints specifically, but I'm caretaking and don't have much time. @dragonmama - this is very true. Mainstream liberal feminism, very ironically, upholds a masculine way of being as what women should aspire to, and it has been so influential on women's psyches that, in their minds, to be "womanly" in any way is to be weak and not "empowered."

Expand full comment
May 5·edited May 5

" The feminine work of caring is not even seen as work (if you don't work an outside job you're "not working"), and being an at-home mother, even if for a short time while your children are young, is considered very low-status and is countercultural thing to do for an educated woman.

Masculine values/qualities are things like outward achievement/action, efficiency, productivity, control, structure, logic."

--- This is due to economics. If "feminine work" was valued then we'd see some economic compensation but even "care jobs" which are paid, are paid low. The only "feminine work" that seems to get adequate pay is in the sex industry like stripping, porn, OnlyFans, escorting, prositution, etc. And even there, it is only a certain type of woman becoming very wealthy in the industry. What does that tell you?

Expand full comment

That we're all being rendered down for parts. This doesn't end well.

Expand full comment

Like all grievance/victim movements (forgive the pejorative connotations), it was needed, had its moment, and is now doing more harm than good. There may be a phenomenon here where these perspectives just keep twisting in on themselves, almost getting inbred in the process. Warped. Sharper and meaner. Cutting back against themselves, the culture they arose out of, and the culture that, initially, they sought to enter into and commingle with.

All these bright things seem to turn dark. Off the top of the head, I can't think of one that's successfully escaped this trap. Perhaps there's some baseline tendency toward entropy and dissolution. Hard to say, it's all so complicated.

Expand full comment

I like this comment so much. It calls to my mind the inevitable corruption of whatever utopia we seek to create on earth under the idolatry of lofty ideals like freedom and equality. However shiny, when taken to extremes eventually they fall under their own weight.

Expand full comment

Hear, hear.

Expand full comment

This is the way with every social activism group. A movement's first order of business is to establish its own relevance by playing up the urgency and severity of whatever ills it is supposedly countering. Ironically as more real progress is made against the original aims, the more strident and extreme their positions need to become in order to keep the flame alive. The thing starts to bend into a caricature of itself.

Women's Studies and Ethnic Studies and DEI departments won't just voluntarily disband. There are real people there with a financial and social stake in maintaining the status quo. They won't go down without a fight.

Expand full comment

100%. "...caricature of itself" is exactly right. And also the point about how these orgs become conduits for money and livelihoods. They *can't* disband. All the incentives are wrong.

Expand full comment

Every dystopia is the direct result of someone trying to build a utopia.

Expand full comment

Because the number of broken families is pretty well climbing in numbers to the becoming the majority, our society has inadvertently babied the fatherless families to help them feel included.

We give the fatherless children and injured women all the rights of those with a MAN in the equation .

I can’t even bring myself to write NORMAL FAMILY for fear of being cancelled.

I am a very caring person, but I am VERY AWARE of the large group of friends without a man in their ‘family’ configuration.

Let’s help our daughters enjoy, respect, admire , appreciate men and their obvious strengths. As well, let’s teach our daughters to learn how to pay the price of admission to a challenging partnership with men…..and teach them how to compromise!

Let’s make families great again!!!!!!

Expand full comment

"let’s teach our daughters to learn how to pay the price of admission to a challenging partnership with men"

-- Price of admission to a challenging partnership with men? What they heck does that mean?

"We give the fatherless children and injured women all the rights of those with a MAN in the equation ."

--- You want these children and women to have LESS rights?! What do you mean by "injured" women?

Expand full comment

This is a favourite subject. My mom was the original liberated woman. With a husband (my dad) and four kids.

We need to treat all fatherless kids with care. The result is that we bend over backwards to make it seem something a woman she work towards. Whereas I believe every child REQUIRES a full set of parents, and hopefully grandparents….”it takes a village…”

I don’t know how to encourage the fatherless ones to try and build their own family in their future…the lack of male influence doesn’t help them develop the ‘right’ skills.

I don’t have an answer.

I see girls and boys are often estranged now.

The PRICE of Admission is not my quote but I like it. We need to develop tolerance and compromise. Otherwise the marriage can’t last.

Men aren’t perfect. Women aren’t perfect. The fairy tale Walt Disney and others have make us think we NEED to fall in love at first sight.

There seems to be so much wrong with marriage, parenting and confidence to accomplish a ‘simple act of nature’ ; successful partnering until death do us part.

Sorry, I am a poor writer. And wanted to keep it short when first answering the question: SO WHAT DO YOU THINK ID THE FUTURE OF FEMINISM?

I am 73, mother of 2, have one grandchild, have a husband of 50 years and am a retired nurse after 43 year’s of professional work.

Everyone I know is divorced once…twice…occasionally 3 times. Kids are in blended families.

Etc etc. Marriage is one of my favourite subjects, but not because it is easy. It is extremely hard, in my opinion and parenting is right up there in levels of difficulty.

All in my personal opinion of course!!!

Expand full comment

"let’s teach our daughters to learn how to pay the price of admission to a challenging partnership with men"

--- What woman in the world wants a "challenging" partnership? The home and one's partner are supposed to bring peace and joy and help one face challenges, not create them.

"Marriage is one of my favourite subjects, but not because it is easy. It is extremely hard, in my opinion "

--- I'm going to assume you had one of those "challenging partnerships" that you had to "pay for". Otherwise why would your opinion be that marriage is "extremely hard"?

Sounds dismal and not something I'd want to sign my kids up for.

Expand full comment

Idk, my two cents is if you want anything resembling a future for feminism you need a new term for it. Feminism is a wholly meaningless word to me other than being vaguely related to activism and sometimes pointed towards "vagina havers". I don't think I am alone in this, but I could be wrong. Maybe take a similar, yet failed attempt by Harris RE: atheism. Eschew the term all together as he said about labeling oneself "It is as if your opponents drew a chalk outline, and you walked over and laid down in it." or something similar if I recall. But I guess that's just me thinking about being effective in your goals, not the future of feminism... so maybe just ignore all of that :D Have fun in NY! Sorry for the bouncers at the door of the country. Should have came through mexico!

Expand full comment

“Womanism” was a term used for a while, I think mostly by Black women. I kind of liked it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womanism#:~:text=A%20womanist%20is%20committed%20to,oppression%20without%20directly%20attacking%20men. It now seems to be used mostly in the context of theology.

But “ism” is like a verbal spike protein by which ideologies enter and infect our brain cells. As a lifelong overthinker, I think (!) we think too much and then reify our ideas—mistake them for realities, overlay them on and obscure or distort given reality.

Expand full comment

That ain't half bad! Esp. since it would keep dudes out of it. :D No guy is going to stand up as a "Male Womanizer" in a room full of ladies I reckon. :)

Expand full comment
May 5·edited May 5

It would be "womanist" not womanizer. But even then, unlike Feminism, I don't think Womanism was conceived to include men, or non-black women, women not "of color". It was created in reaction to the dominant white feminist narrative.

Expand full comment

Women need to continue to fight for our human rights as women. Don’t give up, don’t allow men to dominate the movement, (not that they will because most men don’t care) but to just keep telling the truth. That women, (as in biological females) need their own protected spaces, away from biological men. That includes men who identify as men and men who identify as women. Because trans women are men.

Expand full comment

'Human rights as women'....Western feminists could do with re-focussing more on the plight of women in places like Iran and Afghanistan. Women outside the protections of Western liberalism. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/life-in-the-shadows-of-metoo A lot more.

Expand full comment

You can't be serious. The only reason you even know about the plight of women in places like Iran and Afghanistan is BECAUSE OF western feminists.

Expand full comment

You feminists literally started this fire.. you can easily find stuff in feminist literature on how there needs to be an abolishment of the concept of sex as a class.

And it's you who supported the trans movement before the last 1-2 decades and shaming men for being "transphobic".

It's hilarious how there's no self reflection here.

Expand full comment

You're going to have to define what a human right is. For that matter, what a human is.

Expand full comment

No, I already know those definitions, and hopefully you do too.

Expand full comment

There's dissention on that point. When feminists and transhumanists say pregnancy and childbirth is "dehumanizing", they're clearly working on a different definition than I have for "human."

Specify. You may be surprised who disagrees with you. I certainly have been!

Expand full comment

Why don't you start with a definition of transhumanism? What limits of being human do transhumanists seek to transcend?

Expand full comment

All of the limits, including having a form at all. It's a bizarre melding of modern technology and ancient gnostic religious teachings. I use the term techno-gnostics interchangeably. It's also a deeply creepy master race theology in which they claim the term "human" for themselves and demote the rest of us to mere animals. (That is standards with gnosticism too.) Read Martine Rothblatt's manifesto on "freedom of form" for details.

Transhumanists also tend to be deeply delusional about what technologies are "just five years away", and fail to understand the limitations of real achievements.

Artificial wombs are a good example. Artificial wombs are a form of ICU for super-preemies. They are likely to improve outcomes for babies born at 20-30 weeks. They might even let us save babies born at 15-20 weeks.

But they're not a magic box where you can drop in an embryo and a baby pops out in 9 months. Artificial wombs only have potential to help fully formed fetuses who need to finish maturation.

Expand full comment

A world wherein couples put the needs of children before the wants of themselves. Respect for mothering and compensation from the government and/or spouse's employer. A return to the respect for and healing between men and women. Greater respect for women at home and men providing (ouch! that one was hard to write!). An economy that allows one-imcome families to live well.

Expand full comment

"Respect for mothering and compensation from the government and/or spouse's employer. "

Not in Capitalist America.

Expand full comment

Long term Western Civ will reach an end point, the contradictions and conflicts have no real answers. Similar to other civilizations the west will be overun by an enemy and we will assume their predominant culture. If this happens then terms like feminism or any -ism become less relevant. I imagine something closer to Blade Runner than parliaments and legislatures. Even so religion will survive. In the near future, however, Mary Harrington will write our way forward, I hope.

Expand full comment

It’s already happening. The enemy is within. Mary Harrington won’t help. Avoid digital ID and CBDCs at all costs. Be wary of the coming economic and financial collapse manufactured to introduce these totalitarian measures. Be very sceptical of the next societal shutdown proposed by the corrupt people who organise society.

Expand full comment

Moder.3rd wave/whatever you want toc all it, feminism is destroying society by

A) Lying to women about what will make them happy, convincing them to act/be like men if they want a happy life and that is the entirely worn advice to give them. We have record number of women on RX for mental issues.

B) It's convinced every woman she's a 9/10 no matter what she looks like or is like and that she deserves no less in a man. This has unbalanced the dating world. This is turn is destroying the family which a society is built upon

C) Worst of all it has produced a voting segment that despite all that had taken place, liberal feminist women are the only voting segment still leaning into the Democrat Left.

Feminism today is harmful, not helpful. That doesn't mean all women who consider them feminist's are like this but that those with power/influence who are feminist women are spreading hate and harm. Few like you see there are issues that need addressing. There's no legal access that men have that women don't. If anything you could argue that in society today women have access where men do not. It takes 2 to make a baby and both are stuck with the outcome whatever it may be but only the woman gets to make the call. It's a well known fact that teh family courts give the women preferential treatment.

The Modern Feminist/MeToo movement has produced a society where it's liberal women wanting more illegals coming inn, illegals who then attack the women and local men have been that that if you try to help you will either be arrested by the cops or the person you are trying to save you may accuse you of sexual harassment so they abstain.

Liberal women have created the society they are now miserable with/in and men are opting out choosing to seek brides over seas. It is NOT looking like the right future feminism promised will come to pass for many women. My 2 daughters were home schooled and free of feminist or woke indoctrination so they will have an EASY time finding a good husband and happiness in family.

Expand full comment

Feminism is the idea that women deserve equal consideration and respect. Period.

You're confusing a whole lotta other things with feminism there, bud.

Just like the lefties blame all the bad things that are done with guns on the guns themselves, you're blaming all the bad things that are done by people who call themselves feminists, on feminism.

You say "But if they weren't infected with feminism they wouldn't do those stupid things".

1) That's only partly true, and

2) The anti-gun people say the same thing "If they didn't have those guns they wouldn't have done those horrible things".

Feminism has brought some excellent improvements to the lives of women & society, just like gun rights have for legal gun owners & society.

We need feminism to help protect women from those who do not mean them well, just like we need gun rights to help protect us from those who don't mean us well.

Expand full comment

We meet again, Hazel-Rah! How much of the early feminist writers have you actually read? Their writings don't have much to say about consideration or respect. Or they have very odd definitions of those words. Many of them are openly scornful of any woman who disagrees with them. Very few of them have equal consideration or respect for dissenting opinions.

Expand full comment

Most feminists still in denial continue to proclaim its about equality and yet never give any real examples; always "I feel" or the like. They know it's about equity, the forced equal outcome regardless of effort/input. These pro-collectivist types use human envy, an easy to manipulate emotion, into supporting collectivist governance like communism & socialism b/c they foolishly believe it can work. Men frankly made society to comfortable, Feminism can only exist in a society without any real threats' or struggles.

Expand full comment

Mostly it's about some seriously inaccurate ideas regarding history and physical reality! Sometimes there's the equity piece., but often it's equity to a fantasy construct.

Expand full comment
May 5·edited May 5

"Feminism can only exist in a society without any real threats' or struggles."

Feminism came about because of threats to and struggles of women so of course where you find (post) Feminism, there is going to be less of those threats and struggles.

Expand full comment

Feminism is teh result of men allowing women to be manipulated by other men. It was the wealthy (and white) men of the period that funded and promoted the original feminist movement. It had nothing to do with actual struggles that were exclusive to women. EVERYONE had it rough back then who wasn't a part of the wealthy few. Women weren't ever facing more struggles then men just different struggles.

Feminism = societal cancer

There's a VERY good reason there is no successful matriarchy in history; because it can not exist in reality.

Expand full comment

Kid, you don't know what an actual feminist is.

The dupes and cherry-picked fools that your fave male influencers exploit are not it.

And again you're lumping feminism together with all the other things you've been taught to rant about. That's just dumb regardless of your sex.

Expand full comment

You still haven't given me a single name of a feminist writer/theorist you admire. I double-dog dare you to find one!

Expand full comment

Congrats on still ignoring the reasons why feminism exists to begin with - sexism and misogyny deprivations of rights and the many, many men and women who have and do promote(d) them, and the role that misogyny has played in the development of feminist thought and activism.

And still you are trying to use cherry-picked words of individual feminists to represent the idea that women deserve equal consideration and respect.

Be a brave person now - if you think women don't deserve equal consideration and respect, say so, instead of trying to discredit the idea indirectly through discrediting the actions and words of people who promote it.

Expand full comment

1) Kid? You must think that is osme how insutling. Once you pass 50 being called a kid is NO LONGER the insult you believe it is.

2) There is no cherry-picking. Yes some followers of feminism do believe it really is about equality bout they are the gullible, the useful idiots of the movement which is all about power; women getting access to positions they couldn't achieve on an even playing field maniky because they couldn't do the job but because Affirmative action previously and DEI now preach equitable outcomes we must place people in positions they aren't qualified to be in and watch society slowly crumble from within due to incompetency.

Expand full comment

Well at least you're being honest about your misogyny. P*ss off -------->>>

Expand full comment

...and?

You're saying 2A enthusiasts aren't scornful of those who tell them they're overreacting?

Imagine how they'd be if they were as deprived of their gun rights as women were of their rights in the times of the early feminists...

I think both of them get a bad rap. People pick out the worst of the separatist man-haters and hold them up as examples of all feminists just like liberals think all those who value 2A are Wayne LaPierre.

Admit it, you are a secret feminist by my definition 😁

Just like my few remaining lib friends would disown me for refusing to pretend 2A doesn't mean what it says. 🙄

Expand full comment

Hazel-rah, please explain

"Just like my few remaining lib friends would disown me for refusing to pretend 2A doesn't mean what it says. "

Expand full comment

It says we all can have guns, libs like to ignore that part ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Expand full comment

Your definition is uselessly vague. Equal to WHAT, precisely? What is "consideration"? What is "respect"?

There are plenty of men and women that I have very little respect for, and feel no obligation to be particularly considerate towards. To be perfectly blunt, some people are assholes and will take advantage of any respect or consideration offered them. So, I don't. It's called "boundaries."

I believe that every human being has inherent worth that comes with being of the species homo sapiens. It is not earned and cannot be lost. It's also not on a hierarchy. It's a binary yes-no thing.

I believe that specific individuals can be more or less accomplished in particular areas, and they have earned my respect.

There are people who are genuinely impaired (temporarily or permanently) and I am duly considerate towards them. I am considerate of the vulnerabilities of the very young, the very old, and the limitations of specific disabilities. Beyond that, consideration is earned through a mutual relationship of trust.

Expand full comment

Equal to men, of course.

The definition is broad because it's intended to apply broadly. Consideration and respect apply to every context in which the sexes interact or influence each other. Which is nearly everything.

You're talking about individual qualities. I don't disagree with that, but the idea of equal respect is that we don't treat someone as less than just because of their sex, completely aside from their individual qualities.

Expand full comment

How about you go check in with any homeless man on the street and ask him how much consideration and respect he gets daily. Men do NOT get consideration and respect unless they have massive amounts of money and power. If you instantly turned male tomorrow, the general consideration and respect you would receive would likely go DOWN.

There are exceptions in certain fields. In tech, men are granted a baseline assumption of competence that is higher than women. But the reverse is true in other fields. Men in any caring profession are treated as incompetent and possibly predatory until they demonstrate otherwise.

Expand full comment

No confusion on or conflation needed here. Feminism today is NOT about equality as there is no equality left to obtain and as proof in your owl rebuttal yo could not provide a single example. Their is however still equity, forcing equal outcomes desoutes individual performances.

By biologicals reality a society lead by mostly women will lead us straight down path of totalitarianisms b/c women on average place protection/secuirty above freedom/liberty and males in average are the reverse.

Expand full comment

The phases of a woman's life are maiden, matron, crone. Matriarchies are rule by matrons and crones. They work fine.

Men make fine leaders too.

Boys, however, tend to be poor leaders. Same with females eternally stuck in the "maiden" stage of development.

Expand full comment

There are no successful matriarchies in history. I'd say none period but because we can't really know all of the worlds history only that which has been documented it could be in accurate to so no matriarchies but clearly no successful ones because we have documentation even form 1k+ years before the year zero so if they were successful they were REALLY good with hiding it. Thus no matriarchies in history of historical significance.

I'd never argue boys or girls or even young adults on avg are good leaders because they lack the wisdom in years for what a good leader needs. Females on average are poor/bad leaders because they will choose safety/security over freedom/liberty thus eventually leading a society to totalitarianism assuming it's not conquered by a neighbor who doesn't do such foolish things like have so many leaders who are women.

Male/Female are 2 halves a whole that is greater then the sum of it's individual parts That can't work when the 2 are more teh same then not. Women's preference of safety/security makes them the better choice for child rearing. Not b/c a man wouldn't protect the child but that a man would likely unknowingly do something placing the child at risk. Likewise males are better leaders because without the willingness to take risks and place liberty/freedom so highly a society can't advance and we have historical examples, nations/societies that effectively didn't advance until external interference like with the Brits conquering SOuth Africa.

Leadership also requires high degrees if disagreeableness, something men on avg are high in but women on avg are low in. Both sexes are susceptible to the desire to be accepted by the larger group b/c humans are social creatures but between the 2 sexes a woman will more quickly lie if it means acceptance by the group than a man would; on avg. There are always exceptions to anything but we don't make decisions/choices based on the outliers.

There have been some great female leaders I would have voted for like Margaret Thatcher but she is too few and far between to just blindly say there must be 50/50 representation of men/women within governance.

Expand full comment

Hmmm. I suspect that we are using different definitions of matriarchies. Probably different definitions of patriarchies too. Almost definitely different definitions of leadership.

Care to offer me your definitions?

Expand full comment

"No equality left to obtain" 😂

You really DO live in your parents' basement don't you. 🤡

Expand full comment

I see you didn't cite even 1 example, not just 1. Is it b/c of some text limit in Substack replies or is it possibly something else like "There is no example to gove"?

Expand full comment

I would add D) It's convinced women that men are only interested in sex and that all they need to bring into a relationship is between their legs.

Expand full comment

Part of that comes from feminism teaching young women that men and women and the same when their not. Both seek similar/common interests like kids and faith but feminism has said no it's everything and now with the trans gendern movement it's caused that lie of feminism to blow up in the feminist face yet they press on like as if proclaiming men and women as being the same didn't help create this problem, with men in women's sports . It also convinced then that b/c they as women can get sex so easily if they wanted that it means men must be the same so women wrongly believe that most men are as engaged in sex as the women even more often b/c women are still more reserved then men. The feminist don't realize that it's a small percent of men that all the women are chasing and having sex with. Value comes that which is not easy to come by and for women that's a man that meets all their requirements and they believe for men it's women that do the same and the 2 have very different values. A woman having sex with many male partners is devaluing because sex is easy for women. If a man can have sex with many women its because he's got that something most women want so it make's him movaluable. The same thing goes 2 entirely different ways depending on the sex. The online dating apps have only worsened the problem but the bulk of it is with feminism teaching women unhealthy ideas/beliefs about male/female relationships. Dark days are coming too b/c no matter how much the feminist have been able to force so far they will never be able to force a man to marry them so either the feminists before they get to old will realize this valuable lesson and change before it's too late or they will be with millions of other bitter/angry/alone 40+ something women who either waited to long to admit biological reality or is forever in denial.

Expand full comment

Thank you, another key one i missed.

Expand full comment

"It's convinced every woman she's a 9/10 no matter what she looks like or is like and that she deserves no less in a man."

--- Which country are you in !?! Here in the States everywhere you turn are average to below average looking couples. You're too old to swallow this internet Manosphere 1-10 garbage wherein they envision 4 women with 9 men. Get offline and into the real world.

"This has unbalanced the dating world."

--- There is no "imbalance" in the dating world.

" This in turn is destroying the family which a society is built upon"

--- Absolutely not. If people aren't having kids now it's because they don't want to or can't afford it. Not because there's some "looks imbalance" or rather what you're wasting your aging years reading, "sexual marketplace value imbalance" in the dating world.

"It takes 2 to make a baby and both are stuck with the outcome "

--- Only ONE of them has to risk her healthy, life and possibly livelihood to carry to term.

"only the woman gets to make the call."

--- Naturally, because of the above facts. Women in good relationships take the father's view into account.

" It's a well known fact that teh family courts give the women preferential treatment."

--- In the USA men for the most DO NOT WANT full custody of their children. Generally they do not even want 50/50. They prefer to be the "fun weekend parent" who gets the kids every other weekend and one night for dinner per week.

Expand full comment

Wow, some indoctrination simply can't be undone.

1) Feminisms has convinced every women (who follows it and so my bad for not being clearer about that) . But yeah if we ignore stats from dating aps, a dominant form of how young people meet today, and the numerous videos of far at best avg looking women claiming they're a 10 then yeah you could say this is not true. Is that how you do it?

2) If you think there is no imbalance in ethd ating world then you are in denial or buried your head in the sand. I can easily find feminist who disagree with everything I say but will agree with that so #TryAgain on that one

3) The majority of abortions are elective based that means no grape and no risk to injury to anyone so yet another #TryAgain. . FYI - Men are the only sex that takes risks during war even though society benefit from a win (or at least from not loosing) but yeah let's pretend that's also not real.

4) This BS about men not wanting to have access to the child is feminist lies. There are more than a few documented examples of the courts giving care to a mother who no jury of peers would ifn fit but they do it anyway. Why? Because in a divorce with a man who has a job and a woman who is a former/current drug addict or has some other issues but most importantly no job, won't be able to pay the child support and by Federal Law, specifically Title IV-D, the state gets a percentage of every $ it collects from child support thus it has a monetary incentive to prioritize custody to the parent least best qualified to keep the kids.

#TryAgain

At least you didn't try to label me as some looser incel and often used tactic. You must have read or known that I have a 20+ marriage (no divorces) and kids with a stay at home wife/mother so kind of hard to call that man a loser incel ey>?

Expand full comment

"My 2 daughters were home schooled and free of feminist or woke indoctrination so they will have an EASY time finding a good husband and happiness in family."

--- How old are they? Are they dating? If so, what is their experience so far in finding good husbands? What demographic is their dating pool from with regards to ethnicity, religion, education and profession?

"We have record number of women on RX for mental issues."

--- And men and children. You are attributing all this only to Feminism? These people also have Capitalism in common.

Expand full comment

I think uk 2nd wavers had it pretty right. We should have equal opportunity for jobs education etc but let's acknowledge that those pesky hormones in the foetal brain and afterwards DO affect personality its not all socialisation. I like liberation feminism where the things women tend to be good at are valued AND rewarded as much as the things men tend to be good at.........

Expand full comment

And a lot of the human endowment is arbitrarily divided up between “masculine” and “feminine.” The real differences cluster around reproduction and aggression. But then you get bullshit like “reason is masculine (even in a woman), emotion is feminine (even in a man).” Or “the spirit is masculine, the soul is feminine.” “Achievement is masculine, nurture is feminine.” (I blame Carl Jung for a lot of this.) To me, the real suffering inflicted by gender stereotypes comes from this. We are still one species, and we are also 8 billion unique individuals. The real differences between men and women are a portion of this, but the hard retros want to stuff ALL human experience back inside that stylized binary.

Expand full comment

To the extent that is has ever been true, it included the understanding that masculine and feminine mix in each individual. That's the Tao symbol, the yin yang.

Expand full comment

100%

Expand full comment

I hope the future of feminism is joy in female embodiment.

Expand full comment

The future of feminism is the same as its origins: fringe deranged ranting by seriously ill women, often with schizophrenia.

The future of the women's rights movement is dependent on how much women's rights can be separated from feminism. If the women's rights movement can do that, it has a bright future as one aspect of the larger pro-human movement.

Feminism is inextricably bound to transhumanism. It despises human sexual dimorphism, always has.

Expand full comment

You left out "ugly lesbians" 😂 Come on, your stereotyping is slipping.

Dang you've drank the manly koolaid.

So many women fell for trans gaslighting because of liberal sexism, not feminism. The women who kept their feminist viewpoint saw right through it, and have been fighting it longer than anyone. Check out some of their websites:

https://reduxx.info

https://womensliberationfront.org

https://www.womenarehuman.com

https://www.shewon.org

https://unherd.com

https://www.womensdeclaration.com

https://lgbausa.org

https://usa.kpssinfo.org

https://4thwavenow.com

https://terfisaslur.com

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights

The liberal women weakened by the post-feminist misogynist backlash are the ones who got sucked in by narcissist men.

The stronger women are, the better off everyone is.

Expand full comment

You're proving her claim that feminism is the "fringe deranged ranting by seriously ill women, often with schizophrenia." Maybe tone it down a bit?

Expand full comment

You're failing to change the subject away from facts you dislike. Whomp.

D-mam is a serious women-hater. She is decidedly on the fringe in that regard.

Go ahead, check out some of the links. You'll be surprised to find that you agree with most of what they're saying.

Expand full comment

Not trying to change the subject, sugar britches. Just offering a little advice.

Expand full comment

Sure hun. What do you think of those gender-critical feminists? Pretty smart and sensible huh?

Expand full comment

I agree that strong women make for a strong society. So do strong men. Strong men and strong women have always sought each other out as life partners.

There are a large number of people who confuse "strong" with "abusive", however. Abusive women seek out weak men. Abusive men seek out weak women. Always have.

Teaching people to be genuinely, truly strong tends to reduce abuse. But first people have to learn how to tell the difference.

Expand full comment

Yes, and liberals are currently intent on teaching people to be weak 🙄

As usual, your claimed anti-feminist views screen a deeply feminist recognition of the importance of mutual respect between the sexes.

I do agree that feminists are taking the aggressive-victimhood shtick too far, that they too often substitute passive complaints for empowered action.

Expand full comment

There's are worldviews in which all human beings have inherent worth, simply by virtue of being human. It's not earned and cannot be lost. In Christian religious circles, this is sometimes called Imago Dei: all humans are made in the image of God.

There are worldviews in which human worth is on a hierarchy, with some humans having more worth than others. These worldviews vary on how that worth is calculated, but all of them believe that human worth is inherently hierarchical.

I suspect that you and I both hold "universal human worth" worldviews.

Here's the hard thing about worldviews: it's really hard to imagine that anyone else could hold a fundamentally different worldview. We tend to assume that we all start from the same basic grasp on reality and morality. There's a vague sense that it's just a natural part of normal human development, just like all babies instinctively learn to smile. But...that's not true. Worldviews are drastically different.

The women's rights movement has generally drawn from the "universal human worth" set of worldviews. In those worldviews, strength is not a zero sum game, it's an improvement for everyone.

Feminism, libertarianism, and all of the postmodernist worldviews are based on hierarchical worldviews. Most of them include some variation on the theme that encouraging people to compete for human worth will help "the best" rise to the top.

The reason why the women's rights movement campaigned against women chained to coal carts is that to treat a human being like a donkey is a violation of human dignity.

The reason why feminism never gave a crap about that is because they didn't see those women as having any human worth to begin with. It was a movement of mostly upper class, mostly white women who believed themselves ito be superior. It started when a bunch of white women were OUTRAGED that men from "inferior" races might be permitted the vote.

That's why "universal surrogacy" is a demand of feminism today. According to feminist teachings, birth is degrading. It's fine to degrade already worthless women, but the idea that high-class women do something so...animalistic...as giving birth is just icky. It's why feminism today rarely concerns itself with women dying in third world countries, instead focusing on getting women preferential treatment for high income jobs in the US. It's why "women's health care" means abortion, not prenatal care.

The goal of feminism is making sure that in the game of conquest, at least half of the conquerors are female. It doesn't care about the conquered. Never has.

That's feminism. Ironically, the infamous Joe Tate and similar racing misogynists have the exact same worldview: the relationships between all humans is inherently one of conquest. They're just bickering over who gets to do the conquering.

Expand full comment

Brilliantly put, except for the part where you're still talking about "feminism" as if it were the One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater.

Someday you'll be able to separate the idea from the actions of its other adherents that you dislike.

In the meantime, Dylan Roof, Timothy McVeigh and every other nutcase like them will continue to be the fault of Christianity, and all the racist idiots blaming every negative action by white people on Whiteness will be 100% correct, by your own silly rules.

Expand full comment

Nope. But it is one thread of a worldview that leads to very bad places. Perhaps the most forgivable of those threads, but it still bears serious responsibility for the situation we are in today, which is fairly disastrous for women.

I'm not going to separate the beliefs of the founders and leadership from a particular ideology. They define it. The fact that plenty of very nice people (Including myself, incidentally) have been peripheral followers doesn't change the problens in the core ideology. That would be roughly equivalent to claiming that the teachings of Jesus are irrelevant to Christianity. Or the teachings of Charles Galton is irrelevant to eugenics. Founders and core voices matter.

Whiteness is not an ideology. That's a red herring.

I note that Aiden/Audrey Hale isn't on your list of Very Scary People. Why not?

Expand full comment
May 3·edited May 3

The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, written by Shulamith Firestone. Still revered in many feminist circles.

Firestone's condition was officially diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia, following which she was repeatedly hospitalized at Beth Israel Medical Center. Dr. Margaret Fraser, her psychiatrist, stated that she suffered from a particularly severe form of Capgras delusion, which caused her to believe that the people in her life "were hiding behind masks of faces."[3]---source is Wikipedia page on Shulamith Firestone

Here's a bit of her book, from the chapter titled Down with Childhood:

"In the Middle Ages, there was no such thing as childhood. The medieval view of children was profoundly different from ours. It was not only that it was not "childcentered," it literally was not conscious of children as distinct from adults...Children different socially from adults only in their economic dependence. They were used as another transient servant class, with the difference that because all adults began in this class, it was not seen as degrading (an equivalent would be the indentured servant of American history). All children were literally servants...

In sum, if members of the working class an minority groups "act like children", it is because children of every class are lower class, just as women have always been. The rise of the modern nuclear family, with its adjunct "childhood," tightened the noose around the already economically dependent group by extending and reinforcing what had been only a brief dependence, by the usual means: the development of a special ideology, of a special indigenous life style, language, dress, mannerisms, etc. And with the increase and exaggeration of children's dependence, women's bondage to motherhood was also extended to its limits. Women and children were now in the same lousy boat. their oppressions began to reinforce one another....By now people have forgotten what history has proven: that "raising" a child is tanamount to retarding his development. The best way to raise a child is to LAY OFF."

End quotation

Sure. Right. According to Firestone, children should be abandoned at age 7 or so, "liberated" to a life of full time work and full sexual autonomy. That's her beautiful utopian endstate.

To which I say, NO THANKS!

These are the ravings of a highly intelligent and very literate woman who is becoming increasingly unmoored from reality. When this happens, it's fairly common for the ill individual to latch onto religious or political ideas in a dramatic way. The stereotypical version is the man screaming that Jesus is telling him that the dogs are actually aliens, but it takes more subtle forms too.

I've seen this in real life a few times. Mental illness doesn't make people stupid. I've witnessed personally a woman who gave a very convincing and credible argument that police had broken into her home, interrupted her in housecleaning, and dragged her off to the mental hospital because they were offended by her BLM posters. And she believed it. But it wasn't true. Her family called the police because she was spinning around the house hysterically cleaning everything at 2am. This included starting things in the oven and forgetting about them, and lighting candles to cleanse the space and forgetting about them. She had already started one fire, and there had been a few other near misses. The children in the house were frightened. She was ill and needed to be in the hospital. But it sure didn't sound that way if your only source of information was her description of the event!

Incidentally, Firestone was neither lesbian nor particularly unattractive as far as I can tell.

Expand full comment

So what's your point?

Expand full comment

The "feminists" didn't fight for the women in mines who were literally chained to coal carts. That was the women's rights movement. They're not equivalent, though the "feminist" movement likes to use the women's rights movement as a disguise.

Expand full comment

You're really trying to wave one cherry-picked crazy person around as a stand-in for all of Feminism and Feminists.

Shall we do the same for Christian or White writers?

I don't think you'd like that.

Give it a rest.

Expand full comment

This is feminism. The real thing. Go back to the source, the big names studied with breathless reverence in women's studies (now gender studies). Feminism, like all gnostic parasitical ideologies, likes to disguise itself as something else. Something good and noble. That's what I was taught and what I believed, for years.

Read the actual writings and... it's horrible. All of it. It has nothing to do with women's rights or equality or respect.

Expand full comment

Yeah, you are understandably driven to the opposite extreme right now.

When you regain your equilibrium, and are able to apply your critical analysis to everything, I hope (and believe) that you'll see that your current position is as silly as your previous one.

The wiser we get, the more centrist we get in times of extreme views.

Expand full comment

Valuing human beings is not a particularly extremist position. Wanting the survival of my own species isn't particularly extremist either. You're strawmanning.

My claim is simply that feminism is NOT what you think it is. There are some fine movements that actually value women, female human beings, in all our glory. Feminism isn't one of them.

Expand full comment

Isn't speaking about "human rights" transhumanist? I completely agree with you on the future of feminism. But what rights are there left for women to achieve? Unless you're you mean this in a neoconservative way, like going to places like Afghanistan - again - to liberate women. Why would the future of women's rights be anything other than spreading the word?

Expand full comment

Yes, the transhumanists have hijacked the term "human rights". Which is why I didn't use the term.

The biggest right for women is not a right to be achieved, but rather to be restored: motherhood. It shouldn't be a privilege only for wealthy women.

Expand full comment

How matriarchal of you 😀

Expand full comment

1) Enlightenment Feminism continues to destroy the true feminine by making all things feMANine while making the truly masculine a liability: socially, economically, legally.

OR

2) Men stand up and restore what is feminine. This will require a religious reawakening that returns to feminine images and conduct by females and towards female by men.

Expand full comment

You've never been with a woman have you.

Expand full comment

Wowser, you really have incredible insight. I will tell my wife of 20 years and three daughters of your skill.

Expand full comment

I bet you don't tell them you use the word "feMANine" 😂 Or tell them that it's men that are going to "restore femininity" 🤡

Expand full comment

The old feminism made women masculine. Future feminism needs to reclaim for women their feminine nature and help society understand how it is not the same, yet equal in power and value, as the masculine.

Expand full comment

You're confusing actual feminism with the way it was characterized by the sexist backlash.

Having the right to your own bank account without a man's permission isn't "masculine". It's equal respect. You probably didn't even know that was an issue that didn't get corrected until 1974, did you.

Read some women's history, you'll be amazed.

Expand full comment

I think we are all clever enough to know that if feminism has only and ever been about “equal rights” we wouldn’t be having this conversation and Mary Harrington would have had no need to write a book.

Expand full comment

Do you really think that if women had as much power and influence as men that things like porn and surrogacy would still be legal.

That doctors and medical societies would still be acting like cowboys.

You are confusing liberalism with feminism. And you've been listening too much to angry reactionary men most of whom are just fine with porn and surrogacy but rarely miss an opportunity to sh*t on women.

High-tech is very male, very liberal, and very, very sexist and misogynist.

Transhumanism is being driven by men.

Expand full comment

Why are you carrying on about who I’m watching or listening to? Is it your condescending suggestion that a woman whose viewpoint differs from your own must not be capable of thinking for herself but could only be listening to the “wrong opinions” - and that those wrong opinions must come from angry men who hate women? That’s quite a misogynistic viewpoint on your part. What utter nonsense. Men this and men that, because pAtRIaRchY. If only women were in charge, everything would be right in the world. It’s precisely this brand of screed that gives feminism a bad name.

Expand full comment

Did you have an actual argument in there amidst all that hand-waving?

Can you actually refute anything I've said without grossly mis-stating it first?

Face it, trying to blame transhumanism on feminism is ridiculous.

You are smarter than the idiot resentful men who are pushing that BS.

Transhumanism is so obviously just the latest male high-tech "hold my beer" notion. If you know men, and I'm sure you do, you know this.

So bluster and hand-wave all you want, you know it's true.

We are natural allies, believe it or not. Because we both know male BS when we see it. The people who know and love men know their weaknesses, and dumb reckless ideas are one of them.

Like I said, things go better when the sexes work together and both contribute their respective wisdom, and listen to each other.

Expand full comment

Full on explicit transhumanism is overwhelmingly being pushed by men. True.

The ideology that made it acceptable was pushed by a broad swath of theorists, including feminists. The fundamental assertion of feminism is that BEING FEMALE is inherently dehumanizing. That's...screwed up.

Expand full comment

Surrogacy was a DEMAND of some feminists. Still is.

Expand full comment

"Some feminists" 🙄

Somewhere, over the rainbow 🎶

Way up high🎶

There's a land where I'm not-constantly-reminding-Dragonmama-not-to lump-her-least-favorite-feminists-in-with-feminism, and we can let it lie🎶

Expand full comment

How about you list a single feminist theory writer who you like/admire, and have actually read?

Expand full comment

Core feminist theorists still taught as Truth in most women's studies courses. If they won't renounce them from feminism, I won't either.

Expand full comment

Porn and surrogacy are not thriving industries because men are just so powerful. They are the result of what we are left with when we try to subvert or “flatten” the persistent reality of sexual dimorphism, long the utopian goal of liberal feminism. Mary Harrington describes the result of the sexual revolution as a ‘collapse of human intimacy into the “marketplace”’. I highly recommend her book Feminism Against Progress for a brilliant analysis of where we are, how we got here; the role of feminism past, present, and future.

Expand full comment

^^Yawn, more idiots conflating feminism with everything women who happen to describe themselves as feminists say and do that you don't like.

The sexual revolution was a media narrative covering a bunch of different trends, some feminist, and some not. Like the Free Press debaters said.

More than anything it was about men feeling free to pressure women into sex more strongly than ever without feeling guilty about it.

Expand full comment

If you are tired, take a nap. If you think Harrington is an idiot, why are you here?

Nvm, I don’t really care. Cheers

Expand full comment

Although perhaps you intended this reply for someone else, as it seems to have no bearing whatsoever to anything I said.

As to the “sexual revolution” (feel free to call it something else if that makes you happier, dear) resulting in men feeling more free than ever to pressure women into sex (and women feeling themselves deprived of the natural framework of refusal that had served for thousands of years), yes that is certainly true.

Expand full comment

What makes you think that an equal balance of power can exist? Men have the monopoly on force. It will eventually always come down to that basic natural fact. Every right that women enjoy is protected and enforced by men.

Expand full comment

^^This is what social media and the pandemic have wrought, folks: alienated, hostile, involuntarily celibate men with power fantasies and a lack of empathy for women.

Expand full comment

How is the ability to protect women any of what you just described? That's not an argument.

Expand full comment

As a trauma therapist I am very conscious of MGM, haven’t heard that term, but circumcision trauma has a massive impact on male female relationships- the critical thing being that the baby boys are strongly bonded with their mothers at the time the procedure happens- resulting in the perception ( in regression therapy) that the mother is doing it with the father standing by and condoning. To those who’ve gone down that rabbit hole Universally felt as a massive on-slaught of pure evil.

so I am definitely in the camp that says the best way to support society and women is for us men to do the deep work on ourselves as fast as possible- and I don’t mean talking I mean grasping the emotional nettle in the rabbit hole.

I would add cord cutting too early to high impact trauma affecting boy- mother /women relationships - the cord must not have a pulse- takes about an hour.

Expand full comment

Feminism is glorified three-card monty. Feminism is just "Women should be equal", "women are better" and "women need special protection", depending on the reasons.

If men are outperforming women we need to gerrymander things so women are equal

If women outperform men, it's because women are better

Women need special protections because reasons.

Feminism is predicated on male lust. When men learn how to control their lust again, feminism is done for.

Feminism has exhausted all of the theoretical benefits it could have brought to society. It works in lockstep with the elites to give the elites what they want. Monetise women and pacify men.

The trans thing will bubble along because feminists support all the things that led to trans. The "TERF victory" has been way overblown.

There will always be feminist grifters like Charlotte Proudman and others.

Feminism will also continue to be whatever a woman decides she likes at any one time.

About once every ten years, they will talk about men for a bit.

Expand full comment

Your ideas are the first iteration of feminism that I have found interesting or useful in quite a while, so if there is any future for feminism in my life it will be in the development of idea you discuss in “Feminism Against Progress” and also Louise Perry’s “The Case Against the Sexual Revolution” But no pressure LOL.

Expand full comment