I won't speak for Lorenzo, but my reading of his piece (and what I had in mind when editing it) was that "the politics of a common humanity" is the only ideology you need. You don't need additional, specialised concepts like intersectionality or patriarchy (the latter, especially, is unique to feminism).
Fabulous essay! Feminism has absolutely thrown baby out with the bath water, but that's not surprising when grievance ideologies are committed to self-perpetuation. There can be no end goal - or at least, no feasible end goal, because ultimately feminists can't force men and women to behave alike and make identical choices.
I love the tie to Chesterton's Fence. So few understand that. Because when they tore down the patriarchy they assumed it was only there to restrain women....the fence got in their way.
But what the patriarchy did more was to contain the worst men. So when women ripped down the fence, they ripped down the structures that constrained the worst male inclinations.
The patriarchy was there to control the men much more than to control women.
Womens "liberation" was part of Soviet subversion tactics and polarisation is the prime message of post-structuralisn and postmodernism, which are subversive memes. How far do you think that outside forces are responsible for the turmoil in Western society? The myth that the Cold War has been won has given the bad guys the keys to our media, civil service and academia. See https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/forget-gender-polarisation-is-the
That is way overstated. Soviet subversion had more than one track. One was straightforward front organisations. One was support for terrorism. One was nudging organisations and movements in either a more congenial, or most corrosive, direction. (For instance, support for extreme right movements as being usefully corrosive.)
But a lot of this stuff has completely independent appeal. The combination of mass universities, mass bureaucracies and women getting unilateral control over their fertility (so, defecting from Christian mores) are all powerful in their own right. After all, the original Marxist movement was quite internationally substantial by 1914 without any friendly State supporting it whatsoever.
I was involved with Marxist groups in the 1970s. At my university they had some very able people. Two of them, from my uni alone, became mainstream TV presenters. I met other Marxist groups from other universities and followed the careers of their members in the Labour Party.
This was a far more powerful subversion than most people realise. The reason it is not fully known is that they succeeded. They ran the Labour Party between 1997 and 2010 in the UK. See https://pol-check.blogspot.com/2009/11/roots-of-new-labour.html which documents how the government originated in the 1970s subversion. These were people who I had known and who were dedicated to the overthrow of the UK. They preferentially recruited the far left into important roles across academia and the media. They coordinated movements so that the far left versions were the most prominent.
Which brings us to "platforming". This is the opposite of no-platforming. It is where people who have power use their influence to provide a media platform to others.
Women's rights were not only represented by the Womens Liberation Movement but Women's Lib (the far left group) got the platform. Gay rights were not only represented by Stonewall but the far left Stonewall got the platform and was even given a contract by the BBC to proselytise within the organisation and so on.
The pivotal legislation for Transgender rights was promulgated by Harriet Harman, another far leftist from the 1970s who, in her early career was a lawyer for the far left NCCL pushing for paedophile rights (See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2575505/Letter-paedophile-group-links-Harriet-Harman-Patricia-Hewitt-AFTER-said-marginalised.html ). Harman introduced the Equalities Act 2010 in the UK and was central to its introduction internationally, especially in the EU. This equalities legislation, which even forbids government/academic employees from talking freely about equalities issues in their own free time, is the archetype of the Western equalities movement.
The UK was one of the worst affected countries and with its huge cultural clout it affected others globally. With the alleged end of the Cold War the West let down its guard and allowed far left subversion free rein because, like you, they could not conceive that Russia and China were still fighting to destroy the West.
Although we talk of the far left, the real goal is the destruction of Western power.
BTW, the issue was always authoritarianism vs democracy.
Hi, I was just rereading your original article. Strange as it may seem I agree with most of it.
For "valorise its own group and undermine the notion of a common humanity" I read 'Women's lib polarise society'.
For "Feminism was not needed for women to join the Emancipation Sequence" I read 'the far left version of feminism was given a preferential platform'.
For "A movement that has been rejected by over 90 per cent of its alleged identity group is not one that should have much persuasive power." I read 'selective employment in education and the media of those who favoured the movement gave the movement power'.
For "The foundational lie that a special ideology is required for human flourishing is the basis of all transformational-future ideologies." I read 'polarisation is the basis for revolutionary politics'
For "By pouring the spiritual into the social, via Marx’s materialist completion of Hegel’s history-as-becoming project, politics is turned from a transactional mechanism for managing societies into something toxic." read 'by pouring the spiritual into the social, via Marx’s materialist completion of Hegel’s history-as-becoming project, politics is turned from a transactional mechanism for managing societies into something toxic.'' Yes, totally agree.
The only gap between us is that I was in at the start of the process when the far left decided to weaponise every and any social movement for maximum polarisation. Even though its original creators are retired or dead and postmarxism has replaced marxism the programme is still active.
The big difference between our views is that I know the strong polarisation was started as "active measures" by foreign powers. It probably cannot be reversed. I will stop now and wish you well.
"I know the strong polarization was started as "active measures" by foreign powers" - I see "progressive" politics has been a result and the flip between Democrat/Republican policy positions arriving with the public slowly beginning to understand the shift from the traditional positions.
The feminism movement has changed since I was a proponent for NOW in the late 60's. At the time I agreed about opportunity but these many years later see the movement fully radicalized. I stopped support after a few years as its purpose slipped away.
There is always going to be some distance (socially, financially, intellectually, etc) between a leader or leadership class and the masses aka regular folks: the first things that come to mind for me are, say, the difference between the Roman patrician generals and their soldiers, or even a wealthy gentleman like George Washington and his ragtag band of rebels.
But when it comes to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s (most especially of the sexual variety), there is an almost "from a different planet" massive social chasm between the leaders of 2nd-wave feminism and your average woman. The leaders and theorists were all for the most part urban, secular, leftist intellectuals high up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, looking to express themselves through words and thought, all with a social and financial cushion under them, more interested in tearing down social barriers and leading some sort of "revolution" rather than quotidian things like marrying and raising a family. And as with so many of the '60s revolutions, we can see that all this liberation benefited a small sliver of the population (once again, mostly urban, secular and middle-class or better), while offering pain along with a few dubious rewards to the rest of the people downstream: destruction of families, cultural crassness, and for me the two most damaging aspects: convincing women that "freedom" means some corporate job, so being a VP of Marketing is liberation while being a mom is oppression; and all this drunken and drug-addled promiscuity that so many people have felt pressured into exploring, when it can be so disorienting and soul-damaging (not that I haven't enjoyed it!)
But really the main point I wanted to make is: not only is there a larger distance in post-60s Left movements between the leadership class and the people they're supposedly acting on behalf of, but this may be the only political/social movement in history where the leaders so brazenly and obviously HATE the people they claim to be liberating.
Just as the Marcuseans dripped with contempt and condescension toward the proles they were supposedly leading to enlightenment, modern feminists have nothing but loathing for the "normal" average (never mind conservative) women who just want to build happy lives centered around marriage and children.
Their idea of "a common humanity" is one where we all live in the rubble of our civilization (the only possible form of Equality besides the grave), overseen of course by the vanguard class of philosopher-kings blessed with "critical consciousness" who bear a striking resemblance to Soviet commissars.
(Just discovered the essays here of Warby & Dale, they are all excellent!)
Great article. You've covered a lot of ground and covered it well.
One point of contention i would like to make however:
"The second bullshit claim was that the problem is male oppression. Every single legal advance for women has relied on male votes and male endorsement."
The main point is correct, but i have issue with the "votes" and "endorsements" here. First of all, voting is rigged. So, there is that. Secondly, votes can be bought and the populace can be psychologically manipulated, as if we didn't know this before, #COVID1984 showed us how. I guess my point here is that there was a distinct plan to bring about the social change. It was not organic and the intentions were (and are still) utterly nefarious: destroy the family unit, indoctrinate the children in government schools, collect more taxes and ultimately destroy social cohesion. On the surface, yes, it does appear that men voted and endorsed these ideas. It's probably partly true, due to general ignorance, more so however, it was manufactured, a construct. Nonetheless, your main point is still valid.
There was a general, multi-level effort at persuasion. That is, some were simply aiming for equal rights and opportunities. And some were going for much more.
It became a common pattern for reform movements to have the “let us in” element (the majority) and a “but everything is terrible and has to be transformed” element (zealot minority).
The voting and persuasion was real. Thus, one can reasonably argue that the violent edge of the suffragette movement in Britain actually delayed women getting the vote.
Beauty and subversion relate well in literary terms, as with Herman Hesse's Siddhartha. The glamorousness associated with the feminine - the feminine as subversive - has no completion. There is no feminist vision posing the end of the world. This masculine domain while prevalent is polarized between Marxist and eschatological forces in which the masculine Is exposed as incapable of resolving them both to the satisfaction of the feminine.
This has to be one of the most misleading, misinformation filled, self-valorising, cognitive dissonance filled, confirmation bias evoking, eisegetic essay I have ever read. That’s why I like Substack, it gets me out of my filter bubble and provides challenges to my perceptions and opinions. I will eventually write a response essay or something because I don’t want to just leave this baseless seeming, unconstructive comment and move on. However, It’ll be a while before I can get to writing it unfortunately.
You're most welcome to do so, that being, as you say, the point of substack. It may be in your interest to read the whole series, however, of which this essay is only one part.
I will definitely do so. I intend to be concise, fair, and thorough; that requires a working knowledge of the whole as well as the individual parts of the text.
This series has been a eye-opener for me in organizing how we are trying to refute evolution. Given the long arc of evolution meeting the decline in Indo-European birth rates for the "enlightened" (nee selfish?), we might be culling this new trend. Whether we have the people 500 years from now who understand about a plastic oblong with a screen is unknowable now. I often admire the Maya ruins.
I won't speak for Lorenzo, but my reading of his piece (and what I had in mind when editing it) was that "the politics of a common humanity" is the only ideology you need. You don't need additional, specialised concepts like intersectionality or patriarchy (the latter, especially, is unique to feminism).
What Helen said.
The annoying thing is I have actually read that paper, and forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder.
Brilliant observations
Very well said. The fish-and-water metaphor is very apt.
Amen!
Fabulous essay! Feminism has absolutely thrown baby out with the bath water, but that's not surprising when grievance ideologies are committed to self-perpetuation. There can be no end goal - or at least, no feasible end goal, because ultimately feminists can't force men and women to behave alike and make identical choices.
All the essays in this series have been good. This one is *especially* fine.
I just discovered this Substack and I am now reading it rather than doing what I should be doing. 💗
Enjoy - there's plenty here.
Thank you! I’ll be sharing these essays with many people I know who are not on SS.
I love the tie to Chesterton's Fence. So few understand that. Because when they tore down the patriarchy they assumed it was only there to restrain women....the fence got in their way.
But what the patriarchy did more was to contain the worst men. So when women ripped down the fence, they ripped down the structures that constrained the worst male inclinations.
The patriarchy was there to control the men much more than to control women.
Depends on the version of patriarchy you are getting. But yes, controlling male behaviour was a big part of the operative norms.
Great observation, though I suggest using the word “chivalry” rather than “patriarchy” as Lorenzo did in his piece.
Effing brilliant!
You reverse compiled decades of self supporting lies, in the most clear and concise way imaginable.
THIS right here, is why Substack is the place to be! Otherwise I might never have found your essay.
Womens "liberation" was part of Soviet subversion tactics and polarisation is the prime message of post-structuralisn and postmodernism, which are subversive memes. How far do you think that outside forces are responsible for the turmoil in Western society? The myth that the Cold War has been won has given the bad guys the keys to our media, civil service and academia. See https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/forget-gender-polarisation-is-the
That is way overstated. Soviet subversion had more than one track. One was straightforward front organisations. One was support for terrorism. One was nudging organisations and movements in either a more congenial, or most corrosive, direction. (For instance, support for extreme right movements as being usefully corrosive.)
But a lot of this stuff has completely independent appeal. The combination of mass universities, mass bureaucracies and women getting unilateral control over their fertility (so, defecting from Christian mores) are all powerful in their own right. After all, the original Marxist movement was quite internationally substantial by 1914 without any friendly State supporting it whatsoever.
On the importance of internal patterns, see this discussion of Late Stage Bureaucracy. https://radicalamerican.substack.com/p/late-stage-bureaucracy
I was involved with Marxist groups in the 1970s. At my university they had some very able people. Two of them, from my uni alone, became mainstream TV presenters. I met other Marxist groups from other universities and followed the careers of their members in the Labour Party.
This was a far more powerful subversion than most people realise. The reason it is not fully known is that they succeeded. They ran the Labour Party between 1997 and 2010 in the UK. See https://pol-check.blogspot.com/2009/11/roots-of-new-labour.html which documents how the government originated in the 1970s subversion. These were people who I had known and who were dedicated to the overthrow of the UK. They preferentially recruited the far left into important roles across academia and the media. They coordinated movements so that the far left versions were the most prominent.
Which brings us to "platforming". This is the opposite of no-platforming. It is where people who have power use their influence to provide a media platform to others.
Women's rights were not only represented by the Womens Liberation Movement but Women's Lib (the far left group) got the platform. Gay rights were not only represented by Stonewall but the far left Stonewall got the platform and was even given a contract by the BBC to proselytise within the organisation and so on.
The pivotal legislation for Transgender rights was promulgated by Harriet Harman, another far leftist from the 1970s who, in her early career was a lawyer for the far left NCCL pushing for paedophile rights (See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2575505/Letter-paedophile-group-links-Harriet-Harman-Patricia-Hewitt-AFTER-said-marginalised.html ). Harman introduced the Equalities Act 2010 in the UK and was central to its introduction internationally, especially in the EU. This equalities legislation, which even forbids government/academic employees from talking freely about equalities issues in their own free time, is the archetype of the Western equalities movement.
The UK was one of the worst affected countries and with its huge cultural clout it affected others globally. With the alleged end of the Cold War the West let down its guard and allowed far left subversion free rein because, like you, they could not conceive that Russia and China were still fighting to destroy the West.
Although we talk of the far left, the real goal is the destruction of Western power.
BTW, the issue was always authoritarianism vs democracy.
Hi, I was just rereading your original article. Strange as it may seem I agree with most of it.
For "valorise its own group and undermine the notion of a common humanity" I read 'Women's lib polarise society'.
For "Feminism was not needed for women to join the Emancipation Sequence" I read 'the far left version of feminism was given a preferential platform'.
For "A movement that has been rejected by over 90 per cent of its alleged identity group is not one that should have much persuasive power." I read 'selective employment in education and the media of those who favoured the movement gave the movement power'.
For "The foundational lie that a special ideology is required for human flourishing is the basis of all transformational-future ideologies." I read 'polarisation is the basis for revolutionary politics'
For "By pouring the spiritual into the social, via Marx’s materialist completion of Hegel’s history-as-becoming project, politics is turned from a transactional mechanism for managing societies into something toxic." read 'by pouring the spiritual into the social, via Marx’s materialist completion of Hegel’s history-as-becoming project, politics is turned from a transactional mechanism for managing societies into something toxic.'' Yes, totally agree.
The only gap between us is that I was in at the start of the process when the far left decided to weaponise every and any social movement for maximum polarisation. Even though its original creators are retired or dead and postmarxism has replaced marxism the programme is still active.
The big difference between our views is that I know the strong polarisation was started as "active measures" by foreign powers. It probably cannot be reversed. I will stop now and wish you well.
"I know the strong polarization was started as "active measures" by foreign powers" - I see "progressive" politics has been a result and the flip between Democrat/Republican policy positions arriving with the public slowly beginning to understand the shift from the traditional positions.
I almost wish I didn't see https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/forget-gender-polarisation-is-the because I'm inclined to agree. The world of SubStack certainly has many lanes of thought. As can be observed by my comment data, I can hardly keep up.
The feminism movement has changed since I was a proponent for NOW in the late 60's. At the time I agreed about opportunity but these many years later see the movement fully radicalized. I stopped support after a few years as its purpose slipped away.
Its us 🇺🇸
There is always going to be some distance (socially, financially, intellectually, etc) between a leader or leadership class and the masses aka regular folks: the first things that come to mind for me are, say, the difference between the Roman patrician generals and their soldiers, or even a wealthy gentleman like George Washington and his ragtag band of rebels.
But when it comes to the cultural revolutions of the 1960s (most especially of the sexual variety), there is an almost "from a different planet" massive social chasm between the leaders of 2nd-wave feminism and your average woman. The leaders and theorists were all for the most part urban, secular, leftist intellectuals high up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, looking to express themselves through words and thought, all with a social and financial cushion under them, more interested in tearing down social barriers and leading some sort of "revolution" rather than quotidian things like marrying and raising a family. And as with so many of the '60s revolutions, we can see that all this liberation benefited a small sliver of the population (once again, mostly urban, secular and middle-class or better), while offering pain along with a few dubious rewards to the rest of the people downstream: destruction of families, cultural crassness, and for me the two most damaging aspects: convincing women that "freedom" means some corporate job, so being a VP of Marketing is liberation while being a mom is oppression; and all this drunken and drug-addled promiscuity that so many people have felt pressured into exploring, when it can be so disorienting and soul-damaging (not that I haven't enjoyed it!)
But really the main point I wanted to make is: not only is there a larger distance in post-60s Left movements between the leadership class and the people they're supposedly acting on behalf of, but this may be the only political/social movement in history where the leaders so brazenly and obviously HATE the people they claim to be liberating.
Just as the Marcuseans dripped with contempt and condescension toward the proles they were supposedly leading to enlightenment, modern feminists have nothing but loathing for the "normal" average (never mind conservative) women who just want to build happy lives centered around marriage and children.
Their idea of "a common humanity" is one where we all live in the rubble of our civilization (the only possible form of Equality besides the grave), overseen of course by the vanguard class of philosopher-kings blessed with "critical consciousness" who bear a striking resemblance to Soviet commissars.
(Just discovered the essays here of Warby & Dale, they are all excellent!)
Great article. You've covered a lot of ground and covered it well.
One point of contention i would like to make however:
"The second bullshit claim was that the problem is male oppression. Every single legal advance for women has relied on male votes and male endorsement."
The main point is correct, but i have issue with the "votes" and "endorsements" here. First of all, voting is rigged. So, there is that. Secondly, votes can be bought and the populace can be psychologically manipulated, as if we didn't know this before, #COVID1984 showed us how. I guess my point here is that there was a distinct plan to bring about the social change. It was not organic and the intentions were (and are still) utterly nefarious: destroy the family unit, indoctrinate the children in government schools, collect more taxes and ultimately destroy social cohesion. On the surface, yes, it does appear that men voted and endorsed these ideas. It's probably partly true, due to general ignorance, more so however, it was manufactured, a construct. Nonetheless, your main point is still valid.
Thanks again for the great article.
There was a general, multi-level effort at persuasion. That is, some were simply aiming for equal rights and opportunities. And some were going for much more.
It became a common pattern for reform movements to have the “let us in” element (the majority) and a “but everything is terrible and has to be transformed” element (zealot minority).
The voting and persuasion was real. Thus, one can reasonably argue that the violent edge of the suffragette movement in Britain actually delayed women getting the vote.
Beauty and subversion relate well in literary terms, as with Herman Hesse's Siddhartha. The glamorousness associated with the feminine - the feminine as subversive - has no completion. There is no feminist vision posing the end of the world. This masculine domain while prevalent is polarized between Marxist and eschatological forces in which the masculine Is exposed as incapable of resolving them both to the satisfaction of the feminine.
This has to be one of the most misleading, misinformation filled, self-valorising, cognitive dissonance filled, confirmation bias evoking, eisegetic essay I have ever read. That’s why I like Substack, it gets me out of my filter bubble and provides challenges to my perceptions and opinions. I will eventually write a response essay or something because I don’t want to just leave this baseless seeming, unconstructive comment and move on. However, It’ll be a while before I can get to writing it unfortunately.
You're most welcome to do so, that being, as you say, the point of substack. It may be in your interest to read the whole series, however, of which this essay is only one part.
I will definitely do so. I intend to be concise, fair, and thorough; that requires a working knowledge of the whole as well as the individual parts of the text.
This series has been a eye-opener for me in organizing how we are trying to refute evolution. Given the long arc of evolution meeting the decline in Indo-European birth rates for the "enlightened" (nee selfish?), we might be culling this new trend. Whether we have the people 500 years from now who understand about a plastic oblong with a screen is unknowable now. I often admire the Maya ruins.
Yes -
The authors are correct to give the nod to Christianity being the foundation of the common humanity-