Joyce has not yet. On Lotus Eaters she claimed; "from the standpoint of evolutionary biology, men are obsolete"
Notice the conscession to "Scientism" not Science per se.
Theres a folding in of middle ground all around. Strange bed fellow cuddle up in hard times. The Daily Wire (and JBP) crowd are piling on MGTOW (a "rapey" paper tiger as t…
Joyce has not yet. On Lotus Eaters she claimed; "from the standpoint of evolutionary biology, men are obsolete"
Notice the conscession to "Scientism" not Science per se.
Theres a folding in of middle ground all around. Strange bed fellow cuddle up in hard times. The Daily Wire (and JBP) crowd are piling on MGTOW (a "rapey" paper tiger as they frame it, a real movement in reality, in response to the excesses of feminism), while while Joyce and her ilk, say they "arent feminists" per se, and try to fold in some sensible science, while still confusing her twisted misandrist "ought" with a false "evolutionary" "is" (as she miscontrues it).
if Im wrong, they wanted to dismantle all hierarchy, meaning bring on "feminine chaos", anarchy. "If we cant hold the mountain, then no one will"
Better no one has more than anyone else, even if that means we are all poor.
Sociological studies confirm that many people prefer that to prosperity with inequality. It is the "personal is political". It is intrafeminine competition leveling the playing field. There is not enough to go around inside the longhouse; the female does not venture forth to hunt and increase the total resources, she is left to squabble for what is inside the longhouse.
But we now live in a time of unprecidented plenty.
Have you watched it's interplay with society for at least 40 years?
That is to say, it has, as you said, blended activism with philosophy, which is problemetic, from the start. Imagine a time 40 years from now when perhaps we have Gazans in the universities teaching a universalizing thought systems based in their personal "trauma", while pretending that there is something "real" and "universal" about their view of the world, while simulataneously denying that this trauma is embodied and colors their abstractions about all humans? We would be treated to the stunning conclusion that Gazans can speak for all humans, pretend that there was no greed, dirty politics and very real human contingencies baked in, and that we should all view "the Jews" as less than Gazans as human beings. this of course is happenning, and it is what happenned with feminism in regards to men.
There are two things underpinning feminism as we have it now, that it is tossed in all of our laps, as it becomes part and parcel of policy in the West: mental illness and Marxism. They travel together. I abhor "making the personal the political" but that ship has sailed. Whats galling is that they simultaneously push their trauma as "evidence" of abstract principles, while denying that this skews their thought. This is because the very deep hallmark of the left is a disconnection between themselves, their thoughts and reality itself. (The Shapiro meme about "realz vs feelz" is a fun avatar of this concept). The further they abstract from reality, the more they assert that these abstractions are, indeerd real things.
We assume that being materialist and atheist, they would tie the mind to the body in a scientific way. Yet they don't. Trans activists (and trans is at its root feminist, despite the protestations of the feminists who regret it blowing up in their locker rooms) deny biology no more or less than feminists do, positing "gender essences" detached from biology while mainstream feminists posit the complete lack of any gender essence tied to biological sex. Maninstream feminism(s) all deny sex differentiation in the brain. I can remember the Billie Jean King vs Bobby Riggs tennis game, based on the idea that "women are only weaker than men because society (the Partiarchy) programmed to think so". this is patently absurd, and the TERFs will pretend none of them participated in this crap, but..... I remember. And that is now being revived (as all bad late 20th C feminists ideas are now, again, and always will be) as the "Women were the hunters too!" , featured in Internet articles, just last month.
One can argue that feminism is "effective" activism. They have agitated much and passed much legislation, but it is poor philosophy, based on inherent contradictions. It is rotten from the root. Just because they fail to see other possible feminism(s) that are possible routes to legitimate emancipation does not mean they dont exist. Mary Harrington is exploring these possibilitues, as did Betty Feidan, before the Marxist Lavender Menace piled on her. It however is poor philosophy, and even worse "biology" (trans being the peak expression of this). Now we have feminists invading the WEF, Davos and all kinds of NGOs and governments.
What I am contesting is that extreme leftism, that is Marxism and radical feminism is touted by individuals have a deep disconnect from their (own) bodies, their biology and science itself. This arose not just from reading the deranged texts, but from the apriori (unacknowledged by themselves) stance of individuals who possibly "think too much" (while ironically thinking too little lol) and do not DO things. Academics, laptop classes, women with mental illness and contentious relationships with their own embodied existence. They are unmoored from physical reality by some broadly recent societal developments, that are in fact being chipped away right now by biology rearing its ugly head. Their baby clocks are ticking, and their brains, like all brains, mens included, are telling them things about their physical nature, that they seek to deny. The coming declining economic standards, the tough reality that men often get by with physical labor (as much as "intellectuals" pretend that plugging in the laptop is no different or more difficult than pumping the evil oil to produce the electricity), student loans coming due, the dawning reality that maybe women too, "enslaved" their own children to care for them when old...... these will all push the feminist dialogue into the increasingly deranged territory of those deprived of basic needs and wants, still seeking a clever idea to save them, without doing the work.
I used to think you should separate the "artist from the work", the writer from the ideas, but after a thorough look at the practioners of leftist thought, I cant deny that their derangement is the source of the fatal flaws in their "work".
Try this experiement: engage in a discssion about real public policy and its consequences with a leftist. Immediately thy will "elevate" the discussion to at least one level of abstraction from where you started. The most extreme but daily expression is when the first salvo is "You're just a misogynist, etc." They are unable to engage in actual dialogue. My pet theory is that cognative dissonance makes them physically uncomfortable and they immediately flee this state with over arching, highly abstract unprovable assertions. Nearly all of the dialogue between feminists (and marxists) takes this form. I wold contend that in many cases their is no discussion going on, just a Sadean psychodrama meant to ameliorate their embodied discomfort in the face of their soilipsistic covert narcissism being illuminated.
Theres only so much energy that should be devoted to this, when necessary (recent "Substact Nazis" being a good example of a quick, firm riposte to the madness), but much calories and human capital are being wasted on debating people who are essentially doing their therapy in public without acknowledging that it is (in fact, very poor) therapy. Alinsky and Marx knew this. This is their genius. Unlike the covert narc NPCs who gobble up their ideas, they knew even the debate itself was a corrosive weapon, and they sold books and pushed them out to bring on this corrosion. They have the same mental illnesses as their readers and followers, they were only different in that they knew that the personal mental illness and the destruction it brings could be "politicized" to take out eveyone, so in the final reel, their "enemies" could be destroyed, and no matter if they are taken out too.
BTW I wont tar all WOMEN with the sins of a few feminists.
I will tar all feminists with the sins of "a few feminists". (certainly mainstream, well, known and quoted ones, who ideas are universally held among feminists)
This is a subtle subterfuge that feminists incepted in the public consciousness. the conflatin of "feminist" with "women" and the fall out that includes word strings such as "not all feminists", "not my feminism" etc.
We are still struggling with this. All Jews arent Zionists, despite all non-Jewish anti-Zionists being tarred with "antisemite" despite the clever silence in that formula being applied to prominent Jews who are anti-Zionist (being very forceful on the pro Gaza side); to do so would coin the neologism of "Antisemsetic Jews". Problematic.
All women arent feminists, yet any anti-feminism is labelled "misogyny".
They pull off the stunning derangement of launching a war against a group that they simultaneously imply doesnt exist. Its really something.
Joyce has not yet. On Lotus Eaters she claimed; "from the standpoint of evolutionary biology, men are obsolete"
Notice the conscession to "Scientism" not Science per se.
Theres a folding in of middle ground all around. Strange bed fellow cuddle up in hard times. The Daily Wire (and JBP) crowd are piling on MGTOW (a "rapey" paper tiger as they frame it, a real movement in reality, in response to the excesses of feminism), while while Joyce and her ilk, say they "arent feminists" per se, and try to fold in some sensible science, while still confusing her twisted misandrist "ought" with a false "evolutionary" "is" (as she miscontrues it).
"dissolution of patriarchy"
This was a bald faced lie.
they wanted to co opt it.
if Im wrong, they wanted to dismantle all hierarchy, meaning bring on "feminine chaos", anarchy. "If we cant hold the mountain, then no one will"
Better no one has more than anyone else, even if that means we are all poor.
Sociological studies confirm that many people prefer that to prosperity with inequality. It is the "personal is political". It is intrafeminine competition leveling the playing field. There is not enough to go around inside the longhouse; the female does not venture forth to hunt and increase the total resources, she is left to squabble for what is inside the longhouse.
But we now live in a time of unprecidented plenty.
Sour grapes.
Perhaps "real feminism" hasnt been tried yet.
Are you very familiar with the feminist ouvre?
Have you watched it's interplay with society for at least 40 years?
That is to say, it has, as you said, blended activism with philosophy, which is problemetic, from the start. Imagine a time 40 years from now when perhaps we have Gazans in the universities teaching a universalizing thought systems based in their personal "trauma", while pretending that there is something "real" and "universal" about their view of the world, while simulataneously denying that this trauma is embodied and colors their abstractions about all humans? We would be treated to the stunning conclusion that Gazans can speak for all humans, pretend that there was no greed, dirty politics and very real human contingencies baked in, and that we should all view "the Jews" as less than Gazans as human beings. this of course is happenning, and it is what happenned with feminism in regards to men.
There are two things underpinning feminism as we have it now, that it is tossed in all of our laps, as it becomes part and parcel of policy in the West: mental illness and Marxism. They travel together. I abhor "making the personal the political" but that ship has sailed. Whats galling is that they simultaneously push their trauma as "evidence" of abstract principles, while denying that this skews their thought. This is because the very deep hallmark of the left is a disconnection between themselves, their thoughts and reality itself. (The Shapiro meme about "realz vs feelz" is a fun avatar of this concept). The further they abstract from reality, the more they assert that these abstractions are, indeerd real things.
We assume that being materialist and atheist, they would tie the mind to the body in a scientific way. Yet they don't. Trans activists (and trans is at its root feminist, despite the protestations of the feminists who regret it blowing up in their locker rooms) deny biology no more or less than feminists do, positing "gender essences" detached from biology while mainstream feminists posit the complete lack of any gender essence tied to biological sex. Maninstream feminism(s) all deny sex differentiation in the brain. I can remember the Billie Jean King vs Bobby Riggs tennis game, based on the idea that "women are only weaker than men because society (the Partiarchy) programmed to think so". this is patently absurd, and the TERFs will pretend none of them participated in this crap, but..... I remember. And that is now being revived (as all bad late 20th C feminists ideas are now, again, and always will be) as the "Women were the hunters too!" , featured in Internet articles, just last month.
One can argue that feminism is "effective" activism. They have agitated much and passed much legislation, but it is poor philosophy, based on inherent contradictions. It is rotten from the root. Just because they fail to see other possible feminism(s) that are possible routes to legitimate emancipation does not mean they dont exist. Mary Harrington is exploring these possibilitues, as did Betty Feidan, before the Marxist Lavender Menace piled on her. It however is poor philosophy, and even worse "biology" (trans being the peak expression of this). Now we have feminists invading the WEF, Davos and all kinds of NGOs and governments.
What I am contesting is that extreme leftism, that is Marxism and radical feminism is touted by individuals have a deep disconnect from their (own) bodies, their biology and science itself. This arose not just from reading the deranged texts, but from the apriori (unacknowledged by themselves) stance of individuals who possibly "think too much" (while ironically thinking too little lol) and do not DO things. Academics, laptop classes, women with mental illness and contentious relationships with their own embodied existence. They are unmoored from physical reality by some broadly recent societal developments, that are in fact being chipped away right now by biology rearing its ugly head. Their baby clocks are ticking, and their brains, like all brains, mens included, are telling them things about their physical nature, that they seek to deny. The coming declining economic standards, the tough reality that men often get by with physical labor (as much as "intellectuals" pretend that plugging in the laptop is no different or more difficult than pumping the evil oil to produce the electricity), student loans coming due, the dawning reality that maybe women too, "enslaved" their own children to care for them when old...... these will all push the feminist dialogue into the increasingly deranged territory of those deprived of basic needs and wants, still seeking a clever idea to save them, without doing the work.
I used to think you should separate the "artist from the work", the writer from the ideas, but after a thorough look at the practioners of leftist thought, I cant deny that their derangement is the source of the fatal flaws in their "work".
Try this experiement: engage in a discssion about real public policy and its consequences with a leftist. Immediately thy will "elevate" the discussion to at least one level of abstraction from where you started. The most extreme but daily expression is when the first salvo is "You're just a misogynist, etc." They are unable to engage in actual dialogue. My pet theory is that cognative dissonance makes them physically uncomfortable and they immediately flee this state with over arching, highly abstract unprovable assertions. Nearly all of the dialogue between feminists (and marxists) takes this form. I wold contend that in many cases their is no discussion going on, just a Sadean psychodrama meant to ameliorate their embodied discomfort in the face of their soilipsistic covert narcissism being illuminated.
Theres only so much energy that should be devoted to this, when necessary (recent "Substact Nazis" being a good example of a quick, firm riposte to the madness), but much calories and human capital are being wasted on debating people who are essentially doing their therapy in public without acknowledging that it is (in fact, very poor) therapy. Alinsky and Marx knew this. This is their genius. Unlike the covert narc NPCs who gobble up their ideas, they knew even the debate itself was a corrosive weapon, and they sold books and pushed them out to bring on this corrosion. They have the same mental illnesses as their readers and followers, they were only different in that they knew that the personal mental illness and the destruction it brings could be "politicized" to take out eveyone, so in the final reel, their "enemies" could be destroyed, and no matter if they are taken out too.
BTW I wont tar all WOMEN with the sins of a few feminists.
I will tar all feminists with the sins of "a few feminists". (certainly mainstream, well, known and quoted ones, who ideas are universally held among feminists)
This is a subtle subterfuge that feminists incepted in the public consciousness. the conflatin of "feminist" with "women" and the fall out that includes word strings such as "not all feminists", "not my feminism" etc.
We are still struggling with this. All Jews arent Zionists, despite all non-Jewish anti-Zionists being tarred with "antisemite" despite the clever silence in that formula being applied to prominent Jews who are anti-Zionist (being very forceful on the pro Gaza side); to do so would coin the neologism of "Antisemsetic Jews". Problematic.
All women arent feminists, yet any anti-feminism is labelled "misogyny".
They pull off the stunning derangement of launching a war against a group that they simultaneously imply doesnt exist. Its really something.