There is a concept called "Horseshoe Theory" (or effect) whereby those at the extreme ends of political views end up quite similar (authoritarian). I consider it a failure of reason of both sides (left and right) at the extreme and are in ideological wastelands - dictated more via emotion and reactionary narratives then that of reasoned discourse. The more traditional socialist left at least had a rigor that was based in a historical philosophical inquiry that the "new left" has no time for. "Identity Politics" is often called the "cancer of the left" within the left itself. The "Left" is yet to come to terms with the perversion of liberalism that embodies "identity politics" and refuses to consider criticism that such politics also give credence to the rise of right wing white nationalism are a reaction to such.
The new left (I blame relativism and postmodernism in universities) gave "lived experience" and identity prominence over rational discourse and intellectual inquiry. Somewhere along the line it became fashionable for those entering university not to discover the truths of history, science, and philosophy but to "change the world" based on their own perceived personal injustices. Feelings over facts. Instead of steeling themselves in debate and challenges their world view they retreated to safe spaces - an intellectual shrinking of one's world, not an expansion.
The end result is that what was once a shining light in learning from history and the humanities became a witch hunt in re-interpreting great works through the lens of the "oppressed". Feminism (or Women's studies) became anti-intellectual (as a political movement it had to be) and its tentacles spread throughout the humanities departments throughout the Western world. In order to get published in a feminist journal one has to acknowledge and make the subject of oppression the very reason for the paper.
Denial that oppression as a presupposition to all discourse is not allowed to be disputed else one falls into the rhetorical technique of the Kafka trap - denial is guilt. Somewhere along the way some in feminism decided justice itself was the very representation of patriarchy. The concept of justice in Western Liberal Democracies has always stated that one is innocent until proven guilty Furthermore it is more morally unjust for an innocent man to to be punished then for a guilty man to walk free - modern day pop media feminism appears not to hold such views (e.g. #MeToo)
As Women' studies faculties became more entrenched and feminist authors become "published", feminism became an industry. An industry that ceased to believe in "objective truth" as "truth" does not pay - it became a self serving industry that peddles oppression and patriarchy - these two concept pay the bills. Career feminists are now the norm - who cares about real oppression when I can get a book published. Take a journey into the dogs breakfast that is feminist theory and you enter the twilight zone. It is basically the wild west that has an agreed internal cease fire (bar the radical fems vs the gender fems) because mutual annihilation is assured.
There is some light at the end of the tunnel - "Intersectional feminism" - taken to its theoretical end, it basically eliminates the concept of "women as a class" of oppressed people (and for that manner men as a definable class of oppressors). Intersectional feminism states women can be oppressed in multitudes of ways "ethnicity, age, economic class, disability, intellectual history...the list goes on". The beauty of Intersectional Feminism is that in coming out of its quagmire of accommodation in order to get popularity (Bell Hooks smart girl - what have you done) came the feminist "trans positive" movement - the Antichrist of feminism
A great popcorn moment is reading feminist theory attempting to reconcile the trans movement within gender (or liberal) feminism . No matter how hard they try and how much intellectual gymnastics you read - the two are fundamentally at odds. The basic tenant of gender feminism is a gender is a social construct. They gender feminists in their infinite wisdom wish to eliminate all that is biological in behavior - why you ask? It is nothing to do with truth and everything to do with the ability to rationalize the perceived power to change behavior - if some behavior is innate and biological it is not socially changeable - viola! Nothing more to it then that. No amount of books, papers, social change etc will change some innate biological behavior. For the gender feminist (the majority feminists in university campuses today) it is all about money and power to feather one's own nest - self edifying wokeness
Yet ask a gender feminist (trans positive supporter), how can a trans person be born in the wrong body if gender is a social construct? - hello biology babe. The TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Feminists - just 2nd generation feminists) are having none of it - yet still they shit blank refuse to acknowledge they are somehow supporting biological determinism and that yes biology does have a say in our behavior - it is all very silly. - See what I mean by feminist theory being a "dogs breakfast"
In my oppressing opinion the Radical 2nd Gen feminists took Marx's class based oppression and using this as the basis of their oppression narrative at least had something interesting to say. The gender oppression thing kind of falls down though when one takes a closer look at behavior from a psychological perspective - namely the human condition and associated behaviors are shaped by not just gender but many other factors (socio-economic, culture (feminists won't touch this - relativism remember, family situation, lifestyle, personality etc).
Thank God I am not a confused conflicted feminist.
The new left (I blame relativism and postmodernism in universities) gave "lived experience" and identity prominence over rational discourse and intellectual inquiry. Somewhere along the line it became fashionable for those entering university not to discover the truths of history, science, and philosophy but to "change the world" based on their own perceived personal injustices. Feelings over facts. Instead of steeling themselves in debate and challenges their world view they retreated to safe spaces - an intellectual shrinking of one's world, not an expansion.
The end result is that what was once a shining light in learning from history and the humanities became a witch hunt in re-interpreting great works through the lens of the "oppressed". Feminism (or Women's studies) became anti-intellectual (as a political movement it had to be) and its tentacles spread throughout the humanities departments throughout the Western world. In order to get published in a feminist journal one has to acknowledge and make the subject of oppression the very reason for the paper.
Denial that oppression as a presupposition to all discourse is not allowed to be disputed else one falls into the rhetorical technique of the Kafka trap - denial is guilt. Somewhere along the way some in feminism decided justice itself was the very representation of patriarchy. The concept of justice in Western Liberal Democracies has always stated that one is innocent until proven guilty Furthermore it is more morally unjust for an innocent man to to be punished then for a guilty man to walk free - modern day pop media feminism appears not to hold such views (e.g. #MeToo)
As Women' studies faculties became more entrenched and feminist authors become "published", feminism became an industry. An industry that ceased to believe in "objective truth" as "truth" does not pay - it became a self serving industry that peddles oppression and patriarchy - these two concept pay the bills. Career feminists are now the norm - who cares about real oppression when I can get a book published. Take a journey into the dogs breakfast that is feminist theory and you enter the twilight zone. It is basically the wild west that has an agreed internal cease fire (bar the radical fems vs the gender fems) because mutual annihilation is assured.
There is some light at the end of the tunnel - "Intersectional feminism" - taken to its theoretical end, it basically eliminates the concept of "women as a class" of oppressed people (and for that manner men as a definable class of oppressors). Intersectional feminism states women can be oppressed in multitudes of ways "ethnicity, age, economic class, disability, intellectual history...the list goes on". The beauty of Intersectional Feminism is that in coming out of its quagmire of accommodation in order to get popularity (Bell Hooks smart girl - what have you done) came the feminist "trans positive" movement - the Antichrist of feminism
A great popcorn moment is reading feminist theory attempting to reconcile the trans movement within gender (or liberal) feminism . No matter how hard they try and how much intellectual gymnastics you read - the two are fundamentally at odds. The basic tenant of gender feminism is a gender is a social construct. They gender feminists in their infinite wisdom wish to eliminate all that is biological in behavior - why you ask? It is nothing to do with truth and everything to do with the ability to rationalize the perceived power to change behavior - if some behavior is innate and biological it is not socially changeable - viola! Nothing more to it then that. No amount of books, papers, social change etc will change some innate biological behavior. For the gender feminist (the majority feminists in university campuses today) it is all about money and power to feather one's own nest - self edifying wokeness
Yet ask a gender feminist (trans positive supporter), how can a trans person be born in the wrong body if gender is a social construct? - hello biology babe. The TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Feminists - just 2nd generation feminists) are having none of it - yet still they shit blank refuse to acknowledge they are somehow supporting biological determinism and that yes biology does have a say in our behavior - it is all very silly. - See what I mean by feminist theory being a "dogs breakfast"
In my oppressing opinion the Radical 2nd Gen feminists took Marx's class based oppression and using this as the basis of their oppression narrative at least had something interesting to say. The gender oppression thing kind of falls down though when one takes a closer look at behavior from a psychological perspective - namely the human condition and associated behaviors are shaped by not just gender but many other factors (socio-economic, culture (feminists won't touch this - relativism remember, family situation, lifestyle, personality etc).
Thank God I am not a confused conflicted feminist.
Last edited:
