The Roots of Risibility

Before the euphoric rainbow jizz of affirmation was liberally spaffed everywhere in our society, we had feminism. There have been many (mostly men, I suspect) who have claimed that, actually, feminism has been the root cause of much of today’s madness. They see the current struggles of women to preserve their identities as women as a sort of payback for the excesses of earlier feminism.

There is some truth in that perspective. After all, the notion that apart from a few inconvenient physical differences men and women are basically the same¹, an idea vigorously promoted by feminism, and that any non-physical differences were socially constructed, has directly led to a serious de-coupling of biology from what it means to “be a woman”.

Once you’ve done that, then “being a woman” is more about a state of mind than anything else. It is society, not anything innate, that principally determines what a woman is in this perspective. Any subjective feeling or difference arises, then, as a result of society’s impact that one has ‘internalized’.

You can see why this line of argumentation is useful when you want to take on a ‘system’ that has imposed artificial limitations on women’s potential. Why should a woman’s horizon be limited by the cot and the kitchen? But you can also see how it’s opened up Pandora’s 2nd box - the box of unintended consequences.

The real problem with these kinds of discussions, as it is with so much of the ‘discourse’ of today, is that women, and men for that matter, are not some kind of homogeneous blob that all think (or feel) the same way.

Now, I don’t know whether anyone else has spotted this, or whether it’s just me, but men and women are different. I’ve noticed, for example, that men’s and women’s chests seem to be different and one kind of chest can provoke what can best be described as an, erm, emotional reaction in me.

I’m surprised no one else has noticed it (the difference, not my reaction, I mean).

My emotional reaction to these chest constructions is, of course, socially constructed. It’s my socially constructed toxic masculinity that has an entirely inappropriate reaction. And, of course, because I’m not 6 feet tall, handsome, rich, or in possession of a six-pack, my reaction is definitely creepy.

OK, I’m being somewhat snarky and silly to make a point. The point is that of sexual desire. This is a basic and innate thing that can (and often does) get all manipulated and altered by societal conditions. I mean, it’s not like donning the latex and wearing a gimp mask has any direct evolutionary driver, is it?

Sexual desire is not something we’re ever going to be able to wish away. Sure, the exact form that desire and attraction takes does get moulded and munged a bit by complex societal factors, but the basic thing that is built into us is a desire for sex.

It could be no other way. Without it we’d have died off as a species long before Mr Ugg ever said to his Mrs “hey love, can you make me a mastodon sandwich? And get me a beer while you’re at it”.

What’s the purpose of this?

It may come of something of a surprise to many, but the reason is not about milking some poor sap on Only Fans (in more ways than one) so that you get can rich quick.

The purpose is to make babies.

A bit of a radical idea, I know.

My 1st beef with much of modern feminism isn’t in its goal to achieve equality with men so that women’s horizons were not limited as before - that was a good, even a great, thing. No, it’s in the relegation of home, family and motherhood as being some kind of vastly ‘inferior’ option.

We’ll come back to what’s being taught in schools in a bit, but is motherhood given as much positive ‘press’ in schools these days as are things like being trans, or one of umpteen fanciful genders, or even butt plugs?

In my view (the fascistic and misogynistic old dinosaur that I am) motherhood is a very special thing. It’s not for everyone, to be sure, but those who opt for this should be cherished and supported. Being a mother is, after all, something that only a woman can do.

My 2nd beef is in its continual degradation of men.

At the same time things like drive, ambition, aggression, competitiveness and competence are being celebrated as characteristics of the modern woman (“hear me roar”) they’re also being classed as aspects of toxic masculinity in the modern man.

Weirdly, however, there are many women who still find these characteristics in a man to be very attractive. It’s not very likely that the wimpy soy boy who gushes and emotes all over the place is one of those 3 sixes much desired by many women (6 figure salary, 6 feet tall, 6 pack).

At a time when boys and young men are noticeably starting to fall behind in our societies there are still endless programs promoting women, but very few, if any, trying to boost the prospects of these young men who are being left behind.

I kind of hate all of this. I hate having to talk about men and women as if they are some different species, when our efforts should be about building a society in which both are properly recognized and fairly treated, each with their own issues, and helped to work in harmony with one another.

But it has to be based in reality. If you think human beings are just some kind of blank slate upon which the ‘rules’ of society are written, you’re not entirely facing up to reality. If you think that all our behaviours and feelings are wholly determined by our biology you’re not entirely facing up to reality, either.

So where am I going with all this preamble?

I was reading another fantastic article from Janice Fiamengo. JF has, for a long time, been pointing out inconsistencies and double standards in feminist thinking². In certain respects we might view feminism as the original ‘grievance study’; it probably got the ball rolling on all of the subsequent academic grievance ‘disciplines’ that metastasized everywhere (like fat studies, whiteness studies, etc).

Feminist teaching encourages boys as young as 11 years old to hate themselves (and women)

Now, just because something is a ‘grievance study’, with all the associated absurdity hilariously exposed by Boghossian, Lindsay and Pluckrose, does not mean that there is not some substance to the actual ‘grievance’. I would totally agree that society when I was growing up did treat women poorly in some respects - and that needed to change³.

The problem with ‘grievance studies’ is just excruciatingly awful, even embarrassing, ‘scholarship’. There’s a great example of such ‘scholarship’ in Fiamengo’s article. She reports on a two-year study (yes, two whole years) in which the 3 authors conducted self-selected interviews (they posted ads for participants on social media) from 30, yes 30, female teachers.

One wonders how they ever coped with such a workload?

This is not scholarship, it’s a Twitter𝕏 discussion conducted via the medium of an academic journal.

You can read about the ‘results’ of this not-really-very-exhaustive study in JF’s article.

On a side note, since I started noticing the infectious insanity that is ‘woke’, I must have used millions of speech marks - it seems there’s no other choice because their view of reality and what language means differs vastly from mine.

You’ll notice from the article that much modern ‘teaching’ is all about changing the boys into something more acceptable to an ideologically-possessed feminist.

The view seems to have arisen that men are basically some kind of emotionally-deficient woman and that, with a bit of help, they can overcome all of their masculine tendencies and become some sort of quasi-woman (at least emotionally). Group hugs, tears, endless analysis of one’s inner feelings, therapy, . . . all that sort of stuff.

If we could only get more men to do all that then they’d be a little bit less, well, like men.

But guys, don’t panic, there are plenty of women out there who will help us on our emotional journey. And so we can make use of insightful articles like this one

The 8 phrases are interesting. Apparently, according to the article when a man says “I don’t care” it doesn’t mean what you might think it does :

When a man uses this phrase, it could indicate an inability to express emotions or understand the feelings of others.

It’s not that they genuinely don’t care; they often just don’t know how to engage in an emotionally charged conversation or situation.

This kind of comment can leave you feeling dismissed or ignored.

It’s essential to remember that this lack of empathy is not necessarily intentional. It’s just a symptom of their struggle with social skills.

Or it could just mean “I don’t care” perhaps?

What are the other phrases then?

• I’m fine

• Whatever

• Let’s just drop it

• I don’t know

• It’s not a big deal

• So what?

• Does it matter?

My friend, who sent me the article, makes the rather telling point that these are all codes for “Please, for the love of God, will you just leave me alone”.

Men and women (tend to) process their emotions in a different way. One is not necessarily better than another. Sometimes men would benefit from not trying to avoid a difficult conversation, and sometimes women do over-indulge in the whole ‘emotional analysis’ thing. It depends very much on the specifics and there’s no hard and fast rule.

If you do read this ultra-patronising article you’ll realize that it basically views men’s reactions as arising from inadequacy and that men need to be helped to overcome their deficiencies.

Have no fear, the superior and empathetic women will sort it all out for you in a nice way that helps you overcome your childlike state.

Is it really any wonder why arseholes like Andrew Tate are so popular amongst young men these days?

1. And there have even been some feminist academics who have claimed that some physical advantages enjoyed by men, like in sports for example, are a result of social conditioning and that in a different, more equitable society, the performance of men and women in sports would be on a par. It’s utter tosh, of course.

2. Not all. Obviously. It must be recognized that ‘feminism’, like women, is not some monolithic block - there’s considerable diversity. Proper diversity of thought and opinion, not some faux diversity based on superficial characteristics.

3. One of the problems with viewing the world in a ‘grievance’ way is that it becomes very difficult to acknowledge when genuine positive progress has been made. Your livelihood and, to a large part, your whole persona and identity become enmeshed in the perpetuation of the struggle. Thus we see, for example, that despite many massive improvements to the treatment of women when compared to historical ‘norms’ people will claim it’s just as bad as it has ever been, and maybe worse.