Butler is under the illusion that people who disagree with her are " afraid" of gender. Nobody is "afraid" of something they don't believe in. For people like me who lived under communism, gender ideology is the new wooden language.
And also for people who didn't live under communism! I agree with you that we are not 'afraid' of gender ideology. Thanks for commenting, Alta, it's always a pleasure to hear from you.
I am a woman; wife, mother of five, grandmother; who loves men and appreciates them, too. This article skims the surface but I wholeheartedly agree that feminism has destroyed the world. I grieve for my sons in their quest for a suitable wife, and for what women have become. I cannot stand the females in my children's generation. They are stewed in feminism and do not even realize it. Instagram and TikTok are not their friend. I pray Jesus comes soon; what a mess we have made of things.
You're right that the essay merely skims the surface; I'm afraid I couldn't do more in such a short space. But perhaps that's down to my lack of skill as much as the lack of space and time! I hope it provoked some thought, anyway.
😊😊😊 The subject is a book, not an essay! You did a great job of pointing out some very salient facts and there are many more articles left here to do the desription and method of the damage justice. I look forward to reading more.
I have been teaching on college campuses for 40+ years, and I can tell you that as a market researcher, women's happiness and contentment with who they are and what is their purpose in life has been deteriorating because of bitter women who have rebelled against womanhood. We can't change who we are, what we look like or what constitutes happiness or better put, joy in our lives. At some point in the future women will accept more fully who they are and how they can have real joy in life. Hence, agree with Garry Powell's conclusion that there will be more peace, harmony and joy when people realize that men and women are partners who complement each other. Shared values and a return to having respect for the traditional family are the keys to joy and happiness.
Thanks, Joe. I wonder if you've specifically carried out research on women's happiness, and if you've published anything on it? I'm not doubting what you're saying--it makes complete sense, of course--I'd just be interested to see more evidence. Cheers.
"Last week, one of my readers said that I seemed to be presenting a misogynist position, but that’s far from the truth."
Rather than protest your innocence, perhaps you should simply shrug it off and say that misogyny is hardly a taboo and nobody cares.
Of course that will trigger both outrage and bewilderment! :)
How on Earth can you be so casual about misogyny when it's arguably the greatest taboo in society... and has been throughout all of history!!!! Look at all the literature of the ages and you will find that villains are indicated by their mistreatment of women, and heroes are indicated by their intolerance of villains (ie misogynists!). It's a language we have always understood and agreed with. A movie only has to hint that a man is abusive to his wife, or even a bit snarky and unkind to her, and we immediately know he is a villain.
And of course this reaction proves we have never lived in a 'patriarchy' the way that feminists define it. Or rather, it proves that 'patriarchy' (traditional gender roles) have always prioritised women's comfort, safety, wellbeing and protection from abuse and cruelty above all else.
In other words, feminism's claims could not be any further detached from reality. And we all know it.
Even feminists know this because if feminist theory was true (and women were really oppressed by men who hated women) then feminists would not dare to protest against their oppressors! Or at least, would do so like trembling mice.
You touched on feminism's true goal with the observations about reproduction. Feminism is a tactic of manipulative reproductive suppression. Feminism is women gaslighting other women into sabotaging their own reproductive success. This is the only explanation that is consistent with every aspect of feminism.
Taken as anything else (empowerment, happiness, power, liberation, freedom, equality etc) feminism makes no sense as a strategy, but as a vehicle to suppress rival women's reproductive success feminism makes perfect sense.
But why now? Women have always been fiercely competitive with other women so why has feminism not always existed?
Before the industrial revolution women competed for reproductive dominance by trying to maximise their own reproductive success. This meant trying to marry the most masculine, strong, capable man, build a stable home with him and have as many children as possible during your most fertile years. This goal kept women in the traditional feminine role.
But the industrial revolution raised living standards and lowered infant mortality rates which has made it much harder for women to outcompete other women in this area. Women's potential for reproductive success (number of children) has always been limited by biology anyway (men can potentially father 100 children, but not women), and our increased living standards have levelled the playing field even further, so that today any woman (rich, poor, single, on welfare, married, faithful, promiscuous, whatever) can achieve an equal number of children without having to necessarily make it their life's work (ie adhere to traditional gender roles and be good at it).
As a consequence the competition between women in post industrial nations has switched to a completely different strategy....... trying to gaslight rival women into LOWERING their reproductive success in order to give you a 'win' in relative terms.
This is achieved primarily through feminism. This is why feminism took off after the industrial revolution, as infant mortality rates began to plummet and the playing field between women was levelled out.
Yes, I agree; that's a very perceptive comment--indeed, one worth an essay of your own! And you're right that I should just shrug off any accusations of misogyny. 'I don't care,' as Rupert Lowe says whenever he's attacked. A good slogan!
Just looked it up. As I expected, gynophobia is the irrational fear of women. I don't think that my previous essay, or this one, shows any irrational fear. It's all based on evidence, including the evidence of my own eyes.
It is a pity that lunatic asylums have been emptied. Oh my mistake! They are now universities. Cicero did say there is no proposition so foolish that some philosopher has not advocated it. On a more optimistic note, young ladies seem very receptive to old fashioned kindness and courtesy from older gentlemen. One suspects they just really want to be courted by young gentlemen.
Yes, "..certain kind of feminised man can succeed too, particularly if he is self-effacing and apologetic" ....yet he won't be respected. And under an actual matriarchy no men would be respected. The only good men would be those who are useful to the most ruthless women at the top. And women who might disagree would be crushed.
Good one, Gary. You'd think more men would be on here weighing in on this. But maybe they're afraid. Easier to ignore this than to take a stand. I think most men agree with the study and your article. Some, in committed relationships keep quiet because they know that their women cannot allow you or themselves to 'agree to disagree.' If you agree with the article, and its points you are evil. Other men, unattached, know that if they want to have sex with a woman they have to either keep their views and opinions to themselves, or else just lie.
The only way this will ever change is if the men come to a point where they are willing to use their God-given masculinity and strength to re-take the reins of power.
Thanks, Paul, you're right. I do think that some men at least are beginning to reclaim their masculinity, and cherish the hope that we will regain our sanity. But whether that will happen in my lifetime or not, I cannot say. I hope so! On another note, I've nearly finished reading your novel--I apologise for taking so long. Should be complete in the next day or two. I'll be in touch.
If I don't know what I'm talking about, it would be courteous of you to educate me. I am very willing to be corrected where I am ignorant or misguided. But if, as you imply, your point is that radical feminists are all TERFS, whether that's true or not, I can't see what relevance it has to my thesis. Again, if I'm missing something critical, I'd like to know what.
I haven't read the article yet, but my first impression is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what radical feminism is. I thought I'd read the comments to get a feel for the article before I decide to read it. A common misunderstanding of 'radical feminism' is to attribute the term to anything under the feminism label that is stupid and dangerous. They think 'radical' means 'extreme', when it actually means 'going to the root'. It's an analysis of what are the root issues affecting women. I'm not a radical feminist, nor that interested in the different types of feminism, and I'm not that interested in educating people of basic issues they should already understand before they write a Substack on it. However, liberal feminism is pro prostitution, gender identity ideology, surrogacy and pushing women into all areas of power - girl boss and all that. All the bs that people often mean when they say 'Feminism'. Radical feminism is strongly opposed to liberal feminism because it is looking at the core vulnerabilities of women such as vulnerability to sexual assault and exploitation. They are against prostitution, surrogacy, gender identity ideology. Radical feminists and women aligned with these ideas are at the forefront of the push against gender identity ideology.
I can't speak for Mr Solospiritus, and don't presume to do so, but if he's English or British he may well be speaking tongue-in-cheek, as we say, a concept people of other countries often don't fully understand. It means speaking somewhat satirically. The complication, of course, is that even if we are speaking in jest, 'there's many a true word spoken in jest', as the old adage goes.
Butler is under the illusion that people who disagree with her are " afraid" of gender. Nobody is "afraid" of something they don't believe in. For people like me who lived under communism, gender ideology is the new wooden language.
And also for people who didn't live under communism! I agree with you that we are not 'afraid' of gender ideology. Thanks for commenting, Alta, it's always a pleasure to hear from you.
>And for heaven’s sake let’s start believing in love again!
"Love is like oxygen.
Love is a many-splendored thing.
Love lifts us up where we belong.
All you need is love!"
Thank you for this comment.
Moulin Rouge! I love that line.
I am a woman; wife, mother of five, grandmother; who loves men and appreciates them, too. This article skims the surface but I wholeheartedly agree that feminism has destroyed the world. I grieve for my sons in their quest for a suitable wife, and for what women have become. I cannot stand the females in my children's generation. They are stewed in feminism and do not even realize it. Instagram and TikTok are not their friend. I pray Jesus comes soon; what a mess we have made of things.
You're right that the essay merely skims the surface; I'm afraid I couldn't do more in such a short space. But perhaps that's down to my lack of skill as much as the lack of space and time! I hope it provoked some thought, anyway.
😊😊😊 The subject is a book, not an essay! You did a great job of pointing out some very salient facts and there are many more articles left here to do the desription and method of the damage justice. I look forward to reading more.
Thank you. You're right: it needs a book. But it's probably been written already by Louise Perry or Mary Harrington!
I have been teaching on college campuses for 40+ years, and I can tell you that as a market researcher, women's happiness and contentment with who they are and what is their purpose in life has been deteriorating because of bitter women who have rebelled against womanhood. We can't change who we are, what we look like or what constitutes happiness or better put, joy in our lives. At some point in the future women will accept more fully who they are and how they can have real joy in life. Hence, agree with Garry Powell's conclusion that there will be more peace, harmony and joy when people realize that men and women are partners who complement each other. Shared values and a return to having respect for the traditional family are the keys to joy and happiness.
Thanks, Joe. I wonder if you've specifically carried out research on women's happiness, and if you've published anything on it? I'm not doubting what you're saying--it makes complete sense, of course--I'd just be interested to see more evidence. Cheers.
"Last week, one of my readers said that I seemed to be presenting a misogynist position, but that’s far from the truth."
Rather than protest your innocence, perhaps you should simply shrug it off and say that misogyny is hardly a taboo and nobody cares.
Of course that will trigger both outrage and bewilderment! :)
How on Earth can you be so casual about misogyny when it's arguably the greatest taboo in society... and has been throughout all of history!!!! Look at all the literature of the ages and you will find that villains are indicated by their mistreatment of women, and heroes are indicated by their intolerance of villains (ie misogynists!). It's a language we have always understood and agreed with. A movie only has to hint that a man is abusive to his wife, or even a bit snarky and unkind to her, and we immediately know he is a villain.
And of course this reaction proves we have never lived in a 'patriarchy' the way that feminists define it. Or rather, it proves that 'patriarchy' (traditional gender roles) have always prioritised women's comfort, safety, wellbeing and protection from abuse and cruelty above all else.
In other words, feminism's claims could not be any further detached from reality. And we all know it.
Even feminists know this because if feminist theory was true (and women were really oppressed by men who hated women) then feminists would not dare to protest against their oppressors! Or at least, would do so like trembling mice.
You touched on feminism's true goal with the observations about reproduction. Feminism is a tactic of manipulative reproductive suppression. Feminism is women gaslighting other women into sabotaging their own reproductive success. This is the only explanation that is consistent with every aspect of feminism.
Taken as anything else (empowerment, happiness, power, liberation, freedom, equality etc) feminism makes no sense as a strategy, but as a vehicle to suppress rival women's reproductive success feminism makes perfect sense.
But why now? Women have always been fiercely competitive with other women so why has feminism not always existed?
Before the industrial revolution women competed for reproductive dominance by trying to maximise their own reproductive success. This meant trying to marry the most masculine, strong, capable man, build a stable home with him and have as many children as possible during your most fertile years. This goal kept women in the traditional feminine role.
But the industrial revolution raised living standards and lowered infant mortality rates which has made it much harder for women to outcompete other women in this area. Women's potential for reproductive success (number of children) has always been limited by biology anyway (men can potentially father 100 children, but not women), and our increased living standards have levelled the playing field even further, so that today any woman (rich, poor, single, on welfare, married, faithful, promiscuous, whatever) can achieve an equal number of children without having to necessarily make it their life's work (ie adhere to traditional gender roles and be good at it).
As a consequence the competition between women in post industrial nations has switched to a completely different strategy....... trying to gaslight rival women into LOWERING their reproductive success in order to give you a 'win' in relative terms.
This is achieved primarily through feminism. This is why feminism took off after the industrial revolution, as infant mortality rates began to plummet and the playing field between women was levelled out.
Yes, I agree; that's a very perceptive comment--indeed, one worth an essay of your own! And you're right that I should just shrug off any accusations of misogyny. 'I don't care,' as Rupert Lowe says whenever he's attacked. A good slogan!
Great conclusions, all is true.
Thank you! I really appreciate that.
In my commentary on the previous essay, I used the term gynophobia. Misogyny and gynophobia have different meanings.
Just looked it up. As I expected, gynophobia is the irrational fear of women. I don't think that my previous essay, or this one, shows any irrational fear. It's all based on evidence, including the evidence of my own eyes.
OK, sorry, I assumed they were synonyms. I will check the difference.
It is a pity that lunatic asylums have been emptied. Oh my mistake! They are now universities. Cicero did say there is no proposition so foolish that some philosopher has not advocated it. On a more optimistic note, young ladies seem very receptive to old fashioned kindness and courtesy from older gentlemen. One suspects they just really want to be courted by young gentlemen.
How dare you say such things! Next you will be saying children should be made to read Keats' poems and fall in love with each other!
Haha, yes, indeed I will!
Yes, "..certain kind of feminised man can succeed too, particularly if he is self-effacing and apologetic" ....yet he won't be respected. And under an actual matriarchy no men would be respected. The only good men would be those who are useful to the most ruthless women at the top. And women who might disagree would be crushed.
Yes, and that's exactly how it works. I've seen matriarchies at work, on a small scale, at universities. They're pretty ruthless.
I feel for you bro.
The sisterhood, no thanks.
Good one, Gary. You'd think more men would be on here weighing in on this. But maybe they're afraid. Easier to ignore this than to take a stand. I think most men agree with the study and your article. Some, in committed relationships keep quiet because they know that their women cannot allow you or themselves to 'agree to disagree.' If you agree with the article, and its points you are evil. Other men, unattached, know that if they want to have sex with a woman they have to either keep their views and opinions to themselves, or else just lie.
The only way this will ever change is if the men come to a point where they are willing to use their God-given masculinity and strength to re-take the reins of power.
I know I will never live to see it.
Thanks for posting.
Thanks, Paul, you're right. I do think that some men at least are beginning to reclaim their masculinity, and cherish the hope that we will regain our sanity. But whether that will happen in my lifetime or not, I cannot say. I hope so! On another note, I've nearly finished reading your novel--I apologise for taking so long. Should be complete in the next day or two. I'll be in touch.
Great essay, all true.
Thank you!
I think blaming our general ruin on one issue is also pretty dang destructive.
It may be a bit one-sided. Of course the ruin has many causes. But I think the feminisation of society is implicated in nearly all of them.
It would be a better essay if you knew what you were talking about. Radfems are all TERFs
If I don't know what I'm talking about, it would be courteous of you to educate me. I am very willing to be corrected where I am ignorant or misguided. But if, as you imply, your point is that radical feminists are all TERFS, whether that's true or not, I can't see what relevance it has to my thesis. Again, if I'm missing something critical, I'd like to know what.
I haven't read the article yet, but my first impression is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what radical feminism is. I thought I'd read the comments to get a feel for the article before I decide to read it. A common misunderstanding of 'radical feminism' is to attribute the term to anything under the feminism label that is stupid and dangerous. They think 'radical' means 'extreme', when it actually means 'going to the root'. It's an analysis of what are the root issues affecting women. I'm not a radical feminist, nor that interested in the different types of feminism, and I'm not that interested in educating people of basic issues they should already understand before they write a Substack on it. However, liberal feminism is pro prostitution, gender identity ideology, surrogacy and pushing women into all areas of power - girl boss and all that. All the bs that people often mean when they say 'Feminism'. Radical feminism is strongly opposed to liberal feminism because it is looking at the core vulnerabilities of women such as vulnerability to sexual assault and exploitation. They are against prostitution, surrogacy, gender identity ideology. Radical feminists and women aligned with these ideas are at the forefront of the push against gender identity ideology.
Early life check, checks out.
Women in thrall!
What do you mean Henry??
I can't speak for Mr Solospiritus, and don't presume to do so, but if he's English or British he may well be speaking tongue-in-cheek, as we say, a concept people of other countries often don't fully understand. It means speaking somewhat satirically. The complication, of course, is that even if we are speaking in jest, 'there's many a true word spoken in jest', as the old adage goes.