randombio.com | commentary
Monday, January 27, 2020

When feminism was our adversary, we didn't know how good we had it

Compared to the malevolent movement that came out of it, feminism was utterly benign

T he Guardian, the go-to site for those wishing to discover the left's latest imaginative scheme for turning us all into serfs, had an article a few days ago claiming that computer dongles are polluting the planet, another one from a millionaire claiming he wants to pay more taxes, and—as most commented— another titled “the BBC is a pillar of civilisation. No wonder populists want to destroy it.”

Great stuff. If the Babylon Bee ever purchased the Graun to go with their “acquisition” of CNN, it'd create the greatest satire empire in history.

Imagine my shock, then, when I discovered an article by someone named Jessa Crispin on that colossus of collectivism that actually made sense. Crispin says Hillary Clinton represents not feminism but corporatism, calling her hypocritical for her association with Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein. From there, she (or maybe he, you can't be sure over there) says what conservatives have been saying for, like, totally ever:

The real issue of representation in our culture isn't that there aren't enough visible powerful women. It's that what is represented in our culture as feminism is actually corporatism.

She then blasts feminist CEOs, singers and actors for using feminism as a career tool:

We have a lot of powerful women for ambitious little girls to look up to these days. They are political leaders, captains of industry, writers, and politically conscious musicians and actors. The one thing they have in common is their willingness to use the feminist label to get ahead, with no thought to the damage they might do to the movement as a result.

This is mostly sheepherding—unbelief shaming—to keep the flock in line, but it also reveals that bitter reality is starting to leak in through the cracks, like a gigantic feminine hygiene product looming on the horizon on a cold winter morning. As I wrote before, if your ideology isn't based on reality, your world will fall apart just as you seem to be reaching your goal. This is what's happening now.

The problem with punishing unbelief is that you can no longer believe anything anyone says. Was Taylor Swift really sincere when she started bashing Republicans, or was it the price for getting that cushy role in that smash hit movie Cats? When academics are forced to write D&I statements in order to be considered for a job, how does anyone know if they're sincere? It is impossible.

While there are still millions who call themselves feminists, and some of them still have some good ideas, as an ideological force feminism is pretty much over. All over the Internet we see evidence that evolutionary determinism is replacing it. A Bing search for ‘hypergamy’ will bring up 485,000 articles on this alternative to the postmodern idea that power, coercion, and propaganda are arbiters of truth. The new ideology, derived in part from anthropology, says that sex roles are determined genetically, not allocated by social convention. It's an effective counter­weight against every tenet of feminism save one: they both share a core belief that there are, indeed, two sexes. That was feminism's foundational belief, and it is now being challenged on the left. Without it, feminism cannot survive.

Determinism is primarily a reaction to biology denialism. Now the shoe has come home to roost, the chickens are on the other foot, and feminism's petard has gone all explodey and hoisty.

Sure, the feminists were too busy to reproduce. Sure, they were unwittingly pushing us toward a grim future of soulless sexbots and incubators, but at least feminists shared some ideals with the mainstream, and they were trying, with some limited success, to put their misandry behind them. But it was their conviction that sex roles were social constructs that is finishing feminism off.

It was the postmodern idea they championed—that inequality of outcome was by its existence proof of discrimination and a problem for government to solve—that is replacing it. It is called ‘equity,’ and it means exactly what it sounds like: forcibly taking control of financial resources and redistributing them to make all outcomes equal for all identity groups. As an article titled “Equity Warriors” describes, under equity, law enforcement is cut back until the prisons have the ‘right’ ethnic composition, universities stop considering merit as a criterion for admission or faculty hiring, and governments use punitive taxation to force companies to give equal pay to all employees regardless of skill.

Despite its fine-sounding name, it is disparate impact on steroids. Much of it is racially motivated and pro-crime, and if unchallenged it will lead to the worst form of confiscatory, punitive government. To make it work, governments would have to implement heavy wealth taxes. This would destroy the middle class. Lack of enforcement will cause a huge increase in crime, which would drive the middle class from the cities, turning them all into decrepit shells resembling Detroit. From there, things would go downhill. If it's not stopped, it will tear the country apart.

If only they could go back to wearing those cute little pink hats again, we promise not to make fun of them this time. It's too late, of course: once a bad idea gets established, it's tough to get rid of it.

jan 27 2020, 5:33 am

Related Articles

The world is running out of short bald humans
Whether it's sexbots, Roombas, or self-crashing cars, the robots are poised to inherit the earth.

Problems with linear regression
First, a tedious statistical question. We'll fix the end of the world later

Femzilla versus the sexbots
Feminism will permanently change how humans reproduce. We might not like it.

On the Internet, no one can tell whether you're a dolphin or a porpoise

book reviews