Main Edition
US
FR
We need more JK Rowlings (AFP via Getty Images)
If 2022 has been the year of the “woman”, it is a tale with two different final chapters: one hopeful, one less so. The first is set in a distant country, where an archaic, theocratic regime threatens to be toppled by women throwing down their hijabs and demanding their emancipation. The second plays out in a more familiar setting but in an unfamiliar language; a Western nation where the word “woman” itself no longer has any meaning, its definition rewritten to include “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth”.
This is the paradox of the past 12 months: the existence of women is being questioned in the very place where female emancipation has come furthest, while in places where women remain shackled to medieval notions of honour and chastity, true feminism is at its strongest.
Why should we worry about dictionary definitions, when everyone knows what a woman is anyway? This may seem like a fair question. Yet simply dismissing the erasure of a word as a “culture war issue” misunderstands the forces that drive it. As Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay noted in their 2020 book Cynical Theories, language is now viewed as a tool of oppression, and thus must be altered in the name of so-called “liberation”. These arguments over the word “woman”, then, have wider repercussions: they are fronts in a greater war that will determine how language itself is used.
Those who would divorce “woman” from its biological implications often present their ideas as innocuous. They are, we are told, simply champions of “inclusion”. But their ideology is hardly uncontroversial, and surrendering to it is not harmless. The past year has seen reports of transgender women attacking women in female-only spaces and unfairly winning trophies in women’s sports. The spirit of these failures was perhaps best-distilled in the words of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who in March was unable to define what being a woman entailed during her Senate confirmation hearing. “I’m not a biologist,” she said, as if one needed to be a professional scientist to know basic biological facts.
A word of clarification. I am immensely sympathetic to the plight of transgender people and believe they ought to have the same moral and legal rights as everyone else. To be against militant trans activists’ gender ideology is not to be transphobic. Rather, it is simply to agree, as Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie succinctly put it, that “trans women are trans women”. Adichie was savaged for this and other statements evincing wrongthink, but acknowledging that trans women are distinct from women, that there are potential conflicts between their rights, and that gender ideology opens the door to abusive men masquerading as women, should not be controversial. Standing up for the rights of transgender people should not mean pretending sex does not exist altogether.
Indulging in this fantasy can have perverse, and dangerous, repercussions — both at home and abroad. Here in the West, it culminates in a myopic worldview which holds that a bestselling author (and domestic abuse survivor) should be trolled for funding a women-only service for victims of sexual abuse. Elsewhere in the world, the erosion of our understanding of what it means to be a “woman” has more immediate consequences.
Consider what has taken place in Kenya, Iran and Afghanistan in just the past two months. In Kenya, while women in America debated what we should call a person born with a cervix, FGM has taken a new and insidious form. In Iran, the female-led protests that followed the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian woman who was arrested for breaking mandatory dress code laws, have been met with an equally inhumane response. Reports abound of Iran’s security services raping protestors and shooting at the faces and genitals of female protesters. And in Afghanistan, the Taliban government reintroduced Sharia Law, meaning women are now barred from walking outside without a male relative and must cover up with a burqa or hijab when outside the home. Earlier this month, a woman was publicly flogged for entering a shop without a male guardian. Last week, the Taliban banned women from studying at university
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis goes immediately in the “best of 2022” list.
“If 2022 is the year of the “woman”, let’s hope 2023 will be the year when we can delete those quotation marks.”
One of the best quotes ever.
Anyway, not much to add to the article except thank you and “Amen”!
Hear! Hear!
God bless Ayaan. First she helped awaken us to the darker side of unreformed radical Islam and the cruelties inflicted on millions women by it and the associated ultra patriarchal cultures. Now she rightly points the finger at another more modern absolutist ‘supremacist’ ideology, bent on crushing freedom of expression and our subjugation to a warped credo in the West; the toxic identitarianism of the so called progressives (how I hate that they are called as such). Too many Western ‘feminists’ have totally betrayed Islamic women, turning their backs on their suffering. Where are the protests to match George Floyd? 350 girls are shot. Yet they stay silent about the revolution in Iran. Why such cowardice? Firstly, fear of violence. Second, because the Elect identitarians have a demented Hierarchy of Greviance & Privilege and Victimhood, and being critical of Islam is a greater more raycist sin than condemning trans ultras bullying women. Black victimhood tops both. Both of these anti modern anti women credos must be called out. Both are totalitarian and a threat to all our freedoms. Heed Ayaan’s words.
The problem with assuming the trans stuff will go away is that it’s an establishment ideology, pertaining to be the ideology of the downtrodden. I don’t think trans activists were arguing that transwomen were actually women a few years ago, there was merely a push to make the GRC easier to obtain – for instance it used to force a divorce, by necessity, prior to gay marriage.
Meanwhile most Oxbridge undergraduates believe in it, and many are trans themselves of course, where that mostly involves a guy putting on a wig, declaring himself a woman and having a “lesbian” relationship with his female partner. This makes the Cambridge undergraduate not just more interesting than before, but he’s now oppressed by the porter who is no doubt a cis male. The undergraduate is no longer a cis white male (a formula of words that removes class and nation anyway) but an oppressed transwoman.
Who’s oppressing him? Women and working class folk mostly.
Good luck with reversing that ideology without an actual revolution.
It’s quite simple really.
An entire interconnected apparatus was developed in the West to fight for women’s rights as well as gay rights…young people started working for the causes with strong ideals…then the passage of time happened…
…kids came along, hobbies were acquired, car loans and expenses multiplied….
But what happens when a cause is won? What happens when the oppressed get what they wanted?
Women now outnumber men in the college-educated workforce. More women go to college too. Gays can marry with much fanfare. DIE programs promote such categories more quickly than white men who are now stuck in dead-end jobs at the bottom of the social latter. This trend is projected to continue for many decades.
So what happens when many LGB and women stop sending checks to those organizations that fought for and won their rights? What happens when LGB and women lose interest in following the cause after they’re full fledged members of society?
The workers within these activist organizations (and the PhDs in academia) have sticky expenses. Mortgages haven’t gone away, kids are still young, hobbies and pursuits still beckon.
But the bills aren’t getting paid anymore. And their “community organizer” skill-set doesn’t transfer well enough into a sufficient number of corporate-paid jobs. They can’t just lay down their swords to go make an honest living…
…so they become mercenaries.
The leaders in these organizations need to find another source of income, which means new causes with money backing those causes.
So women and gays now follow their forebears (i.e.white men) into the world of ‘toxic’ stereotypes as they are set aside for the new victim class.
Follow the money and none of this is a surprise.
DIE instead of DEI…perhaps a Freudian slip? 🙂 I’ll leave it unedited.
Nice, you should get Unherd to let you write this up into a fully fledged article.
DIE instead of DEI…perhaps a Freudian slip? 🙂 I’ll leave it unedited.
Nice, you should get Unherd to let you write this up into a fully fledged article.
It’s quite simple really.
An entire interconnected apparatus was developed in the West to fight for women’s rights as well as gay rights…young people started working for the causes with strong ideals…then the passage of time happened…
…kids came along, hobbies were acquired, car loans and expenses multiplied….
But what happens when a cause is won? What happens when the oppressed get what they wanted?
Women now outnumber men in the college-educated workforce. More women go to college too. Gays can marry with much fanfare. DIE programs promote such categories more quickly than white men who are now stuck in dead-end jobs at the bottom of the social latter. This trend is projected to continue for many decades.
So what happens when many LGB and women stop sending checks to those organizations that fought for and won their rights? What happens when LGB and women lose interest in following the cause after they’re full fledged members of society?
The workers within these activist organizations (and the PhDs in academia) have sticky expenses. Mortgages haven’t gone away, kids are still young, hobbies and pursuits still beckon.
But the bills aren’t getting paid anymore. And their “community organizer” skill-set doesn’t transfer well enough into a sufficient number of corporate-paid jobs. They can’t just lay down their swords to go make an honest living…
…so they become mercenaries.
The leaders in these organizations need to find another source of income, which means new causes with money backing those causes.
So women and gays now follow their forebears (i.e.white men) into the world of ‘toxic’ stereotypes as they are set aside for the new victim class.
Follow the money and none of this is a surprise.
“ we need more JK Rowlings and fewer Ketanji Brown Jacksons.”
THIS!!
A great point made in the article about feminists still allying themselves to ‘progressives’, which is often echoed in the comments on Unherd.
It begs the question…….When something ‘radical’ becomes accepted in society, like feminism and homosexuality has been for decades now, then is there a time when these newly forged conformists should move over to the conservative side of society to protect their new found rights?
Two thumbs up. Thank you so much for this piece.
Hear! Hear!
God bless Ayaan. First she helped awaken us to the darker side of unreformed radical Islam and the cruelties inflicted on millions women by it and the associated ultra patriarchal cultures. Now she rightly points the finger at another more modern absolutist ‘supremacist’ ideology, bent on crushing freedom of expression and our subjugation to a warped credo in the West; the toxic identitarianism of the so called progressives (how I hate that they are called as such). Too many Western ‘feminists’ have totally betrayed Islamic women, turning their backs on their suffering. Where are the protests to match George Floyd? 350 girls are shot. Yet they stay silent about the revolution in Iran. Why such cowardice? Firstly, fear of violence. Second, because the Elect identitarians have a demented Hierarchy of Greviance & Privilege and Victimhood, and being critical of Islam is a greater more raycist sin than condemning trans ultras bullying women. Black victimhood tops both. Both of these anti modern anti women credos must be called out. Both are totalitarian and a threat to all our freedoms. Heed Ayaan’s words.
The problem with assuming the trans stuff will go away is that it’s an establishment ideology, pertaining to be the ideology of the downtrodden. I don’t think trans activists were arguing that transwomen were actually women a few years ago, there was merely a push to make the GRC easier to obtain – for instance it used to force a divorce, by necessity, prior to gay marriage.
Meanwhile most Oxbridge undergraduates believe in it, and many are trans themselves of course, where that mostly involves a guy putting on a wig, declaring himself a woman and having a “lesbian” relationship with his female partner. This makes the Cambridge undergraduate not just more interesting than before, but he’s now oppressed by the porter who is no doubt a cis male. The undergraduate is no longer a cis white male (a formula of words that removes class and nation anyway) but an oppressed transwoman.
Who’s oppressing him? Women and working class folk mostly.
Good luck with reversing that ideology without an actual revolution.
“ we need more JK Rowlings and fewer Ketanji Brown Jacksons.”
THIS!!
A great point made in the article about feminists still allying themselves to ‘progressives’, which is often echoed in the comments on Unherd.
It begs the question…….When something ‘radical’ becomes accepted in society, like feminism and homosexuality has been for decades now, then is there a time when these newly forged conformists should move over to the conservative side of society to protect their new found rights?
Two thumbs up. Thank you so much for this piece.
This goes immediately in the “best of 2022” list.
“If 2022 is the year of the “woman”, let’s hope 2023 will be the year when we can delete those quotation marks.”
One of the best quotes ever.
Anyway, not much to add to the article except thank you and “Amen”!
Yesterday’s article on “American moms” led to comments being put forward that took issue with the rights of women to pursue their lives and careers as they saw fit. One comment even suggested it was a “capitalist plot” that sought to bring women into the workplace. That comment was supported whilst counter-arguments weren’t.
The rights of women to be women and to live their lives on their terms are indivisible. No man, or other woman, should seek to deny them that right. I compared those supporting the denial of such rights with the Taliban. This article by Ayaan brings into timely focus precisely that point. Seeking to deny women, and their rights, is the start of a slippery slope towards ideological authoritarianism.
“comments being put forward that took issue with the rights of women to pursue their lives and careers as they saw fit.”
I don’t believe that was the case. Most comments seemed to be that women had been pushed into the workplace, away from home and family, against their will, which they believed was detrimental to the health of the family itself. There are women who have careers and their are women who work to make ends meet in jobs that offer nothing but drudgery. What has happened in regard to the “rights of women to be women and to live their lives on their terms” is that economics has taken that right away. They cannot stay home with their children because they must work. No one is seeking to deny their right to work. They’re seeking the rights for those women who want to to raise their children full-time. It seems to me that making it more difficult to be a mother is a slippery slope. Unless having redefined a women we then redefine a mother.
Contrary to popular opinion, women have always worked, and not just in the home, but in the fields, in cottage industries, and only latterly in organised places of work. Coal was extracted by hand from mineshafts by women, and children. What has changed is the ability of women to have far greater choice and to compete on equal terms and for equal pay. If many women have chosen to take up that option, it’s not up to you, or me, or anyone else to second-guess them.
Nor have we redefined a woman, although some elements would seek to do so, but they won’t succeed. Mothers can, and will, figure out for themselves how they should be defined – again, not by you, or by anyone else.
Many men would seek to control women, for pretty obvious reasons. It’s also apparent that women are, in fact, outcompeting men in education and in many areas of the knowledge-based economy. We should be very careful not to use arguments that seek to change that for nefarious reasons.
I think your comments on the American mom thread were down voted not so much because the men on here wish to control women and more that you implied that women who don’t choose work over motherhood will be subjugated in the home. You used the phrases of chained to the kitchen sink and the taliban would approve when members posted about putting family first before career as if there is no other way. It’s either work or the way of the taliban! It also ignores that some women actually really enjoy being stay at home mums.
I wish I could have afforded to be a stay at home mum – at least for the pre school years – and my daughter in law – about to give birth to our first grandchild – wishes she could afford to be a stay at home mum too.
Even as a dad, the sole breadwinner and in a good job, I wish I could afford to be a stay at home dad.
And that’s a sentiment repeated by at least 2-3 of my male friends, who are in high paying and prestigious jobs.
Even as a dad, the sole breadwinner and in a good job, I wish I could afford to be a stay at home dad.
And that’s a sentiment repeated by at least 2-3 of my male friends, who are in high paying and prestigious jobs.
I was replying to someone who claimed that the fight for female emancipation was a “capitalist plot”, which is the perfect example of a nefarious argument being used in the debate, and which i’m warning against supporting.
I asked the writer of that claim what his alternative was, and cited those quotes you mention as examples in a spirit of enquiry. The ability to follow a particular line of reasoning is essential in order to have a useful debate.
It should also be noted that the “plot” claim was supported. It was like watching an episode of the Handmaids Tale!
As long as the rest of us don’t have to keep them. If we do, then it is not a valid choice. Every adult has a duty to work and contribute to society. Looking after children that you have chosen to produce is not a contribution.
There are no state benefits for being a stay at home parent, hence the comments about wishing to be able to afford to do it.
I would also argue that good parenting that isn’t undermined by the guilt of being too busy with work to be more involved helps produce better quality children who grow to become better quality citizens and therefore is most definitely a contribution. Children raised by schools/state are emotionally neglected and vulnerable to exploitation.
When you think about it, society picks up the tab for all the consequences of bad and poor parenting decisions, one way or another. Maybe if it instead invested in good parenting and supported the family in the first place, millions could actually be saved! Pounds and people!
Interesting. My understanding is that we work to live rather than the other way round. Unless we produce as individuals then there is no development of a society as there would be no people would there. So, we all do work and if we are sensible and flexible and do not consider a 9 to 5 career or money to actually be the meaning of life we do certain things throughout our lives not related to such things. Being a parent entails being half of a whole; being a child is a learning experience; being old is a time of giving, to family and society for no money return. Finally, I disagree with your final sentence in its entirety and regret the mistaken reasoning for its construction.
There are no state benefits for being a stay at home parent, hence the comments about wishing to be able to afford to do it.
I would also argue that good parenting that isn’t undermined by the guilt of being too busy with work to be more involved helps produce better quality children who grow to become better quality citizens and therefore is most definitely a contribution. Children raised by schools/state are emotionally neglected and vulnerable to exploitation.
When you think about it, society picks up the tab for all the consequences of bad and poor parenting decisions, one way or another. Maybe if it instead invested in good parenting and supported the family in the first place, millions could actually be saved! Pounds and people!
Interesting. My understanding is that we work to live rather than the other way round. Unless we produce as individuals then there is no development of a society as there would be no people would there. So, we all do work and if we are sensible and flexible and do not consider a 9 to 5 career or money to actually be the meaning of life we do certain things throughout our lives not related to such things. Being a parent entails being half of a whole; being a child is a learning experience; being old is a time of giving, to family and society for no money return. Finally, I disagree with your final sentence in its entirety and regret the mistaken reasoning for its construction.
I wish I could have afforded to be a stay at home mum – at least for the pre school years – and my daughter in law – about to give birth to our first grandchild – wishes she could afford to be a stay at home mum too.
I was replying to someone who claimed that the fight for female emancipation was a “capitalist plot”, which is the perfect example of a nefarious argument being used in the debate, and which i’m warning against supporting.
I asked the writer of that claim what his alternative was, and cited those quotes you mention as examples in a spirit of enquiry. The ability to follow a particular line of reasoning is essential in order to have a useful debate.
It should also be noted that the “plot” claim was supported. It was like watching an episode of the Handmaids Tale!
As long as the rest of us don’t have to keep them. If we do, then it is not a valid choice. Every adult has a duty to work and contribute to society. Looking after children that you have chosen to produce is not a contribution.
“What has changed is the ability of women to have far greater choice and to compete on equal terms and for equal pay. ”
Here is a fun activity.
Think of what was typical paid work pre 21st century.
Mining, factories, agriculture, transport, shipping, military.
Notice something? The modern equivalents of those activities are still done by men.
What has changed is lots of nice, office or administrative jobs, with zero physical stress or risk, usually government paid.
And those are the jobs women do.
If today, the job market was identical to the 19th century, you wouldn’t find too many women demanding the right to “compete” for those jobs.
The events which boosted the cause of female emancipation were the females taking over much of the industrial production of munitions and military hardware during the two world wars. Once that particular door was opened, there was no going back.
Many females now successfully run farms, work in transport and serve in the military. I enjoyed your fun activity – can we have some more please?!
Nice try, but nope.
Try harder. Next time you are on the road, count how many truck drivers, white van drivers and bus drivers female.
Rather, try and find a single female. Do it, will be fun.
Similarly, despite massive dilution of standards for women, the business end of the military are pretty much men. What % of soldiers dying in Iraq were women? How much gender diversity on the trenches in Ukraine?
If anything, your example underlines the point I made – the concept of large numbers of logistics or support troops didn’t exist pre 20th century.
And those are the relatively safe, sanitised, way back from the frontline jobs that women now do in large numbers in the military.
Artillery, fighter pilots (despite massive push for “diversity”), submarines, tanks? Hardly any women, and if you actually speak to serving lower level military troops, they have horror stories to tell about a large % of the small numbers of female representatives being pushed into their fields.
You seem to be trying rather too hard to force a particular point, when it’s clear that female emancipation is the issue at hand. I’m not sure what other agenda you might be following?
“I’m not sure what other agenda you might be following?”
When you stop trying to pretend your point had any merits and start with the ad hominems, that usually signals the white flag.
And no, “female emancipation” is not the agenda.
The agenda is the usual feminist beauties such as “many men would seek to control women” and “rights of women to …live their lives on their terms”
As I pointed out, even after a century of wimmin rights, women aren’t doing the jobs that were typical until the 20th century. And for the same reason why few women were in those same jobs in the 18th century, nothing to do with men stopping women from working in mines or factories.
Women were living lives on their terms in the 18th century. And the terms were, I stay at home and you, the man, get to do those horrible jobs or die on the job to support my family. Simple.
Simple-minded. I don’t know what world you’re living in, but where I live there are women in construction, women firefighters, women cops, women carpenters, plumbers, electricians. You have the stunning over-confidence of the under-informed. AKA the Dunning-Kruger effect. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
Simple-minded. I don’t know what world you’re living in, but where I live there are women in construction, women firefighters, women cops, women carpenters, plumbers, electricians. You have the stunning over-confidence of the under-informed. AKA the Dunning-Kruger effect. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
“I’m not sure what other agenda you might be following?”
When you stop trying to pretend your point had any merits and start with the ad hominems, that usually signals the white flag.
And no, “female emancipation” is not the agenda.
The agenda is the usual feminist beauties such as “many men would seek to control women” and “rights of women to …live their lives on their terms”
As I pointed out, even after a century of wimmin rights, women aren’t doing the jobs that were typical until the 20th century. And for the same reason why few women were in those same jobs in the 18th century, nothing to do with men stopping women from working in mines or factories.
Women were living lives on their terms in the 18th century. And the terms were, I stay at home and you, the man, get to do those horrible jobs or die on the job to support my family. Simple.
You seem to be trying rather too hard to force a particular point, when it’s clear that female emancipation is the issue at hand. I’m not sure what other agenda you might be following?
You’re absolutely right. My grandmother quit her ‘nice’ job to work in a munitions factory in WW1. It paid more and was more interesting, she said. My aunt quit her office job to run an anti aircraft gun in WW2.
Nice try, but nope.
Try harder. Next time you are on the road, count how many truck drivers, white van drivers and bus drivers female.
Rather, try and find a single female. Do it, will be fun.
Similarly, despite massive dilution of standards for women, the business end of the military are pretty much men. What % of soldiers dying in Iraq were women? How much gender diversity on the trenches in Ukraine?
If anything, your example underlines the point I made – the concept of large numbers of logistics or support troops didn’t exist pre 20th century.
And those are the relatively safe, sanitised, way back from the frontline jobs that women now do in large numbers in the military.
Artillery, fighter pilots (despite massive push for “diversity”), submarines, tanks? Hardly any women, and if you actually speak to serving lower level military troops, they have horror stories to tell about a large % of the small numbers of female representatives being pushed into their fields.
You’re absolutely right. My grandmother quit her ‘nice’ job to work in a munitions factory in WW1. It paid more and was more interesting, she said. My aunt quit her office job to run an anti aircraft gun in WW2.
Women worked down coal mines until men banned them, and as pit brow lasses. They worked in factories, particularly in textiles, and as poorly paid casual field workers, unpaid ‘farmers wives’ or bonded labourers. I have a photograph of my grandmother, born 1906, mucking out a byre. Many women worked as low paid drudges in other people’s houses. Working class women have always worked. The difference now is that many have the proper pay and conditions that men achieved through their unions before them. Those who don’t are, as ever, the carers and cleaners.
The events which boosted the cause of female emancipation were the females taking over much of the industrial production of munitions and military hardware during the two world wars. Once that particular door was opened, there was no going back.
Many females now successfully run farms, work in transport and serve in the military. I enjoyed your fun activity – can we have some more please?!
Women worked down coal mines until men banned them, and as pit brow lasses. They worked in factories, particularly in textiles, and as poorly paid casual field workers, unpaid ‘farmers wives’ or bonded labourers. I have a photograph of my grandmother, born 1906, mucking out a byre. Many women worked as low paid drudges in other people’s houses. Working class women have always worked. The difference now is that many have the proper pay and conditions that men achieved through their unions before them. Those who don’t are, as ever, the carers and cleaners.
I think your comments on the American mom thread were down voted not so much because the men on here wish to control women and more that you implied that women who don’t choose work over motherhood will be subjugated in the home. You used the phrases of chained to the kitchen sink and the taliban would approve when members posted about putting family first before career as if there is no other way. It’s either work or the way of the taliban! It also ignores that some women actually really enjoy being stay at home mums.
“What has changed is the ability of women to have far greater choice and to compete on equal terms and for equal pay. ”
Here is a fun activity.
Think of what was typical paid work pre 21st century.
Mining, factories, agriculture, transport, shipping, military.
Notice something? The modern equivalents of those activities are still done by men.
What has changed is lots of nice, office or administrative jobs, with zero physical stress or risk, usually government paid.
And those are the jobs women do.
If today, the job market was identical to the 19th century, you wouldn’t find too many women demanding the right to “compete” for those jobs.
Correct! The same is yrue in Ireland despite the fact that our Constitution states no mother shall be required to work outside the home!
For many women what you are saying is no doubt true. But for many, many others they work so they have the identity required by their peers, and so they can afford their yearly iPhone upgrades and multiple trips to foreign countries, etc.
Contrary to popular opinion, women have always worked, and not just in the home, but in the fields, in cottage industries, and only latterly in organised places of work. Coal was extracted by hand from mineshafts by women, and children. What has changed is the ability of women to have far greater choice and to compete on equal terms and for equal pay. If many women have chosen to take up that option, it’s not up to you, or me, or anyone else to second-guess them.
Nor have we redefined a woman, although some elements would seek to do so, but they won’t succeed. Mothers can, and will, figure out for themselves how they should be defined – again, not by you, or by anyone else.
Many men would seek to control women, for pretty obvious reasons. It’s also apparent that women are, in fact, outcompeting men in education and in many areas of the knowledge-based economy. We should be very careful not to use arguments that seek to change that for nefarious reasons.
Correct! The same is yrue in Ireland despite the fact that our Constitution states no mother shall be required to work outside the home!
For many women what you are saying is no doubt true. But for many, many others they work so they have the identity required by their peers, and so they can afford their yearly iPhone upgrades and multiple trips to foreign countries, etc.
“rights of women to pursue their lives and careers as they saw fit.”
The comments typically aren’t about the “rights”. It’s about the lack of intelligence behind pushing women en masse into the grindstone of the workplace and denying that motherhood or traditional female roles in the family could be a superior, more satisfying option for the majority of women.
Men, and only men, are subject to military draft and conscription for centuries. Most divorced end up women getting child custody and men end up supporting them, with no concerns raised about “women’s careers”.
Is that a “slippery slope towards ideological authoritarianism” as well?
No, but i’d pose the same question as i posed yesterday, which although unpopular, has yet to be addressed by anyone.
That question is: what’s the alternative?
The point about women being “erased” that Ayaan writes about, and the ability of women to have agency in their own lives, is indivisible. No-one has any problem whatsoever with mothers who wish to stay at home to raise their children. Neither should anyone have a problem with women who’re capable of doing so, pursuing whatever career they so wish.
In the case of the former, a combination of the state and a partner willing to support them for the duration is required. In the case of the latter, it matters not whether the preferential treatment that males used to (and may still) enjoy in the workforce, in terms of pay differentials and job opportunities have become less easy to come by. They’re having to compete with women, and some may well resent that, especially when women come out favourably. It’s that resentment which i’m witnessing here, couched in terms which seek to hide it.
Spot on.
“No-one has any problem whatsoever with mothers who wish to stay at home to raise their children. ”
That’s contrary to what I can see across all parts of society, education, media, today.
“They’re having to compete with women, and some may well resent that, especially when women come out favourably. ”
The problematic part of that story is that women are doing awfully at most highly paid jobs that are not government / administrative.
It isn’t men indulging in the large scale whining and demanding preferential quotas and “diversity”.
I see lots and lots of whining from men. Even right here in the comments.
I see lots and lots of whining from men. Even right here in the comments.
The problem in today’s world is that there are minimum 50% quotas for women. Opportunities for men are drying up and so they stay put in roles, while women move on because they have more opportunities; meaning that companies struggle to get to the 50%. In job interviews, they also favour women in an attempt to get to the quota.
True equality is dispensing with quotas AND bias. Quotas are a form of discrimination. Women and men need each other and together we are better than the sum of our parts.
Spot on.
“No-one has any problem whatsoever with mothers who wish to stay at home to raise their children. ”
That’s contrary to what I can see across all parts of society, education, media, today.
“They’re having to compete with women, and some may well resent that, especially when women come out favourably. ”
The problematic part of that story is that women are doing awfully at most highly paid jobs that are not government / administrative.
It isn’t men indulging in the large scale whining and demanding preferential quotas and “diversity”.
The problem in today’s world is that there are minimum 50% quotas for women. Opportunities for men are drying up and so they stay put in roles, while women move on because they have more opportunities; meaning that companies struggle to get to the 50%. In job interviews, they also favour women in an attempt to get to the quota.
True equality is dispensing with quotas AND bias. Quotas are a form of discrimination. Women and men need each other and together we are better than the sum of our parts.
And it is your bitterness about having to keep a ‘wife’ without the sexual and domestic services that you believe should be part of the bargain that is clearly the issue here.
Women should not live off men. They should work to keep themselves.
“Women should not live off men. They should work to keep themselves.”
Amusing.
Because the majority of women “working” are in bs jobs, usually in government, paid for by taxes that are largely paid by men.
And few women seem to fancy working to keep themselves when it comes to divorce.
Have you heard of the term “projecting”?
Have you heard of the term “projecting”?
How are the cats?
“Women should not live off men. They should work to keep themselves.”
Amusing.
Because the majority of women “working” are in bs jobs, usually in government, paid for by taxes that are largely paid by men.
And few women seem to fancy working to keep themselves when it comes to divorce.
How are the cats?
I can believe that you’re an authority when it comes to ‘lack of intelligence’…
No, but i’d pose the same question as i posed yesterday, which although unpopular, has yet to be addressed by anyone.
That question is: what’s the alternative?
The point about women being “erased” that Ayaan writes about, and the ability of women to have agency in their own lives, is indivisible. No-one has any problem whatsoever with mothers who wish to stay at home to raise their children. Neither should anyone have a problem with women who’re capable of doing so, pursuing whatever career they so wish.
In the case of the former, a combination of the state and a partner willing to support them for the duration is required. In the case of the latter, it matters not whether the preferential treatment that males used to (and may still) enjoy in the workforce, in terms of pay differentials and job opportunities have become less easy to come by. They’re having to compete with women, and some may well resent that, especially when women come out favourably. It’s that resentment which i’m witnessing here, couched in terms which seek to hide it.
And it is your bitterness about having to keep a ‘wife’ without the sexual and domestic services that you believe should be part of the bargain that is clearly the issue here.
Women should not live off men. They should work to keep themselves.
I can believe that you’re an authority when it comes to ‘lack of intelligence’…
Absolutely. I would add those who blame feminism for the ‘transgender’ nonsense to those who seek to deny women their rights. ‘Gender’, or rather sex role stereotyped behavioural norms, is a creation of the misogynistic patriarchy. Feminism is its antithesis.
“comments being put forward that took issue with the rights of women to pursue their lives and careers as they saw fit.”
I don’t believe that was the case. Most comments seemed to be that women had been pushed into the workplace, away from home and family, against their will, which they believed was detrimental to the health of the family itself. There are women who have careers and their are women who work to make ends meet in jobs that offer nothing but drudgery. What has happened in regard to the “rights of women to be women and to live their lives on their terms” is that economics has taken that right away. They cannot stay home with their children because they must work. No one is seeking to deny their right to work. They’re seeking the rights for those women who want to to raise their children full-time. It seems to me that making it more difficult to be a mother is a slippery slope. Unless having redefined a women we then redefine a mother.
“rights of women to pursue their lives and careers as they saw fit.”
The comments typically aren’t about the “rights”. It’s about the lack of intelligence behind pushing women en masse into the grindstone of the workplace and denying that motherhood or traditional female roles in the family could be a superior, more satisfying option for the majority of women.
Men, and only men, are subject to military draft and conscription for centuries. Most divorced end up women getting child custody and men end up supporting them, with no concerns raised about “women’s careers”.
Is that a “slippery slope towards ideological authoritarianism” as well?
Absolutely. I would add those who blame feminism for the ‘transgender’ nonsense to those who seek to deny women their rights. ‘Gender’, or rather sex role stereotyped behavioural norms, is a creation of the misogynistic patriarchy. Feminism is its antithesis.
Yesterday’s article on “American moms” led to comments being put forward that took issue with the rights of women to pursue their lives and careers as they saw fit. One comment even suggested it was a “capitalist plot” that sought to bring women into the workplace. That comment was supported whilst counter-arguments weren’t.
The rights of women to be women and to live their lives on their terms are indivisible. No man, or other woman, should seek to deny them that right. I compared those supporting the denial of such rights with the Taliban. This article by Ayaan brings into timely focus precisely that point. Seeking to deny women, and their rights, is the start of a slippery slope towards ideological authoritarianism.
A great article only spoiled by the apparent requirement to state ones sympathy for the plight of trans identifying people. Truly trans people are such a vanishingly small minority a public statement of sympathy should not be a requirement to comment. Most so called trans are either mentally ill or poseurs. I have sympathy for the former but not the latter.
Yeah that bugs me as well – every article on the topic has to have a sentence sympathising, sometimes a paragraph – it’s like bending the knee at football matches. There is no need to state it.
Yeah that bugs me as well – every article on the topic has to have a sentence sympathising, sometimes a paragraph – it’s like bending the knee at football matches. There is no need to state it.
A great article only spoiled by the apparent requirement to state ones sympathy for the plight of trans identifying people. Truly trans people are such a vanishingly small minority a public statement of sympathy should not be a requirement to comment. Most so called trans are either mentally ill or poseurs. I have sympathy for the former but not the latter.
Trans sexuality, in effect means that being a woman is essentially what men decide it is.
Very nicely summarised.
Very nicely summarised.
Trans sexuality, in effect means that being a woman is essentially what men decide it is.
The sympathy I had years ago for the plight of transgender individuals, who are really mentally ill, has been seriously undermined, indeed evaporated, by the radicalism and violence of the ideologues pushing this deconstruction of reality upon us. I am sure that’s not what the “activists” intended at all, but it’s what they achieved in my case. I am utterly convinced that those pulling the strings are motivated by pure misogyny, which is once again raising its ugly old head. This time under the guise of transgenderism. This time it’s not just about men usurping the very concept of womanhood by making it a commodity that can be bought through drugs and surgery. It’s about showing that they are not just better than women, but that they are the better “women”.
Unfortunately, many women, especially those who label themselves feminists, frequently preceded by “liberal” or “progressive”, are willingly and even willfully contributing to the deliberate destruction of their hard-earned rights and spaces. For the record, I have never been one to begrudge men their own spaces. I am not opposed to single-sex schools, social and sports clubs, or other facilities. The sexes are different and have different needs mandated by biology. I like and respect men, and I often prefer the company of men, but I don’t want them everywhere.
The problem is that women’s complicity in their own erasure is not just affecting those who cannot wait for it to happen, but it’s affecting women like me and my daughter who want nothing to do with it. I have been driven to a point where I really wouldn’t care anymore if only the ones pushing this along were affected, even in the harshest of ways, as I firmly believe that one reaps what one sows. However, that’s not how the world works, and all too often the ones who bear the brunt had no say in the creation and implementation.
Wow you took the words right out of my mouth so to speak.
Wow you took the words right out of my mouth so to speak.
The sympathy I had years ago for the plight of transgender individuals, who are really mentally ill, has been seriously undermined, indeed evaporated, by the radicalism and violence of the ideologues pushing this deconstruction of reality upon us. I am sure that’s not what the “activists” intended at all, but it’s what they achieved in my case. I am utterly convinced that those pulling the strings are motivated by pure misogyny, which is once again raising its ugly old head. This time under the guise of transgenderism. This time it’s not just about men usurping the very concept of womanhood by making it a commodity that can be bought through drugs and surgery. It’s about showing that they are not just better than women, but that they are the better “women”.
Unfortunately, many women, especially those who label themselves feminists, frequently preceded by “liberal” or “progressive”, are willingly and even willfully contributing to the deliberate destruction of their hard-earned rights and spaces. For the record, I have never been one to begrudge men their own spaces. I am not opposed to single-sex schools, social and sports clubs, or other facilities. The sexes are different and have different needs mandated by biology. I like and respect men, and I often prefer the company of men, but I don’t want them everywhere.
The problem is that women’s complicity in their own erasure is not just affecting those who cannot wait for it to happen, but it’s affecting women like me and my daughter who want nothing to do with it. I have been driven to a point where I really wouldn’t care anymore if only the ones pushing this along were affected, even in the harshest of ways, as I firmly believe that one reaps what one sows. However, that’s not how the world works, and all too often the ones who bear the brunt had no say in the creation and implementation.
here in new zealand we have self identification as law. anyone can change their legal sex. they do not need to make any effort to change their appearance to do so. refuges, women’s prisons, sports, changing rooms now must welcome any man who wishes to use them. we teach this ideology in our kindergartens. that biological sex is meaningless. all that matters is how you feel. we state fund chemical and surgical alterations of healthy young bodies. unless you are in this you can’t really imagine how it is. or begin to imagine how the future might be.
Wow. Here in the U.S. if my state did all that I could at least move to another. Got a boat?
Unbelievable! What a nightmare! I am so glad my kids are grown up and I don’t have to deal with finding a (private/religious) school, which refuses to teach this nonsense. My only hope is electing new leaders, who stand up to this insanity, things might eventually revert. What new wave will we have next: Identifying yourself as a camel, dog or cat?
‘New Zealand’? What a dreadful place, wherever that may be!
Wow. Here in the U.S. if my state did all that I could at least move to another. Got a boat?
Unbelievable! What a nightmare! I am so glad my kids are grown up and I don’t have to deal with finding a (private/religious) school, which refuses to teach this nonsense. My only hope is electing new leaders, who stand up to this insanity, things might eventually revert. What new wave will we have next: Identifying yourself as a camel, dog or cat?
‘New Zealand’? What a dreadful place, wherever that may be!
here in new zealand we have self identification as law. anyone can change their legal sex. they do not need to make any effort to change their appearance to do so. refuges, women’s prisons, sports, changing rooms now must welcome any man who wishes to use them. we teach this ideology in our kindergartens. that biological sex is meaningless. all that matters is how you feel. we state fund chemical and surgical alterations of healthy young bodies. unless you are in this you can’t really imagine how it is. or begin to imagine how the future might be.
Thanks for the article, but we did “turn our backs” on women in Iran, Afghanistan etc. It’s up to people in those countries to run their lives and set their laws, we every right to give them our opinions on their behaviour but we have no right to compel them to adopt our beliefs and behaviours. Or should we now reinvade Afghanistan to enforce women’s rights? You can guess how that would end.
Exactly. Well-put.
The big mistake we (Brits and Yanks) made was to train an army of men. A small well trained army of Afgan women might have frightened the Taliban to the point where they would not even dare to re-enter the country.
Yes – it certainly seems that way. The blokes were utterly useless.
All the fault of the SA 80 and this ‘Suppressing Fire’ nonsense.
Aimed shots, every time, are the only way.
All the fault of the SA 80 and this ‘Suppressing Fire’ nonsense.
Aimed shots, every time, are the only way.
The big mistake the West made was to believe your own hype about women being equal to men and about there being a supposed patriarchy of men oppressing women.
If you built an army of women, no matter how well trained and armed, they would have been cut to pieces by the Taliban.
And it wouldn’t have come to that, because a lot of those women would actually end up on the Taleban side. Do you really think it’s only men who support the oppressive Islamic regimes in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi, or that there aren’t large numbers of women who don’t support the laws there (even though they are harsh and brutal towards their own gender).
In Kipling’s day ‘they’ had a propensity for slicing off testicles! Rather similar to Ethiopian women of the day.
Re-enter the country? sure they never left.. merely hid out in the mountains and caves with the full support of most of the people.. that’s why they were abke to taken over in a few days..
Given the choice of twisted women hating nut jobs vs murderous Yanks / Brits …they opted for the former: choice but not, it seems for the bulk of Afghans.
Afghan mothers teach their sons remember!
I never thought of that. I read an author once who promoted distributing cheap machine guns to women in countries where they are oppressed. It is not such a bad idea.
Good point. It worked very well for the Kurds. Their female soldiers are not only highly motivated, but they have had a very positive impact regarding women’s social status and acceptance amongst Kurdish men.
And in the case of Islamic State forces, to be killed in battle by a female automatically disqualified the deceased from entry into heaven with however many virgins, as promised to their “warriors”. This made the Kurdish female soldiers extremely effective, since the opposition troops were scared rigid of such a fate befalling them. So much for claims (made elsewhere on these pages) about the prowess of female soldiers.
Yes, I remember reading about that. A win-win situation as far as I am concerned. I have great admiration for the YPJ or Women’s Protection Units.
Yes, I remember reading about that. A win-win situation as far as I am concerned. I have great admiration for the YPJ or Women’s Protection Units.
And in the case of Islamic State forces, to be killed in battle by a female automatically disqualified the deceased from entry into heaven with however many virgins, as promised to their “warriors”. This made the Kurdish female soldiers extremely effective, since the opposition troops were scared rigid of such a fate befalling them. So much for claims (made elsewhere on these pages) about the prowess of female soldiers.
Yes – it certainly seems that way. The blokes were utterly useless.
The big mistake the West made was to believe your own hype about women being equal to men and about there being a supposed patriarchy of men oppressing women.
If you built an army of women, no matter how well trained and armed, they would have been cut to pieces by the Taliban.
And it wouldn’t have come to that, because a lot of those women would actually end up on the Taleban side. Do you really think it’s only men who support the oppressive Islamic regimes in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi, or that there aren’t large numbers of women who don’t support the laws there (even though they are harsh and brutal towards their own gender).
In Kipling’s day ‘they’ had a propensity for slicing off testicles! Rather similar to Ethiopian women of the day.
Re-enter the country? sure they never left.. merely hid out in the mountains and caves with the full support of most of the people.. that’s why they were abke to taken over in a few days..
Given the choice of twisted women hating nut jobs vs murderous Yanks / Brits …they opted for the former: choice but not, it seems for the bulk of Afghans.
Afghan mothers teach their sons remember!
I never thought of that. I read an author once who promoted distributing cheap machine guns to women in countries where they are oppressed. It is not such a bad idea.
Good point. It worked very well for the Kurds. Their female soldiers are not only highly motivated, but they have had a very positive impact regarding women’s social status and acceptance amongst Kurdish men.
Exactly. Well-put.
The big mistake we (Brits and Yanks) made was to train an army of men. A small well trained army of Afgan women might have frightened the Taliban to the point where they would not even dare to re-enter the country.
Thanks for the article, but we did “turn our backs” on women in Iran, Afghanistan etc. It’s up to people in those countries to run their lives and set their laws, we every right to give them our opinions on their behaviour but we have no right to compel them to adopt our beliefs and behaviours. Or should we now reinvade Afghanistan to enforce women’s rights? You can guess how that would end.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a world treasure. One thing the “regressive left ” managed to do was to convince me that speech is truly a weapon of oppression. By denying women their identity they have in fact oppressed women.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a world treasure. One thing the “regressive left ” managed to do was to convince me that speech is truly a weapon of oppression. By denying women their identity they have in fact oppressed women.
What exactly is the “plight” of transgender people Ayana is immensely sympathetic to? They’re now absolutely everywhere and dominate our social culture. You can’t even adopt a live-and-let-live, to each his own stance; they, like the Alex character in “Fatal Attraction”, will not be ignored, and they’re making it no secret that they’re coming for the children.
What exactly is the “plight” of transgender people Ayana is immensely sympathetic to? They’re now absolutely everywhere and dominate our social culture. You can’t even adopt a live-and-let-live, to each his own stance; they, like the Alex character in “Fatal Attraction”, will not be ignored, and they’re making it no secret that they’re coming for the children.
We are witnessing the ascent of a new ruling class in the West, able to establish its control over society in the wake of religion’s retreat. As Ayan Hirsi Ali writes, language is their preferred weapon to achieve and maintain dominance. Their battlefields are the media, academia, and civil service: anyone in any of these fields can be brought under their control by shaming, silencing and career cancellation if they use the wrong words.
Their credo to discourage any dissent is “Be an ally, not a hater.” They are in possession of the correct ideas about all things, dictated from a presumed higher moral ground.They decide who is among the elect, and who is unworthy of respect, of social acceptance, of employment.
This is religion without redemption or forgivenness, and ultimately is about gaining and keeping power by sowing confusion and insecurity.
This is a gang.
And elimination of undesirables from participation in society is their means of taking control and imposing their power.
And elimination of undesirables from participation in society is their means of taking control and imposing their power.
… Sadly, the above is increasingly the case in Canada. The loons are running the asylum …
This is a gang.
… Sadly, the above is increasingly the case in Canada. The loons are running the asylum …
We are witnessing the ascent of a new ruling class in the West, able to establish its control over society in the wake of religion’s retreat. As Ayan Hirsi Ali writes, language is their preferred weapon to achieve and maintain dominance. Their battlefields are the media, academia, and civil service: anyone in any of these fields can be brought under their control by shaming, silencing and career cancellation if they use the wrong words.
Their credo to discourage any dissent is “Be an ally, not a hater.” They are in possession of the correct ideas about all things, dictated from a presumed higher moral ground.They decide who is among the elect, and who is unworthy of respect, of social acceptance, of employment.
This is religion without redemption or forgivenness, and ultimately is about gaining and keeping power by sowing confusion and insecurity.
A very well written article indeed. Women’s emancipation benefits everyone. Ideally men needed emancipation at the same time. Few too many men can run a household as well as a woman can. I have seen older men who cannot survive without a woman to look after him. This is totally shameful for men to be so helpless.
Everyone benefits when we come together because we want to, not because we have to.
Personally I have no such deficiencies.. do you think that, after all I may not be a man? or male or whatever the current term is?
Not at all, I too can do everything around the house. Back in my bachelor days, my mates ranged from being self sufficient to requiring someone to look after them. I shared a house with two women and they had kind of gelled with each other regarding housekeeping but wanted a male to do all the outside stuff that they didn’t want to do
Not at all, I too can do everything around the house. Back in my bachelor days, my mates ranged from being self sufficient to requiring someone to look after them. I shared a house with two women and they had kind of gelled with each other regarding housekeeping but wanted a male to do all the outside stuff that they didn’t want to do
Personally I have no such deficiencies.. do you think that, after all I may not be a man? or male or whatever the current term is?
A very well written article indeed. Women’s emancipation benefits everyone. Ideally men needed emancipation at the same time. Few too many men can run a household as well as a woman can. I have seen older men who cannot survive without a woman to look after him. This is totally shameful for men to be so helpless.
Everyone benefits when we come together because we want to, not because we have to.
Most people would agree with you but most people are scared to admit it.
Until the UK media & political parties (with a few exceptions) stop being scared to admit that gender ideology is an ideology and not the civil rights issues it’s been marketed as, it will continue to advance. Last week a Welsh parent’s group lost a court case against the compulsory teaching of gender identity and sex in primary schools, and it was barely referenced in the UK media.
Given the media’s ability to ignore what’s been happening for the last 5-6 years, I don’t think it’ll be doing any actual journalism on the subject any time soon, although I’d be delighted to be wrong about that.
Most people would agree with you but most people are scared to admit it.
Until the UK media & political parties (with a few exceptions) stop being scared to admit that gender ideology is an ideology and not the civil rights issues it’s been marketed as, it will continue to advance. Last week a Welsh parent’s group lost a court case against the compulsory teaching of gender identity and sex in primary schools, and it was barely referenced in the UK media.
Given the media’s ability to ignore what’s been happening for the last 5-6 years, I don’t think it’ll be doing any actual journalism on the subject any time soon, although I’d be delighted to be wrong about that.
Like most, I share Ali’s concern for the rights of actual women around the world. But I don’t think the ideological religiosity of the woke fringe–which unfortunately is centered here in coastal America–deserves comparison, in scale or kind, to theocratic governments and societies run by actual patriarchs. Nor do tortured semantics around gender have a likely causal connection to increased repression of women in the Muslim world, though Ali’s rhetorical formulation “Is it really a coincidence?” is intriguing.
The US and other so-called peacekeepers (some armed, some not) couldn’t stay in Afghanistan forever, and that presence was the main thing that upheld certain increased freedoms for women there in recent years, between Taliban regimes. Yet the US government is criticized (sometimes denounced), not without some justice, for its interference and long-occupations in various places. But how can a society with determined theocratic patriarchs be “rescued from itself”–especially if calling out the sponsoring ideology as bigoted is regarded as bigotry too?
Advocating basic freedoms for women–education, choice of clothing, the right to go places alone–should not, in and of itself, be called Islamophobia or ethnocentric in any way. And if some parts of the Quran clash or seem to clash with basic women’s rights: speak up on behalf of women anyway. Should passages of the Bible that treat slavery as a given or banish women in shame during menstruation be honored in order to avoid anti-Judaism or “Christophobia”?
But this last term isn’t in much real use, because the West is in the partial grip of a madness wherein the only fashionable or “correct” criticism is self-directed, or pointed at those regarded as oppressors by the mere fact of their external or “positional” traits.
I don’t think the US or any other nation(s) can or should try to export our often-only-aspirational values and systems to other places/cultures as if we know best for others despite our chaotic, trashy, and quite-violent society (it’s not only that, but I think that’s warranted).
But we needn’t pretend that oppressive theocracies with actual patriarchies are “none of our business” because “that’s just their culture and we mustn’t judge from outside it”. Fundamental human rights shouldn’t end at borders or cultural barriers and there should be a way to address one another across divides with mutual respect but honesty at least most of the time, without adopting cowardly silence as a supposed form of respect.
Good point. On the other hand the US had 20 years to impose its principles on Afghanistan, which was effectively a colony. That’s a whole generation. It didn’t work. Feel free to criticise from the sidelines.
The other problem is that the US has fundamentally allied itself with radical Islam across the area.
I agree with your first paragraph. Major, lasting changes cannot be externally imposed, at least not without an even more invasive kind of colonialism that has rightly been discredited.
I don’t see how “the US has fundamentally allied itself with radical Islam across the area”. Do you mean in propping up radical or theocratic governments that the US deems less hostile to Americans or American interests?
..ever heard if a guy the US backed to the hilt with mllions of dollars and copious weapons called Osama Bin Laden? ..and just about every other despot the US put in power after they CIA deposed freely elected, popular left-wing governments. Islamicsts were no exception. Even Sadam Hussein was the US’s great hero until he rejected excessive US demands for corrupt paybacks.
..ever heard if a guy the US backed to the hilt with mllions of dollars and copious weapons called Osama Bin Laden? ..and just about every other despot the US put in power after they CIA deposed freely elected, popular left-wing governments. Islamicsts were no exception. Even Sadam Hussein was the US’s great hero until he rejected excessive US demands for corrupt paybacks.
The US will support anything that brings in a financial return and will ally itself to Satan himself if that’s what it takes..
I agree with your first paragraph. Major, lasting changes cannot be externally imposed, at least not without an even more invasive kind of colonialism that has rightly been discredited.
I don’t see how “the US has fundamentally allied itself with radical Islam across the area”. Do you mean in propping up radical or theocratic governments that the US deems less hostile to Americans or American interests?
The US will support anything that brings in a financial return and will ally itself to Satan himself if that’s what it takes..
I agree, largely… but feel I must correct one or two ‘over-statements’..
1. Not all Muslim led societies are as repressive to women as you allege. I worked, briefly, in Malasia and Turkey and found it not to be so.
2. Many Muslim women opt to dress in Islamic gear which personally, I find attractive, ladylike and elegant, in contrast to the trashy way some Christian women dress..
But I agree with the thrust of the points you make for sure..
I agree with 1. and 2. and don’t think my comments deny your statements. For clarity: I don’t mean to suggest that Muslim women have zero agency, or that all Muslim societies are “theocratic patriarchies” in any universal way.
I agree with 1. and 2. and don’t think my comments deny your statements. For clarity: I don’t mean to suggest that Muslim women have zero agency, or that all Muslim societies are “theocratic patriarchies” in any universal way.
Good point. On the other hand the US had 20 years to impose its principles on Afghanistan, which was effectively a colony. That’s a whole generation. It didn’t work. Feel free to criticise from the sidelines.
The other problem is that the US has fundamentally allied itself with radical Islam across the area.
I agree, largely… but feel I must correct one or two ‘over-statements’..
1. Not all Muslim led societies are as repressive to women as you allege. I worked, briefly, in Malasia and Turkey and found it not to be so.
2. Many Muslim women opt to dress in Islamic gear which personally, I find attractive, ladylike and elegant, in contrast to the trashy way some Christian women dress..
But I agree with the thrust of the points you make for sure..
Like most, I share Ali’s concern for the rights of actual women around the world. But I don’t think the ideological religiosity of the woke fringe–which unfortunately is centered here in coastal America–deserves comparison, in scale or kind, to theocratic governments and societies run by actual patriarchs. Nor do tortured semantics around gender have a likely causal connection to increased repression of women in the Muslim world, though Ali’s rhetorical formulation “Is it really a coincidence?” is intriguing.
The US and other so-called peacekeepers (some armed, some not) couldn’t stay in Afghanistan forever, and that presence was the main thing that upheld certain increased freedoms for women there in recent years, between Taliban regimes. Yet the US government is criticized (sometimes denounced), not without some justice, for its interference and long-occupations in various places. But how can a society with determined theocratic patriarchs be “rescued from itself”–especially if calling out the sponsoring ideology as bigoted is regarded as bigotry too?
Advocating basic freedoms for women–education, choice of clothing, the right to go places alone–should not, in and of itself, be called Islamophobia or ethnocentric in any way. And if some parts of the Quran clash or seem to clash with basic women’s rights: speak up on behalf of women anyway. Should passages of the Bible that treat slavery as a given or banish women in shame during menstruation be honored in order to avoid anti-Judaism or “Christophobia”?
But this last term isn’t in much real use, because the West is in the partial grip of a madness wherein the only fashionable or “correct” criticism is self-directed, or pointed at those regarded as oppressors by the mere fact of their external or “positional” traits.
I don’t think the US or any other nation(s) can or should try to export our often-only-aspirational values and systems to other places/cultures as if we know best for others despite our chaotic, trashy, and quite-violent society (it’s not only that, but I think that’s warranted).
But we needn’t pretend that oppressive theocracies with actual patriarchies are “none of our business” because “that’s just their culture and we mustn’t judge from outside it”. Fundamental human rights shouldn’t end at borders or cultural barriers and there should be a way to address one another across divides with mutual respect but honesty at least most of the time, without adopting cowardly silence as a supposed form of respect.
Ayaan is, as usual, wonderful.
We need to reclaim our language wholesale and not engage with these people (the enemies of everything decent in our age-old culture) in their own twisted re-definitions. For example, stop calling the deeply regressive authoritarians “progressives”. What they advocate is not “progress” but regression to the hope of an imagined and utterly dystopian patriarchal society whereby quasi-Marxist (or proto-Fascist) anti-female, anti-individual, anti-gay, anti-human ideology rules, even though it has been proven, time and time again, that none of these ideologies produces a benign result.
I would argue that the very few genuinely “transexual” beings that exist are not well served by any of those activists claiming to speak for them, in the same way that people who have more melanin in their skin are badly served by militant black supremacist (overtly racist) movements like the antithetically named “Black Lives Matter” – to whom no lives matter at all as long as they get their own bullying way (and loadsa dosh).
We really do urgently need to wake up and check that all these allegedly philanthropic organisations are what they choose to call themselves. It seems to me that they are usually the exact opposite. Authoritarians with a sinister agenda leading useful idiots by the nose. Follow the money and the direction of the power shift.
Not Democracy by any stretch. Stupid, entitled men and women, idealistic naifs and shouty fetishists are the only ones whose opinions count in the present zeitgeist, as amplified by our starry-eyed, greedy media – and unless we push back vigorously and firmly these people will be the only ones allowed to vote in the Brave New World they are preparing for us all, for our own good, of course.
Ayaan is, as usual, wonderful.
We need to reclaim our language wholesale and not engage with these people (the enemies of everything decent in our age-old culture) in their own twisted re-definitions. For example, stop calling the deeply regressive authoritarians “progressives”. What they advocate is not “progress” but regression to the hope of an imagined and utterly dystopian patriarchal society whereby quasi-Marxist (or proto-Fascist) anti-female, anti-individual, anti-gay, anti-human ideology rules, even though it has been proven, time and time again, that none of these ideologies produces a benign result.
I would argue that the very few genuinely “transexual” beings that exist are not well served by any of those activists claiming to speak for them, in the same way that people who have more melanin in their skin are badly served by militant black supremacist (overtly racist) movements like the antithetically named “Black Lives Matter” – to whom no lives matter at all as long as they get their own bullying way (and loadsa dosh).
We really do urgently need to wake up and check that all these allegedly philanthropic organisations are what they choose to call themselves. It seems to me that they are usually the exact opposite. Authoritarians with a sinister agenda leading useful idiots by the nose. Follow the money and the direction of the power shift.
Not Democracy by any stretch. Stupid, entitled men and women, idealistic naifs and shouty fetishists are the only ones whose opinions count in the present zeitgeist, as amplified by our starry-eyed, greedy media – and unless we push back vigorously and firmly these people will be the only ones allowed to vote in the Brave New World they are preparing for us all, for our own good, of course.
Hear hear. It always struck me how little Western feminists had to say about countries were women routinely and systematically are brutalised and treated like cattle, so busy were they persecuting elderly blokes for once patting a woman’s knee at a party somewhere.
..almost gave you a thumbs up but then I thought, no, it’s a bit too trite.
I don’t think that Frank’s comment is trite. Quite the contrary; it sums up the current situation rather nicely. The silence of most so-called “liberal feminists” in the West regarding the treatment of women in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa has been deafening!
A former colleague of mine, a self-identified progressive feminist, once told me that she doesn’t feel comfortable talking about the oppression of women in Africa, the Near East, or Afghanistan, because their cultural values are different, and doing so would denigrate their cultures and make it seem like Western values are superior, much like colonial powers did in the past! I asked her to play out a mental scenario, where she has the ability to stop abuse, perhaps even fatal abuse, of a girl/woman at virtually no risk to herself. Her response was shocking and frightening: she would interfere in the West, but not anywhere else.
It’s a classic case of soft racism or discrimination, which is so popular amongst the Left, and sold to the rest of us as cultural relativism and post-colonial deconstructionist thinking. These people do not believe in universal human rights, and one must be very weary of them.
It’s also a case of going for the low hanging fruit. Be activist in a context where there is traction: the rewards are attention, a feeling of community with fellow social justice warriors, and a heartwarming sense of righteousness. And none of that opprobrium from leftists, and accusations of post-colonial oppression.
It’s also a case of going for the low hanging fruit. Be activist in a context where there is traction: the rewards are attention, a feeling of community with fellow social justice warriors, and a heartwarming sense of righteousness. And none of that opprobrium from leftists, and accusations of post-colonial oppression.
I don’t think that Frank’s comment is trite. Quite the contrary; it sums up the current situation rather nicely. The silence of most so-called “liberal feminists” in the West regarding the treatment of women in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa has been deafening!
A former colleague of mine, a self-identified progressive feminist, once told me that she doesn’t feel comfortable talking about the oppression of women in Africa, the Near East, or Afghanistan, because their cultural values are different, and doing so would denigrate their cultures and make it seem like Western values are superior, much like colonial powers did in the past! I asked her to play out a mental scenario, where she has the ability to stop abuse, perhaps even fatal abuse, of a girl/woman at virtually no risk to herself. Her response was shocking and frightening: she would interfere in the West, but not anywhere else.
It’s a classic case of soft racism or discrimination, which is so popular amongst the Left, and sold to the rest of us as cultural relativism and post-colonial deconstructionist thinking. These people do not believe in universal human rights, and one must be very weary of them.
..almost gave you a thumbs up but then I thought, no, it’s a bit too trite.
Hear hear. It always struck me how little Western feminists had to say about countries were women routinely and systematically are brutalised and treated like cattle, so busy were they persecuting elderly blokes for once patting a woman’s knee at a party somewhere.
If you accept the concepts of ‘gender’ and ‘transgender’, you are part of the problem.
If you accept the concepts of ‘gender’ and ‘transgender’, you are part of the problem.
“Progressives care more about semantics than emancipation.” Semantics are the favorite tool of Progressives, because they obscure meaning and allow them to distort and mold language in any way that suits them and the agenda.
..jeez, I lost the term “Left” some time ago as it now seems N/A to me anymore.. and now I’m losing the accolade “progressive” as well! ‘Not sure what I am anymore!
It seems the lunacy of distorting terms extended to those who decry the lunacy of distorting terms. A plague on all yer houses I say:
I am a left-wing progressive with NONE of those nasty tendencies you attribute to those terms.. and I’m liberal too despite the fact that neoliberals seem to be the complete opposite of what I see myself as.
Hey I also claim to be Christian though it too now seems to stand for everything Jesus preached against..
..jeez, I lost the term “Left” some time ago as it now seems N/A to me anymore.. and now I’m losing the accolade “progressive” as well! ‘Not sure what I am anymore!
It seems the lunacy of distorting terms extended to those who decry the lunacy of distorting terms. A plague on all yer houses I say:
I am a left-wing progressive with NONE of those nasty tendencies you attribute to those terms.. and I’m liberal too despite the fact that neoliberals seem to be the complete opposite of what I see myself as.
Hey I also claim to be Christian though it too now seems to stand for everything Jesus preached against..
“Progressives care more about semantics than emancipation.” Semantics are the favorite tool of Progressives, because they obscure meaning and allow them to distort and mold language in any way that suits them and the agenda.
Define women-only spaces as pen*s-free zones, to minimise triggering trauma among vulnerable victims.
A castrated man isn’t a woman. He’s a castrated man.
True, but it would cut the numbers down considerably, as only 2% – 5% of these men calling themselves trans have actually been castrated, or so I read.
You misunderstand the term castrated!
Did I? In the old days transexual men used to have all their bits removed – that seems to be optional nowadays (many of them don’t even bother shaving their beards off, let alone go for anything more radical).
Did I? In the old days transexual men used to have all their bits removed – that seems to be optional nowadays (many of them don’t even bother shaving their beards off, let alone go for anything more radical).
You misunderstand the term castrated!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day, when Morton Downey Jr. had a tv talk show, he had a guest on, who was trans. He was trans because…it was a great way to pick up lesbians.
..ah, happy days eh?
..ah, happy days eh?
Or to use a technical term, a EUNUCH!
but still a man!
True, but it would cut the numbers down considerably, as only 2% – 5% of these men calling themselves trans have actually been castrated, or so I read.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day, when Morton Downey Jr. had a tv talk show, he had a guest on, who was trans. He was trans because…it was a great way to pick up lesbians.
Or to use a technical term, a EUNUCH!
but still a man!
…but wait! If lesbian women are sexually aroused, and may prey upon naked women should they be excluded too? If we have mixed nudist beaches etc why not mix everything.. get over the hang-ups, or is it hang-downs?
You really don’t understand this issue at all, do you?
I suspect he may be an agent provocateur.
Precisely!
Precisely!
I think he’s just here to troll.
Spot on Allison!
Spot on Allison!
I suspect he may be an agent provocateur.
I think he’s just here to troll.
Lesbian women may be aroused, but they don’t pose a potential physical threat to other women. I am rather in the shower facility with Lesbians than a man with a whig, who “feels” like a woman.
Your nudist colony arguments are pretty silly. Those people are voluntary on the beach, pool etc.
Men are consistently bigger and much stronger than women. In almost all rape and femicide crimes, the woman is physically overpowered.
As a man I don’t enjoy sharing lavatories and changing facilities with women and girls either.
You really don’t understand this issue at all, do you?
Lesbian women may be aroused, but they don’t pose a potential physical threat to other women. I am rather in the shower facility with Lesbians than a man with a whig, who “feels” like a woman.
Your nudist colony arguments are pretty silly. Those people are voluntary on the beach, pool etc.
Men are consistently bigger and much stronger than women. In almost all rape and femicide crimes, the woman is physically overpowered.
As a man I don’t enjoy sharing lavatories and changing facilities with women and girls either.
A castrated man isn’t a woman. He’s a castrated man.
…but wait! If lesbian women are sexually aroused, and may prey upon naked women should they be excluded too? If we have mixed nudist beaches etc why not mix everything.. get over the hang-ups, or is it hang-downs?
Define women-only spaces as pen*s-free zones, to minimise triggering trauma among vulnerable victims.
The logic can be extended – if trans women have a right to use female only spaces, then ordinary men have a right to female only spaces too, and women have a right to male only spaces.
And you could place a small wager that some bright sparks would design buildings with only unisex changing rooms and toilets.
And why not? We have nudist spaces that we all seem well capable of coping with? It’s time we ditched the silly taboos and matured a bit!
I absolutely don’t want men in my changing rooms, showers or other “women only” facilities I use at my gym. I don’t care what nudists are up to…
When did you begin to believe Liam that men should be parading around naked in female spaces.
Irish people tend to look for a religious type group consensus, which may explain the lack of opposition to this new trans-substantiation theology.
I absolutely don’t want men in my changing rooms, showers or other “women only” facilities I use at my gym. I don’t care what nudists are up to…
When did you begin to believe Liam that men should be parading around naked in female spaces.
Irish people tend to look for a religious type group consensus, which may explain the lack of opposition to this new trans-substantiation theology.
The big difference is that women fear being attacked by men whereas men don’t fear being attacked by women.
Perhaps some men fear being demeaned or criticised by women?
Hardly the same thing eh? Sticks and stones etc?
As a broad brush argument you can say that women fear physical assault and men fear reputational assault. Neither men or women in general appreciate how important this distinction is to the other sex. Men may shrug off physical assault more easily because they understand the dynamics involved; women may shrug off catty remarks similarly. But each interaction plays into the status within ones peers.
As a broad brush argument you can say that women fear physical assault and men fear reputational assault. Neither men or women in general appreciate how important this distinction is to the other sex. Men may shrug off physical assault more easily because they understand the dynamics involved; women may shrug off catty remarks similarly. But each interaction plays into the status within ones peers.
Hardly the same thing eh? Sticks and stones etc?
Perhaps some men fear being demeaned or criticised by women?
And why not? We have nudist spaces that we all seem well capable of coping with? It’s time we ditched the silly taboos and matured a bit!
The big difference is that women fear being attacked by men whereas men don’t fear being attacked by women.
The logic can be extended – if trans women have a right to use female only spaces, then ordinary men have a right to female only spaces too, and women have a right to male only spaces.
And you could place a small wager that some bright sparks would design buildings with only unisex changing rooms and toilets.
‘. As Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay noted in their 2020 book Cynical Theories, language is now viewed as a tool of oppression, and thus must be altered in the name of so-called “liberation”.’
haha INGSOC, or Newspeak, as Orwell instructed us…
”WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”
As far as the article – deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is the Great Post-Modern, Atheist, Great Reset. The story above is merely complaining about 5th Generation War Psy-OPPs our Psychopathic Masters are waging against us, like the one on Seattle,Like the Plandemic, they are out to kill the West – and the useful sheep are their foot soldiers.
And as far as this thing:
‘And in Afghanistan, the Taliban government reintroduced Sharia Law, meaning women are now barred from walking outside without a male relative and must cover up with a burqa or hijab when outside the home.
If the Taliban only require the hijab they are pretty liberal from the old days when I lived there; the only part of a common woman ever seen then was the hand in Urban areas, and they were mostly kept tucked in the folds of her Burqa – except in the agriculture where it would not work – the net hiding the eyes… (and you know as soon as the camera went away those came off – this is staged, but is a good picture)
But what lept out to me of the picture above was how well off they all were from the old days. Those Burqas are new, embroidered, not cheap (Takes a lot of fabric, they are massively pleated) – those new sewing machines, the manicured and made up hand, the burqus obviously not actually worn – but for show and occasional use – it is pristine, not like the ones in the old days, all worn… So some of the $ Trillion USA squandered there remained…. Virtually everything we did there was messed up, a lot of it was trying to de-Pashtun the Pashtuns by the hoards of Feminist, Woke NGO’s 4th wave Feminists, who just do not understand that other societies are not like them, and do not want someone telling them how wrong their culture is.
If we had just left then with the Russians Afghanistan would likely be OK, and not totally messed up now. They would have built roads, dams, and lots of mines so they could have funded themselves. They also would have had the girls in schools – because the Russians know keeping half the work force hidden at home guarantees poverty, its what they did in the other ‘Stans’. But no – we came in and just made a mess.
USSR went in 1979, and 1991 USSR broke up – thirty years ago – the last 40 years has been war there, 20 like in Ukraine – funding with weapons and $$$, and then a couple decades with boots on the ground – what a waste – and the West getting hurt and going broke, and doing no one any good… if we had just kept out of it…..but no – we have to obey the Military Industrial Complex Lobbyists – how else are the congress members going to get money to get elected? Remind you of anything Biden is doing now?
‘. As Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay noted in their 2020 book Cynical Theories, language is now viewed as a tool of oppression, and thus must be altered in the name of so-called “liberation”.’
haha INGSOC, or Newspeak, as Orwell instructed us…
”WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”
As far as the article – deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is the Great Post-Modern, Atheist, Great Reset. The story above is merely complaining about 5th Generation War Psy-OPPs our Psychopathic Masters are waging against us, like the one on Seattle,Like the Plandemic, they are out to kill the West – and the useful sheep are their foot soldiers.
And as far as this thing:
‘And in Afghanistan, the Taliban government reintroduced Sharia Law, meaning women are now barred from walking outside without a male relative and must cover up with a burqa or hijab when outside the home.
If the Taliban only require the hijab they are pretty liberal from the old days when I lived there; the only part of a common woman ever seen then was the hand in Urban areas, and they were mostly kept tucked in the folds of her Burqa – except in the agriculture where it would not work – the net hiding the eyes… (and you know as soon as the camera went away those came off – this is staged, but is a good picture)
But what lept out to me of the picture above was how well off they all were from the old days. Those Burqas are new, embroidered, not cheap (Takes a lot of fabric, they are massively pleated) – those new sewing machines, the manicured and made up hand, the burqus obviously not actually worn – but for show and occasional use – it is pristine, not like the ones in the old days, all worn… So some of the $ Trillion USA squandered there remained…. Virtually everything we did there was messed up, a lot of it was trying to de-Pashtun the Pashtuns by the hoards of Feminist, Woke NGO’s 4th wave Feminists, who just do not understand that other societies are not like them, and do not want someone telling them how wrong their culture is.
If we had just left then with the Russians Afghanistan would likely be OK, and not totally messed up now. They would have built roads, dams, and lots of mines so they could have funded themselves. They also would have had the girls in schools – because the Russians know keeping half the work force hidden at home guarantees poverty, its what they did in the other ‘Stans’. But no – we came in and just made a mess.
USSR went in 1979, and 1991 USSR broke up – thirty years ago – the last 40 years has been war there, 20 like in Ukraine – funding with weapons and $$$, and then a couple decades with boots on the ground – what a waste – and the West getting hurt and going broke, and doing no one any good… if we had just kept out of it…..but no – we have to obey the Military Industrial Complex Lobbyists – how else are the congress members going to get money to get elected? Remind you of anything Biden is doing now?
This is an excellent piece, thank you. Such rational sanity is much needed given the insane ravings propagated even by supposedly serious organisations: https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement’s-ideology-and-practice
My God. I read the linked piece for about twenty seconds before my brain started bleeding.
My God. I read the linked piece for about twenty seconds before my brain started bleeding.
This is an excellent piece, thank you. Such rational sanity is much needed given the insane ravings propagated even by supposedly serious organisations: https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement’s-ideology-and-practice
“Standing up for the rights of transgender people should not mean pretending [biological] sex does not exist altogether.
Absolutely. Do young and progressive women really not understand the difference? I can’t believe so – otherwise I’d have to acknowledge that a relentless diet of fantasy and computer games has addled a generation or two in the entitled West. TikTok’s Chinese owners must be laughing their heads off at our kid’s lack of grip on reality and inability to put things into context.
“Standing up for the rights of transgender people should not mean pretending [biological] sex does not exist altogether.
Absolutely. Do young and progressive women really not understand the difference? I can’t believe so – otherwise I’d have to acknowledge that a relentless diet of fantasy and computer games has addled a generation or two in the entitled West. TikTok’s Chinese owners must be laughing their heads off at our kid’s lack of grip on reality and inability to put things into context.
Until 19th Amendment women could not vote because they were women.
In 2023 women can vote but they are not allowed to be women.
Interesting how easy it is to find a way to subjugate humans who were born with XX chromosomes in their DNA, by humans who were born with XY chromosome.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
Until 19th Amendment women could not vote because they were women.
In 2023 women can vote but they are not allowed to be women.
Interesting how easy it is to find a way to subjugate humans who were born with XX chromosomes in their DNA, by humans who were born with XY chromosome.
Thank you. What an excellent article. Clearsighted and shining light on dark corners. The final paragraph is perfect.
Thank you. What an excellent article. Clearsighted and shining light on dark corners. The final paragraph is perfect.
This opinion piece really drives home some of the damage the meek adherence to this extreme ideology is causing in the west, let alone almost turning a blind eye to the travesties and human-rights violations in many third-world countries. Not that we should in turn be brutalized and erased, either, obviously; I don’t think any sane person sees that as a tenable option. But all this over what, what basically almost really does seem like semantics? Really? I personally find it so crazy that the reaches some (many?) extremists seem to make to “include” trans-women is resulting in this erasure/erosion of the concept of what a woman is. It’s a very basic thing. Like, trans-women can’t even be a thing without women existing in the first place. If biological sex wasn’t a reality, gender dysphoria wouldn’t occur in the first place, and neither trans men nor women would exist/have the issue (disorder?) that we do, let alone want to transition to address it/live our lives. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t fix anything. I won’t presume to speak for everybody, especially as early on as I am, but why would I ever want to destroy the very thing I see myself as/seek to actualize? And even if I succeed, what then would that make me? What even would I then become? And all this for less than 1% of the human population. Again, of course, that isn’t to say I think we should in turn be ignored or hurt, I doubt anyone would truly say that, but we can’t just demand acceptance at any cost – we *need* to meet somewhere in the middle, while protecting those more vulnerable.
Almost equally relevant, yet seems to (somewhat understandably) never be mentioned: how long until “men” get erased, too? If what a woman is is such a nebulous question within extreme leftist gender ideology, then what even are men, either?
This opinion piece really drives home some of the damage the meek adherence to this extreme ideology is causing in the west, let alone almost turning a blind eye to the travesties and human-rights violations in many third-world countries. Not that we should in turn be brutalized and erased, either, obviously; I don’t think any sane person sees that as a tenable option. But all this over what, what basically almost really does seem like semantics? Really? I personally find it so crazy that the reaches some (many?) extremists seem to make to “include” trans-women is resulting in this erasure/erosion of the concept of what a woman is. It’s a very basic thing. Like, trans-women can’t even be a thing without women existing in the first place. If biological sex wasn’t a reality, gender dysphoria wouldn’t occur in the first place, and neither trans men nor women would exist/have the issue (disorder?) that we do, let alone want to transition to address it/live our lives. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t fix anything. I won’t presume to speak for everybody, especially as early on as I am, but why would I ever want to destroy the very thing I see myself as/seek to actualize? And even if I succeed, what then would that make me? What even would I then become? And all this for less than 1% of the human population. Again, of course, that isn’t to say I think we should in turn be ignored or hurt, I doubt anyone would truly say that, but we can’t just demand acceptance at any cost – we *need* to meet somewhere in the middle, while protecting those more vulnerable.
Almost equally relevant, yet seems to (somewhat understandably) never be mentioned: how long until “men” get erased, too? If what a woman is is such a nebulous question within extreme leftist gender ideology, then what even are men, either?
It is a shame that we have been saddled with a Supreme Court Justice too stupid to know the difference between concave and convex. How can Bojangi Jackson celebrate a year of a woman without knowing what a woman is?
It is a shame that we have been saddled with a Supreme Court Justice too stupid to know the difference between concave and convex. How can Bojangi Jackson celebrate a year of a woman without knowing what a woman is?
Leftards hate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, because she refuses to pander to Islam, trans twaddle and other horrors.
Leftards hate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, because she refuses to pander to Islam, trans twaddle and other horrors.
A brilliant article. Thank you.
A brilliant article. Thank you.
A very inciteful article. Thank you for the simple yet powerful comparison.
A very inciteful article. Thank you for the simple yet powerful comparison.
Viewed in a positive light, the surge in transgenderism represents the culmination of decades of progressive doctrine disseminated through academia and media, challenging the fundamental understanding of gender roles.
On the one hand, birth control and abortion were, and still are, presented as the keys to freedom for women from from male domination, which has been kept alive as women’s nemesis by the fantasy world of The Handmaid’s Tale. The message to young girls is that pregnancy is used as a tool of oppression by the patriarchy. Solution? Reject pregnancy, the core defining trait of womanhood.
And boys have been taught to know that their masculinity is toxic, that they are responsible as a gender for capitalism, crime and war, and that sexual objectification of women is wrong, is degrading. So not surprising that some young men want to resign from the harmful gender and embrace their inner goddess to become a woman. Nor illogical that women should want to escape from the captivity of the female gender in return for all the benefits of joining the privileged patriarchy as a male.
Viewed in a positive light, the surge in transgenderism represents the culmination of decades of progressive doctrine disseminated through academia and media, challenging the fundamental understanding of gender roles.
On the one hand, birth control and abortion were, and still are, presented as the keys to freedom for women from from male domination, which has been kept alive as women’s nemesis by the fantasy world of The Handmaid’s Tale. The message to young girls is that pregnancy is used as a tool of oppression by the patriarchy. Solution? Reject pregnancy, the core defining trait of womanhood.
And boys have been taught to know that their masculinity is toxic, that they are responsible as a gender for capitalism, crime and war, and that sexual objectification of women is wrong, is degrading. So not surprising that some young men want to resign from the harmful gender and embrace their inner goddess to become a woman. Nor illogical that women should want to escape from the captivity of the female gender in return for all the benefits of joining the privileged patriarchy as a male.
Isn’t it amazing! Trans Women are women because biological men are trying to invade women’s spaces. Yet Trans Mxn are men is not a big deal. None of those Mxn are trying to compete in men’s spaces. Except of course in the pregnant mxn category where biological men fail miserably.
Isn’t it amazing! Trans Women are women because biological men are trying to invade women’s spaces. Yet Trans Mxn are men is not a big deal. None of those Mxn are trying to compete in men’s spaces. Except of course in the pregnant mxn category where biological men fail miserably.
The definition of “man” has similarly been added to in the Cambridge Dictionary.
The definition of “man” has similarly been added to in the Cambridge Dictionary.
Absolutely Brilliant!!!
Absolutely Brilliant!!!
A rhetorical question: Would a muslim trans-woman voluntarily wear a hijab?
A rhetorical question: Would a muslim trans-woman voluntarily wear a hijab?
Indeed.
But let us reclarify the clarification… when we say that ‘transgender people’ should “have the same moral and legal rights as everyone else,” what we are implying is that they somehow don’t.
This is incorrect.
In fact those who suffer from gender dysphoria have exactly the same moral and legal rights as anyone else. How could they not? But having the same rights & privileges as guaranteed by law and/or the Constitution does not give the gender dysphoric any additional rights or privileges.
A man, as a for instance, does not have the right to access or use a Female-Only space. It doesn’t matter if the man is pretending to be a woman; it doesn’t matter if he very sincerely believes he’s a woman. Men, do not have opposite-sex privacy rights. Nor can a man require the State to change his legally defined sex to give him those rights. Nor does a man, pretending to be a woman, have the right to demand (with legal enforcement capability) that the rest of the world recognize and enable his “I’m a Woman!” delusion.
Ayaan suggests that an effective compromise would be the addition of the modifier ‘trans’ to the word, ‘woman’ to indicate some sort of in-between, almost-but-not-quite condition….as in Richard Levine is a trans-woman. But there is no in-between sex (save for the extremely rare hermaphroditic) and to call Richard a trans-woman would imply that yes, he is a member (albeit a distant member) of a reality category he does not and cannot inhabit. If I, as a for instance, believe myself to be a zebra, it would not be somehow ‘more accurate’ or ‘more reasonable’ to call me a trans-zebra. Rather I am and will always remain, a man, suffering from a delusional condition called ‘zebra dysphoria’.
None of this is surprising, of course. We live in a world obsessed with the obviation of the absolute. Reality as a measure of Truth, has been abandoned. It’s inconvenient and makes us feel bad. Instead we’ve embraced ‘lived realities’…your reality…my reality….our own, personal ‘feels’ as ‘reality’. And what’s valued in these floating ‘realities’ is ‘feeling good’. What’s valued to the point of incomprehensibility is the validation of the psychologically expressive self, no matter how disconnected from Reality that self becomes.
So sure — if it feels good to eliminate the Reality which is Woman, so be it. It all depends, as we learned long ago, on what the definition of ‘is’ is…or ‘woman’…or ‘sex’…or ‘gender’…or ‘feeling good’…or whatever. It’s a wonder Justice Brown can get out of bed in the morning, since the world itself is such a morass of gross uncertainty. “Ketanji, would you like scrambled eggs for breakfast?” “I’m no farmer … so I don’t know ‘eggs’…and I’m no food scientist, so I don’t know ‘scrambled’….and I’m not a cultural anthropologist, so I don’t know ‘breakfast’.
Welcome to the Idiocracy.
Indeed.
But let us reclarify the clarification… when we say that ‘transgender people’ should “have the same moral and legal rights as everyone else,” what we are implying is that they somehow don’t.
This is incorrect.
In fact those who suffer from gender dysphoria have exactly the same moral and legal rights as anyone else. How could they not? But having the same rights & privileges as guaranteed by law and/or the Constitution does not give the gender dysphoric any additional rights or privileges.
A man, as a for instance, does not have the right to access or use a Female-Only space. It doesn’t matter if the man is pretending to be a woman; it doesn’t matter if he very sincerely believes he’s a woman. Men, do not have opposite-sex privacy rights. Nor can a man require the State to change his legally defined sex to give him those rights. Nor does a man, pretending to be a woman, have the right to demand (with legal enforcement capability) that the rest of the world recognize and enable his “I’m a Woman!” delusion.
Ayaan suggests that an effective compromise would be the addition of the modifier ‘trans’ to the word, ‘woman’ to indicate some sort of in-between, almost-but-not-quite condition….as in Richard Levine is a trans-woman. But there is no in-between sex (save for the extremely rare hermaphroditic) and to call Richard a trans-woman would imply that yes, he is a member (albeit a distant member) of a reality category he does not and cannot inhabit. If I, as a for instance, believe myself to be a zebra, it would not be somehow ‘more accurate’ or ‘more reasonable’ to call me a trans-zebra. Rather I am and will always remain, a man, suffering from a delusional condition called ‘zebra dysphoria’.
None of this is surprising, of course. We live in a world obsessed with the obviation of the absolute. Reality as a measure of Truth, has been abandoned. It’s inconvenient and makes us feel bad. Instead we’ve embraced ‘lived realities’…your reality…my reality….our own, personal ‘feels’ as ‘reality’. And what’s valued in these floating ‘realities’ is ‘feeling good’. What’s valued to the point of incomprehensibility is the validation of the psychologically expressive self, no matter how disconnected from Reality that self becomes.
So sure — if it feels good to eliminate the Reality which is Woman, so be it. It all depends, as we learned long ago, on what the definition of ‘is’ is…or ‘woman’…or ‘sex’…or ‘gender’…or ‘feeling good’…or whatever. It’s a wonder Justice Brown can get out of bed in the morning, since the world itself is such a morass of gross uncertainty. “Ketanji, would you like scrambled eggs for breakfast?” “I’m no farmer … so I don’t know ‘eggs’…and I’m no food scientist, so I don’t know ‘scrambled’….and I’m not a cultural anthropologist, so I don’t know ‘breakfast’.
Welcome to the Idiocracy.
I don’t see a distinction between a claimed belief & a claimed feeling. Between I believe I am in the wrong body & I feel I am in the wrong body.
Good point. I would suggest that the difference is in the need for proof (to the extent that either proposition depends on proof).
If you were to say, ‘I feel I am in the wrong body’ …then that is an unassailable assertion. I can demonstrate that what you just said is irrational (for there is no other body you could possibly inhabit)…but that truth has no bearing on your feeling. Your ‘feeling’ remains legitimate in the sense that no one can demonstrate or prove that you DON’T feel that way…or that your feeling is or should be tied to any reality.
But if you were to say, ‘I believe I am in the wrong body’… then presumably we can dissuade of that belief by the simple presentation of proof that no other body is possible.
The difference is pretty minor, but in general we might say that belief is what follows the accumulation & evaluation of evidence. A feeling simply arises or is created out of anything, real or unreal.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the genuine heroes of the modern world. When manifest truth confronts grotesque hypocrisy.
Ah! But it’s only hypocrisy if the Progressive Left actually asserts a perspective which opposes their behavior. Or, said differently, what we witness — day after day — is only hypocritical if the Other actually believes in a principle which is violated by their actions.
But they don’t. Believe in anything, that is, beyond the simple accumulation and exercise of power. And if saying “X” while doing “Y” gives them power, so be it. If they need to say “Z” while doing “X”, so be it. The shifts in principle, the wag-the-tail variance in declaration don’t matter in the least if what they truly value has nothing to do with what is said or done.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
And indeed, that’s all.
If saying the border is closed and under control is what it takes, then that is what is said — doesn’t matter in least that the border is a wide open nightmare. If saying inflation is solved ..is the only thing that matters, then again, that is the declaration. Doesn’t matter to anyone other than those who pay attention…that groceries cost double what they cost before. (And we’re here, on the outside, yelling HYPOCRISY!)
“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. .. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
Very true, very true.
Thank you for your thoughtful article full of common sense
It wasn’t the West that did it, it was the American Democrats and Biden
It wasn’t the West that did it, it was the American Democrats and Biden
What is happening to women in Iran, Afghanistan, and countless other regions in the world is devastating for the human race. Moreover, nothing can be spared as yet another opportunity to demonize “progressives”. When will this all end? Can we just talk about anything, yes, anything, without turning it into an opportunity to demonize progressives? I will be the first to admit that I don’t fully comprehend what is happening in the western world regarding sexuality at this moment. I might have a hard time to accept some things, but that doesn’t mean that those things are “wrong”, it just means that I have a hard time accepting them. The wrongness is decided by majority perceptions or perceptions of those that have the power to influence others. I would appreciate one article that sticks to one topic, like the situation of women in Afghanistan, let’s take the time to grieve that state of affairs and ponder about humanity. Please don’t “use” the tragedy of these women to make a case for how bad gender issues are in the western world.
No. Bending and subverting reality to suit one’s own weird ideological pretensions is definitely “wrong.”
No. Bending and subverting reality to suit one’s own weird ideological pretensions is definitely “wrong.”
What is happening to women in Iran, Afghanistan, and countless other regions in the world is devastating for the human race. Moreover, nothing can be spared as yet another opportunity to demonize “progressives”. When will this all end? Can we just talk about anything, yes, anything, without turning it into an opportunity to demonize progressives? I will be the first to admit that I don’t fully comprehend what is happening in the western world regarding sexuality at this moment. I might have a hard time to accept some things, but that doesn’t mean that those things are “wrong”, it just means that I have a hard time accepting them. The wrongness is decided by majority perceptions or perceptions of those that have the power to influence others. I would appreciate one article that sticks to one topic, like the situation of women in Afghanistan, let’s take the time to grieve that state of affairs and ponder about humanity. Please don’t “use” the tragedy of these women to make a case for how bad gender issues are in the western world.
“greater war that will determine how language itself is used” – well, the discourse about changing (hijacking, really) the meaning of the good old word as the shortcut to advance progressive agenda sounds familiar… ah! gay marriage! 🙂 Everyone was ok with that (well, except 1mln French on the streets of Paris, who were ignored)
“greater war that will determine how language itself is used” – well, the discourse about changing (hijacking, really) the meaning of the good old word as the shortcut to advance progressive agenda sounds familiar… ah! gay marriage! 🙂 Everyone was ok with that (well, except 1mln French on the streets of Paris, who were ignored)
This is a ridiculous and stupid essay. I don’t like transgender activists, but they are not responsible for the west abandoning women to Islamic extremists. America and the west cannot fight endless wars in the Middle East in order to force backward people into the modern world. We tried and it didn’t work. The west can’t recolonize backward nations and kill millions of Islamists to force western values on them. A brutal, backward religion is responsible for the plight of women in Iran and Afghanistan not the west. We cannot be the cops of the world.
This is a ridiculous and stupid essay. I don’t like transgender activists, but they are not responsible for the west abandoning women to Islamic extremists. America and the west cannot fight endless wars in the Middle East in order to force backward people into the modern world. We tried and it didn’t work. The west can’t recolonize backward nations and kill millions of Islamists to force western values on them. A brutal, backward religion is responsible for the plight of women in Iran and Afghanistan not the west. We cannot be the cops of the world.
If I squint long enough, the sun looks like an orange, but is it, or is it perceptual bias? How long a bow does the author want to draw? Surely, all things are related if i put enough semantics into it, but are they truly?
Clearly with topics like this, there can be no right or wrong, just differing opinions. Statements like
seem to be devoid of evidence. In what way did we turn our backs?? Were we previously paying attention, and then decided not to suddenly??
Of course not, its just a convenient device the author uses to sweep the fan people along. Its hard to see that the world has changed at all substantively, so this does seem to be a largely overblown thesis.
One could argue that the issues with finding the right fit for trans people are growing pains, and there may be some false starts. For example, the initial position that trans women can compete against bio-women in sport seems to be sensibly being rethought as impractical and not realistic. So it doesn’t have to be an attack against women’s rights, although the author will get more clicks/grants if it is framed this way.
Question: Why isn’t the author in Afghanistan fighting against the Taliban?
Answer: Because she has other more important things to take care of
So it is with the rest of world. While the author rages that people are not doing anything (including herself), she fails to acknowledge the reality that people are fundamentally venal and self-interested.
We all hate what is happening to women in Iran and Afghanistan, just like we hate what is happening to the Uigyars and the Palestinians. But what are we actually going to do? Its easy to rage against the machine, but what action are you taking personally?
Its hard to see any actual evidence for what the author is railing about in this piece, particularly for its more sensational claims. There is a natural elasticity to events, and so it seems likely that meanings have been over-stretched. But it also seems likely they will snap back into place, and the hyperbole was not useful or well directed, in my opinion
If I squint long enough, the sun looks like an orange, but is it, or is it perceptual bias? How long a bow does the author want to draw? Surely, all things are related if i put enough semantics into it, but are they truly?
Clearly with topics like this, there can be no right or wrong, just differing opinions. Statements like
seem to be devoid of evidence. In what way did we turn our backs?? Were we previously paying attention, and then decided not to suddenly??
Of course not, its just a convenient device the author uses to sweep the fan people along. Its hard to see that the world has changed at all substantively, so this does seem to be a largely overblown thesis.
One could argue that the issues with finding the right fit for trans people are growing pains, and there may be some false starts. For example, the initial position that trans women can compete against bio-women in sport seems to be sensibly being rethought as impractical and not realistic. So it doesn’t have to be an attack against women’s rights, although the author will get more clicks/grants if it is framed this way.
Question: Why isn’t the author in Afghanistan fighting against the Taliban?
Answer: Because she has other more important things to take care of
So it is with the rest of world. While the author rages that people are not doing anything (including herself), she fails to acknowledge the reality that people are fundamentally venal and self-interested.
We all hate what is happening to women in Iran and Afghanistan, just like we hate what is happening to the Uigyars and the Palestinians. But what are we actually going to do? Its easy to rage against the machine, but what action are you taking personally?
Its hard to see any actual evidence for what the author is railing about in this piece, particularly for its more sensational claims. There is a natural elasticity to events, and so it seems likely that meanings have been over-stretched. But it also seems likely they will snap back into place, and the hyperbole was not useful or well directed, in my opinion
The very premise of this article is incorrect.
Women weren’t erased this year.
The concept that women are different, have different strengths and weaknesses, or different choices and resulting life objectives, has been erased over a period of several decades.
And women were erased not by “trans” women but by their own kind, quite deliberately.
Women believed that claiming they are the same as men would only ever work to their advantage. They could get preferential quotas in banking and IT, but no one would demand that men should be preferentially hired in teaching. Women get paid the same as men at Wimbledon, while still playing three sets in a less competitive women only format. Etc etc.
The only difference now is, a small group of men (and they are men, whatever they call themselves) are using that erasure of boundaries for their advantage.
And that’s why the crisis.
The very premise of this article is incorrect.
Women weren’t erased this year.
The concept that women are different, have different strengths and weaknesses, or different choices and resulting life objectives, has been erased over a period of several decades.
And women were erased not by “trans” women but by their own kind, quite deliberately.
Women believed that claiming they are the same as men would only ever work to their advantage. They could get preferential quotas in banking and IT, but no one would demand that men should be preferentially hired in teaching. Women get paid the same as men at Wimbledon, while still playing three sets in a less competitive women only format. Etc etc.
The only difference now is, a small group of men (and they are men, whatever they call themselves) are using that erasure of boundaries for their advantage.
And that’s why the crisis.
A well put case on a difficult issue. Unfair though I think to castigate anyone who answers a loaded question very carefully, rather than simply. “What is a woman?” Is akin to “Is it true you’ve stopped beating your wife?”
A question asked honestly and simply should be answered in a similar vein but a loaded (or indeed a deeply philosophical) question ‘not so.
Is there a difference between gender and sex and femininity and feminine traits? Perhaps the origin of of the word woman (wife man) offers a further dimension? Even female has that unwanted suffix but only because the word “man” itself has been corrupted to mean male rather than its original meaning “human” as survives in the term “mankind”.
A simple answer can also elicit further (childlike) questions, so.if the answer to the vexed question is “female human” the next question clearly, will be what does “female” mean and if one goes fown the biological rabbit hole one omits feminine traits, what it feels to be female. But these traits can occur in males and indeed male traits can occur in females (eg Thatcher) so is it time to cease attributing such traits to genders altogether and stick with the simple, biological difference?
If those two can be separated then the case for trans surgery may be lessened.. but I have neither experience nor expertise in this area so I too will sat I’m not a biologist let alone a specialist in this field.
God’s teeth spare us this drivel you ridiculous little Leprechaun! Or has the Algarve sun got to you?
Is this what things have come to? The question “What is a woman?” is absolutely not loaded. The answer is perfectly simple. A woman is an adult human female. Female is well-defined. A female has two XX chromosomes, which are to be found in every single cell of the body. There is no ambiguity here, and femininity or what it feels to be female have nothing to do with womanhood.
I’m not a veterinarian, but I know the difference between a dog and a cat.
God’s teeth spare us this drivel you ridiculous little Leprechaun! Or has the Algarve sun got to you?
Is this what things have come to? The question “What is a woman?” is absolutely not loaded. The answer is perfectly simple. A woman is an adult human female. Female is well-defined. A female has two XX chromosomes, which are to be found in every single cell of the body. There is no ambiguity here, and femininity or what it feels to be female have nothing to do with womanhood.
I’m not a veterinarian, but I know the difference between a dog and a cat.
A well put case on a difficult issue. Unfair though I think to castigate anyone who answers a loaded question very carefully, rather than simply. “What is a woman?” Is akin to “Is it true you’ve stopped beating your wife?”
A question asked honestly and simply should be answered in a similar vein but a loaded (or indeed a deeply philosophical) question ‘not so.
Is there a difference between gender and sex and femininity and feminine traits? Perhaps the origin of of the word woman (wife man) offers a further dimension? Even female has that unwanted suffix but only because the word “man” itself has been corrupted to mean male rather than its original meaning “human” as survives in the term “mankind”.
A simple answer can also elicit further (childlike) questions, so.if the answer to the vexed question is “female human” the next question clearly, will be what does “female” mean and if one goes fown the biological rabbit hole one omits feminine traits, what it feels to be female. But these traits can occur in males and indeed male traits can occur in females (eg Thatcher) so is it time to cease attributing such traits to genders altogether and stick with the simple, biological difference?
If those two can be separated then the case for trans surgery may be lessened.. but I have neither experience nor expertise in this area so I too will sat I’m not a biologist let alone a specialist in this field.