The "magic mirror" offers an unreal ideal. Marco Piraccini/Archivio Marco/Getty Images
It’s now an open secret that most Instagram influencers edit their images: smoothing skin, whitening teeth and plumping curves. Last year, OnlyFans content creator Diana Deets, also known as “Coconutkitty”, was castigated for making her NSFW images and videos seem much younger.
Deets wasn’t exactly deceiving her fans. She left older, less manipulated images available, and described her work as “art”. Even so, some accused her of “pedo-baiting”. But just last week, a story that seemed a perfect 21st-century blend of self-commodification and AI-assisted digital unreality took a darker note, when news broke that Deets had taken her own life.
The callous response by extremely online rubberneckers to someone’s obvious suffering exposes two recurring themes in current-day culture.
First, that we have wildly underestimated how completely the shift to a digital-first culture is unmooring us — or, at least, some of us — from material reality. And second, that this has accelerated a transformation that has been under way for over 50 years, in which commerce and innovation turn inward from exploring (and exploiting) the world towards doing the same in the human body, and the human soul: the transhumanist revolution, that began with the contraceptive pill.
In Feminism Against Progress, which is published today, I have argued that these revolutions take aim at aspects of embodied human experience that were previously treated as natural and immutable: for example that men and women exist, and can’t change sex; that most are heterosexual, and the point of sex is, ultimately, making more people. It even takes aim at the fact that only women can have babies, or that puberty is “natural”.
Instead, since the contraceptive revolution, “progress” increasingly entails waging war on human nature as such. And this is justified on the utopian basis that it is a fallacy to claim that anything about us is “natural”, and these claims mostly serve the patriarchy, or white supremacy, or some such boogeyman.
But doing so doesn’t actually free us from human nature, so much as open up aspects of that nature to the market. So, for example, in theory the sexual revolution freed women from pregnancy risk, liberating us to be as sexually voracious as men; but, in practice, men and women still approach mating differently. And if separating sex from its reproductive consequences enabled us to treat sexual behaviour as a purely private matter for the first time, so with that came the defence of pornography and prostitution on libertarian grounds.
We’ve been taught to view such changes as “progress”, and as inseparable from “feminism”, understood as the pursuit of ever greater freedom, underwritten by (usually for-profit) technology. I bought into that myself, until I had a child. But as I’ve set out to understand the under-counted costs of seeing women’s bodies, and women’s interests, in these terms, I’ve come to see the costs of setting out to emancipate ourselves from our own bodies as especially steep for women — especially women outside the elite.
Feminism Against Progress looks at this through the prism of sex, a basic organismic pathway for many species as well humans, and yet now under all-out assault by those who would liberate us from it — such as trans activists, campaigners for “fertility equality” or scientists hunting for ways to create embryos without gametes. Meanwhile, male desire and female beauty haven’t gone away so much as been marketised; and in Deets’s tragic story, this marketisation fused with another irreducible fact of the human condition, also under all-out transhumanist assault, but also as yet immutable: ageing.
I was never more than average-looking, even in the flush of youth; even so, the ravages of time on my face still cause the odd pang now I’m middle aged. What is it like for someone whose face and body are their fortune, to see this happen? Here, too, the market wants to help: many celebrities with the money to do so respond by leaning into for-profit “freedom” and going under the knife — sometimes with eerie results. Further down the food chain, “tweakments” are now so normalised, that women are left feeling like freaks if they don’t get on the train. And if this all began decades ago, it’s been wildly accelerated by the digital transformation — for with this has come the power to sculpt our own ideal “selves”.
Last week, for example, the internet was full of videos of women crying because they turned on a TikTok filter that did, in essence, what Deets was doing to her own images with the Coconutkitty persona: turned their faces back to a “teenage” version. This gap between customisable virtual selves and unfiltered “IRL” existence is now a well-documented source of distress for many — especially young women.
One poll reported that 71% of respondents would never post a photo without editing it. Others show a straight line between editing your virtual self, and longing to do the same thing to your flesh. Some plastic surgeons report “they now regularly have patients come in with photos of themselves that have been so heavily Facetuned they would be anatomically impossible to replicate”. In other words, the seeming ability to dissolve and re-make our appearance, online, is normalising a belief that we can do so in the real world as well.
Twentieth-century cultural theorists saw this coming a long way off — or, perhaps, encouraged it. In an influential 1949 paper on the “mirror stage”, the psychoanalyst and cultural critic Jaques Lacan argued that we arrive at adult selfhood by coming to recognise idealised “mirrored” versions of ourselves, whether literally reflected in a mirror or as “reflected” in another’s gaze.
“Humankind cannot bear very much reality” wrote TS Eliot in 1935 — words echoed in Lacan’s 1949 paper, where the real, material world was described as only ever indirectly accessible. Encountering the Real was, Lacan thought, always traumatic: a perspective that makes sense, perhaps, in the light of the brutal realities Europe had only recently endured. And while Lacan’s theories don’t feature heavily in modern psychotherapeutic practice, the psychological flight he theorised away from reality into mirrors, language and identification has been wildly influential, via someone even less willing than he to bear very much reality: the queer theorist Judith Butler.
Judith Butler argued that there’s never a point when we can encounter material reality save through language and ideal — and that language and ideal also shape material reality. And this has implications even in the supposedly “natural” and irreducible domain of sex: something that, Butler argued, isn’t “natural” at all but as it were performed into existence.
A much-reduced pop-Butlerism has long since percolated from the academy into popular culture — not least because our increasingly digital-first social lives make it seem plausible. Online, everything really is so disembodied you can feel as though it might be possible to “LARP” anything into existence in the real world; and pretty much everyone younger than me has been socialising partly (or in some cases almost exclusively) in virtual spaces, some since childhood. Online, we all live in Judith Butler’s world: a space where “performance” and reality are, effectively, the same thing.
Increasingly, wave after wave of young people reaches adulthood armed with pop-Butlerism via university and Tumblr alike. No wonder growing numbers long to edit their meat avatars as they might their online ones, and that this isn’t confined to young girls pursuing unattainable beauty ideals. Reddit hosts anecdotal reports from individuals who decided to transition after using the digital funhouse mirror to feminised themselves, and deciding they liked that look better.
But the trouble is that this is only true until you log off. The digital age holds out a promise of total emancipation from material reality — one that, in politics, is now driving an increasingly bitter divide between those who can sustain this illusion and those still forced to deal with the real world. And, implicitly, we’re told we can apply this digital Prometheanism to our bodies, too. But it doesn’t work: the gap between protean sex-swap fantasy and sutured, bleeding, often complication-filled reality can be the stuff of nightmares — one that’s now prompting a surge of lawsuits. All that happens is that we open up a new, futile (but still highly profitable) war of attrition against our own nature.
The multimillionaire transhumanist and trans activist Martine Rothblatt may claim that the results of sex change surgery are “so persuasive that rarely can a “new man” or “new woman” be distinguished from a biological original”. But even if this were true (and it generally isn’t), no amount of Woman of the Year awards will change the fact that the individual formerly known as Bruce Jenner remains male down to the cellular level.
Today, Big Tech billionaires are throwing vast sums into the war on death — while the middle classes, and women in particular, find ourselves pressured to submit to expensive procedures aimed at approximating our flesh to the digitally-tweaked ideal in our pocket funhouse mirror. But no amount of “you go, girl” celebration of Madonna’s increasingly bizarre look alters the fact that it’s no more possible to halt the passage of time than it is to change sex.
Lacan envisaged a world where our reflections structure our worlds, and reality is at best a shadowy intermittent interruption. But he never imagined a situation in which we don’t just receive the reflections that shape our self-images, but claim the power to control them. In this world, the magic mirror offers unreal ideal selves to order: the “me” we would like to be, whether thinner, prettier or the opposite sex. And the upshot is that humankind can bear ever less reality — even as we throw ever more of our resources at paying to defy it. Now, with young people reaching adulthood having never known an age before the editable online mirror, we shouldn’t be surprised that so many believe the only compassionate response to an unwanted reality is to dissolve it — digitally, or medically, or both.
But it’s a scam. In practice, “liberating” ourselves from the reality of our bodies amounts, without fail, to increasing our dependence on for-profit services. As 51-year-old fashion director Anna Murphy points out, in explaining why she’s rejected “tweakments” route, it’s a “one-way street”. One procedure leads to the next, and eventually “your face becomes a jigsaw puzzle that doesn’t quite fit together any more — unless you pay someone else to do it for you”.
And for those who can’t quite afford the payments, there’s always the digital-only filter option. But this comes at a terrible cost. For as the gulf between mirror and matter widens, many find the gaze of the other reflects a reality they’d rather not bear.
Mary Harrington’s Feminism Against Progress (Swift) is out now!
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.
SubscribeMary always utilises personal experience and anecdotes to inform her writing, which i find fascinating, since it allows her to explore our contemporary experience in a way that many other writers – especially males, prone to excessive theorising – simply cannot.
Here, she uses her experience of the aging process, but i also checked her link to an early Unherd article from October 2019. This was way before i’d heard of Unherd or indeed this writer, but she explains how her experience, physically, emotionally and socially, of becoming a mother transformed her understanding of the feminist revolution. I’d recommend it to anyone who hasn’t yet read it. Also interesting that back then, it only attracted three comments. I suspect it’d be well over a hundred now!
Since then, the understanding of how we humans are becoming participants in a new paradigm brought about by being online has grown. I think the pandemic served to accelerate this process through our increased atomisation, and here Mary contrasts the reality of “IRL” with the increasing dependence that possibly affects females to a greater degree, of their online idealised selves. The emotional, psychological and spiritual effects of this process are beginning to take shape – or should i say, take reshaping – when the contrast between the two becomes so stark that physical reshaping of ones features is required to cope with it. Not that males are unaffected, but the obvious female reliance on their youthful appearance for mating potential exacerbates this.
Plus, as a driver of the trans phenomenon, this is obvious when Mary brings it sharply into focus. One might even say that her ability to think and express these cultural pressures acts like a lens. She’s becoming the intellectual equivalent of an online filter which emphasises the appearance of such pressures in a way that brings them closer to life rather than distinct from it. She does it beautifully.
Permit me to dissect and refute your anecdotal assertion concerning male theorizing–just kidding, good comment.
Many of Harrington’s articles are personal essays or what’s sometimes now called creative nonfiction: avowedly subjective or self-reflective accounts that tend to rely on good writing and thoughtful engagement more than hard data. I agree that her writing is enhanced by her relevant experience. (Ditto for the likely reader, me included).
The following (rhetorical) question is meant more as a observation than a complaint or criticism: Have you ever noticed that we are likelier to refer to a female author by first name?
As an undergraduate in 1990, this was made clear to me by a good English teacher when she noted that my little essay about Bronte and Woolf (in her capacity as a critic of Jane Eyre) kept referring to them as Charlotte and Virginia. I consider those to be “fun” female first names of an old-fashioned sort, but I doubt I would have tried to write about Smollett and Dickens (a big fan of Smollett) using Tobias and Charles over and over. Not that there’s anything disrespectful in your appreciation of Ms. Harrington’s writing–far from it. Just a thought I thought I’d pass along over 30 years {corrected from silly typo “tears”: those are countless–like laughs!} later.
Very good point about the use of female first names, and also shaped by your own anecdote!
I’d turn the point on its head, however. For some reason, which would nevertheless be interesting to explore further, i think i use the first name because it’d somehow seem slightly discourteous to refer to her as Harrington. Similarly, with Stock rather than Kathleen. Or possibly even conveying a sense of being critical? Yes, strange, but it’s to your credit that you’ve picked up on it.
I shall try using their last names next time, to see how they sound in context. I can assure both there is absolutely no sense in which i’d wish to come across as condescending – just the opposite, in fact.
I know what you mean about a perceived discourteousness. And to be more fair I have seen many commenters use Giles or Terry etc. here, sometimes in an affectionate or at least neutral way. There’s a certain familiarity (digital intimacy?) between the writers here and the commentariat. I like that, for the most part.
But I tend to get overinvolved or squawk back and forth on articles and boards I should just stay away from. So I’ll be taking a hiatus from the contrarian herd when my subscription expires in a few days. You’re one of the most sensible, articulate, and courteous online commenters I’ve come across, Mr. Murray. This place is lucky to have your contributions.
I know what you mean about a perceived discourteousness. And to be more fair I have seen many commenters use Giles or Terry etc. here, sometimes in an affectionate or at least neutral way. There’s a certain familiarity (digital intimacy?) between the writers here and the commentariat. I like that, for the most part.
But I tend to get overinvolved or squawk back and forth on articles and boards I should just stay away from. So I’ll be taking a hiatus from the contrarian herd when my subscription expires in a few days. You’re one of the most sensible, articulate, and courteous online commenters I’ve come across, Mr. Murray. This place is lucky to have your contributions.
I agree that one of Mary Harrington’s talents is to share personal stories along with insights in a sensitive and articulate way that feels moving and enlightening and doesn’t feel like gross oversharing, TMI, or navel gazing. I’m not sure what genre it’s called, but it keeps us connected as human beings in world that is becoming more and more impersonal. Could it be that we are all becoming better writers, and better thinkers as we come to depend more and more on the digital medium ?
Thanks Mary, for sharing Deets tragic story and honoring her life in the process. And, for exposing how callous the onlookers an be. We need to examine the reasons for rising suicide rates and deepen our skepticism of the current psychiatric models. Given that psychiatry is not only the source of treatment but the social artiber of healthy mental states, we may need to remove some of its social authority. It’s being misused.
Intriguing notion concerning the internet effect. I think it depends on how and where you spend your time and dime online. As a culture/species we are for sure becoming more venturesome, less formal writers and I think that’s to the good, on the whole. (I feel a bit proud that I can admit that even with my formal and grandiloquent tendencies).
I would only warn (or remind, quite needlessly I’m sure) that self-awareness isn’t always joined to wisdom, nor strong cognitive faculties to a good heart. Those are near the top on a list of things I think I know, but am still learning in a real world, day-to-day way. Sorry if I’ve mansplained, but in my own strange defense I’m kind of an “equal opportunity babbler”.
I agree that the Psychopharmacological Industrial Complex needs to be reined in.
Intriguing notion concerning the internet effect. I think it depends on how and where you spend your time and dime online. As a culture/species we are for sure becoming more venturesome, less formal writers and I think that’s to the good, on the whole. (I feel a bit proud that I can admit that even with my formal and grandiloquent tendencies).
I would only warn (or remind, quite needlessly I’m sure) that self-awareness isn’t always joined to wisdom, nor strong cognitive faculties to a good heart. Those are near the top on a list of things I think I know, but am still learning in a real world, day-to-day way. Sorry if I’ve mansplained, but in my own strange defense I’m kind of an “equal opportunity babbler”.
I agree that the Psychopharmacological Industrial Complex needs to be reined in.
I do agree with you AJMac about first name terms. It was the confident use of ‘Mary’ that grated in the otherwise fine review. There is something presumptive as well as condensing in it’s use. As a woman it makes my toes curl.
As for the essay, spot on and interesting perspective. I have for instance a female academic friend in US and who over three decades is getting younger and younger online till now she is childlike in her self portraits. And no one comments. No one laughs. Luckily she posts a lot about her dogs that I can freely ‘like ‘ and they still seem real.
I always thought that the hierarchy of the old chain of being with humans so separate not really animal at the top, half angel beings was so outdated. But it’s creeping back. The unreality of humans is being believed and instead of holding the greatest responsibility for the protection of our planet there is a narcissistic escape to La la land.
Any protest is seen as heretical, phobic, non progressive. So for now most people are keeping mum hoping it will go away. At the very least we must publicly praise those who are not complying. Women who dare to look their age is a good start.
While an outsider to the experience of being a woman, I think I understand and sympathize with your remarks about as much as I can, CF Hankinson. We’re both still fully human though.
How did that become so associated with a new kind of Dominion over Nature: total separateness from or attempted transcendence of our bodily selves, not interrelationship of an eco-conscious/Romantic sort or even the responsible stewardship in some best version of biblical dominion? I don’t see how contempt for our nature and creaturely selves can coexist with a desire to protect the planet for very long.
The online world seems to have accelerated and exacerbated our dualistic or escapist tendencies. And some who’d never be caught dead believing in an otherworldly afterlife think they can upload some legitimately human version of themselves to an eternal cloud? Let’s hope things aren’t as grim and blinkered as they sometimes seem through our “black mirrors”. I’m half tempted to bio re-engineer my bald middle-aged scalp–glad I’m male with that trait!–but instead think I’ll start with longer walks, and see where I get to, in body and mind.
Cheers,
AJ (my preferred “title”)
yes, I suppose it is trying to keep some perspective, enjoy some of the tools but not be taken in by them. I suspect it has always been thus, religions offer many. A sense of humour and humility has always saved us. here’s hoping. I wish you weren’t leaving.
yes, I suppose it is trying to keep some perspective, enjoy some of the tools but not be taken in by them. I suspect it has always been thus, religions offer many. A sense of humour and humility has always saved us. here’s hoping. I wish you weren’t leaving.
While an outsider to the experience of being a woman, I think I understand and sympathize with your remarks about as much as I can, CF Hankinson. We’re both still fully human though.
How did that become so associated with a new kind of Dominion over Nature: total separateness from or attempted transcendence of our bodily selves, not interrelationship of an eco-conscious/Romantic sort or even the responsible stewardship in some best version of biblical dominion? I don’t see how contempt for our nature and creaturely selves can coexist with a desire to protect the planet for very long.
The online world seems to have accelerated and exacerbated our dualistic or escapist tendencies. And some who’d never be caught dead believing in an otherworldly afterlife think they can upload some legitimately human version of themselves to an eternal cloud? Let’s hope things aren’t as grim and blinkered as they sometimes seem through our “black mirrors”. I’m half tempted to bio re-engineer my bald middle-aged scalp–glad I’m male with that trait!–but instead think I’ll start with longer walks, and see where I get to, in body and mind.
Cheers,
AJ (my preferred “title”)
Very good point about the use of female first names, and also shaped by your own anecdote!
I’d turn the point on its head, however. For some reason, which would nevertheless be interesting to explore further, i think i use the first name because it’d somehow seem slightly discourteous to refer to her as Harrington. Similarly, with Stock rather than Kathleen. Or possibly even conveying a sense of being critical? Yes, strange, but it’s to your credit that you’ve picked up on it.
I shall try using their last names next time, to see how they sound in context. I can assure both there is absolutely no sense in which i’d wish to come across as condescending – just the opposite, in fact.
I agree that one of Mary Harrington’s talents is to share personal stories along with insights in a sensitive and articulate way that feels moving and enlightening and doesn’t feel like gross oversharing, TMI, or navel gazing. I’m not sure what genre it’s called, but it keeps us connected as human beings in world that is becoming more and more impersonal. Could it be that we are all becoming better writers, and better thinkers as we come to depend more and more on the digital medium ?
Thanks Mary, for sharing Deets tragic story and honoring her life in the process. And, for exposing how callous the onlookers an be. We need to examine the reasons for rising suicide rates and deepen our skepticism of the current psychiatric models. Given that psychiatry is not only the source of treatment but the social artiber of healthy mental states, we may need to remove some of its social authority. It’s being misused.
I do agree with you AJMac about first name terms. It was the confident use of ‘Mary’ that grated in the otherwise fine review. There is something presumptive as well as condensing in it’s use. As a woman it makes my toes curl.
As for the essay, spot on and interesting perspective. I have for instance a female academic friend in US and who over three decades is getting younger and younger online till now she is childlike in her self portraits. And no one comments. No one laughs. Luckily she posts a lot about her dogs that I can freely ‘like ‘ and they still seem real.
I always thought that the hierarchy of the old chain of being with humans so separate not really animal at the top, half angel beings was so outdated. But it’s creeping back. The unreality of humans is being believed and instead of holding the greatest responsibility for the protection of our planet there is a narcissistic escape to La la land.
Any protest is seen as heretical, phobic, non progressive. So for now most people are keeping mum hoping it will go away. At the very least we must publicly praise those who are not complying. Women who dare to look their age is a good start.
I think feminism means something different in USA than Europe, as in Europe it only means fighting abuse and subjugation of women. Such as women didn’t have as many rights and were less represented in their own country. It wasn’t until recently women had the right to not be raped by her husband. In USA it seems to be an insult by men who hate women, who spend their time searching out examples of idiots who talk nonsense to say all women who fight against abuse are like that. Funny how they spend too much time online whinging against women, filling comment sections no matter what the subject as an excuse to whine on against feminists and saying what women should want, but no woman finds an abusive misogynist who feels threatened by women who have rights against them to be a turn on.
I also think men and women dislike each other more in the USA than Europe, as USA women tell men they’re disgusting if not cir’cised and some men who had that done develop issues, such as less sensitivity, which they spend a lot of time online trying to take out on women. Like the USA man who was banned from entering Europe for making web pages promoting men rpe and abuse women when travelling.
Permit me to dissect and refute your anecdotal assertion concerning male theorizing–just kidding, good comment.
Many of Harrington’s articles are personal essays or what’s sometimes now called creative nonfiction: avowedly subjective or self-reflective accounts that tend to rely on good writing and thoughtful engagement more than hard data. I agree that her writing is enhanced by her relevant experience. (Ditto for the likely reader, me included).
The following (rhetorical) question is meant more as a observation than a complaint or criticism: Have you ever noticed that we are likelier to refer to a female author by first name?
As an undergraduate in 1990, this was made clear to me by a good English teacher when she noted that my little essay about Bronte and Woolf (in her capacity as a critic of Jane Eyre) kept referring to them as Charlotte and Virginia. I consider those to be “fun” female first names of an old-fashioned sort, but I doubt I would have tried to write about Smollett and Dickens (a big fan of Smollett) using Tobias and Charles over and over. Not that there’s anything disrespectful in your appreciation of Ms. Harrington’s writing–far from it. Just a thought I thought I’d pass along over 30 years {corrected from silly typo “tears”: those are countless–like laughs!} later.
I think feminism means something different in USA than Europe, as in Europe it only means fighting abuse and subjugation of women. Such as women didn’t have as many rights and were less represented in their own country. It wasn’t until recently women had the right to not be raped by her husband. In USA it seems to be an insult by men who hate women, who spend their time searching out examples of idiots who talk nonsense to say all women who fight against abuse are like that. Funny how they spend too much time online whinging against women, filling comment sections no matter what the subject as an excuse to whine on against feminists and saying what women should want, but no woman finds an abusive misogynist who feels threatened by women who have rights against them to be a turn on.
I also think men and women dislike each other more in the USA than Europe, as USA women tell men they’re disgusting if not cir’cised and some men who had that done develop issues, such as less sensitivity, which they spend a lot of time online trying to take out on women. Like the USA man who was banned from entering Europe for making web pages promoting men rpe and abuse women when travelling.
Mary always utilises personal experience and anecdotes to inform her writing, which i find fascinating, since it allows her to explore our contemporary experience in a way that many other writers – especially males, prone to excessive theorising – simply cannot.
Here, she uses her experience of the aging process, but i also checked her link to an early Unherd article from October 2019. This was way before i’d heard of Unherd or indeed this writer, but she explains how her experience, physically, emotionally and socially, of becoming a mother transformed her understanding of the feminist revolution. I’d recommend it to anyone who hasn’t yet read it. Also interesting that back then, it only attracted three comments. I suspect it’d be well over a hundred now!
Since then, the understanding of how we humans are becoming participants in a new paradigm brought about by being online has grown. I think the pandemic served to accelerate this process through our increased atomisation, and here Mary contrasts the reality of “IRL” with the increasing dependence that possibly affects females to a greater degree, of their online idealised selves. The emotional, psychological and spiritual effects of this process are beginning to take shape – or should i say, take reshaping – when the contrast between the two becomes so stark that physical reshaping of ones features is required to cope with it. Not that males are unaffected, but the obvious female reliance on their youthful appearance for mating potential exacerbates this.
Plus, as a driver of the trans phenomenon, this is obvious when Mary brings it sharply into focus. One might even say that her ability to think and express these cultural pressures acts like a lens. She’s becoming the intellectual equivalent of an online filter which emphasises the appearance of such pressures in a way that brings them closer to life rather than distinct from it. She does it beautifully.
Interesting – I’ve often been struck by how much more susceptible to post-modern ideology many childless people are than those of us who’ve intimately observed the development of another human being. It raises questions about how societies will evolve as fewer and fewer people have children.
I agree. My daughter has recently given birth, and as any grandparent might attest, it’s not just watching the development of the newborn, it’s watching the further development of the parent.
Any parent can attest that also. My wife and I had our third child a few weeks ago. Each one of them has shaped us in ways we couldn’t have imagined
Any parent can attest that also. My wife and I had our third child a few weeks ago. Each one of them has shaped us in ways we couldn’t have imagined
Very good point. I was interested to learn recently that Nicola sturgeon, for instance, doesn’t have children
Neither does Theresa May nor most of the trans lobby. Maria Miller seems to be a rare exception.
Nor Penny Mordaunt
Very few political leaders in Europe have children, and a growing number are homosexual
Its a dying culture
Very few political leaders in Europe have children, and a growing number are homosexual
Its a dying culture
Nor Penny Mordaunt
Neither does Theresa May nor most of the trans lobby. Maria Miller seems to be a rare exception.
Since I started using the internet I’ve been disturbed at what I’ve seen online for the promotion of abuse and hatred towards women. A lot of it seems to be from the USA.
I don’t know if it’s connected to them thinking they’re the only country with free speech so should shoot their mouths off at each other for the sake of it, but men and women there seem to have more disturbing relationships than Europeans. In Europe the general culture is love and romance, and I think men and women in Europe have more healthy relationships.
There are various anti women USA groups. Such as men who make youtube videos saying they don’t want women, but instead of doing what they say by going away and leaving women alone or to have hero gentlemen types, they spend a lot of time on the video comments trying to make women feel bad about themselves and promoting others abuse women.
Then there are those incels who are angry that women won’t sleep with them. Not seeing the irony that women don’t find a men a turn on who spend most of their time online swearing at women, and trying to make them feel bad.
Although it isn’t all men against women. Lots of USA women say men are disgusting if they haven’t been cir’cised. I sometimes wonder if doing that routinely on a national scale is why they have the most serial kil ers, as having a part of the body chopped off that’s supposed to be covered until sx, so that it becomes hardened and less sensitive must affect some men psychologically.
I agree. My daughter has recently given birth, and as any grandparent might attest, it’s not just watching the development of the newborn, it’s watching the further development of the parent.
Very good point. I was interested to learn recently that Nicola sturgeon, for instance, doesn’t have children
Since I started using the internet I’ve been disturbed at what I’ve seen online for the promotion of abuse and hatred towards women. A lot of it seems to be from the USA.
I don’t know if it’s connected to them thinking they’re the only country with free speech so should shoot their mouths off at each other for the sake of it, but men and women there seem to have more disturbing relationships than Europeans. In Europe the general culture is love and romance, and I think men and women in Europe have more healthy relationships.
There are various anti women USA groups. Such as men who make youtube videos saying they don’t want women, but instead of doing what they say by going away and leaving women alone or to have hero gentlemen types, they spend a lot of time on the video comments trying to make women feel bad about themselves and promoting others abuse women.
Then there are those incels who are angry that women won’t sleep with them. Not seeing the irony that women don’t find a men a turn on who spend most of their time online swearing at women, and trying to make them feel bad.
Although it isn’t all men against women. Lots of USA women say men are disgusting if they haven’t been cir’cised. I sometimes wonder if doing that routinely on a national scale is why they have the most serial kil ers, as having a part of the body chopped off that’s supposed to be covered until sx, so that it becomes hardened and less sensitive must affect some men psychologically.
Interesting – I’ve often been struck by how much more susceptible to post-modern ideology many childless people are than those of us who’ve intimately observed the development of another human being. It raises questions about how societies will evolve as fewer and fewer people have children.
One of my favourite quotes is from my friends Dad who was a physician. It is “surgery is for other people.” As someone who had medically necessary surgery that went very badly I can attest to this. The idea that we can create functional penises and vaginas with a scalpel and sutures is delusional. If you read stories from people who have undergone those procedures – even when they don’t regret it – it is a horror show. We are trapped by our biology – as I grow older my left hip no longer works properly – neither does my right shoulder. I will grow weaker and then I will die. We are a long way from conquering this reality.
My right foot and I agree with you. But it’s okay. Give my nutrients to the trees, and let me be forgotten.
My right foot and I agree with you. But it’s okay. Give my nutrients to the trees, and let me be forgotten.
One of my favourite quotes is from my friends Dad who was a physician. It is “surgery is for other people.” As someone who had medically necessary surgery that went very badly I can attest to this. The idea that we can create functional penises and vaginas with a scalpel and sutures is delusional. If you read stories from people who have undergone those procedures – even when they don’t regret it – it is a horror show. We are trapped by our biology – as I grow older my left hip no longer works properly – neither does my right shoulder. I will grow weaker and then I will die. We are a long way from conquering this reality.
I enjoy Mary’s writing a lot and am looking forward to reading her book, but I must say that’s she’s entirely misrepresenting Jacques Lacan’s ideas in this.
Plainly stated (and I recognise that’s never easy when glossing Lacan) the mirror phase that she describes is for Lacan what gives the infant a false sense of unity, which for him is at the core of ego formation. This is why he assigns what Freud called the ego to the imaginary domain and much of his work is dedicated to the problems which occur when we too readily – though perhaps unavoidably – identify with images. In fact on the trans issue Lacanians have been accused of being conservative and behind the times, and the most famous living Lacanian Jacque-Alain Miller has written frequently on this.
https://www.lacan.com/pdfjam2021.pdf
Mary is right that it’s a pop-Butler theory that has come to dominate and in my reading it’s surprising how much in her recent public appearances Butler has departed from the Lacanian elements of her work and moved towards what Mary might call a position of Cyborg Theology. Lacan’s work always questions the limits of our self-knowledge and is ill suited to defending the kind of absolute claims of the trans lobby. When in 1968 he saw students heading to a protest he reportedly said to them “You want a new master. You will get one!”.
Interesting article by Miller, but only part 1. Has part 2 been published?
I don’t think there is a 2nd part. I think the ‘To be continued…’ at the bottom is there to suggest the conflict over interpretation of transgender is far from over.
I don’t think there is a 2nd part. I think the ‘To be continued…’ at the bottom is there to suggest the conflict over interpretation of transgender is far from over.
Thank you Xaven. I didn’t know what I didn’t know and your comment was educational! ( I also enjoyed the author’s essay. It was eye-opening.) This is the best of Unherd.
Interesting article by Miller, but only part 1. Has part 2 been published?
Thank you Xaven. I didn’t know what I didn’t know and your comment was educational! ( I also enjoyed the author’s essay. It was eye-opening.) This is the best of Unherd.
I enjoy Mary’s writing a lot and am looking forward to reading her book, but I must say that’s she’s entirely misrepresenting Jacques Lacan’s ideas in this.
Plainly stated (and I recognise that’s never easy when glossing Lacan) the mirror phase that she describes is for Lacan what gives the infant a false sense of unity, which for him is at the core of ego formation. This is why he assigns what Freud called the ego to the imaginary domain and much of his work is dedicated to the problems which occur when we too readily – though perhaps unavoidably – identify with images. In fact on the trans issue Lacanians have been accused of being conservative and behind the times, and the most famous living Lacanian Jacque-Alain Miller has written frequently on this.
https://www.lacan.com/pdfjam2021.pdf
Mary is right that it’s a pop-Butler theory that has come to dominate and in my reading it’s surprising how much in her recent public appearances Butler has departed from the Lacanian elements of her work and moved towards what Mary might call a position of Cyborg Theology. Lacan’s work always questions the limits of our self-knowledge and is ill suited to defending the kind of absolute claims of the trans lobby. When in 1968 he saw students heading to a protest he reportedly said to them “You want a new master. You will get one!”.
As a man who has never had a tweakment, does not use makeup, never wears jewellery or watches, has no tattoos or piercings
My view is that sanity, mental health and a clarity of just exactly who I am – are all best served by this concept in relation to ones body
Never add to, delete from or amend your body.
Social media ‘influencers’ are either at first starting point massively insecure humans, or venally corrupt in their content offerings.
As for those who will have us indulge them in their trans delusions:
My view on trans and all that story, is that these are unfortunate, severely mentally ill people with life debilitating self-delusions and mental health problems.
They should be offered mental health counselling for those conditions – but never surgery.
A man born a man, can never, ever be a woman. A woman, born a woman can never, ever become a man.
Removing genitals and juicing up on chemicals just allows them to be eunuchs.
Social media ‘influencers’ are either at first starting point massively insecure humans, or venally corrupt in their content offerings.
As for those who will have us indulge them in their trans delusions:
My view on trans and all that story, is that these are unfortunate, severely mentally ill people with life debilitating self-delusions and mental health problems.
They should be offered mental health counselling for those conditions – but never surgery.
A man born a man, can never, ever be a woman. A woman, born a woman can never, ever become a man.
Removing genitals and juicing up on chemicals just allows them to be eunuchs.
As a man who has never had a tweakment, does not use makeup, never wears jewellery or watches, has no tattoos or piercings
My view is that sanity, mental health and a clarity of just exactly who I am – are all best served by this concept in relation to ones body
Never add to, delete from or amend your body.
Of course, eevil racist Charles Murray made this point about white people in general in Coming Apart. LIfe’s great for the educated elite, not so good for the ordinary middle class, and in the lower class the men don’t work much and the women don’t marry much.
But the nightmare has been going on for a while. Mary Shelley, daughter of First Feminist Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin, wrote Frankenstein to tell us what a nightmare life is when you crash through the guardrails in young adulthood.
Your analogy is strained. Did Mary Shelley disavow or admire her mother? Was Percy Shelley a traditional bloke?
Many or perhaps most “transitioners” emerge from educated-elite backgrounds. So things are not fine there, nor within any social enclave or subdivision where people keep telling themselves they have all the answers and the other side is evil/stupid/unreachable.
Your analogy is strained. Did Mary Shelley disavow or admire her mother? Was Percy Shelley a traditional bloke?
Many or perhaps most “transitioners” emerge from educated-elite backgrounds. So things are not fine there, nor within any social enclave or subdivision where people keep telling themselves they have all the answers and the other side is evil/stupid/unreachable.
Of course, eevil racist Charles Murray made this point about white people in general in Coming Apart. LIfe’s great for the educated elite, not so good for the ordinary middle class, and in the lower class the men don’t work much and the women don’t marry much.
But the nightmare has been going on for a while. Mary Shelley, daughter of First Feminist Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin, wrote Frankenstein to tell us what a nightmare life is when you crash through the guardrails in young adulthood.
Very interesting read, thank you. I wonder how this effects male ideas of beauty (if it does?) I know plenty of men say they don’t like the plastic look, but some of the tweaks are barely perceptible and people who have had a little work done (or even a lot) can often look really good rather than looking fake. If a researcher asked men to rate the attractiveness of a woman via her photo, and then did the same to a photo which had been edited to make her appear more youthful, which would they actually prefer, and would it differ for men in different age groups?
I wonder if part of the reason for youth disengaging with real sex is that real life people just aren’t considered as attractive as the ‘perfect’ online alternatives.
Very interesting read, thank you. I wonder how this effects male ideas of beauty (if it does?) I know plenty of men say they don’t like the plastic look, but some of the tweaks are barely perceptible and people who have had a little work done (or even a lot) can often look really good rather than looking fake. If a researcher asked men to rate the attractiveness of a woman via her photo, and then did the same to a photo which had been edited to make her appear more youthful, which would they actually prefer, and would it differ for men in different age groups?
I wonder if part of the reason for youth disengaging with real sex is that real life people just aren’t considered as attractive as the ‘perfect’ online alternatives.
Interesting that Mary cites the contraceptive pill as the source of our separation from physical reality. This seems plausible to say the least. But would she want to return to the status quo ante?
It’s a bit late in the day to pose that question, given that humanity is on the verge of hacking it’s genetic coding!
That’s “Progress” I guess. You don’t get to reject SOME aspect of reality you don’t like and hope to maintain the ones you like. The Contraceptive pill allowed women to modify our bodies for the good of “equality”. Now Progress moves to conquer of aspects of reality. Right now it’s gender.
I also find offensive the premise that women’s dignity and equality relies on mutilating and modifying our bodies to function more like men. It’s true that we would have a different feminism without the contraceptive pill. But as you say, it will be a long time until that. As the cyborg age cannot go forever.
That’s “Progress” I guess. You don’t get to reject SOME aspect of reality you don’t like and hope to maintain the ones you like. The Contraceptive pill allowed women to modify our bodies for the good of “equality”. Now Progress moves to conquer of aspects of reality. Right now it’s gender.
I also find offensive the premise that women’s dignity and equality relies on mutilating and modifying our bodies to function more like men. It’s true that we would have a different feminism without the contraceptive pill. But as you say, it will be a long time until that. As the cyborg age cannot go forever.
Since we can’t “put the pill back in the vial,” I’ll settle for an honest reckoning of the consequences of “birth control” and the other components of the sexual revolution.
It’s a bit late in the day to pose that question, given that humanity is on the verge of hacking it’s genetic coding!
Since we can’t “put the pill back in the vial,” I’ll settle for an honest reckoning of the consequences of “birth control” and the other components of the sexual revolution.
Interesting that Mary cites the contraceptive pill as the source of our separation from physical reality. This seems plausible to say the least. But would she want to return to the status quo ante?
Reading articles like this make me wonder if I wasn’t incalculably fortunate to be born without the social instincts that define most human beings (I have Aspergers). I have trouble agreeing, disagreeing, or, I suspect, even properly understanding this article. I can perceive these issues are of great importance to Mary, and she is such a great writer that her intentions and feelings come through, to the point I feel vaguely depressed reading them. I can perceive her sorrow, and somewhat feel bad myself. I do not lack direct empathy as such. I just can’t understand where it comes from. I have never had the urge to use a digital filter, nor tweak my appearance to match someone else’s expectation. I can scarcely imagine wanting to change how I am viewed by others, probably because I never gave it much thought in the first place. I am me whatever others think and I still would be me regardless of their opinions, or even if there were no others. My self-definition does not seem to require any other participants or even an image as such. I have spent far less time looking in mirrors than most people, for the practical reason that it is anatomically impossible to look at oneself at any other time and the information gained is of limited value in most situations (at least most situations which I can actually understand and do anything about). Perhaps, then, like a perceptual vampire, I have no reflection in the sense the author means. I do not ‘see’ myself as anything particularly or inherently, male or female, black or white, etc. I understand that I have these characteristics but it has little more emotional impact than my understanding that 2+2=4 or my understanding that grass is green and the sky is blue, probably less as my mind inherently senses great importance in mathematical reasoning and in the concept of color but that my personal appearance is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. My reaction to transhumanism is, thus, confusion, in the sense that I do not, and probably cannot, understand this need to change oneself to reflect a particular self image, and still more confusion over Mary’s reaction to it, as I cannot properly fear technology’s ability or inability to reliably change things that were never all that important to me in the first place. I have to say the ability to make babies without gametes could be useful in many possible scenarios, however, and I would support any technology that would allow people longer and healthier lifespans. After all, we generally get more productive as we age and accumulate experience up until the point where our physical decline overcomes this effect. I admit I can’t see the downside ameliorating the latter effect to the extent possible, as it could improve society in many ways. Given demographic trends, ameliorating the problems associated with aging and allowing people to be more productive longer seems to be a practical thing to do. Still, great article, and I can only hope you normal folks can get this properly sorted out amongst yourselves. Mary does such an excellent job of making it sound terribly important.
A thoughtful and interesting reply, sir. It does seem that someone with your less neurotypical perspective would care less about what others think, often to a refreshing effect. But is it possible you’re attributing too much of your idiosyncratic outlook to your diagnosis?
I’m in sympathy with much of your relative unconcern about appearances though I’ve not been placed “on the spectrum” in any official way. I am more concerned about the possible waste or disasters presented by transhumanism as it seems to me related to a hubristic longing for immortality of a sort that is beyond our reach, and comparable to otherworldly religious fixations which make this life–the only one we know we will ever have–into some trivial prelude to the “real” or more perfect existence in the World to Come.
“They” have done studies showing that reading fiction can increase empathy in individual readers (at least a correlation is evident). Jordan Peterson is among the authors of multiple academic articles on the subject, including “Bookworms Versus Nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds” (2006). I’d speculate that creative nonfiction or “personal journalism” can have the same effect: allowing the reader to have a vicarious experience or partial/temporary understanding of another’s perspective, so that we come to appreciate its subjective importance although we don’t find it “terribly important” for ourselves.
I’m not sure you’re quite getting what I mean. It’s not that I care ‘less’ what others think. It’s not even that I don’t care at all. I do care some because I’ve learned about how others perceptions of me can make my life more or less difficult. It’s more that these things don’t have any personal meaning to me. They’re just things I understand intellectually in the same way I understand Newton’s laws of motion, or how the American government works, or the concept of supply and demand. The nearest analogy I can think of is that these social ideas are to me what the concept of color is to a blind man. A blind person could theoretically learn to understand what color ‘is’ in terms of certain wavelengths of visible light. That person could learn everything there was to know about the entire electromagnetic spectrum or even be an expert in the field, but they would still never understand color in the same way a sighted person can. I admit this is an entirely speculative explanation, but it’s the best one I have come up with to explain why there are so many things that normal people seem to ‘get’ that are utterly inexplicable to me.
Further, I also am concerned about possible social consequences of transhumanism, if for no other reason than Mary’s article is excellently written and conveys the seriousness of this topic to her personally and to the world at large. However, I must say I am uncertain how your philosophizing about religion and immortality is relevant to any of it. Whether people believe in a particular religion or no particular religion is not, to my mind, particularly relevant to anything I said. This sounds too much like a values/beliefs argument for my liking. I don’t believe in debating or even discussing values except in one’s most important relationships, such as family and close friends. I’ve found that such debates are generally not constructive.
Well transhumanism is linked with the quest for immortality or a non-embodied afterlife–a more scientific or technological version of that quest. I see this as quite clear, but of course that doesn’t mean I’m indisuputably right. I see that you feel I’ve wasted your time in some way, but as someone who expounds and speculates “out loud”–often quite interestingly–on his own inner experience, I’d think you might but be a bit more tolerant of what you don’t personally find interesting, constructive, or relevant–especially when these tricky issues have been raised repeatedly, in multiple articles and comments boards here. You’re not required to engage with me. Have a good day.
Well transhumanism is linked with the quest for immortality or a non-embodied afterlife–a more scientific or technological version of that quest. I see this as quite clear, but of course that doesn’t mean I’m indisuputably right. I see that you feel I’ve wasted your time in some way, but as someone who expounds and speculates “out loud”–often quite interestingly–on his own inner experience, I’d think you might but be a bit more tolerant of what you don’t personally find interesting, constructive, or relevant–especially when these tricky issues have been raised repeatedly, in multiple articles and comments boards here. You’re not required to engage with me. Have a good day.
I’m not sure you’re quite getting what I mean. It’s not that I care ‘less’ what others think. It’s not even that I don’t care at all. I do care some because I’ve learned about how others perceptions of me can make my life more or less difficult. It’s more that these things don’t have any personal meaning to me. They’re just things I understand intellectually in the same way I understand Newton’s laws of motion, or how the American government works, or the concept of supply and demand. The nearest analogy I can think of is that these social ideas are to me what the concept of color is to a blind man. A blind person could theoretically learn to understand what color ‘is’ in terms of certain wavelengths of visible light. That person could learn everything there was to know about the entire electromagnetic spectrum or even be an expert in the field, but they would still never understand color in the same way a sighted person can. I admit this is an entirely speculative explanation, but it’s the best one I have come up with to explain why there are so many things that normal people seem to ‘get’ that are utterly inexplicable to me.
Further, I also am concerned about possible social consequences of transhumanism, if for no other reason than Mary’s article is excellently written and conveys the seriousness of this topic to her personally and to the world at large. However, I must say I am uncertain how your philosophizing about religion and immortality is relevant to any of it. Whether people believe in a particular religion or no particular religion is not, to my mind, particularly relevant to anything I said. This sounds too much like a values/beliefs argument for my liking. I don’t believe in debating or even discussing values except in one’s most important relationships, such as family and close friends. I’ve found that such debates are generally not constructive.
I think that this is a more honest appraisal of what empathy actually is than many of the abstract phrases such as “put yourself in their shoes”.
Empathy is not about claiming to understand every nuance of how someone thinks or feels, and it’s not just about considering how you as a person would feel in the same circumstances, it is about both a desire to understand another’s perspective, having an emotional response to their own emotional confessions, and a recognition that there isn’t actually any singularly correct way to think or feel about any experience.
I suspect that many on the spectrum (me included) have often been given a false idea about what empathy is, and that those claims have led to us being perceived as having less empathy than others, when in reality, our expressions of our own experiences of empathy are simply different and don’t conform to what society expects them to be.
Expressing a lack of understanding, your wish that you could, and explaining why your method of viewing the world is different is a way of expressing empathy, it’s just not what people expect, and so too many would claim you lack empathy, when you are in fact trying your hardest to understand a situation that is alien to your perceptual processing.
A thoughtful and interesting reply, sir. It does seem that someone with your less neurotypical perspective would care less about what others think, often to a refreshing effect. But is it possible you’re attributing too much of your idiosyncratic outlook to your diagnosis?
I’m in sympathy with much of your relative unconcern about appearances though I’ve not been placed “on the spectrum” in any official way. I am more concerned about the possible waste or disasters presented by transhumanism as it seems to me related to a hubristic longing for immortality of a sort that is beyond our reach, and comparable to otherworldly religious fixations which make this life–the only one we know we will ever have–into some trivial prelude to the “real” or more perfect existence in the World to Come.
“They” have done studies showing that reading fiction can increase empathy in individual readers (at least a correlation is evident). Jordan Peterson is among the authors of multiple academic articles on the subject, including “Bookworms Versus Nerds: Exposure to fiction versus non-fiction, divergent associations with social ability, and the simulation of fictional social worlds” (2006). I’d speculate that creative nonfiction or “personal journalism” can have the same effect: allowing the reader to have a vicarious experience or partial/temporary understanding of another’s perspective, so that we come to appreciate its subjective importance although we don’t find it “terribly important” for ourselves.
I think that this is a more honest appraisal of what empathy actually is than many of the abstract phrases such as “put yourself in their shoes”.
Empathy is not about claiming to understand every nuance of how someone thinks or feels, and it’s not just about considering how you as a person would feel in the same circumstances, it is about both a desire to understand another’s perspective, having an emotional response to their own emotional confessions, and a recognition that there isn’t actually any singularly correct way to think or feel about any experience.
I suspect that many on the spectrum (me included) have often been given a false idea about what empathy is, and that those claims have led to us being perceived as having less empathy than others, when in reality, our expressions of our own experiences of empathy are simply different and don’t conform to what society expects them to be.
Expressing a lack of understanding, your wish that you could, and explaining why your method of viewing the world is different is a way of expressing empathy, it’s just not what people expect, and so too many would claim you lack empathy, when you are in fact trying your hardest to understand a situation that is alien to your perceptual processing.
Reading articles like this make me wonder if I wasn’t incalculably fortunate to be born without the social instincts that define most human beings (I have Aspergers). I have trouble agreeing, disagreeing, or, I suspect, even properly understanding this article. I can perceive these issues are of great importance to Mary, and she is such a great writer that her intentions and feelings come through, to the point I feel vaguely depressed reading them. I can perceive her sorrow, and somewhat feel bad myself. I do not lack direct empathy as such. I just can’t understand where it comes from. I have never had the urge to use a digital filter, nor tweak my appearance to match someone else’s expectation. I can scarcely imagine wanting to change how I am viewed by others, probably because I never gave it much thought in the first place. I am me whatever others think and I still would be me regardless of their opinions, or even if there were no others. My self-definition does not seem to require any other participants or even an image as such. I have spent far less time looking in mirrors than most people, for the practical reason that it is anatomically impossible to look at oneself at any other time and the information gained is of limited value in most situations (at least most situations which I can actually understand and do anything about). Perhaps, then, like a perceptual vampire, I have no reflection in the sense the author means. I do not ‘see’ myself as anything particularly or inherently, male or female, black or white, etc. I understand that I have these characteristics but it has little more emotional impact than my understanding that 2+2=4 or my understanding that grass is green and the sky is blue, probably less as my mind inherently senses great importance in mathematical reasoning and in the concept of color but that my personal appearance is quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. My reaction to transhumanism is, thus, confusion, in the sense that I do not, and probably cannot, understand this need to change oneself to reflect a particular self image, and still more confusion over Mary’s reaction to it, as I cannot properly fear technology’s ability or inability to reliably change things that were never all that important to me in the first place. I have to say the ability to make babies without gametes could be useful in many possible scenarios, however, and I would support any technology that would allow people longer and healthier lifespans. After all, we generally get more productive as we age and accumulate experience up until the point where our physical decline overcomes this effect. I admit I can’t see the downside ameliorating the latter effect to the extent possible, as it could improve society in many ways. Given demographic trends, ameliorating the problems associated with aging and allowing people to be more productive longer seems to be a practical thing to do. Still, great article, and I can only hope you normal folks can get this properly sorted out amongst yourselves. Mary does such an excellent job of making it sound terribly important.
Mary’s objection to the contraceptive pill is that it is used in an attempt to alter nature, in other words, that it is is unnatural. Of course it is unnatural! Everything human beings do is “unnatural.” “Natural,” if it means anything, means what the other animals have to put up with. But reason lifts us above the other animals because we don’t have to accept nature. That’s what painkillers, antibiotics, the smallpox vaccine, and any other number of “unnatural” innovations do–they allow us to harness nature to our own benefit. The contraceptive pill is no different. If you don’t like one pill, you should give up the rest and accept the consequences as God’s Will.
People have been practicing contraception ever since cave men figured out that coitus interruptus allowed them to have more joy without having babies every year. If you reject contraception as immoral, then you are committed to the position that human beings should have significantly less joy in their lives or that women should stay at home with the ten babies they would inevitably have. Neither of these is acceptable as a pro-human stance. But conservatives do have some anti-human tendencies, don’t they?
The trans thing, although a serious issue, is a bugaboo. There is no slippery slope that leads from the contraceptive pill to transitioning.
Her core argument against the contraceptive pill is that it has altered the mating market in a way that is extremely negative for women and children.
That’s her immediate point, but she puts it into the context of an assault on nature via plastic surgery, transitioning, etc. In any case the old mating market had features that were negative for women and children too, a fact that nostalgic conservatives like to ignore.
Clearly, things are far from ideal right now, but the answer will necessarily to march forward to some enlightened drummer, rather than to try to put the genie back in the bottle, if you’ll forgive the mixed metaphor.
The Enlightened Drummer. Whose beat would you nominate for that award, if any?
Me?
Look me up.
Self-nomination?! Perhaps you should enter yourself in the humility sweepstakes too. But seriously, if you’re the Philip May of Ontario heritage and jazzy chops please provide a link or two as everything I’ve found is blocked or without audio.
Self-nomination?! Perhaps you should enter yourself in the humility sweepstakes too. But seriously, if you’re the Philip May of Ontario heritage and jazzy chops please provide a link or two as everything I’ve found is blocked or without audio.
Me?
Look me up.
The Enlightened Drummer. Whose beat would you nominate for that award, if any?
That’s her immediate point, but she puts it into the context of an assault on nature via plastic surgery, transitioning, etc. In any case the old mating market had features that were negative for women and children too, a fact that nostalgic conservatives like to ignore.
Clearly, things are far from ideal right now, but the answer will necessarily to march forward to some enlightened drummer, rather than to try to put the genie back in the bottle, if you’ll forgive the mixed metaphor.
Humans have an undefeated, probably insurmountable creaturely side. We are not mere brains in jar or material products without inborn natural tendencies. We also have spiritual or mysterious aspects, such as consciousness, that hard-empiricism has not yet been able to explain away.
I agree that we are not totally beholden to the animal or creaturely side of our nature. But you’re attempting to squash a huge range of actual human experience by claiming we can totally ignore/transcend our inborn nature and suggesting that settling for anything less is to bow down blindly before an all-controlling god. Not true. Most things we do are still in-some-measure natural–not therefore good or bad–and decidedly human even so. Our enhancements and advancements don’t erase that in the way you suggest, unless a bird’s nest (or bird’s “speech”, not allowed by most to be language) is also an unnatural departure from nature.
I guess far-left social-constructionists and transhumanists have some anti-human tendencies too. Incidentally, I am not morally opposed to contraception and I acknowledge your point about its long history.
How can we slow down the destruction of the natural world if we imagine that we are above all planetary and creaturely realities, or pretend that a robot simulation of human intellect is fully human? Why would we work to preserve something we have zero respect for?
I admit I’ve made a few assumptions about your views as I perceive them here. I think you’ve done the same thing in your critique of Harrington’s article.
I probably overstated my point because I forgot to take my morning meds LOL I do believe there is such a thing as human nature and that we are very much not brains in jars. My problem with conservatives, even when I agree with them to some extent as I do with Mary, is that they too often want to resort to the “that is wrong because it violates human nature as I see it” argument.
Human nature is hard to define beyond certain obvious observations about us having reason and certain types of bodies. Is it “unnatural” to be gay or not to want children or to be a house husband? Are masculine women and effeminate men unnatural? Are women who don’t want to obey their husbands unnatural?
You see the problem? Some conservatives (and some others) buy into an essentialist account of human beings that puts them into narrow boxes.
Now at this point you might be thinking that I am sort of an “everything is a social construct” type, like Judith Butler. I’m not. I think there is a middle ground. That middle ground is defined by human beings having reason and the standard value being making a good life here on earth–a standard that I think is defensible on neo-Aristotelian grounds.
The particulars are not completely obvious, but we can generally let people work things out for themselves. That would include women taking into account the male proclivity not to want to commit to one woman. Women can rationally set boundaries in this area, and that fact is compatible with having things like the contraceptive pill.
I hope I’m being reasonably clear. I’m not having a great day.
A fair and sensible reply. Sorry you’re not feeling well.
I’m a middle-grounder too and don’t want to stamp every traditional or any oppressive condition as Natural in the way that some apologists for the status quo–which at one time not so very long ago included slavery–have done and still do.
Is it nature or nurture, reason or passion (in the David Hume sense that nearly approximates emotion)? Yes, it is.
A fair and sensible reply. Sorry you’re not feeling well.
I’m a middle-grounder too and don’t want to stamp every traditional or any oppressive condition as Natural in the way that some apologists for the status quo–which at one time not so very long ago included slavery–have done and still do.
Is it nature or nurture, reason or passion (in the David Hume sense that nearly approximates emotion)? Yes, it is.
I probably overstated my point because I forgot to take my morning meds LOL I do believe there is such a thing as human nature and that we are very much not brains in jars. My problem with conservatives, even when I agree with them to some extent as I do with Mary, is that they too often want to resort to the “that is wrong because it violates human nature as I see it” argument.
Human nature is hard to define beyond certain obvious observations about us having reason and certain types of bodies. Is it “unnatural” to be gay or not to want children or to be a house husband? Are masculine women and effeminate men unnatural? Are women who don’t want to obey their husbands unnatural?
You see the problem? Some conservatives (and some others) buy into an essentialist account of human beings that puts them into narrow boxes.
Now at this point you might be thinking that I am sort of an “everything is a social construct” type, like Judith Butler. I’m not. I think there is a middle ground. That middle ground is defined by human beings having reason and the standard value being making a good life here on earth–a standard that I think is defensible on neo-Aristotelian grounds.
The particulars are not completely obvious, but we can generally let people work things out for themselves. That would include women taking into account the male proclivity not to want to commit to one woman. Women can rationally set boundaries in this area, and that fact is compatible with having things like the contraceptive pill.
I hope I’m being reasonably clear. I’m not having a great day.
If we accept the idea that the freedom and choice are necessary human Goods, and lead to the most authentic human lives, and we see freedom or the authentic life as something that requires technological interference with normal human body functions in order to achieve, there is absolutely a link.
“There is no slippery slope that leads from the contraceptive pill to transitioning.”
When people suffer from the delusion that they can affect material reality through one method, the other delusions naturally follow.
You are right, but only if Caliban is the highest human type. The “pill” freed us to be more sexually appetitive and thus to be more slavish. The “pill” is only one of the many modern contrivances accelerating the reanimalization or rebarbarization of the human race.
Her core argument against the contraceptive pill is that it has altered the mating market in a way that is extremely negative for women and children.
Humans have an undefeated, probably insurmountable creaturely side. We are not mere brains in jar or material products without inborn natural tendencies. We also have spiritual or mysterious aspects, such as consciousness, that hard-empiricism has not yet been able to explain away.
I agree that we are not totally beholden to the animal or creaturely side of our nature. But you’re attempting to squash a huge range of actual human experience by claiming we can totally ignore/transcend our inborn nature and suggesting that settling for anything less is to bow down blindly before an all-controlling god. Not true. Most things we do are still in-some-measure natural–not therefore good or bad–and decidedly human even so. Our enhancements and advancements don’t erase that in the way you suggest, unless a bird’s nest (or bird’s “speech”, not allowed by most to be language) is also an unnatural departure from nature.
I guess far-left social-constructionists and transhumanists have some anti-human tendencies too. Incidentally, I am not morally opposed to contraception and I acknowledge your point about its long history.
How can we slow down the destruction of the natural world if we imagine that we are above all planetary and creaturely realities, or pretend that a robot simulation of human intellect is fully human? Why would we work to preserve something we have zero respect for?
I admit I’ve made a few assumptions about your views as I perceive them here. I think you’ve done the same thing in your critique of Harrington’s article.
If we accept the idea that the freedom and choice are necessary human Goods, and lead to the most authentic human lives, and we see freedom or the authentic life as something that requires technological interference with normal human body functions in order to achieve, there is absolutely a link.
“There is no slippery slope that leads from the contraceptive pill to transitioning.”
When people suffer from the delusion that they can affect material reality through one method, the other delusions naturally follow.
You are right, but only if Caliban is the highest human type. The “pill” freed us to be more sexually appetitive and thus to be more slavish. The “pill” is only one of the many modern contrivances accelerating the reanimalization or rebarbarization of the human race.
Mary’s objection to the contraceptive pill is that it is used in an attempt to alter nature, in other words, that it is is unnatural. Of course it is unnatural! Everything human beings do is “unnatural.” “Natural,” if it means anything, means what the other animals have to put up with. But reason lifts us above the other animals because we don’t have to accept nature. That’s what painkillers, antibiotics, the smallpox vaccine, and any other number of “unnatural” innovations do–they allow us to harness nature to our own benefit. The contraceptive pill is no different. If you don’t like one pill, you should give up the rest and accept the consequences as God’s Will.
People have been practicing contraception ever since cave men figured out that coitus interruptus allowed them to have more joy without having babies every year. If you reject contraception as immoral, then you are committed to the position that human beings should have significantly less joy in their lives or that women should stay at home with the ten babies they would inevitably have. Neither of these is acceptable as a pro-human stance. But conservatives do have some anti-human tendencies, don’t they?
The trans thing, although a serious issue, is a bugaboo. There is no slippery slope that leads from the contraceptive pill to transitioning.
“Jesus wept”*.
(* John 11:35.)
“Jesus wept”*.
(* John 11:35.)
What Mary is circling is the truth about the human condition and whether the changes and developments mankind is undergoing are routed in a natural evolutionary process or are an ‘intervention.’ which is unhealthy and regressive.
The themes which she has been expounding deal with a perceived schism between the real interactive physically lived-in world with a detached, often academic, separated world that is bound together digitally.
Motherhood and the Great Panic have made her seek her roots (whatever they may be).
Life in my experience is a journey of preference of understanding what makes us happy and contented because when we find those answers we are better human beings. My sense is many never begin this journey because their drivers are external rather than internal.
Given reports of mushrooming mental health issues amongst the young that half the world may be obese by 2035, fueled by the young, then as a person who does not belong anywhere but everywhere we have been throwing out the baby with the bath water for some time and replacing it with something where our humanity is receding. I base that on the sense that people are less content, and less healthy than they have ever been.
On this latter point, I would not overlook the thought that this leap toward digital unreality has come about as we have the first generations emerging who are less wealthy than their predecessors.
I do not believe the issue of re-assigning gender is anything to do with this more general Promethean treadmill we are on. I think it’s much more likely that what I believe is a very rare phenomenon of a fundamental sense of gender dysphoria by self-diagnosis in people who are in all other respects healthy, has got hijacked by this movement to improve, correct, and delay the natural order of things as well as escape it and has also been taken up attention seekers, the confused, manipulative and those with personality disorders.
What Mary is circling is the truth about the human condition and whether the changes and developments mankind is undergoing are routed in a natural evolutionary process or are an ‘intervention.’ which is unhealthy and regressive.
The themes which she has been expounding deal with a perceived schism between the real interactive physically lived-in world with a detached, often academic, separated world that is bound together digitally.
Motherhood and the Great Panic have made her seek her roots (whatever they may be).
Life in my experience is a journey of preference of understanding what makes us happy and contented because when we find those answers we are better human beings. My sense is many never begin this journey because their drivers are external rather than internal.
Given reports of mushrooming mental health issues amongst the young that half the world may be obese by 2035, fueled by the young, then as a person who does not belong anywhere but everywhere we have been throwing out the baby with the bath water for some time and replacing it with something where our humanity is receding. I base that on the sense that people are less content, and less healthy than they have ever been.
On this latter point, I would not overlook the thought that this leap toward digital unreality has come about as we have the first generations emerging who are less wealthy than their predecessors.
I do not believe the issue of re-assigning gender is anything to do with this more general Promethean treadmill we are on. I think it’s much more likely that what I believe is a very rare phenomenon of a fundamental sense of gender dysphoria by self-diagnosis in people who are in all other respects healthy, has got hijacked by this movement to improve, correct, and delay the natural order of things as well as escape it and has also been taken up attention seekers, the confused, manipulative and those with personality disorders.
The wall is undefeated and unbeatable.
No man should commit to a relationship until after the SMV crossover post wall.
And no woman either.
And no woman either.
The wall is undefeated and unbeatable.
No man should commit to a relationship until after the SMV crossover post wall.
Having had a facelift at 60 with a very good Park Avenue doctor- something which I had never fathomed doing until that day arrived, I think ‘tweaking’ is a matter of degree. The results, helped me to ease into age and stave off the depression which often accompanies it for all sorts of reasons. That said, I don’t and won’t do injectables, nor take any supplements of any kind. Other than the ‘lift’ I approach life without ‘additions’ and at 65 am thrilled I have yet had to take any medications, a rarity. It’s all a matter of degree. Some people don’t know when to stop.
Having had a facelift at 60 with a very good Park Avenue doctor- something which I had never fathomed doing until that day arrived, I think ‘tweaking’ is a matter of degree. The results, helped me to ease into age and stave off the depression which often accompanies it for all sorts of reasons. That said, I don’t and won’t do injectables, nor take any supplements of any kind. Other than the ‘lift’ I approach life without ‘additions’ and at 65 am thrilled I have yet had to take any medications, a rarity. It’s all a matter of degree. Some people don’t know when to stop.
This essay is full of acronyms and new terms which I don’t understand. Nunc dimittis.
Hope you haven’t decided to stop trying at all, while you’ve yet to depart. Harrington uses some neologisms and slangy parlance, but I don’t think it’s excessive since she typically addresses the zeitgeist from her own point of view.
Yes I generally like her essays – I suppose I’m not extremely online enough. What does LARPS mean?
Live Action Role Playing.
What the hell does that mean? I happen to know, but still one might legitimately ask the question
This is one of those essays full of first world problems, academic nonsense spawned from people only having first World problems to worry about and discuss, (seems a prevelant problem in our universities apparently) and so confused I can’t cope with it. Especially the pill transhumanist thing.
That’s just me. I’m not an ‘academic’ admittedly. I don’t know what larps is either. Live action role playing – wtf is that?
This is one of those essays full of first world problems, academic nonsense spawned from people only having first World problems to worry about and discuss, (seems a prevelant problem in our universities apparently) and so confused I can’t cope with it. Especially the pill transhumanist thing.
That’s just me. I’m not an ‘academic’ admittedly. I don’t know what larps is either. Live action role playing – wtf is that?
What the hell does that mean? I happen to know, but still one might legitimately ask the question
Live Action Role Playing.
Yes I generally like her essays – I suppose I’m not extremely online enough. What does LARPS mean?
Hope you haven’t decided to stop trying at all, while you’ve yet to depart. Harrington uses some neologisms and slangy parlance, but I don’t think it’s excessive since she typically addresses the zeitgeist from her own point of view.
This essay is full of acronyms and new terms which I don’t understand. Nunc dimittis.
“and the point of sex is, ultimately, making more people”. No. The purpose of sex is fun. Only humans, I believe, have figured out that babies are a consequence sometimes.
The butterflies at our place mate only once, and then they die. I am not sure what it is that they have figured out.
Don’t the French call an orgasm “un petit mort”.
Don’t the French call an orgasm “un petit mort”.
The butterflies at our place mate only once, and then they die. I am not sure what it is that they have figured out.
“and the point of sex is, ultimately, making more people”. No. The purpose of sex is fun. Only humans, I believe, have figured out that babies are a consequence sometimes.
Great essay!
And look forward to reading (or rather listening to) the book.
Great essay!
And look forward to reading (or rather listening to) the book.
Usually love Mary’s articles, but found this tough going. The pressure placed on women is self inflicted narcissism. Fashion. Turn to the left. Fashion. Turn to the right. Demasculinated males are doing the same. We are the goon squad and we’re coming to town. Beep beep.
Usually love Mary’s articles, but found this tough going. The pressure placed on women is self inflicted narcissism. Fashion. Turn to the left. Fashion. Turn to the right. Demasculinated males are doing the same. We are the goon squad and we’re coming to town. Beep beep.
Very interesting. I hope the book turns up in my local library eventually.
Brendan O’Neill thinks this what he calls “cultural pesimism” is a bunch of BS and I agree with him.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/03/19/count-me-out-of-this-cultural-pessimism/
Vanity, thy name is woman.
Vanity or low self esteem?
I dunno Malcom. Judging by my own experience, men are at least as vain as women – It just pops out differently.
I am certainly vain. But not assailed by regrets about my lost youth. Perhaps that’s the difference.
The difference could be societal. Women, unlike men, are encouraged into delusions about reclaiming our youth. Fortunately for men, you guys are allowed to grow old (for now). But the beauty/cosmetic market is coming for both sexes.
I don’t disagree with your general point about cosmetic surgery “coming for both sexes” (which it already has). But I do disagree with your assertion that “women, unlike men, are encouraged into delusions about reclaiming our youth”
It seems to me that men have long struggled against old age. In the sixteenth century, for example, men ran around wearing “codpieces” to advertise their youthful virility. Much more recently, beginning in the 1960s, many men have adopted (at least vicariously) Hugh Hefner’s hedonistic Playboy “philosophy,” which has encouraged them to indulge in one sexual liaison after another in order to demonstrate (at least to themselves) their continuing virility. For men no less than for women, hedonism offers pleasure (immediate gratification of desire), not happiness or anything compatible with wisdom or restraint–let alone maturity.
In any case, the problem that Harrington discusses did not begin with the recent rise of digital technologies. But these have greatly exacerbated hedonistic urges. Moreover, they have exacerbated the utopian fantasies of ideologies on both the Left and the Right. Today, for example, those on the Left include not only trans-humanist ideology and trans-gender ideology but also some forms of feminist ideology and all forms of woke ideology. What they have in common, as Harrington says, are attempts to trivialize or even bypass nature.
It’s true, as Kurt’s comment says, that humans have been meddling with nature, or “reality,” since forever. Medicine does that. Material culture does that. Culture itself does that by definition. Maybe Harrington is looking for some line that must not be crossed, some feature of the natural order that cannot be violated without causing unforeseen consequences that present both moral and practical problems (a common theme in dystopian science fiction). Drawing proverbial lines in the sand can be very tricky, of course, because moral philosophy acknowledges ambiguity but also entails consistency.
Margaret Somerville has argued that even secular societies can acknowledge the sanctity of human life as its bottom line. And by “human,” she refers to our species (which the wokers would surely denounce). It’s one thing to enhance the givens of human nature (by using technology to improve eyesight, cure disease, facilitate reproduction and so on) and another thing to interfere with these givens (by encouraging abortion, some forms of eugenics or the creation of a superior species and so forth).
Well, that’s it for now.
Yes–though as far as I can tell, to the extent that (straight) men spend money on their looks it is for career purposes and to meet the minimal standards, which aren’t really cosmetic, necessary in order to attract women. And when women wish to “feminize” men it is usually for purposes of control, say in public or at work, not for mating. Indeed I can imagine a “prettified” straight man, who discusses beauty routines and products, being actually less attractive to a woman. So there will be limits.
There are some man-failings that the beauty/cosmetic market will never hide.
Women are encouraged to look young because every evolutionary benefit is for younger women. For men the achievement of having grown older shows, supposedly, capability, experience and power.
Many feminists hate this but an older man & younger woman pairing is evolutionarily sensible while an older woman & younger man is going to struggle if not completely fail.
I don’t disagree with your general point about cosmetic surgery “coming for both sexes” (which it already has). But I do disagree with your assertion that “women, unlike men, are encouraged into delusions about reclaiming our youth”
It seems to me that men have long struggled against old age. In the sixteenth century, for example, men ran around wearing “codpieces” to advertise their youthful virility. Much more recently, beginning in the 1960s, many men have adopted (at least vicariously) Hugh Hefner’s hedonistic Playboy “philosophy,” which has encouraged them to indulge in one sexual liaison after another in order to demonstrate (at least to themselves) their continuing virility. For men no less than for women, hedonism offers pleasure (immediate gratification of desire), not happiness or anything compatible with wisdom or restraint–let alone maturity.
In any case, the problem that Harrington discusses did not begin with the recent rise of digital technologies. But these have greatly exacerbated hedonistic urges. Moreover, they have exacerbated the utopian fantasies of ideologies on both the Left and the Right. Today, for example, those on the Left include not only trans-humanist ideology and trans-gender ideology but also some forms of feminist ideology and all forms of woke ideology. What they have in common, as Harrington says, are attempts to trivialize or even bypass nature.
It’s true, as Kurt’s comment says, that humans have been meddling with nature, or “reality,” since forever. Medicine does that. Material culture does that. Culture itself does that by definition. Maybe Harrington is looking for some line that must not be crossed, some feature of the natural order that cannot be violated without causing unforeseen consequences that present both moral and practical problems (a common theme in dystopian science fiction). Drawing proverbial lines in the sand can be very tricky, of course, because moral philosophy acknowledges ambiguity but also entails consistency.
Margaret Somerville has argued that even secular societies can acknowledge the sanctity of human life as its bottom line. And by “human,” she refers to our species (which the wokers would surely denounce). It’s one thing to enhance the givens of human nature (by using technology to improve eyesight, cure disease, facilitate reproduction and so on) and another thing to interfere with these givens (by encouraging abortion, some forms of eugenics or the creation of a superior species and so forth).
Well, that’s it for now.
Yes–though as far as I can tell, to the extent that (straight) men spend money on their looks it is for career purposes and to meet the minimal standards, which aren’t really cosmetic, necessary in order to attract women. And when women wish to “feminize” men it is usually for purposes of control, say in public or at work, not for mating. Indeed I can imagine a “prettified” straight man, who discusses beauty routines and products, being actually less attractive to a woman. So there will be limits.
There are some man-failings that the beauty/cosmetic market will never hide.
Women are encouraged to look young because every evolutionary benefit is for younger women. For men the achievement of having grown older shows, supposedly, capability, experience and power.
Many feminists hate this but an older man & younger woman pairing is evolutionarily sensible while an older woman & younger man is going to struggle if not completely fail.
The difference could be societal. Women, unlike men, are encouraged into delusions about reclaiming our youth. Fortunately for men, you guys are allowed to grow old (for now). But the beauty/cosmetic market is coming for both sexes.
I am certainly vain. But not assailed by regrets about my lost youth. Perhaps that’s the difference.
Vanity or low self esteem?
I dunno Malcom. Judging by my own experience, men are at least as vain as women – It just pops out differently.
Vanity, thy name is woman.