Main Edition
US
FR
Why do women past a certain age become villains? Credit: ANDY BUCHANAN/AFP via Getty Images
At the beginning of the year, a scandal erupted over a TikTok trend of young women in tight clothes posting videos shaming men for hitting on them at the gym. As recently as 2018, the story would have been one of women using social media to reclaim public space; the shapely posters would have been commended for their advocacy. But vibes do shift, and now the question is: are the women posting about gross men leering at them actually seeking attention? Are they looking for affirmation of their own hotness — or, in concrete terms, success as social media influencers? Even some who were not angry at the TikTokers from a men’s-rights perspective were sceptical that they were doing a service to womankind.
The #MeToo era was, among other things, a peak moment for what I have called photogenic feminism: a feminism focused on the plight of the young, gorgeous and ceaselessly hassled. While any women’s rights movement needs to concern itself with assaults in the lingerie-modelling audition room, a movement solely interested in stories that just happen to titillate broader audiences can feel limited at best — and at worst, counterproductive. What about all the unsexy issues affecting women: motherhood, menopause, mid-life crises?
Behold, a new book about ladies who have reached the top of the hill and kept going. Hags is Victoria Smith’s alternative to what she calls “non-confrontational, smooth-skinned, pre-menopausal feminism”. It is an alternative, too, to the witchy feminism peddled by writers such as Sharon Blackie, who last year released the similarly-named Hagitude. Where Blackie speaks of “energies” and “journeys”, Smith is decidedly unromantic. Getting older does not automatically bring women into a cosy sisterhood, she argues, but rather highlights disparities when it comes to wealth or care work. She’s not interested in harnessing mysticism, or recycling “you go, girl” platitudes, or supporting the (unconvincing) argument that older women don’t care what people think about them.
Instead, she comes out in defence of Mumsnet, and, more generally, of women who’ve aged out of peak hotness continuing to exist in society. Smith’s hag feminism is about speaking up even when no one is looking at you. It’s about using the wisdom that comes from years of life on this planet as a woman, rather than demurely agreeing to fade into the background. It’s a break from photogenic feminism, with its intense interest in the experiences of the most visible women. But it is also different from the woo-woo world of witchy feminism, with its coven-chic and its inspirational t-shirts.
Smith offers up a thorough survey, backed up by evidence, of the ways women past a certain age become villains. They are “Karens”, demanding to speak with the manager, and sporting the wrong haircut. They are “Terfs”, speaking of female biology rather than gender identity, and, quite possibly, sporting the wrong haircut. Smith writes: “Once upon a time getting a bad haircut might just have meant having to purchase a fetching hat; now a woman might find herself having to record and distribute a public statement claiming a rare mismatch between politics and frumpy appearance.” Throughout the book, Smith is very, very funny. But she’s making a serious point, all the same, about the way that women past a certain age are not merely ignored, but treated as all-purpose antagonists, their flawed faces signs of outdated politics. Not bad guys, but bad gals with the occasional unplucked chin hair.
Bear in mind that Smith isn’t writing about old women. The middle-aged are her focus, not the elderly. But for women, old can start young. I remember being madame’d in Paris at 27 and knowing that this marked the end of something. Stephanie Cole was hired at 48 to play a firebrand pensioner — in Nineties sitcom Waiting for God — while Graham Crowden, the actor who played her love interest, was 19 years her senior, and therefore the same age as the character he was playing. I am not, to be clear, offended that an actor was cast as a character whose biography doesn’t match their own, but rather am struck by how readily the viewer accepts Cole as an old lady. It seems that 49 and 79 are, in a woman, the same deal: all part of an undifferentiated life stage called “past it”.
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.
SubscribeOne of the most amazing experiences of my life has been the revelation that, as i’ve aged, i’ve come to fancy women of my age too.
Of course, my head still gets turned by young women and their fertile presence, but that doesn’t detract in the least from the experience and worldly wisdom of females who’ve been round the block, as i have. There’s just one provision, but one which makes all the difference in the world.
That difference is the ability to wear your age lightly. In other words, looking like you’re worn down by life affects not just your psyche but your posture, your eyes, your smile. I can fully appreciate that many women may well be worn down – probably by men! – but if you’ve come though the mill of childbirth, childcare, work and probably caring for elderly relatives and can still summon some joie de vivre, you’ll look beautiful to me.
I’m trying hard not to sound sexist here. The same can, of course, be said of men, and i think the very same things about them too (without fancying them, but that’s just the way i’m inclined.)
This article therefore strikes a chord with me. Unherd might do well to commission an article about males along similar lines.
“Unherd might do well to commission an article about males along similar lines.”
That is an interesting idea but it also touches on what I believe is Unherd’s greatest weakness, or omission, as a publication: it publishes many articles about the effects of modern life on women, but rarely publishes a story about the effects on men. Everything is interpreted through the lens of feminism. In that regard, Unherd is much closer to the herd than it might care to admit.
Agreed. Perhaps it’s because men don’t complain all the time, unlike women, who make a sport of it.
Allison, I’ve noticed the same. I sometimes glance over the Guardian headlines and most of the time they’re articles by women blaming men for something wrong in their lives. One article was about emotional labor and how women suffer all the more from it, because men don’t feel it as much. I think it was around that point that I realized that feminism was no longer about giving women the freedoms that men have long enjoyed, but removing men’s freedoms in order to share in the ‘burden’ of womanhood.
Thank you for pointing this out. I recognize that most women aren’t like this, but those being paid to speak for women in the media seem to be the worst kind of women. Maybe their salaries depend on continually finding fault with men.
Well, JF, spend an afternoon with a handful of women and the knives very soon come out for the husbands. You would be shocked at how many disclose the most private of incidences to the group – followed by shrieks of derisive laughter. To my knowledge, few, if any, of them are paid to do this, which is why I prefer mixed company.
You say ”Which is why I prefer mixed company.”
I agree completely. I would add, where boths sides instinctively agree to avoid being boring by griping about the inevitable failings of the other sex.
We should party.
Totally agree, but don’t you notice that they usually don’t complain when they are in mixed company? both sexes generally get on quite well and put up with each other’s foibles.
We should party.
Totally agree, but don’t you notice that they usually don’t complain when they are in mixed company? both sexes generally get on quite well and put up with each other’s foibles.
Thank you for stating a huge truth. May I add that the knives also come out for any unfortunate regular in the group happens to be absent for the gabfest.
Most of those “mean girls” from grade school, in my opinion, never changed. They are “mean girls” forever.
Avoid those mean girls like the plague – that is what I do. Such people are not worth knowing.
Avoid those mean girls like the plague – that is what I do. Such people are not worth knowing.
Men do exactly the same about their wives – I’ve heard it for decades at the gym! Maybe it’s the kind of people you associate with – I’ve never been around women who sit around criticising men – I’ve always been around intelligent, educated people who understand interdependence.
You say ”Which is why I prefer mixed company.”
I agree completely. I would add, where boths sides instinctively agree to avoid being boring by griping about the inevitable failings of the other sex.
Thank you for stating a huge truth. May I add that the knives also come out for any unfortunate regular in the group happens to be absent for the gabfest.
Most of those “mean girls” from grade school, in my opinion, never changed. They are “mean girls” forever.
Men do exactly the same about their wives – I’ve heard it for decades at the gym! Maybe it’s the kind of people you associate with – I’ve never been around women who sit around criticising men – I’ve always been around intelligent, educated people who understand interdependence.
“Maybe their salaries depend on continually finding fault with men.”
You need to insert “white” between “with” and “men”. Good comment otherwise.
Well, JF, spend an afternoon with a handful of women and the knives very soon come out for the husbands. You would be shocked at how many disclose the most private of incidences to the group – followed by shrieks of derisive laughter. To my knowledge, few, if any, of them are paid to do this, which is why I prefer mixed company.
“Maybe their salaries depend on continually finding fault with men.”
You need to insert “white” between “with” and “men”. Good comment otherwise.
What? Men don’t complain? Seems to me it is women who suffer in silence while men need the world to know about every little hangnail.
Lolz.
Lolz.
Re: the sport of complaining- women unfortunately also bond over it, which can be really tedious. Men just seem to get on with life.
Allison, I’ve noticed the same. I sometimes glance over the Guardian headlines and most of the time they’re articles by women blaming men for something wrong in their lives. One article was about emotional labor and how women suffer all the more from it, because men don’t feel it as much. I think it was around that point that I realized that feminism was no longer about giving women the freedoms that men have long enjoyed, but removing men’s freedoms in order to share in the ‘burden’ of womanhood.
Thank you for pointing this out. I recognize that most women aren’t like this, but those being paid to speak for women in the media seem to be the worst kind of women. Maybe their salaries depend on continually finding fault with men.
What? Men don’t complain? Seems to me it is women who suffer in silence while men need the world to know about every little hangnail.
Re: the sport of complaining- women unfortunately also bond over it, which can be really tedious. Men just seem to get on with life.
How about indulging in the extraordinary novelty of reporting about people just as plain human beings. That would be refreshing.
Yes, please. This incessant need to divide the world into two groups of roughly 4 billion people and then go to town with blizzards of articles, books, seminars and God knows what else is clearly not helping things.
If only!
Yes, please. This incessant need to divide the world into two groups of roughly 4 billion people and then go to town with blizzards of articles, books, seminars and God knows what else is clearly not helping things.
If only!
Agreed. Perhaps it’s because men don’t complain all the time, unlike women, who make a sport of it.
How about indulging in the extraordinary novelty of reporting about people just as plain human beings. That would be refreshing.
Do men twist themselves into these interminable introspective knots? There are certainly men’s issues but it seems to me they align more with genuine political issues such as the hollowing out of the working class rather than “as a man I feel this or that.”
As an aside, at lunch yesterday the next table had three women in their twenties. Not that it’s particularly relevant, but all were black, I’m in Southern Africa at the moment.
They didn’t eat, drank a bottle of bubbly and literally did nothing else for two hours but take posed photos of each other and selfies. Endless rearranging of braids and pouting.
I just cannot imagine three twenty something men doing that.
Unfortunately too many do. Moisturised, primped and plucked and taking selfies like there is no tomorrow. Butch as all get out.
Really? Where?
Really? Where?
I think some men do, but not at the collective rate of women. I’d point out that “introspective knots” (great expression) could also refer to the kind of intellectualized self-regard that does seem prevalent, even more common, among men, rather than the neurotic fixation on appearance that is more common among women (not only due to their own neuroses, but social pressures too).
I think the selfie-fest scene you describe represents something non-universally but stereotypically feminine: a shallow or “toxic” version of femininity. But effeminate gay men display some of that, and a young male who “identifies” as a man that is interested in women as partners would likely feel a need to conceal some of his preening and plucking self-absorption if he had much of that going on inside.
They don’t need to. The same standards are not required of them. There is a double standard.
Unfortunately too many do. Moisturised, primped and plucked and taking selfies like there is no tomorrow. Butch as all get out.
I think some men do, but not at the collective rate of women. I’d point out that “introspective knots” (great expression) could also refer to the kind of intellectualized self-regard that does seem prevalent, even more common, among men, rather than the neurotic fixation on appearance that is more common among women (not only due to their own neuroses, but social pressures too).
I think the selfie-fest scene you describe represents something non-universally but stereotypically feminine: a shallow or “toxic” version of femininity. But effeminate gay men display some of that, and a young male who “identifies” as a man that is interested in women as partners would likely feel a need to conceal some of his preening and plucking self-absorption if he had much of that going on inside.
They don’t need to. The same standards are not required of them. There is a double standard.
I would tend to agree. At 57 I find myself looking less and less at younger women and more and more seeing the beauty in the women of a similar age.
When I look at younger women, and I am referring to women under say 40, I see an unfinished person and someone trapped in that youthful feminism the author discusses, I see trouble and I see someone that were I to get involved with them will actually detract from my peace and not enhance it. I see energetic naivete.
My fiance is 48. Does she look as “hot” as she did at 30? No, but neither do I. But I see a richer beauty. I see character and I see real strength that shows in her face. I am most at peace in her presence. Am I saying that I do not find her beautiful and sexy? No. I am saying that her beauty is something deeper and her sexiness comes from her attitude, an attitude that only time and having lived can give you.
One thing I love about her, she know precisely what she wants at this point in her life and she is completely unafraid to ask for it or to suggest it. She has no expectation that I can read her mind. There is nothing begrudging about her asking, no implication that her having to do so in some way means I have failed. If she wants to spend a weekend in PJs on the couch with a simple dinner and a bottle of wine, she is gonna say so. If she wants to have sex, she is in no way hesitant to just say; “I would really like to have sex. Let’s have a glass of wine, take the dog out for a walk and then come back and climb into bed.”. To you young women out there….THAT is sexy.
I am a rather traditional man, though certainly not in all aspects. She was a rabid feminist and a rebel in her youth. She was raised working class and busted her back side as a single mom to have a career and raise two daughters. She would tell you, as she has told me, that her attitude toward men in her youth very likely ruined her marriage and that she now regrets a lot of what she did to her ex husband, how she treated him, the expectations she put on him and the lack of apprecitation she had for him and what he did. That may be her biggest regret in my opinion. She still shares custody of their two daughters with him and works hard to cooperate with him.
I think too, though she is highly independent, that she is over the whole women and men are the same thing, the women can do anything men can do thing, the whole being insulted if a man opens a door or pays the check or pulls out a chair he is trying to control her thing. Rather, I think she sees those things as a sign of courtesy and caring, a sign of respect, as though she has earned it and that makes it OK.
I once implied to her that I should drive when we went out and she got annoyed and told me “I am perfectly capable of driving.”. My response to her was, “Well, of course you CAN drive, but do you WANT to drive? And..besides, I see better at night than you do and we both know it. It’s one reason I ask you to call me as soon as you get home when you leave my house at night”.
It was similar with opening doors etc. I remember her saying to me that I did not have to open doors for her. I simply replied that “No, I really do not HAVE to do that, but I WANT to. I am old school and my mother would have slapped me for not doing it, so, if you care for me, just let me open the door, it cuts down on my stress.”.
I could go on and on, but I won’t. The bottom line is this….
a. Young women may be “hot” but that does not make them attractive or sexy. Too many of them equate a tight body and crude behavior and arrogance with being sexy. Way too many of them think way too much of themselves and overestimate both their power and the value they bring to a relationship.
b. Older women may not be as “hot” but their confidence and their lived experience can, and often does, make them sexier and much better partners.
c. There is a huge distinction between being ABLE to do something for yourself and WANTING to do it or do it alone or being the person who is better suited to do it in relationship. I can, and have taken my daughter shopping for dresses but I had a LOT to learn about finding them and determining what looked good or fit right that my fiance knew off the top of her head.
Fabulous comment, thankyou.
Just on the topic of going clothes shopping with one’s daughter; after divorce, that’s what i used to do with my mid-teen daughter. She actually preferred shopping with me for birthday or special occasion clothes because i was just honest with her rather than someone else giving her bullshit.
I also love these remarks. A division of duties doesn’t amount to inequality in and of itself, especially if much is split according to preference or greater (statistical) aptitude.
How many women would feel liberated by the “chance” to pilot long drives, mow the lawn, or do mechanical fix-it projects around the house? How many men would celebrate being “allowed” to mend clothes (a non-posh and maybe dated example) or organize and clean domestic common areas to his taste? A few, certainly in both cases–but not a close call in either.
I think it’s good to relax the stratification so that people aren’t shamed for a non-traditional division of roles or tasks. Mission partly accomplished on that one. But I’m pretty sure mom will still do most of the holiday cooking in most households. And the man should probably go check on that noise in the middle of the night, perhaps with his tough cookie of a partner backing him up.
Look at that lovely Lt-Col in REME, who made it to the final of the Sewing Bee in 2013 – married with sons, played rugby.
A real man, who took his sewing machine on exercise to Bosnia, and Northern Ireland, and who designed his driver’s fiancée’s wedding dress on a piece of paper laid out on the bonnet of their vehicle while up a mountain somewhere.
He was wonderfully supportive of the other contestants, while being as competitive as all get out, and happy in his own skin.
Right on! I Not sure that story received much press here in North America but I’ll check into it.
Right on! I Not sure that story received much press here in North America but I’ll check into it.
I love driving long distances and I like mowing the lawn. And I’ve always wished I had the mechanical skills to fix things around the house. I’ve thought about taking some sort of “household handyman” course. But it’s very intimidating to try to catch up now. At the same time, I love interior design and cooking is my biggest hobby. Despite being a careerist I’ve often thought I would have made a good housewife if my Mom hadn’t steered me away from that at a young age. Like most people, I am a mix of characteristics that could be totted up on either the feminine or masculine side.
Yes, I’d agree that most of us don’t fit neatly into some stereotypical pattern, let alone a traditional, sex-stratified mold. But some of the male/female separation of interests and activities is self-selected.
Hard to separate social expectations from inner motives here, but I think most people find an inner mix that tallies rather more on one side than the other and, for most people, that tends to match some traditional-ish version of their biological sex, more than the opposite (or “counterpart”). I’m not saying there’s anything less than or wrong in the not-rare cases where they don’t match.
We see many more males nurses and female tradespeople now than we did fifty years ago but I don’t think we’re approaching numerical equality, or that social obstacles are the main reason for that. But if I’m mistaken, and more relaxed and inclusive gender roles lead to a continuing, major rise in male head nurses or female general contractors…so be it, bring it on kids!
I think it’s needless and unfortunate if social norms discouraged you from acquiring mechanical know-how you’d have otherwise picked up. Though you may never “catch up” with the young man or woman who’s been handling power tools since teen years, maybe it can still “be fixed”, at least in part.
I don’t have a ton of natural mechanic aptitude or interest but carpentry is the family business so I’ve done quite a lot of that. Can’t say I learned to love it, but did acquire a liking for certain aspects and of course haven’t regretted learning whatever I managed to.
Yes, I’d agree that most of us don’t fit neatly into some stereotypical pattern, let alone a traditional, sex-stratified mold. But some of the male/female separation of interests and activities is self-selected.
Hard to separate social expectations from inner motives here, but I think most people find an inner mix that tallies rather more on one side than the other and, for most people, that tends to match some traditional-ish version of their biological sex, more than the opposite (or “counterpart”). I’m not saying there’s anything less than or wrong in the not-rare cases where they don’t match.
We see many more males nurses and female tradespeople now than we did fifty years ago but I don’t think we’re approaching numerical equality, or that social obstacles are the main reason for that. But if I’m mistaken, and more relaxed and inclusive gender roles lead to a continuing, major rise in male head nurses or female general contractors…so be it, bring it on kids!
I think it’s needless and unfortunate if social norms discouraged you from acquiring mechanical know-how you’d have otherwise picked up. Though you may never “catch up” with the young man or woman who’s been handling power tools since teen years, maybe it can still “be fixed”, at least in part.
I don’t have a ton of natural mechanic aptitude or interest but carpentry is the family business so I’ve done quite a lot of that. Can’t say I learned to love it, but did acquire a liking for certain aspects and of course haven’t regretted learning whatever I managed to.
Look at that lovely Lt-Col in REME, who made it to the final of the Sewing Bee in 2013 – married with sons, played rugby.
A real man, who took his sewing machine on exercise to Bosnia, and Northern Ireland, and who designed his driver’s fiancée’s wedding dress on a piece of paper laid out on the bonnet of their vehicle while up a mountain somewhere.
He was wonderfully supportive of the other contestants, while being as competitive as all get out, and happy in his own skin.
I love driving long distances and I like mowing the lawn. And I’ve always wished I had the mechanical skills to fix things around the house. I’ve thought about taking some sort of “household handyman” course. But it’s very intimidating to try to catch up now. At the same time, I love interior design and cooking is my biggest hobby. Despite being a careerist I’ve often thought I would have made a good housewife if my Mom hadn’t steered me away from that at a young age. Like most people, I am a mix of characteristics that could be totted up on either the feminine or masculine side.
Excellent comment and best wishes to you both!
SO true! Well said!
Fabulous comment, thankyou.
Just on the topic of going clothes shopping with one’s daughter; after divorce, that’s what i used to do with my mid-teen daughter. She actually preferred shopping with me for birthday or special occasion clothes because i was just honest with her rather than someone else giving her bullshit.
I also love these remarks. A division of duties doesn’t amount to inequality in and of itself, especially if much is split according to preference or greater (statistical) aptitude.
How many women would feel liberated by the “chance” to pilot long drives, mow the lawn, or do mechanical fix-it projects around the house? How many men would celebrate being “allowed” to mend clothes (a non-posh and maybe dated example) or organize and clean domestic common areas to his taste? A few, certainly in both cases–but not a close call in either.
I think it’s good to relax the stratification so that people aren’t shamed for a non-traditional division of roles or tasks. Mission partly accomplished on that one. But I’m pretty sure mom will still do most of the holiday cooking in most households. And the man should probably go check on that noise in the middle of the night, perhaps with his tough cookie of a partner backing him up.
Excellent comment and best wishes to you both!
SO true! Well said!
In the first place why did Tiger Woods even have a Tampon on the golf course ? It was a reverse perverse comedy of this power issue.
“One of the most amazing experiences of my life has been the revelation that, as i’ve aged, i’ve come to fancy women of my age too.”
#MeToo. I can appreciate that young women are easy on the eye, but they often just seem a bit vacuous compared to women my age. And wokeness has made a lot of them frankly psychotic.
One of the most amazing experiences of my life has been the revelation that, as I’ve aged, I’ve stopped caring what men or women think of my appearance. We talk about menopause making women invisible to men but not about how it makes men pointless to women. Evolutionarily pointless.
I comment as an old woman who was once beautiful and got a lot of mileage out of being so. I deal with the loss of beauty and the power that it brings, on a daily basis. I haven’t come to terms with the disconnect between how I feel on the inside and how I look on the outside, and I know I never will. The disconnect never ceases to amaze me and brings forth a “what the f**k” everytime I look in the mirror.
I value having a powerful mind, an insatiable curiosity and an irreverant sense of humor. I’ve become more an observor of life than a participant, which works out well since there are so many ways to participate vicariously, nowadays. However, as a child of the sixties the one thing I do miss is f*****g……………..
Unherd doesn’t seem particularly bothered about men.
Personally, I prefer talking and being around people who can add to the conversation. Men, women, old, young, gendered in humourous ways, whatever. Were all trying to fake it till we make it and the games you choose to play is the best sort of conversation.
So when they write about women I tend to replace women with human.
“Unherd might do well to commission an article about males along similar lines.”
That is an interesting idea but it also touches on what I believe is Unherd’s greatest weakness, or omission, as a publication: it publishes many articles about the effects of modern life on women, but rarely publishes a story about the effects on men. Everything is interpreted through the lens of feminism. In that regard, Unherd is much closer to the herd than it might care to admit.
Do men twist themselves into these interminable introspective knots? There are certainly men’s issues but it seems to me they align more with genuine political issues such as the hollowing out of the working class rather than “as a man I feel this or that.”
As an aside, at lunch yesterday the next table had three women in their twenties. Not that it’s particularly relevant, but all were black, I’m in Southern Africa at the moment.
They didn’t eat, drank a bottle of bubbly and literally did nothing else for two hours but take posed photos of each other and selfies. Endless rearranging of braids and pouting.
I just cannot imagine three twenty something men doing that.
I would tend to agree. At 57 I find myself looking less and less at younger women and more and more seeing the beauty in the women of a similar age.
When I look at younger women, and I am referring to women under say 40, I see an unfinished person and someone trapped in that youthful feminism the author discusses, I see trouble and I see someone that were I to get involved with them will actually detract from my peace and not enhance it. I see energetic naivete.
My fiance is 48. Does she look as “hot” as she did at 30? No, but neither do I. But I see a richer beauty. I see character and I see real strength that shows in her face. I am most at peace in her presence. Am I saying that I do not find her beautiful and sexy? No. I am saying that her beauty is something deeper and her sexiness comes from her attitude, an attitude that only time and having lived can give you.
One thing I love about her, she know precisely what she wants at this point in her life and she is completely unafraid to ask for it or to suggest it. She has no expectation that I can read her mind. There is nothing begrudging about her asking, no implication that her having to do so in some way means I have failed. If she wants to spend a weekend in PJs on the couch with a simple dinner and a bottle of wine, she is gonna say so. If she wants to have sex, she is in no way hesitant to just say; “I would really like to have sex. Let’s have a glass of wine, take the dog out for a walk and then come back and climb into bed.”. To you young women out there….THAT is sexy.
I am a rather traditional man, though certainly not in all aspects. She was a rabid feminist and a rebel in her youth. She was raised working class and busted her back side as a single mom to have a career and raise two daughters. She would tell you, as she has told me, that her attitude toward men in her youth very likely ruined her marriage and that she now regrets a lot of what she did to her ex husband, how she treated him, the expectations she put on him and the lack of apprecitation she had for him and what he did. That may be her biggest regret in my opinion. She still shares custody of their two daughters with him and works hard to cooperate with him.
I think too, though she is highly independent, that she is over the whole women and men are the same thing, the women can do anything men can do thing, the whole being insulted if a man opens a door or pays the check or pulls out a chair he is trying to control her thing. Rather, I think she sees those things as a sign of courtesy and caring, a sign of respect, as though she has earned it and that makes it OK.
I once implied to her that I should drive when we went out and she got annoyed and told me “I am perfectly capable of driving.”. My response to her was, “Well, of course you CAN drive, but do you WANT to drive? And..besides, I see better at night than you do and we both know it. It’s one reason I ask you to call me as soon as you get home when you leave my house at night”.
It was similar with opening doors etc. I remember her saying to me that I did not have to open doors for her. I simply replied that “No, I really do not HAVE to do that, but I WANT to. I am old school and my mother would have slapped me for not doing it, so, if you care for me, just let me open the door, it cuts down on my stress.”.
I could go on and on, but I won’t. The bottom line is this….
a. Young women may be “hot” but that does not make them attractive or sexy. Too many of them equate a tight body and crude behavior and arrogance with being sexy. Way too many of them think way too much of themselves and overestimate both their power and the value they bring to a relationship.
b. Older women may not be as “hot” but their confidence and their lived experience can, and often does, make them sexier and much better partners.
c. There is a huge distinction between being ABLE to do something for yourself and WANTING to do it or do it alone or being the person who is better suited to do it in relationship. I can, and have taken my daughter shopping for dresses but I had a LOT to learn about finding them and determining what looked good or fit right that my fiance knew off the top of her head.
In the first place why did Tiger Woods even have a Tampon on the golf course ? It was a reverse perverse comedy of this power issue.
“One of the most amazing experiences of my life has been the revelation that, as i’ve aged, i’ve come to fancy women of my age too.”
#MeToo. I can appreciate that young women are easy on the eye, but they often just seem a bit vacuous compared to women my age. And wokeness has made a lot of them frankly psychotic.
One of the most amazing experiences of my life has been the revelation that, as I’ve aged, I’ve stopped caring what men or women think of my appearance. We talk about menopause making women invisible to men but not about how it makes men pointless to women. Evolutionarily pointless.
I comment as an old woman who was once beautiful and got a lot of mileage out of being so. I deal with the loss of beauty and the power that it brings, on a daily basis. I haven’t come to terms with the disconnect between how I feel on the inside and how I look on the outside, and I know I never will. The disconnect never ceases to amaze me and brings forth a “what the f**k” everytime I look in the mirror.
I value having a powerful mind, an insatiable curiosity and an irreverant sense of humor. I’ve become more an observor of life than a participant, which works out well since there are so many ways to participate vicariously, nowadays. However, as a child of the sixties the one thing I do miss is f*****g……………..
Unherd doesn’t seem particularly bothered about men.
Personally, I prefer talking and being around people who can add to the conversation. Men, women, old, young, gendered in humourous ways, whatever. Were all trying to fake it till we make it and the games you choose to play is the best sort of conversation.
So when they write about women I tend to replace women with human.
One of the most amazing experiences of my life has been the revelation that, as i’ve aged, i’ve come to fancy women of my age too.
Of course, my head still gets turned by young women and their fertile presence, but that doesn’t detract in the least from the experience and worldly wisdom of females who’ve been round the block, as i have. There’s just one provision, but one which makes all the difference in the world.
That difference is the ability to wear your age lightly. In other words, looking like you’re worn down by life affects not just your psyche but your posture, your eyes, your smile. I can fully appreciate that many women may well be worn down – probably by men! – but if you’ve come though the mill of childbirth, childcare, work and probably caring for elderly relatives and can still summon some joie de vivre, you’ll look beautiful to me.
I’m trying hard not to sound sexist here. The same can, of course, be said of men, and i think the very same things about them too (without fancying them, but that’s just the way i’m inclined.)
This article therefore strikes a chord with me. Unherd might do well to commission an article about males along similar lines.
There is no such thing as ‘true womanhood, cis or trans’. The only true woman is a female one. Men dressed up like Barbie dolls are caricatures. Woman is not a costume.
Bravo!!!
Absolutely right! Thank you for clarifying this fact.
You can say that here, thank goodness, but don’t try it on any of the mainstream media comment sections. Instant redaction awaits. I speak from experience.
Bravo!!!
Absolutely right! Thank you for clarifying this fact.
You can say that here, thank goodness, but don’t try it on any of the mainstream media comment sections. Instant redaction awaits. I speak from experience.
There is no such thing as ‘true womanhood, cis or trans’. The only true woman is a female one. Men dressed up like Barbie dolls are caricatures. Woman is not a costume.
”Surely both sides agree that the vast majority of violence against women comes from male-identified men, and not from men claiming womanhood to sneak into women’s spaces?”
”What it winds up doing is defining true womanhood, cis or trans,”
”about how trans women look more like women than “Terfs” do.”
and many more
Unherd, why get a woman who does not know what a woman is, to write on women?
Now if this was an article in a farming magazine (Unherd II) would the confusion still exist?
Thanks for saying this. It needed to be said.
She seems to be completely unaware of the existence of Autogynephiles…
Thanks for saying this. It needed to be said.
She seems to be completely unaware of the existence of Autogynephiles…
”Surely both sides agree that the vast majority of violence against women comes from male-identified men, and not from men claiming womanhood to sneak into women’s spaces?”
”What it winds up doing is defining true womanhood, cis or trans,”
”about how trans women look more like women than “Terfs” do.”
and many more
Unherd, why get a woman who does not know what a woman is, to write on women?
Now if this was an article in a farming magazine (Unherd II) would the confusion still exist?
I, too, thought it interesting we, women, were not commenting.
My response is two-fold:
First, it appears the category of age at least above 45, is of much less importance as an explanatory factor for a range of attitudes and behaviours for women than it used to be – I am 86.
Second, I think the author is wrong in side-tracking the Trans/Women’s rights issues as a wishful, why not concentrate on the important stuff, like I do? and reduction to a ‘both sides’ equivalence that is false.
This issue is a way of rendering women invisible and second class to the extent of supporting men in taking over our bodies, our place in society and our language. It is called misogyny.
I’m glad you’ve contributed this “gender-imbalanced” comment board.
To check whether I understand your comment: Do you consider transwomen to be misogynists by the very fact of their transitioning or attempting to live as women?
The trouble is the very term “trans” is treated as a coherent concept, when it’s not. A teen girl fleeing impending womanhood may indeed be happier in a simulacrum of masculinity, but she may also be suffering from rapid onset gender dysphoria; she may be autistic; she may have simply fallen down a Tumblr rabbit hole. She has nothing in common with an autogynophilic man, or a man immersed in sissy porn, or a man “discovering” his feminine side in prison, and perhaps even little in common with a feminine man who profoundly wishes he were female. We must realize the term trans is profoundly inadequate when we address the myriad reasons people are socially, medically and surgically altering their bodies.
Exactly.
Exactly.
The trouble is the very term “trans” is treated as a coherent concept, when it’s not. A teen girl fleeing impending womanhood may indeed be happier in a simulacrum of masculinity, but she may also be suffering from rapid onset gender dysphoria; she may be autistic; she may have simply fallen down a Tumblr rabbit hole. She has nothing in common with an autogynophilic man, or a man immersed in sissy porn, or a man “discovering” his feminine side in prison, and perhaps even little in common with a feminine man who profoundly wishes he were female. We must realize the term trans is profoundly inadequate when we address the myriad reasons people are socially, medically and surgically altering their bodies.
I’m glad you’ve contributed this “gender-imbalanced” comment board.
To check whether I understand your comment: Do you consider transwomen to be misogynists by the very fact of their transitioning or attempting to live as women?
I, too, thought it interesting we, women, were not commenting.
My response is two-fold:
First, it appears the category of age at least above 45, is of much less importance as an explanatory factor for a range of attitudes and behaviours for women than it used to be – I am 86.
Second, I think the author is wrong in side-tracking the Trans/Women’s rights issues as a wishful, why not concentrate on the important stuff, like I do? and reduction to a ‘both sides’ equivalence that is false.
This issue is a way of rendering women invisible and second class to the extent of supporting men in taking over our bodies, our place in society and our language. It is called misogyny.
I was in the gym two hours ago. So was a young woman who looked like every other young woman (that vaguely Asiatic, vaguely Latino but not, long dark hair full lips etc thing) I cycle on a recumbent bike for 10 K in a time frame and gradually increase the level of difficulty as the days go by to build up strength in my calf and thigh muscles. In the few minutes we shared the Gym she spent 50% of her time frowning at her phone.
When I go swimming, out for dinner or lunch or anything it’s the same. I have seen young girls pouting into their phones for 30 minutes in the swimming pool trying to do that wet hair sexy thing video.
I am not in the gym or in the swimming pool for anyone else. I am there for the sheer exhilaration of physical exercise and the adrenaline rush and on a more practical level to stay fit for hiking in the European summer. Nothing feels better than throwing off all your clothes after a real workout and jumping in the shower and cooling down. I feel alive!
The other one I enjoy is when you enter a lift energized middle-aged men and women have a quip and an exchange with you. Men are polite and hold the lift, and women smile and say hi. The younger ones … are on their phones. Can they smile talk converse and share the many joys the world has to offer? Search me or are they just hollowed-out Avatars?
To the extent that women are more into communicating than men are (I know that’s a stereotype, but there might be something in it – women do seem, on average, to have superior language skills to men – so if they are better at language, a key tool of communication, there might be a difference in communication activity too), maybe they’re more at risk from the ‘quick neuronal drug hit’ of today’s hyper-connected world?
How do you explain the fact that a lot of young men spend hours sitting behind their computers gaming?
Gaming is hiding from real communication and people.
Not very different from social media, they talk online with other gamers and gaming releases dopamine, just like drugs.
Not very different from social media, they talk online with other gamers and gaming releases dopamine, just like drugs.
Gaming is hiding from real communication and people.
The only question is whether posting selfies on Instagram is actually ‘communication.’
How do you explain the fact that a lot of young men spend hours sitting behind their computers gaming?
The only question is whether posting selfies on Instagram is actually ‘communication.’
Me too! I don’t even bring my phone to the pool. In fact, I view every excursion to which I don’t have to bring my phone as a luxury. When I fantasize about becoming filthy rich, the first and greatest luxury I can imagine is throwing my smart phone in the bin and only having a land line. Ps. I have literally never taken a selfie.
Is it an age thing?
Is it an age thing?
Wasn’t it your generation who raised those phone slaves though?
The fact is kids today are subject to social media. It’s obviously very damaging to them and will probably eventually be banned or regulated like smoking, but for now a generation is being permanently damaged by the widespread use of addictive technology to sell advertising.
Don’t blame the victim.
To the extent that women are more into communicating than men are (I know that’s a stereotype, but there might be something in it – women do seem, on average, to have superior language skills to men – so if they are better at language, a key tool of communication, there might be a difference in communication activity too), maybe they’re more at risk from the ‘quick neuronal drug hit’ of today’s hyper-connected world?
Me too! I don’t even bring my phone to the pool. In fact, I view every excursion to which I don’t have to bring my phone as a luxury. When I fantasize about becoming filthy rich, the first and greatest luxury I can imagine is throwing my smart phone in the bin and only having a land line. Ps. I have literally never taken a selfie.
Wasn’t it your generation who raised those phone slaves though?
The fact is kids today are subject to social media. It’s obviously very damaging to them and will probably eventually be banned or regulated like smoking, but for now a generation is being permanently damaged by the widespread use of addictive technology to sell advertising.
Don’t blame the victim.
I was in the gym two hours ago. So was a young woman who looked like every other young woman (that vaguely Asiatic, vaguely Latino but not, long dark hair full lips etc thing) I cycle on a recumbent bike for 10 K in a time frame and gradually increase the level of difficulty as the days go by to build up strength in my calf and thigh muscles. In the few minutes we shared the Gym she spent 50% of her time frowning at her phone.
When I go swimming, out for dinner or lunch or anything it’s the same. I have seen young girls pouting into their phones for 30 minutes in the swimming pool trying to do that wet hair sexy thing video.
I am not in the gym or in the swimming pool for anyone else. I am there for the sheer exhilaration of physical exercise and the adrenaline rush and on a more practical level to stay fit for hiking in the European summer. Nothing feels better than throwing off all your clothes after a real workout and jumping in the shower and cooling down. I feel alive!
The other one I enjoy is when you enter a lift energized middle-aged men and women have a quip and an exchange with you. Men are polite and hold the lift, and women smile and say hi. The younger ones … are on their phones. Can they smile talk converse and share the many joys the world has to offer? Search me or are they just hollowed-out Avatars?
This is a ways from the point of this article, but something here set it off, so…
I have a certain amount of sympathy with “the plight of the young, gorgeous and ceaselessly hassled” – but that sympathy has limits. You’re so attractive you’re always being hit on? Try dressing down.
Demanding to be allowed to be incredibly attractive, but not wanting the results of that attractiveness, is to want your cake, and eat it too. Most people with common sense would realize that the two are in opposition – but apparently that realization’s beyond some totally self-centered people. (Ironically, the same condition that afflicts their tormentors.)
Men aren’t robots; but the demand that women be allowed to be blindingly attractive, and have men not respond to that, is to demand that women have all the power in the interaction. Life doesn’t work that way.
When 70s rock stars wore shrink wrapped trousers that displayed their sex organs, it was most definitely to attract women (whether that worked or not, I cannot comment)….when 2020’s women wear shrink wrapped trousers that display their sexual organs (quite a feat for something so much smaller, but like landing on the moon, scientists – and Lulu Lemon – worked at it until the goal was achieved), it is said that they are wearing it for themselves, to feel good, and are offended by the male gaze.
I don’t think they should be surprised or offended by the gaze of men. But if they are not interested in a particular man, they should have the right to say no to him without being attacked or harassed for it.
No disagreement at all with that last sentence.
No disagreement at all with that last sentence.
A very popular look for “younger” women these days is sharing their beauty, via “selfies” on many social media outlets – Instagram comes to mind – with pouty lipped poses, butts out behind – breasts out in front – in sexy outfits, maybe with false eye lashes added in. So… “Don’t look at me, you sex maniac!” begs the question.
The current “look” that most women are copying if frightful, phoney,repitious and boring. As a woman I feel ashamed and horrified and long for it to be over with. However, it’s doubtful that it will go away anytime soon because the “beauty” industry is so very, very lucrative.
The current “look” that most women are copying if frightful, phoney,repitious and boring. As a woman I feel ashamed and horrified and long for it to be over with. However, it’s doubtful that it will go away anytime soon because the “beauty” industry is so very, very lucrative.
When 70s rock stars wore shrink wrapped trousers that displayed their sex organs, it was most definitely to attract women (whether that worked or not, I cannot comment)….when 2020’s women wear shrink wrapped trousers that display their sexual organs (quite a feat for something so much smaller, but like landing on the moon, scientists – and Lulu Lemon – worked at it until the goal was achieved), it is said that they are wearing it for themselves, to feel good, and are offended by the male gaze.
I don’t think they should be surprised or offended by the gaze of men. But if they are not interested in a particular man, they should have the right to say no to him without being attacked or harassed for it.
A very popular look for “younger” women these days is sharing their beauty, via “selfies” on many social media outlets – Instagram comes to mind – with pouty lipped poses, butts out behind – breasts out in front – in sexy outfits, maybe with false eye lashes added in. So… “Don’t look at me, you sex maniac!” begs the question.
This is a ways from the point of this article, but something here set it off, so…
I have a certain amount of sympathy with “the plight of the young, gorgeous and ceaselessly hassled” – but that sympathy has limits. You’re so attractive you’re always being hit on? Try dressing down.
Demanding to be allowed to be incredibly attractive, but not wanting the results of that attractiveness, is to want your cake, and eat it too. Most people with common sense would realize that the two are in opposition – but apparently that realization’s beyond some totally self-centered people. (Ironically, the same condition that afflicts their tormentors.)
Men aren’t robots; but the demand that women be allowed to be blindingly attractive, and have men not respond to that, is to demand that women have all the power in the interaction. Life doesn’t work that way.
“the right to be respected and understood as having an inner life”
Really? “The right”? The claim of a “right” is the imposition of a duty. I don’t think other people have a duty to me that involves my being “respected and understood as having an inner life.” That’s more than can reasonably be expected.
“Treated with civility and not run over in the crosswalk” is fine.
“the right to be respected and understood as having an inner life”
Really? “The right”? The claim of a “right” is the imposition of a duty. I don’t think other people have a duty to me that involves my being “respected and understood as having an inner life.” That’s more than can reasonably be expected.
“Treated with civility and not run over in the crosswalk” is fine.
As Woody Allen put it: Getting old is better than the alternative..
No it’s not. Absolutely NOT!!!
No it’s not. Absolutely NOT!!!
As Woody Allen put it: Getting old is better than the alternative..
“Surely both sides agree that the vast majority of violence against women comes from male-identified men, and not from men claiming womanhood to sneak into women’s spaces?”
Someone hasn’t been looking at the figures.
“Surely both sides agree that the vast majority of violence against women comes from male-identified men, and not from men claiming womanhood to sneak into women’s spaces?”
Someone hasn’t been looking at the figures.
“Surely they agree, too, that the vast majority of violence against trans women comes from men”
“Trans women” suffer less violence than other men.
“Surely both sides agree that the vast majority of violence against women comes from male-identified men, and not from men claiming womanhood to sneak into women’s spaces?”
Something like 40% of male prisoners claiming to be women are sex offenders.
“Surely they agree, too, that the vast majority of violence against trans women comes from men”
“Trans women” suffer less violence than other men.
“Surely both sides agree that the vast majority of violence against women comes from male-identified men, and not from men claiming womanhood to sneak into women’s spaces?”
Something like 40% of male prisoners claiming to be women are sex offenders.
The article uses the term “society’s ageist misogyny” which makes no sense at all.
Misogyny is “hatred of women” so “ageist misogyny” would imply hatred of old women. That assumes middle age women receive more attention than they do.
Women who have hit the wall are not hated, it would be more accurate to say they are mostly invisible to men and ignored.
Misogyny does not have to mean ‘hatred’ of women. That’s just the trite term du jour. It also means precisely what you’ve just done.
No, Steve, it really does mean hatred. Linguistic inflation is not merely a fashion. It is a politically manipulative tool. I don’t believe slogans such as “silence is violence.” I don’t believe that any unpleasant sexual encounter is tantamount to “rape.” I don’t believe that any careless joke reveals “implicit racism.” I don’t believe that every criticism of Israel amounts to antisemitism (although some do). I don’t believe that any conflict or even war can be comparable to “genocide.” We need a word that refers exclusively to hatred–that is, malice, the urge to harm--and not merely to snobbery, ignorance or stupidity. Without that basic moral distinction, anything (no matter how trivial) can mean anything else (no matter how important), and we’re back to Humpty Dumpty, who informs Alice, “When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” He’s clear enough about what he means (neither more nor less) but foolish enough to ignore what society means.
Amen! Making sexism or even “failure to duly consider a woman’s feelings” equivalent to misogyny (hatred of women as a group) is a key, prevalent example of linguistic inflation.
{What do you think of the suggestion of replacing misandry and misogyny with “man-hatred” and “woman-hatred” respectively? I know they are not great substitutes, but they could temporarily circumvent the disembodied ease of the Greek-derived terms.
As as comparison: To my ear, it’s a more direct, biting, less-easily rattled off accusation to say “you hate people” than “you are misanthropic/a misanthropist”.}
Still, better not to brand people left and right, whatever the terminology. We seem to have succumbed to more overall name-calling since euphemisms and of-the-minute-precise terms have grown in perceived importance. Almost everyone who’s ever lived has told a lie, but they don’t deserve a scarlet letter for it, as capital-“L” Liars, in my opinion.
Your alternatives to “misogyny” and “misandry” would do the job, AJ, but I see no urgent need to demand yet another change in vocabulary. I’d be content if people were capable of knowing, whatever words they choose, the difference that I see between hating and disliking.
Unlike disliking, no matter how strongly, hating is not merely a personal feeling and therefore not a transient emotion. Rather, it’s a culturally propagated worldview, which I classify as an ideology (whether left-wing or right-wing, religious or secular).
All ideologies, of course, have at least some common features. Katherine K. Young and I have identified eight, but the underlying one is dualism: seeing all of life or all of history as a titanic battle between “us” and “them.” “They,” from this point of view are inherently evil (oppressors). “We,” supposedly being inherently good (victims), therefore have the moral duty to destroy “them” (if not physically, then politically, economically or psychologically). That’s hatred.
I find most of your argument persuasive, Paul, and agree that yet another switch in terms isn’t worth it. Thought I’d seek your well-informed opinion on a prospective change that’s in no danger of catching on.
One significant disagreement: I think hatred can be primarily and deeply personal. Now, if one starts to label the human “object” of the hatred a “so-and-so” in a way that reflects us/them divisions, then we’re more into culturally propagated territory.
But would you acknowledge that a child can hate his or her brother or sister without an accompanying ideological framework or social construction except within the nuclear family unit? I see the huge role of ideology and societal forces in proliferating hatred, but I guess I’d be closer to accepting your asserted absolute separation between strong dislike and hatred if all hatred were of a sustained, murderous, and group-supported kind. I don’t think all hatred fits that bill though, unless you’re using an intensified, modified definition of hate.
Can’t one’s regard for someone dear move from love to (real) hatred and back to love again?
(Follow-up thought: I see the group-based feeling you outline as something more like fixed antagonism, with or without “de-humanization”–another term I’d nominate for an overuse award. And while I think all strict or rabid ideological frameworks involve some element of division or hatred, I don’t see that as fundamental , defining feature. For example, pacifism: Does the practitioner have to hate or just be morally opposed to war?)
Thank you, so much, AJ, for continuing the discussion (although I don’t know how long that will be possible given the duration of these threads).
You say, “I don’t think all hatred fits that bill though, unless you’re using an intensified, modified definition of hate.” As I say, though, I do use specific definitions of both hatred (a moral problem) and dislike or even extreme dislike (a psychological one). I don’t do this in order to be pedantic. I do so in order to clarify a pervasive misunderstanding, one with severe consequences for society.
I can’t hold back the waves of linguistic change any more than King Canute could hold back the tidal waves, but I can at least clarify what’s going on just below the linguistic surface. It’s true that “hating” and (extreme) “disliking” have become synonyms in popular parlance. Both refer to emotion. But I still think that, in this anti-intellectual age of pop psychology (when “I feel” has become a synonym for “I think”), it’s worth the effort to distinguish between emotions and ideas.
You ask about sibling rivalry. I think that this example is significantly different from hatred. It’s true that the result of (culturally propagated) hatred can sometimes be experienced as intense (personal) emotion. And that can indeed look like rage. Maybe the Nazis who imprisoned people in burning synagogues or threw Jewish babies out windows did so very angrily–or even joyfully. But I think that this extreme kind of behavior–it actually violates religious, moral or even other legal norms–seldom originates in personal interactions with the targets, no matter how unpleasant, or even with other members of the target communities. It requires elaborate justification and external support, after all, which is exactly what profoundly dualistic worldviews provide. The targets are therefore impersonal abstractions, not really or fully human at all.
I’m glad that you refer also to “love,” because that word, too, is often used carelessly. “Loving” can refer to extreme “liking.” But the word has a long history and not only in English. What translators of the Bible often call “love,” could once have meant many things that we don’t always distinguish: filial love, brotherly love, patriotic love, platonic love, romantic love, sexual love and so on. The early Christians (like many Christians to this day), however, regarded self-sacrificial love as the highest form of love. This was definitely not what we would consider an emotion. It had nothing to do with personal affection. Otherwise, it could not have been a divine commandment and the ultimate response to divine self-sacrifice. But you don’t have to be Christian to know what self-sacrifice is or why it remains a powerful ideal.
I’m not sure of what you mean by referring in this context to pacifism. I would not classify that as an “ideology.” It’s an idea, to be sure, but not an ideology. That’s because every ideology is, as I say, a particular kind of worldview. It’s goal is a re-presentation of reality in order to achieve specific social, economic or political goals. But I didn’t invent that definition. The word has a history. It originated in eighteenth-century France but took on its current meaning in the writings of Marx. It continues in use to this day not only among Marxists but also among many feminists and all wokers. For them, ideology is “false consciousness.” This is what makes it possible for the bourgeoisie (or the white supremacists or patriarchs) to hoodwink other people into thinking that the world’s organization was and always will be as it is. In other words, low status no less than high status is ordained by nature itself and therefore immune to revolution. The only way out is, in postmodernist parlance, to “deconstruct” that worldview and undermine its institutions by infiltrating them. In my opinion, however, this very kind of worldview, whether on the Left or the Right, is an ideology in precisely the same way. Like them, it has distinctive characteristics of which the most powerful is dualism, a.k.a. an “us” vs. “them” mentality.
A few more stitches for this unraveling thread:
I get your point concerning the complexities and changing definition of love and acknowledge the distinction between an emotional and a moral decision. But they are not so neatly separated. Emotions can influence moral decisions and moral decisions (certainly selfless sacrifice) can have emotional “payoff” for both sides. Are you saying that actions lose all moral or intellectual weight–all “reality”–when they have an emotional or subjective dimension? I doubt you are but that’s what I almost read.
In my view: The deep, emotionally resonant positive regard one feels for a dear friend or family member is love. Make it negative: it is hate. I strongly object to some attempt to “outsource” both love and hatred (or hatred by itself) to groups. Are you contending that because acts of kindness or cruelty have a psychological or emotional dimension that they are therefore illusory or less real as loving or hateful acts?! Or that abiding love for a friend is not real love but more like the biochemical sensation of being “in love”?
“Maybe the Nazis who imprisoned people in burning synagogues or threw Jewish babies out windows did so very angrily–or even joyfully” were hateful and evil in a individually culpable way, group influence notwithstanding (though I acknowledge that much enmity and wicked inhumanity is “crowd-sourced”).
How about the main architect of those group actions? His feelings and beliefs–documented in the “My Struggle” screed I was once made to read for a critical thinking class–are not all self-generated, but they are still his fault, especially in their mestastacized implementation. Right?
We can argue terminology until the cows come home or the whole digital crowd has left, but I don’t think we can remove so much of either the credit or blame from individual actions. And neither love or hatred needs, or ought to be, relegated to an emotionless or abstract realm. In many cases, attempts to be scrupulously objective can lead to more monstrous results, like doctrinaire Effective Altruism.
Please forgive the emotional coloring in my remarks.
There’s no need for me to forgive you for “emotional coloring,” AJ. Emotion is a universal feature of human existence (and of some other species). It’s neither bad nor good. It just is.
I think that you’re reading way too much into what I’ve said and therefore drawing conclusions that I don’t draw. All I want is to make it clear, linguistically, that some phenomena are rooted in culturally propagated ideas (contempt, malice, hatred) as distinct from personal feelings (rage, envy, fear and so on)–although, in everyday life, both might reinforce each other.
Not all Germans, for instance, were hostile to Jews. Not all approved of mass murder. Not all condoned Nazi ideology or even joined the Nazi Party. Some of them risked their lives, in fact, to oppose the Nazi regime. But, for countless personal reasons, others acted very differently. It was Nazi ideology, however, that forced them all to make moral choices. As for Hitler, he grew up in a society that had long fostered antisemitism and other forms of racism. But that hardly absolves him of personal guilt. He was free enough to make his own choices, after all, and he chose evil ones.
Yes, of course, emotion and reason are not easily separated. But I’m not advocating mass lobotomies in the interest of creating some utopia. I’m merely advocating one useful verbal distinction that can clarify discussions of a major social problem. Not being a linguist, I don’t even care about the words per se. You don’t like the word “hatred”? Find a better one. Just make sure that it denotes clearly the moral consequences of cultural conditioning–that is, of ideological “narratives.”
The same principle applies to love. Everyone has always known that love can take many forms, all of them are valuable and even necessary but some of them (notably sacrificial love) are more costly and therefore more valuable than others. In any case, we have many words for these distinct but closely related phenomena. Trouble is, contemporary English usage tends to use one word for all of them, thus debasing not only the language but also the culture.
So no, I’m not arguing that hostile behavior motivated by personal rage is somehow less serious, morally, than hostile behavior motivated by ideological resentment. Both can lead to evil. But the solution, if there is one, would not be the same for both.
My research is on misandry, AJ, not the personal feelings of women. Feminists keep trying to condone or even excuse misandry by arguing (among other things) that it’s not really hatred at all but merely anger–usually implying that the victims deserve it. And I keep trying to say that they’re evading moral responsibility for a phenomenon that feminists have created and fostered in the name of all women. We need a vocabulary that makes it possible to say this.
That all makes sense to me, Paul. You make forceful arguments that, at times, belie the nuance and complexity I typically find in your remarks, or which are found to underlie your initial marks upon follow-up. But who doesn’t, and it’s hard to read tone on a screen. I’ll make an effort to afford you more baseline credit from now on.
I
hatestrongly dislike what I call facile umbrella terms too, such as “problematic”, “dynamic” (earlier, as a noun) and “misogyny”. I do hope we can avoid an over-corrective use of misandry though.That all makes sense to me, Paul. You make forceful arguments that, at times, belie the nuance and complexity I typically find in your remarks, or which are found to underlie your initial marks upon follow-up. But who doesn’t, and it’s hard to read tone on a screen. I’ll make an effort to afford you more baseline credit from now on.
I
hatestrongly dislike what I call facile umbrella terms too, such as “problematic”, “dynamic” (earlier, as a noun) and “misogyny”. I do hope we can avoid an over-corrective use of misandry though.There’s no need for me to forgive you for “emotional coloring,” AJ. Emotion is a universal feature of human existence (and of some other species). It’s neither bad nor good. It just is.
I think that you’re reading way too much into what I’ve said and therefore drawing conclusions that I don’t draw. All I want is to make it clear, linguistically, that some phenomena are rooted in culturally propagated ideas (contempt, malice, hatred) as distinct from personal feelings (rage, envy, fear and so on)–although, in everyday life, both might reinforce each other.
Not all Germans, for instance, were hostile to Jews. Not all approved of mass murder. Not all condoned Nazi ideology or even joined the Nazi Party. Some of them risked their lives, in fact, to oppose the Nazi regime. But, for countless personal reasons, others acted very differently. It was Nazi ideology, however, that forced them all to make moral choices. As for Hitler, he grew up in a society that had long fostered antisemitism and other forms of racism. But that hardly absolves him of personal guilt. He was free enough to make his own choices, after all, and he chose evil ones.
Yes, of course, emotion and reason are not easily separated. But I’m not advocating mass lobotomies in the interest of creating some utopia. I’m merely advocating one useful verbal distinction that can clarify discussions of a major social problem. Not being a linguist, I don’t even care about the words per se. You don’t like the word “hatred”? Find a better one. Just make sure that it denotes clearly the moral consequences of cultural conditioning–that is, of ideological “narratives.”
The same principle applies to love. Everyone has always known that love can take many forms, all of them are valuable and even necessary but some of them (notably sacrificial love) are more costly and therefore more valuable than others. In any case, we have many words for these distinct but closely related phenomena. Trouble is, contemporary English usage tends to use one word for all of them, thus debasing not only the language but also the culture.
So no, I’m not arguing that hostile behavior motivated by personal rage is somehow less serious, morally, than hostile behavior motivated by ideological resentment. Both can lead to evil. But the solution, if there is one, would not be the same for both.
My research is on misandry, AJ, not the personal feelings of women. Feminists keep trying to condone or even excuse misandry by arguing (among other things) that it’s not really hatred at all but merely anger–usually implying that the victims deserve it. And I keep trying to say that they’re evading moral responsibility for a phenomenon that feminists have created and fostered in the name of all women. We need a vocabulary that makes it possible to say this.
(reply finally posted.)
A few more stitches for this unraveling thread:
I get your point concerning the complexities and changing definition of love and acknowledge the distinction between an emotional and a moral decision. But they are not so neatly separated. Emotions can influence moral decisions and moral decisions (certainly selfless sacrifice) can have emotional “payoff” for both sides. Are you saying that actions lose all moral or intellectual weight–all “reality”–when they have an emotional or subjective dimension? I doubt you are but that’s what I almost read.
In my view: The deep, emotionally resonant positive regard one feels for a dear friend or family member is love. Make it negative: it is hate. I strongly object to some attempt to “outsource” both love and hatred (or hatred by itself) to groups. Are you contending that because acts of kindness or cruelty have a psychological or emotional dimension that they are therefore illusory or less real as loving or hateful acts?! Or that abiding love for a friend is not real love but more like the biochemical sensation of being “in love”?
“Maybe the Nazis who imprisoned people in burning synagogues or threw Jewish babies out windows did so very angrily–or even joyfully” were hateful and evil in a individually culpable way, group influence notwithstanding (though I acknowledge that much enmity and wicked inhumanity is “crowd-sourced”).
How about the main architect of those group actions? His feelings and beliefs–documented in the “My Struggle” screed I was once made to read for a critical thinking class–are not all self-generated, but they are still his fault, especially in their mestastacized implementation. Right?
We can argue terminology until the cows come home or the whole digital crowd has left, but I don’t think we can remove so much of either the credit or blame from individual actions. And neither love or hatred needs, or ought to be, relegated to an emotionless or abstract realm. In many cases, attempts to be scrupulously objective can lead to more monstrous results, like doctrinaire Effective Altruism.
Please forgive the emotional coloring in my remarks.
(reply finally posted.)
Thank you, so much, AJ, for continuing the discussion (although I don’t know how long that will be possible given the duration of these threads).
You say, “I don’t think all hatred fits that bill though, unless you’re using an intensified, modified definition of hate.” As I say, though, I do use specific definitions of both hatred (a moral problem) and dislike or even extreme dislike (a psychological one). I don’t do this in order to be pedantic. I do so in order to clarify a pervasive misunderstanding, one with severe consequences for society.
I can’t hold back the waves of linguistic change any more than King Canute could hold back the tidal waves, but I can at least clarify what’s going on just below the linguistic surface. It’s true that “hating” and (extreme) “disliking” have become synonyms in popular parlance. Both refer to emotion. But I still think that, in this anti-intellectual age of pop psychology (when “I feel” has become a synonym for “I think”), it’s worth the effort to distinguish between emotions and ideas.
You ask about sibling rivalry. I think that this example is significantly different from hatred. It’s true that the result of (culturally propagated) hatred can sometimes be experienced as intense (personal) emotion. And that can indeed look like rage. Maybe the Nazis who imprisoned people in burning synagogues or threw Jewish babies out windows did so very angrily–or even joyfully. But I think that this extreme kind of behavior–it actually violates religious, moral or even other legal norms–seldom originates in personal interactions with the targets, no matter how unpleasant, or even with other members of the target communities. It requires elaborate justification and external support, after all, which is exactly what profoundly dualistic worldviews provide. The targets are therefore impersonal abstractions, not really or fully human at all.
I’m glad that you refer also to “love,” because that word, too, is often used carelessly. “Loving” can refer to extreme “liking.” But the word has a long history and not only in English. What translators of the Bible often call “love,” could once have meant many things that we don’t always distinguish: filial love, brotherly love, patriotic love, platonic love, romantic love, sexual love and so on. The early Christians (like many Christians to this day), however, regarded self-sacrificial love as the highest form of love. This was definitely not what we would consider an emotion. It had nothing to do with personal affection. Otherwise, it could not have been a divine commandment and the ultimate response to divine self-sacrifice. But you don’t have to be Christian to know what self-sacrifice is or why it remains a powerful ideal.
I’m not sure of what you mean by referring in this context to pacifism. I would not classify that as an “ideology.” It’s an idea, to be sure, but not an ideology. That’s because every ideology is, as I say, a particular kind of worldview. It’s goal is a re-presentation of reality in order to achieve specific social, economic or political goals. But I didn’t invent that definition. The word has a history. It originated in eighteenth-century France but took on its current meaning in the writings of Marx. It continues in use to this day not only among Marxists but also among many feminists and all wokers. For them, ideology is “false consciousness.” This is what makes it possible for the bourgeoisie (or the white supremacists or patriarchs) to hoodwink other people into thinking that the world’s organization was and always will be as it is. In other words, low status no less than high status is ordained by nature itself and therefore immune to revolution. The only way out is, in postmodernist parlance, to “deconstruct” that worldview and undermine its institutions by infiltrating them. In my opinion, however, this very kind of worldview, whether on the Left or the Right, is an ideology in precisely the same way. Like them, it has distinctive characteristics of which the most powerful is dualism, a.k.a. an “us” vs. “them” mentality.
I find most of your argument persuasive, Paul, and agree that yet another switch in terms isn’t worth it. Thought I’d seek your well-informed opinion on a prospective change that’s in no danger of catching on.
One significant disagreement: I think hatred can be primarily and deeply personal. Now, if one starts to label the human “object” of the hatred a “so-and-so” in a way that reflects us/them divisions, then we’re more into culturally propagated territory.
But would you acknowledge that a child can hate his or her brother or sister without an accompanying ideological framework or social construction except within the nuclear family unit? I see the huge role of ideology and societal forces in proliferating hatred, but I guess I’d be closer to accepting your asserted absolute separation between strong dislike and hatred if all hatred were of a sustained, murderous, and group-supported kind. I don’t think all hatred fits that bill though, unless you’re using an intensified, modified definition of hate.
Can’t one’s regard for someone dear move from love to (real) hatred and back to love again?
(Follow-up thought: I see the group-based feeling you outline as something more like fixed antagonism, with or without “de-humanization”–another term I’d nominate for an overuse award. And while I think all strict or rabid ideological frameworks involve some element of division or hatred, I don’t see that as fundamental , defining feature. For example, pacifism: Does the practitioner have to hate or just be morally opposed to war?)
Your alternatives to “misogyny” and “misandry” would do the job, AJ, but I see no urgent need to demand yet another change in vocabulary. I’d be content if people were capable of knowing, whatever words they choose, the difference that I see between hating and disliking.
Unlike disliking, no matter how strongly, hating is not merely a personal feeling and therefore not a transient emotion. Rather, it’s a culturally propagated worldview, which I classify as an ideology (whether left-wing or right-wing, religious or secular).
All ideologies, of course, have at least some common features. Katherine K. Young and I have identified eight, but the underlying one is dualism: seeing all of life or all of history as a titanic battle between “us” and “them.” “They,” from this point of view are inherently evil (oppressors). “We,” supposedly being inherently good (victims), therefore have the moral duty to destroy “them” (if not physically, then politically, economically or psychologically). That’s hatred.
I almost always agree with Steve, but this time you’re right. Well said.
I beg to differ. The use of the terms “hate” and “hatred” are being used as standard now as a deliberate exaggeration to try to score points or further inflame a debate.
What it does is debase language.
If you’re aware of W. Shaw’s contributions to Comments, you’d have noted (as i have) a distinctive contempt for women.
In trying to take issue with the author’s phrase “society’s ageist misogyny”, he’s imputing the word “hatred” into that phrase as a way of showing contempt for the author, when in fact she intends precisely what he’s suggesting she should intend by the phrase!
Of course you’re correct that the word misogyny gets used in a far looser sense than “hatred of women”. In a similar way, “racism” is now often used for cross-ethnic or cultural insensitivity that is underinformed or imperfectly worded instead of malicious.
It would be dishonest not to recognize the currency of this usage, but that doesn’t mean that every slight, intentional or not, real or perceived, qualifies as outright bigotry or malice in the way that terms like racist, misogynist, and “dehumanizing” imply–and in my view should be more carefully reserved for.
Then again, literally is actually used to mean figuratively in common parlance.
Oh, I agree that these words (“racist,” “white supremacist,” “sexist,” “misogynist,” “homophobe” and “transphobe”) imply hatred. (But so can seemingly benign words such as “saving our democracy” in various contexts.) This is why unscrupulous people (demagogues but also some blog commenters) use them as slogans in order to inflame political rhetoric without having to build rational arguments. Now and then, evidence can be found to substantiate a slogan’s claim; some people really do believe, after all, in hating others. Much more often, though, these slogans rely on nothing more than innuendo. The goal is therefore to smear targets. This is what debases language.
Of course you’re correct that the word misogyny gets used in a far looser sense than “hatred of women”. In a similar way, “racism” is now often used for cross-ethnic or cultural insensitivity that is underinformed or imperfectly worded instead of malicious.
It would be dishonest not to recognize the currency of this usage, but that doesn’t mean that every slight, intentional or not, real or perceived, qualifies as outright bigotry or malice in the way that terms like racist, misogynist, and “dehumanizing” imply–and in my view should be more carefully reserved for.
Then again, literally is actually used to mean figuratively in common parlance.
Oh, I agree that these words (“racist,” “white supremacist,” “sexist,” “misogynist,” “homophobe” and “transphobe”) imply hatred. (But so can seemingly benign words such as “saving our democracy” in various contexts.) This is why unscrupulous people (demagogues but also some blog commenters) use them as slogans in order to inflame political rhetoric without having to build rational arguments. Now and then, evidence can be found to substantiate a slogan’s claim; some people really do believe, after all, in hating others. Much more often, though, these slogans rely on nothing more than innuendo. The goal is therefore to smear targets. This is what debases language.
Amen! Making sexism or even “failure to duly consider a woman’s feelings” equivalent to misogyny (hatred of women as a group) is a key, prevalent example of linguistic inflation.
{What do you think of the suggestion of replacing misandry and misogyny with “man-hatred” and “woman-hatred” respectively? I know they are not great substitutes, but they could temporarily circumvent the disembodied ease of the Greek-derived terms.
As as comparison: To my ear, it’s a more direct, biting, less-easily rattled off accusation to say “you hate people” than “you are misanthropic/a misanthropist”.}
Still, better not to brand people left and right, whatever the terminology. We seem to have succumbed to more overall name-calling since euphemisms and of-the-minute-precise terms have grown in perceived importance. Almost everyone who’s ever lived has told a lie, but they don’t deserve a scarlet letter for it, as capital-“L” Liars, in my opinion.
I almost always agree with Steve, but this time you’re right. Well said.
I beg to differ. The use of the terms “hate” and “hatred” are being used as standard now as a deliberate exaggeration to try to score points or further inflame a debate.
What it does is debase language.
If you’re aware of W. Shaw’s contributions to Comments, you’d have noted (as i have) a distinctive contempt for women.
In trying to take issue with the author’s phrase “society’s ageist misogyny”, he’s imputing the word “hatred” into that phrase as a way of showing contempt for the author, when in fact she intends precisely what he’s suggesting she should intend by the phrase!
Sorry but you don’t get to rewrite the dictionary.
And your response provides no indication what word you intend.
No, Steve, it really does mean hatred. Linguistic inflation is not merely a fashion. It is a politically manipulative tool. I don’t believe slogans such as “silence is violence.” I don’t believe that any unpleasant sexual encounter is tantamount to “rape.” I don’t believe that any careless joke reveals “implicit racism.” I don’t believe that every criticism of Israel amounts to antisemitism (although some do). I don’t believe that any conflict or even war can be comparable to “genocide.” We need a word that refers exclusively to hatred–that is, malice, the urge to harm--and not merely to snobbery, ignorance or stupidity. Without that basic moral distinction, anything (no matter how trivial) can mean anything else (no matter how important), and we’re back to Humpty Dumpty, who informs Alice, “When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” He’s clear enough about what he means (neither more nor less) but foolish enough to ignore what society means.
Sorry but you don’t get to rewrite the dictionary.
And your response provides no indication what word you intend.
And scorned.
Misogyny does not have to mean ‘hatred’ of women. That’s just the trite term du jour. It also means precisely what you’ve just done.
And scorned.
The article uses the term “society’s ageist misogyny” which makes no sense at all.
Misogyny is “hatred of women” so “ageist misogyny” would imply hatred of old women. That assumes middle age women receive more attention than they do.
Women who have hit the wall are not hated, it would be more accurate to say they are mostly invisible to men and ignored.
I had hoped that this was going to be about the very real difference between older women with large disposable incomes and those without. When I turned 50, 11 years ago, I looked everywhere for books about aging. There were hundreds, but I found them all drearily the same. All were written by relatively wealthy women, who could take a year away from work, whether they were paid or as busy homemakers, and spend it by the sea or mountains in their charmingly rustic vacation homes, leisurely deciding whether to hang onto the poor middle aged man who made much of this possible.
I find the sudden willingness of aging women to resort to cosmetic procedures and surgery in pursuit of eternal youth deeply disturbing. It is certainly a byproduct of the constant photographing that goes on, I want to look like a grandmother.
sure you do…
Actually I do. Hotness has never been my stock in trade, and as long as my wits are left intact I don’t care much about my looks. I’m reasonably well dressed and coiffed, but my hair is thinning, I’ve got age spots on my face. I’m also crippled, with leg braces and a progressive neuromuscular disease so who would I be fooling? Your comments here are singularly nasty. I also have five adult children, at least four of whom would care for me under any circumstances. Sometimes you get back what you put in.
As a man I much prefer older women who haven’t cosmetically altered themselves. It displays a level of comfort with one’s self which is very attractive.
As a man I much prefer older women who haven’t cosmetically altered themselves. It displays a level of comfort with one’s self which is very attractive.
Actually I do. Hotness has never been my stock in trade, and as long as my wits are left intact I don’t care much about my looks. I’m reasonably well dressed and coiffed, but my hair is thinning, I’ve got age spots on my face. I’m also crippled, with leg braces and a progressive neuromuscular disease so who would I be fooling? Your comments here are singularly nasty. I also have five adult children, at least four of whom would care for me under any circumstances. Sometimes you get back what you put in.
Having had a facelift at 60, I don’t think it makes me look that much younger, but it does make me look ‘refreshed’ and does ‘lift my mind’ which is what a good, rather undetectable facelift does. Aging can also bring on depression or having just ‘the blues’ for all sorts of other reasons – lots to deal with, ie aging parents, general concerns about family and friends, health, purpose in life etc – so it didn’t hurt my mental health to be able to look in the mirror and see ‘refreshed’ even if just for ten more years, the point at which either another facelift is in order or that one is just willing to throw in the hat. That is to say, it’s not just about the physical as much as it is about mental health as well. Could I have done without it? Of course! But it’s actually ‘helped’ more than I expected.
I didn’t mean to pronounce for anyone but myself, although I am philosophically opposed to the subtle pressure that modern society puts on everyone to “curate” themselves into an object worthy of constant photographic reproduction in a hall of mirrors. I can certainly see that at 60, (I am 61) looking your best for your age is worth some effort, I spend a fair amount on my hair. There has to be a point at which the game isn’t worth the candle, and as everyone ages and dies coming to peace with that seems wise.
I didn’t mean to pronounce for anyone but myself, although I am philosophically opposed to the subtle pressure that modern society puts on everyone to “curate” themselves into an object worthy of constant photographic reproduction in a hall of mirrors. I can certainly see that at 60, (I am 61) looking your best for your age is worth some effort, I spend a fair amount on my hair. There has to be a point at which the game isn’t worth the candle, and as everyone ages and dies coming to peace with that seems wise.
sure you do…
Having had a facelift at 60, I don’t think it makes me look that much younger, but it does make me look ‘refreshed’ and does ‘lift my mind’ which is what a good, rather undetectable facelift does. Aging can also bring on depression or having just ‘the blues’ for all sorts of other reasons – lots to deal with, ie aging parents, general concerns about family and friends, health, purpose in life etc – so it didn’t hurt my mental health to be able to look in the mirror and see ‘refreshed’ even if just for ten more years, the point at which either another facelift is in order or that one is just willing to throw in the hat. That is to say, it’s not just about the physical as much as it is about mental health as well. Could I have done without it? Of course! But it’s actually ‘helped’ more than I expected.
I had hoped that this was going to be about the very real difference between older women with large disposable incomes and those without. When I turned 50, 11 years ago, I looked everywhere for books about aging. There were hundreds, but I found them all drearily the same. All were written by relatively wealthy women, who could take a year away from work, whether they were paid or as busy homemakers, and spend it by the sea or mountains in their charmingly rustic vacation homes, leisurely deciding whether to hang onto the poor middle aged man who made much of this possible.
I find the sudden willingness of aging women to resort to cosmetic procedures and surgery in pursuit of eternal youth deeply disturbing. It is certainly a byproduct of the constant photographing that goes on, I want to look like a grandmother.
Most young women I meet say they would never have children. They talk of ‘women’s rights’ as a sort of belief, like a religion. They meet regularly for coffee and talk a lot.
Since they only exist because women have had children and there will only be a future if women have children, do they have a right not to have children?
It seems to me that women have no more rights than men. They cannot be separate. They can’t choose which men look at them. They can’t just opt out and say, “We’re special because we’re women.”
Theta completely bizarre – everyone has the right to decide if they want children or not
I can understand your point. Allow me to explain.
Certain things which happen today must be good for the future and no-one would disagree. Removing plastic waste for example.
Other things are fads or fashions and could lead to disaster in the future. I can’t see a problem for an individual woman to decide not to have children. But if it becomes a fashion, there will be no future. I suspect that comfortable, secure, middle-class women will follow the trend and this will leave a dearth of people to secure services in the future. We will be forced to suck in people from anywhere in the world and our society will collapse.
The problem with the article above is that it forgets something very important. We are all here today because men are attracted to women. It is nature. For women to parade about attracting the glances of men but then complain about those glances is unnatural.
I have this argument all the time with my wife. She says that women dress only for other women. I just don’t believe it.
Women, like all people, need an incentive to do something life-changing like having children. Once it was an economic necessity for women to marry and women generally were not able to say no to children. I am glad that these times have passed, but I do see now that there needs to be motivations for us to perpetuate the species.
I personally should be fine with the idea of women not having children because it won’t affect me. However, when my grandchildren are in their 60s and 70s they will have a problem because there will be no taxes to support health and welfare. IMO it is selfish worry about personal goals and forget about life in general.
Some people consider it inexcusably selfish to have children given the condition of society and the planet. I don’t agree with that, as a rule, but it’s far from such a neat division in which having or children earns a clear mark of “selfish” or “selfless” for every person.
Think of a vain and irresponsible person like the “octomom” who took drugs to have more babies. Was hers a selfless act?
Some people consider it inexcusably selfish to have children given the condition of society and the planet. I don’t agree with that, as a rule, but it’s far from such a neat division in which having or children earns a clear mark of “selfish” or “selfless” for every person.
Think of a vain and irresponsible person like the “octomom” who took drugs to have more babies. Was hers a selfless act?
Unfortunately, the idea and importance of ‘family’ is unfashionable today. Not exactly sure how this came about on such a massive scale as to reduce the birth rate; it’s complicated. Perhaps in a world where so many people find themselves lonely – a state which is actually detrimental to mental health and longevity – that this will change?
Most recently, during a ‘baby shower’ for my daughter, a good friend told me that she and her husband where having a chat about who of their friends was happy that they had children and they found out none of them were. (She didn’t ask me – lol). I was stunned that she started this conversation during what was a lovely and joyous occasion. Just recently, the same friend congratulated me on the birth of my first grandchild but also mentioned “how chaotic children can be”….I don’t know what her problem is but she is seemingly unhappy with the way her two lovely daughters turned out. I think this negative way of thinking about children is an ugly mindset that can be changed but only if one wanted to. My baby boomer generation was very self-absorbed. Perhaps a bit of gratitude and expression of generosity and love is in order because family and family creation is a good thing.
I personally should be fine with the idea of women not having children because it won’t affect me. However, when my grandchildren are in their 60s and 70s they will have a problem because there will be no taxes to support health and welfare. IMO it is selfish worry about personal goals and forget about life in general.
Unfortunately, the idea and importance of ‘family’ is unfashionable today. Not exactly sure how this came about on such a massive scale as to reduce the birth rate; it’s complicated. Perhaps in a world where so many people find themselves lonely – a state which is actually detrimental to mental health and longevity – that this will change?
Most recently, during a ‘baby shower’ for my daughter, a good friend told me that she and her husband where having a chat about who of their friends was happy that they had children and they found out none of them were. (She didn’t ask me – lol). I was stunned that she started this conversation during what was a lovely and joyous occasion. Just recently, the same friend congratulated me on the birth of my first grandchild but also mentioned “how chaotic children can be”….I don’t know what her problem is but she is seemingly unhappy with the way her two lovely daughters turned out. I think this negative way of thinking about children is an ugly mindset that can be changed but only if one wanted to. My baby boomer generation was very self-absorbed. Perhaps a bit of gratitude and expression of generosity and love is in order because family and family creation is a good thing.
Women, like all people, need an incentive to do something life-changing like having children. Once it was an economic necessity for women to marry and women generally were not able to say no to children. I am glad that these times have passed, but I do see now that there needs to be motivations for us to perpetuate the species.
I can understand your point. Allow me to explain.
Certain things which happen today must be good for the future and no-one would disagree. Removing plastic waste for example.
Other things are fads or fashions and could lead to disaster in the future. I can’t see a problem for an individual woman to decide not to have children. But if it becomes a fashion, there will be no future. I suspect that comfortable, secure, middle-class women will follow the trend and this will leave a dearth of people to secure services in the future. We will be forced to suck in people from anywhere in the world and our society will collapse.
The problem with the article above is that it forgets something very important. We are all here today because men are attracted to women. It is nature. For women to parade about attracting the glances of men but then complain about those glances is unnatural.
I have this argument all the time with my wife. She says that women dress only for other women. I just don’t believe it.
Theta completely bizarre – everyone has the right to decide if they want children or not
Most young women I meet say they would never have children. They talk of ‘women’s rights’ as a sort of belief, like a religion. They meet regularly for coffee and talk a lot.
Since they only exist because women have had children and there will only be a future if women have children, do they have a right not to have children?
It seems to me that women have no more rights than men. They cannot be separate. They can’t choose which men look at them. They can’t just opt out and say, “We’re special because we’re women.”
All those “isms”, and now the word “hag”? Forget it. I’m out.
Wonderful word HAG, but sadly not often used in these humourless times.
Douchebag is also fun. Please, Charles, add some obscure Roman reference!
Ha! Doesn’t Juvenal or Aristophanes have something to offer us poor Moderns in connection with both haggishness and douchebaggery?
I had to translate one or two of Juvenal’s satires at school many years ago, and recently made a start writing a Latin dactylic hexameter woke satire. I hope Charles sees this, and feels moved to correct any errors. N.B. “evigilati” is of course my Latin rendering of “the woke”
Hodierna Juvenalia
Ecce academiae lucos coronatos turpite
Fatuis utilibus, caerulea coma ubique.
Valde pinguides, et semper torvae facies,
Dicentes in lingua quod lingua ipse inanis.
Flent palam veterani culturorum bellorum, itaque
Virtutem demonstrantes fragilitatis ipsius sensus.
Quia queror in me maledictum de candore meo,
Etsi sum quoque nocens eodem modo, sed tamen
Quomodo harioli se nostri tyranni iniungant,
Evigilati hostes plebis dum quasi tribuni?
Thanks, Richard. I’m impressed despite my lack of comprehension after “Behold the academies” (if, in fact, I have that quite right). The community college I attended circa 1990 cancelled Latin after my first quarter taking it, and I never progressed much thereafter except for an improved knowledge of etymologies and prefixes through studying English Lit.
Verse translations are almost never flawless, but can you attempt an English rendering or would you prefer keep it to the cognoscenti?
It’ll be my pleasure. Here goes, but do bear in mind that this is merely the product of a four decade old Latin A level, so while I’ve tried to get it right there are probably lots of mistakes:-
“Behold the groves of academe, disgracefully festooned with useful idiots, and blue hair ubiquitous. Very fat and always scowling faces, saying in language that language is itself meaningless. The veterans of the culture wars openly weep, thereby virtue-signalling their own fragility. Because I complain about the cursing of my own whiteness, thus am I also guilty after the same fashion. But even so, how did these clowns anoint themselves our tyrants, the woke enemies of the people posing as their tribunes?”
Thank you. The “virtue” of fragility–well-deserved quip! The tone does remind me of Juvenal in translated passages I’ve read, mostly decades since.
Thank you. The “virtue” of fragility–well-deserved quip! The tone does remind me of Juvenal in translated passages I’ve read, mostly decades since.
It’ll be my pleasure. Here goes, but do bear in mind that this is merely the product of a four decade old Latin A level, so while I’ve tried to get it right there are probably lots of mistakes:-
“Behold the groves of academe, disgracefully festooned with useful idiots, and blue hair ubiquitous. Very fat and always scowling faces, saying in language that language is itself meaningless. The veterans of the culture wars openly weep, thereby virtue-signalling their own fragility. Because I complain about the cursing of my own whiteness, thus am I also guilty after the same fashion. But even so, how did these clowns anoint themselves our tyrants, the woke enemies of the people posing as their tribunes?”
Thanks, Richard. I’m impressed despite my lack of comprehension after “Behold the academies” (if, in fact, I have that quite right). The community college I attended circa 1990 cancelled Latin after my first quarter taking it, and I never progressed much thereafter except for an improved knowledge of etymologies and prefixes through studying English Lit.
Verse translations are almost never flawless, but can you attempt an English rendering or would you prefer keep it to the cognoscenti?
Aeschylus, Hesiod, Hyginus, Virgil and so on and on.
Right, a bountiful selection. Just thought perhaps you’d have one at the ready.
Juvenal wrote 16 Satires that we know of, perhaps Satire 6: “Don’t marry!”would be the most appropriate.
(ps.Juvenal is the only author to mention the Roman conquest/ invasion of Ireland.
End of Satire 2.)
Thanks. I’ll follow up on your referrals. I’m considering a yearly subscription to the Loeb Digital Library. Have you ever used it?
Thanks. I’ll follow up on your referrals. I’m considering a yearly subscription to the Loeb Digital Library. Have you ever used it?
Juvenal wrote 16 Satires that we know of, perhaps Satire 6: “Don’t marry!”would be the most appropriate.
(ps.Juvenal is the only author to mention the Roman conquest/ invasion of Ireland.
End of Satire 2.)
Right, a bountiful selection. Just thought perhaps you’d have one at the ready.
I had to translate one or two of Juvenal’s satires at school many years ago, and recently made a start writing a Latin dactylic hexameter woke satire. I hope Charles sees this, and feels moved to correct any errors. N.B. “evigilati” is of course my Latin rendering of “the woke”
Hodierna Juvenalia
Ecce academiae lucos coronatos turpite
Fatuis utilibus, caerulea coma ubique.
Valde pinguides, et semper torvae facies,
Dicentes in lingua quod lingua ipse inanis.
Flent palam veterani culturorum bellorum, itaque
Virtutem demonstrantes fragilitatis ipsius sensus.
Quia queror in me maledictum de candore meo,
Etsi sum quoque nocens eodem modo, sed tamen
Quomodo harioli se nostri tyranni iniungant,
Evigilati hostes plebis dum quasi tribuni?
Aeschylus, Hesiod, Hyginus, Virgil and so on and on.
The Harpies are frequently mentioned, but the supreme example must be the GORGONS!
Having just returned from The Dordogne and noted the females there, I suggest that it should be renamed ” The Gorgogne”…
Having just returned from The Dordogne and noted the females there, I suggest that it should be renamed ” The Gorgogne”…
knobjockey?
Ha! Doesn’t Juvenal or Aristophanes have something to offer us poor Moderns in connection with both haggishness and douchebaggery?
The Harpies are frequently mentioned, but the supreme example must be the GORGONS!
knobjockey?
Hello Charles. As I said to AJMac below, I had to translate one or two of Juvenal’s satires at school many years ago, and recently made a start writing a Latin dactylic hexameter woke satire. If you can be bothered, I’d be delighted if you could look it over and correct any howlers, which doubtless abound. N.B. “evigilati” is of course my Latin rendering of “the woke”
Hodierna Juvenalia
Ecce academiae lucos coronatos turpite
Fatuis utilibus, caerulea coma ubique.
Valde pinguides, et semper torvae facies,
Dicentes in lingua quod lingua ipse inanis.
Flent palam veterani culturorum bellorum, itaque
Virtutem demonstrantes fragilitatis ipsius sensus.
Quia queror in me maledictum de candore meo,
Etsi sum quoque nocens eodem modo, sed tamen
Quomodo harioli se nostri tyranni iniungant,
Evigilati hostes plebis dum quasi tribuni?
Stupendous!
The spirit of Juvenal and indeed Horace lives on.
I suspect Richard in a former life you would have made an excellent ‘Tribune of the Plebs’, very much in the tradition of the brothers Gracchi.
Linda (of this Parish) is a noted Latinist, perhaps she may also care to comment?
Thanks very much indeed Charles, that means a lot to me. I didn’t know about Linda being a Latinist. Next time I come across one of her comments I’ll append Hodierna.
Meanwhile, I thought my solitary French sonnet might tickle your fancy. This one’s already been published twice, and I got a Walloon friend to check it over, so I think it’s ok, although he looked somewhat askance at the “dedans” in line 3. It’s conventionally Shakespearean in view of the strict iambic pentameter and ababcdcdefefgg rhyme scheme, and is no. 141 out of an eventual 155 sonnets – i.e. one more than Shakespeare – hence the 15 toads in lines 5-6. Thus it’s really an extended metaphor for my mounting ennui at a time when I still had 15 sonnets to write.
Sonnet 141
Après avoir ces cent quarante écrits,
je suis épuisé et me considère
une langue craquée léchante, dedans, un puits
empli d’une boue visqueuse, d’une croûte grossière.
Il en reste quinze encore, coincés, cachés:
des crapauds rotants que les murs moussus
font résonner. Enfin, bloquée, fâchée,
la langue, toute sèche et vulgaire devenue,
va bifurquer, et désormais siffler.
Chaque midi, pour un instant, le soleil
éclaire cette vie grimpante – viens regarder!
Voilà en bas, frétillante et vermeille,
la langue, les crapauds fugitifs, la chasse
avant que l’ombre couvre la disgrâce.
Thank you so much that is quite the most splendid thing I have read all week! I particularly enjoyed the final two lines.
Incidentally what was your Walloon friend’s objection to ‘dedans’?
Presumably the majority of the 155 are in English? Are they published anywhere in say an anthology?
Thanks very much indeed Charles. I really am flattered.
My Walloon friend’s objection to “dedans” was that it should be whatever the prepositional cognate of “transitive” is called – i.e. you can say “dans un puits” but not “dedans un puits” . My defence was that enclosing it in commas serves this purpose (I hope this makes sense).
The 155 are all in English except for no.141. I haven’t published them as a collection yet, because a number of them are embarrassingly bad. However, I’ve put all my sonnets published so far on my Substack, to which here’s a link. You’ll also find one of my heroic couplet satires, The Wokeiad, as well as a Wasteland pastiche:-
https://rcraven.substack.com/p/sonnets-published-so-far
Many thanks indeed.
Many thanks indeed.
Thanks very much indeed Charles. I really am flattered.
My Walloon friend’s objection to “dedans” was that it should be whatever the prepositional cognate of “transitive” is called – i.e. you can say “dans un puits” but not “dedans un puits” . My defence was that enclosing it in commas serves this purpose (I hope this makes sense).
The 155 are all in English except for no.141. I haven’t published them as a collection yet, because a number of them are embarrassingly bad. However, I’ve put all my sonnets published so far on my Substack, to which here’s a link. You’ll also find one of my heroic couplet satires, The Wokeiad, as well as a Wasteland pastiche:-
https://rcraven.substack.com/p/sonnets-published-so-far
Thank you so much that is quite the most splendid thing I have read all week! I particularly enjoyed the final two lines.
Incidentally what was your Walloon friend’s objection to ‘dedans’?
Presumably the majority of the 155 are in English? Are they published anywhere in say an anthology?
Thanks very much indeed Charles, that means a lot to me. I didn’t know about Linda being a Latinist. Next time I come across one of her comments I’ll append Hodierna.
Meanwhile, I thought my solitary French sonnet might tickle your fancy. This one’s already been published twice, and I got a Walloon friend to check it over, so I think it’s ok, although he looked somewhat askance at the “dedans” in line 3. It’s conventionally Shakespearean in view of the strict iambic pentameter and ababcdcdefefgg rhyme scheme, and is no. 141 out of an eventual 155 sonnets – i.e. one more than Shakespeare – hence the 15 toads in lines 5-6. Thus it’s really an extended metaphor for my mounting ennui at a time when I still had 15 sonnets to write.
Sonnet 141
Après avoir ces cent quarante écrits,
je suis épuisé et me considère
une langue craquée léchante, dedans, un puits
empli d’une boue visqueuse, d’une croûte grossière.
Il en reste quinze encore, coincés, cachés:
des crapauds rotants que les murs moussus
font résonner. Enfin, bloquée, fâchée,
la langue, toute sèche et vulgaire devenue,
va bifurquer, et désormais siffler.
Chaque midi, pour un instant, le soleil
éclaire cette vie grimpante – viens regarder!
Voilà en bas, frétillante et vermeille,
la langue, les crapauds fugitifs, la chasse
avant que l’ombre couvre la disgrâce.
Stupendous!
The spirit of Juvenal and indeed Horace lives on.
I suspect Richard in a former life you would have made an excellent ‘Tribune of the Plebs’, very much in the tradition of the brothers Gracchi.
Linda (of this Parish) is a noted Latinist, perhaps she may also care to comment?
Douchebag is also fun. Please, Charles, add some obscure Roman reference!
Hello Charles. As I said to AJMac below, I had to translate one or two of Juvenal’s satires at school many years ago, and recently made a start writing a Latin dactylic hexameter woke satire. If you can be bothered, I’d be delighted if you could look it over and correct any howlers, which doubtless abound. N.B. “evigilati” is of course my Latin rendering of “the woke”
Hodierna Juvenalia
Ecce academiae lucos coronatos turpite
Fatuis utilibus, caerulea coma ubique.
Valde pinguides, et semper torvae facies,
Dicentes in lingua quod lingua ipse inanis.
Flent palam veterani culturorum bellorum, itaque
Virtutem demonstrantes fragilitatis ipsius sensus.
Quia queror in me maledictum de candore meo,
Etsi sum quoque nocens eodem modo, sed tamen
Quomodo harioli se nostri tyranni iniungant,
Evigilati hostes plebis dum quasi tribuni?
Wonderful word HAG, but sadly not often used in these humourless times.
All those “isms”, and now the word “hag”? Forget it. I’m out.
The influencers are empowered or so they believe. Female empowered is celebrated, but is this even a good thing?
I agree there should be equal opportunity, but not the endless chant of equity or equality of outcome. Also, yet more press about women being unique victims of men, with calls from MPs like Stella Creasy to make misogyny a hate crime, which leave white men as the only group without protected characteristics, doesn’t help society – women or men. Finally, is it a good idea to present domestic relations as a power struggle where men are the abusers? I don’t think so. Nor is it good to add further legislation.
Men will retreat from relationships in the face of yet more “empowerment. It is not really empowerment at all, it may be for a small percentage of women, but there are as the author states, more important issues for society that effect women than being so selective as a hot influencer that you can’t bear the thought of “lower grade” men even looking at you and hence devaluing your status to your paying audience. Perhaps never being satisfied in any relationship and an old age of childlessness and cats awaits for the women who press for too much empowerment, especially if it was based on a pseudo victimhood and embraced until the later stages of fertility or older.
“you can’t bear the thought of “lower grade” men even looking at you and hence devaluing your status to your paying audience”
I’m not sure that’s what the problem is – especially with online looking-only interactions, which seem to be OK. I’m not sure what the real problem is, and don’t care enough to think about it.
I must admit I’m very confused as to what people found objectionable there; I mostly just asked a question? Was I not allowed to say I wasn’t very interested in trying to work out what the real problem was with “hot influencer[s] .. can’t bear the thought of “lower grade” men even looking at [them]”?
Noel, I think the downvotes are because the voters think that Steve’s observation is correct- the hot influencers want men to look at them, but only men they consider attractive. One influencer makes a video complaining about a ‘creep’ and suddenly they’re all at it, because they can get victim points and views as they’re standing for #metoo, even catching some poor b****r who might not even be creeping, but just curious as to why she’s spending more time staring at the phone instead of working out.
Thanks for the reply!
I thought influencers were in the game mostly for clicks, which they can monetize. And for that purpose, a click from an ugly guy is as good as a click from a cute one?
In person, yes, attention from down-scale guys is unwanted, but that problem has been around for several species durations (I wonder if australopithecus afarensis had to deal with it :-), and I expect women have generally worked out how to deal with it!
Thanks for the reply!
I thought influencers were in the game mostly for clicks, which they can monetize. And for that purpose, a click from an ugly guy is as good as a click from a cute one?
In person, yes, attention from down-scale guys is unwanted, but that problem has been around for several species durations (I wonder if australopithecus afarensis had to deal with it :-), and I expect women have generally worked out how to deal with it!
Noel, I think the downvotes are because the voters think that Steve’s observation is correct- the hot influencers want men to look at them, but only men they consider attractive. One influencer makes a video complaining about a ‘creep’ and suddenly they’re all at it, because they can get victim points and views as they’re standing for #metoo, even catching some poor b****r who might not even be creeping, but just curious as to why she’s spending more time staring at the phone instead of working out.
I must admit I’m very confused as to what people found objectionable there; I mostly just asked a question? Was I not allowed to say I wasn’t very interested in trying to work out what the real problem was with “hot influencer[s] .. can’t bear the thought of “lower grade” men even looking at [them]”?
But, of course no ‘group’ should be protected, just individuals.
And what’s wrong with childlessness and cats, may I ask? Kids are mostly ungrateful b@stards you’ll spend every penny rising and who will dump you in the first care home they can find, once you can no longer fend for yourself, so better to not have any. Cats, on the other hand, are wonderful creatures much more loving and reciprocating than most brats.
Children’s behavior reflects their parental upbringing. It’s that simple. So if you don’t think you’d be good at raising children to being kind but stern, giving loving guidance etc- then you are probably right about not having children.
Children’s behavior reflects their parental upbringing. It’s that simple. So if you don’t think you’d be good at raising children to being kind but stern, giving loving guidance etc- then you are probably right about not having children.
Men are already giving up on relationships. I have given up on ever dating again. I am 39 and I have dated before, but I can’t be bothered anymore.
Relationships are pointless nowadays. If a man wants sex, he doesn’t have to have a relationship. If a man wants a wife, a relationship won’t guarantee it. Marriage has been totally devalued by modern society, plus you have all the feminism which finds fault with men no matter what, so you will see more men just put in no effort to date women.
“you can’t bear the thought of “lower grade” men even looking at you and hence devaluing your status to your paying audience”
I’m not sure that’s what the problem is – especially with online looking-only interactions, which seem to be OK. I’m not sure what the real problem is, and don’t care enough to think about it.
But, of course no ‘group’ should be protected, just individuals.
And what’s wrong with childlessness and cats, may I ask? Kids are mostly ungrateful b@stards you’ll spend every penny rising and who will dump you in the first care home they can find, once you can no longer fend for yourself, so better to not have any. Cats, on the other hand, are wonderful creatures much more loving and reciprocating than most brats.
Men are already giving up on relationships. I have given up on ever dating again. I am 39 and I have dated before, but I can’t be bothered anymore.
Relationships are pointless nowadays. If a man wants sex, he doesn’t have to have a relationship. If a man wants a wife, a relationship won’t guarantee it. Marriage has been totally devalued by modern society, plus you have all the feminism which finds fault with men no matter what, so you will see more men just put in no effort to date women.
The influencers are empowered or so they believe. Female empowered is celebrated, but is this even a good thing?
I agree there should be equal opportunity, but not the endless chant of equity or equality of outcome. Also, yet more press about women being unique victims of men, with calls from MPs like Stella Creasy to make misogyny a hate crime, which leave white men as the only group without protected characteristics, doesn’t help society – women or men. Finally, is it a good idea to present domestic relations as a power struggle where men are the abusers? I don’t think so. Nor is it good to add further legislation.
Men will retreat from relationships in the face of yet more “empowerment. It is not really empowerment at all, it may be for a small percentage of women, but there are as the author states, more important issues for society that effect women than being so selective as a hot influencer that you can’t bear the thought of “lower grade” men even looking at you and hence devaluing your status to your paying audience. Perhaps never being satisfied in any relationship and an old age of childlessness and cats awaits for the women who press for too much empowerment, especially if it was based on a pseudo victimhood and embraced until the later stages of fertility or older.
Hags are hot, precisely because sexiness involves more than smooth skin and a baby face. Wisdom and experience are a big part of what makes people attractive.
Hags are hot, precisely because sexiness involves more than smooth skin and a baby face. Wisdom and experience are a big part of what makes people attractive.
Isn’t feminism altogether way past its sell-by date?
I don’t think so. I just think it needs to start talking about stuff that actually matters. It needs to be for the single mother bringing up her kids on a rough estate while working as a cleaner, not for her boss with the detached house in the nice area and the six figure salary in an EDI non-job.
Yesterday, I listened to a podcast where Andrew Sullivan interviewed ‘feminist Jill’ (can’t remember her last name!) who writes for The Guardian. Jill is in her late 30’s, unmarried and without children. She’s been able to make a living freelancing, writing about ‘feminism and women’s rights. I was stunned at how little Jill understood about women, especially women with children and families. She knew nothing or would accept nothing about ‘human nature’ insisting that we could all change our behavior and become more like men, and men could be more like women if we would only listen to her. Sullivan was great at getting to the huge voids in her thinking; for one, Jill was unfamiliar with the Scandinavian studies that discovered that the more ‘equal’ its society became, the more women and men ended up in traditional male/female roles. This study is rather widely understood yet Jill had no clue. I am guessing such data has no interest for her political activism. I do think feminism has run its course and it needs to either be shelved or somehow reinvented because at this point it is largely irrelevant, save for the abortion issue which will forever be debated.
Victoria Smith, Julie Bindel, Suzanne Moore etc. have to earn a crust somehow. Now that they have all been exiled from the left-wing press, they have all found retirement homes in the Speccie, Telegraph and Unherd, publications which have purported to be different to the wokestream media.
Like it or not, feminism is a grift that makes money for too many people to go away soon.
I don’t think so. I just think it needs to start talking about stuff that actually matters. It needs to be for the single mother bringing up her kids on a rough estate while working as a cleaner, not for her boss with the detached house in the nice area and the six figure salary in an EDI non-job.
Yesterday, I listened to a podcast where Andrew Sullivan interviewed ‘feminist Jill’ (can’t remember her last name!) who writes for The Guardian. Jill is in her late 30’s, unmarried and without children. She’s been able to make a living freelancing, writing about ‘feminism and women’s rights. I was stunned at how little Jill understood about women, especially women with children and families. She knew nothing or would accept nothing about ‘human nature’ insisting that we could all change our behavior and become more like men, and men could be more like women if we would only listen to her. Sullivan was great at getting to the huge voids in her thinking; for one, Jill was unfamiliar with the Scandinavian studies that discovered that the more ‘equal’ its society became, the more women and men ended up in traditional male/female roles. This study is rather widely understood yet Jill had no clue. I am guessing such data has no interest for her political activism. I do think feminism has run its course and it needs to either be shelved or somehow reinvented because at this point it is largely irrelevant, save for the abortion issue which will forever be debated.
Victoria Smith, Julie Bindel, Suzanne Moore etc. have to earn a crust somehow. Now that they have all been exiled from the left-wing press, they have all found retirement homes in the Speccie, Telegraph and Unherd, publications which have purported to be different to the wokestream media.
Like it or not, feminism is a grift that makes money for too many people to go away soon.
Isn’t feminism altogether way past its sell-by date?
will the Terf Club have a tent at Cheltenham this year?
I expect they’ll dress in something rather more fetching.
Do you mean Smurf Club or Turf Club?
I expect they’ll dress in something rather more fetching.
Do you mean Smurf Club or Turf Club?
will the Terf Club have a tent at Cheltenham this year?
“the vast majority of violence against women comes from male-identified men, and not from men claiming womanhood to sneak into women’s spaces.”
The point is the entirety of male on female violence comes from males, irrespective of gender identity.
Precisely, its one thing to note different demographics of offending men, its another to creating a false dichotomy saying males with a gender identify only commit a “minority” of the cases against women, because male is not a minority category, it undermines addressing male violence & oppression to do that.
Precisely, its one thing to note different demographics of offending men, its another to creating a false dichotomy saying males with a gender identify only commit a “minority” of the cases against women, because male is not a minority category, it undermines addressing male violence & oppression to do that.
“the vast majority of violence against women comes from male-identified men, and not from men claiming womanhood to sneak into women’s spaces.”
The point is the entirety of male on female violence comes from males, irrespective of gender identity.
“What about all the unsexy issues affecting women: motherhood, … mid-life crises?”
Ms. Bovy, motherhood is very closely connected to sex, in almost every case. It’s kind of weird that you think it isn’t.
True. I think deeply rooted taboos and mother-protective social inclinations contribute to the disassociation though.
True. I think deeply rooted taboos and mother-protective social inclinations contribute to the disassociation though.
“What about all the unsexy issues affecting women: motherhood, … mid-life crises?”
Ms. Bovy, motherhood is very closely connected to sex, in almost every case. It’s kind of weird that you think it isn’t.
“Stephanie Cole was hired at 48 to play a firebrand pensioner — in Nineties sitcom Waiting for God — while Graham Crowden, the actor who played her love interest, was 19 years her senior, and therefore the same age as the character he was playing. I am not, to be clear, offended that an actor was cast as a character whose biography doesn’t match their own, but rather am struck by how readily the viewer accepts Cole as an old lady. It seems that 49 and 79 are, in a woman, the same deal: all part of an undifferentiated life stage called “past it”.”
Stephanie Cole was however able to carry off the old battleaxe schtick simply through having grey hair and the comedic talent to do so. Most other women couldn’t have achieved it if they tried, so this can hardly constitute a good example here.
I had no idea she was only 48.
She did a fantastic job, which is a credit to her as an actress, and should not be held up as an example of misogyny.
I had no idea she was only 48.
She did a fantastic job, which is a credit to her as an actress, and should not be held up as an example of misogyny.
“Stephanie Cole was hired at 48 to play a firebrand pensioner — in Nineties sitcom Waiting for God — while Graham Crowden, the actor who played her love interest, was 19 years her senior, and therefore the same age as the character he was playing. I am not, to be clear, offended that an actor was cast as a character whose biography doesn’t match their own, but rather am struck by how readily the viewer accepts Cole as an old lady. It seems that 49 and 79 are, in a woman, the same deal: all part of an undifferentiated life stage called “past it”.”
Stephanie Cole was however able to carry off the old battleaxe schtick simply through having grey hair and the comedic talent to do so. Most other women couldn’t have achieved it if they tried, so this can hardly constitute a good example here.
Just to reply to AJMAC, no I don’t think a man wishing to transition is misogynist just by virtue of that. But it is misogynist to claim to actually be female and hence to claim the rights women have fought for – safe and protected spaces such as changing rooms, refuges, women-only short lists; separate women’s sports, prisons, hospital wards, or single sex schools and similar. This is mainly because rape, sexual assault, domestic violence and so on is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men on women. Also, so far, there is no reliable or valid way of predicting which men will commit such acts.
There is nothing unusual about human rights being in conflict and compromises and solutions have to be found. The same is true here.
Just to reply to AJMAC, no I don’t think a man wishing to transition is misogynist just by virtue of that. But it is misogynist to claim to actually be female and hence to claim the rights women have fought for – safe and protected spaces such as changing rooms, refuges, women-only short lists; separate women’s sports, prisons, hospital wards, or single sex schools and similar. This is mainly because rape, sexual assault, domestic violence and so on is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men on women. Also, so far, there is no reliable or valid way of predicting which men will commit such acts.
There is nothing unusual about human rights being in conflict and compromises and solutions have to be found. The same is true here.
A lot of good comments on the board. I was tempted to write the whole essay, but then to what end.
Dear Unherd, please take it easy on the feminism stuff. Or have some decent, honest and not shallow analysis.
I live in the US. The women have achieved equality. Even some advantages.
Today, feminism is a movement in a search of a problem. It’s time to turn off the lights, clock out and go home.
Or if you don’t want to clock out, then talk amongst yourself. Remember – you don’t speak for all women either.
One interesting metric is the number of female and kale college graduates; the former now outnumber the latter.
By field, the news is not so good for women – depending on what one’s goal is (‘any woman who wants to be an X should be able to do so, if she’s capable’, versus others).
One interesting metric is the number of female and kale college graduates; the former now outnumber the latter.
By field, the news is not so good for women – depending on what one’s goal is (‘any woman who wants to be an X should be able to do so, if she’s capable’, versus others).
A lot of good comments on the board. I was tempted to write the whole essay, but then to what end.
Dear Unherd, please take it easy on the feminism stuff. Or have some decent, honest and not shallow analysis.
I live in the US. The women have achieved equality. Even some advantages.
Today, feminism is a movement in a search of a problem. It’s time to turn off the lights, clock out and go home.
Or if you don’t want to clock out, then talk amongst yourself. Remember – you don’t speak for all women either.
The lines of perceived hostility and resentment outlined in this article are so tangled, complex, and fraught with confusion, it makes me want to retreat into those YouTube videos about quantum entanglement for relief. We’re becoming a contemporary Babylon minus the multiligual chaos.
The lines of perceived hostility and resentment outlined in this article are so tangled, complex, and fraught with confusion, it makes me want to retreat into those YouTube videos about quantum entanglement for relief. We’re becoming a contemporary Babylon minus the multiligual chaos.
The underlying theme here is power: who has it in the feminine realm, and why. The writer describes, sometimes in pop-sociological terms best understood in rarified feminist circles, the various attitudes women can adopt to the power they have to manipulate men – or not – according to their physical attributes and age. If there is a new wave of “barbie-doll” empowerment feminism evident on Tik-tok, it is because aesthetics are recognised by a younger generation of women as the best tool in their box to obtain power over men, and therefore to advance themselves in a “sexist” and “mysoginist” world, as described by the author.
But the writer also seems to suggest it is used as a means of power over other women, those who lack the aesthetic tools, whether due to genetics, economics or age. This is not the fault of men, but an intra-women’s issue around how power is gained and used by women against other women.
The underlying theme here is power: who has it in the feminine realm, and why. The writer describes, sometimes in pop-sociological terms best understood in rarified feminist circles, the various attitudes women can adopt to the power they have to manipulate men – or not – according to their physical attributes and age. If there is a new wave of “barbie-doll” empowerment feminism evident on Tik-tok, it is because aesthetics are recognised by a younger generation of women as the best tool in their box to obtain power over men, and therefore to advance themselves in a “sexist” and “mysoginist” world, as described by the author.
But the writer also seems to suggest it is used as a means of power over other women, those who lack the aesthetic tools, whether due to genetics, economics or age. This is not the fault of men, but an intra-women’s issue around how power is gained and used by women against other women.
So Hag Feminism is “in favour of the right to be respected and understood as having an inner life regardless of whether the typical man wants to sleep with you”.
Completely reasonable but what are we to do with that? To the extent that that right is not already granted, how could it ever be implemented or enforced?
People also have a right not to be murdered but there’s no point writing a book about it or naming the philosophy of it because unless you have any practical advice on how to achieve it people are still going to get murdered.
Nobody has the right to be “respected” and “understood”, either. Nobody cares about the “inner life” of someone they don’t know.
Also, what is the “typical man” and who does he want to sleep with? I think Victoria Smith uses the phrase “typical man” a lot, and not in a nice way.
Nobody has the right to be “respected” and “understood”, either. Nobody cares about the “inner life” of someone they don’t know.
Also, what is the “typical man” and who does he want to sleep with? I think Victoria Smith uses the phrase “typical man” a lot, and not in a nice way.
So Hag Feminism is “in favour of the right to be respected and understood as having an inner life regardless of whether the typical man wants to sleep with you”.
Completely reasonable but what are we to do with that? To the extent that that right is not already granted, how could it ever be implemented or enforced?
People also have a right not to be murdered but there’s no point writing a book about it or naming the philosophy of it because unless you have any practical advice on how to achieve it people are still going to get murdered.
They shouldn’t be using TikTok.
It is a Chinese weapon to destroy our freedom.
They shouldn’t be using TikTok.
It is a Chinese weapon to destroy our freedom.
.
.
My takeaway is to think that most women should not be taken seriously.
I got that from reading it too……
Here is a send up of the tiktok thing mentioned – on youtube – good fun..under 3 minutes..”If Men Acted like Female Tiktok Fitness Influencers”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yeoty57Hg
Funny!
Funny!
Perhaps that was also what you brought to the article.
Aristotle among others would agree with you.
Off course had he met Hypatia ( seven centuries later) he may have thought differently.
Nietzsche too.
Nietzsche too.
I think most women have better things to do than look at their reflection.
Really? I do not think I have ever seen a woman – of any age – able to walik past a mirror without checking out what she sees.
Maybe you should check your eyesight? By the way, I’ve seen lots of men doing the same.
What a very confusing comment : are you saying that not all women check out mirrors (not my experience, but I take your word for it) or that some/many many do that too? I don’t disagree with that at all.
To clarify: for some strange reason, I am named Adinda on my tablet and Adi Khan on my desktop computer. As for your question: I mean that your remark that all women look at themselves in every mirror they come across is incorrect. I can assure you that I don’t do that. Additionally, I see enough men checking themselves out in the mirror.
Fair enough. Our experiences are clearly at variance. That does not make either of them invalid.
Fair enough. Our experiences are clearly at variance. That does not make either of them invalid.
To clarify: for some strange reason, I am named Adinda on my tablet and Adi Khan on my desktop computer. As for your question: I mean that your remark that all women look at themselves in every mirror they come across is incorrect. I can assure you that I don’t do that. Additionally, I see enough men checking themselves out in the mirror.
What a very confusing comment : are you saying that not all women check out mirrors (not my experience, but I take your word for it) or that some/many many do that too? I don’t disagree with that at all.
Maybe you should check your eyesight? By the way, I’ve seen lots of men doing the same.
Really? I do not think I have ever seen a woman – of any age – able to walik past a mirror without checking out what she sees.
My reaction to the article is similar: why is it that women – ore should I say feminists – insist on making everything so damned difficult for themselves?
I got that from reading it too……
Here is a send up of the tiktok thing mentioned – on youtube – good fun..under 3 minutes..”If Men Acted like Female Tiktok Fitness Influencers”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yeoty57Hg
Perhaps that was also what you brought to the article.
Aristotle among others would agree with you.
Off course had he met Hypatia ( seven centuries later) he may have thought differently.
I think most women have better things to do than look at their reflection.
My reaction to the article is similar: why is it that women – ore should I say feminists – insist on making everything so damned difficult for themselves?
My takeaway is to think that most women should not be taken seriously.
Hag feminism is the future because the feminism well has run dry and the next generations will have other things on their minds, leaving only the old hags left with their misdirected anger in search of a target.
And they will all be writing for the publications that call themselves “unwoke” aka Speccie, Telegraph, Unherd.
Oh, wait. They already are.
And they will all be writing for the publications that call themselves “unwoke” aka Speccie, Telegraph, Unherd.
Oh, wait. They already are.
Hag feminism is the future because the feminism well has run dry and the next generations will have other things on their minds, leaving only the old hags left with their misdirected anger in search of a target.
I’m so happy to see Phoebe Bovy writing articles for unherd! Always manages to be measured and thought provoking, even though I side with the firebrand feminist takes on gender ideology I enjoy her contribution to the topic as well
It’s a pity that her contribution to the topic (of gender ideology) – here at least – reveals that she doesn’t understand what it is that ‘TERFs’ are objecting to and why.
Hooray. Another feminist writer on Unherd. Unherd becoming more like the Guardian every week.
It’s a pity that her contribution to the topic (of gender ideology) – here at least – reveals that she doesn’t understand what it is that ‘TERFs’ are objecting to and why.
Hooray. Another feminist writer on Unherd. Unherd becoming more like the Guardian every week.
I’m so happy to see Phoebe Bovy writing articles for unherd! Always manages to be measured and thought provoking, even though I side with the firebrand feminist takes on gender ideology I enjoy her contribution to the topic as well
The comments are interesting; the men are straight in with the comments whilst the women are still thinking about their response to it.
What about that chaps; a bit more thinking before commenting?
Which of the men’s comments in particular do you think are thoughtless and why? And how do you know what the women are doing or thinking if they haven’t commented? Maybe a bit more thinking before commenting?
I would say that the men are ‘straight in with the comments’ on practically every article. Why should this one be any different?
Well. I could, for example, have called myself “Butch Bouncer” or somesuch, and would be assumed to be a “man”.
Or I could have been “Frilly Knickers Tracy” and assumed to be a (rather girly) “woman”.
That is the joy and the despair of the internet.
Such self-invention spilling over into real life expectations is quite different. I would argue that it is pernicious.
I knows u is a woman from the Spekkie.
I knows u is a woman from the Spekkie.
Well. I could, for example, have called myself “Butch Bouncer” or somesuch, and would be assumed to be a “man”.
Or I could have been “Frilly Knickers Tracy” and assumed to be a (rather girly) “woman”.
That is the joy and the despair of the internet.
Such self-invention spilling over into real life expectations is quite different. I would argue that it is pernicious.
I look forward to reading your comment.
No you don’t.
No you don’t.
Actually, it is not possible to tell either the sex or “gender” of anyone who posts on here, whatever they call themselves. Worth bearing in mind.
Stop being such a simp.
Stop raiding your kids lingo to sound relevant.
My kids are grown-ups, and I picked up the concept of simpery from my compatriot Ryan Long’s videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5YGwMk8LVg
My kids are grown-ups, and I picked up the concept of simpery from my compatriot Ryan Long’s videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5YGwMk8LVg
Stop raiding your kids lingo to sound relevant.
So how long should the men think before commenting? Or do you want them to only have opinions you agree with, and post them within a time frame you agree with?
Which of the men’s comments in particular do you think are thoughtless and why? And how do you know what the women are doing or thinking if they haven’t commented? Maybe a bit more thinking before commenting?
I would say that the men are ‘straight in with the comments’ on practically every article. Why should this one be any different?
I look forward to reading your comment.
Actually, it is not possible to tell either the sex or “gender” of anyone who posts on here, whatever they call themselves. Worth bearing in mind.
Stop being such a simp.
So how long should the men think before commenting? Or do you want them to only have opinions you agree with, and post them within a time frame you agree with?
The comments are interesting; the men are straight in with the comments whilst the women are still thinking about their response to it.
What about that chaps; a bit more thinking before commenting?