Wow you’ve called it! I stand with JK Rowling and I don’t have a label for myself. I’m 100% womban though! I have two daughters one of whom is taking testosterone at the moment age 18 (19 in a few days) because she just “knows” it will solve “all” her delusional problems ‘coz the Internet said so! Emma Watson is an immature, uninformed, ungrateful child who needs to take a closer more critical look at herself and try to remember the saying “Never bite the hand that feeds!” My younger daughter will benefit from this advice too. That is when she stops blaming everyone and everything for her “plight”: being a privileged, talented, highly educated, young intelligent woman who is acting like a numbskull without a critical thought in her head. What a waste!🤦♀️
I'm sorry about your daughter. It's a tragedy when so many are sucked into the cult. But you know, the dudes in dresses have created a monster they can't stop - they *made* JK Rowling what she is today, and I *love* how much she stands up to them and laughs at them when they tweet that 'she could have remained a beloved book author,' not realizing that the trans train is derailing and she's not gonna get run over. I do hope your daughter comes to her senses but if she doesn't, there's always the PITT Substack if you haven't found it already (Parents Against Inconvenient Truth About Trans). At least your daughter's past puberty, if anything good can be found in this...
She's literally a feminist spokeswoman and an ambassador for UN Women, which is a pro feminist organisation at the very top of the social/ political hierarchy.
If Emma Watson is not a feminist then feminism cannot be said to be a movement - and must be redefined as a disparate mob of wildly competing interests, ambitions and contradictory viewpoints..... a mob who only agree on one thing: that flying the banner of 'women' is in their economic and political interests because we are an inherently gynocentric species - both men and women - which means we are all hard wired to support anything which claims to benefit women and burden men (he for she).
Most feminists are pro everything trans, as are most pro feminist organisations, pro feminist corporations and pro feminist governments. Feminism's social construct theory also puts feminism in the modern trans/ queer theory camp.
"In the olden days, feminists fought for women’s rights"
The Women's Rights Movement was separate to feminism, and distinct from it because it did not promote feminist ideology.
The WRM effectively disbanded after women gained equal rights to men (and then some). Feminism continued for several more decades, inventing ever more demented ideas about gender along the way, right up to the present day. Today feminists spearhead both the trans everything movement AND the GC movement.
As a result, the topic has become extremely polarised, emotionally charged, low resolution and incapable of any kind of constructive dialogue. This is not helping young people who desperately need the adults to do more than just use 'trans' as a vehicle to further their own ideological, political and career ambitions.
"Many are afraid to challenge the Watsonites, fearing life-destroying cancellation for daring to speak truth to trans-identified male authority and its good little handmaids."
Giving the issue of 'trans' a male gender (essentially 'trans' = 'the patriarchy') is just feminism putting a skirt onto patriarchy theory. It also completely erases the lived experiences (and often suffering and confusion) of a whole population of trans identified girls and women - presumably because they are of no use for the feminist cause (to define men as an all powerful threat and women as powerless victims).
"Let’s just call Watson what she is: A men’s rights advocate"
Emma has never advocated for men to be given equal rights to women (or equal treatment) in areas like:
access to gender specific medical care
access to shelters and refuges
child custody
male genital mutilation
reproductive autonomy
the draft
paternity fraud
workplace deaths
criminal court bias
parental entrapment
homelessness
domestic violence
... so it's incorrect to label her a men's rights advocate, unless your aim was to imply that giving men equal rights to women and equal treatment would somehow endanger women.
I call Emma Watson a men's rights activist because until she began piping down a few years ago, she stopped supporting women and began supporting trans-identified men over biological women's rights. She's only a 'feminist' for being pro-trans if you buy into the pseudoscientific, biologically delusional belief that sex is 'assigned' at birth by a doctor who gives his holy diktat based on what's between the baby's legs. When in fact sex is 'assigned', if you can even call it that, at conception, when the egg tosses an X and the winning sperm tosses one of its sex cells, and whatever unites with EggX determines whether one will go forth as male and female one's entire life. (Don't bring up the genetic anomalies knows as 'intersex'; they're a tiny, tiny fraction of babies born and they're *anomalies*, not evolution from dimorphism).
The fact that those of us liberal feminists (wokies don't speak for *all* women, nor are they a feminist majority, they are merely the loudest) have to keep explaining these basic facts of life to adults is supremely annoying. It reminds us of the days when we had to patiently explain to fundamentalist Christians why the world is more than 6,000 years old and how we can observe evolution in progress over the course of just a few generations (although it's more obvious with species with much shorter life spans than humans).
Emma Watson has indeed supported all the things you list and it was why at one time I respected her as an intelligent human being instead of just being a good actress. But then she began spouting the 'transwomen are women' nonsense and 'they're the most marginalized people ever' and she refused to criticize the gross misogyny displayed every day online by her transactivists friends, and she lost a lot of us who can still think critically and don't accept all the mindless pablum cross-dressing men feed more intellectually malleable women.
This is why I've regarded her as a men's rights activist for years, but I'm beginning to revisit my position.
I began wondering the other day why we haven't heard from Miz Emma for awhile and found that she's taken a break from acting to work on some projects over which she has more control, and to work with her family to promote a wine-flavoured gin they're marketing (I didn't know they run a French winery!) Yesterday and this morning I was looking for feminist musings from her in recent years and I haven't found any. She doesn't even seem to be expressing much trans cheerleading. Nor can I determine whether she's still a UN Ambassador which I also no longer consider feminist because they were in fucking denial over Hamas's mass rapes and vicious sexual assaults on October 7th. I wrote a whole article about it if you're interested.
Anyway, Miz E still refuses to condemn, more recently, the vicious anti-woman 'hate crime' laws just passed in Scotland, so, she's wise to keep that pretty little trap shut until she can grow some labia and condemn ALL misogyny, not just Hollywood's.
Let me just make it clear what I and many others consider to be real feminism: Fighting for women's rights, NOT men's rights, and human males are human males until they die. They ARE different from us, fundamentally, and they can never be women (nor can women be men), they can change the bodies and clothes but not their brains. Which ARE also fundamentally different.
Men are not men just because they say they are; don't believe everything they tell you. Helpful hint: Sexual fetishists and opportunists will say *anything* to get what they want, especially if it's related to male sexual pleasure, and a big chunk of the trans movement is driven by sexual fetishism and the rise of transgender pornography. I've got links about them if you'd like; I haven't written either of them.
"I call Emma Watson a men's rights activist because until she began piping down a few years ago, she stopped supporting women and began supporting trans-identified men over biological women's rights."
Whatever your views are, it is clear that Emma accepts the declared identity of trans people 100%, no questions asked. Therefore she is absolutely 100% supporting women's rights.
I think your actual issue is with the social construct theory of gender (the idea that we are all blank slates and that gender is arbitrary). Social construct theory was an invention of the feminist movement. Therefore Watson is being thoroughly consistent with feminist ideology and is very must a feminist. The idea that she is a MRA is absurd for the reasons already given.
"Anyway, Miz E still refuses to condemn, more recently, the vicious anti-woman 'hate crime' laws just passed in Scotland, "
I'm pretty sure the law applies to men equally, so its a bit sexist to refer to it as 'anti women'.
"Let me just make it clear what I and many others consider to be real feminism: Fighting for women's rights, NOT men's rights"
You are literally defining the Women's Rights Movement. Feminism was distinct from the WRM because it's such a vast labyrinthine ideology. The WRA disbanded decades ago because they ran out of women's rights to fight for.
Meanwhile men (who feminists claim are our privileged oppressors) still lack many of the basic rights that women have, which is why we still have a Men's Rights Movement, but not a Women's Rights Movement.
Ask any feminist what legal rights men have that women don't have and they will be struck dumb (and their heads will explode). There just aren't any.
".... she stopped supporting women..."
This may seem like a pedantic point but it's huge. Feminism cannot be defined as 'supporting women'. The fiercest critics and opposers of feminist ideology and activism have always been women! Feminism literally cannot honestly claim to speak on behalf of women. The overwhelming majority of BOTH sexes do not identify as feminists. Feminism speaks for feminists only (and both men and women can be feminists).
Also, most self identifying feminists are the 'coffee shop' variety who could not even manage a 1 minute lecture on the history of feminism and its core ideology. So the number of a serious, committed feminists is actually very small.
I understand the points you are making, and I totally agree the whole thing has become absurd and unworkable. But I have sympathy for ALL sides (except the social engineers hell bent on subverting society). But obviously I don't agree with TERF's way of framing the issue, which I feel is unnecessarily divisive, sexist and emotional. Also TERF's seem to completely ignore the epidemic of trans/ NB identified girls and young women, presumably because they don't fit the threat narrative.
Feminism has a long history of cheering for the erasure of feminine boundaries, feminine demureness and feminine boundaries ... and replacing all that with depictions of mixed sex changing rooms in movies, and 'kick ass' female soldiers with rippling muscles, oily tank tops and the ability to beat any man in hand to hand combat. This culture of macho women ('ladette culture') was pushed by feminism throughout the 90's and into the 2000's. It was sold as the future of female empowerment.
We were all told to stop using words like 'actress' or 'stewardess' or 'policewoman' because these were gendered terms, and therefore regressive. Feminists told us women were men's equals and perfectly capable of working, playing and competing alongside men as 'one of the boys'. Women only felt and acted like women because of patriarchal social conditioning from birth (social construct theory). Women literally were inferior because feminism measured women against men and male traits, rather than accepting women as a separate and distinct (and complete) category in their own right, operating in ways that are completely separate (and perfectly complimentary) to how men operate.
Those of us who wanted to carry on recognising (and celebrating) the unique differences between the sexes and their very different contributions to society were dismissed, ostracised and attacked by feminists, and told we were holding 'progress' back. How DARE we define women (or men) by their distinctive biology and their natural biological proclivities, impulses, temperaments and drives!!!
We were treated just like TERF's are treated today by feminists. As heretics and 'phobes'.
It feels utterly dishonest and desperate to blame the current madness on 'men', when it was feminists (including feminist men) who pushed society in this direction. And even putting the issue of personal responsibility and integrity to one side.... I feel that blaming men will achieve absolutely nothing because men just don't have the social power to set cultural values and norms.
All social/ cultural changes are primarily driven by the demands of women. Men might provide the funding and help with the enforcement side of things, but it is women's pleading and shaming (carrot and stick) which has always set the cultural landscape and defined what is socially acceptable or not. The radical feminist teacher or daycare worker who spends all day programming the minds of children has more power to steer society than any male politician, CEO or board member.
Feminism's PRIME DIRECTIVE to deny female agency and female social power means TERF's will always be barking up the wrong tree (ie men). The only solution that makes any practical sense to me is to take the state out of the equation and return to stay at home motherhood and home schooling/ unschooling. Obviously that also requires a return to traditional gender roles (but in a modern context), with men as the primary supporter during the child rearing years, so that mothers can be with their children full time (as nature intended) and protect them from ideological subversion. I'm just as happy for fathers to play the stay at home role and mothers to go out and work if that works for some people. As long as one of the parents provides protection and care it's all good.
In other words, the feminist experiment (women copying men's gender role and lifestyle and competing with men on their terms) was a total failure and is the main problem which needs solving. I don't mean this with any spite or glee. I just think it's the practical reality of the situation :)
"Whatever your views are, it is clear that Emma accepts the declared identity of trans people 100%, no questions asked. Therefore she is absolutely 100% supporting women's rights."
No, she's supporting *men's* rights. Because:
"I think your actual issue is with the social construct theory of gender (the idea that we are all blank slates and that gender is arbitrary)."
No, my issue is with immutable, irrevocable biology: We are 'assigned' male or female at birth, period. You can't change it. You can 'identify' however you like. But you can't force others to accept it when it's clearly delusional. I wonder if Emma accepts Donald Trump's 'identity' as the rightful president of the US, and that it was stolen from him? Also, I don't believe in the 'blank slate' theory. I do, however, in a future article, argue that gender feeling may be on a spectrum. Or maybe it's not so much feeling as being comfortable with what you are. Why is it such a clusterfuck for you people that 80% of the 'trans kids' are actually gay? Didn't y'all rail for years about failed and cruel right wing gay conversion therapy? What y'all are doing to children and young people is *criminal*. BEcause somewhere, deep down, even on the left, homophobia is real and it's better to have a butchered, infertile, sexually debilitated son or daughter than a gay one.
I do agree with you on the fact that feminists can't agree on much, and there are a thousand different iterations of it. But as to what constitutes the basic definition of a feminist, it's Caitlyn Moran's: "Do you have a vagina? Do you want to be in charge of it? Congratulations, then you're a feminist!"
To be fair, she's not talking about bought vaginas. Yanno, the kind that have to be dilated regularly and tended to their entire lives and lose a lot of sexual functioning of a real vagina (or the real penis it used to be). I mean, to me feminist is supporting women's rights and equal treatement under the law, which misogynist TAs are trying to roll back, with good little girls doing what they're told to help. The fact that y'all don't see it is a testament to how easily manipulated you are by these guys.
The extent of my TERFiness is this, and I think it probably sums up most TERFs: Just stay out of places where you don't belong, dude. That's bathrooms, changing rooms, women's sports teams, and prisons, where female inmates ARE being raped by newly-identified 'women' with penises. I'm horrified that your lot is willing to ignore that, but the far left now denies Israeli women got raped on Oct 7, or claim they deserved it, so I seriously think y'all are going to ally with the QAnon set eventually. I'm serious.
I mean, feminism, esp crazy-ass misandrist feminism has contributed a lot to it too. I know it. I stopped calling myself a feminist for 25 years because of it. But there is always a periodic backlash against women's rights, and this is the first one I think I've ever seen (and I'm 60) in which *left wing women* are so easily taking the men's rights side in this. Usually it's the women on the right. Now *they're* the ones fighting the madness, with those of us traditional liberals who are still left.
Woke social justice has become a joke, but not a funny one at all. I think you still don't understand what you're playing with. I don't know what to make of your last 'graph, though. Um, you want us all to become tradwives?
However you frame it Emma Watson does not qualify as a men's rights advocate. She subscribes to feminism's 'social construct' theory of gender and in her world view anybody who identifies as a woman is a woman - end of story.
I think what you really mean to say is that "feminism harms women too", and this makes you somewhat aligned with what MRA's have been saying for decades.
"You can 'identify' however you like. But you can't force others to accept it when it's clearly delusional."
This is what critics of feminism have been arguing for the last century. Simply identifying as 'a victim of male oppression' does not automatically make it true. And labelling anyone who challenges that identity a 'misogynist' is no different to what is happening to TERFs today.
The identity of a 'victim of male oppression' was useful to the state to (1) subjugate men (2) replace men as women's primary source of support an resources (feminism essentially turned the state into a harem for women) and (3) convince women to abandon the role (both the privilege AND the responsibility) of mother/ homemaker and join men as a taxed labour force.
Feminists thought they were a powerful movement, but this was true ONLY insofar as their complaints and demands aligned with the social engineering agendas of the ruling elite who were funding feminism from the outset.
Those social engineering agendas started with the deconstruction of the family and problematising of gender... and now include the deconstruction of gender itself and the push towards a sterilised, genderless population of cyborgs.
To identify as 'trans' or to automatically affirm that identity in others (as Watson does) is only celebrated and encouraged by governments because it furthers the transhuman agenda. It's not because they actually care about children or want to help them - just as feminism was never about helping or caring for women.
TERF's who cling to a feminist identity are flogging a dead horse.. a horse which has already thrown them off and galloped off into the sunset.
There is no left/ right or men / women conflict. There never was. There is just ordinary men and women on one side and psychopathic control freaks on the other side. Critics of feminism (including MRAs) have been saying this forever.
Men and women are natural allies and complimentary forces of nature. Only by ending feminism's 'war of the sexes' can we hope to restore the basis of a functional civilised society, and have the strength and unity (and confidence) to tell the social engineers to stick their agendas up their backsides.
Seeing adult men and women fight FOR each other, instead of AGAINST each other will also heal a good portion of the gender distress and confusion that kids feel (that kids have internalised and express as dysphoria and self loathing). Feminist angst was always a kind of gender dysphoria, because it was rooted in a narrative about how awful it is to be a woman, and how terrible (but empowered) men are.
"BEcause somewhere, deep down, even on the left, homophobia is real "
One of the main reasons why homosexuality was discouraged and made taboos was that homosexual men provided no resources or protection to women. Every homosexual man was leaving some poor woman without a husband (two women potentially). This was considered a dereliction of duty, just as bachelors were (only more so).
In an age when even housework was full time manual labour women needed a husband to put food on the table. The stigma against men failing to take on that role was driven by women. It was similar to the white feather campaign against male pacifists.
Men are so chivalrous and so gynocentric that they will view homosexual men as an affront to women, and react as if they are witnessing a man beating up a woman. Not only do homosexual men deny some one a husband, they also inhabit the role of 'emotional beings' ('acted upon') - a role which is traditionally reserved for women. This is why effeminate gay men often trigger men in a negative way. They are defending women's monopoly on being the protected class of emotional 'acted upon' beings in society. Men's role is to be stoic, to bury their emotions, and not show vulnerability! (he for she). Effeminate gay men are appropriating female privilege by showing emotional vulnerability and provoking sympathy.
The stigma against lesbians is also driven by the fact that they do not contribute children, although it is a lot less harsh because men don't provoke as much sympathy. Also lesbian relationship are more likely to be fluid, often occurring when the husbands were away on business or sent off to war.
Interestingly, when the news started covering the issue of 'attacks on transwomen' (in the streets, outside clubs etc) about a decade or two ago, the feminists told us this was proof of misogyny. They said men who embody femininity attract male misogyny. The truth is the men beating up transexuals view them as men, not women. So it's not misogyny. Just as Emma Watson views trans identified sports players as women, not men, which is why she is not advocating for men's rights.
"But as to what constitutes the basic definition of a feminist, it's Caitlyn Moran's: "Do you have a vagina? Do you want to be in charge of it? Congratulations, then you're a feminist!"
OK fine, but that's just a feel good slogan which is used to recruit people to the cause. It implies that if you're NOT a feminist you obviously DON'T want control over your vagina (or don't want other women to have control of their vaginas).
In that sense, it is no different to saying "if you believe kids should have freedom of choice and be allowed to identify as themselves then you are pro trans".
These manipulative recruitment strategies are very tiresome.
Moran's definition of feminism does not cover patriarchy theory, the male gaze, child custody, DV, reproductive autonomy, women only short lists, the draft etc etc...
Also feminism popularised the term 'vagina' rather than 'birth canal'. Feminism detached the female reproductive system from ...er.... reproduction and redefined it more in terms of pleasure and hedonism. To define women by pregnancy and childbirth was demeaning, apparently.
If you want to make the point that colon/ penile tissue does not a vagina make, it might be a good idea to start referring to it as the birth canal. Also it might be good to celebrate men, masculinity, male genitals as wonderful things rather than an oppressive enemy which hurts women.
" I'm horrified that your lot is willing to ignore that"
I think we both know that progressives are pushing the current 'free for all' approach to gender, and that they have been for the last 60+ years. I am not part of any group other than the group called 'common sense' NON-ideologues. I have sympathy for all 'sides' (apart from bad actors). I just don't think making it political or gendered (men vs women) is helping anyone, except the social engineers who love to keep us all divided and at each other's throats :)
The greatest systemic rape occurs in male juvenile detention centres, mostly by female staff. Nobody has ever cared about that.
"Um, you want us all to become tradwives?"
I think feminists ARE tradwives. It's just that they've chosen to marry the state (men with guns) rather than husbands (men with jobs). Watson or Moran are both tradwives to the harem created for them by government and corporations. The feminist exodus from husbands to the state (from the 70s onwards) has pulled all women into this harem by default.
The harem does not generate any money and so it must tax ordinary men instead. This mean men are essentially forced to marry leftist/ feminist women that they will never meet and who they get nothing in return from (except endless abuse and books about how toxic they are). This means even tradwives must share their husbands (and their husbands pay packet) with feminist/ progressive women.
There are very few women who are prepared to support men financially, and the net flow of money (labour) is, and always will be, from men to women whether that is via taxation/ tax spending or traditional gender roles in a traditional marriage.
Feminism has not changed any of this. All it has done is empower the state as the middle man. So with very few exceptions, all women are still tradwives and all working men are still giving a significant proportion of their wages to women. Nothing has changed in the respect. All feminism has done is make these transactions non-consensual, resentful, un-appreciated and dysfunctional.
Either we revert back to a cooperative, consensual, non resentful relationship between men and women - kicking the state out of the equation altogether (three's a crowd).....
... or we continue down the path of 'progress' (progressivism) where everything is problematic and government intervention is the only solution (because men and women cannot get along on their own) and gender is the root cause of all problems. If we keep going down this path we will end up as genderless cyborgs, living in little cubicles, 'owning nothing and being happy' (as the WEF promise).
As awful as the prospect of forming an alliance with men might seem, the alternative is to become a rainbow obsessed fully vaxxed surgically enhanced 'global citizen' living in the 15 minute technocratic harem which is being constructed all around us.
This will be a short answer but know that I DID read your entire message, and I thank you for your comments. Definitely some interesting feminist theory there, and I certainly agree that we - men and women - do need each other and yes, we need to work together and not push each other away. Plenty of us are still willing to do that. Part of what I hope to do is to persuade men getting pushed toward the MRAs to reconsider, because not all feminists are whiny, eternally-victimized brats.
And speaking of MRAs, I was exaggerating a bit about Emma Watson, no, she's not strictly speaking an MRA advocate but she is, perhaps unconsciously fighting for men's rights. There's plenty of indication that there is some right-wing, incel, MRA influence in the trans movement, particularly with transactivists. Watson's willful blindness to trans-misogyny while parroting a misogynist and biologically incorrect line about sex is why I call her an MRA advocate.
But interestingly...
After reposting my article last week I got to wondering what's going on with her because we don't hear from her much anymore. And just as I'd scheduled it for publication, her name began trending again on X for the first time in awhile after JK Rowling said she would 'never forgive' Emma and Dan Radcliffe for speaking out against her. She had zero to say about it nor, it seems, about anything very feminist anymore. But she's engaging in other pursuits that make Grow Some Labia smile and hope she's going to come back to the feminist fold one day. It'll get published on Saturday. "Emma Watson, Emma Watson, Wherefore Art Thou, Emma Watson?"
The very reason why the trans activists are so outspoken and over represented is because they are men with men’s brains and no amount of drugs or surgery will change that. The reason you don’t hear about trans men is because they are women and typically not as aggressive and outspoken as men.
I really don’t understand why Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint have all turned their backs on the person that made them famous. When the tide turns it will be fun to watch them trying to deny it all regain their credibility, well I for one will not forget and they can all go and suck on some girl dick that they seemingly love so much.
Yes, I've written about these issues in other articles, that you can change bodies and clothes but you can't change brains. I've noticed that even transfolk who 'pass' (of either sex), they generally out themselves sooner or later by the *way* they talk and think. I watched four very passable transmen on youTube last year talking about autogynephilia (I can't find it now, unfortunately) but they were very convincing as men until they began speaking and thinking in ways that made me go, "Now THAT'S the way women think." I see and hear this with TiMs too - sooner or later they talk, act or think like a guy. Maybe not even in offensive ways, but it's the way *guys* think. (I say this about both sexes unpejoratively).
I can tell you why the Harry Potter gang are being good little fembots: Career protection. They don't *dare* speak out if they see the misogyny happening. Although I don't think the male actors are overthinking it all that much.
What I *STILL* don't understand is why ANYONE is taking a bunch of clearly deranged, often-anonymous losers seriously on *anything* - whether it's trans stuff, CRT, feminism, 'colonialism', etc. When did the rest of the world turn so--pardon my misogynist French--so *pussy*?
That word 'deserve' in the first tweet is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Reminds me of Glinner's insight that Ts are a sacred caste: uniformly virtuous, and can do no wrong
About twenty years ago or so Andrew Sullivan wrote a piece for the NYTimes Magazine about his experience of going on testosterone. It was illuminating, and it made me dislike him so thoroughly that I've never been able to read anything he's written since.
No, thanks. I've dipped in occasionally since then, on the off-chance my view might have softened. It hasn't. Astute and authentic don't compensate for arrogant and under-edited. At least not in my book, not for him. Not yet, anyway.
Violent, aggressive trans women are truly scary just like all violent, abusive men. Camille Paglia stated the obvious in her 1990 book Sexual Personae: aggressive, dangerous male behavior has its roots in testosterone and other predominantly male hormones. For years afterward, mainstream feminists denounced her for saying that sexuality and gender were physical realities, that hormones affect human behavior. Ironically, students at the university where she teaches recently tried to have her fired for her “harmful” ideas about art.
How we got to this point is mind boggling. Leftists want inclusivity, but, like many humans, feel the need to take things to extremes. If women were traditionally not believed when they were raped, then all women must be believed. If gay people were discriminated against for their sometimes unconventional gender expression, then all gender expressions must be enthusiastically affirmed to the point of allowing dangerous medical procedures for minors. This kind of black-and-white thinking, this constant swinging of the pendulum from one extreme to another, is harmful and prevents society from truly progressing to a more humane, cooperative state.
It seems like we just want to fight each other and that life without violent confrontations with imagined enemies is not worth living.
Not feeling great about the human species at the moment.
This is a truly original analysis of the problem of male aggression. I love how you show that the in-your-face pugnacity of activist extremism is no more attractive in a pretty wig and makeup than it is with a beard and wide beater shirt.
I haven't even gotten into the hormonal aspects of what makes men and women different. And yes, we all *know* testosterone makes men aggressive and dominating (along with growing up entitled in a deeply sexist culture) so why do we have to remind feminists of this? This inability to recognize in-your-face misogyny illustrates how deeply psychologically vulnerable so many lefty women are to manipulation and gaslighting.
What's even scarier now is the 'drag shows' for children. Some on the left are actively defending this and decrying the anger and hostility from the right. But you know, no pedophilia to see here!!! Nothing pedo about parading around half- or nearly-naked in front of children. The left is being groomed to normalize and accept pedophilia.
This is what happens when you coddle and indulge children who aren't taught to think for themselves or engage critical thinking faculties. I could see the train wrecks in progress when a lot of these people were children, raised to value themselves and their 'self-esteem' above all else. They have way too much power now and like children, they don't know how to handle it. They're so certain they're right when they support a ditz bomb like Emma Watson and damn J.K. Rowling. At least the latter is so rich they CAN'T cancel her or hurt her sales :)
Wow you’ve called it! I stand with JK Rowling and I don’t have a label for myself. I’m 100% womban though! I have two daughters one of whom is taking testosterone at the moment age 18 (19 in a few days) because she just “knows” it will solve “all” her delusional problems ‘coz the Internet said so! Emma Watson is an immature, uninformed, ungrateful child who needs to take a closer more critical look at herself and try to remember the saying “Never bite the hand that feeds!” My younger daughter will benefit from this advice too. That is when she stops blaming everyone and everything for her “plight”: being a privileged, talented, highly educated, young intelligent woman who is acting like a numbskull without a critical thought in her head. What a waste!🤦♀️
I'm sorry about your daughter. It's a tragedy when so many are sucked into the cult. But you know, the dudes in dresses have created a monster they can't stop - they *made* JK Rowling what she is today, and I *love* how much she stands up to them and laughs at them when they tweet that 'she could have remained a beloved book author,' not realizing that the trans train is derailing and she's not gonna get run over. I do hope your daughter comes to her senses but if she doesn't, there's always the PITT Substack if you haven't found it already (Parents Against Inconvenient Truth About Trans). At least your daughter's past puberty, if anything good can be found in this...
"Emma Watson is no feminist."
She's literally a feminist spokeswoman and an ambassador for UN Women, which is a pro feminist organisation at the very top of the social/ political hierarchy.
If Emma Watson is not a feminist then feminism cannot be said to be a movement - and must be redefined as a disparate mob of wildly competing interests, ambitions and contradictory viewpoints..... a mob who only agree on one thing: that flying the banner of 'women' is in their economic and political interests because we are an inherently gynocentric species - both men and women - which means we are all hard wired to support anything which claims to benefit women and burden men (he for she).
Most feminists are pro everything trans, as are most pro feminist organisations, pro feminist corporations and pro feminist governments. Feminism's social construct theory also puts feminism in the modern trans/ queer theory camp.
"In the olden days, feminists fought for women’s rights"
The Women's Rights Movement was separate to feminism, and distinct from it because it did not promote feminist ideology.
The WRM effectively disbanded after women gained equal rights to men (and then some). Feminism continued for several more decades, inventing ever more demented ideas about gender along the way, right up to the present day. Today feminists spearhead both the trans everything movement AND the GC movement.
As a result, the topic has become extremely polarised, emotionally charged, low resolution and incapable of any kind of constructive dialogue. This is not helping young people who desperately need the adults to do more than just use 'trans' as a vehicle to further their own ideological, political and career ambitions.
"Many are afraid to challenge the Watsonites, fearing life-destroying cancellation for daring to speak truth to trans-identified male authority and its good little handmaids."
Giving the issue of 'trans' a male gender (essentially 'trans' = 'the patriarchy') is just feminism putting a skirt onto patriarchy theory. It also completely erases the lived experiences (and often suffering and confusion) of a whole population of trans identified girls and women - presumably because they are of no use for the feminist cause (to define men as an all powerful threat and women as powerless victims).
"Let’s just call Watson what she is: A men’s rights advocate"
Emma has never advocated for men to be given equal rights to women (or equal treatment) in areas like:
access to gender specific medical care
access to shelters and refuges
child custody
male genital mutilation
reproductive autonomy
the draft
paternity fraud
workplace deaths
criminal court bias
parental entrapment
homelessness
domestic violence
... so it's incorrect to label her a men's rights advocate, unless your aim was to imply that giving men equal rights to women and equal treatment would somehow endanger women.
I call Emma Watson a men's rights activist because until she began piping down a few years ago, she stopped supporting women and began supporting trans-identified men over biological women's rights. She's only a 'feminist' for being pro-trans if you buy into the pseudoscientific, biologically delusional belief that sex is 'assigned' at birth by a doctor who gives his holy diktat based on what's between the baby's legs. When in fact sex is 'assigned', if you can even call it that, at conception, when the egg tosses an X and the winning sperm tosses one of its sex cells, and whatever unites with EggX determines whether one will go forth as male and female one's entire life. (Don't bring up the genetic anomalies knows as 'intersex'; they're a tiny, tiny fraction of babies born and they're *anomalies*, not evolution from dimorphism).
The fact that those of us liberal feminists (wokies don't speak for *all* women, nor are they a feminist majority, they are merely the loudest) have to keep explaining these basic facts of life to adults is supremely annoying. It reminds us of the days when we had to patiently explain to fundamentalist Christians why the world is more than 6,000 years old and how we can observe evolution in progress over the course of just a few generations (although it's more obvious with species with much shorter life spans than humans).
Emma Watson has indeed supported all the things you list and it was why at one time I respected her as an intelligent human being instead of just being a good actress. But then she began spouting the 'transwomen are women' nonsense and 'they're the most marginalized people ever' and she refused to criticize the gross misogyny displayed every day online by her transactivists friends, and she lost a lot of us who can still think critically and don't accept all the mindless pablum cross-dressing men feed more intellectually malleable women.
This is why I've regarded her as a men's rights activist for years, but I'm beginning to revisit my position.
I began wondering the other day why we haven't heard from Miz Emma for awhile and found that she's taken a break from acting to work on some projects over which she has more control, and to work with her family to promote a wine-flavoured gin they're marketing (I didn't know they run a French winery!) Yesterday and this morning I was looking for feminist musings from her in recent years and I haven't found any. She doesn't even seem to be expressing much trans cheerleading. Nor can I determine whether she's still a UN Ambassador which I also no longer consider feminist because they were in fucking denial over Hamas's mass rapes and vicious sexual assaults on October 7th. I wrote a whole article about it if you're interested.
https://growsomelabia.substack.com/p/false-false-rape-allegations-the
Anyway, Miz E still refuses to condemn, more recently, the vicious anti-woman 'hate crime' laws just passed in Scotland, so, she's wise to keep that pretty little trap shut until she can grow some labia and condemn ALL misogyny, not just Hollywood's.
Let me just make it clear what I and many others consider to be real feminism: Fighting for women's rights, NOT men's rights, and human males are human males until they die. They ARE different from us, fundamentally, and they can never be women (nor can women be men), they can change the bodies and clothes but not their brains. Which ARE also fundamentally different.
Men are not men just because they say they are; don't believe everything they tell you. Helpful hint: Sexual fetishists and opportunists will say *anything* to get what they want, especially if it's related to male sexual pleasure, and a big chunk of the trans movement is driven by sexual fetishism and the rise of transgender pornography. I've got links about them if you'd like; I haven't written either of them.
"I call Emma Watson a men's rights activist because until she began piping down a few years ago, she stopped supporting women and began supporting trans-identified men over biological women's rights."
Whatever your views are, it is clear that Emma accepts the declared identity of trans people 100%, no questions asked. Therefore she is absolutely 100% supporting women's rights.
I think your actual issue is with the social construct theory of gender (the idea that we are all blank slates and that gender is arbitrary). Social construct theory was an invention of the feminist movement. Therefore Watson is being thoroughly consistent with feminist ideology and is very must a feminist. The idea that she is a MRA is absurd for the reasons already given.
"Anyway, Miz E still refuses to condemn, more recently, the vicious anti-woman 'hate crime' laws just passed in Scotland, "
I'm pretty sure the law applies to men equally, so its a bit sexist to refer to it as 'anti women'.
"Let me just make it clear what I and many others consider to be real feminism: Fighting for women's rights, NOT men's rights"
You are literally defining the Women's Rights Movement. Feminism was distinct from the WRM because it's such a vast labyrinthine ideology. The WRA disbanded decades ago because they ran out of women's rights to fight for.
Meanwhile men (who feminists claim are our privileged oppressors) still lack many of the basic rights that women have, which is why we still have a Men's Rights Movement, but not a Women's Rights Movement.
Ask any feminist what legal rights men have that women don't have and they will be struck dumb (and their heads will explode). There just aren't any.
".... she stopped supporting women..."
This may seem like a pedantic point but it's huge. Feminism cannot be defined as 'supporting women'. The fiercest critics and opposers of feminist ideology and activism have always been women! Feminism literally cannot honestly claim to speak on behalf of women. The overwhelming majority of BOTH sexes do not identify as feminists. Feminism speaks for feminists only (and both men and women can be feminists).
Also, most self identifying feminists are the 'coffee shop' variety who could not even manage a 1 minute lecture on the history of feminism and its core ideology. So the number of a serious, committed feminists is actually very small.
I understand the points you are making, and I totally agree the whole thing has become absurd and unworkable. But I have sympathy for ALL sides (except the social engineers hell bent on subverting society). But obviously I don't agree with TERF's way of framing the issue, which I feel is unnecessarily divisive, sexist and emotional. Also TERF's seem to completely ignore the epidemic of trans/ NB identified girls and young women, presumably because they don't fit the threat narrative.
Feminism has a long history of cheering for the erasure of feminine boundaries, feminine demureness and feminine boundaries ... and replacing all that with depictions of mixed sex changing rooms in movies, and 'kick ass' female soldiers with rippling muscles, oily tank tops and the ability to beat any man in hand to hand combat. This culture of macho women ('ladette culture') was pushed by feminism throughout the 90's and into the 2000's. It was sold as the future of female empowerment.
We were all told to stop using words like 'actress' or 'stewardess' or 'policewoman' because these were gendered terms, and therefore regressive. Feminists told us women were men's equals and perfectly capable of working, playing and competing alongside men as 'one of the boys'. Women only felt and acted like women because of patriarchal social conditioning from birth (social construct theory). Women literally were inferior because feminism measured women against men and male traits, rather than accepting women as a separate and distinct (and complete) category in their own right, operating in ways that are completely separate (and perfectly complimentary) to how men operate.
Those of us who wanted to carry on recognising (and celebrating) the unique differences between the sexes and their very different contributions to society were dismissed, ostracised and attacked by feminists, and told we were holding 'progress' back. How DARE we define women (or men) by their distinctive biology and their natural biological proclivities, impulses, temperaments and drives!!!
We were treated just like TERF's are treated today by feminists. As heretics and 'phobes'.
It feels utterly dishonest and desperate to blame the current madness on 'men', when it was feminists (including feminist men) who pushed society in this direction. And even putting the issue of personal responsibility and integrity to one side.... I feel that blaming men will achieve absolutely nothing because men just don't have the social power to set cultural values and norms.
All social/ cultural changes are primarily driven by the demands of women. Men might provide the funding and help with the enforcement side of things, but it is women's pleading and shaming (carrot and stick) which has always set the cultural landscape and defined what is socially acceptable or not. The radical feminist teacher or daycare worker who spends all day programming the minds of children has more power to steer society than any male politician, CEO or board member.
Feminism's PRIME DIRECTIVE to deny female agency and female social power means TERF's will always be barking up the wrong tree (ie men). The only solution that makes any practical sense to me is to take the state out of the equation and return to stay at home motherhood and home schooling/ unschooling. Obviously that also requires a return to traditional gender roles (but in a modern context), with men as the primary supporter during the child rearing years, so that mothers can be with their children full time (as nature intended) and protect them from ideological subversion. I'm just as happy for fathers to play the stay at home role and mothers to go out and work if that works for some people. As long as one of the parents provides protection and care it's all good.
In other words, the feminist experiment (women copying men's gender role and lifestyle and competing with men on their terms) was a total failure and is the main problem which needs solving. I don't mean this with any spite or glee. I just think it's the practical reality of the situation :)
"Whatever your views are, it is clear that Emma accepts the declared identity of trans people 100%, no questions asked. Therefore she is absolutely 100% supporting women's rights."
No, she's supporting *men's* rights. Because:
"I think your actual issue is with the social construct theory of gender (the idea that we are all blank slates and that gender is arbitrary)."
No, my issue is with immutable, irrevocable biology: We are 'assigned' male or female at birth, period. You can't change it. You can 'identify' however you like. But you can't force others to accept it when it's clearly delusional. I wonder if Emma accepts Donald Trump's 'identity' as the rightful president of the US, and that it was stolen from him? Also, I don't believe in the 'blank slate' theory. I do, however, in a future article, argue that gender feeling may be on a spectrum. Or maybe it's not so much feeling as being comfortable with what you are. Why is it such a clusterfuck for you people that 80% of the 'trans kids' are actually gay? Didn't y'all rail for years about failed and cruel right wing gay conversion therapy? What y'all are doing to children and young people is *criminal*. BEcause somewhere, deep down, even on the left, homophobia is real and it's better to have a butchered, infertile, sexually debilitated son or daughter than a gay one.
I do agree with you on the fact that feminists can't agree on much, and there are a thousand different iterations of it. But as to what constitutes the basic definition of a feminist, it's Caitlyn Moran's: "Do you have a vagina? Do you want to be in charge of it? Congratulations, then you're a feminist!"
To be fair, she's not talking about bought vaginas. Yanno, the kind that have to be dilated regularly and tended to their entire lives and lose a lot of sexual functioning of a real vagina (or the real penis it used to be). I mean, to me feminist is supporting women's rights and equal treatement under the law, which misogynist TAs are trying to roll back, with good little girls doing what they're told to help. The fact that y'all don't see it is a testament to how easily manipulated you are by these guys.
The extent of my TERFiness is this, and I think it probably sums up most TERFs: Just stay out of places where you don't belong, dude. That's bathrooms, changing rooms, women's sports teams, and prisons, where female inmates ARE being raped by newly-identified 'women' with penises. I'm horrified that your lot is willing to ignore that, but the far left now denies Israeli women got raped on Oct 7, or claim they deserved it, so I seriously think y'all are going to ally with the QAnon set eventually. I'm serious.
I mean, feminism, esp crazy-ass misandrist feminism has contributed a lot to it too. I know it. I stopped calling myself a feminist for 25 years because of it. But there is always a periodic backlash against women's rights, and this is the first one I think I've ever seen (and I'm 60) in which *left wing women* are so easily taking the men's rights side in this. Usually it's the women on the right. Now *they're* the ones fighting the madness, with those of us traditional liberals who are still left.
Woke social justice has become a joke, but not a funny one at all. I think you still don't understand what you're playing with. I don't know what to make of your last 'graph, though. Um, you want us all to become tradwives?
However you frame it Emma Watson does not qualify as a men's rights advocate. She subscribes to feminism's 'social construct' theory of gender and in her world view anybody who identifies as a woman is a woman - end of story.
I think what you really mean to say is that "feminism harms women too", and this makes you somewhat aligned with what MRA's have been saying for decades.
"You can 'identify' however you like. But you can't force others to accept it when it's clearly delusional."
This is what critics of feminism have been arguing for the last century. Simply identifying as 'a victim of male oppression' does not automatically make it true. And labelling anyone who challenges that identity a 'misogynist' is no different to what is happening to TERFs today.
The identity of a 'victim of male oppression' was useful to the state to (1) subjugate men (2) replace men as women's primary source of support an resources (feminism essentially turned the state into a harem for women) and (3) convince women to abandon the role (both the privilege AND the responsibility) of mother/ homemaker and join men as a taxed labour force.
Feminists thought they were a powerful movement, but this was true ONLY insofar as their complaints and demands aligned with the social engineering agendas of the ruling elite who were funding feminism from the outset.
Those social engineering agendas started with the deconstruction of the family and problematising of gender... and now include the deconstruction of gender itself and the push towards a sterilised, genderless population of cyborgs.
To identify as 'trans' or to automatically affirm that identity in others (as Watson does) is only celebrated and encouraged by governments because it furthers the transhuman agenda. It's not because they actually care about children or want to help them - just as feminism was never about helping or caring for women.
TERF's who cling to a feminist identity are flogging a dead horse.. a horse which has already thrown them off and galloped off into the sunset.
There is no left/ right or men / women conflict. There never was. There is just ordinary men and women on one side and psychopathic control freaks on the other side. Critics of feminism (including MRAs) have been saying this forever.
Men and women are natural allies and complimentary forces of nature. Only by ending feminism's 'war of the sexes' can we hope to restore the basis of a functional civilised society, and have the strength and unity (and confidence) to tell the social engineers to stick their agendas up their backsides.
Seeing adult men and women fight FOR each other, instead of AGAINST each other will also heal a good portion of the gender distress and confusion that kids feel (that kids have internalised and express as dysphoria and self loathing). Feminist angst was always a kind of gender dysphoria, because it was rooted in a narrative about how awful it is to be a woman, and how terrible (but empowered) men are.
"BEcause somewhere, deep down, even on the left, homophobia is real "
One of the main reasons why homosexuality was discouraged and made taboos was that homosexual men provided no resources or protection to women. Every homosexual man was leaving some poor woman without a husband (two women potentially). This was considered a dereliction of duty, just as bachelors were (only more so).
In an age when even housework was full time manual labour women needed a husband to put food on the table. The stigma against men failing to take on that role was driven by women. It was similar to the white feather campaign against male pacifists.
Men are so chivalrous and so gynocentric that they will view homosexual men as an affront to women, and react as if they are witnessing a man beating up a woman. Not only do homosexual men deny some one a husband, they also inhabit the role of 'emotional beings' ('acted upon') - a role which is traditionally reserved for women. This is why effeminate gay men often trigger men in a negative way. They are defending women's monopoly on being the protected class of emotional 'acted upon' beings in society. Men's role is to be stoic, to bury their emotions, and not show vulnerability! (he for she). Effeminate gay men are appropriating female privilege by showing emotional vulnerability and provoking sympathy.
The stigma against lesbians is also driven by the fact that they do not contribute children, although it is a lot less harsh because men don't provoke as much sympathy. Also lesbian relationship are more likely to be fluid, often occurring when the husbands were away on business or sent off to war.
Interestingly, when the news started covering the issue of 'attacks on transwomen' (in the streets, outside clubs etc) about a decade or two ago, the feminists told us this was proof of misogyny. They said men who embody femininity attract male misogyny. The truth is the men beating up transexuals view them as men, not women. So it's not misogyny. Just as Emma Watson views trans identified sports players as women, not men, which is why she is not advocating for men's rights.
"But as to what constitutes the basic definition of a feminist, it's Caitlyn Moran's: "Do you have a vagina? Do you want to be in charge of it? Congratulations, then you're a feminist!"
OK fine, but that's just a feel good slogan which is used to recruit people to the cause. It implies that if you're NOT a feminist you obviously DON'T want control over your vagina (or don't want other women to have control of their vaginas).
In that sense, it is no different to saying "if you believe kids should have freedom of choice and be allowed to identify as themselves then you are pro trans".
These manipulative recruitment strategies are very tiresome.
Moran's definition of feminism does not cover patriarchy theory, the male gaze, child custody, DV, reproductive autonomy, women only short lists, the draft etc etc...
Also feminism popularised the term 'vagina' rather than 'birth canal'. Feminism detached the female reproductive system from ...er.... reproduction and redefined it more in terms of pleasure and hedonism. To define women by pregnancy and childbirth was demeaning, apparently.
If you want to make the point that colon/ penile tissue does not a vagina make, it might be a good idea to start referring to it as the birth canal. Also it might be good to celebrate men, masculinity, male genitals as wonderful things rather than an oppressive enemy which hurts women.
" I'm horrified that your lot is willing to ignore that"
I think we both know that progressives are pushing the current 'free for all' approach to gender, and that they have been for the last 60+ years. I am not part of any group other than the group called 'common sense' NON-ideologues. I have sympathy for all 'sides' (apart from bad actors). I just don't think making it political or gendered (men vs women) is helping anyone, except the social engineers who love to keep us all divided and at each other's throats :)
The greatest systemic rape occurs in male juvenile detention centres, mostly by female staff. Nobody has ever cared about that.
"Um, you want us all to become tradwives?"
I think feminists ARE tradwives. It's just that they've chosen to marry the state (men with guns) rather than husbands (men with jobs). Watson or Moran are both tradwives to the harem created for them by government and corporations. The feminist exodus from husbands to the state (from the 70s onwards) has pulled all women into this harem by default.
The harem does not generate any money and so it must tax ordinary men instead. This mean men are essentially forced to marry leftist/ feminist women that they will never meet and who they get nothing in return from (except endless abuse and books about how toxic they are). This means even tradwives must share their husbands (and their husbands pay packet) with feminist/ progressive women.
There are very few women who are prepared to support men financially, and the net flow of money (labour) is, and always will be, from men to women whether that is via taxation/ tax spending or traditional gender roles in a traditional marriage.
Feminism has not changed any of this. All it has done is empower the state as the middle man. So with very few exceptions, all women are still tradwives and all working men are still giving a significant proportion of their wages to women. Nothing has changed in the respect. All feminism has done is make these transactions non-consensual, resentful, un-appreciated and dysfunctional.
Either we revert back to a cooperative, consensual, non resentful relationship between men and women - kicking the state out of the equation altogether (three's a crowd).....
... or we continue down the path of 'progress' (progressivism) where everything is problematic and government intervention is the only solution (because men and women cannot get along on their own) and gender is the root cause of all problems. If we keep going down this path we will end up as genderless cyborgs, living in little cubicles, 'owning nothing and being happy' (as the WEF promise).
As awful as the prospect of forming an alliance with men might seem, the alternative is to become a rainbow obsessed fully vaxxed surgically enhanced 'global citizen' living in the 15 minute technocratic harem which is being constructed all around us.
This will be a short answer but know that I DID read your entire message, and I thank you for your comments. Definitely some interesting feminist theory there, and I certainly agree that we - men and women - do need each other and yes, we need to work together and not push each other away. Plenty of us are still willing to do that. Part of what I hope to do is to persuade men getting pushed toward the MRAs to reconsider, because not all feminists are whiny, eternally-victimized brats.
And speaking of MRAs, I was exaggerating a bit about Emma Watson, no, she's not strictly speaking an MRA advocate but she is, perhaps unconsciously fighting for men's rights. There's plenty of indication that there is some right-wing, incel, MRA influence in the trans movement, particularly with transactivists. Watson's willful blindness to trans-misogyny while parroting a misogynist and biologically incorrect line about sex is why I call her an MRA advocate.
But interestingly...
After reposting my article last week I got to wondering what's going on with her because we don't hear from her much anymore. And just as I'd scheduled it for publication, her name began trending again on X for the first time in awhile after JK Rowling said she would 'never forgive' Emma and Dan Radcliffe for speaking out against her. She had zero to say about it nor, it seems, about anything very feminist anymore. But she's engaging in other pursuits that make Grow Some Labia smile and hope she's going to come back to the feminist fold one day. It'll get published on Saturday. "Emma Watson, Emma Watson, Wherefore Art Thou, Emma Watson?"
The very reason why the trans activists are so outspoken and over represented is because they are men with men’s brains and no amount of drugs or surgery will change that. The reason you don’t hear about trans men is because they are women and typically not as aggressive and outspoken as men.
I really don’t understand why Emma Watson, Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint have all turned their backs on the person that made them famous. When the tide turns it will be fun to watch them trying to deny it all regain their credibility, well I for one will not forget and they can all go and suck on some girl dick that they seemingly love so much.
Yes, I've written about these issues in other articles, that you can change bodies and clothes but you can't change brains. I've noticed that even transfolk who 'pass' (of either sex), they generally out themselves sooner or later by the *way* they talk and think. I watched four very passable transmen on youTube last year talking about autogynephilia (I can't find it now, unfortunately) but they were very convincing as men until they began speaking and thinking in ways that made me go, "Now THAT'S the way women think." I see and hear this with TiMs too - sooner or later they talk, act or think like a guy. Maybe not even in offensive ways, but it's the way *guys* think. (I say this about both sexes unpejoratively).
I can tell you why the Harry Potter gang are being good little fembots: Career protection. They don't *dare* speak out if they see the misogyny happening. Although I don't think the male actors are overthinking it all that much.
What I *STILL* don't understand is why ANYONE is taking a bunch of clearly deranged, often-anonymous losers seriously on *anything* - whether it's trans stuff, CRT, feminism, 'colonialism', etc. When did the rest of the world turn so--pardon my misogynist French--so *pussy*?
That word 'deserve' in the first tweet is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Reminds me of Glinner's insight that Ts are a sacred caste: uniformly virtuous, and can do no wrong
donating to mermaids is 😬😳😱🤢
About twenty years ago or so Andrew Sullivan wrote a piece for the NYTimes Magazine about his experience of going on testosterone. It was illuminating, and it made me dislike him so thoroughly that I've never been able to read anything he's written since.
You should try him again. He's an authentic and astute observer I find.
No, thanks. I've dipped in occasionally since then, on the off-chance my view might have softened. It hasn't. Astute and authentic don't compensate for arrogant and under-edited. At least not in my book, not for him. Not yet, anyway.
This was an excellent read!
Violent, aggressive trans women are truly scary just like all violent, abusive men. Camille Paglia stated the obvious in her 1990 book Sexual Personae: aggressive, dangerous male behavior has its roots in testosterone and other predominantly male hormones. For years afterward, mainstream feminists denounced her for saying that sexuality and gender were physical realities, that hormones affect human behavior. Ironically, students at the university where she teaches recently tried to have her fired for her “harmful” ideas about art.
How we got to this point is mind boggling. Leftists want inclusivity, but, like many humans, feel the need to take things to extremes. If women were traditionally not believed when they were raped, then all women must be believed. If gay people were discriminated against for their sometimes unconventional gender expression, then all gender expressions must be enthusiastically affirmed to the point of allowing dangerous medical procedures for minors. This kind of black-and-white thinking, this constant swinging of the pendulum from one extreme to another, is harmful and prevents society from truly progressing to a more humane, cooperative state.
It seems like we just want to fight each other and that life without violent confrontations with imagined enemies is not worth living.
Not feeling great about the human species at the moment.
This is a truly original analysis of the problem of male aggression. I love how you show that the in-your-face pugnacity of activist extremism is no more attractive in a pretty wig and makeup than it is with a beard and wide beater shirt.
Keep on telling this story until people wake up.
Thanks for articulating a thought I've been incubating for a while: overcorrection. Lack of nuance.
I haven't even gotten into the hormonal aspects of what makes men and women different. And yes, we all *know* testosterone makes men aggressive and dominating (along with growing up entitled in a deeply sexist culture) so why do we have to remind feminists of this? This inability to recognize in-your-face misogyny illustrates how deeply psychologically vulnerable so many lefty women are to manipulation and gaslighting.
What's even scarier now is the 'drag shows' for children. Some on the left are actively defending this and decrying the anger and hostility from the right. But you know, no pedophilia to see here!!! Nothing pedo about parading around half- or nearly-naked in front of children. The left is being groomed to normalize and accept pedophilia.
This is what happens when you coddle and indulge children who aren't taught to think for themselves or engage critical thinking faculties. I could see the train wrecks in progress when a lot of these people were children, raised to value themselves and their 'self-esteem' above all else. They have way too much power now and like children, they don't know how to handle it. They're so certain they're right when they support a ditz bomb like Emma Watson and damn J.K. Rowling. At least the latter is so rich they CAN'T cancel her or hurt her sales :)