Category Archives: feminism

What I Learned From the 2017 Womyn’s March

Hundreds of thousands of #STRONG womyn and their obedient m*le allies marched in several major cities on Saturday to protest President Literally Hitler, wear some dumb pink hats, take selfies with their besties, carry signs emblazoned either with idiotic clichés or references to female genitalia, show off those yoga pants that are cute but not objectifying and otherwise collectively whinge about living under the bootheel of white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy. Or something. 

This is the overarching message I received from all of this posturing:

1. Though it was called a Womyn’s March, it was really about feminism. Since feminism is a political agenda almost exclusively aligned with the political Left, we’re going to call it a Womyn’s March because we want people to equate women with feminism in their minds.  Since women are virtuous, wonderful and oppressed and m*n are violent PYGS, we want to advertise to everyone that we are the ones who support womyn. Not like those sexist #ReTHUGliKKKans.  

2. Since feminism presents itself as a liberation ideology which is aligned with Women’s Suffrage and we believe perfectly analogous to the Civil Rights movement and the abolition of slavery, everything for which we currently advocate is Virtuous and Good by definition and proves that we are on the Right Side of #Hxstory. Feminism is the Correct Ideological Position to take if you actually care about the entire spectrum of beleaguered groups suffering under the oppression of the Trumpocalypse and white supremacy in general. Feminism stands for all races, cultures, sexual orientations and gender identities that aren’t white, European or Christian. Everyone who opposes us is a misogynist and a Nazi.  

3. Though we carry signs which virtue signal how “kind” and “loving” we are, what this is really about is ensuring the survival of the feminist (i.e. Democrat) legislative agenda and promoting the idea that the only people fit to govern are Democrats. Womyn are only truly empowered when the taxpayer subsidies are flowing towards our preferred institutions and causes. If it doesn’t, it’s fascism. Everyone who opposes even one piece of the agenda is a racist, sexist #BIGOT.  

4. Our advocacy for this legislative agenda proves that we are Good People® who are #WOKE.  If you make even one attempt to suggest otherwise, you’re a hateful, sexist #BIGOT and a white supremacist. 

5. In feminist media and academia, we will rail against biological gender dimorphism and gender signifiers like the color pink, but in the March, we’ll jettison all of that and wear pink pussy hats, wear lots of makeup, and carry signs proudly advertising female anatomy all while insisting that we are not determined by gender and expect to be taken seriously as individuals. After the March, we will resume calling opponents of gender construction theory transphobic #BIGOTS. 

6. We will happily don an American flag hijab to show our #SOLIDARITY with Muslims, but we will actively ignore the oppression of women in Islamic countries.  Besides, it makes us look like the Shepard Fairey painting and it looks super cute with Snapchat filters and we’ll get lots of likes on Instagram.  Most importantly, we’ll completely disregard Hillary Clinton’s ties to Saudi Arabia, her active support for the invasions of Libya and Iraq and the incalculable damage each caused, as well as Linda Sarsour’s open advocacy of Sharia Law in America.  #StayWoke, SYSTERS!

7. “Reproductive rights” means taxpayer subsidies for abortion and contraception. We’ll remind all of the #TROGLODYTES and #RePYGliKKKans that taxpayer funding doesn’t fund abortion cuz Hyde Amendment and shit and condescend to you for being an ill informed luddite who listens to Fake News. Any and all opposition to any taxpayer funding for either abortion or contraception means you are a hateful misogynist. It’s HEALTHCARE! WHY DO YOU HATE WOMYN?! And we’re talking to you, pro-life “feminists”. 

8. Disagreement with any aspect of our agenda is bigotry, hate and fascism. We’re Tolerant® people, after all.  

Consider that patriarchy SMASHED, feminists!

Independence Day: Resurgence

If you garnered any enjoyment from the first Independence Day or if you’re in the mood for a state of the art alien invasion film with some really enjoyable performances, you could do a lot worse than Resurgence.  The film succeeds because it gives you exactly what it promises: a band of heroes who join together to save human civilization from another extraterrestrial threat of extermination. Of course, the threat is twice as bad as before.  

The story picks up 20 years after the events of the first film and rejoins us with most of the original characters. Several young characters are added to the mix in order to fill the void left by the absence of Will Smith. All of the countries have banded together to rebuild civilization after being nearly vaporized by aliens the first time around. Thanks to harvested alien technology, the United States have built a global super state with a futuristic, alien-grade military defense apparatus that extends from the earth to the moon.  

This film has been described in various reviews as an appeal to nationalism and patriotism, but it’s more than that. It’s really War of the Worlds repurposed as a multicultural, globalist fantasy and a Keynesian wet dream. This film is yet another variation on the gleaming, futuristic, techno-utopia fantasy that can be achieved through abject servitude to the State and by building a culture of cradle to grave militarism. The previous alien invasion may have nearly wiped out civilization, but it provided the ultimate opportunity to enact the biggest economic stimulus ever! It’s quite literally Paul Krugman’s prescription for economic prosperity writ large.  


Familial bonds are largely non-existent for the younger characters, but when they are introduced, they exist mostly within the hierarchy of the State. Vivica Fox returns as Jasmine Hiller who is both mother of Jessie Usher’s Dylan Hiller and some kind of high ranking government official.  She lasts long enough to convey maternal pride in her top gun military progeny and die a tragic death amidst the alien devastation.
The technology is so advanced, that one can only imagine that the Platonist social engineers were finally given free reign to build a society of super soldiers whose only devotion is to the State. Naturally, it’s a multicultural paradise with total gender equality.  Every race and culture gets along harmoniously, the women are every bit as capable as the men in every pursuit, and when the chips are down, humanity joins hands to fend off extinction one more time. Even the African communist militants seem like really cool guys. 

But enough of all this analysis.  What about the UFOs and worldwide demolition? Independence Day made its mark by giving us massive alien ships with devastating weapons, and just as one would hope, Resurgence doubles down on the massiveness.  The film wants to overwhelm you with its scale, and it more than delivers. The alien mothership is so big, it plants itself on the surface of the earth like a giant hubcap.  

When it comes to defeating the aliens, the film settles for yet another variation on what has become a completely shopworn cliché: destroy the leader and the minions lose their agency.  Sadly, the human alliance doesn’t differ from the aliens in this respect.  All of the forces rally and are emboldened to fight upon hearing President Whitmore’s grizzled but rousing call to arms.  

Though I doubt it was the filmmakers’ intention, I propose that this film was also a stealth commentary on modern feminism. Everyone will undoubtedly find it so empowering and progressive that Sela Ward plays the current president and gives the command to initiate the attack on the alien vessel, but that’s a side show. The alien civilization is essentially a matriarchy that resembles a highly advanced insect colony with a queen who controls and directs the worker soldiers. Once the queen is killed, all the subordinate aliens lose their will to fight. If an advanced civilization capable of enormous and highly coordinated feats of starship construction, weapons systems development, and intergalactic invasion and occupation is ruled by a woman and all of the subordinate workers are so emasculated that they’re forced to dedicate the entirety of their existence to a never-ending pursuit of intergalactic conquest, that doesn’t speak too highly of life under matriarchy.  

Ultimately, the film is supremely entertaining. It knows that its first job is to be a rousing blockbuster alien invasion movie and it succeeds wildly at this task. But every major Hollywood film exists to transmit progressive editorial of one form or another, and Independence Day: Resurgence is certainly no exception. 

Le Tigre and Feminism’s Cult of Government Worship



In case you still harbored the delusion that feminism was some kind of edgy, contrarian ideology, the original purveyors of 90’s Riot Grrrl feminist electroclash, Le Tigre, have returned from the dead to destroy all doubt. In this sad attempt at cultural relevance, these would-be “rebels” become full throated propagandists for corporatist, neocon-approved Hillary Clinton. 

That’s right. Apparently, cheerleading for the woman who has voted for wars which have killed tens of thousands, taken money from Islamic regimes, and actively undermined her husband’s rape accusers is super feminist and like totally empowering. She’s a Democrat, she has a vagina, and she’ll be the first womyn in the Oval Office, so set aside all those petty right-wing conspiracy theories, PYGS!

If you can even make it past the knife-to-the-skull intro, the song is nothing more than a moronic and childish pander-fest. Filled to the brim with idiotic clichés, feminist straw men, obligatory talking points, and canned Trump hate, the song achieves new heights in cringe.  

Apparently, neither Le Tigre or Pitchfork are all that interested in feedback on this song because the voting buttons and comments have been disabled.  

Way to stand behind those feminist convictions, SYSTERS.  

Laurie Penny Goes Full Retard Over Brexit

Not that it’s a particularly new phenomenon or is somehow different from any occasion in which she opens her mouth to speak, Laurie Penny goes full retard in her latest New Statesman piece over the Brexit vote. 
As expected, it’s another annoyingly predictable slab of collectivist guilt tripping and preachy recriminations leveled at the allegedly racist, xenophobic, “neofascist” Neanderthal Right who are hopelessly stuck in the past and just won’t atone for Britain’s colonial repressions by accepting the arbitrary rule of globalist technocrats in Brussels.

Mx. Penny seems to believe that you can legislate kindness and decency, but Britain’s exit from the goatfuck known as the EU will not prevent a single individual from cultivating those virtues or advocating for them in the social sphere.  Mx. Penny also seems to be asserting that moral virtue is tied to the ballot box and this is simply not the case. Trade, tariff and immigration policy are in no way shape or form tied to how individuals behave towards one another. She bemoans the Right’s supposed absence of Tolerance© while failing to recognize that the Western world, including Great Britain, has been blazing trails by ensuring rights for LGBT communities and bending over backwards to make accommodations for Muslim minorities and refugees. One can certainly advocate for tolerance towards different sexual preferences, lifestyles or religious beliefs, but people are going to formulate judgments regardless of which laws are passed. Calling conservatives bigots achieves little other than to confirm the smug elitism of her readership. It’s patently obvious that her reproach is solely directed at her conservative, white countrymen, but I’m willing to wager she wouldn’t dare lecture Muslims about their attitudes towards gays or utter a peep of skepticism towards the advent of Sharia courts in the UK.


Her invocations of Britain’s imperial past seem little more than a dumb and pathetic attempt to instill guilt and shame.  Britain ceased to be any kind of imperial power after WW2. She whinges away over the diminished prospects for the young people she insists have been deprived of opportunity as a result of this vote. This is the country and the descendants of the people who rebuilt London and Britain after being reduced to ashes after the Blitz, and this petty, elitist pillock has the gall to whine about colonialism and dashed hopes of the “millions” of downtrodden millennials who’ve never even faced a fraction of the hardships of their forebears. She presently enjoys the freedom for which her ancestors bled and died.  She’s part of one of the oldest and proudest civilizations in the history of the world, but all she focuses on are Britain’s conquests while simultaneously ignoring the actual achievements of the British. According to Laurie Penny, you should disregard the contributions of Sir Isaac Newton, Samuel Johnson, Augustus Pugin, Alan Turing, Jethro Tull, Jane Austen, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, John Locke, Francis Bacon, Charles Darwin, William Shakespeare, Michael Faraday, CS Lewis, Francis Fowke, Margaret Thatcher, Henry Fox Talbot, Geoffrey Chaucer, John Stuart Mill, Mary Shelley, JRR Tolkien, Sir Walter Scott, Jimmy Page or John Lennon, and focus solely on all of the colonial repressions and things Brits appropriated from other cultures during its years of imperial expansion. Just feel guilty and hang your head in shame, you stupid degenerates. Someone with white skin and a British accent did something bad in the past and you should feel bad about it. Penny is either unaware or unwilling to acknowledge that there isn’t a single advanced culture in the world that hasn’t cracked a few skulls in order to establish some semblance of order. And in the case of Muhammad (PBUH), tens of millions of skulls cracked and enslaved over the course of many centuries.  But never mind all that.  Focus on the bad, imperialist British white man.
The West has been reasonably successful in having a pluralistic society with a multiplicity of opinions and beliefs.  It’s imperfect, but who would expect it to be anything other than imperfect? 

How many multicultural paradises are there in the Islamic world?  Perhaps Mx. Penny would prefer it there over the jackbooted oppression of Great Britain. 

All of her ridiculous and hyperbolic invocations of the rise of a fascist British state are just laughable. If anything, the idea of a globalist super state trying to manage a disparate collection of countries with different cultural traditions is an ill conceived idea from the start and one that is likely to destroy any vestiges of national identity and uniqueness. She claims to want the country of JK Rowling and David Bowie, but the successes of these artists was only possible within the context of free market capitalism; a system she openly wishes to dismantle and would be increasingly constrained within the UK by Eurocrats. She wants a world of increased “kindness”, but spends an entire article branding the Leave contingent the racist, xenophobic, “frightened, parochial lizard-brain” of Britain. The country she apparently wants back is a monolith of uniform political opinion which is ultimately subordinate to socialists and globalist technocrats. It’s a country of Us versus Them, and Them is anyone who opposes the Leftist globalist agenda. It’s sounds every bit like the thinking and demagoguery of a totalitarian.

Her insistence that Britain submit to an Orwellian, globalist One World Democracy super state centered in an entirely different country over shifting more democratic control back to Westminster seems counterintuitive if what she really wants is “her country back”. Maybe the neofascist you’re looking for is the one in the mirror, Laurie.

Woman and the New Race

image

The majority of the ideas one encounters in modern feminism can be traced back to two movements: suffrage and birth control. While suffragists agitated for political equality in order to redress various social and civic inequalities both real and imagined, the birth control movement sought liberation by controlling the one aspect of female biology intrinsic to the continuity of the human race itself.  By Margaret Sanger’s reasoning, womanhood could not be truly emancipated unless reproduction itself could be controlled.

While the woman suffrage movement had many notable proponents, the birth control movement’s preeminent intellectual was Margaret Sanger.  Sanger remains the acknowledged founder of Planned Parenthood, but her name and ideas are scarcely discussed nowadays even by those who ardently defend contraception and abortion in the public sphere.  After reading Woman and the New Race, it’s little surprise that this is the case.  Sanger may be superficially lauded as the Great Emancipator of Womyn for helping bring the first birth control pill to the market, but the beliefs she openly espoused in her writings reveal some views which I suspect would make many reasonable people recoil in horror. Especially sanctimonious PC social justice warriors. Sanger’s views were alternately vile, cynical, misanthropic, deeply delusional and, given her focus on poor and working classes, virulently racist.  It’s ironic given feminism’s smug posture of moral superiority, irritating virtue signalling and accusations of racism that are hurled almost by default by feminists and social justice warriors alike.

Woman and the New Race is both Sanger’s birth control manifesto as well as a foundational text for a great deal of the contemporary feminist worldview. Like the writings of her collectivist progenitors, it is rife with fallacious notions, utopian delusions, dubious assumptions, and fascistic overtones. However, this isn’t to say that the book is completely devoid of sound reasoning. There are a few solid points here and there as well as some genuinely surprising sentiments to be found amidst this slag heap of mad hattery. 

Sanger’s socialist sympathies were well known, and this book follows a pattern of reasoning common to socialists.  Rather than viewing humanity as individuals with individual agency, she sees humanity through a Marxist lens of class and gender oppression.

Whether she won her point or failed to win it, she remained a dominated weakling in a society controlled by men.

Sanger’s opening argument is little more than question begging. This is not to deny actual acts of repression or subjugation by individuals, but by the time of this book’s publication, women had attained full suffrage, property rights, access to education and labor markets and had made great strides towards equality of treatment under the law.  If men were as intent on controlling society as she alleges, would women have been granted any of these rights or opportunities in the first place? There’s also no acknowledgement of feminine “soft power”. In other words, there’s no acknowledgement of the fact that through both biological and evolutionary psychological imperatives, manhood has been motivated and energized by protecting and providing for women, and by extension, ensuring the continuity of the human race itself. In statements like these, one also detects the unmistakable hints of the possible origins of contemporary feminist victimology, messianic megalomania and theories of patriarchal oppression.

It makes no difference that she does not formulate industrial systems nor that she is an instinctive believer in social justice. In her submission lies her error and her guilt. By her failure to withhold the multitudes of children who have made inevitable the most flagrant of our social evils, she incurred a debt to society. Regardless of her own wrongs, regardless of her lack of opportunity and regardless of all other considerations, she must pay that debt.

Like all other socialists, Sanger is a would-be moralist and a socio-biological engineer who wears a fig leaf of secular rationalism in order to justify her misanthropic authoritarian designs to “remake the world”.  Also like every other demagogue, authoritarian, and cult leader, Sanger deploys her own theory of Original Sin right at the beginning. Sanger’s argument is essentially that all of the moral blights of humanity can be traced to womanhood’s subjection and subordination to a role of excessive and involuntary reproduction.  She immediately removes individual agency by generalizing and collectivizing all moral transgression. Sanger views the world through a lens of determinism and sees the solution purely through the management of biology.  To Sanger, the entire spectrum of human suffering, depravity and degradation from prostitution to poverty to war itself can be attributed to this phenomenon alone.

Caught in this “vicious circle,” woman has, through her reproductive ability, founded and perpetuated the tyrannies of the Earth. Whether it was the tyranny of a monarchy, an oligarchy or a republic, the one indispensable factor of its existence was, as it is now, hordes of human beings—human beings so plentiful as to be cheap, and so cheap that ignorance was their natural lot. Upon the rock of an unenlightened, submissive maternity have these been founded; upon the product of such a maternity have they flourished.

This is her core argument for birth control, and the remainder of the book is comprised mostly of exposition over this single fallacious argument. 

Sanger’s misanthropy and insanity really starts to pin the meter in Chapter 5, The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.  On its face, it’s a wildly perverse and hateful notion. Given the fact that Sanger dedicates the book to her own mother who gave birth to eleven children, it’s more than reasonable to surmise that Sanger is dealing with unresolved psychological issues and is engaging in some projection.  Obviously, there are women who give birth under duress and coercion under deeply inhospitable, unsanitary and inhumane circumstances the world over, but Sanger is presenting a pretty broad generalization about motherhood and child birth which flies in opposition to any basic notion of individual female agency.  Modern feminists constantly flog the primacy of individual choice when it comes to terminating pregnancy, but this bit of moralizing against any notion of choice regarding the creation of a large family seems pretty hypocritical.

The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children. These statements may startle those who have never made a thorough investigation of the problem. They are, nevertheless, well considered, and the truth of them is abundantly borne out by an examination of facts and conditions which are part of everyday experience or observation.

She persists in her absurd insistence that there is a direct connection between the propagation of large families and the prevalence of child labor, poverty, and war. Not only does she fail to substantiate the claim, she’s baked some questionable assumptions into the phenomena she deems to be moral transgression. 

War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap. They will cease only when she limits her reproductivity and human life is no longer a thing to be wasted.

Child labor has been canonized in history books as an inhuman relic of a bygone era, but mainstream discussion is devoid of any mention of how the movement to criminalize child labor was part of a larger effort to privilege unions. While there was undoubtedly truth to the worst horror stories of children working in dirty and dangerous conditions, these stories fail to take into account that, for many families, there were few, if any, alternatives. The undeniable trend in market economies the world over is that capitalism has been an engine of upward economic mobility and prosperity. Dangerous, dirty factories have given way to labor saving machines and mass innovations in automation and robotics. Given present levels of youth unemployment and the dearth of skilled labor in the current market, one could argue that this ingrained belief in the harm of child labor has contributed to an overall degradation of the principle of work as a virtuous activity

Sanger deploys the classic false antagonism between capitalist labor saving innovation and the demand for manual labor amongst the working classes, and predictably presents it as yet another zero sum game. To her credit, she attempts to groud her support of labor unions in an actual economic argument. She correctly posits that if the supply of labor is lower than the demand, employers will pay a premium in wages and benefits in accordance. Therefore, she argues that the only way to reconcile the cycle of antagonism between capital and labor is permanently lower the supply of working class labor through birth control. Naturally, Sanger completely ignores the opportunity that technological innovation presents for the acquisition of new skills for laborers as well as for enhanced productivity. Individual initiative, upward economic mobility through education, apprenticeships, and entrepreneurship play no role in Sanger’s grim, fatalistic calculus. For Sanger, the working class are just hapless dullards doomed to vie for scraps of a fixed pie of economic prosperity whose prospects are only improved by thinning the herd.  Nothing elitist or cynical about that at all.

It will be the drama of labor until labor finds its real enemy. That enemy is the reproductive ability of the working class which gluts the channels of progress with the helpless and weak, and stimulates the tyrants of the world in their oppression of mankind.

Sanger’s demonization of prostitution is yet another example of outrageous feminist hypocrisy, would-be moralism and puritanism which carries on to this day. Apparently, “my body, my choice” only applies to women seeking access to abortion clinics.  And it especially doesn’t apply if celebrity feminists disapprove. There are undoubtedly arguments to be made around the forces that contribute to anyone’s decision to pursue prostitution as an occupation, but Sanger’s denial of individual agency and self-ownership is deeply revealing. 

By far, her most asinine claim is that excessive child bearing is the cause of war.  While the nation-state certainly needs the malleable minds and youthful vigor of its population in order to power its war machine, she’s giving the politicians an inexplicable pass on the one moral question that truly deserves a more robust rebuke than the manipulative sophistry with which she presents us. It’s especially mind boggling that she would attribute warmongering to excessive breeding given the fact that her analysis of the deceptive machinations of the political class is surprisingly accurate.

Diplomats make it their business to conceal the facts, and politicians violently denounce the politicians of other countries. There is a long beating of tom-toms by the press and all other agencies for influencing public opinion. Facts are distorted and lies invented until the common people cannot get at the truth. Yet, when the war is over, if not before, we always find that “a place in the sun,” “a path to the sea,” “a route to India” or something of the sort is at the bottom of the trouble. These are merely other names for expansion.

Even sexologist Havelock Ellis’ preface parrots this moronic, elitist nonsense. Ellis and Sanger apparently share the belief that the decisions made by those who wield actual power don’t really count.  One wonders if he counts himself among the “the ignorant, emotional, volatile, superstitious masses,” or if he’s flattering the pretensions of intellectual superiority of his progressive audience. 

These facts have long been known to the few who view the world realistically. But it is not the few who rule the world. It is the masses—the ignorant, emotional, volatile, superstitious masses—who rule the world. It is they who choose the few supreme persons who manage or mismanage the world’s affairs.

Sanger attempts to bolster her case with what amounts to an extended appeal to emotion through a collection of anecdotes. She piles on one tale after another of crushing, Dickensian poverty and woe.  Using correspondence from what we assume are authentic letters from women living lives of abject desperation and are afflicted with physical ailments ranging from tuberculosis to typhus, Sanger plunges the reader into a pit of misery.  While it’s fair to concede that the stories were true, it’s equally fair to regard these stories with some measure of skepticism, too. If Sanger were truly an empiricist, she would have to perform a longitudinal study tracing economic outcomes for every child born into what she considers a large family to prove the causal link she asserted.

Conversely, she indulges another common fallacy that pervades contemporary intersectional feminist theory to this day. Sanger automatically accords legitimacy to the mother of financial means as one who is able to raise children properly and instill virtuous values.  Modern feminists reflexively view race and economic status as evidence of “privilege,” but Sanger views the mothers in good economic standing as good mothers by definition.  The possibility of a wealthy mother who is, in fact, a bad mother is never mentioned nor is the possibility that a mother of a large family is a good mother. Wealthy mothers are just as capable of abuse and neglect just as anyone else just as a mother of a large family of modest means is capable of providing love and guidance to her children.

Even when Sanger attempts to illustrate the medical reasons excessive child bearing is unhealthy, she punts her entire argument with what amounts to a handwave.  Nowadays, we can use the internet to look things up, but Sanger would have bolstered her case with some actual citations as she does in other sections. 

The opinions which I summarize here are not so much my own, originally, as those of medical authorities who have made deep and careful investigations. There is, however, nothing set forth here which I have not in my own studies tested and proved correct.

Sanger devotes a great deal of attention to the plight of immigrants and views their economic status and squalid lives as an intractable reality which leads directly to lives of moral degeneracy.  If Sanger were to utter these sentiments today, one presumes she would be as reviled as Donald Trump is today.  Sanger certainly raises valid questions around how well equipped immigrants were to compete in a market economy that was undergoing rapid industrialization and technological advancement, and they’re questions that are even more relevant now given the rising numbers of Muslim immigrants in Europe and the US.  Unless the government were to initiate a compulsory mass sterilization program as Sanger has proposed in other writings, contraception would not address the skill and education gap amongst of the immigrant population that was already alive.

Over one-fourth of all the immigrants over fourteen years of age, admitted during the two decades preceding 1910, were illiterate. Of the 8,398,000 who arrived in the 1900-1910 period, 2,238,000 could not read or write. There were 1,600,000 illiterate foreigners in the United States when the 1910 census was taken. Do these elements give promise of a better race? Are we doing anything genuinely constructive to overcome this situation?

Woman and the New Race reveals what is perhaps at the root of modern feminism’s pretentious aura of mysticism, mantle of unearned moral superiority and quasi-religious overtones. Throughout the book, Sanger makes appeals to the liberation of the “feminine spirit”.  She insists that this spirit is both unique to the female, and is also uniquely benevolent when liberated. For Sanger, this “liberation” means abstention from procreation, and It is a premise that is both unfalsifiable and vaguely supremacist.  If anything, this belief has been inculcated into subsequent generations of feminists and has metastasized into an overt hostility to motherhood. 

It is this: woman’s desire for freedom is born of the feminine spirit, which is the absolute, elemental, inner urge of womanhood. It is the strongest force in her nature; it cannot be destroyed; it can merely be diverted from its natural expression into violent and destructive channels.

One of the more delicious ironies of Woman and the New Race is how Margaret Sanger’s attempt to remove the fear of childbirth from sex and liberate women’s ability to enjoy sex more completely through the usage of contraception has become completely undermined by the fear mongering wrought by the modern feminist myth of a “rape culture”.  Sanger was a clear and vocal proponent of enjoying sex without the consequence of giving birth to a child, and yet, her “free love” advocacy has been completely upended by modern feminism’s pursuit of so-called “affirmative consent”.  If anything, feminists have seemingly turned back the clock on sexual liberation and are solidly intent on instilling a culture of fear through a state enforced neo-Victorianism.   Nowadays, you’re more likely to find Sanger’s brand of sex positivity coming from a porn star than a feminist. 

Perhaps the most interesting of ironies in the book is Sanger’s open opposition to abortion. Most people likely equate Planned Parenthood with abortion, but Sanger herself wasn’t terribly supportive of the procedure itself as a form of birth control.

While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.

Woman and the New Race is a book that’s both of its time, yet completely contemporary in that so much of what she sought has been achieved and the ideas she promoted are so deeply embedded in feminist thought. Roe v. Wade is an article of faith for feminists everywhere, and anyone who opposes it is automatically branded an enemy of womynhood. Birth control of every kind is readily accessible, but if an employer dares to oppose compulsory payment on religious grounds, the feminist hysteria machine will go into overdrive because women are apparently too incompetent to purchase their own contraception without government subsidies or mandates. The feminist industrial birth control/media/academic complex are so deeply invested in propagating the notion that access to birth control educational materials, contraception and abortion clinics are a mere federal motion away from being outlawed out of existence. Feminists and Planned Parenthood activists seem unwilling to acknowledge how much ground they’ve gained and like Sanger herself, portray themselves as an embattled special interest under perpetual assault by forces that are so much more powerful.

The saddest legacy of Sanger and Woman and the New Race is that Sanger’s Marxist sophistry, nihilism, racism and postmodern, relativist moralism has become its own contemporary article of faith. Intersectional feminism has become its own perverse cult with pretensions of a secular morality which reflect the very rottenness and moral void at the center of Sanger’s wretched and detestable worldview.  The fact that we now live in a world where you demonstrate your commitment to “women’s rights” is by proclaiming your political allegiance to the politicians who promise access to abortion services is the very expression of the “morbidity” against which Sanger inveighed in her time. 

Margaret Sanger can be given a modicum of credit for challenging the strictures and prohibitions of her time by promoting birth control, and subsequently, a woman who enjoys greater liberty to procreate or not.  But the bulk of her philosophy must be recognized for what it was: a vile, hateful, supremacist, and cynical view of the world which negates individual responsibility and promotes a sense of victimhood. 

Woman and the Republic

image

The attainment of women’s suffrage which accompanied the passage of the 19th Amendment is generally regarded as synonymous with Human Progress. Like the abolition of slavery or the passage of ’64 Civil Rights Act, I’m doubtful you’ll find many people who’ll see women’s suffrage as anything other than a badly needed step of evolutionary human progress to redress a boorish and retrograde inequity. Nor are you likely to find a history book or media depiction of the suffrage movement as being anything less than heroic and principled.  It’s difficult to even fathom the idea that there was anyone who was opposed to women’s suffrage, let alone a woman. Surely, anyone who would argue such a position is beneath contempt and unworthy of mention in the annals of history. 

As it turns out, Helen Kendrick Johnson was that woman and that’s precisely what makes her anti-suffrage treatise, Woman and the Republic, such a fascinating read. Published in 1897, Woman and the Republic is roughly analogous to Thomas Sowell’s 1984 book, Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality, in the sense that she examines the arguments and claims of suffragists and scrutinizes their claims against the historical data and the daily reality of life in late 19th century America.  At the time of its publication, the suffrage movement was fifty years old and suffragists had a very specific agenda and a set of grievances that were spelled out in the Suffrage Declaration of Sentiments and the History of Woman Suffrage among others. Johnson proceeds to demolish these arguments one by one in a very elegant and systematic fashion. You could say she was both a proto-Christina Hoff Sommers and Phyllis Schlafly. Not all of Johnson’s arguments stand up to scrutiny, but when one measures her arguments against the claims of contemporary feminists and progressives, one can certainly assert that she was correct about more than most would be willing to concede. 

The single most astonishing revelation of Woman and the Republic is that the grievances of the suffragists are exactly identical to the grievances of contemporary feminists.  This book is 119 years old, and Johnson could easily be teleported into the 21st century and would find herself exasperated that feminists are still griping about the same things as their 19th century forebears. 

The clearest example of this is Johnson’s elegant yet brutal takedown of the 19th century wage gap.  Yes, indeed.  Just like feminists of the 21st century, suffragists of the 19th century were in fact whinging about the wage gap back in 1897 and Johnson disposes of these claims like a boss.  While rational people who value empiricism over manipulative, demagogic claims have been trying to stamp out the wage gap myth for decades, Helen Kendrick Johnson was the clearly the mythbusting OG. Though largely arguing from biological determinism but always grounded in sound economics, Johnson supplies a trove of data indicating that women are properly compensated according to skill, suffer no unequal access to the labor market and that wage discrimination is largely influenced by the fact that women often leave the labor force to have children. Johnson rightfully points out the glaring absence of outrage around female representation in physically strenuous and technically challenging fields and the deafening silence from suffragists that’s exactly analogous to contemporary feminists. 

The Suffragists did not decry man’s “monopoly” of the honorable and profitable but severe professions of civil engineering, seamanship, mining engineering, lighthouse keeping and inspecting, signal service, military and naval duty, and the like. These, and the drudgery of the world’s business and commerce, man was welcome to keep.

Nowadays, feminists blame “socialization” for disparities in representation and have gamed the political system in order to feed at the taxpayer trough. Johnson was attuned to this phenomenon as well.

The influence of women upon politics, and the influence of politics upon women, have already been degrading. This is true of political intrigue in the old world, and of the “Female Lobby” in Washington. It is astonishing to what an extent it is true in our new country, with our fresh and sweet traditions.

Johnson challenges the mantle of victimhood that was a feature of suffrage, and is the hallmark of contemporary feminism. Modern feminism hinges on a theory of an all-encompassing system of male patriarchal oppression, and Johnson’s criticism feels way ahead of its time.

While the counts contain concrete statements, the closing clause—”the law in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands”—sets forth an abstract idea in justification of which they furnish no proof.

Even worse, the divisive, supremacist beliefs that are commonplace among feminists were also espoused by suffragists. The following quote from Utah State Senator and champion of suffrage, Martha Cannon, as well as numerous other examples gathered by Johnson demonstrate that these sentiments were not isolated phenomena.

Of course I am. It will help women, and it will purify politics. Women are better than men. Slaves are always better than their masters.

In another striking parallel between the 21st century feminist grievance machine and the 19th century suffragists, Johnson illustrates how access to higher education was politicized. Johnson persuasively argues that the market was already providing expanded opportunity for women, and that this was neither hastened by granting suffrage nor a matter that required enfranchisement. While the world rightfully cheers Malala Yousafzai’s heroic efforts to bring female education into the Islamic world, women of the West suffer no lack of access to higher education. If anything, the vote has only enshrined a culture of entitlement and a toxic alliance between government power, illiberal feminist activism and the entire apparatus of higher education.

The central pillar of opposition to which Johnson devotes much of the book is her contention that woman suffrage is too closely aligned with socialism and collectivist anarchism. 

Johnson devotes a significant portion of the first half of the book to failed attempts at woman enfranchisement throughout the Union.  Using a combination of hard rationalism, a dizzying deluge of voting data and razor sharp rhetoric, Johnson piles layer upon layer of scorn on the various proponents of suffrage who espoused an affinity for socialism, fiat currency, disdain for family, sexual profligacy, and disregard for Constitutional principles.  It’s easy to dismiss Johnson as narrow minded, uptight prig whose views belong in the dustbin of history, but even if you view prostitution, pornography, sexual liberation and non-traditional family arrangements favorably, it’s impossible to deny the ongoing advancement of everything else she warned against. 

Johnson insists that if women are going to agitate for suffrage, they must also share in the responsibility that accompanies the maintenance of the nation state.  In other words, be prepared to back up the law with force.  She sees no diminution of woman’s sphere of social or civic influence by honoring the traditional biological division of labor that has defined most societies through the centuries.  If anything, she argues that this traditional separation has privileged womanhood and allowed her to exert an even greater sphere of influence in the realm of private relations and family.

To give women a position of apparent power, without its reality, would be to make our Government forever unstable.

The one point where Johnson’s argument feels the most prescient is her concern that suffrage would lead to military conscription for women.  On this point, Johnson was not only Phyllis Schlafly’s philosophical progenitor, but she unwittingly exposes the rank hypocrisy of feminists.  As politicians and military leaders advance legislation that would mandate Selective Service registration for women, the silence from feminist media and blogosphere is deafening. Despite the often desperate and pathetic attempts to brainwash the public to believe otherwise, contemporary intersectional feminism has nothing to do with “equality.”  No matter how often feminists say they want to “smash the patriarchy,” it’s patently obvious that feminists are thoroughly uninterested in smashing this particular expression of “patriarchy.” If anything, the abiding lesson of Johnson’s message is that if you start treating voting as a universal “right” or use the voting booth to agitate for positive rights over the preservation of negative rights, don’t be surprised when the politicians decide to trample your liberty in order to expand their own power.  Most of all, don’t mindlessly regurgitate talking points about “equality” when there is state enforced gender discrimination which places the burden of military conscription squarely on the shoulders of men. 

Women can be seriously destructive; but no one will claim that organized military duty is really practicable for them. And the suffrage proposition does not look to anything of the kind. The Suffragists demand equal vote in sending their fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, and lovers to the military field of action, and propose to be absolutely exempt from equal share in the duty that that vote now lays upon male voters. Before the law there could be no distinction of duty on account of race, sex, or previous condition of servitude. The “emancipated” woman would be emancipated into that which the Declaration of Independence expressly called for, “the right and privilege of the people to bear arms.”

Johnson righteously attacks the dubious equivalence between the suffrage and the abolitionist movements. She devotes an entire chapter to the delta between the rhetoric of suffragists and abolitionists. It’s yet another remarkable example of a phenomenon that lives on in feminist and social justice circles alike, and serves as a potent reminder that the feminist script remains largely unchanged. To this day, feminists use the legacy of slavery to inculcate shame and guilt and claim an unearned mantle of moral authority by drawing a non-existent equivalence between the abolitionists of the 19th century and 21st century intersectionality.  Johnson opens the chapter by lauding the abolition of slavery as a triumph of human freedom, but credits the achievement to “enlightened rulers” in the federal government. She attributes the abolition of slavery to the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, but devotes no real attention to the moral argument against slavery itself.  Johnson’s views could be described in contemporary terms as paleoconservative. She consistently appeals to tradition by arguing that the United States federal government was conceived to be confined to limits prescribed by the Constitution for the express purpose of preserving liberty. From her vantage point, suffrage was granted to those who had property rights for the express purpose of upholding the sanctity of property rights as a general principle. The fact that this limited suffrage was the province of men was not only proper and just, but necessary for the preservation of liberty. Under universal suffrage, there’s an inequality of self-interest with respect to the preservation of property rights and a danger that the law could then be perverted to serve as an apparatus of plunder as it is presently. She castigates the champions of woman suffrage who used the abolition movement as a moral fig leaf, but otherwise, denigrated the institution of marriage, favored communism over property ownership, or otherwise held no principles or stake in the institutions which conferred the liberty they enjoyed even without suffrage rights.

The pauper was excluded from the ballot as not being worthy to share with freemen the honor of its defence. The unfortunate was excluded by an inscrutable decree of Providence. The criminal was excluded as being dangerous to society. The women were exempt from the ballot because it was for their special safety that a free ballot was to be exercised, from which the pauper and the criminal must be excluded. They were the ones who have given to social life its meaning and its moral, the ones who give to civic life its highest value.

Tackling yet another shopworn cliché that was commonplace among suffragists and is just as alive in progressive and feminist circles, Johnson addresses the suffragists’ contention that the Christian Church not only maintains the subjection and subordination of women, but actively cultivates bigotry, intolerance, and arbitrary authoritarianism. Johnson rightfully challenges the claim that Christian Church’s alleged encouragement of a subordinate role for women will be alleviated somehow through suffrage. If anything, it’s feminism that treats women as a class of people under perpetual assault and in need of constant special attention.  If any ideology is promoting the powerlessness of women, it’s feminism.

By far, the most burning question with which Woman and The Republic leaves the reader is what has been the true consequence of woman suffrage?  Has it wrought greater liberty and a reign of justice or a cult of obedience to the Church of Democracy and never-ending list of rights to be bestowed?  Has suffrage conferred a deeper appreciation of the principles of liberty or transferred all moral authority to the State?  Helen Kendrick Johnson argued that none of the perceived or actual inequalities in civic life for which suffragists sought redress would be solved with the ballot. After a more than a century of enfranchisement and little to no change in the feminist script, one certainly wonders if, in fact, she was completely correct.

Cure by ballot has been the one and only remedy suggested by Suffrage conventions for all the ills, real or imaginary, that are endured by women.

If nothing else, this book underscores the challenge of upholding liberty.  Those who agitate for an expansion of state power are always able to secure support from those want to expand the influence of the state. In Johnson’s time, there was arguably greater sympathy for removing the sphere of influence of the state in public affairs, yet suffragists sought to politicize everything.  Based on what you hear from your average intersectional feminist, Johnson’s warnings seem prescient.

As time goes on, this spirit becomes more injurious, because progress is carrying philanthropy into higher fields of moral action, and in so doing is carrying it away from and above the plane where rests the ballot-box. While Suffrage effort is directed toward keeping all issues in the political arena, the trend of legislation is to take them out of politics.

Helen Kendrick Johnson was not a gender egalitarian.  She favored economic liberty, property rights, educational access and equality before the law for men and women alike, but she was unequivocally what feminists would disparagingly call a gender essentialist. She held no objection to women pursuing higher education or employment in the private sector, but absolutely saw an essential role for women in motherhood and building a stable home life. She could be accused of being overly deferential towards men and insufficiently skeptical of state power, but she fundamentally saw virtue in manhood. She argued that the preservation of liberty and peace is best secured by attending to the most essential building block of human civilization: the family.  And in this role, she argued that women had a unique and critical role to play that was, in fact, largely biological.  She believed that the sexes were, in fact, different and each gender is edified by recognizing and celebrating this difference as opposed to repeating dogmatic mantras of Equality

My main objection to the Woman-Suffrage organization is this, that a wrong mode is employed to gain a right object. The right object sought is, to remedy the wrongs and relieve the sufferings of great multitudes of our sex; the wrong mode is that which aims to enforce by law, instead of by love. It is one which assumes that man is the author and abettor of all these wrongs, and that he must be restrained and regulated by constitutions and laws, as the chief and most trustworthy methods. I hold that the fault is as much, or more, with women than with men, inasmuch as we have all the power we need to remedy the wrongs complained of, and yet we do not use it for that end. It is my deep conviction that all reasonable and conscientious men of our age, and especially of our country, are not only willing but anxious to provide for the good of our sex.

When contrasted against the prevailing orthodoxy of intersectional feminism, gender neutrality and biological denialism, Woman and the Republic feels weirdly transgressive and revolutionary.  Even if Johnson was a bit of a hidebound biological determinist, her robust defense of liberty, property rights, market economics, and Constitutional principles has only accumulated strength in the years since its publication. Underneath it all, Helen Kendrick Johnson was putting forth a deeply radical notion: women do not need government in order to be powerful.  It will likely continue to be ignored or reviled purely on the basis of her opposition to full suffrage for women all by itself, but in this age of Progressive orthodoxy, this is precisely the kind of heresy that needs to be propagated far and wide. It’s imminently clear that no quantity of legislation will satisfy the grievance machine that is modern feminism. There isn’t a single argument being made today that wasn’t destroyed by Ms. Johnson back in 1897. The question is how long it’ll take for feminists to recognize that, if ever.  After all.  It’s 2016, SYSTERS

Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy

image

Like many Americans, I grew up holding the view that America needed to evolve with respect to gender, race and gay relations in order to live up to its creed and “form a more perfect Union.”  I viewed the attainment of women’s suffrage which accompanied the passage of the 19th Amendment, the ’64 Civil Rights Act, Brown v. Board of Education and the gay marriage equality movement as crucial steps towards achieving the Union that the Founders surely envisioned.

But if the rhetoric of #Blacklivesmatter and LGBT activists as well as prominent professional feminists and politicians is to be believed, racial and gender relations are worse than ever. Despite all that’s been achieved in the political arena, the concerns of feminist, LGBT and civil rights activists have conjoined over the past several decades to fight what is seemingly an omnipresent, all-encompassing oppression. These intertwined agendas now form the foundations of what is best described as a secular fundamentalism known colloquially as Social Justice. 

Paul Gottfried’s brilliant and essential examination of modern social justice politics from 2002, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, unpacks the origins of what has transformed from an arguably principled pursuit of gender and racial egalitarianism into a toxic and repressive cult that’s deeply and inextricably linked to the democratic managerial state.  Just as Christina Hoff Sommers presciently punctured feminism’s hot air balloon of manufactured grievances, Paul Gottfried’s book provides a badly needed sober analysis of the philosophical and legislative roots of modern identity and social justice politics. 

Though the classical model of state ownership of industry that defined socialism throughout the 20th century has fallen out of favor, Gottfried argues that this agenda has been implemented through a more sophisticated form of socialism. Building from the insights of his previous work, After Liberalism, Gottfried argues that the democratic managerial welfare state is where the contemporary socialist priesthood and their fellow social engineers have devoted their efforts. The welfare state is not just limited to dispensing material goods. It must administer a therapeutic form of national unity. This new secular theocracy of multiculturalism and diversity has been integrated into social services, public education, and most prominently, in higher education. It is amplified by the high priests in Hollywood films, television and mass media with a fervor that rivals the most devout religious zealots. 

He further argues that contemporary identity politics is best described as deformation of Protestant principles. Protestantism’s anti-hierarchical and anti-communitarian tendencies combined with a healthy dose of Calvinist guilt created the perfect template for a new secular theocracy. In other words, the past was rife with retrogressive attitudes and oppression, and subsequently, the modern liberal who is concerned about upholding the new progressive virtue will seek to uplift groups perceived to be the brunt of systemic oppression and denigrate his own group if he’s atop the hierarchy of “privilege.”

One of the most astonishing arguments presented is Gottfried’s contention that the push to manage consciousness and behavior was the domestic policy correlate to international military intervention. The contemporary managerial state has origins in The Great Society and the shift towards affecting outcomes which accompanied its implementation. In 1966, President Johnson openly declared the following:

The overriding rule which I want to affirm today is this: that our foreign policy must always be an extension of this Nation’s domestic policy. Our safest guide to what we do abroad is always take a good look at what we are doing at home.

It makes perfect sense because today’s social justice jihad, like the War on Terror, is a war without end. The only difference is that it’s a culture war which naturally splits the population into competing groups and pits them against one another. Gottfried’s analysis of the never-ending crusade to purge and suppress any symbols, ideas or speech which might inflict “harm” or be perceived as “discriminatory” is devastatingly accurate.  The administrators of the managerial state have managed to succeed in producing an outcome that masks its coercive nature and goes beyond what legislation alone could have achieved. Through the steady drip of therapeutic propaganda, the engineers of the managerial state have bred a generation of cultural revolutionaries who place a higher value on the perceived virtues of multiculturalism than American principles of classical liberalism or constitutionalism.  The government doesn’t need to impose mandates from on high; the ambassadors of multiculturalism have bred a generation which gives total and unquestioned fealty to the perceived virtues of “diversity” and whose abject worship of authority is perhaps unsurpassed in American history. Contemporary champions of social justice are waging their own homegrown Proletarian Cultural Revolution and the state is just waiting for the opportunity to deliver the repressions they so deeply crave. 

Another key feature of the social justice/multicultural Left highlighted by Gottfried is its battle against what it perceives as “antifascism.”  While politicians make denunciations of leaders like Jörg Haider who express Nazi sympathies, social justice warriors denounce those who express unpopular or what are perceived to be “bigoted” sentiments in order to forestall the omnipresent threat of a slide into a new Third Reich. Following the pattern set by Johnson in Vietnam, this feature of social justice activism also has a military analogue. Even when American politicians carry out military action against someone with Marxist-Leninist beliefs like Slobodan Milošević or Islamic dictators like Saddam Hussein, these tyrants get tarred as “Right Wing” dictators and American politicians get a free pass to pursue whatever military action they please. The “antifascist” Left has reached an absurd crescendo with the advent of the Trump campaign. Despite having a platform that’s an incoherent hodgepodge of positions drawn from the Right and Left as well as opposition from neocons, party apparatchiks and military leaders alike, Trump’s rhetoric and identification with the GOP has legions of progressives denouncing him as the second coming of Mussolini and Hitler combined. 

Gottfried further argues that the other aspect of the “antifascist” multicultural Left is the crusade against perceived xenophobia.  While governments pursue an agenda of unchecked militarism abroad, refugees of war torn countries seek asylum in the West, and politicians are all too happy to accommodate in the name of “diversity.” When a segment of Americans and Europeans oppose the efforts, the multicultural Left predictably denounces opponents of immigration as “racist” and “xenophobic.” Though most people in the West are sympathetic to immigrants who are seeking to improve their station in life, pointing out the potential problems in any way is evidence of “xenophobia” and “racism.” Despite the recent unprecedented tragedy of several hundred women being assaulted in Cologne on a single evening or the worst act of terrorism on American soil since 9/11, all criticism or skepticism of immigration must be purged from discussion.  The effects of low skills and education or sharp cultural differences between those raised in Islamic countries under Sharia Law are not taken into account.  Subsequently, a rational debate about immigration cannot take place resulting in an ever escalating set of tensions with opponents of immigration predictably branded as racist. This schism has only become more pronounced with the ascendancy of the Trump candidacy. 

The role of social science in shaping the prevailing consensus around multiculturalism cannot be gainsaid.  Building from the foundations laid by the likes of John Dewey and Herbert Croly, the modern social scientists “proclaim a postreligious science and equate the promotion of the social good with acts of will.”  These doctrines of groupthink and collectivism which assign higher virtue to social construction of personal identity have been championed by feminists and social engineers who seek nothing less than to recode human nature. One need only look at the state of affairs on college campuses throughout America and Europe to see the poison fruits of this ill conceived social experiment. 

The only piece of the multicultural, social justice Left which Gottfried omits is climate change activism.  Intersectional social justice, feminism and climate change activism comprise a trifecta of modern progressive virtue.  Together, these three articles of faith form a seamless fabric of modern day statist piety. 

As the chants of the social justice, multicultural Left grow louder and the retribution meted out by self-appointed social justice cops and government officials alike becomes increasingly petty and punitive, the need for measured, philosophical opposition grows in proportion.  With this book, Paul Gottfried has identified an ideological toxin whose effects are everywhere, but whose origins are unacknowledged or unseen. 

Multicultural social justice politics have achieved dominance in academia, mass media entertainment and are even making inroads into public schools and the military. The virtues of Diversity, Inclusion and Feminism are openly and routinely extolled by politicians, entertainers and academics. Cornel West and Ta-Nahisi Coates have made cottage industries of proclaiming the dire state of race relations in America. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau preaches the gospel of feminism to the UN. Hillary Clinton proclaims her feminist credentials to a giddy Lena Dunham. The 2016 Oscars were a cringe inducing paean to Hollywood’s “diversity crisis.” Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Ted Talk is mandatory reading in Sweden. On and on.

It’s imminently clear which people are invested in promoting the Gospel of the Church of Multiculturalism. Fortunately, many now recognize it for what it is: a decades-long advanced propaganda campaign designed to debilitate the individual, destabilize family and hereditary culture, and assign virtue to victimhood. Above all, it’s an elitist, intellectual grift for rent seeking blowhards who want nothing more than to inculcate total deference to state authority, expand their own cults of personality and enlarge their academic fiefdoms. This book is an essential read for those who still prioritize liberty and self-determination over the megalomania of academics, social justice warriors, politicians and so-called social scientists.

image

Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?

image

If you take up the cause of criticizing the validity of the state, you soon discover that there are certain criticisms that are strictly verboten.  Public education, roads, PBS, NPR, the National Parks, the EPA, NASA, the NIH and libraries among others are all pretty much sacrosanct. Any criticism of these institutions or initiatives will generally draw opprobrium and general accusations of being an enemy of human decency and a retrograde neanderthal. 

Of all the sacred cows, the biggest of all is perhaps civil rights. Bring up civil rights, Brown v. Board of Education, the ’64 Civil Rights Act, Martin Luther King Jr. and you’re likely to hear swooning praise from all political persuasions that these pieces of legislation, court decisions, leaders and the movements which agitated for them were brave, principled, and an unequivocal American success. Legislative successes which helped set America on a path towards rectifying a sordid past filled with race based oppression and state enforced segregation and subjugation.

But do these legislative achievements translate into real world achievement for the communities for whom civil rights legislation is intended? 

Do statistical disparities in outcomes or representation automatically indicate the presence of prejudicial attitudes?

Even if prejudicial attitudes are present, does it automatically follow that the target of discrimination is damaged for life and his economic prospects are forever compromised?

Is there a positive correlation between legislation and economic achievement?

Is the legacy of civil rights legislation rhetoric or reality?

In Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality, Dr. Thomas Sowell addresses these questions and unpacks some the underlying motivations and assumptions behind the civil rights movement. It is generally regarded as axiomatic that disparities in outcome or representation are the result of discriminatory views and that these views will diminish economic prospects for the target of the discrimination.  Sowell treats this as a hypothesis to be tested and held to scrutiny instead of an unchallenged article of faith.  These assumptions are tested on the outcomes for the special cases of both blacks and women. The results of his findings do not fit the social justice narrative and often run completely contrary to it. 

Dr. Sowell draws an essential distinction at the outset.  Civil rights initially meant equality of opportunity. Not equality of results. Since Brown v. Board of Education and the ’64 Civil Rights Act, the meaning of “civil rights” has swung unequivocally towards a focus on outcomes accompanied by an ever expanding activism from the state and its various proxies in academia. 

Obviously, this book provides a very clear window of insight into the contemporary social justice movement and its pathological fixation on equal representation and outcomes  Dr. Sowell argues that a key factor in this ideological sea change can be traced to two key edicts: LBJ’s Executive Order 11246 and Green v. County School Board of New Kent County. These two orders shifted the civil rights focus away from equality of liberty and towards equality of outcome. I personally contend that the entire contemporary social justice movement has origins in these orders.

The role of family life, parenting, technological innovation and cultural trends are rarely, if ever, acknowledged by civil rights activists with respect to economic advancement for blacks or any other seemingly disenfranchised minority. Social justice advocates are all too willing to consider the passage of a law, the election of a politician or the installation of a bureaucrat as the sole determining factor in maximizing economic achievement. Sowell deploys a trove of statistics to show how high economic achievement is closely correlated with a stable home life while unfavorable and tragic outcomes are equally correlated with instability and single parent homes.  The latter being especially true for blacks

Sowell also examines how a number of policies which align with the civil rights vision such as licensure requirements, regulation, subsidies, food stamps and minimum wage all conspire to aggrandize politicians and undermine black achievement. 

This book was published in 1984, and even back then, feminists were flogging the myth of the wage gap.  The numbers were a little different, but the myth of rampant sexism on which the talking point stands remains unchanged.  Sowell devotes a chapter to this fairy tale and destroys it handily and effortlessly.  Though feminists like equate themselves with minorities, the effect that motherhood and marriage plays in economic outcomes simply cannot be overstated.  Despite regularly working fewer hours, choosing career paths which make few physical demands, require less skill and offer more flexibility, the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 as well as a steadily rising labor force participation rate since 1948, feminists insist on rehashing the fiction of an oppressive, sexist patriarchy that’s holding them back. The stubborn persistence of the myth despite the refutations of Sowell and numerous academics up to this day is a sad testimony to the power of demagoguery and repetition.

Civil rights activists have successfully agitated for universal suffrage, but Sowell argues that the pursuit of equal economic outcomes by way of the ballot box or bureaucratic fiat is wrongheaded and doomed to fail. If there’s a threat of government punishment hanging over the heads of an employer in order to fulfill some arbitrary diversity quota, the hiring incentives become completely perverted. Employers will either screen out unskilled labor more aggressively or hire an employee who meets the diversity criteria, but is otherwise poorly qualified. 

Frederic Bastiat correctly concluded that slavery was one of the moral blights that plagued the American experiment, and America has been trying to atone for the oppression of African-Americans since the passage of the 13th Amendment.  Despite being one of the first major countries in the history of human civilization to end slavery, all of this self-flagellation has culminated in a contemporary social justice movement that’s more toxic and divisive than ever.

Like the original women’s suffrage movement and the efforts of early Second Wave feminism, the intentions of the Civil Rights movement activists were noble and laudable.  Sadly, the contemporary social justice movement has mutated into an embittered and vengeful mob which prioritizes groupthink, automatically assumes the presence of prejudicial attitudes as the cause of poor achievement, and places a pathological emphasis on preferential treatment on the basis of race and gender to the exclusion of personal achievement, skill, character and merit.  

Just as Christina Hoff Sommers recognized and challenged a rising tide of irrationality within feminism, Thomas Sowell saw a comparable level of victimology brewing within civil rights activism and sought to lance the boil of opportunism and demagoguery growing on the face of American politics and academics.  This festering pustule of ideological rigidity has only grown since this book’s publication in 1984, but the cold facts he lays out stand tall like an immovable pillar of stone amidst the fickle winds of political hackery and academic quackery.  Social justice warriors, academic ideologues, and political charlatans need and deserve rebuke for fomenting division, disseminating disinformation and misinformation, and insisting on treating people differently because of biological traits which cannot be changed.  This book is the sober rebuttal to their pathetic bleatings.

The Dispossessed

image

Ursula Le Guin’s 1974 novel is an admirable work. I really wanted to like it. It mines some rich veins of philosophical thought including individualism versus collectivism, gender equality, the difference between intellectual property and ideas as well as the moral and ethical dilemmas of a speculative anarchist society.  Unfortunately, the novel is ultimately derailed by some fallacious notions and stale, toxic ideas couched in a pretense of edgy progressivism. Sadly, despite Le Guin’s recognition of the insularity, scarcity and conformity bred by the allegedly revolutionary values she espouses, she doubles down and limps to the conclusion waving the flag of communist ideals in a cloud of unearned triumphalism.

The Dispossessed tells the story of a physicist named Shevek from the anarchist world of Anarres. Shevek develops a groundbreaking theory which has the potential to unite humanity throughout the universe. Though the Anarrestri profess revolutionary values, they are unreceptive to his work. He sets out to the sister world of Urras, the civilization from which the Anarrestri fled, in hopes of bridging the divide between the two societies.

Le Guin makes a courageous attempt at tackling the questions of morality and ethics in the absence of state or religious institutions, but she ultimately succumbs to some really dumb and deeply clichéd antipathy towards market economics and property rights and, by extension, their inextricable link to human freedom. She is apparently on record crediting the blatherings of post-Marxist anarcho-collectivist wankers, Peter Kropotkin and Murray Bookchin, as the philosophical underpinnings of this book. The anarchist society of Anarres is essentially her conception of anarcho-syndicalism.  In other words, a society in which there is no private property and no system of prices, competition or currency; everything is “shared” and used for the “common good”, all economic activity is centrally coordinated by bureaucratic “syndics” and the division of labor is determined by computers. Subsequently, her philosophical commentary bears some unfortunate remnants of Marx, Rousseau and even the poisonous proto-fascist drivel of Georges Sorel.  Coupled with the gender politics editorial, Le Guin’s Anarres is probably best described as a fantastical vision of a world envisioned by feminists, social justice warriors, utopian eco-socialists and anarcho-communists.

To her credit, she addresses the limitations of the collectivist worldview in this novel which puts her work in philosophical proximity to another notable female writer who tackled very similar themes but arrived at very different conclusions.  Contrary to her professed disdain for Ayn Rand, the themes of this novel are very similar to those contained in The Fountainhead  and the two books share more than a few similarities. Each book presents a brilliant male protagonist who seeks to contribute his unique talent to society and each is called upon to adhere to principle in the face of demands from authority or perceived authority. Le Guin appears to take direct aim at Randian ideas of “egoism” and “altruism” at various points in the book, but when she does, she ultimately misrepresents both.

Le Guin is widely lauded for tackling gender and sexual politics in her work, but I personally found this aspect of the novel the most grating. All of the editorial around gender carried the sanctimonious stink of contemporary feminism.  Her perverse obsession with equality of outcomes can be traced to an obvious refusal to accept biological differences and individual choices within the paradigm of market economics as well as a blatant scorn towards those who hold religious beliefs. She holds people of faith in contempt for promulgating a sexist and patriarchal belief in the inherent superiority of men over women. While it may have been a transgressive argument in its day, and I absolutely concede that most religious faiths do affirm the traditional role of male breadwinner and female caregiver, this line of argument also feels tiresome.  If she were referring specifically to the manner in which Islamic societies rigidly enforce a subordinate role for women, it might have more bite, but I’m doubtful that was her intent.  It’s particularly dubious hearing this petty nonsense from an author in the Western world who has the freedom to be an atheist, to compete in the marketplace, to claim property rights and has achieved fame and notoriety for the merit of her creative work within the context of a free market.

She wastes no time carving out the contours of her main character and the central ideas of the book. The opening passages describe the wall which cordons off the spaceport of Anarres from the rest of the planet. Right away, Le Guin is telling us that this is a story of walls; walls that stand between societies, genders, and ideologies.

As a character, Shevek is kind of dull. Just as modern writers pander to feminists by writing female characters which are divorced from any conventional femininity, Shevek is the result of Le Guin doing the same thing in reverse. Shevek is arguably Le Guin’s beta analogue to Rand’s alpha Roark. He’s sensitive, a vegan, lives a monk-like life of the mind and holds womyn in reverence.  Since her editorial point of view is so rife with dumb and confused ideas, it’s difficult to view him as a heroic archetype of any set of virtuous attributes.

The first chapter is devoted to Shevek’s arrival on Urras.  Shevek struggles to understand the customs and culture of the Urrastri and cannot fathom a world that holds religious beliefs, has state institutions and operates under a market economy. The framework for a dramatic clash of ideas and individuals is elegantly constructed.  The reader is guided through Shevek’s quest as events alternate between Anarres and Urras in each subsequent chapter.

After this exposition, Le Guin takes us back to Anarres and Shevek’s childhood in order to flesh out the cornerstones of his development in relation to the values he acquired in his own culture.  Here, and in every other subsequent chapter, Le Guin’s muddy logic and dubious editorial comes into sharper focus.

Groan inducing commentary abounds in The Dispossessed, but Le Guin’s disdain for property rights is highest on the list. True to the authoritarian and quasi religious nature of all collectivist political thought, Shevek’s indoctrination to Odonian values begins at childhood. As most children are wont to do, young Shevek is naturally inclined to view possessions as his property. He is hastily scolded for entertaining this notion by his caretaker. Yes, we get it, Ursula. You think property rights are infantile and the source of human sin just like Rousseau. That’s so very progressive and original. Throughout the remainder of the book the words “profiteer” and “propertarian” are used as pejoratives and her disdain for capitalistic property ownership is expressed very clearly through Shevek during his tenure on Urras.

Le Guin equates the ownership of property all by itself as an expression of power; an idea that’s tired and nonsensical in equal measures. She attributes Shevek’s sense of unease on Urras to his perception that a society which affirms property rights is one of “mutual aggression” as opposed to the feeling of “mutual cooperation” that is the guiding principle of the self-abnegating hippies on Anarres.  It’s more than a little ironic that Le Guin venerates this alleged utopia devoid of private property and denigrates the statist aggression of Urras, but in real life, she’s more than happy to advocate for state aggression to enforce copyright law.

This moral confusion and sophistry extends further with respect to acts of actual aggression. Le Guin gets the fundamentals of the argument for anarchism right, but at the same time, she fails to present a coherent Odonian theory of morality with respect to the initiation of force. This also happens to be the one area where, even if inadvertently, she veers a little too closely to Sorellian applications of revolutionary violence. In a conversation with an Urrastri woman named Vea, he explains that Odonians are striving for actual morality by abolishing institutional power. That way, Odonians are free to choose morality instead of having it forced upon them by their alleged betters.  So far, so good. However, when Shevek is beaten up arbitrarily as a teenager, he accepts it as a “gift”.  This suggests a lack of appreciation of the inviolability of negative rights and perhaps illuminates her apparent inability to distinguish the state monopoly on the application of force versus private and voluntary exchange.  At the same time, she engages in some typical moralistic handwringing over the usage of defensive force to protect property.  Since she’s already established the ownership of property as an expression of power and a moral wrong, then anyone who uses force to defend against theft or violent expropriation is possessing “power no one should have”.  Make up your goddamn mind, Ursula.

The Odonian credo of self-sacrifice is equally moronic and cringeworthy and also tips the scale towards a Sorellian notion of “myth”.  For Odonians, the experience of “shared pain” is the principle, if it can even be called one, that binds Anarrestri to one another and to which they must consistently subordinate themselves. It bears more than a passing resemblance to a religious article of faith or any of the collectivist fantasies promulgated by politicians than anything approaching a rational principle.

The one idea which truly torpedoes her book is the centrally planned nature of the Anarrestri economy. Admittedly, she concedes a bureaucratization of Odonian life, but her failure to recognize the inherently preposterous nature of the idea cannot be overlooked. For a SF novel, The Dispossessed is remarkably short of speculative science or any fantastical leaps of imagination. Aside from Shevek’s theory, the DivLab computer is actually one of the wildest speculations in the whole book and Le Guin spends no time discussing it or how Odonians developed such a thing in the first place. Odonians live a life of self-imposed poverty and austerity and yet a really sophisticated computer determines how labor resources will be allocated without any real regard for the individual, purposeful human action which gives rise to supply, demand, or drives skill specialization. Not only is it wildly preposterous that Odonians could develop such a sophisticated piece of technology, the remainder of society is utterly devoid of any other comparably sophisticated technology or any other labor saving machinery. Her description of Shevek’s feelings of “brotherhood, adventurousness, and hope” while waiting to receive instructions during the Anarres famine sounds like dumb, nationalistic propaganda. For all of the realism she brings to every other aspect of the book, Le Guin apparently spent no time examining why central planning was a failure, and I can’t help but fault her for her intellectual blindness on this front.

Her actual grasp of physics and science is equally questionable. For all of Le Guin’s emphasis on the Odonian passion for and veneration of scientific knowledge as well as her usage of actual scientific theory as a basis for Shevek’s pursuits, she manages to smuggle in some dubious notions which sound like applications of scientific theory derived from feminist epistemology. Apparently, Shevek arrives at his big breakthrough because he was able to extend beyond pure scientific theory and include the realms of “philosophy and ethics”. Ursula, good science is philosophy, and is the product of sound ethics. For a woman so apparently keen on equal gender representation in STEM fields, she’s veering a little too close to Luce Irigaray territory with these notions. As a cheerleader for women in STEM, Le Guin is doing a great job, but as someone who earns a living telling stories built from scientific speculation, this is kind of laughable.

Le Guin also attempts to counter Randian ideas, but her conception of both “egoism” and “altruism” are both straw men.  By her reasoning, “egoism” can either be Shevek’s desire to assert his ideas in the face of ostracism or overtly public displays of sexual affection.  As a young child, Shevek is accused of “egoism” when he attempts to formulate his own ideas separate from the tightly controlled confines of the Anarres public school system.  To use contemporary parlance, Shevek would have been accused of using microaggressions.  Here, she suggests an upside to “egoism” which more or less maps to Rand’s conception, but she ends up diluting her editorial when describing Shevek’s revulsion at the “egoism” of an Urrastri couple getting hot and heavy in full view of a group of people.  Apparently, immodest displays of sexual attraction are on par with individual displays of independent thought.  Got it, Ursula.

Her notions of altruism are equally daft and run afoul of Rand’s actual position. Shevek and his friends conduct their own Stanford Prison Experiment on one another just to feel what’s it’s like both to deny freedom to another and to experience an absence of freedom.  When Shevek expresses concern for their captive friend, he is chided by his compatriot not to get “altruistic”.  Though Le Guin is clearly trying to highlight the monstrosity of imprisonment, she completely mischaracterizes Rand’s view of altruism. Rand consistently argued that altruism was a toxic and debilitating worldview because it ultimately fueled a pointless and narcissistic self-abnegation as well as a ceaseless desire to petition an authority to adjudicate the parameters of the alleged altruism.  To be fair, Le Guin’s usage of the term alternates between pejorative and complimentary and it’s difficult to tell where she ultimately stands.

The major intersection between Rand and Le Guin occurs in Shevek’s development of the Theory of Simultanaiety; the theory which would allow the development of an intergalactic internet. Not only does Le Guin use this to distinguish the importance of asserting individualism, but she uses it to make a worthwhile point about sharing ideas even if she misrepresents the nature of intellectual property in the process.  Just like Howard Roark in The Fountainhead, Shevek risked ostracism and reproach from fellow Odonians in order to develop the idea. According to Le Guin, intellectual property belongs to the state, and subsequently, is just another form of dominion over others. This is partially true, but fundamentally false. Intellectual property is a monopoly right conferred by the state to the holder of the property claim. It confers state power to the holder of the right.  Ursula Le Guin would know. She’s a huge advocate for it.

Though her commentary on gender is rife with progressive clichés around “equality”, it is noteworthy that she anticipated the whole gender neutral/non-binary view of gender that’s all the rage nowadays. Unfortunately, her views hew very closely to the pretentious, confused postmodern ramblings of Judith Butler.  In the Odonian tongue, “brother” and “sister” share the same noun.  Odonians have sex with males and females as adolescents and there is no stigma associated with this activity.  She also anticipated the current trend of subverting gender stereotypes by casting females in roles traditionally perceived as male as well as the omnipresent push for women in STEM. However, like most contemporary feminists, Le Guin seems to dismiss equality of opportunity and focuses obsessively on equality of outcomes. She seems to relate to inequity of outcome as evidence of retrograde attitudes all by themselves and doesn’t seem to regard the gender imbalance in science as a product of natural choices or differences in skill levels.  While on Urras, Shevek expresses total surprise at the complete absence of women in science and naturally portrays the scientists of Urras as sexist oafs who are somehow keeping women subservient and subordinate.

She goes so far out of her way to create female heroes and invert every gendered convention, that it feels overly calculated and at times, suggests a subtle contempt for motherhood. In this respect, Le Guin’s thought seems to anticipate the broader trend in feminism which all too often reduces to a singleminded focus on terminating pregnancy and Orwellian attempts to erase any semblance of women as caregivers in art. In other words, it comes across like propaganda.  Naturally, Odo, the matriarch of the revolution was female and her teachings formed the foundation of Odonian society. What a coincidence. The foundations of a revolutionary anarchist matriarchy were written by a woman. How totally meta, Ursula. Shevek’s mother leaves his father when he was a baby to devote herself to her engineering career because her Duty to the People took priority over her own child. The physicist who inspired Shevek’s work was a woman, too. We don’t know anything about her except that she’s got a uterus and she had theories which weren’t taken seriously even in the matriarchal utopia of Anarres. Yes, we get it, Ursula.  Women just don’t get taken seriously in this capitalist patriarchy and motherhood and biology are no big deal.

Le Guin betrays a smug, repressive elitism towards women who flaunt their sexuality by wearing makeup or provocative clothing. It’s an attitude that’s sadly endemic to a significant segment of the contemporary feminist “movement”. Vea is portrayed as an attractive woman and yet for Odonians and Le Guin she’s a “body propertarian” whose humanity is absent simply because she’s provocatively dressed and made up.  Who’s the one objectifying and dehumanizing, Ursula? You or that evil patriarchy?

And what feminist novel would be complete without a scene of sexual assault?  Apparently, we just can’t talk about gender politics without some rape editorial. The assault scene between Vea and Shevek stands in sharp contrast to the scene between Howard Roark and Dominique Francon portrayed in The Fountainhead. Here, Le Guin betrays a pretty obviously low opinion of men’s capacity for self-control.  Once Shevek gets a little bit to drink and is in the presence of a woman who’s made up and wearing sexy clothes, he is seemingly unable to stop himself from committing assault despite his monk-like existence amongst the joyless, preachy pro-feminism communists of Anarres.

The Dispossessed is book that’s moderately engaging and asks the right philosophical questions, but mostly arrives at the wrong conclusions. In science fiction, I expect some flights of imagination, and in this respect, Le Guin borders on a sort of pedantic realism that feels slightly inappropriate for the genre. It’s almost as though she’s disconnected from the things that make science fiction fun and engaging. It’s burdened by a certain overly earnest preachiness and stoicism.  As a work of philosophy, it gets a few things right, but misses the mark more often than not. Kropotkin, Bookchin, and by extension, Le Guin were completely correct about state power. Unfortunately, she and her intellectual forebears were incorrect about property rights, market economics and the proper application of violent force.  I would be inclined to disregard all of the gender politics, but the collection of ideas presented are so prevalent nowadays, it demands a vigorous rebuttal. The stranglehold of Marxist and post-Marxist ideals remains as strong as ever. The eco-communist ideas of Murray Bookchin are even getting a second wind in the alleged “anarchist” feminist utopia of Rojava. Naturally, it was dutifully reported by the progressives at the New York Times. I hope Le Guin is happy that a real life version of Anarres is being attempted right before our eyes.

The argument for anarchism is the definitive argument of our times and Ursula Le Guin is to be commended for making an earnest contribution to this debate through science fiction. It’s too bad she’s on the wrong side of the argument.

Suffragette

image

Feminists finally got their suffrage movie and how do they respond?  With violent protests and complaints of the absence of intersectionality of course!

It’s funny that Suffragette was apparently rejected by the radfem/intersectional corners of feminist media because it affirms every important article of faith in the contemporary bible.

  • Men are evil, violent, oppressive rapists and violence is the only language we understand.
  • Men are incompetent fathers and women are the only ones who should be granted custody rights in the event of a separation.
  • The acquisition of political power is the only way to ensure justice and the destruction of private property is justified if the end is achieved.

What’s not to like for the patriarchy fighting feminist champion?

Apparently, Meryl Streep’s alleged cultural insensitivity and the absence of multicultural correctness were enough to condemn this film to the shithouse for some feminists.  One gets the impression that the more you try to appease feminists, the more they complain.

Anyway.

The film is deeply flawed, but not without some redeeming features.  Suffragette is a fictitious account of a group of women who were disciples of Emmeline Pankhurst’s British suffrage movement.  The story centers around Carey Mulligan’s Maud Watts and her evolution from meek, submissive laundry worker, wife and mother to militant suffragette.

On the dubious side, the film presents female oppression in such stark terms, it feels calculated to appeal to the feminist cult of grievances as it works its way through the standard list of talking points.

The men are portrayed in such a uniformly bad light, it is slightly cartoonish.  Maud’s evil, capitalist employer is a cruel, abusive taskmaster.  Brendan Gleeson’s Inspector Steed is the ruthless government goon who spies on the movement and is singularly focused on enforcing the will of the state.  Ben Whishaw’s Sonny Watts is a bland dullard who becomes cruel and possessive of their son when Maud’s activism lands her in jail. I don’t doubt that men like this exist now or then, but the whole thing came across like the standard radfem dichotomy of men = evil/women = virtue.

Naturally, we are subjected to the omnipresent feminist articles of political faith. In a pivotal scene in which Maud delivers a testimony about her plight to a politician who made promises about giving women access to the vote, we get the predictable laundry list.  Women work harder and longer than the men under punishing, toxic circumstances and get paid less. The owner is an abusive prick and women have no legal recourse. The movie seems to want you to believe that not only does the film accurately portray life for all women back then, but that nothing has changed whatsoever since then. And of course, the only meaningful recourse is more political activity.

In many ways, the film is the feminist analogue to SelmaYou are presented with a group completely disenfranchised from the vote by evil, white men and despite the abject cruelty dispensed by the agents of the state, the only way to rebalance the scales of justice is to give women access to the very apparatus of power which meted out the oppression in the first place. Because after all, women are inherently virtuous and a woman who wields state power won’t be corrupted by the institution.  Nor will women be poisoned by a sense of entitlement once they are given favorable treatment after power has been attained. Right, feminists?

By far, the dumbest aspect of the film is its idiotic and irresponsible endorsement of the destruction of private property as a means of political protest.  That’s right, Revolutionaries! If you’re pissed off about what the government is doing, the best thing you can do is ruin the property of someone who has done nothing to you! Protest state violence with acts of arbitrary violence against private property! Makes perfect sense!

On the positive side, the relationship between Maud and her son George tugs at the heartstrings. Despite the abuses she suffered earlier in life, she’s a doting and affectionate mother. When Sonny gives up George for adoption, Mulligan’s emotions are wrenching. Just like this year’s other notable feminist movie, Grandma, the film is providing a pretty vivid reminder that women do in fact make the babies and motherhood is something that many women want and enjoy.  Despite the relentless regurgitation of wage gap propaganda, many seem unwilling or unable to grasp that this decision tends to influence the amount of career ambition women exhibit in the workplace.

Overall, it has just enough going for it to warrant a recommendation. But just barely. It portrays the nature of state power correctly, but its endorsement of this power is, as many feminists seem to enjoy saying, problematic.