As you are doubtless aware I see myself as a 'feminist', so I would imagine you would be interested in my opinion on your piece.
I do, as it happens, understand what you are trying to say here - obviously it's a serious subject, but a part of me - well, the old-fashioned, affectionate feminist part of me - thinks it's really quite sweet of you to expend such effort trying to skirt, as it were, around the issue, and not to step on eggshells. I got that feeling all throughout the essay. There's a certain irony there of course - I mean you mentioned the word 'taboo' - which, it seems to me, the entire 'woke' thing is intended to manufacture.
But what I really wanted to say was that I think you may have a particular definition of 'feminist' which is, well, whether it's accurate or not is a question, but it's certainly a different definition to the one I have (or the type of feminist I am).
I'll explain - I generally take a view of the 'history of feminism' as one in which, basically, after some women fought for a long time and with much hardship against the patriarchal Establishment (Judaeo-Christianity, post-1066 feudalism etc.), they were able to win to themselves a greater respect within society (I'm talking western society here I guess). Think about people like Mary Wollstonecraft here, for example. I think you'll agree that someone like her bears zero resemblance to these 'modern feminists' you are describing? I'm more like Mary, by the way, if that helps.
A real feminist knows, for example, that you cannot be a feminist and a Judaeo-Christian at the same time. Likewise, if you are a genuine feminist then you have to be something of an anarchist. For me, there is little difference at all between 'hierarchy' and 'patriarchy' (and thus 'statism'). And any system which has a 'commandment based morality' rather than a 'virtue-based morality' is by definition unnatural and hierarchical/statist. A system, that is, which dictates 'norms' and vilifies anything which doesn't conform to those norms. Likewise the word 'liberal' has been captured and misused - it doesn't mean 'freedom' anymore. It actually means 'patriarchal conservatism' !!
Virtue-based, simply premised on, or made possible by, emotional and psychological maturity.
We then have this early feminism progressing hand-in-hand with the struggle for socialist emancipation of the masses (against the (feudal, patriarchal) Establishment) - historically we see these two groups mutually aiding each other - although, one must say, with not as much support from the male socialists as we would've liked, but we are a forgiving species, of course. Anyway, now fast-forward to the post-ww2 era, and bring us to the 1960s counter-culture (read: anti-Establishment) movement. This is the point where the 'movement' (which includes the old socialist emancipators) or 'the resistance' suffers a concerted and systematic programme of attack by the Establishment. Just as you have Cointelpro (I think you mentioned that), you also have 'infiltration' of 'feminism'. Also use the term 'agents provocateurs'. These infiltrators will, put simply, pretend to be feminists, they will call themselves feminists, but they will express themselves in such unattractive, us vs. them ways so as to discredit feminism itself. Discrediting 'the resistance' by infiltration and control is a timeworn tactic of the Establishment, as I think you would agree?
So my take on all this, then, including a lot of the 'woke' shit, is that this kind of stuff is not being promoted by genuine feminists like myself, it is being promoted by the infiltrators - in other words, by the Establishment itself. And likewise in typical Establishment style, it is also infiltrating and controlling the 'other side' - the 'anti-woke'. And what happens as always it's the innocent who get caught up in the middle. For example if you look at the anti-trans 'feminists' you only need to see where they come from (the Vatican) and who they ally with - the far-right 'Christian' fundamentalist types - i.e. the archetypal patriarchy (!!!) to hopefully understand precisely 'which side they're really on'.
So when we talk about 'feminism' and 'feminists' we really need to take a step back and define what 'kind of feminist' (or pretend-feminist) we really mean. I am, believe it or not, vehemently against all these so-called new feminists who are a natural progression of the Establishment's infiltration and agent provocateur strategy. They do not represent me or the interests of women - or men for that matter (remember the patriarchy oppresses men too, by dictating roles for them) - and more than that, they are misrepresenting feminism, and demonstrably doing a massive amount of damage to the interests of women - and society/humanity itself in the process - and I say, this is deliberate and entirely intentional. And they do position themselves on 'both sides'.
Of course I don't know the precise details of your own personal run-ins with so-called feminists (or people who said they were feminists) and for it's worth I am sorry if you were unfairly treated, and I just wanted you to know that 'I am not that kind of feminist' - and 'we're not all like that'.
I think that's important to remember.
Oh, as a P.S. with regards to your statement 'murder is worse than rape' - actually that's not true from a psychological point of view (depending on the nature of the incident, granted, and the psychological state of the victim). Being raped is (or can be) a life-sentence. And it IS different for a woman than a man, on the psychological level. This is another issue though, so I'll not go on about it here. There are a lot of myths around rape, though, this much is true. Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows (hence the horrifically low conviction rate - without some 'written consent' it comes down to one word against another - there are some places that are trying a different approach though, and perhaps that will change the culture. Rather than saying 'no means no' it requires an actual 'yes' from the woman. I think there is some merit in that, but as I say, it's for a different discussion).
The saying that comes to mind for me regarding #MeToo and all of its consequences is "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
As you are doubtless aware I see myself as a 'feminist', so I would imagine you would be interested in my opinion on your piece.
I do, as it happens, understand what you are trying to say here - obviously it's a serious subject, but a part of me - well, the old-fashioned, affectionate feminist part of me - thinks it's really quite sweet of you to expend such effort trying to skirt, as it were, around the issue, and not to step on eggshells. I got that feeling all throughout the essay. There's a certain irony there of course - I mean you mentioned the word 'taboo' - which, it seems to me, the entire 'woke' thing is intended to manufacture.
But what I really wanted to say was that I think you may have a particular definition of 'feminist' which is, well, whether it's accurate or not is a question, but it's certainly a different definition to the one I have (or the type of feminist I am).
I'll explain - I generally take a view of the 'history of feminism' as one in which, basically, after some women fought for a long time and with much hardship against the patriarchal Establishment (Judaeo-Christianity, post-1066 feudalism etc.), they were able to win to themselves a greater respect within society (I'm talking western society here I guess). Think about people like Mary Wollstonecraft here, for example. I think you'll agree that someone like her bears zero resemblance to these 'modern feminists' you are describing? I'm more like Mary, by the way, if that helps.
A real feminist knows, for example, that you cannot be a feminist and a Judaeo-Christian at the same time. Likewise, if you are a genuine feminist then you have to be something of an anarchist. For me, there is little difference at all between 'hierarchy' and 'patriarchy' (and thus 'statism'). And any system which has a 'commandment based morality' rather than a 'virtue-based morality' is by definition unnatural and hierarchical/statist. A system, that is, which dictates 'norms' and vilifies anything which doesn't conform to those norms. Likewise the word 'liberal' has been captured and misused - it doesn't mean 'freedom' anymore. It actually means 'patriarchal conservatism' !!
Virtue-based, simply premised on, or made possible by, emotional and psychological maturity.
We then have this early feminism progressing hand-in-hand with the struggle for socialist emancipation of the masses (against the (feudal, patriarchal) Establishment) - historically we see these two groups mutually aiding each other - although, one must say, with not as much support from the male socialists as we would've liked, but we are a forgiving species, of course. Anyway, now fast-forward to the post-ww2 era, and bring us to the 1960s counter-culture (read: anti-Establishment) movement. This is the point where the 'movement' (which includes the old socialist emancipators) or 'the resistance' suffers a concerted and systematic programme of attack by the Establishment. Just as you have Cointelpro (I think you mentioned that), you also have 'infiltration' of 'feminism'. Also use the term 'agents provocateurs'. These infiltrators will, put simply, pretend to be feminists, they will call themselves feminists, but they will express themselves in such unattractive, us vs. them ways so as to discredit feminism itself. Discrediting 'the resistance' by infiltration and control is a timeworn tactic of the Establishment, as I think you would agree?
So my take on all this, then, including a lot of the 'woke' shit, is that this kind of stuff is not being promoted by genuine feminists like myself, it is being promoted by the infiltrators - in other words, by the Establishment itself. And likewise in typical Establishment style, it is also infiltrating and controlling the 'other side' - the 'anti-woke'. And what happens as always it's the innocent who get caught up in the middle. For example if you look at the anti-trans 'feminists' you only need to see where they come from (the Vatican) and who they ally with - the far-right 'Christian' fundamentalist types - i.e. the archetypal patriarchy (!!!) to hopefully understand precisely 'which side they're really on'.
So when we talk about 'feminism' and 'feminists' we really need to take a step back and define what 'kind of feminist' (or pretend-feminist) we really mean. I am, believe it or not, vehemently against all these so-called new feminists who are a natural progression of the Establishment's infiltration and agent provocateur strategy. They do not represent me or the interests of women - or men for that matter (remember the patriarchy oppresses men too, by dictating roles for them) - and more than that, they are misrepresenting feminism, and demonstrably doing a massive amount of damage to the interests of women - and society/humanity itself in the process - and I say, this is deliberate and entirely intentional. And they do position themselves on 'both sides'.
Of course I don't know the precise details of your own personal run-ins with so-called feminists (or people who said they were feminists) and for it's worth I am sorry if you were unfairly treated, and I just wanted you to know that 'I am not that kind of feminist' - and 'we're not all like that'.
I think that's important to remember.
Oh, as a P.S. with regards to your statement 'murder is worse than rape' - actually that's not true from a psychological point of view (depending on the nature of the incident, granted, and the psychological state of the victim). Being raped is (or can be) a life-sentence. And it IS different for a woman than a man, on the psychological level. This is another issue though, so I'll not go on about it here. There are a lot of myths around rape, though, this much is true. Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows (hence the horrifically low conviction rate - without some 'written consent' it comes down to one word against another - there are some places that are trying a different approach though, and perhaps that will change the culture. Rather than saying 'no means no' it requires an actual 'yes' from the woman. I think there is some merit in that, but as I say, it's for a different discussion).