So this is the dream, is it?

So it might be good to think about where we’re hoping to get to. Here’s what a feminist utopia is for me: a world where your genitals, hormonal arrangements or gender identification matter not a whit. Where no emotions are gendered: everyone gets to be both vulnerable and tough, aggressive and nurturing, effortlessly confident and inclusively consensus-building, compassionate and dominant. Each by turn, just as it exists in us: no part of our rich, human selves cut off or excised because “boys don’t cry” or “girls aren’t funny”.

Boys don’t cry as is girls aren’t funny.

However, I can’t help thinking that a world where genitals and hormones make no difference is going to be difficult to achieve. For there are actually differences and they make a difference. This might be hugely important, as with Tab A for Slot A to make a baby and might be subtle, as with female bond trading teams taking less risk than male, mixed taking more risk than either. And none of that subtlety matters a damn at the level of the individual, given that variance is greater within than across those genital and hormone arrangements.

As fort gender identification if it matters not a whit then why is so much fuss made about it?

But here are a few ideas. We urgently need to address the assumption bound up in our employment laws and custody arrangements that women are the “natural child carers” and men don’t really want much to do with their children.

Forcing this is of course wrong. But a general observation of the human race shows that there is something to it. And it’s not that men want nothing to do with their children at all, it’s that they interact with them, on average and in general, in a different manner. We’ve real trouble explaining this real world around us without at least considering this. For example, that women earn less than men could, if we didn’t investigate further, be assumed to be because the patriarchy (cont/ pg 94). When we realise that women without children make about the same as men, mothers less and fathers make more than non-fathers among men (yes, after adjusting for age, of course) then we’ve at least got an intriguing lead into the idea that men and women, on average of course and not to insist upon this for any individual, react to the existence of their own progeny somewhat differently.

Men are more likely than women to both perpetrate, and be a victim of, violence. I don’t happen to think men are “naturally” more criminal or violent.

Rilly?

As with so many utopias the description of this one starts out by assuming that we’re not dealing with human beings. Which is interesting, of course it is, but not hugely helpful. Perhaps the most important advice we can give about this wish list is that the the blank slate idea is wrong. We are not purely the results of our upbringing or environment.

25 comments on “So this is the dream, is it?

  1. “As with so many utopias the description of this one starts out by assuming that we’re not dealing with human beings. ”

    This comes in helpful later on, when your utopia isn’t turning out as planned, and you need to start marching them off to the gulags.

  2. Children are at vastly greater risk of abuse with a single mother. We assume women are natural child-carers because a previous generation of feminists insisted they are. But there is not a lot of evidence of it. They just like to stay at home and not work.

    Children should go to the fathers above a certain age. Maybe 9. Because this is not about the well being of the mothers. It is about the well being of the child.

  3. Everyone with a vagina owes society at least two babies. Ignore that and your civilisation eventualy gets the prefix “ancient”.

  4. Here’s what a feminist utopia is for me: a world where your genitals, hormonal arrangements or gender identification matter not a whit.

    Reality, it is a b!tch isn’t it? We can accept the science or we can deny it. But even if we deny it, it doesn’t go away.

    Hormones matter a lot. Gender identification is a myth but sex is vital to the way we think. And nothing can make women all that funny.

  5. The blank slate theory implies that humans are indefinitely malleable and that there is no such thing as human nature. Consequently, totalitarians are drawn to the blank slate theory because it means that human beings can be re-designed – with the correct environmental inputs – to fit the totalitarians’ ideological fantasies and preconceptions. If there’s no human nature, genuine human freedom doesn’t exist – it’s purely a matter of ideological conditioning.

    Interestingly, the leftoids (and particularly feminists) oscillate between denying that human nature exists and holding (against the evidence) that human nature is in fact socialist, feminist, egalitarian, etc. So, for example, feminists will often claim in one breath that all differences (apart from genitals etc) between the sexes are socially constructed, and then in the next breath claim that women require special treatment for some essential quality or feature that men don’t possess.

  6. There is an article floating around de webz about an insane Australian lesbian academic called, surprise!, Sheila Something, who has had a bust up with some trans-whatevers.

    I just mention it because it is very amusing. And it shows that people’s genitals still very much matter. Even to nutters of the Left.

  7. A better illustration of the staggering wealth and security that Western society has reached could not be imagined – that it can obsess and begin the process of tearing itself apart over irrelevant irrational lunacy like this.

  8. Theo- what i worry about is the insertion of a feminist ideal goal into policy. As per TIm the state not discriminating between parents in the doling out of benefits for them both obeys liberal and feminist thought. However liberals don’t have an agenda other than to let individuals decide their family arrangements, perfectly happy with some chosing this and others chosing that and not worried about the proportions doing either. Naomi in this example wants to put that use it or lose it clause. That is there not to help men or women, but to use the state’s hand to herd them into equality of outcome. So in addition to gender mattering ‘not one whit’ what we see at the policy end of all this is that individuals’ wants and desires matter ‘not one whit’. And that doesn’t sound like utopia to me.

  9. Men are more likely than women to both perpetrate, and be a victim of, violence. I don’t happen to think men are “naturally” more criminal or violent.

    Gender equality is but one component of the equality delusion. Try swapping “men” for “black men” in the above sentence; then see if it makes any sense in the light of crime rates in the USA.

    Denying these realities frustrates any efforts to remediate the problems.

  10. Rob, in a word, decadence.

    Yes, HB. It’s about empowering the state.

    “girls aren’t funny”

    In my experience, Jewish girls are funny.

  11. I want to live in a world that allows its women and men to be vulnerable and tough, intrepid and nurturing, with no part of the rich human experience denied

    And a pony.

    Sometimes over the past few decades it’s seemed as if we’re slowly, inch by inch, getting closer to a gender-equal utopia.

    Good news, everyone!

    And sometimes, as for instance with the election of a “pussy-grabbing” women’s-hotness-rating misogynist as “the leader of the free world”, it does feel as if we’re getting further away from living in a feminist paradise.

    Damn you, Trump! Hillary was gonna import another million Syrians to build the feminist paradise!

    The worldwide women’s marches against Trump were a way of saying how much of a step back his inauguration feels.

    Apparently it feels like a step back to the days when women dressed up as giant vaginas and screamed about blowing up the White House. I’m not sure when that was, exactly, but the important thing is shut up because feelings… whoa oh oh feelings…

    Here’s what a feminist utopia is for me: a world where your genitals, hormonal arrangements or gender identification matter not a whit. Where no emotions are gendered: everyone gets to be both vulnerable and tough, aggressive and nurturing, effortlessly confident and inclusively consensus-building, compassionate and dominant.

    She would also like a cake that’s sweet and savoury, nutritious and zero calories, lighter than helium yet dense enough to be used as heat shielding on space shuttles. And it should also be a robot vacuum cleaner, a cat scratching post, and a time machine.

    It’s a world where there are no “boys’ toys” and “girls’ toys”.

    This is a delusion common among childless feminists whose only “children” are the adopted cats waiting to eat them when they die. The idea that toys are “gendered” by dint of some nefarious patriarchal conspiracy (muahahahaha!) at Hasbro.

    But it’s not adults who define what children are interested in playing with. Kids have their own ideas from a very early age.

    You can try to stop a 2 year old boy playing with toy cars, but the discussion is likely to go:

    Boy: “Car.”

    Guardian-reading parent: “No, Corbyn, we discussed this. You may play with the European Union Fuzzy-Felt set instead. Look – it’s Herman Van Rompuy!”

    Boy: “NO HE-MAN WAN-WOMPY! Car! Car! CAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRR!”

    It’s a world where – among many many other things – there are no specific men’s clothes or women’s clothes, but everyone gets to play in the dressing-up box exactly as they like. If all you want is to wear overalls: fair enough. If you want to wear a suit one day and a floaty dress another, what’s the problem?

    The problem is I’m not sure there’s enough fabric in the world. And if Naomi’s so feminist, how come I saw her holding Princess Leia on a chain?

    We urgently need to address the assumption bound up in our employment laws and custody arrangements that women are the “natural child carers” and men don’t really want much to do with their children.

    Women aren’t natural child carers? It’s a good job men can lactate, eh?

    As for the “men don’t want much to do with their children” nonsense, nobody with kids actually believes this (except temporarily, when the snotty little bastards are wiping their noses on your furniture and screaming at the cat).

    Most dads love their children and want to spend time with them.

    But somebody’s got to bring money into the house, because we haven’t yet invented that magic cake technology Naomi’s hungry for. And someone’s got to take primary responsibility for the nappy changing and whatnot.

    And children aren’t robots. They each have their own little quirks and preferences, which is another reason why well-meaning attempts at equally sharing the burping duties tends to run into a brick wall of tiny tears. Routine is very important to small children, so constantly switching around who does what can be upsetting to the little tykes.

    You can fart around with policies all you like, but it won’t beat biology.

    Nothing blows away feminist fantasies faster than a squalling baby. Infants don’t give a shit about your gender theories, Women’s Studies degree, or the fact you haven’t slept in three weeks and are fantasising about strangling Mr Tumbles and pissing in his stupid spotty bag.

    Babies want fed, changed, comforted, entertained, and given your full attention at all times. They’re a lot like feminists, except there’s slightly less crying and eating.

  12. Nothing blows away feminist fantasies faster than a squalling baby.

    Which is why some of them are very creepy indeed on the subject (and abortion). David Thompson’s site often highlights them.

  13. Steve, there have been studies done on children’s reaction to gender toys.
    Kids aged 2 – 3 years old were happy to play with whatever they could get their hands on, often wanting what someone else was seen to be playing with and picking it up when they had put it back.
    While the conclusions of a couple of those studies were laughable, the study itself did suggest that the kids didn’t have a concept of gender – it is the adults who insist on buying dolls for girls and cars & tanks for boys.
    In a room with dozens of each type of toy the kids were as happy to play with the other gender’s toys as their own gender.
    Heck, for some of us we had dolls when we were kids, it was big business. Cindy for the girls, action man for the boys – both dolls.

  14. Martin: how they play with them differs along gender lines. I watched the twins of a determinedly second wave feminist mother use trucks for transporting dolls(girl), attach parachutes to both to throw out window(boy).

  15. Babies want fed, changed, comforted, entertained, and given your full attention at all times. They’re a lot like feminists, except there’s slightly less crying and eating.

    TIS +1

  16. Rob – DT is excellent.

    Martin – sounds like one of those “who are you gonna believe? Us experts, or your own lying eyes?” questions.

    Little boys will sometimes play with dollies and girls will sometimes play with cars and robots. There is, however, a marked difference in their preferences for types of toys and – possibly more significant – how they play.

    I don’t have the slightest interest in commercial vehicles, for example, but I have a small boy who is absolutely obsessed with buses, bin lorries, tractors, backhoes, cranes, combine harvesters, etc. and he can name all their major parts. His favourite thing to do is simulating elaborate and noisy crashes with them. He didn’t learn it from me.

    I don’t think little kids have a concept of gender either, they just are what they are. It’s amazing how different 2 year old boys and girls are in terms of speech, activity, and temperament. Boy toddlers are more like mischeivous chimpanzees.

  17. @Martin, Ljh

    Another anecdote: as a child with two sisters my mother also decided to let me play with whichever toys I wanted, which quickly dispelled any notions of “blank slate”-ness. I’d play with my sisters dolls. But I’d play with them by putting them on top of the dolls’ house and then kicking them off.

    My aunt wanted a daughter and instead gave birth to two boys. She would dress them very… feminine… as toddlers. Did not stop them getting into action men, building spears and swords to fight each other and eventually to joining the army.

  18. Martin,

    Kids aged 2 – 3 years old were happy to play with whatever

    If you think toys are gendered, try watching kids’ cartoons. The old stuff is can be enjoyed by girls and boys alike (Bugs Bunny, etc.); but the new stuff is very gendered. Channel 5 excels at this: their output is squarely aimed at either boys (Blaze and the Monster Machines, PAW Patrol, Roary the Racing Car) or girls (Angelina Ballerina, Chloe’s Closet, Shimmer and Shine). Faced with the prospect of watching Chloe’s Closet, most small boys will reach for the off button.

  19. “…a world where your genitals, hormonal arrangements or gender identification matter not a whit. Where no emotions are gendered: ”

    And then…

    “Men are more likely than women to both perpetrate, and be a victim of, violence.”

    So genitals and gender are not to be taken into account except where men are concerned.

    I see.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.