Award winning novelist and teacher David Gilmour dared to speak the unspeakable. He prefers male novelists and so teaches their books. Needless to say, this prompted a bit of a feminist firestorm in response. Perhaps the feminist outrage was best articulated by Professor Jessica Langston in her letter to the National Post:
“Like many, I am offended by David Gilmour’s comments — I am, after all, a female professor who teaches Canadian and First Nations literature…
“… Mr. Gilmour is denying himself and his students the privilege and responsibility of his profession to be intellectually and emotionally challenged. How would we ever learn anything if we only read and discussed books about our own experiences? [my bold]
“If Mr. Gilmour is teaching any course besides one titled, “Middle-Aged, White Male Writers,” he’s not providing his students with an accurate socio-cultural picture. He should remember that white, heterosexual males have long been the normative standard; it is important to offer students dissenting or marginal voices.”
It is rather clear that the feminist academic position is that they should be “intellectually challenged.” Judging by Professor Langston’s letter, feminists have been most successful in this regard. And I must agree with her that hers is a decidedly marginal voice.
As for heterosexual and normative (sometimes expressed as “heteronormative”) this really means that male+not gay+white=bad. However, feminists need a Ph.D. before they really understand this complex concept.
The key point to take away from all of this is simple. The next time you read the words of a feminist, understand what you are really reading. The product of someone who is intellectually challenged.
The Mirror 
If the outrage was really best articulated by this person, it’s a sad and sorry state of affairs. I’m sure I can do better: if it’s really true that the single most important thing determining whether or not this chap likes a novel is the sex of the person who wrote it, I won’t be too upset that I’m missing his lectures.
yakinamac,
When one reads more articles on the topic (or even just all of those I linked to), one hears of female students who enjoyed Gilmour’s course, and of the fact that feminist academics have no “outrage” over English courses featuring only female authors.
Two novels that I thought were brilliant were Carol Shields’ “Larry’s Party” and Margaret Atwood’s “Oryx and Crake.” (Liked “The Handmaiden’s Tale” too.) So, I do not share Gilmour’s view.
What I hoped to highlight was the sheer stupidity of the reflexive feminist academic “outrage” response.
Fair enough – just think it’s a bit much to label all feminists “intellectually challenged”. Btw, I don’t think I’ve called myself a feminist so regularly in my life before coming across your blog/comments! 😉
Good heavens! It’s backfiring. 😉 “I like you even though you’re a feminist …” }:-)
Perhaps I should have identified that I was not speaking of equity / equality feminists.
I think you’re really a secret feminist yourself, just saying outrageous things to raise our consciousness. No need to deny it – I (like all feminists) know I’m right!
From the bottom of my wicked “patriarchal” heart, I’m tempted to add that wives and gf’s similarly know they are right!
I do thank you for the chuckle. Easy entry for me – no bra to burn.
Seriously? now this is one a perfect time it would have been better to just shut the hell up!
Why is there this need for attention and controversy all the time? we must regulate preferences now? I don’t particularly agree with the man, but this is one letter that should never have been posted.
Dotta,
100% couldn’t agree more – you nailed it.
What’s also amazing to me is that the good Professor is in fact an Associate Professor at her university’s ENGLISH department. Yet she didn’t recognize that what she was writing could reasonably be interpreted as meaning “we are stupid.” And she effectively asked a major national newspaper to announce this to the whole world, which is stupid on steroids.
I think I may have to use this letter as an example in my Book Two. Yep, never should have been posted. Amen.
Thank you.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of “intellectually challenged”, as the professor stated it. You interpret it as a synonym for “mentally challenged”, as in “mentally disabled”, whereas she meant it (clearly, in context) as “intellectually stimulated”, as in someone is “intellectually challenged” when reading a particularly dense or difficult passage of literature.
She was outraged that Mr. Gilmour refused to teach literature written by females *because* he felt it was not of comparable quality to literature written by men, and was commenting on the fact that Mr Gilmour was denying his students the opportunity to be “intellectually and emotionally stimulated” by work written by female writers, and those with “dissenting or marginal voices”.
I can only hope that you take care to consider all possible meanings of words when you write your book, because to take on the destruction of feminism by using weak, context-necessary examples is a fool’s errand.
There was no misunderstanding. By using the negative part of the unintentional double entendre of her letter – she is an Associate Professor in a university English Department -, I was highlighting the intellectually vacuous nature of the clichéd feminist practice of reflexive umbrage.
I suspect you understand that my post was regarding radical / ideological / gender / gynocentric feminists and not equity / equality feminists. I have no desire to “destroy” a movement that seeks to have women’s wishes and right to liberty respected.
However, both my experience and analysis of ideological feminism resulted in the conclusion that ideological feminism is a manifestation of a gender-specific form of narcissism. I would be inclined to interpret the line of “I’m a Professor of English, after all” as an expression of narcissistic grandiosity, a key trait. “I am superior to you intellectual troglodytes, so permit me to enlighten you.” The narcissistic basis to ideological feminism is a theme that I intend to develop over the course of two books, including how it can been seen to constitute a subset of what Christopher Lasch wrote about in his modern classic of social criticism The Culture of Narcissism.
I do not have a problem with a man who prefers male authors, just as I do no have a problem with a woman who prefers female authors. I prefer great minds and great books irrespective of gender, but to each their own. Since feminists do not seem to have a problem with university courses on female authors, it is hypocritical for them to object to a male authors course.
Are you familiar with University of Ottawa’s Professor of English Janice Fiamengo? Wonderful person, incredibly intelligent. She used to be a card-carrying feminist, volunteer at women’s shelter, etc. Janice has not only left feminism, she actively speaks and writes against it, having seen what it is really about. To say that ideological feminism is rife with false scholarship i san understatement.
BTW, enjoyed your last post. Fall is my favourite time of year too.
I just
It’s so difficult for me to reconcile what you say in your original post and what you say in your comments. You seem to support equality feminism, but you blog about how terrible “feminism” is as a whole, and clearly state how “stupid” feminists are.
And no, that’s not what she was saying. She was offended that someone would call himself a professor of literature while refusing to *teach* works written by women in a course while claiming to teach “modern fiction” as a whole. That’s like saying “I don’t like black people, I’m just not going to teach anything written by a black person”. It’s not responsible, as a professor, to ignore so many diverse voices in literature.
As you know, I’m studying English right now, and it’s true: the focus of past literature has been white, heterosexual males. That doesn’t equal bad, but it is true. Continuing that focus when there’s so much rich material written by previously marginal voices is ridiculous, unless (like she said) he’s teaching a separate class called “The Great Literature of White Male Writers” (or some derivative thereof).
With this article, your argument is not valid. Not because I don’t agree with you, but because you’re using this patchwork, fragmented method of “haha, see what she said??” without focusing on the whole. It’s flawed logic.
I look forward to reading improved posts, because I think you have a valid idea, but it seems as if you’re having trouble expressing it.
Hi Emily,
Here is the fantastic Professor of English Janice Fiamengo writing on the same topic as the feminist prof I posted about: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/janice-fiamengo/the-death-of-english-studies/
Janice is both a lucid thinker and an eloquent writer.
I think the thing everyone’s overlooking here is that Gilmour was teaching a class that was advertised as “intro to modern fiction”. And he wasn’t teaching an accurate representation of modern fiction. Which is irresponsible.
I wouldn’t be upset if he was teaching a specific upper level class that focused on male writers if it was advertised as such, just like Professor Langston said.
I’m with Ms. Emily on this one. The message that I got from reading the professor’s letter was that the works of the males were simply not enough to stimulate brain activity ahahaa. I went for the whole rather then the details. And as a Jane Austen fan, I will point out there are some very strong female writers out there but I also don’t believe that you HAVE to read them. If this is a class for males or just a class about males then no problemo. Read all the books by males that you want. But you will be missing out.
Why do we read in the first place? Too learn and experience something new and for entertainment purposes also. So keeping a narrow mind about what type of books your teaching,especially if it’s supposed to be a well-rounded literature class, will not help.
Randomly saying: Education seems to be like an indoctrination don’t you think?
Abinash,
I am honoured by your presence here, as I was and am with Emily. Yes, I was deliberately taking the Professor’s words somewhat out of context, but to make a point. BTW, I don’t care about the gender of any book’s author so such as I care about the book itself. E.g., “Larry’s Party” by Carol Shields, “Oryx and Crake” by Margaret Atwood. Enjoyed “Wuthering Heights” and “The Handmaiden’s Tale” too.
In terms of narrow-mindedness, if you can forgive my wry smile, I challenge you to consider the same question, but in an introspective manner. Have you read any of the following books?:
Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women? Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D.
Legalizing Misandry by McGill University Academics Dr. Paul Nathanson and Prof Katherine Young
The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
Divorced Dads – Shattering The Myths by Professor Emeritus Sandford Braver
I can also get you a superb published, peer reviewed paper by co-written by a UBC prof and a U of Syracuse prof which exposes the de facto academic fraud of feminist “scholars.” You should also have a peek at the A Voice For Men website.
And if you REALLY want to see what Canadian family justice is like, have a look at Courts From Hell – Family InJustice In Canada by Frank Simons. http://www.lulu.com/shop/frank-simons/courts-from-hell-family-injustice-in-canada/ebook/product-18593089.html
I will even send you my book for free if you want (you’re over 16, aren’t you?). themirrorbooks@gmail.com . Been getting good feedback from test readers. You’ll see the true face of feminism in this book. It is not about equality and women’s rights.
Thanks for your thoughts, and I look forward to future civil discussions. };-)> (have to break that habit)
I admit with a sheepish grin I haven’t read any of those books and I don’t accuse of not reading books by female authors either. And you know I completely understand the point if view you’re coming from.
My thoughts? Well…
If feminism isn’t about equality and women’s right, then what is about? Has the ideology of feminism really changed so much?? So much to think about and it really is perplexing because while I do believe that the feminism movement has been setback for a while now, I also know that they’re many women out there in third-world countries waiting for their voices to be heard. While the scholars are caught up in their women’s world, what I’m getting at more is the lower class women’s point of view whose only hope is in knowing that she can become an author and broadcast her stories.
(Wuthering Heights was magnificent and yeah, I am actually exactly 16 years old. 🙂
Sheepish grins are rather nice. No worries about not having read these books – even for one as dedicated to seeking justice as you are, it would be exceedingly uncommon for a high school student to have read these books. They rationally argue that a very different reality exists than the one portrayed by feminists.
Hoff Sommers was an A/Prof of ethics. Ph.D. in philosophy, I believe. She has such a beautiful mind – lucid, rational, super writer. Her basic premise is that there are good (equality or equity) feminists and bad (radical, gender, gynocentric, ideological) feminists, and that the bad feminist have taken over the women’s rights movement.
I have a background in military concepts and doctrine. I’ve worked at a couple of sort of applied military thinks tanks. I had a really bad divorce experience starting in 2008. My ex-wife of 19 years has expert-confirmed narcissistic personality traits. I soon saw these same traits in the feminist social workers, lawyers, and judges who – forgive the language – totally screwed me in divorce. I’m not talking a few hundred bucks here or there. I’m talking about serious and what I maintain are irrefutable criminal offences by feminist judges, who are above the law (immunity from civil and criminal process).
I saw the same narcissistic traits in the feminists described in the Hoff Sommers book and Legalizing Misandry. Based on my 19 years of experience, I’ve merged some elements of narcissism theory to coherently explain both what I lived with and what I saw in feminists. I’m proposing a unified construct of gender narcissism.
Very simply, these ideological (bad) feminists have a deep and powerful shame of being women. They hate being women. They hate their beautiful feminine reproductive biology. But this is all subconscious.
For reasons I explain in my book(s) – have to actually start writing Book Two soon -,, this causes feminists to have a powerful pathological need for women being victims of men and society (i.e., patriarchy) to be “true.” (I’m not suggesting that there aren’t women victims, BTW.) Due to a narcissistic process know as “mirroring,” feminists need the reinforcing feedback of the belief of others that women being inherent victims is “true.”
What they’ve actually succeeded, more so in Canada, is a social system that insists that women can only even be victims as an unspoken “truth,” but in fact heartlessly oppresses and persecutes men. Kids suffer to, as do women.
Sorry for the late reply! Homework and tests have been clogging my schedule. 😛
And in reply: I’ve actually picked up some of the books you recommended and my curiosity is researching all of what you have said.
I hope good feminists are able to comeback and that females overridden by arrogance and emotions are a huge setback in the law fields.
Abinash,
This quote from Buddha is always worth keeping in mind:
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
Keep an open mind, and ultimately judge for yourself as to which camp – the thinkers I have recommended, or main stream feminists – adhere to reason and truth.
You might also enjoy the courageous Professor Janice Fiamengo. Prof Fiamengo was a card-carrying feminist, but ultimately left the movement as she saw through its false scholarship and it’s inherently unjust nature (yet remember – judge for yourself!). Prof F now speaks out against feminism. You can hear her speak here:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/university-of-toronto-and-men/janice-fiamengo-complete-presentation/
Good luck with your pursuit of justice. If you can forgive my referencing the Beatitudes, happy are those who thirst for what is right.
Abinash,
Here is an example of a courageous woman who fights against feminist oppression. She is writing about the same topic as was the feminist prof that I was belittling:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/janice-fiamengo/the-death-of-english-studies/
Professor Janice Fiamengo is a magnificent woman who used to be a card-carrying feminist, but ultimately rejected the movement due to its cruelty and fraudulent scholarship.
(Feminism = equality and rights) is rather like (Earth = flat) and (Sun and planets orbit the Earth). All are or were what everyone insisted was “true.”
I should probably stop reading your comments, ’cause they just frustrate me, but here goes:
Navigator, it seems to me that you have a personal vendetta against what you perceive as feminism, and you’re quite adept at finding “proof” that you’re right. Unfortunately, and uncomfortably for you, inequality is still a thing (especially in under-developed countries, but in developed countries as well).
So yes, you’re a divorced man who got screwed over by the courts. I’m sorry that happened to you. I am. Yet to pin that happening on a movement that is still dedicated to preserving women’s rights (and no, you’re actually quite wrong: women do still get the short end of the stick, especially immigrant women in a predominantly caucasian society) is wrong. Find a different scapegoat.
To look at a woman who disagrees with you and shout “FEMINIST” and then blog about how stupid she is, that isn’t fighting against misandry (more on that in a minute), it’s self-serving misogyny to make yourself feel better.
On misandry, have you read Allen Johnson? Here’s a couple quotes:
“…it takes almost no criticism at all in order for men to feel “bashed,” like it’s “open season on men.” In fact, just saying “male privilege” or “patriarchy” can start eyes rolling and evoke that exasperated sense of “Here we go again.”” (Allan Johnson, “Privilege, power and difference,” p. 197)
“Accusations of male bashing and man hating work to discredit feminism because people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people. Given the reality of women’s oppression, male privilege, and some men’s enforcement of both, it’s hardly surprising that EVERY woman should have moments when she resents or even “hates” men.” (Allan Johnson, “The gender knot,” p. 107)
Gosh, he’s a pretty lucid writer too. Card-carrying man, too.
Emily,
I certainly do not want to engage in any dialogue that you do not find enjoyable or at least intellectually stimulating. If you’d prefer not to engage on this topic, we shall drop it immediately.
I’ve found that the process of writing my first book – just back from the editor a couple of days ago – was a necessary cathartic journey towards ridding myself of the bitterness of my divorce. It wasn’t just that I was screwed over by the courts. I contacted a child protection agency as my estranged wife was was rabidly alienating our three kids from me. I also had two independent concerns of Munchausen By Proxy brought to my attention. I was bound by law – Ontario’s Child and Family Services Act – to contact child protection. It is known as a duty to report.
What resulted was that child protection workers acted to shield my ex-wife from expert psychiatric scrutiny. They openly assisted her in alienating the children from me. They falsely – to the point of perjury – implied that I was domestically violent, and through innuendo implied that I was trying to exploit them to win custody of the kids.
Here’s their best sworn statement to a known feminist judge: “The society has identified elements of power and control in the relationship, especially with regards to finances. Ms. M is financially dependent upon Mr. M, and feels that her choices in the divorce are limited.” Recall, this was not divorce action, it was child protection action. Hint, hint: it’s all about getting the women HER children and HER child support payments.
The feminist judge couldn’t throw me out of my own house fast enough. Without trial, without finding of fact. Please bear in mind that experts in the field hold that serious parental alienation is at least as psychologically harmful to children as is sexual abuse, if not more so. I still haven’t seen the daughter that I have always loved in over five years due to this, as she is severely and possibly permanently alienated from me.
My case is not isolated. This is standard practice for Ontario child protection, and results from its application of standard feminist theory – the Duluth Model – on domestic violence.
I have no issue with women who deem themselves equality feminists. However, the women’s movement has come to be dominated by ideological / gender feminists (per Hoff Sommers), and I find that English Professor who wrote the letter to the editor to be one of these. She is repugnant, not intelligent and learned.
No social movement that knowingly and willingly works to effect the abuse of children can ever be rationally held to constitute something that embodies the ideals of equality and justice. As I hope to explain over the course of my two-book work, what feminism has become is a subset of what the late Christopher Lasch wrote about in his modern classic of social criticism “The Culture of Narcissism.” Gender narcissism (speaking of the hard core feminists, not equity feminists) explains the discrepancy between the reality of feminism (e.g., what I and others have experienced) v. what feminism insists that it is perceived as being.
I have to admit I agree with Emily in this case and (to some extent) with few of your comments (and not so much the post). I think gender politics is a difficult topic and feminism has almost become a dirty word. I am also not sure why feminism is or has to be against the rights of men.
I find that taking a position against women and rights of women because of attitudes of divorce courts is a bit harsh. I would agree with you that the divorce courts generally are more favourable to women where children are involved. I also would agree that some women use children as a pawn to get what they want in divorce/custody situation. However, is that really about feminism or just one aspect of our legal system that is badly skewed? I say this as someone whose life is constantly affected by the dichotomy between parents over their children.
However, this is not about a man or a woman in most cases. It is about the person who is financially stronger. It just so happened that most women are not in financially stronger position. Financially stronger women, who are not primary caregivers but are primary bread earners, suffer the same fate.
Also, in terms of the sworn statement mentioned in your comment above. The argument is based on the situation that a divorce mother, who is not financially stable and has primary custody of children will be impacted by the financial strength of the husband. It is actually not about getting HER child support or HER children. It is about couple’s children and how she as the primary custodian of children will provide for those children.
I obviously have no idea about your divorce so cannot comment on the actual facts of the situation so please note that I am not commenting on the facts or if that statement was correct or not. I would need to know a lot more to be able to comment on the actual facts. However, I know that is the basis of argument in the context mentioned by you.
Having said that, if the question is do some women completely manipulate the court system or, for the lack of better word, “screw” their husbands in custody situations. They absolutely do. However, that is not the fault of feminism or feminist agencies or judges. It has to do with the individual involved in the situation. I also know couples who work out amicable plans without the other person feeling shafted.
It is not really fault of feminism.
fabtofat,
Thank you for your comments. Dissenting views, expressed with civility as you have kindly done, are very welcome.
I have to respectfully disagree with you, based upon both experience and a burgeoning recognition that my situation was not atypical. Some very legitimate scholars appear to agree with me, or perhaps me with them. For the record, I do not consider the U of Concordia A/Professor who regurgitated her cliched feminist rhetoric to be such a scholar. She might as well have claimed that the Earth is flat. Thoughtlessly repeating what is popularly insisted as must be true is not scholarship.
In my jurisdiction, the legal doctrine of “best interests of the children” is supposed to apply in separation and divorce. What near universally happens instead is that the “best financial interests of the mother” rules, due to the deep penetration of feminist ideology into many elements of society. It has perverted our justice system.
I would have more respect for Canadian courts if they stopped lying and just admitted the truth: children have no rights in divorce in Ontario Canada, as they are mothers’ personal property, even if she is a threat to them.
Feminism has become a dirty word as the women’s movement has come to be ruled by gender / gynocentric / radical / ideological feminists (per Christina Hoff Sommers, Ph.D., and others). When you actually critically examine what feminism actually is and actually does v. what it purports to be (concerned with women’s equality and justice), a very different picture emerges. Feminism has become an instrument of the matriarchal oppression and persecution of men.
I’m not adverse to financially vulnerable women being protected by courts during divorce, but not at the expense of kids, and not to the extent that it reasonably constitutes support slavery for an ex-husband.
I hope to rationally explain why this is so in a planned second book, and I lay the groundwork for this in my first book, which I hope to have published around or shortly after Christmas. Perhaps you and Emily and other intelligent women can give these future arguments critical but fair consideration when they come. They will not be an attempt to subvert genuine equality and genuine justice (not “social” justice), nor will they be an attempt to tell anyone how they must live their lives, man or women.
I believe that I can rationally and convincingly explain why feminism has become such a dirty word, and that I can do in a way that is engaging, very easy to understand, and in a way that respects both women and men. I would not have done to the trouble to write these books – the 1st is 94,000 words, hardly a trivial effort, and it will have cost me around $9,000 to self-publish with guarantee of recouping this expense – were I not convinced of their fundamental importance.
Of course you are entitled to maintain scepticism, and I do hope that I will ultimately produce two books capable of withstanding the critical scrutiny that would logically result from such scepticism.
None so blind as those who will not see. I enjoyed the humouress aspect of this post.
Thank you. None so blind indeed!
1965, just wanted to give you a heads up on this article, thought you might find it interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/feminism-capitalist-handmaiden-neoliberal
Regarding the post above (a little late, I’m aware): I think he was clearly joking in the article, and it was taken out of context. I will say though, that the other day I was at work and a female Chinese colleague approached my male colleague, but he asked her to come back after the discussion we were having. When we were finished, my manager said to my colleague, “Don’t forget to call back your little China doll.” Now, this comment was a joke, but he reduced her to a doll and to me it’s got disrespect written all over it and reduces her to less than an equal professional. Jokes carry meaning, and they hurt for those people that want to be taken seriously for their craft. That angry response to the professor’s joke came from hurt, and that is what I acknowledged when I saw the responses first and foremost. That was my feeling, that people (women in this case) want to be taken seriously for their craft, and not be put in a special genre based on a superficial attribute such as sex. I have faith that while sometimes we rant for our own egos, sometimes we rant for legitimately feeling that we aren’t treated the same, and we hurt from that. Because the world is, in fact, full of inequality. I guess how we resolve that problem is the real issue. Angrily responding is not going to the trick, as MLK would likely have recommended.
Evo,
Thanks for bringing that article to my attention. If I was to strip Ms. Fraser’s piece of its admittedly impressive sounding vocabulary, I might be inclined to interpret it as essentially saying:
1. The results of feminism have been bad, especially the identity politics part. Everyone has been hurt.;
2. The traditional contributions of women to society are wonderful and we should treasure them; and
3. Feminists should take political control so as to control capitalist enterprises and tax them heavily with a view towards spending the money on “social justice.”
I agree with reformed former feminist University of Ottawa Professor of English Janice Fiamengo when she asserts that feminism is generally predicated upon false scholarship. I intend to argue in my second book – might help if I actually get around to publishing my first one! – that at its core, feminism has always been a gender narcissistic social phenomenon. A subset of Lasch’s “The CUlture of Narcissism,” if you will. And, in fairness, there is an equally concerning masculine social narcissism at play as well.
In terms of the example that you cite (China doll), I would agree that this was not acceptable. The chauvinist who always sees women as inferior or not to be taken seriously is as bad as the ideological feminist who forever insists that women can only ever be victims of men and society.
It would be so nice to live in a world with no “isms.” No feminism, no chauvinism, no National Socialism, no radicalism, no extremism. Just love, harmony, civility, virtue, and genuine respect.
Navigator, if I may, this comment is one of the best I’ve ever read in the manosphere. I very much agree with you, most especially the last two paragraphs. Kudos!
Oh, and clever play on words. It was chuckle worthy, at least. 🙂
Tarnished,
Your reaction made the entire post worthwhile. I am happy that the humour was apparent to you. I am typically very tolerant of differing opinions, but this does not apply to ideological feminists, whom I hold in contempt.
In my second book, I intend to introduce the fictitious prototypical Alsatian feminist scholar Professor Poupi Pantz of Princess U. Rather like the sanctimonious feminist prof I took issue with in my post.
The more I hear about this book, the more I can’t wait for it to be done. I have a feeling that your words may help to redeem the Men’s Rights Movement in the eyes of the general public. Gods know that more eloquent and rational speakers are needed if it’s going to progress.
Thank you, Tarnished. I’ll get more into this in the sequel book, but I noticed a remarkable similarity between my former wife’s expert-confirmed narcissistic personality traits and the personality traits of ideological feminists. These ideological feminists have a pathological need for women being victims of men and society to be ‘true,’ and they will manipulate to no end to achieve this broader social perception.
Clearly, if women must all be victims, men must all be villains. The element of anger that is evident in the men’s rights movement / amongst men’s rights activists (MRA) is to some extent the result of abuse at the hands of feminists. I saw a similar dynamic at work towards the end of my 19 year marriage, in which my wife was being abusive to deliberately provoke me to anger, and she became quite upset when I remained calm.
Yes, a calm and rational response is required. However, when you read what was done to my children and me, and understand that this is likely systemic to varying degrees amongst the various jurisdictions, the building anger towards and resentment against feminism begins to makes sense.
1965, sorry for my delayed reply, and yes I struggled through her vocabulary as well! Thank you for your thoughts above. I myself have always said that while I cherish feminism for the liberties it has given me (even my very young mother tells me work-place stories that appall me), I recognize that it has inadvertently brought the family structure to its knees. However, I do wonder if it’s feminism that has done that, or a variety of other issues in combination with it (capitalism and an increasingly materialistic society, just to name one mammoth influence). I totally, totally agree with you in the “isms”. But unfortunately we have to give things a name and a place in order to express verbally those things that we feel, however words so powerful as feminism get dragged around by millions, inevitably giving it a million different meanings and shades of context. I think that’s why so many women, who want equal rights, lean toward the word “humanist”, which I have also done in the past. A rather muddled reply, but at least a reply!
Evo,
So wonderful to hear from you again. Your response is actually rather insightful, and I thank you for it. As with you, I support individual liberty to a reasonable extent (i.e., not to the extent of social chaos or serious criminal conduct).
However, my analysis suggests that feminism is a narcissistic phenomenon. Thus, the liberties that it has brought women are to some extent illusory. However, these are lines of inquiry that I will have to develop for my 2nd book; the 1st is still 2-3 months from being published.
In terms of the family structure, feminism is a large part of the problem, but not exclusively so. I would argue that this is part of the broader narcissistic social decay as per Lasch’s “The Culture of Narcissism.”
I think sincere humanism is a marvellous philosophy to adopt.