Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kim Cosgrove's avatar

This article is sooo good!

“If you’re bitter at the invitation to share some of your power rather than lording it over the weaker sex, then we didn’t kill your chivalry. You never had any to begin with. “ - AMEN!

Expand full comment
Steersman's avatar

"What these men (not all men) are really saying is that when women reject men’s control, we forfeit our right to men’s protection. .... It’s both morally and logically bankrupt."

Nice to see the #NotAllMen .... 😉🙂

But quite agree on the "bankrupt". Rather profoundly shortsighted in fact, like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Reminds me of a quote of a famous Canadian suffragette, Nellie McClung: "no nation rises higher than its women". Largely why most Muslim countries are such basket cases -- and those in thrall to the "Texas Taliban" ....

Though women in general -- #NotAllWomen -- bear some responsibility for the whole transgender clusterfuck since much of feminism is corrupted by antiscientific ideology, by a pandering to women's vanity, by a refusal to take biology seriously.

As feminist philosopher Amia Srinivasan once put it:

“The objection I have in mind is that feminist philosophy rests on a mistake: namely, a conflation of epistemology and politics. Philosophy, at least on the conventional understanding, is an epistemic project, a project oriented toward truth or knowledge, and thus committed to the kind of unfettered inquiry that is conducive to the acquisition of truth and knowledge. Feminism meanwhile is a political project, a project oriented toward the emancipation of women and the dissolution of patriarchy."

A more or less worthwhile "project", but not at the expense of scientifically justified theories and principles:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts