Protect our Women

Fully aware that in today’s world, especially young people, a white, straight man has nothing to say, I am going to say something that is perhaps increasingly controverse, but which was for most of my life the most accepted norm for me:

Women are adult human females. Typically, women have two X chromosomes and are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause. Female anatomy is distinguishable from male anatomy by the female reproductive system, which includes the ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina, and vulva. The adult female pelvis is wider, the hips broader, and the breasts larger than that of adult males. Women have significantly less facial and other body hair, have a higher body fat composition, and are on average shorter and less muscular than men.

The reason this is considered controversial in some places is the growing lobbying by trans activists who claim that anyone can be a woman. The only requirement is a man’s “self-identification” as a woman, without having to meet the physiological or hormonal characteristics mentioned above. It should be a matter of common sense to realize that this ideology brings problems, especially for women. The special rights of women protect them from exploitation and abuse by misogynistic men, but obviously do not protect them enough.

From a fact sheet from the WHO, I judge this to be true:

  • Violence against women – particularly intimate partner violence and sexual violence – is a major public health problem and a violation of women’s human rights.
  • Estimates published by WHO indicate that globally about 1 in 3 (30%) of women worldwide have been subjected to either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime.
  • Most of this violence is intimate partner violence. Worldwide, almost one third (27%) of women aged 15-49 years who have been in a relationship report that they have been subjected to some form of physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partner.
  • Violence can negatively affect women’s physical, mental, sexual, and reproductive health, and may increase the risk of acquiring HIV in some settings.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

In the report “Violence Against Women Prevalence Estimates” from 2018, it was found that “Overall, there were 54 countries where the estimates of past 12 months physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence among ever-married/partnered women were above the world average of 13% (UI 10–16%).”

There are also numerous accounts of women endangered by men dressed as women, which can easily be found on the internet, some of which you can find here: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=women+threatened+by+men+dressed+as+women&qpvt=women+threatened+by+men+dressed+as+women&FORM=VDRE

Factors specifically associated with the perpetration of sexual violence include beliefs in family honour and sexual purity, ideologies of male sexual entitlement, and weak legal sanctions for sexual violence. Gender inequality and norms about the acceptability of violence against women are a major cause of violence against women.

Another report states that “Studies of men in Western society reveal marked individual differences in their self-reported proclivity to rape, their sexual arousability to rape descriptions, and their attitudes towards rape. Rapists themselves often engage in other criminal activities, are more sexually aroused by descriptions of rape, and frequently have other sexual deviations. Sadistic rapists are commonly obsessed with aggressive sexual imagery and exhibit marked sexual arousal to descriptions of rape. There is evidence that violent sexual pornography may be conducive to the development of an interest in sexual aggression.” (https://www.academia.edu/55073957/Sexual_aggression_Studies_of_offenders_against_women )

The fact that there are “marked individual differences” amongst men raises the question of why one group of men is receptive to violent images while others are abhorred by such images. The last report suggests that it is a learned behaviour that leads to either appropriate or aggressive behaviour, certainly due to experiences at a younger age, whether in the family or in other settings where the behaviour of elders or “respected persons” influences the attitudes of pubescent boys. Acceptance or toleration of violence in a sexual setting can have both effects, depending on an adolescent’s psychological outlook, and can produce aggressive behaviour toward women.

Unfortunately, individual women sometimes also accept a certain amount of violence, which may be reflected in the behaviour of their sons, but this is not the norm. It is sometimes seen in courtship rituals where women test the masculinity of their suitors, or by teasing the men for not being demonstrably masculine, or suggesting “rough sex,” which would have been considered deeply inappropriate fifty years ago but is now a symbol of liberated femininity for some people.

The widespread availability of pornography, which is decidedly directed at a male audience, is another source of misinformation and influences the factors that cause excitability in young men. Many women find this situation a major influence on the objectification of women and indeed gender dysphoria. As Mary Harrington, who calls herself a “Reactionary Feminist” said in a conversation on Rebel Wisdom recently:

“I have come gradually to the conclusion that in actually gender ideology, in particularly transgender children are being instrumentalized. You know there are some seriously distressed people, who are for all a number a range of different, often quite complicated, personally very painful reasons, deeply unhappy in their bodies and in the world as it is. And I think that is often a rational response to finding themselves in a very in an absolutely intolerable place. Particularly adolescent women who find themselves in a world so saturated with porn, that actually to me, it seems a completely reasonable response to take hormones that make them resemble a male and cut off your breasts. I mean, I would probably be tempted if I were 14 today. So, you know from that point of view you know I have no beef with people who are trying to find some relief in an embodied condition that they find intolerable.”

The distress that the current sexualised situation of young people today causes, is enough to drive an increasing number of them to extreme measures. In some cases, they abhor their femininity, because it makes them vulnerable to advances from men. Mary Harrington also mentioned a friend of hers, Louise Perry, who has recently authored a book about the case against the sexual revolution:

“Her background is as a broadly left liberal feminist, who has worked in a rape shelter, which in fact left her questioning a lot of what she had internalized about what the sexual revolution meant, who it was for, and what it was actually doing. So, she has written a whole book about her perspective on this with chapter titles that I would think would have been, as you say, five years ago very difficult to argue with. Like love and sex is not empowering, people are not commodities, listen to your mother… All sort of fairly sensible, you would think, straightforward statements to make. Somebody within the academy posted the screenshot of her chapter headings today, saying, “this is a real mask off moment, look at this, look at the horrors, which are coming forth from…” the various other sort of imputations of the f [fascism] word. But then received quite a lot of replies to the effect of ‘which bit of “people are not commodities” are you objecting to?’ Really the response was though, “there is nothing here that any of us disagrees with, this all sounds very sensible,” which indeed it does. Love and sex are not empowering, certainly not to women anyway, but what I am trying to say is, there are a lot of people out there, who see this stuff and feel endlessly wordlessly frustrated with this stuff. And they just are not really sure how to mobilize against this stuff, because it is the sort of integrated messaging apparatus, which is transmitting. It seems very well articulated and very all-encompassing, but actually it is not.”

Another well-known victim of offensive behaviour is J. K. Rowling, who is concerned about reinterpreting (or abolishing) the term “woman” and dismantling measures to protect women, such as allowing men who identify as women into their spaces. By saying that only women can bear children, which is the most important criterion for defining a woman, she triggered a landslide of protest from all the probably well-meaning activists who accused her of being “transphobic,” when all she wants to do is protect women’s rights.

We really must get a grip on a situation that is getting out of control, and which the politically left seem to be embracing, and which is pushing people into the far right of politics, because these people object to it, amongst their otherwise right-wing policies. It is also a part of a larger problem, which the conversation entitled “The War On Reality” listed above between Mary Harrington, Paul Kingsnorth, and David Fuller from Rebel Wisdom, points out. Mary Harrington again:

“… there are limits to how much women will tolerate being told that a woman is anybody who says they’re a woman, for example, which is the most egregious and the most “in your face” battlefront in the push for no limits whatsoever. In terms of individual self-actualization or on any terms whatsoever, that is the most egregious front in that particular… There are many others, but it’s also the one which is mobilizing the most sort of cross-party resistance, because if you’ve grown a new human inside your literal uterus, you know what a woman is, and it’s also notable how many of the people, how many of the men who pay lip service to this idea, that a woman is anybody who says they are one, immediately knows what a woman is the moment they want to rent a uterus.

All this stuff is full of slippages, and it is full of bad faith, and it is full of inconsistency, and everybody knows that to be the case, because at the end of the day, it is the liquefaction of everything. I have just been writing a chapter about this actually. The liquefaction of everything does not actually work, because it is premised on the idea that there is no such thing as nature, and no such thing as human nature, and that is not actually true. So, what it does in the end is it successfully liquefies all the norms, or all of these established structures, but because human nature continues to exist, it then simply reframes that, as a set of supply and demand problems. So, instead of having courtship rituals, you have the sexual marketplace, and that is a straightforward reordering of the sex differences between men and women, which had quite elaborate social codes ordered around them in order to balance the interests of men and women under particular economic circumstances.

You liquefy that. You blow it all out of the water and say, no actually, everybody can just do what they want now. But what happens is not that everybody does what they want exactly, because people still have urges, which are not rational and some of those are connected to reproductive roles. They just are. But instead, and because this stuff goes on existing, it just it just gets reabsorbed into the marketplace, and it becomes a set of supply and demand problems. And the same is now happening with biological sex. It is either the desire to be one sex or another, which is being reimagined as a set of supply and demand problems. There are already medical papers out there. We are talking about uterus transplants into men who identify as women. I do not know where they are going to get the uteruses from, but presumably from women who identify as men. I mean, who knows? Anyway, there is this, it is being imagined as a set of Lego parts that could just be swapped, so that they are in the right place, presumably through some sort of marketplace, and the same goes against the babies. Women are still the only people who can gestate new humans, so here again, because we we’re in the process of liquefying all of the norms, but we haven’t in the process successfully managed to abolish the underlying material facts on which those norms are built, we just end up reimagining them as a set of supply and demand problems. So, now if you need a uterus you just go and rent one, but the point is, the liquefaction doesn’t work, and so my sense is, there’s a kind of frustration there among the “automated luxury Gnostics”, because every time they try and get to the bottom, to the point where actually we have just attained full grey goo satanism, it just never quite works, because there’s always another level of materiality, which has its patterns and continues to be what it is. It is a very depressing, very pessimistic sort of a hope, but I do have some, you know. If I have hope, it is in the fact that nature persists, it just is, and it does not matter how many times you try and liquefy, it continues.”

Paul Kingsnorth commented:

“I think that is really a great summary of it all. I‘ve written quite a few times in these essays I am doing at the moment, about the how revolutions effectively – especially progressive revolutions – always clear the ground for the machine. They think they’re creating a utopia, and what actually happens from the French revolution onwards, is you destroy all the customary structures, you destroy the traditions, you destroy the structures from families to community level, structures up to church level, you literally burn down the churches, and you try to destroy the family, and you redistribute the land, and what happens then, is you just create a void, and into the void commerce rushes.

So, as Mary says, everything becomes commodified and so the result of your grand utopian progressive revolution is not a fairer world, it is effectively a world that is more commodified, more individualistic and more prey to the machine. And that brings us to the point, after about two hundred years, that we’ve got to now, where everything is a commodity, but there are a lot of people who consider themselves to be progressive, who have confused that with liberation. This is really what liberation has come down to, as Mary is also saying, better than me, it is liberation from nature at all levels, liberation from the body, liberation from everything around you, and this I think explains the kind of people who scream about fascism, and the people who are so committed to this, they genuinely think – well, effectively, they’re blank-slateists – they genuinely believe that if you can remove all of the supposed change that ties down from the reality of biological sex, to the existence of family, to national culture, to whatever it is that you think is getting in the way of equality and utopia, then we’re all the same and we can indeed all choose to have babies, or to be men not to be women, or to live anywhere, or to be whatever we want. But that is not true, because we are hefted and we are rooted in in whatever culture, or background, or biology we have and there are some things you cannot get away from – but also you should not want to, because they actually make you human. And that is the thing!

There is this notion that these structures that have in most societies and in most times been customary, from the family to the village, to the religious institution, whatever it is, that they are bad things, which limit us. As opposed to the possibility that they are actually things, which enrich us, and which structure our urges in useful ways, and that is the point. We are going to have to probably painfully rediscover that we built these structures for a reason, and we lived in certain ways for a reason, and however imperfect those ways might have been for lots of people, and they’re hardly unimprovable, they still are probably built on a knowledge of human nature that we’re now pretending isn’t there anymore. And yes, we are getting to the point where we have deconstructed almost everything, and as Mary said, there is a grinning face at the bottom of it. It is not looking good!”

No, not at all!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.