The Underpinnings Of Political Correctness
It's the denial of biology. Wendy McElroy does a nice review of "the social construction of gender" at The Daily Bell. An excerpt:
The theory that drives PC feminism reaches back to post-modern French philosophy which emerged in the 1940s and blossomed in the 1960s. (It is sometimes called post-structuralism.) Of the post-modernists, Michel Foucault probably had the deepest impact on gender or PC feminism. His popularity peaked in the late '60s and early '70s when PC feminism was radicalizing and absorbing the broader feminist movement, which had been liberal. Foucault's impact occurred despite a remarkable dearth of discussion about women within his writings. What he did discuss, however, was the relationship between sex and the body, identity and subject, power and politics. In the Internet Encyclopedia, Aurelia Armstrong, of the University of Queensland, explained, "Foucault's idea that the body and sexuality are cultural constructs rather than natural phenomena has made a significant contribution to the feminist critique of essentialism."What was the core belief presented by Foucault and adopted by PC feminists? Foucault believed it was an error to view sex as a natural force; it was wrong to think of sex as a biological force, which those in power encouraged or repressed depending upon their assessment of its particular expression. Sex should be understood instead as a social construct that people in power defined. This is a fundamentally different statement than claiming that culture influences a person's experience of his or her own sexuality. Foucault claimed that culture defined a person's sexuality in the literal sense. In other words, sex was not biologically determined; it was established at its root by those who controlled the culture. In PC language, whoever controlled the narrative and texts of society, also controlled sexuality by defining it. The narrative and texts defined who and what a human being was.
The idea of sex as a social construct appealed to PC feminists who rejected "sexual essentialism"; this is the idea that an individual's sexuality has a basis in nature that includes drives, such as motherhood. This was part of rejecting the idea that a woman's role was somehow rooted in her biology. Even deeply felt sexual preferences such as heterosexuality are not biological, PC voices argued. Sexual preferences are entirely social constructs.
Indeed, a key reason PC feminists abandoned the word "sex" was because it was too closely associated with genitalia, which was either male or female. (With rare exceptions, it can be a combination of both.) Sex was too associated with the old narrative and texts. Instead, PC feminists adopted the more flexible concept of "gender" which was a sexual identity that could be constructed along a new vision. Thus, when Facebook recently offered users the opportunity to define their own gender, there were more than 50 options available. One example was "neutrois." This is "an umbrella term within the bigger umbrella terms of transgender or genderqueer." It includes "people who do not identify within the binary gender system (i.e., man/woman)."
It is not possible to understand the crusades of PC feminists without grasping the importance of the social construction of gender. They believe that men quite literally construct women's sexuality through the words and images men impose on society. The purpose in doing so is to keep women in a state of fear that facilitates their subjugation. Collectively, the engine of subjugation is called patriarchy, which is a combination of white male culture and capitalism.
More and more, I see this sort of thinking as a means of weak people to gain unearned power over others.
Another aspect is just simple bad manners. People think that something that is of intense personal interest to them must be of interest to the whole world. That's almost always my take-away from the LGBT crowd: they think the world cares about their private lives. No, we really don't; we all have our own lives, thanks.
I don't care what someone's sexuality is, nor does anyone else aside from their friends and family. It's no different from the people who insist on sharing the details of their medical history with you in the checkout line. Keep your private life private, and we'll all get along much better.
a_random_guy at February 15, 2015 12:45 AM
random_guy at February 15, 2015 12:45 AM
☑
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at February 15, 2015 12:50 AM
Whoever thinks that sex is not "biological" has not seen a woman dance for her lover.
Bob in Texas at February 15, 2015 4:52 AM
Random, truly agree with you but see my note at the bottom. I really do this this is about a power grab by people who can't earn power or position (not without a fuckload of work, anyway).
Amy Alkon at February 15, 2015 6:32 AM
Amy, when the question is "why", the answer invariably boils down to "power" or "money". And usually both. . .
Keith Glass at February 15, 2015 8:50 AM
The reality is that most of the radical feminists despise men, and wish that they did not exist. Many of them are lesbians who hate heterosexuality. This is the psychological background which then leads to them making the inane argument, which is refuted by everything we see in nature or human history, that gender is a social construct, not a biological imperative.
One could just pass this off as ludicrousness (one might as well argue that people are really fish who have deluded themselves that they are walking), except that it has very frightening real world consequences. Increasingly we are seeing that in the grade schools, there are efforts to take every male aspect away from boys, to punish or expel them for being male, for behaviors (such as playing exuberantly, being full of energy) which are common to male children in virtually all animal species. These boys are often put on a diet of Ritalin, to take the maleness out of them. The argument that their maleness is not inherent, but is simply an intellectual construct invented by some patriarchy, thus allows the feminists who mostly run elementary and secondary schools to have the license to try to alter and eradicate biological norms. People who just shrug their shoulders and think that this "social construct" idea is just laughable nonsense, should realize that this is the psychological underpinning of a doctrine of marginalization and exclusion of men.
William at February 15, 2015 9:53 AM
@ a_random_guy: Amen!
Ken R at February 15, 2015 10:17 AM
@ Bob in Texas: Amen! and Hallelujah!
Ken R at February 15, 2015 10:18 AM
William: "Increasingly we are seeing that in the grade schools, there are efforts to take every male aspect away from boys, to punish or expel them for being male... These boys are often put on a diet of Ritalin, to take the maleness out of them... this 'social construct' idea is... the psychological underpinning of a doctrine of marginalization and exclusion of men."
And the parents of those boys are either blissfully unaware or they're OK with it!
In most of those cases where a kid was suspended for behaviors such as chewing a Pop Tart into a right angle or offering to make his friend disappear with a magic ring, the parents seemed more upset about the kid being suspended from school than they were about the harm that's being done by emotionally unstable teachers. People who can be triggered by L-shaped Pop Tarts, toy magic rings or pink Hello Kitty bubble guns should not be teaching children.
Ken R at February 15, 2015 10:55 AM
I don't think it's enough to state it's a power grab. Attempts to shift or gain power within society are often very legitimate. Democratic. Voting. Debating. Initiatives. Lobbying. Running for office.
PC/SJW/Feminist attacks though are particularly sociopathic power grab where power is sought not on the basis of merit but on specious claims of victimhood, and where power is sought not from centers of actual power, but from targeted groups on the basis of identity, where most in those groups have the same or little power as the group seeking it.
It's a divisive movement, that cheats, and succeeds only due to shouting, indoctrination, guilt and giving in to terrorism.
jerry at February 15, 2015 11:52 AM
"Kids are different today,"
I hear ev'ry teacher say
Teacher needs something today to calm her down
And though they're not really ill
There's a little yellow pill (*)
She goes running for the shelter of a teacher's little helper
And it helps those in her way, gets her through their busy day
(*) may also be blue, green and orange.
jerry at February 15, 2015 12:02 PM
"the engine of subjugation is called patriarchy, which is a combination of white male culture and capitalism."
I have a real question. What human culture isn't patriarchal? I really mean why specifically do feminists keep singling out white men? I don't know of any anthropologist that has confirmed the existence of a purely matriarchal society--ever.
There are some odd ones, like where your lineage is through your mother and your biological father isn't considered to be your dad. Instead it's her brother who is your "real" father. But that is still to protect the purity and property of the male line. There are even societies where women have multiple husbands but it's because resources are scarce and she's a piece of property to be shared. So....??? And what does capitalism have to do with this?
Ppen at February 15, 2015 2:48 PM
The only reason to listen to a modern day feminist is to wait for the pause to call her a fucking moron.
999 out of 1000 times, you won't be wrong.
Some cultures have been more 'equitable' than others. The Mongols gave enormous power to their own women so that the men could go out and conquer more often. The Gauls had women as ambassadors, powerful royal figures, and even warriors (though not as commonly as feminists would like to believe.
The Sarmatian women were said to be required to kill a man before they could marry...
And some cultures had women of varying ages holding various degrees of power and autonomy. A culture in Asia whose name escapes me for example...a young woman was a powerless pawn, but an old one was a powerful figure within their society.
But no...as far as I have ever heard, there has never been an overtly Matriarchal culture. If ever there were any, it is telling that not a single one of them survived contact or conflict with Patriarchal neighbors, reached any degree of social or technological sophistication, or built significant empires.
Now what it tells you, I leave to your interpretation, myself, I have my own notions on that subject which are irrelevant to this discussion.
Robert at February 15, 2015 3:58 PM
Foucault believed it was an error to view sex as a natural force; it was wrong to think of sex as a biological force,
Foucault also once described being abducted by alien ghosts whose supreme leader, he said, was a centaur, this particular one being a combination of a leprechaun and unicorn.
JD at February 15, 2015 5:37 PM
The irony is that the most man-hating PM feminist will eagerly tumble for a man with suffiiciently high status. We saw this in the Clinton-Lewinsky affair; the reaction of leftist women was far more enlightening than the affair itself. Of course, the impulse of the female to seek a high-status male (one that's not limited to humans) is one of the most primitive, meaning biologically driven, of all sexual behaviors.
Cousin Dave at February 16, 2015 7:21 AM
"why specifically do feminists keep singling out white men?"
Because they're white chicks with daddy issues, of course, except for the minority feminists, for whom you can add race issues.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 16, 2015 9:46 AM
When men, as a group, finally wake up to the fact that they have been under attack by feminism in the name of all women, do you think, in seeking retribution, men will be able to distinguish between "women" and "feminists"?
I very much doubt it. Smart women should start to feel very uneasy about this situation. If men are even a tiny bit like feminists portray them to be, women are in great danger from the explosion of male anger and resentment that is now virtually inevitable.
My advice to women? Make nice with men ... while there still might be time to avoid calamity.
Jay R at February 16, 2015 10:35 AM
Women should try to remember that what men have given them, men can take away from them ... and there's not a damn thing women can do about it if and when the sh*t hits the fan.
Jay R at February 16, 2015 10:39 AM
Leave a comment