1/
I realize the over-feminization of public life is a problem, and I think wokeness is also feminine coded.
But leftist extremism of wokeness are not necessarily feminine coded.
In the 60's and 70's the radical left was led by violent, militant, masculine men...
2/ The left engaged in bombings, riots, kidnapping, riots, and other such sort of behavior. They formed militia's armed themselves to the teeth, and made straight-forward demands while engaging in direct confrontation.
In fact, feminists used to complain about how the left...
3/ Was run entirely by men. This was a common theme in feminist writing and discourse.
The recent increase in popularity of guys like Hasan Piker (or Bob Vylan, the rappers who chanted "death to the IDF" onstage at a festival) are attempts by the left to re-masculinize...
4/ The feminization of the left over the past years is a product of few things.
The first is the left moved away from violence and militancy (male coded) after those tactics backfired, and move toward cultural and social activism (female coded) in institutions and academia...
5/ The second was the rise of feminism. Once the left became more academic, it opened the door for feminist academics to criticize the left for the fact that it's leadership was overwhelmingly male. Feminsts were able to use the doctrine of "complicity" to argue that anyone...
6/ who was not a feminist was "complicit" in the oppression of women. Once that idea took off everyone on the left had to declare themselves a feminist or risk being dismissed as a misogynist.
This had the effect of making feminist norms (which are created by and for women)...
7/ the default norms for all leftist institutions and organizing spaces.
Lastly, the woke left made the idea that society is an oppressive system create to benefit "straight white males" at the expense of everyone else. This had the effect of making straight men the enemy...
8/ And for this reason all the men on the left went to great pains to separate themselves from "all those other guys" by being more empathetic, kind, gentle,....in other words, a lot more like women in their behavior and temperament.
This made the left more comfortable...
9/ for women and less comfortable for men, which made the problem worse as men left and women flooded in.
So, wokeness is not a product of feminization, feminization is occurred owing to the demands that follow from the woke claim that Straight men are the oppressors...
10/ Once you pathaoligize straight men, it's only a matter of time before you patholigize masculinity as "toxic," which is what the woke movement did.
The fact that it move from militancy to cultural activism in that time, served to make the transition to a female-centric....
11/ from of social organization centered around female coded norms and female temperament much easier. All that said, wokeness, and the leftist substance of wokeness (identity politics, oppressor vs. oppressed thinking, insistence on social transformation and revolution, etc)...
12/ does not require a feminized social milieu in order to advance. It is possible for masculinized wokeness (think of the Black Panthers for example, or the Soviet Unions masculinized propaganda) to emerge of the left thinks that this is the way to go.
Remember...
13/ For woke leftists the point is to gain power using whatever is at hand to do so. So when it benefits them to feminize and bash men they will, and when it benefits them to masculinize and get cartoonishly militant and confrontational they will do that...
14/ And right now they see the writing on the wall, and the more forward thinking leftists were using the Palestine-Israel conflict (and the image of Hamas as leftists freedom fighters) to create an archetype of masculinity that the left could offer to men.
Thats what the...
15/ Bob Vylan "death to the IDF" thing was about. It was about creating a vision of masculinity (oppressed desert third world freedom fighting marxist) that could survive on the left without being deconstructed as being complicit in oppressive patriarchy.
And Hamas...
16/ Whatever else they are, are definately not complicity in advancing the interests of the west, of America, or of capitalism. Since they go against the west at every turn, masculine violent Hamas fighters are an acceptable male role model on the left.
The feminists won't...
17/ Rip apart the Hamas fighters because they view those men as sufficiently "counter hegemonic (against the dominance of western civilization) that they wont accuse them of advancing patriarchy.
The only unimpeachable man on the left is a Hamas Militia member.
so...
18/ This is why the next round of wokeness will be dominated by Fanon-esque third world post-colonialism, and it will adopt the savagery of third world militias as the archetype of acceptable masculinity, because that masculinity exists to resist "western imperialism...
19/ It is through the adoption of third world causes and advocating for the legitimacy of those third world forms of social and political life. They'll romanticize life in Africa before the white man, while using colonialism as an excuse to rehabilitate the legacy of...
20/ Third world dictators like Gadaffi, Idi Amin, Mobutu, and the Islamist militant groups (Isis, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) The left is going to re-masculinize as the feminine mode of leftism loses power.and third world militants will be their archetpye of masculinity....
21/ The left needs to re-masculinize, and they know it and they will need to turn away from their current academic leadership to do it.
The left wants masculine energy, and they aren't going to get it from feminist activists and gender studies professors. They don't have it...
22/ You want to know where you can find plenty of testosterone infused masculine energy???....
From third world militias hell bent on going to war. It may be vulgar, crude and violent, but it has two things the left needs: it's masculine, and it opposes western civilization...
23/ So the left is going to try their best to re-masculinize by turning towards third world fannon-esque post-colonial theory and by holding up Hamas fighters and such as men to be admired.
You can already see it in the form of guys like Hasan piker and Bob Vylan. This is coming and you all need to be ready.
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Indigenous displacement is an idea from postcolonial theory often used to normatively criticize western nations; often using statistical demographic change as evidence of the charge.
My question is: why this doesn't idea apply to London?
2/ The point I am trying to bring out here is related to a question asked by the philosopher Joseph Heath: "What is the difference between a settler and an immigrant?"
Concepts like "indigenous displacement" appear to be neutral descriptions but are in fact normatively loaded...
3/ And the result is that they get deployed according to the normative political considerations of the person using them.
This is why Europeans who move to the U.S. are called "settlers" but Syrian refugees get called immigrants.
"Catholics would be tolerated on the fringes of society"
This sentence is why the dissident right will fail. Trad-Caths/Catholic Integralists see protestants as an abhorration of the true faith. So there's *zero* chance they ever agree to be "tolerated at the fringe of society."
The dissident right has a Protestant wing and a catholic wing.
Protestant DR types think some form of *protestant* Christianity (usually but not always some form of Calvinism) needs to be the default religion of the public.
Trad-caths think it should be catholicism...
And the trad-caths are never, evr, going to let the protestant calvinists (whom the catholics view as a heretical abhorration of true Christianity) force catholics to be merely "tolerated at the fringes."
Likewise, protestants will *never* submit to catholic rule. Ever.
Since "noticing" appears to be a thing, I'd like to say that I "notice" things as well....And I can't help but *notice* the obsession that certain people have with Israel, even though other nations (China, India, Russia, etc) impact the U.S. far more....
I also can't help but notice that those same sorts of people are obsessed the influence of wealth Jews, but have nothing to say about the influence of money from China, Qatar, Russia, India, and so on.
The Jews are, apparantly, an item of incredibly deep concern...
For a great number of people, and I can't help but *notice* that the far greater and more pernicious influence (and subversion) coming from foreign money in other countries gets mysteriously ignored, and I *notice* that Israel is held to a higher standard than every other country
1/ Wokeness is the alloy of the political ideology and moral value framework from Critical Theory with the social constructivist worldview and epistemology of postmodernism.
As the political side of woke recedes culturally, it leaves behind the underlying postmodern worldview.
2/ The teleology of the woke project came from the moral commitments of intersectional social justice (Trans-rights, Race based activism, etc)
Those movements are being dissolved by their own incoherence and absurdity (Land acknowledgements, claiming men can become women, etc)
3/ The dissolution and exhaustion of the political movement that provided the teleology and moral value framework for wokeness leaves the entire social movement around which those things were built without any thing to serve as locus for meaning, purpose, or values.
The left has what @wesyang calls a "Vertically Integrated Messaging Apparatus." It's an apparatus of messaging distribution which is owned and operated by leftists top to bottom, and disseminates only the information which aligns with leftist moral norms and political priorities.
@wesyang The lefts messaging apparatus used to be the information distributor for all of society (we called it "mainstream media") but new media alternatives and the rollback of social media censorship regime's mean society is no longer a captive audience for the lefts messaging apparatus
For decades it was the progressive leftist worldview from which the norms of public life and the values of the common culture were derived. The at-large culture was the home of leftists, and conservative evangelicals were treated like unwanted guests.
Those days are over.
The culture is changing so quickly that people are about to get whiplash. It's no longer the case that the default values of public life are those of the social-justice left, (or of "progressives") and progressives no longer get to determine what is allowed in "polite company."
In other words, the progressives no longer get to simply assume that their goals, values, and priorities get to take center stage in the at-large culture.
The presumption of progressive leftists that they get to set the terms of the debate no longer carries any weight.