S.M. HUTCHENS writes at Touchstone:

I have for many years dealt with feminism, particularly in its religious form, as an adversary, regarding it as an enemy of the human race because it is the enemy of half its members.  If I were to be asked to explain briefly what it is, and what is wrong with it, I would reply it is a form of utopianism, essentially an insanity, founded on refusal to accept the male as male.

If the lovely, but very young, Emma Watson wonders out loud before a United Nations audience why so many strangely take feminism for man-hating, the answer is that even if someone feels no ill-will toward men in general, but supports programs that proscribe maleness in accordance with a formula that makes them “equal” to women despite their manifest differences, this denies their being as male and prohibits them from exercising it. What better practical example might there be of hatred, especially interesting among those who invariably find it among people who refuse to accept sexual deviation as personal identity?  What about granting the same to men who will not submit to castration?

— Comments —

Paul C. writes:

I am unsure about what the author means by the following:

What better practical example might there be of hatred, especially interesting among those who invariably find it among people who refuse to accept sexual deviation as personal identity?  What about granting the same to men who will not submit to castration?

“It” refers to hatred I presume.  But I am unsure about what he means by “accept sexual deviation as personal identity.”  He seems to be saying feminists accept people such as transsexuals as having personal identities but don’t accept males as having personal identities.  The word it and the phrase personal identity are vague.  I infer he is saying feminists accept transsexuals as people having a fixed sex (the author’s “personal identity”) but don’t accept genetic males or females as having a fixed sex.  This is truly an internal contradiction in the feminist religion.

He tries to illustrate by a confusing rhetorical question.  I don’t see feminists wanting literal male castration.  I expect he means emasculation, which has concrete synonyms (unman, demoralize, and dishearten for example) rather than castration and is using exaggeration to make his point.

I think I have it right.  If I do, the author should have used concrete words and phrases.  Plain English is vital to communication especially on the Net, where more and more people are not looking up the various definitions of words as they use their smartphones obsessively with their thumbs.  They are moving too fast.  Instead of castration, he could have said “being unmanned.”  I know un as a prefix is often not clear.

I do admire his succinctness.  His point could be useful in a discussion or a debate if concrete everyday words were used.

Laura writes:

I see what you mean. I think you interpreted it correctly but it was unclear.

Please follow and like us: