18 Comments

In the US no one pays attention to this day. We have so many fake holidays, like Pi day, we’re saturated. If we don’t get a paid holiday or a gift we don’t care.

Expand full comment
founding

True lol. Why is every day "International Day of xyz" now. (Because we've stopped being Christian and celebrating saints)

Expand full comment

Here in Oaxaca, Mexico IWD was a pretext to block traffic throughout the city, break windows, and paint graffiti in copious amounts. And for what?

Not a fan.

Expand full comment

A little off-topic, but IWD is a prime example of capitalism being able to absorb and even monetise messages intended to destroy it. Like, the holiday went from Soviet propaganda to being embraced by the corporations, and very few people even stop to think how strange this is.

Expand full comment
founding

One of the major problems with wokeness is the false binary between "privileged" and "marginalized" where a group either is "oppressed" or has no issues worth talking about at all, with no room for any shades of gray in between. I applaud you for recognizing that the complexity of how we view women doesn't fit cleanly into this binary, but I thought that your comments about International Men's Day missed the mark. I don't think that one has to believe that men are "oppressed" to have a problem with the double standard. There are plenty of gender-related challenges that men face, whether it be the "women are wonderful" bias that you discuss here, the discrimination against men in STEM fields that you discussed in the Cory Clark interview, or a host of other issues such as higher rates of suicide and homicide victimization, shorter life expectancy, forced military conscription, longer sentences for the same crime, false rape allegations, and lack of services for male victims of domestic and sexual violence. We should be able to talk about these things.

Expand full comment

Re "don't be a sissy" is an insult - it's worth noting that this is something that is encouraged primarily by women and their preferences. Is there anything less attractive to a woman than being needy / weak? Of course men do most or all of the work pointing their fellow men in that direction, but the root of "don't be a sissy" comes from female preferences.

Expand full comment
founding

No, it comes from the fact that women and femininity are seen as low status whereas men and masculinity are seen as high status. It’s not primarily women driving this — that’s ridiculous. It’s both men and women who tell little boys that “acting like girls” represents a fall in status and shouldn’t be done. I mean, men are more disgusted by homosexuality so to say it’s women who find feminine men repugnant is a little weird. It also completely strips social power away from the sex that has historically had the lion’s share of social, political, and economic power — men.

Expand full comment

I suppose it's probably driven by both men and women. Seems obvious that men would not want to hunt or go to war with men that are needy / weak. But come on, there's absolutely no doubt that women find it deeply unattractive for a man to be needy / weak and that is a key driver of these cultural norms.

Women may be more tolerant of homosexuality, but I'm talking about their preferences for men that are competing for their intimacy. It's just indisputable that women are less likely to desire a man that is wimpy. I would absolutely gently push my son away from "acting like a girl" without apology, because I care about him, his well-being, and success with women in the future.

And regarding masculinity being higher status - again, women *want* men that are higher status - it is one of the main criteria women care about when finding a mate. So, as you would expect, men put a lot of effort into attaining higher status (which I define as economic success / political influence / popularity).

Expand full comment

So to summarize your position..."it's silly"... and then you went on for 12 minutes twisting yourself and knots trying to explain it as something that is understandable or in some ways justifiable?😂 I think I might argue that for the people who are actually pushing the movement and driving the train wokeism is a postmodernist power game and not a Christian heresy... it's getting a little ugly out there to continuously draw smiley faces and good intentions on people.

Expand full comment
founding

I have an Aunty Louise bias, so I will counter that her explanation highlighted well the paradox: women are lower status, but we like to act like they are higher.

In terms of drawing "smiley faces on people", would you prefer Aunty Louise to be more polemic and aggressive? I honestly think her calm demeanour a key reason for her success. Her measured delivery doesn't mean she's giving anyone a free pass...

Expand full comment
Mar 8·edited Mar 8

You are right of course. She's not giving anyone a free pass and I have a Louise bias myself having three daughters her age all lovely and ridiculously intelligent but I've lived long enough and life's been hard enough for me to know that "unicorn and rainbows" is a fantasy we tell ourselves so that we don't have to look the dragon in the eye. The games that are being played are being played at a high level and although they sweep up the good-hearted people at the lower levels who indeed might be falling for a Christian heresy, the train is still being driven by evil minded manipulators. The sooner we wise up the better or we will all be the worst for it... and women are not "lower status" they have simply given up believing in the feminine and consider only the masculine worthy of aspiring to.

Expand full comment
founding

I don't think Louise is necessarily drawing smiley faces and attributing good intentions on wokeism when she describes it as a Christian heresy. I think it's more of a purely technical term - heresy means a new doctrine that starts out from the main religion and then grows at odds with it (more or less aggressively). So it always contains fundamental elements of the religion it branched out from.

I agree with you that it is a postmodernist power game - one that, as Louise says, is based on certain specific Christian values, among which the celebration of the weak.

The fact that wokeism is obsessed with weakness/oppression is not a coincidence; the most evil manipulators love to paint themselves as helpless victims.

In conclusion, yes I agree that wokeism is a Christian heresy; and, it's precisely why the high-level evil is masquerading behind those values.

I really hope this wasn't too convoluted, anyways I appreciate the stimulating discussion 🌸

Expand full comment
founding

"women are not "lower status" they have simply given up believing in the feminine and consider only the masculine worthy of aspiring to"

Surely the idea of women being lower status is an across-the-board human assumption from time immemorial. It's not a matter of anyone having given up on anything...

""unicorn and rainbows" is a fantasy we tell ourselves so that we don't have to look the dragon in the eye"

Fair enough, but I'm not sure what that was a response to as no one here, least of all, Aunty Louise was saying that.

"the train is still being driven by evil minded manipulators"

I tend to believe that Woke, like most things, is driven by a heady mix of human stupidity (or vulnerability, if you prefer), opportunism, and conformity to moral fashion... And there but for the grace of the gods go anyone of us.

Expand full comment

You're an adorable cynocephaly who's comments are revealing exactly my point about the power of the feminine....

Expand full comment

One might call wokism a Christian heresy, if one thinks of it as a devolution from Calvin's justification-by-faith to your modern progressivist's justification by self-regard.

Expand full comment

I'm not a fan of the Christian heresy argument. I understand what people are getting at but I think it would be more accurate to say it's more a heresy or perhaps even an inversion of Renee Gerard's scapegoat Theory.

Expand full comment