Toxic Gender Philosophy

[Alexis Jacobi]

In a sense, there are two Marxs, one who analyzed the problems with capitalism - and in many ways he did well here - and the other Marx who proposed ways to reach better forms of government/economy - oopsy doopsy.

Horrifyingly I know, I accept Immanuel Can’s assessment of the effects of Marxian analysis and Marxist-inspired political and social activism. If I were to list the reasons (the results) it would be a fairly typical *list of horrors*.

But the first Marx — materialist economic analysis — cannot be dismissed nor denied.

My understanding is that the critical theories are expressions, perhaps attenuated, derived from Marxist theory. Gender theory is hard to associate with typical Marxist praxis — but the link is there. Simply put it involves itself in the undermining of a necessary and fundamental category: the solidity of the male-female division.

Theory enters in and upends any assertion of validity of those natural categories, or challenges these with gender-bending alternatives. And similarly to defining the bourgeois as an opponent, as an obstacle (reactionary), the gender theorists take aim at normalized sexual categories and supporting belief and attitude and throw it all up in the air. And, naturally, they reverse the shame and blame of the ‘normal vs the abnormal’ by making their value-categories seem arbitrary — invented.

Iambiguous, would you kindly flutter down here and lecture on that dasein that has us all fractured, drawn and quartered?

(Some minor compliment of my crestfallen wonderfulness would be appreciated — if you have even a drop of human (hetero) decency).

::: sinks back into abysmal depression :::

[Immanuel Can]

My understanding is that the critical theories are expressions, perhaps attenuated, derived from Marxist theory. Gender theory is hard to associate with typical Marxist praxis — but the link is there. Simply put it involves itself in the undermining of a necessary and fundamental category: the solidity of the male-female division.

It's actually a fairly easy link to make. Marx incorrectly thought the fundamental category of dialectical conflict was class. He was wrong,obviously. History did not bear out his prophecies, and his class war never came; nor has class proved to be a durable category, as people move between classes, in modern democracies, and do not derive their primary identities from class, in any case.

But what Marx wanted out of that dialectic was conflict, and particularly, class conflict: revolution. If the revolution is not going to be provoked by class conflict, then the Neo-Marxists had to find other categories to revivify the Marxist aspirations: and this, they created through aggitating other differences, particularly race and sex. Then they expanded this to include sexual deviancy or "queerness", fatness, disability, indigenous grievances, mass migration, climate fear, health anxiety, and other lesser categories. But it doesn't much matter which categories they use, so long as they can provoke conflict, shatter the existing society and produce revolution.

Revolution is the ultimate goal. They pick up one thing and drop another, just as soon as the one thing fails to produce their revolution. But race has worked out well for them: the battle of the sexes, partially so, but it's now played out, and they no longer care about women, for that reason. They're getting their current juice from sexual deviancy, which is where the "gender" concept serves their turn. It's also why they advocate the "trans" over their old ally, women...aggitating the male-female conflict didn't get them as far as they needed to go.

[Alexiev]

Justly so. There's not a single place in the world where attempting to follow Marx hasn't caused two disasters: one is economic collapse, and the other is piles of corpses. How many more must die before the world begins to suspect that Marxism isn't a good thing?

As far ad I know, all of those Neo-Marxist anthropologists you despise have never slaughtered anyone.

Yet. Maybe. It depends on what you count. In any event, everybody whose followed Marx has ended up there. It's not by accident that today's Neo-Marxists are burning down neighbourhoods, bludgeoning shopkeepers, attacking the police, murdering and maiming children, and advocating Malthusianism in the name of the sacred climate. These ideologues find different reasons, but always end up doing the same awful kinds of things.

My point was that blaming Marx for Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot is like blaming Jesus for Torquemada or the witch slaughters of the 16th century.

Well, that wasn't a very good point. It misses the obvious: that Torquemada etc. clearly did the dead opposite of what Jesus Christ told them to do. Not so, the followers of Marx: they followed his revolutionary program as best they could, and it killed millions and wrecked every economy it's touched.

And here's an interesting thing: if all the people in Russia, all those in China, all those in Zimbabwe, all those in Cuba, Venezuela, the Congo, Cambodia...etc., etc., ended up the same two ways: killing people and crashing the economy...how is it that you imagine that today's Neo-Marxists are so much smarter than the old Marxists that they will succeed where those millions of other people failed? What's your reason for imagining that? What insight do the Neos have, that the "crude Marxists" lacked, and which will now turn an unyielding series of disasters into a first success?

You clearly have no idea what a Neo-Marxist is. This is no surprise. Most of them are not Communists. Instead, they study culture using Marxist concepts like alienation, class conflict, and the notion that the economic infrastructure is the most important factor in determining the direction of culture.

All those who "follow" Marx? What does that even mean? "Come after"? Isn't that all of us?

As far as your idiotic claims that neo-Marxists are murdering and maiming children, I doubt it. I'm willing to bet that professors in Gender Studies Departments rarely murder or maim children, despite your nonsensical attempts to vilify them. Neither do all those neo-Marxist anthropology professors.

[Immanuel Can]

You clearly have no idea what a Neo-Marxist is.

That's your most hilarious line.

No, my friend, people know all kinds of things you don't know. This is, apparently, one of them.

All those who "follow" Marx? What does that even mean?

Marxists. All of them.

As far as your idiotic claims that neo-Marxists are murdering and maiming children, I doubt it.

Stalin did. Mao did. Ceaucescu did. Pol Pot did. Castro did...In fact, all of them did. And now, it's the Neo-Marxists in the West who are capitalizing on the "trans" issue to justify the castrating and sterilizing of children.

They never change; they just change labels.

[Alexis Jacobi]

]mmanuel writes: In any event, everybody whose followed Marx has ended up there. It's not by accident that today's Neo-Marxists are burning down neighbourhoods, bludgeoning shopkeepers, attacking the police, murdering and maiming children, and advocating Malthusianism in the name of the sacred climate. These ideologues find different reasons, but always end up doing the same awful kinds of things.

Alexiev writes: You clearly have no idea what a Neo-Marxist is. This is no surprise. Most of them are not Communists. Instead, they study culture using Marxist concepts like alienation, class conflict, and the notion that the economic infrastructure is the most important factor in determining the direction of culture.

It is always a moral task to try to 1) locate IC within his activist's position and to see and understand this for what it is, and 2) to examine some of the statements he makes and to make fair assessments as to their validity.

Does the present conversation and any resolution now hinge on what is, and who is, a Neo-Marxist? We know that an old-school Marxist-Lenninist is -- one can easily find their own descriptions of what they sought, and what they opposed, through a careful search on Google. Their ideology really is a *praxis* -- a means and a method of undermining the institutions that upheld Occidental civilization. In their own documents, in their speeches, they say exactly this. So it is not that hard nor demanding to define an *anti-Marxist-Lenninist* position and to be certain about it.

But what then happened with those who were *committed Marxists* and modified their commitment and the ideology supporting it? That is the question that, when answered, leads into interesting and also contentious territories. But to reduce it to something relatively simple we must (I think) recognize that we have all be tremendously influenced by Neo-Marxist theorists and their theories. Unquestionably. The question is actually: Do we admire this and do we agree with their theoretical propositions? Or do we find something, say, *subtly insidious* in their new doctrines which seem to express Marxist praxis through other and different means?

Who makes the analysis? And what is the basis of their critical position?

Here, obviously, we will have no choice but to refer to the Frankfurt School and the relocation of nearly all of its protagonists to the United States in the PostWar (ll) period. Who will analyze their ideology and their influence? Based in what established philosophical or ideological ground?

I have the sense that it is in this specific area that Alexiev seems to be uninformed, or not sufficiently informed, to say much. Immanuel has a great deal to say, and more preparation, and yet similarly to his Christian apologetics, which repels everyone, so too his political ideology, though linking to truthful perspectives (in my opinion of course), also evokes a peculiar opposition. Again, you have to carefully sort through his statements and, often, re-express them in better terms.

Immanuel is absolutely impervious to the statement "Your Christian apologetics drives everyone away from a sound and reasonable understanding of historical Christianity, and destroys the possibility of *appreciating it*".

Similarly, he seems unaware how his political opinions operate similarly and achieve a similar result. Thus, again, the defects in the man are evident.

Immanuel wrote: Karl Marx was a narcissistic, nihilistic parasite who made all of his stuff up, at least, what he didn't steal from Hegel. He hated humanity, he stole from and abused his friends, he had a wicked temper, a totally selfish disposition, and abused the only Prole he ever knew personally. He was actually the opposite of an "activist," because "activists" DO things. He did DO anything for the poor: he just employed them as pawns in his theorizing.

There are 13 or 14 direct and obvious -- thoroughly unambiguous -- and classic ad hominem statements here! Textbook variety! What we see in this is that, to all appearances, Immanuel Can is a hypocrite. This view cannot be escaped. This is not a complaint, since I have no issue with (proper use) of ad hominem, but rather just one more attempt to *locate* IC within his ideological, and also personally established, milieu.

I cannot absolutely disagree with some of his assessments of Marx -- they *reflect truth*. Yet they are simultaneously highly prejudicial and as such, taken as such, they will not help us to understand either Classical Marxist-Lenninism nor the mutation into Neo-Marxian forms.

[Walker]

What does Gender Studies say about this objective measure that distinguishes men from women? (Since the plumbing isn’t objectively recognized as a measure).

Men’s and women’s brains do work differently, new research proves
https://nypost.com/2024/02/20/lifestyle ... fferently/

“The study’s conclusions contradict those who believe sex-based differences can be blamed on society.”

[Immanuel Can]

It is always a moral task to try to 1) locate IC within his activist's position...

But, as they say, "a word to the wise is sufficient"...

Ah. So "a word" was not "sufficient." I suppose I didn't really have sufficient reason to believe it would be. However, it seemed the charitable thing to assume, at the time.

Well, carry on as you see fit. The results are likely to prove to be exactly as described.

[Immanuel Can]

What does Gender Studies say about this objective measure that distinguishes men from women? (Since the plumbing isn’t objectively recognized as a measure).

Men’s and women’s brains do work differently, new research proves
https://nypost.com/2024/02/20/lifestyle ... fferently/

“The study’s conclusions contradict those who believe sex-based differences can be blamed on society.”

I really don't think anybody who knows anything about the science, or who has ever been in a close relationship with the opposite sex could possibly imagine that sex-differences were largely or completely socially-constructed. I think it's really a totally ideological project, to advance that sort of argument. It's all about remaking the world in the image of what the speaker has decided he/she wishes it would be, or of fomenting the sort of ressentiment, entitlement, disorientation and bitterness that can sponsor social revolution, rather than about facing the truth as it actually exists.

That's why scientific proof doesn't dislodge these people from their convictions: they only refer to "the Science" when they think it can be used to advance their ideological cause...other than that, they despise science, just as they despise logic, reason and truth. Their motivation is utopian, aspirational and pseudo-prophetic, not grounded, scientific and realistic.

So you are right: but I don't think it will dislodge them from their commitments at all.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, carry on as you see fit. The results are likely to prove to be exactly as described.

You are, as you sometimes do, talking out of your asshole.

I mean — in a manner of speaking.

I suppose I didn't really have sufficient reason to believe it would be.

LOL. No, you really didn’t!

[Alexiev]

What does Gender Studies say about this objective measure that distinguishes men from women? (Since the plumbing isn’t objectively recognized as a measure).

Men’s and women’s brains do work differently, new research proves
https://nypost.com/2024/02/20/lifestyle ... fferently/

“The study’s conclusions contradict those who believe sex-based differences can be blamed on society.”

Despite the New York Post's gaudy reputation as a Medical Journal, I don't get it. Everyone knows that men and women tend to think differently. Most reasonable people assume that sophisticated measurement of brain activity can measure these differences. Like many reductionist studies, this one appears to measure the obvious, making it seem more scientific.

What the study doesn't show, and cannot show, is that the results (in a conclusion evidently written by the New York Post) "contradict those who believe sex-based differences can be blamed on society."

This is the prejudiced claim of those beating an anti-woke gong.

In general, nature vs. nurture is unresolvable. Without human brains, we wouldn't think as we do. Without learning language we wouldn't think as we do. Hmmm.

I admit that I haven't read the study; I simply quickly perused the linked article. But why would anyone assume that the measurable differences in brain activity between men and women cannot be the result of nurture, instead of nature? Suppose that, instead of brain activity, the researchers had measured muscle strength. Instead of men vs. women, the researchers had studied athletes vs. non-athletes. "A.I. examination clearly showed that the athletes had stronger muscles than the non-athletes," the Post headlines would blare. IN an editorial aside, the Post would write, "the study's conclusions contradict those who believe athletes are stronger because of their lifestyle." But do they? Maybe the measurable difference in brain hot spots between men and women is based on the different training, education, and socialization they experience. Of course our experiences influence how we think, which in turn influences the measurable activity of our brains.

Perhaps the journal article justifies the Post's conclusions in a manner of which I am unaware. But I doubt it.

IN addition (getting back to the topic of this meandering thread) suppose that tests of people wanting to transition to a different gender showed that THEIR brains fooled the artificial intelligence. AI thought the men wanting to transition were women (acc. the brain scans), and the women were men. Would that make anyone here change his or her opinion about gender fluidity? Should we determine sex not be genitalia or DNA, but be brain scans?

[Walker]

Interesting analysis.

- I wonder if a man who declares his gender is woman, has the brain scan of a woman?

[LuckyR]

Interesting analysis.

- I wonder if a man who declares his gender is woman, has the brain scan of a woman?

Yeah, interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, as it makes sense.

[Walker]

Interesting analysis.

- I wonder if a man who declares his gender is woman, has the brain scan of a woman?

Yeah, interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, as it makes sense.

Hard to say. On the one hand that sounds like a man tapping the heels of Dorothy's ruby slippers together and wishing on a star. On the other hand, I've heard people can fool lie detector tests. Fooling a brain scan could be a matter of biofeedback conditioning.

[LuckyR]

Interesting analysis.

- I wonder if a man who declares his gender is woman, has the brain scan of a woman?

Yeah, interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, as it makes sense.

Hard to say. On the one hand that sounds like a man tapping the heels of Dorothy's ruby slippers together and wishing on a star. On the other hand, I've heard people can fool lie detector tests. Fooling a brain scan could be a matter of biofeedback conditioning.

Fooling? Brain scans don't examine genitals. It is what it is.

[jasonlava]

Noteable in the world of "gender" theory is the lauding of feminity, and the persistent effort to debase masculinity. The dominant discourses position men as "oppressors" and inheritors of the illegitimate benefits of "patriarchy," and women as the "victims," whose values have been "marginalized," and must now be "re-centered."

Of course, all this is quite ridiculous in the sort of world in which women's values already manifestly predominate. But continued success for the Feminist movement requires an on-going enemy. So the tendency has become for Feminists to pile-on, constantly finding new ways to assert that the mythical "patriarchy" remains, in some form, and thus there is still work for Feminism to do, and legitimacy to their always-increasing political hegemony through the media, institutions and government. Their cries are less and less plausible, and their demands more and more extravagant: but at some point, the balance tips, and cries for redistribution and new privilege start to sound lunatic and greedy. That point may have already been reached, which would sap the Feminist movement of further strength.

However, absent from any concern is what this would cause to men. Men cannot be pitied, not only because the narrative requires them never to be, but because the nature of masculinity is to despise pity -- a pitiable male is feminized and gelded. So even men won't heap pity on other men, because that's insulting and degrading. So I am not here taking any thought for what is conventionally called "the men's rights movement," because I think that men are ill-served by collective "movements." To plead for sympathy is unmasculine. Men, when they are ready to do it, can always take back society, because, at the end of the day, overwhelming power exists on their side, and ideological suppression of that is always temporary...and perilous to women. The need for that power to be exercised, and its lack of legitimate forms of exercise being allowed by society, builds with continued repression...and one day, when that pressure becomes enough, everything suddenly reverses. That should concern all Feminists. Nothing they can do will prevent that, either; so they'd be better to find a way to empathize with it an elicit it as a positive force, instead of denigrating it. But the Feminists have found it much easier simply to deplore the masculine rather than to redirect it, and that cheap short-cut stands to be a real problem to both sexes.

However, my concern of the moment is what the effective elimination of interest in men's perspectives does to women.

For one thing, it removes the essential binary value that allows femininity to be seen, to be distinctive, or to be assigned social value. If what we have traditionally seen as "femininity" is nothing more than a kind of compassionate, general "humanity," then there is no "other" against which "feminine" can be understood to signify anything. If there is no "male," then what is the meaning of "female"? If there is no "masculine," then what has the "feminine" to contribute that we can call its own?

Beyond that, there is a serious concern over what this essential exclusion from recognition and valuing does to women...through what it does to men. Enough has been written already about "men going their own way," (MGTOW), or the 10% of males that get the rapt attention of 80% of the women, but commit to only one or to none, or the plague of choiceless single-mothering, and the abundance of essentially-unmarriageable Western women, and "passport bros," all of which radically alter the dynamics of sexual politics. There are other spin-offs that go more directly to the question of how society understands the feminine.

For the removal of this "other," this counterpart, leaves about half of the human race on the outside of society. What is to be done with all this "masculine" energy, once we have denied it has any place to be useful or celebrated within our feminized society? What is to be done with our boys? What are they allowed to grow into, if being a "man" is bad, destructive, and socially-deplored? It's not like they'll stop being men, or that they even could; it's just that whatever energies they've got, they will be abused and marginalized for having. And this will radically reorient the relationship between men and society itself. Will men just stop living? Or will the energy they are denigrated for having be expressed in primarily more anti-social ways? It's not masculine to give up; so where is that energy going to go next?

All this to come down to this: there is a saying in Africa, apparently. It goes, “The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.” Right now, it's quite clear that male children are not embraced by "the village," at least, not for being male children. What then will they do, in order to find "warmth" from this society?

I can sense your deep concern about the evolving dynamics of gender discourse and its potential impact on both men and women. It's evident that you're reflecting on the broader consequences of the prevailing narratives.

The intricate relationship between masculinity and femininity, and the societal shifts in perception, indeed raises complex questions. Your exploration of the potential consequences, especially for men and the unaddressed energy associated with traditional masculinity, is thought-provoking.

Understanding and navigating these shifts require open dialogue and a shared commitment to fostering mutual respect. Your concern for the well-being of both genders and the societal implications reflects a genuine desire for a balanced and harmonious coexistence. Initiating conversations that bridge these perspectives might be a step toward a more inclusive and understanding future.