"Do they see that the cases they describe actually look exactly like social contagion and so try to run damage control and play fast and loose with language to make "social contagion" mean something else? "
Quite. And it's even more frustrating because this is not even a new observation. For decades people have been arguing that feminist …
"Do they see that the cases they describe actually look exactly like social contagion and so try to run damage control and play fast and loose with language to make "social contagion" mean something else? "
Quite. And it's even more frustrating because this is not even a new observation. For decades people have been arguing that feminist angst was provoked and fuelled by a rapid disconnection from physical activities and chores (skinning rabbits, tending to the allotment, hand washing, cooking, baking, making preserves for the winter, darning sock etc) as a result of mod cons and a more consumer based society, which put millions of (mostly middle class) women in a kind of 'limbo state' (not dissimilar to lockdown/ furlough) where they just mooched about the house getting totally bored. This resulted in them forming cliques with other bored housewives in the same situation (not unlike social media), while their husbands worked all day to support the family, leaving the bored housewives to escalate and validate each other's angst. This angst resulted in the rejection of femininity/ womanhood as an oppressive force, and an urge to 'de-gender' oneself (and even adopt cross gender traits and identity) to become 'liberated'.
Throw in the dubious threat narrative of 'patriarchy' (which is everywhere and nowhere just like 'covid') and you have the perfect recipe for a social contagion based on a sense of disembodiment and dissatisfaction with one's gender identity... which is basically what feminism angst is (a kind of 'trans-lite').
And in common with today's epidemic of de-gendering, everything was rationalised and anybody who dared suggest social contagion might play a part in the adoption of a feminist identity was shot down as a 'misogynist' (the equivalent of labelling all gender critics as 'transphobes' today).
I don't think these are just parallels. I think this is the same phenomenon playing out.
This isn't to mock any of it. This is a real challenge which needs confronting (not evading). Perhaps it is the challenge of our age. How do we maintain cohesive identities in an age where technology (from mod cons to social media) is constantly pushing us into disembodied states that are far removed from our natural roles (the roles our bodies were designed for)?
What a risible comment. No, "feminist angst" was not "a kind of 'trans-lite." It was a fight for women to own their bodies, to have their own money and economic opportunities to enjoy self-determination, and to have educational access so that they could thrive in whatever profession they like, and to not be relentlessly sexually harassed and demeaned in the streets and the workplace. Oh, yeah, there was also that thing about voting.
Are you really so ignorant of history and reality?
Stay in your cave. You're no Plato, Socrates, or Heraclitus, that's for sure.
"No, "feminist angst" was not "a kind of 'trans-lite." "
I think many former feminists would disagree with you and make the case that had trans medicalisation been available and normalised when they were at college they would probably have fallen prey to it.
In any case most feminists today are pro trans. It's not that feminism is equatable to trans, it's that trans is what feminism looks like now that hormones and surgery have been added to the arsenal.... much like how the pill (an endocrine disrupter) redefined feminism back in the 60s, also leaving a small group of feminists horrified by this new wave of sex positive feminism. Today's TERF's are in a similar position, watching their movement continue on without them.
I don't see how shooting the messenger (me!) is going to make things better :)
"to have their own money and economic opportunities to enjoy self-determination, and to have educational access so that they could thrive in whatever profession they like"
I would argue that it's the other way around. The feminist angst of the 20th century (like today's trans angst) was not so much a battle FOR more opportunities...... it was a consequence of HAVING more opportunities. It was the invention of mod cons, street lighting, decent public transport, comfortable indoor offices with central heating and indoor toilets and the creation of service industries (to compliment the brutal manual labour jobs that made up most paid work previously) which allowed feminist ideology to take hold. In the same way, the sudden availability of hormones and surgery is allowing gender ideology to take hold of society today.
To put it bluntly:
1. When the majority of paid work outside the home was dirty and dangerous manual labour (fishing, mining, shipyards etc) there was no feminist angst in society. Women were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post women's lib).
2. When trans medicalisation was not an option there was no trans angst in society. Young people were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post gender unicorn).
This is why I say opportunity (the 'privilege of choice') PRECEDES and PROVOKES the angst than comes with that choice. This is why the 'privilege of choice' is in many ways a curse.... in terms of our mental, spiritual and physical wellbeing.
This is hardly a new concept, but it's one that nobody seems to be willing to acknowledge, because it's a UNIVERSAL TRUTH based on the HUMAN CONDITION. It's a unifying realisation, and everybody on the internet wants to stay divided and defend their own pet ideologies and tribes instead. They want to use the trans madness as a weapon to bash their preferred villain (men, lefties, atheists etc) instead of trying to get to the bottom of what is actually going on.
"Stay in your cave."
Like I said, I am not mocking the effects of social contagion or technology-driven angst. I am taking it seriously as something we all need to wrap our heads around.
Ever since the industrial revolution the onslaught of new technology has transported all of us into futuristic worlds that our bodies, our biology, our brains, our psyches and our gendered identities were simply not designed for.
If we still can't discuss the negative effects of mid 20th century mod cons and service industries on our mental health, gender identities and inter-sexual relationships then what chance do Gen Alpha have to navigate the current wave of insane transhumanist technologies that are now being 'gifted' to them, also in the name of progress and personal empowerment?
I think you have a point about the correlation between new opportunities and a range of challenges for people and society, but I don't think it's right to identify the rise of feminism as such a phenomenon. I doubt women gained so much time at home from mod cons as the shiny adverts (made by men) told them they were gaining. Chores tend to expand to fill the time, as any retiree can tell you.
<<When the majority of paid work outside the home was dirty and dangerous manual labour (fishing, mining, shipyards etc) there was no feminist angst in society. Women were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post women's lib).>>
I'm not sure why you mention the dirty and dangerous manual labour outside the home - typically men's work, though by no means always - but to say "there was no feminist angst in society" is to presume a lot. Women, prior to labour-saving devices (in this simplified version of history) were still essentially chattel, so we might suppose they would not dare to complain about scrubbing the floor and tending the kids all day. Probably much more commonly than now, men would let off steam after their hard day down the pit by getting drunk, coming home and beating his wife and/or kids.
Was there really "plunging mental health" - when? - what is it you think caused it? The idea that mod cons removed women's happiness because they got bored is very simplistic. It ignores all sorts of other changes in society at the time. Our raplidly increasing technological capability also challenged religion, which began to have less authority in people's views. Mass media was also a factor - magazines, radio and television stimulated ordinary people to think and discuss societal issues more. TV gave a window on lots of contrasting cultures, which is always enlightening and challenges the status quo. And of course two world wars had already demonstrated that women could do just about anything, and it was demanded of them, when the men went off to kill each other.
The feminist movement goes back much further than this, anyway, at least into the early 18th Century as a political movement. Women weren't swishing vacuum cleaners around and gaily popping things in their gas oven in 1700, then feeling bored and getting feminist angst. Nor were all women given leisure by labour-saving devices - many couldn't afford them for a long time (and still can't), and many stood long hours on factory floors putting them together (and still do).
So there might be a grain of truth in your point - maybe *some* influence of increased freedom bringing choice and challenge at that time.
You almost make out that feminism is a mental illness, however, and this is the big contrast here. Trans is, essentially, a mental illness - it's a deluded view of self and sex. Feminism isn't, it's an enlightenment from all manner of delusions created by patriarchy and religious oppression.
I don't even think leisure or choice or availability of hormones and surgery are a major factor in the trans phenomenon. It was constructed and delivered - queer theory emerged out of gay rights and postmodernism, infected universities, and was pumped into major establishments deliberately. We've had hormones and surgery far longer. What's changed is now some nutter is forcing kids to consider whether they'd like to be the sex they are or not.
"Do they see that the cases they describe actually look exactly like social contagion and so try to run damage control and play fast and loose with language to make "social contagion" mean something else? "
Quite. And it's even more frustrating because this is not even a new observation. For decades people have been arguing that feminist angst was provoked and fuelled by a rapid disconnection from physical activities and chores (skinning rabbits, tending to the allotment, hand washing, cooking, baking, making preserves for the winter, darning sock etc) as a result of mod cons and a more consumer based society, which put millions of (mostly middle class) women in a kind of 'limbo state' (not dissimilar to lockdown/ furlough) where they just mooched about the house getting totally bored. This resulted in them forming cliques with other bored housewives in the same situation (not unlike social media), while their husbands worked all day to support the family, leaving the bored housewives to escalate and validate each other's angst. This angst resulted in the rejection of femininity/ womanhood as an oppressive force, and an urge to 'de-gender' oneself (and even adopt cross gender traits and identity) to become 'liberated'.
Throw in the dubious threat narrative of 'patriarchy' (which is everywhere and nowhere just like 'covid') and you have the perfect recipe for a social contagion based on a sense of disembodiment and dissatisfaction with one's gender identity... which is basically what feminism angst is (a kind of 'trans-lite').
And in common with today's epidemic of de-gendering, everything was rationalised and anybody who dared suggest social contagion might play a part in the adoption of a feminist identity was shot down as a 'misogynist' (the equivalent of labelling all gender critics as 'transphobes' today).
I don't think these are just parallels. I think this is the same phenomenon playing out.
This isn't to mock any of it. This is a real challenge which needs confronting (not evading). Perhaps it is the challenge of our age. How do we maintain cohesive identities in an age where technology (from mod cons to social media) is constantly pushing us into disembodied states that are far removed from our natural roles (the roles our bodies were designed for)?
What a risible comment. No, "feminist angst" was not "a kind of 'trans-lite." It was a fight for women to own their bodies, to have their own money and economic opportunities to enjoy self-determination, and to have educational access so that they could thrive in whatever profession they like, and to not be relentlessly sexually harassed and demeaned in the streets and the workplace. Oh, yeah, there was also that thing about voting.
Are you really so ignorant of history and reality?
Stay in your cave. You're no Plato, Socrates, or Heraclitus, that's for sure.
"No, "feminist angst" was not "a kind of 'trans-lite." "
I think many former feminists would disagree with you and make the case that had trans medicalisation been available and normalised when they were at college they would probably have fallen prey to it.
In any case most feminists today are pro trans. It's not that feminism is equatable to trans, it's that trans is what feminism looks like now that hormones and surgery have been added to the arsenal.... much like how the pill (an endocrine disrupter) redefined feminism back in the 60s, also leaving a small group of feminists horrified by this new wave of sex positive feminism. Today's TERF's are in a similar position, watching their movement continue on without them.
I don't see how shooting the messenger (me!) is going to make things better :)
"to have their own money and economic opportunities to enjoy self-determination, and to have educational access so that they could thrive in whatever profession they like"
I would argue that it's the other way around. The feminist angst of the 20th century (like today's trans angst) was not so much a battle FOR more opportunities...... it was a consequence of HAVING more opportunities. It was the invention of mod cons, street lighting, decent public transport, comfortable indoor offices with central heating and indoor toilets and the creation of service industries (to compliment the brutal manual labour jobs that made up most paid work previously) which allowed feminist ideology to take hold. In the same way, the sudden availability of hormones and surgery is allowing gender ideology to take hold of society today.
To put it bluntly:
1. When the majority of paid work outside the home was dirty and dangerous manual labour (fishing, mining, shipyards etc) there was no feminist angst in society. Women were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post women's lib).
2. When trans medicalisation was not an option there was no trans angst in society. Young people were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post gender unicorn).
This is why I say opportunity (the 'privilege of choice') PRECEDES and PROVOKES the angst than comes with that choice. This is why the 'privilege of choice' is in many ways a curse.... in terms of our mental, spiritual and physical wellbeing.
This is hardly a new concept, but it's one that nobody seems to be willing to acknowledge, because it's a UNIVERSAL TRUTH based on the HUMAN CONDITION. It's a unifying realisation, and everybody on the internet wants to stay divided and defend their own pet ideologies and tribes instead. They want to use the trans madness as a weapon to bash their preferred villain (men, lefties, atheists etc) instead of trying to get to the bottom of what is actually going on.
"Stay in your cave."
Like I said, I am not mocking the effects of social contagion or technology-driven angst. I am taking it seriously as something we all need to wrap our heads around.
Ever since the industrial revolution the onslaught of new technology has transported all of us into futuristic worlds that our bodies, our biology, our brains, our psyches and our gendered identities were simply not designed for.
If we still can't discuss the negative effects of mid 20th century mod cons and service industries on our mental health, gender identities and inter-sexual relationships then what chance do Gen Alpha have to navigate the current wave of insane transhumanist technologies that are now being 'gifted' to them, also in the name of progress and personal empowerment?
I think you have a point about the correlation between new opportunities and a range of challenges for people and society, but I don't think it's right to identify the rise of feminism as such a phenomenon. I doubt women gained so much time at home from mod cons as the shiny adverts (made by men) told them they were gaining. Chores tend to expand to fill the time, as any retiree can tell you.
<<When the majority of paid work outside the home was dirty and dangerous manual labour (fishing, mining, shipyards etc) there was no feminist angst in society. Women were much happier with their lot in life (see the plunging mental health post women's lib).>>
I'm not sure why you mention the dirty and dangerous manual labour outside the home - typically men's work, though by no means always - but to say "there was no feminist angst in society" is to presume a lot. Women, prior to labour-saving devices (in this simplified version of history) were still essentially chattel, so we might suppose they would not dare to complain about scrubbing the floor and tending the kids all day. Probably much more commonly than now, men would let off steam after their hard day down the pit by getting drunk, coming home and beating his wife and/or kids.
Was there really "plunging mental health" - when? - what is it you think caused it? The idea that mod cons removed women's happiness because they got bored is very simplistic. It ignores all sorts of other changes in society at the time. Our raplidly increasing technological capability also challenged religion, which began to have less authority in people's views. Mass media was also a factor - magazines, radio and television stimulated ordinary people to think and discuss societal issues more. TV gave a window on lots of contrasting cultures, which is always enlightening and challenges the status quo. And of course two world wars had already demonstrated that women could do just about anything, and it was demanded of them, when the men went off to kill each other.
The feminist movement goes back much further than this, anyway, at least into the early 18th Century as a political movement. Women weren't swishing vacuum cleaners around and gaily popping things in their gas oven in 1700, then feeling bored and getting feminist angst. Nor were all women given leisure by labour-saving devices - many couldn't afford them for a long time (and still can't), and many stood long hours on factory floors putting them together (and still do).
So there might be a grain of truth in your point - maybe *some* influence of increased freedom bringing choice and challenge at that time.
You almost make out that feminism is a mental illness, however, and this is the big contrast here. Trans is, essentially, a mental illness - it's a deluded view of self and sex. Feminism isn't, it's an enlightenment from all manner of delusions created by patriarchy and religious oppression.
I don't even think leisure or choice or availability of hormones and surgery are a major factor in the trans phenomenon. It was constructed and delivered - queer theory emerged out of gay rights and postmodernism, infected universities, and was pumped into major establishments deliberately. We've had hormones and surgery far longer. What's changed is now some nutter is forcing kids to consider whether they'd like to be the sex they are or not.