On this, International Women’s Day, we’re wondering if this day is not politically incorrect given that no mention is made of transgender persons or those whose preferences are fluid. The word itself is constrained by its patriarchal spelling, so should we write it as, womxn? No, we didn’t make it up. A feminist argument exists that the spelling of women should be changed to the latter to remove the reading of the word ‘men’. Sound reasonable?
It was suggested as a change a couple of years back but doesn’t seem to have caught on, possibly because of phonetic difficulties. It is funny that, still, the desire is there.
Yet, the very idea of a Women’s Day is an outright slap to new gender-inclusive language definitions of women that include ‘breastfeeding parent’, ‘human milk’, ‘co-parent’. The identity politics of the women’s movement opened the pandora’s box, and, in the inevitable dialectic, has put women themselves at risk of cancellation in the interests of inclusivity.
The feminist movements and the transgender lobby are currently at one another’s throats, although, in the case of the former, they’re struggling to get their delicate grip around a throat that is bulging with an Adam’s Apple. Joe Biden, the senile ventriloquist’s dummy who the deep-state in the US-installed as their puppet president, has signed off on allowing transgenders (men who’ve had an operation to make them look more like women) to compete in women’s sport.
Feminists are not keen on this as according to them it gives the transgender players an unfair advantage, which indicates they’re not fully sold on the legitimacy of the trans identity.
It would seem, given the tide of events, that the patriarchy is the least of their problems. It’s also a myth, which is why they’ve enjoyed such an easy ride through an untrammelled rhetorical concourse. However, as unreal as transgenderism is, the issue is much more of an adversarial problem for feminists.
What the purpose of Women’s Day is we’re not sure. We’re not opposing it since we don’t even notice it. It popped up on Google’s homepage is the only reason that we were aware that it was today. Perhaps it’s a day to flag “issues” or celebrates something or other. Not that today doesn’t resemble every other day on that score. The stated goal on the homepage is to “accelerate gender parity.” We propose that ‘parity’ such as it can realistically exist has been reached. It has done so, as with their rival transgender lobby, at the cost of reality.
We still have to suffer twaddle about equal pay, and underrepresentation and all the other grievances. Like satisfying a woman in other areas of the male-female interaction, we suggest by women’s nature they’re unachievable.
What must be irksome to a lot of men is even having this shoved in their face. Some men go their entire lives without having anything but the most superficial social interactions with women. They never find partners, never have children, and the closest they get to one is while being served at a checkout aisle. That is if the supermarket isn’t automated with a self-service checkout system.
Some men don’t even get “parity” in a supposed patriarchal world. Women get the jobs, they don’t; women drive the cars while they walk, and women get the attention while they are permanently invisible. We imagine there is certain equality in that with a lot of women too.
Netflix is rife with programs that prioritise women (and people of colour). Women are allowed the most fantastical prowess in these fictions; they’re able to beat up gangs of men singlehandedly while still in high heels and without smudging their eyeliner; to solve problems faster than a male mind, and whose equanimity remains unruffled while the male characters are moral wrecks. In short, they achieve virtue even when virtue is purely relative to the story and the world being depicted.
Women certainly haven’t been underrepresented in entertainment. A viewing of a crime drama diet highlights just how dominant in the genre women are. There is no program on any platform that is explicitly appealing to men.
Don’t mistake our intention here, we’re not about to buy into gender conflict. We’re not interested. Ignoring women is easy because they ignore us until we serve a purpose. We serve as a perpetual source of all their problems both real and imagined. We exist as the excuse for them not achieving what feminist rhetoric tells them they should. We don’t wish to go down the same road.
From what we can see, the focus of International Women’s Day has gotten a whole lot broader. When the kind of identity politics that have consumed a movement that no doubt had genuine merits to begin results in them fighting to claw back an identity that they’ve helped to surrender, well, they’ve got bigger fish to fry.