In its purest, most authentic manifestation, feminism has never hidden or disguised its outright contempt for what it deems to be the source of everything that has historically gone wrong for women in society and, as often, even in their individual lives, especially on issues concerning the family. In the biased narrative, whereby women are relieved of any responsibility for their own destiny, that source is men as a gender, but also men as individual entities. They are “the patriarchy,” and as such are the embodiment of everything that functions as a drawback and a hindrance or inconvenience to any notion of “women’s freedom” that gets historically and cyclically fashioned by the multifarious ideological opinions about history and society that circulates under feminist rubrics.
Therefore, the most authentic and truthful enactment of the feminist ideology of, for example, Valerie Solana on the one hand, and of Andrea Dworkin on the other, has minced no words in calling for men to be literally cut out of society or literally, permanently removed, as in “put down,” from it. The immediate proof of its authenticity lies in it being an explicit rejection of Simone de Beauvoir’s claim to knowledge of femininity. For the female French philosopher wrongly contends that a “woman could never even dream of exterminating men.” She obviously failed to grasp where from feministic authenticity issues forth. For, given a situation in which the equalitarian revenge on men possible in either the liberal capitalist society or under socialism might take too long to come to fruition, and then do so only incompletely, dreaming of the extermination of men is the one logical stance that accords with the psychosexuality (sexual desires and fantasies) presupposed in all feminist politics.That is, only a feminism that expresses the state of a sexuality or sexual identity that has no sexual use, sexual interest, or sexual taste for men would naturally strive to eliminate men from society, even if symbolically and even if only on a badly inconsistent Hulu series, to thus make absolute the liberation of women from their alleged oppressors: their fathers, brothers, and husbands, who have also reliably protected them throughout history.
What a supreme, compounded irony then that it is women themselves who are now factually facing the danger of being swept away from society! That is, “traditional,” womb-fallopian Woman is more and more getting replaced by human entities that claim to be much more the real thing, more authentically feminine, or as the case might be, stronger than the conceptual Woman that De Beauvoir studied ever could have been! What we are seeing everywhere in society is feminism finally revealing itself as the self-irony it ever was.
As for it being compounded, feminism as self-irony is indeed a three-fold, if not four-fold one. For firstly, it turns out that the New, Liberated and Free Woman feminism predicted would emerge from its smashing of “the patriarchy” into smithereens has already done so, but she used to be a man. And, as the man that she formerly was, she therefore used to be a human component of “the patriarchy.” Consequentially, just when feminism had begun congratulating itself for its many triumphs over its ancient nemesis, this nemesis reasserts itself, only now as a non-womb, non-fallopian woman.
That means to say, women, as conceived by feminism in any of its formulations, are being challenged to rework the very biological grounds on which they have traditionally posited themselves as the feminine gender. The advent of the New, Liberated Woman that only yesterday was a man, who has already begun to substitute traditional feministic feminality in important spheres of public and private life, is something which feminism failed to prepare women for, and which it might ultimately bear responsibility for, even if only partially. Thus, in sports, in the arts, in politics, and even in areas reserved exclusively for women since time immemorial, as in female beauty pageantry, formerly-men-now-women are prevailing, and traditional feminality is being substituted and replaced by men claiming to have accomplished the greatest achievement that forever eluded “traditional” women: biologically overcoming themselves, or in other words, proving that for them biology is not destiny.
If it ever went away at all, “the patriarchy” is back, but with killer makeup and high heels. That is what the stories of, on the one hand, Kataluna Enriquez’s, and of Laurel Hubbard’s and their like on the other, mean. While the latter can be proposed as being exemplary of what a “Strong Woman” looks like in the literal sense, the former, Señorita Enriquez is exemplary of how the overcoming of male biology leads, in her own words, to be “not less but more than” womb-bearing women, presumably.
Secondly, while former masculinity substitutes itself throughout society for traditional feminality and gets to be welcomed and accommodated by it, thus acquiring legitimacy as bona fides femininity, for its part “the patriarchy” gets the endorsement of the millions of “traditional,” womb-fallopian women who are transitioning into men, although likely in their previous incarnation they were soldiers in the struggle for the “liberation of women.”
But, thirdly, in addition to that, such ironical unfolding of feminism is taking place in the same historical timeframe that traditional, womb-bearing fallopian women have acquired the most political and economic power their gender has ever held. Consider this. Representatives of their gender have in recent years been placed at the summit of political power, whether as prime ministers and/or presidents in powerful institutions and countries around the world, notably in Europe, with Angela Merkel and Ursula von der Leyen running the show; and in the most powerful nation ever in history, the United States, which has a womb-bearing, fallopian human entity as vice-president with foreseeable odds of becoming the most powerful person on earth whenever the current male president is diagnosed mentally unfit for office. And yet, it is these same politicians and centers of power that are both backers and cheerleaders of the rise of men as the New Woman!
Here it should have sufficed to notice for instance how, as their Cheerleader-in-Chief, Biden has exhibited a badly disguised personal interest in the promotion of this trend, appointing and giving political speeches honed to female transsexuals. And, to compound things, his political party, traditionally the natural ally of feminism, has already voted in the House for an Equality Act, pending Senate approval, to grant full legitimacy to the substitution in society of transsexualized women for womb-wearing females.
And finally, fourthly. Recalling De Beauvoir’s name is here de rigueur. For it was the French writer who first advanced the theoretical feministic rationales for the present scenario in which “chest-feeding” is being officially substituted for the ancient, mammalian “breast-feeding,” and in which a lipstick penis is being legally allowed to pee in the same receptacle and spaces up to not long ago reserved for vaginal womb-fallopian femininity. It all began with her clever quipping, in the opening to book II of The First Sex. “Women,” the French authoress, mused, “are not only born; we are also made.” And thus did De Beauvoir unintentionally lend intellectual and philosophical authority to what has come to be constitutive of feminism as self-irony. That is rotundly ironic when you consider that it has led to the final unraveling of feministic positing about the women’s world to come, and by the hand of someone who wrote so much and long to embolden and mobilize women to seize power from men. The future might still be female, but in many cases so far it comes with a dick.
To be sure, De Beauvoir did not mean that whenever not born so, women could be made from men. But she did fustigate and excoriate men believing them guilty of making girls grow up to be submissive, relegated, and subordinated to them, as in “the patriarchy.” In any case, the seeding idea had been planted in the imagination of men who had always known in themselves how to best deploy all the gifts and the greatness that born, womb-fallopian women never knew what to do with. It was just a question of sending biologists, physiologists, and the medicine market to the drawing board and to the operation table. In the end, De Beauvoir was dangerously wrong; for women are not “only born or made.” Women can also be doctored, and this in the most ironic, yet literal sense.
Alas! The future might yet turn out to be “female.” But not in the way that womb-fallopian feminism had claimed as its unique turf, as its colony. But then, Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) activists like Kara Dansky, Meghan Murphy and their sex coreligionists could eventually find out their struggles have been for naught. With the sex-doctoring of the genders already having entered that old patriarchal invention for making endless riches (the stock market), through the backing of liberal and “progressive” political outfits, some ethical inconsistencies could relatively soon be removed, and scientists could then be allowed to grow human vaginas in pigs and monkeys that will in time be graphed onto paying costumers. Then, even the WoLF sex-activists might consider jumping on the wagon, transitioning into men. For, it is men who have the world to gain from the literal sex sea changes going on. Great will be the number of men out there that will lust after and who will love formerly-male-femininity. After all, allowing for enough aspects of maleness to be preserved at the mitochondrial levels of non-womb and non-fallopian women, men would have finally found human beings that could instinctively know what they always wanted but could not have, and deliver it.
Once doctors figure out the way to make the hands and feet of the Kataluna Enriquezes of the world conform to the delicate size of the hands and feet of traditional womb-fallopian women, feminism will forever consume itself into its own irony, and burst into death. Welcome to men’s freedom from feminism!