Assault on genius femineum

Part 4: Gender Highjacked

Feb 10, 2025

[The story of gender up this point has been narrated in Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. There have been interludes within the narrative to provide knowledge and context. Part 4 herein is comprised of two such interludes with the narrative taking up a relatively small proportion, because we are addressing an unusual portion of gender’s history. In Part 1 gender meant something, and its application had ramified over time. In Part 2, we saw scholars and professionals using gender to identify their particular concepts. The concepts might have been contradictory and the applications conflicting but gender remained still somewhat rooted to its origins. Uprooting proceeded in Part 3 but gender accompanied the development of its new given meanings. Herein however in Part 4, the narrative is short and the interludes are longer because it was acquisitioned to describe ideas that had developed in earlier times, without a word to encompass them.]

Degeneration and Defeminisation

Gayle Rubin - Sadist Masochistic Lesbian feminist. Image credit: Morgan Gwenwald

“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool”.

George Orwell, 1945[1]

Philosophical Interlude the Second – Raw and Cooked Feminism

Perennially promiscuous abuser of her female students and carnal gratification companion of Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir - who rejected marriage but adopted a much younger lesbian, is frequently quoted in relation to women not being born, but made[2] – whereby there no longer exists the essence of a woman, and woman has no form. De Beauvoir sought “authenticity” that might be obtained through “freedom” or escape from motherhood, and existence apart from family.

“Marx and Engels located the root of women’s oppression in their role within the nuclear family in class societies. They understood that women’s role as biological reproducers results in their subordinate status inside the nuclear family, and consequently throughout society. In capitalist societies, women in property-holding families reproduce heirs; women in working-class families reproduce generations of labor power for the system.”[3] Shulamith Firestone claimed ideas from Karl Marx - who wrote poetry to the devil[4], and spoke of the feminist revolution as analogous to a socialist one, opining that “genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally”[5] once her “end goal” of eliminating the distinction between the sexes has been achieved.

Gestalt theory employs the idea of structures (gestalten) to explain phenomena such as perception. It emphasised wholes, in response to sensationalist thinking which dissected psychological experience into atomic sensations[6]. Phenomenology provided an objective approach to the study of the subjective, and seeks to describe consciousness.

Anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, influenced by gestaltism and phenomenology, and drawing on the thought of Ferdinand de Saussure as was applied in structural linguistics, believed in a deep and unitive “grammar of mythical thought” which transcends cultures and history - and governed behaviour. Contra Emile Durkheim, Levi-Strauss asserted that cognitive structures precede social structures, and that binary oppositions, earlier articulated by linguist Roman Jakobson, thereby constituted the basis of human society. It followed that such binary contrasts are reflected in cultural institutions which could be discovered in the study of kinship, myth and language[7].

Levi-Strauss was obliged to Marcel Maus when claiming that social relationships are predicated on the obligation to exchange gifts. He asserted that societies are organised on the basis of the exchange of women, on account of an allegedly fundamental law that enables initiation of culture with the prohibition of incest, thus providing a requirement for exogamy. “Sex-positive” Gayle Rubin[8] in The Traffic in Women (1975), whined about the “socially imposed division of the sexes”, whereby males and females are “transformed” into men and women.

Psychoanalytic ideas and practice - used by the later Freud to psychologically manipulate child victims of incest and protect their paedophilic perpetrators, has also affected feminists – presupposing that genitors lacked domestic dignity and had no shame or use for apparel, in turn of the twentieth century Vienna, or even in the post-Kinseyan US of A, to claim that female infants gaze at the nudity of their parents and are thereby cowed into psychic inferiority.

Surrealist Jacques Lacan, the French Freud – or the mental Levi-Strauss, claimed that the “unconscious” is structured like language. Or even, one heretic dissenting against another, “in place of a Cartesian res cogitans, a thinking being, Lacan posits the speaking subject, a subject defined by and in language. This subject is not simply a speaking being, a being who happens by chance to speak, but a being constituted as such by being spoken through by language itself.”[9] As ideas of linguistic structuralism inserted into social anthropology governed behaviour and thereby denied agency or freedom, structuralism in Lacanian psychology governed thought and denied reason from attaining truth because of the limitations of language, because grammar determined syntax.

Lacan saw the incest taboo and the laws of kinship which dictated desire and its limits as transgenerational paternal prohibitions. A child would then not only take his father’s name, but also submit to this law of the father. Lacan also believed that all children were psychically castrated - since they didn’t see their reflections or their mother continuously, thus positing a universal phallocentric existence[10], even for the blind - and in nurseries without mirrors.

In spite of the vote, the loop, the quota, the jeans, the degrees and the chair”person” appointments, even before the 1980’s when further philosophical depths were plumbed, feminists had recourse to phenomenological, literary, anthropological and structuralist thought skewed by Freudian, existentialist, Marxist, Lacanian and social constructionist heroes to provide justification for a perceived intrinsic imposed inferiority of the oppressed female – and due rebellion.

Emma Goldman, Lithuanian Jewish American anarchist, daughter of a violent and abusive father

A Feminist Activism Interlude

“Igitur ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos”

Mary Wollstonecraft with her largely sensible and reasonable thesis of 1792, which followed her A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790) is often claimed as the foundress of feminism. An unchaste Girondin she may have been, but she was less a feminist than a champion for women in the social environment of her day, in which bra burning and slut walking were not understood as liberation, and breeches and leggings were not flaunted as rights, let alone contracepting, aborting - and the promiscuity entertaining their necessity.

Anti-marriage pro-sodomy utopian socialist male Charles Fourier is credited with having coined feminisme in 1837, but the rout of self-identifying feminists cannot agree on what feminism is. Understandings range from a movement to obtain equal legal and political rights for women while respecting the complementarity of men and women, and accepting the good of marriage and family, to a resentful warfare against the very idea of manhood, seeing the relationship between the sexes as one of forced subordination and imposed inferiority for women - and a desperate struggle to become like the worst of the very men they despise.

Feminism is a theory and an activity in which frustrated and unhappy women[11] egged on by emasculated and manipulative men assert their oppression by men - and by the idea of fatherhood. They seek liberation therefrom by an empowerment that will enable an equitable equality, in particular via possessing the power to self-destroy motherhood, through technologies that enable sterilisation of themselves and the killing of their own children[12] - while facilitating unbridled licentiousness, attaining which they believe they will achieve happiness or fulfilment[13].

It is a love-free family-hating sexual complementarity denying defeminising and indeed unhuman ontological outlook that has been lapped up by antipodal corporate leaders, intelligentsia, politicians and privileged women - even in cultures built on traditional philosophies where mothers were honoured, goddesses were worshipped, and where queens and prime ministresses have ruled. Often the westernised are indeed more enthusiastically western than the westerners in the West, having been infected with psychic pathogens engineered and disseminated out of engines such as Hollywood and the United Nations.

The dispositions of feminism and the feminist agenda[14] continue to be entrenched – nay, mRNA-vaccinated, through law and policy as the crescendo of screeching rise up to the climax of “reproductive justice” and the planetary annihilation of the natural family – the foundation of civilisation. Gradually sensitising cultures to the acceptance of its premises and its end goals, feminism manifests also in the mandating of women’s privileges[15] and hence the targets for participation in the rat races and the representations allocated and enforced at the top of hierarchies. It is queer indeed, though, that the victories of the feminists can now be inherited by males because feminists insist that a woman can be constructed.

Feminism culminates with the victorious sanctioning of the sacrifice of motherhood upon the white-sheeted altars of Moloch, the broken body and blood of the mother-child dyad crushed dismembered and offered up by abortionists in iatric robes, scented disinfectants and swinging forceps. It ignited in 1967 from the embers of Bolshevism and impregnated the law books of other nations in the proceeding years. Indeed the liberated feminists – having followed the precedent set by Lenin in 1920, attained a scale of liturgical devotion that continues to shame the Aztecs and the Celts

Absorption of Gender

Child abortion promoter, no-fault divorce advocate, sodomite ally and erotically indifferent - or at least sequentially ambi-oriented, anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote about sex roles in human societies[16]. Sex-role socialisation, and masculinity and femininity disengaged from biology and believed to be socially created by a social system dominated by men who existed to oppress women by providing, protecting and fathering their children, going off to war and even taking out the garbage, were terms and ideas already at the heart of feminist ideology – if it had a heart.

The enlightened [sic] debates on cultural and biological determinism had made the plasticity of humanity and the malleability of sex into popular notions during the twentieth century. Money’s and Stoller’s ideas of learned sex role and felt sexual identity had brought gender into popular media channels and conversations outside of clinic and university. Gender then was in the air[17] as the sixties passed into the seventies it and was commandeered by feminists to describe their abiological, adopted because imposed by patriarchal tyrants, socially and psychologically constructed condition of womanhood.

It was not long before invertebrate scientists quickly bent over forwards and submitted to publishing on the gender of mosquitoes who neither bother about the sense of themselves as they felt it, not have a tyrannical patriarchy to impose roles on them; and low testosterone engineers began to speak of the gender of their cable connectors[18]. The absurdity and complexity of feminist-become-gender theories grew worse into the 1980’s and beyond, but by then feminism and gender had taken on new meanings.

[1] Polemic, 1, Notes on Nationalism

[2] Le Deuxième Sexe, 1949

[3] Smith, S., 2014, International Socialist Review, 93

[4]