There are many insights that you share in both this essay on "Toxic Femininity" and another of your recent essays ("Why I'm No Longer a Progressive" that seem to align well with the insights in these two essays from the co-founders of Protopia Labs (an organization dedicated to depolarization). They both use some similar language though with slightly different nuances. I think you'd really like their work, and I *know* they would appreciate yours. (P.S. I posted this comment on both of your essays, if that's okay... both are an inspiring read.
"Why We Need to Talk about Post-Liberalism" by Micha Narberhaus
The reality of biological sex, if you're referring to certain human physiological structures and functions, certainly exists, but that's one small component of the social construction of gender. That edifice is subject to critique, and I recognize that it has carried oppression and limitations which continue to affect many people. In a more general sense, I think Wokeism alludes to some legitimate grievances, utilizing, unfortunately, elements of Jacobinism and a disregard for valuable norms of liberal inquiry. You've well illustrated some of the perils of those impulses. I try to contextualize Wokeism in many centuries of social injustice, through which millions of lives have been lost or truncated. Wokeism really begins with cries for justice.
Carol, I hope you'll be patient with me. I've tried to ask this question before and have always gotten attacked as an idiot, hopelessly uninformed, etc.
So I'll try to be clear about my views before asking the question.
1. I hate wokeism. I was quite aware of what was essentially the same phenomenon in the 1970s, on the 3 occasions I decided to attend a secular, Leftist group, comprised mostly of highly academic folks. hated the language. In fact, a friend of mine just posted something on his Facebook page. I initially wrote a highly reactive comment then thought better of it and immediately deleted it. that ugly, wokeist, postmodern nonsense, showing off one's erudition with 5, 6 and 7 syllable incoherent word salad.
To repeat, I hate wokeism
2. You wrote that it's being pushed by Democratic Party, K-12 schools, colleges and universities, the art world, the medical establishment, corporate HR offices, professional associations, the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors, and the legacy media (NPR, The New York Times, CNN, etc.)
I agree.
So I want to be VERY clear before I ask:
1. I hate wokeism
2. I FULLY agree it's present in all the areas you mention - in fact, you didn't mention junior and senior high schools, where it's undoubtedly present.
3. I think it's the single greatest impediment to economic justice, which the Democrats should shine in. I've never heard a single Democrat deal with it well except for Bernie. He was speaking to a group of Trump supporters - ALL Trump supporters. They kept trying to bait him on gay marriage, guns, trans rights, etc. He never took the bait. He'd simply say, "look, you know we disagree on those things. But you also know that my Republican opponents are not going to help you feed your family, help you get universal health care, improve the environment, make your workplaces safe and fair, etc"
And EVERYONE would be nodding vigorously. I've been saying for years instead of always being reactive and trying to fight the republicans (they have the perfect issue now - trans rights. Every time a Democrat defends his/her position on trans rights, the Far Right wackos just say, "See the Democrats ARE grooming children.) - instead of reactivity, say "WE are the pro-life party. We support women and fetuses from before birth to the end of live. WE are are pro life, protecting people from poisonous environments, from vulture capitalists (who the Trumpists all say they hate also) from reckless gun violence, etc.
So, so far we're in complete agreement, yes?
1. Hate wokeism
2. It's all the places you say and more
3. An enormous impediment to economic justice.
So what's my question? Please keep the above in mind, otherwise when you read the question you're just going to flip into, "Don's an idiot who is just trolling and doesn't know what he's talking about"
Ok.
I've been following this since the 1970s and saw it coming. I was aware, in 1992, that David Horowitz was hired by a right wing think tank to troll left wing academics and to find the most obnoxious, potentially frightening language for conservatives. He looked at many of the VERY SAME ACADEMICS who completely turned me off some 15-20 years previously. He then set about in a kind of devilishly brilliant way and slowly made his way into hate radio and various other think tanks and ultimately, the republican party big wigs to convince them THIS was the issue to kill the Democrats, AND they would buy it hook line and sinker.
he was right.
Boy I'm putting off the actual question because I'm afraid you're not going to take all our agreement into account:
I asked you before, What is the actual evidence that a significant majority of Democrats in the country (not representatives, just Democratic voters) are into this stuff? They say a third of the adult voting population, approximately, are Democrats. That's about 70 million people, somewhat in the ballpark (a little less) than voted for Biden, so that's probably right.
Now, we know for sure that the progressive wing of the Democrats - whether in Congress or among the voters - is a minority. I've heard 10%. But let's double that and say it's 20%. That's 14 million people.
So let's get some perspective on this:
In a country of 350 million people, among which 220 million are of voting age, about 4% of the total population and 6% of the voting population, are strongly woke.
6% of voters.
Remember, most sociologists have said in virtually any population, you can count on at least 10-15% to be the crazies, the folks who will buy virtually any Qanon nonsense, right or left wing conspiratorial nut jobs. So they generally write off that percentage.
But we're talking about 6% here.
now, i'm quite hesitant to disagree, if you say, "Well, who cares if it's a tiny number. They're in the media, in universities, and they have an overwhelming influence."
I won't disagree but I'll question you a bit.
Given that the total "influential" disgustingly, obnoxiously, horrifically woke population is about 6% of the population, considerably less than the percentage who think Jewish businessmen are using lasers to create wildfires in California, or think the Democrats are holding littlle children for Satanic rituals - does this 6% REALLY have the outsize influence so many think?
Ok, FINALLY, the precise question
Is it REMOTELY possible, despite the fact that you are no doubt a talented, very bright journalist who dedicated much of her life to getting accurate information about the world and the peoples of the world, that David Horowitz and his many colleagues in hate radio and far right think tanks, have so brilliantly manipulated the news that - ALTHOUGH YOU ARE FUNDAMENTALLY CORRECT ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT WOKEISM - that just possibly, some of our sense that it's taking over the world might be the result of devilishly, (satanically??) successful right wing fake news?
You should be famous—you’re brilliant!
late hit, but chiming in to say this is such a good essay.
Hi, Carol.
There are many insights that you share in both this essay on "Toxic Femininity" and another of your recent essays ("Why I'm No Longer a Progressive" that seem to align well with the insights in these two essays from the co-founders of Protopia Labs (an organization dedicated to depolarization). They both use some similar language though with slightly different nuances. I think you'd really like their work, and I *know* they would appreciate yours. (P.S. I posted this comment on both of your essays, if that's okay... both are an inspiring read.
"Why We Need to Talk about Post-Liberalism" by Micha Narberhaus
https://michanarberhaus.substack.com/p/why-we-need-to-talk-about-post-liberalism
"Pride of the Elites: Political Correctness, Identity Politics and Class War:
How Elite Overproduction drives culture wars, and how to move beyond it" by Alexander Beiner
https://beiner.substack.com/p/pride-of-the-elites-political-correctness
The reality of biological sex, if you're referring to certain human physiological structures and functions, certainly exists, but that's one small component of the social construction of gender. That edifice is subject to critique, and I recognize that it has carried oppression and limitations which continue to affect many people. In a more general sense, I think Wokeism alludes to some legitimate grievances, utilizing, unfortunately, elements of Jacobinism and a disregard for valuable norms of liberal inquiry. You've well illustrated some of the perils of those impulses. I try to contextualize Wokeism in many centuries of social injustice, through which millions of lives have been lost or truncated. Wokeism really begins with cries for justice.
Carol, I hope you'll be patient with me. I've tried to ask this question before and have always gotten attacked as an idiot, hopelessly uninformed, etc.
So I'll try to be clear about my views before asking the question.
1. I hate wokeism. I was quite aware of what was essentially the same phenomenon in the 1970s, on the 3 occasions I decided to attend a secular, Leftist group, comprised mostly of highly academic folks. hated the language. In fact, a friend of mine just posted something on his Facebook page. I initially wrote a highly reactive comment then thought better of it and immediately deleted it. that ugly, wokeist, postmodern nonsense, showing off one's erudition with 5, 6 and 7 syllable incoherent word salad.
To repeat, I hate wokeism
2. You wrote that it's being pushed by Democratic Party, K-12 schools, colleges and universities, the art world, the medical establishment, corporate HR offices, professional associations, the philanthropic and nonprofit sectors, and the legacy media (NPR, The New York Times, CNN, etc.)
I agree.
So I want to be VERY clear before I ask:
1. I hate wokeism
2. I FULLY agree it's present in all the areas you mention - in fact, you didn't mention junior and senior high schools, where it's undoubtedly present.
3. I think it's the single greatest impediment to economic justice, which the Democrats should shine in. I've never heard a single Democrat deal with it well except for Bernie. He was speaking to a group of Trump supporters - ALL Trump supporters. They kept trying to bait him on gay marriage, guns, trans rights, etc. He never took the bait. He'd simply say, "look, you know we disagree on those things. But you also know that my Republican opponents are not going to help you feed your family, help you get universal health care, improve the environment, make your workplaces safe and fair, etc"
And EVERYONE would be nodding vigorously. I've been saying for years instead of always being reactive and trying to fight the republicans (they have the perfect issue now - trans rights. Every time a Democrat defends his/her position on trans rights, the Far Right wackos just say, "See the Democrats ARE grooming children.) - instead of reactivity, say "WE are the pro-life party. We support women and fetuses from before birth to the end of live. WE are are pro life, protecting people from poisonous environments, from vulture capitalists (who the Trumpists all say they hate also) from reckless gun violence, etc.
So, so far we're in complete agreement, yes?
1. Hate wokeism
2. It's all the places you say and more
3. An enormous impediment to economic justice.
So what's my question? Please keep the above in mind, otherwise when you read the question you're just going to flip into, "Don's an idiot who is just trolling and doesn't know what he's talking about"
Ok.
I've been following this since the 1970s and saw it coming. I was aware, in 1992, that David Horowitz was hired by a right wing think tank to troll left wing academics and to find the most obnoxious, potentially frightening language for conservatives. He looked at many of the VERY SAME ACADEMICS who completely turned me off some 15-20 years previously. He then set about in a kind of devilishly brilliant way and slowly made his way into hate radio and various other think tanks and ultimately, the republican party big wigs to convince them THIS was the issue to kill the Democrats, AND they would buy it hook line and sinker.
he was right.
Boy I'm putting off the actual question because I'm afraid you're not going to take all our agreement into account:
I asked you before, What is the actual evidence that a significant majority of Democrats in the country (not representatives, just Democratic voters) are into this stuff? They say a third of the adult voting population, approximately, are Democrats. That's about 70 million people, somewhat in the ballpark (a little less) than voted for Biden, so that's probably right.
Now, we know for sure that the progressive wing of the Democrats - whether in Congress or among the voters - is a minority. I've heard 10%. But let's double that and say it's 20%. That's 14 million people.
So let's get some perspective on this:
In a country of 350 million people, among which 220 million are of voting age, about 4% of the total population and 6% of the voting population, are strongly woke.
6% of voters.
Remember, most sociologists have said in virtually any population, you can count on at least 10-15% to be the crazies, the folks who will buy virtually any Qanon nonsense, right or left wing conspiratorial nut jobs. So they generally write off that percentage.
But we're talking about 6% here.
now, i'm quite hesitant to disagree, if you say, "Well, who cares if it's a tiny number. They're in the media, in universities, and they have an overwhelming influence."
I won't disagree but I'll question you a bit.
Given that the total "influential" disgustingly, obnoxiously, horrifically woke population is about 6% of the population, considerably less than the percentage who think Jewish businessmen are using lasers to create wildfires in California, or think the Democrats are holding littlle children for Satanic rituals - does this 6% REALLY have the outsize influence so many think?
Ok, FINALLY, the precise question
Is it REMOTELY possible, despite the fact that you are no doubt a talented, very bright journalist who dedicated much of her life to getting accurate information about the world and the peoples of the world, that David Horowitz and his many colleagues in hate radio and far right think tanks, have so brilliantly manipulated the news that - ALTHOUGH YOU ARE FUNDAMENTALLY CORRECT ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT WOKEISM - that just possibly, some of our sense that it's taking over the world might be the result of devilishly, (satanically??) successful right wing fake news?