September 27, 2022
The gender debate is imploding. With work like Matt Walsh’s “What is a Woman?” reaching a broad audience, the public are becoming increasingly informed of the incoherence of the arguments that support the notion that gender is a social construct with no basis in material reality. This documentary in particular illustrated that even purportedly ‘highly educated’ members of Western academic institutions are unable to provide a cogent answer to what once was a simple, self-evident, if not rhetorical question. While to some this may seem innocuous or even irrelevant to society, I argue that the gender debate is more than merely problematic; it is manifesting as a crisis of masculinity that has severely deleterious effects on myriad critical aspects of our culture and society.
In “The Incoherence of Gender as a Social Construct”, John Skalko makes the following concrete argument:
If gender is a social construct, then (1) gender is culturally relative, (2) any society that defines gender as identical with biological sex must be right, (3) transgenderism does not exist in all places, and (4) gender is not unchanging. Some things are truly culturally relative. If gender is one of them, then your claim that gender is a social construct is true only relative to your particular social group. But it is not true for mine.
To be clear: I take no issue with how an individual chooses to identify his or her self. Their expression of their identity is certainly their prerogative. The problem arises when we discuss the concept of “identity” and whatever utility it may have for discourse, social organization, political campaigns, social & economic policy, and so forth. Because the creation of language is a participatory group activity based on consensual definitions of material reality, language itself has its basis in both interpretation by the individual and, more importantly, an objectively observable reality that exists outside of subjective experience; in fact, existing before and long after any individual observation and interpretation of its features. Manifest and concrete reality existed long before our subjective interpretations of it. There are biological and immutable roots to our existence. Each and every one of us. And there is a profound beauty to recognizing this fact. While “social constructionism” has great utility for explaining how social processes work and for providing descriptive data on their outcomes, it has no place in the substrate of Natural Law. We cannot reinvent fundamental aspects of reality just because we “feel like it”.
I know, I know. You are asking, faithful reader, “William, what the fuck does this have to do with Dauber, Amber, and Masculinity?” In short, they share the same objectives: to erase the categories that have long defined the ways in which we observe and understand the world around us and our fellow citizens and to erode the boundaries that have historically defined group membership, access to resources, civil rights, and definitions of Law and Order. Whereas first and second wave feminism was a movement that fought for the civil rights of oppressed categories of people – including the gay population – this fourth and/or fifth wave of feminism has identified its enemy as Masculinity itself. Borrowing the vile anti-human term that is often used by the monstrous oligarchs that deploy “feminism” for their profitable ends, it is easily and clearly demonstrable that femininity has and will continue to be “collateral damage” in this assault. In fact, recently leaked information solidly confirms that political and Intelligence agencies have long employed “feminism” for their maleficent purposes.
The Assault on Masculinity and Justice
Like any other political or social engineering plan of action, this manipulation of public thinking and behavior begins by controlling the concepts and context for public discourse. The fuse leading to the explosives planted in and around our understandings of and feelings towards Masculinity was recently lit in 1983 by Andrea Dworkin and her rather aggressive assertion of the proliferation of “rape culture” on college campuses and beyond. This assertion – a social construction, no less, with very little basis in reality – was based on two socially constructed concepts that have little to no basis in the historical record: “patriarchy” and “androcentrism”. Both of these concepts insist that society has been organized primarily and exclusively by men with the purpose of systemically benefitting men and thereby disadvantaging women.
Concepts like “patriarchy” and “androcentrism” have pervaded universities and colleges in Western industrialized countries for decades. These concepts assert as their first premise that society has historically and nearly exclusively been governed, furnished, and organized by men and, therefore, our current social and political systems are inherently discriminatory towards women. While women across the world have faced systemic oppression, like those currently revolting against hijab rules in Iran, white woke women in academic institutions in the West have pushed their ideology harder than ever by using these examples from which they are far removed. 4th- and/or 5th-wave feminists insult those women involved in these genuine revolutions by using their experiences to assault Masculinity.
Yes, there are real issues regarding the infringement of women’s rights that must be addressed. Feminism, as it was conceived of, as a movement, has great utility in these cases. Feminism, in its current toxic ideological form, is nihilistic and genocidal. This arguably outrageous claim brings me to my discussion of Amber, Dauber, Evan, and their unfortunate roles as exemplars of this toxicity and its assault on Masculinity. As Rebecca Ruiz states in the article above, “Men are under attack. Everything that makes masculinity sacred — valor, honor, chivalry, leadership — is under siege”. This is the tragic and deplorable outcome of the tidal wave of social constructionist radical feminist ideology that has swept through academic, political, and social institutions.
The JD v AH trial and verdict were about both Truth and Justice. I’ve noticed that many people seem to think that it was primarily about the former, Truth. I vehemently disagree. I’m always open for debate on this issue, but I firmly assert that Truth/Knowledge is an iterative process of production whereas Justice is achieved. The Law does not “create” or “decide” upon what is “Just”. We only need to look to the innumerable examples of the “Law” acting against our collective notion of Justice. Examples are legion and thus I feel no need to provide any. Justice is a collective achievement and, I contend, recognizable through collective visceral response. That is, there is something noticeably human about the achievement of Justice. A group, or multiple groups, are driven to tears, cries of joy, and so forth. It is closer to the core of what makes us human, what makes us form groups whatsoever. We collectively participate in its achievement and the rules by which it can be achieved. From this, Truth (capital T) is the servant of Justice. That is, whereas some will argue that whatever is True must be Just, I argue that whatever is Just must be True. We cannot know the Truth without achieving Justice. (Editor’s note: There will be a forthcoming article that differentiates between justice (small j – the process) and Justice (big J – the collective and viscerally felt achievement)).
From this logic, by redefining Justice, an individual or group can create “Truth”; that is, the consensual societal definitions of those categories that guide our daily lives. Traditionally, families have been the primary provider of content for thinking and behaving in a largely dangerous and challenging world. It was the great dispossession – the historical moment when feudal lords accepted capital value as dictating exchange value – that those families living on the lands surrounding the oligarch’s fortresses were forced to seek out ways of accumulating capital in order to pay for the land that was originally granted to them and to acquire resources necessary for life. Families were no longer focused on cultivating their land or contributing to their community. Instead, family members were forced to find work elsewhere. Families were divided, communities diffused, and any resistance to oligarchical rule was significantly diminished. The “Truth” was no longer the province of family socialization. Instead, it became a process that relied on power, which primarily relied on the accumulation of capital. This was the smashing blow to the concept of and discourse surrounding the traditional family form and any essential values it may have espoused.
Clearly, this wasn’t enough concentration of power and wealth. The accumulation of limitlessly immaterial capital value was and continues to be accompanied by a similarly limitless thirst for that accumulation. Such greed sought to further destabilize anything that might prevent it from feeding off the “capital value” generated from actual labor. In a paradoxical and, frankly, odd metaphysical twist, the concept of “patriarchy”, or the idea that men are central to our societal functioning and assemblage, was the next required target. The characteristics associated with Masculinity meant that men were capable of resisting the impending increase in the concentration of wealth and power. The manifestation of this grotesque greed could not be better exemplified than it is in the case of the nascently emergent victim-creation industry haunting our college campuses, Hollywood culture, and beyond. Thanks to Title IX legislation, pushed by and signed off on by Michele Dauber, Russlyn Ali, and other captains of modern feminist ideological assaults, sexual violence was raised from an interpersonal issue to an issue of homeland security. Among many other examples, Evan Rachel Wood and her pleas to congress helped a great deal in this process. Within this nexus, the toxic feminist ideologues were able to erase due process and grant allegations against men the same legal, discursive, social, and political power as the “Truth”. That is, in sum, if a woman made a claim of sexual violence it was immediately True, according to social mores and legal representations, and thus, by proxy, any man become a potential rapist. The result? Everybody on eggshells and unable to act collectively. Or, at least, we have come close to witnessing this terrifying possibility come to life. This has been a decades long assault on Masculinity.
Although Truth is an iterative productive process, thankfully, Justice remains a viscerally recognized achievement. When Johnny Depp achieved Justice, nearly the entire globe rejoiced. I’m more than certain that I am not the only one who felt it in their guts and bones. From this visceral response we, as a community, have been redressing definitions and understandings of the Truth. Whereas the era prior was characterized by how any claim of sexual violence by a woman ought to be accepted as truth (and, by proxy, similar claims by men were viewed as having little basis or dismissed altogether), now we are creating a new version of Truth that more closely aligns with this Justice we’ve witnessed. Standing in clear contrast and conflict with these revisions? Michele Dauber, her tool Amber Heard, and other sycophantic radical Feminist terrorists who seek to dismantle Masculinity for the purpose of dismissing human rights. There are several goals being sought from this process and none of them are the elevation of women’s rights. On the contrary. Let me address these goals, good reader.
More than Bags of Meat
First, because of how jurisprudence influences the codification of Law, the elimination of due process for any category of persons, regardless of gender, is a baby step towards the elimination of those civil rights more generally that protect any citizen from the State; or, that is, from the plutocratic Oligarchs in power. Second, the sweeping spread of gender ideology among the upper echelons of academia, politics, and power is no coincidence nor is it organic by any means. While it presents as the celebration of difference, this ideology actually insists on the elimination of natural difference, which thereby reduces identity itself to nothing more than a subjective experience with no basis in objective reality. Third, and finally, gender ideology presents a very particular kind of danger that ought to terrify every living sentient creature. Namely, that the very bodies that we are born into are nothing more than meat to be modified. The “celebration” it purports to represent only applies if you believe that we are nothing more than bags of meat with feelings and that those feelings come before any recognizable objective reality. Yet – and here’s the rub, kids – just like the insanely inconsistent logic at the heart of modern radical feminism, this rejection of the primacy of objective reality in favor of subjective feelings relies on notions drawn from that objective reality.
What do I mean by this? I cannot “identify” as something that doesn’t exist. Even if its merely a thought in my imagination. If my imagination conceives of something that doesn’t already exist, then I’m left to instrumentalize what does exist if I intend on bringing that thought to life. Inventors are a prime example of this. Those who can and do create something that never existed before from that which already exists. Even this example of invention cannot encapsulate gender ideology insofar as the objectives of gender ideology are not to create something new. Rather, the consequences of gender ideology are that more and more people are beginning to view their body as nothing more than a meatsuit available to the scalpel; available to be carved up to resemble what a person feels inside, in contrast to what has already been provided through processes that adhere to Natural Law.
Where once this rejection of all that had come before you meant that you required treatment from mental health professionals, now increasingly more “professionals” are embracing this as “Natural”. The hubris of believing that us mere mortals have the right to obscure and reinvent Natural Law is and will continue to hamper our progress as a species. Social constructionism had it’s uses. Like feminism, we’ve taken it too far. Let’s keep the good bits, the useful bits, that can help mobilize the oppressed to achieve Justice. Let’s throw the other bits, like Dauber, Amber, Evan, and the rest of the mercenaries working in the “victims-for-profit” industry, lets throw them and their ideas in the trash bin and move along towards a society with it’s gaze focused primarily on Justice. Not on Law. Not on Truth. Those are products. We shouldn’t dismiss interrogating those concepts but our focus needs to remain on Justice. We feel that shit in our bones. And I don’t mean “subjective experience”. That shit is a collective experience. This is why we are witnessing the implosion of gender ideology. Its goals are nefarious and its proponents irrational, banal, and, if I can be frank, my faithful reader, self-indulgent nihilists. We need women. We need men. We need to celebrate and enjoy our differences, not eliminate or appropriate them. This is how we best harvest the land and feed our communities. Meanwhile, gender ideologues will eat themselves alive before revising their limited canon. Nature will watch and move along. Just like Justice.