Ideologues often cherry-pick a few facts to support their arguments, but, when all is said and done they have no use for reality.
Their true love is the logic of their arguments. They are often willing to follow said logic to the point of making complete fools of themselves.
When you make yourself and your cause look ridiculous, it’s time to ask go back to the drawing board. At least, this explains why fewer and fewer women are willing to declare themselves to be feminists.
And feminism, as one commenter pointed out, is a gift the keeps on giving.
One imagined that feminists had hit rock bottom when they invented the concept of: “manspreading.” If that does not tell you that you need some serious rehab, I don’t know what will. The concept was so vapid that I chose, at first, to ignore it.
By their new concept feminists meant to attack the men who open their legs wide while sitting on the subway. The feminists may or may not know, but a man whose legs are open wide is signifying power and even manliness.
Yet, feminists take it personally. They believe that men do this in order to hog space, invading territory that ought by rights to belong to those whose knees always touch each other.
Then again, for all I know these manspreaders might be trying to get a bit closer to the women on their left and right.
Apparently, the misandrist wing of the feminist cult seems to have been running out of ways to attack men. That seems to be why it felt compelled to invent the new word: manspreading.
To be fair, feminists could also have staged a protest where they shamed the malespreaders by engaging in womanspreading. That is, they could have appropriated excessive subway space by sitting with their legs spread apart. Surely, that would show men how uncomfortable it is to be seating next to a creature that spreads his or her legs?
Now, in the race to find look like the complete fool, Mount Holyoke College feminists have one-upped their New York sisters. Formerly one of America’s great educational institutions, Holyoke has just banned a production of “The Vagina Monologues.”
If you don’t know why, you’ll never guess. The College found the play offensive because it discriminates against women without vaginas. That is, it suffers from the dreaded transphobia.
Since Eve Ensler’s play identifies woman by their vaginas, the logic goes, it ignores those beings who believe they are women even though they lack the defining orifice.
Allow me to point out, for your edification, that some transgendered women do indeed have surgically-constructed vaginas. From a discrete distance a surgically-constructed vagina resembles the real thing. Yet, it lacks certain functionalities that obtain with an actual vagina.
Should we therefore call these faux vaginas real? Is it prejudicial to think that a real vagina is materially different from a faux vagina? And, should a transgendered woman with a surgically-constructed vagina have annual visits to her/his gynecologist?
Great minds are going to have a tough time with those deep philosophical questions.
The way things are going now, one expects that one day a governmental agency will pass a regulation saying that obstetricians, upon delivering babies, are no longer allowed to say: “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl.” The political correct locution will be: “It’s undecided.”
To be more serious, Campus Reform has done yeoman work reporting the events at Mount Holyoke, beginning with an explanatory email sent by someone who supported the ban:
“At its core, the show [The Vagina Monologues] offers an extremely narrow perspective on what it means to be a woman...Gender is a wide and varied experience, one that cannot simply be reduced to biological or anatomical distinctions, and many of us who have participated in the show have grown increasingly uncomfortable presenting material that is inherently reductionist and exclusive,” the email, obtained by Campus Reform, said.
Replacing the play will be Mount Holyoke’s own version that will be trans-inclusive and fix the “problems” supposedly perpetuated by Ensler. Murphy also claims that there are problems with race, class, and “other identities” within the play.
The new production, comprised of students’ monologues, will be performed in a fashion reminiscent of the feminist classic. The program will be performed alongside the College’s Peer Health Educators, an on-campus student-led group that provides education and workshops for students, including a workshop on how to use sex toys properly.
Note the closing line. Mount Holyoke will not only indoctrinate their students with politically correct propaganda. It will also teach them how to use sex toys properly.
Yet, the reference raises a salient issue. Those who obsess over Eve Ensler’s paean to vagina consciousness ignore the other word in her title: “monologues.”
Truth be told, those women who become absorbed contemplating their vaginas—better than navel-gazing, I suppose—are more likely to have a sex life that resembles a monologue than a dialogue.
Thus, the reference to the proper use of sex toys—what, pray tell would be the improper use of sex toys?—becomes strangely apposite.
Unfortunately, as I have occasionally averred, a woman who insists on being recognized for her external genitalia is far less likely to be respected for her professional achievements or even her mind.
Funnily enough, the same rule applies to a male who puts his private parts on public display.