The following is an excerpt from the author’s new book, “The Weaponization of Loneliness: How Tyrants Fuel Our Terror of Isolation to Silence, Divide and Conquer.(Bombardier Books, Post Hill Press.)
Feminists have long urged women to promote the politically correct view that they are oppressed victims. Champions of second-wave feminism – such as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem – have pointed out valid grievances of women, such as feeling like a sex object or being passed over for career advancement. However, the media-technology complex has gone far beyond promoting constructive awareness of these concerns. Instead, it cultivates the resentments these women have felt for past humiliations.
Two cases in point are the confirmation hearings of Judge Clarence Thomas in 1991 and Judge Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. In both cases, the Democrats’ playbook for derailing the confirmation process was exactly the same. At the eleventh hour, a woman appears with stories of sexual harassment from decades past. There is virtually no confirmation.
Kavanaugh was a teenager when his accuser Christine Blasey Ford said he attempted to strip naked at a party, although no one present at said party could corroborate anything. Anita Hill has accused Thomas of making inappropriate comments while working in her office. Again, unsubstantiated.
But Democrats trying to disrupt confirmations weren’t concerned about the flimsiness of the charges. The stories – publicized in the media – served a much bigger purpose. The unspoken goal was to emotionally manipulate American women who may have been humiliated in the past. They stirred up old resentments and traumas and then projected the blame for those traumas onto the candidates. And it worked. He brought back old memories of abuse in many women across America. They then became emotionally certain that the candidates were guilty.
Therefore, nominees could be presented to the public eye as “Me Too” perverts, members of Wifebeaters Inc., and more. The Senate Judiciary Committee and the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh hearings became a circus of angst-filled women, as expected. They shouted in the courtroom. They yelled at swing-vote senators in hallways and elevators. On Capitol Hill, there were parades of women posing in “maidservant” costumes. The slogan of the day was “Believe all women! no matter who they are or what they say about you.
Which brings up another question: what is a woman anyway? When Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked to define the word “woman,” she refused to do so and even added, “I’m not a biologist.” Given the propaganda of gender ideology – which seems to deny that men and women exist in biology or reality – why has its recent propaganda continued to speak out of both sides of the mouth as if two genders really existed? Specifically, why do mainstream feminists like Steinem and company embrace this narrative while lamenting their former sisters known as radical feminists who oppose it?
And since any man can claim to be a woman simply by saying so, we end up asking the central question posed by the British novelist Dorothy Sayers in her 1938 lecture: “Are women human?” It is the spark of individuality, along with the biological reality of humanity as a dimorphic species, that makes us human. And we lose both in the quagmire of identity politics imposed by political correctness.
This examination of women in the clutches of identity politics suggests two main findings. First, social pressures from all sides—schools, media, popular culture—seem to weigh on young women in particular. Consequently, trying to navigate political correctness has been so exhausting that it has made women’s mental health crisis worse, especially in the age of Covid-19.
This should come as no surprise assuming they have internalized the guilt thrust upon them for racism, poverty, environmental disaster, for properly “masking up”, etc. An article in Evie magazine noted that progressivism is an ideology “that counts points to an exhausting degree. … [I]It’s understandable that anxiety and depression thrive in these kinds of environments.
Second, all that slicing and dicing leads to an isolation — and exhaustion — that likely leaves many struggling women just hoping to be taken care of. With so many broken relationships and forbidden real conversations, what else is left but the new patriarchy, the daddy state?
In 2012, President Obama’s re-election campaign hoped to engage young female voters with this message by featuring an infographic titled “Julia’s Life.” It offered a utopian story about an atomized woman and showed how the government would care for her and her child from cradle to grave. In 2021, the Biden administration released a similar infographic titled “The Life of Linda,” another isolated wife from Stepford to the state.
Both infographics perfectly illustrate sociologist Robert Nisbet’s view that “the state thrives on what it gives to the individual as it does on what it gets from competing social relations”. The government’s presentation of Julia and Linda represents the push for a new social order that replaces our intimate relationships with a mass relationship with the state. The biggest losers of all are the children and their childhood. But the propaganda also aims to destroy motherhood, fatherhood and the whole family.
This leads us to wonder about the role of men in all of this. I would say that everything depends on the strength of women to reject the dystopia imposed on us by a totalitarian force. We should reject the narrative that men are the bad guys and women are always the victims. In general, men are very inspired by women. I guess elitist men take inspiration from men who are higher in the pecking order.
But the demasculinization of men and the harassment of women and girls by men who inject themselves into women’s sport by claiming a feminine identity are one and the same. Obedience to political correctness – for fear of being socially rejected – is the engine.
This psychological chaos is caused by utopian power elites of both genders. Gender division is key to the breakdown of family and relationships in society. This division proved essential to the collapse of the black family in America and, increasingly, to the American family as a whole.