Feminists and ‘justice’: ‘Some ideas are so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them’

Bliss it was that dawn to be alive, but to be old was very heaven. The doors of the Bastille of toxic diversity, spurious equity, and disingenuous inclusivity in which I have been imprisoned my entire adult life have been torn from their hinges. Freedom beckons. But so might also the guillotine and Napoleon’s psychopathy. Time to exult? Absolutely. But also, a time to beware, for did not Wordsworth’s peer Coleridge also warn of ancestral voices prophesying war?

That this has been an epochal moment in history is indisputable. Mark Zuckerberg – one of the most influential men in the world – has just changed sides. Facebook in its earlier incarnation had turned into a reactionary liberal sewer. At great length, Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan how this happened, but in short it was largely through supersaturation (my term) by intolerant liberal voices. What was now needed was the presence of more male assertiveness within his company’s work-culture (and amen to that.)

What Zuckerberg got was an-online reply so steeped in brainless and outdated clichés that it should be pickled, bottled, and put in a museum recording the tyranny of the Reactionary Left. Here it is, courtesy of one Alysson Goldberg.

Women make up just 35 per cent of the tech workforce and only 11 per cent of executive roles. The industry has long been a prime example for (stet) the workforce’s gender gap but according to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, “masculine energy” is being sucked from the workforce, and corporations need to bring that “aggression” back….

But gender studies and economics experts warn that Zuckerberg’s rhetoric can push women and marginalised voices out of the workforce by championing outdated gender roles and stereotypes.

“Neutered” is “gendered dog whistle,” and perpetuates the patriarchy, gender traditionalism and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric says Juliet A. Williams, a professor of gender studies at UCLA.

Zuckerberg’s remarks reflect the rising backlash against DEI initiatives. These rollbacks can have a “silencing effect” on women in professional settings, according to Susan L. Averett, a professor of economics at Lafayette College.

“Women and men have distinct communication styles,” she explains. “A shift toward a more traditionally masculine workplace culture risks marginalizing women’s voices.”

These environments can become so unwelcoming to women, she says, that women step away from male-dominated fields like economics and STEM. 

That such self-pitying, repetitive gibberish – “gender studies experts”, God help us – ever got published tells us of the abyss into which public discourse has fallen. But then so does that very word “discourse”. Quite simply, there has been no “discourse” over the past half century, just a series of diktats from leftist campus zealots. No sooner than society obeyed these lunatics than they ratcheted up their demands. This was a train that had no dead-man’s handle, and for once, the term “man” applies, because feminists didn’t want to be train-drivers or steeplejacks or sewerage cleansers or indeed anything that wasn’t glamorous or well-paid.  In line with their forerunners, the French Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks, feminists view “justice” as a weapon to be deployed against their political opponents rather than being used to help those that need it. This brings us to another set of hinges on those Bastille doors: the illusional power of free-speech.

We first learnt of the mass-rape of little English girls, perhaps tens of thousands of them, by Pakistani gangs well over a decade ago. Yet no British government moved with ruthless zeal to destroy the careers of the police officers and social workers who had essentially been in passive cahoots with the rapists, and no feminist voices demanded that they should do so. Action on such lines would have been “racist”, or in the recent and imperishable words of the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, would have been jumping onto “a far-right bandwagon.” Yes, he really did say that, and just two weeks ago. It is a measure of the residual clout of such reactionary liberalism that this contemptible creature (who headed the Crown Prosecution Service for five of the most damning years of prosecutional inertia that allowed this rape-orgy to continue) is still prime minister.  In a more enlightened dispensation, crows would now be pecking at his head on a spike outside the Tower of London. 

So why did feminists not demand action against the thousands of rapists and their cultural protectors in the police and social services? Simple. Within the racist-canon of political correctness, “people of colour”, ie, coloured people, have a far higher status than the pallid she-proles who inhabit the sink-estates built by the state, guarded by the state, managed by state, taught by the state, policed by the state and finally damned for all eternity by the state. Free speech did not end this reign of tyranny, while feminists did not even try to. Instead, this matter only became a worldwide headline story because another of the great men who grace this epoch, Elon Musk, made a public issue of it. Rightly, he also republished Allison Pearson’s scorching attack on Starmer in The Daily Telegraph, but it is here that we come to the limitations of “free speech”. For Pearson and a few other women – Ann Cryer, MP in particular – had been campaigning on this issue for years, but fruitlessly. Meanwhile, the massed body of campus-feminists who invented the linguistic drivel that fills the discourse – ah, that delicious word again! – of gender studies remained ruthlessly silent, even as more of these poor little girls were rounded-up and gang-raped.   

The back-story. For half a century, the worldwide Anglosphere has been steadily immersed in a moral glue that has prevented enquiry, discussion, analysis and deconstruction of the heresies that have colonised our politics and our media. They have had different names throughout, but these days they go by the neologism of “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion” – DEI which is also Latin for gods, and gods they are, though a slight anagram gives us the real import of these moral fictions: DIE. For nothing but moral and legal mortality can result from imposing the values of the DIE agenda on society, enforced by name-calling – racist, misogynist, xenophobe, homophobe, patriarch. An ideology whose existence depends on abusing its dissenters and ending their careers is merely a despotism without stone dungeons. It has no need of these, for it is amply equipped with the standard schoolgirl weaponry of isolation and ostracism, which in the adult world can lead to ruin and poverty.   

To the brainwashed, the intrinsically-meaningless asylum-babble (such as “gendered dog-whistle” and “the patriarchy, gender traditionalism and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric” quoted above) accurately conveys their deranged world-vision of sexual and orientational oppression.  Comparable fiction-based jargon was spouted by the Committee of Public Safety as the guillotine came down on a blameless neck or by the politburo as the NKVD bullet was fired into the occipital bone of the Gulag’s latest victim.

That Zuckerberg’s innocent, unscripted and courteous observations should have been met with such instant and blistering ferocity means that these reactionary liberals understand how desperately weak their own arguments are. Orwell’s warning that some ideas are so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them holds especially true today. So, we can be certain that the falsehoods of diversity, equity and inclusion will be defended with all the usual pitilessness and dishonesty of the DIEhards. We saw this during the US Senate hearings on the appointment of Peter Hegseth as Secretary of Defence, characterised especially by Elizabeth Warren’s hysterical attacks on him because of his intent to withdraw women from infantry fighting. Within the unhinged sHegelianism of modern feminism, the equation is not dialectical but incremental: fury + frenzy = apoplexy.  Repeated apoplectics – happily – usually result in death.

So, on that note, let’s look on the bright side. We have a powerful ally in all this: experience. This tells us that institutions that do not cherish and reward male values of competition and comradeship will falter and fail. Armies that deploy women as frontline infantry will be routed in the field, which is why there are no such female soldiers in Gaza or Ukraine. Polities that surrender to feminist venom will turn in on themselves and die. So, this could mean that the future is promising. Or on the other, Trump might be perhaps opening too many fronts simultaneously, with a quite different outcome. I go with the former, but either way, the ride will be bumpy. Very.

Kevin Myers is an Irish journalist, author and broadcaster. He has reported on the wars in Northern Ireland, where he worked throughout the 1970s, Beirut and Bosnia.