The Perils of Postmodern Progressivism
There is a danger in embracing the “progressive” movement that is devoted to the 100-year-old ideas of a long-dead German intellectual and which aims to send the rest of us careening back to 1930s collectivism.
A danger, that is, besides the filling of graves and that you, yourself, as a “revolutionary thought leader” will end up against the wall as the revolution eats its own children.
This danger, far more eminent and horrible, and something that must be avoided at all costs is that your “revolutionary” and “resistance” activities, your brave speaking of truth to power will offend any number of your coalition.
This has become much more likely – and terrifying – as the left has incorporated the most unlikely groups into their shoulder-to-shoulder march against civilization capitalism.
Imagine my shock when I found out that the pussy-hat brigade was planning yet another “woman’s march” to protest the anniversary of the inauguration of our lawfully elected president. No, seriously, you could have knocked me down with a feather [sarcasm], I was that surprised.
I mean, after all, a movement that started off protesting the removal of vague, unspecified rights from women who couldn’t actually even name a single right endangered by the election of Trump wouldn’t leave enough alone when after a year no rights have been removed from any woman anywhere in US territory. In fact, it could be argued that the #metoo movement has not only righted some long-festering Hollywood injustices and misbehavior but has encouraged women everywhere to go on the hunt for male scalps, deserved or not.
In fact these “Women’s Marches” are the perfect leftist movement: No defined purpose, no particular benefit, but full of sound and fury, signifying nothing and lasting forever, all the while drawing in mindless idiots who want to be “activists” without understanding politics — or really much of anything. Since leftism is a positional good, they are the equivalent of Victorian ladies getting together to have tea and discuss how to save the underclasses who neither know about them nor want their help.
So, yeah, it was in the cards, all along.
But then I read that they would no longer be wearing their trademark pussy hats. I’ll be honest, I was grieved. Okay, maybe grieved is a bit of a stretch, but it did take away so many jokes my friends and I have been making for years now. You know, “Ladies, that’s not the part of you that you should be thinking with” and “seriously, now, you’re wearing that because the president once used the word “pussy” in an informal setting? Considering his age, class, and occupation, doesn’t it amaze you that’s the worst the leftist oppo research could find?”
Of course, since they took a sentence Trump used to mean that women were likely to succumb to rich men (ie that when you had enough money, women would allow you to grab them by the pussy), which, btw, as a psychological fact is indisputable truth (women being hypergamic) and construed it to mean he was a sexual assaulter, they’re probably beyond the reach of reason. Or sanity.
Still, I was saddened by the disappearance of the iconic knitwear, because… well… it made them look funny.
So I started investigating what had caused the loss of knitwear.
From the article linked above:
"The pink pussyhat excludes and is offensive to transgender women and gender non-binary people who don't have typical female genitalia and to women of color because their genitals are more likely to be brown than pink," the Detroit Free Press reports.
You don’t say? The wearing of symbols of genitalia on your head can be offensive, because it doesn’t resemble the genitalia of everyone who identifies as a woman? Because of course, everyone wants to wear accurate genitalia on their heads, right?
Those protesting the exclusion of the knitwear say that they never meant them to represent anyone’s vagina.
At the time, some marchers even insisted the resemblance to actual vaginas was unintentional, however appropriate. The official website for the Women's March proudly proclaimed that you didn't have to have a . . . ahem . . . pussy . . . to wear one.
"We did not choose the color pink as a representation of some people’s anatomy. Anyone who supports women’s rights is welcome to wear a Pussyhat. It does not matter if you have a vulva or what color your vulva may be. If a participant wants to create a Pussyhat that reflects the color of her vulva, we support her choice," organizers wrote.
Or, to summarize the above “We never meant it, sir, and besides, we like all pussies on everyone’s heads. So long as your head resembles a vulva, we don’t care about genitalia or color.”
Alas, the pink hats having been declared hateful, there was no escape. Besides, a movement that attracts people who are offended by everything, anything and the vaguest things, is going to have members who are offended by everything.
But over time, as the pink pussy hat became associated with the Women's March specifically and the "Resistance" generally, some feminists began to feel left out.
According to one organizer, the Women's March has begun "to move away from the pussyhats for several months now, and are not making it the cornerstone of our messaging because ... there’s a few things wrong with the message."
"It doesn’t sit well with a group of people that feel that the pink pussyhats are either vulgar or they are upset that they might not include trans women or nonbinary women or maybe women whose (genitals) are not pink," she added.
The Pussy hats MIGHT be vulgar? Oh, no. I suppose code pink and their vulva costumes will be excluded from the march then? No?
See, this is the problem with the “progressive” movement of resistance to really nothing much except the results of a legitimate election. Lacking any real objectives and message, they become sidetracked and incoherent.
Apparently, the pink hats have been exiled to the outer darkness, where there shall be crying and gnashing of… something. However, women self-objectifying in pink vulva costumes, and displaying their ignorance by calling them “vaginas” will still be welcomed.
Until, of course, the next sacred minority discovers yet another reason to be offended.
When you trade in principles for tribalism, it’s all about preserving tribal boundaries.