Note: Again, I am not arguing that the listed movements are inherently negative, but the reframing as oppression dynamics that are pit against civilization as a whole. As this is the internet, I felt I must clarify. Racial equality, equal rights for others, good. It’s the same as the distinction between women’s actual rights vs. feminism ™ .
In my initial essays here, I wrote of a series of revelations that shook me completely, seemingly in a month’s time. Aside from the sudden understanding that the enemy I’d been shadowboxing was in fact my old friend, feminism, that it was all a lie that had done me great harm instead of an under-appreciated civil rights movement, there were the various lenses it had applied to my vision. For that’s what modern liberal feminism is (no, not the fight for basic rights, for suffrage, but the post Women’s Lib/2nd wave movement). It is one of the “social constructs” we so often hear of from those on the left. The idea that women are in an epic battle for our own freedom after centuries of oppression by a mythical patriarchy is laughable once the spell is broken, and hinges on the idea that gender roles are either strictly adhered to or are themselves a cage.
This further falls apart once more lenses are applied, and since the 1960s we’ve been asked to view society through a series of increasingly bizarre deconstructionist lenses that stem from the least competent corners of academia and at this point require a level of cognitive dissonance that’s religious in nature to even accommodate. Agnosticism, oikophobia (hatred of one’s own culture/country), sexual revolution, women’s liberation movement. The opening salvos. The gay rights movement, political correctness, race politics, further deconstruction of religion (so long as it’s Christian). The frog in the pot is starting to get pretty parboiled at this point. Finally, the explosion into madness; gender ideology, “decolonization”, anti-racism as dogmatic cult. The open declaration of that deconstruction was never enough and that our civilization must be torn down, institution by institution. It’s a tower with no foundation, and one that cannot stand, which is why it’s not uncommon to find older GenX feminists perfectly accepting of the few initial lenses but breaking further down the line, and why it’s so important to understand that the entire program since its inception has been one movement. To deconstruct and dismantle our civilization by attacking its true foundations, and each movement was a missile fired for this aim.
Few things illustrate this better than the readings applied to one of my favorite works, which was coincidentally written prior to the brunt of this war on our culture. Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. Written by a man not only radically opposed to modernity in most of its forms (while he accepted automobiles later in life, he never truly liked the “infernal combustion engine”). I shan’t recount his entire corpus of letters here, but suffice it to say the tragic nature of change itself is a theme throughout his works, even the non-fiction. The author’s devout Catholicism is reflected throughout his writings, from Leaf By Niggle to Lord of the Rings, and his opposition to scientism and deconstruction as an academic approach are rather legendary. In short, Tolkien’s a difficult writer to read with any of these modern lenses stuck on your eyes, yet somehow they’ve all been applied in increasingly bizarre fashion until at last the curtain is torn away to reveal rather the wrong wizard.
Many Tolkien fans spent the 2010s dreading the encroaching shadow as the “antiracism” movement began its own salvos against our favorite author, and naturally everyone not welcoming every ambassador from the religion of woke was accused of “bigotry”. From queer interpretations to neo-pagan ones to outright anti-colonialist missives, nothing seemed off limits, even the property itself, as Amazon proved. Interestingly, one perspective neglected in this modern round was the feminist perspective–until that dreaded show premiered, that is.
Feminism is such an early lens (counting forward from the disaster of the 1960s) and a completely normalized perspective for so many of us that feminist interpretations tend to fly under the radar until they reach a fever pitch of absurdity. In this case, the absurdity was delivered in the form of a streaming series so determined to hand us “strong female characters” and girlboss madness that it instead threw this ponderous edifice into stark relief. A few episodes of seeing the worst possible imitations of femininity on screen (and corresponding criticism) were a resounding call to those already waking up. Whereas Tolkien presented fleshed out characters whose actions were couched in morality, nuance and beauty, all well loved by their own people, Amazon handed us made-to-order feminist characters loved by no one. Neither by other characters (the mark of a “strong female character, ™” after all!) nor seemingly anyone watching. The ponderous edifice slapped onto the work of a devoutly Catholic and antimodernist author was so ridiculous that the entire house of cards blew right over.
The character of Eowyn has long been the card feminist Tolkien fans would thrust forward when accusations flew that Tolkien’s world had a distinct lack of female characters. Not only did he perfectly craft enough female characters for most of us, he created a jewel in the “strong female character” crown, Eowyn of Rohan. At least from one point of view, and varying views of this beloved character are a perfect window into just how fractured modern feminism has rendered us as a society……
To be continued….