24
For the most part it's pretty good and presents a fairly unbiased, straight-forward breakdown of the rise in gender-ideology but there was one point in the book where I had to stop because I was so angry.
I don't remember the exact chapter, but at one point Soh goes off about how women shouldn't strive for separatism because while we may not be as statistically violent 'we can still be really mean and catty' (yeah I'll take a backhanded compliment every day for the rest of my life over an actual backhand thank you very much) and also that 'separatism would mean the decline of the species'. First of all, the human race living into infinity isn't even a worthy goal in and of itself and even if it was, why the hell should women care after being exploited throughout all of human history for our reproductive capacities?
Also despite being a former sexologist, you can clearly tell she's of the mindset that femininity is innate to womanhood (yawn).
It was at this point that I realized why the book is being endorsed by Ben Shapiro on the cover.
I've read her book as well and was disappointed with how on board she is with the concept of gender.
I remember when she was on the Joe Rogan show and claimed that she was more masculine than feminine, and Joe said something to the effect of "Really? 'Cause I can't see it." It was tragicomical to see two gender believers arguing about her perceived gender.
I would love to know why she considers herself masculine lmao
It’s because she thinks she’s smarter than the average girl. She strikes me as a typical not-like-other-girls woman. Such women often believe they’re more like “one of the guys.”
She's sporty. I saw that interview. She does a martial art. That's masculine to her.
Irl she uses the words sex and gender interchangeably. It drives me crazy.
Ahh, disappointing. All I rlly know about this book at the moment is that it's at least base-level TERFy enough to be called "harmful transphobic trash" (among other, rather less polite appellations) by the usual ne'er-do-goods, so I was possibly maybe hoping for something that would properly belong on the same shelf as stuff from the likes of Helen Joyce and Janice Raymond.
Do You remember how Soh transitions (👀) into the topic of Female separatism?
Asking because I'm genuinely shocked that this topic appears at all in a book published in 2020 (other than maybe from a dyed-in-the-wool second-waver like Janice Raymond, who actually published a new book in 2021) ... It's not like there are tons and tons of Womyn's Lands out there these days.
In any case, I think Lesbian separatism is the only kind that could possibly even be viable, let alone sustainable. Absolute separatism is just not gonna happen beyond Lesbians.
At most you'll get the kind of rigidly sex-stratified society that exists formally in hardline Islamic societies. or as a de facto result of economic and/or cultural factors in many parts of the world where it's the (e.g., Japanese salaryman culture, where business among the men doesn't even start in earnest until after the sake has flowed liberally—and where their paychecks are traditionally delivered and payable to their Wives who are back at home, or wherever else).
But these are not, of course, separatist societies in any real sense.
Debra Soh probably has more in common with Matt Walsh than with say...Kathleen Stock. A lot of very different people are now talking about this issue. I'm glad that she's getting through to whoever she's getting through to when it comes to gender ideology... But I do have an issue with how some conservatives talk about women. I don't care for the idea of separatism either. Because of my family I see the benefit of healthy relationships and cooperation among humans. That aside, I've watched discussions where people will seriously say things like "where are all the feminists? Most women are leftists. Women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Women are too emotional- we're not logical. Feminism was a mistake. Feminism created this problem... but let's save women's sports"... A lot of these discussions were led by women. WTF?
I don't want men and boys with psychiatric conditions defining womanhood anymore than I want women to be placed back into some regressive nightmare by people pretending to help us. When can women get to a place where we don't have to worry about ideological extremists?
Yeah, I look at her with reservations. She was a student of James Cantor and friends, and actually endorses the virtuous pedophile organization “B4U Act” or whatever it’s called. It claims to be a support community for pedos that don’t act on their impulses, for 13 & up 🙄 and is completely unmediated by any sort of professional. What could go wrong?!
I know many here mistrust Jon Uhler, but I think he’s more right about sec offenders and pedos than James Cantor and Debra Soh are. They aren’t born with some sort of brain issue where it’s an orientation they can’t help. They become pedos by becoming more and more debauched in their sexual inclinations, mostly through porn.
They may have done a lot of studies, but limited academic studies with surveys, etc., without a lot of clinical hours, so I don’t think their data would be good enough to rely on for the kind of conclusions they claim.
I don't believe that separatism is good for humanity.
I also think Soh's argument is based in internalized misogyny and is therefore a weak argument. "Women are mean and catty" is a sexist stereotype. "Femininity is innate to womanhood" is a sexist stereotype. Ms. Soh is using sexist stereotypes to make her points.
Because I believe humans care. We care. We love. We progress. To suggest otherwise suggests the end of humanity. Most people don't like the idea of ending humanity. I believe most people enjoy life, despite the hardships that come with it.
That's why I'm here today, because I care.
How is separatism bad for humanity? It's just the opinion that women should have designated woman-only spaces available to us, that women and girls should have the option of living away from males if we need/prefer it.
This straight woman is all for it.
Even just spending time in online woman-only spaces has strengthened and enlightened me in ways I didn't even know were possible, personally.
I have a different understanding of separatism.
That was what I was going with for my answer. I don't believe this type of separatism is going to help feminists in the long run.
We already have "separatism" going based on your definition: women's bathrooms, women's shelters, women's prisons, girls boarding schools, women's support groups (current trans-issues aside) and women are free to have their own jobs, their own income, their own housing, and live with women, in a majority of countries.
I think you're quoting from the wikipedia article on (feminist) separatism... I mean if you read the whole thing, it's pretty clear that there are many different views on separatism and "women's separation from men" isn't necessarily implied to be universal/permanent. It even mentions an essay by Marilyn Frye where she mentions that all women practice separatism at some point in their lives, and that it only becomes "controversial" when politics come into it.
It's kind of ironic how the trans movement is even attempting to eliminate "benign" forms of female separatism such as women's bathrooms, and even shit like bachelorette parties, baby showers, women's religious clubs, "girls' night out," that kind of thing...
I mean I'm sure there are radfems who think all women should permanently and universally separate from men. Personally? I don't know any radfems who actually believe that, unless we mean in a vague sort of "I hope one day we have the technology to have an all-female society" way. I think everyone pretty much understands "all women should permanently separate from men for good" is a hard sell, to the point of impossibility. Some women are straight, I think we pretty much all understand that they're going to want to interact with men at some point.