Woketalk
I have it on good authority that it is “misogynist” merely to observe that paranormal romance is meant for girls, while boy’s adventure tales for boys. (See, for example, ANITA BLAKE: VAMPIRE HUNTER by Laurell K. Hamilton versus A PRINCESS OF MARS by Edgar Rice Burroughs.)
Note scarequotes. “Misogynist” in Woketalk does not mean misogynist in English.
Woketalk is the Orwellian version of English from the Mirror-Mirror universe (where Spock has a beard). All the words are spelled like their cognates in English, but carry the opposite meaning.
English is a language used by Englishmen to talk about reality. Reality includes matters of objective fact and our subjective reactions or opinions to those facts, or flights of fancy springing from them.
Woketalk is an “language” used to demean or flatter talk about “reality.” In Woketalk, “Reality” refers to a social construct meant by the oppressor class to exploit the oppressed class.
Both classes are monolithic collectives, motivated by a unity of self interest.
The members of the oppressed class may or may not be awakened to the subtle micro-aggressions hidden in the texture of bigoted assumptions underpinning the act of speaking, which is a type of violence.
Using the pronoun “he” in situations where the sex of the person is unknown or undetermined, for example, is a micro-aggression against the class “women.”
“Women” in Woketalk is not a sex, a biological and spiritual fact. It is a “gender”, which is a social construct meant by the oppressor patriarchy to exploit the oppressed class of “women” — who include anyone who “identifies” as a woman.
“Identifies” means the opposite of identify. In English, to identify something is to recognize in which set it belongs, and what name it is correctly to be called.
In Woketalk, to “identify” means to assert a falsehood about oneself which one wishes very dearly to be true, as an act of heroic defiance of reality.
Or, rather, in Woketalk, one heroically defies, not reality, but “reality” which is, as said above, is an oppressive social construct.
Meanwhile, “gender” (in Woketalk) is also an oppressive social construct applied to people, while gender (in English) is an property applied to words in a declined language, e.g. Latino v Latina.
Finally, Woketalk is not a language (a faculty for thought and speech conveying reality via words). It is a “language” (a faculty for oppressing the oppressed; ergo an act of verbal violence properly answered with physical violence).
In Woketalk, words are used to overthrow the current “reality” of the oppressors, in order to allow the next progressive stage of “reality” to evolve and replace it. “Reality” in Woketalk is what we mean by “Make-Believe” in English.
If what I have described sounds like a mental disease rather than a worldview, this is because this is a worldview closely modeled on a mental disease, and which, if one follows its tenets to their logical conclusion, induces mental disease. (See, for example, harpies shaving heads to protest Trump, a moderate indistinguishable in policy from JFK, but in wokeworld called Hitler.)
“Misogyny” is not misogyny, but the mere opposite: whatever promotes, inspires, upholds and flatters femininity, or seeks to slake the true appetites or needs of women, or to encourage women into more feminine aspects of dress or demeanor or spirit, is “misogyny” in Woketalk, but femininity in English.
So why is Paranormal Romance inspirational to women?
Men can and do read such books, if they wish, just as women can read A PRINCESS OF MARS, and glory in the bloodshed as Captain John Carter, Indian fighter, carves and cuts his way with bloody longsword across the dead sea bottoms of Mars to win the fair princess unfairly promised to another, and save the dying planet from asphyxiation.
But as one can see from this description, the Barsoom book is a reflection of the primal masculine romance: the hero winning the heroine by slaying the monster is a myth as old as Perseus and Andromeda.
A paranormal romance, on the other hand, reflects the primal feminine: Beauty and the Beast is a tale as old as time, for, in it, the heroine redeems the unlovely brute as her true love turns him into a prince.
Pause for a moment to reflect on Perseus and Belle, or, if you like, John Carter of Mars and Anita Blake the Vampire Hunter.
Carter prevails because of his dauntless courage, which displays unflagging devotion toward the incomparable Dejah Thoris. These are masculine virtues: fortitude and trueheartedness.
In real life, nature or nature’s God has equips men to love and protect and lead their family, and the role of protector requires fortitude, and of leader, trueheartedness.
Anita Hill, or, for that matter, any woman seeking a mate, is put in a position where her insight into the man’s true motives is her only hope against being deceived by a convincing Lothario, or carried off by her own base passions.
She has to see what he is really like deep down, and not to judge based on surface appearance.
There is no better mythic representation of this than a tale where the surface is repellant — in the case of paranormal romance, the man is literally a werewolf or vampire, hence bloodthirsty, seductive, dangerous — but where the true man hidden beneath, perhaps even unbeknownst to himself, needs only the true love of a faithful woman to civilize him, and unlock his hidden nobility.
In real life, nature or nature’s God as equips women with insight into human nature, an attention to nuance and inner meaning, which we merely logical and task-oriented menfolk often find exasperating and irrelevant.
The virtues of womanhood are the selfsame insight, patience, and ability to nurture the hidden best in a man which she will use in her childrearing years to good effect.
It is literally the most feminine of feminine traits: beauty saves the beast by her maternal nature.
For the Woke, any observation of any trait, physical or mental or spiritual, that distinguishes male from female is thoughtcrime, including cases, oddly enough, where the difference is one where woman is superior to man, as here.
If a woman is better at something than a man, and this allows the two opposites of male and female to become complementary aspects of one unified spiritual whole, one flesh, one body in the eyes of the law.
In Wokeland, this is an insult and an attack, because any differentiation based on sex is a hidden micro-aggression, promoting the insulting implication that two sexless flesh-units serving the state might differ one from the next in any way.
The whole point of Woke is to see love as hate, God as devil, and self as god.
The whole point of Woke is to see humans as not human.
In Woke, we are as fungible, interchangeable, and indistinguishable as chicken eggs, comrade worker.
To say a girl is girlish is “misogyny.”
Because Woke is, after all is said and done, a mental illness.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
