The best response to shirts you do not like is a shirt of your own.

Or, in Ms. Kardashian’s case, a

This is, of course, all about the #ShirtGate #shirtstorm. The article about Ms. Kardashian’s cartoon-scientist-festooned attire is almost certainly satire. Made up, in other words. To make a point. It reads like satire. Like another clickbait hoax. But it is funny, and it makes its point.

Still, these days the line between intentional and unintentional satire often requires special instrumentation to see.

In any case, the alleged attire of Ms. Kardashian makes a point. Stated up top.

Since yesterday, the Facebook version of my commentary garnered comments from friends and friends of friends. One wrote twice, beginning with that delicious phrase “I am offended by seeing this post.” Here is the most interesting part:

You make it sound like it’s some organized group that became corrupted? It’s a concept, an ideal.

Yes, many people can get it wrong… and anyone can claim to be a feminist regardless of the truth in their claim.

I would agree with you if this was an all encompassing group that acted out… but there’s no structure or organization… and certainly some are a little to happy to call anything sexist/racist/bigoted… but that doesn’t mean that bigotry doesn’t exist.

I wouldn’t bat an eye if you were just complaining about people getting pissed off over something stupid. But saying that the very concept of wanting equal rights and representation is dead?

Of course, I did not say it, I asked the question.

But how do we deal with a movement without an official organ, or brain?




A more direct challenge came later. I responded to it, too:




And my last point restates what was latent in my first question. It is possible for a movement to become corrupted by its most vocal proponents, completely undermined by the rhetorical and political gambits they choose. (Every socialist I know says that about Soviet Communism, for example. “If only they had stuck to democracy!” Yeah, right. But you get the idea.) Modern feminism has become a movement of scolds utterly dominated by men and women who go on the attack over every little slight, demanding public apologies, heaping public scorn as if they were star chamber judges in all realms. Utterly lacking in humility, they could be said to have hijacked the feminist movement and in the process discredited it.

That is a way of looking at it. But I do not really look at it that way. I believe that the sins of these hectoring fools were considered virtues when I was young — by many of the revered figures in the feminist movement. Further, they got their way, by gaining positions and acolytes throughout the academic world, which is over-represented by that “herd of independent minds,” the “progressives.” Modern feminism is the efflorescence of a previous strategy and its standard-bearers, and those standard-bearers still are treated with respect.

I might change my mind if more of those old, living feminists turned on their heirs. But few have. When more do, and news of their scorn reaches my ears, I will report on them here. Until then, I have no problems with the feminist movement screeching itself into oblivion.

As I have said repeatedly: I have no love for sexism. A basic equality of the sexes exists, is established in culture and law, and the equality that comes from the rule of law being advanced and maintained is a great thing, a grand thing, for both sexes.

But “the interests of women” apart from the interests of men, and apart from a constitutional dedication to the rule of law, is of no interest to me. And its proponents are worse than fools. They strike me as a malign influence on politics, law, and culture. Many of them call themselves feminists. And I will have nothing to do with their kind.

Those folks who keep running back to dictionary definitions of what feminism is, rather than the movement as it is actually now practiced, are fooling themselves, and giving aid and comfort to a very, very dangerous enemy.

Thankfully, things could be worse. The enemies have shown their hand, and appear absurd before the world. As Voltaire once wryly confessed: “I have made but one prayer to God. ‘Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And He granted it.”

Feminism and its nonsense theories of patriarchy and power, ungrounded by a coherent conception of transactional clarity, is a cultish doctrine fit only for the malign and the ignorant. As enlightenment spreads, we may hope that ignorance dissipates, and the malignant are spurned.

And, on the way, we can laugh at the expense of the ridiculous.