It’s always dangerous, I find, to engage in banter on Twitter with the feminist Left. It tends to reveal the one way street in which anyone not of the feminist Left is clearly a drunk and deranged male going the wrong way up that street…only the one, sober, female gender-way being allowed.

Joining in a Twitter conversation earlier today, I found myself in possession of an odd piece of bigotry which announced, “Hush, that’s too technical for the men”. Now, had that sort of thing been said about an ethnic minority or a woman, the thought police would’ve been on her case in no time. But you could expend a lifetime supply of oxygen explaining that to a Sister, so I simply tweeted, “Who drove you to that conclusion – was it a woman?” if only to display my equal talent for gender fascism. Well, cutting a long and tedious exchange short, the person concerned gave me this link to a site she alleged would ‘explain’ her views.

Anyone worried about the sanity of some forms of contemporary feminism should read this alarming post and then take some Valium as a means of calming down. The extracts I present below have the ungrammatical Comprehensive Education tags clearly shown with a ‘sic’.

‘Sexism is, in fact, not subjective. What’s subjective are (sic) individual reactions to sexism, but sexism itself can be objectively determined….Toss out the idea that there must be unanimous consent, or even majority agreement, that something is sexist for it to be determined as such…..let’s quickly dispatch with the fallacy that there are such things as subjective observers and objective observers. There are two general ways in which this frustratingly pernicious myth is conveyed: 1. Feminists (female and/or male) are always look (sic) for sexism…2. Those most targeted by expressed misogyny (women) are critically biased against being able to correctly identify it…..the systemic sexism known as the patriarchy is so comprehensive and profound that “seeing it” actually takes some effort…..In addition to illustrating via critical mass the existence of patterns and subverting the ability to dismiss them as unimportant under the pretense any one incident is an anomaly, identifying and revealing the patterns provides the framework in which the existence of sexism can be objectively measured….’

So you see, only the gifted believers can see. Confused by jargonised intellectual muddle? Try this para for size:

‘Whether something is sexist (be it a word, a consumable item, a practice, or anything else) is neither dependent on how it is intended nor how it is received, but on whether it serves to convey sexism, which itself is determined by its alignment with existent patterns. When 2+2 has equaled 4 since time began, anyone claiming 2+2 suddenly equals 5 would be regarded, quite rightly, with suspicion. It is vanishingly unusual for someone to say/do something that fits perfectly with an ancient pattern of sexism yet is (sic) somehow not an expression of sexism.’

So you may not mean it – “or anything else” – but being aligned with existent patterns, it is ‘vanishingly’ (?) impossible to be male and not sexist – “or something”, because we blokes are all doomed to conform to an ancient pattern of sexism. Well, hey – obviously.

‘Let me quickly stipulate and clarify that one can unintentionally express sexism. That innocent intent, or ignorance of the history of how women have been marginalized, does not, however, in any way change the quality of what was being expressed.’

Ergo, all the innocent are always guilty. Or just unconsciously stupid. (That is, men.)

‘Identifying and defining sexism is not, as “sexism is a matter of opinion” suggests, a speculative chore. There is an existing framework for recognizing and characterizing expressed sexism—and those who have made it their business to become fluent in it are the closest thing to objective experts as exist in any discipline.’

Thus, only those who are OCD on the subject of sexism should ever be viewed as objective judges of it. Errrmmm…

“I could go on” as they used say in the News of the World”. The site to which I was directed represents the kind of barking mad rearrangement of reality that makes me fear for the future of logic and empirical observation. From the age of around twenty onwards, I have supported the right of women to be social citizens with all the rights and freedoms of men. In the forty or more years since then I have been both pleased to see some women grasping that right, and disappointed by the readiness with which other women prefer to lie back and enjoy the old ways to their own advantage. I have also, mind you, been led to ponder on the subject of hormonal wiring instincts, and their obviously far more telling effects on behaviour and attitudes, compared to short-term, bogus socialisation claims of one form or another.

Obsessional, activist feminism is bad science, pure and simple. It puts forward the quite ludicrous idea that mysoginy (a very real phenomenon) explains all women’s ills, while in turn demanding that a visceral hatred and control of men and their actions is the way forward for society. God help us all from the twisted logic of the True Believer.