In late 2017 several women shared on social media descriptions of sexual assaults they had undergone. Others wrote just a chilling pair of words that were to become a hashtag: me too. Many others joined and wrote the words, and tens of thousands expressed solidarity. For the first three weeks, there was a general uncertainty about the nature of the spontaneous outburst of feelings and thoughts – including among women who wrote “me too.” But as the weeks passed it became increasingly clear that there were three Me-Toos, not one.
For journalists and for the average viewer of news broadcasts, Me Too was an effort to expose influential figures who used their power to hide their sexual violence and silence their victims (and as it will turn out, even to silence law enforcement officials and journalists investigating their acts). The people on whom these women wrote “me too” were mostly from the entertainment industry, and so in its first few months Me Too was to most people, “sexual intrigues of celebrities.” At the same time, in the feminism that I will call here “classical feminism,” and among those who believe in humanism, including myself, there was hope that this spontaneous reaction that started around celebrities, would also reach anonymous violent people, like a manager of a hotel dining room, a head of a department in a governmental agency, a partner in a firm, who violently attacked ordinary women and used their power to hide their acts, evade punishment, and continue to harm other women. For classical feminism and for me as a humanist, Me Too was never about celebrities, but about providing courage to those who undergone acts defined in the law as offenses, removing from them the shame and fear, and exerting public pressure to make the legal systems punish the culprits and deter others. However, besides these two meanings of Me Too, as “scandals” and as classical feminism and humanism saw it, a third meaning has evolved from the very first days. This was a completely different understanding of what kind of vessel Me Too is, and what it needs to achieve. Shortly after, this third sense would become what we all associate today with the words “me too.”
For a particular faction in feminism, which was extremely small at the time, Me Too was from the very beginning a tool for implementing perceptions that re-define womanhood, manhood, sexuality – humanity – and not in a way that brings humanity to a humanist vision. For them, Me Too was not providing encouragement and enabling law enforcement and certainly not “celebrity scandals”, but, a means of overt violence and intimidation for re-education, of all men and all women, as to what is a woman and what is a man, and what are the relations between them and their meaning – that is, what is human. Re-education for the purpose of creating a person who conforms to the beliefs of the group I will refer to here as the Gender Church.
For years, this faction of feminism has cultivated views that were moving away from any founded thinking on humanity and human sexuality. Its origins date back to the 1960s and 1970s (and even extend to the mid-19th century), and several decades ago it came to believe that there are no two sexes in humanity; that heterosexuality is an artificial fabrication and dictation of the male sex to the female sex that needs to stop; that all violence in human society comes only from men; and that hence, all women are victims and masculinity must be rewritten or erased. Half a century ago, this group was a small and negligible minority, but the rest of feminism almost never came out against it. Perhaps feminism never objected because of reluctance to cause internal controversy and an urge to present one feminist voice. And perhaps, many were tempted by the feeling that the faction promoted, of freedom to be violent without accountability, because all violence will always be justified and moral since the responsibility will always be placed on men. Many may have been lured by a sense of freedom to hate (as expressed in books such as “I hate men”), because any hatred will be presented as nothing but a rational response to pure evil (accordingly, a sense of supremacy will ensue). Since this faction was operating in the absence of any substantial internal or external critique, in the two to three decades that preceded Me Too it underwent two changes: It became increasingly extremist, but at the same time also more and more dominant in the mainstream. Women adhering to concepts of this small core became very influential thanks to constant advances to centers of power – in the media, literature, academia, large feminist organizations, government offices – under the guise of classical feminism, whereas, ideologically and emotionally, they advocated ideas that have nothing in common with humanist conceptions.
It was only because of Me Too that I became familiar with this faction’s beliefs, and learned that its premise is no different from assumptions on which George Orwell wrote the novel 1984: that humans can and should be artificially and violently engineered to produce a different humanity, as if human beings were a product and not free individuals; that human society is a production line for dictated emotions and opinions according to a simplistic and rigid set of ideas, rather than an ocean of contradictions, conflicts and living and breathing insurmountable dilemmas that cannot be solved with a strike of an axe.
The Me Too campaign was evolving simultaneously in two arenas: in the media, and on social media. In this second arena, especially of the left (as I witnessed, as an active leftist), the small but aggressive core had reached a rather dominant presence long before Me Too. In fact, no one on the left wanted to confront the group. It used to spread very aggressive views and boycotts that would win some endorsement, but were received mostly with disregard, and this disregard didn’t stem out of indifference, but from fear. What people on the left were afraid of was that the faction’s method of enforcing its decrees, described below, would be directed at them. For years, the habit on most parts of the left was to ignore storms that arose from this feminist core and to remain silent. The frightened disregard was so strong that even three months after Me Too had started, not a single man in the ideological left in the Facebook environment of my country, reacted to Me Too in any way. I was the first leftist that I’m aware of who addressed the issue on social media, and my reaction was unequivocal support. As I mentioned, when it first started I regarded Me Too from the point of view of humanism – giving courage and support to women who were assaulted so the law would be implemented. At the time, Me Too was still a process in the making.
Right from the first two-to-three weeks since the phrase “me too” was written as a hashtag, the faction immediately recognized, in various parts of the world, the ability to apply the methods it had already been using on the left for years – threats and bans – but this time within the mainstream. The idea of using Me Too to spread the ideas of this feminist core, this “Gender Church”, was completely outspoken and declared. It was written in posts that appeared in the last weeks of 2017. I remember a post by a feminist poet who called women to “Use Me Too to reach 100% harassed!” and another with the call, “Is this happening? It began?” referring to a revolution in which this Gender Church, will spread its ideas to the whole of society and turn from a minority into a hegemony (this is not a personal interpretation of her words; a few months later I had a long e-mail correspondence with her, in which I learned about the intention behind her words. On a personal note, I should add that I have struggled against racism and racists all my life, but only in that conversation have I experienced for the first time how it feels to converse with someone who is racist toward you. Her hatred toward men was expressed in the same language used by racists and was declarative, and chilling).
And so, when Me Too began, the violent core was ready in social media, for taking over Me Too in order to use it as a tool for spreading its perceptions. The method was simple – by then the faction had been using it for years: directing verbal violence against any man or woman who dare to oppose their basic terms and assumptions, through hundreds of people flocking to fill his or her Facebook profile with insults, along with statements in their own profiles that any professional ties with him or her are discontinued, then publicly addressing the employer through social media, as well as colleagues and friends, demanding they cease contact with that person with the threat that if they don’t, it will be taken as evidence that they share those ideas that caused the attack, which would make them just as guilty, and they will receive the same treatment (thus remaining silent, became an offense. This will turn out to be a crucial part of the method and what enabled it to be extremely effective). The faction’s pattern of action, which was used for years against people on the left, was now expanded to all of society.
Since remaining silent was declared complicity (in whatever the faction defined as a crime, which included expressions, opinions and feelings), every person feared that if he or she would not join the attacks, these attacks will be directed against them, and so they joined the boycotts and condemnations even if not agreeing. This increased the number of participants in these actions to thousands, then to tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands, by the power of fear, of each person from being boycotted. With the growth of the masses, the crowd that thus formed became more threatening and had more presence in the social media life of more people. More and more people were afraid to express positions other than those of the extremist core. More and more people expressed sympathy with these ideas – at first, only out of fear, but later on, out of eagerness to receive the praise of those masses. The masses were hungry for approval, to feel that their actions are correct and moral, and would thus make any random person who endorses them a hero, and a famous one, and this glory became then another motivation to sympathize with the concepts of that core, in addition to the original fear.
In such an atmosphere, the feminist claim “all women were harassed” was circulated on Facebook, and, as always on social media, a claim becomes true if enough people repeat it enough times with enough exclamation marks. Here we need to keep in mind that the information a person is exposed to on social media is biased in several ways. If a person has 2,000 friends, 1,000 of whom women, and within several days 70 of these women publish reports on harassment, the reasonable person is not in a position to consider that this is 7% of the women on his friends list. For that person, the timeline seems to be flooded with reports, causing a subjective impression that absolutely – all women were sexually abused. The statement “all women were harassed” was thus conveyed with an exclamation mark, and on social media, the higher the number of exclamation marks the harder skepticism becomes, because disagreement would no longer be about information, but about emotions. And in discussions about harassment, naturally, there are many deep and justified emotions. Informational-emotional claims (or “informotional claims”) of this type can propagate wrapped in a mantle of intense emotion that makes any doubt impossible, and since no doubt ever appears, they become truth. The result was that masses of women and men have adopted the belief that all women are continuously sexually harassed in public and personal environments, ignorant of the consistent research data showing that seven percent of women are harassed and assaulted. A social imperative was formed to accept the message, “all women.” The very examination of the data was, and still is, considered reprehensible. The political left on social media, which includes a little bit of everything – radical left, artists, some media, activists from various fields, and some moderate left – was carried away by the new faith.
But there were still feminists who were not part of the left’s social media subculture. And during the takeover by the extremist faction, such feminists have attempted to bring Me Too back to a trajectory of focusing on actual assaults instead of forcing redefining humanity through human engineering with intimidation. The result was that the faction and its new recruits turned the masses against them. Margaret Atwood, author of the early 1980s novel The Handmaid’s Tale, which was considered by feminists in the past a feminist icon, was forced to close all her social media accounts after women incited hundreds of thousands against her because of her opposition to their concepts. Signers of The Letter of the 100 in France, among whom figures familiar to feminists, who opposed the vision of the faction, were attacked. Their attempt to “get Me Too back on track” had failed (a few months later, even the person who coined a “me too” hashtag prior to October 2017, Tarana Burke, would exclaim at a conference, “Part of the challenge that we have right now is everybody trying to couch everything under me too”). An entire generation of women who constituted classical feminism was confronted in various countries with hundreds of thousands of women and a few men from social media incited against any opposition. Almost all of these women did not stand their ground. They adopted the faction’s beliefs. During the second half of 2018, the use of the extremist core of social media to produce out of Me Too a mechanism for disseminating its perceptions – a use which was spontaneous and not premeditated yet as effective as social media can be – was crowned with total success within feminism. By the end of that year, feminism in the classical sense no longer existed. The beliefs of the extremists have become the ideology of all of feminism. Since then, save for very few dissidents, this is feminism.
By the first half of 2018, the core could already use the power it accumulated on social media to break out into traditional media. When Me Too started, newspapers like the Guardian and the New York Times, and similar liberal left-leaning newspapers in other countries, were in a state of anxiety, because of fear of becoming obsolete. Social media posed an existential threat to them – the New York Times had just started charging fees from readers for accessing articles online for the first time, in an attempt to compensate for loss of advertisers. In a chase after social media to remain relevant, to survive, established newspapers and magazines began repeating the ideas of the extremist core operating on social media to draw audiences. This was presented as done out of some moral, ideological revelation, but these newspapers probably had a cynical hope of gaining some of the likes and endorsements that the faction had produced for itself on social media, while turning a blind eye on the overt fact that these likes and support are gained through fear by using intimidation and threat. After a short while, such newspapers and magazines were themselves under the explicit threat from the extremist core, of directing its boycotting methods against them whenever they published anything that doesn’t conform with the entire set of convictions. This threat came when most of the readers of these newspapers were from the left, so the threat was to turn their remaining audience against them. As a leftist who published in similar outlets in my country, my impression was that editors were afraid of being annihilated should they refuse to join the parade. Such external pressure joined internal pressure in newspapers, from women who have belonged to the aggressive core for decades and have worked in the media in relatively large numbers (like the Guardian’s Judy Bindel, whose statements that all men should be put in concentration camps and that heterosexuality should become extinct are often quoted today), and from those drawn recently into the faction. And so, during 2018, the major media platforms that previously represented the voice of liberalism were also converted. Consequently, overt bias, misinformation, disinformation, omissions, censorship, and eventually incitement and hate speech, became a moral mission on these platforms around the world, transforming them from journalism to propaganda instruments. These methods were now to be applied along with actions on social media – this time intentionally – to redefine what perceptions would be regarded as normative and indisputable – those of what was called here the Gender Church. This caused wider sections of the left to begin adopting these extremist perceptions. However, presumably, most of these supporters were in a state of deep and painful personal conflict, and operated out of fear while attempting to silence their reason and conscience (and often enough, their own feelings, their own human value).
A rapid dissemination through intimidation and disinformation of extremist ideas coming from a very small group, is a social media phenomenon. It happened in other areas. This is what made unfounded perceptions become mainstream in recent years in the public debate that ended with the Brexit in England, in the debate around the referendum in Columbia on the agreement with FARC that was to end three decades of war and was aborted, in the shift of most Israelis within months to the anti-Palestinian racist views of the once marginal Kahana group (the equivalent of the alt-right in the US), in the spread of faith in Q in the right in the US, in the spread of ISIS. These are all cases where the special qualities of social media have been exploited by a handful of several hundreds or at most thousands of eccentric and aggressive individuals, to quickly turn an esoteric and violent position into the position of millions. This becomes possible in social media because these networks rely on acknowledgment and disregard, and thus inadvertently they become an environment that in effect creates conditioning of human beings (as a Skinner box), through positive and negative reinforcement – the positive being social regard, the negative being disregard and social violence, both constituting extremely powerful psychological driving forces in humans. The examples above are cases in which individuals were driven to adopt ideas because of these properties of the social media environment. In the same way, all the contradictory misconceptions we became accustomed to hearing – there are no two innate sexes in humanity with innate sexuality between them, all of manhood and womanhood are merely “stereotypes” and “cultural roles”, women are inherently supreme and men inferior, sexism (racism against a sex) can’t exist in women, all and only men are collectively responsible for all of human suffering past and present, all women live in fear, one abusive sex, one abused sex – until Me Too belonged to a handful of eccentric and aggressive women in a few countries and then with the power of social media to spread violent beliefs with personal delivery of intimidation, became the perceptions of millions of girls and women who define themselves as feminists, that all of feminism promotes, and that the entire liberal world now endorses and institutionalizes.
By the end of 2018, there was no longer any trace of a public campaign which goal is implementing the law in cases of sexual assaults. Classical feminists no longer existed as such. Me Too was no longer three things, only one, definitive and unequivocal: a tool for spreading beliefs and assumptions about femininity, masculinity, sexuality, and humanity coming from the most extremist and detached faction of feminism for a re-education project by intimidation of the West and then, as far the motivation and vision go – all of humanity. This is not a critic’s accusation against Me Too, but the overt statement of feminist women who promote these perceptions. If any woman still wanted to write “me too,” she knew it would mean immediate enlistment to a fanatical ideology.
Life in the Me Too Society
Eliminating sexual communication. The first step taken by feminism to reach its goal of 100% harassed, is familiar to all: The constant lowering of the bar for defining what will be considered harassment. Two decades ago, feminism started defining a spontaneous kiss occurring due to a one-sided sense of closeness in a misunderstanding of the situation which was not welcomed but didn’t lead to any further attempts, as sexual assault. In Me Too, the bar dropped further, as one newspaper quoted from feminist debates, to “flirting,” “multiple employee affairs,” “inappropriate conversation,” “weird lunch dates.” Initiating sex and having it out of mutual attraction and strong desire, and certainly with consent, when the woman concludes the day after that she should not have done this for any reason, was defined as sexual assault and rape, and men were required to be sensitive at a level that would allow them to understand better than the woman herself how she is going to feel in the future about events that haven’t happened yet. It was explained to men that if second thoughts did arise in a woman at some point in her life – after a day or after two decades – they will be considered guilty and defined as sexual predators retroactively (that is, it was not only mind-reading that was required of “good men,” but time travel to the future and back). While ignoring the fact that in married couples, men don’t always particularly want to have sex and sometimes do it out of care for their wives, because this is simply part of a mutual and loving relationship, sex between a married couple when the woman didn’t particularly desire the sex and did it only out of care for her husband was defined as rape. The definition of sexual harassment was extended to the very verbal invitation to do anything romantic or sexual, regardless of context and manner, if the recipient of the invitation did not want to hear it, until saying the word “hello” was perceived as sexual harassment. Completely normative behaviors that are an integral and legitimate part of the language of sexual communication and that both sexes engage in (or at least used to), and even regular communication, were defined as sexual harassment. Today in the Me Too society, men and women find it impossible to communicate and are detached and lonely.
Defining humans as poison. Criticized for treating non-sexual everyday behavior as sexual harassment, the Me Too vortex responded by spreading the term “toxic masculinity”, which was intended as an attempt to re-label ordinary human behavior done by both sexes, as a type of violence when done by men, after a concentrated effort lasting several months in early 2018 to call it male sexual harassment had failed. This response of the core even created a new kind of phrenology theory (phrenology was a fashionable racist theory of the late 19th century, associating personality traits and intelligence to head and body structure, particularly of different races). The feminist phrenology of the third millennium identified “toxic masculinity” as related to a small penis and stated that those who have a large penis have instead a Big Dick Energy, or BDE. If you think these terms come from some posts published in the deepest sewers of Facebook, you are wrong. Headlines that explain with academic seriousness that “toxic masculinity” happens to those who do not have “BDE” because of an insufficiently large penis, were published in such places as the Guardian, the Independent and Vox and these articles were translated into once-liberal newspapers all over the world (one cannot even begin to imagine what would have happened if the best liberal and high-brow press were to explain to its readers in didactic patience that women with large breasts have a list of characteristics that create a pleasant personality called Big Tits Energy or BTE while small breasts are the cause of “toxic femininity”). It’s hard to believe, but in the Me Too society there is a real need to pause and point out the feminist sexism in these ideas. But Oxford Dictionary declared “toxic” the word of the year for 2018. In the Me Too society we all live in, it is normative and customary to treat human beings as poison, in the mainstream press of what was once the liberal media.
Mutual blaming. Women had difficult time understanding that such an atmosphere, of sweeping threats and bashing with legitimized hate speech as in treating humans as poison, emerging throughout Me Too (and accompanied by a surge of suicides), would put men in a complete paralysis in any communication with them. They began publishing angry posts that blame men – this time for the “stupid men’s inability to understand the difference between a compliment and harassment”. In response to reports of men’s fear of working with women, articles in the press, again, reprimanded men, this time for lack of understanding, without any of these female writers putting themselves mentally under the same conditions men are under to wonder if they would have been able to respond differently. It was and is very difficult for women to take into account that life in the Me Too society looks very different from the eyes of a boy and a man. Part of this stems from the fact that feminist sexism has created at least two generations of women and girls who believe in the inexhaustible resilience of men and are unable to view a man as anything but a wooden object to which any battering can be done without him being affected; hence, the women of the Me Too era were not able to even guess, how hurt men are.
After the paralysis continued and intensified, each sex reached a feeling of blaming, toward the other sex, for all the hard feelings that arose, and for the loneliness. Thus new layers of bitterness were formed, with each layer pushing the sexes further apart.
Eliminating women’s responsibility to the level of presenting them as children. To justify why liberal society should restrain men at a degree that reaches re-education, feminism envelopes men in a stereotype of danger by describing every negative interaction between a man and a woman as an iron boot crushing a dry leaf. While intended for putting as much blame as possible on men, this colossal accusation against men necessarily leaves a depiction of girls and women as almost a kind of terminal patients, who any gust of wind could bring down. This depiction eventually and inevitably accumulated to the notion that only men influence the world and by that girls and women are inadvertently educated by feminism to regard their whole lives as dictated by external forces and not by their own decisions and mistakes. Thus, feminism itself, by implication, created a description of women as human beings who should not be held responsible for their actions (a message that has never made a person more moral or empathetic) – like children. This women’s “childification” by feminism has numerous manifestations, the most explicit of which must be how feminist reports on sexual misconduct consistently assign diminishing age terms to women and teenagers (regardless of whether they are the perpetrator or victim). Thus although a male of 16 and 17 of age (and even as young as 13) is “a teen” and an 18 or 19 year-old male “a young man” or “man” in this reporting with a feminist angle in the media, a 16 and 17 year-old female would be described by the term “girl” and an 18 or 19 year-old female by the term “teen”.
A ban on understanding. During 2018, the inclusion of more and more human behaviors in the definition of sexual harassment by continuously lowering the bar, had of course succeeded in increasing the “percentage of sexually harassed women,” but the result was still very far from 100%. In 2018, social media messages by feminists with a humanist approach expressing solidarity with sexually assaulted women, still opened from time to time with the words, “Though I’ve never been sexually harassed…” The existence of women who declare that they were never harassed, has pushed the Me Too vortex to further elaborate the definitions of harassment to get closer to 100%. The new method that emerged was to define any sadness in a relationship as sexual harassment and abuse by the male sex. The new definitions now included not calling the day after, infidelity, disappearing after a first date, being inconsiderate and just bad sex. This was done while completely ignoring the fact that all of these things happen just as frequently to men from women, and affect men as well and in exactly the same ways (not as “sexual harassment,” but as a selfish and sometimes cruel behavior of a girl or a woman). These new definitions made it possible to get the percentage closer to 100% and expand the indictment – but it had another impact.
When the discussion was extended from abuse of power by celebrities to other issues in the relations between the sexes, millions of men and women hoped that a moment they have been waiting for all of their lives, has arrived – the beginning of a conversation both longed for, about all the situations causing heartbreak and pain, where they will tell each other about what they had gone through, and not in order to incriminate each other, but out of their passion for each other, to get closer. After all, every person was injured by the sex he and she are attracted to (attraction, inherently entails vulnerability) and carries the scars, the pain. But the aspiration to harvest all of these important issues solely for reaching “100% harassed” by treating them as acts “only men do to women”, has created a feminist ban on men telling their part. The very sharing of their stories and the very hurt feelings they felt (from sexual or emotional exploitation, lack of consideration, betrayal of trust, self-centered behavior), were called by feminism and the marching crowd, “misogyny.” Understanding men and listening to them on any matter concerning the relations between the sexes was forbidden. They had to be silenced, less the new feminist charges that were now defined as sexual abuse to reach the desired “100% of women abused” would be balanced, and won’t be added to the indictment. Men were told that there are experiences for which there is a human imperative to listen to, and at the same time told that it is forbidden to listen to the very same experiences, if they belong to men. Facing this brute violation of the very decree stipulated, men stopped listening. From that point onward, men could not know about things women were saying through feminism; women could not know about the similar things that were silenced in men by feminism. Through this double-standard of feminist action motivated by an aspiration to expand an indictment and reach “100%”, understanding and listening became de facto impossible.
Each sex developed a sense that the other is indifferent to its needs and feelings, “sides” were formed, and on each side, there was a growing sense of accusation. This situation has put both sexes in a position of hatred, instead of what they wished for – getting closer. Almost every man and woman are living in this period in severe feelings of losing the possibility of dreaming, of love. Without a dream, in the Me Too society they walk around with feelings of doom.
Legitimizing violence. The outbreak of hard feelings in both sexes is no surprise considering what drives the type of actions and attitudes that flood a Me Too society. While feminism has always emphasized the forms of male aggression, which are physical violence and direct confrontation, it has completely erased the fact that there are parallel forms of expression of aggression in women, and the classical finding in psychology that women have the same levels of aggression as men (aggression being an internal urge, that can manifest externally is various ways). The only reason male expressions of aggression are not readily found in women, is that the two sexes have different and separate aggression languages (most probably, formed differently in the course of evolution to enable the existence of sexuality – to exclude each sex from the internal aggressive competition of the other sex, enabling them to come close). The language of female aggression is social rather than physical, and indirect instead of direct. It is based on turning society against the victim. It consists of gossip, spreading rumors, injuring a reputation, and boycotts. As studies consistently find, women use gossip aggressively and competitively, more than men do. Particularly violent women can bring about the expelling of the other side out of every place in human society – work, family, friends – and cause the victim to question humanity’s willingness to see him or her as belonging, to doubt the chances of finding a place in the human world, which may lead in extreme cases to suicide. It is targeted, premeditated violence, and easily recognizable by the female environment.
It is crucial to add an extended side note here: women are well aware of this type of violence, because they have been experiencing it all their lives, since this violence is mostly directed by women at other women. Male violence is directed mostly at men, female violence is directed mostly at women, as consistently reported in studies. One review from 2014 on cyber-bullying on Facebook that ends in suicide, reported that this usually involves assault by women, and almost always, the victim is a woman. A small study with several hundred students found that the majority of victims of social bullying were girls, with a separate review finding that most social violence is perpetrated by girls (studies that examine bullying in general find no difference between the sexes, however these do not distinguish between female and male-type aggressive behavior. All studies that address the forms of behavior find that activating society against the victim is done mostly by girls and toward girls, while most physical bullying by boys). One study by female researchers with female college students found that more than 75% experienced social violence in the three years preceding the study, such as, “talking behind the back,” “spreading rumors,” and “ignoring.” Only 6% reported not having encountered any kind of social violence and 71% reported they themselves had perpetrated social violence during this period. A broad body of research developed during the 1990s describes the development of female competitive violence throughout life, from the age of three through adolescence, when the intra-female social violence is specifically aimed at disrupting relationships with the opposite sex, and onward through college and finally in the work environment, where rather unsurprisingly for a language of intra-sexual competition, most of this violence is directed at female colleagues of a similar rank. One researcher, a woman, summed it up with the words, “The fact that girls are not only capable of using aggression to purposefully harm another, but do so on a regular basis, may be a startling revelation to those who believe that in general, girls are not aggressive”.
The type of actions seen across Me Too has a name. Provoking ostracism and isolation, steering society against a target, rumors, crippling a reputation – this is the language of female aggression. Only this time, it was technologically amplified through social media and expanded from its historical scope of a circle of acquaintances to millions of people, and consequently to every possible human contact that a targeted person may have. What Me Too actually came to be is a supernova of violence, of the female type. Because of the feminist success in completely erasing the once well-known distinction between male and female styles of violence, society could not perceive that the mode of action of the faction is severe violence, which enabled legitimizing it. Showing full awareness of the injury to innocent people and then justifying it, became a habit, and the habit has gone viral. The female-type targeted attacks were directed at every man or woman expressing disagreement, meaning that most of the victims have never sexually assaulted anyone. However, finding convoluted arguments for the necessity and morality of a storm of uninhibited violence, became the trend, to the point of newspapers that were once democratic publishing lengthy articles proposing the establishment of state-operated popular tribunals. Blinded to the origins and nature of the attacks – the same violent human nature that revealed itself previously in history – the once-liberal West legitimized the assaults, openly and proudly endorsing a lynch movement whereupon cruelty became institutionalized.
How did society become so blind to violence and cruelty? It seems that as early as two to three decades ago, feminism has began a transition into a new conception of oppression of women, with a matching revised concept of liberation. The human imperative of being humane, that applies universally to every person and poses limitations that keep societies alive, gradually began to be perceived in feminism as a specific oppression against women. Accordingly, liberation gradually started to be liberation from something completely different than stereotypes. After equality was reached in the West in the 1990s, feminism would not announce that it terminates its actions there, and so its continuous search after women’s oppression in a Western world that by then had none, eventually brought it to the very limitations imposed on every person by society to keep it humane, and, wishing to see oppression, feminism now perceived this, as women’s oppression. Feminism-sympathizers marched into Me Too holding a banner from which the very concept of being humane has already been marked off, as a liberation of women of everything, including the humanistic principles, and consequently as liberation in women of everything, including every level of arbitrary violence. Since 2018, I remember reading in large, revered, previously-humanistic newspapers, detailed articles on why society should show understanding and acceptance to women who murder their children, a call to acknowledge the greatness of a book from the 1960s often described as the feminist Mein Kampf, where the writer called to murder all men and committed murder, of the artist Andy Warhol who fought complications after the assault until dying of them several years later, and an article providing advice to women on how to coerce a man who refuses penetration by a sex toy to cooperate, that is, rape instructions – all in the best, once-liberal printed media (if you are a feminist you may have lost so much of your humanity that you need explicit guidance to imagining articles in the mainstream media explaining why society should accept men who murder women and how men should coerce penetration, to realize what was written here).
A Me Too society thus became a storm of violence that departures from the human commitment to the fundamental humane imperatives that apply to every person – justice, equality, self-restraint of violent impulses.
A perpetual vortex of fear. From the first months of Me Too, there was a rapid transition from supporting victims, to attacking “attackers” on behalf of victims. The definition of “attacker” continuously expanded until almost every person, man or woman, could be defined as such if they didn’t agree with any assertion of the groups included in this “gender church”. It must be realized that the belief that guides the followers of this new faith is that “everything is culture,” and from this they conclude that every expression by every person – in a post, a newspaper, a song, a book, a film, even in a personal conversation – being “part of culture”, is the physical cause of rape, sexual violence and any form of violence. Consequently every innocent expression and certainly disagreement with an assertion of this group or its actions is considered by the followers what causes sexual assaults, and makes a woman or a man “attackers.” Once classified as such, measures must be taken as appropriate for attackers, and this is always justified because it is always “protection of victims.”
The result is that hundreds of thousands of people if not millions have been and are personally attacked because of a statement or criticism, in the same way that actual criminals have been attacked by the masses. Many women and men live in an atmosphere of fear. Some have developed mental disorders because of the Me Too climate. Those who spread the atmosphere of terror express satisfaction with the fear: “Very good, they should be afraid” and statements to that effect, are common, coming out of the belief that spreading fear is moral and necessary because it prevents expressions, that in this mysticism are what causes rape and murder in human society.
The political right justly called this an elimination of free speech and a dictatorship of political correctness, but this may be missing the severity of the phenomenon. Followers of this rising faith may be most accurately described as religious individuals, who sincerely believe in the mysticism of their faith that “language creates reality,” “imagery creates reality,” “everything is culture.” According to this faith, or “gender church”, human beings are defined deterministically by the cultural influences around them, and because everything is culture, everything from a poem through a novel is a “cultural influence” and as such a factor that causes crime. For the followers, a woman who criticized Me Too or any of their agendas really does share direct responsibility for crimes against women, causally and physically. This may be described as cultural determinism, parallel in its rigidity to the genetic determinism of theories such as the racist perception from the early 20th century of eugenics. The followers of this emerging religion are immersed in an alternative reality in which every literal expression is a direct physical cause of crimes, through culture. Therefore, in this faith, stopping expressions is stopping crimes.
In the Me Too society, ideas such as inner free will, inner conscientiousness decision, and inner urges — three phenomena in the individual that are not decided deterministically by cultural influence around a person but in a person— are not included in the new theory about humans. The religion of this gender church is an anti-humanist faith first of all in that it is a faith of despair of the human spirit, as it sees in every expression and behavior in the cultural environment a deterministic factor with direct causal power to create crimes, because it does not believe in humans and in human beings’ ability to be conscientious in the face of an expression or imagery.
This cultural determinism has two severe implications. The first is very familiar. Since the followers are incapable of regarding an individual as someone who acts autonomously out of internal motives, that is – as an entity which is not swaying as a marionette from the strings of culture – they also don’t take into account that even a person surrounded by an ideal culture engineered and cleansed by this gender church to perfection, may act violently out of an inner violent impulse. They therefore oppose with extraordinary force teaching individuals to avoid dangerous situations. Instead, they call this “victim blaming” and expect that culture would use its omnipotent deterministic strings to achieve absolute control over the imagined, fully-culturally-determined human being, with the demand that all harm will be prevented using the enchanted cultural strings. Since in reality there are no such omnipotent cultural strings, prohibiting to teach to be careful leaves a generation exposed to risk. The second, which is at least as dangerously, is that since women and men still have violent urges planted by evolution in their limbic systems, which could never be eliminated, the group will always continue seeing around it some level of violence, but it will always attribute it to “culture” because in their cultural determinism “everything is culture”, and so this faith will always conclude that it has not cleaned culture well enough, and will always increase the violent cleansing we are witnessing. As long as this “gender church” maintains its power we will witness a perpetual aggravation in the spreading of fear, to achieve the forced social engineering, which is nothing but oppression – in a Me Too society there is no saturation point to the escalation.
Overall, the Me Too society constitutes a system of oppression that affects men and women every day, hour by hour. The system includes the silencing of men regarding experiences of harm from women to create the asymmetrical picture of an abusive sex and an abused sex; the silencing prevents men of being able to be attentive to women, and instead of understanding, hostility is created – the conversation between men and women which they both longed for is blocked; in portraying the male sex as responsible for every possible negative aspect of life, women are portrayed as incompetent and receive the humiliating feeling of helpless childish beings lacking any autonomous judgment; the language of sexuality is presented as a language of violence, and in an attempt not to be violent, men and women stop using it, until they are left unable to communicate with each other about sex and love; to increase the number of charges on the indictment against the male sex, women are under social instruction to translate experiences which were positive or insignificant, into an experience of assault, and acquire feelings of injury and frustration which can reach agonizing levels; and because of the presentation of all men as dangerous or as accomplices of dangerous men, women learn to live in a sense of fear, and men in a sense of alarm of every action they make, fearing it will injure a woman; both develop a strong feeling of longing, for each other, of missing each other; however, the translation of the language of sexuality into a language of violence, creates an almost complete disconnect while in the background what remains is mutual blaming for the loneliness that a person feels; and finally, the translation is done into the language of trauma, and a whole culture of a traumatic perception of reality is created – a Trauma Culture – in which we all live, it surrounds us all the time, from the moment we open our eyes until we go to bed, on the street, at work. In a society living in a traumatic perception, there is no possibility of dreams, hope, happiness. In order to try and reach its new goals, feminism took actions which propagated a sense of existential frightened sadness to every person – woman and man. It must be said clearly: This is severe psychological violence against both sexes. No, you are not the only one walking around with this feeling of hot glue rolling at the bottom of your stomach, no, you are not the only one who feels the strange sense of doom. Me too.
Continue reading in Lovism: A Humanist Alternative to Feminism, available on amazon.
Cover image: rawpixel.com – www.freepik.com