Once again, women are followers, not leaders. They'll toe the party line, they'll eat up the orthodoxy and, yes, they'll do absolutely heinous stuff toward those ends, but that doesn't mean they're the leaders of the movements.
You know what Napoleon would've been without dedicated followers?
Head down to your local looney bin and see if one of them can show you.
We need to be careful not to give the foot soldiers of the enemy an excuse, because they may not dream up all the horrors of current_year, but they damn sure have a part in making them manifest.
Once again, women are followers, not leaders. They'll toe the party line, they'll eat up the orthodoxy and, yes, they'll do absolutely heinous stuff toward those ends, but that doesn't mean they're the leaders of the movements.
That's not true. Women have and have always had their own power structures, usually with matriarchs at the top of these power structures. Historically, these power structures may have been somewhat subservient to male power structures, but that is not strictly true either - the male and female power structures operated in different domains. The male power structures were concerned with government, trade, war and the like. The female power structures were concerned with domestic and household matters. To a large part, the two power structures operated in parallel with males staying out of female matters and vice versa.
In 1984, Orwell likely envisioned a "women's division" of the Party, one that was obviously subservient to the Party (but so would the general (men's) division have been as well). The women's division would have had its own female leaders, in the same way that women's divisions of other oppressive regimes were/are structured.
Even Orwell did not appear to have envisioned the current plight of our current society, where women have largely rejected male influence in any form because of the "patriarchy" and come up with all sorts of crockpot ideas, in the name of "feminism". I don't subscribe to the idea that believe feminism is some kind of conspiracy of the powerful to wreck havoc on society (I think it's simply a example of what happens when women are let loose to come up with their own ideas without any male influence), but even if one did, I think it's clear that this isn't strict control, but rather loose influence where the feminist movement is operating autonomously to demonise men and boys, break up families, promote abortion, and generally increase favouritism towards women in society. A lot of this can also be explained by women's emotional nature, in which their thinking is dominated by emotion instead of thinking through to the logical consequences of their actions, and women's in-group bias.
TLDR: So yes, some of women's ideas are simply toeing the preferred "party" line, but plenty of these ideas have origins from feminists (largely female) and female "thinkers".
Once again, women are followers, not leaders. They'll toe the party line, they'll eat up the orthodoxy and, yes, they'll do absolutely heinous stuff toward those ends, but that doesn't mean they're the leaders of the movements.
You know what Napoleon would've been without dedicated followers?
Head down to your local looney bin and see if one of them can show you.
We need to be careful not to give the foot soldiers of the enemy an excuse, because they may not dream up all the horrors of current_year, but they damn sure have a part in making them manifest.
That's not true. Women have and have always had their own power structures, usually with matriarchs at the top of these power structures. Historically, these power structures may have been somewhat subservient to male power structures, but that is not strictly true either - the male and female power structures operated in different domains. The male power structures were concerned with government, trade, war and the like. The female power structures were concerned with domestic and household matters. To a large part, the two power structures operated in parallel with males staying out of female matters and vice versa.
In 1984, Orwell likely envisioned a "women's division" of the Party, one that was obviously subservient to the Party (but so would the general (men's) division have been as well). The women's division would have had its own female leaders, in the same way that women's divisions of other oppressive regimes were/are structured.
Even Orwell did not appear to have envisioned the current plight of our current society, where women have largely rejected male influence in any form because of the "patriarchy" and come up with all sorts of crockpot ideas, in the name of "feminism". I don't subscribe to the idea that believe feminism is some kind of conspiracy of the powerful to wreck havoc on society (I think it's simply a example of what happens when women are let loose to come up with their own ideas without any male influence), but even if one did, I think it's clear that this isn't strict control, but rather loose influence where the feminist movement is operating autonomously to demonise men and boys, break up families, promote abortion, and generally increase favouritism towards women in society. A lot of this can also be explained by women's emotional nature, in which their thinking is dominated by emotion instead of thinking through to the logical consequences of their actions, and women's in-group bias.
TLDR: So yes, some of women's ideas are simply toeing the preferred "party" line, but plenty of these ideas have origins from feminists (largely female) and female "thinkers".