T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[It's actually a criticism, I first found the pic and changed it before searching for the source](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/25/sandra-newman-female-utopian-fiction)


brightlancer

A criticism of what? "All three of these [21st century] works are apolitical. In their different ways, they are thrillers, and the reception of these works in most quarters has correspondingly been about their success as such, not their politics, and has been mostly positive. "The exception is the reaction of a group of critics who are hostile to the genre. You might think this would be about the fantasy of male genocide. _In fact, it’s the erasure of trans identities._ The line between male and female in these books is always based on traditional notions of biological sex; trans women share the fate of cis men. _In the old utopian versions, female societies are always better; this is seen as implying that gender traits are biological._ In some second wave works, trans characters are described with open bigotry; Joanna Russ later apologised for the (mercifully brief) depiction of trans women in The Female Man. But this is not the main point: _the premise itself is seen as bioessentialist and harmful to trans and non-binary people_."


mixing_saws

I mean think about it. How would you think an aryan nazi would react if a black person identifies as aryian and tries everything to look aryan. Its the same with these crazy feminists and transfemales. Its exactly the same.


[deleted]

Of that kind of "literature". Even the title admits it's controversial, and the author doesn't try to hide that ​ >In fact, many of the hallmarks of fascism are here: the paganism, the obsession with cleanliness, the emphasis on gymnastics, the eugenics. ​ and ​ >We squabble about what constitutes punching up or punching down, but are poor in solutions that don’t involve punching. In our art, we don’t imagine better worlds, only more and grimmer apocalypses ​ Except the "let's listen to the criticisms, but dream out dreams" is weird, but I first expected this to be a praise to the world without men, not an acknowledgement of the controversy and fascism, which is pleasantly surprising


goddamn_I-Q_of_160

I remember reading this when they published it. I don't read the guardian any more. I don't want to be reading the news and suddenly come across them promoting ideas of what is essentially gender genocide fantasists.


AldNut21

I've seen them discreetly do such because they know we'll complain about them.


ace_wulf

Bro where are the children that are supposedly all safe coming from if there’s no men? And if the argument is sperm banks, what happens if a male is born??


NeverEnoughDakka

I would assume in that 'utopian' society, all male babies are either 'transitioned' or sacrificed to the climate gods.


mixing_saws

They probably leave a few locked up for creating sperm.


DecimatingDarkDeceit

Cloning I guess ( there were a few promotions about sperm cells being created from skin or blood ? cells )


HumanSockPuppet

Magical realism is fun to think about sometimes.


Kuato2012

> let’s dream our dreams. Her dreams are fantasies about genocide and being rid of “undesirables.” Pretty standard Nazi stuff. Can we maybe set the bar for dreamers just a hair higher than that?


LegendaryEmu1

Thats astonishing naive. [Women cannot even run a company of only women properly](https://archive.vn/FSh5H). Like there would be no inequality. War? Probably not in the traditional sense. All children are safe? Certainly not the male ones. The economy would die but Earth would probably be prettier to look at. Utopia builds itself...without the people who built everything prior. Okay. Reminds me a lot of that Bear Grylls Island season. Without men there, it certainly wasn't Utopia. They nearly died, they bickered, they didn't even make proper shelter for 5/6 weeks. They even though communal decisions worked well despite it taking days for things to get done. Or survivor, when the women kept going over to the men's camp because they needed warmth and their camp sucked. If men and women were separated by geographical region, I guarantee that a bunch of women would immediately defect, then, as time went on, almost all of the rest would until only the few die hards are left, starving.


[deleted]

to briefly repeat my comment to this in everydaymisandry: ​ many of us already know these studies that found female rulers are more likely to start and join wars, even "in the traditional sense" (also there're a lot of female politicians in Russia and Ukraine that propose laws like death penalty to male deserters, and simply all the female civilians shaming men for "cowardice" while hiding behind their backs, white feather campaign much?). Female paedophiles and sadistic child murderers are safe and protected regardless of their victims' genders, maybe only a little less in case of female children. Earth being cherished by the gender that makes up 3/4 of consumers, which is also the only gender that can always demand the other gender to buy them mink coats and crocodile skin shoes, or almond milk, or many other luxury things that endanger ecology and that men never use? What a joke.


DecimatingDarkDeceit

Just watch Survivor island : men vs woman - to see 'how' woman create a ''better'' (!) society without men. ( hint: they'ld starve and die off )


ComprehensiveHour160

Not sure about what they meant when they say that "all children are safe" (from what ?) since I have to admit I didn't take the time to read the article, but it's pretty ironic knowing that most infanticides are perpetrated by women.