An Apology of the Body

Among the earliest meditations on the relationship between the body and soul are the dialogues of Socrates. Drawing from three different works—Plato’s Apology, Phaedo, and Xenophon’s Memorabilia—Socrates argues for the broad moral appeal of improving one’s body, the significance of which far exceeds the domain of personal concern. Not one for hypocrisy, the philosopher himself was said to have trained on a daily basis and certainly seemed to be fond of walking. Unfortunately, in Western society today, we are short on both thinkers and exercisers. More worrisome, however, is the absence of any discourse that points towards a moral or ethical injunction to develop our bodies. As slogans referring to bodily autonomy and body acceptance pervade the media, it would behoove us to look back at how our philosophical ancestors understood their own fixation on the human body.

In the past decade, a movement known as “body positivity” or “body acceptance” has risen to challenge the idea of what constitutes a healthy body and an aesthetically pleasing physique. Of the many issues that so-called “fat activists” claim to represent, support for obesity is arguably one of their more controversial stances. While medical professionals are almost unanimous regarding the grave health consequences of obesity, there is little concern for this within the movement. Their motives—indeed, their worldview—regarding obesity stem more from the social activist scene than medical science. In bypassing doctors, the body acceptance movement catapults obesity into the untouchable realm of social identity.

Sonya Renee Taylor is one such proponent behind obesity’s re-categorization into an identity, on par with being a woman or being black. In, The Body Is Not an Apology: The Power of Radical Self-Love (2021), Taylor lays out for the reader a thesis that smacks of what used to be called self-help literature in the 1980s and ’90s, and has since become rebranded for a socially conscious youth culture that now speaks of empowerment.

Audiobook cover of The Body Is Not An Apology (2021)

Taylor argues that since our earliest memories of childhood, our parents and community have socialized us to view our bodies through the critical eyes of others. As a result, we have lost touch with how to love our bodies, irrespective of their condition. This self-loathing continues to haunt us along our life’s journey, negatively affecting the ways we interact with others. The more we begin to imbibe the impressions others have of our bodies, the more we begin to view our bodies as obstacles unworthy of kindness.

Taylor’s book is a glance into the world of those who struggle with obesity and wish to change their relationship with their bodies. Her solution is to encourage each of us to commit ourselves to “radical self-love.” The term itself is somewhat elusive and, according to Taylor, carries more currency than self-esteem and self-acceptance. In its essence, radical self-love is a narrative we tell ourselves about our bodies, inviting an overwhelming sense of empathy and love. It is radical because Taylor invites us to return to the time when the body was simply a play in the sandbox or a run through a sprinkler on a hot summer day. That is, before we understood our own ignorance of our bodies.

Much like Plato’s allegory of the cave, there comes a time, eventually, when we must exit the blissful confines of our immediate circumstances and face a world full of wonder and horror. Plato argues that both the soul and the body—which he also calls “that organ of knowledge”—are required in pursuing the very light which disturbs our cave of dark ignorance, forcing us to comprehend a reality of which we never knew. It seems that, for Taylor, it is the other way around: that for others to discover our own truth, as it were, we invite them to join us in the cave to dwell with the flickering of shadows and disarray.

This inward shift, toward having others accept our body the way we think it ought to be accepted, comes with a certain set of implications regarding what the body is. First and foremost, it is ironic that, given the scope of her thesis, Taylor never once puts forth a working definition of the body. Naturally, this begs the question: how can a subject that is not defined be put into a relationship with anything else? To radically love my body is to assume a distinction between “I” and “my body.” Taylor implores us to behold our bodies as objects worthy of emotional adoration, but is the body then nothing more than an undefined, fleshy mass?

Another consideration is that, because Taylor places a premium on how we ought to look at our bodies—that is, without a critical lens—we are given the impression that what we see is what we get. In other words, she seems to suggest that our bodies are, in some way, non-performative. They are merely static forms for us to observe. For, insofar as we convince ourselves that the mind sits in a position of privilege at the helm of our perception, it stands to reason that only the mind can be the proper recipient for intellectual or cultural edification. Is the body, then, just the chauffeur shuttling the mind from one engagement to the next, waiting in the car while the mind attends a dinner held in its honor?

This concept of the body and the mind is nothing new. The Apology, is a defense given by Socrates before the Eleven, the magistrates of Athens who charged him with atheism and the corruption of the youth. Socrates denies the accusations brought against his character. The aging philosopher insists that he has done quite the opposite, instilling in the youth a curiosity about human affairs and the will to strengthen their moral convictions. The Apology, therefore, sets the stage for what Socrates will later discuss in Phaedo, as to what the proper focus of philosophy ought to be—the soul’s drive for erudition and the disregard of bodily pleasure and corruption.

But, to understand distinction between body and soul, it is important to first consider what Socrates says of the body as a subject worthy of development. This is found in Memorabilia, Xenophon’s recollection of Socrates’s interactions with his pupils and a text in which the life and dialogues of Socrates are on display.

One of the key features of the text is a discussion on the characteristics an individual attains through the diligent training of his body. “[Socrates] did not himself neglect his body or praise those who did,” writes Xenophon. Indeed, the philosopher tended to avoid the pretensions of accumulating what he would refer to in Phaedo as “bodily pleasures.” These pleasures could be anything from gluttony or sex to acquiring the finer things in life. For Socrates, physical exercise or training was also subject to moderation, as well, as too much would “hinder the soul.” In this light, the body is seen as an accomplice in the mutual advancement of the whole person. And just as it takes the mind a certain amount of labor to develop and think through arguments and question ideas, so, too, does the body develop under intense exertion and struggle. These circumstances come about precisely when we act against our natural inclination for seeking comfort and shelter against the harsh vicissitudes of life. What matters for Socrates is that we rise to meet these challenges. In doing so, we are afforded opportunities to cultivate desirable qualities that enrich our character, forcing us to turn not inward but increasingly outward to the world around us:

[What] about those who labor so that they may acquire good friends or that they may subdue their enemies, or so that by becoming powerful in their bodies and souls they may manage their own house nobly and treat their friends well and do good deeds for their fatherland? Surely one should know that these both labor for such things with pleasure and take delight in living, since they admire themselves and are praised and emulated by others.

There is also a theological or spiritual element in what the body ought to do and how it should perform. In the absence of physical exertion, Socrates states that “[Without] labor and attentiveness the gods give humans none of the things that are good and noble.” By suggesting that the body is of concern to the gods, Socrates positions the performance of the body as a matter of sanctification. It is no wonder, then, that the ancient Olympic Games were distinctly different from the overly commercialized, nationalistic variant of them that we see today. Physical strength and athleticism were recognized by the ancient Greeks as a social good, a model one demonstrated to all onlookers, both in the mundane as well as heavenly worlds. There is little room, then, to consider how we moderns tend to see the body as strictly the domain of private concern.

Socrates makes this point forcefully when he chastises the young Epigenes for not taking care of his body:

When [Socrates] saw that one of his companions, Epigenes, was both young and maintained his body badly, he said, “How like a private individual you maintain your body, Epigenes.” And [Epigenes] said, “For I am a private individual, Socrates.” “Just as much as the competitors entered for Olympia” he retorted. “Or do you count the life and death struggle with their enemies, upon which, it may be, the Athenians will enter, but a small thing?”

Insofar as that by training the body one reveals the higher qualities of man, Socrates exhorts the youth on what happens when such training is absent. In no uncertain terms, the philosopher states that the failure to train the body brings “[a] shameful reputation … because, as opinion has it, they are cowardly.” In a particularly rousing passage, Socrates concludes his critique, stating that:

It is also shameful due to neglect, to grow old before seeing oneself in the most beautiful and strongest bodily state one might attain. But it is not possible for one who is neglectful to see these things, for they do not want to come to pass spontaneously.

In Phaedo, the last dialogue of Socrates, we are presented with a somewhat paradoxical view of the body and the soul, one that is informed by the philosopher’s final hours before consuming poison. It is paradoxical in that Socrates seems to have changed his mind on the positive attributes of training the body, in favor of the prominence of the soul. Having his chains removed by the Eleven, Socrates sits in his cell and speaks to his assembled students. These bodily pleasures, as Socrates refers to them, are a persistent distraction and, as features of the body, prevent a philosopher from truly attaining what is good in the world—wisdom and truth: “Man is in a kind of prison, and that he may not set himself free, nor escape from it…” The entombed nature of the soul is the body. It imposes needs such as eating for sustenance and desires such as love and lust. “For whence comes wars, and fighting, and factions?” asks the philosopher.

These pleasures, according to Socrates, are often thought of by society as what gives the very color to life. In the absence of earthly pursuits, the philosopher appears to men as being already dead by virtue of his or her simple way of life. For Socrates, these pleasures defy meaningful contemplation for the soul, shifting its attention towards the sense of the body, like touch or taste. As a result, the soul becomes relegated to a state of subservience to the desires of the flesh. “Because every pleasure and pain has a kind of nail,” states Socrates, “[Which] nails and pins [the soul] to the body, making her think that whatever the body says is true.”

Such a statement may appear puritanical to the modern reader. But what Socrates points out is really nothing more than a simple truism: the flesh is weak. Today, as it was well over two millennia ago, people are often attracted to the gaudy and the superfluous. Even still, for Socrates and his cohort, the body is not to be treated as a mere receptacle for food and pleasure. It, too, is a source for one’s character and qualities. The vehicle (one’s body), he believed, is as important as its passenger (the soul). Prior to his death, Socrates noted that the unexamined life is not worth living. It would be impossible to exclude the beauty and development of the body from such a bold ethos.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

I suppose the other side of the coin of this view that the body is in some way both an emblem and reflection of the soul, then it must be the case that people whose bodies are shaped by hunger, overwork and poor living conditions represent an existential as well as bodily affliction, brought on them by factors they cannot control, but by their very existence, lessen them as a depleted ‘other’.

Keeping body and soul together as part of the proletariat in the early nineteenth century was an almost insuperable task, that gave the lie to the contempt of the comfortable classes towards it, as ‘the great unwashed’, whose state demonstrably showed them not to be amongst the spiritual elect-of-God.

I would argue that today’s obesity pandemic is every bit as much existentially, socially and economically driven by the present chronically indulgent means of production, consumption and cultural reproduction, as chronic deprivation was in the early period of capitalist primitive accumulation.

For three generations now, an economy and culture of disciplined needs and wants has been subsumed by marketed fantasies of desire and drives to make giving into them as urgently and quickly as possible. This relentless and totalitarian push to deregulate and privatize all external and internal restraint for the consumer and citizen/subject idealtype, has produced generations of hardened shop troops who’s training to consume till they drop. literally and metaphorically, is the meaning of life, happiness and normal conduct.

The mountains of fat accumulating on the bodies of ordinary people under late Indulgence Capitalism are a reflection of a fat economy, society and production apparatus devoted to gross excess across all its production and consumption platforms, institutional behaviors and social norms.

The poorest of these shop troops, the lumpen proletariat, only have the money to indulge themselves in quick, overpriced but cheap fat and sugar laced food and beverage treats, so they become the main archetypes of obesity, that like their predecessors 200 years ago, marks them out as social losers and incompetents.

The ruling class does it a bit differently, like the space cadets from Bankworld, who just cannot stop themselves gormandizing in financial piranha feeding frenzies, whenever they an escape the killjoy regulatory authorities, which they do pretty much whenever they like…

I think if Socrates came back today, he would probably have arrived in time to be deplatformed from his teaching position, but too early to be forced to take poison.

He would be telling all sides of the regime that they have lost the plot and somewhat ironically, corrupting our children with unsavory ideas and practices that keep them in a lifelong thrall of undisciplined, autonomy devouring and character undermining dependency, existential poverty, psychological instability and insecurity.

And he would be pointing out that it wasn’t just a matter of poor diet, lack of exercise and unwillingness to do anything about the resultant obesity that defined the existential degradation of our times, but a whole damned system that takes down the kiddies into permanent adolescence before they ever get the chance to become real adults, obesity or athleticism notwithstanding…

… And some of us might be saying, “Now that Socrates is here, we’ll all be saved”, even as others prepare his poison.


Body positivity is one of those things which emerges when teachers and parents to socially engineer away the normal status jostling which occurs amongst children and teenagers to establish pecking orders. Don’t get me wrong, sustained bullying and chronic bullying can be awful, especially when an overprotective parent complains to the school and the poor kid earns the reputation for being a snitch. We had a kid like that in Primary School- his mother bad a bad situation, from which he might have recovered if he had changed his attitude, into a catastrophic one.

The concept creep in relation to bullying is so extreme that in some instances best friends are seen as exclusionary, and not getting invited to someone else’s party is seen as a form of bullying. Again, don’t get me wrong- kids can be disinvited and excluded from out of school social gatherings for all manner of petty and small reasons, but at the same time some kids are brats. Some never learn the lesson that it’s important to negotiate over group activities, or to quit the whinging when they find the group engaging in an activity not suited to their talents. Some have a high opinion of themselves, insist upon being the centre of attention when they don’t warrant it, because they haven’t learned the reciprocal grace of actually listening to others in an engaged manner, and are overly critical of others views. It’s not that these kids need social punishing, but they do need to learn- otherwise they will be doomed to unpopularity throughout their adult life.

But the main problem is that it simply isn’t possible to truly supress the more benign process of status jostling which occurs to establish pecking orders in groups. Attempts to achieve such, invariably result in the phenomenon re-emerging in twisted and unhealthy ways. The kids will always invent ways to socially judge their peers, and, inadvertently, in the social media age, this manifests in the virtue signalling of holding ‘good’ ideas and bullying which comes from creatively recasting someone else’s views as antagonistic to some ‘victim’ group. It’s a tyranny of the cunning, where the smart get to smear and the guileless and dull are cast as villains.

At the same time, the fashion industry has a lot to answer for in the way it shifted perceptions of female beauty with the advent of Twiggy to make the ideal all but unobtainable for most. On a purely skeletal level, many women are never going to fit into a size 8 dress, let alone a size 6. For a generation of teenage girls growing up with beauty standards which were unobtainable and forced to see their friends on social media presented through a set of filters meant to idealise, whilst the image staring back at them in the mirror had no such favourable treatment, it’s little wonder that they didn’t develop a perfectly natural resentment towards beauty and weight standards which they themselves could never perfectly achieve.

And with the cult of victimhood and oppression even the smallest of sympathies becomes a vice. Anything can be forgiven if one is on one side of the equation, whilst any sin on the other is as unforgiveable as it is indelible. In these circumstances vices can become virtues, a cause to championed.

Eating is a well-known coping strategy, like drinking, taking drugs, or even fanatical exercise to the point that it wears on our body, one of those activities which provides a temporary indulgent high to make us feel better, without doing anything to actually improve our situation. And unfortunately, its a self-reinforcing circular problem. One can actually eat because one feels depressed about one’s appearance. Alcoholics experience something similar- they drink because they feel guilty or depressed that they’ve let their friends or family members down, and in so doing provide more grist for the mill, only self-sabotaging the web of their interpersonal relationships even further. With weight the problem is more internalised, more integral- but it’s the same process- the same self-defeating and self-sabotaging circular motion.

The answer is not to care, or more accurately, to only care about what one thinks of oneself, to fall back into the rational redoubt of what’s in one’s own self-interest over a more than temporary period. Plus, there are plenty of more healthy means of self-evaluation which are less superficial. Am I kind, do I help others, am I a pillar of support for others in times of need? And it’s perfectly reasonable to negotiate a contract with oneself.

I am a hypocrite in some ways. I gained a fair amount of weight over the pandemic and haven’t really got around to addressing the issues of a love of chocolate, rich food and my sedentary lifestyle. But I don’t lie to myself with self-delusions of body positivity. The trick is remembering that action precedes motivation, and that it’s far less mentally burdensome to actually do a little something about it to makes oneself feel better about it, than it is to cyclically succumb to guilty pleasures and then castigate oneself for human failing. I shall have to go pescatarian keto again, cut out the sweet things and resume the longer dog walks. But then again, knowing is one thing, doing is quite another.

As usual my essays are to found on my Substack, which is free to view and comment:


Humans don’t have souls. Other than that, this is a highly recommendable article.

The great tragedy that is unfolding across the West can be laid at the feet of poor education. Simply put, people have been allowed to become increasingly stupid and still claim the rewards of a free society. We now live in an age when obese people claim to be healthy, men claim to be women, fragile losers need special affirmations and the indolent are permitted to rob with impunity.

The only antidote to this madness is unrelenting hostility and belligerence.

Humans still don’t have souls.


Although its true some people take things too far let’s not do the nut picking thing to justify a false narrative shall we? Body acceptance is more generally understood as a rejection of unrealistic unhealthy beauty & physical attraction standards rather than a purist approach to acceptance.

As the gadfly once said:

“all things in moderation, including moderation”……


It is inevitable that sooner or later the Victims Du Jour will be the slobs. Oppressed! Whitey Centers his own ideas of what is beautiful. Isn’t that just like whitey? But if a man becomes/is a woman simply by stating it, then surely a grossly obese person is beautiful simply by stating it? There will be laws passed in Canada making fatphobia a crime, and hiring quotas for slobs in the fashion industry. New pronouns will be invented by the fat-positive as morbid obesity becomes an Identity. Primary schools will have to take time away from trans education to body positivity education. PE will be abolished as Racist. Hasta happen.

BTW, I don’t want to sound too holy here, I’m a bit overweight myself at the moment. Not an Identity tho, I need to get in the water – where a dolphin belongs after all – and work off a few pounds.


The good news is that, finally, this might be the one way that a whm can aspire to Victimhood – put on 200 lbs of fat and you, too, can be a Victim.


I often tell my friends that we live in a clown world… hate to say it, but at least I am glad I am not the only one thinking this.

Of the many issues that so-called “fat activists” claim to represent, support for obesity is arguably one of their more stupid stances.

There. Fixed it for you.


I tend to prefer moderate language but there are times when you call a spade a fucking shovel and this is one of them.


Y’know, we admit these patients because obesity has caused diabetes which now presents as a necrotic foot, which we amputate.

Comforting words about how “obesity is beautiful” don’t cut it with me at that point.


The body positivity stuff I think is part and parcel of our increasingly feminized culture, both in terms of the fact that appearance is more central to self esteem among women than it is among men, and therefore there is a market for the idea that non-fit bodies are in fact sexy (spoiler alert: they aren’t), but also in the sense that not challenging others’ desired perception of themselves is consistent with the kind of conflict-avoidant attitude that characterizes a lot of female social interaction. Self-delusion thus proliferates.

My hope is that Eli Lilly’s new weight loss drug, Tirzepatide, turns out to be safe, effective, eventually becomes cheap, and there are a lot fewer fat people around to peddle this kind of non-sense, and it all turns into a bad joke in 10 or 15 years.


And fringe positions should be immune from criticism?

While I recognize that one can torch fringe strawman positions as a way of manipulating the conversation, it does not follow that any attempt to address non-mainstream issues can be dismissed as a strawman fallacy. If you do that, you simply create a norm in which fringe positions cannot be combated. Once done, they will eventually take root and metastasize.

I don’t think there are many here who would disagree of “body acceptance” if this were in fact what it entailed. People should not look to movie stars and models as the ideal for their physical bodies. That way lies ruin.

So is that all “body acceptance” means? Perhaps 10 years ago you were right. But like most social causes the movement has done a particularly poor job in reigning in its progressives crazies. What was fringe no longer is.

For example, consider The Body Positive. A group founded in 1996 by Connie Sobczak after her sister died from an eating disorder. The group was founded to help people (particularly teen girls) learn to be more comfortable with their bodies in the face of societal pressure. A good organization with a great goal.

Fast forward to today however and just on the very first page of their blog you can find them complaining that folks hate fat people who are not trying to lose weight, or have the audacity to be happy with their bodies.”. Or this post about “fat acceptance” which argues that doctors cynically play-up the dangers of being overweight. “We accused them-doctors, psychologists, and public health officials-of concealing and distorting the facts about fat”

Now I only chose them because I could remember their name and recall them doing good work. However I just assumed that as a social movement they would have been overtaken by this nonsense. And sure enough they have. In fact, I am struggling to find any of the organizations in the Body Acceptance Movement that dare suggest that, just as we should not strive to be as thin as models, we should still strive to not be overweight.

Instead I come across articles like this one, and this one, and this one, which go at lengths to explain that it is alright to desire to lose weight. Just so long as you never, ever, ever, suggest to anyone else that they too could benefit from losing weight.

Far from being “nut picked”, this is the mainstream opinion anyone interacting with the Body Positive movement now learns. No longer is it simply a “rejection of unrealistic unhealthy beauty & physical attraction standards”.


I don’t accuse Ella of being in bad faith, but, deliberate or not, what we have is a motte and bailey fallacy – what is argued to establish the validity of ‘body acceptance’ sounds very reasonable, but inevitably we get concept creep and eventually body acceptance means that a 500 lb person must not be ‘fat-shamed’ nor even subjected to micro-aggressions. I recall arguing this point with a fat-positive activist who said that if a 500 lb lady goes to the doctor complaining of sore knees, the doctor may not say: “Your frame isn’t designed to carry 500 pounds, lose 300 of them and your knees will feel fine.” Nope, that would be fat-shaming and the doctor must go thru the motions of looking for other causes. This is of course comparable to offering mammograms to transwomen which must be done because transwomen are real women, aren’t they? Nothing must break the spell.

All the ‘structures’ – that’s not the best word – that apply to trans acceptance can be used for fat acceptance. The trans activists have already demolished the appeal to reality – Identity (fantasy) IS reality. If the 500 pounder Identifies as fit, healthy and beautiful that’s the way it is.


There’s no doubt a multitude of variance in messaging & interpretations so how to assess the general understanding & subsequent influence? Results matter. Is there a straight line between body positivity & obesity? Fat shaming seems to indicate otherwise.

Body positivity = more obesity? Causation? Not yet……

"Muttarak’s research merely looked at the associations between people’s BMI, their self-perception of their body weight, and whether they reported that they were trying to lose weight. The research did not – in any way – investigate or even assess whether the body-positive movement has had any impact on people’s BMI, their perception of their body weight, or their attempts to lose weight. To draw such conclusions, experimental or longitudinal research would be necessary, for example wherein people’s exposure to body-positive media imagery is measured across time, along with their body weight and other outcomes. The fact that journalists have concluded that the “body-positive movement is probably contributing to the obesity crisis” is unfounded, not to mention that the study did not even investigate this question.

It is also concerning that Muttarak hints at this relationship in her article. For example, she states that the availability of “plus-size” clothing “may have indeed contributed to the normalization of stigma associated with overweight and obesity” (p. 1125) and that, while the body-positive movement may help “reduce stigmatization of larger-sized bodies, it can potentially undermine the recognition of being overweight and its health consequences” (p. 1125). Yet, no solid evidence is given to support her statements and, where references to other research are provided, these are either unrelated to her claims or have misinterpreted the referenced study’s findings. Such misleading writing is careless and unacceptable in a scientific journal, and raises serious concerns about its peer review process.

The take-home message

This research cannot be used to support the claim that the body-positive movement is contributing to “overweight” or “obesity.” The study did not test this question, and the data cannot be used to answer it. The reviewers at Obesity should have picked up on this, and journalists should have done their homework. Sloppiness in science, peer review, and journalism, is unacceptable, especially when so much awareness has been raised about these issues in recent years. Most people do not have the time or resources to access and read the scientific articles behind the news headlines. It is therefore the job of scholars, reviewers, and journalists, to get the facts straight, and not spread false claims."


Part of the problem lies in accepting than may of these ideas are reasonable on their face.

Microaggressions aren’t real. Fat shaming isn’t real. Transwomen are real but they are still men, pretending to be women. They aren’t real women and if their supporters thought they really were, then they would not apply the qualifier “trans” in front of the term. Since they do, they know that these “women” are not women. They are frauds.

We have begun to embrace make-believe as real. It is all utter nonsense. “Body positivity” is such an inane concept on the face of it. No one I know is 100% happy with their physical appearance. Rather than accept the basic fragility that is part of the normal human condition, we have pathologized everything, including gender so that everyone’s claims to being differently than what they actually are can be affirmed by the mob. Nonsense.

Blind people are still blind, even if they don’t want to be. Deaf people are deaf. Mute people are mute. People with Down’s Syndrome have Down’s Syndrome regardless of how they feel about it. And fat people are fat. If they are genetically predisposed towards being fat, then they have to work harder at keeping fit and eat less than those of us who aren’t. Some women are born beautiful while others are born ugly. The beautiful ones win the genetic lottery and the others lose. The winners will have an easier time attracting mates while the losers will need to work a bit harder to promote their genetics. Trans-people, whatever the hell they are, will mate less. Their “ideology” will find fertile ground in the weak-minded and the stupid. But ultimately, their project will die out because it is completely unsustainable. Obese people generally die earlier because they too, are unsustainable. They lead less healthy lives and overall, they are less productive. Obesity is real and obesity kills.

Darwin will always win.


I don’t disagree with anything you have said here. But then, it is a different point from the one I was making.

It is the Emperor’s new clothes… the overriding woke philosophy of “make sure nobody feels bad about themselves”.

Once this philosophy is ingrained, hordes of social “scientists” are sent out to do studies justifying the normality of all sorts of patently ridiculous or even damaging lifestyles, beliefs and behaviours.

I expect such scientists will soon find that, for example, things like a preference for consensual incest is a congenital and immutable sexual identity that must be respected and protected. Or even paedophilia… (after all, wasn’t it Barbara Streisand - high priestess of Wokeism - who already tipped their hand in this respect when she said that Michael Jackson’s “sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he had or whatever DNA he had. You can say ‘molested,’ but those children were thrilled to be there”…)



I think you have pointed to part of the problem quite clearly; too many morons have been awarded doctoral degrees in “sciences” that aren’t. To put it plainly, a whole host of stupid people have been able to swell the ranks of university graduate programs because they are willing to take on the enormous debt necessary to bolster their egos with degrees in “gender studies” etc. Unsurprisingly, most of these degrees are awarded to women…

Women have allowed for their own standards to be degraded to such a point that now they won’t even define themselves affirmatively. Instead, “women” are whoever wants to be. Just like “doctor” is anyone who gets a stupid degree in a pseudo-intellectual field. At the end of the day, the worst misogynists in the world were fellow women…


They’re mad that real women don’t smell like shit the way fake women do. They want to change that.

Most misogynistic social movement ever.