Seeing you in this post and your comment, plus the endorsement of your book by other authors I admire fuels my excitement for having your books on my book list for 2025.
Aw I’m so glad Arturo! I’d love to hear what you think when you get to it. I feel VERY lucky that so many people I admire have been loving Sexism & Sensibility, writing about it, running excerpts, quoting it, etc.
I am reminded of the fantastic Tiffany Aching series by Terry Pratchett. Tiffany is a young girl who discovers she is a witch. In addition to being hilarious, the books are thoughtful and smart. One of my favorite quotes:
“All witches are selfish, the Queen had said. But Tiffany’s Third Thoughts said: Then turn selfishness into a weapon! Make all things yours! Make other lives and dreams and hopes yours! Protect them! Save them! Bring them into the sheepfold! Walk the gale for them! Keep away the wolf! My dreams! My brother! My family! My land! My world! How dare you try to take these things, because they are mine!
As most can see, it’s an attempt to discredit the argument by ad hominem attack - to say that the person making the argument is no good, therefore the argument isn’t either. The most direct approach is to attack the person’s identity by whatever arbitrary means necessary. But they see a woman’s identity as her “fuckability” and attractiveness. They’re telling on themselves.
They’re just taking cheap shots at what they see as her identity. The criticism isn’t actually valid even on that demeaning scale, it’s all predicated on the “must tear down” mentality because they don’t have a counter to the actual argument.
As an Australian, I was especially touched that you mentioned how our first female prime minister was denigrated for being a woman … this is a story that Australians, in general, do not want to acknowledge, let along discuss the implications of.
We have a writer in Australia whose speciality is biographies of politicians — especially prime ministers. His work is fascinating, and detailed. I saw him speaking at an event in 2013 where he said, when asked if he was planning to write about Julia Gillard, that he had no interest in writing about her because she’s too boring.
I was like “what???”
That was the moment I realised how deep the problem is in Australia. This writer is not at all a political or social conservative, but even he seemed to think there was nothing to be said about her time as leader.
Yeah it was quite surreal to see the gloves come off when the old boys felt threatened. In NZ the backlash to Ardern was in a similar vein. Rationality goes out the window.
I imagine … I was living in Asia during her leadership so didn’t see it up close. Assuming a lot of people also had a problem with her being a millennial.
As Halloween comes around the corner my spouse and I reflected that for the past four years and since my five-yr-old has had a voice she has chosen to be a witch. Being the parent of a strong willed, no nonsense, outspoken girl is not easy; knowing that she will speak her mind and lead rather than follow is reassuring.
Many women that I love and admire have been called witches. I am in awe of the ways these women balk at the status quo, their quest for equality, and their desire for a world that works for everyone.
Brava! Brava! To the women who stand up to their beliefs.
Spoiler Alert: On Agatha All Along - loved it up until the end when all the witches (but one) are dead, leaving the young man alive with a ghost woman sidekick to carry to next season. (Sigh) O Marvel, you almost had it.
They’re too entitled, or too dumb (both probably) to realise how clearly they show their hand here: for many men, “love”, sex and what passes for “respect”, don’t exist independently from power/ dominance structures. Instead they’re tools to be deployed as needed to protect men’s interests. You know you’re on the money when some fool drags up “witch” as an insult. Keep fighting x
After a couple of decades of being told by liberal women that being a man is toxic, and lately holding up Tim Walz and Doug Emhoff as ideal men, and acting like allowing 10million fighting aged males crossing the border illegally is a positive thing, I should think reaching out to men and honoring masculinity would be more important than acting like women who act like toxic men is a positive thing.
She wasn’t writing about how men have been/should be treated, or immigration, or whether men should be “reached out to”. She didn’t say how men need to be treated, and you take her comments section to make this about all these.
Why should anyone listen to anything you think when the total number of illegal immigrant entering the US yearly is half a million, most of them enter the country legally by plane and overstay their visas, they have an equal gender distribution, and while many are “fighting age” certainly not all are.
10 million male (regardless of age) illegal immigrants is basically 40 years worth — so starting under Regan. And continuing, unceasing under Bush 1 and 2. In fact of the last 40 years, 21 of them have been under Republicans, so why haven’t they fixed the problem.
Also derailing is gross. If you have something to say about your special feelings on gender start your own Substack.
The personal tone of the attacks, especially the name-calling, is what is so hurtful.
I got the same treatment as a man - usually limited to being called a “lib-tard”.
It is precisely this invective this led me to question some of the dominant narrative; especially when the invective was lobbed by people I characterize as “low-information voters”.
Why are they so threatened?
The same sorts of infective, personal attacks and violence are lobbed against gays, trans people and even minorities when they threaten the dominant narrative.
Why? What’s the link?
Also, why does political speech turn personal?
My research is pointing towards demographic factors rather than religious, ethical or moral factors.
It’s an existential crisis. A society that cannot replace itself with a sufficient number of babies is at risk. People who reproduce (e.g. women) are super-important to maintaining that high rate.
There are two drivers behind the personal, inflammatory rhetoric:
The free rider problem – players in the Prisoners’ Dilemma will pay a cost to punish free riders, even if it is personally costly to them.
Ibn Khaldun’s Asabiyyah - first identified in the 12th century by Muslim sociologist Ibn Khaldun, societies without strong social cohesion, or Asabiyyah, fall to domination by societies with strong Asabiyyah.
Trans, gays, racial minorities and progressive liberals (I’m one) all advocate changes to the existing social hierarchy that undermines Asabiyyah.
‘Punishing moralizers’ descend to personal attacks, invective and hate speech in order to curtail what they see as the “free rider“ problem.
People who don’t reproduce or who threaten the family structure, thereby reducing the female fertility rate, become the victims of their attacks.
In general agreement with the article, I still need to say that if Thatcher had been male we would have been right to sing “Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead.”
Many loathe(d) Thatcher not because she was a woman, but because she was Thatcher, and therefore horrible. In point of fact, she was probably more effectively destructive than Reagan.
And when they can’t call you an unfuckable witch, they’ll call you a slut. Just for funsies! This is so great!!
Seeing you in this post and your comment, plus the endorsement of your book by other authors I admire fuels my excitement for having your books on my book list for 2025.
Aw I’m so glad Arturo! I’d love to hear what you think when you get to it. I feel VERY lucky that so many people I admire have been loving Sexism & Sensibility, writing about it, running excerpts, quoting it, etc.
I am reminded of the fantastic Tiffany Aching series by Terry Pratchett. Tiffany is a young girl who discovers she is a witch. In addition to being hilarious, the books are thoughtful and smart. One of my favorite quotes:
“All witches are selfish, the Queen had said. But Tiffany’s Third Thoughts said: Then turn selfishness into a weapon! Make all things yours! Make other lives and dreams and hopes yours! Protect them! Save them! Bring them into the sheepfold! Walk the gale for them! Keep away the wolf! My dreams! My brother! My family! My land! My world! How dare you try to take these things, because they are mine!
I have a duty!“
What a fantastic quote. I love its spirit. Saving it stat!
As most can see, it’s an attempt to discredit the argument by ad hominem attack - to say that the person making the argument is no good, therefore the argument isn’t either. The most direct approach is to attack the person’s identity by whatever arbitrary means necessary. But they see a woman’s identity as her “fuckability” and attractiveness. They’re telling on themselves.
Oh! Great point! “They see a woman’s identity AS her fuckability.” Kicking myself I didn’t include that thought - really good.
They’re just taking cheap shots at what they see as her identity. The criticism isn’t actually valid even on that demeaning scale, it’s all predicated on the “must tear down” mentality because they don’t have a counter to the actual argument.
THANK YOU, great read.
As an Australian, I was especially touched that you mentioned how our first female prime minister was denigrated for being a woman … this is a story that Australians, in general, do not want to acknowledge, let along discuss the implications of.
We have a writer in Australia whose speciality is biographies of politicians — especially prime ministers. His work is fascinating, and detailed. I saw him speaking at an event in 2013 where he said, when asked if he was planning to write about Julia Gillard, that he had no interest in writing about her because she’s too boring.
I was like “what???”
That was the moment I realised how deep the problem is in Australia. This writer is not at all a political or social conservative, but even he seemed to think there was nothing to be said about her time as leader.
Yeah it was quite surreal to see the gloves come off when the old boys felt threatened. In NZ the backlash to Ardern was in a similar vein. Rationality goes out the window.
I imagine … I was living in Asia during her leadership so didn’t see it up close. Assuming a lot of people also had a problem with her being a millennial.
Yep that too.
I agree with you. And I think future generations will judge us for the treatment of our first female prime minister.
well that is totally disheartening :(
Am I the only one who doesn’t low-key want to start a coven? 👏🏻. Beautiful piece as usual, Celeste!
Hilarious because this piece totally made me want to be a witch and to be called Witch the way some friends and I call each other queen :)
Oooo let’s make this happen!
Yaaasss Witch!
Beautiful!!
As Halloween comes around the corner my spouse and I reflected that for the past four years and since my five-yr-old has had a voice she has chosen to be a witch. Being the parent of a strong willed, no nonsense, outspoken girl is not easy; knowing that she will speak her mind and lead rather than follow is reassuring.
Many women that I love and admire have been called witches. I am in awe of the ways these women balk at the status quo, their quest for equality, and their desire for a world that works for everyone.
Brava! Brava! To the women who stand up to their beliefs.
I like to pronounce it “unfuckWITH-able” :)
Thoughtful, powerful blessing post - as always!
Spoiler Alert: On Agatha All Along - loved it up until the end when all the witches (but one) are dead, leaving the young man alive with a ghost woman sidekick to carry to next season. (Sigh) O Marvel, you almost had it.
Ok but right?!?!?!
Love 'Agatha All Alone', watch it every week with my youngest. He regularly comments that he really enjoys seeing strong female characters!
Great article AND can’t believe (and yet of course I can) we are still talking about this hundreds of years later.
We’re the daughters of the witches they didn’t burn 🔥🔥🔥
Awesome post as always!
They’re too entitled, or too dumb (both probably) to realise how clearly they show their hand here: for many men, “love”, sex and what passes for “respect”, don’t exist independently from power/ dominance structures. Instead they’re tools to be deployed as needed to protect men’s interests. You know you’re on the money when some fool drags up “witch” as an insult. Keep fighting x
After a couple of decades of being told by liberal women that being a man is toxic, and lately holding up Tim Walz and Doug Emhoff as ideal men, and acting like allowing 10million fighting aged males crossing the border illegally is a positive thing, I should think reaching out to men and honoring masculinity would be more important than acting like women who act like toxic men is a positive thing.
But what did you think of her actual points?
She wasn’t writing about how men have been/should be treated, or immigration, or whether men should be “reached out to”. She didn’t say how men need to be treated, and you take her comments section to make this about all these.
So. What did you think of her actual points?
Were you able to consider them?
Why should anyone listen to anything you think when the total number of illegal immigrant entering the US yearly is half a million, most of them enter the country legally by plane and overstay their visas, they have an equal gender distribution, and while many are “fighting age” certainly not all are.
10 million male (regardless of age) illegal immigrants is basically 40 years worth — so starting under Regan. And continuing, unceasing under Bush 1 and 2. In fact of the last 40 years, 21 of them have been under Republicans, so why haven’t they fixed the problem.
Also derailing is gross. If you have something to say about your special feelings on gender start your own Substack.
The personal tone of the attacks, especially the name-calling, is what is so hurtful.
I got the same treatment as a man - usually limited to being called a “lib-tard”.
It is precisely this invective this led me to question some of the dominant narrative; especially when the invective was lobbed by people I characterize as “low-information voters”.
Why are they so threatened?
The same sorts of infective, personal attacks and violence are lobbed against gays, trans people and even minorities when they threaten the dominant narrative.
Why? What’s the link?
Also, why does political speech turn personal?
My research is pointing towards demographic factors rather than religious, ethical or moral factors.
It’s an existential crisis. A society that cannot replace itself with a sufficient number of babies is at risk. People who reproduce (e.g. women) are super-important to maintaining that high rate.
I discuss some of the specifics here:
https://substack.com/@mulletsnyder/note/c-74242096?r=45g47o&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Some people, I call them ‘culture warriors’ absorb the social angst and use it against other people who are threats to traditional gender roles.
Turning personal is the childish schoolyard way to argue, when you’ve got nothing else. “Oh yeah? well…you’re ugly!” heh, whatevs.
There are two drivers behind the personal, inflammatory rhetoric:
The free rider problem – players in the Prisoners’ Dilemma will pay a cost to punish free riders, even if it is personally costly to them.
Ibn Khaldun’s Asabiyyah - first identified in the 12th century by Muslim sociologist Ibn Khaldun, societies without strong social cohesion, or Asabiyyah, fall to domination by societies with strong Asabiyyah.
Trans, gays, racial minorities and progressive liberals (I’m one) all advocate changes to the existing social hierarchy that undermines Asabiyyah.
‘Punishing moralizers’ descend to personal attacks, invective and hate speech in order to curtail what they see as the “free rider“ problem.
People who don’t reproduce or who threaten the family structure, thereby reducing the female fertility rate, become the victims of their attacks.
In general agreement with the article, I still need to say that if Thatcher had been male we would have been right to sing “Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead.”
Many loathe(d) Thatcher not because she was a woman, but because she was Thatcher, and therefore horrible. In point of fact, she was probably more effectively destructive than Reagan.
I like Terry Pratchett’s portrayals of witches, by the way. DO NOT mess with Granny Weatherwax.
I so enjoyed reading this. And my desire to be witchy has grown even more now ; )