There was a time when things seemed clear and clear sides: macho against feminist. Until populist overaction came and with it a feminism That fights feminism. The confusion has been gradual although, in the current debate, only the problem in the last phase tends to be seen, in which Gender has replaced sex So Gabriel Albiac calls “Puritan regression on the left” in his new book The father’s eclipseI do not doubt in recommending. This last phase of negation of sexuality by the metaphorical path of the genre is the one that is illustrated by the paradigm of the rapist who feels a woman and makes it legally stated to continue violating it impunity.
By the path of hypothetical social rights, we have reached the legitimation of a macabre game: an abuser can get and take off the female mask before the woman herself to continue turning her into her victim. As I say, the process until reaching this extreme has been longer than they present and It started years ago. Like the Zavalita de Vargas Llosa in Conversations in the CathedralHe wondered “When Peru fell fell”, we can ask ourselves today the question of “when feminism fucking.”
The answer to that question is in its own history: when the ideal of equal rights between men and women was abandoned to be replaced by the ‘sexual struggle’, moving to the field of sexuality the schemamarxist of the class struggle. This is the first populist imposition and is a jump inside the left itself, which, of Simone de Beauvoir, passed to Ernesto Laclau and his ‘conflict theory’, according to which, the woman is intrinsically and irres, the victim of man instead of her partner.
The blame of the current feminist division is blamed to the speech of the genre of Irene Montero, but before she feminism she already suffered a populist adulteration in that transfer of the old dialectic of classes to the postmodern sex that hugged the same Lydia Falcón when she defined the woman explicitly as a ‘social class’. After that jump, everything else comes. Comes – now – the second populist imposition: the relief of sex for the genre and the vision of the latter as an artificial construction in which nothing would have to do with physiology, according to the famous ideology queerde Judith Butler.
The problem posed by this cocktail of doctrines is pure logic. One thing cannot be defended at the same time and the opposite. The same female identity that reaffirms as binary to blame man, is the one that at the same time refuses to exalt an antibinary sexual diversity. Said otherwise, Laclau and Butler are not compatible. The ‘conflict theory’, which petrifies identity, gives cakes with doctrinesqueer y wokethat dissolve it. In that contradiction lies the crux of the struggle that is going between feminisms today and that is being addressed anecdotally and superficially.
Neither Lidia Falcón nor Irene Montero. The first, with its still sexual and postmarxist identity, closes the door to what Beauvoir called the ‘feminism of equity’ claiming the emancipatory thinking of the Enlightenment.
The second would cancel directly The second sexby Do not title The second genre.
