The Juju Principle, as I call it, comes from phenomenon well attested by old Africa hands. A European who takes a highway curve at 70 mph and comes dangerously close to flipping the car will take the same curve at 60 next time. The African, by contrast, comes to the opposite conclusion: If I almost flipped at 70 — but didn’t! — the only safe thing to do is take it at 80 the next time.
I posit that this is because Africans live in a condition verging on learned helplessness. Since there are so very many random ways to die in Africa, if a life-threatening event doesn’t kill you, the only logical thing to do is more of whatever it was you were doing when it happened. I suggest that since prosperity plus “intersectionalism” puts Western Leftists in a similar situation — one where actions and consequences are completely severed — this same “do more of what you were doing last time” logic governs their actions. It’s the only way to explain their behavior.
But, MBlanc46 objects, it simply might be that the Left are making a final push:
Since going ever Leftward has gotten them this far, it only makes sense to them to go ever further Leftward. And whoever goes furthest Leftward will end up Chairman of the Politburo.
This might be part of it, but it assumes a goal-directedness that the Left just doesn’t have. It’s hard to wrap our heads around, just as it’s almost impossible to wrap our heads around the idea that, to the African, taking the next curve at 80 mph makes perfect sense. But consider this:
For approximately three decades, the prevailing feminist doctrine was “gender neutrality” theory; it held that the sexes are the same except for the superficial physical differences, therefore raising boys and girls the same way will result in their being identical beneath the skin. This was embraced so radically that, as iconoclastic feminist Camille Paglia once related, feminists would corner her on college campuses in the ’70s, glaring, and swear that hormones didn’t exist and that even if they did, they couldn’t possibly influence behavior….
[Feminists] didn’t think. They were led by their passions, their emotions, like children, ignoring that ideas have consequences. Just because you’re wholly illogical — and even may dismiss logic as a white male phenomenon — that doesn’t mean your arguments won’t be taken beyond their utility for you and to their logical conclusion.
As he is a cognitively normal person, the author, Selwyn Duke, is baffled by the feminists’ inability to see a glaringly obvious consequence of their position. I was baffled by it, too (you can check the archives) — if gender is nothing but a social construction, as the feminists insist, then there’s absolutely no reason a 6’2″ linebacker with a ten-inch dong can’t put on a dress and enter the Miss America pageant. In fact, if something so basic as gender is a “social construction,” then so is everything else — Rachel Dolezal and Shaun “Talcum X” King really are Black, that 69 year old Dutch dude really is 45, and that lunatic panhandling at 4th and Main really is Jesus Christ.
Feminists are insane, but they’re not stupid. Africans aren’t stupid, either, but they still do what they do, and the Juju Principle explains both. Notice what feminists complaining about trannies aren’t saying. Check the citations in the linked article: The only gals who are willing to say that chromosomes have something to do with sex (Germaine Greer), or that hormones have something to do with athletic performance (Martina Navratilova), are fringe figures, old battleaxes whose time is long past. The younger ones, by contrast, frame the issue in terms either of female safety (Julia Beck, warning against “predatory males”) or, like Megan Murphy, simply assert women’s distinctiveness.
Nobody who matters, in other words, is claiming “Oops, we were wrong; gender isn’t a social construction.” Calling trannies “predatory males,” for instance, implies that they don’t really identify as women — they identify as men, and they’re lying, to cheat women out of what’s rightfully theirs. In other words, what these feminists are doing is what feminists have always done: Claiming special privilege, because argle blargle reasons. Fill in whatever you want for the “argle blargle,” since it’s 1,000,000 to 1 that once this tempest in a teapot has passed, Julia Beck, Megan Murphy, and all the rest will be back out there, yelling “Gender is just a social construction!”
It’s all just juju. They don’t see the logical consequences of their position, because it’s not a position at all. Feminists don’t see “Gender is just a social construction!” as a step on the way to anything. It doesn’t have any relationship to any other statement in the feminist lexicon. Just as the African concludes that since we didn’t crash this time, we’d better keep taking turns at 70, so the feminist reasons that because “Gender is just a social construction!” got her everything she wanted every other time, she’d better keep saying it….
… and just as it’s pointless to tell the African that next time might be different — to tell him, that is, that there’s a causal relationship between curve speed and car crashes — it’s pointless to tell the feminist that “Gender is just a social construction!” entails that men really are women if they, the men, simply assert that they are. Just as the African regards “car crashes” as random, uncaused events, so feminists regard challenges to their assertions. Asking them to do otherwise is asking them to be other than they are.Loading Likes...