Polly Toynbee wrote a frustrating article today, not only for the content but just how close she came to identifying and dealing with the problem.

it begins in infancy, when little girls learn where they belong as soon as they draw their first breath. The pink disease is far worse than it was 20 years ago. “Princess on board”, read the yukky signs in family cars. It’s almost impossible to buy toys now that are not putridly pink branded or aggressively superhero male. Bikes, sleeping bags, lunch boxes, nothing is neutral now, everything Barbie and Bratz. Princess tiaras, fairy and ballerina dressing up, pink, pink everywhere - and it damages girls’ brains. That’s before you start on thongs for seven-year-olds and sexy slogans on three-year-olds’ T-shirts.

Not, if you will, that she observes that “little girls” are taught their place but neglects to mention the boys. She does swing on to reference the contrast but it seems that it was purely for the sake of it, rather than to actual deal with the problems root. Because her article is largely about the failure of feminism it is truly crippling as an omission. Feminism made immense gains but then stalled, before becoming a label that most women would do their best to avoid.

I would argue that one of the major errors made by feminism was remaining something that only women could feel comfortable associating with. Given the history of the movement, I might remind you that the author of On Women was John Stuart Mill, this was clearly unnecessary but came from a failure to deal thoroughly with the matter of binary gender and its failings. This should have been a firm target under persistent attack, so allow me to do a spot of assault upon in myself here:

The much-touted differences between women and men are vastly exaggerated and are based around observation, rather than consideration of origins. The role of women and men varies between society to society and thus seems to be more cultural than inherent. There are obvious and immutable physical differences such as genitals and a hormone cycle but the significance of these beyond their totality is not something that can be demonstrated as inherent. Indeed even the differences in brain structure are not of immense importance as evidence for the “natural” presence of gender, given that that organ can be restructured by upbringing in other ways.

Tellingly the differences of character {such as they are} do not pre-date the differences of treatment. A study found that children clad in pink received more empathetic treatment than those in blue, supporting Toynbee’s claims along with various other studies. So I had hopes that she would press home: hammer the absurdity and make the case for feminism expanding its ranks beyond the mono-gendered funk that it had been condemned to.

Instead she suggested the following for lap-dancing clubs:

Time for a bit of the ancient music from women outside clashing saucepan lids and taking photos to post on the web of the men who go in. Where has the outrage gone? In the face of ever more rampant pornification of everything, women fall silent for fear feminism might be mistaken for prudery.

Bizarre. Apparently she is concerned about feminism withering and suggests that the solution is radical feminist tactics, when it was that sort of feminist thought that caused a vast amount of the problems in the first place. Why are feminists constantly having to fend of questions about why they hate men? Because many of them do and this form of deranged bigotry has resulted in all of the immense and sterling successes of feminism being tarnished, one of the most successful and just movements of the 20th century left uncherished by many.

Radical feminists were shrill, self-righteous and bigoted. They saw men as not only inherently distinct but inherently inferior. In suggesting their cruel strategies be utilised Toynbee suggests that feminism worsen its position immensely. The instant assumption that all women who strip for a living are exploited victims irks. If breast-feeding is nothing to be disgusted over or ashamed about where is the horror in exposing the body part utilised? Or sexual organs for that matter: unless they are inherently horrific what harm is done by revealing them for money? Besides, why presume that none of the women working in lapdancing venues are raging exhibitionists? Why endanger their perfect profession by attempting to destroy the establishments that employ them? And why attempt to ruin the lives of the lewd instead of having a conversation with them about your objections to their actions? Why not treat men, even those men that enjoy viewing nude flesh and are willing to pay, like rational beings?

Toynbee clearly wants the movement to become more like OutRage! than Stonewall and given her earlier words it was a true disappointment. She was almost there and yet slipped back into the sloppy, offensive auto-pilot that has left the movement she apparently cherishes to failure.

Her suggestion of a network of youth groups is more sound but even it’s proposed name is worrisome. “United Sisterhood”. Why leave the job half done? It seems that Toynbee has little interest in truly resolving the problem that presents itself: the senseless division of humanity into two, an artificial dichotomy that is wholly inadequate for a species so diverse. Consider this. Are these people hateful? Disdainful? Vile? Yes, all of these and more, but above all they are confused. Their minds have no means of dealing with something outside the tight, limited confines set for them from birth. Their only response is to lash out, flail out with baffled fury.

This can be dealt with, it can be altered. But we must do away with the fallacious notion that has gained much ground in recent years, with books like Women Are From Venus, Men Are From Mars and its countless acolytes. The notion that that which is present must always be so, will do well to comment on endlessly and establish as immutable. It has gained immense ground, partially through using a persecution as vicious as any radfem {constantly casting its claims as something which are clearly true but rarely stated due to it no longer being “Not politically correct” to say so, when the claims of inherent distinction fly heavily from all sides and the case for gender disintegration is very rarely made} and it seems that contemporary feminism is by no means up for its destruction.

Forty years on from those apparently halcyon days, perhaps we require something new. Preferably something that I can join in on without any funny looks.