Men are less sensitive than women. Indeed, it is a common criticism that men are not sensitive enough, as if this were some sort of personal choice - but it's not. It's just that nature made men this way.
Not all men are insensitive, just as not all women are sensitive. Whatever the rule, there are always exceptions. There is, then, a minority group of sensitive men.
Here's where the irony begins. Women have long complained about men, and feminism has clothed these complaints with political rhetoric (equality, justice, etc), as if these moans emanated from a higher ideological plane.
The targets of these complaints are those insensitive men whose insensitivity rubs women up the wrong way. But, of course, these men are insensitive, so the complaints about their insensitivity don't actually register with them. They don't feel the pinpricks to their conscience, because this is the whole point to insensitivity. It's an armour that shrugs off the stones and arrows of life. It's a thick skin.
Sensitive men, on the other hand, hear those complaints and take them to heart. Because they have thinner skin. And they either feel guilty and become feminists themselves, nurturing the force that attacks them, or they take umbrage and counterattack the feminists.
This turns into a comedy. The thin skinned men lash out at feminists. The feminists see this as proof of rampant male misogyny and demonstrate their outrage. The thin skinned men they are attacking are in fact the very men that feminists would allegedly like men to be - sensitive. But it's that very sensitivity that now makes them feminism's greatest enemy.
Thick skinned men, on the other hand, shrug and move on, unable to see what the fuss is about. They don't understand why women need to be so thin skinned about things, and they don't see thin skinned men as real men - because they appear to be as petulant and thin skinned as women. So they leave the stage, while feminists and thin skinned men - natural allies - fight to the death.
Thin skinned men who hear feminist attacks on men assume that they themselves are the targets. Again, that is a feature of sensitivity.
Thin skinned women (the majority of women) hear the counterattacks on feminists and, because they are sensitive, assume they themselves are the targets. They may not have a single clue about the ideological aspects of feminism. They may not label themselves as feminists. But when they see one woman attacked they assume all women are under attack. Thus do women band together in outrage when one of their number is slighted.
Men do not band together in the same way, simply because the majority of them do not really feel threatened, and don't feel the need to make common cause with those who do.
This is why men don't appear to be able to defend themselves against feminism. Those that do are quickly outnumbered and, because they are sensitive, emotionally wounded. Thicker skinned men don't see that there's anything to defend against.
The ideology of feminism is a lie. Quite simply, there is no coherent ideology. All it is is a mass of sensitivities disguised as reason.
The ideology of feminism has been described in generational phases. There is first wave feminism, second wave, third wave, fourth wave, etc. This just shows that there is no ideology. Each generation of women, from mother to daughter, reinterprets feminism to suit themselves with little regard to what went before.
Liberalism is based on the writings of notable philosophers like Kant and Mills. Marxism goes back to the writings of Marx. Feminism has no touchstone, other than what women feel at any given time. Feminism is made up as it goes along. Women cherry-pick the bits of feminism they want and spit out the rest. Women feel that this is their right.
Women feel that everything is their right. Their greater innate sensitivity defines their need. They will vociferously feed and defend that need just as they would feed and defend their offspring. This is not a personal choice. Nature made women this way.
Sensitivity is not distributed equally among the sexes. It never will be. It is neither a gift nor a burden. It is no more a virtue than a womb or testosterone. It's just a biological fact.
The gender war is a comedy of errors and misunderstandings. It will never end.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Bigotry
We often see bigotry when it's naked and on view, but the truth is, most bigotry is hidden. People will sometimes admit to a bias, but they will never admit to a bigotry, even though the two are related.
Bigotry is often paraded behind a mask. The mask lends respectability, and is therefore a lie.
In the middle ages, that mask was Christianity. Christianity itself was not the lie, just the way it was sometimes used. People wearing the mask of Christianity thus exercised their bigotry of Jewish bankers, poor people with their pagan revelling and foreign people with darker skin.
In the twentieth century, that mask was Science. Science itself was not the lie, just the way it was sometimes used. The targets thus were Jewish bankers and their inheritable cunning, poor people and their overt willingness to breed (sterilisation recommended) and dark skinned people with their scientifically proven inferior skull dimensions.
After World War II, all the above was debunked, yet somehow continued.
For instance, contemporary anti-capitalist protesters target bankers (the 1%, many Jewish and grasping), the poor (the dumb masses who are just consumerist slaves) and white skinned people (because white skinned people are naturally superior and should just lay off the dark skinned people, who are too stupid to help themselves). The mask in this case is Social Justice, and it can be used to hide any number of vengeful thoughts.
Social Justice is a virtuous cause, but then so was Christianity and Science.
Whenever you witness a self-righteous attack, whether from the Left, the Right, the Religious or the Secular, you can be sure that there is a form of bigotry behind it.
Some people think that the world is over-populated because the poor are eating too much and breeding too much (Environmentalists, Birth Control Advocates).
Some people think Muslims are violent terrorists and will always kill non-Muslims - because they hate them - and other Muslims - because they don't know any better (Islamaphobes, Evangelists, Secularists).
Some people think that urban cosmopolitans are superior, that rural religious people are inbred, over-bred and mentally deficient, and that the presence of scientifically created technologies like Twitter and Facebook will ensure that cosmopolitan values remain dominant, especially if adopted by brown skinned foreigners protesting their obviously inept and incompetent brown skinned governments (Smug People Generally).
Some people think that women are stupid and don't know how to run the world.
Some people think that men are stupid and don't know how to run the world.
Some people think that naked bigotry is ugly and that the donning of the right mask (and the right mask, as opposed to the wrong mask, is dictated by the fashions of the day) can make that which is ugly, virtuous and beautiful instead.
But the truth is, it remains bigotry. And all masks are just fashion accessories.
See behind the mask if you can.
Bigotry is often paraded behind a mask. The mask lends respectability, and is therefore a lie.
In the middle ages, that mask was Christianity. Christianity itself was not the lie, just the way it was sometimes used. People wearing the mask of Christianity thus exercised their bigotry of Jewish bankers, poor people with their pagan revelling and foreign people with darker skin.
In the twentieth century, that mask was Science. Science itself was not the lie, just the way it was sometimes used. The targets thus were Jewish bankers and their inheritable cunning, poor people and their overt willingness to breed (sterilisation recommended) and dark skinned people with their scientifically proven inferior skull dimensions.
After World War II, all the above was debunked, yet somehow continued.
For instance, contemporary anti-capitalist protesters target bankers (the 1%, many Jewish and grasping), the poor (the dumb masses who are just consumerist slaves) and white skinned people (because white skinned people are naturally superior and should just lay off the dark skinned people, who are too stupid to help themselves). The mask in this case is Social Justice, and it can be used to hide any number of vengeful thoughts.
Social Justice is a virtuous cause, but then so was Christianity and Science.
Whenever you witness a self-righteous attack, whether from the Left, the Right, the Religious or the Secular, you can be sure that there is a form of bigotry behind it.
Some people think that the world is over-populated because the poor are eating too much and breeding too much (Environmentalists, Birth Control Advocates).
Some people think Muslims are violent terrorists and will always kill non-Muslims - because they hate them - and other Muslims - because they don't know any better (Islamaphobes, Evangelists, Secularists).
Some people think that urban cosmopolitans are superior, that rural religious people are inbred, over-bred and mentally deficient, and that the presence of scientifically created technologies like Twitter and Facebook will ensure that cosmopolitan values remain dominant, especially if adopted by brown skinned foreigners protesting their obviously inept and incompetent brown skinned governments (Smug People Generally).
Some people think that women are stupid and don't know how to run the world.
Some people think that men are stupid and don't know how to run the world.
Some people think that naked bigotry is ugly and that the donning of the right mask (and the right mask, as opposed to the wrong mask, is dictated by the fashions of the day) can make that which is ugly, virtuous and beautiful instead.
But the truth is, it remains bigotry. And all masks are just fashion accessories.
See behind the mask if you can.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Individualism vs Community Responsibility
"The truth is, for most of human history, women have been devising ways
to pull men away from individualism and into family and community. This
is an absolute priority for women when children come along – men are
needed to protect and provide. The reality is men can get along pretty
well on their own, and that is as true now as it ever was."
Laura Perrins
Perhaps it is no surprise that prominent men during the Enlightenment advocated personal liberty and turned it into an attractive philosophy. It is natural, though perhaps ironic, that women came to demand liberty too, further freeing men from the constraints and responsibility of family-centred culture. Women demanded the freedom to have sex whenever they wanted without the social tutting, and demanded the right to raise children alone without the social shame. This too has suited men who get to have it both ways and who no longer feel the social pressure to 'settle down' and 'do the right thing'. The State has taken over the position of providing for women now, but that is so impersonal and disatisfying that women are perhaps beginning to feel the loss.
Women get to do well out of classical liberalism and feminism - provided they live like men.
Laura Perrins
Perhaps it is no surprise that prominent men during the Enlightenment advocated personal liberty and turned it into an attractive philosophy. It is natural, though perhaps ironic, that women came to demand liberty too, further freeing men from the constraints and responsibility of family-centred culture. Women demanded the freedom to have sex whenever they wanted without the social tutting, and demanded the right to raise children alone without the social shame. This too has suited men who get to have it both ways and who no longer feel the social pressure to 'settle down' and 'do the right thing'. The State has taken over the position of providing for women now, but that is so impersonal and disatisfying that women are perhaps beginning to feel the loss.
Women get to do well out of classical liberalism and feminism - provided they live like men.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Markets follow - they do not lead.
"First, we believed in the theology of development, only to see development founder on corruption and the incapacity of weak state structures to develop honest government and equitable programmes for growth.
"Then we told ourselves globalisation itself - capitalism's sheer voracious dynamism - would bring prosperity and order in its wake. But markets alone cannot create order: markets require order if they are to function efficiently, and the only reliable provider of order - law, procedure, safety and security - is the state.
"A globalised economy cannot function without this structure of authority and coercive power, and where it breaks down markets break down, and crime, chaos and terror take root in the rotten, unpoliced interstices.
"Prophets of the benefits of global market integration have been foolish enough to envisage a future world that does away with the need for the state. But large corporations will not patrol the street corners. They will not provide the schools, roads and hospitals that distinguish society from the jungle. Only states can provide these goods."
Michael Ignatieff
Empire Lite (2003)
"Then we told ourselves globalisation itself - capitalism's sheer voracious dynamism - would bring prosperity and order in its wake. But markets alone cannot create order: markets require order if they are to function efficiently, and the only reliable provider of order - law, procedure, safety and security - is the state.
"A globalised economy cannot function without this structure of authority and coercive power, and where it breaks down markets break down, and crime, chaos and terror take root in the rotten, unpoliced interstices.
"Prophets of the benefits of global market integration have been foolish enough to envisage a future world that does away with the need for the state. But large corporations will not patrol the street corners. They will not provide the schools, roads and hospitals that distinguish society from the jungle. Only states can provide these goods."
Michael Ignatieff
Empire Lite (2003)
Holy Roman EU
The European Union has been steadily expanding eastwards since the Berlin Wall came down. It has recently incorporated Bulgaria and Romania, and has been lapping up against Ukraine's borders for some time. It was the EU's attempt to suck the Ukraine into its orbit that has caused the civil strife now taking place there.
What is with the EU's need to expand? Is it the need to acquire Eastern Europe's resources?
Uh, what resources?
Perhaps it is the economic potential of these partners.
Yeah, right. Bulgaria and Romania are basket cases, as is the Ukraine, and they only thing they've provided so far is cheap labour immigrants and extra votes for far-right parties in France, Holland, etc.
Viewed on the map, it looks like empire building. But it's an empire without an army - remove the US from NATO and what is left is not impressive. Or even united. But Europe's military has played no part in the EU's expansion. The only other empire that expanded like this was the Holy Roman Empire.
The Holy Roman Empire was created by the Catholic church in Rome, virtually picking up from where the collapsed Roman empire left off, hence the name. It was essentially a cabal of popes and cardinals in Rome calling on European leaders to act on its behalf, rather like the EU bureaucracy in Brussels. And like the EU, it had no army of its own. Yet it controlled much of eastern Europe and later, via the Habsburgs, much of the world (as it was known then).
Quite why the EU wishes to emulate the Holy Roman Empire (whose remnants only disappeared with Austria's defeat in WW1) is not really clear, any more than why the popes felt the need to copy the Roman emperors. But the parallels between the EU and the empire of the popes are striking. Including, curiously enough, religion.
On paper, the EU is about trade, right? Which is to say, its all about business and the bottom line: profit. That makes sense. So why is the EU hoovering up all these poor eastern European states (and retaining poor southern European states) which will cost the EU a lot but contribute little? And why did the EU keep turning down Turkey for EU membership, even when it was being labelled as a rising player in the world markets?
Because eastern Europe is Christian and Turkey is Muslim.
That answer may not make sense in these modern, secular times, but it is essentially what we have. The EU rebuffed Turkey several times, yet has sent its envoys to court the Ukraine and encourage the toppling of its elected anti-EU government, even though Ukraine has a declining population, few resources and economy that makes Greece look solvent, with a debt to match. Without Russian assistance, the country will be bankrupt in months.
But still the EU considers it worth provoking Russia for.
The popes and the Habsburgs over-reached, draining their resources on expansion, wars and maintenance of territory. It fell into decline in the face of its rivals in England and Holland, was torn apart by protestant challenges and eventually faded from history.
One wonders what will become of the EU and its cardinals in Brussels. It already faces growing demands for autonomy within its provinces, its prosperity depends almost entirely on the German economy and it is unable to project itself militarily to protect its interests unless it aligns itself with the US. It depends on Russia for its energy and on African and Asian immigration to prop up its aging population.
The popes used to pray. EU bureaucrats might also want to pray, but they need to be careful of what they pray for.
What is with the EU's need to expand? Is it the need to acquire Eastern Europe's resources?
Uh, what resources?
Perhaps it is the economic potential of these partners.
Yeah, right. Bulgaria and Romania are basket cases, as is the Ukraine, and they only thing they've provided so far is cheap labour immigrants and extra votes for far-right parties in France, Holland, etc.
Viewed on the map, it looks like empire building. But it's an empire without an army - remove the US from NATO and what is left is not impressive. Or even united. But Europe's military has played no part in the EU's expansion. The only other empire that expanded like this was the Holy Roman Empire.
The Holy Roman Empire was created by the Catholic church in Rome, virtually picking up from where the collapsed Roman empire left off, hence the name. It was essentially a cabal of popes and cardinals in Rome calling on European leaders to act on its behalf, rather like the EU bureaucracy in Brussels. And like the EU, it had no army of its own. Yet it controlled much of eastern Europe and later, via the Habsburgs, much of the world (as it was known then).
Quite why the EU wishes to emulate the Holy Roman Empire (whose remnants only disappeared with Austria's defeat in WW1) is not really clear, any more than why the popes felt the need to copy the Roman emperors. But the parallels between the EU and the empire of the popes are striking. Including, curiously enough, religion.
On paper, the EU is about trade, right? Which is to say, its all about business and the bottom line: profit. That makes sense. So why is the EU hoovering up all these poor eastern European states (and retaining poor southern European states) which will cost the EU a lot but contribute little? And why did the EU keep turning down Turkey for EU membership, even when it was being labelled as a rising player in the world markets?
Because eastern Europe is Christian and Turkey is Muslim.
That answer may not make sense in these modern, secular times, but it is essentially what we have. The EU rebuffed Turkey several times, yet has sent its envoys to court the Ukraine and encourage the toppling of its elected anti-EU government, even though Ukraine has a declining population, few resources and economy that makes Greece look solvent, with a debt to match. Without Russian assistance, the country will be bankrupt in months.
But still the EU considers it worth provoking Russia for.
The popes and the Habsburgs over-reached, draining their resources on expansion, wars and maintenance of territory. It fell into decline in the face of its rivals in England and Holland, was torn apart by protestant challenges and eventually faded from history.
One wonders what will become of the EU and its cardinals in Brussels. It already faces growing demands for autonomy within its provinces, its prosperity depends almost entirely on the German economy and it is unable to project itself militarily to protect its interests unless it aligns itself with the US. It depends on Russia for its energy and on African and Asian immigration to prop up its aging population.
The popes used to pray. EU bureaucrats might also want to pray, but they need to be careful of what they pray for.
Rubber Band Feminism
The home was always the woman's domain - her nest, her secret garden, her spiritual base. Feminism set out to change that. It called upon women to step out into the world and contest men for its dominance. It asked them to see beyond the kitchen sink and to expand their horizons.
That was then. What does feminism call for now? For men to come back and help them with the housework.
Stretch a rubber band and it always returns.
That was then. What does feminism call for now? For men to come back and help them with the housework.
Stretch a rubber band and it always returns.
The Paradox
21st Century Feminism:
"I want equal treatment, I want deference and I want special protection. What do you mean that's contradictory? Why can't I have it all?"
"I want equal treatment, I want deference and I want special protection. What do you mean that's contradictory? Why can't I have it all?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)