12.10.18

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 2

This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing an opinion article published by the NYT:

White Women, Come Get Your People

In short, last post I presented that men and women aren't equal, but they're both valuable, because they're different and they both serve different roles that, together, are necessary. I also demonstrated why the dramatic opening to the article has tipped off the careful reader to know that it is not intended to be taken on merit of truth, because truth doesn't matter when you're told to "listen and believe" a story just because it has been told, despite there being precedent for stories being unreliable and blind trust exploitable that dates back thousands of years.

Now, rejection of these different roles is rooted in envy, because men and women are going to be valued by different things, and some things are going to be more obviously or easily held in higher regard than others, so in order to "right the wrong", or to "achieve equality", people deny that distinct roles are necessary at all, or seek to write new ones.

What then happens is that when folks repeatedly fail to have anyone adhere to their "new roles", by others or reality or natural consequences, they grow bitter. They don't learn from their failure, they project it out and blame someone else.

"Oh, if ___ did/didn't do ___ then I could totally have ___! I now hate ___ and so you should you for being so mean and oppressive as to prevent me from being able to ___!"

Does that pattern seem familiar? It's how one affirms that they're just fine and the problems are with everyone, or everything, else. It's a type of solipsism, a manifestation of the belief that the individual is the center of the universe, the most important person there is, and screw you for defying the commands of your god. Or, to suit the times, goddess.

It's just as mature as the bossy child on the playground who believed it was their duty to tell everyone else how they're supposed to be playing, only now that childish mind also has leverage in the legal system and access to tools with which to try and assert their will on others.

The article from the NYT demonstrates this in an attempt to use identity politics to shame women into behaving differently. This is seen in the title, as well as where we pick up in the article.

With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end

These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out. 

"Gender traitors." Really think about that term for a second. Selling out "the sisterhood"?

If ever there was doubt that "Feminism" was not just an anti-men movement intent on complete feminine dominance, phrases like this should at least fuel an understanding of why that framing came about.

Even taking the term at face value, traitors in what sense? What "battle" is there between the sexes that could cause women to be considered a "traitor" to other women? What cause, what noble goal could be pursued so passionately that women who don't immediately believe other women and who tell their daughters to dress more modestly are considered "traitors"?

We get a hint in the label "patriarchy". While not really defined, it does set up a binary. If one "side" is "the patriarchy", and treason is based on which gender you "side" with, then the "other side" is then inevitably "the matriarchy."

Feminine dominance, in other words. That's the only possible alternative because if the "lines" are drawn based on gender, and those genders are based on biological distinctions, and the most significant biological distinction is between males and females, then the alternative to male dominance is thus female dominance.

Were the lines being drawn on behavior, or people taking on particular roles, or on issues with dominance itself, then both the social and written laws would seek to destroy dominance wherever it shows up, demonstrated by man or woman, because the problem is "dominance" and "oppression" and "inequality".

If men erred because they were unfairly dominant, and the problem is in the dominance and not men, then the target would be manifestations of dominance, and not men, right?

But then what does how a woman dresses play into this? Why would female modesty, where women are exposing less of themselves to the apparently depraved and salacious eyes of men, be "bad", a sign that you are a traitor to your gender?

Because women don't want to deny what they are. It's only men who need to change, who had a role that was incorrect. Thus, it's not about the dominance itself being a problem at all, it's about men being a problem, and that leads to the secular denial of the significance of men in the most basic priority in any creature: continuation of the species.

And the article is only just getting started. Continued in Part 3.

No comments:

Post a Comment