12.10.18

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 1

It is common to believe that there was a time when Feminism could be painted as trying to "balance the scales" between men and women. We believe this because when the raw emotion of it is put on display today, the instinct is to recoil and say "this is too far", as if there were some safer ideological ground that we could retreat to which was "just right".

The truth is that there can't ever be a true balance because that would require men and woman to be literal equals, which is literally impossible when you have a species that reproduces sexually instead of asexually.

Specifically, that because humans do not continue the species by separating a part of their own genetic code off of themselves and then that becomes another individual example of the species with the same exact genetic code, no two individuals are really going to be identical, and because there are differences between individuals, they are not equal. They are not the same.

Even simpler, because humans have sex to reproduce, men and women aren't the same.

This doesn't mean one is thus "better" than the other, we aren't stuck in a binary where either everyone is equal or someone has to be "superior" and someone else "inferior". One will be better at some things than the other, and vice versa, but since the combination of the things that both can do together is what is required for the continuation of the species, neither is then "more valuable" than the other. We need both men and women, and so both are valuable, in their different ways.

It is that difference which fuels the envy behind the rejection of this human dynamic that is seen ever so clearly in a recent opinion article published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

You can read the article first, but I'll also be reproducing it in posts as well.

Let's get started!

After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Stories of sexual trauma. Not legal accusations, not credible allegations, stories. The author wasn't even keen enough to use the word "accounts" to try and lend even a semblance of truth, but instead echoes the sentiment behind the "listen and believe" mantra, where even if the "stories" are fake, everyone needs to act as if they were true anyway.

Never mind that even in the Bible is documented at least one story where a woman makes a false sexual assault allegation in order to cover for her own indiscretions, the modern belief is apparently that women would never lie, or if they did never on something serious.

Except, of course, for when they do. Whether about age or number of sexual partners, the evidence that women lie is plentiful. Egalitarians will be quick to point out that men are liars as well, but that's not in question, and irrelevant. Worse, it can come off as trying to say that men also being liars makes women being liars less of a problem.

Put differently, "women aren't liars, and even if they were, men are too so only a hypocrite would point it out and you don't want to be a hypocrite, do you?"

Does that sound like the basis of a mature thought process? A reasonable argument, one that has weight to it because it is aligned with truth?

An excerpt from that last linked article:

"Modern women just can’t stop lying, but they do it to stop hurting other people’s feelings. It could be argued that these little white lies simply make the world go round a little more smoothly. But to tell a man a baby is his when it’s not, or to deliberately get pregnant when your partner doesn’t want a baby, is playing Russian roulette with other people’s lives."
Why is this so important? Because if Feminism was ever really about equality, then the "balance" would be that men and women both lie, they both do it in big and small situations, and they always do it because they think that telling the lie will benefit them in some way or another.

Instead, we now have stories being told which are to be believed simply because they were told by a woman, and to then accept on blind faith alone that the women telling them aren't lying without anything but the word of those very same women to trust, and then even if the story isn't true, we're all supposed to act as if it was anyway.

Frankly, that didn't work out well for Adam, and Eve wasn't even carrying around the baggage of a postmodern victim identity.

This doesn't even account for the deceptive body language of those telling the stories, because that is also a part of the story, and professionals at reading body language had a lot to say about the testimony about the most prominent accuser:


None of this is absolutely conclusive by itself, because whether spoken or not language and communication are somewhat subjective, but what it does is grant credence to doubt that the story is true, at some level. That there is a need for hard evidence, real proof, any corroboration at all, because people who behave in this manner are more often than not lying.

And that's not an uncommon problem when it comes to testimony.

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

Even the Bible in Deuteronomy says "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established." - Deut 19:15 (NKJV)

Now, the reason I am hammering this point before continuing to the rest of the article is because of the drama that this opening paragraph was intentionally drenched in. Slitting wrists? Stories flowing "like rivers of blood"? This is language meant to evoke an emotional response, not rational.

Right out of the gate the manipulation is meant to distract from what really happened, and the distractions continue throughout the rest of the NYT article, which we'll continue to look at in Part 2, because this post is already long.

No comments:

Post a Comment