This is a continuation of Part 2, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.
White Women, Come Get Your People
In Part 2 I continued on with the article and demonstrated that there is a binary being created with men on one side and women on the other. While my assertion of that binary may have seemed a stretch with only what was in the article up to that point, even the most skeptical will be satisfied in due time.
There's no way to unpack everything that's been said and what it means in a short fashion, this article just hits so many buttons at the same time.
Without further ado, let's continue the article a bit more.
They’re more sympathetic to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who actually shooed away a crowd of women and told them to “grow up.” Or Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose response to a woman telling him she was raped was: “I’m sorry. Call the cops.”
These are the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped. The kind of women who agree with President Trump that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America,” which he said during a news conference on Tuesday. But the people who scare me the most are the mothers, sisters and wives of those young men, because my stupid uterus still holds out some insane hope of solidarity.
Note that the behavior of the women "shooed away" doesn't matter. Note that telling a possible rape victim to do the very thing that would bring some measure of justice against her rapist is dismissed as being dismissive.
Note that the consequences of a false rape accusation are swept under the rug because "being raped" is so much worse. Note that the risks a man takes in associating with women, given how domestic abuse, family courts, and divorce laws are all tilted in favor of women, are meaningless.
Women who sympathize with the genuine struggles of men are "gender traitors". Women who agree with a man on how to handle a circumstance are "gender traitors". Women who notice the preferential legal treatment of women, and how other women can exploit that inappropriately and selfishly, are "gender traitors".
Because the article's author's uterus thinks that women are supposed to only agree with women. Or something. Let's continue the article a bit more.
We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their
racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by
voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they
have for decades. White women have broken for Democratic presidential
candidates only twice: in the 1964 and 1996 elections,
according to an analysis by Jane Junn,
a political scientist at the University of Southern California.
Right, so at this point we're more clearly talking about gender, not behavior, as the "problem". Specifically, about how white women didn't vote in ways that benefited non-white women. In case you doubt that this is a racial issue as well as a gender issue, just continue reading.
Women of color, and specifically black women, make the margin of
difference for Democrats. The voting patterns of white women and white
men mirror each other much more closely, and they tend to cast their
ballots for Republicans. The gender gap in politics is really a color
line.
Colored women want to dress slutty and vote Democrat, and so because since white women vote Republican and tell their daughters to dress modestly, they're "gender traitors" for choosing to align with white men instead of colored women because the colored women also have a uterus.
It gets better. Or worse, depending on your perspective.
That’s because white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their
whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain. In return they’re
placed on a pedestal to be “cherished and revered,” as Speaker Paul D.
Ryan has said about women, but all the while denied basic rights.
White women get married and their husbands work to provide for their wife and family, and in turn they're cherished and revered by their husbands and children. That's a bad trade because the white men are denying all women "basic rights".
The 19th amendment was adopted in 1920. Title IX has been in place since 1972. Which "basic rights" are being denied? We don't actually get to find out. For the same reason that the stories of sexual assault are to be believed and acted upon, the assertion that basic rights are being denied has to be taken as true at face value and then acted upon.
Even worse, let's look at the phrase "monopolize resources" in the context of taxes. Democrats support using taxes to put money where it needs to go on the premise that, left to their own devices, people would be too selfish to share their money. Republicans are already on the record as giving more charitably than Democrats, and so they favor fewer taxes and greater freedom on part of the individual family unit in deciding how to spend resources.
Guess which one of these paths is more attractive to someone who isn't married, doesn't have someone who would work hard towards their "mutual benefit", and believes that other people aren't sharing their money correctly and so they have to vote for people who will take that money and redistribute it by force?
At this point in the article, you have to realize that the politics and shaming are a clever front, a sham, a distraction from the real problem: the author simply can't find a man who wants her, and because of that, her politics reflect her need find a replacement for the role that men played to her "mutual benefit".
Think about it. Why would you have a problem with how someone else found happiness and contentment unless you cannot also take advantage of that opportunity because of choices someone else made without considering you? Why, other than envy, would someone try to tear down what others have built instead of building their own accomplishments instead?
Even in the secular world, the phrase "living well is the best revenge" holds some meaning, right?
This is the power of a victim identity over people. At no point can they ever stop being the victim, and not just them, but any who are demographically similar to them must also be victims, otherwise the demands being made would have no moral weight at all. If you've been wronged, you are supposed to seek justice, right? If a whole group of people have been wronged, then the scope of th justice scales, right?
It's the difference between a childish tantrum and a legitimate demand for justice, and oh boy, does it continue on in Part 4.
Showing posts with label Denial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Denial. Show all posts
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)