Most of the time it is as easy as that…

No need to monger hysterical fears.

tumblr_mh091vXAyD1qdlh1io1_250

[Image found here]

Advertisements

“I love the culture of victimhood”

Calvin is a feminist by choice. Whaddayyakno…

victimhood
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
————————–
I consider this to fall under “fair use”. If you disagree, I shall take the image down.

Modern vs. Postmodern – when worlds collide

Just found an academic account of what is going wrong in post-modern academia.

Modern discourse

Following are ten key characteristics of modern discourse, what many professors and students even now consider the normal or standard way to think, study and argue in the academy:

  • “personal detachment from the issues under discussion,” the separation of participants’ personal identities from subjects of inquiry and topics of debate;
  • values on “confidence, originality, agonism, independence of thought, creativity, assertiveness, the mastery of one’s feelings, a thick skin and high tolerance for your own and others’ discomfort”;
  • suited to a heterotopic space like a university class, scholarly journal, or session of a learned society conference, a place apart much like a playing field for sports events, where competitors engage in ritual combat before returning with a handshake to the realm of friendly, personal interaction;
  • illustrated by debate in the British House of Commons;
  • epitomized by the debates a century ago between socialist G. B. Shaw and distributist G. K. Chesterton;
  • playfulness is legitimate: one can play devil’s advocate, speak tongue in cheek, overstate and use hyperbole, the object being not to capture the truth in a single, balanced monologue, but to expose the strengths and weaknesses of various positions;
  • “scathing satire and sharp criticism” are also legitimate;
  • the best ideas are thought to emerge from mutual, merciless probing and attacking of arguments, with resultant exposure of blindspots in vision, cracks in theories, inconsistencies in logic;
  • participants are forced again and again to return to the drawing board and produce better arguments;
  • the truth is understood not to be located in any single voice, but to emerge from the conversation as a whole.

Postmodern discourse

Over the past half century, a competing mode of discourse, the one I call postmodern, has become steadily more entrenched in academe. Following are ten of its hallmarks, as Roberts and Sailer describe on their blogs:

  • “persons and positions are ordinarily closely related,” with little insistence on keeping personal identity separate from the questions or issues under discussion;
  • “sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values”;
  • priority on “cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus”;
  • “seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge,” in the eyes of proponents of modern discourse;
  • tends to perceive the satire and criticism of modern discourse as “vicious and personal attack, driven by a hateful animus”;
  • is oriented to “the standard measures of grades, tests, and a closely defined curriculum”;
  • lacking “means by which to negotiate or accommodate such intractable differences within its mode of conversation,” it will “typically resort to the most fiercely antagonistic, demonizing, and personal attacks upon the opposition”;
  • “will typically try, not to answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely as ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.”;
  • has a more feminine flavor, as opposed to the more masculine flavor of modern discourse;
  • results in “stale monologues” and contexts that “seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers.”

Ever had a discussion with an average feminist? Then you’ll know exactly what they are talking about.

Read the whole thing here, it’s quite interesting.

The next time you hear of a girl being afraid…

..of all men, because all men all rapists or some such nonsense…

Just think of this image 🙂

tumblr_mh0hf47ESK1qdlh1io1_400

Most men are just as offensive and dangerous as the dog and the girls are as hysterical as the cat.

Values… male? female? human?

Values are the basis of a Moral system. Values are an important navigation point while drifting through life.
I remember from “Practical philosophy 101” (i.e. ‘ethics’) that most humans for a long time now have sought for objective or true values, some claim to have found one or more, but no two humans can agree which.

With this background I just read this:

…the 7 Army values (loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage) …

From an evolutionary standpoint I can easily understand how those values evolve in a group who has to completely rely on each other to survive even the next day. These truly are army values. An army that does not honour these values is a lot less efficient than one that does.

For those who don’t follow: I remember a scene from an old film (‘Captain Horatio Hornblower’ with Gregroy Peck) that pictures a naval fight between a highly disciplined crew on a small ship and a chaotic crew on a superiour ship. Even if that scene should not be historically accurate, it shows quite clearly how loyalty, duty, selfless service and personal courage can decide a battle.

I have never been to the army myself. The prospect of having to kill another person without me having a say in matter at that time, made me choose a different path in life. But somehow I subscribe to all those values (except perhaps the last one, I tend to be somewhat yellow from time to time).

They are deeply ingrained. If I have to search for an explanation I’d say that I played a LOT of soccer when I was young. My big brother taught me those values in the interest of winning the game.

This makes me wonder: Are these values male? What do we have in our societies that would teach those values to girls? What did women have from a evo-psych perspective to teach them these values?

Is it therefore, as most of the time, not only a matter of “teaching” but of “being predisposed”?

I’ll have to chew a bit more on that…

Why – short of a collapse of the system – feminism won’t die out

There are a few theories that try to explain why religion is so prevalent in all cultures in spite of all the logical impossibilities of practically any religion.
One observes that religion gives stability. Not only stability through membership in a group, but also by offering the Truth.

The more insecure you are in yourself the more enticing the promise of Truth becomes.

Most religions (and even most philosophies) claim to know the Truth.

Some like Daoism are rather vague: “There is a proper way to live but it’s not down to simple rules but depends on who, what and where you are. Be open to Everything and you might see at any given time what is the Way”.
You have to be rather stable yourself to build on that. All responsibility, after all, lies entirely on yourself.

Buddhism is similar but contains a promise. It promises that you may someday overcome all the ills of the world. The responsibility is still all yours. Thus, if you choose not to believe in the Buddha, that’s entirely OK. It’s your life after all and you harm mostly yourself.

Christianity on the other hand starts with the assumption that you are total crap* and only because God loves you anyways the stituation is not completely hopeless. You can’t save yourselves. Only God can save you. But he won’t unless you ardently believe in him and try to please him as much as you can. By adhering to the rules of a canon of contradicting scripture.

This is an interesting concept. It’s self-perpetuating. “What I tell you is the Truth! Believe me and you shall be saved. I’ll tell you things that logically contradict each other. Thus you may stay confused. But ‘confused’ is good! Logic is bad. Believing gives you certainty. Keep believing.”

As long as you believe you are absolved.

Feminism functions along similar lines.

It spends an enormous amount of effort to keep young people (girls, women) confused and afraid.

It tells them that any female is in immense danger of being oppressed, mutilated, raped, assaulted and discriminated against. But there is nothing the individual can do about it. The single female is too weak to cope with the world. She has no agency. She can only be saved in the long term by becoming a feminist herself.

It tells them that all men are bad, evil and dangerous. This is not much of a problem for a lesbian. But imagine the confusion in a girl that was taught to fear all men when she starts to physically long for them. Especially should she realize that it’s the big, strong men that give her the hots and not the small inoffensive ones.

Confusion galore. Where to turn to? To the dispenser of all truth and wisdom of course.

Browse through feminist tumblrs to see more confusion and clouded minds than I ever had thought possible.

Feminism has an interesting advantage over Christianity for the poor confused princess: Absolution is granted a priori due to the simple possession of the magic XX.
Where Chistianity tells you that you are crap be default and only through believe-work can you redeem yourself, feminism tells you that by being female alone you are good and innocent. Not you are bad but the world is bad. More to the point: The world as created by men is bad.

Is there better balm for a confused princess’s soul than someone telling you “It’s not your fault. Nothing is your fault. But you can change everything. Just sign here.”

How lucky for feminism that following would keep anyone confused.

*) If you need a source, just skim through Martin Luther’s 95 Theses.

Is any system of “sin” ever coherent?

I am not cut out to be a Christian.

But the long story…

I do enjoy reading Matt Forney’s blog. I think he’s mostly weird, very american (which for a european like me equals weird on occasion) but mostly original and sharp.
From his post I happened upon this blog, where someone says (my emphasis):

Look, I know that many, many men and boys spend too much time gaming. There are also many, many men and boys who spend too much time watching television, playing golf, or obsessing over sports (and sometimes all of the above) — you name the diversion, and you’ll find people who indulge in excess. But it’s a category error to equate games and porn. To do so exaggerates the danger of games and minimizes the evil of porn. So if I stay up too late Saturday night playing Diablo 3 (and I probable will!), is that remotely comparable to downloading porn? Simply put, overuse of video games is destructive. Any use of porn is sinful. What’s next? An article proclaiming that women are ruined by adultery and Pinterest?

I do not get it. Seriously. What is the logical or scriptural basis for condemning porn but hailing games, aggressive ones at that?

To wallow in my layman’s cluelessness, the seven deadly sins are:

  • Pride
  • Lust
  • Gluttony
  • Greed
  • Sloth
  • Wrath
  • Envy

Wikipedia adds some comments (emphasis mine):

Lust or lechery is an intense desire. It is usually thought of as excessive sexual wants, however the word was originally a general term for desire. Therefore lust could involve the intense desire of money, fame, or power as well.

Sloth (Latin, Socordia) can entail different vices. While sloth is sometimes defined as physical laziness, spiritual laziness is emphasized. Failing to develop spiritually is key to becoming guilty of sloth. In Christian faith, sloth rejects grace and God.
Sloth has also been defined as a failure to do things that one should do. By this definition, evil exists when good men fail to act.

[Pride] is identified as a desire to be more important or attractive than others, failing to acknowledge the good work of others, and excessive love of self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God).

I mention these only to indicate that in my book, if watching porn or playing computer games are sinful at all, they both are.

Porn yields only to Lust, obviously so. Gaming, especially online games, yields to Sloth (you have to fetch far to argue for spiritual development through gaming), Lust (the fame of being good) and Pride (in being better than others).

This is just another example why I have a problem with ideologies that try to formulate stern systems of Sin, be it “Thou shalt fornicate” or “Thou shalt not be sexist (unless you are a woman)”.

The only General Rule I can think of would be “Thou shalt remember that for everything there is a ‘too much’. Thus thou shalt not be excessive in anything you do (unless you have a really really – really – good reason for it)”

Porn is not evil. Never was. God made us horny.
Did you know that there is a strong inverse correlation between the number of (male on female) rapes and the availability of porn in an area?
Porn helps us stay good.
Porn does no more harm to people than anything else. On the contrary. It helps men keep the balance.
Excessive use of porn, now, that would be a different thing.

Because of the “excessive”, you see?

example for a feminist witch hunt

Yet another example that all ideologies are silencing, single-minded, intolerant and thus bad.
The return of the heretic.

Best quotes on the net … today: About privilege

What does “privilege-blind” mean?

It means that in the culture, each gender has/had both obligations and entitlements or benefits. When you live your whole life with certain entitlements, you usually don’t realize that you have them, or the ways you benefit from them, or that the other doesn’t have them and cannot benefit from them.

Most feminists call traditional male entitlements “privilege.” They call traditional female entitlements “benevolent sexism” (because, like most people who benefit from their entitlements, they can’t really see they have them). They call traditional female obligations “oppression.” They call traditional male obligations “rights” (i.e: the right to earn income, the right to be self-sufficient, which was actually an obligation men complied with or else–and still is) or “patriarchy hurts men too.”

girlwriteswhat

quoted from here.

Do women rape men?

Of course they do.

If ever someone should insist on an example, how about this one?

Watch her get derailed by the fact that in some muslim countries polygamy is not only legal but demanded of successful men. That will somehow become more important than the fact that those six wives raped their man to death.