While perusing the comments over at r/mensrights, I came across a small exchange that opened my eyes a bit wider, hopefully I can get it all down before it goes away...
The exchange was between an Earnest Feminist(tm) and Typhonblue, and went as such:
The original post included this snippet
Which is all fine and good, but when the 'core issues' of why she was a feminist were queried, her response was:
Now, don't get me wrong, I think this woman really does think she 'cares about men'. I believe she really does feel like she has taken a look from the other side, and she really does think she is right smack in the middle between the opposing camps.
The reason for this is her gynocentric viewpoint. The actual need for, or validity of, her justification of taking the 'feminist' mantle is irrelevant. It is, after all, Rationalization Hamster once again doing his little dance. The point is really that she has declared for 'Team Woman', even while knowing what that team is doing to the men she cares so much about, and will find any rationalization acceptable to enable it (note her subtle conflation of 'feminist' with 'woman').
This is not to say she 'hates men', or even that she doesn't care about men. She is simply following her biological imperatives and acting in self interest. In Group Bias, as it's known, is well studied in its many forms....from familial to cultural, from racial to fanbase, this basic form of social organization is intrinsic to the human psyche. A way to quickly sort good from bad, or somesuch.
Gee, did I just say men do it too? Yes I did. And some of the greatest of these 'men' sign their names on documents called names like 'Constitution' and 'Bill of Rights' that were meant to guard against this sort of behaviour.
You see, the greatest threat is not that laws will be enacted to suppress certain groups directly...that would be far too obvious. Rather, that laws should be enacted to benefit everybody BUT the group one wishes to suppress. And this is accomplished through 'compassionate exceptions' to the rule of Law some of those Old White Men so carefully thought out.
This process can be seen, for example, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 15:
On the surface it seems so...compassionate, to make sure that rigid laws don't preclude the ability of government to help when needed. But the problem surfaced quickly...who gets to decide who 'deserves help'? And why is help based on Identity Politics rather than simple need?
This is where the gynocentrism of our original friendly feminist comes in again. When the government seeks to decide what to do with all it's power, sure it has an agenda of it's own, but a good portion of that power is directed where the public tells them to. At the very least, the public directs which issues they need to address (or bury) because they are in the public consciousness.
And when nearly everyone, men, women and children, are of a gynocentric nature...well, then you have U.S. elections being decided on who supports free birth control and/or who would be a better fuck. All while the economy tumbling into the shitter, the ranks of their army thinning from suicide, families disintegrating, and Hostess going out of business remain unremarked upon.
And their Constitution is in shreds.
It should be noted that the Canadian Charter of Rights was written in the 1980's....which is why it is 200 years more 'Progressive'. It was introduced by Pierre Trudeau, and along with the patriation of our Constitution (we had it shipped from England) damned near ripped Canada in half (night of the long knives) resulting in the Neverendum we Canadians enjoy to this day. As we do the other, more direct effects of this legislation.
It is the enabling of the 'some animals are more equal than others' that some of the more important Progressive legal documents allow, that is exploited with the use of gynocentric leanings. If the original feminist poster in question is guilty of anything, it is vanity. In this regard feminists have one criticism of the MRM right.
It is not the gynocentrism itself, but the Laws that empower it, that are the real culprit. To which I would add, it is not 'The System' that is at fault, but each individual that enables it. Our propensity to select 'in' and 'out' groups is blatantly obvious in all walks of life, at all stages....this 'flaw' in legal reasoning is yet another manifestation of gynocentric thinking...the 'Women are Wonderful' effect so often associated with White Knights.
It's not that they 'don't care about men', it's that they care about women a lot more. To the point of denying realities they find uncomfortable. Or more likely, to indifferently suggest 'someone do something'.
It is gynocentric thinking that is creating the Victim-Class Bubble that funds the social welfare state. It is gynocentric thinking that enables so much bad behaviour and outcomes, and gynocentric thinking that has destroyed the Sexual Marketplace...for women and the majority of men.
It is gynocentric thinking that is the Next Big Thing on the radar, and my prediction for the coming year is that society will be increasingly hostile to gynocentrism and Chivalric thinking.
Politically, I think the smarter newcomers to the game will increasingly accuse politicians of being feminist lapdogs. Socially, I think women will become increasingly bothered by the lack of regard they are given, and I think this year it will get so bad someone somewhere mainstreamey will finally admit some realities, that the rest of the mainstream will begrudgingly admit...my guess is this will revolve around marriage/divorce and demographic decline - primarily because those issues are central to the US recession.
I think fewer and fewer people are going to be willing to put up with 'well meaning' folk, both of the Feminist and Chivalric/White Knight bent, who want to help others with someone else's money. People will begin to make the connections between the groups 'qualifying', who is consistently left out of groups that 'qualify', and how pervasive these selections really are.
But it is important to guard against these tendencies in our own behaviour (we are, after all, mostly human), to recognize the destructiveness inherent in favouring these over those on the political level, to set the terms and standards and then live by them both when they help, AND when they hinder (especially when they hinder treating one group 'special').
In this new year of possibilities an even deeper understanding of what we face is in order, as the challenges we face will only intensify. Gynocentrism is our Achille's Heel...much as it is for society in general, and it is up to us to once again try to figure out a reasonable approach.
The exchange was between an Earnest Feminist(tm) and Typhonblue, and went as such:
The original post included this snippet
I'm not going to apologize for the feminist fuckery that happens- Just as you (if you are male) are not obligated to apologize for the evils your sex commits. But I just wanted to say thank you for opening my eyes, and helping me see that you guys have it rough too. And people aren't paying enough attention. And people will call you a misogynist or a supremacist if you try and speak.
Which is all fine and good, but when the 'core issues' of why she was a feminist were queried, her response was:
I mean, we all know there's inequality everywhere, right? As a female, I really feel passionate about helping female victims of rape that are told it's "their fault". And how our military has plenty of rape victims whose voices go unheard, 90% being female. Please do not take this as "I don't really care" about the other 10%, though!
Now, don't get me wrong, I think this woman really does think she 'cares about men'. I believe she really does feel like she has taken a look from the other side, and she really does think she is right smack in the middle between the opposing camps.
The reason for this is her gynocentric viewpoint. The actual need for, or validity of, her justification of taking the 'feminist' mantle is irrelevant. It is, after all, Rationalization Hamster once again doing his little dance. The point is really that she has declared for 'Team Woman', even while knowing what that team is doing to the men she cares so much about, and will find any rationalization acceptable to enable it (note her subtle conflation of 'feminist' with 'woman').
This is not to say she 'hates men', or even that she doesn't care about men. She is simply following her biological imperatives and acting in self interest. In Group Bias, as it's known, is well studied in its many forms....from familial to cultural, from racial to fanbase, this basic form of social organization is intrinsic to the human psyche. A way to quickly sort good from bad, or somesuch.
Gee, did I just say men do it too? Yes I did. And some of the greatest of these 'men' sign their names on documents called names like 'Constitution' and 'Bill of Rights' that were meant to guard against this sort of behaviour.
You see, the greatest threat is not that laws will be enacted to suppress certain groups directly...that would be far too obvious. Rather, that laws should be enacted to benefit everybody BUT the group one wishes to suppress. And this is accomplished through 'compassionate exceptions' to the rule of Law some of those Old White Men so carefully thought out.
This process can be seen, for example, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 15:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
On the surface it seems so...compassionate, to make sure that rigid laws don't preclude the ability of government to help when needed. But the problem surfaced quickly...who gets to decide who 'deserves help'? And why is help based on Identity Politics rather than simple need?
This is where the gynocentrism of our original friendly feminist comes in again. When the government seeks to decide what to do with all it's power, sure it has an agenda of it's own, but a good portion of that power is directed where the public tells them to. At the very least, the public directs which issues they need to address (or bury) because they are in the public consciousness.
And when nearly everyone, men, women and children, are of a gynocentric nature...well, then you have U.S. elections being decided on who supports free birth control and/or who would be a better fuck. All while the economy tumbling into the shitter, the ranks of their army thinning from suicide, families disintegrating, and Hostess going out of business remain unremarked upon.
And their Constitution is in shreds.
It should be noted that the Canadian Charter of Rights was written in the 1980's....which is why it is 200 years more 'Progressive'. It was introduced by Pierre Trudeau, and along with the patriation of our Constitution (we had it shipped from England) damned near ripped Canada in half (night of the long knives) resulting in the Neverendum we Canadians enjoy to this day. As we do the other, more direct effects of this legislation.
It is the enabling of the 'some animals are more equal than others' that some of the more important Progressive legal documents allow, that is exploited with the use of gynocentric leanings. If the original feminist poster in question is guilty of anything, it is vanity. In this regard feminists have one criticism of the MRM right.
It is not the gynocentrism itself, but the Laws that empower it, that are the real culprit. To which I would add, it is not 'The System' that is at fault, but each individual that enables it. Our propensity to select 'in' and 'out' groups is blatantly obvious in all walks of life, at all stages....this 'flaw' in legal reasoning is yet another manifestation of gynocentric thinking...the 'Women are Wonderful' effect so often associated with White Knights.
It's not that they 'don't care about men', it's that they care about women a lot more. To the point of denying realities they find uncomfortable. Or more likely, to indifferently suggest 'someone do something'.
It is gynocentric thinking that is creating the Victim-Class Bubble that funds the social welfare state. It is gynocentric thinking that enables so much bad behaviour and outcomes, and gynocentric thinking that has destroyed the Sexual Marketplace...for women and the majority of men.
It is gynocentric thinking that is the Next Big Thing on the radar, and my prediction for the coming year is that society will be increasingly hostile to gynocentrism and Chivalric thinking.
Politically, I think the smarter newcomers to the game will increasingly accuse politicians of being feminist lapdogs. Socially, I think women will become increasingly bothered by the lack of regard they are given, and I think this year it will get so bad someone somewhere mainstreamey will finally admit some realities, that the rest of the mainstream will begrudgingly admit...my guess is this will revolve around marriage/divorce and demographic decline - primarily because those issues are central to the US recession.
I think fewer and fewer people are going to be willing to put up with 'well meaning' folk, both of the Feminist and Chivalric/White Knight bent, who want to help others with someone else's money. People will begin to make the connections between the groups 'qualifying', who is consistently left out of groups that 'qualify', and how pervasive these selections really are.
But it is important to guard against these tendencies in our own behaviour (we are, after all, mostly human), to recognize the destructiveness inherent in favouring these over those on the political level, to set the terms and standards and then live by them both when they help, AND when they hinder (especially when they hinder treating one group 'special').
In this new year of possibilities an even deeper understanding of what we face is in order, as the challenges we face will only intensify. Gynocentrism is our Achille's Heel...much as it is for society in general, and it is up to us to once again try to figure out a reasonable approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment