As absurd as it may sound,
the war on masculinity is going to destroy the very feminine. And that would
ultimately lead to the destruction of women's many acquired rights. Men are
masculine for a reason, that is, they have acquired masculine traits through a
complex process during a tremendous amount of time. Nature shaped men to be
masculine, not to oppress anybody, but quite the opposite, men's masculine
traits major purpose is the protection of their wives, tribe and offspring.
Today's society is organized artificially -- that is, we no longer have the
state of spontaneous order -- and that's why feminists fail to see the purpose
of masculinity and rather view it as a threat to equality. Now, it is our
organized institutions that are supposed to protect everybody and no one expects
anything from a man, but, ironically, nature is nature and unconsciously expect
men to be men.
Again, it is the genius of Nietzsche that opened our eyes to the fatal mistake of thinking that the thing and its opposite are exclusive. Feminists are misguided by their ignorance that for women to be equal, and to acquire equal rights as men, they somehow should attack masculine values and the traditional structure of institutions, because, in their view, these values/institutions are what are excluding women from being equal to men. Some of them are aware that the thing originates in its opposite, -- i.e. men are masculine because women are feminine and the other way around --and they are managing to pursue another plan: to attack both the feminine and the masculine -- no wonder almost all feminists are either females with masculine traits or males with no masculinity at all and both are excluded from the mating market. The problem of these social constructionists -- since being man or woman is a mere social construct according to their view (RIP science) -- is that they want to mess with the current structure of social institutions artificially using the power of legislation. They want to end the patriarchy. This is a mistake -- a disastrous mistake, because this view does not take into account the future consequences of what might happen. The prediction concerning very complex social phenomena is very difficult and usually one ends getting the opposite of what he had been planning. To view men and women as blank pages that are easy to write whatever you want on them is absolutely stupid and naive. We are humans and far complex than mere machines or parts of a chess game to be messed with. I am very concerned that their plans will lead to the opposite of what they think: instead of reducing violence in society, we'll have more totalitarianism and more violence. Instead of harmony, equality and respect, we'll have chaos, discrimination and oppression. Please note that I am not stating whether men or women who will suffer more from these malicious sicknesses because obviously everybody will suffer.
Feminists think that if the distinction among males and females is removed from language and social institutions, then, necessarily, the systematic sexism would be vanished. I don't buy that, and I think this is an over simplistic way to look at both men and women and it deprives them from any meaning that they might wish to pursue. Our subjective wellbeing (anyways, any wellbeing is subjective) depends partly on how our psyches are shaped evolutionary. And any deviations from our nature might result in a negative impact on our wellbeing.
My problem with feminism is that it thinks that it can use the power of the law and legislation to achieve its ends. Without any scientific research whatsoever on how all this drama will end, they expect a utopian egalitarianism between men and women. Men and women are not the same to be compared in the first place. And speaking of equality is misleading. When I say equality I mean that the law should be indifferent regarding our sex but feminists talk about equality of outcome which I think is almost impossible to be achieved and we have strong evidence for that. Needless to say, I definitely think that the law should deal with people only as individuals. Feminists don't want to let the society function according to its spontaneous order. If men and women are really neutralized from any social construct, and then left to behave naturally, they surely will end up in a structure similar to the one we have today and any interruption with this spontaneous order can only result in a worse off situation for both women and men.
To where feminism is taking us is beyond my scope of knowledge, but there is a number of things that are absolutely clear where they're leading us. I see nature as a corrector of the deviations from the path that it is writing for us. Once we deviate from its ultimate purpose, we shall be willing to bear the correcting consequences. Attacking masculinity will certainly destabilize males. They'll no longer feel satisfied with the new altered situation. That is, the male psyche is primarily shaped for specific ends, and how it functions to achieve those ends is the problem feminism can't see. Males are designed to be competitive and today's enforced equality is holding them off. Males are less and less likely to get into higher studies and this is a problem. A society of failing men is a society of violence. The resentment that men will feel when they are in the lower level of social hierarchy will certainly push them to be aggressive and criminal and especially toward women. That is because they are judged very badly by women. Why a woman would want to bother with a loser? If men suffer, women suffer too. I've never seen a man who's successful interrupting anybody's way but losers do it all the time. Feminism now instead of looking for the root of our problems, they seek to mess with legislation and make things only worse childishly. They may cure for the very short run few problems but in the long run things are certainly becoming worse.
Feminists are neither driven by logic or science nor the desire for real equality; and I will not advance the arguments pushed by many alt right and men's rights movements to counter feminists pretensions of equality, since these arguments are ridiculous as well. Some men's movements usually state, whenever feminists ask for equality in high paying jobs, that it is men who do the uneasy risky hard jobs and therefore equality for women means sharing men these jobs: men drive huge machines, and build huge buildings, roads, bridges and almost everything, that is, according to men's rights movements, men literally created civilization. Of course I don't say that activists of men’s movements are wrong when stating these things. And they are right when they say that this is hard work, how could that be a "white privilege"? My problem with these movements is that they are as stupid as feminists. The reason that I don't buy this is that, just like feminists, they think of people as part of a group (males or females) and I think of people only as individuals.
I think through this little essay I have succeeded to show that we can only speak of human rights -- human natural rights.
Again, it is the genius of Nietzsche that opened our eyes to the fatal mistake of thinking that the thing and its opposite are exclusive. Feminists are misguided by their ignorance that for women to be equal, and to acquire equal rights as men, they somehow should attack masculine values and the traditional structure of institutions, because, in their view, these values/institutions are what are excluding women from being equal to men. Some of them are aware that the thing originates in its opposite, -- i.e. men are masculine because women are feminine and the other way around --and they are managing to pursue another plan: to attack both the feminine and the masculine -- no wonder almost all feminists are either females with masculine traits or males with no masculinity at all and both are excluded from the mating market. The problem of these social constructionists -- since being man or woman is a mere social construct according to their view (RIP science) -- is that they want to mess with the current structure of social institutions artificially using the power of legislation. They want to end the patriarchy. This is a mistake -- a disastrous mistake, because this view does not take into account the future consequences of what might happen. The prediction concerning very complex social phenomena is very difficult and usually one ends getting the opposite of what he had been planning. To view men and women as blank pages that are easy to write whatever you want on them is absolutely stupid and naive. We are humans and far complex than mere machines or parts of a chess game to be messed with. I am very concerned that their plans will lead to the opposite of what they think: instead of reducing violence in society, we'll have more totalitarianism and more violence. Instead of harmony, equality and respect, we'll have chaos, discrimination and oppression. Please note that I am not stating whether men or women who will suffer more from these malicious sicknesses because obviously everybody will suffer.
Feminists think that if the distinction among males and females is removed from language and social institutions, then, necessarily, the systematic sexism would be vanished. I don't buy that, and I think this is an over simplistic way to look at both men and women and it deprives them from any meaning that they might wish to pursue. Our subjective wellbeing (anyways, any wellbeing is subjective) depends partly on how our psyches are shaped evolutionary. And any deviations from our nature might result in a negative impact on our wellbeing.
My problem with feminism is that it thinks that it can use the power of the law and legislation to achieve its ends. Without any scientific research whatsoever on how all this drama will end, they expect a utopian egalitarianism between men and women. Men and women are not the same to be compared in the first place. And speaking of equality is misleading. When I say equality I mean that the law should be indifferent regarding our sex but feminists talk about equality of outcome which I think is almost impossible to be achieved and we have strong evidence for that. Needless to say, I definitely think that the law should deal with people only as individuals. Feminists don't want to let the society function according to its spontaneous order. If men and women are really neutralized from any social construct, and then left to behave naturally, they surely will end up in a structure similar to the one we have today and any interruption with this spontaneous order can only result in a worse off situation for both women and men.
To where feminism is taking us is beyond my scope of knowledge, but there is a number of things that are absolutely clear where they're leading us. I see nature as a corrector of the deviations from the path that it is writing for us. Once we deviate from its ultimate purpose, we shall be willing to bear the correcting consequences. Attacking masculinity will certainly destabilize males. They'll no longer feel satisfied with the new altered situation. That is, the male psyche is primarily shaped for specific ends, and how it functions to achieve those ends is the problem feminism can't see. Males are designed to be competitive and today's enforced equality is holding them off. Males are less and less likely to get into higher studies and this is a problem. A society of failing men is a society of violence. The resentment that men will feel when they are in the lower level of social hierarchy will certainly push them to be aggressive and criminal and especially toward women. That is because they are judged very badly by women. Why a woman would want to bother with a loser? If men suffer, women suffer too. I've never seen a man who's successful interrupting anybody's way but losers do it all the time. Feminism now instead of looking for the root of our problems, they seek to mess with legislation and make things only worse childishly. They may cure for the very short run few problems but in the long run things are certainly becoming worse.
Feminists are neither driven by logic or science nor the desire for real equality; and I will not advance the arguments pushed by many alt right and men's rights movements to counter feminists pretensions of equality, since these arguments are ridiculous as well. Some men's movements usually state, whenever feminists ask for equality in high paying jobs, that it is men who do the uneasy risky hard jobs and therefore equality for women means sharing men these jobs: men drive huge machines, and build huge buildings, roads, bridges and almost everything, that is, according to men's rights movements, men literally created civilization. Of course I don't say that activists of men’s movements are wrong when stating these things. And they are right when they say that this is hard work, how could that be a "white privilege"? My problem with these movements is that they are as stupid as feminists. The reason that I don't buy this is that, just like feminists, they think of people as part of a group (males or females) and I think of people only as individuals.
I think through this little essay I have succeeded to show that we can only speak of human rights -- human natural rights.
Those envious full of
hatred and resentment who speak about equality in high paying jobs need to be
schooled in basic economics.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire