Saturday, March 10, 2012

Femine Psychology and Its Inverse Relationship to Rationality

I've been watching some more of GirlWritesWhat videos over on Youtube and came across this video lecture by KellyJones00.  The summary of her lecture is, as follows:
Clear and simple lecture to outline how Woman, a psychocultural code of behaviour displayed by biological females, is in an inverse relationship to wisdom, aka rational enlightenment. Simply put: if you value the feminine, your capacity for spiritual knowledge is very low.
Now, her 9+ minute lecture is by no means a difinitive source and I haven't followed up on her sources - I recommend you do.  However, the premise which struck me as surprisingly blunt, is supported in a very well laid out argument.  The author argues that the femine identity and psychology seeks cohesion within the group, features emotion-centred, impulsive psychology, outward self-identification and a willingness to tell or accept lies for the benefit of emotional well-being.  Masculine psychology, on the other hand, values independance, logical deduction and truthfullness (necessary to survive due to their risk-taking nature).  I am trying to summarize rather quickly here, so, the points are not laid out exactly as presented in the video.

I was rather shocked to hear this coming from someone who describes herself as an expert on femine psychology, but, she does describe herself as a "rational female" as if distancing herself from fellow acedemics who tend to flaunt their femine nature as a sign of purity of thought and intentions.  She is basically arguing that for a woman to think rationally, she must embrace her masculine side and somewhat supress her natural femine inclinations.  I am reminded of GirlWritesWhat who admits that she is not exactly a femine woman - even describing herself as slightly gender-queer in one video.  Does her lack of femininity make GWW more rational and help her to see through the nonsensical ideas of feminism? 

Naturally, one could argue that Kelly Jones' description of femine are simply stereotypes we've grown to accept. This is why I'd like to explore her sources more deeply to discover how she supports these ideas.  However, from my experience, I'd agree with her.  Most of the women I find myself relating to best seem to have more masculine traits - consciously or unconsciously.  Even my wife is somewhat masculine in some aspects.  Maybe that's why she puts up with my rants at the dinner table.  So, I would opine that while femine traits reside more within the female gender, there are substantial numbers of women who naturally value more masculine aspects of their identities making them every bit as rational as any man.  GWW notes that these women are given less respect due to the policies enacted on behalf of feminism.

I do enjoy the company of femine women and I love the femine qualities of my wife.  However, I tend to get frustrated when I argue with femine-minded women who I find tend to follow the Very Nice Principals - support and show empathy with the most disadvantaged and/or cute group and make rich people and big business pay.  I find these tendancies to be the underpinning of vegetarianism, animal rights, anti-hunting groups, overzealous environmentalism and miriad other Very Nice Politics.  I was pleased to see a recent broadcast about Polar Bears and Richard Branson describe such misguided initiatives as "spray-on niceness".  (I can't find a clip of the actual quote but I did find a different one from the same network about the same issue.)

This tendancy toward Very Nice Politics fits in well with what Kelly Jones is saying.  Is Sandra Fluke more willing to lie about (or vastly embelish) Birth Control costing $1,000 per year due to her femine nature?  Is the feminized political climate more willing to accept her emotional, irrational arguments because it feels "nice" and it helps with cohesion in society to give in to women's "needs" and wants.  How far will we allow this detachment from reason go before we start to realize that making everyone feel good has a cost.


Sew a Word in Edgewise said...

I usually agree with most of what you say, however, in this case:
1. Who said that the masculine standard is the only standard? Women are different then men on average. While honesty and truth are good for some things, we certainly need white lies in order to exist as a society. Women find social interaction rewarding, and therefore will tend to "lie" or "be nice" in order to serve that purpose. I see nothing wrong with that in the appropriate context.
2. Men can be just as irrational as the female stereotype. I just had a conversation a few days ago with a man who insisted that an avocado does not cause you to gain more weight than bread because he "feels" better after eating an avocado (when in fact a single avocado has about 5 times as many calories than a slice of bread). What I'm trying to say here, is that most people have never been taught to think at all, much less think objectively or rationally. This is not a female problem, it's a stupidity problem. Men might not be manipulating statistics in order to get money for birth control, but they certainly are doing the same for other political or profit-oriented goals.
This is the same bias as point 1: manipulating data for a "male" purpose is OK, but manipulating data for a "female" purpose is somehow more evil.
By the way (and this is not directly relevant to the subject), I live in Israel and we get subsidized birth control AND subsidized abortions (though it's not easy - you have to get permission from a committee to get an abortion). But most of our health system is public, we've come to expect that all of our health needs be covered (I don't think anyone from the US can really appreciate what it's like walking into a hospital for whatever reason and not having to pay).

Cul-De-Sac Hero said...

Thanks for your comment, SWE.

To your first point, I never said that the masculine standard is the only standard. I simply expanded on Kelly Jones' arguments about the differences between feminine and masculine identities. Certainly, they are complementary and each has their benefits in certain realms, so, I will certainly concede that point. Although lieing happens all of the time in politics, I would not say that it is appropriate or acceptable. I would say that left leaning politicos will accept lies if the lies are on behalf of a "nice" sounding initiated (say, feeding the poor, helping disadvantaged, yada, yada) where as right leaning folks will be more willing to accept the lies if said on behalf of a "tough" sounding measure (tougher sentences for criminals, clamp-downs on drugs, yada, yada). Analysing the difference in lies from the left and right could be a whole blog in itself.

My suggestion is that Fluke appears to have been given a lot of credit for her bravery without the necessary criticism of her actual argument. I opine, that it is because of her feminity and the embracing of The Feminine by the liberal media and political establishment that her argument is being celebrated instead of ignored as it should if rigorous criticism were allowed. If lieing or "being nice" is the norm in the cut throat world of politics, then, we are moving further away from reason. It is all because, like I pointed out in an earlier post, girls like Fluke are allowed to throw snowballs, but, do not like to have snowballs thrown at them.

To your second point, I also never said that all men are rational. When I say that a woman can be as rational as any man, it means that any individual woman can be as rational as the most rational man - not men in general. Kelly Jones flatly rejects the Feminine Psychology as a means to understanding reality. Check out her posts about misogyny (an academic definition - NOT Hatred of women). Especially this one, where she defines feminine psychology and the need to reject it to better connect to reality). It's very interesting although some of her conclusions are not the same as what I would draw.

Anyways, I would firmly state that manipulating data for any reason is evil. However, it is not just the manipulation of data that is bothering me. It is the way in which feminists like Fluke manipulate the entire political realm. By taking a feminine posture, to ward off attack from any male, the left is shielding itself from harsh criticism. It is in this manner that they bastardize the notion of human rights and call any denouncement of their demands "hateful".

Being from Canada, where we have "Universal health care", I could not relate to the American system where your coverage may only work at certain hospitals and clinics fight for your business. However, I have come to appreciate some of the strengths of the American system, while opening my eyes to the glaring defects here due to the fervent belief in universality - the same care for everyone.

And finally, your friend may be suffering from a placebo affect of eating healthier food. Although avocados are high in calories, they are fairly low in carbs. Bread has a very high glycemic index causing many people to have insulin spikes. Also, wheat is highly inflammatory. I've been avoiding wheat and most grains and carbs on all but the occasional indulgence for about a year and have lost a lot of weight and feel better than I ever have in my life. So, although he may not be talking 100% rationally, he might have the right idea. It's not just about calories in/calories out.

Sew a Word in Edgewise said...

But what would we do without data manipulation? All of those news channels going out of business... How sad! :)
I'm way to busy to watch all of her videos (they are so long...), but I've watched a few and I get the general idea. From the small amount that I have watched, I feel the same about her as I feel about some of the writers in the manosphere - most of what they say is right, but I can't stand the tone, it's so unpleasant (and certainly much of feminist writing is the same).
Over the past year or so I have been rethinking my feminist identity, and I can identify very strongly with what you say about women wanting to be strong and independent, but still take no responsibility for their actions. I hate that.
Still, I feel that both feminists and non/anti feminists seem to think that being masculine is the only appropriate way to behave, and I dislike that just as much.
Unfortunately, the posts in my blog which are not about crafting are in Hebrew, so I can't just link to things I wrote about feminism, femininity etc, and also about the nutritional properties of avocado, bread and diet cola, so I'll just leave it at that. It's not really very important, as each person should decide what makes them feel good... :) :) :)
In any case, I enjoy your writing, so thanks :)

Cul-De-Sac Hero said...

But what would we do without data manipulation? All of those news channels going out of business... How sad! :)

LOL!!!! Indeed, entire government bureaus would have to close. Imagine the efficiency gains.

I think I need a whole new post to address this fully.