Monday, March 19, 2012

Feminine Psychology cont.

Commenter Sew A Word In Edgewise has raised some very good points about my post on Feminine Psychology.  I was inspired to write that post by YouTube Video Blogger KellyJones00.  I started to respond and ... well, here it is.  Please tell me that I haven't gone off the deep end here.
SWE's comment:
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
Well, this is the crux of the whole issue.  It really deserves a full post.  The feminist myth is that The Female is undervalued in society while, in actuality, it has always been valued higher than The Male, evidenced by the protections females garner.  However, feminism has tried to attack masculinity and “male-dominated” realms and encouraging women to take a more masculine identity, thereby devaluing feminine psychology.    On the other hand, The Feminine is considered sacred and, although the prevailing mantra is that men and women are no different, feminists have demanded still need more shielding and advantages for women. 
So here is the rub.  The feminine identity is one of caring and nurturing.  This is vital to society.  However, if one allows too much of themselves to take on the feminine identity, it draws away from the ability to use reason and value truth as more of oneself is devoted to being nice.  This is not acceptable in politics, science, business and the search for knowledge.  So, if one assumes that women will display more feminine traits than men, due to their biology, we can conclude that women will be less prevalent in these pursuits.  If one wants to pursue a career these areas, male or female, the person must set aside the feminine traits, at least part of the time, to focus completely on the task at hand.  Setting aside the feminine psychology is what, I believe, Kelly Jones is advocating, at the detriment to the nurturing side.  This may be suitable for certain individuals or groups, but, it is certainly not acceptable for most people to deny what is inside them.  I certainly wouldn’t want to give up some of the less rational parts of my masculinity.  On a larger scale, I think it is disastrous for society to try and eliminate this feminine psychology (as it seems Kelly Jones advocates). 
Ideally, we would have value and a voice for The Feminine*.  The nurturing attitudes of Feminine Psychology must be openly celebrated, while, realizing that to truly understand reality and make serious decisions, it must be curtailed.  Everyone should think about this and decide where they reside on the spectrum.  Some women will choose to be more masculine and some will choose to be more feminine.  Neither should be admonished.  However, the consequences should be known.
Any individual can express more masculine or feminine traits as suits their personality and goals.  However, the realms where reason and wisdom are essential will invariably be more masculine.  It all boils down to the fact that we have two types of people and these traits evolved for certain reason to be more pronounced in one than in the other.

*I believe that it always has had one, but, feminism actually stifled it in a way (by demonizing men) and then, when it failed to go away, absorbed it back into itself causing a sort of bipolar beast.  

Saturday, March 17, 2012

I Am Happy

Despite the problems and struggles in the world and in my life, I am reasonably satisfied.  Why then, do I take on the persona of a disgruntled, bitter, ungrateful whiner who complaining into the vacuum that is the Internet? (That is not really how I see myself, but, I feel like that is what some people must think when they read somethings I've written - Fuck them.) Why do I lift my pen-sword (keyboard-missile?) in the hopeless battle to challenge others' opinions on Liberal media sites, Alt-Right Blogs and You-Tube Channels (no recent comments worth linking)?  Why do I open myself up to barbs such as "Woman-Hating Creep", or Disingenuous White Liberal just to scatter tidbits of my point-of-view across the expansive, digital universe that is known as the Internet?  Why do I ask myself complex questions that are nearly impossible to answer?  Well, I've bitten this piece off, so, I'm going to try to chew it.

The reasons are basically as follows:

1.  Criticism. 
I strongly believe that sound criticism is the highest calling in life.  Being truly critical of ideas, opinions, beliefs, societal constructs, ethoi, quips, dismissals, claims, actions is essential to arriving at truth.  I don't know if I am up to the task to critique everything, but, I have ideas that I believe can withstand the critique of others and must be put forth in some realm.  If I cannot explain them in a manner that can withstand such criticism, I hope they influence others who are more eloquent than I have who have more time to spend ruminating on the difficult to digest parts of nature.

2.  Optimism.
I also believe that criticism is an optimistic form of communication.  Those who refuse to criticize that which they cannot agree with are truly pessimistic enough to believe that they can have no influence or ultimately fatalistic to believe that the truths or untruths will prevail due to forces beyond their control.  I believe that there are more than two ways to know something and further, that knowing the whole truth is not always necessary to effectively alter reality to improve one's situation.  Knowing the boundaries of the truth can be sufficient - for example, I can estimate that the train will arrive in 10-20 minutes so I have time to continue a conversation outside the station which has a chance of building on a relationship and still catch my train home.

3.  Status Seeking.
My internal desire for status is much higher than my modest income, modest house and older model vehicle would suggest.  My inner judgement of status has always relied on my ability to influence opinion.  I have almost zero chance of ever having a political career or journalistic career, so, I get what satisfaction I can squeeze out of the sporadic postings here and various places on the Internet.  Downvotes from G&M readers are actually somewhat gratifying because I can sense the seething hatred from "enlightened" Liberal minds behind them.

4.  I Told You So.
I have this terrifying feeling that the world is going to collapse and people will be looking around for people to blame and new thinkers to follow.  I hope I'm wrong.  I don't think I've made any seriously profound statements in anything nearly eloquent on this blog yet, but, I know I have the potential for some ideas and observations that will make people pause for a moment.  I just don't think that my skills as a writer are honed enough yet.  So, if I ever find my rythm and gather my thoughts coherently enough with facts to back them up, I don't think I can save the world, but if it happens and I say I told you so, I'll have a record of it.

5.  The Journey is the Message.
I am on a journey for truth here.  I don't puport to know as much as some people, but, I think the path I follow will reveal something important.

So, that outlines my basic reasons for blogging.  Despite the fact that I have a wonderful wife and two wonderful sons, I still have enough incentive to spend what little extra time and energy I have typing opinions and arguments on the Internet.  I am a little bit afraid that $PLC might have a tiny little file for me somewhere on their system.  I'm also afraid that the strange laws being pushed right now here in Canada might be used to mess with my life.  I'm more concerned because of my family.  But, whatever happens in the future, it means more to me that I'll be able to look my children in the eyes and say that I stood for freedom and truth.

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.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Feminists Are OK With Having It Both Ways

I'm going to attempt to clear up some confusion about the subject of feminism.  I've noticed a lot of people attempting to discuss matters reasonably and make sound arguments about the fallacies of feminism only to be shouted down by supposedly enlightened feminists about the "realities" that women face preventing them from achieving true Equality tm.  I was once confused, but, I am starting to understand the true desires of feminists.  Part of what I attempt to do with this blog is to get my own thoughts straight by exploring ideas. 

Most posts start out with a question or thought to explore.  I have only done this sporadically, because, I have more important duties to my family, my employer (which I require to fulfill duties to my family) and finally to myself (yes, I take time to play hockey, sleep and explore ideas about health because I sure can't trust the Guburnment to do that.)  My intention is not to give definitive, conclusive or exhaustive opinions or information - although I would love to be able to if I had the luxury of time and the discipline.  I'm satisfied to raise a topic, question prevailing beliefs or thoughts, get a few points in and leave the reader (hello, reader, are you there?) a unsettled feeling that hopefully urges them to seek out the answers themselves.  They (the answers, not the readers) are out there.

Now, back to Rush Limbaugh and what he said about Sandra Fluke (rhymes with look).  For those of you who never follow feminist issues, and those of you who do but have been in a coma for the last week,  Sandra Fluke is the brainwashed law student at the Jesuit school, Georgetown University, who testified at a special Democrat congressional hearing set up just for her that Georgetown's medical insurance must cover birth control pills.  Many characters have been pixelated on this already, so, I won't go into the argument too deeply.  Basically, Fluke says that birth control is a "medical need" and the Big Guburnment needs to force her insurance provider to pony up the cost of her prescription birth control, even if the sponsor is Catholic and philosophically opposed to birth control.  How's that for freedom of religion?

So, you're wondering, why can this seemingly intelligent woman who believes so strongly in standing up for one's rights that she travels to Washington to read a well-prepared speach to demand what she sees as a right hold such a fallicious argument?  How can she not see that birth control is not a right, but a choice and that this is only being used as another wedge issue to destroy more of the foundation of Western Civilization?  Well, I have an answer, but, you'd better take a deep breath and sit down.


Feminists want women to be taken care of.  Yes, for all of the independance and equal rights they've fought for, feminists still think that women need to have their needs looked after by others.  Fluke is the perfect example of someone pleading to have her needs met by others while she pursues her independance. 

Is that not having it both ways?  This is only one example of the miriad issues where feminist fight to have the needs of women met, by the state, in order to pursue their individual independance.  No bother to question who pays for it, or who gets to have their rights impinged so that feminist rights can be forwarded.  We want independance and we want you to give it to us!

I've been watching GirlWritesWhat's youtube posts lately and one of the most important points she makes is the desire for feminists to gain all sorts of new power and equality while keeping the protection afforded to women under the big bad patriarchy.  The freedom and safety of women has always been a gauge of a civilization's capabilities.  In fact, the halmark of civilization is the protection of women.  However, somehow, feminism has managed to twist it around to make it look as though civilization was harmful to women.  In this way, we have been hoodwinked into thinking that women are owed a great retribution justifying all sorts of measures that benefit women and often harm men.

So, when Limbaugh jumps all over this girl and her obviously flawed argument with an over the top attack, he was falling into a trap. Fluke and her supporters laud her for standing up and coming forward with her thoughts, however, still want to shield her from the backlash for making such a silly argument. However, this is politics. It isn't nice and civil. Nobody gets to play without being subjected to ridicule. Except, that Fluke isn't in politics. She's just a lowly law student, poor and struggling. Well, when Rush made his remarks, he awarded plentiful points to every liberal politician and pundit to stand up and defend this poor girl. Why? Because feminists still believe women should be protected.

When I was in grade school, we had the only school I have ever heard of that allowed snowball fights. There was a specific area where, if the snow was fresh and deep, the principal allowed the older grades to throw snowballs at eachother. The only rule was, if you went in, you couldn't leave. Some kids inevitably tried to run in and get their throws in and then run out where snowballs were not allowed. The principal would speak up and force them to either stay in or stay out. I think this lesson is lost on Fluke.