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.

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.

Ready?

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.

The Abuse Paradox

I put a long post in reply to OneSTDV's post about Chris Brown.  It started out small, but, I just got carried away.

I have to wonder, would any attempt to counsel women to understand the danger of provoking men verbally in order to help them reduce the risk of physical assault be considered blaming the victim?  Does avoiding such a strategy and allowing women to act as if they have an invisible shield from men's violence increase the instance of violence in relationships and help justify the existence of the anti-violence agenda?

The Very Nice Planet Paradigm

I've been meaning to write a post about the Very Nice Planet paradigm. I coined the term to describe the concept that Very Nice People have of the world. This faulty paradigm explains how people can believe that we can all live as vegetarians among other insanities. Anyways, it came in usefule in a post at OneSTDV
I thought that since it was a fairly long post, I should post it here.

Responding to Svigor:
How come nobody says "Judeo-Christo-Mohametean"? Christ was put to death at the behest of the Hebrews, for crying out loud. Judaic scripture excoriates him.

Fine, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion contains the seeds of vegetarianism. My church had a bible with the new and old testament, although, I haven't been for over 2o years. I admit my ignorance of scripture, but, I'm only speaking in general terms. It's fine here because One's point is not that there was a concerted effort on behalf of all Jews or that Jewish religion's ultimate goal is to make everyone vegetarian. It's that the influence on general thought has led many people to a false belief in vegetarianism.

Jews have Kosher and Muslims have Halal, both ostensibly to prevent cruelty and the wrath of god. I get the whole dominion over animals granted to man thing in Christianity, but, that has been watered down for most people. Even still, the creation myth separates man from nature, his real creator. Not only does this myth endow man with magical properties, it creates the illusion that life on this planet is supposed to be nice.
I know that this isn't the main intention, but you spin these ideas around in the Gaia worshipping mainstream culture of a society as stable and happy as the US and you get, what I like to call, The Very Nice Planet Paradigm. This notion, I find, permeates everything. It's a basic belief that life is easy in nature. The Nobel Savage concept looms large and all indiginous tribes are thought to have lived in harmony with eachother. The gentler side of nature is emphasized and predators visciousness is downplayed or ignored. How many products are sold using the "All-Natural" nonsense label?
In this paradigm, humans are half in the good, natural world and half in the evil, unnatural world due to the invention of greed (original sin). It makes sense that we're supposed to eat only plants because that is more "in tune" with this perverted sense of nature. Liberal Atheists will tell you that their influenced by Hindus and Buddhism, but, these roots lie in the religions their parents taught them.

Girl Guide's Transgendered Policy??? For Seven-Year-Olds????

Drag our Leaf Icon above to your taskbar to bookmark TGAM in Internet Explorer 9.

Show me how

Please don't show me this again

Remind me later

Drag our Leaf Icon above to your taskbar to bookmark TGAM in Internet Explorer 9.

Show me how

Please don't show me this again

Remind me later

I put a comment down at this Globe And Mail Article.  Does anyone else think it's weird to put a 7-year-old boy in Girl Guides?

Comment Posted:

I thought 7 years old was too young to start imprinting gender roles and "stereotypes". It's funny how the PC crowd jumps down the throat of parents who give their daughters Barbies and kitchen sets but they love it when parents put their 7 YEAR OLD BOY in a skirt and send him off to Girl Guides! Don't you people see your hypocrisy? I'd say give the boy a chance to be a boy. It's much too young to make him commit to a lifetime of confusion. I feel sorry for people who are transgendered because it must be very confusing, but a 7 year old is not nearly mature enough to make a decision that can affect his whole life. It wasn't that long ago that these parents would have been charged with child abuse.

It's ok to be let him be a boy, even if he doesn't play trucks and swords. When he's old enough to understand what the real difference is between men and women, then he can do what he wants and decide who he is.

There was once a positive organization for young boys call the Boy Scouts. It taught young boys to accept eachother for who they were and to be comfortable in their own skins. Nowadays, boys are given few positive role models and few chances to act out in healthy boyish ways. It's not surprising that some would rather be girls. They receive all the positive messages
I thought 7 years old was too young to start imprinting gender roles and "stereotypes". It's funny how the PC crowd jumps down the throat of parents who give their daughters Barbies and kitchen sets but they love it when parents put their 7 YEAR OLD BOY in a skirt and send him off to Girl Guides! Don't you people see your hypocrisy? I'd say give the boy a chance to be a boy. It's much too young to make him commit to a lifetime of confusion. I feel sorry for people who are transgendered because it must be very confusing, but a 7 year old is not nearly mature enough to make a decision that can affect his whole life. It wasn't that long ago that these parents would have been charged with child abuse.

It's ok to be let him be a boy, even if he doesn't play trucks and swords. When he's old enough to understand what the real difference is between men and women, then he can do what he wants and decide who he is.

There was once a positive organization for young boys call the Boy Scouts. It taught young boys to accept eachother for who they were and to be comfortable in their own skins. Nowadays, boys are given few positive role models and few chances to act out in healthy boyish ways. It's not surprising that some would rather be girls. They receive all the positive messages