Shackleton asks: “How does it insulate its followers from reality?”. Broadly speaking, it doesn’t: they shield themselves from reality by stopping to think where their self-interest ends. Double think and stopping thinking where one’s interest ends seem to be evolved behaviours: it is easier to convince others when the tell-tale signs of lying are absent.
For example, when you ask women about today’s feminism, most will say it has gone too far. They will also say women have great power these days, with men often having to watch their step. Sounds like empathy, right? Wrong. First, notice they did not say that this was a bad thing. Notice the quick little smile they fail to suppress when saying women have great power. When you propose that, before subjecting a man to concrete consequences such as imprisonment etc, a woman has the unpleasant duty of at least clearly communicating that she wants him to stop doing whatever it is she dislikes, they will not confirm that, even if pushed, and instead start talking about men’s responsibilities. They will then go on to re-elect parliamentarians who push such laws. All of this demonstrates that their show of empathy was just a facade.
Against such deceit, focussing on empathy with those displaying this barbaric behaviour is primarily a way of confusing the issue and thereby furthering the deceit: it leads to evasive discussions, and away from the facts and a resolution of wrongs.
Shackleton writes: “To understand your enemy you must see her not only objectively but also subjectively, as she sees herself”. However, it should not be about an enemy, but about an adversary, as defined by stances on concrete issues. And it should not be about how she sees herself, or about understanding her, but about the facts, and about fairness.
It can still be useful in discussing these issues to give the devil his due, in as far as this helps to define the issue. However, you should not allow it to be used to draw attention away from the issue at hand toward other, possibly also meritful issues. E.g., in the above example, it may be recognized that a woman may indeed feel very uncomfortable, and that a man indeed has a moral responsibility to look out for signs of that, and both are important aspects in their own right. But that is not the issue. The issue in the example is not moral culpability, but formal culpability and it’s devastating consequences. When someone has so little compassion that she tries to confuse the issue, then that should be pointed out, not empathized with.
It is also true that people can be legitimately misled by an environment that preaches only one misleading story. So tell them the specific real story. After that, they may remain misled, but will have less of an excuse.
Dutch, it is clear that individual self-interest is the basic motivating energy of the Matrisensus. In the case of the Patriarchy, when men's competence hierarchies go bad, it is the self-interest of power and privilege. In the case of the Matrisensus, when women's social networking goes wrong, it is the self-interest of virtue seeking.
It was when I observed that feminists who were told "the specific real story" almost always refused to believe it, and created obviously false rationalizations to support their wrong beliefs, that I realized something deeper must be operating, something with primal psychological roots, must be driving feminism. Later, I broadened the scope, realizing that all of identity politics was of the same ilk.
No one is the villain in their own story. Removing agency from your self perception allows your own evil deeds to be not only the fault of others but also a part of the burden you bravely bear.
Dutch, I want to respond to this comment that you wrote: "Shackleton writes: “To understand your enemy you must see her not only objectively but also subjectively, as she sees herself”. However, it should not be about an enemy, but about an adversary, as defined by stances on concrete issues. And it should not be about how she sees herself, or about understanding her, but about the facts, and about fairness."
It should indeed be about facts and about fairness - that is the masculine focus on rationality and reason, and it is important. However, my point was that this isn't enough. We should also extend ourselves to empathy for the adversary, into the subjective world as well as the objective, if we are to be able to really see creative solutions to the issues that divide us.
You imply that “masculine reason” does not empathize. However, “reason” may review all relevant aspects, including conflicting views, feelings and interests; it may then decide that it is “reasonable” to focus on a particular issue. The problem, then, with explicit expression of empathy is that it distracts from the core message, resulting in those stuck in feminist propaganda not getting the message. Empathy is fine, but don’t dilute the message.
Shackleton asks: “How does it insulate its followers from reality?”. Broadly speaking, it doesn’t: they shield themselves from reality by stopping to think where their self-interest ends. Double think and stopping thinking where one’s interest ends seem to be evolved behaviours: it is easier to convince others when the tell-tale signs of lying are absent.
For example, when you ask women about today’s feminism, most will say it has gone too far. They will also say women have great power these days, with men often having to watch their step. Sounds like empathy, right? Wrong. First, notice they did not say that this was a bad thing. Notice the quick little smile they fail to suppress when saying women have great power. When you propose that, before subjecting a man to concrete consequences such as imprisonment etc, a woman has the unpleasant duty of at least clearly communicating that she wants him to stop doing whatever it is she dislikes, they will not confirm that, even if pushed, and instead start talking about men’s responsibilities. They will then go on to re-elect parliamentarians who push such laws. All of this demonstrates that their show of empathy was just a facade.
Against such deceit, focussing on empathy with those displaying this barbaric behaviour is primarily a way of confusing the issue and thereby furthering the deceit: it leads to evasive discussions, and away from the facts and a resolution of wrongs.
Shackleton writes: “To understand your enemy you must see her not only objectively but also subjectively, as she sees herself”. However, it should not be about an enemy, but about an adversary, as defined by stances on concrete issues. And it should not be about how she sees herself, or about understanding her, but about the facts, and about fairness.
It can still be useful in discussing these issues to give the devil his due, in as far as this helps to define the issue. However, you should not allow it to be used to draw attention away from the issue at hand toward other, possibly also meritful issues. E.g., in the above example, it may be recognized that a woman may indeed feel very uncomfortable, and that a man indeed has a moral responsibility to look out for signs of that, and both are important aspects in their own right. But that is not the issue. The issue in the example is not moral culpability, but formal culpability and it’s devastating consequences. When someone has so little compassion that she tries to confuse the issue, then that should be pointed out, not empathized with.
It is also true that people can be legitimately misled by an environment that preaches only one misleading story. So tell them the specific real story. After that, they may remain misled, but will have less of an excuse.
Dutch, it is clear that individual self-interest is the basic motivating energy of the Matrisensus. In the case of the Patriarchy, when men's competence hierarchies go bad, it is the self-interest of power and privilege. In the case of the Matrisensus, when women's social networking goes wrong, it is the self-interest of virtue seeking.
It was when I observed that feminists who were told "the specific real story" almost always refused to believe it, and created obviously false rationalizations to support their wrong beliefs, that I realized something deeper must be operating, something with primal psychological roots, must be driving feminism. Later, I broadened the scope, realizing that all of identity politics was of the same ilk.
No one is the villain in their own story. Removing agency from your self perception allows your own evil deeds to be not only the fault of others but also a part of the burden you bravely bear.
Dutch, I want to respond to this comment that you wrote: "Shackleton writes: “To understand your enemy you must see her not only objectively but also subjectively, as she sees herself”. However, it should not be about an enemy, but about an adversary, as defined by stances on concrete issues. And it should not be about how she sees herself, or about understanding her, but about the facts, and about fairness."
It should indeed be about facts and about fairness - that is the masculine focus on rationality and reason, and it is important. However, my point was that this isn't enough. We should also extend ourselves to empathy for the adversary, into the subjective world as well as the objective, if we are to be able to really see creative solutions to the issues that divide us.
You imply that “masculine reason” does not empathize. However, “reason” may review all relevant aspects, including conflicting views, feelings and interests; it may then decide that it is “reasonable” to focus on a particular issue. The problem, then, with explicit expression of empathy is that it distracts from the core message, resulting in those stuck in feminist propaganda not getting the message. Empathy is fine, but don’t dilute the message.
AGREED. Trad con/traditional wo-MEN are just as misandrist as fEMINISTS!
Dutch, substack allows you to edit your comments in order to insert such corrections into the original.
Found it, thanks.