Protology, agreed that having just laws and upholding them would go a long way to improve things. The question on the table is how to get people to do that.
Feminism, succinctly, is compassion without accountability for women and accountability without compassion for men. That's the polarization. The answer is compassion AND accountability for both men and women. That means adding compassion for men and accountability for women to the mix.
Perhaps, more succinctly, feminism is false compassion with no accountability for women and false accountability without compassion for men; or, if you like, feminism is no compassion and no accountability for anyone. "How do we get people to have and uphold just laws?" is tantamount to asking, "How do we get criminals to stop committing crime?" The first step would be to stop lying: stop telling feminists that there is a good side and a shadow (bad) side to feminism. The cornerstone of feminism is control over the reproductive lives of women (both men and women are heavily invested in this practice); the ability to reach down the long corridor of time and negate future human beings. We call this contraception or birth control and we all agree it is a great boon to modern society. When an unwanted human being is conceived, we extend the rights of women to negate these people and we call it abortion. Both of these practices (really one, for contraception is just an early form of abortion) are explosively violent and necessarily lead to the death of the civilization in which they are practiced, either by attrition or the invasion of other civilizations, or both as is in our case. It is like field workers going into an orange grove and destroying 80% of the fruit because they find that when harvesting the grove they get hot and tired and start to sweat. Feminism is, essentially, a rejection of productivity and its replacement with comfort, pleasure, and ease. How do we disincentivize this behavior--I can think of only one path: outlaw the behavior and use the bully pulpit to explain why. Tell feminists that they are desolators (those who depopulate the land) and that they are highly effective desolators, to the point of destroying the entire culture. We will not continue, as Western Nations, if we hold this course.
Is it too late? I don't know, I'm not God. All I know is voices. like Janice and to a lesser degree you, need to stand up and state without relief that we need to stop murdering our children; that Feminism, Marxism, Critical Theory, in actuality Modern Philosophy, is the spiritual equivalent of radio-active waste, that when stripped bare it is simply naked godlessness; and above all, that godlessness does not work precisely because godlessness does not want to work--it is lazy.
"Outlaw the behavior and use the bully pulpit to explain why" There are several things that would help if we could do them - but we lack the collective will. The Matrisensus is currently winning. Because of this, I focus on how individuals can become powerful as advocates to stand up and speak the truth, and wise enough to spot any openings that may occur and exploit them for good. Despite sustained effort, I have not yet been able to think of any way that can move against this pathology collectively. But there is hope. After all, alcoholism used to be seen as a moral failing, like feminism sees gender now. And then two self-confessed drunks started something that came to be called Alcoholics Anonymous, and they changed the framing of alcoholism from a moral problem to a disease. That ushered in a process that resulted in millions of alcoholics recovering, all over the world.
Feminism, with it's founding analysis that men oppress women, has moral polarization built in at the root, as alcoholism used to. Maybe something similar might happen to feminism, that will reframe gender relations from a moral system to a health system. That would be a huge improvement.
In my opinion, we have tried this since Freud and Jung and it hasn't worked. We need to jettison the mental health system and return to a moral system. AA has largely marginalized a group of people who have the responsibility to lead a productive life and are allowed to "get by" for the entirety of their working lives because they are diseased. What a horrific future we offer these people, and most of them live out horrific lives--they go where we lead them. And the journey we lead them on always ends in the same place--somewhere, back in their past, they were victims. When I was drinking too much, I was faced with two options--I could be either an alcoholic or a drunk. I chose to be a drunk. Then, I stopped getting drunk. I didn't stop drinking, I stopped getting drunk. I, actually wanted to stop drinking completely but my wife said no--she demanded that I have control over alcohol. It was one of the wisest things she has done for me.
The second thought that comes to mind is that of purpose. A moral system demands fealty to a god; a mental health system does not. To that extent, what we say is recovery is really just stasis: all dressed up with no place to go--and so, they don't go anywhere. There is a vibrant, vital life to be lived in relation to the Creator of the cosmos. I have never seen anything but dissipation and boredom outside of this. I wouldn't wish it on my enemy.
"But there is hope. After all, alcoholism used to be seen as a moral failing, like feminism sees gender now." Please explain how gender can be seen as a moral failing.
As far as alcoholism (and addiction generally) now being seen as illness rather than moral failure, I question the wisdom of seeing it that way and am not *at all* convinced that that way of thinking has made much of an impact on substance abuse except that a lot of people are now profiting from largely useless treatments for it.
Gender is now seen as a moral failing because men are seen as oppressors and perpetrators, morally bad, and women are seen as innocent victims, morally good. This is similar, in effect, to the Christian notion of original sin, except that, unlike Christianity, feminism offers no path to redemption.
Regarding the effectiveness of AA, the evidence, both anecdotal and statistical, about improved lives from the avoidance of alcohol is overwhelming. However, I do agree with you that the model, being always "in recovery" and never "recovered", is flawed.
"Gender is now seen as a moral failing because men are seen as oppressors and perpetrators, morally bad, and women are seen as innocent victims, morally good."
(forgive me jumping in here, this is such a great blog/ thread)
I'm not sure how much the new generation of progressives even care about feminism's treatise on gender (men bad/ women good). It feels like that whole debate peaked around 2014 and has now given way to a whole new conversation about gender. It feels like the whole 'battle of the sexes' has achieved its true goal of making gender a giant dumpster fire for everyone.
The new generation of progressive ideologues are not even seeking to win the 'battle of the sexes' or resolve the differences between men and women. They are now seeking to escape gender altogether.
And just as the pill/ abortion/ welfare/ daycare allowed women to escape the horrors womanhood/ motherhood... we now have new technologies which will allow young people to escape the horrors of the gender binary (or so the marketing claims).
Feminism's social construct theory has already detached gender from biology/ reproduction/ pair bonding/ parenting to the extent that many young people now don't feel part of a binary species (or a binary universe) any more. They have become fully atomised and fully configurable, thanks to an vast array of hormonal, fashion and makeup choices, neo-pronouns and sub cultures.
Social constructivism dismantled gender, and now technology is giving everyone a chance to rebuild it ('build back better'), but this time on their own terms, and not the terms dictated by nature (sexual dimorphism, the demands of reproduction etc).
While we adults continue to look for a way to reconcile men and women, and heal the split created by decades of feminist poison, the kids are being lured into a Brave New World of transhumanism (which I contend has been the unstated goal of feminism for at least the last 100 years).
The battle to reconcile the sexes, is now a battle to retain our human form and our biological function (fertility is plummeting/ pregnancy complications and dysfunction are soaring), and even to retain the principles of male and female in our culture (let alone celebrate them!)
Artificial wombs are only a decade away (so we are told). And in the mean time the youth are being offered 100 new pseudo-genders of their choosing, complete with buckets of glitter and rainbows and fashion accessories, none of which have anything to do with natural reproduction. The idea of 'abstract' genitalia is now a thing, with surgeries being proposed which do not even attempt to mimic penises or vaginas ...
And while all this is going on those two old fashioned (outdated) genders (male and female) are being quietly ushered out of the back door and bundled into the back of a van, and taken off to their retirement homes (or thrown down a well).
Let's not forget that feminists themselves are being kicked off the bus if they continue to hold to a gender binary world view. I contend that feminism (as it was) is over. It has taken society as far as it can, and has now passed the baton over to a whole new breed of gender ideologue: the gender queers and non binaries.
Only feminists who accept gender as a 100% social construct (ie a meaningless and arbitrary term) can avoid being thrown off the bus. In a recent debate with a TERF, I pointed out that she is no longer radical or welcome in the mainstream feminist movement, and that her views are now conservative in nature (as is anyone who adheres to a binary view of gender), and that she should consider herself a conservative ex feminist).
How relevant is feminism (as it was) if even feminists are being thrown off the bus and labelled 'phobes' for sticking to their old fashioned narratives about 'men' and 'women', as if such concepts are still valid?
Reading the accounts of transitioners (and detransitioners), I see a whole new take on gender which is mostly solipsistic, narcissistic, hedonistic, identity based and informed by online digital culture.
In modern post industrial cities the difference between men and women were minimised. Men and women rode the subway together, shopped together and worked in offices together. But online there is no gender at all, no physicality, no pheromones, no scent, no chemistry and no electrical charge in the air. This is where young people now live and interact. What does 'gender politics' even mean if everyone is online, and the physical realm is just a means to get from one screen to another?
The digital / social credit dystopia will make us all equally enslaved under a technocracy in a completely gender neutral way. Gender equality will finally have been achieved. Yay! Everyone gets to be a digital salve (global citizen).
"feminism offers no path to redemption."
Exactly. Nor was it ever meant to IMHO. Feminism achieved its goal of turning gender into a dysfunctional, depressing, run down slum..... and now new technology is providing a one way ticket out of there.
I certainly wasn't taking issue with the fact that alcohol is harmful, only with the idea that viewing it and treating it as disease is any more effective than just shunning and shaming alcoholics. Calling it a disease or a moral failing is just the difference between your friends and family shaming you for free and a therapist doing it for money and telling you you can't help yourself.
This is just part of a comedy routine that's on topic, but it's insightful as well as hilarious.
One of the biggest truisms in the MRM is that "women have rights and men have responsibilities."
Again, there is just no need for any new theories to explain this because patriarchy is, and always has been, gyocentric. What's inconvenient about that is merely that feminists have very successfully marketed their fictional, shadowy, systemic brand of patriarchy as misogynistic. If patriarchy was, indeed, misogynistic then feminism wouldn't be allowed even a toehold on culture.
There may be instances when that is indeed the most compassionate thing. But that same compassion then demands that you remain with him during his withdrawal process, and support him through it as he seeks ways to live that aren't dependent on the drug.
This applies to all instances, not just of drug addiction, but sexual addiction, violent crime, murder, rape, incest, larceny, et. al. This demands that we remain with him or her for the entirety of their lives always supporting, always seeking ways to live that are not dependent on violence or vice. This is the role of the church which, by the way, built Western Civilization (before we called it Western Civilization it was called Christendom).
Protology, agreed that having just laws and upholding them would go a long way to improve things. The question on the table is how to get people to do that.
Feminism, succinctly, is compassion without accountability for women and accountability without compassion for men. That's the polarization. The answer is compassion AND accountability for both men and women. That means adding compassion for men and accountability for women to the mix.
Perhaps, more succinctly, feminism is false compassion with no accountability for women and false accountability without compassion for men; or, if you like, feminism is no compassion and no accountability for anyone. "How do we get people to have and uphold just laws?" is tantamount to asking, "How do we get criminals to stop committing crime?" The first step would be to stop lying: stop telling feminists that there is a good side and a shadow (bad) side to feminism. The cornerstone of feminism is control over the reproductive lives of women (both men and women are heavily invested in this practice); the ability to reach down the long corridor of time and negate future human beings. We call this contraception or birth control and we all agree it is a great boon to modern society. When an unwanted human being is conceived, we extend the rights of women to negate these people and we call it abortion. Both of these practices (really one, for contraception is just an early form of abortion) are explosively violent and necessarily lead to the death of the civilization in which they are practiced, either by attrition or the invasion of other civilizations, or both as is in our case. It is like field workers going into an orange grove and destroying 80% of the fruit because they find that when harvesting the grove they get hot and tired and start to sweat. Feminism is, essentially, a rejection of productivity and its replacement with comfort, pleasure, and ease. How do we disincentivize this behavior--I can think of only one path: outlaw the behavior and use the bully pulpit to explain why. Tell feminists that they are desolators (those who depopulate the land) and that they are highly effective desolators, to the point of destroying the entire culture. We will not continue, as Western Nations, if we hold this course.
Is it too late? I don't know, I'm not God. All I know is voices. like Janice and to a lesser degree you, need to stand up and state without relief that we need to stop murdering our children; that Feminism, Marxism, Critical Theory, in actuality Modern Philosophy, is the spiritual equivalent of radio-active waste, that when stripped bare it is simply naked godlessness; and above all, that godlessness does not work precisely because godlessness does not want to work--it is lazy.
Brass tacks are always the best place to start.
"Outlaw the behavior and use the bully pulpit to explain why" There are several things that would help if we could do them - but we lack the collective will. The Matrisensus is currently winning. Because of this, I focus on how individuals can become powerful as advocates to stand up and speak the truth, and wise enough to spot any openings that may occur and exploit them for good. Despite sustained effort, I have not yet been able to think of any way that can move against this pathology collectively. But there is hope. After all, alcoholism used to be seen as a moral failing, like feminism sees gender now. And then two self-confessed drunks started something that came to be called Alcoholics Anonymous, and they changed the framing of alcoholism from a moral problem to a disease. That ushered in a process that resulted in millions of alcoholics recovering, all over the world.
Feminism, with it's founding analysis that men oppress women, has moral polarization built in at the root, as alcoholism used to. Maybe something similar might happen to feminism, that will reframe gender relations from a moral system to a health system. That would be a huge improvement.
In my opinion, we have tried this since Freud and Jung and it hasn't worked. We need to jettison the mental health system and return to a moral system. AA has largely marginalized a group of people who have the responsibility to lead a productive life and are allowed to "get by" for the entirety of their working lives because they are diseased. What a horrific future we offer these people, and most of them live out horrific lives--they go where we lead them. And the journey we lead them on always ends in the same place--somewhere, back in their past, they were victims. When I was drinking too much, I was faced with two options--I could be either an alcoholic or a drunk. I chose to be a drunk. Then, I stopped getting drunk. I didn't stop drinking, I stopped getting drunk. I, actually wanted to stop drinking completely but my wife said no--she demanded that I have control over alcohol. It was one of the wisest things she has done for me.
The second thought that comes to mind is that of purpose. A moral system demands fealty to a god; a mental health system does not. To that extent, what we say is recovery is really just stasis: all dressed up with no place to go--and so, they don't go anywhere. There is a vibrant, vital life to be lived in relation to the Creator of the cosmos. I have never seen anything but dissipation and boredom outside of this. I wouldn't wish it on my enemy.
"But there is hope. After all, alcoholism used to be seen as a moral failing, like feminism sees gender now." Please explain how gender can be seen as a moral failing.
As far as alcoholism (and addiction generally) now being seen as illness rather than moral failure, I question the wisdom of seeing it that way and am not *at all* convinced that that way of thinking has made much of an impact on substance abuse except that a lot of people are now profiting from largely useless treatments for it.
Gender is now seen as a moral failing because men are seen as oppressors and perpetrators, morally bad, and women are seen as innocent victims, morally good. This is similar, in effect, to the Christian notion of original sin, except that, unlike Christianity, feminism offers no path to redemption.
Regarding the effectiveness of AA, the evidence, both anecdotal and statistical, about improved lives from the avoidance of alcohol is overwhelming. However, I do agree with you that the model, being always "in recovery" and never "recovered", is flawed.
"Gender is now seen as a moral failing because men are seen as oppressors and perpetrators, morally bad, and women are seen as innocent victims, morally good."
(forgive me jumping in here, this is such a great blog/ thread)
I'm not sure how much the new generation of progressives even care about feminism's treatise on gender (men bad/ women good). It feels like that whole debate peaked around 2014 and has now given way to a whole new conversation about gender. It feels like the whole 'battle of the sexes' has achieved its true goal of making gender a giant dumpster fire for everyone.
The new generation of progressive ideologues are not even seeking to win the 'battle of the sexes' or resolve the differences between men and women. They are now seeking to escape gender altogether.
And just as the pill/ abortion/ welfare/ daycare allowed women to escape the horrors womanhood/ motherhood... we now have new technologies which will allow young people to escape the horrors of the gender binary (or so the marketing claims).
Feminism's social construct theory has already detached gender from biology/ reproduction/ pair bonding/ parenting to the extent that many young people now don't feel part of a binary species (or a binary universe) any more. They have become fully atomised and fully configurable, thanks to an vast array of hormonal, fashion and makeup choices, neo-pronouns and sub cultures.
Social constructivism dismantled gender, and now technology is giving everyone a chance to rebuild it ('build back better'), but this time on their own terms, and not the terms dictated by nature (sexual dimorphism, the demands of reproduction etc).
While we adults continue to look for a way to reconcile men and women, and heal the split created by decades of feminist poison, the kids are being lured into a Brave New World of transhumanism (which I contend has been the unstated goal of feminism for at least the last 100 years).
The battle to reconcile the sexes, is now a battle to retain our human form and our biological function (fertility is plummeting/ pregnancy complications and dysfunction are soaring), and even to retain the principles of male and female in our culture (let alone celebrate them!)
Artificial wombs are only a decade away (so we are told). And in the mean time the youth are being offered 100 new pseudo-genders of their choosing, complete with buckets of glitter and rainbows and fashion accessories, none of which have anything to do with natural reproduction. The idea of 'abstract' genitalia is now a thing, with surgeries being proposed which do not even attempt to mimic penises or vaginas ...
And while all this is going on those two old fashioned (outdated) genders (male and female) are being quietly ushered out of the back door and bundled into the back of a van, and taken off to their retirement homes (or thrown down a well).
Let's not forget that feminists themselves are being kicked off the bus if they continue to hold to a gender binary world view. I contend that feminism (as it was) is over. It has taken society as far as it can, and has now passed the baton over to a whole new breed of gender ideologue: the gender queers and non binaries.
Only feminists who accept gender as a 100% social construct (ie a meaningless and arbitrary term) can avoid being thrown off the bus. In a recent debate with a TERF, I pointed out that she is no longer radical or welcome in the mainstream feminist movement, and that her views are now conservative in nature (as is anyone who adheres to a binary view of gender), and that she should consider herself a conservative ex feminist).
How relevant is feminism (as it was) if even feminists are being thrown off the bus and labelled 'phobes' for sticking to their old fashioned narratives about 'men' and 'women', as if such concepts are still valid?
Reading the accounts of transitioners (and detransitioners), I see a whole new take on gender which is mostly solipsistic, narcissistic, hedonistic, identity based and informed by online digital culture.
In modern post industrial cities the difference between men and women were minimised. Men and women rode the subway together, shopped together and worked in offices together. But online there is no gender at all, no physicality, no pheromones, no scent, no chemistry and no electrical charge in the air. This is where young people now live and interact. What does 'gender politics' even mean if everyone is online, and the physical realm is just a means to get from one screen to another?
The digital / social credit dystopia will make us all equally enslaved under a technocracy in a completely gender neutral way. Gender equality will finally have been achieved. Yay! Everyone gets to be a digital salve (global citizen).
"feminism offers no path to redemption."
Exactly. Nor was it ever meant to IMHO. Feminism achieved its goal of turning gender into a dysfunctional, depressing, run down slum..... and now new technology is providing a one way ticket out of there.
I certainly wasn't taking issue with the fact that alcohol is harmful, only with the idea that viewing it and treating it as disease is any more effective than just shunning and shaming alcoholics. Calling it a disease or a moral failing is just the difference between your friends and family shaming you for free and a therapist doing it for money and telling you you can't help yourself.
This is just part of a comedy routine that's on topic, but it's insightful as well as hilarious.
https://youtu.be/4txNz25Ht9o?si=u1XpaupIbdKvP4Wp
One of the biggest truisms in the MRM is that "women have rights and men have responsibilities."
Again, there is just no need for any new theories to explain this because patriarchy is, and always has been, gyocentric. What's inconvenient about that is merely that feminists have very successfully marketed their fictional, shadowy, systemic brand of patriarchy as misogynistic. If patriarchy was, indeed, misogynistic then feminism wouldn't be allowed even a toehold on culture.
The most compassionate thing you can do for a heroin addict is to take away his heroin.
There may be instances when that is indeed the most compassionate thing. But that same compassion then demands that you remain with him during his withdrawal process, and support him through it as he seeks ways to live that aren't dependent on the drug.
I agree with this, with a few minor tweeks:
This applies to all instances, not just of drug addiction, but sexual addiction, violent crime, murder, rape, incest, larceny, et. al. This demands that we remain with him or her for the entirety of their lives always supporting, always seeking ways to live that are not dependent on violence or vice. This is the role of the church which, by the way, built Western Civilization (before we called it Western Civilization it was called Christendom).