Majorityrights Central > Category: Feminism

Some men may like a nice, tight, 9 year-old girl now and then. What’s your problem?

Summary

Part 3, takes as a point of departure the idea of “authentic range” as established at the bottom of part 2. Here is a 411-word summary of part 3, from that point:

It is important to understand that Jewish academics take, abuse and pervert otherwise good, functional, socially organizing ideas:

In this part, 3, I focus on the abuse of the concept of marginals and how the correct application of it and hermeneutic means to foster marginal participation is necessary not only to establish the authentic boarders of our system of people but also toward its maintenance.

That is particularly important as we are an open system, therefore subject to corruption and dissolution. White males, naively and disingenuously brought to bear against other groups in universal maturity, have their optimal rate, its normal, protracted, authentic unfolding and nature seized upon opportunistically by non-Europeans.

As our system is open and not merely self corrective, is subject to additional changes as we are reflexive, adaptive creatures, its management requires the use of hermeneutic method - its positive use is made possible by the very open endedness but also internal relation of the system; that to designate and reconstruct the pattern by establishing and maintaining rules through the method’s affordance of socially established as opposed to scientistic (inauthentic) rules.

Given our open system and availing ourselves of its opportunities, I discuss: how incentives and disincentives for participation are necessary and may be established through these rules; how rites of European manhood ought to be revised to suit our authentic nature under the circumstances; how our moral order ought to provide for a sacralization of routine but also of sex, in order to act as a homeostatic corrective to hyper competitive models of the west; how symbiosis might be achieved within our group and between out-groups.

Please beware that I am still correcting the style, refining details, that the ordering might deviate a little as well from this summary. This may represent a revisable draft even of this summary. However, this is the basic form and content. Also beware that I take a reader though a sometimes meandering and digressing tale of the benefits of adopting the proposed suggestions and the consequences of not doing so. Finally, at times I may torture the reader with bad English sentences and paragraphs, particularly as I make my way through these ideas in the first place. However, I will be working to make the English style less painful to the reader; along with installing more organizational cues in the essay. That will be my next chore – be warned that organizational cues/rubrics may not be done to the reader’s satisfaction yet.

Key word:
Hermeneutics is a response to the failure of the Vienna school to create a positivist language and other failed Cartesian efforts as revealed particularly by Gödel and Heisenberg. Hermeneutics is a method opting instead for a socially engaged, ongoing process of applying broader historical and temporal orientation and then closer “readings” of data as need be. There is a recognized connection between knower and known.

With hermeneutics epistemology is subsumed into praxis (into practical, interactive, social concern)

Concern is a better term to use than utility. We would not want people to think that it would be a good idea to use up say, the national parks and rain forests, etc. That is, non-use has its practicality - that is a large and important difference from Dewey’s instrumentalist emphasis.

Epistemology taken into praxis, into social concern then, is not mere Deweyan instrumentalism.

It respects the ecological flexibility of unused potentiality for change.

READ MORE...

From the hubris of objectivism to the implicative force of Mulatto Supremacism

READ MORE...

In the eighth decade of her life Fay Weldon, one time high-profile feminist author and playwright, the child of divorcees, mother of an illegitimate child, briefly a prostitute, twice-divorced herself, has arrived at this view of her sisters:-

The novelist and commentator told an audience at The Times Cheltenham Literature Festival that women were no longer as romantic as they were a generation ago, to the detriment of their happiness.

Weldon, 75, argued that having been liberated by the Pill in the 1960s women were paying the price of trying to behave like men. “Our generation fell in love all the time,” she said. “We sacrificed everything.  Now women are much more practical and hard-headed.  However, in the pursuit of professional, social and domestic fulfilment many women are failing to accept that, hormonally and physiologically, they are programmed to experience life differently from men,” she said.

“I think we need to make the most of being women as women, not aspirational men.  The assumptions we all make now as to what comprises a good relationship are upside down.  The differences between men and females are what we should be celebrating.”

READ MORE...

Libby Brooks wants more for the teachers in Britain’s schools to do.  She wants gender education for our children.

She has, you see, noticed that the sexualisation of society has become white-hot of late - boringly so, in fact.  The aspect of this which she worries about is commercial ... raunchy billboards, company expense accounts at the lap-club, etc.  She worries that the nett effect of this is that our daughters are being enculturated by people interested only in money into giving themselves away meaninglessly in back alleys and nightclub toilets.  The “sexual saturation of modern western culture”, she call it.  A good phrase.

She has half a point here, and if she was more a critic and less a creature of modernity she might have a whole point.  For example, she seems to have realised that sexual liberation has been a liberation for men.  Yet she is no social conservative.  Sex for Libby should be seen as an exercise of the female will rather than, say, a submission to Prospero’s “fire i’ the blood”.

Me, I’m a “fire i’ the blood” man whose thoughts turn every six seconds, or whatever it is, to how to open the tinder box, and whose evil designs thereon need to be met firmly in the negative or all female honour will be stolen.  That makes me a believer in sex as Nature.

Libby - a feminist, of course, as well as a liberal - drags her politics into it and is, therefore, a believer in sex as consumption.  But not, of course, consumerism.  Her lodestar is that fully-human, liberated woman again.  In case you haven’t met this mythical creature yet, she’s the one who is mysteriously capable of:-

celebrating the human freedom that sex embodies

... and who knows:-

how desire can take us to the heart of our greatest potential: that in a moment we might be anybody or anything.

READ MORE...

Less than a year ago, Julia Gillard was interviewed by the Melbourne Sunday Age on the issue of feminism. What Julia has to say on the issue is important, as she is a leading member of the Labor Party and considered to be prime ministerial material.

Her views were clear and very much in line with feminist orthodoxy. Girls, she opined, should have choices, except that the choice to be a traditional stay-at-home mum was no longer an option. In her own words:

If one suggested to a girl in school today that her future life would consist of marriage, raising children and tending the family home, she would no doubt look at you as if you had just arrived from Mars ...

... while she may not know what course she wants to chart out in her life yet, she knows work will play a role in it – and an important one. Whether for the thrill of career, the social integration of work, the pay packet or for a mix of all of them, she’ll work. (The Sunday Age 8th May 2005)

So in May 2004 Gillard’s attitude was that women who wanted to be mothers would do so by mixing their careers with motherhood. To suggest anything else was out of this world.

READ MORE...

A British survey of 5000 teenage girls has found that most support traditional gender roles in which the husband is the provider.

The most interesting result was that nearly all the girls (97%) disagreed with the statement that ‘It doesn’t matter who is the main earner, as long as we are happy’. There is a whole generation of girls, it seems, who very definitely want their future husbands to be the main earners.

Britain’s politicians, though, do not want them to achieve this wish. Both major parties are determined to engineer society so that men do not earn more than women (even though men generally earn more by fair means, such as accepting positions which are well-paid and stable, but less creative and glamorous, or by working in dangerous or remote workplaces, or by accepting promotions involving more onerous responsibilities or longer working hours).

The hapless Conservative Party has announced that it will try to narrow the earnings gap between men and women by “combating traditional views of a mother’s role”. They are doing this as “part of an attempt to rid the Tories of their image as an old-fashioned party.”

So at a time when 97% of teenage girls want (eventually) to find a husband who earns more than them, the Tories think they are being up to date in their electoral appeal by seeking to provide these girls with men who earn the same or less.

READ MORE...

Some years ago I was browsing through a pile of American magazines from the late 1940s in a second hand bookshop. The most interesting article I found was written by a female columnist (the magazine was from around 1946 or 1947). She argued that women had had enough of the hardships brought about by feminism (loneliness, childlessness etc) and that it would be a relief to return to more traditional values.

Which is what women did in the 1950s, thereby ending the first great wave of feminism which had begun (roughly speaking) in the 1860s (there had been individual feminists before then, but it seems to have been in the 1860s that feminism was first taken up as government policy in Great Britain).

I wonder if we are now poised on the brink of another feminist down phase. There seems to be a similar weariness amongst women - an unwillingness to continue shouldering the burden of overwork and poor family outcomes which are associated with modern feminism.

This wearing down of feminism from within is especially marked in a recent article in the Daily Mail by Amanda Platell (The Silent Conspiracy, 28th January 2006). The entire article is worth reading as evidence of a change in attitude, but let me cite some of the most revealing passages.

Here is Amanda Platell explaining that despite her glamorous career and lifestyle she wishes to question the feminist legacy:

READ MORE...

If you’ve noticed inconsistencies in feminist politics there’s a reason. It’s not that feminists are irrational or hypocritical or unintelligent. There is a deeper problem: the first principles on which feminism is based generate contradictory aims.

Poor feminists! They are locked into a belief system which can never pass the test of consistency because the starting point of their theory calls for opposing outcomes.

Homeward Bound

A good way to illustrate the tensions within feminist theory is to look at the article Homeward Bound. This was published late last year and was written by feminist Linda Hirshman, a retired professor of women’s studies.

Homeward Bound begins with the question of why women are not entering executive positions in larger numbers. Some feminists blame the “glass ceiling”: they believe that women are held back in their careers by male employers or by unfriendly work practices.

Linda Hirshman disagrees. In 2003 she undertook some interesting research. She contacted the women who had announced their weddings in the Sunday Styles section of the New York Times in 1996. These were women who belonged to a well-educated elite and who had prestigious jobs.

READ MORE...