Talks With a Relative | Clarissa's Blog
I am doing more research on biologism and the contemporary ideological orthodoxy. You know, with regard to gender, I really feel like I have decisively won MY battle, at least on the psychological level. I can listen to all the nonsense people spout and understanding that it is rationalization for not having to think or change too much. Both feminists and the “MRAs” are stuck in the ruts of their respective rationalizations to a very high degree.
Falling back on biologism as their pseudo-science of choice, they fail to see that progress is still possible and necessary. I find it very funny that a rather ugly guy appears on an Amazon video to express the view that if only men had higher status, they would be able to attract a woman as a mate. He can keep on trying, as people like this will not listen to my arguments. If life will not be the educator in this case, then there will be no educators at all.
On the other side, there are women whining about the mental illnesses and how this makes them “feel vulnerable all the time”. They have the right to assert their right not to be objects of aggression, but at the same time, I think they ought to feel a bit of shame at making the assertion that there is something fundamentally wrong with them. Shame is a basic source of change, but it is obvious that even contemplating the possibility of change is considered even more shameful* or unacceptable — the most likely reason for this is the ideology of biologism. People want to believe they are what they are and that is all there is to it.
What it all means is that people will continue to spin their wheels until they get out of their rut of acquiescence to biologist explanations, and start to use critical thinking and find the courage to understand that they must be what they have not been before.
I’m inclined to dismiss the present gender debates as so much middlebrow nonsense. I can’t address this stuff because most often the ideas of what a human can be are at such a low level of being, that I can’t understand why anyone would aim for that.
I have been reading MRA sites that say women are only interested in reproduction. What does that mean for the men who would associate with them? They are lower than pigs and goats.
But there is some truth to the idea — in the very biologist turn of feminism, which makes it seem like it is a female prerogative to be a neurotic ape and focus primarily on childcare.
And see this:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Woman-Racket-Science-Explaining/dp/1845401506/
*Some people have too much shame; others, too little.
I am doing more research on biologism and the contemporary ideological orthodoxy. You know, with regard to gender, I really feel like I have decisively won MY battle, at least on the psychological level. I can listen to all the nonsense people spout and understanding that it is rationalization for not having to think or change too much. Both feminists and the “MRAs” are stuck in the ruts of their respective rationalizations to a very high degree.
Falling back on biologism as their pseudo-science of choice, they fail to see that progress is still possible and necessary. I find it very funny that a rather ugly guy appears on an Amazon video to express the view that if only men had higher status, they would be able to attract a woman as a mate. He can keep on trying, as people like this will not listen to my arguments. If life will not be the educator in this case, then there will be no educators at all.
On the other side, there are women whining about the mental illnesses and how this makes them “feel vulnerable all the time”. They have the right to assert their right not to be objects of aggression, but at the same time, I think they ought to feel a bit of shame at making the assertion that there is something fundamentally wrong with them. Shame is a basic source of change, but it is obvious that even contemplating the possibility of change is considered even more shameful* or unacceptable — the most likely reason for this is the ideology of biologism. People want to believe they are what they are and that is all there is to it.
What it all means is that people will continue to spin their wheels until they get out of their rut of acquiescence to biologist explanations, and start to use critical thinking and find the courage to understand that they must be what they have not been before.
I’m inclined to dismiss the present gender debates as so much middlebrow nonsense. I can’t address this stuff because most often the ideas of what a human can be are at such a low level of being, that I can’t understand why anyone would aim for that.
I have been reading MRA sites that say women are only interested in reproduction. What does that mean for the men who would associate with them? They are lower than pigs and goats.
But there is some truth to the idea — in the very biologist turn of feminism, which makes it seem like it is a female prerogative to be a neurotic ape and focus primarily on childcare.
And see this:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Woman-Racket-Science-Explaining/dp/1845401506/
*Some people have too much shame; others, too little.
No comments:
Post a Comment