With the primaries effectively concluded, it looks like it will now be Hillary versus Trump in the 2016 general election. While I personally prefer Bernie over Hillary, and thus voted for him in the primaries, Hillary is certainly way better than Chump and I will thus vote for her in November. Though not quite as progressive as Bernie, and leaves quite a bit to be desired, she is still far less less regressive, reactionary, racist, and hawkish than Chump, and having her at the nuclear button is far less horrifying than him. People are starting to take a hint that the Donald is really not all he is cracked up to be, and he is crashing and burning in the polls while Hillary is rising. He literally needs no help from anyone to dig his own grave, as he is doing a great job of that himself.
Most importantly, as Hillary herself would say, this is about something far bigger than just one election, it is about smashing the highest and tallest glass ceiling in the world. If she becomes President, it will be a HUGE symbolic victory for the better half of humanity, particularly when running against a (pathetic straw) man who is in many ways the very symbol of the patriarchy. And the eventual transition to Matriarchy will no doubt be accelerated by such a victory, God willing. Besides, if Bernie (or Marianne) had eventually become President, the banksters would surely have had him (or her) whacked within the first hundred days in office. So to the "Bernie or Bust" crowd, let's NOT make the perfect the enemy of the good this time. Otherwise, we may very well see the lights go out on Broadway (or worse) in 2017 after President Chump (shudder) messes things up.
Remember, the distinguished Guru Rasa von Werder had originally predicted that Hillary would become President in 2008. Looks like her prediction was off by only eight years, and the gist of it was still correct.
VIVE LA FEMME! VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Should Men Still Have Individual Rights?
(NOTE: The fellas might just wanna sit down and take a deep breath before reading this article)
I realize that since I began writing this blog a few months ago, I have been treating the question of individual rights for men as a given, when in reality it is far from obvious and thus should not be treated as such. Rather, us fellas need to take off our blinders of male privilege and examine this issue far more critically and objectively than has generally been the case. So let's get down to brass tacks:
In previous posts and elsewhere, I have already established why Women should rule both the family and the world (and why men should not), why the feminine paradigm of leadership is far better than the masculine one could ever be, why sexual freedom is a good thing on balance, and why the general concept of individual rights is worth preserving both before and after Women eventually take over. What I have been taking for granted, consciously and unconsciously, is that men in particular somehow would and should necessarily benefit from all of this under Matriarchy. And as a man, that is clearly chutzpah and hubris on my part to do so uncritically, given all of the evil that men, both historically and contemporarily, have done to Women, children, animals, and the Earth itself. Not that the men of the future automatically would or should not benefit from it, but it needs to be justified. And the onus clearly falls on us fellas to do exactly that.
Having established that Women would and should have individual rights, which practically everyone in the Matriarchy movement (and the broader Feminist movement) would agree with by definition, the question remains whether in fact any of those rights should then be extended to men as well after Women take over. One classic argument is that the men of the future should not be punished for the sins of their forefathers, but that would only be true for those who were born after patriarchy has been completely eradicated along with the "original sin" of male privilege that men continue to benefit from. And even if Women took over tomorrow, it would still take several more generations to eradicate all traces of that system, so that argument really doesn't hold water in the meantime. So there must be another argument given instead.
(NOTE: Some may give the hackneyed "not all men!" argument, but I will not even dignify that with a response.)
And the best argument in favor of men retaining individual rights is that Women would in fact benefit from such an arrangement as well, more so that if men did not have such rights. To wit:
Now having established that it is in fact mutually beneficial for Women to extend individual rights to men, what about the other big question (that Riane Eisler fails to answer)? That is, what's to stop men from ever taking over again? Clearly, there is a risk of "generational forgetting", in which future generations of Women may eventually forget just how dangerous men can be. I mean, no sane person can deny that men do have a dark side that can be extraordinarily dangerous at times. We all know what happened last time, about 7000 years ago, and the rest is history. While being too lenient towards men can clearly increase the odds of men eventually taking over again (leading to men gradually taking more and more power for themselves), remember that so too can being too strict or harsh (leading to mutiny). The sweet spot to prevent a male counterrevolution is somewhere in the middle, though exactly where may vary. And fortunately with today's technology (let alone future technology) in the hands of Women, the risk of men ever taking over again will be fairly small overall, so one can perhaps err on the side of liberty. Happy men who at least feel they are free are, after all, easier for Women to control than disgruntled, alienated, and/or disaffected ones.
Another utilitarian argument: Take a look at how American vs. European parents deal with teenagers, for example. American parents are more like "be a parent, not a pal" and "when you permit, you promote" (i.e. the "dominator" model). European parents are more like "be a mentor, not a tormentor" and "when you permit, you control" (i.e. the "partnership" model). And guess which group of teens are more likely to run amuck, generally speaking? Not the Europeans. Leaving aside the chicken-or-egg question, it makes sense. And since men have basically been stuck in perpetual adolescence for thousands of years, that is a rather fitting analogy if you ask me. But of course, freedom only works if individuals are held fully accountable for their actions--the experience of New Zealand is instructive in terms of what happens when they are not. Men would generally behave much better if they knew they would face swift and certain justice for misbehavior.
The Human Potential Movement believes that we are all still evolving, and that we may indeed be on the verge of a quantum leap in human evolution. And depriving any demographic group of essential liberty would only serve to thwart that evolution. That is also true in a Darwinian sense as well. If self-determination leads to self-termination, as is often the case for the redundant half of humanity, that is basically natural selection in action. So paternalistic arguments, which are antithetical to a free society, should also be rejected as well. That leaves pure revenge and sadism as the only remaining reasons to deny individual rights to men--and I have faith that that the better half of humanity would be above all that.
So now for the biggest question of all: what should the extent of men's individual rights actually be in a Matriarchal society? Ultimately, that will be up to the Women of the future to decide, but here is what I personally believe. First and foremost, men should be banned from holding political office or running large corporations, for obvious reasons. Not that most men get to do that now, so that is really not much of a sacrifice. Women may decide that certain other professions become off-limits to men as well, but that likely won't be much of a loss either. Also, in the USA, it may also be wise to ban men from owning/carrying guns (aside from those that would have existed in 1789) while still allowing Women to do so. That would apply to cops as well. (In the UK, things would basically remain the same for men while Women would have increased gun rights). Honestly, a real man doesn't need a gun, and guns only make men that much more dangerous. Additionally, I believe that, all else being equal, men should pay higher taxes than Women in order to solve the externalities problem and free-rider problem. (Just about any issue can be solved with Pigouvian taxes and/or subsidies, for the most part). But aside from those things I mentioned, I see no good reason why men should lose any other individual rights. Both Women and men should be considered individually sovereign in body and mind, as John Stuart Mill argued in his treatise On Liberty. And as Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
(And yes, I would feel the same way even if I knew I would die tomorrow and be reincarnated as a Woman, in case anyone was wondering.)
I realize that since I began writing this blog a few months ago, I have been treating the question of individual rights for men as a given, when in reality it is far from obvious and thus should not be treated as such. Rather, us fellas need to take off our blinders of male privilege and examine this issue far more critically and objectively than has generally been the case. So let's get down to brass tacks:
In previous posts and elsewhere, I have already established why Women should rule both the family and the world (and why men should not), why the feminine paradigm of leadership is far better than the masculine one could ever be, why sexual freedom is a good thing on balance, and why the general concept of individual rights is worth preserving both before and after Women eventually take over. What I have been taking for granted, consciously and unconsciously, is that men in particular somehow would and should necessarily benefit from all of this under Matriarchy. And as a man, that is clearly chutzpah and hubris on my part to do so uncritically, given all of the evil that men, both historically and contemporarily, have done to Women, children, animals, and the Earth itself. Not that the men of the future automatically would or should not benefit from it, but it needs to be justified. And the onus clearly falls on us fellas to do exactly that.
Having established that Women would and should have individual rights, which practically everyone in the Matriarchy movement (and the broader Feminist movement) would agree with by definition, the question remains whether in fact any of those rights should then be extended to men as well after Women take over. One classic argument is that the men of the future should not be punished for the sins of their forefathers, but that would only be true for those who were born after patriarchy has been completely eradicated along with the "original sin" of male privilege that men continue to benefit from. And even if Women took over tomorrow, it would still take several more generations to eradicate all traces of that system, so that argument really doesn't hold water in the meantime. So there must be another argument given instead.
(NOTE: Some may give the hackneyed "not all men!" argument, but I will not even dignify that with a response.)
And the best argument in favor of men retaining individual rights is that Women would in fact benefit from such an arrangement as well, more so that if men did not have such rights. To wit:
- Men would become even more of a burden on Women if they had no rights, and Women would thus be responsible for them. (Might as well just ditch the man and get a dog instead)
- If men lose their individual rights, that sets a dangerous precedent: what's to stop more-powerful or older Women from taking rights away from less-powerful or younger Women?
- No one is truly free when others are oppressed.
- Logistically and practically speaking, it is far easier if Women manage everything and men manage themselves.
- It is actually easier for Women to control men via pleasure rather than pain/fear, the opposite of what is the case for how men have historically done to Women. Think Huxley's Brave New World, not Orwell's 1984.
- The previous point is especially true given the fact that men are hard-wired to worship Women, especially if they had not been brainwashed by the patriarchy.
- Overall, liberty is like love. The more you give, the more you get.
Now having established that it is in fact mutually beneficial for Women to extend individual rights to men, what about the other big question (that Riane Eisler fails to answer)? That is, what's to stop men from ever taking over again? Clearly, there is a risk of "generational forgetting", in which future generations of Women may eventually forget just how dangerous men can be. I mean, no sane person can deny that men do have a dark side that can be extraordinarily dangerous at times. We all know what happened last time, about 7000 years ago, and the rest is history. While being too lenient towards men can clearly increase the odds of men eventually taking over again (leading to men gradually taking more and more power for themselves), remember that so too can being too strict or harsh (leading to mutiny). The sweet spot to prevent a male counterrevolution is somewhere in the middle, though exactly where may vary. And fortunately with today's technology (let alone future technology) in the hands of Women, the risk of men ever taking over again will be fairly small overall, so one can perhaps err on the side of liberty. Happy men who at least feel they are free are, after all, easier for Women to control than disgruntled, alienated, and/or disaffected ones.
Another utilitarian argument: Take a look at how American vs. European parents deal with teenagers, for example. American parents are more like "be a parent, not a pal" and "when you permit, you promote" (i.e. the "dominator" model). European parents are more like "be a mentor, not a tormentor" and "when you permit, you control" (i.e. the "partnership" model). And guess which group of teens are more likely to run amuck, generally speaking? Not the Europeans. Leaving aside the chicken-or-egg question, it makes sense. And since men have basically been stuck in perpetual adolescence for thousands of years, that is a rather fitting analogy if you ask me. But of course, freedom only works if individuals are held fully accountable for their actions--the experience of New Zealand is instructive in terms of what happens when they are not. Men would generally behave much better if they knew they would face swift and certain justice for misbehavior.
The Human Potential Movement believes that we are all still evolving, and that we may indeed be on the verge of a quantum leap in human evolution. And depriving any demographic group of essential liberty would only serve to thwart that evolution. That is also true in a Darwinian sense as well. If self-determination leads to self-termination, as is often the case for the redundant half of humanity, that is basically natural selection in action. So paternalistic arguments, which are antithetical to a free society, should also be rejected as well. That leaves pure revenge and sadism as the only remaining reasons to deny individual rights to men--and I have faith that that the better half of humanity would be above all that.
So now for the biggest question of all: what should the extent of men's individual rights actually be in a Matriarchal society? Ultimately, that will be up to the Women of the future to decide, but here is what I personally believe. First and foremost, men should be banned from holding political office or running large corporations, for obvious reasons. Not that most men get to do that now, so that is really not much of a sacrifice. Women may decide that certain other professions become off-limits to men as well, but that likely won't be much of a loss either. Also, in the USA, it may also be wise to ban men from owning/carrying guns (aside from those that would have existed in 1789) while still allowing Women to do so. That would apply to cops as well. (In the UK, things would basically remain the same for men while Women would have increased gun rights). Honestly, a real man doesn't need a gun, and guns only make men that much more dangerous. Additionally, I believe that, all else being equal, men should pay higher taxes than Women in order to solve the externalities problem and free-rider problem. (Just about any issue can be solved with Pigouvian taxes and/or subsidies, for the most part). But aside from those things I mentioned, I see no good reason why men should lose any other individual rights. Both Women and men should be considered individually sovereign in body and mind, as John Stuart Mill argued in his treatise On Liberty. And as Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
(And yes, I would feel the same way even if I knew I would die tomorrow and be reincarnated as a Woman, in case anyone was wondering.)
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Towards A New Social Contract
One of the most vexing issues in political philosophy throughout history has been the idea of the social contract. This idea, at its most basic and general, is "the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent
upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which
they live", to quote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Though idea dates back to at least Socrates, the three most prominent schools of thought concerning the modern social contract date back to the so-called Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries: John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Their ideas can best be summarized as follows in the following chart taken from the site 1215.org:
Of course, other thinkers later on have critiqued all three of these theories. John Rawls, most famously, came up with an alternative theory of justice. Feminists, such as Carole Pateman and Annette Baier, have noted how androcentric these social contract theories are and criticized this on several grounds: 1) that such theories really just decide which men get to dominate and control Women and how the "spoils" of the War on Women (i.e. patriarchy) are divvied up, trading one form of patriarchy with another, 2) the nature of the liberal individual, and 3) arguing from the ethics of care, which appears to be absent in such theories. Riane Eisler would most likely agree with such feminist criticisms. And other critics have noted that the issues of racism and classism need to be addressed as well.
So where does that leave the Matriarchy movement, exactly? We clearly need to move towards a new social contract while phasing out the old androcentric and phallocentric paradigms of patriarchy. Even at their very best, none of three (Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau) really are entirely compatible with Matriarchy. But personally, I believe that given a choice between those three in the meantime while the new social contract is being fleshed out, we should (albeit very grudgingly) choose Locke primarily, with a bit of Rousseau thrown in for good measure. Individual rights should still exist after Women eventually take over, in other words. Like Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." And as tempting as it may be to take an overly Hobbesian approach towards men in general, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that doing so would most likely simply lead to "reverse patriarchy" or "patriarchy in drag" as opposed to the fundamentally different paradigm of Matriarchy.
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Comparison Grid
Hobbes
|
Locke
|
Rousseau
|
|
State of
Nature
|
The state of nature is a state of war. No morality exists. Everyone lives in constant fear. Because of this fear, no one is really free,
but, since even the “weakest” could kill the “strongest” men ARE equal.
|
Men exist in the state of nature in perfect freedom to do
what they want. The state of nature
is not necessarily good or bad. It is
chaotic. So, men do give it up to
secure the advantages of civilized society.
|
Men in a state of nature are free and equal. In a state of
nature, men are “Noble Savages”.
Civilization is what corrupted him.
|
Purpose
of Government
|
To impose law and order to prevent the state of war.
|
To secure natural rights, namely man’s property and
liberty.
|
To bring people into harmony. To unite them under the “General Will”.
|
Representation
|
Governments are designed to control, not necessarily
represent.
|
Representation ensures that governments are responsive to
the people. Representation is a
safeguard against oppression.
|
Representation is not enough. Citizens cannot delegate their civic duties. They must be actively involved. Rousseau favors a more direct democracy to
enact the general will.
|
Impact
on Founders
|
Governments must be designed to protect the people from
themselves.
|
1. Governments must be designed to protect the people from the government.2. Natural Rights must be secured. |
1.
Governments must be
responsive and aligned with the general will.
2.
People make a nation, not
institutions.
3.
Individual wills are
subordinate to the general (collective) will.
|
Each of the three theories has its own strengths and weaknesses. For example, Hobbes could be considered too strict and authoritarian compared to the other two, while Locke could be considered too lenient and laissez-faire compared to Hobbes and too individualistic compared to Rousseau, and Rousseau could be considered too collectivistic and impractical compared to the other two. Each answers certain questions better than the others. That said, all three had a huge influence on America's Founding Fathers and beyond.
Of course, other thinkers later on have critiqued all three of these theories. John Rawls, most famously, came up with an alternative theory of justice. Feminists, such as Carole Pateman and Annette Baier, have noted how androcentric these social contract theories are and criticized this on several grounds: 1) that such theories really just decide which men get to dominate and control Women and how the "spoils" of the War on Women (i.e. patriarchy) are divvied up, trading one form of patriarchy with another, 2) the nature of the liberal individual, and 3) arguing from the ethics of care, which appears to be absent in such theories. Riane Eisler would most likely agree with such feminist criticisms. And other critics have noted that the issues of racism and classism need to be addressed as well.
So where does that leave the Matriarchy movement, exactly? We clearly need to move towards a new social contract while phasing out the old androcentric and phallocentric paradigms of patriarchy. Even at their very best, none of three (Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau) really are entirely compatible with Matriarchy. But personally, I believe that given a choice between those three in the meantime while the new social contract is being fleshed out, we should (albeit very grudgingly) choose Locke primarily, with a bit of Rousseau thrown in for good measure. Individual rights should still exist after Women eventually take over, in other words. Like Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." And as tempting as it may be to take an overly Hobbesian approach towards men in general, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that doing so would most likely simply lead to "reverse patriarchy" or "patriarchy in drag" as opposed to the fundamentally different paradigm of Matriarchy.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff122589.html
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff122589.html
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff122589.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)