What do Liberia, South Sudan, Kenya, Colombia, the Philippines, and Ancient Greece have in common? All of these societies contain at least one example in their history of Women going on sex strike (i.e. withholding sex from men until their collective demands are met) and typically achieving success as a result, often in a matter of weeks or less. These actions were generally done to bring an end to otherwise intractable and prolonged wars and violence, most notably the Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece as noted in the famous play Lysistrata. In Liberia, a modern-day example, it brought an end to their country's 14-year long civil war and ushered in their first female president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.
But what about the longest war in history, i.e. the War on Women? Also known as "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer, this system is currently self-destructing as we speak, but can its demise be accelerated with a sex strike perhaps? Would Women be able to take over the world more quickly and readily that way? Pat Ravasio of Buckyworld seems to think so. While I have long been rather skeptical of the idea myself, after suspending my disbelief I began to realize that this probably would have a chance at working wonders. As the aformentioned historical examples have shown, men's demand for sex appears to be relatively "inelastic", that is, even a large increase in the "cost" of sex (which by definition would rise significantly during a massive shortage such as a sex strike) would not affect demand very much, at least in the short run. While men don't have a higher sex drive than Women (if anything, Women have a higher sex drive), for men there is a much greater sense of urgency thanks to all of that testosterone, and thus men will typically "cave" first. Thus, men would do whatever it takes to end the shortage/strike and regain easier access, including cleaning up their act and meeting the demands of the Women on strike. (Women often forget just how much power they really have!) And while the grand scale of the task of ending patriarchy may be more daunting than the historical examples of using sex strikes to end local conflicts, at this point in history it certainly appears to be worth the old college try. Even with less than 100% participation, if enough Women go on strike (especially the wives of powerful men in high places), the effects would nonetheless be huge.
So the answer to the question is most likely yes. That said, it usually takes an enormous amount of provocation to get a critical mass of Women on board for something like that, since Women clearly have needs as well. But given how so many men are lashing out these days as the patriarchy is now in its death throes, it probably won't take all that much more provocation to end up crossing that critical threshold. Thus, I would not be shocked if The Big One happens within a few years.
Saturday, September 3, 2016
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Who's Afraid of an Aging Population?
I was recently wondering why so many
men, especially the elites, are terrified that our overall population is
(gasp!) aging. It is not just because they fear that their economic
Ponzi scheme of necrotic growth for the sake of growth will unravel,
though that is clearly part of it as well. No, I think that their real
fear is that the Crones (i.e. Women over age 50 or so) will have an *unprecedented* level of power due
to relative strength in numbers, and thus so will Women in general. That
is because Women are living longer than ever before, as well as having
fewer kids. And the men are getting scared. Hence the recent push to whittle away Women's reproductive rights, eventually including most birth control as well.
Ah, you say, but what about the supposedly legitimate economic fears of an aging (and eventually shrinking) population? Well, a recent study came out that found that such fears are largely overblown. In fact, moderately low fertility (i.e. between 1.5-2.0 children per woman) and a shrinking population would actually maximize living standards for the general population. Not to say that an aging population will not pose some challenges, but on balance the benefits would outweigh such drawbacks. Oh, and by the way, there is that elephant in the room--make that the elephant in the Volkswagen--OVERPOPULATION. Left unchecked, it will destroy the very planet that gives us life. While technology can largely solve the foreseeable economic challenges of aging and declining populations, the same cannot really be said of the intractable ecological problems of overpopulation. And the only ethical way to do this is to voluntarily have fewer children, i.e. well below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 or so. According to the best evidence, the best way to accomplish this is female empowerment and poverty reduction, since after all, the number one cause of overpopulation is MEN who force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women into having kids that they otherwise would not have (or much sooner and closer-spaced than otherwise). Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts.
So what about countries like Japan, Italy, Greece, Spain, etc. with so-called "lowest-low" total fertility rates below 1.5? Yes, it is likely that they will hit a sort of short-to-medium-term "pothole" on the road to sustainability if they stay below 1.5 for too long. Their populations' aging and decline will be significantly more rapid than for countries with TFRs between 1.5-2.0, and may be more difficult to adjust to from an economic perspective. Well, the answer to that, again, is increased female empowerment. We see that European countries with greater female empowerment and more generous social safety nets for mothers and children tend to have higher fertility than those with less female empowerment and stingier safety nets such as Spain, Italy, and Greece. Even though all of those countries have TFRs below replacement, Northern and Western Europe are generally around 1.6-2.0 while Southern and Eastern Europe are generally significantly below 1.5 children per woman. The proof is clearly in the pudding.
Make no mistake, if Women were to take over the world tomorrow, the global TFR would plummet to 1.5 or lower almost overnight. But it would not stay below 1.5 for very long, as it would gradually rise back up to around 1.5-1.9 where it will remain for at least a generation or two, and eventually rise to around the replacement rate of 2.1 after the population shrinks significantly over time. And honestly, it can't happen soon enough. We must leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact.
In other words, VIVE LA FEMME! Let the planetary healing begin!
Ah, you say, but what about the supposedly legitimate economic fears of an aging (and eventually shrinking) population? Well, a recent study came out that found that such fears are largely overblown. In fact, moderately low fertility (i.e. between 1.5-2.0 children per woman) and a shrinking population would actually maximize living standards for the general population. Not to say that an aging population will not pose some challenges, but on balance the benefits would outweigh such drawbacks. Oh, and by the way, there is that elephant in the room--make that the elephant in the Volkswagen--OVERPOPULATION. Left unchecked, it will destroy the very planet that gives us life. While technology can largely solve the foreseeable economic challenges of aging and declining populations, the same cannot really be said of the intractable ecological problems of overpopulation. And the only ethical way to do this is to voluntarily have fewer children, i.e. well below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 or so. According to the best evidence, the best way to accomplish this is female empowerment and poverty reduction, since after all, the number one cause of overpopulation is MEN who force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women into having kids that they otherwise would not have (or much sooner and closer-spaced than otherwise). Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts.
So what about countries like Japan, Italy, Greece, Spain, etc. with so-called "lowest-low" total fertility rates below 1.5? Yes, it is likely that they will hit a sort of short-to-medium-term "pothole" on the road to sustainability if they stay below 1.5 for too long. Their populations' aging and decline will be significantly more rapid than for countries with TFRs between 1.5-2.0, and may be more difficult to adjust to from an economic perspective. Well, the answer to that, again, is increased female empowerment. We see that European countries with greater female empowerment and more generous social safety nets for mothers and children tend to have higher fertility than those with less female empowerment and stingier safety nets such as Spain, Italy, and Greece. Even though all of those countries have TFRs below replacement, Northern and Western Europe are generally around 1.6-2.0 while Southern and Eastern Europe are generally significantly below 1.5 children per woman. The proof is clearly in the pudding.
Make no mistake, if Women were to take over the world tomorrow, the global TFR would plummet to 1.5 or lower almost overnight. But it would not stay below 1.5 for very long, as it would gradually rise back up to around 1.5-1.9 where it will remain for at least a generation or two, and eventually rise to around the replacement rate of 2.1 after the population shrinks significantly over time. And honestly, it can't happen soon enough. We must leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us. We have been warned, decades ago in fact.
In other words, VIVE LA FEMME! Let the planetary healing begin!
Saturday, August 13, 2016
What the "Nordic Model" Gets Wrong
There has been a lot of controversy lately about the so-called "Nordic Model" of in terms of sex work. For those who don't know, the Nordic Model refers to the policy in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland (and now Canada and France as well) of decriminalizing the sex workers themselves but criminalizing the buyers. Having been on the proverbial back-burner for years, the issue has recently been the subject of much political discourse after Amnesty International controversially came out in favor of full decriminalization (for both buyers and sellers) of sex work in 2015. Two recent op-eds, both of which in favor of the Nordic Model (and thus against Amnesty's new stance), have been written about the policy, one by former President Jimmy Carter and one by author and prostitution survivor Rachel Moran. And truth be told, both authors make some very good and insightful points that are very difficult to dismiss or ignore outright, especially when looking at international and before-and-after comparisons under various policy changes.
While the Nordic Model is clearly a step-up from the worst-of-both-worlds American Model (i.e. criminalize everyone involved, often going easier on the buyers than the sex workers themselves), one should note that it still leaves an awful lot to be desired. While it gets some things right, it also gets some things wrong--the biggie being something that practically all sides of the debate also get wrong. And no, it's not just that it's supposed success has been recently called into question--though that is also true. Nor is it the idea that it is relatively agency-denying to Women--though that is also true. Nor is it the idea that the Nordic Model can sometimes hurt those it is supposed to help--though that is also true. Nope, it's something far more fundamental about the nature of sex and sex work--so what is it?
Basically, there is a set of fundamental truths that have always existed and always will: 1) As Guru Rasa von Werder has repeatedly noted, prostitution is but one of many forms of "selling sex"--in fact, the most common form generally goes by the name of "marriage", 2) Sex work has existed even when Women used to rule the world, and will continue after Women reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world once again, 3) When Women are in charge of the profession, it becomes radically different than it is with men in charge, 4) Beggar-thy-neighbour policies to artificially inflate the relative "cost" of sex for men are notorious for backfiring, 5) There has never been a society in which Women had sexual freedom but men did not. The reverse has been true, of course, and there have been many societies where both or neither were sexually free, but trying to do the former would not last long since a black market for sex (paid or otherwise) would quickly develop. That's the grain of truth to the otherwise-bogus "race to the bottom" argument, and 6) Punishing anyone for sex between consenting adults, paid or otherwise, is really a backwards and illiberal idea when you think about it.
True, the sex industry is notorious for great evils, especially human trafficking. No argument from me there. But we need to get to the root causes of such evils--and those root causes are (surprise, surprise) capitalism and patriarchy. From the desperation that Women and children are driven to as a result of such systems, to the fact that men dominate the industry (and world), these are the real issues, and the evils of the industry are simply symptoms of such wholesale and systemic evil.
I personally believe that consenting-adult sex work should be completely decriminalized if not legalized, provided that only Women control it. Men have utterly ruined the "oldest profession" when they took it over. Otherwise, contrary to those who oppose it, sex work is not inherently evil or toxic to society. In fact, it can be quite healing and beneficial to society. So let the planetary healing begin!
While the Nordic Model is clearly a step-up from the worst-of-both-worlds American Model (i.e. criminalize everyone involved, often going easier on the buyers than the sex workers themselves), one should note that it still leaves an awful lot to be desired. While it gets some things right, it also gets some things wrong--the biggie being something that practically all sides of the debate also get wrong. And no, it's not just that it's supposed success has been recently called into question--though that is also true. Nor is it the idea that it is relatively agency-denying to Women--though that is also true. Nor is it the idea that the Nordic Model can sometimes hurt those it is supposed to help--though that is also true. Nope, it's something far more fundamental about the nature of sex and sex work--so what is it?
Basically, there is a set of fundamental truths that have always existed and always will: 1) As Guru Rasa von Werder has repeatedly noted, prostitution is but one of many forms of "selling sex"--in fact, the most common form generally goes by the name of "marriage", 2) Sex work has existed even when Women used to rule the world, and will continue after Women reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world once again, 3) When Women are in charge of the profession, it becomes radically different than it is with men in charge, 4) Beggar-thy-neighbour policies to artificially inflate the relative "cost" of sex for men are notorious for backfiring, 5) There has never been a society in which Women had sexual freedom but men did not. The reverse has been true, of course, and there have been many societies where both or neither were sexually free, but trying to do the former would not last long since a black market for sex (paid or otherwise) would quickly develop. That's the grain of truth to the otherwise-bogus "race to the bottom" argument, and 6) Punishing anyone for sex between consenting adults, paid or otherwise, is really a backwards and illiberal idea when you think about it.
True, the sex industry is notorious for great evils, especially human trafficking. No argument from me there. But we need to get to the root causes of such evils--and those root causes are (surprise, surprise) capitalism and patriarchy. From the desperation that Women and children are driven to as a result of such systems, to the fact that men dominate the industry (and world), these are the real issues, and the evils of the industry are simply symptoms of such wholesale and systemic evil.
I personally believe that consenting-adult sex work should be completely decriminalized if not legalized, provided that only Women control it. Men have utterly ruined the "oldest profession" when they took it over. Otherwise, contrary to those who oppose it, sex work is not inherently evil or toxic to society. In fact, it can be quite healing and beneficial to society. So let the planetary healing begin!
Friday, July 29, 2016
The Power of Sisterhood
While our chimpanzee cousins have been well-known to us modern humans since practically forever, there is also another closely-related species that many people have probably never even heard of: bonobos. These apes, who are genetically just as close to us as chimps are, have only been discovered fairly recently. And to those who know about them, they are famous for two things: female dominance and free love.
You read that right. Bonobos, unlike chimps, are female-dominated, and the differences between them and chimps (which are male-dominated) are like day and night. While chimps are quite violent, aggressive, and hierarchical, bonobos are peaceful, loving, and at least relatively egalitarian. Bonobos take the phrase "make love, not war" literally, even going so far as to use sex to resolve conflicts. Female-female sex is particularly common, leading to greater bonding between females apparently. And to the extent that bonobos even have hierarchies, females are clearly in charge, and the older they get, the more powerful they are. It is very likely that humans started out much more like bonobos than chimps in that regard, and remained as such for the first million or so years of our existence. But after men took over about 7000 years ago, they started to behave like WORSE than chimps, and as they say the rest is history. Until Women reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, that is.
(Read Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha for more on how early and modern humans have evolved in that regard.)
So how do the female bonobos manage to keep the rogue males at bay despite the fact that the males tend to be bigger and stronger? (Yes, even bonobos have a few rogue males here and there.) Well, the answer is rather simple: the females form coalitions with each other against any males that dare to harass or act aggressively towards them, and they win through strength in numbers. It's the power of sisterhood, essentially, and it occurs even among unrelated females as well.
Now contrast that to how humans have historically lived under patriarchy. One thing that the patriarchy has been very, very successful at is turning Women against each other, effectively breaking up any potential sisterhood. Divide-and-conquer, basically. We saw that during the Burning Times (aka the Women's Holocaust), which was primarily waged by men against Women but also had plenty of Women pointing the finger at each other. Legend has it that it got so bad that King James of England even had to call a brief moratorium on the "witch trials" due to so many Women attempting to settle personal scores with one another. And by that point (the 17th century), the sisterhood had basically been destroyed. Keep in mind that this was all by design, as the real reason why the Burning Times happened was to prevent Women from taking over again. In the centuries leading up to it, Women were gradually gaining more and more power, and what started as what the history books call the "Peasant Revolts" was actually a long revolution by Women against the patriarchy. Thus, the Burning Times was basically a counterrevolution in that regard.
Even today, the result of patriarchal brainwashing of Women is still evident, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent. We see it when some Women still think it is okay to slut-shame, body-shame, mom-shame, and/or childfree-shame other Women. We see it in the perennial "mommy wars" of various sorts on the interwebs and IRL as well. We see it when some Women think it is okay to pull each other under just to save themselves. We see it in various forms of "patriarchal bargaining" and "beggar-thy-neighbour" policies. And while individual Women may indeed benefit from it all, Women as a group end up worse off as a result.
In keeping with the overall theme of this article, I would say that slut-shaming and erotophobia in general deserve special consideration in terms of divide-and-conquer. This erotophobia is basically internalized patriarchy and self-hating misogyny (especially on the right), as well as (especially on the left) a fear that sexual freedom will lead to a "race to the bottom" for Women much like so-called "free trade" and "free enterprise" does for the broader working class. The former can be debunked as effed up on its face, while the latter can be debunked by noting that while men are naturally hard-wired to worship Women, employers are not naturally hard-wired to worship their employees (would that it were true!), so that analogy can only go so far in practice. Furthermore, the interests of capital and labor have always been opposed and always will be (unless capital and labor become one and the same), while the interests of men and Women are not inherently opposed (and did not become opposed until the advent of patriarchy). We should in fact be natural allies, but we fellas messed that up big time, and as they say the rest is history. And regardless, since the so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1960s-1970s, as much of a mixed bag as it were, Women have gained more far more power (relative to men) than they lost as a result of increased sexual freedom overall.
And again, we come back to bonobos once more, from whom we can learn a great deal. Clearly for them, far from it diminishing female power in a "race to the bottom", sexual freedom actually seems to enhance it. That makes sense, because any attempt to quash sexual freedom by acting as the veritable OPEC of sex in a (generally futile) attempt to control males would act at cross-purposes with the goal of sisterhood in the long run. That's not to say that Pat Ravasio's (from Buckyworld) idea of going a global sex strike would be fruitless in the goal of overthrowing the patriarchy. It would most likely have at least some positive effect even with less than 100% participation. But that is clearly a short-term solution for taking power, not a long-term solution for maintaining power. Just like how the working class can't remain on strike forever--eventually the workers have to win and fundamentally change the system so future strikes are unnecessary.
Clearly, the sisterhood needs to be revived if Women are to successfully take over, Goddess willing.
You read that right. Bonobos, unlike chimps, are female-dominated, and the differences between them and chimps (which are male-dominated) are like day and night. While chimps are quite violent, aggressive, and hierarchical, bonobos are peaceful, loving, and at least relatively egalitarian. Bonobos take the phrase "make love, not war" literally, even going so far as to use sex to resolve conflicts. Female-female sex is particularly common, leading to greater bonding between females apparently. And to the extent that bonobos even have hierarchies, females are clearly in charge, and the older they get, the more powerful they are. It is very likely that humans started out much more like bonobos than chimps in that regard, and remained as such for the first million or so years of our existence. But after men took over about 7000 years ago, they started to behave like WORSE than chimps, and as they say the rest is history. Until Women reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, that is.
(Read Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha for more on how early and modern humans have evolved in that regard.)
So how do the female bonobos manage to keep the rogue males at bay despite the fact that the males tend to be bigger and stronger? (Yes, even bonobos have a few rogue males here and there.) Well, the answer is rather simple: the females form coalitions with each other against any males that dare to harass or act aggressively towards them, and they win through strength in numbers. It's the power of sisterhood, essentially, and it occurs even among unrelated females as well.
Now contrast that to how humans have historically lived under patriarchy. One thing that the patriarchy has been very, very successful at is turning Women against each other, effectively breaking up any potential sisterhood. Divide-and-conquer, basically. We saw that during the Burning Times (aka the Women's Holocaust), which was primarily waged by men against Women but also had plenty of Women pointing the finger at each other. Legend has it that it got so bad that King James of England even had to call a brief moratorium on the "witch trials" due to so many Women attempting to settle personal scores with one another. And by that point (the 17th century), the sisterhood had basically been destroyed. Keep in mind that this was all by design, as the real reason why the Burning Times happened was to prevent Women from taking over again. In the centuries leading up to it, Women were gradually gaining more and more power, and what started as what the history books call the "Peasant Revolts" was actually a long revolution by Women against the patriarchy. Thus, the Burning Times was basically a counterrevolution in that regard.
Even today, the result of patriarchal brainwashing of Women is still evident, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent. We see it when some Women still think it is okay to slut-shame, body-shame, mom-shame, and/or childfree-shame other Women. We see it in the perennial "mommy wars" of various sorts on the interwebs and IRL as well. We see it when some Women think it is okay to pull each other under just to save themselves. We see it in various forms of "patriarchal bargaining" and "beggar-thy-neighbour" policies. And while individual Women may indeed benefit from it all, Women as a group end up worse off as a result.
In keeping with the overall theme of this article, I would say that slut-shaming and erotophobia in general deserve special consideration in terms of divide-and-conquer. This erotophobia is basically internalized patriarchy and self-hating misogyny (especially on the right), as well as (especially on the left) a fear that sexual freedom will lead to a "race to the bottom" for Women much like so-called "free trade" and "free enterprise" does for the broader working class. The former can be debunked as effed up on its face, while the latter can be debunked by noting that while men are naturally hard-wired to worship Women, employers are not naturally hard-wired to worship their employees (would that it were true!), so that analogy can only go so far in practice. Furthermore, the interests of capital and labor have always been opposed and always will be (unless capital and labor become one and the same), while the interests of men and Women are not inherently opposed (and did not become opposed until the advent of patriarchy). We should in fact be natural allies, but we fellas messed that up big time, and as they say the rest is history. And regardless, since the so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1960s-1970s, as much of a mixed bag as it were, Women have gained more far more power (relative to men) than they lost as a result of increased sexual freedom overall.
And again, we come back to bonobos once more, from whom we can learn a great deal. Clearly for them, far from it diminishing female power in a "race to the bottom", sexual freedom actually seems to enhance it. That makes sense, because any attempt to quash sexual freedom by acting as the veritable OPEC of sex in a (generally futile) attempt to control males would act at cross-purposes with the goal of sisterhood in the long run. That's not to say that Pat Ravasio's (from Buckyworld) idea of going a global sex strike would be fruitless in the goal of overthrowing the patriarchy. It would most likely have at least some positive effect even with less than 100% participation. But that is clearly a short-term solution for taking power, not a long-term solution for maintaining power. Just like how the working class can't remain on strike forever--eventually the workers have to win and fundamentally change the system so future strikes are unnecessary.
Clearly, the sisterhood needs to be revived if Women are to successfully take over, Goddess willing.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Looks Like Hillary Will Win
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!
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!
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)