Post by henerte on Aug 5, 2005 3:42:50 GMT -5
IS FEMINISM MERELY TRIBALISM?
Tribalism can be defined as:
1.) The organization, culture, or beliefs of a tribe.
2.) A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one's tribe or group.
Tribes can be based on many different loyalties, our families in Internet games, the football team we support, our religion, our race, and so-it-seems our sex (gender?). Those who know me know I try to avoid false loyalties based on these arbitrary shared bonds. Just as there's no world-wide Jewish conspiracy, there's also never been a world-wide agreement between men to oppress women.
Tribalism is inherent through our genetics and our biology, the biggest danger we have is not suppressing it, but denying it even exists. Yes it exists but the human brain and society can be used to teach to harness it for good and accept that we are naturally drawn to 'our tribe'.
---
Before I delve into feminism, I thought I would briefly look at racism.
Is it because racists are lazy mediocrities who rationally fear competition from hard-working and talented individuals from other countries/ethnic groups?[/color]
This is fascinating as it suggest the role of victim will be taken on by those who need to pass blame to others for their failures. One could imagine the NAZI party in the same vein, Germans made a scapegoat for their failings - rather than address their own failings.
---
Racism can be viewed on a psychological level:
Perhaps one of the least troubling kinds of racism for me is the inability of one ethnic group of humans to tell apart members of another ethnic group when they genuinely are trying to do so, but it shades easily into worse: from open declarations that "they all look the same" to the belief that they all are the same. As civilized beings we have to acknowledge our flaw, resist its effects, and build a world where those who express it are put at a disadvantage.[/color]
Tolerance may not be one of nature's virtues, but that doesn't mean we can't learn it.[/color]
Modern psychology is ideological and political as opposed to scientific, and deliberately so. Further, the ideological basis is not only archaic and outmoded, it was deeply flawed from the beginning. Rather than acting as a conduit of knowledge to bring man's social world into the modern age, psychology now acts as a barrier instead, substituting 'fact' of its own and insisting that it be accepted as truth.[/color]
---
The site also dispels the myth than there is equality in man.
The neural system of modern man is honed for the hunter/warrior mode of living. The need was for fast decisions while under stress. Speed was more important than accuracy. Survival depended on it. The human neural system is primarily a parallel mode reactive decision system, one ideal for controlling an automobile, hunting tigers, or designing a trap for the tribesman next door.[/color]
The human mind was not developed for tribes with memberships in the millions, for urban (ant hill) living, for mixing of cultures, for being ruled by strangers of another tribe, for high-technology living, etc[/color]
---
It also talks about male-female interchangeability:
The feminization of the male and the masculinization of the female is a sure sign of the degeneration of the human, in both physical appearance and instinct.[/color]
---
Father Mag says that patriarchy is the basis of civilisation. It's an interesting read, but one must acknowledge the gender-bias that we should expect from a magazine for fathers. Its conclusion could be described as inflammatory:
Stable families, safe children, and healthy societies exist only where men maintain control over their progeny.[/color]
---
Another interesting read is at Friesian.com called "feminism"
Although the original feminist demand was that a woman should be allowed to do anything she is qualified or able to do, this has slowly shifted over to the requirement that standards be changed to allow more women to qualify for any profession or activity. Although the United State Army determined that, in general, women only have about 52% of the upper body strength of men, both the military and other physically demanding professions, like firefighting, now often have separate physical standards, or special training programs, just to increase the number of women who can pass the training. Why this has happened, or why it is thought to be necessary, has mostly not been a matter for candid admission or public debate.[/color]
And
The virtue of liberal society is that it allows people to try things their own way. If gender feminists want "gender-neutral" upbringing, they can practice that on their own children (if any). If professional couples want to both pursue their vocations and leave their children to the uncertain values (and behavior) of the nanny, they can do that. And if cultural conservatives want marriage where the husband supports his family and the wife stays home, they can do that, with traditional family law embodied in private contract. But this has never been the program of establishment feminism, whose instinct and preference has always been coercion and social engineering.[/color]
---
The article also talks about how feminism doesn't understand the role of testosterone and male rituals and behaviour. "Testosterone does not cause violence, but it creates a certain potential that can be expressed in different ways"; the theory being that male rough-housing and humiliation are ways of testing how we'll cope in real-world scenarios - if you're a fire-fighter and you go into a burning building you need to know how your comrades will cope.
When those unplanned and uncontrolled activities begin to include drive-by shootings and gang wars, it is clear that there has been a major social failure to deal with male adolescent behavior. The feminist desire simply to get rid of that behavior may already be said to have proved itself a disastrous failure, since feminist ideology and the most socially disruptive expressions of street gang culture have all developed and expanded during the same period of time, within the last thirty years. The only effective way to deal with the young men is to accept, control, and channel their behavior, not to pretend that it can be abolished. At the same time, doing away with the emotionally and physically stressful aspects of military training, because women can't or shouldn't handle it as well, simply means that there will be no training, for either men or women, for the stress and trauma of actual war and combat.[/color]
---
The article "Feminism is socialism" takes a more hard-lined anti-feminist approach. But does raise some valid points, but does so without eloquent and coherent writing. One argument is that feminisation of society weakens it, weakens men and gives the States more control. I can see that as being true and it justifies why the US military has to effectively re-brainwash recruits, and then why when they finally leave the military are unable to cope with society.
Ultimately, feminism, the feminist movement, is a way for women to bond. Tribalism is the opposite of individualism, and therefore as I see it anything that is tribal can be said to harm the individual and be an enemy to individual liberties and freedom. Amber Pawlik writes extremely eloquently in a piece called "Joan of Arc" and concludes:
All rational people should reject such irrational notions as "women's rights," or rather - feminism. Collectivism and individualism cannot exist in the same place.[/color][/b]
If you are a female interested in earthly success, my advice to you is: reject every tenet ever put forth by feminism.[/color][/b]
I would say perhaps not every, but everything that is inherently tribal or anti-male.
blog.monjo.com/post/2005/05/18/tribal_feminism
Any comments? I would like to hear what our ladies have to say?
Tribalism can be defined as:
1.) The organization, culture, or beliefs of a tribe.
2.) A strong feeling of identity with and loyalty to one's tribe or group.
Tribes can be based on many different loyalties, our families in Internet games, the football team we support, our religion, our race, and so-it-seems our sex (gender?). Those who know me know I try to avoid false loyalties based on these arbitrary shared bonds. Just as there's no world-wide Jewish conspiracy, there's also never been a world-wide agreement between men to oppress women.
Tribalism is inherent through our genetics and our biology, the biggest danger we have is not suppressing it, but denying it even exists. Yes it exists but the human brain and society can be used to teach to harness it for good and accept that we are naturally drawn to 'our tribe'.
---
Before I delve into feminism, I thought I would briefly look at racism.
Is it because racists are lazy mediocrities who rationally fear competition from hard-working and talented individuals from other countries/ethnic groups?[/color]
This is fascinating as it suggest the role of victim will be taken on by those who need to pass blame to others for their failures. One could imagine the NAZI party in the same vein, Germans made a scapegoat for their failings - rather than address their own failings.
---
Racism can be viewed on a psychological level:
Perhaps one of the least troubling kinds of racism for me is the inability of one ethnic group of humans to tell apart members of another ethnic group when they genuinely are trying to do so, but it shades easily into worse: from open declarations that "they all look the same" to the belief that they all are the same. As civilized beings we have to acknowledge our flaw, resist its effects, and build a world where those who express it are put at a disadvantage.[/color]
Tolerance may not be one of nature's virtues, but that doesn't mean we can't learn it.[/color]
Modern psychology is ideological and political as opposed to scientific, and deliberately so. Further, the ideological basis is not only archaic and outmoded, it was deeply flawed from the beginning. Rather than acting as a conduit of knowledge to bring man's social world into the modern age, psychology now acts as a barrier instead, substituting 'fact' of its own and insisting that it be accepted as truth.[/color]
---
The site also dispels the myth than there is equality in man.
The neural system of modern man is honed for the hunter/warrior mode of living. The need was for fast decisions while under stress. Speed was more important than accuracy. Survival depended on it. The human neural system is primarily a parallel mode reactive decision system, one ideal for controlling an automobile, hunting tigers, or designing a trap for the tribesman next door.[/color]
The human mind was not developed for tribes with memberships in the millions, for urban (ant hill) living, for mixing of cultures, for being ruled by strangers of another tribe, for high-technology living, etc[/color]
---
It also talks about male-female interchangeability:
The feminization of the male and the masculinization of the female is a sure sign of the degeneration of the human, in both physical appearance and instinct.[/color]
---
Father Mag says that patriarchy is the basis of civilisation. It's an interesting read, but one must acknowledge the gender-bias that we should expect from a magazine for fathers. Its conclusion could be described as inflammatory:
Stable families, safe children, and healthy societies exist only where men maintain control over their progeny.[/color]
---
Another interesting read is at Friesian.com called "feminism"
Although the original feminist demand was that a woman should be allowed to do anything she is qualified or able to do, this has slowly shifted over to the requirement that standards be changed to allow more women to qualify for any profession or activity. Although the United State Army determined that, in general, women only have about 52% of the upper body strength of men, both the military and other physically demanding professions, like firefighting, now often have separate physical standards, or special training programs, just to increase the number of women who can pass the training. Why this has happened, or why it is thought to be necessary, has mostly not been a matter for candid admission or public debate.[/color]
And
The virtue of liberal society is that it allows people to try things their own way. If gender feminists want "gender-neutral" upbringing, they can practice that on their own children (if any). If professional couples want to both pursue their vocations and leave their children to the uncertain values (and behavior) of the nanny, they can do that. And if cultural conservatives want marriage where the husband supports his family and the wife stays home, they can do that, with traditional family law embodied in private contract. But this has never been the program of establishment feminism, whose instinct and preference has always been coercion and social engineering.[/color]
---
The article also talks about how feminism doesn't understand the role of testosterone and male rituals and behaviour. "Testosterone does not cause violence, but it creates a certain potential that can be expressed in different ways"; the theory being that male rough-housing and humiliation are ways of testing how we'll cope in real-world scenarios - if you're a fire-fighter and you go into a burning building you need to know how your comrades will cope.
When those unplanned and uncontrolled activities begin to include drive-by shootings and gang wars, it is clear that there has been a major social failure to deal with male adolescent behavior. The feminist desire simply to get rid of that behavior may already be said to have proved itself a disastrous failure, since feminist ideology and the most socially disruptive expressions of street gang culture have all developed and expanded during the same period of time, within the last thirty years. The only effective way to deal with the young men is to accept, control, and channel their behavior, not to pretend that it can be abolished. At the same time, doing away with the emotionally and physically stressful aspects of military training, because women can't or shouldn't handle it as well, simply means that there will be no training, for either men or women, for the stress and trauma of actual war and combat.[/color]
---
The article "Feminism is socialism" takes a more hard-lined anti-feminist approach. But does raise some valid points, but does so without eloquent and coherent writing. One argument is that feminisation of society weakens it, weakens men and gives the States more control. I can see that as being true and it justifies why the US military has to effectively re-brainwash recruits, and then why when they finally leave the military are unable to cope with society.
Ultimately, feminism, the feminist movement, is a way for women to bond. Tribalism is the opposite of individualism, and therefore as I see it anything that is tribal can be said to harm the individual and be an enemy to individual liberties and freedom. Amber Pawlik writes extremely eloquently in a piece called "Joan of Arc" and concludes:
All rational people should reject such irrational notions as "women's rights," or rather - feminism. Collectivism and individualism cannot exist in the same place.[/color][/b]
If you are a female interested in earthly success, my advice to you is: reject every tenet ever put forth by feminism.[/color][/b]
I would say perhaps not every, but everything that is inherently tribal or anti-male.
blog.monjo.com/post/2005/05/18/tribal_feminism
Any comments? I would like to hear what our ladies have to say?