Tag Archives: Politics

Bureaucrats

Bill wrote last month about bureaucracy, and it was scathing. I have no more love for bureaucracy than the next man and all the scorn he heaps on bureaucracy is well deserved, but from my experience in the public sector, I think he is mistaken about bureaucrats.

Bill has a lot of scathing criticism of bureaucrats, but it is not the bureaucrats who are the problem, it is the bureaucracy itself. The system is what destroys.

I’m not saying there aren’t bad bureaucrats, just that bureaucrats are just like workers anywhere else. Most bureaucrats are decent enough folks, some are  assholes, and most are just doing their job and trying to get ahead. They respond to incentives just like anybody else.

There’s the problem: the system of incentives that government bureaucracy has created for its workers is what is destructive.

As Frost wrote in Freedom 25, there are 3 iron laws of bureaucracy:

1) You will never have to do anything.

2) If you ever actually do anything it will be useless.

3) If you ever actually do something useful, it will be rendered useless by subsequent layers of management.

It is this system which oppresses its own workers that is the problem.

Now, there are some not-so-great trends among bureaucrats: bureaucrats do tend to lean somewhat more leftwards and believe more in the efficacy of government solutions, but (most) bureaucrats are not trying to screw you, no more than any other group of people. Most bureaucrats either don’t care, are just going their jobs, or they honestly believe that they are helping the public.

This is the first in a planned short series of why government bureaucracy doesn’t work, where I’ll go into the incentives that create government failure in more detail.

****

For now though, I’ll address a few of his points:

The real power of the government is with the petty bureaucrat, the one you might see from time to time.

A single petty bureaucrat has almost no power; he can at most moderately inconvenience you. The petty bureaucrat is a slave to the rules. The biggest problem from a petty bureaucrat is not what the bureaucrat himself, but if he decides to put you into the system.

The system is a maze that is almost indecipherable to anyone who is not a lawyer or bureaucrat in that particular system. The system can ruin your life: whether it’s the family court system, the tax system, or what have you, but rare is it that a single bureaucrat can hurt you that much until you’re in the system.

The problem with the system is not with the people, it is the rules. Each person in a bureaucracy has a specific role and rules guiding his role. There are no deviations from your role or your rules. Even if breaking the rules in a minor way would benefit everyone involved, the bureaucrat is not allowed to deviate. There are also no exceptions to the rules, they have to be applied as written (and interpreted) to everybody equally, which is why you’ll occasionally here about stupidities, like bureaucrats shutting down children’s lemonade stands.

The rules are hard, cold, and unyielding. Even if they make no sense, the rules or roles are still paramount.

The people who are attracted to bureaucratic or government jobs know that they are unsuited for any social success or productive work and it infuriates them, so they want payback. What better way to get payback than to fuck with people who they know are their betters? They relish their jobs because every time they can make someone wait, audit their tax returns, place a lien on their property or in extreme cases cause someone to die, they feel that their revenge is taken.

In most countries, most bureaucrats aren’t any more (or less) competent than employees the private sector. The US is somewhat of an exception, for reasons I’ll explain in a later post. Most can, and many do, switch between the private and public sectors.

There are some gross incompetents in government, and the government union system makes removing incompetents much more difficult for bureaucracies than for the non-unionized private sector, but most government employees are reasonably competent at their functions.

Also, most bureaucrats (again, there are the occassional exceptions) don’t care about you. They don’t want to fuck you and they take no pleasure in doing so. Some may want to help you, but for the most part, they simply want to do their job so they can get paid and go home, just like most people in the private sector.

That’s not to say they won’t fuck you. If the rules they follow require fucking you, they’ll follow the rules, and you’re fucked, but that is a problem with the rules not the people and most people won’t take any pleasure out of it unless you’ve been a complete ass to them. They will feel apathy. (Whether that’s better or worse is debatable).

No truer statement was ever uttered and if you don’t believe me on this, just fuck with one of these dickheads. They will ensure that, to all extent of their government bestowed powers, they will do anything they can to make your life as hellish as possible and make you pay even more of your hard earned money than you do presently. Fuck with them enough, or just be in the wrong situation at the wrong time and they’ll ruin your life…or get you killed.

Generally, bureaucrats will not go out of their way to hurt you, but like most people they do have a tendency revenge. If you fuck with anyone they will usually try to get revenge, bureaucrats are not different. Generally, though, the bureaucrats are apathetic. As long as you don’t personally piss off an individual bureaucrat, they don’t care

They have no reference for what it is like to live as a person, much less a free individual with hopes and dreams and the means to attain them. And so, we are dangerous. We don’t behave “by the book.” And we have to be controlled. It’s all for our own best interests, isn’t it? Why should anyone be allowed to follow their individual talents and drive for the life they wish to live? That might make someone else feel inferior, just like they do. So we must be at the least controlled, and at the extreme destroyed.

It is true that progressivism and statism are somewhat more common among bureaucrats than the population as whole. For the most part though, it is not about control; most honestly think they are helping. (See the term useful idiots). Now, there are probably some bureaucrats at the higher echelons who want control and there are little tin gods at various lower levels, but most don’t want control.They are either apathetic or believe they are doing good. There is little malice behind most bureaucrats.

I’ll be going over why the system fails in the future, but for now, it is enough to say that blaming the bureaucrats is pointless. In fact, blaming the bureaucrats is counter-productive. The bureaucratic system is the problem, blaming bureaucrats rather than the system merely makes the alt-right seem petty and vindictive and alienates potential allies within the government (and yes, there are people in the government who are in favour of limited government).

No, We Are Not All Feminists

Lindy West argues at Jezebel that we are all feminists and those that aren’t are horrible people.

How does she do this, by (snarkily) arguing that:

To identify as a feminist is to acknowledge that women are people, and, as such, women deserve the same social, economic, and political rights and opportunities as other styles of people (i.e., men-people).

This is of course complete bollocks.

The label of feminist has far more meaning than women are people. Not to mention that what feminists mean by “the same social, economic, and political rights and opportunities” is far different from what most people consider “the same”.

****

Now, most people do accept most of first-wave feminism’s objectives: woman should be allowed to vote, own property, and be equal under the law. Even a reactionary curmudgeon like me doesn’t disagree with that (although, I’m not sure about Will).

But, feminism has evolved since then through the second, third, and post-waves and the term feminist has expanded far beyond the original goals of the suffragettes.

Accepting the goals of first-wave feminism no more makes a person a modern feminist than opposing slavery and absolute monarchy makes one a neo-liberal.

****

So, what does modern feminism mean beyond “women are people?”

Most obviously, modern feminism has irreversibly tied itself to unlimited abortion-on-demand, something the majority of people oppose. The abortion debate revolves around whether the unborn are persons or not and has nothing to do with the the personhood of women.

Affirmative action, the preferential treatment of women, is another major plank of modern feminism and has nothing to do with the personhood of women. In fact, it gives women rights that men do not have.

Other feminist tropes and goals beyond “women are people” include: the personalization of the political, anti-patriarchy, male privilege, “free” childcare, “free” birth control, “equal” pay, etc.

****

The second half of West’s definition of feminism is “women deserve the same social, economic, and political rights and opportunities.”

This, is essentially as what she means by “the same rights and opportunities” is unclear and likely not agreed upon by most.

The first problem is the distinction between “negative” and “positive” liberty.

Under a classical liberal approach of “negative” liberty, “the same rights and opportunities” means that everybody is allowed to live their lives without undue external coercion. This is the standard conception of rights and liberty in the English liberal and liberal-conservative tradition that have defined (or at least  until the last couple of decades) politics in the Anglosphere since Locke and Burke.

Under the progressive “positive” liberty approach, “the same rights and opportunities” means there can be external coercion if it helps an individual overcome internal constraints on their ability to act.

West talks positively of affirmative action and Title IX, so she obviously falls on the “positive” side of liberty, and she links these two strongly to feminism. She also talks derisively of those who have declared equality because legal discrimination has ended.

It’s obvious there is no room for “negative liberty” within her definition of feminism.

Yet, somehow we are all feminists now, even though “negative liberty” is the dominant (but declining) political thought in the US and the Anglosphere.

****

The second problem is the distinction between equality and equity.

Equality requires that everybody be treated the same.

Equity requires that people be treated differently to achieve the same outcome.

In an equal regime, hiring would be based solely on qualifications.

In an equitable regime, hiring would be based comparable results.

Affirmative action is very much equity based and is anti-equality, yet it is linked heavily to and is strongly defended by the feminist movement.

“Equal pay”  is a a primary goal of modern feminists. Yet, the “wage gap” disappears when you account for hours worked, job type, specializations, and family arrangements.

Again, West strongly both affirmative action and Title IX to feminism. I’m also pretty sure where she’d stand on the “wage gap.” Is there any room for equality in feminism?

****

These first two debates can be seen in feminism itself between the liberal feminists who generally take the “negative” liberty and equality approach, and the other types of feminists who take the egalitarian, “positive” liberty approach.

So there is some room for them.

Sadly, liberal feminists tend to be few and far between and they tend not to be the drivers of feminism, but rather the PR people.

The ones dominating the agenda are the “positive” liberty, equity feminists. Hence, why feminism pursues the “wage gap” so strongly, why Obamacare has “free” contraception, why there was so much feminist rage when religious organizations did not want to pay for contraception, etc.

****

The third  problem is that women and men are not the same. This leads to situations where “the same” is simply not possible.

The most obvious difference is that women can give birth, men can’t.

So, how do you give equal rights?

Is abortion only a women’s decision because it’s her body? Is it “equal” for men to have no say in the life or death of their unborn child?

If a man gets no say in the abortion decision, then would it not be fair to allow him to opt out of child support obligations? On the other hand, is it fair to expect a women to take all support for the child on herself?

There is no way the rights of persons in a situation like this can be “the same” because the decisions are not equivalent.

What of maternity/paternity leave? If we give them both similar time off, when the man isn’t even pregnant is that “the same”? But if we don’t give them equal time off, isn’t that differing opportunities?

****

Statistical differences in natural aptitudes or interests between the sexes leads to the equity/equality distinction.

Men are physically stronger and and bigger than women. So, when hiring, say, police, do we have “the same” physical requirements for both sexes with different outcomes, or do we “the same” outcomes by having differing physical requirements.

Women are less interested in math and math-based subjects. Do treat the sexes “the same” and just accept there will fewer female engineers or do we try to have “the same” amount of engineers for each sex by incentivizing and strongly encouraging women to enter engineering when they don’t really want to?

Most feminists I’ve read fall into the latter category of each. How does this fit into “women are people” and “deserve the same social, economic, and political rights and opportunities?”

****

Slate, that bastion of modern liberalism, explains why feminists want everybody to be a feminist:

So as we adopt West’s definition of “feminism,” perhaps we can also start phasing out the term itself. Perhaps we can instead focus on labeling the outliers who are not feminists: the misogynists, chauvinists, and sexists. That would go a long way towards clarifying that feminism is now mainstream, obvious, and self-evident.

By defining feminism as the norm, they can then define anybody who doesn’t swallow the feminist agenda whole as “outliers”.

Oppose unlimited abortion on demand paid for by the state: you’re a misogynist.

Believe women should pay for their own birth control: you’re sexist.

Believe that the personal should be kept private: you’re a chauvinist.

Now, feminists already call anybody who doesn’t agree with their agenda misogynists, so that’s not the point, in itself. Rather, by having people accept feminism as the “mainstream, obvious, and self-evident” norm, they can force society as whole to accept that anybody who doesn’t engage in feminist group-think is a misogynist.

The point of normalizing feminism is to use it as a ideological weapon.

It’s a con-game: have society accept that the feminist label because they believe the uncontroversial statement that women are people. Most people don’t oppose the goals of liberal feminism all that strongly.

Then once society accepts the  feminist label, move the goalposts. Feminism now means supporting unlimited abortion, or affirmative action, or “free” childcare. You must support us, you don’t want to be misogynist, do you?

****

In conclusion, we are not all feminists.

We almost all agree that “women are people” and should be given “the same social, economic, and political rights and opportunities” as men, but feminism goes far beyond that. In addition, what most feminists mean by the same rights and opportunities is usually contradictory to what most people mean by that phrase and what the English classical liberalism which defines our political and economic culture mean by that phrase.

Normalizing the feminist label is nothing more than an ideological weapon.

White Male Privilege and Identity

I previously wrote about white privilege, but Apocalypse Cometh and a few others have brought up a university white privilege campaign, and I feel like commenting again.

If you’ve seen “anti-sexism” and “anti-racism” propaganda, you’ve probably noticed something: it is always males that are sexist and it is always whites that are racist.

The white male is a free target to be sexist and racist against, because if it’s anti-white male it’s not discriminatory because he has “privilege”.

Another thing you may notice, is that most white males don’t care, they accept this. When they do care (such as in the manosphere/alt-right blogosphere) they are usually driven to either analysis (such as Steve Sailer) or anger (such as AC above).

What you almost never see is the white male be personally offended. Occasionally, they may be “offended” on behalf of the group, but more as an abstract concept of offense. Very rarely do white males have a personal emotional reaction.

The white male does not generally take attacks on his gender or race (or attacks on him because of his gender or race) personally.

On the other hand, females and, to a lesser degree, other races often take extreme personal offence or become emotionally pained to non-personal things they deem sexist or racist.

****

Test this.

Next time you’re around a group of mixed company friends, make derogatory jokes about crackers or rednecks (or some other group of white people) and males.  Later make derogatory jokes about females and other races.

I can almost guarantee you no one will be offended by the jokes about males and rednecks. Someone (or multiple someones), most likely a female someone, will be offended by the jokes about females and non-whites.

****

Why is that?

The primary reason would be identity. The white male doesn’t usually identify himself as a white male foremost. He’ll generally define his identity through his nationality, his “the old country”, his religion, his job, his relationships, his politics, his hobbies, etc. well before he’ll identify himself as white or a male. People who use “white” as a primary identity are rare, and only a few extremists politically organize as whites. When identifying as male, it is generally a statement of fact, rather than a point of personal identity and no one politically organizes as males (despite the attempts of the MRA’s).

On the other hand, females, in particular feminists, and non-whites have their femaleness or race as one of their primary identifying characteristics. They will also often organize politically as females or their race.

So, when white male are insulted, the white male doesn’t care because he doesn’t really identify himself as a white male anymore than he identifies himself according to his hair colour or eye colour. He is a white male as a point of fact, but it’s not really something he emotionally connects to.

On the other hand, females (particularly feminists) and non-whites identify and emotionally connect with their femaleness or race. So an attack or insult on their identity is seen as an attack or insult on them.

****

Communists call this identification consciousness. In marxist analysis, for the workers to revolt they have to identify themselves as workers; they have to develop class consciousness. Only when they see themselves as proletariat can they come together as a class and overthrow their capitalist overlords. Any other identity the worker may have, such as his religion, race, or nationality, are a false consciousness which distract him from his true identity as a worker.

****

The problem with anti-racism, anti-sexism, white privilege, and all that other crap is that it creates the identity of whiteness or maleness in the white male. It raises the consciousness of the white male.

Generally, the white male doesn’t emotionally identify himself as a white male, he has other consciousnesses. Anti-racism and anti-sexism require the white male to become aware of his white privilege or male privilege. By becoming aware of his privilege he also becomes aware of his identity as a white male. He is raising his own race consciousness.

This is dangerous and it should be the last thing that any person who dislikes white racism or misogyny should want.

****

Why?

It’s simple, as the white male’s consciousness of of himself as a white male rises, he will be more likely to identify himself as a white male.

That means he will be more likely to organize himself as a white male.

When white males have organized themselves as white males, it has almost always gone badly for everybody else.

I’ve already written of how the human male is the apex predator.

The white male in particular has shown himself to be particularly destructive when organized, or even on his own.

When the white male identifies himself as a white male he will organize and take action to advance the interests of his identity.

As the last few centuries have shown, when white males organize to advance their interests, they “win”, usually violently.

****

Won’t knowing his white privilege prevent him from being racist?

Sure, when a white male examines his privilege, he may become an Uncle Tim, but the thing about Uncle Tim’s is that they do not identify as white males they identify according to their “anti-racist” ideology. They may talk about being aware of their white male privilege, but the emphasis is on the privilege, not the whiteness or the maleness. They are not aware of being white or being male, they are aware of their self-identified ideological “privilege”. They do have white male consciousness, rather they have ideological consciousnesses.

This is unlikely to happen for most. Identity is a powerful thing. As one becomes conscious of being something, one begins to identify with this something. By examining his identity as a white male, even in the context of “anti-racism” or “anti-sexism”, he begins to identify with being a white male.

His white maleness becomes an in-group. An in-group necessitates an out-group. In this case, that would be non-whites and non-males.

The very act of becoming aware of white male privilege creates within most white males an identity in opposition to non-whites and non-males.

****

North American society has spent a long-time destroying the racial and gender awareness of the white male. They have pushed it under other identities, in particular civic religion and nationalism; the end result is that the white male consciousness is that of an American, not a white male (prior to thinking of himself as a white male he though of himself an Englishman or WASP;whites of non-Anglo descent were in the out-group). Non-whites and non-males can become American, they can never become a white male (or WASP).

Keeping the white male thinking about himself as an American is essential to the continuing functioning of America in relative non-racism and peace.

“Anti-racism” and “anti-sexism” though are in danger of undoing this; they are causing white males to think of themselves not as Americans, but rather as white males.

The choice is either colour-blindness or white male consciousness.

****

The majority of modern white males are unused to identifying s as white males. The alt-right blogosphere, including the manosphere, is the beginning of the rise of white male consciousness.

Currently, the alt-right blogosphere is fairly benign as even here, white males still, mostly, think of themselves primarily as Americans (or whatever country they are from) and decry the collapse of America or Western civilization. Most have not yet internalized their white male consciousness.

Hopefully, they will not internalize it.

For if white males develop white male consciousness, they will act on their identity as white males.

Feminists can act on their identity as females with only moderate consequence, as females do not have the violent will to power males have.

Non-whites can act on their identity as their own race with only moderate consequence, as they are limited in number.

White males though are the majority and they have the violent tendencies of males. If they organize based on their identity of being a white male, the consequences could be disastrous.

If “anti-racists” and “anti-sexists” continue to push their ideological thesis on white males, white males will develop their own antithesis of identity, and the synthesis could be unpleasant.

The New Left vs. The Old Left

Will S. writes about the bizarre decision of governments to allow expatriates to vote as their own riding. In the post-script he notes:

Regarding Mrs. Lemaire’s victory, isn’t it odd that a ‘riding’ consisting of many employed by the financial sector (i.e. the private sector) would end up going Socialist?  Of course, it wasn’t just the French living in London or elsewhere in the U.K. who elected Mrs. Lemaire, but also ones living in Ireland, and the Scandinavian and Baltic states, too, so perhaps that’s how it happened.  On the other hand, I note that the North American riding was also won by a Socialist candidate, Corinne Narassiguin, who apparently is a New York banker!  What strange times we live in.

I do not find it all that odd. This is the difference between the old left and the new left (or liberal-left).

The old left was a movement of blue-collar workers out to get a better deal for themselves. It was a heavily unionized movement and, in the West, was mostly white. It was not overly radical on social issues, as blue-collar workers don’t generally tend towards that direction.

In the first half of the century, most Western nation began to put in place the beginning of the welfare state (pension plans & employment insurance), workplace safety laws, minimum wages, and other such regulations to protect workers, this eased the impetus of the old left. As long as blue-collar workers had jobs that provided them decent comfort and didn’t have to worry that an accident would leave them destitute, they were mostly politically content.

Enter the new left. This was a political movement focused on social issues: feminism, environmentalism, peace activism, anti-racism, etc. Economic issues were still of some import, but were pushed to the back.

In addition, the radical anti-capitalism of the old left began to melt away as the Communism began to demonstrate the horrors that occurred when you eliminated capitalism. It was replaced by a desire for an economic system of Keynesian-regulatory state superstructure based upon a capitalist substructure.

In the US, this takeover of the Democrat party by the new left occurred following the McGovernite rift in 72. Under the new left, liberal/left-wing parties began to shed their traditional base of the white working class, and created a new base, an alliance of academics, technocrats, white-collar bureaucrats (and their unions), and a bought-off underclass. The union movement began to trend towards white collar government work from blue-collar industrial work, until today where unions are primarily made of government workers.

****

So, what does this have to do with the financial sector?

The first is that new left/liberal parties are strongly based on the ideologies held by the educated upper-middle class (the underclass doesn’t really contribute to ideas overly much anymore, they just vote reliably as long as state benefits flow). These ideologies tend to be based on post-materialist values (environmentalism, feminism, etc.) rather than material values. In economics, they are “pragmatic” (read Keynesian), as they generally benefit from the current economic order, but feel guilt about inequality that they want the state to relieve.

One of the Keynesian beliefs central to the new left economic platform is avoiding deflation and keeping steady mild inflation (ie. printing money) to keep people employed.

Who benefits from inflation? Whoever gets the money first. The financial sector. This mild inflation is printing money for the banks.

In a economic bust, what does a Keynesian party do? Stimulus (ie. print more money).  Who benefits? The financial sector.

When the government creates bonds (ie. debt) to finance further spending who benefits? The banks and financial traders who buy the bonds. It’s a license to print money.

Who benefits the most from complex government contract bidding? Large corporations (you think, Jack the small businessman with 3 employees can figure out the complex government bidding process and win them against Halliburton?)

Who benefits the most from government regulations? Large, established corporations (ie. banks).

****

What?

I know, it seems weird, that large corporations benefit form regulations, but hear me out.

Large corporations are generally (Koch aside) not ideologically libertarian or capitalist, they are “rational” organizations pursuing profit.

The most damaging thing to a large, established corporations profits is radical change. Large corporations are generally very bureaucratic and can’t respond rapidly to change. If left alone, upstart companies can introduce radical changes to their industry quite rapidly and hurt the profits of large corporations (or occasionally destroy them entirely). So, the corporations go along with new regulations. Sure, their profits might decrease a small amount, but they can afford it. The small, upstart company generally can’t.

For example, let’s take access for people with disabilities. McDonald’s can easily afford the thousands of dollars to put into place a wheelchair ramp and handicap washrooms. Joe’s Diner, which makes a profits of 40k a year, won’t have such an easy time coming up with the thousands of dollars necessary for renovations.

So any financial regulations may hurt the large banks and traders some, but you know who they hurt more: smaller banks and trading companies, their competitors and potential disrupters.

****

As we can see, modern left-liberal Keynesian economic ideology helps the financial sector more than almost anyone else. Those in charge of the parties know this (hence, Obama’s strong ties to Goldman Sachs), the useful idiots (ie. those anti-capitalists who still vote for these parties) follow along, because the parties know how to sound anti-capitalist (although, the banks know this is just a show) and to think otherwise would challenge their whole ideology and political allegiance.

The financial sector are also generally graduates of the (left-wing) academic system, so they mostly (more or less) agree on the basics of liberal-left social policies.

That’s why the financial sector will often vote for supposedly leftist parties and why I am not surprised that they do.

Lightning Round – 2012/06/19

Another long Lightning Round today.

Roissy talks on post-scarcity; he’s not positive on it.

Aurini exposes the idiocy of mainstream discussion on demographics.

Patriactionary has a great list of quips.

Athol explains why men running the MAP have power.
Vox explains why most wives shouldn’t worry about that power and why it’s tragic when older women divorce; it’s kind of touching.

Dicipres finds a couple neat studies.

Dogsquat has a good post on the starter version of the approach attitude.

Forney points out the obvious; game’s pointless if you’re a loser.
The Last Psychiatrist explains how self-loathing protects you from stopping being a loser.

The Poet argues against “enjoying the decline”. Wonder how the Captain will respond?

Frost has a post on his father that is both touching and heartrending.
Related: Walsh shows very clearly how important fathers are.

Glorious Bastard asks what is a women?
Meanwhile, Wintery Knight discusses how feminists want to dominate men.
Related: If a feminist makes poor choices and regrets them the next day, the man should be punished.

A feminist admits there’s no war on women because, get this, not all women are the same. My question: why haven’t anti-abortionists started a “war on babies” meme? It seems like it could be effective.

Gender “equality” creates economic “inequality”.

Britain takes a pro-fatherhood stance on family law. Seems MRA’s have had some impact.

The atrocity you’ve never heard of; when the allies forcibly migrated  conquered foes and forced them into slave labour.

Fox has some good news on the black community. If more of them escape the hell of public schooling, there might be some improvement in their lot.
Related: Bribing the natives not to destroy their own homes.

When diversity hurts those it supposedly helps.

A discussion on measuring happiness. It’s good if you can get over the overly flowery language.

Mainstream economists discovers the obvious.
Some (only some?) mainstream economists are stupid.

The young are the new helots. If they knew what was good for them, they’d join the Tea Party.

The pathologizing of grief.

A libertarian wishlist.
Related: A nice bit of libertarian satire.
Related: Some people do not understand libertarianism at all.

If you want to remove the influence of money in politics, remove the power from politics.

(H/T: SDA, IP)

Feminism Does Not Represent Women’s Interests

We here in the manosphere often condemn feminism, and rightfully so, but usually our condemnation is based on how feminism works against the interests of men. This is important, but only half the story; feminism also works against the interest of the majority of women as well.

In essence, radical feminism* is a coterie of like-minded women who are trying to enforce their preferences on other women.

Feminists advocate that women have careers so they can be independent and they shame them for being a housewife, but the majority of women do not want a full-time career.

Feminists decry the restricting nature of the hausfraus and traditional family structures and advocate delaying marriage or forgoing it altogether, but the majority of women would prefer to be stay at home full-time with their children while their rich husband works (if money were not an issue) and the large majority want to be married by 25.

Demands for the “right” to unlimited access to abortion is the litmus test for feminism, but the majority of women favour restricting abortion more than it currently is. In fact, women are more inclined to stricter abortion laws than men.

Feminism argues that traditional religion is patriarchal (it is) and oppose traditional religion. In reality, the majority of women are religious and women are more religious than men.

They decry traditional male-led romance and are “sex-positive”, but the majority of women desire traditional chivalry and hate the hook-up culture “sex-positivism” has created.

On every issue important to feminists, radical feminists line up opposed to the desires of the majority of women.

Feminists dominate the media and academia in relation to “women’s issues”, so their views are often the only one heard. They are using this to pressure women into lives they do not want and have created a political, economic, and social environment against the interests of most women.

Is it any wonder that women’s happiness has been declining along with the growth of feminism.

Feminists do not represent women and they do not represent the interests of women. Radical feminists represent a minority population of women intent on forcing their lifestyles and unhappiness on other women.

Women, if your values and desires are not represented by feminism you need to start fighting against this, for your own good. Just because feminists claim to represent your interests, doesn’t mean they do.

But what do I know of women, I’m just a man.

*Note: I know not all feminists are exactly alike and that there are ideological permutations and disagreements among feminists. I also know I’m painting with a broad-brush; this is a blog post, not an academic essay. No NAFALT please.

Diamond Jubilee

God save our gracious Queen
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen:
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen.

O Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter thine enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all.

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen.

Since when was Covetousness a Christian value?

Here’s one Mr. Sirota at Salon discussing left-wing Christianity and spouting ignorance. (h/t Secular Right).

in England 1) “religious people are more active citizens (who) volunteer more, donate more to charity and are more likely to campaign on political issues,”

Same in North America. In fact, in North America conservative religious people donate and volunteer more than liberals. You see, conservative religious folks believe in these little things called charity, community, and loving your neighbour, rather than using the state as a device for sanctioned mass looting so individuals can feel free to ignore the poor.

First, they tell us that, contrary to evidence in the United States, the intersection of religion and politics doesn’t have to be fraught with hypocrisy.

Notice how Sirota thinks an ideology based upon freedom, tradition, and/or order is contrary to the Bible, but left-wing ideology based on greed and covetousness is somehow congruent with it.

Summing up the situation, scholar Gregory Paul wrote in the Washington Post that many religious Christians in America simply ignore the Word and “proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations.”

The Creator of the Universe never spoke much about the political economy, except in relation to the tribal polity of Israel in the Old Testament. To assign God to any political ideology is simply silly.

In addition, plutocrat-boosting capitalism is primarily an ideology of liberalism (be it the neo-conservative, socialist, or progressivist kind). Actual right-wingers believe in a neutral free market of uncoerced exchange.

Of course, many Americans who cite Christianity to justify their economic conservatism may not have actually read the Bible.

And most liberals who cite Christianity to justify their economic theft don’t believe the Bible is truth.

No doubt, only a few generations ago, such a conflation of religion and right-wing economics would never fly in America.

That’s because a few generations ago, the left hadn’t begun waging all-out-war on Christianity.

Anyway, I dislike when anybody tries to say there’s a “Christian” political or economic system.

There’s a few political and economic systems that might be inherently unchristian, such as those based on gassing Jews, massacring priests, or purposely starving millions of people, but unless your system requires those kinds of atrocities, there is no “Christian” or “unchristian” system, because Jesus didn’t much talked about the political economy. He mentioned something about rendering unto Caeser his own, but that’s more or less it.

Jesus never said, “woe unto thee who opposeth the welfare state” or “truly, I say to unto thee goods should be exchanged freely in an open marketplace” or “blessed be those who raise taxes”.

Jesus’ message, the Christian message, is spiritual, not material and not political.

So, please Mr. Sirota, refrain from making yourself look silly.

Choice and Freedom

Slate had an article from last week I read today. For the most part it’s typical liberal feminist rhetoric: women are oppressed, men are treated better, Republican’s are waging “war on women” but the “mommy wars” don’t exist, etc, etc.

But, there’s an interesting question asked in the middle:

For starters, ask yourself why we talk about American men using the language of “freedom” and women in the language of “choice?”
…
Why is it that women are the sum of their “choices” and men get to just live their lives?

Having asked a rather interesting question, the authors then simply blame it on evil Republicans who hate women, a thoroughly unsatisfying answer to any who aren’t ideologically-blinded feminists.

So, why do we talk about freedom when referring to males, but choice when referring to females (or at least to feminists)?

The first, and most obvious, reason would be abortion. Feminism has irreversibly joined itself to pro-abortion policies and uses the language of choice when discussing the mass killing of the unborn.

But, even when not addressing abortion, or even feminism for that matter, the dichotomy of male freedom and female choice remains in political discussion. Why?

First, we have to look at what is meant by the two words:

Freedom is generally used to mean the ability to act without external constraint. Some have tried to pervert the word with the phrase “positive freedom” (ie. forcing someone else to help you to act), but the original conception, sometimes referred to as “negative freedom”, is the most commonly accepted: the ability to do as you wish with yourself and your resources without someone else using force to stop you.

Choice, on the other hand, refers to the act of selecting an option. Choice implies that options are available and one is selected.

So, how does that relate to politics and sex differences?

Nobody else can give you freedom, others can only take it away. Freedom also implies responsibility: if you are free to act, you are free to act stupidly and will have to live with the consequences of your actions. On the other hand, freedom does not imply that you have the ability to act; just because there are not external constraints, does not mean there are no internal constraints. I am free to fly, but not being Superman, I have to walk.

Choice can be given by others. Choice also implies that I have the ability to act. Because I am not Superman, I can not be said to have the choice to fly.On the other hand, if I lived in Metropolis, Superman could offer me a ride; if he did I would then have the choice of flight.

Knowing this, we can see why men have freedom and women, or at least feminists, have choice.

Men are encouraged to act and when they fail, they are rarely given help; they are expected to pull themselves up. Men who do not provide for themselves are shamed. In the political sphere, the more masculine ideologies (libertarianism and conservatism) are based on freedom.

When men (rarely) organize politically for the benefit of their sex, it is never to demand they be given special privileges or for others to provide for them, it is always to be left free: the fair enforcement of marriage contracts, to not be discriminated against when applying for jobs, to not be treated as de facto guilty when accused, etc.

They advocate for freedom. Men in politics are more inclined to work towards freedom and are not inclined to requiring other to provide for them.

On the other hand, females are encouraged to rely on the state. When they fail, the surrogate husband will take care of them. Women who are provided for are not shamed. In the political sphere, the more feminine ideologies (liberalism, feminism, and progressivism) are based on choice, on giving people choices, even if it requires the state help them, redistributing resources, or removing freedom. They also tend to advocate that the state prevent them from having to live with the consequences of their actions.

When modern females organize politically for the benefit of their sex (ie. post-second wave feminism), the demand for other to provide them with choice is always there: affirmative action, quotas for hiring women, state-funded daycare, state-funded abortions, mandatory contraception insurance, ending sexist jokes, sensitivity training for others, increased welfare, gender parity, increased alimony, etc. Feminists demand choices and demand that others provide these choices for them.

That is why we talk about men in the language of freedom and women in the language of choice.

If feminists do not like being consigned to the language of choice, they can accept freedom.

They would have to accept that freedom may limit choice. If a person can not afford daycare, they go without.

They would have to accept responsibility that comes along with it. If a person has children, they are responsible for raising them and paying for them.

They would have to accept that freedom means that others won’t be forced to provide you with choices. There would be no affirmative action or gender quotas, no state-funding to support choices, little to no welfare, etc.

But, until feminists embrace freedom, they will be consigned to the language of choice.

Lightning Round – 2012/04/17

Ok, haven’t had much time this weekend, I’ve been busy. So here’s another lightning round as filler until I can make a real post.

Remember the consequences of listening to those who complain humans use to many resources and the world is overpopulated.

One trillion dollars: Guns save almost as much as Obama wastes. I’ve been hoping to get one soon, so I’m gonna keep an eye on this series.

Evolutionary psychology once again rears it’s ugly head. The realities of biology do as well.

Expect the welfare state to continue to grow. A surrogate husband will become increasingly necessary.

A good wife and mother will provide a counterweight to the state, which is why the left is attacking homemakers.

I like Paul Ryan more the more I hear about him. Subsidiarity is not something I expected form a mainstream politician.

I guess Slate hasn’t read much Steve Sailer. Red cities aren’t “walkable” because conservatives value family, space, freedom, and independence, and thus like space and cars, and so they go to where land is cheap and houses and yards are bigger. Blue cities are walkable because liberals value interdependence, nightlife, environmentalism, and have small families, if they have one at all, so they go where the people are.

Why is Israel the only Western country with any balls left?

Also, thanks to In Mala Fide for the link. Ferdinand posted some decent advice this weekend.