Plato argues in the “Republic” that in order to build a proper Utopia, it will be necessary to depict the gods as virtuous, regardless of what Homer and other writers have written about them. Therefore, censorship and deception were seen as props in the installation of virtue: “The lie in words is useful and not hateful in some cases.” This has become known as Plato’s “Noble lie”. In our time, another “Utopia-wanna-build” has almost unmistakably adopted the “Noble lie” in pursuit of its goals, utilizing censorship and deception, but steadfastly maintaining an aura of moral righteousness: the politically correct Feminist movement that governs good as undecided in the academic environment and in the government apparatus.
The world as depicted by today’s feminists is a distinctive one. It teaches a story that contradicts the history taught at historical faculties. A view of science that only selectively incorporates what is taught in scientific faculties, and a paradoxical, uniberal approach to morality, where an action’s correctness is determined by who performs it. The contemporary world view of feminists has much in common with the worldview of the illusionist, which can bring forth an impressive scenario, but only when carried out from a certain angle, and only when all attempts at critical examination are obscured. In fact, it is difficult to suppress the suspicion that the reason why feminists have always insisted on their own faculty for “Women’s Studies” is,
The feminists have been in great shape with these deception because the widespread and highly successful imprint of male guilt allows feminists to claim that any critical examination of their questionable claims can be considered an “attack on the victim.” In addition, ridiculous emotions make it possible for most men to be unfair to “attack women”, even though they even the same women ask bizarre rubbish in the process of energetically attacking men. (The misunderstanding of this logic is of course that the assumption that this agenda promoted by feminists is actually in the interests of most women. A pro-women agenda would promote harmonious relationships between the sexes and the strengthening of the family; the feminist agenda that does the opposite, damaging most women as much as men). The result has been a large amount of selective truths, half truths and even untruths have been uncritically accepted by a large part of the educated part of the public. In Plato’s utopian state, the regents would have a monopoly on the right to tell lies; through the impetus of “enemy speech” codes at the educational sites (and in some cases criticism of feminist doctrines has been designed as “hostile speech”), our academic feminists seek the same privilege.
One of the most obvious absurdities taught in the history of women is about the alleged Idyllic Goddess era whose greatest advocates are deceased Marija Gimbutas and Riane Eisler, who brought a large number of uncritical, emotional articles and books. This is a turning point on the “Older Food Mat” theme, which has long been popular among Marxists and feminists. Feminists often talk about the last few thousand years as the period since the “emerging patriarch”, an opinion that would create the false impression that things were previously different. Gimbutas, a professor of Indo-European Studies at the University of California, claims that Neolithic Europe enjoyed a peaceful, equal, gender-based but women-centered society before the invasion of brutal patriotic Indo-Europeans more than four thousand years ago.
She promoted this idea in several large, beautifully illustrated books, depicting that period’s universal goddess. Virtually all Gimbutas professional colleagues reject her “idyllic goddess” version, typically with comments like “Gimbutas gone too far” or “Oh my God, Marija again!”. The narrators of the “Idyllic Goddess” — historical theory are a variant of the story of the “Lost Paradise”. In this new version, the human race was expelled from Paradise because of the sins of the man, not because of the woman’s; In the history of creation, the woman may only sin, but both did the wrongdoing. Note that in the feminist fable, the men alone are responsible for the evil and women who represent the good. This conviction meets again and again in feminist thoughts, clearly emphasizing women’s superiority. Other feminists find gender-reversed or gender-equal places that are never available. Apparent matriacats, like alleged cases of mental forces that can never be observed directly.
Some claim the existence of real current “matriakats” in remote parts of Africa, Asia, Madagascar or so, but when you press for evidence, there is never anybody in any way. The recent observation of a “non-patriotic” society was on the remote island of Vanatinai near Papua New Guinea. However, on closer inspection it turns out that while there are certain women who are sometimes very influential, the vast majority of influential people are men (exactly as in our society). That can never be observed directly. Some people simply confuse existing “matrilineale” (linear inheritance through the woman) or “matrilokale” (relation to the female clan) community (indicating the primary in the mother’s role in inheritance or resolutely determining the residence) with non-existent matriarchal communities (led by women). In matrilineal or matrilocal society, the woman is typically exposed to her mother’s male family members, more than her husband. The deceased anthropologist Eleanor Leacock, a Feminist and Marxist, cited a supposedly gender-based society, the seventeenth century Montagnais-Naskapi of Quebec, showing gender-equal status should be written down by early Christian missionaries before the native Americans were allegedly corrupted into their present state of Western colonialism and oppression. However, Leacock’s assertion is completely false,
Other feminist scholars distort either through carelessness or deceit Margaret Mead’s somewhat inaccurate description of Tchambuli men as worn assertion that this shows a society in which gender roles have been reversed. This appropriately ignores the fact that Tcambuli men were actually the main hunters who retained their crooked heads. To call such fierce warriors for “worn out” is the abuse of the word. Mead himself repeatedly refused at any time to have discovered some reverse gender role society. Nevertheless, Steven Goldberg found that 36 out of 38 new school novels in sociology cited Mead’s alleged discovery of the “role-reversed” Tchambuli as “proof” that gender roles are environmentally determinable. Such are the lies delivered to today’s students in the name of the pious feminism. The harsh reality is, that in the history of all mankind, from today to the earliest written texts, an unbroken documentation of so-called “patriarchs” is likely to extend to as far as our earliest ancestors (as chimpanzees reflect extremely male dominance). In every human society, without exception, leadership is associated with the male and care of the children with the female.
Those who argue that “socialization” in one way or another explains gender roles, finds themselves unable to explain why socialization always evolves in one particular direction when, according to their assumptions, it would develop randomly resulting in a cloth blanket matriakater intertwined with patriarchs. Why do all societies socialize without exception men for leadership and women for domestic tasks? Why not vice versa?
Thus, the strict environmental explanation falls into infinite regression, and it finds itself postulatory an unjustified reason: the male dominance we observe in any society is said to be due to “socialization”, yet the socialization that always results in male leadership no cause. Steven Goldberg argues convincingly that the popular explanation of “socialization” to explain gender roles reverses causality. He writes that feminist theorists “make the mistake of treating the social environment as an independent variable, thereby failing to explain why the social environment always adapts to boundaries aside and approaching to the psychological (the environment never works as sufficient counterweight to enable a society to avoid male dominance hierarchies). In other words, it is not true, as feminists claim, that societies develop random gender roles, thus developing pseudo-scientific concepts of biological gender differences to justify community norms. In fact, the societies observe the behavioral patterns that the biology seems to endlessly, and then try to socialize women and men for the roles they are expected to be able to complete. According to Goldberg, “Socialization” is the dependent variable, not the independent variable as commonly assumed. and then try to socialize women and men for the roles they are expected to be able to complete. According to Goldberg, “Socialization” is the dependent variable, not the independent variable as commonly assumed. and then try to socialize women and men for the roles they are expected to be able to complete. According to Goldberg, “Socialization” is the dependent variable, not the independent variable as commonly assumed.
If gender roles are truly random social constructions created to keep the women in their place, why is it necessary to give transgender individuals who already reflect many of the opposite sex characteristics — hormones from the opposite gender before and after surgery, to enable them to find their new role. These hormones are reported to have unreasonable deep mood changing characteristics. For example, in the documentary “Max” by lesbian director Monika Treut, a woman-to-man transsexual comments before the operation about the deep mood-changing effects experienced in the treatment of male hormones. She reported that her energy level suddenly rose dramatically, sex drive as well. Her mood was greatly influenced, and she saw herself unable to cry as much and as often as before. This is not an isolated reaction. This is actually a normal reaction. In fact, it is even the rationality of treatment: in order to produce a behavior that will seem real male or female, it is necessary to have the right balance of sex hormones circulating in the body. Feminists, on the other hand, imply such male behavior as “socialization”.
But if the feminist “community-responsible” hypothesis was true, sex hormones would have no effect on behavior, and transsexuals could probably be trained for their new roles simply by reading a book. The reason for feminist theorists tries to force us to ignore the powerful role of female and male hormones as behavioral determinators is that we would have to recognize that gender roles are not random, but in fact they are permanent and inevitable. Today’s politically correct feminists, such as Marxists, feel compelled to postulate a purely environmental explanation for all gender-related behavioral differences because as soon as biological differences are granted as relevant factors, the adoption of “women is victims of discrimination” can not be supported. Should differences in male / female behavior and career choices be granted as innate and real, then the “zero hypothesis”, the assumption that absence of discrimination no differences in the two groups would be observed — no longer be logical. Feminists would then be placed in the situation that they would have to separate the effect of so-called “discrimination” from the effect of biology. A definite impossible task. Thus, male / female differences in biology must be declared ipso facto, in order not to have any possible observable consequences. Biologist Garrett Hardin notes that the prefix “biological determinism”, bearing “implications of absolute rigidity” is “a straw man conveniently placed by polemics; we are doing well to ignore it ” the assumption that absence of discrimination no differences in the two groups would be observed — no longer be logical. Feminists would then be placed in the situation that they would have to separate the effect of so-called “discrimination” from the effect of biology. A definite impossible task. Thus, male / female differences in biology must be declared ipso facto, in order not to have any possible observable consequences. Biologist Garrett Hardin notes that the prefix “biological determinism”, bearing “implications of absolute rigidity” is “a straw man conveniently placed by polemics; we are doing well to ignore it ” the assumption that absence of discrimination no differences in the two groups would be observed — no longer be logical. Feminists would then be placed in the situation that they would have to separate the effect of so-called “discrimination” from the effect of biology. A definite impossible task. Thus, male / female differences in biology must be declared ipso facto, in order not to have any possible observable consequences. Biologist Garrett Hardin notes that the prefix “biological determinism”, bearing “implications of absolute rigidity” is “a straw man conveniently placed by polemics; we are doing well to ignore it ” A definite impossible task. Thus, male / female differences in biology must be declared ipso facto, in order not to have any possible observable consequences. Biologist Garrett Hardin notes that the prefix “biological determinism”, bearing “implications of absolute rigidity” is “a straw man conveniently placed by polemics; we are doing well to ignore it ” A definite impossible task. Thus, male / female differences in biology must be declared ipso facto, in order not to have any possible observable consequences. Biologist Garrett Hardin notes that the prefix “biological determinism”, bearing “implications of absolute rigidity” is “a straw man conveniently placed by polemics; we are doing well to ignore it “
He adds: “To assume that human behavior is uninfluenced by inheritance is to say that you are not part of nature. The Darwinist assumption is this; The Darwinists insist that the burden of proof falls on those who claim the opposite. “
Philosopher Michael Levin describes dry feminist theory as a form of “Creationism” which he defines as “refusing any attempt to apply evolutionary theory to man. It is irrelevant whether this denial is supported by the reading of holy literature, or an engagement in a secular ideology,”
He reproves scientists like Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, who take a completely naturalistic position towards all living beings apart from human beings.
The fact that men have much more physical forces than women can not be afforded as a factor that justifies men to be dominant in strenuous work; The lack of women in such jobs is attributed to an “hostile working environment” created by sexist men. If it is admitted that women actually want to do such work, this is explained by the fact that this is the consequence of being brainwashed to accept patriotic stereotypes. The fact that men dominate high paid positions are seen in themselves as evidence of the widespread conspiracy to keep women away from the good jobs despite the fact that when correcting factors such as hours worked, number of years of education and number of years in the position, the differences disappear. That women spend much more money on themselves — money probably served to them through the man’s efforts — is not taken into account at all. If it really was true that women were paid 59 cents (or whatever amount you choose to believe) for every dollar the man earned, to do the same work at the same level, no business could compete if it had any men employed.
That differences in career choices may arise from mutual preferences and independent choices made by two groups with significant congenital psychological differences are not a permissible hypothesis, although it seems obvious to any society other than our own. No explanation will be satisfactory for today’s feminists, unless it reflects men as addicts and women as victims (a reflection that in itself lies about the feminist alleged belief in “complete equality”).
In order to defend the employment conspiracy hypothesis, feminists must argue that there are no real innate differences in skills, attitudes or abilities between men and women, or that such differences may exist but have absolutely no effect. As soon as such differences are granted as meaningful factors influencing career choices and achievements, the matter disappears from the allegedly ubiquitous “discrimination”. In virtually all sports for which records are recorded, men compete with persistent women. These differences are not insignificant; It is a routine for talented male university athletes to challenge women’s world records in their own sport.
Most feminists do not admit that at least in sport, the differences in performance are men and women between innate factors and not socially conditioned. No amount of political indoctrination can transform a female athlete into a respected backstroke for the National Football League. This places the feminists in the nurturing position that innate factors are responsible for the fundamental differences in sports between men and women, but not in anything else. Michael Levin argues that it is absurd to claim that there is no paid job outside the sports world where the kind of abilities, stamina and speed that manifests itself in athletics can not be transferred to working life. And once the feminists have first admitted the reality of abilities, gender differences, they have to admit men’s superior average performance in the demanding jobs that suit the innate factors and not to “discrimination” or “socialization”. It is truly ideology and not logic that induces the hypothesis of absolute male / female exchange status (or more correctly: feminists will relinquish the knowledge of this exchange, but vigorously defend all that follows from it!)
Today’s politically correct feminism with its focus on group rights and offenses against groups is fundamentally uniberal. A dramatic break from the long humanist tradition that emphasizes individual rights, rewards and punishments. It attacks freedom of expression, where it is used in ways that do not fall into the feminist tastes; feminists have recently merged with the religious right to attack so-called “pornography” (Another coalition of feminists and religious right between is the crusade against so-called “satanic cults” that are rapidly evolving into a veritable witch hunt in the true sense of the word! And the zealous use of the most dubious “oppressed memories” that must reveal “forgotten incest” is essentially a feminist led campaign where Gloria Steinem is one of the greatest followers)
Ideology seeks to replace the liberal ideology of “equality under the law” with the scare scenario “some are more equal than others”, giving women special rights and special protection that men can not access. One of the most glorious examples of feminist demands of “more like others” relates to the status of single-sex schools. The small number of universities left where men go, mostly with military orientation, such as the Virginia Military Institute and The Citadel, are under constant political and legal pressure from feminists to put an end to this one-sex policy that considered “discriminatory”. And maybe you think this is the case? But for a few years back, when the University of Mills College only for women, completely unintentionally began to allow male students, the same persistent destructive power began to fade over them to preserve one-sex education, forcing the directors to change their decision and preserve Mills College for Women. (When feminists speak to a “native” audience, feminists claim that they “just want equality”! In reality, every feminist should claim to have “equality” or be ready to tell which privileges she is ready to give up.)
The explanation given to preserve Mills College with one gender was that men in the power of their higher aggression tends to dominate the classroom, creating a necessity for women to have “their own league” where they can peacefully discuss at their own relaxed pace. And I do not doubt that men dominate the classroom and activities more than women do. Feminists who argue in this way are in the delicate position to maintain that the male dominance of the classroom is due to the man’s greater aggressiveness, but male dominance in the business world has nothing to do with male aggression but is merely the result of unfair conspiracy against women. In feminism’s contemporary “wonderland” gender-based education is either essential or totally evil, depending on which gender is being excluded and the man’s average greater aggression both allows him and does not allow him to overshadow women within the same organization, depending on what conclusion one wishes to prove. All the feminism’s arguments are ultimately ad hoc: one uses the argument one can now raise, to prove what one wishes to prove at the moment (sacrifice, discrimination, oppression, persecution, and so on …) that the argument you are using today must correspond with yesterday’s argument, or tomorrow. Men are both aggressive and not aggressive, better at math, more convincing and so on, depending on the necessity of the moment. Feminists do not have to worry that someone will protest, that today’s argument is not in line with yesterday’s argument: anyone who would try this would be branded as “enemy of women” and ran out of the movement. The correct sensitive and politically correct feminist never criticizes her feminist sisters, no matter what they say, but instead listens to “the multiple voices of women”
It is always maintained that the above positions and doctrines stem from “extremists” and that “reasonable” feminists and feminist organizations do not back them up. Critics of feminism are accused of concentrating their attacks on so-called “extremists”, such as Cathrine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. But MacKinnon is inventing the legal concept of “sexchikane”; Reasonable “feminists” reject this concept as “extremist”? Of course not; These kinds of arguments allow them to “taste the fruit” of MacKinnonism while it “curses the wine.” If Andrea Dworkin is not such an “extreme”, why is she so praised by Gloria Steinem? (And if not Gloria Steinem represents the feminists, who does that?)
My next question is: “Where are all these “reasonable feminists”? The inevitable answer is that they are sitting right next to me or in the office down at a time; however, they seem to be “moderate” never to play any role whatsoever in the design of the major public policies. Certain more or less reasonable feminists, however, politically ineffective feminists, defend their role by pointing to minor successes where “good feminists” like themselves were able to more easily alleviate the “bad feminists” damaging policies (coercion, censorship, etc.). My answer is that if everything that “good feminists” can achieve is to be opposed to less than 100 percent effectiveness compared to the “bad feminists”, then society would be better off without the feminists at all.
We are asked to believe that the largest feminist organization in America, and the largest feminist magazine, each infinite promotional image of women as “victims” while vigorously lobbying for special preferences and quotas (and is (or was until recently) both led by a lesbian) should in one way or another be “unrepresentative” for what the supposedly typical feminist does and believes. Again, this is only a cheap rhetorical trick: By definition, the biggest organizations and publications in any movement are representative of this movement. If they were not representative, one or another new spokeswoman would come forward and gather a new flock. One is forced to conclude that since all the “righteous” feminists’ righteous goals were achieved a long time ago,
No reasonable person, I think, can deny that men and women should have the same legal rights in terms of career and ownership of property and so on. And rarely, or as good as never, these rights are denied. Similarly, no reasonable person could expect that “equal opportunities” would automatically result in “equal results” for two groups as different as men and women. Nevertheless, today’s feminist’s main complaint is that this is not the case and the difference is shown as evidence of alleged “discrimination” as a result of society’s alleged intolerance to women. However, this discrimination claim treats all men and women differently in the real world situations as the result of a single cause: the alleged selfishness of men and unfair treatment of women, who are not willing to “share” their alleged “privileges” with women. All other factors and variables are automatically ignored: the differences between men and women in physical strength and stamina, the effect of pregnancy and childcare, which takes women out of the workforce; the really real differences in the mind of the man and woman; the mood-changing male and female hormones and so on. None of these real differences in male and female roles, as we are expected to believe, can in any way explain the differences in the roles of men and women; All such differences must be attributed to male perfection and greed.
For me, no reasonable person seems to be able to deny the moral equality between men and women: no one of the sexes can claim more “goodness” or cooperative behavior. Nevertheless, it is exactly what today’s feminist is trying to do. Some say directly that women are the morally superior gender. Others would deny such an assertion. Nevertheless, the claim is nevertheless implicit in all feminist writings, through the inexhaustible image of men as wicked and women as the innocent victims. How can one claim to believe in the “moral equality” of two groups, while at the same time maintaining that one of the two had supposedly “exploited” and “oppressed” the other, in any society ever existed? The belief in the “moral equality of the sexes” implies belief in the universal human expectation of male domination and female oppression in its own way is “natural” and in order; denying one is denying another.
The rhetoric of the feminist movement portrays history as a sad scenario of infinite repression and subjugation of women, for the selfish reasons of the men. (The men themselves must be a “victim class” when looking at men being 100% of the gunfire in any war in history is not worth considering). However, the image of the woman as an eternal victim is not surviving a critical study, especially not today. What rights women at different times throughout history may not have had, such as the right to vote, were typically won by men only shortly before. Throughout most of the history nobody had any rights besides the ruling elite!
And as for today’s American society: women live an average of seven years longer than men; Women’s households have a net average of 41% more than men’s households (and this despite the fact that the average woman works far fewer hours per year than the average man). Women account for 55% of the percentage of university candidates. They claim to be discriminated against in politics, despite giving them seven million more votes than men in the election of presidents. They almost always win automatically in cases of custody. Victims of violence are overwhelming men and women attacking men more often than the opposite. Women can murder their sleeping husband or boyfriend in cold blood and then invoke the defense “wife violence” for then probably only to receive the easiest punishment or no punishment at all.
A sentenced man accounts for an average of 50% longer of his sentence than a woman convicted of a similar offense, and a man has ten times more likely to die in prison than a woman has. Men’s suicide rate is four times as high as women’s. Twenty-four out of twenty-five jobs ranked as worst in terms of pay and employment, according to Jobs-related Almanac, have one thing in common: they are all 95% -100% occupied by men. Of those killed in occupational accidents, 94% are men, as well as 96% of the killed in the Gulf War were men. If men have decorated it all so amazingly for themselves, why do they die, being maltreated, murdered, commit suicide in a rate substantially over women who end up having more money, despite the fact that they work less? By ignoring inconvenient facts as mentioned above, feminists continue to promote the myth that women are “victims” of an unfair society created and ruled by powerful, insensitive men for their own sake. In fact, it makes much more sense to call today’s American women for “privileged” than for “oppressed!”
Today’s politically correct feminists’ worldview, the only thing that matters in the design of public opinion is a card house. It requires the hope of its followers from one extreme to another, without at all to be sure that behavioral gender differences are illusory or real, but ex cathedra insignificant, unsure whether women behave in the same way as men, or are emotionally or morally superior, oriented towards life (unlike men who love death); shifting from “absolute equality” to “special care”, depending on what brings the greatest benefits under the circumstances. Women are strong and independent at the same time, fully prepared to win in the battle’s hell, while at the same time weak that they need special conditions, under which they receive compensatory benefits to assist them in the competition with men; They also need legal protection against unwanted sexual approaches and vicious joke. This is very similar to the magician’s silk scarf that appears to have a new color every time it appears. Experience has shown that these protests against the absurdities of the feminists are answered far more often by hominem insults and expressions of moral resentment than reasonable arguments; Such is the defense of the illusionist when the deception is revealed.
But there may be great harm in unresolved falsehoods, especially when it results in suspicion, hostility and envy the gender between which love regularly appeared to exist as late as a generation earlier. In no other countries, politically correct feminists have gained as much power as in the Anglo-American world, especially in the US and Canada (which in itself is interesting: why have European women in large numbers rejected to participate in the war on men?) As a consequence, we almost certainly have the world’s highest divorce rate, a crippled education system, and an apparently almost unstoppable crime spiral and related social pathology. Recent studies demonstrate a strong connection between this social pathology and children of fatherless families. It remains to be seen if any society can remain intact, without intact families where you can raise psychologically healthy children; The story is unprecedented. One can try to argue that the American family died for natural reasons, at the same time the feminists began shooting it, but after studying the depth and the wildness of the feminist attack on the woman’s role as wife and mother, convincing such an argument does not.
Nietzsche warned against moral systems, because of what he called “ressentiment” (anger, anger, bitterness, despair), representing compassion, while actually concealing destructiveness, from those who despicably want revenge over those they envy. He quoted Christian morality as the primary example of such a system. Hopping an attitude of passivity and love, the early Christians worked to pull down any person or institution who was expected to succeed. We must not forget about today’s politically correct feminism, a child of Marxism itself, and the manifestation of “ressentiment”
Despite its success in masking itself as harmless, even as a noble movement dedicated to “simple fairness,” today’s feminist movement is actually a ‘Nobel Lie’. No matter how many people have been sincerely convinced of its messages, the Emperor has no clothes. And a nobel lie is nevertheless a lie.
Published 2010-03-06 in Politik
http://www.180grader.dk/Politik/feminisme-den-noble-loegn-1
