Monday, January 29, 2007

When feminists are blindly bigoted

Read the following quote and replace “men” with “Jew” “Serb” “Maori” “Catholic” and women with “Aryan” “Croat” “European” “Protestant”.
^
“I think all men do have the capacity to rape given certain situations, conditions, but many never would or will. What is significant is, the same can’t be said about women, I don’t believe. I don’t think that’s about differences between men and women. I don’t think men are “naturally” more violent or are born with a rape mentality. I think, as I’ve said before, that men have been corrupted by power in a way that women have not been so far.”
^
The warm loving embrace of radical feminism covering up a fist of bigotry and subjectivist evasion of moral responsibility
^
All men would rape under certain circumstances, but not all women. Excluding the physiological matter (rape doesn't need to have a penis involved), presumably they would pile insults upon one who claimed that all women could be violent under certain circumstances. This is of course absolute nonsense, it is simply an assertion that cannot be proved or disproved, it is a political assertion. You may as well say that all Maori would steal under certain circumstances, it is as valid as that. However, if you did make a similar claim based upon race, hair colour or whether someone had a beard or not then people would decry or laugh at you – it is, in fact, exactly the same.
^
Of course this is different from claiming that there can be a culture which endorses, excuses or ignores rape, which means that those so inclined can get away with it or be goaded into it – but the same can apply to any act. Following the crowd is a universal human condition, it is one based on personal security, but it is not necessarily moral. Think of how many people do stupid things because they were trying to impress others, or do what others do, or they were encouraged to do it. Bullying is a perfect example, and women are as good at it as men. Certainly there are cultures where rape is at best trivialised, such as Pakistan, and indeed Western countries until not too long ago.
^
However, you can see how little value there is in collectivising people. Collectivising is the currency of all those who wish to use force to tell others what to do, all those on the left including Marxists, fascists, religious fundamentalists, Nazis, socialists and ecologists. Nazis on the left? Well yes, tell me how much of national socialism has little to do with the left. Don’t try to explain the left as being anti-discrimination, when it seeks the state to discriminate explicitly on the basis of property ownership and ability, while collectivising every “victim” group it identifies.
^
The irony that those who wish to be non-discriminatory talk incessantly about sex, race and class. They are completely unable to treat people on their merit and will attribute strength and weakness according to characteristics you can do nothing about. It is the world of subjectivism – when nothing is objectively true. The only moral approach is to treat all as individuals, and behaviour as that of individuals - the greater you try to explain behaviour on the basis of people belonging to self selecting groups, the greater you absolve them from individual responsibility.

4 comments:

jo said...

hey scott,
thanksfor the great link to an awesome fem site! i'll be adding it to my blogroll for sure. I hope u have read ALL the comments posted to the link you have added, you may even learn something and perhaps stop being ssooo bigotted and defensive when women speak truth.

libertyscott said...

You can excuse collectivist bigotry anyway you like, just because you are "right side" of thousands of years of sexism does not mean that you are innocent of bigotry yourself.

It is the bizarre post-modernist world where a is b if you "feel it is" that you say that someone speaking out against labelling everyone in a group as one way is bigoted. I'm not defensive, it's called debate - if you turn off your current philosophy and think about individualism you might also learn something. I try very hard to do it with radical feminism, but all i see is childish blanket statements that "men are like this" "women are like that", which is patently nonsense given empirical evidence.

The philosophy expressed is not an individualist one whereby women can make their own choices, but one of classifying and branding them. There are plenty of women who have abused power and caused enormous pain towards others.

It is blindly stupid to assume that men, collectively, every single one of them, are in a superior position to every single woman. Millions of men have little "power" and by and large you only have the power you choose to exercise, and indeed NO ONE should aspire to more power than that over their own body and property, or that which others consent to you having power over (e.g. job).

The diversity of individuals and respecting the rights of people to live their own lives, as long as they do not do violence to others or their property is sex-neutral. That is all I stand for.

jo said...

I think what your saying is reactionary Scott, if one of my Maori or Polynesian friends or for that matter even someone I didn’t know, said something about Pakeha or White people and how they were treated by them etc, I wouldn’t respond with “not ALL white/pakeha people are like that, you can’t just lump us all together..Blah, blah, blah” - I would consider anyone who did a racist.
The reason being that of course they know this.. but they can also recognise that it is MOSTLY because of their whiteness that they have a lack of understanding of what it is like to NOT be, that whatever happened happened etc. more than for any other reason because of their whiteness.
The same principle applys also to Sexism. Men, perhaps don’t realise these things, when they happen, as painfully as women do, because they are men. And I have a Male partner and male friends who would agree with me on this, you probably need that validated to hear what I’m saying, Scott.
And don’t bother with “the token women” that you listen to, as a gesture of concern, I dont play the game of the painted bird.

libertyscott said...

Jo, your vile patronising character aside ("you probably need that validated" "token women"), you're unable to engage your mind beyond the collectivist mindset that pollutes how you think others think.

Funnily enough race is a fiction, which is only ever asserted by two types of people - racist nationalists and identity politics fanatics. Sex is not, but people have experiences that may be influenced by how others treat them DUE to sex, race, hair colour, clothing, accents and the like. It doesn't mean any of these factors objectively influence how a person actually is, or give any conclusive proof of much at all.

Millions of women inflict considerable power upon men, something you may be astounded to believe because you've constructed scenarios around the world fitting your binary paradigm. The world is a lot more complicated than that, but you choose only to see the side that fits your bizarre view that people should seek "power" over others - why can't you treat people as individuals instead of labelling and categorising, like Stalinists and Nazis alike?