The New Chivalry

This post is in response to an article by Ellen Bravo in the Huffington Post @ http://tinyurl.com/plcbyvn called New Approach Needed to Combat Sexual Assault and Harassment. I will quote two sentences.

We need a cadre of men to pay the same kind of attention and then to intervene when they see someone talking or acting out of line. They need to say, “That’s not how we treat our sisters in this neighborhood or this town or this state or this nation.”

I have read much the same sentiment on Facebook and elsewhere. That is that men need to smack down other men leering, and generally making women feel uncomfortable. This is all very rude but I have problems with the concept that men should take other men to task about their verbiage putting their own personal safety at risk. There is an expectation of chivalry in contrast to the rhetoric of gender equality. As I posted in my first post on this blog feminists do not believe in equality. This chivalry has a “back to the future” weirdness about it. Can we expect white feathers to be assigned to nonconforming men?

My main problem is that whatever is protected is owned by the protector and invoking the deep biological protective instinct which lies either dormant or already active could well have unintended consequences beyond that envisioned by our maidens in distress. Islamic men are VERY protective of their women. Could this be the model for the running of a society so prized by feminists? Could this desire to protect our women segway into racism, vigilantism and lynching?

This is raw animal instinct.  I believe this desire for chivalry, for a white knight to save the honour of a maiden in distress comes down to evolutionary psychology. The desire to protect is a deep biological instinct, inherited from primate ancestors and probably earlier. It has obvious evolutionary advantages if the benefit of protection outweighs the increased cost of that protection. The benefit being in the increased likelihood of reproducing. The protective instinct is the selfish gene. This instinct comes with a dark side. The example of lynching and racism has been mentioned in the above paragraph. The protective instinct has also been used by unscrupulous leaders to goad nations into war. Take for example the propaganda of WWI with a Hun boot squashing  babies in animation form. Move forward and we have the disinformation in the first Gulf War of 1991 that the Iraqis had switched off humidicribs in Kuwaiti hospitals. In Matthew 2:16 Herod orders the slaughter of all babies. In the context of Matthew there was no war but Matthew knew how to manipulate the heart strings of his readers.  The protective instinct has a dark side and demagogues fully know this.

The demand that all men turn into special constables whenever a woman is harassed or leered at comes down to “Let you and him fight” and “no fight, no nooky”. The strongest male earns the mating rights but sorry about the wounds.  The instincts so invoked are all shrouded in a social construct and theoretical narratives but is underlined by biological reality. A biological take may be that women psychologically need to be protected as much as physically protected as was the case in our evolutionary past. The best protector wins the hand of the maiden. To this end we have “rutting” and competition between men. War is the same drama but on a larger stage and involving more players. The message from the white feather brigade was no war, no nooky. In the absence of real threats more minor threats will be melodramatically escalated into major ones.and others may be fabricated. Many of the threats women fear are real but women are actually safer from being victims of violent crimes than are men. There has probably never been a group so safe as white middle class in the class in the whole extent of history.

I believe the need for problems and threats extends beyond the women’s movement to other areas of like.  The safer we are the more anxious we seem to become. I am thinking “stranger danger” and “helicopter parents”, the “war on drugs”, the “war on terror” and the “crime and punishment” hysteria. To this we can add the “rape culture” hysteria. What makes these panics more pernicious is the reality of a “grain of truth” which surely exists but which gives life to hysterias and lies. A fact well known by Joseph Goebbels.

Advertisements

A Recovering Feminist or Where has the Black Dog Gone

Since being honest with myself about feminism and coming out as a leftist with no respect left for feminism I have noticed that I have not been depressed as I would on a periodic basis. For most of my life the black dog was my constant companion. He was a loyal companion, ever ready to tail me at the testing times of my life. On quiet reflection I have realised this has now changed. This comes as a complete surprise I do not fully understand it. The black dog has gone. He is nowhere to be seen. I do not sink to the depths as I once did.

There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that I have experienced an endorphin rush of the kind reported by new members of a charismatic church.  That is a short lived drug which soon quietens down. The second explanation is that I have shaken a monkey off my back and can walk now with less weight on my feet. This is often reported by people who have left religion evangelical churches and the Catholic Church. They no longer have to carry around luggage. They no longer carry guilt for sins committed and even uncommitted. They no longer have to carry around doubts and nor do they have to wish them away (prayer). Often they have not liked who they were and have been conscious of pretending to believe what deep down or even at surface they knew to be false. Dan Barker in his book “Losing Faith in Faith” discusses his journey from preacher to atheist. As he allowed his rational side of himself to be exercise he describes the increasing difficulty of living as a travelling preacher and a composer of Christian music and how he hated himself for what he was doing. At one point in his last role as a preacher it took all his will power not to blurt out to the congregation “This is crap”.  He came out shortly after that episode. This book is a good read of both Dan Barker’s journey and for his overview of atheism.

If my remission from depression is of the first kind then it will soon pass and the black dog will return soon enough. If my remission is of the second type then it will be a more permanent and and will mark a different psyche reality for me.

What are the implications for society of an ever soaring and triumphant feminism if for men the cost of wearing it is depression for many? First we have different feminisms. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard a feminist say she is not “one of those feminists”. Those who are not “one of those” are noted for their silence. They are the “equity feminists” who do not buy into “patriarchy theory” and other misandry devices. They have no influence and are likely to be shouted down by “gender feminists” if they raise their voices. So this post will consider just “gender feminism” as it is the feminism with real influence.

On the face of it I had internalised the values of feminism and in particular what sort of creatures ALL men are, even the “nice guys”. This is guilt tripping well known in the Catholic Church and a very effective manipulation manoeuvrer. All men are required to take on some form of “original guilt” and to confess and atone for the sin of being a man. This is an enormous burden. It is made worse when one tries to reconcile it with common sense and self knowledge. It is made even worse still with a deeper knowledge of statistics of rape, domestic violence and other popular feminist memes. When pretending is necessary the mental storm is of an F5 intensity.

What effect can this be having on younger boys going to school and learning that “all men are just the most disgusting shits”. Men are selfish, greedy, violent, rapists, dumb, unimaginative, uncommunicative, unemphatic and incapable of human feelings. In other words they are less than human.

It is strange that under “male privilege” men in Australia kill themselves four times as often as women. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Australia It is odd that the higher suicide rate is “evidence” that men are inferior in so many ways. In the unfalsifiability of feminism which is so characteristic of it if it were women were commuting suicide four times as often as men that would be because of “male privilege”. Heads we win, tails you lose. Are today’s feminists making tomorrow’s suicide statistics?

It gets worse than that. Anders Brevik is an extreme example of a boy hated by his mother even in the womb. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz3YxFbrwsY This is the natural end point of the demonisation of boys and men, born with the original sin of being male. How many Anders Breviks are feminists making today with a ticking time bomb set to go off sometime in the future? What makes it worse is that feminism shows no ability to learn. It is an ideology of titanium hardness. In this it resembles Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism and various forms of Marxism.

The response of the therapeutic professionals mostly indoctrinated into feminist theories to suicidal men is to help them live more contentedly in the world as the nasty misogynist raping little shits they really are. Nearly always a “confession” (for being a man) is part of the treatment”. If the treatment is involuntary, that is ordered by a court then the “nasty misogynist raping little shit” had better cooperate or else. Of course being uncooperative is a “male trait”.

There are deeper evolutionary reasons for guilt tripping men as a collective lot which I will go into in another post. The falsifiability of feminist claims will be another topic in the future.