Dr. Helen calls out the compassionate
Unlike the good doctor, I don't believe in human equality, either between the sexes or in any other context. I believe science, history, and casual observation are in accord on the matter. Nevertheless, I have to concur with her cogent observation on the extraordinary distaste for criticism demonstrated by some women:
I don’t agree with Venker’s whole “theme” about women’s femininity, I believe in equality between the sexes. However, the response to Venker just illustrates that women can’t stand being called out in any way. If men on my blog even complain mildly about something women do, they are called misogynists, sexists and liars. This just goes to show that most women can dish it out but can’t take it. Ladies, this double standard is appalling and sexist.Dr. Helen adroitly twists the knife with her ironic reference to the myth of superior female compassion in the title to her post. It is, indeed, a strange form of compassion that wishes death on anyone who dares to view a woman's actions and ideas in anything but the rosiest light.
Labels: women
55 Comments:
LOL! "I believe in equality between the sexes...except women are not equal in being able to take criticism."
Which means the sexes are not equal. How can a person express their belief in something they are about to demolish with their own words?
You realize you're saying that men and women are more equal in compassion than they are commonly regarded?
I don't think "equality between sexes" is used in the way you intend. It doesn't mean comparing muscle to muscle. It's more like a statement about what you don't know in any given circumstance, which aggregate statistical knowledge can't inform. On average men are, pound for pound, 60% stronger than women, but of course this can't be used as an absolute statement comparing individuals, any more than racial IQ statistic (if they are valid, which I doubt) can be used to compare individuals. There are some women who are stronger than men, not a large number of women, and not a large number of men, but some. "Equality" means disregarding statistics when comparing individual merit, or it's just another way of rejecting bigotry in society. When there is no knowledge of the individual (or should not be) then they will all be regarded equally. It seems like a pretty simple concept in social justice.
Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned. Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.
I have done over 300 performance reviews in my previous career. I absolute dreaded each and every one of them that included any level of criticism when a woman was involved. I found that I spent almost as much time thinking how I could deliver the information (so as not to offend) as I did actually disseminating the information. I found with the guys I could just say what I wanted to say without worrying how it would be taken. My comeuppance came when a gal whom I gave a rather scathing review, became my boss a year later. She made no bones about it - I was going to get what was coming to me. I quickly changed jobs.
"Equality" means disregarding statistics when comparing individual merit, or it's just another way of rejecting bigotry in society.
You would have been better off had you ended the sentence with "statistics". You can think what you like, but what you've expressed here is completely and factually incorrect.
Equality does not exist. There is no such thing. It doesn't exist materially, spiritually, legally, scientifically, and attempting to base laws, much less "social justice", on it is about as sensible as basing them on the articulated opinions of unicorns.
The entire concept of probability, and its utility, appears to have flown right over your head. As you point out yourself, equality relies entirely upon ignorance.
I guess "The Great Martini" isn't so great.
Women and men don't feel, think or experience life in the same way.
Same planet, different world.
The ONLY way men and women are equal is in how God values each and every one of us.
It is an on-going lesson for some women to be less easily offended, slower to anger and more forgiving.
Being older than a lot of the ilk here, I am quite comfortable being around guys. I suspect it probably comes from being the only girl in a neighborhood of at least a dozen boys during my formative years.
I prefer the conversation of men rather than women. And I also prefer to work with men. The best job I ever had was when I was the customer service rep to a shop with 4 guys. Women can be the most nasty and vicious people in a competitive office situation. Feminism has taught these women the only way to succeed is by tearing down and destroying the opposition to put yourself ahead in the game.
IMO, the modern femoginist never learned how to be a woman. They only know how to be female. Trust me guys, there is a huge difference here.
Equality does not exist. There is no such thing. It doesn't exist materially, spiritually, legally, scientifically
But (IMO) equality, as it is used, is not meant in any of those ways, but rather, as mentioned, to signify not basing decisions on probability or statistics. Yes, I am meaning it in the usual collectivist way, but I'm not going to get all offended by how and why you're rejecting the idea. It's a legitimate way to interpret equality. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in essence you think individuals should be regarded in a manner determined in aggregate (average), or collectivist (ducks). This is a curious position for a libertarian to take. Shouldn't individuals be regarded on their own merit? And doesn't this mean that collective tendencies should be ignored?
Is spiritual equality not a central tenant in Christianity?
All men are seen as equal in the eyes of God?
But (IMO) equality, as it is used, is not meant in any of those ways, but rather, as mentioned, to signify not basing decisions on probability or statistics.
The mistake you are making is that applied "equality" is used to base decisions on other, far less relevant and accurate collective identifiers.
Shouldn't individuals be regarded on their own merit? And doesn't this mean that collective tendencies should be ignored?
Sure. And that, quite obviously, has nothing to do with equality. It is, in fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE of equality. Furthermore, since value is subjective, it is foolish to pretend that a "merit-based" decision is objective. You're just piling one myth on top of another.
Furthermore, it is not necessary or possible to examine every single case on its individual merits. You're making an appeal to feigned ignorance here.
Is spiritual equality not a central tenant in Christianity? All men are seen as equal in the eyes of God?
No. And no. Read the Bible some time. All men are fallen. This does not make them all of equal favor in God's eyes. What part of the "sheep and the goats" or the "wheat and the chaff" parables do you find hard to understand?
"When there is no knowledge of the individual (or should not be) then they will all be regarded equally."
Gee, in the US that's covered by the Constitution.
All men (sheesh-mankind if you must)are created equal...etc. etc.. What begins one second after birth is where all those strangely fungible "humanities" statistics come into play. Of course, there's a case to be made for the "experiential" environment a fetus undergoes during development- nutrition,pharma(of ALL stripes)and competition for dominance between genes.
Also see: actual definition of "Intellectual", unadulterated by (mis)"usage".
OED, MAYBE Websters.(Wikipedia, or abridged "college"/high school versions exempt)
Dr Helen believes in equality of the sexes, though when asked in the comments about the draft she says this: "Umm, yes,women should have to sign up and perhaps not do combat but other things they are capable of."
You're far better at this than I am, what does the "umm" signify here? Is it snark or evidence she doesn't really believe what she's saying?
Also, why should women sign up for selective service but then not do combat should there be a draft? Could that have something to do with them not being equal to men? "Other things they're capable of"? - So men are capable of performing ALL military tasks, women (who are presumed equal) are only capable of some of the tasks. And MEPS is supposed to apply this highly subjective viewpoint when assigning jobs for the equal (but not quite) women. It is because of this kind of confusion and stupidity that morale is so low in the military today.
When the dykes and the oriental chicks on the LPGA Tour start teeing off from the tips maybe I'll change my mind about the silliness of equality between the sexes.
You're far better at this than I am, what does the "umm" signify here? Is it snark or evidence she doesn't really believe what she's saying?
It is indicative of someone at the so-called "purple pill" level. I would say, based solely on reading her blog, that her thinking is in transition and she is in the process of resolving the contradictions she now increasingly perceives.
Susan Walsh is another individual who appears to be in this sort of transition. It is important to remember that women tend to make the transition from blue pill to red pill more slowly, because they have seldom been forced to deal with the more negative consequences of the inconsistencies. The man swallows the red pill and says "aha, it finally all makes sense!" The woman swallows it and says "dear God, was it really always this bad?"
To be more clear, the "ummm" is not snark, but rather an indication of someone taking something into consideration that she knows may be difficult to explain.
"appeal to feigned ignorance"
Love that. I will believe whatever I already believe and if you tell me why I'm wrong I will continue to believe what I feel is "right to me".
In other words, it's a man thinking like a woman.
Bruce Charlton has had some scathing comments about "equality" lately.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-desire-for-equality-is-natural-to.html
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/12/lets-be-clear-equality-is-not-good.html
Where on earth did so may people get this notion that equality is an ideal?
Even in the only (approximately) egalitarian human societies ever known, that is equal sharing by age and sex among among simple hunter gatherers with low technology and no food storage, equality is not a noble ideal so much as an equilibrium state of the desire that nobody-should-have-more-than-me!
In other words actually-existing-equality was driven by envy and resentment and fear and expediency: not at all a noble ideal.
One big mistake was to suppose (as did the early communists, socialists and egalitarians) that poverty was a consequence of inequality and therefore equality was the solution to poverty.
But, this was an error (or dishonesty) since poverty never was a consequence of inequality; but of low per capita wealth.
And socialism emerged just as per capita wealth began to increase; and egalitarianism only slowed the increased in per capita wealth and delayed the abolition of poverty: honest and knowledgeable people can see this clearly now, it is just an objective fact.
So all of these are bad, not good: equality, egalitarianism, socialism, communism - bad in theory as well as in practice.
dear God, was it really always this bad?
No, she says "Was I really always this bad?" as she remembers all of the really crappy stuff she did through the years and then feels shame and regret and what we were taught we should embrace. It's . . . . difficult.
No, she says "Was I really always this bad?"
I stand corrected... you would certainly know better than me.
Martini's intepretion of what is meant by racial equality is eaqsily disproven by the disparite impact doctrine, as applied to hiring, mortgage lending, etc. His comparable view of gender equality can be brushed aside by considering the hoopla over the supposed pay gap.
It's . . . . difficult.
Yes. But it's liberating, too. Especially when we discover how forgiving most men are.
@Dr. H: "Although women are always telling you how compassionate and non-violent they are"
________
We've made this compassionate, non-violent group of people absolute dictators over the nation of womb, and it so follows that 22% of all the inhabitants are executed for the convenience of the leadership.
Yes. But it's liberating, too.
Yes, it really is. I would never choose to go back. Everything in life makes so much more sense now. There was pain before the red pill as well, only it was pain that I thought was supposed to be normal. Go figure that was the stuff that was abnormal and utterly confusing.
Equality is evidenced in that Jesus Christ died and was risen for all to have access to the forgiveness of sins through His shed blood and healing through His broken and scourged body. We have the equal need for redemption.
Task and purpose are totally different. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this blog.
But, I have, as never before, been convinced that during the creation account, Adam carried the full essence of God in that he was just like God in his nature and being, both male and female was encapsulated in the one. For the sake of procreation and advancing the Kingdom, God saw that Adam was alone and had nobody of his kind to share this life with. Father separated the two enough in spirit, soul and body to make them dependent yet independent.
The drum-beating of "equality" is a construct for the socialist mindset which shakes its fist at God and says they have a better way. Rebellion is as witchcraft. All rooted in original sin.
IMHO
Collectivists always strive to make everybody equal in their sameness.
Then its possible to control the one big, dumb mass (everybody being the same in their stupidity).
It's far harder to control a large group of individuals of varying degrees of capabilities and unique outlooks.
I had a longer response to this, but the comment section ate it.
Summary:
Secular equalitarianism is based on non-sequitur after non-sequitur, as if they put everything in the periodic table = to every other thing. It's a completely useless means of organizing a society.
All forms of value, worth, and equality are based on fallen human covetous, not holiness.
Read 1 Corinthians 12 if you want, but don't come away reading anything more than what it says.
Any feminist who mouths the word "equality" is a bloody liar. They do not believe OR DESIRE equality between the genders.
In the short term, they want REVENGE, meaning they want MEN punished, abused, humiliated, subjegated, and humbled. Men do not pay enough for the pleasures of sex and since they cannot bear children, they should make none of the decisions after having sex with a woman. Like black widow spiders, feminist women find joy in devouring the men who have sex with them. Yes, there is some resentment toward ALL men. And yes, too many of the so-called "feminists" are nothing more than lesbians and dykes, who desire all the other women for themselves.
In the long term, they still have NO INTEREST in discussing equality between the genders. They want nothing less than female domination of men, plain and simple. Like the mythical Amazons, they dream of a society of women where only a few men are allowed to live (as sperm donors and beasts of burden, but only if they are submissive). Of course, this would be paradise for dykes and lesbians, since there would be no men to compete with for the available cute girls.
Let them have what they want. Just leave me out of it.
Anyone want an object lesson in male athletic superiority? Watch Wipeout [1], or Sasuke, or Ninja Warrior. Even the best females, in the finals, don't come close to the men...
------
[1] I truly cannot get enough of Jill Wagner.
Dr. Helen adroitly twists the knife with her ironic reference to the myth of superior female compassion in the title to her post. It is, indeed, a strange form of compassion that wishes death on anyone who dares to view a woman's actions and ideas in anything but the rosiest light.
So it is like a child's compassion. One minute being nice to Mommy, the next pulling the wings off things to see what it looks like and hating Mommy for punishing them.
Equating women with children.
Now, where have I heard this before?
Vox, or anyone who lives in Sweden, some thoughts on this?
The way I see it, it denies the children liberty in exchange for a false equality that they think they can socially engineer through psychological warfare and official censorship.
There is no point to equality if your liberty is ground into the mud.
Which means the sexes are not equal. How can a person express their belief in something they are about to demolish with their own words?
She feels that the sexes are equal, but she thinks that they are not. QED.
Vox, or anyone who lives in Sweden, some thoughts on this?
Twenty years ago, Hasbro, a major American toy manufacturing company, tested a playhouse it hoped to market to both boys and girls. It soon emerged that girls and boys did not interact with the structure in the same way. The girls dressed the dolls, kissed them, and played house. The boys catapulted the toy baby carriage from the roof. A Hasbro manager came up with a novel explanation: "Boys and girls are different."
Gee, you don't say. I wish I could find it, but there was an article a couple of years ago in which Swedish women described how equal everything was, with men doing a lot of housework and women having more power in the workplace; and yet these same women commented that it was also very boring. What these women probably won't confess is that they routinely go to Greece, Italy, and Spain to get banged by swarthy dudes who do not treat them as equals.
Either this equality nonsense will peter out as the absurdness becomes more evident or Sweden as we know it will simply cease to exist. All cultures are approximations of reality -- some clearly better than others -- and the ones that are the most divorced from reality will perish the quickest. Personally, I find it very sad that Sweden is going this berserk (and not in the cool Viking way), as my family is Swedish and there was a time when these people had a much healthier culture.
Male and female are not equal. They are complementary.
Shocking isn't it!?
Damn you reality! You will yield!
OT: (life's education)
I tell ya. I'm listening to Duff right now. Between him and Skiba, one gets a life's education, in about a week or so, if one takes the time. After this, back to "war of sexes." I need another Jill Wagner fix...
What do we expect from our betters who think they can capture the soul in a micro chip and live forever in this Hell hole. Trans-humanism is not much different, it is the purple pill times 10.
There matrix has one great flaw, they don't understand the conscious mind and think they can understand the soul. Night of the the living dead.
Catholic Wisdom. Yesterday was the feast of the Immaculate Conception, Jan 1 will be the Mother of God, just after Christmas commemorating the fruit of her womb, Jesus. God's greatest creation was a woman, known for both her virginity and motherhood. The definition of femininity, an extant Platonic form.
The second issue is Priestly celibacy. Things are bad enough during an age of Chivalry, where Men and and Women were, well, men and women (noting marriage is indissoluble as Jesus says God creates the one flesh from the two).
Oh, and do read the comments to Dr. Helen's article.
"Equality" has different connotations. Jesus respected women. And they are "men" and have souls and equal dignity. Note that it is equally wrong to abort a female baby as it is a male baby. Yet complementarity is in a way a form of equality, but instead of recognizing that, women insists on trying to be bad imitations of men and masculine values, and then don't want to be judged as being inferior - as if a good sow makes a poor cow but we shouldn't lower the esteem of the sow. I wouldn't cast any pearls before her.
"God's greatest creation was a woman, known for both her virginity and motherhood."
Actually, if by greatest you mean holiest than the greatest creation was the human nature of Christ.
"It is important to remember that women tend to make the transition from blue pill to red pill more slowly..." - VD
Way more sloooooooowly. That's probably where the idea of the "the ball and chain" came from.
As with so many contentious things, I think among non-insane people, and absent group-rights opportunists, it's largely a language problem -- the word "equality" in English means a bunch of different things with different implications. In a just and sane society, all we really care about is equality before the law and equality of political representation. You could add equality of opportunity I suppose, but in a truly sane society, that would merely be a derivative of a sane reading of the law.
Be that as it may, here's a funny little story about men and women in the workplace. I think it probably illustrates a moral, but I'm not quite sure what it is.
A while back I worked in a fairly large, pleasant, well-run office environment. The ratio of men to women was roughly 3:2. The staff consisted almost entirely of smart, educated, relatively attractive young people under the age of 35, and most of the people were in fact under 30. Everyone was so reasonable and self-governing that there were nearly no formal rules of office conduct, it was just assumed that everybody knew what "reasonable" sort of meant, and everybody sort of did. As such there was no official dress code, but everybody knew to dress in the general vicinity of business casual: jackets and ties and high heels and so forth weren't required, everybody was just sort of reasonably neat and presentable. No shorts, sports jerseys, tube tops, or t-shirts with stupid sayings or logos on them. Jeans and sneakers were fine, it's just that nobody wore them. The men wore plain collared shirts or a crew sweater, and chinos, and boots or leather shoes. The women wore pants suits or knee-length skirts, and pumps or flats. It was all so boring and rational that nobody ever noticed it, clothing was invisible.
So one day they hired a new woman who was fairly attractive like most of the rest of the staff, but not noticeably more so. She dressed the same as the other women, except that she often wore these tiny, strappy little sandals. There was nothing wrong with it, she dressed tastefully, no big deal. Except that within about two weeks, most of the other women under 30 were suddenly also wearing tiny, strappy little sandals all the time. Again, still tasteful: amusing but not cause for comment. Then one of the women escalated to flip-flops. Soon, half the women were in flip-flops most of the time. Finally, one of them just started walking around the office barefoot, and before too long, half a dozen of the younger women were also walking around barefoot, especially the assistants.
That was when the staff meeting to discuss the dress code was called.
"God's greatest creation was a woman, known for both her virginity and motherhood."
According to scripture, this is nonsense. Women are referred to as the "weaker vessel." That's God's greatest creation? How many Apostles were women?
Women are the icing. They are not the cake. And the baby thing? Well there is pretty much nothing that a women can't be compelled to do. And pretty much nothing that a man can be compelled to do.
A friend once challenged me on society's (especially the "Church") new normal of blaming men for everything. So is it their fault, or not, I was asked?
I responded that it was a false dichotomy. It is not a matter of fault. It is a man's world. Always has been... always will be. When women fail to play their role in a man's world then they suffer. Badly. So do the children. You may not like, but such it is.
This is why it is anything but immoral for men to recluse themselves to booze and video games in favor of traditional roles when such roles have been perverted into little more than an unbearable burden and a financial trap. Again, at the end of the day, there is little men can truly be compelled to do.
Attention Jill Wagner fans (guilty as well): watch her vamp it up on the only season of Blade the tv series on Spike. It ran in 2006 for only one season. Hot!
And pretty much nothing that a man can be compelled to do.
Why yes dear, I am laughing at you.
SB
I always wondered, taking an extra Biblical view of man how life will end? In a cataclysm or a whimper. So little time has man existed and much less for each individual. I think men will end in a whimper in an extra Biblical view. I think man is so unimportant that the vanity of man will be crushed, be it suddenly or slowly.
But I believe in God and don't discount the ending in a majestic artisan of the creator.
"It is a man's world. Always has been... always will be."
Vox where's the pic of SB posing on your Ferrari?
"Personally, I find it very sad that Sweden is going this berserk (and not in the cool Viking way), as my family is Swedish and there was a time when these people had a much healthier culture."
Sounds like it's time for some estrogen shots?
Men ought to start pushing back against the sense of sanctity around women's ideas. On policy, women's issues have been defined over the years as eductation, health care, and social welfare. The gals have gotten their way, as all of their preferences have been accorded. And few areas of our public policy are more screwed up and untenable over time than those very areas which are led by female choices and tastes.
Haven't even touched upon abortion, that area in which women are become gods, holding the balance of creation and destruction in their very hands. With none allowed to gainsay the wholeness of their wisdom in the matter.
Men ought to start pushing back against the sense of sanctity around women's ideas.
They are, but it is slow in it's growth. I think there will be a time when things move rapidly from both sides (like the rise in the "manosphere" there is also a similar rise in the number of, for lack of a better word, "antifeminist" sites) and unlike the change that occurred with the rise of feminism, which was relatively painless and therefore insidious, I think the reversal of that change, when it comes, will be much quicker and more painful to some.
That was when the staff meeting to discuss the dress code was called.
There was another company that allowed you to come to work in flip flops and T shirt. At times you would see people in tie dye tank tops and short shorts. It went on to RULE THE WORLD.
I now and then read these threads, wondering if eventually someone will start quoting Dave Sim's "Tangents". Not for any other reason than it seems appropriate.
And so long as I'm bringing that up, here's a link to it. Probably will offend any feminist and most women. If nothing else, the guy's got an easy to read style of writing.
TGM: "...allowed you to come to work in flip flops and T shirt. At times you would see people in tie dye tank tops and short shorts. It went on to RULE THE WORLD."
a) No company rules the world (unless maybe you counted the ComIntern as a company, for a brief time). Some companies do very well, that's about as close as they get.
b) What do tye die tank tops have to do with the story? The story was not about slovenliness, or fashion chaos, or the success or failure of the company. It was about a self-selected, gender-specific, competitive fashion war; or else maybe a gender-specific drive towards fashion conformity, I'm not sure which, though I suspect the former. It was a little window into some of the amusing differences in thinking between the sexes. If a man had started coming to work wearing, say, a particular type of cologne, I doubt very much that a Cologne War would have started among the guys. There are probably things that would set off a similar sort of war among a group of men, but I don't think it would be fashion-driven, it would be about something else.
One day someone here will make a point that you actually get. It may take a while, though.
"On policy, women's issues have been defined over the years as eductation, health care, and social welfare."
While it's true that women have statistically identifiable preferences in those areas, I don't think it's sound analysis to just blame "women" for the train wrecks they have become. There are a lot more forces at work than just a gender thing.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home