“Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism | Jordan B Peterson”

Stating this before such talk is labeled as “hate”…

Gotta say it. This trans/gender-fluid argument is going off the rails. When people seriously claim that the sexes don’t truly exist, I have to wonder what planet they’re living on.

While gender isn’t always concretely binary, that doesn’t make it merely a social construct capable of being ignored. Especially when only a very small fraction of the population identify as transgendered.

Let it also be understood here that I hold no outright contempt toward transgendered persons or gay folks or whomever else on that portion of the spectrum. Your dilemma is accepted by me as a real concern to you, at least in many cases (can’t claim to comprehend the furries movement, apparently similar to the clinical designation of lycanthropy). BUT, that aside, that doesn’t mean I personally am willing to allow any group of people, regardless of their motivation, to dictate to me and others what pronouns we must use when addressing them, especially when that list includes 29 possible preferences (and growing). That’s ludicrous! And it’s absolutely an encroachment on one’s freedom of speech. You can share your preferences and others may choose to accommodate you, but that’s not something to be forced by Law. That right there is when the situation veers into seriously unnerving terrain that deserves deep scrutiny and public discussion from all sides.

And to refuse to allow that public debate to occur is further encroachment on our rights to free speech and assembly. Like, WTF? Where are we living now, Russia?? While I can appreciate that people are sensitive to feeling they aren’t being taken seriously, we do not have the right to jam our preferences down everybody else’s throats or to manipulatively utilize the legal system to provide us with protection from simple realities, like that not everybody else agrees with us or our lifestyle choices.

Look folks, I know what it’s like to be discriminated against and have been called more names than I care to recount over the years. Does it hurt sometimes? Absolutely. Can that leave an emotional scar in some cases? Yes. But can the Law protect me from other people’s opinions and beliefs and words? No. How do you enforce that? And more importantly, why would you even want to? Restrict them and next time around it will wind up being you restricted from speaking your mind, you better believe it.

I’m not a fan of folks screaming at others to grow thicker skins either, especially while they do their best to hurl unfair insults and hack away at your sense of identity. But we all do deal with this, to whatever degrees, and that proves unavoidable. The Law can’t rectify these social tensions and, in fact, can exacerbate the harm created in such situations by playing favorites among the groups in question. See, here’s the thing: power doesn’t cede itself, and our governments aren’t in this day and age actually interested in benevolently defending our interests (assuming they ever were). What power we grant our governments will then wind up wielded to suit the agendas deemed most beneficial for its own power grabs, as has long been the case. That’s not merely a conspiratorial or cynical view, it’s a reasoned assessment of how Power tends to operate. Meaning, at bottom, it’s really not about you or me or the white guys down the street or black folks or whomever else. It’s about Power consolidating itself where possible, and it will use me or you or others in an effort to continue that strategy. Period. Regardless of what platitudes are offered to lull you into a sense of trusting complacency.

Government powers deserve to be treated and regarded with skepticism and care. Bureaucratic structuring all into itself promises to complicate beyond our wildest imaginings any situation it inserts itself into. Concentrated power schemes don’t simply stop where we’d wish they would, as should be obvious enough by now.

Am I a “hater” or “transphobic” because I believe these issues deserve to be discussed publicly and not treated as if taken for granted because that’s what gender studies professors promote? No. I am an open-minded individual with balances within my own personality and “gendered identity” (as a so-called cis-gendered hetero female, that being the language people like to use these days) that include both masculine and feminine persuasions in a rough and unequal split that, come to find out, others can find annoying and difficult to comprehend and handle (presumably because I’m not conforming properly to feminine gender roles or whatever else, yet am not a tomboy — don’t get along with gaggles of females, prefer male social interaction, and yet am very much a female — judged for my own sexual ways of being, but also understanding how I too tend to judge others of similar persuasions, etc.). So I get that much. But that doesn’t mean the Law can remedy this issue one iota for me or for you. People don’t alter their opinions based simply on what is legal or illegal, as we all ought to know by now. You might succeed at silencing enough of them, for now, but then their ambitions will take other less honest and less straight-forward shapes, which you will still be forced to contend with at some future point in time. Mark my words there.

Life isn’t simple. Never will be. And it isn’t fair across the board. Never will be. Life is tricky and maddening. And sometimes what we think we want one year we later learn would’ve created our worst nightmare had it succeeded. Part of growing up and exploring more of living.

There’s much more I could say on this topic but I am pressed for time at the moment.

“Race, Gender, Identity Politics, and Bad Faith (For Sartre)”

Professor Corey Anton came out with a new video on “Race, Gender, Identity Politics, and Bad Faith (For Sartre)”:

Been a fan of his channel since first coming across it in 2011.

Another example of why feminists aggravate me so

Now done with work for the day and in for the night. Cold as hell out, so it’s good to be back inside with my space heater and cat.

Have plenty on my little mind recently, including some drama I stumbled into in a male feminist’s YT comment thread, plus the follow-up video addressed to me that one of his feminazi academic buddies created. The point of contention between all of us centered around Dr. Warren Farrell and their support of the protest against him speaking on the University of Toronto campus (the clip follows for anyone who hasn’t seen it).

Notice in that video that the feminist protestors blocked the doors to deny people entry to even listen to what Dr. Farrell had to say, requiring police assistance to put a stop to their attempts to obstruct the event. One woman even went so far as to berate a man she didn’t even know by calling him “scum,” all because he was curious to hear what Dr. Farrell had to say. Seriously uncool in my book, and lots of others have taken issue with this footage since it came out.

The issues I wound up having with the man who goes by the name Captain Andy and his feminist pals is that they are adamant that Warren Farrell has no right to be on any campus across the world, even to speak after-hours to students interested in listening to various opinions and claims on gender issues. No, they simply are convinced that his kind of content doesn’t belong there and a couple folks in the comment thread linked above even went so far as to argue that college students don’t possess the skills needed to critically assess whatever someone like Dr. Farrell might state. That’s rather funny, if it weren’t damned depressing, because if not college-trained students then whom? Next they’ll be arguing that NO ONE possesses the brain power needed to see through any biases and therefore all information released to the public should be carefully selected by a team of academics who supposedly have all of our best interests at heart. Huh. Gestapo bullshit that is.

Can’t reason with them though. Proves impossible. They believe they’re right and will hear of nothing else, so I burnt out quickly on dealing with them. Reminds me of the many feminists I argued with in the past and why I finally walked away from all of that. It’s condescending rudeness like that that will bring down their cause faster than anything else, and if they keep it up the baby may wind up thrown out with the bathwater as well, which would be a shame. There are good aspects to feminism in terms of what it’s drawn attention to in certain cases and how it’s questioned gender roles and the prevailing power structures. But then the “third wave” just went too far and jumped for a power grab, and that’s wound up doing more harm than good, IMO.

But, once again, it’s impossible to reason with people who are so completely set on believing they hold the truth and that all naysayers are bigots deserving to be taken down or drummed out. And yet they refuse see the bigotry in their own ways, even when presented with a mirror image.

It’s amazing the extents the human mind can go to in protecting itself from reckoning with reality. None of us are free, and it’s our own damn faults, because as soon as we get someone’s foot off our necks we start looking around for whom we might stomp on, wrongly thinking that somehow elevates us in social status. It’s ridiculous, unproductive, mind-boggling foolery, and where does it ever end?

Final thoughts on Tooltime9901’s Tropes v. FeministFrequency series

The last video in Tooltime9901’s TvFF series:

Another very good video in a terrific series. I seriously appreciate how reasonably he approached those topics, and I found myself nodding along with most of what he had to say (aside from gaming and television show references since I’m not familiar with much of that). I’d previously judged Anita and her Feminist Frequency channel harshly without delving deeper into her message, and Tooltime9901’s series helped illuminate for me a lot of what I hadn’t the patience to figure out about her arguments for myself.

But right now I’d like to focus on this last video and the many important points mentioned therein. Might as well just break them down and add my $.02 as I go:

  1. Military and selective service drafts aren’t the doing of feminists or women, but is rather based on gender roles and related expectations dating far back in many, if not most, cultures. Women alone do not sacrifice men to fight in battles — this is a societal issue that’s very much been upheld and enforced by men.
  2. For all the talk about how feminists and women in general are not showing much concern for issues that affect men primarily, likewise, it appears most MRAs and men in general aren’t nearly as concerned about issues that affect women primarily. People jump on bandwagons and align with a “team” so as to oppose one another, yet all that typically winds up occurring is folks talk over one another’s shoulders. The reality is that there are some matters that impact one sex more frequently and/or more damagingly than the other, and that deserves to be better understood. But screaming at one another over which sex has it worse is counter-productive in helping us in this exploration. In reality, it breaks down to individuals and their experiences, not all members of one sex or another categorically, and this is why statistics aren’t proving very helpful in making sense out of what all is going on between us.
  3. If first-world problems affecting women are seen as trivial and unimportant, why would first-world problems affecting men be viewed any differently? And why wouldn’t problems within our own society seem of greater consequence to us when these are what impact us most directly? Turning fake pity toward the atrocities occurring in other countries (especially those our military is either actively invading or aligned with) strikes me as little more than a diversion most of the time. Most Americans don’t care that much about the plight of women in Saudi Arabia or little boys in war-torn countries in Africa, so why sit here and pretend that we do? We can barely fathom their realities, and honestly, how often do we even attempt to? How much does their pain affect our lives? So then why are we using them to bolster our arguments with other first-worlders over matters that pertain specifically to our own selves? We’re using their plights to suit our own self-serving purposes — just like a bunch of first-worlders.
  4. Marketing and advertising is wack, going back to Edward Bernays (the nephew of Sigmund Freud) discovering how to use our psychologies against us so as to sell us more shit. Because we respond to sexual images in no way suggests this is the best way for goods and services to be advertised, or that being incessantly bombarded with sexual (to the point of pornographic) and violent imagery hasn’t done us any harm. When marketers play up on gender stereotypes to sell products, whether they mean to or not, they are adding to the impression fed into the public consciousness that these stereotypes on some level accurately reflect reality. In other words, advertisers and marketers are helping shape and frame the public paradigm people are coming up subscribing to.
  5. Because companies are all about turning profit in no way provides an adequate excuse for how invasively and insidiously their ad campaigns and products have penetrated the public consciousness and impacted our interpersonal relations. We, as consumers and citizens, have a right to call attention to these matters and to share our perspectives. That goes for men and women, feminists and MRAs and everybody else.
  6. There truly are enormous social costs that are commonly externalized from corporate considerations. In the realm of economics, anything that can be externalized and thereby overlooked should be. We see this when it comes to states picking up the tab in the form of corporate welfare, and we also see this when it comes to how toying with people’s psychologies so as to sell them shit can wind up bringing about unintended consequences downstream. Corporations are unconcerned about this, but that doesn’t mean we have to be. It’s us, after all, who are feeling these social costs, so why should we not wish to understand their origins and consider what is within our power to support heading a different way?
  7. Gender stereotypes, while perhaps intended to point toward general truths, too often have the effect of caging us against our will. The reality is we each are more than our sex and gender. Of course both men and women are subjected to gender stereotypes, and much of this is determined by the norms, values, and beliefs of a given society and the traditions that flavor it. Which is to say that gender stereotypes are indeed largely social constructs. While some real physiological and psychological differences do generally exist between the sexes, most of what we’re focusing on and arguing over has more to do with expectations handed down and early on implanted in us by the societal matrix we’re raised within. Hence the tremendous variation across cultures in existence today but also spanning back through history. One clear example of this is what’s deemed appropriate expression of emotionality in men.
  8. I personally do believe all this marketing of violence to boys may be intended to create more apathetic men to better serve as cannon fodder in our country’s ongoing wars. It serves the dual function of hyping up fear in women, leading to more calls for police protection, which then helps expand domestic policing and prison programs. All of which can be heralded as job creation, which Americans love to hear, even when such a setup is very likely to prove to be a social detriment; first in so many men seeking alternative employment options and being subjected to wars that in the very least jade them, and second through expanding domestic programs that aim to prey on members of the public (the majority of whom also happen to be men). And yet many men go along with supporting this, perhaps even more so than women typically.
  9. Political equality doesn’t equate with social equality. (Whatever “equality” is supposed to be about anymore.)
  10. The realm of economics has seriously skewed our understanding of morality. Corporations may claim to be amoral, yet people are not.
  11. Sexism is still alive and well. The concept of being female is commonly used to insult men, and that is sexism-in-action. It truly is. There’s nothing wrong with being a woman, and yet apparently it’s the most dreaded thing for a man to be compared to and equated with women. I’ve never understood that myself, but it’s a prevalent attitude. How men can look at this and not grasp the underlying insult toward femininity is confusing. As a woman I am free to look up to men and to admire them and even to wish to emulate some of them, but a man would be ridiculed for looking upon women in the same manner. Likewise, as a woman it seems reasonable that I might fear certain men, yet men who might fear a woman will be looked upon as a patsy and wimp. This deeply-rooted form of sexism lives on and remains largely unexamined by men.

Showing appreciation and loving — Stefan Molyneux’s interview with Warren Farrell

Pausing at 11:54, I really liked what Warren Farrell said about how the process necessary for our survival (to be defensive) is the exact opposite of the process required to nurture love (to listen to your loved one without getting defensive or going on the attack). Kinda like the yin-yang — that’s how life balances out. Amazing, isn’t it?

Pausing again at 42:04. Wow. Great discussion they’re having! This came to me right on time — I need to hear every word and let it sink in. Thinking about asking my mate to please watch it through as well, though he’s not one to take much interest in computers. It would be nice, so I’ll try. This video generates a lot of thoughts and ideas, very timely.

Because I’m still learning in the love game. Admittedly. And I’ve made more than my share of mistakes. Oh yeah. My social awkwardness is of an odd variety apparently. Ha  Truth be told.

But great discussion, highly recommended!