At the risk of total destruction I'm just going to take a few minutes from my house-cleaning to agree with the first poster on Femitheist's blog (here) that this analysis is good, as far as it goes. But also that it needn't go any farther, unless it finds itself wanting to be a life's-work.
I am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes from a long time ago and there was one particular "scene" that impressed me greatly. I had been meaning to look up the whole thing and quote it somewhere but instead, for now, I'll use Google results and point to an otherwise unrelated web page for the gist of it (quoted text in itallics):
Despite being brilliant, the great Sherlock Holmes is an ignoramus when it comes to the astronomical workings of the planets and stars. In the first Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet, he accosts Watson on the subject: "What the deuce is it to me? You say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."1 Holmes likens his mind to an attic, one he can only fill with the rights kinds of "furniture" necessary for his occupation as the world's first consulting detective. But even if Holmes does get an "F" in astronomy, there's no denying his influence on the genre of science fiction. - See more at:
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/britt_11_10/#sthash.TCpZXKBH.dpuf
So, basically, science is useful... when it is useful. At other times, for anyone not making their living doing science it is as much a time waster as religion is, or maybe even more so. Please do look up the story though to get the full gist of it. I’ll have more to say on it later I think.
I find it so amusing that in all the debates among amateurs lately there is no discussion of the fact that most of the great minds on which our current basic understanding of science (such as laws of thermodynamics etc.) are based were in fact religious people, in many cases very much so.
I may decide to write further on this (and with better attributions) on the on this blog which Femitheist has been kind enough to let me run into the ground so far. I've let it more than languish and it needs either to be awakened or killed. Maybe in the next week or two (after the holidays). Update: I posted this here for length reasons, but I'll try and do a longer update in the time-frame mentioned.
Suffice it to say that for the average person today (almost) nothing I can think of in our modern life hinges around whether the universe was created by a sentient being or just popped into existence or (as some non-religious scientists once thought) has been around literally forever. The Big Bang theory in my opinion did more to fan the flames of science vs religion than it did to quell them.
I put the "(almost)" in there because I know that the science of the transistor and all its follow-ons was based on quantum theory and a better understanding of the basic particles that make up our universe will almost certainly find their way into useful devices for us. Bear in mind that I see little in various religious thought that says “don’t do science, it’s dangerous!” Of the religious people I know very few of them would take any note of the debate of divine creation versus evolution. Most are quite happy to relegate the first few chapters of the Bible to a mythology which fit the times and minds of the people it was written for (the early Jews).
Personally, I’d find it more meaningful to debate whether life originated on Earth at all, versus came here on an asteroid or some such natural conveyance, or maybe it came here on a spaceship. If,as most scientists and many of not most religious people believe there is life elsewhere in the universe, what makes us think that they have not solved problems we are still working on such as interstellar travel? There are so many possibilities such as that and I see them all ignored in favor of a 200+ year old debate in which there seems to be “nothing new under the sun”.
But in spite of the fact that Evolution is taught in all American schools, all European schools, and maybe with the exception of Islamic areas, all schools everywhere else as well, we don't really have much to show for it. I would be impressed if we could say that as a results of that teaching we have more scientists or better scientists, but I don't see that. In fact what I see is that much of science has stalled since last century and in my experience the average "joe" is dumber than he/she has ever been as regarding scientific principles.
When I was in college science fiction authors who are known for accurately predicting the future had posted that we would engage in manned trips to Jupiter's moons by when? By 13 years ago that’s when. And by three years ago we were to have gone back to Jupiter with even more impressive equipment, including sentient computers that we are nowhere near developing in the real world.
In the later part of the 20th century our imaginations finally passed a point where our actions could ever (seemingly) catch up. To put it another way, our reach has finally exceeded our grasp. The question might be asked “is this just a fact of life/science, or is there a sociological explanation for this state of affairs?” Personally, I think it is the latter. But the explanation for that is more than I have time for and I think it is much related to Femitheist’s mission, and she is probably far more suited to taking the work there than I could ever be.
I think Femitheist would agree that the current "debates" on the Internet between almost all parties engaging in them is shallow and meaningless. There is nothing being said that wasn't said by far greater minds in the 17th and 18th centuries. To do it right, you first have to review ALL of that so that you are not just re-covering old ground. Point me to one or more of the current flock of elevator-gurus who have done that.
Shouldn't we devote more of our time and mental energies to matters pertaining to the future rather than to esoteric arguments of the past?
I think so, and I hope we (as humanity) will get busy with that soon.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Friday, September 13, 2013
Is Patriarchy Dead?
I found this article titled Shocking Women Everywhere, Hanna Rosin Declares Patriarchy Dead interesting. First reaction for many, including me is to say “hell no”!
But then you have to think in terms of other “isms” and “archies” at what point are any of them dead? What unit of measurement do we use? What metric has to drop to zero before something is dead? We've yet to resolve at what exact point humans are dead, or at what point they come alive. The measures we pick are somewhat arbitrary.
But then you have to think in terms of other “isms” and “archies” at what point are any of them dead? What unit of measurement do we use? What metric has to drop to zero before something is dead? We've yet to resolve at what exact point humans are dead, or at what point they come alive. The measures we pick are somewhat arbitrary.
If a single practitioner of patriarchy still exists should we say that patriarchy still lives? What if it can be shown that at some point in the future no such people will exist? Can we not say that for all practical purposes it is dead?
Racism has been dying in America for many years. It seem inconceivable that we would backtrack on those changes. But at what point beyond “irreversible” can we all sort of relax and let the rest happen “organically”.
I ask this because I notice that in all social movements there is an almost inevitable backlash. The nature of the backlash is that the more you push against it, the more it tries to push back. Furthermore, as the backlash grows weaker at some point unpleasant things can happen. The group still practicing the what the majority considers to be “undesirable” behavior feels marginalized and may grow ever more violent in their opposition while the new majority point of view may denigrate the minority to an almost subhuman status. We've seen this over and over in history with defeated opposition groups sent to institutions to be “reformed”, “re-programmed”, just left to rot, or killed.
From the general back to the specific, some say that the push to get women into the workforce was a ploy by the Soviets, or by the far left generally to break down the family unit in the United States. Some also say that the very very rich (substitute Illuminati, what have you) want every able bodied person in the workforce as a way to maintain slave wages. I find elements of truth to both of these theories, even though they are at odds with one another. Both can be true to a certain extent (as can other explanations) because the world is a complex place and every issue we have to deal with can be tugged in multiple different directions at once.
To me, if you isolate our considerations to the developed nations of “the west” the genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting “Her” back. But what about the rest of the world where patriarchy clearly is as prevalent as ever?
We live in a time where civilizations are clashing in ways that they never have before. Having filled the earth there is no place for renegade ways of thinking to escape to (at least until major advances in space travel take place). So for the foreseeable future, civilizations with moribund patriarchies are going to rub elbows with civilizations where women are considered property. Because those other civilizations are relatively unchanged from thousands of years ago, while we in the west are still transforming ourselves, we could be at a major disadvantage.
I can see a few ways that this might play out. But I’m not confident in any of my own forecasts. And wishing doesn't make it so.
It seems obvious to me as it must to many feminists that women have been artificially confined to secondary roles for most of human history. In a system where every single individual has complete freedom of action (with physical force taken out of play) women will achieve (and in fact already have) a far more equitable status. Their ascension may in fact continue to the point where they have some degree of supremacy. Trends don’t always continue apace however. Women’s achievements may slow to a halt at the exact position of total equality or may shoot past such a state or may swing in a pendulum fashion never reaching full equilibrium. We just don’t know, and I suspect we can’t know.
I do though think they if we put the emphasis on individual freedom of action foremost in our goals a lot of infighting can be avoided. If women in 2050 are the vast majority of college graduates and corporate managers and there is no law or externality that forces that to be the case, why should anyone now care? If on the other hand, there is systematic discrimination against any group of people for any reason then why shouldn't we all care?
From the general back to the specific, some say that the push to get women into the workforce was a ploy by the Soviets, or by the far left generally to break down the family unit in the United States. Some also say that the very very rich (substitute Illuminati, what have you) want every able bodied person in the workforce as a way to maintain slave wages. I find elements of truth to both of these theories, even though they are at odds with one another. Both can be true to a certain extent (as can other explanations) because the world is a complex place and every issue we have to deal with can be tugged in multiple different directions at once.
To me, if you isolate our considerations to the developed nations of “the west” the genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting “Her” back. But what about the rest of the world where patriarchy clearly is as prevalent as ever?
We live in a time where civilizations are clashing in ways that they never have before. Having filled the earth there is no place for renegade ways of thinking to escape to (at least until major advances in space travel take place). So for the foreseeable future, civilizations with moribund patriarchies are going to rub elbows with civilizations where women are considered property. Because those other civilizations are relatively unchanged from thousands of years ago, while we in the west are still transforming ourselves, we could be at a major disadvantage.
I can see a few ways that this might play out. But I’m not confident in any of my own forecasts. And wishing doesn't make it so.
It seems obvious to me as it must to many feminists that women have been artificially confined to secondary roles for most of human history. In a system where every single individual has complete freedom of action (with physical force taken out of play) women will achieve (and in fact already have) a far more equitable status. Their ascension may in fact continue to the point where they have some degree of supremacy. Trends don’t always continue apace however. Women’s achievements may slow to a halt at the exact position of total equality or may shoot past such a state or may swing in a pendulum fashion never reaching full equilibrium. We just don’t know, and I suspect we can’t know.
I do though think they if we put the emphasis on individual freedom of action foremost in our goals a lot of infighting can be avoided. If women in 2050 are the vast majority of college graduates and corporate managers and there is no law or externality that forces that to be the case, why should anyone now care? If on the other hand, there is systematic discrimination against any group of people for any reason then why shouldn't we all care?
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
First Off-Topic Post - The Raising of "Good" Citzens
The following has nothing to do with Fethez (or does it)?
As both a man, and a new follower I have to walk a fine line. The following might be illustrative or it might be provocative. Does the movement of our current social structure(s) described below by Alexis de Tocqueville represent something that we as Fethez should be alarmed about or is it simply a description of the path toward New Society? I can see bits of both. Both matriarchy and patriarchy imply a parental relationship between citizens and society. Is the debate more about loss of freedom, or is it more the case that loss of freedom is inevitable and one must seek to lose it to those more worthy than others. I struggle with this. (Please don't be sidetracked by the anachronistic terminology "manhood", "man", "men", etc. If stated today I am sure other words would have been used.)
“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
As both a man, and a new follower I have to walk a fine line. The following might be illustrative or it might be provocative. Does the movement of our current social structure(s) described below by Alexis de Tocqueville represent something that we as Fethez should be alarmed about or is it simply a description of the path toward New Society? I can see bits of both. Both matriarchy and patriarchy imply a parental relationship between citizens and society. Is the debate more about loss of freedom, or is it more the case that loss of freedom is inevitable and one must seek to lose it to those more worthy than others. I struggle with this. (Please don't be sidetracked by the anachronistic terminology "manhood", "man", "men", etc. If stated today I am sure other words would have been used.)
“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Monday, August 26, 2013
On this blog we will be discussing (among other things) the ramifications for men of the Fethez philosophy.
We will dispel the mythology surrounding early formulations and talk about how this plan will play out in the future as well as how it is playing out at this very moment.
Make no mistake about it, this future is inevitable if we don't want the world to self-destruct. Men should embrace this inevitability as the benefits accrue to both men and women of the future. And that is the key, to build a viable future, rather than the one we face now of ever deepening despair.
We will dispel the mythology surrounding early formulations and talk about how this plan will play out in the future as well as how it is playing out at this very moment.
Make no mistake about it, this future is inevitable if we don't want the world to self-destruct. Men should embrace this inevitability as the benefits accrue to both men and women of the future. And that is the key, to build a viable future, rather than the one we face now of ever deepening despair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)