|
Generating Heat
MRAs need to generate heat rather than formulae.
One of the things that drives me nuts - yes, yes, I know, yet another thing
- is the belief among many highly-intelligent MRAs that there is some objective
theory - probably based on biology, psychology, history, anthropology, law etc - that
can lead us all to a state of happiness and general contentment with each other;
particularly on gender lines. But there is no such thing. And, as such, it is
largely a waste of time trying to figure out what such a theory might be - time,
I might add, that could be fruitfully spent doing other things - such as
engaging in some form of direct activism!
An example.
I have just discovered a formula which is absolutely perfect. And it tells us
how we can maximise the average amount of happiness in a society. This formula
will also maximise economical success and reduce to a minimum the amount of crime. It
will also produce the most healthy of children, psychologically, physically etc.
etc. And it will revolutionise our educational systems and make them maximally
effective.
In fact, it is an amazing formula. It maximises everything that most of us would want
maximised, and it minimises everything that most of us would want minismised.
There is no doubt about it. This formula is the best that is possible. And
all the scientists agree. This formula is perfect.
Problems solved?
Hmm. Let's see.
Amongst other things; this formula tells us that women should stay at home
looking after the children, and that men should go out to work.
So, is this what we do, by decree? Do we demand that all the men go out to
work and that all the women stay at home? After all, this is what the formula
says we should do. And it is a correct formula. There is noooo
doubt about it.
But what if millions of women do not like this idea? "This is
unfair," they say. "Why cannot we have careers?"
And my point is this.
From this state of female dissatisfaction alone, there will emerge a
veritable mountain of problems. And so this perfect formula will have to be tampered with in order to make
these women happy.
But once you have tampered with this perfect formula, there is a price to
pay. Something that was as perfect as possible has been degraded.
And, hence, some group, somewhere, will have suffered from this degradation.
They will have lost out! No way are they going to put up with this! And so the
formula will need to be readjusted again.
And again. And again. And again.
And, before long, this perfect formula will be ignored,
completely corrupted, and, effectively, discarded; as everyone tries to maximise
their own piece of the pie.
What a waste of time! Because this perfect
formula, in practice, got you nowhere.
Of course, one could argue that now that we have a perfect formula, everyone
must conform to it - whether they like it or not. For example, those women will
just have to stay at home and look after the kids.
But is this what we would really want? ...
And, of course, my real point is this.
If my perfect formula cannot actually lead to anywhere
that is deemed to be satisfactory by nearly everyone - which is, in fact, an
impossible task - then neither will your more complicated theories do so; no matter how wonderful and detailed they might be.
After all, my formula is perfect, and you cannot better it, and
yet still it does not work.
In other words, as an MRA, I would suggest that you do not waste your time
trying to find a formula or a theory that will 'work', because it will get you
nowhere.
Furthermore, circumstances tend to change very quickly indeed, and any
formula or theory will be out of date and invalid - woefully so, for much of the
time - well before you have figured it out.
In some sense, the attempt to find a formula or a theory for arguing the case
for more rights for men and for less discrimination against them etc etc, is
also akin to the search - now abandoned - by old economists for a
"just price" for every good on the market.
The notion that there was such a thing as a "just price" - a
'fit and proper' price - something that would be calculated with reference to
various parameters, moral considerations and philosophical deliberations was
completely futile, and a "just" price for goods and services was
totally unrealistic in practice. The only "price" that was sustainable
in a complex society was the "market price"; a value which is simply
determined by the statistical laws of supply and demand, and by the various
input and output costs of delivering a product or service; all of which shift
around because they are dependent on so many different moving variables.
Similarly, in practice, most "rights" that are
accorded to people are nowadays 'calculated' and judged not with reference to
some higher authority - such as a god or a 'theory' - but on the basis of how
much political pressure can be brought to bear on those in government, how much
money supports one position or the other, how many people have a vested interest
in the matter, how much attention can be attracted; and so on.
In other words, the various "rights" that are accorded to people
largely depends, loosely speaking, on the amount of heat and pressure that can
be generated over the matters of concern. There are no "just"' rights,
just as there are no "just" prices.
Quite simply, there are no "just" prices that will work in practice
and there are no "just" rights that will work in practice. In
practice, forces to do with the flow of people's money determine the
current price - the 'market price' - of goods and services, and forces to do
with the flow of people's voices - their psychology, if you prefer - determine
the rights that are accorded them.
And in much the same way that the amount of goods and services that people
can purchase depends upon how much money they can spend, the rights and privileges
that are accorded to people depend upon the amount of psychological heat that they
can generate in favour of themselves.
Here is one of my favourite examples that helps to demonstrate
this point.
Just for the sake of argument, assume that £1000
spent on prostate cancer research saves 1 year of life for a man, and that £5000
spent on breast cancer research does the same for a woman.
Should we spend the same amount on each
cancer?
Well, if we spend £10,000 on each cancer,
then 10 man-years will be saved but only 2 woman-years will be saved.
Is this fair?
Surely, women need more money!
Well, to solve this 'problem', we could
spend five times as much on breast cancer as prostate cancer, so that the number of
lives saved is equal across the genders.
But would this be fair? - because now we
are sacrificing five man years just to save one woman year!
No. Surely not.
So, what is the 'correct' solution? The
'fair' solution? The 'equal' solution? The 'scientific' solution.
Well. There isn't one.
It does not exist.
But, of course, there is, indeed, a
political solution; a practical solution. And here it is.
The money that you hand over to each cancer
group is in some way proportional to that group's ability to affect the number
of votes that you get.
And this is why, for example, the amount of
money being spent on women's health concerns by western governments is vastly
more than the amount spent on men's health concerns.
Quite simply, the women have generated more
heat.
In practice, it is the heat that counts, and there is no perfect formula that
will provide a 'correct' or 'just' solution. It does not exist.
There is no solution - 'scientific' or otherwise - that will give us 'equality'.
Indeed, we have seen so often how easily the meanings of all the data and the
statistics can be twisted in order to disadvantage or demonise men.
For example, when men are killed by the thousand in wars, the focus - the
resources and the sympathy - is shifted
towards the majority of refugees - who consist mostly of 'women and children' -
and the dead men are (later) simply deemed to be 'violent' - even though they
were protecting their women and children at the time - with their
approval!
When a man kills his partner, he is a violent thug. But when she kills him, it is
also usually claimed that this was because he was a violent thug.
Even though women initiate most divorces, the message from the media and the
politicians is that men are abandoning their families. But if men initiated most
divorces it would again be said that men are abandoning their families.
When older women initiate divorces, they are said to be liberating themselves
from stifling marriages. When older men do so, they are betraying their
partners.
If boys do better than girls educationally then it is argued that there is
bias in the system. If girls do better than boys then it is argued that this is
so because girls work harder and/or because they are more intelligent.
And so on.
Quite simply, the evidence and the facts are always twisted to advantage women
(and government) at the expense of men. And, in practice,
one cannot escape from this by appealing to some kind of perfect formula or
theory.
Indeed, in practice, our rulers simply try to minimise the amount of
fuss and aggravation that people cause them while forever attempting to empower
and enrich themselves further.
That's the way that it works out there.
George Orwell spent thirty years trying to figure out how various types of
government were best persuaded to follow certain pathways. He concluded that, ..
"It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. The
only pressure that they respond to is the threat of losing some of their own
power."
... and from what I have seen with my own eyes over many years, my belief
is that he was 100% correct.
The upshot of all this is that in order to change the situation that
prevails - e.g. the anti-male laws, the misandric rhetoric, etc etc - there
needs to be applied a considerable amount of heat. The 'evidence' on its own is
not enough. The data and the statistics are not enough. The 'science' is not
enough.
And, of course, a truly excellent example of this derives from the fact
that despite the huge negative effects on societies that arise from
fatherlessness - effects which are clearly attested to by the evidence that
surrounds us as well as by the data and the statistics - western governments
have continually created laws and policies that actually encourage
fatherlessness!
And, loosely speaking, there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the
feminists have generated more heat than have fathers. Secondly, fatherlessness
and the breakdown of families empowers those in government.
In conclusion, therefore, my view is that until 'men' start undermining,
or threatening to undermine, very significantly those forces and those groups of
people who are the cause of the problems that beset them, they will achieve very
little. And while quoting various formulae, theories, statistics and facts will
very often help with such actions, on their own, they are of little value in
practice. Indeed, in practice, heat alone is very clearly
often good enough!
Let me put this into words.
"I don't care what you think. I don't care what the evidence is. I
just don't like what you are doing to me and to my fellow men. And if you
continue doing it, I will undermine you."
Furthermore, MRAs should have no moral reservations about attacking very
viciously those people who support the feminist agenda. After all, apart from
demonising, disadvantaging and discriminating against all men, these people are
costing us billions of dollars every year and they are causing a great deal of
misery throughout most of society (e.g. see The Benefits of Feminism).
And, finally, MRAs should never forget that one of the main
aims of those who support the feminist agenda is to break down the relationships
between men, women and children - regardless of the consequences; and even though, for most people, good
relationships are the most important aspects of their lives.
Yep: They are trying to mess up your relationships.
With much success.
In other words, these are very nasty people indeed. And MRAs
should be going after them and undermining them, not talking politely to them.
"The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for
the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to
leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history
must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient
female religions like witchcraft." ("The Declaration of
Feminism," November 1971).
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from
families and communally raise them." (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, assistant
professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the
school's Center for Research on Woman)
" "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we
destroy marriage." - from Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan (ed),
1970, p.537.
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the
women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for
women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" (Sheila Cronan,
1988 Houston National Organization for Women {NOW} Conference for Women.).
MALE:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The
first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity
of the female. MAN:...an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who
needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man... From 'A feminist
Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:
|
