Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

This imo is less a function of Darwin and rather more a function of education and wealth, one can stand on the shoulders of giants and a body of 5000 years of human knowledge or get the bastardized version currently found prominently in public schools, and thus find one self on knees rather then on shoulders:p

I'm a product of the New York City public schools. I admit, I didn't learn a damn thing while attending them, particularly discipline in terms of studying.

Teachers didn't care what I did; my parents cared even less. The only advantage I had was proximity to the library and some measure of curiosity to read books. If I did not have that, I would probably be flipping burgers right now.

I've always considered my own life something of a testament that education, in the end, doesn't matter.

But, you could be right. I wouldn't know what it is like to be taught things that matter, especially philosophy.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

I'm a product of the New York City public schools. I admit, I didn't learn a damn thing while attending them, particularly discipline in terms of studying.

Teachers didn't care what I did; my parents cared even less. The only advantage I had was proximity to the library and some measure of curiosity to read books.

More power to you sir - this is a real education imo, straight from the horses mouth; so to say. Unfortunately this natural curiosity of many is stifled in todays culture. Bill Moyers does a very interesting interview here with the David Simon creator of the wire on some of the issues we touched on if you are interested.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04...ing_flash.html

[SamAdams]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

All women and men should be free. I think we can all agree on that. It is government coercion that is the problem here.

Women were not "free" (government coercion prior to "women's lib" in the sense that they could not vote and therefore were not taxed). The point here is that the government did not have good intentions by allowing women's suffrage - instead they were after the added tax on economic output and over more control over the people. So they ended coercive policies against women in order to enslave women to the tax collector.

This is no different than Lincoln and slavery. Slavery is bad - again we can all agree. State governments enforced slavery in the south. However Lincoln destroyed the concept of the constitution and state sovereignty by enforcing the union above all else, law and otherwise. 2 wrongs don't make a right - however the end result that enslaved people are now free is good.

Similarly I am happy that women can choose their own path even if now men and women can all now only be as free as our tax collector allows.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

Well said.

In a way, that this has come to be should not be too surprising.

Notice first of all that many of us humans have learned how to breed dogs, cows, sheep, horses and other such animals to better suit our needs. This breeding occurs across generations of those animals. Similarly we humans are well able to understand the cultivation and breeding of plants across generations for various purposes.

Then consider that it is likely that at least a few humans will have sufficient talent in such matters to understand and pursue the breeding and cultivation of humans. If such humans ever existed, and if they otherwise were of above average talents, they and their progeny would have a tendency to rise like cream to the top, bolstered by their inherited talents, their passed on culture, education and training, their passed on wealth and resources, and in particular their skill, passed on both genetically and by training, at the cultivation and breeding of humans to their own purposes.

It is far from a perfect or certain system. But certainly it is more likely that you will grow up to be a powerful and wealthy banker if you are descended from Mayer Amschel Rothschild than if you are descended from a PythonicCow .

It seems to me you're advocating eugenics.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

I thought they did that already. They just kept the democratic veneer.

A very good point. And you are one of the few I've met who use the term Big Bagel to refer to the isle I call home.

Anyway, I'd say democracy is always a fraud.

Women are certainly the herd, and are easily led in mass movements such as democracy. But, while this is true, they instinctively submit to true strength when it appears. Most men alive today in the US are weaker than the typical woman of a century ago - who can blame them for being thoroughly confused?

The dejected men of today, secretly loathing their impotence, will never be able to rise to the occasion of a real revolution. They are just as broken as the Sex and the City crowd that will never have the chance to raise strong sons who can create a better tomorrow for their grandchildren.

Regardless, while I don't have the time to argue it, I submit that if crisis befalls our lands - women of today will recognize and exalt that one characteristic that defines masculinity: courage.

I am far from a misogynist. It is important to recognize that the herd instinct of women simply is - you can either gain their favor, or be trampled. The time will come when the courage of men will be required again.

[shiny!]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

Shiny,
One thing to consider - "Did the economy of the 1970s contribute to the demise of your parents marriage'?

No, my father's philandering caused their divorce. He made Tiger Woods look like an amateur.

My Mom went to work in the seventies because my Dad's TEachers salary wasn't enough to pay the bills.

It's still that way today. Despite all the politician's rhetoric, neither teachers nor children are valued in this society. My husband (a teacher for 20+ years) was at the Goodwill store where he ran into a fellow teacher who was buying clothes for herself and her family for a wedding they had to attend. She couldn't even afford to go to Target or Walmart.

I have done the bulk of the Child care work in my family. The alternative would have been to have my child watch after by hired hands who really don't give a Rats a$$ about my child.

There is no doubt in my mind that the best situation for a child is to be raised at home until first grade by a concerned, attentive stay-at-home parent. Traditionally that's the mother, but sometimes the father is the better one for the job.

I went to nursery school and kindergarten for a few hours a day from the age of 3-5, but looking back on it, it was more for socialization and to give the mom's a break than for anything else. It wasn't heavy into the schooling like it is now. We PLAYED.

If I see one more TV show trying to uncover the mystery about obese children and diabetes - I'll go insane -

If I see one more TV show wherein the single or married woman is just dying to have a baby, then as soon as the baby comes, she's complaining that she's bored, she wants to go back to work or back to dating, but it's so hard to get good childcare or a good nanny, I will scream.

TWO PEOPLE working in a FAMILY and no one as time to look after the children. Children are TIME INTENSIVE - and they have paid the price for so call Liberation of Women - which as lead to the daily incarceration of Children of the World (I mean Day care).

I would say that children are time intensive and have paid the price of inflation caused by fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, making it impossible for most families to get by on one income, causing both parents to work leading to the breakdown of the family.

I read a recent artice (can't find a link to it, sorry) saying that in England, a large percentage of children are still not talking by the age of three. They compared children in expensive private and low-cost public day care, and concluded that the family's income had nothing to do with it. What they didn't compare against were children being raised at home by an attentive, involved parent. It was as if the people running the study didn't even consider that scenario possible.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

It seems to me you're advocating eugenics.

I was describing, not advocating. What I said was my perception of some elites. I am no elite, I don't approve of what I describe, and even what I described need not manifest as eugenics, though it sometimes does, and sometimes seems to.

[lsa420]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

Now, that is a funny post! While 2009 was a year of extensive drunkenness, I am determined that 2010 will be a new time of temperance for me. In fact, I haven't had a drink since Friday!

While I occasionally find myself in some poor late 20s apartment from time to time, it is a decadent vice in which I rarely indulge myself. I'm sorry to say too that my more serious political and academic gatherings are rarely frequented by attractive females, although when they are, they are usually quite crazy and ripe for plundering.

So you're saying I should give you a call the next time I'm in New York?:p

[thisandthat.nowandth]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

King of the liberation co-opt was Edward Bernays.

Psychoanalysis shapes consumer culture

Women sporting cigarettes as a symbol of female empowerment and the ubiquitous bacon-and-egg breakfast were two public relations campaigns inspired by Freudian ideas. The link between theory and practice was Edward L. Bernays, the acknowledged father of public relations and nephew of Sigmund Freud.

Full Text

Women acquired the "right" to smoke in public while maintaining their feminine mystique , while the corporate elite pillaged a new market....




All I got was this lousy drum...




and the opportunity to wail at the moon in protest against a female version of masculinity foisted on American males by Oprah Winfrey.

-Joaquin-

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

So you're saying I should give you a call the next time I'm in New York?:p

I do have a fair bit of fun.

I remember a few weeks ago I got dragged home by some poor lass after spending quite a bit of time discussing the coming collapse of our civilization. It was one of the moments I thanked the gods for my inherently good looks and the continued strength to exercise. Surely, you would think that no matter how much she drank, she had no interest in monetary policy, population demographics, let alone my notions on political philosophy.

Laying in her bed at 4:00 AM, and finally sobering up, I was then subjected to her whining about her job. I couldn't help but tell her "Be happy you have one - for now!" Only once a woman is satisfied does her tolerance of masculine brusqueness wane. Upon hearing such words she expressed her displeasure at my insensitive nature. So, I gave her my thanks followed by one quick glance at her supple bosom and I beat a hasty retreat.

[ER59]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

I read your post giving four, hard to disagree with, points to abandoned democracy. Then I took a look at the referenced http://www.corrupt.org/ and found lots of additional points to agree with there. Trying to find an answer to the question I raised (please explain why women should welcome abandoning democracy in favor of the authoritarian aristocracy) that has not been answered, imho, I am unable to find an answer there as well.

Digging a bit more, I find the following on the pages: "We do not believe in a perfect, eternal government. But, like Plato, we believe in the possibility of government without corruption. This involves selecting the right leaders – persons of wisdom, honour, and dedication. Then we must be ever-watchful, ready to prune corruption the moment it appears. We do not believe that power corrupts; we believe that it is the corrupt who seek power. Therefore, our leaders will be selected by appointment and a strict non-bureaucratic evaluation."

Reading it raises the next question: Is the authoritarian aristocracy an ideal that cannot be reached and practiced? Unable to find any answer to that question as well, I go to search a bit more. Now I am coming across of http://www.nhinet.org/ryn12-2.htm and find that it is possible that my inability to find answers reading the corrupt.org is not surprising but rooted in the Plato’s Republic itself.

"Critics of Platonic political idealism are sometimes accused of wishing to lower the moral standards of politics. Aristotle is one such thinker, interested as he is in making political morality a going concern. Machiavelli, with his demand that political action be efficacious, is widely regarded as the most cynical violator of high ideals. But even the Framers of the U.S. Constitution have been accused of neglecting moral virtue because they adjusted their work to human nature and politics as they tend to be in actual life. Leo Strauss complains of a "lowering of the sights."

Thank you for the thought provoking post. It would help a lot if I study philosophy.

By the way, I came across of Plato’s proposal for some women and men (the hypothetical rulers of Plato’s Utopian Kallipolis ). "Aristotle complains that his [Plato] proposal for having the Guardians share spouses and children will spread human affections too thin, that abolishing private property for them is counterproductive."

[Jay]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

It would have better for you to simply ask this question.

Democracy is rule by weight and not quality. If most people like something, and believe it to be their preference, it is decided. This immediately shifts the question of government from "What is best?" to "What would YOU like?" and as every single person on earth will affirm, most other humans are probably not up to make the choice. Besides making people selfish, it thrusts the political question before a population at large, most of whom lack the inclination or ability to make the decision (just as almost all cannot be college professors, scientists, great artists, fine athletes).

Democracy in effect creates a dual illusion that states (a) the best government is that which pleases the people but does not necessarily do what is best for them (utilitarian) and (b) that the individual is more important than doing what is right for the whole, or society and environment together as an organic entity. It is important to note that throughout history, democracies have been short-lived and have collapsed into tyrannical governments.

As one ancient writer said, "It is easy to get rid of a bad king, but a bad idea takes longer." People raised on mass media tend to see the world in a binary state of either democracy or tyranny, but this is erroneous. A good leader does what is right for the people, and most people need only limited "freedoms" since they wish to live good lives -- rewarding work, sufficient wealth, family and friends -- and are not interested in doing something so illogical it requires government protection.

The most important right/freedom is for those who have knowledge to contribute it to social discourse without being annoyed; democracies interpret this in a conflict-oriented scenario through "free speech" but it is more effective in government to avoid biased conflict and instead to take a contributive viewpoint: wise leaders listen to their people and allow them a public forum in which rewards more truthful ideas and ignores insanity, selfishness and unecessary conflict. Paradoxically, democracies by the very nature of their rewarding popular ideas and not truthful ones, strangle all actual criticism of the course of a society while allowing "criticism" that changes details but not the overall path.

It is for this reason that democracies are slow to react to anything but blatant crisis and allow internal decay to overcome them. When popularity of ideas becomes more important than how realistic or intelligent they are, illusion and denial are sure to follow. Popularity is the opposite of logicality: most people prefer pleasant illusions to the more difficult truths, as well as preferring immediate reward to long-term betterment.

In addition:

Plato, speaking through Socrates, tells us that while democratic societies make for the best standard of living, they collapse into third world economies dominated by invisible and greedy oligarchs; the cosmopolitan rich ruling over masses of stupid, tractable grey cultureless peons. A tour of failed democracies reveals this to be accurate. So why oppose democracy, when it brings us a good standard of living?

The first recognition is that democracy is not the only system that brings about such a standard of living. Any organized society which does not act according to a principle of hyper-equality, or not rewarding those who are more competent with a better material standard of living, will achieve a quality of life unless its leaders become corrupt. Democracy initially offers this option, but it nurtures corruption in its leaders by the psychological symbolism and pressures it exerts on the population.

First, in the list of psychological and political errors of democracy, is its tendency toward averaging. When one person = one vote, the only leaders are those who seek to be popular in their opinions, and accuracy is interpreted through what others want, not what is correct (it was against this phenomenon that the profoundly individualistic Romantic movement in literature arose). Those who speak unpopular truths, and rise against the assent of the masses, are seen as motivated by personal desire for power and slammed down as best they can be. Democracy admits every kind of dissident except one that profoundly criticizes the system; those who encourage people to "buy green" and "vote blue" and do other ineffective things are OK. Democracy coopts all criticism into neutralized variants.

Second, democracy encourages a shallow individualism based on material self-interest. Since the system as a whole is not steered toward any rational direction by its reliance on the popularity of ideas and not their accuracy, individuals practice shrugging and doing what they can to make their own lot in life better. The problem with this is that often individual self-interest conflicts with the needs of the whole, or with what would be an intelligent course of action, so democracies are rife with "socialized costs" or acts that in enriching individuals create costs or wasted time for the rest. In a democracy, every action or object has a price tag on it because it is necessary or will be necessary for someone's material self-interest. Democracies tend to invent capitalism of the most unregulated kind for this reason, because individual self-interest likes the idea of no confining rules interrupting the pursuit of wealth and a comfortable (although insignificant, psychologically) lifestyle. For this reason, democracies "work" when populations are small, but populations inevitably expand, bringing with them the modern lament "I'm surrounded by morons" as simplistic people succeed and breed out legions of new simplistic people. The individualism of democracy results in the comfortable standard of living mentioned by Plato, but this comfortable standard of living is not assigned to the best, but to the mass, and so the undifferentiated masses grow while competent people are beaten down for being out of step.

Third, democracy creates a morality of parasitism: since it is founded on the idea that each individual is free to pursue self-interest, any action that denies any person self-interest is "bad," even if that action results in much higher socialized costs. This means that parasitic people cannot be checked from doing destructive things because as long as their actions are passive, or in self-interest but not violating visible taboos of murder or rape, these actions are accepted. Democracies cannot curb large corporations from their abuses because democracy encourages such abuses on a psychological level, and this tendency is intensified by growing frustration with democracy. As a result, democracies are stuffed with wealthy parasites whose descendents lack any of the abilities that made the parasites succeed, furthering the degeneration of population into insignificance.

Fourth and finally, democracy creates a schizoid dualism between public perception and reality that engenders a covert, tacit and non-conspiratorial system of oligarchy. When power is achieved by convincing the voters that something is good, those with printing presses or television stations rule the society, but are best served by not taking power themselves. Instead, they support those who benefit their self-interest, regardless of the cost to society as a whole (socialized cost), and through legal forms like lobbying, donations, and supportive media portrayals they get these candidates into office. Eventually, the system of oligarchy becomes so entrenched that political candidates solicit various oligarchs for approval in order to get into office, and then are beholden to them in decisions they make. For this reason, democracies generate a massive amount of debate over trivial issues -- abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization and banning hip-hop music -- while ignoring the deeply-seated problems from whose atmosphere of lawlessness oligarchs benefit. Oligarchs usually do not act outside the law, although their legal and passive actions result in higher costs for us all.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.4

Assuming your society is a better way:

1) How do you get from here to there without massive bloodshed?
2) Who gets to rule, and who gets to put them in power? What are their checks and balances?

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

Assuming your society is a better way:

1) How do you get from here to there without massive bloodshed?
2) Who gets to rule, and who gets to put them in power? What are their checks and balances?

1) Given continued resource constraints, dysgenic trends, nihilism, etc., bloodshed seems inevitable. Besides, your question is based on the premise that "massive bloodshed" is undesirable. This falls squarely within the egalitarian/democratic/utilitarian camp to which I am opposed. Human life is not in and of itself valuable. The original founders of the first civilization did not take that bold step so billions of people could spend their lives in pursuit of satisfying their bodily appetites for food, drink, and sex.

The truth is modern life is quite boring and the massive bloodshed of which you speak is far more exciting.

2) "Checks and balances" clearly is irrelevant. The founders of the US believed a) the people would select wise leaders and b) these "checks and balances" would prevent corruption and abuse of power.

They were wrong on both counts. Our leaders are amongst the most idiotic and dishonorable who have ever governed a nation of power.

[vinoveri]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

My wife has many female friends that are professionals and nearly all are childless. We see them at parties and at dinner. I've gotten to know many of them. More than once regrets have been expressed concerning the absence of children, especially during the holidays. Many wish they had become wives and mothers.

Below is a video of a talk given by Dr. Steven Rhoads at University of Virginia concerning how women and men differ in how they respond emotionally to sex and to caring for children and suggests that regarding men and women as psychologically identical is a mistake and a threat to the happiness of women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ecq3OXYZpc

no, this is too intuitive and common-sensical to be right ...:cool: .. better to trust in the modern and post modern intelligensia to deconstruct and disabuse us all of that silly notion that men and women are different ... women imitating men, oh the horror, the horror

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

Trying to find an answer to the question I raised (please explain why women should welcome abandoning democracy in favor of the authoritarian aristocracy) that has not been answered, imho, I am unable to find an answer there as well.

I would suggest hanging around some high school girls someday, especially if you live in a state with favorable age of consent laws.

No high school girl dreams of some sensitive, diminutive intellectual ready to bring equality to the masses. They care about those who are strong and/or superior within the context of their perceived world view. The "jock" within the high school social structure itself. Pop music stars within the greater manufactured culture.

As the excerpt indicated, democracy results in averaging - it does not elevate the exceptional. I'm not saying women "should" do anything. But, by their nature - a strong elite that dismisses the pointless squabbling, petty concerns, and elevation of the weak of our dominant culture will be welcomed. Think of the psychology of the endlessly popular "pick up artists" today. Confidence and social dominance can break any woman's resolve. Prince Charming or Elliott Spitzer?

With respect to your question about the authoritarian aristocracy, it certainly can't be any worse than democracy. The United States is poised to be one of the shortest lived nations in history to have wielded continental, let alone world power. Even a simple monarchy would be better at this point. But, do I have an answer for you? No. The ideal, whether cultural, national, or personal, is a goal. Satisfaction is death. Because the ideal is not attainable does not mean you should simply give up.

But I will admit, we don't have a solution. Since the collapse of religious values at the end of the 19th century, mankind has striven for a new purpose. Further, every conflict of the past century has been at its essence a spiritual war.

The philosophers of the past, on many levels, knew this to be an inevitability. Nietzsche's most accessible work, Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future was so named as it was his hope his writing would instill in future generations a recognition that something new is now required.

Start reading yourself! Truly, this is a very exciting time to be alive. Each of us has the chance to achieve an immortality henceforth unknown before. Now is the time to make history!