Until the perfect society is developed, social axioms will inevitably contain their own contradictions. Taboos are one of the most effective mechanisms our imperfect societies can deploy to suppress these contradictions.
Gender equality is a recent social axiom. As technological developments improved capital rewards, reduced the need for domestic labour and reduced the physical demands of productive labour the communities that successfully deployed capital and technology and successfully redeployed women grew wealthier. The most convenient social mantra that supported this change succeeded by success (to paraphrase the evolutionary process). Feminism and its instinctively more attractive partner, gender equality, were part of this. Becoming wealthier and stronger, the successful communities had a disproportionately influential effect on culture-wide communication channels. Other communities could not avoid the impact. They either changed or suffered crippling defections, wealth imbalances and in some cases defeat. This is far from the first time such shifts have occurred, of course. To survive, human communities have to be adept at adopting new axioms, new paradigms. But they have to do it quickly and without too much dissent. That means running roughshod over conservative resistence. That's an instinct in many, too.
However, as with all imperfect social axioms, gender equality does not conform to real life, to nature as opposed to dogma, even though the technological changes are real - if not all equally sustainable. Wherever natural reality butts up against idealised social construction the contradictions stand out. The sexes are different, less so now in production but still as different in reproduction and instinct as ever. Different isn't equal. It might be possible to concoct a notion of equality that only refers to social constructions and to make the sexes equal in these respects, but no-one is likely to be much interested because these aspects cannot include the real-world sex differences that make our lives so interesting; reproduction and all its ramifications being at the core of nearly everything worthwhile in most of our lives.
And so along with every imperfect axiom comes its taboo. The facts and evidence that contradict the axiom. The facts that demonstrate the reality, the sexes are different.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Friday, September 16, 2005
The Inequality Taboo
Charles Murray writes a compelling article about the inequality taboo at: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html
I have (a few) issues with his arguments but, before discussing these, let’s get the main problem out of the way. It is well known that Charles Murray is [insert the derogatory personal characteristic of your choice here] and so anyone who considers his arguments seriously is [insert a another derogatory personal characteristic of your choice here] and must be ostracised. (Those struggling to come up with two different and original derogatory characteristics can seek appropriate advice and guidance at alt.feminism where an ‘ism’ or ‘ist’ can be selected from the many on offer. Irrational hate and ostracism are, after all, most rewarding when practiced as a group.)
So, with the bigoted now clicking elsewhere, we can get back to the topic at hand. On this, Murray writes:
Quote:
Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.
The taboo arises from an admirable idealism about human equality. If it did no harm, or if the harm it did were minor, there would be no need to write about it. But taboos have consequences.
:EndQuote
I see nothing admirable about an ideal of human equality, other than men’s equality before the law. At its most essential it is difference that makes the universe, equality is non-existence. If everything is equal then nothing discernable exists. Equality is the philosophical mantra of nihilism. Murray’s notes illustrate the nonsense of applying this notion of equality to human gender:
Quote:
… try a thought experiment: Suppose that a pill exists that, if all women took it, would give them exactly the same mean and variance on every dimension of human functioning as men—including all the ways in which women now surpass men. How many women would want all women to take it? … To ask such questions is to answer them: hardly anybody. Few want to trade off the unique virtues of their own group for the advantages that another group may enjoy….. A Thai friend gave me an insight into this human characteristic many years ago when I remarked that Thais were completely undefensive about Westerners despite the economic backwardness of Thailand in those days. My friend explained why. America has wealth and technology that Thailand does not have, he acknowledged, just as the elephant is stronger than a human. “But,” he said with a shrug, “who wants to be an elephant?”
:EndQuote
There is nothing admirable about a lie. I regret that, on this point, Murray has fallen into the PC trap he is usually so careful to avoid.
Murray also writes:
Quote:
But if we do not need to change our politics, talking about group differences obligates all of us to renew our commitment to the ideal of equality that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Steven Pinker put that ideal in today’s language in The Blank Slate, writing that “Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.”
:EndQuote
It wasn’t even that of course. It was the old tenet of men’s equality before the law that governed them. When the American constitution was written no-one imagined that it would be so distorted as to justify total equality between men and women, in every walk of life.
As far as individuals being constrained by average properties, we all are. Its part of being a functioning group. We rail against the poverty divide and demand that the average constrains the extreme in that respect. And there are natural realities, such as the benefits of specialisation and the law of comparative advantage, that need to be considered dispassionately in this context too. If a community benefits overwhelmingly from specialisation then that fact needs to be recognised if the community is to be as successful as it can be. We all cope with our own natural strengths and weaknesses, and gain strength from each other’s, what crippling immaturity does society suffer that it can not cope with difference’s broader consequences? The confusion of better/worse with good/bad reflects the mindset of a child. A mindset that any caring parent works to correct, not reinforce.
Finally what Murray does not discuss at all are the forces that gave rise to the deeply unnatural western social philosophies of the second half of the 20th century. We need to understand these better so that we can recognise and avoid them in the future. Many will blame feminism, there is such an obvious correlation. Are they right to do so? If yes, what does that imply about the role of women in the political life of a community? What must we do differently in the future? We need to discuss this subject objectively too.
I have (a few) issues with his arguments but, before discussing these, let’s get the main problem out of the way. It is well known that Charles Murray is [insert the derogatory personal characteristic of your choice here] and so anyone who considers his arguments seriously is [insert a another derogatory personal characteristic of your choice here] and must be ostracised. (Those struggling to come up with two different and original derogatory characteristics can seek appropriate advice and guidance at alt.feminism where an ‘ism’ or ‘ist’ can be selected from the many on offer. Irrational hate and ostracism are, after all, most rewarding when practiced as a group.)
So, with the bigoted now clicking elsewhere, we can get back to the topic at hand. On this, Murray writes:
Quote:
Elites throughout the West are living a lie, basing the futures of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects. Lie is a strong word, but justified. It is a lie because so many elite politicians who profess to believe it in public do not believe it in private. It is a lie because so many elite scholars choose to ignore what is already known and choose not to inquire into what they suspect. We enable ourselves to continue to live the lie by establishing a taboo against discussion of group differences.
The taboo arises from an admirable idealism about human equality. If it did no harm, or if the harm it did were minor, there would be no need to write about it. But taboos have consequences.
:EndQuote
I see nothing admirable about an ideal of human equality, other than men’s equality before the law. At its most essential it is difference that makes the universe, equality is non-existence. If everything is equal then nothing discernable exists. Equality is the philosophical mantra of nihilism. Murray’s notes illustrate the nonsense of applying this notion of equality to human gender:
Quote:
… try a thought experiment: Suppose that a pill exists that, if all women took it, would give them exactly the same mean and variance on every dimension of human functioning as men—including all the ways in which women now surpass men. How many women would want all women to take it? … To ask such questions is to answer them: hardly anybody. Few want to trade off the unique virtues of their own group for the advantages that another group may enjoy….. A Thai friend gave me an insight into this human characteristic many years ago when I remarked that Thais were completely undefensive about Westerners despite the economic backwardness of Thailand in those days. My friend explained why. America has wealth and technology that Thailand does not have, he acknowledged, just as the elephant is stronger than a human. “But,” he said with a shrug, “who wants to be an elephant?”
:EndQuote
There is nothing admirable about a lie. I regret that, on this point, Murray has fallen into the PC trap he is usually so careful to avoid.
Murray also writes:
Quote:
But if we do not need to change our politics, talking about group differences obligates all of us to renew our commitment to the ideal of equality that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Steven Pinker put that ideal in today’s language in The Blank Slate, writing that “Equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.”
:EndQuote
It wasn’t even that of course. It was the old tenet of men’s equality before the law that governed them. When the American constitution was written no-one imagined that it would be so distorted as to justify total equality between men and women, in every walk of life.
As far as individuals being constrained by average properties, we all are. Its part of being a functioning group. We rail against the poverty divide and demand that the average constrains the extreme in that respect. And there are natural realities, such as the benefits of specialisation and the law of comparative advantage, that need to be considered dispassionately in this context too. If a community benefits overwhelmingly from specialisation then that fact needs to be recognised if the community is to be as successful as it can be. We all cope with our own natural strengths and weaknesses, and gain strength from each other’s, what crippling immaturity does society suffer that it can not cope with difference’s broader consequences? The confusion of better/worse with good/bad reflects the mindset of a child. A mindset that any caring parent works to correct, not reinforce.
Finally what Murray does not discuss at all are the forces that gave rise to the deeply unnatural western social philosophies of the second half of the 20th century. We need to understand these better so that we can recognise and avoid them in the future. Many will blame feminism, there is such an obvious correlation. Are they right to do so? If yes, what does that imply about the role of women in the political life of a community? What must we do differently in the future? We need to discuss this subject objectively too.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
No-one’s ancestor
Carey Roberts, in her article about Ellen Sauerbrey’s UN speech, ‘Freeing Women from Exploitation and Despair’
(http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2005/roberts091505.htm), asks:
“What moral code says we should deplore the rape of women and ignore the killings of men?”
The answer: ‘Nature, evolution and, as a result, most human instincts’.
Reproductive reality dictates that a community that loses most of its men can quickly re-generate. Sperm is plentiful. A community that loses most of its reproductive women is not so robust. Evolution and nature combine against it. The people who valued men’s lives as equal to or greater than women’s are nobodies ancestors.
Every moral code that survives states that we should deplore the rape of women and, in times of crisis, overlook the killings of men. To feel or think otherwise is to be committed to your own genetic extinction. The bear stalking the room, the point Roberts has missed, the fatal error in western social philosophy, is that of gender equality. Unfortunately it didn’t work, it doesn’t work, it won’t work, it can’t work. Not in this universe.
Women's bodies are more valuable to a community than men's. Unless and until we have cheap and reliable artificial wombs this is an unavoidable fact. The consequences of it are everywhere you look; in the military, religion, medicine, law and commerce; indeed in almost every facet of human existence.
Gender equality is a fiction. A false icon. It must be recognised and rooted out before its consequences become irreversible. But, first, the people who promote it need to be confronted and exposed as modern day sirens, drawing western society to the rocks of genetic extinction.
(http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2005/roberts091505.htm), asks:
“What moral code says we should deplore the rape of women and ignore the killings of men?”
The answer: ‘Nature, evolution and, as a result, most human instincts’.
Reproductive reality dictates that a community that loses most of its men can quickly re-generate. Sperm is plentiful. A community that loses most of its reproductive women is not so robust. Evolution and nature combine against it. The people who valued men’s lives as equal to or greater than women’s are nobodies ancestors.
Every moral code that survives states that we should deplore the rape of women and, in times of crisis, overlook the killings of men. To feel or think otherwise is to be committed to your own genetic extinction. The bear stalking the room, the point Roberts has missed, the fatal error in western social philosophy, is that of gender equality. Unfortunately it didn’t work, it doesn’t work, it won’t work, it can’t work. Not in this universe.
Women's bodies are more valuable to a community than men's. Unless and until we have cheap and reliable artificial wombs this is an unavoidable fact. The consequences of it are everywhere you look; in the military, religion, medicine, law and commerce; indeed in almost every facet of human existence.
Gender equality is a fiction. A false icon. It must be recognised and rooted out before its consequences become irreversible. But, first, the people who promote it need to be confronted and exposed as modern day sirens, drawing western society to the rocks of genetic extinction.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Her higher value, naturally.
Think of the thousands of generations when people lived in extended families or small tribes. If all but a small number of the males were wiped out the clan could survive and make a rapid comeback given sufficient numbers of fertile females. The situation would be quite different if all but a small number of the females were wiped out, no matter how many males there were. The fundamental difference is that, in nature, sperm is plentiful while eggs and wombs are not, so the clans that tended to survive were the ones whose instincts protected the female at the expense of the male. As this natural force operated and its effects accumulated over long periods of time the successful human genome became progressively more feminacentric: female wellbeing took, and takes, instinctive precedence over male wellbeing. One might say that those whose instincts promoted male wellbeing as equivalent to or above female wellbeing are nobody's ancestors.
The net result is a bias in the psychology of modern humans towards instincts that look after the well-being of women more than men. This is so built into our tribal brains that to be a non-conformist and to not operate in accordance with its dictates will quickly get you outcast and hated. In fact people's built-in detectors are calibrated very sensitively on this sort of issue, always on the look-out for defectors even though many no longer live in a clan-based society.
Moreover, people feel a strong compulsion to intervene and enforce the status quo. At a subconscious level they become disturbed and unhappy if they perceive this instinct being ignored. After all the psychological bias toward feminacentrism would mean little if there were no built-in automatic corrective mechanisms to go with the deviance detection mechanism. The clans that survived better were the ones that enforced feminacentrism by making sure that any individuals that didn't feel it strongly were cast out. There are many similar instincts in the human psyche.
[Thanks for much of the above goes to http://www.martianbachelor.com/Science/, a highly recommended site.]
Those who promote first world liberal principles such as gender equality are seldom aware that they and their community labour under the influence of a deep instinct that fatally undermines this moral framework. You'll never be equal with your neighbour if, instinctively and unconsciously, both you and she value her more. My 'Prove it!' post (below) demonstrates just how strong and unconscious this instinct still is in western civilisation.
The net result is a bias in the psychology of modern humans towards instincts that look after the well-being of women more than men. This is so built into our tribal brains that to be a non-conformist and to not operate in accordance with its dictates will quickly get you outcast and hated. In fact people's built-in detectors are calibrated very sensitively on this sort of issue, always on the look-out for defectors even though many no longer live in a clan-based society.
Moreover, people feel a strong compulsion to intervene and enforce the status quo. At a subconscious level they become disturbed and unhappy if they perceive this instinct being ignored. After all the psychological bias toward feminacentrism would mean little if there were no built-in automatic corrective mechanisms to go with the deviance detection mechanism. The clans that survived better were the ones that enforced feminacentrism by making sure that any individuals that didn't feel it strongly were cast out. There are many similar instincts in the human psyche.
[Thanks for much of the above goes to http://www.martianbachelor.com/Science/, a highly recommended site.]
Those who promote first world liberal principles such as gender equality are seldom aware that they and their community labour under the influence of a deep instinct that fatally undermines this moral framework. You'll never be equal with your neighbour if, instinctively and unconsciously, both you and she value her more. My 'Prove it!' post (below) demonstrates just how strong and unconscious this instinct still is in western civilisation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)