I don't think you have it quite right yet. For example I have come to believe that Spinoza was on team evil.
I'm not going to provide a long explanation for that - because
(a) I have also come to believe that each man must find his own path to the truth. And - you are clearly thinking and searching - so you will probably find your way there in the end.
(b) perhaps I am wrong in any case :-). I don't think so (well - duh - of course I don't think I'm wrong because if I did I would change my mind), but I've been wrong many times before.
Obviously I am frustrating you - sorry - that wasn't my intention although I understand why you are frustrated and I should have foreseen it. I was impressed by your essay - but felt you have not followed your thinking all the way through to its logical conclusion.
I do not wish to provide "my position" and argue for its superiority over yours - because
(a) I find that that tends just to lead to both sides entrenching - which is likely my fault - clearly I am not good at expressing ideas in a way which makes it easy for others to accept.
(b) linked to (a), I am not the right messenger.
(c) I think people are supposed to figure this stuff out for themselves - the journey is important.
I did wish however to implant the idea that you may not be on quite the right track - but you are obviously perfectly free to ignore the suggestion if you like.
The problem with women is that they, by nature, fundamentally, mentally ill.
Feminism merely plays on womens pyschological inferiority to men.
I wish I didn't see so much blabbering about how feminism hurts women and femininity in otherwise good post.
Women are simply bad faith. They lack certain masculine moral faculties that men possess, leading to cynical opportunism combined with a mindboggling irrationality.
Feminism isn't insulting to the feminine. Women still play the sims, still put on makeup, still act ditzy. It's just a pretense to be hyper aggressive.
I apologize for using the phrase 'flights of fancy'. Disrespect was not intended. I apologize also for not having the background knowledge, underlying beliefs and comprehension of your thesis to be able to discuss it in the way that might work for you.
However, my main point stands and I note you haven't responded to it: that there is no need to bring in the concepts that you have to appreciate that feminism has caused a lot of damage or why that has been the case. A more parsimonious explanation that doesn't rely on the introduction of other contentious players and ideas will be better.
I also don't accept that the concepts you have brought to bear such as 'God' 'the Devil' and 'evil' have ever been clearly defined or established as real, or that your genuine efforts to do so for the purposes of your argument are sufficient. The objective existence of those entities under whatever definition is important for following and accepting your arguments.
However, I believe we are talking past each other. If I find time I may rise to your invitation to explore and respond to your essay again in the way that you might consider worthy.
Look up gas lighting, it is what you did by claiming that I did not articulate a representation of God when I clearly dedicated didn't to exactly that. More of your criticism falls into that category.
Look up immanent, the universe as God qualifies.
Your comments are full of fallacies and outright errors.
While you comment usefully on some of the consequences of feminism, your analysis is based on so many assumptions and, in my opinion, flights of fancy. 'God' is an unexplained concept that does not provide useful explanations for other matters and is mostly just a word used in the place of other words such as 'universe' or 'everything' but brings superstitious baggage to what those other words describe. The theory that consciousness exists independently from brains has no evidential basis and is contradicted by studies on human brain damage; however, there is no clear definition of 'consciousness', and how it's thought of by those claiming it existed before life is very different from the usual concept of consciousness. They use it as yet another alternative to the 'God' they feel a need to include in their sense of reality. The idea of a 'soul' is a figment of human imagination, again unless one uses that term in place of others that have some evidential basis, such as 'gene' or 'chemical'. The 'devil', even as a metaphor, implies various processes and responsibility attributions that are both childish and misleading. All that stuff is unnecessary to understand how early feminist lies and hatred led to many socially destructive outcomes. When one proceeds on the basis of dishonest or otherwise flawed understanding in any endeavour, one is unlikely to achieve expected or positive outcomes. On the other hand, to the extent that feminist ideology had some truthful basis (e.g. that, under an emphasis on tradition and false beliefs about female potential, girls and women were being unnecessarily held back from contributions they were capable of), some positive outcomes were achieved.
Ironically, proceeding on the basis of beliefs in 'God', 'consciousness' as a version of 'God', 'the Devil', 'souls' and other fictions will equally lead to flawed outcomes, as indeed history under religious leadership has shown and continues to do so. To the extent that those beliefs were weakened in the Age of Enlightenment and people proceeded more on the basis of truth and objective evidence, a great many positive outcomes ensued.
Thank-you for your long, thoughtful comment. I want to respond in some detail to your concerns.
"your analysis is based on so many assumptions and, in my opinion, flights of fancy. " This is nothing more than an ad hominem. What assumptions have I made. I was careful to explain every important term used in the essay that might be misunderstood. And what "flight of fancy?" Can you name even one?
1. “'God' is an unexplained concept that does not provide useful explanations for other matters and is mostly just a word used in the place of other words such as 'universe' or 'everything' but brings superstitious baggage to what those other words describe.”
I presented a panentheistic representation of God in the essay, so it is not an unexplained concept. You may not like it, but your have not made any dent in its integrity. The secular view of the universe is an inanimate object without a subjective dimension of its own is a presumption that atheists uncritically accept. There is no evidence for this. And I brought no superstitious baggage into the conversation.
2. “The theory that consciousness exists independently from brains has no evidential basis.”
“there is no clear definition of 'consciousness', and how it's thought of by those claiming it existed before life is very different from the usual concept of consciousness.”
I am quite aware that the science of consciousness is in its infancy, and I'm not restricted the “the usual concept of consciousness,” whatever you think that it(?). Clearly my essay is a speculative discussion that introduces different ways of viewing metaphysical concepts , and consciousness is central to our understanding of self, and so I must work with what's available. Scientists have presented ideas about the root of consciousness being transcendent to life, and I've included links and references to those in this essay and others, “Schopenhauer's Hidden Soul.” The researchers in this area, and I'll include Roger Penrose among them, are anything but light weight flakes.
3. “The idea of a 'soul' is a figment of human imagination,”
It may seem like that to you, but the dimension of human experience that I am trying to articulate demands identification, and the idea of a cosmic soul that permeates the universe is compelling.
4. “The 'devil', even as a metaphor, implies various processes and responsibility attributions that are both childish and misleading.”
Clearly you did not understand my description of the genesis of evil, and its subsequent life within the noosphere. I won't repeat it here.
5. “When one proceeds on the basis of dishonest or otherwise flawed understanding in any endeavour,”
You have not addressed my actual argument. You dismissed the concepts that I presented by vague references to ideas in the culture that I did not use, which is the only dishonesty at play here. I defined the terms that I used within the essay itself. Perhaps you should deal directly with those terms, or seek clarification for that which you don't understand.
6. “to the extent that feminist ideology had some truthful basis (e.g. that, under an emphasis on tradition and false beliefs about female potential, girls and women were being unnecessarily held back from contributions they were capable of), some positive outcomes were achieved.”
This is pure feminist fiction, that you accept uncritically. Between Dr. Fiamengo and I, we have torn apart the idea that feminism had any good origin or result. It is a movement that originated in hatred, acted in hatred, and has been unequivocally destructive. They may hide this, but even the vote for women was not due to feminist efforts, which actually may have delayed its implementation. You clearly have not looked deeply into feminism and its history. We have produced about 40 hours of video on this topic, available on Studio B.
7. “Ironically, proceeding on the basis of beliefs in 'God', 'consciousness' as a version of 'God', 'the Devil', 'souls' and other fictions will equally lead to flawed outcomes,”
I don't equate consciousness with God. I presented a panentheistic interpretation that makes that unequivocally clear, I shouldn't have to say anything further about that because it's in the word “panentheism.” You have merely rejected the models that I've presented without defeating a single argument in my essay. Your objection to conventional notions of God, religion and its leadership, soul, Devil etc ... says nothing about the way I've presented these entities in the essay. You must deal directly with my argument if you wish to persuade me .
8.“religious leadership has shown and continues to do so.”
Representations of God and religious leadership are two entirely different topics.
9. “To the extent that those beliefs were weakened in the Age of Enlightenment and people proceeded more on the basis of truth and objective evidence, a great many positive outcomes ensued.”
I do not criticize the age of enlightenment -- in fact I applaud it in other essays -- except those minor voices who promoted atheism with their unsupportable claim that we have somehow disproven God and can conclude that the universe is meaningless. No such thing has been accomplished.
To summarize:
It appears that you are convinced in the atheist perspective that pretends to get its legitimacy from science ... it doesn't. As a young scientist I was convinced about the idea that the universe was meaningless material that somehow produced living things from which consciousness emerged. But this narrative is purely a presumption that emerged in circular fashion from the initial conditions of the scientific method itself: all questions of meaning are excluded; science restricts its inquiry to questions of how the universe works mechanistically. We cannot then conclude that the universe is a meaningless machine by using the results of the process of science that begins by restricting its view to the universe as a meaningless machine. That is circular reasoning. Science only produces models of reality that fit in the mind and can be projected onto the universe. It can tell us nothing about God, or questions of meaning and purpose. That we have to figure out for ourselves.
Anyway, I deal with that question in “God, Where's the Evidence,” Schoppenhauer's Hidden Soul, and well as other essays and videos.
Calling 'God' panentheistic doesn't explain it. That only makes some particular claims about what remains an unidentifiable, unexplained entity.
I made no argumentum ad hominem at all. I referred to your essay, not you. Your essay was based on numerous assumptions and I own the opinion that many are flights of fancy.
You may not have specifically brought superstitious baggage but any use of the word 'God' does so if only because it has been associated through history with such superstitions.
Using the word 'soul' assumes such a thing exists. What might be compelling to you may be tedious and unconvincing to me.
You are correct that I didn't understand the noosphere and all the things you say are in it. Its existence is an assumption, as is the existence of 'evil' as a phenomenon other than in our beliefs from our perspectives.
You are correct that in your essay you didn't equate 'consciousness' with 'God'. It's purely my observation that those who allege consciousness exists apart from brains or neural networks, that consciousness is some fundamental force of creation, that everything arises out of consciousness and so forth, are really just using the word consciousness in place of God. You are also correct that I don't understand much of your particular versions of God, the Devil and other superstitious concepts, but to the extent that I could follow your essay your versions were no more convincing that the other ones I'm aware of.
I didn't claim that religious leadership and representations of God are the same thing. My point was that proceeding on the basis of incorrect beliefs usually don't bring good outcomes. Religious beliefs as the basis for leadership have brought many undesirable outcomes, unless one thinks that witch burning, beheading of apostates and throwing gays off roofs are desirable.
'Models of reality that fit into the mind' are the only way we can conceive of anything. Science is merely a way of ascertaining facts and relationships between events, or the likelihood that something is a fact. Science isn't going to answer questions about the meaning of life, though I think the selfish gene goes further towards such an answer than anything else I have heard. I have no need of any idea of God under any definition I have come across, and I have never found the idea helps me to understand anything better. I make my own purpose and generally enjoy my activities and a life that I am usually grateful for. I'm happy accepting that many questions cannot be answered by our limited minds and I don't feel any need to make up answers. If you suggest an answer that can be tested, then I support doing so.
You have clearly read a lot of philosophy and religion and find inspiration there. I respect that. I found your essay difficult to follow and, as is usual for me, it's difficult to move past claims that are assumptions or that I don't accept as proven. I don't think it's necessary to bring in all your theoretical concepts (that raise more questions than they answer) to understand how and why feminism is problematic.
I have closely followed Prof Fiamengo's talks on Studio Brule and elsewhere, and I continue to be a financial supporter of her important work. I doubt that your view excluding recognition of any positive outcome from feminism would accord with her views. But such blinkered sight tends to result when matters are thought of using concepts such as 'evil' and 'God'.
"Calling 'God' panentheistic doesn't explain it. That only makes some particular claims about what remains an unidentifiable, unexplained entity."
I suspect that you are either gas lighting, or deeply confused yourself.
Panentheism is a clear concept that postulates a transcendent and immanent dimension of God. Furthermore I clearly described what I meant by the immanent dimension, and I pointed out that we should not be surprised that God would be both in part understandable and in part beyond our comprehension. This constitutes an explanation, and I provided quite a lot of detail. It is in no way necessary to understand all of God. Do you fully understand everything about the things that you believe to be true? No one does, because that's impossible. And if you committed only to believe the things that you fully understood then you would be forced to believe nothing at all... and you wouldn't function in this world. Alternatively, you could lie in order to gaslight others.
(couldn't seem to get the whole reply to show in one piece...)
I did discuss material in your essay. I challenged some of it, perhaps not meeting your rules of discourse. You're entitled to dismiss those challenges as 'tired atheist talking points' but really, if you are putting forward a theory based on ideas of god, devil, evil and so forth, you might expect challenges from those who don't accept the validity of those concepts. Equally I would say you use 'tired godistic arguments' that are not even well explained.
What part of 'God' is understandable? Some claims about the nature of a god might be understandable but they assume the existence of that god and do not provide anything that could reasonably be called an explanation.
My main point is that I don't see it as helpful or necessary to bring all those ethereal concepts into a consideration of the harmful effects of feminism. Doing so appears to have reduced your objectivity in considering the topic, as such beliefs tend to do. (Now that's an ad hominem argument that can't logically refute your claims. But that doesn't make it untrue as a statement.) Also, you seem to have trouble respecting others' right to have different beliefs from yours, and a strong need to insult people who don't have god beliefs.
The title of the essay literally begins with “What is evil ...” I then immediately argue that evil has an independent existence. Then I wrote that feminism is more than just wrong or deceitful, so I have referred to it as evil, and that this means that I must explain what I mean by evil. Thus begins a discussion about existence and God. All of this was rational and clearly represented.
Then you have the audacity to act as if you didn't read any of it, and insist that any reference to God must pull forward your ideas of traditional religious representations of God and that it is all fanciful. That is part strawman and part gaslighting, ignoring the clearly presented context of the essay as if it did not happen.
The essay explicitly and legitimately includes about metaphysical concepts, I could not possibly have been more clear about that. You did not engage the concepts presented, you merely acted as if it was fanciful to discuss them at all. It is not.
If you do not like discussing these sorts of concepts, then this essay is not for you.
Clearly I reject the atheist position that the universe is meaningless material that becomes animated and evolves a mind. This means that I accepted the challenge of conceptualizing what the universe is, which i present as a form of panentheism, a clearly defined and broadly understood term. As an atheist, you reject every representation of God because that IS the basis of atheism. I reject atheism, and clearly this essay was about much much more than just feminism. Criticizing the essay because it uses the concepts it clearly says it will use, and then uses them, is crazy-making. Why bother even reading it?
If you are satisfied by dismissing feminism as wrong and destructive, then good for you. Your work is done, feminism is bad, go on your way. But that doesn't cut it for me, and I explained exactly that and why. If you want to engage the details of why I think that way then engage the essay ... which means engaging the representations of God and evil as presented in the essay. But if you are just here to say that these ideas are just “flights of fancy,” then we have nothing more to discuss.
I'll give you one challenge. Present to me one fatal piece of logic within the argument of the essay, not a gish gallop of diversions but of argument as presented because I'm not going to repeat every argument, and I'll respond to that. Tell me where the fault of logic is, and saying that I present concepts of God, the devil, evil and “ethereal concepts” clearly does not qualify ... these things are clearly defined and legitimately used within the confines of the presented argument.
Well you are the one doing ad hominem attacks, making a lot of comments and derogatory allegations about me.
'Flights of fancy' refers to some of what you wrote, not you. You seem to have trouble accepting that someone might disagree with you and you just become disrespectful and arrogant. (Actually, even that isn't an ad hominem argument because there is no implication that your disrespect and arrogance disprove your arguments.)
Do you think I would waste my time carefully writing my responses if I just wanted to 'gaslight' you. I'm not sure you understand what 'gaslighting' means. I made no insinuation that you are mentally unwell.
I saw no clear description of what you meant by 'immanent dimension'. There was something about a god being born. I have no belief in any god so that doesn't extend my understanding of your arguments.
Look up gas lighting, it is what you did by claiming that I did not articulate a representation of God when I clearly dedicated space exactly to that. MAybe you don't like the representation, but it is there and it is clear. More of your criticism falls into that category.
Look up immanent, the universe as God qualifies.
Dismissing the essay as full of flights of fancy without providing a single example qualifies as an insult,
Your comments are full of fallacies strawmen and outright errors.
PS. "Flights of fancy" is a juvenile attack on the author, aka ad hominem. After that, the rest of your comment didn't really deserve a respectful response.
That's a long winded way to say that you reject the idea of God because you can't understand it, and can't find a way to counter the arguments presented in the essay.
I will be honest with you, because I know you’ve thought deeply and most of your points, in isolation are true. But the brutal honest scary-as-fuck truth that men cannot accept is this - we don’t care about any of that shit. Women seldom think deeply about concepts or theories or ideas and while men can change their boundaries and think about Mars or AI, the reason women never invent anything unless they are extremely intelligent outliers in a group of similar men, is that we don’t think the way you do.
My husband is very intelligent and we have police coming around when we talk about the Romans (Australia is virtually a fascist state now; it is actually illegal to argue in a raised voice. To yell is domestic violence.)
I am an outlier as a woman in that I enjoy debate and conflict. He has had to deal with a woman who doesn’t automatically defer to him to keep the peace. But most of the time I still do. And I know from being a woman, a sister of three , a daughter, a friend that nobody ever talks about feminism. I’m not a conservative, have a wide group of friends, work in publishing and husband is a photographer in the arts. I meet many women at work and attend functions where I meet young artists - blue hair, tattoos, overweight and they can go from sprouting bullshit to “does he like me?” Within seconds. My 22 year old son, god love him, is a dickhead. He is a non-binary or trans lesbian, conceited, thinks he’s right about everything- it’s painful. But his friends, colleagues, girlfriend are all normal. They don’t believe it in the way he seems to. After every opening, it’s the girls who still walk around picking up glasses, wiping down the space and offering to help. I’ve been doing this for 25 years and nothing has changed in that regard. No ‘trans’ woman has ever spontaneously started tidying up at a quarter to midnight. But it happens at every single event. Women intuitively know when it’s time. I can actually pinpoint it now. I glance at the clock and young women I’ve never met start asking where the garbage bags are. I’m only the wife of the photographer!
The IQ bell curve, the double X theory, all point to the same contradictory conclusions. Females are both more reactive to the environment and susceptible to social memes yet strongly agreeable and conforming to social norms.
Your mistake is that you attribute male traits to women. Just like no guy is clearing tables, no woman is strategically thinking about how to manipulate a man. If we thought that way we might have invented something by now.
What is evil is the ‘not yet’ abortion. There is no concept of feminism in South Korea, yet exactly the same thing is happening. It’s the law of incentives.
I have had an abortion. The young Indian doctor had a look on his face that I’ll never forget. In my state, NSW, abortion prior to 12 weeks is legal. I would have had that baby if the man had supported me but at the time, I felt it was impossible. That child would have been the only sibling of my son. I regret that choice with every fibre of my being. But none of it has anything to do with feminism, it’s all about the man. Will he marry me, does he want a life and family together?
My thesis topic for my law degree was abortion law in NSW. There is no doubt that women can be evil. I researched baby farms and places where women sold their babies to caring women who let them die in horrific circumstances. Women would take so many babies but they couldn’t afford to feed them yet many babies died not of malnutrition but of bed sores. The nappy was never changed causing open weeping wounds and the doctor described that these healthy babies died in absolute prolonged and unnecessary agony. About 30 in one house alone. Men focus on the woman who acts like a man which I doubt ever happens. This is a very particular female crime. Toxic empathy and neglect.
Men who don’t understand women think we make ridiculous illogical choices. If you’re as smart as you think you are, you wouldn’t make this stupid mistake.
If you want my opinion, and I know you don’t, because it will make you deeply uncomfortable, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you fail to understand the implications. Women ARE different. So, to use your analogy, the Lion cannot use Lion logic to judge the deer or hyena. We have evolved to have competing interests. They don’t follow your logic because you are a male. But they obviously follow female logic or they wouldn’t exist. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean you are stupid, just means you can’t. As a kangaroo can’t understand a bush turkey - hey, I’m Australian! Yet, you appear to fail your own test. As a man, you want to call all interests that aren’t yours but women’s ‘feminism’ and therefore evil.
That’s the definition of misogyny.
Do men all think the same? Is there a coordinated agenda of male thinking? Of course not, just as most women think feminism is ridiculous. I’m not a practicing Christian but I think abortion is wrong, mothers should look after their own children until school age, sex should be a sacred act within marriage between two loving committed adults. I don’t want a woman fighting my fire, arresting bad guys, in the military or picking up my rubbish. I don’t want gay men buying babies from the wombs of women in the developing world- or anywhere!
Women are generally reactive and receptive. There are definitely Lady Macbeth types, but they are outliers. A minuscule proportion of women.
Neil Gaiman, Russell Brand, MeToo, Eric Weinstein, all the football rapists in Australia, even most of the UK girls consented. But we say that women can consent to sex outside of marriage. No we can’t!!!! Women are complete insane morons when it comes to sex and love. You are correct on that point. We are desperate embarrassing idiots who will do anything for men.
So be the man! You are responsible for 99% of the achievements, inventions, creative ideas. Most women would honestly rather lie in bed with children and husband all day in a fug of domestic bliss. We think about men all the time, except when we have children and then we think about them all the time and are repulsed by the man for a few years. It’s true and we know we are neurotic and illogical but it’s just our nature.
I used to be smart. I was taken out of my normal classes with the funny boys - I went from a girls high school to co-ed and then streamed with the boring asians but I’ll never forget how much I laughed in those two years.
Teenage boys are hilarious. Even my sons are funny, well the youngest is only 9 and his brother is also an arrogant virtue signalling leftie who looks down on everyone but he is too clever for his own good.
It goes to the nature of our species. Males are more variable. We don’t do IQ in Australia but Max’s WIAT scores were all in the top 1%. Repeated in year 3, 5, 9 and >99.5 was lowest, up to >99.9. He is 22. My 9 year old son has different father and he is also super clever. Much more challenging and has an irritable temperament like me but the arsehole nature of his father so I really worry about him!
But women don’t achieve much. I used to be someone and now I just rage response on Substack! My sister in law wrote a symphony at university and conducted an orchestra at the highest level just once. My best friend wrote a single book. All the smart girls revert to the mean. Unless they remain single and have no children or are lesbians.
But it’s not as simple as that. When you’re young you really want to achieve and be like men. But after children you honestly don’t give a shit, it feels meaningless,; but you don’t change your mind or decide it matters less, as a man would, it still matters, but it feels like a war in Ukraine rather than at home. The urgency has dissipated forever and a homing pigeon has made a home in your brain. You aim for a weekly article rather than being editor. You just want to get home, pick up your baby, it’s all about home. Louise Perry is very articulate about this. It’s not just being tired. Women change. We have different priorities, values, but even that doesn’t cover it. We became different creatures. Men live on a single plane. Historically, logically, rationally and temporarily. Women live in cyclical currents and in distinct stages. I can barely recognise the person I used to be, and this is not uncommon, for women. We cleave to the men in our sphere. We are naturally unstable and rely on men for emotional stability.
Feminism is stupid because it claims that women can be independent. Is there a ‘strong man’ category on Netflix?
Feminism denies the true nature of women. That’s the only possible coherent argument you could make to justify claiming feminism is evil but you don’t understand humanity enough to make it. You don’t need to like women.
Where I live, the male bush turkey encourages the female to have his chicks by building the best nest. Some mornings you can’t back your car out of the driveway because a super keen horny bird has built a ridiculous mound on the kerb.
You can spend all weekend making your lawn look nice and hear that dreaded 5am raking sound, of claws putting all the leaves back.
A lot of men viscerally hate these turkeys, set dogs on them etc. But sometimes we sit outside and watch them work and my husband admits he loves their labours too, he calls them “young, dumb and full of cum” ironically similar to the lads who do burnouts and speed down the hairpin turns. Creating hazards on the road for ladies who aren’t impressed - but admits there’s something honourable about a male working to provide for a family.
If the bush turkey ladies all decided they wanted to build their own nest and accused the males of patriarchal misogyny that would be bizarre but you’d still have to conclude that it was part of nature.
Your failure to accept the way things are is perhaps a greater evil than deciding that a thing others do that you can’t control or understand is evil. Think it through.
Anyway, by elevating my comment, I can’t hear the criticism, I only get that you want to marry me.
I’ve got the credentials and work in publishing, but my favourite Sweet Dreams book is “kiss me, creep”.
It’s never cool for the boy to know more than the girl. And I love that you call it ‘rage comment’ because it shows you get me.
I think you hate feminism and you sense evil in things abortion. That doesn’t make feminism itself evil - it’s just an idea, a concept. Even national socialism isn’t evil. Killing people in gas chambers is evil. Everyone makes a choice when they step over that line. I believe in trans rights but am I willing to take this scalpel and carve out a teen girl’s breasts. Some people call that feminism too. Acts are evil, not ideas. You can’t make the case.
You love the comments that just say “awesome article, love your work”, but bristle at every comment actually engaging with the substance.
To clarify- I definitely don’t ‘believe’ in trans rights. It was a hypothetical scenario based on what I believe IS an evil ideology- transgender. But even that doesn’t qualify as evil, the prescriptions for hormones, the scalpel cutting off healthy reproductive tissue - that is evil.
Scot Pecks book and the Bobby story was a big trigger for me in realising that Evil exists in our Universe and it is so subtle that we don't always know we are enacting it out.
I'm just beginning to wonder about that Feminists/Women (not all) want to have the Men positions in life but they really just create the same old shit but believe they can do it better! This may be true in some cases, at the beginning but when the Garbage Truck is all women, then one day those women 'may' wake up to... what has this got to do with Equality with men...???
Was it in the People of the Lie that Peck mentioned the Evil Beings were actually fallen Angels?
That they wanted to be God and do things 'their way'.. Wow.. that sounds mighty familiar....
Yet, labeling Feminists as the embodiment of Evil, IMO, still seems like an overstatement. Personally, I see the Feminists as a manifestation of Industrialization....and an aspect of marketing. They, the Feminist themselves, have been exploited as "tools" for marketing and social engineering.
It is "feminism" that I label as evil. And not "the" but "a," vehicle of evil, specifically a temptation aimed mostly at women. The argument leads to that conclusion, and to soften the blow would be dishonest.
Furthermore, in the argument I tried to make clear the distinction between common acts of evil, of which we all commit, and becoming the embodiment of evil, which is a whole different level characterized by "killing" for nothing more than the pleasure of killing.
Feminism is not a temptation for women. It’s a tool. Women just want a man to love and babies. Feminism confers status. It’s a false flag in that men don’t value the status feminism confers. No woman has an abortion unless the man won’t commit. That’s the brutal truth. It’s not feminism, it’s the sexual revolution that told men they could have their cake and eat it too. Now nobody is happy.
There’s a psychological concept called “theory of mind” . The author doesn’t have any concept of who he is writing to and what their priors might be. Like an autistic person, he starts at the beginning, assuming ignorance and proceeds in a laborious, school teacher style of just lecturing.
You come away thinking, so what? I can critique many of his points but what was he actually trying to say? I still don’t really know.
"what was he actually trying to say? I still don’t really know."
Out of all of your rage comments about the essay, this is the most important insight that you've written. That so many others do understand the essay should be a wake up call for you. Maybe come back to it in 5 or 10 years.
I’m no fan of feminism. But you are mixing up so many things that your are completely unrelated to feminism that point isn’t clear. I get your (long and probably too laboured point) about nature. Most people get this. We are bound by our nature; men and women are different, have competing needs and there’s no ‘patriarchy’.
Yet Muslim religions are obviously grotesquely misogynistic, Jewish men are supposed to wake up every morning and thank god they were not born a woman, and have you heard of the Malleus Maleficarum?
To say that men suffered more than women is ridiculous. Men had war - that is their nature, women had childbearing - that is our nature, and we both died at shocking rates, and suffered terribly. Apart from that, slavery of men usually meant working. The slavery of women is embedded in our genes.
Western men evolved to have bigger muscles. Western women evolved to have smaller feet. Female skeletons from antiquity had larger feet relative to their bodies. That’s why women die from hip fractures- our feet are too small for our heavy hips. Add in high heels, in Chine - foot binding- the evidence of men sexually selecting for women who can’t get away.
Anachronism has some very interesting essays about the Germanic/Viking/Anglo -Saxon ‘borderline’ females like Brunhilda, and the fact there is no equivalent in Asian or middle eastern cultures.
She civilized men, leading to codes of chivalry etc.
I think you are taking every negative thing about female nature and calling that ‘feminism’. For example, men started washing their hands and the death rate went down. But midwives had always known this, and were ignored. You cherry pick ridiculous examples that are clearly outliers and also state incorrect statistics. Women do not abuse, commit violence against or assault those less powerful than themselves at the same rate as men. More like less than 1% of women have been charged and convicted with such crimes. Overwhelmingly they have a male accomplice, are mentally ill or in a state of drug induced psychosis or post- natal depression.
It’s a truism that there’s no female Mozart because there’s no female Jack the Ripper.
"Women do not abuse, commit violence against or assault those less powerful than themselves at the same rate as men." You are PROVABLY wrong! You really should read "When She Was Bad: Women and the Myth of Innocence", by self-described feminist Patricia Pearson:
"Women commit the majority of child homicides in the United States, a greater share of physical child abuse, an equal rate of sibling violence and assaults on the elderly, about a quarter of child sexual abuse [emphasis added], an overwhelming share of the killings of newborns, and a fair preponderance of spousal assaults. The question is how do we come to perceive what girls and women do? Violence is still universally considered to be the province of the male. Violence is masculine. Men are the cause of it, and women and children the ones who suffer. The sole explanation offered up by criminologists for violence committed by a woman is that it is involuntary, the rare result of provocation or mental illness, as if half the population of the globe consisted of saintly stoics who never succumbed to fury, frustration, or greed [emphasis added]. Though the evidence may contradict the statement, the consensus runs deep. Women from all walks of life, at all levels of power—corporate, political, or familial, women in combat and on police forces—have no part in violence.
You're no fan of feminism? That's odd, because you sound like a feminist true believer and you regurgitate their talking points and lies.
I'll just point out a couple of obvious ones. Women commit 99% of infanticides. Women convince a male friend or relative to commit violence on their behalf, or hire a hitman. This is recorded as "male violence" in FBI statistics. Women are far less likely to be charged and if charged far less likely to be convicted.
I'm not going to bother with your cherry picked history, that's too comical.
As far as the "too labored" "nature" part of the essay, it's clear that you didn't read it, or didn't understand it.
You are such a deeply committed true believer type that you completely missed the central thrust of the essay. Feminism permeates your being so deeply that you don't notice it and you deny its influence.
Oh, and the only reason Britain couldn’t be fully conquered by the Romans was because they didn’t know how to defend themselves against the crazy women! Boudicca was only the best known.
You could say that the women who cut down their own husbands and kin who refused to defend them were somehow not real women, the women who threw their babies at Roman chariots rather than have them taken as slaves were early eugenicists and not maternal. You could say they were ‘feminists’ because they refused to be enslaved like the women in every other land that had been conquered.
But that is like saying that white men are not real men because they wrote books, painted and didn’t just always fight and be giga chad.
You are the proto-feminine. You are the savage beast, Lilith. You list these beastly behaviors as triumphs. The way an abusive parent would brag about making their children tough. Don't you see that you are in the first stage of grief. Jung would say that your collective unconscious as feminists is projecting an animus which justifies the brutality that early human lives required.
The first step to process is to admit that all of the gruesome behaviors aren't honors. They are profoundly sad and difficulty situations which you had to survive. Casting them as triumphs is just repeating the cycle.
Indeed, Michelle. We can know ourselves through stories that belong to our societies, but we are not limited by them if we are willing to see them as just stories. How we encounter society can feel extremely limiting if we confuse that with our own encounter with self. We need not be limited by societal myths if we will accept the mystery and grace in an authentic encounter of the unknown.
Well, this was well worth the read. As a father of daughters, both of whom have “succeeded” in transcending the “glass ceiling and would call themselves feminists, I have to present this to them. I have to handle it just so. The oldest, voted by her high school classmates as “Most Likely to Take Over a Small Country All By Herself” is a mother of three daughters AND Chief Operating Officer of an 800M/yr business, and she has done a stellar job at both. Neither have adopted the pernicious lies that characterize the True Feminist…at least I don’t think so…guess I am about to find out.
Women are smarter than men. It’s so obvious, but- and your daughter may be different - once we have children, we realise that the playground of men is boring and we simply don’t care anymore. Obviously some women are still putting in 10 hour days but overwhelmingly, we drop out.
In Australia, where I live, most people in medical school are women. They graduate from university with far higher grades than their male peers. Of those who choose the more demanding specialisations that involve surgery etc, close to 50% leave within 5 years, and by 10 years nearly 80% either work part time, are on maternity leave and never return at full capacity. They become GPs, researchers, journalists. For the men, almost every single person stays in the profession for their working lives. They became experts in their fields by sticking to it and mastering it.
I don't think you have it quite right yet. For example I have come to believe that Spinoza was on team evil.
I'm not going to provide a long explanation for that - because
(a) I have also come to believe that each man must find his own path to the truth. And - you are clearly thinking and searching - so you will probably find your way there in the end.
(b) perhaps I am wrong in any case :-). I don't think so (well - duh - of course I don't think I'm wrong because if I did I would change my mind), but I've been wrong many times before.
In any case - good luck with the search.
Perhaps you should take a stab at defining evil.
Why do you think I should do that?
Perhaps it is not my place to define evil.
Then your criticism is empty
I don't think your logic is sound.
That's easy to write when you don't, or can't, support your claim. Alternatively, you didn't understand the essay.
Obviously I am frustrating you - sorry - that wasn't my intention although I understand why you are frustrated and I should have foreseen it. I was impressed by your essay - but felt you have not followed your thinking all the way through to its logical conclusion.
I do not wish to provide "my position" and argue for its superiority over yours - because
(a) I find that that tends just to lead to both sides entrenching - which is likely my fault - clearly I am not good at expressing ideas in a way which makes it easy for others to accept.
(b) linked to (a), I am not the right messenger.
(c) I think people are supposed to figure this stuff out for themselves - the journey is important.
I did wish however to implant the idea that you may not be on quite the right track - but you are obviously perfectly free to ignore the suggestion if you like.
The problem with women is that they, by nature, fundamentally, mentally ill.
Feminism merely plays on womens pyschological inferiority to men.
I wish I didn't see so much blabbering about how feminism hurts women and femininity in otherwise good post.
Women are simply bad faith. They lack certain masculine moral faculties that men possess, leading to cynical opportunism combined with a mindboggling irrationality.
Feminism isn't insulting to the feminine. Women still play the sims, still put on makeup, still act ditzy. It's just a pretense to be hyper aggressive.
It most definitely qualifies
I apologize for using the phrase 'flights of fancy'. Disrespect was not intended. I apologize also for not having the background knowledge, underlying beliefs and comprehension of your thesis to be able to discuss it in the way that might work for you.
However, my main point stands and I note you haven't responded to it: that there is no need to bring in the concepts that you have to appreciate that feminism has caused a lot of damage or why that has been the case. A more parsimonious explanation that doesn't rely on the introduction of other contentious players and ideas will be better.
I also don't accept that the concepts you have brought to bear such as 'God' 'the Devil' and 'evil' have ever been clearly defined or established as real, or that your genuine efforts to do so for the purposes of your argument are sufficient. The objective existence of those entities under whatever definition is important for following and accepting your arguments.
However, I believe we are talking past each other. If I find time I may rise to your invitation to explore and respond to your essay again in the way that you might consider worthy.
Look up gas lighting, it is what you did by claiming that I did not articulate a representation of God when I clearly dedicated didn't to exactly that. More of your criticism falls into that category.
Look up immanent, the universe as God qualifies.
Your comments are full of fallacies and outright errors.
While you comment usefully on some of the consequences of feminism, your analysis is based on so many assumptions and, in my opinion, flights of fancy. 'God' is an unexplained concept that does not provide useful explanations for other matters and is mostly just a word used in the place of other words such as 'universe' or 'everything' but brings superstitious baggage to what those other words describe. The theory that consciousness exists independently from brains has no evidential basis and is contradicted by studies on human brain damage; however, there is no clear definition of 'consciousness', and how it's thought of by those claiming it existed before life is very different from the usual concept of consciousness. They use it as yet another alternative to the 'God' they feel a need to include in their sense of reality. The idea of a 'soul' is a figment of human imagination, again unless one uses that term in place of others that have some evidential basis, such as 'gene' or 'chemical'. The 'devil', even as a metaphor, implies various processes and responsibility attributions that are both childish and misleading. All that stuff is unnecessary to understand how early feminist lies and hatred led to many socially destructive outcomes. When one proceeds on the basis of dishonest or otherwise flawed understanding in any endeavour, one is unlikely to achieve expected or positive outcomes. On the other hand, to the extent that feminist ideology had some truthful basis (e.g. that, under an emphasis on tradition and false beliefs about female potential, girls and women were being unnecessarily held back from contributions they were capable of), some positive outcomes were achieved.
Ironically, proceeding on the basis of beliefs in 'God', 'consciousness' as a version of 'God', 'the Devil', 'souls' and other fictions will equally lead to flawed outcomes, as indeed history under religious leadership has shown and continues to do so. To the extent that those beliefs were weakened in the Age of Enlightenment and people proceeded more on the basis of truth and objective evidence, a great many positive outcomes ensued.
Thank-you for your long, thoughtful comment. I want to respond in some detail to your concerns.
"your analysis is based on so many assumptions and, in my opinion, flights of fancy. " This is nothing more than an ad hominem. What assumptions have I made. I was careful to explain every important term used in the essay that might be misunderstood. And what "flight of fancy?" Can you name even one?
1. “'God' is an unexplained concept that does not provide useful explanations for other matters and is mostly just a word used in the place of other words such as 'universe' or 'everything' but brings superstitious baggage to what those other words describe.”
I presented a panentheistic representation of God in the essay, so it is not an unexplained concept. You may not like it, but your have not made any dent in its integrity. The secular view of the universe is an inanimate object without a subjective dimension of its own is a presumption that atheists uncritically accept. There is no evidence for this. And I brought no superstitious baggage into the conversation.
2. “The theory that consciousness exists independently from brains has no evidential basis.”
“there is no clear definition of 'consciousness', and how it's thought of by those claiming it existed before life is very different from the usual concept of consciousness.”
I am quite aware that the science of consciousness is in its infancy, and I'm not restricted the “the usual concept of consciousness,” whatever you think that it(?). Clearly my essay is a speculative discussion that introduces different ways of viewing metaphysical concepts , and consciousness is central to our understanding of self, and so I must work with what's available. Scientists have presented ideas about the root of consciousness being transcendent to life, and I've included links and references to those in this essay and others, “Schopenhauer's Hidden Soul.” The researchers in this area, and I'll include Roger Penrose among them, are anything but light weight flakes.
3. “The idea of a 'soul' is a figment of human imagination,”
It may seem like that to you, but the dimension of human experience that I am trying to articulate demands identification, and the idea of a cosmic soul that permeates the universe is compelling.
4. “The 'devil', even as a metaphor, implies various processes and responsibility attributions that are both childish and misleading.”
Clearly you did not understand my description of the genesis of evil, and its subsequent life within the noosphere. I won't repeat it here.
5. “When one proceeds on the basis of dishonest or otherwise flawed understanding in any endeavour,”
You have not addressed my actual argument. You dismissed the concepts that I presented by vague references to ideas in the culture that I did not use, which is the only dishonesty at play here. I defined the terms that I used within the essay itself. Perhaps you should deal directly with those terms, or seek clarification for that which you don't understand.
6. “to the extent that feminist ideology had some truthful basis (e.g. that, under an emphasis on tradition and false beliefs about female potential, girls and women were being unnecessarily held back from contributions they were capable of), some positive outcomes were achieved.”
This is pure feminist fiction, that you accept uncritically. Between Dr. Fiamengo and I, we have torn apart the idea that feminism had any good origin or result. It is a movement that originated in hatred, acted in hatred, and has been unequivocally destructive. They may hide this, but even the vote for women was not due to feminist efforts, which actually may have delayed its implementation. You clearly have not looked deeply into feminism and its history. We have produced about 40 hours of video on this topic, available on Studio B.
7. “Ironically, proceeding on the basis of beliefs in 'God', 'consciousness' as a version of 'God', 'the Devil', 'souls' and other fictions will equally lead to flawed outcomes,”
I don't equate consciousness with God. I presented a panentheistic interpretation that makes that unequivocally clear, I shouldn't have to say anything further about that because it's in the word “panentheism.” You have merely rejected the models that I've presented without defeating a single argument in my essay. Your objection to conventional notions of God, religion and its leadership, soul, Devil etc ... says nothing about the way I've presented these entities in the essay. You must deal directly with my argument if you wish to persuade me .
8.“religious leadership has shown and continues to do so.”
Representations of God and religious leadership are two entirely different topics.
9. “To the extent that those beliefs were weakened in the Age of Enlightenment and people proceeded more on the basis of truth and objective evidence, a great many positive outcomes ensued.”
I do not criticize the age of enlightenment -- in fact I applaud it in other essays -- except those minor voices who promoted atheism with their unsupportable claim that we have somehow disproven God and can conclude that the universe is meaningless. No such thing has been accomplished.
To summarize:
It appears that you are convinced in the atheist perspective that pretends to get its legitimacy from science ... it doesn't. As a young scientist I was convinced about the idea that the universe was meaningless material that somehow produced living things from which consciousness emerged. But this narrative is purely a presumption that emerged in circular fashion from the initial conditions of the scientific method itself: all questions of meaning are excluded; science restricts its inquiry to questions of how the universe works mechanistically. We cannot then conclude that the universe is a meaningless machine by using the results of the process of science that begins by restricting its view to the universe as a meaningless machine. That is circular reasoning. Science only produces models of reality that fit in the mind and can be projected onto the universe. It can tell us nothing about God, or questions of meaning and purpose. That we have to figure out for ourselves.
Anyway, I deal with that question in “God, Where's the Evidence,” Schoppenhauer's Hidden Soul, and well as other essays and videos.
Calling 'God' panentheistic doesn't explain it. That only makes some particular claims about what remains an unidentifiable, unexplained entity.
I made no argumentum ad hominem at all. I referred to your essay, not you. Your essay was based on numerous assumptions and I own the opinion that many are flights of fancy.
You may not have specifically brought superstitious baggage but any use of the word 'God' does so if only because it has been associated through history with such superstitions.
Using the word 'soul' assumes such a thing exists. What might be compelling to you may be tedious and unconvincing to me.
You are correct that I didn't understand the noosphere and all the things you say are in it. Its existence is an assumption, as is the existence of 'evil' as a phenomenon other than in our beliefs from our perspectives.
You are correct that in your essay you didn't equate 'consciousness' with 'God'. It's purely my observation that those who allege consciousness exists apart from brains or neural networks, that consciousness is some fundamental force of creation, that everything arises out of consciousness and so forth, are really just using the word consciousness in place of God. You are also correct that I don't understand much of your particular versions of God, the Devil and other superstitious concepts, but to the extent that I could follow your essay your versions were no more convincing that the other ones I'm aware of.
I didn't claim that religious leadership and representations of God are the same thing. My point was that proceeding on the basis of incorrect beliefs usually don't bring good outcomes. Religious beliefs as the basis for leadership have brought many undesirable outcomes, unless one thinks that witch burning, beheading of apostates and throwing gays off roofs are desirable.
'Models of reality that fit into the mind' are the only way we can conceive of anything. Science is merely a way of ascertaining facts and relationships between events, or the likelihood that something is a fact. Science isn't going to answer questions about the meaning of life, though I think the selfish gene goes further towards such an answer than anything else I have heard. I have no need of any idea of God under any definition I have come across, and I have never found the idea helps me to understand anything better. I make my own purpose and generally enjoy my activities and a life that I am usually grateful for. I'm happy accepting that many questions cannot be answered by our limited minds and I don't feel any need to make up answers. If you suggest an answer that can be tested, then I support doing so.
You have clearly read a lot of philosophy and religion and find inspiration there. I respect that. I found your essay difficult to follow and, as is usual for me, it's difficult to move past claims that are assumptions or that I don't accept as proven. I don't think it's necessary to bring in all your theoretical concepts (that raise more questions than they answer) to understand how and why feminism is problematic.
I have closely followed Prof Fiamengo's talks on Studio Brule and elsewhere, and I continue to be a financial supporter of her important work. I doubt that your view excluding recognition of any positive outcome from feminism would accord with her views. But such blinkered sight tends to result when matters are thought of using concepts such as 'evil' and 'God'.
"Calling 'God' panentheistic doesn't explain it. That only makes some particular claims about what remains an unidentifiable, unexplained entity."
I suspect that you are either gas lighting, or deeply confused yourself.
Panentheism is a clear concept that postulates a transcendent and immanent dimension of God. Furthermore I clearly described what I meant by the immanent dimension, and I pointed out that we should not be surprised that God would be both in part understandable and in part beyond our comprehension. This constitutes an explanation, and I provided quite a lot of detail. It is in no way necessary to understand all of God. Do you fully understand everything about the things that you believe to be true? No one does, because that's impossible. And if you committed only to believe the things that you fully understood then you would be forced to believe nothing at all... and you wouldn't function in this world. Alternatively, you could lie in order to gaslight others.
(couldn't seem to get the whole reply to show in one piece...)
I did discuss material in your essay. I challenged some of it, perhaps not meeting your rules of discourse. You're entitled to dismiss those challenges as 'tired atheist talking points' but really, if you are putting forward a theory based on ideas of god, devil, evil and so forth, you might expect challenges from those who don't accept the validity of those concepts. Equally I would say you use 'tired godistic arguments' that are not even well explained.
What part of 'God' is understandable? Some claims about the nature of a god might be understandable but they assume the existence of that god and do not provide anything that could reasonably be called an explanation.
My main point is that I don't see it as helpful or necessary to bring all those ethereal concepts into a consideration of the harmful effects of feminism. Doing so appears to have reduced your objectivity in considering the topic, as such beliefs tend to do. (Now that's an ad hominem argument that can't logically refute your claims. But that doesn't make it untrue as a statement.) Also, you seem to have trouble respecting others' right to have different beliefs from yours, and a strong need to insult people who don't have god beliefs.
The title of the essay literally begins with “What is evil ...” I then immediately argue that evil has an independent existence. Then I wrote that feminism is more than just wrong or deceitful, so I have referred to it as evil, and that this means that I must explain what I mean by evil. Thus begins a discussion about existence and God. All of this was rational and clearly represented.
Then you have the audacity to act as if you didn't read any of it, and insist that any reference to God must pull forward your ideas of traditional religious representations of God and that it is all fanciful. That is part strawman and part gaslighting, ignoring the clearly presented context of the essay as if it did not happen.
The essay explicitly and legitimately includes about metaphysical concepts, I could not possibly have been more clear about that. You did not engage the concepts presented, you merely acted as if it was fanciful to discuss them at all. It is not.
If you do not like discussing these sorts of concepts, then this essay is not for you.
Clearly I reject the atheist position that the universe is meaningless material that becomes animated and evolves a mind. This means that I accepted the challenge of conceptualizing what the universe is, which i present as a form of panentheism, a clearly defined and broadly understood term. As an atheist, you reject every representation of God because that IS the basis of atheism. I reject atheism, and clearly this essay was about much much more than just feminism. Criticizing the essay because it uses the concepts it clearly says it will use, and then uses them, is crazy-making. Why bother even reading it?
If you are satisfied by dismissing feminism as wrong and destructive, then good for you. Your work is done, feminism is bad, go on your way. But that doesn't cut it for me, and I explained exactly that and why. If you want to engage the details of why I think that way then engage the essay ... which means engaging the representations of God and evil as presented in the essay. But if you are just here to say that these ideas are just “flights of fancy,” then we have nothing more to discuss.
I'll give you one challenge. Present to me one fatal piece of logic within the argument of the essay, not a gish gallop of diversions but of argument as presented because I'm not going to repeat every argument, and I'll respond to that. Tell me where the fault of logic is, and saying that I present concepts of God, the devil, evil and “ethereal concepts” clearly does not qualify ... these things are clearly defined and legitimately used within the confines of the presented argument.
Well you are the one doing ad hominem attacks, making a lot of comments and derogatory allegations about me.
'Flights of fancy' refers to some of what you wrote, not you. You seem to have trouble accepting that someone might disagree with you and you just become disrespectful and arrogant. (Actually, even that isn't an ad hominem argument because there is no implication that your disrespect and arrogance disprove your arguments.)
Do you think I would waste my time carefully writing my responses if I just wanted to 'gaslight' you. I'm not sure you understand what 'gaslighting' means. I made no insinuation that you are mentally unwell.
I saw no clear description of what you meant by 'immanent dimension'. There was something about a god being born. I have no belief in any god so that doesn't extend my understanding of your arguments.
Look up gas lighting, it is what you did by claiming that I did not articulate a representation of God when I clearly dedicated space exactly to that. MAybe you don't like the representation, but it is there and it is clear. More of your criticism falls into that category.
Look up immanent, the universe as God qualifies.
Dismissing the essay as full of flights of fancy without providing a single example qualifies as an insult,
Your comments are full of fallacies strawmen and outright errors.
You make no substantive argument, you're just here to say that you reject everything because you don't like it.
You're not actually here to discuss the material presented in the essay, just to present tired atheist talking points.
PS. "Flights of fancy" is a juvenile attack on the author, aka ad hominem. After that, the rest of your comment didn't really deserve a respectful response.
That's a long winded way to say that you reject the idea of God because you can't understand it, and can't find a way to counter the arguments presented in the essay.
You could just say "I believe in atheism."
I will be honest with you, because I know you’ve thought deeply and most of your points, in isolation are true. But the brutal honest scary-as-fuck truth that men cannot accept is this - we don’t care about any of that shit. Women seldom think deeply about concepts or theories or ideas and while men can change their boundaries and think about Mars or AI, the reason women never invent anything unless they are extremely intelligent outliers in a group of similar men, is that we don’t think the way you do.
My husband is very intelligent and we have police coming around when we talk about the Romans (Australia is virtually a fascist state now; it is actually illegal to argue in a raised voice. To yell is domestic violence.)
I am an outlier as a woman in that I enjoy debate and conflict. He has had to deal with a woman who doesn’t automatically defer to him to keep the peace. But most of the time I still do. And I know from being a woman, a sister of three , a daughter, a friend that nobody ever talks about feminism. I’m not a conservative, have a wide group of friends, work in publishing and husband is a photographer in the arts. I meet many women at work and attend functions where I meet young artists - blue hair, tattoos, overweight and they can go from sprouting bullshit to “does he like me?” Within seconds. My 22 year old son, god love him, is a dickhead. He is a non-binary or trans lesbian, conceited, thinks he’s right about everything- it’s painful. But his friends, colleagues, girlfriend are all normal. They don’t believe it in the way he seems to. After every opening, it’s the girls who still walk around picking up glasses, wiping down the space and offering to help. I’ve been doing this for 25 years and nothing has changed in that regard. No ‘trans’ woman has ever spontaneously started tidying up at a quarter to midnight. But it happens at every single event. Women intuitively know when it’s time. I can actually pinpoint it now. I glance at the clock and young women I’ve never met start asking where the garbage bags are. I’m only the wife of the photographer!
The IQ bell curve, the double X theory, all point to the same contradictory conclusions. Females are both more reactive to the environment and susceptible to social memes yet strongly agreeable and conforming to social norms.
Your mistake is that you attribute male traits to women. Just like no guy is clearing tables, no woman is strategically thinking about how to manipulate a man. If we thought that way we might have invented something by now.
What is evil is the ‘not yet’ abortion. There is no concept of feminism in South Korea, yet exactly the same thing is happening. It’s the law of incentives.
I have had an abortion. The young Indian doctor had a look on his face that I’ll never forget. In my state, NSW, abortion prior to 12 weeks is legal. I would have had that baby if the man had supported me but at the time, I felt it was impossible. That child would have been the only sibling of my son. I regret that choice with every fibre of my being. But none of it has anything to do with feminism, it’s all about the man. Will he marry me, does he want a life and family together?
My thesis topic for my law degree was abortion law in NSW. There is no doubt that women can be evil. I researched baby farms and places where women sold their babies to caring women who let them die in horrific circumstances. Women would take so many babies but they couldn’t afford to feed them yet many babies died not of malnutrition but of bed sores. The nappy was never changed causing open weeping wounds and the doctor described that these healthy babies died in absolute prolonged and unnecessary agony. About 30 in one house alone. Men focus on the woman who acts like a man which I doubt ever happens. This is a very particular female crime. Toxic empathy and neglect.
Men who don’t understand women think we make ridiculous illogical choices. If you’re as smart as you think you are, you wouldn’t make this stupid mistake.
From your comment, I once again doubt that you actually read my essay.
If you want my opinion, and I know you don’t, because it will make you deeply uncomfortable, I agree with a lot of what you say, but you fail to understand the implications. Women ARE different. So, to use your analogy, the Lion cannot use Lion logic to judge the deer or hyena. We have evolved to have competing interests. They don’t follow your logic because you are a male. But they obviously follow female logic or they wouldn’t exist. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean you are stupid, just means you can’t. As a kangaroo can’t understand a bush turkey - hey, I’m Australian! Yet, you appear to fail your own test. As a man, you want to call all interests that aren’t yours but women’s ‘feminism’ and therefore evil.
That’s the definition of misogyny.
Do men all think the same? Is there a coordinated agenda of male thinking? Of course not, just as most women think feminism is ridiculous. I’m not a practicing Christian but I think abortion is wrong, mothers should look after their own children until school age, sex should be a sacred act within marriage between two loving committed adults. I don’t want a woman fighting my fire, arresting bad guys, in the military or picking up my rubbish. I don’t want gay men buying babies from the wombs of women in the developing world- or anywhere!
Women are generally reactive and receptive. There are definitely Lady Macbeth types, but they are outliers. A minuscule proportion of women.
Neil Gaiman, Russell Brand, MeToo, Eric Weinstein, all the football rapists in Australia, even most of the UK girls consented. But we say that women can consent to sex outside of marriage. No we can’t!!!! Women are complete insane morons when it comes to sex and love. You are correct on that point. We are desperate embarrassing idiots who will do anything for men.
So be the man! You are responsible for 99% of the achievements, inventions, creative ideas. Most women would honestly rather lie in bed with children and husband all day in a fug of domestic bliss. We think about men all the time, except when we have children and then we think about them all the time and are repulsed by the man for a few years. It’s true and we know we are neurotic and illogical but it’s just our nature.
I used to be smart. I was taken out of my normal classes with the funny boys - I went from a girls high school to co-ed and then streamed with the boring asians but I’ll never forget how much I laughed in those two years.
Teenage boys are hilarious. Even my sons are funny, well the youngest is only 9 and his brother is also an arrogant virtue signalling leftie who looks down on everyone but he is too clever for his own good.
It goes to the nature of our species. Males are more variable. We don’t do IQ in Australia but Max’s WIAT scores were all in the top 1%. Repeated in year 3, 5, 9 and >99.5 was lowest, up to >99.9. He is 22. My 9 year old son has different father and he is also super clever. Much more challenging and has an irritable temperament like me but the arsehole nature of his father so I really worry about him!
But women don’t achieve much. I used to be someone and now I just rage response on Substack! My sister in law wrote a symphony at university and conducted an orchestra at the highest level just once. My best friend wrote a single book. All the smart girls revert to the mean. Unless they remain single and have no children or are lesbians.
But it’s not as simple as that. When you’re young you really want to achieve and be like men. But after children you honestly don’t give a shit, it feels meaningless,; but you don’t change your mind or decide it matters less, as a man would, it still matters, but it feels like a war in Ukraine rather than at home. The urgency has dissipated forever and a homing pigeon has made a home in your brain. You aim for a weekly article rather than being editor. You just want to get home, pick up your baby, it’s all about home. Louise Perry is very articulate about this. It’s not just being tired. Women change. We have different priorities, values, but even that doesn’t cover it. We became different creatures. Men live on a single plane. Historically, logically, rationally and temporarily. Women live in cyclical currents and in distinct stages. I can barely recognise the person I used to be, and this is not uncommon, for women. We cleave to the men in our sphere. We are naturally unstable and rely on men for emotional stability.
Feminism is stupid because it claims that women can be independent. Is there a ‘strong man’ category on Netflix?
Feminism denies the true nature of women. That’s the only possible coherent argument you could make to justify claiming feminism is evil but you don’t understand humanity enough to make it. You don’t need to like women.
Where I live, the male bush turkey encourages the female to have his chicks by building the best nest. Some mornings you can’t back your car out of the driveway because a super keen horny bird has built a ridiculous mound on the kerb.
You can spend all weekend making your lawn look nice and hear that dreaded 5am raking sound, of claws putting all the leaves back.
A lot of men viscerally hate these turkeys, set dogs on them etc. But sometimes we sit outside and watch them work and my husband admits he loves their labours too, he calls them “young, dumb and full of cum” ironically similar to the lads who do burnouts and speed down the hairpin turns. Creating hazards on the road for ladies who aren’t impressed - but admits there’s something honourable about a male working to provide for a family.
If the bush turkey ladies all decided they wanted to build their own nest and accused the males of patriarchal misogyny that would be bizarre but you’d still have to conclude that it was part of nature.
Your failure to accept the way things are is perhaps a greater evil than deciding that a thing others do that you can’t control or understand is evil. Think it through.
You keep proving that you don't understand the essay, and you come across as emotionally incontinent now.
Maybe you should collect your thoughts and write an essay of your own.
Anyway, by elevating my comment, I can’t hear the criticism, I only get that you want to marry me.
I’ve got the credentials and work in publishing, but my favourite Sweet Dreams book is “kiss me, creep”.
It’s never cool for the boy to know more than the girl. And I love that you call it ‘rage comment’ because it shows you get me.
I think you hate feminism and you sense evil in things abortion. That doesn’t make feminism itself evil - it’s just an idea, a concept. Even national socialism isn’t evil. Killing people in gas chambers is evil. Everyone makes a choice when they step over that line. I believe in trans rights but am I willing to take this scalpel and carve out a teen girl’s breasts. Some people call that feminism too. Acts are evil, not ideas. You can’t make the case.
You love the comments that just say “awesome article, love your work”, but bristle at every comment actually engaging with the substance.
It’s fine, I drink too much as well.
Maybe you shouldn't drink while surfing on social media, because it shows.
To clarify- I definitely don’t ‘believe’ in trans rights. It was a hypothetical scenario based on what I believe IS an evil ideology- transgender. But even that doesn’t qualify as evil, the prescriptions for hormones, the scalpel cutting off healthy reproductive tissue - that is evil.
Scot Pecks book and the Bobby story was a big trigger for me in realising that Evil exists in our Universe and it is so subtle that we don't always know we are enacting it out.
I'm just beginning to wonder about that Feminists/Women (not all) want to have the Men positions in life but they really just create the same old shit but believe they can do it better! This may be true in some cases, at the beginning but when the Garbage Truck is all women, then one day those women 'may' wake up to... what has this got to do with Equality with men...???
Was it in the People of the Lie that Peck mentioned the Evil Beings were actually fallen Angels?
That they wanted to be God and do things 'their way'.. Wow.. that sounds mighty familiar....
Peck didn't mention fallen angels in People of the Lie. Perhaps in some other book.
Your essay is a "home run".
Yet, labeling Feminists as the embodiment of Evil, IMO, still seems like an overstatement. Personally, I see the Feminists as a manifestation of Industrialization....and an aspect of marketing. They, the Feminist themselves, have been exploited as "tools" for marketing and social engineering.
Thanks for the encouragement!
It is "feminism" that I label as evil. And not "the" but "a," vehicle of evil, specifically a temptation aimed mostly at women. The argument leads to that conclusion, and to soften the blow would be dishonest.
Furthermore, in the argument I tried to make clear the distinction between common acts of evil, of which we all commit, and becoming the embodiment of evil, which is a whole different level characterized by "killing" for nothing more than the pleasure of killing.
Feminism is not a temptation for women. It’s a tool. Women just want a man to love and babies. Feminism confers status. It’s a false flag in that men don’t value the status feminism confers. No woman has an abortion unless the man won’t commit. That’s the brutal truth. It’s not feminism, it’s the sexual revolution that told men they could have their cake and eat it too. Now nobody is happy.
You got the feminist to come out and comment, very rare Steve. Janice almost NEVER gets the zealots out to comment.
There’s a psychological concept called “theory of mind” . The author doesn’t have any concept of who he is writing to and what their priors might be. Like an autistic person, he starts at the beginning, assuming ignorance and proceeds in a laborious, school teacher style of just lecturing.
You come away thinking, so what? I can critique many of his points but what was he actually trying to say? I still don’t really know.
"what was he actually trying to say? I still don’t really know."
Out of all of your rage comments about the essay, this is the most important insight that you've written. That so many others do understand the essay should be a wake up call for you. Maybe come back to it in 5 or 10 years.
I’m no fan of feminism. But you are mixing up so many things that your are completely unrelated to feminism that point isn’t clear. I get your (long and probably too laboured point) about nature. Most people get this. We are bound by our nature; men and women are different, have competing needs and there’s no ‘patriarchy’.
Yet Muslim religions are obviously grotesquely misogynistic, Jewish men are supposed to wake up every morning and thank god they were not born a woman, and have you heard of the Malleus Maleficarum?
To say that men suffered more than women is ridiculous. Men had war - that is their nature, women had childbearing - that is our nature, and we both died at shocking rates, and suffered terribly. Apart from that, slavery of men usually meant working. The slavery of women is embedded in our genes.
Western men evolved to have bigger muscles. Western women evolved to have smaller feet. Female skeletons from antiquity had larger feet relative to their bodies. That’s why women die from hip fractures- our feet are too small for our heavy hips. Add in high heels, in Chine - foot binding- the evidence of men sexually selecting for women who can’t get away.
Anachronism has some very interesting essays about the Germanic/Viking/Anglo -Saxon ‘borderline’ females like Brunhilda, and the fact there is no equivalent in Asian or middle eastern cultures.
She civilized men, leading to codes of chivalry etc.
https://open.substack.com/pub/anarchonomicon/p/bpd-alpha-widow-ultranationalism?r=1e02vv&utm_medium=ios
I think you are taking every negative thing about female nature and calling that ‘feminism’. For example, men started washing their hands and the death rate went down. But midwives had always known this, and were ignored. You cherry pick ridiculous examples that are clearly outliers and also state incorrect statistics. Women do not abuse, commit violence against or assault those less powerful than themselves at the same rate as men. More like less than 1% of women have been charged and convicted with such crimes. Overwhelmingly they have a male accomplice, are mentally ill or in a state of drug induced psychosis or post- natal depression.
It’s a truism that there’s no female Mozart because there’s no female Jack the Ripper.
"Women do not abuse, commit violence against or assault those less powerful than themselves at the same rate as men." You are PROVABLY wrong! You really should read "When She Was Bad: Women and the Myth of Innocence", by self-described feminist Patricia Pearson:
"Women commit the majority of child homicides in the United States, a greater share of physical child abuse, an equal rate of sibling violence and assaults on the elderly, about a quarter of child sexual abuse [emphasis added], an overwhelming share of the killings of newborns, and a fair preponderance of spousal assaults. The question is how do we come to perceive what girls and women do? Violence is still universally considered to be the province of the male. Violence is masculine. Men are the cause of it, and women and children the ones who suffer. The sole explanation offered up by criminologists for violence committed by a woman is that it is involuntary, the rare result of provocation or mental illness, as if half the population of the globe consisted of saintly stoics who never succumbed to fury, frustration, or greed [emphasis added]. Though the evidence may contradict the statement, the consensus runs deep. Women from all walks of life, at all levels of power—corporate, political, or familial, women in combat and on police forces—have no part in violence.
It is one of the most abiding myths of our time."
Or see my Post "Domestic Violence: Feminism’s Big Lie" at https://stephenbond.substack.com/p/domestic-violence-feminisms-big-lie, which shows that women commit the MAJORITY of DV.
You're no fan of feminism? That's odd, because you sound like a feminist true believer and you regurgitate their talking points and lies.
I'll just point out a couple of obvious ones. Women commit 99% of infanticides. Women convince a male friend or relative to commit violence on their behalf, or hire a hitman. This is recorded as "male violence" in FBI statistics. Women are far less likely to be charged and if charged far less likely to be convicted.
I'm not going to bother with your cherry picked history, that's too comical.
As far as the "too labored" "nature" part of the essay, it's clear that you didn't read it, or didn't understand it.
You are such a deeply committed true believer type that you completely missed the central thrust of the essay. Feminism permeates your being so deeply that you don't notice it and you deny its influence.
This is essay is a warning for people like you.
Sit in a court room for a day. Any court, anywhere.
Oh, and the only reason Britain couldn’t be fully conquered by the Romans was because they didn’t know how to defend themselves against the crazy women! Boudicca was only the best known.
You could say that the women who cut down their own husbands and kin who refused to defend them were somehow not real women, the women who threw their babies at Roman chariots rather than have them taken as slaves were early eugenicists and not maternal. You could say they were ‘feminists’ because they refused to be enslaved like the women in every other land that had been conquered.
But that is like saying that white men are not real men because they wrote books, painted and didn’t just always fight and be giga chad.
You are the proto-feminine. You are the savage beast, Lilith. You list these beastly behaviors as triumphs. The way an abusive parent would brag about making their children tough. Don't you see that you are in the first stage of grief. Jung would say that your collective unconscious as feminists is projecting an animus which justifies the brutality that early human lives required.
The first step to process is to admit that all of the gruesome behaviors aren't honors. They are profoundly sad and difficulty situations which you had to survive. Casting them as triumphs is just repeating the cycle.
Dave, we are all the myths of our societies. That’s the point. Do you honour slaves or heroes?
Indeed, Michelle. We can know ourselves through stories that belong to our societies, but we are not limited by them if we are willing to see them as just stories. How we encounter society can feel extremely limiting if we confuse that with our own encounter with self. We need not be limited by societal myths if we will accept the mystery and grace in an authentic encounter of the unknown.
This is interesting. But feminism is not just "women wanting to be rebellious against men," There's a lot more going on here.
Feminism was never about equality, and it has never been motivated by good intentions.
https://youtu.be/7s-3WgAo-Gk
Well, this was well worth the read. As a father of daughters, both of whom have “succeeded” in transcending the “glass ceiling and would call themselves feminists, I have to present this to them. I have to handle it just so. The oldest, voted by her high school classmates as “Most Likely to Take Over a Small Country All By Herself” is a mother of three daughters AND Chief Operating Officer of an 800M/yr business, and she has done a stellar job at both. Neither have adopted the pernicious lies that characterize the True Feminist…at least I don’t think so…guess I am about to find out.
Women are smarter than men. It’s so obvious, but- and your daughter may be different - once we have children, we realise that the playground of men is boring and we simply don’t care anymore. Obviously some women are still putting in 10 hour days but overwhelmingly, we drop out.
In Australia, where I live, most people in medical school are women. They graduate from university with far higher grades than their male peers. Of those who choose the more demanding specialisations that involve surgery etc, close to 50% leave within 5 years, and by 10 years nearly 80% either work part time, are on maternity leave and never return at full capacity. They become GPs, researchers, journalists. For the men, almost every single person stays in the profession for their working lives. They became experts in their fields by sticking to it and mastering it.
What do you think?
That "I'm no fan of feminism" was just your first lie.