Sunday, 21 January 2018

Feminism was imposed from above, but I do not know why

SHARE



All men are unequal and women too yet instead of freedom, which was what we believed in during the Cold War, equality, freedom's antithesis, is now all the rage.



It's odd how feminism was imposed from above, not demanded from below. 



Englishwomen didn't much want the vote, but it was given to them. Liberals resisted this, fearing women's conservatism.



Likewise modern feminism has been imposed by political elites and by governments. I am not sure why. Although in the last twenty years it has gained support, to some extent because of the influence of progressive academics. Even so, only 7% of British women say that they are feminists, despite the pressure to be feminists.


Among people from Oxford and Cambridge who work in the media the figure might be 90% or more. Non-feminist remarks are not heard often by high minded people like Cathy Newman, who failed in her interview with him on Channel 4 to make Jordan Peterson look a fool. This is the only explanation I can find for her failure to understand or even hear Jordan Peterson's remarks. 

He, by the way, strongly denies being anti-feminist and he is right. He isn't, in the least. He simply makes common sense observations, like the fact that only 7% of the people running FTSE 100 companies are  women is not evidence of unfairness. I thought everybody saw that, but they do not. However, simply being non feminist is for many people like Miss Newman astonishing and unacceptable.



When intelligent people think and say stupid things and are unable to understand counterarguments to their positions it does not mean that they are not intelligent enough. It's a sort of hallucination which prevents them from examining objectively things that have enormous emotional importance to them. This phenomenon happens a lot in discussions about the sexes, race and homosexuality. Even the EU.




Professor Peterson was very good but he might have said, in reply to her (to me truly shocking) question about where does his right to freedom of speech stop and her right not to be offended begin, that no-one has a right not to be offended.




Channel Four has spun their debacle, which has made Jordan Peterson's name, by saying that their lady has received misogynistic abuse and threats on Twitter. This is a move that makes her look her like a heroine. 


550 people called her a bitch. 

Since she was made to look a fool I can't imagine why anyone would threaten her but at least a couple of Twitter users made threats. I also saw at least one woman say she wanted to punch Peterson - she used a much ruder word than bitch to describe him. Much as you would expect when you stage a slanging match in public and people watch it.



14 comments:

  1. It was a very complicated story. Modern accounts do simplify it to the point of distortion. One thing is that female rate payers already had the vote - if a woman paid the Poor Law Rate then she had the vote for Poor Law Guardians (Act of 1834) and if a woman paid general Rates she would have the vote under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. A lady could say "I have the vote for local government - but not for Parliament, this makes no sense". Men could say THE SAME - as a man who could vote for his local council under the Act of 1835 might not have the vote for Parliament under the Act ot 1832. The logical thing to do would have been to say "anyone who pays local Rates can also vote for Parliament" - only a few women were rate payers. In America female taxpayers in some States (such as New Jersey) had the vote even in the 1700s - the Democrats took the vote AWAY from women (because the women taxpayers were voting Federalist).

    ReplyDelete
  2. yet instead of freedom, which was what we believed in during the Cold War

    That's what we thought the Cold War was about. That's what we were told that the Cold War was about. In reality it was about the destruction of a rival to American power. We were played for fools.

    American foreign policy from Roosevelt onwards has had one aim - the destruction of every possible rival. The first step was the destruction of the British Empire.

    NATO's purpose was to ensure that Europe remained firmly under American control.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When intelligent people think and say stupid things and are unable to understand counterarguments to their positions it does not mean that they are not intelligent enough. It's a sort of hallucination which prevents them from examining objectively things that have enormous emotional importance to them.

    Sometimes it means that they are too intelligent, and over-educated. They have a love for complicated theories that they find to be intellectually satisfying even though those theories have zero connection with reality.

    They also have a contempt for those they consider to be their natural inferiors. Which means all ordinary people. They therefore oppose anything and everything that ordinary people believe. Despising the values of ordinary people makes them feel superior.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'Even so, only 7% of British women say that they are feminists, despite the pressure to be feminists.'
    Today's feminism is a vulgar and shallow cause, like any propaganda campaign. I think real feminism leaves little time for activism, since you're too busy competing and getting better in your field to have any time left for rallies. The pinnacle of female weakness is wearing pink hats of dubious shape, and demanding more leadership positions, as the women's rallies in the US. It's so embarrassing, it makes me self conscious about being am a woman. Freud would make a fortune treating all these females: collective hysteria!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why did the elites promote feminism?

    This is a direct and complete answer to this question:

    "Feminists Teresa Amott and Hester Eisenstein, writing separate studies, both came to the conclusion that feminism is largely a means for corporate America to “remain competitive” by lowering labor costs. Further, Eisenstein adds that the weakening of unions was a part of this. Male-dominated unions both kept wages high and controlled the labor pool for an industry. Breaking the unions meant that more part-time and new female workers (let alone immigrants) can move into an industry, drastically cutting labor costs. It was a diabolically brilliant idea that was based on crass self-interest while able to pose as the most selfless of idealisms.

    Teresa Amott notes:

    Hiring women was a central part of the corporate strategy to restore profitability because women were not only cheaper than men, but were also less likely to be organized into unions and more willing to accept temporary work and no benefits This led to what has been previously been held only by men and as jobs that were already predominantly female became even more so (Amott 1993, 50).

    The fact that feminist ideology developed precisely at the very height of male wage grown and unionization in the late 1960s is not a coincidence. This is also the beginnings of rapid globalization and when the recovery of Japan and Germany began to challenge American dominance.

    Although I am obviously not arguing for a return to dependence on men and marriage as the only options for women, I think it necessary to acknowledge that the independence won in the 1970s and 1980s came at a high price: the abolition of the family wage, both as a reigning ideology and as a reality at least for high-paid male workers, and an extended period of wage stagnation for
    all workers. Even though the family wage concept may have been patriarchal, it was a wage norm that acknowledged the need to support “dependents.” In the low-wage economy that replaced it, no such concept remained (Eisenstein, 2009: 117)."

    https://europewide.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/women-as-the-new-nobility-feminism-the-rule-of-fear-and-contempt-for-thought/

    ReplyDelete
  6. The article continues:

    "The American economy permitted a single blue-collar job to support a family, even in urban areas, up until 1970. This was intolerable to the Anglo-Jewish elite. In the early 1970s, profits could only be increased by lowering labor costs and increasing labor productivity. Rises in technology were augmented with bringing in millions of women and immigrants (of all backgrounds) into the labor force.

    Only recently has it occurred to the feminist movement that when one increases the supply of an x, the price of that x will go down. The articles cited in this paper are an admission of an obvious reality 30 years too late.

    Feminists have been forced to grasp the truth that they are a cynical capitalist creation to lower costs. Absurdly illogical arguments were made in the late 1960s such that women’s family life was “oppressive” while entering the workforce meant “liberation.” Women were considered “oppressed” as they sent men off to prison on a whim. The man in his cell would fully agree and speak of the terrible treatment of the female race.

    Men, fearful of female disapproval, hid from the discussion or overcompensated, accepting these irrational arguments. All the major movements of the era: civil rights, feminism and immigration, all had the strange consequence of increasing the number of both workers and consumers. Wages began to stagnate and then, in real terms, fall. When interest, debt service and taxes are considered, wages plummeted. That’s not a coincidence. Feminism is a mystification.

    The admission of these facts destroys the 40 year old narrative of these movements. The “family wage” was that wage that a single, blue-collar male could make to support a family. Health care was a fringe benefit and most companies had on-site doctors. Ruth Milkman notes that the family wage was intolerable from the capitalist point of view. It was slowly destroyed

    after the expansion of the female labor force had exhausted the supply of single, divorced, and widowed women, so that married women and even mothers were incorporated into the labor force in large numbers. . . In the inflationary 1960s and 1970s. . . the expanded demand ‘pulling women into the labor market came to be supplemented by a new family economics ‘pushing women out of the home.’ The resurgence of feminism in the 1960s and its increasing popularity in the 1970s created “a new egalitarian ideology… proclaiming womens’ right to equal treatment in the labor market (Milkman 1987, 121)."

    There you have it. That is the reason why the elites imposed feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am less concerned with labels like feminism, liberal, conservative, or whatever, than the need to treat each other as equal before God. Artificial barriers to individual growth inhibit meritocracy. People ought to be rewarded based upon the contribution that they make financially, socially, etc. I can see no logical reason why women should not have the right to vote. There are issues in areas like war, where the introduction of women as combatants has made females legitimate targets, which complicates things significantly. However, beyond such complexities individuals should not be defined by their skin colour, gender, etc, but by the character of their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Feminism's biggest mistake is trying to make women act like men. In the now already infamous Peterson-Newman C4 debate Newman had a bee in her bonnet about only the fact that only 7% of CEOs in the top 100 companies are women, but it never seemed to occur to her that maybe women are sensible enough not to want such a demanding and all-consuming position. Nor did she seem bothered by the fact that 58% of GPs in Britain are female - why wasn't she screaming for 50-50 equality there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She is intelligent enough to know that many women do not want to dedicate their lives to reaching the top of big companies, but prefers to ignore this, I suppose. There's been an amazingly big and rapid change in society in respect of women's roles, yet never fast enough for people like Miss Newman. A parallel can be drawn with the way that non whites have achieved such high positions in the few decades since they came to Great Britain and yet we hear so much about racial discrimination. There must be some odd mass psychological explanation. Perhaps Dr Peterson knows.

      Delete
    2. Women are not like men. I got into trouble with a Labour-supporting English feminist for saying this.

      The best thing about women like 'Cathy' Newman (why does she want strangers to be pally with her and use a diminutive of her name?) was said by the great Dame Edith Evans when she said

      'Why, when women want to be like men, can't they want to be like nice men?"

      Delete
  9. You know how mad the world has become when Germaine Greer is considered a reactionary.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/germaine-greer-me-too-harvey-weinstein-women-spread-legs-movie-roles-actress-a8173161.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is telling, I agree. O tempora, o mores!

      Delete
    2. Had I been at Peterhourse, Cambridge I'd have been at a bastion of what Hugh Trevor-Roper (no liberal he) called 'clerico-fascism' - the last Cambridge college grudgingly to admit women - and now! A left-wing feminist Linda Bellos who had been invited by a feminist society to speak had her invitation withdrawn after she said she would be “publicly questioning some of the trans politics . . . which seems to assert the power of those who were previously designated male to tell lesbians, and especially lesbian feminists, what to say and think”.
      When I skim read this – we all skim read the news nowadays alas – I was angry but in fact societies are free to invite or uninvite whom they choose.

      One should rejoice that the bad guys are falling out among themselves, as always happens at the end of the film.

      Still, another and much attractive world from that of the great Edward Norman and Maurice Cowling.

      Delete
    3. Erratum: Still, another and much less attractive world....

      Delete