Answering Sir Roger Scruton…part 1 Save for later Reblogpost

TimBucks
@TimBucks

Send Private MessageSubscribe50

Speaking on feminism in society and at university, Sir Roger Scruton poses a question:

Sir Roger Scruton, at 24:38 – 25:35 “We do have to try and understand why it is, that there is such a charm, in the Foucault-an position. Why is it that people want to believe, that all the best things, what we think of, the best things in human relations, are simply disguised forms of manipulation? You know that the whole feminist view of the relation between men and women, for instance, which is founded on this deep myth, that men are exercising, exercise power as a gender, over women. And that all study of this is just a way of revealing that power, and the capillaries through which it flows. You know, there is a will to believe this. And why is one of the big questions, we have to try to understand,”

Let’s try to understand the bald headed man, Mr. Foucault.

Sir Roger refers to the “Foucault-an position” on feminism, meaning: French philosopher M. Foucault was deeply influential in feminist theory, just as he was in post-modernism theory, both of which can be thought of as Fraternal intellectual twins…..feminism and post-modernism have many similarities, just like twins. Fraternal twins meaning twins that are male and female or have different blood types. They share many similarities in appearance, just like any brother or sister of the same  family.

Ah..yes Mr. Foucault, what a “charming fellow”….hero to the feminists. Are you familiar with him? He’s the post-modernist thinker, embraced by much of feminism.

A few biographical notes on Mr. Foucault:

-He joined the  Communist Party in the 1950s

-He often threatened to kill himself and attempted suicide several times

-The Marquis de Sade was one of his intellectual and moral heroes

-Foucault enjoyed imagining suicide festivals

-Those planning suicide, Foucault mused, could look “for partners without names, for occasions to die liberated from every identity”

-Foucault was addicted to sadomasochistic sexual torture, including “gagging, piercing, cutting, electric shocking, stretching on racks, imprisoning, branding”

-He died of AIDS after giving the disease to many others…

-Foucault wanted to legalize pedophilia

(from France: Burn till you learn, Stefan Molyneux video, 29 minutes to 32 minutes)

For those of you who have been fortunate enough till now, not to be familiar with post-modernism, here are a few tid-bits of it’s thought process…which informs feminism. Bold highlights on post-modernism are wiki quotes. From wiki:

Analytic philosopher Daniel Dennet declared, “Postmodernism, the school of ‘thought’ that proclaimed ‘There are no truths, only interpretations’ has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for ‘conversations’ in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster.”

“If the modern era begins with the European Enlightenment, the postmodern era that captivates the radical post-modern multi-culturalists begins with its rejection. According to these new radicals, the Enlightenment-inspired ideas that have previously structured our world, especially the legal and academic parts of it, are a fraud perpetrated and perpetuated by white males to consolidate their own power. Those who disagree are not only blind but bigoted.

Postmodernism reduces the complexity of the modern world to a simple formula, where all claims of the world, are nothing but expressions of power, by competing groups. American and European culture has run since the Enlightenment on putting objective reason and evidence as the center of reality. You have to prove what you say. That is the highest virtue. Post modernists reject reason, logic and evidence as the ultimate means to understanding the world, replacing reason logic and evidence about the world, with conversations based on emotion and narratives and counter-narratives of groups that compete for power, in the world, as being the center of a quest for knowledge, about the world….and it’s final adjudicator

The Enlightenment’s goal of an objective and reasoned basis for knowledge, merit, truth, justice, and the like is an impossibility: “objectivity,” in the sense of standards of judgment that transcend individual perspectives, does not exist. Reason is just another code word for the views of the privileged. The Enlightenment itself merely replaced one socially constructed view of reality with another, mistaking power for knowledge. There is naught but power.”

All this post-modernist assault on reason and evidence, has taken deep roots, inside feminism. Science is based on reason and evidence being the most important things, in assessing reality. Post-modernism doesn’t agree, so the post-modernists are on an attack on science itself. They claim that science is not objective, it is just a white man’s game, for the white man to hold onto power. So by doing away with science, post-modernists hope to get rid of facts, reason, logic and evidence as being the key things, that decide what exactly the truth is.

(Even though, ironically, they themselves have argued there is no truth, in fact they wish to replace verifiable scientific truth and fact, with narrative truth, so they seem unaware they are contradicting themselves)

The philosophy critic H. Sidky pointed out what he sees as several “inherent flaws” of a postmodern antiscience perspective…. He sees 21st-century anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific approaches to knowledge, particularly in the United States, as rooted in a postmodernist “decades-long academic assault on science:” “Many of those indoctrinated in postmodern anti-science went on to become conservative political and religious leaders, policymakers, journalists, journal editors, judges, lawyers, and members of city councils and school boards. Sadly, they forgot the lofty ideals of their teachers, except that science is bogus.

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

….end wiki quotes

In a nutshell, it’s pretty obvious why feminists took to post-modernists: Both groups hate men…particularly white straight men. And white men invented science, invented the modern world…..that is an embarrassing fact that must be accounted for in the modern world. Feminists resented that it was white men who invented the modern world, feminists resented that white men had invented science, using reason, to create the modern world around us, and radical feminists want to destroy the modern world, and destroy white men…..”Smash the Patriarchy!”….is something you frequently will hear, if you listen to feminism. By that, they mean destroy white men, destroy science, reason and evidence, and decide upon reality, based on their emotions. That’s what this attack on “The Patriarchy” is all about. “The Patriarchy” is the basic theory that feminist have about the past, that supposedly men dominated and oppressed women, for millennia, till feminists came along, liberating women, from men. That’s their basic theory of the human past. The Patriarchy is white men and science…..and the power white men are said to have. Radical feminists mean to destroy The Patriarchy….which is simply: destroy white men.

The way they set about to do this, was to embrace post-modernism, which also was an intellectual assault on white men…ideas that are all around us, today. So both feminism and post-modernism are on a decades long assault on science, because science is the source of power, they think…of white men. And post-modernists are completely about seeking power. They see the world divided up into groups competing for dominance and power….with white men currently at the top….for now. Since feminists want to destroy and replace white men, with women at the top, they set about encouraging women to see themselves as set apart from men, in competition with men, so they could get white women to wage war on white men.

So, summing up, thus far, a very clever French intellectual, who supported pedophilia, who hated white men, was a Communist,  he died of AIDS and believed in torturing people in sick sexual fetishes, while contemplating suicide.  (I wish I was exaggerating for comedic effect, but I’m not…those are the facts)…..But before he died, this clever but sick and hateful man, by the name of Foucault, was very influential in creating a thought system….post-modernism…he was one of it’s top philosophers….post-modernism, which did away with the idea of truth….including scientific truth. He replaced it with a thought system which relied more on argument and emotion, of a theory of competing power groups being the basic way to understand our history,  based primarily on competing narratives and emotion, rather than evidence and reason and logic….similar to feminism. And the aim of that thought system was to destroy white men, they clearly stated that as their aim, and the feminists and post-modernists hope to destroy white men, by also destroying science.

What are the personal motives of feminists? I can’t see in their heart, but I would guess: Feminists, brimming and seething with hatred, envy and resentment of straight white men, took to post-modernism, like ducks to water.

Feminism and post-modernism have much in common: Both thought systems hate white men…..they certainly indicate that hatred, fairly regularly. Both thought system want to destroy white men…especially straight ones. And they are pretty clear in stating, that is their objective. So they teamed up, as intellectual tag-team partners….feminists and post-modernists wrote books and took over the universities, dreamed up theories cooked up in the cauldron of their hatred against white men, which is their soul, setting in motion the path forward for them, which is an attempt to destroy the white man.

This academic hatred of white men is still playing out on campus, distorting history, shaming white men, attempting to destroy white men, hating white men. By indoctrinating gullible young women into hatred of men, feminists and post-modernists have been pretty effective in their hatred. The academic roots of this go back a long time, but it is still playing out on campus:

What kind of women are drawn to feminist studies? Jordan Peterson gives a hint, at 34:15 to 34:57, when he describes Women’s Studies Feminist Studies:

“That’s the cult like element of them. They do, to some degree, prey on people whose inter-personal relationships have been irreparably damaged.”

Is Dr. Peterson right? Are leading feminists irreparably damaged, as human beings? Someone who should know is Erin Pizzey. Quick bio:

From wiki:

“Erin Patria Margaret Pizzey (born 19 February 1939) is an English family care activist and a novelist. She is known for having started the first domestic violence shelter in the modern world, Chiswick Women’s Aid, in 1971, the organization known today as Refuge Haven House is often cited as the first women’s refuge (called women’s shelters in Canada and the U.S.)….

Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men. Pizzey has said that the threats were from militant feminists. She has also said that she is banned from the refuge she started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

Erin Pizzey in this short video talks about what kind of women were originally 2nd Wave Feminists. She should know. She was there, from the start:

Is radical feminism filled with hate, against men? You judge. The history of feminism is certainly rooted in hatred of males. The following quote in italics is from The Scum Manifesto, a founding document of 2nd Wave Feminism. ( “SCUM” = The Society for Cutting Up Men…..link to pdf below)

The Scum Manifesto Valerie Solanas Abstract“Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto was written in 1967 and published in 1968, the year she shot and wounded Andy Warhol. The text used here is that of the 1983 edition of the Manifesto that was published by the Matriarchy Study Group.”Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex. It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words,the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.

http://www.markfoster.net/struc/the_scum_manifesto.pdf

Could something like that be written about women? I hope not. Is feminism hate speech against white men? You decide.

And guess what? When you pay your taxes, you subsidize this garbage….The money you pay as taxes, goes to fund this stuff, which is being taught to young women at university. It’s called “Women’s Studies”….or “Gender Studies”….so if you are a white male, you are subsidizing hatred of yourself…..you pay, through your taxes, for people to study, how to hate you and destroy you…..that’s the reality we face, today.

So feminists teamed up with a sadomasochistic child molester, who was an evil genius……Foucault…. together the feminists and post-modernists are engaging in a war on science, a war on the straight white man….at your expense….

So, as to Sir Roger’s original question: “We do have to try and understand why it is, that there is such a charm, in the Foucault-an position. Why is it that people want to believe, that all the best things, what we think of, the best things in human relations, are simply disguised forms of manipulation?”

1-My first answer to Sir Roger’s question, as to why there is such a charm, in the Foucault-an position, is that feminists hate men. The hatred has consequences. Feminism is the meme, whereby hatred manifests itself. So men have to grapple with the fact that it is not so much the “charm” of the feminist position. Some of the answer, as to why people embrace feminism, is that there are some women who absolutely despise men. I think a lot of good but naive men old fashioned gentlemen like Sir Roger, cling to notions of female goodness that are long antiquated and don’t reflect reality. Naivete is not a virtue, here. The vast majority of women are quite decent. A few very influential ones are not decent. They are hurt, and quite malevolent.

2-My second answer to Sir Roger’s question, as to why there is such a charm, in the Foucault-an position, is that M. Foucault was a genius of sorts. An evil genius, a pedophile supporter to be sure, but he provided feminists with an intellectual scaffolding and theory, on which feminists could build a theory of the world. Foucault created a theory that human history can be understood as an inter-play of groups, competing for dominance and power, only looking after their own groups. As part of this theory, some groups oppressed other groups. This gave feminists a ready-made intellectual scaffolding, upon which to build the ideas of feminism. Starting with the feminist hatred of men, feminists constructed the idea that men organized themselves as a group….called “The Patriarchy”, and that men set about oppressing women, for millennia, in order for men  as a group to supposedly retain their power over women. With very little mental effort required to analyze the world and the past, what was for feminists, a very satisfying intellectual theory emerged: men were evil, women were good, but oppressed, women needed to organize, to fight back against men, to take their rightful place at the top of society. Since feminists generally hate men, this new theory was emotionally satisfying as well, to many feminists. It just “felt right”.

3-My third answer to Sir Roger’s question: Men never took an interest in feminism. …..so Academic lack of interest. It was considered a “women’s issue” as Erin Pizzey says in the video at 1:19: “The most successful part of it is, that at that point in the 1970s, if you think about it, the majority of women who were journalists internationally were very heavy radical feminists. So they had the women’s pages. And of course male journalists, male editors, seeing it, in quotes as a ‘woman’s problem’, left it to them. And very quickly there was a savage kind of censorship, and anybody who dared argue, was in very serious trouble.”

So, men are reaping what they sowed. Male leaders were disengaged, disinterested and fearful of standing up to radical feminists, so their putrid doctrine of hatred went unchallenged. A bit of interest is all that it takes to poke holes in feminist theories that are large enough to drive a truck through, but men in Britain and elsewhere, didn’t bother. And this female propensity to establish group norms by dominant females, then to censor anyone who disagrees with you, is in full force now at university, where it is now taboo to even question the doctrine of ‘The Patriarchy’…..most…not all, of the theory of which, is nonsense. As part of this, the belief that white men are evil has become central to the articles of faith in feminism. So young women continue to be brainwashed into the feminist cult, with no free speech, no dissent, no debate allowed. Men….you reap what you sow. Men who should have known better acted with cowardice, so now the universities are being destroyed by social justice activists, as Bret Weinstein found out.

4-My fourth answer to Sir Roger’s question:  Since academic men never took an interest in feminism, leaving it as a “woman’s issue”, the assumptions and theories of feminism, went unchallenged, for decades. No… Critical thinking… was engaged. And remember that feminism was based on post-modernism, which rejected science, rejected logic, reason and evidence as “tools of the Patriarchy”, which conveniently left feminists immune to reason and evidence. This explains why feminist teaching and “Women’s studies” are almost entirely devoid of science, and with such sloppy methods of proving what they believe. Dr. Peterson has commented on this in the past. Feminists constructed a self-contained, self-reinforcing academic feedback loop, free from being tested on evidence. This is quite dangerous. Naturally we see today, that feminists are some of the most vocal critics of free speech, preferring instead “Safe Spaces” and “Trigger Warnings”….why is that? It’s because at some level, they know they are a fraud, that may be called out some day, so they are protecting themselves from criticism and challenge to their belief system.

5-No Alternative theory emerged, to challenge feminism. For instance, feminists have a point: The past was largely dominated by men. I don’t agree with their characterization of the past as some sort of conspiracy against women, but I do agree the past human history was largely dominated and shaped, by men. So, if not some sort of conspiracy by men against women, why was that? Why was the past, what it was?

Here is the beginning of an alternative theory about the past, based on science, which is an attempt to explain why men dominated human society in the past:

Patriarchy and Evolution:

Feminists have a point: The human past was Patriarchal. But why?

Why did Patriarchy arise?

Was it men conspiring to oppress women? Or is there another explanation? Underlying evolved differences between males and females, which are provable, seem a more likely explanation:

-humans are sexually dimorphic

-males are larger than females

-males have more muscle mass than females

-since humans pair bonded, it seems likely the males protected the female

-females are vulnerable to attack, when pregnant

-death rates were high among human infants during evolution, up to 50% of humans died before puberty

-adult human lifespan was quite short

-as recently as 1900, humans died by about age 50, when averaged out

-till a few generations ago humans had not developed science, life was short, brutish and nasty

-as early as 1 day, science has found that human females spend more time looking at faces, than things, which is useful since females tended to most of the early human care in evolution

-as early as 1 day, science has found that human males spend more time looking at things, rather than faces…which is why boys are good at video games, men at hunting and protecting and war

-until Donald Trump was 14 years old, humans didn’t have reliable birth control, and females could get pregnant at any time

-until a couple of generations ago, humans had not yet invented the technology, which would produce jobs that females could do in large numbers, giving them at least some degree of economic freedom, and women were completely dependent of men

-human males are slightly smarter than human females, and these differences show up in large numbers at the extreme high end, so most of the very smartest people in human history were male…see “The Smartest People in the World are all Men”….Breitbart Magazine, for numbers:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/10/02/sorry-girls-but-the-smartest-people-in-the-world-are-all-men/

-human females get to decide who they will have sex with, so human males must socially compete with each other, for higher ranking females, and this meant men competed to protect and provide for females

So what sort of social organization system arises, when these sorts of factors are present in a species? What helped humans survive? Patriarchy.

Like all things in evolution, the things that survive are the things that prove useful in pushing forward life. In Patriarchal systems, men lead, and run the political and economic structure of society, men are disposable, women concentrate of raising offspring, and children are the center of life. This has proved to be a winning formula in our history. We are all descendants of Patriarchs.

And Patriarchy won, not because men imposed it on women, but because women chose it, because it offered the best deal, for women. And men chose it, because it ensured them offspring, and gave them social respect and power. Women liked that they were protected, got to chose which man to mate with, and they were far more likely to survive under Patriarchy, than any other system.

And the human mammal, to survive, organized into small groups…tribes…and competed for other resources with other groups. Groups needed protection from other competing groups of humans, and from predator animals.

Which sex was best to lead and protect the group in this situation? Was it the sex that was physically weaker in terms of upper body strength, had lower overall testosterone levels, indicating lower aggression, and spent most of their lives pregnant?…human women. Or was it the sex that was it the sex that was physically stronger in terms of upper body strength, had higher overall testosterone levels, indicating higher aggression, and didn’t have the burden of pregnancy?…human men?

Obviously biologically, the human groups that organized around male protection and leadership, had an enormous evolutionary advantage over groups that organized around female protection and leadership. And that’s why Patriarchal societies totally out-competed any Matriarchal groups, and that’s why they survived.

So Patriarchy was not some sort of evil conspiracy against women. Patriarchy is a natural evolutionary group strategy for survival and protection of women and children. And the other key variable, driving Patriarchy for the win as an evolutionary strategy, was the simple fact that human women get pregnant. Think about it.

If there is a theoretical tribe of 200 humans…..100 females, 100 males…and if the tribe loses 98 of the females, because they are off fighting to protect the males, then the tribe is finished in evolution, as there are only 2 breeding females left, of the original 100…. But if the tribe loses 98 of the males? The tribe can continue in evolution, because all the remaining males, even if they are old, can do their biological role, impregnating females, keeping the tribe alive.

So Patriarchy arose, not as a conspiracy against women, but out of basic biology: Females are more important than males, in evolution, because they get pregnant. If there were other patterns that worked, they would have arisen…..but they didn’t.

Sometimes what didn’t happen, is more important than what happened. And it tells you more, than what happened. More than likely, as the science of gender differences evolves, more and more evidence will be found, of slight biological differences between males and females, which contributed to the social pattern known as Patriarchy.

Another key piece of evidence for all this, is a simple fact that scientists uncovered, using some very clever techniques. What they found is YOU have twice as many female offspring, as male offspring. About 80% of modern human females have left offspring, in our evolution. But only about 40% of male modern humans have left offspring, in our evolution…why was this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qhwjo/eli5_how_come_we_have_twice_as_many_female/

Basically, males died off quicker because they protected the group. And because females in humans, as in all mammal species, they do the choosing of mates. So this all indicates what common sense suggests: men were disposable in evolution and competed for access to females, just like males in other mammal species do.

All this is highly suggestive of the type of social environment arising naturally, know as Patriarchy: human males that invest in their offspring, successfully compete against other males, and protect females, tend to survive in evolution. This means Patriarchy is a natural process, deeply embedded in nature. Feminists seem hell bent on throwing out an established pattern that worked for a very long time in evolution. Most new things in evolution don’t work. Will this one? Will the new feminist principles work, in keeping human societies stable and surviving into the future? It seems unlikely, but time will tell….

So, summing up, the five biggest reasons why people are willing to believe in the feminist perspective, the “charm” of feminism:

1-Feminists hate men, their hatred blinds both genders to reality, men don’t like to think ill of women, so the “charm” lives where naivety is allowed…..in a word, “Naivety”…”N”

2-Pedophile….“P”….feminists have been intellectually hoodwinked by a very, very clever pedo…Foucault….who was evil to the core. In adopting the thought memes of a suicidal insane male genius, who created a murderous ideology, feminists were intellectual suckers and fools. Foucault became the dominant intellectual of our time, subordinating decency to his evil intent to destroy life around him…“P”

3-Academic Men…”A”…have had a lack of interest in feminism….academics males were too cowardly to oppose or question it, so the Foucault-inspired rot continues to fester, to this day...”A”

4-Lack of critical thinking…“L”…since serious academic men took no interest in this “women’s issue’, no serious thought went into challenging the ideas of feminism….“L”

5-No Alternative Theory emerged…“A”…. due to lack of interest….”A”

In short:

N-A-P-A-L…..naive, academic lack of interest, pedo, alternative theory, Lack of critical thinking…