Monday, April 16, 2007

Avoiding Ideological Monomania

Monomania, or the obssession with one idea, is a dangerous pitfall whenever one becomes passionately involved in an ideological movement or when one becomes a dedicated supporter.

To put it simply - with an MRA mindset, it's quite easy to see any issue, any topic or any current event, and apply the ole "feminism is too blame" reasoning to it. I think it is important that we should all recognize that this kind of mindset can lead to mistakes and errors in judgement that may hinder ones credibility or compromise your objectivity.

Now, lest I be mistaken, I do need to reiterate the point that I do believe the feminist mindset has become pervasive and ubiquitous, so simply pointing out the many different variations and manifestations of the consequences of the societies paradigm shift from Patriarchy to Femininst Matriarchy does not make one a monomaniac. Indeed, much of feminists ideas are deeply ingrained into us, as we are now moving into the 3rd generation of Western society since the Matriarchal revolution of the 60's. There are many, many areas of our modern lives that have been affected by this, and one could spend a lot of time correctly pointing them out (and indeed, most MRA blogs do). But I still think that we bloggers need to be careful when we find yet another instance of feminism to point out, critique, criticize or deride...can we REALLY blame a certain event or instance on the pervasive corruption of feminist influence - or are we so focused on it as an issue that we start to see it EVERYWHERE....even where an objective viewpoint clearly can see it does not?

We need to be aware of the dangers of falling into a monomaniacal mode of thinking, simply because monomania is a primary attribute of modern day feminists...i.e. they see everything and everyone and every action as yet another manifestation of "Patriarchal Oppression." We need to avoid such specious and flawed analytical predilections to avoid becoming like the feminist useful idiots that are quite adept at repeating the propaganda points they've been indoctrinated with, but simply CAN'T engage in a discussion with opposing viewpoints and disagreement.

Monomaniacs thoroughly beholden to the idea that feminism is the explanation and answer to everything, and if a reason or explanation should run counter to their programmed indoctrination, the response is to avoid, ignore, change the subject and/or censor the dissenting argument. Case in point, feminist blogger Scorpio Risen detailed in the preceding blog post - who simply could not or would not answer my counter-points.

She blames the pressure women have to shave their legs to conform to social norms as "Patriarchal Oppression." When I challenged her assumption that in fact the social pressure she is raging against has nothing to do with "Patriarchal Oppression" and everything to do with females competing to attract males as a natural state of mating in the human species, she did not even address that counter point, but simply evaded answering me directly and focused on a different tangent that was largely irrelevant to the main point I made.

Thus, her monomania tendencies with regards to feminism manifests itself for all to see. Patriarchal Oppression is her Moby Dick, and she is the Captain Ahab, seeing the great white whale wherever she looks.

Of course, as I am trying to point out here, she is merely a single example of the monomaniacal mindset of modern feminists. I think the tendencies are better illustrated by taking a more mainstream article written by an obviously feminist minded editorialist from the Gainseville, FL newspaper

Sexism is Keeping Women "in their place" in politics

Let the Fisking begin...

As a basically optimistic person, and in view of the recent increased number of female leaders, I naively had begun to think that there is less sexism in our society. I have realized how naive and overly optimistic I am in view of several recent events.
There will never be less "sexism" in our society in your eyes, because you feminists must ALWAYS blame someone or something for your own shortcomings.

For example, earlier this week I read a lengthy newspaper article that focused primarily on the color of scarves worn by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during her recent trip to the Middle East.

In this article there were few comments about Speaker Pelosi's ideas and observations about her meetings with various political leaders. This particular information would appear to be important in view of the fact that she is third in succession to the presidency.

In addition, I was struck by the lack of coverage about the color of ties worn by the congressmen who accompanied Speaker Pelosi.
Of course, she makes no mention of who the writer of this article was...but I'd bet anything it was either a woman, a gay man or a metrosexual mangina that wrote the article focused on what Nancy was wearing. Real men would consider such details to be superfluous and completely unneccessary to a political story. And the reason why women journalists are writing about what women politicians and leaders are wearing is because women readers care about such things. But because newspaper editors and women journalists recognize that women readers want to know such details, this feminist looks at the reporting and immediately blames it on "sexism" (aka 'Patriarchal Oppression').

Just like Scorpio Risen blaming the competitive pressure amongst women to attract men on the same.
Another example of on-going sexism is the news coverage of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why is she typically referred to as "Hillary" rather than Senator Clinton? Referring to a woman in a powerful position by her first name definitely is sexist.
The WSJ's Best of the Web Today had the best response to this:

Phyllis M. Meek, who apparently is an administrator at the University of Florida, doesn't think women in politics get enough respect. Here's one of her complaints, outlined in a Gainesville Sun op-ed piece:

Another example of on-going sexism is the news coverage of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why is she typically referred to as "Hillary" rather than Senator Clinton? Referring to a woman in a powerful position by her first name definitely is sexist. . . .

Referring to Sen. Clinton as "Hillary" is a not so subtle way of diminishing her importance as a very competent and intelligent elected female U. S. senator.

We went to Mrs. Clinton's campaign Web site, where the banner atop the homepage reads "Hillary for President." Links on the site include "Join Team Hillary," "The Vilsacks Endorse Hillary," and, our favorite, "Women for Hillary." Apparently the conspiracy to keep women down is so vast that Hillary--sorry, Mrs. Clinton--herself is in on it.


Let's continue with Mz. Meek's monomaniacal diatribe...

It is important to remember that sexism is a means by which to reinforce the basic belief that not only are women inferior to men, but just as important is the accompanying belief that women inherently are less valuable than men.
It is important to remember that sexism is a means for feminists to constantly point to red herrings and logical fallacies and claim victimhood status for which the State needs to be petitioned to address the grievances to benefit women at the expense of men.

It thus is not surprising that powerful women are "kept in their place" by emphasizing aspects of their physical appearance rather than their intellectual abilities. Referring to Sen. Clinton as "Hillary" is a not so subtle way of diminishing her importance as a very competent and intelligent elected female U. S. senator.
Again, most of us men could give a crap what a woman leader is wearing. Reporters and articles that spend any kind of extended focus on how women politicians are dressed are virtually garunteed to be written by women reporters aiming to appeal to women readership.

Why are people, particularly men, so threatened by intelligent and talented women? Is this due to the well established idea that such women are being "uppity" and do not know their "appropriate" role?
This argument is one of the largest fallacies oft repeated by feminists, ad naseum. Yes, men are "threatened" by "intelligent and talented women." But it's not the threat you and all your indoctrinated sisters think it is. Men are not afraid of a woman competitor in business or politics. The real threat manifests itself in the growing trends of "intelligent and talented women" remaining unmarried or divorced.

We don't want to marry you (or remain married to you) because you in fact do NOT know your appropriate role as the nurturer and caregiver of a family. You care more for nurturing your career and personal ambition, and the results often mean screwing a man over in divorce court.

Men are not afraid of competition when they are competent and confident in their own abilities on a fair, level playing field. Where we ARE threatened, is trying to compete with women on a playing field tilted heavily in their favor - i.e. divorce and family courts. Getting married to a career woman (i.e. "intelligent and talented,") is like your average joe, recreational golfer agreeing to play Tiger Woods 18 holes without any kind of handicap.

The problems here - Men "threatened" by "intelligent and talented" women is not an issue of "Sexism."

In view of the current caliber of United States political leaders, it certainly is obvious that strong, capable, and intelligent women such as Speaker Pelosi and Senator Clinton are needed in key leadership positions.
What does gender have to do with what is needed in key leadership positions? And aren't Hillary and Nancy current political leaders right now? This argument is so intellectually retarded when one simply takes it to it's logical conclusion: We need Hillary for President Because she is strong, capable, intelligent...AND SHE HAS A VAGINA!

I personally would not have a problem voting for a woman for President - but only if I gauged her experience, talent and abilities as the best qualified for the job amongst the available candidates, regardless of her gender.

How can anyone deny that they particularly would be an improvement over the current occupants of the White House and the executive branch of the government?

As bad as President Bush has been to a Libertarian like myself's point of view, I fail to see how a President Hillary would be any kind of improvement at all. If your goal is to continue to screw up the country and our society by implementing more feminism, liberalism and nanny state socialism in more areas of our lives, than yes, she'd be an improvement.

But when it comes to referring to her by her first name, or female (or gay) reporters writing stories focused on Nancy's and Hillary's fashion and accessories - I don't see how you get to point at such stories as further evidence of patriarchal oppression.


Davout said...

"Getting married to a career woman (i.e. "intelligent and talented,") is like your average joe, recreational golfer agreeing to play Tiger Woods 18 holes without any kind of handicap."


With all due respect, a better analogy would be comparing a better sprinter to a worse sprinter (women) who is given a shot of steroids (affirmative action etc.) in order to increase her performance because she is told that beating the male sprinter is the ONLY way she will get his respect/love.

That said, you make very important points about MRAs needing to look beyond feminism at the parent structure that it subsists off of in order to fight it.

Kumogakure said...

Nice topic!

It's critical that we are able to argue our points intelligently.

Facts and evidence hit our feminist friends where it hurts!

More importantly, there is so much truth and falsehood out here; and we need clear vision in order to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Spot on.

Hawaiian Libertarian said...


Agreed, it was a poor analogy. At the moment I was in "rant" mode and typing furiously, and I got a little hung up on making an analogy and just went with the first one that came to mind.

yeah, your analogy is better! :)