Male and Female
The errors involved in this matter are age-long. There are many who believe such things as that men are of God and women of Satan, that women are amoral or evil, or that women are meant to be subservient to men. There are others who believe that men are abusers, that male sexuality is rape, and that male perspective is by its nature destructive. Neither of these is a prescription for a livable world.
Men and women are, first and foremost, people. This means: The natural aspect and the uniquely human aspect. There is the natural aspect to both masculinity and femininity; there is also the uniquely human aspect of choice that is possessed by both men and women. The first makes the two different by nature; the second is common to both women and men and is the place of their similarity. Both must be seen and respected for what they are.
As with all things of nature, both the male and the female physical aspect are morally neutral and capable of both right and wrong, but in ways that, being based on different natures, are different from one another. And as with all things of choice, both the men and the women are capable of both good and bad. There is no reason to see one as being superior and the other inferior, any more than there is reason to see one as good and the other as bad. Both are capable of both good and bad. In the physical nature, they differ, with the difference being natural, hence value-neutral. In the volitional aspect, they are equal and must be regarded as such.
One constant error of women who stress equality is that of negating the physical aspect and the associated differences between men and women. They work from the position of the volitional aspect, where the two are equal, and see the physical aspect as a hindrance to that equality. This leads them to militate against women’s physicality, sexuality, and other natural aspects, denying it to themselves and other women. But the natural aspect is inherent to all who live, both men and women, and no good can come from denying it.
The interaction to work between men and women is the one that recognizes both the natural and the volitional aspect. On matters in which the volitional aspect is in charge, the logical way is full equality. On matters pertaining to physical aspect, the logical way is seeing the natures involved and working to optimize their interaction, the effects of their interaction and the benefit of male and female physical natures toward one another and what they affect, while checking for negative effects of each and of the interaction.
Physically, the man and the woman are different and will always be different. That does not mean that one is by nature the ruler and the other by nature the slave, and it most certainly does not mean that one is good and the other is bad. We are dealing here with aspects of nature, which being aspects of nature are morally neutral. We are dealing with a non-valued duality, which being non-valued must be approached as all non-valued dualities are to be approached: from the position of optimization of benefit for each component, each other, and their interaction and its effects on the rest of the world.
For both men and women to be complete and integrated beings, in both cases both the physical, natural aspect and the human, volitional and intellectual, aspect, must be valued, cultivated and affirmed. Within each person, whether the person be male or female, both aspects should be respected, developed and learn to work with one another in a manner that is suitable for all non-valued dualities, with eye toward optimization of the effects of both and of their interaction with one another. In this will be developed complete human beingness, both for people male and female, and people will become more integrated beings possessing familiarity with both their natural and the volitional aspect and able to enjoy the fruits of both as well as of their interaction, and likewise to impart of their fruits.
The gender relations must therefore be seen from this dual standpoint. On matters of volitional consciousness, men and women must be seen and regarded from the position of absolute equality as both possessing the same capacity – of volitional choice. On matters of nature, men and women must be seen and regarded according to the natures involved, with eye toward optimization of the experience for each other, for themselves, for their interaction and its effects on the world. Both the volitional and the natural aspect must be seen for what they are and treated accordingly. The first must be dealt with according to its nature, and the second dealt likewise according to its, with the eye toward fulfillment of both; making the most of their interaction; protecting each other from harm by the other; and minimizing negative interaction between the two.
This means, among other things, confronting and ending violence against women as much as abuses by women of ill will toward men. It means doing away with necrophilic beliefs that see women as stupid or evil as much as with other necrophilic beliefs that claim romance to be rape, love to be a patriarchal myth, or beauty to be a mythological construct that robs women of self-esteem. It means making it possible for men and women to fully enjoy their physical existence and to come together to produce and raise new life. And it also means allowing women equal voice in all matters involving choice and intelligence, from science and media to business, government and art.
True Reasons for Domestic Violence
To effectively fight domestic violence one must know the causes of domestic violence. And the first step toward knowing that is knowing what they are not.
It is not love, beauty, romance or sexuality. The sexless Puritans are highly violent toward their wives; the unattractive women are just as subject to violence as the attractive ones; and in cultures, such as India and Middle East, that have forbidden romantic love and where marriages are arranged by families, the violence is worse.
It is not low self-esteem. There are plenty of self-confident football types who are brutal toward their wives and plenty of shy guys who aren't.
It is not personality disorders. Not only are there many cultures in the world where violence against wives is the social norm, but there are in fact cultures in the world that think there's something wrong with the man if he is not violent toward his wife.
It is not thinking oneself a victim. There are plenty of take-charge business and military types who are severely violent toward their wives.
So what are the causes of domestic violence? The best way to ascertain that is to look at cultures in which it is the norm and compare them to cultures in which it isn't. And again and again, the answer one gets is this: The beliefs that encourage domestic violence.
Beliefs such as:
That women are evil;
Unlike what many in psychology believe, the way one treats the other person is based, not on what one thinks about oneself, but of what one thinks about the other person. So if one has good self-esteem and thinks well about oneself but thinks badly about the other person, then one would not be good to the other person. So men's treatment of women is a result, not of what they believe about themselves, but of what they believe about the women - whether about women in general or about the particular woman with whom they have partnered.
Furthermore, unlike what many in psychology believe, it is people's conscious convictions that determine a vast chunk of their decisions. Looking at history we see the vast extent to which people's conscious convictions charted the course of history. And now, as ugly misogynistic beliefs have become more and more prevalent, surprise surprise - we are seeing a vast rise in violence against women, even though we have not seen noticeable changes in men's self-esteem or in the number of people with personality disorders.
And it is only by addressing and changing these ugly beliefs that actually do cause domestic violence, instead of wasting everyone's time on things that don't, that it will become possible to do anything effective about domestic violence.
Having looked at domestic violence across cultures, I've come to the conclusion that conventional explanations for domestic violence (low self-esteem; personality disorders; and further on along the same line) are wrong, and that the real reason for domestic violence is beliefs that are supporting of domestic violence. Here is my effort to assist the struggle against domestic violence by debunking such beliefs.
"Women are immoral" - there are far more male murderers, thieves and rapist than there are female murderers, thieves and rapists. The convict population is vastly male.
"Women are the source of evil in the world" - which is why Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan were all women, as are most of the world's most influential conmen, polluters and murderers.
"Man must be head of the family" - tyrannical home arrangements fail to adequately prepare people for democracy. Democratic family arrangements very much do.
"Man must be in charge of the woman" - in a free country everyone is meant to be in charge of themselves.
"Western civilization is owed to patriarchy" - Western civilization became the Western civilization largely through efforts of two women, Queen Mary de Medici in Italy and Queen Elizabeth I in England. The first ushered in the Italian Renaissance that ended the Dark Ages and vitalized Europe's industry, science and learning; the second took England from a feudal backwater to great global civilization. Prior to that, in the fully patriarchal Middle Ages, the white man was at the bottom of the world and could not hold up his head to Africa's Timbuktu or Persia's Baghdad Caliphate, much less the Tang China or Moghul India.
"Patriarchy is the root of prosperity" - which is why patriarchal Afghanistan and Somalia are so prosperous, and why non-patriarchal Connecticut, California, Finland and Netherlands are so poor.
"Women are emotional, men are rational" - the men who believe such things are the least rational men out there. A truly rational person realizes that everything with a brain is capable of reasoning.
"Women should put up with anything" - this incentives ugly, destructive, abusive practices on the part of the men and allows the same to continue unchecked. The only way that such be corrected is that women not have to put up with such things.
"Women should be silent" - this excludes from decision making the knowledge, the intelligence and the efforts of one half of humanity, predictably resulting in ruinous group think, ignorance, vast waste of potential, and vast degradation in condition of the world.
"Women should be second-class citizens" - there is no more rationality in a gender apartheid than there is in a racial one. Once again, in this situation is excluded from decision-making the knowledge and perspective of one half of humanity, resulting in ruinous group think, ignorance, vast waste of potential, and vast degradation in condition of the world.
"Man owes it to the male gender to control women" - nobody owes anything to a gender. People owe to those who have contributed to and been benefactors of humanity in all spheres of its existence, of whom as many are female as are male. And among the male benefactors, most were socially progressive and hated violence against women.
"Women are exploiters of men" - there are plenty of women who want nothing to do with men at all, but I doubt you would prefer their company.
"Women are unfaithful" - it takes two to have an affair.
"Women are sluts, bitches and whores" - I'll say such things to your sister, your grandmother and your daughter and see what you say or do in response.
"Women are evil" - women who actually are evil have nothing to do with men who believe such things and avoid them like the plague. The women who do find themselves in the lives of such men are women who are caring, compassionate, and like men enough to be with men, and are for these virtues horribly punished by the men with whom they have partnered.
The more such beliefs are challenged in society, the less there is intellectual support for domestic violence, the more people have a chance at a life that is not affected by the same.
The "pro-family" candidates keep claiming such things as that family is the foundation of the society and that the commitment between man and wife is the greatest commitment out there. In fact, the "pro-family" arguments do not relate to, and are not invoked in, the situations that actually feature love and commitment. Instead, they are only used to support those people who want others to stay in situations where there is no love or commitment and to destroy many other situations in which there are both.
First, there are many "traditional" marital situations in which love and commitment are absent. Many marriages are either coerced or manipulated - either through family, town, social set or religion pushing someone into a wrongful marriage, or through someone pulling a con job. How many men woo with roses and keep with fists, guns and whips (and in some cases sulfuric acid)? How many women get men by their gonads and then sue them for all their money when they get a chance? How many families, towns, religions, social groups, push young people into marital situations with people they do not love, and in many cases with people they do not know? The "pro-family" agenda wants the situations based on bullying, coercion and conmanship not only be lifelong, but for the people who do such things to continue control through generations. And since it is these situations - and not the loving, caring family situations - that people want to leave, it is in these situations that the "pro-family" arguments are invoked. Which means that the "pro-family" agenda is nothing but an accessory to deception, brutality and oppression and serves only those who practice such things. Which practices through this mechanism become the actual basis of the society.
Furthermore, there are many situations in which there is love and commitment that are not nuclear families. Having known a number of homosexual people of both genders, I've seen as much, if not more, love between them, than in most heterosexual pairings. And among heterosexuals, there are many loving situations that never get a chance to actualize in marriage. When man and woman love each other but the families do not want them together - when man and woman love each other but they are from different religious groups - when man and woman love each other but are from different sides of town - they are typically prevented from marrying one another regardless of how deep their love for one another is. The "pro-family" agenda does not help such people to come together in loving, committed marriages; instead it sides with the people who want to keep them apart. Which means once again that the "pro-family" agenda prosecutes actual love and commitment and empowers oppressors against both.
The actually loving, committed marriages never go to court and never reach public media, because neither party is looking to leave such a marriage. The marriages that do reach the courts are ones in which someone is doing something wrong. Which means that the "pro-family" agenda does not touch, positively or negatively, the good marital situations, but only becomes an issue in cases of deception, brutality, bullying, or other forms of wrongdoing. And that means only one thing: That the "pro-family" agenda serves those who commit these wrongs and nobody else. The husbands and wives who have love and commitment to one another are neither empowered nor hurt through "pro-family" policies, as such don't relate to them. It is only the men and women who treat their partners and their children wrongfully that benefit from institutions that make it hard for one partner to leave the other, or for the people from different religious groups and social sets to get married, or for young people to get away from their home town, or for people to practice other relationship arrangements than the nuclear family.
The "pro-family" agenda therefore does nothing for relationships that are loving and committed. It serves only those who are interested in committing wrongdoing, either against the spouse or against the kids. As such it is nothing like what it claims itself to be. It's not about strengthening loving, committed families, because such never find themselves in the court house. Instead, it is about empowering deception, corruption, brutality and other forms of wrongdoing; and its effect is to encourage these practices and make these practices the actual foundation of the society.
There have been many people who have made claims that Romanticism was some kind of pathology or some kind of aberration. In fact Romanticism is a natural successor of rationalism, and for a very simple reason:
The rational mind has contempt for nature and feeling until it studies these things enough to find in them a logic more intricate than any that it has itself been able to devise. At which point the contempt turns into appreciation and even awe. And the lack of such appreciation is a mark of inadequate cognition and inadequate reasoning.
This bears descriptive value; it also bears predictive value. Any kind of rationalism will be followed by some kind of romanticism. And the Western history, in both 19th and 20th centuries, has certainly bore this out.
The human being can be said to have a natural aspect - its physical and emotional aspect - that is congruent with other forms of life. It also has an intellectual, volitional aspect, that sets action according to knowledge and choice. Both are inextricable parts of humanity. And while the first is congruent with nature, the second is congruent with civilization. Which means that a full human nature is attained through allowing people the benefit of both their natural and their volitional intellectual aspects - and by extension of both nature and civilization.
In addition, much of what is known as human world is a work of art and business, the first being the fulfilment of people's creative potential and the second of their productive potential. Both of the above have been responsible for much of what is known as civilization, and when the two work together - as they did say in 1920s - the result has been a legacy of embodied splendor.
Both rationalism and romanticism are therefore valid descriptions of different aspects of human beingness, and it is with them working together that true human benefit can actually be attained.
Social movements have the habit of empowering the people who least deserve it and coming down hardest on the people who likewise deserve it the least. When Soviet Union fell, it was not the real wrongdoers - the corrupt bureaucrats, the KGB, the military hazers - that suffered the most, but the honest, dedicated, hard-working people such as teachers, doctors and scientists. So it comes as no surprise that the gender movements of the last two decades - both feminism and reaction against feminism - have likewise had similar results.
When political correctness swept America, I, as someone who'd lived in both Soviet Union and America, knew how thoroughly it was misconstrued. It maliciously attacked the very kind of men that are inclined to be sympathetic toward women - the men in liberal cities, liberal academia, feminism-influenced cultures - while doing nothing to change the conservative cultures that are not sympathetic toward women's empowerment and believe in violence and oppression toward women as a natural way of life. It went after love, after beauty, after romance, after sexuality, claiming these things ridiculously to be the reason for the oppression of women, while doing nothing to address the real reasons for oppression of women - belief that women are evil, belief that the man must be head of the family, belief that controlling the woman is masculinity, and belief that women are to blame for the world's suffering or are "whores" or are "sluts" or are "bitches" or are exploiters of men. They hyper-focused on minor issues while completely ignoring real issues. Meanwhile they did nothing whatsoever to address real wrongs facing women - the biggest of these wrongs having always been, and remaining, real brutality and real oppression in which a vast chunk of married women around the world and in the West live daily; a real wrong that they either ignored or for which they blamed its victims.
The feminism of 1990s resulted in many men losing their jobs, being robbed of their income, or put away in prison, for things as minor as telling a female co-worker that she was pretty, or for accusations that were proven untrue. These men were very rarely real, severe abusers. The real abusers, and especially the cultures that encourage real abuses - the Muslims, the ghetto, the Nascar Republicans, the Christian Right - were not touched by political correctness. They sneered at it, despised it, proclaimed it ungodly or sissie or foolish, and then, in the following decade, took over and went, not after excesses of political correctness, but after women's rights as such.
In the decade of Bush, Bin Laden, and Eminem, women came under a huge assault from all directions. And just as in case of 1990s feminism, it did not touch the real wrongdoers such as the world's Catherine McKinnons, many of whom remained in quite comfortable state in liberal cities or in the academia, but rather came down hardest on the shoulders of good women - women who liked men enough to be with men and were by the men they'd elected horribly punished for having made the error of liking them. Here are just some of the more publicized cases.
"Candice," a nurse in Kansas, lost her child to a man who'd broken her head so badly that she needed forty stitches. The brute who did this got full custody. "Leslie," an engineer in Indiana, not only lost her children to her severely violent ex-husband, but is now living out of a truck because her whole income has been garnished to pay child support to that man. "Jeanne", a resident of Richmond, Virginia, who has been exposing abuses in family courts after having left a severely brutal relationship, has had many attempts on her life and has a price on her head. In Australia, a man named Arthur Freeman threw his four-year-old daughter off Melbourne's West Gate Bridge to her death, even though the child's mother had repeatedly warned the court of his violence. On average, four women and nine children in America die daily as a result of domestic violence. In allied countries such as Australia, it is worse.
The name of decency - and secrecy of family courts - has been used as an accomplice to these and many other related wrongdoings. Both have been used to silence the truth and to allow real, severe crimes against women and children to go on unchecked. Meanwhile the name of family has likewise been used to maintain these real, severe abuses, and to severely persecute any woman or child who tries to get away from them or to expose the truth of what actually happens behind closed doors. So now, a fake disorder known as Parental Alienation Syndrome is used against women in case either woman or the child reports sexual abuse or real brutality, and the children are given fully into the custody of the rapist or the batterer.
Because of the abuses of the political correctness, there has been a strong constituency not only against political correctness, but against women's rights and against women period. Men's movement - also known as father's rights movement - led by such figures as Glenn Sacks in Canada, Ash Patil and Barry Williams in Australia, and the Fatherhood Foundation in the United States - has been spreading misogyny and deception, making such claims as that 90% of mothers are abusive; that all women are liars; and that patriarchial nuclear family is the only viable way to raise children, nevermind that the most successful man in the world - the President of United States - was raised by a single mother. In Australia, a group known as the Black Shirts has been picketing and assaulting women who've left severely violent husbands. There have been women collaborating with these men as well - mostly older women who are not subject to family violence but want the freedom for their sons to inflict it on their daughters-in-law. All of this, in the name of family.
The correct response to these people is that a man who cares about his family would not be beating his wife or raping his children, and that their use of the name of family to justify such behavior is abuse of the name of family. A man who genuinely is a good father will not need such movements on his side, and a man who does is not a good father. So calling such groups men's rights or fathers' rights is a misnomer. The correct name for the above is wife beaters' movement, in much the same way as correct name for 1990s political correctness is not women's empowerment but harpies' empowerment - both, at the expense of women and men who are neither of the preceding.
As the excesses and wrongs of 1990s feminism became obvious to more people, feminism lost much of its say in society. But that is not the right course to take either. Clearly there is a need to confront violence against and oppression of women, and there is very much a need now for a better construed feminism. A feminism that recognizes the woman's right to be feminine and to be with a man, while supporting women against men who would abuse them and their children, is the feminism that is sorely needed right now and for as long as there are men in the world who think that violence against women is their God-given right or their masculine entitlement. And it is time that both women and men of goodwill work together to create and to apply this real, positive feminism that actually has a possibility of improving life for the women of the world.
Feminism has taken different characters at different times in history, and some have been better than others. At this time I would like to draw a distinction between legitimate feminism and toxic feminism - popularly known as feminazism - and show the full extent as to how they differ from one another.
Legitimate feminism is a rightful, even a noble, cause, and one that I have supported since childhood. Women should have rights and powers at the same level with men; women should have a meaningful choice of lifestyles; women should be able to protect themselves and their children from family violence. Feminism directed toward these directions is legitimate. Toxic feminism however is an entirely different beast.
Toxic feminism is distinguished from legitimate feminism in its vicious character, its shrill rhetoric, its totalitarian tactics and its homicidal intent. All of the above make the popular term "feminazism" appropriate to this misdirection of feminism.
The participants in toxic feminism claim that they speak for all women without other women having given them the right to do so. In this they seek to appropriate for themselves unelected, totalitarian, powers, over all women in the world. They then use the false claim that they speak for all women to ruthlessly bludgeon other women into conformity with their party line, while doing everything that they can to ruin the women who do not take part in any aspect of it. Like any totalitarian, the feminazi aims to control the thought and behavior of all women. She then takes it in the direction of teaching women to be the worst thing that they possibly can be, while maliciously attacking anything in women that's beautiful, loving, warm or life-nurturing - every good quality, that is, with which women are more naturally endowed than are men.
The toxic feminists then appropriate the attention of men who are sympathetic toward women and use them as their lapdogs while treating them like trash. This attention is through this denied to women who actually merit it or stand to benefit from it; who, with men who have goodwill toward women being appropriated by toxic feminists, have nowhere to go except men who have no goodwill toward women - men who are openly patriarchial, violent, misogynistic or all of the preceding. The toxic feminists then blame these women for their suffering and teach men who are sympathetic toward women to avoid them, leaving them further at the mercy of their abusers. Meanwhile they do nothing for women at the receiving end of real violence and blame them for their suffering while treating them as an inferior form of life. The best women - ones possessive of kindness, warmth and beauty - become victims of the worst men to be found, as men who have goodwill toward women are taught to steer clear of them. Meanwhile other women come under intense pressure to destroy in themselves all the beautiful feminine qualities and to conduct themselves like the worst of men. The result is women being pressured to be the worst thing that they can be, and every woman who wouldn't be the worst thing that she can be becoming victims of abuse - either by toxic feminists or by violent, overtly patriarchial, males. The result, logically, is a vast degradation in the quality of womanhood; and the American women as a result of this have a reputation as being absolutely the worst women in the world.
As if this was not bad enough, toxic feminists also seek to perpetrate holocausts; and it isn this that the term "feminazi" becomes especially appropriate. Particularly, they seek to exterminate whole sections of the population; and it is here that they are most glaringly in violation of constitutional intent. People in America are meant to be protected from those who would commit holocausts and witch hunts. If one group is allowed to exterminate another group, then other groups would do the same to still more people. If toxic feminists are allowed to go on with a holocaust against "perverts" or "sociopaths," then that gives green light for other groups to do the same to others. The likely victims of that, given today's political climate, are the people who have been allied with feminism: homosexuals, single mothers, minority religions, the politically liberal, and - you guessed it - feminists and feminism-influenced women. They commit a holocaust and by doing so leave the door open to others who would do the same, including to them.
Toxic feminism is likewise distinguished by its war against love and beauty. And at this point I will say something that has not been said before, but should be. The toxic feminism, in militating against beauty and love, it attacks what made feminism possible in the first place. Feminism was strongly supported by Romanticism. It was Romantic poets such as Blake, Byron and Keats that did the most to fight the aggressive misogyny of Christian-influenced Western societies and to influence men to see in women their beauty and goodness and to love them and treat them in a noble way. And as toxic feminism directs all its energies toward destroying the same beauty in women and that in the man which loves that beauty, it is destroying its roots and making to rot the entire plant.
It is for this reason that intelligent, successful women from all around the world have been saying for over a decade that feminism has gone too far. It has gone to the point of militating against everything beautiful in women - to the point that it itself has become, in a very real sense, profoundly misogynistic. It is valid to give women meaningful choice over their lives; it is not valid to force women to follow the party line of toxic feminism to extinction of everything good in themselves. And it is in this matter that the distinction between legitimate feminism and toxic feminism becomes the most clear.
Legitimate feminism does not tell women to suppress their beauty, their kindness, their warmth or their tenderness. Legitimate feminism allows women to be their best while fighting for better treatment and more rights for the woman. Legitimate feminism embraces the feminine and gives the woman the opportunity to pursue her goals and her freedom while protecting her from ill treatment. Legitimate feminism recognizes and celebrates the woman
As a result of the venal conduct of toxic feminists, there is now a large and vocal constituency against all forms of feminism - including the better ones - and against women, proper. For this of course the toxic feminists bear the full blame. They claim to be the voice of feminism - indeed they claim to be the voice of women; so what would be more likely for any number of people to conclude than that they are in fact the voice of women, and that all women will conduct themselves like the toxic feminists if they are allowed freedom over their lives. This stance of course resonates with a number of statements made in the Bible and the Koran, and the misconduct of toxic feminists is used to claim that these misogynistic statements were right all along, as were the people who used them to impose upon women brutality and oppression. The back flux from this does not hit the toxic feminists. It hits innocent women all around the world.
Toxic feminists have destroyed a good cause, poisoned the social climate, abused everything good in women, and made women look like utter monsters to the rest of the world, resulting in escalating abuses against women. Their behavior was worse than self-defeating; it was a horrible violence done to women around the world. The world will continue to exist, there will continue to be women, and there will remain people who seek to make things better for women. As someone in the last category, I think that I speak for most people in it when I say that women deserve better feminism than this poisonous misdirection and a wiser, more principled, forms of feminism to fight for their well-being and their rights.
Misogyny of Toxic Feminism
The practicioners of toxic feminism claim that everything that is not toxic feminism is misogynistic. In fact it is toxic feminism that is the most misogynistic of all recent trends. They attack every good quality in which women are more naturally endowed than men: Qualities such as warmth, tenderness, kindness, physical beauty, and ability to produce and to nurture life. And in this they do severe violence to women - violence that is unmatched except in severely misogynistic cultures such as Africa and the Middle East.
This violence is exacerbated by the toxic feminists' ridiculous claim that they speak for all women. The reality is, they do not. Other women have not voted for the toxic feminists to speak for them; and what we are seeing here is a vast usurpation of power by the worst of women and its unauthorized use against their betters.
So, some would say, how can you be in favor of women if you hold such convictions? My response is that different places have different problems that require different solutions. In Afghanistan the problem is the Taliban. In American liberal culture the problem is toxic feminism. In both cases, the abuse is done against the best in womanhood. And in both cases a vast wrong is done. Which means that someone who actually loves women would stand strong against both of these misdirections.
Political correctness has also introduced two false dichotomies that have been ruinous to womanhood in America and elsewhere that political correctness has been applied. One is the dichotomy between physical beauty and intelligence. The other is the dichotomy between physical beauty and being a good human being (or, as some say, inner beauty).
I will say this right off the bat. Every female in my family, from my grandmother to my daughter, is both smart and beautiful. Many Russian, Jewish, and European women are. For that matter many women in Australia and America are as well. And in claiming the two to be incompatible with one another, the politically correct have created a dichotomy that is blatantly false. To maintain which false worldview the politically correct have needed to exterminate or destroy the women who are both smart and beautiful, as these women being what they are is a refutation of the fallacious worldview that the politically correct have been shoving down people's throats. And this resulted in great damage, vast needless suffering, and a huge waste of potential. One can be smart and beautiful at the same time. And it is rank foolishness to claim this not to be the case, just as it is utter monstrosity to apply this foolishness at the societal level.
The other false dichotomy - between physical beauty and inner beauty - has been just as ruinous. There are many women who are both physically beautiful and possessive of a good heart, and anyone who has known women from Brazil, Ukraine, Iran, Lebanon or Australia will know what I am talking about. The false claim of the two being incompatible has been nothing but an excuse for women possessing of neither physical beauty nor good personal qualities to abuse and, wherever they can, destroy the women possessing of either or both. This foolishness has likewise had monstrous effects on the societies in which it has been applied.
And to the Americans who still are not sure that one can be beautiful, intelligent and a good person at the same time, I have two words to say: Gabby Giffords.
If the point is to get people to see that women who are unattractive can be intelligent or good people, then it is a valid point. What is in no way valid is claiming that only women who are unattractive can be intelligent or good people. The false dichotomies of political correctness have had a ruinous effect on the countries in which they have been applied. And it is time that people see this and act to correct these damnable errors and their toxic effect on society.
Absolute Beauty and Relative Beauty
One of the errant directions of toxic feminism has been its war against beauty. The claim continues to be made that beauty is only culturally relative or only "in the eye of the beholder." This stance has been shown by solid science to be wrong.
In fact, science has come up with findings both for absolute beauty and relative beauty.
A face with certain proportions has been shown to transcend cultural relativism and be seen as beautiful by people all around the world.
At the same time, in a study that showed 500 faces to 20,000 people, each face got picked as the most beautiful at least once.
This means that there is such a thing as absolute beauty: Beauty that cuts across tastes and cultures and appeals to all human beings. For this absolute beauty there is a mathematical formula. This shows that Romantic, Renaissance and Classical case for truth being found in beauty is a valid one. We see absolute beauty which is a function of mathematics, and which all "beholders" recognize as such. The existence of absolute beauty therefore validates the case that in beauty there is truth, as much as it demonstrates that not all forms of beauty are culturally determined.
The matter however does not end there. Besides absolute beauty, there is also relative beauty that is dependent on culture and taste. This means the following: That there is someone for everyone; and that people who are not seen as beautiful in their home place and time do not have to be relegated to a lonely or a degrading existence.
Indeed, the findings for absolute beauty and relative beauty validate the rightful claims of the sides in the debate while invalidating the wrong ones. The existence of absolute beauty means that the Romantic search for truth in beauty is valid, and that there is such a thing as beauty that transcends cultural relativism. The existence of relative beauty means that there is someone for everyone.
On the obverse: The existence of absolute beauty invalidates the abuse, by women of politically correct persuasion, against beautiful women and men who love beautiful women; and the existence of relative beauty invalidates the abuse by nasty high school cultures and families of young people who are not seen as beautiful in their hometown.
To combine: There is absolute beauty that transcends culture and society, which absolute beauty is expressed in the language of the universe that is mathematics; and there is relative, taste-dependent, beauty.
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty" is correct for absolute beauty, and beauty-related pursuits such as art and poetry can arrive at universal truth - truth which is now found to be expressible through mathematics.
And, from the other side: There is someone for everyone.
There are many people who look for the middle; but the middle can be found in any number of places. The middle between private sector and public sector can be found in both preventing the other from doing its job; or it can be found in both being able to do their work and then to work with one another. In both cases we are seeing the middle road; only one road is much better than the other.
Likewise we see, for example, in the matter of science and spirituality. Middle can be found by using spirituality to outlaw science and science to proclaim spirituality insane; or it can be found by putting in place constructive scientific solutions to the world's problems while also allowing people the right to spiritual experience. Once again, both roads are middle roads, only one is much better than the other.
The exercise therefore is not to find the middle path, but rather to find the positive middle path. It is to see what each party is right about and put these things together, while doing away with the matters on which each party is wrong. The result is not compromise but rather positive synthesis, resulting in maximal benefit from both sides and minimal wrongdoing by each.
This logic can be applied to an array of matters. In matter of environment and technology, the positive middle path consists of allowing maximal technological progress while protecting what man has not created and cannot recreate. It consists of preserving nature and pursuing technological and economic development, allowing people to benefit from both technology and nature. In matter of private sector and public sector, the positive middle path consists of allowing business to do its work of creating prosperity while allowing the public sector to do its work of providing education, security, scientific research, law enforcement, and projects such as the Interstate and the Internet that facilitate prosperity. In matter of people's physical and volitional natures, the positive middle path consists of allowing people the maximal fruition of both and their collaboration. In matters of thinking and feeling, the positive middle path consists of allowing people development and enjoyment of both - and the two working together to achieve insight and wisdom faster than either would on its own. And in matters of gender relations, it consists of making the most of both physical relations and equality in social, economic and political fields. In all cases the approach is not just the middle road, but the better middle road that allows the best of each side and the best of their collaboration.
This is the case for all natural, non-valued, dualities - dualities such as environment and technology, private sector and public sector, male and female, thinking and feeling, and further on down the line. The approach is to enhance the benefits of each side and of their positive collaboration - to allow the supply of both and to meet the demand for both thereby. In case of valued dualities, such as good and evil, this approach does not hold, and optimization is the matter of maximizing the good side of the duality. And never are non-valued dualities (such as male and female) and valued dualities (such as good and evil) to be mistaken for one another.
Seeking the positive middle path - one that takes what each side is right about and combines it - is a superior path than simple compromise, which can go in any direction, from the best to the worst. And in matters of collaboration as well as negotiation, it is this positive middle path that ought to be sought and not anything below. Pursuing, not just middle ground, but the optimization of both sides and their interaction, is a path that allows maximal benefit and should be looked for as much as is possible.
A Tale of Two Worlds
There are two worlds that exist side by side. In one of these worlds (mainly Third World but also some parts of Western countries), men are brutal, oppressive and severely abusive; women are warm and loving; and the men are brutally dominating the women. In another of these worlds (mainly the Western feminist-influenced cultures), men are gentelmantly, loving and generous; women are shrill, abusive and nasty; and the women are abusively dominating the men.
On the feminist side of town, anything is seen as abuse, and men lose their jobs for something as little as telling a co-worker that she is pretty. On the patriarchial side of town, men not only get away with severe abuses against women but think that their country, their religion, their tradition or their gender demands the same. In both cases what we see is a vast injustice. And there is a way to fix both injustices at once without even involving the military or the government.
What am I talking about? Well let's look at recent history. In not-so-distant past, America had the world's best businesspeople and hateful, overly demanding workers; China had the world's best workers and a grossly incompetent management. When American business got together with Chinese workers, the results were spectacular. Over a billion people rose out of abject poverty in three decades. Consumers got better and cheaper products. And business experienced a vast growth, to the point that the stock market capitalization rose ten times.
What I advocate therefore is a similar reality-based solution, and that is: Create a large-scale international flux for intermarriage. Allow the better men in the mix (ones in liberal Western cultures) and the better women in the mix (ones in Third World-type patriarchial situations) to come together for relationships. This will carry a number of benefits, including:
- Better relationships for both parties than they could expect to have with the other gender at home;
- A real-world reward for better treatment of one's partner;
- And a real-world incentive placed upon the offending parties in each culture to conduct themselves in a better way.
America's toxic feminists won't knock it off with their nasty behavior unless they have to. The same is the case with the genuinely abusive men in cultures that are overtly patriarchial. There is only one way in which they would knock it off with that kind of behavior, and that is if they know that the people who are likely to be their victims are not limited in their choices to them and can go elsewhere to be with partners who would treat them better.
The more Western liberal-minded men go with women from cultures such as Middle East, Latin America and Eastern Europe, the better will be the lot both of the men and of the women who stand to be involved in the mix. The more the willingness to be good to other gender will be rewarded rather than taken advantage of, as is the goodwill of Western liberal men by the practicioners of toxic feminism and as is the goodwill of women in overtly patriarchial cultures by the men in those cultures. The more there will be a sense of perspective given to the people in the cultures involved; and the more there will be a reason for men in patriarchial cultures to be better to women and for women in feminist cultures to be better to men.
The best aspect of real-world mechanisms for solving injustices is that they can be made to take place with minimum of resource expenditure. People will naturally gravitate to those who would treat them better, in the same way as in global economy business naturally gravitates to those who are willing to work. A global intercultural flux for intermarriage will reward men who are willing to be good to women and women who are willing to be good to men. And that will create better relationships and, over the long run, better qualities in both genders.
And that will go a long way toward solving the world's problems as it relates to this issue.