Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Philalethes #4 - What Do Women Want? It's What We've Got! We Just Aim to Please, Ma'am!

Quote: "Apparently you missed part II. Perhaps you'll feel differently after you read it."

Would have read it had I known; it should be linked on the first page. What’s perhaps most interesting about both articles is how little they differ from what we see from regular “feminists.” The flavour is exactly the same. Feminism is really nothing new, just the latest version of an immemorial attitude. What’s new is how completely it’s taken over.

Thoughts on the second article:

I don’t think you’re a lesbian–a ridiculous charge. I don’t think you hate men, but you don’t seem to understand them either. You have the female’s instinctive understanding of how to control men with praise and/or shame, but you don’t understand that the problem here is not that men disagree with you, it’s that other women disagree with you, and the men they control naturally do what they want. You may excoriate these men, but if they did what you want the women who own them would excoriate them more. We just aim to please, ma’am. Most men are idiots, indeed. But where did they come from? You may not be a feminist like Barbara Boxer (sheesh!), but you do share a basic attitude with her; you have more in common with her than I have with either of you. (“…pull over to the side of the road and change the air in her head." That’s great; I’ll have to remember it.)

Like you say, all the Supreme Court justices in 1973 were men. That’s exactly the point; they were doing what most American women wanted, what most of them still want. Personally, I’d love to see American men rebel and stop doing what women want–and instead give them what they need. But I don’t think it will happen anytime soon–not until women want what they need, rather than only what they desire.

In William Wallace’s day the women of his community had a different idea of what they wanted from their men, and so their men were different. Oh, and William Wallace lost, by the way; as I understand it, he was betrayed by fellow Scotsmen, whose wives probably didn’t make a big fuss about not having to sacrifice their comfortable lifestyles to resist the English. Even if they’d stood with him, they all probably would have lost anyway; the women of England had more husbands and sons to send into battle, and they wanted to add Scotland to the jewels on the British crown–now worn by the Queen.

Some of the comments on this forum may be laughable, but some are quite thoughtful; if you really want to know why men aren’t answering your clarion call, a lot could be deduced from what is here, both directly and indirectly. And your second article doesn’t answer any of the points raised–including mine. If you find my analysis outlandish (I know many do), then at least consider this one objective, verifiable fact: Since 1920, by their own insistence, American women have been taking part directly in the political process. Females are an absolute majority (something like 55%?) in the population, and an absolute majority of voters are women, both registered and actively voting. Therefore, even discounting any other possible influence women may have on politics (“I govern the Athenians, my wife governs me." – Themistocles, 528-462 BCE), what we have is what women want. Who am I to argue? I’ve just lost my longest, closest female friendship because I was careless enough to criticize “affirmative action.” I’ve been clawed enough.
Previous Philalethes Index Next
“Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs.” – Immanuel Kant [Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View; Southern Illinois University Press 1978, originally published in 1798]