"Philalethes #10 - Male vs. Female Thinking"

"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." - Fred Reed

I have found most women cannot see more than two seconds into the future.

This is from the No'Mam blogspot.

Unfortunately, in this age of “public education,” very few of us are taught to think clearly anymore. One effect of this lack is careless use of poorly-understood language in emotionally-loaded contexts. For instance, the word “censorship,” used in the heading of this thread. It’s important to understand that this word can have two related but different meanings: in a general sense, it denotes the suppression of expression of views, while in a more specific sense it means such suppression when done by the State, with its “monopoly of force.” In these times when the State’s power is increasingly felt in all areas of our lives — thanks in great part to the growing power of feminism (see below) — many seem not to know or understand the difference between these two kinds of “censorship.” This is a case of the first type of censorship (and a classic example of how women wield power, covertly and by proxy), but not the second; the proprietor of [that forum] indeed does “have a right” (so far) to run his site however he wishes. Nor has anyone in this thread said he does not.

On the other hand, anyone else also “has a right” to criticize how he runs his site; he does, after all, present his efforts to public view. And I haven’t seen anything here that I’d call “bashing.” An honest, frank exchange of views between men is not “bashing.” Though women, who live in a world primarily of feelings, and often are so insecure in their thinking that frank disagreement (indeed any difference at all) is experienced as personal threat, might see it as such.

Which again is the problem. There’s nothing wrong with women thinking (or “thinking”) like women, but when men start thinking like women, things are out of balance. Feminist dogma notwithstanding, the problem is not that men aren’t more like women, it’s that “men” aren’t more like men. Though it seems quaint (and very politically incorrect) to current sensibilities, Rudyard Kipling’s poem “If” has a lot of truth to it:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise...
… you'll be a Man my son!

One of the hallmarks of female (and childish) “thinking” is the instinctive belief that one “deserves” to have what one wants. It’s instinctive, biologically based — since the universal pattern is the male required to please the female (i.e. give her whatever she wants) in order to get “access.” But in humans this assumption has gone far beyond its evolutionary function — and is the reason behind both “chivalry” and the huge success of feminism.

And thus arises the complaint of “injustice” (or “it’s not fair”) when she doesn’t get what she wants. That’s how women naturally “think.” I don’t think that there’s “something unjust about the fact that a liberal news site doesn’t exist [similar to the forum].” Of course it’s not [the site owner's] responsibility to cater to my views, and I’m not a “liberal” anyway. But what’s interesting is the use of the word “unjust.” What does “justice” have to do with it? Nothing, except in the female mind — or a male mind that, like so many in our modern world, has never developed beyond the female/child mode of thinking.

Finally, as for “dividing” the men’s movement: I’m not part of any “movement,” actually. I’m a man (or hope to be one someday), and a truth seeker. And truth speaker, now and then. I don’t know that I really have “common goals” with anyone who wants (or acts on the unexamined impulse) to suppress the free exchange of ideas in the interest of some “higher good.” In my view, there is no higher good than the free exchange of ideas, and the freedom it requires.

All I really share with [the forum] is a critical attitude toward left-wing feminism; beyond that, the ideal world [the forum] appears to long for — an imperial American hegemony over the world, a totalitarian “conservative” (as opposed to “liberal”) dictatorship at home — is no more attractive to me than that envisioned by the most rabid left-feminist. The two of them are totally agreed on the level of principle; their only argument is who is going to dictate my life to me. That [the forum] should be thought representative of “men’s” views I find appalling. As I said above, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to learn that it’s a complete hoax, fabricated by a feminist “disinformation” program.

“Movements,” like harems, herds, and other collectives, are for females. It’s been remarked that men’s first priority is freedom, while women’s is security. Thus women are natural herd animals, for security is most easily and immediately found in numbers. And thus the inclusion of women in political life must inevitably lead to totalitarian collectivism, as it has everywhere it’s been tried — at this point, essentially the entire planet, which is fast turning into one vast nursery, where “everything that is not prohibited is compulsory.” Women instinctively seek the security of such an environment; when women rule, this is where everyone must live.

“Do you want to be free, or do you want to be taken care of?” Answer this question honestly, and you’ll know where you stand on the male–female spectrum, regardless of what form your personal plumbing may have.

“Behind the feminist and other popular movements are some very ugly scheming people who want to destroy the institutions of civilization so they can rule over the wreckage.” - Graham Strachan