As the new hype of triggers and trigger warning comes about, it is absolutely fascinating to see how it personifies the schizophrenic nature of feminism and similar movements. Because if you look at feminism closely, you'll notice how on hand it claims that women are at least equal to men in every single aspect of life, while on the other hand they need a myriad of special protection programs and support groups in order to function on the same level as men do. And even then, their narrative presents misogyny as to be so prevalent that they still fail to reach the same social rank. One can only wonder how the inferior male sex managed to get such an unbreakable grip on society confronted with the strong empowered females (who nevertheless need trigger warnings lest they shatter like glass on the smallest of provocations).
The source of the problem is quite simple - feminists basically want to be men, and they want to beat men at their own game. Since that is biologically impossible in a fair fight, they need to utilize external help such as support groups and the like, just to lose the battle in the end anyway. Instead of aiming for more social recognition for jobs and activities females naturally strive towards (such as nursing, child care, etc.), they aim to prove themselves equal at the jobs that are usually a part of male domain (army, engineering, etc.). Now, there's nothing really wrong with a female engineer or a nursing male, but it is silly to ignore the fact that these people are exceptions rather than rules. Biology made us favor certain roles, and by pushing for male roles, feminists actually diminish the value of females in society in two ways. First they diminish the value of female roles themselves, as they explicitly consider them to be unworthy of participating in. Secondly, they force females into roles for which they are usually unfit and for which they show little personal interest. Many women would be perfectly happy as housewives, but the social pressure generated by feminists pushes them towards feminist ideal, which is a single childless female yuppie. Anyone who knows anything about anthropology clearly sees that it is basically a male social and biological role (not childless per se, but childless for all practical purposes). Little wonder then that female life satisfaction has been constantly dropping since the sixties, ever since the hippies won and pushed their ideology as the default social norm. Also not surprising is that the most unhappy females are just the feminist ideal - 42yo unmarried single professionals http://jezebel.com/5838505/the-unhappiest-person-ever-is-a-female-lawyer.
Still with me? Good. Because triggering is about to intensify.
The thing with triggers is that they are perfectly opposite of what feminists would want us to believe females are, yet they consider them to be a necessity nevertheless. Men who need anything like trigger warnings are practically non-existent, and the few that perhaps do need them likely suffer from severe hormonal imbalance. Strong females, on the other side, who are supposedly better than males in every single aspect of life, are purported by feminists to be in great need of such safety measures or their fragile yet empowered souls will implode. While I personally do not believe that any sane adult female needs a trigger warning about anything, feminists seem to consider females to be weaker creatures than a misogynist like me does.
So who needs a trigger warning? Trigger warnings are basically needed by people who are incapable of grasping the real world around them. People who want to live in their own personal bubble of false happiness and remain oblivious to things that they don't find personally pleasing. Now, I personally don't mind such people existing (although I don't consider them to be much of a benefit to society), but those people present a serious problem when it comes to decision making.
A good decision maker needs to be capable of grasping the entire situation and acting accordingly. A person who needs a trigger warning basically refuses to gain complete knowledge of the situation, and is therefore by default a bad decision maker. In other words, people who need trigger warnings need to be placed in positions where they can't make any important decisions whatsoever. Meaning they can be housewives and nurses, but they most certainly can't be managers or presidents. Also, if we choose democracy as our political system, it is critically important to forbid those people to vote.
And therein lies the paradox of feminism and similar equality movements. They treat women and other designated victim groups like both superheroes and imbeciles at the same time. If a group of people needs trigger warnings to normally function, it means that the people from that group are utterly incapable of taking care of themselves and should be restricted in their actions by those who do not. Therefore, if females as a group really do need trigger warnings, their activities should be limited only to those that exist in the most patriarchal of societies. Otherwise, if they really are as capable as feminists claim, they don't really need support groups or trigger warnings or any similar safety system to climb to the top.
Real truth is not in the middle, because both of those theories are incorrect. Women generally have different interests than men do, which are in accordance with their biological roles. Therefore they do have trouble penetrating certain occupations but it's usually occupations they don't care much about anyway. And while the reason for that trouble really is, exceptions aside, their inadequacy for those occupations, same can be said about men and female social roles. So what feminism ultimately does is it turns women into bad copies of men, who are then further infantilized by all the special support they need to keep up. And even then, most of them fail, while those that somehow do not turn out to be the most unhappy creatures on the planet.
Even worse, it actually presents women as pretty much worthless creatures, because they fail at activities that are purported by feminists to be worthy (those to which men have genetic inclination), even though they excel at jobs that are purported to be unworthy (those to which women have genetic inclination). Therefore the biggest threat to women are not male chauvinists, the biggest threat to women are feminists themselves, because their activities are the ones whose results seem to prove male chauvinists right. Male chauvinists are only a threat to the ideal female of a feminist mind, which is in all reality something that most women don't want to be anyway, regardless of the stories they've been bombarded by for the last 50 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment