Sunday, August 09, 2009
Harriet Harman ... 'Harperson' ... 'Hateperson'. I'm on BBC1 today discussing 'Has feminism had its day?' on 'The Big Questions'
For example: she cites sex-difference to argue a 'representative' 50/50 'gender' balance of MPs and ministers, yet she also asserts that the sexes are identical when it comes to motivation to get into top jobs such as MPs and ministers and that therefore it must be sex-discrimination that explains why women don't already constitute 50% of MPs and ministers. Stupidity incarnate, but where were the journalists to point out this great elephant in the room?
Her fallacy is still worse than it seems. Women indeed are very different to men -- this side of the argument Harriet's got right; though she's light years away from understanding what is the difference -- not least in that men are fiercely motivated to compete with each other for status, whereas women aren't. This is why there are always lots more men at the top. So what of the women who aspire to ape them? Well, they can hardly be typical women. So how can they represent the great majority of women, then? They can't. The least representative woman in Britain after Julie Bindle, Beatrix Campbell and Fiona MacTaggert -- other than Rose West -- is Harriet 'Hateperson' [as Rod Liddle dubs her] herself. Female leaders are like men without their good side: the worst of both feminine and masculine worlds. Margaret Thatcher?
To cap it all, Harman is wilfully blind to the statistics showing that most measures of disadvantage reveal not women/girls but men/boys as being in need of interventions.
You too could as imbecilic, if you were as ideologically driven to hate as is Harriet.
Harman's feminism is a political extension of how we naturally 'big up' females and 'do down' males. So it's a further social injustice on top of natural prejudices. This will soon be recognised for what it is, and feminism will be consigned to the historical dustbin (no less than were other ideas we now consider appalling), along with the rest of PC, of which it is core. [I've written in my book, The Woman Racket, about the origins of PC as a reaction against 'the workers' as displacement from junking the neo-Marxist creed as a hopeless fit with human nature.]
The reality is that women are always preferenced in any society, because of the key biological fact that the female is always the 'limiting factor' in reproduction (as we can see all too clearly in humans); and all social systems at root by evolved 'design' are to make reproduction more efficient. So it is that males are psychologically motivated to compete against each other for rank in the hierarchy; high rank being the 'power' without which most males are in various ways socially sanctioned to stop them from having much access to sex and reproducing -- if any at all in many cases.
The 'policing' mechanisms that are key parts of the social psychology of all men and women ensure this. Hence our natural prejudices against men and in favour of women.
As a consequence, in any historical period you care to look, society is always structured to preference women given the conditions and constraints that pertain. As soon as any of those conditions/restraints change to make the social set-up anachronistic, then there is a transition to a new social set-up to restore full preferencing of women.
The anachronisms that emerged in the past and the transitions that followed are mistaken by feminists as evidence of the 'oppression' of women. This faulty reasoning applies to any of the feminist-championed supposed injustices of the past, not least the vote. [See my two historical chapters in the centre of The Woman Racket.]
[A deeper biological understanding of the essence of sex difference is that the male is the sex that specialises as the vehicle to effectively quarantine the inevitable build-up of gene-copying errors to keep them away from the female so she can get on with reproduction. This is termed the 'genetic filter' function of the male. Under the load of accumulated gene-copying errors, many males either die, don't reproduce, or reproduce only minimally, and in these ways in effect take gene-copying errors with them and out of the gene pool. The best way for males to be tested re their genetic loads is to get them to compete against each other -- hence the male dominance hierarchy (females instead have a 'personal network' so as to exchange information on males -- gossip, in other words!).]
Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and emoticons. Get Them Now