Feminism And Democracy: Too Naïve

I am against feminism for all women all-across-the-board for the same reason that I am against democracy for all men all-across-the-board.  Feminism is too important to be left to the poor dirty huddled masses.

Both ideologies have the same fatal flaw, in that they are both incredibly naive.  They are both far too optimistic.  They both assume that the vast majority of their target audience are rational, logical beings.  They both assume that most people have fairly reasonable intelligence.  They both assume that people will think before they act.

Both theories assume that people will make well-informed decisions, both in their own personal lives as well as when making decisions on any issues that affect voting districts.  Both theories assume that people are smart enough to be safe, healthy, happy, and have good life management skills -- and that people do not engage in self-destructive behavior.

The theories assume that people will do all the necessary research before backing any political ideology.  Not to mention, they assume that voters will carefully review all policy-making history of a political office candidate before voting for any such political office candidate.  They assume that people will not vote for a candidate based on emotions and skin color, no matter how politically correct it is and how victorious it "feels."

The theories assume that people will not do impulsive, possibly dangerous things in the heat of passion.  They assume that people will not be ruled by their emotions.  They assume that women will not be ruled by hormonal or hysterical personality tendencies.  They assume that men will not be ruled by violent or angry character leanings.  They assume that people will not get drunk and attempt to shoot an ex-relationship partner in a fit of jealous rage.  They assume that people will not allow their own personal, private experiences to color their voting patterns when deciding on public policy regulations for an entire voting district.

There are problems when the general mass populace gets wind of a sweeping new social change.  The general population includes people of less-than-average-intelligence, i.e., the lower-IQ people whose thought processes do not always follow rational sequences of progression.  The truth is that people cannot always be trusted to arrive at logical conclusions similar to those that are more burdened with intelligence.

It pains me to say this because I have considered myself a lifelong old-school feminist.  But this is the unflinching truth.  Feminism, unfortunately, is far too lofty as well as burdensome a goal to be freely distributed to the entire population at large.

If feminism is unrealistic because it assumes that the entirety of the female population is capable of making good choices, then democracy is twice as bad.  Democracy is twice as bad because it assumes that the whole ENTIRE population is capable of making rational, good choices -- women AND men.

Both theories assume that the people are capable of interpreting public policy in a rational manner.

I have never believed that people are truly equal.  I only hailed the word "equality" in the royal sense.  As in, we are all equally human beings on this blue-and-green marble we call home.  Treat everyone with kindness, dignity, and respect.  Just because someone might work as a garbage collector or some other manual laborer is no excuse to treat them like garbage.  They are human beings who deserve respect.  They still deserve to be acknowledged as autonomous beings who have inherent god-given human rights.  That is what is meant if someone such as myself states that people are equal.

But as far as believing any lofty myths that all people are across-the-board equal in intelligence, talents, capabilities, skills, personalities -- absolutely not.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  People are nowhere near "equal" in the practical commodities sense that has applications in providing for oneself and in taking care of oneself.

Here are the following reasons for this.  Their interpretation of abstract concepts is rather skewed.

1)  For example, they hear the phrase "self-esteem" or hear advice to "have self-confidence."

What the proponents of this were probably hoping for is that females will have confidence.  Therefore, they would feel good about themselves, and would feel happy.  Therefore they would not feel a need to engage in self-destructive behavior such as promiscuity, drugs, alcoholism.  And also they would not let themselves be trapped in dangerous situations such as an abusive relationship, etc.  And they would instead make good choices such as staying in school, not getting an unwanted pregnancy, learn to support themselves.

Count that.  That is a lot of beats required to arrive at healthy right choices.  Unfortunately, the average foresight capacity (i.e., intelligence) of the female population at large is not so far-reaching.  As the Department of Health and Human Services has witnessed over the last thirty years, the above is hardly how the "self-esteem" social experiment played out.  The same is true of the male population.

2)  They hear feminism and they think, "Any bone-headed decision any woman makes is okay."

Let Us Discuss This Joke Of Academia and Odd Grown-Up Complaints

We see this with best-selling books that are written by suburban middle-class white kids who evidently think of themselves as being soooo original and trailblazing and breathtaking because they rebelled against their parents.  They made the giant leap of bravery by rebelling against a solid support net, the suburban cul-de-sac white-picket-fence upbringing which their parents gave them, and which will always be there for them to catch them when they fall.  Examples:  Dan Brown, a lot of hollywood TV and movie writers, the best-selling authors as mentioned earlier.

To be totally fair, it's not solely the colleges.  Magazine editorials and internet editorials everywhere say similar things.

They claim that a really shtrrui retelling of a Shakespearean play that just butchers it -- is just as valid as the original masterpiece.  There was an episode of "Head Of The Class" where some "modern art" person completely skewered Hamlet up one orifice and out the other.

This is the same liberal bs that any modern crap is as legitimate and as good an another.

And the tearing down of historical figures.  Gw, mlk, all the founding fathers.

I came from
But I am not going to kid myself by "rebelling" against it.  I see and I know the wonderful opportunities my suburban middle-class upbringing has given me.  The advantages of an excellent school system, good communication abilities, a thorough understanding and appreciation for science.  I am talking about genuine science, not the weak PC fluff being circulated through the media that masquerades as science.

The college says to the student:  Be liberal, be more open minded.  -- It's okay everything that black people do; it is okay; it is excusable.  Try to be understanding and open-minded to what black people do; it is not their fault they are__

No one should blame black people for their lot in life.  It is all due to racism; it is all do other non-black people forcing oppression on blacks.  The college hammers this into the students' psyche.

this could lead into the dan bronw and his demolishing of religion, faith.  -- but do they offer anything in its place?  Not too terribly, no.
Dan Brown, who was probably educated in a "liberal, open-minded atmosphere that is welcoming to all types of thinking."

The college, in attempts of tryin to open the stu's mind says,,,,, question everything your parents taught you.  Any authority.  **Just don't question us.
Question any rules your parents gave you, including whom to date or when to date or how often to date.

Question how to express yourself.  Questions standards of vulgarity question standards of decency and decorum and good taste.  Question any self-respect or dignity your parents might have instilled in you.

Question any standards of drug addiction.  Hey, it's not drug addiction.  It's not a bad thing.  It is freeing your mind, it is freeing your inhibitions.

In this vein they ultimately get the student to question the validity of their whole culture and identity.
- their family identity, their family heritage.

The student gets to thinking that any deriving of cultural pride through their cultural identity or heritage is "evil."  The student is taught that having knowledge of their culture and indeed deriving any happiness from it is ""racist.""

This is that___ even though humans should learn more about their heritage, their origins, their family history.  People are naturally curious about their own race and culture.  Haven't you over-heard the phrase, "You can't know where you are going until you know where you are coming from?"

The liberal academia setting fumigated and is infuriated with the idea that people love their own culture and people naturally want to associate with people of their own ethnicity.