The World as Will and Misrepresentation » Of Boots, Other Feet And Tactics

Of Boots, Other Feet And Tactics

In 1844 Arthur Schopenhauer condemned the ridiculousness of what he called the “Christian-German veneration of women”. Now, this was in the era supposed by everyone since to be one of the most patriarchal in history. We may therefore be tempted to say that here was a matter of the oppressor pretending to be a victim.

That same argument is frequently heard today, for example in the comments section of certain female blogs, whenever some man suggests that it is now men who are the underdogs in the war of the sexes. Funnily enough, whenever this happens the man tends to be told that he is the real oppressor, tactically masquerading as a victim here, but simultaneously that whatever unpleasant thing has been done to him represents the righting of a historical wrong. This amounts to a doctrine that it is now his turn to be the victim. No one ever points out the contradiction here. Another thing that is never done is to suggest that the tactical masquerading of oppressor as victim is something that women themselves might be doing.

It is time to cease and desist from accepting academic feminism’s own narrative of itself as an analysis of the collective power struggle between men and women. It is time to begin viewing it as an armoury of tactical devices in the service of individual women, as a set of often dishonest arguments calculated to promote the interests of these individual women at the expense of other human beings; in other words, as a stalking-horse for entirely individual interests. We cannot stop women preaching their tactical agendas at us; the only thing we can do is cease to believe them.

Feminists take it for granted that men are obliged to believe whatever they say on the subject of “women”. But why on earth should we do such a thing? Are women accustomed to believe whatever men say about themselves? It is to laugh. That no one ever asks this question is itself the best possible evidence of the female moral hegemony into which women have long bluffed men into accepting. The purpose of this Part is therefore to analyse how much of what women say about their relative positions vis-à-vis men is nothing but an advanced predation technique.

Women claim to be better than us. But to adapt the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies: “Well, they would, wouldn’t they?” I take it as axiomatic that women are on average no worse than men – but no better either. This is because both human sexes, like all other life on earth, are wholly self-interested; but women are much better than men at dressing up their own self-interest as the Good of All and also at camouflaging their own opportunism in terms of the tragic persecution of virtue by vice. The fact it was once men who dressed up their own self-interest as the Good of All is now of no interest, since no one believes them any more. That is just water under the bridge, it is now the female version of the same scam that is the flavour of the century.

Most things in life follow a Gaussian distribution, a bell curve. The nastiness of men and women likewise, with “tails” of angels and devils but most of us in the middle. Now, radical feminism is a godsend to the inevitable population of unpleasant individuals of the female persuasion, as it explains the natural hostility they encounter and repackages it as heroic virtue, high deserts and the right to be even more unpleasant back.

It may seem too obvious to be worth repeating that women are self-interested and fallible human creatures just like men, but for large sections of the population this is not obvious at all, on the contrary outrageous nonsense. This is because vast amounts of time and ink have been expended on the construction of memetic infection vectors that offer women a self-perception as being something quite other than self-interested and fallible human creatures. Pace Maslow, as soon as we have fed and clothed and sheltered ourselves, our next desideratum is not “self-realisation” (whatever that means) but undeserved self-esteem. Consequently, if we offer any human being – male, female, black, white, gay, straight, tall or short – the chance to see zirself as innately superior and above reproach, zie will probably jump at it. But this is a game that not everyone is allowed to play.

Now, most ordinary women will shrug off the ravings of the essentialist-feminists and the extreme victim-feminists and complain that their own concerns and opinions are being unfairly tarred by this dripping brush. But this is quite frequently merely a tactical diversion. The memes that allow infinite self-admiration, automatic despite, and, above all, absolute self-exculpation, have proliferated to the point where they permeate our entire mental space like a gas. The average woman in Western society may thus disclaim the radicals, but the moment she comes under fire, the dworkinist force-fields will automatically deploy to preserve the sense of innate superiority and irreproachability she may not – consciously – realise that she possesses.

Leave a Reply