Monday, October 02, 2006

Good Old Fashioned Prejudice

I heard John Humphries on Radio 4 this morning mouthing the usual feminist bullshit.

Apparently, the lack of women CEOs in the corporate sector is because of 'good old-fashioned prejudice'. Then he was smarming up to Jenny Murray from Wimmyn's Hour. It annoyed me before I had to go to work.

There is an important difference between demanding equal opportunites and demanding equal outcomes. Everyone is in favour of equal opportunities (well, everyone except feminists, looking at the education and legal systems after 40 years of feminist meddling), and in fact white middle-class Western women have more opportunities than anyone else in history. They have the opportunity not to spend their lives working like slaves, and then they cite this as evidence of their oppression. Incredible.

Feminists have already got everything they ever dreamed of, and more, in terms of equal opportunities. Surely it is time to go and do something else. But no. They have switched their attention to demanding equal outcomes instead. This is a fundamental shift in policy, which has been introduced piecemeal, largely unnoticed.

Equal outcomes are impossible to achieve even in theory, and there is no reason we should want them in practice.

What a narrow, book-keeper's notion of social justice, to look at some statistics, and say 'This column doesn't match that one. This is a social injustice'. It is no such thing. To jump to conclusions about prejudice is a classic case of the kind of superstitious, paranoid conspiracy thinking I wrote about before.

To become a CEO (or get to the top of any other professional tree for that matter) requires not only talent, but years of hard work and commitment. Those who do this lose out on family life, suffer stress, and so on. Men are more prepared to do this than women because they have different personal objectives, and more social incentives.

You are expected to 'take it like a man' if you suffer stress. Other people judge a man's worth by his career. Being a fat cat makes you more attractive to women.

The reverse is not the case. Becoming a CEO doesn't make a woman more attractive to men. People do not judge a woman's personal worth by her job. She is not expected to put up with stressful situations stoically. Women also have socially acceptable ways of acquiring money other than by working for it, such as marrying it.

There is simply no incentive for women to make those kinds of sacrifices, and so it should come as no surprise to find that most of them don't. Most women would rather spend time with their family and friends, and have less stress. It is no surprise that they live a lot longer, a sexual disparity which feminists never seem to complain about for some reason.

Most women would probably rather marry a fat cat than be one (you get the wealth and status without the work). As long as this remains true, most fat cats will be male.

The personal choices that men and women make determine these outcomes, and they make them for good reasons. Women are not more stupid than men. Neither is there any kind of misogynist conspiracy going on. The 'glass ceiling' is inside women's (and for that matter, men's) heads.

Feminists and their camp-followers consistently refuse to take individual choice into account. For all their screaming about women's freedom of choice, they themselves consistently refuse to accept that the choices made by millions of women (such as to get married, have children, and devote their time to their children) have any validity.

This is partly because their social constructionist world-view is very strongly deterministic, so they don't believe very strongly in the notion of free will (except when it suits them of course). This same devaluing of free will produces the kind of madness espoused by the Dworkin-MacKinnon axis, that under the Evil Patriarchy (TM), women do not have the capacity to give meaningful consent, and therefore any consent they do give is essentially worthless, and therefore all heterosexual sex is rape. The mainstream feminist movement takes this kind of drivel seriously.

Even so, social constructionists though they claim to be, they dogmatically permit no social constructionist model other than prejudice and conspiracy. Even as social constructionists, they refuse to consider economic and sexual incentives as determining factors, which is almost incomprehensible. Almost. The fact is, there is good money to be made in the victim industry by peddling these myths, so it will continue until we remove their funding.


Pete said...

Great post. Feminists will studiously ignore any evidence, call a truth a lie, do anything that suits their own agenda.

Why would they admit that women's choices are responsible for women earning less overall when they have a million sympathetic ears when they shout about oppression?

Anonymous said...

Fems..useful (or, more possibly, useless) idiots.
Useful to non-thinking apparatchiks who don't even have to be right..just in the 'right' job at the right time.
Useless to our millennia long historical legacy of creativity in a balanced (well, almost) world -give or take a few casualties on the way!
There's something in the bible that says 'beware the woman on a destructive path through the family' or similar.
About 'it' really...5k