I would like to thank Parriah Pottymouth for bringing this to my attention first. Her blog where she tackles the logical fallacies and cognitive biases of Emma Watson’s failed philosophical calculus is here (https://parriahpottymouth.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/13-sexist-things-about-heforshe-everything-sexist-about-emma-watsons-un-speech/)
Parriah brings up a lot of great points, It infuriates me that I should have to respond to the drivel of people like Emma Watson who have no idea what they are talking about, she doesn’t know anything about psychology, or people in groups or sustainable societies or anything. Based on her status of being an actress, living in an artificial environment where life has always been easy for her and everything has been done for her she infers her life experience to solve global problems. And apparently being a not entirely disgusting looking female who is well known and has a good reputation for the fake characters she has played in the movies, she is now a moral philosopher and an authority on male and female rights, for her own benefit and the benefit of those people she projects her sense of self on to.
Her ill advised campaign as a rhetorical tautology. He for she. Is reminiscent of the communist phrase “from those with greater ability to those with greater need.” Now the reason that this philosophical calculus fails is for the simple reason that it incentivizes being needy, which means the less you contribute the more you will get back from the system. Which means that people actually stop contributing in the first place and the relationship creates no value. Just as we see the failing economy in Cuba, that takes care of the old and the crippled first and puts men in prison for trying to make a little extra cash with their ability. When everybody has the same nobody has anything because those who create value are counter incentivized while those that do not create value are incentivized until the incentives run out. Also because people are acquisitively mimetic, they will copy behaviors they see being rewarded.
THE PASSIVE CAUSE AND THE ACTIVE CAUSE
The problem is this, men already to stuff for women, much of the evil done in the world was done by men for women. The problem is that when men do anything for women because the women do not commit the act themselves they can either take credit for the action because it was done for them or they can deny blame for the action because they didn’t physically do it. They can literally say whatever they want, whatever would benefit them and protect their reputation. They both did and did not do the deed, and indeed you will see them saying whatever makes them look good at any particular point in time. This is a bifurcation that is inherent in feminine reasoning, which I myself discovered. (http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/passive-cause-vs-active-cause/)
If men and women are equal as we say, but don’t really believe, then why are they not the same? The problem with that reasoning is that is exactly how the sexes are raised in the first place, that is gender role reification, boys are raised to be thoughtless of their own feelings, needs, and desires and women are raised to think only of their feelings, needs, and desires. Why should men be concernful of women and not concernful of themselves? Would it not be better to provide a rational relationship where they could both benefit themselves from the relationship? Where it creates equitable value for both of them? Furthermore, how is a man supposed to provide a surplus for a woman when he can’t even provide for himself? Are we asking men to just go kill themselves? Or allow themselves to be plundered by people weaker and stupider than themselves?
Every day literally every where I go I catch facial expressions (because I read micro expressions and body language, I am also a psycholinguist) and tones of voices and body language of people communicating disgust to me. I am a proud unapologetic male, I don’t apologize for my dick. I am a dude and I want what dudes’ want and I am interested in the things that dudes are interested in. I am not a bad man for wanting sex or for being interested in sex, it is natural for me, just as women are not bad for wanting babies or for being interested in the things women are interested in. The world would not be a better place if I too thought and acted like a woman. When that guy ran into the white house and threw the female agent aside like a rag doll I think a little masculine thought and energy would have pre-empted that embarrassment, don’t you? The fact of the matter is if we can’t talk and act like men we won’t be able to think like men and we won’t have an incentive too. Hitler knew that the feminized nations of Britain and France would not be able to stop him, they would complain but they didn’t have the balls to actually resist him, that is why he used the Blitzkrieg warfare, the same that ISIS is using right now.
I think the humorous thing for me is that these people that judge me, and abuse me, and talk shit about me, and prevent me from getting promoted, and try to get me fired, and try to assassinate my character, those same people genuinely would expect me to risk life and limb defending them from a violent attacker. That is a colossal error on their part, I like myself, and I will not lift a finger to defend anybody who abuses me or thinks poorly of me. I use my resources for the benefit of my friends. I am not every man, throughout history, I am me. I am not society, and I don’t have to agree with society, I am me. You cannot punish or fine me or demand my agreement of participation to fix an unequality you incorrectly believe men have created. I have always been rational in my relationships. I accept no blame in this matter.