In my view, this is propaganda created by the matriarchy intended to flatter beta males and marginalise males with leadership qualities to keep them confused, quiescent and distracted in their matriarchy. Whoever heard of the sigma male till now? Are men now dumb enough to fall for this?
Let's keep things simple: alpha males are males with leadership qualities who are leaders of beta males. This is the definition of patriarchy.
Any society that allows the female preference to dominate their society will become a matriarchy.
All advanced civilisations are patriarchies.
All primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.
To discover that your society is a matriarchy is like discovering it has cancer.
The only way to prevent your society from becoming a matriarchy is to respect the institutions of marriage and the family.
The only way to restore the patriarchy is to treat unmarried parents as sex offenders.
If you are in any way offended by this idea, it means you are already a creature of the matriarchy because you clearly regard this proposal as heresy and blasphemy breaching a taboo. If you are unable to discuss this rationally and honestly and wish to take action to censor this post, this confirms your support of the matriarchy.
17 comments:
It's just pop-psych, or pseudo-psychology.
From my day job in recruiting, I know that psychological profiling has a massive methodological problem, even when done by professionals (in contrast to the "psychologists" who made this video), because the vague definitions hinder scientific research into them. It also suffers from high bias, low reproducibility, and widespread misuse of statistics.
But none of this deters people's fascination with identifying things which might help people to get ahead and be more competitive. Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, for example, was very popular despite oversimplifying what are highly complex social as well as psychological phenomena.
We must determine the purpose of this concept before we can measure its viability. The purpose of the concept of the "sigma male" is to flatter beta males and sub-beta males that they are this special person even though they are not alpha males. Not all beta males lack leadership qualities, and it must be assumed that not all males with leadership qualities will be instantly accommodated since certain roles only require men with leadership qualities and there will always be competition for these positions. While some men may have leadership qualities eg charisma, not all charismatic men are principled men. What qualities would you like a leader to have other than charisma?
Your question about leadership qualities is a very good one, but it's off the topic of the nature of matriarchy and patriarchy.
You don't think the matriarchy is discouraging men from acquiring leadership skills and patriarchal moral values that would allow them to challenge and defeat it?
Looking at the stats here in the UK for the gender pay gaps at employers - I have a list of 12,319 of them - I'd say that men predominate in senior management, though at a number of my clients there is parity. However, the equalising of executive pay between the genders is a manifestation of neo-liberalism - huge numbers of both men and women have experienced stagnant or depressed levels of income since Thatcher / Reagan - and it's as if women now being paid as much as men at the top is at the expense of (men and) women at the bottom.
In terms of the narrative, though, I would agree with you, it is that women should be paid the same as men. Is that matriarchy?
If you are a liberal, you would support the principle of freedom of contract. Is there a list of liberal principles anywhere? Can they be agreed on by liberal philosophers? If not, then it is obvious that liberalism is kaput and should be taken out with the trash. Any law forbidding discrimination is in fact thought crime and it is appalling that so many Western men are in denial of this. Thought crime is against the First Amendment, isn't it? And the First Amendment is based on quran.com/2/256
Hmm, liberalism with its many facets has such a rich history and tradition that you might not be able to throwing it out with the trash. It's not like Fascism which came and went within a short space of time. Though an agreed list of Fascist principles has also been difficult to pin down.
As for thoughtcrime, I agree with you, as unspoken beliefs they contradict Ingsoc, and so must be detected and eliminated. If you find anyone thinking them, let me know and I'll get Thinkpol onto them!
Liberalism is basically the worship of everything the West has done since the French Revolution without analysis or selection. It is truly political narcissism. Fascism is just one-party-ism as far as I can tell, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, according to George Washington. American public buildings are full of fasces symbols chosen to represent national unity. Do you ever wonder why liberals are so against the idea of national unity?
You make a good point, but I would say "since the Glorious Revolution of 1688": the American Revolution and George Washington, who knew his Locke, used the same rhetoric to overthrow monarchical tyranny, and Rousseau had a close personal and philosophical relationship with David Hume who was himself immersed in American politics and influenced by Locke.
On liberals and national unity, here is Dr Zlatko Hadzidedic's PhD thesis on how nationalism and liberalism go together - http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/540/1/Hadzidedic_Forced_be_free_2012.pdf
and I agreement with you on the economic part of liberalism.
I define nationalism as government in the national interest. What is Hadzidedic's?
His Abstract says it all. As Director at the Center for Nationalism Studies, he is also well-versed in the thoughts on nationalism from Ernest Gellner, Elie Kedourie, Eric Hobsbawm, and Anthony D Smith
I really don't think Hadzidedic's abstract actually defines nationalism. If I am wrong, please tell me what his definition is.
es, Zlatko uses Kedourie's definition thus -
"Nationalism is a doctrine invented in Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It pretends to supply a criterion for the determination of the unit of population proper to enjoy a government exclusively its own, for the legitimate exercise of power in the state, and for the right organization of a society of states. Briefly, the doctrine holds that humanity is naturally divided into nations, that nations are known by certain characteristics which can be ascertained, and that the only legitimate type of government is national self-government" (p6).
Zlatko goes on to argue that nationalism is not just a doctrine but also has an historical context, and it is that context which is vital to better understand the concept. And that is also why you can't just sweep liberalism up, empty it into the trash can, and close the lid.
Kedourie was clearly not a nationalist. What about liberalism do you think is salvageable?
Salvageable from what?
What about liberalism do you think is useful and worth keeping? Salvageable from the junkyard.
"Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" - looking at the economic aspect of liberalism, capitalism, there have been many saying it would soon be in the junkyard, that after each crisis it was unsalvageable.
Marxism through internal contradictions, Keynesianism due to environmental limits or saturation of material needs or moral progress, Social Democracy by technological innovation and state intervention all point to the self-defeating character of liberal society. But consistently and persistently it has reproduced itself because of hierarchy and individualism overcoming community and duty.
Sure, the neo-liberalism of Thatcher / Reagan might change into state-sponsored mercantilist liberalism, but I don't see capitalism in its broadest sense being scrapped.
Post a Comment