on the question of female evil and determinism
June 19, 2015 § 1 Comment
It’s pretty unwise to reveal your real identity. We don’t live in a free and civil society where open debate is possible. We all know this. The sad fact is that we still conflate women with children. Women themselves do this without even realizing it. Offending them and being accused of “misogyny” is somewhere on a continuum with being accused of rape, domestic violence, etc. You can lose your job and be persecuted in any number of other ways because the gut instinct of most people is to protect women and provide excuses for them in precisely the way we would for children.
I don’t agree that women are inherently evil. I think they’re just as capable of moral agency and ethical responsibility as men are, but they aren’t socialized in a culture which demands this of them. Many women have no idea what these things even mean because the entire culture is about deferring to them and pandering to their almighty incoherent feelings, and you can observe this when you see how quickly a woman will resort to violence, for instance.
Women will hit men in public because they are free to do so. They don’t have a conception of moral agency the way men do and this is the result of their social conditioning. And they’ll do this for the same reason they will lie about sexual harassment and get you fired or accuse you of child abuse to win custody. It’s the same reason they will lie and emotionally manipulate you in a relationship, take you for everything you have, cheat on you, and all the rest of it. They’re inwardly focused, not outwardly focused, it’s her feelings which are reality, not yours. Everything she thinks, feels, and does is excused away by a gynocentric society which provides ready-made rationalizations. She doesn’t even have to hamster it away, society does it for her. What kind of moral agency does a person like this have? None.
I think they are capable of that agency, and to that degree, I agree with JtO, that women aren’t evil by nature, as if this is the only possible way they could be due to some mysterious biological inferiority. But, in the current culture such as it is, can they be expected to act responsibly? Absolutely not.
While I think women are capable of much more, if somebody asked me if it was a good idea to just assume that women are evil and act accordingly, I’d say “yes.” It’s better to err on the side of caution. MGTOW, above all else, is about self preservation, not social change.
On the issue of evolutionary psychology, in many ways, it’s irrelevant.
I studied international relations theory and the whole idea was to abstract from history universal, regularly occurring laws which would allow us to construct models of rational choice, models that would lend themselves to real world policy making. In other words, we were trying to come up with models of rational choice to predict behavior or the way institutions adopt policy or how they interpret national interest.
Let’s assume that it’s possible to come up with a model of rational choice which would predict within whatever range of probability an actor’s choices in a given scenario, or “game” as game theorists call it. All the actor would have to do is *know* what the model predicts in order to thwart it. All that is required to invalidate the model is to choose a different choice based on his or her knowledge of what the model would predict.
That’s the problem in a nutshell. Human beings are self aware and make decisions based on belief, and the foundation of belief is *knowledge.* In this case, knowledge of the model which predicts choice, but this dynamic is present in any possible case.
So the question of “free will” with respect to deterministic models of social science becomes irrelevant if you recognize that *knowledge* is the precondition of choice and therefore of the exercise of will. A person cannot be expected to make a rational choice without access to sufficient information. How can they make a choice one way or the other if they aren’t even aware of the possible choices and their respective potential rewards or consequences? Indeed, the chooser, for our purposes, may not even be aware that they are choosing or that there is any possible choice that is available. There is no choice, and therefore will, free or otherwise, which is not contingent upon knowledge.
Women, like men, and like entire societies, can be expected to behave in ways that reflect their sociobiologically rooted natures and history will “rhyme,” rather than repeat itself, as Mark Twain said. But this is only true so long as people are unaware of how it rhymes and why it does. The moment they become aware of their natures, both of their own and the nature of others (like women), they then have the opportunity to break the historical or social pattern.
Women are perfectly capable of understanding, of self awareness and awareness of others, in short, they are capable of precisely this kind of knowledge. This is, above all else, what makes women, like men, human. This is our defining characteristic as a species. Because they are capable of this, their behaviors can’t be reducible to some mechanistic evo-psych model of behavior, as if women are robots running a script.
But with all that said, history still “rhymes,” and there is a female nature which can be understood and anticipated precisely because, as it stands currently, most women are not aware of themselves. This is precisely why it’s important not to throw the evo-psych baby out with the bathwater.