David wrote:Yes, but hostility is at the root of it all.
I find this comment astounding when I consider it in relation to hundreds of posts of yours, and a general timbre in your view, of more or less overt hostility toward women and 'woman'. I wonder if you have a clear vision of your own self. To a large degree your motivations have arisen out of resentment of women. But it is more than just to rebellious feminist woman. The resentment is of woman and the feminine at the most basic level. This mood is still quite evident, or I should say the ideas that support the mood still prevalent, within the psychology of this forum. Now, the one who best expresses it is Jupi.
What does the anti-SJW movement fundamentally object to? A political correctness that forces everyone to refrain from making comments deemed to be offensive.
Thatwould be a superficial description. David, where have you been for the last 3-4 years? What are you reading and studying? I don't mind referring so generaly to an 'anti-SJW' but we really need to at least make reference to specific theorists, or developing schools of thought. I propose that there is a traditionalist movement that arises out of European/pan-European cultures that is attempting to confront hyper-liberalism. Hyper-liberalism is associated with 'the Americanopolis' and the 'Americanization of world culture'. And behind that stand forces and, though it does not appear so, ideas. Modern feminism is (I will suggest) profoundly associated with Americanism and Americanism associated with hyper-liberalism: the distortion of liberal principles. If you want to begin to talk about 'what the 'anti-SJWs'
fundamentally object to, you will need to do some reading. You could start with Pierre Krebs and Alain de Benoit. When you read them, I propose, you will see how their reaction can be compared to *your* reaction (that of Genius Forum and the ideas and sentiments that put it into motion). I suggest to you that you
MUST widen your perspectives.
There are people who are attempting to arrive at platforms of definition to confront 'hyper-liberalisation' and 'the Americanopolis'. These oppositions connect to anit-multicultural and anti-globalisation ideas. But that is not all, not by far. They deal in profound analysis of man's relationship to his self and the world and to *meaning* in these senses.
Why do the SJWs want to force this political correctness on everyone? Because women and non-whites do not trust the white population, particularly the old school white males, to treat them as human beings.
I suggest that you sit quietly and meditate on what you have written. I will counter-propose to you that it is these 'whites' who have transformed the world, and the 'worlds of color', and also the 'world of women' but the application of their values. You have internalized a destructive narrative, more common to the Marxist set, which seeks to team up people of color with women against men, against masculinity, but significantly against 'whiteness' 'patriarchy' and other abstractions.
What the SJW is doing, that is, what motivated him or her must be very carefully analysed and thought about. You seem unaware of the work done in this domain. It is critical work and demanding intellectual work that requires discernment but discernment fairly performed. You would have to consider the post-Marxist idea-movements of the postwar era --- The Franlfurt School --- and begin to understand how profoundly their influence penetrated Academia, social thought, and popular culture. The 'liberation of woman' seen from these angles becomes very very complex. Liberation to what exactly? Liberation from what?
And why do they lack this trust? Because old school white males have a long history of treating women and minority groups like shit.
I suggest that you will need to carefully analyse the ideas that stand behind this statement. It is more complex, more labyrinthian, than you seem aware. Mistrust has been sown and inculcated. Mistrust has been taught. Mistrust has been introduced as a poison for people who have political reasons to exploit gender differences (one example). But this 'mistrust' is also something that you have dealt in and which at a fundamental level has informed you: the mistrust of woman. The mistrust of the very metaphysical platform of manifest life which, it has seemed to me, you rebel against.
How to approach, how to look at, and what finally to decide about, say, the British conquest and exploitation of India, or the European conquest and domination (for exploitive purposes) of African and the New World, these require nuanced mental positions, not Rxs based in reverse-engineering. The conquest of N Europe by the Romans: How shall we look at it? It is what made us us. Do we now regret it?
You are 'captured' by critical views that are common motivators among the SJWs. It is not really *thinking* that they do, it is reacting against emotional impulses which have a good deal of unconscious content. A particular narrative is suggested to them, they take it in and *feel* it at e sentimental level, and then act out against their feelings. This explains I suggest the SJW in a significant sense. They are, in many ways, a misfortune.
This has a bearing on the things you mentioned, like “glass ceilings”. If women can be sure that they are not being prevented from joining boards and becoming CEOs simply because of sexism and old boys networks and like, if they can be sure that they will be treated as individuals and judged on their merits, they will be far more open to the idea that there are some areas in life, like physics and engineering, that men are statistically better at, just as there are some areas in life that women are better at.
You embody, down to your socks, a simplistic liberal view of the world. I do not say that because I think it is morally wrong. But it is intellectually questionable. You are driven by your internalised perspectives. It is your very 'self' that you express and you simply cannot help it. You have not made a very profound analysis of the structures that inform you! But that was your whole project! It was revolutionary, bold, powerful, 'bloody'. And now your *philosophy* is like golf-chatter.
You must understand what has been brought about by the so-called 'liberation of women' and what it means to separate women from child-raising and their central role in family life. You must see how you yourself are a creation of that breakdown and how your choices, and the manner you support your choices, have been determined by the same processes that impulse hyper-liberalism.
If there is going to be a critical position about *what has made the present what it is* and how women have been conditioned to be as they are now, the analytical project must become more pointed. But one requires an intellectual base, a philosohical base, from which to proceed. We (in postmodernism) flounder in this sense. We have been overpowered by ideas, narratives, sentimetal ideas and social processes that have removed us, significantly, from connection with ourselves and with certain more genuine or original truths. If there is going to be a movement against any of this, it will be a profound shift in how people relate to the present and their self in that present.