21st century identity politics

Post Reply New Topic

It seems like no matter what group one is in there's always something on both sides - people trying to stop one from climbing the ladder of success on one side who push a foot down to those below them (typically the talent-less middle-management types or people who are there because they're somebody's son, daughter, or cousin) and then the 'bucket of crabs', or the people who don't want to see a person be more successful than themselves. While I have no doubt that intensity and variety varies over demographics and places/localities there seems to be a lot of human psychology involved and games that the people around you will first play with themselves and by extension try to push off on you. That's where understanding it and where it's coming from is critical for the sake of not having that sort of moralizing through crocodile tears infect one's own morality. While I don't agree with Stefan Molyneux on everything he tends to do a pretty wicked job of ripping down the 'you think too much' sorts of people and the various types who treat those who are doing things as obsessives and it seems like the 'oh - so your better than me' is another way of playing that same game, ie. situations about life that people haven't squared with themselves and have consequently decided to project out on other people.

TBH I get why it's difficult for them, a lot of things about this world and how it operates are very grim, but I think its also realizing that which gives me the sense that if I ever start making significant sums of money in my life I'll far more than likely try to invest that money back into things that have a positive impact on society rather than getting a sports car, a boat, a huge house I don't need, or any of that nonsense.

WRT to the question of if one were to address the UN about women's concerns, I tentatively put this forward:

1. The fundamental assault of women's personhood involves denying women control of their reproductive function and biology. All women need to have access to reproductive healthcare that meets their needs. I propose all women should have access to the best contraception, abortion under medical supervision and sexual health education and screening. Any group which seeks to deny these things to any woman is in violation of human rights.
2. Women shall be free of sexual coercion, including economic sexual coercion. Sex trafficking and pimping are slavery. All forms of slavery require concerted international action to end them.
3. Women shall be given full legal protection from violence, including sexual violence. Convictions for rape and domestic abuse need improved process, that still respect the human rights of the accused. Any cultural forces glorifying male violence against women (e.g. religions that allow corporal punishment of wives, lyrics in songs that glorify rape) are hate speech. While I'm no fan of curtailments on free speech, I would at least like widespread recognition that these things constitute attacks on womanhood.
4. Women's healthcare needs (which differ because biology) should be addressed equally to men's. I recognise that in some cases, men's healthcare needs are neglected (e.g. mental health, certain cancers). Medical practice can promote sexual equality by treating all healthcare needs with consideration to the needs of the patient.
5. Infanticide and sex-selective abortion are practices that oppress females. They reflect and uphold cultures in places where they happen where females are greatly devalued. Concerted international action is needed to end them.
6. Economic inequalities, where they exist, based on the devaluation of women's labour, need to be addressed. This includes domestic and reproductive labour. Men should be compensated in the same way for performing the same types of labour.
7. Sexual coercion, rape threats and sexual harassment create a hostile culture for women (and for men who appear in any way feminine). Full legal means to address this problem should be provided.
8. Girlhood should be protected from exploitation. Girls should be able to access the same opportunities as boys in all parts of the world. All children should be free from sexual and economic exploitation.

I could probably think of more, but that's a start.

And here we are, a relatively short time later in the homelands of the Enlightenment, with de facto Islamic blasphemy laws, Sharia courts in many European countries and religious extremists blowing things up every other week. You are far too optimistic. Sometimes I wonder if the true Left/Right divide is one of optimism and pessimism.



Most humans are dumb as planks. The further you get from European and East Asian stock, these are the people invading the West in huge numbers.
http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-worlds-iq-86/

Even then, intelligence doesn't free someone of racial prejudice, if anything it might make you more prone taking drastic Holocaust-y measures.
https://m.thevintagenews.com/2016/09/15 ... esult-143/

I could argue about the validity of IQ tests, but I would be wasting my time. Have you not thought that this stuff is racist? If so, do you care?

I've heard similar arguments, though I am happy to hear them again. As yet none have addressed the question that if IQ is racist pseudo-science invented by Machiavellian whites, why do East Asians score higher?

The tests weren't invented to prove that any race was smarter than another, but they were created by people with an overly specific idea of what constitutes intelligence. It just so happens that what white, 20th century scientists saw as intelligence included ways of thinking encouraged in some East Asian cultures.

The brain is very plastic. You can become very good at sitting IQ tests by sitting IQ tests.

I don't doubt that it isn't a perfect test, but they aren't necessarily meaningless either. Forgetting about comparing group to group for the moment, why does IQ correlate with economic success and other "good" behavioural traits? What are they testing really?

Ability to perform cognitive tasks that are valued in capitalist societies (and incidentally, Confucian ones).

I like that. Do you have a few examples of test questions where such bias could easily be seen?

I am interested in what lies beyond postmodernism, post structuralism, post identity politics and rethinking worn paths, especially, since those paths have recently been used, almost exclusively, as makeshift buttresses to patch up and reinforce theories that work imperfectly. As for my ethnicity, it is a construct of whatever society I happen to be in, handed to me ready made as I debarke from the plane. The term 'BAME' was used for the convenience of identifying me, to make me more real, to color me in I suppose but it means little more to me than 'BME'.




Judith Butler and Queer Theory for now hold the field and have reinterpreted 'gender'. Megan Murphy argued against this reinterpretation, as have Jordan Peterson, but the Canadian gender identity bill C16 is well on its way to become law. The idea of a dimorphic human species is well on its way to be considered a form of 'hate speech'.




I really ought to begin reading Freud, Campbell, and Jung, but haven't so I will not speak of what I do not know.

Meghan Murphy is someone I have a lot of time for. Jordan Peterson I disagree with on a lot, but not when it comes to postmodernism, and he is a good authority on Jung.

You're right though, that Butler and Queer Theory hold the field right now. Not in my name!

Btw, quick comment on your response to the UN congress thought experiment - just wanted to say thank you for the reply and I'm not sure I really have much of a response other than that it's a dual conundrum:

1) We're pretty sure of what needs to be done in more regressive places around the world but we're still somewhat at a loss as for how to take those cultures from point A to point B. I'll also give Sargon credit where it's due, he had a recent This Week in Stupid where he was lambasting the jirgas or Pakistani tribal councils, their propensity to order rapes, honor killings, and both as remedy for perceived crimes against society and/or Islamic code, and the video also attacks those supporting those councils as a system. On one hand we in the US have tried our hand at nation building and we've discovered that we're terrible at it. Ways to get a medieval people to stop being medieval - about all we can think of is flood them with consumerism and financial wealth and even there we've seen that wealth and barbarism, even wealth with modern technology and barbarism, can live side by side just fine.

2) In the west it's a lot more challenging to figure out how to resolve what's left of it. It seems like we're nearing the end of what we can change simply by twisting people's arms not to be bigots, the rest seems to be more a series of byproducts from what our culture is. It seems like even if we could take medieval societies and bring them up to speed in every way they'd eventually hit the sort of wall that we have and the trick is figuring out if there's any way to change our financial systems and similar things that don't ultimately take us back in human rights even farther.