Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Bombing For Peace

Feminist assert their certainty that the spread of feminism into the world is cause of social ascent. Backed by the statistics of a reduction of crime and violence within western countries they spread their ideology pell mell without regard for the veracity of their claims and while it may be true about the statistics, in the endless complexity of society and historical change there are very few certainties.

Most of their claims can be reduced to the hypothetical pile with one phrase. Correlation does not equal causation. An oft cited saying in our scientifically driven, digital age and one that holds merit in many circumstances. The drop in crime is debatable as well.    In America, some cities have an increase in gun violence but a decrease in gun homicide. The answer is found not in police tactics but in medical technology. Of course the police are all too willing to take the praise. But so are the politicians. So are the professors. Oddly, the doctors seem to be the last group in line to claim this victory even though they're most responsible for it. Some E.R. surgeons claim that only 1/5 gunshot wounds are fatal now.

George Bush believed in democracy and capitalism as fervently as the feminists believe in the authenticity of their claims. Bush invaded several countries under the ostensible auspices of liberating the Iraqi people and while many might wish to make the claim that Bush was not the brightest president to set foot in the office he wasn't without his reasons. Democracies rarely war against each other. In the modern world the spread of democracy is correlative with the spread of peace. Though a caveat must be that democracies tend not to war against each other. Instead, a democracy because a war among itself, preferring electoral war if possible and civil war if not. But Bush looked at the planet and with the zealous belief of those who keep the faith he bombed for peace believing that if he could establish democracy within Iraq and Afghanistan he would cement his legacy as a peaceful warrior.

There are many correlations to the decline in crime but a look at history shows that the majority of social changes enacted today are not anything new. When looking at society it's important to understand the novel. What is it up about this era that is different from the last. Women obtained power throughout history so it's not that and contra to the women's studies revisionist theory of history, men have never been an oppressive force to women. As Warren Farrell points out, it's best to say that both men and women have traditionally been repressed by gender roles. It's an example of the individual sacrificing itself on the altar of the collective. Women have worked as well. In particular the lower and middle class women were often treated no differently than lower and middle class men. They worked. They did the jobs they were capable and while there was sexual segregation in employment, they were not chained to the stove as it often remarked.

So what did change and what has changed about our time? There are many corollaries that one can draw from the present. One is that the majority white or Christian countries are more peaceful though no feminists will ever make that claim lest they be ejected from the safety of the leftists hive mind. Perhaps it was evolution. Maybe in two hundred years humans evolved enough to allow for these changes within society to occur. Doubtful, as I've seen no evidence of it. In fact, it appears that our intelligence has already peaked so it's unlikely we've had some great behavioral or intellectual evolution. But the pioneers who settled America didn't have cell phones. Neither did the 19th century feminists, nor the women who gained power in ancient Sparta. They didn't have cars or high speed internet. They didn't have washing machines which made their jobs redundant in the home. They didn't have birth control.

The most likely answer as to why things have changed and improved is not found in social or ideological progress but within technology. All of the examples given by the feminists always fail to mention the impact that technology has had. In fact, any progressive is likely to cite their own ideology as the driving force behind what they deem the moralization of humanity when it fact is has always been driven by technology and not morality.

Socrates was an abolitionist long before the Emancipation Proclamation. He was probably the first feminist as well so it was never a lack of moral ambition that was missing within the world. The ideology was there and has been there for literal millennia but what was lacking was the wherewithal. Once innovation in agriculture - the cotton gin for example - made slaves redundant or for the most part economically inefficient it was only a short time before they were freed.

Society is a vast, complex network not easily understood. There is a certain balance to it. For each joy of civilization one must sacrifice something else. Simplified it is a balance between collective beliefs and individual desires. It has been throughout history this balance between the individual and the collective which has lead to the advance of technology and consequently the advance of society. Where one element became unbalanced the other becomes dominant and eventually a rebalancing occurs. Society is self-correcting and if enough people abandon the sacrifice of their individuality for the collective by destroying all social bonds and "social constructs" there will be no collective and no society left and un-oppressed individuals will all meander around unrestrained and listless, lacking cohesion. They will probably all congratulate themselves on their moral superiority though.

It's easy to conflate change within society to ideology. Temping, especially when someone wants that ideology to spread. Backed by the veracity of not only the moral superiority but the efficiency of one's belief it's easy to become entrenched in that belief system to the exclusion of all others. From there it's no great leap to follow in the steps of other leaders who were absolutely certain in their righteousness and start "bombing for peace". And while there is no lack of groups willing to accept the victory for the advance of civilization there is none who can rightly claim it since it is not social advancement that we see in the world today but technological innovation.


  1. Well said. I agree with almost eveything you listed. One exception is the thing about democracies not making war on each other. I am of the opinion that this is just one more nonsence american PR that is spoken so much it becomes assumed as fact. Case in point: the usa has a history of overthrowing democratically elected goverments, bribing millitaries, sending in CIA death squads etc. Although this is not considered "going to war" or most cases even acknowledged.

    1. Yes, I'm not certain of that fact. I know it's stated often as a sign of progress but I don't think democracy is the reason things improve.