I Don't, Do You?

I've wanted to write this for a long time but I've just had things to do and it's quite important to me so I wanted time to get it right. Well, now I've got that time, let's see if I can manage it.

Firstly, let me just explain that I'm against marriage. Mostly because of arbitrary reasons, either because I feel that it's pointless (1 in 3 marriages end in divorce, it's no longer a serious commitment) and secondly, because I don't feel I need someone to officiate over my relationship (whether it's the Church or the State I don't really feel I require their validation to enjoy my life).

However, this post is my more concrete thoughts on marriage, what it is, where it's come from, and hopefully, why you shouldn't be enamoured with it either.

Firstly, I'm going to explain how it is the least feminist institution going, derived entirely of patriarchal oppression and male dominance, and I'm going to do it without even mentioning that marriage was originally a ceremony to signal the transfer of a woman's ownership from father to husband (oops).

No, I'm going to steer clear of the marriage particulars, and instead look at how marriage came to be in the first place. I mean, I assume that at one stage we were just savages, not far derived from apes in terms of sociability and cultural customs. Therefore, let's turn to biology for a few answers.

Primate reproduction 101
If there's one thing that endless hours of David Attenborough and Steve Irwin (not so much) teach you, it's that only the best get laid. It's practically the founding block of evolution. It's also a biological fact that, due to a primate's lengthy gestation period and relatively instantaneous refraction time, one male could impregnate all females in a given society at any one time.

So, if the females are so choosy, and the men are so promiscuous, what do the non-elite males do? Let's say, for argument's sake, that there is a population of 100 males and 100 females (I could draw a diagram, depends on how bored I get later).

Those 100 females each choose one of the top 5 most gorgeous, handsome, strong, reproductively attractive males to have relations with. And the males, being males, don't say no. Therefore, 100% of the females get some action, while only 5% of the males get busy too.

This leaves 95% of the males with nothing to do but hit the gym, get disgruntled, and play football (that's what sexual frustration does to a man). Eventually, tired of this arrangement where they don't get any, and sick of watching the exhausted elites strut about with their smugly satisfied faces, this 95% decide enough's enough. They decide that the arduous task of impregnating the females should be split equally and, being the larger part of the stronger sex, they get their way.

Yes, it's unnatural, yes, it's 'might is right', yes, it's inherently male oppression, but hey, that's monogamy. And to ensure the continuation of this system, they introduced the institution of marriage, binding one woman to one man for their natural life.

"But!", I hear you cry, "this is surely a fairer system, I can't see how you can claim it's disadvantaging anyone."

Well, no, culturally and socially it's impeccable. It is now so much an ingrained aspect of our society that the idea of polygamy is abhorrent.

But biologically, it is the product of male force (that disgruntled 95%) removing the ability of women to choose their favourite male to mate with, ie. the epitome of male-female oppression.

And that is why feminism and marriage cannot be reconciled.

Yes, Sir, No, Sir, I will obey, Sir

The News
The British Government have recently unveiled their plans to give members of the Armed Forces 'a fast-track route into teaching', essentially giving retired veterans the opportunity to turn their hand to education even if they do not possess a university degree.

My Take
While many have objected to the British arrangement on the grounds that it devalues the education system and insults current teaching professionals, I would argue that this is one of the least-concerning aspects about this proposition. I think a far more terrifying facet is the prospect of placing our next generation in the thrall of excessively violent and nationalist puppets.

Advocates insist that the military ethos of quality leadership, discipline and obedience is ideally transferable to the classroom, and would instil in the next generation similar values of citizenship. However, given that the primary purpose of education is to open the minds of the young, to encourage them to think for themselves, and to equip them with the tools to do so in later life, the prospect of ex-military personnel in the classroom is disturbing to say the least. It is all too apparent how their narrow-minded dogma would stunt the growth of a young person's intellect and stifle their ability to mature.

Of course, it is also easy to see why the Government would want values such as unquestioning obedience, civil discipline and societal sacrifice drummed into the young and impressionable. To have the obedience of the next generation, to have them all united behind one banner (theirs) would effectively silence opposition and greatly improve the ability of the Government to act unilaterally and dictatorially. Worryingly, this is clearly the intention of this fast-track plan. In the Armed Forces there is a reluctance, a squeamishness if you will, to criticise the Government. Similarly, outside the Armed Forces, there is squeamishness to criticise the men and women who sacrifice for our 'protection'. If the next generation were to be raised by such squeamish people, we would reach a situation where those in power need never fear such criticism.

If this is not enough to convince you of the proposal's deficiencies then just bear in mind that it is an adoption of a plan already  implemented in America, (with the difference that across the pond over 99% of participants already had a degree) therefore aligning us worryingly closely with the Yanks 'unthinking glorification' of their Armed Forces.

And we all know how well that's working out for them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

The Age of Consent (For Meg)

By consent, here I mean the consenting of individuals to live in a society. Namely their consenting to offer up some of their liberties and power to a centralised government in return for a perceived increase in security and order.

However, my point is also linked to the 'age of consent' in the more ubiquitous sense; as that age at which one is legally allowed to engage in sexual activity.

But first let's make a distinction between two theories of how a people give consent to their rulers... the distinction between explicit and tacit consent.

Explicit consent is the everyday conceptualisation of consent, when someone has a clear choice and chooses to allow a particular course of action. For example, I explicitly consented to allow someone to go ahead of me in the supermarket queue this morning.

Tacit consent is in actuality the more pervasive form of consent, and refers to when someone upholds a norm or convention merely by failing to oppose it. For example I tacitly consent to being governed by Her Majesty because I haven't (yet) taken up arms against her/ left the country.

And this is where the recent case of Megan Stammers comes in...

One of the key arguments made by Locke is that the legitimacy of a Government rests upon the people giving their consent to be ruled. He postulates that this can come in the form of tacit consent, but only if there is the feasible potential ability of any individual to withdraw their consent... Without such a measure then the government becomes a totalitarian dictatorship as there is no alternative offered...

He argues that the two methods of withdrawing one's tacit consent are to a) express explicit discontent by overthrowing the government, whether by ballot or bullet, or b) leaving the jurisdiction of said government...

This is exactly what Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest did. They were born into the subjection of a government over which they had no part in creating or shaping and they therefore chose to withdraw their consent due to their inability to live under the laws created by that government. Explicitly they took issue with the law defining the 'age of consent' and therefore emigrated to France where they expected to live under a law more preferable to themselves.

Now this is exactly how Locke says tacit consent should work. If one doesn't like a law they should work to repeal it, or leave its jurisdiction. They ought not be held accountable under that law if they do not recognise its authority and are actively seeking to leave the society that it governs. Any attempt by the British government to prosecute either of them under the law they reject is simply demonstrating that the theory of 'tacit consent' is a lie, and proving that this government is unlimited, unaccountable and illegitimate... a terrifying prospect...

Jubilee... Celebrations?

It is a fundamental rule of a liberal society that men are judged on actions, effort and talent, rather than immutable unerring characteristics of themselves. For instance, factors that men cannot change, such as race, gender, skin colour, sexuality, ought have no reflection on their capacity to succeed, achieve their potential or fulfill their ambitions.

In this vein, the additional condition of family and nepotism ought to be irrelevant to one's success/ finances/ popularity. In essence, one should get out of life what one puts in.

Therefore, with these sentiments in mind, I am perplexed as to the incessant mania surrounding the Royal Family and their progeny. In fact, I am inclined to believe that this is the one area in which the French (and I rarely credit them with anything) are more socially advanced than we poor savages on our lonely Isle.

The Royal Family and their inherited inequities embody the rot that is thriving in the latest British generation. Tens of thousands of school-age children growing up with the notion that they can get something for nothing, that wealth is the be all and end all of success. These ideas are evidenced by the October Riots and are often blamed by analysts upon the influx of American celebrity culture such as The Hills and Jersey Shore. Shows which have become so popular that British versions have been commissioned with such orange idiots as Joey Essex and Amy Childs to flog the ever-increasingly desperate aspirations of glamour.

However, these 'celebrities' are mere extensions of an acceded culture, one that has existed ever since the first savages were subjected to the will of another. Namely that of royalty, a world where wealth is derived from parentage, where not a drop of sweat need be shed, where everything is on a plate from birth. And the worst of it is that such conditions are revered, they are aspired to, people look at the monarchy and dream of that lifestyle, they look at Kate Middleton and see a role model, someone to show the kids and say 'that could be you some day'...

Well, I conjecture that Kate Middleton is little more than a prostitute; famous and wealthy merely for sleeping (yes, and loving and marrying - I didn't say she wished to be a prostitute) with someone famous and wealthy. She has done nothing of note with her own talents and toil to merit being a role model, and therefore to revere her and her ilk is to merely pass along the message that one can succeed without working. And that is why the inherent inherited inequality of the Royal Family must be abolished if Britain is to achieve its productivity potential...

The Politics of Religion

Here's an interesting study from Demos (a British thinktank) looking at the correlation between religion and political persuasion...  http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/faithfulcitizens

It concludes that (1) "religious people are more active citizens (who) volunteer more, (and) donate more to charity" and (2) "religious people are more likely to be politically progressive (people who) put a greater value on equality than the non-religious."

This is surprising; religion has long suffered under the stigma of conservatism, the illegitimate authority of religious bodies being exampled as dogmatic, restrictive and stifling of free thought or action. However these conclusions seem to refute such a perception. Conclusion (1) indicates a tendency towards welfare more akin with left-wing socialism, whereas Conclusion (2) creates a image of liberal progressiveness, tolerance and idealism.

Upon reflection, it is not hard to see how Conclusion (1) is supported by scripture and the general attitudes of society. Most Labour PMs have identified themselves as Christian (this is not insinuating that Conservatives have not) and the most Christian constituent nation of the UK (Scotland), is also the most Labour-supporting. Teachings of most religious organisations include instructions to be charitable, such as the zakah of Islam and Christ blessing 'he who considers the poor'. And let's not forget that in all stages of socialism but the final there is the necessity for a strong leadership to dictate wealth redistribution and plan the economy. Therefore it does not seem a monumental absurdity to reconcile socialism with Christianity.

However, with Conclusion (2), I struggle to find the liberal values of equality for all, intellectual emancipation and liberty from authority in any form of religious pursuit. The condemnation of homosexual and female equality by the vast majority of religious doctrines are yet more examples of intolerance on the part of the monotheistic ideologies and those who purport to interpret their holy texts.

This struggle to understand how such bigotry could be labelled liberal precipitated my desire to look closer at the methodology behind Demos' report... and surprise, surprise, I unearthed some horrendous discrepancies. Essentially they asked a multiple choice question with 4 options to answer (p58) but then lumped those respondents who chose either Option 2 or Option 3 into the same group (pluralist) to analyse the results, thereby reducing four categories to three to interpret. They consequently feigned surprise that pluralists returned most results, evidently hoping that the readership would overlook their blatant search for such a skew. This bias is why they produced the correlation that they did, as the pluralist group is undoubtedly both liberal AND religious, and therefore raises several questions concerning the actualities of their claimed independence and even their fitness to practice.

God, I love it when my gut feeling is validated...

No-one has ever 'HAD' to kill...

So, this is a little off-topic. Well, I just mean I'm bringing it forward a bit, I would probably have got round to it in the end.

I've just been watching 'SAS: Are You Tough Enough?', a sort-of documentary/ competition to see if civilians can hack it in SAS selection. It's very entertaining and I recommend it, but that's beside the point.

The issue I wish to address here is a small sentence, near the end of the show, from Barry Davies (Ex-SAS WO) in which he says 'Until you've had to kill somebody, errm, it's really very hard to talk about it.'

Now, I don't dispute the main message, that someone who hasn't killed another can not talk about such things with such ease, but I do take umbrage with the insinuation that killing is a necessity, a duty, an unavoidable occurrence.

There is no-one who has ever 'had to kill somebody'; killing has always resulted from a conscious choice and consequential decision, ergo, a desire. Whether it be the decision to pull the trigger, aim at the target, or even just to join the Armed Forces (in the knowledge that you will be forced to make those decisions), there has always been the option to not kill.

Yes, this may mean abstaining from service, firing wide, or even simply not pulling the trigger, but the fact remains that every man killed has been the result of another's intent and desire.

Even when one's rights and freedoms are threatened, the act of killing is a conscientious decision that those rights are worth more than the other man's life. Whether you agree that they are or not, there is no disputing that killing is a choice, one that every soldier must make and live with the consequences.

There is no shifting the buck to someone else and, therefore, Barry Davies ought to choose his words more carefully, in order to avoid appearing casuistic...

Theory of Patriarchy – Chapter 1

I’ll delve into the history books later on for a thorough look at why the world is so male dominant – this post is concerning itself with why some men are so anti-women, or, for want of a better word, misogynist.

It’s all to do with desire and need. Boys mature seeing these lovely creatures growing up alongside them, they desire them. They instinctively desire them, especially the most attractive ones, but they are taught by their mothers to respect them all. Therefore they are chivalrous, courteous, helpful and polite. All guys start out like this, sweet and naive. They hold girls their equals.

But then those girls, the ones that are being chased, recognise their own attractiveness. And the trouble begins...

Automatically the man is at a disadvantage. He is the chaser, ergo she has the power. She knows she is the commodity, and therefore the chaser automatically becomes devalued – as they say ‘you want what you can’t have’, when it’s yours it loses some appeal.

They realise the potency of their looks/ charm, and they begin to exploit it. Not consciously at first, they just enjoy the attention. They beautify themselves, they expose more and more skin, they do everything in their power to increase their erotic capital. They enjoy the attention, even more so than they realise, to the extent that they will lead guys on who they aren’t attracted to in the slightest, just to keep up a steady flow. As Samuel Coleridge said, ‘A man’s desire is for the woman, but a woman’s desire is rarely other than for the desire of the man’. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t blame them. The feeling of being valued and chased is a hell of a lot better than the savagery of fruitless desire.

And so the girl enjoys leading the guy on.

Until he realises she’s not actually interested in him, just dicking him about.

And this goes on with successive girls.

And he becomes more and more bitter and disillusioned.

And no longer the sweet, chivalrous, naïve guy he was.

Until one day, he ends up formulating a theory of misogyny and writing something like this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm, that was a bit intense. And I suppose an entirely personal experience. As Remy De Gourmont pointed out, ‘Most men who rail at women are railing at one woman only’. He may be correct but in my case it’s a good seven or eight…

EDIT - found this link the other day, very well-written, mostly accurate and entirely hilarious. Number's one and two are particularly poignant, I believe.

5 ways modern men are trained to hate women.