In this post, I will assume a methodological flow beginning from the establishment of what should ideally constitute the dialectical process, and using our knowledge of the female cognitive process and decision-making correlates in developing a dialectical manipulation theory suited for females. With that said, it is obvious that this post is assuming key differences between the cognitive structures between men and women, at the neurological level. I will also hypothesize some cognitive routines men and women might use foundational to their decisions, regressing from some obvious economic and social behaviors. The analysis assumed will be post hoc, as I will try to theorize the underlying sociological, psychological and anthropological mechanisms from correlations that manifest superficially.
With the epistemology set straight, I want to shed light on the dialectic method of discourse. Dialectics differ from logic-oriented debate in two key domains – one, in the fact that it’s premises aren’t necessarily rational and two, in its ability to constrict the logical flow to one direction only i.e., deductively. This has prompted some people to dub dialectics as the “corruption of deductive reasoning” – I agree wholly to this notion. While the contemporary dialectic has been attributed largely to Hegel, the foundations for this sort of epistemological discourse was laid by Kant in his Critiques. The popular attribution to Hegel might stem from the fact that this method, of corrupting the reasoning of the subject, has been politically weaponized by later philosophers like Marx and its frequent use among conspiracy theorists. The Hegelian dialectic, or more abstractly, the Kantian dialectic, when weaponized, provides the illusion of freedom of choice while simultaneously convincing the subject of the apparent rationality of their conclusions. In other words, the subject whose reasoning is reduced to a dialectic one may be easily manipulated. But there still exists a vulnerability in this seemingly fool-proof technique.
Individuals who are in high possession of rational faculties will see through the irrational premises easily. The premises often used in the dialectical method, or more accurately, the thesis and anti-thesis, are rhetorical. They appeal to the emotional faculties of the subject. I, for instance, who considers myself to be a rational individual prefers to avoid employing rhetorical devices in my speech and writing. Why? Because rhetorics are innately fallacious in their appeals to emotions and they leave a lot of information open to interpretation. They do this by reconciling with the cultural system operating around the subject. A mastery of rhetorical dialectic might only be accomplished through a post hoc analysis of the target cultural system.
dialectical thinking is the corruption of deductive reasoning…
When former Google employee James Damore came out with his lengthy memo on the biological differences between the sexes in the context of the the workplace and the prevailing gender gap – what seemed like a seemingly harmless, scientifically-sound story morphed into one of the biggest controversies of 2017 from Silicon Valley after sexual allegations against ride-sharing giant Uber and Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. The left traditionally likes to throw opinions and even facts of such nature under the moral radar – often alienating the ideologically indifferent perpetrator or labelling them all sorts of nasty things in an attempt to subdue their voices – and very unfortunately for the most of us, the technological establishment has tremendously leaned left over the past couple years. This totalitarianism of an ideology is exactly what Damore and several conservative and centrist millennials like myself want to challenge and bring into limelight without the looming threat of disownment by society. Continue reading →
The feminist movement used to have good meaning and respect back in circa 1960 through early 2000s and some forms of it still does – but a third wave of it has manifested in some Western nations – almost a kind of social cancer as it can be best described, where emotionally unstable women go out and protest against an unjust society they think they live in to bring matters into resolution. An essay by Malcolm Gladwell in his book What The Dog Saw discussed the role of second-wave feminism in ridding the corporate world from a culture of male chauvinism – challenging the corporal agendas on feminine products such as hair colouring. Today, feminist women often feel that the manly world is treating them unfairly and feel like they’re still the victims to a bigger patriarchy. It has come to nothing short of emotionally charged passive-aggressiveness directed at perfectly innocent and law-abiding men and sometimes even women – women who don’t share their views. Only so much talk about being a progressive!
Misinterpretation is the most deadly of human sins -Lester del Rey
The feminist rhetoric of the modern day – circa 2000 and beyond – has been calling for a cultural appropriation of obese/physically unattractive women, change of male psychology so we start seeing all women as equally attractive, a change in everyday language by modifying fundamental linguistic constructs involving genders, inclusion of women in STEM fields, equal pay, and to do away with patriarchy, rape culture, and male violence in society. Now hoping that I’ve adequately covered their prime objectives, let’s get down to business, trying to demystify – one after the other – what is true and what is some made-up conspiracy and get into knowing this miserable society that we live in everyday as described by feminists. My usage of feminist(s) and the occasional feminazi here and after should refer exclusively to third-wave feminists.
When I began writing on Chronic Overthinking (then Chronic Overthoughts), I would have never seen myself taking up such a topic for discussion. After thinking a little too much coupled with a questionable amount of free time for someone my age, I decided to share my views on this 21st Century atrocity. Before I jump into the content, I must tell you I’ve personally experienced the effects of said society – which can either be a warning to the readers to expect some personal bias or back up the anecdotal value of this post. But it’s really your call.
Patriarchy inculcates unjustifiable ideas of what a society should be like into youthful minds
Okay, such is a topic I’d hardly take up to discuss because of a couple reasons. One, I am not in the humanities and two, I just don’t have much time around people, in other words, I’m not a ‘people’ person. Tackling issues on such fronts usually present a challenge to me making me pretty evasive of them.
How does sexism present itself in society? Most people are used to vaguely generalizing that sexism is discrimination against women on their liberties/rights/equalities, but we must realize sexism can work either way i.e., it’s a two-way street. Let me try and define sexism with strict logic; Discrimination based on the grounds of sex. The keyword is ‘discrimination’, and it can mean anything. It doesn’t always have to be a bad thing, privileges are also a form of discrimination. Continue reading →