We have a wealth of statistics, insightful reasoning and copious references in support of our positions on women in general and feminists in particular. We should. That is what we do best; take a logical stand and support it. Among ourselves that is entirely appropriate and should continue. When dealing with most women and all feminists there is no substitute for knee-jerk, entirely visceral and inflexible moral judgments. In fact, they should be preferred.
Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them. Women, generally speaking, don’t because indignation, outrage and gut level distaste are rooted in emotionalism. Women do understand base emotionalism and do respond to it in a more predictable way than they could ever respond to reason. They are also more likely to respond appropriately because the message is more clearly understood. Emotionalism is their language.
When you blurt out a definitive moral statement from the soul rather than a contrivance of the mind, you then occupy the high ground. It puts those who disagree with you in the unenviable position of convincing you that bad is better, if they are to persuade you at all. They may not wish to persuade you, but in the case of women, if others take your position they will feel compelled to try. Thereby forcing them more closely examine their own positions.
Feminism and Moral Relativism
Feminists promote Moral Relativism for one simple reason: Feminism is suspect on moral grounds and they know it. It is necessary for them to muddy the waters in the minds of the public because feminism cannot stand in the face of any absolute standard of morality. In a system of binary right and wrong, the individual tenets of feminism will usually fail. Those tenets that do not fail are easily acceptable to men. One doesn’t need feminism to sell those.
The Utility of Ceaseless Moralizing
If the Civil Rights Movement used the strategy of the MRM, segregation would still be in place. Imagine if MLK or any other civil rights leader ascended the bully pulpit and went on and on about how studies have shown that desegregating mass transit will increase GDP by 14 percent or how a voter registration initiative will reduce the incidence of infectious disease. People rejected racism because it was unequivocally wrong. No other facts were necessary. The hammer of moral justice came down on Jim Crow and that was it. The losers in that battle were the ones to resort to recitation of supposedly sound arguments.
In a personal context, we don’t even have to employ female examples to see how much more effective judgmental dogmatism can be. Imagine a party where you observe another guest double dipping a chip. Imagine first that you tell him about the geometric reproduction of bacteria and go on to list the different species of microbes contained in human saliva. Now imagine that you say, “I don’t want your germs you f-i-l-t-h-y pig!” Which would have the most personal impact?
No need to waste words or knock yourself out reasoning with feminists or even your wife, for that matter, when a short and visceral pronouncement from on high will do and is more effective. Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.
Ostracism and the Herd Mentality
Females have depended upon the collective from very ancient times. Until recently, social exclusion was fatal to a woman and her offspring. A man’s life and limb has always depended upon his ingenuity, cleverness and perseverance. The origin of reason and strength. A woman’s survival has always hinged upon maintaining membership in the group. It is natural for a man to favor liberty more than a woman because his survival depends upon skills that are distinct from those that would secure inclusion within a group. In the case of women, no such distinction is possible. To most effectively punish a man, remove his liberty. To most effectively punish a woman, expel her from the group.
Slut Walks, “Sex in the City” and the self esteem cult are all attempts to reassure women that even when they behave abominably that the bad behavior has the sanction of the collective and they face no risk of expulsion if they engage in it. To modify the behavior of women, reimpose that risk. The good news is that it can be done in relatively short order. Yes, the example of Lindsey Lohan is huge but somewhat remote. A stark and unvarnished remonstration from someone in closer proximity will undo the propaganda swiftly. Declarations of “that is disgusting” accumulate. Hearing it once may not overcome Cosmo and she can dismiss it as an isolated raving of a lunatic. If she were to hear it more often, however, she begins to doubt herself and wonder about her status within her more immediate collective. Women also have the tendency to assign more significance to something than it deserves. If she were categorically reproved as many as three or four times, she would imagine that the whole world is against her. A man can conclude that one man with courage is his own majority and it renders him invulnerable to criticism. A woman cannot. She is too reliant upon consensus. What is more, she is naturally more risk adverse. Risk is something men are supposed to take. A small handful of reproofs are enough to make her reconsider her behavior. There is too much at stake.
One does not have to always be punitive. There is nothing that can be done about the Mary Kellets and Vliet Triptees of this world but most women do want to align themselves with goodness. The problem lately has been that moral relativism and the aggressive marketing of debauchery has made discerning righteousness murky, particularly for women because they equate right with plurality of opinion. It is for us, who are able to identify virtue independently from community opinion, to point it out to them in a way that they can understand. There is plenty of room for positive encouragement too. It is just as easy to praise from an unmovable moral position as it is to condemn. Do it whenever it is warranted.
The Joy of Black and White Moral Absolutes
Chick language provides us with a construct that we can use. To women something is “nice” or it is “mean”. They use that simple, emotionally based dichotomy because that is what chicks understand. They use it with us and they use it with each other. That is how they evaluate the world. Use it.
To communicate a concept to women, a man need only set up a dichotomy and inject an emotional judgment. The difference is that instead of using the sliding scale of nice/mean that is situational, the right/wrong, good/evil dichotomies that we select are to be absolute. Most women want to be good so tell them what good is in a way they can grasp easily.
Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues. Not true. As a man, nature equipped you to make decisions based on merit alone without respect to consensus. Women are bound by consensus and cannot divorce abstract principles from its influence. Act where they cannot. Such determinations must be made, so they might as well be made by you. You know right and wrong when you see it. We trust you.
A Couple of Possible Objections
Bigotry, injustice and immoderacy all sprout from emotionalism. Won’t a renewed emotional reflexiveness undo progress against evil? I think not. Enlightenment, like evolution, is irreversible. The arrow of time in on our side. Remember, it was undiluted moral condemnation that defeated the ills of the past in the first place. We have nothing to fear from the obstinate insistence on our current scruples.
What of good women? Do they deserve to be treated in such a heavy handed fashion? There are good women. The women who contribute to AVfM are proof of that. I am of the belief that most women are good, if somewhat misled. They only resist righteousness because they think that any behavior that the collective endorses IS righteous. The rare woman who is capable of moral judgment will select good herself and would not be on the receiving end of harsh moral criticism. Good women are human too. Even in the seldom occurring event of a temporary moral lapse by a decent woman, your diatribe will be no more severe than the one she administers to herself. Would you do less in the case of a man whose judgment falters? Aren’t decent women as deserving of positive recognition as morally weak women are of reproach?
