|
Cognitive Psychology
I don't want to keep returning to the following
incident, but it has really made a deep impression on me -- and
hopefully also on everyone who hears about it. I was making an
oral submission to a New Zealand parliamentary committee on some sex-war
issue or other, when I happened to mention that Feminism was New Zealand's
state ideology. One Member of Parliament, Gerry Brownlee, was
so offended by my remark that he immediately yelled out, "Bullshit!"
He then apologised. I went on to explain that my taxes were being
used for a variety of Feminist purposes, such as funding a Ministry
of Women's Affairs. In other words, the Feminist state ideology
determined what some of my taxes would be used for -- whether I liked
it or not!
Ideally, Gerry Brownlee would have had in his mind some sort of definition
of the word, "ideology", such as:
The integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute
a sociopolitical program (Merriam-Webster
dictionary).
Such a definition would have let him see what I meant by calling
Feminism New Zealand's state ideology. Instead of that, however,
Gerry Brownlee (I assume) had in his mind what Psychologists would call
a "schema" which was associated with the word "ideology".
According to the webpage https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-schema-2795873
:
A schema is a cognitive framework or concept that helps organize
and interpret information. Schemas can be useful because they
allow us to take shortcuts in interpreting the vast amount of information
that is available in our environment. However, these mental
frameworks also cause us to exclude pertinent information to focus
instead only on things that confirm our pre-existing beliefs and ideas.
Schemas can contribute to stereotypes and make it difficult
to retain new information that does not conform to our established
ideas about the world.
Gerry Browlee's schema for the word "ideology" told him
that ideologies were associated with totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi
and Communist regimes. He did not expect the word to be applied
to other sorts of ideologies.
However, he is not alone! We are all manipulated by the creators
of the information that we come across -- i.e. by the media and the
education system -- because they foist their own schemas on us.
Sometimes they do it unconsciously, but often it is a case of an activist
(e.g. a Feminist) using their power over the information that we receive
in order to further their own political agenda.
Democracy
Leftist schemas are taught to people by what
my book calls the Media-University Complex (MUC) and these schemas
have effectively destroyed democracy.
If you consult Wikipedia on the
meaning of the word "Democracy," you find that it is "a
form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate
and decide legislation ..., or to choose governing officials to do so."
However, some Leftists have decided that Democracy is flawed, because
the majority can always defeat minorities in democratic votes.
The Left's answer to this problem is to make Democracy subordinate to
ideologies, such as Feminism and Anti-Colonialism, which teach people
certain schemas. This fits in well with the fact that the Left
is a coalition of various minorities, such as ethnic groups and non-heterosexuals.
Femininists also call women a minority, which turns the Left into a
majority, with Feminist women being the dominant force.
Calling women a minority is a lie, because women are actually the
majority, compared to men. Feminists say that women are a minority
because men have most of the power. However, Feminists just count
the number of men and women decision-makers and ignore the Feminist
domination of the media and the universities -- in other words, Feminist
domination of the information and agendas which decision-makers use
to make decisions. There are also other forms of female power,
such the power of gossip, the power to network through the countless
women's organisations that have sprung up, the power to make false allegations
and the power to withhold sexual favours.
Who chooses what ideologies are to be raised above the principle of
majority voting? The Left is famous for "picking favourites"
in economic policy. Similarly, the Left picks favourites in social
policy. It picks women, Non-Whites and non-heterosexuals as favourites,
by creating institutional discrimination against men and Whites.
It does this in many ways, such as creating special ministries or other
agencies and starting witch-hunts ("inquiries") to promote
the interests of its favourite minorities.
Domestic Violence
As I have said, Feminism dominates the education system. At
Law School, one lecturer told us students that
Domestic Violence was a women's issue. What he meant was that
Domestic Violence was something that men did to women. I asked
him what evidence he had of this, but he had none! Neither did
any of the Feminist Law students in the class! Then I told him
and the class about all the actual research on this topic that was listed
in Professor Fiebert's bibliography of
research examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners.
However, saying that Domestic Violence was a women's issue means more
than that; it also means that Feminists have selected Domestic Violence
as an issue that they want to attack men with and they have taught Society
(through their domination of the education system and the media) that
only Feminists are authorised to talk about Domestic Violence.
And when Feminists have talked about Domestic Violence -- of course
-- they have mostly said that Domestic Violence was something that men
did to women. The particular schema (whereby Domestic Violence
is something that men do to women) that Feminists have taught us is
the Power
and Control model (aka Duluth model).
This anti-male schema, disseminated through the education system and
the media, then comes to dominate government policy, Parliament, the
Police and the Courts, which is not in any way a democratic process.
Democracy is dead! It has been conquered by Feminists and ethnic
activists in the media, the education system and political parties.
Outcast Powderkeg Men
Bettina Arndt writes a lot of excellent articles. Sometimes
I disagree slightly with the details of her analysis, however, and the
article, "Outcast
Powderkeg Men" is a case in point. This article relates
to a man's
murder of his wife and children. She states:
'Three months prior to the appalling homicide of Hannah Clarke
and her children, Clarke visited her local police station concerned
about her husband’s behaviour, particularly following the break-up
of their marriage.
She spoke to Senior Constable Kent who told the inquest last
month that at first, she wasn’t “greatly concerned”
by what Hannah was telling her – “just because they’re
not a very pleasant man doesn’t mean it’s necessarily
domestic violence,” she told her.
But then came the revelation. “She disclosed to me he makes
her have sex every night. Then I went, ‘Ok, now we’ve
got something.’”
There had never been violence. It was just that Clarke didn’t
particularly want to do it every night - “She said that she
did it so the house would be peaceful the next day.”
That was enough for Kent. She explained to Clarke that such “controlling
behaviours” constituted family violence and referred her to
a domestic violence support service.
Wow, how’s that for concept creep? Now having sex to keep
a difficult hubby happy is domestic violence.
Of course, most long-married women aren’t interested in
having sex every day, and it isn’t a healthy relationship if
she feels she can’t say no. But plenty of wives choose to sometimes
have sex simply because they know everything is better if they maintain
that intimate connection. It’s their choice and they have agency
in that decision.'
You can read Bettina Arndt's analysis of this incident for yourself,
but the point that I want to make here is that the term “controlling
behaviour” is straight out of the Feminist schema about Domestic
Violence. There is no precise, scientific definition of what counts
as “controlling behaviour”. All that exists
is a vague schema, which consists of a perpetrator (the man) and a victim
(the female). People do not join the Police because they are intellectuals.
The average intelligence of the Police is very low. In fact, on
the British TV programme "The Chase" I have heard at least
one contestant say that they worked in Police Intelligence, and then
joke that the term "Police Intelligence" was not an oxymoron!
The Police oppress men by using vague schemas
("Power and Control") and terms (“controlling behaviour”)
of this kind, because they use them to decide that men are perpetrators
and women are victims. Women can behave in equivalent ways, but
run little risk of being regarded as using “controlling behaviours”.
See also:
|
