ON FEMINIST (female), POSTMODERN(male), SOCIALIST PHILOSOPHY Creating a polity b

ON FEMINIST (female), POSTMODERN(male), SOCIALIST PHILOSOPHY

Creating a polity by words for the purpose of rent-seeking and free riding.

Feminist Philosophy questions the foundations of ETHICS, not LOGIC. And that Feminist Rhetoric, with whom Postmodern, Totalitarian, and Socialist authors share identical tactics:

1) the purpose of their language:is not to construct categories which can be measured, but to conflate categories so that they cannot be measured. This is perhaps the most important insight that we can use to deflate totalitarian claims. The attempt to claim a group where there is diversity, in an attempt to seek rents and free ride.

2) is to create ‘unity’ or ‘group’ out of involuntary participants in that group, by loading, overloading, framing, shaming, and obscuring the differences between individuals. The purpose of this unity is so that feminists can seek extractive policies by the state, against individuals outside their group. In other words so that women can seek free riding and rents on males.

3) While it is true that in the workplace, in the aggregate, men and women are equally productive, the statement is an artifact of above-said logic of aggregation: the fact is, that 1% of people, produce almost all the material value in a society, 10% apply those insights, and another 10% communicate them effectively to all others. This is why the Pareto Rule applies to all human behavior: 20% of people own and do everything. The rest are engaged in production and consumption. And they must be. Because they can’d do anything else. And the data is the data, the upper ten percent is dominated by males, because males dominate the upper regions of intelligence by no less than four to one. Female solipsistic reasoning is solipsistic and nothing more.

4) THE PURPOSE OF FEMINIST LOGIC IS TO LIE. While I tend to keep track of feminist writing, because much of it is interesting, the fact is that women are biased much more solipsistic, just as men are biased much more autistic. And the division of knowledge and labor is painful for many women who feel isolated and unable to function in the division of knowledge and labor. Philosophy in the pursuit of truth is one thing. It is a precursor to measurement, and therefore the precursor to science. Philosophy in the pursuit of feeling better about the world we live in is something else: religion. I don’t criticize religion, simply because we ARE unequal, and I don’t feel it is my right to deny people solace. However, religion is not science, it does not correspond to reality, and we must, in science, commerce, and politics, correspond to the constraints that reality places upon us.

I wish I was six inches taller. I’m not. I can’t play basketball. I wish a lot of the time, my Aspiness wasn’t such a burden for me to constantly carry. I wish I hadn’t been born into a family with so many internal problems. I wish I hadn’t lost my first three fortunes, and each time had to make a new one.

Fantasies are fantasies. And fantasies have no place in economics and politics. We all live better lives because of science, economics and those aspects of politics that are scientific: the common law. Religions are not scientific.

Feminist philosophy as put forth in this article is just another secular religion of totalitarianism like postmodern and socialist influences that it draws from.