To understanding Killarney's rage and so-called moral superiority we have to understand the particular ontological and moral perspective he/she's using. It's a Foucauldian/neo-Marxian ontology that views the world as nothing but "power relations" that encompasses "oppressors and the oppressed." By reducing a complex world to the simple distinction of male as oppressor and female as oppressed in a power struggle initiated and sustained by the 'evil' male, he/she then can claim moral superiority because he/she dislikes uneven power and wants "equality." "Equality" today has the good conscience on its side, whereas converse beliefs are shamed.

To view the world as a power struggle between man and women is to fall into the trap of the Foucauldian/neo-Marxian/3rd wave feminists. They have already set the parameters of debate; they have set the contours of how the world is constituted and what ought to be discussed in this constitution. Hence, to engage with them on their own terms is to already lose the debate.

We ought to bare in mind that the world as a pure power struggle doesn't reach much further back than Nietzsche (as it was him who formulated the view that "the world is will to power and nothing besides"). So, to interpret history through this lens would be to distort history because it doesn't grasp the varying moral perspectives employed at different times throughout history, and why they were instituted.

A proper understanding of history requires sharp, astute, scholarly work that gets inside the feel and norms of each epoch.

Today, we have the unfortunate problem of being stuck in an ontological paradigm that views ourselves as beings who desire nothing more than power. The goal for the future is to change the ontological lens and the raging, pessimistic Killarney types will fade out and be viewed as 'dinosaurs.'

Thanks, Aristocrat, that explains a lot.

Like the Marxists and the Fascists, ideologues always need to define the good guys (themselves) against the enemy.

The bourgeoisie, whoever... or men??

And then try to incite rage against the enemy.

Strange way of seeing the world, some might think.................

Killarneys post confirms my thesis that feminism is actually all about men; What they are like, why they do what they do, why they don't do what they don't do, what they should be doing. It's counter-intuitive becuase you'd think it would be about women, but it isn't anything about women. In a way feminists are 'experts' on men, and really don't analyse women or their behaviour at all.

When was the last feminist article you read that was about women? The actions of women, where they lead, what other actions they may have taken, the psychology of women? Nope, it's always an analysis of men, and an attempt to assign motive to male behaviour.

You see, the feminist is an expert on the motives behind all male behaviour.

It goes without saying we are a singular entity.

Even articles that make an attempt to be about women, they are only about women in comparison to men, or how men's actions have affected women negitively, or how women percieve men's actions, and how that perception defines men's motives better than asking any of the actual men involved.

Of course to discuss women, their motives and psychology, would more likely involve some discussion of personal responsibility and agency.

And of course in discussing male behaviour, the enduring cliche of the 1950s male good little provider, abusive alcoholic, stunted emotional intelligence, distant authoritative parent and Mad Men type sexist outlook is the only game in town.

Or maybe I just live on a different planet to Killarney, with my mates and our hen-pecked fathers that expose a lie of that feminist 50s cliche, our well functioning relationships full of empathy and teamwork and mutual respect, our shared provider and carer roles negotiated quite easily and amicably, our happy lives and happy wives.

Beautiful Houllebeq,
I was kicking myself for not pointing out the Feminist's lack of empathy for Men.
We can all empathise with women who are entangled with bad men and as a society we try to treat them sympathetically but what about Men who are involved with bad women?
In the U.S there's presently a storm of hatred flying between Feminists and Men's rights advocates over the issue of male rape.
Recent surveys show that when rapes committed against men in prison are added to the statistics for the wider community the incidence of male-male rape slightly exceeds that of male-female offending. The adjusted figures showed a higher incidence of male -male offending mainly due to the repetitive and sustained nature of sexual assaults and long term, non consensual sexual servitude (punking) in male prisons where vulnerable men and boys are passed around between abusers and often gang raped for months on end.
There's a poster being circulated which has an image of a young man on one side with the caption "Would you joke about this man being raped", the next image shows him in prison orange and is headed "What about now?".
You can imagine the reaction in the Feminist blogosphere, "explosive hate fueled ranting" about covers it.
Similarly the debate over male circumcision in Germany has taken a nasty turn with a prominent Women's group opposing any ban on the grounds that in promotes the idea that male and female circumcision are in any way comparable.
There's never any empathy just this explosion of indignation, there's no sense of fair play, that two completely separate issues need to be taken equally seriously, it's just "How dare they say more men are raped than women!", "How dare they outlaw male circumcision and potentially lower the public indignation over female circumcision!".

>>It goes without saying we are a singular entity.<<

Quite right. One of the reasons there is such a gulf of difference between men and women is that women have individual and distinct consciousnesses whilst men operate as a collective hive-mind much like the Borg from Star Trek. When Killarney says "It's men who are fighting the 'gender wars', because adversarial conflict and combat are what men are brought up to do best" she isn't just making a sweeping generalisation which reduces men to stereotypes and caricatures: they really all have been brought up as warriors.

Obviously this leaves a third gender: those of us who have XY sex chromosomes and the sexual characteristics of men but are combat-shy cowards and/or pacifists. People - definitely not men - like Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Benjamin Franklin 'Hawkeye' Pierce, John Lennon, Arnold J. Rimmer. And me of course: I have a yellow streak that would make a Frenchman envious.

Because we lack the attitude to be considered men and the biology to be considered women we are constantly overlooked and ignored in this debate. It's like we just don't exist. Feminists are only interested in a dialogue about men and women and this simplistic dichotomy automatically marginalizes and disenfranchises an entire gender... while feminists claim to be fighting for gender equality!

And if you think that doesn't hurt Killarney try walking a mile in a not-man's boots.

Cheers,

Tony

'Similarly the debate over male circumcision in Germany has taken a nasty turn with a prominent Women's group opposing any ban on the grounds that in promotes the idea that male and female circumcision are in any way comparable.'

LMFAO!

Is that true?

I read yesterday someone saying it's offensive to compare the foreskin to the labia. I reckon they're about the same function (The outer labia I'm talking about), and they even use the skin for sex changes and such.

FGM is plainly worse since it involves the clitoris and inner labia I too, but if it was just the outer labia I reckon there would still be the uproar and double standard.

I find it amusing people defend circumcision on cultural grounds when that is considered irrelevant when it comes to FGM. It's always amusing when people pick and choose what parts of other cultures must be respected and protected.