Concave Room Morality

Introduction

I'll polish this up in August

What’s my opinion on X/Y/Z? When you say issue, if we can both agree that something is an issue, do you mean the postulating, the policy, the motion or the method? If not then the theory?

Principles supercedes policies whilst protocols begets an anathema

tynamite

Well what I’m going to explain below for this Diarched Shelter series, is something that I see in my day to day life all the time. It astounds me how other people do not see it. I would say that this overlaps with the following concepts, which I’ll give examples for below.

Explaining The Concept

Imagine that a technology company wants to protect themselves from IP Theft. What they might do, is design their ground floor in a way so that the middle of the room is more cramped in space by how things are arranged, so that it’s harder for a visitor to walk from one side of the room to another, without being noticed.

Now imagine that when someone complains about something, that they’re often doing the exact same thing themselves. It’s just that they’ve compartmentalised other areas of their life, that they’re not aware that they’re still doing this.

Note that the word hypocrite isn’t quite the word, like someone who speeds and uses their phone whilst driving, whilst telling other people not to. It’s all concave morality here.

They will condemn and forbid the most anodyne and benign behaviours. So if I commit behaviour X, in the left hand side of the room, then my behaviour is strictly forbidden and warrants me getting fired from work (or accosted by the receptionist or security guard for loitering). But if I walk to the other side of the room, the behaviour MAGICALLY becomes socially acceptable and permissible. It’s like a concave room morality like the concave designed room above in my diagram.

That Concept With #metoo

If #metoo was just about the condemned and reproachable behaviour, nobody would be debating it, as those issues already have a bipartisan consensus – that it’s wrong.

If #metoo was just about sexual harassment, then there wouldn’t be such a heated debate about it, as both sides of the spectrum, liberal and conservative, both have bipartisan agreement for being against such behaviour. The bipartisan debate is settled, so the debate is about more than the blatantly obvious.

Tynamite’s opinion on #metoo

My opinion on #metoo, is that women are going to be complaining about things whilst doing those EXACT same thing themselves. It’s just that they’ve compartmentalised different areas of their lives so they’re not aware that their behaviour in one aspect of their lives is wildly inconsistent with the other areas.

As things have done a bit post-brazil here if the questions on my Tellonym account is anything to go by, I’ll give some examples.

forbidden male behaviourwomen doing the same thing elsewhere
Catcalling aka cold approaching outsideGirls cold approaching boys in schools
(including a 14 year old girl towards a 16 year old boy)

Women at university in the classroom asking multiple men for help with their coursework (if a man did this it’d be seen as a veiled attempt of chatting up women and “cruising” for “scouting to scour” the market
Men cold approaching women on LinkedinWomen gatecrashing conferences on linkedin
Asking a woman a question on an anonymous Q&A website like Tellonym, Ask FM or Curious Cat, that has these emoji’s in it 💋😍💖Being self-modulating to end sentences with x or xxx or 😀 excessively or <3 ^_^ in kawaii anime speak
Using pet names like dear, honey, baby and sweetieDitto
Posting a comment on an instagram model’s photo, to say that she’s sexy, hot, a vixen or foxy (as if she’s some sort of stock market asset), INSTEAD of calling her cute, pretty, gorgeous or beautiful.Just look at what they did to Jeremy Meeks mugshot on Facebook BEFORE he got famous

They will condemn and forbid the most anodyne and benign behaviours. So if I commit behaviour X, in the left hand side of the room, then my behaviour is strictly forbidden and warrants me getting fired from work (or accosted by the receptionist or security guard for loitering). But if I walk to the other side of the room, the behaviour MAGICALLY becomes socially acceptable and permissible. It’s like a concave room morality like the concave designed room above in my diagram.

Their logic is like

  1. A person who is against gambling who allows their children to play loot boxes on video games
  2. A person who is against fast food who allows their children to eat highly processed ready meals
  3. A person who is against their children playing violent video games, whilst finding no issue with them watching CCTV footage and reconstructions of REAL and historic crime on the news and Crimewatch

The level of familiarity or professionalism in both parties relationship with each other, is irrelevant because the EXACT SAME things that feminists are dictating to men what they can and cannot do, they are doing those EXACT SAME things that they forbid you (ie. men) to do, in other areas of their lives, in an EQUIVALENT scenario.

It’s just that these people have cognitive dissonance as they are contradicting themselves, due to them compartmentalising different areas of their life, so they are oblivious and completely unaware that the behaviour they forbid in vicinity X, while they are committing themselves in vicinity Y.

That’s my opinion on #metoo These people are absolutely loopy

Sources for further reading to give my above 2 tables context

Believe it or not, this PSA was shared by a sex positive feminist, who is either a sex worker themselves or runs a website as a safe space for sex workers

I won’t say who shared it, so you lot can’t troll or flame the person en masse.

There was in a time in the UK, when there was modesty laws, similar to Saudi Arabia

  • It was illegal for a woman to be walking outside wearing shorts or a skirt.
  • It was illegal for a woman to be smoking on the street. (It was originally men and women but when World War Two happened, the police allowed men to do it.)
  • It was illegal for a woman to be wearing a dress on the street.
  • A woman could be FINED AND ARRESTED for doing it.

Also it was considered immodest to be walking around showing your ankles. Everyone has to wear high socks. That’s why the victorian piano is a big block at the back, as it was considered as having 4 spouting out legs instead of 2, that the legs would be sexually arousing to men, so the piano legs were covered up with draping fabric and merged into the frame of the piano.

Fast forward to the 1970s, and the feminists were all about sex-positive feminism, where they claimed that the patriarchy was oppressing them from flaunting their sexuality and capitalising on it to its fullest economic and socially accrued value. The miniskirt was considered to be a feminist symbol.

Wearing a miniskirt was seen as a political statement, to be regarded as feminist and against the patriarchal suppression (or price control) of female exhibitions of female sexuality. There’s even famous A-List celebrity british supermodel Twiggy wearing a miniskirt in an advert.

Fast forward to today, now the same feminist movement that was previously sex-positive, is now sex-negative. They got the government to ban sexualised imagery of women from adverts and tv shows. And now they’re planning to ban prostitution and porn in upcoming laws.

If you’re not a reprobate, where to go from here?

In my opinion, as a man, I only have three choices to mitigate the contradictory teachings of Concave Room Morality.

  • Do the same thing the woman is doing, then when she complains to HR, use the defence of “she did it too”
  • Be some pansy who incessantly asks the question “Do you mind if I do X? May I? Can I do X? Do you want to X?”
  • Don’t do the things that would land you in hot water or have you giving women a beating stick (to beat you with)

PS. I’m not advocating for men to avoid being in the same room alone, or stop being friendly or pally with women whilst being standoffish. Don’t get it twisted!

The diplomatic approach is used to stifle debates about controversial topics

Just because the worst of situations can happen in the best of circumstances, it doesn’t always mean that the worst of precautions should happen for the best of protection.

The government PSA’s and the feminist workshops in schools will use some tragic story about some woman who was assaulted due to rejecting a man, as a reason why catcalling should be banned.

Now I can understand and acknowledge that some men are victim blaming against women, or trivialising, excusing and invalidating sexual harassment and groping against women. But even so, they have completely missed the point.

However the diplomatic approach whilst claiming that Tinder and Badoo have millions of users, it fails to acknowledge that women are disgusted by male desire. Even if you could wave a magic wand to make all sex crime become zero for the next 20 years, they’d still have a problem with it. Due to a combination of authority figures mediators being diplomatic, combined with the middle ground approach and political correctness, it is a slated topic to talk about the concept of women being disgusted by male desire.

According to Geek Feminism Wiki, Finally Feminism 101 Wiki, feminists say that they are not prudes and they don’t hate sex. Well if that’s the case, like feminists say it is, then how come women are contradicting themselves, by doing the exact same things themselves that they tell men not do? So maybe women don’t like the thing that they so much claim to like.

The diplomatic nature is then even excerbated even further, to blindside and gloss over the Concave Morality point that my article makes, by

Who is trying to make catcalling or cold approaching women illegal?

Hollaback, Collective Voice, Our Streets Now, Object UK and Plan International currently campaigns for this, as it’s illegal in France but quasi-legal in the UK as West Midlands Police made a by-law (a law by the council that only applies in certain areas) under the Public Order Act although there’s no explicit offence in legislation. In the UK famous PUA Addy A-Game and some other person got arrested for calling approaching women in the UK.

The double standards that Twitch moderators have, is a perfect example of Concave Room Morality

Twitch used to give out reasons for why they suspended or banned users but some time later on, they stopped doing it as people used the previous reasons to point out double standards in how they conduct their moderation. And I’m not just talking about livestreamers who are protected for being popular and profitable for twitch who are exempt from criticism.

  • Gabepeixe get suspended from twitch for broadcasting a video where the subject in the video had a poster on their wall of the painted yet naked backs of women.
  • Users point out the double standards of how twitch thots like Kaceytron, Amouranth and Tara Babcock are allowed to do what they do.
  • As a PR Defensive style window dressing exercise, they try to facetiously balance it out by suspending a woman called ShyBear for temporarily for drawing a woman.

That Concept With Prostitution

The same people who want prostitution banned, also want OTHER stuff banned as well

The same people who want this bannedalso contradictingly see no issue with this
Men taking photos of women breastfeeding should be arrested for committing a face crime (although not for faces or arms)

So are boobs really a sexual organ or not? Hmm.
School girls should be able wear clothes that reveal their boobs as “attire policing” is sexist and victim blaming women for men’s intrusive behaviours.
Facebook and Instagram banning photos of female nipples is wrong as boobs are not sexual organs as they are secondary sexual characteristics
Booth babes for gaming conferences and grid girls for Formula One is objectifying women and should be bannedIt’s okay for Nicki Minaj and Cardi B to make songs like Anaconda and WAP to be twerking on stage at the VMA’s or Grammy’s and if Fox News doesn’t like it, then it’s slut shaming women
Suited and booted CEO Men using sex to sell burgers and cars is objectifying women and should be banned
What does burgers and cars have to do with sex? Absolutely nothing!
Female chefs like Nigella Lawson using sex to sell food is empowering.
It doesn’t matter if food has nothing to do with sex.
Women in video games like in Soul Calbur and the old Tomb Raider should not be objectified as the sexualised imagery serves to make women appear subservient, as women are used for decoration.
The male gaze influenced the character and game design, which is patriarchial.
Influencers on instagram copying the aethestic from porn, like wearing a choker, the ahageo face and going really squeaky when thanking their livestream donator on twitch.

No it never came from anime, it came from porn.
A man who landed a rocket on the moon with a t-shirt of scandily clad women is wrong and twitch should have banned a male livestreamer for having bikini pictures on his bedroom wallIt’s okay for celebrities to walk around with scandily clad women on their t-shirts and twitch has refused to ban female livestreamers who had topless or bikini pictures on their wall or desktop wallpaper
A man asking a woman out in the workplace,
as it’s supposed to be a professional environment
Source: Is This Sexual Harassment?
vice versa
On the flip side….let’s move onto sex positive feminists
Surprisingly so, the sex positive feminists who want porn and prostitution to be legal, they typically have a problem with….Glamour modelling like Page 3, F1 Grid Girls and gaming conference booth babes

The Male Gaze in tv shows and movies

Depraved and hedonistic pop music where women sing about sex, partying, dancing, alcohol and maybe drugs
BehaviourWith ConsentWithout consentThe diplomats who focus on consent, blindside or gloss over the pervasive underlying issue
Looking, ahem, gawking at women from behind a screenCreepshots

Uploading photos of women on the street, taken without their consent and knowledge
(that got banned on reddit)
If I watch a youtube channel that shows compilations of attractive weather girls, then even though the women dress modestly, whilst nothing sexually suggestive is going on, the gawking behind the computer screen is appartently still objectifying women, even when the candid and cinema verté shooting direction is usedWomen are disgusted by male desire, as they’d find it disgusting even if it was consensual, as with weather girl youtube channels

So if their motivation isn’t really based on anything capitalist like “wage slavery”, beneath the surface level, is it?

Exactly!

The modus operandi of them is to enforce a social contract – within the personal and pally ties between people – that goes beyond public order and peer civility

The crux of their argument is “because it objectifies women”, hence the true motive is them trying to fix a social contract

You can see my opinion about social contracts here. In my opinion, we don’t need laws to regulate a social contract, whether liberal or conservative, feminist or MRA. Social contracts go beyond public order and beyond peer civility, to regulate things when people have personal and pally ties with each other.

Katie Hopkins v Just Stop Oil. Have you ever paid a bill in your life?
Being a Dickhead's Cool
10 Reasons why LSE is the best place to be! | LSE Student Vlog
HOW MUCH DOES STUDYING IN LONDON ACTUALLY COST? // THE REAL COST OF BEING A LONDON UNI STUDENT (LSE)
Clip S1-Ep3: Ollie confides in Binky | Made in Chelsea
Making $1.5M/month on OnlyFans and Twitch: Amouranth | My Life Online
Newspapers delayed by Extinction Rebellion: ‘The billionaire press is anti-climate action’
Furious drivers physically drag activists off a busy highway
Climate activists smash windows at Barclays' London headquarters
Climate protesters throw soup on Van Gogh painting

It’s always the middle class people with their parents connections and revolving door of jobs, who benefit from nepotism and being able to find a new job within 2 weeks after being fired, who complain about such things. It’s just like how the environmentalists at Extinction Rebellion who block roads, are most likely to be middle class hipsters.

Slavery is closer than you think – find out more by watching this video about Modern Slavery

I had a friend from Vietnam, a dictatorship where prostution is illegal, who got into an argument with her sister because she was sponging off her, as her sister was self-employed as a sole trader whereas she was unemployed. Eventually she ended up going abroad with a fake sponsor to Denmark, after her attempt for a “student visa” failed, so now she’s gravely subject to modern slavery at some farm for some agricultural work.

Remember that there is no minimum wage or workers rights in Denmark unless you’re part of a trade union, as the trade unions of various industries, negotiate their own rates and deals. And you can probably guess that the minimum wage doesn’t apply to her. That’s where banning prostitution in countries where there’s no welfare, where if you don’t work you starve, ends up, people being subject to human trafficking across the border under modern slavery.

Further Reading

Liberalism and feminism is a deconstructionist ideology

That reminds me of those e-scooter and e-bike drivers who think that their motorised vehicle will remain legal in the UK, as they’re wearing a fluorescent jacket with flashing lights, whilst the (manual) bike drivers aren’t.
Well there’s never a lower bound limit, of how low crime can go, before the police decide that they don’t want to reduce crime any further. It doesn’t matter how low crime gets, they’ll always want to reduce it lower and lower.

This quote is something that liberals feminists would say
But but but…Motorbikes are 100x more dangerous than e-scooters and e-bikes!

Then years later, the british government bans e-bikes, e-scooters and segways, leaving those e-bike users shocked, as they thought they would remain exempt from any further bans.

The liberals are ALWAYS going to keep expanding it and expanding it (political correctness), as it is not a “means to a solution” but instead a “means to an end”.

They have an ulterior motive and an end goal. They will always be moving the goalpost

For some fun and frolics, ask sex negative feminists, for their opinion on these topics

  • Marriage (especially stay at home wives)
  • Sugar babies on SeekingArrangement.com
  • Relationship anarchy (The idea that women feel that online dating and free choice, 50 years after the Sexual Revolution, has debased relationships)
  • Dating websites (If a man doesn’t pay for sex directly, he’s paying indirectly in an anciliary manner, just like how Kindle, Goodreads, IMDB and Twitch don’t directly make money but they make sense to be owned by Amazon as the point is to funnel people to buy stuff on Amazon. If a man goes on a coffee date with a woman, even if they both pay for their own drinks, he’ll pay more on his own drinks within her presence, than if he went by himself.)
  • Filipino women having to leave the country on a supposed “domestic worker visa” (which often doesn’t exist with no legitimate visa), where women are subject to modern slavery in a foreign country – hence being subject to human trafficking in a country where prostitution is illegal due to the Catholic stranglehold on the government (abortion and condoms are also illegal)

That Concept With The Nanny State Impacting Public Health

Banning multibuys, then enforcing The Sugar Tax then banning discounted ready meals

It wasn’t enough that supermarkets formally or informally banned mutlibuys and buy one get one free offers. It wasn’t enough that we had the sugar tax. Now they want to

Banning smoking in cars and public places whilst allowing carbesity then implementing Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

Smokefree England advert
Smokefree Campaign Advert - Tobacco Control Smoke Free Car

July 1st 2007 the smoking ban in public places happened, a few years after smoking in cars (despite not driving) was banned

When I was in school, I disagreed with the teacher by saying that a child is more likely to develop cancer from the 20 years of car pollution from people driving, from the exhaust pipe, than from a child being in a car with a smoker. She didn’t like that pithy remark but she had no comeback.

It’s ironic that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods will actually make children more sick, by concentrating all the cars in a more densely populated area.

Who is exacerbating the problem, which makes it not PC for conservatives to discuss Concave Morality?

Within a classroom of confusion, the teacher’s reaction is either of bewilderment, enthusiasm or exasperation

I think this header should suffice for now.

Let’s use an analogy of indian men learning STEM to escape poverty

Imagine if we lived in a country where there’s no welfare. If you don’t work, you starve. So an indian parent tells their male children to learn STEM, especially programming, so they can make loads of money when they’re older instead of some minimum wage dead end job that has no job security. Would it be

Let’s add a compounding factor to that.

Now imagine that employment agencies and tech companies are realising that most people with technology degrees, are incompetent and lack talent, so they cannot do programming. Also that there’s a lot of charlatans who currently have programming jobs who really shouldn’t be in those jobs, as they’re only doing the rudimental stuff and are not cut out for the big wide world if they looked at competing employers.

Now would it still be fair for the indian parent to tell their children to just “learn to code bro?”

That’s exactly what Tomica Marcotte is doing! It’s a false cause for a right concern.

If making an 18 year old spend 3 years at university studying Computing if they have no programming talent, is bad, then isn’t feminists giving men misguided advice due to flawed Handicam Theory, isn’t that also a lost cause. So even if we can agree with the issues, whether severe, major or minor – the approach they use to solve such problems, well, that.

Tomica Marcotte strikes again!

What’s the difference between a Tomica World train and a Hornby train? Even though Tomica is more technically advanced, it can only move in one direction

tynamite

Liberals and feminists (who share similar beliefs), are still stuck on this “gender is a social construct” thing. Well anyway, let’s do a quick run down of all the table squares.

  • Access: How easily can something be acquired, from a starting point of zero
  • Lower Bound: What is the minimum threshold that would disqualify someone from the market, from a market player to a market outcast? And how does the middle-tier once the lower-tier and upper-tier is removed?
  • Metrics: Just like someone measuring in imperial (inches or miles) while another uses metric (cm or km), what metrics are being used to judge whether something is good. And do different demographics use the same metric to judge things?
  • Aspiration: How much do certain demographics like the same things and do they like it equally to each other? If not, how likely are they to compromise or acquiesce to each other’s demands?

Tomica Marcotte, just like other liberals (and feminists) seem to be STUCK on the above table being at equivalent and interchangeable parity, with it being the same for men and women, as far as dating is concerned. No it’s just not comparable. The only difference is that with behavioural data gaining prominence due to the rise of the internet, that when you can number-crunch millions of people, that liberals couldn’t make so much of the same claims that they could before.

So when they were forced to turn back on some of their beliefs (due to the emergence of behavioural data), although they visibly did so in their public declarations for the “access” quadrant. They’ve still latched onto it somewhat, just in a more granular way. So they might say that men have access to a

  • Fractional Share (for access): If not a romantic relationship with women, then at least a platonic relationship with men.
  • Standards (for access): That even if men and women have different standards, men can easily influence women’s standards to succeed in the dating market for pair bonding, as easily as women can affect men’s chances for pair bonding – as men and women are as equally powerful and responsible for setting the modern (and historical) dating standards which act as prerequisites and requirements to succeed.

It gets even more complicated if you consider platonic loneliness for men but as we’d have to split up that point into three, romantic love, platonic love and opportunities for meeting new people and even men parasitically using women solely for a stereotypical feminist role whilst asking nothing of the sort from men – that’s another article for another time. Well who had the bootstraps myth bias for all three of those in the liberal media, despite having good and valid points? Who knows?

Violate the Tomica Marcotte Quad Table, and you’ll be censored, banned, no-platformed and cancelled

Correction: The male scientist didn’t say that women should be excluded from science, his comments were misconstrued by feminists (so triggered that they didn’t listen properly), he was just implying that men’s language is more abrasive, rough and rowdy than women’s, so men had to “wear the pink gloves” (not the kid gloves) to avoid offending women. Men claiming that women are more sensitive in the workplace, is a transgression that warrants being cancelled, according to feminists and liberals, as apparently it portrays women as less competent than men by “discouraging” women like someone making “get back in kitchen” jokes. Predictably since gamergate happened, they want the scientist fired from their job, hence cancelled.

Originally published: 10/06/15

Katharine Birbalsingh defended her comments, saying it’s ‘wrong to have the idea’ there should be 50 per cent girls and 50 per cent boys in subjects on Good Morning Britain.

But that’s EXACTLY what the liberals running the Equalities Office, Social Mobility Commission and Equalities Hub are doing!!!!!!!!!!!! Remember how I said (elsewhere on this blog) liberals want female only workshops and bootcamps to put women into STEM, to ARTIFICIALLY inflate the statistics?

Government is funding programmes to help increase take-up of STEM education for children, and has launched the STEM ReCharge initiative to help people who have left work for caring responsibilities back into STEM careers.

left work for caring responsibilities = women

STEM ReCharge Initiative

Further Reading

Also check this!

Imagine getting cancelled because you made a tweet when you was 15 saying that your male friend had a lesbian haircut.

The attitudes in the above diagram, are prevalent in liberal (and feminist media)

Feminists are wrong, no men shouldn’t be taking off the pink gloves off, around women

What is the difference between a reprobate and a miscreant? A reprobate does something that would typically breach the probation conditions that would be legal for a law abiding citizen to do, whereas a miscreant exploits people’s tolerance and docile nature to exploit The Polite Society.

tynamite

To provide some context onto my point here, it would be good to read these articles.

  1. Sorry For Being Cliquish But Open-Air Meetups Are Counterproductive
  2. Lockean Approaches Won’t Repair Our Declining Social Cohesion
  3. Kill The Escapism For The Sake of Diversity, Will Kill Gaming From Elopers
  4. All my articles, so far, that talks about any such social contracts

Imagine a four step process

  1. People who believe that friendship is a “package deal”, so if I’m friends with person X from a religious community, then I must also invite them and all their other friends, into every social circle I’m in, like social circle A/B/C
  2. People who do not believe that concepts like evaporative cooling, congruence or (below the surface) counter-social values, that they have any relevance as to what would make a friendship group or community stick together
  3. People who make existing communities homogenised, by hijacking it, causing a mass exodus of those who were there before (eg. male dominated video game communities)
  4. A person who is given more agency than another set of people, who can then t

This article is long enough as it is (over 7500 words), so to keep it short, I’ll relegate the explanatory stuff to the other articles linked above.

That is then exacerbated by this into a feedback loop

Maybe below isn’t the best example or too extreme an example but you can see my overall point.

I would expand further but for time’s sake, here’s two images.

So then what happens next? Allow the table below to illustrate.

behaviourmicro scale
peer interaction
macro scale
social circle
Wear the pink glovesNo longer offend womenConductive and cohesive
interactions with women
due to lack of offence and unnerving
Stop wearing the pink glovesOffend women and be CANCELLED!!!You’ll be accused of
benevolent sexism or a microaggression – for either
being too abrasive or too mollycoddling
Keep the social circle within
an overall yet patchy sense of….
shared values
Someone is offended for it not being inclusive enoughPeople will start leaving in a mass exodus
as the newly changed group,
no longer meets their needs
Keep the shared values intact
to meet the initial remit of the group
The regular attendees continue to
regularly attend
The newcomers who all joined at once,
from who knows where, will keep demanding you change the group

Now taking the above table into perspective, what if the person who is demanding the newfound changes, just so happens to be a person who benefits from double standards – which allows them greater agency to achieve things, such as acting like a miscreant without any repercussions, curbing or chastising?

In short, women benefiting from their prior-role and post-role, to weave between the benefits of tradition and liberalism – whereas men are relegated to just traditional exceptions of their behaviour. Women tend to believe that chivalry is sexist because it put expectations on women’s behaviour to be subservient to men, that women exist for the purpose of serving men. However they fail to realise that chivalry placed expectations on BOTH men and women.

I need to find a way to articulate it better but to so, requires a further 2000 words, so just read the articles above. I might write a new article later on, to take parts from previous 3-5 articles into one article, to make it all concise, consolidated and comprehensive. Well maybe!

Well what if the person who is breaking the social contract, isn’t men, it’s women? And no, I don’t mean crime, public order or peer civility. I mean the personal ties that individuals have amongst themselves in a micro-scale manner like a pocket bubble – like antiparticles and particles in space vacumn popping in and out of existence.

Or put it another way, using even another analogy.

Now for another analogy. Here goes!

Imagine if someone needs help using a PDA called a Palm Pilot. Well everything is vis-a-vis, as far as the eye can see, everything visible nis made clear as to understand what is allowed or correct for both parties. You and me. But what if I want to help someone else and that person is an immigrant or a racial minority. Well as it’s vis-a-vis, then I can help them with the same composite, as I helped you.

Well what if now someone needs help with orienteering with the four items listed in the above image? If a person was using the items incorrectly, it wouldn’t be obvious as the feedback wouldn’t be there like it would be with the electronics. A person could be unknowingly wasting at least 30 minutes going round in circles.

So would it be fair to instead teach them 50% of aspect A and 50% of aspect B, to then make it 60% of aspect A or 40% of aspect B so they’ll likely (if my presumptions are right), that they’ll have a better chance of understanding it, due to my perceived differences in their learning style, background knowledge of life experiences. And besides both ways of teaching are equivalent!

So what is the big deal? So as it follows, if this analogy was used with how men communicate with women in the workplace, why would it be sexist or benevolent sexism, for a man to instead change the composition of how much time if spent teaching each aspect, if the person helping has limited time and limited people they can teach, if it can be established that different people have different learning styles, life experiences along with the time spent on each aspect, being comparable and equivalent, in the grand scheme of things, to not cause any blindsided oversight by spending too much time ignoring one of the aspects (A or B)?

Holdefex Theory prevails again!

Who is teaching a false cause for a right concern?

If both sides of the spectrum can both agree on what the issues are, whether liberal or conservative, feminist or MRA, then who is teaching a false cause for a right concern?

Who has the bad policies for the good proposals?

You tell me!

The Permissive Society and Girl Boss Feminism is dead. Choice Feminism is also dead. Welcome to the diktat society

I would say there’s three types of feminism

  • Cultural Marxism: Meghan Murphy, Clementine Ford, Julie Bendel
  • Diktat society: Jessica Valenti, Laura Bates
  • Permissive society: Amanda Marcotte, Naomi Wolf

We don’t need laws about social contracts

You can see more about my opinions about laws about social contracts, over here.

But what about the harm caused by X/Y/Z?

Ditto

Oh wait, all these harmful concepts have been concept creeped.

Further Reading about Diktat Feminism superceding Choice Feminism

  • one
  • two
  • three
  • four
  • five

Wait! I’m confused here. What is girl boss? Who is saying that choice feminism is bad? And what is the permissive or diktat society?

I’ve wrote an article about that here.

I do agree with feminists on some things

Turning every social network into a dating website is a disheartening swarmfest

Person: m or f?
You: m
System: **your partner has disconnected**

chat roulette, omegle, y99

I agree with those women there! If sexual conversations was allowed to proliferate on social networks, the nobody would ever talk about anything else.

Porn is 25% of online traffic
Youtube is 12% of online traffic
Netflix is 8% of online traffic
Porn is bigger than youtube and netflix combined

Attire policing school girls is wrong

It doesn’t matter if a woman was wearing a burka or a winter sweater, men would find a way to objectify her anyway

I can agree there!

There is a generational divide between millennials (me) and zoomers , where I think that zoomers have feral decency despite 12/14 years of mandatory public schooling

The abusive minority ruined it for the majority so it’s outlived its purpose, just like coupons in newspapers and mixed sex yoga and gyms

I can agree there!

But even so, to just focus on men who stalk women, shout at women, assault them for saying no, although it’s abhorrantly bad and I’m vehently against it, to focus only on that, for the sake of being diplomatic when trying to mediate and laise between offended and violated women, it only serves to detract away from the point (as stated above), that even if you made all sex crime become zero for the next 20 years, women would still find a way to be disgusted by male desire and ban certain adverts anyway.

Tying It Back Round To Base

Conclusion

I’ve spent enough time on this article enough as it is, so I’ll keep it short. Basically it’s all about this.

Now imagine that when someone complains about something, that they’re often doing the exact same thing themselves. It’s just that they’ve compartmentalised other areas of their life, that they’re not aware that they’re still doing this.

Note that the word hypocrite isn’t quite the word, like someone who speeds and uses their phone whilst driving, whilst telling other people not to. It’s all concave morality here.

They will condemn and forbid the most anodyne and benign behaviours. So if I commit behaviour X, in the left hand side of the room, then my behaviour is strictly forbidden and warrants me getting fired from work (or accosted by the receptionist or security guard for loitering). But if I walk to the other side of the room, the behaviour MAGICALLY becomes socially acceptable and permissible. It’s like a concave room morality like the concave designed room above in my diagram.

~tynamite // the overall point of this article

Bonus: Pre-emptive counter-arguments about overlapping issues

I think I can copy and paste from other parts of this article and

But….but….but…. women as decoration is bad

The #metoo debate of what women find disgusting and offensive, has moved far beyond Page 3 and grid girls being banned

But….but….but….women as a reward is bad

As video games are being reformed to meet feminist tastes, the trope of Mario getting a kiss from Princess Peach for defeating the boss, makes it a phased out and antiquated trope.

But….but….but…women being used to sell products like burgers, cars and technology magazines, which have nothing to do with sex, is bad.

The #metoo debate of what women find disgusting and offensive, has moved far beyond using women to sell products that are not related to beauty, dating or sex.

But….but….but….women being told to smile more and assert less is bad

See Trick 1 below.

But….but….but….men do invalidate, trivialise and excuse the oppression and repression of women

I can agree that some men do this and it’s wrong. But where to go from this blog article? Is this article about the abuses directed against women and the derailment tactics they face, or is it about cognitive biases conjoined with cognitive dissonance? Would it be a derailment tactic to not derail the topic of this blog article?

And about the widespread and commonplace sexual harassment that women face (and worse), that’s out of scope for this blog, as this blog is supposed to focus on partisan issues, not bi-partisan issues. The thing is, whether liberal or conservative, socialist or free market capitalist, both sides of the spectrum would agree that sexual harassment (and worse and its likeness) is vehemently wrong. That’s like asking Everyday Feminism why they don’t focus on pop culture articles and asking why Bitch Media doesn’t focus on evergreen articles. That’s outside the scope of their blog, ahem, magazine.

A woman shall only be objectified if she consents to it, which by definition, as the PSA’s say it’s bad, then that means that it’s only good if she’s explicitly stated that she’s happy with this, beforehand (as costume is not consent)

I can agree there (including that costume is not consent) but has the contradictory behaviour not resonated? The image below shall suffice to make my point of how liberals think.

Trolling primarily and disproportionately affects women, so it’s only fair for women to be hypervigilant – so as it follows – as the abuse they face online is indicative of how a seemingly gender neutral behaviour in the real world, can actually have a gendered motive (or a gender hate element), shouldn’t we look at behaviour X in a more concerning way, as well?

Where do I start with this? Maybe a new article maybe?

Analogy 1: Different ways to define privilege using a distribution model

See above

Imagine someone who’s just handed something on a plate. It’s just given to them merely for them existing. For some types of privilege regarding race/age/disability/gender, it’s just like that. Well that’s not something that I experience. Disability is a weird one as there is cognitive, developmental, chronic and mobility, if we had to classify it into four main types.

But even so, Everyday Feminism has an article on their website about “able bodied privilege” when I never see people in wheelchairs when I walk outside but I see coloured people, religious minorities, women and old people all the time. So are we talking about what is commonplace or an anomaly?

Leniency for a mea culpa, abrasive or miscreant behaviour

fill this in later

fill this in later

Imagine that there’s some sports club, games club or whatever lunchtime club that allows a person to go to lunch 30 minutes or 1 hour early. Well imagine for some people it’s like this.

  • Use the hall pass
  • Enter the canteen
  • Sit at the any table (mission accomplished)

Now imagine for some people it’s like this

  • Use the hall pass
  • Enter the canteen
  • Choose the correct table (if you choose the wrong one, you’re screwed)

Obviously the first example for a person, would make them more privileged than the second.

Wearing wellingtons or a hazmat suit, whether the other person knows it or not

Imagine a person who walks around on the muddy grass with wellingtons, who wonders why they can’t walk around in shoes or sandals, like the other person can. But what if that person isn’t wearing that but something worse, like a hazmat suit like when a murder happens and forensics has to be taken. I mean, cleaning up all the mess once all the drama has happened and everyone has left the scene.

Analogy 2: How do we define good in a rational sense?

Some people would say that capitalism isn’t mutually beneficial. Those people aren’t rich.

tynamite

Consider that the ethical imperative is often not in-line and in conflict with the prosocial imperative.

For example….

Is it ethical for someone to ghost someone else after pm’ing them, in the grand scheme of things? Are they entitled to do so, if they so please.

Actually yes. But is it prosocial? No.

Consider my second example Is a university student obligated to help another student commit plagiarism by helping them out with their coursework, by doing MOST of it for them? Is it ethical if they were to REFUSE to do it.

Actually yes. But is it prosocial? No.

So as you can see, the prosocial imperative is often at conflict and in direct opposition to the ethical imperative.

As a compounding factor, how about each person has all their cards on the table in full view. Nothing hiding up their sleeves and nothing showing just the back of the card with it in their hands. Nobody is under any illusion or false pretence over what they’re going to get.

By the way, a zero sum game is when a person can not win or gain anything, without another person losing (like chess of checkers), whereas for a positive sum game, a person can gain without it coming at anyone else’s expense for them to lose anything in the process.

Analogy 3: Car Insurance for men and women

Imagine if a transgender woman was to start a lawsuit against a car insurance money, on the basis that she’s being discriminated against because she’s been given the same quote as a man. And we all know what that means! That women pay cheaper car insurance (just like people over 30) as they are less likely to get in car accidents. So if that transgender woman’s lawsuit is successful, do you think they will reduce her monthly price or keep it the same? It’ll remain the same, while the woman’s prices will increase to match the man’s.

That is similar to when I was in secondary school when a dinner lady was racist towards black people. Whenever a white person found a hair in their food, they got given a new food item but when a black person did, they got told to get lost (not literally). I noticed this but didn’t see a point in reporting it. Years later, as this was known among my friend, when a black person nearby overheard this, he tried it himself to get a replacement food item in an attempt to catch her out, after having his white friend do it a few days ago. When he caught her out, do you think the racist decided to give black people free food items if their food was damaged, discoloured or had hair in it? No. She simply also said no to the white people.

So be careful what you wish for? Instead of harmonising the privileges, you can instead end up compressing the middle-tier and upper-tier by reducing the upper bound, so the lower-tier don’t really end up more privileged than they already are.

Analogy 4: Applying for a job in a fashion shop, supermarket and technology shop

After doing work experience in retail, I’ve learnt that the companies that operate outside fashion that require staff to smile and always appear busy, that they’re just doing some PR virtue signalling, window dressing, as they’re compensating for their exploitative behaviour elsewhere. They give with one hand and take with the other.

In the UK, an employee is only entitled to “workers rights” if they’ve been employed for 16 weeks. A department store that also sells food, Marks & Spencer, hires people a few pennies (£0.01, well actually £0.20p) above minimum wage so they can technically claim they pay above minimum wage, all while they’ll have 2-3 staff working permenantly while the rest are on a temporary contract to be fired or pre-emptively terminated before the 16 week cut-off period, so the company can save money, by not having to pay sick pay, holiday pay, maternity pay, workplace pension, etc. Also if you’re fired before 16 weeks, the employee is not entitled to sue for discrimination, unjust dismissal or constructive dismissal, in an employment tribunal, so the company saves on potential damages (towards the victim) and legal fees.

I ALSO learnt that it can often cost the Marks & Spencer MORE money to make their products Fairtrade to ensure that their cocoa farmers get a few pennies extra, than it is to pay their virtually minimum wage employees around £2-3 extra to convert their minimum wage into the living wage.

Why is this? Because when you make your products Fairtrade, even if the people in Bangaldesh, India and Ghana aren’t earning considerably more by british (or western) standards, to qualify as Fairtrade, you ALSO have to make sure all your suppliers for your ingredients or materials are ALSO Fairtrade, which then means that there’s lots of suppliers that you CANNOT use. For example if you’re making a fruit cake, the ingredients come from SEVEN countries including Brazil Nuts which only grow in Brazil and not a greenhouse. So you ALSO are restricted from using most suppliers, which pushes up the price of the shipments/imports whilst also making things expensive again by there being longer waiting times until your orders are delivered, so you can only sell (or manufacture) so many products within a certain time.

So that’s why being Fairtrade can be more expensive than paying the living wage, even if paying £0.50 to some farmer or clothing stitcher, is much less than paying a british person £2-3 more.

The obvious question is, if these supermarkets and fashion shops claim to be SOOOO ethical, why aren’t they paying the living wage to british citizens, if that’s cheaper for them to implement (than the Fairtrade). You know what they say, Charity starts at home. Get your own house in order before trying to criticise or help other people.

Because they must have calculated that the percentage of the population who are willing to boycott them for not being Fairtrade, is much larger than the percentage who would boycott them for not paying the living wage. One demographic is larger than the other. Oh the irony!

Now replace Fairtrade with environmentally friendly, recyclable, made using recycled material or Carbon Neutral.

It makes sense for fashion shops to have a “look policy” and hire based on appearance as fashion is about appearance, having a specific demographic and being exclusive not inclusive. But when the supermarkets and technology stores are asking the staff to smile and always look busy, it’s always a PR defensive type virtue signalling and PR window dressing as a smokescreen to distract the consumer from all the other unethical stuff they do, that is most likely often cheaper to fix than the more expensive thing in their adverts and product labels. They take with one hand and give with the other.

Technology jobs don’t care if you’re attractive for you to work in them, all they care about is that you have common sense and are knowledgeable about technology.

Now about the women who complain about objectification, they’re making it out like they’re applying for work with a fashion shop all the time, rather than a tech shop or

Analogy 5: Disgust can be internalised if scorn is the alternative

I like the thing that manosphere writer Angry Harry wrote on his blog.

I’ll find the exact quote from his website later.

angry harry ~rip

To paraphrase, it pretty much goes like this.

Imagine if I had a child with a cleft palette or mild autism. Would it be fair for the abuse industry like counsellors, psychologists, psychiatrists and psychotherapists, to tell her that her life is ruined by going in a cylick dase about how horrible and disgusting it is? That would be child abuse. Well that’s what they do, making young people internalise negative emotions and associations with things.

Allow me to expand on his paraphrased point, to give you a nice diagram.

Analogy 5: Deferred identity is a myth as it’s more like a shapeshifting composite

So for me to be underprivileged, I would say

underprivilegeprivilege
Working class
raised on benefits, free school meals in the UK
NRS Social Grade E
Male
BlackLight skinned
(if colourism is a thing)
AutisticAble-bodied
Bipolar disorder and anxiety
(I would say mild depression or dysthymia since 7)
Native english speaker
Birthright citizen
Straight
Majority religion
Christian, prostetant
Slim
(Everyday Feminism says that
thin privilege is a thing)
First world country
14 Eyes Country
I’m from the UK

So for women to talk about being objectified, that’s not the only part of identity that they have, first and foremost, it can also be something else.

But if you ask me what it’s like to be me, or privileged as a X/Y/Z well I am….you know what?

There are other things about my identity than just X, I am also a Y and a Z as well? A woman can be a mother, a lawyer and and an illustrator. We are more than just an identity demographic in a singular fashion and not everything that happens in life, good or bad, is due to that one thing.

It’s like how because I can be autistic whilst not feeling disabled until it comes to the part of applying for jobs, where lots of jobs aren’t autism friendly. But then again, I know some people who are dyslexic or have asthma who aren’t able to do certain jobs but they don’t feel disabled. So it’s like a shapeshifting composite, one minute we’re disabled, the next minute we’re not but we don’t feel it most of the time.

Analogy 6: What is my natural visceral reaction to hearing that I’m privileged – within a split second – before formulating an opinion and resonating their speech?

What would be my visceral reaction when someone tells me to check my privilege, regardless of what the rational and practical brain would think?

  • It’s not my fault I’m privileged. I never chose to be born this way or in this location. I never chose to win the genetic or geographic lottery.
  • Being privileged doesn’t make me a bad person and I shouldn’t have to apologise on behalf of my race, gender, or nationality etc. I reject personal and collective blame, for the things I haven’t done.
  • I can acknowledge and agree that I’m privileged (in the way you say I am) but why do you (and others like you) keep mentioning it, if I cannot exactly share my privilege with someone else, can I? What could I possibly do, to make things better for you, as it’s not like a pie where I can cut you a slice.
  • Why am I being treated with a vexed or resentful attitude, for the accrued privileges, social capital and cultural capital that I hold and exhibit, as if somehow, I’m gatekeeping it, when I’m not gatekeeping anything. Not in my words, actions, demeanour, postulating or attitude.
  • If you have such a begrudging nature against me or if you say you’re a malevolent pansy, why am I being held to higher scrutiny and a higher model if I commit a mea culpa , as if somehow, you were two-faced either looking for an excuse to take me down a few pegs or you were sufferably insecure to think I was being arrogant by rubbing my decadence and prestige in your languishing face?
  • However manaevolent your intentions are, please don’t crystallise me. Just because I’m privilged, doesn’t mean I don’t have feelings, just like how rich and famous celebrities still have feelings when they’re getting rolled on twitter and instagram.

The feminist response to being called a man hater, a feminazi or wanting female superiority, back then, would pretty much be something like this.

Although a rising tide lifts all ships, the male/female privilege discussed (or fawned) here, is not the minimum wage, so the upper bound will be compressed. With a compressed upper-tier and middle-tier, be careful what you wish for, as upper bound compression doesn’t always give roses

If you could wave a magic wand and abolish pretty privilege tomorrow, or even the objectification of women, I can guarantee you that the accrued privileges that some women get, they’ll subside to wither away into nothing and none of that absolute or relative privilege will trickle down or spread out towards women who on a lower strata of privilege. It’s just like my car insurance analogy.

Here’s another one! Lottie Moss being a model to benefit from her older sister being a world famous supermodel, doesn’t make it any more harder for the next aspiring model, does it?

Related Posts