When Women Take Over The Decline of the West

I've been reading about it for a number of years and in many ways don't disagree. Women are "taking over the world." Inevitably (see recent Atlantic Monthly cover article, The End of Men) these articles treat the rise of women into business and educational dominance as a reaction to several trends. One trend cited is that there has been a decline in (local) manufacturing as it is shifted to other lower labor and less regulated economies (like China, Mexico). There is often an implication that men (or specifically testosterone) "got us into this mess" and women with their more peaceful and consensus-building personalities are going to get us out of it. It is often accurately cited that the modern social democracy creates an educational atmosphere, then a work atmosphere that favors women. In school the 'sit down and shut up' mode favors women over men. In corporate life, the new massive bureaucracies where there are no heroes only "team players favor women managers. In government and politics women are rising because they are compassionate and are less inhibited about spending other peoples' money to "help people cope." Like the Obama administration everything seems to be the fault of the "previous administration" (read: men).

It is interesting that I have never encountered an argument that goes like this: the decline of the West is exacerbated by the rise of women in power. While I could not make the case that the decline of the West is caused by the rise of women, it seems there is a connection here that no one is ready to make. True, we are dealing in stereotypes to some degree (generalizations is perhaps a better word) but so are these articles extolling the rise of women. On the one hand these types of articles treat the West as a stable if not rising power, associating things like the "Wall Street Crash" as evidence that the old male-dominated paradigm no longer works. But seen from another angle, the rise of "compassion" is about to destroy us. Take European debt. Social democracies with their consensus-friendly parliaments have been propping up the welfare state for decades. Laws (without teeth) are passed; countries can avoid any (male) "tough consequences" of breaking the rules. European countries sign onto the euro because it's better to "share" a currency than keep your own selfish little currency. They agree to all kinds of wonderful things -- long vacations, jobless benefits, state subsidies for childcare, etc., free healthcare -- all supposedly paid for by limiting the rise of those selfish few "at the top" of the food chain.

Equality is seen as a nearly sacred goal. It always looks good in the beginning. But look at what's happening now. Since there were no "teeth" in the EU's mandates that countries live within their means, many countries (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy for starters) simply aren't. But the politicians in these countries, also feminized, cannot face the outraged moms (unions protecting their progeny) claiming cutbacks will take food from the mouths of their babes (i.e. members). So we are at a standstill, everyone wringing their hands. The same pattern is occurring in the United States. Take California. Pass all kinds of "feel good" legislation (Hey, let's be the leaders in controlling car culture carbon), tax businesses, bloat the budget, expand the debt and then voila we are also at a standstill. Someone (daddy/Washington) will bail us out.

But Daddy (Washington) is doing the same thing. Print money, spend money we don't have, hide the receipts under the rug (with fanciful accounting) and talk a compassionate game. Many now say we are heading for a Depression. Some will say this is because the model of an economy that needs to continually expand (male) is "unsustainable". Sustainability is a code word for all that people don't like about modern life: cars, malls, suburbs, agribusiness, military. Most "back to the earth" (eco-oriented) philosophies don't hide the fact that they are inimical to advanced technological civilization. They fantasize an earth with a smaller population, more agrarian, with a focus on locally grown produce. In short, much of the antagonism towards the West that arises from our own ranks is built on nostalgia and fantasy. It is based on what might "be nice" not what works. Not what is. It is also authoritarian (the iron hand of mom) usually disguised "for the good of the people." One might counter that my argument is that socialism is feminine, but surely communism is authoritarian and therefore male. Is it? Communism (say China) treats the people as "children forever" who don't deserve a vote as surely as you wouldn't let a teenager "vote" on what job his parent should have. In these societies there is always a parent, always someone who knows better.

One might also argue that the only existing "male-dominated" society is Islam, inherently repressive of women. I would not argue -- Islam is male-dominated, but it is the only surviving male-dominated society because the West is rapidly losing its masculinity. Perhaps in the end freedom is a concept that resonates stronger with men, thus capitalism and free market economies are rightly seen as masculine. As the West talks itself out of capitalism into a state-sponsored version of crony socialism (with lowered expectations), the West no longer resonates to freedom. In its place is "tolerance" or diversity, which in international relations could be seen as wishful thinking. If I am nice so will my neighbor be encouraged to be nice. (You basically heard this from the Obama administration vis-a-vis Iran. The results being nil).

Obviously the West isn't through with capitalism. Yet. Perhaps all the doomsayers are wrong and we will not have another Depression. I hope they are wrong. But I wish "the media" would stop treating the "rise of women" as a curative reaction to the world men created, the unsustainable world that is now dysfunctional (image: BP oil gusher). Is deficit spending "female" (image: he earns, she spends)? Perhaps that's going too far. But I hold little hope that consensus decision making and nurturance as an organizing principle will get us out of whatever downward spiral we are in.

Sick of trying to be famous

damn this is getting old already. try try try. who needs it? i don't really need anything. i don't need fame. i don't need money. i like the idea of being published but i'm already nearly there and nothing's really happened yet. try try try. i'm so sick of it. the world isn't "worth it"... whoa.. there's a sentiment... nihilism kicking in.. is that depression? no. is setting a boundary with the world considered insane now? lol. i don't know. i'm beginning to understand all those artists who demanded that their paintings or poems or unfinished novels be destroyed upon their death. very camus. a cause de la soliel, and so forth... the people that give up... hmm... the luxury of giving up... hmm...

Nice = liberalism. I finally get it

I've been going around (mostly in my head) trying to remember why I was once a liberal, why (most) of my friends are liberal and why liberalism's bankrupt concepts dominate our culture? I think it's obvious now. It's all about the word NICE. Liberals are nice; conservatives are not. End of story. True, many liberals (like my fierce brother) like to think of themselves as "not nice", i.e. fighting for the poor, fighting against the rich, fighting inertia against global warming, etc. To be sure, many are not "nice" and indeed quite fierce, but that's all secondary to the righteous stance that motivates most liberals. It's like those inane bumper stickers: "Coexist", or "War is Not Healthy...", or simply, "Peace". Liberals are for peace, against pollution, against unfairness, against discrimination. But does that make their "opponents" FOR war, pollution, unfairness and discrimination. Well, according to them, yes. If you are not with me you are against me. The positive (words) of their opponents like freedom (and responsibility, and honor, and property rights) all come across as "not-nice". How can someone value freedom (and look at them, the churchgoers, what do they mean by "free"?) over equality? The language leans in the direction of liberalism. It's easy to be a liberal, hard to be a conservative. A conservative is embattled (outside of their groups)... they are always assumed to be wrong, selfish, and immoral. Their call to connect with the origins of our country are largely laughed at my by the "nice" left. It's easier to be a comedian of the left because the "false right" (if you will) makes such an easy target. They are rich (well, so are liberals but they care). They are selfish (well..., etc.) They dislike "people of color", etc. And for all their talk about freedom, they want to invade your bedroom and make it illegal to decide if you want a child or not. How free is that? Plus, they don't like fun, like rock music and pot... why are all musicians (outside of the country genre) liberals? They rest their case.
Many if not most liberals I know don't really like to read history. A few do. And if they do, like Howard Zinn, they get it all mucked up as an exercise in application of their 60's Marxism to the template of robber barrons, etc. Mostly they don't read history because it's old, boring and written largely by dead white men. So why would they have to? History starts with the 60's, granted their version of the 60's that excludes the Southern Democrats resistance to Civil Rights. But no mind. Nice rules. That was before the Democrats discovered how inherently nice they were. They loved education, integration, peace, the earth, community, vegetables (see: Stuff White People Like). The liberal left in fact likes so many things they haven't left much for the other side to like. Besides freedom what does the other side like? Capitalism (read: unfairness and Big Business). God (read: look at the damage established religions have done). Self Reliance (read: a reason to ignore the poor). Plus the conservatives question global warming, how mean-spirited is that?
So it's not a mystery. That's why the judges of the Miss America pageant can ask the contestants to condemn the Arizona immigration law. Of course, they haven't read it, they don't need to. It's racist; everyone says so. So anyone "nice" enough to want to be Miss America has to be tolerant -- of abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration (I mean, immigrant rights), even medical marijuana. If she's not she's not nice. End of story.

poor poor pitiful me

what's your theory on complaining? I think it's largely cultural. Some are conditioned to hear it and do it from an early age, it becomes second nature, what people do. Others, like me, fear it admitting to complaints will someone create a favorable environment (think mold in a petri dish) for one's complaints to multiply, exaggerate and effectively take over all your waking moments. On the other hand I do believe that once in a while it's the right thing to do to admit how you're feeling. If you don't you risk alienation from "who you essentially are" which is nearly as horrible a fate is being covered in self-pitying mold. That said, what are my complaints?
There are physical complaints, aging complaints, "hey, how come I'm not famous" complaints, complaints about the people I'm around (lover, kids, friends), complaints about the culture, complaints about discourse (the culture again), complaints about the weather, complaints about the lack of meaning in life and how religion won't solve that, complaints about Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington... what have I left out. I know some writers get empowered by "diving into" their complaints, but I still fear them. Perhaps that's why I'm not famous, I don't have the guts to really "go for it" in terms of how shitty I feel.
I do understand how people get hooked on drugs, from Oxy to meth. I understand how people get hooked on sex. I understand how and why people get fat. I understand why people want to, try and some succeed at suicide. I am surprised more people don't commit suicide. Really. Perhaps it's fear, distractibility, and "my friend, the TV" creating inertia. Whatev, eh?
It's funny once you get to my age you realize you're going to "check out" in medias res, with the world still arguing, evolving, on the brink of one kind of disaster or another. It's perspective. You'll never really see the "end" of anything, no debate, no issue, no philosophy. Even war. One ends, another starts. No wonder people instinctively projected the "ultimate end" of the world (nuclear war, et al) and continue to create scenarios of finality. How frustrating to realize how relatively unimportant we are (yeah, yeah, you survive in memory.. so what?), just flotsam and jetsam of the time flow. Yes, and that's beautiful (people) especially if you're stoned which is why pot should be legal even though I haven't had it in decades. (LOL).
So there you have it.
I wish a miracle would happen and convince me to believe in a religion.
I should stop reading about Heaven's Gate maybe.