You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
Yelling at each other online is cool and what not (see the RPOJ) but past cartharisis for the writer, I’m thinking, not much is really accomplished. Understanding the context and where people are coming from is an important skill to foster, and as Alexander Bevilacqua (from his essay on the Aeon Website) says, we should not entirely replace the adversarial aspects of our intellectual culture, but perhaps temper our expectations with a bit of empathy and appreciation for where the arguments are coming from.
“The call for empathy might seem theoretically naive. Yet we judge people’s intentions all the time in our daily lives; we can’t function socially without making inferences about others’ motivations. Historians merely apply this approach to people who are dead. They invoke intentions not from a desire to attack, nor because they seek reasons to restrain a text’s range of meanings. Their questions about intentions stem, instead, from respect for the people whose actions and thoughts they’re trying to understand.
Reading like a historian, then, involves not just a theory of interpretation, but also a moral stance. It is an attempt to treat others generously, and to extend that generosity even to those who can’t be hic et nunc – here and now.
For many historians (as well as others in what we might call the ‘empathetic’ humanities, such as art history and literary history), empathy is a life practice. Living with the people of the past changes one’s relationship to the present. At our best, we begin to offer empathy not just to those who are distant, but to those who surround us, aiming in our daily life for ‘understanding, not judging’.
To be sure, it’s challenging to impart these lessons to students in their teens or early 20s, to whom the problems of the present seem especially urgent and compelling. The injunction to read more generously is pretty unfashionable. It can even be perceived as conservative: isn’t the past what’s holding us back, and shouldn’t we reject it? Isn’t it more useful to learn how to deconstruct a text, and to be on the lookout for latent, pernicious meanings?
Certainly, reading isn’t a zero-sum game. One can and should cultivate multiple modes of interpretation. Yet the nostrum that the humanities teach ‘critical thinking and reading skills’ obscures the profound differences in how adversarial and empathetic disciplines engage with written works – and how they teach us to respond to other human beings. If the empathetic humanities can make us more compassionate and more charitable – if they can encourage us to ‘always remember context, and never disregard intent’ – they afford something uniquely useful today.”
There isn’t much to lose in trying a slightly different approach to arguing with other people, I think it is worth a shot.
We humans are really bad at responding to the necessity of long term change. It doesn’t help that we also happen to be locked into political systems that strongly bias short term thinking and solutions. I’m thinking when most of Florida is underwater and New York City looks more like Venice the powers that be *might* acknowledge that we have a bit of climate situation on our hands.
Canada is not much better, Andrew Scheer leader of the Conservative party during a Town Hall:
“He promised tax reform and reiterated his opposition to the Trudeau government’s carbon tax, which he called “a cash grab, not an environmental plan.”
“Scheer had to get out of his vehicle and walk to the venue in Nisku, Alta., because of a 22-kilometre convoy of truckers protesting Trudeau’s carbon tax and environmental policies. Scheer sought to reassure people by promising to scrap the prime minister’s carbon levy designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Awesome. Because the weak half measures started by Trudeau and the Liberal Government definitely need to go. Why is it that when it comes to climate change conservative types all of suddenly need to compete to see how can fiddle the fastest while the world burns?
In Counterpunch John Davis writes this on our climate situation:
“Naomi Klein optimistically wrote, way back in 2014, in This Changes Everything, “There are ways of preventing this grim future….but the catch is these will involve changing everything….it involves changing how we live, how our economies function, even the stories we tell about our place on earth”.
Five years later, it is no longer a matter of preventing a grim future. The careless extension of what the American Sci-Fi writer Kim Stanley Robinson calls ‘The Dithering’ – those decades when we understood the atmospheric CO2problem but totally failed to address it – guarantees its imminent arrival. The catch now is that the climate is changing everything for us. We have already liberated enough carbon in the atmosphere to put the weather on disaster auto-pilot for the next millennium. We can but batten down the hatches, stockpile provisions and close the fire-doors. The weather is the effective change-agent, not we nor our politicians. The pretense that humans are in charge has finally to be abandoned. We await our fate possessing only crude materials of resistance and, thus far, almost no political will to emplace them.
The most salient function of government is the protection of its people – our allegiance to the Republic depends on its successful manifestation. The present regime appears totally committed to the denial of our climate reality and its power to inflict terrifyingly real damage on our underfunded and aging infrastructure and to the people that that infrastructure supports. Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Maria, Harvey, Thomas, and Michael, should each have been a wake-up call, a weather 9/11. Instead, they have proven to be opportunities for official prevarication, dissembling and hand-washing. From George Bush’s, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job”, to Trump’s notorious paper towel toss (in post-Maria Puerto Rico) there is a through-line that speaks of the government’s dismissal of the seriousness of these amplified weather events and their wider implications. The validity of the updated death toll in Puerto Rico of almost 3,000 was, predictably, denied by the president – while estimates of the toll continue to rise. A Harvard study now puts the number of Maria-related fatalities at over 4,500, as of year’s end. The climate has far exceeded the lethality of 9/11. Its death toll, in fire, flood, drought and wind is ever rising, as each season’s disasters inexorably add bodies to the statistical burial mound.”
The weather gives exactly zero fucks about borders and national security, and ‘rogue’ nations. Every nation is going to have to work together to survive the coming up climactic upheavals. I certainly hope our unerring dedication to fossil fuel industry will be worth it.
The central feature of patriarchy is Men’s relentless efforts to control women’s sexuality and reproduction:
“For females to be subordinated and subjugated to males on a global scale, and for males to organize themselves and each other as they do, billions of female individuals, virtually all see life on this planet, must be reduced to more-or-less willing toleration of subordination and servitude to men. The primary sites of this reduction are the sites of heterosexual relation and encounter – courtship and marriage-arrangement, romance, sexual liaisons, fucking, marriage, prostitution, the normative family, incest and child sexual assault. It is on this terrain of heterosexual connection that girls and women are habituated to abuse, insult, degradation, and girls are reduced to women – to wives, to whores, to mistresses, to sex slaves, to clerical workers and textile workers, to the mothers of men’s children”
And on patriarchy being the bedrock of oppression:
“Without (hetero)sexual abuse, (hetero)sexual harassment and the (hetero)sexualization of every aspect of female bodies and behaviours, there would not be patriarchy, and whatever other forms or materializations of oppressions might exist, they would not have the shapes, boundaries and dynamics of the racism, nationalism, and so on that we are so familiar with.”
Both selections from The Willful Virgin.
Honestly! What the heck Western News Media? (The Guardian excluded) I think it would be nice to know about humanity once again visiting our moon and doing sciency things, maybe report on it?
China on Friday broadcast pictures taken by its rover and lander on the far side of the moon, in what its space programme hailed as another triumph for the groundbreaking mission.
The pictures, shown on the state broadcaster CCTV, showed the Jade Rabbit 2 rover and the Chang’e 4 spacecraft that transported it during the first soft landing on the side of the moon that always faces away from Earth.
The pictures were transmitted by a relay satellite to a control centre in Beijing, although it was not immediately clear when they were taken.
Showing the rover moving away from its lander, officials with the China National Space Administration said they marked a “total success” for the mission.
-
When you look up at the full moon, you only ever see one face, but scientists believe that the far side, eternally hidden from view, may hold the key to fundamental mysteries about the moon’s formation. Last week, a Chinese spacecraft made history by becoming the first to land on the far side of the moon. Today, China shared pictures showing a rocky surface with the jagged edges of craters in the background. Among the images is this 360-degree panorama stitched together from 80 photos. Researchers hope that low-frequency observations of the cosmos from the far side of the moon, where radio signals from Earth are blocked, will help scientists learn more about the early days of the solar system and the birth of the universe’s first stars. The pioneering landing also highlights China’s ambitions to rival the US, Russia and Europe with its space programme.
Photo: CNSA
Go Chinese space agency!
The RPOJ comes for thee RPF.
Wow. Do any of you remember the first Indiana Jones film? Raiders of the Lost Ark? Remember the beginning the tense action sequence when Indy switches the statue for a holy satchel of sand and then all hell breaks loose, Indy has to run for his life, avoiding darts, boulders, and irate local inhabitants. It was a tense and glorious romp.
What we are about to partake in, isn’t like that at all.
Imagine if you will, that very Indy-esque moment happening here in the blogosphere, but instead of a golden statue, a freshly polished intellectual turd, a veritable extruded husk of bullshit argumentation. And the satchel, instead, a thread bare mouldy hassock filled with a funky-spunky hash of whingy-cringy manspination. The switch is made, the anticipation rises… then falls limp in its sublimely uninteresting putrescence. There is no heroic dash to safety, no hairsbreadth escape, only the grim realization that there is no where to go, but down.
This article is from a genuine RED PILL FATHER (see also Reactionary Pile of Fuckery). He has taken the path of seeing feminism, as only a man can see it, and since it is how a man sees it, it MUST BE true. What is fascinating is the asymptotic nature (he comes close to having a clue on at least one occasion) of his knowledge of feminism being put on display – this RPF, has read things… things on the internet no less, that describe what feminism is, but evidently information written by people who know sweet fuck all about what feminism is.
Let us begin.
“As a Red Pill Father, one of my main goals in life, beyond making my life, and as a consequence of that, my marriage better, is ensuring that I prevent, to the best of my ability, the tainting of my young daughter’s minds with modern day Feminism.”
Because a base level of narcissism is required to be a douche, thus I will make it a requirement, perhaps even to the level of necessary ‘background douche-radiation’ (see male socialization), for ‘being successful at life’. And apparently allowing your daughter access to the philosophy/praxis that seeks to ground her humanity into the fabric of society is a compete and utter non-starter. Sorry hunny, no human being status for you.
“This is part one of a three part series of posts I’ll do depicting how Feminism is lying to both men and women”
It’s kinda creepy, yet edifying to see RPF mistakenly categorize feminism as monolithic singular totality. One might surmise that RPF is a fan of morally simplistic binary thinking and all of the sound and fury that emanates from such etymologically denuded intellectual black holes. Because fuck nuance and attention to detail; it makes wrapping the tinfoil around one’s head so much more difficult.
” and how fathers today can combat it so their sons and daughters don’t end up buying into the modern Feminist lie at their own expense.”
Ah, RPF is a tinfoil wrapped holy crusader of man-justice, ready to dispense wisdom and shield his property children from the great evil feminist satan.
“Classical vs Modern Feminism
Not everyone will agree with me on this but Feminism, in it’s earliest iterations (I’m talking late 1800s suffragists), started out as a movement with honorable intentions, back when actual inequality of opportunity between the sexes existed.”
Oh thanks RPF dude. I’m glad you approve of women striving to be recognized as human in society. You’re not going to qualify your approval of women’s struggle are you? That would be a dick move…
*
*
“However, […]”
*
*
**facepalm**
*
*
“However, even with that goal, the feminist narrative of equal rights and suffrage was tainted as it didn’t come with “equal responsibility” for women. For example, women were not subject to the military draft, even to this day, but were granted the right to vote. It wasn’t until the promise was made that women wouldn’t be drafted that more women got on board with the suffrage movement.”
Ah, the vernerable draft chestnut. If you can’t serve the military-machine then its completely obvious and follows that you should have no say in how the county is run. All aboard the shit-boat of stupidity. RPF is also no longer subject to the draft circa 2019 thus he also qualifies as lacking in ‘responsibility’ and therefore by his criteria, have no voting rights.
*
*
“So from the start, even though the intentions were good, the stated intention of true “equality” is a lie.”
I suspect that RPF would not know equality if bit him firmly on the ass, but we should let his assertions demonstrate, rather than me, your humble host tell you particular fact.
*
*
“They wanted all of the authority given to men with none of the responsibilities, and they got it.”
Ah yes, I can recall that golden age, where women could work where they pleased, in any profession, open a bank account, hell… even marry and divorce whomever they saw fit back during the days of first wave feminism.
Actually, no. Women could do none of the above and the fact the RPF glosses over these inconvenient truths is proof positive he is filled to the brim with his own bullshit. Feminism is the female struggle for liberation from patriarchy, and in the case of First Wave, struggle for base acknowledgement as human beings. This talk of ‘authority’ and ‘responsibilities’ is but mere projection of your twisted view of society through your (a)historic lens.
*
*
“And it’s this quite unequal dynamic that persists into today and is causing the feminists to want more and more authority for less responsibility. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.”
One of the key features of the MRA/Redpill dynamic is the reversal of the dominant/subordinate roles. You see, we still live in a patriarchy, where men’s hands hold the levers of power and circumscribe how society functions. There has been no historical reversal of the power roles. No, what makes the MRA cabal’s fevered minds twist and spin is the mere notion that they cannot be the sole arbiters of power in society anymore. The gall of women to assert that they should have *any* say in society is a evil for them that does not sleep.
*
*
“I believe that women’s suffrage can coexist with women who vote in the best interests of our culture and society, but those interests have to be informed and framed by the masculine and with the requisite amount of actual authority given to those who carry the lion’s share of responsibility.”
You can vote Sweety, but only how I see fit. RPF is stupid as he is condescending. Nothing *needs* to be framed by the masculine. Most of the bat shit crazy that exists in the world today is precisely because we continue to frame issues in terms of the masculine. So no, you don’t get to dispense with the basic female rights to human being status, because of your misguided notion of responsibility (which so far is the right to be drafted into male initiated slaughter – I’m still trying to square how ‘responsible behaviour’ jives with participating in mass slaughter).
*
*
“Just as you will be the best father for your children by fulfilling your role as a masculine role model and wielding your authority for the good of your family.”
Have you missed out on the last 30 years so of sociological research that points to negative outcomes for children of parents that adapt stereotypical gender roles? Apparently so. Families thrive when there is trust, compassion, and empathy. Your notions of masculine authority are shit.
*
*
“It wasn’t the female vote that got us here today, it was the continued onslaught of overzealous Feminism in its false crusade for the elusive, and already achieved, “equality” sans the commensurate responsibility for women that got us here.”
Its good to know that men are responsible for the violent culture we live in, responsible for the desecration of the earth and responsible for the wars and senseless bloodletting that continue on, even as this article is penned.
*
*
“Classical vs Modern Feminism:
*
- Equal pay for the “same” work.
-
- Right to vote,
- Pursuit of happiness and liberty.
VS Modern
-
- [1] Women are to be celebrated and advantaged above all else, at the expense of men.
- [2] These expectations reign even over the right of an unborn child to live.
- [3] Believe all women all the time without verifying. What happened to Trust but Verify?”
Wow. So much bullshit condensed down into handy bullet points.
- Examples? Because women now dominate every facet of society. Women in key political office, captains of industry, they are everywhere. In fact they are the defacto status quo – all of literature is about women and their achievements. Pop culture is chock full of positive female role models that demonstrate talent and ability and determined effort are all societal sanctioned keys to female success (nay dominance, to believe RPF’s hokum).
- What? You mean women have a right to say what goes on in their own bodies and determine their productive futures as they see fit – like real human beings with rights and everything? You have no idea what pregnancy does to the female body, if you did, you’d stop saying fatuous bullshit like this.
- The fuck? What does this even mean? Women’s inferior status in society comes with a bevy of problems when accessing the political and legal systems within our society. Women are still fighting to be heard and working toward reducing the bias against them for reporting the sexual violence against them, because shockingly in a patriarchy, women are not encouraged to hold men accountable for their shitty behaviour.
“Feminism originally started out to correct actual injustices in society but has gone so far that it is now making both men and women miserable.”
Feminism has always been antagonistic toward male power and privilege, this fact makes you sad.
“Feminism today is not about equality, it’s about disempowering and emasculating men.”
As stated earlier, (effective) Feminism is about the liberation of women from the structures of society that oppress them. So, if by correcting male excess in society is ’emasculating’; so be it.
“Children are very sensitive to what is “fair.” Whether it’s the size of the piece of cake they get compared to their friends, how much time they or their siblings get to play with Daddy. They know and they keep score. One day this past year my young daughter became aware of “International Girls Day.” She asked what it’s about and her very next question was, “Is there a Boy’s Day?” Young minds, untainted by the Feminist supremacy agenda, can detect inequality.”
Probably the same reason there isn’t a white history month you slack-jawed oxygen thief.
“Take advantage of that now. Reinforce this. Feminists of today would say, “Who cares about Boys Day… they’ve had their turn.””
Well that and every other day happens to be ‘boys day’. Funny how that works when you happen to be in the class that is accorded personhood by default.
“Which is the other side is the “It’s HER turn” coin. It’s just reverse sexism or “Also Sexism.” Not a child. A child knows better and so do Red Pill aware men.”
Reverse sexism. Wow, those slaves sure could oppress their masters couldn’t they. Just like the people of colour regularly practice reverse racism against white people. *sigh*. Trying to make the playing field even when it intrinsically isn’t is the second play in the (‘oppressed’) white dude play book. Minorities can most certainly discriminate, but their prejudices are not reinforced and normalized by the rest of society. Apples and oranges my dear whingy faux-oppressed RPF.
“I’ll take Tolpin’s point a step farther and assert that Feminism, in it’s modern form, not only tells women they don’t need men but continues to assure that men are made into ATM-Betas through the family court system.”
The court system remains in favour of men. I know the notion that being responsible for children is tough (kinda funny that you state earlier your anti-abortion ‘ethic’, and yet here are decidedly anti-family-responsibility) and quite unpalatable for RPF like yourself.
“Our femcentric culture ensures that women still have full access to the resources and money that men possess, even if men choose not to play by their rules. So of course women don’t need men nowadays, the State has ensured, through the establishment of Feminist legislation, they get that support either way.”
I’d like to know when it because femcentric culture, because I think that it doesn’t exist outside RPF’s fevered dreams. Do note his keen yearings for the golden age where women had no rights and their survival depended upon the largess of men.
The notion that women share the same status as men must be truly horrifying to RPF. You mean women are not merely objects to be possessed and collected – the hatred of women must be intense to conjure up this opposite world fantasy the RPF spouts. I don’t see any other reason for it.
“I truly believe, and the social evidence supports this*, that Feminism is not only detrimental to men, it’s disparaging to family, marriage and is even doing women a disservice.”
*Citation needed
Also, how would full human being status for females damage society? The only artifact that looks threatened with female liberation is patriarchy.
“The lie has hurt many women who prioritized “moving up the corporate ladder,” while putting off having a family until they’re 40 only to find that at that age, attracting a quality man is difficult and their prospects for conceiving a baby naturally are severely diminished. “
Because baby making is the ultimate expression of female achievement. Fuck off with your misogynistic, antediluvian attitudes dude.
“This is not the future I want for my daughters.”
The mindfuck you are subjecting them to is darkening their future as you speak.
Thanks folks, and thanks(?) to the manosphere for providing such a bountiful harvest of stupidity.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…