Deconstructing Femethics

Tuesday, 16 March, Year 13 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

The problem with what currently passes for ethics lies far beyond anything superficial suturing might perhaps fix. The matter's not a crack here or there, isolated, insubstantial, two twists and three turns away from outright perfection.

The problem cleaves to the very core of the matter, and does so along gendered lines. Systemic (if systematically disavowed) misstatement of the female perspective into a locus of ethical universality that it can not bear (nor for that matter wants to bear) is readily obvious in the overemphasizing of comparably less remarkable human behaviors (such as murderi, or rapeii) into an absolute position they do not theoretically warrant nor do in practice actually satisfy ; while natural points of concern for the male interest (such as for instance boredom) are artificially (and quite discreditably) benign-ified. That it's okay to be bored for lack of anyoneiii to kill while it's not okay to kill anyone for being bored may even stand examinationiv ; but even intrinsically benign behaviours (such as the hero worship specific of normal boys, and unspecific of normal girls) receive a pregnantly tendentious treatment, itself testament to the appropriative inclination (along with some remnants of self awareness of the intrinsic ridiculousnessv of the position).

Gender-based appeals to universality are self-defeating by that very fact ; the attempt to naively extend the socio-cultural arrangements of some long forgotten group of three thousand people wearing uncured goat hides while not washing in some dreary desert somewhere as self-obviously an exercise in futility as could ever be designed ; pious fraud in general a very flimsy substitute for reason or argument. Deconstructing femethics is therefore not a reactionary activity, but merely the plain (yet very far from banal) observation that neither the sort of thing females generally least wish to see nor supposed "tradition" (itself consisting of the systematic retelling of human experience in terms compatible with what females generally least wish to hear) are interesting, or likely to be productive, basis for ethical constructions. Against this only possible approach stands the simple mind, with its self-same, perennial simple solutions. The cunt's myopia, the "how does it make me feel", the usual strategies of bare life.

Ultimately, ethics is always the struggle of man against bare life.

  1. Far from some kind of universally superlative malum in se, murder is today and was at all points in the past generally accepted practice throughout the many tribes of the dispersed human herd. Among the more numerous (and culturally more interesting) people wherein the ancient jews found themselves an insular, irrelevant margin (rather a sort of 3000 years ago Midwest), as well as throughout the lived experience of the modern (and the contemporary) world, murder's a constant companion -- to the tune of a hundred or so per million per year (worse if there's a hot summer with sun dogs or something).

    The minute tribe of deranged maniacs that so disgusted Imperial administration restated its ethics around an interdiction of murder, it's true, but this exceptional (truly, unparalleled) innovation rather stood as political expediency, a little bit of pork to pacify the females being utterly devoiced. Those demographically negligible weirdos excepted, it is in general the case that in societies where the female voice more naturally found its expression in the everyday workings of life murder was not a capital crime, if a crime at all, but rather a pecuniary transaction to be resolved through the payment of Blutgeld, like among the ancient Germans, or outright a necessary part of the worshiping of the divine, as among the dominant cultures in the eastern Mediterranean.

    In more settled societies (such as seen with the Ancient Romans and their downstream), the act of killing a king necessarily drew the killing of the killers on the self obvious basis that they wont be able to pay for the deed. Regicides were killed for being bum debtors by definition, not for other reasons ; and other than this particular circumstance the willful ending of life was unexceptionally unremarkable, therefore readily taking a backseat to the true capital crimes of the time and place : interfering with the established practices of worship. []

  2. While the contemporary vernacular has redefined the term out of any possible utility, nevertheless the inescapable fact stands that all sexual consummation of social relations between humans necessarily (and most welcomedly!) includes some differential of power, a more or less minute but absolutely ubiquitous degree of inequality. In any case the practice of copulation has not, on the balance, involved willing participants over its history so far. []
  3. Specifically, some female's offspring. []
  4. And I shall eschew re-discussing the whole wind-and-tower-height thing here, opting instead to pass it by reference. []
  5. I mean... it is practically like Hitler. Isn't it ? []
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

One Response

  1. [...] What the fuck else did you think evil was ?! [↩] « A big mistake Category: Meta psihoza Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback. Add your cents! » If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed. [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.