Put this post in the Ferris Bueller philosophical category. Dr. Sanity discusses "isms" and deconstructs them and the Left again. She references an Ace of Spades post which is also worth reading where he equates Ego-identification with Leftist "isms" thus the excessive emotional responses to debated topics. They are defending themselves, not the issue, thus the fuss. For some of my readers, this is like throwing blood in the water, but that can be fun, too.
For the more rabid Leftists (and I'm not talking the union-belonging, working-class Democrat whose values are more conservative but who favor socialist government policy), there seems to be underlying their worldview an intense distrust, dislike, fear, and general lack of comfort with any strong authority--especially strong male authority.
I have to wonder about their parentage. Were these people abused by a man? Abandoned by a man? Raised only with women? Dominated by their mother?
I have to wonder about their education? Public schools? Private schools? Take too many Women's Studies classes in college?
I have to wonder about their religious training? Driftless? Catholic secularism? Fundamentalist sect? Bland protestantism?
The interesting thing about the rabid anti-authority crowd is that when those espousing this worldview get into authority, they seem to swing between extremes--simpering, self-loathing indecision and hyper-aggressive domination. It is like a caricature of a woman, or female-sensitive metrosexual, and man, or tough-broad masculine woman.
It is as though the very notion of feminine, woman leader or masculine, male leader offends. No one should follow too closely to gender norms or their leadership is suspect. Everyone should become this androgynous humanoid so that everyone feels "safe".
Better yet, don't hold any strong positions because strong positions, like strong gender, indicates strength which is wrong. Except ofcourse, the strong opinion that strong opinions, gender-identification and views are wrong. One must be "open" and "nuanced" and "sophisticated" and not too, too.
No amount of argument against a position works, because the adherence to any position that is not deemed the open-minded position is fixed, calcified and authoritative. That would make the argument wrong inherently.
Ultimately, the question is: Who's your Daddy? With more people being raised without one, or not especially liking/knowing/trusting the father they have, the question takes on vital importance. Many people, justifying their lack of father seek to rid the world of fathers to justify their deprivation. "I don't need a father. Who needs a father?" Or, like Dennis Rodman said, "I had to be my own father."
Lefists don't want a leader to be like a Father. They don't even want the leader to be like a a Mother, well not one connected to a Father anyway.
The androgynous world, one where every opinion is valid--except the strongly held, logical one that disagrees with the right view (aka the leftist view)--and no one takes charge (because that would be mean). Now that's perfection, bliss and enlightenment.
No comments:
Post a Comment