Modified May 11th, 2010.
I would like to point out -- or re-emphasize -- some important distinctions here, already discussed in previous essays but this time applied to the always controversial and provocative subject of -- 'equal rights'.
Going back to Aristotelean Logic, we have his famous Law of Non-Identity: A is A and B is B and A cannot be B because A has boundaries and characteristics and distinctions that keep it separate from B. A coyote is not a wolf and a wolf is not a coyote. A polar bear is not a grizzly bear and a grizzly bear is not a polar bear. Such is/was the logic and the law of non-identity. This was the basis of Aristotelean Logic.
The problem with Aristotelean Logic is that it is 'static' whereas 'life is dynamic'. Life moves, changes, mutates, fertilizes, adapts, compensates, modifies...' Aristotelean Logic does not account for evolving hybrids that share the characteristics of two or more sets of different species or sub-species.
Look at all the different breeds of dogs we have today. A dog today might be a genetic combination of Boxer, Doberman, German Shepard, and Rottweiler. I have mentioned in previous essays that we have new species of animals today that didn't even exist in Aristotle's time period such as a 'Colf' (a combination of coyote and wolf) and a species of animal that hasn't even been named yet -- part polar bear and part grizzly bear (a 'prizzly bear' or a 'grolar bear'?).
Similarly, the number and types of 'interracial hybrids of people' that we have today far exceeds anything that Aristotle saw in his day. Aristotelean Logic does not account for the Hegelian and Darwinian factor of 'cross-fertilization' -- races, religions, politics, economics, law, philosophy, science, psychology, art... all inter-mixing and resulting in both bio and cultural-educational diversity'.
This was the superiority of Hegel's brand of 'dialectic -- dynamic, interactive -- logic' as opposed to Aristotle's 'stationary, static, non-moving, non-changing logic'.
In short, Aristotle's 'Law of Non-Identity' did not account for evolution in either the realm of ideas (Hegel) and in the realm of physics, physiology, biology, chemistry, biochemistry...(Darwin)...
Hegel offered a superior form of 'organic, dialectic logic'...which should actually be updated again to 'multi-dialectic logic' or 'poly-lectic logic' ...the idea being that many different factors can come together to influence the outcome and the organic nature of the 'evolving whole'...
The problem is that, even today, with all our technological advancements and gadgets, we still get caught up in Aristotelean Logic -- and use it -- when and where we shouldn't be using it.
Even in our institutions that should most know the dangers of Aristotelean -- 'static, either/or' -- Logic is misused and overused. Our parliaments. Our court rooms. Our newspapers, televisions, and radios. Our industries, businesses, and corporations. Our educational institutions. Our churches. Everyone has an editorial opinion that at least partly ignores 'dialectic (two-sided) -- or multi-dialectic/poly-lectic (many sided) -- logic'.
Editorially, we are always looking for 'scapegoats' and people to 'hold accountable' -- and 'blame' -- for things that go wrong.
Guilty or innocent? What about 'mutual (dialectic) accountability and guilt'?
The truck driver rolled his truck because he was going too fast. However, he was under corporate instructions to get to his destination by a certain deadline -- or else -- which he couldn't do without speeding.
The driver turned left onto a street but misjudged the speed of an oncoming car and the slippery road conditions that hampered the traction on the tires of both cars. Both cars were totaled, one in the front, the other on the driver's side door, and the driver of the turning car -- who was lucky to be alive -- was given a ticket for an inappropriate turn. But other (poly-lectic) factors could have been mentioned and addressed. The oncoming car was going 20 kms. over the speed limit. And there should have been -- still should be -- lights at this particular intersection because of the high speed limit (70kms/hr) of the one road without the stop sign.
There are times when we do think dialectically and poly-lectically but not when we are most looking for someone to blame -- and to 'simply' fault.
The problem is that the 'blaming orientation' and the 'simplification orientation' can easily lead to 'over-blaming' and 'oversimplification'.
We trumpet, promote, campaign for, and financially support organizations aimed at 'stopping the violence of men against women'...which is fine as far as it goes....but we are using a brand of 'one-sided' Aristotelean Logic here....What are we saying and/or not saying covertly, and discriminatively? -- that the phenomenon of 'women committing violence against men is basically okay -- and/or that it is not important enough to warrant our awareness, attention, and action'?
We all heard or read about horrific cases of men committing violence against women -- physical assaults, sexual assaults, domestic assaults, stranger assaults...it goes on and on...and has so for thousands of years...
For argument sake, let's say a man just gets out of prison, is on probation, goes back to his ex-girlfriend and commits terrible violence against her.
People -- and women in particular -- have a right to feel outraged by such an event. But we also need to be fully aware of the dangers of 'falsely associating' thousands and thousands of 'non-violent' men with this one violent man. In particular, we need to be fully aware of the dangers of 'legal overcompensation' -- and 'sexual' as well as 'racial' profiling. And we need to be fully aware of the dangers of 'reverse discrimination' as well as 'discrimination'.
We must be fully aware that 'stereotyping' and 'discriminating' and 'stigmatizing' is not simply something that 'whites do against browns or blacks'...and/or that 'men do against women'....and/or that 'majorities do against minorities'...but that stereotyping-discriminating-stigmatizing -- is a hugely prolific species-wide human tendency that everyone can do, and often does do, to every single person they come into contact with -- and especially when there is something 'different' about the person they are meeting whether it be religion, nationality, sex, culture, skin color, physical appearance, or whatever.
If Albert Einstein were to walk into an interview, unshaven, and looking like he had slept on a park bench the night before, would he be likely to make it through the first interview without being rejected? Even if he started reciting and explaining his famous formula of E=MC squared, if we didn't know what Albert Einstein looked like, how many of us would have the patience and tolerance to take him seriously?
This is where Derrida's 'Deconstruction' philosophy -- which is an extension of Hegelian Logic -- becomes vitally important. There is always some 'cause' that is going to be focused on by the media, by politicians, by the law, by police officers, by prosecutors, by lobbyist groups....
These 'Aristotelean -- One-Sided -- Causes' become 'over-focused' on, 'overcompensated for', and subject to 'one-sided, government supported and enforced, politically correct' actions that may include new laws, charges, convictions, fundings -- and 'discriminatory' or 'reverse-discriminatory' profiling.
If there are 500 women's lobbyist and social activist groups 'camped' around Ottawa or Washington, and pounding on Parliament and Politicians Doors when some violent act has been committed against another woman -- which, to repeat, anyone in their ethical right mind wants to stop -- but at the same time, there is not a single 'men's rights group' sticking up for the rights of men in Ottawa and Washington, who are the laws about 'assault' and 'divorce' and 'child support' eventually going to favor? One-sided lobbyism is eventually going to lead to one-sided laws.
People -- not whites, browns, or blacks, not men or women, not adults or children -- are stupid when it comes to acts of racial or religious or sexual discrimination. And that goes for people on both sides of the discriminatory fence -- not just minority groups (which are fast growing in numbers and power as North America becomes more ethnically and racially diversified...) And not women, many of whom have more money and power than men, while the domestic laws around separation and support payments still often tend to treat women as though they are 'financial dependents'.
The domestic laws need to continue to evolve -- and eliminate 'reverse discriminations' as well as 'discriminations', and eliminate 'sexual profiling' where a man is in effect 'profiled as a victimizer against women' before the police even knock on the domestic door, and/or before a word is even uttered out of his mouth'.
This may come as a shock to many people -- or not -- but women can actually be violent against men as well as the way that domestic violence is stereotypically portrayed and profiled.
Domestic violence -- except in obvious cases of 'serial offenders' -- is often a dialectic, two sex problem where both sexes are partial victimizers and both sexes are partial victims. But one sex is stereotypically portrayed as the 'sexual and/or physical victimizer' and the other sex is stereotypically portrayed as the 'sexual and/or physical victim' -- and thus, we have 'sexual profiling' just as prolifically and systemically as we have 'racial and/or reverse-racial profiling'.
What is the percentage of men who are going to court and jail on charges of domestic violence? What is the percentage of women who are going to court and jail on charges of domestic violence? Need I say anymore or am I the proverbial little boy saying that 'the king is naked' while everyone around me is being 'politically correct' and saying that the king is not naked, the king is wearing clothes, and so too are our domestic laws 'equal' for both sexes.
There are many different 'nuances' to domestic violence -- 'provocation', 'intimidation', 'coercion', 'threats', 'retaliation', 'power', 'revenge'...One 'inappropriate' touch -- whether in anger, in lust, and/or in affection -- and a man has to be worried about the possibility of being charged and going to jail these days. Do women have the same fear to worry about, or are they well aware of how the domestic laws are there to 'protect' -- even to 'overprotect' -- them? How many women are going to face charges for 'inappropriately touching' a man? How many men are going to 'blow the whistle' on a woman who inappropriately touches him? How many women haven't learned how to 'trump up' their 'victim profile'? How many women like the prospect of giving up their hard earned money and property to a man who they have lived with for perhaps barely over a year, and who has far less money and property to divide?
My room mate -- for right or wrong -- has gone through this 'money and property division' four times in his life to four different women, only one of whom he was legally married to, and in the process given up about half a million dollars to each woman. He gave up his last 3 or 4 hundred thousand to his twin sister to keep her alive in an expensive medical operation. And now he is on disability, renting a room, and getting $580 a month from the government. You think he doesn't have some serious resentments -- even anger running into rage -- running through his head. Rightly or wrongly, he says that he is tired of 'giving out money' -- indeed, he has no more money to give out -- and that the next woman he meets and gets involved with will have to have more money and property than he does (which isn't saying anything anymore because it is hard not to have more than 'nothing'). I know that he just partly saying this because of his economic position in life now compared to where he more than very comfortably was, even five or ten years back. And I know that he is internally generous to the people he cares about...But still there are some underlying inequalities here that, only now, with many women establishing more money and power in their financial portfolio, they are beginning to understand what it means when they are having to 'give up' their own money and property as opposed to 'being on the receiving end of their ex-spouses' money and property. In domestic court -- and with warring spouses -- personal narcissism reigns supreme.
One law I would change for sure. There should be no need for 'prenuptial agreements' -- or they should be mandatory, depending on how you want to look at it. In other words, a man and a woman should both be equally entitled to keep the money and property they enter a relationship with. That should be a given -- no ifs, and, or buts about it.
I feel sorry for these mobility drivers who I used to dispatch to. On the one hand, they are compelled to 'help the customer', to take their hand or shoulder if they need assistance, to go to the door to help walk or wheel the customer to the mobility van or sedan, to help the customer with his or her seat belt...but again, 'one false touch' -- even non-intentional -- and if there is a customer complaint, all administrative and legal processes swing into motion. A driver leans over to help a female customer put on her seat belt...he should have taken the time to go around to the other side to get the seat belt from the passenger side, he inadvertently brushes one of the woman's rather large breasts (or was it on purpose?) while he is trying to put on her seatbelt, the older, middle-aged woman lodges a complaint, and the driver is history...his job, his career, and quite possibly his marriage are all destroyed by the legal process that may take a year or two to finish...The 'alleged assault' is quite likely to be written up in the newspapers, we don't know if the 'touch' was an accident, or on purpose, whether the customer had any hidden agenda like getting some money from a possible payoff, we may here in passing a couple of years later that the driver got off the charge...but does it matter? His life is in ruins and how many people care about this, assuming that the touch was accidental? Does anyone care that this man's life, career, and family life have all been left in emotional and economic shatters? The woman goes off like nothing happened -- maybe she did get a 'payoff' even if the man was innocent, or maybe the judge determined that the touch was accidental....But two years later, who cares, except the man and the family who's lives were destroyed...
If I have gone off on somewhat of a rhetorical tirade here, let me make this abundantly clear: I am not 'anti-women's rights' ....I trumpet the equal rights of men and women, as well as each and every race, religion, and culture...
It is just that I do not believe that the principle of establishing and enforcing 'alleged equal rights' should ever involve the overt and/or covert process of 'stepping on' and/or 'putting a higher priority on establishing and enforcing one sex's rights over the other'...I do not believe in reverse discrimination anymore than I believe in discrimination. And I do not believe in 'sexual profiling' any more than I believe in 'racial profiling'. And I do not believe in 'preferential rights' to any sub-category of people regardless of sex, race, religion, culture...or money and power...(read 'special interest lobbyist groups' that don't transparently state their business...and giving 'opposing groups' the right to democratically react to them...)
Distinctions need to be made between 'equal rights' and 'preferential rights' as well as between 'egalitarian feminism (or masculinism)' and 'narcissistic feminism (or masculinism).
The egalitarian feminist or masculinist truly is looking for that 'place of equal rights and responsibilities' as well as for that ideal but elusive place of 'homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance'; whereas the narcissistic feminist or masculinist is looking for 'all he or she can get'. The ethics of 'equality' becomes secondary or is rationalized and/or justified as 'preferential rights'.
The position of 'preferential rights' is sometimes justified on the grounds of 'trying to make up for lost ground'. But it is like the referee who makes 'a bad call against one team' and then purposely sets out to make 'an opposite bad call against the other team' in order to 'offset and equal out the first mistake'. That's a dangerous type of reasoning, often escalating one mistake after another. I was always taught that 'two wrongs don't make a right'.
This was kind of a 'hit and run' essay...I am leaving this subject matter, didn't even expect this essay to evolve the way it did when I first started to write it...I know the subject matter of 'equal rights' is very, very emotionally charged...with sometimes horrific traumacies on either or both sides...This is not the type of essay I like to write -- have spent more time avoiding then confronting this issue and wish I didn't feel the need to 'have to write it'...But Hegel's Hotel looks for any and all types of discrimination -- which includes any and all types of reverse discrimination. Where others are afraid to politically walk, sometimes I must go...It is my duty as a free-thinking, critical philosopher. We will come back to this issue one day...But I am not in a hurry...
I want to move back to psychology now, and write one essay on 'Hegel and His Anticipation of Dialectic Psychotherapy'; then I would like to move into a whole network of essays on 'Central Ego Functioning and Dysfunctioning' (which I also have been avoiding for a long time).
Enough for today.
-- dgb, May 10th, 11th, 2010
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process...
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism...
