I’ve been thinking more on yesterday’s post. More from a science point of view this time.
First, what kind of warped science is it when a project starts from the premise ‘if you’re nice to people, there must be something wrong with you’?
What sort of mindset even comes up with that? And who thought it a good enough idea to fund it? It’s obviously not science at all, but divisive propaganda.
That’s what this stupid “research” actually aims to attack – the inclination of the vast majority of people to look after each other, make life pleasant for everyone in a generally understated way, and just rub along perfectly well with each other.
It’s the same as ‘all men are paedophiles and rapists’ and ‘all white people are racist’ and ‘all Muslims are terrorists’ and all the rest of it. It’s division. When nobody trusts one another, then nobody has any problem reporting their neighbour’s suspicious activity to the authorities.
“Hello, police? Yes, my neighbour is washing his car. He always starts on the left side but today he’s started on the right. Obviously his political affiliation has changed.”
It really does get down to that level. It’s not far from it now. Any deviation from robotic ‘normalism’ is seen as strange and frightening.
Some years ago, a town in Wales decided to pass a local law such that nobody could buy property in the town unless they had lived there for two years. It was a coastal town and there are always problems with rich faraways buying seaside properties for holiday homes. The houses lie empty most of the year, the available housing stock is limited and that pushes prices up. On the face of it, it seemed like a good idea and was locally supported.
For a while.
It soon became apparent that the law restricted who people could sell to when they wanted to move. The rich people’s money was no longer available, and the pool of potential buyers was severely restricted. Even people from the next town weren’t eligible. So the law failed.
As my head of department said at the time, “It’s insularity going into a spiral. It starts with ‘don’t want anyone from another country’, then ‘don’t want anyone from another county’, then ‘don’t want anyone from another town’, and leads to ‘don’t want anyone who isn’t me’.”
That was well over ten years ago and the spiral continues. It’s not at the end yet but it gets closer with every ridiculous parody of science that trots from the halls of unlearning.
It’s true that the genus ‘men’ includes gropers, violent attackers, verbal abusers, overconfident sexual predators (usually the ones that look like underfed stick insects or underinflated beach balls) and if you girls want to round them up and bury them in a hole partly filled with an equal mix of napalm, nitric acid and nitroglycerin, well I’d help dig the hole.
And yet offering to help dig the hole now makes me a candidate for occupancy. If that makes sense to you then we need another hole.
The other thing that study ignored was the women’s reaction to the men. If a man smiles at a woman, the study declares it sexist. Yet women smile at men too. All the time. Every eye contact draws a smile. Well okay, not every one, but by far most of them. I see a lot of smiling women at work and on the way to work. I’d never consider it sexist; smiling as they pass is just what women do, and always have. Is that to be banned too?
Not so much on the way home. It’s dark then, and people have been made to be afraid of men in dark places. Not just women, men also avoid other men in the dark alleys and backstreets.
Even here, where not much newsworthy ever happens. Meet an older person here and get a cheery ‘Good evening’. Pass a younger one and they scurry by as if you had a sledgehammer poised to strike. Even if I don’t have one with me that night.
A sad world is coming. A world in which gender will finally be abolished altogether and we’ll all be neutered at birth. Well, not all…
But I have to get back to writing about that. Writing the future.
If only it had a happy ending. Maybe it could…