Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Mindless Hysteria

Entry 2265, on 2023-03-23 at 12:35:56 (Rating 5, Philosophy)

According to Wikipedia, hysteria is "a term used colloquially to mean ungovernable emotional excess, and can refer to a temporary state of mind or emotion. In the nineteenth century, female hysteria was a commonly diagnosed physical illness in both men and women." Note that the etymology links it to women, the origin is the Greek word "hystera", meaning womb.

At this point you might already suspect that this post is heading into controversial territory, and you would be right! But read on, unless you are easily triggered by unpopular opinions, in which case, stop now!

There are two trends in modern society that I would like to discuss in this post. The first is the rise in the prominence of women, and the second is the increasing irrationality, emotionalism, and hysteria we see in many aspects of modern life. These two might not be connected, of course, but some people would suggest that they might be.

First, I have to say I fully support feminism as far as it exists to give women equality in society. But it has gone far beyond that now, because since equality has been achieved, the activists must now find other issues to occupy their time. This is the well-known "St George in Retirement" syndrome I have mentioned several times before, especially in a post, "St George in Retirement" from 2019-10-04.

This phenomenon isn't limited to feminists, of course. As society becomes more fair and egalitarian, many activist groups, including those advocating for allegedly disadvantaged races, genders, and religions have also succumbed to this.

I discussed what I think is the root cause of many of today's biggest problems in another post, "Postmodernist Insanity" from 2023-01-16, where I examined the negative influence of this corrupt philosophy. I must note here that, while that belief system (ironically) originated primarily with two "white guys", Derrida and Foucault in the 1960s, a lot of its development since then has been by female "philosophers". I put that word in quotes because I don't believe the intellectual rigour of their work really gives them the right to use the word unquoted!

So the problems of the world can be, to a significant degree, be blamed on women! Of course, this doens't mean every woman we might meet is to blame in any way, because most of them are very sensible. But that traditional female characteristics of emotionalism is very much a characteristic of many modern trends.

For example, we are asked to pay more attention to what people think they are rather than what they really are in debates around transgenderism. People born one sex who transition to another are not, in fact, that new sex. They might identify that way, and we should acknowledge that in most cases, but that doesn't make it a fact. I am particularly aware of this issue at this point of time because of the intense controversy around the activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull's disputed entry into the country. She is variously described as a women's rights or an anti-trans activist, depending on your perspective.

I have been defending her right to speak against some fairly aggressive opposition recently, because even though I really don't like her style, and some of her beliefs, I think she fundamentally has a point, at least to the extent that she deserves to have her perspective heard. If it is really as bad as some people say, then those who hear her will reject her ideas.

Here is a brief encounter on Twitter I can include, to give you an idea of the sort of vitriol the "kind" and "understanding" woke people espouse...

Me: We'll have to disagree on that. I think her basic message is good, but her style is often bad, and that's what I have said all along.

My opponent (known as "the lesbian project", which itself should ring alarm bells!): I just had a scroll through your follow list and yeah. you're scum. cya.

Me: OK, thanks for your comments anyway.

Notice how I maintained the high moral ground here, or was it passive aggressive? Either way, I enjoy maintaining a calm demeanour while my opposition rants and raves hysterically!

Here's a far more reasonable exchange, but one that reflects another strategy my opponents often use...

Me: You are very arrogant that you, as a male (I presume) think you can tell women how they feel about this issue. At the very least, can you not see that other opinions should be heard?

My opponent: The opinions of transphobic people don't matter to me.

Me: Well isn't that an easy answer. Anyone who disagrees with you gets that simplistic label. I think that's all we need to know about you then.

Maybe I was guilty of being a bit aggressive there myself, but this is the response many people like that have: just labelling anyone they disagree with by using a negative word, in this case "transphobic", but it could just as easily be "racist", "misogynistic", "Islamophobic", or one of many others. And, as his comment says, that means he doesn't need to repsond to what might easily be a very good point on their part.

So we are asked to identify trans people as what they think they are rather than what they really are (something I will actually do on a case by case basis). We are asked to check our privileges because some groups in society feel we have advantages which they can never quite justify rationally, but emotionally they think exist. We must take it seriously when a bunch of school kids go on "strike" with completely impractical demands around climate change (I think climate change exists; I just disagree with their approach to managing it).

Notice a trend here? People have changed from basing their beliefs, and subsequent actions, on rational thought to basing them on emotional reactions instead. And that is a traditionally female attribute. Women have higher "emotional intelligence" than men, on average, and this can be both a good and a bad thing.

At this point, if you are triggered by my "misogyny" then please refer to the warning at the beginning of this post!

Also, please note the words "on average" above. I totally understand that the overlap these attributes have in the male and female population is much bigger than the difference, but the effect still exists. Many males are as bad as females when it comes to hysteria, but there is a traditional association there, and I think it would be supported by statistics too. Maybe we should ask Jordan Peterson!

Note that in the exchanges above, my male opponent was relatively rational, but the female was both insulting and unreasonable... or should I say hysterical? I have noticed this as a trend in recent debates I have been involved with: women tend to base their ideas more on feelings and idealistic concepts rather than facts. Maybe its my own bias misidentifying this as a factor, but also maybe not.

So is this yet another misfortune modern feminism (again, I want to emphasise I fully support feminism aimed at equality and fairness, just not what that has now become) has inflicted on society? I guess so. I still believe the primary cause is the unjustified acceptance of applied postmodernism and critical theory as being relevant ways to view the world, but there is a clear interaction with feminism there as well.

Emotion is important, and anyone with good "emotional intelligence" (a term I don't like, by the way, because it dilutes the value of real intelligence) should make use of that in positive ways. But mindless hysteria isn't positive. It's the cause of many problems, not the solution.

Comment 1 (7407) by Anonymous on 2023-03-28 at 07:59:12:

Oh I see the "I support feminists but..." thing eh. Isn't that just a dog whistle for saying let's attack feminists.

Comment 2 (7408) by OJB on 2023-03-28 at 08:38:32:

Well, you know what they say: only dogs can hear dog whistles! I do occasionally have hidden meanings in what I say, but generally I try to put my thoughts clearly and directly, giving warnings like "...you are easily triggered by unpopular opinions, in which case, stop now" and the red dot system in the list.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.