Is It Possible to Protect Men and MGTOW, While Feminism Consumes Itself?

 

 

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

Such were the words uttered by the brilliant R. Buckminster Fuller, the American architect whose famous geodesic domes would inspire the naming of the buckyball fullerene molecule. Given his words, the question becomes immediately apparent to the MGTOW or Mens rights activist as to the effective way to combat anti male bias and misandry.

How do we make misandry obsolete? Can we?  If so where do we start?

Well,  I don’t pretend to have a suitable answer to that question, at least not a conclusive one.  The question properly rephrased is more accurately posed as:

How do we stop a sexually dimorphic species in which the female of the species is imbued with inherent value (reproductively speaking), from structuring it’s society in ways that lend themselves to the exploitation of men.   I would argue that while it is impossible to eliminate gynocentrism, we can instead implement checks and balances on it by making the most egregious examples of gynocentrism, or I should say the occurrence of them, obsolete.   In a few paragraphs I will pose to you a legal and moral conundrum and ask that you draw a logical conclusion,  but for now I will start instead by relegating to you the untimely demise of a man named  Mike McQueen, I cant do that without first telling you the current situation facing a man named Gary Smith.

Smith, a 33-year old former US Army veteran who served two tours in Afghanistan, was in September of 2006, roommates with the now deceased McQueen.  This all changed when McQueen was found dead in their shared apartment from a fatal gunshot wound.  The cause of death was, at first, deemed an apparent suicide, McQueens longtime girlfriend had dumped him and a recent drunk driving conviction made his chances for employment seem stark.  But as other details emerged including the fact that the owner of the gun McQueen was killed (or took his own life) with was Gary Smith, as well as Smith’s account of the nights events changing three different times, Gary was charged with Mcqueens murder.   In the two separate trails that followed, Smith was convicted of second degree murder.  Both of these trials have been overturned on appeal paving the way for Smith’s upcoming third trial.

Both of Smith’s trials have produced very little hard evidence to suggest his guilt or innocence, making his convictions largely circumstantial,  this may not be the case however in his third trial.  Advances in the science of fMRI imaging have allowed us to interview people like McQueen under the scrutiny of real time neural fMRI feedback. Joel Huizenga, CEO of truthful brain had this to say about the case:

“Deliberately lying is hard work,” Huizenga told VICE. “When you’re telling the truth, you’re just retrieving a memory. But when you lie you have to bring back the truth first and then manipulate it and doing that requires much more of the brain to be active. This means blood rushes to specific areas which are never really used when you’re being truthful, and the fMRI allows us to detect these relative changes of blood flow.”

The article adds the following:

Huizenga initially asked Smith to intentionally lie in response to simple questions about his age and place of birth to get an idea of what his brain looks like when he’s lying. Then he compared those scans to the ones taken while he was questioned about McQueen.

“In my opinion, they show beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is innocent. Everything about the scans is completely clean,” Huizenga says. “None of the brain areas associated with lying light up whatsoever when he’s asked about killing his room-mate.”

But these scans will not be shown to the jury when Smith is tried again later this year. Last month, his attorney requested a new Frye hearing, a proceeding which determines whether new technology can be used as evidence in a court of law. The request was denied.

You don’t have to warn me about the potential dangers that allowing what sounds a little too much like a slightly more credible neural polygraph on steroids as admissible evidence in a court of law could bring.  The fact that no single human being’s brain physiology is identical to any other human raises the possibility of every individual having a slightly different set of neural pathways lighting up under fMRI analysis during the act of lying, but this does not conclusively rule out the possibility of some kind of fMRI dishonesty “fingerprint” becoming discernible as our understanding of neurology develops.

We arrive then at the conundrum I hinted at earlier,  the question?  How would this technology, assuming it passes this Frye standard effect the frequency and potency of the false rape accusation?  The feminist outrage would be severe and instantaneous if it became possible to unilaterally dismiss a false rape accusation based off of this fMRI test alone, but this is not the likely scenario that would unfold if this technology became admissible as evidence in court.  What is more likely to happen is the following hypothetical scenario.

-Woman accuses man of rape falsely, man is arrested.

-During trial the accusing woman must state a time and place where the rape happened

-fMRI analysis is conducted, and the woman is asked whether or not she was in fact at the scene of the crime, as well as places where it can be conclusively determined she was not at the time of the alleged rape.

-From the places where it can be conclusively determined that she was not present, a “truth profile” of sorts can be ascertained by correlating her neurological patterns with her admission that she was not at these places.  None of this should be considered exculpatory evidence or even evidence to suggest that the alleged rapist is innocent but it sets the stage for the following.

-The truth profile is then compared to her neurological profile when asked if she was at the scene of the crime and was in fact raped by the man she was accusing, questions are posed designed to point investigators toward exculpatory evidence that can be potentially discovered at the actual crime scene.

A practical example of this is the following,  a woman says a man raped her,  the man claims he is innocent, the man is arrested and claims that the sex was consensual and that video evidence exists that can prove it, but he believes that the recording may have been hidden or even deleted by the accusing woman.  The fMRI test can then be used, not to determine whether or not the woman is lying about hiding or deleting video evidence, but establishing a timeline as to where this woman was on the day investigators believe she may have hidden or deleted the video.

Thus a series of questions could follow…

where were you on the date of the 27th between the hours of etc.  “were you at the library?, or at the grocery store?, or in your apartment? etc.”

This, juxtaposed with the fMRI truth signature can give an average likelihood of where she actually was, versus where she says she was if she was being dishonest.  Without the fMRI scan, investigators would have to randomly choose a destination to begin examining for evidence, based solely off of where she claimed she was, potentially hampering the time it takes to recover this evidence.  Armed with the truth profile, investigators could pick where they investigate first according to what the profile suggests,  leading to potentially time sensitive or perishable evidence faster.  This in my opinion allows this technology to be employed in the process of helping to suggest guilt or innocence, without the disturbing possibility that it could one day hold the same sort of clout that DNA does in our justice system today,  put your pitch fork and torches away folks,  there is no minority report dystopia heading our way.

The fictional world of minority report however highlights the exact dilemma I’ve just described.  If you pardon my foray into fictional worlds here, I’ll refresh your memory if you’ve already watched the film.  Through the magic of science fiction, three mutated humans have, in what appears to be extremely controlled conditions designed to potentiate their natural talents, have achieved the ability of prescience to such a  degree that an entire legal system has been centered around their abilities.

Precriminals, the name given to people who are convicted according to the precogs and their prescient algorithms, of crimes they intended to commit, but never actually did due to the intervention of law enforcement, are imprisoned, all on the account of the precogs accusing them of this bastardized dystopian version of the charge of attempted murder, in stasis chambers where they are housed in a catatonic state for the duration of their sentence.  The precogs are eventually decommissioned, being set free to live their lives out as normal human beings, and all convicted precriminals are set free when, for the first time ever, a precriminal definitively proves the predictions of the three precogs wrong.   Ignoring the ethical ramifications involved with using live human beings as unconscious crime predictors, I often wonder why the precogs were totally decommissioned,  could their abilities not have been used to continue to stop crime 99% of the time?  even though the single instance of precog fallibility meant that it is no longer acceptable to imprison people off of the concept of precrime? Could the precogs not be used in locating evidence?  fingerprints where the precogs envisioned a suspect touching? Search parties where the precogs envisioned a killer dumping a body?  An entire field of probabilistic forensics could have emerged by continuing to employ they abilities of the precogs after the fall of precrime couldnt it?

The beauty of science fiction is that it allows us to foresee our reaction to certain technologies before they arrive, and even when they arrive first, in more primitive forms.  If we speculate as to what the essential nature of precrime was in the fictional minority report universe, we could come to a conclusion that what the precogs were actually doing was taking our understanding of essential human nature, weighing behavior algorithms for each individual citizen in the minority report universe, given to them by what I would assume was a robust big data industry, and comparing that to the billions of variables that could influence human behavior to arrive at a deterministic predictive model for the citizen in question.

My raeson for this speculation surrounding the mechanisms of the precogs is not to bore you, or to rant offtopic for large portions of this article, but instead to revoke it’s almost supernatural qualities, to remove it from the grasp of magic, or transhuman mysticism and to place it instead, back firmly in the clutches of the potential capabilities of science where it belongs.   The precogs may seem otherworldly to us, preternatural manifestations of a deterministic abyss we can hardly grasp, but the truth is that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer, capable of modeling the trillions of molecular interactions following the milliseconds after the big bang, could likely perform the function of the precogs.  For now though, the concept of precrime remains comfortably out of our grasp, and instead of looking to the future to prevent crime, we instead have developed fMRI technology that allows us to  peer into a potential suspects neurological interpretation of the crime.

The question is, what will feminists and the women they claim to represent have to say about all of this?  As we know, feminists have been known to resist technologies that would retard their victim status narrative, even at times, at the expense of the ability of the women whom they claim to advocate for to avoid being victimized.  We’re probably all familiar with the controversy that arose in 2014 surrounding the development of a nail polish that detects the presence of date rape drugs, this article here gives the ever dysfunctional feminist perspective.

“I think that anything that can help reduce sexual violence from happening is, in some ways, a really good thing,” Tracey Vitchers, the board chair for Students Active For Ending Rape (SAFER), told ThinkProgress. “But I think we need to think critically about why we keep placing the responsibility for preventing sexual assault on young women.”

This may seem like generic feminist stupidity, and sure some MRA’s upon reading this were sent into frothing convulsions of pure anger, causing them to appeal to the public in hopes of using this as evidence against feminists, but the MRA’s, god bless ’em are proceeding from the flawed premise that society supports and bolsters feminists because they have not yet been educated on their essential nature, that is, hypocritical, sexist and misandric.  No, you see, society on some level already knows that feminists are hypocritical, sexist and misandric.  Feminists are no longer viewed by the general public as reasonable, or innocently fighting for the rights of women without what appears to be a concerted effort to impede the rights of men.  Feminists themselves are under something of a rebranding effort, the cornerstone of which includes the admission and ownership of the idea that feminism has “become somewhat of an ugly word” by the likes of the new fresh faces of feminism, debutants like Emma Watson.  Gone are the outdated combative posturing that the Steinem’s and the Greer’s built their feminist legacies on, gone are the days of shriveled, increasingly irrelevant firebrands that take these kinds of pictures in the name of feminism;

Today instead we have a new generation of young, neotenous looking women, again, Emma Watson comes to mind, implementing things like the #heforshe campaign, attempting to project an aura of softness, playing on men’s gynocentric instincts, purring to them that they “need men to help us fight sexism”.  It is still however nothing but a sirens call toward  an island made of the sands of repackaged gynocentrism, the seemingly non threatening inklings of fourth wave feminism.

This need for a softer gentler feminism arose out of the fact that society already associates feminists with unreasonable man hating, and even still, they will not act to stop them.  They will not act to stop them because to do so means they will be perceived as attacking women, and nobody wants to be perceived as attacking women.  The fear of this perception makes it a forgone conclusion that there will not be some kind of dramatic, logic driven “finishing blow” done to feminism by the various social entities aligned against it.  The atheists wont do it, the MRA’s wont do it, feminism will eventually simply extinguish itself, its impenetrable scales of victimhood can only be properly digested by the acids in its own stomach, the ouroboros will have to consume itself tail first, and only when it is good and ready.

In the mean time, they play a numbers game,  technologies such as this nail polish could theoretically save some women from rape,  but it would also endanger a woman’s privilege to be able to randomly point their fingers at anyone they want in cases involving alcohol, and claim that they were raped when they wake up in the morning tinged with the unfortunate stench of regret following their far from non consensual sexual encounters.  The objections to this nail polish may seem irrational, but they follow a logical progression, the feminist belief that it is ok for some women to be raped due to lack of this nail polish, if the “men are bad women are good” social jihad they’ve declared on society is allowed to continue, and frankly, most women are a-okay with this.  Most men, are too scared of being perceived as anti women to form any reasonable backlash against it, and thus returning again to the words of Mr. Fuller, all we can truly do to combat this I’m afraid is to develop new technologies that can protect men, legally speaking, even when they’re too afraid and ashamed of asking for protection in the current system. Onward to the male pill, I guess… more on this later.