Sexism is held to be an attitude, or behavior, whereby a person receives favorable (generally, the claim is that males unfairly benefit) – or less favorable (generally, women are held to be disadvantaged) – treatment predicated upon their gender; sometimes such treatment may be conscious, but generally it is held to be an insidious unconscious habit, because it is ingrained, or culturally derived… And since it is said to be derived from the culture, any ‘fair’ arbiter/judge asked to adjudicate between the advantaged individual – usually claimed to be male – and the disadvantaged – usually considered to be female – must give greater weight to the claim/s of the disadvantaged (usually the claim/s of a woman, or women). Thus, the employment of the term sexism generally justifies the unfair treatment of males.
As it is “sexism” is another useful epithet – of the social-political Left – which allows them to denigratingly characterize, and unjustly discriminate, against those that seek objective competition in a free market. And such practice harkens – or brings to mind – the re-establishment of “pre-Socratic justice” i.e., “helping one’s friends, and harming one’s enemies” or it’s sibling variety, viz: ‘The sins of the father shall be paid by the son’…
Such practice denies objective morality, individual liberty, and thus, denies the concept of which holds “justice-is-blind.” When such practice becomes codified into law – as it has (similarly with claims of racism, misogyny, homophobia, nativism, xenophobia etc.) – and Government has arrogated to itself the active role in adjudicating any disputes it deigns of an interest to ‘establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general Welfare…’ it is a form of despotism cloaked as magnanimity and benevolence, but tyrannical nevertheless. From whence has this pre-Socratic justice been re-introduced into American culture?
Culture is a set-of-principles – typically principles of which most are, at best, only dimly aware – by which and through which we ‘think’ and choose. Erstwhile the culture reflected the teaching of the Church (Catholic), and the formerly dominant worldview Christendom; the Church created the University and organically ceded the culture to its progeny – as philosophy was surmounted by ideology subsequent to the Kant’s Copernican revolution. Ideology – as this writer has described in a blog-post “Regarding Ideology” – ‘systematically characterizes existence/reality reducing such to a dependence upon the subjective consciousness;’ thus, the ideologue forces “reality” to lay down in its particular Procrustean bed, for whatever ‘surgery’ is deigned necessary to make “that-which-is” agreeable to the sensibilities of the ideologue. Thus, objective reality must be tortured – as any, and all, of the adherents to objective reality and its attendant objective truth must be tortured (reminiscent of Winston Smith’s treatment at the hands of O’Brien in 1984¹), so as to force agreement with the State.
¹ Smith – recall – was repeatedly beaten/tortured until he uttered “do it to her” to his beloved/lover Julia; at which time the broken Winston complaisantly agreed with Big Bother that ‘2 + 2 = 4 sometimes, but sometimes it equals 3, 5 or whatever the Party needs…’
So how may one combat the State, and the culture, regarding what has become a reflexive practice of employment of such disparaging tags – or epithets – through which the State and culture justify their injustice? What generally is employed – by us on the social-political Right – is our own form of epithet, e.g., liberal, socialist, communism, Lefty, etc… but such a practice – although emotionally satisfying – converts few people – if any – to an agreement with the view (i.e., the truth) of the social-political Right. Such practice plays to the strength of the social-political Leftist (homogenizing humans is part-and-parcel of the immoral practice of reducing reality – and humans – to a neat and tidy sets of widgets; widgets are not even potential moral beings, and thus, one may do with them as one will…), and results in us – on the social-political Right – to differ in degree, but not in kind, from those on the social-political Left.
Humans – as rational beings (in potency) – very being (essence) is made for truth, and to acknowledge – or register – truth requires that an individual must be rendered open to such truth; which means that the individual animated by erroneous views must be shown systematically i.e., dialectically, that those views are false; they must have their ‘faith’ destroyed creating a vacuum whereby truth may be acknowledged.
A dialectic is a dialogue/discussion about the meaning of terminology e.g., what is the meaning of truth, good, moral, virtue, Rights (inalienable, and positive); the interlocutor – that advocates the employment of the method, presumes himself (or herself), to be in possession the knowledge – at the very least – that he (or she) does not know the truth, and that knowledge (knowledge of their ignorance) is the necessary condition for discovering/unveiling the truth via such the method. Thus, such an interlocutor allows others to define/describe their terminology and conceptions of “what is,” and then those definitions are subjected to rigorous systematic logical examination working towards the inherent contradictions which must attend to error, and errors may not be reconciled to the truth. The dialectical method – when understood, and consistently employed, in whatever venue opportunity affords, tends to destroy the faith of those subject (‘brain-washed’) to ideological views which they ‘thought’ (their thought is generally more akin to emotional reflex) embodied truth. Such a process – although sometimes awfully tedious, and on most occasions requires one to allow oneself to be pilloried with insults – can have a dramatic effect upon the ideologue², if they actually engage in the dialogue. The alternative to dialectical discourse is employed by the social-political Left and is exemplified in Orwell’s 1984, as employed by O’Brien and the Party (i.e., destroying the individual – or group – possessed of view contrary to the orthodoxy).
² Many that subscribe to an ideology are not at all conscious of being subject to an ideology, their attachment thus, generally a fideism; a crack (contradiction) or two in the view so held, often leads to the ideologue abandoning their view, and opening them to the truth…