Dan Abrams to write a bigoted supremacist book

Msnbc legal eagle Dan Abrams is making the case for women, literally. He’s inked a six-figure deal with Abrams Books (no relation) to chronicle ways women are superior to men. In “Man Down,” he’ll present studies, polls and other “evidence” to prove that women actually best the boys in typically male areas like gambling and enduring pain, and even make better hedge-fund managers and cops. Abrams isn’t basing this on his own studies of gorgeous actresses: “If I had any unique insight into women, I would be married. I don’t. This is a fun book written from the perspective of a lawyer making a case. A lot of people will be surprised by what we found.” It’s due around Mother’s Day next year.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/dan-abrams-to-write-book-proving-that-women-are-better-than-men-yes-really/

Mother’s day eh? Isn’t that nice. Maybe I can pick up a copy for my mum to help illustrate to her how her son is a worthless piece of shit. Here’s my view on supremacy.

Whilst it is an unavoidable fact that men are better than women at some tasks and women are better than men at some tasks, it seems like a silly endeavour to state that “X is superior, in a general and absolute way, to Y”. Even if you could do it, why do it? Why upset people and sow the seeds of hatred and angst. If women make superior nurses, why jump about shouting “aha – in your face!” It’s obnoxious and counterproductive. Here’s my view on supremacists

Supremacists are not secure, decent people. A person to whom it is important to argue for the supremacy of whites, blacks, men, women, gays, straights, Muslims or whatever, is not arguing for that groups as much as they are arguing for themselves. Feminists or blacklists or many other types of activists are of the same template but with the target stripped out and replaced by something else. The target of the supremacist is not an earned skill such as chess playing proficiency, or interest in Chaucer. Rather, it is a chance physical attribute that took no effort to assume. A black is a black and a female is a female, they do not earn these identities but the identity is the only thing they have to cling to. Let’s refer to this as the identity complex. After many years of talking to feminists, I can safely generalise that the more dedicated a woman is to feminism (let’s put the issue of male feminists aside for now) the less impressive she was as person to me. The nice kinds of feminists who email to take me to task have a passing interest in the subject. They are not on the forefront of the activist wing of the feminist movement and I normally ask them where they fit into things.

The identity complex I described the last paragraph is inevitably going to be tied to the victim complex. Someone send me a great quote about victims:

"The victim stance is a powerful one: The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy. "

http://www.zurinstitute.com/victim_psychology.html

Whilst it may not make sense to think that a person is happy to be unhappy (as in, someone seeks to be a victim which makes them unhappy), but humans are not rational beings and there is power in victimhood. In Theodore Dalrymple’s book “Life at the bottom”. Dalrymple recounts many tales of how criminals in the prison where he had worked would constantly blame others for their actions (IE “it wasn’t my fault I stole the VCR, they should have locked their window”). To not be a victim is to stand face-to-face with one’s own flaws. It requires a savage degree of self honesty to say “I was wrong”. Humans generally do not do this because of cognitive dissonance, any ideas that challenge the things we hold to be emotionally important (I am worthwhile / I am honest / I am good) get filtered by the brain and rationalised before they even get to our conscious mind.

In short, identity complex and victim complex go hand in hand because of the worthlessness of the people who assume them. It takes guts to say “I am unintelligent” and “I have no skill”. It is human nature to blame our flaws on others. The identity victim (that’s it – I am coining that phrase from now on) reaches to what they can, the problem is because I am a woman and women are oppressed, or that I am black. Winners do not whine, they achieve.

That covers supremacists, but what about Mr. Abrams? He obviously isn’t acting on behalf of his own sex here, he’s acting against it. I think he is motivated by other things. Number one is political correctness. PC thought is the “appropriate” way to think in our modern western societies. Because it has successfully garnered the image of being “compassion” to oppressed groups. These oppressed groups are, of course, fronted by people with the identity victim complex. Dan is being very correct in the spirit of the times to be writing a book like this. As can be seen from the questions in the article like “Where are you in terms of writing the book? Is it done?”. This might be the kind of question you ask a policy wonk but it is not what you ask a bigot writing a work of supremacy. PC tells all of us that this how you treat people acting in favour of a victim group but not one in favour of an oppressor group.

It is also possible that Abrams may be seeking affirmation from women. This is an affliction of males to a greater degree than for women because men do more work to earn women approval and attention. To be honest, I have psycho-analysed enough for one day. I’ll end with this. We live in a society of many different types of people. And we do this by getting along. People like Mr. Abrams make the world worse by picking at scabs and setting man against woman. There are better endeavours in life to which one can dedicate oneself, greatening anger is not one of them.