Indiana Jones in The Temple of Doom treats his female companion like an idiot. Does Indie treat her like an idiot because she is a woman? Or because she is an idiot?
And if most women are idiots, does that not justify treating them that way?
But let us not take women. Let us take idiots per se. Let us define Idiocy as an official personality trait and let us imagine that Idiots now demand not to be treated like idiots. How silly would that be?
Now let us imagine that people without arms form the Armless group and say they do not want to be treated as if they had no arm.
In other words: The only complaint you can have about a group is if you are seen as a part of it despite being fundamentally different, e.g. if you are a woman and seen as woman, but lack fundamental female traits like stupidity. Then it would anger you that you are seen that way. But if you are a typical female, the typical female stereotype should actually harm you the very least.
Now, an idiot can become less idiotic.
And a woman probably can become smart if she is very dedicated to it.
And yet if she is not, and if she decides to stay stupid through inability or unwillingness, there is no reason to not treat her like she is stupid.
Likewise, most women are weak. Therefore, it is appropriate to treat them like weaklings. Not because they are women, but because they are weak.
Now imagine a group called Weaklings who demand to be treated like they are not weak.
What if such a Weakling goes into a fight with a strong person? A boxing match? And what if the weakling loses? Will he then clamor that he should not be treated like a weakling; that is, not be beaten in a match by a stronger one?
What people essentially try to do here is divorce words from their meaning. That is, the weakling tries to tell you that the word weak does not mean anything and that society arbitrarily assigned it to him to dishonesty themselves, but are too to tell when somebody is telling the truth or deliberately manipulating them. From that paranoia stems the tendency and . In other words: They should prefer not to communicate at all, because they do not trust communication.him for no reason at all. It implies that if you stop calling him weak, he will no longer be. And that would certainly be true if he was in fact strong and only made to believe he was weak. So maybe these people are really protesting against
Back to the point about words and meaning. Now, if we wanted to bully someone for weakness, we would still have to choose someone to bully. Who would that be? Is it mere coincidence that those we call weak happen to exhibit the trait of a lack of physical strength or mental fortitude? Is it coincidence that those we call fat have a lot of fatty tissue and are overweight? Or are we in fact describing atrait they possess?
Thus, when we call women silly, are we merely choosing to bully them for being female or are we calling out an imperfect equation that still applies to most females? And if they were not silly, why would we choose to bully them with it? Of course, it could be a manipulatory trick to keep them silly. If everybody sees a certain truth, it will eventually manifest.
But this is actually less about societal standards than it is about a rational individual’s ability to judge. Saying she is a woman, therefore silly is a somewhat simplified truism, yet if it turns out to be true in a significant majority of all cases, it may be a good starting point. Obviously, a mature mind will be tending or at least willing toand . But still, when that individual runs across a woman that happens to be stupid, it is only right to treat her like she is stupid.
It is this man who is invulnerable to name-calling aka bigot, sexist or racist. Because, while he sees tendencies, he is open to see outliers, too. Thus:
‘You are only saying that because I am a woman!’
– ‘No, I am saying that because I assume that you are stupid. I assume it because you are a woman and most women are stupid.’
Of course, that individual can be convinced of individual outliers, but still stand by that general observation.
Now, feminists are angry that such preconceptions exist. But what would it take for a rational individual to actually let go of such a preconception? Well, it would need to stop serving a purpose. That is, it would need to stop making any kind ofand thus prove completely false as a .
And what, in the first place, made the individual come to this conclusion? Well. If he is a stupid sheep, he may in fact just have adopted a belief he heard. That is what they may call social construct. But on the other hand, if he is an independently thinking individual, he may simply have encountered a lot of women of whom most were stupid and concluded that most women are stupid. Therefore, in most cases, his intuition will lead him to preconceive that any particular woman is stupid. And it would be idiotic for him to adopt any other mindset.
The use of preconceptions
Imagine you fall on your head. 9 times out of 10, it hurts. Now, is it smarter to generally expect it to hurt or is it smarter to generally expect it to do what it usually does not? The answer is straight-forward. If we always start assuming the most improbable thing despite all experience and proof, we by definition are not independent thinkers and probably have no clear independent vision of reality and likely do not trust our intuition. That is, madness, rendering one dependent on other people.. Now, why would one do that? Because one was . One was made to distrust one’s own judgment and driven into
Think of it: If you do not trust to perceive a truthful image of reality through your own senses, you can not possibly act on any of your intuitions. It is plausible for a madman to ask others for help, to ask them to check and verify his own perceptions. Such, a parent or society could first, then offer itself as a helper to guide you – and if you believe that your senses are false, you will let them guide you.
Another aspect is, of course, fear and guilt. When speaking the truth or acting on one’s intuition causes or seems to cause great harm to the self or others, it may be smart to adopt a fake masquerade.
Apart from all those unfortunate scenarios, no healthy person will discard a preconception if it turns out to be helpful and true. Besides, preconception means: pre + conceive. The truth has already been conceived, but earlier, in an analogous case. The smart person knows that and, while preconceived, is open to new ideas and exceptions.
If one gets robbed by 9 out of 10 people with tattoos in a dark street corner, one will try to avoid people with tattoos at screet corners.
If one feels offended by that kind of generalization and she feels she does not fit in, she of course can try to prove that there are exceptions, namely herself.
But it is a ridiculous notion for a stupid woman to be offended by someone calling her stupid just because she heard that not all women are. While not all women may be stupid, any particular one may be. And just because not every woman is stupid, does not mean that any particular woman out of the majority is not.
A stupid woman who complains about being called stupid is a woman who tries to hijack the privileges of a woman that is not stupid. She achieves that through not identifying as one woman, but as women in the plural. Thus, she believes, the positive attributes of a select few of women apply to herself. She is, in fact, a fraud, trying to deceive you by saying: You assume that I am stupid. I am not saying I am not, of course. But I could possibly not be, therefore you must treat me as if I was not.
But she inevitably also inherits the responsibility of a non-stupid woman and thus harms herself.
A bit similar to a man who tries to identify with masculinity by associating himself with a group of masculine men or identifying with a guru.
Of course, the rare not stupid woman will profit from not being preconceived as stupid. She will be treated more appropriately to her true nature. But each individual must consider whether he wants to treat 9 out of 10 women appropriately on first sight, or 1 out of 10.
So, while unfortunate, minorities will always have to deal with preconceptions. It is angering, but there is not much that can be done about it. It is better to underappreaciate 1 out of 10 people than to overburden 9 out of 10 with false expectations.
As said, this is not about rules. This is about the individual. A healthy stupid person wants to be treated like a stupid person – because that is what he or she is. And a healthy person wants to choose to believe in patterns that manifest in 9 out of 10 cases.
To actually stop men from thinking women are stupid, create a world where this is not a truth. Then the preconception will fall out of necessity. Because it stops to make valid predictions.
A danger that this thought presents is the obvious: The creation of microcosms and bubbles. For instance, if one were to work in a very manly and nerdy job, all the women that would surround him would be very atypical, leading him to discard the pattern that women are stupid. His intuition would be blind to the fact that his bubble is not representative of the whole.
But that is not a big problem, you see. Because it is not about society. It is about the individual. As long as an individual lives in a bubble, that view of women as smart creatures serves him well. But should he decide to go out and chase skirts, he would have to go through a process of mental adaptation. Which is cool, because the mind can do that.
Just a few thoughts. Jerk on.