I open the computer this morning and find that another person — whom I did not know — took her own life. She was bisexual, a programmer, considered herself a rationalist, and considered that she could not cope with the violence she beleived was in her life. She hated herself. This is sad: in the end she said if she could not have her body, no one would. As if our bodies are ours. They are not: they are our spouses. Social matter comments.
Fortunately, you all don’t need to read her note. It is very sad, from a woman very blinded, trapped by her ideology. Who rejected the help available. Trauma can be ameliorated. Depression can be treated. And no oppression is worth your life. The guys at This week in reaction have the lowlight, and a comment.
Kathy had gotten involved in “rationalist”/”effective altruism” cults and was engaging in polyamory. (Apparently, that’s what makes it “rationalist”.) Unsurprisingly she reports sexual violence, tho’ some of it seems rather more imagined than violent. Interestingly, she was enough of a rationalist to diagnose her condition with a remarkable amount of precision:
What would have worked in my case was unacceptable:
Something that would have worked to save me is if someone clever enough and trustworthy enough offered me protection. I would repay them by cherishing them. The level of enthusiasm and dedication I would offer would be a costly signal that I really needed them. I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to offer sex in exchange for bodyguard services and security work. I didn’t keep this relationship between protection and arousal a complete secret of course, but I couldn’t advertise it widely enough to make it likely to succeed, especially given that I am selective, and that some of my enemies are a challenge. I needed someone special.
What Kathy needed is called “a husband” in an exotic arrangement known as “traditional marriage”. Unfortunately no one at Less Wrong had ever heard of such a thing. It is, after all, “unacceptable”. Not snarking here. Very sad story. Kathy Forth, Requiscat in Pace.
TWIR, Social Matter
What makes this unacceptable is the tyranny of ideology. Marriage, with all its risks and rewards, is what she craved, but to name it was not acceptable or needed. She needed to be loved and cherished. As do we all. As do we all. But the ideology of this world is a tyrant, and hates those who will not conform.
I think it’s important to understand these feminist women. The ones I use quotes from are the very ones who championed the feminist cause around and after the 1950’s era. They were famous, and lauded as heroic for saying these things. These writers and speakers, and pushers of political agenda, not only “disliked” young women being able to choose to stay home with their children or be a housewife, they downright hated them for making that choice. They hated the idea that women could depend upon their husbands to support them and in turn, make his and his children’s lives easier by creating a loving home atmosphere.
The Bible actually commands Christian women to be “keepers of the home,” so it’s important to understand how anti-Christianity these women’s views and goals were. Their goal was to have a society where Christian women were not allowed to stay home and raise godly children. It is the same beginning goals the Communists have always had in places where they took over – in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam just to name a few. Feminism, at it’s core, was championed by women who had a communist-like agenda against religious and personal freedom.
It’s important to understand that this was one of feminism’s main goals. It wasn’t to allow women “more choice” in order to choose between work or staying at home to raise godly children, but to not have that choice at all.
Stephanie, All things bright and beautiful
The rulers of this earth are tyrants, who would rule us, and their ideology is like them. This has always been the case. But it should not be in the church. Those who lead should be those who serve. And our models of God ae not God: we should not worship them. Instead we should worship the God who chose to redeem us, at great cost.
17While Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and said to them on the way, 18“See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death; 19then they will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified; and on the third day he will be raised.”
20Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she asked a favor of him. 21And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23He said to them, “You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
24When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. 25But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
The trouble is that we of the West are predisposed to holiness cycles without the pagan checks and balances on them. Bonald notes that the Jews and Indians take over the halls of academy, for they see the scholarly route to power. And they wield that power as a tyranny. We tend to make our priests poor and celibate: they command them to breed.
And we sacrifice ourselves to ideology, when ideology should be tested by truth.
There have been “solar” peoples where warriors ruled, where being smart and self-righteous would do little to help one climb in status. But we are a clerical people, a dogmatic people, and that has advantages, because truth matters and such a people is better disposed to develop science. Such peoples are prone to ideological fixations and handsomely reward those at the front of a craze. For us, the pursuit of conspicuous holiness has been deliberately detached from reproductive success. It is amusing to wonder how much different the Western personality might have been if we hadn’t had so many monasteries and for good measure forced our priests to be celibate. It worked well for us for a time. The trouble is that if one then allows a foreign priestly people to join the competition for status and power, they will quickly make mincemeat of the locals.
Bonald, Throne and Altar
It is God we should love, not an ideology. It is our families we should provide for and cherish, not a cadre or a political movement. It is Christ who is our example, and the model who we should serve. And he came as a servant for all.
Let not the tyrants redefine their rule as service. Let not your ideologies enslave you. Our God is greater than that.
All our models, all our ideologies, we must hold lightly. They are models, and the facts on the ground trump them. They should conform to reality and testing, not demand that reality be warped. Lest we find ourselves burned to ashes by the very ideologies we thought would give us freedom.
For Kathy acts as a warning. Do not be like that: make ideology your servant.