The Price of Everything, The Value of Nothing.

 

 

Maybe some of you have heard that expression, my mother used to say it as a warning, a warning to guard against seeing the world through the acquisition of things, of measuring or valuing yourself and others by all the shiny stuff you had.  Inevitably those who could afford the latest gadgets, fashions, and had reached all sort of worldly goals, would cloak themselves in the aura of these things as a mark of how much better than others they were.

She did have a less kind way of expressing this – especially in relation to women – “the fur coat and no knickers brigade” The inference, as I’m sure you’ve guessed being that, the fur coat was acquired because of the no knickers fashion statement. The modern late 20th and early 21st century way, and feminism’s way of playing out this scenario, is through the mechanism of “self-esteem”

To esteem something is to hold it, or him/her in high regard, to place a large value on it. If one esteems something, one vests that thing or person with great worth.

The other element of this pertains to the parameters through which one estimates, calculates and quantifies said value or worth. What criteria one uses.  The thing is, if we are talking about a person, then that person must have done or achieved something to EARN such a high worth estimation, to have such a high value placed on them through their achievement(s) or action(s), or perhaps talent(s). 

For example, Leonardo Da Vinci is esteemed among the great painters, because in the opinion of many, among the many great painters he is considered the greatest. Likewise such luminaries as Thomas Edison, Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, even two of my own favourites, William Wilberforce and Bob Geldof.

All these people GAVE something to the world at large, something that bestowed a benefit on OTHERS.  What sets them apart from others in relation to the high esteem in which they are held, is that they EARNED that estimation.  The other thing to note is that without exception, they all had human flaws; they were not perfect people, saints in mortal form, just human beings who did something extraordinary FOR others.

Which brings us to this concept of “self-esteem”

Apparently having low “self-esteem” is a bad thing, it means that you don’t place a high enough value on yourself.  You have weighed yourself in the balance, estimated your own worth, and put too low a price on it. In addition, there is no requirement on your part to DO anything, to achieve anything, to bestow some benefit on others – nope – all one has to do is exist.  Your value, your worth comes just from – being.

Analogous to this of course is, that just from being, from existing – one is entitled, by right to hold yourself in “high esteem” no longer is one required to earn this “high esteem” from others, no longer is one required to wait, to hope, to especially, earn from one’s efforts, in whatever sphere, the result, that others will reward one, with a generous gift of “esteem” as a mark of how highly valued those efforts are viewed.

This too is longer a requirement – in fact – according to received wisdom from our favourite experts (feminists) on all things – temporal, spiritual, animal vegetable and mineral – others OWE you a default estimation of HIGH esteem, especially if you are female – if you enter this world with a uterus and ovaries. In fact, it would be no lie to say, that this ONLY applies to women. Men are exempt from having “self-esteem”.

Is it just me or this seem just a tad…………ridiculous? More than a little…………bizarre?

Not too long ago a feeeemale calling herself……”Hot Piece” (I’m not kidding – go look) took issue with  Matt Forney, who wrote a piece entitled The Case Against Female Self-Esteem: September 16, 2013, which garnered 2,459 Comments.

Matt Forney’s article was a tour de force, and the comments were hilarious – though it was really the Censorbot.

To give you an example of the twisted and frankly deluded thinking (though thinking is a bit of a stretch) that some females employ to justify their right to unlimited buckets of unearned “self-esteem” take a look at this. Her opening salvo.

“The world could not survive on masculinity alone. We need people to teach our children. We need people to support a family emotionally, and that’s just not something that men are traditionally good at. Without women to provide that, we’d be living in an angry, emotionally unstable world — NOT that women can’t have high-powered jobs, or that they have to find themselves in traditionally feminine roles, of course. The point is, traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine roles BOTH need to be fulfilled, regardless by whom, or the world couldn’t work.”

I’m guessing you saw what she did there? Shall I translate – women and their awesomeness, and emotionally healthy and sanctified selves, are absolutely crucial to…….the world, because men are ignorant, angry, emotionally unstable barbarians. Women = good, men BAAAAAAAAAAD.  Worship at the feet of the golden uterus you savages.

I should also point out, that she read the Forney article but she didn’t READ it, hence why, in reply to an article entitled The Case Against Female Self-Esteem, she emmmm didn’t actually “get it” Nope, that quote came  close to the start of her “critique” one does have to establish the proper order of things first, after all.

The problem according to feminists is that if women feel bad about themselves this is – well is a bad thingWomen are exempt from “feeling bad about themselves” excluded from having their value or worth as human beings questioned, criticised, held in anything less than high esteem.  Regardless of what they do, say, or cause to be done. Conversely men are exempt from feeling good about THEMselves.

In fact, if something that a woman does actually causes any other person harm, discomfort, pain, anguish or even to suffer injustice, it the fault of THAT person, especially if it is a man – to do otherwise is to cause a loss of self-esteem in a woman, to make her feel bad about herself – and as we know – making a woman feel bad about herself is a crime against humanity of epic proportions, and NOT to be borne.

Feminists also equate self-confidence as the obverse side of the self-esteem coin – if one has confidence in one’s own abilities, regardless of whether or not that confidence is misplaced or patently ridiculous, due to a lack of talent in said abilities – then others are obliged to reward this self-confidence, misplaced or not – with even more buckets of self –esteem top-ups, also shiny gold stars in the form of positions of authority and responsibility, in the form of gifts, large salaries, and in the form of some “extra” benefits to reward this self-confident woman, for sharing this heady mix of vaunting self-confidence and cosmic self-esteem, on others.

Because you see, yet again, the withholding of these things mentioned above might lead to not just a loss of self-esteem, which we know is a BAD THING – for a woman – but might, almost as egregiously shatter her self-confidence, a very very bad thing. For a woman.

Men do not get any gold stars, for anything – to do so would make some woman, somewhere feel bad about herself.

It is NOT TO BE BORNE.  The pinnacle of achievement for a woman, by right, is to feel GOOD about herself, at all times, in all circumstances, and without any regard whatsoever for the consequences upon others, that reaching this pinnacle of feeling GOOD about herself – might cause.

This next quote lays out why women not just have and deserve to have huge self- esteem, but also buckets of self-confidence, because of their innate awesomeness. Though in this instance, “Hot Piece” might just suffer from that “over confidence I talked about earlier.  The essence of the Forney article was that “you ain’t all that and NO, I don’t want to fuck you, just because you’re there. 

“Confidence doesn’t mean that a woman doesn’t have the capacity to feel that her man enhances her life. It just means that she knows she deserves the positive influences he has over her, and that — more importantly — if he were suddenly not to be in her life any more, she could easily find a different man, if not as good, better, to replace him. If that mindset is a turn-off to you, to know that you’re replaceable, that speaks not to her confidence, but to your own insecurity.”

See what I mean, she doesn’t get it, she is confusing, narcissism, self-absorption, selfishness and overweening egotism and vanity with “self-esteem” and “confidence” one of the things that women believe they are entitled to by right, is the unswerving and automatic adoration of men, at all times. Men who do not automatically subscribe to this worldview are crippled by “insecurity” which is a handy way of keeping your “self-esteem” intact and striding out to go shopping for a new man, to replace the one who just left…..because of his “insecurity” till of course, the shelves seem to be bare and new candidates are thin on the ground.  This is then because ALL men are bastards, and you are still awesome.

 

In a parallel universe populated by persons with the intellectual abilities of sea slugs, and the moral compass of sociopaths THIS would make perfect sense.

Oh. Wait………….damn!

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

Advertisements

7 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Emma the Emo
    Jan 21, 2014 @ 18:29:48

    1) Self-esteem gets a lot of bashing around these parts of the internet. I agree groundless high self-esteem is bad. So is unearned low self-esteem though. Here, if you have low SE, you’re told to improve yourself, so that you will have higher self-esteem. But to self-improve, one must first feel one’s worthy of such efforts. Or else why bother? So very low (and likely unwarranted) SE can be a source of paralysis.

    2) “Confidence doesn’t mean that a woman doesn’t have the capacity to feel that her man enhances her life. It just means that she knows she deserves the positive influences he has over her, and that — more importantly — if he were suddenly not to be in her life any more, she could easily find a different man, if not as good, better, to replace him.”

    If that’s confidence, I don’t want to have it. It’s cold, unloving, only fit for flings and FWB relationships. If you’re keeping yourself invulnerable, you can’t truly love. Could be a sign of self-protection and insecurity. Or just lack of the ability to feel deeply.

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 21, 2014 @ 19:08:01

      Hello and welcome Emma.

      1) Self-esteem gets a lot of bashing around these parts of the internet. I agree groundless high self-esteem is bad. So is unearned low self-esteem though. Here, if you have low SE, you’re told to improve yourself, so that you will have higher self-esteem. But to self-improve, one must first feel one’s worthy of such efforts. Or else why bother? So very low (and likely unwarranted) SE can be a source of paralysis.”

      That’s an interesting perspective – I’d be more inclined to have sympathy for someone suffering from that kind of emotional and personal paralysis, especially if it was preventing them from fully engaging in their own lives – but, I would be cautious about getting sucked into a “poor me” paradigm.

      Sure, people suffer from say – excruciating shyness – and that needs to be addressed – but more from the perspective that there are generally underlying causes that need specific assistance in recognising, confronting and hopefully putting behind one.

      “2) “Confidence doesn’t mean that a woman doesn’t have the capacity to feel that her man enhances her life. It just means that she knows she deserves the positive influences he has over her, and that — more importantly — if he were suddenly not to be in her life any more, she could easily find a different man, if not as good, better, to replace him.”

      If that’s confidence, I don’t want to have it. It’s cold, unloving, only fit for flings and FWB relationships. If you’re keeping yourself invulnerable, you can’t truly love. Could be a sign of self-protection and insecurity. Or just lack of the ability to feel deeply.”

      You spotted that as well, my thoughts were – “what a cold, shallow, vain and egotistical bitch” of the type who considers herself to be God’s gift to men.

      Not convinced about the “self-protection and insecurity” thing though – I have met and observed certain types of women who in spite of, let’s just say being rather unattractive, both physically and personally, took major umbrage at having their advances to men rejected.

      The thinking being “I’m bestowing my perfection upon you and YOU are turning ME down” add in the rest – involves a lot of swearing and questioning of the poor unfortunate males – manliness.

      Thank you for your interesting and thought provoking comment Emma.

      Anja

      Reply

  2. Russell
    Jan 21, 2014 @ 21:23:31

    I think decent human beings should have a minimum of human regard bestowed upon them. But males do not.

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 21, 2014 @ 21:42:52

      Hi Russell,

      I agree, not because they are male or female, but because they ARE human beings. One can operate on the assumption that the person you just met is a decent human being – untill their actions or behaviour indicates otherwise – then – all bets are off.

      An arsehole is an arsehole – no matter what they’ve got in their underwear, and should be treated as such.

      Thanks for your comment Russell

      Anja

      Reply

  3. wtfwtf13
    Jan 22, 2014 @ 07:54:41

    An arsehole is an arsehole – no matter what they’ve got in their underwear, and should be treated as such.

    ABSOLUTELY !
    I define sanity as the equilibrium between EMOTION and REASON . But the reality is that this equilibrium is dynamic and insanity is always round the corner. While most people are mildly insane off and on what differentiates them from those that have marked preference for any one side of the scale to the exclusion of the other is the resilience that enables them to regain balance.
    I make an exception for your rants though, Anja, they are sane with a cloak of insanity!
    There’s absolutely no need for you to be apologetic for them.

    Reply

  4. John mws
    Jan 23, 2014 @ 16:54:19

    The new spin on self-esteen and a women’s choices is the whole area of childlessness. A startling fact is that by 2018 in the UK 25% of women over 45 years old will still be childless. Numerous articles are now springing up to promote, condone, support or praise this new state of affairs. No one is allowed to question why this is, or make any woman feel unhappy about this. Reasons span from disposal income, no toys messing up the house, the pets are not disturbed, do not want the responsibility, women embrassing their true desire not to have children(?), mothers now have to many “new” expectations put on them, it is good for the unborn child who will not suffer possible societal ills, mothers are miserable etc. All helped by the feminist overlords who pat them on the back and tell off those bitchy mothers and puzzled men for picking on the poor defenseless childless women.

    So there we have the feminists end goal, career only women, taking the pill to kill their libido and hence desire for children, who will also abort to stay that way, and men turning away due to the toxic marriage laws, and fewer women willing to start a family in the first place, putting the future of the (western) world in the balance. No children, no future tax payers, so no state pensions or welfare checks(created male only taxes?), and a lonely old age and dying species. All for the self esteem and self worth of women and no-one else. Well done feminists, well done.

    Reply

  5. chefyc
    Jan 24, 2014 @ 07:50:21

    Reblogueó esto en Los españoles se merecen saberlo, por la Paz y la verdadera Igualdad en España!y comentado:
    Add your thoughts here… (optional)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: