Wednesday, 29 October 2014

My problems with women

I have never had a girlfriend. Girls, on the whole, make me nervous when they come to my proximity. I haven't really had a close female friend. My friends have generally been men. On the whole, I have a very male perspective on things. As the years have worn by I have even developed an irrational contempt against the female sex. In this post I will speak candidly about my problems with women. It is not always a good idea to divulge these things online. I used to use this blog for that purpose (God forbid why), but all that bile has since been channelled through diary writing and (expensive) shrinks. I now use my blog for ideas. Even if I write about personal stuff, these are examples to illustrate ideas.

For years I have always told myself that I would want to have a relationship with a woman. But, when I think of it more close I think - why? I don't care about their feelings. If I were to commit to a relationship I wouldn't give this nebulous person the time nor the attention. The truth is that my desires are sexual.

I often latch onto certain women. Invariably, I know nothing about them. What has happened in the past is that I project onto them what I want. In the ideal world I would want a fucked up, neurotic woman who shares my interests and who's also pretty. Because I rarely fraternise with girls I somehow assume that they share most of these characteristics. And of course they don't.

The problem is that I idealise these things out of all proportion. I would imagine the affair to be intense, almost psychotic. Or I would imagine this nebulous figure to some sort of sychophant who'd be in awe of me and would shower me with praise at all times. Relationships seldom are crazy or intense. In fact, most of the time they are very quotidian, perhaps banal, I don't even need friends to tell them, or for them to tell me, that I went to the shop to buy so and so, that I brushed my teeth, that I had a cup of coffee. I would imagine that being side by side a person all the time and sharing that kind of information would become really oppressive. The ideal relationship would be to discuss Nietzsche and for her to read my writings. As regards the idea of having a sycophant as a girlfriend, I would imagine that that would become extremely irritating.

The reason why I have developed an 'irrational contempt' for women is because of the way some of them have treated me. When they are around me, they seem stroppy. I am badly groomed. I rarely shave, never brush my hair and my clothes are wrinkled. They want me to play the game. Yet that seems so vain and fatuous. And to show an interest - to 'chat up' - seems so contrite. It's fake. I don't like playing those games. I am also afraid of it. I am terrified of the ignominy of being rejected. What really pisses me off is that they seem to prefer the alpha male type, no matter how much they try to deny it. They like assholes. Or, at least, men who are confident and assertive. I know it's a crude generalisation, but thinking about my pool of friends corroborates this. The ones who are quiet, nervous and are not confident generally don't have girlfriends. Those who are more outgoing do. The truth is that women want to feel protected. If their partners are too weak and unstable, they fear they won't be able to procreate and lead a stable life.

Young girls are such vain and capricious creatures. I mentioned before that I don't make an impression to look good. Yet I find the idea of constantly applying eye-liner and mascara to oneself vain. I find it utterly empty. Why do they do this? Because they will attract men. As a consequence, they will have sex and keep our species alive and we They follow fashions and trends. What also does my head in is that it titillates perverts like me. They know that I will stare at their legs and their bosom. This is enough. They've done their bit. They consequently expect me to chat them up. There's no way that they'll initiate conversation.

And the worst thing is that I know that saying these things is puerile. I know that it's reductive. I know that women are just people. I know they are thinking beings. Yet I sometimes struggle to think of them as anything more than sex objects. Yet they preen so much, dress so lavishly, daub themselves with so much lip-stick, that sometimes it's difficult not to.

Wednesday, 15 October 2014

Internationalism vs. globalisation

It is a global trend. The effects, people say, are significant. Globalisation - and 'neo-liberalism' - have helped global GDP and wealth soar. National borders are being thawed and the whole world is one big community.

Though the actual impacts of globalisation are far from rosy. People talk of the 'trickling down' effects of neo-liberalism. People from lower social strata would accrue wealth. What we see instead is a 'trickling up' effect. Higher strata are becoming obscenely wealthy. What is the popular statistic right now? That 1% wealthiest in the world have more money than all of the lower strata (say, the bottom 50%) combined?

Examples like India, China and Brazil are cited as exemplars of globalisation. Yet, while it is true that there are sectors of the population which are far wealthier and have a better standard of life, there are other areas with rampant poverty. It is disproportionate to say that these countries are booming and it is disingenuous to say that they are enjoying the rewards of globalism.

Culturally, globalisation really has a habit of rooting out local culture. Think of every McDonald's installed for every restaurant of local cuisine torn down. Trends are generally set by the USA. So, Hollywood films dominate the global market place. People from other cultures jettison their values and mimic the American way of life. (Which was always rather artificial. The early settlers left behind their European culture and heritage and became 'Americans' - i.e. overly materialistic and with the desire to amass capital.)

The main beef I have with globalisation is that it erodes democracy. Political institutions have little power. Where is the power? It is with bankers and executives. They control the free market economy. 

What's more is that political institutions in themselves are becoming more centralised. In the EU, most monetary issues are dictated by the EU. Austerity measures are a pre-requisite to being a member. This also applies to many laws. If a country has a visionary outlook - like Scotland did, however fanciful their proposals of the SNP were - it does not have self-determination. It is mired in technocratic bureaucracy which is centralised in Brussels. 

This is why I think that it is important to distinguish between internationalism and globalism. Globalisation stands for everything mentioned above. Internationalists, meanwhile, are far from isolationists. They want to co-operate with other countries diplomatically. They also have a humanitarian streak and are keen to send aid to countries imperiled by war.

I would take this even further and argue that national borders are erroneous. I would call myself a 'cosmopolite.' It is an imperative to look into foreign cultures and familiarise yourself with their literature. It is a shame that this kind of outlook has been adopted by the globalism. 

But what we are seeing now is that globalism is actually helping to stoke up xenophobia. Far-right parties with racist views are winning seats in the European Parliament. The EU started with the benign premise that it would end war and instigate a more co-operative global alliance. What we are instead seeing is that countries are closing borders and becoming virulently xenophobic. Far-right parties want to become isolationist states and are intent on purging out foreigners.

What I think is quite sad is that the left doesn't really have a narrative on globalisation. The Labour party, for instance, is very wishy-washy. It insists that the EU needs to be reformed, but they are intent on wearing the EU credential proudly on their lapels. Anti-globalisation rhetoric has been appropriated by right-wing populism - and we are all the worse for it.