Feminist and social justice editions: Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy

By Not Faber451

In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the three super states Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are always at war with each other. The true purpose of the war is revealed near the two-third mark of the plot: the war exists to be a drain on manpower and resources, so living standards cannot improve in a way that will disrupt the current balance of power. Each super state is too big to be defeated and is identical in terms of ideologies and societies. Many terms and phrases coined by Orwell for this novel have entered the common vocabulary, with “Big Brother is watching you” being the most famous one. The depicted concept of government surveillance has been referred to as an Orwellian society, but the concept behind deliberately waging an unwinnable war to sink manpower and resources into it remained unnamed until journalist and science fiction author Jerry Pournelle wrote his Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

 

Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy is based on two hypotheses:

1. There are bureaucrats who work to meet the goals the bureaucracy was founded for and bureaucrats who work for the bureaucracy itself.
2. The latter group will gain control of all leadership positions in the bureaucracy and then rewrite the rules and protocols.

The result is that the bureaucracy in question becomes self perpetuating. The goals are never met because the approach to meeting those goals doesn’t work, but the bureaucrats create the illusion that they are working on them. They gain job security in the process and blame their lack of progress on being either understaffed, underfunded or both. Pournelle originally wrote this law to explain the actions taken by government organizations and teachers’ unions, but it is a good fit for another group that is determined to never reach the point where they are no longer needed: feminists.

By using gynocentrism, specifically society’s protective tendencies towards women and reduced empathy towards men, feminist ideologues have set up a bureaucracy that is more successful at pretending to solve issues while creating new ones than any faceless government organization ever could. If these issues predate feminism, they only focus on the effects on women. If they create new ones, they pretend these were already there and only focus on the effects these issues supposedly have on women. That way, there will always be enemies to fight, as well as government subsidies and private donations to collect. Let’s take a look at a few of their strategies to see how Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy applies to them.

 

The wage gap and the STEM field

The statistic of women earning 77 cents to a man’s dollar is calculated by comparing the total amount of money earned by women to the total amount of money earned by men, without accounting for differences in professions and hours worked. By pretending men and women are paid differently for the same work, feminists and politicians can seemingly fight a problem without actually doing something meaningful. Getting women to make more lucrative career choices, work as many hours as men do and work more paid overtime would make closing the supposed wage gap an individual responsibility that doesn’t fit the feminist crabs in a bucket mentality.

Their continued demand for more women in management and board positions would not fully eliminate the difference either. There are blue collar jobs that pay above average salaries due to dangerous and/or uncomfortable working conditions, but feminists are perfectly happy to leave the overrepresentation of men in those professions as it is. On top of that, women tend be less likely to utilize any room for negotiable salaries that some board positions can offer.

There is also a wage gap angle to anti-porn feminism. Pornography is a form of show business, so it would be logical to assume that fame is a factor in determining a porn star’s salary. Female porn stars are usually more famous than their male counterparts, so they can be expected to earn more per heterosexual scene than their male costars. In other words: by merely existing, the porn industry contradicts the wage gap narrative.

The feminists who complain about underrepresentation of women in the STEM field are usually part of the problem by not enrolling in STEM subjects themselves, but instead in gender studies or any other non-STEM subject. If anything, the mainstreaming of their female victimhood narrative makes many women incompatible with the trial and error nature that comes with STEM subjects. This ensures that the number of women in STEM actually decreases due to female students either giving up at the first sign of trouble or not enrolling in the first place. Feminists then blame this on the men who are already in that field and they have a new issue to exploit at everyone’s expense by demanding unnecessary reformations that do not work.

 

Rape culture

This is one of the more sinister ones. The 77 cents to a dollar statistic is simply misinterpreted, but feminist ideologues actively create the problems they complain about when it comes to their rape culture narrative. By defining rape in such a way that it only covers male perpetrators, rape by women is excluded from the legal definition and feminists can pretend it is something that is only done by men.

By treating the rape of boys by women as if the boys were totally in control of the situation and wanted it to happen, they deny those boys the recognition that they were raped and leave any psychological issues they sustained untreated. This creates the possibility that a small number of them are psychologically damaged enough to become rapists as they get older. This will eventually provide feminist organizations with more female rape victims to recruit, to use as martyrs to lobby for more legal reforms and to keep the rape crisis centers open. This is probably also an incentive for prison staffs to look the other way whenever female staff members rape underage male inmates. After all, a reduction in crime would put them out of work.

As that still does not result in a number of female rape victims that is on par with the Congo (dead raped men tell no tales), they have resorted to artificially increasing the numbers. They do this by expanding the definition of rape to make it possible to retroactively withdraw consent after the encounter, include outside factors such as alcohol consumption and even deny the perceived victim a say in the matter of whether she was raped or not. The latter method was invented by Mary Koss to create the myth of ‘campus rape culture’ and the falsified statistic of 1 in 5 women in college being raped. This led to the campus kangaroo courts and continuous lobbying to override due process, the right of the accused to face their accusers and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in sex crimes, but only if the accused are men.

All of this also makes it easier to convict men who are falsely accused of rape. On top of that, false accusers who get caught are exempt from the charges of perjury and filing false police reports on the grounds that prosecuting them would scare real victims out of coming forward and damage their credibility. That innocent men are ruined, can get traumatized in the process and will always be considered guilty in the court of public opinion is considered irrelevant.

Making rape allegations has become an instant ticket to fame and possibly fortune for women, with little to no actual risk for the false accusers. In countries where accusers of sex crimes are granted full anonymity, false accusers who want to destroy men without going on public record are being further enabled to get away with it. As this continues to happen more and more often, this creates the very skepticism to rape claims that feminists complain about. Their habit of continuing to put these exposed liars, such as Mattress Girl, on pedestals and worship them like heroes further accelerates this development. In the meantime, they pretend to be proactive by blaming rape on all men, sex workers, porn, locker room talk, rape jokes and whatever else they can think of, while organizing consent classes that turn sex into a bureaucratic process and do not stop actual rapists.

 

Domestic violence and child abuse

These two narratives mostly rely on the same principles as the rape culture narrative. In fact, domestic violence is where feminist ideologues first tested them. Arrest policies and laws such as the Duluth model and VAWA are written in such a way that it is only considered domestic violence when men do it. Even if a man can prove that his female accuser struck first, it is not considered a crime due to excuses such as ‘preemptive self defense’. Like rape, the definition of domestic violence is being further expanded for accusations in which the accused are men.

Erin Pizzey has been documenting the feminist exploitation of domestic violence and domestic violence shelters for financial gain since it began. The money these shelters receive from governments and private donors is more than they need to cover the overhead costs and the ‘profits’ go to feminist lobbying activities and propaganda campaigns. With domestic violence shelters only offering services to women, girls of all ages and boys up to thirteen, domestic violence is deliberately handled in such a way that it never ends. Men who are abused by women have nowhere to go and will be considered perpetrators if they try to seek help in any way, making them more likely to be pushed to the point where they strike back. Their abusers, dead or alive, are then added to the victim statistics and those men are branded perpetrators. Women, boys up to thirteen and girls can be manipulated, exploited and recruited by the feminist organizations running these shelters. Boys who are denied shelter and services for being over thirteen will be more likely to continue the cycle of abuse as either victims who can be pushed too far or as perpetrators, ensuring the shelters never run out of ‘the right kind’ of victims to exploit. This also creates situations in which mothers don’t want to abandon their sons and either leave the shelters with their children or don’t go to the shelters in the first place. This further ensures that the cycle of abuse continues at a level that guarantees that domestic violence shelters remain in business for generations to come.

The lack of shelters for men also puts them in a dilemma if they have children with their female abusers. Leaving with the children would be kidnapping, leaving without them would be abandonment. Both options can and will be used against them in custody battles and the former option can be grounds for criminal prosecution as well.

Feminists have been less successful in covering up child abuse committed by women, but they have to an extent succeeded in exploiting child abuse as well. For women, making false accusations of rape, child abuse, domestic violence, child molestation or a combination of those against their soon to be ex-husbands or ex-boyfriends has become known as the silver bullet strategy. The empathy gap in favor of women combined with virtually nonexistent evidence standards for these accusations by women in family courts ensure that these women get better settlements in divorce, alimony and child support hearings. Accusations made against them are either dismissed outright or held to higher evidence standards. Like false rape accusers, women who make these false accusations are exempt from perjury charges as well and they continue to be believed and worshipped like heroes in the court of public opinion even after their stories have been debunked multiple times.

All of this results in the same kind of skepticism towards accusations of domestic violence and child abuse made by women that we are seeing with rape accusations, which is then used to claim feminism is still needed. Like with the rape culture narrative, feminists pretend to be proactive by applying collective guilt. In this case, they teach elementary school boys that they are somehow responsible for violence committed by men they don’t know.

 

Moving the goal posts

Another feminist tactic is trying to undo previous achievements that are no longer to their liking and blame them on their opponents. Here are two examples:

1. In the nineteenth century, feminists created and endorsed the tender years doctrine to give divorcing women default custody of the children while leaving the financial responsibilities for those children with their ex-husbands. The argument for this was that women are supposedly better caregivers than men. When feminists shifted their attention to the workforce during the second wave, they blamed the Patriarchy for this assumption. They also continue to lobby against shared custody laws to uphold what they claim to fight.

 

2. The Equal Rights Amendment to the American constitution was ultimately not ratified in the 1980s. Conservative and progressive opposition to it was based on, among other things, that it could be used to subject women to selective service and the draft as well as to make affirmative action and other policy advantages for women unconstitutional. Feminists were divided on it as well, but blamed the conservatives after the ratification failed.

This tactic can be found among other social justice groups as well, particularly those who want to bring back segregation.

 

How to defeat Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy

Considering how feminists use opposition against their ideology as proof that they are still needed and need more activists and money, how can they be defeated? It’s actually quite simple. This trick only works as long as enough people don’t figure it out. It is now becoming harder and harder for feminists to hide this and they have resorted to demands for censorship, which is attracting opposition that is becoming too big for them to handle. The Literally Whos and their media cronies bit off more than they could chew with GamerGate and the same mistakes were repeated in the US presidential election of 2016. The UN report on cyber violence against women and girls became such a laughing stock that it was quickly retracted and the Streisand effect is raising hell on feminist attempts to shut down events they don’t like. These events include free speech rallies, men’s rights conferences, installments of Milo Yiannopoulos’ Dangerous Faggot Tour and showings of Cassie Jaye’s documentary The Red Pill. As their demands for censorship continue to increase, their hatred towards men and lies about society will be noticed by more and more people. The feminist stranglehold on society is weakening. Keep pushing, and it will be broken altogether.

by