April 23rd, 2005


A fairly spirited debate going on in my earlier entry about the National Organization for Men, but it's drifted into the territory of defending feminism, which I'm not interested in. I have no problem with women banding together to act in the best interests of women, but I'm not a woman, and those interests aren't my interests.

As a representative of civilization I want my civilization to *include* women, but I want it to see to the best interests of everyone involved, not one pressure group over another.

And as I want *my* interests represented, I'd like to have a group to do *that*. NOW doesn't do it, and has no particular reason to want to do so, so I'd like to use NOM. The reason for my earlier post was that the people running NOM aren't running the same kind of organization as NOW, and the NOW style of organization does things that I'd want to do that the style currently being used by NOM does not. NOW was a grass-roots support organization; NOM is more of a press bureau.

It's a good thing to *have* press bureaus, but when you're looking for some people you can meet at a local coffee shop and make friends with and get someone to come over and help you sort your stuff with you because it's a lot easier to work with company, getting a press release just doesn't help.

Egotism. Or ergotism, I'm not sure; either one gives me a headache.

So, the dichotomy between the individual self and the social self.

Do egotists have more fun?

If I'm always thinking of the welfare of the Group, do I pay adequate attention to what I, personally, enjoy?

I'm a *part* of the group; even if I'm thinking in terms of the group I have to take my own interests into account. But if I'm thinking of myself *as* the group, can I at the same time appreciate my own enjoyment, or do the two processes interfere with each other?