The gospel of politically-correct nonjudgmental cultural equalism is taken for granted as something that every person needs to believe in.
All cultures are equal. Don’t judge. Don’t pass criticism on other cultures and their practices or you are racist/xenophobic. Everyone defines success in their own way, there is no wrong answer. Everybody is equal.
But is this true? What implications does it have for Singapore where we are multicultural?
It does not take anybody with a basic grasp of common sense to realise that tangible outcomes in the real world require realistic, practical actions in order to achieve them, and there are a broad set of tangible outcomes that people across all cultures would universally find appealing.
Access to water, food, shelter and security for example, are pretty basic needs and outcomes that almost everybody desires regardless of culture. One could go on to point out that even other needs, such as success, wealth, prosperity, stability and a future for their children are outcomes are things that most people all over the world want. These are tangible needs that can be measured in tangible outcomes, and to achieve these tangible outcomes your solution to ago about meeting them needs to work.
This is where the progressive narrative of cultural equalism starts to fall apart- the moment we start to examine it, we will realise that different cultures have different ways of trying to approach these issues, some will have ideas and practices that meet these outcomes while others will lag behind.
So some cultures are indeed superior to others- in the context of achieving particular outcomes that is.
At this point any shred of rationality a progressive SJW will be tossed away and you will get a rabid stream of buzzwords such as institutional oppression, post colonialism, racism, and what have you not. But these are just hand-waves in an attempt to distract from the main issue, and that the reason that some cultures are behind is just that they have inferior ideas and practices.
And that is cultures are not the same, and some will be better in meeting desirable tangible outcomes than others.
If one is really interested in improving the lives of people, then a cold, hard look at reality is needed instead of trying to hide behind politically correct platitudes in order not to hurt every snowflake’s feelings.
One needs to remember making an objective, realist’s critique of a culture does not mean condemning or treating it with contempt. It simply means analysing and being aware of the shortcomings of a culture in order to better understand why some outcomes aren’t being met.
Progressives lose the plot at this stage because they are unable to get over the hurdle of mythical equalism, and to critique and dare say a culture is inadequate in meeting outcomes goes against the progressive religion. Like anti-vaxxers, they rather people suffer than contradict the progressive narrative. To the progressive everybody is/should be equal-unless you are a cishet majority male in which case you are responsible for all unequal outcomes.
Cultures are the result of their environment, and people all over the globe come from many diverse environments, biological and societal contexts in which their cultures evolved. However this also means that not all cultures are equally suited to meeting the challenges of an increasingly modern globalised world. Not all cultures are equally competitive.
The mixing of cultures in the modern world is also a competition of cultures. Some will have values, paradigms and practices that handicap them. Sure those things might have helped them traditionally but things have changed, and are changing at an increasing rate. Others will be better adapted to the modern world and find better outcomes.
Cultures emerged in stable, resource rich environments would have less of a need to plan for the future versus those who emerged in difficult environments. This leads to some cultures being more present-oriented in the sense of time versus others who place an emphasis on planning far into the future. Obviously, the present-oriented culture isn’t going to be very competitive against the one that is future-oriented.
The paradigm that cultures bring to meet challenges also matters. Some cultures have an internal locus of control, believe they are responsible for their own outcomes and prefer to focus on things that they can do to change things. Others have an external locus of control as the dominant paradigm and believe that whatever happens to them is the result of destiny or fate, rendering large swathes of people resigned and unwilling to change the status quo. Which cultural paradigm is more competitive?
Even cultural quirks like having a practice of saving face and blaming others for problems versus another value set that prefers personal introspection and focusing on self-improvement will affect competitiveness.
All these are the various features, practices and paradigms of culture that render one better at meeting challenges than the other. As much as the progressive would like to claim that all are equal, it simply is not the case.
In Singapore a lot of stuff has been tossed out there about Chinese Privilege and how various inequality of outcomes between the Chinese demographic and others are necessarily due to the Chinese working to oppress the others. This is the progressive “blame the majority” boilerplate that works from a narrative of cultural equalism and assumes that everyone is the same and all disparate outcomes are due to oppression.
But is this really so? Just look up north where the Chinese are not the majority nor do they seriously control any major state institutions of power. You still see them meeting the tangible outcomes above the rate of other demographics.
The various paradigms, values, ideas, and practices between the cultures matter. And not all are equal in achieving outcomes.
This is not a judgment on if one culture is more valuable than the other and all that post-modern gobbledygook, but a realist’s look at things. If some folks prefer living at a primitive level of living in mud huts with no modern technology or medicine that’s their choice.
The problem starts when they want certain tangible outcomes that are incompatible with their current cultural practices, but yet demand that they have their cake and eat it. Worse they start blaming others instead of taking a cold hard look at themselves to understand why they are not meeting these outcomes, that’s when things get ugly really quickly and you get dyscivic movements like Black Lives Matter that demand the security and comfort of modern civillisation for a demographic, but yet egg the very same demographic to actively work towards destroying it.
As a masculine man you need to take a realistic look at the cultural values that you have absorbed and are practicing. Find out what is useful to you and discard those that are holding you back. If you want to achieve your desired outcomes and find success, don’t do something just because you have ego invested in it as having defined your identity (culture) and refuse to make the required changes. This goes especially for Singaporean asian men, who have a lot of things to unlearn if they want to be masculine.
Cultures are not equal in achieving outcomes, wisely choose the values you practice.