dangerous idea

This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics, C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.

Friday, February 13, 2009

I think this site is serious

Kinder, Kirche, Kuche.

Labels:

posted by Victor Reppert @ 11:04 PM  

4 Comments:

  • At February 13, 2009 11:28 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Ah, yes -- the Texas Taliban.

     

  • At February 13, 2009 11:58 PM , Blogger CLAY said...

    People take themselves too serious. When you realize that you are just a collection of action potentials and vibrating points, you start to become more humble. I like your chess blog! Really interesting. Have a good one Mr. Reppert.

     

  • At February 14, 2009 9:38 AM , Anonymous Blip said...

    This is fairly close to my sort of position on gender - I am a patriarchalist - I think that a male-dominated society is the ideal, the norm, and an egalitarian or matriarchal society is very probably defective in significant ways.

    The argument is fairly simple:

    1) Male-domination is biologically based.
    2) So an egalitarian society will run counter to biological instincts.
    3) Running counter to biological instincts will result in psychological damage.
    So,
    4) An egalitarian society results in psychological damage.

    (Both to men and women: men because they are frustrated and held back, women because they are thrust into positions of responsibility they don't really want and aren't suited for.)

    But women one of the sacred cows of our society (like gays) - you can only get away with publicly criticizing the more extreme brands of feminism. Steven Goldberg's book "Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance" was in the Guinness book of records for most publisher rejection notes.

    The fact is there are excellent argument against gender egalitarianism. And it isn't at all Christian.

     

  • At February 14, 2009 2:42 PM , Blogger Victor Reppert said...

    I can understand a patriarchal society where physical labor and physical defense of the community is at a premium. If most men can only bring home the bacon off the sweat of their brow, and where people have to be defended with swords and not automated weapons, it can be understood (at least, I'm not talking justification here) why one might have well-defined gender roles, and where a woman's economic contribution might be defined in terms of her childbearing abilities. But I have had few jobs in my lifetime of work where a woman could not have done the job as effectively as a man could.

    In Ephesians 5 wives and husbands are supposed to submit to one another. I don't see how that's possible where a man knows, from the outset, that he will necessarily prevail if the husband and the wife can't come to an agreement.

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home