Thursday, August 25, 2011

Why sexism is obsolete


In previous centuries, people earned their living off the sweat of their brow, and if people fought battles, they fought them hand to hand. So physical strength was at a premium if you were going to survive, and it was more economical for women to be baby-making machines to make sure parents had people to take care of them when they were old. (More precisely, son-making machines). I'm not thinking here of justice, but rather of economics. When your survival is under constant threat, the question of "How can we survive" comes before the question of "What is fair?" With industrialization, this changes. I have never held a job a woman couldn't do as well or better than me.

So, I'm not inclined to be too hard on past cultures for their sexism. But I am hard on people who want to carry sexism into the present day. 

212 comments:

1 – 200 of 212   Newer›   Newest»
Gimli 4 the West said...

Balderdash! Sexism is about sex. Men and women are different about sexual desire and sexual fulfillment. A woman is turned on by a man who gets up in the morning, grabs his briefcase and takes care of business, someone responsible enough to provide loving security. A man is turned on by curves and beauty. When a child is born a woman wants to stay home and nurture that child with breast milk while her man takes care of business. Get to know a few females who will be honest with you and you will find most of them politically incorrect.

There are still plenty of hard labor jobs out there Vic. I worked my way through college at UPS which was physically laborious. UPS were forced to buy into the nonsense you just wrote about. It was a running joke that about a third of females were on workman’s comp at any given time.

Intellectually, both sexes are equally capable. But, the rest of the comparisons are nonsense. What man ever feared being raped?

Ilíon said...

"I have never held a job a woman couldn't do as well or better than me."

Really? None at all? Not even your current job?

"When your survival is under constant threat, the question of "How can we survive" comes before the question of "What is fair?" With industrialization, this changes."

Ah! In other words, if men invent and build machines so that the sort of physical strength natural to men (in contrast to the sort natural to women) is no longer so necessary to get the public work of society done, then women can be egalitarianly "equal" to men.

"With industrialization, this changes."
Are you sure you don't mean "post-industrialization"? You know, offices and bureaucracies and such? Rosie-the-Riveter (my grandmother was one) was an anomaly.

The truth is, women are "equal" to men in the egalitarian sense you're talking about precisely because men are constantly holding their hands and constantly trying to protect them from the consequences of their own ill-advised decisions … while everyone pretends that women, in general, are strong and independent.

My female relatives, going back for generations, tend to be strong and independent … and in the present age, they no more “fit in” than I do.

"When your survival is under constant threat, the question of "How can we survive" comes before the question of "What is fair?" … So, I'm not inclined to be too hard on past cultures for their sexism. But I am hard on people who want to carry sexism into the present day."

Dude! Our society is dying of all these “strong and independent (pseudo) women” and “sensitive, supportive (*) (pseudo) men” … whom, together, never seen to get around to either themselves becoming adults, nor of rearing up a new generation of adults to take their places.

(*) concerning “supportive” (so-called) men – why is it necessary that men be “supportive” if women are so “strong and independent”? Does not the role designated to modern-day men give the lie to the whole egalitarian myth?

Ilíon said...

Gimli: "Intellectually, both sexes are equally capable."

Even that isn't accurate. Women cluster toward the middle of the intellectual curve ... a lower proportion of women are either idiots or geniuses ... or, in other words, there are proportionately more male than female geniuses, and more male than femal idiots.

Eh? said...

"I have never held a job a woman couldn't do as well or better than me."

Not even your current job teaching philosophy? Philosophy is the most male-dominated of the arts. There is a simple explanation for this: men are better at it. Since men dominate the high-IQ scoring range, it is only to be expected (and appropriate) that academia will be male-dominated. But try telling any feminist this and they will howl.

(So what Gimli says

"Intellectually, both sexes are equally capable."

is also false.)

Your job must also not involve much stress since women are much less capable of bearing up under stress than men - men are psychologically as well as physically tougher. (And yes, I have worked with women in high stress jobs involving multiple deadlines it was impossible to meet. But it should be obvious in any case.)

See Stove's paper on the intellectual capacities of women for more.

http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/women.html

B. Prokop said...

Papalinton and his fellow-travelers, who are forever going on about religion's so-called "Bronze Age thinking" were aiming at the wrong target. They should have set their sights on the Stone Age thinking of the likes of Ilion, "Gimli", et.al.

What nonsense! Worse, what slop, what filth! You people should crawl back under your rocks.

I'm sorry, but I can't muster up even a modicum of politeness here. These were the most insulting, degrading comments ever to grace this website - far worse than anything Loftus ever dreamed of spewing out. I felt sullied even reading them. I will not even try to engage with such idiots! What's the point when they have amply demonstrated that there's nothing to engage with?

One Brow said...

B. Prokop,

I could not agree more with your sentiments in this thr4ead. Fo9rtunately, many religions are starting to come around on this issue, eventually more will follow.

My verification word was Sness. That took me back.

Gimli 4 the West said...

Bob,

My guess is you have never done long hours of hard physical labor with a company that was trying to integrate women. If you had you would notice the toll it takes on a woman’s body. Sorry you feel sullied by this.

My guess is you have never been to a day care and seen a new mother drop off her new born so she can be just as dedicated to her career as a man while her breasts dry up. It can be heartbreaking to watch. Sorry this is so insulting to you.

My guess is you have never worked with the intercity poor and seen so many kids growing up without fathers because we came to believe that sex was the same between men and women. I know your enlightened solution to this problem was supposed to be abortion. Well, Bob with a whole lot of death and destruction 40 years after Roe, men and women are still different. People like you have been going around and being insulted for far too long.

Some of us cave men having worked our way through all the liberal schools, sitting through all the liberal lectures, in the end still know you guys are full of it. Now go find woman you can lean your head on and cry so you can show how sensitive you are. I'm sure she will have great respect for you.

B. Prokop said...

"My guess is you have never done long hours of hard physical labor with a company that was trying to integrate women."

I was in THE ARMY, you jerk, alongside brave, dedicated women pulling far more than your share, without a doubt.

"My guess is you have never been to a day care and seen a new mother drop off her new born"

Yes I have. I helped FOUND a day care center at the National Security Agency. I know damn well how hard it is on women in the workplace. Does that make them second class citizens, as they so obviously in your worldview?

"My guess is you have never worked with the intercity poor"

Wrong again - 100% off the mark. At this point, I'm glad you're just "guessing". Otherwise, you'd look like even more of an idiot than you are.

"I know your enlightened solution to this problem was supposed to be abortion."

I'm a Catholic, you toad.

"Now go find [a] woman you can lean your head on and cry so you can show how sensitive you are."

I'll do just that, you asshole. I'll go upstairs and talk to my wife's ashes on the nightstand by my bed. She died two years ago from pancreatic cancer, after raising two wonderful, successful daughters: one now in med school at Johns Hopkins, the other a professional opera singer about to go on tour in China. Oh, and by the way, who also served in Iraq during the worst part of the violence (We once ended a phone call with her words, "Gotta go - incoming mortar rounds!")

Go to Hell!

One Brow said...

Gimli 4 the West said...
My guess is you have never done long hours of hard physical labor with a company that was trying to integrate women.

My guess is that if you came across a woman just as capable as doing the hard labor as you, you would exaggerate every flaw and downplay every virtue in her work, so you could fit her into some bigoted worldview you prefer to amintain.

My guess is you have never been to a day care and seen a new mother drop off her new born

My guess is that you would be much too weak to take the newborns to daycare yourself, and go through the pain of leaving them with strangers yourself. You would leave it to the supposedly weaker sex to show more fortitude that you could muster.

My guess is you have never worked with the intercity poor and seen so many kids growing up without fathers because we came to believe that sex was the same between men and women.

My guess is that you have no experience with the inner-city poor, where the men by-and-large shared the exact same ideas you have about the weakness of women and how they belong in the home, and where the social paaterns resulting in single-parent homes date back to the 19th centruy, at least, well before any time sexual equality was mainstream. I don't expect you to stop talking about this simply because you are ignorant, though. That would be out of character, would it not?

Some of us cave men having worked our way through all the liberal schools, sitting through all the liberal lectures, in the end still know you guys are full of it.

How like a cave man to be proud of being uneducable.

Now go find woman you can lean your head on and cry so you can show how sensitive you are. I'm sure she will have great respect for you.

Actually, they do. Many women have great respect for men who know when to cry and know when to atack, much more than for some ignorant blow-hard caught up in his own image and afraid to be more.

Eh? said...

"I was in THE ARMY, you jerk, alongside brave, dedicated women pulling far more than your share, without a doubt."

You support women in combat? You want men to attack women the same way they would attack a man? If so, you are a sick man Mr Prokop. Women should not be treated that way and have a right to male protection.

"far worse than anything Loftus ever dreamed of spewing out."

So in your view attacking women is worse than attacking God?

I recommend you take some responsibility for the women in your life instead of cultivating your hypersensitive conscience.

Anonymous said...

The thinking housewife is a good anti-feminist blog.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com

One Brow said...

Eh? said...
You support women in combat?

If a woman can stand up to the physical rigors of combat (I do not support having separate standards, by the way) then why should she not kill or be killed in combat.

You want men to attack women the same way they would attack a man?

A soldier is a soldier. Other armies have women in combat. Would you allow yourself to be killed when facing them?

If so, you are a sick man Mr Prokop.

Judgement devoid of meaning.

Women should not be treated that way and have a right to male protection.

I've seen far too much of the results of male protection to ever encourage a woman to rely on it.

I recommend you take some responsibility for the women in your life instead of cultivating your hypersensitive conscience.

Part of being responsible is allowing someone to grow into who they can be, rather than force them to play a role.

Anonymous said...
The thinking housewife is a good anti-feminist blog.

Having read some of it, I saw precious little thinking. Maybe that's supposed to be man's wsork, or something.

oozzielionel said...

A lot of heat; not much light.

Jesse Parrish said...

Ah, the smell of male privilege. Anyways, lots of scary female math intellects around me, presumably all of which have dealt with institutional biases against their gender.

Oh and Ilion, is that why you think my usage of mixed-gender pronouns lowers the intellectual level of my writing?

*Epiphany*

Jesse Parrish said...

*Correction: my mixed usage of gendered pronouns.

It's been a long day.

One Brow said...

Jesse,

I've come to prefer the singular "they" construction.

Papalinton said...

Bob
I too cannot abide the form of attack that you have been subjected to. I am with you 100% even to the level of anger you are feeling. It is justified in this case, as it is measured and proportional and defensive in character.

Those that impugn the personal character of others must be brought to brook at each and every occasion to justify their egregious and poisonous intent.

Anonymous said...

"Anyways, lots of scary female math intellects around me, presumably all of which have dealt with institutional biases against their gender."

Read: Affirmative Action.

Blue Devil Knight said...

What a shocker that Ilion comes off as sexist. He once wrote:
[I]t was the 19th amendment, women's suffrage, which put us definitively on the road to the societal collapse and ruin we are now trying to live through.

Someone in this thread wrote:
My guess is you have never been to a day care and seen a new mother drop off her new born so she can be just as dedicated to her career as a man while her breasts dry up.

Or maybe she will know enough to use a breast pump, like every professional mother I've ever met. Also, while breast milk is great for babies, formula works too. Breasts "drying up" is not something to be so dramatic about.

BenYachov said...

I used to be against sexism. Then I got married.;-)

I take comfort in razzing the opposite sex but am careful not to do so in front of one them. I further take comfort in the knowledge the opposite sex bashes my sex as well. They have a fun time of it too.

"Alright I get it you want me to be sensitive and listen to you now hurry up and talk so I can watch TV"!
-Me to my Wife.

"Will you ask for directions already & don't give me any of that BS about looking weak in front of other males! MEN! Oy!"
-My wife to Me

Now nobody tell my wife about this post. She will yell at me!

BenYachov said...

Anyway speaking seriously I would be the first to Vote for Michelle Bachmen or Sarah Palin.

Sisterhood is Powerful! Yeh boy!

Accept for being Priests women can become what they want. Wife & Mother or Career or both if they can swing it. I have nothing against it.

Power to the sisters.

Thought I am against women in Combat. Of course I'm against men in combat too since death follows.....

Cheers! Lighten up people.

Anonymous said...

"What a shocker that Ilion comes off as sexist. He once wrote:
[I]t was the 19th amendment, women's suffrage, which put us definitively on the road to the societal collapse and ruin we are now trying to live through."

Ilion is dead right about that - you can see how society has slowly gone to pot the more influence women have had.

Ron said...

Women in general tend to go into "caring" careers such as K-12 teachers, nursing, customer service, human resources, and decorating.

Is this primarily due to biological pressures or social pressures?


(Oh, and please note the "in general," so as to preempt any hysterical emoting)

Jesse Parrish said...

"Ilion is dead right about that - you can see how society has slowly gone to pot the more influence women have had."

Yes! Life expectancy has declined, civil liberties have evaporated, poverty has conquered formerly affluent areas, and child prostitutes flood streets of former virtue.

Or the opposite of that. Or something.

Whenever I hear things like "society has been morally declining", I always take a moment to speculate about what such people really miss. Very often, I'm forced to include racism, sexism, homophobia, desire for the treatment of women as property, or some other worthless bigotry.

Yeah, one can make a case that things are `worse' in one or several respects. But I hold the broad-brushers morally suspect.

Ilíon said...

You know, VR, I should think you'd have noticed by now that *every time* you and I disagree substantively, "you side" must resort to the sort of illogical and irrational non-arguments that these foolish pseudo-egalitarians have posted here. That *ought* to tell you something.

Ilíon said...

B.Prokop: "These were the most insulting, degrading comments ever to grace this website - far worse than anything Loftus ever dreamed of spewing out."

Eh? "So in your view attacking women is worse than attacking God?"

I'm pretty sure you didn't mean "attacking women" ... I certainly hope so ... but rather, "attacking feminism" or "attacking the myth of sexual eqalitarianism". For, after all, it is we "cave men" who cherish women, as women ... and want to protect for them the social space to *be* women.


B.Prokop: "I felt sullied even reading them."

You would, wouldn't you? But then, you're not a man ... you're a leftist and "feminist" (that's kind of redundant, isn't it?). You're all about avoiding being/becoming a man.

The ironic thing about so-called men like B.Prokop is that they tend to combine in themselves the stereotypical flaws of both sexes with none of the stereotypical virtues of either sex.

Ilíon said...

Ron: "Is this primarily due to biological pressures or social pressures?"

The Israeli kibbutzim were heavily into socialism, and the apparent concomitant sexual egalitarianism … and their women, including ones reared in the kibbutz, tended over time to gravitate to "caring careers,” and especially to work which would put them physically close to their own children.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Feminism is not the view that men and women are identical. It is the view that they should have identical rights. I am proudly feminist in that sense.

Tonks said...

>>Feminism is not the view that men and women are identical. It is the view that they should have identical rights. I am proudly feminist in that sense.

I don’t call myself a feminist, and I won't. When it comes to the simple definition of “believing women should possess equal rights,” I feel about as stupid calling myself a feminist as I would calling myself someone who believes blacks should have equal rights. Well, no shit.

PatrickH said...

Interesting and revealing hyper-emotional reaction from people like Bob Prokop. The differences between men and women run deep, extend far beyond the overt reproductive differences and into motivation, cognition and perception. For too long, pace BDK, feminism was full of claims that there were no differences between men and women outside the obvious biological ones. That feminism is dead, I'm glad to say. It never had anything to do with reality anyway.

BenYachov said...

I forget it was either Donna Steichen or Helen Hull Hitchcock who said something to the effect of
Equal Pay for equal work & not discriminating against a person merely based on their sex is not Feminism. It's merely being civilized.


My Wife considers herself a devout Catholic and a recovering Feminist.

Thus I can bag on Feminists all I want & she doesn't say a word. Mock women in general on the other hand......I sleep on the couch.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Tonks: exactly. It should be trivial in its more standard modern usage by most real (rather than straw) forms. I have done a lot of reading by feminist authors, and most do not advocate that men and women are the same, just that they deserve the same rights.

Unfortunately, what tends to get more press are the more extreme feminists who often say silly things (and that is what gets them the press). Much like what tends to get the most press among religious folks are insane Christians like the 'die fags' guy. I have never met such a Christian, but that is a stereotype in some liberal's eyes (or they would say it is a natural culmination of american right wing christian thought--the vector of hatred and intolerance brought to its natural end point).

Most antifeminist rants I see are about as informed about mainstream feminism as such liberal antiChristian rants are about mainstream Christianity.

So, glad you agree with me, I will call you a feminist.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Benyachov is right: feminism is really a special case of human rights. People should all have the same rights. This includes women. There is a special term for it because they weren't getting equal rights, were fighting for them, and that name was applied.

I think women's rights have come a VERY long way. And whether you call it feminism, or advocacy of equal rights but temporarily focused on women in some cases, it becomes a somewhat uninteresting argument about what words we feel comfortable using.

I have read some of the radical feminists. E.g., Dworkin in particular. I find her writing more an exhibitionistic cathartic outcry than something that would stand up to detailed rational scrutiny. I think such radical "self help" feminism is probably psychologically helpful for women overcoming abuse (Dworkin was sadistically abused by her first husband). Mainstream, as opposed to radical, feminism is a special case of rights-based thinking. Like gay rights now.

Blue Devil Knight said...

In practice, I avoid the term 'feminism' because people are ignorant of the center of mass of feminist thought. I translate what I would say into 'equal rights for all' talk and the same people are perfectly ok with it.

Anonymous said...

'Feminism is not the view that men and women are identical. It is the view that they should have identical rights.'

The comeback will be that these two views are in tension. Surely if women and men are different then don't they deserve different rights?

'Yeah, one can make a case that things are `worse' in one or several respects. But I hold the broad-brushers morally suspect.'

Give me one way in which society has improved morally over the past, say, 100 years. (So life expectancy doesn't count.) All we've seen is an increase in permissiveness.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: Give me one way in which society has improved morally over the past, say, 100 years.

How about: We don't lynch black people anymore.

Ilíon said...

Anonymous #1: "Give me one way in which society has improved morally over the past, say, 100 years. (So life expectancy doesn't count.) All we've seen is an increase in permissiveness."

Anonymous #2: "How about: [Democrats] don't lynch black people anymore."

Good point. These days, Democrats lynch whites, in general ... and blacks who dare to wander of the "liberal" plantation. That, and that they change the long-established legal definition of "lynching" so that no one has to call the crime "lynching".

One Brow said...

Ilíon said...
You know, VR, I should think you'd have noticed by now that *every time* you and I disagree substantively, "you side" must resort to the sort of illogical and irrational non-arguments that these foolish pseudo-egalitarians have posted here.

I noticed this came right after Jesse Parrish quote you in the process of evicerating one of your prior claims. I agree that quoting your words is resorting to the sort of illogical and irrational non-arguments that foolish pseudo-egalitaians use. If you would stop providing such illogical and irrational arguments, you would see far fewer of them.

Still, this is one of my favorites:

Good point. These days, Democrats lynch whites, in general ... and blacks who dare to wander of the "liberal" plantation. That, and that they change the long-established legal definition of "lynching" so that no one has to call the crime "lynching".

So, when was the last time a so-called white person was hung in this country? This is another great example of the fragility of the sexists. The think criticism of them is the equivalent of murder.

One Brow said...

PatrickH said...
The differences between men and women run deep, extend far beyond the overt reproductive differences and into motivation, cognition and perception.

That actually depends greatly on the particular person in question. The real point of feminism is for each person to decide on which traditional masculine/feminine roles best suit them and allow them to express themselves fully in that way, without regard for which gender that prior generationa may have assigned that role to.

Ilíon said...

"I noticed this came right after Jesse Parrish quote you in the process of evicerating one of your prior claims."

And I notice that you're so intellectually dishonest that you seem even to have deceived yourself. Still, I suppose it's better to deceive oneself before trying to deceive others.

Ilíon said...

BDK: “What a shocker that Ilion comes off as sexist. He once wrote: [I]t was the 19th amendment, women's suffrage, which put us definitively on the road to the societal collapse and ruin we are now trying to live through.”

Isn’t it amusing, or at any rate, par for the course, that BDK would totally ignore the argument I presented in that post and seek to present it as a self-evident fact (*) that I am wrong! Wrong! WRONG! about feminism’s baleful influence upon our society and upon its future prospects.

By the way, one of the other things I discussed in that post – the on-going feminization of American males (one cannot call them ‘men’) – is consistently demonstrated by the “liberals” in this thread.

(*) Isn’t is amusing that the very folk who loudly and constantly mock the existence of dogma when and where dogma is quite proper and fitting, and who like to present themselves as “open-minded” and “willing to follow the evidence where it leads” *always* behave in precisely the manner they are always falsely ascribing to people like me (you know, “fundies”)?

Ilíon said...

oozielionel: "A lot of heat; not much light."

That's an inevitable consequence of questioning "liberal" dogmas. "Liberals" can't deal with actually rational argument; it seems to short-circuit (*) their LibLogic Modules.

(*) DarLogic Modules and AtheoLogic Modules come from the same factory and are built to the same specifications ... really, the main difference between the three is in the label affixed to each Module at the end of the assembly line.

B. Prokop said...

Anyone attempting to engage "Ilion" in any sort of discussion would be well advised to arm himself first by re-reading C.S. Lewis's Perelandra. Dealing with him is frighteningly reminiscent of Ransom's encounters with the "Un-man".

In an earlier posting on this thread, I told "Gimli" to go to Hell. Such advice to Ilion would be superfluous. He's repeatedly demonstrated that he already resides there.

Ilíon said...

"Liberals" have been working overtime for the past century to turn America into an outpost of Hell ... so, perhaps, B.Prokop has finally made a true statement.

Anonymous said...

"How about: We don't lynch black people anymore."

Okay, so mob justice in the South died out. Is that it? (I am in favor of public hangings though.)

One Brow said...

Ilíon said...
And I notice that you're so intellectually dishonest ...

I notice that whenever you can't disprove/discredit a statement, you fall back on claiming the opponent is intellectually dishonest and don't bother to prove it. I'm sure that convinces anyone pre-disposed to agree with you.

One Brow said...

Ilíon said...
Isn’t it amusing, or at any rate, par for the course, that BDK would totally ignore the argument I presented...

You presented assertions, not argument. Vox Day presented a basdly formed argument, reliant on selective interpretation and exclusion of the data, but you presented no argument at all.

One Brow said...

Ilíon said...
"Liberals" can't deal with actually rational argument;

Coming from the poster who, when presented with rational argument, screams "intellectual dishonesty" and then pretneds to have made a point, this is irony of the highest caliber.

Jesse Parrish said...

Ah, `lynching'.

Yea, we poor, poor, white males. Sure, we are grossly overrepresented in governance of power structures (both private and public), we have higher pay and are promoted more quickly, our prison sentences are lighter for comparable crimes, and other benefits.

But we no longer own women and other ethnic groups. And some of those groups have managed to gain some basic rights, including the occasional right to pursue their own interests, as opposed to always quietly servicing ours and thanking us for the privilege.

How upsetting it is, to not have complete control! How frustrating it is to almost be king! The world is so heavy on my easily sunburned shoulders!

Why is it that others, these hare-brained Xanthippes and impulsive coloreds, do not understand our arguments, which prove beyond serious doubts that we know what is best for them. Why do they insist on voting and running businesses, all wisdom be damned? Why do they not understand that they have a place, and we can tell them where it is?

Ah, to be a white man in this unfriendly world! It is so hard to be both conservative and king, but we shall overcome.

Ilíon said...

As any honest person will admit, I don't simply "scream" intellectual dishonesty; I point it out. Having pointed it out once per intellectually dishonest person, I have no obligation to prove it all over again.

Ilíon said...

"But we no longer own women and other ethnic groups."

You're such a God-damned fool. I blush that I ever took Mr Reppert's word that you are not like the typical internet atheist.

Jesse Parrish said...

Ah, my mistake. Sometimes, we still retain effective ownership. But I agree, it's a tragedy that our dominance is not complete.

Jesse Parrish said...

Don't blush too much. That's bleeding-hearted feminizing atheist nonsense.

Anonymous said...

"Those that impugn the personal character of others must be brought to brook at each and every occasion to justify their egregious and poisonous intent."

Especially someone like Christopher Hitchens who has built a lucrative career out of it.

William said...

It seems to me that most of the posts here, as well as the OP, seem to fall under the general fallacy of mistakenly identifying what men and women do with what we are.

The entire debate above ignores that fact, which means [smug mode=on] you are all wrong [smug mode=off].

Ilíon said...

William, it's all but impossible that I am wrong. About anything.

B. Prokop said...

On May 23, I posted the following to this website. I’ve included Ilion’s response at the end. (The original posting was far longer, but you can go to the archives for the full original text.):

I do not know whether or not Ilion is a Christian, but be that as it may, the philosophy he espouses is straight from Hell. It is, in fact, that place's governing constitution.

//several paragraphs edited//

… a really profound principle ... one that I think goes to the very core and fundament of our being - of the universe itself … the indispensable principle behind How We Must Live. As the poet Charles Williams so beautifully put it:

This abides – that the everlasting house the soul discovers
is always another’s; we must lose our own ends;
we must always live in the habitation of our lovers,
my friend’s shelter for me, mine for him.

The consequence of ignoring this is not just selfishness. It is not just missed opportunity or a life sadly lacking in color or meaning – it is a violation of the very nature of reality. To attempt to live for one’s self is an exercise in futility – you will fail.

One of my favorite passages in the New Testament occurs near the end of Mark. Christ has been crucified, and various passersby taunt him, asking why He doesn’t “save yourself and come down from the cross”. They conclude with the scoffing remark, “He saved others, himself he cannot save”.

Wow. Read that again. What was meant as a contemptuous dismissal, as a cynical comment on apparent failure, turns out to be the very key to The Meaning of Life itself. We cannot save ourselves – we must rely on others. And it is up to us to save them in turn. This is what it means to be a Human Being. When we fall short of this principle, we fall short of, and even deny altogether, our very Humanity.

Here is Ilion's reply:

“This amusing response is even better than I could have hoped for. Now, if only I can make the time to give it the adequate mocking it deserves.”

Unfortunately, Ilion apparently never made the time, because his adequate mocking has yet to be seen. Well, I’m giving you another chance. Let’s hear what you have to say. And take your time...

Ilíon said...

Fool,
Hell has no Constitution -- it is, after all, the ultimate "liberal" plantaion.

A Constitution points to a moral standard beyond itself; a Constitution implicitly and explicitly delineates What May Not Be Done.

Our Fool, being a "liberal" (in truth, being more a socialist who is all-but-indistinguishable from a hard-core leftist), and being intellectually dishonest, seeks to portray my stance (which happens to eb the truth) that the policies "liberals" like and advocate are a clear violation both of the US Constitution and of the moral grounding of it, as being demonic. Our Fool, being himself demonic (and a liar), rages as any limitation at all placed upon his desires.

=======
Isn't it oddly amusing? I do my best to ignore these fools ... and they constantly demand, "Look at me! Look at me!"

Ilíon said...

Anonymous: "Okay, so mob justice in the South died out. Is that it?"

Just to be clear, those mobs, and the "law" that protected them from justice for their injustices, were Democrats.

===
My father, who grew up as a shar-cropper in the South, once told me that his mother hated both Yankees (I guess she made an exception for me, though not for my mother) and Democrats. Even though she was mostly-white genetically, and "culturally white", she experienced first hand the outrages that Democrats routinely inflicted upon those "at the bottom".

Jesse Parrish said...

Isn't it oddly amusing? I do my best to ignore these fools ... and they constantly demand, "Look at me! Look at me!"

You do your best. With your blog and seee-uch.

Our Fool, being a "liberal" (in truth, being more a socialist who is all-but-indistinguishable from a hard-core leftist)

Proud socialist reporting!

A Constitution points to a moral standard beyond itself; a Constitution implicitly and explicitly delineates What May Not Be Done.

Proud moral non-realist reporting! Constitutions set legal frameworks; they do not relate Absolute Codes of Moral Truth from Above. Hence why they are subject to variation and modification, and their enforcement and legitimacy ultimately rest on popular consent.

I'm rather fond of the (modern) US Constitution, but of course there is a lot I would change. Oddly enough, I'm willing to accept restraints on my desires in order to preserve an otherwise decent framework.

Doubtless none of this strikes you as a sufficiently `manly' position.

Anonymous said...

"If one is truly devoted to Jesus, he will seek to rid the Earth of social evils."
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Anonymous said...

"But we no longer own women and other ethnic groups."

I agree that this is stupid. When did we ever do this? Any ownership was a relation between individuals. If you mean the right of men to female obedience (strong in the case of husband to wife, quite weak in the case of unrelated men and women), then this right hasn't gone away. Simply because society refuses to recognize it doesn't mean it isn't there. It is a natural right.

Jesse Parrish said...

Sounds like you answered most of your question, except for slavery and the subsequent criminalization of black life following emancipation (which was in many ways worse than slavery), along with the extermination of the Native Americans and their many forced removals, the quite literal property status of women under marriage laws, etc. Up until the 1990s, marital rape was still legal in the US.

Much of what we take for granted as requisite for civilized society - at least when we're talking about other, uncivilized societies - is fairly recent.

There's more, if you're really interested.

Jesse Parrish said...

And you have no right to female obedience. In fact, she has a right to disobedience, and that is a right that I would happily enforce.

B. Prokop said...

It's supremely ironic that Ilion and his fellow travelers are so quick to jump on others, accusing them of not being "real men". Once again, it smells suspiciously like projection. They themselves are so insecure in their "manhood" that they feel it necessary to DEMAND from women that they be recognized as the superior sex. 'Cause it's the only way they'll ever get such recognition, believe me.

If it weren't so tragic, and (let's be honest here) so downright Evil, their pathetic attitude would be funny. Ilion comes off as nothing more than a laughable wannabe he-man, who can only find some misbegotten crumb of would-be self esteem by putting down others (whom he knows absolutely nothing about, so his infantile schoolyard taunts just end up sounding ridiculous) and desperately attempting to maintain some sort of mythical superiority or even dominance over "the weaker sex".

It's the stuff of farce! What it comes down to is he's probably terrified of women. His rantings are at bottom nothing more than a whimper of fear. I guess I should pity him, but he makes it so difficult.

C'mon, let's bring back Loftus and Papalinton into these threads! They may be wrongheaded, but they're both intelligent and basically decent people, whom I'd love to sit down with over a beer or a coffee. As for Ilion, I'd just like to scrape him off of my shoe.

I'm done. I'm going to power down and go outside to watch the hurricane roll over me. The storm will undoubtedly be more rational than what I've been reading here.

Jesse Parrish said...

Best of luck!

Jesse Parrish said...

I'll let more able writers speak for me:

We shall be told, perhaps, that religion imposes the duty of obedience; as every established fact which is too bad to admit of any other defence, is always presented to us as an injunction of religion. The Church, it is very true, enjoins it in her formularies, but it would be difficult to derive any such injunction from Christianity. We are told that St. Paul said, "Wives, obey your husbands": but he also said, "Slaves, obey your masters." It was not St. Paul's business, nor was it consistent with his object, the propagation of Christianity, to incite anyone to rebellion against existing laws. The Apostle's acceptance of all social institutions as he found them, is no more to be construed as a disapproval of attempts to improve them at the proper time, than his declaration, "The powers that be are ordained of God," gives his sanction to military despotism, and to that alone, as the Christian form of political government, or commands passive obedience to it. To pretend that Christianity was intended to stereotype existing forms of government and society, and protect them against change, is to reduce it to the level of Islamism or of Brahminism. It is precisely because Christianity has not done this, that it has been the religion of the progressive portion of mankind, and Islamism, Brahminism, etc. have been those of the stationary portions; or rather (for there is no such thing as a really stationary society) of the declining portions. There have been abundance of people, in all ages of Christianity, who tried to make it something of the same kind; to convert us into a sort of Christian Mussulmans, with the Bible for a Koran, prohibiting all improvement: and great has been their power, and many have had to sacrifice their lives in resisting them. But they have been resisted, and the resistance has made us what we are, and will yet make us what we are to be.

When we consider the positive evil caused to the disqualified half of the human race by their disqualification — first in the loss of the most inspiriting and elevating kind of personal enjoyment, and next in the weariness, disappointment, and profound dissatisfaction with life, which are so often the substitute for it; one feels that among all the lessons which men require for carrying on the struggle against the inevitable imperfections of their lot on earth, there is no lesson which they more need, than not to add to the evils which nature inflicts, by their jealous and prejudiced restrictions on one another. Their vain fears only substitute other and worse evils for those which they are idly apprehensive of: while every restraint on the freedom of conduct of any of their human fellow-creatures (otherwise than by making them responsible for any evil actually caused by it), dries up pro tanto the principal fountain of human happiness, and leaves the species less rich, to an inappreciable degree, in all that makes life valuable to the individual human being.

Jesse Parrish said...

And `writers' being plural:


We are told that there is no such thing as a "right" to vote, that a vote is conferred for the benefit of the community, not of the individual, and that the philosophy of natural right was long ago exploded by Burke and Bentham. As a matter of abstract ethics, this is of course true; but if it is argued that therefore there is no harm in injustice, and no truth in the contention that justice requires women's enfranchisement, then there is a far too hasty and crude application of theory to practice. The argument from justice does not require any fallacious foundation in the philosophy of natural rights. To inflict a special disability upon one class in the community is in itself an evil, and is calculated to generate resentment on one side and arrogance on the other. It may be admitted that this evil, in some cases, is more than balanced by compensating advantages; but it remains an evil, and any gain for the sake of which it is to be endured must be very great and very certain. And when it is said that a vote is conferred for the benefit of the community, not of the individual, there is a false antithesis which is very misleading. The community is only the sum of the individuals; and if a vote confers a benefit on the individual woman, then the enfranchisement of women would confer a benefit on half the members of the community, which goes near to proving that it would confer a benefit on the community.

Jesse Parrish said...

And especially:

The objections which are explicitly urged against women's suffrage are, of course, not those which weigh most with most men. Men fear that their liberty to act in ways that are injurious to women will be curtailed, and that they will lose that pleasing sense of dominion which at present makes "no place like home". The instinct of the master to retain his mastery cannot be met by mere political arguments. But it is an instinct which finds less and less scope in the modern world, and it is fast being driven from this stronghold as it has been driven from others. To substitute cooperation for subjection is everywhere the effort of democracy, and it is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the enfranchisement of women that it will further this substitution in all that concerns the relations of men and women.

Jesse Parrish said...

And though today is, unfortunately, not yet tomorrow, the sun is setting where I sit!

Women insist on their "divine rights," "immutable rights," "inalienable rights." These phrases are not so sensible as one might wish. When one comes to think of it, there are no such things as divine, immutable or inalienable rights. Rights are things we get when we are strong enough to make good our claim to them. Men spent hundreds of years and did much hard fighting to get the rights they now call divine, immutable and inalienable. Today women are demanding rights that tomorrow nobody will be foolhardy enough to question.

Ron said...

PatrickH: "The differences between men and women run deep, extend far beyond the overt reproductive differences and into motivation, cognition and perception."


The question (which, in this thread, seems to have been lost under a maelstrom of hysterical emoting) is whether or not this is true. If it is, then "sexism" as a concept is otiose - it does not refer to reality. If not, then it has some value to it.

I was hoping to see some good discussion over that point of contention, but w/e. Apparently the modus operandi of B.Prokop and other unmitigated "feelers" is all but certain to be the staple in this thread.

Jesse Parrish said...

Ron,

Perhaps you would be so kind as to give an example of a particular deep difference, and then suggest how knowledge of this difference should lead us to treat men and women differently as opposed to, say, assessing men and women as individuals?

No doubt there are differences and tendencies; `sexism' is a little stronger than that.

Ilíon said...

Ron: "I was hoping to see some good discussion over that point of contention, but w/e. Apparently the modus operandi of B.Prokop and other unmitigated "feelers" is all but certain to be the staple in this thread."

Another thing I might have pointed out is that in the OP, Mr Reppert is simultaneously arguing that:
1) "sexism" -- whatever in the Hell that means when “liberals” and their leftist puppet-masters start tossing around the word – is not a moral issue, but rather a prudential issue
2) he himself has the moral authority to judge/condemn present-day “sexists” as though they are moral reprobates on that score, even though it is logically impossible, given 1), that they are.

Given 1), one wonders why the screachers and scat-tossers aren’t freaking out about the OP. But then, he did provide himself cover with 2).

Jesse Parrish said...

Given 1), one wonders why the screachers and scat-tossers aren’t freaking out about the OP. But then, he did provide himself cover with 2).

Though I would quibble some details concerning Reppert's post, the moral judgment of his post is that rigid gender roles are not an absolute bad: for example, if rigid gender roles contribute to and are possibly necessary for survival, then they are acceptable. So the answer to "how can we survive?" has priority over the answer to "what is fair?"

That's not merely a `prudential' judgment; that's a moral judgment. Hence your logic is flawed, as your conclusion requires the premise that he does not consider sexism at all bad.

To further answer your aloud wonderings: I think it more important to condemn those who think they have a God-given natural right to subordinate women than people who think survival more important than gender egalitarianism.

Is that mystifying? Are my puppet-masters inept, or do I ineptly handle the puppets? Is the meaning of `sexism' still too obscure?

Then treat your own opinions as a paradigm instance of sexism.

Jesse Parrish said...

And to you and all others discussed with us `feeler' types, I reiterate my question: Perhaps you would be so kind as to give an example of a particular deep difference, and then suggest how knowledge of this difference should lead us to treat men and women differently as opposed to, say, assessing men and women as individuals?

So for example: if you can successfully make the case that women are less capable than men at mathematics, would you advise a board to hire a male mathematician over a female mathematician with a certain frequency, all other things the same?

Any similar example will do. Go on, give it a shot.

B. Prokop said...

Ron,

There was zero "hysterical emoting", but rather 100% cold-blooded rage. There's a huge difference.

The postings weren't blindly emotional - they were calculated. My entries went through multiple drafts in Microsoft Word, before I was sufficiently satisfied with the wording to cut and paste them onto this website.

Eldro said...

Well Prokop, you must be homo to draft your nonsense in Word. But don't respond to my cruelty -- I really don't care.

Anyway, I skipped through this thread about halfway through, so I apologize if anyone else already made the following summation, but I would have to say that in general there were a couple intelligent (or at least correct) posters, deemed "cavemen" by Prokop et all,
who stressed the obvious difference between men and women -- anyone who thinks that believing women's most important role is motherhood makes you chauvinist, is a liberal (which is already a worse insult than calling you homo.)

But I wanted to add that their is no such thing as equal rights or fairness, nor should/could there ever be. You could read all of Nietzsche's books but rather I'll just abbreviate Heraclitus - "Justice is war" war in the sense of strife and competition, not necessarily militarism. I don't like that those in power deprive me of 'the good life' and allow poison to degrade my environment, etc.. but I don't have "the right" to be equal to those in power. They have the power. That is what fairness means.
Now the primary reason equal rights and especially labor and voting rights are increasingly ensured is because it is economically feasible. The corporate overlords don't care about the integrity of families so it makes no difference to them if you're male, female, black, Asian (though maybe not Hispanic) or gay, you are supporting the economy and that's what counts.

Anonymous said...

Ha Ha! I always heard that homos were all on macs, but real men used PC's!

Ilíon said...

That this little coterie of emoting scat-tossers hate masculinity and see themselves not as men, but as defective females, doesn’t make them “homos”.

Jesse Parrish said...

There's a difference between masculinity and self-entitling petty tyranny.

There is, of course, no difference between `emoting', which you so hate, and your last posts.

My question remains. I wait to be dazzled.

Ilíon said...

Just one example of a "deep-seated" difference between men and women can be found in this news item.

Ilíon said...

"There's a difference between masculinity and self-entitling petty tyranny.

There is, of course, no difference between `emoting', which you so hate, and your last posts.
"

You're both a fool and boring. *yawn*

Jesse Parrish said...

And what exactly was the gender difference in that article?

Ilíon said...

Gender? What does grammar have to do with the issue? Words are 'gendered', though few English words are; human beings are 'sexed'.

Jesse Parrish said...

It's like helping to rehabilitate a person recovering from a severe stroke, minus the usefulness and hope of success.

Thomas de Aquino said...

I want to comment on the original post:"and it was more economical for women to be baby-making machines to make sure parents had people to take care of them when they were old."

This comment is just as degrading to every loving and caring mother of her children as any sexist rant. Surely, a good mother is more than just a "baby-making machine". I'd even say she does much more good to society than any so called career-women who neglects her children.

Anyway, I dont see why it is better to be ordered around by some stranger than to work at home for your own family in equal dignity with your husband. (Btw I have a Catholic understanding of family.)

This here comes from the evolutionary biology/psychology people and not from religious folk: Woman are biologically and psychologically better adapted to rear up children than man.

-Women seek naturally for a "provider", i.e. a man that can garuantee her security and protection for her and for her children. So they look for signs of these abilities: strenght, social status, material wealth, etc... And they themselves are more inclined to care about people, especially children, especially their own...normally.

-While man seek naturally for a "child-bearer". A women that is well adapted to bear and rear up children. Thats why man are especially attracted to good looks (breasts, waist-hips, nice skin etc...), which indicate these characteristics.

Of course, there are others factors in play. If we were merely animals, that would be all, but as humans, we also look for a good personality. (And the beauty which shines forth from a good soul covers even some defects of the exterior man). But this is set against the biologically given backround.

Now, it is clear that anyone who goes against his nature cannot be as happy in this life as someone who goes along with his nature, ceteris paribus. I'd also say in the next life, because nature is nothing more than a manifestation of Gods will. Therefore, to go against nature is to go against Gods will.

So if anyone wants to waste his own life, then I will not do anything against it (It seems, by BDK's definition I am a feminist :) ). But I have problem if anyone tries to propagate his contra-natural views, that are also destructive to society, through the ressources which I provide for the state.

Ilíon said...

"... through the ressources which I provide for the state."

You don't provide resources to the state; the state, under threat of inflicting violent death upon you and yours, extracts from you the fruit of your labor. And "liberals" are not simply peachy-keen with that, but are rather perpetually indignant that the state allows you to keep for yourself anything.

Crude said...

I'll ignore most of the comments here and comment only on this.

and it was more economical for women to be baby-making machines

Baby-making machines? No, wait - son-making machines? Go tell your mother she was a pretty decent baby-making machine.

What a goddamn insult. What a way to devalue the role of women in the past.

Hey, I have one for you. "Innovations in technology and the onset of the industrial age has made it possible for women to elevate beyond the role of mere baby-making machines to a higher place in society: Namely that of sterile sperm-dumpsters who can also hold a job."

Progress, right? What a freaking conversation.

One Brow said...

Ilíon said...
Just to be clear, those mobs, and the "law" that protected them from justice for their injustices, were Democrats.

Yes, they were Democrats, until John pushed through his mid-60s legislation. Then they became Republicans, because such people are much more weelcome among conservatives than among liberals.

Ilíon said...

One Brow, as always, you're dishonest. All that changed is that the Democrats figured out that welfare-dependent blacks in a voting booth were more valuable to them than self-reliant (i.s. "uppity") blacks on a tree limb.

One Brow said...

Ron said...
PatrickH: "The differences between men and women run deep, extend far beyond the overt reproductive differences and into motivation, cognition and perception."


The question (which, in this thread, seems to have been lost under a maelstrom of hysterical emoting) is whether or not this is true. If it is, then "sexism" as a concept is otiose - it does not refer to reality. If not, then it has some value to it.


The question is founded on the notion that the difference between the sexes in certain areas is greater than the deviation within each sex. This is true in some physical attributes, but very few mental or emotional attributes.

If sexism did not affect individuals, fine. But by trying to assign to individuals perceived general traits of the group, it creates barriers and limitations for no useful reason. that's why the idea has so little useful discussion around it.

Ilíon said...

Crude: "[excellent observation]"

I was wondering whether you'd make a suitably Crude comment.

B. Prokop said...

"One Brow" is correct. A really amazing facet of American political history is that the "Democrats" of the 19th Century are today's Republicans, whilst the "Republicans" of the 19th Century are analogous to today's Democrats. It's kind of like where one always has to be making adjustments for inflation when comparing costs from, say, the 1920s, to those of today.

Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant, and Teddy Roosevelt would all comfortably be Democrats in 2011, but Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, and Grover Cleveland would fit right in with modern day Republicans.

The switch began under FDR, and was complete by 1964.

One Brow said...

Ilíon said...
Gender? What does grammar have to do with the issue? Words are 'gendered', though few English words are; human beings are 'sexed'.

Humans are bhoth sexed and gendered. You sex is your physical equipment, your gender is the role you are expected to play in society. In many cultures, males by sex occasionally are females by gender. and vice-versa.

One Brow said...

Ilíon said...
Just one example of a "deep-seated" difference between men and women can be found in this news item.

Presentatino of examples as evidence are only evidence of self-confirmation bias and a lack of critical thinking skills.

One Brow said...

Ilíon said...
One Brow, as always, you're dishonest.

Yet, you did not bother to point out an incorrect statement. You tendency to baseless assertion continues unabated.

All that changed is that the Democrats figured out that welfare-dependent blacks in a voting booth were more valuable to them than self-reliant (i.s. "uppity") blacks on a tree limb.

Which position ftis better with the historical evidence that Southern states went from being reliably Democratic in the 1930s to relaibly Republican in the last 30 years? That would be mine.

Of course, I didn't mention what a single state did in a single election, so you probably couldn't recognize that as evidence, based on yhour history.

Ilíon said...

B.Prokop: "A really amazing facet of American political history is that the "Democrats" of the 19th Century are today's Republicans, whilst the "Republicans" of the 19th Century are analogous to today's Democrats."

Dude! You people like to call yourselves "the reality-based community." You ought, at least from time to time, try to connect to reality.

B. Prokop said...

That is reality. A complete reversal was accomplished in the period 1933-1964. The names of the parties did not change, but they each adopted the positions of the other during those years. This is standard, really basic American political history, Ilion. Nothing original or unique. Historians of all political persuasions, from the far left to the extreme right, all buy into this thesis. It has been remarked upon for decades in everything from The Atlantic Monthly to The National Review. Where have you been?

Ilíon said...

Ahhh! So, it's the great love that Democrats in particular, and "liberals" in general, have for blacks that explains and justifies the viciousness, and rank racist hatred, directed at any black American who dares to step outside the narrow box they have assigned him?

It all makes sense, now! In olden days, Democrats physically lynched “uppity” blacks because they feared and hated them; in these more modern times, Democrats virtually lynch “uppity” blacks (and aren’t too saddened should someone else do the physical lynching, once the target has been identified) because they adore and love them. It’s so obvious, once it’s pointed out; why couldn’t I see that on my own?

Victor Reppert said...

Crude: The point of the post was that there was an economic advantage to certain traditional sex roles which is considerably lessened by industrialization and the nature of work in the present day. When we are asking what is economical, as opposed to what is just, we are asking what works, and so "does the machine work the way it is intended" is a sensible question. Whether it was ever morally appropriate to think in those terms is a different issue, though I maintain that it was more understandable to think in those ways in pre-industrial times.

To use a different example, if you are pro-life, you can say that an abortion on the part of a rape victim facing desperate economic circumstances is more understandable than an abortion performed to avoid delaying a trip to Europe. Nevertheless, pro-life logic requires viewing both abortions as unjustifiable homicide.

Crude said...

Victor,

I object to regarding women of the past - or worse, full-time housewives and mothers - as "baby-making machines" or "son-making machines". That wasn't you, was it? I assumed it was a quote of someone else.

Yes, I get that you're really aiming at a different kind of conversation. But I find that kind of talk abhorrent, and quite common at least in an implied sense. Like I said, I'm not even touching on the deeper points here - I'm come to this conversation too late, and it seems to have become something of a crapfest.

But one more time: Baby-making machines? Really? Freaking really? And not much hay was made of this until Aquino piped up?

Defenders of women in this thread, indeed.

Jesse Parrish said...

Crude,

There are two interpretations of "baby-making machines" as it appears to me in Reppert's post: that "baby-making machines" was all that women used to be or "baby-making" was considered by society to be the primary function of womanhood, albeit not the only one.

So yeah, which do you think it was?

B. Prokop said...

Actually, women were NEVER thought of a primarily "baby making machines" in any healthy culture - ever. They have always been the glue that holds all civilization together. When women are abused, treated as "inferiors", or denied their basic dignity, then ALL suffer, as in Taliban-dominated Afghanistan. To quote myself (from way back in the 1970s), "If there were only men in the world, we'd all be wearing fatigues and living in barracks, and wouldn't know any better."

No one (I hope) is saying that there is no DIFFERENCE between the sexes, at very many levels. What I at least am saying is that to use said differences as a justification for making one sex into second class citizens or somehow inferior to the other is ethically, morally, and theologically reprehensible.

"In the image of God He created him, male and female He created them." BOTH sexes have equal dignity in the eyes of the only Observer who counts - the Creator.

Jesse Parrish said...

Yeah, I'm not going to take the ironic remark about `defenders of women' in this thread from a person who finds it more important to interpret Reppert's post in the most uncharitable way imaginable while ignoring claims to a right-to-dominance as made by so many other blinkered, uninformed males in this thread.

Especially the one who, having devoted a blog to sniping at `liberals', seems completely unaware of the Southern Strategy. But "it's all but impossible that [he is] wrong" about anything, keep in mind.

Glad you have your priorities in order, Crude. I think I smell what they are from here.

Ilíon said...

Oh? Kind of like the baby-(and mother-)supporting role for men?

Anonymous said...

"The question is founded on the notion that the difference between the sexes in certain areas is greater than the deviation within each sex. This is true in some physical attributes, but very few mental or emotional attributes."

So are we "cave men" completely mistaken in thinking that there is a certain nutritive warmth that a mother can impart to her child that the father can never impart?

Jesse Parrish said...

It's not about `nutritive warmth' or that having a good mother is good for a child. That's not a serious issue. The issue is whether women should be designated as mothers by society.

It's not that women are bad at motherhood. It's not that lots of women do not want to be mothers. It's not that there's anything shameful in being a full-time mother.

But it is shameful to make that the only option available to a woman. Not all want to be mothers.

Anonymous said...

Jesse,


Who is wanting to take away all other options from women? Certainly not me.

I'll say that they have a right to be firemen, spies, soldiers, and pro-wrestlers. But I'll also say that they should not exercise those rights, and I'll also say that I hope society actively discourages them from exercising those rights.

Regarding the less physically oriented and more mentally oriented traditional, masculine jobs - mathematician, physicist, philosopher, surgeon, etc. - I don't have any problem whatsoever with women doing them, so long as they are able to keep up their essential duties as a mother and a wife. If the job takes away significantly from those primary duties, then the job ought to be abandoned.

And regarding the "caring" professions (K-12 teaching, customer service, etc.), again, I have no problem with them, as long as they don't come at the expense of the other duties, which, if history is any indication, they typically won't.


So why do you pretend as if we "cave men" are not giving women available options outside of being a housewife? That is flatly ridiculous.

Jesse Parrish said...

Is it really?

I grant there are physical differences between women and men. But those who hire workers/athletes for physical tasks should judge applicants on an individual basis. Men tend to be faster runners than women, but there are many women faster than I. And if a job requires a lot of running, a woman should be picked over myself so long as she is the better runner. And I imagine most women would be.

Now let's take the `mental' activities. Should I discourage a fellow prospective mathematician to not pursue her doctoral degree if she can not simultaneously be a full-time mother? That would be effectively saying: you should not be a mathematician, as the process is time consuming.

If a woman wants to be a mother and wants to pursue a career, she obviously should not bite off more than she can chew. Many can manage, but not all can. But if she wants to pursue a career and not be a mother, more power to her.

Women do not have an essential duty to be mothers and housewives. They have a duty to care for their children if they have them, just as men do.

If I read you correctly, you disagree with this and feel that a woman is in some important way failing to be proper by not getting married and being a housewife, or perhaps a 'housewife plus'. If I am mistaken, correct me.

Blue Devil Knight said...

I agree the original post was a bit glib.

However, I disagree more with the absolutely incredible statements of some of the commenters. I tried to explain to a friend some of the things here, and he thought I was joking, that the people are obviously trolls and why would I even waste my time here? Good question, indeed.

Some people here do seem to be trolling, but Ilion I am not so sure. He acts like one, but has too much longevity, puts in too much effort. I think he is the real deal.

Jesse Parrish said...

I'm from Tennessee. This is all familiar territory, albeit of slightly more Catholic form than usual to me.

Ilíon said...

BDK: "[blah, blah, blah]"

Translation: well, sure, you're right ... which just proves how wrong you are!

Jesse Parrish said...

Ilion: "[blah, blah, blah]"

Translation: I have terrible reading comprehension. I do not understand basic logic. I sure as hell do not understand probabilistic inference. I have no understanding of history. In general, I am an unlettered obsessive in matters beyond my comprehension. I am very, very lonely.

Crude said...

There are two interpretations of "baby-making machines" as it appears to me in Reppert's post: that "baby-making machines" was all that women used to be or "baby-making" was considered by society to be the primary function of womanhood, albeit not the only one.

So yeah, which do you think it was?


Gosh, let me choose here: Did the term add up to a grievous insult to women, a grievous insult to men, or a grievous insult to almost everyone from eras gone by?

How about you pick which one it was, Jesse? Because none of the options are anywhere close to accurate, and all are pretty goddamn insulting - we're just bickering over which insult to run with.

If Victor said that the primary role of women in the past was 'being mothers', I'd still have disputed it - but I wouldn't have thought it insulting. Nor am I accusing Victor himself of being a misogynist or anything so ridiculous, but I think the language is off-base and damn poor here, and surprisingly overlooked by the defenders of women in this thread.

"Baby-making" != "Motherhood". Goddamn.

Jesse Parrish said...

Crude,

How should I respond? Repeat my comment and my follow-up? Repeat BDK's last comment?

Yeah, `baby-makers' is crude. As I noted in a previous comment, I would also quibble about the historical details.

But there's a big picture thing here. It's very obvious. And it's what should concern `defenders of women' more. Namely, outright claims to a right to dominate women and to pressure women, socially or in whatever way, into being married housewives. (Some adding that a part time or later career being acceptable in `caring' professions.)

Jesse Parrish said...

So, I apologize that I did not focus on your particularly negative interpretation of an admittedly defective term and instead focused on criticizing outright sexism and patriarchy, as I assumed that Reppert is not an idiot and deserves charitable interpretation where possible. I apologize that after other people made the quibble explicit, I acknowledged it, commented on its significance, and continued to the previous task.

Sorry for not having your exact priorities and as such failing to see the irony of a defender of womens' rights focusing on patriarchy and deindividuating stereotypes as opposed to writing a few thousand words on a glib oversimplification of past cultures.

Now, what else can I do for you, Crude?

Crude said...

How should I respond? Repeat my comment and my follow-up? Repeat BDK's last comment?

You're asking me? Alright: "You're right, Crude. I think there's more to talk about here than that, but you didn't suggest otherwise anyway." There's my suggestion.

Hey, you asked.

But there's a big picture thing here. It's very obvious.

Yeah, the big picture here is you're all throwing e-Feces at each other. Sorry to distract from it.

I think language is important, and I didn't like what was implied with that comment. I see it all too often, I consider it part of the problem (along with pregnancy being treated as some kind of disease nowadays), I marveled at how it seemed invisible to the animated people in this thread save for Aquino. I consider that a very loose indication of the problem that concerns me.

But by all means, sorry for interrupting. Get back to whatever was coming next - I assume calling Ilion a witty insulting name was on the agenda.

Crude said...

I apologize that I did not focus on your particularly negative interpretation of an admittedly defective term and instead focused on criticizing outright sexism and patriarchy,

Oh golly gee willikers, I didn't mean to suggest you weren't a loyal footsoldier in the womyn's anti-patriarchy resistance or whatever imaginary badge you want to wear.

And yeah, it was just my interpretation. Not, you know, something worth addressing. Words don't mean much of anything, unless you're forgetting to cram 'she' or 'her' into your hypothetical examples.

as opposed to writing a few thousand words on a glib oversimplification of past cultures.

Few thousand words? Because that's what I rolled in here with, right? I thought it could have merited a mention, an attempt at setting the record straight, and yeah, some amazement that you all could be embroiled in your little fights without picking up and that.

Didn't mean to kick dirt on your iFeminist credentials there, Jesse. I'm sure you're an honorary woman or whatever the heck it is you're pursuing that merits the wacky uptight tone.

As I said, I'll try not to waste your time here. I believe you have some insults to sling out!

Jesse Parrish said...

As I said, I'll try not to waste your time here. I believe you have some insults to sling out!

What can I say? I'm happy to return the favor.

But do review the comments: you'll notice that it was an issue of (to me) fairly elementary prioritizing. Further, it was an issue of whether or not I read Reppert as a moral reprobate and simpleton, as opposed to reading him a bright person voicing an understandable moral opinion about a delicate matter in a concise way.

I think language is important, and I didn't like what was implied with that comment.

I'm glad you and I agree on the importance of language! Naturally then, I suppose you would agree about the importance of interpreting it in a fair and plausible manner? So you would agree, in light of my previous comments, that it might be fair to translate a scare-quoted `baby-makers' as corresponding to something more than physically ejecting babies from a womb?

Again, you can assume that Reppert and I are morons and that we actually think that this was the only value society ascribed to women. That's an insult and an inaccuracy. So you might think that sentence to at least be half-important.

Oh golly gee willikers, I didn't mean to suggest you weren't a loyal footsoldier in the womyn's anti-patriarchy resistance or whatever imaginary badge you want to wear.

That was a play on your ironic insult. If I could earn such a badge, I'd be happy for it. But you can call it fried turkey if you like and that would make little difference to me, assuming that fits within your rules of language.

Now that we've had this silly discussion, we can return to dealing with things that actually marginalize and belittle your fellow citizens like patriarchy and gender stereotypes.

Jesse Parrish said...

(You know, if you're interested, which appears to be at best an open question.)

Anonymous said...

If I read you correctly, you disagree with this and feel that a woman is in some important way failing to be proper by not getting married and being a housewife, or perhaps a 'housewife plus'. If I am mistaken, correct me.

Yeah, by "women" I was referring exclusively to married women and/or women with children. Sorry for not being clearer.

However, regarding my first bit about "firemen, spies, pro-wrestlers, soldiers," I was referring to all women.

Jesse Parrish said...

Of course we don't want all women to be pro-wrestlers. We also don't want all men to be pro-wrestlers. We don't want all women to forgo having babies. I just don't see this as a problem.

But thanks for clearing that up.

Crude said...

Further, it was an issue of whether or not I read Reppert as a moral reprobate and simpleton, as opposed to reading him a bright person voicing an understandable moral opinion about a delicate matter in a concise way.

Communication isn't your strong suit when you're worked up, pal. This isn't a matter of 'reading Reppert in the right way', because this question isn't about Reppert's personal integrity. It's about culture and language and habit, things you'd love to get anal about in any other circumstance.

Equating "baby-making" with "motherhood" was a slip-up that deserved to be corrected. Nor did your little poorly thought out wannabe-save of 'Well, no, that's merely what their husbands and everyone else thought of them' do much justice there. You know it, I know it. Deal with it.

Again, you can assume that Reppert and I are morons

Reppert? Absolutely not, he's a gentlemen and a thinker of high calibre. You? Well, you're certainly trying for that title, but no, I think you've merely got a stick up your ass at the moment at being called out by some anonymous guy on the interwebs. Relax, unclench. This isn't the campus, you're not going to get called out at the next Sensitive Male meeting just because I pointed out a gross error of language and description of past culture.

Now that we've had this silly discussion, we can return to dealing with things that actually marginalize and belittle your fellow citizens like patriarchy and gender stereotypes.

Bwahaha. "Dealing with things"? Really? In the comments section of a blog? Are you old enough to drink?

Fight on, mighty warrior! You've got patriarchal dragons to slay! Oh wait, I mean dragonesses. Don't call the feminists on me!

(On second thought, are they hot? Wait, no, not worth it!)

Jesse Parrish said...

or did your little poorly thought out wannabe-save of 'Well, no, that's merely what their husbands and everyone else thought of them' do much justice there. You know it, I know it. Deal with it.

You know it incorrectly, as I said precisely the opposite of that on several occasions.

Reppert? Absolutely not, he's a gentlemen and a thinker of high calibre.

Wonderful. So you do not think that he actually meant that past cultures only thought of women as manufacturers of babies? So nobody actually meant that? So it wasn't an issue until someone else made it an issue? So it wasn't actually an incorrect description?

Again, we and apparently everybody else here have been in agreement that `baby-maker' is not a great term. We and everybody else here apparently agree that it is not a comprehensive, accurate description of societal values, historical or present. Nobody has been equating `baby-making' with `motherhood'. The confusion is all yours.

Bwahaha. "Dealing with things"? Really? In the comments section of a blog? Are you old enough to drink?

Yes yes and yes. I think this an extremely important issue, and I think it should be pursued wherever it arises. Mainstream feminism, as others have noted, mainly consists of the commonsensical. But as anyone who has ever discussed this issue has noticed, lots of people are not commonsensical, and we do not pay adequate attention to womens' issues. It's through direct social interaction that any progress has been made. I am happy to contribute if only in a very miserly way.

Since it seems to be one of your bum-sticks, I do not particularly care how others use gendered pronouns, as the old convention - as a forceful convention - has in my experience been largely undermined. I use a mixture, but it really does not bother me for someone to use a different convention. I think mine has advantages - quite apart from values issues. If you want to find a group that obsesses about pronoun conventions, look no further than the Ilions and other reactionaries.

But noting your glibness about anything other than sensitivity for past patriarchies, I smell that old stinky trend I previously mentioned yet again. The allusions to my alleged femininity, the unmysteriously sourced taunting about pronoun usage and `sensitivity', and... well, why list more?

I'm young, but you're years behind me.

Jesse Parrish said...

Since it seems to obsess you so, I do not consider myself a great defender of womens' rights or of the rights of the poor or of the other rights I care about. I have a lot more legwork to do; judging from his comments, Prokop is far ahead of me.

And I admire him very much for it. I have no illusions that a `sensitive male meeting' is what I need to attend to most.

I really want to do better. I really want to see people live decent, happy lives. So yes, when I see men claiming rights to female obedience and other tyrannical doctrines, I get worked up. I am entirely unashamed of the fact. I hate tyrannies, whether private or social or legal, and hope to help destroy them.

But I can still communicate when worked up. I can still give people the benefit of the doubt and not attribute the worst to them without good grounds. Hence why I often qualify my replies with things like `if I read you correctly...', as occasionally I do not read others correctly. I think one anonymous commenter and I reached a rough consensus on at least one issue, because I allowed for error and because that commenter was willing to clarify.

I also allow for the possibility that others misinterpret me in good faith, as inevitably happens. But one can only correct so many times before the suspicion arises that the assumption of good faith is flawed.

So no, I do not take you seriously when you pretend to care so deeply about language usage and accurate communication. I think your issues are a little deeper than that.

(After writing this, I found your blog. And what do you know? Predictions verified.)

Thomas de Aquino said...

B. Prokop: "What I at least am saying is that to use said differences as a justification for making one sex into second class citizens or somehow inferior to the other is ethically, morally, and theologically reprehensible."

Yes, I agree. But sometimes I get the impression that feminists are trying to degrade mothers to second class citizens, when they try to reduce the role of a mother to her reproductive funtion. (Maybe this is explained by the dysfunctional family background of some feminists, which BDK suggested)

Jesse Parrish: "It's not that lots of women do not want to be mothers."

I dont think this is true. A normal woman wants to have children. I dont believe that women really want to live the dream of a unhappy, childless, lesbian feminist. But thats exactly where the modern expectations of women come from.

As I said: If they want to live this kind of life, I will not stop them. But this will not make them happy women. In a civilized society everybody has the right to his own unhappyness.

Jesse Parrish said...

I dont think this is true. A normal woman wants to have children. I dont believe that women really want to live the dream of a unhappy, childless, lesbian feminist. But thats exactly where the modern expectations of women come from.

Reread my sentence carefully. To better rephrase it: I think that lots of women want to be mothers.

Your leap to unhappiness and lesbianism is interesting though. Would you like to discuss that?

Thomas de Aquino said...

"Reread my sentence carefully. To better rephrase it: I think that lots of women want to be mothers."

Ah, ok.

"Your leap to unhappiness and lesbianism is interesting though. Would you like to discuss that?"

Why? Do have any good reason to the contrary?

Jesse Parrish said...

Do you think that feminism demands women to be lonely, childless lesbianism? If so, I have many reasons to the contrary. I do not think that `modern expectations of women' include lesbianism and childlessness. Sure, there is a fringe in feminist thought (which admittedly used to have more influence) which did denigrate housewives. As far as I am aware, nothing more than a negligible fringe ever demanded that women become lesbians. Instead, they argued that lesbianism should be acceptable, if that was what a woman desired.

And lesbians wanting commitment and children is sort of a big issue right now. I'm not entirely sure where you get these ideas about expectations of women derived from feminism. Again, the mainstream of feminism is about commonsense and allowing women to self-determine things like sex-life, marriage, child-bearing, and career, and to have adequate opportunities regarding the same. To me, a demand that women pursue lesbianism or childlessness or a doctoral degree constitutes something completely contrary to feminism.

Again, there is a fringe and there are exceptions, but their views do not admit categorical statements about the `modern expectation of women'.

Ilíon said...

BDK: "Some people here do seem to be trolling, but Ilion I am not so sure. He acts like one, but has too much longevity, puts in too much effort. I think he is the real deal."

You know, BDK, you've been calling me a "troll" -- and trying to talk VR into banning me from his blog -- almost from the moment we first disagreed, which would have been, of course, from the first post I made here.

You never did have a valid reason to call me a "troll"; you called a "troll" because I am not shy about saying -- and saying *why* -- I am right an you are wrong. You, on the other hand, merely assert that you are right and I am wrong; and you are no more shy about making your un-backed-up claim than I am about making my backed-up claim. In fact, of the two of us, you are the "trollish" one -- most persons who toss that term around with abandon ought to be looking in the mirror first.

Now, you've all but explicitly admitted that you have no ground for calling me a "troll". That's progress on your part, certainly, but it's not yet enough that I need to revisit my determination about you. Make some more progress, and I will be happy to reassess the meaning of your behavior.

Eldro said...

Nice posts Thomas de Aquino... said things I would have said if I chose to spend more than 15 minutes on a computer. As far as Jesse or whoever's counterargument, it is more than feminism, it is all of society (at least where I live) that casts these anti-natural and decadent expectations on women, and criticizes them if they choose (or...shock! do not choose...sometimes people just get pregnant) to become mothers before or instead of having a career, and not only society but their own family and friends have these implicit (or explicit) expectations of them.

Even if a woman has a baby, she MUST make sure she prioritizes her career and gets back "in shape"... now I do not believe in common morality but Thomas de Aquino is completely correct in saying that these expectations go against nature and thus do not, cannot lead to a successful life for women, men, or children.

Also Re: One Brow's criticism of Gimli earlier in the thread--

Gimli: My guess is you have never been to a day care and seen a new mother drop off her new born so she can be just as dedicated to her career as a man while her breasts dry up. It can be heartbreaking to watch. Sorry this is so insulting to you.

One Brow: My guess is that you would be much too weak to take the newborns to daycare yourself, and go through the pain of leaving them with strangers yourself. You would leave it to the supposedly weaker sex to show more fortitude that you could muster.

This (Gimli's) was the most loving, thoughtful and painful comment on the whole thread, and true. It is a sad state of society but the corporations don't mind. And yet one brow attacks Gimli as if he is some sort of chauvinist pig, I never heard any of these men saying anything about a weaker sex and here you are criticizing his fortitude.

As for the liberal Catholics on the other side of this debate, you should know how much society derides traditional values and at least point out to your co-feminists that having the whole of tradition on your side does not make you an ignorant bigot, I would say rather on the contrary that liberalism is unwarranted bigotry against that which has preserved and strengthened mankind and if things change, great that's how it is but our modern 'progress' is a dead end.

Jesse Parrish said...

Eldro,

As far as Jesse or whoever's counterargument, it is more than feminism, it is all of society (at least where I live) that casts these anti-natural and decadent expectations on women, and criticizes them if they choose (or...shock! do not choose...sometimes people just get pregnant) to become mothers before or instead of having a career, and not only society but their own family and friends have these implicit (or explicit) expectations of them.

Not only are expectations of women `more than feminism'; they are against feminism. Feminists do not tend to smile upon image ideals set for young girls, and the heart-attack inducing bulimic fits in which they result.

Yeah, lots of people want to tell people - especially women - what to do and not do when they have no business doing so. If you want a principled opposition to that, you're stuck with these people called `feminists'.

Even if a woman has a baby, she MUST make sure she prioritizes her career and gets back "in shape"... now I do not believe in common morality but Thomas de Aquino is completely correct in saying that these expectations go against nature and thus do not, cannot lead to a successful life for women, men, or children.

Does the nuclear family `go against nature', as previously it was extended families that cared for children? There have been lots of `against nature' renovations of family life. For example, gay providers tend to do just as well raising happy, successful children as do straight providers. Whatever you take `against nature' to mean, it cannot imply poor outcomes. If you want to show that in an argument, you have plenty of data available.

We know that nuclear families tend to do better than single mothers. As I've already mentioned, there is a balance to be struck for working mothers (and fathers), but they also do well.

As for your complaints about `getting back into shape', are you advocating an extension of maternal leave? I'm sure lots of feminists would be thrilled if you were.

Once again, virtually none of today's anti-feminists show any indication of having ever read anything by a feminist. One day, I hope to see it.

Thomas de Aquino said...

@Eldro: Thank you, Eldro.

@Jesse Parish:

"Do you think that feminism demands women to be lonely, childless lesbianism?"

No. Maybe I did not express myself clearly. What I meant was, that modern expections of women come originally from childless, lesbian feminists, proprably with a problematic family background. (Which is a very sad thing for these people.) A childless lesbian can fully live those expectations, but not a mother dedicated to her kids, not without detriment to her or to her family. Thats why these expectations are unrealistic and misguided.

I think we will get over it, in one way or the other. Either with our will or against it, either compelled by our own reason or by the forces of our own nature, i.e. by Gods reason which works trough nature.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Thomas de aquino
I have an amendment to what you said I said: I don't think, as a rule, that feminists are damaged psychologically. I think that some of the more radical feminist leaders are damaged and some of their opinions do not stand up very well to rational critique, but seem to serve more as personal catharsis.

Most feminists I know seem perfectly well adjusted: they just want women to have the same rights and opportunities as men. This is now the default assumption in the United States, and was the core idea behind early Feminism, and remains the core idea. The more radical views (e.g., that men and women are the same, or that men are somehow inferior to women, or that pornography should be outlawed because it is inherently violent toward women) tend to come from a different place than this very American idealization of equal rights.

Ilion I have never, ever, suggested you be banned from this blog. You are either being ignorant or intellectually dishonest. <mock>

What I have said consistently is that you are the Ed Anger of Dangerous Idea. I think you are hilarious and enjoy your antics. I encourage people to sit back and enjoy them too. People that try to engage you as if you are threatening or to be taken seriously just don't get you. I find that incredibly funny and entertaining too, watching people try to reason with you.

I still am not 100% sure you aren't a troll because it is hard to believe that anyone would non-ironically write the things you do. But over the years the likelihood of this hypothesis has decreased quite a bit.

Jesse Parrish said...

No. Maybe I did not express myself clearly. What I meant was, that modern expections of women come originally from childless, lesbian feminists, proprably with a problematic family background. (Which is a very sad thing for these people.)

Assume this is true. Who cares?

A childless lesbian can fully live those expectations, but not a mother dedicated to her kids, not without detriment to her or to her family. Thats why these expectations are unrealistic and misguided.

What expectations? One of those which I've been over already, perhaps?

I think we will get over it, in one way or the other. Either with our will or against it, either compelled by our own reason or by the forces of our own nature, i.e. by Gods reason which works trough nature.

Yes, eventually those unnatural women will understand the error of their ways and get bored with their businesses and college educations and return to the dishwasher. Then everything will be ok again.

Thomas de Aquino said...

@Jesse Parish:

"There have been lots of `against nature' renovations of family life. For example, gay providers tend to do just as well raising happy, successful children as do straight providers."

Somehow, I dont believe this. These children tend to get heavily mocked, when their classmates learn that their parents are homosexuals. Also, how is a child supposed to develop a normal sexuality with such role models? How will such a child behave towards other women?

No practising homosexual can really be happy. It is against nature. And this is shown by the outer damages which are caused by homosexual practises. I dont think I need to go in to detail what kind of "mechanical" damages are caused and how, but the prevalence of sexually transmitted deseases in homosexuals is also noteworthy.

And I am sure there are also psychological damages.

Also, why is it that normal people are naturally disgusted when confronted with homosexual practises? E.g. when they see two homosexuals kissing, to take a mild example? I dont think that this instinctual disgust is just there for no reason. Just as our disgust against feces and rotten food is not just there for no reason.

Anonymous said...

Jesse said: "when I see men claiming rights to female obedience and other tyrannical doctrines, I get worked up. I am entirely unashamed of the fact. I hate tyrannies, whether private or social or legal, and hope to help destroy them."

Here we observe the liberal mind in action. Apparently any exercise of rightly wielded authority is "tyranny".

A policeman told me to move along the other day. That fascist! Who the heck does he think he is? Down with the tyrannical rule of the police! Down with government! Take to the streets!

In fact, I have been tyrannized my whole life. When I was younger I had to do what my dad said! What impudence!

Thomas de Aquino said...

"Yes, eventually those unnatural women will understand the error of their ways and get bored with their businesses and college educations and return to the dishwasher. Then everything will be ok again."

Not so. I mean, just look at Europe. Societies who treat women in this way are not lasting. They just die. Birthrates are going against zero. And thats what you get if people try to live out those dreams.

@BDK: Ok. Do you also think that most feminists, especially the early ones, had a normal family life (Husband + Kids)? Because its my impression that most of them were/are bitter lesbians. Maybe this is just a prejudice.

BTW, I am also for equal rights. So, I am a feminist, right? Somehow this does not make sense to me, because feminism, or what normally goes under this name, looks to me more like a world view or ideology than a plea for equal rights.

One Brow said...

Anonymous said...
"The question is founded on the notion that the difference between the sexes in certain areas is greater than the deviation within each sex. This is true in some physical attributes, but very few mental or emotional attributes."

So are we "cave men" completely mistaken in thinking that there is a certain nutritive warmth that a mother can impart to her child that the father can never impart?


If you meant "breast milk" when you said "nutritive warmth", then that would be a phgysical difference, the existence of which I acknowledged. If you meant extendeing a sense of love, compassion, caring, etc., then my wife would be the first to acknowledge that I am very good at expressing them to our children, better than her, and the "cave men" would indeed be mistaken.

One Brow said...

Ilíon said...
... in these more modern times, Democrats virtually lynch “uppity” blacks...

How very typical of a religious conservative to equate criticism with lynching. It's especially ironic in this thread.

One Brow said...

Anonymous said...
I don't have any problem whatsoever with women doing them, so long as they are able to keep up their essential duties as a mother and a wife...

What are the essential duties as a mother and wife that are not also my essential duties as a father and husband?

One Brow said...

Eldro said...
This (Gimli's) was the most loving, thoughtful and painful comment on the whole thread, and true.

Well, it was an attempt at using thoughtfulness, love, and pain to evoke guilt to demonstrate a position as true, but it was an utter failure.

It is a sad state of society but the corporations don't mind.

Every set of parents has to make up their own mind about priorities. Is the better school system worth the time away? Why should corporations intervene and decide what's best for a family?

And yet one brow attacks Gimli as if he is some sort of chauvinist pig,

I responded to the nature of the post. I don't know Gimli 4 the West beyond hyis posts, and make no judgments about his behavior outside of them.

I never heard any of these men saying anything about a weaker sex and here you are criticizing his fortitude.

In Gimli 4 the West's very first post, he discusses a "running joke" founded onh this very notion. I have no explanation for your having read it.

... at least point out to your co-feminists that having the whole of tradition on your side does not make you an ignorant bigot,

I agree. Having tradition on your side does not make you a bigot. Supporting a sexist tradition makes you a bigot.

Jesse Parrish said...

Somehow, I dont believe this. These children tend to get heavily mocked, when their classmates learn that their parents are homosexuals. Also, how is a child supposed to develop a normal sexuality with such role models? How will such a child behave towards other women?

It's you versus the APA, which does recognize the effects of mockery. At least we all apparently recognize that the only problem with gay parenting is homophobia, but even the effects here do not result in statistically different results compared to children with heterosexual parents. (See e.g. fat kids and poor kids.) No worries about gay kids, though, they don't get infected: "Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents."

...but the prevalence of sexually transmitted deseases in homosexuals is also noteworthy.

A prevalence due more to the underground sexuality they were forced to practice, one should note.

No practising homosexual can really be happy.

I know lots of happy practising homosexuals. How miserable is it to be wrong?

And I am sure there are also psychological damages.

Again, following the APA statement: homosexuals tend to be well-adjusted, happy people, at least as much as any group is. It's not a mental disorder.

Also, why is it that normal people are naturally disgusted when confronted with homosexual practises? E.g. when they see two homosexuals kissing, to take a mild example? I dont think that this instinctual disgust is just there for no reason. Just as our disgust against feces and rotten food is not just there for no reason.

Yes, kissing another man is just like eating feces. As for your disgust, I lack the emotion. Actually, seeing couples in happy relationships gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling. I like happiness. I'm unnatural like that. I bet I could speculate as to the sources of your `instinctive disgust', if you'd like to hear it.

Jesse Parrish said...

Anonymous,

Here we observe the liberal mind in action. Apparently any exercise of rightly wielded authority is "tyranny".

Yeah, because I said that any and all exercises of authority are always bad and illegitimate.

*yawn*

I also claim to hate violence. Yet I'm not a pacifist. Why don't you try working out the details for me?

Jesse Parrish said...

Not so. I mean, just look at Europe. Societies who treat women in this way are not lasting. They just die. Birthrates are going against zero. And thats what you get if people try to live out those dreams.

Birthrates are approximately at replacement levels, and they are in flux. Don't worry; there are plenty of people in the world. We won't run out soon, barring nuclear war. Unless your concern is that there will be relatively fewer white people in the future. In which case, we need to have a different conversation.

BTW, I am also for equal rights. So, I am a feminist, right? Somehow this does not make sense to me, because feminism, or what normally goes under this name, looks to me more like a world view or ideology than a plea for equal rights.

So all along you've supported the rights of women to pursue careers and not get married and not have children, if they please? Or is it that men are also obligated to have children?

Yeah. It's an `ideology': namely, the ideology of treating half of the population like feeling human beings who want to self-determine. It's crazy stuff, these notions.

Jesse Parrish said...

One Brow,

I agree. Having tradition on your side does not make you a bigot. Supporting a sexist tradition makes you a bigot.

That was pure surgery. *Bows*

Jesse Parrish said...

Thomas de Aquino,

I should add, as a possibly significant footnote, that the assumption that declining birthrates are due to career women is flawed. Some statistics are here. Tell me what correlation you see. (Compare the figures for Portugal with comparably very low birthrate.)

If you want to know why people tend to have less kids, there are obvious reasons. The cost of childcare has increased, and it is less economic to have lots of children in an urban area than in a rural area.

Perhaps we should disperse the great cities of Europe and recreate an agricultural society. That would lead to lots more kids.

B. Prokop said...

Thomas,

Birthrates are indeed crashing in Europe, but the cause is not feminism. It is that continent's abandonment of Christianity. Any society that acknowledges nothing beyond the "here and now" will see no need to reproduce.

Atheists hate this incontrovertible fact, but there is a direct correlation between depth of religious faith and fertility. (Not of course at the individual level, but at the societal level.)

Unless there is a spiritual revival over there soon, then post-Christian Europe will shortly die off, to be replaced by Islamic immigrants. Pope Benedict is doing a fair job right now in working to get such a revival started. If his successor keeps it up, we may just see this boat turned around.

Jesse Parrish said...

Bob Prokop,

There certainly is a correlation between birth-rates and religiosity. But I think that's hardly a consequence of the following: "Any society that acknowledges nothing beyond the "here and now" will see no need to reproduce."

I see a need to reproduce. I just do not see a need for most European countries to have a really high birthrate. I see something beyond the `here and now'. I want to see programs which will have virtually no benefit for my generation but which will benefit future generations. I think the universe will go on existing after I disintegrate, and the happiness of its future inhabitants concerns me though I won't be able to monitor it.

If European birth rates go up, I won't be deeply perturbed. If future Europeans happen to be largely non-European in ancestry, I also won't be bothered. I would be perturbed if I thought Europe would lose the civil liberties and social benefits which are the result of so much struggle. Call me crazy, but I don't think that religious revival is going to help those things very much.

B. Prokop said...

Jesse,

I think you must have skimmed over my parenthesis. What you're referring to is an "individual" response. But yes, if an entire society doesn't think beyond the next night out at the pub, as is the situation today in the UK, then yes, that society will vanish within a generation or so.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, because I said that any and all exercises of authority are always bad and illegitimate."

Well, you claimed that male authority over women of the sort under discussion was tyrannical. This is a question begging characterization - for the 'sexist' such authority is rightly wielded, not tyrannical. (Why should it be?) My post was supposed to help illustrate how you sound to a 'sexist': a fairly run-of-the-mill exercise of authority turns out to tyranny! Well then, there sure are a whole lotta tyrannies about!

"I also claim to hate violence. Yet I'm not a pacifist. Why don't you try working out the details for me?"

Tip: You sound like some really pretentious twerp. Do you talk this way in real life? Pull your head out of your ass.

"As for your disgust, I lack the emotion. Actually, seeing couples in happy relationships gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling. I like happiness. I'm unnatural like that."

In that case I recommend bestiality videos. They're videos of happy horses and happy humans! You'll love it! Have fun!

Blue Devil Knight said...

Thomas I talked about this here. You seem to be have more exposure to radical feminists. You don't hear much about mainstream feminists because what they are saying is almost obvious to any American. Not to the Taliban, etc..

Being a feminist is like being a Christian: there are lots of types, and people tend to hear about the crazies and get a distorted view.

Thomas de Aquino said...

@Jesse Parrish:

APA: For every study there is a counter study:

http://www.narth.com/docs/masquerades.html

At least one of the 4-6 researchers they cite (C.J. Patterson) seems problematic:

"Dr. Patterson's impartiality also came into question when prior to trial, she refused to turn over to her own attorneys copies of documentation utilized by her in studies. This court ordered her to do so (both sides having stipulated to the Order), yet she unilaterally refused despite the continued efforts on the part of her attorneys to have her do so. Both sides stipulated that Dr. Patterson's conduct was a clear violation of this Court's order. Her attorneys requested that sanctions be limited to the exclusion of her personal studies at trial and this Court agreed to do so.

"Dr. Patterson testified as to her own lesbian status and the Respondent maintained that her research was possibly tainted by her alleged use of friends as subjects for her research. This potential was given more credence than it should have been by virtue of her unwillingness to provide the Respondent as well as the Petitioner, with the documents ordered to be produced" (1997, JUNE AMER, Petitioner v Floyd P. Johnson, p. 11)."

"Dr. Alan Hopewell, President of the Texas Psychological Association (TPA), noted:

The committee's assertion that the psychological literature demonstrates that this behavior is both non-problematic and acceptable is far from consensus in the scientific community, and grave concerns have been raised by many fully qualified scientists whose voices have not been allowed to be represented"

Now I dont have time or are inclined to look into the other reasearchers. Probably they are from the gay/lesbian community too.

Neither do I believe in human authorities. Show me hard facts and reasons. I gave you reasons, which you did not answer.

"Birthrates are approximately at replacement levels"

This is baseless assertion. Birthrates in Europe are under replacement levels, according to the statistical offices of the respective countries and of the European Union.

"So all along you've supported the rights of women to pursue careers and not get married and not have children, if they please?"

Yes, I support the right to your own unhappiness, as I said already. But I dont support the idea of putting this right into practise, or the promotion by state means of putting it into practise, and neither do I support any special treatments by law for men or women. They should get equal treatment before the law. No quotas, no special holidays. This is anyway a private matter between the contractual parties.

If God made you for the job, do it. If not, dont.

Jesse Parrish said...

Bob Prokop,

I think you must have skimmed over my parenthesis. What you're referring to is an "individual" response. But yes, if an entire society doesn't think beyond the next night out at the pub, as is the situation today in the UK, then yes, that society will vanish within a generation or so.

I did not skip over your parenthetical. `Societies' are not organisms that think and feel and act and care about future generations. `Societies' do not mate and have children. Individuals do. And as a generalization of individual sentiments - as invocation of `society' must be to be sensible - I do not think your comment was accurate.

Jesse Parrish said...

Anonymous,

Well, you claimed that male authority over women of the sort under discussion was tyrannical. This is a question begging characterization - for the 'sexist' such authority is rightly wielded, not tyrannical. (Why should it be?) My post was supposed to help illustrate how you sound to a 'sexist': a fairly run-of-the-mill exercise of authority turns out to tyranny! Well then, there sure are a whole lotta tyrannies about!

I think that male authority over women qua men being men and women being women is illegitimate. I think that authority can be legitimate, but it is not legitimate by assumption. Hence why I gave you the exercise I am about to discuss, that of non-violence and pacifism, an illustrative example to which you responded as follows:

Tip: You sound like some really pretentious twerp. Do you talk this way in real life? Pull your head out of your ass.

If you had actually thought about it for a moment, you would have realized that being a `not pacifist' does not mean that one must like violence for its own sake. Have you read Aristotle? Then you will know the distinction between things we value for what they get us and things we value for their own sake. I do not value violence or authority for their own sake. In fact, I value the opposite, so any exercise of violence or authority carries with it a heavy burden.

So pulling a child out of traffic is an exercise of authority. But the legitimacy of the act isn't exactly mysterious.

If you can demonstrate women are like stupid children who run into traffic and thus need men to manage them for their own good, you might be getting somewhere. But they are capable of thinking for themselves and pursuing their own interests, so I do not think that men have any right to dictate their interests to them in any way that they would not also dictate to themselves.

Jesse Parrish said...

Now I dont have time or are inclined to look into the other reasearchers. Probably they are from the gay/lesbian community too.

Yes, they're not to be trusted. I could go through more of the citations, but...

Neither do I believe in human authorities. Show me hard facts and reasons. I gave you reasons, which you did not answer.

Yes, you believe your magic inside-head voice that gay people must all be miserable terrible parents.

Now, what exactly did I not answer?

This is baseless assertion. Birthrates in Europe are under replacement levels, according to the statistical offices of the respective countries and of the European Union.

My apologies; the birthrate is below replacement. I was thinking of population growth due to momentum effects. Thanks for the correction.

Yes, I support the right to your own unhappiness, as I said already. But I dont support the idea of putting this right into practise, or the promotion by state means of putting it into practise, and neither do I support any special treatments by law for men or women. They should get equal treatment before the law. No quotas, no special holidays. This is anyway a private matter between the contractual parties.

I'm not a terribly unhappy person. Nor are most of the other unnaturals I've befriended; they are similarly happy to my natural friends. (By special holidays, do you mean maternity leave?)

If God made you for the job, do it. If not, dont.

Where God's singular will is easily known, despite all the long-standing confusions to the contrary.

You can call your `instinctual disgust' Natural Law or God's Will or a poppy-seed bagel. It all looks rather arbitrary to me. I prefer to concern myself with figuring out what people want, trying to balance their interests, and design a workable solution where possible. You know, unnatural stuff.

Thomas de Aquino said...

@Bob Prokop:

Yes this is also true. But I think this whole issue is somehow correlated. Think about it: If you live marriage as it is thought by the Church (i.e. open to new life) you will end up with 4 to 5 or more children. But it is impossible to have so many children and a full time carreer. So, as a women, either you pursue a career and act against the intention of marriage, or you act in accord with the intention of marriage, but then you have to forego the carreer.

Also the report that Jesse linked seems to support this. (See Table 4A: Women’s employment rates)

Most employed women have equal or less than 2 children (according to this particular study at least), which is under replacement level.

Also, I think we should agree on what we mean with the word "feminism". If it just means a plea for equal right for women, as BDK says. Then who is not a feminist here? But if it means the active destruction of the traditional family by the state, then thats a completly different thing, and there is nor right to that.

Thomas de Aquino said...

Jesse, you are getting emotional and are therefore not able to consider carefully what I write. I will stop the discussion with you, now.

Jesse Parrish said...

If you like. I'll leave you to the bizarre game of showing that lots of evidently happy people must necessarily be unhappy, all while not letting the apparent inconsistency lead to decreased confidence in your original premise.

Enjoy the game of dogmatic life: the game of faulty expectations!

Blue Devil Knight said...

I should qualify that I can't speak for all feminists, just as a Christian can't speak for all Christians. I believe that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men in a just society. This qualifies me as a feminist, in my eyes.

It is strange to see people here acting as if women will just naturally be most satisfied when they fill their Godly role as housewife. That is simply naive. The "second wave" of feminism was born in the early 60s partly because of the incredible mailaise and unhappiness, the feeling of being "stuck" that so many women had trying to be good housewives. Friedan's book 'Feminine Mystique' was not wildly popular by accident.

The result? More women going to college, involved in sports, becoming educated, going into jobs they loved, delaying becoming mothers, or integrating mothering and career into one life. My mother-in-law is a judge. My wife is a computer programmer and a great mother to our daughter. This would not be possible without the efforts of feminism's second wave.

That said, I have no condescension or judgment against house moms (or house dads). It can be a satisfying and wonderful thing. My mom was stay-at-home. That said, if a mom is miserable and feels stuck at home all day with their crying kid, and is depressed, unhappy and is a crappy mom all around because of it, do you think that is better for a family than if mom gets back to work and has the child at day care, and is overall much happier and a better mom as a result? Can anyone here confidently make a generalization?

To see guys making claims about what women should do (without regard for what an individual woman wants to do, what her goals are, what makes her happy) is frankly startling.

Admittedly, it makes life more complicated to not have the neatly delineated roles to conform to. 'Who is going to stay home when the baby is sick?' type of questions become a negotiation without a set answer. I can certainly see, as a guy, how great it would be to have a traditional housewife. It would make having a baby so much simpler.

Hell, most women I talk to would also like a housewife to stay home and take care of everything. Do the dishes, cook dinner, change diapers. Wouldn't that be nice! What a coincidence that guys like that system so much! lol

Jesse Parrish said...

I wouldn't mind being a house husband. I think I'll try a career first, though.

Oh no... must... stave off... the unhappiness... must... hide... from... sin!

Thomas de Aquino said...

"It is strange to see people here acting as if women will just naturally be most satisfied when they fill their Godly role as housewife. That is simply naive."

Yes, of course this is naive. This alone will not make no women happy. There is more to it.

Here is my proposition: A family living and abiding in Gods law, with 5+ children, traditional role distribution and with sufficient supplies of the necessities of life (shelter, clothing, food), and also enough leisure for the members of family to engange in thought and art, this will be a most happy family.

Human nature is a given, and from it flow the laws by which one can be maximally happy. One cannot decide what makes happy or not. Just as one cannot decide whether cyanide will destroy your bodily life or not. This is determined by the bodily constition. And in the same way the whole human nature determines what will make a human happy.

There may be different views in what happiness consists, and everybody has the right to pursue his own, but this does not change the objective nature of happiness.

Blue Devil Knight said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Jesse,

"If you had actually thought about it for a moment, you would have realized that being a `not pacifist' does not mean that one must like violence for its own sake. Have you read Aristotle? Then you will know the distinction between things we value for what they get us and things we value for their own sake. I do not value violence or authority for their own sake. In fact, I value the opposite, so any exercise of violence or authority carries with it a heavy burden."

Well, there we disagree. You think authority is only ever of instrumental value, I think it can be a natural right.

"If you can demonstrate women are like stupid children who run into traffic and thus need men to manage them for their own good, you might be getting somewhere."

They don't need to be like stupid children, just being more child-like than men is sufficient. And that they are this should be obvious to anyone who interacts with women regularly. You say something, they take it the wrong way and suddenly they aren't talking to you. Eh? Instead of talking about it they just make a point of ignoring you or something. Only if you are firm with them "What's the problem?" do you make headway and they usually like you for it, because they realized deep down that the scenario they created was destructive but lacked the strength to break it. Examples can be multiplied. I've also seen girls stride into work - all confidence - and asking for more and more jobs and responsibility, but then it suddenly gets too much for them and before you know it they are crying on your shoulder. Women are damaging themselves like this all the time. It shouldn't be encouraged by any male who genuinely cares for women.

Blue Devil Knight said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blue Devil Knight said...

Thomas, even assuming you are right, that this set of conditions is sufficient for happiness for many people, it doesn't follow that people/couples making it work via a different division of labor are somehow defective.

There are many ways to get rid of a headache. Say you use aspirin and it works, and I use tylenol. No big deal. I'm happy aspirin works for you. If you start getting all weird about my use of Tylenol, even though it works fine for me, and I am not hurting anything in the process, I will just wonder where your thinking went awry.

Some women prefer to be full-time lawyers. Some would prefer to play basketball. Some want to focus most of their energy on raising kids and being a good spouse. Some want to vote. Some want to own property.

Great. The law shouldn't mess with them. Just as it shouldn't mess with some guy who wants to do all of the above.

What I'm saying should be largely trivial, not in need of argument. Because it is not the mid-20th century any more, and we have evolved morally.

Thomas de Aquino said...

"it doesn't follow that women shouldn't have the right/opportunities offered to men."

I never said this. I am a feminist, by your own definition. :)

"even assuming that a certain prescription for contentment works, that doesn't mean another won't work."

True, and neither does it mean that any other will work.

If you want to live, you need to breathe and eat. There is to alternative to that. But there can be differences in the kind of food you eat, in the way you eat. But the function or action is generically the same. So, just as human nature is generically the same there must be a generical way by which a human will be happy, and if he acts against it, he will be unhappy, because he acts against his given nature.

The hardest part is to find this way by natural reason alone, although not impossible, it is very hard and error prone, in comparision to a relavation by the all-knowing Creator of nature, who knows the way to a happy live.

Jesse Parrish said...

Anonymous,

I suppose I don't need to respond to this, but why not? It's fun.

Well, there we disagree. You think authority is only ever of instrumental value, I think it can be a natural right.

Yeah. So you're a power-worshiper. I'm extremely surprised. No, really. I cannot lift my jaw.

And that they are [child-like] should be obvious to anyone who interacts with women regularly.

Really? I interact with women regularly, and I have not noticed this pattern.

I've also seen girls stride into work - all confidence - and asking for more and more jobs and responsibility, but then it suddenly gets too much for them and before you know it they are crying on your shoulder. Women are damaging themselves like this all the time. It shouldn't be encouraged by any male who genuinely cares for women.

Oh those darling hysterical women who overextend themselves. They really need a man to tell them what to do after all! It's all about protecting them, of course. I suppose that's also why you support keeping women in burkas and not allowing them in public without their husbands or a close male relative.

Or at least the putative rationale for it.

Yeah, women damage themselves a lot. So do men. But I've seen little to no evidence that men are better guides for women than women, even assuming they had any viable presumption such authority in the first place. Lots of those hysterical, crying women you mention somehow make it through college and career. I wonder how they do it! They must have a lot of unnatural male fellow-travelers guiding their every step.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Thomas you responded to the version I deleted, in which I explicitly took out that line. Oops :O My more recent one is more clear, partly I realized you might read it as me saying you thought rights should not be the same, which I didn't intend, so I took out that line.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Rolf is posting anonymously here.

One Brow said...

Thomas de Aquino said...
APA: For every study there is a counter study:

http://www.narth.com/docs/masquerades.html


The musing a NARTH carry no currency with those who seek an honest, unbiased appraisal.

Human nature is a given, and from it flow the laws by which one can be maximally happy. One cannot decide what makes happy or not.

Yet, your determination of what human requires is precisely a decision based on what you think willmake humans maximally happy. Why should others prefer your determinations of their nature over thei8r own determinations of their nature?

One Brow said...

Anonymous said...
They don't need to be like stupid children, just being more child-like than men is sufficient.

In my experience, women mature faster than men for the first 50 years of their life, overall. It's the child-like men trying to convince themselves of their own superiority that think of women as child-like.

Jesse Parrish said...

One Brow,

As I have the magic powers of university access, I've had some fun playing around with the citations from NARTH. Of course, the ones from institutions like the "Marriage and Law School" do not need investigation.

But why bother with a careful critique? I'm willing to believe him when he claims that he won't trust human authorities. (Excluding perhaps ex-gay groups.)

Anonymous said...

"Yeah. So you're a power-worshiper. I'm extremely surprised. No, really. I cannot lift my jaw."

This is dumb. Believing in natural rights =/= being a power worshiper, hth.

"Really? I interact with women regularly, and I have not noticed this pattern."

Okay fine, but I have. If you hang out with math grads though then those women are prob. not representative of women generally.

"Oh those darling hysterical women who overextend themselves. They really need a man to tell them what to do after all! It's all about protecting them, of course."

I don't deny that a man will enjoy his position of authority (he is hard-wired to do so, just as a woman is hard-wired for submission), but yes, it must be primarily exercised for her benefit.

"Lots of those hysterical, crying women you mention somehow make it through college and career. I wonder how they do it!"

I wonder how happy they are...

PS Are you capable of responding non-sarcastically?

"Rolf is posting anonymously here."

LOL! Yeah, that's good stuff. Nice traditional gender roles. What happened to female innocence? These days girls know more about sex that you do. It's depressing and disgusting.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Slogan with kids is 'boys walk, girls talk.' Girls develop cognitively faster than boys, while boys tend to walk sooner and such. Now that women finally enjoy the same access to colleges, these trends could be showing later and later in life.

From that article:
"Department of Education statistics show that men, whatever their race or socioeconomic group, are less likely than women to get bachelor's degrees — and among those who do, fewer complete their degrees in four or five years. Men also get worse grades than women.

And in two national studies, college men reported that they studied less and socialized more than their female classmates."

Oh those silly men, can't be disciplined and work hard, too busy prattling on and socializing with their buddies. They must need female leaders to reign them in and tell them what to do with those big dumb bodies of theirs.

Or perhaps we should be careful of drawing conclusions too quickly from contingent social facts.

Jesse Parrish said...

This is dumb. Believing in natural rights =/= being a power worshiper, hth.

Maybe the inequality holds with respect to natural rights theory generally, but believing in natural rights which ascribe to you and others authority and power as a value in itself does make you a power-worshiper. And a quite literal one, as you evidently think that `right' divine.

Okay fine, but I have. If you hang out with math grads though then those women are prob. not representative of women generally.

Math grads. Realtors. Scientists. Housewives. Girls I meet in libraries and coffee shops. But that's only my experience: you need only look to the data concerning female accomplishment if you want something more approximate to representative.

I don't deny that a man will enjoy his position of authority (he is hard-wired to do so, just as a woman is hard-wired for submission), but yes, it must be primarily exercised for her benefit.

I bet that if you tell a woman that she's hard-wired for submission, you'll get a surprisingly disputatious response.

I wonder how happy they are...

Quite. Ever seen a girl get into the grad school of her dreams?

PS Are you capable of responding non-sarcastically?

I AM NEVER SARCASTIC AT ALL.

Jesse Parrish said...

I'm not hard-wired to dominate women nor am I hard-wired to be submissive to men or women... Hm.. Perhaps Ilion was mistaken, and I am neuter, not feminine.

Ah, all this natural law has me confused about my gender identity!

Thomas de Aquino said...

@BDK Ok. I think we agree in principle on the law-part. (I really like the thought that I am a feminist :) )

I just wanted to make one more comment on your post:

"it doesn't follow that people/couples making it work via a different division of labor are somehow defective. "

I agree. This is an issue of choice, and choice follows intellectial apprehension and deliberation. What I suggest is, that you can make errors in your choices, which will reduce your happiness. That doesnt mean that you will be in every case a completely unhappy wreck.

@One Brow

"The musing a NARTH carry no currency with those who seek an honest, unbiased appraisal."

Maybe, I dont know them. But I did not quote any musings from them, if you read carefully my quotes.

"Yet, your determination of what human requires is precisely a decision based on what you think willmake humans maximally happy."

No. This is a completely objective question. Just like: stop to eat and you will die. This follows from the way the body works. In the same way: consider that if you put 2 items to 2 other items, the resulting number of items will be in every case the same whichever items you choose; you will see the truth of it. And this (the seeing of the truth of it) follows from how the mind works.

Now happiness is nothing more than a function of the how body and mind work in union. Maybe I need to put here or there some qualification on my "determinations", but this is not a subjective question. It follows logically from the way a human being works.

@BDK again

"Now that women finally enjoy the same access to colleges, these trends could be showing later and later in life."

I read recently a emperical study about sex differences based on official school statistics and tests that came to the opposite conclusion, namely that these differences dont show later in life. But I forgot the name. I have seen it while I was musing in the university library.

One Brow said...

Thomas de Aquino said...
No. This is a completely objective question. Just like: stop to eat and you will die.

We can point to biological processes that require energy.
This need can be determined empirically.

In the same way: consider that if you put 2 items to 2 other items, the resulting number of items will be in every case the same whichever items you choose; you will see the truth of it.

We have created a formal system of numbers whereby the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 can be proven formally.

Now happiness is nothing more than a function of the how body and mind work in union.

This is pure belief on your part. Beliefs have desirable traits that empircal understandings do not, and desireable traits that formal systems do not, but they can not be verified empircally nor proven formally.

Maybe I need to put here or there some qualification on my "determinations", but this is not a subjective question. It follows logically from the way a human being works.

Since the determinations of natural use are fundamentally unsupported opinions, thyey are inherently subjective, as is any result reriving from them.

One Brow said...

Anonymous said...
These days girls know more about sex that you do. It's depressing and disgusting.

I see it as a good reason to put in the hard work needed to catch up.

Although, any fan of Piers Anthony knows that the traditonal gender roles have never prevented women from knowing more about sex than men.

Jesse Parrish said...

...follows logically from the way a human being works.

Except the gay ones, who are capable of defying deductive principles. Unless, of course, ethical statements have an entirely different status than that of empirical facts or formal implications...

Thomas de Aquino said...

"We have created a formal system of numbers whereby the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 can be proven formally."

True. But "2+2=4" is not the statement I made.

"This is pure belief on your part. Beliefs have desirable traits that empircal understandings do not, and desireable traits that formal systems do not, but they can not be verified empircally nor proven formally. "

I dont understand this. If I look out the window, I see a sun. I believe it. So I have the now the belief: "The sun is shining". Now please explain what you mean which "desirable traits" this belief has, which an "emperical understanding" or a formal system has not. What is a "empirical understanding" in contrast to a belief?

"Since the determinations of natural use are fundamentally unsupported opinions"

I begin to think that you dont understand what you are talking about.

Look, if you take some guy from the street and put him in a bath of acid, he will be unhappy, and how! Now tell me this is not an objective fact.

Jesse Parrish said...

CIPA.

Also, arrest a gay man for sodomy or prevent him from getting married to a lifelong love, and he will be unhappy.

A sex offender meeting Chris Hanson is unhappy.

So, acid baths, preventing gay marriage and/or sodomy, and arresting sex offenders. All bad stuff.

Anonymous said...

"Maybe the inequality holds with respect to natural rights theory generally, but believing in natural rights which ascribe to you and others authority and power as a value in itself does make you a power-worshiper. And a quite literal one, as you evidently think that `right' divine."

This is dumber. Power (capability really) is an intrinsic good. I value it. Value =/= worship. (I think you realize this.) Not even if the power is divinely granted. I can't see how it follows from the fact that God gives me some good, and God deserves worship, that that good should be worshiped. Probably because it doesn't.

"I bet that if you tell a woman that she's hard-wired for submission, you'll get a surprisingly disputatious response."

Of course, that's because feminism encourages them to say that. Ask that question a century ago and you got a different (and truer) response.

Anyway, I think we have both stated our respective positions and aren't going to get much further than that. I'm out.

Though I might pay you a visit and drop into the Sensitive Males Club. I'll cause a ruckus and watch you all bleat plaintively at me.

Later bros.

One Brow said...

Thomas de Aquino said...
True. But "2+2=4" is not the statement I made.

On the other hand, if you put 2 cups of water into 2 cups of alcohol, you don't get four cups of liquid. So, if you did not mean a formal notion of "2+2=4", but some sort of empircal notion, you stqatement was incorrect.

"This is pure belief on your part. Beliefs have desirable traits that empircal understandings do not, and desireable traits that formal systems do not, but they can not be verified empircally nor proven formally. "

I dont understand this.


I have a basic layout in this post.

If I look out the window, I see a sun. I believe it.

You have empirical knowledge, which is not a belief, unless you mean the belief you can trust your senses.

"Since the determinations of natural use are fundamentally unsupported opinions"

I begin to think that you dont understand what you are talking about.


OK. I am speaking only of past experiences, primarily with Dr. Feser and his ilk. Maybe you know of some version of natural law that does not rely on "that is the obvious intent/purpose" of something.

Look, if you take some guy from the street and put him in a bath of acid, he will be unhappy, and how! Now tell me this is not an objective fact.

Because being put in a bath of acid (presumably causing physical pain, else your metaphor makews little sense) is just like having a career in addition to children?

Even then, it's not as objective as you say. For example, if the person in question can'tfeel pain, they may be quite content in the acid bath.

B. Prokop said...

"Anonymous" wrote:

"Anyway, I think we have both stated our respective positions and aren't going to get much further than that. I'm out."

Slight clarification needed. Since you were posting as "anonymous", you were never in.

Thomas de Aquino said...

Ok, this is my last post for a while. I need to get my productivity level again back to normal :)

@One Brow:

"On the other hand, if you put 2 cups of water into 2 cups of alcohol...."

Again, this is not the statement I made.

The rest of your answers and comments are just as irrelevant.

Bye.

One Brow said...

Thomas de Aquino said...
Again, this is not the statement I made.

No, the statement you made was sufficiently opaque that any number of interpretqtions are possible.

The rest of your answers and comments are just as irrelevant.

My fault entirely for trying to interpret your words in a fashion that would have made them relevant to the conversation. I'll try to avoid that in the future.

Bye.

Until next time.

Jesse Parrish said...

On the mathematical note, defining addition of numbers in the standard way means that 2+2 sums to a fixed equivalence class (existence of bijections between elements). It really doesn't make a difference whether you say `to the same thing' or `4', just as it doesn't matter how you label your `initial' element and the output of your `successor function' in Peano arithmetic.

`Number' is a plurality of pluralities of pluralities, as a particular number is an equivalence class of sets of objects.

For any analogous theory of ethics to hold, you need a similarly axiomatic characterization of human nature. But if there apparent exceptions to those axioms, you can't expect people to take them seriously as `objective' or for people to `see the truth of x' by merely considering x.

BenYachov said...

>No, the statement you made was sufficiently opaque that any number of interpretqtions are possible.

>My fault entirely for trying to interpret your words in a fashion that would have made them relevant to the conversation.

Chuzpah alert!

>I begin to think that you dont understand what you are talking about.

No creature understands what One Brow is talking about.

BenYachov said...

BTW I've read threw this thread and I gotta ask what's it all about?

We go from sexism to mocking women who are mothers, Will to Power to One Brow talking about cups of water and Alcohol?

What is this shit all about? Anybody here can enlighten me?

Crude? Jesse? BDK? Bob? Thomas?

Anybody?

Jesse Parrish said...

BenYachov,

It started with Reppert's rather simple opinion that sexism is bad and obsolete in a modern society which does not depend on rapid breeding. Immediately and as is predictable, insanity followed, since many internet males take even the most minimal statement against a completely unimpeded, systematized male privilege as sacrilege against Masculinity and Church and Nature and God. To corroborate these opinions, flimsy (and discrepant) gender stereotypes were introduced.

And of course, things were blown far out of proportion from the beginning. In the first comment, Gimli attacked the non-proposition that men and women are completely equal in every way, their concerns and interests included. This non-position, held by nobody here, would continue to be attacked throughout the thread.

Ilion's comments and Ed's comments require no summary.

Then Prokop and One Brow expressed their understandable shock at the comments made by the aforementioned folk. They have a little back and forth with obvious results. There appear to be a couple of anons in this thread, but the sexist one has showed up on this point with some pithy inaccuracies about women.

At this point, I couldn't resist an ironic comment or two. Or three. Or whatever. Papalinton and BDK join to help defend common sense against the aforementioned claque of the insane and ignorant.

After some back and forth in this vein, PatrickH jumps in to ask for a serious discussion of gender differences. I'll return to this later.

But after this point, the thread shifts to the definition of feminism, as is inevitable. But the rough consensus of its defenders (and those who do not think it important to identify as feminist) is that the mainstream of feminism recognizes that there are differences between the genders and some particular concerns, that it simply extends preexisting conceptions of human rights to the rights of women, and common sense. That a radical fringe in feminism exists, and that historically feminists have made mistakes, is also taken as read. Everyone seems to agree that it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to get married and have children and not also pursue a career if that is what she wants to do.

Then, I cited historical sources to illustrate my position (and how unoriginal it is and how old the topic is) and continued to have fun at Ilion's expense.

Here, Ron reiterates PatrickH's earlier question. I thought that a worthwhile topic, so I formulated an important question capture the big ideas concerning gender differences and sexism in society. As of yet, nobody has answered. Which is odd, considering that it only asked for one demonstrable difference and how that difference should lead us to judge women according to their sex and not their individual merits. One would think the question important. But continuing...

I continue to amuse myself with Ilion. Nothing interesting happens until Thomas de Aquino and Crude insist that the True Problem is that Reppert used the term `baby-making machines' in his OP to describe outdated societal attitudes. I then spend far too much time pointing out the obvious about this, that of course the term in isolation does not accurately describe societal attitudes and that I do not think anybody, especially Reppert, thought that it did. This was to much chagrin.

With Thomas de Aquino in the picture, the succeeding thread consists of his asserting that gays are bad and other things about the improper roles of women which `should not be encouraged by society', all drafted in obscure assertions about Nature and Natural Law. This conversation continues until the last few comments, and is punctuated by further discussion of previously mentioned topics. (Such as what feminism obviously need not be, etc.)

And that was my wholly unbiased review of the thread. Enjoy.

BenYachov said...

@Jesse

>his asserting that gays are bad

I read his posts I missed the part about gays are bad. Rather I got the idea Gay sex is bad according to natural law & it is natural for Children to be raised by parents who are opposite gender from one another.

As a Catholic and follower of Aquinas I naturally agree via their teachings. But I would caution you to learn something about natural law theory from the perspective of Aquinas before discussing it. Otherwise you would be wasting your time and your opponent's talking past each other.

>and other things about the improper roles of women which `should not be encouraged by society', all drafted in obscure assertions about Nature and Natural Law.

But Natural Law Mortal theory vs the common kneejerk Utilitarian theory these days would be the points of disagreement.

That would be a good thread.

But as to the topic. Obviously Sexism is outmoded.

Jesse Parrish said...

But Natural Law Mortal theory vs the common kneejerk Utilitarian theory these days would be the points of disagreement.

I would be quite interested to see such a thread as well. I've always enjoyed being told by Harris' fans that well-being is both objective and a primitive incapable of even approximate definition - which in practice reduces it to intuitionism and subjectivism in my view - while nevertheless being a function well-defined on all circumstances which maps into a one-dimensional set admitting a total ordering. (I assume for simplicity's sake that these would be real values.) All of this is often taken as too obvious to merit defense, oddly enough.

One Brow said...

BenYachov said...
But I would caution you to learn something about natural law theory from the perspective of Aquinas before discussing it.

The basics of natural law, according to Feser (by example):

1) I use my judgment to decide on the primary purpose of an object.
2) I reason out the appropriate behaviors based on that.
3) If I don't l;ike what I see in step 2, I revise my judgement from step 1.
4) Repeat as needed until the final result is agreeable.

It's not that hard to understsnd.

One Brow said...

Jesse,

I enjoyed your summary of Harris' supporters quite a bit. Good work!

Blue Devil Knight said...

benyachov: this is an extremely popular blog with effectively zero comment moderation, with anonymous posters free to say whatever they want. In that context, I think we shouldn't be surprised that a post on sexism exploded into a free-for-all with as many tangents as posts.

BenYachov said...

>The basics of natural law, according to Feser (by example):

Would Feser agree with this "characterization" of his actual views?

Have you asked him directly? If not then why should anyone here trust this simplistic "summery/mockery" of yours?

You don't quote Feser directly so this summery of yours has no objective meaning.

Until you prove these are in fact Feser's views we should all be skeptical. Since in the last thread when I pointed out to you Feser was an ex-Atheist you retorted "Well I haven't read the book in a while".

Thus this makes your claims even more dubious since you admit your memory is faulty.

BenYachov said...

>I think we shouldn't be surprised that a post on sexism exploded into a free-for-all with as many tangents as posts.

Naturally, though I wouldn't agree there is "effectively zero comment moderation".

Some cowardly anonymous individuals have made gross personal attacks on others. Victor has stepped in to put the Kybosh on it. So this is not the wild west.

Cheers.

BenYachov said...

OTOH BDK now that I rethink it in terms of subject consistency this is the wild west which is most likely what you meant.

Cheers again.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 212   Newer› Newest»