Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world - Yeats
This pretty well sums up the conservative's gloom, at least at the moment. Progressive victories have eroded away much that we esteem. Indeed, at the moment, the Republicans, the closest thing conservatives have by way of representatives, seem to have given up trying to do much besides trying to maintain current tax rates and the military budget. On other issues, they're almost totally useless.
Let's take the issue of gay marriage, both as an illustration of Republican ineffectiveness and anarchy, as per Yeats. The two principle points about gay marriage at this point are that: 1) it is inevitable; and 2) the victory is largely symbolic, given the dearth of homosexuals lining up to tie the knot.
On the first point, gay marriage was made inevitable when marriage was redefined to be exclusively about the happiness of the husband or wife. Happiness here is subjective; we are certainly not talking eudaimonia. So a man may divorce his wife if he can upgrade her with a prettier model; or, what is commoner, a woman can divorce her husband because she is not satisfied--and prefers to eat, pray, love, mostly eat, her way into happiness.
According to this new way of thinking, marriage was solely a contract between two people. This was a mistake, first, because of the disastrous effect divorce can have on children, but also because, even if there aren't any children, the marriage took place in the context of a community. The reason weddings are such grand affairs isn't just so that the bride can have her day. The witnesses consent to the marriage and, implicitly at least, promise to help the married couple keep their promises to one another.
Once this ship had sailed, it's easy to see why gays insisted that they, too, ought to be allowed to marry. It's somewhat amusing to see gays clamouring for the right to be married just as heterosexuals are abandoning the institution en masse. One wonders how long it will be until most marriages are either performed quietly in a small church--or flamboyantly on Bravo.
Anyway, the conservatives lost the case for heterosexual marriage once it became a contractual affair. If we were really concerned for children, divorce, or at least remarriage, ought to have been banned, if not by our State, at least by our churches. This would have been no more effective in the long run, but that is the battlefield on which we should have fought.
As to the second point, there simply aren't enough gays who wish to marry for this to matter all that much. Certainly it matters to homosexuals and their friends and family, but from a societal perspective, the forty percent illegitimacy rate far outweighs a few marrying gays.
I note too, the absence of criticism towards single mothers on behalf of Republicans. Yes, I know, it's very unkind to shame people for anything--except for smoking, perhaps--but raising a child alone is, in most instances, a socially irresponsible thing to do. This is not to say that the children should be aborted, but that adoption should be considered. More importantly, women should be encouraged to be more discerning towards the men they... let's go with date.
As an aside, one might point out that with the illegitimacy rate so high, almost no one can criticize single mothers without running afoul of some acquaintance or family member. This is depressingly true. Once anti-social behaviour becomes so endemic, it become virtually impossible for society to curtail it.
This is all very sexist of me, of course, but since women bear the burden of pregnancy, they will always be the sexual gatekeepers of our species. One can blame men all one likes, but, as the saying goes, why buy a cow if the milk is free? If we cannot depend on women's discretion, we're certainly not going to be able to depend on that of the man. That would be like giving up on building a democracy in Iraq so as to attempt one in Afghanistan.
There are a number of reasons this function hasn't been maintained by women, but that's a separate post entirely.
Instructive here is how strange and uncharitable these arguments sound, partially because of the infrequency with which we hear them, but also because they take for granted that the actions of men and women have ramifications outside of the scope of their temporary union, and that we therefore should judge accordingly.
Yet it is this, and not bigotry, which is the real reason for the disagreement over gay marriage. It is also the conversation we should have been having. It is never too late to start.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Our murderous president
It doesn't seem that long ago that the left was justifiably upset with President George W. Bush, whose toughness on terror meant playing loose with civil liberties. Then President Obama was elected, and since politics is a team sport, we didn't hear much from the left about all those awful things Bush had done because, for the most part, Obama was still doing them.
One noble exception has been Glenn Greenwald, who has done an outstanding job cataloging the bipartisan consensus on violating the civil liberties of the American people. Today's piece is excellent: it concerns a Justice Department memo providing legal justification for Obama's policy of assassinating American citizens using drones. Although he's utilized a similar approach to the Bush administration in running roughshod over American rights, the despicable former president never went this far.
Greenwald highlights six points of emphasis from the memo:
1) "Equating government accusations with guilt": the government asserts that it will only kill terrorists, but the government is the only arbiter to determine if someone is a "terrorist".
2) "Creating a ceiling, not a floor": the government could kill other "terrorists", for other reasons not outlined in the memo.
3) "Relies on the core Bush/Cheney theory of a global battlefield": since "terrorists" could be anywhere, they can be killed anywhere--no matter what other host nations might think about our drone invading their air space.
4) "Expanding the concept of "imminence" beyond recognition": a "terrorist" can be killed even if we have no evidence that he was planning an attack--not that this matters, since all evidence is secret, so every "terrorist" will undoubtedly be in the final stages of planning an attack on U.S. soil.
5) "Converting Obama underlings into objective courts": the justification for these procedures is determined internally by DOJ attorneys; the watchers are watching themselves, don't you worry.
6) "Making a mockery of "due process": these policies apply to citizens, who are being stripped of their fifth amendment rights.
The right is correct that Obama is an awful president, but it's not because he's a Communist; it's because he's taken Bush's horrible policies and expanded them at the expense of our constitutional rights. But on important matters like this, the Republicans and the Democrats agree: if you don't want to be killed in a drone attack, don't be a "terrorist". The U.S. government has never wrongly imprisoned people before, so good citizens have nothing to fear.
One noble exception has been Glenn Greenwald, who has done an outstanding job cataloging the bipartisan consensus on violating the civil liberties of the American people. Today's piece is excellent: it concerns a Justice Department memo providing legal justification for Obama's policy of assassinating American citizens using drones. Although he's utilized a similar approach to the Bush administration in running roughshod over American rights, the despicable former president never went this far.
Greenwald highlights six points of emphasis from the memo:
1) "Equating government accusations with guilt": the government asserts that it will only kill terrorists, but the government is the only arbiter to determine if someone is a "terrorist".
2) "Creating a ceiling, not a floor": the government could kill other "terrorists", for other reasons not outlined in the memo.
3) "Relies on the core Bush/Cheney theory of a global battlefield": since "terrorists" could be anywhere, they can be killed anywhere--no matter what other host nations might think about our drone invading their air space.
4) "Expanding the concept of "imminence" beyond recognition": a "terrorist" can be killed even if we have no evidence that he was planning an attack--not that this matters, since all evidence is secret, so every "terrorist" will undoubtedly be in the final stages of planning an attack on U.S. soil.
5) "Converting Obama underlings into objective courts": the justification for these procedures is determined internally by DOJ attorneys; the watchers are watching themselves, don't you worry.
6) "Making a mockery of "due process": these policies apply to citizens, who are being stripped of their fifth amendment rights.
The right is correct that Obama is an awful president, but it's not because he's a Communist; it's because he's taken Bush's horrible policies and expanded them at the expense of our constitutional rights. But on important matters like this, the Republicans and the Democrats agree: if you don't want to be killed in a drone attack, don't be a "terrorist". The U.S. government has never wrongly imprisoned people before, so good citizens have nothing to fear.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Equality or bust
Sometimes a news story is more noteworthy when it comes and goes without drawing a significant reaction. In a small town, murder is huge news; in Chicago, a single murder is a sign of a good day. This was the case with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's decision to lift the ban on women in combat. Sure, there were some pieces celebrating such an historic step, but on the whole, this incident passed without much notice. The forces of reaction, of which I am a proud member, were mostly silent, as if this formality is just something we will have to accept--which, I suppose, it is.
But that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Sending women into combat isn't just questionable desirable, it's manifestly stupid. Let us count the ways.
1) We've already seen what happens when we place men and women in close quarters. The women get pregnant--or sexually assaulted--and the men fight over the women. The Army's reaction has been to create this helpful website.
It's interesting that while this has been going on for years, our rejoinder is to simply insist that it shouldn't happen, and leave it at that. In the eponymous children's television program, Dora the Explorer tells Swiper: "No swiping." Whereupon, he stops. This is, so far as I can tell, our plan to prevent sexual indiscretions in the military. We must not be saying it loudly enough.
Yes, men shouldn't rape women; but men ought not kill people either. The civilizing force that prevents a man from raping a woman is very similar to that which prevents him from killing a man. But the latter is required in war, and... not without reason are war and rape close companions in the annals of conquest.
It might occur to our utopians that if we can wish away all rape, we can probably do away with war, too.
2) The same things might happen at the hands of enemy forces. If we could get Al-Qaeda to read Jezebel, I'm sure the terrorists would promise to play nice with any women soldiers they happen to capture. On the other hand, if the terrorists rape enough of our soldiers, the feminists who comprise part of Obama's base might stop fantasizing about free birth control long enough to remember that President Peace Prize is still fighting Bush's War on Terror.
3) Standards will be lowered to compensate for the physical discrepancies between male and female soldiers. Oh wait, we already did that. In civilian life, standards are often just convenient ways to weed out undesirable candidates, but in combat, it can be important to be able to carry one's pack, or help lift a wounded soldier to safety. Soon we'll be hearing all sorts of heroic stories about our G.I. Janes. And this time the stories won't be complete fabrications.
One could easily satirize women's ineffectualness in combat, but this would require Oscar Wilde's proverbial heart of stone. It might work better if a female firefighter proved unable to rescue a corpulent cat lady. Okay, so that's not much kinder, but it's certainly more humorous.
Actually, the more practical result, comes courtesy of Steve Sailer:
If more co-ed combat degrades American military performance, it's not like the Axis is going to win WWII, it's that a few more brave Americans will get killed in some inconclusive puttering around in Mali or wherever.
One last point. The reason societies don't allow their women to fight in wars--except in desperate circumstances--isn't just because men are stronger than women; it's because women are more valuable. If you send off your men to die, the women will have to have more children to replace those the tribe has lost. If you send your women off to die, it's very difficult to conjure new family members from the remaining bachelors. Of course, a nation, such as ours, that cannot even be bothered to reproduce at levels sufficient to sustain itself isn't likely to appreciate this point. But I like to think that, somewhere, the ancients are laughing at us.
But that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Sending women into combat isn't just questionable desirable, it's manifestly stupid. Let us count the ways.
1) We've already seen what happens when we place men and women in close quarters. The women get pregnant--or sexually assaulted--and the men fight over the women. The Army's reaction has been to create this helpful website.
It's interesting that while this has been going on for years, our rejoinder is to simply insist that it shouldn't happen, and leave it at that. In the eponymous children's television program, Dora the Explorer tells Swiper: "No swiping." Whereupon, he stops. This is, so far as I can tell, our plan to prevent sexual indiscretions in the military. We must not be saying it loudly enough.
Yes, men shouldn't rape women; but men ought not kill people either. The civilizing force that prevents a man from raping a woman is very similar to that which prevents him from killing a man. But the latter is required in war, and... not without reason are war and rape close companions in the annals of conquest.
It might occur to our utopians that if we can wish away all rape, we can probably do away with war, too.
2) The same things might happen at the hands of enemy forces. If we could get Al-Qaeda to read Jezebel, I'm sure the terrorists would promise to play nice with any women soldiers they happen to capture. On the other hand, if the terrorists rape enough of our soldiers, the feminists who comprise part of Obama's base might stop fantasizing about free birth control long enough to remember that President Peace Prize is still fighting Bush's War on Terror.
3) Standards will be lowered to compensate for the physical discrepancies between male and female soldiers. Oh wait, we already did that. In civilian life, standards are often just convenient ways to weed out undesirable candidates, but in combat, it can be important to be able to carry one's pack, or help lift a wounded soldier to safety. Soon we'll be hearing all sorts of heroic stories about our G.I. Janes. And this time the stories won't be complete fabrications.
One could easily satirize women's ineffectualness in combat, but this would require Oscar Wilde's proverbial heart of stone. It might work better if a female firefighter proved unable to rescue a corpulent cat lady. Okay, so that's not much kinder, but it's certainly more humorous.
Actually, the more practical result, comes courtesy of Steve Sailer:
If more co-ed combat degrades American military performance, it's not like the Axis is going to win WWII, it's that a few more brave Americans will get killed in some inconclusive puttering around in Mali or wherever.
One last point. The reason societies don't allow their women to fight in wars--except in desperate circumstances--isn't just because men are stronger than women; it's because women are more valuable. If you send off your men to die, the women will have to have more children to replace those the tribe has lost. If you send your women off to die, it's very difficult to conjure new family members from the remaining bachelors. Of course, a nation, such as ours, that cannot even be bothered to reproduce at levels sufficient to sustain itself isn't likely to appreciate this point. But I like to think that, somewhere, the ancients are laughing at us.
Monday, January 21, 2013
On not thinking clearly
When we stake out a position on a particular issue, we would like to believe that we are drawn to it by the logic that supports the side on which we come down. This is seldom the case, and not simply because humans can be led against reason by emotion. Instead, it is because the positions we take stem from the values we hold. This sounds tautological, but an example should illustrate what I mean.
Recent debates about gun control aren't really about gun control. No appeal to statistics is likely to move minds because people are really arguing about something else. Nor do the sides even really disagree about the final end: a reduction in violence is sought by all. Disagreement concerns the means by which this end will be acheived. So one side believes government can be trusted to regulate firearms, while the other puts its trust in a well-armed populace.
These positions are ultimately derived from first principles, but, more importantly, within a tradition that tries to examine the ramifications of such principles.
As the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre points out in his excellent book, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?:
It is a Cartesian error, fostered by a misunderstanding of Euclidean geometry, to suppose that first by an initial act of apprehension we can comprehend the full meaning of the premises of a deductive system and then only secondly proceed to enquire what follows from them. In fact it is only insofar as we understand what follows from those premises that we understand the premises themselves. If and as we begin from the premises, our initial apprehension will characteristically be partial and incomplete, increasing as we understand what it is that these premises do and do not entail. pp. 174-5
With this in mind, let's switch topics; instead of gun control, we're going to focus on the existence of God. These discussions tend to be pretty fruitless; with MacIntrye's insight, we can see why this is the case. After defining his terms, a well-informed theist might pull out his Summa and begin to cover Aquinas's fivefold proof for God's existence. This isn't a terrible way to go about it, but it tends to fall short as the rejoinder to a discussion of an unmoved mover is: "Who moved God?" It's not a ridiculous question, but it is rather unhelpful, in that we're thrust back upon the definitions of terms.
The genius of the Summa is not the fivefold proof, but the systematic way in which St. Thomas builds his system. We shouldn't cede ground to the agnostics and atheists and admit that Thomas's proofs are mere formalities, quick jots to move us along to meatier matters. And yet, if we pretend that this is the case, how many other things become apparent? We can't get to God's simplicity if we don't get past His existence, just as we can't get to the Secundae Partis until we finish the Prima Pars; for one part of his masterpiece depends on another, and Thomas is nothing if not thorough. His thought must be evaluated as a whole, which might not require that one read the entirety of the Summa, but it does require that one do more than reject his proofs and move on to something else.
Back to God's existence. If Thomas--and others; I am a dedicated if hopelessly amateur Thomist, but there are other theistic systems of thought, most notably that of St. Augustine--if theistic philosophers have examined the ramifications of there positions, it's far from clear that atheists and agnostics have done the same. Certainly there were philosophers who tried to do so, most famously Kant, who was not an agnostic, but philosophized like one. He rejected tradition in favor of an attempt to concoct a moral system derived from unaided reason. Yet Kant, for all his brilliance, failed, as MacIntyre pointed out:
In moral philosophy the central question which the participants in those debates had hoped to answer was: What are those principles governing action to which no rational human being can deny his or her assent? Hume's appeal to rational consensus concerning the passions, Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative and the principle of utility were all attempts to supply an answer to this question. Yet each one of these answers turned out to be susceptible of rejection by the adherents of rival answers, whose claims to rational justification were as much and as little contestable as those of its opponents. p. 176
Even more frustrating than the cavalier dismissal of theism is the arrogance of many modern atheists. Richard Dawkins is their pope, but he seems just as oblivious to the failure of the Enlightenment. Granted, they do not like what the Church has to say about sex--and here at least Freud may have a point; it is usually about sex--God must not exist. But they have not explains how we shall be moral--or what being moral will entail. It is unlikely that Dawkins will succeed where Kant failed; in fact, as MacIntrye makes clear, it's impossible. But they seem to have simply glanced over this dilemma, blithely confident that we can just take the good parts of an ethical code without all that awful shame over mild indiscretions. Unfortunately for them, that's not how traditions work.
Recent debates about gun control aren't really about gun control. No appeal to statistics is likely to move minds because people are really arguing about something else. Nor do the sides even really disagree about the final end: a reduction in violence is sought by all. Disagreement concerns the means by which this end will be acheived. So one side believes government can be trusted to regulate firearms, while the other puts its trust in a well-armed populace.
These positions are ultimately derived from first principles, but, more importantly, within a tradition that tries to examine the ramifications of such principles.
As the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre points out in his excellent book, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?:
It is a Cartesian error, fostered by a misunderstanding of Euclidean geometry, to suppose that first by an initial act of apprehension we can comprehend the full meaning of the premises of a deductive system and then only secondly proceed to enquire what follows from them. In fact it is only insofar as we understand what follows from those premises that we understand the premises themselves. If and as we begin from the premises, our initial apprehension will characteristically be partial and incomplete, increasing as we understand what it is that these premises do and do not entail. pp. 174-5
With this in mind, let's switch topics; instead of gun control, we're going to focus on the existence of God. These discussions tend to be pretty fruitless; with MacIntrye's insight, we can see why this is the case. After defining his terms, a well-informed theist might pull out his Summa and begin to cover Aquinas's fivefold proof for God's existence. This isn't a terrible way to go about it, but it tends to fall short as the rejoinder to a discussion of an unmoved mover is: "Who moved God?" It's not a ridiculous question, but it is rather unhelpful, in that we're thrust back upon the definitions of terms.
The genius of the Summa is not the fivefold proof, but the systematic way in which St. Thomas builds his system. We shouldn't cede ground to the agnostics and atheists and admit that Thomas's proofs are mere formalities, quick jots to move us along to meatier matters. And yet, if we pretend that this is the case, how many other things become apparent? We can't get to God's simplicity if we don't get past His existence, just as we can't get to the Secundae Partis until we finish the Prima Pars; for one part of his masterpiece depends on another, and Thomas is nothing if not thorough. His thought must be evaluated as a whole, which might not require that one read the entirety of the Summa, but it does require that one do more than reject his proofs and move on to something else.
Back to God's existence. If Thomas--and others; I am a dedicated if hopelessly amateur Thomist, but there are other theistic systems of thought, most notably that of St. Augustine--if theistic philosophers have examined the ramifications of there positions, it's far from clear that atheists and agnostics have done the same. Certainly there were philosophers who tried to do so, most famously Kant, who was not an agnostic, but philosophized like one. He rejected tradition in favor of an attempt to concoct a moral system derived from unaided reason. Yet Kant, for all his brilliance, failed, as MacIntyre pointed out:
In moral philosophy the central question which the participants in those debates had hoped to answer was: What are those principles governing action to which no rational human being can deny his or her assent? Hume's appeal to rational consensus concerning the passions, Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative and the principle of utility were all attempts to supply an answer to this question. Yet each one of these answers turned out to be susceptible of rejection by the adherents of rival answers, whose claims to rational justification were as much and as little contestable as those of its opponents. p. 176
Even more frustrating than the cavalier dismissal of theism is the arrogance of many modern atheists. Richard Dawkins is their pope, but he seems just as oblivious to the failure of the Enlightenment. Granted, they do not like what the Church has to say about sex--and here at least Freud may have a point; it is usually about sex--God must not exist. But they have not explains how we shall be moral--or what being moral will entail. It is unlikely that Dawkins will succeed where Kant failed; in fact, as MacIntrye makes clear, it's impossible. But they seem to have simply glanced over this dilemma, blithely confident that we can just take the good parts of an ethical code without all that awful shame over mild indiscretions. Unfortunately for them, that's not how traditions work.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Following Rome again
Most of the stories which bemoan the declining birthrate are from thoroughly disreputable sources, Catholics and other subversive traditionalists. But occasionally one will find a secular source that will, in the midst of a piece which celebrates the lack of fertility, note that there may possibly be some problems with a declining birth rate. I shall leave, as an exercise for the reader, the task of coming up with a list of such.
The proof of the thesis, however, lies in the fact that governments often pay married couples to have children. Such policies have not, alas, been successful. It was with great amusement that in this, as in so many other matters, we have followed the Romans:
Pat Buchanan insists that historians will one day call the birth control pill the suicide tablet of the west. In this, as in so many other matters, he is probably correct, but the simple fact is that those who do not wish to procreate, will find means to avoid it. The Romans did not need fancy pills to be overrun by the German barbarians.
On the other hand, knowledge of the means of contraception used by the Romans did not prevent the early Church from being fertile and multiplying. So there is a definite bright side here, only, it probably comes on the other side of the decline and fall of our present civilization.
The proof of the thesis, however, lies in the fact that governments often pay married couples to have children. Such policies have not, alas, been successful. It was with great amusement that in this, as in so many other matters, we have followed the Romans:
It was next proposed to relax the Papia Poppaea law, which Augustus in his old age had passed subsequently to the Julian statutes, for yet further enforcing the penalties on celibacy and for enriching the exchequer. And yet, marriages and the rearing of children did not become more frequent, so powerful were the attractions of a childless state. - Tacitus, The Annals, 3.25
Pat Buchanan insists that historians will one day call the birth control pill the suicide tablet of the west. In this, as in so many other matters, he is probably correct, but the simple fact is that those who do not wish to procreate, will find means to avoid it. The Romans did not need fancy pills to be overrun by the German barbarians.
On the other hand, knowledge of the means of contraception used by the Romans did not prevent the early Church from being fertile and multiplying. So there is a definite bright side here, only, it probably comes on the other side of the decline and fall of our present civilization.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
2013 Reading List
And so it begins--again.
Read
Read
Whose Justice? Which Rationality? - Alasdair MacIntyre
The Illustrated London News - 1917-1919 - G. K. Chesterton
The Annals - Tacitus
In the Basement of the Ivory Tower - Professor X
David Copperfield - Charles Dickens
Ugly as Sin - Michael S. Rose
The Illustrated London News - 1917-1919 - G. K. Chesterton
The Annals - Tacitus
In the Basement of the Ivory Tower - Professor X
David Copperfield - Charles Dickens
Ugly as Sin - Michael S. Rose
Men at Arms - Evelyn Waugh
Officers and Gentlemen - Evelyn Waugh
Religion and the Rise of Western Culture - Christopher Dawson
Plutarch - Lives (Vol. I of II)
Eichmann in Jerusalem - Hannah Arendt
Unconditional Surrender - Evelyn Waugh
The Agony and the Ecstasy - Irving Stone
God's Revolution - Benedict XVI
Carry On, Jeeves - P. G. Wodehouse
What's Wrong With the World - G. K. Chesterton
The Superstition of Divorce - G. K. Chesterton
Plutarch - Lives (Vol. II of II)
A Secular Age - Charles Taylor
Eugenics and Other Evils - G. K. Chesterton
The Great Gatsby - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Folkways and Mores - William Graham Sumner
The Great Deformation - David Stockman
Literary Converts - Joseph Pearce
The Little Way of Ruthie Leming - Rod Dreher
The Painted Word - Tom Wolfe
The Corrections - Johnathan Franzen
Unknown Quantity - John Derbyshire
The Stripping of the Altars - Eamon Duffy
Peer Gynt - Henrik Ibsen
The Idea of Progress - J. B. Bury
The Pleasures of Reading in an Age of Distraction - Alan Jacobs
Parliament of Whores - P. J. O'Rourke
Men on Strike - Helen Smith
The Sound and the Fury - William Faulkner
The Rise of American Civilization (Vol I of II) - Charles and Mary Beard
Ireland - Paul Johnson
The Graveyard Book - Neil Gaiman
Salt of the Earth - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
The Jungle Book - Rudyard Kipling
Summa Theologica - Thomas Aquinas (Vol. IV of V)
The Rise of American Civilization (Vol II of II) - Charles and Mary Beard
Aquinas - Frederick Copleston
Gates of Fire - Steven Pressfield
Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile - Joseph Pearce
The Gulag Archipelago (Vol. II of III) - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The Fourth Turning - William Strauss and Neil Howe
The Cambridge Medieval History Series (Vol. III of VIII)
The Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck
The Art of Manliness: Classic Skills and Manners for the Modern Man - Brett and Kate McKay
The Gulag Archipelago (Vol. III of III) - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Why Read? - Mark Edmundson
The Quest for Shakespeare - Joseph Pearce
The Inimitable Jeeves - P. G. Wodehouse
Henry IV Part I - Shakespeare
Henry IV Part II - Shakespeare
Henry V - Shakespeare
Henry VI Part I - Shakespeare
Henry VI Part II - Shakespeare
Shakespeare's Kings - John Julius Norwich
Henry VI Part III - Shakespeare
The History of Music - Cecil Gray
Through Shakespeare's Eyes - Joseph Pearce
The Merchant of Venice - Shakespeare
Travels in Hyperreality - Umberto Eco
Lost in the Cosmos - Walker Percy
For Men Only - Shaunti and Jeff Feldhahn
For Women Only - Shaunti Feldhahn
The Five People You Meet in Heaven - Mitch Albom
A Jacques Barzun Reader
War in European History - Michael Howard
Lepanto - G. K. Chesterton (edited by Dale Ahlquist)
The Descent of Man - Charles Darwin
Religion and the Rise of Western Culture - Christopher Dawson
Plutarch - Lives (Vol. I of II)
Eichmann in Jerusalem - Hannah Arendt
Unconditional Surrender - Evelyn Waugh
The Agony and the Ecstasy - Irving Stone
God's Revolution - Benedict XVI
Carry On, Jeeves - P. G. Wodehouse
What's Wrong With the World - G. K. Chesterton
The Superstition of Divorce - G. K. Chesterton
Plutarch - Lives (Vol. II of II)
A Secular Age - Charles Taylor
Eugenics and Other Evils - G. K. Chesterton
The Great Gatsby - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Folkways and Mores - William Graham Sumner
The Great Deformation - David Stockman
Literary Converts - Joseph Pearce
The Little Way of Ruthie Leming - Rod Dreher
The Painted Word - Tom Wolfe
The Corrections - Johnathan Franzen
Unknown Quantity - John Derbyshire
The Stripping of the Altars - Eamon Duffy
Peer Gynt - Henrik Ibsen
The Idea of Progress - J. B. Bury
The Pleasures of Reading in an Age of Distraction - Alan Jacobs
Parliament of Whores - P. J. O'Rourke
Men on Strike - Helen Smith
The Sound and the Fury - William Faulkner
The Rise of American Civilization (Vol I of II) - Charles and Mary Beard
Ireland - Paul Johnson
The Graveyard Book - Neil Gaiman
Salt of the Earth - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
The Jungle Book - Rudyard Kipling
Summa Theologica - Thomas Aquinas (Vol. IV of V)
The Rise of American Civilization (Vol II of II) - Charles and Mary Beard
Aquinas - Frederick Copleston
Gates of Fire - Steven Pressfield
Solzhenitsyn: A Soul in Exile - Joseph Pearce
The Gulag Archipelago (Vol. II of III) - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The Fourth Turning - William Strauss and Neil Howe
The Cambridge Medieval History Series (Vol. III of VIII)
The Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck
The Art of Manliness: Classic Skills and Manners for the Modern Man - Brett and Kate McKay
The Gulag Archipelago (Vol. III of III) - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Why Read? - Mark Edmundson
The Quest for Shakespeare - Joseph Pearce
The Inimitable Jeeves - P. G. Wodehouse
Henry IV Part I - Shakespeare
Henry IV Part II - Shakespeare
Henry V - Shakespeare
Henry VI Part I - Shakespeare
Henry VI Part II - Shakespeare
Shakespeare's Kings - John Julius Norwich
Henry VI Part III - Shakespeare
The History of Music - Cecil Gray
Through Shakespeare's Eyes - Joseph Pearce
The Merchant of Venice - Shakespeare
Travels in Hyperreality - Umberto Eco
Lost in the Cosmos - Walker Percy
For Men Only - Shaunti and Jeff Feldhahn
For Women Only - Shaunti Feldhahn
The Five People You Meet in Heaven - Mitch Albom
A Jacques Barzun Reader
War in European History - Michael Howard
Lepanto - G. K. Chesterton (edited by Dale Ahlquist)
The Descent of Man - Charles Darwin
2012 book breakdown
Last year was the first year I kept track of all the books I read. I was curious to know how many I managed to read. If I did my math correctly, I read 75 books this past year, or about 1.5 a week. It's not a bad pace, but considering how little time I devote to writing or socializing, I could probably do better. Or else I could try to write and socialize more, though the latter especially strikes me as a desperate measure.
Only fifteen of these books were novels; a full third of that total came courtesy of George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. I should probably read more fiction, but if given a choice between a classic novel and a history book, I reliably choose the latter. There's nothing especially wrong with this, but fiction, at least the good stuff, stimulates the imagination.
I thought about giving the breakdown by ratings like Vox does, but I don't feel competent to rate the classics, of which I read a fair amount. Even if a Platonic dialogue strikes me as middling, it's still Plato, which makes it rather better than middling and me a moron. So instead, here are some of my favorites that aren't already part of the western canon.
The first three come courtesy of Will and Ariel Durant's lifetime reading list:
Three mostly contemporary pieces of non-fiction:
Bad Religion - Ross Douthat - As Chesterton is said to have said, "When men stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything." American apostasy has not ushered in a new enlightenment, but has shed religion for nonsense which is worse in every conceivable way.
Family and Civilization - Carle Zimmerman - This book was actually first published in the 40's, but I read a recently republished abridgement. Zimmerman draws on Greek and Roman history to demonstrate that, far from progressing towards a more enlightened way of (not) marrying, we're following in the decadent footsteps of our deceased predecessors.
Only fifteen of these books were novels; a full third of that total came courtesy of George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones. I should probably read more fiction, but if given a choice between a classic novel and a history book, I reliably choose the latter. There's nothing especially wrong with this, but fiction, at least the good stuff, stimulates the imagination.
I thought about giving the breakdown by ratings like Vox does, but I don't feel competent to rate the classics, of which I read a fair amount. Even if a Platonic dialogue strikes me as middling, it's still Plato, which makes it rather better than middling and me a moron. So instead, here are some of my favorites that aren't already part of the western canon.
The first three come courtesy of Will and Ariel Durant's lifetime reading list:
Renaissance in Italy - John Addington
Symonds - Seven volumes, about 2000 pages of small type in my version, but worth every page. Symonds prose is strikingly beautiful.
A History of Ancient Greek Literature -
Gilbert Murray - A short book that covers its subject rather completely. I can see this being a valuable reference guide for many years to come.
Napoleon - Emil Ludwig - I'm loathe to sympathize with someone like Napoleon, but Ludwig manages to evoke this sentiment in the reader without denigrating to sycophancy.
Three mostly contemporary pieces of non-fiction:
Bad Religion - Ross Douthat - As Chesterton is said to have said, "When men stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything." American apostasy has not ushered in a new enlightenment, but has shed religion for nonsense which is worse in every conceivable way.
The Revolt of
the Elites - Christopher Lasch - He points out that our meritocrats have all of the vices of the aristocrats they have replaced, with none of the virtues. Alas, Lasch passed away some years ago, as he would have had much to contribute to the current crisis caused by the meritocrats.
Family and Civilization - Carle Zimmerman - This book was actually first published in the 40's, but I read a recently republished abridgement. Zimmerman draws on Greek and Roman history to demonstrate that, far from progressing towards a more enlightened way of (not) marrying, we're following in the decadent footsteps of our deceased predecessors.
And one novel, because I do so read fiction:
Reamde - Neal Stephenson - I think the Baroque Cycle is still his best, but this is expertly planned and executed. Stephenson is still very much at the top of his game, which is good, because if he loses his fastball, I'm going to need to find a new favorite living novelist.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Our Dark Ages
"The densest of the medieval centuries - the six hundred
years between, roughly, A.D. 400 and A.D. 1000 - are still widely known as the
Dark Ages. Modern historians have abandoned that phrase, one of them writes,
"because of the unacceptable value judgment it implies." Yet there
are no survivors to be offended. Nor is the term necessarily pejorative. Very
little is clear about that dim era." - William Manchester, A World Lit Only by Fire, p. 3
Thus the historian begins his study of the late medieval period culminating--and closing--with Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe. There is seemingly little evidence that the Dark Ages will be returning anytime soon, if not in the pejorative sense--the resurgence of barbarism--certainly in an absence of information about our own era. Indeed, with the continuous communication provided by the Internet in the Age of Twitter, it seems a jest to suspect that they could ever return, at least in this sense.
I offer a few points by way of consideration. But first, we should be aware that the mere accumulation of data doesn't exclude a lack of clarity about the world in which we live. Actually, the immense quantity of data makes it necessary to search among the chaff for the useful wheat. This is a difficult task, the demands of which should not be understated.
For now I'll give but two indicators for my tentative proposal. We start with a paradox: politics becomes more important, even as its utility becomes increasingly dubious. It's totally unclear what either political party is capable of achieving at a federal level, yet this has only increased the fervor with which we seek to elect the right people. This is partially because the State touches every aspect of society, but it's also because very few of our institutions have maintained a healthy existence apart from it. Marriage is doing very badly, we've abandoned traditional religion for worrisome heresies, we even bowl alone.
Politics works no better than our other institutions--in fact, it has probably fared worse--but it has become, to borrow a colloquialism, too big too fail. But because it does not work, we relate to it in ways that are hard to rationalize. The most common technique is to ghettoize ourselves among those who agree with us. Both the left and the right are guilty of this--as are libertarians, and probably socialists, too. This last presidential election provided an interesting example.
Nate Silver, a stat geek, calculated the chances that either candidate would win the presidential election. As the probably of an Obama reelection increased, the right turned on Silver, insisting that he was a partisan hack, and that polls that showed that Romney was dead even were far more accurate. We all know what happened: Silver was vindicated and the right graciously admitted as much. I kid; our politics are too poisonous for charity. The right insisted--what else?--that massive voter fraud had prevented Romney from winning.
I'm actually sympathetic to this assessment, in some respects, only: 1) I'd like to see some proof of the accusation; and 2) if the Democrats are capable of stealing elections so easily, and without negative ramifications, why on earth should anyone devote any time or money to the political process?
It will be interesting to see what historian make of this particular period. This disengagement from reality is, I argue, an indication that the Dark Ages may not be so far away as we think.
The second indicator again involves politics, specifically the issue of gun control. No one has offered an explanation that I have seen as to what laws would have prevented the CT tragedy. And, in fact, focusing on this sort of tragedy makes little sense. Only a small portion of gun deaths occur when someone decides to gun down children at a school; such crimes are the apotheosis of outliers.
Now, the mere presence of guns is clearly not the cause of crime, as our most thinly populated states are rife with firearms. A far better explanation for gun deaths can be had by examining the demographic data. The link explains what everyone knows, but what no one can say: certain groups of people commit violent crimes at a higher rate.
For now, these explanations are still available to us, but when one considers the sheer number of imbeciles who believe, with apparent seriousness, that guns are the real problem, one begins to realize that our own grasp of reality may be far more tenuous than it appears. Which is not to say that the Dark Ages are upon us, only that dimness seems to be encroaching on our ostensibly enlightened time.
Thus the historian begins his study of the late medieval period culminating--and closing--with Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe. There is seemingly little evidence that the Dark Ages will be returning anytime soon, if not in the pejorative sense--the resurgence of barbarism--certainly in an absence of information about our own era. Indeed, with the continuous communication provided by the Internet in the Age of Twitter, it seems a jest to suspect that they could ever return, at least in this sense.
I offer a few points by way of consideration. But first, we should be aware that the mere accumulation of data doesn't exclude a lack of clarity about the world in which we live. Actually, the immense quantity of data makes it necessary to search among the chaff for the useful wheat. This is a difficult task, the demands of which should not be understated.
For now I'll give but two indicators for my tentative proposal. We start with a paradox: politics becomes more important, even as its utility becomes increasingly dubious. It's totally unclear what either political party is capable of achieving at a federal level, yet this has only increased the fervor with which we seek to elect the right people. This is partially because the State touches every aspect of society, but it's also because very few of our institutions have maintained a healthy existence apart from it. Marriage is doing very badly, we've abandoned traditional religion for worrisome heresies, we even bowl alone.
Politics works no better than our other institutions--in fact, it has probably fared worse--but it has become, to borrow a colloquialism, too big too fail. But because it does not work, we relate to it in ways that are hard to rationalize. The most common technique is to ghettoize ourselves among those who agree with us. Both the left and the right are guilty of this--as are libertarians, and probably socialists, too. This last presidential election provided an interesting example.
Nate Silver, a stat geek, calculated the chances that either candidate would win the presidential election. As the probably of an Obama reelection increased, the right turned on Silver, insisting that he was a partisan hack, and that polls that showed that Romney was dead even were far more accurate. We all know what happened: Silver was vindicated and the right graciously admitted as much. I kid; our politics are too poisonous for charity. The right insisted--what else?--that massive voter fraud had prevented Romney from winning.
I'm actually sympathetic to this assessment, in some respects, only: 1) I'd like to see some proof of the accusation; and 2) if the Democrats are capable of stealing elections so easily, and without negative ramifications, why on earth should anyone devote any time or money to the political process?
It will be interesting to see what historian make of this particular period. This disengagement from reality is, I argue, an indication that the Dark Ages may not be so far away as we think.
The second indicator again involves politics, specifically the issue of gun control. No one has offered an explanation that I have seen as to what laws would have prevented the CT tragedy. And, in fact, focusing on this sort of tragedy makes little sense. Only a small portion of gun deaths occur when someone decides to gun down children at a school; such crimes are the apotheosis of outliers.
Now, the mere presence of guns is clearly not the cause of crime, as our most thinly populated states are rife with firearms. A far better explanation for gun deaths can be had by examining the demographic data. The link explains what everyone knows, but what no one can say: certain groups of people commit violent crimes at a higher rate.
For now, these explanations are still available to us, but when one considers the sheer number of imbeciles who believe, with apparent seriousness, that guns are the real problem, one begins to realize that our own grasp of reality may be far more tenuous than it appears. Which is not to say that the Dark Ages are upon us, only that dimness seems to be encroaching on our ostensibly enlightened time.
Monday, December 10, 2012
The decline of debate
Steve Sailer has an excellent post up over at his blog. He writes:
Much of the intellectual progress the world has made over the millennia is due to men managing to turn argument into sport rather than either a test of popularity or of physical strength.
Two points here: 1) this attitude is rare, both historically, in that few periods of time have treated disagreements as other than a personal affront; and 2) men here should be read in the exclusive sense, i.e. excluding women. Anyone who has attempted to discuss things with women is familiar with their tendency to personalize every issue.
This second point is made more clear when Steve continues, quoting Alastair Roberts:
Granted immunity from this process [of debate as sport], sensitivity-driven and conflict-averse contexts seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers. Even the good ideas that they produce tend to be blunt and very weak in places. Even with highly intelligent people within them, conflict-averse groups are poor at thinking. Bad arguments go unchecked and good insights go unhoned and underdeveloped. This would not be such a problem were it not for the fact that these groups frequently expect us to fly in a society formed according to their ideas, ideas that never received any rigorous stress testing.
For confirmation, I suggest reading the sycophantic drivel bouncing around the echo chamber of your favorite feminist blog. It would be unfair to blame women entirely for this; many men are similarly ill-equipped to handle the rigors of debate. Still, I think we could fairly categorize the sensitivity-driven approach as feminine, while debate as sport is essentially masculine.
Roberts does a good job of highlighting the shortcomings of the feminine approach. I think it would be instructive to examine some of the benefits to the masculine alternative. The fact that ancient Greece and ascendant Britain perfected this model of discourse is probably not an accident. One may still find it this type of discourse in strange corners of the Internet, and in small circles of people, if one is fortunate enough to know enough holdouts to the dictates of the Zeitgeist, it has become exceedingly rare.
This is all very befuddling to me because I have a hard time imagining that debate could be anything other than sport. Taking offense over a difference of opinion is, in my estimation, petty and absurd. This would not be the first time I have discovered that what I perceived as transparently true is almost universally doubted, but it is unfortunate all the same. Sailer, who no doubt came to this realization many decades before me, is to be commended for expressing so clearly what I had only half grasped:
In general, the contemporary mode of emotionalism and herding is the human default. The great ages of intellectual progress via debate were rare social constructs, and it's not surprising that they easily break down.
Much of the intellectual progress the world has made over the millennia is due to men managing to turn argument into sport rather than either a test of popularity or of physical strength.
Two points here: 1) this attitude is rare, both historically, in that few periods of time have treated disagreements as other than a personal affront; and 2) men here should be read in the exclusive sense, i.e. excluding women. Anyone who has attempted to discuss things with women is familiar with their tendency to personalize every issue.
This second point is made more clear when Steve continues, quoting Alastair Roberts:
Granted immunity from this process [of debate as sport], sensitivity-driven and conflict-averse contexts seldom produce strong thought, but rather tend to become echo chambers. Even the good ideas that they produce tend to be blunt and very weak in places. Even with highly intelligent people within them, conflict-averse groups are poor at thinking. Bad arguments go unchecked and good insights go unhoned and underdeveloped. This would not be such a problem were it not for the fact that these groups frequently expect us to fly in a society formed according to their ideas, ideas that never received any rigorous stress testing.
For confirmation, I suggest reading the sycophantic drivel bouncing around the echo chamber of your favorite feminist blog. It would be unfair to blame women entirely for this; many men are similarly ill-equipped to handle the rigors of debate. Still, I think we could fairly categorize the sensitivity-driven approach as feminine, while debate as sport is essentially masculine.
Roberts does a good job of highlighting the shortcomings of the feminine approach. I think it would be instructive to examine some of the benefits to the masculine alternative. The fact that ancient Greece and ascendant Britain perfected this model of discourse is probably not an accident. One may still find it this type of discourse in strange corners of the Internet, and in small circles of people, if one is fortunate enough to know enough holdouts to the dictates of the Zeitgeist, it has become exceedingly rare.
This is all very befuddling to me because I have a hard time imagining that debate could be anything other than sport. Taking offense over a difference of opinion is, in my estimation, petty and absurd. This would not be the first time I have discovered that what I perceived as transparently true is almost universally doubted, but it is unfortunate all the same. Sailer, who no doubt came to this realization many decades before me, is to be commended for expressing so clearly what I had only half grasped:
In general, the contemporary mode of emotionalism and herding is the human default. The great ages of intellectual progress via debate were rare social constructs, and it's not surprising that they easily break down.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Feminist lunacy
Feminism is one of the shibboleths of our time; criticism of it cannot be brokered. Mere skepticism is often enough to reveal oneself to be afraid of women who do more than make sandwiches and have babies. Yet it must be denounced as the grave threat to civilization that it is.
At heart, feminism is at war with biology, for nature is a cruel mistress who imposes desires within us based on our sex, desires that cannot be eradicated even after years of indoctrination in the schools. Concomitantly, the other great enemy of the feminist is the nuclear family, for the family provides a constant reminder of the complementarity of the sexes, thereby compelling our embittered sisters to recall that biology has not yet been overthrown.
Here we find a good example of the feminist--hat tips to GL Piggy and Heartise--bereft of logic or common sense, arrogantly adamant that reality must be as she wishes it to be:
The show [MTV's Teen Mom] does not attempt radical advocacy, but it does understand that the most fundamental patterns in American life can’t be covered up. Teen motherhood, single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation—these are not plagues or social ills that pose a threat to the otherwise normal structures of everyday life. They are our new social reality.
The argument, so far as one exists, is that because marriage is increasingly unpopular, it is no longer normal, so we must normalize these poor imitations of that vital social institution. A cursory examination of the findings of the social scientists would reveal that single parenthood is disastrous for children. See: anywhere. But we already knew this. The reason children of single mothers were mocked as bastards was to emphasize that having a child out of wedlock was an anti-social and harmful act. Once the child had been born, mother and relations would do their best to raise the child, but no one would consider pretending that this was some newfangled ideal.
In the future, it would appear that we will all be bastards. Which is reasonable shorthand for the ways things worked in our pagan and barbarian past. The writer may console herself with the pleasant thought that if she plays her cards well, she may find a spot in the harem of a powerful male.
There is nothing wrong with teenage or single motherhood. The things children need: economic livelihood, emotional support and an education, are not dependent on a nuclear family structure. Poverty is poverty whether it’s endured by two people or four. A couple cannot raise a child better than one can. Once we get rid of the idea that marriage is the privileged form of cohabitation and that women cannot raise children without the help of a man—ideas that the Left has been working to eradicate for decades—there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family.
This is what Nietzsche called the transvaluation of values: the virtues become vices, and the vices become virtues. There is so much idiocy here that it's hard to cut through, it helps to change out single motherhood for other anti-social behaviors, as, for instance: There is nothing wrong with sharing needles. Thus does a feminist "argue". Note that in cases where it is obvious, no lies are necessary: There is nothing wrong with assisting at a homeless shelter--where, I hesitate to add, unwed mothers form a sizable portion of the... home disabled, I think we're supposed to call them.
We get to the heart of the matter in that last sentence: "there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family." Feminism advocates irresponsibility in that it insists that women have the right to do as they please--full stop. Yet with rights, come duties. My right to private property carries with it a duty to use that property virtuously. Single mothers possess a duty to their bastard spawn; before becoming pregnant, they have a duty to refrain from sexual intercourse if they will be unable to provide for that child in a responsible way, which is to say, if they are unmarried.
As an aside, these duties apply to men as well. But women have always been the sexual gatekeepers since the consequences of poor choices fall disproportionally on them. Such facts were readily understood before the Great War on Biology.
Single parenthood depends on a generous welfare State, which takes from the productive members of society, and redistributes these wages to single mothers. Since feminists have no inclination to actually live autonomously, they have replaced the horrid husband with the State. Instead of supporting a wife and children, a productive man must hand over a portion of his paycheck to women he does not know, to care for children he did not sire.
Sometimes, one gets the impression that our present societal arrangement must be a Swiftian satire.
The consequences of the subsidization of irresponsibility are twofold. First, marriage will continue to be looked upon as a luxury good: the underclass will have children without bothering to marry; the upper classes will continue to tie the knot at expensive ceremonies; they may even have a child or two. For more on this, see Charles Murray's excellent book: Coming Apart. This bifurcation is very bad for the underclass, a point which should become clear once the EBT allowance is cut by a bankrupt Government.
Second, productivity will decline. The economic progress that we take for granted depends on a small portion of men--and yes, they are mostly men. Beneath these men of genius, are a large number of, again, mostly men, who, while not responsible for giant leaps of progress, help in their own small way. They do their job diligently and honestly, partially because of their bourgeois virtues, but also because they either wish to attract a mate for whom they can provide, or, because they have a mate for whom they are providing. If men become disinterested in this--as the asinine essayist thinks they should, and as some men are thinking, though for completely different reasons--productivity will necessarily decrease. Men will work only to provide them with what they need.
This should cause our feminist to tremble with fear, for we are much closer to our civilization's end than her blissful ruminations on the destruction of the family would suggest. Then again, if she realized the relationship between the family--those little platoons of which Burke wrote--and civilization at large, she wouldn't be a feminist.
At heart, feminism is at war with biology, for nature is a cruel mistress who imposes desires within us based on our sex, desires that cannot be eradicated even after years of indoctrination in the schools. Concomitantly, the other great enemy of the feminist is the nuclear family, for the family provides a constant reminder of the complementarity of the sexes, thereby compelling our embittered sisters to recall that biology has not yet been overthrown.
Here we find a good example of the feminist--hat tips to GL Piggy and Heartise--bereft of logic or common sense, arrogantly adamant that reality must be as she wishes it to be:
The show [MTV's Teen Mom] does not attempt radical advocacy, but it does understand that the most fundamental patterns in American life can’t be covered up. Teen motherhood, single motherhood, unmarried cohabitation—these are not plagues or social ills that pose a threat to the otherwise normal structures of everyday life. They are our new social reality.
The argument, so far as one exists, is that because marriage is increasingly unpopular, it is no longer normal, so we must normalize these poor imitations of that vital social institution. A cursory examination of the findings of the social scientists would reveal that single parenthood is disastrous for children. See: anywhere. But we already knew this. The reason children of single mothers were mocked as bastards was to emphasize that having a child out of wedlock was an anti-social and harmful act. Once the child had been born, mother and relations would do their best to raise the child, but no one would consider pretending that this was some newfangled ideal.
In the future, it would appear that we will all be bastards. Which is reasonable shorthand for the ways things worked in our pagan and barbarian past. The writer may console herself with the pleasant thought that if she plays her cards well, she may find a spot in the harem of a powerful male.
There is nothing wrong with teenage or single motherhood. The things children need: economic livelihood, emotional support and an education, are not dependent on a nuclear family structure. Poverty is poverty whether it’s endured by two people or four. A couple cannot raise a child better than one can. Once we get rid of the idea that marriage is the privileged form of cohabitation and that women cannot raise children without the help of a man—ideas that the Left has been working to eradicate for decades—there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family.
This is what Nietzsche called the transvaluation of values: the virtues become vices, and the vices become virtues. There is so much idiocy here that it's hard to cut through, it helps to change out single motherhood for other anti-social behaviors, as, for instance: There is nothing wrong with sharing needles. Thus does a feminist "argue". Note that in cases where it is obvious, no lies are necessary: There is nothing wrong with assisting at a homeless shelter--where, I hesitate to add, unwed mothers form a sizable portion of the... home disabled, I think we're supposed to call them.
We get to the heart of the matter in that last sentence: "there is no reason that a teen should not be financially and emotionally assisted for her choice to have a family." Feminism advocates irresponsibility in that it insists that women have the right to do as they please--full stop. Yet with rights, come duties. My right to private property carries with it a duty to use that property virtuously. Single mothers possess a duty to their bastard spawn; before becoming pregnant, they have a duty to refrain from sexual intercourse if they will be unable to provide for that child in a responsible way, which is to say, if they are unmarried.
As an aside, these duties apply to men as well. But women have always been the sexual gatekeepers since the consequences of poor choices fall disproportionally on them. Such facts were readily understood before the Great War on Biology.
Single parenthood depends on a generous welfare State, which takes from the productive members of society, and redistributes these wages to single mothers. Since feminists have no inclination to actually live autonomously, they have replaced the horrid husband with the State. Instead of supporting a wife and children, a productive man must hand over a portion of his paycheck to women he does not know, to care for children he did not sire.
Sometimes, one gets the impression that our present societal arrangement must be a Swiftian satire.
The consequences of the subsidization of irresponsibility are twofold. First, marriage will continue to be looked upon as a luxury good: the underclass will have children without bothering to marry; the upper classes will continue to tie the knot at expensive ceremonies; they may even have a child or two. For more on this, see Charles Murray's excellent book: Coming Apart. This bifurcation is very bad for the underclass, a point which should become clear once the EBT allowance is cut by a bankrupt Government.
Second, productivity will decline. The economic progress that we take for granted depends on a small portion of men--and yes, they are mostly men. Beneath these men of genius, are a large number of, again, mostly men, who, while not responsible for giant leaps of progress, help in their own small way. They do their job diligently and honestly, partially because of their bourgeois virtues, but also because they either wish to attract a mate for whom they can provide, or, because they have a mate for whom they are providing. If men become disinterested in this--as the asinine essayist thinks they should, and as some men are thinking, though for completely different reasons--productivity will necessarily decrease. Men will work only to provide them with what they need.
This should cause our feminist to tremble with fear, for we are much closer to our civilization's end than her blissful ruminations on the destruction of the family would suggest. Then again, if she realized the relationship between the family--those little platoons of which Burke wrote--and civilization at large, she wouldn't be a feminist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)