Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Is feminism killing the left?

Bob Ellis was one of the kings of Australian leftism back in the 1980s. He's in the news again, having claimed that "wowser" (i.e. puritanical) feminists are bringing down left-wing men:

Is there a pattern here? Is sexual complaint being used to bring down left-leaning and Liberal-reformist artists and politicians?

Looks like it. For the tactic works very well ... It is all very unjust; and a question arises from it: Is feminism killing the Left, and why does it seem so keen to do so?

...The Strauss-Kahn Moment has arrived, and the question must be asked: has wowser-feminism gone too far?

He's got a point. The feminism that left-wing men supported to a man back in the 1980s is now being directed at leading figures of the left such as Julian Assange and Strauss-Kahn.

Here's another example of feminism at work. A conference of lefty type atheists in Dublin has led to online bickering after one of the female speakers was politely asked by a man if she'd like to return to his room for a coffee. Admittedly he did ask her in a lift at 4am, which understandably made her feel uncomfortable. But some of the feminist supporters are treating it as if it were a rape scenario which damns all of male-kind, whilst others think that it's a case of feminist overreaction.

The speaker was a woman called Rebecca Watson, who was asked by the unidentified man, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you really interesting and I'd like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?" She declined and he took it no further. But Watson complained that she had been "sexualised" and the lefty atheist leader PZ Myers then used the incident for a spot of male bashing:

There is an odd attitude in our culture that it's acceptable for men to proposition women in curious ways — Rebecca Watson recently experienced this in an elevator in Dublin, and I think this encounter Ophelia Benson had reflects the same attitude: women are lower status persons, and we men, as superior beings, get to ask things of them. Also as liberal, enlightened people, of course, we will graciously accede to their desires, and if they ask us to stop hassling them, we will back off, politely. Isn't that nice of us?

It's not enough. Maybe we should also recognize that applying unwanted pressure, no matter how politely phrased, is inappropriate behavior. Maybe we should recognize that when we interact with equals there are different, expected patterns of behavior that many men casually disregard when meeting with women, and it is those subtle signs that let them know what you think of them that really righteously pisses feminist women off.

Richards Dawkins, another leading figure in this group, then took the opposite view, that being politely asked for a coffee wasn't a serious form of oppression compared to what some women go through overseas. And from there the fight was on.

I've noticed for some time now that left-wing men are starting to turn against feminism. You can see it even in the men's rights movement, where left-wing men continue to support all the old causes but draw the line at feminism which they treat with unyielding hostility.

And I do understand why. After all, why be a left-wing man in the first place? You get treated as being part of an oppressor class and therefore as lacking moral status. The only reason to put up with this is that left-wing politics was supposed to a) free you of traditional responsibilities whilst b) creating a sexual utopia of casual sex.

In the 1960s the Australian left was sexually libertarian. At the time, the theories of the psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich were very influential. Reich believed that problems in society were a consequence of the neuroses brought about by sexual repression. Therefore, it was a politically progressive act to cast off "bourgeois" morality. The generation that included Germaine Greer made a serious attempt to practise unrestrained sexuality as a means of changing the world (Greer later admitted it was a failure).

So for a time left-wing men did inhabit a world in which their female counterparts were readily accessible. That's what Bob Ellis is looking back to. But then along came feminism with it's theory of patriarchy in which men supposedly use rape and domestic violence to uphold an unearned privilege. Suddenly casual sex was no longer a way to create a brand new world, but was instead an instrument of control by which men oppressed women. Feminists began to focus on ways in which men might potentially commit acts of date rape. Interacting with such women became a minefield for men.

In such a culture what really is the point of being a left-wing man? You lose moral status for being a white, heterosexual oppressor. And the women you consort with are not only at war with their own femininity, and not only convinced that they are oppressed by men, but they might also unpredictably throw out an accusation that you have assaulted or raped or otherwise oppressed them.

So I understand why left-wing men are starting to abandon their support for feminism. What these men need to consider, though, is whether they are being realistic. They seem to want a society in which they have no binding duties, in which they have easy access to casual sex and which continues to be prosperous and secure. I don't think that's ever going to happen - even if feminism were to be discredited.

A society doesn't prosper by accident and it certainly won't prosper if the average man retreats to a position of no responsibility. That's why left-wing men ought not to have accepted the idea of white men, as a class, being oppressors with no moral standing. That amounts to an abandonment of society, whilst still expecting all the good things of society to continue along as before.

83 comments:

  1. Perhaps I can shed a little light. I was born into a conservative household to conservative parents. My father supported former Alabama Governor George Wallace for president in 1968, my mother was partial to Richard Nixon. My family attended the local Baptist Church on a regular basis. When I went off to college I joined a fraternity that was more conservative and more Republican than the chapter of the Young Republicans on the campus. By the time Reagan was elected in 1980, I was beginning to change and by 1984 I had sworn that I would never vote for another Republican again. I had become a hippy, a Deadhead, and a liberal.

    My conversion was not to obtain pussy. Nor was it to shirk responsibilities. It was because I held the belief that all people were created equal, just like it said in the Declaration of Independence and unlike it was practiced in what I saw as a sexist and bigoted and racist and conservative Republican Party.

    By the early 90s I was beginning to see that the left wasn't really much different. It began with the Clarence Thomas nomination to the Supreme Court and the rise of sexual harassment that began to be used as a club to hammer men to death. This club allowed feminists to take complete control of liberalism in the US. They had always been a vocal minority and a forced to be reckoned with, but now they were in charge and the blatant pounding of men into the turf had begun.

    I still think that all people are created equal, not in the sense that there are no differences, there are. But in the sense that we all have equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal protection under the law. But I no longer believe that liberals stand for that any more than I believe that conservatives do. I believe that liberals are every bit as sexist, bigoted, and racist as conservatives. The difference being that I (as a white male) am targeted by liberals, i.e., feminists.

    So am I still a liberal? I still believe in a lot of liberal ideals, but I no longer call myself one, nor do I call myself conservative. I simply am what I am and I consider it my mission to speak out against injustices no matter who those injustices are committed against, but most especially when I am their target.

    TDOM

    ReplyDelete
  2. If he hadn't asked her to join him for a coffee, she would have penned an article about how she feels "sexually irrelevant" and men just aren't forward enough. If he'd asked someone else -- especially someone younger -- then she would have flown into a blind rage.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  3. In response to TDOM's comments and
    "The only reason to put up with this is that left-wing politics was supposed to a) free you of traditional responsibilities whilst b) creating a sexual utopia of casual sex."

    young people are naive idealists, young men much more so. In absence of relevant history, and media exposure they don't have the real world picture to break out of their concepts.
    Feminism is affecting young men and its hypocrisy is flagrant. And of course its stupidity.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geQyrBGS_60

    he also did videos against feminism before, but he got much less negative comments this time round.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Get to ask things of them."

    Next time a check out chick asks me if I want a plastic bag I'm going to punch her in the face, the audacity...

    Clearly the man aking the question was not 'sexy' enough.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The statement is quite telling:

    Maybe we should also recognize that applying unwanted pressure, no matter how politely phrased, is inappropriate behavior.

    So, now asking someone for coffee in a polite and non-threatening manner is "inappropriate" because it is "unwanted".

    There you have it, the fundamental problem with the theory of sexual harassment is that the lynchpin is on whether the attention in question was "wanted". If this Rebecca Watson was attracted to the man
    who asked her for coffee, no news would have come of this at all. Even if she refused, she would have seen it as "cute" and as a "compliment". Obviously this guy's problem was that he was on the "no" list, but had the audacity to politely suggest a shared coffee.

    Essentially, sexual harassment means "asking a woman out while beta". We know women do not like being asked out by men to whom they are not attracted -- they find it either irritating or creepy or both. But men don't know how a woman is going to respond without asking, especially less sexually experienced (read: beta and below) men. However, the point of harassment law is to keep these men at bay, keep them with their mouths shut, while letting the attractive alphas ask away in the same exact way (or, rather, often much more aggressively than was the case here) without any woman complaining.
    The reason? In the latter case it was "wanted", and not "unwanted". "Unwanted asking out" is harassment and pressuring.

    Basically they want 80% of the men to be sexually neutered and get lost, frankly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. the fundamental problem with the theory of sexual harassment is that the lynchpin is on whether the attention in question was "wanted"

    Knightblaster, good point.

    I find it interesting that feminists have responded to advocates of "Game" by claiming that men don't need fancy techniques in approaching women, they just need to politely ask women out. That's what Mr Lift Guy did (albeit in the wrong place) and he still became the focus of feminist wrath and accusations of potential assault etc.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TDOM,

    You're right, not every man is attracted to the left because they want no binding duties and access to casual sex.

    But there were men of Bob Ellis's generation who did believe in a "free love" style of leftism as a path to human emancipation and they see feminism as having wrecked the dream. Neil Lyndon, for instance, wrote a whole book on this theme ("No more sex war" - the chapter on feminism he calls "The great terror")

    And there are certainly some men in the current day men's movement who are pushing for men to throw off responsibilities and/or to have relationships based on casual sex. That is one of the "moods" within this broader movement.

    I don't think this "mood" is a helpful one. There are growing signs that the West is in a state of decline. That will only continue if men allow themselves to lose moral status in society and retreat into a position of "I'll accept my loss of status and take from this the advantage that I no longer have such larger responsibilities but instead only have to live for myself".

    At the very least, such men need to know that life won't continue on as before under such an attitude - as there is no way that Western prosperity and security can be defended if men take this option.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've noticed for some time now that left-wing men are starting to turn against feminism.

    Doubtful since feminism is liberal in essence. The men's right movement is not much of a difference and is a mirror of feminism. The biggest anger and problem that left-wing men have is how some liberal feminist chicks aren't libertarian in their sexuality. Nevertheless to call it "puritan" is way off and Bob Ellis should be ashamed of himself for his contribution to liberal causes. Liberal chicks basically chase all of the "alphas" like those gamers and PUA's say and they cry "rape" to all undesirable men or men they see as oppressors. People whom view traditional marriage as rape and other crazy scenarios they think of aren't "puritan".

    ReplyDelete
  9. So am I still a liberal? I still believe in a lot of liberal ideals, but I no longer call myself one, nor do I call myself conservative.

    If you believe in liberal ideals then you're a liberal no matter what. Maybe a recovering liberal but a liberal nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just when i think you have written your best you pull out this.

    keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I find you really "interesting", would you like to come to my room for "coffee", the guy was purely relating to her on a sexual level, there's no indication that they were even talking that much before he propositioned her. This is a cheapening of relations, ie you are only a sexual encounter to me, and this is why the woman got upset. You might say that if the guy was more attractive she would have liked it, but it still would have been a cheapening of the relations. If a guy had said that to a right wing girl she would likely have responded in a similar, although perhaps slightly different way.

    So a left wing theory, which has strong strains of self indulgence, is coming up again another left wing theory, respect for women, which isn't entirely left wing anyway although this branch of it is, and now they're all in a quandary as to what to do.

    If a women approaches a left wing man and says "come up to my room", he of course has a right to refuse, but she would be approaching him on supposedly "his" level, ie wanting to satisfy a physical desire. As left wing men push physical desire hard they are hardly going to complain if a women approaches them on that level, although they may or may not find the woman attractive. Left wing women today, however, are trying to push away from this focus on physical desire which they find ultimately doesn’t benefit them, but they’ve done so in a confused way, so people aren't really sure where they stand with them nor are they sure themselves what to do. Germaine Greer’s main reason for wanting to turn away from the swinging sixties was that she began to resent feeling obliged to sleep with every man (probably or woman) who approached her.

    A left wing women might say "should I be a slut or not?", or else maybe "does wanting to satisfy my physical desires make me a slut?" or “Is being a slut wrong?”. They won't entirely have an answer to these questions and so will react with a mixture of self righteousness and confusion. If a woman was to go about propositioning men a lot I doubt very much though that they would complain if a man propositioned them. My thinking is that this women was probably of the type who wouldn’t proposition a lot of guys in a straight out manner and so was taken aback by this approach.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If a guy had said that to a right wing girl she would likely have responded in a similar, although perhaps slightly different way.

    The right wing girl wouldn't be crying rape she would just set the records straight that she wants nothing more than a friendship and be done with it. Plus right-wing girls in these situations either ignore and become quiet and decide to avoid the guy or give a friendly response that no thank thanks they ain't interested in that way.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon (above), I agree.

    A right wing girl might decline graciously or ungraciously depending on her mood or personality or upbringing, but what she's not likely to do is to turn it into a big political issue between men and women.

    Jesse wrote:

    So a left wing theory, which has strong strains of self indulgence, is coming up again another left wing theory, respect for women

    So there's a left wing theory which states that there are no natural limits on our sexual behaviour, i.e. nothing that is inherently right or wrong, but that the only constraints are that any sexual act is consensual and that we show respect toward the other person.

    And, yes, that does set the stage for confusion. On the one hand, it means that young men will be aware that women are engaging in casual sex with alpha type men or bad boys. On the other hand, it means that left-wing women will try to control the terms of engagement by making the issue of consent as difficult as possible (and dependent at any time on what a women wills it to be) and by politicising issues of "respect".

    So the theory combines both "sexual free-for-all" with "minefield of harassment/date rape accusations".

    Again, I can understand why left-wing men might end up feeling alienated/confused when dealing with their feminist women.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't know why anyone is angry. It's two atheists. They've abandoned Christian morality. 4am is not any stranger an hour than any other, right? I mean, according to their own ideology, nothing should be odd about this encounter, or untoward (except poor guy's betaness). The way in which they try to claim Christian-derived morals while also beating the feminist drum is pretty hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  15. OZ,

    Actually I could see why some women could be freaked out by this. She was alone on an elevator with the guy, who invited her to his room at 4 a.m. On the other hand I don't see why this should be made into some moral failing on the part of the guy. He might have been a bit clueless, but that's not necessarily a moral failing.

    Ophelia Benson's site had literally hundreds of comments about this. Most of the comments were from feminists (male and female). Some were rational while others were totally off the wall. But anyone disputing the feminist take was called a troll, or a sockpuppet, or worse, not by everyone of course, but by enough people to discourage any serious questioning of the feminist approach.

    One female commenter was not a troll, and tried to put some perspective into this. She commented under her (or a) first name. Benson's reaction was to disclose the commenter's last name.


    Anon 3:23
    You may not realize this but there are plenty of secular or atheistic conservatives.

    Christianity is not the only source of morality. In fact many people would say it's not a particularly good one.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Great article on a fascinating topic.

    Money quote: 'After all, why be a left-wing man in the first place?'

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anon 3:23
    You may not realize this but there are plenty of secular or atheistic conservatives.

    Christianity is not the only source of morality. In fact many people would say it's not a particularly good one.


    Atheist "conservatism" is a contradiction --- > http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016584.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. So there's a left wing theory which states that there are no natural limits on our sexual behaviour, i.e. nothing that is inherently right or wrong, but that the only constraints are that any sexual act is consensual and that we show respect toward the other person.

    And, yes, that does set the stage for confusion. On the one hand, it means that young men will be aware that women are engaging in casual sex with alpha type men or bad boys. On the other hand, it means that left-wing women will try to control the terms of engagement by making the issue of consent as difficult as possible (and dependent at any time on what a women wills it to be) and by politicising issues of "respect".

    So the theory combines both "sexual free-for-all" with "minefield of harassment/date rape accusations".


    Problem is that someone like Bob Ellis doesn't see this as originating in liberal ideals. They just think "Puritan!" but seriously how many "puritans" cry rape, have casual sex and view traditional marriage sex? Very few.

    ReplyDelete
  19. view traditional marriage sex?

    Sorry I meant view traditional marriage as rape. How many right-wing girls have gone against DSK and saw him as a villain as the liberal media portrayed him? I mean I myself thought perhaps he might be guilty but his victim isn't exactly innocent. She was a lying African Muslim asylum seeker whom continually covered and lied about her background and participated in shady business (prostitution and drugs). DSK doesn't need to have his reputation ruined in public and lose so much. He's not a criminal. One of the most disgusting comments I saw in the NewYorkTimes was, when the story came out how the "Case is Collapsing against DSK", "Well arrest him! I mean a woman's moral character doesn't matter! I mean are you from a previous decade? Bad women can get raped too!". The other was a variant of how liberal ideals are right and conservatives are a bunch of regressives and bigots. Maybe some left-wing men are angry because they are high-status (money, power and fame) and therefore at huge risk to be dethroned by feminists for whatever reason but hey since they are left-wing they should, no must expect "strong, independent women" challenging them and to make equality between the sexes a reality. They should also expect consensual casual sex but if the woman doesn't like you hey go to jail and be painted as a rapist.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sorry if I sound like a parrot but my point is how none of this is "puritan" in nature. All of it is liberal originated and hedonistic in essence.

    ReplyDelete
  21. On the one hand, it means that young men will be aware that women are engaging in casual sex with alpha type men or bad boys. On the other hand, it means that left-wing women will try to control the terms of engagement by making the issue of consent as difficult as possible (and dependent at any time on what a women wills it to be) and by politicising issues of "respect".
    So the theory combines both "sexual free-for-all" with "minefield of harassment/date rape accusations".

    Again, I can understand why left-wing men might end up feeling alienated/confused when dealing with their feminist women.


    My guess is that the response would probably be that the men concerned need to get a clue socially and be able to divine better when women are at least somewhat interested in them before making an approach, because doing otherwise is disrespectful and objectifying (i.e., all about your attraction without being prompted by an IOI or something equivalent, first). In this way, the alpha banging can be justified ("I was attracted to him, I made it known subtly, he caught on, what is the problem, that is not harassment") while the beta approaches can be pathologized ("I gave no indication of interest, his approach to me was based on him objectifying me as an object of his desire, and that is disrespectful to me as a holistic human being, rather than a mere object of male sexual desire"). Under this approach, it's all pegged on the men -- a man acting in response to a female indication of interest is not "objectifying" her (yeah, right, but anyway that is how it may be perceived by women), but a man acting on his own attraction and "seeing what happens" is an objectifying male-centric sexual chauvinist. It makes "sense" if you view it from inside the head of a female feminist, I think.

    Of course, it also slants the sexual playing field away from most men, but we already know that's happened in the sex market anyway, it isn't exactly news, and it isn't as if any feminists have expressed any concerns about this either, really. Why would they?

    Christianity is not the only source of morality. In fact many people would say it's not a particularly good one.

    This I disagree with with. For me, personally, there are two choices: Christ or Nietzsche. If there is no supernaturally-based moral law, then if I am stronger than others and *can* dominate them, I would do so without compunction. Might not be good for "society", but what do I care for society when I can dominate it and create a great position for myself. If there is no transcendent moral law, there is no convincing moral law. Dostoyevsky's Ivan from "The Brothers Karamazov" was correct: if God is dead, then everything is permitted.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon 10:34
    There are plenty of blog that are both atheistic and conservative. How can they be explained?

    Knightblaster,
    I don't see what's moral about the concept of original sin. Or for that matter even the Christian version of the Golden Rule, which is overly simplistic and if anything is misleading. The laws of the Old Testament aren't more moral than a legal code people could have come with on their own.

    Most of the fundamentalist clergymen I've read or encountered aren't very good moral philosophers.
    Same with most of the liberal clergymen. They just echo the leftist line.

    From what I've seen, philosophy professors who approach morality from a secular viewpoint are uniformly much better ethicists than clergymen.

    ReplyDelete
  23. From what I've seen, philosophy professors who approach morality from a secular viewpoint are uniformly much better ethicists than clergymen.

    They have, however, no authority. Reasonable minds can disagree about reasoned morals. And if I am Superman (per Nietzsche), all I need is to smash the professor's head in to destroy his "ethical system" and all that goes along with it, and assert my dominance. Without recourse, really, as people tend to follow the powerful, to a large degree. Without a supernatural source, so-called "ethics" have no authority worthy of the name.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "From what I've seen, philosophy professors who approach morality from a secular viewpoint are uniformly much better ethicists than clergymen."

    Oh, please. To teach ethics, one must logically begin with a set of assumptions about man and human actions. Sure, they leave god and religion out of the equation, but where do you think these people obtain their axioms? Secularism cannot account for those, and Western ethics begins with assumptions that are Christian in origin. Sure, your "secular" philosophy professors talk a smooth game, but their source material flows from the same river as that of the ill-trained fundie preacher.

    ReplyDelete
  25. ...none of this is "puritan" in nature. All of it is liberal originated

    Elizabeth, quite right. It's a cop out for Bob Ellis to blame it on "wowserism" (puritanism). Are feminists who go, en masse, on slut walks to be considered overly puritanical?

    If Bob Ellis were more serious in trying to analyse the situation he'd have to think about how liberal modernism spawned feminism and how feminism then came a) to promote an ideal of the sexually liberated woman whilst at the same time b) treating men as potential rapists, harassers, wife beaters etc.

    I think what liberal men need to realise is that autonomy means removing impediments to act as you will. For feminist women that means being able to act sexually as you will, i.e. on your terms and with the consequences that you want.

    That's why a feminist woman can simultaneously support the slut walks ("I should be able to dress however I like wherever I like without worrying about negative consequences") and at the same time seek to control the terms of sexual engagement with men.

    The only way that feminist women can control the terms of sexual engagement under the rules of liberal morality is to make the attainment of "consent" or "respect" something that women determine subjectively, or, at least, to define these concepts in ways that women can easily use against men.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just a quick note on the atheist morality vs religious morality debate. Although I think it's easier to ground morality on a religious world view, I do welcome the contribution of non-religious conservatives/traditionalists. Truth is that if we're going to build up some kind of counterweight to the current political orthodoxy we need a coalition between the non-religious who nonetheless view a healthy church as being a positive factor in society, and the religious who recognise the importance of support from within secular society.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I accept some atheists and agnostics and welcome them. I draw the line at hostile atheists and militant skeptical agnostics whom view transcendence in conservatism (and morality) as non-essential aspects of one another.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well AYY blogs whom are atheist and conservative can be explained as being either as developing in their worldviews or as being non-hostile towards religious conservatives. A typical feature of "atheism conservatism" is how it never originates nor
    (in the long-run) sustains in the full sense a traditional conservatism. Transcendence is an important part of conservatism.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jonathan 11:35
    Aristotle wrote a treatise on ethics long before Christianity. Hammurabi had a code of laws that predated Christianity. The Jewish ethical system predated Christianity.
    An ethical system could have come from the same brain system that developed organized society. You don't need the Christian God to have ethics. In fact one could be highly critical of the values in the Old and New Testaments. If ethics flow from religion then how could anyone be critical of the morality of the Old and New Testaments, yet good arguments can be made in opposition to that morality.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Could we call a truce on the religious morality vs secular ethics debate now? It's not an issue that's going to be adequately discussed in this comment thread.

    ReplyDelete
  31. ""Truth is that if we're going to build up some kind of counterweight to the current political orthodoxy we need a coalition between the non-religious who nonetheless view a healthy church as being a positive factor in society, and the religious who recognise the importance of support from within secular society.""

    Well said Mark.

    ReplyDelete
  32. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/07/jewish-australian-mp-bring-israels-african-immigrants-to-australia/

    Mark this is a must read.

    It's about the Australian Jewish PM who wants to import all the black illegal immigrants in Israel To Australia!

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't think some of the claims about the broad Left are entirely accurate; however still a good article.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think it somewhat begs the question to characterize the guy's request for coffee as "polite." I am not sure where conservatives learn their etiquette, but following a woman (with whom one hasn't previously spoken) into a hotel elevator and asking her back to his room is not polite, no matter how the request is phrased.

    When Rebecca Watson raised this originally, she was addressing the question of why women don't feel more inclined to attend atheist conferences. The constant propositioning is one of the reasons, and Watson gave this as an example of what not to do. The huge mess that followed was not created by feminists. Watson's point was a rather mild one, and hardly constituted a pillorying of all men. It was the a lot of the lefty men who overreacted on various blogs.

    Liberal men are not necessarily feminist, although I agree that there is a natural connection between liberalism and feminism. In fact, at least in the U.S., second-wave feminism arose in large part because women did not like being treated like second-class citizens by the men in the civil rights and anti-war movements.

    That said, those men who are sympathetic to feminism aren't necessarily trying to get lots of casual free sex as well as release from their responsibilities. A lot of married men, like PZ Myers himself, are feminists. Men become feminists because they recognize equal rights and dignity as a matter of principle, and because they respect the women in their lives. Often, having daughters will cause a man to develop into a feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Georgina Charlotte said,

    "That said, those men who are sympathetic to feminism aren't necessarily trying to get lots of casual free sex as well as release from their responsibilities"

    I think you'd be surprised. The "freeing" of the relations between the sexes also came with a freeing of the moral code into a more desire based attitude. Its no coincidence that the free love movement and second wave feminism began at the same time. We’re left asking what kind of relations should feminist men and women pursue? Surely physical desire and the “maximization of happiness” plays a crucial part in that thinking?

    So many left wing men play that out and find that hook ups for them are immediately more satisfying than long term relationships and hence this culture develops. I mean why not, there’s no moral sanction to such behavior is there because we’ve done away with Victorian prudery? And how else should such men behave, according to a relationship script that only women might find preferable? Ie sex precisely according to how she might want it, in this case you're arguing within lengthily relationships, or alternatively not at all?

    If left wing women say that men being horny is degrading to women then perhaps you'd like to say why? If your thesis is that we’re all essentially animals then why not do it like they do on the discovery channel?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Georgina Charlotte liberal men are de-facto feminists since feminism is liberal (belief in equality, individual rights and civil rights/human rights as the highest good). The only "anti-feminists" liberals are MRA'S (men's rights activists) and to be honest they look pretty much like a mirror image of feminism since both feminists and men's right activists constantly use the same methods and criticize the same enemy (far-right wingers and traditional conservatives). The other sector of "anti-feminist" liberal men are PUA's and they pretty much condone promiscuity and non-monogamy and practice the same moral system as feminists. Married men whom are feminists remind me of white liberals defending black mobs and latinos criminals and heterosexual liberals supporting homosexuals and transgenders. They are pretty much suicidal and traitors. Either that or fools.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Why is Bob Ellis attacking "puritanism"? Is he blind? On drugs? How are libertarian chicks (fake or better stated liberal "conservatives") or liberal chicks "puritans"? It seems he can't really see how it all started in liberalism like Elizabeth Smith said.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jesse, I don't think men's horniness is degrading to women, nor do most feminists I know. That's a conservative idea -- which is why conservative fathers are disturbed at the thought of men thinking about their daughters "that way."

    What is degrading to women is pushing past a woman's stated boundaries, or putting her in an obviously awkward situation. In the Rebecca Watson case, she had stated in a speech earlier that day and to the group in the bar of which elevator man was a part, that she dislikes being propositioned at atheist conferences. So what does he do? Propositions her!
    And he does so when he is alone with her in an enclosed space from which there is no easy exit after never having spoken to her before. It's not rocket science to figure out why a woman would be disturbed by that. Furthermore, elevator guy knew he was doing something wrong as evidenced by the fact that he started off the proposition by saying, "Don't take this the wrong way, but . . . "

    If you think feminists here are just making weird demands idiosyncratic to women, imagine how you would feel if some gay guy you didn't know propositioned you in an elevator. Further, imagine the gay guy is a lot bigger and stronger than you. You would probably feel indignant and intruded upon, and possibly a little concerned about your physical safety -- just like Ms. Watson.

    I think men can be men, and can come on to all sorts of willing women, without ignoring women's stated wishes or putting them into situations that would make any reasonable person uncomfortable. I don't buy the idea that this is too difficult for men to grasp, or the demands being made of men here are too onerous.

    Jesse, I do agree with you that there is a connection between free love and feminism, but the two are not necessarily the same. I was objecting primarily to the implication that feminist men are disingenuously professing beliefs they don't really believe in order to get free sex.

    I do think feminism is great for men in a lot of ways and so perhaps, you are right that some feminist men see that and are looking out for their own self-interest. After all, a release from old-time gender roles frees men from the heavy burdens of having to support an entire family alone.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous,

    Liberal men should indeed be de facto feminists for the reasons you state. However, human nature being what it is, people have their blind spots, and liberal men are no exception. This is especially too since our entire culture (until some changes very recently) has been structured around the idea that men and women are wholly different creatures with virtually nothing in common. That stuff is hard to unlearn, even for women, and liberal men are going to be far less tuned in to that stuff because it doesn't affect them as much. So, yeah, liberal men often fail to apply their own principles to women.

    My husband is a married feminist man. He is not suicidal, or traitorous or foolish. He just thinks that his wife (me!) ought to have authority over her own life, have the opportunity to earn a living and master a profession, and enjoy the same rights and dignity as he. He loves me, so why wouldn't he think that?

    ReplyDelete
  40. AYY: "Most of the fundamentalist clergymen I've read or encountered aren't very good moral philosophers.
    Same with most of the liberal clergymen. They just echo the leftist line.

    From what I've seen, philosophy professors who approach morality from a secular viewpoint are uniformly much better ethicists than clergymen."

    Lol. You clearly have never read Gordon H. Clark, John W. Robbins, or even Vincent Cheung. Try them some time. I dare you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This is especially too since our entire culture (until some changes very recently) has been structured around the idea that men and women are wholly different creatures with virtually nothing in common.

    Are you insane? Are you not aware of corporations and the government which constanly promotes the ideology of liberalism? The upper-class perhaps has unprincinpled exceptions, courtesy of Lawrence Auster, but it's entirely liberal or libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
  42. My husband is a married feminist man.

    How touching.

    He is not suicidal, or traitorous or foolish.

    He is foolish.

    He just thinks that his wife (me!) ought to have authority over her own life,

    What if an inborn nature, something else or God conflicts with autonomy? Oh wait liberals have always against them and have tried everything in their power to suppress reality.

    have the opportunity to earn a living and master a profession,

    Earn a living doing what? Wasting your life following individualism, freedom, equality and autonomy? Yep what a nice profession. The profession of uselessness. Do you know that many colleges degrees today are worthless?

    and enjoy the same rights and dignity as he.

    What rights? The right to be a male role? To follow a male rule and turn against the female role? The right to the decline of the West? The right to gender and sexual confusion? The right to depravity? How is the denial of differences between men and women dignity?

    He loves me, so why wouldn't he think that?

    Good for evil and evil for good.

    ReplyDelete
  43. What is degrading to women is pushing past a woman's stated boundaries, or putting her in an obviously awkward situation.

    We have a winner here. Pushing outside a woman's boundaries is rape no?

    So, yeah, liberal men often fail to apply their own principles to women.

    A PUA like Roissy or Roosh ain't a traditional conservative. Liberal men mostly don't fail to apply their own principles to women. The liberal men whom truly turn against feminism are men like DSK whom because of their status, fame and power have been raped and persecuted by liberal and libertarian chicks. After that bye bye liberalism since doubts start to appear.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jesse, I do agree with you that there is a connection between free love and feminism, but the two are not necessarily the same

    It's double-think going wild. Liberal men can't be feminists? Free-love and feminism isn't the same? Welcome to the world of 1984 from George Orwell. Let me guess a woman doesn't necessarily have a vagina? An atheist doesn't necessarily believe that there is no God? Big Brother would be proud of your twisting of language.

    ReplyDelete
  45. If you can't imagine why the woman felt uncomfortable about the situation in the elevator, I strongly urge you to read this:

    http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

    ReplyDelete
  46. Feminists do not get to argue that working night shifts and being drunk at 2am/3am/4am is identical in harm level to the same situations in daytime and then whine that some guy asked them up to his room at 4am and this is somehow 'worse'. This has nothing to do with conservative anything. It's simple intellectual and moral dishonesty.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It's double-think going wild. Liberal men can't be feminists? Free-love and feminism isn't the same? Welcome to the world of 1984 from George Orwell. Let me guess a woman doesn't necessarily have a vagina? An atheist doesn't necessarily believe that there is no God? Big Brother would be proud of your twisting of language.

    Anonymous has a point here.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I am not sure where conservatives learn their etiquette, but following a woman (with whom one hasn't previously spoken) into a hotel elevator and asking her back to his room is not polite, no matter how the request is phrased.

    But feminists then have to learn to be consistent. It's no use sending the message to men that they should treat women with an old fashioned courtesy that is due to the more modest and vulnerable of the sexes and then later go on slutwalks proclaiming that women can express themselves sexually in any way they like wherever they like and be free of negative consequences.

    Remember too Georgina that the current generation of men will have witnessed their female peers throw themselves at men who play the "thug" or the "bad boy" game; they will have heard women boasting of getting drunk and having casual sex with inappropriate men. They will probably also have observed the nice, polite kind of men being put on the "friend" rather than the "boyfriend ladder".

    So try to look at this from the point of view of young men. Can't you see why so many young men are exasperated with trying to relate to modern women? Can you understand why they don't trust either feminist dating advice or, for that matter, more traditionalist advice which doesn't take into account the changed circumstances men find themselves in?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Georgina Charlotte said,

    "If you think feminists here are just making weird demands idiosyncratic to women, imagine how you would feel if some gay guy you didn't know propositioned you in an elevator"

    Well its a different situation because I'm straight and not gay.

    "I was objecting primarily to the implication that feminist men are disingenuously professing beliefs they don't really believe in order to get free sex."

    Nobody is saying that the commentators referred to in the article aren't really left. Bob Ellis is notoriously left, he’s also notoriously self indulgent. The two are perfectly compatible.

    "I do think feminism is great for men in a lot of ways and so perhaps, you are right that some feminist men see that and are looking out for their own self-interest. After all, a release from old-time gender roles frees men from the heavy burdens of having to support an entire family alone."

    Well its good to see that you're not encouraging the promotion of pure self interest expressed by people not supporting families. However, plenty of women skip out on their families, or refuse to have children at all, as an expression of their "choice". This choice is usually strongly defended by women. In this instance an expression of male "choice", to try to pick up, is being condemned. You can look very closely at the facts in this case and say here she expressly asked not to be propositioned. If this was all there was to it then there would be no greater political case to be made here, however, this instance is used as an example of a broader male expression of sexuality which feminist women dislike and condemn as an instance of male oppression, and not merely about what constitutes good manners in elevators.

    You say that its perfectly legitimate for men to chase women, well we're still left wondering precisely when? When does a legitimate male choice flip into an instance of oppression? When does a female invitation turn into a feeling of violation? This issue is not just something to be "worked out" between the couple, perhaps with a bit of new guidance on etiquette, because there are political overtones to everything involved. If a guy goes too far, he hasn't merely made a mistake, he's an example of a political/cultural system of violation and exploitation. So if a man initiates an interaction is this oppressive? Is it oppressive if he initiates inexpertly? Is it oppressive only if he persists after she says no? Is it oppressive if he doesn’t initiate after she gives signs? After all she has a right to intimacy correct? So many questions and men would want to get this right or they’ll end up in the courts, out of a job, or socially excluded.

    You say,

    “I don't think men's horniness is degrading to women, nor do most feminists I know. That's a conservative idea -- which is why conservative fathers are disturbed at the thought of men thinking about their daughters "that way."”

    That idea is not consistent with much feminist thought which attacks porn as an instance of oppression of women, meet market clubs as promoting the sexualisation of women and women emphasizing their physical attributes as degrading. You’re left in the position of attacking all “old fashioned” restraint as oppressive, in that it limits choice and natural expression, whilst similarly attacking new libertinism, however in practice, only when its expressed by males. We sit here wondering if you can square the circle in a way that doesn’t simply involve saying “women good, men bad”.

    ReplyDelete
  50. That said, those men who are sympathetic to feminism aren't necessarily trying to get lots of casual free sex as well as release from their responsibilities. A lot of married men, like PZ Myers himself, are feminists. Men become feminists because they recognize equal rights and dignity as a matter of principle, and because they respect the women in their lives. Often, having daughters will cause a man to develop into a feminist.

    I agree about 10%. It's true that there are some men who think feminism is right as a matter of principle. And some of these men hold positions of influence in society. But they are a declining proportion of men in the political class.

    I'd say there are four groupings of political men. There are feminist men as described above. There are traditionalist men like myself. Then there are a growing number of anti-feminist liberal men. These men want to do for men what feminism did for women, namely to try to maximise male autonomy. They interpret this as meaning having fewer traditional obligations and being able to find sexual satisfaction without having to make such commitments to women. Then there are the Roissy type players who also want to ditch traditional commitments to women and society, though they do understand that this policy will lead eventually to the collapse of the West.

    I think feminists are more aware than you let on of how the culture of men is developing. After all, feminists often try to appeal to modern men on the basis that if they follow a feminist lifestyle they might get more sex or they won't have to be providers.

    Georgina, you made such an appeal yourself when you claimed that feminism will free "men from the heavy burdens of having to support an entire family alone." You are trying to tap into the mindset of modern political men here.

    Personally, I don't get how that is supposed to work out. Under traditional arrangements a man was paid a living wage, worked a 40 hour week, got status and respect from being able to support his family, and did not have to do much of the inside domestic work.

    Under the feminist arrangements, men no longer have to be paid a living wage (and the male wage has stagnated since the 1970s); average male work hours and the retirement age are rising rather than falling; costs are up since dual income families can bid up the price of housing; men are then expected to do half of the childcare and domestic work when they get home from their jobs; and men no longer get the kudos for being able to support a family.

    So tell me again how feminism lifts a burden from men? It seems to me to be more work for less reward.

    ReplyDelete
  51. You’re left in the position of attacking all “old fashioned” restraint as oppressive, in that it limits choice and natural expression, whilst similarly attacking new libertinism, however in practice, only when its expressed by males. We sit here wondering if you can square the circle in a way that doesn’t simply involve saying “women good, men bad”.

    Jesse, that's put very well.

    ReplyDelete
  52. People claiming this man was "socially inept" or some variant thereof are working from a false version of the story: both the man and the woman had apparently talked together all the way until 4am (!), at which point he sprung the question. If anything, she is the socially inept one here: any right-thinking human being would take talking with a stranger until 4am as a massive sign of interest. It would've been stranger for him not to ask.

    ReplyDelete
  53. He just thinks that his wife (me!) ought to have authority over her own life, have the opportunity to earn a living and master a profession, and enjoy the same rights and dignity as he. He loves me, so why wouldn't he think that?

    This is an interesting tack because it's a common riposte from feminists, or even simply young women: that they're being denied some rights (and "dignity", apparently) that men take for granted.

    But they will never discuss the sacrifices, or delineate exactly what rights these are. For example, by no means is the average man granted dignity: if anything, and especially if he's single, he's treated as suspicious until proven innocent. He'll be largely cheated by his peers, pressed into wars he doesn't want to fight, considered least valuable in a mixed-sex/age emergency, etc. A man's respect comes from a lifetime of painful stoicism, of sublimating his many failures into his being so he can present a pleasant face to the world. Hence why more men die of stress, why they lead shorter lives and so on.

    Or take the "feminist" approach to forming relationships (which is, in my opinion, the most important decision any young person can make, far more important than his or her work or place of living). They'll complain to the heavens about unwanted male attention, but they will never, ever give up the right to assume disinterest. To put this another way, women are uniquely gifted in that they can expect men to assume the risk in trying to court them; every sexual pass made by a man is an immensely risky behavior. Someone like Charlotte would no doubt retort that he should either deal with it or learn to read signals better, but note that in this response, the woman not only retains the right to be approached (instead of needing to approach) but the right to be wilfully obtuse; this is a very terrible power which leads to women choosing only the most attractive men. Any man who makes the decision to let women approach him will rapidly find that he might as well wait for the sun to go nova: women, like all mammals, are simply not wired that way, and need men to "perform" for them. This is a right they neither cannot nor will not give up.

    ReplyDelete
  54. both the man and the woman had apparently talked together all the way until 4am

    If true that's an important part of the story that has been left unsaid.

    Any man who makes the decision to let women approach him will rapidly find that he might as well wait for the sun to go nova

    Yes. That's why men shouldn't allow themselves to be shamed into being excessively cautious (e.g. "I think she's interested but if I'm wrong I'll look like a harasser etc. etc.) It's better for a man to err on the side of boldness.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Mark said...

    ""Personally, I don't get how that is supposed to work out. Under traditional arrangements a man was paid a living wage, worked a 40 hour week, got status and respect from being able to support his family, and did not have to do much of the inside domestic work.

    Under the feminist arrangements, men no longer have to be paid a living wage (and the male wage has stagnated since the 1970s); average male work hours and the retirement age are rising rather than falling; costs are up since dual income families can bid up the price of housing; men are then expected to do half of the childcare and domestic work when they get home from their jobs; and men no longer get the kudos for being able to support a family.""

    I know it is a little long but can someone carve this in stone for me?

    Would like to use said stone to massage some sense into a few of the feminist teachers I had in high school.

    ReplyDelete
  56. lol@the anon above saying that atheistic conservatism is a contradiction.

    Being a Christian Conservative is a contradiction.

    Christianity at its base is a left wing religion of the proles that has consistently agitated against authority through history. There's nothing conservative at all about the Bolshevism of antiquity. From the anti-authoritarian, "free-love" Gnostic cults, through to Protestantism and the proto-communist sects like the Diggers, right through to the original Communist league (a Christian brotherhood called the league of the just. Funny that you don't get Christians bring that up every time they blame Communism on Atheism, combined with influences of agitating Protestant sects during the pre-revolutionary Russian-era).

    Christianity has consistently given us the WORST of insane left winggery.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anon (above),

    It's an important issue, but not the one this post is concerned with.

    I'll just briefly note that I (mostly) disagree with your comment. There are aspects of Christianity that can be, and have been, used by the radical left. But in general orthodox Christianity doesn't fit well with radical modernism - which is why it had to be neutered over the course of several centuries.

    Radical modernity is a product of philosophy not theology. It is the philosophers who have not served us well. That is not to say that you couldn't have a better kind of philosophy - that's certainly possible. It just didn't happen that way.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Being a Christian Conservative is a contradiction.

    It isn't.

    Christianity has consistently given us the WORST of insane left winggery.

    So orthodox Christianity is leftist? It sounds like you're confused. To think of orthodox Christianity as leftist is to deny that any non-liberal Christian form existed in the past and that resistance is futile since everything has always been liberal! To say something like this strikes me as the common leftist tactic to believe that everything is equal and to stop opposition and resistance to true liberalism by tagging forces of opposition as leftists so that there is in effect no fight against the liberal worldview. Nice try though.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Basically to claim that orthodox Christianity is leftist/liberal is not only untrue but it is a rewriting of history in the style of 1984 by George Orwell.

    But in general orthodox Christianity doesn't fit well with radical modernism - which is why it had to be neutered over the course of several centuries.

    Agreed. I believe it took about 300-400 years in the West for liberalism to ascend completely to the form of today no?

    ReplyDelete
  60. I'd say there are four groupings of political men.There are feminist men as described above. There are traditionalist men like myself. Then there are a growing number of anti-feminist liberal men. These men want to do for men what feminism did for women, namely to try to maximise male autonomy. They interpret this as meaning having fewer traditional obligations and being able to find sexual satisfaction without having to make such commitments to women. Then there are the Roissy type players who also want to ditch traditional commitments to women and society, though they do understand that this policy will lead even actually to the collapse of the West.

    "Anti-feminist liberal" men or MRA's are a huge contradiction. There is nothing different between them and the feminists (a component of liberalism). They are just the male and the female version of the same thing --- > the liberal worldview.

    Is it a coincidence that both of these groups use the same tactics and both feminists and men's rights activists (MRA's) attack traditional conservatives and far-right wingers as the root of the problem?

    Calling these liberal men "anti-feminist" is like calling a libertarian or a neoconservative a traditional conservative. Very flawed.

    In fact while I greatly dislike gamers (Roissy and Roosh) I have a little respect for their views since they both know that what they are doing is wrong and will hasten down the decline of the West. Perhaps the decline of the West should accelerate on some level after all a lot of women aren't good nor in their right mind.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I believe it took about 300-400 years in the West for liberalism to ascend completely to the form of today no?

    That's about right. That doesn't mean that Western society was dominated by a fully formed liberalism 300 years ago the way it is today. I agree with Professor John Carroll that liberalism back then operated in "fusion" with other sources of authority, such as aristocratic honour or certain Christian virtues. It was during the course of the twentieth century that liberalism began to assert itself more aggressively as the sole source of authority/legitimacy, which is why it strikes as now as a more radical and intrusive political ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Calling these liberal men "anti-feminist" is like calling a libertarian or a neoconservative a traditional conservative. Very flawed.

    I understand your point Elizabeth, but I still think it's possible to have liberal men who are hostile to feminism - despite feminism itself being an expression of liberalism.

    What the liberal men object to in feminism is not the rejection of traditional sex roles, nor the rejection of masculinity and femininity.

    Liberal men agree with feminism on these issues. The disagreement has to do with issues of equality. Feminists believe that men are privileged at the expense of women and that it is therefore just if women are favoured in various ways by society (a kind of redistributive justice).

    Antifeminist liberal men disagree. They believe that the average man is not privileged and that feminists are not seeking equality but are after female advantage (i.e. the antifeminist liberal men believe that women have more rights than men).

    I know that to traditionalists the similarities between the two groups will seem greater than the dissimilarities.

    After all, the liberal men often argue that "we are oppressed because we are still expected to act like men, we can't stay home and look after babies, we're not allowed to express emotion etc".

    You then get feminists who respond by saying "Hey, we support all those things too. Let's have an alliance".

    But the antifeminist liberal men refuse to identify positively with feminism. They won't make the alliance. They see feminism as a source of oppression in their lives.

    It is possible to have disagreements within liberalism and this is what is happening here.

    ReplyDelete
  63. But the antifeminist liberal men refuse to identify positively with feminism. They won't make the alliance. They see feminism as a source of oppression in their lives

    The "anti-feminist" liberal men may refuse to identity with feminism but their moral ideals are practically the same (feminism after all is a component of liberalism). The core is the same, they just disagree about the edges. It's not possible to have liberal men whom are hostile to feminism. I have sometimes been on the receiving end of their attacks along with Morticia, Alte, Kathy Farrelly, Laura Wood and other traditional conservative female types. They are pretty hostile far-right wingers like us and think that we are a bunch of girls hiding our true natures and that will rape men's lives sooner or later.

    ReplyDelete
  64. They are pretty hostile far-right wingers like us and think that we are a bunch of girls hiding our true natures and that will rape men's lives sooner or later.


    Sorry I meant They are pretty hostile towards far-right wingers like us and think that we are a bunch of girls hiding our true natures and that will rape men's lives sooner or later.

    How many times have I heard the idea that I'm a "Victorian feminist" whom views women as holy? These websites are pretty counter-productive.

    Some of them call any form of race realism as "Bigoted white nationalists" and I think one MRA website was giving thanks and celebrating the death of LGBT activist.

    If you're still a liberal at your core does it matter that you disagree about the "edges"? Sometimes it does but other times it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Mark and Elizabeth, you are both wrong regarding orthodoxy. Christianity has consistently been heretical, not orthodox. Go read Bauer's sociology of early Christianity. Heresy preceded orthodoxy.

    Had you both been around 2000 years ago, you would have been against it (similar to encroaching Islam and secular forms of Christianity, aka leftism). Early anti-Christian, European pagan writers (Porphyry, Julian, etc) saw it for what it was: an inherently anti-authoritarian, middle eastern, non-European, wackjob cult.

    Regarding, philosophy's impact on leftism. Utter bullshit. Go read Collin's social network analysis of worldwide philosophical networks in 'The Sociology of Philosophies'. There is a clear sociological ancestry from Greek philosophy (co-opted and twisted by Christian writers), to Early Modern and Modern philosophy. I can produce further works on the Christian takeover of Greek philosophy if you so wish. Early Christian writers co-opted Greek philosophy, as it was their main cultural rival in antiquity.

    I'm supposing you won't read any of these, because what we have for 'conservatives' today are usually anti-intellectual morons that refuse to look at the very underpinnings that allow leftism to spread (the Judaeo-Christian moral memeplexes).

    Elizabeth ...

    "It isn't".

    Honey. Do you know what an argument is? Typically it consists of premises and conclusions. A statement isn't an argument.

    You have two contradictory states of affairs to deal with:

    (1) Christianity has been left wing throughout history, and has consistently produced and influenced the most left-wing of movements.

    (2) Christianity as you believe: stalwart of tradition, standing against history yelling stop!

    Unfortunately you believe (2), when all the evidence suggests (1). Also funny how your anti-authoritarian mindset kicked in to defend your mind virus ("OH NOES! DEFEND THE CHRISTIANS!"). Your argument against (1) is that: (a) I sound like a leftist, and (b) that there exists non-liberal forms of Christianity.

    (a) is a hilarious argument, moronic, but hilarious. A rhetorical analysis isn't an argument, honey. But try again, I'm looking forward to more Elizabeth Smith argument analysis inbetween you washing the dishes, or whatever it is you faux-conservative women do. As for (b), again as above, see Bauer, heresy preceded orthodoxy. Everytime Christianity crystallizes into some form of orthodoxy, a new dominant heretical sect arises (see Protestantism or the insane offshoots that we are dealing with today). You can also read other sociological accounts of Christianity that pin it for what it is. 'The Breaking of the Image: A sociology of Christian Theory and Practice' by Martin is a good one. It shows Christianity for what it is: a communist brother-hood of man, that constantly strives for utopia.

    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  66. (continued from above)

    Regarding Orwell, lmao. Is that all you got? You women should really stay out of politics. If you were as right wing you'd say you were Elizabeth, you'd be out hunting for a man, and producing babies. Not leaving empty-headed bon mots on blog pages. Leave this conversation for the men, honey, you got nothing.

    "I believe it took about 300-400 years in the West for liberalism to ascend completely to the form of today no?"

    Cool story, did you learn that from Oprah? Unfortunately for you, I have several books that contradict this (not that you will probably read them, being Christian and all). We'll just start with one: Norman Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millennium. A large scholarly work (Written by a conservative no less!) about leftist Christians and proto-communist protestant sects pre-dating your shitty, back-of-the-envelope summations. Again, not likely you'll read it, because you've already made up your overtaken-mind. Alternatively, you can go read wikipedia articles on the Protestant dissenter sects.

    tl;dr you Christian conservatives are exactly what is wrong with conservativism today. You allow a mind virus with known heretical mores to infect your fellow Euro-stock, and then you blame it on 'philosophers' or whatever ad hoc bullshit excuse you'll all make up next time. Had there been a total anti-religion movement in the last few hundred years, and not a bullshit, 'gotta respect all religions, keep church separate from state blah blah blah' (a phenomenon created by protestants mind you -- not secular philosophers -- see constitutional lawyer Hamburger's works on this), we wouldn't be in this mess. But do continue, when I see you fumbling around in the dark trying to pin the problem on some nebulous concept (when the problem is right under your nose) I get a good laugh out of it. It's like watching a monkey fiddle around in the back of the tv with a screwdriver.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Elizabeth, I just visited your blog, it appears you are (unfortunately) Jewish, which makes you my ideological enemy.

    Not anti-semetic mind you. But I shall have no further conversation with a person whose stock comes desert-dwelling psychopaths that preach immigration for Europe, while denying immigration to their very own country.

    This conversation is over.

    ReplyDelete
  68. BTW, here's your faggot American Christian 'friends' post-WW2:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801396,00.html

    Tell me there plan is orthodox and conservative! That'll get a laugh out of me.

    Also, this: http://sacred-texts.com/utopia/csus/index.htm

    ReplyDelete
  69. Elizabeth, I just visited your blog, it appears you are (unfortunately) Jewish, which makes you my ideological enemy.

    I'm not Jewish. My maternal grandmother was a Russian Jew.

    Regarding Orwell, lmao. Is that all you got? You women should really stay out of politics. If you were as right wing you'd say you were Elizabeth, you'd be out hunting for a man, and producing babies. Not leaving empty-headed bon mots on blog pages. Leave this conversation for the men, honey, you got nothing.

    I'm not involved in politics. I'm a fan of theology and philosophy. Why do I get the feeling that you are left-wing with these comments?

    "I believe it took about 300-400 years in the West for liberalism to ascend completely to the form of today no?"

    Cool story, did you learn that from Oprah?


    No.

    Christianity has consistently been heretical, not orthodox.

    Sure heretical forms emerged but they died out as well. Christianity has been somewhat orthodox in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  70. you'd be out hunting for a man, and producing babies.

    I'm preparing for that just now (I'm 18). Will start officially hunting next year (I'll be 19).

    ReplyDelete
  71. Tell me there plan is orthodox and conservative! That'll get a laugh out of me.

    Why should I? It isn't Orthodox nor traditional conservative. There are many liberal "conservatives" and libertarians out there.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anon,

    The modern Western state is not a Christian one. It is a liberal one. The people most influential in forming the state ideology argue about the extent to which they should tolerate Christianity as a private belief. They do not support it.

    I actually agree with you that Christianity is not the perfect vehicle for a traditionalist politics. But then again I'm not sure I know of any religions which are. Buddhism calls on people to renounce attachments to this world rather than to conserve what we love.

    The argument I'm making is not that Christianity is a perfect vehicle, but that it is not the driver of what is going wrong. And, if you look at what the most influential members of the Western political class have believed for the past 100 years or so, you will find very few with an orthodox Christian belief.

    If we had traditionalism in politics and Christianity in religion we would be fine.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anonymous said,

    "Not anti-semetic mind you. But I shall have no further conversation with a person whose stock comes desert-dwelling psychopaths that preach immigration for Europe, while denying immigration to their very own country.

    This conversation is over."

    Wow pathetic argument. Along with the Elizabeth bashing truly a weak display. So you've read a couple of books on Christianity, bully for you. If you were to stop bitching and moaning you might see how it cold be beneficial for your life, that will produce a chuckle no doubt, as well as societies.

    As Christianity doesn't emphasis the material it doesn't buy into the left and liberal notions that focus on material prosperity as the essence of a successful, purposeful, or happy life and society. It is not revolutionary to feed and clothe the poor nor to commit yourself to the highest moral values. Either way this is a thread about feminism and not Christianity so you might want to take your wares elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  74. What is one of the reasons why the West did much better when Christianity was stronger?

    It's not so much that Christianity aims explicitly at traditionalism. It's that people who follow Christianity are less likely to lapse into nihilism. Christians are more likely to accept the idea of transcendent values to which the individual can meaningfully orient himself.

    That's especially true of the intellectual class. Most people can travel through life just accepting the good as they find it. But intellectuals are more questing in their search for a world view to live by. When the Western political class became non-Christian, it led to the idea that there was nothing inherently good or bad - the universe was simply indifferent to such values. Therefore, if values existed it was as assertions of human will or in the very capacity of the human will to choose or assert.

    That's the great modern secular heresy and as we know all too well it's highly destructive of traditional society.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Elizabeth,

    I hope you don't take anon's personal jibes to heart (you don't seem to have). Your contributions are very welcome here.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Superb Article!!
    I would say left wing men will end up being more anti feminst than conservatives as they realise feminism was and is a lie and hoax.To its core feminism is an evil ideology the fig leaf of "equality" is wearing thin as feminisms equality IS: "some are more equal than others". Its threadbare second line excuse of: "there are many different kinds of feminism" to deflect criticism for the neurosis and psychosis displayed so often by its adherants. This too is looking dated and forlorn. Its clear too
    feminism has rendered left wing politicians and quite a few on the right utterly spineless...
    Feminism is nearly over and its rotten legacy is all around us.

    All political ideology looks suspect these days and the truth is dawning on more people.We would be better off with much much LESS government and the time is on us when we will all be telling the state to get the hell out of our lives. When we do feminism will wash into the sewers of history it is uncreative, turgid,parasitic by nature and can only survive on state handouts.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anon, nice comment, thanks.

    You're right - a common dodge used by feminists is the "there are many different kinds of feminism" line.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Why is it no matter where I go on the internet I encounter Richard Dawkins being awesome? It's like he's trying to proposition me. I feel like I'm being raped. I already bought 2 of your books, stop stalking me on the net ya bio Brit.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.