tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post2783663751701828223..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: But why is Deveny wrong?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-38700320338997845452007-09-24T02:41:00.000+10:002007-09-24T02:41:00.000+10:00I recall one WWI German Admiral or General who cha...I recall one WWI German Admiral or General who changed his name to his dead wife's maiden surname - sounded better apparently.Yauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00739777043491722892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-46417122846921725392007-09-20T22:11:00.000+10:002007-09-20T22:11:00.000+10:00Anonymous (17 Sep. 7:26), a very able deconstructi...Anonymous (17 Sep. 7:26), a very able deconstruction of autonomy theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-18055018456882647302007-09-18T11:34:00.000+10:002007-09-18T11:34:00.000+10:00Re Anonymous of (Monday, 17 September 2007 03:20:0...<B>Re</B> <A HREF="http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2007/09/but-why-is-deveny-wrong.html#comment-2147157145951806192" REL="nofollow">Anonymous of (Monday, 17 September 2007 03:20:00 PM EST)</A>:<BR/><BR/>I think this quote is a little misleading, or at least not the whole truth. It is true also that the more educated women are, the less likely they will be to marry and have children. It seems Western affluence and the ‘autonomy’ of women is the best form of civilisational contraception, or in the case of Virginia Houssegger, steralisation (see <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Wonder-Woman-Myth-Having-All/dp/1741144108" REL="nofollow">Wonder Woman: The Myth of ‘Having it All’</A>).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-35066916941443793152007-09-18T09:55:00.000+10:002007-09-18T09:55:00.000+10:00I couldn't find any other contact info for you, he...I couldn't find any other contact info for you, hence I've posted this onto one of your posts. <BR/><BR/>I’m a conservative blogger in the U.S. (Logical Meme - http://www.featuringdave.com/logicalmeme/ ) who is planning on visiting New Zealand for a couple of weeks before the end of the year. I’m looking to get feedback from some conservative natives on what life is like in Australia & New Zealand, what types of immigration patterns they see happening, where they see the countries heading, etc. <BR/><BR/>As I approach 40 (I’ve got a fairly typical, white collar, cubicle-culture background -- e.g., risk management & project management), I’m at a stage in life where I want to try something new, and moving to another country is high on my list. As a hopeless Anglophile, I tend to romanticize all things British and British-based. Relatively speaking, Australia and New Zealand has always seemed like it contains a solid British cultural foundation, albeit without the Muslim problem facing England and Scotland. Of course, I need to visit these places first to get a real sense of what they’re all about.<BR/><BR/>In any event, it would be great to touch bases with some folks who share a generally conservative philosophical and ideological perspective to provide advice & opinion on Australia & New Zealand, hence my writing you. <BR/><BR/>I’ll probably be sticking fairly close to the metropolitan centers. If you think you’d be up for meeting somewhere for a pint or two, to give me some big picture advice on the region, or speaking via phone, Skype, or email, let me know. It would be much appreciated. If I could ever return the favor for someone interested in nuances of American culture, I’d of course be happy to. <BR/><BR/>Best, <BR/><BR/>Dave<BR/>sodafizz@verizon.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-15171845820432343272007-09-17T19:26:00.000+10:002007-09-17T19:26:00.000+10:00I think it also exposes the deep double standard o...I think it also exposes the deep double standard of these "autonomy" freaks. Catherine Deveny condemns and abuses Jana Rawlinson (nee Pittman) for a) choosing to get married (apparently Deveny isn't herself) and b) taking her husband's surname. She also abuses any woman who has done the same. Why, because SHE doesn't want any woman to do so! This is clear. So where does that leave "autonomy"? Clearly it is nothing more than an attempt by a certainly clique to merely impose their own "values" onto others. Which is precisely what they accuse their opponents of. It is the same with the "multicultural lobby". If they were really all about "celebrating diversity" then all those of Anglo origin would be encouraged to identify as such and to celebrate their heritage and traditions at all times. This is, of course, the exact opposite to what happens.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that the real reason for the "progressives" is that they in true "autonomous" manner have identified our old cultural traditions as being "restrictive" for them at least. Hence they take up other cultural traditions to play off against our own to try to neutralise them. This is part of the attraction of multiculturalism. This was what a lefty contributor earlier this year meant when he claimed there was no such thing as "mainstream Australian culture" by saying "you can't say it's English" and then quoting demographic data - despite the fact that the data he quoted still had those of British Isles origin at over 70% of the population, with it being over 60% for Britain itself. He focused more on the fact that the narrow English definition (which was shorn of Cornwall and other "outlying areas") was of the order of 44% of the population. They use other "cultures" to free THEM from any moral restraint. But for them to be free, as they see it, they must impose their morality upon the remainder of society. In other words this "progressivist" approach HAS to be the new mainstream. This is why they are so opposed to Anglo Culture, the true mainstream culture of our society, because it is something they wish to supplant. They see other cultures as allies in their struggle (rather the way the US and UK saw the USSR in World War Two). Hence they get a pass on most cultural practices that the "progressives" would surely oppose. So for Catherine Deveny, it is more important that a prominent woman would marry and change her name to reflect her family and her cultural tradition than it is for say arranged marriages in some ethnic communities in Australia to be forced on unwilling women. It has more prominence than the obviously more open position of women as her husbands’ inferior in Islamic society for example. <BR/><BR/>We are dealing with people who aren't interested in letting people have autonomy over their own lives, but on enforcing their views on others so that THEY can live their lives as they wish, something they clearly would deny to others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21471571459518061922007-09-17T15:20:00.000+10:002007-09-17T15:20:00.000+10:00“[T]he rise in single-parent families is concentra...“[T]he rise in single-parent families is concentrated among blacks and among the less educated,” summarize Ellwood and Jencks. “It hardly occurred at all among women with a college degree.”<BR/><BR/>IQ Will Put You In Your Place<BR/>By Charles Murray<BR/><BR/>"The differences among the siblings go far beyond income. Marriage and children offer the most vivid example. Similar proportions of siblings married, whether normal, bright or dull - but the divorce rate was markedly higher among the dull than among the normal or bright, even after taking length of marriage into account. Demographers will find it gloomily interesting that the average age at which women had their first birth was almost four years younger for the dull siblings than for the bright ones, while the number of children born to dull women averaged 1.9, half a child more than for either the normal or the bright. Most striking of all were the different illegitimacy rates. Of all the first-born children of the normals, 21% were born out of wedlock , about a third lower than the figure for the United States as a whole, presumably reflecting the advantaged backgrounds from which the sibling sample was drawn. Their bright siblings were much lower still, with less than 10% of their babies born illegitimate. Meanwhile, 45% of the first-born of the dull siblings were born outside of marriage."<BR/><BR/>Blacks and the less educated have a lower mean IQ. The Murray study utilised data from white siblings who were not from poor families. <BR/><BR/>Desmond JonesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-41443765486408627162007-09-16T22:15:00.000+10:002007-09-16T22:15:00.000+10:00Laarii, thanks for the comment.Francis Porretto, i...Laarii, thanks for the comment.<BR/><BR/>Francis Porretto, it strikes me that you've set out the argument clearly and in its essentials. Thanks for the contribution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-43452680062230292962007-09-16T20:14:00.000+10:002007-09-16T20:14:00.000+10:00The name-changing thing is like a bad penny. Worse...The name-changing thing is like a bad penny. Worse, for it means absolutely nothing, now that it's no longer considered virtually compulsory. But we can expect gender-war feminists to shriek with outrage as long as any woman agrees to it.<BR/><BR/>This is a good match to your observations about "autonomy theory." Gender-war feminism incorporates as core doctrine that no woman should ever surrender her independence to anything, for any reason. The symbolic surrender of her surname to a single name for the family unit piques feminists too sharply to bear, for we tend to equate name with identity. The submergence of a woman's identity in that of her family is regarded as the ultimate apostasy from feminist allegiance.<BR/><BR/><B><I>But a husband is expected to do the same.</I></B> Yes, he retains his surname, but in all other respects he's expected to put the identity and well-being of his family above his own concerns for the rest of his life. Has no one reflected on the significance of the traditional arrangement wherein <B><I>he</I></B> brings home the paycheck, but <B><I>she decides how it's spent?</I></B><BR/><BR/>This ties neatly into the deterioration of communities in Western societies. A community of any sort is always made up of families, never of individuals. A stable community cannot accommodate the mobility and variability of unmated individuals, though one may tolerate an aliquot of it as long as it remains peaceable and doesn't disturb the public order.<BR/><BR/>It's material for a thousand screeds.Francis W. Porrettohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-20344418141631816292007-09-16T18:34:00.000+10:002007-09-16T18:34:00.000+10:00what about a lot of women having horrible last nam...what about a lot of women having horrible last names? I would change my name for that alone.<BR/><BR/>Ms is ok if your a devoiced woman but i see nothing wrong with being a Miss or Mrs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com