tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post6276241635626959266..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Can feminists set the terms of sexual liberation?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-31515178647689876152009-11-08T11:03:54.237+11:002009-11-08T11:03:54.237+11:00women who sleep with everyone is a skank. a man wh...women who sleep with everyone is a skank. a man who does the same is a skank and a half. liberation should be removal of double standards period. the paradox of sexual liberation -- the more you sleep around, the less respect you're gonna get -- I don't understand why any woman would want that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-32912057400126143842009-10-20T12:46:32.840+11:002009-10-20T12:46:32.840+11:00Agreed.Agreed.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-70431196902831771022009-10-20T10:28:35.347+11:002009-10-20T10:28:35.347+11:00Yes, thanks for the thought-provoking exchange.
...Yes, thanks for the thought-provoking exchange. <br /><br />And, yes, you are right Jesse when you say,<br /><i>If the relationship becomes servant and master without any moral foundation, or a disrespectful "I am superior and you must obey in every situation" then we're in unpleasant territory.</i><br /><br />How can a man behave in that way and say that he is honoring and cherishing his wife, as St. Paul instructed? If that is not even the way in which Christ Himself deals with us, how can a husband deal that way with his wife? <br /><br />That is why I know that we do not need any inferior, Feminist substitute for transcendent Christian truth.Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21337831553591700052009-10-19T07:51:38.986+11:002009-10-19T07:51:38.986+11:00I too have enjoyed this discussion - thank-you to ...I too have enjoyed this discussion - thank-you to all the participants.<br /><br />Jesse, your last comment is a good reminder of the delicacy of such matters: "If the relationship becomes servant and master without any moral foundation, or a disrespectful "I am superior and you must obey in every situation" then we're in unpleasant territory." It brings to mind one of my favourite books, Anthony Trollope's 'He Knew He Was Right'. Leaving aside the husband's erroneous judgement, it is a fascinating study of how a husband may assert his authority, how a wife obeys unwillingly, the ways in which she can obey yet show her disagreement, and ultimately how very unpleasant, ruinous, and unnecessary the husband's insistence on mastery can be. I highly recommend this and Trollope's other novels if anyone is looking for a good read that is both entertaining and intellectually stimulating. (Note, Trollope is very sympathetic to women without being a feminist - very refreshing!)old hatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-88412024380241525752009-10-19T00:15:16.917+11:002009-10-19T00:15:16.917+11:00That's allright Bartholomew,
I think you make...That's allright Bartholomew,<br /><br />I think you make an interesting point. The so called "war" between the sexes is quite unpleasant. But I think it only works if there is that equality of spirit or respect for women. If the relationship becomes servant and master without any moral foundation, or a disrespectful "I am superior and you must obey in every situation" then we're in unpleasant territory. <br /><br />I have appreciated this discussion enormously and would like to thank everyone who has commented.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-66244818216455870692009-10-18T13:52:27.285+11:002009-10-18T13:52:27.285+11:00Jesse wrote I'm in favour of equal respect sho...Jesse wrote <i>I'm in favour of equal respect shown between the parties. That should not require anything more than awerness and desire. No I'm not in favour of state regulation of domestic life only "social" regulation through morality.<br /><br />Differing strengths between the sexes is fine and I think equality of spirit is not inconsistent with this.</i><br /><br />OK, that makes sense. Where I became suspicious (and I regret that I so easily become so talking to the computer screen) was when you said this:<br /><br /><i>If a women is subject to the law of her husband transgressions can be punished by the husband. In such an environment male domination is the norm. A good husband in such an environment will be "fair" but it won't be an equal relationship.</i><br /><br />You talk here as if it were optional whether a woman be subject to her husband's law, when in fact in most cases it's simply a physical reality: he's stronger. Obviously a decent man doesn't use physical force against his wife, but that decision is <i>his</i> to make not hers. And if he chooses poorly, other men, her relatives for example, may intervene and put him in his place. But it's ultimately the law of the men that determines this, not women. <br /><br />Feminism despises this natural order as "unequal" and seeks to upend it by weakening men, both legally and internally via leftist social values and norms. We can see the result of emasculated men. Are you happy with what you see?<br /><br />The answer is not to emasculate men or to try somehow to "equalize" the relationship between the sexes but rather to re-establish traditional Western Christian norms, which inculcate the "equality of spirit" of which you speak above and encourage men to be gallant toward their wives and female relations.Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-57894867142560183532009-10-18T12:38:56.880+11:002009-10-18T12:38:56.880+11:00Part of supporting one's husband should involv...<i>Part of supporting one's husband should involve chewing things over with him, not leaving him on his own to bear the burden of decision-making</i><br /><br />Excellent point, old hat. That's exactly how my parents interacted, as partners though with different roles, and I saw that that extended naturally into the decision-making process. <br /><br /><i>What I am saying is that to involve women in the best possible way means promoting their role as intelligent helpmeets rather than getting them to actively engage in the public sphere. By doing so, you not only allow for a society that is family-friendly but give our children role models that encourage a less wimpy culture that realises the potential of men and women within society rather than pushing them to take on equal and/or similar roles.</i><br /><br />Isn't it amazing just how well the four thousand year old (+) Biblical model works?Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-81426362866960152202009-10-17T20:28:19.811+11:002009-10-17T20:28:19.811+11:00You make a very good point old hat.You make a very good point old hat.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-78417518062383251042009-10-17T19:35:16.487+11:002009-10-17T19:35:16.487+11:00Jesse_7 said: "On your other point is it not ...Jesse_7 said: "On your other point is it not possible to recruit women more fully into the civlisational urge? ... Surely women can become full and active participants so to speak in the social sphere, not merely in matters of direct interest to them and share the load of civilisation."<br /><br />I'm not entirely sure I understand how you would like to see this played out, Jesse. From my point of view, traditional women can run the risk of being a tad too focussed on their sphere but in practice I haven't seen any of this. If anything, some would say women like me are too involved in speaking our minds publicly, that we need to stick our necks back in!<br /><br />I certainly agree with you that women need to support their menfolk in their civic duties, whether it's the army reserve, the SES, politics, and so forth. I think what you've identified is the influence of feminism making women think they can rule their husbands. Sure, they're theoretically traditional women, but instead of truly embracing their role they are substituting their rule over the domestic sphere and using that power. In fact, it's an abuse of power, though I doubt that it is usually a conscious one.<br /><br />I also agree that being a traditional wife and mother doesn't mean leaving one's brain in the kitchen or laundry. Part of supporting one's husband should involve chewing things over with him, not leaving him on his own to bear the burden of decision-making. Here it's not so much about power and who's involved in the civic/public sphere as who represents the family to the world. Ironically, women are probably less involved in the public sphere in some ways than they used to be. Going out to work doesn't give them a civic voice, and relinquishing their feminine influence over men in exchange for authority over their economic livelihood has only reduced their involvement to a very crude, selfish power struggle. It has devalued what women are best at and forced many men into the negotiator type role you have described.<br /><br />What I am saying is that to involve women in the best possible way means promoting their role as intelligent helpmeets rather than getting them to actively engage in the public sphere. By doing so, you not only allow for a society that is family-friendly but give our children role models that encourage a less wimpy culture that realises the potential of men and women within society rather than pushing them to take on equal and/or similar roles.old hatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-56418205987168489782009-10-17T18:30:15.113+11:002009-10-17T18:30:15.113+11:00Thanks Mark for your comment on monogamy,
On your...Thanks Mark for your comment on monogamy,<br /><br />On your other point is it not possible to recruit women more fully into the civlisational urge? Women generally want men to participate in home life and I think that is generally fair enough. Men can provide important contributions, in such areas as parenting for instance. If women run the home and men are drawn between home and civilisation (or lets just call it the office for instance though it may not be confined to paid work) will men not be drawn into an either or position? Which in practise means that something will have to give?<br /><br />Surely women can become full and active participants so to speak in the social sphere, not merely in matters of direct interest to them and share the load of civilisation. That would lead to better relations between the sexes would it not? And end the endless "oh he's at work to fulfil personal ambitions" suspicion?Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-706471949086425872009-10-17T18:00:01.333+11:002009-10-17T18:00:01.333+11:00... for the sake of peace or because they're t...<i>... for the sake of peace or because they're too hard or not sufficiently appreciated today.</i><br /><br />I agree that that's how things stand. So one of the arguments we have to make to men is that it's possible to manage a bit of civilisational work, that it's a meaningful and important thing to do and that their efforts will be appreciated by other men.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-114392612974039992009-10-17T17:54:30.695+11:002009-10-17T17:54:30.695+11:00Jesse,
At one point in the thread you raised conc...Jesse,<br /><br />At one point in the thread you raised concerns about traditional families.<br /><br />One thing that ought to be made clear here is that there is a difference between a traditional monogamous culture and a polygamous one.<br /><br />In polygamous societies, you have a smaller group of much older men using their economic resources to marry a number of quite young women/girls. At the same time, you have a lot of men in their sexual prime lacking the opportunity to marry.<br /><br />In these circumstances, there is going to be a much stricter regime imposed upon women. The older men will dominate their much younger wives more easily and they will want to separate them from contact with the younger, unmarried men.<br /><br />Even someone like Hugh Hefner, as libertine as he is, imposes strict curfews on his girlfriends - for much the same reasons as older polygamous men do in other countries.<br /><br />There was a monogamous, rather than a polygamous tradition, in northern Europe. Therefore, women have not had the same restrictions placed on them that you find in some other cultures - even going as far back as Tudor times or even further back to the period in which the Icelandic sagas were written.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-8034610248257272232009-10-17T17:43:35.315+11:002009-10-17T17:43:35.315+11:00I agree Mark though I worry that many guys give up...I agree Mark though I worry that many guys give up on civilisational requirements for the sake of peace or because they're too hard or not sufficiently appreciated today.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-61540599344166570052009-10-17T17:35:53.590+11:002009-10-17T17:35:53.590+11:00I worry that builders/negotiators/women are more i...<i>I worry that builders/negotiators/women are more interested in things like the family. They have an insular focus and are less interested in the the nation and its requirements.</i><br /><br />It's been like this forever. Many wives want their husbands to be domesticated (energies directed toward the immediate needs of the family) but not civilised (energies directed toward the larger community).<br /><br />But it's important for men to be both. So they simply have to stand up to their wives on this issue. I know that many men shy away from confrontation, but sometimes in a marriage you have to stand your ground even it incurs some wifely criticism or opposition.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-13947453630286903172009-10-17T15:22:25.287+11:002009-10-17T15:22:25.287+11:00"I should have addressed my previous post to ..."I should have addressed my previous post to old hat, apologies."<br /><br />Sorry Bartholomew I wasn't trying to cut you off just clarifing that my post prior to that one was in response to old hat's comments. <br /><br />"The only way you could "fix" that natural aspect of life would be to somehow endow the weaker party in a given situation with more strength, say via State intervention"<br /><br />I'm in favour of equal respect shown between the parties. That should not require anything more than awerness and desire. No I'm not in favour of state regulation of domestic life only "social" regulation through morality. <br /><br />Differing strengths between the sexes is fine and I think equality of spirit is not inconsistent with this.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-68903568661920514572009-10-17T15:12:37.231+11:002009-10-17T15:12:37.231+11:00Thanks for the article Rose.
Yes I'm familiar...Thanks for the article Rose.<br /><br />Yes I'm familiar with Theodore Dalrymple's horror stories. Perhaps as behaviours have lossened up the yobbo class, which didn't think before and don't think now, have behaved worse and society has not been well served. <br /><br />I've been talking to women and I think you, old hat and others make some good points.<br /><br />A few issues:<br /><br />1. Liberal middle and upper class people are having fewer kids and having them late. I think its fairly clear that this is to the detriment of the west. <br /><br />2. People today aren't really sure what they want from their partner apart from wanting everything from them.<br /><br />3. In the older days expectations were lower, maybe people were easier to make happy. They would marry earlier and have kids without thinking about it too much because that was just something you did. <br /><br />Here's a few points from my perspective.<br /><br />I was talking to someone recently and they said people can be divided into various personality types. You have builders, negotiatiors, explorers and directors. <br /><br />http://www.onlinedatinghelp.co.uk/blog/builder-negotiator-explorer-director/<br /><br />The builders are calm, managerial, conscientious, home-oriented but social. The negotiators are good with social skills, imaginative, idealistic and sympathetic. The explorers are spontaneous, risk-loving, curious, adaptable. The director is inventive, focused, logical, direct and daring. It doesn't take too much insight to realise that the negotiator and builder are generally female personality types. The explorer and director are more traditionally male character types.<br /><br />In our society today the explorer and director are very much on the backfoot, the builder and negotiator personalities dominate, that is generally feminine character traits dominate. The kind of spirit that dominated the creation of the Apollo 11 astronauts and space progam, the spirit of soldiers or innoventive scientists is on the backfoot. Beurocatic and safety considerations dominate. Apollo 11 would not happen today, the space program is a joke. <br /><br />When I look at families with a strong child rearing foucs they are generally (not exclusively) female dominated. Should I be a good bloke and line up with a girl and have kids? If I did currently I'd feel that I was becoming a cog in a builder's or negotiator's plan and not very much more. <br /><br />I'm in the Army Reserve and I often here my collegues say that they get pressure from home to not attend training. Their wives and girlfriends would rather see them attending to things like the lawn than "playing soldier".<br /><br />I worry that builders/negotiators/women are more interested in things like the family. They have an insular focus and are less interested in the the nation and its requirements. As a consequence our poltics today are quite "soft". Policians line up to be caring or seen as caring to get the women's vote. Everything seen as uncomfortable is shied away from.<br /><br />I appreciate the need to propogate the species and the culture, and I recognise the current difficulties that are faced. However, I would rather encourage women to be a bit more outward looking and focused on things like the nation and its and their own responsibilities outside the family. To encourage the explorer or director (a bit more) within themselves as well as recognising it in guys than have guys line up to be good (bland), family focused, husbands to keep the wives happy. With more social responsibility from both sexes there should be time enough for children. <br /><br />Has this argument contraditcted my earlier point that traditional family focused culture led to or went along with male domination? Well historically we can say it was. Today I think a family focus (in the west) leads to a more female dominating focus. However, I could be wrong.<br /><br />Also perhaps it is a false dichotomy as people today use their free time to "play" more rather than to commit to societal activities.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-41927441464394542482009-10-17T14:45:20.374+11:002009-10-17T14:45:20.374+11:00Jesse wrote,
I should have addressed my previous...Jesse wrote, <br /><br /><i>I should have addressed my previous post to old hat, apologies.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean to say that I am interrupting a private conversation...on an open-comments blog? <br /><br />Well, you have my apologies if I have spoken out of turn. But before I butt out, I'd like to respond to at least one of your points. <br /><br /><i> I don’t see why power within a relationship shouldn’t be equal or equality shouldn’t be pushed.</i><br /><br />For precisely that reason: you're pushing it. <br /><br />Power is not equal in a relationship because the participants do not possess equal strengths in every area of life. In some areas, men have the upper-hand, and in others women. That's the nature of life.<br /><br />The only way you could "fix" that natural aspect of life would be to somehow endow the weaker party in a given situation with more strength, say via State intervention(i.e. hired muscle). <br /><br />Such intrusion into the most intimate sphere of life is evil. Why do you support it?Bartholomewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-43598195907605717052009-10-17T11:32:49.443+11:002009-10-17T11:32:49.443+11:00CadenceInterrupted said: "As a conservative, ...CadenceInterrupted said: "As a conservative, Catholic woman with traditional values I do not find it easy to find a man who appreciates that."<br /><br />On a practical note, there are plenty of men who attend the traditional rite Mass who appreciate such values. If you're in Melbourne (as I gather many of the readers of this blog are), see: http://www.latinmassmelbourne.org/ for Mass times. (The All Saints Mass promises to be a wonderful event for music lovers too.)<br /><br />Rose, great article by Dalrymple - thanks for the link!Josephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-33098237200745224362009-10-17T07:37:06.218+11:002009-10-17T07:37:06.218+11:00Jesse_7: "I don't think those kinds of tr...Jesse_7: "I don't think those kinds of traits are in the Anglo Saxon psyche."<br /><br />It depends what you mean, Jesse. Are you talking about genetics, culture, Western civilisation in general, or just right now? I do agree that as our anglo-saxon Australian culture currently stands those traits are quite alien. However, that is not to say that in another time and circumstance with the right propaganda that there is something in the Australian psyche that would stop these things from happening. I don't think these sort of traits were in the German psyche leading up to WWII either, but look at what happened there. It is astounding (and worrying) how easily people can be led astray and persuaded to participate in the greatest horrors, and I cannot say for one minute that we are intrinsically superior to other Western cultures in that regard. We are not immune.old hatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-30089348884861485832009-10-17T03:32:52.769+11:002009-10-17T03:32:52.769+11:00Jesse_7:
Sexual "freedom" increases vio...Jesse_7:<br /><br />Sexual "freedom" increases violence against women:<br /><br />http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_1_oh_to_be.htmlRosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-14520756152457788832009-10-16T17:46:34.138+11:002009-10-16T17:46:34.138+11:00Old hat,
It certainly sounds like it was a very i...Old hat,<br /><br />It certainly sounds like it was a very interesting and slightly unnerving experience. Personally whatever our sins I don't think those kinds of traits are in the Anglo Saxon psyche. <br /><br />I do appreciate the "wildness" that is in much behaviour, especially but not exclusively among the young. Civilised conduct between the sexes is something I think we all desire.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-39782552806176138012009-10-16T17:36:54.908+11:002009-10-16T17:36:54.908+11:00My previous comment somehow published itself, so I...My previous comment somehow published itself, so I continue:<br /><br />...They were to all appearances like us.<br /><br />In short, I do agree that anglo-saxon Australian men aren't predisposed to setting up rape camps, but that isn't to say that in the right circumstances they are incapable of similar atrocities (though I should think on a lesser scale). I have met too many people who smugly assert 'it couldn't happen here'. That's what the Croatians and Bosnians thought....old hatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-17313214275108835632009-10-16T17:31:42.706+11:002009-10-16T17:31:42.706+11:00Jesse_7 said: "On your other point can you im...Jesse_7 said: "On your other point can you imagine Australian males participating in rape camps? I should bloody hope not. "<br /><br />No, they'd be too busy sitting in front of the telly watching sport and drinking beer.<br /><br />But, more seriously, I think it does need to be said that I had the interesting but disturbing opportunity to speak with a number of perpetrators. Many of them were well-educated, well-spoken, highly-literate, and rather chivalrous. Most of them were technically more civilised than the average Australian male, and as long as you could keep off the topic of the war much better company too. Theyold hatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-68159433119142425802009-10-16T17:22:00.037+11:002009-10-16T17:22:00.037+11:00I should have addressed my previous post to old ha...I should have addressed my previous post to old hat, apologies.<br /><br />Bartholomew wrote:<br /><br />"it is inaccurate to compare traditional non-Whites to liberal Whites and then somehow claim that you've proved something about traditionalism vs. liberalism."<br /><br />Allright but we can say (I think) that non white traditionalism is a more primitive or tribal form of white traditionalism. Perhaps not as white traditionalism is practised today which is, as I think everyone would agree, very benign and family oriented.<br /><br />My variable would be the classic example, Muslim cultures. But I have been surprised to learn how restrictive Indian cultures are. I know African cultures can be highly patriarchal. I know some Islander cultures are. These family set ups are argued for on many of the same basis which traditional white families would be. <br /><br />“But men and women can never have an "equal" relationship because men and women aren't "equal", i.e. they aren't the same. "Equality" is an illusion”<br /><br />I wouldn’t argue for equality in the sense of sameness, merely power within a relationship. I don’t see why power within a relationship shouldn’t be equal or equality shouldn’t be pushed. <br /><br />Obviously pure liberalism is excessively individualistic which makes family relations hard/harder. However I am attempting to point out why this may be embraced as an alternative to traditionalism or why traditionalism may be viewed with apprehension.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-5195911751850939332009-10-16T16:57:53.142+11:002009-10-16T16:57:53.142+11:00You’re arguing for Western traditional families I’...You’re arguing for Western traditional families I’m arguing against the current dynamic of (some) ethnic traditional families.<br /><br />"That is where fathers and brothers have a role to play, and in Western civilised traditional societies this affords women protection from violence"<br /><br />In the case of honour killings it is from brothers and fathers that the threat lies. Ok this is not a Western thing. <br /><br />"These women do not want to be taught that men are the enemy and that they need to be more independent; they just want someone to stand up for and protect them."<br /><br />Well if you're reliant on your husband you have no choice. He had better treat you well or you have very little recourse. We don't consider absolute rule as acceptable in political discourse, the perception that checks and balances are needed and power can corrupt is considered. Similar factors can apply in the family.<br /><br />"I don't think that this is actually the case - the media and politicians can give a very slanted view of such matters, highlighting some families and conveniently downplaying others."<br /><br />Obviously these issues can be jumped on politically but unfortunately they are too frequent.<br /><br />On your other point can you imagine Australian males participating in rape camps? I should bloody hope not. <br /><br />You're arguing for civilisation as am I. I think that feminist "empowerment" is a natural consequence of our civilising push. The Western treatment of women is one of our proudest and most frequently proclaimed civilisational accomplishments. Ok, the consequences in practise can be sometimes difficult and lead to poor behaviour we agree.Jesse_7https://www.blogger.com/profile/08732509086253241748noreply@blogger.com