It's not only men who dislike the idea of female combat troops. Here's an article on the issue by an American writer, Kathleen Parker.
Her argument against female soldiers is that men and women aren't equal in all things, with men having greater physical strength and endurance than women. This is a good argument, but too limited. A liberal could reply that women could serve as soldiers in areas where technology has done away with the need for physical strength.
What Kathleen Parker needed to do was to go on to talk in greater depth about the differences between men and women. That, for instance, most societies value women for upholding gentler feminine qualities of love, kindness, forgiveness, empathy, charity and physical grace and charm. And that men who see the goodness in these qualities respond protectively, so that societies value qualities in men appropriate to the protector role, such as courage, strength, perserverance, honour, loyalty and so on.
We instinctively feel it to be wrong when women are trained for combat, firstly because we feel that it's central to masculine life to want to protect women from harm on the battelfield, and secondly because we don't want the gentler and finer qualities of women to be brutalised by battlefield conditions.
It is a kind of outrage to our self-identity as men and women to deliberately send women to either kill or be killed in warfare.
Monday, May 31, 2004
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Are female bosses better?
Every now and then you get a story in the media about how men are going to become redundant in the workplace. One of the common themes is that there is a superior female style of management based on consensus and not hierarchy which is more suited to modern business.
Tell this to the staff who work for Donna Hay! Donna Hay is a successful publisher of culinary books and magazines (a bit like an Australian version of Martha Stewart). She is not, though, the kind of boss you'd like to work for.
According to an article in yesterday's Age newspaper, Donna Hay is "said to be better at pastry-making than people management". Last year half a dozen staff quit her publishing business, some talking about their workplace as being "a place of frayed nerves and flaring tempers", others claiming "it was an absolute nightmare ... Tears every day".
Hay herself admits that when thing went wrong she "used to cry and have - not tantrums, but I would be really, really, really angry and upset."
Nor is Donna Hay implementing the famous female family-friendly workplace. One employee says of her all-consuming working day that "You go in there when it's dark in the morning and you come out when it's dark at night. There's no time to meet your friends for lunch. There's no time for chats on the phone. You are immersed in Donna Hayness for about 12 hours."
Which just goes to show that femaleness and people management skills don't always go together. There might just be a continuing role for male managers after all.
Tell this to the staff who work for Donna Hay! Donna Hay is a successful publisher of culinary books and magazines (a bit like an Australian version of Martha Stewart). She is not, though, the kind of boss you'd like to work for.
According to an article in yesterday's Age newspaper, Donna Hay is "said to be better at pastry-making than people management". Last year half a dozen staff quit her publishing business, some talking about their workplace as being "a place of frayed nerves and flaring tempers", others claiming "it was an absolute nightmare ... Tears every day".
Hay herself admits that when thing went wrong she "used to cry and have - not tantrums, but I would be really, really, really angry and upset."
Nor is Donna Hay implementing the famous female family-friendly workplace. One employee says of her all-consuming working day that "You go in there when it's dark in the morning and you come out when it's dark at night. There's no time to meet your friends for lunch. There's no time for chats on the phone. You are immersed in Donna Hayness for about 12 hours."
Which just goes to show that femaleness and people management skills don't always go together. There might just be a continuing role for male managers after all.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Women in combat (II)
Neill Mitchell is a radio chat show host on Melbourne's 3AW. Both he and the station are regarded as being a bit right-wing and closer to the Liberal than the Labor Party.
Last month Neill Mitchell outlined his attitude to women in combat in an article for the Herald Sun ("Give the lady a gun" 9/4/03). It's worth quoting the concluding passages in full:
The attitude expressed here shows that Neill Mitchell is right wing in the sense of being a right liberal, rather than a conservative.
Liberals want us to be self-defining individuals. They don't like the idea that being born male or female imposes certain obligations or ideals of behaviour.
This is why Mitchell dismisses the idea of male protectiveness toward women as negative social conditioning. Note too how important liberal first principles are to Mitchell: he is willing to follow them through even though "the price of this equality may well be horrible." (This theme is also covered in my earlier article "Liberalism as a secular religion".)
It's interesting to compare Mitchell's views with that of Christine Odone, a woman writing in the generally left-wing British newspaper The Guardian.
In her article, titled "I won't die for equality" (9/2/2003), she explains that she's not exactly "gasping for the chance to be blasted to smithereens by a cluster bomb" and that only "rabid equalisers" want to deliver women into military combat.
So does this make the left-wing Christine Odine more of a conservative than the right-wing Neill Mitchell? Not really. Christine Odine is applying what is sometimes called an unprincipled exception. This means that she approves of the underlying liberal principle, but finds it hard to live with some of its consequences. So she makes a particular exception, by claiming that things are being taken "too far".
This is why she generally praises the fact of women entering traditionally male fields as "progress" but notes that "To some of us [women], being made target practice for the Republican Guard is hardly the kind of equal opportunity we've been looking for" and that "a woman does not need to be in the firing line to feel as good as a man. That is an equality too far."
The problem for Christine Odine is that there will always be those, like Neill Mitchell, who seek to apply liberal first principles to their logical full extent. So, unless we challenge the first principles, it is likely that women will be increasingly drawn into combat roles and perhaps one day will even be conscripted in time of war.
What we need to do is to discard the liberal idea that we are self-defining individuals subject only to our own will and reason. Doing so would allow us to accept in a positive way that there are naturally occurring differences between men and women. Equality would no longer mean trying to transgress the idea of sex roles, it would mean attempting to fulfil our higher nature as men and women.
Were women really born to kill on the battlefield? Is this really part of a higher feminine virtue? The answer to this doesn't depend on modern technology or even on the capabilities of individual women. The answer is a timeless no.
(First published at Conservative Central 07/06/2003)
Last month Neill Mitchell outlined his attitude to women in combat in an article for the Herald Sun ("Give the lady a gun" 9/4/03). It's worth quoting the concluding passages in full:
The reality now is that if a woman is suited to combat, she can go into combat. Technology has created many new ways of fighting and killing and many have nothing to do with brute strength.
The price of this equality may well be horrible but there is no logical reason to protect a woman from that.
Indeed used properly, many in the military believe she may be a better, more effective human weapon.
We cannot overcome generations of conditioning overnight and some men will continue to be protective towards women.
The attitude expressed here shows that Neill Mitchell is right wing in the sense of being a right liberal, rather than a conservative.
Liberals want us to be self-defining individuals. They don't like the idea that being born male or female imposes certain obligations or ideals of behaviour.
This is why Mitchell dismisses the idea of male protectiveness toward women as negative social conditioning. Note too how important liberal first principles are to Mitchell: he is willing to follow them through even though "the price of this equality may well be horrible." (This theme is also covered in my earlier article "Liberalism as a secular religion".)
It's interesting to compare Mitchell's views with that of Christine Odone, a woman writing in the generally left-wing British newspaper The Guardian.
In her article, titled "I won't die for equality" (9/2/2003), she explains that she's not exactly "gasping for the chance to be blasted to smithereens by a cluster bomb" and that only "rabid equalisers" want to deliver women into military combat.
So does this make the left-wing Christine Odine more of a conservative than the right-wing Neill Mitchell? Not really. Christine Odine is applying what is sometimes called an unprincipled exception. This means that she approves of the underlying liberal principle, but finds it hard to live with some of its consequences. So she makes a particular exception, by claiming that things are being taken "too far".
This is why she generally praises the fact of women entering traditionally male fields as "progress" but notes that "To some of us [women], being made target practice for the Republican Guard is hardly the kind of equal opportunity we've been looking for" and that "a woman does not need to be in the firing line to feel as good as a man. That is an equality too far."
The problem for Christine Odine is that there will always be those, like Neill Mitchell, who seek to apply liberal first principles to their logical full extent. So, unless we challenge the first principles, it is likely that women will be increasingly drawn into combat roles and perhaps one day will even be conscripted in time of war.
What we need to do is to discard the liberal idea that we are self-defining individuals subject only to our own will and reason. Doing so would allow us to accept in a positive way that there are naturally occurring differences between men and women. Equality would no longer mean trying to transgress the idea of sex roles, it would mean attempting to fulfil our higher nature as men and women.
Were women really born to kill on the battlefield? Is this really part of a higher feminine virtue? The answer to this doesn't depend on modern technology or even on the capabilities of individual women. The answer is a timeless no.
(First published at Conservative Central 07/06/2003)
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
A liberal view from the right
Here's a little example of the difference between right liberalism and traditionalist conservatism.
There's an Australian blog called The View from the Right (not to be confused with Lawrence Auster's excellent American site, View from the Right).
A recent post on the Australian site was an attempt to justify our Prime Minister's crackdown on illegal immigration. The argument given was that by cracking down on illegals, Mr Howard had pacified the public, allowing a large increase in legal migration.
Now, this is "right wing" only in the sense that it is right wing liberalism. The author of the post clearly supports the deconstruction of traditional Australia by large scale foreign immigration. He believes that by controlling illegal immigration, the process can be done in a more orderly and socially acceptable way.
This is not genuine conservatism. Genuine conservatives don't see ethnicity as an impediment to individual will and reason to be overthrown. Instead they see it as an important part of human connectedness and self-identity to be valued and conserved.
A genuine conservative will therefore argue not only to maintain border control as a normal exercise of national sovereignty, but will also want immigration to be small-scale and compatible with existing ethnic traditions.
There's an Australian blog called The View from the Right (not to be confused with Lawrence Auster's excellent American site, View from the Right).
A recent post on the Australian site was an attempt to justify our Prime Minister's crackdown on illegal immigration. The argument given was that by cracking down on illegals, Mr Howard had pacified the public, allowing a large increase in legal migration.
Now, this is "right wing" only in the sense that it is right wing liberalism. The author of the post clearly supports the deconstruction of traditional Australia by large scale foreign immigration. He believes that by controlling illegal immigration, the process can be done in a more orderly and socially acceptable way.
This is not genuine conservatism. Genuine conservatives don't see ethnicity as an impediment to individual will and reason to be overthrown. Instead they see it as an important part of human connectedness and self-identity to be valued and conserved.
A genuine conservative will therefore argue not only to maintain border control as a normal exercise of national sovereignty, but will also want immigration to be small-scale and compatible with existing ethnic traditions.
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Disturbing picture
In the Herald Sun yesterday was another of those photos from the Abu Graib prison in Iraq. I found this photo the most disturbing so far, because it shows a picture of Sabrina Harman, a quite pretty and feminine looking young woman, smiling and giving a thumbs up over the corpse of an Iraqi prisoner.
My immediate reaction was that the two features of the photo simply don't belong together. Young, beautiful womanhood doesn't go together with such a callous insensitivity.
Is it worse that it's a woman rather than a man behaving this way? I think it is. A woman in normal circumstances will generally be more emotionally sensitive or responsive than a man. It's more likely that she will feel emotional hurt, both for herself and others. So to see an attractive young woman behave with a brutal disregard for human life is particularly disturbing.
It only confirms for me my general opposition to women serving in war zones. (I have previously written the following two articles on why liberals are so keen for women to serve in the military.)
Liberalism as a secular religion
Women in combat
My immediate reaction was that the two features of the photo simply don't belong together. Young, beautiful womanhood doesn't go together with such a callous insensitivity.
Is it worse that it's a woman rather than a man behaving this way? I think it is. A woman in normal circumstances will generally be more emotionally sensitive or responsive than a man. It's more likely that she will feel emotional hurt, both for herself and others. So to see an attractive young woman behave with a brutal disregard for human life is particularly disturbing.
It only confirms for me my general opposition to women serving in war zones. (I have previously written the following two articles on why liberals are so keen for women to serve in the military.)
Liberalism as a secular religion
Women in combat
The sex blind tragedy
In 1486 Pico della Mirandola declared "We can become what we will."
This idea, that we can create ourselves in any direction by our own will and reason, has come to be enormously influential in Western societies.
Today the principle is even being applied to our sexual self-identity. It would seem obvious to most people that there are limits to "becoming what we will": one example being the fact that we are born either male or female and have no choice in the matter.
However, two recent news items from America show that for some people even the very fact of our own sex is to be included within the "sphere of will".
One news item concerns Wesleyan University, which previously had separate dormitories for men and women. According to the dean of student services, a third transgender dormitory is now to be established for students "who don't identify with their physical sex."
The second news item concerns "boy poseurs." According to an article in the Melbourne Age (22/05/03) it's now fashionable among New York lesbians to reject a female identity by, amongst other things, binding their breasts and referring to each other as "he".
What does the reporter think of the confused sexual identity of these women? She thinks it a positive thing - as something that furthers the idea that "we can become what we will".
For instance, she asks "Why should it be possible to buy at least six different kinds of bagel in New York city and yet be limited to a mere two choices of gender?" And she quotes approvingly a Vassar College academic, Jami Weinstein, who talks about women "performing" their gender differently, so that "You can see that 'woman' is a pretty arbitrary category." The article itself ends with the line that "The idea of identity flux, of being able to be whoever you want, is an essential part of the times we live in."
What do conservatives think of all this? Conservatives don't share Pico's belief that what is important in life is to be self-created. Therefore, conservatives don't mind the fact that "woman" is a fixed, rather than an arbitrary category, and that much of our self-identity is not in flux, but is constant. Nor would conservatives lament that there are only "a mere two choices of gender"; instead, conservatives are comfortable with the idea that, as individuals, we have no choice of gender at all.
The aim for a conservative is for our sexual identification to be strong and positive, so that a man is strongly connected to his higher masculine nature and a woman to her higher feminine nature. A culture should encourage this positive identification rather than celebrate its failure.
It is a personal strength, and a path to self-fulfilment, to have a straightforward identification with your own sex. Modern day liberals have a hard time accepting this basic truth as they are caught by first principles that were as wrong in Pico's time as they are today.
(First published at Conservative Central 25/04/03)
This idea, that we can create ourselves in any direction by our own will and reason, has come to be enormously influential in Western societies.
Today the principle is even being applied to our sexual self-identity. It would seem obvious to most people that there are limits to "becoming what we will": one example being the fact that we are born either male or female and have no choice in the matter.
However, two recent news items from America show that for some people even the very fact of our own sex is to be included within the "sphere of will".
One news item concerns Wesleyan University, which previously had separate dormitories for men and women. According to the dean of student services, a third transgender dormitory is now to be established for students "who don't identify with their physical sex."
The second news item concerns "boy poseurs." According to an article in the Melbourne Age (22/05/03) it's now fashionable among New York lesbians to reject a female identity by, amongst other things, binding their breasts and referring to each other as "he".
What does the reporter think of the confused sexual identity of these women? She thinks it a positive thing - as something that furthers the idea that "we can become what we will".
For instance, she asks "Why should it be possible to buy at least six different kinds of bagel in New York city and yet be limited to a mere two choices of gender?" And she quotes approvingly a Vassar College academic, Jami Weinstein, who talks about women "performing" their gender differently, so that "You can see that 'woman' is a pretty arbitrary category." The article itself ends with the line that "The idea of identity flux, of being able to be whoever you want, is an essential part of the times we live in."
What do conservatives think of all this? Conservatives don't share Pico's belief that what is important in life is to be self-created. Therefore, conservatives don't mind the fact that "woman" is a fixed, rather than an arbitrary category, and that much of our self-identity is not in flux, but is constant. Nor would conservatives lament that there are only "a mere two choices of gender"; instead, conservatives are comfortable with the idea that, as individuals, we have no choice of gender at all.
The aim for a conservative is for our sexual identification to be strong and positive, so that a man is strongly connected to his higher masculine nature and a woman to her higher feminine nature. A culture should encourage this positive identification rather than celebrate its failure.
It is a personal strength, and a path to self-fulfilment, to have a straightforward identification with your own sex. Modern day liberals have a hard time accepting this basic truth as they are caught by first principles that were as wrong in Pico's time as they are today.
(First published at Conservative Central 25/04/03)
Beaut blokes
Last year a Beaut Blokes weekend was held in the Victorian country town of Harrow. The idea was to introduce city women to country men. The weekend seems to have been a success, with the first engagement having just been announced.
The lucky farmer explained the engagement as follows,
So, the man is asked not to call. He does so anyway and is asked by the woman why he didn't call sooner. Instead of feeling agrieved by the contradictory demands, he realises that "she's the one". Why? The answer, I think, is that the women has, in her own way, sought his masculine protection (why didn't you check to see if I was safe?), and he has instinctively responded.
At any rate, this is yet another example of how men and women interact differently in relationships. It would be hard to make much sense of the above behaviour if you held to the liberal view that men and women are the same.
The lucky farmer explained the engagement as follows,
Mr Featherstone said Ms Marsden gave him the brush off on their first encounter, telling him not to call unless he had a problem. Days later when he had mustered enough courage to call, she wanted to know why he took so long. Wasn't he concerned about whether she had got home all right? That's when Mr Featherstone says he knew that she was "the one".
So, the man is asked not to call. He does so anyway and is asked by the woman why he didn't call sooner. Instead of feeling agrieved by the contradictory demands, he realises that "she's the one". Why? The answer, I think, is that the women has, in her own way, sought his masculine protection (why didn't you check to see if I was safe?), and he has instinctively responded.
At any rate, this is yet another example of how men and women interact differently in relationships. It would be hard to make much sense of the above behaviour if you held to the liberal view that men and women are the same.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Natural differences
Here's a well written column by Michael Gurian on accepting natural differences between men and women.
Liberals have spent a lot of time arguing that differences between men and women are created by socialisation alone: by upbringing, education, media influence and so on. They have preferred to believe this because they don't want an unchosen quality like our manhood or womanhood to significantly influence who we are. This is because it's a liberal first principle that we should be self-created by our own individual will and reason - that this, in fact, is what defines us as human.
Hence the liberal attempt to overthrow the influence of inherited sex roles, which is still going on today.
Modern science, though, is undermining the liberal position, as the Gurian piece makes clear. The conservative attitude, that there are natural differences between men and women which will be reflected in the nature of social life, and particularly family life, is being increasingly vindicated.
Liberals have spent a lot of time arguing that differences between men and women are created by socialisation alone: by upbringing, education, media influence and so on. They have preferred to believe this because they don't want an unchosen quality like our manhood or womanhood to significantly influence who we are. This is because it's a liberal first principle that we should be self-created by our own individual will and reason - that this, in fact, is what defines us as human.
Hence the liberal attempt to overthrow the influence of inherited sex roles, which is still going on today.
Modern science, though, is undermining the liberal position, as the Gurian piece makes clear. The conservative attitude, that there are natural differences between men and women which will be reflected in the nature of social life, and particularly family life, is being increasingly vindicated.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Who attacks Australian men?
The social engineers are at it again.
Here in Victoria, under the Bracks Labor Government, there is a campaign to recruit more women into the police force. The Police Chief Commissioner, Christine Nixon, wants equal opportunity laws set aside so that women can be recruited instead of more qualified men.
Nationally, under the Howard Liberal Government, $2.5 million has been allocated to recruit women into traditionally male dominated university courses such as engineering.
So both the left and right wing of politics agree that the number of men in professional jobs should be decreased in favour of less qualified or less motivated women. Why?
It's not because of public pressure. In fact, a Herald Sun voteline showed 93% of the public against the new police recruitment scheme.
Nor can it be an issue of fairness. Many letter writers to the papers have pointed out that there are no similar schemes to promote men into professions dominated by women. (Women hold 57% of jobs in the Victorian Public Service, 73% of teaching jobs in Australia, 75% of counselling jobs at the Family Court, 80% of jobs at the Bank of Melbourne, 95% of preschool teaching jobs in Qld, and 100% of midwifery jobs at the Mercy Hospital).
Similarly there are no schemes to promote men into university courses dominated by women (77% of health students are female, as are 73% of education students. Overall, 55% of first year students are female.)
So if there is no public demand for change, and no issue of fairness, why do both the left and right wing parties want to make changes to traditionally male dominated professions?
The answer is that the Labor and Liberal parties are both essentially liberal in their basic philosophy. They believe that there should be no impediments to our individual will. Therefore, they view the influence of sex roles on individuals as being an oppressive limitation.
For liberals, the existence of a male dominated profession will be seen as one such "oppressive limitation" on women.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that we are born with a particular nature, and that we fulfil ourselves by working within the best of that nature. Therefore, it would seem only natural to conservatives that more men would choose to join the police force, whilst more women would prefer to work with young children as preschool teachers. A conservative would not see this as oppressive or discriminatory, but as a simple reflection of differences in the nature of men and women.
The liberal view is likely to lead to great distortions as the percentage of men undertaking higher education, and joining the professions, falls further and further behind women. No doubt, we will be told that the problem is that men are becoming redundant in the modern world, or that men have to change their masculine ways. Remember, though, that behind these changes are deliberate government policies which will continue to operate until the conservative view takes a greater role in Australian society.
(First published at Conservative Central 20/05/2002)
Here in Victoria, under the Bracks Labor Government, there is a campaign to recruit more women into the police force. The Police Chief Commissioner, Christine Nixon, wants equal opportunity laws set aside so that women can be recruited instead of more qualified men.
Nationally, under the Howard Liberal Government, $2.5 million has been allocated to recruit women into traditionally male dominated university courses such as engineering.
So both the left and right wing of politics agree that the number of men in professional jobs should be decreased in favour of less qualified or less motivated women. Why?
It's not because of public pressure. In fact, a Herald Sun voteline showed 93% of the public against the new police recruitment scheme.
Nor can it be an issue of fairness. Many letter writers to the papers have pointed out that there are no similar schemes to promote men into professions dominated by women. (Women hold 57% of jobs in the Victorian Public Service, 73% of teaching jobs in Australia, 75% of counselling jobs at the Family Court, 80% of jobs at the Bank of Melbourne, 95% of preschool teaching jobs in Qld, and 100% of midwifery jobs at the Mercy Hospital).
Similarly there are no schemes to promote men into university courses dominated by women (77% of health students are female, as are 73% of education students. Overall, 55% of first year students are female.)
So if there is no public demand for change, and no issue of fairness, why do both the left and right wing parties want to make changes to traditionally male dominated professions?
The answer is that the Labor and Liberal parties are both essentially liberal in their basic philosophy. They believe that there should be no impediments to our individual will. Therefore, they view the influence of sex roles on individuals as being an oppressive limitation.
For liberals, the existence of a male dominated profession will be seen as one such "oppressive limitation" on women.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that we are born with a particular nature, and that we fulfil ourselves by working within the best of that nature. Therefore, it would seem only natural to conservatives that more men would choose to join the police force, whilst more women would prefer to work with young children as preschool teachers. A conservative would not see this as oppressive or discriminatory, but as a simple reflection of differences in the nature of men and women.
The liberal view is likely to lead to great distortions as the percentage of men undertaking higher education, and joining the professions, falls further and further behind women. No doubt, we will be told that the problem is that men are becoming redundant in the modern world, or that men have to change their masculine ways. Remember, though, that behind these changes are deliberate government policies which will continue to operate until the conservative view takes a greater role in Australian society.
(First published at Conservative Central 20/05/2002)
Monday, May 17, 2004
Why was Hinch a grinch?
On the weekend Australia's Mary Donaldson married Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark. The wedding was a great success in Australia with more than a million tuning in to watch the late night live broadcast.
There was one voice of protest though. Derryn Hinch, a broadcaster on the "right wing" 3AW station, began his show with a criticism of the events. Why was he so disapproving?
Hinch disliked the fact that so much attention should be paid to Crown Prince Frederik, who, in Hinch's view, is "a man lauded purely because of circumstances of birth" and whose "only claim to fame was being to the manor born" and whose position has "nothing to do with talent".
Hinch here is simply being true to his liberal philosophy. Liberals believe that we should be self-created by our own will and reason. This means that things that we inherit or are born to shouldn't influence the role we play in life. Yet, Crown Prince Frederik does occupy a particular role because of an "accident of birth".
Hinch, therefore, is only applying liberal philosophy logically and consistently. His attitude, in other words, has little to do with any unbiased, personal response to watching the wedding. He is simply following through with an intellectual principle which became the orthodoxy many generations ago.
So Hinch was made a grinch by his stubborn attachment to liberalism. Many of his listeners, though, took a less ideological view of the wedding, and responded very positively to Mary Donaldson's grace and elegance, to the happiness of the public celebrations, and to the displays of both Danish and Australian national feeling.
There was one voice of protest though. Derryn Hinch, a broadcaster on the "right wing" 3AW station, began his show with a criticism of the events. Why was he so disapproving?
Hinch disliked the fact that so much attention should be paid to Crown Prince Frederik, who, in Hinch's view, is "a man lauded purely because of circumstances of birth" and whose "only claim to fame was being to the manor born" and whose position has "nothing to do with talent".
Hinch here is simply being true to his liberal philosophy. Liberals believe that we should be self-created by our own will and reason. This means that things that we inherit or are born to shouldn't influence the role we play in life. Yet, Crown Prince Frederik does occupy a particular role because of an "accident of birth".
Hinch, therefore, is only applying liberal philosophy logically and consistently. His attitude, in other words, has little to do with any unbiased, personal response to watching the wedding. He is simply following through with an intellectual principle which became the orthodoxy many generations ago.
So Hinch was made a grinch by his stubborn attachment to liberalism. Many of his listeners, though, took a less ideological view of the wedding, and responded very positively to Mary Donaldson's grace and elegance, to the happiness of the public celebrations, and to the displays of both Danish and Australian national feeling.
Sunday, May 16, 2004
A Marxist laments
Kenneth Mostern was employed as an Assistant Professor of English at the University of Tennessee for six years. He recently resigned and has written a lengthy article explaining his surprising decision.
He puts the issue this way: "Academics have, compared to most workers, a substantial amount of freedom to make their own schedules and a significant amount of time off. Academics are mostly doing what they want to be doing ... Thus the question: why are academics so miserable? Why has my resignation produced the most profound joy?"
To understand his answer you need to know some background to the situation. Kenneth Mostern is a white Jewish male Marxist who chose to work in the field of African American Studies. He is, in other words, a radical left liberal: he wants to be a creation of his own will and reason, and so has rebelled against any inborn or inherited forms of self-definition (such as being white, or Jewish, or male). He himself admits that:
It was the very dominance of radical liberalism within his English department, though, which created problems for Mr Mostern.
In part, this was because the logic of liberalism leads on to a denial of the existence of any objective forms of truth. If the assertion of individual reason is the highest good, then it will be thought offensive to assert an objective truth which transcends (and places limits on) individual reason.
If, however, there is not permitted to be any measure of objective truth, then what grounds are there to discuss or evaluate academic work? And, if there are no such grounds, then on what principles do academic departments operate?
According to Mr Mostern one answer to these questions is that "Because no one is talking about substance, only alliances, and because alienation is general, a vacuum exists at the center of institutional power which is not filled by talent or argument, but by those who feel most comfortable or justified taking advantage of it."
Mr Mostern, most surprisingly for a Marxist, found himself yearning for "a conservative program with a coherent sense of its intellectual mission in relation to the national community" as this might have turned the department into "a place of vigorous engagement." Instead, the department continued to be "the independent source of my most extreme alienation."
Mr Mostern's response was to reject the notion of "ambivalence" about truth, and instead assert the idea of "commitment". In effect, Mr Mostern shifted to some degree from the liberal ideal of the free-floating, self-creating autonomous individual, in order to accept certain forms of conservative connectedness.
He himself lists three such forms of connectedness in response to his original question of why his resignation produced such profound joy.
The first is marital love. His marriage had previously been under intense strain because both he and his wife had put their careers ahead of their relationship (they lived in different cities). He now feels confident to assert the value of marriage as being something that is "nonarbitrary", in other words, that has a real objective value.
He declares that "Commitment is the choice to act in practical terms on the premise that you want to be with someone, that you believe in something as true. As an academic I was ambivalent, not committed, and nearly lost my marriage. This did not make me happy. And it is not idiosyncratic."
The second form of connectedness is to local community and the particular tradition it embodies. He asks the reasonable question of how in a place where he had no "community of familiarity" he could know "what one's work is, let alone accomplish it."
And finally, he asserts the value of what he chooses to call "congregation." He admits that having rejected his Jewish faith, he hoped that the department would become a kind of substitute secular congregation. It didn't fulfill this role, though, as academics were people who could not even "address each other as seekers, without fear."
Mr Mostern, it must be said, has not broken very thoroughly from his Marxism. His article is interesting, though, as an example of the stresses created when people try to follow liberalism consistently, and how even a minimal form of conservatism can serve as a liberating alternative.
(First published at Conservative Central 17/05/03)
He puts the issue this way: "Academics have, compared to most workers, a substantial amount of freedom to make their own schedules and a significant amount of time off. Academics are mostly doing what they want to be doing ... Thus the question: why are academics so miserable? Why has my resignation produced the most profound joy?"
To understand his answer you need to know some background to the situation. Kenneth Mostern is a white Jewish male Marxist who chose to work in the field of African American Studies. He is, in other words, a radical left liberal: he wants to be a creation of his own will and reason, and so has rebelled against any inborn or inherited forms of self-definition (such as being white, or Jewish, or male). He himself admits that:
I am also a symbol of what for some, however unconsciously, African American Studies is imagined to be a revolt against: a white, Jewish, male marxist.
It was the very dominance of radical liberalism within his English department, though, which created problems for Mr Mostern.
In part, this was because the logic of liberalism leads on to a denial of the existence of any objective forms of truth. If the assertion of individual reason is the highest good, then it will be thought offensive to assert an objective truth which transcends (and places limits on) individual reason.
If, however, there is not permitted to be any measure of objective truth, then what grounds are there to discuss or evaluate academic work? And, if there are no such grounds, then on what principles do academic departments operate?
According to Mr Mostern one answer to these questions is that "Because no one is talking about substance, only alliances, and because alienation is general, a vacuum exists at the center of institutional power which is not filled by talent or argument, but by those who feel most comfortable or justified taking advantage of it."
Mr Mostern, most surprisingly for a Marxist, found himself yearning for "a conservative program with a coherent sense of its intellectual mission in relation to the national community" as this might have turned the department into "a place of vigorous engagement." Instead, the department continued to be "the independent source of my most extreme alienation."
Mr Mostern's response was to reject the notion of "ambivalence" about truth, and instead assert the idea of "commitment". In effect, Mr Mostern shifted to some degree from the liberal ideal of the free-floating, self-creating autonomous individual, in order to accept certain forms of conservative connectedness.
He himself lists three such forms of connectedness in response to his original question of why his resignation produced such profound joy.
The first is marital love. His marriage had previously been under intense strain because both he and his wife had put their careers ahead of their relationship (they lived in different cities). He now feels confident to assert the value of marriage as being something that is "nonarbitrary", in other words, that has a real objective value.
He declares that "Commitment is the choice to act in practical terms on the premise that you want to be with someone, that you believe in something as true. As an academic I was ambivalent, not committed, and nearly lost my marriage. This did not make me happy. And it is not idiosyncratic."
The second form of connectedness is to local community and the particular tradition it embodies. He asks the reasonable question of how in a place where he had no "community of familiarity" he could know "what one's work is, let alone accomplish it."
And finally, he asserts the value of what he chooses to call "congregation." He admits that having rejected his Jewish faith, he hoped that the department would become a kind of substitute secular congregation. It didn't fulfill this role, though, as academics were people who could not even "address each other as seekers, without fear."
Mr Mostern, it must be said, has not broken very thoroughly from his Marxism. His article is interesting, though, as an example of the stresses created when people try to follow liberalism consistently, and how even a minimal form of conservatism can serve as a liberating alternative.
(First published at Conservative Central 17/05/03)
Friday, May 14, 2004
A Conservative Survivor?
A saving grace of reality TV is that it can't always follow a politically correct script. Take the case of the Survivor finale. The two finalists, Rob and Amber, fell in love and got engaged. When Rob was asked what attracted him to Amber he replied that he found her sweet and beautiful. Amber said that she liked the way that Rob made her feel safe.
This is a long way from politically correct feminism. Feminists apply liberal principles to women: they believe that women should be independent, autonomous, self-defining individuals. Most female characters on TV follow this principle by being tough, feisty independent career girls.
In a reality show, though, a woman like Amber can be pronounced attractive for her sweetness and beauty, and she herself can express a preference for a man who is protectively masculine.
Of course, there is also a lot of cultural trash in reality shows. But at least there is some room for non-ideological qualities of men and women to appear.
This is a long way from politically correct feminism. Feminists apply liberal principles to women: they believe that women should be independent, autonomous, self-defining individuals. Most female characters on TV follow this principle by being tough, feisty independent career girls.
In a reality show, though, a woman like Amber can be pronounced attractive for her sweetness and beauty, and she herself can express a preference for a man who is protectively masculine.
Of course, there is also a lot of cultural trash in reality shows. But at least there is some room for non-ideological qualities of men and women to appear.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Tax cuts for the ....?
The Australian budget has just been announced. It contained some modest tax cuts for the highest income earners. I was stunned, to say the least, when reading the Treasurer's defence of these cuts. According to a report in The Australian,
Isn't this amazing! Mr Costello, who is supposed to represent us, the people of Australia, is changing tax policy so that the best professional jobs can be taken by foreign immigrants with no connection to Australia. Incredible!
Surely this makes it crystal clear that the Australian Liberal Party is not a conservative party. It is a right liberal party which is most interested in pursuing free market objectives, such as removing any impediments, such as high taxes, to the flow of labour.
This isn't to say the tax cuts themselves are wrong. But any normal, self-respecting conservative would want his fellow countrymen to have first go at decent jobs. It's been a very long time, I suspect, since Mr Costello experienced such conservative instincts.
An unapologetic Treasurer insisted it was necessary to lift productivity and improve Australia's chances of attracting high-skilled workers from overseas.
Isn't this amazing! Mr Costello, who is supposed to represent us, the people of Australia, is changing tax policy so that the best professional jobs can be taken by foreign immigrants with no connection to Australia. Incredible!
Surely this makes it crystal clear that the Australian Liberal Party is not a conservative party. It is a right liberal party which is most interested in pursuing free market objectives, such as removing any impediments, such as high taxes, to the flow of labour.
This isn't to say the tax cuts themselves are wrong. But any normal, self-respecting conservative would want his fellow countrymen to have first go at decent jobs. It's been a very long time, I suspect, since Mr Costello experienced such conservative instincts.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Misnaming conservatives
From Lawrence Auster (of View from the Right):
This is well put. If we allow right wing liberalism to be defined as conservatism, then what is there to pose any challenge to liberalism? Politics just becomes a contest between the left wing and right wing forms of liberalism. Typically, real conservatives then identify with the right liberal party and their politics become a confused and ineffectual hybrid between the right wing liberalism of the parties they support and their own conservative instincts. In the past, this has always allowed liberals to carry the day.
So, the first step for the conservative movement to progress is for conservatives to more clearly distinguish themselves from right wing liberalism.
One of the great confusions today is that anyone who is anti-left is called a conservative. It would be as though, during the Cold War, anyone who was anti-Communist was called a conservative ... The misnaming we have today not only creates intellectual confusion but is substantially harmful to conservatism, in that (1) it makes real conservatism impossible by defining conservatism as liberalism, and (2) another way of saying the same thing, it defines conservatism as opposition to the hard left, rather than as opposition to liberalism."
This is well put. If we allow right wing liberalism to be defined as conservatism, then what is there to pose any challenge to liberalism? Politics just becomes a contest between the left wing and right wing forms of liberalism. Typically, real conservatives then identify with the right liberal party and their politics become a confused and ineffectual hybrid between the right wing liberalism of the parties they support and their own conservative instincts. In the past, this has always allowed liberals to carry the day.
So, the first step for the conservative movement to progress is for conservatives to more clearly distinguish themselves from right wing liberalism.
Germaine Greer: A Political Portrait
Over the years there has been a shift in the politics of the famous Australian feminist Germaine Greer. Early on she was every inch a liberal individualist; later, though, her politics became more mixed, even including some traces of conservatism.
One example of this change is in her attitude to the family. In her influential book The Female Eunuch, published in 1971, Greer argued for a type of family arrangement which would still allow her to have complete individual autonomy.
Her idea was that children should grow up on communal farms, which the parents would visit when "circumstances permitted." Some parents might even "live there for quite long periods, as long as we wanted to." For Greer, it wasn't even necessary that her child should "know that I was his womb-mother."
In later years Greer changed her attitude. For instance, in 1991 she wrote that "Most societies have arranged matters so that a family surrounds and protects mother and child," and complained of "our families having withered away" with relationships becoming "less durable every year."
There is an obvious shift here from a radical individualism, based around complete individual autonomy, to a more conservative recognition that the social framework, the "fabric of society", is important for the well-being of the individual.
Greer's views on sex also underwent a dramatic conversion. Early on, Greer took an "anything goes" attitude to sex, even declaring at one stage that group sex was "the highest ritual expression of our faith."
Her promiscuity, though, seems to have soured her attitude to sex, because she eventually turned to the opposite extreme of denouncing sex altogether. For instance, she claimed that sexual love was "riddled with hostility and insecurity," and that she was beginning to think that "sex was really disgusting and that we shouldn't have anything to do with it".
Neither of these opposing attitudes to sex is very helpful, and Greer has done little to explain the transformation in her outlook. Perhaps this is because of her stated belief that "human beings have an inalienable right to re-invent themselves". Greer believes, in other words, in the liberal idea that individuals are blank slates who can endlessly form and re-form themselves in whatever direction they choose.
In reality, though, we cannot simply invent who we are, since what we become is influenced by our own inborn nature, by necessary social roles, by the larger consequences of our actions and so on. For instance, Greer's early desire to be a kind of absentee mother was never going to work, because the bond between mother and child is, by nature, too strong to be kept casual and anonymous, and because, as Greer later admitted, it is better for mother and child to be supported within a stable social framework.
For all this, conservatives are likely to find Greer an interesting variety of liberal, with her outpourings being an unpredictable mixture of gloom and grumpiness, personal invective, wayward liberalism and, struggling through it all, fragments of conservatism.
(First published in University Review 1998)
One example of this change is in her attitude to the family. In her influential book The Female Eunuch, published in 1971, Greer argued for a type of family arrangement which would still allow her to have complete individual autonomy.
Her idea was that children should grow up on communal farms, which the parents would visit when "circumstances permitted." Some parents might even "live there for quite long periods, as long as we wanted to." For Greer, it wasn't even necessary that her child should "know that I was his womb-mother."
In later years Greer changed her attitude. For instance, in 1991 she wrote that "Most societies have arranged matters so that a family surrounds and protects mother and child," and complained of "our families having withered away" with relationships becoming "less durable every year."
There is an obvious shift here from a radical individualism, based around complete individual autonomy, to a more conservative recognition that the social framework, the "fabric of society", is important for the well-being of the individual.
Greer's views on sex also underwent a dramatic conversion. Early on, Greer took an "anything goes" attitude to sex, even declaring at one stage that group sex was "the highest ritual expression of our faith."
Her promiscuity, though, seems to have soured her attitude to sex, because she eventually turned to the opposite extreme of denouncing sex altogether. For instance, she claimed that sexual love was "riddled with hostility and insecurity," and that she was beginning to think that "sex was really disgusting and that we shouldn't have anything to do with it".
Neither of these opposing attitudes to sex is very helpful, and Greer has done little to explain the transformation in her outlook. Perhaps this is because of her stated belief that "human beings have an inalienable right to re-invent themselves". Greer believes, in other words, in the liberal idea that individuals are blank slates who can endlessly form and re-form themselves in whatever direction they choose.
In reality, though, we cannot simply invent who we are, since what we become is influenced by our own inborn nature, by necessary social roles, by the larger consequences of our actions and so on. For instance, Greer's early desire to be a kind of absentee mother was never going to work, because the bond between mother and child is, by nature, too strong to be kept casual and anonymous, and because, as Greer later admitted, it is better for mother and child to be supported within a stable social framework.
For all this, conservatives are likely to find Greer an interesting variety of liberal, with her outpourings being an unpredictable mixture of gloom and grumpiness, personal invective, wayward liberalism and, struggling through it all, fragments of conservatism.
(First published in University Review 1998)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)