tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post2364418198946886719..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Living the modern dream?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-43593627367577187502008-07-30T22:01:00.000+10:002008-07-30T22:01:00.000+10:00abortions (plural) in her twenties? Well, that wou...abortions (plural) in her twenties? Well, that would account for her childrens' absence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-39503691426771236762008-07-29T23:28:00.000+10:002008-07-29T23:28:00.000+10:00May I also weigh into this lengthy debate?It seems...May I also weigh into this lengthy debate?<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the self-description of liberalism as a laissez faire doctrine denies that fact that humans are social creatures. <BR/><BR/>Ruddy's basic argument is that liberalism is "neutral" and non-coercive. This seems to have been accepted by all parties; however, I would dispute it. Liberalism does not seek neutrality; it seeks to create a society based on liberal values, i.e., values which treat the individual as a sort Robinson Crusoe, without history or social connections. This is why, as Mark points out, to accept the "neutral" standpoint recommended by liberalism is to concede the argument: this so-called neutrality is ideological in the same way that regarding "free" markets as "natural" is ideological.<BR/><BR/>It is relatively easy to see the ideology in liberal economic theory. Free market economics recognises as values only those things which are commodities; that is, only what can be valued in money-terms. Yet this is no different than to say that it values only economic goods--that it values only what it values. And one cannot appeal to the spontaneity of effective demand when effective demand is distributed (as wages, salaries and dividends) only according to the rules of this closed system. Meanwhile the activities of people outside the formal economy (wives, mothers, volunteers, students, etc.)--without whose labour the arbitrarily defined and valorised economic system could not function--are sidelined as irrelevant to the "neutral" description of how the economy works! <BR/><BR/>Similarly, to return to the issue of sexual mores and of social relations more generally, we find the same shallow, tautological and ideological approach in the liberal camp. Take gay marriage as an example. It is maintained that it poses no threat to heterosexual marriage, since people with different proclivities are able to tolerate one-anothers' differences without contradiction. It is therefore argues that it is wrong of the majority to impose its predjudices upon a minority, who have an equal "right" to expres themselves. But this is to regard as spontaneous the individual's desire to partake in what is a social and to an extent an artificial institution. Lest I begin to sound like a social constructivist, I would point out that this is essentially Roger Scruton's argument (in A Political Philosophy). He says in discussing the same issue that "to modify an institution is to modify the reasons for joining it." <BR/><BR/>To again put this in perspective, it is as though a dogmatic liberal were to insist that a worker on the minimum wage spontaneously "chooses" to accept a low-paying job under poor conditions: one must put the individual into a social context, viewing him holistically, rather than regarding him as a law unto himself, as liberals do. <BR/><BR/>In other words every "freedom from" is at the same time a "freedom to." If we modify a social institution such as marriage in order to make it more inclusive or less binding, then we as a society are actively--not neutrally--modifying our social capital in a way that will affect people's motives for participating in it or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-90389434987289740362008-07-29T00:34:00.000+10:002008-07-29T00:34:00.000+10:00In effect, I am being called "dishonest" because I...<I>In effect, I am being called "dishonest" because I don't share your liberal assumptions.</I><BR/><BR/>In the end, when the false god of Liberalism is refuted powerfully, the liberal hurls the invective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-9903005853687769932008-07-28T20:17:00.000+10:002008-07-28T20:17:00.000+10:00Thordaddy, an excellent last comment.There's an un...Thordaddy, an excellent last comment.<BR/><BR/>There's an unresolved issue within liberalism regarding autonomy and choice.<BR/><BR/>If I believe that our status as humans is defined in an important way by autonomy, then I can opt to give individuals freedom to choose in any direction.<BR/><BR/>But if individuals then choose non-autonomous options they will be seen to be acting against their own self-interests and preserving areas of discrimination, inequality, oppression and so on.<BR/><BR/>So a modernist liberal society is caught between two conflicting aims: attaining autonomy by giving a freedom of choice in any direction and attaining autonomy by shutting down the choice of non-autonomous options.<BR/><BR/>You find both aims at work in modern society. However, over time the second aim has come to dominate politics. <BR/><BR/>This is especially true in the most "advanced" left-liberal societies, such as those in Scandinavia, in which government coercion is used openly against more traditional life choices.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-43700686795771757762008-07-28T19:28:00.000+10:002008-07-28T19:28:00.000+10:00Ruddy, the problem is that you're arguing with you...Ruddy, the problem is that you're arguing with yourself and not really trying to engage the positions that others are taking.<BR/><BR/>Take the example of the word "instinct". It took me a while to get what was going on in your mind with this. Why were you so hung up on a word? <BR/><BR/>Then I realised that the particular choice of word means a lot to a liberal. For a liberal, something that is admitted to be an "instinct" has a biological reality and therefore has to be admitted as real in a way that other categories won't be.<BR/><BR/>Didn't it occur to you Ruddy that conservatives don't think the same way. That we are not anti-essentialists who would deny the reality of the category "love" if it is admitted not to be an instinct.<BR/><BR/>In other words, it doesn't matter to me whether it is called an instinct or not as it still has the same status as a real entity. <BR/><BR/>The distinction only matters to you because of your way of looking at things.<BR/><BR/>In effect, I am being called "dishonest" because I don't share your liberal assumptions.<BR/><BR/>As for Emin, I'm still not sure what is going on in your mind. You wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>In your latest post, you try to have it both ways. On the one hand, you admit that Emin is not a "scientific sample" and that we can't generalize from her to "all women." On the other hand, you claim that she is a "good example," and that:<BR/><BR/>"There are plenty of others who have been led by their experiences to similar conclusions, and it is logical for such conclusions to be drawn."<BR/><BR/>This type of equivocation, of having your cake and eating too, is the hallmark of dishonest argumentation."</I><BR/><BR/>This criticism doesn't make sense. If I say: here is the opinion of one person (not a scientific sample), who is particularly useful in terms of the argument I am making as she has truly lived an autonomous lifestyle and found it wanting, and whose opinions are buttressed first by the fact that other women are on record as having concluded the same things that she does and second by her conclusions being logical ones to draw, then how is this "having your cake and eating it too"? <BR/><BR/>The argument, whether you agree with it or not, runs in the same direction. It is consistent. As it happens, as you seemed to be sceptical about any kind of anecdotal evidence, I then presented some research using scientific sampling methods as further evidence of the point I was making.<BR/><BR/>As for Andrea Yates, she really was psychotic - she had been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs in the years leading up to her crime.<BR/><BR/>But even if this weren't the case, I would still be open to recognising what might have affected a woman like Yates: that logically there are stresses on women with many young children (five) and that the influence of some religious environments may not always be benign.<BR/><BR/>It is reasonable to make these observations, don't you think? So why can't we draw similar observations about the likely effects of an autonomous lifestyle?<BR/><BR/>Finally, let me say that I'm disappointed that you've chosen what is effectively an ad hominem attack. <BR/><BR/>Both I and my readers extended a considerable courtesy to you - we debated you in polite terms even though we believe your views are destructive of much that we value.<BR/><BR/>Yet it was you, rather than us, who broke first and resorted to the ad hominem line of attack.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-32939335615955613142008-07-28T19:25:00.000+10:002008-07-28T19:25:00.000+10:00ruddy,The disagreement seems to be in the definiti...ruddy,<BR/><BR/>The disagreement seems to be in the definition of "autonomy." <BR/><BR/>In the traditional sense, if one <I>practices</I> "autonomy" then he is void of relationship. He <I>is</I> autonomous. In this regard, "autonomy" is <I>highest good</I>, but it can be truly practiced <I>only</I> periodically. Overtime, the truly "autonomous" person gains a lifetime of dissolved and disinegrating relationships.<BR/><BR/>You seem to take the definition of "autonomy" as saying you value maximized freedom of choice that reaches all the way until violence (on your part) is utilized. At that point, your freedom of choice (autonomy) ceases. In this regard, your definition of "autonomy" needs further clarification especially in regards to self-defense. But nevertheless, "autonomy" cannot be a <B>highest</B> good as such thing accepts no qualifications and you readily admit to its limitation. <BR/><BR/>This in turn suggests that maximized freedom of choice is either NOT your <I>highest good</I> or the more traditional definition of "autonomy" is the one that defines your liberal perspective.<BR/><BR/>Of course, you could, like a truly autonomous individual, being using both definition in what ever capacity suits your needs. <BR/><BR/>In either this case, I think Mr. Richardson does much to explain how autonomy leads to a relationship-free existence. And we are not just talking free of human relationships, but a freedom from all relations. This freedom from ALL relations seems to correlate well with maximized choices.<BR/><BR/>And until ruddy defines "autonomy" for us, whether it be the relationship-solvent kind or the principle that cedes to something higher, it's hard to comprehend what exactly his liberalism is telling us. Go figure!Thordaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15887901925655428541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-53393265514128750922008-07-28T11:38:00.000+10:002008-07-28T11:38:00.000+10:00To leadpb:You say:"So the only choice you see here...To leadpb:<BR/><BR/>You say:<BR/><BR/>"So the only choice you see here is between advocating reactionary violence or accepting the status quo that is a radical transformation of society over the span of a few decades. How does this polarization make any sense?"<BR/><BR/>My point was that, for all the talk about "not accepting" this and "defending" that we see on this site, there are really only a couple choices for the would-be champions of traditionalism: Play by the rules of liberalism, or not. Violence would be the "or not" option. The other option, which consists of continued argumentation, trying to convince people either as voters or as individuals, or of opting out as much as possible and living in quasi-isolation a la the Amish, are both consistent with the baseline liberalism you purport to abhor.<BR/><BR/>That was my point, that, by eschewing violence you are implicitly accepting a liberal framework.<BR/><BR/>As for the rest of your points, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.<BR/><BR/>To Mark Richardson:<BR/><BR/>There's no need to "try again."<BR/><BR/>Your post that I responded to specifically stated that this valorized notion you think young men have of women was an "instinct." You merely asserted it was; I said it wasn't, and showed why (not univeral, culturally constructed). <BR/><BR/>In your last two posts, instead of confronting my argument head on, you have tried to muddy the waters, never once using the word "instinct," which is the very term that I was objecting to.<BR/><BR/>Rather than responding substantively to your equivocating argument, explaining to you what a cultural construct is or isn't, and dealing with your childishly naive fairytale notions of the "goodness" of women, I'll just make a couple of observations about your style of argumentation.<BR/><BR/>Your record with respect to this discussion of this pseudo-instinct is not the only example of your less than honest, and less than consistent, style of argumentation. You have repeatedly dodged the arguments I made challenging your factually and historically incorrect conflation of radical feminism with "liberalism" and contradicting your facile and reductive insistence that liberalism reifies the concept of "autonomy" to such an extent that it disfavors, if not outright rejects, long-term relationships or agreements.<BR/><BR/>And, I have repeatedly questioned your choice of Ms. Emin as representative of single, childless women. Any fair observor would grant that you have cherry-picked her, that you have stacked the deck in presenting her as being representative of anything. Your unpersuasive, and indeed, totally unresponsive, reply is to point to her prominence and success as an artist, as if that in any way demonstrated her typicalness or representativeness. <BR/><BR/>In your latest post, you try to have it both ways. On the one hand, you admit that Emin is not a "scientific sample" and that we can't generalize from her to "all women." On the other hand, you claim that she is a "good example," and that:<BR/><BR/>"There are plenty of others who have been led by their experiences to similar conclusions, and it is logical for such conclusions to be drawn."<BR/><BR/>This type of equivocation, of having your cake and eating too, is the hallmark of dishonest argumentation.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are familiar with Andrea Yates?<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates<BR/><BR/>What would your reaction be to a post on a feminist website that set her up as some sort of example (even if not a "scientific" sample) of women leading the traditionalist lifestyle. Andrea Yates: valedictorian of her high school class, married to a NASA computer programmer, member of a conservative Christian church, stay-at-home mother, and so on. Ends up drowning her four children in the bathtub. Andrea Yates: typical, no, examplary, traditionalist women. Sound fair to you? Intellectually honest? You wouldn't question the use of this one cherry-picked woman to stack the deck against the traditionalist lifestyle? <BR/><BR/>Here in the US, Mr. Richardson, we have a little saying: Go bullshit someone else!<BR/><BR/>The reason I came to this site is that I saw it listed as one of the best blogs on the "Honor Network." I grow weary of "MRA" blogs where the discourse is at the level of "Women Suck!" When I first came here, and saw your reasoned and measured demolition of the inconsistent and hypocritical feminists on the issue of the Glouchester Girls, while at the same time, you were welcoming them and their supporters to your website and inviting them to respond to your claims, I thought to myself, here's a guy who's got something, here's an anti-feminist who knows how to make an argument, and who is not afraid of honest debate.<BR/><BR/>But now I see that you are really just a more sophisticated, better educated, version of the "Women Suck!" bloggers. Have fun clipping articles from the popular press that support your positions and ignoring the rest! Have fun speaking out of both sides of your mouth! Have fun lying and dissembling when caught out in a mistake. <BR/><BR/>I see now why you wouldn't answer my question as to what you intend to do to "maintain and defend" the traditional society you love so much if (1) violence is ruled out; (2) Amish-style retreat and isolation is also ruled out; and (3) honest debate and discourse fails to convince enough people to see things your way. What I failed to consider is that you intended to rely on DISHONEST debate and discourse. But, now that I recognize my error, I won't trouble you any further. . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21741623642312099892008-07-27T21:15:00.000+10:002008-07-27T21:15:00.000+10:00Ruddy, you've had a go at me for "intellectual dis...Ruddy, you've had a go at me for "intellectual dishonesty". I think you're wrong in your approach here. <BR/><BR/>If I had claimed to be using some scientific sampling process of single women's views to prove my point, then I would have been dishonest. But I've never done anything more than to refer to what Emin herself thinks about her situation. <BR/><BR/>In other words, I've never said that "Emin thinks X" therefore "all women think X".<BR/><BR/>You argue that Emin is a poor example to use, which is your prerogative. I have responded to your argument by stating several times that Emin is a good example to use as she is a modern who has succeeded to a large degree in her pursuit of autonomy.<BR/><BR/>You can continue to disagree, but I don't see where dishonesty comes into it.<BR/><BR/>I really do not agree with you that it is just some personal idiosyncrasy of Emin as an artist which is responsible for her situation. <BR/><BR/>There are plenty of others who have been led by their experiences to similar conclusions, and it is logical for such conclusions to be drawn.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-1889407386039118552008-07-27T17:23:00.000+10:002008-07-27T17:23:00.000+10:00ruddy says"But again, since you eschew coercion an...ruddy says<BR/><BR/>"But again, since you eschew coercion and violence, I can only assume that you too accept this baseline."<BR/><BR/>So the only choice you see here is between advocating reactionary violence or accepting the status quo that is a radical transformation of society over the span of a few decades. How does this polarization make any sense?<BR/><BR/>You seem to be completely blind to the destructive effects of personal freedoms that are no longer bound to the social norms required to sustain them properly. You either "get that" or you don't.<BR/><BR/>In your insistence that liberalism has no goal or "destination" you dismiss the fact that liberalism does indeed have an explicit and oft-stated goal of eliminating discrimination along with maximizing liberty. These are conflicting propositions at a certain point and we have reached that point in the West. Hardly neutral territory.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I do have certain fears about the future. I don't expect they will be allayed by any political developments and I'm more concerned with the general social condition of the United States in any event. You seem to harbor much fear yourself about Bush and his belief system. Perhaps you feel about his kin the way I feel about the more egregious expressions of liberalism.<BR/><BR/>Why not let go of your err, neutrality, and just enjoy the ride?leadpbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08957439101293478340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-6582962160108111682008-07-27T16:43:00.000+10:002008-07-27T16:43:00.000+10:00Ruddy, let's try again.This specific argument bega...Ruddy, let's try again.<BR/><BR/>This specific argument began with me writing:<BR/><BR/><I>"Still, in an objective sense, one important aspect of the fulfilment of a human life has been lost in the process. Love between a man and woman is not just an aspect of choice - it is something of inherent worth. A man who is not jaded, and who perceives the beauty and goodness in women and is inspired to a feeling of love, knows that he is participating in a greater aspect of existence.</I><BR/><BR/>You replied with this:<BR/><BR/><I>...some of us single, hetero men don't find there to be any particular "goodness" in women. In my experience, which is no more "jaded" than average, women are no better or worse than men. <BR/><BR/>What you claim to be "natural" is instead the merely product of long-held cutural beliefs.</I><BR/><BR/>Ruddy, maybe it's your modernist mind, but you don't seem to understand what I mean by the term goodness. <BR/><BR/>Why would men love women and seek to protect women if they did not cherish some aspect of womanhood? It is in this sense that men perceive a "goodness" particular to women - one involving perhaps feminine beauty, grace, sympathy, softness and so on. <BR/><BR/>These are real qualities, although not distributed evenly throughout the female population. To write of this kind of goodness doesn't mean that I am making any kind of statement about the relative goodness of men.<BR/><BR/>But what concerns me is your insistence that we are simply talking about cultural constructs.<BR/><BR/>When I wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"No wonder that you feel disconnected from traditional family arrangements. If the only objectively real thing is the sex drive, then it's unlikely that men will commit to marriage."</I><BR/><BR/>You replied:<BR/><BR/><I>Again, cultural constructs can be quite real. Buddhism is a cultural construct, does that mean it's not "real?"</I><BR/><BR/>Well there can be a real thing we call Buddhism. But if it's only a cultural construct, rather than an expression of some truth about the world, then it is obviously false in what it claims to be. And if its adherents thought it to be merely a cultural construct then it would be abandoned.<BR/><BR/>I don't accept that love between men and women is to be regarded principally as a "cultural belief". It represents a real, objective good, and is recognised as such by those who are still able to participate in it. It is on this basis that it inspires fidelity, commmitment and sacrifice.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-55303714205950355582008-07-27T15:34:00.000+10:002008-07-27T15:34:00.000+10:00Me: "You still haven't shown that the cultural pra...Me: <BR/><BR/>"You still haven't shown that the cultural practices and ideals that you obviously genuinely revere are anything but culturaly constructed, and not matter of 'instincts' and 'nature.'"<BR/><BR/>Mark Richardson:<BR/><BR/>"Well we're heading into strange territory here."<BR/><BR/>I agree.<BR/><BR/>MR:<BR/><BR/>"I asserted that the love men feel for women has an objective worth and you are intent on arguing that it is a cultural construct and that the only thing to be accepted as definite is the sex drive."<BR/><BR/>No. This is what you said:<BR/><BR/>"It is part of the heterosexual instinct of young men to perceive, and to feel love for, the potential for beauty and a particular kind of feminine goodness in women."<BR/><BR/>Do you see? You said it was "instinct" that led men to perceive some sort of special "goodness" in women. My point was that this perception is culturally constructed, and not, AS YOU EXPLICITLY STATED, a matter of instinct. A cultural construct can exist, but it is not a matter of "instinct." A cultural construct can have "worth," but it is still not an instinct.<BR/><BR/>MR:<BR/><BR/>"No wonder that you feel disconnected from traditional family arrangements. If the only objectively real thing is the sex drive, then it's unlikely that men will commit to marriage."<BR/><BR/>Again, cultural constructs can be quite real. Buddhism is a cultural construct, does that mean it's not "real?" But cultural constructs are not instincts, like a sex drive is. One would have thought that such an elementary distinction would be clear to you.<BR/><BR/>MR:<BR/><BR/>". . .I'm not arguing that women represent goodness more than men do. Rather, it's a case that men recognise what is beautiful and good in womanhood. . . "<BR/><BR/>So, women aren't really good, but men "recogonize" the "goodness" in them anyway? Is that it? Is that how this "instinct" (or whatever you are now claiming it is) works?<BR/><BR/>Again, many men in many cultures throughout history, and in many cultures today, have failed to "recognize" any such thing in women. What you are reciting is a cultural construct, perhaps dating to the troubadors and the creation of the ideal of "courtly love." It might or might not be a good thing. But it's not universal. And it's not an instinct.<BR/><BR/>MR:<BR/><BR/>"Not only do I think it a great loss at a personal level not to experience the quality of love as having a real existence, I find it difficult to see how you would build a successful society without recognising its importance."<BR/><BR/>Um, don't you think it might be possible to love someone without this soft-focus, moonlight and magnolia BS about the "goodness" of women? And, contrary to what you imply, whole societies have managed to flourish without it as well.<BR/><BR/>MR: <BR/><BR/>"I'm starting to believe that women are in for a really tough time in the future."<BR/><BR/>With freedom comes reponsibility. Men no longer recognize some special "goodness" in women. On the other hand, women no longer need to rely on men to make their way in the world.<BR/><BR/>Me:<BR/><BR/>"They [traditionalists] shouldn't stack the deck by using a psychotic woman [Emin] unhappy in her untraditional lifestyle as being representative of all woman living such a lifestyle."<BR/><BR/>MR:<BR/><BR/>"There's a problem in taking this line Ruddy. Tracey Emin is perfectly respectable within modern liberal society. She has been accepted into the Royal Academy. . ."<BR/><BR/>Yes, she's this, that and the other. But does that mean she's not a crackpot? Many artists (even great ones) lead shitty personal lives. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "suffering artist?" There's more than a little irony in that term, you know.<BR/><BR/>MR:<BR/><BR/>"If she is psychotic as you say she is, then what does this say about modern liberal society?"<BR/><BR/>Um, nothing. That's the whole point, Mr. Richardson. She's one person. She's an anecdote. And a poorly chosen one if representativeness is what you were after. <BR/><BR/>And just as bad a one if you thought her awards and so forth prove that society is lauding her for her personal life. "Honored artist" does not equal "role model;" she's not honored for having a crazy personal life and a whiney personality, she's honored for her art.<BR/><BR/>Lord Byron beat his wife.<BR/><BR/>Link:<BR/><BR/>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/572353/byrons_poetry.html<BR/><BR/>Does that mean he shouldn't be honored by "liberal society" as a great poet? Or, that in so honoring him, "liberal society" is endorsing wife beating?<BR/><BR/>MR:<BR/><BR/>"There must be something wrong with a society which would honour a 'psychotic' woman to such an extent, don't you think?"<BR/><BR/>Wow, this argument is really a piece of work! I think it is more than clear that you are stacking the deck when you choose a woman like Emin to make a general point about a large group of women who happen to share one or two traits with her. It's intellectually dishonest. And it's equally intellectually dishonest to pretend that you don't understand that that is what you are doing after it is pointed out to you. <BR/><BR/>You took apart some feminists a few weeks ago for their disingenuity, now it seems like you are dabbling in it yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-68741935162744343202008-07-27T14:34:00.000+10:002008-07-27T14:34:00.000+10:00leadpb said:"ruddy. . .If I am teaching a class an...leadpb said:<BR/><BR/>"ruddy. . .If I am teaching a class and a girl sits down wearing a burka or hijab, do the tenets of the current liberalism evince neutrality in handling her case?"<BR/><BR/>What "case" would that be? As far as I am, and liberalism is, concerned, she can wear whatever she wants.<BR/><BR/>"What of the Swedish laws that demand equal at-home time with the kids by mother and father?"<BR/><BR/>I oppose such laws because they are illiberal and dictatorial. They are the result of radical feminism, which demands that people completely negate traditional gender roles, whether they want to or not. As a liberal, my position is that parents should work out questions of child care for themselves<BR/><BR/>"Progressive statism at its best."<BR/><BR/>Statism, yes. But not liberalism.<BR/><BR/>"I would never suggest that traditionalism is neutral. Why would you want others to believe that liberalism is so?"<BR/><BR/>Radical feminism is not neutral. What you call "progressive statism" is not neutral. Traditionalism is not neutral. But liberalism, once you accept the premise of maximizing personal freedom, is neutral. By the way, liberalism is often criticized precisely for being "too neutral," for serving no higher value than freedom. Yes, it says people should be free, but it doesn't say what they should do with their freedom, what the ultimate goal is. Liberalism is suspicious of ultimate goals--whether of the utopian or reactionary kind.<BR/><BR/>Using your "burka" case, a feminist might say that liberalism is wrong because it won't recognize that the choice of wearing the burka is itself a product of male domination and so forth and so on. And an Islamic "traditionalist" will complain about the "liberals" who don't force all the girls to wear burkhas in school. Both the feminist and the traditional Muslim deride the liberal because he has no values, because he is neutral.<BR/><BR/>"I think we have different ideas about 'conservative' and 'traditional,' especially if you think GWB is on the same planet as traditionalism. . ."<BR/><BR/>GWB is anti-abortion. He is against the separation of church and state. He is against sex education beyond "teaching abstinence." He opposes homosexual marriage. He is a born again Christian. All of that sounds like traditionalism to me.<BR/><BR/>"His Iraq project runs against traditionalist views. . ."<BR/><BR/>I think that's a matter of opinion. Here in the US, at least, it seems to me that most traditionalists support US foreign military interventions. But, in any event, it is the domestic issue listed above that US traditionalists appear to care most about it.<BR/><BR/>". . as does his abject promotion of 'immigration reform' and support of transnational globalism.. . ."<BR/><BR/>Again, here in the US, these are not the issues most near and dear to traditionalists. <BR/><BR/>". . .I suggest catching up on traditionalist thought at View From the Right (Lawrence Auster). . . By his writings you would believe that traditionalists are so small a minority that they scarcely register on the political scene at all."<BR/><BR/>Look, there always going to be people so extreme, so "pure" in their outlook that they have no effect on actual, electoral politics. You realize almost all current feminists believe that the US is a "patriarchy," don't you? Does that make it so? According to them, feminism and women's rights "scarcely register" on the US political scene either.<BR/><BR/>"'Neutrality' in this case is a theoretical fulcrum around which our ideas can (hopefully) move. It is not a philosophical destination."<BR/><BR/>This is exactly what I was talking about above! Liberalism is criticized, on a philosphical basis, because it has no "destination." The feminist has a destination: a world without gender roles; the Islamic traditionalist has a destination: a world in which the teachings of the Prophet are followed. The liberal has no destination. She says, "Wear the burkha if you want to and don't wear it if you don't want to."<BR/><BR/>"If a liberal mentality is the going ideology of the day (which it is in the West generally) that makes it the modern cultural baseline, not a neutral position."<BR/><BR/>But again, since you eschew coercion and violence, I can only assume that you too accept this baseline. You explicitly stated that you did not want to roll back anyone's freedom. Well, in so stating, you are acquiescing to the very "baseline liberalism" you seem to be criticizing here. If everyone is free to choose traditionalism or not, that means we must be living in a liberal state.<BR/><BR/>"It also makes it more difficult to see one's way through it or around it and this fog is obvious in talking to just about everyone you meet."<BR/><BR/>Actually, I think most people understand quite well that they are living in a liberal state. Radical leftists, including feminists, rail against the liberal society they live in, which refuses (for the most part)to impose their utopian schemes on an unwilling population. Traditionalists (not including you) rail against the liberal society that refuses (for the most part) to force everyone to go back to the old ways. And most people in between are happy that neither extreme has its way, and are well aware and very content that they are living in "a free country" where they can (for the most part)make their own decisions.<BR/><BR/>"May I suggest you ask yourself where this 'neutral' liberalism logically will lead us in the long run."<BR/><BR/>Again, logically, it leads us nowhere. Liberalism has no destination.<BR/><BR/>"Some have suggested Marxism or another totalitarianism. . . an authoritarian state. . ."<BR/><BR/>Such things are anathema to a liberal.<BR/><BR/>You seem to have a lot of fears about the future of the world. Maybe you would do better to direct your attention to the specific problems you point out, instead of using "liberalism" as some sort of catch-all boogyman representing everything you don't like. If the radical feminists fit your definition of "liberal," and George Bush does too, I suggest your definition of the term is overbroad, and is not of much use to you, or to anyone else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-72550809861159026522008-07-27T14:31:00.000+10:002008-07-27T14:31:00.000+10:00Here Jim Kalb says what I have been trying to get ...Here Jim Kalb says what I have been trying to get at more effectively and forcefully vis-a-vis liberalism:<BR/><BR/>http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/25<BR/><BR/>It is intellectually satisfying, but needs to be appreciated more widely by those who may not otherwise question their presumptive liberal world view.leadpbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08957439101293478340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-69647939601417326682008-07-27T14:22:00.000+10:002008-07-27T14:22:00.000+10:00They shouldn't stack the deck by using a psychotic...<I>They shouldn't stack the deck by using a psychotic woman unhappy in her untraditional lifestyle as being representative of all woman living such a lifestyle.</I><BR/><BR/>There's a problem in taking this line Ruddy. Tracey Emin is perfectly respectable within modern liberal society. She has been accepted into the Royal Academy, she's been nominated for the Turner prize, her works are displayed in the Scottish National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, and she's been awarded honorary degrees from various universities.<BR/><BR/>If she is psychotic as you say she is, then what does this say about modern liberal society? There must be something wrong with a society which would honour a "psychotic" woman to such an extent, don't you think?Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-80494489515643664072008-07-27T14:02:00.000+10:002008-07-27T14:02:00.000+10:00you still haven't shown that the cultural practice...<I>you still haven't shown that the cultural practices and ideals that you obviously genuinely revere are anything but culturaly constructed, and not matter of "instincts" and "nature."</I><BR/><BR/>Well we're heading into strange territory here.<BR/><BR/>I asserted that the love men feel for women has an objective worth and you are intent on arguing that it is a cultural construct and that the only thing to be accepted as definite is the sex drive.<BR/><BR/>No wonder that you feel disconnected from traditional family arrangements. If the only objectively real thing is the sex drive, then it's unlikely that men will commit to marriage.<BR/><BR/>Let me repeat: I'm not arguing that women represent goodness more than men do. Rather, it's a case that men recognise what is beautiful and good in womanhood and are inspired to love such qualities in individual women and to take a protective attitude to women in general.<BR/><BR/>Not only do I think it a great loss at a personal level not to experience the quality of love as having a real existence, I find it difficult to see how you would build a successful society without recognising its importance.<BR/><BR/>I'm starting to believe that women are in for a really tough time in the future.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-36096675579799633662008-07-27T12:26:00.000+10:002008-07-27T12:26:00.000+10:00ruddy,If I am teaching a class and a girl sits dow...ruddy,<BR/><BR/>If I am teaching a class and a girl sits down wearing a burka or hijab, do the tenets of the current liberalism evince neutrality in handling her case? How far must inclusiveness extend? What of the Swedish laws that demand equal at-home time with the kids by mother and father? Progressive statism at its best. I would never suggest that traditionalism is neutral. Why would you want others to believe that liberalism is so?<BR/><BR/>I think we have different ideas about "conservative" and "traditional", especially if you think GWB is on the same planet as traditionalism. His Iraq project runs against traditionalist views, as does his abject promotion of "immigration reform" and support of transnational globalism. If you are not familiar with it already I suggest catching up on traditionalist thought at View From the Right (Lawrence Auster). It will radically alter any pre-existing ideas of what "conservative" actually means in America, and his reductions of liberalism are piercing. By his writings you would believe that traditionalists are so small a minority that they scarcely register on the political scene at all.<BR/><BR/>You say "And, you still haven't shown me how liberalism is anything but neutral to traditionalism." If liberalism-- specifically modern liberalism as opposed to classical liberalism-- were "neutral" we would not be having this conversation. <BR/><BR/>"Neutrality" in this case is a theoretical fulcrum around which our ideas can (hopefully) move. It is not a philosophical destination.<BR/><BR/>The literature going back centuries that spells out the underlying problems with an idealistic, non-discriminatory, rebellious, etc. liberalism is voluminous. If a liberal mentality is the going ideology of the day (which it is in the West generally) that makes it the modern cultural baseline, not a neutral position. It also makes it more difficult to see one's way through it or around it and this fog is obvious in talking to just about everyone you meet. <BR/><BR/>May I suggest you ask yourself where this "neutral" liberalism logically will lead us in the long run. Some have suggested Marxism or another totalitarianism. In any event the explicit goals of the liberal elite have everything to do with controlling what they would term the excesses of humanity: over-population, evils of capitalism, ditto racism and other inequalities. Without an authoritarian state like the EU how can such people possibly accomplish their noble agenda of total non-discrimination? How else can they remain organized and progressive? But neutral??<BR/><BR/>I would say that conservatism s.l. is the fallback (but not neutral) position of society, the Old Foundation upon which other ideas have grown, including liberalism.leadpbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08957439101293478340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-29435446651153507002008-07-27T10:53:00.000+10:002008-07-27T10:53:00.000+10:00Mark Richardson said:"Ruddy: Here's another reason...Mark Richardson said:<BR/><BR/>"Ruddy: Here's another reason why traditionalists shouldn't accept your invitation to be neutral. . ."<BR/><BR/>I don't expect traditionalists to be neutral. What I want is for official and semi-official sources of information to be neutral. Just as I don't want the radical feminists to hijack public resources to subsidize their agenda, so I don't want traditionalists to do so either.<BR/><BR/>Take the questions of marriage, and women "postponing" marriage and motherhood that we have been talking about. I don't want the government, or the public school or univesity, telling girls and women that marriage and motherhood are good things. I don't want them telling them that they are bad things, either. Those are value judgments, and those who have a stake in the argument (eg radical feminists and traditionalists) should pay for their own propaganda. I don't want the government telling women to postpone, or not to postpone marriage either, because that is a personal decision. What I want is for the official channels of information to publish just that, neutral information. The government should tell women and girls that they are more likely to be fertile, less likely to have children with birth defects, and less likely to have pregnancy and childbirth take big tolls on their bodies, in their 20's than they are in their late 30's, because those are relevant facts.<BR/><BR/>In short, traditionalists, and their opponents, have every right to make their arguments on their own nickel, and no right to use government funds to do so.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, and as a matter of what's right as opposed to what the law should be, all sides should be honest and in good faith in their argumentation. The radical feminists should not lie about marriage being generally "oppressive" to women; nor should they lie to women that they can "choose" marriage and motherhood whenever they want to. Similary, traditionalists should not pretend that there are no, or very few, people living lifestyles other than traditional ones who are happy and fulfilled. They shouldn't stack the deck by using a psychotic woman unhappy in her untraditional lifestyle as being representative of all woman living such a lifestyle. They shouldn't continually cherry-pick news articles about women who are childless and regret it, and act as if the women in those articles represent all childless women.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-80408961560272266702008-07-27T10:22:00.000+10:002008-07-27T10:22:00.000+10:00Mark Richardson said:"It is part of the heterosexu...Mark Richardson said:<BR/><BR/>"It is part of the heterosexual instinct of young men to perceive, and to feel love for, the potential for beauty and a particular kind of feminine goodness in women."<BR/><BR/>Again, you are conflating culture with "instinct." Instinct makes most young men, for lack of a more genteel word, "horny." This other stuff you are talking about is all culture. Putting women on a pedestal. Making believe there is something about them that is "good" in a way that men are not. All of that is the product of a particular culture.Plenty of cultures have existed, and still exist, in which young men did not view women in this way. Where is the "instinct" that you talk about in those societies?<BR/><BR/>"I expect that you are jaded - and I don't say that as an insult. The current generation of men have been hit so hard for so long by demoralising influences that I expect most of us have been affected."<BR/><BR/>I don't take it as an insult. But, it's a little like being called a "cynic" by a religous believer. Unless one accepts the concepts that the believer, or the traditionalist, thinks are axiomatic and universal, one is labelled as being incapable of understanding due to some sort of personal diminishment. The problem can never be with the concepts themselves, or with the lack of proof. No. Only a "cynic" denies the existence of a deity, only a "jaded" man questions the innate "goodness" of women.<BR/><BR/>But such claims, even if not meant as insults, don't make for a very effective argument. Whether I'm "jaded" or not, you still haven't shown that the cultural practices and ideals that you obviously genuinely revere are anything but culturaly constructed, and not matter of "instincts" and "nature."<BR/><BR/>And, even if you were right, it is a fallacy to think that the "natural" or the "instinctual" is necessarily moral or desirable. Apparently, anthropologists have shown, that rape, murder, infanticide, and so on are "natural" and "instinctual" behaviors. But that doesn't make them good or moral. Similarly, for the practices that you desire, you have to show that they are good and moral, whether they are "natural" or "instinctual" isn't the right question. No doubt you think they are good and moral, but you would do better to focus on that than on their alleged "naturalness."<BR/><BR/>"It's another example of how neutrality doesn't work. For certain goods to be publicly available, the conditions for their flourishing have to be maintained and defended. . . Up until about the 1990s, it [popular music] was dominated by the love ballad. Since then the love ballad has died away and become a rarity. The culture has shifted, and relations between men and women in popular music are now described in coarser terms. If we live in a public culture, then we are all affected by this shift."<BR/><BR/>But, again, what are you going to do about it? You talk about "maintaining and defending" certain conditions. How? Are you going to forbid the kind of songs you don't like? Do you want the government to give subsidies to songwriters who write the kind you do like? Right now, the government is "neutral" on these issues. It doesn't forbid love songs (which, as an aside, are hardly as scarce as you think they are!); it doesn't subsidize nasty songs. Unless coercion, or some other form of massive governmental intervention into popular culture and private life, is going to be used, I'm not sure what it is you are proposing.<BR/><BR/>"You seem to think that traditionalists can happily opt out of a public culture and retreat into a privately constructed one. Perhaps this is the last option availabe for traditionalists - but it's not a reasonable one to expect traditionalists to take."<BR/><BR/>But, if traditionalist can't convince the bulk of individual people to follow their precepts, what else is left?<BR/><BR/>Persuasion doesn't seem to be working. You reject Amish-style retreat and isolation. Other traditionalist posters have told me they reject coercion. How about you? How do propose to "maintain and defend" the conditions that the "hothouse flower" of traditionalism requires? It can't survive, according to you, in the neutral environment that liberalism creates. And, you claim it's not "reasonable" to expect traditionalism to retreat. So, do you propose to roll back liberalism, by force if necessary, so that traditionalism can thrive?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-77836472546082378462008-07-27T10:11:00.000+10:002008-07-27T10:11:00.000+10:00Jim Kalb describes how Liberalism rules by pretend...Jim Kalb <A HREF="http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/1643" REL="nofollow">describes</A> how Liberalism rules by pretending not to rule. He has a book coming out soon called <I><A HREF="http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=382d08f6-153e-4eb3-ae56-c8c192d8050a" REL="nofollow">The Tyranny of Liberalism</A></I>, subtitled "Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-8271201878019243082008-07-27T09:43:00.000+10:002008-07-27T09:43:00.000+10:00Ruddy, next point. Here's another reason why tradi...Ruddy, next point. Here's another reason why traditionalists shouldn't accept your invitation to be neutral.<BR/><BR/>At the schools I have worked at, the more advanced liberals have never tired of pushing their own agenda onto students. It's done openly, usually with the support of the school administration.<BR/><BR/>The same thing happens in the mass media, at universities and in government departments.<BR/><BR/>So the advanced liberals are expending much energy pushing their modernist agenda onto society through the public institutions of society.<BR/><BR/>What would happen, then, if those people who opposed the modernist agenda in favour of something more traditional accepted the idea that they should remain merely neutral?<BR/><BR/>Obviously, modernism would win unopposed. <BR/><BR/>So it is a losing proposition for traditionalists to accept the role of neutralists. <BR/><BR/>It means conceding defeat even before entering the political arena.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-41791612430860057812008-07-27T09:42:00.001+10:002008-07-27T09:42:00.001+10:00Lawrence Auster has a post today where he quotes E...Lawrence Auster has a <A HREF="http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011069.html" REL="nofollow">post</A> today where he quotes Eugene Rose's <B><I>Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age.</I></B> It's an interesting quote, and ties in directly to autonomy (which is Mr. Richardson's nice way of putting "rebellion against all authority"):<BR/><BR/>Nihilist rebellion is a war against God and against Truth; but few Nihilists are fully aware of this. Explicit theological and philosophical Nihilism is the preserve of a few rare souls; for most, Nihilist rebellion takes the more immediate form of a war against authority. Many whose attitudes toward God and Truth may seem ambiguous reveal their Nihilism most clearly in their attitude toward--in Bakunin's words--the "cursed and fatal principle of authority."<BR/><BR/>The Nihilist "revelation" thus declares, most immediately, the annihilation of authority. Some apologists are fond of citing "corruptions," "abuses," and "injustices" in the Old Order as justification for rebellion against it; but such things--the existence of which no one will deny--have been often the pretext, but never the cause, of Nihilist outbursts. It is authority itself that the Nihilist attacks....The disorder so apparent in contemporary politics, religion, art, and other realms as well, is a result of the deliberate and systematic annihilation of the foundations of authority in them....<BR/><BR/>Nihilist rebellion has entered so deeply into the fibre of our age that resistance to it is feeble and ineffective; popular philosophy and most "serious thought" devote their energies to apology for it.... To the modern man whom Nihilism has "enlightened," this Old Order is but a horrible memory of some dark past from which man has been "liberated"; modern history has been the chronicle of the fall of every authority. The Old Order has been overthrown, and if a precarious stability is maintained in what is unmistakably an age of "transition, a "new order" is clearly in the making; the age of the "rebel" is at hand. <BR/><BR/>Of this age the Nihilist regimes of this century have given a foretaste, and the widespread rebelliousness of the present day is a further portent; where there is no truth, the rebellious will reigns. But "the will," said Dostoyevsky, with his customary insight into the Nihilist mentality, "is closest to nothing; the most assertive are closest to the most nihilistic."[33] He who has abandoned truth and every authority founded upon that truth has only blind will between himself and the Abyss; and this will, whatever its spectacular achievements in its brief moment of power (those of Hitler and of Bolshevism have so far been the most spectacular), is irresistibly drawn to that Abyss as to some immense magnet that has searched out the answering abyss within itself. In this abyss, this nothingness of the man who lives without truth, we come to the very heart of Nihilism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-21317443457990795762008-07-27T09:42:00.000+10:002008-07-27T09:42:00.000+10:00leadpb:"ruddy. . .You say. . .liberalism is only t...leadpb:<BR/><BR/>"ruddy. . .You say. . .liberalism is only the champion of freedom and individual liberties. This is simply not credible."<BR/><BR/>Not credible? That is the textbook definition of liberalism.<BR/><BR/>"What I propose is helping individuals realize the bill of goods they have been sold. . ."<BR/><BR/>Well, no one can argue with the method you propose. Continue to use your right to free expression to try to convince others that they should share your traditionalist views. Liberalism is not stopping you from doing so.<BR/><BR/>"The changes that traditionalists bemoan losing and would like to see reincarnated somehow are mostly to do with government reducing its role in our lives, not increasing it."<BR/><BR/>Really? Here in the US the traditionalists seem determined to have the government emobody their values and force them on others. Homosexuality should be outlawed. Sexually explicit media should be suppressed. Contraception and abortion should be made hard to get. Public schools should teach "intelligent design" and other religous doctrines, and have prayer sessions.<BR/><BR/>"True conservatism, as I see it, is a set of principles and not an ideology .. ."<BR/><BR/>I agree that this is the case for "true conservatism," but not traditionalism. Conservatism is about taking things slowly, about having respect for established institutions and thinking twice about changing them, because there are probably good reasons for them to exist as they do. Traditionalism, as it appears to me, seems to be more of an idealogy, with a definite agenda. Indivdual freedom, ie liberalism, is to be rolled back, so that a restoration of an idealized past (the 1950's, the 19th century, or even earlier) can be realized.<BR/><BR/>"As to your synopsis of American political parties, I see the situation as exactly opposite. The Republicans, almost without exception right-liberals, have pandered to left demographics in the interest of getting the win. This behavior is scurrilous and the Democrats are no better. Not one major figure dares to take an unwavering traditionalist position on immigration, abortion, welfare or any other subject that could end up losing them votes. If you know of an American traditionalist elected politician I should like to know his or her name."<BR/><BR/>George W. Bush. Born again Christian. Believer in pre-marital sexual abstinence. Against homosexuality. And so on.<BR/><BR/>As for US politics as a whole, welfare is virtually non-existent, and neither party has any designs on changing that. Abortion is effectively illegal in many US states, some have only one operating clinic, and that one is constantly harassed and bombarded with legal efforts to close it down, thinly disguised as "regulatory" efforts. The Republicans use the bugaboo of homosexual marriage to rally their troops. They cater to the religous right on almost every social issue. The Democrats, as pathetic an excuse for an opposition party as you will ever find, go out of their way to pander to the same groups. A good example of this is supposedly "liberal" Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's constant bleating about his alleged religous convictions, and his proposal to redouble Bush's "faith based initiatives" (ie the use by churches of government funds to drum up converts while pretending to use them to deal with social problems).<BR/><BR/>"Traditionalism is not about imposing social philosophy on anyone in a democratic republic. It is about waking people up to what is good that has been lost and what is to be gained from abandoning some of the failed views we have adopted."<BR/><BR/>Again, that's fine. But I see traditionalists other than yourself who do want to impose their philososphy on others.<BR/><BR/>And, you still haven't shown me how liberalism is anything but neutral to traditionalism. It doesn't stop you from continuing to argue in favor of traditionalsim. Nor does liberalism prevent anyone who so desires from living a traditional lifestyle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-64385787374418957042008-07-27T09:31:00.000+10:002008-07-27T09:31:00.000+10:00Ruddy,I partly agree with you when it comes to the...Ruddy,<BR/><BR/>I partly agree with you when it comes to the issue of women and goodness. I believe that the West took a particularly wrong turn in the nineteenth century, when men handballed the guardianship of moral standards to women.<BR/><BR/>However, I was really trying to get at something else. It is part of the heterosexual instinct of young men to perceive, and to feel love for, the potential for beauty and a particular kind of feminine goodness in women. This beauty and goodness are imperfectly realised in individual women, though some women do display such qualities of womanhood to an impressive degree (the "lovelier" kinds of women).<BR/><BR/>I expect that you are jaded - and I don't say that as an insult. The current generation of men have been hit so hard for so long by demoralising influences that I expect most of us have been affected.<BR/><BR/>It's another example of how neutrality doesn't work. For certain goods to be publicly available, the conditions for their flourishing have to be maintained and defended.<BR/><BR/>Look at popular music. Up until about the 1990s, it was dominated by the love ballad. Since then the love ballad has died away and become a rarity. The culture has shifted, and relations between men and women in popular music are now described in coarser terms.<BR/><BR/>If we live in a public culture, then we are all affected by this shift. You seem to think that traditionalists can happily opt out of a public culture and retreat into a privately constructed one.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps this is the last option availabe for traditionalists - but it's not a reasonable one to expect traditionalists to take.Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-63826332844902371232008-07-27T05:43:00.000+10:002008-07-27T05:43:00.000+10:00Mark Richardson said:"Ruddy, first there is the is...Mark Richardson said:<BR/><BR/>"Ruddy, first there is the issue of what is likely to fulfil our lives. . . This is not exactly the same as asking what makes us happy. . ."<BR/><BR/>Well, I couldn't find any surveys about "fulfillment," so happiness is the best I could do. <BR/><BR/>". . .but I note that in the survey you linked to married people reported a considerably higher rate of being very happy than those who weren't married."<BR/><BR/>Most surveys do show that married people were more likely to be happy. But they also show that many single, childless people are happy too. The original premise that I was responding to was that happy, single, childless people were some kind of rarity, so much so that I was challenged to prove otherwise. <BR/><BR/>Another thing to consider is that all people are born single and childless, and that some people who are unhappy, and single and/or childless, may want to get married but have been unable to find a partner, or may want children but can't find a partner or are biologically unable to procreate. These people haven't "chosen" to be single and childfree, and they skew the happiness statistics of these groups downward.<BR/><BR/>"Even so, I don't think that such questionnaires really grasp the dynamic of the situation."<BR/><BR/>I'm not really sure where else to look. You point to a couple of other surveys, but does either one claim that there are not large numbers of happy (or "fulfilled") single, childless people? Not from the way you present them. Being single and childless is not right for everyone, it may only be right for a minority. So what?<BR/><BR/>"It is natural. . ."<BR/><BR/>All that follows is just a recaptitulation of what you believe it is "natural" for people to want, and what style of life is "natural" for them to lead. But, for many, many people, such things are not natural at all. It's not natural for gays and lesbians. And it's not the case that everyone who is hetero, but single and childless, is the product of some trauma or fear other misfortune. Not everyone is the same, Mr. Richardson, for example, some of us single, hetero men don't find there to be any particular "goodness" in women. In my experience, which is no more "jaded" than average, women are no better or worse than men. <BR/><BR/>What you claim to be "natural" is instead the merely product of long-held cutural beliefs. The early Christians, for example, did not think women were inherently "good," nor did the classical Greeks or Romans. What's "natural" (for almost everyone) is to have some kind of sex drive. It''s also "natural" for women and, to a lesser extent, men, to want to protect their children. All the rest of it, monogamy, marriage, courtly love, the idealization of women as the embodiment of "good," and so on, is cultural, not natural. That doesn't mean that all of these things are necessarily "bad" or "wrong," but we are not in a position to even begin to judge that until we remove the false cloud of "nature" from them.<BR/><BR/>"Surely that man should set himself the task of protecting the conditions in which that higher good can flourish - rather than pretending to be neutral."<BR/><BR/>Assuming the married with children lifestyle that you idealize is the "higher good," the conditions for it to flourish are already in place. As I said, find a like minded women, get married, you do the wage and yard work, she does the house and child care work, join a church, home school the kids, etc., etc. That's what people who want to live traditionalist lives do in the US.<BR/><BR/>"This doesn't mean that we would wish to coerce those individuals who were actively hostile to such life aims to participate in them. . ."<BR/><BR/>That's good to know.<BR/><BR/>". . .But it does mean that it is right to stand in defence of these goods, and to ensure that they are regarded highly in society. . ."<BR/><BR/>How are you going to "ensure they are regarded highly in society" without coercion? What if most people in society don't choose your preferred "goods," or if they think that they should be a matter of personal choice?<BR/><BR/>As I asked the other poster, what actual programme are you proposing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-48875537186641315162008-07-26T23:44:00.000+10:002008-07-26T23:44:00.000+10:00Ruddy, if you are looking more for the scientific ...Ruddy, if you are looking more for the scientific side of things there's this:<BR/><BR/><I>Lewis and Moon (1997) analyzed survey data from 39 women between the ages of 30-65 and found that even though single women enjoyed the freedom to follow their personal aspirations, many felt alone, unhappy, and depressed because of their decision not to marry or to have children.</I><BR/><BR/>Then there is the following survey, which reports "ambivalence" in single women: levels of contentment mixed with feelings of grief and loss:<BR/><BR/><I>The purpose of this phenomenological, multiple-case study was to investigate perceptions of being single among heterosexual single women between the ages of 30 and 65 ... although content with being single, many women simultaneously experience feelings of loss and grief.</I>Mark Richardsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961688379656119701noreply@blogger.com