Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky



















Saturday, 4 August 2007

More like a feminist? So what?

Lawrence Auster (h/t Alan) doesn't like Ayaan Hirsi Ali much:

As a long-time severe critic of Hirsi Ali's, I want to point out that this is the first article by her I've seen in which, instead of focusing on the oppression of women (though she does speak of it eloquently here) and thus sounding more like a feminist than a critics of Islam, or talking about the badness of some generic "theocracy" (by which she means Christianity), or talking about her own life and experiences, she focuses on the doctrines and characteristics of Islam itself, from the perspective of its jihadist agenda toward non-Muslims.

Why do people think the oppression of women is a side issue? Women are half the population and just as human as men. If a "religion" oppresses half its followers, this is a good reason to criticise it, even if the main problem of Islam is its approach to unbelievers. And if Hirsi Ali focuses on her own life and experiences, again so what? That life and those experiences illustrate clearly the cruelty and barrenness of Islam. More importantly, together with Hirsi Ali's stunning beauty, they draw in an audience, who may then go on to consider Islam in more detail.

I have some reservations about Hirsi Ali, although these are disappearing. I didn't think The Caged Virgin was particularly well written - she muddled personal recollection with general comments on Islam. But over the last couple of years, she has developed her ideas into more cogent arguments, and is now an extremely eloquent opponent of Islam.

Perhaps Hirsi Ali is a bit too uppity for Auster. She probably believes women should have the vote.

Posted on 08/04/2007 7:28 AM by Mary Jackson
Comments
4 Aug 2007
Send an emailUncle Kenny

The world is a much simpler place when those pesky pigeons will just stay in their holes

4 Aug 2007
Morgan
"Lawrence Auster doesn't like women much"

Now that resonates with my experience.

4 Aug 2007
Send an emailLawrence Auster

"Perhaps Hirsi Ali is a bit too uppity for Auster. She probably believes women should have the vote."

I'm amazed to see this type of ignorant and stupid commentary at New English Review. I thought this was a, excuse the word, intellectual website.

As anyone would know who has read my many articles and blog entries on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I am critical of her because her main concerns so far have not been to to protect the West from Islam but to advance leftism, advance feminism, attack Christianity (she's compared Catholicism to Nazism), and outlaw immigration restrictionist parties in Europe.

Here are three article of mine about her:

Hirsi Ali, the conservatives’ hero, lets it all hang out http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007249.html (Ali equates Catholicism with Nazism

Now we finally know for sure where Ali is really at http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007288.html (Ali only opposes the promotion of sharia if it's done by violence and intimidation)

What Hirsi Ali wants http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007381.html (She doesn't believe in the West, but in using the West to spread "the open society," "a world-wide open field of radically liberated individuals.")



4 Aug 2007
mik

Lawrence Auster is one formidable intellect.  One can disagree with him, and I do on some issues, but to publicly challege him one has to do his homework and write very clearly.

Or one will look foolish.

 



4 Aug 2007
Send an emailLawrence Auster
My comment was stripped of paragraph breaks, rendering it unreadable. Can someone fix this? Thanks to MiK.

4 Aug 2007
Send an emailNER

Dear Lawrence Auster,

If a comment is pasted in without physically making the paragraph breaks, that will happen sometimes.

Fixed now.

NER staff



4 Aug 2007
Send an emailMark Richardson

Women are half the population and just as human as men.

I get worried when people throw in the "just as human" bit. It makes me think that they might be following a set of modernist assumptions which lead on to the orthodoxy in place today.

The progression of orthodox thought runs something like this: Our humanity is contingent on our being autonomous; therefore, if some are less autonomous than others there literally exists a human inequality, with some being treated as less human than others; therefore, the primary goal of politics is to radically refashion society to achieve equality.

And who is less autonomous? According to feminists, women are because the traditional motherhood role is less financially independent and less self-defining than a careerist role. Therefore, the motherhood role is unjust and oppressive to women and we need a new family in which husband and wife work equal hours and spend equal hours looking after children at home.

 And this is the most "conservative" take on the logic of autonomy theory. The more radical one is that marriage itself is a limitation on autonomy (the defining quality of our humanity) and that we should therefore endlessly defer a commitment to long-term relationships, or else live de facto, or else have an easy exit route from marriage as part of our autonomous choice.

Or, more radical yet, there's the idea of patriarchy theorists, who suppose that women are less autonomous not because motherhood is a natural role, but because men have organised an entire social system to establish themselves as a class of privileged oppressors and women as the oppressed. In which case relationships are inevitably run through with bad faith.

If the West is in trouble, it is partly because of the application of such theories and the resulting disruption to family life and reproduction. We need to be stepping back from such ideas, and reconsidering the way we think about politics.

Already here in Australia there are those on both the right and left who think a pro-natalist policy is oppressive and discriminatory to women because the bearing of children is a subordinate role. They think it's more politically progressive to maintain a population by opening the borders, rather than through women bearing children.

We can't survive such ideas, so I don't think we should be lightly endorsing the feminism of Hirsi Ali, even if there are aspects of the treatment of women under Islam we think are unjust.



4 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

I get worried when people throw in the "just as human" bit.

I get worried when the people question the idea that women are just as human as men.

A civilised society is one that treats women as equals. Islam doesn't, therefore Islam has no place in a modern civilised society. Lawrence Auster thinks women should not have the vote. His ideas are therefore not worthy of serious consideration. He also has no sense of humour whatsoever. This is quite a feat.



5 Aug 2007
Send an emailMark Richardson

I get worried when people question the idea that women are just as human as men.

Did Lawrence Auster question the idea that women are just as human as men?

I think you're imposing a whole set of political ideas of your own on what Lawrence Auster has written to reach this conclusion.

Most people would think that it's not possible for someone to be more human than another. The traditional Christian view has been that we are invested with a soul and that this makes us human, and gives us a dignity of human status, no matter what our condition.

Where does the logic of your position end? Are women less human if they are not on as many company boards as men? Are they less human if they earn 95 cents to a man's dollar? Are they less human if they spend more time at home with their children? Are they less human if they don't serve as frontline soldiers?

Is the West made morally illegitimate until such male/female distinctions are abolished?

The current understanding of gender equality is driving a fatal breach between Western men and women. It is creating a group of women who think they are patriarchal victims and a group of men who think that Western women are selfish and masculinised.

It is disruptive to family formation and to civilisational loyalty. It's not helping our cause. We need to think carefully about how we define equality between men and women.



5 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

In saying that women should not be allowed to vote, Auster is saying that they are not fully human. Think about it - a woman, no matter how intelligent, accomplished and able is deprived of a right given to a man no matter how stupid and useless.

Of course he would put it differently - he would say that women  are "differently" human, or "just as human in their own way". And we all know what that means.

We need to think carefully about how we define equality between men and women.

No we don't. Equality between men and women is not negotiable.



5 Aug 2007
Send an emailRebecca Bynum
I agree with Mary. Female equality is a civilizational issue. It's a crucial marker defining the line between civilization and barbarism and should never be compromised. Period.

6 Aug 2007
mik

As I recall Mr. Auster and his commenters discussed impact of female votes on society from a conservative point of view. I think general feeling was that female voters make society more liberal, more nanny-state type.

What is so radical in having opinion that female voters cause society to be more liberal?

It is an issue quite apart from women right to vote. Willingness to deny women right to vote is a radical opinion, but if serious people would like to discuss it, why not.

Personally I think evidence that women vote is more liberal is overwhelming. However I cannot see 50% of adults denied say in their goverment. Totally unacceptable.

I'm not sure if Mr. Auster thinks that women should not have right to vote, or he only thinks that female vote moves society left.

If female commenters to this blog cannot see that there are 2 issues here, let me pick a less emotional issue (for them).

A thought experiment:

Remove African-American vote from from results of last 10 Presidential elections:

Would Carter (1976) or Clinton (1992 & 96) would have been elected?

Certainly Carter would have not, probably Clinton in 92 would have not.

Black vote in US makes society more liberal, however their rights must not be taken away.



6 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

I'm not sure if Mr. Auster thinks that women should not have right to vote, or he only thinks that female vote moves society left.

The fact that there is even any doubt is telling. The fact that, in your eyes, he "may" think women shouldn't vote. That's like saying he "may" think slavery is OK, but don't worry, it's possible he "may" not.

If female commenters to this blog cannot see that there are 2 issues here, let me pick a less emotional issue (for them).

Oh, how very kind of you. To object to being deprived of a right that even the stupidest man may exercise is "emotional", is it? And to support such an unjust deprivation is rational, I suppose?



6 Aug 2007
mik

"The fact that, in your eyes, he "may" think women shouldn't vote. That's like saying he "may" think slavery is OK, but don't worry, it's possible he "may" not."

Like I said, arguing with Mr. Auster without thinking and clear writing makes one look foolish.

Like comparing lack of vote rights to slavery.

 



6 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

Like comparing lack of vote rights to slavery.

I wasn't saying they were exactly comparable, merely that to contemplate returning to a time when these injustices prevailed is something that a rational person, whose views are worthy of serious consideration, would not do.

If half the population are denied political rights, why not other rights too? Either women are fully human, with the same rights as men, or they are not.



6 Aug 2007
Send an emailLawrence Auster
Mary Jackson writes:

"I get worried when the people question the idea that women are just as human as men.

"A civilised society is one that treats women as equals. Islam doesn't, therefore Islam has no place in a modern civilised society. Lawrence Auster thinks women should not have the vote. His ideas are therefore not worthy of serious consideration. He also has no sense of humour whatsoever. This is quite a feat."

Where do I start replying to this stunning display of incomprehension, undiluted liberalism, political correctness, and cheap ad hominem attack by the senior editor of what I had thought was an intellectual conservative website?

Let's start with the incomprehension. Mary Jackson says:

"Lawrence Auster thinks women should not have the vote."

I suppose she is referring to a recent discussion at my website (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008277.html), where I raised the question whether women's political equality is a good thing for society. In discussing women's political rights, I made it clear this was a separate issue from human rights, civil rights, and property rights. Also, I said repeatedly in that discussion that I had no definite opinion on the matter. Thus:

"I do not have an agenda to take away women's political rights, as my views on the subject are not completely formed, and also we obviously have much more pressing issues facing us at this time. However, among the other aspects of modern culture and politics that traditionalists freely question, we need to question whether women's political equality is on balance a good thing for society. There are reasonable grounds for concluding that it is not."

Now to say that there are reasonable grounds for concluding something does not mean that one concludes that thing. I frequently describe positions I disagree with as "reasonable." It is evident to any half-sentient person reading that thread that I am exploring a topic, and making arguments that are open to examination and may be correct or incorrect, such as that the women's vote over time tends to lead society toward the Provider State and the end of true liberty. Now, is this assertion true, or untrue? If a person thinks that it is true, does that mean he thinks women are less human than men? No, it means he thinks that women have dispositions different from men, which, when expressed in the political sphere independently of men, will over time lead society in a more leftward direction. A thinking person, not under the sway of liberal tyranny, might be interested in exploring such questions. And that's what I was doing in that thread.

In any case, Jackson's statement that I think women should not have the vote is simply false.

That takes care of Jackson's incomprehension. Next comes her liberalism. She writes:

"I get worried when the people question the idea that women are just as human as men. A civilised society is one that treats women as equals."

According to Jackson, a society that does not give women the vote, is treating women as less human than men. Moreover, such a society is not civilized. Therefore, according to her, America and Britain before women had the vote were uncivilized societies. The Britain of Victoria and Albert, and the cult of the nuclear family that they inaugurated, and Christmas trees, and the great age of Romanticism, and the great 19th century novelists and poets, and the Oxford movement, and the neo-Gothic movement, and the spread of science, and the appearance of universal manhood suffrage (which only came about in 1867--men were being treated as less than human too!), and the rise of broad middle class prosperity for the first time in the world—the Britain that did all this, according to Jackson, was an uncivilized society. This was a society in which women were seen as not fully human. Britain only became civilized and human when women got the vote around 1910.

The implication is that people must look at the entire history of their civilization BEFORE women got the vote as something dark and ugly, which makes them despise the entire past of their civilization and thus its present as well. No one who despises the entire past of his civilization can love his civilization. We see this contempt expressed most strongly on the left, for example, in a movie like The History Boys (see my discussion of it here http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006848.html).

Since Britain as a historic civilization is dark and inhuman, the only reason to approve of Britain is its progress toward equality. And that of course is the definition of liberalism.

What then is the difference between Mary Jackson of the New English Review and the contemporary left of Britain and America? Both Jackson and the left think the entire past of their civilization is brutish and hateful and they define moral goodness solely in terms of equality.

Jackson writes:

"A civilised society is one that treats women as equals. Islam doesn't, therefore Islam has no place in a modern civilised society."

According to Jackson, lack of the women's vote alone would mean that the West is not civilized and therefore unworthy of love. The West prior to women's political equality would not have been better than uncivilized Islam and would not have been worth defending against Islam. If Jackson had been around when Vienna was being besieged by the Ottomans in 1683, or when the Arabs and Moors were invading Gaul in 732, she would have had no basis on which to defend Christian Europe from the Islamic invaders, since for her the only reason to support the West is modern women's equality.

Jackson doesn't love the West as a historic people, civilization, and tradition. She only loves equality. And that is the very definition of a liberal.

Also, in her reply to mik, Jackson writes:

"If half the population are denied political rights, why not other rights too? Either women are fully human, with the same rights as men, or they are not."

So according to Jackson, since women did not have political rights in, say, 1840, therefore men in 1840 had NO REASON not to deprive women of their human rights as well, meaning that they had NO REASON not to enslave women, rape them, torture them, and kill them. This is what Jackson thinks of her own people and civilization. She thinks there is NO MORALITY in Western civilization other than that of modern, 20th century equality. Yet in the 1830s Tocquville told about a young unmarried woman who traveled unaccompanied from one end of the United States to the other and was never once treated rudely by a man. And that was an America where women did not have the vote.

Now we come to Jackson's political correctness. She writes:

"Lawrence Auster thinks women should not have the vote. His ideas are therefore not worthy of serious consideration."

The topic that began this discussion had nothing to do with the women's vote but with Hirsi Ali's positions on Islam. The question was whether Hirsi Ali is helping the West against Islam or weakening it. I have argued at length, based on Ali's own statements and positions, that she is not pro-Western and is not really an ally of the West against Islam. People can agree or disagree with my argument. But Jackson doesn't merely disagree with my argument. She says that the fact that I have written about some of the negative effects of women's political equality means that my ideas on Islam and how to defend the West from Islam are not worthy of consideration. Because my ideas on women's rights are not acceptable to Mary Jackson, my ideas on ALL topics are off the charts. My views on all topics should be ignored. I am to be expelled from political discussion.

Also, for a man to be told that he "doesn't like women" that he's "anti-woman" is a very intimidating thing to say in today's world. Most men will not put themselves in a situation where this might be said about them, so they remain silent on women's issues. The crack of the whip of women's tyranny today is not a negligible force. Look at what happened to Lawrence Summers. He suggested that women may not be equal to men in the highest reaches of science and math, and for this he was hounded from his job. When a woman says a man is anti-woman, that is the sheerest exercise of feminist PC, aimed at silencing discussion and removing reasonable positions and persons from the public square.

Finally, there's the cheap ad hominem. Jackson writes:

"He also has no sense of humour whatsoever. This is quite a feat."

Jackson began this exchange with a cheap, mindless smear against me: "Perhaps Hirsi Ali is a bit too uppity for Auster." In my initial response I politely explained my position on Ali and my reasons for criticizing her. It takes a particular type of PC audacity to smear a person, and then when he reasonably explains his position, to sneer that he "has no sense of humor." As though, when a person in today's world is told that he's "anti-woman," he's supposed to see that as a joke. In fact, this is a common device of the campus left. They will call people racist or sexist, and when they're called on it, they'll say they were just "joking, can't people take a joke?" Thus they have it both ways. They crack the whip of PC tyranny, and when their targets defend themselves, mock them for their lack of humor.

That's all I have to say about Jackson.

As for Rebecca Bynum, I must say with regret that I am disappointed that she has given Jackson her unqualified endorsement in this discussion.

6 Aug 2007
Send an emailLawrence Auster
Another point. Mary Jackson wrote:

"Lawrence Auster thinks women should not have the vote. His ideas are therefore not worthy of serious consideration. He also has no sense of humour whatsoever. This is quite a feat."

In one sentence, Jackson seeks writes that because of my views on women, my ideas—on any subject—"are not worthy of serious consideration." In the next sentence, she says I have no sense of humor. For the editor of a supposedly respectable website to seek to marginalize a person, and in the next breath attack him for his lack of humor—that indeed is quite a feat, worthy of a Stalinist mentality.



6 Aug 2007
Enoch
In saying that women should not be allowed to vote, Auster is saying that they are not fully human.

So, uh, minors, felons, the insane, and resident aliens are not fully human?  They are  not allowed to vote, and should not be allowed to vote, but this does not diminish their "fully human"  status.

6 Aug 2007
American Cassandra
Either people 17 and under are fully human, with the same rights as 18 year olds, or they are not.  I wouldn't want to live in a barbaric country where children can be enslaved or abused!

Please note: I am not arguing women are children, I am arguing that denying someone the right to vote is entirely separate from denying that person humanity, or human rights.  Children may not have the right to vote, but we don't think this is a problem, because we assume that children's rights will be protected even if they don't have representation in the government.  It is not outside the realm of rational discussion to argue that if women did not have the vote, men would protect their rights (think about it-- half of men's family members and loved ones are women), even if you ultimately believe men are not to be trusted that way. 

Voting, (unlike, say, laws against certain groups owning property or against spousal abuse) is a right that is exceptionally fitting to view not for the effect it might have on one individual, but for the effect a whole group voting has on society at large.  A vote is generally meaningless on an individual level (almost always, no single vote decides an election); it is only the effect of the many votes of a group that matters.  One might argue that, though individual women are often more sensible in candidates they vote for than individual men, on aggregate, women's suffrage drags government in an undesirable direction; one that is so undesirable it outweighs the good effects of empowering women.  One doesn't have to agree to consider it, or to think it's valuable to explore the reasons why women's suffrage has negative aspects

I guess it's easier to be an iconoclast when you are talking about attacking other people's settled beliefs, not your own.




6 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

So, uh, minors, felons, the insane, and resident aliens are not fully human?  They are  not allowed to vote, and should not be allowed to vote, but this does not diminish their "fully human"  status.

Women are now to be classed with criminals, minors and the insane? Women, no matter how intelligent or accomplished, and indeed  no matter how what their citizenship status, are to be denied the basic political rights that men, no matter how stupid or worthless, are accorded. Or in Auster's view, we're not actually going to take away their rights, just thinking that maybe it might be a good idea.

It is not outside the realm of rational discussion to argue that if women did not have the vote, men would protect their rights

It is indeed outside the realm of rational discussion.

My views on the Larry Summers affair are detailed here. From that post, here is some political correctness:

"As a feminist I have no problem even with the idea that men are, on average, more intelligent than women. I have no idea whether this is true or not, and I suspect it is not, but the point is, we are talking about averages. It should not affect any individual man or woman's chances in life. Average ability need have no implications for the opportunities that men and women, or blacks and whites, should be given for study and advancement in these fields. These opportunites should be awarded on merit alone."

To deprive women of the right to vote, regardless of merit, is madness, idiocy and, yes, deeply uncivilised.

In the next sentence, she says I have no sense of humor. For the editor of a supposedly respectable website to seek to marginalize a person, and in the next breath attack him for his lack of humor—that indeed is quite a feat, worthy of a Stalinist mentality.

I take it back. That was funny.



6 Aug 2007
J Maxwell
Game, set, match, Auster.

Conservatives who appear to stand up for "our society" (and then define "our society" as nothing but openness and enforced equality and non-discrimination) are merely saving us for a different kind of death. A raceless, cultureless, rootless, borderless, orderless, post-West, non-western 3rd world playground is not worth saving.

Which is why the right-liberals must be forced to relinquish their power before we can begin to fight to preserve our patrimony. (yes, I said it) And once we begin to see ourselves as OF something, not just as liberal atoms, then we can once again begin to protect the safety and honor and dignity of western women. They will be safe walking the streets, will able to get and stay married to men instead of boys, and will belong to a whole culture that cherishes rather than debases femininity.

7 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

Which is why the right-liberals must be forced to relinquish their power before we can begin to fight to preserve our patrimony.

Onward and upward.

Nutter.



7 Aug 2007
Send an emailD. M. Ericson
Lawrence Summers suggested that women may not be equal to men in the highest reaches of science and math. I would suggest they may also not be equal in the highest reaches of critical thinking and writing, if the discussion here is evidence.

7 Aug 2007
van Wijk

Ms. Jackson,

I noticed that you have not yet replied to Mr. Auster's substantial rebuttal.  I'm hoping that you are merely using this time to marshall a worthy retort of your own, and that your last words on this subject will not be:

Onward and upward.

Nutter.

Will I be disappointed?



7 Aug 2007
Undercover Black Man
Lawrence Auster is a piece of work. He responds to a cheeky barb from Ms. Jackson by calling her words “ignorant and stupid.” (Quite unchivalrous, from a man who exalts Victorian England.)

He takes grievous offense at Ms. Jackson’s attempt to “marginalize” him, when it was he who put forth the profoundly self-marginalizing notion that we consider disfranchising women.

He proclaims himself victimized by a “crack of the whip of women's tyranny,” even as he seeks to legitimize a discussion of reducing women to a second-class citizenship.

Mr. Auster is a walking stewpot of extremist political ideas: banning the Muslim religion; advocating “mass removals” of Mexicans (including legal resident aliens) from America; even pondering the possible need for a “peaceful separation between the races.” And now, a reconsideration of women’s voting rights.

The man has quite thoroughly marginalized himself.


7 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

"Self-marginalising" is not a phrase I would readily use, but it fits here. Some opinions are just so ludicrous that they cast doubt on the speaker. To wish to retain a right as basic as the right to vote doesn't make me politically correct - it is well within the boundaries of normality. Auster has a hissy fit at being mocked and disagreed with on a website, yet I am not supposed to mind that he and his groupies would disenfranchise me?

I am amused rather than annoyed to find myself described as politically correct. I don't know where the idea comes from that I want to "enforce equality" or see this as a good to be valued above all others. Anyone who has read my posts here on grammar schools, dumbing down and political correctness, will realise that I am a staunch meritocrat, decidely opposed to the myth that we are all equal, and the absurdity of the "diversity" lobby. I am also an admirer of Margaret Thatcher. I'm not sure where she fits into the scheme of things for the likes of Auster. Perhaps, like the radical feminists he hates and fears, he thinks she is in some mysterious way not really a woman.

As for civilisation, Victorian England was, of course, a more civilised place than Victorian Anywhere Else. But it sent little boys up chimneys, locked rape victims in mental homes, hanged boys for stealing pocket handkerchiefs and didn't allow women to vote. For these, and many other  reasons, including casual anti-Semitism, England was a less civilised country then than it is today. It was, incidentally, no place for the thin-skinned.

I do not criticise my ancestors for thinking those things were normal. They knew no better. But if somebody today thinks we should return to any of those practices then that casts doubt on the seriousness with which their ideas should be taken.

Finally, I am not "expelling [Auster] from political discussion". My views are my own, and don't necessarily reflect those of NER. And on his own website and elsewhere on the internet, no doubt he will find plenty of support and admiration. But not here.

You're a big boy, Larry. Get over it.



7 Aug 2007
Send an emailBig Bill
Undercover Black Man, the proper word is "extols", and not "exalts".

You might find it helpful to use a good thesaurus. 

If you cannot afford one, you can find a good one online at www.thesaurus.com, or you can try your local library.

Have a nice day!

7 Aug 2007
Undercover Black Man
Thanks for pointing me to an online thesaurus, Big Bill.

Oh wow... check this out: According to that thesaurus, “exalt” and “extol” are synonyms! (I think that means they share the same meaning.)

If I knew "exalts" was going to throw you, Bill, I would’ve written “praises” or “glorifies.” I hope you’ll forgive me.

Meanwhile, where do you stand on voters who menstruate?

7 Aug 2007
Esmerelda Weatherwax

So we are looking at a desire to preserve our patrimony, ensure that women marry men not boys and stay married to them, and prevent society veering to the left politically.  One way to achieve this may be, or may not, to disenfranchise women.

 

Mr Auster thinks that women achieved the vote in the United Kingdom in around 1910.

Mik says that Lawrence Auster is one formidable intellect (how many less formidable intellects does he have spare?) and that we should do our homework before challenging him.

 

By the Qualification of Women Act 1918 Parliament granted the vote to women over the age of 30 who were householders, the wives of householders, occupiers of property with an annual rent of £5 or graduates of British universities. Parliament had rejected granting the vote to women on the same terms as men.

 

The Representation of the People Act also of 1918 had given the vote to all men over the age of 21.

 

Prior to that the men who could vote in British elections (28.5% of the adult population) were, by the Representation of the People Act 1884, men who were Householders, subject to a one-year residential qualification and payment of rates, Lodgers (in lodgings worth £10 a year) with a one-year residential qualification, and an Occupation franchise for those with land or tenements worth £10 a year.

 

It was not until the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act - 1928 that all women over the age of 21 were able to vote.  The age was reduced to 18 in 1970.

So imagine that parliament revoked the Qualification of Women Act and Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act and found that society is still veering to the left. Perhaps it is the fault of all those proletarian young men living in barracks, or with their parents.

 

Let us abolish the Representation of the People Act 1918 and effectively deprive of the vote for most of their lives men like my my grandfathers (who fought in the trenches of France), my father who fought fires in the Blitz in London (and they were real men, let me tell you) and my husband an ex NCO of the British Army.

 

We could disenfranchise all those other real men of the current armed forces who live in barracks and the real men of the navy who live on ships.  The young men fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

But the veer to the left hasn’t stopped.  Next we disenfranchise the Catholics, the non conformists and the Jews. Why stop there?

 

If we revoked the 1832 Reform Act which extended the franchise to 7% of the population we could go back to the old system of the Rotten Boroughs and the Pocket boroughs.

Do you fancy yourselves as potwallopers gentlemen?  Beholden to your patron such as Earl of Mount Edgcumbe and the Duke of Rutland?

 

I don’t imagine you would like that somehow.

 

Now can we please get back to the work in hand of facing an ideology that regards any form of democracy as a blasphemy because it is the rule of man not the rule of Allah.



7 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson
And while we're in the business of revoking things and going back to the good old days, let's revoke American independence. Those uppity colonials are getting too big for their boots. I refuse to take seriously the views of someone who not only has no sense of humour, but can't even spell it properly.

7 Aug 2007
Send an emailCalvin
Mary Jackson wrote, "I have no idea whether this is true or not [the idea that men are, on average, more intelligent than women], and I suspect it is not," and then she later wrote, "I am a staunch meritocrat, decidely opposed to the myth that we are all equal".  These two statements represent obvious contradictions.  Perhaps Mary Jackson is having difficulty considering Lawrence Auster's argument because she has no idea whether it is true or not that women are more liberal than men.   I suggest that she more carefully consider the implications of group differences.  Her arguments make her seem like a liberal trying to pass as a conservative.

7 Aug 2007
Tomas de Torquemada
I was drawn immediately to this site, thinking it was a seething hive of sedition and heresy. I am pleased to find that "Iconoclast" is simply an ironic usage, and that you are maintaining the Liberal status quo with proper zeal. Carry on.

7 Aug 2007
Mr Spog
Mary Jackson seems to be displaying surprising ignorance in equating voting rights with the acknowledgement of fully human status. Logically this leads, for example, to a world-state (members of other nations are presumably "not fully human" if they are not allowed to vote in one's own national elections). It is also inconsistent with the British political tradition, which relied not on political equality but on equality before a law that was in the hands of a political elite. Obviously this was not an entirely satisfactory solution. Neither, however, was the handing of full voting rights to adults regardless of personal qualifications. Ms. Jackson might find Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn eye-opening on the intellectual parochialism of contemporary "democratism". On the other hand it struck me that Auster would have done better to think in terms of less rigid categories than "male" and "female". Denying a group of people voting rights on the basis of some unalterable trait supposed to be somewhat correlated with their political abilities would seem a retrograde step, like returning to hereditary aristocratic privilege. A proper synthesis between aristocratic and democratic principles (as I think Paul Eidelberg put it, in the context of the American Revolution) would allow for differences of political status but also the opportunity to win status by demonstrating personal merit. This would be ruled out by depriving women, as such, of all voting rights.

7 Aug 2007
Uncle Kenny

Egad!  Had I only known all this nonsense would follow, I would not have provided that first comment.  My apologies.

It does serve as a poignant reminder, however, both that democracy is a means not an end and that "g" with its bell curve is a harsh master.

Heinlein reminded us that there can and perhaps should be other qualifications for voting beyond fogging a mirror.  The discussion of such topics is certainly proper, even if the practical implementation is unlikely. 



7 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

Denying a group of people voting rights on the basis of some unalterable trait supposed to be somewhat correlated with their political abilities would seem a retrograde step, like returning to hereditary aristocratic privilege.

That was exactly my point. As well as being retrograde, it is also idiotic, mindless and despicable.

Heinlein reminded us that there can and perhaps should be other qualifications for voting beyond fogging a mirror. 

And is possession of a penis any less absurd a "qualification" than "fogging a mirror"? If one must qualify for voting on merit - intelligence, education, earning power - rather than on the basis of unalterable traits, then many men will be excluded and many women included. Yet none of Auster's supporters on this thread has suggested, as would be consistent with a meritocratic view of voting, that this happen. A male socialist is allowed to vote and a female conservative is not. A male idiot likewise.

The discussion of such topics is certainly proper, even if the practical implementation is unlikely. 

No topic of discussion is "improper". I, for one, would not deny someone a voice on the basis of gender. However, certain views  - Auster's included - are contemptible and absurd. As are yours, Uncle Kenny, if the only problem you see with arbitrarily depriving half the population of their political rights is one of "practical implementation". Better find a "solution" quickly.



7 Aug 2007
Enoch
Women are now to be classed with criminals, minors and the insane?

You tell me. You are the one who defined "full humanity" in terms of eligibility to vote. I simply pointed out that plenty of "full humans" do not have the right to vote.  Either you must argue that these people are not "fully human" or you must concede that possessing the franchise does not determine "full humanity."

I note that you excluded resident aliens. Do you argue that resident aliens are not fully human?  If they are, but they can't vote, then how is it that voting is what determines "full humanity" among the non-alien citizens?



7 Aug 2007
Send an emailEnoch
Denying a group of people voting rights on the basis of some unalterable trait supposed to be somewhat correlated with their political abilities would seem a retrograde step, like returning to hereditary aristocratic privilege.

So now we absolutely must extend the franchise to minors! Denying them voting rights on the basis of an unalterable trait (their age) supposedly correlated with political abilities would be so retrograde as to be  positively neolithic!

If one must qualify for voting on merit - intelligence, education, earning power - rather than on the basis of unalterable traits, then many men will be excluded and many women included. Yet none of Auster's supporters on this thread has suggested, as would be consistent with a meritocratic view of voting, that this happen.

I don't know if I qualify as one of his supporters, but I am all for this idea!  Those with intelligence, education, or money should definitely have more voting power than those without.


7 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

Enoch, you are missing the point. Aliens, minors, and the insane are denied the right to vote because of a particular status, or level of maturity, or intelligence, which is determined on an individual basis. Children and the insane are excluded because they don't have the maturity/brainpower to vote. Aliens are excluded because they don't have citizenship and the rights that go with it.

If women were to be disenfranchised, this would be not on the basis of individual merit, but arbirtrary - right across the board. In effect, you would be taking full, adult, sane, mature citizens, some of whom are extremely intelligent and highly qualified, and treating them as minors, aliens and insane.

This is to treat women as not fully human.

So now we absolutely must extend the franchise to minors! Denying them voting rights on the basis of an unalterable trait (their age)...

The age of a minor, unless he or she dies, is an alterable trait. It alters with ... er...growing up.

I am astonished that so few of the men posting here - and men are supposed to be so very much more intelligent than women, are they not - can grasp this basic point - that disenfranchising half the population is arbitrary and unjust and takes no account of individual merit. It is as stupid as disenfranchising everyone with brown eyes.



8 Aug 2007
van Wijk

David Mills (who for some reason calls himself the Undercover Black Man) seems to pop up wherever Lawrence Auster is being discussed.  Mr. Mills says that Auster has marginalized himself due to his extremist views, but he has also said in the past that Auster is undeniably intelligent.  Mills also corresponded with Auster quite cordially for some time before attempting to damage Auster's livelihood.  I'm curious to know what it is that feeds Mr. Mills' obsession, for an obsession it certainly is. 

Also, since we're on the subject of women, here is Mr. Mills interviewing Eldridge Cleaver, a former Black Panther who liked to rape white women as a means to advance his politics. 



8 Aug 2007
morgan
"It may be the cock that crows, but it is the hen that lays the eggs."

Margaret Thatcher

8 Aug 2007
Calvin

I think Mary Jackson has mis-understood Auster's position.  Auster was providing a forum for discussing the role of women voters in advancing liberalism in the west.  This seemingly obvious result of women voters is a topic that Mary Jackson has completely avoided.  Auster made it very clear he had no firm position of his own on the subject.  Mary states that " no topic of discussion is "improper" " but then proceeds to malign Auster for a position that he has not even taken.  Furthermore, in the interest of open debate, readers of this thread may want to read through the very interesting discussion over at Auster's blog : http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008277.html



8 Aug 2007
pedantic redcoat
van Wijk:

You know, some people can hold two seemingly opposite ideas in their head at the same time.  It's not difficult to understand how Undercover Black Man - or anyone else for that matter - can consider Auster "undeniably intelligent" yet "marginalized" with "extreme views" simultaneously.  It is not a contradiction, which I think is what you are trying to get at.

Secondly, what is your point about Eldridge Cleaver?  Undercover Black Man brings up the rape question in his interview, so it's not like he's sweeping it under the carpet.

Lastly, this bit about damaging Auster's livelihood - you mean you tell me he earns a living from this? 

8 Aug 2007
Send an emailZippy
Personally I wouldn't be offended by a discussion of the civilizational effects of disenfranchising people with brown eyes, even though I have brown eyes.  But then I'm not a liberal, so I'm not deeply offended by the mere existence of illiberal conversation.

8 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

Well, as you can see, the topic is being discussed here. My contribution to the discussion is that the idea is idiotic and disgusting.

Auster is free to disagree and post his idiotic idea here, as are all his groupies.



8 Aug 2007
Undercover Black Man
Zippy might not be offended by the mere existence of illiberal conversation; he might be open to a discussion of revoking brown-eyed people’s voting rights. But do you know who would be deeply, deeply offended by a discussion of the assumed civilizational benefits of disfranchising Jews?

Lawrence Auster, that’s who.

But why? It’s simply “exploring a topic”... just “making arguments that are open to examination and may be correct or incorrect.” What’s the harm in that? Only a Stalinesque PC tyrant would object!

In Auster’s mind, it’s not “Stalinist” (i.e., bad) for him to harshly condemn a Kevin MacDonald, and to urge that he be shunned, because MacDonald writes about how Jews (as Jews) have damaged the soul of the West. There, Auster is on the side of the angels.

And it’s not “Stalinist” for Auster to campaign – as he has since March 2006 – to have Paul Craig Roberts banished from the Vdare  website for expressing opinions which “are very close in content and form to anti-Semitism.” No, that’s Auster standing tall in defense of “minimal standards for public discourse in this country” (even as he calls Roberts a “poisonous fruitcake” and a “maniac”).

Yet when Mr. Auster opines about the societal damage wrought by women (as women) and “explores the topic” of removing their political rights, he howls ferociously about the great wrong done him when Mary Jackson voices her objection.

So, on top of all else, Larry’s a hypocrite.

He reserves for himself the privilege of publicly discussing almost every taboo, in the starkest manner (such as questioning black people’s capacity for civilization), and he labels anyone who objects a PC tyrant. Yet when it comes to the subject of Jews, Auster is like a police dog, vigorously ensuring that only certain thoughts get expressed, and only certain people be allowed to speak.

His lack of self-awareness is such that he can’t even see the contradiction.


8 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

Indeed. Jews have tended to favour left wing parties. Don't most Jews vote Democrat?

Auster may have converted to another religion. But isn't that like a woman having a sex change? Deep down he's a Jew.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should disenfranchise Jews. All I'm doing is raising this legitimate topic of debate. Just because I say that it may be concluded that the Jewish vote has led to a drift to the left and that their enfranchising was not a good move doesn't mean that I draw that conclusion, still less that I'm anti-Semitic or anything.

I'm sure that we intellectuals can work out a very good "solution" to this "question".  Why are you getting so hysterical?



8 Aug 2007
Esmerelda Weatherwax
And another possible reason is that universal male franchise was a campaign fought for by the Trades Unions. All those blue collar workers, all those manly chaps so unlike the shrimps in John Lennon glasses, all those miners and steelworkers and dockers with the bulging biceps, giving them the vote may have been a factor in any drift to the left. Damn proles wanting pensions and disability benefits, merely for losing an arm or a leg, pshaw!

8 Aug 2007
Undercover Black Man
Also, I must address Calvin, who argued: “Auster made it very clear he had no firm position of his own on the subject” of whether women should have voting rights.

That argument is an obfuscation... the same obfuscation Auster himself engaged in on this comment thread.

Let’s at least be sure of Mr. Auster’s purpose when he first released this topic into the open air.

He began by asking: “Is it a sign of strength in the West that women can vote, hold political office, and be shapers of public opinion on political issues...? Or is it a sign -- and a cause -- of a profound, perhaps fatal weakness?”

He posed this question not as a parlor game or as a brain exercise, but in the context of formulating an operable political philosophy.

“I do not have an agenda to take away women’s political rights, as my views on the subject are not completely formed...” [Emphasis added.] This means: once his views on the subject are completely formed, Auster might very well have an agenda to take away women’s political rights.

Indeed, if he were to conclude that women’s voting rights are a “perhaps fatal weakness” of the West, then he must work to rescind them.

He is well down the road to concluding such. Auster says that the proposition “it is better for society that women not have political rights” is “not yet a position I am fully committed to” – not yet, not fully – “though I am lean [sic] in that direction.”

Clearly, Lawrence Auster is giving the matter serious thought. And Mary Jackson took him seriously enough to challenge him, using the weapon of ridicule (which is her preferred blade). Good on her.

And for Auster to publish Spencer Warren’s comment that Ms. Jackson is somehow estrogen-addled and irrational... well, that shows you where he’s coming from.

9 Aug 2007
Send an emailthordaddy

Mary Jackson,

You seem to suggest that women's political equality is such a self-evident good that it nears absolute truth.  You also suggest that those that even contemplate questioning this absolute truth should be marginalized from all discussions concerning important issues.

But, is the goodness of women's political equality an absolute truth?  You make no substantive arguments on this point.  Instead, you attempt to make your argument by contrasting our culture to Islam and noting that there are many stupid men who get to vote.

In fact, these arguments undercut the notion that women's political equality is a self-evident good that only  the most extreme would dare question.  

Voting is only as good as the people who vote for good things.  There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the majority of Muslim women even want to vote let alone vote for good things.  On the same count, it is clear that some people will vote for bad things.  On the issues of abortion and homosexual "rights" alone there is an unquestionable need for a debate concerning those that vote for such things.  Coincidentally, these are issues very dear to women and issues that have been self-evidently destructive for our Western civilization.

Lastly, you seem to suggest that your right to vote would then be cast to silence all that question the absolute truth of the goodness of women's political equality?  Perhaps, one more reason to have this discussion?  You seem the extremist.  



9 Aug 2007
Uncovered Individual
But all this is a sideshow. The real question is whether Auster's "traditionalism", whatever its strengths and weaknesses on given points,  can  be made into a very coherent political philosophy. If not (as I believe, since we can only value and renew our traditions, as we should, by being radically innovative in our thinking about how to renew the Western tradition, since it is basically a law of history that all uncreative positions eventually erode away), why is anyone paying attention to him? Why is UBM obsessed with him? (BTW, to pose as a UBM, don't you have to have tribal values in the first place - the group and its scapegoats, or the group as victims, and not as diverse individuals, comes first - so why care about women being treated as free individuals?) If traditionalism were plausible, then the mere debate  over whether women should have the vote would be plausible, whichever side won. BUt among serious people who are not divorced from political reality, the debate just isn't plausible in America or Britain today.

Auster is brilliant on some points but i think his intellectual downfall is his desire to caricature and scapegoat the neocons (in order to define himself through this opposition; he doesn't really have a constructive notion of 'traditionalism" as a position that can grow with human freedom to inherit the future) that broad school of conservative thought that rightly (as a general rule) mixes conservative and liberal instincts. Serious conservatism begins with taking risks on the future and those with whom we are going to have to share it, like them or not in their present configurations.

"Neocon" is now a code word for  Jew; Auster is less a neocon than he should be. If Mary insists that he is deep down a Jew, let me remind that Christianity is a Jewish religion. That's how some conservative (so partly radical) Jews  build up the Jewish tradition, by assimilating gentile others to it. I don't mean to offend, that's more or less how I frankly see things, when I leave the religious questions aside. I have no argument with those who have faith that Jesus is the son of God, but I consider him, Paul, etc.,  also a great model of the Jew.

9 Aug 2007
Zippy

But do you know who would be deeply, deeply offended by a discussion of the assumed civilizational benefits of disfranchising Jews?

I'm not offended by the mere act of talking about forms of government entirely different from democracy, as it turns out.  It isn't clear to me that the mere form of government one lives under has any essential connection - or frankly any connection whatsoever - to one's humanity.  The thing I find offensive - not surprising or emotion-causing, but offensive in the sense of representing an offense against the moral law -  is the notion that one's humanity can depend on such things.



9 Aug 2007
Send an emailLawrence Auster
Since sending my long comment a couple of days ago I see that the debate on my apostasy, hypocrisy, insanity, meanness, and just plain awfulness in suggesting that women's political rights may not on balance be a good thing for society has continued.

The funny thing is, the question whether woman's political rights are beneficial is not one about which I have passionate or deeply convicted feelings. It's a subject that I feel is a legitimate topic for discussion. What motivates me is not some agenda to take away the women's vote, but rather my opposition to the way that our current view denies that there could be any legitimate reasons for a society not to give the vote to women, and thus grossly distorts our understanding of the past. For example, was the America of 1810—in which 90 percent of the population was involved in agriculture, and the family was an economic unit—an immoral, anti-woman society because woman did not then have the vote? That indeed is the unchallenged orthodox assumption today, among both liberals and “conservatives” like Mary Jackson. Or were there very good and pressing reasons why women didn't have the vote? And if the latter is the case, which I believe it obviously is, then isn't the introduction of women's political rights at least to some extent a function of a society's stage of development, rather than, as Jackson calls it, a "non-negotiable" demand of absolute morality?

Further, it was not I who introduced my views on women's rights into this thread; it was Jackson who gratuitously did that, in purportedly responding to my statements on Hirsi Ali and how best to combat the threat of Islam. Thus my interest in this thread does not concern the substance of the women's rights issue, but rather (1) Jackson's politically correct contention that my arguments concerning the negative effects of women's political rights disqualifies all my opinions on all topics; and (2) her implication that only in the latest stage attained in the forward march of equality does society become civilized and moral, an attitude that radically alienates us from our own civilization and makes it impossible for us to defend it except in purely liberal terms.

The idea that the belief in equality as the highest good results in a society's progressive self-cannibalization was explored at my website last March:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007559.html

9 Aug 2007
Send an emailJake
From the opening bell of this dust-up Mary Jackson’s “side” as well as her actual participation in this debate had been par-for-course in the manner in which the reigning politically-correct orthodoxy of our time conducts “debate”: someone postulates “A” (in this case that would be Lawrence Auster) and there is no “B” counterpoint--only shrill insistence, chock-full of argumentum ad hominem and other logical fallacies, that there is no point “A”; only a definite “not-A” truth of some sort or the other that renders even the very discussion of “A” invalid. 
This is hardly surprising: Ms. Jackson and her ilk have a vested interest in insisting that discussions on the merits of the sort Mr. Auster has raised are simply not worth having, on any terms. Now, I don’t know anything about “Mary Jackson,” having just stumbled, quite by accident, over this entire imbroglio; I take it she holds herself out as some kind of conservative of the “reasonable” or “responsible” type, which essentially boils down to “leftist lite.” I further take it that Mr. Auster is considered an “irresponsible” conservative, i.e., one that makes all those “responsible” conservatives “look bad.” I do not know this as a fact: I’ve only briefly skimmed Mr. Auster’s website and know nothing of Ms. Jackson’s beliefs outside of what I have read in this thread.
Those disclaimers aside, there are a few observations that are almost clamoring to be made.
1. The Marcusean insistence on “repressive tolerance” of certain modes of thought from a “conservative”--“responsible” or otherwise--that Mary Jackson has displayed in this thread (“His ideas are therefore not worthy of serious consideration”) always makes me snicker. And it would have made old Herbert snicker, too: he would’ve loved a self-described “conservative” adapting leftist tactics to mildly bolster the further entrenchment of left-wing cultural dogma in a Western society.
2. What follows from me is irrefutable, at least in the historical particulars. I accept the fact that you “responsible” Mary-supporting types just know I’m a horrible person who “hates” everything in the world because I’m gripped with “fear” of the “other” (and probably torture little puppy dogs in my spare time): your joint inability to refute my arguments is acknowledged in advance. I note also that the vast majority of Mary supporters prefer to remain absolutely anonymous on this site by refusing to allow their e-mail addresses to be publicly shown. A small thing that is very telling, and it shows when it comes to the intellectual quality of your posts.
3. The original suffragettes would’ve have literally laughed out loud at the underlying cultural assumptions of the Mary supporters on this thread. The ultimate goal of the ratification of the nineteenth amendment was not motivated by their desire to see a woman someday take Henry Ford’s job as the CEO of Ford Motors: it was the precise opposite. In early twentieth century America--as in every bit of the world since homo sapiens first started walking upright--the vast majority of mankind (yes, “mankind,” not “humanity”) lived in Thomas Hobbes’s world. And it was every bit as nasty, brutish, and short as that philosopher described. But the Industrial Revolution in the Western World presented a profound problem for capital: a labor shortage. More precisely, a cheap labor shortage at a time when profit was not measured in terms of margins. The answer, of course, was in the vast mass of otherwise “unemployed” women and children who were the same kind of cheap boon to the manufacturing CEO’s of the time as the illegal aliens, largely Mexican, are to their rapacious corporate descendants today. Then, as now, those most financially concerned in the status quo of cheap labor advanced many specious arguments as to why their cheap labor pool should be sustained indefinitely, but it was basically the same: “enact these child labor laws and it’ll cripple the economy!”; “these women are doing jobs that men won’t take!”
     Sound familiar? It should: the same intellectual swill is being peddled by “responsible” conservatives and enthusiastic liberals over another cheap labor force that is conveniently available in our own time…
In any event, the point here is that the original “feminists” were most concerned about getting women BACK into the home raising babies and sweating over stove-tops, as opposed to laboring twelve hours a day in the 120 degree heat of a textile mill for years on end. The entire raison d’etre of the logic behind the nineteenth amendment went something like this: If we give women the vote, they’ll vote for politicians who insist on child labor and other worker protections; if those politicians get those protections passed into law, corporations will find it unprofitable to keep women in the factories along with their kids; those same corporations will then raise salaries to the point where men will be able to hold those same jobs and still feed their wives and children; the women will go home and the children will go to school; everybody will be happy.
     This, and not some silly notion of “we’re all just humans here” was the apex of early twentieth century “progressive” and “feminist” thought, and the genesis of the nineteenth amendment.
     And it worked, by and large. The “standard” soon became that the American wife should be given what was considered the “privilege” of, by and large, not having to “work” outside the home, but rather raise her children while her husband toiled in whatever profession or field necessary in order to bring home a singular livable wage. The life expectancy of men was quite lower than that of their wives, incidentally; work was still, like life, nasty and brutish. And, for men anyway, quite shorter than that of their female counterparts.
     Then, after World War II, a quirky, interesting thing happened in human history: for the first time, a field of careers opened up in the richest nation on earth that were relatively “easy” in the sense that they didn’t involve strenuous labor and/or outdoor work, while at the same time being quite lucrative in terms of money paid for work performed. In a sort of Divine convergence of Hegelian proportions, the Pill hit the market in the same generation. For the first time in the history of Mankind it was possible to work indoors in relative physical comfort and earn a very good living; concurrently, it became possible for women to enjoy sex without the usual consequences of children to follow by dint of a simple trip to the local pharmacy. A win-win! As usual in Western history, the women got what they wanted in short order: within a single generation not only were gender “discrimination” laws passed, but the gals even got Federal legislation allowing them to define “sexual harassment,” known previously as “flirting” or “man being a jerk,” enshrined on the law books allowing them to clean up with millions of dollars at the slightest hint of it!
     But this should come as no surprise to any even half-way bright student of history: women have been getting their way pretty much since “Western Civilization” began, despite all of our modern feminists constant bemoaning of “patriarchy.” Period.
4. I’ve often joked that civilization itself began with the Rape of the Sabines, and Western men have been apologizing ever since.
     That’s basically true.
Western Civilization started not with Greece and her effete philosophers; it started with the armor-weighted tramp of a Roman sandal on barbarian soil and the force behind it. This is simply indisputable.
 For all the burbling one hears about the Greeks and their contributions to Western Civilization among academics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and their pals were quite misogynistic, so much so that they actually preferred barely pubescent teenage boys as their lovers to women. That bare fact aside, the most important contribution to what one might call “feminism” was not made by the Greeks: it was the Romans who first explicitly frowned on and later explicitly outlawed polygamy. Monogamy was the Roman standard, and it led to a literal revolution in the status of women. And, with women moved to the fore in that culture, the Roman need for a plunder economy based on military might naturally accelerated. No longer was the tribal need to bind merely reflexive as a joint defense mechanism: it became a necessity as a way to satisfy burgeoning domestic urges that had their practical origins in the stated needs, demands, and insistences of Roman wives in the ears of their husbands. Their necessarily monogamous, for the first time in human history as far as marriage was concerned, husbands.
The birth of Western Civilization started with that enforced monogamy. That birth was and is indistinguishable from the origins of the Western Rule of Patriarchy that so many of our modern day “feminists” devote careers to shrieking about; but “Patriarchy” was originally and quite subsequently enforced as a rule at the insistence of women from the dawn of Western Civilization right up until about A.D. 1967, and for their own benefit as well as that of their offspring.
The bottom line is that women have ruled Western Civilization since the opening bell, and continue to do so to this day. “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” is not, and has never been, a trite cliché as far as The West has been concerned: it has been the truth--and I don’t have a smidgen of a problem with that historical fact.
I just rather wish our modern “feminists” and pseudo-conservatives like Mary Jackson would stop complaining about what their ancestral sisters have wrought.        
      

9 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

When all night long a chap remains
On sentry-go, to chase monotony
He exercises of his brains,
That is, assuming that he's got any.
Though never nurtured in the lap
Of luxury, yet I admonish you,
I am an intellectual chap,
And think of things that would astonish you.
I often think it's comical – Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive – Fal, lal, la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal, lal, la!

 

When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let’s rejoice with loud Fal la – Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive – Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!



10 Aug 2007
calvin

I would like to reply to undercover black man because he thinks he's on to something, but his evidence is not compelling, his conclusions are overly dramatic, and thus he is not very persuasive in his arguments.

You said: "This means: once his views on the subject are completely formed, Auster might very well have an agenda to take away women’s political rights".  It may not have occurred to UBM, but formulating conclusions is what often (but not inevitably) happens during the process of discussion. 

"Indeed, if he were to conclude that women’s voting rights are a “perhaps fatal weakness” of the West, then he must work to rescind them".  Auster didn't make this conclusion.  But the context of your sentence seems strikingly awkward.  For example, if you were to conclude that something was a fatal flaw for you, wouldn't you work to rescind it?  Your implication is that you would find a healthy life-affirming response from someone to be shocking (i.e. that one would work to rescind something that one felt was a fatal flaw).  Let me change the object to provide an analagy.  Would you object to rescinding the political rights of white nationalists?  This has actually been done in several European countries.  A political party was disbanded in Belgium and an attempt was made by the state to disband a political party in Germany.  What do you think about bringing democracy to Muslim countries?

"Clearly, Lawrence Auster is giving the matter serious thought".  You have obviously been reading Auster's blog for quite some time.  I have also noticed that Auster is a serious thinker.  But once again, your construction and context of the sentence implies that you find this shocking.  Why is it shocking that someone would give a serious matter serious thought?



10 Aug 2007
Send an emailLawrence Auster
Correction:

In my second, long comment in this thread, I said:

"In my initial response I politely explained my position on Ali and my reasons for criticizing her."

In fact my initial response, though my explanation of Ali was polite, I also used strong language to refer to Mary Jackson's initial post. So my use of the word "polite" was not correct.

10 Aug 2007
Send an emailLawrence Auster
Earlier in this thread the professional Auster hater David Mills says that I have been on a "campaign ... to have Paul Craig Roberts banished from the Vdare website."

This is not true. I have urged that Peter Brimelow, the editor of Vdare, not automatically publish every Roberts column, which is his policy, but instead exercise discretion. I have repeatedly said that there is no reason why Vdare could not publish some of Roberts's pieces, while declining to publish others. Thus the statement that I've sought to get Roberts "banished" from Vdare is a typical David Mills lie.

Mills is of course the person who actually did conduct a successful campaign to get me banished from FrontPage Magazine, as you can read about here:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007752.html

You should also know that after he sent quotes of my work David Horowitz in May 2006 and received Horowitz's statement that he would not publish me any longer (a development Horowitz did not tell me about until May 2007), Mills a month later initiated a friendly e-mail correspondence with me. The whole time we were having this amicable exchange, he had already caused me, without my knowledge, to be banished from FrontPage. The details are here:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007767.html

On another point, since Mills and others have accused me of being inconsistent or playing games on the question of my position on women's political rights, let me try to clarify again. I am sympathetic to the idea that in a well ordered society women would not have the vote. I believe that it was appropriate in past ages of history that women did not have the vote. I think it's insane and deeply destructive that we condemn earlier periods of our own society because women didn't have the vote. I believe that giving women the vote was arguably harmful to society (which was the main point of my blog entry that Mary Jackson attacked). At the same time, the women's vote is so much a part of our world that I do not have any thought of taking away the vote of women today or of advocating such a step. Maybe someone could convince me of it. But it is not something I have thought about. The idea is so radical in the contemporary context that an entirely different intellectual framework would be needed to make it plausible.

10 Aug 2007
Undercover Black Man
I can easily disprove Lawrence Auster’s charge that I am a liar. I can easily demonstrate that Auster has indeed “sought to get Roberts ‘banished’ from Vdare.”

On March 29, 2006, Auster  wrote:

“It’s a disgrace that the websites NewsMax and vdare regularly publish the insane rants of Paul Craig Roberts. ... Why do they taint their pages—and the conservative ideals they profess to believe in—with this poisonous fruitcake...?”

He ended that post with this: “I call on NewsMax and vdare to exercise some judgment and turn off this maniac.”

On July 16, 2007, Auster renewed his campaign:

“Vdare, a website mainly devoted to the cause of immigration restriction, continues to disgrace itself by publishing the demented Paul Craig Roberts. ...

“Peter Brimelow's excuse for publishing Roberts is that Roberts is his friend. ... For Brimelow, his friendship with Roberts trumps principle, country, truth, everything.”

As if Auster’s intent weren’t clear enough, he added this in a follow-up comment:

“If Brimelow doesn't like being attacked for publishing a vile hate-monger he can stop publishing him. ... When the immigration restriction website Vdare hosts the vile hate-monger P.C. Roberts, it is defining itself as a website.”

Auster has a habit, when challenged, of cherry-picking the most benign of his past words (as above, insisting he only urged Vdare to “exercise discretion”). He does this to muddy up his original harsh purposes.

But clearly, to repeatedly describe Roberts as a “vile hate-monger” – and to repeatedly proclaim it disgraceful that Vdare publish him – is to urge Vdare to stop publishing him.

Now, I indeed did (privately) urge David Horowitz to examine Lawrence Auster’s extremist writings on race, and to reconsider whether Auster belongs in FrontPage Magazine. (Indeed, Horowitz agreed with me that he does not.)

That was legitimate for me to do. Just as it’s legitimate for Auster to go after Vdare hammer and tongs for publishing Roberts. But when I did it, Auster attacked me publicly as a “character assassin” and a "leftist hit artist."

My point is not that Auster, in regard to Paul Craig Roberts, is a “Stalinist” (to borrow the label he hung on Mary Jackson). My point is that he’s a hypocrite.



11 Aug 2007
mik

Race classification in USA is stricter than the one in Nazi Germany. A German was declared a Jew if he had 1/32 of Jewish ancestry.

In USA you are black if you are 1/10000000 black, 'a one blood drop rule'.

A friend's brother (a blond Polish-German-Swedish-Ukranian lad) got into Chicago Fire Dep by declaring himself Hispanic, his greatgrandmother was extremely white Spanish woman.

From pics I have seen Undercover Black Man looks totally white. It is likely he is a faker and lies about his black ancestry to take advantage of Reverse Discrimination, also known as Race Pimping or Afferm Action.

Or he buys into one blood drop rule and we all had predeccesors in Africa, so Barely Black Man can take advantage of Race Pimpery.

In either case, the dude is a disgrace.



11 Aug 2007
Send an emailUndercover Black Man
You can't make me stop loving you, mik. No matter how badly you behave.

11 Aug 2007
Send an emailMary Jackson

This topic has run its course. We've all delighted each other long enough, so no more comments will be accepted.

Readers new to the site are invited to read some of the other posts and articles. These are on a bewildering variety of topics, from horses to courses. Did know, for example, that English has its own gerundive? How do you spell apophthegm? What is the difference between a mondegreen and a malapropism?

This site is a veritable smorgasbord of treats. Tuck in!




Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30    

Subscribe
Via: email  RSS