Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From patriarchy-return-43-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sun Jan 9 17:11:04 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fg.egroups.com (xfg.egroups.com [207.138.41.178])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3812615590
for ; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:11:03 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-43-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Jan 2000 22:11:02 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 09 Jan 2000 22:11:01 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 17810 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2000 22:10:59 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 9 Jan 2000 22:10:59 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id RAA15837 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:10:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001092210.RAA15837@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:10:52 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Robert Mann" at Jan 10, 0 10:06:00 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: The Green Party Sexual Orientation Policy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-43-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> The overthrow of hierarchies (in favour of 'flat management
> structures' & suchlike) is surely an important part of feminism - or,
> as Goldsmith has always called it, wimminsLib.
> And of course the political strengthening of queer etc
> tendencies will weaken patriarchy.
It's worth noting that governments that claim to destroy hierarchy of
course do nothing of the kind. Instead, by destroying all local and
limited hierarchies, they establish rule by a single omnipotent
universal hierarchy, the existence of which must be denied and the
decisions of which must be thought unquestionably correct -- otherwise
its nature as a wielder of arbitrary and irresponsible political power
would be all too obvious. The function of PC is thus to make
discussion impossible.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Post a message, send it to: patriarchy@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
patriarchy-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to send money instantly to anyone, anywhere, anytime?
You can today at X.com - and we'll give you $20 to try it! Sign
up today at X.com. It's quick, free, & there's no obligation!
http://click.egroups.com/1/332/2/_/275425/_/947455862/
-- Check out your group's private Chat room
-- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=patriarchy&m=1
From jk Sun Dec 26 02:09:34 1999
Subject: Re: Decline of Christianity in Britain
To: la
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 02:09:34 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 880
Status: RO
England seems definitely to have died. It's interesting to pick
another indication that British TV is now as multicultural as American.
I suppose it would be worth studying and thinking about just what the
new attitude toward religion is. A sort of hedonistic solipsism that
mostly makes oneself a god, but doesn't want any serious responsibility
and so ties everything to some vaguely defined universal force?
> according to the survey. Only three per cent of the population go to
> church at Easter or Christmas and 46 per cent said they never went to
> church at all. There remains a core 11 per cent who go to church once a
> week.
So who is the 8 percent who go weekly but not on Easter or Christmas?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Mon Dec 27 00:22:22 1999
Subject: Re: Hitler and Blair and Klebold and Harris
To: la
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 00:22:22 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 634
Status: RO
If people don't want to recognize something they won't recognize it no
matter what. I suppose that's always true but it seems especially so
today with the emphasis on portraying everything as normal so voters,
consumers etc. don't get upset. Also with the contrast between the
immediate implications of liberalism (individual freedom, help from the
government, nothing's a problem) and its ultimate implications
(dissolution of the individual, statism, nihilism).
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Mon Dec 27 08:59:22 1999
Subject: Re: Hitler and Blair and Klebold and Harris
To: la
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 08:59:22 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 798
Status: RO
> >Also with the contrast between the immediate implications of
> >liberalism (individual freedom, help from the government, nothing's
> >a problem) and its ultimate implications (dissolution of the
> >individual, statism, nihilism).
>
> Well said!
It's something to think about. John Dewey for example is always
changing the subject when an issue presents itself that he doesn't want
to deal with. Liberalism now contrasts itself with ideology and
extremism. So far as I can tell, though, as a practical matter
"pragmatism" means "shortsightedness" or "refusal to think." It's a
justification for avoiding obvious issues.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Tue Jan 4 14:57:16 2000
Subject: Re: archibishop's let-down
To: la
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 14:57:16 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1140
Status: RO
This is so depressing. If the church can't give us a view of things
different from Benetton (sp?) ads why not just buy designer sweatshirts
and leave it at that? This was the man who said those who opposed
women's ordination were in essence heretics, and that if the Anglican
church wanted anyone to them it seriously they'd have to approve it.
> Dr Carey said society should return to core values of love and faith in
> God. "It means working towards a genuine pluralism which respects all
> people and resists intolerance, racism and bigotry in any shape or
> form," he told the congregation.
> -----------------------------
>
> In other words, in Carey's mind, the spiritual opposite of materialism
> and the cult of celebrity is ... (drumroll) ... antiracism! As though
> today's leading celebrities were not the biggest antiracists of all! In
> fact, they tend to _legitimize_ their celebrity with constant bows to
> diversity.
>
> Happy New Year.
>
>
>
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk@panix.com Wed Jan 5 08:45:46 2000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA18321;
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:45:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001051345.IAA18321@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Carey
To: la
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 08:45:46 -0500 (EST)
Cc: cai1@is.nyu.edu, jk@panix.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
My thought was that "resist[ing] intolerance, racism and bigotry in any
shape or form" means rejecting every particular moral culture, since
any moral culture looks down on those who do not share it, and there is
normally an ethnic connection to such things. It take time, common
history, multiple connections for such things to develop and sustain
themselves, hence the tie to ethnicity. The "in any shape or form
suggests the absolutism and lack of moderation characteristic of
antiracism and modern thought generally. Any tinge of ethniity is
enough to poison something.
If every particular moral culture is rejected, however, the ordering
principles will be wealth, position, celebrity, etc., to the dominance
of which Carey claims to object. So Carey seems to me fundamentally
confused. I could be wrong, I suppose, if Carey normally proclaims
more substantively Christian positions that are in fact inconsistent
with what he says here about "working toward a genuine pluralism."
>
> > Dr Carey said society should return to core values of love and
> > faith in God. "It means working towards a genuine pluralism which
> > respects all people and resists intolerance, racism and bigotry in
> > any shape or form," he told the congregation.
>
>
> Carol, in reference to your comment that Jim Kalb and I are being too
> hard on Carey, in my view the above statement of Carey's is not
> merely regrettable boilerplate that we should put up with along with
> the "good" things Carey stands for, such as insisting on the
> inclusion of a Christian prayer at the Millennium festivities.
> Rather it is a totalitarian formula aimed at the destruction of us
> and everything we believe in. The "intolerance ... in any form" that
> must be resisted basically connotes our entire culture. It means
> that anything that is not of the left must be wiped out. Your
> comment implies that we should go along with our destroyers (who
> include the conspicuously Christian Tony Blair, who has openly
> declared his intent to wipe out all traces of conservatism and the
> old ways of Britain) if they allow an occasional mention of Jesus.
>
>
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk@panix.com Thu Jan 6 11:22:44 2000
Received: (from jk@localhost)
by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id LAA28627;
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:22:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001061622.LAA28627@panix.com>
Subject: Re: Carey
To: la
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:22:44 -0500 (EST)
Cc: jk@panix.com, cai1@is.nyu.edu
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO
There may be something to that, although it's more likely to be a
matter of the net effect of how he operates than anything conscious.
People like to say and do things that are accepted, that don't get them
into trouble, that get them respect. How they square what they say and
do with the fundamental principles they claim to hold tends to be
opportunistic. Carey may be better than that, I don't know all that
much about the man, but the quote doesn't make it sound that way.
> That's excellent. I would only add a more cynical observation, which is
> that Carey knows his audience is not going to give up its attachment to
> wealth and celebrity, and that in his appeals for antiracism he is
> telling people that this is the way they can justify themselves and ease
> their consciences. He doesn't expect them to give up their love of
> mammon and fame; he just wants them on board for the antiracism program,
> and he's using their guilt to keep them on board.
>
>
> Jim Kalb wrote:
>
> My thought was that "resist[ing] intolerance, racism and bigotry in any
> shape or form" means rejecting every particular moral culture, since
> any moral culture looks down on those who do not share it, and there is
> normally an ethnic connection to such things. It take time, common
> history, multiple connections for such things to develop and sustain
> themselves, hence the tie to ethnicity. The "in any shape or form
> suggests the absolutism and lack of moderation characteristic of
> antiracism and modern thought generally. Any tinge of ethniity is
> enough to poison something.
>
> If every particular moral culture is rejected, however, the ordering
> principles will be wealth, position, celebrity, etc., to the dominance
> of which Carey claims to object. So Carey seems to me fundamentally
> confused. I could be wrong, I suppose, if Carey normally proclaims
> more substantively Christian positions that are in fact inconsistent
> with what he says here about "working toward a genuine pluralism."
>
>
>
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Sun Jan 9 05:10:43 2000
Subject: Re: What Bradley believes in
To: la
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:10:43 -0500 (EST)
Cc: jk@panix.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2636
Status: RO
He may mean that, it's hard to know. Most likely as a practical matter
he does. "To realize one's potential" though isn't the same as getting
what one wants. It's more like becoming what one would be at one's
best. No doubt Bradley's definition of "the best" would turn out to be
as confused as Carey's. Still the fact he wants to put it this way is
an indication that liberalism doesn't satisfy people.
> I thought he basically meant that the purpose of government is to
> join everyone into an organized mass aimed at fulfilling everyone's
> desires, thus combining the collectivist and the individualist sides
> of Rousseauism. Haven't you in your writings defined liberalism as
> the idea the purpose of government is to fulfil everyone's desires?
> However, maybe I'm reading him wrong.
>
>
>
> >The view that the goal of government is to produce good men rather than
> >give men what they want is certainly not liberal. On the other hand I
> >have to wonder whether he's really thought it through.
> >
> >
> >> Bradley says his aim as president is that every person realize his or
> >> her potential.
> >>
> >> JANUARY 02, 20:19 EST
> >>
> >> Bradley Back on Campaign Trail
> >>
> >> BOSTON (AP) - Bill Bradley beat Vice President Al Gore out of the
> 2000
> >> starting gate Sunday, offering voters ``a world of new possibilities
> >> guided by goodness."
> >>
> >> Acknowledging that it was premature to speculate on any presidential
> >> legacy - ``Before you have a legacy, you've got to get nominated,
> you've
> >> got to get elected, you've got to serve with distinction, you have to
> >> die,'' he noted - Bradley nonetheless said he would aim for this one:
> >> ``That every child in America - and I by that, I mean every child in
> >> America - has a chance to realize his or her potential.''
> >>
> >> ... ``I want to be president in order to use the power of that office
> to
> >> do
> >> good. If each of you and millions of other Americans realize that you
> >> have the power to do good - and a president is president in order to
> do
> >> good - then what we thought was never possible can happen,'' Bradley
> >> said.
> >>
> >> ``In other words, we've created a world of new possibilities guided
> by
> >> goodness.''
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
> >waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and
> with
> >crimes." (Emerson)
>
>
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Sun Jan 9 05:21:34 2000
Subject: Re: More on what liberals want
To: la
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:21:34 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1488
Status: RO
That *is* relevant to what Bradley said -- one thing about his comments
that was both bad and characteristic is the emphasis on equality, on
reaching each and every child as a literal and fundamental necessity.
That would of course require an extremely pervasive and comprehensive
program of social control including effective abolition of the family.
As you say such things are taken for granted now -- it's a post-60s,
post civil-rights, post-feminism thing (the abolition of the
distinction between the personal and the political, the government as
indulgent mother).
>
> I just came across this quote, relevant to our previous discussion about
> Bradley. Apologies if I've sent this to you before, but it just strikes
> me as the most amazing and appalling statement, yet a statement that
> most people and politicians today would take for granted.
>
> Historian Blanche Wiesen Cook (who comes across not as an historian but
> simply as a liberal advocate) speaking about Eleanor Roosevelt on
> C-SPAN, said that Eleanor believed "that government has one purpose--to
> make things better for all people."
>
> When you were going to school (at least elementary and high school), did
> you _ever_ hear the purpose of government described thus? I didn't.
> This is an alien idea.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Sun Jan 9 05:26:43 2000
Subject: Re: add to previous message
To: la
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:26:43 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 852
Status: RO
Agreed. I suppose my original point about Bradley was that on some
level people -- especially men maybe -- realize that's not enough and
try at least to phrase things differently using quite different
fundamental concepts -- Bradley's "realize potential" or the Army's "be
all that you can be." Maybe that's somewhat of a weak spot that could
be exploited.
>
> Re Wiesen Cook, I forgot to say that this is how liberals phrase in a
> positive way what you state in a critical way--that liberal government's
> purpose is to satisfy people's desires.
>
> Furthermore, its purpose is to satisfy people's desires _equally_.
> Thus we have your formula--"egalitarian hedonism."
>
>
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Sun Jan 9 15:14:26 2000
Subject: Re: add to previous message
To: la
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:14:26 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3339
Status: RO
> Somehow there are all these different ways of talking about the good,
> and they can sound like the same good, but may be quite different.
> Think of "realize potential" and "satisfy people's desires." In what
> ways are they the same, in what ways different?
Agreed that abstractions can be applied very differently, especially if
you're confused or want to get to some result and aren't particular
about strict integrity in getting there. Nonetheless some abstractions
give those who believe in objective virtues, duties etc. as
traditionally conceived more of an entry to the conversation. Step one
is getting people to see that you might have something of a point, and
that's where it becomes important what abstractions are used.
As an aside, I suppose it's also important to be able to formulate
one's views in any terms so they can become at least a possibility to
people whatever the terms of discussion.
> Or, is a government that strives to "realize everyone's potential"
> the same as a government that strives to "produce good men"? These
> two phrases could be understood to mean the same thing, or quite
> different things.
The former is vaguer of course. It might for example refer to a man's
potential to become what he chooses, whereas "good" suggests more of an
objective standard. Even becoming what one chooses suggests a stable
and considered goal though, and so seems more objective than
satisfaction of preference. Which latter is what liberalism is really
about.
> Or, does "making life better for everyone" mean creating a society in
> which men can realize the good, or does it mean "satisfying
> everyone's desires"?
It seems to refer to the experiences people have, and hints somewhat
that everyone is equally the judge of such things and equally capable
of them. So it tends toward egalitarian hedonism.
> It seems that a shift occurred in modern (or what we call classical)
> liberalism, in which the Platonic good got redefined as the
> individual good which then got redefined as fulfilment of desire.
I think so. Your good became what you view as your good, so whatever
you prefer became what you should get.
> However, for another twist in an argument I am not equipped to
> continue very far, the collectivist/totalitarian implications of
> Bradley's "realizing everyone's potential" and of Wiesen Cook's
> "making life better for everyone" may not be altogether different
> from Plato's organizing of society for the true fulfilment of man's
> nature, since that also requires a totalist state.
Oh agreed. Plato thought through the problems of a totalist state more
though. He thought that such a state would have to be small,
fortunate, and realized only very approximately. The Laws are
interesting on that point. He's always pointing out limitations on
total control. The modern tendency is to assume that these are all
problems of engineering that should be assumed soluble so that reforms
will continue.
> In any case, I am pleased to have arrived back at your phrase
> egalitarian hedonism from a different route. I wasn't completely on
> board with it before. Now it makes more sense to me.
Good!
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Sun Oct 31 08:18:37 1999
Subject: Re: Modern conservatives and the chill of the void
To: la
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:18:37 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1898
Status: RO
Thanks -- very relevant.
All the men you mention have great virtues I think. Courage and
relative integrity for one. I would classify all three groups though
as single-insight splinter groups that can serve a function because
each has a genuine insight but can't provide an overall approach to
things that makes much sense and so can exist only in opposition.
> They describe the human world solely in terms of biological and
> ecological systems. Blind to the traditional Western understanding
> of man as a multilayered being both material and spiritual, lacking
> any belief in moral realities transcending matter, they are unable to
> evoke the meaning of our civilization.
The belief that life depends on a complex of relationships that we
can't administer or manipulate and so must be accepted and submitted to
does I think set off all three groups from the left. What's missing as
you point out is the multilayered nature of reality grounded ultimately
in God. The latter is what I say is the essence of the Left and it
seems to me that where it is present the overall ultimate consequence
will be either the rational technologism of the left, which I try to
show won't work long-term, irrationalism (Naziism, postmodernism),
which isn't much of a solution, or paralysis.
> Finally, there are the libertarian reductionists, typified by Charles
> Murray.
I haven't read Murray's little book on libertarianism. In his _Pursuit
of Happiness_ he does suggest how socially-recognized goods not
reducible to contract and self-interest can emerge out of an
institutionally libertarian setting. I'm thinking in particular of his
discussion of how education might be carried on if it were not
something tax-supported.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Fri Nov 5 07:53:26 1999
Subject: Re: Emerson epigraph
To: la
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 07:53:26 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 36885
Status: RO
> "Whilst we are waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep,
> with eating, and with crimes"
>
> doesn't sound to me like Emerson. It sounds like something written
> by a Frenchman, not by an optimistic, Self-celebrating American.
How about this one (from his journals):
"Every reform is only a mask under cover of which a more terrible
reform, which dares not yet name itself, advances."
Emerson doesn't always sound like Emerson. You can't be the greatest
theoretician of the American spirit and always sound like an American.
> P.S. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you on the essay yet. I will.
Any sort of comment would be helpful. I'm wondering for example
whether I should break it up into several pieces and develop each one
more. There's always the question of who I'm writing for.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Fri Nov 12 15:29:54 1999
Subject: Re: Is antiracism sincere
To: la
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 15:29:54 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1429
Status: RO
> While the left's ignoring and denying of the sins of nonwhite
> minorities is explainable under your theory; I don't see how how the
> same could be said for the left's ignoring and denying the sins of
> ancient and contemporary nonwhite _dominant_ cultures and empires.
> The antiracists' operating principle is always that nonwhites are
> shown in the most favorable possible light.
The current phase of the struggle against the dominance of any
particular culture -- that is, against all authoritative understandings
of good and evil -- is the struggle against European culture, which is
the most successful of the particular cultures and has become dominant
worldwide. The claim that European culture is eternally and
intrinsically evil in a very special way advances the immediate
struggle. I don't think it is the ultimate commitment though.
The Left turns all history into propaganda. Consider _1984_. "We are
at war with Oceana and we have always been at war with Oceana" does not
show that the fundamental principle of Ingsoc is hatred of Oceana.
Ditto for "whites are uniquely evil and have always been so." In both
cases history gets revised and specific local situations ignored for
the sake of unity and dedication in the main struggle.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Sat Nov 13 05:47:13 1999
Subject: Re: Is antiracism sincere
To: la
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 05:47:13 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2411
Status: RO
> Could we both be right? That is, could you be right vis a vis the
> universalists/global capitalists/neocons, who do believe in
> dissolving all particularity, and could I be right vis a vis the
> multicultural/nonwhite left, which is mainly motivated by hatred of
> whites?
I suppose my claim is that the most fundamental and important side even
of the multicultural left really is multiculturalism, the abolition of
culture. There are lots of white multiculturalists and the outlook
really does have all these idealistic connections to freedom,
tolerance, openness etc. All of course interpreted in a sense that at
its base is nihilistic, but I don't think ordinary racial hatred is the
key.
Think of Plato's 3-part soul -- to the extent multiculturalism has such
a soul the rational part aims at the abolition of culture and thus at
all this-worldly manifestations of the transcendent. Like the
charioteer in the Phaedo it makes use of the pulling power of the
horses, who want all sorts of irrational things, to climb the rainbow
[!] and attain the plain of being (actually in this case non-being).
It's hard to know how to resolve this sort of issue -- how do you
decide the essence of a situation that has all sorts of things present
in it? In my defense I'd say that antiwhite racism would have gotten
nowhere if the abolition of the transcendent had not become the guiding
principle of public life in the West. The blacks and hispanics would
have been powerless without the intellectual and organizational
leadership of whites, so the key is what makes the dominant whites do
what they do.
Simple hatred of whites doesn't seem to be the answer. Even if you say
Jews hate gentiles and it's really the Jews who are behind all this
Jews aren't *that* powerful. Besides, I think things would be going
the same general direction even if the Jews had all moved to Madegascar
200 years ago. To the extent self-hatred or love of death has become
central to the spiritual life of the most capable and best-placed
whites the real question becomes how that can be. I say it's due to
hatred of the constitution of being due to pride and concuspience. If
we can't be God then we want to abolish God which is to abolish
existence.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Tue Dec 7 17:54:22 1999
Subject: Re: Times admits the truth
To: la
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 17:54:22 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 668
Status: RO
> But would the Times side against a black African majority culture, or
> against an anti-American Muslim majority culture, or against a local
> African-American majority culture, or against an Amazon majority
> culture, etc. etc.?
Black African cultures are unlikely to dominate others on a large
scale, so the situation is unlikely to arise. Ditto Amazon cultures.
The Times doesn't much like the Islamic Republic of Iran. They're
always having articles on feminists etc. in Muslim countries.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Jan 11 06:26:27 EST 2000
Article: 14258 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Man of the Century
Date: 11 Jan 2000 06:25:02 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <85f3ue$lap$1@panix.com>
References: <85blmp$kve$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <85dged$nmi$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 947589903 1922 166.84.0.226 (11 Jan 2000 11:25:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jan 2000 11:25:03 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14258
Status: RO
In <85dged$nmi$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Napoleon Bonaparte writes:
>> A little while back this group was discussing who should be man of
>> the century. If that means the person who has had the most
>> significant effect on his time, may I suggest that the answer is
>> none other than Clinton.
>Or maybe we should just give the award to all mainstream politicians
>including Ronald Reagan.
It seems to me that Clinton only embodies what's going on anyway. By
embodying existing tendencies so well he no doubt advances them. On
the other hand maybe he clarifies issues, which can't be all bad.
It's hard to say where critical choices are made and by whom. Maybe
there were essential flaws in the American regime from the beginning.
Or maybe that's true of all actual regimes and it's only a matter of
time until their innate vices kill them.
I'll agree that Clinton is the representative man of today. And maybe
since he was the representative man on December 31, 1999 that makes him
the man of the century since he's the man the whole century led to.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-65-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Jan 11 06:03:07 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fg.egroups.com (xfg.egroups.com [207.138.41.178])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 42B2230FF6
for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:03:06 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-65-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2000 11:03:05 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 11 Jan 2000 11:03:04 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 14911 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2000 11:03:03 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 2000 11:03:03 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id GAA19965 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:02:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001111102.GAA19965@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:02:58 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <85elmc$qrmq@eGroups.com> from "Moderator of Patriarchy Group" at Jan 10, 0 11:21:48 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Invitation for discussion
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-65-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> One of the most catchy results may be put in these words: "Feminism
> turns relating forces into separating forces."
The idea seems to be that everyone must be altogether separate and
related only by formal legal principles such as contract and
bureaucracy. Other structures are based on essential differences
between the things related and imply some degree of dependence and
hierarchy, which are thought oppressive.
One reason dependence and hierarchy are thought necessarily oppressive
is that liberal thought has abolished the idea of a common good so each
is assumed to be pursuing his own private good and using whatever
hierarchical position he may hold for that purpose.
Such a view of course makes family life, rearing children and more
generally close human relations impossible. In fact women and children
suffer from it enormously.
> Generally holds for all topics researched that natural and cultural
> differences and structure relate the sexes and therefore people
> generally. Thus they come close to each other, form a reliable
> complementing of giving and taking. Natural, good and cultivated
> relations, feelings and qualities develop when complementing relates
> the sexes and hence families and people in general. Such
> complementing is based on difference and structure.
Sounds like Confucius. Have you read him?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-72-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Jan 11 17:25:00 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fg.egroups.com (xfg.egroups.com [207.138.41.178])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AD9A156A5
for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:24:59 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-72-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2000 22:24:58 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 11 Jan 2000 22:24:56 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 13969 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2000 22:22:56 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 2000 22:22:56 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id RAA08405 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:22:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001112222.RAA08405@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:22:56 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Robert Mann" at Jan 12, 0 09:34:10 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Invitation for discussion
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-72-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Robert Mann writes:
> I infer - has anyone any statistics on this? - that it is lesbians
> who largely power the promotion of this novel ideology.
It's a combination of things I think. In addition to the involvement
of particular groups for their special private reasons there are grand
factors such as the tendency to organize society in accordance with
abstract universal principles and institutions such as economic growth,
world markets, radical equality, transnational bureaucracies, etc. Big
business and big government are feminist since rationalized large scale
operations prefer to deal with interchangeable parts. Another factor
is the abolition of moral standards that transcend human purposes,
which breaks down long term personal loyalties (since "what I want now"
becomes the moral standard) and makes essentialistic claims (e.g., men
and women have specific interrelating obligations simply because they
are men and women) implausible.
> Similarly, I believe most women - and children - are worse off for
> the hatred spread by feminazis.
Sure. And the result of their suffering is to strengthen the hand of
the feminists, since it proves they are an oppressed class.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From christ-and-culture-return-4981-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com Tue Jan 11 14:05:09 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ml.egroups.com (ml.egroups.com [207.138.41.146])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D5F5E31098
for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:05:07 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: christ-and-culture-return-4981-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.125] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Jan 2000 19:05:06 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by f7; 11 Jan 2000 19:05:06 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 1655 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2000 19:04:40 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 2000 19:04:40 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id OAA02985 for christ-and-culture@egroups.com; Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:04:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001111904.OAA02985@panix.com>
To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:04:38 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Steve Schaper" at Jan 11, 0 12:14:22 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact christ-and-culture-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: christ-and-culture@egroups.com
Subject: [C&C] Re: Jubilee
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: christ-and-culture-return-4981-jk=PANIX.COM@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> >Yeas, but AFAIK, the debt was forgiven because ther terms of the
> >debt expired in the jubilee year. You could only *get* a loan that
> >was equal to the produce of your land over the time to the jubilee.
>
> And God -commanded- that it should be so, so that there might be
> release from onerous indebtedness.
Actually, any legal provision for cancellation of indebtedness will
somehow get reflected in the terms of loans. If debts are cancelled
every 7 years then all debts will be immediately due and payable, and
readily enforceable, before the period expires. If gambling debts are
unenforceable then the creditor will sometimes be found to have an
informal security interest in the debtor's kneecaps. So what the
ultimate effects of such provisions will be takes some thought.
I suppose in general making debts unenforceable would tend to reduce
differences in wealth by suppressing commercial activity and thus large
accumulations on the one hand and imprudent spending on the other.
That I suppose is why Plato included such a provision in his _Laws_.
It's not at all clear to me it would tend to better the economic
condition of poor people generally, many of whom would suffer from the
unavailability of credit.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-135-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Jan 14 09:28:16 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fh.egroups.com (xfh.egroups.com [207.138.41.179])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 326FD310F2
for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:28:15 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-135-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Jan 2000 14:28:14 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 14 Jan 2000 14:28:14 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 14610 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2000 14:28:10 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2000 14:28:10 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id JAA17461 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:28:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001141428.JAA17461@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:28:02 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <85l0ld$qdau@eGroups.com> from "Moderator of Patriarchy Group" at Jan 13, 0 09:05:49 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Agenda discussion invited
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-135-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
"Moderator of Patriarchy Group" writes:
> The agenda I propose could be given one of the following names:
>
> 4. a) complementing of the sexes (including families and more)
>
> or
>
> 4. b) culture (defined as complementing structure of the sexes, which
> includes families among other things)
>
> or
>
> 4. c) opposition to feminism / critique of feminism / anti-feminism
>
> My proposal is to take one of these varietions of 4.) as an agenda.
All these sound OK to me. Possibly "Sexual complemention and culture,
together with critiques of feminism and its presuppositions."
My own tendency is to view feminism as an aspect of something much
larger -- what I see as a program of establishing a social order that
treats the whole world as a resource technically organized for the
equal satisfaction of individual desires. I view such a program as the
substance of contemporary politics, another way of saying that in
politics today economics and equality are the only issues taken
seriously. The cultural traditions that once established complementary
ties among human beings are now referred to "social stereotypes" and
slated for eradication. Abolition of the authority of every culture is
the real substance, for example, of multiculturalism.
Since the program treats nature as only raw material to be manipulated,
it requires the abolition of normative natural distinctions like
masculine and feminine. So it doesn't surprise me to find an ecologist
on the list. It treats social life as a technically-managed productive
process, and so prefers standardization and interchangeability, the
abolition of subtle distinctions, and elimination of all social powers
other than market and bureaucracy. More reasons to get rid of
masculinity, femininity, and the family. I think Gaia worshipers and
the like play the role of useful idiots with respect to the real forces
driving feminism.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From owner-dewey-l@GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU Fri Jan 14 09:48:20 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from VM.SC.EDU (vm.sc.edu [129.252.45.14])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D6CDE310FD
for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:48:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ganges.csd.sc.edu [129.252.86.192] by VM.SC.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4a) via TCP with SMTP ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:47:56 EST
X-Warning: VM.SC.EDU: Host ganges.csd.sc.edu claimed to be ganges
Received: from GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU by GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 2712 for DEWEY-L@GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU; Fri, 14 Jan
2000 09:43:35 -0500
Received: from 166.84.0.226 by GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU (SMTPL release 1.0d) with TCP;
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:33:34 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id JAA18137;
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:33:38 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Message-ID: <200001141433.JAA18137@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:33:38 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Kalb
Sender: John Dewey Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: TOV Chapter One
Comments: To: jatrista@email.uncc.edu
To: DEWEY-L@GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU
In-Reply-To: from "Jayne Tristan" at
Jan 12, 0 12:13:38 pm
Status: RO
Jayne Tristan writes:
> antecedently held ideals, like beauty, goodness, and truth. Moral
> inquiry, the reformulation of such values, involves, Dewey writes,
> the "reconstruction of the actual state of human life toward order
> and toward other conditions of a fuller life than man has yet
> enjoyed." [MW 12:273] In Deweyan inquiry, better understanding and
> realization of values, as well as facts, are the result of inquiry.
If a lurker may jump in, one who isn't even reading TOV -- one thing I
find difficult about Dewey is to understand how "order and ... other
conditions of a fuller life than man has yet enjoyed" is anything but
his conception of goodness. "Goodness" is supposed to be "antecedently
held" but it's not clear to me why it is so and Dewey's goal is not.
It's not as if Plato or Aristotle thought that "the good" was something
that could be presented in list form as a set of detailed prescriptions
simply to be followed and not subject to question. They were
inquirers. To give another example, Christians identify the supreme
good with God, whom they say radically exceeds human comprehension --
hardly "antecedently held."
To me the advantage of referring to the goal Dewey proposes as "Dewey's
conception of the good" is that it aids inquiry by facilitating
comparison of Dewey's understanding of things and what he thinks the
rational goal of action is -- what he thinks "the good" is -- with the
views of other thinkers.
> She draws on the thought of Alain Locke who argued rival absolutisms
> must be abandoned in favor of a negotiated, cross-cultural process of
> progressive understanding, trust-building, and trust based democratic
> collaboration in areas of mutual benefit.
Comments similar to the one above could be multiplied. "Must be
abandoned" suggests that Locke is in fact setting up yet another rival
absolutism. He's proposing a final standard for creating moral
institutions -- a "negotiated cross-cultural process" -- and since that
is a standard with which everything else must comply it appears to be
an absolute. If it's inconsistent with other approaches that people
actually hold it further appears to be a rival absolute. On this line
of thought the demand that rival absolutisms be abolished appears to be
a demand that other people's absolutisms be abolished.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-141-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Jan 14 12:58:53 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fh.egroups.com (xfh.egroups.com [207.138.41.179])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C5CB630FD9
for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:58:50 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-141-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Jan 2000 17:58:49 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 14 Jan 2000 17:58:49 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 20706 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2000 17:57:55 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2000 17:57:55 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id MAA24629 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:52:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001141752.MAA24629@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:52:53 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Josef Mattes" at Jan 14, 0 03:57:07 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Agenda discussion invited
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-141-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Josef Mattes writes:
> > My own tendency is to view feminism as an aspect of something much
> > larger -- what I see as a program of establishing a social order
> > that treats the whole world as a resource technically organized for
> > the equal satisfaction of individual desires.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "equal satisfaction of
> individual desires". Are you claiming feminism aims for equal
> possibilities for men and women? As far as, I can see that is
> precisely what it does not: rather 'options for women, obligations
> for men'.
Many feminists want that. To some extent they have been able to
influence law and policy. And maybe there's an individual feminist who
likes feminism because she wants to be different from her mother, or
the same as her mother, or because there's some feminist position that
lets her stick it to her ex-husband.
To my mind though these things are not fundamental. There are billions
of people with every possible goal. The thing that determines which
goals prosper and which get thwarted is something more general, in the
end the dominant understanding of what the world is like, what's good,
what's bad etc.
It seems to me the dominant moral understanding of things now requires
abolition of masculinity and femininity, of differentiation of
treatment between men and women. I tried to outline in my post what
that understanding is and why it requires that. If equal satisfaction
of individual desires, egalitarian hedonism, is what everyone thinks
the ultimate moral standard is then gender distinctions will seem
offensive because a desire will be treated differently depending on
whether it is the desire of a man or a woman. Also, such distinctions
interfere with the technically rational deployment of resources to
satisfy desires and have to go for that reason.
I would put current favoritism sometimes shown for women over men as a
result of the political rhetoric and bargaining needed to arouse
energetic support for a fundamentally egalitarian program -- reform
measures going to extremes. The fact some or for all I know most
feminists really want women to be in a superior position is irrelevant.
The important issue is what there is in the general situation that
means feminists win no matter how silly they are, not what feminists
themselves are like.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From owner-dewey-l@GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU Fri Jan 14 13:04:38 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from VM.SC.EDU (vm.sc.edu [129.252.45.14])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C17D30FD9
for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:04:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ganges.csd.sc.edu [129.252.86.192] by VM.SC.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4a) via TCP with SMTP ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:04:26 EST
X-Warning: VM.SC.EDU: Host ganges.csd.sc.edu claimed to be ganges
Received: from GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU by GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release
1.8d) with spool id 2730 for DEWEY-L@GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU; Fri, 14 Jan
2000 13:02:34 -0500
Received: from 166.84.0.226 by GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU (SMTPL release 1.0d) with TCP;
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:02:33 -0500
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id NAA27375;
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:02:09 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Message-ID: <200001141802.NAA27375@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:02:09 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Kalb
Sender: John Dewey Discussion List
From: Jim Kalb
Subject: Re: TOV Chapter One
Comments: To: simon@LORIS.NET
To: DEWEY-L@GANGES.CSD.SC.EDU
In-Reply-To: <200001141519.HAA16721@xprt.net> from "Simon" at Jan 14,
0 07:23:46 am
Status: RO
Simon writes:
> I have similar difficulties and they are not really answered by the
> fact that Dewey seems to shift the emphasis to method rather than
> obviously pre-existing and pre-defined values.
I'm not sure that "reconstruction of the actual state of human life
toward order and toward other conditions of a fuller life than man has
yet enjoyed" puts the emphasis on method. There's a method but it's
directed toward what seem to be substantive goods like "conditions of a
fuller life."
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Sun Jan 9 17:15:22 2000
Subject: Re: Clerification
To: sh
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 17:15:22 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 550
Status: RO
> What I'm saying is, How can I concider myself a=20 conservative
> which socially I am if I have to depend on Government?
You have to live in the world as you find it. If there were no welfare
state then I expect other ways would have evolved to deal with
difficulties -- stronger family and local ties for example. Since
there is a welfare state necessity forces compromises.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Wed Jan 12 09:07:52 2000
Subject: Re: Antifeministiska samfundet
To: JL
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:07:52 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 981
Status: RO
> But are you sure "rightwinger" is the correct term? I think many
> people who are sick and tired of political correctness are actually
> classic liberals. Even Ronald Reagan had some of the earmarks. People
> now calling themselves "liberals" are usually really elitists.
I think of classical liberalism as a stage in the development of
liberalism that can't really be regained. To get past full-blown
contemporary liberalism I think it will be necessary to reject
liberalism generally. Actually, I go into that a little in the Swedish
article which is available on my publications page,
http://www.panix.com/~jk/jk_publications.html
I agree that contemporary liberalism is necessarily elitist.
I will look at your page.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Wed Jan 12 16:45:47 2000
Subject: Re: Antifeministiska samfundet
To: JL
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:45:47 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1877
Status: RO
My own inclination is to view the current form of liberalism as the
flowering of the same tendencies that gave us classical liberalism.
Since liberalism in any form has no standard other than abstract
liberty and equality, as its standards are continuously applied to an
evolving social situation it can't help but go too far and become
doctrinaire, elitist, obscurantist, tyrannical, whatever.
For more see my "PC and the Crisis of Liberalism" also on my
publications page. (You're not of course required actually to read all
these things.)
> <<
> I think of classical liberalism as a stage in the development of
> liberalism that can't really be regained. To get past full-blown
> contemporary liberalism I think it will be necessary to reject
> liberalism generally. Actually, I go into that a little in the Swedish
> article which is available on my publications page,
> http://www.panix.com/~jk/jk_publications.html
> >>
>
> I'll check it out. I am terrified of today's so-called "liberals", but what I
> dislike about them is their dishonesty in using that term to describe
> themselves. I think it all depends on the definitions we use. At one time
> conservatism went hand in hand with things like blue laws and Jim Crow laws
> and that sort of thing. Hopefully that chapter is closed. I think of TRUE
> (classic) liberalism as the ideology that put these things to rest.
> Then the "liberals" turned around and made a complete mess of things instead
> of leaving well enough alone. And what they did (a classic example is
> affirmative action) is in no way liberal. Today's "liberalism" is rigid,
> doctrinaire and elitist, and those are unliberal attributes.
> Don Hank
>
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Fri Jan 14 09:17:57 2000
Subject: Re: Kofi Anan on end of sovereignty
To: la
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:17:57 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 981
Status: RO
Just so. Once transcendent goods are abolished, life becomes solely a
matter of particular individuals and groups trying to get their own
way. If that's how it is then of course it's better for states "to be
instruments at the service of their peoples, and not vice versa."
Unfortunately it's clearer why the rulers should claim to at the
service of their peoples than actually be so.
>
> excerpt from a speech. The state has nothing transcendent about it, it
> is just an instrument to supply services, and citizens are redefined as
> consumers.
>
> "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined-not
> least by the forces of globalisation and international co-operation.
> States are now widely understood to be instruments at the service of
> their peoples, and not vice versa."
>
>
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Fri Jan 14 09:39:14 2000
Subject: Re: Antifeministiska samfundet
To: JL
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:39:14 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1102
Status: RO
> << My own inclination is to view the current form of liberalism as
> the flowering of the same tendencies that gave us classical
> liberalism. Since liberalism in any form has no standard other than
> abstract liberty and equality, as its standards are continuously
> applied to an evolving social situation it can't help but go too far
> and become doctrinaire, elitist, obscurantist, tyrannical, whatever.
> >>
> If that's the definition of liberalism you choose, then you are right. BTW,
> do you belong to the Patirarchy newsgroup?
It seems to me the natural definition of the things called liberalism.
"Liberty" is said to be the goal of government, and the word is
understood as an abstraction that trumps everything else. As time goes
on I think it's natural for its meaning to become more general and its
demands more comprehensive until they leave room for very few other
goods.
I do belong to the newsgroup.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Fri Jan 14 09:45:21 2000
Subject: Re: Antifeministiska samfundet
To: JL
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:45:21 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 940
Status: RO
> << My own inclination is to view the current form of liberalism as
> the flowering of the same tendencies
>
> Very possible. But possibly a distortion of classic liberalism by
> those who didn't usnderstand it.
I just don't find classic liberalism stable. Why view private property
as an ultimate value for example? If the idea is that people should be
free to do what they want as long as they don't interfere with others
you have to decide what constitutes "interference" which is not at all
obvious. If I have a hamburger and you're hungry who's interfering if
you try to eat it and I don't let you?
> You may be interested in the book (conservative):
> "The Oldest Dead White European Males" by Bernard Knox, a Greek scholar.
Thanks for the recommendation.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Fri Jan 14 13:11:41 2000
Subject: Re: Man of the Century
To: a.t.
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 13:11:41 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 769
Status: RO
> The world would have been a very different place had North America
> divided up into European size countries. The growth of the US and its
> devastating intervention in European affairs has led to the state we
> are in today.
Don't see it. It seems to me Russia would still have been Russia,
China China, the Europeans would still have lost their empires,
Christendom would have continued to evaporate, there still would have
been bouts of political extremism for ersatz transcendence followed by
a slump into egalitarian hedonism and corruption and a slide into an
ecumenical economistic order.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-166-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Jan 14 20:07:11 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fh.egroups.com (xfh.egroups.com [207.138.41.179])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E6DA0155C2
for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:07:06 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-166-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Jan 2000 01:07:06 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 15 Jan 2000 01:07:05 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 28839 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2000 01:07:04 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2000 01:07:04 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA14707 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:07:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001150107.UAA14707@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:07:02 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Robert Mann" at Jan 15, 0 11:02:38 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: 'equality'
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-166-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Robert Mann writes:
> >It seems to me the dominant moral understanding of things now
> >requires abolition of masculinity and femininity, of differentiation
> >of treatment between men and women.
>
> Is it that simple? What we have seen over the past few decades is a
> confused mixture of 'unisex' - this really deluded pretence that
> there are no significant differences between women and men - and on
> the other hand female superiority
It's not simple at all, and I agree with everything you say here, but I
am trying to analyze a complex situation into simpler components and
pick out which ones are decisive and which only lend coloring. That's
a difficult thing to do, and failure is likely, but if you think
something is bad it makes sense to try to sort through what makes it
happen. The attempt is worth making if only to stimulate thought.
Anyway, it seems to me that the thing that has made feminism dominant
is not the desire of particular women for revenge or whatever -- that
and many other pathologies are always present but most pathologies
don't get enshrined in laws, constitutions, human rights treaties, etc.
Instead I think it's something much larger and more general, the
tendency away from essentialist views of human nature and toward
radical egalitarianism. That tendency in turn rests on ethical
hedonism, the view that to say something is good is simply to say
someone wants it. I think ethical hedonism is molding the whole of
modern society and political life, so fighting feminism involves
fighting a great deal else as well.
The point is that if "this is good" just means "I want this," which is
the position of ethical hedonism, then common goods and enduring
loyalties are impossible, Jan's society based on mutual connections and
obligations disappears, it's every man for himself, and sex roles can't
be anything more than social constructions designed to facilitate
exploitation. Under such circumstances it doesn't matter how crazy
feminists are, policymakers will side with them because they feel
called on to oppose the traditional and natural tendency to recognize
sex roles that put men higher up in the hierarchy of authority.
> In such a confused context the term 'equality' is of little or no
> use. It is too vague. It conflates moral status with the basic
> civil rights that all citizens (except persistent criminals) deserve.
It's not of much use for deciding what's good or bad, but in fact it's
taken to be a supreme ethical requirement so if you want to talk about
what's going on you have to talk about equality.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-175-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Jan 15 07:06:34 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fh.egroups.com (fh.egroups.com [207.138.41.179])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 59B4F30F32
for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 07:06:33 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-175-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Jan 2000 12:06:32 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 15 Jan 2000 12:06:32 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 27152 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2000 12:06:18 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2000 12:06:18 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id HAA05110 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 07:06:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001151206.HAA05110@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 07:06:17 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Robert Mann" at Jan 15, 0 07:29:18 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: behind feminism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-175-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Robert Mann writes:
> I do urge study of The Great War. Not merely millions of men, but
> perhaps a whole civilisation, never recovered from that cataclysm.
> WimminsLib expanded as if to fill a sort of vacuum left by not merely
> the large-scale killing of young men but also a loss of confidence in
> not only male roles but the whole plurry culture. My intuition is
> that it is that period in which we must seek the origins of our
> present mess.
But even before that there was something in the works. The Woman
Question was a staple of radical political discussion before the Great
War, and feminism as an organized movement began before the mid-19th
century. Some of the best imaginative writers of the late 19th century
-- for example Ibsen and Henry James in_The Bostonians_ -- thought
there was something very major going on and were troubled by it. James
talked about a "loss of the sentiment of sex" if I remember correctly
and thought it would take hundreds of years to work through the issues.
If disaster led to feminism in 1914 - 1918 why did prosperity lead to
feminism in the 1840s and 1960s? Why did feminism blossom first in the
United States, which suffered very little from the Great War?
Civilization is always getting stretched, jarred and bashed one way or
another. What happens then might be explained by reference to the
particular jar or bash but it seems more to the point to look at what
it was that prepared the way for *that* change to be the one that came
when something unsettled things.
Also, why is it that opposition to feminism seems so *conceptually*
wrongheaded and even evil to so many people who aren't revenge-seeking
women? Courts in the United States and Europe have been doing pretty
surprising things with language in constitutions, laws etc. to bring
about feminist goals. The academic world, people who are paid to
research and think about things, is dominated by feminism. Those
things wouldn't be happening if there weren't something in the way
settled mainstream responsible respectable people think about things
that tells them there's something really fundamentally wrong with
social recognition of gender distinctions.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-183-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Jan 15 10:22:59 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fh.egroups.com (fh.egroups.com [207.138.41.179])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CDBB9155EF
for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:22:57 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-183-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Jan 2000 15:22:57 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 15 Jan 2000 15:22:56 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 13861 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2000 15:22:54 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2000 15:22:54 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id KAA22127 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:22:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001151522.KAA22127@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:22:53 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Automort@aol.com" at Jan 15, 0 09:18:01 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: behind feminism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-183-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> Because of the notion of equality, which I see as equality of
> opportunity, which must be extended to everybody. That's OK, but two
> things happened: (1) the male model was retained as the example of
> what someone should be and feminists have retained it, and (2) the
> foreign socialist notion that everyone should be REDUCED to the same
> common denominator and there would be equality. The last is actually
> a strategy for controlling masses, but it struck a chord in
> democratic notions.
Equality of opportunity means individual assertion, arms' length
dealing, competitive achievement, etc., so I'm not sure how the male
model can be avoided if E of O is taken as a fundamental public goal.
Also, I think E of O tends to turn into enforced equality of outcome as
more and more things become understood as barriers to equal
opportunity. At first E of O just means getting rid of the privileges
of the nobility. Then it means free public education. But then people
notice that family background affects habits and attitudes which affect
how well people take advantage of education so something has to be done
to counter the effects of family background if opportunities are really
to be equal. Then the same has to be done for race and sex. All these
developments seem natural to me, and inevitable unless there are public
goals that trump equality, and they lead to simple enforced equality
(except for the enforcers of course).
My point in all this is that equality of opportunity and other
classical liberal goals are not so simple and innocent. It seems to me
difficult consistently to reject the extremes of liberalism -- feminism
say -- without rejecting a great deal more. It's not lunacy that makes
all respectable authoritative institutions -- universities, courts,
churches, professional associations, what have you -- accept something
as lunatic as feminism. They can't avoid doing so without rejecting
basic ideals of modern liberal society. To reject feminism today is
commonsensical and necessary but also radical.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-197-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Jan 15 17:22:48 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fh.egroups.com (fh.egroups.com [207.138.41.179])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CCB7A15643
for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:22:47 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-197-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Jan 2000 22:22:47 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 15 Jan 2000 22:22:46 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 2111 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2000 22:22:20 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2000 22:22:20 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id RAA01198 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:22:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001152222.RAA01198@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:22:16 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Robert Mann" at Jan 16, 0 10:33:10 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: capitalism v. communism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-197-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> Given that the USA is _more_ identified with the attempt at
> matriarchy - it is a matter of degree, not all-or-none - the question
> has been raised why the USA appears more successful economically.
It's an interesting question.
My answer is that the success of feminism is an aspect of economic
rationalization -- the process by which *everything* gets turned into
an economic resource and used in the technological process that
maximizes the production of saleable goods. Masculinity and femininity
are destroyed in that process because they are in part relational --
although rooted in average male and female characteristics they have to
do with attitudes, obligations and relationships between the sexes that
make possible institutions like the family that are not part of the
technologically rationalized productive process and therefore have to
be destroyed.
As it turns out primary reliance on markets promotes economic
rationalization better than sole reliance on bureaucracy; hence the USA
is both more prosperous and more feminist than the USSR was.
The question naturally arises whether the USA is not cutting its throat
even economically, since by destroying masculinity it will destroy
enterprise, innovation, objective thinking, etc. My answer is that in
the long run that will happen, a rationalized society is not
sustainable, but it takes time to destroy masculinity, at least the
aspects of it that are immediately beneficial to the economic system
and so get reinforced day-to-day.
In addition, I think the destruction of femininity has been greater
than that of masculinity since a rationalized economic system has many
masculine traits like arm's length dealing and competitive achievement.
Women suffer more than men under the current system, including
feminism, because their way of being is devalued more radically.
Again I think it's somewhat misleading to look at Gaia worship,
ecofeminism, female denounciation of Newton. Such things represent
distorted scraps of femininity trying incoherently to assert themselves
in a basically alien environment. Their adherents are like the hippies
of the 60s with their "do your own thing" that paved the way for
self-seeking, careerism and commercialism.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-216-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sun Jan 16 08:17:41 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fh.egroups.com (fh.egroups.com [207.138.41.179])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E934915511
for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 08:17:39 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-216-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Jan 2000 13:17:39 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 16 Jan 2000 13:17:38 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 28569 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2000 13:17:22 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2000 13:17:22 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA11341 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 08:17:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001161317.IAA11341@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com (patriarchy)
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 08:17:21 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Sex roles and multiculturalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-216-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Why no Mumfords or Illiches? No well-known respectable writers
discussing the function and necessity of gender, sex roles, sexual
division of labor?
One problem is multiculturalism. Sex roles are natural but also
social, and different peoples define them in somewhat different ways.
In all times and places men are basically the ones who look after
public life, women after children and the home. How that principle is
carried out varies. Exactly what public roles *do* women have? None?
Serving on the school board? Everything but a few things like
soldiering? Whatever they want and people are willing to give them, so
long as they understand they're constantly going to be dealing with
legitimate preconceptions? What specifically are men's domestic
responsibililties? The limits on their authority? The effect of
particular circumstances?
The questions go on forever, and they have to be answered somewhat
concretely if there is to be a workable system that for example gives
men and women who get married some assurance that there's an
understanding others will support of what they have a right to expect
from each other. A system of concrete answers to such questions is
what is called a "culture."
The problem is that cultures are ethnic, they arise when a group of
people lives a common life for a long time and comes to understand
itself as a people with its own ways distinct from those of other
peoples. To have a publicly-recognized system of sex roles is
therefore to establish the authority of a particular culture and to
advantage one ethnic group over all others, to make their way of doing
things the public standard. So doing is now understood to be "racist,"
which is considered the worst offense possible.
A problem one faces in opposing feminism is that modern egalitarianism
is all of a piece. That's the basis of PC. If you oppose
egalitarianism on one thing you'll end up opposing it on lots of other
things too.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From paleo-return-831-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sun Jan 16 09:18:23 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ml.egroups.com (ml.egroups.com [207.138.41.146])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D0BC115562
for ; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 09:18:19 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-831-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.41] by ml.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Jan 2000 14:18:18 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a1; 16 Jan 2000 14:18:18 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 25216 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2000 14:18:16 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2000 14:18:16 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id JAA15809 for paleo@egroups.com; Sun, 16 Jan 2000 09:18:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001161418.JAA15809@panix.com>
To: paleo@egroups.com
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 09:18:15 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Thomas P Roche" at Jan 16, 0 00:11:29 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact paleo-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: paleo@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: paleo@egroups.com
Subject: [Paleo] Re:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: paleo-return-831-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Thomas P Roche writes:
> > "Conservative" in this case simply means that statecraft should be
> > practiced in line with the lesson learned through hundreds of years
> > of Western civilization. It assumes that human nature will not be
> > improved by political means and that various formulas for social
> > engineering are doomed.
>
> But those hundreds of years of western civilization have indeed
> produced several very vaying paradigms for appropriate 'conservative'
> governance.
> > "Paleo-orthodoxy" is simply the view that Christianity does not
> > revolve around the believer's pet ideas or whatever fads are going
> > around, but should reflect the teaching and methods of our
> > forefathers. Ad fontes, if you will.
> >
> Same problem: whose fontes? Menno Simons? John Calvin? Ignatius of
> Loyola? Plato?
Conservatism isn't a machine for producing answers. I think of it as
rejection of a notion basic to a lot of current thought, that man
constructs the social world, his relation to the universe, moral order,
etc. in accordance with formal logic and his own desires. Once that
notion is rejected the world does look very different, and you do get a
lot of answers with respect to current political issues. For example
feminism starts looking much less attractive. Nonetheless lots of
questions remain.
Also, conservatism, rejection of the notion that you just make your own
world for yourself, suggests that you can only start where you are and
do your best from there. Any actual Christian will already be a member
of some actual society of Christians influenced more by some of the
names you mention than others and living a life and thinking thoughts
reflecting some perspectives more than others. He will start and go on
from there -- the wide open choice you seem to suggest based I suppose
on pure rationality or something among every possible view just doesn't
exist.
Conservatism also suggests taking long-term evolved habit and consensus
seriously, since it presumably reflects a lot of experience and
perception that is difficult to identify and articulate explicitly.
That can also guide thought, and lead one to favor some styles of
thinking and thinkers more than others, but again it doesn't solve all
questions since historical cultures differ and contain inconsistencies,
and since "take seriously" doesn't mean "follow mechanically."
> As long as we realize that his contract could contain a morals or
> public behavior clause, giving baseball the right to can him the same
> way a company can discharge a celebrity pitchman, say, who gets
> himself photographed entering a 'gay' bar.
Agreed. Naturally the rest of us are free to say that baseball
management is stupid, malicious, weak, whatever in their dealings under
the contract.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-242-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Mon Jan 17 06:31:23 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fh.egroups.com (fh.egroups.com [207.138.41.179])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A5B5630F3B
for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:31:22 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-242-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Jan 2000 11:31:22 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 17 Jan 2000 11:31:21 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 12191 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2000 11:31:05 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2000 11:31:05 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id GAA00781 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:31:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001171131.GAA00781@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:31:02 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <59.45cc05.25b3ccbf@aol.com> from "JLaigle@aol.com" at Jan 16, 0 08:39:11 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Sex roles and multiculturalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-242-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Don writes:
> The libertarian answer to all of this is "sex roles are none of the
> government's business". NO doubt about it: If govt stayed out of this
> area we'd be a lot better off.
The issue's hard to avoid though. Most libertarians will at least let
the government have an army, which puts us right back in the "women in
combat" issue. Then there will probably be some sort of system of
family law that will necessarily reflect presumptions and expectations
about men and women. And even a libertarian government will probably
have a few employees, which brings up the issue of equal
opportunity/accepted sex roles in the workplace.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-242-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Mon Jan 17 06:31:23 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from fh.egroups.com (fh.egroups.com [207.138.41.179])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A5B5630F3B
for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:31:22 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-242-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Jan 2000 11:31:22 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 17 Jan 2000 11:31:21 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 12191 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2000 11:31:05 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2000 11:31:05 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id GAA00781 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:31:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001171131.GAA00781@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:31:02 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <59.45cc05.25b3ccbf@aol.com> from "JLaigle@aol.com" at Jan 16, 0 08:39:11 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Sex roles and multiculturalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-242-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Don writes:
> The libertarian answer to all of this is "sex roles are none of the
> government's business". NO doubt about it: If govt stayed out of this
> area we'd be a lot better off.
The issue's hard to avoid though. Most libertarians will at least let
the government have an army, which puts us right back in the "women in
combat" issue. Then there will probably be some sort of system of
family law that will necessarily reflect presumptions and expectations
about men and women. And even a libertarian government will probably
have a few employees, which brings up the issue of equal
opportunity/accepted sex roles in the workplace.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From jk Sat Jan 15 07:18:43 2000
Subject: Re: Antifeministiska samfundet
To: JL
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 07:18:43 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1666
Status: RO
> Did you read my web page, where I talk about the danger of libertarianism
> going overboard? That's my whole thesis, that ALL ideologies quickly go
> corrupt.
Alas I haven't yet. I will.
> Your interpretation of what I said is an illustration of how this happens.
> You applied (not without justification) the new definition of "classic
> liberalism" invented by the libertarians to me because I happened to apply
> that term to me.
> Probably the safest thing is not to apply any term to oneself because every
> listener will interpret the term differently.
But the libertarian definition isn't arbitrary. It seems to me that
any attempt to restore classical liberalism will look a lot like
libertarianism -- a lot more sharp-edged, dogmatic and unreasonable
than the original. The original after all could rely on habits and
unspoken assumptions that have vanished, a restoration would have to
make everything explicit and allow fewer exceptions and gray areas.
If you say "I'm a liberal" you're saying that your fundamental
political allegiance is to freedom. That brings up the question how to
resolve conflicts. If you want to avoid a large state apparatus that
inevitably will involve arbitrary decisions, corruption etc. then I
think the answer is going to have to be a system of property rights
understood as preceding all other social dealings and institutions. So
I do think the link between classical liberalism and emphasis on
presocial property rights is necessary.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-258-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Mon Jan 17 17:09:34 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DA1E915516
for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:09:32 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-258-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Jan 2000 22:09:32 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 17 Jan 2000 22:09:31 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 15628 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2000 21:34:04 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2000 21:34:04 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id QAA12564 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:33:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001172133.QAA12564@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:33:57 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Robert Mann" at Jan 18, 0 08:26:09 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: No Subject
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-258-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> However, how much failure and how protracted must an affirmative
> action campaign show before it is stopped? In my country, numerous
> glaringly incompetent women have been unjustly elevated to powerful
> positions, and then moved on in a year or two, but with never any
> admission that they were unsatisfactory, let alone review of the
> affirmative action policy.
A sign of how fundamental the commitment to feminism is. No matter
what the evidence it is simply impossible for those in public positions
to recognize that there are important differences between the sexes.
The thoughts just won't come together. The words won't come out. It's
not a matter of this or that historical event somehow giving strange
people an opportunity to enact weird legislation, it's a matter of the
basic grasp of reality on which our public life is based. Something
has gone wrong with it.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-259-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Mon Jan 17 17:25:13 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6467D15699
for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:25:11 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-259-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 17 Jan 2000 22:25:10 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 17 Jan 2000 22:25:10 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 29249 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2000 21:50:16 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2000 21:50:16 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id QAA14390 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:50:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001172150.QAA14390@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 16:50:14 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <86.257d8a.25b4816c@aol.com> from "JLaigle@aol.com" at Jan 17, 0 09:30:04 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Sex roles and multiculturalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-259-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Don Hank writes:
> But the bulk of the policies that hold us back would be gone in a
> libertarian govt.
Oh, true enough. There would be fewer means of keeping people from
doing what comes naturally.
> Libertarianism is based on totally free competition. It is
> sex-blind, color-blind, religion-blind, etc. If a woman can do the
> job better, she gets the job. If a man can do it better HE gets the
> job
As stated this is not at all neutral. It puts immediate functioning of
the economic machine first without regard to the effect on other
relationships. Also, it assumes people work together in the way parts
of a machine work together, so to make the most efficient machine you
just select the components that are individually most efficient. I'm
not even sure that's the case in mechanical engineering, let alone
building up an effective organization. I take it this x-blindness
would only be required for government jobs, though, which in Libertopia
would be very few.
Some questions do come to mind, though:
1. In evaluating what will get the job done, can the government
employer take into account effect of hiring a man or woman on group
cohesion and so on?
2. Can thoughts like "well, young women tend to have babies and reduce
their job commitment while young men tend to become fathers and
increase theirs" play a legitimate role in government hiring?
3. Can the government decide to hire in ways it thinks will promote
social goals other than immediate efficiency, like say enhancing the
patriarchal system?
If the answer to any of the above is "no," why? After all,
libertarians supposedly are concerned solely with freedom and I don't
see what any of the above have to do with that.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-284-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Jan 18 08:31:07 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D81B4310B8
for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:31:04 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-284-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Jan 2000 13:31:04 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 18 Jan 2000 13:31:04 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 3311 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2000 13:30:58 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2000 13:30:58 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA07524 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:30:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001181330.IAA07524@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:30:53 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <6e.309df8.25b535d6@aol.com> from "JLaigle@aol.com" at Jan 17, 0 10:19:50 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Sex roles and multiculturalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-284-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Don writes:
> In libertarianism, while cronies may get the bulk of the jobs, as
> they do everywhere else, the falling away of the artificial pro-woman
> anti-male rules would enable real competition to burgeon and flower.
I agree that libertarianism would be a huge step forward. I also agree
that restoration of a stable functional system of sex roles isn't
something the government can design and administer. It has to be
something that grows up and seems right to men and women both.
So maybe my objections just have to do with theory and there's no
practical problem. Nonetheless I do have some issues:
1. Left/liberals say "government regulation and bureaucracy should
determine everything." Libertarians say "the market and free individual
competition should determine everything." The point of antifeminism as
I see it, though, is that a tolerable way of life requires something
additional to bureaucracy and market. It requires fundamental
connections between particular people that they rely on to build their
lives. The libertarian tendency to look down on such things and
classify them as "cronyism," "prejudice," or whatever and contrast them
to the blossoming of real competition (that is, to total determination
by the market) is I think at least a theoretical mistake.
2. Where's the support for a strict libertarian order to come from?
Suppose one came into existence, and without government intervention
all sorts of traditional, local, informal institutions (family,
neighborhood, ethnic, religious, old college tie, whatever) took on
renewed life. Then I think men would start looking at themselves less
strictly as individuals competing and dealing at arms' length and more
as persons constituted at least partly by their ties to others, and the
libertarian view would begin to look less plausible.
The relation of all this to practice is unclear. Again, libertarianism
would be a big step forward. It does seem to me though that how you
understand things eventually has an important relation to practice, and
this is a discussion group, so it seemed worthwhile raising the issues.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From paleo-return-852-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Jan 18 08:45:53 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mv.egroups.com (mv.egroups.com [207.138.41.150])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7480A310D6
for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:45:52 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-852-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.41] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Jan 2000 13:45:51 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a1; 18 Jan 2000 13:45:51 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 16042 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2000 13:45:45 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2000 13:45:45 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA08722 for paleo@egroups.com; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:45:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001181345.IAA08722@panix.com>
To: paleo@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:45:44 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Thomas P Roche" at Jan 18, 0 02:07:24 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact paleo-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: paleo@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: paleo@egroups.com
Subject: [Paleo] Re:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: paleo-return-852-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> How do you decide which thinkers get a place in the debate, and which
> get excluded offhand?
How do you decide what the debate is about? How do you decide what the
issues are? How do you decide whether it's a debate instead of
something else, a fashion show maybe? If you want to go someplace, how
do you decide which foot to start off on?
What should be treated as relevant to any discussion is what those
participating in the discussion see as relevant. Ditto for who is
treated as a participant in the discussion, whose views are treated as
more or less authoritative, etc. There's no a priori way to decide
such things or once decided to define them with complete clarity.
Nonetheless a discussion can't procede unless they are answered
somehow.
The point then is that a rule that requires -- literally -- all voices
to be heard and given equal respect, and moreover for there to be
outreach to encourage silenced or excluded voices and bring them into
the discussion, is simply a rule that silences everyone and makes all
voices ineffectual except whoever the elite is that administers the
rule and by default will end up silently running everything.
Another way of putting it is to say that free public life requires
particularism, group identity, exclusion.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-288-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Jan 18 12:46:46 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B24B4311CE
for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:46:44 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-288-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 18 Jan 2000 17:46:23 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 18 Jan 2000 17:46:23 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 6730 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2000 17:45:23 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2000 17:45:23 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id MAA12918 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:45:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001181745.MAA12918@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:45:22 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <6e.32e96f.25b5fde9@aol.com> from "JLaigle@aol.com" at Jan 18, 0 12:33:29 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Who wants to moderate?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-288-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> <<
> I tried to point out questions which are in my view crucial and might
> IMHO make the difference between a general discussion and a patriarchal
> forum. For instance:
>
> What could be done to stop the process of making men expendable?
>
> What should most men do who are not part of a "very narrow slice" which
> might not be (that much) affected?
> >>
>
> I too hope you stay on, Jan
> I might suggest though that we let this list grow like an organic
> thing for a while and see what fruit it can bear.
I agree with Don on both points.
On the two points you raise, I would agree with Don as well and propose
radical cutbacks in the role of government in society. If people can't
rely on the state they will have to rely on each other, and the natural
way for people to rely on each other is through family connections and
related reciprocal arrangements, which require sex roles.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From paleo-return-860-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Wed Jan 19 07:17:38 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mv.egroups.com (mv.egroups.com [207.138.41.150])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 572681553A
for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:17:37 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-860-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.41] by mv.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Jan 2000 12:17:33 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a1; 19 Jan 2000 12:17:28 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 18077 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2000 12:17:16 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2000 12:17:16 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id HAA18882 for paleo@egroups.com; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:16:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001191216.HAA18882@panix.com>
To: paleo@egroups.com
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:16:57 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Thomas P Roche" at Jan 19, 0 02:30:26 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact paleo-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: paleo@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: paleo@egroups.com
Subject: [Paleo] Re:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: paleo-return-860-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> Who gets to decide who gets to become the hierarch?
You seem convinced that all social arrangements must be based on an
explicit decision procedure. Why? And what didn't you like about my
previous answer to essentially the same question?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Wed Jan 19 16:18:50 EST 2000
Article: 14261 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Man of the Century
Date: 14 Jan 2000 06:26:28 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <85n154$rt6$1@panix.com>
References: <85f3ue$lap$1@panix.com> <20000113181211.25703.00000142@ng-fy1.aol.com> <85mrm8$pj4$1@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 947849189 4532 166.84.0.226 (14 Jan 2000 11:26:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Jan 2000 11:26:29 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14261
Status: RO
In <85mrm8$pj4$1@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk> Andy Fear writes:
>OK How about Lincoln. If the Confederacy had won the civil war, the US
>would have dissolved and most of the world's problems would not have
>happened.
This seems rather over the top.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-342-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Wed Jan 19 20:20:08 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 33DDD30F51
for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:20:04 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-342-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jan 2000 01:19:59 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 20 Jan 2000 01:19:59 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 17160 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2000 01:19:55 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2000 01:19:55 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA15736 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:19:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001200119.UAA15736@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:19:53 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <864i8b$r9sq@eGroups.com> from "Moderator of Patriarchy Group" at Jan 19, 0 06:38:03 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: recapitulation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-342-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Some random comments, thrown out for whatever people see in them:
> Now I'd like to give some reason why we should not use a political
> agenda.
It's hard for a discussion group like this to have a political agenda.
Still, it may be useful to discuss and debate political issues. There
could be some things we cooperate on, others we argue about. One thing
we could all agree on (maybe) is public refutation of feminist lies and
distortions, for example about domestic violence. Also for particular
reforms, for example countering the bias in favor of women in family
law.
I am happy for left-wingers to promote an antifeminist left,
right-wingers an antifeminist right, middle-of-the-roaders an
antifeminist middle.
> Along with changing time probably all of the political modells have
> been in power for some time. The process of culture destruction or
> feminism was never stopped. It was always continuing. Only way and
> speed of advance may have been different.
Politics is certainly not the answer to everything. All I would claim
is that it is relevant.
> Male areas have been compared with gradually disappearing ecosystems
> (307, 309) which need protection.
But if men are fragile flowers who need protection to be men, are they
really men any more?
A basic issue I see is that social policy is necessarily as such
anti-family. The first interest of a maker of social policy is an
environment that lets social policy be effective. The family is
necessarily at odds with the effectiveness of social policy because it
carries on its life, raises children, develops loyalties and standards
etc. that refer to its own goals rather than those of social
policymakers. Hence my claim that reduction of government
responsibility for social life in general would be antifeminist.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-343-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Wed Jan 19 20:23:20 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D2D3715517
for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:23:19 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-343-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jan 2000 01:23:19 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 20 Jan 2000 01:23:18 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 12860 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2000 01:23:15 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2000 01:23:15 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA16471 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:23:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001200123.UAA16471@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:23:13 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20000120010525.SSVP11891.mail.rdc1.tx.home.com@cm27803-a> from "Gene Whitcher" at Jan 19, 0 07:07:34 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: 'equality'
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-343-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> If man had done a better job with the affairs of life perhaps the
> women would not be asserting how stupid they think the men are.
Now doubt. Still, the question is what intelligence requires now. The
fact they've been botched one way in the past is not a reason to let
them be botched some worse way in the present and future.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-366-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Thu Jan 20 07:19:16 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B3E930FE0
for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:19:15 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-366-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jan 2000 12:19:14 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 20 Jan 2000 12:19:13 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 3273 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2000 12:19:09 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2000 12:19:09 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id HAA09675 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:19:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001201219.HAA09675@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:19:07 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <866l1e$9msu@eGroups.com> from "Moderator of Patriarchy Group" at Jan 20, 0 01:37:50 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Christian view
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-366-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> It would be nice to have some active Christians and members of other
> religions to debate and tell us of their view.
A general comment -- serious and enduring opposition to feminism is I
think most likely to be religious. If you don't think there's some
authority other than man then you'll take man as the authority.
"Whatever people want" will be the standard of morality. One
consequence is that the natural order, including the distinction of
male and female, will come to be understood not as authoritative, as
something to submit to, but as a barrier to human will to be overcome.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-367-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Thu Jan 20 09:11:16 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EDC2A31044
for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:11:13 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-367-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jan 2000 14:11:13 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 20 Jan 2000 14:11:12 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 19655 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2000 14:11:09 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2000 14:11:09 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id JAA23800 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:11:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001201411.JAA23800@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com (patriarchy)
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:11:08 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] One-sidedness of the media
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-367-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
I read a discussion recently between two leaders on our side dealing
with the feminist bias of the media that seemed to attribute the bias
mostly to concentrated corporate ownership, the pushy wives of rich men
on the corporate boards, and so on.
One issue it didn't touch on but I think is important is the growing
professionalism of journalism. 50 years ago most journalists didn't
have college degrees. Today they've all gone to graduate school -- in
journalism! The reaction to Matt Drudge and talk radio is a sign of
how they now view themselves, as guardians of the public interest who
advance the public good by deciding according to their own professional
standards what should and what should not be part of public discussion.
Outsiders who push their way in are a threat to all that is decent.
Professionalism is not neutral. For one thing, as the participants in
the discussion observed, in a mass media society those who control the
media are integral to the ruling class. It follows that "journalistic
standards" reflect ruling class interests, and "professionalism" serves
as a reason to exempt the ruling class from criticism and control from
the public at large. To a large extent today professionals *are* our
ruling class. That's what the famous "separation of ownership and
control" that characterizes modern economies means.
Also, professionalism is intrinsically at odds with family values. To
favor professionalism is to say that experts with formal training and
certification should call the shots in accordance with disinterested
standards. Family values say that those on the spot who are personally
committed to the situation, who will live with the consequences, who
because of what they are are necessarily tied to the others involved,
should decide. The two ways of looking at things are poles apart, and
fundamental differences in perspective lead to conflicts on almost all
particulars.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-380-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Thu Jan 20 13:58:05 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2122D31049
for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:58:04 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-380-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jan 2000 18:58:03 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 20 Jan 2000 18:58:03 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 16861 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2000 18:57:23 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2000 18:57:23 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id NAA14835 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:52:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001201852.NAA14835@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:52:21 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <8679ho$3tct@eGroups.com> from "Don Winkleman" at Jan 20, 0 07:27:52 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: One-sidedness of the media
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-380-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Don Winckelman writes:
> While I agree with all your points, I am not convinced that the
> media's pandering to women is driven by anything as high minded as
> journalists guarding truth and/or the american way. I believe it is
> something much less noble than that. The media, by and large, earns
> its income from advertisement.
Particular influences like that do play a role, but an explanation that
just works for media doesn't explain why *all* respectable institutions
-- universities, churches, governments, the UN, professional
organizations, NGOs, the school your kids go to -- are feminist. Part
of the explanation I think has to do with general concepts that
coordinate all public life today, with the things now accepted as
public morality. Feminism appears right and idealistic and necessary
to its proponents. They're wrong, but it's important to understand how
they come to feel that way.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-408-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Thu Jan 20 17:46:06 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9131E156D7
for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:46:05 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-408-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jan 2000 22:46:04 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 20 Jan 2000 22:46:04 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 26445 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2000 22:45:56 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2000 22:45:56 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id RAA25353 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:45:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001202245.RAA25353@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:45:54 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20000120213543.38773.qmail@hotmail.com> from "Jim Cobabe" at Jan 20, 0 02:35:43 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Feminists on the Internet
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-408-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> Perhaps the struggle now has to move on to address exactly how to
> disabuse these of their firmly embedded false notions. This is
> particularly difficult in the face of the huge momentum of acadamia
> and so many "respected" intellectual disciplines.
Agreed. A debunking campaign is needed.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-409-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Thu Jan 20 17:57:01 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1FC10156F6
for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:57:00 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-409-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Jan 2000 22:56:59 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 20 Jan 2000 22:56:58 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 3055 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2000 22:56:51 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2000 22:56:51 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id RAA27108 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:56:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001202256.RAA27108@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:56:49 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20000120220016.30059.qmail@hotmail.com> from "Daniel Lee" at Jan 20, 0 02:00:16 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Christian view
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-409-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Daniel Lee writes:
> >serious and enduring opposition to feminism is I think most likely
> >to be religious.
> The reality is the spread of feminism is being helped by at least
> some, if not most, of the mainstream religions.
Agreed. That strikes me as a serious *religious* matter, because it
amounts to an attempt to construct a new religion based in the end on
human wishes. I would say though that feminist religion, what you find
in the comfortable respectable establishment mainstream, seems to me
neither serious nor enduring. Attendance figures I think bear that
out.
My point is not that everything presenting itself as religion is
antifeminist, but that durable antifeminism will likely be religious.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-444-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Jan 21 07:31:54 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 16FBD155F1
for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:31:54 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-444-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jan 2000 12:31:52 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 21 Jan 2000 12:31:51 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 25874 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2000 12:31:42 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2000 12:31:42 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id HAA11141 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:31:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001211231.HAA11141@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:31:40 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.16.20000121045415.43670ec2@mail.telusplanet.net> from "Walter H. Schneider" at Jan 21, 0 04:54:15 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Gun Control
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-444-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
I don't think the connection has been made explicitly, but it does
seems to me that gun control is related to feminism. Feminism has to
do with concentration of all power and authority in a government
bureaucracy so the stuff men worry about will get taken care of
automatically someplace else in an abstract impersonal way and everyone
can just pay attention to personal concerns. Ditto gun control. Most
of the arguments on the one issue can be transposed into arguments on
the other.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-454-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Jan 21 10:50:12 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ck.egroups.com (ck.egroups.com [207.138.41.173])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DA51315774
for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:50:10 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-454-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jan 2000 15:50:10 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 21 Jan 2000 15:50:09 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 5207 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2000 15:50:07 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2000 15:50:07 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id KAA05419 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:50:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001211550.KAA05419@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com (patriarchy)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:50:06 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Patriarchy and equality
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-454-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Tom and others have suggested that some degree of equality is needed
for patriarchy, and that feminism is in the interests of rich men.
There's something to that. If inequalities are extreme, if a man is
treated as worth nothing because he's not at the top of the heap, if
he's unable to protect and support his family and maintain their
respect, it's as if he were not a man. Also, feminism means abolition
of the one-man/one-woman/forever rule, which means rich and powerful
men can take all the women they want and others get shut out.
Really, it's the usual issue of extremes of wealth and poverty making
popular self-government impossible. So the question becomes how to
encourage general equality without involving government much in
administering social life.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-460-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Jan 21 13:01:25 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from cj.egroups.com (cj.egroups.com [207.138.41.175])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AF3BC30F2B
for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:01:23 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-460-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jan 2000 18:01:19 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 21 Jan 2000 18:01:19 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 26127 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2000 18:01:16 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2000 18:01:16 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id NAA03511 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:01:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001211801.NAA03511@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:01:14 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.16.20000121064650.434f7428@mail.telusplanet.net> from "Walter H. Schneider" at Jan 21, 0 06:46:50 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: One-sidedness of the media
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-460-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> The other comment relates to the role the educational system plays in
> forming the characters and professional qualities of journalists, and
> to the fact that it appears that every time you turn a page in a
> newspaper (or switch to another TV channel or radio station), another
> feminist peeks out at you.
>
> The educational curriculum has been thoroughly feminized.
Which is why we can do so much simply by getting the truth out, by
writing letters, calling talk radio, publishing things where people
will see them -- which can include the web if for some reason
_Newsweek_ won't publish your article. So it seems to me one thing we
might do in this group is to think of ways to educate the public.
Possibilities:
1. Make authoritative information available to anyone who's interested
enough to look, which would include anyone who wants to write a letter
to his local paper complaining about some stupidity and wants backup.
Jan and some of the rest of us who have put up antifeminist web pages
have made a start on this. We need bibliographies, collections of
links, references to statistical studies etc. where the good stuff is
hidden.
2. Share and compile stories of successful strategies. Create a file
of letters, articles, editorials that got published. Discuss what gets
results and changes minds.
3. Encourage each other and persist. When a pundit or whoever says
something ill-informed or dumb he should hear about, preferably in a
form he is likely to take seriously. When an advertiser supports
something outrageous he should get complaints.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-467-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Jan 21 15:25:08 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from cj.egroups.com (cj.egroups.com [207.138.41.175])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 63D0415631
for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:25:05 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-467-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Jan 2000 20:25:04 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 21 Jan 2000 20:25:04 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 14314 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2000 20:18:35 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2000 20:18:35 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id PAA29417 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:18:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001212018.PAA29417@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:18:34 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <86a84k$so09@eGroups.com> from "Moderator of Patriarchy Group" at Jan 21, 0 10:22:12 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: Patriarchy and equality
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-467-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Jan writes:
> An example for a patriarchal culture once having a high degree of
> inequality would be e.g. India (cast system).
Quite true. Traditional India was also an extreme among structured
societies, so that even someone who belonged to the caste of hereditary
dead dog scavengers or whatever had a definite place in the world,
permanent social ties among his peers, very likely respect within his
caste, etc. Also, women's chances for marrying up were quite limited
although not altogether absent. (There's a very good book, _Homo
Hierarchicus_, by an Frenchman named Dupree or Dumont on the caste
system.)
I suppose my point would be then that a less structured society has bad
effects on those at the bottom -- isolation, difficulty in finding a
stable social position with satisfying ties to others -- and those bad
effects get worse as inequalities become extreme. So a combination of
somewhat less inequality, if that could be encouraged without
sacrificing local and family self-rule, and somewhat more structure,
which after all is difficult to produce simply by willing it, might be
a benefit.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-592-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sun Jan 23 07:26:37 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ci.egroups.com (ci.egroups.com [207.138.41.176])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 80CB715523
for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 07:26:36 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-592-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jan 2000 12:26:36 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 23 Jan 2000 12:26:35 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 29822 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2000 12:26:34 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 23 Jan 2000 12:26:34 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id HAA00567 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 07:26:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001231226.HAA00567@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 07:26:32 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Josef Mattes" at Jan 22, 0 07:41:15 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: One-sidedness of the media
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-592-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Josef Mattes writes:
> Excluding a group of people (women, blacks or whoever else) from
> voting rights is just outrageous, and fortunately most people know
> that.
I can see that's so on a view that bases political obligation on
individual consent, that is to say on the liberal view. Still, there
are other views than the liberal view and powerful criticisms of that
view are possible -- to my mind even convincing.
Does it matter that universal suffrage is a very recent thing and has
been consistent with extremes of political violence and oppression? I
believe there are Swiss cantons in which women did not have the vote
until quite recently. In contrast, there have been elections in North
Korea and Hoxha's Albania in which 100% of adults were not only
eligible to vote, but actually did vote (and in fact voted for the
party slate). In most countries there is less tyranny than in those
places but more manipulation. There is no country in which the people
*literally* rule. That being the case, why is it just outrageous not
to comply with a formality?
I raise these issues not because restrictions on suffrage are an
immediate issue but because feminism seems to me a natural outcome of
the established moral and political outlook, the same outlook that is
shocked by restrictions on the franchise. It seems to me that to deal
with it adequately one must open his mind to other possibilities. It
seems to me important that all respectable institutions are feminist,
that jurists now treat feminism as somehow part of fundamental law,
that mainstream religious leaders view it as a divine command no matter
how much of their tradition they have to give up to do so. Those
things tell me that to reject feminism it is necessary to reject
something that has become very basic to the established moral and
political order.
> Gun control a feminist conspiracy? Japan has been cited on this list
> as an economically successful patriarchy. Guess what: Strict gun
> laws, low crime.
No one suggested a conspiracy. One poster said feminists hate gun
rights, another that there is a common viewpoint that would explain
both feminism and gun control. As to Japan, its history is quite
different from that of -- for example -- America, and similar laws
might easily be explicable on different grounds.
Opposition to gun control does not mean love of violence. I suppose it
does mean acceptance of violence or the possibility of violence as a
constitutive part of social life, but that should be an obvious point.
All social order must be backed by the possibility of an appeal to the
_ultima ratio_ although liberals can't contemplate the fact steadily
because it they want to derive order from individual consent.
As to political catastrophes, the Holocaust or whatever, it's true that
feminism has not yet given us anything on that scale. The intolerant
attempt to abolish private property through comprehensive government
action led to suffering on the largest scale. I'm not sure why other
forceable attempts to abolish other fundamental principles of human
social order -- and gender is certainly that -- should be considered
safe. The line of thought seems to be that since X (property, gender,
patriarchy, whatever) is fundamental to human social order, and all
atrocities have therefore been committed by societies that accepted X,
the abolition of X would prevent all future atrocities. Very likely,
the abolition of humanity would indeed prevent human atrocities.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-615-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sun Jan 23 18:30:13 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ci.egroups.com (ci.egroups.com [207.138.41.176])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D392155B3
for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 18:30:13 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-615-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 23 Jan 2000 23:30:13 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 23 Jan 2000 23:30:12 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 14553 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2000 23:30:09 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 23 Jan 2000 23:30:09 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id SAA29156 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 18:25:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001232325.SAA29156@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 18:25:02 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20000123230637.17255.qmail@hotmail.com> from "Daniel Lee" at Jan 23, 0 03:06:37 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: One-sidedness of the media
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-615-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> Males for their part are not reaching the levels of greatness that
> they previously did. Is this because females are holding them back?
> I think not, it seems that we are not striving as hard as our
> forefathers did.
Could it be that rationalized formal organization (bureacracy, rational
markets) has taken on the ordering role that men once provided in a
more personal way? Instead of particular men investigating, planning,
deciding, taking on responsibilities and risks, organizations do it and
what's wanted are worker bees who are well-socialized to perform
organizational roles. The result is a great reduction in the number of
*men* needed.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-659-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Mon Jan 24 20:24:12 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ci.egroups.com (ci.egroups.com [207.138.41.176])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D5E230F2F
for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 20:24:11 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-659-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 25 Jan 2000 01:24:10 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 25 Jan 2000 01:24:08 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 11567 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2000 01:18:02 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2000 01:18:02 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA13922 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 20:17:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001250117.UAA13922@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 20:17:48 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Josef Mattes" at Jan 24, 0 11:28:07 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: One-sidedness of the media
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-659-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Josef Mattes writes:
> there are very different degrees of being away from a literal rule of
> the people.
Sure. My point (the Albania and N. Korea examples) was that universal
suffrage need not indicate a higher degree of popular rule. Or for
that matter rule in accordance with the good, interests, feelings,
whatever of the people.
> Also, you are free not to comply with the formality of voting if you
> see it as a mere formality, but you should have the right to vote if
> you so choose.
If there is anything it makes no sense to individualize in this way it
is the distribution of political power. You can not negate the effect
of giving everyone the vote, if the effect is for example to give power
to the most skillful manipulators, by refusing to vote yourself.
Here are some concerns about universal suffrage:
1. The idea that universal suffrage is morally necessary seems to go
with centralized and omnicompetent government. Centralized and
omnicompetent government is a bad thing though. In the case of voting
on some limited range of issues at a particular time and place
universal suffrage seems less important.
2. Universal suffrage creates the impression that the result of a vote
is the will of the people, is the authoritative expression of something
that cannot be argued with. Again, it gives support to despotism.
Universal suffrage, the claim to represent the will of the people,
higher than which there is no authority, has been characteristic of the
most horrible modern despotisms.
3. Universal suffrage means that no voter has a responsibility to
consider anyone but himself. It makes feeling rather than thought the
basis of political decision, since the qualification that gives someone
the right to vote is the capacity of having feelings. The consequence
is to give power to those best able to manipulate feeling.
[Incidentally, what I prefer, if it matters, is not a political and
social system just like the one today only with more people who can't
vote but a more complex system with more complicated decisionmaking in
which absolute acts of political will of the sort universal suffrage is
designed to legitimate play less of a role.]
> I think Churchill said something like 'democracy is the worst
> possible form of government except for the others that have been
> tried from time to time'.
"Democracy" doesn't have a fixed meaning so it's hard to respond. If
there are some things that are none of the government's business is
that democracy? After all, as to those things there isn't universal
suffrage, there's zero suffrage because *nobody* votes on them.
> > All social order must be backed by the possibility of an appeal to
> > the _ultima ratio_.
> That would be nuclear weapons, I suppose? In the nuclear age,
> "acceptance of violence" does not sound very appealing.
The _ultima ratio_ is force generally. Arguing and giving reasons is
not in fact sufficient for social order. To accept the necessity of
violence is simply to recognize reality. Government and social life
generally is *essentially* dangerous. Pretending it isn't doesn't make
it less so. An effect of universal suffrage is to make the electorate
irresponsible. They don't like to recognize realities and they don't
have to since no one can hold them to it. The effect is to give power
to those more ready to recognize what's what.
> There is a difference between things that you consider unsafe and
> things that already proved to be "unsafe", like anti-semitism.
Not sure of the relevance. Antisemitism is not the negation of
feminism. And it seems to me what makes the former particularly
dangerous is the view that the collective desires of the people are the
supreme law, which happens to be the view most closely associated with
unviersal suffrage.
> I just want to express what I believe what makes feminism look
> reasonable to people who don't go deep enough (which most people
> don't).
I agree it does.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
From patriarchy-return-705-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Jan 25 20:31:19 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ci.egroups.com (ci.egroups.com [207.138.41.176])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EBF6F1558C
for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:31:14 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-705-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jan 2000 01:31:14 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 26 Jan 2000 01:31:13 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 1113 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2000 01:29:55 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2000 01:29:55 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA25856 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:29:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200001260129.UAA25856@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:29:54 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Josef Mattes" at Jan 25, 0 04:25:15 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mailing-List: contact patriarchy-owner@egroups.com
X-Mailing-List: patriarchy@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: ,
List-Unsubscribe:
List-Archive:
Reply-To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Subject: [patriarchy] Re: One-sidedness of the media
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-705-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Josef Mattes writes:
> > My point (the Albania and N. Korea examples) was that universal
> > suffrage need not indicate a higher degree of popular rule. Or for
> > that matter rule in accordance with the good, interests, feelings,
> > whatever of the people.
>
> No, it need not indicate that. But I still believe there is a
> correlation.
>
> Also: I hope, should anyone contemplate taking voting rights from
> women (or anybody else), they take note of the fact that even places
> like North Korea, Nazi Germany, etc. did not dare to officially take
> away people's voting rights.
Are these two statements consistent? Your last point suggests that
universal suffrage is irrelevant to oppression. Even the most
oppressive regimes, regimes that were far more oppressive than older
regimes in which there was no voting at all, had universal suffrage.
As a matter of historical fact, the advent of universal suffrage
coincided with the advent of unprecedented oppression. In the name of
the people, naturally.
> Nobody said it is a perfect system. Just that there is no
> alternative.
If there is no alternative there is no reason to talk about it, it is
neither good or bad. What is necessary is not the same as what is
good. You said that the notion of restricting suffrage was outrageous.
That seemed to mean you thought universal suffrage a great and obvious
good. That's what started the discussion.
> > 1. The idea that universal suffrage is morally necessary seems to
> > go with centralized and omnicompetent government.
>
> I'm afraid I don't see that. As far as I can see, different countries
> with universal suffrage have very different degrees of centralization
> and government influence in the lifes of people.
>
> Conversely, countries without suffrage can be very centralized, just
> think of France under Louis XIV.
Greater suffrage has gone with greater centralization.
France under Louis XIV was far less centralized than post-revolutionary
France. The revolution swept away independent authorities in the name
of the people.
The broader the suffrage the more claim the government has to speak in
the name of the people. Further, the feeling that universal suffrage
is necessary, the demand for the right to vote as a necessary
consequence of mere humanity, seems to be based on an understanding
that government creates the moral world, so to deny participation in
government is to deny the thing that makes us human, participation in
the moral world. There is thus an intimate tie between the demand for
universal suffrage and absolute government. Both have to do with the
effective deification of the state.
> > In the case of voting on some limited range of issues at a
> > particular time and place universal suffrage seems less important.
>
> I can't see that either.
Not sure why. Suppose Jan gets tired of being moderator, and he takes
a vote on who his replacement will be, and he restricts the vote to men
over 35 years of age. Would that seem a dreadful violation of
universal suffrage?
> > 3. Universal suffrage means that no voter has a responsibility to
> > consider anyone but himself.
> Do you mean to say that if people can't even vote they will feel more
> responsible?
Do I mean a statement about voters to be a statement about non-voters?
No.
> If you claim your system constitutes a viable alternative to
> universal suffrage, could you please be a bit more specific about it?
I have no system. It does seem to me that the demand for universal
suffrage is a consequence of a wrong understanding of government, and
in better days we wouldn't have universal suffrage. One can't simply
construct a new and superior system of government though. Certainly
you can't get there simply by taking the current system and depriving
some people of the vote.
> Quite likely we will never get rid of violence completely. No reason
> not to try to do as good as we can.
Excellent. The issue is whether violence is reduced by disarming
everyone except the government and criminals, or whether letting
ordinary people have the means of defending themselves reduces
violence.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk) "Whilst we are
waiting, we beguile the time with jokes, with sleep, with eating, and with
crimes." (Emerson)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell your friends and lists about http://www.egroups.com/list/patriarchy/ !
Invite others to share our work. Thank you! patriarchy@egroups.com
Please forward this or other information on Patriarchy to your friends and the lists you are subscribed to. Help the Patriarchy community grow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them from
anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days. Click here for a chance to win a
digital camera.
http://click.egroups.com/1/337/2/_/275425/_/948850273/
-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/patriarchy/?m=1
From paleo-return-910-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Jan 25 20:32:00 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from cj.egroups.com (cj.egroups.com [207.138.41.175])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8BFDA15543
for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:31:58 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-910-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.41] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jan 2000 01:31:56 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a1; 26 Jan 2000 01:31:56 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 14430 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2000 01:31:42 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2000 01:31:42 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA26105 for paleo@egroups.com; Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:31:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb