Items Posted by Jim Kalb
From patriarchy-return-915-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Feb 1 08:52:36 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ci.egroups.com (ci.egroups.com [207.138.41.176])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E3FB2155FF
for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:52:35 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-915-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Feb 2000 13:52:35 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 01 Feb 2000 13:52:34 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 9202 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2000 13:52:32 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2000 13:52:32 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA08058 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:52:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002011352.IAA08058@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:52:31 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20000201051520.86349.qmail@hotmail.com> from "Daniel Lee" at Jan 31, 0 09:15:19 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: Step by step
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-915-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> >How to change the world:
> >
> >1. Join a credible organization.
One comment -- changes are multi-layered. Credible organizations,
extremists, ivory-tower theoreticians, nuts-and-bolts activists, all
make their contribution. Certainly credible organizations are very
important, but they operate in a setting that determines what makes
them credible, and all those other things go into that setting.
> >6. Most of all, understand that real change that goes in the right
> >direction is a question of incremental progress and not home runs;
> At times change occurs incrementally, and on occasion in spurts.
Agreed.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! ZERO! Rates as low as
0.0% Intro APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no
hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the credit
you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
http://click.egroups.com/1/966/2/_/275425/_/949413154/
-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/patriarchy/?m=1
From patriarchy-return-944-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Wed Feb 2 07:42:53 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ci.egroups.com (ci.egroups.com [207.138.41.176])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E0ED030EDC
for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:42:51 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-944-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Feb 2000 12:42:51 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 02 Feb 2000 12:42:51 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 11386 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2000 12:42:46 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 2 Feb 2000 12:42:46 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id HAA02490 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:42:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002021242.HAA02490@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:42:42 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.16.20000201185022.09afb994@mail.telusplanet.net> from "Walter H. Schneider" at Feb 1, 0 06:50:22 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: Matriarchy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-944-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> >> To grant humans special privileges and to ignore natural
> >> superiority on the basis of sex and merely on the basis of the
> >> presence or absence of uteri is a travesty of justice. True
> >> equitability is blind to the sex of an individual and judges him
> >> on nothing else than all other merits by absolute and objective
> >> standards, none of which consider his sex.
> >>
> >I completely agree. Hope you are not going to [be] labelled a
> >feminist for this statement (you do question rigid gender roles, at
> >least in the second sentence).
The quote seems to reduce sex differences to "the presence or absence
of uteri" and call for a society in which such things do not matter
except when they can be individually determined to have an effect on
merit.
An important point is whether sex roles (gender roles, stereotypes,
differing presumptions and expectations, what have you) are to be a
factor in social organization. It seems to me they should and
necessarily will be, that that's the nature of human life, and that the
attempt to abolish such things and substitute a "sex blind" system is
destructive and doomed to failure.
Family life for example, families that are stable and function
reliably, seems to me to depend on general acceptance of sex role
stereotypes that make the obligations of men and women to each other
objective complementary principles. Such stereotypes are not really a
matter of individual merit although in most cases individual
characteristics correspond to the presumptions they embody.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9%
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/915/2/_/275425/_/949495371/
-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=patriarchy&m=1
From patriarchy-return-945-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Wed Feb 2 07:54:22 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ci.egroups.com (ci.egroups.com [207.138.41.176])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 93A0315542
for ; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:54:21 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-945-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 02 Feb 2000 12:54:21 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 02 Feb 2000 12:54:20 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 18714 invoked from network); 2 Feb 2000 12:54:18 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 2 Feb 2000 12:54:18 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id HAA03560 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:54:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002021254.HAA03560@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:54:17 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Robert Mann" at Feb 2, 0 06:33:38 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: Re:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-945-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Robt Mann writes:
> So the outline I'm proposing is: men faltered in leadership
> ca1918, women got into a suddenly wider range of positions, then the
> fabulous Second Wave arose, a new round of failure was evoked in men
> like me - and the rest is recent history.
The lack of leadership from within central social institutions like the
family and from natural leaders like fathers that led to assertiveness
from the radical fringes has lasted a long time. It seems that people
have lost a sense of the purpose and justification of the central
institutions. Why?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! Rates as low as 2.9%
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points,
no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the
credit youdeserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
http://click.egroups.com/1/912/2/_/275425/_/949496060/
-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/patriarchy/?m=1
From patriarchy-return-1019-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Feb 4 08:15:04 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 387AD15796
for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:15:03 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1019-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2000 13:15:02 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 04 Feb 2000 13:15:02 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 17103 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2000 13:14:58 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2000 13:14:58 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA10290 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:14:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002041314.IAA10290@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:14:53 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.16.20000203185821.0b9f092a@mail.telusplanet.net> from "Walter H. Schneider" at Feb 3, 0 06:58:21 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: Matriarchy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1019-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> Before the law, in the job market, in public life and in any other
> similar areas of society, credit must be based on capabilities and
> performance, regardless of sex. For instance, there must be equal
> punishment for equal severity of crimes (as in murder, where men's
> sentences of incarceration are presently about three times more
> severe than women's), just as equal job performance based on quality
> and quantity of work deserves equal pay.
I just wonder whether the world can be split up into public and private
so neatly. If sex roles are accepted, so people think men and women
are somewhat different and so have different expectations that they
think are legitimate, I don't see how that will stop in public life.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding a sweetheart is hard work. Shopping for one shouldn't be.
Click here for Valentine Surprises!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1182/2/_/275425/_/949670102/
-- Create a poll/survey for your group!
-- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=patriarchy&m=1
From patriarchy-return-977-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Thu Feb 3 08:31:22 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ci.egroups.com (ci.egroups.com [207.138.41.176])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9501415508
for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:31:21 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-977-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Feb 2000 13:31:21 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 03 Feb 2000 13:31:20 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 17802 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2000 13:25:26 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2000 13:25:26 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA04577 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:25:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002031325.IAA04577@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:25:26 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Josef Mattes" at Feb 3, 0 01:57:02 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: "Roles" and Patriarchy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-977-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> > * Equal responsibilities for every aspect of the family life means
> > frequent disagreement and conflict.
>
> Correct.
>
> On the other hand, responsibilities that are prescribed from the outside
> and don't fit the individuals involved are no better.
> Example: My girlfriend hates ironing, I like it. No conflict, unless
> someone tries to force some traditional idea of who has to iron on us.
So the need is for a default assignment of responsibilities that the
parties can vary if they both agree to it. A combination of weak
outside prescription sufficient to support the default assignment with
somewhat of a live and let live attitude. In short, sexism that avoids
extremes.
A lot of my objection to feminism is its essential extremism. It has
an abstract plan everyone has to comply with. I seem to remember a
recent Austrian law that *legislatively* tries to mandate equal sharing
of household tasks.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE ADVICE FROM REAL PEOPLE! Xpertsite has thousands of experts who
are willing to answer your questions for FREE. Go to Xpertsite today and
put your mind to rest.
http://click.egroups.com/1/1033/2/_/275425/_/949584680/
-- Create a poll/survey for your group!
-- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=patriarchy&m=1
From paleo-return-1029-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Feb 4 09:25:39 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from cj.egroups.com (cj.egroups.com [207.138.41.175])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C086E157A2
for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:25:38 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-1029-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.41] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2000 14:25:38 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a1; 04 Feb 2000 14:25:37 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 20083 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2000 14:25:36 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2000 14:25:36 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id JAA18348 for paleo@egroups.com; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:25:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002041425.JAA18348@panix.com>
To: paleo@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:25:35 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Thomas Piatak" at Feb 4, 0 07:26:00 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: Jones & Culture Wars
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: paleo-return-1029-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
I think there's something about being a paleo that makes you
argumentative, or maybe the reverse. An alliance based on disliking
the same thing isn't going to remind anyone of old friends getting
together. Still, Calvinist and Papist paleos probably have more in
common with each other than either has with Bill Clinton or even Bill
Bennett.
On the merits my prejudices favor the Papists although I admit I don't
know enough about John Calvin to discuss his views intelligently. There
are smart people here on both sides. That ought to please everyone
especially if the objection is "those guys say the dumbest things and
don't understand their own theory or ours." Some titles have been
mentioned. Perhaps each side could suggest a reading list? These are
important issues and cool heads would pay off.
One issue is whether to talk about particular exponents of a tradition
or overall tendency and effect. You might say that liberalism for
example is collective term for various thinkers, John Locke, John
Stuart Mill and John Dewey for example, each very different, and also
for assorted political parties, each with its own concerns, and so on.
One might also have a grand historical view and say for example that
it's a fundamental tendency marked by a turn away from authoritative
transcendent goods and toward identification of the good with the
desired, in which case all those Johns would mark stages in the
development of that tendency and their idiosyncrasies wouldn't matter
so much.
Similarly one might distinguish the views of John Calvin from a
religious tendency or tradition one calls Calvinism. It seems to me
the Calvinists have wanted to talk about the first, the Papists about
the second. Both seem to be legitimate topics.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleo is a list for discussing ideas relating to paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism and paleo-orthodoxy. To subscribe: just send a blank e-mail to paleo-subscribe@eGroups.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valentine's Day Shopping Made Simple. Click Here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1155/3/_/2965/_/949674338/
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/paleo
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From paleo-return-1033-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Feb 4 09:37:06 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from cj.egroups.com (cj.egroups.com [207.138.41.175])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CAC7015766
for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:37:05 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-1033-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.41] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2000 14:37:05 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a1; 04 Feb 2000 14:37:05 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 31384 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2000 14:36:52 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2000 14:36:52 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id JAA19141 for paleo@egroups.com; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:36:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002041436.JAA19141@panix.com>
To: paleo@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:36:51 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "CraigPreus@aol.com" at Feb 2, 0 03:37:20 pm
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: Conservatism, RIP
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: paleo-return-1033-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/2000/January/hillsdale.html
Good article, and thanks for the cite.
> He argues that conservatism-as-ideology was a convenient substitute
> for real roots and real religion.
There's certainly something to that. I think of conservatism as an
initial turning away from current tendencies, necessary but not
sufficient. "Mere conservatism" doesn't work. There's not enough
there. Try to make it permanent and bad things happen.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleo is a list for discussing ideas relating to paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism and paleo-orthodoxy. To subscribe: just send a blank e-mail to paleo-subscribe@eGroups.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding a sweetheart is hard work. Shopping for one shouldn't be.
Click here for Valentine Surprises!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1181/3/_/2965/_/949675025/
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/paleo
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From paleo-return-1040-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Feb 4 11:21:47 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from cj.egroups.com (cj.egroups.com [207.138.41.175])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 42A5B31155
for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:21:46 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-1040-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.41] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2000 16:21:45 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a1; 04 Feb 2000 16:21:45 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 15358 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2000 16:21:42 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2000 16:21:42 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id LAA06573 for paleo@egroups.com; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:20:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002041620.LAA06573@panix.com>
To: paleo@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:20:22 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "T.E. Wilder" at Feb 4, 0 08:54:49 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: Jones & Culture Wars
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: paleo-return-1040-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> The more self-conscious and consistent a position is, the more rapid
> and complete the change will be when it is rejected.
There's something that bothers me about the thought of a thoroughly
self-conscious and consistent religion.
Self-conscious consistency can be purchased at the cost of leaving out
things that are hard to bring clearly before the mind and articulate,
which includes a lot. Religion is one's understanding of the whole, of
God, and we can't completely grasp such things. That's what it is to
say that they're transcendent, that God and not we or our thoughts are
the standard, that we should be humble and not wise in our own eyes.
Also, Christianity is the religion of the Incarnation. In Islam in
contrast the uncreated word of God takes the form of a book. So the
specifically Christian view seems to be that God's revelation to man
can not be adequately set forth in words. That seems another reason to
be dubious of overemphasis on clarity and consistency of doctrine and
to put more emphasis on something concrete and historical and lived,
like a church and its tradition.
None of this proves anything about Calvin or Calvinism but it may shed
light on predispositions and to some extent justify having them.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleo is a list for discussing ideas relating to paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism and paleo-orthodoxy. To subscribe: just send a blank e-mail to paleo-subscribe@eGroups.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want To Be Showered With Kisses?
Visit eGroups Valentine Gift Guide
http://click.egroups.com/1/1152/3/_/2965/_/949681305/
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/paleo
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From paleo-return-1048-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Feb 4 14:18:01 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from cj.egroups.com (cj.egroups.com [207.138.41.175])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 630FF30FD8
for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:18:00 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-1048-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.41] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2000 19:17:59 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a1; 04 Feb 2000 19:17:59 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 8055 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2000 19:17:55 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2000 19:17:55 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id OAA19765 for paleo@egroups.com; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:17:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002041917.OAA19765@panix.com>
To: paleo@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:17:47 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "KOPFF E CHRISTIAN" at Feb 4, 0 09:28:08 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: Conservatism, RIP
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: paleo-return-1048-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
E. C. Kopff writes:
> I found the article an anti-American tirade.
He's not the most moderate person you could find, it's true.
> Don't believe the enemies of the American people and their traditions
> about their friends.
Who are the friends of the American people and their traditions that
Jones abuses?
One difficulty I have right now is identifying an American people and a
lived and living American tradition that's consistent with the best of
the American past, the larger tradition of Europe, and the principle of
respect for tradition generally. I'm not being coy, by the way, if
someone would show me such a thing and dissipate the confusion I'd be
grateful. It seems to me though that something of the sort is needed
for an American conservatism to make sense.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleo is a list for discussing ideas relating to paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism and paleo-orthodoxy. To subscribe: just send a blank e-mail to paleo-subscribe@eGroups.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to be single again,
Don’t buy your Valentine a Gift by clicking here.
http://click.egroups.com/1/1153/3/_/2965/_/949691879/
-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
-- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=paleo&m=1
From paleo-return-1053-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Feb 4 14:42:04 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from cj.egroups.com (cj.egroups.com [207.138.41.175])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ACC9930ED1
for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:42:03 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-1053-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.41] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2000 19:42:03 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a1; 04 Feb 2000 19:42:02 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 30457 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2000 19:41:51 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2000 19:41:51 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id OAA24441 for paleo@egroups.com; Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:41:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002041941.OAA24441@panix.com>
To: paleo@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:41:50 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "T.E. Wilder" at Feb 4, 0 11:08:51 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: Jones & Culture Wars
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: paleo-return-1053-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
T.E. Wilder writes:
> If God is the standard, that means that he is so in a way that is
> revealed and known. This defeats your argument that religion has to
> remain somehow vague and falling short of real life.
I don't think I made such an argument, only that God can't be known
adequately through doctrine. The traditions, practices and fellowship
of the church and for that matter prayer and discernment are also
needed. The point of all this is to suggest a rational motivatation
for suspicion of those who excel in clarity and consistency in
doctrine. Has supremacy on those points been purchased at the cost of
other things that are necessary?
> And what do we know of the incarnation, except the information on it
> that was set forth in a book?
The Bible though is given to us by the church. Why can't God speak
through the church as well as through a text? Also, if a book is truly
adequate I don't see why the Muslims don't have a more sensible view of
things. Since a book is what's needed you look around for the one book
that claims explicitly to be the book you're looking for, and that book
is the Koran.
> Besides being "concrete, historical and lived" it is deluded, corrupt
> and self-interested, etc. like everything else in the world. So it is
> just as much in need of a standard as everything else in life.
I'm not sure why taking doctrine or an interpretation of the Bible as
the standard is better. Presumably the standard is transcendent,
always exceeding our grasp although always approachable. The question
is how to approach it.
> Sure, except I don't think they are held consistently. Once the
> elitists put on robes and call themselves bishops somehow it is
> supposed, in the face of all the evidence, that they are different
> from all the other gangs of elitists running things.
The same sort of objection can be made to any authority whatever, and
with a slight variation it can be made to apply to rejection of all
authority and reliance on one's own reason and inspiration.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleo is a list for discussing ideas relating to paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism and paleo-orthodoxy. To subscribe: just send a blank e-mail to paleo-subscribe@eGroups.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to be single again,
Don’t buy your Valentine a Gift by clicking here.
http://click.egroups.com/1/1153/3/_/2965/_/949693322/
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/paleo
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From patriarchy-return-1049-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Feb 5 07:29:37 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 61BF81552B
for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 07:29:37 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1049-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 05 Feb 2000 12:29:36 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 05 Feb 2000 12:29:36 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 22220 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2000 12:29:35 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 2000 12:29:35 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id HAA19905 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 07:29:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002051229.HAA19905@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 07:29:34 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20000205021333.A937@luvmusl.net> from "Art Lemasters" at Feb 5, 0 02:13:33 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: Conspiracy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1049-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> Conspiracy theories have worked for the feminist (meaning "for
> woman" in the purist realm of word roots) movement in some ways. For
> one, many people--even many in the fatherhood movement--believe that
> most women were once oppressed by most men.
Is that really a conspiracy theory?
Life is full of situations in which large groups of people work
together toward a common goal without explicit agreement. Ordinary
moral standards are in a sense agreed on, and they promote the general
ends of the groups that accept and support them, but they aren't a sign
of a conspiracy.
If one group (feminists, tenants, Albanians) has a dispute with another
(men, landlords, Serbs) they'll tend to view their opponents as bad
people and cooperate to spread that view around, it's obviously
advantageous for them to do so. It's a natural thing and no explicit
agreement is needed.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body Paint, Chocolates, & Roses Oh My!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1159/2/_/275425/_/949753776/
-- Create a poll/survey for your group!
-- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=patriarchy&m=1
From paleo-return-1082-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Feb 5 20:58:13 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ci.egroups.com (ci.egroups.com [207.138.41.176])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DE3C03105D
for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 20:58:12 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-1082-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.41] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Feb 2000 01:58:12 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a1; 06 Feb 2000 01:58:11 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 20017 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2000 01:58:04 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2000 01:58:04 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA29578 for paleo@egroups.com; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 20:58:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002060158.UAA29578@panix.com>
To: paleo@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 20:58:03 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <87hmsp+jrd5@eGroups.com> from "Paul Gottfried" at Feb 5, 0 12:37:04 pm
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] Populists
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: paleo-return-1082-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
"Paul Gottfried" writes:
> there is indeed no significant American conservatism left, but there
> is a populist RIght in Europe that properly terrifies official victim
> lobbies, Eurocrats, and the other usual suspects.
How much hope does the populist Right hold out? My impression of
populists is that there are particular things they don't like, things
it no doubt makes sense not to like, but they don't think things
through and aren't interested in thinking things through because they
want incompatibles.
Does the populist right hold out more hope than the inefficiency and
corruption of the usual suspects, which after all is likely to keep
them from perfecting whatever it is their vision is? Or is the idea
that the combination of corruption etc. and populist rebellion will gum
up the works enough for something else to develop?
Vague questions, no doubt, but any comments would be welcome.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleo is a list for discussing ideas relating to paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism and paleo-orthodoxy. To subscribe: just send a blank e-mail to paleo-subscribe@eGroups.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give sexy jewelry with passion by Feb. 8th
Receive a FREE Gift & FREE Ground shipping
Bodyflash.com
http://click.egroups.com/1/1059/3/_/2965/_/949802291/
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/paleo
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From patriarchy-return-1077-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Feb 5 20:59:15 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B76A30EFF
for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 20:59:14 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1077-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Feb 2000 01:59:14 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 06 Feb 2000 01:59:13 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 20640 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2000 01:59:12 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2000 01:59:12 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id UAA29606 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 20:59:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002060159.UAA29606@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 20:59:10 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.16.20000204101040.0a673a48@mail.telusplanet.net> from "Walter H. Schneider" at Feb 4, 0 10:10:40 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: Matriarchy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1077-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
"Walter H. Schneider" writes:
> It's nice to think that men and women can and should be exactly equal
> in all respects, but the reality of life is that they aren't. That
> is a biological constraint that *nobody* can change. Within that
> constraint, we can and should do our best to treat the two sexes
> equitably.
My question is whether the differences that should be recognized are
simply the biological ones, or whether social development of sex roles
beyond pure constraints of biology are a good thing. After all, such
things have been basic to all societies. Has human life up to now been
a big mistake?
> I'm quite in agreement that men and women should be treated equally
> in the job market, be exposed to identical risks and rewards,*within
> the capabilities of each individual, regardless of sex.*
If in the job market, no doubt in education and everything else that
counts as public. So gender distinctions are to be abolished as to all
aspects of life except the strictly individual and private ones. Girls
for example are not to be brought up as mothers or men as fathers, to
the extent "mother" and "father" do not reduce to the unisex role
"parent" or maybe "caretaker". Can that work? Is that the way to a
happy society?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valentine's Day Shopping Made Simple. Click Here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1155/2/_/275425/_/949802353/
-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/patriarchy/?m=1
From patriarchy-return-1078-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Feb 5 21:03:16 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 21C4515582
for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 21:03:16 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1078-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Feb 2000 02:03:15 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 06 Feb 2000 02:03:15 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 23178 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2000 02:03:08 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2000 02:03:08 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id VAA29743 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sat, 5 Feb 2000 21:03:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002060203.VAA29743@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 21:03:07 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20000206002306.46594.qmail@hotmail.com> from "Daniel Lee" at Feb 5, 0 04:23:06 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: Communism>Marxism>Feminism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1078-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Daniel Lee writes:
> Communes don't seem like the way to go. The power of any one
> individual is too diluted. A better model is the extended family
An issue with communes is that they generally don't last unless they
have a strong religious and most often ethnic basis. You need ties and
common goals strong enough to become the equivalent of family
solidarity. It's not a solution you can conjure up just because it
seems a good idea that solves lots of problems.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want To Be Showered With Kisses?
Visit eGroups Valentine Gift Guide
http://click.egroups.com/1/1152/2/_/275425/_/949802595/
-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
-- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=patriarchy&m=1
From patriarchy-return-1202-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Feb 8 12:00:29 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D3CF330F19
for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 12:00:27 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1202-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb 2000 17:00:27 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 08 Feb 2000 17:00:26 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 11296 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2000 17:00:07 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2000 17:00:07 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id MAA26271 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 12:00:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002081700.MAA26271@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 12:00:03 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.16.20000205204810.2e477350@mail.telusplanet.net> from "Walter H. Schneider" at Feb 5, 0 08:48:10 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: Matriarchy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1202-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
"Walter H. Schneider" writes:
> It makes me think that most of our problems began when we took
> control of the schools away from the churches and gave it into the
> hands of the State. Ever since then there has been the push for the
> elimination of the family to replace it with other "valid alternative
> life styles."
We can agree that extensive state involvement in social life is
anti-family because the state wants to run things itself rather than
have all these other uncontrollable authorities like e.g. "fathers".
> But, if a wife wants to go to work -- it's after all far more likely
> to be necessary now than it used to be -- then let her earn the same
> as any man producing as much with the same quality as she does in the
> same kind of job.
And how is she to be let do that? Is she to have an enforceable legal
right, so that the state is to have the job of determining what
attitudes people are to have regarding sex roles, and in fact of
forbidding people who believe the sexes are different, that men have
the greater obligation to go out and work to support their families,
from acting on their beliefs by taking men more seriously in the job
market?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want To Be Showered With Kisses?
Visit eGroups Valentine Gift Guide
http://click.egroups.com/1/1160/2/_/275425/_/950029227/
-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=patriarchy&m=1
From patriarchy-return-1210-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Feb 8 15:46:25 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mo.egroups.com (mo.egroups.com [207.138.41.166])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B38AE30FBB
for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:46:22 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1210-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by mo.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb 2000 20:46:21 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 08 Feb 2000 20:46:20 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 8638 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2000 20:18:49 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2000 20:18:49 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id PAA07733 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:18:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002082018.PAA07733@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:18:48 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.16.20000208124953.0c4fc4b2@mail.telusplanet.net> from "Walter H. Schneider" at Feb 8, 0 12:49:53 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: OFF TOPIC: Josef - Question on the
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1210-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
The to-do over Haider reminds me of the following quotation:
"No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of
propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce
a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of
unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance."
Leonard Schapiro, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 2nd ed.
(London, 1970), 477.
It's not anything substantial that makes Haider so outrage our rulers.
Rather it's his breaking "the univorm pattern of public utterance." The
enforcement of that pattern after all is one of the basic ways an
ideology (in the current instance, liberalism) at odds with common
sense and the interests of most people stays in power.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want To Be Showered With Kisses?
Visit eGroups Valentine Gift Guide
http://click.egroups.com/1/1160/2/_/275425/_/950042780/
-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
-- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=patriarchy&m=1
From patriarchy-return-1212-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Feb 8 16:22:37 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ci.egroups.com (ci.egroups.com [207.138.41.176])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 159B930F8A
for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 16:22:36 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1212-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 08 Feb 2000 21:22:34 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 08 Feb 2000 21:22:32 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 29699 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2000 20:46:21 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2000 20:46:21 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id PAA12518 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:41:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002082041.PAA12518@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:41:19 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Richard Bennett" at Feb 8, 0 10:35:59 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: Bye bye
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1212-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Richard Bennett writes:
> I'm now receiving hate mail from John Knight's Repeal the 19th
> Amendment list reacting to postings I've made on this list that have
> been forwarded to that list. As I don't have time or interest in
> dealing with Knight's militia, I'm following Dean's lead and
> unsubbing this list.
A problem we have I think is that even though antifeminism is (as I see
it) pure common sense and reasonableness, *sociologically* it's an
extreme movement, one at odds with ways of thinking that are now
settled, authoritative and taken for granted. It follows that it has
all the problems of other radical movements -- factionalism,
infighting, provocateurs, what have you.
No doubt a study of how such things have been dealt with by other
movements would be useful. It would also be useful for each of us to
try to understand things as well as he can and patiently do his work.
No matter how bad our side sometimes looks we have the great advantage
that our opponents' position is based on radical falsehoods about
fundamental issues and it's hard to maintain such things.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valentine's Day Shopping Made Simple. Click Here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1155/2/_/275425/_/950044953/
eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/patriarchy/
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From patriarchy-return-1219-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Feb 8 20:01:48 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ci.egroups.com (ci.egroups.com [207.138.41.176])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 95F8D15508
for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 20:01:47 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1219-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ci.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Feb 2000 01:01:47 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 09 Feb 2000 01:01:46 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 12051 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2000 00:55:54 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2000 00:55:54 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id TAA23095 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:55:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002090055.TAA23095@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 19:55:44 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <87qcqk$f8tr@eGroups.com> from "Tom Smith" at Feb 8, 0 04:36:36 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: Bye bye
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1219-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> I would add that we also need to develop "masculist" ideology and
> positive approaches to masculinity and slowly lose our reactionary
> anti-feminist stance. While the latter is important in gathering the
> gang together, the former will carry the day.
What's included in the reactionary anti-feminist stance? Do you mean
simply being against something rather than for something?
I agree that saying "women are low-down sneaking rattlesnakes because
my ex treated me horribly with the aid of the legal system" can't be
the end of the discussion even though it's a necessary thing for some
men to say at times. We should on the whole approve of women, because
that's half of approving of the human race and because men are
naturally attracted to women and form connections with them. I think
we need a vision of a society based on those things, on the connections
men and women naturally form.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want To Be Showered With Kisses?
Visit eGroups Valentine Gift Guide
http://click.egroups.com/1/1160/2/_/275425/_/950058106/
-- Check out your group's private Chat room
-- http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=patriarchy&m=1
From jk Tue Feb 8 07:11:35 2000
Subject: Re: changes in chapter
To: la
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 07:11:35 -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: 2101
Status: RO
> I think the type of extreme "I can do anything I damn want to"
> individualism that we have today is not a logical extreme of Lockian
> individualism. It has an element of moral transgression, of a
> deliberate violation of order, of alienation, that simply has no
> precedent in the Lockian tradition. There really is an element in
> classical liberalism in which individualism derives its value from
> something higher than itself, even if that is not explicitly
> Christian.
To me it's as if what Locke says is part papier mache and part
something more solid, and as the machine gets used the papier mache
part wears and breaks away and after a while things start functioning
in some completely different way. The basic choice is that the good is
what is desired simply as such. Once you've made that choice the
"something higher" eventually has to go and since we really can't get
rid of it transgressive acts become necessary to dramatize our claim to
override it. It's not as if Satanism needs to be imported anywhere.
Good extract about the 17% who say they wouldn't vote for a woman
president. Goes along with Clinton's comment that only a few bigots
can make it much more difficult for people to live together. Tolerance
is demanding!
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Tue Feb 8 15:31:05 2000
Subject: Re: changes in chapter
To: la
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 15:31:05 -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: 1162
Status: RO
> I still feel that the transgressive element is so different in kind
> from what preceded it that it can't be called simply a logical
> development of it.
True enough, unless you really *are* influenced by weird foreigners and
start talking about dialectical logic or something. My real point I
suppose was that we didn't need any foreign inports, the democratic and
tyrannical man naturally evolve out of the oligarchical. Put another
way, turn away from God and you end up demonic.
> Yes, and the Republicans have nothing to say about it, not a single
> word against the reigning antiracism with its obviously totalitarian
> implications.
I suppose the idea is that the right combination of stupidity,
obstinacy and self-interest is enough to keep government close to the
mid-point where it should be.
> "There was a great Marxist called Lenin
> Who did two or three million men in.
> That's a lot to have done in;
> But where he did one in
> That grand Marxist Stalin did ten in."
>
> ------------------------R. Conquest
Neatly done!
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Tue Feb 8 20:00:35 2000
Subject: Re: more on Lockeanism and the current transgressive culture
To: la
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 20:00:35 -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: 2396
Status: RO
> By this reasoning, anything good could be called the origin of evil,
> since the transgressive self, or Satanism as you refer to it, doesn't
> need to be imported and is potentially present in everything.
Depends on whether Lockeanism, classical liberalism, is good.
The thought was that the transgressive self is a natural development of
equating the desirable with the desired, and the latter defines
liberalism generally. To restrict ourselves to classical liberalism,
what is the point of saying that political obligation springs from a
contract, that government is based on consent, if not that morality is
constructed from actual human wills? The purpose of government is said
to be protection of life, liberty and property. What is in that
formulation apart from facilitation of the triumph of the will? The
point of property, after all, is that it divides the world into petty
jurisdictions in which each of us can do precisely as he pleases. Why
is that the supreme social goal, if it is not the natural end of man to
do precisely as he pleases?
> You might as well say that the origin of our present evils was the
> founding of the United States, since it ultimately led to the evils
> we are experiencing today.
It's an issue I think. Was our political regime fatally compromised
from the beginning? Exactly what does it mean that it is
constitutionally disabled from establishing a religion? That seems to
mean either that there is no religious truth or that religious truth is
irrelevant to life in society -- in the terms used in Plato's _Laws_,
that there are no gods, or that the gods don't care about human
affairs.
> You might as well say that there is no essential difference in kind
> between, say, a nineteenth century bourgeois and Clinton.
I suppose I'm saying that if the nineteenth century bourgeois doesn't
get decisively turned around he'll become a Clinton in a hundred or
hundred fifty years.
> It would be an interesting thought experiment, to try to identity the
> point at which the demonic and tyrannical manifests out of the
> Lockean/individualist/oligarchical development.
To translate books viii and ix of the _Republic_ into the vernacular
and illustrate them? I agree.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Feb 10 08:56:18 EST 2000
Article: 14296 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Haider to-do
Date: 9 Feb 2000 16:32:37 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 4
Message-ID: <87smdl$4n5$1@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 950131961 16875 166.84.0.226 (9 Feb 2000 21:32:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Feb 2000 21:32:41 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14296
Any comments?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Feb 10 08:56:18 EST 2000
Article: 14298 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: Haider to-do
Date: 9 Feb 2000 19:34:11 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <87t123$163$1@panix.com>
References: <87smdl$4n5$1@panix.com> <38A20069.18A343CE@law.upenn.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 950142851 19939 166.84.0.226 (10 Feb 2000 00:34:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Feb 2000 00:34:11 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14298
In <38A20069.18A343CE@law.upenn.edu> John Carney writes:
>What particularly is it that has everyone so worked up about Haider?
>It cannot really be that they think he is pro-Nazi. The evidence
>simply isn't there.
I'm reminded of the following:
"No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of
propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce
a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of
unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance."
Leonard Schapiro, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 2nd ed.
(London, 1970), 477.
It's not anything substantial that makes Haider so outrage our rulers.
Rather it's his breaking "the uniform pattern of public utterance." The
enforcement of that pattern after all is one of the basic ways an
ideology (liberalism) at odds with common sense and the interests of
the people stays in power.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From patriarchy-return-1268-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Thu Feb 10 11:21:22 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 18FE830F36
for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:21:21 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1268-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Feb 2000 16:21:20 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 10 Feb 2000 16:21:19 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 9569 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2000 16:20:55 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2000 16:20:55 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id LAA07412 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:20:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002101620.LAA07412@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:20:53 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <87t2jq$2v7i@eGroups.com> from "Tom Smith" at Feb 9, 0 05:00:42 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: Infighting
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1268-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Tom Smith writes:
> The patriarchy has always been disconnected with the lower levels of
> male society and only connected when it needed girls or illegal
> things. So we are still in a classic struggle of poor men vs rich
> men. The modern difference in this struggle is that the rich men
> have women propping them up also, this makes the classic struggle
> that much more repellant.
The argument seems to be:
1. As Steve Goldberg (_Why Men Rule_) says, all societies are
patriarchies. Men are the primary power holders.
2. The effect of feminism is to abolish male power in its distributed
form, to abolish the power men have as heads of families and in other
informal, local and traditional relationships, and to transfer that
power to large formal institutions like the state, big corporations,
world markets.
3. Men in fact rule those large formal institutions. Therefore the
function of feminism is to transfer power from every man to a few men.
Bill Clinton gets a harem and others pay child support.
There's certainly something to that argument.
> But a clear view of it and communcating these facts to all men may
> get the rich boys on the defensive.
A problem I have with the overall line of thought is that class war
against the rich -- assertive egalitarianism -- tends to concentrate
power as well. It wants government to administer society in the
interests of equality. That ends up being anti-family because families
are vehicles of inequality. They interfere with the government's
ability to determine individual outcomes, and a society that takes
egalitarianism seriously must therefore abolish them.
I don't think it's a mistake that Marxism, socialism and feminism have
been so closely associated, or that the Democratic Party is the favored
party of American national ruling elites.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Save cash today!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1414/2/_/275425/_/950199679/
-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=patriarchy&m=1
From patriarchy-return-1271-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Thu Feb 10 13:00:04 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D531530FB6
for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 13:00:01 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1271-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Feb 2000 18:00:00 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 10 Feb 2000 18:00:00 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 21037 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2000 17:59:58 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2000 17:59:58 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id MAA23043 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:59:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002101759.MAA23043@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 12:59:56 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Josef Mattes" at Feb 10, 0 05:02:54 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: Concept needed, not verbal radicalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1271-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Josef Mattes writes:
> > Leaving all to the individual is not a reliable state for others.
> > We won't get reliable, good and stable relations between men and
> > women again before different "roles", complementing and matching
> > each others are regained. This can't work and be reliable for
> > others when left to the individual.
>
> Yes, and people are individuals. How is denying the importance of
> their individuality supposed to help them?
Not importance, sole importance. Individuality counts but generic
nature also counts, and social order -- from which all benefit --
necessarily depends heavily on the latter.
For example: our experience of human beings gives us expectations as
to what human beings do and should be required to do. On the whole we
apply those expectations and enforce those obligations even when the
particular human being has individual qualities that make him more like
a wolf, pig or slug.
We base expectations, even enforceable expectations, on generic
qualities. We don't demand as much of men as we would of angels,
because men in general are not angels. We demand more of men than of
pigs for a similar reason. Further, social expectations and duties
change as habits and culture and therefore what it is reasonable to
expect of people changes.
With that background, what is your point? That no expectations should
be based on generic male or female qualities? That no enforceable
expectations (the military draft is an obvious example) should be based
on such things? If not why not, since how we are treated and what is
demanded of us is *necessarily* based on the class to which we belong
in any event?
> I don't see a single traditional/natural way: what do, say, a 17th
> century Puritan in the North America, a 5th century Hun warrior,
> Archimedes, Catharina the Great and the mother of Confucius have in
> common?
Each and every one of them thought men were different from women, that
their specific concrete rights and obligations were different, and each
assigned public life and formal authority more to men, hearth, home and
children more to women.
It's true I have no specific evidence for the views of Archimedes. He
is said to have run naked through the streets on one occasion and maybe
that shows his views on matters relating to sex were unusual. My guess
is that they weren't on this point though.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding a sweetheart is hard work. Shopping for one shouldn't be.
Click here for Valentine Surprises!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1182/2/_/275425/_/950205600/
-- Create a poll/survey for your group!
-- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=patriarchy&m=1
From patriarchy-return-1306-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Feb 11 06:52:53 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D69BE15667
for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:52:49 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1306-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Feb 2000 11:52:48 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 11 Feb 2000 11:52:48 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 9290 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2000 11:52:46 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2000 11:52:46 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id GAA27610 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:52:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002111152.GAA27610@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 06:52:45 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Josef Mattes" at Feb 10, 0 07:38:34 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: Concept needed, not verbal radicalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1306-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Josef Mattes writes:
> > For example: our experience of human beings gives us expectations
> > as to what human beings do
>
> Yes (but beware that this is a self-reinforcing process: if you have
> expectations it influences your experiences).
Sure. Expectations influence how we act, how others act, our
interpretation of actions. That's how human culture arises. It's an
interrelated system of expectations and habits.
> > That no enforceable expectations (the military draft is an obvious
> > example) should be based on such things? [generic male and female
> > qualities.]
>
> Yes, this is my point.
The basis of your point is obscure.
To restrict the discussion to legal rules, they're based on an
understanding of the persons subject to them. Many of them explicitly
include standards (like "reasonableness" or "negligence") that have to
do with a complex of habits and attitudes most people develop living in
the society that applies the rules. Even those that don't explicitly
include such standards are based on them implicitly. School attendence
laws for example are based on understandings as to what children are,
what families are, what the proper relationship between children, their
families and the state should be, what goals children and their parents
should be pursuing, and so on. Law makes all those expectations,
subjective, shifting, imperfect, sometimes misleading or inapplicable
though they may be, *enforceable*.
Your claim seems to be that the thousands of varied expectations that
the law or for that matter social convention makes enforceable can't
include expectations as to differences between men and women. What's
so specially bad about the latter expectations that we shouldn't act on
them, at least when the act is one that compels people to behave a
certain way?
> >If not why not, since how we are treated and what is demanded of us
> > is *necessarily* based on the class to which we belong in any
> > event?
>
> If it were necessarily based on class that would mean that individuality
> does not count *at all*,
No. If it were *solely* based on class that would follow. What I eat
is necessarily based on biology but that doesn't mean culture, personal
tastes and so on do not count at all.
> > Each and every one of them thought men were different from women, that
> > their specific concrete rights and obligations were different, and each
> > assigned public life and formal authority more to men, hearth, home and
> > children more to women.
>
> You know a lot more about the opinions of Confucius' mother than I do. I
> also did not know that the emperess of Russia "assigned public life and
> formal authority more to men": if she did, why did she rule? (and if she
> did was that really her conviction or just necessity).
I know something about the opinions of Confucius and his attitude to
parents. I know something about Chinese society of the time. I know
something about human society generally. It's possible Confucius' mom
was a radical feminist, just as it is possible she had two heads, but I
think I'm on reasonably safe ground. As to Catherine, whom did she
choose as advisors? Appoint to high positions? Did she do anything to
promote women's careers generally? I presume she ruled out of personal
ambition and because operation of law put her in a position in which
she was ruler. "More to men" does not mean "solely to men in all
circumstances whatever." She too may have been a radical feminist, or
for that matter a Rastafarian, but in the absence of evidence to the
contrary I will stick to my view that she was neither.
> > It's true I have no specific evidence for the views of Archimedes.
> > He is said to have run naked through the streets on one occasion
> > and maybe that shows his views on matters relating to sex were
> > unusual.
>
> As far as, I know this kind of behaviour was by no means unusual at
> the time. Finding sexuality (e.g. naked male bodies) repugnant is the
> preserve of feminism and some religions.
The comment was intended as a joke. Nonetheless -- if the behavior had
not been unusual I don't know why the anecdote would have been
preserved. And the custom of requiring the body to be covered is
hardly the preserve of a few groups. The Greeks saw their custom of
stripping in the gymnasium as something opposed to the habits of other
peoples. It was their acceptance of nudity in some public settings
that was unusual.
> As to Archimedes' opinions concerning the relationship of men and
> women, I have no idea. What I do know is that several Greek
> philosophers (Pythagoras, Plato) thought women worthy of their
> instruction.
Here you do have a point. Plato's ideal was to abolish the family and
private life generally which meant that women had to be fully
incorporated in public life. He of course presents the view as
something his listeners will find shocking and opposed to all
preconceptions, and that women especially would resist. It's
conceivable Archimedes was a Platonist on that point. The question
though was whether "traditional ways" had content enough to be used as
a point of reference. The views of a few speculative thinkers do not
affect the point.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valentine's Day Shopping Made Simple.
http://click.egroups.com/1/1158/2/_/275425/_/950269968/
-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
-- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=patriarchy&m=1
From paleo-return-1111-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Fri Feb 11 08:33:44 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from cj.egroups.com (cj.egroups.com [207.138.41.175])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1729630EFB
for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:33:44 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-1111-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.41] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Feb 2000 13:33:43 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a1; 11 Feb 2000 13:33:42 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 21611 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2000 13:33:39 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 11 Feb 2000 13:33:39 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA06818 for paleo@egroups.com; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:33:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002111333.IAA06818@panix.com>
To: paleo@egroups.com
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 08:33:38 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "CraigPreus@aol.com" at Feb 8, 0 06:05:21 pm
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: Pride and Prosperity
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: paleo-return-1111-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
CraigPreus@aol.com writes:
> I notice this theme that material prosperity tends toward
> deracination, religious backsliding and other forms of socio-cultural
> entropy. How does this follow?
It makes self-indulgence easier. If there are lots of readily
available material satisfactions you're more likely to pay attention to
them than if there aren't. Even more so if you live in an affluent
society -- if you want to go beyond material rewards then the next
thing higher is the public good, but in an affluent society the public
is mostly interested in material rewards so you end up back where you
started.
Also, men get rich by paying attention to riches, so the two contribute
to each other.
> And if this follows, why are places like Ethiopia, Columbia and
> Mexico in even worse straits that the US?
Are they? They may be for all I know, I'm ignorant. Anyway, the point
is that riches cause problems, not that they cause all problems. There
aren't any cure-alls. If you don't have a toothache you can still have
gallstones.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleo is a list for discussing ideas relating to paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism and paleo-orthodoxy. To subscribe: just send a blank e-mail to paleo-subscribe@eGroups.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eLerts!
It’s easy. It’s fun. Best of all, it’s free.
http://click.egroups.com/1/1234/3/_/2965/_/950276022/
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/paleo
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Fri Feb 11 20:38:29 EST 2000
Article: 14305 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: Haider to-do
Date: 11 Feb 2000 08:09:49 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <8811mt$4n4$1@panix.com>
References: <87smdl$4n5$1@panix.com> <38A20069.18A343CE@law.upenn.edu> <87t123$163$1@panix.com> <38A33BB2.45572CE7@zap.a2000.nl>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 950274589 24150 166.84.0.226 (11 Feb 2000 13:09:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Feb 2000 13:09:49 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14305
In <38A33BB2.45572CE7@zap.a2000.nl> vtnet writes:
>The reason for the massive PR and diplomatic campaign against Mr.
>Haider seems to be that he, unlike most of the other 'extreme right'
>parties and politicians in Europe, has made political capital by
>systematically and propagandistically criticizing official versions of
>some 'historic events in the last century', and is now supported by a
>considerable part of the Austrian public.
There is something to this. Recognizing a category of statements as
blasphemous (e.g., "Hitler wasn't so bad") isn't quite a uniform
pattern of public utterance. And part of the Hitler-religion involves
viewing German-speaking people as tainted and dangerous.
Has Haider really systematically and propagandistically criticized
anything? In the American press it's always the same two statements
>from several years ago that are mentioned, which doesn't seem like that
much of a campaign.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From patriarchy-return-1334-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Feb 12 07:54:25 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D6D730F14
for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 07:54:25 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1334-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 12 Feb 2000 12:54:24 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 12 Feb 2000 12:54:24 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 25912 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2000 12:54:22 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2000 12:54:22 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id HAA01130 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 07:54:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002121254.HAA01130@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 07:54:17 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.16.20000211193952.36978dac@mail.telusplanet.net> from "Walter H. Schneider" at Feb 11, 0 07:39:52 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: Gender (was part of "Concept needed, not
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1334-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> >My 1923 Webster's International lists the 2nd meaning of gender as:
> >
> > Sex (Obs,; Colloq.)
The only instances I can think of are jocular, e.g. in a college song
or two.
> >But MWCD 10th.(1996) lists the following definition:
> > 2 b. : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits
> > typically associated with one sex.
> >
> >This definition seems useful and defensible.
I'm willing to use "gender" (like "class" or "ethnicity") when
discussing social structure overall, about the system of attitudes,
expectations and customs that distinguish men from women. "Gender is a
fundamental organizing principle of all human society" seems clearer
than "sex is a fundamental organizing principle of all human society"
because "sex" can mean too many things. I see no excuse though for
speaking of the "male gender," "female gender," "gender
discrimination," "gender roles," etc. Substitute "sex" every time.
> a) The term is being used to normalize all sexual orientations and thereby
> to bring what is considered normal down to the lowest common denominator.
True enough. The intention is to abolish the natural.
I think one reason the expression has caught on is that "experts" use
it and people like to use expressions that make them sound like they
know something.
> However, I wonder what plans the "gendered" people have for genetic
> aberrations. What are their reasons for excluding the only true,
> legitimate claims for inclusion of anyone other than of the male or
> female sex? Do they perhaps consider them "life not worthy of
> living" by denying them explicit status in human rights legislation?
But the point of gender-speak is that the distinctions once called
sexual are social constructions without much necessary relation to
genetics, aberrant or otherwise. So I don't think anything so sinister
is going on. At least nothing sinister in that particular way.
There's a science writer for the New York Times, Natalie Angier, a
feminist, who repeatedly writes about such cases. She apparently
exaggerates their numbers, I suppose by manipulating definitions,
relying on estimates by people with an ax to grind etc. The point of
the articles is that there are all these babies being born that aren't
really male or female physically, but a compulsive urge to force the
male/female dichotomy on everything leads hospital staff to perform
surgery on them, thereby making not only gender but even physical sex
differences a human invention.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/_/950360064/
-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=patriarchy&m=1
From patriarchy-return-1337-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Feb 12 08:23:11 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 97BF61556B
for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 08:23:10 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1337-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 12 Feb 2000 13:23:10 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 12 Feb 2000 13:23:10 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 16034 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2000 13:23:03 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2000 13:23:03 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id IAA03488 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 08:23:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002121323.IAA03488@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 08:23:01 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Josef Mattes" at Feb 12, 0 01:38:11 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: Concept needed, not verbal radicalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1337-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Josef Mattes writes:
> Maybe our misunderstanding or disagreemen is not as to what is important
> as to what is the goal. For me, culture is important *because* it helps
> (in fact I believe it is necessary for) the individual to achieve its
> potential.
I do think this is the issue. Dr. Mattes seems to hold the view that
the social is necessary but strictly subordinate to the individual.
Socially-defined sex roles, for example, are helpful and informative
but not authoritative. It's up to each individual how seriously he
wants to take them.
The opposing view is that man is essentially a social animal, and since
the social is part of what makes each man what he is it cannot be
subordinated to the individual. That doesn't mean that the individual
is strictly subordinated to society, by the way, only that he is not
strictly superior to it. Each is part of what constitutes the other.
All that is extremely abstract. If anyone gets anything from such
statements that's OK, if not that's OK too.
The view I attribute to Dr. Mattes, by the way, is the one that lies at
the base of philosophical liberalism. I think it clearly doesn't work,
but all respectable public authorities today hold it.
More abstract babble (I'm probably just talking to myself here, but
I've started so why not continue): the unworkability of making the
individual the ultimate authority makes necessary the religious
understanding that the authority not oneself that one of necessity
accepts is rooted in the nature of things, which is ultimately a moral
nature. Alternatives to the religious understanding once liberalism is
seen to be unworkable include fascism -- might makes right -- and
Rorty's liberal irony, both of which are also unworkable.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
bargainclothing.com
20-70% off retail prices
Junior, missy and plus sizes
http://click.egroups.com/1/1461/2/_/275425/_/950361790/
-- Create a poll/survey for your group!
-- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=patriarchy&m=1
From patriarchy-return-1354-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Feb 12 17:04:50 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 46B411552E
for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:04:50 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1354-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 12 Feb 2000 22:04:46 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 12 Feb 2000 22:04:46 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 15379 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2000 22:04:40 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2000 22:04:40 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id RAA23117 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:04:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002122204.RAA23117@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:04:39 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: from "Josef Mattes" at Feb 12, 0 02:07:40 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: Concept needed, not verbal radicalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1354-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Josef Mattes writes:
> As long as you want to send me to Kosovo or Chechenya or Kongo while
> the younger likes of Janet Reno or Margaret Thather or Tansu Ciller
> sit at home and nurture their delicate feminine souls
It's not done as a favor to them. It seems to me a bad idea to have
women in the fighting forces. Military men universally think so,
except when they're forced to say the opposite because being non-PC is
a career killer. A group of men doesn't act the same way as a mixed
group or a group of women. There must be reasons why female combat
troops have *very* rarely been tried and when tried has been quickly
given up. Others have written on this better than I could though.
In an extreme case like war, when we're asking men to go kill and be
killed, it seems wrong to me to do something that will reduce
efficiency -- make more men die or make it more likely their deaths
will be in vain because goals will not be achieved -- simply to make
the point that the thing or some general idea it represents is a bad
idea. In war and things related to war you should mean what you do.
Beyond that it seems to me that putting women in the army changes the
nature of the soldier's role, the complex of attitudes and expectations
that surround being a soldier, and also overall attitudes and
expectations surrounding men, women and their obligations to each
other. The former I suppose is an aspect of the reduction of
efficiency. As to the latter, things involving putting your life on
the line or killing others have a fundamental symbolic role in
politics. Read de Maistre's _Saint Petersburg Dialogues_.
> 1.) You are not going to be able to convince (or force) these women
> to sit home and do the housework while the men are away. They are
> going to do politics in the meantime.
They aren't going to do more politics if they don't go than if they do.
> 2.) As long as men are seen doing (and seem wanting to do!) wars, how
> are you going to make the public see that men are not more violent
> than women
It's not a matter of women collectively wanting to get to the front
line and men collectively keeping them out. I doubt that the goal of
sex equality in combat is stronger among women than among men. Also,
men *are* on the whole more violent. Women may kill more babies but
men commit many more murders and violent crimes over all. And as long
as the public is not able to deal realistically with violence as part
of life there's a problem anyway.
> In case you object that only feminism brought about aggresive, non-
> feminine women, have a look Pallas Athena and Hera in the Iliad. I
> don't think those figures were invented out of nothing, and I don't
> think the Iliad was written by feminists.
My wife finds the character of Hera somewhat embarassing on account of
its feminine weaknesses. She (Hera I mean!) is jealous, vengeful,
petty, devious, someone who never forgives a personal slight and will
go to any lengths to get back for it. Not a good character for a
soldier. The virgin goddesses Athena and Artemis are interesting
-- certainly they have some characteristics that seem more masculine
than feminine, but they don't seem like soldiers. Too much the _prima
donna_.
> In case you object that women are physically not able to fight: They
> can run marathons and climb Mount Everest. See also W.Farrell "Women
> can't hear what men don't say": "Myth: Men will always do the
> physical chores because they are so much stronger physically. Fact:
> An Army study found that the average woman civilian volunteer could
> lift 70 percent of what the average active-duty military man could
> lift pro=EDor to 24 weeks of training; after the training, the
> civilian women averaged 91 percent of what the average active-duty
> military man could lift." [p.110]
So give a woman 24 weeks of special training and she can do some kind
of lifting 90% as well as a man. Suppose the man got the training too?
Suppose it was some other kind of lifting, using your arms rather than
back and legs say?
I must say though that I'm not the best person to comment on women in
the army. I've read things that seem persuasive against it and nothing
that seems persuasive in its favor, but I haven't thought about it
much. Others could discuss the issue much better than I.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which First Lady would have made the best President? Share your opinion
with other eGroups members by voting now. Simply go to
http://click.egroups.com/1/1475/2/_/275425/_/950393086/
-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
-- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=patriarchy&m=1
From patriarchy-return-1356-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Feb 12 19:01:21 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4120F30EC3
for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:01:20 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1356-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Feb 2000 00:01:11 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 13 Feb 2000 00:01:10 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 12089 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2000 00:01:08 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2000 00:01:08 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id RAA25213 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:27:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002122227.RAA25213@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:27:50 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.16.20000212124446.0f3f2d5a@mail.telusplanet.net> from "Walter H. Schneider" at Feb 12, 0 12:44:46 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: Gender (was part of "Concept needed, not
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1356-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Walter Schneider writes:
> The issue of the introduction of the term "gender," I have to repeat,
> is very much at the heart of gender activism.
I agree, it's an important point that shouldn't be given up. The
campaign for getting it into treaties etc. is a true outrage, one of
many things that makes me weep for my country. It's basically an
attempt to abolish human nature and thus inevitably humanity as such.
> "About 4 per cent of all births are intersex to some degree," as per
The "to some degree" sounds like it's a way of exaggerating the numbers
who aren't clearly either male or female for purposes of promoting even
biological sex as a social construction created by arbitrary
line-drawing. Most of the syndromes you mentioned didn't sound that
intersex. Natalie Angier's writings as well as the general logic of
the thing leads me to think that those who want to abolish categories
of male and female should like intersex births.
> I'm not sure, but it seems to me that there may be some connection to
> the same forces that drive eugenics, the New World Order and
> globalism.
I'm just not sure how the forces sort out at this stage. It does seem
to me that at some point the abolition of human nature will lead to
true horrors, that the totalitarian states of the last century may not
have reached the end of what the liberated human will is capable of.
At this point though I think intersex births are likely to be too useful
a part of the attack on sexual distinctions to be a eugenic target.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which First Lady would have made the best President? Share your opinion
with other eGroups members by voting now. Simply go to
http://click.egroups.com/1/1475/2/_/275425/_/950400070/
eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/patriarchy/
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From patriarchy-return-1383-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sun Feb 13 07:37:20 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DAB8330F4E
for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:37:19 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1383-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Feb 2000 12:37:19 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 13 Feb 2000 12:37:18 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 8855 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2000 12:37:11 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2000 12:37:11 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id HAA02129 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:37:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002131237.HAA02129@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:37:10 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20000213042454.T560@luvmusl.net> from "Art Lemasters" at Feb 13, 0 04:24:54 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: Concept needed, not verbal radicalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1383-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> > The "sex discrimination" clause of the civil rights act of '64 had
> > absolutely no public discourse and was sold as a way to protect
> > black men and therefore strenghten their families. The sex
> > discrimination clause was slipped in at the last moment to get
> > REPUBLICAN SUPPORT for the bill.
Is this right? The account I remember is that Senator Byrd proposed
the amendment as part of an effort to make the bill absurd and promote
its defeat. Unfortunately he misjudged sentiment, which on "civil
rights" issues was changing rapidly at that time, and it went through
and became law.
> > This bill more than anything established the equality of the sexes and
> > all it's resultant legislation that we are here pissing and moaning
> > about, but no one says boo about it.
People don't think clearly about antidiscrimination rules. Those rules
don't just say that you should recognize individual differences and
that some women would make better trashmen than some men. What they
say is that in employment situations you can't take accepted attitudes
and expectations about men and women into account *at all*. They're
essentially extremist.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups eLerts!
It’s easy. It’s fun. Best of all, it’s free.
http://click.egroups.com/1/1231/2/_/275425/_/950445439/
-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
-- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/patriarchy/?m=1
From patriarchy-return-1394-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sun Feb 13 19:01:20 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4600430F88
for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 19:01:20 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1394-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 14 Feb 2000 00:01:19 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 14 Feb 2000 00:01:19 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 7016 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2000 00:01:07 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2000 00:01:07 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id TAA04079 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 19:01:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002140001.TAA04079@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 19:01:02 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <886pad$1p3e@eGroups.com> from "Moderator of Patriarchy Group" at Feb 13, 0 09:23:26 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: Concept needed / Feminist newspeak
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1394-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> die Schulleiterin oder der Schulleiter, ihre planmaesige Vertreterin
> oder sein planmaesiger Vertreter und Abwesenheitsvertreterin oder der
> Abwesenheitsvertreter der planmaesige Vertreterin oder des
> planmaesigen Vertreters
This is horrible! I don't read much present-day German, and it always
seemed to me that the nature of the language would make it impossible
to "reform" it. I see I was right -- this isn't German or any other
language.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Save on products you choose!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1416/2/_/275425/_/950486479/
-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=patriarchy&m=1
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Feb 15 09:19:22 EST 2000
Article: 14313 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: populism
Date: 14 Feb 2000 09:16:58 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <8892oq$b39$1@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 950537819 29794 166.84.0.226 (14 Feb 2000 14:16:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Feb 2000 14:16:59 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14313
Haider is said to be a "populist," as is Buchanan. What can be hoped
for from populism?
As a movement in opposition to centralizing elites it seems to have the
right enemies. It also seems likely to be thoughtless, since
systematic thought is something carried on by elites. And
self-contradictory. Most people are unlikely to want to give up basic
things that support the power of centralizing elites (TV, schlock pop
entertainment, middle-class welfare programs, loosened moral
restrictions in everyday life). They don't like a lot of the
implications and consequences of those things, but if they don't want
to give up the things themselves the likely result is a politics of
symbolic gestures.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Feb 15 09:19:23 EST 2000
Article: 14317 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: populism
Date: 14 Feb 2000 19:43:11 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <88a7ev$be8$1@panix.com>
References: <8892oq$b39$1@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 950575391 10444 166.84.0.226 (15 Feb 2000 00:43:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Feb 2000 00:43:11 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14317
In wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
> (1) concentrated wealth and power are pernicious; widespread
> distribution is the proper condition
> (2) war and militarism are ruinous to the republic and to the
> character of the populace
> (3) ordinary people can be trusted to make their own decisions
>Good sentiments, I think, but unlikely to go anywhere without
>ambitious, talented leaders to ramrod it. And they are the most likely
>to be co-opted by the ruling regime.
I can't help but think more than ambitious talented leaders are needed.
Not only the leaders but the principles get co-opted. (1) Equality and
abolition of hierarchy; (2) peace; and (3) individual autonomy are
principles the Left is happy with, they're not so different from your
(1), (2), (3), and their practical consequence is bureaucratic
despotism.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Feb 15 09:19:24 EST 2000
Article: 14322 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: populism
Date: 15 Feb 2000 08:23:01 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <88bjvl$il1$1@panix.com>
References: <8892oq$b39$1@panix.com> <88a7ev$be8$1@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 950620982 22860 166.84.0.226 (15 Feb 2000 13:23:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Feb 2000 13:23:02 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14322
In wmcclain@salamander.com (Bill McClain) writes:
>> Not only the leaders but the principles get co-opted. (1) Equality
>> and abolition of hierarchy; (2) peace; and (3) individual autonomy
>> are principles the Left is happy with, they're not so different from
>> your (1), (2), (3), and their practical consequence is bureaucratic
>> despotism.
>In the American context these things don't amount to bureaucratic
>despotism. If the Left is happy with them, why don't we have them? In
>that context, I mean.
These are are the stated goals of the Left. Understood as they
understood them they are self-contradictory. Therefore we haven't
achieved them even thought the Left has won in America as elsewhere.
The basic problem I think is that these goals are understood
technologically rather than politically. "Technologically" refers to
the rational organization of resources to achieve a rigorously defined
end, as in a factory or a military battle plan. The result of such an
approach is bureaucratic despotism and I think the approach is
well-established in America. "Politically" refers to measures that
facilitate the work of social institutions, moral consensus, and
natural human tendencies toward the goal. The political approach is at
home in a system of federalism and distributed powers such as once
existed in America. I think it's probably right that the 1861-65 war
was the turning point in the change from the one approach to the other.
>Perhaps the list should be conditioned by agreement as to a certain
>type of order, premises of the decent society. Granted that (which, I
>admit, cannot be granted today) I was thinking of "ambitious talented
>leaders" in terms of tactical success.
It was the need to bring that agreement about that I had in mind when I
said that more is needed than leaders.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Feb 15 23:28:34 EST 2000
Article: 14325 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: The abolition of humanity
Date: 15 Feb 2000 11:50:16 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <88c048$mnt$1@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 950633416 26365 166.84.0.226 (15 Feb 2000 16:50:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Feb 2000 16:50:16 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14325
Another thought:
Modern political movements have aimed to abolish permanent human nature
or at least make it much simpler than it is. Liberalism makes human
nature a matter of human choice and technology. Communism made it
historically determined in accordance with the evolving demands of
economic production. Fascism made it a social creation springing from
human will and the struggle of one group against another. Naziism
added a biological element to fascism.
The purpose of the simplification was to enable those in control of the
movement to remake the world and so bring about utopia. The particular
method of transformation has corresponded to the manner of minimizing
human nature. Liberals emphasize the market (choice) and rational
bureaucracy (social technology). Communists emphasized transformation
of productive relations; fascists and Nazis war, the triumph of the
will, and the group (race or state) as an absolute.
The basic problem, of course, has been that the reduction doesn't work
because human nature remains what it is. Another has been that
abolition of human nature (humanity) in concept has repeatedly led
concretely to the abolition of very large numbers of actual human
beings.
For some reason it is thought that liberalism is immune to that
tendency, and that the "lesson of the Holocaust," for example, is that
the Nazis left something in human nature (the biological) that should
have been rigorously excluded. That seems doubtful. If "human" is
content-free, so that it becomes a social classification the point of
which is determined by the decisions of particular men, and if it is
irrational to recognize a radical difference in rights between a dog
and a man, both of which seem to be the evolving liberal views, the
stage seems rather clearly set for horrors. Especially if a
fundamental goal of liberal and thus all legitimate politics has become
construction of a universal political order that by its nature can not
be made answerable to the people at large.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From patriarchy-return-1487-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Tue Feb 15 11:34:12 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from ef.egroups.com (ef.egroups.com [207.138.41.172])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 61E9A156AC
for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:34:11 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1487-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Feb 2000 16:34:10 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 15 Feb 2000 16:34:10 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 10837 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2000 16:33:19 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2000 16:33:19 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id LAA19575 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:33:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002151633.LAA19575@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 11:33:13 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <88bou1$fi1h@eGroups.com> from "Moderator of Patriarchy Group" at Feb 15, 0 06:47:29 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: Trading
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1487-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> What's left?
>
> 6.) repeal of .. laws, oppress the women again
>
> Unfortunately we tend to mock ourselves in the way feminists want us
> to. Women were never oppressed as a group.
> Patriarchy is balanced. We need patriarchy to end oppression and to
> attain a natural balance.
This is a very important point. Feminism, the abolition of gender as a
principle of social order, is *essentially* extremist. Common sense,
all experience and reason is antifeminist. Views to the contrary that
are now common need to be confronted and refuted.
To dislike patriarchy is simply to dislike the human race.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eLerts!
Save on products you choose.
http://click.egroups.com/1/1415/2/_/275425/_/950632450/
-- Create a poll/survey for your group!
-- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=patriarchy&m=1
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Feb 17 15:48:46 EST 2000
Article: 14330 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: The abolition of humanity
Date: 16 Feb 2000 11:30:35 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <88ejbb$d6t$1@panix.com>
References: <88c048$mnt$1@panix.com> <38a9cbb1$0$1405@news.voyager.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 950718636 20299 166.84.0.226 (16 Feb 2000 16:30:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Feb 2000 16:30:36 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14330
In <38a9cbb1$0$1405@news.voyager.net> "Tony W. Frye" writes:
>Any form of authority, no matter how big or small, can be made
>answerable to people (that is, if we choose to make it so).
I don't see this. Centralized cosmopolitan empires, it seems to me,
can't be made answerable to the people because there *is* no people
with sufficient unity to think and act collectively. One effect of
multiculturalism is to bring about such a condition. That is one
reason our ruling and managerial classes favor multiculturalism.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Thu Feb 17 15:48:47 EST 2000
Article: 14331 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: The abolition of humanity
Date: 16 Feb 2000 11:39:38 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <88ejsa$etk$1@panix.com>
References: <88c048$mnt$1@panix.com> <20000215.2202.215snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 950719179 20443 166.84.0.226 (16 Feb 2000 16:39:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Feb 2000 16:39:39 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14331
In <20000215.2202.215snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
>I can't resist one example, though: in Russia (excluding other XUSSR
>countries) the effective slaughter under those criteria was
>approximately 3.25 million between 1989 and 1997
It's an interesting case. The catastrophic increase in male mortality,
due mostly to things like alcohol, didn't result directly from politics
or economics. It seems to have to do with moral and cultural collapse.
In a sense it is the most direct demonstration possible that the
conceptual abolition of humanity leads to the practical abolition of a
great many human beings. I suppose one could put the radical decline
of Western European natality in the same general class.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Wed Jan 19 08:16:39 2000
Subject: agenda and moderator
To: d
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:16:39 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2641
Status: RO
> All governments have contributed to this process.
That's the basic argument in favor of libertarianism. Government likes
to administer things itself and so likes to undermine other centers of
power and decisionmaking. If the family and the network of informal
relations in which it exists dominates most people's lives that means
limits on the effectiveness of government policy. The state -- "all
governments" -- is therefore an essential part of the problem.
> However, there have been many countries in the past having many
> ethnics and different cultures. As long as naturally grown culture
> was not replaced by artificial control (e.g. national state), this
> was not necessarily a problem and not resembling “multiculturalism”
> in the sense given by our feminist era. I'm afraid that an
> anti-“multicultural” position might alienate other ethnics from the
> majority. All of the ethnics are likely to be patriarchal and could
> unite on this basis (“defining sex roles” in Jim's wording).
By "multiculturalism" I really meant anti-libertarian multiculturalism,
the system by which government attempts to make all social institutions
and indeed all of social life multicultural. To do so is simply to
abolish culture and so any workable system of sex roles. The objection
doesn't apply to a system in which people do what they want, in which
women in the Turkish part of town get glared at if they go around
without headscarves, in which the schools the Catholic children attend
teach the Catholic conception of sex and gender, etc.
> Even if none of the two approaches is getting acceptance, we might
> agree to focus on dealing with the core of problems and dangers:
To my mind the question is what it is that interferes with natural
tendencies and of the things that interfere what can be changed.
--
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 19 08:50:42 2000
Subject: agenda and moderator
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:50:42 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 5745
Status: RO
One of the very basic things that has to be done is to confront
falsehood with truth. At present anything but feminism and more
generally liberalism is inconceivable for most somewhat educated people
because everything they see presupposes and supprts it. Holes must be
poked in the facade. Anyone who can get published in national
magazines has my admiration.
> Yet, if we can influence people to become indoctrinated in a given
> ideology, shouldn't it at least be possible to indoctrinate people to
> be normal, or to have them cluster more closely around what is
> considered to be normal, or to be better than normal? Of course,
> that would require standards for normalcy. Without those we can't
> even determine into what direction change is to take anyone.
Another argument for libertarianism. A centrally-managed system will
always indoctrinate people in the habits of thought that strengthen a
centrally-managed system. Those habits of thought will always be
anti-family because families are an obstacle to central management of
social life and in particular of centrally-managed social
indoctrination. (Sorry to be a broken record. Actually, I'm not a
libertarian but traditionalists like myself share common ground with
them in opposing the managerial state and since they have nice short
clear arguments that some of us are fond of using.)
> **Blue Sky Proposal**
>
> Liberalism is still the driving force that motivates many ideologists
> (and not only feminism) to work eagerly on bringing about Hegel's
> view of the State as God; for the whole world -- via the UN. In all
> of the schools of the world, at least in the developed nations,
> children are being indoctrinated in obedience to the new god, the New
> World Order. It looks that it may well be just as effective in
> bringing totalitarianism for the whole world as Prussia's, Germany's,
> Russia's, Japan's and China's efforts were in bringing about
> totalitarianism on a local level. Nevertheless, the consequences of
> bringing about the Global State will be disastrous, just as all of
> the smaller local efforts were.
Agreed. It seems to me the goal is to make the human will the basis of
universal order. That requires the abolition of nature, hence of
gender and the family.
That's a very abstract way of putting it, but grand abstractions have a
role to play in suggesting hidden connections, lines of thought, traps
and so on. It shows for example why religion is fundamentally
antifeminist, because religion refuses to make human will the final
authority.
> We need a vision other than to work towards the New World Order. The
> New World Order has no use for families. Families are its enemies,
> but it is exactly families that are required to make any civilization
> function.
The tie between antifeminism and opposition to the NWO is I think
important. The left has always built coalitions, common fronts etc. on
the "it's all one struggle" theory. Why shouldn't other people do that
as well?
> Voting rights are a privilege. They can be given and can be taken.
> Let's give them only to people who make a commitment to society, and
> who demonstrate that by becoming and staying married.
It's hard I think to start with voting rights since the feeling is so
strong that they should be an attribute of mere humanity. Possibly
find some other distinction between the married and non-married to use
as an opening wedge? The tendency today of course is to abolish the
distinction altogether. Where is it *most* defensible? Should that be
the place to make a stand?
> Whatever it is we may get, even if we carry on in our current
> destructive course of action, we must eradicate the power of all
> Non-Government Organizations.
It's hard to keep legislators from talking to people. It's the way
they keep track of what people want and need, what means enough to them
to get them to ask for it. Suppose the Ashtabula Ladies' Club sends a
delegation to the local office of their state representative to ask for
more money for flowerbeds areound school buildings. Are we going to
keep the guy from talking to them?
The basic problem I think is too much centralized decisionmaking, which
means the decisionmakers won't know what they're doing and the people
won't have anything to say about what happens. As a result access and
influence in decisionmaking circles becomes all-important and those who
win are the professionals. The best answer I think is reducing and
decentralizing govt. functions.
--
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 Jan 24 08:10:50 2000
Subject: Re: which address???
To: e
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:10:50 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 874
Status: RO
> It just seems wierd to, at every turn, laud your diversity. It starts
> ringing hollow.
"Diversity" is totally non-substantive. It's a justification for doing
nothing because if they ever did something it would have to be
something particular and that would mean it wouldn't be something else
so it would be non-diverse. It also justifies following your own
personal agenda and interests, whatever they happen to be, because if
they're at odds with everything elso or complicate things that adds to
diversity, which is the supreme 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 Jan 30 09:00:12 2000
Subject: Re: Male Chauvinists (B/Pigots) The Equal Of FemiNazis
To: JE
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 09:00:12 -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: 3266
Status: RO
> "More specifically, all societies have been patriarchal, with men
> mainly responsible for public concerns and women for the care of
> small children and domestic matters. Always men have predominated in
> positions of formal authority, although exercising no general right
> of domination."
>
> Seeing as you weren't there throughout history you must be relying on
> written accounts, most of which were most likely done by men subject
> to whatever self-fulfilling and self-serving agenda they might have.
Doesn't seem much of an objection. There's always an interest in the
unusual. Why believe that the stories men tell always have their side
winning? If there were actual matriarchies men would have noticed and
talked about it. They talked about cannibalism, why not that? The
Greeks for example had their legends of the Amazons along with stories
of centaurs, cyclops, etc.
In addition to history there's modern anthropology. There have been
lots of societies at all levels of development anthropologists have
examined. No matriarchies. No societies that those who use the
expression would call "gender-fair."
My site has a link to Sheaffer's Domain of Patriarchy which has
materials relating to Steve Goldberg's work on the issue. You might
check it out.
> A counterbalancing account of history (but oops these authors like
> you weren't there either) is contained in "The Crucible And The
> Blade" which presents the notion and supporting facts that there were
> early civilizations that were neither dominated patriarchaly nor
> matriarchaly, they were gender "equal" and they were characterized by
> peace within themselves and non-aggression with their neighbors.
> Unfortunately, "The Blade" (male dominator influence) has won over
> the world and the world is characterized by unrest and warring
> factions and even our high schools are at war as the bullies have the
> ability to torment their male classmates as one factor in their
> violent outbursts.
You can make scattered facts into anything you want. Good sense
suggests the presumption that what you don't know is like what you
know, at least if what you know is universally one way or another.
> Male dominated societys have brought the world some wonders
> including
Quite true. All known societies have been male dominated. It follows
that all known human atrocities have been committed by male dominated
societies.
> I don't see a pure model anywhere in history that I would want
> society to "go back to", but I feel strongly that whatever model we
> MOVE FORWARD TO will have to be a form of gender equalist/fairness
> model.
You have to think through what that would involve. The abolition of
differences in wealth for example sounds good but the attempt cost the
lives of 100 million innocents and ended in societies characterized by
the lawless rule of wealth and power (consider Russia's mafias and the
current tyranny in China). Attempts to get rid of something that is a
fundamental feature of all human societies, like gender roles, sounds
to me like a recipe for tyranny and misery. I'm against tyranny and
misery, so I'm antifeminist.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Tue Feb 1 08:12:51 2000
Subject: Re: Trad. Conservatism page
To: bo
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 08:12:51 -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: 6162
Status: RO
> I think one could probably make an argument that libertarianism is
> not, strictly speaking, a conservative ideology.
Sure. In comparison to the liberal managerial state though it's more
tolerant of conservatism, and there's a lot of libertarianism in
conservatism in contrast to contemporary liberalism that wants to run
everything directly. So conservative-minded people in America are
attracted to it because it's what's available.
> Who is Toffler?
A pop futurologist (_Future Shock_, _The Third Wave_, _Power Shift_)
who's big buddies with Newt.
> You include the works of Confucius and question elsewhere on your
> page if non-religious conservatism is possible. If anyone has ever
> believed it is, it was Confucius.
I don't think that's quite true. Confucius always had Heaven in the
background and I think that's necessary for the health of his way of
thinking. Later Confucianism I know tended toward atheism. It relied
on the imperial despot for basic order and did without God that way.
> So maybe America hasn't changed that much. Maybe the current
> situtation is an inevitable outcome of the U.S. Constitution.
There is something to that. Depressing point. I was talking a couple
days ago to someone who's writing a book and I was criticising his use
of the phrase "cultural Marxism" on the grounds that what he's talking
about is native to America. Accept John Locke and that's where you end
up.
> And so if we we are at the democratic society described in Book VIII
> of Plato's Republic, then when will it be over with? Do you see any
> signs that it is fixing to end? I don't. Plato says tyranny will be
> next; and I certainly think that strong authority would be better
> than the current situation.
I don't see much hope, although it's not over till it's over.
"Tyranny" isn't strong government by the way, it's mindless obsession
armed and in the saddle.
> I'm glad you put some Muslim links up. Given the (possibly
> unsalvageable) decline of Western civilization, I think more people
> could find what they are searching for by looking East.
There are a number of European intellectuals who are very much
interested in Islam. I think it inferior to Christianity on several
accounts.
> I'm not pro-UN but I'm not so sure that the UN is much different
> from, say, the U.S. Congress. Is all the anti-UN hype very rational
> without anti-U.S. hype? I mean would the New World Order be much
> different from the post-Abraham Lincoln U.S. order?
It's the next step. That much more purely universalistic, that much
farther away from accountability. Why not oppose the next step even
though there have been too many steps already?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Wed Feb 2 20:19:54 2000
Subject: Re: Male Chauvinists (B/Pigots) The Equal Of FemiNazis
To: JE
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:19:54 -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: 7490
Status: RO
> you equate taking the Patriarch (looks like MCP / Male Chauvinist
> Pigot) position with being the only anti-feminist position.
I take the anti-feminist position to be:
1. Differing and complementary sex roles, which
2. Reflect both human nature -- which has always and everywhere
assigned women primary responsibility for home and children and men
primary responsibility for public life and formal authority -- and
present-day conditions.
That doesn't seem dogmatic to me. The details get worked out in
accordance with what seems right to people because on the whole it
works for them. That's how traditions develop, and on these matters
I'm a traditionalist.
Can you suggest something else that makes sense and looks workable?
> What do you think you're odds of winning anything other than an
> intellectual or philosphical "battle" with our population being
> something over 50% female?
People accept what works best. Women are very much interested in that
and in what promotes stable and functional family relations. I'd
rather on the whole they *didn't* get involved in an intellectual and
philosophical battle on these issues. On the whole that's not their
long suit.
> (Dr. Laura promotes 50% JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY, and I don't think
> you, your Patriarchy group, or me can change her mind or gain her
> audience) are going to vote for legislators supporting your position
> or any male-dominant position.
It's not my Patriarchy group, and you don't need to legislate male
dominance. It comes about pretty much of itself. All you need is to
give up the attempt to abolish it legislatively and undercut the
theoretical objections to it. Women do in fact like strong men. They
want someone they can rely on and have a right to rely on. That's true
even of women who are independent, strong-minded, talk about sexism,
etc. Such is my experience.
> Many of our "brethern" who espouse a "Patriarch" facade are Male
> Chauvinist B/Pigots who are as bad as the FemiNazis and will
> undermine the efforts of "cooler heads" such as I believe you and I
> to be.
If you've been following the Patriarchy discussion group I'd say a lot
of the guys have been badly damaged by divorce and how the legal system
now treats fathers so they say things that aren't really rational.
Understandable, and people do have to yell and carry on now and then,
but not sensible.
> What's the worst thing that you think would happen to men in a gender
> fair or matriarchical society.?? *****
There won't be a gender fair or matriarchical society any more than
there will be a communist society or a society that abolishes the use
of force to resolve disputes. Things that I think would happen to men
in a society in which the government pursues the "gender fair" project
include:
1. Chaotic family life and its common consequences -- crime, brutality
in daily life, addictive and obsessive behavior, particular suffering
for the weak. The same things would affect women and children, of
course, but you didn't ask about them.
2. Government tyranny and its common consequences. Try to make people
live in a way they don't naturally tend to live and tyranny in
inevitable because you can't let government actions be restricted by
popular sentiment or customary ways of doing things. The results can
be horrible even if it all seemed so idealistic at first. Consider for
example the 100 million dead innocents resulting from energetic efforts
to abolish economic equality. Sex roles are at least as natural and
ingrained in us a private property.
> But I'm willing to "think outside the box" rather than your reaction
> seems to be, we gotta reject this feminism thing so let's go back to
> this patriarchy thing without being willing to think through the
> possibilities.******
My antifeminist page only describes patriarchy in the most general
terms. I don't see it as particularly limiting. And sex roles aren't
the sort of thing that can be created in advance by theorizing. It's
all too complicated and subtle. What works gets stronger, what doesn't
work falls by the wayside. Abstract demands like absolute
point-by-point equality enforced by elaborate government regulation gum
up the works.
> I would like to find a way that I can spend more time with the kids
> and I'd like to know that my wife is being fulfilled in every way by
> her having a "fair" chance to have a career.
Fine, that sort of desire if a lot of people share it can get reflected
in practice somehow. I don't know what you mean by "fair" though. If
you mean exactly the same as for a man I don't know why that
mathematical point is worth the suffering it would cause.
> and not be "typecast" in the role of housefrau.
People are always typecast somehow. Is it better to be typecast as a
careerist? bureaucrat? market wheeler-dealer? You can't abolish
social expectations. Since that is so, I don't see the necessity of
having the expectations be the same for everyone.
> To answer my desires above for wife and children, I would envision a
> migration to where workers could take off as much as 50% of a year as
> UNPAID Parenting Time. Can you figure out how that would work
> ideally???? Dad takes off 40% to be stay-at-home Dad while Mom is at
> work; Mom takes off 40% to be stay-at-home while Dad is at work; Dad
> and Mom schedule their remaining 10% concurrently with half of that
> spent as a complete family with the kids and the other half spent as
> "lovebirds" without the kids (at Grandparents) so that they maintain
> that elusive spark in their relationship / marriage.
If a lot of people wanted this it would become available without
government intervention. On the whole it seems a bad idea though. You
seem to envision 2 equal parties negotiating a deal without
presumptions who will do what. Sounds like a recipe for bickering,
things that never happen because no-one can agree on anything,
arrangements that collapse when something unexpected comes up,
faithlessness because neither party can count on social support since
it's all a completely individual matter.
I would suggest presumptions -- man responsible for support, woman for
home and children unless both agree to something different, and if the
agreement falls apart then go back to the basic presumption. You're
more likely to have something stable and functional if you *start off*
with a workable allocation of rights and responsibilities that you fall
back on if there are disagreements.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Fri Feb 4 16:42:27 2000
Subject: Re: Haider
To: la
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:42:27 -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: 539
Status: RO
The reponse to Haider is really quite amazing. I understand the
"orderly employment policy" was something provoked in a debate, a
"you're a Nazi" "well at least the Nazis weren't incompetents like you"
kind of thing.
The PC issue has vanished because PC has won. We even have PC wars. I
wonder if the New York Times will brag about its connection with Walter
Duranty again this year if any of its people get Pulitzers?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Fri Feb 4 22:23:46 2000
Subject: Re: Patriarchy group--your website
To: ky
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 22:23:46 -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: 1297
Status: RO
> I wonder if you would comment on my post to the Patriarchy group,
> "RE: Conspiracy theories"?
Looked OK in general although I think it would be worth expressing the
same point more simply and directly. My comment to R. Bennett on a
related point had been that the concrete sensible stuff he does is
great but what people find sensible and plausible depends on the
background of popular attitudes etc. and those attitudes are affected
by the theories people have. So there's room for all sorts of
contributions. Including theories about how ways of thinking -- e.g.
feminism -- get spread around because there are groups of people who
like them and because they facilitate cooperation for common ends.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Sun Feb 6 06:40:56 2000
Subject: Re: FPO posting
To: LG
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 06:40:56 -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: 508
Status: RO
Thanks for your note. The Haider situation, the Balkan war and for
that matter PC show what liberal tolerance and openness amount to in
the end. They're an attempt to construct a closed universal
all-embracing system -- a totalitarian tyranny -- everyone has to
comply with. They're an attempt to murder the human spirit.
Enough rant though. One hopes that common sense will have some effect.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Thu Feb 17 08:20:29 2000
Subject: Re: critique of your article
To: la
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 08:20:29 -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: 645
Status: RO
For me the basic problem with liberalism is logical. How it plays out
in life is determined by the incoherence of its fundamental principle.
Its history has been the history of the clarification of that principle
and therefore the clarification of its own incoherence. Presentating
that view is a problem because so much ground must be covered and most
people don't know or care about abstract reasoning.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Fri Feb 18 08:05:24 2000
Subject: Re: America & Tradition
To: rh
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 08:05:24 -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: 4337
Status: RO
Liberalism has a strong institutional connection. It tends to abolish
intermediate authorities leaving only a small elite and a lot of self-
interested individuals. If there's a small elite not unified by say a
particular religion and also a lot of self-interested individual
economic actors both will tend to favor liberalism. It need not be
held in its fullness by all members of the elite let alone every Tom,
Dick and Harry who's trying to pay off the mortgage for those people to
act in accordance with it. It is enough that liberal ideas be in the
air and that they correspond to the way the world looks to them.
On that view you'd find liberal tendencies strong among the national
elites who signed the Declaration and wrote the Constitution, and among
the many who bought Common Sense and liked it, more so than say among
clergymen and other established local leaders. It doesn't matter how
clergymen explained things in their sermons. Also, it's not so
important that few men individually were thoroughgoing liberals. You
could have a constitutional convention that founds a polity that is in
effect based on Deism or for that matter godlessness and on the
practical supremacy of economics even though lots of the delegates to
the convention didn't altogether look at things that way.
Once the polity is objectively formed on those principles it will tend
to form the people in their image. It seems to me what's important is
what was actually done, more than how particular individuals explained
it to themselves. We based political obligation on consent, got rid of
monarchy, definitively desacralized government, got rid of religious
establishment, declared all men equal and founded political life on
protection of individual rights. Sounds liberal, and sounds like the
human will is the supreme ethical principle. Certainly it is for
political purposes, and since man is a political animal that means that
eventually hedonism will become the accepted moral outlook for other
purposes as well.
> But why insist that the past held the present in embryonic form?
> Sometimes the metaphor of biological growth helps one understand
> social change. But it is not the only metaphor and is at best no more
> than a metaphor. What about revolution, catalysts, environmental
> surprises? I remember your writing that the tendency is everything,
> but this strikes me as too simple.
Some things follow long-term principles, some things don't. Why do men
wear the clothes they do? Partly the season and weather, partly human
physiology and sexual and other tendencies, partly fashion, partly
reigning ideology etc. Ditto for eating. And why do they rule
themselves as they do? Contingency and necessity both have a role.
Read Plato's account of political/spiritual devolution in bks viii and
ix of the Republic. To me it's a convincing account of very important
aspects of the history of the West.
> It doesn't seem to me that the presence of contradiction says much
> against the durability of a set of habits of thought or opinion.
I agree more analysis is needed than just saying "here's a
contradiction"
> However, I think one must save room for the reality of choice in his
> diagnosis.
Fine, but if you're convinced something has gone wrong and you want to
find out just what choice has led to all this you have to accept
causality. In order to say "X led to all this so we have to choose
non- X" you have to accept that X (which might be something like
desacralizing society) has objective long-term consequences.
> This is unfortunate, it seems to me, because it alienates us from
> healthy traditions and leads us astray as we try to answer the
> question of how we came to be where we are.
To see which traditions are healthy you have to look at their long-term
consequences, which involves a view of history based on causation
rather than choice.
> Have you an opinion on Barzun?
In general I think he's a sensible man although I haven't read
everything he's written.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From patriarchy-return-1566-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Sat Feb 19 16:12:54 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mw.egroups.com (mw.egroups.com [207.138.41.167])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AD21330F3D
for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:12:53 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1566-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Feb 2000 21:12:53 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 19 Feb 2000 21:12:52 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 5840 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2000 21:12:50 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 2000 21:12:50 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id QAA13721 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:12:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002192112.QAA13721@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 16:12:49 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <88mre9$oh2q@eGroups.com> from "Moderator of Patriarchy Group" at Feb 19, 0 11:37:45 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: Fwd: Ann Hendrix-Jenkins Vs. Toys "R" Us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1566-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
> Hendrix-Jenkins, a 34-year-old working mother, says she felt as if
> she'd been transported back to the 1960s. "I was shocked that Toys
> 'R' Us would take such a giant step backward," she said.
It's outrageous journalistic misconduct not to mention who H-J is.
Lisa Bannon is simply a flack.
> The resulting behaviors--what experts refer to as "male and female
> play patterns"--used to emerge around age 5 or 6. But now they are
> often observed in young preschoolers. Possible explanations,
> child-development experts say, include earlier socialization with
> peers in day care and preschool and earlier media exposure.
Interesting. I would expect the abolition of a network of social
stereotypes, which after all is what civilizes natural impulses, to
lead to cruder, more polarized and brutal male and female behaviour. I
wouldn't have guesed it would show up so young though. On reflection,
though, it makes sense for the reasons the experts say. Children used
to learn to be civilized human beings at their mother's knee but now
their mother's knee isn't there any more. Drive nature out the front
door she returns by the rear.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Send a blank message to patriarchy-subscribe@egroups.com for joining.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britney? Limp Bizkit? Christina? Who will win the Grammys???????
Guess the winners and you could win a FREE MP3 Player! from AWZ.com!
Click Here!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1769/2/_/275425/_/950994772/
eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/patriarchy/
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From jk Wed Feb 23 15:40:05 2000
Subject: Re: campaign
To: la
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:40:05 -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: 840
Status: RO
I'm embarrassingly ignorant of what goes on day to day. Sounds like
more of the same. About 5 yrs ago everyone to the right of Bob Dole
became an untouchable extremist and Dole himself became a marginal
character (after all, since everyone on his right is an extremist he's
in immediate contact with extremists). Since Nazis are also extremists
Bob Dole's really a quasi-Nazi. Ditto for George W. it seems.
I really do think that "civil rights" type issues are the problem.
They require everyone to be a left-wing fanatic who wants to create a
new and unprecedented kind of society and human being, and who simply
can't imagine anyone not buying into the project. The result is utter
distortion of political thought.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Wed Feb 23 17:47:19 2000
Subject: Re: campaign
To: la
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:47:19 -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: 2387
Status: RO
> Well, your reply makes me feel a little abashed that I pay as much
> attention to current events as I do.
I said The Wrong Thing! I really *do* feel embarrassed that I know so
little.
The problem about mouthing off about grand issues is that you can't
possibly know even 1% of the basic relevant things. I was carrying on
in an email exchange with someone about the Significance of America and
found I had to be rather artful to work around the fact that I don't
really know all that much about the Founding, not by the standards of
people who take an interest in it, and find the thought of rereading
John Locke intolerable.
> Or, are current events revealing importanat new things about the
> nature of our society and of leftism? My experience is the latter,
> though I may be deluding myself. I find myself enthralled, amazed,
> horrified by what I see happening.
But maybe any sort of sampling, the sort of thing that comes your way
in daily life or random impressions, does almost as well. My basic
view is that it's very helpful to have lots of different people doing
lots of different things. Man is social, knowledge and understanding
have a large social component. We rely on the knowledge of others.
That's what tradition is all about after all.
> One of the new things (though it may be an old thing) is that neocons
> (!) are now attacking an establishment GOP figure (!) as an extremist
> (!) This represents a radical veering to the left in our society.
I agree it's remarkable. But then on reflection anything else is
unthinkable. After all, if you have an extreme that's so horrible that
you have to maintain your distance then what's permissible will
continually contract because once it's determined that Bob Dole is the
limit of what's acceptable then you have to ask why Bob Dole doesn't
draw back from the horrors that he's so cozy with. Just what is he
signalling, what support is he angling for? So Bob Dole's really in
the fever swamps too. And so it progresses.
> However, if I had a deeper view of things, if I stayed with earlier
> resolutions of mine to disengage spiritually from American society,
Who knows? The world's very big, and lots of different things have to
be done. The whole spectrum has to be covered.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Thu Feb 24 04:26:53 2000
Subject: Re: Further thoughts on your horrible insight
To: la
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 04:26:53 -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: 1288
Status: RO
> It occurs to me that the phenomenon you've delineated is a direct
> result of the gnostic nature of leftism. Tradtional morality sees
> gradations of good and evil. Leftism by contrast sees only two
> things: a circle of light, to which the leftists belong, and
> everything outside that, which is darkness, hatred, bigotry,
> pathology, mean-spiritedness, fever swamps, and so on. Since there
> are only two spheres of morality with no gradations between them,
> anything in the sphere of light which touches the border of the
> sphere of darkness must come under suspicion, leading to the
> progressive contraction of the sphere of light that you have
> described.
It's an interesting issue. There seems to be a notion of something
that pollutes, of something horrible and unclean and monstrous to think
of. I suppose there's also a sense that the evil tends to spread and
creep into things. Maybe that's the gnostic element, the idea that
this world is evil and salvation lies in special knowledge that puts us
in relation to some other world? If so then I suppose there does arise
a demand for absolute purity because otherwise you're entangled in the
evil.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From patriarchy-return-1840-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Thu Feb 24 19:24:24 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from mw.egroups.com (mw.egroups.com [207.138.41.167])
by mail1.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 375C730FB3
for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:24:23 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: patriarchy-return-1840-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.42] by mw.egroups.com with NNFMP; 25 Feb 2000 00:24:22 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by a2; 25 Feb 2000 00:24:22 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-patriarchy@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 22481 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2000 00:24:17 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qh.egroups.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2000 00:24:17 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id TAA24090 for patriarchy@egroups.com; Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:24:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002250024.TAA24090@panix.com>
To: patriarchy@egroups.com
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:24:16 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <894ep5$dc8r@eGroups.com> from "Tom Smith" at Feb 24, 0 03:27:33 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: Trading
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: patriarchy-return-1840-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Tom Smith writes:
> >Some say the roots lie in Marxism, but I suspect that the problem is
> >much older than that.
>
> The root of feminism in the USA is the sex discrimination clause of
> the Civl Rights Act of '64.
I agree with Mark. The '64 CRA was a catastrophe but social
catastrophes don't come out of nowhere. There were feminists long
before then. The basic problem I think is liberalism as such, the view
that morality is constructed out of human desires. That dates back to
at least Thomas Hobbes in the middle of the 17th century. If
liberalism is true the consequence is radical egalitarianism, since all
desires are equally desires regardless of who holds them or why.
Feminism is a direct corollary of radical egalitarianism.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Send a blank message to patriarchy-subscribe@egroups.com for joining.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your money connected @ OnMoney.com - the first Web site that lets you
see, consolidate, and manage all of your finances all in one place.
http://click.egroups.com/1/1636/2/_/275425/_/951438262/
-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
-- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=patriarchy&m=1
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Mon Feb 28 10:42:39 EST 2000
Article: 14350 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: populism
Date: 28 Feb 2000 10:41:25 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <89e4v5$i86$1@panix.com>
References: <8892oq$b39$1@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 951752486 22077 166.84.0.226 (28 Feb 2000 15:41:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Feb 2000 15:41:26 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14350
In paleo writes:
>It would seem demonstrable by the simplest imaginable means that
>"middle-class welfare programs" is a species of oxymoron. It is the
>middle class, after all, that funds the huge majority of government
>spending.
Yes but it's safer to rely on the govt to look after things, and people
worry more about concrete answers to specific threats than about
overall fundamentals. A basic principle of mass liberal democracy
after all is not thinking things through.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From paleo-return-1170-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com Mon Feb 28 10:56:51 2000
Return-Path:
Received: from cj.egroups.com (cj.egroups.com [207.138.41.175])
by mail2.panix.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D050715630
for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:56:49 -0500 (EST)
X-eGroups-Return: paleo-return-1170-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Received: from [10.1.2.20] by cj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Feb 2000 15:56:49 -0000
Received: (listserv $); by q6; 28 Feb 2000 15:56:45 -0000
Delivered-To: listsaver-egroups-paleo@egroups.com
Received: (qmail 31927 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2000 15:56:28 -0000
Received: from panix.com (166.84.0.226) by qg.egroups.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2000 15:56:28 -0000
Received: (from jk@localhost) by panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id KAA20854 for paleo@egroups.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:51:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Kalb
Message-Id: <200002281551.KAA20854@panix.com>
To: paleo@egroups.com
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:51:27 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <38BA8E75.6894AA2D@mindspring.com> from "Jim Langcuster" at Feb 28, 0 09:04:21 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: A happy, gleeful media
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: paleo-return-1170-jk=panix.com@returns.egroups.com
Status: RO
Jim Lancuster writes:
> Social statements and creeds used to be anathema to Baptists. They
> saw such preoccupation as undermining the central mission of the
> church: propagating the gospel.
The New Guard in mainstream denominations often takes a similar line,
that concentration on political issues undermine the central mission of
the church, propagating the gospel. The difference is that "political
issues" now include things like sexual morality, because they're
contentious, although not e.g. racial justice. So the effect is that
people with questions about revisionist morality or whatever are
supposed to shut up and get with the program of propagating whatever it
is that everyone thought legitimate agrees to include in the gospel,
like peace and justice, racial reconciliation, etc.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleo is a list for discussing ideas relating to paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism and paleo-orthodoxy. To subscribe: just send a blank e-mail to paleo-subscribe@eGroups.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One email address - many people!
Start a free email group on eGroups!
http://click.egroups.com/1/1887/3/_/2965/_/951753408/
eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/paleo/
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
From jk Sat Feb 26 14:15:20 2000
Subject: Re: Human Rights in Belgium
To: la
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:15:20 -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: 1083
Status: RO
> In any case, what's most interesting is that nothing is given to back
> up the charge of "anti-democratic."
"Vlaams Blok" looks like it means "Flemish Bloc", so it's an explicitly
ethnic party, which means it's racist, so by definition it's opposed to
human rights.
> Did you read my correspondence? Somehow I fear that "conservatives"
> like him will one day be wielding the "anti-democratic" charge
> themselves, against people like us.
Read it. It's a problem. Conservatives want to hew to some sort of
stable social equilibrium. That means they can't help but accept the
rooted dominant ideology even if the r.d.i. is in essence radical. The
more influential and uncompromising the left is the more conservatives
have to accept it, because they can deviate less without declaring
civil war. In the name of reason and moderation they have to give up
reason and moderation as well as their original reasons for becoming
conservatives.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From jk Sun Feb 27 08:56:04 2000
Subject: Re: addendum to my last comment
To: la
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 08:56:04 -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: 1710
Status: RO
> Since conservatives want to avoid civil war or the appearance of
> civil war or the barest suggestion that they believe in civil war,
> the more the left does things that threaten civil war, the more the
> conservatives must pretend that that is _not_ what the left is doing.
> To identify the real nature of the left would mean civil war. To
> avoid that, the conservatives end up serving as the PR agents for the
> left.
Good summary. Nothing can be a problem because if it were a problem it
would be too much of a problem.
It all starts with impulses that seem good, that man is a social
animal, that it's not right to be doctrinaire, that the resultant of
multiple views and perceptions is better than a single man's view, and
so on. It would be worth close analysis to see just where those
impulses turn bad. Confucius for example did not fall into the trap.
I suppose the basic problem is love of comfort, lack of integrity, lack
of a sense that truth is transendent and not a social construction even
though our pursuit of it is social.
> This analysis of conservatives ends up being identical to what has
> often been noted about liberals in their confrontation with radicals
> and terrorists.
Yes. A concrete example would be attitudes toward the Soviet Union.
People simply could not admit the incontestable. The ABM radar (my
brother tells me merchant seaman called it "the Russian woodpecker"
from the way it sounded) didn't exist. East German female athletes
weren't using male hormones, and anyone who claimed they were was a
kook. You could compile a long list.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Feb 29 19:10:55 EST 2000
Article: 14353 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: Diversity and the New World Order
Date: 29 Feb 2000 16:03:33 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <89hc75$lj8$1@panix.com>
References: <38BDA30C@MailAndNews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 951858213 22789 166.84.0.226 (29 Feb 2000 21:03:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Feb 2000 21:03:33 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14353
Great article!
It seems to me the ultimate question is going to be whether artificial
intelligence is possible. If it is, man will be replaced. If it
isn't, then rational prudent action will remain tied to human culture,
meaning particular historical culture. In the latter case the
conditions for the existence and well-being of such culture will remain
necessities and the future will be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
just like the past.
My own guess is that AI is not possible, that discursive thought is
dependent on the inarticulate and so can function only within
tradition. No doubt we will see.
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
From news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail Tue Feb 29 19:10:56 EST 2000
Article: 14357 of alt.revolution.counter
Path: news.panix.com!panix.com!not-for-mail
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.revolution.counter
Subject: Re: Diversity and the New World Order
Date: 29 Feb 2000 19:07:27 -0500
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <89hmvv$isd$1@panix.com>
References: <38BDA30C@MailAndNews.com> <20000229.2319.645snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 951869247 26062 166.84.0.226 (1 Mar 2000 00:07:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Mar 2000 00:07:27 GMT
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV)
Xref: news.panix.com alt.revolution.counter:14357
In <20000229.2319.645snz@bloxwich.demon.co.uk> raf391@hormel.bloxwich.demon.co.uk (rafael cardenas) writes:
>The question is not only whether such an artificial intelligence is
>possible but whether a significant portion of the elite are influenced
>by such 'posthumanist' ideals, i.e. consider humanity in general as
>expendable.
It seems to me the ideal is implicit in our official public ideals and
practices, so it doesn't much matter how self-aware our ruling elites
are, that's the way they're moving and will keep on moving. It's clear
they intend the abolition of culture, that's what multiculturalism
means, and the alternative to culture (i.e., basing thought and conduct
on an evolved system of inarticulable attitudes, habits, etc.) is some
form of intelligence that has been made fully explicit and formalized.
The latter is equivalent to AI.
I agree the attempt to abolish culture is likely to lead to
unprecedented brutality. How could it fail to do so, unless AI is in
fact possible?
--
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com and http://www.panix.com/~jk)
"Simia quam similis, turpissima bestia, nobis!" -- Tully
Let me know if you have comments of
any kind.
Back to my archive of posts.