Monday, February 13, 2006
gender!
So I just had a wonderful conversation with some friends and colleagues and more than ever, I don't understand gender. Please dont disragard the article below, just know I'm confused, not as to whether there is a difference between men and women, but as to what that difference is; Matt A of Mere Orthodoxy has some very interesting ideas. If only he'd release his new book and enlighten us all.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
sex! (as in gender)
It seems unfortunate that equality of the sexes be as stressed as it is, not only in the Christian community, of which I am a part, but also in the culture of America at large. I say this with full recognition (can there be such a thing?) of the dangers of traditional patriarchy, and a slight bent toward a more liberal (though many who know me may not agree) view of a woman’s place in society after I have spent time with actual women, especially the exceptional women who I am privileged to be friends with, who hang about the University like queen bees about a single hive.
This being said, it is unfortunate not only for women that equality of the sexes be stressed, but also for men. Now I’ve heard the conservative drivel (and drivel always has more truth than we should like to admit) about the feminization of men, about how the feminist agenda (if there ever has been a unified feminist agenda) has, at its root, not equality and freedom as its ends, but instead, a male oppressing matriarchy. If this is indeed the feminist agenda, then I am sorely sorry to say that their agenda is self defeating; if presented with a game of mastery, men are of the sort to fight until they win or die—it would be much more beneficial and profitable to stick with the rhetoric of equality and freedom. If there is to be no master, if the game has no victor, then the men will truly have been beaten.
What will this state of the feminine victory look like? First of all, it will not be a physical victory. Men will still gravitate, in general, toward the more physically demanding vocations. What will change is motivation. If women can convince men that there is no real battle because there is no real difference between the genders, then women will have proved the modern theory that all gender conceptions are socially conditioned, even, perhaps especially that conception that gender is an illusion.
Here is why the social conditioning of gender equality will be harmful to culture: it will take away, as was said above, motivation in men, specifically that motivation that, in part, drove them to be virtuous and strong in the first place: the responsibility for another. If traditional gender roles, with man as the ‘head’ (whatever that means) fully disappear from the earth, we will see the male gender more demoralized and weak than ever. And if you give them enough visual and auditory entertainment, pornography, and other forms of virtual reality, then they will become ineffective members of society. Women truly will have any job, career, or lifestyle choice they want, but men will all have the same lifestyle choice, with one group of exceptions.
The exceptions are those exceptional people that the medieval world called monks, those who rejected culture in some aspects and matrimony entirely, and devoted all of their time to prayer and study. Conditioners beware: fear these men and women above all, fear that they will motivate men with traditional ideals. The swords and arrows of patriarchal man are vicious.
A note: Am I being fair to men, or am I dismissing all males as push overs? Why do they fly about, blown by every wind which promises sensual or intellectual pleasure or mastery? If what I say is true, are not men the weaker race? Yes, yes, we are weak and you women must help us. Do not tell us we are equal as genders, because some day we might believe it and stop trying to master you. We will stop trying to chase you, stop trying to build cities for you and tear cities down to take you back. Yes, we fall on our knees at every passing pleasure, but do not delude yourself. Remember the power of diamonds on such beings as yourselves, and you will see that all humans are weak in the presence of beauty, whether cheap or costly.
A second note: I do not understand gender, but I do induct that a gospel of equality and freedom of and between genders will lead to weak people. Men will stop fighting, stop working as hard, and women will not have the chance to make the truly difficult decision of whether or not to get married. In the end, there is only one feminist agenda, an agenda that is shared by the non-religious nuns of the modern and post-modern university and the low-class, nagging housewife—that of the motivation of men on the small scale and humans on the large scale. Let the relation of genders be a fight to the death, a fair fight which, Chesterton says, no man (or woman) should refuse.
Man and woman, myself and others, discover together what kind of things you are; do not conclude before you have begun to argue: for it is in the midst of battle that the soldier finds his virtue, his courage, his honor, strength, and love.
This being said, it is unfortunate not only for women that equality of the sexes be stressed, but also for men. Now I’ve heard the conservative drivel (and drivel always has more truth than we should like to admit) about the feminization of men, about how the feminist agenda (if there ever has been a unified feminist agenda) has, at its root, not equality and freedom as its ends, but instead, a male oppressing matriarchy. If this is indeed the feminist agenda, then I am sorely sorry to say that their agenda is self defeating; if presented with a game of mastery, men are of the sort to fight until they win or die—it would be much more beneficial and profitable to stick with the rhetoric of equality and freedom. If there is to be no master, if the game has no victor, then the men will truly have been beaten.
What will this state of the feminine victory look like? First of all, it will not be a physical victory. Men will still gravitate, in general, toward the more physically demanding vocations. What will change is motivation. If women can convince men that there is no real battle because there is no real difference between the genders, then women will have proved the modern theory that all gender conceptions are socially conditioned, even, perhaps especially that conception that gender is an illusion.
Here is why the social conditioning of gender equality will be harmful to culture: it will take away, as was said above, motivation in men, specifically that motivation that, in part, drove them to be virtuous and strong in the first place: the responsibility for another. If traditional gender roles, with man as the ‘head’ (whatever that means) fully disappear from the earth, we will see the male gender more demoralized and weak than ever. And if you give them enough visual and auditory entertainment, pornography, and other forms of virtual reality, then they will become ineffective members of society. Women truly will have any job, career, or lifestyle choice they want, but men will all have the same lifestyle choice, with one group of exceptions.
The exceptions are those exceptional people that the medieval world called monks, those who rejected culture in some aspects and matrimony entirely, and devoted all of their time to prayer and study. Conditioners beware: fear these men and women above all, fear that they will motivate men with traditional ideals. The swords and arrows of patriarchal man are vicious.
A note: Am I being fair to men, or am I dismissing all males as push overs? Why do they fly about, blown by every wind which promises sensual or intellectual pleasure or mastery? If what I say is true, are not men the weaker race? Yes, yes, we are weak and you women must help us. Do not tell us we are equal as genders, because some day we might believe it and stop trying to master you. We will stop trying to chase you, stop trying to build cities for you and tear cities down to take you back. Yes, we fall on our knees at every passing pleasure, but do not delude yourself. Remember the power of diamonds on such beings as yourselves, and you will see that all humans are weak in the presence of beauty, whether cheap or costly.
A second note: I do not understand gender, but I do induct that a gospel of equality and freedom of and between genders will lead to weak people. Men will stop fighting, stop working as hard, and women will not have the chance to make the truly difficult decision of whether or not to get married. In the end, there is only one feminist agenda, an agenda that is shared by the non-religious nuns of the modern and post-modern university and the low-class, nagging housewife—that of the motivation of men on the small scale and humans on the large scale. Let the relation of genders be a fight to the death, a fair fight which, Chesterton says, no man (or woman) should refuse.
Man and woman, myself and others, discover together what kind of things you are; do not conclude before you have begun to argue: for it is in the midst of battle that the soldier finds his virtue, his courage, his honor, strength, and love.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
It's about time!
If you read my blog, you've probably been thinking I post almost as rarely as Miss Maltby (pun intended).
There is a very good reason for this: whenever I feel the urge to write, I work on a story that's slowly been developing for the last few months. In the spirit of this interactive, self indulgent, digital age, I have a question for my droves (5? 6? per month?) of readers. I'd like you to tell me without knowing anything about the story: Should I kill my main character at the end of the book?
Feedback please.
There is a very good reason for this: whenever I feel the urge to write, I work on a story that's slowly been developing for the last few months. In the spirit of this interactive, self indulgent, digital age, I have a question for my droves (5? 6? per month?) of readers. I'd like you to tell me without knowing anything about the story: Should I kill my main character at the end of the book?
Feedback please.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Complaining...
...I have noticed lately that many blog posts consist of complaining about practical circumstances on one's life. I apparently missed the memo that this is what blogs are for and so have decided to jump on the bandwagon before it's too late.
So, I ask myself, as the midnight hour slowly creeps by and my eyes begin to burn with sleep, what should I complain about? Well, I could complain about my nice silver car which was brutally smashed as it sat in its parking space on my street yesterday.
But I don't really want to complain about that: I felt bad for the guy who lost control of his old bug and slammed into me, plus the sun was so warm on the trees above the scene that the leaves glowed gold in the late afternoon.
But I suppose I do have something to complain about, come to think of it. Where in this good, green United States can a guy get a good cappucino? But even now, I can't quite complain. Starbucks cappucinos are, of course, mediocre; they do their job, but lack the higher subtleties of truly good cappucinos.
What of the cappucinos I can't complain about?
1. Pete's: Pete's coffee itself is quite good and thie cappucinos combine a velvet sweetness with a needed bite that's balanced quit well.
2. Seattle's Best: I haven't drunk their regular coffee, but their cappucinos are extrordinarily smooth. The foam is less like foam and more like an airy liquid...mmmm....
The conclusion? I don't know why we complain. do you?
So, I ask myself, as the midnight hour slowly creeps by and my eyes begin to burn with sleep, what should I complain about? Well, I could complain about my nice silver car which was brutally smashed as it sat in its parking space on my street yesterday.
But I don't really want to complain about that: I felt bad for the guy who lost control of his old bug and slammed into me, plus the sun was so warm on the trees above the scene that the leaves glowed gold in the late afternoon.
But I suppose I do have something to complain about, come to think of it. Where in this good, green United States can a guy get a good cappucino? But even now, I can't quite complain. Starbucks cappucinos are, of course, mediocre; they do their job, but lack the higher subtleties of truly good cappucinos.
What of the cappucinos I can't complain about?
1. Pete's: Pete's coffee itself is quite good and thie cappucinos combine a velvet sweetness with a needed bite that's balanced quit well.
2. Seattle's Best: I haven't drunk their regular coffee, but their cappucinos are extrordinarily smooth. The foam is less like foam and more like an airy liquid...mmmm....
The conclusion? I don't know why we complain. do you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)