"You must have children, lots of children, because I say so. I am father. That will stop 'national decline'."
There's a fascinating insight into the mindset of the patriarchy, or at least of one of its defenders, in Foreign Policy this month. Phillip Longman's argument in a nutshell is that only the rule of the fathers will ensure that large numbers of children are born. Therefore we must have a full on, father-knows-best-and-rules-all (probably with a heavy leather belt), patriarchy.…
Article comments
26 - Josh
Scientifically, a human life begins when the sperm and the egg come together. Abortion cannot be argued on the basis of their being no human life.
Rather, the REAL argument for abortion is that it's OK to kill a human being who is not cognisant of its own existence. By that logic, its OK to kill most infants and even older, mentally handicapped children.
27 - Mike
Great Point Josh.
In case anyone cannot follow the logic, i will dumb it down for you:
Roe v Wade was justified by stating that the baby was not alive 1 second before it exited the womb, but is 1 second afterwards. But, it is no different in its thoughts or body than it is the second before it leaves. This creates the arguement of saying a fetus is not alive because its not aware of its surroundings, so killing it is ok. However, this can be used against newborns and elderly people as well.
28 - Josh
Anybody else for increasing the legal time-frame of abortion to five years after birth (in case some parents decide they just weren't ready for that kind of responsibility)?
29 - Mike
I am!
I hereby pose this petition to Congress. I demand that Congress pass a law, changing the legal time-frame of an abortion to 5 years or younger. This act, called the "Kindergarden or Under Slaughter Act," affectionately refferred to as "KUSA," should be passed immediately.
The Justification for this act:
Too many people are acting irresponsible, and instead of making them face the consequences of their actions, which is Un-American, they should be given the choice of just eliminating them. Besides, the parents may decide that the child is a brat and they dont want him anyway.
Please Sign!
30 - Arch Conservative
Hell Josh why stop at 5 years, why not extend it to 18 years just in case the children of some "progressive parents" decide to vote Republican.
31 - Mike
Now, Now Arch Conservative! Thats just absurd! Life doesnt begin till age 5. 18 is simply murder!
32 - Akeel Shah
Wow, I didn't realize Blogcritics had such a Conservative leaning. Or is it just that the Cons are attracted irresistably attracted to this 'patriarchal' thread :)
It's funny reading the comments from some of the Cons complaining about the lack of open intellectual debate in universities, when they're clearly some of the most ideologically rigid and emotional on this thread.
I think universities, being a specific type of institution, naturally have certain biases. Since universities in sceptical societies are meant to be forums for promoting free thought and experimentation, its not surprising that 'traditional' ways often come under fire- arguably one of the main reasons for 'higher institutions of learning' is to 'challenge' conventional thought. Universities have been socially left of center in the West for quite a long time- definitely predates the 60s. To be blunt, I think this is due to free thought and debate inevitably eroding away all traditions. Therefore, I do think campuses, if they are functioning properly, will have a highly anti-establishment and anti-tradition streak compared to society as a whole. And yes, the establishment and tradition of the West nowadays includes much of the ideas of the 'Left'.
Universities can fail when they don't nuture competing ideas within a department; whether it be an activist leftish department, or, a stodgy or reactionary right-wing one. There does seem to be a lack of debate in the institutions of certain inbred departments now, and I'm sure you could find examples of this all throughout the history of education. I don't think present day universities only have 'left-wing' bias. One example of 'right-wing' bias that I think is rife at present is free market ideology you can find in economics departments. Of course, this has much to do with collapse of the economic ideas of the far left. This isn't really unusual. Ideas have their cycles and fashions, sometimes progressives dominate in certain areas and sometimes more conservative voices do.
All over the West, I think the universities themselves have veered to the right far more than conservatives recognize. If conservatives feel like their arguments are shut out of certain disciplines then the surest way of correcting it is by entering the academic debate in those areas rather than complaining. To a large degree I think this has already occured.
33 - Josh
Akeel, I think that was a really good post.
34 - nugget
ruvy says,
"Now imagine a whole society where these kids grow into adults..."
I can and do everyday. I live in America.
35 - Arch Conservative
Akeel... I have no problem whatsoever with students or faculty expressing liberal or leftist points of view on college campuses.
The problem I have is when someone tries to counter these points with conservative points of view they are ridiculed, labelled with all kinds of pejorative labels such as homophobe, racist or something similiar. The simple reality is that the so called "tolerant" leftists do not actually tolerate any dissent from thier point of view on social and political issues of the day at college campuses. Instead they try thier utmost to not only stigmatize but silence those who would offer views or though that run contray to their own.
You can wax poetic about the chanllenging of convention at American Universities you want Akeel but that does not change the fact that today's American colleges are more leftisst indocrtrination camps than they are bastions of intellectual honesty and tolerance where all points of view are given equal leeway to be expressed.
By the way Akeel I am expressing my opinion of today's colleges by actually having been on many, many of thier campuses in recent years and observing what goes on. What are you basing your claims on?
With regard to conservatives being rigid and emotional I'd have to plead guilty on that one Akeel. Legal institutionalized infanticide does tend to bring about in me "rigid and emotional" opposition. What about all of the liberals who so "rigidly and emotional" defend this abhorent practice Akeel?
36 - Josh
Overall, I do have to agree with Arch Conservative. Under the sheep-skins of tolerance, the Left's major arguments come from off-the-sly, ad hominem points. Like Arch said, instead of justifying their views on homosexuality, they instead turn to calling people "homophobes". In terms of abortion, they return to the erroneous image of pro-lifers as "control freaks" who just "want to impose their wills on others".
37 - Jet in Columbus
"The problem I have is when someone tries to counter these points with conservative points of view they are ridiculed, labelled with all kinds of pejorative labels such as homophobe, racist or something similiar."
...and exactly what are you trying to do with the rest of that rant, pay them a compliment?
38 - Mike
Akeel's observations about colleges are correct. College is indeed a forum where students learn to challenge tradition and excercise free thought. Naturally most students get carried away with this, and become staunch left-wingers.
Also, as Arch said, these same people rebuke any conservative view that clashes against their own.
For the record, I'm not a conservative, liberal, democrat, or republican. I am not a progressive either. I am a regressive.
Regressives:
Anti Women's rights
Anti gun control
Anti govermental protest.
Pro slavery
Pro KUSA
Motto: Bringing America back to the way it was in 1775.
39 - Jet in Columbus
Are you serious with the first paragraph of #32 Akeel? There are critics on this site that think that Jerry Falwell's Liberty University is a leftist liberalist University!!! and that Pat Robertson is just a shill for the Democrats to give the right-wing a bad name!
40 - Arch Conservative
Ummm......Jet..........
Where in the "rest of my rant" did i state that pro-choicers should be silienced as they have tried to silence conservatives?
Mike I don't know what to make of you.
41 - Jet in Columbus
Um....Con? Comment 39 had 46 words in it. Where did I mention pro-choicers or conservatives?
42 - Bryan McKay
Arch Conservative: I'd like to point out that I'm at undergraduate university now and we are in fact learning "Hobbes, Rousseau, Mill, Marx, Foucault" and other wide ranging thinkers as Natalie Bennett suggested. Yes, there is sometimes a liberal bias at the university level and I myself attend a very liberal university, but to say we aren't exposed to other views is wrong. We may be taught to be skeptical of more conservative viewpoints, but we are still reasonably well informed. And you'd be surprised how few people really get taught Marx well these days.
43 - Thomas M. Sipos
Without taking preferences, I can see how both Longman and Bennett are simultaneously correct, and the outcome of their mutually supportive theories.
Low-birth rate societies are indeed more economically and technologically advanced (as Bennett suggests) than patriarchies that encourage early marriage and fertility. But it will be the decendant immigrants of the patriarchs that inherit those technologically advanced societies generations down the road.
For better or worse.