The downfall of civilization: women

Great Debates
1

This has disturbed me deeply. Perhaps this belongs in the Pit, as I’m so mad I could just spit, but I’d like to see what you good people have to say about such an issue.

Let me explain–I received this URL as part of an industry-specific email group of which I am a member. The article was written for an online magazine, The New Criterion, which I have heard is presided over by aging white conservative males. However, I do not know this for sure–leave it to say perhaps that explains the content.

The whole of the article is posted at http://newcriterion.com/archive/19/apr01/minogue.htm, but an excerpt is below.

“What does seem to be clear…is that women do not have this capacity to innovate. It has been men who have invented things and found challenges in nature, such as climbing high mountains or sailing alone around the world. And once men have done it, women will also do it. These remain highly notable enterprises…beyond the reach of all but a few men, but…also exemplify…that innovation remains largely the specialization of white males. Women can do marvellous things with a house, but they do need the house to be there in the first place.”

The article itself is more of the same, and goes so far as to blame feminism as the downfall of Western civilization. Okay…

I’m not a radical feminist, nor do I agree that men and women have the same abilities. And I do agree with some of the points made in the article above–namely that men and women do not have the same physical abilities and cannot equally do some jobs. However, to say that women are responsible for the downfall of society reeks of the same paternalistic garbage that women have been fed for centuries.

The article notes that women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in military avenues–it weakens the fighting force and debases masculinity. Besides, <biting sarcasm>it’s dirty, tough work that no self respecting female would want to do</biting sarcasm>. Yes, Mr. Minogue, I can see how pulling the hair triggers and pressing detonation buttons common in today’s military is a tough job reserved only for a strong man. Please, I’m not criticising the military–their job is more difficult than I can possible imagine (which is why I’m not in it!) and I value their service and sacrifice–but if women want to be in there, why can’t they? Can you honestly say that women are less qualified to fly plains, read and send reconnaissance communiques, understand radar, and carry out general warfare? Due to lack of brute strength, perhaps they’re less able to go on ground invasions, but come on. In addition, I’ve read of studies (no, I don’t have a cite now, but I’ll look) that one of the reason for keeping women out of the military is that men are less able to emotionally handle the sight of a woman killed in combat–apparently the Israelis tried it and had soldiers weeping over killed female comrades, unable to continue, because they were reminded of mothers, sisters, wives. (I’m not trying to be explosive, this is just what I’ve read and it sounds reasonable to me.)

In other words, ick. Ick, ick, ick. This mindset makes me sick. Perhaps if Mr. Minogue could spend a few months as a minority instead of the priveliged white male he is, he’d see the very real struggle they live.

What do you think?

Snickers

2

How does that explain its content?

3

As a man, he is a minority. There are more women than men.

For the record, I didn’t read the article yet but I do not believe women are responsible for the downfall of civilization (well, no more than men are anyway).

4

“Women. Can’t live with 'em, can’t shoot 'em.”
– Stephen Wright

5

Snickers, let me present you with another perspective in order to ease your emotional outrage…

  1. The article was written by ONE person…ONE person’s viewpoint doesn’t necessarily reflect the majorities’ collective attitude. Out of the 6 billion people on earth, that writer’s voice is only ONE voice.

  2. The editorial staff [if your description was correct] could be biased. If a magazine article was written by demons, and Lucifer was the Editor-in-Chief, would you expect to read kind words and praises about God?

  3. Having one lone voice’s viewpoint printed in a magazine article with a wide-reaching distribution gives the article the appearance of having credibility…just because it has been published. Junk is junk. If an person wrote an irrational article and it was printed in 2,000 newspapers, the article would still be irrational and illogical.

  4. In the paragraph that you quoted from the article, there are statements that can obviously be proven false…or claims that were made in which the writer offers no convincing proof.

  5. Just because something is in print doesn’t mean that people who read it will agree with it. Each individual who reads it will make up their own mind about the article’s validity. Have faith in other readers’ intelligence.

The moral of the story is: Let the man write what he wants, let him express his beliefs in the manner that he needs to express them…but at the same time, the reader needs to consider the source of the writing and the validity of the claims and [puesdo]logic that is being presented. If the reader does his or her job…junk will be revealed as…junk.

Snickers, I hope my answer helped you.

6

White Male here–unfortunately I can claim no innovations such as those listed by Mr. Minogue, unless I can count my invention of a Reeses Peanut Butter Cup cereal (before there was such as thing) by combining Cocoa Pebbles and Peanut Butter Crunch.

I guess two things trouble me about the article you referenced. One is the utterly narrow view of human history. Secondly, Minogue seems to subscribe to the idea that what “is” is what “should” be–Hume’s naturalistic fallacy.

In reference to the first, Does Mr. Minogue have any recollection of such non-European cultures as the Egyptian, Aztec, Mayan, Incan, or Ancient Chinese? To presume that only the past 700 years or so of human history reveal some true story of who’s who seem laughably shortsighted. In reference to women, I wonder what he thinks of Marie Curie, Joan of Arc, Jane Addams, and Rachel Carson?

My second point is a little more difficult to extract, but I’ll give it a shot. I get the sense that Mr. Minogue has the sense that because men have traditionally been found in the public sphere and women traditionally in the private sphere then this is the way that things should be–one of the clearest examples of the Naturalistic Fallacy AKA Hume’s Law. Simply stated the naturalistic fallacy says, “No ‘is’ implies an ‘ought’.” What this means is that morality–however we define it–cannot be derived merely from factual claims. As such, because women have been those who tended the home then they should continue to be–clearly problematic. Consider another illustration from April 1865 as the American Civil War draws to a close. Because Europeans and Americans of European descent have for some time enslaved peoples from the African continent, then we should continue to do so. Mr. Minogue argues that civilization has become morally corrupt because women are not doing what they should. However, his view of what women should do is itself based on a faulty premise. John Stuart Mill (most often cited in reference to his philosophy of Utilitarianism) authored an essay titled, “The Subjugation of Women”, from which I offer this quote:

“…the legal subordination of one sex to the other–is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, or disability on the other.”

Mr. Minogue seems to interpret the desire for women to become more a part of the public sphere as some failure of civilization. Mill, on the other hand, would see this as a great triumph in which all of humanity wins–not just women.

All that said, I enjoy reading such crap as Mr. Minogue’s article because it give me a chance to dust of some old philosophy books and reacquaint myself with Mill, Hume and G.E. Moore.

7

I skimmed the article, and it sounds to me like the old boy establishment (if indeed there is such a thing and they run this publication) is feeling some insecurity and needs to bolster their egos. Sounds a little reactionary and panic-y to me.

Of course, I’m a feminazi, so what would I know? :smiley:

8

I’m not sure if I’m happy or mad at his continued use of the words “radical feminist” On one hand, he at least implies that there is a feminist centrist that perhaps doesn’t spell women with a ‘Y.’ On the other hand, he seems to think all feminism is radical - since the work outside the home, pursue a degree thing seems to get him.

I also what he thinks about the “3rd wave” movement - a group that embraces the feminine along with the feminist.

And Mr. Harding, thank you.

9

May or may not be relevant to any debate here, but I found the list of editors under About the New Criterion on their main page. No big surprise there - four male editors, one female assistant to the editors.

::Wonders if female assistant read this article, and if it affected her morale::

10

Whew…“conservative” is right! He seems to be resurrecting the amusing late-Victorian belief, prevalent in Western Europe and the U.S., that the minions of Eve (Adam’s chick, not the poster) be pushed down so that the Masculine Ideal can be upheld.

The best scholarly text about this phenom is Bram Djkstra’s IDOLS OF PERVERSITY (Oxford), which puts depictions of the Female in the fin-de-siecle Fine Arts in its historical perspective. Max Nordau’s delightfully wacky DEGENERATION (1892), a primary text, is happily back in print through the University of Nebraska Press.

11

My pleasure.

12

Dangerosa wrote:

From “Top 10 Things You Never Heard People Say During the Teapot-Dome Scandal”?

13

jharding --> Exactly. Thank you and well done.

mikey --> You’re right. Just because it’s published doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. But the fact that it is published in an online magazine that has an audience that agrees largely with that magazine’s set of values means that some, if not most, of that audience does agree with it. And that bothers me. I can see some one holed up saying, “you know, that old boy’s onto something.” There are people out there that agree with it, spout it out, and generally live their lives by it. Not that we’re all not entitled to our own opinions and way of life, but that people would choose to agree with such garbage saddens me. It’s the same sort of reason we all get worked up about Chick tracks, entertaining as they may be.

Another thing occurred to me while reading the article: “History is written by the victors.” Minogue, being one of the victors, clearly buys into “might makes right,” that what history is must show what’s the right way (similar to your viewpoint, jharding!). Not necessarily. How different would history be if there were other victors? How different our view if the downtrodden had the opportunity to express themselves? But oh, since women (or any ethnic group) weren’t allowed to be the accepted, the powerful, the intrepid, they must have been content with their lot all around. Ick.

Being a white female myself, I know that I’m priveliged in ways others aren’t. But I still struggle knowing that I’ll not make as much as a male in my profession, that I’ll hit a glass ceiling, that I’ll be looked down upon by either co-workers or family (or both) for choosing to be a working mom (when and if that happens!), that Mr. Snicks will constantly expect me to start the housework and the dishes and the cooking first before he decides to get up off the damn couch, and on and on. The consulting firm I’m employed with just hired 5 women of 19 new hires (it’s a technology/IT company, and our upper management is strictly white male. And I’m one of the priveliged white ones! Mr. Snicks goes on about how minorities get all the breaks, how it should be strict equality based only on ability, but unfortunately, it’s not that way. And he doesn’t see it because he is in the priveliged while male majority–the one that’s shaped the western world. Do you see what I mean? If he could live awhile in another’s shoes, maybe he’d see that mindset that so permeates western culture. It’s subtle, but it’s there and it’s invasive. And it’s hard to deal with.
Snicks

14

Just found another tidbit from my friend J.S. Mill:

“… I deny that any one knows, or can know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present relation to one another. If men had ever been found in a society without women, or women without men, or if there had been a society of men and women in which the women were not under the control of the men, something might have been positively known about the mental and moral differences which may be inherent in the nature of each. What is now called the nature of women is an eminently artificial thing…”

Though not specifically tied to the central topic of this thread, there are a number of interesting books on the feminist contribution to ethical theory. As ethics is a study of should’s and ought’s, the following pieces would quite sufficiently undermine Mr. Minogue’s conceptions of what women and men both should be doing.

Clement, Grace. 1998. “Care, Autonomy, and Justice: Feminism and the Ethic of Care.” Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Gilligan, Carol. 1982. “In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hill, Virginia, ed. 1995. “Justice and Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics.” Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Noddings, Nel. 1984. “Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education.” Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Tronto, Joan. 1993. “Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care.” New York: Routledge.

15

Most of you folks are taking this whole piece way too seriously. I wandered back to the magazine and its table of contents and looked up several other articles.

Every article is, in one way or another, a lament that the “right people” no longer rule the world or a puff piece that snickers at the obvious fatuousness of anything modern.

These are just tired old fearful men writing plaintive pleas for the world to go back to the “good times.”

Some of the pieces were well written and some made a few good points, but the general tone was that of a nursing home filled with retired English teachers who had neer made piece with Faulkner.

16

Yi-yi-yi. I only skimmed the article; life is really too short to have to read something like that. From what I can tell though, the article was heavy on hazy generalizations (not to mention paranoia) but light on fact.

But jeez Snicker, I have to giggle a bit at your concerns. The New Criterion are a journal dedicated to literary criticism for gosh sakes. This is not an old boy network mag; it’s not Forbes, it ain’t the Wall Street Journal. And I don’t think that a retired political science professor from LSE (isn’t Google grand?) can be counted as one of the victors.

In fact, based upon a search in google, I think the guy is hilarious. The British University isn’t what it used to be -it caters to too many “job-crazed proletariat in search of credentials”. The movie American Beauty contains elements that are, “part of that fundamental drive in our civilization to make everybody join the club of self-acceptance by letting it all hang out.” This apparently led to the decline in our professions.

A member of an elder generation complains about social change. Snore.

As for Jack Chick, It wouldn’t surprise me if his circulation was a thousand times that of The New Criterion. And I doubt whether there are very many people who shape their lives around any lit crit magazine.

17

Because women were ‘put down’ in the past then men have created most things BUT only because women were not allowed to.

These days women are free and do create and contribute as much as men.

Its a load of sexist crap to say otherwise.

Military - mmm, russia israel etc… lots of places have women in there military.

Women astronauts, etc. etc.

18

It sounds like we’ve already torn apart the article really well. However, I’m curious about the guy’s insistence that our society is on the brink of destruction. Last time I looked around, western civilization seemed to be doing just fine, yet people are always lamenting its downfall. If women or anybody else has been destroying it for so long, why isn’t it gone already?

19

Women that serve in the military are kept separate from the men because the quality of the force diminishes when women are present. As you pointed out above, the diminishing quality is caused not by flaws with the women, but flaws with the men. Nonetheless, because many men will become worse soldiers when women are present, it is necessary to keep the women separate. There is nothing wrong with having all female platoons, but mixing the two sexes causes problems that are more easily avoided than fixed. We would have to change the way men are taught to think about women in our culture in order for the mixing of the two sexes to work. Although I would consider it a good thing for all people to consider the death of a woman the same as the death of a man, most people don’t. Killing women and children is still considered worse than killing men. There is also the factor that female soldiers captured by the enemy are more likely to be raped than male soldiers and this causes the male soldiers to be more protective of the female soldiers than they should be (which lowers the overall effectiveness of the group).

That makes you an innovative genius in my book :slight_smile:

I always thought she was some loony religious person that heard voices that she referred to as “God.”

I assume that “womyn” is singular so I guess that makes the plural “womyns.” Although I suppose they could spell it “womynz” if they want. When you’re making up words there are no rules. (Or is “womin” singular?)

The ceiling has holes in it. If you are lucky, you will find one. You can create your own luck if you bring a glass-cutter.

Anyone that would look down on you for that reason has an opinion not worth respecting.

If women didn’t marry people that thought like that, they wouldn’t be able to teach it to their sons and the frame of mind would die out. Men that think like that were meant to die alone.

20

I’ve heard just the opposite, and from a female combat infantry officer no less. Her English wasn’t so hot, but her point of view on it was that mixing the two actually spurs the men to greater performance, so as not to be outdone by a giirl. She even gave a for-instance: there was this squad of slackers, who got along doing only the bare minimum necessary. As an experiment, an experienced, capable female soldier was inserted into the group. Upon seeing her pull her own weight, and a lot of theirs, they quit slacking very quickly and the team coalesced into an efficient force. She had a lot of interesting things to say about authority and trust between genders, too. To summarize, that a woman had to work harder to earn the respect of men but, once gained, they were trusting and loyal to an almost religious extent.

If you’re going to argue for altered performance, this theory holds the more water to me, because I’ve seen it very often, in person. You can go out to -any- sports gathering and see it in action. My personal opinion is that the strengths and weaknesses of each gender offers its own perils and advantages to a military. The good goes with the bad, and to ignore that for either gender is simply viewing the world through blinders. The military here should end this stupid restriction on who’s got a penis, who likes penises, etc, and focus on what really matters: who’s qualified and capable. Period.

[/hijack]