Re: The following article
One more example of why ideologies based on the primacy of "freedom"
are wholly inadequate. Freedom for what? Freedom from what?
Everyone here values freedom, that isn't in any real question about it, is
there?
No-one wants to be oppressed, to not have freedom, to be under someone's
control. But that kind of freedom is "operational," it assumes that the
reason
freedom is good is so that The Good can be realized in our lives.
We wish to be free so that we can do what is good and right.
When "freedom" becomes the whole purpose of an ideology, however,
what happens to The Good? It vanishes, that's what happens.
There also can be, and are, different kinds of freedom as Absolute Good
and, with freedom per se as the apex of all considerations, how does one
judge whether one version of freedom is better or worse than another?
Besides, all versions of "freedom first" are ridiculously simplistic.
Is the government The Enemy and that explains all evil in the world?
Among the many troubles with this outlook is the fact that the government
is hardly indistinguishable from the economic interests that run it, which
is to say finance capital, or the legal interests that demand conformity
to
its rules, which is to say the legal profession. Yet libertarians rarely
or never say anything at all about either finance capital or lawyers.
Can anyone take their critique seriously?
Then there are the Anarchists and feminists and their versions of freedom.
In each case we get freedom run amok, with no standards of judgement
at all except personal preference. And in any case, whether Anarchists
or feminists or libertarians, we get no sense of community, no
acknowledgement
that other people, as members of a community, have any claim to rights
at all since everything boils down to the individual. Which is
preposterous.
And there is the mere fact that "freedom first" ideologies deny any value
to
religious faith except maybe insofar as religion maybe should be a private
solace in times of personal travail, or maybe have ceremonial uses, as
at weddings and funerals.
Here is a Bible verse to reflect upon:
" 'I am free to do anything', you say. Yes, but not everything is for my
good.
No doubt I am free to do anything, but I for one will not let anything
make free with me."
I Corinthians 6: 12
This says it all. Unless something is good -judged by some objective
standard-
then being free to do it, as a principle, has no value or even negative
value.
That is, freedom may result in evil. Freedom as an Absolute is an
absurdity.
And now we are getting "transgender rights" as the latest Great Cause of
the
political Left. If this does not make the point that freedom in and of
itself
is ridiculous as the organizing principle of an ideology what will?
Do you like living in a civilization? Then the question necessarily is:
What is the best form of government? NOT: How can we get rid
of government?
Here is another Bible verse to take to heart:
"Submit yourselves to every human institution for the sake of the Lord,
whether to the sovereign as supreme, or to the governor as his deputy
for the punishment of criminals and the commendation of those who do right.
For it is the will of God that by your good conduct you should put
ignorance
and stupidity to silence. Live as free men; not however as though your
freedom
were there to provide a screen for wrongdoing, but as slaves in God's
service.
Give due honour to everyone: love to the brotherhood, reverence to God,
honour to the sovereign."
I Peter 2 : 13 - 17
There is nothing here about government as a necessary evil. Other
translations
use the word "emperor" instead of sovereign. Christians should even be
loyal
to a government like that of the Roman Empire. This hardly says that
we should not seek to reform government, to improve it in any ways
open to us, but it does say that government is necessary
and that it is part of God's plan.
This should not be in any doubt whatsoever.
Billy
===================================
NY Post
Scenes from the feminist implosion
By _Naomi Schaefer Riley_ (http://nypost.com/author/naomi-schaefer-riley/)
*
August 4, 2014 | 9:52pm
If you want to see why modern feminism is in crisis, look no further than
Michelle Goldberg’s _piece_
(http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2) in the latest New
Yorker.
She describes how transgender activists are protesting the gatherings of
the group “RadFem Responds” with “acts of vandalism — stealing electrical
cables, cutting water pipes, keying cars in the parking lot, and
spray-painting a six-foot penis, and the words ‘Real Women Have D–ks,’ on the
side of
the main kitchen tent.”
Wait. What?
The radical feminists are under attack because they don’t accept in their
ranks people born as biological men but now convinced they’re women. The
RadFemmers argue that the transgendered just aren’t oppressed enough to gain
membership.
Goldberg explains their position: “Anyone born a man retains male privilege
in society; even if he chooses to live as a woman — and accept a
correspondingly subordinate social position — the fact that he has a choice
means
that he can never understand what being a woman is really like.”
Got that?
Yet the RadFem women are apparently in the minority. Most young Women’s
Studies majors consider the transgendered to be whatever the transgendered say
they are. As Goldberg also reports, an abortion-access group staffed
mostly by 20-something volunteers recently “voted unanimously to stop using
the
word ‘women’ when talking about people who get pregnant, so as not to
exclude trans men. ‘We recognize that people who identify as men can become
pregnant and seek abortions,’ the group’s new Statement of Values says.”
If you’re not sure which side of this intrafeminist debate sounds more
absurd, you’re not alone.
It’s no wonder the hashtag #WomenAgainstFeminism has become so popular. It’
s not because, as one Daily Beast column argues, these women “don’t
understand feminism.” It’s because they understand feminism and so know that
this ideology has nothing to do with their lives.
Jessica Valenti, writing in the Guardian, expressed outrage that more and
more women seem to be jumping the feminist ship. How could they? “
Anti-feminist organizing is based on a deep hypocrisy and selfishness — an
ideology
built to assure conservative women that as long as they are doing just fine,
other women will make do.
“And they’re putting up roadblocks to progress right in the middle of a
renewed feminist awakening, with retrograde sexism that’s ultimately not too
different than that of their male counterparts.”
Actually, most conservative women don’t think women are doing just fine. We
think that women have suffered as a result of a culture that sees casual
sex as empowering, as a result of a liberal project in which government
attempted to replace men in the home and as a result of female leaders who
undervalue the jobs that women do in the home and then spill gallons of ink
wondering why women can’t have it all.
The good news is that more and more women may simply see feminism as
irrelevant if not downright harmful to the interests of women (and families).
Even the label “pro-choice” is falling out of favor, as Cecile Richards,
the president of Planned Parenthood, _told_
(http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/us/politics/advocates-shun-pro-choice-to-expand-message.html?_r=1&refer
rer=) The New York Times last week: “I just think the ‘pro-choice’
language doesn’t really resonate particularly with a lot of young women
voters.”
“Choice” used to be the pithy encapsulation not just of women’s desire to
have unlimited access to abortion, but also of feminism more generally.
Interesting that it’s just not doing it for the younger crowd any more.
The Times chalks this up to the idea that younger people don’t like “
labels,” yet there’s not much evidence that the term “pro-life” is suffering.
Perhaps it’s because “pro-life” implies you value something beyond
individual autonomy.
But just like the rest of feminism, the term “choice” is fraught with
contradiction:
We want you to value individual autonomy above all else — except when we
want you to reject certain choices you might make in favor of solidarity
with other women.
We want you to see women as victims of everyone and everything — even
though feminism is supposed to be empowering.
We want you to express your true nature as women — except we’d prefer you
throw the men and children in your lives under the bus.
All of this doublespeak may simply be too much for the younger generation.
And so, to the feminist leaders out there, I can only say: Keep talking,
ladies.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
