Category Archives: Argument

Conservative Argument From Feelings Against Fem Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action, Ann Coulter, Argument, Conservatism, Feminism, Gender, Reason

Presumably pursuant to the posts “Conservatives and Lefties United Against The Beauty Ideal” and “With Some Exceptions, ‘Women Are Fascists At Heart,’” Ben Cohen of “American Thinker” has been kind enough to send me his piece, “The Legitimacy of White Male Anger.”

Thanks.

My problem, however, with “The Legitimacy of White Male Anger” is its non-stop apologetics, which come close to accepting the premise of “gender parity through affirmative action,” provided women are a little more gracious about all the concessions they are getting.

“Those demanding that more women be hired in various academic fields” are “sanctimonious and callous,” “blatantly self-serving”; not nice, demanding.

This amounts to psychologizing, not arguing.

Moreover, why is it “bad” for men to have given an “unfriendly reception” to women who’ve been forcibly integrated into the traditionally male trades?

If they don’t deserve to be on the job, on merit, why does friendliness matter; why is it the focus here? And why have men taken to arguing like women? (“You hurt my feelings. Be nice.” Or, “do feminists ever stop and consider the men’s perspective?”)

It’s disconcerting.

As an individualist, I am all for recruiting your lesbian, Amazonian lady to the traditionally male occupations. She is a rare creature who can match men in physicality. Seek her. Keep her. In an increasingly feminized, soft society, warrior women need the military, for example, as an outlet for their abilities. Let these women join the police, military or the fire brigade. An exception, not the rule, however, is the woman who can match a man in strength, speed, physical endurance and handiness.

So why on earth is male “unfriendliness” toward women who force them to do double duty on the job relevant? Even the woman-glorifying, TV cop series we all watch can’t help but display men outrunning their partners, catching up to the criminal, pummeling the thug, and saving the more feeble female cop’s life.

A male cop who serves along a 100 pound woman with silicone for breasts is risking his life. Receiving her with hostility into the force is hardly the issue here. Neither is it wrong.

I hardly think an “unfriendly” reception is the crux of the matter in the grander program of engineered gender parity.

Read “Freeze! I Just Had My Nails Done!” by Ann Coulter, where she gets straight to the matter:

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? … The inestimable economist John Lott has looked at the actual data. (And I’ll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., “Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime,” Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)

It turns out that, far from “de-escalating force” through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won’t reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott’s analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent. …

MORE.

UPDATED (May 7, 2021): GOP Tit-For-Tat Twits

Argument, Barack Obama, Democrats, Feminism, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Reason, Republicans

No, the president does not have to weigh in on sexual scandals. Why should he? (Besides, Obama seems a bit of a prude. That’s good.) If you objected to Obama’s sermon on Trayvon (I did), but think he should weigh in on Weiner, on what grounds do you deny him his Trayvon intervention? I like it when the president puts a lid on it.

The empaneled bimbos on Fox News—where do they find such dumb women? CNN?—have been outshouting each other to protest the president’s silence on the sexual transgressions of The Weiner and the possible criminal misconduct of The Filner.

The arguments the Democratic and Republican factions advance exist on a continuum. There is no qualitative difference between them. Right now, both Republican and Democratic women seem to agree that everyone, including the president, has to be in full-throated protest mode about those who violate the “isms” in the manual of political correctness.

True individualists would never even dignify the category of “sexual harassment.” Touching someone as Filner did without consent is an assault. It doesn’t matter if the assaulted is man, woman, or someone in-between.

But Republicans are as dazed and confused as the rival gang, reducing wrong-doing to these PC “isms,” and partaking in the silly tit-for-tat: “No, you’re a sexist, I’m not. No, Democrats are racists; we’re the party of Lincoln.” Blah-blah. Pathetic.

Republicans have now turned around and are using the “sexism” and war on women bugbear to try and gain a political advantage. Ridiculous. How ridiculous? Silly enough to make JAY CARNEY that broken clock that is right twice a day:

I understand the allure of issues like this in the media, but it is not what — and I do understand it, and I’m not being critical of it. But I’m saying that the President believes his job is not to comment on those issues, …

UPDATE (8/3/013): Huge concession to Fred Cummins, on Facebook: OK, Fred, most, not all, the women on Fox are terribly dense, loud bimbos. I’ve documented that extensively. Exceptions? Gretta on Fox and EMac on Fox Biz, as well as Gerri Willis and Melissa Francis. I’m not far off.

Prior Restraint Arguments As Pretex To Watch YOU

Argument, Constitution, Homeland Security, Individual Rights, Intelligence, Law, Liberty, Rights, Socialism, Terrorism, The State

If we accept state aggression based on prior restraint arguments, then aggress we must ad absurdum. Why not stop all statists from procreating, lest they sire proponents of state theft and aggression? Such a program would at least be in furtherance of liberty. (And we could all do with fewer Meghan McCains.)

Prior restraint arguments are being galvanized as justification for nation-wide information sweeps conducted by the state for over a decade. Another cow, “Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to be preventing this sort of overreaching,” said “that the authorities need this information in case someone might become a terrorist in the future.”

It is quite telling that the story about the “NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily” was broken by Glenn Greenwald (an American) writing for The Guardian (British).

Most serious libertarians have been shouting about state snooping from the rooftops for over a decade. Now you’re listening! I already told you weeks back that there was absolutely nothing new about state snooping.

Via The Guardian:

Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale under President Obama.
The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.
The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the publication of the court order.
The court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public either the existence of the FBI’s request for its customers’ records, or the court order itself.
“We decline comment,” said Ed McFadden, a Washington-based Verizon spokesman.

(I believe “Entertainment Interruptus,” published on November 28, 2001, was my first column touching on the The Patriot Act.)

Liberty Fund Conference

Argument, Britain, Classical Liberalism, Free Speech, Ilana Mercer, Liberty, Political Economy, Political Philosophy

I was fortunate to be asked to attend a Liberty Fund colloquium entitled “History, Citizenship and Patriotism in Liberal Democracy.” Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. The Foundation develops, supervises, and finances its own educational activities to foster thought and encourage discourse on enduring issues pertaining to liberty.”

In the idyllic and breathtaking setting of the Ockenden Manor in Cuckfield, West Sussex, England, I got to exchange ideas with some of the finest scholars in Britain (and the U.S., considering the dynamic presence of Liberty Fund’s representative). Oxbridge at its best. The intimate format—only fifteen people partook—was not only conducive to the exploration of ideas, but to the formations of, I hope, enduring friendships. The lovely English countryside and Elizabethan Manor house (to say nothing of the gourmet food with which we were plied) provided the perfect backdrop to what was a most exhilarating event.