In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Literary RIPs | Main | Foujita, the Serious Show-off »

July 24, 2008

Un-PC Reading 2.5

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Back here I linked to a bravely un-PC column by Kevin Myers asking why the West bothers trying to save Africa. Hibernia Girl points out that Myers has written a followup column, and another, both of them as un-PC as the original column.

* Don't miss Hibernia Girl's shrewd musings about why some societies require their women to cover their hair.

* Back here I wrote about how much I value the work of the journalist Steve Sailer, who is so un-PC that he barely registers on the MSM's radar screen. I'm pleased to notice that Steve got a substantial mention in a recent CNN article about Barack Obama. As I wrote on Steve's blog, "I've long suspected that many in the MSM read Steve Sailer. Here's hoping that more of them will start to come out of the closet."

* Back here I linked to some un-PC essays about current relations between the sexes by F. Roger Devlin. The smart and funny Roissy has picked up on Devlin and has written a provocative blog posting about the essays. Don't miss the commentsthread on Roissy's posting -- or for that matter the commentsthread on this brief warmup posting: It's Thursday vs. Clio. Perhaps F. Roger Devlin's ideas are on their way to becoming full-fledged memes. Here's Devlin's latest. Thanks once again to 2Blowhards commenter "anon," who introduced us to Devlin's writing.

* More on dating, singlehood, pairing-up, women, and men. (Link thanks to Cheryl Miller.)

* The Rawness attempts to explain why some women have a hard time getting hitched, part one. The Rawness is always a rockin' read.

* How will Obama win over the elderly Jews?



posted by Michael at July 24, 2008


You're welcome, again; sorry I wasn't around to read your Devlin post and the huge thread, till just now. What a ride! Just about every commenter on both the main topic and the tangents had some valid points. This is why I don't watch TV, and why I participate in the Internet, instead.

Posted by: anon on July 24, 2008 1:18 AM

The Devlin debate over at Roissy was so interesting that I actually read Devlin's "Utopia" piece. I hadn't realized that so many young men desperately want a good wife and can't find one.

As unfortunate as it was to lose Myrna, I was so blessed to have her.

I wish that I had some sage advice to give all those young men. It really isn't as easy as saying: "Find yourself a Filipina." You've got to find the right one. Whether or not to look for a recent immigrant or bring one over from the homeland... well, that's an issue, too. And, so many of those young men won't be willing to play out their side of the equation, which is to agree to play by the old rules of morality and hard work. If you marry a traditional Filipina and continue to live like an American fuck up, you are in for absolute hell. I've seen it. A traditional Filipina is going to expect you to behave like a man.

What I liked about the Devlin piece was that he pointed out that feminism is just another in the long history of revolutions that refuse to acknowledge the reality of humans. We are irrational animals as well as intellectual creatures. Our traditions and religions evolved with us. The purposes of those traditions and religions are not easily explained. Destroy them and you'll find out why they existed.

Chris, I'm going to frame these issues for you in a different way. Before my first wife (a white woman) died, I was completely shielded from the craziness of the feminist era. I also had two daughters at home. So, I was also surrounded by adoring females who constantly complimented me on what a good man I was. You are, I think, in a very similar situation.

After my first wife died, all that insulation was removed. I ventured back out into a world gone mad. As a single man in search of a wife, I suddenly acquired an entirely different status that allowed me to see precisely the damage that feminism had done to men and women. Could it be, Chris, that you just don't see what's going on outside your happy home? Could it be that, while you profess to hippie liberalism, you are really playing entirely by the traditional rules?

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on July 24, 2008 7:07 AM

Myers has written a followup column, and another, both of them as un-PC as the original column

Good for Myers. Perhaps he learned from earlier examples that apologizing, explainig, and backpedaling at best has no effect and at worst puts the sharks in a feeding frenzy.

Posted by: PA on July 24, 2008 8:42 AM

That posting by The Rawness is interesting, but may be contradicted by the fact that a woman's likelihood of being married increases as her educational level and income increases.

Posted by: Peter on July 24, 2008 10:08 AM

Wow, a preemptive response from ST, I guess I've arrived. I've embraced the hippie liberal label around here because, relative to any other labels, it is close enough. Many of my comments have noted that I find easy dualities ... right vs. left, black vs. white, liberal vs. conservative ... to be, if not totally meaningless, then at least hopelessly distracting abstractions that seldom connect to the complexity of the 3D world I see around me. I blend hippie-liberal, New England conservative, libertarian, socialist, green, utopian, and other influences into a whole that, while I doubt it is truly unique, I don't think is easily encapsulated in a quick label.

I (half) jokingly note that I had an orthodox hippie wedding. My wife and the MOH made their own dresses and my peasant shirt. I embroidered my shirt and made the wedding cake (showing my feminine side). Friends picked wildflowers for the bridal bouquet. While in those days it was too convoluted and unusual to do so legally, I urged my wife to continue to use her maiden name everywhere possible. (She shares a first name with my mother, which might have had something to do with that decision, and as a performer her family name is more unique and therefore memorable.) I've always done most of the cooking and we shared child raising duties more than is traditional, so I'm not sure my marriage has been as traditional as ST's, but who's to know what goes on with someone else behind the walls of their family home?

You're right that having been out of the dating and mate-finding game for nearly 40 years my sense of it is different than if I were actively seeking a partner now. I follow things at a step remove through my daughter's trials and tribulations. So far she's had little luck finding a guy who excites her hormonally while meeting her interest in finding a caring, evolved human for a life partner. She sometimes suggests it might be better if we still practiced arranged marriage.

And on another topic, Myers columns have been excellent. That he would be accused of "hate speech" is sad, absurd and an abomination to freedom of thought and expression. Myers is articulating a cogent and thought provoking point of view that needs wider discussion, not a gag order. While there are plenty of folks out there who might well be guilty of "hate speech" the two best responses are ignoring them or refuting them. To censor or punish them is not "liberal" nor is it PC, censorship is wrong ... full stop.

Posted by: Chris White on July 24, 2008 10:28 AM

T from The Rawness here. In response to Peter, I admit I am not going by hard evidence here but rather anecdotal, so I may be wrong, but from personal observation I notice a woman's chances of getting married definitely go up with an undergraduate degree. However if she goes straight to grad school afterwards, I find the chances of getting married seem to go down unless she's willing to lower her standards, at least from personal observation of women in my life. Another exception I find is women who manage to get married before or while still in grad school. But among women I know who went all the way through grad school without getting married or at least picking up a fiance along the way, getting married seems to be very hard for them.

Posted by: T. on July 24, 2008 1:55 PM

"...a caring, evolved human being for a life partner."

Madness! That's not what men are here for. Or should be here for. If she finds a man who is purposive, who has a purpose, who WANTS! that's enough. The rest - or part of the rest - will follow.

Posted by: ricpic on July 24, 2008 4:28 PM

ricpic - I will pass your opinion on to the Daughter Unit ... who has shown herself remarkably resistant to any words of advice or criticism from her Dad, especially in the realm of relationships. I was pulling for the slightly older English chap with the law degree who already owned his London flat and a place in the country, but he failed to pass some kind of muster with her. Ah well, what can a father do?

Posted by: Chris White on July 24, 2008 6:28 PM

"...a caring, evolved human being for a life partner."

That is a godawful formulation, Chris.

First, it makes her sound like a lesbian. (Forgive my blunt statement). Perhaps she should be looking for a "husband." I get the feeling that this is an ideological issue with you. You felt compelled to equate your daughter's search for a husband with a homosexual relationship. I get the point. It's kind of silly and fatuous, but I get the point.

I think that we're all "evolved" to just about the same point, unless what you mean is, once again, conforming to some sort of ideology. In Woodstock, when they use this term they are, in fact, referring to the old Marxist concept of "false consciousness." Those burdened with that false consciousness obviously do not understand and accept all leftist propaganda. Those who have overcome this false consciousness have "evolved."

Have you read the Devlin piece on Sexual Utopia? I don't know your daughter, but your description of her evokes many of the issues he raises... in particular the tendency of young women to overvalue themselves and, consequently, fail to respond adequately to a good man.

I sent the Devlin piece to my daughter because she's having the same problem. Now that she's over 30, she's become brutally aware that she wants a husband and a family, and she's becoming equally aware the what she's been doing isn't working. Her explanation:

"Men are idiots."

I'm not so sure that men are idiots. The Devlin piece does a good job of explaining this male "idiocy." I've suggested to her that she join church, because she's more likely to find a husband in church.

I want grandchildren... lots of them. I'm not particularly interested in whether my daughters' husbands pass the "sensitivity" or "evolved" litmus test. I'm primarily concerned with whether they are good providers and down to earth people. And I want grandchildren... lots of them. And I want them now. I guess that I'm not that "caring" or "evolved."

Why this goofy obsession with equating marriage with homosexual relationships? Wait... I'm sorry I asked that question. Because I already know the answer.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on July 24, 2008 7:33 PM

I don't have daughters, but I have nieces, daughters of friends etc. I like to present them with a little formula. Here goes...

THE FORMULA. A prospective male partner will have a certain amount of drive, and a certain amount of ego. Regardless of how much of either the male possesses, the drive must ALWAYS be greater than the ego.

That's my formula!

I tried it on one niece, and she was engaged the next day to someone I approve of deeply. My nieces would never dream of telling me I'm right about anything...but I think I'm right. Am I right?

Posted by: Robert Townshend on July 24, 2008 9:13 PM

Humans are not irrational animals. We are driven by instincts modified by an intellectual superstructure. If we were merely irrational, we'd still be living in caves. Philip Wylie wrote two excellent books explaining the role of instinct and the development of ethics and religion. Get An Essay on Morals and The Magic Animal.

Wylie was a fascinating man who is now, sadly, almost forgotten. Though he was a scientific materialist, his investigation of ethology, instinct, religion and behavior are influenced by his affinity for the dynamic psychology of Freud and Jung, who personally endorsed Wylie's popularizations of Jung's work.

I may write a biography of Wylie. He deserves a revival. I have a big article about Wylie's last screenplay for "LA 2017," a 1971 episode of the TV show The Name of the Game, which was also directed by Steven Spielberg, in the upcoming issue of Filmfax magazine.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on July 24, 2008 10:29 PM

You're right RT and that's a very neat formulation.

Posted by: ricpic on July 24, 2008 11:02 PM

[drive must be greater than ego]

Makes sense, but note that in the case of a deeply introverted, woe-is-me nerd the ego is likely so very low that even a modest level of drive will exceed it.

Posted by: Peter on July 24, 2008 11:14 PM

ST – you really read far more into things than is healthy. Although the Daughter Unit HAS noted that life might be easier if she could just "choose" to be a lesbian. Seems that whole "lifestyle choice" thang is just a myth. Funny, she also states, on a regular basis, "Men are idiots." Unfortunately, many of them (us) ARE idiots. John Haitt got it about right with his line, "I'm just so easily led, when my little head does the thinkin'"

And RT's formula sounds about right, and about what the DU is looking for ...

Posted by: Chris White on July 24, 2008 11:36 PM

I have seen this in many of my female friends. The smarter ones know their attractiveness has a shelf life, and find the best character in a man while getting the "hormonal" arousal right.

What does this mean?

It means in practice sacrificing looks and status to as much assessment of character as possible. Not taking the transitory aspect of passion (which does not and cannot last). Too many sadly have overestimated how long they will be attractive, and have racked up baggage emotionally. It is very hard for women in their thirties, competing against women some years younger for the same men.

Men just don't care about degrees and such above a floor. It's irrelevant. Women don't get that.

The "hot" guy that all the other women want .. the other women want. Only the most beautiful will land him, and she'll be younger. Examples: Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones. Or Warren Beatty and Annette Benning.

Posted by: whiskey on July 25, 2008 2:09 AM

Often in these discussions about the breakdown of family etc., people point to the rising illegitimacy rates, which I assume in the American context refer to babies born to unwed mothers. However, at least in Northern Europe, the fact that lots of (perhaps most) babies are born out of wedlock, is not seen as relevant. What is relevant is whether or not the mother lives with the baby's father. It's very common for couples to live together, raise children together etc. without getting married. I assume this is more and more common in America, too.

Above Peter points out that a woman's likelihood of being married increases when her income and education level increase. I wonder if this means that educated, well-to-do women are more likely to be in a relationship than women with less education and money, or simply that the former are much more likely to formalize the union.

Posted by: JL on July 25, 2008 8:13 AM

Chris, WTF is a "New England conservative". Unless you mean the Swamp Yankees in Southeastern Mass, they don't exist.

Posted by: Brutus on July 25, 2008 12:52 PM

Fans of Devlin may also like my blog, Family and Civilization. Among other things I discuss the lost boys, "no pussy, no peace", and human brood parasites.

Posted by: Cassius Cobalt (aka truthseeker) on August 6, 2008 7:45 PM

The idea of Devlin's which I think just might become a full blown meme, and the part which not co-incidentally Roissy most focuses upon, is summed up in his quite useful word "hypergamy".

Posted by: dougjnn on August 10, 2008 6:27 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?