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 ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
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
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
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


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

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Music for the Day: Dobie Gray | Main | Name Changed, Guilty Protected »

December 07, 2008

Whither Italy?

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Is Italy regressing or coming to its senses? Votes, please.

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at December 7, 2008




Comments

One really doesn't have a choice, when it a choice between slut and warpig. Fuck, why does everyone have to do things to extremes? How about choosing a normal woman? Italy is regressing.

The answer to Feminism is not prostitution.

Posted by: slumlord on December 7, 2008 3:09 AM



Compared to the rest of Europe, Italy remains a dynamic place.

Posted by: thehova on December 7, 2008 3:17 AM



The woman complaining about the lack of female solidarity was destined to be disapointed because even in very feminist countries like Britain and the US women still compete with each other to appeal to the opposite sex.

I have heard that a major reason for the low-levels of female employment is the five moth maternity leaves that Italian corporations are mandated to give. Women complain about short maternity leaves here in the US but it makes Americans more amenable to hiring women. As far as regressing or coming to its senses, I'd note that a lot of women, particularly working mothers, don't care all that much about their jobs and simply do them to put food on the table and get health insurance. If mothers don't need to work in Italy that's probably a good thing. And I wouldn't blame Italian women's obsession with looks and sexiness on the president; Italians are rather vain and competitive with each other for attention of the opposite sex when compared to Anglophones. The only real problem is if there's no role for less attractive women and older women. Of course is creating a respected place in society for less sexually attractive women is to a large extent what feminism does and I think that function is largely positive.

However, this raises an interesting point: Paleocons always blame feminism and careerism for low birth rates, but one of the least feminist countries in Europe also has the lowest birth rate.

Posted by: hello on December 7, 2008 8:33 AM



You know, as long as the end product is still capable of producing that incredible Italian cuisine, the rest is superfluous.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on December 7, 2008 9:10 AM



slumlord: Italy is regressing.

The answer to Feminism is not prostitution.

Pithily put, slums. I think the Italian problem is a universal (Western?) one, though. The young seem to be deliberately cut off from the past and raised in a cultural vacuum. When it sinks in that the trendy isms of the day aren't delivering, the anchorless can turn to...television and advertising. A friend's mother used to sum this phenomenon up as "stupid people used to have religion; now they have only television". That is not a diss on religious people, and it contains a general truth. One can leave out the "stupid", understand the "religion" as the transmission of some transcendent, coherent tradition, and substitute any of the "mass man" diversions of decaying societies: "now they have only politics", "now they have only blogs", etc. Now they have only celebrity-slutitude. I haven't noticed that the Italians are unique in this sort of thing.

I was struck by the stat claiming that Italy has "the lowest percentage of working women in Europe". Italy has also, what is it, the lowest or next-to-lowest birthrate in Europe? So what are they doing with themselves? I mean, after wasting time at universities whose declining male enrollment indicates declining relevance?

Posted by: Moira Breen on December 7, 2008 9:54 AM



Berlusconi owns a TV network?

Italian women are ostensibly getting sexier and sexier but in fact are having fewer and fewer children. Whodaeverthunkit that Italians would lose their connection to the earth.

Posted by: ricpic on December 7, 2008 10:29 AM



If I'm not mistaken, Italy's low birth rate is caused primarily by high average ages at time of marriage.

Posted by: Peter on December 7, 2008 10:43 AM



Regressing.

Posted by: Chris White on December 7, 2008 11:10 AM



Love these quotes:

"We have gone from equal opportunities to equal opportunism," Francescato says. "You try to be very appealing to the other sex, especially to very powerful men. "I am very, very disappointed by women."

What kind of idiot political movement bases its program on opposition to "appealing to the other sex?"

Repealing human nature... what a concept!

"To fight back against growing sexism, growing violence against women and domestic violence especially, fight back all these politicians who don't move an inch in order to allow women to be in charge and take on responsibilities..."

Domestic violence became a problem precisely because of feminism. Women bouncing from man and to man, and dragging their children by different men into households with a constantly changing male figure, is the explosive recipe for creating domestic violence. The greatest feminist lie was that the tradition family is the incubator of domestic violence. The "blended" family of feminist fame is the guaranteed incubator of domestic violence. Feminism created what it purports to want to cure.

"She points out, however, that the majority of Italians now studying in universities are women — a generation that she believes won't be passive and might even succeed in breaking down Italy's old-boy network."

Women controlling institutions in greater numbers is a proof of the oppression of women. Also, the opposite is proof of the oppression of women.

It's a sign of some progress that Italian women are rejected this insanity in favor of wanting to be "sex object" (probably the stupidest political expression ever invented). Now, girls, get busy and produce some babies.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on December 7, 2008 11:55 AM



Chris,

You have absolutely no dealings with feminist women. You are a hippie. That means your relationships are entirely with the weakest, least ambitious women on earth.

Why this pretense that you have some personal interest in feminist women? In your personal relationships you are as retrograde as humanly possible.

This is one of the great mysteries that Myrna and I discovered in hippie Woodstock. Myrna was an absolute dynamo... manager of training for an international corporate law firm with a dozen offices, financial wizard and budding cafe singer. Yet, the hippie women of Woodstock who couldn't afford a second pair of panties kept insisting that she was a mail order bride in need of enlightenment... because she didn't blurp up the properly ideological answers.

You are a complete pretender, Chris. You don't know how to make a living. You don't have a trade. Your relationships with women are as retrograde and backward as possible.

Why keep preaching feminism to other men? You don't have any use for it in your personal life.

I work in the real world with ambitious, driven women. You live in the fantasy world of hippiedom. My relationships with women are entirely with women who are fierce competitors. Your relationships with women are entirely with women who do nothing.

What is with the crap with you? You are behind hypocrisy and lying. Why don't you develop some sense of reality about the world you actually live in? You are a complete, laughable phony.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on December 7, 2008 12:49 PM



"Domestic violence became a problem precisely because of feminism. Women bouncing from man and to man, and dragging their children by different men into households with a constantly changing male figure, is the explosive recipe for creating domestic violence."

So all a woman has to do is marry as a virgin and stand by her man to avoid domestic violence? Ask Loretta Lynn.

http://www.uwm.edu/People/sflorian/marriage.htm

I would say that women like the ones you describe just pick abusers and that their kids' fathers were probably abusive as well, even if stepfathers abuse them more. You're right that this kind of instability encourages abuse but divorce didn't create domestic violence out of dragon's teeth.

Posted by: hello on December 7, 2008 1:19 PM



"I would say that women like the ones you describe just pick abusers and that their kids' fathers were probably abusive as well, even if stepfathers abuse them more. You're right that this kind of instability encourages abuse but divorce didn't create domestic violence out of dragon's teeth."

Men are as often the victims of domestic violence as women.

Domestic violence isn't the crisis feminists have portrayed. It's a problem, but nowhere near the overwhelming problem your post would suggest.

Feminists created the domestic violence hysteria because they wanted social service jobs.

hello, you are the victim of a manufactured hysteria.

There is no domestic violence crisis.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on December 7, 2008 1:36 PM



"Men are as often the victims of domestic violence as women."

True, but women are likelier to be severely injured unless weapons come into play. Domestic abusers of both sexes need to be shamed, but because women are physically weaker they will need to be physically protected from men more often than the reverse.

"Domestic violence isn't the crisis feminists have portrayed. It's a problem, but nowhere near the overwhelming problem your post would suggest."

I wasn't suggesting there was some sort of domestic violence holocaust against woman but merely offering one example where a woman stood by her man through thick and thin but was still beaten.

"Feminists created the domestic violence hysteria because they wanted social service jobs."

No argument there.

"There is no domestic violence crisis."

You yourself just said that domestic violence was a problem! The best way to reduce domestic violence is to get alcoholics and drug addicts of both sexes into treatment. Criticizing feminism will have no effect.

Posted by: hello on December 7, 2008 3:08 PM



However, this raises an interesting point: Paleocons always blame feminism and careerism for low birth rates, but one of the least feminist countries in Europe also has the lowest birth rate.

In the least feminist (with regard to the role of woman as mother/wife) countries, the cost to women of having children is greater. In such countries, if they are able to support themselves, women postpone marriage and have fewer children. It's a fairly logical cost/benefit analysis. See also Japan - a very unfeminist country whose birth & marriage rates are cratering.

Posted by: mt on December 7, 2008 3:52 PM



Hello: ...but merely offering one example where a woman stood by her man through thick and thin but was still beaten.

The mystery is why a woman would stick by her man through thick and thin after being beaten.

I have no sympathy for feminism insofar as it denies differences between men and women, or denigrates men, or spouts any of the shrill, emotional, hysterical humourless irrational useless sh*t feminists have been spouting for decades now...

No sympathy, that is, until I hear about women who, out of some misguided ideal of loyalty or submission or something equally squick-making, stay with the worthless men who beat them . Those women do need a crash course in empowerment, they do need their consciousness raised, and they do need the support network to help them make a break once and for all from the kind of lowlife f*ck who thinks he has the right to haul off and let her have it because she talks too much or too loudly or insists on smelling his breath when he stumbles in the door at 4 in the morning after a night out with the boys.

There may be no domestic violence "crisis", but that's only because this crap has been going on for millenia. Crises have to have novelty, and this sad social crime/disaster is all to bloody familiar. So...abuse is no "crisis", sure. But how about "an enduring evil"?

Sounds about right to me.

Posted by: PatrickH on December 8, 2008 10:23 AM



"There may be no domestic violence "crisis", but that's only because this crap has been going on for millenia. Crises have to have novelty, and this sad social crime/disaster is all to bloody familiar. So...abuse is no "crisis", sure. But how about "an enduring evil"?"

How do you know this?

Has it ever occurred to you how much leverage you give to governmental agencies when you empower them to intrude into the privacy of family life? At its very extreme, do you remember how well the Clinton administration protected those kids in Waco from purported child abuse? They're all dead.

I don't know, but the attitudes that you express often seem to me to arise from jealousy between men and the desire of men to think the worst of one another.

Certainly, domestic violence does occur. As I said, women commit it just as often as men. Yet, there are incredible dangers involved in creating a massive bureaucracy with the power to stick its nose into your home.

The same liberals who wail endlessly about the right to fuck in private without government intervention seem remarkably willing to advocate governmental intervention into the home if the allegation is domestic violence.

The "problem" of domestic violence is a perplexing one for me. In the county where I live, this crusade has led to shelters for women, but not for men. And those shelters have threatened women with the loss of their children if they refuse to cooperate in criminalizing their husbands or boyfriends. Those shelters are also staffed by crazy feminists who believe in divorce first, and in separating kids from their dads. There is also a substantial contingent of lesbians feminists in the shelters who just plain hate men.

So, Patrick, I get your righteous anger. Could it be that the "problem" is a little more complicated than you want to think? Could it be that the solution might be worse than the problem in most cases?

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on December 8, 2008 1:15 PM



PatrickH:

There may be no domestic violence "crisis", but that's only because this crap has been going on for millenia. Crises have to have novelty, and this sad social crime/disaster is all to bloody familiar. So...abuse is no "crisis", sure. But how about "an enduring evil"?

What you write is undoubtedly true. The problem, however, is that once we admit that the traditional legal system has failed to deal with some problem adequately, special interest groups (in this case, feminists) will push for the creation of a special bureaucracy that will usurp extrajudicial powers while nobody dares to object because, after all, they are the Good Guys on a mission to fight a Great Evil. And then you can kiss goodbye your rights to habeas corpus, public trial, presumption of innocence, etc. if you ever have the misfortune of having to deal with them.

The right way to solve the problem would be to force the traditional institutions to fight it more effectively. After all, assault, battery, threats of violence, etc. have been crimes under the Common Law since time immemorial; if they haven't been enforced properly when committed by husbands against their wives in the past, then police and courts should be pressed to enforce them more vigorously while still maintaining the traditional due process (which doesn't exclude legislating tougher penalties for proven offenders). This will never eradicate the problem 100%, but other crimes like murder persist too, in which victims suffer even greater harm than beating, and yet, nobody but a handful of nutcases would like the government to fight them with anything outside the traditional due process.

However, if the government instead yields to pressure and starts creating novel legal categories and judicial procedures to deal with the problem, they will likely end up throwing away centuries of precedent on the standards of evidence and the rights of the accused. This is the number one threat to liberty in the Anglosphere today -- each new moral panic, whether its cause is justified or not, creates new pressures to create such novel extrajudicial commissions and procedures.

Frankly, I don't know to what extent this has happened with anti-domestic violence measures so far (I've read some horror stories on men's rights websites, but it's hard to tell how prevalent such incidents really are). But it is a real danger, certainly far greater than those that get the most press these days. (I don't mean specifically domestic violence, but all issues that generate such intensive campaigns with the message that the traditional institutions have failed and fundamental legal innovations are necessary.)

Posted by: Vladimir on December 8, 2008 3:13 PM



"The "problem" of domestic violence is a perplexing one for me. In the county where I live, this crusade has led to shelters for women, but not for men. And those shelters have threatened women with the loss of their children if they refuse to cooperate in criminalizing their husbands or boyfriends. Those shelters are also staffed by crazy feminists who believe in divorce first, and in separating kids from their dads. There is also a substantial contingent of lesbians feminists in the shelters who just plain hate men."

Naturally feminists will ruin the outreach. There are however shelters run by religious groups. And there should be men's shelters.

However, although women batter men as much as the reverse, men kill their intimate partners far more so than women. According to this article the proliferation of shelters and other resources have kept many women from killing abusive men.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E4D61F39F93BA15754C0A96E958260

Posted by: hello on December 8, 2008 11:02 PM



Short of using weapons, a woman's abuse is not equal to a man's, in my opinion. My wife, when she was young and crazy occasionally lost her temper and "beat me up". I let her, to stop it I would've had to knock her out, something I could have done with no effort. She never managed to really hurt me. And I'm an average size guy, at best.

The men who have been battered (or at least some of them) put up with it because they would have had to hit back to stop it.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on December 9, 2008 12:32 AM



The same people who keep hammering away at the idea of innate differences between the sexes (something I agree with) are always the first ones to whine when women set something up for themselves and not for men. Women need things like shelters WAY more than men, even battered men. They're physically weaker than men, they generally are the primary caregivers for their children. Fuckin' A, dudes. I don't get it.

Posted by: JV on December 9, 2008 12:50 AM



"The same people who keep hammering away at the idea of innate differences between the sexes (something I agree with) are always the first ones to whine when women set something up for themselves and not for men. Women need things like shelters WAY more than men, even battered men. They're physically weaker than men, they generally are the primary caregivers for their children. Fuckin' A, dudes. I don't get it."

No, you don't get it. You're blinded by chivalry, a congenitatal illness among men.

I wasn't arguing or whining.

Men get a lot of pleasure out of believing that other men like to beat their women and abandon their children. This is a lot less true than you think. Women beat men and abandon their children, too. And, the beatings that women deliver to men are often a lot worse than men (especially the ones taking the beating) want to admit

Women are using that kneejerk chivalry against men. And, JV, you're a sap like all other men. That Perils of Pauline stuff really appeals to you. It does to all men. The feminists hyenas have made a living turning men against each other with that built in chivalry.

I think the shelters ought to be disbanded... I don't believe in shelters for men. The shelters are part of the general assault on family by feminists. The intent isn't to help. The intent is to destroy families and marriages. The right to family privacy, in my opinion, overrides inserting the government into our private lives, except in the most extreme cases.

You need to get control of the chivalry, JV. Although you think that only other men will be subject to the rapacity of the divorce courts and the feminist run family courts, you might find that one day it will bite you in the ass.

Just to show you how fierce is that chivalry... As I've said, in the vast preponderance of cases, male homosexuality is the result of mother/son incest or near incest. We loathe thinking that women can behave in this fashion, so we've invented the innate theory of homosexuality in order to avoid facing the reality that women commit mother/son incest very frequently.

We've had no such difficulty confronting father/daughter incest. Radical feminists were very vocal that lesbianism was a response to father/daughter incest... until it became a political negative... once the goal became to legitimize homosexuality.

Take off the blinders, boys. Stop being manipulated by women. JV, women know how to play your chivalrous indignation like a harp.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on December 9, 2008 9:26 AM



Points taken, both ST and Vladimir. To deal with domestic abuse with a set of laws derived from feminist "jurisprudence" would be foolish at best, destructive at worst. We in Ontario (the heart of the heart of political correctness in the West, with the possible exception of Sweden and Berkeley) have a "zero tolerance policy" for domestic abuse which consists of the rigid application to every situation in which police are called of destructive and irrational procedures in which neither common sense or common justice are allowed to have an impact.

So, my own recommendations about "consciousness raising" and whatnot should be modified to mean as useful social work adjuncts to a commonsensical, constitutional, common law-derived, fair, reasonable (and therefore non-feminist) set of legal procedures, in essence, the ones that existed pre-feminism.

And Vladimir, we have lots and lots of the incidents you talked about up here in Ontario. Lots. One of them involved my brother, and led to what may have been his personal destruction (I don't know whether he's alive or dead...I don't really care, but still, he was wronged by a zero-tolerance policy about abuse--he pushed his wife out of his study when she wouldn't leave when he asked repeatedly--I had to pick him up from jail that night--he had been instantly locked out his bank account, his home, everything, all on charges, not a conviction, charges. He's been drifting ever since, and I don't know where he is).

So, as I said, points taken gentlemen.

Posted by: PatrickH on December 9, 2008 10:51 AM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?