All we demand is your silent, obedient consent

A few years ago, the idea of gay marriage was a bit strange to most people. Unorthodox. Now, not only is it legal in many places in the western world, but has become something of a new orthodoxy. Far too quickly, as Brendan O'Neill puts it very well.

Meet Doll, Kitten and Brynn Young, three women from Massachusetts who have recently married each other as a threesome. God help them - one wife was more than enough for me.  But I'm a cynical bastard.

I notice that their outfits are traditional, at least...

Never mind that polygamous marriages have been forbidden the rest of us for centuries (barring certain communities and cultures). That's not what concerns me here. Neither am I particularly worried about gay marriage either. I do not care who wishes to marry whom. People can have relationships with whoever they choose as far as I'm concerned - as long as all are consenting adults, it's all gravy. The mystery to me is why gay people have wanted government approval for their choice of partner, but each to their own.  And I am certainly not going to pretend that this tripartite tying of the knot (what if one of them wants out - how will the divorce work then?  A Gordian knot is what it'll be) is the herald of a wave of such marriages, because I very much doubt that it is.

What does interest - and concern - me is the reaction to this, and what it portends. Not the false moral panic that the tabloids pedal, but rather the new moral orthodoxy by which any question or hint of criticism of a three-way lesbian marriage will be met with a barrage of fury, accusation or mockery.

You see, ten years ago, gay marriage was the pipe-dream of a very small minority.  The idea of two men or two women marrying each other was...well, slightly preposterous.  Now, of course - in the last year or so - any hint of criticism of the idea is met with the kind of reaction hitherto reserved for the holocaust denier.  And in the YouTube video linked to, we see TJ, 'the Amazing Atheist', rip into those who have a hard time getting to grips with a gay marriage involving not two, but three women.  As though such unions were commonplace and long-established.

And it is this that I take issue with.

You see, changes in societal attitudes happen gradually, over extended periods.  What was unthinkable becomes shocking, then forbidden, then merely outré, then uncommon, then relatively common, then...you get the picture.  This takes time, understandably.  People have to get used to an idea, and have to be able to question it, pull it about a bit, examine it from all sides so that they can decide where to put it, how to fit it into their worldview.  If you are asking people to accept and live with something, you really ought to let them figure out how.  Be patient.  It'll come.

We are, however, seeing an increasing tendency towards social engineering.  The forcing-through of societal 'reform' in a manner that is decidedly out of tune with the usual organic mode of change; the refusal to allow people to question and idea, or offer criticism, or even think about it.  No, unquestioning acceptance is required, immediately.  And if the majority of the population don't like it - well, tough.  You are all bigots and evil; see how we select some of you for public shaming - now get in line, prole scum.

You see, essential to any society is a shared set of values and a commonly acknowledged set of institutions.  If there are no shared values, no agreed institutions, then there is no society.  At all.  There is just a lot of individuals living in physical propinquity to one another, but with nothing else in common.  If the existing values and institutions are destroyed - or at least, changed radically to the point that they no longer resemble their former selves, and so quickly that the populace cannot keep pace with the change (which would effectively their destruction and replacement with something else) - then the society that once upheld those values and institutions no longer exists.

Immigration presented similar challenges to many people; a steady but measured stream of immigrants is something that a people can deal with.  They get to know new people who have arrive from far-flung shores, and understand them.  Acceptance follows understanding - we have seen this with those immigrants who arrived here on the Windrush and in the years that followed.  Acceptance was slow in coming, but it did come.  And once the British population had accepted those immigrants, so it became easier for them to accept other people arriving from India, Pakistan, and many other countries.

However, the progressive left mistook this for, at best an enthusiasm for immigrant communities or, at worst an indifference, which would allow for very large numbers of new people to enter the country in a very short time.  When Labour actively encouraged more then three million people to join the population during their last tenure, they utterly failed to keep in mind that people need to be able to adjust to new circumstances.

Here lies the rub.  We find ourselves in a situation wherein a lot has changed, and very quickly.  Gender (and, if the example set by the three women above does become more common, number of spouses) is no longer relevant in marriage; the demography of the country has changed drastically and rapidly and the arrivals have brought with them their own values and institutions.  Many people have found the communities that they have lived in their entire lives altered almost beyond recognition; political correctness has curtailed drastically how they can express themselves. They are not even allowed to ask questions.

You see, a society is supported by its institutions.  Institutions like marriage, like community values, like language and culture - all of those things.  The institutions might change over time, or be replaced, but it is an organic process that, given time, can happen quite naturally.  The trouble comes when you knock those institutions away, rapidly, forcibly and without offering anything in their stead; when you try to switch common culture for multiculturalism in a very short space of time.  The pillars supporting the society have been knocked away, and the whole thing starts to crumble.  Predictable, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong; I have no wish to sound like some Colonel Blimp bemoaning the loss of Victorian values.  But I do not wish to see the society I live in become morally and intellectually bankrupt.  And that seems to be the way we are going.  And God help anyone who tries to point it out.

A Brief Note on Racism

Just lately I have heard the words 'racism is power combined with prejudice', although the word 'privilege' is sometimes used in place of 'power'.  Often, it is expressed thus:

Racism=Power+Prejudice

as though making it look like an equation will somehow make it more convincing.  Certainly, it seems to be repeated like a mantra, as though many repetitions will turn a trite soundbite into a truism.

There is, of course, one problem with this little phrase:  it's a load of old bollocks.  Let me explain why.

I could invoke the dictionary definitions of racism at this point, which define it as being discrimination against a person on the basis of their race.  I'm not going to do that, though, as it is often the sign of a weak argument, not to mention being a logical fallacy of the argumentum ad verecundiam sort. No, no.  I shall leave such floundering to those that can manage no better.

Let us instead take a look at the thinking behind this sentence.

The idea is that to be racist, one must be in a position of power over the one against whom one is discriminating.  I have actually seen the belief expressed that it is 'impossible for black people to be racist', although this has had to be hastily amended to 'impossible for black people to be racist against white people', and then to 'impossible for black people to be racist against white people in Western countries' when it is pointed out who wields the power in countries such as Zimbabwe and South Africa.

But this whole idea, this way of thinking, is utterly flawed.  Let us presume that we are talking about the UK.  If a white person espouses opinions to the effect that all people who are not white are inferior and should be treated as such, that white person would be called racist, and their ideals held to be vile and execrable.

That's fine - I can get right behind that.

But if a black, Asian, etc person were to say the same thing about white people, that apparently would be fine and dandy.  Because white people, you see, have the power.  All of them, without exception. Yes.

You can see where the wheels are starting to come off this argument already, can't you?  If all white people are in a position of power, why are so many of them poor and disregarded by successive governments?

Well, now we must look at just what we mean by 'power'.  Being the majority, perhaps?  No, that won't work - no-one would have said that black South Africans under Apartheid had power, despite being the majority by a very long way.

Does it mean being in government?  Well it could; again, looking at South Africa under Apartheid, the government was drawn pretty much exclusively from the white population.  By definition, then, black South Africans now all have power.  All of them.  Even those that live in the townships and can barely scratch a living.

Seems pretty flimsy to me.

Is it perhaps a combination of the two?  Being of the demographic that forms the majority and forms most or all of the government?  It might do. It might well do.  But that's the norm in most countries, isn't it - that the indigenous population forms its own government?  I thought that this was a good thing?  Power to the people and all that.

Perhaps 'power' means being socially dominant?  Isn't that the same thing as being the majority?  Cultural dominance - same thing again.  Oh dear.  We have attempted to grasp what power means in this context, and it's like trying to grasp smoke.  It evaporates like faerie gold at sunrise.

Maybe it means not being subject to the same laws as other demographics within the overall population?  Yes, that might be it!  It would fit the word 'privilege' well too.  I think that we are onto something here.  A person who is part of a group, race or sub-culture - within a larger population - that is accorded greater rights and less responsibility than everyone else.  A group that is not required to observe certain laws that nevertheless pertain to the rest of the population.  A group that cannot be called racist or be prosecuted for racism when they actively discriminate against other races in that population?

Sounds like power to me.  The kind of power that a man on the street might have.

So, if a member of one race can discriminate against people of another race and not face censure of any sort, that person can be said to have power.  Which combined with their prejudice, makes them racist.

So if we examine the original equation-like argument above:

If you say that black people cannot be racist against white people, you are saying that black (or insert any non-caucasian race here) people are exempted from the laws, mores and manners of society with regard to discrimination.  Which means that black people have power.  Which, if one them exhibited prejudice, would by your very own argument make him racist.

If, on the other hand, you say that only white people can be racist, you are saying that they cannot escape censure for discrimination, which would mean that they lacked power.  Which would mean that they were not being racist.  Which would mean that they could not be accused of any wrongdoing.  Which would mean that they had power.  Oh dear.  What a very circular argument.

All of which is to say - the argument that racism equals power plus prejudice is bullshit.  Racism really is discriminating against people on the basis of their race.  Their race, mind - not religion (but that's a subject for another time).  Just that.  Doesn't matter what the make-up of the population is, if you discriminate against someone solely on the basis of their race, you're a racist.


Oh, before we go, two other things.

Firstly, isn't it racist to refer to black people as though they were a single homogeneous race?  You know, given that only 100,000 people originally left Africa to form the population of the rest of the world, and everybody else stayed in Africa.  Which is why there is far greater genetic diversity within Africa than outside it, and that there is therefore no such thing as 'the black race'.  There are a lot of ethnically and culturally diverse peoples in Africa - lumping them all in together is orientalism, and arguably racist.

Secondly, please do bear in mind also that, if you wish to say that any ethnic minority or minorities within a country cannot ever be considered racist; if those minorities should be better represented in government to a degree disproportionate to their size within the general population; if you wish to grant any those minority groups greater power and control over the country - you are arguing in favour of Apartheid in South Africa. Doesn't matter if you are talking about the UK - you are saying that the principles of Apartheid are sound.

It also means that if you claim that 'black people can't be racist' - you are arguing in favour of Apartheid.  Either that, or you are saying that Apartheid wasn't racist.

Just saying.

'The Patriarchy' and Progressivist Ideology

Well, I heard something interesting the other day that got me thinking.  A rare event, admittedly, but it does happen.  These thoughts are not original, but they have, at least, occurred to me.

Now, the world is in many ways a sorry place, and people have been trying for millenia - with moderate success - to improve it.  In this day and age, people are determined to force change and improvement upon the world and its peoples, and drag it kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.

Trouble is, many of their well-intentioned efforts are either doomed to failure or are actively counter-productive.  This is nearly always due to an abject failure to analyse the root causes of a problem, instead focusing upon the superficial effects.  This in turn is frequently the result of adherence to a progressivist ideology that, by its very nature, cannot recognise those root causes as to do so would completely negate the fundamental beliefs of that ideology. Allow me to give an example, and a damnably poisonous one at that: Patriarchy Theory.

Patriarchy Theory insists that the world is ruled by men, and that women are forced to occupy a subordinate role in all matters.  And numerous examples can be cited for this - let us examine a couple of these:

Women Forbidden to Work

In a number of countries and cultures, women stay at home while the men go out to work and earn a living.  Times being what they are, many women also wish to go out to work, but in some countries - Afghanistan, for example - to do so is all but forbidden, and if a woman is married, her husband may refuse to permit it.

By what right does he permit or otherwise her going to work?  Patriarchy!  Men putting women down and holding them back, doubtless feeling threatened and afraid that they will be shown up as useless incompetent fools.  Bloody Patriarchy!

...except that might not be the story.  Or not the whole of it, certainly.

In many societies, Islamic ones in particular, a husband and father is the head of his household (outside of the home anyway - often once a couple walks into the house, his wife is in charge).  As such, there are obligations laid upon him which he must fulfill.  Foremost of these is that he must provide for his wife and children.

Now, let's say our husband and father is living in an Afghan town, and to house, feed and clothe himself, his wife and their - shall we say four? - children, he is working two jobs.  He has no choice in this - it is his duty as both a husband and father.

Of course, the obvious question is then 'why not allow his wife to go out to work, thus relieving him of the need for two jobs, so that he can work just one?'.

A good question.  A fine question.  The answer is so obvious - of course he should permit his wife to work. Duh!

Except, of course, that this isn't the West.  A man has a duty to support his family; to force his wife to work to provide for them as well is considered a sign that he is a failure as a husband, as a father and as a man.  It would be a badge of the deepest shame to him.

But this is a shallow reason.  There are others.

In most Islamic societies, if a woman is allowed by her husband to go out to work, it is not because he needs her to work, but because he doesn't need her to.  She may go and earn her own money - and it is just that.  Her money.  She is not required to share it with anyone and certainly not required to contribute to the family finances.  Indeed, to do so would be shameful.  Besides, it's her money.

Fine if you are clearly wealthy, if the kids have left home, all of that.  But in the situation of our chap working two jobs, he will be faced with the problem of the children - who will look after them when both parents are at work?  Friends, perhaps, or family - but the chances are it will cost money for them to be looked after.  And it won't be, cannot be, his wife who pays for it.  So he will have to work a third job simply to allow his wife to get a job of her own.

So clearly, the division of labour makes sense - one parent at work, the other taking care of the family at home.

Consider also, that when a country's economy is in poor shape, every job held by a woman for her own enrichment is taking a job from a man needing to provide for his family.

So we can begin to see why perhaps a husband might wish his wife to remain in the home, and why in some cultures the idea of women holding down jobs doesn't sit too well.

[ASIDE:  When did looking after your children become slavery?  When did going out to work for someone else become freedom?]

However, husbands forcing their wives to stay at home is far from the most egregious example of The Patriarchy (TM)...

Sex Selective Abortion

A nasty one, this.

There are a number of cultures around the world wherein it is considered far preferable to have a son than a daughter.  As a result, this has led to a situation in certain countries where many female foetuses are terminated, so that only sons shall be born.  This is widely known and rightly much deplored.

And why does this happen?  Patriarchy!  Who would want an inferior girl child when you could have a superior boy child?  It's The Patriarchy I tells ya!

...of course, there are underlying social and cultural causes for this.  One is the dowry system - once employed in Europe too - which involves the parents of the bride paying their prospective son-in-law a big lump of cash to take their daughter off their hands (this is not to be confused with Bride-Price, where the husband-to-be pays his prospective in-laws; which is applied varies between cultures).

Another cause is that, traditionally, a son will often remain in the parental home, and his wife will move in with him; between them, they will support his parents in their dotage.  A daughter, however, will leave the parental home to live with her husband and his parents, leaving her own folks all alone.  In more modern households, a son will move out, but will contribute a third of his income to his parents; a daughter is not so obliged.  Should she remain at home all her life, her parents will be culturally obliged to look after her.

So perhaps that dowry payment, hefty as it is, doesn't seem all that unreasonable - give the young man some money as he will henceforth have the obligation of her upkeep.

Of course, she could go out and work and send some of her earnings to her parents, if her husband is amenable, if cultural factors will allow it without apportioning shame - but when times are hard, she will again be taking a job that a man might need to support his family.

So - there are some reasons for sex-selective abortion.  They are not nice reasons, and I will not attempt to justify them - but they are the reasons, like it or not.

Alright Corvid - just what has this to do with Patriarchy Theory?

Patriarchy (TM) Theory

See, the problem with Patriarchy Theory and its ilk is that it is an ideology.  Almost a religion.  It has its own belief system, its own priestesses, its own canon, and it requires only absolute faith.  It cannot be disproved, but it can be asserted with impunity and with no evidence, because the only proof it requires is the belief in the mind of the adherent that it is so.  It is an article of faith.

It is also,quite simply, a conspiracy theory.  Tin-foil hat stuff. 

You see, those that believe in the Theory will cite it as both explanation and proof.  Why are women forced to stay at home in some cultures?  Because: Patriarchy.  Why are female foetuses aborted?  Because: Patriarchy.  Men hate women, and that's all there is to it.  Misogyny.  Patriarchy.  Phallocratic slavery.

Except, as we have - and only very briefly - discussed above, there are underlying reasons for these things.  And there are underlying reasons for those, in turn.

Appeals to Patriarchy Theory as an explanation willfully ignore the true facts of the matter; and if those facts, those underlying causes, are not addressed, then meaningful change cannot possibly be effected.  Why, then, does this theory ignore the true causes?

The answer is complex and very involved.  In part, it is because a neat, pat answer is so very attractive.  It is also because an examination of the true root causes is convoluted and difficult.  Another reason is that it becomes obvious that the blame cannot be laid solely at the feet of men.  Furthermore, because it claims that there is a conspiracy that is hidden, it cannot be disproved.

And, of course, ideologues are incapable of rational dissection of an issue.  That is why they are ideologues.

Were the actual explanation, the true reasons for the lack of change to be stated, the result, of course, would be a reduction in the emotional impact of how terrible these situations are.  A loss of enthusiasm amongst the faithful would invariably occur.  The shrill and strident cries for Equality (meaning equality of outcome, of course) would diminish, and the Cause would lose momentum.  And the ideologues would find themselves bereft of all meaning in their lives.

And the rabbit hole, as ever, goes deeper.

Cultural conditioning, combined with the prospect of additional duties and obligations, can make feminism an unappealing prospect for many women in some developing nations.  There is the danger that they would outright reject the feminist credo, thus rendering the movement irrelevant in those cultures.  Better, then, to avoid having the Cause explicitly rejected for specific reasons by failing to recognise or state those reasons.

And maybe, just maybe, the Cause doesn't want to hear the opposing view because the opposing view is right.

But wait - still deeper we go...

The ultimate truth as to why feminism - among many other progressivist causes and movements - frequently fail to truly examine the issues against which they campaign, why they fail to seek reasons as to why things have evolved the way they have, why they are doomed to failure - is because they want to fail.

Feminism, the Green movement, the Racial Equality movements - all employ a lot of people.  These are billion dollar industries.  A lot of people make a comfortable living, and a few get very rich indeed.  To achieve success would be to obviate the need for the organisations responsible.

A grievance industry without a grievance isn't an industry anymore.