Business as usual in the abolition of gender

This story is absolutely routine, so the Irish Examiner doesn’t bother with any discussion: EU tells Ireland to reform childcare and gender equality. The basic point is that in accordance with EU standards and initiatives the Irish government is to provide almost half a billion Irish pounds for childcare and place a renewed emphasis on “gender equality measures.”

Ho-hum. Nonetheless, on occasion it’s worthwhile pointing out the obvious:

  1. At one time people might have gotten married, established a household, had kids, worried about how to support the arrangement, and split up duties so that childcare, household management, the production of income, and pursuing whatever else in life seemed worth pursuing could be taken care of in a civilized and satisfactory way. Since households and families were functional, they featured functional differentiation—more specifically, sex role stereotyping and a strong principle of parental authority—and defended themselves with rather strict rules of sexual morality.
  2. That arrangement, in which people made their lives together in accordance with community experience and habitual understandings, isn’t good enough anymore from the standpoint of our rulers. Among other things, it makes the aspects of life that our rulers control directly—large formal public institutions—subsidiary to other concerns.
  3. Consequently, as a matter of basic social principle, obligations relating to family and childcare—and therefore the family as a significant social institution—are to be done away with to the extent possible because they might interfere with the universal availability of everything and everybody to the economic machine, the care and feeding of which is now the summum bonum.
  4. That organizational demand corresponds to an understanding of human life and destiny: to be human is to be fully integrated as a productive and hedonic component in the universal rational economic machine. To be a wife and mother, except as an optional leisure-time activity, is oppression. To be a husband and father is bizarre and discreditable. To be a consumer and a functionary in some bureaucracy is fulfillment and communion with what is now understood as the Good, Beautiful and True.
  5. The institutional abolition of something as basic as the family in favor of rationalized technological hedonism naturally has endless repercussions. One such is the abolition of sex as a principle of human connection and its consequent reduction to a pure consumer good: consider, for example, Friends, Friends With Benefits and the Benefits of the Local Mall, a New York Times account of “hooking up” (absolutely casual sex) among young teenagers.

The accepted view is that if you have a serious basic problem with any of this you’re really weird. Personally though I don’t think it’s going to work. We shall see.

9 thoughts on “Business as usual in the abolition of gender”

  1. After reading that foul
    After reading that foul report from the Grey Lady, one needs a moral antacid. I’m tempted to post this entire “Pastor’s Page” from last Sunday, which includes a valedictory address from a very strict Catholic high school, as well as two optimistic reports in First Things, one American and the other from Britain, which assert from polling data that the tide has very much turned among the young. But 1,159 words are a bit much to post here, so I’ll just give the link, where you can download the Pentecost bulletin in PDF and read page 3:

    Now, which of these two extremes are we to believe? How is the great mass in the middle acting? I don’t know what the hookers-up are using for a soundtrack, but if you follow the Music link from the church’s main page, you can download what the valedictorienne has at her disposal:

  2. One way it won’t work is
    One way it won’t work is that the Irish will have fewer babies. At the moment Irish fertility is well ahead of other Western European countries (at 14.63 live births per 1000 population compared to 9.71 in Sweden, which is the preferred EU role model).

    No doubt in 10 years time when there are too few babies a fertility debate will spring up in Ireland and the liberal media will demand as a solution: even further measures to draw women out of the family and into the paid workforce!

  3. Mr. Richardson writes,

    Mr. Richardson writes,

    “No doubt in 10 years time when there are too few babies a fertility debate will spring up in Ireland and the liberal media will demand as a solution: even further measures to draw women out of the family and into the paid workforce!”

    — To which I add: exactly right! And of course the call will inevitably go out from the race-replacers for the shortfall in Irish population to be made up by the massive importation of Somali Bantus, Nigerians, Chinese, Pakistanis, Hindus, Jamaicans, Bosnians, Iraqis, Burmese, and Bangladeshis, no matter that an innundation of such folk will erase Ireland forever. Of course when Hitler tried to extinguish races, ethnicities, and nationalities he was evil—but THIS race-replacement scheme will have the left’s imprimatur, so it’ll be a case of nation-erasure that’s not only OK, but extremely desirable. I CAN’T WAIT! A world without an Ireland! Yes, it’s that good old leftist/CCR* double-whammy of taking every measure conceivable for decades to bring about a reduction in the birth rate of a traditional population to way below replacement level, then resorting to massive incompatible immmigration to make up the population shortfall, the more incompatible the better. Don’t you see? The original population would NEVER have permitted the up-and-coming new leftist/CCR Nomenklatura to have its way—so it HAD to be replaced with docile thirld-worlder populations, the further from white the better, who’ve been used to living under some yoke or other since time immemorial and therefore will make first-rate docile, submissive, do-what-you’re-told-quick-and-shut-up-about-it peons… (And we mustn’t forget all those good, oh-so-saintly Catholics who absolutely MUST get their self-esteem replenished by showing how self-abnegating they are by oh-so-wistfully, oh-so-sadly and with many and many a sigh consigning their own race, ethnic group, and Ancient Nation of Europe to utter oblivion and extinction. Why, just THINK how much their dazzling, self-abnegating Christian righteousness will be the envy of all, once Ireland and a few other Ancient Nations of Europe will have been eradicated from the face of the earth! These Catholics will be so proud of their Christian self-abnegation!

    By the way, I wish someone would ask the Pope how he’d feel about replacing the entire Polish—yes, that’s POLISH nation—nation with Somali Bantus, Mexicans, or Chinese, let’s say (or for that matter with Germans, Portuguese, Flemings, Frenchmen, or whoever…) I’d like to think if ever he saw a real threat of that he’d tell the Vatican Curia to get working on an encyclical proclaiming that Catholics are officially excused form having to show how self-abnegating they can be by approving of the erasure of their own nation.

  4. “Somali Bantu” is an
    “Somali Bantu” is an oxymoron. A more accurate term is “Mushungulu”. This has the further advantage of a wonderfully exotic sound.

    Try going to your town council with the proposal of resettling a number of Mushungulu. I’d like to see the public reaction to that.

  5. Mr. Caesar writes,

    Mr. Caesar writes,

    “Try going to your town council with the proposal of resettling a number of Mushungulu. I’d like to see the public reaction to that.”

    But isn’t exactly that happening all over the country with scarcely a peep of protest from the locals? Whether or not they’re afraid of the thought-control and demonization apparatus our overlords have put into place I don’t know—but one would think that at SOME point people would start to wake up and open their eyes (yes, even certain Catholics bent on showing how self-abnegating they can be in order, as they see it, to bask in the admiration of all around them here on earth and assure themselves a place in heaven later…). On the other hand, check out Trifkovic’s masterful article linked by Will S. in “Turnabout’s” “Pro and Contra” feature:—maybe it’s true then, and worse has indeed finally come to worst: some people are so blind they’ll never, ever see; so deeply comatose they’ll never, ever waken.

  6. Thanks for the Srdj-ery! (I
    Thanks for the Srdj-ery! (I subscribe, but have fallen behind in the actual reading.) Trifkovic’s (and others’) focus on the demographic implosion always assumes it’s evenly spread throughout the populace. But is it? When the birth rate is high, say 3.0 or more, secular liberals can keep up with God-fearing Christians. But when it drops below 1.5, has it done so also for the Christian element? Or has their relative fraction of the newborn actually increased? The aggressive Christian ought to see the collapsing fertility of his enemies as an opportunity to retake his land, and reclaim its soul, through the cradle. After all, that’s what those God-damned infidels are doing, isn’t it? Two can play at this…

  7. Even if white Christians
    Even if white Christians increase at a higher birthrate than liberals, the Muslims and pagan Asians and others let in by liberals’ immigration policies still have higher birthrates than the liberals, maybe even higher than us Christians, too, and so by “dissolving the people and re-electing a new one” (to paraphrase a famous Bertolt Brecht poem), liberals can offset the effect of their diminishing numbers, and still ensure their political predominance, especially since almost all non-white and non-Christian immigrants end up as liberals’ political clients, regardless of their social conservatism. The net result is at least in the short term to the liberals’ liking – the offseting of traditionalist conservative Christian influence in society – although, as Trifkovic points out, this will undermine the liberals’ goals in the long term. Of course, it will undermine our ability to reclaim our society, as well…

    Maybe Trifkovic is right, that the only solution for us in the long term, is complete social breakdown, followed by rediscovery of truths we once knew, perhaps one community at a time…

  8. BTW, I hasten to point out,
    BTW, I hasten to point out, that my comments in the last post are not to suggest that we trad-con Christians shouldn’t endeavour to raise large Covenant families for the Lord, to be fruitful and multiply; as that is our religious duty, I believe; I’m simply noting that that approach alone, absent a huge reduction in immigration from hostile parasitic non-Westerners, will not, in itself, allow us to reclaim our society from either liberalism or Islam, Buddhism, neopaganism, etc.

    For my part, I am *partially* heartened and encouraged to some degree by the fact that I know many Chinese, Filipino, and Vietnamese immigrants who are Christian converts, and thus, with their having big families, will help to keep the Faith alive here, and maybe, just maybe, their descendents will, in time, detach themselves from supporting the parties whose lax immigration policies allowed so many of them to enter in the first place, esp. as they see that liberals’ interests actually run counter to their own, as socially conservative Christians. BUT, even if that be so, the type of society they and their descendents may build here (they’re still largely separate from the majority, with whom they have little interaction, what with their ethnic-language church communities, their “Chinatowns”, “Vietnamtowns”, etc.) will not be the same as the original one – whatever it will be, it will not be Western, even if Christian; it won’t be mine – after all, I speak no Asian languages, nor do I relate much to those cultures (though I love many of their foods). And while some may not mind the replacement of, as it were, hot dogs by burritos ( ), I will still lament the passing of my culture and heritage on these shores, simply because it is mine, even as I thank God for preserving the Faith and His “remnant” here, by converting the immigrants…


Leave a Comment