No big surprise: sexist homophobic fundies who leave the household chores for the little lady make better husbands and fathers. It’s an interesting result, because it contradicts any number of current views:
- The nature of man is to choose his own nature, so human relations are better if they are formless. “Free to be you and me,” as the saying goes.
- In particular, the idea of a natural order is patently oppressive, and the only people who could possibly favor it are those who are using it as a rhetorical cloak for aggression.
- To the extent such people don’t agree that’s what they’re doing it proves they’re dangerous psychopaths who have to be suppressed. After all, isn’t that what the struggle against fundamentalism is all about?
People who reject modernism must have psychological problems
From the log entry:
“In particular, the idea of a natural order is patently oppressive, and the only people who could possibly favor it are those who are using it as a rhetorical cloak for aggression. To the extent such people don’t agree that’s what they’re doing it proves they’re dangerous psychopaths who have to be suppressed.”
Despite all that’s been spoken and written about inferior modernist alienating geometrical architecture, from Prince Charles’ criticisms beginning some twenty-five years ago to the latest blog commentary springing up all over the place, the architecture establishment and schools of architecture still haven’t gotten the message. Architects still try to force unwanted modernist soulless buildings on people:
“Professor Reed said nostalgia and sentiment had blocked an opportunity to build something that reflected contemporary styles and improve the site’s function as a café. ‘If you thought about it, you would face the bay and not be inward looking,’ she said. [Hey, the last thing anyone should want is for people to ever look inward and reflect! Can’t allow that, can we!] Professor Reed, a former president of the Victorian chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, said she was concerned that local councils would follow the example. [No, can’t have local councils permitting such knuckle-dragging notions as ‘nostalgia and sentiment’ to ‘block an opportunity to build something that reflects contemporary styles,’ now can we! Mustn’t let that spread!] The associate dean at the University of Melbourne’s faculty of architecture, building and planning, Professor Miles Lewis, agreed. He pointed to the ‘mock-Victorian’ lamp-posts and verandas in Fitzroy and ‘pseudo-Edwardian’ homes on the Williamstown rifle range estate as examples where heritage features had been adopted. [How dare anyone try to express or reflect such a retrograde thing as ‘heritage’ in the architecture of the houses they and their families are to live in! That borders on the criminally-insane! Why, it might even help to anchor them psychologically in today’s world, or some such thing—WHOLE FAMILIES being anchored psychologically! Can’t they be STOPPED?] He said Melbourne had a serious problem with ‘mock-conservation.’ ‘If it’s not a conservation (project), you should build in a contemporary style,’ Professor Lewis said. ‘It’s a retreat from the real world,’ he said. ‘It shows some sort of serious psychological problem on the part of the people who want to have irrelevant styles. […]‘ ”
To which a private citizen responded, in a letter to the newspaper,
“How fascinating that a public requiring beauty, simplicity, charm and a sense of history from their city’s buildings and structures should be accused of having ‘some sort of serious psychological problem.’ ”
( http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2004/07/angry-architects-attack-public.html )
________________________________________________________________
“Speak thou not in the ears of unwise men; for they shall despise the teaching of thy speech.”
Proverbs 23:9 (Wycliffe) ( http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/pro23.htm )