|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 10, 2016 23:00:46 GMT
Today's PHOENIX features a rant by Goldvulture complaining about DUP and SDLP opposition to legalising abortion in Northern Ireland. So eager is he to grant exclusive possession of the banner of Herodianism to his pals in Sinn Fein, that he ignores the strong Herodian presence in the Alliance Party, and to some extent in the UUP. (It is indeed the case, however, that SF are unparalleled in their consistent bloody-handedness.) More slobbering over SF is to be found elsewhere in the issue, with Gerry Adams being described as unparalleled in Irish politics since De Valera. The comparison may be more apt than Goldvulture thinks, since Dev started a civil war and was ignorant of economics. Incidentally, Goldvulture's piece on abortion "reform" in the North contains an admission that the 1967 British Abortion Act amounts to abortion on demand - an admission evaded by the Labour Party when they were calling for an identical regime here. One other item is sadly apt - a satiric description of the emergency services going on full alert in preparation for our celebration of St Patrick "who saved us from paganism and mindless violence".
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 6, 2016 20:37:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Apr 7, 2016 10:27:10 GMT
I particularly liked Mark Dooley's paragraphs on beauty and God in that article: "Scruton’s writings convinced me that beauty is next to Godliness. Without beauty, we cannot feel at home in this world and neither can God. It is our way of striving to capture something of the transcendent reality of the divine. In the absence of beauty, we are stranded in a functional wasteland where the satisfaction of pleasure and appetite is the fulfillment of human life. However, where there is beauty we are confronted by something which limits appetite in favor of awe. We see something that is to be revered for its own sake and not solely for the personal pleasure that can be derived from it.
That is why the Church has, traditionally at least, emphasized the pivotal role of beauty in its liturgy. The liturgy was a complete cultural experience in which music, art, and architecture provided a space in which the Creator was made abundantly present to the congregation. Take beauty away and it becomes much harder to identify the sacred in the midst of the profane."
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 9, 2016 20:01:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 19, 2016 19:30:34 GMT
I was going through some back issues of the IRISH TIMES the other day, and I came across a letter from a TCD student activist replying to criticisms of the recent proposal to make TCD students attend classes to teach them about sexual consent. (Unfortunately I forgot to note her name or the date of the paper.) One of the reasons she gave for such classes being necessary was that the general availability of contraception encouraged the perception that women ought to have sex whenever they were asked. Remember this the next time you hear pro-choicers jeering at those who said legalised contraception would open the floodgates, and especially remember it the next time Des O'Malley boasts about how he "stood by the republic".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 22:59:10 GMT
Hibernicus,
From what I understand, these consent classes arose from a myth that 1 in 5 women on US college campuses are raped, as well as other feminist hyper-sensationalism. Also, the thought that people don't know that having sex with someone who doesn't consent is bad, or that those who do know will somehow care after attending a course like this, is on the pretty ludicrous side.
Not that I can speak for all men, but during my time at college I have never heard anything remotely like what the woman in question is speaking about - that is, women being expected to have sex simply because contraception is available. I have no doubt there are guys who try to pressure girls into having sex, but I highly doubt they feel entitled to it (as the article seems to suggest, based on what you're saying). But if the pressuring is the problem, then would it not make sense for women to be attending these courses instead? Courses that tell them how to deal with unwanted situations?
All that said, even if all the above were true, I don't think that would be seen as a very good argument against contraception. People would argue that it's the behaviour that's the problem, not contraception itself.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 22, 2016 21:30:43 GMT
What struck me about the article was that in the early C20 it was fairly common for feminists, even of the secular variety, to express concern that the availability of artificial contraception would lead to this sort of sexual exploitation. (I don't know if it was ever a majority position but it was fairly common, especially before WWI.) What the ladies who brandish the old suffragette colours of green, white and violet to support the pro-choice position don't seem to realise is that for the original sufragettes white symbolised sexual purity for both sexes, which they saw as a necessary condition for equal citizenship. (Conversely some of the opposition to women suffrage came from male rowdies, both plebeian and aristocratic, who feared that giving women the vote would lead to interference with masculine vices.)
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 22, 2016 21:40:48 GMT
Antaine, I believe that 1 in 5 might be exaggerated, but I'd have no problem believing that the problem has increased in recent years. Indeed, there are certain songs in the mainstream music industry which actually glorify the "date rape" phenomenon like Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines". As regards Hibernicus' point, a strong case can be made that society has actually regressed regarding women's rights, since in certain quarters like the music industry, they are treated as mere objects to be exploited at will. The fact that Game Of Thrones, which seems to romanticise barbarian society and unfettered hedonism in a manner not dissimilar to the Dark Enlightenment speaks volumes about what our society values - none of it good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 22:00:06 GMT
I would definitely agree that rape has gotten worse - especially with the apparent glorifying of drunkenness among youth (and not always just the youth), as well as "date-rape" drugs (or whatever they're called) - but the idea that 1 in 5 women are being raped on campuses, and this is somehow an epidemic that went completely unnoticed, is a bit farfetched.
That is true Young Ireland, but unfortunately many women in the industry seem to revel in that kind of image. It's seen as something to be proud of; being able to express your sexuality, or something along those lines. Some women would accuse you of "slut-shaming" for merely pointing it out. Feminism has splintered a lot since its starting days, and each sect has its own set of priorities.
I haven't watched GoT myself, but I'm quite aware of its reputation.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Apr 22, 2016 22:10:58 GMT
I would definitely agree that rape has gotten worse - especially with the apparent glorifying of drunkenness among youth (and not always just the youth), as well as "date-rape" drugs (or whatever they're called) - but the idea that 1 in 5 women are being raped on campuses, and this is somehow an epidemic that went completely unnoticed, is a bit farfetched. That is true Young Ireland, but unfortunately many women in the industry seem to revel in that kind of image. It's seen as something to be proud of; being able to express your sexuality, or something along those lines. Some women would accuse you of "slut-shaming" for merely pointing it out. Feminism has splintered a lot since its starting days, and each sect has its own set of priorities. I haven't watched GoT myself, but I'm quite aware of its reputation. I agree that the figures do seem to be inflated. As for the music industry, there are undoubtedly some women who think like that, but I'd bet that there were many more who are uncomfortable but are under pressure from their managers. To be fair, many feminists have complained about this and rightly so, but quite a few just seem to look the other way. Plato's quote that those who boast of how liberated they are are in fact the greatest slaves of all is very apt I think. I haven't watched GoT either and please God never will - I gave it as a example of what society thinks is cool but is actually quite distrurbing once you realise its implications.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 24, 2016 18:03:07 GMT
Oddly enough, I got the detail about the white in the old suffragette colours standing for purity from a GUARDIAN article by a feminist rejoicing that modern feminists had shaken off such "patriarchal" attitudes. (It's how you express it - the older view would see continence as part of the self-restraint necessary to fulfil the duties of citizenship, the newer one emphasises self-fulfilment as an end in itself a la Vulgar Nietzscheanism. The widespread expression of the view that "austerity" is not merely being imposed on the wrong people but is undesirable per se - cf Fintan O'Toole's view that cutbacks reflect an attempt to portray the economic crisis in terms of a "religious drama" of guilt and penitence - would be another example of this shift in sensibility.)
I have been keeping an eye on the GAME OF THRONES phenomenon for some time, partly out of curiosity about its impact in Northern Ireland, partly because it is devised as an antidote to romanticised views of the Middle Ages - something to which we trads are prone. I have never watched the show (I try to avoid the sort of visual imagery it goes in for) but I have looked at some of the books and the over-populated fan discussion boards. Some points: (1) The author is a lapsed Catholic and disillusioned romantic, who explicitly sets himself up as the anti-Tolkien (hence the use of his middle initials RR), and I must say his picture gives me the creeps whenever I look at it - there is something very nasty about his face. (2) He has a point about Tolkien's black v. white version of conflicts and implicit glamourisation of feudalism (Tolkien's world can be distorted in very nasty ways by fascists, even though this was not Tolkien's intention. Many of the horrors in GAME OF THRONES have real mediaeval analogues, such as Edward I of England's ruthless use of massacres for pragmatic ends - he slaughtered the entire Scots population of Berwick on Tweed so he could cement his hold on the town by replacing them with English - or the chevauchees of the Hundred Years War which involved deliberate devastation of vast areas of territory to starve out the population and so deprive the enemy of support). His fans' claim that he is more sophisticated than Tolkien doesn't really stand up, however - Tolkien gives a much better sense of how cultures develop and coexist (e.g. the coexistence of languages - Tolkien was of course a linguist, whereas there is something dreadfully American in the superficiality of this theme. (3) The moral reasoning is straight out of our old friend "values clarification". Moral absolutism is presented as either hypocritical or suicidal, and the dispute is between different varieties of utilitarianism and consequentialism. In this context, it's not at all suprising that many book fans and viewers wind up admiring the most ruthless and amoral characters, and I would say the cinematic and book perpetrators of them are at least fascinated by these characters and drawn to them by their own nihilism - one of the scriptwriters of the TV show is a TCD graduate with a dissertation on Samuel Beckett, who I am told is deliberately echoed in several scenes, and I am also told the show is much more explicitly atheistic than the books. I suspect the whole thing is like certain forms of pornography in claiming to condemn what it is depicting as a way of anaesthetising the reader's and possibly the writer's conscience, and serves as a reminder that certain things ought not to be shown at all. I find this whole thing too depressing for words.
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Apr 26, 2016 9:32:22 GMT
Game of Thrones has to be the most overrated TV series I’ve ever seen. The depravity really isn’t the problem. The Sopranos, in which the principal characters are evil, was truly great cinema, perhaps the greatest drama series ever made in fact. Similarly, Breaking Bad, which is about the descent into evil of an ordinary suburban husband and high-school teacher, is excellent.
The problem with GOT is that it’s just froth, and it relies on depravity merely to keep the audience’s attention. It compensates for the lack of genuine character development by having its protagonists alternate between cruelty and nobility – as if man’s simultaneous capacity for good and evil was some sort of shocking revelation. (I always feel a little sorry for people who can’t imagine allied soldiers in WWII being pitiless and cruel, or members of the Wehrmacht being honourable and brave.) I suppose a plot-driven series can’t be expected to invest too much in its characters. But one at least expects to feel some kind of pathos when a character is capriciously killed. Not so with GOT.
I will have to take Hib’s word for it as regards the atheistic undertones – somewhere around midway through Season Two I got too bored to continue and I really hadn’t picked up on anything so meaningful at that point. Maybe if I had I would have kept going.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 26, 2016 11:52:16 GMT
(1) The author is a lapsed Catholic and disillusioned romantic, who explicitly sets himself up as the anti-Tolkien (hence the use of his middle initials RR), and I must say his picture gives me the creeps whenever I look at it - there is something very nasty about his face. HA!!! That's how to do the ad hominem with panache, Hibernicus! (I know it was just an aside.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 26, 2016 19:31:50 GMT
It was not intended to be ad hominem. His face really does give me the impression of brutal sensualty. How far this reflects my awareness of the sort of stuff he writes, and an interview with him I once saw in which he says that all his serious relationships with women began at science fiction fan conventions (which have long had a bacchanalian reputation) I don't know, but my impressions of those sort don't necessarily reflect a person's opinions. I remember once being really moved when I saw a notoriously pro-abortion politician with their child in the street - some look or gesture directed towards the child just conveyed intense parental affection - and one of the strongest impressions of goodness and kindness I have ever received came when I met a well-known artist with whose views I disagree (and who recently signed a "Repeal the 8th" petition). Peter Hitchens has a couple of very good pieces on his blog lately about the need to recognise the better qualities of some people who may lead and propagate corrupt lifestyles. The examples he cites are the late drug dealer Howard Marks, who he found had a genuine commitment to free speech and (unlike most pro-drug propagandists) made serious attempts to understand and answer arguments put forward against his position, and a GUARDIAN columnist who recently wrote a memoir of her love affair with a drug dealer who later died saving their child from drowning. hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/04/some-thoughts-on-decca-aitkenheads-extraordinary-memoir-all-at-sea-.htmlhitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/04/peter-hitchens-a-drug-ravaged-criminal-or-nick-cleggguess-which-one-i-trust.htmlOne morning recently I was standing in the shower seething with hatred for Enda Kenny and Gerry Adams (as I frequently do) and the thought suddenly came to me: "Remember they are children of God". I try never to forget it again.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 26, 2016 19:38:05 GMT
BTW my understanding (based on newspaper articles, interviews etc) of the religious position of GAME OF THRONES is as follows - The authors of the TV show are atheists and this is frequently reflected in their writing. The author of the original books is an agnostic, and the basic position of the books is heathen, heavily inflUenced by the American horror writer HP Lovecraft - namely that nature is utterly indifferent to us, and even if gods exist they are so un-human that they might as well be hostile. Always remember the main point between pagans (including atheists) and Christians (and indeed the other Abrahamic faiths) is not whether God exists - it is whether HE loves uS and seeks relationship with us.
|
|