Pushing the Mantithesis…

(Here’s the latest prompt from my ethics class:

“Ten final candidates for a prestigious University teaching job are all well-qualified–eight are men and two are women. The department is currently all men. Some of the members feel that the female candidates are not as qualified as some of the male candidates. Some feel that all ten are equally qualified and therefore, since the department is currently all male, then they should choose one of the female candidates. What do you think the department should do? Why?

Enjoy my response).

Dear fellow students, I have to come out of the closet about something.  I know it’s not popular; I know it runs counter to all our indoctrination.  But here it is:

I’m a Christian – and not one of the latte’ sipping, Hawaiian-shirt-wearing, limp-wristed sorts.  I’m a Christian like Charles the Hammer Martel, Richard the Lionheart, or Nathan Bedford Forrest were Christians.  And damn me to modernist Hell, but that means that, despite the years of pop-culture hogwash, I’ve retained the manly and chivalrous sensibilities ascribed to that old, much-maligned ilk.

Most importantly for our case (and without concern for the inevitable name-calling which’ll follow) – I hold to the old-world Christian notions of propriety, especially those strict lines between male and female roles (I don’t like the word “gender” for reasons that’ll be clear in a moment).

Without delving into too much argumentation, I’d note that this means I hold to something like a classical idea of education.  That includes the idea that men and women ought to be educated separately.  The solution to our discussion question, then, (as far as I’m concerned) is obvious:

The university in question should hire no women – it needs none.

Of course others, I’m sure, believe there’s some sort of divine mandate that we must “diversify”…as if “diversity” were some heavenly virtue to attain via striving, whatever the cost.

But this is a travesty in my view.  Asking women to compete with men as equals in the marketplace is the worst sort of insanity, because it asks our poor ladies to give up their femininity and strive for a sick sort of pseudo-masculinity that even Lady MacBeth would balk at.

Someone might ask (in response) if I believe men are “superior” to women.

In reply, I’d only note that the question is unintelligible.  We must ask, “superior how?” or “superior in what way?”  Once we qualify the question it should be immediately obvious that men are “superior” to women in some ways but that women are superior in others.  Men, in my view, will always be superior *men* (no woman will ever be more superior at being manly than a man – sorry Hillary), and women will always be superior *women* (no man will ever be more superior at being womanly than a woman – sorry transsexuals)…God created the sexes to fulfill unique roles in life that *only* they can fulfill, regardless of how many pant suits a woman puts on or how many body parts a man has removed.


I know it’s controversial … but I’m stuck with unpopular convictions.  If Hell is the England of Austen, Dickens, and Sir Walter Scott (with all its old-world propriety) … then please… damn me to the seventh level of it!

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Pushing the Mantithesis…

  1. Matt Parrott says:

    Surely the University, owing to its founding ideal of providing a platform for the free flourishing and exchange of ideas, will welcome open and fair discourse on your perspective on sex and gender dynamics.

  2. Chris says:

    Please let us know what kind of reactions you get..

    • Hey Chris,

      The teacher gave me full marks, while admitting (to the class) that some people might take political-correctness too far. (Talk about an understatement).

      The students, those who bothered to read it, called me various names and suggested, in beastly pop-culture terms, that I am a horrible person, bent on “suppressing” and mistreating women.

      …pretty much exactly what they’ve been programmed to say.

      • Fr. John+ says:

        Bravo! I’d give you an A+. With the references to literature of Europe, and the allusion to Dante’s Inferno. clearly you are a ‘cut above’ most of the sorry undergrads I have had to teach these last three decades. You are a Mensch, young man.

        Vaya con Dios.

  3. anonymous says:

    It’s hard to know what exactly the ethics professor wants you to think about in this situation. However, I’m guessing he wants the students to consider the controversy of a kind of affirmative action for women. Only, you can’t really do this the way he wants, because you reject some fundamental assumptions in of the problem. Consider an analogy: a history professor asks you to comment about the impact of plague on sixth-century Byzantine Empire, and you respond by denying there was any such plague. In this case, your ethics professor is asking you to comment on how to deal with women who are qualified for the job, and you respond by denying that there are such qualified women! Of course, you could always justify your position with an argument, but maybe that’s not something your ethics professor would like you to do.

    • Well, to be accurate, my position is that I couldn’t care less if women are “qualified”.

      What does that mean, anyway? “Qualified”?

      Suppose I walk up to a beautiful married woman and tell her I’m more “qualified” than her husband? We might even offer objective parameters: I make such and such more a year than her husband. I have this-or-that less amount of flub around my belly. I have x-amount more friends.

      Would me being more “qualified” persuade her to give up her marriage and join me?

      Only an inhuman modernist would go for that sort of “scientifically rational” logic. A computer set to simulate matches might. But the woman on the street would likely slap me. “That’s what I think of you and your qualifications!” she’d rightly say.

      All this is to say: it’s not about “qualifications” at all – it’s about morality and propriety.

      • Flavius says:

        But you are dealing with an employment decision here, not with a personal relationship. Are you saying that there are no criteria that we can use to determine who among those 10 people is the best person for that specific job?

      • Swiss Kinist says:

        That is great. I love the idea of questioning definitions. I was just teaching my children the other day about how people define words is based on who is LORD. The word definition is correlated with the word “definite” in which we can link with truth. Only God’s word defines what truth is; only the LORD Jesus Christ is truth. For man to define anything, he is seeking to determine truth for himself (Genesis 3— determining good and evil). Thus, as in your example, the word qualified; the world defines the word qualified based on man being god, and man determining for himself what qualified is in the given context. Your disagreement with the other students is based on who you have made LORD.

  4. Consider what I said in the article:

    “I hold to something like a classical idea of education. That includes the idea that men and women ought to be educated separately. The solution to our discussion question, then, (as far as I’m concerned) is obvious:

    The university in question should hire no women – it needs none.”

    But holding to a classical idea of education doesn’t seem to obligate me (in any way) to a rejection of all criteria for teachers.

  5. I took an ethics class that dealt more with the history of philosophy than such blatant Political Correctness. Though the professor did make some blasphemous statements, it wasn’t this bad or in a question format…



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s