(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!