One of the best books on fatherhood is Fatherless America, by American writer David Blankenhorn. In one of the chapters of this book, “The Old Father”, Blankenhorn notes that the traditional, masculine father arouses a strong, negative reaction in modern cultures.

The question is why? I’d like to set out my own answer to this, drawing on the useful source material (and many of the arguments) provided by Blankenhorn.

Gender splitting

Why has there been such a strong rejection of the Old Father? One reason is that the traditional father was strongly masculine. As Blankenhorn writes,

“In essence, the Old Father is the paternal embodiment of ... what several analysts term “the masculine mystique”.

Why is this a problem? The answer runs as follows. We live in a society shaped by liberal political principles. The first principle of liberalism is that to be fully human we must be self-created by our own individual will and reason. However, our sex - our manhood and womanhood - is not something that we can choose for ourselves. It is, in the terms of liberalism, a “biological destiny”.

READ MORE...

Yes alright, Glen is reputed to pull 1,250,000 hits a week and Dem dollar bill fave Daily Kos scores a crispy 400,000 hits a day - as John says, leftists need a lot of opinion-reinforcement.  But in our still very nascant way we have passed a small milestone today - 100,000 visits to the blog since our mid-October start.

Long way to go.  But we’ve made a start of it.  Thanks to all involved and to all who visit. 

EU CONSTITUTION LANDSLIDE FOR THE NO’S DUE TO “MALEVOLENCE AND DISTORTION”

Times London reporter, Omani Padmehum
Times Brussels reporter, Siswe Mbeki

Britain’s position in Europe was thrown into deep confusion this morning as the full extent of the government’s defeat in yesterday’s European Constitution Referendum became clear.  Voters turned their backs on the Prime Minister’s “Yes to Success” campaign by a margin of almost four to one.

Mr Blair was said by aides to be “deeply disappointed but not surprised, and determined to fight on for Britain at the heart of Europe”.

Many observers question how long he will “fight on” as Prime Minister.  His grand design of leading “Britain towards its new purpose in Europe and the world” was crushed as predicted.  The ‘Yes’ campaign, conceived and spearheaded by Sir Peter Mandelson, was humiliated by a staggering 11,771,819 votes to 3,280,812 votes on a turnout of 52%.

READ MORE...

Drinking alone is a miserable business, so this is one alcoholic experience no lady should be asked (or able) to undertake solo.

I’d like to throw into the ring a theory about homosexual politics I’ve been musing on.

One approach to homosexual politics is to assert that homosexuality is genetic, meaning that it’s inborn. The response of a liberal modernist to this will be to insist that it therefore be made not to count, so that an individual is not limited in his will in any way by his homosexuality.

This means invoking the principle of non-discrimination. However, even if everyday forms of discrimination are outlawed (employment, club memberships etc) there is still the limitation that homosexuals cannot choose to be heterosexual. Therefore, a more radical version of non-discrimination is applied, in which it is insisted that homosexuals not be excluded from important forms of heterosexual life, such as marriage and the bearing and raising of children.

The emphasis of this approach, therefore, is on bringing homosexuals within heterosexual norms. This is the way that the “unimpeded individual will” is created.

READ MORE...

“All the particularistic cultural communities that comprise particular liberal democracies stand under a ... civic obligation. Each such community must identify within its own cultural traditions resources that encourage its members to cultivate capacities for civic freedom and civic justice. Communities without such a commitment will effectively exclude their members from participation in liberal democratic political life. Every such community that refuses or fails in this commitment will with all certainty contribute to the failure of the institutions of liberty bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment.”

The closing paragraph of an essay God and the Space of Civic Discourse to be found at this forward-thinking liberal website - well worth a browse.

READ MORE...

Well, it’s a war.  People die in wars.  So that’s alright then.  No need to mention it.  Right?

In the first part of this double post I focussed on the good, hard look a Conservative must take of his position if he is ever to start thinking seriously about his - and our - deepening troubles.  For, the West is entering upon a period of crisis of proportions unseen since the fall of Rome.  It is a crisis that touches upon all areas of life except, by and large, the economic.  And it is NOT the crisis of Conservatism.  That departed over the horizon a hundred years ago.  It is the crisis of advanced liberalism.

I argued that our newly introspective Conservative must think on the causes of his political enfeeblement.  He must acknowledge as fact the victory of liberalism throughout Western society.  In so doing he may realise that liberalism extends to him, too, in all but name.  If he is even to begin to understand the grave responsibility to the future that inhabits the mantle of Conservatism he must first resile from all the anti-Conservative beliefs and values he has imbibed.  Then, if he is wise, he will acknowledge that even that may not be enough.  There are additional difficulties posed him by economism and globalised capital and by democracy which could well be insoluble.  Still, as a Conservative there is only one direction in which he can tread. 

I hope that my Part 1 post made depressing reading.  It was certainly intended to.  But now we are going to change to a major key (well, almost).

READ MORE...