Main Edition
US
FR
What would Castro say? (Leon Neal/Getty Images)
It’s always interesting when the fiendish plans of undercover socialists are dragged into the light. This week, just such an occasion was unexpectedly provided at the National Conservatism conference. Alongside standard Thatcherite fare about free markets, small states, and level playing fields, a dedicated band of what are sometimes called “Tory socialists” — in other words, communitarian and post-liberal thinkers highly critical of liberal individualism — made the case for their own distinctive vision of the glorious future.
The good news is they want us to have lots and lots of sex. The bad news is they also want us to be heterosexual, married to the person we’re having sex with and avoiding contraception while we do it. Working motherhood, free childcare, and quickie divorces are out. Babies and the “normative family held together by marriage” are in.
For some liberal conservatives, it apparently all came as a bit of a shock. Meanwhile, for those looking for any excuse to call the Conservative Party “fascist”, it was a field day. Once the stuff on reproduction was judiciously combined with material from migrant-averse Tory speakers such as Suella Braverman and Jacob Rees-Mogg, the whole package started to look to many like a cover version of Viktor Orbán’s greatest hits — including to Orbán’s own political director. Not that this would have necessarily dismayed the speakers in question.
As I watched the conference unfold, I started to think that having a name that starts with “National” and ends with “ism” might be the least of National Conservatism’s image problems. When I first read about the event, I vaguely imagined that it would be a mostly cerebral affair, conducted behind closed doors — a thrashing out of disputed intellectual territory, with the aim of forming a shared, reinvigorated vision for the direction of conservatism, currently languishing in near-terminal decline. I didn’t realise it would be done in the full glare of the media and the voting public.
I didn’t anticipate there would be a film of MP Danny Kruger coming across like a slightly sinister vicar, lecturing the British public about what many naively assume are private romantic relationships (“Marriage is not all about you … It’s not just a private arrangement, it’s a public act by which you undertake to live for someone else, for their sake, and the sake of your children, and the sake of wider society!”). I didn’t think they would let Miriam Cates say, out loud and in full view of The Guardian’s deputy political editor, that “cultural Marxism… is systematically destroying our children’s souls”. In short, I didn’t expect them to go full Back to Basics, having barely arrived on the scene. I thought they might take a bit of a run-up first.
Some of the consequent hostile reaction is just opportunist histrionics from enemies seeking political advantage. There’s nothing fascist, or even particularly Right-wing, about policies attempting to stabilise families for the good of children’s welfare, or to redress declining birth rates with an eye to protecting future pensions and the welfare state. It’s perfectly fine to consider how present socioeconomic models, often focused upon treating the sexes equally, badly serve some distinctive needs of mothers and their children. And it’s appropriate to worry about the way in which personal development curricula in schools have been outsourced to companies thronging with sexual libertarians, self-identifying as moral saints. Indeed, if Keir Starmer doesn’t also think critically about these things, he will be missing a vote-winning trick.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI admire the writer for her resistance to Wokery. But she is wrong about glossing over Cultural Marxism. Coined essentially by Antonio Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks it espouses exactly what the Left has achieved today. Destroying the institutions which were the bedrock of classical Liberal societies- the heterosexual family, religious faith, communities based on charity and service etc
What is wrong with espousing these values?
It is Cultural Marxism which arose from American campuses in the 1960s as a mass movement within academia which destroyed the social cohesion of Western societies in particular.
At best you are demonstrating some ignorance on the origins of Cultural Marxism as a phrase and label. It comes from far right antisemitic conspiracy theory as far back as the 1930s particularly used by Far Right propagandists in the lead up to WW2 and beyond. Anyone with an ounce of awareness would be aware of that history and thus find more appropriate descriptor.
In line with the Author’s theme, there is nothing wrong in voicing differences of opinion and potential policy responses on how society has or may develop. There is much we need to debate. When you spill over into racial memes though you pull back the veil on your own ignorance or worse.
The term as used today obviously comes from Gramsci with concrete references, not wild accusations of anti-Semitism.
The ‘poisoned dwarf’ of Sardinia no less.
The ‘poisoned dwarf’ of Sardinia no less.
You disappoint me by chucking in that antisemitic barb!
It was beneath you, as you well know.
Come on Charles, if you give your new grouping a name like ‘Nat C’ wtf do you expect? Clowns did they not think about it.
NC is bonkers I agree!
But you cannot afford to be mired as an A-S can you?
NC is bonkers I agree!
But you cannot afford to be mired as an A-S can you?
Come on Charles, if you give your new grouping a name like ‘Nat C’ wtf do you expect? Clowns did they not think about it.
“Anyone with an ounce of awareness would be aware of that history”
I’m sure the overwhelming majority of the population have either never heard of the term or don’t understand it.
A sizeable minority do know the term as it is currently used ie short hand for the transposition of Marx’s oppressed/oppressor world view from a class (economic) base to an identity (culture) base.
A tiny minority insist on dissecting the history of the term to display their smarts and deflect from the substance of the discussion.
This post was sponsored by the ADL.
What is ADL?
Anti-defamation League?
Thank you
Thank you
Anti-defamation League?
What is ADL?
This is unfair. The term “cultural Marxism“ is in widespread use in the sense intended by its users at the conference, as used by Gramsci; nothing whatsoever to do with any anti-semitic trope.
Who in their right mind can keep up with all these phrases and changing terms? What is a “liberal conservative” anyway? It is quite interesting that over 50 years, my political thoughts have not changed, yet by today’s standards, I went from being a liberal, to a conservative, part of the vast right-wing conspiracy and eventually being termed a fascist! The only thing missing was a neo-something or other.
I’m a liberal conservative. We used to be known as liberals, until (roughly) World War I. John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jean-Baptiste Say, John Stuart Mill, you know the rest.
I’m a liberal conservative. We used to be known as liberals, until (roughly) World War I. John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jean-Baptiste Say, John Stuart Mill, you know the rest.
Who in their right mind can keep up with all these phrases and changing terms? What is a “liberal conservative” anyway? It is quite interesting that over 50 years, my political thoughts have not changed, yet by today’s standards, I went from being a liberal, to a conservative, part of the vast right-wing conspiracy and eventually being termed a fascist! The only thing missing was a neo-something or other.
Agreed. No one using “cultural Marxism” should pretend that they don’t know it’s a dog-whistle to anti-semites. I wonder if those commenting here realise that they are aligning themselves with Corbyn and others on the far-left who see the hidden hand of “Zionism” behind everything. This would be funny if it wasn’t so unpleasant
You people need to give up trying to control our language.
You people need to give up trying to control our language.
Jafa and Watson are both wrong. Jaffa, like all who claim Gramsci invented Wokery, gives no sources. Watson raises “antisemitism” as a way of dismissing any debate about the relevance of the fact that the Frankfurt School was all self-identified Jews.
Read any standard analysis of Antonio Gramsci and see the parallels. You could also see Roger Scuton to understand where 1960s radicalism came from.
Read any standard analysis of Antonio Gramsci and see the parallels. You could also see Roger Scuton to understand where 1960s radicalism came from.
To live in denial of the extreme nature of Cultural Marxism by taking recourse to tautological hair splitting is showing you up as the dogmatic illiberal you are. By the way there was a certain Socialism of the 1930s in Germany which was as race based in its approach as today’s Woke warriors and Cultural Marxists.
I think the only people who make this connection today are people who want to discredit the people who use the term. Very cunning.
You people are simply trying to prevent the rest of us from describing your disgusting woke fascism. That you people claim to be offended by the usage of terminology such as “cultural Marxism” will rightly inspire the rest of us to double down on its usage.
The term as used today obviously comes from Gramsci with concrete references, not wild accusations of anti-Semitism.
You disappoint me by chucking in that antisemitic barb!
It was beneath you, as you well know.
“Anyone with an ounce of awareness would be aware of that history”
I’m sure the overwhelming majority of the population have either never heard of the term or don’t understand it.
A sizeable minority do know the term as it is currently used ie short hand for the transposition of Marx’s oppressed/oppressor world view from a class (economic) base to an identity (culture) base.
A tiny minority insist on dissecting the history of the term to display their smarts and deflect from the substance of the discussion.
This post was sponsored by the ADL.
This is unfair. The term “cultural Marxism“ is in widespread use in the sense intended by its users at the conference, as used by Gramsci; nothing whatsoever to do with any anti-semitic trope.
Agreed. No one using “cultural Marxism” should pretend that they don’t know it’s a dog-whistle to anti-semites. I wonder if those commenting here realise that they are aligning themselves with Corbyn and others on the far-left who see the hidden hand of “Zionism” behind everything. This would be funny if it wasn’t so unpleasant
Jafa and Watson are both wrong. Jaffa, like all who claim Gramsci invented Wokery, gives no sources. Watson raises “antisemitism” as a way of dismissing any debate about the relevance of the fact that the Frankfurt School was all self-identified Jews.
To live in denial of the extreme nature of Cultural Marxism by taking recourse to tautological hair splitting is showing you up as the dogmatic illiberal you are. By the way there was a certain Socialism of the 1930s in Germany which was as race based in its approach as today’s Woke warriors and Cultural Marxists.
I think the only people who make this connection today are people who want to discredit the people who use the term. Very cunning.
You people are simply trying to prevent the rest of us from describing your disgusting woke fascism. That you people claim to be offended by the usage of terminology such as “cultural Marxism” will rightly inspire the rest of us to double down on its usage.
I agree. I don’t believe that suggesting that those heterosexual couples who wish to have children should probably be married and stay together unless experiencing abuse says anything about other families.
People end up single parents for many reasons and I don’t believe they should be looked down on. Gay couples too who adopt or otherwise have children should be perfectly capable of bringing up children.
There was a story in the UK recently about a single forty something woman, wealthy, who thought it was reasonable for her to have a child on her own with a father being around. She was fed up with men. I found her attitude incredibly arrogant and find it impossible to believe that such a person could bring up a well balanced child.
I think we can be comfortable with nontraditional families and still encourage people to get married before having children and to stay married.
“I don’t believe that suggesting … says anything about other families.”
And perhaps it doesn’t but, how to put this gently… but, apparently, you do because just two paras later, there you are saying that a forty-something woman opting to have a child on her own is so arrogant that she couldn’t possibly bring up “a well-balanced child.”
good old 2 Para
Soldier F of 1 PARA has been on trial now for five months, thanks to legal contortions that would have astonished Hammurabi, Draco and even Solomon himself.
It is a national disgrace.
Operation Slapstick
Soldier F of 1 PARA has been on trial now for five months, thanks to legal contortions that would have astonished Hammurabi, Draco and even Solomon himself.
It is a national disgrace.
Operation Slapstick
“Couldn’t possibly“ is indeed, too extreme. However, it is perfectly reasonable to have the view that it would be far less likely than would be the case in a well balanced family.
Might that be one where both parents have a chip on their shoulder, bringing up their children in the familial equivalent of a deep fat fryer?
Philip Larkin wasn’t wrong with his:
They f**k you up, your.mum and dad
Written by a man who had no kids.
Edited. Misread as “has no kids”.
Apologies.
For good reason. He didn’t want to f**k up any more people.
Edited. Misread as “has no kids”.
Apologies.
For good reason. He didn’t want to f**k up any more people.
Written by a man who had no kids.
“Couldn’t possibly” if the woman is conducting a private war against men, especially if the child is a boy. (If she’s a girl, she will still live in a world that is half men, and will probably marry one, so the private war won’t be good for her either.)
Otherwise, could possibly. It happens all the time. But the odds are against it.
Might that be one where both parents have a chip on their shoulder, bringing up their children in the familial equivalent of a deep fat fryer?
Philip Larkin wasn’t wrong with his:
They f**k you up, your.mum and dad
“Couldn’t possibly” if the woman is conducting a private war against men, especially if the child is a boy. (If she’s a girl, she will still live in a world that is half men, and will probably marry one, so the private war won’t be good for her either.)
Otherwise, could possibly. It happens all the time. But the odds are against it.
good old 2 Para
“Couldn’t possibly“ is indeed, too extreme. However, it is perfectly reasonable to have the view that it would be far less likely than would be the case in a well balanced family.
“People end up single parents for many reasons and I don’t believe they should be looked down on.”
I disagree, Jonathan. Among those who end up as single parents, after all, are those who do so by choice. Some are upper-middle-class women who believe that they have some “right” to children. Single mothers by choice, in fact, is their movement (see https://www.singlemothersbychoice.org/). Others are lower-class women who can get more financial help from the government than they can from unemployed husbands or boyfriends. Still others are teenage girls, who want someone (a child) to love them unconditionally but are not ready for marriage.
Along with single mothers by choice, of course, are single mothers by default (due to being separated, divorced, abandoned or widowed). These women do deserve respect and help–but not to the point of trivializing or relativizing marriage as a result. There’s a huge difference between a social norm (which is why every society must actively promote marriage in the interest of children by conferring status or even special benefits on married couples) and exceptions to the norm (which are acceptable in some circumstances, and deserving of compassion but not of normative status).
Support for single parenthood, straight or gay, has taken on a political life of its own in the context of ideologies that place the highest value on the rights of adults, not children. It might make no difference if children did not actually need at least one parent of each sex (as distinct from no mother or no father but also from two mothers or two fathers). But children do need both mothers and fathers, because mothers and fathers (like women and men in general) are not interchangeable. Mothers and fathers have distinctive functions within the family. I can’t explain all of that here and now, but my point of view has support from studies and is at least worth taking seriously.
Enthusiastic agreement.
It certainly can and should be taken seriously, but i’d question the premise that the distinctive roles you cite are more than constructs arising from socio-economic conditions which required them, and which may no longer apply.
In terms of role models, i’d argue that just as many poor role models exist as positive ones. The number of people i’ve met who found one, other or both parents insufferable at least equals those who didn’t.
One of the commandments: Honour thy father and thy mother, brings commandments into disrepute if, for instance, parents are abusive, belittling, indolent, addicted, etc.
“I’d question the premise that the distinctive roles you cite are more than constructs arising from socio-economic conditions which required them, and which may no longer apply.”
I’d never say that all parents are effective, let alone that all people are moral paragons. We watch the news every day in horror, wondering how people can act as they do but realizing that we can expect more of this horror as society fragments and collapses around us. Of interest to me here is the cultural ideal that every healthy society tries to implement and that parents strive to realize.
Also, there’s nothing trivial (which is what you imply) about the ways in which culture interacts with nature to generate the matrix in which we live. It’s true, though, that, as humans, we live in a state of flux and must adapt to changing circumstances. I just don’t think that some current adaptations, such as “alternative families,” are actually as successful as some earlier ones.
But no, Steve, “role modeling” is not at all what I had in mind. Even if I were to argue that children must all learn some assigned “gender role” and perform it correctly—and I don’t argue that—I still wouldn’t argue that only fathers could teach that script to their sons and only mothers to their daughters. It’s probably easier for fathers to “perform” a standard version of masculinity and mothers to “perform” a standard version of femininity, instead of the reverse, but I wasn’t referring to that theatrical paradigm in my earlier comment. Rather, I was referring to the distinctive relational messages that fathers and mothers offer their children.
In the case of mothers, their most basic psychological function within family life has always boiled down, ultimately, to providing children with unconditional love. Not all mothers are equally effective in communicating and evoking that bond, it’s true, but all mothers are equipped by nature with the ability to feed infants and, at least to some extent (assuming cultural encouragement), with the willingness to interact emotionally with them. In effect, mothers tell their young children (both sons and daughters), “I’ll always love you, no matter what becomes of you.” This is one of two sources of self-confidence, which is necessary for children to become mature adults.
In the case of fathers, their most basic function within family life has always boiled down to providing their children with earned respect, the other source of self-confidence. This function does not begin immediately for fathers, when their children are newborns or toddlers. It begins gradually and later, when they prepare to leave home and enter the larger community. In effect, fathers tell their somewhat older children (both sons and daughters),”I’ll respect you if you learn to live honorably and effectively in our community.” This has nothing to do with emotion, although it doesn’t preclude emotional attachment. Fathers can, and usually do, love their children. But love, per se, is not their most important contribution. Moreover, it doesn’t necessarily produce emotional gratification for fathers, at least not until their children are mature. In this way, fathers and mothers do not have the same function and are therefore not interchangeable.
It’s true, in theory, that mothers and fathers could switch functions, with mothers providing earned respect and fathers providing unconditional love. But that could present at least two serious problems that few experts or activists are willing to consider. I doubt that many mothers are ready even now to distance themselves enough from their children to command earned respect—not even if they are the ones, not the fathers, who work beyond the home. Maybe cultural intervention or training would eventually prepare them to do so, maybe not. The results of current experiments in social engineering, such as abandoning any gender system at all, are not yet in. Second, especially for single parents, I doubt that either mothers or fathers would help children in this fundamental way by giving them double messages. Coming from the same parent, after all, unconditional love conflicts with earned respect.
A thorough and insightful response. However, i can’t agree that i’m trivialising the interaction of culture with nature; rather the opposite. We have just a few thousand years of recorded history by which to weigh the roles of human fathers and mothers, against a backdrop not only of many hundreds of thousands of years when circumstances may well have been different but also the examples provided by other species where there is no fixed element of those qualities that you attribute to respective parents. The seminal insight would be that each species varies in its parental roles according to the circumstances that would provide for the greater chance of offspring thriving to reproduce the genes of the parents in succeeding generations.
The question that faces us now, therefore, is whether the succession of genes is being enhanced or hindered by prevailing cultural mores. It’s far from settled, and this discussion is (in my opinion) primarily about whether there are settled features, which you seem to imply, or not.
I’m not sure, Steve, that other species of either the past or the present are really useful in this discussion. We’re not chimps, after all, or bonobos. Nor, for that matter, are we now what our early hominid ancestors were.
As you say, though, nothing is forever. So far, humans have often overruled or bypassed natural inclinations in many ways. Obvious examples include cultural interference with such basic natural functions as eating (foods that are either prescribed or proscribed for symbolic reasons, say, or periods of fasting) and sexual behavior (hedonism at one extreme or monastic asceticism at the other). I can hardly predict the future. Who knows how people will use culture to work either with nature or against it? History is littered with human experiments, some of which were relatively effective for a while and others less effective due at least partly to the law of unforeseen consequences. The transhumanists are very ambitious as utopians, but so are the feminists, wokers and transgenderists in their own ways. Nothing about those movements, so far, leaves me with any reason for optimism.
My comment, however, was about how human families have, to our knowledge, functioned in the knowable past–knowable, that is, to the extent that historians do their jobs instead of promoting their favorite ideologies. And the same applies to anthropologists and psychologists. We do have information at our disposal, more than ever before. I’d say that we ignore it at our peril.
P.S. I foolishly omitted one word in my earlier comment. I referred to the “most basic function of fathers.” I should have referred more specifically to their psychological functions. I mention this here, because the state has already replaced fathers when it comes to practical functions such as providing resources and protection. This situation, too, gives me no reason for optimism. Apart from anything else, it has led to the increasing independence of women but also to the increasing obsolescence of men. The experiment will not, I think, end well. Judging from historical and cross-cultural evidence, once again, I’d say that humans, as a social species, are far more likely to flourish by fostering inter-dependence than by fostering sexual (or any other kind of) polarization.
The state has not replaced competent fathers, you know, the ones who earn a middle-class living, set an example for their children by taking care of them, etc.
That’s true, Laurence, in one way. But the state has largely replaced men per se, including inadequate fathers.
Psychologically, the modern state is everyone’s ultimate provider and protector, which are two of the central functions, both historically and cross-culturally, of fathers). This is partly because women can now do both, if not by themselves then with help from countless agencies of the state. In theory, it’s true that women cannot be fathers (although some feminists would trivialize that fact and most transgenderists would deny it). In fact, though, the state routinely intrudes on family life through the courts and other bureaucracies to protect women from men and children from fathers. Given the prospect of losing their children, the wonder is not that so many men marry and become fathers but that any still do.
Moreover, both elite (or academic) culture and popular culture have long insisted that fathers and mothers are interchangeable for all purposes except gestation and lactation (and often gone further by insisting that fathers are luxuries or walking wallets at best and potential molesters at worst). And the state has fostered these illusions by establishing the legitimacy of both single-parenting-by-choice (which usually involves single-mothers-by-choice, thus denying that children need fathers) and same-sex marriage (which provides children with either two mothers or two fathers but not one of each).
I agree that we need to celebrate and encourage “competent” fathers (instead of denouncing incompetent ones as President Obama did on his first Fathers’ Day in office). And I do think that fathering is the one remaining source of healthy masculine identity (being able to make at least one contribution to society that is distinctive, necessary and publicly valued). But we’ll need a cultural revolution to undo the damage of public indifference to both men and fatherless children.
That’s true, Laurence, in one way. But the state has largely replaced men per se, including inadequate fathers.
Psychologically, the modern state is everyone’s ultimate provider and protector, which are two of the central functions, both historically and cross-culturally, of fathers). This is partly because women can now do both, if not by themselves then with help from countless agencies of the state. In theory, it’s true that women cannot be fathers (although some feminists would trivialize that fact and most transgenderists would deny it). In fact, though, the state routinely intrudes on family life through the courts and other bureaucracies to protect women from men and children from fathers. Given the prospect of losing their children, the wonder is not that so many men marry and become fathers but that any still do.
Moreover, both elite (or academic) culture and popular culture have long insisted that fathers and mothers are interchangeable for all purposes except gestation and lactation (and often gone further by insisting that fathers are luxuries or walking wallets at best and potential molesters at worst). And the state has fostered these illusions by establishing the legitimacy of both single-parenting-by-choice (which usually involves single-mothers-by-choice, thus denying that children need fathers) and same-sex marriage (which provides children with either two mothers or two fathers but not one of each).
I agree that we need to celebrate and encourage “competent” fathers (instead of denouncing incompetent ones as President Obama did on his first Fathers’ Day in office). And I do think that fathering is the one remaining source of healthy masculine identity (being able to make at least one contribution to society that is distinctive, necessary and publicly valued). But we’ll need a cultural revolution to undo the damage of public indifference to both men and fatherless children.
The state has not replaced competent fathers, you know, the ones who earn a middle-class living, set an example for their children by taking care of them, etc.
I’m not sure, Steve, that other species of either the past or the present are really useful in this discussion. We’re not chimps, after all, or bonobos. Nor, for that matter, are we now what our early hominid ancestors were.
As you say, though, nothing is forever. So far, humans have often overruled or bypassed natural inclinations in many ways. Obvious examples include cultural interference with such basic natural functions as eating (foods that are either prescribed or proscribed for symbolic reasons, say, or periods of fasting) and sexual behavior (hedonism at one extreme or monastic asceticism at the other). I can hardly predict the future. Who knows how people will use culture to work either with nature or against it? History is littered with human experiments, some of which were relatively effective for a while and others less effective due at least partly to the law of unforeseen consequences. The transhumanists are very ambitious as utopians, but so are the feminists, wokers and transgenderists in their own ways. Nothing about those movements, so far, leaves me with any reason for optimism.
My comment, however, was about how human families have, to our knowledge, functioned in the knowable past–knowable, that is, to the extent that historians do their jobs instead of promoting their favorite ideologies. And the same applies to anthropologists and psychologists. We do have information at our disposal, more than ever before. I’d say that we ignore it at our peril.
P.S. I foolishly omitted one word in my earlier comment. I referred to the “most basic function of fathers.” I should have referred more specifically to their psychological functions. I mention this here, because the state has already replaced fathers when it comes to practical functions such as providing resources and protection. This situation, too, gives me no reason for optimism. Apart from anything else, it has led to the increasing independence of women but also to the increasing obsolescence of men. The experiment will not, I think, end well. Judging from historical and cross-cultural evidence, once again, I’d say that humans, as a social species, are far more likely to flourish by fostering inter-dependence than by fostering sexual (or any other kind of) polarization.
A thorough and insightful response. However, i can’t agree that i’m trivialising the interaction of culture with nature; rather the opposite. We have just a few thousand years of recorded history by which to weigh the roles of human fathers and mothers, against a backdrop not only of many hundreds of thousands of years when circumstances may well have been different but also the examples provided by other species where there is no fixed element of those qualities that you attribute to respective parents. The seminal insight would be that each species varies in its parental roles according to the circumstances that would provide for the greater chance of offspring thriving to reproduce the genes of the parents in succeeding generations.
The question that faces us now, therefore, is whether the succession of genes is being enhanced or hindered by prevailing cultural mores. It’s far from settled, and this discussion is (in my opinion) primarily about whether there are settled features, which you seem to imply, or not.
“. . .brings Commandments into disrepute if. . .”
No, it is clear that God’s Fifth Commandment is to honor one’s parents, even if they are abusive, etc. (Though I understand many people would view this as “difficult,” as if Christianity had anything to do with evading difficulties.)
“I’d question the premise that the distinctive roles you cite are more than constructs arising from socio-economic conditions which required them, and which may no longer apply.”
I’d never say that all parents are effective, let alone that all people are moral paragons. We watch the news every day in horror, wondering how people can act as they do but realizing that we can expect more of this horror as society fragments and collapses around us. Of interest to me here is the cultural ideal that every healthy society tries to implement and that parents strive to realize.
Also, there’s nothing trivial (which is what you imply) about the ways in which culture interacts with nature to generate the matrix in which we live. It’s true, though, that, as humans, we live in a state of flux and must adapt to changing circumstances. I just don’t think that some current adaptations, such as “alternative families,” are actually as successful as some earlier ones.
But no, Steve, “role modeling” is not at all what I had in mind. Even if I were to argue that children must all learn some assigned “gender role” and perform it correctly—and I don’t argue that—I still wouldn’t argue that only fathers could teach that script to their sons and only mothers to their daughters. It’s probably easier for fathers to “perform” a standard version of masculinity and mothers to “perform” a standard version of femininity, instead of the reverse, but I wasn’t referring to that theatrical paradigm in my earlier comment. Rather, I was referring to the distinctive relational messages that fathers and mothers offer their children.
In the case of mothers, their most basic psychological function within family life has always boiled down, ultimately, to providing children with unconditional love. Not all mothers are equally effective in communicating and evoking that bond, it’s true, but all mothers are equipped by nature with the ability to feed infants and, at least to some extent (assuming cultural encouragement), with the willingness to interact emotionally with them. In effect, mothers tell their young children (both sons and daughters), “I’ll always love you, no matter what becomes of you.” This is one of two sources of self-confidence, which is necessary for children to become mature adults.
In the case of fathers, their most basic function within family life has always boiled down to providing their children with earned respect, the other source of self-confidence. This function does not begin immediately for fathers, when their children are newborns or toddlers. It begins gradually and later, when they prepare to leave home and enter the larger community. In effect, fathers tell their somewhat older children (both sons and daughters),”I’ll respect you if you learn to live honorably and effectively in our community.” This has nothing to do with emotion, although it doesn’t preclude emotional attachment. Fathers can, and usually do, love their children. But love, per se, is not their most important contribution. Moreover, it doesn’t necessarily produce emotional gratification for fathers, at least not until their children are mature. In this way, fathers and mothers do not have the same function and are therefore not interchangeable.
It’s true, in theory, that mothers and fathers could switch functions, with mothers providing earned respect and fathers providing unconditional love. But that could present at least two serious problems that few experts or activists are willing to consider. I doubt that many mothers are ready even now to distance themselves enough from their children to command earned respect—not even if they are the ones, not the fathers, who work beyond the home. Maybe cultural intervention or training would eventually prepare them to do so, maybe not. The results of current experiments in social engineering, such as abandoning any gender system at all, are not yet in. Second, especially for single parents, I doubt that either mothers or fathers would help children in this fundamental way by giving them double messages. Coming from the same parent, after all, unconditional love conflicts with earned respect.
“. . .brings Commandments into disrepute if. . .”
No, it is clear that God’s Fifth Commandment is to honor one’s parents, even if they are abusive, etc. (Though I understand many people would view this as “difficult,” as if Christianity had anything to do with evading difficulties.)
Enthusiastic agreement.
It certainly can and should be taken seriously, but i’d question the premise that the distinctive roles you cite are more than constructs arising from socio-economic conditions which required them, and which may no longer apply.
In terms of role models, i’d argue that just as many poor role models exist as positive ones. The number of people i’ve met who found one, other or both parents insufferable at least equals those who didn’t.
One of the commandments: Honour thy father and thy mother, brings commandments into disrepute if, for instance, parents are abusive, belittling, indolent, addicted, etc.
I agree with you. And I say that as a single mother. We need to admit the truth. Although single parenthood can be done well, it is not as good a way of raising children as a committed and loving marriage. Children – sons in particular – need fathers. Mine undoubtedly suffered from not having one in his life. Of course a committed, loving marriage is vanishingly rare these days. When I look at my son’s generation, most seem to be separated, divorced, or wishing they were. Perhaps this starts with people recognising that there is no perfect world and no perfect relationship and that, once you have children, their welfare trumps your own and compromises must be made. Young people would do well to listen to JBP on the subject.
Daughters also need fathers, as any stripper will tell you. (They phrase it as having “daddy issues.”) I have no moral beef with stripping, but there seems to be a very high correlation between it and paternal absence.
Daughters also need fathers, as any stripper will tell you. (They phrase it as having “daddy issues.”) I have no moral beef with stripping, but there seems to be a very high correlation between it and paternal absence.
I very much agree with your final paragraph. In this I find Stock to be a little unfair as I think that the people she criticises at NatCon had in mind something practical like changing the tax laws, so as to give advantage to those people who do decide to form a family unit, but without advocating any negativity towards those who do not. There is nothing wrong with society expressing the view, through its tax laws for example, that this is the way we prefer social matters to be conducted, but you are still able to ignore that. Her view was in danger of demanding maximum liberality on the basis that any departure from liberality threatened a return to 1950s culture.
“I don’t believe that suggesting … says anything about other families.”
And perhaps it doesn’t but, how to put this gently… but, apparently, you do because just two paras later, there you are saying that a forty-something woman opting to have a child on her own is so arrogant that she couldn’t possibly bring up “a well-balanced child.”
“People end up single parents for many reasons and I don’t believe they should be looked down on.”
I disagree, Jonathan. Among those who end up as single parents, after all, are those who do so by choice. Some are upper-middle-class women who believe that they have some “right” to children. Single mothers by choice, in fact, is their movement (see https://www.singlemothersbychoice.org/). Others are lower-class women who can get more financial help from the government than they can from unemployed husbands or boyfriends. Still others are teenage girls, who want someone (a child) to love them unconditionally but are not ready for marriage.
Along with single mothers by choice, of course, are single mothers by default (due to being separated, divorced, abandoned or widowed). These women do deserve respect and help–but not to the point of trivializing or relativizing marriage as a result. There’s a huge difference between a social norm (which is why every society must actively promote marriage in the interest of children by conferring status or even special benefits on married couples) and exceptions to the norm (which are acceptable in some circumstances, and deserving of compassion but not of normative status).
Support for single parenthood, straight or gay, has taken on a political life of its own in the context of ideologies that place the highest value on the rights of adults, not children. It might make no difference if children did not actually need at least one parent of each sex (as distinct from no mother or no father but also from two mothers or two fathers). But children do need both mothers and fathers, because mothers and fathers (like women and men in general) are not interchangeable. Mothers and fathers have distinctive functions within the family. I can’t explain all of that here and now, but my point of view has support from studies and is at least worth taking seriously.
I agree with you. And I say that as a single mother. We need to admit the truth. Although single parenthood can be done well, it is not as good a way of raising children as a committed and loving marriage. Children – sons in particular – need fathers. Mine undoubtedly suffered from not having one in his life. Of course a committed, loving marriage is vanishingly rare these days. When I look at my son’s generation, most seem to be separated, divorced, or wishing they were. Perhaps this starts with people recognising that there is no perfect world and no perfect relationship and that, once you have children, their welfare trumps your own and compromises must be made. Young people would do well to listen to JBP on the subject.
I very much agree with your final paragraph. In this I find Stock to be a little unfair as I think that the people she criticises at NatCon had in mind something practical like changing the tax laws, so as to give advantage to those people who do decide to form a family unit, but without advocating any negativity towards those who do not. There is nothing wrong with society expressing the view, through its tax laws for example, that this is the way we prefer social matters to be conducted, but you are still able to ignore that. Her view was in danger of demanding maximum liberality on the basis that any departure from liberality threatened a return to 1950s culture.
Of Ms Stock was a full paid up member
Cultural Marxism also seems like an apt term when you consider that today’s forms of it ramified out of a 1980s movement to collapse the difference between high and low culture by tenured radicals steeped in Marxism who were in the process of capitulating meekly to the marketization of their institutions, knowing they’d be retired before its effects were suffered by their students’ students. They tacitly avoided risking their campus lifestyles by engaging in politics that might have antagonized their paymasters by pivoting to canon politics i.e.distorting cultural history to make it representative of the contemporary identity political landscape. This was a leveling project that was deeply informed by Marxism even if it was no longer the old Marxism and we can accurately call it such in the same way that we call early forms of Christianity Neoplatonic even though Neoplatonism was originally a pagan phenomenon.
At best you are demonstrating some ignorance on the origins of Cultural Marxism as a phrase and label. It comes from far right antisemitic conspiracy theory as far back as the 1930s particularly used by Far Right propagandists in the lead up to WW2 and beyond. Anyone with an ounce of awareness would be aware of that history and thus find more appropriate descriptor.
In line with the Author’s theme, there is nothing wrong in voicing differences of opinion and potential policy responses on how society has or may develop. There is much we need to debate. When you spill over into racial memes though you pull back the veil on your own ignorance or worse.
I agree. I don’t believe that suggesting that those heterosexual couples who wish to have children should probably be married and stay together unless experiencing abuse says anything about other families.
People end up single parents for many reasons and I don’t believe they should be looked down on. Gay couples too who adopt or otherwise have children should be perfectly capable of bringing up children.
There was a story in the UK recently about a single forty something woman, wealthy, who thought it was reasonable for her to have a child on her own with a father being around. She was fed up with men. I found her attitude incredibly arrogant and find it impossible to believe that such a person could bring up a well balanced child.
I think we can be comfortable with nontraditional families and still encourage people to get married before having children and to stay married.
Of Ms Stock was a full paid up member
Cultural Marxism also seems like an apt term when you consider that today’s forms of it ramified out of a 1980s movement to collapse the difference between high and low culture by tenured radicals steeped in Marxism who were in the process of capitulating meekly to the marketization of their institutions, knowing they’d be retired before its effects were suffered by their students’ students. They tacitly avoided risking their campus lifestyles by engaging in politics that might have antagonized their paymasters by pivoting to canon politics i.e.distorting cultural history to make it representative of the contemporary identity political landscape. This was a leveling project that was deeply informed by Marxism even if it was no longer the old Marxism and we can accurately call it such in the same way that we call early forms of Christianity Neoplatonic even though Neoplatonism was originally a pagan phenomenon.
I admire the writer for her resistance to Wokery. But she is wrong about glossing over Cultural Marxism. Coined essentially by Antonio Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks it espouses exactly what the Left has achieved today. Destroying the institutions which were the bedrock of classical Liberal societies- the heterosexual family, religious faith, communities based on charity and service etc
What is wrong with espousing these values?
It is Cultural Marxism which arose from American campuses in the 1960s as a mass movement within academia which destroyed the social cohesion of Western societies in particular.
I really do enjoy Kathleen’s essays and think this one absolutely hits the nail on the head.
The march through the institutions has happened. Strategically, any fight back starts from a very weak position when all the commanding heights are held by the enemy.
Nevertheless there is a significant voting constituency that is not happy with the path we’re on and democracy is not yet entirely dead. BUT, any politician wanting to energise that constituency has to recognise it has changed considerably from the 1950’s. Anti wokeism must incorporate and celebrate some of the gains in tolerance that it’s progressive predecessors established.
What Kathleen is accusing the conference of is just political naïveté, and she’s right.
The first rule of politics: take the citizenry as it is, not as you would want it to be. The English Right too often lapses into nostalgia for an imagined homogenous, hierarchical society of the 1950’s, but that world has long gone (if it ever existed).
Thank you that needed to be said.
Thank you that needed to be said.
Correct. Politicians of both left and right are floundering, unable correctly to identify diagnose and label these new cultural forces sweeping through society. There is a mind virus, a pathological hysteria embedded now in each and every one of us, all about discrimination and equality. It has – like the Wuhan virus – escaped the Lab of Blairite worthy Progressive Intentions. Fed by a toxic bonfire which includes the obsession with individual entitlement (the legacy of Human Rights), American CRT voodoo, our addiction to social media, Elite London Groupthink, a debased state media and legal system captured by evangelicals for this credo, and hey presto…a state driven post 2010 equality mania has gone loco; it has made whites terrible, our history toxic and enterprise/wealth creation a near criminal act. Tragically, this credo is all the hollowed out Left have left as a guiding principle. The centre and right know they must DO something to resist it. But they are NOT understanding the nature of the beast. References to Karl Marx and wokery do not come close!!!
But are her claims of 1.5 mln people not being heterosexual in uk credible?
I live in London and know only few gey and few lesbian people among many thousands I have come across over the years.
I would be surprised if real figure was even quarter of what she claims.
The figure is approx 2% of the U.K. population, which accords with most objective estimates. Even Stonewall only claim between 7&10%
Yep. 2% x 70 million people = 1.4 million.
Yep. 2% x 70 million people = 1.4 million.
The figure is approx 2% of the U.K. population, which accords with most objective estimates. Even Stonewall only claim between 7&10%
“Anti wokeism must incorporate and celebrate some of the gains in tolerance that it’s progressive predecessors established”
Agreed, which is precisely why we should not tolerate the woke scum.
The first rule of politics: take the citizenry as it is, not as you would want it to be. The English Right too often lapses into nostalgia for an imagined homogenous, hierarchical society of the 1950’s, but that world has long gone (if it ever existed).
Correct. Politicians of both left and right are floundering, unable correctly to identify diagnose and label these new cultural forces sweeping through society. There is a mind virus, a pathological hysteria embedded now in each and every one of us, all about discrimination and equality. It has – like the Wuhan virus – escaped the Lab of Blairite worthy Progressive Intentions. Fed by a toxic bonfire which includes the obsession with individual entitlement (the legacy of Human Rights), American CRT voodoo, our addiction to social media, Elite London Groupthink, a debased state media and legal system captured by evangelicals for this credo, and hey presto…a state driven post 2010 equality mania has gone loco; it has made whites terrible, our history toxic and enterprise/wealth creation a near criminal act. Tragically, this credo is all the hollowed out Left have left as a guiding principle. The centre and right know they must DO something to resist it. But they are NOT understanding the nature of the beast. References to Karl Marx and wokery do not come close!!!
But are her claims of 1.5 mln people not being heterosexual in uk credible?
I live in London and know only few gey and few lesbian people among many thousands I have come across over the years.
I would be surprised if real figure was even quarter of what she claims.
“Anti wokeism must incorporate and celebrate some of the gains in tolerance that it’s progressive predecessors established”
Agreed, which is precisely why we should not tolerate the woke scum.
I really do enjoy Kathleen’s essays and think this one absolutely hits the nail on the head.
The march through the institutions has happened. Strategically, any fight back starts from a very weak position when all the commanding heights are held by the enemy.
Nevertheless there is a significant voting constituency that is not happy with the path we’re on and democracy is not yet entirely dead. BUT, any politician wanting to energise that constituency has to recognise it has changed considerably from the 1950’s. Anti wokeism must incorporate and celebrate some of the gains in tolerance that it’s progressive predecessors established.
What Kathleen is accusing the conference of is just political naïveté, and she’s right.
I knew an essay like this would come quickly. “In valorising the traditional nuclear family, post-liberals need to avoid stigmatising those who aren’t in one”. Wrong. The only meaningful way to stop the scourge of single motherhood with all its associated impact on crime rates, welfare spending etc. is to tackle it at the source, and that means a return to a culture of shame. It may be too late for the millions of broken families that suffered under our permissive society, but it can be redressed if we start now to rebuild morality.
I upvoted this because although it isn’t nice, it happens to be true. Shame and stigma work. Those who rapidly race to use racist/sexist/homophobe against their opponents know and happily wield the power of stigma. There will always be some kind of socially-enforced stigma and it is just a matter of whose stigma is enforced.
Actually shame really doesn’t work. In fact shame probably causes quite a few problems. Many people think shame works like this, but a fair bit of research has been done with offenders and, conversely, high levels of shame are far more associated with reoffending and addiction.
Perhaps the confusion is in conflating shame and guilt, but there is a significant difference. Guilt is absolutely a positive driver of changes in behaviour; it is the sense of having done something bad and the motivation to therefore change things to make something right or make amends.
Shame, on the other hand, produces no motivation to change; it is the incredibly painful sense of the self being bad, possibly unloveable or unacceptable. Rather than a focus on behaviours that can be changed, the focus is on something internal. It tends to drive isolation and avoidance. There is significant evidence that shame is actually associated with reduced accountability and reduced likelihood of change. It is far more likely to lead to defensiveness and unhealthy coping mechanisms like addiction to try to avoid it rather than changing behaviour.
Shame and stigma only make things worse.
Actually shame really doesn’t work. In fact shame probably causes quite a few problems. Many people think shame works like this, but a fair bit of research has been done with offenders and, conversely, high levels of shame are far more associated with reoffending and addiction.
Perhaps the confusion is in conflating shame and guilt, but there is a significant difference. Guilt is absolutely a positive driver of changes in behaviour; it is the sense of having done something bad and the motivation to therefore change things to make something right or make amends.
Shame, on the other hand, produces no motivation to change; it is the incredibly painful sense of the self being bad, possibly unloveable or unacceptable. Rather than a focus on behaviours that can be changed, the focus is on something internal. It tends to drive isolation and avoidance. There is significant evidence that shame is actually associated with reduced accountability and reduced likelihood of change. It is far more likely to lead to defensiveness and unhealthy coping mechanisms like addiction to try to avoid it rather than changing behaviour.
Shame and stigma only make things worse.
Rather, shame on you for such a suggestion. Trying to shoehorn people into the type of nice homely vision you have for them is redolent of nothing but prejudice.
Shouldn’t you be reading the Guardian?
I wouldn’t wipe my derriere with it, since you ask; but the appeal to “morality” has no more meaning than whatever each society chooses it to mean, hence my considered response.
I wouldn’t wipe my derriere with it, since you ask; but the appeal to “morality” has no more meaning than whatever each society chooses it to mean, hence my considered response.
Shouldn’t you be reading the Guardian?
Unsurprisingly nothing about the father and a focus on the mother. Is this just clumsy or showing a particular prejudice against the female parent?
Benefit to the child of the ‘shame’?
Stay in an abusive relationship regardless? Not all separations are due to this of course, but your point is not caveated.
There is a debate about family break-up, it’s impact and what society might be able to do to help, albeit there was never some rose-tinted past either.
Your referencing only the mother though probably displays a sub-conscious view of where the blame lies but happy for you to explain otherwise.
Indeed, see my comment on the appalling treatment of unmarried mothers in the past. I think children flourish with two parents, but we can support one loving parent, for the sake of the child.
Is the comment as clear on who is to be shamed as you make it out to be?
I assumed the poster meant shaming the men: for taking advantage of so-called feminism, women’s liberation and the sexual revolution to fornicate freely, and abandon fatherhood roles.
Indeed, see my comment on the appalling treatment of unmarried mothers in the past. I think children flourish with two parents, but we can support one loving parent, for the sake of the child.
Is the comment as clear on who is to be shamed as you make it out to be?
I assumed the poster meant shaming the men: for taking advantage of so-called feminism, women’s liberation and the sexual revolution to fornicate freely, and abandon fatherhood roles.
When you say “culture of shame2 what I am supposed to do grumble when i see a single mother ? Shout out “Where’s your husband?”. What does your suggestion translate to?
It’s too late by then; the damage had been done 20 years earlier.
It’s too late by then; the damage had been done 20 years earlier.
Especially as applied to deadbeat fathers who are shirking their responsibilities. Any man who fathers a child and walks away from his duty to provide is a scumbag who should have his dole cut and his wages docked.
And what about the mothers who drive those fathers away?
Divorce stats show it is usually the mothers. They’ve got the economic independence now, and that’s how they choose to use it.
I think you are just further demonstrating the innate anti-female prejudice I pulled RW up about above, but also possibly giving an example why more women than men sue for divorce.
All the evidence shows that divorce is more costly for women – they have a disproportionate amount of the on-going childcare and usually had careers compromised too. Many of a certain age will not have the pension the male might have. Yet they chose to leave anyway. That’s telling us something about the degree of unhappiness and potential behaviour of some Men. It is though difficult to over-generalise. Each will have it’s own story and heartache. But to pin family break up on Women and demonise single mothers is malign.
I think you are just further demonstrating the innate anti-female prejudice I pulled RW up about above, but also possibly giving an example why more women than men sue for divorce.
All the evidence shows that divorce is more costly for women – they have a disproportionate amount of the on-going childcare and usually had careers compromised too. Many of a certain age will not have the pension the male might have. Yet they chose to leave anyway. That’s telling us something about the degree of unhappiness and potential behaviour of some Men. It is though difficult to over-generalise. Each will have it’s own story and heartache. But to pin family break up on Women and demonise single mothers is malign.
And what about the mothers who drive those fathers away?
Divorce stats show it is usually the mothers. They’ve got the economic independence now, and that’s how they choose to use it.
Shame at not working and expecting the state to keep you and your children; yes, bring it on. Shame at being a self supporting adult who makes choices about relationships and children that are your business and no one else’s; definitely not.
The problem with single mothers is not their singleness. It is normal in other mammalian species for the young to be brought up by female family groups. Human males invented and institutionalised marriage, including in religion, to make themselves relevant. The problem for single mothers is their lack of work, childcare and, therefore, money.
What men like you can’t cope with is that traditional marriage has had its day. It’s over and you are redundant. The solution to child poverty is not men; it is empowering women to live in female groups, either related or otherwise, and sharing the responsibility of working, domestic tasks and childcare. Men can just provide the occasional semen donation.
I brought my son and daughter up on my own in the 70’s. After I split from their father they had no further meaningful contact with him. I wished it had been otherwise. Having a father who did nothing for them has definitely shaped their lives in some long lasting negative ways.
Was it too easy to split from their father? Sounds like an instance of the guardrails being removed and you all regretting that they had been.
Was it too easy to split from their father? Sounds like an instance of the guardrails being removed and you all regretting that they had been.
This system relies on the state to tax workers (mainly men) to provide the funds. As a man I don’t find myself very motivated to earn the money to keep it going. Videogames and porn it is.
Good lord. Dystopian AF
I brought my son and daughter up on my own in the 70’s. After I split from their father they had no further meaningful contact with him. I wished it had been otherwise. Having a father who did nothing for them has definitely shaped their lives in some long lasting negative ways.
This system relies on the state to tax workers (mainly men) to provide the funds. As a man I don’t find myself very motivated to earn the money to keep it going. Videogames and porn it is.
Good lord. Dystopian AF
I upvoted this because although it isn’t nice, it happens to be true. Shame and stigma work. Those who rapidly race to use racist/sexist/homophobe against their opponents know and happily wield the power of stigma. There will always be some kind of socially-enforced stigma and it is just a matter of whose stigma is enforced.
Rather, shame on you for such a suggestion. Trying to shoehorn people into the type of nice homely vision you have for them is redolent of nothing but prejudice.
Unsurprisingly nothing about the father and a focus on the mother. Is this just clumsy or showing a particular prejudice against the female parent?
Benefit to the child of the ‘shame’?
Stay in an abusive relationship regardless? Not all separations are due to this of course, but your point is not caveated.
There is a debate about family break-up, it’s impact and what society might be able to do to help, albeit there was never some rose-tinted past either.
Your referencing only the mother though probably displays a sub-conscious view of where the blame lies but happy for you to explain otherwise.
When you say “culture of shame2 what I am supposed to do grumble when i see a single mother ? Shout out “Where’s your husband?”. What does your suggestion translate to?
Especially as applied to deadbeat fathers who are shirking their responsibilities. Any man who fathers a child and walks away from his duty to provide is a scumbag who should have his dole cut and his wages docked.
Shame at not working and expecting the state to keep you and your children; yes, bring it on. Shame at being a self supporting adult who makes choices about relationships and children that are your business and no one else’s; definitely not.
The problem with single mothers is not their singleness. It is normal in other mammalian species for the young to be brought up by female family groups. Human males invented and institutionalised marriage, including in religion, to make themselves relevant. The problem for single mothers is their lack of work, childcare and, therefore, money.
What men like you can’t cope with is that traditional marriage has had its day. It’s over and you are redundant. The solution to child poverty is not men; it is empowering women to live in female groups, either related or otherwise, and sharing the responsibility of working, domestic tasks and childcare. Men can just provide the occasional semen donation.
I knew an essay like this would come quickly. “In valorising the traditional nuclear family, post-liberals need to avoid stigmatising those who aren’t in one”. Wrong. The only meaningful way to stop the scourge of single motherhood with all its associated impact on crime rates, welfare spending etc. is to tackle it at the source, and that means a return to a culture of shame. It may be too late for the millions of broken families that suffered under our permissive society, but it can be redressed if we start now to rebuild morality.
Let’s just say that Kathleen Stock lives in a different world from the NatCon folks.
But since NatCon is a project of the Edmund Burke Foundation let us just remember Burke’s great line:
“[Society is] A partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”
I wonder what he means by that.
I think he means: the ideas and institutions of the dead must be left open to us in a way that can drive the change and improvement of those alive in the present, and the unborn should be sworn an ‘oath of allegiance’ by the living that their lives won’t be made unfathomably more difficult by destroying or distorting what useful order, expediency and structure is available and has come before.
That’s fundamentally what conservatism really means, the conservation of some basic values and operational human enterprises that make life less about suffering and more about flourishing.
It’s like a bass line and melody in classical music, the bass line can often repeat over and over [basic values] but the melody changes over the top of it [change itself]… We entertain change and continuity simultaneously and that spans across time greater than the immediate present.
Stock’s caution against needlessly pricking the sensibilities of people socialized under the Thatcher, Blair and Cameron regimes seems quintessentially Burkean to me
We are the heirs of an immutable past and become the immutable past to future generations. So don’t f**ck with the present.
I think he means: the ideas and institutions of the dead must be left open to us in a way that can drive the change and improvement of those alive in the present, and the unborn should be sworn an ‘oath of allegiance’ by the living that their lives won’t be made unfathomably more difficult by destroying or distorting what useful order, expediency and structure is available and has come before.
That’s fundamentally what conservatism really means, the conservation of some basic values and operational human enterprises that make life less about suffering and more about flourishing.
It’s like a bass line and melody in classical music, the bass line can often repeat over and over [basic values] but the melody changes over the top of it [change itself]… We entertain change and continuity simultaneously and that spans across time greater than the immediate present.
Stock’s caution against needlessly pricking the sensibilities of people socialized under the Thatcher, Blair and Cameron regimes seems quintessentially Burkean to me
We are the heirs of an immutable past and become the immutable past to future generations. So don’t f**ck with the present.
Let’s just say that Kathleen Stock lives in a different world from the NatCon folks.
But since NatCon is a project of the Edmund Burke Foundation let us just remember Burke’s great line:
“[Society is] A partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”
I wonder what he means by that.
Addressing housing availability and affordability is the only worthwhile government intervention that can help the shrinking fertility rate. I wasn’t there, but I had read that some speakers addressed this. I don’t think that the notion that children, especially males, raised in heterosexual two-parent families generally do better is necessarily an anti-gay message. Just not very pro-gay.
Well said on both points.
By the way, videos of all the speakers are available on the conference’s website. I am going to work my way through them over the next few weeks.
Perhaps it’s as broad as being able to afford a family without both parents having to work f/t and with an affordable stable place of residence. Cost of living therefore makes a difference.
Of course what we see as the ‘norm’ now in things a family can afford different than in times past, but relativity does influence decision. I agree some did mention Housing but of course some had also been in charge last 13yrs and strangely seem to forget that as if they were commenting on someone else.
As regards children, esp males do better in 2-parent Hetero families, feels intuitive doesn’t it but I suspect insufficient data yet to show any difference on Gay couples, who will have course have had to make an explicit decision to start a family as opposed to it happening by accident. In time I guess we’ll see a bit more.
Parents at the school gates worry about the cost of childcare, their kids needing new shoes, maybe the dilapidated state of the school itself or the turnover of teaching staff not ‘cultural Marxism’, and both parents work because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to afford those shoes, not because they ‘hate Western values’.
Politicians who recognise those prosaic truths and are prepared to do the hard yards involved in delivering in line with real world aspirations, rather than dive into ideological rabbit holes, are the ones who will prosper in the long run.
Nobody ever suggested for a moment that they do hate western values. The haters of western values are those who structured society as it is through tax and other means.
Nobody ever suggested for a moment that they do hate western values. The haters of western values are those who structured society as it is through tax and other means.
A single mother in the UK gets the median wage (including accommodation) just as long as she is not married or cohabiting with the father of her children.
Incentives matter.
House prices have been rising exponentially compared to wages through all governments since interest rates dropped from their highs of the early nineties (I was paying 16.5% at one point about 1992)
Labour’s 13 years was no better than Tories of the last 13 in addressing this. In fact they exacerbated the issue with the spending of the Brown PMship.
The reason is simple: too many voters on all sides have got their future savings tied up in mortgage payments and can only recoup by selling at a substantial profit.
Parents at the school gates worry about the cost of childcare, their kids needing new shoes, maybe the dilapidated state of the school itself or the turnover of teaching staff not ‘cultural Marxism’, and both parents work because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to afford those shoes, not because they ‘hate Western values’.
Politicians who recognise those prosaic truths and are prepared to do the hard yards involved in delivering in line with real world aspirations, rather than dive into ideological rabbit holes, are the ones who will prosper in the long run.
A single mother in the UK gets the median wage (including accommodation) just as long as she is not married or cohabiting with the father of her children.
Incentives matter.
House prices have been rising exponentially compared to wages through all governments since interest rates dropped from their highs of the early nineties (I was paying 16.5% at one point about 1992)
Labour’s 13 years was no better than Tories of the last 13 in addressing this. In fact they exacerbated the issue with the spending of the Brown PMship.
The reason is simple: too many voters on all sides have got their future savings tied up in mortgage payments and can only recoup by selling at a substantial profit.
Well said on both points.
By the way, videos of all the speakers are available on the conference’s website. I am going to work my way through them over the next few weeks.
Perhaps it’s as broad as being able to afford a family without both parents having to work f/t and with an affordable stable place of residence. Cost of living therefore makes a difference.
Of course what we see as the ‘norm’ now in things a family can afford different than in times past, but relativity does influence decision. I agree some did mention Housing but of course some had also been in charge last 13yrs and strangely seem to forget that as if they were commenting on someone else.
As regards children, esp males do better in 2-parent Hetero families, feels intuitive doesn’t it but I suspect insufficient data yet to show any difference on Gay couples, who will have course have had to make an explicit decision to start a family as opposed to it happening by accident. In time I guess we’ll see a bit more.
Addressing housing availability and affordability is the only worthwhile government intervention that can help the shrinking fertility rate. I wasn’t there, but I had read that some speakers addressed this. I don’t think that the notion that children, especially males, raised in heterosexual two-parent families generally do better is necessarily an anti-gay message. Just not very pro-gay.
Interesting article. A bit like Unherd, the conference seemed to be full of people permanently angry that the general public are too ignorant, too apathetic, too…whatever, to share their concerns. An audience packed with middle aged men telling women they must have more children, an audience full of people who’d been lucky enough by being born into privilege to have the best education money could buy complaining about a shadowy elite who definitely weren’t them, MPs complaining about the state of the country, when they’d been in power for the last 13 years.
A vision of an unelectable Conservative Party, wedded to ideology rather than delivery. It’s worth remembering there are always two constituencies you have to appeal to to win elections. The ‘Base’ who think like you do and the majority who prize competence over rhetoric. A National Conservative Party, headed up by a Braverman or a Badenoch, will be wildly popular on here but won’t win many votes in the real world.
Concur JM.
This was a conference of the Right eating elements of itself and the hypocrisy given the Right been in charge for 13yrs is what drew additional fascination.
As regards Badenoch and Braverman – both recently butted into reality haven’t they. The former suddenly realising not possible to scrap 4000+ laws without some understanding what is then the result, and also clicking her predecessor Mogg done ‘sweet fanny adams’ on it in prep preferring instead to wander around leaving post-it notes whilst asking Sun readers to help him out with some ideas. The latter that whilst she’s been dining out on anti asylum seeker rhetoric public now know she, and Priti ‘Hopeless’ Patel before her, been signing hundreds of thousands of visa applications for immigrants. Doh! Proper Yes Minister stuff.
I actually quite like Kemi, even if disagree with her on some things. Braverman a nastier bit of work as she knows exactly what’s she’s stirring with her rhetoric. But what’s also obvious is how Sunak been quite canny here. He’s placed both so they have eat their own lunch.
YouGov published a poll during the conference showing that only 14% have a favourable opinion of Braverman, the standard bearer for the National Conservative tendency, while 52% have an unfavourable opinion.
Using inflammatory, divisive language about immigration, say, will gain you a following but repels a lot more people than it enthuses. You can dismiss the views of King Charles and the Archbishop of Canterbury as ‘woke’ when they appear on the other side of the divide you’ve created, and get applause from sections of the media who support you, but the uncomfortable fact is that voters in ‘Middle England’, conservatives with a small ‘c’, trust and respect the King and the Archbishop more than you. Plus you’ve already lost more socially liberal younger voters.
Conservatism tends to work when it is pragmatic and build consensus not when it is extreme, or seen as extreme. The culture war issues that can work in the US have less relevance here in the UK.
I’d love to see your evidence for that assertion about the Archbishop. It’s counter to all the polling evidence that I’ve read. And what exactly is this “Middle England“? Do you mean that mythic England of the shires, which is now in the process of passing into history?
I live in an area that’s had a Conservative Council, with an inbuilt supermajority, since Gladstone was a boy but the Tories got slaughtered in the local elections, and lost a large proportion of their seats. So, on my general point, do I see them winning the council back, or winning a general election, following the path of National Conservatism or with someone like Suella Braverman as leader? No, not a chance.
I live in an area that’s had a Conservative Council, with an inbuilt supermajority, since Gladstone was a boy but the Tories got slaughtered in the local elections, and lost a large proportion of their seats. So, on my general point, do I see them winning the council back, or winning a general election, following the path of National Conservatism or with someone like Suella Braverman as leader? No, not a chance.
I’d love to see your evidence for that assertion about the Archbishop. It’s counter to all the polling evidence that I’ve read. And what exactly is this “Middle England“? Do you mean that mythic England of the shires, which is now in the process of passing into history?
YouGov published a poll during the conference showing that only 14% have a favourable opinion of Braverman, the standard bearer for the National Conservative tendency, while 52% have an unfavourable opinion.
Using inflammatory, divisive language about immigration, say, will gain you a following but repels a lot more people than it enthuses. You can dismiss the views of King Charles and the Archbishop of Canterbury as ‘woke’ when they appear on the other side of the divide you’ve created, and get applause from sections of the media who support you, but the uncomfortable fact is that voters in ‘Middle England’, conservatives with a small ‘c’, trust and respect the King and the Archbishop more than you. Plus you’ve already lost more socially liberal younger voters.
Conservatism tends to work when it is pragmatic and build consensus not when it is extreme, or seen as extreme. The culture war issues that can work in the US have less relevance here in the UK.
‘Packed full of middle aged men’. Yet bound to be led by a Braverman or a Badenoch?
Perhaps Britain is happiest under a nanny figure.
But it should be real one – not a fake like Sir Keir.
Well I must admit that is the best thing you have written for months Murray, and sadly you are absolutely correct.
After eight years, I don’t count the first five as they were wasted by association with the Clegg beast, the Tory Party has proved to be a grave disappointment on nearly every front.
Although much of this failure may probably be blamed on the pathetic response to the Great COVID scam, not all of it so easily dismissed. The policy of Brexit in name only (BINO) has also proved to be a monumental and unforgivable deceit.
So perhaps Sir Kier & Co will surprise us?
Your comment on Brexit, echoing Nigel Farage that it’s failed, seems to indicate we’ve reached late era Communism; the idea that “Brexit hasn’t failed, it’s just never been tried”. Somewhere, somehow, just like Communism there’s a perfect Brexit out there waiting for the ‘right people’ to deliver it. Never saw you as a neo-Marxist, Charles.
COVID killed Brexit, whilst to date Communism has killed upwards of 100 million, so there is NO comparison real or imaginary.
You’re spectacularly missing my point. I suspect deliberately.
Somewhat reluctantly I must agree, Brexit has proved to be a chimera, “the triumph of hope over expectation “ in fact.
When I look at all our former great institutions, come the day all have been found to be wanting.
Whether it is can you trust a High Court Judge, The Prime Minister, the head of M 16, and so on, the answer always seems to be the same……no longer.
What Ancient Rome accomplished over several centuries, we seem to have been compressed into fifty.
However there is NO turning back, and we shall just have to hope we find our Cincinnatus before we disintegrate. Perhaps you are more optimistic?
Somewhat reluctantly I must agree, Brexit has proved to be a chimera, “the triumph of hope over expectation “ in fact.
When I look at all our former great institutions, come the day all have been found to be wanting.
Whether it is can you trust a High Court Judge, The Prime Minister, the head of M 16, and so on, the answer always seems to be the same……no longer.
What Ancient Rome accomplished over several centuries, we seem to have been compressed into fifty.
However there is NO turning back, and we shall just have to hope we find our Cincinnatus before we disintegrate. Perhaps you are more optimistic?
You’re spectacularly missing my point. I suspect deliberately.
COVID killed Brexit, whilst to date Communism has killed upwards of 100 million, so there is NO comparison real or imaginary.
Your comment on Brexit, echoing Nigel Farage that it’s failed, seems to indicate we’ve reached late era Communism; the idea that “Brexit hasn’t failed, it’s just never been tried”. Somewhere, somehow, just like Communism there’s a perfect Brexit out there waiting for the ‘right people’ to deliver it. Never saw you as a neo-Marxist, Charles.
Your view is firmly embedded in temporal realities. How long can we sustain the paths we are taking. The system is breaking and the net it’s casting is getting wider. The other side of the political divide is as equally wedded to ideology they just happen to own the culture right now but for how long is the question? How long before the system implodes for you?
Concur JM.
This was a conference of the Right eating elements of itself and the hypocrisy given the Right been in charge for 13yrs is what drew additional fascination.
As regards Badenoch and Braverman – both recently butted into reality haven’t they. The former suddenly realising not possible to scrap 4000+ laws without some understanding what is then the result, and also clicking her predecessor Mogg done ‘sweet fanny adams’ on it in prep preferring instead to wander around leaving post-it notes whilst asking Sun readers to help him out with some ideas. The latter that whilst she’s been dining out on anti asylum seeker rhetoric public now know she, and Priti ‘Hopeless’ Patel before her, been signing hundreds of thousands of visa applications for immigrants. Doh! Proper Yes Minister stuff.
I actually quite like Kemi, even if disagree with her on some things. Braverman a nastier bit of work as she knows exactly what’s she’s stirring with her rhetoric. But what’s also obvious is how Sunak been quite canny here. He’s placed both so they have eat their own lunch.
‘Packed full of middle aged men’. Yet bound to be led by a Braverman or a Badenoch?
Perhaps Britain is happiest under a nanny figure.
But it should be real one – not a fake like Sir Keir.
Well I must admit that is the best thing you have written for months Murray, and sadly you are absolutely correct.
After eight years, I don’t count the first five as they were wasted by association with the Clegg beast, the Tory Party has proved to be a grave disappointment on nearly every front.
Although much of this failure may probably be blamed on the pathetic response to the Great COVID scam, not all of it so easily dismissed. The policy of Brexit in name only (BINO) has also proved to be a monumental and unforgivable deceit.
So perhaps Sir Kier & Co will surprise us?
Your view is firmly embedded in temporal realities. How long can we sustain the paths we are taking. The system is breaking and the net it’s casting is getting wider. The other side of the political divide is as equally wedded to ideology they just happen to own the culture right now but for how long is the question? How long before the system implodes for you?
Interesting article. A bit like Unherd, the conference seemed to be full of people permanently angry that the general public are too ignorant, too apathetic, too…whatever, to share their concerns. An audience packed with middle aged men telling women they must have more children, an audience full of people who’d been lucky enough by being born into privilege to have the best education money could buy complaining about a shadowy elite who definitely weren’t them, MPs complaining about the state of the country, when they’d been in power for the last 13 years.
A vision of an unelectable Conservative Party, wedded to ideology rather than delivery. It’s worth remembering there are always two constituencies you have to appeal to to win elections. The ‘Base’ who think like you do and the majority who prize competence over rhetoric. A National Conservative Party, headed up by a Braverman or a Badenoch, will be wildly popular on here but won’t win many votes in the real world.
I think this conference has been a rip-roaring success. The organisers cannot of dared hope for the amount of attention they received. Next year’s event will be widely anticipated and should become a fixture of the political calendar as it has in the USA.
In terms of moving from a shaky consensus on applying traditional values to the modern world towards a policy prescription that can be championed by political parties, this is just the start. That takes time and events may conspire to give the Conservative party a spell in opposition soon and time to re-formulate their platform. This I think is analogous to the gestation of what later became Thatcherism during the latter part of the 1970s.
Maybe by 2028 a low-immigration, pro-natal, pro-family, traditionalist, post-liberal conservative platform will be ready to be rolled out in an election by Suella Braverman or Kemi Badenoch.
And it might be a vote winner once we have had 4 years of Labour and 4 years of 1m annual immigration, the concreting over the Green Belt, the outlawing of every gas boiler and petrol engine in the Kingdom and mandatory queer studies lessons for every 7 year old.
Come on MM there is definite surfeit of neurons in this lot. For a group to call itself the ‘Nat C’s’ …yes the ‘Nat C’s ffs!
Or perhaps maybe even more worrying, they and their supporters haven’t clicked that’s what they’ve called themselves. Doh!!
They just thought anyone who made this point thereby disqualified themselves as being utterly puerile.
Put ‘National’ in front of your name and one invites attention to the foolishness
Put ‘National’ in front of your name and one invites attention to the foolishness
They just thought anyone who made this point thereby disqualified themselves as being utterly puerile.
Come on MM there is definite surfeit of neurons in this lot. For a group to call itself the ‘Nat C’s’ …yes the ‘Nat C’s ffs!
Or perhaps maybe even more worrying, they and their supporters haven’t clicked that’s what they’ve called themselves. Doh!!
I think this conference has been a rip-roaring success. The organisers cannot of dared hope for the amount of attention they received. Next year’s event will be widely anticipated and should become a fixture of the political calendar as it has in the USA.
In terms of moving from a shaky consensus on applying traditional values to the modern world towards a policy prescription that can be championed by political parties, this is just the start. That takes time and events may conspire to give the Conservative party a spell in opposition soon and time to re-formulate their platform. This I think is analogous to the gestation of what later became Thatcherism during the latter part of the 1970s.
Maybe by 2028 a low-immigration, pro-natal, pro-family, traditionalist, post-liberal conservative platform will be ready to be rolled out in an election by Suella Braverman or Kemi Badenoch.
And it might be a vote winner once we have had 4 years of Labour and 4 years of 1m annual immigration, the concreting over the Green Belt, the outlawing of every gas boiler and petrol engine in the Kingdom and mandatory queer studies lessons for every 7 year old.
In a past life as it were, I used to intern in Westminster (discovered quickly that politics as a profession wasn’t for me) and this reminds me of that time. For someone who is outside of the bubble and follows quite a few of the advocates of this ideology, this conference appears to have been a wasted opportunity. I was hoping this could be a chance to tackle the housing issue, increasing opportunities for young people outside of university, take the fight to those institutions, corporations and non-profits either controlled or heavily influenced by the left etc.
Instead, we just have a bunch of fringe issues that while most of us probably agree with, is not going to win votes or bring people in. On the issue of things like single parenthood for example, it’s difficult to present a criticism of it without making it look like a personal attack on single parents who may have a good reason for being in that position. Definitely not saying we should be encouraging it, it’s just how it felt looking into it.
In a past life as it were, I used to intern in Westminster (discovered quickly that politics as a profession wasn’t for me) and this reminds me of that time. For someone who is outside of the bubble and follows quite a few of the advocates of this ideology, this conference appears to have been a wasted opportunity. I was hoping this could be a chance to tackle the housing issue, increasing opportunities for young people outside of university, take the fight to those institutions, corporations and non-profits either controlled or heavily influenced by the left etc.
Instead, we just have a bunch of fringe issues that while most of us probably agree with, is not going to win votes or bring people in. On the issue of things like single parenthood for example, it’s difficult to present a criticism of it without making it look like a personal attack on single parents who may have a good reason for being in that position. Definitely not saying we should be encouraging it, it’s just how it felt looking into it.
Excellent article KS, thank you.
Excellent article KS, thank you.
Another pertinent analysis from Professor Stock. She is correct that the problem is “the short walk” from praising marriage and motherhood to implicitly or explicitly judging those who, for a host of different reasons, find themselves in different arrangements. There must be more acceptance and less judging, especially in the language of politicians. Praise for the proven benefits of stable coupledom, whatever shape it takes, and acceptance of those outside that template, who especially need everyone’s understanding and material support. Just get both views balanced in the same sentence and then the same policy on the family. Not that difficult.
> There must be more acceptance and less judging
No, there must be more judging and less acceptance. It is simply not possible to avoid the reality that in order to promote one thing one must also dis-prefer the alternatives and that means ‘stigma’ of one form or another. One wants to be nice at all times, however it is not logically doable to say: ‘this is better’ without saying that: ‘that is worse’. In fact it is very difficult because the thing is to achieve the maximum motivation toward the ‘normative family’ while using the minimum ‘punishment’ for defectors. But yes, the single welfare mother with nine kids by nine different males, none of whom contribute a cent to their kid’s upkeep — that single mother should be Stigmatized.
I would seriously question here that you identify the mother in your example as someone who should be stigmatised, but wholly ignore the responsibility and accountability of nine men. Surely you see how discordant that assertion is? Perhaps each in turn promised her family and stability, perhaps not, but stigmatisation is not the answer and is not the solution.
Accountability is not built on shame or stigma, and significant research shows those things to actually be entirely counterproductive. Guilt focussed on specific actions or choices produces change, but shame is very different and produces isolation, hatred and avoidance.
We should be condemning negative actions like abandoning children, and providing encouragement and support of values like connection with offspring and parental cooperation. Self-righteous condemnation and stigmatisation of any individual without full consideration of their story may make you feel better, but in reality it benefits absolutely no one.
I would seriously question here that you identify the mother in your example as someone who should be stigmatised, but wholly ignore the responsibility and accountability of nine men. Surely you see how discordant that assertion is? Perhaps each in turn promised her family and stability, perhaps not, but stigmatisation is not the answer and is not the solution.
Accountability is not built on shame or stigma, and significant research shows those things to actually be entirely counterproductive. Guilt focussed on specific actions or choices produces change, but shame is very different and produces isolation, hatred and avoidance.
We should be condemning negative actions like abandoning children, and providing encouragement and support of values like connection with offspring and parental cooperation. Self-righteous condemnation and stigmatisation of any individual without full consideration of their story may make you feel better, but in reality it benefits absolutely no one.
Perfect illustration of the problem. Government by feels, and the consequences be damned.
> There must be more acceptance and less judging
No, there must be more judging and less acceptance. It is simply not possible to avoid the reality that in order to promote one thing one must also dis-prefer the alternatives and that means ‘stigma’ of one form or another. One wants to be nice at all times, however it is not logically doable to say: ‘this is better’ without saying that: ‘that is worse’. In fact it is very difficult because the thing is to achieve the maximum motivation toward the ‘normative family’ while using the minimum ‘punishment’ for defectors. But yes, the single welfare mother with nine kids by nine different males, none of whom contribute a cent to their kid’s upkeep — that single mother should be Stigmatized.
Perfect illustration of the problem. Government by feels, and the consequences be damned.
Another pertinent analysis from Professor Stock. She is correct that the problem is “the short walk” from praising marriage and motherhood to implicitly or explicitly judging those who, for a host of different reasons, find themselves in different arrangements. There must be more acceptance and less judging, especially in the language of politicians. Praise for the proven benefits of stable coupledom, whatever shape it takes, and acceptance of those outside that template, who especially need everyone’s understanding and material support. Just get both views balanced in the same sentence and then the same policy on the family. Not that difficult.
Katherine Stock is right about the real victims of the blithe “support the normative family” ideology. My grandmother was a foster mother to dozens of babies removed from unmarried mothers in the 60s. I was a little girl but I remember weeping girls at my grandmother’s house, allowed to visit their own children only once or twice . Off those babies went to adoption, because society wanted to punish their mothers (fathers remained unpunished of course). I have raised two children in a long marriage but I abhor this cruel approach
How many children would have to be saved from being raised in a broken home at the state’s expense to make what you saw worthwhile?
I totally get your point here but if we are being honest about the state of children right now is it really any better? Unstable, single parent homes, more black babies aborted in NY State than born….. I don’t know is this a better outcome? Seems equally as cruel and bad for all involved. Somehow we just went sailing past the middle ground.
How many children would have to be saved from being raised in a broken home at the state’s expense to make what you saw worthwhile?
I totally get your point here but if we are being honest about the state of children right now is it really any better? Unstable, single parent homes, more black babies aborted in NY State than born….. I don’t know is this a better outcome? Seems equally as cruel and bad for all involved. Somehow we just went sailing past the middle ground.
Katherine Stock is right about the real victims of the blithe “support the normative family” ideology. My grandmother was a foster mother to dozens of babies removed from unmarried mothers in the 60s. I was a little girl but I remember weeping girls at my grandmother’s house, allowed to visit their own children only once or twice . Off those babies went to adoption, because society wanted to punish their mothers (fathers remained unpunished of course). I have raised two children in a long marriage but I abhor this cruel approach
I’m in Corfu where the social changes are somehow clearer. One female friend divorcing her husband, another muddling through for the family, still an important consideration here. I don’t now what the answer is other than to remind people that if they divorce their kids pick up the bill, so keep it as low as possible, don’t make a banquet of it.
I’m in Corfu where the social changes are somehow clearer. One female friend divorcing her husband, another muddling through for the family, still an important consideration here. I don’t now what the answer is other than to remind people that if they divorce their kids pick up the bill, so keep it as low as possible, don’t make a banquet of it.
If Kathleen is offended by the term “cultural marxism” used in the Gramscian sense of the long march through the institutions in order to compensate for the failure of dialectical materialism to bring about the victory of the proletariat let’s use other terms. Perhaps we could call the mendacious elites such as the Guardianistas, the Beeboids, the iconoclasts, the trades union leaders, socialists, climate alarmists, the leadership of the Anglican Church, marxissants. I think that is not a bad description of the kind of anti-western destructiveness which is designed to bring about the collapse of everything that gives us our identity in favour of anyone else’s identity, anyone at all, but not ours.
“marxissants”An excellent choice, thank you!
“marxissants”An excellent choice, thank you!
If Kathleen is offended by the term “cultural marxism” used in the Gramscian sense of the long march through the institutions in order to compensate for the failure of dialectical materialism to bring about the victory of the proletariat let’s use other terms. Perhaps we could call the mendacious elites such as the Guardianistas, the Beeboids, the iconoclasts, the trades union leaders, socialists, climate alarmists, the leadership of the Anglican Church, marxissants. I think that is not a bad description of the kind of anti-western destructiveness which is designed to bring about the collapse of everything that gives us our identity in favour of anyone else’s identity, anyone at all, but not ours.
Konstantin Kisin claims one reason these NatCon people can’t effectively fight the advance of Woke is… they’re too old.
https://konstantinkisin.substack.com/p/lies-damned-lies-and-media-coverage
Konstantin Kisin claims one reason these NatCon people can’t effectively fight the advance of Woke is… they’re too old.
https://konstantinkisin.substack.com/p/lies-damned-lies-and-media-coverage
Given this writer’s love of biology, I am rather surprised that she believes that babies can be created by means other than sex between a male and female.
Whether the writer wishes to understand this or not, there is no right to possess a baby, regardless of how much they might compliment one’s sense of fashion.
Yes, we should encourage people to create and sustain stable loving homes from which grounded, socially integrated children can emerge.
Yes, we should limit immigration because a nation is not merely a place one inhabits, it’s a community of people who broadly share cultural and moral standards.
Thank you, Kathleen, for reminding me that you can utterly despise someone’s idiotic socialist ranting and yet still support their right to say things. Even when it annoys their fellow socialist lunatics who deny biology as an operative science.
Given this writer’s love of biology, I am rather surprised that she believes that babies can be created by means other than sex between a male and female.
Whether the writer wishes to understand this or not, there is no right to possess a baby, regardless of how much they might compliment one’s sense of fashion.
Yes, we should encourage people to create and sustain stable loving homes from which grounded, socially integrated children can emerge.
Yes, we should limit immigration because a nation is not merely a place one inhabits, it’s a community of people who broadly share cultural and moral standards.
Thank you, Kathleen, for reminding me that you can utterly despise someone’s idiotic socialist ranting and yet still support their right to say things. Even when it annoys their fellow socialist lunatics who deny biology as an operative science.
AND we should expect the State to honour its bargains in return. Most of all, we should completely dismember and discard the idea that a free-born Englishman (or woman, if you prefer) should be subject to criminal prosecution OR professional victimisation for his, or her opinions.
We should completely abandon the vindictive, self-interested and pernicious intrusions of ideological movements, be they Stonewall or Islam and remove entirely, the notion of “protected characteristics”.
We should remove the threat of invidious persecution of past serving members of our Armed Forces.
We should require any person wishing to enter this country to demonstrate their ability to fully support themselves from earnings BEFORE entry, and revert to our earlier prohibition of the chain migration of indefinite numbers of dependent and associated persons.
We should, automatically and without right of appeal, deport any and all migrants convicted of any criminal offence, of any description together with all associated or dependent persons, who should be subject to full review of their circumstances and have no right to benefits arising from such circumstances.
We should withdraw all rights to free medical care for pre-existing conditions. Any migrant requiring medical care should receive emergency care free at the point of delivery until repatriated. Absence of the same standard in their homeland should not affect the decision. They may further receive any private medical care they are able to fund.
That would be “national conservatism”.
AND we should expect the State to honour its bargains in return. Most of all, we should completely dismember and discard the idea that a free-born Englishman (or woman, if you prefer) should be subject to criminal prosecution OR professional victimisation for his, or her opinions.
We should completely abandon the vindictive, self-interested and pernicious intrusions of ideological movements, be they Stonewall or Islam and remove entirely, the notion of “protected characteristics”.
We should remove the threat of invidious persecution of past serving members of our Armed Forces.
We should require any person wishing to enter this country to demonstrate their ability to fully support themselves from earnings BEFORE entry, and revert to our earlier prohibition of the chain migration of indefinite numbers of dependent and associated persons.
We should, automatically and without right of appeal, deport any and all migrants convicted of any criminal offence, of any description together with all associated or dependent persons, who should be subject to full review of their circumstances and have no right to benefits arising from such circumstances.
We should withdraw all rights to free medical care for pre-existing conditions. Any migrant requiring medical care should receive emergency care free at the point of delivery until repatriated. Absence of the same standard in their homeland should not affect the decision. They may further receive any private medical care they are able to fund.
That would be “national conservatism”.
‘For most, it is a short walk from “marriage is a public act for the sake of your children and wider society” to “society should think less of you for being an unmarried parent”.
There are probably many ways a person can become an unmarried parent, some completely understandable and others just unthinking and reckless. I don’t think it’s wrong for society to think less of people who fall into the latter category.
Yes, some people are plainly irresponsible and behave stupidly and selfishly.
They may well need help but they need to understand that actions or sometimes inactions have consequences.
Yes, some people are plainly irresponsible and behave stupidly and selfishly.
They may well need help but they need to understand that actions or sometimes inactions have consequences.
‘For most, it is a short walk from “marriage is a public act for the sake of your children and wider society” to “society should think less of you for being an unmarried parent”.
There are probably many ways a person can become an unmarried parent, some completely understandable and others just unthinking and reckless. I don’t think it’s wrong for society to think less of people who fall into the latter category.
Looks as if UnHerd is trying too hard to criticize the NatCon conference, perhaps to make up for some of its better contributors being keen participants. Stock piles in but doesn’t really offer any suggestions. Maybe we should all go home and leave society to find its own non-judgmental way of working things out?
Absolutely correct.
How about live and let live and do no harm ?
I was asking the question. I don’t think we can achieve a value-free neutral state where every lifestyle is of equal merit. Just to say that is a value judgment in itself.
I know,I was agreeing with you.
I know,I was agreeing with you.
I was asking the question. I don’t think we can achieve a value-free neutral state where every lifestyle is of equal merit. Just to say that is a value judgment in itself.
Absolutely correct.
How about live and let live and do no harm ?
Looks as if UnHerd is trying too hard to criticize the NatCon conference, perhaps to make up for some of its better contributors being keen participants. Stock piles in but doesn’t really offer any suggestions. Maybe we should all go home and leave society to find its own non-judgmental way of working things out?
Children brought up in secure homes by their birth parents united in a committed life long relationship is the soundest basis for society, but for various reasons many people do not achieve this and much extra misery was wrought in the past by treating such people as outcasts. Now however we seem to be encouraging the break up of family life with increasingly terrible consequences. How can we reverse this destructive trend without returning to the errors of the past? To even ask this question is to be accused of either fascism or naivety.
Keep asking. More will join in as our Liberal experiment death spirals……
Keep asking. More will join in as our Liberal experiment death spirals……
Children brought up in secure homes by their birth parents united in a committed life long relationship is the soundest basis for society, but for various reasons many people do not achieve this and much extra misery was wrought in the past by treating such people as outcasts. Now however we seem to be encouraging the break up of family life with increasingly terrible consequences. How can we reverse this destructive trend without returning to the errors of the past? To even ask this question is to be accused of either fascism or naivety.
Sadly I think the silent middle already had the liberal tolerance that Kathleen speaks of. We were generally there but declining fortunes, apocalyptic themes, and envy have juiced the cultural narrative and given loud voices to the minority which the ruling class uses to keep us all conveniently divided. We will always have bigots, it’s just human nature.
I’ve often thought I should just wave the white flag – what would the future look like if I just self-flagellate my white persona, teach my kids that there are a million genders, that their lives will surely end in the next decade in a fireball of climate change, and ensure my tax dollars are being maximized by increasing safe consumption and turning all law enforcement into social workers. I close my eyes and think how bad could it be?
Doesn’t take much to give my head a shake and know full well that ‘THAT’ that vision is the apocalypse and I’m not standing for it. Call it whatever you want – a longing for the 50’s – but can you honestly say we are headed in the right direction by any measure right now? When I look at Gen Z, they know instinctively that Liberalism has become so illiberal it can no longer claim ultimate freedom as it’s end goal. It’s gone too far, for too long. A kinder, gentler conservatism that doesn’t ruffle feathers is no match for the Woke Ideology. What comes next is bound to be ugly.
Sadly I think the silent middle already had the liberal tolerance that Kathleen speaks of. We were generally there but declining fortunes, apocalyptic themes, and envy have juiced the cultural narrative and given loud voices to the minority which the ruling class uses to keep us all conveniently divided. We will always have bigots, it’s just human nature.
I’ve often thought I should just wave the white flag – what would the future look like if I just self-flagellate my white persona, teach my kids that there are a million genders, that their lives will surely end in the next decade in a fireball of climate change, and ensure my tax dollars are being maximized by increasing safe consumption and turning all law enforcement into social workers. I close my eyes and think how bad could it be?
Doesn’t take much to give my head a shake and know full well that ‘THAT’ that vision is the apocalypse and I’m not standing for it. Call it whatever you want – a longing for the 50’s – but can you honestly say we are headed in the right direction by any measure right now? When I look at Gen Z, they know instinctively that Liberalism has become so illiberal it can no longer claim ultimate freedom as it’s end goal. It’s gone too far, for too long. A kinder, gentler conservatism that doesn’t ruffle feathers is no match for the Woke Ideology. What comes next is bound to be ugly.
I saw Stock at unherd a few weeks ago with a friend and we admired her for her humility, sobriety, being remarkably ordinary and kept sane by real suffering in her life (she alluded to this briefly, but tellingly). Alas, although I admired her critical efforts against transphilia, I was pretty shocked by the lack of a constructive vision anthropologically and her quick syllogism justifying surrogacy was little more than weak A Level standard IMHO. It would appear the embryo for her is just a “bunch of cells”. But clearly, something is doing the bunching, which points at least to a classical anthropology ala Aristotle et. al. But a more substantive embryology and anthropology (presupposed by the more reflective and less looney members of Natcon) seems forbidden to her, given that her philosophy seems to track her biography. Thus, as I read it, she is committed to defensive moves to protect the ever retreating liberal space between the cultural conservatives at Natcon and her traditional transphiliist foe. I wish her well, but I suspect bolder moves are needed
I saw Stock at unherd a few weeks ago with a friend and we admired her for her humility, sobriety, being remarkably ordinary and kept sane by real suffering in her life (she alluded to this briefly, but tellingly). Alas, although I admired her critical efforts against transphilia, I was pretty shocked by the lack of a constructive vision anthropologically and her quick syllogism justifying surrogacy was little more than weak A Level standard IMHO. It would appear the embryo for her is just a “bunch of cells”. But clearly, something is doing the bunching, which points at least to a classical anthropology ala Aristotle et. al. But a more substantive embryology and anthropology (presupposed by the more reflective and less looney members of Natcon) seems forbidden to her, given that her philosophy seems to track her biography. Thus, as I read it, she is committed to defensive moves to protect the ever retreating liberal space between the cultural conservatives at Natcon and her traditional transphiliist foe. I wish her well, but I suspect bolder moves are needed
Douglas Murray put the text of his speech on his website and the more I studied it the less coherent it appeared. Beautifully written of course but he quoted from a CS Lewis sermon that on investigation really did not apply to the theme of his speech. And all the speeches struck me as very short on the one thing we really need – practical and realistic solutions to real life problems.
Fine words butter no parsnips.
It would be helpful if the writer would make it clear what she means by ” liberal “.
Is she using this in the American sense meaning
left-leaning or in the more traditional sense referring to the classical liberal ?
It would be helpful if the writer would make it clear what she means by ” liberal “.
Is she using this in the American sense meaning
left-leaning or in the more traditional sense referring to the classical liberal ?
Any political movement with “National” in its title is highly suspicious.
Really ?
National Theatre, National Opera, National Trust,
National Lottery, National Rail enquiries, National Express, etc etc.
It’s just a word for god’s sake and there is nothing suspicious about it.
Really ?
National Theatre, National Opera, National Trust,
National Lottery, National Rail enquiries, National Express, etc etc.
It’s just a word for god’s sake and there is nothing suspicious about it.
Any political movement with “National” in its title is highly suspicious.
As at 08.35 BST some spastic seems to have ‘flagged’ most of the comments because they have upset his or her puerile sensibilities.
Your use of the word “spastic” as a pejorative should quite frankly get you banned from the comments section permanently.
Yurr… like SOOO hefrensyffe… wow man.. n’ stuff… like ban it yurr…It’s called free speech Burrell… The same free speech that allows me to suggest that you speak via your little brown downwards facing mouth.
Free speech is a two-edged sword. Thankfully we can see your speech for what it is.
Good to know that you haven’t changed much in the last 50+ years.
Free speech is a two-edged sword. Thankfully we can see your speech for what it is.
Good to know that you haven’t changed much in the last 50+ years.
were you not Lady Di’s lackey?
You mean you don’t know the name of her butler?
No, sadly I was ” warned off” her one Derby day at Epsom , when she asked someone whom she was with in the paddock, who I was and could he introduce us?…
No, sadly I was ” warned off” her one Derby day at Epsom , when she asked someone whom she was with in the paddock, who I was and could he introduce us?…
You mean you don’t know the name of her butler?
Unavoidable duplication.
So it was YOU who ‘flagged’ everything ?
Pathetic!
It comes from the Ancient Greek and means ‘shaking uncontrollably’, as you should know!
In this case that ‘shaking uncontrollably’ is probably due to rage, is it not?
However I am disappointed in you Burrell for revealing yourself as a ‘censor freak’ of the lowest order.
Presumably you have NEVER heard of ‘free speech’? How very sad. You must do better.
Actually you have got the wrong person as regards flagging everything. However I still stand by my comment and it appears given the number of down votes for yours and up votes for mine, so do most people on here.
Trying to justify your comment by resorting to Ancient Greek is disingenuous to say the very least.
I apologise for the ‘target error’ but it did seem logical that the ‘flagger’ was your good self.
Well it does seem you have the ‘forum’ with you
17+14= 31 if my maths is correct*! However I feel you ‘all’ are being rather thin skinned about this, but obviously we shall have to differ.
Presumably nobody ‘ does’ etymology any longer, so the true meaning of words is completely irrelevant. How very sad.
Incidentally I haven’t heard the term spastic used as a pejorative term since the 1950’s so perhaps I shall have to try and catch up with the PC Brigade!
However I shall always believe that free speech trumps everything, every time!
(*As @ 21.29 BST.)
Perhaps I was a little harsh and only you know what was intended when you used the word. It was certainly a commonly used pejorative when I was at a school called Douai at the same time as Nicky Samengo-Turner in the early 70’s.
I have to say I enjoy your “classical” interventions and share your religious scepticism but that particular post hit a nerve and on that note I will call it a day.
PAX!
PAX!
Perhaps I was a little harsh and only you know what was intended when you used the word. It was certainly a commonly used pejorative when I was at a school called Douai at the same time as Nicky Samengo-Turner in the early 70’s.
I have to say I enjoy your “classical” interventions and share your religious scepticism but that particular post hit a nerve and on that note I will call it a day.
I apologise for the ‘target error’ but it did seem logical that the ‘flagger’ was your good self.
Well it does seem you have the ‘forum’ with you
17+14= 31 if my maths is correct*! However I feel you ‘all’ are being rather thin skinned about this, but obviously we shall have to differ.
Presumably nobody ‘ does’ etymology any longer, so the true meaning of words is completely irrelevant. How very sad.
Incidentally I haven’t heard the term spastic used as a pejorative term since the 1950’s so perhaps I shall have to try and catch up with the PC Brigade!
However I shall always believe that free speech trumps everything, every time!
(*As @ 21.29 BST.)
Actually you have got the wrong person as regards flagging everything. However I still stand by my comment and it appears given the number of down votes for yours and up votes for mine, so do most people on here.
Trying to justify your comment by resorting to Ancient Greek is disingenuous to say the very least.
Yurr… like SOOO hefrensyffe… wow man.. n’ stuff… like ban it yurr…It’s called free speech Burrell… The same free speech that allows me to suggest that you speak via your little brown downwards facing mouth.
were you not Lady Di’s lackey?
Unavoidable duplication.
So it was YOU who ‘flagged’ everything ?
Pathetic!
It comes from the Ancient Greek and means ‘shaking uncontrollably’, as you should know!
In this case that ‘shaking uncontrollably’ is probably due to rage, is it not?
However I am disappointed in you Burrell for revealing yourself as a ‘censor freak’ of the lowest order.
Presumably you have NEVER heard of ‘free speech’? How very sad. You must do better.
Perhaps just mischief. Like hitting all the lift buttons before exiting …
Withdrawn.
Withdrawn.
Your use of the word “spastic” as a pejorative should quite frankly get you banned from the comments section permanently.
Perhaps just mischief. Like hitting all the lift buttons before exiting …
As at 08.35 BST some spastic seems to have ‘flagged’ most of the comments because they have upset his or her puerile sensibilities.