I like your basic premise - that YOU are not necessarily conservative, but Reality is. Ayn Rand is quoted as saying: " You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
Maybe don't. Ayn Rand had a harem of men who were not permitted to speak about what was going on. She was super exploitative, and I read every word she wrote in the 80's, along with everything her organization wrote....up to the point that her hypocrisy could no longer be ignored. And to be even more honest, some people do indeed avoid consequences. An entire book in the old testament is devoted to this reality; Ecclesiastes. We believe that King Solomon was the writer, who called himself "the teacher". He observed that some of the most evil people live long and sleep well.
It’s always a profound joy to open an email notification from your Substack. We live in a time where it’s nearly impossible to find public voices whose words don’t require analytical parsing, active skepticism or a large glass of wine.
And then there’s you.
It’s feels like it used to feel, just talking to a friend. Before everything had to be microscopically filtered and framed, before we were gripped by fear.
I deeply relate to so much of what you write. I feel relaxed, sane and less alone. Thank you for putting your views out into a public space that desperately needs more voices like yours.
In CA, as an artist showing for decades the consistent comment directed my way was, "You're an artist in CA, I just assumed..." my reply, "assumption is the mother of phuckups." Liberals, progressives, left wings, Democrats, they really have zero understanding of our shared values and principles. They have no realization that our government is a Republic not a Democracy, which specifically protects the rights of the individual, and minorities from over zealous majorities.
Jenny, that is a good article. However, when it comes to politics, "liberal" and "conservative" are directly related to how one believes the US Constitution is to be interpreted, conservatively, meaning taking it as written, or liberally, meaning to interpret if liberally, which can lead to damn near anything. That's what happened with the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was specifically written to establish and protect the rights of former slaves, but which is now used by leftists to claim all kinds of things. "Conservative" and "liberal" are really not lifestyles, they're philosophies. I suppose you can say, as you just did, that conservative is reality while liberal is living in a fantasy world.
Not necessarily. Conservatism and liberalism are concepts that can be described outside of the framework of the US Constitution
For example, a "conservative party" exists in the UK (although they are so detached from conservatism that they are indistinct from Labour. They took have the problem of a uniparty)
Well, I think the UK Conservatives have a few more folks willing to acknowledge reality, like the fact that men shouldn't compete in women's sports, so I think there is some difference between them. Or maybe I just have Stockholm Syndrome.
Regardless, "conservative" and "liberal" came into use in the United States in regard to interpretation of the Constitution. Actually, "conservative" means one who conserves while liberal means free, as in a free interpretation of policies and law.
If we want to go WAY back, the Constitution and Enlightenment principles themselves are capital L liberal. Thus any framework inside of the Constitutional system would be "liberal", as the conservative position would be something like monarchism.
It all depends on your frame of reference what "conservative" means. Right now our Overton window is firmly within the window of liberal democracy, and was cemented there because those who attempted to change this paradigm (a certain mustachioed man) have been successfully painted as Satan.
Yes, but capital L liberalism was about freedom, modern liberalism is about interpretation of law, specifically the Constitution and has nothing to do with freedom. They're not called "liberal" politicians for nothing.
Perhaps, but one must compare the interpretation of the law to a standard, and that is the Constitution. Look what has happened to the country as each entity does its own thing. It’s not pretty. The implicit promise that your freedom stops where mine begins has been squashed.
Sara, that is exactly my point. Prior to 1860, the Constitution was the rule of law. Honest Abe started interpreting it to suit his own beliefs, namely by claiming there was a "union" that the Constitution doesn't mention. He and other Republicans of that day negated the Tenth Amendment. Things really got bad when FDR was in office then took off in the 1950s with Brown v. Board of Education. I have no problem with integrated schools, but Earl Warren advocated something that isn't there and spawned a rash of Supreme Court decisions based on a liberal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Not necessarily. There are people who live like the devil but are politically conservative. There are also people who are very prim and proper, and who would vote for Satan if he ran as a Democrat.
Donald Trump is not a conservative. Yes, he has the support of those who call themselves "conservative" but who probably have no clue what the word actually means. They just don't like liberals.
Jenny, I don't know that's true. I have a buddy who lives near me I met in the military. He was a pothead but he's about as conservative politically as you can be. I grew up on a farm in Tennessee. A girl I know who grew up just up the road from me is way to the left. I wouldn't call her radical but she's a die-hard Democrat. Most of the people I knew growing up were Democrats, but their lifestyle was conservative. I know a lot of people whose lifestyles are conservative but will vote for anybody who runs on the Democratic ticket.
Well said. The current paradigm of the past few decades is a complete departure from how human beings have lived their lives, organized their families and dispensed justice for millennia.
It's a rootless moral paradigm built on the altar of materialism. Even the most ardent communist is at his core a materialist.
The gross error of progressivism is that it necessarily paints the past as outmoded and barbaric and backwards. The past is often (and has been warped by media depictions) as being filthy and miserable and populated by stupid people. It was not. Even though material standards of living weren't like they are today, I'd wager the people found contentment in their lives, even those serfs bound in feudalism, because they had a purpose in the service they provided and most of all, a belief in something that transcends the material world.
Suicide was reserved for those who brought deep Shame and dishonor to themselves. Now it's done by people who feel like they can get no satisfaction from life.
Today the very concept of "honor" is sneered at as being outmoded. The concept of the transcendent is "backwards". The notion of "truth" is even being rewritten to be subjective (I even had ChatGPT tell me, with obvious bias from its creators, that "truth is subjective and multifaceted")
And we wonder why so many of us are enduring trauma, committing suicide and taking antidepressants.
We live in a culture that worships the self. Almost as if the Enemy planned it that way...
Yes!! I strongly agree with what you say about the past! It’s a terrible thing we have done to our young, cut them off from the things that were good about the past and focus only on the bad. I’m old enough to have gotten some great stuff through studying English literature- Chaucer, Shakespeare, Pope, etc. So so important for a developing mind.
I'm reminded of Edmund Burke's characterization of a society as "a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." It is ironic that those most interested in environmental "sustainabiity" are those least interested in sustaining this social compact.
For one, generalizations and stereotypes are not intrinsically bad. Much like the word "discrimination", they're words that are automatically labeled as "icky" by the left, even though discrimination, generalizing, and yes *gasp* even stereotyping is useful. Particularly when making a brief article. If we wanted to go into specific details about how detached from reality the left is, we'd need a book. Maybe 2. Maybe 100.
I agree that some generalizations are useful. For example, it took me many years to realize that many conservatives are not so much conservative as reactionary -- meaning that they react emotionally to any idea that hits them too close to home (or which requires them to think too much, or empathize, or examine their prejudices). But in this article, Jenny is going overboard. Besides, it is meaningless to label "reality" as "conservative". Reality is what it is. Only our approach to reality can be labeled as liberal or conservative, and in many cases, making such generalizations isn't productive.
Nope, she's right on here. If conservatism is reactionary, it's because it's a visceral reaction to the warping of reality leftists are pursuing. She is absolutely correct. From gender nonsense to "your truth" to COVID lies, to "white supremacy" encompassing anything to mean anything opposing the collapse of western civilization and Ukraine propaganda, the left is concerned with the dismantling of reality.
It may be gauche to so wholeheartedly agree with someone who also agrees with me, but I strongly agree with your comments. And all their implications. 😏
It is rich that you and your hubris look down on conservatives who can occasionally “think”. I “think” that if I, as a conservative , fail to agree with every looney tune opinion of the left, I will find my home in Clinton’s basket of deplorables. There are two sexes. There are two genders, and they are not fluid. The Covid vaccine does harm, and Pharma for a pass on being held responsible. I would love to see Anthony Fauci’s vaccine record. He knew it was an experiment fraught with danger, and I bet my bottom dollar he is not “vaccinated “ against Covid. So, knowing these things, am I a crank, a troll, illiterate, bizarre? No, not and none at all. I just am able to see, judge, act, and think for myself.
"...they [conservatives] react emotionally to any idea that hits them too close to home (or which requires them to think too much, or empathize, or examine their prejudices)."
I am constantly astounded by progressives' capacity for projection!
The loveliest thing about those who sneer at 'conservatives' is the combination of extreme smugness with pitiful ignorance. Your words demonstrate that you know precisely nothing of how conservatives think or feel, but you are absolutely certain that you are correct in your judgements of the thoughts, feelings and motivations of millions of individual human beings. For someone as bright and insightful as you seem to think you are, it shouldn't be too hard to grasp that no one including you is capable of this.
This is a really good analysis of where we find ourselves. I am a Christian pastor and this piece really helped me to frame the dilemma that I feel every week when I stand before my congregation or write a blog for them to read. The dilemma that I speak of is that if I admonish the type order that scripture teaches and a flourishing life demands, in the current cultural milieu, It comes across as politically conservative. I don't like this situation, since I want to bring hope and the message of the Gospel to people on the right, the left and in the middle. Thanks for at least giving me a framework to debate within.
Very interesting! On the one hand I feel we need to accept being called conservative- even if we are not - by the deranged left, but as a pastor, I do see the danger in the politicisation of religious views. They are two things that need to be kept firmly apart. I’m still an atheist, but I do recognise that religion can have a transcendent role in people’s lives and the grubbiness of politics shouldn’t touch that. In yet another hand, I hear a lot of traditional Catholics say that that - religion keeping away from the secular world - has lead us to a place where as a society we think it’s ok to tell children they can change their sex and give lessons in sex acts to middle schoolers.
The left has cleverly coopted religious values of compassion and loving the lost and the least to mean embracing perversion of all sorts. Formerly we would say, "hate the sin love the sinner, " but when one's sexual practices or gender identity is not things they do but who they are such statements are labelled as bigotry. In essence, what it means to be human is being redefined. I think the church and/or the family are the last lines of defense. We simply have to keep "speaking the truth in love," regardless of being labeled as Nazis for doing so. I do believe the extreme wokeism represents a small minority of the population, but they are very well financed and have well positioned themselves to control the levers of power. Having said all that, we must 1) Stand our ground. 2) Build communities of sane and healthy values & 3.) Create alternatives for education, creativity, art and medical care. 4) Refuse to say what we do not believe even if it cost us.
Yes. In fact, I have an article brewing over my head about how Christianity has been adapted into a "liberation theology" which has eventually been warped into a paradigm of "radical liberation", paradoxically from God himself.
At he root of our current situation we find the foundational sin of Pride. Hell now we have an entire month dedicated to Pride.
Charles Taylor in , "A secular Age," calls it "expressive individualism. Carl Truett, built on that and wrote a must read book called, "the Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self." As a culture we lost transcendence and all kinds of self exalting philosophies are rushing in to fill the void .... something like that ... I believe. It's a very deep subject.
In past generations, much reality was absorbed in childhood. Today, kids are often bombarded with things like extreme climate change alarmism and burdened by things like figuring out whether they should be a boy or a girl. God is often ignored or openly rejected. In past generations, even kids raised in atheist homes often absorbed some of the Judeo-Christian world view, perhaps from literature, perhaps from culture, perhaps even from parents who had been steeped in it but who had thrown out the baby with the bath water by rejecting God when what they really were rejecting was toxic religiosity (by the way, Jesus did not approve of toxic religiosity either). With the way things are now, I am glad to be in my 70s and not in my teens.
Re your two husbands: Adversity is the primer of resilience. Without pain, there's no gain.
I don't see reality as liberal or conservative - it just is. It's up to us to do the messy job of figuring out what works - for us. Sadly, in our time Freedom has morphed into License, and Responsibility – Freedom's homely twin – is being ignored by both the Right and the Left. Abortion provides good examples. On the Left, we hear about "women's reproductive freedom" but nothing about a mother's responsibility to her unborn child. On the Right, we have draconian laws being enacted to prevent abortion, but nothing to help the unwed mother and her child.
Reality is not Red or Blue, but multi-hued. If we look at our world through colored lenses, we may miss seeing problems or – worse – miss seeing solutions to our problems. To me, the battle is not between Liberals and Conservatives but between Realists and Ideologues. To steal from Nietzsche, Realists are those who stare into the abyss of Reality. Ideologues are afraid to do so. Their version of Reality is a "tale told by an Idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."
I agree that reality just is - but my point is that very simple truth has been rendered unspeakable unless you are willing to be “accused” of being conservative. That’s not a good thing.
Yes, that seems to be the issue, I feel. That stating reality or even common sense firmly puts you in the 'conservative' camp (or worse 'far right') Was this always the case, I wonder? You made a good point about none of this being political, at the end of your post. I feel that culture has fused with politics to the point that we are labelled more and more based on our cultural and social attitudes and beliefs, rather than political ones. It has become an all-encompassing ideology. And what scares me most is that there is no nuance or middle ground. Just 'with us or against us' - in reality, many of us are a mixture of left/right, and those labels themselves are becoming obsolete.
I would have to disagree that "on the Right" there is nothing to help the unwed mother and her child." I have seen much evidence to the contrary in Christian pregnancy centers, focused on both mother and baby, helping with everything from diapers and baby clothes to emotional support and Mommy support groups, just whatever mothers and children need help with.
"I don't see reality as liberal or conservative - it just is."
Agreed. The key insight for me was realizing that "liberal/progressive" and "conservative" are relative terms. What are we progressing towards? And what are we trying to conserve?
It was progressive to move towards gay rights and gay marriage. However, now that those have basically been accomplished in the Western world, folks who are invested in those rights should become conservatives about them. Instead, we seem to have obligatory progressivism on that topic, resulting in (as Wesley Yang argues) a new civil rights activism that *must* cannibalize prior civil rights reforms in order to maintain the illusion of perpetual progress – e.g., the Trans Rights Activism of former LGB advocacy groups, which are now pushing the idea that sex is a social construct, a view that shreds the very concept of same- or cross- sex attraction.
I think everyone has things they want to change about themselves, or about the world. But we're also all "conservative" about many things in life, because we all have things we feel work for us and don't want to change.
Excuse me, but in Florida there is a plethora of assistance for single mothers, including grants for buying a home that covers down payments and closing costs, many benevolent religious and other charitable entities,nutrition assistance, and other things. What is lacking is early education on the pitfalls of casual, uncommitted sex (how has it become necessary to distinguish between gametes and gonads when referring to sex?). There are many, many people who hold the view that abortion is draconian, and rest assured, the viable fetus would agree were it given a voice. Have you ever participated in an abortion, watched/read an unbiased description of the various abortion procedures? If you say the quiet part out loud, it might change minds and behaviors.
There is a piecemeal safety net for those mothers who choose Life, in every state across the country. How effective and complete is open to question. I hope, however, that we can agree that our educational systems are major contributors to the problem. Not just sex ed, either. Kids coming out of school have little or no idea how to manage their money, nor why they should (and, yes, I'm generalizing). Kids coming out of school have little or no idea how to access the various forms of assistance you point to. Abortion is an ugly, disgusting procedure that can traumatize the mother for life. But bearing a child is no bed of roses either. At least at the end you have the miracle of new life, but that also carries the responsibility to shepherd the child to adulthood. Kids coming out of school seldom are taught about the importance – and the burdens – of personal responsibility. Things like "there ain't no Free Lunch," and "No, there isn't a Finance Fairy that prints money for your benefit."
I totally agree with you that the opposition between Realists and Ideologues is much more important and actually much more real than the one between Liberals and Conservatives (and both "Liberal" and "Conservative" can now mean all kinds of things). I don't identify with any ideology. I try to draw conclusions from my and other people's experiences and from the facts I learn.
I also really appreciate your comment on abortion - most people are so attached to their ideological approaches on this issue that they don't seem to notice the problematic nature of these approaches...
Great article that “might” say if you are young and not a liberal you don’t have a heart and if you are older and aren’t conservative you don’t have a brain ...
That's been attributed to Churchill and various others, going back to the ancient Romans and Greeks. I don't think anybody knows who actually said it first, but whoever it was certainly was clever, and observant.
Two very clever English people have realised that being liberal is good for a few individuals but a terrible prescription for society. One was Margaret Thatcher who said: "The facts of life are Conservative." The other was the playwright and librettist W.S. Gilbert who wrote the prescient lyric: "If everybody's somebody, then no-one's anybody."
As you have ably pointed out, most upper middle class eople, even if they profess to be bohemian are really bourgeois in their day-to-day lives. They try to ignore Mrs T's truism, and make the world a place where everyone can deviate. Bt of course if everyone deviates, then no-one is really a deviant, as Gilbert realised.
We now live in age where hypocrisy is the tribute virtue pays to vice.
Yes!! I could not agree with this more. I wrote an essay a few months back saying basically this -- that what we called left-wing ideology is actually just a very niche lifestyle that somehow we think we should encourage everyone to adopt. Being bohemian, artistic, fringe, is not for everyone! If everyone lived like that nothing would get done, and society would fall apart. I know this because it's how I grew up, btw!
I'm also very amused that I just published an essay that says the same thing as Margaret Thatcher. My younger self would be appalled! 😂
All these 'conservative' truisms you write about are grounded in Christianity, which formed the foundation of western culture and liberty until very recently. I've noticed that many conservative and/or more thoughtful commentators (e.g. Tom Holland, Douglas Murray) acknowledge this without drawing the obvious conclusion, which is that the culture should return/reconvert to Christianity, as defined by the bible, en masse.
Again, I can't believe I'm saying this as a non-religious person, but I'm starting to agree with you. Or more accurately, I'm no longer horrified by the idea. Given the horrors of our present age.
Horrors are an intrinsic part of the human condition. If you get rid of 'religion' then you still have to contend with flawed human nature, which will continue to engender all manner of evils. To take some extreme examples, the people running the Nazi concentration camps and Soviet Gulag were not evangelical Christians.
Nazi leaders found it convenient for political advantage to check a "Lutheran" or "Catholic" box but in reality, to the extent that they had a religion other than their own quest for control, it was the occult.
Christianity is indeed the foundation. All are welcome to choose to follow Jesus Christ. People would be wise to do so, especially now as we see signs in the world of the great tribulation to come. Nobody in their right mind would want to be here for that if they can help it, and it can be avoided by choosing to follow Christ now, before Jesus Christ rescues his true followers in the Rapture and only unbelievers are left to endure the anti-Christ who will control the world in the tribulation period.
So much of what you've written here resonates with me; much, much mood I could add, but this will have to do for now. Thank you for this and I rarely miss reading your columns; keep up the excellent work! 👏
This is a very interesting piece, but what do you exactly mean by "traditional gender roles"? I am personally firmly against a situation where children spend much more time with their nannies than with their parents. If a woman prioritizes her career and income, obviously it has negative consequences for her children.
But I also have some doubts about "traditional gender roles".I am sure that there are very happy families where the man is the provider and the woman stays at home. But this usually means that the woman and her children are economically dependent on the man. Economic dependence has its dangers, especially if a man does not see his partner as his equal and assumes that she should please him and submit to his will and that he does not have to be faithful to her.
And what if the man loses his job and can't find another one, or finds a much worse paid one? My dad was sometimes unemployed (for no fault of his own) and in these periods my mum was the provider thanks to her teacher job. The situation of my family would have been horrible during my dad's unemployment periods if my mum had not been used to working outside home and had no professional skills.
My own family constellation wasn’t exactly traditional- my father worked from home and therefore was my primary caregiver, my mother went out to work every day. I don’t think that is damaging per se. And economic dependence is a danger if one party isn’t working at all. But my point is that within a sex class traditional attributes are more likely to be a path to happiness- my first husband who was liberal and had many effete characteristics was a deeply unhappy man who did not want me to stay home with our child when he was a baby. My second husband is totally masculine in the traditional sense and he supported not just the mother of his children before we met but also has been very supportive of me. He is very comfortable being the main breadwinner because he comes from a traditional background, and I am extremely grateful for that.
I understand what you mean, but I have a problem with the idea that some characteristics are "effete" and some others are "masculine". You say in your piece that your first husband was artistic and not strong enough to "vanquish his demons". I hope that you are not implying that being artistic is somehow "unmasculine".
As to strength, the ability to cope with one's demons and to pull oneself of a deep hole, if we see these qualities as "masculine", we continue to silently assume that women are psychologically weak and fragile. Mental strength and resilience are priceless qualities for both men and women.
I also have another thought. You mention your first husband's inability to cope with his demons. But has your second husband had any demons to vanquish? Some people have simply never had any demons (there are such men in my own family); we don't know how strong they would be if they had to battle e.g. an alcohol addiction. "Traditional masculinity" does not bring mental strength: in fact, there are plenty of "traditionally masculine" alcoholics, drug addicts and cheaters.
Yes, my second husband had many demons to vanquish -- in some ways, in fact, more than my first, as he had what would be considered a tough childhood and my first husband had a very cosseted childhood. I attribute the success of my second husband in getting better -- in part, not entirely -- to his yes, traditionally masculine characteristics like hard work, self-denial, and sacrifice. As well as his experience of violence, which made him tough. I disagree that "traditional masculinity" does not equal mental strength. I think strength, mental and physical, is a defining characteristic of traditional masculinity. I think only if you are predisposed to not seeing the value that good men bring, could you say otherwise.
It's also not true that because I say strength is a traditionally masculine characteristic that i'm implying women are weak. That's just not the case, I have never viewed women as weak, quite the opposite. If anything, feminism views women as weak as it constantly casts them as the victims of bad men. Both men and women have the capacity for immense cruelty and immense love and sacrifice. They are not mutually exclusive. But thank you for this comment, because I'm writing something about this at the moment and it was very useful to read your take! 😀
Here is another thought: a man can be capable of hard work, self-denial and sacrifice, but also capable of abuse and violence. And a man can be ready to die for his own family, community or male friends, but act in an evil way towards those who are not "his own people".
Even men who perpetrate crimes against humanity can be good husbands and fathers. The fact that someone is ready to work hard and sacrifice himself for his family, community or friends does not mean that he is a good man. He can even be a very evil man. A loving and selfless husband and father can act like a monster towards people he sees as his enemies, as inferior or even as subhuman.
Nazi men or men who were lynching Black men in the American South were "traditionally masculine" and valued their own masculinity. There is a very powerful docu by Joshua Oppenheimer - "The Act of Killing". It is a docu on Indonesian men who cruelly killed many Communists and people accused of being Communists in the 1960s. I remember one of the scenes where one sees one of these ruthless criminals with his wife and his daughter. To them, he is probably a good husband and father...
You are very welcome and thanks a lot for your reply to my comment! How would you define "traditional masculinity"? You are talking about "traditionally masculine characteristics like hard work, self-denial, and sacrifice" - is this what you mean by "traditional masculinity"?
If this is what you mean, I would say that you are describing the traditional masculinity ideal (or some aspects of it). I think that the difference between this ideal and the reality of "traditional masculinity" is very important. In fact, if traditional masculinity were as beautiful as you suggest, why would so many people (men and women) question it?
And even if we are talking only about the traditional masculinity ideal, one of its aspects is the belief that men should hide their emotions and vulnerabilities, that crying or showing any "softness" is unmasculine. I think that this is a very oppressive aspect of this masculinity ideal. Another very oppressive aspect is the belief that the husband and father is the head of the household and that everyone should bow to his power.
It's not that I don't want to see the value that good men bring. I know some really decent men, but I don't see them as "traditionally masculine". I feel that your attitude towards what you see as "traditional masculinity" is very influenced by the failure of your first marriage.
I find it worrying that you write that your husband's experience of violence "made him tough". You seem to suggest that experiencing violence is good for boys - I guess that what you mean is that he was beaten by his father or both his parents. Well, let me give you just one example: I know a man who was often beaten and sometimes even punched by his father as a boy. This man has been an alcoholic for decades. He is not a bad person, but he can be very abusive.
Of course experiences of violence can make people "tough", but this "toughness" is not something inherently good. Tough people can be callous, abusive and even cruel. Tough men can even perpetrate horrible crimes. Let's not forget that e.g. gangsters are tough men... Soldiers who kill and rape are also tough men.
I am glad that you don't see women as weak. However, I disagree with your belief that "feminism views women as weak". Feminism is not a monolith. Only some feminists constantly portray women as helpless victims.
You say that "both men and women have the capacity for immense cruelty and immense love and sacrifice." But it is not true that women are as likely to be cruel as men. Here is just one example: a few days ago I read about a horrifying case - in Scotland a young man attacked a woman in the street, "repeatedly stamped and kicked her body and head", raped her and then set her alight. She died. I am sure that such cruelty was linked to the widespread use of violent online pornography which dehumanizes women. Of course such cases are very rare, but this is only one of many ruthless murders very recently committed by men on women.
Sadly, men are responsible for the vast majority of murders, torture, rapes and child sexual abuse perpetrated in this world. Many aspects of traditional masculinity contribute to this problem, including the belief that men should hide their emotions and that they have the right to use violence to assert their masculinity. It is also obvious that male sexuality is different from the female one.
Do you mean Sacha Stone? If so, that's a dude, not a gal. Interesting flavor of anti-Leftist and I can't decide whether he's nuts, controlled opposition, or remarkably wise.
I am so grateful for this essay. My parents were major organizers of the civil rights movement. My Dad was an advisor to RFK. Their utopian ideals were held tight, and required a whole lot of looking away, and allowing me to be vulnerable, while gaslighting me. They turned their backs on their own families, telling us constantly that their friends from grad school would be our family forever. Of course not. When I read your sentence about that, I almost started to cry. It's the first time I have ever seen this well articulated.
I like your basic premise - that YOU are not necessarily conservative, but Reality is. Ayn Rand is quoted as saying: " You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
Indeed! I'm compiling a list of my favourite quotes, will add this one.
Maybe don't. Ayn Rand had a harem of men who were not permitted to speak about what was going on. She was super exploitative, and I read every word she wrote in the 80's, along with everything her organization wrote....up to the point that her hypocrisy could no longer be ignored. And to be even more honest, some people do indeed avoid consequences. An entire book in the old testament is devoted to this reality; Ecclesiastes. We believe that King Solomon was the writer, who called himself "the teacher". He observed that some of the most evil people live long and sleep well.
It’s always a profound joy to open an email notification from your Substack. We live in a time where it’s nearly impossible to find public voices whose words don’t require analytical parsing, active skepticism or a large glass of wine.
And then there’s you.
It’s feels like it used to feel, just talking to a friend. Before everything had to be microscopically filtered and framed, before we were gripped by fear.
I deeply relate to so much of what you write. I feel relaxed, sane and less alone. Thank you for putting your views out into a public space that desperately needs more voices like yours.
"before we were gripped by fear."
Yes. This gets to the heart of it, imo. We're a culture paralyzed by fear.
I completely agree! For just a brief, but precious, few minutes things make sense and sanity is restored. It gives you hope.
well said, Thoughtful Reader. I concur and feel the same.
Thank you so much!!
Agree completely! It is sad to fear to speak freely and inoffensively, only to have someone desperately seeking to take offense, find it.
Thank you, Jenny. Another brilliant observation.
In CA, as an artist showing for decades the consistent comment directed my way was, "You're an artist in CA, I just assumed..." my reply, "assumption is the mother of phuckups." Liberals, progressives, left wings, Democrats, they really have zero understanding of our shared values and principles. They have no realization that our government is a Republic not a Democracy, which specifically protects the rights of the individual, and minorities from over zealous majorities.
Jenny, that is a good article. However, when it comes to politics, "liberal" and "conservative" are directly related to how one believes the US Constitution is to be interpreted, conservatively, meaning taking it as written, or liberally, meaning to interpret if liberally, which can lead to damn near anything. That's what happened with the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was specifically written to establish and protect the rights of former slaves, but which is now used by leftists to claim all kinds of things. "Conservative" and "liberal" are really not lifestyles, they're philosophies. I suppose you can say, as you just did, that conservative is reality while liberal is living in a fantasy world.
Not necessarily. Conservatism and liberalism are concepts that can be described outside of the framework of the US Constitution
For example, a "conservative party" exists in the UK (although they are so detached from conservatism that they are indistinct from Labour. They took have the problem of a uniparty)
*they too
I wish substack let us edit comments
I've just edited a comment, so you can.
Well, I think the UK Conservatives have a few more folks willing to acknowledge reality, like the fact that men shouldn't compete in women's sports, so I think there is some difference between them. Or maybe I just have Stockholm Syndrome.
Regardless, "conservative" and "liberal" came into use in the United States in regard to interpretation of the Constitution. Actually, "conservative" means one who conserves while liberal means free, as in a free interpretation of policies and law.
If we want to go WAY back, the Constitution and Enlightenment principles themselves are capital L liberal. Thus any framework inside of the Constitutional system would be "liberal", as the conservative position would be something like monarchism.
It all depends on your frame of reference what "conservative" means. Right now our Overton window is firmly within the window of liberal democracy, and was cemented there because those who attempted to change this paradigm (a certain mustachioed man) have been successfully painted as Satan.
Yes, but capital L liberalism was about freedom, modern liberalism is about interpretation of law, specifically the Constitution and has nothing to do with freedom. They're not called "liberal" politicians for nothing.
Perhaps, but one must compare the interpretation of the law to a standard, and that is the Constitution. Look what has happened to the country as each entity does its own thing. It’s not pretty. The implicit promise that your freedom stops where mine begins has been squashed.
Sara, that is exactly my point. Prior to 1860, the Constitution was the rule of law. Honest Abe started interpreting it to suit his own beliefs, namely by claiming there was a "union" that the Constitution doesn't mention. He and other Republicans of that day negated the Tenth Amendment. Things really got bad when FDR was in office then took off in the 1950s with Brown v. Board of Education. I have no problem with integrated schools, but Earl Warren advocated something that isn't there and spawned a rash of Supreme Court decisions based on a liberal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
They’re philosophies that greatly inform lifestyles.
I just wrote almost the exact same comment before seeing yours! 😂
Not necessarily. There are people who live like the devil but are politically conservative. There are also people who are very prim and proper, and who would vote for Satan if he ran as a Democrat.
And then there is Donald Trump who IS the devil and who is supported only by conservatives.
Donald Trump is not a conservative. Yes, he has the support of those who call themselves "conservative" but who probably have no clue what the word actually means. They just don't like liberals.
Yes, but they are philosophies that largely dictate the way we live our lives, so they are also lifestyles.
Jenny, I don't know that's true. I have a buddy who lives near me I met in the military. He was a pothead but he's about as conservative politically as you can be. I grew up on a farm in Tennessee. A girl I know who grew up just up the road from me is way to the left. I wouldn't call her radical but she's a die-hard Democrat. Most of the people I knew growing up were Democrats, but their lifestyle was conservative. I know a lot of people whose lifestyles are conservative but will vote for anybody who runs on the Democratic ticket.
Well said. The current paradigm of the past few decades is a complete departure from how human beings have lived their lives, organized their families and dispensed justice for millennia.
It's a rootless moral paradigm built on the altar of materialism. Even the most ardent communist is at his core a materialist.
The gross error of progressivism is that it necessarily paints the past as outmoded and barbaric and backwards. The past is often (and has been warped by media depictions) as being filthy and miserable and populated by stupid people. It was not. Even though material standards of living weren't like they are today, I'd wager the people found contentment in their lives, even those serfs bound in feudalism, because they had a purpose in the service they provided and most of all, a belief in something that transcends the material world.
Suicide was reserved for those who brought deep Shame and dishonor to themselves. Now it's done by people who feel like they can get no satisfaction from life.
Today the very concept of "honor" is sneered at as being outmoded. The concept of the transcendent is "backwards". The notion of "truth" is even being rewritten to be subjective (I even had ChatGPT tell me, with obvious bias from its creators, that "truth is subjective and multifaceted")
And we wonder why so many of us are enduring trauma, committing suicide and taking antidepressants.
We live in a culture that worships the self. Almost as if the Enemy planned it that way...
Yes!! I strongly agree with what you say about the past! It’s a terrible thing we have done to our young, cut them off from the things that were good about the past and focus only on the bad. I’m old enough to have gotten some great stuff through studying English literature- Chaucer, Shakespeare, Pope, etc. So so important for a developing mind.
We stand on the shoulders of Giants. The left make the mistake of thinking they are the giants.
Brilliant comment! Spot on!
I'm reminded of Edmund Burke's characterization of a society as "a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born." It is ironic that those most interested in environmental "sustainabiity" are those least interested in sustaining this social compact.
Like Jenny, you are speaking mostly in stereotypes and generalities.
I find this comment extremely banal.
The most banal, and most predictable.
For one, generalizations and stereotypes are not intrinsically bad. Much like the word "discrimination", they're words that are automatically labeled as "icky" by the left, even though discrimination, generalizing, and yes *gasp* even stereotyping is useful. Particularly when making a brief article. If we wanted to go into specific details about how detached from reality the left is, we'd need a book. Maybe 2. Maybe 100.
I agree that some generalizations are useful. For example, it took me many years to realize that many conservatives are not so much conservative as reactionary -- meaning that they react emotionally to any idea that hits them too close to home (or which requires them to think too much, or empathize, or examine their prejudices). But in this article, Jenny is going overboard. Besides, it is meaningless to label "reality" as "conservative". Reality is what it is. Only our approach to reality can be labeled as liberal or conservative, and in many cases, making such generalizations isn't productive.
Nope, she's right on here. If conservatism is reactionary, it's because it's a visceral reaction to the warping of reality leftists are pursuing. She is absolutely correct. From gender nonsense to "your truth" to COVID lies, to "white supremacy" encompassing anything to mean anything opposing the collapse of western civilization and Ukraine propaganda, the left is concerned with the dismantling of reality.
It may be gauche to so wholeheartedly agree with someone who also agrees with me, but I strongly agree with your comments. And all their implications. 😏
A nicely & concisely potent jeremiad!
It is rich that you and your hubris look down on conservatives who can occasionally “think”. I “think” that if I, as a conservative , fail to agree with every looney tune opinion of the left, I will find my home in Clinton’s basket of deplorables. There are two sexes. There are two genders, and they are not fluid. The Covid vaccine does harm, and Pharma for a pass on being held responsible. I would love to see Anthony Fauci’s vaccine record. He knew it was an experiment fraught with danger, and I bet my bottom dollar he is not “vaccinated “ against Covid. So, knowing these things, am I a crank, a troll, illiterate, bizarre? No, not and none at all. I just am able to see, judge, act, and think for myself.
"...they [conservatives] react emotionally to any idea that hits them too close to home (or which requires them to think too much, or empathize, or examine their prejudices)."
I am constantly astounded by progressives' capacity for projection!
The loveliest thing about those who sneer at 'conservatives' is the combination of extreme smugness with pitiful ignorance. Your words demonstrate that you know precisely nothing of how conservatives think or feel, but you are absolutely certain that you are correct in your judgements of the thoughts, feelings and motivations of millions of individual human beings. For someone as bright and insightful as you seem to think you are, it shouldn't be too hard to grasp that no one including you is capable of this.
This is a really good analysis of where we find ourselves. I am a Christian pastor and this piece really helped me to frame the dilemma that I feel every week when I stand before my congregation or write a blog for them to read. The dilemma that I speak of is that if I admonish the type order that scripture teaches and a flourishing life demands, in the current cultural milieu, It comes across as politically conservative. I don't like this situation, since I want to bring hope and the message of the Gospel to people on the right, the left and in the middle. Thanks for at least giving me a framework to debate within.
Very interesting! On the one hand I feel we need to accept being called conservative- even if we are not - by the deranged left, but as a pastor, I do see the danger in the politicisation of religious views. They are two things that need to be kept firmly apart. I’m still an atheist, but I do recognise that religion can have a transcendent role in people’s lives and the grubbiness of politics shouldn’t touch that. In yet another hand, I hear a lot of traditional Catholics say that that - religion keeping away from the secular world - has lead us to a place where as a society we think it’s ok to tell children they can change their sex and give lessons in sex acts to middle schoolers.
The left has cleverly coopted religious values of compassion and loving the lost and the least to mean embracing perversion of all sorts. Formerly we would say, "hate the sin love the sinner, " but when one's sexual practices or gender identity is not things they do but who they are such statements are labelled as bigotry. In essence, what it means to be human is being redefined. I think the church and/or the family are the last lines of defense. We simply have to keep "speaking the truth in love," regardless of being labeled as Nazis for doing so. I do believe the extreme wokeism represents a small minority of the population, but they are very well financed and have well positioned themselves to control the levers of power. Having said all that, we must 1) Stand our ground. 2) Build communities of sane and healthy values & 3.) Create alternatives for education, creativity, art and medical care. 4) Refuse to say what we do not believe even if it cost us.
Yes. In fact, I have an article brewing over my head about how Christianity has been adapted into a "liberation theology" which has eventually been warped into a paradigm of "radical liberation", paradoxically from God himself.
At he root of our current situation we find the foundational sin of Pride. Hell now we have an entire month dedicated to Pride.
Charles Taylor in , "A secular Age," calls it "expressive individualism. Carl Truett, built on that and wrote a must read book called, "the Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self." As a culture we lost transcendence and all kinds of self exalting philosophies are rushing in to fill the void .... something like that ... I believe. It's a very deep subject.
In past generations, much reality was absorbed in childhood. Today, kids are often bombarded with things like extreme climate change alarmism and burdened by things like figuring out whether they should be a boy or a girl. God is often ignored or openly rejected. In past generations, even kids raised in atheist homes often absorbed some of the Judeo-Christian world view, perhaps from literature, perhaps from culture, perhaps even from parents who had been steeped in it but who had thrown out the baby with the bath water by rejecting God when what they really were rejecting was toxic religiosity (by the way, Jesus did not approve of toxic religiosity either). With the way things are now, I am glad to be in my 70s and not in my teens.
Yes!! “Reality was absorbed in childhood “ -- very well put.
This has definitely been my experience, growing up .
Re your two husbands: Adversity is the primer of resilience. Without pain, there's no gain.
I don't see reality as liberal or conservative - it just is. It's up to us to do the messy job of figuring out what works - for us. Sadly, in our time Freedom has morphed into License, and Responsibility – Freedom's homely twin – is being ignored by both the Right and the Left. Abortion provides good examples. On the Left, we hear about "women's reproductive freedom" but nothing about a mother's responsibility to her unborn child. On the Right, we have draconian laws being enacted to prevent abortion, but nothing to help the unwed mother and her child.
Reality is not Red or Blue, but multi-hued. If we look at our world through colored lenses, we may miss seeing problems or – worse – miss seeing solutions to our problems. To me, the battle is not between Liberals and Conservatives but between Realists and Ideologues. To steal from Nietzsche, Realists are those who stare into the abyss of Reality. Ideologues are afraid to do so. Their version of Reality is a "tale told by an Idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."
I agree that reality just is - but my point is that very simple truth has been rendered unspeakable unless you are willing to be “accused” of being conservative. That’s not a good thing.
Most certainly. Another painful example of the politicization of everything.
Yes, that seems to be the issue, I feel. That stating reality or even common sense firmly puts you in the 'conservative' camp (or worse 'far right') Was this always the case, I wonder? You made a good point about none of this being political, at the end of your post. I feel that culture has fused with politics to the point that we are labelled more and more based on our cultural and social attitudes and beliefs, rather than political ones. It has become an all-encompassing ideology. And what scares me most is that there is no nuance or middle ground. Just 'with us or against us' - in reality, many of us are a mixture of left/right, and those labels themselves are becoming obsolete.
I would have to disagree that "on the Right" there is nothing to help the unwed mother and her child." I have seen much evidence to the contrary in Christian pregnancy centers, focused on both mother and baby, helping with everything from diapers and baby clothes to emotional support and Mommy support groups, just whatever mothers and children need help with.
Actually, I was talking about politicians, but you're right - lots of fine people there.
"I don't see reality as liberal or conservative - it just is."
Agreed. The key insight for me was realizing that "liberal/progressive" and "conservative" are relative terms. What are we progressing towards? And what are we trying to conserve?
It was progressive to move towards gay rights and gay marriage. However, now that those have basically been accomplished in the Western world, folks who are invested in those rights should become conservatives about them. Instead, we seem to have obligatory progressivism on that topic, resulting in (as Wesley Yang argues) a new civil rights activism that *must* cannibalize prior civil rights reforms in order to maintain the illusion of perpetual progress – e.g., the Trans Rights Activism of former LGB advocacy groups, which are now pushing the idea that sex is a social construct, a view that shreds the very concept of same- or cross- sex attraction.
I think everyone has things they want to change about themselves, or about the world. But we're also all "conservative" about many things in life, because we all have things we feel work for us and don't want to change.
Excuse me, but in Florida there is a plethora of assistance for single mothers, including grants for buying a home that covers down payments and closing costs, many benevolent religious and other charitable entities,nutrition assistance, and other things. What is lacking is early education on the pitfalls of casual, uncommitted sex (how has it become necessary to distinguish between gametes and gonads when referring to sex?). There are many, many people who hold the view that abortion is draconian, and rest assured, the viable fetus would agree were it given a voice. Have you ever participated in an abortion, watched/read an unbiased description of the various abortion procedures? If you say the quiet part out loud, it might change minds and behaviors.
There is a piecemeal safety net for those mothers who choose Life, in every state across the country. How effective and complete is open to question. I hope, however, that we can agree that our educational systems are major contributors to the problem. Not just sex ed, either. Kids coming out of school have little or no idea how to manage their money, nor why they should (and, yes, I'm generalizing). Kids coming out of school have little or no idea how to access the various forms of assistance you point to. Abortion is an ugly, disgusting procedure that can traumatize the mother for life. But bearing a child is no bed of roses either. At least at the end you have the miracle of new life, but that also carries the responsibility to shepherd the child to adulthood. Kids coming out of school seldom are taught about the importance – and the burdens – of personal responsibility. Things like "there ain't no Free Lunch," and "No, there isn't a Finance Fairy that prints money for your benefit."
I totally agree with you that the opposition between Realists and Ideologues is much more important and actually much more real than the one between Liberals and Conservatives (and both "Liberal" and "Conservative" can now mean all kinds of things). I don't identify with any ideology. I try to draw conclusions from my and other people's experiences and from the facts I learn.
I also really appreciate your comment on abortion - most people are so attached to their ideological approaches on this issue that they don't seem to notice the problematic nature of these approaches...
Great article that “might” say if you are young and not a liberal you don’t have a heart and if you are older and aren’t conservative you don’t have a brain ...
Yeah, not far off! ☺️😂
That's been attributed to Churchill and various others, going back to the ancient Romans and Greeks. I don't think anybody knows who actually said it first, but whoever it was certainly was clever, and observant.
A wonderful essay.
Two very clever English people have realised that being liberal is good for a few individuals but a terrible prescription for society. One was Margaret Thatcher who said: "The facts of life are Conservative." The other was the playwright and librettist W.S. Gilbert who wrote the prescient lyric: "If everybody's somebody, then no-one's anybody."
As you have ably pointed out, most upper middle class eople, even if they profess to be bohemian are really bourgeois in their day-to-day lives. They try to ignore Mrs T's truism, and make the world a place where everyone can deviate. Bt of course if everyone deviates, then no-one is really a deviant, as Gilbert realised.
We now live in age where hypocrisy is the tribute virtue pays to vice.
Yes!! I could not agree with this more. I wrote an essay a few months back saying basically this -- that what we called left-wing ideology is actually just a very niche lifestyle that somehow we think we should encourage everyone to adopt. Being bohemian, artistic, fringe, is not for everyone! If everyone lived like that nothing would get done, and society would fall apart. I know this because it's how I grew up, btw!
I'm also very amused that I just published an essay that says the same thing as Margaret Thatcher. My younger self would be appalled! 😂
All these 'conservative' truisms you write about are grounded in Christianity, which formed the foundation of western culture and liberty until very recently. I've noticed that many conservative and/or more thoughtful commentators (e.g. Tom Holland, Douglas Murray) acknowledge this without drawing the obvious conclusion, which is that the culture should return/reconvert to Christianity, as defined by the bible, en masse.
Again, I can't believe I'm saying this as a non-religious person, but I'm starting to agree with you. Or more accurately, I'm no longer horrified by the idea. Given the horrors of our present age.
Horrors are an intrinsic part of the human condition. If you get rid of 'religion' then you still have to contend with flawed human nature, which will continue to engender all manner of evils. To take some extreme examples, the people running the Nazi concentration camps and Soviet Gulag were not evangelical Christians.
Nazi leaders found it convenient for political advantage to check a "Lutheran" or "Catholic" box but in reality, to the extent that they had a religion other than their own quest for control, it was the occult.
Christianity is indeed the foundation. All are welcome to choose to follow Jesus Christ. People would be wise to do so, especially now as we see signs in the world of the great tribulation to come. Nobody in their right mind would want to be here for that if they can help it, and it can be avoided by choosing to follow Christ now, before Jesus Christ rescues his true followers in the Rapture and only unbelievers are left to endure the anti-Christ who will control the world in the tribulation period.
So much of what you've written here resonates with me; much, much mood I could add, but this will have to do for now. Thank you for this and I rarely miss reading your columns; keep up the excellent work! 👏
Thank you so much!!!
This is a very interesting piece, but what do you exactly mean by "traditional gender roles"? I am personally firmly against a situation where children spend much more time with their nannies than with their parents. If a woman prioritizes her career and income, obviously it has negative consequences for her children.
But I also have some doubts about "traditional gender roles".I am sure that there are very happy families where the man is the provider and the woman stays at home. But this usually means that the woman and her children are economically dependent on the man. Economic dependence has its dangers, especially if a man does not see his partner as his equal and assumes that she should please him and submit to his will and that he does not have to be faithful to her.
And what if the man loses his job and can't find another one, or finds a much worse paid one? My dad was sometimes unemployed (for no fault of his own) and in these periods my mum was the provider thanks to her teacher job. The situation of my family would have been horrible during my dad's unemployment periods if my mum had not been used to working outside home and had no professional skills.
My own family constellation wasn’t exactly traditional- my father worked from home and therefore was my primary caregiver, my mother went out to work every day. I don’t think that is damaging per se. And economic dependence is a danger if one party isn’t working at all. But my point is that within a sex class traditional attributes are more likely to be a path to happiness- my first husband who was liberal and had many effete characteristics was a deeply unhappy man who did not want me to stay home with our child when he was a baby. My second husband is totally masculine in the traditional sense and he supported not just the mother of his children before we met but also has been very supportive of me. He is very comfortable being the main breadwinner because he comes from a traditional background, and I am extremely grateful for that.
I understand what you mean, but I have a problem with the idea that some characteristics are "effete" and some others are "masculine". You say in your piece that your first husband was artistic and not strong enough to "vanquish his demons". I hope that you are not implying that being artistic is somehow "unmasculine".
As to strength, the ability to cope with one's demons and to pull oneself of a deep hole, if we see these qualities as "masculine", we continue to silently assume that women are psychologically weak and fragile. Mental strength and resilience are priceless qualities for both men and women.
I also have another thought. You mention your first husband's inability to cope with his demons. But has your second husband had any demons to vanquish? Some people have simply never had any demons (there are such men in my own family); we don't know how strong they would be if they had to battle e.g. an alcohol addiction. "Traditional masculinity" does not bring mental strength: in fact, there are plenty of "traditionally masculine" alcoholics, drug addicts and cheaters.
Yes, my second husband had many demons to vanquish -- in some ways, in fact, more than my first, as he had what would be considered a tough childhood and my first husband had a very cosseted childhood. I attribute the success of my second husband in getting better -- in part, not entirely -- to his yes, traditionally masculine characteristics like hard work, self-denial, and sacrifice. As well as his experience of violence, which made him tough. I disagree that "traditional masculinity" does not equal mental strength. I think strength, mental and physical, is a defining characteristic of traditional masculinity. I think only if you are predisposed to not seeing the value that good men bring, could you say otherwise.
It's also not true that because I say strength is a traditionally masculine characteristic that i'm implying women are weak. That's just not the case, I have never viewed women as weak, quite the opposite. If anything, feminism views women as weak as it constantly casts them as the victims of bad men. Both men and women have the capacity for immense cruelty and immense love and sacrifice. They are not mutually exclusive. But thank you for this comment, because I'm writing something about this at the moment and it was very useful to read your take! 😀
Here is another thought: a man can be capable of hard work, self-denial and sacrifice, but also capable of abuse and violence. And a man can be ready to die for his own family, community or male friends, but act in an evil way towards those who are not "his own people".
Even men who perpetrate crimes against humanity can be good husbands and fathers. The fact that someone is ready to work hard and sacrifice himself for his family, community or friends does not mean that he is a good man. He can even be a very evil man. A loving and selfless husband and father can act like a monster towards people he sees as his enemies, as inferior or even as subhuman.
Nazi men or men who were lynching Black men in the American South were "traditionally masculine" and valued their own masculinity. There is a very powerful docu by Joshua Oppenheimer - "The Act of Killing". It is a docu on Indonesian men who cruelly killed many Communists and people accused of being Communists in the 1960s. I remember one of the scenes where one sees one of these ruthless criminals with his wife and his daughter. To them, he is probably a good husband and father...
You are very welcome and thanks a lot for your reply to my comment! How would you define "traditional masculinity"? You are talking about "traditionally masculine characteristics like hard work, self-denial, and sacrifice" - is this what you mean by "traditional masculinity"?
If this is what you mean, I would say that you are describing the traditional masculinity ideal (or some aspects of it). I think that the difference between this ideal and the reality of "traditional masculinity" is very important. In fact, if traditional masculinity were as beautiful as you suggest, why would so many people (men and women) question it?
And even if we are talking only about the traditional masculinity ideal, one of its aspects is the belief that men should hide their emotions and vulnerabilities, that crying or showing any "softness" is unmasculine. I think that this is a very oppressive aspect of this masculinity ideal. Another very oppressive aspect is the belief that the husband and father is the head of the household and that everyone should bow to his power.
It's not that I don't want to see the value that good men bring. I know some really decent men, but I don't see them as "traditionally masculine". I feel that your attitude towards what you see as "traditional masculinity" is very influenced by the failure of your first marriage.
I find it worrying that you write that your husband's experience of violence "made him tough". You seem to suggest that experiencing violence is good for boys - I guess that what you mean is that he was beaten by his father or both his parents. Well, let me give you just one example: I know a man who was often beaten and sometimes even punched by his father as a boy. This man has been an alcoholic for decades. He is not a bad person, but he can be very abusive.
Of course experiences of violence can make people "tough", but this "toughness" is not something inherently good. Tough people can be callous, abusive and even cruel. Tough men can even perpetrate horrible crimes. Let's not forget that e.g. gangsters are tough men... Soldiers who kill and rape are also tough men.
I am glad that you don't see women as weak. However, I disagree with your belief that "feminism views women as weak". Feminism is not a monolith. Only some feminists constantly portray women as helpless victims.
You say that "both men and women have the capacity for immense cruelty and immense love and sacrifice." But it is not true that women are as likely to be cruel as men. Here is just one example: a few days ago I read about a horrifying case - in Scotland a young man attacked a woman in the street, "repeatedly stamped and kicked her body and head", raped her and then set her alight. She died. I am sure that such cruelty was linked to the widespread use of violent online pornography which dehumanizes women. Of course such cases are very rare, but this is only one of many ruthless murders very recently committed by men on women.
Sadly, men are responsible for the vast majority of murders, torture, rapes and child sexual abuse perpetrated in this world. Many aspects of traditional masculinity contribute to this problem, including the belief that men should hide their emotions and that they have the right to use violence to assert their masculinity. It is also obvious that male sexuality is different from the female one.
I subscribe to a lot of Sub Stack writers, but you and Sasha Stone are the only two I don't miss a column from.
You provided some great insights in this one.
Absolutely agree.
Thank you! And you have reminded me that I must read some of her stuff, because another friend of mine also recommended her.
You guys have been on the same path. I think you both had similar epiphanies, at similar ages, around the same time.
Do you mean Sacha Stone? If so, that's a dude, not a gal. Interesting flavor of anti-Leftist and I can't decide whether he's nuts, controlled opposition, or remarkably wise.
No Sasha.
Female
https://substack.com/@sashastone
You're welcome
Thanks, didn't know about her. This title looks good -- "The Left's Incurable Munchausen by Proxy"
This is so well said, thank you.
I am so grateful for this essay. My parents were major organizers of the civil rights movement. My Dad was an advisor to RFK. Their utopian ideals were held tight, and required a whole lot of looking away, and allowing me to be vulnerable, while gaslighting me. They turned their backs on their own families, telling us constantly that their friends from grad school would be our family forever. Of course not. When I read your sentence about that, I almost started to cry. It's the first time I have ever seen this well articulated.