KIT WRITES:

I was browsing your blog and wow, let me say, I am really blown away by some of your methods of arguing. Is it really fair to attempt to statistically criticize anything that fails to support your worldview (e.g. a study on children of lesbians reporting similar levels of happiness as those reported by children of non-lesbian parents) when you continually post snide anecdotes about how awful women are? How does it prove anything to hold up an example of one liberal marriage divorcing or use an example of one horrendous boss and act like these prove an entire worldview? Talk about “junk science”! Would you post an entry about the latest conservative Christian to secretly use a homosexual prostitute and make the argument that all anti-gay activists are closet homosexuals themselves? Of course you won’t, because you employ a ridiculous double standard in your methods of argumentation.

What is particularly entertaining about that anecdote about a horrendous boss (I fail to see how gender proves anything–PEOPLE can be terrible or wonderful, I don’t believe morality breaks down on gendered lines) is that there are laws in place specifically to protect women against discrimination due to pregnancy, laws put in place because of feminism!

Laura writes:

I don’t follow your reasoning.

The authors of the study about lesbians as parents, and the journalist who wrote the article, presented the conclusion that children do not need both a mother and a father as scientific.  The authors indicated that this was proven by the study. I never said in the post about the unenlightened female boss that this proved that female bosses were generally worse. My headline “Can Liberals Stay Married?” was not a serious scientific question (in fact, it was partly tongue-in-cheek) and I don’t think any intelligent reader mistook the picture of Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, as conclusive proof that liberals can’t stay married. 

 By posting the story about the female boss, I did attempt to disprove, and I think I succeeded, that all women make good bosses (as Gloria Steinem and Katie Couric would have us believe). By posting an anecdote about a divorced father, I did attempt to disprove that all women are justified when they seek divorce (as was suggested in this recent article about divorce law.) Posting these stories helps people see that some frequently repeated generalizations are suspect and that there is evidence against them. These anecdotes and observations are true and not fabricated. I have also posted a number of entries of statistical data about family, on illegitimacy, divorce and employment. These are census data and the figures are not in dispute.

Kit writes: Would you post an entry about the latest conservative Christian to secretly use a homosexual prostitute and make the argument that all anti-gay activists are closet homosexuals themselves? Of course you won’t, because you employ a ridiculous double standard in your methods of argumentation.

Kit considers it hypocritical for me to look around and find any evidence of the things I believe to be true. I suppose she would have me offer proof that something is true and then turn around and offer proof that it is not true. In other words, in her mind, objectivity is proving that nothing is true. Many of the points I and others have made here can be heavily supported by observation and statistics, but there is more to them than that. I don’t just rely on reason, but also look to custom, tradition, faith and sacred mystery. In the realm of reason, we are all working with certain basic assumptions and the most important thing is whether those assumptions are true. I don’t think the problem is my method of argumentation, but that Kit doesn’t share some of my presuppositions and is offended that I repeatedly back them up with real life cases.

I have never presented one person’s behavior as proving scientifically that all people in a broad category behave a certain way. I wouldn’t post an entry about a conservative Christian using a homosexual prostitute because this story would not be representative of a significant social problem. There is no epidemic of conservative Christians openly embracing homosexuality and I have limited my criticism of homosexuality to public and open homosexuality. Private homosexual behavior is wrong, but it doesn’t really concern me here. It doesn’t contribute to an epidemic of homosexuality or threaten sexual identity at large. It doesn’t hurt those who are not intimately involved.

Kit says that the story about the female boss was entertaining and showed exactly how I get things backward. Without feminism the employee who told the story would not even be protected from such bosses. But the point of the story was not that the job was important. In the best of all worlds, a woman would not even have to work during pregnancy or while she is raising her children. So the point wasn’t about job security, but it was to dispel the commonly held opinion that women by their very nature make more understanding and sympathetic bosses and that women by their very nature will help other women manage the demands of motherhood. I know there are some very good female bosses. That is undeniably true and I personally know some of them. But then that is a point that is often made in the mainstream media, with its glowing affirmation of women who have made it to the top. It is a point made virtually every day of the week. My purpose here is to present the other side and there is indeed another side.

By the way, the laws put in place to protect women during pregnancy are not necessarily in the interest of women. This is not to say that employers should automatically fire pregnant women, but they should be free to favor those employees who will not become pregnant or be mothers struggling to raise their children. Discrimination in favor of women, which is what laws that overlook pregnancy and motherhood as real factors affecting employment are, cause women and society to treat pregnancy and motherhood as inconveniences. They contribute to the reality we have today, when many mothers are working who do not want to work and men have a difficult time supporting families themselves.

Kit says, “I don’t believe morality breaks down along gendered lines.” I’m glad to hear that. I assume Kit sent an e-mail to Katie Couric and Gloria Steinem too and complained that they present a one-sided view of history and culture, with women always presumed innocent and men always the culprits. It takes a lot of counter-examples to puncture feminism’s claim that women are almost always victims. I’m not working in a vacuum, but responding to the culture at large.

                                     — Comments —

Michael S. writes:

To Kit you replied:

“I don’t follow your reasoning.”

That’s because there wasn’t any. You give Kit too much credit. I don’t see an “argument” in her comments at all — just a lot of “wow” statements and questions. At most, these are implicit claims.

My attitude toward critics is that they should do the work of making their case — not the people they purport to criticize. A critic who can’t be bothered to say anything should be treated the same way as someone who hasn’t said anything. It’s just noise.

Randy B. writes:

Do you mind a suggestion in line with Kit’s “Argument” (?). If Kit is going to argue recursive shotgun logic while pointing the firearm at her own foot, I suggest you meet the proposition head on. From now on you should only ever present your position when balanced with a counterargument, constructed by you, or from a commenter whose sole purpose is to refute you and your position. If you don’t start this type of “Fair” and “Balanced” reporting, how will you ever be accepted as a productive centrist? Yes, of course, you should be able to have your own opinion, as long as you are able to recognize that it is wrong, and all progressives are in all matters correct. 

HOLY COW! If nothing else, it is fun to read the rantings of the mental stalwarts and deep-thinking leaders of the left. It is also very helpful when those trendsetters get their insane ramblings posted in a public forum, as it further solidifies us on the right as the moral and intellectual compass for the revolutionary movement in perpetuity. 

Remember, “Fair” is a term used by Children and Democrats.

—

Please follow and like us: