Father’s Day approaches and with it the opportunity to consider the importance of fathers to their children.
It is difficult to overstate both the positive effects of growing up with a father and the negative effects of father absence, especially for boys. These myriad benefits and perils are on record, undisputed and easily accessible. But in this gynocentric era, what is good or bad for boys does not seem to attract the interest of our cultural elites.
One of the most ironic things about the constant “toxic masculinity” complaints that we hear these days is that we live in an overly feminized culture where most of the “toxic” males seem to have either been raised without fathers or claim to be adherents of feminism. The statistics on men raised without fathers are grim almost beyond belief.
Last November I was lucky enough to have been invited to the Sydney launch of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation. John Howard was there. Kim Beazley was there. Canada’s former Prime Minister Stephen Harper was there. Much of the talk was about which Australian universities could be potential partners to run this program on Western Civilisation, and with a lot of money on offer plenty seemed very interested.
Now let me tell you that a good many people on the right side of politics were sceptical that this idea of running a degree program through an established Australian university could work for the Ramsay Centre. And they were sceptical for this simple reason. Australian academics, especially in the Arts and Social Sciences, lean massively to the left side of politics.
A New York Times Magazine hit piece says more about the mainstream media than it says about Jordan Peterson
Dr. Jordan Peterson, who has enjoyed a surge into fame over the past year, has become a bit like the Yanny and Laurel audio meme. People listen to what he has to say but disagree wildly about what they are hearing.
Some hear a man with important ideas that can help people live a more fulfilling life, others hear a dangerous misogynist who wants to set back the cause of liberated women, trans people, and the rest of the cast(e) of oppression. In a feature for The New York Times Magazine this weekend, Nellie Bowles clearly came down on the latter side.
The current system of restricted retail beer and wine sales in Ontario works well and is socially responsible, New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath said Saturday.
Campaigning in Thunder Bay, Ont., Horwath said there’s no need to allow convenience stores to carry the products — a perennially favoured if never-implemented idea that once helped propel the Liberals to office in the mid-1980s.
“I’m going to be straight up about it: I don’t think we need to have beer and wine in the corner stores,” Horwath said. “I don’t think this is a broken system in Ontario. I don’t necessarily think that we need to mess with it. It’s working fine for people.”
The prospect of liberalized sales surfaced during the June 7 campaign when Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford said he would allow corner-store sales of beer and wine if he’s elected premier.
Granted, alcohol being sold to children is a great concern but it is also a red herring.
A post-modern West that holds self-indulgence in any respect as the highest societal good has much bigger problems than where alcohol can be sold. If people raised their children well and didn’t drink and drive, where alcohol can be sold wouldn’t be a problem.
Once again, Japan comes out as the least offended when someone seemingly appropriates their culture.
The 63rd annual Eurovision Song Contest, perhaps the world’s largest example of humanity’s peculiar obsession with making music a competitive sport, came to a close last week. In the end it was Israeli singer Netta (Netta Barzilai) who took top honors with her song “Toy.” …
But I could be wrong, so let’s go to the netizens of Japan for judgement.
“The millions of Japanese people with dyed hair must be laughing at this.” “Westerners care too much about silly things.” “Culture is meant to be stolen. If it’s not worth stealing, then it isn’t culture.” “If people keep claiming ‘cultural appropriation’ then people will not touch our culture. Then, people will not understand our culture and it will be easier to become our enemy.”
Wasn’t this sort of thing fresh and original when Bjork did it? :
I speak of a divide that has pitted brother against brother for years – is “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” the stand-alone series of the franchise? :
Among Star Trek aficionados, debate is always lively about which show or movie is best. These arguments have been the basis of nerd-fights for decades and, as matters of taste, will never be resolved. But any serious fan of the world Roddenberry built must rank “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine” as among the best incarnations of the Star Trek universe.
Part of what makes it so good is that it sidelines many of the themes that animated Roddenberry’s original creation. The original series and “Star Trek: The Next Generation” were both set in a post-scarcity utopia. After a destructive nuclear war, humanity put aside its baser instincts and evolved into the peaceful, open-minded people Roddenberry wished we were. Hunger was unknown, and money was eliminated. People in Starfleet served—for free—aboard immensely powerful warships that did not make war but explored the galaxy peacefully for pure scientific inquiry. They were also nearly all atheists.
Some of this world-building fell apart immediately. There was, for example, often talk of trade negotiations and occasionally “credits” were mentioned. It is natural that some of these elements from real society would creep back in because while humanity’s traditional motivations—money, sex, land, power, and religious disputes—lie at the heart of much human ugliness in the real world, they are also essential to good storytelling.
If everything in the United Federation of Planets is happiness and sunshine in a land of plenty, why even leave the house? With “Deep Space Nine” now available on Netflix, it is interesting to see how these ideas and plots have held up after 25 years.
The blockbuster hit A Quiet Place is an allegory of American political culture.
John Krasinski’s new sci-fi thriller, A Quiet Place, has racked up big numbers at the box office. Fans and critics alike are intrigued by a movie about sightless creatures taking over the Earth. Using their super-acute hearing to hunt and destroy by sound, these deadly beasts have just about eliminated all resistance. Here and there, die-hard humans survive by maintaining total silence.
Whether you are on the right, on the left, or independent, you can’t help but notice the cultural divide not just in the United States, but also in Europe. As this battle of personalities and ideas rages across the spectrum of social communication, there is a generational change taking place that has gone mostly unnoticed in the national discussion.
The left truly is afflicted with the infantilized belief that life really is a small world after all. The ride itself, “It’s a small world” was the first multicultural act perpetrated on the American public before the Democrats made it cool. Before a ‘coexist’ bumper sticker was ever placed on a Prius, the idea that we could actually coexist across the cultural milieu by simply ignoring history was embedded in the 62-year-old ride. However, there never will be a servo motor moving a jihadi character on pistons in the small world, unless there was a roadside bomb underneath it as it waved to your children singing “Allahu Akbar” as the water dinghy carried you forward. But we can ignore that. It is a hell of a ride on its own, as it slowly picks away at your sanity.
A University of Toronto clinical psychologist, Jordan Peterson, has become one of the best-known Canadians of this generation. In the intellectual category, he’s easily the largest international phenomenon since Marshall McLuhan.
The proof? The BBC praises and interviews him, The New Yorker takes him seriously, the Times of London loves him and the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia both celebrates and denigrates him.
Our culture is very bad for boys. It’s bad for girls, too. It’s bad for everyone. But I think we fail to recognize and appreciate the unique struggles that boys face. Partly we fail to recognize it because we are too busy worrying about the Patriarchy’s persecution of women. Partly we fail to recognize it because, collectively, we just don’t care that much about boys. Partly we fail to recognize it because men are not as likely to talk about their own plight. And partly a man will not talk about it because everyone, even his fellow men, will only laugh at him and downplay the problem.
For many of us, it is clear that Western Civilization has been in trouble for quite some time. The past thousand years of internal power struggles and the slow abolition of any sense of purpose are signs of the decline, and over the past 229 years, the decay has accelerated to the terminal point.
“The government of Canada recognizes that large internet companies are acting outside regulatory frameworks and may be a threat to our culture,” Simon Ross, a spokesman for Heritage Minister Melanie Joly, told AFP.
…The Italian and American examples, meanwhile, are a reminder that even in liberalism’s Western heartlands, people want order and meaningful communion. They seek order, in the sense that they want to have a say in who gets to enjoy the privileges of citizenship. A chaotic immigration system is an offense against good order. They long for meaningful community, because community makes possible a common life and a shared vision of the common good. As the classically liberal French philosopher Pierre Manent told me last year, humanity-at-large cannot provide meaningful community because it is “too large and too diverse.”
These aren’t earthshaking ideas yet, among today’s liberals, they come across that way. Today’s liberalism is disoriented–and disorienting–because it no longer has a sense of its own limits.