tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post5020951491399523294..comments2024-03-18T22:21:01.033-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: John Derbyshire and RacismGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-51173644873238907472012-04-13T05:46:47.059-04:002012-04-13T05:46:47.059-04:00"If you wanted a black friend in part in orde...<i>"If you wanted a black friend in part in order to defend yourself against accusations of prejudice against blacks, I would think you would be obligated not to make a liar out of your friend."</i><br /><br />But I'm not sure he's doing that- he is a self proclaimed 'mild racist' but in that he means he identifies differences between races- as in "Asians have lower bone density on average than other races", which is of course also fact. Prejudiced racism means treating individuals as part of a category regardless of their personal traits- which I do not see him advocating, in fact he seems to be doing the opposite in identifying 'IWSB's' as desirable as friends, and says as much somewhere in there.<br /><br />Obviously, if it were as you're describing it, then I'd agree, but I'm not sure we can say that's so- and I say that even as I find his approach to the subject distasteful.douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261739259295914188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-22871428269825148582012-04-12T12:15:35.911-04:002012-04-12T12:15:35.911-04:00The model I'm thinking of contains mutual defe...The model I'm thinking of contains mutual defense at its basic structure, so certainly it would be proper to befriend a man out of a desire that he should help you defend yourself (and in return, you would defend him).<br /><br />However, consider the structure of the bargain you are proposing. "I wish to be your friend," your honest man would be saying, "in part to have a defense against accusations that I am biased against your kind. Those accusations happen to be perfectly true, but I want you to protect me from them anyway." That doesn't sound like an honest bargain, even though it is internally quite honest! <br /><br />If you wanted a black friend in part in order to defend yourself against accusations of prejudice against blacks, I would think you would be obligated not to make a liar out of your friend. That seems like a pretty important part of friendship, doesn't it? You are defending his moral character in part by not asking him to say anything untrue. <br /><br />In other words, if you want a friend for this purpose, you ought to deserve the defense you are asking from him. That means not using him as a mask for your heart, but struggling against your heart to train it so that your friendship could be genuine. That is the kind of friendship you are talking about re: a Catholic friend, and that kind of friendship is very good.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-29416610894454845732012-04-12T04:36:20.305-04:002012-04-12T04:36:20.305-04:00Thank you Grim, for the full response. First, I t...Thank you Grim, for the full response. First, I think I should have been more specific by saying <i>"...but to say it's wrong based on <b>part of the</b> motive seems to me odd."</i> I don't know that from what he wrote, you can take him to say that you should befriend someone <i>for that reason only</i>. I see him indicating it has it's uses, which is undeniably so- motive or not- he's merely recognizing it. I can see your taking issue with the recommendation to <i>"...consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs."</i>, but would it be wrong to say 'Son, you should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with other Catholics as they will reinforce your faith, or wealthy people because they might provide good opportunities and connections later? I don't really see the difference. You also posit that Derbyshire <i>"...would never dare to describe to him"</i> his motives. I've not read much of him, but from what I have, and from what you have said to hold in esteem in him, he seems like a man who just might tell his black friends that part of the reason he made friends with them was 'as an amulet'. After all, didn't he in publishing this piece, just do so? A man that honest might be one of the best friends you could ever have. I'm not sure we can know from here. I do think it's at least plausible that he could have frith with a man, and have made friends with him at least in part because it could be convenient later. Isn't that also so in having firth itself- knowing that a man would be loyal to you- live and die with you- doesn't that also have utility that we might not speak of directly, yet we are both aware of it? I say yes.douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261739259295914188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-78116432776547067172012-04-11T13:00:29.726-04:002012-04-11T13:00:29.726-04:00Douglas,
That is a good question. The subject of...Douglas,<br /><br />That is a good question. The subject of friendship is an important one. I could give you a short answer, but maybe you deserve a long one.<br /><br />My view of social relationships generally is that there is an organic basis for them -- our nature -- that is then trained by reason to perfection. Take any institution (marriage, say) and you'll find that I believe we should first figure out what human nature tells us about the role of that institution (it is for provision for the next generation); and then we use reason to train the institution to perfection (children need not merely to be conceived but educated to adulthood, which implies a certain structure). To fall away from that is bad enough if you preserve the principle end (that which nature requires -- so for example Islamic polygamy preserves everything about the procreation and education, but not in the perfect way); it is far worse if you are now destructive of the principle end (<a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3191923,00.html" rel="nofollow">marriage between a woman and a dolphin</a> is a mockery of the institution, and therefore destructive of a basic human good).<br /><br />Friendship's natural basis is not in the human need to procreate, but in the human need to survive. We need friends to watch our backs while we hunt, sleep, eat, and so forth; we need them to ride with us to keep our frontier clear, and we need them to help us educate our children. Friendship is the basis of all human societies (see the "Frith and Freedom" section of links for a lot more on this -- frith is a word linked to both "free" and "friend").<br /><br />That is to say, my essential view of friendship is that of <a href="http://www.lightspill.com/poetry/oe/maldon.html" rel="nofollow"><i>The Battle of Maldon</i></a>, or the <i>Song of Roland</i>: friendship is ideally a brotherhood who lives or dies together, united in mutual loyalty. <br /><br />To that organic root I would add the perfections spelled out by Aristotle in his <i>Nicomachean Ethics</i>, which we should probably read at length because it's a very interesting topic. That is how I think we should shape and nurture the basic organic institution, but the nature of the thing being nurtured is as described above.<br /><br />Derbyshire's move is a violation of the basic nature of friendship. It is not a true bond of mutual loyalty, but a deceptive use of the "friend" for ends you would never dare to describe to him. Such a basic deception does violence to the nature of friendship itself. It is not merely an imperfect way of pursuing the natural end: it is destructive to the end itself. No one can have <i>frith</i> with you if you do not honor it on equal terms.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-45059816332765070562012-04-11T05:50:25.894-04:002012-04-11T05:50:25.894-04:00I think you're unfair to the man, Grim. Why d...I think you're unfair to the man, Grim. Why do we make friends? Is it not normally because we see some benefit to ourselves in associating with that person? Do we not teach our children to befriend those who would be good influences and useful, as opposed to those who would be poor influences and detrimental to them? Why is this case different than any other? Of course, he must still honor the friendship and it's obligations, but to say it's wrong based on motive seems to me odd. I think there are better criticisms of the piece.douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261739259295914188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-88660729080577803592012-04-10T15:16:38.190-04:002012-04-10T15:16:38.190-04:00"I think it's far, far worse to treat fri..."<i>I think it's far, far worse to treat friendship the way he advocates. Friendship is a bond of honor as well as of mutual enjoyment (and, as Aristotle points out, the benefits of a virtuous life that come from having a 'second self' with whom you can explore the good life). To enter into something you pretend is a friendship under false pretenses is a very great dishonor, to my way of thinking.</i>"<br /><br />I think you're spot on with that one.Eric Blairnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-66842445809015147782012-04-10T14:23:24.814-04:002012-04-10T14:23:24.814-04:00Joe:
I can't remember when I took it out, but...Joe:<br /><br />I can't remember when I took it out, but the old "admired voices" section had largely become links to retired writers (like Raspberry). I should find a place for Mark Steyn, who is the last of them still operational.<br /><br />Cass:<br /><br />I can understand a distinction between a business decision and a personal one, so that I'm not sure that it's exactly the same thing to (a) hire black people to avoid a discrimination law suit and/or bad publicity, and (b) befriend black people for the same reason. <br /><br />However, making that distinction does Derbyshire no good: I think it's <i>far, far worse</i> to treat friendship the way he advocates. Friendship is a bond of honor as well as of mutual enjoyment (and, as Aristotle points out, the benefits of a virtuous life that come from having a 'second self' with whom you can explore the good life). To enter into something you pretend is a friendship under false pretenses is a very great dishonor, to my way of thinking.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-3065329351209083222012-04-10T13:04:20.366-04:002012-04-10T13:04:20.366-04:00No, the thing he attacks in the "Race on Wall...No, the thing he attacks in the "Race on Wall Street" article is the way discrimination complaints are used to extract tribute from employers. Fire the black guy (or the girl, or the person who took medical leave), no matter the real reason, get sued for discrimination, settle for a fortune. <i>That</i> is what he finds repugnant, as I do. <br /><br />I have a little experience with lawsuits of this kind, though not on Wall Street - I used to work in a federal court in Alabama - I noticed often these cases, if the employer was willing to fight them, disappear on summary judgment. (Because there is no evidence of discrimination; the employee says "I just feel like it was my race"...which is not good enough.) But the firms Derbyshire worked with always settled instead of fighting - and that he thinks is wrong, because it encourages more of the same.Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-39057786097379911502012-04-10T12:48:46.947-04:002012-04-10T12:48:46.947-04:00Hey - not ignoring the discussion. Am just slammed...Hey - not ignoring the discussion. Am just slammed at work.<br /><br />Grim - I'm not sure what to say about his other articles. They are thought provoking but like you I'm not inclined to give too much weight to IQ and some of the reasoning is a bit one-sided. <br /><br />On the Race on Wall Street article, I found it very interesting that his ostensible reason for writing the article was the part about Wall Street firms intentionally hiring blacks for positions to insulate themselves from accusations of racial bias.<br /><br />That's pretty much what Derbyshire advocated (and you objected to) in the Taki piece, which makes me wonder why he would advise his children to do something he found so morally repugnant in the Wall Street article?Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-68225976098965533962012-04-10T11:45:38.679-04:002012-04-10T11:45:38.679-04:00Not adding anything to this discussion - but in ca...Not adding anything to this discussion - but in case anyone comes back to it:<br /><br />As I noted at Cassandra's site, in a <a href="http://collectedmiscellany.com/2003/11/derbyshire-interview-follow-up/" rel="nofollow">follow-up</a> to that interview, Mr. Derbyshire explained the sense (and the only sense) in which he describes himself as a "racist":<br /><br />"Racism: All I mean there is that I believe that race is real, and important. Nowadays, that makes you a “racist.” Again, I consider myself mild and tolerant here–I don’t believe in any discrimination by public authorities, and of course I am familiar with the awful historical record of the United States in the matter of race slavery. I take individual people as they come, as I believe every sane person does. I can imagine circumstances where I would certainly practice private discrimination; but, as I have said, I don’t see anything wrong with that."<br /><br />Cassandra helped me articulate why I think this isn't right to term racism...the thing that draws moral opprobrium to the term "racism," and ought to, is the idea that a different race is <i>inferior</i> in a moral sense or ought to be so legally. And that he does not think. Thinking that race is real, and matters, to my mind makes you a "race realist." (But this we already talked about over there.)<br /><br />I hadn't noticed that the old "admired voices" column was gone. I've placed Mr. Derbyshire's page under my own favorites, one of which it certainly is.Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-54872231827163070112012-04-09T18:05:51.367-04:002012-04-09T18:05:51.367-04:00Cass:
By this rule, anyone who declines to grapple...Cass:<br /><i>By this rule, anyone who declines to grapple with some topic is a coward?</i><br /><br />There is an important difference between "anyone" and "any topic" on the one hand, and "<i>National Review</i> and "a topic they have regularly published articles about for more than ten years."<br /><br /><i>I also don't think they establish that the National Review ever published anything like the Taki article...</i><br /><br />You're entitled to your opinion, of course. It strikes me that there is a much stronger common thread than you allow, which is that our society's racial relationships represent a fraud enforced by fear and abuse. That comes across clearly to me in all of those articles, where one is threatened with 'career-destroying' consequences if one should dare to bring it up in the wrong way; but I suppose Derbyshire himself represents a kind of anecdotal confirmation of that aspect.<br /><br />The fraud aspect, though, is what is troubling to me. The article on testing is based on a claim -- apparently based on scientific testing -- that blacks and non-white Hispanics are so mentally inferior that they cannot compete in any fair competition. <br /><br />Here's <a href="http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Culture/racewallst.html" rel="nofollow">another example</a>, also from <i>National Review</i>, which might be fairly titled 'Why no one would ever employ black people at all, if it weren't for the bad publicity.'Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-6164544455735619642012-04-09T17:38:30.468-04:002012-04-09T17:38:30.468-04:00Grim:
Having now read two of the papers you link,...Grim:<br /><br />Having now read two of the papers you link, they are in a different universe from the Taki essay.<br /><br />I will refer you back to my earlier comment:<br /><br /><i>We've agreed in the past that there are inflammatory and less inflammatory and even non-inflammatory ways to make essentially the same argument. I would defend the less and non- inflammatory arguments but would not defense needlessly inflammatory ones.</i><br /><br />So far, the articles you cite and the Taki article are alike in only one respect: they deal with the topic of whether there are racial differences.<br /><br />The articles you cite do NOT make recommendations about whether one should view blacks with fear or suspicion, nor whether a person ought to refuse to help a black person in trouble.<br /><br />I'm surprised that you would seriously compare them. I also don't think they establish that the National Review ever published anything like the Taki article, which went way beyond scientific (or anecdotal) evidence to advice that young people should fear and avoid blacks not previously known to them.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-28221208599848498802012-04-09T17:00:28.071-04:002012-04-09T17:00:28.071-04:00Intellectual courage would require grappling with ...<i> Intellectual courage would require grappling with the ideas that they have published, and determining just which parts of them represent ideas they wish to endorse or forward; but also which parts they think are wrong, and just why. </i><br /><br />By this rule, anyone who declines to grapple with some topic is a coward?<br /><br />I'm not sure externally imposed litmus tests of intellectual courage are something I want to see more of.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-39753967677413621242012-04-09T15:12:35.887-04:002012-04-09T15:12:35.887-04:00Cass,
The problem isn't that National Review ...Cass,<br /><br />The problem isn't that <i>National Review</i> may have published "watered down" versions of the idea. This piece everyone objects to is the watered-down version: it contains the ideas only as assertions, largely without the arguments, and then the conclusions he draws from those ideas about what he should tell his children.<br /><br /><i>National Review</i> published the arguments themselves. Consider <a href="http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/specterofdifference.html" rel="nofollow">this piece</a>, or <a href="http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/raceiq.html" rel="nofollow">this one</a>, or <a href="http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/swellingwave.html" rel="nofollow">this one</a> (which argues, among other things, that research into Alzheimer's is stymied by racial politics: <i>"Alzheimer's correlates with IQ, you see. Also has different incidence among different races … Once researchers know that, they go find something else to work on. The state our science is in right now, there's plenty of low-hanging fruit. No need to go committing professional suicide."</i><br /><br />Or just <a href="http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/firefighters.html" rel="nofollow">this piece</a> on "race-norming" and exams as they relate to public policy, if you like.<br /><br />I'm chiding NRO for being cowardly in just the sense you're praising them for exercising discretion. I think it's cowardly to publish these ideas and arguments, but then try to hide from the consequences -- especially by an invented claim of bad faith. I don't think they have to defend his ideas, or even him, but I do think it's cowardly of them to avoid taking responsibility: instead of saying, 'He is falsely trading on our name to publicize these ideas!' (which happens not to be true) they ought to have said, 'We accept that we have lent our name to his ideas for a long time' (which is in fact the case).<br /><br />However, there's another sense in which it is cowardly: this is <i>intellectually</i> cowardly, too. Intellectual courage would require grappling with the ideas that they have published, and determining just which parts of them represent ideas they wish to endorse or forward; but also which parts they think are wrong, and just why. <br /><br />What they've done instead is thrust the whole thing away from themselves, as if it were a bag of plague-bearing rats: and then cried out that he had somehow tricked them into carrying it. The scoundrel!Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-63257585187379518672012-04-09T15:03:38.076-04:002012-04-09T15:03:38.076-04:00Lowry obviously got caught out by Derbyshire's...Lowry obviously got caught out by Derbyshire's column, which probably would not have got printed in the NRO, but, because Derbyshire is/was a contibutor, the NRO is getting 'guilt by association' and I'm pretty sure Lowry's reaction was probably along the lines of "He wrote WHAT?" and decided pretty quick that the quickest and easiest thing to do would be to 'fire' Derbyshire, so he and the rest of the NRO won't have to defend/explain/rationalize/etc either Derbyshire's continued employment or his writing, which likely would be a complete waste of time and treasure, and would convince no one, least of all those that would be criticizing the NRO for continuing to employ him after what he wrote.Eric Blairnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-2928654276074165482012-04-09T15:03:30.327-04:002012-04-09T15:03:30.327-04:00Lowry obviously got caught out by Derbyshire's...Lowry obviously got caught out by Derbyshire's column, which probably would not have got printed in the NRO, but, because Derbyshire is/was a contibutor, the NRO is getting 'guilt by association' and I'm pretty sure Lowry's reaction was probably along the lines of "He wrote WHAT?" and decided pretty quick that the quickest and easiest thing to do would be to 'fire' Derbyshire, so he and the rest of the NRO won't have to defend/explain/rationalize/etc either Derbyshire's continued employment or his writing, which likely would be a complete waste of time and treasure, and would convince no one, least of all those that would be criticizing the NRO for continuing to employ him after what he wrote.Eric Blairnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-81702676710063697082012-04-09T13:53:39.088-04:002012-04-09T13:53:39.088-04:00But your charge of cowardice presupposes some mora...But your charge of cowardice presupposes some moral duty to defend with (or continue to associate with) Derbyshire.<br /><br />You are taking as given what is not a given: that they *should* defend/continue to associate with him.<br /><br />You yourself say that you're not defending his ideas, but you think NRO should. The question is, "why?". For what reason?<br /><br />*If* (and only if) you establish that NRO published the very same (not watered down, not substantially different) ideas and only now objects to them because attention was called to the Taki article, I would agree that it was cowardice.<br /><br />But you have not established that.<br /><br />As to Falstaff, it does not logically follow that having quoted a single line from Falstaff constitutes any kind of endorsement of his behavior or morality.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-28195500117008050942012-04-09T13:09:07.001-04:002012-04-09T13:09:07.001-04:00Naturally you do, Cass, because the line is from F...Naturally you do, Cass, because the line is from Falstaff -- the same character who gave us "Villainous Company." <br /><br /><i>"The better part of valor is<br />discretion, in the which better part I have sav'd my life."</i><br /><br />Should Lowry say that running away here makes good sense because it will let him fight another day, more effectively perhaps, would be to make an analogous argument. It's not incorrect as a point of fact; but it's no defense against a charge of cowardice!Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-1696039123498908452012-04-09T12:56:47.517-04:002012-04-09T12:56:47.517-04:00"Race realism" - I think that is the bet...<i>"Race realism" - I think that is the better word for his views than "racism" - and authors who actively promote it, simply lies beyond what they want. Given that they're a political publication that wants to influence U.S. elections, deciding not to be associated with someone who's that easy to smear - it's simply policy, a business decision, and possibly a smart one. </i><br /><br />I agree :pCassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-52582943038943301832012-04-09T12:34:20.602-04:002012-04-09T12:34:20.602-04:00The problem, Joe, is that they've published hi...<i>The problem, Joe, is that they've published his "race realist" arguments (to take your term -- although, in his 2003 interview, he himself uses "racist" to describe himself) for more than ten years.</i><br /><br />Unless they published the very same sentiments contained in this latest essay, (not some more watered down version and not one where he advises whites to avoid blacks, not help them if they're in trouble, etc.), I don't think that's the same thing.<br /><br />We've agreed in the past that there are inflammatory and less inflammatory and even non-inflammatory ways to make essentially the same argument. I would defend the less and non- inflammatory arguments but would not defense needlessly inflammatory ones.<br /><br />That was my point. I've already conceded that I'm not a daily reader of NRO (though I am a frequent reader and was for many years a subscriber to their print magazine). So I could well have missed something!Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-45947744235489563462012-04-09T12:28:44.211-04:002012-04-09T12:28:44.211-04:00Now, it may have been that very comment that promp...<i>Now, it may have been that very comment that prompted the lengthy discussion we had a while back on the franchise -- I thought it was one of the best things we ever did here, although one of the most challenging. </i><br /><br />It was, indirectly. I re-read my post on the subject before writing about it today.<br /><br />I'll dig up the link later.Cassnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-77384834311001451592012-04-09T11:03:01.499-04:002012-04-09T11:03:01.499-04:00The problem, Joe, is that they've published hi...The problem, Joe, is that they've published his "race realist" arguments (to take your term -- although, in his 2003 interview, he himself uses "racist" to describe himself) for more than ten years. It wouldn't be cowardly but tactical, I suppose, were this a business decision made in the absence of controversy, and privately -- 'Hey, John, look we've decided this election is going to be about race to a larger degree than usual, and...'<br /><br />What makes it cowardly is that they never made such a decision: they've published his stuff right along, up until the moment when the consequences showed up at the door. Then, all of a sudden, 'Oh, we have nothing to do with that kind of thing here at <i>National Review</i>! Why, that scoundrel has been trading on our name! ... by, er, publishing elsewhere, without fanfare, on a small website in another country, and not mentioning it anywhere except his personal website, where he clearly marked it as not being at our magazine.'<br /><br />That's what's cowardly about it, in my opinion. Others are welcome to feel otherwise about it.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-28239461164659614142012-04-09T10:53:31.510-04:002012-04-09T10:53:31.510-04:00(I see Grim posted as I was writing.) I don't...(I see Grim posted as I was writing.) I don't see the NRO response as cowardly. Mr. Derbyshire has <a href="http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/HumanSciences/youcanttalkaboutthat.html" rel="nofollow">often acknowledged</a>, without rancor, the editors of any publication can and should decide the "tone" and the range of opinion that occurs inside. <a href="http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/USPolitics/white.html" rel="nofollow"><br />"Race realism"</a> - I think that is the better word for his views than "racism" - and authors who actively promote it, simply lies beyond what they want. Given that they're a political publication that wants to influence U.S. elections, deciding not to be associated with someone who's that easy to smear - it's simply policy, a business decision, and possibly a smart one. <br /><br />Now, for someone to drop a personal friendship with him on that basis, for the sake of image, <i>that</i> would be cowardly.Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-19804909066470778002012-04-09T10:51:12.887-04:002012-04-09T10:51:12.887-04:00I think she's referring to a comment he made t...I think she's referring to a comment he made that things would 'probably be better' if women did not have the vote. <br /><br />Now, it may have been that very comment that prompted the lengthy discussion we had a while back on the franchise -- I thought it was one of the best things we ever did here, although one of the most challenging. (Unfortunately, the good part of the series -- the debates -- was on Haloscan comments, which are no longer available online.) We ended up reaffirming the universal franchise, but not reflexively, but rather from a position of knowledge based on thorough investigation and careful argument.<br /><br />I do remember the piece she is citing -- it was pre-9/11, I believe. It was before I was blogging, to be sure. I wrote him a response to it longhand, and he wrote back a thoughtful response. As I recall my letter, it was largely along the lines of: 'Enjoy it while it lasts, because the softness in our society that you bemoan historically usually ends in war; and the war will have room enough for men, but not for the pleasures we have now.'<br /><br />9/11 came shortly after that; but as it happens, it proved us both wrong. America proved to be more than rich enough to segregate its war from its peace, aside from the TSA lines: we've had both the war and the softness for a long time now. Whether that is good or bad -- or whether it can last -- is another question.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-58261025635742336502012-04-09T10:44:09.429-04:002012-04-09T10:44:09.429-04:00...how horrible it is that offices no longer have ...<i>...how horrible it is that offices no longer have hot and cold running strippers and the one (I think this may have been an interview or a book excerpt) where he wished women didn't have the vote...</i><br /><br />Whoah! I've never seen him say <i>that</i>, that's for sure. I remember Florence King writing that women shouldn't have the vote - but not John Derbyshire. (His "Straggler" column took the place of her old "Misanthrope's Corner" on the back page of print NR - is it possible Grim got them mixed up? But he knows what he quoted and perhaps will show us again.) Mr. Derbyshire has written that <a href="http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Culture/necessarybutimpossible.html" rel="nofollow"> nonmilitary government workers</a> shouldn't have the vote, but women? That would be a shock to me. <br /><br />In fact, on relations between the sexes, Mr. Derbyshire takes the view that feminism and the sexual revolution were, overall, <a href="http://old.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire050302.asp" rel="nofollow"><br />good things</a>, though they came with costs as good things often do.Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.com