postwatcher04 - at - hotmail.com

About PostWatch
 
..::Archives::..


 
..::Links::..
The Nation

Winds of Change

Memri

Virginia Gun Rights

= WatchBlogs =
Timeswatch

Alphecca

Biased BBC

ChronWatch (SF Chronicle)

Croooow Blog

OmbudsGod

Regnum Crucis

Rhetorica









  ..::Other Links::..
Debka.com

Independent Women's Forum

Inkwell

MRC

Romanesko

CampusWatch.org

Amy Wellborn

Mark Shea

Kesher Talk

Right Wing News

Eleven Day Empire

Discriminations

Where is Raed?

Healing Iraq

The Command Post

Powerline







 
PostWatch: An irregular correction to the Washington Post


Brought to you by Christopher Rake
















PostWatch
 

Wednesday, November 27, 2002
 
1:45 PM

Eugene Volokh temporarily loses his marbles.... In a long post that has many equivocations and is something of a thought experiment, the normally wonderful Volokh doesn't see any fundamental moral problem with a world deliberately populated by few males. This came up in connection with a recent InstaPost about the usual feminist line by the likes of Mary Daly, who, until she got thrown out of Harvard, practiced what she preached by excluding guys from her classes. Remember what I and Bernard Goldberg have said about mere-power-struggle feminism? "Equality" from those quarters is a con.

Volokh:

I don't think there's anything necessarily evil about parents concluding that having very few male children, or perhaps even no male children (assuming that reproductive technology can propagate the species without males, which is not a ridiculous assumption for the future), will yield a better society. There are no living humans who are hurt by that. Some of the few future males might be indirectly hurt by the message that the practice sends -- if society thinks there should be very few males because males are bad, how will that make the few males feel? But if the message is simply a reflection of the fact that having many males is indeed bad for society, then that truth will come out (and should come out) in any event.

I'm guessing that this unhinged outlook is connected to a libertarian outlook, but I'm just guessing. I don't want to wrench it out of context--it's part of a larger discussion that observes there are true biological differences between men and women; that you can't throw away the more violent tendencies of men without also junking other essential qualities like their superior mastery of higher mathematics and the need for, say, wisely guided violence in a dangerous universe, etc. etc. But still--there is Eugene Volokh saying that there's nothing evil about concluding that the world could be better without people like me--and him. The word "Fisking" comes to mind.

Let's follow just one path here. If you're going to blithely be disinterested in this form of eugenics, purely from a practical point of view, then the current model states that parents should be particularly wary of producing black male babies, since current demographics show they have a much greater chance than white babies of growing up to become criminals. Does Volokh really want to go down that road?

And does Volokh really believe that only "some few males might indirectly be hurt" by the message sent under that policy? "Sorry, kid--I know you don't have that many boys to clown around with, but your kind is dangerous. Nothing personal."

Maybe he was rushed. Maybe it just shows that any social theory followed to its extremes produces nonsense.

For the record, his post includes neither the word "modest" nor "proposal."



Comments: Post a Comment
 
Powered by Blogger Pro™


Google
Search WWW Search postwatch.blogspot.com