- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Rotherham, Political Correctness, & The Rape Of Common Sense

About the systematic rape and sexual abuse of 1,400 — that’s one thousand four hundred — girls in a single English city by groups of men, The New York Times (of all places!) doesn’t mince words [1] in talking about who did this, and to whom they did it:

The vast majority of perpetrators have been identified as South Asian and most victims were young white girls, adding to the complexity of the case. Some officials appeared to believe that social workers pointing to a pattern of sexual exploitation were exaggerating, while others reportedly worried about being accused of racism if they spoke out. The report accused officials of ignoring “a politically inconvenient truth” in turning a blind eye to men of Pakistani heritage grooming vulnerable white girls for sex.

More:

Some officials were apparently ordered by their managers to withhold information on the ethnic origin of the abusers, the report said. As a result, no contact was made with local Pakistani leaders for help in identifying gangs that continued to assault and abduct teenagers.

It beggars belief how sick and corrupt so many English people have become. My God, you let men rape and torture your daughters, but don’t dare say anything because somebody, somewhere, might call you a racist, or a fellow traveler with the BNP?

The Guardian writes: [2]

Council and other officials sometimes thought youth workers were exaggerating the exploitation problem. Sometimes they were afraid of being accused of racism if they talked openly about the perpetrators in the town mostly being Pakistani taxi drivers.

More:

Jahangir Akhtar, the former deputy leader of the council, is accused in the report of naivety and potentially “ignoring a politically inconvenient truth” by insisting there was not a deep-rooted problem of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators targeting young white girls. Police told the inquiry that some influential Pakistani councillors in Rotherham acted as barriers to communication on grooming issues.

And:

A mortgage adviser who drove a BMW and owned several properties promised to treat a 13-year old “like a princess”. Another man pulled the hair of a 13-year old and called her a “white bitch” when she tried to reject his attempt to strip her.

Straight-up, violent, sexist racism. But the Rotherham police and politicians turned a blind eye.

It’s not only reverse-racist political correctness at fault. If you read the entire report, you see a bureaucracy rife with dysfunction. A crude, sexist, macho culture within the police force is partially to blame. Disgusting men.

Over 1,400 female children treated like animals, by animals. And aside from the Council leader who voluntarily resigned yesterday, not one of the people responsible for this moral outrage will be punished. Not one.

Ed West at The Spectator nails it: [3]

‘I didn’t want to appear racist’ is truly the ‘I was only obeying orders’ of our time.

… Political correctness was supposed to make us nicer, but in reality it just makes people stupider. As anyone who has done any sort of online test will tell you, much of human intelligence comes down to pattern recognition; the whole purpose of political correctness is to stop us noticing patterns even when they stare us in the face.

British progressives, let’s not hear another word about how the sacrosanct nature of the Catholic Church contributed to the sexual exploitation of children by priests until you face up to the fact that the values of political correctness on the matter of race and ethnicity contributed to the sexual exploitation of children by these Pakistanis. Catholicism doesn’t “cause” clerical sexual abuse any more than anti-racism “causes” Pakistanis sex gangs to rape children. But a big part of the meaning of Rotherham is that Rotherham authorities were willing to sacrifice the humanity of at least 1,400 little girls to the god of political correctness.

And you watch: some progressives are even now worrying more about people thinking the Wrong Thing about Pakistani men than they are about these children, their rapists, the potential anti-white race hatred of the children’s rapists, and how the authorities failed those children.

Advertisement
140 Comments (Open | Close)

140 Comments To "Rotherham, Political Correctness, & The Rape Of Common Sense"

#1 Comment By dominic1962 On August 27, 2014 @ 7:13 pm

“And regarding the date-rape culture in the USA, several Fox commentators embrace it is normal and reject the notion that a woman has a right to say stop at any point during a date.”

If they do “embrace” it as normal, I would guess its probably because that’s one of those realizations that this is the kind of crap that happens in drunken college or 20 something immoral hookup bar scene encounters. Not that its good or proper, but a simple realization.

I seen and heard the aftermath of this sort of crap when I was in college. You know, sometimes both parties think their little random (maybe somewhat public) hookup is just a fine idea at one point in the night but once the night wears off, that unfortunate use of reason comes back and the last nights debauchery does not seem like such a good idea any more.

Hell, last time I went out to the bar on a Saturday night (which I don’t do often, because I’m getting old), I gave two people the proverbial “get a room” schpiel because they were all but getting it on right there on the smoking porch.

Lest I start rambling, I think this problem has precious little to do with what sorts of political opinions the people involved hold to. Its just people letting their bestial sides run rampant.

Moreover, regarding sex-related crimes in general, conservatives often have a “blame the victim” attitude, particularly (and sadly) in statutory rape cases.

#2 Comment By WillW On August 27, 2014 @ 7:15 pm

Why has nobody thrown out General Napier’s quote yet? When he ruled a certain district of India he supposedly stopped the practice of widows being “assisted” onto their husbands funeral pyre by pointing out: “you say this is your custom, well our custom is to hang men who murder women, so I will have gibbets built next to the pyres so we can each follow our own custom.” Now these civil servants won’t even lose their jobs? What has happened?

#3 Comment By sk On August 27, 2014 @ 7:25 pm

“sk:
“Go ahead and google rape in America. Black on white rape amounts to roughly 30,000 per year. White on black rape amounts to 10 or less.”

Without my blinders, I see that 20-25% of African American men have the same, Western European Y-chromosome as me. I.e., they are more closely related to me than eastern/central/southern Europeans.”

I don’t get the point of this, but regardless: what about the other 75-80%?

#4 Comment By stef On August 27, 2014 @ 8:00 pm

@Glaivester: Pakistanis are white.

And splitting hairs between nationality and religion are ridiculous. Pakistanis are also Muslim, except for maybe 1-2%.

Not only that, if people blathering about race had read some original articles, they would find that Eastern European and Chechen men were also involved in some cases.

They’re white, too.

@Irenist: Men are not going to protect women from other men, unless they see said women as property. Then they feel free to abuse those women because they are their own property.

Nice try, blaming feminism. Women need feminism (and the 2nd Amendment) because their abusers are almost universally men.

Patriarchal attitudes are exactly the reason these Pakistani / Eastern European / African criminals are abusing girls. Christians at present don’t have these radical patriarchal attitudes (although given the points of view of some around here, that’s seen as a bug, not a feature.)

#5 Comment By stef On August 27, 2014 @ 8:07 pm

Excuse me, I meant to write “patriarchalist men are not going to protect women…” etc.

#6 Comment By Ryan Booth On August 27, 2014 @ 10:10 pm

[4]

The city of Rotherham has now published an official response to the inquiry. It is awash in PC rubbish and absurd rationalizations.

#7 Comment By J On August 27, 2014 @ 10:12 pm

Another politically correct stereotype. I’m not even sure the comment you referred to can be characterized as “progressive,” and if the author claims that banner, he speaks for nobody but himself.

I don’t consider myself a progressive. Rod did not publish my reply to his misguided claims.

#8 Comment By Humble Minion On August 27, 2014 @ 10:23 pm

As is the case with anything this emotive (the kids-bodies-in-convent-septic-tank story, for instance), there are a lot of people reading into this story exactly what they are most predisposed to believe. I would very strongly advise everyone to read the full report – which Rod helpfully linked to in his previous post on the subject – before sounding off.

I HAVE read the full report. It is considerably more complex and comprehensive than the great majority of media coverage has been willing or able to reflect. It is a fact that witnesses were told not to emphasise the race of the offenders. It is a fact that the majority of offenders were Asian and that at least one racially abused his victims. It is a fact that Pakistani community leaders were unwilling to accept there was a problem with sex offenders within their community.

However, these are only facets of the wider context of the report. Some other facts that are not getting reported so widely:
– this was NOT targeted jihad – there was a widespread problem with abuse of Asian girls as well, which was a) not reported to police because parents feared for their daughters’ marriage prospects if the abuse became public, and b) somewhat hidden from view because the council and police only bothered speaking to Asian men, never women. The targeted children were targeted because they were VULNERABLE, and as whites constitute a significant majority of the population of Rotherham, it only makes sense that they’d constitute a majority of vulnerable children as well.
– this was NOT religiously based, there were a (smaller) number of white and Caribbean offenders as well. Reading between the lines of the report, it seems more likely that this rings of abusers originated among workmates at the taxi companies (which, if Rotherham is anything like here, skews heavily subcontinental from an ethnic point of view) rather than among a community of likeminded co-religionists
– in the documented cases of police miserably neglecting to pursue or prosecute offenders who’ve been caught redhanded (one was actually caught with a drunk 13yo, with photos of that child being abused on his phone ffs!), race does not seem to have been a factor – the prevailing attitude seems to have been that the children were drunk/drug-abusing/had willingly entered the company of their attackers willingly and so were ‘consenting’.
– the report emphasises assigns much more responsibility to the lazy, dismissive ‘macho’ culture in Rotherham police and council, and the insufficient staffing, spending, and organisation among child protective services, than it does to issues about misplaced racial sensitivity.

The fact that the coverage of this issue everywhere seems to emphasise the don’t-risk-being-called-racist angle to the exclusion of all else seems to me like a profound failure of journalism. As Rod’s previous post on the subject spoke of, it is also an indictment of lazy, insular bureaucracies, a bloke-y organisational culture that bullied or ostracised dissenters or those who spoke unpleasant truth, organisational incompetence, institutional sexism, budgetary penny-pinching regarding unglamourous and unprofitable services, and communal butt-covering. The issue of misplaced racial sensitivity allowing paedophiles to evade justice is a real one, but it is very very far from the only major issue. This was an appallingly long-running episode, and many different systems failed in many different ways to allow it to continue, and to slate the bulk of the responsibility onto political correctness is blinkered and misguided.

And fwiw, blaming it all on Islam requires a level of denial of the simple facts of the case that is simply breathtaking.

#9 Comment By HeartRight On August 27, 2014 @ 11:14 pm

JohnE_o says:
August 27, 2014 at 4:52 pm


I’m surprised that there is so little questioning of the idea that politicians and police were cowed by political correctness into ignoring this.

I suspect that money was exchanged between the criminals and those in Authority.

With about 22 different agencies on the council level playing jurisdiction games?
How exactly do you suppose to bribe your way through that?

cecelia says:

>i>How is this so different from the BBC and the metro police turning a blind eye to Jimmy Saville where political correctness certainly played no role?

Timing, actually.

Saville was pushing existant moral boundaries at a moment that it was widely assumed by quite a lot of people in fairly high places that the old boundaries were about to be abolished for a much more liberal approach, and that introducing young people as soon as possible to the realities of life, was the morally right thing to do.

Some of the baby boomers have grown awfully forgetful about their roles in that. Such as Harriet Harman. And other folks are still frothing at the gash that they did not manage to pull it off. Such as Danny Cohen. And others are dead. Such as Saville and Cyril Smith.

. The police indifference appears to be more about “victim shaming” – they did not believe the girls – they ignored the reports given to them etc.

Police tend not to give too much credence to adolescents who wish to report a crime after they have been caught red-handed committing a few dozen misdemeanors, all the while protesting they were innocent despite having stolen goods in their hands OR the smell of drugs still about them.

This is Council Estate territory you’re talking about.
Not to mention the likelyhood that Police Constables themselves hail from the segment
that broke away from the vicious circle – and have thus not a great deal of sympathy towards the hands whose fingers tried to claw them back into the vicious circle.

So are we being misdirected by all this emphasis on political correctness when this is really just another case of official corruption, indifference and a general unwillingness to grapple with these sorts of crimes especially when it involves girls who are from the underclass?

A] What corruption? I am disinclined to believe that corruption is a factor.
For the reason that while I understand how you can bribe a single noodle, it still seems impossible to bribe a plate of intertwined spaghetti, unless you are talking about Saudi princes who can toss millions in all directions, rather than self-employed taxi-drivers who need to be rather more frugal when handing out money.

B] The reason quoted was ‘community cohesion’. The matter is obvious enough to the locals. Which would tend to include me, even though merely living in a neigbboring Riding. I invite you to listen carefully to the local community organiser of Pakistani background, who has no problem pinpointing the problem with that.
[5]

C] The whitewash still continues even as we write!
It was on my watch that the organised abuse of young girls by a gang of Asian men came to light,” he said.
[6]
They are not Chinese, they are not Israeli, don’t call ’em Asian, call ’em Pakistani.

heads should be rolling among those councilors and social service supervisors who failed to act on this.

D] Resignations cannot be forced from Independent Commisioners. They are directly elected and cannot be held to account.
Even when they should.
Commisioner Shaun Wright’s explanation is that he already resigned in 2009.

He has already resigned from the Labour Party as of midnight – pre-empting his being booted out, which was scheduled for tomorrow at dawn.
( Still full marks to the Party Opposite for calling the prat out, though! )
But he is still insisting it’s his job, and noone could possibly do it better.

#10 Comment By Jesse Ewiak On August 27, 2014 @ 11:58 pm

Guys. Asian in the UK is “South Asian” – ie. Pakistani, Bangladesh, and so on. It’s not some PC obfuscation or fear of the Muslim menace, it’s what people from that area of the world have been called in the UK for fifty years.

#11 Comment By Sean Scallon On August 28, 2014 @ 1:35 am

Actually, I’m waiting for one of the Pakistanis to claim this is a plot to attack Islam and that those who perpetrate it are “Islamaphobes”.

And if you think Rod that “religious freedom” is some sort of sacroscant right of man, perhaps you should take the link of this article from the Daily Beast to find out what Islamists in England like to do with their “religious freedom”. Just remember, what you claim for yourself is going to be claimed by others too and you may not like the results.

[7]

#12 Comment By BillWAF On August 28, 2014 @ 1:59 am

It is possible to argue both that the majority of the Pakistani community in Rotterham is not directly implicated in these crimes and still maintain that there are aspects of that community’s culture that contributed to these crimes. The Independents columnist Yasmin Alibhai Brown, who is of Pakistani origin, wrote a column about it.
[8]

That said, I suspect that this may point to a much larger problem with British policing. Let me explain.

In August, 2006, a journalist at Rupert Murdoch’s “News of the World” was charged in what would become the beginning of the hacking scandal. Eventually, the scandal would implicate many Murdoch journalists and lead to the recent conviction of Andy Coulson, who had left journalism to work for Prime Minister Cameron’s as the latter’s director of communications.

Yet for years, both the British police denied that there was a wider problem. Much of the British press loudly (and often angrily) supported those denials, frequently attacking the few British lawyers and reporters who tried to pursue the larger cover-up. (Basically, only The Guardian pursued the hacking story.)

When the scandal finally broke, it turned out that the authorities who assured the British public that there was no larger scandal had looked the other way because they had been compromised.

Some lower level police had been supplementing their income for years by selling information to certain elements of the press. Even worse, some senior police officials had been bought off. In one case, a senior police official when he retired was paid thousands a week for a column which was ghost written for him.

On top of that, the officials whose job was to supervise the police were subject to blackmail, perhaps in part due to hacked email.

In the hacking case, many of the victims were among the elite. However, the victims could not get justice. The cover-up failed only after a combination of a story in the New York Times about the hacking story (circumventing the British press boycott of such stories) and the revelation that a phone had been hacked that belonged to the family of a thirteen year old girl who had been murdered.

There was nothing “PC” about ignoring the hacking scandal. No one was protecting minority sensibilities. There were different perpetrators and different victims, but a similar outcome.

Perhaps nothing ties these two scandals together, but I suspect this should be investigated.

#13 Comment By cecelia On August 28, 2014 @ 2:14 am

my notion of corruption was of the cover your arse type – that councilors may have friends family etc who were implicated – also the community cohesion think is equally a type of corruption – community cohesion is actually threatened by the perception that crimes from one group will be ignored.

I do not know the on the ground circumstances here – but I do think we should consider – especially in the media reports – the tendency to cast this into a race issue or politically correct issue – it is certainly more complex than that.

And Shaun Wright should resign!

#14 Comment By HeartRight On August 28, 2014 @ 8:23 am

Jesse Ewiak says:
August 27, 2014 at 11:58 pm

Guys. Asian in the UK is “South Asian” – ie. Pakistani, Bangladesh, and so on. It’s not some PC obfuscation or fear of the Muslim menace, it’s what people from that area of the world have been called in the UK for fifty years.

And living as migrant in a community that has these days a great deal of Asians with no ties to the subcontinent, I’m calling that out.

Just as we will call that mindset out translate a la Warsi Minority Interest as Muslim Interest, and as we will call out prioritisation of Islamic dietary considerations in schools at the expense of e.g. Hindu dietary considerations.

PC or Linguistic Aggression? Different name, same stuff.

Sean Scallon says:

And if you think Rod that “religious freedom” is some sort of sacroscant right of man, perhaps you should take the link of this article from the Daily Beast to find out what Islamists in England like to do with their “religious freedom”.

Religious Freedom is first and foremost the outcome of ‘boundary treaties’ between Church and State, and coincidentally after the State transgressed on territory which belongs to the Church and not to the State.

An Emperor could claim independence from the Church, but a mere King was subordinate to, ergo, the mere assertion of EQUALITY between Church and State was a preposterous presumption when it comes to a Kingdom.

The Closed Crown of England ( unlike the Open Crowns of Sweden or Denmark ) remains an extraodinary claim without extraordinary evidence.

(footnote, sure, it helped if you had a Patriach ( non-orthodox ) in your corner, but there is only one questionable Ultrajectine to appeal to these days, and I don’t think he’s bothered about it. )

If the State presumes that it dictates the boundaries between Church and State, then that still remains a preposterous presumption.

In other words, the Rights of the Church are not dependent on the State, and any atempt to alter the Status Quo is aggression.

Actually, I’m waiting for one of the Pakistanis to claim this is a plot to attack Islam and that those who perpetrate it are “Islamaphobes”.

I’m thinking that such persons are very likely to find out that they will get outed by the community they presume to speak for.

The wahhabis and salafists may have done a pretty good job of insinuating themselves in mosques, but they have not done very well at the community level.

‘Not in my name’ is powerful medicine, and I’m cheerful that it will continue to grow in influence.

cecelia says:
August 28, 2014 at 2:14 am

my notion of corruption was of the cover your arse type – that councilors may have friends family etc who were implicated – also the community cohesion think is equally a type of corruption – community cohesion is actually threatened by the perception that crimes from one group will be ignored.
The problem with that is that such an explanation would tend to tread upon territory it should not treat upon.

Elected members in a Constituency system are SUPPOSED to look after such interests.
It’s not a bug, but a feature. I’m strongly in favour of replacing the Constituencies with PR ( which does allow among other things for more neutrality) but you can’t call it corruption when the system works as designed.

And Shaun Wright should resign!
And the longer he tarries, the bigger the backlash he’ll face from his own electorate.
In the long run, it’s their call.

And I’m quite pleased that the Party Opposite has ceased the habit of digging protections for horrible comrades.
My local MP was one of the first to get the boot.
Red Ed Milliband( and my political instincts are radically different from his ) is a much better man than people give him credit for. There is moral steel in his spine, and we’ve got preciously few people like that.

#15 Comment By M_Young On August 28, 2014 @ 9:13 am

“Perhaps nothing ties these two scandals together…”

Exactly, and your trying to tie them together is a blatant attempt at ‘whataboutery’.

#16 Comment By M_Young On August 28, 2014 @ 9:20 am

“race does not seem to have been a factor ”

Of course it wasn’t — it never is. Not here in the Channon Christian case or the Lily Burk case or the Eve Carson case of the Jan Pawel Pietrzak case. Not in Britain in the Billy Ward case or the Ben Kinsella case or the Kriss Donald case. Nothing to see, move on, only icky people like BNP supporters raise such issues (and they have been banging on about ‘Asian grooming gangs’ for a decade at least.

#17 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On August 28, 2014 @ 10:55 am

Re: @Glaivester: Pakistanis are white.

No they aren’t, Stef. Do you not know anything about genetics, or what?

Indians and Pakistanis are (like Latinos) a hybrid population, in this case mostly the result of mixing between ‘white’ and Negrito racial groups. The percentage of white ancestry in Pakistanis is probably somewhere around 70-80%, so they’re about as ‘white’ as most Brazilians.

Re: Men are not going to protect women from other men, unless they see said women as property. Then they feel free to abuse those women because they are their own property.

You slept through your history lectures on the medieval cult of chivalry, didn’t you?

#18 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On August 28, 2014 @ 10:57 am

Re: Lest I start rambling, I think this problem has precious little to do with what sorts of political opinions the people involved hold to. Its just people letting their bestial sides run rampant.

There’s nothing ‘bestial’ about sex, per se. The problem here is that some people are eliding the distinction between force and consent. (Not that I think that has any particular political implications).

#19 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On August 28, 2014 @ 11:00 am

Re: Nor is it really a separate race from Caucasian. It might be a sub-ethnicity, but Pakistanis and Sub-Continent Indians are Caucasian.

No, they aren’t.

My particular racial background, for example, is probably a little over 50% Caucasian, many Indians are substantially less.

#20 Comment By Derek Leaberry On August 28, 2014 @ 12:54 pm

One of the gravest errors of British history was the creation of the Commonwealth which led to the relative free flow of immigrants of the old Empire to Britain. Muslims are a terrible fit for Britain. But Labour wants the Muslim welfare vote and the Conservatives are too cowardly to send them back to where they once belonged. Enoch Powell was right.

#21 Comment By Irenist On August 28, 2014 @ 1:09 pm

@Franklin Evans:
I was just thinking about you the other day: I encountered a typical online caricature of contemporary pagans as juvenile and unserious, and my mind leapt to you as a counterexample whose like was being unjustly ignored.

You make some great points on the double standard. I agree that as a matter of historical fact, feminist activism has been vital (indeed, indispensable) in ameliorating sexual violence, and bringing the issue to the fore, and that, without feminist agitation, lazy and often misogynist patriarchalists would have blithely ignored the issue just as similar sorts among the Catholic clergy have clannishly hidden and nowadays lackadaisically ignore the abuse of minors. I wouldn’t call myself a feminist, but I am well aware that society owes feminists a great deal. In particular, you are correct that society’s perception of the wronged woman changed very much for the better as a result of feminist agitation.

Now the inevitable quibbles:

“One cannot escape the reality that the pre-libertinism culture was de facto Christian.”

Let’s see if I can wriggle free of the reality you allege. Pre-libertinism, society was theoretically Christian, and de facto full of the same sorry human lot as now. The only difference was that libertinism used to be (often hypocritically, in individual cases) stigmatized in deference to the Christian ideal, which at the margin, IMHO worked to reduce libertine behavior. Nowadays, most of society is theoretically and de facto libertine. This is an improvement in that we lose much of the hypocrisy of the old order. But we also lose the deterrent effect of the old taboos in marginal cases where it might have made a difference. This is related to Rod’s question the other day about whether religion is what adherents do or what the religion teaches. I admit that, depending on one’s take on that question, YMMV on the success of my escape act here.

“Pre-feminism: a woman or girl wasn’t given the right to say “no”. Rape was truly her own damn fault.”

I would try to nuance this account. Pre-feminism, the (often but not always only nominally) Christian patriarchy indeed shamefully failed to recognize intra-marital rape. Further, public taboos tended to view a young lady who placed herself in harm’s way (by attending a frat party, say) as not merely imprudent, but immoral. That was wicked, and a fair charge against how traditionalism has played out in practice. However, I think, although I’m not sure, that even in pre-1960s America, a woman raped by a stranger was more likely to be the casus belli for some lynch mob than a Hester Prynne seen as being at fault.

“this meant that the sexual proclivities of boys were generally lauded if not praised by their male role models, while any pre-marriage sexual proclivities by girls was paradoxically and ubiquitously branded as whoring.”

Now my Irish is up! While while such double standards were ever common, they simply cannot be charged to the account of Christianity. Rod has recommended liberal Quaker Sarah Ruden’s excellent “Paul Among the People,” a book that situates the Apostle’s epistles in their Greco-Roman pagan context; it’s my reference for what follows. As a pagan, you no doubt know that proper pagan Greek women in particular, as in the Eastern Mediterranean-inspired Muslim culture of today, were covered, silenced, and kept at home (where they were often the subject of marital rape), while pagan Greek slaves and freedwomen were subjected to many an atrocity. Although pagan Norse, Germanic, and Celtic cultures were far, far better places to be a woman than the Roman Hellenistic world, they were no picnic, either.

This will sound like No True Scotsman to you, but as sociologist Rodney Stark demographically demonstrates in “The Triumph of Christianity,” the post-Constantinian Christianization of the West was a mile wide and an inch deep. The double standard you’re talking about, and especially the “boys will be boys” attitude for rakes vs., e.g., Tony Soprano’s “I kiss my wife with that mouth” puritanism with his pedestalled wife combined with his endless whoring about, is how Western men (heck, most men anywhere) were before Christianity, and it is conduct that Christianity has unequivocally condemned, right back to “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” and St. Paul’s radically novel insistence that chastity and fidelity were virtues for men, too.
The main difference between Christianity and at least Hellenistic paganism w/r/t brutalizing women is that Christians who do it are either backsliders or hypocrites, whereas Hellenes who did it were in good standing with Zeus and all the other Olympian rapists.

Men are pigs, and Rod’s brothel story had this Christian reaching for the smelling salts: there was nothing specifically Christian, as opposed to unreformed natural male, about that story.

While I admit that modern secular feminism has done much good in civilizing the brutish double standard away, I respect you enough to be frank: a pagan like you is in absolutely no position to say that my faith is responsible for the double standard.
Christianity historically merely failed to eradicate it. At least some paganism historically endorsed it.

Your position here is like the pagan reproaching the Christian for slavery: sure, William Wilberforce came too late, and the Epistle to Philemon could have been even more radical, but all regnant Western paganism was ever ruled by slavers, from the marts of Alexandria to the raiding drekkars of the North. Eastern paganism, the tale runs, gave us widows’ pyres until the day an English viceroy drily informed an outraged Brahmin that while ancient Hindoo law might indeed burn a widow, Brahmins had best know that ancient English law would hang her killers.

Humanity was wicked long before its Redeemer rose. Christianity ought not to be blamed for endorsing what it has always condemned but so far failed to stamp out.

All the best to you.

#22 Comment By EliteCommInc. On August 28, 2014 @ 2:14 pm

I am not sure many get what is going in the UK. The steer away from color or ethnicity is a wise choice. Just because a report steers away from that aspect, does not necessarily mean they shied away from complaint.

Either they could make a case or they could not the color, the religious practice, and other aspects of human existence should be irrelevant. What the UK is endeavoring to accomplish is note the person as a person expected to live within the frame of the laws of the country. Sadly, I think the report muddles what actually may have been the motives of not reporting ethnicity.
which in my mind is very simple:

to avoid creating any prejudicial conclusions. The matter rests on the evidence of behavior. That may be a harder standard but it is one that is more accurate.

Than any implication that Muslim men are somehow more prone to sexually abusing kids or anyone else. It’s the neighborhood criminal element using run-aways, the disenfranchised —

That really sound all that unique from what occurs in communities here in the US. I watching a film yesterday called “Whitey” about Whitey Bolger, pretty dark tale of wrong on so many levels including law enforcement that it was really hard to come away with any feeling of justice obtained. Now these gentleman were all white. They were well known. They operated in a secret not so secret environment. A criminal enterprise. Which is what I suspect is the cornerstone here regardless of ethnic affiliation (Ohh, those Asians are so much worse than our white guys) Which should sound at least vaguely familiar.

I remain convinced that if the numbers are correct, the arrest of five makes much sense to comprehending what went on. I remain convinced that the numbers are seriously inflated.

#23 Comment By Irenist On August 28, 2014 @ 2:23 pm

@stef:
“Nice try, blaming feminism.”
You strawman me. I have said, repeatedly, in this thread, two things about feminism:
1. Feminism has been vital to ameliorating violence against women.
2. Feminist-inspired libertinism has put women more often in harm’s way than the old taboos.
The former is very high praise of feminism indeed–especially from a traditionalist like me, for whom it is an argumentative concession to your side of the Kulturkampf. My second point criticizes only feminist libertinism’s prudence, not feminist women’s morality. (Not that I approve of the libertine morality, but it’s not at issue here.)
“Women need feminism (and the 2nd Amendment) because their abusers are almost universally men.”
You get no argument from me on the Second Amendment: an armed woman shows prudence. You also get no argument from me about the need for feminists’ agitation for laws like VAWA, which traditionalists hardly rushed to the barricades to defend. But because women’s abusers are indeed men, two other things are needed—one from women, one from men:
1. Prudence from women. Men are pigs. Complaining about the rain won’t keep you dry; putting yourself in harm’s way is unsafe even if you later write a post for “Jezebel” about it. Women must be prudent enough to deal with men as they usually are (unreformed louts) not as they ought to be, but won’t usually be this side of Doomsday.
2. Chivalry from men. Men are martial. In those young men who can be civilized, chivalry and the code of the gentleman stir their innate potential for gallantry. Even secular men are stirred by tales of Bushido, of honorable Jedi, of Spiderman’s dying uncle’s admonition to great responsibility. Slutwalks and the like are preaching only to the female choir and its few male fans. Chivalry speaks to far more young men—the ones who need reforming. Martial rigor can, at its best, order young men’s passions: show me a uniformed teenager in some Afrocentric all-boys’ high school, and I’ll show you a disciplined scholar. Show me a suburban-reared frat boy doodling in his notebook through a college orientation lecture on feminist anti-rape culture, and I’ll show you an unreformed brute. Feminist exhortation bores most young men. Chivalric exhortation inspires them; it’s the natural tool for the job. Even with chivalry, some young men are unreformed; hence the need for female prudence. But chivalry, rightly modeled and taught, at least reforms a far greater percentage of young men than feminism alone.
A culture that combines female prudence with male temperance is a culture capable of sexual justice. A culture that combines young ladies’ naivete with young cads’ libertinism is an unwalled, disarmed city in the path of the world’s ever-replenished Horde of unreformed young men. So by all means cling to your guns and your feminism: they’ve admittedly helped a lot. But it’s folly to throw away the babe of chivalry with the bathwater of misogyny, by indiscriminately dubbing them both “patriarchy.” It’s just as foolish as if I were to bundle my estimation of feminism’s role against sexual violence (high) with my estimation of its libertine morality (low). You may loathe traditionalist mores, but I think you could be more tactically selective in what you endorse and condemn.
“Men are not going to protect women from other men, unless they see said women as property. Then they feel free to abuse those women because they are their own property.”
Calumny. The men who sank with the Titanic to save their wives and children did not see women as property. (There are many cultures in history that have seen women as property: they would’ve thrown them overboard from a sinking ship with the other chattel. Pre-1960’s Christendom was not one of those cultures.)
The Western traditions of chivalry and gentility were sometimes stifling, but they were not at all premised upon seeing women as property. Quite the opposite: chivalry can turn catcalling pigs into gracious gentlemen.
“Patriarchal attitudes are exactly the reason these Pakistani / Eastern European / African criminals are abusing girls. Christians at present don’t have these radical patriarchal attitudes”
Thank you for the acknowledgment! Pakistani Islam seems misogynist to me, but I know it only by reputation. Much African tradition (clitoridectomy and polygamy, e.g.) is misogynist, but of pre-Christian origin, surviving despite Christianity. As for the Slavs, they are presumably mere mobsters, not pious Orthodox.
“(although given the points of view of some around here, that’s seen as a bug, not a feature.)”
I endorse restoring chivalry and gentility to what was once Christendom. I do not endorse misogyny, the view of women as chattel, or violence against them. Since I don’t know whether your use of “patriarchy” includes chivalry and gentility, I don’t know if I fall under the ban.
Either way, all the best to you.

#24 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On August 28, 2014 @ 2:42 pm

Re: Your position here is like the pagan reproaching the Christian for slavery: sure, William Wilberforce came too late, and the Epistle to Philemon could have been even more radical, but all regnant Western paganism was ever ruled by slavers, from the marts of Alexandria to the raiding drekkars of the North.

Actually, my understanding is that ancient Persia, for example, generally didn’t have much slavery, outside the context of prisoners-of-war. The conflict between Greece and Persia was the conflict between a slave and a (mostly) free society, but not in the way that fans of the movie “300” tend to think.

That may be the exception that proves the rule, since Zoroastrian Persia and Israel had something of a mutually respectful relationship and strongly influenced each other, and Persia is essentially the one pagan civilization that’s spoken of in highly favorable terms in the Bible.

#25 Comment By Glaivester On August 28, 2014 @ 3:28 pm

I watching a film yesterday called “Whitey” about Whitey Bolger, pretty dark tale of wrong on so many levels including law enforcement that it was really hard to come away with any feeling of justice obtained. Now these gentleman were all white. They were well known. They operated in a secret not so secret environment. A criminal enterprise. Which is what I suspect is the cornerstone here regardless of ethnic affiliation (Ohh, those Asians are so much worse than our white guys) Which should sound at least vaguely familiar.

Whitey was involved in an ethnic mafia as well, the Irish mafia.

The issue isn’t only whether or not Pakistanis are worse than the English – the issue is whether or not the specific criminal enterprise was largely ethnic – if you had a meth gang run by Aryan nation, yes, the fact that the gang is white would be something to note. The issue is also whether the overwhelmingly Pakistani nature of this enterprise made the council less willing to notice it than they would have if it were, say, working class whites.

#26 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On August 28, 2014 @ 5:08 pm

Thank you Humble Minion. Its good to know that one person commenting here has read the report in full, and can offer a well-balanced summary of it. I hope it changes hearts and minds to hear the truth.

#27 Comment By BillWAF On August 28, 2014 @ 7:28 pm

@ M. Young

“Exactly, and your trying to tie them together is a blatant attempt at ‘whataboutery’.”

No actually, it was not. The hacking scandal was the first thing that came to my mind when I read about Rotterham. In both instances, a long sustained criminal enterprise continued while the British authorities failed to act.

These large failures in different parts of England certainly suggest the possible presence of a larger problem. Sorry, but in graduate school (and to a lessor degree, law school), that was one of the ways that I was trained to think. For example, state studies of Reconstruction are valuable, but at some point historians needed to put them together to produce broader work. (Hence, Eric Foner’s “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution.”)

Simply put, there might be something more going on. It is irresponsible not to consider that possibility.

#28 Comment By stef On August 28, 2014 @ 9:55 pm

@Irenist: (en passant to Hector St. Clare as well) re: “Chivalry.”

Perhaps I don’t fully understand what “chivalry” means in this context. If it refers to medieval “courtly love,” that was essentially glorified emotional and sometimes physical adultery, as the knight was supposed to be idolizing someone else’s wife. Hardly an ideal to follow, Christian or not.

If it means the idea of “courtesy” or “gentility” as applied to the stronger towards the weak, then yes. But women can show that same level of virtue (“vir-” from the Latin word for strength) too.

Women can be seen as “chattel” and still not be thrown overboard. I should have said “coverture,” not chattel. Women can be given a spot on the lifeboat and still be denied legal, voting, and property rights, all justified by “chivalry.”

And as far as “men as pigs,” I don’t think you want to go too far with that. Dehumanizing language leads to cultural dehumanization. (Why do you think abortion opponents are so averse to the medical word “fetus?”)

And those “gracious gentlemen” to which you refer thought nothing of making use of girls and women in brothels all through European history, or owning slaves, or denying dispossessed people legal rights while rationalizing that they were “like children” and needed to be “taken care of.” Or making use of the jus primae noctis, or similar abuses.

Nor did such “chivalry” extend to women who were not considered “ladies” or “deserving” of it. Like rape victims, who obviously “were asking for it” for any number of mostly rubbishy reasons.

On one point I will agree with you, though. Many young women would be far safer at “frat parties” if they weren’t so inculcated from birth into the cult of “niceness.” Women who are unattractive, unpleasant, abrasive, strong-minded and strong-voiced don’t get invited to frat parties, and thus are far safer as a result.

#29 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On August 28, 2014 @ 11:50 pm

Re: And those “gracious gentlemen” to which you refer thought nothing of making use of girls and women in brothels all through European history, or owning slaves, or denying dispossessed people legal rights while rationalizing that they were “like children” and needed to be “taken care of.” Or making use of the jus primae noctis, or similar abuses.

Good grief, Stef.

1) The jus primae noctis, in a Christo-European context, is a myth made up by Enlightenment intellectuals. I’m sure events of rape happened in Christian Europe, as they always have, but there is no evidence that either a customary or an official ‘jus primae noctis’ ever existed. It did exist, and is well attested, of course…..in non-Christian parts of Asia. Not Europe. Which is rather the point.

2) Slavery didn’t really exist *in Europe* when the cult of chivalry was being developed. The medievals did enslave Jews and Muslims in the Crusader States of the Levant, but that was a whole different institution, and much milder, than either Roman or American slavery. And since we’re on the topic of sex, medieval Europeans in the Crusader States were forbidden from sex with their female slaves, on pain of castration.

As for people being children who need to be taken care of: well, yes, that’s the way I see most *people*, not just women but men as well. Look around you at the mess that 21st century democratic-capitalist America has made. Don’t you think maybe the medievals had a point?

#30 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On August 28, 2014 @ 11:53 pm

Re: Many young women would be far safer at “frat parties” if they weren’t so inculcated from birth into the cult of “niceness.” Women who are unattractive, unpleasant, abrasive, strong-minded and strong-voiced don’t get invited to frat parties, and thus are far safer as a result.

Your solution, and Irenist’s, sound worse than the disease.

I have a better solution, how about work on getting men not to rape women? That would allow a lot of people to have a better and less fearful social life: women first and foremost, but also the non-rapist men who might want to make their acquaintance.

#31 Comment By M_Young On August 29, 2014 @ 1:24 am

“(Ohh, those Asians are so much worse than our white guys)”

Whitey Bolger didn’t engage in grooming underaged girls. In fact, I suspect he and his boys would have taken a rather dim view of such activity.

This was a sustained attack by an immigrant, non-white community on the indigenous population of the UK. While the lower rungs of that population may have manifold problems, one of its biggest is that it’s ‘elite’ share the same attitudes as many here — they ignore the crimes against it, they equivocate, they actively suppress those who notice and complain of such crimes.

#32 Comment By Wendell On August 29, 2014 @ 2:20 am

“As a result, no contact was made with local Pakistani leaders for help in identifying gangs that continued to assault and abduct teenagers.”

Significant flaws in logic, — the police had been in possession of names of perpetrators, – given by girls who went to them for help, from raids and per hints by teachers they just would have needed to send an undercover agent to the school gates to get even more names. Second, has it come so far that the police to enforce the law in a blatant case like this should rely on the blessing of ‘local leaders’? Third, again, logic, — wouldn’t local leaders lean more toward downplaying the crimes of members of the minority to which they belong, and would it be implied that those few “bad apples” would get away with a slap on the wrist for having committed crimes against children? Simply put, the NYT comment implies acceptance of a state’s loss of ability to enforce the law.

#33 Comment By Franklin Evans On August 29, 2014 @ 12:36 pm

Irenist, Stef, Hector, may I invite you all to a verbal group-hug? I sorely need a break from my daily chaos here, and spending it with all of you would be my ideal vacation.

Irenist, your exchange with Stef is very illuminating for both sides. I submit, humbly, that the primary reason for the conflicting views is on a very practical level. You both have the theory down pat. Neither of you are applying it generously enough… and, come to think, neither am I to this point.

My indictment of Christian culture is around failures and omissions, not acts of aggression per se. Its failures are mostly on walking the talk, as it were. My choice of example: rape, as it became defined post-feminism, always existed; we will never, ever confidently be able to measure it statistically or even suggest beyond guesses if it increased or declined. One difference we can clearly mark: its public exposure.

Men were men, boys were boys, and women and girls had almost zero opportunities to make it the subject of public discussion. That, I submit, is the primary change wrought by feminism. It is why I can forgive (only somewhat) the PR innovations like Slut Walk. I intensely dislike choices like that, but if it results in changed awarenesses and more thought with less knee-jerking, I’m willing to concede its effectiveness.

Neither of us, for differing reasons, are qualified to draw conclusions about ancient Pagan cultures. My Hellenist reconstructionist friends struggle with it mightily and with little effect. They sincerely ask the question: if we are really going to honor the Olympians, we really need to address their feet of clay in constructive ways and not just dismiss them with “well, we aren’t that way any more.” The Christian (post-Constantine) perspective is flawed and suspect. It requires much effort to remove the veneer of Christian triumphal righteousness (deserved, I’m sure, because the excesses of some of the Pagan regimes were certainly criminal at the least). I will just add a rarely-discussed fact about a very large portion of conversions to Christianity: they were driven by the leadership’s practical decision to join rather than be conquered, and they in turn used egregious and violent methods to convert their people. Christians stepped in and took advantage of that, but cannot be charged with such crimes directly.

Re: Chivalry. I may have to recuse myself here. I grew up with a secular definition of it that transcended religion and culture.

Hector, droit de seigneur was very much more than sexual predation, indeed your citation is accurate but also to that point. Monarchs and aristocrats enjoyed a private law — privilege — that routinely injured their subjects and dependents in many ways. Sex was an outlier as a consequence, but still a valid symptom.

#34 Comment By Irenist On August 29, 2014 @ 12:57 pm

@Hector_St_Clare:

I hadn’t known that fascinating fact about Zoroastrian Persia: I’m grateful you shared it! I’ve not thought carefully about it, but I think I’d be inclined to classify the often noble faith dualist faith of the Magi separately from either monotheism or polytheism, rather as many declined languages have different cases for single, dual, and plural enumeration. I think the sometime Islamic habit of classing Magi and Parsis as honorary People of the Book springs from a similar hunch about how to classify religious reality.

As for my solution allegedly worse than the disease: I’d be all for putting the bulk of the burden on men to shape up, but I fear it’s naive to expect all men’s monstrosity to cease. Adam’s sons are born sinful.

#35 Comment By Irenist On August 29, 2014 @ 1:37 pm

@stef:

“Perhaps I don’t fully understand what ‘chivalry’ means in this context…. If it means the idea of ‘courtesy’ or ‘gentility’….”

That is indeed what I mean. I mean chivalry to stand in more for starched Victorian decorum around young ladies than, say, plaintive chansons glorifying adultery or jousting for scented handkerchiefs (the former is sinful, and the latter would present a logistical challenge nowadays).

“as applied to the stronger towards the weak, then yes. But women can show that same level of virtue (“vir-” from the Latin word for strength) too.”

Women can certainly display Aristotelian magnanimity: courtesy toward the weaker, dignity before the stronger. But chivalry, to me, denotes specifically the magnanimous courtesy owed in justice by men to women because of the usual natural fact of male musculature and the so-far ineradicable social fact of male privilege.

“I should have said ‘coverture,’ not chattel.”

That’s a helpful clarification; thanks!

“Women can be given a spot on the lifeboat and still be denied legal, voting, and property rights, all justified by ‘chivalry.'”

To be sure, normative ideologies of sex/gender complementarity, like chivalry, can justify all sorts of civil disenfranchisement if greedily applied by sinful men. But whatever the culpability of romantics like, e.g., Chesterton, for delays in, e.g., women’s suffrage, I don’t think that’s on point in a conversation prompted by a response to the comment upthread saying that “conservatism” was at the root of rape culture, specifically.

“And as far as ‘men as pigs,’ I don’t think you want to go too far with that. Dehumanizing language leads to cultural dehumanization. (Why do you think abortion opponents are so averse to the medical word ‘fetus?’)”

Your concern is kind. However, I’m a pro-lifer comfortable with words like fetus and zygote, so I’m the wrong crowd for that query. Given the extent of male privilege and women’s oppression, I think us men can take our rhetorical lumps, and take our chances that dehumanizing language won’t lead to a misandrist regime that quarters its arms with labrys and fasces any time soon.

“And those ‘gracious gentlemen’ to which you refer thought nothing of making use of girls and women in brothels all through European history, or owning slaves, or denying dispossessed people legal rights while rationalizing that they were ‘like children’ and needed to be ‘taken care of.'”

They may have been of genteel blood and demeanor, but to the extent they practiced the above, they forfeited any claim to being Christian gentlemen. Chivalric conduct, not hypocritical cant, makes the gentleman.

“Or making use of the jus primae noctis, or similar abuses.”

A product of the Voltaire-Gibbon anti-Christian urban-legendarium, like the Christian torching of the library of Alexandria, the Black Legend libeling Catholic Spain, and so many other sneering modern myths of the not-actually-Dark Ages.

“Nor did such ‘chivalry’ extend to women who were not considered ‘ladies’ or ‘deserving’ of it.”

A fair point: the gallantry of Southern planters, e.g., hardly extended to black women. This is an area where progressive crusades (anti-racism, feminism) have profoundly bettered the world.

However, the religious traditionalism of today doesn’t (or at least oughtn’t) countenance such things, just as the Lockean progressive liberalism of today has cured itself of the abuses of slaves that characterized earlier generations of Jacobins like Jefferson. Neither ideological tradition has clean hands: abuse of slaves no more represents the ideal of chivalry than Sanger’s eugenics represents the ideals of feminism. Our only models of future human action are other humans in history, and they were all sinful one way or another. I daresay our conversation will be more edifying if we stick to the best version of each other’s case, rather than playing tit-for-tat pointing out the clay feet of each other’s idols.

“Like rape victims, who obviously ‘were asking for it’ for any number of mostly rubbishy reasons.”

See above: whatever chivalry, courtesy, and gentility denote here, boorish victim-blaming isn’t it.

“On one point I will agree with you, though. Many young women would be far safer at ‘frat parties’ if they weren’t so inculcated from birth into the cult of ‘niceness.’ Women who are unattractive, unpleasant, abrasive, strong-minded and strong-voiced don’t get invited to frat parties, and thus are far safer as a result.”

I appreciate the agreement, but this account needs nuancing. First, I understand from feminism itself that rape is a crime of violence, not sex: being non-nubile is sadly no defense against a lurking pervert in a parking garage.

As for the ‘niceness’: there’s always a fine line between teaching our daughters (or sons) to be courteous, and teaching them to be doormats, just as there’s a fine line between assertive and aggressive daughters and sons.

The larger issue is that even perky sorors lusted for by frat bros must be kept safe from rape; it’s not enough just to protect unpopular girls. To that end, a restoration of a culture of male courtesy and premarital chastity, of female prudence and premarital chastity, and of traditional courtship norms in which young ladies consorted with young men under elders’ supervision is, however implausible, deeply desirable.

Thanks, stef, for a continually interesting exchange.

#36 Comment By Irenist On August 29, 2014 @ 3:44 pm

“Irenist, Stef, Hector, may I invite you all to a verbal group-hug? I sorely need a break from my daily chaos here, and spending it with all of you would be my ideal vacation.”
.
Likewise!
.
“You both have the theory down pat. Neither of you are applying it generously enough… and, come to think, neither am I to this point.”
.
Agreed. That was the gist of my “I’ll ignore Sanger’s eugenics if you’ll ignore Chesterton’s opposition to suffrage” clay-footed idols point just now: I’d rather engage the steelmanned feminist case than the strawmanned one. Ditto for paganism.
.
“My indictment of Christian culture is around failures and omissions, not acts of aggression per se. Its failures are mostly on walking the talk, as it were. My choice of example: rape, as it became defined post-feminism, always existed; we will never, ever confidently be able to measure it statistically or even suggest beyond guesses if it increased or declined. One difference we can clearly mark: its public exposure.”
.
That’s fair. With that understood, I think we can agree that Christians’ failure to walk the talk over the centuries have often been near-ubiquitous and catastrophic.
.
“Men were men, boys were boys, and women and girls had almost zero opportunities to make it the subject of public discussion. That, I submit, is the primary change wrought by feminism. It is why I can forgive (only somewhat) the PR innovations like Slut Walk. I intensely dislike choices like that, but if it results in changed awarenesses and more thought with less knee-jerking, I’m willing to concede its effectiveness.”
.
Sure. Feminism has drawn Christians’ attention to the beam in our own eye on many of these issues very effectively, and for that I’m grateful, if chastened. I don’t think Slut Walks are likely to be effective that way–too subcultural in their rhetoric)–but we’ll see.
.
“Neither of us, for differing reasons, are qualified to draw conclusions about ancient Pagan cultures. My Hellenist reconstructionist friends struggle with it mightily and with little effect. They sincerely ask the question: if we are really going to honor the Olympians, we really need to address their feet of clay in constructive ways and not just dismiss them with “well, we aren’t that way anymore.” The Christian (post-Constantine) perspective is flawed and suspect. It requires much effort to remove the veneer of Christian triumphal righteousness (deserved, I’m sure, because the excesses of some of the Pagan regimes were certainly criminal at the least). I will just add a rarely-discussed fact about a very large portion of conversions to Christianity: they were driven by the leadership’s practical decision to join rather than be conquered, and they in turn used egregious and violent methods to convert their people. Christians stepped in and took advantage of that, but cannot be charged with such crimes directly.”
.
Reconstructionism certainly is a fascinating project, btw; my best to your friends. You’re right about the epistemological-historical point, but I feel compelled to draw the best conclusions I can, given the evidence we’ve got (however biased), both because biased evidence is all history ever yields, and because the truth about the majority of human civilization’s history (i.e., paganism) is too important for Santayanan historical recollection to permit total suspension of judgment. As a pagan, I’m sure some of your conclusions are different than mine. That’s part of what makes these threads so great.
“Re: Chivalry. I may have to recuse myself here. I grew up with a secular definition of it that transcended religion and culture.”
.
Well, as I said just now, in this conversation I only mean chivalry to denote a gender-specific ideal of magnanimity: gentlemen’s courtesy to women and girls. “Gentlemanliness” might have alluded more effectively to the quasi-Victorian comportment I have in mind, but it’s such an ungainly Saxon-suffixed Law French mongrel of a word that I defaulted to chivalry instead, perhaps sacrificing clarity for euphony. If so: sorry. As to your recusal, I think it sounds like you’re just talking about the sin-stained practice of “chivalry” from the medievals until “Mad Men,” and whereas I’m talking about a theoretical ideal. Of course, ruefully keeping in mind Gandhi’s quip that he liked our Christ but not our Christians, I fear that chivalry, like communism, is one of those ideals whose defenders will forever be protesting allegations of its having failed by saying that it has been failed. But that’s the asymptotic nature of seeking ideals: the pagan Stoics often averred that not one sage had ever lived, yet kept striving for sagacity.
.
Enjoy the holiday weekend, Franklin!

#37 Comment By Bill Carmichael On August 30, 2014 @ 7:58 am

I live and work in Yorkshire, UK, and I can tell you this scandal is far worse than you can possibly imagine. It is a clear warning to the US of what will happen if you follow Europe down the multi-cultural route. Here is my take for the Yorkshire Post newspaper: [9]

#38 Comment By Franklin Evans On August 30, 2014 @ 10:15 am

Some pre-holiday break foods for thought, intended as clarifications (mostly).

The traditional European model of behavior we categorize under “chivalry” had significant variations over the continental regions. We are most familiar with the western (centered on France, Spain and England) modes because those are our main literary heritages. The differences in the north, east and south are not great, just significant enough of which to take note. One variation I will describe for general consideration: the Arabic notions under the term purdah were not adopted per se in the Balkans, but did inform their attitudes about women. I know this because that is my direct heritage, along with the cosmopolitan mish-mash that was the Austro-Hungarians. My term out of my upbringing and heritage is courtesy, my view of it from that is only mildly gender-centric, and when you see me whin… complai… mention that it is in decline, that is my basis for comparison.

Our Pagan heritages’ importance can be a valuable exploration on a single focus (not that other avenues should be ignored): gender-parity dualism. Masculine and feminine archetypes and avatars sat side-by-side, even while patriarchy placed men/gods over women/goddesses in most aspects of culture and life. The divine feminine could not be ignored, and women held positions of power in much greater proportion than the Christian power-elite successors permitted or believed was even morally justified.

To all and sundry: be well and go carefully during this most-traveled of holidays.

#39 Comment By Franklin Evans On August 30, 2014 @ 10:21 am

Irenist: I’m going to (strongly!) suggest to Rod that he provide a general track during the next Percy Weekend, during which we can gather in anarchic ways our most-enjoyed discussions here and engage them in-person. I know what he’ll say (and I’ll agree with him), that the Weekend is not about him or his writings… but I’ll just encourage him to ignore that and see what happens. 😀

#40 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On September 1, 2014 @ 9:45 am

Bill Carmichael seems to be oblivious of the fact that we Americans invented freedom of religion, and multi-culturalism, in ways that Europeans, with their racial-ethnic national identies and Established Churches, have never really figured out. People arrive on our shores voluntarily, rather than by conquest, but once here, we are the Borg, resistance is useless, your children will absorb American culture and your grandchildren will warn against the dangers of the next wave of immigration that may come our way. Even the ethnic ghettoes of Chicago couldn’t prevent it.