The Geopolitical Crisis

by Sid Lukkassen. Lukkassen holds an MA in history and philosophy, is a Ph.D candidate and city councillor in the Netherlands (VVD). Autumn 2014, he publishes his book Avondland en Identiteit (Occident and Identity). This article was originally published in Dutch on De Dagelijkse Standaard, 28.07.2014.

Austro-Hungarian troops executing captured Serbians, 1917. Serbia lost about 850,000 people during World War I, a quarter of its pre-war population.

Austro-Hungarian troops executing captured Serbians, 1917. Serbia lost about 850,000 people during World War I, a quarter of its pre-war population.

• • •

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Geopolitics has fully returned. August 2014 – exactly one hundred years after the breakout of the First World War – the world is burning once again.

• • •

West-European democracies aim primarily at the expansion of personal wealth and at living convenient, relaxed lives. Exactly because we are so comfortable – even those who visit the food banks are rich compared to many inhabitants of Earth – the vastness of the abyss that the European peoples are marching towards hardly gets through to us. Europe discovers itself in a violent world – a world, it cannot understand or analyse. Half a century of feminised thinking is at the root of this.

Across the world the seeds of conflict are growing, as states seek to expand their power and influence. In the East stands Vladimir Putin. His endgame is to make Russia again into the superpower that it was during the era of the Soviet Union [1]. In the South looms Turkey, where Recep Tayyip Erdoğan considers having himself appointed as the new president. Turkey is a nation of many conflicts; with of Kurds, Armenians and Cypriots, to name but a few. Under the guidance of Atatürk and his legacy the culture of state has been secular for some decades. Now Turkey slowly slides towards Islamism [2]. The conflicts fuel a call for authority, for a strong hand that can maintain order and expand power. Further towards the Middle East are ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and comparable Islamic (paramilitary) organisations. I could also address the recent clashes between pro-Palestine demonstrators and the police that have taken place in major European cities (for example: Sam Schechner, “Pro-Palestinian Protesters Clash With Paris Police Following Ban on Rally“, The Wall Street Journal, 17.07.2014). About China, which forms a new industrial power and where a structural shortage of women exists, I have not yet uttered a word.

The central problem is that we can no longer comprehend the mindset of our enemies and their motives. Palestinians and Israelis fight one another because of a territorial conflict underlain by ethnic and religious dividing lines. Postmodern Europeans cannot remotely fathom what this means. We have resided in the naive supposition – a mirage thrown up by the success of democracies after World War Two – that mankind was growing ever closer to unity and brotherhood. This happy conviction of the generation ’68 was strengthened by the writings of Loe de Jong, a Dutch historian who took on the role of judge over history: minorities were sacred by definition, authoritarian regimes were tainted per se.

The RMS Lusitania was a British ocean liner. In 1915 she was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat, causing the deaths of 1,198 passengers and crew. It influenced the decision by the US to declare war in 1917. In other words, in a very tense international military situation, the tragic destruction of one passenger vehicle can have far-reaching political consequences.

The RMS Lusitania was a British ocean liner. In 1915 she was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat, causing the deaths of 1,198 passengers and crew. It influenced the decision by the US to declare war in 1917. In other words, in a very tense international military situation, the tragic destruction of one passenger vehicle can have far-reaching political consequences.

But the fall of Srebrenica – where the politically-correct governing elite was proven outmatched by the brutality of the East-European warriors – brought fractures in this image (cf.: Laura Smith-Spark, “Dutch state found liable in deaths of more than 300 men in Srebrenica massacre“, CNN, 16.07.2014). Recently, Syria followed, where the Islamist rebels, possibly, represent a greater evil than the secular dictator Bashar al-Assad. The West hesitated, unable to decide who embodied good here and who evil; Putin made use of that confusion to outmanoeuvre the United States.[3] Now a passenger airplane has been brought down above Ukraine and the bitch that is reality smacks us in the face. The RMS Lusitania of the twenty-first century?

Four years ago, I attended a working conference of European Liberals. It was a debate about the formation of a European army. Once all participants had had their say, a German took the floor. He caught the whole of it in crystal clear language: “We like to see ourselves as the keepers of order and peacebringers of the world. But what we speak of here is building weapons, while the European population ages. This means in practice that we must go tell people that we can no longer take their parents into retirement homes because there is no money for it. Why? Because we spent that money bombing banana republics. People will never agree to purchase weapons if there is simultaneously a growing demand for care.” That brought the discussion to an abrupt end.

Europe is weak. Europe stands divided. Europe is economically a superpower, the biggest player on Earth. Still there is no capability to translate this power into geopolitical results. “Liberty Hall, live and let live, human beings are inherently good – let us prioritize free trade and economic integration, then world peace will follow by itself”, thus the motto of the sixty-eighters. “Feminised Europe”, I call this. West-European men are raised by a generation of women. Women who found violence, but nasty and vile. Any decent feminist would not allow her sons to play soldier outside: that would only lead to masculine stereotypes and macho behaviour. Soon, the last handful of machos the Netherlands has, will stand unarmed in Ukraine.[4] Russia can bomb Rotterdam – annihilate it on a whim. Just to show the magnitudes.

World peace is not around the corner! About 100 years after World War I, in a different region, in a different context, the same cruelty still exits. Photo: ISIS fighters executing prisoners in Iraq, 2014.

World peace is not around the corner! About 100 years after World War I, in a different region, in a different context, the same cruelty still exits. Photo: ISIS fighters executing prisoners in Iraq, 2014.

“Why weapons and armies? Nurseries and care homes we need!” – a statement that captures feminised Europe in a nutshell. With as its end result a fertility rate of the German woman of 1,3 (2,1 is required to maintain an equal population; see Camilia Bruil, Patrick van Schie and Mark van de Velde, “The Dynamics of Demographic Decline“, The Hague 2011, 73). For Europeans, soldiers are increasingly scarce and thus costly and precious [5].

At this moment I feel little trust in the future of our democracy. Last week, I had a conversation with a political scouting committee. “You have all the facts and know them very well,” I was told, “but when you get engaged in discussions of this kind, it becomes too technical. The average viewer cannot understand this. You must summarize your goal and your result in a single fat headline, or the voter will skip to the next channel. Journalists will walk away and make a story of their own. Politics is no longer about contemplating fundamentals. You must accept this or go do something else.” Because I refuse to bow down to this, I aim this treatise directly at you. I think that the circumstances necessitate a broader discussion about the geopolitical long term strategy of the Western civilization [6]. The way the balance of powers is currently shifting, the West-European and East-European peoples may very well have dire need of each other in the future.

Let us hope that all of this dies down quietly and that we can avert a larger conflict between East and West. We will then be able to concentrate on the greater challenge: the geopolitical decay of the European peoples and the rise of new powers.

• • •

[1] “Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.” — Vladimir Putin in his Annual Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, April 25, 2005.
[2] Here I refer to a larger gradual process, symptoms of which include: trials against military personnel, the return of Islamic symbols within Turkey’s culture of state, imprisoning of secular lawyers, inciting speeches by Erdogan about integration to Turks living abroad, the sentence against Fazıl Say for his tweets about Islam.
[3] Initially, many in the U.S. wished to intervene in the Syrian civil war on behalf of the rebels. Russia, however, suggested the destruction of any chemical weapons owned by the regime of Assad. The U.S. accepted and a larger intervention in the conflict by the U.S. was thus prevented. For more information, see: Karen DeYoung, “How the United States, Russia arrived at deal on Syria’s chemical weapons“, The Washington Post, 16.09.2013.
[4] “Initially, the Netherlands and Australia had contemplated sending an armed mission to secure the wreckage of the Malaysian airliner and retrieve human remains that have not yet been recovered. But Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte called off the idea of an armed mission after a ceasefire negotiated with the rebels around the crash site fell through.” — Spencer Kimball, “International mission to secure MH17 site fraught with risks“, The Transatlantic Observer, 28.07.2014.
[5] “Gut möglich, dass in zehn Jahren – Staatsschulden und demografischer Wandel grüßen – wieder vom kranken Mann Europas die Rede ist. Deutschland wird aber bis 2050 mehr als 1/4 seiner Bevölkerung verlieren.” — Felix Seidler, “Hegemon auf Zeit: Deutschland braucht eine Geostrategie“, Seidler’s Sicherheitspolitik, 14.06.2013.
[6] “Folglich wird Deutschland eine Kultur geostrategischen Denkens entwickeln müssen, will es langfristig Erfolg haben und Europa erfolgreich machen. Wir brauchen einen nationalen geostrategischen Konsens. Das heißt: Welche Räume sind uns wichtig? Zu welchem Grad? Welche Mittel wollen wir wo und wie einsetzen? Von den politischen Parteien darf man dabei leider nichts erwarten; vllt. mit Ausnahme von kleinen Teilen der Union. Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik bleibt ein Karrierekiller. Strategisches Denken lernt man in der Parteipolitik nur im Hinblick auf Karriereplanung, nicht in internationalen Fragen.” — Felix Seidler, “Hegemon auf Zeit: Deutschland braucht eine Geostrategie“, Seidler’s Sicherheitspolitik, 14.06.2013.


This entry was posted in English, History, Politics in General, Security Policy, Sid Lukkassen.

28 Responses to The Geopolitical Crisis

  1. ZzeeGerman says:

    I know that likes to showcase a variety of articles, but this is one of the poorer ones, actually the poorest I’ve read. It not only exaggerates the situation, but essentially sounds like neo-conservative, even right-wing argumentation/propaganda.

    I don’t take issue with his review of the situation, i.e. the various growing threats. These are all true.

    The fact that Europeans have a problem comprehending the mindset of thier potential enemies, those engaged in war on the basis of ethnic and religious grounds is actually due to positive civilisational/social developments. This lack of understanding may be a hindrence to understanding the motivations of the enemy, but the enemy faces the same problem in comprehending us. Also the not too distant Yugoslave wars unfortunately may suggest that the idea of fighting for ethnic/religious reasons is not as alien to Europe as one may think. Either way, this does not preclude the fostering of experts on these regions who can explain thier thinking to the rest of us. Also one may get the impression that the author laments that we are more “civilised”, too postmodern. Blaming progress has never been the right path.

    It is hard to disagree with the opinion that authoritarian regimes are tainted per se.

    Europe is indeed in some ways weak and divided, especially on the military front.

    A lack of trust in democracy is a lack of trust in the people. We all probably question the wisdom of the people from time to time. But at the end of the day these very same people will carry/pay the consequences for thier decisions. If our politicians were to give their citizens the truth rather than painting rosy pictures to secure the next election then these would be better able to make decisions.

    Finally, my major criticism of this piece. I take serious issue with the claims/expressions “feminised thinking” or “Feminised Europe”. Such expressions and the thinking behind them could be taken right out of the American right-wing discourse or the extreme-right here. One can argue about the inherent nature of man, whether good, bad or neither, as I would argue. The prioritizing of free trade was always a conservative agenda, certainly not one of the left. The simple claim that free trade would be enough to bring world peace is often made by the “neo-liberal” free market enthusiasts. The left/social democratic groups have always been skeptical of this.

    Believe it or not, European men have always been raised by their mothers, women. Violence, most would argue is certainly nasty and sometimes vile, if sometimes unfortunately necessary. The author makes the error of conflating feminism with pacifism. It may very well be true that many feminists are pacifists, but it’s not inherent to it. The pacifist nature, or dominant pacifist attitude in feminism is largely due to the fact that since feminism was fighting the “system” it naturally included or inclined towards criticism of this system on various levels/areas. However, the fact that feminists have fought for equal access of women to the military should go a long way to dismantle his arguement. Feminism does reject the idea of masculine or feminine stereotypes, but that does not necessarily mean a rejection of the individual elements that supposedly make up those stereotypes. “Strength” is not an exclusively male characteristic, as women too can have “strength”. Furthermore, the author should be aware of the fact that feminism like any movement has varies streams/factions. People tend to fixate on the more extreme interpretations, the extreme left of feminism, i.e. radical feminism.

    “Macho” is rarely if ever a positive attribute. It conjures up images of boastful “southerners” and discribes an exaggerated male ideal essentially meant to cover-up weakness. Any psychologist will tell you that arrogance is a cover for low self-esteem. And I’m sure most men here would disagree with the violence towards women which is part of latin “machismo”. A modern army does not need macho Rambos, although Rambo was actually a more complex character than one might at first think. Either way, a modern army needs intelligent men. If you’re looking for an image try the Samurai/Knight. One would not use the term “macho” to describe them.

    The irony is that more nurseries would likely mean higher birth rates. Countries with good childcare infrastructure, like France show higher birth rates and a higher female workforce. Germany’s low birth rate is partially due to a system which encourages women to stay home and makes combining work and child care difficult.

    When searching for a reason for Europe’s “feminisation”, “softness” or correctly “pacifism” one doesn’t have to look to feminism but to the post-war pacifism that grew out of the horrors of the second world war and the cold war. This unwillingness of confrontation is also found amongst the pacifist Christians, who one can hardly put into the feminist camp. The fact that feminists/women continue to complain about things such as daily sexism while the majority of society clearly holds a pacifist mindset should also show that feminism isn’t necessarily the culprit despite what right-wing commentators may say. What I’m trying to say is that if the pacifism was due to feminism then one would expect feminism to be as widespread as pacifism.

    I was going to include a few links to articles on feminism, war and pacifism but the spam filter wont let me. If you have the time and inclination do a search.

    • Hello ZzeeGerman,
      thank you for your detailed comment. Don’t be worry about the spam filter… we have this pretty good under control. Please add your links as an additional comment or send it to me ([email protected]) and I will add them to your comment.

      • ZzeeGerman says:

        Don’t worry about it. I didn’t save the links anyways. Plus people who are inclined to can do their own research :-). But it should be kept in mind that within feminism there is a debate as to whether it should be automatically pacifist or whether seeing the female as inherently pacifist isn’t simply another form of sexism. Part of the female image as “soft” and “nurturing” etc. Since the undertone here would be that men are inherently none-pacifist, so violent I, and most men, should take issue with such an interpretation. It’s a mistake to argue that women are less violent/agressive than men. Women are also violent/agressive but due to social norms (sexism) and their physique they expressive this differently. While men express their agression openly via pysichal violence women express it through things like passive agressiveness and manipulation. By the way, violence by women, for example in the form of female gangs is sharply on the rise. So I think the article says more about the authors attitude to women than it does about any geopolitical crisis.

  2. Femke says:

    Congratulations with this article, which is one of the best ones on the site. This is thanks to the clear language, understandable examples and strong arguments. Also the number of hyperlinks is very useful to readers who (like myself) like to totally go into the background of information.

    If you look at statistics then you see that women (ceteris paribus) more often vote social democratic whereas men, vote for parties with more traditional military maintenance agendas. Of course this differs per country (and per religion) but it especially applies to Western Europe. The Netherlands had parties like PSP and PPR in which feminism and pacifism were deeply entwined.

    Now to ZzeeGerman. First he says he cannot dismiss the bulk of the arguments, then he resorts to classifying the arguments as “neo-conservative” and such. In other words, his main strategy is to create an atmosphere of hostility around the article. This to me seems feminised thinking in itself. Because why respond so elaborately to a “bad” article? The writing is clearly good enough to touch one existentially.

    Those reflections on the Rambo-character tempt one to think we are dealing with an adolescent who still lives under the spell of political correctness imprinted by school (feminised education) and Hollywood movies. Movies like Rambo are at the root of the problem by reducing war and international conflict to “good versus evil”. Hence, today’s politicians communicate conflict to their audience in simplified terms as “good guys” against “bad guys”.

    What this fixation on appearance management really means, is that when West-European nations find themselves in a conflict, they first have to interpret the situation to fit a movie-scenario, so that the voter can follow, before they can move to guard their interest (without all this Western women who do not accept sending their sons out to fight).

    Both feminism and Christianity fit the narrative of “the victim as the hero of the history” and “oppressed versus oppressor”. This sensitivity is what both sides of the Israel-Palestinia conflict play into when they target Western media, by accentuating their suffering and framing themselves as victims.

    Sneaky and insincere tactics. Like saying: “feminisation is a side effect of progress. So who says that Europe has become too soft is actually against progress.” To be fair, elements of progress can be good and vice-versa. True progress means to identify and correct those elements. That’s exactly what this article does. Especially Western European states are evidently not equipped to heed the geopolitical changes ahead. This began by pushing out the masculine martial virtues. They have focused on putting money in welfare and care instead of military, and continuously underestimate the evil in the world. If this is what the article successfully makes clear, which it does, then the purpose has been achieved.

    Funny how ZzeeGerman classifies the article as bad while his own writing is long winded, convoluted and sometimes imprecise. “Macho” has in the context of this article obviously nothing to do with false dualities between strength and intelligence. Neither has feminism. The masculine virtue meant here is the willingness to look evil in the eye and to risk conflict if necessary. The “turn the other cheek” morality of Christianity only strengthens the argument of feminisation, as women and slaves were the first groups to convert and Roman soldiers only later followed (a reason for Constantine and Clovis to convert was because their wives were already Christians). Finally we cannot deny that many feminists see in violence projecting males mainly rapists and wife-beaters, which leads them to look down upon soldiers. Such women raise their children with feminine political ideals while they still expect to be shielded by “macho-grunts” who will take the bullets for them.

    Other than that, I hope to see another strong article like this in the future. Normally I don’t go against the posts of other users, but for this I made an exception because it just does not do this item justice by trying to paint it off as a right wing agenda. Even the very Liberal John Stuart Mill attacked the notion that reason and civility prevail in history: many reasonable civilisations suffered for their civility and have been wiped out by zealous and cruel tribes.

    • Hello Femke,
      thank you for your detailed comment. As you mentioned, hyperlinks are very important to find additional information and to make his own opinion (something, always supported). It’s too bad that you don’t add any links to your comment. For example: you write that “women (ceteris paribus) more often vote social democratic whereas men, vote for parties with more traditional military maintenance agendas.” I’m very interesting to see the source of that statement.

    • Anon says:

      >If you look at statistics then you see that women (ceteris paribus) more often vote social democratic whereas men, vote for parties with more traditional military maintenance agendas. Of course this differs per country (and per religion) but it especially applies to Western Europe.

      This is a strong claim, and isn’t borne out by the electoral data. Until the 1980s, women traditionally voted for conservative/right-wing parties whilst men voted for socialist/left-wing parties all around the developed world. That phenomenon has only gently reversed in the past couple of decades or so, and it is still much weaker than it was in the past – had only women had the vote in 1945, Labour would have squeaked in a majority in the UK, but with the male and female electorate Labour won a thumping landslide. Ceteris parebus, things can actually differ a lot.

      Even then, I’m not sure what the links between your assumption, mothers and pacifist policies are. If I bring up defence to any woman I know, the reaction I get isn’t “What about my son?!” but disinterest verging on boredom. Gender simply isn’t a significant political cleavage, even on things like abortion. The issue for Europe is complacency and a lack of understanding that peace and democracy are something which have to be maintained and defended, rather than natural states of existence.

      >I made an exception because it just does not do this item justice by trying to paint it off as a right wing agenda

      Honestly, if you use terms and concepts such as “feminisation” and “feminised agenda”, it sets off warning bells. At the very least, this is because a society where men and women have equal rights and opportunities is a crucial aspect of our democracies and not one that can be sacrificed for national security any more than the electoral process or freedom of speech can. More broadly though, what does “feminised thinking” even mean? Thinking like a woman? What is that and why is that an issue? How can that be a stronger effect upon defence thinking than material interest?

  3. Marco Demarmels says:

    @ ZzeeGerman: You have a point with your assessment that “A lack of trust in democracy is a lack of trust in the people”. If I may add, I rather trust people *directly* instead of only through its representants. Obviously, I cherish the Swiss system that prevents the formation of a “classe politique” that tends to lead a life detached from the people and that may tend to follow equally detached ideas.

    Furthermore, I agree that “pacifism” would be a more accurate choice of words than using “feminized thinking”. The latter invokes – certainly unintended – connotations, just like you have demonstrated in an elaborate manner. I did not perceive all that when I read the article the first time. Instead I agreed with the term “feminized” in this context, because I believe that the pristine form of human society is matriarchy. The objective with highest priority was probably reproduction. Men were needed for reproduction but apart from fulfilling this function they were more apt to do work of lower priority, e.g. defense of the community. In this light the term “feminized” gets the meaning I can agree to. This way I can see the pendulum swing between “feminized” and “masculinized” and state that our western society appears just too feminized, neglecting male social functionalities. We’re out of balance.

    For further demonstration of this assessment I would like to point you to this article:
    “The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms; you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.” — Niccolo Machiavelli
    Machiavelli’s tenet may sound crude an hard to digest for today’s western Europeans, I think it is simple and true. My interpretation: We may happily construct our Utopia, that is a good thing, but we need to be ready to defend it – always.

    “Modern morality” is a myth (quote from above article).

  4. bob says:

    more nurseries /= higher birth rate. It would allow for there to be, but it in and of itself would not encourage it as a lone policy. It may allow a slight up tick, but alone does not encourage it. If you look at my home country of the US, we have child tax credits, and after that and several other initiatives to encourage family formation after 20 or so years, we are stuck at a birthrate of 1.7 percent if we do not include immigrants or Hispanics, which has boosted our birthrate for the time being. Once those groups are assimilated, they have similar birthrates (learned via sociology class). While I think the family is vitally important, I believe if you encourage about the natural market rate, you will just lead to a further bust in the birth “market”.

    -I agree with the overall point that Europe needs to beef up it’s military. I think the Baltics and Poland are well aware of this, and perhaps the only ones to realize it. I believe a citizen militia is the fastest way to build immunity to a Putin advance. I disagree with a European army, but I do think each nation should take the role that the US has been occupying since the post-WWII period.

    -It is not inherently neo-con to make sure you have the means to repel another country’s advance. As for the EU army, I am not quite sure. But the basic goal is not neo-con.

    • ZzeeGerman says:

      I agree that just more nurseries isn’t sufficient. In Europe we also have varioues tax exempts and child bonuses. In Germany we even have very generous maternity leave of over a year or so to which the man is equaly entitled, which allows shared/split maternity leave. But the issue we have hear is that women are encouraged to stay home by a tax system that punishes them for going back to work. Meaning they are left with the same or less money. Furthermore, there’s essentially a lack of full day, as in working day nurseries. Cost isn’t an issue as it is in the UK for example. As I pointed out the French have a higher birth rate which is attributed to a more family/work friendly system. The Scandinavians are as always the leaders.

      I too see a need for a beefing up of European defence. I agree with your assessment that the Baltics and Poland will be the main drivers. A citizen militia similar to the Swiss would indeed raise manpower. But most European countries removed conscription, which will be hard to reintroduce and as a result I see difficulties in introducing a militia system. I personally think a European Army is a great idea and would be a major unifying force. But i’m realistic to know it’s highly unlikely. The problem with each state having thier own army is that it is wasteful, besides many not having the resources or not being willing to make the sacrificies. Also I don’t see how each nation can take the role that the US did since WWII. What exactly do you mean by this?

      You misunderstood, I was not saying that it is inherently neo-con to advocate greater defence spending, especially not in this case. I personally as I said above support an increase in defence spending, even a significant one. And I’m anything but a neo-con. 🙂 I was refering to the argument that Europe has been “feminized”, that the root cause for the lack of will for greater defence is a “feminization” of society. Or equally that it is the source of the naivity and pacifism. That argument, blaming feminism for a supposed “sissification” of society is a very conservative/right-wing argument. Analogous to blaming the “liberals” lol.

      • bob says:

        -End income tax, secure middle class income through gold standard. The one would allow for more flexible use of incomes (including not having to go back to work). The gold standard would secure savings and allow for a greater purchasing power, thus reducing the manpower needed to earn a decent living.
        -Well, I think introducing more liberal gun regulations could result in more security (guns behind every bush). I think all that would be needed is to liberalize rifles, not hand guns per se.
        -I would argue that because the US has subsidized Europe that they have become soft, and as a result feminized. I do think that if Europe was forced to take care of it’s own in both welfare and security it would become more mature than it currently is (not being a ward of US welfare). So feminization has come as a result of US policy, and not in and of itself.

  5. ZzeeGerman says:

    I share your thinking regarding the dangers of a detached political class.

    When you say you believe “that the pristine form of human society [was] matriarchy”, I assume you mean you believe that pre-historic human societies were matriarchies. But this wasn’t the case. While hunter-gatherer societies were more egalitarian, or even completely so, and while the feminine may have been given equal prominence, like the equal or higher worship of female deities (female supreme goddess), these societies were not matriarchal. “Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal…[and] no true matriarchy is known actually to have existed.” (Wikipedia -> Matriarchy) You are right that in such societies survival and reproduction were the main goals. However, that did not relegate men to “work of lower priority”. Hunting, an exclusively male activity was an important source of nutrition, especially protien. Also defence of the community can hardly be classified as unimportant in an environment where wild animals still posed a serious threat, not to mention rival groups. I don’t mean to be rude, but your argument I’m affraid contradicts anthropological research and consensus.

    I can see that there is potentialy a problem of translation/definition here. The term “feminized” means: 1. to give a feminine appearance or character. 2. To cause (a male) to assume feminine characteristics. “In sociology, feminization is the shift in gender roles and sex roles in a society…towards a focus upon the feminine. This is the opposite of a cultural focus upon masculinity.” An example would be “The feminization of education – Majority female teachers, a female majority of students in higher education and a curriculum and pedology which is better suited to the learning process of women.” (Wikipedia -> Feminization) The feminization of education is for example a valid criticism of Western societies. I understand that you understood the word “feminization” to mean a shift towards a matriarchal society. I guess one could describe the move towards greater equality as “feminization”, in the sense that the feminine is given greater space. But this is because previously it was underrepresentet. The aim is not to create a matriarchy. The term “feminized” is usually used as a negative in the context of arguments such as the one made in this article. Since he speaks of “feminised thinking”, I’m pretty sure it is meant in this way. Also “feminisierung” als Schlagwort/Beleidigung im Sinne von “verweiblichung”, “verweichung” – also vergleichbar mit dem Ausdruck “Gutmensch”.

    Regarding your view that Western society is too feminized, men are certainly not relegated to work of lower priority. I’m sure you agree. Considering that women still remain a significant minority in top level positions and with few exceptions continue to be paid less than men for the same work it would be hard to argue otherwiese. As for the social function of males as the education example shows there are indeed areas in which the male role/function has been neglected. Ironically in the case of education this is not because men were pushed out, but simply because men have failed to apply. And there is a drive to increase male teachers. Furthermore, the social function of the sexes, or indeed whether there even is one is a matter of debate/research. The point is that one cannot make a generalised statement to the effect that the social function of men is neglected in the whole society. I personaly have always found the evolutionary biology/sociology/psychology explanations the more convincing. But the research seems to be inconclusive. Regardless, I do not see feminism and the drive towards greater equality as the source of the problem.

    I read the Machiavelli article and I agree with most of it. Just to clarify, I agree with Lukkassen’s point that Europe lacks both the material and will for greater defence. I also share is criticism regarding the widespread pacifism and naivity. What I disagree with is his conclusion regarding the root causes. I fully agree with good laws and good arms. Feminism is not against good laws, and the point I tried to make is that it is not inherently against good arms either. Radical/left-wing feminism is indeed against “militarism”, but the resistance to greater defence is not coming from the feminists but from the pacifists. I wouldn’t exactly call the ex-Reverend (protestant) Käßmann a feminist, although I could be wrong of course. Also the main obsticle here in Germany to a tougher stance against Putin is the Left. And even the German right (CDU) is not for major defence spending. Lukkassen argues that the anti-warism/pacifism is the result of feminism, while I see the roots in WW2. Especially in Germany. Of course he is speaking from a Dutch perspective. But that makes his argument even harder for me to agree with because the Netherlands has been one of the strongest NATO participants, even supporting the Iraq War if I remember correctly.

    • Constitution says:

      @ Zeegerman

      I am writing in regards to your third paragraph that detailed men’s role in society.
      The gender pay gap has been debunked time and time again, even way back in the 1970s when it first properly came up; yet for some reason it is still presented as one of the main talking points for the feminist movement.

      The question should be asked, “why are women expected to be earning the same as men ?”

      Men overall work longer hours, take less sick leave and enter career fields that are technical and as a result, higher paying; i.e. engineering. Working women on the other hand are more likely to enter part time work rather than men who are more likely to enter full time work. Part time workers are paid less than full time workers.

      I am genuinely surprised that this lie continuously gets repeated even when it was being debunked way back in the 1970s. Also I cannot understand why there is this passive shaming going on by feminists directed towards women who decide to raise a family/children and not spend their years working for a corporation.

      The author I believe is writing about “male disposability” this was a theme to explain the fact that men overwhelming represent the bottom of society. If you think of who occupies the most dangerous, undesirable jobs; as well as which sex dominates the majority of work place deaths and suicides. It is men of course, many legitimate studies have identified this, yet they don’t see the mainstream, for what reason, is a different question altogether.

      Feminism during its second wave in the 1960s, only looked at the top of the skyscrapers and offices to see men occupying the high position. Failing to look at who was at the bottom, cleaning the gutters.

      I agree with the article on masculinity being pushed aside. The welfare state coincided with the death of fatherly figures in working class communities, which led to the vicious circle of lesser fathers for future generations.

      Male identity is based around what the man does rather than the intrinsic identity that a woman has due to her reproductive capabilities. Expressing this economic terms, a man has little value to society for simply being a man, unlike a woman who can contribute to society by tapping into her biological gift and procreating.

      For your ordinary working man, having a family and being a father was something unique and a motivation in itself to work in hard conditions and even go to war if need be. Now with the artificial big fathers active in operation, the state and big business (In terms of maternity leave etc). The father became made obsolete, with even mainstream media proclaiming to the rooftops, whether “Fathers are still needed?”.

      A study was accidentally made a while back, in regards to baby elephants. A large group of elephants were to be moved to a different sanctuary for their own safety. However they were only able to move the baby elephants and the mothers, the fathers were too heavy.

      So a week or two later, Rhinos began popping up everywhere, dead. With awful injuries which the gamekeepers never had seen before. It became obvious that that the injures came from the baby male elephants, anti social behaviour which had not been seen before. Eventually the father elephants were given back to the sanctuary so they could accompany their offspring; needless to say, there were no longer any attacks on the rhinos.

      The point of this anecdote, is that we can see the same events occurring in neighbourhoods that have been proclaimed as “fatherless deserts”. Essentially these communities become matriarchal.

      The middle class males are deciding to not engage in fatherhood and are opting out of marriage all together. A lot of this comes down to rationality, not fear of “commitment” which the likes of Oprah would have her followers believe. With nearly half of marriages ending in divorce in some regions. As well with the majority of these divorces being initiated by women and resulting in men having to pay alimony (Which is an outdated concept), as well as losing custody of their children.

      To conclude, there has been an obvious shift towards feminine values, equality, fairness, as opposed to exploration, power. However who was it that built the inventions, technology and enterprise which led us to be in such a position, where we could throw it all away, to be “more nicer”.

  6. As ZzeeGerman previously mentioned, one of the objectives of is to present the readers with a variety of viewpoints, encouraging him to develop his own critical thoughts. This is why articles, which do not reflect my own opinion are also published. This was the case with this article.

    I consider the article by Sid Lukkassen to be valuable because it stimulates thought with its polarizing manner. At the heart of his presentation lies the question of Europe’s weakness. For Lukkassen, socialisation, which is – according to his interpretation – dominated by feminism, and which abhors violence, is a central issue. In fact, the idea that the behaviour of states in international relations is shaped via the socialisation of society is based on the theory of constructivism. Constructivism supports the theory that behaviour is shaped by values, norms, rules, and social structures that can be changed (cf .: Jack Snyder, “One World, Rival Theories“, Foreign Policy, no. 145, Nov/Dec 2004). For example, nations in which non-violent conflict resolution via key event, influential players, etc. has moved into the foreground over a long period of time, and whose citizens have been socialised by means of values, norms, and rules in this regard, also have the tendency to seek a non-violent solution to conflicts in international relations. However, I find it questionable whether feminism is actually responsible for this pacifist socialisation of European society. The author fails to provide convincing facts on this important issue in particular. The mere suggestion that a free market economy could lead to an increase of peace among nations, is less based on feminism than on liberalism.

    If – from the point of view of constructivism – the values, norms, rules, and social structures of a society can be lastingly shaped by key events, it is only natural that the European countries were influenced by the horrors of the First and Second World Wars to such a degree that in the aftermath a repeat of such events had to be excluded as far as possible. This is also consistent with the Schuman Declaration, which resulted in the merging French and German coal and steel production after the Second World War, which, apart from economic interests, also pursued security policy interests and represents the cornerstone of today’s EU. Historically, it is not surprising that Germany, of all countries, is very restrained in the aggressive use of military means abroad. Conversely, it is also not surprising that the United States, whose society suffered significantly less in the two World Wars, is less reluctant to use military means aggressively to enforce their interests. The experiences that Europe and the United States have made in their course of action also encourage the continuation of their policies. Since the end of the Second World War Europe has not become entangled in any major war, which has led to prosperity. The United States in turn has often successfully asserted its interests by means power politics.

    Lukkassen’s argument that Europe is restrained in the use of military means because Western European men were raised by a certain generation of women is, with respect to the background I have described above, not convincing, and at best negligible. Moreover, his argument contains an error in reasoning: his indirect assumption that, in contrast to the women of the present generation, the women of the previous generation were more ‘tolerant of violence’ can hardly be supported. In this case, probably he mixed it up with another sociological phenomenon: the reduced willingness to make sacrifices of ‘single-child families’. In earlier large families with many children, where the infant mortality rate was relatively high, the loss of a child was more accepted than in the present age of families with few children, and with a low infant mortality rate (see Hans Bachofner, “Die Verletzlichkeit postheroischer Gesellschaften“, Schweizer Monatshefte: Zeitschrift für Politik, Wirtschaft, Kultur, Kultur 86, Heft 9-10, 2006). This, however, has nothing to do with feminism.

    Two experiences led us to this post-heroic stage: the monstrous sacrifice of mass heroism in World War I, and the misuse of the terms “honour” and “sacrifice” driven by totalitarian regimes in World War II. There is also demographic development. One-child families have a very different relationship to the loss of sons in the service of a nation than families with six or more children and a high child mortality rate. — Hans Bachofner, “The vulnerability of post-heroic societies“, Schweizer Monatshefte: Zeitschrift für Politik, Wirtschaft, Kultur, Kultur 86, Heft 9-10, 2006 (translated by

  7. Sid Lukkassen says:

    I see a lot of hammering back and forth in these responses, which is heart-warming for any author. However the administrator misrepresented my arguments, when he stated:

    “I find it questionable whether feminism is actually responsible for this pacifist socialisation of European society. The author fails to provide convincing facts on this important issue in particular. The mere suggestion that a free market economy could lead to an increase of peace among nations, is less based on feminism than on liberalism.”

    To clarify: “Feminised Europe” is a product of the sixty-eight “happy revolution” in its whole sweep, as are the political rise of pacifism, feminism and “neoliberalism”. This cultural overhaul is in turn connected to the shifting balance between masculine and feminine virtues after WWII and the rise of consumerism and the welfare state. This changing balance within Western culture between masculine and feminine virtues is connected to, but is not the same as, political feminism (some feminists wanted women to take on masculine virtues, others wanted to use the means of state to support child rearing and so forth). It is too simple to say: “Women did this” – the failing balance between masculine and feminine qualities is the result of deeper social/spiritual/economic underpinnings.

    It is not fair to simplify the argument into saying: Feminism –> economic liberalisation. This argument that economic entanglement could prevent war existed even previously to WWI (see Normal Angell, The Great Illusion [1910].) However the sixty-eight breaking of traditional bonds, including emotional attachment to the nation state, opened the path for this argument to gain force, where the market was now perceived as a propellent of progress and peace. This process was described as “the extended order” by Friedrich von Hayek (see for instance The Fatal Conceit, 1988). To go deeper into this economic argument, see the work on neofunctionalism by Ernst Haas.

    Losing a son in war is more painful for a small North-European family than for a large family in, let us say, the Middle-East. True, obviously, but then one shifts the argument to investigating whether feminine cultures go paired with small families. Owning a large family is in many traditional cultures seen as greatly adding to the social status of the man. For more information, see Geert Hofstede and his work on feminine and masculine cultures.

    Of course, the sixty-eight overhaul is itself rooted in aspects of Western history such as the traumas of colonialism (racism), nationalism (war), the feelings of guilt and self-sacrifice inherent in Christianity (Hofstede, for instance, classifies Christian cultures as “guilt-cultures” and Muslim cultures as “shame-cultures”). Finally, the rise of postmodernism in the sixties brought forth epistemological relativism and cultural relativism. This conflicted with the (West)European self-understanding as a beacon of progress for the universal rights of mankind (think of the universalist ideals behind the French Revolution, Kant, Comte and so forth). Scientific progress, the very thing Westerners were so proud of, seemed to have turned against humanity itself in the form of military technology such as nuclear missiles. This resulted in probably the greatest protest in the Netherlands of all times, which was against nuclear missiles and took place on October 29, 1983. Mient Jan Faber, the organizer of this protest, recently cut all bonds with the pacifist movement and declared his former actions as “misplaced romanticism”, adding that “there is no greater guarantee for peace on Earth than the nuclear weapon.” (Source: Marathoninterview VPRO, July 25, 2003)

    But to demand evidence for all this, means to demand I write my book here in the comments section.

    • Dear Sid,
      thank you for your clarification. I hope, your book will be published in an English edition, too. After the publication, I invite you to present your book in an article, here on and to give the readers (and potential buyers) a brief overview.

  8. ZzeeGerman says:

    Dear constitution, wher am I to start. I’m siting here shaking my head crying out; “Why, Why!”. I’m going to keep it short. You arguement, all of it, is the typical argument made by the American right. I’m familiar with the partisan battle between the American right and so-called left. Here in Europe I feel pretty safe in saying that only the far/extreme right makes such arguments. I will briefly go into your pay gap argument. It’s rediculous. Of course you are going to compare like for like, i.e. a male Doctor with a female Doctor. That fact that you’re saying the gap is explained because people compared male Doctors with female nurses is pretty lame. How stupid do you think researchers are? No one is going to compare a full-time job to a part-time job and then complain oh they’re not earning the same. Ah daa! People aren’t that stupid. Women where and depending on the country still do earn less for IDENTICAL

    • ZzeeGerman says:

      Sorry I accedentaly pressed the wrong button and published before I was done.

      Women were and depending on the country still do earn less for IDENTICAL jobs. Here in Germany research recently (2014) showed that the pay gap for career men and career women is only 2%, which was within the statistical margin of error. Hence when it comes to women who are willing to give up having a family for a career then here in Germany there is no longer a pay gap worth mentioning. But this is a recent thing (2014). Your claim that there was no pay gap back in the 70’s is ludecrous. By the way career women are starting to display the same kind of health problems that career men have.

      Here in Germany there is a kind of passive shaming of career women who decide to go back to work early. Both is wrong. It’s people’s personal choice. There’s nothing wrong with a woman deciding to raise a family instead of having a career. And the same applies to man. Feminism isn’t just about equality for women, but also for men. That means if a man doesn’t want to have a career that is going to cause him burn out and an early death and would rather work part-time maybe raise the kids while the wife is having a career then that is fine too. It does not make him less of a man. And that is the whole aim of feminism – freedom of choice and respecting people’s right to have that choice. Not forcing everyone to conform to your conservative ideal of the career bread winning husband and the stay at home mom. And that part-time working dad by the way, could also be a part-time warrior, i.e. national guard member/reservist who gets called up to go to Afghanistan.

      Your arguments on male disposability are also contradictory. First you say they’re dispoabale because unlike women they can’t give birth. News flash no sperm no baby, No man no sperm. Then you go on to lament the absence of fathers/men and how that is supposedly the root cause of various social ills. So essentially making the argument that men are important, so not disposable. So which is it? I also find you blaming social welfare pretty redicoulus. It’s a favourite of you American conservatives. Here in Europe we have much better welfare and fewer of the kind of problems that you attribute to welfare. By the way the reason why we have too low a birth rate here in Germany is not because the state doesn’t support the traditional family structure, it does, and that is exactly the problem. Women are forced to choose between having a family and a career. A few people here especially of a conservative nature are making fun of the new female defence minister who has launched a major program of creating child care facilities for the soldiers’ families as well as various other measures to increase job attractivity. Her reforms are very popular with the average soldier. Because contrary to what you conservatives might think most fathers would like to spend more time with thier children instead of working themselves to death.

      Regarding your elephant example, one needs to becareful when making such comparisons. Also elephants have a matriarchal social structure. Mature males live solitary or in small bachelor groups. Fatherless communities do not automatically become matriarchal ones. Whether a society is patriarchal or matriarchal depends on who has the power. These communities you talk of are powerless, the women there have no power. Besides you cannot blame the women for the men running away, or them wanting to leave an abusive man. And a woman with children and no access to child care can’t work. The issue is poverty.

      By the way what is wrong with a man not wanting to start a family? The reason why the divorce rate was so low in the past is because it was a) difficult legally to do so and b) because it was considered a taboo, there was a social stigma. And c) women usually lost custody and access to thier children. So women remained in unhappy and even abusive marriages because divorce ment poverty and/or social exclusion. By the way men do not automatically loose custody of their children, it’s usually shared custody. And it is fair to expect a father to pay child alimony, after all they are his children. Paying alimony for the living costs of the ex is a different matter. Unless of course she gave up working/a career to raise your children. And this is why most women would prefer to have some kind of job/career so that they do not have to rely on the man. By the way a steady birthrate is in the interest of society, including business, so why shouldn’t society pay for/support it via welfare?

  9. ZzeeGerman says:

    Thank you! Thank you for making the point so eloquantly that I have been trying to make. Also great that you were able to explain the theoretical context/background to his and your argument. This article certainly achieved it’s objective of polarization! 🙂

  10. ZzeeGerman says:

    I personaly wouldn’t end income tax, and whether the gold standard would help I have no clue, but doubt it. More income is of course always better.

    Introducing more liberal gun regulations is such an American response lol. Or rather such a conservative one. It seems to be the answer to every problem lol. There actually is a great article somewhere on here which compares American to European/Israeli gun legislation. You might wan to check it out.

    Now to your last point were you make some pretty offending assumptions. The US has indeed essentially subsidized European defence/security. But you seem to suggest that the US has also subsidized Europe in other ways, this is not true. We take care of our own welfare. And when people talk about the US essentially subsidizing European security they don’t mean that literally but figuratively. The US hasn’t payed Europe money, or payed for it’s weapons purchases. The argument is that because the US spend so much on defence, and because they’re part of NATO and hold thier nuclear shield and protective hand over Europe the Europeans could afford to spend less on defence because the US was/is obligated to defend Europe. Of course the reverse obligation exists too. I share this criticism/analysis, and because I want Europe to take care of it’s own defence I have no objections to the US reducing its European footprint or leaving the Europeans to deal with thier own problems.

    What I find at least slightly offending is the accusation that we’re soft and feminized, i.e. are a bunch of pussies. Firstly, that’s playground type trash talk. Secondly, it says more about your view of what constitutes masculinity or mature behaviour than it does about us. While I have criticism of the naivity and pacifism of Europe’s left, which is indeed shared by a large part of the public I most certainly would not advocate the adoption of an American conservative policy. The majority here in Germany for example support tougher sanctions against Putin. And most people understand very well that pacifism isn’t a viable approach to someone like Hitler. But many here simply don’t share the aggressive conservative American approach to foreign policy. Many here would rather avoid foreign military expeditions. The Administrator does a good job of explaining the issue.

  11. ZzeeGerman says:

    I find it very interesting that according to your reseach women generally voted conservative. I would have assumed the opposite, i.e. that Femke’s statement was more or less correct that women voted left. While I might have found an explanation for why that was the case pre-1980 I can’t come up with one for post-1980. Although I remember reading that more women in the US vote Democrat than Republican. But perhaps the confusion is explainable by the fact that while more liberal/left parties tend to support more female rights/freedom the conservative parties are strong on family, even if it is the traditonal family. Before 1980 and for the most part till today most families are of the traditional type so policies that make that easier would understandably gain female support.

    I loved your line about bring up defence with women, “disinterest verging on boredom”, lol. I agree with you that it’s not an issue of gender. After all isn’t a father entitled to say the same thing “What about my son?”? As if fathers cared less about their children. I personally believe that there may be differences between men and women due to their physical differences, but I’m aware that the scientific research isn’t conclusive and that prooving either side is difficult. The opposite side being that differences are purely a result of socialisation.

    I would partly agree with your statement that “The issue for Europe is complacency and a lack of understanding that peace and democracy are something which have to be maintained and defended, rather than natural states of existence.” Although I do think that most people understand that peace and democracy have to be maintained and defended. The question is how one does that and whether it is our job/duty to only defend our own or also others and whether to actively try to spread it to where it does not exist.

    I obviously fully agree with your last pharagraph. Especially good of you to pose those questions to reveal the flawdness of the argument.

  12. ZzeeGerman says:

    Admin you obviously have a point so I tried to post several links regarding the issue, again the spam filter wouldn’t let me. So I’ll email them to the email you posted last time.
    Note by the Admin: I added all his links below.

    But essentially there is a greater turn out of women at elections. Until 1980 women did vote more conservative but since then there has been a shift and women now vote more left than men do.

    Wikipedia article on voting gender gap.

  13. ZzeeGerman says:

    Firstly great to hear from the author himself, always helpful when the author is on hand to clarify how/what he meant. Your attempt at clarification helps, and I now sort of understand what you’re trying to say. But it’s not quit clear, and I think you’re right that we/I’d probably have to read your book. It is a rather philosophical and complex argument you’re trying to make there. The reminder that you’re an history and philosphy MA helped lol. So appologies if my past criticism was overly harsh, but I hope you can see why it was so. There’s a big difference between “blaming” feminism and a more philosophical discussion around feminine/masculine virtues. Of course even here one could question that construct/classification. But I think we all more or less understand what is meant by “masculine/feminine” virtues. Although it would be helpful I think if you were to post a short list of what you consider each to be. It might have been helpful if you had maybe used the term “warrior virtues”. Since a woman can also be a warrior you avoid creating the impression that you’re making some kind of sexist argument. The feminine/masculine virtues debate you’re having isn’t about which is worse. Essentially it’s about placing too much emphasis on getting along and reconciliation to the point where things like our security are being potentialy endangered. Not enough standing up for one’s believes and willingness to bitch slap the asshole, if I may put it that way.

    When it comes to things such as the breaking of traditional bonds as a result of the 68 movement it might be helpful to point out that that is due to their marxist roots. Rejection of the nation, or the questioning of the construct of a nation. You know pointing out that “nations” were partly actively created. Seeing the market as a propellant of progress and peace is not a left/marxist argument and more a liberal one. So your argument seems to be that the greater social liberty encouraged this view amongst the liberals/conservatives – the market liberals. Because as political ideologies pacifism, feminism and neoliberalism aren’t related, or bed fellows. Taking the American context, “liberal” might be an insult used by the conservative right, but they are generally all neoliberals when it comes to economics. While I as a (social) liberal am very skeptical of neoliberalism.

    On family structure, in traditional societies a large family is indeed a sign of status. But is traditional necessarily masculine? It would indeed be interesting to see if a shift towards smaller families correlates to a shift towards feminine values. And vice versa. I don’t see why that should necessarily be the case. Although, it is the case that greater education and equality especially of women leads to smaller families. So the move from a traditiional to a modern society leads to smaller families. But once again is “modern” necessarily feminine?

    You’re correct to point out that the 68 movement has it’s roots in Western/European history, i.e. was a reaction to recent events. WWII and even WWI (nationalism/war) were obviously major factors. Colonialism or de-colonialism is another good point you make. However, I question your argument that Christianity and it’s supposedly inherent feelings of guilt and self-sacrifice had anything to do with it. After all we’ve been Christian societies for centuries. Unless you want to argue an especially slow process of development/influence lol. It reminds me of the argument made by Nietzsche regarding Christianity. By the way I think the describtion of Muslim societies as “shame-cultures” is a good one. Althought I’d like to find out more about the difference between a “guilt-” and “shame-culture”.

    I think the point about postmodernism and relativism is a good one, and how it lead to a questioning of universal ideals. I often think that this questioning, a lack of confidence in our values is an issue. After all if there is no right and wrong, everything relative and a matter of perception it is hard to go out into the world preaching your values/beliefs. I would argue that although relativism has it’s merits as a philosophy that it was taken too far. As they say everything in moderation. The irony is that everyone else still sees us as the “beacon of progress” and freedom. In some ways even more than America because there isn’t the same degree of hostility towards Europe.

    I share the criticism regarding a “misplaced romanticism” of the pacifist movement. In the case of Germany I think that the traditional romanticism of German society may have exacerbated/increased this in the German pacifist movement. It also factors into the Putin support, and explains the popularity of Russian literature. 🙂

    Like the Administrator I hope your book will be available in english, until then do you as someone who is obviously familiar with the matter have any literature suggestions in english or german?

  14. ZzeeGerman says:

    Just a final note to the author. The reason why it is so important to explain what you mean by feminine and masculine virtues or rather to explain the context or your thinking in regards to this is because if you google “feminine virtue” you get a list of results which are of a certain nature. The same is true for a “masculine virtue” search. I wont post a selection of links to make my point as it shouldn’t be too hard for anyone to do the above searches. But you wouldn’t label these sites or their arguments as being at the forefront of modern society.

  15. ZzeeGerman says:

    I just came across a great article on the question of courage and whether it is a masculine virtue. The answers by Harvey Mansfield and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who will be familiar to the Dutch Author) are interesting. Especially the later as she briefly addresses the issue of this article.

  16. rick says:

    Sid is absolutely right. In my opinion there is no democracy. Everything depends on how people react on events. And the worst that happend in evolution, are the humans.
    There will be no peace for a lot of people.
    In his artikel Sid is spot on…………..

  17. Joe Katzman says:

    Thanks are due to ZzeeGerman and Anon for demonstrating the author core points in the comment section. The preference for (imagined) slurs, outgrouping, and straw men in exchange for arguments, coupled with doublethink sentences the concede key points and then simply assert that they don’t matter, is an excellent demonstration of the pearl-clutching reality avoidance the author was discussing. The clear tone is not just one failure to understand, but of an active drive not to understand.

    One could argue that feminization is a part of that, but ZzeeGerman and anon may actually be onto something when they state that there’s more to the story. Their pattern on display is actually closer to a discussion with the devoutly religious on a matter that pertains closely to their faith. I know religious people of several faiths, so that isn’t necessarily a bad thing for me. I am throwing this observation out there precisely because the author notes the absence of this framework in modern European society. As such, one may not be as quick to recognize the dogmatic religious pattern when it appears in a different form.

    I will say that the overt faiths I have contact with have a much deeper intellectual tradition than the 68ers, and it shows.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *