May 28, 2004

Let's See If I Can Work Tolkien Into This
Everett

First of all, Ashleigh, thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it, and I'm glad you found my article interesting. Secondly, if I were to take on the name of an Enlightenment-era thinker as a nom-de-plume, it wouldn't be one of the Philosophes, but rather Edmund Burke. However, I'm not that pretentious.

Now, on to the substance of your article. It is certainly true that balance cannot exist indefinitely. It is also true that a system may be balanced at one time and not balanced at another due to the influence of both internal and external variables. However, the fact that a permanent balance is unsustainable does not imply that no attempt should be made to attain a balance that works for the time being. Furthermore, I submit that there are inherently grave consequences in attempting to create a new balance by throwing out one side of the equation, and the longer one side of the equation has been in place, the graver the consequences of its removal. If an alteration is to be made, it is best to make such alterations in a manner that preserves the fundamental elements of the equation intact, as opposed to shattering and remaking one or all sides of the equation.

Tolkien knew this quite well, and the preservation of that balance is one of the central themes in Lord of the Rings. Frodo takes up the quest to destroy the One Ring because he knows that, should Sauron conquer, the way of life of the Hobbits, particularly those of the Shire, will be destroyed. Conversely, Gandalf and Galadriel refuse to take up the One Ring when offered because they would use the Ring to remake Middle Earth as they see fit, albeit with the best of intentions. Aragorn, in taking up the crown, seeks to preserve and, if possible restore, the foundations upon which the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor were founded before they decay utterly. The three Elven rings were made to preserve the works of the Noldor in Middle Earth, though they passed with the passing of the One Ring. Sauron, on the other hand, seeks to remake Middle Earth as he sees fit, with no regard to the history and traditions of its peoples. He seeks a world that is only aware of the present and his dominion. He seeks a world built of which he is the foundation, and to do this, he must destroy all the foundations of Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits, etc. Those who get in his way are to be killed.

Now, in regard to feminism, the statements I made were broad, sweeping, generalizations that are true in the vast majority of cases, but not necessarily all. That said, you have failed to address the substantive points I raised. Furthermore, I did not limit my argument to merely physical differences. There are many physiological and psychological differences between men and women as well. For instance, men tend to be more rational than women, while women tend to be more emotional than men. Men tend to function better in large groups than women, while women tend to function better in small groups than men. Men tend to function better in hierarchical structures, while women tend to do better in groups with no clear chain of command. Men tend to see the big picture, while women tend to be more detail oriented. These differences tend to make men more suitable for some tasks and women more suitable for others. To pick two extreme examples, men are better suited for the military, while women are better able to raise small children.*

Tolkien knew this well. If you look at all of the women in Tolkien, particualrly the strong ones, such as Galadriel, Luthien, Morwen, Arwen, Elwing, etc., the only one who behaved in a manly way was Eowyn, and she was, by far, the weakest of them. Certainly the others faced great peril and did great things, but their strength was not the same as that the likes of Beleg, Turin, Hurin, Maedhros, Mablung, Beren, Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, etc.

Also, you seem to advance the idea that differences between men and women and their roles are merely the result of cultural institutions. If the facts I've supplied above don't convince you other wise consider this: If this is so, how were they established in the first place, and would they still be in place today, to some various extents around the world if there were no discernable benefit to them?

Another thing at which I have to wonder is your implicit approval of the idea of "happy dictatorship" of the type found in "Brave New World". I can't imagine why because the only way this "happy dictatorship" can maintain its power is by making ist people totally dependant on it, which they do by focusing people on their present impulses and desires and removing from them any thought of the future because everything will be taken care of.

Also, I fail to see what is wrong with discrimination, per se. To discriminate is merely to choose between alternatives. For discrimination to become unjust, the criteria for a given choice must be irrelevant to the choice being made.

Additionally, I should point out that change is not automatically good. The United States abandoning the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution was a good change. The end of slavery in the South was a good change. All Communist revolutions were bad changes.

I won't say much about religion because I'm not quite sure where exactly we disagree, if at all, because I'm not sure what exactly you mean when you say "[r]eligion should be like a light blanket". I've admitted that the Church had too much power from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Reformation, for the reason nearly, if not totally identical to the one you give. Also, I've never said people should be ignorant and/or unable to think for themselves. However, I do maintain, for obvious reasons, that the cumulative wisdom of the Catholic Church is greater than the wisdom of any one man. I also think it reasonable to maintain that it is foolish to assume that the fact that someone disagrees with the Catholic Church on a given point of doctrine means the Church is wrong. The role of the Church is to guide souls to Heaven and give them strength and support for the journey. The reason the Church has been able to continue in its "mode of thinking that has been set for thousands of years" is because, on balance, it works.

The times when the Church has gone through its times of greatest travail and committed its gravest injustices is when it deviates most from its way of thinking. Often, the desire for power, especially political power, trumps the desire for truth and the salvation of souls. Many of the American bishops in the child-abuse scandal were more concerned with preserving their positions than dealing with the out of control problems in their dioceses. They negelected heretical teaching and immoral practices in seminaries and they hid abuse allegations from their parishes, moving priests from parish to parish to avoid controversey. If Church teaching and practice had been upheld by those responsible for upholding it, especially regarding homosexuality and celibacy, the whole scandal would have been much smaller, if not avoided entirely.

Well, on that somber note, I think I'll sign off for now. I've enjoyed this, and should these topics fall out of favor in the Forum, feel free to send me an e-mail.

For a comparison of the performances of men and women in the military go to these sites:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml
http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilWomenII.shtml