The Hypocrisy of Academic Philosophy

Recently, the American Philosophical Association sent out a letter to members soliciting money. (For anyone who doesn’t know, the APA is an anti-male, anti-white, anti-American activist group that pretends to be a professional organization for academic philosophy. But put that aside for the moment.) Look at this part of the letter, written by philosopher Robert Audi:

We teach the appraisal of arguments, introduce standards of evidence important in any field whatever, and heighten students’ capacity to articulate their own views. There is no realm of human existence we do not explore, no difficult question we are afraid to face, no serious idea we will not consider [emphasis added].

Pardon me while I laugh. Look, I’m not trying to pick on Audi. This is a sentiment that philosophers express all the time: that we are fearless explorers of the intellectual world, going wherever the arguments and evidence lead, waking people from their dogmatic slumbers, blah blah blah. It’s total bullsh*t.

Yes, if you are against homosexuality, or hold that traditional sexual roles for men and women are reasonable, or think that it’s obviously sensible for the United States to severely restrict immigration and to deport illegal aliens, or think that the reason that black people are arrested and jailed more than whites is that they commit more crime, or anything else that conflicts with the standard radical leftist view, academic philosophers are certainly very willing to “explore” the ways you are wrong. If, on the other hand, you want to question the standard radical leftist views, good luck with that.

There’s a reason the contributors to this blog have pseudonyms. And it’s not because of modesty.

Criticus Ferox

Criticus Ferox was relegated to the basket of deplorables because he refused to embrace the vilification and destruction of his nation, culture, race, sex, and way of life. You can contact him at:

View All Posts


  1. Which philosopher today embodies the Socratic ideal and who ever has? Philosophy is rarely something other than a weapon of sophistry by giving complicated arguments for views you already held and which are “obviously” true. Maybe it just that in a society where leftist and scientistic views dominate, it occurs to you that it changed. I agree with everything you said about immigration and cries rates among blacks, but I doubt that philosophy has ever really served a different purpose. Only today the purpose it serves is particularly damaging.

    • I agree, Waltraud. Did even Socrates embody the Socratic ideal? Even more importantly, is this even an _ideal_? Whatever the answer, the point of the (honestly, trivial) post was just to point out the hypocrisy of this typical kind of posturing.

  2. Philosophers might not reach the ideal (if there is one) but there are closer and further approximations towards reaching that ideal. Yes, everyone has basic background assumptions when beginning a philosophical inquiry. There is no completely neutral starting point. Nevertheless one can still question even those assumptions, and the philosophical stance, I think, is to be open to questioning everything. Of course not everyone who is a philosopher takes that stance all the time. Philosophers are human. When engaged in political discourse in public, I see no reason for thinking that a philosopher cannot engage in useful polemics towards achieving a political end. A major problem, however, as I see it, is that the political has usurped the philosophical in many philosophy departments. Engaging in politics and with it polemics is called “philosophy” and passes for doing philosophy in the current environment. Leftism is the new pseudo-religion, placing restrictions on speech and philosophical inquiry where in some cases religion once served such a role. In neither case is there pure philosophical inquiry which is open to following the argument wherever it goes.

  3. I’m confused. Has there been no dominant group up til now that is, on average, white, male, and American? If you do not believe that there has been, then I can see thinking that being anti-domination is looked at as anti-what-have-you. But, if not domination, then what is the explanation for the lack of diversity that reps the population? If so, then what is the justification for this domination? Inherent biological superiority? And if not, better socialization? If the latter, why not for everyone? If the former, then why not develop the technology to let us have those superiority genes? What IS the justification for a group advantaged or dominant in virtue of morally irrelevant properties, like sex, color, and nationality? Is there something inherent about WHITENESS or LIGHTNESS — the color or shade — that makes it morally relevant? I mean, yes, there are cultural differences between different groups. Any sociological study will tell you that. But that’s not the interesting question or answer. It’s why did things turn out that way? And should it be that way? Is it necessary? And if it is, does ought imply can? I realize this is a series of questions, but they are not intended to be rhetorical. I really am confused about how being against domination by a group with no INHERENT moral superiority is not justified. I guess I need a good white american mansplain here. I’m sure someone here will help me see the light. Can someone please put the argument in the form of premises and a conclusion to help me better understand my place in the world? Here’s mine:

    (1) White males, on average, have enjoyed being in a dominant position up to and including now.
    (2) Groups should only dominate others if they are inherently superior in virtue of the characteristics they share in common.
    (3) There is nothing inherently superior about being white and male that justifies their dominant status.
    (4) Dominating other groups to their detriment without justification is wrong.
    (5) Groups (and allies of such groups) disadvantaged by non-justified domination are morally justified in taking steps to remedy that domination.
    (6) The APA is simply taking steps to remedy unjustified domination.
    (7) The APA is morally justified in its remedial practices.

    Do I get a an iron cross now?

    • Oh, and with respect to 5. Obviously it is false that some groups are morally justified in taking steps to remedy equity gaps if those steps are themselves morally questionable: affirmative action, censuring campus speech, many tactics of Black Live (Lies) Matter. Or perhaps you are a crass utilitarian?

    • If members of your group are being endangered by said domination, is not self-defence in order? That need not require me to be a crass utilitarian. And your examples of unjustified moves itself is controversial. It’s not clear at all that they are unjustified. They may be the best remedies available at present.

    • “If members of your group are being endangered by said domination, is not self-defence in order? That need not require me to be a crass utilitarian”

      Sure it is, since you are inflicting harm on some individuals who have not necessarily done any harm to anyone else, to promote the social good of what you consider to be the proper amount of diversity. The danger with you lefties is you forget you are talking about real people and in rather Stalinesque fashion prefer hypostatize abstract groups, and classes.

      If you believe restricting speech could be the best available remedy for the APA, then you have proven the point of the original post – the hypocrisy of saying you fearlessly explore any issue, while “protecting” certain groups from having their feelings hurt. Thank you.

    • Thanks for invitation to offer “a good white American mansplain”, but I’ll pass. How could anyone best your unassailable femilogic? You should submit that to a journal.

    • Uh. It’s just a valid argument with premises like any other argument has premises? So whence the femilogic accusation? Did I reject the law of non-contradiction or something?

  4. Apasia,
    Some of those claims are based on false or highly dubious assumptions.

    Being white is not just about skin colour or “lightness”. That’s like saying that being human is just a matter of having opposable thumbs or walking upright. Skin colour is an effect of underlying genetic-evolutionary traits based in hundreds of thousands of years of reproductive isolation, natural and sexual selection.

    It’s not clear that “dominance” can only be justified by “inherent” superiority. If whites or men are non-inherently better suited to ruling a given society or entitled to rule for some reason apart from inherent traits that could be enough. For example, if men are the ones expected to fight and die to protect society they might be entitled to “dominate” in decisions about defence even if they aren’t superior. If they are the ones who work outside the home, get taxed and build up businesses and infrastructure that might entitle them to “dominate” in decision making about economics. That might be fair regardless of how that situation originally came about, or regardless of whether they are superior in any respect.

    Maybe it’s wrong to dominate others to their detriment, but it’s very simplistic at best to think of the relation between white men and others in that way. Under white male dominance others get education, work, housing, medical care, political rights, roads and airplanes and computers, etc–and it’s hardly obvious they would have had all that without white men, or their leadership and “dominance”. It’s not even reasonable to say simply that white men as a group have dominated all others. A white man in a coal mine or one conscripted to die in a trench was not “dominating” female aristocrats or rich wives of bankers. And if whites are distinct from Jews (as many Jews have always thought) it’s even more absurd to say that whites have just “dominated” every other group. Gentile whites are very badly under-represented on the courts, in banking and finance, control of politics and parties, media and higher ed, etc. While Jews at less than 2% of the population really do dominate these areas.

    Finally, you can’t remedy domination that no longer exists, if it ever did. White men are the only class in our society who can’t organize have explicit political organization to fight for their interests; even just advocating such a thing will result in personal defamation and financial ruin, unless you’re not a white man. They’re the only group that is subject to legal discrimination at all levels. And only white societies are subject to mass immigration of aliens aimed at erasing their sovereignty and “dominance” in their own lands. They aren’t even a particularly wealthy or high status group compared with some others; asians and Jews are wealthier and far more powerful relative to numbers; white women are better off by many measures, and have cultural and political hegemony via explicit identity politics and pro-woman laws and policies (feminism). If any group now dominates it’s an economic elite not one defined by race and sex. I don’t expect the APA will want to remedy that kind of dominance though. Their “social justice” is really an exercise in dominating others (to their detriment, to the benefit of the actual elites they serve).

    • Ok yes, being white is based on evolutionary forces, my claim was about inherent moral superiority. That is further claim that is highly dubious. Maybe in a certain geographical there wasn’t as much sun?

      I meant dominance being justified in the sense that it entails that maintaining the status quo is either necessary or impossible to change.

      I did say, on average I believe, and again, even if some groups have benefited from it, that doesn’t negate the disadvantages, nor does it prove that it ought to be white males in those positions.

      White males can’t organize? MRA’s, Ku Klux Clan, Mens only clubs — those aren’t organizations? Skinheads? Ummm…

      Yes, their dominant position is changing. Other groups are gaining more power, but you haven’t said why this is bad.

    • MRA is a multiracial thing so irrelevant. Skinheads (if openly prowhite) are obviously a powerless hated minorityl banned from any normal participation in our society. A skinhead who is open about his beliefs would have trouble getting a job at 7-11. The FBI would be tapping his phone and it’s unlikely anyone would even defend his right to free speech for fear of being ruined. The KKK is so totally vilified that the media have been trying to destroy Trump just for not having denounced enough times someone he doesn’t even know who hasn’t even been a member for decades.

      Yes, white male advocacy is not technically illegal (yet). But when we all know that any hint of such views will result in a mass media witch hunt, financial ruin and extreme physical danger–which the authorities encourage and abet–it might as well be. There’s just no real question, anyway, that organizing or even stating one’s interests and identity is a million times more risky for white men than for any other group but pedophiles–and even they get props in the NYT nowadays. This is just not compatible with your claim that we’re the “dominant” group in society. The claim is laughably at odds with reality.

      You’re right I didn’t say why it’s bad that other groups have more power. One reason is that it’s unfair. But why should I need to explain why it’s bad? My point was just that _you_ failed to make your case that it’s good, or even just morally permissible.

    • Yes, I relied on some normative premises to get a normative conclusion. Here they are:

      (4) Dominating other groups to their detriment without justification is wrong.
      (5) Groups (and allies of such groups) disadvantaged by non-justified domination are morally justified in taking steps to remedy that domination.

      Now, of course, you could reject these premises, but the argument is indeed an argument that encodes the idea that domination of groups to their DETRIMENT is wrong (in actual fact, I believe something stronger than this is true, but I wanted to make the argument as uncontroversial as possible). If you have an argument against that premise taking the other premises into consideration, by all mean produce it. If you have an argument that white males ought to dominate others due to their inherent superiority, by all means spell it out. But don’t confuse arguments for hierarchy with arguments for white males being at the top of it, please? The argument also contained premises that domination of certain groups by others that are not inherently superior is wrong (Again, I actually believe something stronger than this). I have a hard time engaging here because I am not sure what the consistent position of people on this blog amounts to. You seem to at times want toleration and free speech for all — a fundamental Libertarian leaning principle. At least that what’t you claim is being denied you. But if that’s what you want, you can’t go around judging other people’s lifestyle choices. On the other hand, if you do want to do that, then you appear to be just as bad as those you’re criticizing (assuming your interpretation of their actions is correct) or so says a left-wing Libertarian.

    • I don’t understand what this comment has to do with mine. I’m not faulting you for relying on normative premises. Didn’t say a thing about that.

      You claimed that white men are ‘dominant’ in our society. Against that claim, I said we can’t even organize politically. You then claimed that we can–after all, there’s the KKK and skinheads, right? So against that claim, I pointed out that these groups are regarded as sub-human filth and excluded from normal society, and precisely because they advocate for whites and white men. Not good examples of the possibility of political organization, then.

      This has nothing to do with your argument having normative premises. Also it has nothing to do with some notion of ‘toleration and free speech for all’. I guess I mentioned that few people would dare defend a skin’s freedom of expression; the point was that merely to defend that abstract right, with no endorsement of the pro-white content, is social suicide now. The point was not that I myself believe in such things (and I don’t).

      But speaking of your normative premises:

      I certainly agree that one group dominating other groups to their detriment is wrong. And in reality it’s whites, and particularly white men, who are now being dominated to their terrible detriment by others. These others include: rich ethnocentric Jews, treasonous plutocrat elites, non-white criminals and mobs empowered by the treasonous elites, immigrants who get preferential treatment over us just in virtue of being immigrants, etc. White men are dying in pointless wars that serve the interests of others, losing their jobs or never getting one in the first place, losing their ancestral lands and communities and traditions so that others who hate them can take over. That’s reality.

      You’re also right that groups suffering from this unjust harmful domination are morally entitled to take steps to ‘remedy’ that situation. I think pretty soon we whites, led by white men, are going to take some steps. At least I hope we do. It’s necessary and right.

      So your general normative premises are just fine, but you need to apply them to the real world not some ideological fantasy you learned from TV or grad school.

    • Aspasia to someone else:
      “You seem to at times want toleration and free speech for all — a fundamental Libertarian leaning principle. At least that what’t you claim is being denied you. But if that’s what you want, you can’t go around judging other people’s lifestyle choices. ”

      How does that follow? Freedom of speech implies freedom to criticize others’ lifestyle choices. (It does look like the Jason Stanleys and Rebecca Kukulas will shout down any such speech, with cuss-words to boot, make non sequiturs about the positions of those they’re shouting down, etc., however.)

    • “A skinhead who is open about his beliefs would have trouble getting a job at 7-11. The FBI would be tapping his phone and it’s unlikely anyone would even defend his right to free speech for fear of being ruined.”

      I would defend his right of free speech. There, I said it.

      “There’s just no real question, anyway, that organizing or even stating one’s interests and identity is a million times more risky for white men than for any other group but pedophiles–and even they get props in the NYT nowadays.”

      By “props” I take it you mean not participating in ignorant vilification of all of them, pushing them into the closet so they’re less likely to seek help, etc.?

  5. Criticus Ferox and co.,
    What do you think about the effects of the Christian philosophy movement? I found it intriguing that in the last couple of weeks, it has been professors at Notre Dame playing the standard leftist game. It seems that the academy must have changed between the 50’s and now. Back then, it was anathema to be a theist, much less a Christian. Now, people could care less if you’re a Christian, if you immediately say, but I’m all for pomosexuality and diversity. It looks like the Christian philosophy movement won’t have any more space for true conservatives then the rest of philosophy.
    (Sorry, I know that brings things back to the Swinburne controversy, which you guys want to get past!)

    • 2 is false. If it were true, then it is ok for men to dominate women because they are superior in strength (a characteristic they have in common).

      3 is false. a) Men are adapted by evolution to be better breadwinners, vs the nurturing role of women. So it is natural they have become dominant in the work world. This may change as technology progresses.
      b) There is mounting evidence that IQ score gaps among races are not the product of culture or bias or social factors. If your premise 2 were true, then Jews (the most persecuted group in history) should “dominate.” But, of course, 2 is not true.
      c) Asians and Jews, despite their persecution “dominate” in many fields because their culture has not been highjacked by marketers of the perpetual victimization narrative of the left. The victim stance is very powerful. It relieves one of all accountability and moral responsibility for one’s life (Black Lives Matter), and is ultimately self-defeating. This is the largest factor in the equity gap.

      5 is true. Yes the black community (for example) should take steps to improve their equity position. They need to leaders to motivate them to take responsibility for their own lives, for fathers to stay with their families, for kids to develop role models that encourage success in schools, instead of popular street culture.

      6 and 7. The APA is merely toeing the leftist party line solution to these problems. It is intellectually bankrupt in dismissing and shaming other well-supported analyses.

    • 2 ought to have been worded morally significant properties. My bad.

      3 says inherently superior. I don’t see that without the right tools and cetera that women could not easily have been “breadwinners.” And whence the idea that being a breadwinner entitles one to dominate. Also, neolithic and paleolithic civilizations, in fact, had far less division of labor than the dated textbooks you must be reading.

      Again, I intended the superiority claims to be based on morally significant traits, of which IQ is not one (IF we even think there ought to be any dominant groups — but that’s another argument entirely).

      Last, if there are victims, then the victim stance OUGHT to be powerful shouldn’t it? So I don’t see where comment is going either.

    • “Last, if there are victims, then the victim stance OUGHT to be powerful shouldn’t it?”

      Is that in reply to this comment:

      “perpetual victimization narrative of the left.”

      Because there is definitely a difference between real victimhood and a perpetual narrative of it (or narrative of perpetual victimhood, either way), the latter of which certainly appears to fit in with the PC/SJW narratives run nearly amok on the campuses in which non-left social/political/economic policies are to blame for victimization, oppression, etc.

    • I’ll give a fine example of the PC/SJW agenda run nearly amok on campuses: the very notion of a “microaggression” that doesn’t involve physical violence (micro or not) or doesn’t even imply intent. If the issue is about offense-causing, inadvertent or not, one could use that term – “offense” – without illicitly co-opting the language for purposes of an agenda.

      There’s also the manifestly ridiculous activism to disinvite speakers even if it’s for one small Incorrect thing they said in the entire corpus of their work.

      Or the seeming effort on the part of so many “progressive” professors and students not to take seriously the positions advocated by black conservatives/libertarians like Sowell or WSJ’s Jason Riley….

    • Aspasia, you write:

      “I don’t see that without the right tools and cetera that women could not easily have been “breadwinners.” And whence the idea that being a breadwinner entitles one to dominate.”

      Well, it came from you. You said “2) Groups should only dominate others if they are inherently superior in virtue of the characteristics they share in common.”

      So if men are inherently generally stronger in virtue of a shared characteristic, like strength (which women have too) then it’s ok to dominate them, according to your second premise.

      Now if you want to change or correct that, feel free. But don’t saddle me with your error in clarity or whatever.

      And yes I am sure you can find some outlier feminist texts about how women were generally the warriors and hunters protecting the men around the hearth suckling the young 🙂

      “Last, if there are victims, then the victim stance OUGHT to be powerful shouldn’t it? So I don’t see where comment is going either.”

      I guess blacks are the paradigm case of what you consider to be victims, since they (especially black males) are the group who are the least represented in nearly all areas of academic and economic life. Blacks today are pitiable victims of their own social pathologies, created to a very great degree by leftist enablers who missed the REAL civil rights movement and need to feel like they are somehow relevant to the noble path of liberation of their fellow man. Unfortunately, social justice warriors are nothing but condescending peddlers of defeatism, blame and false consciousness. There are plenty of opportunities for blacks to succeed (as Asians and other groups have done) if they take responsibility for their lives, value education over pop culture, stop blaming whitey for their failures, and stop having kids out of wedlock. Do you think the APA can get behind that? Or isn’t it just toeing the party line?

    • Ghost in the Machine,

      It’s a difficult question to answer. During the golden age of Christian philosophy in the 20th century–I place that somewhere in the ’50s through maybe the late ’90s or early 00’s–philosophers not only defended the rationality of Christianity (and theism more generally), they argued that it was *the superior view* of reality to all comers. When the SCP was formed in the late ’70s, people like Swinburne, Plantinga, Wolterstorff, and Adams were in their prime, churning out great stuff at a decent clip, inspiring a younger generation of budding Christian philosophers to follow suit.

      And many of them did.

      You’re right, though, something has changed. In my view the change looks something like this: many younger Christian philosophers today simply don’t care to argue that their view of the world is superior to all comers. Rather, they’re satisfied with offering mere defenses of their beliefs, aiming to show that Christianity is consistent with this or that naturalistic hypothesis. What’s worse, I think, is that graduate students who self-identify as Christian coming out of the most prestigious programs are quite often the worst offenders in this area. They go along to get along with their secular cohorts.

      Obviously, some of this is prudent. It’s dangerous to be too outspoken before one receives tenure, but I don’t think prudence explains even a non-negligible number of the cases of reticence here. The problem is, as you’ve pointed out, many younger self-identifying Christian philosophers are caving under social pressure. And the siren song of careerism is often too hard to resist. Sure, some of these youngins will insist that they remain staunchly Christian in the face of social pressure, but just press them on the things you mention, especially homosexual ideology.

      If you want to remain conservative about sexuality in philosophy, you’re most likely going to (a) remain closeted; (b) realize that your career options are SLACs with religious affillitions, private high schools, or seminaries; or (c) luck out and become Robert George’s successor.

    • Fideist and Criticus Ferox,

      Thanks for your responses. I worry that you’re right about this. I’m looking to apply for philosophy Ph.D.’s right now. And I’m not sure how far under the radar I can fly, or want to fly. The things that matter are the things that people will take you down for.

      Of course, that seems to be the problem with the Christian philosophy movement. It is settling for a rather conciliatory approach, when conciliation is not appropriate. It is striking to me though that Alvin Plantinga was not this way in the way he described the task of a Christian philosopher. He thought it was one worldview against another. Now Reformed epistemology is a rather non-combative way to make that point, but he was still making it.

      But that movement was and is almost entirely lacking in moral and political reflection in the first place. Most of them were in epistemology, and as a close second, metaphysics. It seems like the only way to be true to the original intent of the Christian philosophy movement is to go beyond them in trying to articulate and defend the conservative moral and political corollaries of Christian faith.

      I asked Robert George about this when I was at a Witherspoon seminar, and he said, Come out of the closet. I don’t think he was expecting very many people to get positions like his, though. He said there would be martyrs, but that that’s always the case.

      Just curious, are any of the Rightly Considered lot readers of Hegel? I’ve been reading his Philosophy of Right after being struck by Roger Scruton’s love of Hegel. His philosophy stands opposed to all liberal and socialist utopias, and as I’m finding in his philosophy of nature, against the theory of evolution and materialism in favor of a much richer metaphysical picture and understanding of human nature.

    • “Hegel. His philosophy stands opposed to all liberal and socialist utopias, and as I’m finding in his philosophy of nature, against the theory of evolution and materialism in favor of a much richer metaphysical picture and understanding of human nature.”

      I’m not clear on what the problem with evolution is supposed to be, per se. It is consistent with a Creator fore-seeing (from the standpoint of eternity or something along those lines) the results of the laws of nature giving rise to organic life. And when it comes to evolution in general, I wouldn’t have thought Hegel an opponent of the idea (although he’s definitely opposed to materialism from all that I can tell).

    • “His [Hegel’s] philosophy stands opposed to all liberal and socialist utopias,”

      Wow, that is quite a claim, Ghost, considering how much he influenced Marx…okay he stood him on his head, but still. And Hegel is very much the source of the modern historicism and its ugly little progeny – post-modernism, and deconstructionism.

    • Ghost, I think that every area of academic philosophy, along with academia in general, is corrupted and almost certainly unsalvageable. The left is in full control of every cultural institution of the west. There is no serious conservative intellectual movement within academia.

    • “The left is in full control of every cultural institution of the west.”

      Really, now. *Full* control of *every* one of them? I assume that you would like to be taken seriously but you sound like an average caller into conservative talk radio with quasi-paranoid notions about the opposition. (Glenn Beck comes to mind here. Beck has two sides, a really good one pertaining to the institutions that made America exceptional(lly great), and then in the next hour of his show he’s into quasi-paranoid end-times-ish talk. Pat and Stu should do a better job reigning in that part and sticking to the making-fun-of-“progressive”-in(s)anity part.)

    • Progressivism isn’t just “insanity”. It’s a logical product of liberalism, of trends in the west going back centuries. And it’s not some hilarious joke. Children are being killed, teenagers are mutilating their sexual parts, war is permament, and our people are being raped, killed and ethnically cleansed because of these ideas you think we should just be laughing about.

      Beck is a great example of how full the left controls. He’s a pathetic cuck who weeps about long ago largely imaginary harms to blacks, while saying nothing about massive lethal harm to whites right now. And you think he’s a paranoid extremist.

    • Jacques,

      Ethnic cleansing involves forcibly removing one population from one land to another. Who’s being ethnically cleansed and by whom?

      And when you say that white people are being raped and killed, are you just talking about ordinary violent crime?

      And what ‘largely imaginary’ harms to blacks does Beck weep about?

    • “And when you say that white people are being raped and killed, are you just talking about ordinary violent crime?”

      Muslim savages and illegal South Americans raping and killing people isn’t “ordinary violent crime”. It’s completely avoidable sick and violent attacks on white Americans enabled by dangerous and idiotic leftists.

    • With due respect, Muslim terrorists don’t discriminate according to race when they blow up buildings. And relatively very few whites are killed by illegal aliens. Granted, that’s a problem. And we should end illegal immigration. By all means, we should build the wall. But we shouldn’t exaggerate the problem. Whites are pretty well off, both relative to other groups today and to whites in the past.

    • Conservatarian, while I see your point (here and elsewhere) about the concept of being anti-white, I think your energy is misplaced. The left promotes polices whose effects are disproportionally harmful to white people. And, importantly, those policies have no morally justified end. it’s not like, say, the NBA. It would be silly to call the NBA ‘anti-white’. But the disproportionally harmful effects of, say, Muslim immigration on white Americans is not for a morally justifiable reason. It’s a stupid, dangerous policy based on childish moral reasoning that badly effects white people. So, it’s fine and helpful to call it “anti-white”.

  6. Premise 1 is obviously false. Go to Leiter’s website and look at how quickly all the women are snatched up. It’s no secret that if you hire an Hispanic woman you get a twofer when it comes to virtue signaling to all your lefty colleagues. But of course you know this already. There’s my mansplanation. Do you womanderstand?

    • Ever hear of market corrections? Well, perhaps that’s the way to think about affirmative action — market correction. More women being hired is being done to balance the gender imbalance already present. It’s not like there’s a death of men in philosophy. And if you’re response is that we are therefore hiring less qualified people — consider your measures of qualified, and consider the sexism present in thinking that women are less qualified candidates. You cite the publication stats. Well, it’s harder for various gender exclusionary practices to get publications as a woman. Also, there is still unconscious sexism and racism (look at the Harvard studies that prove this) such that if two equally qualified candidates DO apply, the man will be selected over the woman. I assume you are also aware of different affirmative action policies in their more or less radical forms in making your blanket statements that they are bad or unfair.

  7. Ah, yes!

    That “philosophy”of asking open-ended questions, providing no answers–but bundling suspicion–appealing to a questionable group of ad-hoc analytical principals, accompanying an appeal to exhaustion and incredulity for a leg and simply ending with the imperative to move herds en mass, amounting to a prosaic Marxian (European male) strain of sentiments.

    This is in no way a rejection of the role that women or non-Europeans can play in philosophy–nor is it based on any solidified position on what that role would be–just a statement of what type of thing philosophy is, and it’s the type of things that people who want to start assigning seats on the ship of Philosophy should understand.

    One of the most crucial forms of critical philosophy is the correction of error–or even the goodwill contention that one is correcting error. Thus there should be something more to dismissing a particular case as “mansplaining” than it being a male (which I am) explaining something to a female, such as a contention of a perception of error. In fact in the supposed scenario of a philosophy in equilibrium, men should be able to explain things to woman as often as women explain things to men.

    Surely there is something wrong with projecting the (proposed) aggregate and aggregate case than men are simply “mansplaining” onto a specific incident simply because in occurrence of what should be the most common act in critical thinking: making things plain (external to ourselves) to people who do not agree, has in common with chauvinism that it is male-to-female directed.

    It would be silly to say that the act of exchanging critical ideas plain to people of other schools of thought must be fully integrated with women, who cannot be explained to by men, i.e. exempt from a crucial interaction in that very group activity, simply because even in a perfect world males explaining to females is exhibited in a less equitable culture.

    Perhaps we should note how the essential act of critical thinking has in common with every strata of intellect: “Let me explain to you how you’re wrong”. While many, many of these occurrences are motivated by simple pride, yet our quest for correct correction goes on.

    All the same, you should realize the case of “it should just be different” would be rejected by a more empirically-inclined perspective based on the idea of letting the observed circumstances comprise the feedback about what and how things are. This is not necessarily a fatalism that only what is should be, but simply a robust check on human projected assumptions and expectations about the outside world.

    Also I can’t help but noticing that making the counter claim of 2 that anything is “inherently superior” is itself filled with enough contention. This is the science-social dualism of modern man: Science is measurement, but measurement is impolite society.

  8. What’s the evidence that the APA is anti-white and anti-male? Is affirmative action sufficient for being anti-white and anti-male (if such a policy does have that effect)? Surely a policy can have that effect without the people or organisations implementing it having racist and sexist beliefs (which, I believe, is what anti-white and anti-male beliefs would be).

    Other than that remark, these are my sentiments exactly.

    • Conservatarian, I’m inclined to agree with you about that. But how, then, should the leadership and policies of the APA be described? They promote and implement policies that are unfair and harmful to white males. They do this on the basis of beliefs that are either demonstrably false (e.g., that women are discriminated against in philosophy) or bizarre moral views (e.g., that diversity per se is a moral imperative). What terminology is better than ‘anti-white’ or ‘anti-male’ that captures the culpably destructive nature of this institution to the interests and well-being of whites and males?

    • Apasia:

      May I ask which studies indicate “gender exclusionary practices” in publishing? Even one will do. What “Harvard studies” about hiring
      biases do you refer to? You are misrepresenting areas of great controversy as if the science was settled.

      Thank you

    • I was referring to the whole process of socialization that would lead up to women not having the same mind-set about publishing as her male counterpart would. There are lots of studies on that. But nevermind that. Let’s just start with grad school. Women get less mentoring, less encouragement, less support in general in grad school. And if working as a VAP, say, women are expected to do more service and typically have more family duties than men in general. There are plenty of studies on why women have less publications than men, none of which come to the conclusion that women are just dumber. And Harvard — I was referring to their implicit bias tests in general and applying it to the hiring case (an obvious application, but there is an independent study about that as well).

    • Aspasia – It is simply false there are “lots of studies” showing women are at any disadvantage in publishing due to “exclusionary practices,” such as downgrading a manuscript because it has a woman’s name on it. Your other claims are familiar talking-points with no basis in empirical reality.

      It is bad faith to insinuate that in pointing out your exaggerations and distortions I am implying women are “just dumber.” Besides the fact that invalid arguments can have true conclusions, discrimination and inherent inferiority do not exhaust the range of plausible explanations for differential outcomes in academia.

      Concerning implicit bias tests, it is grossly false to say hiring is an “obvious application.” You will be surprised to learn the interpretation (including application to the real world–such as hiring situations) is considered extremely controversial by psychologists, with many taking the view that the impact is marginal, at best. But since implicit attitudes are actually more positive towards women than towards men, I wonder: will you reverse your claim about exclusionary practices, or will your confirmation bias dictate that you abandon this line of argument?

      Eagly & Mladinic, 1989
      Eagly et al., 1991
      Haddock & Zanna, 1994

  9. Women have an advantage in being hired in the sciences:

    And the same is obviously true in philosophy. Again, watch Leiter’s list of hires and note how many women are snatched up early in the process compared to how many are actually in graduate school. So what’s all this about not being mentored, encouraged, and supported? In general, philosophers aren’t very cuddly. I’ve never had a mentor and very little encouragement. But I have very low expectations when it comes to “professional” philosophy.

  10. Apasia,
    If you’re looking for some reason for thinking that white male domination of other kinds of people could be justified, I can think of one that seems pretty strong with respect to women, at least.

    The reason is just that normal women LIKE being dominated by men, in certain ways. Now, don’t take that the wrong way. The domination that most women like will often include some S&M-y stuff–as witness the immense popularity of ‘Fifty Shades’, for example–but it doesn’t have to be that way, and it’s not just about that. Most want to be dominated in ways that make them feel special, loved, understood. Or they want some optimal mix of that kind of domination and some rougher, more objectifying stuff in the bedroom–the Warm and the Hot, so to speak. Details. The basic point is that women respond very positively to male leadership. They like ‘confident’ men, ‘strong’ men, ‘powerful’ men, etc. And since sexuality is basic in human life, pervades pretty much all relations between the sexes, it’s not realistic to try to divide female preferences or values into those that are purely sexual and those that are just ‘social’ or ‘moral’ or ‘political’.

    If this is right, then, in a society where men give up dominance, women will be very unhappy–sexually unfulfilled, anxious, angry at men for not doing what women really want them to do. And that’s what we see. That’s what feminism 3.0 or whatever we’re at by now seems to be about. Otherwise it’s very puzzling that a society with the greatest sexual equality and freedom for women in the history of the species is also one with the very highest ratio of bitter, hysterical, nagging, scolding, whining, screaming, crying, self-mutilating, obese, childless and hate-filled proponents of sexual equality and freedom for women.

    Anyway, bottom line: it could well be that white men should dominate white women, if not other races, because everyone feels happier, sexier and more secure in that kind of arrangement. Or even if men don’t much care, we might have a reason to do it for the sake of the vast majority of women. (Yes, I’m very serious about this.)

    • “Anyway, bottom line: it could well be that white men should dominate white women, if not other races, because everyone feels happier, sexier and more secure in that kind of arrangement.”

      That is a good point, Jacques. For example, there is every reason to believe that the vast, beautiful, fecund African continent would have a standard of living much like Europe and North America, if it had been successfully subjugated and colonized by Europeans. Instead behold the internecine conflict, genocide, famine and squalor, (except in areas that were held longest by Europeans).

  11. Wow. You really just don’t get it. Do you? Men are not being dominated because they no longer have the advantage that they have enjoyed in having all of the jobs open to them, first. Second, you are looking only at certain sociological facts and not their deeper explanations like I asked you to do to begin with re: women wanting to be dominated — granting the ridiculous premise in the first place. Last, do you even know that the results of the implicit bias tests show that we are racist, and sexist still? The ignorance and simple mindedness on this blog is appalling.

    • “Second, you are looking only at certain sociological facts and not their deeper explanations like I asked you to do to begin with re: women wanting to be dominated — granting the ridiculous premise in the first place.”

      Sexual desire, dominance, submission is pretty limbic… DEEP and reptilian. A lot deeper than any “sociological fact.”

      “Last, do you even know that the results of the implicit bias tests show that we are racist, and sexist still”

      So what? Some of these biases are justified (blacks DO commit more crimes than whites, for example)

      Also, the social sciences are dominated by lefties (see Haidt) who want to find the results they are looking for, so you have to take these studies with a large grain of salt.

    • Did you not read the quote you started with? First, I am not a left wing liberal who wants to silence speech or publicly shame people. I earlier said I hate that shit. Second, I am suggesting the idea that we do not know the reasons behind the traits we currently see. It is extremely controversial to say that the traits we see all trace back to inherent natural tendencies. How is it possible for you to know that? Scientists who study this stuff as their profession don’t know that. That was the very issue being raised by the quote you started with, and your comment just seemed to completely miss that point. Again, the question isn’t whether there are differences between groups. As I also said, a simple sociological study shows that on average, for instance, women tend to assert their claims as questions, and men do not. We all know this. The question is what is the explanation for the differences that we see. And I did not give an answer to that in case you didn’t notice. This applies mutatis mutandis to your comment about implicit biases being justified as well.

    • Aspasia,

      Until the social ‘sciences’ clean up their act and take into their ranks more diverse ideological points of view, much of the work they do with relevance to politics is suspect to say the least.

      Speaking of implicit bias, see Jonathan Haidt’s survey of social psychologists: “82 percent admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative [job] candidate.”

      Now that is “explicit” bias, so one can imagine what the additional “implicit” bias amounts to.

      There is a vast consensus in animal and evolutionary studies, which is further removed from human social “science” and therefore less biased by political ideology, that most mammals and in particular those most closely related to us are, without question, characterized by male social dominance as well as sexual dominance, coercion and violence. For example, see this,

      Scientists do know that many of these roles and traits are nature or nurture. The same is true for my comments on male dominance in the work world. Sexual dimorphism and especially evolution of superior strength in males is the result of competition with other males for resources and females. It does not justify domination, but there it is.

      Where scientists do not know, or there is no consensus, for example with respect to the origin of certain kinds of sexual desires and experiences, all I can go on is my personal experience that domination and submission seems to reach down into the primal reptilian limbic brain; it is also pretty easy to explain from an evolutionary point of view, and from the behavior of other mammals.

      What is the explanation for blacks committing more crimes that would justify a bias against blacks? One reasonable theory offered by Shelby Steele and others is that blacks have been inculcated into a stance of victimization by leftists, and are taught they do not have to be responsible for their lives; that being successful is being “white” and that is bad; that single motherhood is fine; that the government will take care of them; that rap culture and the street are cooler than school; that it is ok to destroy property and attack cops in the face of perceived injustice usually without any evidence; that it is fine to loot in response to natural disasters, and I could go on.

    • Correction, the sentence should read “Scientists do know that many of these roles and traits are nature not nurture.”

  12. Neocon Cowboy,
    All of that sounds dead right. Thanks for putting it so concisely and clearly.

    Thanks for giving me one of those ‘Wow, just wow’ responses. You know you’re winning an argument with a Commie or Feminist when you start getting those. Care to say more about _why_ it’s ‘ridiculous’ to think that women find it very sexy and fun to be dominated and led by a confident man? Is there any good reason for doubting that women tend to be that way?

    Just in case any of you might be naifs, when on a date with a girl who starts giving you that stuff, remember that ‘Wow’ and ‘I can’t even’ are often signs of attraction. Whatever you do, don’t apologize or retract whatever it was that got her all indignant! Every woman loves a fascist, as Sylvia Plath said. So just plow on with your ‘fascist’ opinions in a cheerful, confident way; make it clear her moral indignation is cute, and you don’t take it too seriously, and 9 times out of 10 she’ll be asking you spank her bum and yank her hair in no time at all. Remember, even if you’re not into that you need to be at least a little ‘fashy’ to get her going. Nice guys finish last, chicks dig jerks, etc. You’ll both be happier for it!

    • NC–You seem like a smart decent dude (who knows a few things about ladies). I miss the earlier post of yours that got censored.

    • Hi Jacques,

      I enjoy your posts too, especially the last few in this thread. Are you the same Jacques who regularly posts over at the maverick desert-dweller’s blog?

      I didn’t know that post was up even for a little while. I got caught up in the moment, what can I say? I guess they had to censor it, given all the excellent publicity provided by Stanley, Kukla, et al.

  13. Sorry for a long post but I felt inspired to share… Fascinating example to consider. The “refugees” in Europe are raping and molesting girls on a crazy scale. Feminists rationalize it, lie, “victim blame”. They say anyone who cares about the suffering of all those victims are just nasty “racists” and “xenophobes”. The anti-rape people are the real problem!

    There was an amazing picture of a young white girl at some rally with a sign: “Will trade racists for rapists”.

    Another young thing lied to the police about the men who attacked her–said some were white Germans when it was all “refugees”. She later admitted the lie but _apologized_ to her molester, whinging about how she and he are both just victims of the wicked white man, i.e. her dad and the last nice white guy who blushingly asked for number.

    This is a little odd if feminists are against male domination. Don’t they at least have a problem with rape, then? God knows they’ll go ballisitic if a white Euro guy pinched a girl’s ass or Trump once said a girl was a 10, or called some Latino pinup girl “Miss Piggy”. (“She has a _name_ Donald!”)

    But the situation makes sense from a woman’s limbic perspective. She needs to submit to a man. When the men around her won’t dominate her she knows something is wrong. When other men come onto the scene who show strength and confidence, she instinctively falls in line. Happily, excitedly. “Will trade racists for rapists” means “Will trade weak nice passive men who treat me like one of the guys for strong nasty active men who treat me like a dog”. (Is it just for brevity that there’s no “I” in that little saying? In Story of O, written by a woman: “I loved that he was so powerful I was nothing”.)

    She’d prefer a third option maybe: a stern master and leader who can be gentle, who values her and comforts her (but not too much). But if her own men won’t put her in her place as a beloved servant and dependent, then she’d rather be a sex slave for other men who hate and despise her. She can’t rule, and doesn’t want to–can’t even make herself want to! All she can do here is to flash her alluring submissive soul and hope that men take the hint.

    So nice white egalitarian guys, if you want to protect your women, remember that the knight in shining armour is a _knight_ in _armour_ not some male feminist in sweatpants.

    You can be gentle and chivalrous and girls will be so grateful to you–but they’ll be wet and lovingly devoted for you only if you’re a trained killer with a big sharp broadsword, only if you cut the heads of enemies and infidels. Only if she thinks you can put her in her place, and the Saracen in his. Take a cue from other guys in other groups who haven’t been indoctrinated. If you can’t bring yourself to think “What would El Cid do?” at least think “What would Snoop Dogg do?” That’s way better than “What would Jeb Bush do?” Even the Saracens will start to like and respect you for the first time. They’re really not so bad when they know their place too.

    Our sexiest and most fertile girls will change their tune the minute we start to fight back for real. Once we become the fascists of their nightmares (and fantasies) or any reasonable facsimile thereof, feminists will be very happy to trade rapists for “racists”. The few feminist dead-enders don’t matter much. Once your Sylvia Plaths fall in line the Andrea Dworkins can go their own way (to genetic deletion). Or we could just convert to Islam and get it over with. Personally I’d prefer a more laidback, egalitarian kind of world, but it seems feminists won’t be happy til we go all medieval on their asses.

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)