Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
It isn't often that I get as angry as I was last night. But I've had a good night's sleep and calmed down, so now I might be able to write about the problem in what I hope will be a more or less objective manner. (Considering that Sean Kinsell has called me mellow, I now have a -- what's the word? -- reputation to uphold!)
Anyway, some recent intrusive personal attacks against Nick Packwood -- one of my oldest and dearest friends in the blogosphere -- are simply outrageous. Nick's post was highlighted earlier by Steven Malcolm Anderson in a comment, and linked by Glenn Reynolds yesterday, and it's important enough that I think a little background is in order.
It seems that a jealous blogger (apparently a licensed clinical psychologist) tried repeatedly to glom onto Nick's site and was banned from commenting. For that, she's launched into a major snit fit, and is questioning Nick's fitness to teach. (For the details of the dispute, I suggest reading this fairly neutral account from a Canadian blogger originally loathe to take sides, but who ended up siding with Nick.)
Nick, it seems, committed two major crimes in the eyes of this psychologist:
1. He posted non-pornographic pictures of highly attractive women (this was deemed "exploitation" by the offended psychologist); and
2. He will not grant the psychologist a free forum to harrass him in his own blog, nor will he help promote her blog.
Ghost of a flea is a blog written and published at my time and expense for reasons I am not certain I can properly articulate. Most of the time it is a labour of love but it remains labour nonetheless. If you spot something here and choose to write about it please have the common courtesy to offer a link in recognition of my work. If you are an argumentative soul regularly outraged at my ramblings I suggest you vent your feelings at your own expense elsewhere. And if you find all this free ice cream is not to your taste please feel free to read something else or, better yet, write something more interesting. I am certain the world will beat a path to your door and bask in your fascinating thoughts. When I shut down the Flea it will give people something else to read and if you are especially lucky you can pay for the bandwidth they will use to tell you how boring your work is.
I don't blame Nick for entertaining thoughts of quitting, because this is all so damnably unfair. In the year and a half I've read his blog, I've never seen him show malice towards anyone. I've characterized his blog as an "eclectic cultural cuisinart," because it features all the following and more: humor, art, fashion, politics, history, archaeology, the weird, the offbeat, and yes, pictures of incredibly sexy women. Nick is always cheerful, clever, witty. No one could be less deserving of the despicable kind of attack to which he's being subjected. Questioning the employment fitness of a blogger (while I've seen it before), is just so low that it ought to be outside the bounds of civilized conduct among bloggers. I know that there aren't any enforceable rules in this game, but as I've said before, bloggers have every right to recognize that certain things are just plain wrong. I have condemned incivility, even though I am not perfect and have been rude myself. But trying to hurt a blogger's employment -- that is so far beyond name calling and rudeness that it ought to be unthinkable.
My admittedly low standards are offended.
As to Nick's "crime," well, there's no question that the women are extremely attractive. I have admitted that I am bisexual, but I think if I were 100% homosexual I'd still be turned on. That's how good they are. I have never asked Nick whether he's turned on personally by the pictures, because it's none of my business. But whether he is or not, whether I am or not, is that the point? The women are incredibly beautiful. They're as much art as any classical works of art depicting the female anatomy, and while they're hot and slick by modern American standards, they're not even nude, much less pornographic!
So come on! Unless you're an Iranian mullah, what exactly is the problem? The more I thought it over, the more I suspected that the primary complainant is more along the lines of a troll than anything else. And by definition there's no pleasing a troll, because they seek attention, not fairness on the merits.
We will not win a war against fanatical puritanism by pandering to the puritans in our own ranks. There is plenty we have to say that may offend one another. That is the first and last prerequisite of the liberty for which we fight. If we are not to be intimidated by the men who would saw off ours heads we cannot allow our purpose and our policy to be dictated by those who are afraid of their own shadows. You may eat granola, watch improving documentaries and wag your finger as you wish. I would rather have champagne for breakfast. We shall see who lives longer and who dies happier.
The Winston Review is a Flea-feature intended to offer spirited, uplifting alternatives to the defeatists and apologists of the mainstream media. This week's Review is dedicated to smoking, drinking and loving too much (as if that last were even possible). God bless the spirit of Winston Churchill.
God bless Nick, too.
I see this as an attack on the beautiful by the ugly. The dark side is that when ugliness attacks beauty, the ugliness is made uglier. The bright side is that the beautiful is made more beautiful.
So I think Nick will win.
As he should.
posted by Eric on 11.28.04 at 12:02 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1766
Comments
This is one of the most important things you have ever written. I absolutely _must_ comment on this, even though there is little that I can add to what you have written here.
I have one thing to say: We are often told to value "inner", spiritual, beauty. I agree. And I say that one is spiritually beautiful to the exact degree that one can perceive and appreciate the value of physical beauty. And, conversely, one is spiritually ugly to the exact degree that one denigrates and devalues physical beauty.
Just as a certain convergence of air vibrations form what we call "music", so it is that a certain convergence of physical, especially facial, features form what we call "beauty". Physical pulchritude is music made flesh. And, just as music both expresses and arouses in us the profoundest emotions, so does the pulchritude of the body express and arouse, both in the the beholder and in the beheld, certain profound qualities of soul.
I am proud to be preoccupied and obsessed with sex. It is _not_ for drooling morons, but only for those who can appreciate beauty. Here are my thoughts on the deliberately ugly anti-concept "sex object".
The great Eric Scheie profoundly observed:
"I see this as an attack on the beautiful by the ugly. The dark side is that when ugliness attacks beauty, the ugliness is made uglier. The bright side is that the beautiful is made more beautiful."
No truer words were ever spoken.
I must paraphrase another profound statement, a statement by a conservative which I often think about, which I here translate it into this context:
The duel between Beauty and Ugliness is the most important in the world. All other struggles are the same struggle reproduced on other levels.
You just reminded me of a comment a friend of mine made when he observed how sexy one woman was. Someone protested that he was gay. His reply? "I'm gay, I'm not blind."
I'm also reminded of a curmudgeonly Usenet poster whom I happened to know in person; many people tried to terminate his employment because of his posts (since he was a computer programmer, he would often post while his programs compiled, which they took as a sign of posting on his employer's dime.) When he died, the amount of sheer vitriol that those people expended on what was basically his online funeral stripped me of all illusions regarding basic civility. Some people just don't have it, and never will.
Don't ever make the assumption that people will behave in a rational or civil manner. While that is true for the VAST majority, it only takes one exception to poison the well.
Funny. My non-riposte to the right-wing "feminist" who attacked me attracted support from someone who called me "bitchy". Well, I am proud to be bitchy in the face of the ugly and the stupid. Churchill had something to say on that subject. At least I may wake up tomorrow morning in a better mood.
I'm possibly one of the most straight women on the planet Earth. It's not a choice. When entering a room, I'll notice the men first (even homely men) and only after a few minutes -- or if one of them says something interesting -- will I realize there's women present. (I used to feel bad about this until, talking to my sister and female cousins, I realized they all have this problem. Perhaps it's genetic, perhaps it's a family-culture thing.) However, I would be lying if I said I didn't derive much enjoyment from looking at two of my female friends who are absolutely gorgeous. When they fail to dress themselves properly (rare) and we meet, I always feel a little let down and realize I was looking forward to the show.
It is, btw, in this spirit that I thanked Eric for posting Sean's picture. I like looking at beautiful people. I've never understood people of either gender who don't. The whole thing about "sex objects" seems to me a mean-spirited fruit of envy. People who feel ugly resent people who are beautiful.
Because, what is there of "sex" in admiring a beautiful human form? Beauty doesn't mean sex. Beyond being extremely married, I remember a really bad time in my life when I spent grocery money on a book of photos of classical statues because I wanted to look at them. Looking at them made me feel better. And, trust me here guys, pretty as those hunks of stone were (or hunks in stone) I had no intention of sleeping with any of them, nor even the human version could it be conjured.
Why is it we can admire people for their mind, their personality, their independence, but feel churlish in admiring them for their body? Is one quality more inate than the other? Less worhty of credit? I beg to differ. As I near middle age, I've continued working on my mind, but let my body go a bit (around the waist ) People presume to praise me for my mind all the time. (Crazy people on mescaline praise me for my body, too, but that's something else.) Why should someone who chose to do the opposite not be equaly praised?
I want Nick to win this one. This is not feminism, it's just envy masquerading as high-minded altruism.
Done ranting.
P.
Portia · November 29, 2004 07:21 PM
Portia:
Excellent. Thank you!
YOU are STRAIGHT, i.e., an androsexual. Since I'm a gynosexual, I can never be straight.
You are right that an appreciation of beauty need not be sexual in nature. E.g., I can appreciate the manliness of a man like Eric Scheie without being at all drawn to him sexually.
Sex, by which I mean the whole spectrum from the first stirrings of longing all the way to full bodily consummation in the embrace, is the deepest internalization of one's response to a certain type of pulchritude in the male or in the female.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
This is one of the most important things you have ever written. I absolutely _must_ comment on this, even though there is little that I can add to what you have written here.
I have one thing to say: We are often told to value "inner", spiritual, beauty. I agree. And I say that one is spiritually beautiful to the exact degree that one can perceive and appreciate the value of physical beauty. And, conversely, one is spiritually ugly to the exact degree that one denigrates and devalues physical beauty.
Just as a certain convergence of air vibrations form what we call "music", so it is that a certain convergence of physical, especially facial, features form what we call "beauty". Physical pulchritude is music made flesh. And, just as music both expresses and arouses in us the profoundest emotions, so does the pulchritude of the body express and arouse, both in the the beholder and in the beheld, certain profound qualities of soul.
I am proud to be preoccupied and obsessed with sex. It is _not_ for drooling morons, but only for those who can appreciate beauty. Here are my thoughts on the deliberately ugly anti-concept "sex object".
The great Eric Scheie profoundly observed:
"I see this as an attack on the beautiful by the ugly. The dark side is that when ugliness attacks beauty, the ugliness is made uglier. The bright side is that the beautiful is made more beautiful."
No truer words were ever spoken.
I must paraphrase another profound statement, a statement by a conservative which I often think about, which I here translate it into this context:
The duel between Beauty and Ugliness is the most important in the world. All other struggles are the same struggle reproduced on other levels.
Up With Beauty!