Censorship at Culture11

Following is Hermione Gray's post "In Defense of the Hook-up Culture" in its entirety. Ms. Gray's post was cut from LadyBlog due to its supposed "moral stupidity" though I would take moral stupidity over bad censorship practice any day of the week.

By Hermione Gray

Poor Charles Blow. It must be hard to produce a fresh and entertaining column for the New York Times on a regular basis, even if he does only publish on alternate Saturdays. Today’s column critiques the Millennial practice of “hooking up” and the supposed death of traditional dating, which has, of course, been done to death. Blow offers nothing new, but to briefly recap: “Girls get tired of hooking up because they want it to lead to a relationship (the guys don’t), and, as they get older, they start to realize that it’s not a good way to find a spouse.”

Critics of hooking up rely heavily on the unsupported myth that women are more interested lasting romantic attachments than are men. But according to a 2003 survey of 12,000 men and women, Nearly 66% of men, compared with 51% of women agree with the statement, ‘It is better to get married than go through life single’. Moreover, women file two-thirds of all divorce suits, although men are only slightly more likely to be accused of infidelity and allegations of physical abuse are rare.

If most people of both genders want to be married eventually, why has dating given way to hooking up? I think that the so-called “hook-up culture” is the natural result of a cultural shift that has permitted men and women to form more and deeper platonic attachments: as fellow students, as work colleagues, as good friends and confidants. The ritual of traditional dating – in which you took an attractive near-stranger to dinner in order to get to know her better – was popular in an era of gender-segregated colleges and workplaces, which offered few other opportunities for meaningful interaction between the sexes.

Blow cites a 2006 academic paper with findings that reflect my own experience: people usually hook up with friends rather than strangers. While it seems true that men experience, on average, fewer downsides to purely casual sex, the hook-up culture may encourage more rather than less responsibility. After all, you will see a friend again, especially if you have many mutual friends. While sex between strangers does happen, I’d argue that today’s paradigmatic hook-up partners know each other better than a typical 1950s couple on a third date at the drive-in movie theater, and are more likely to be on speaking terms a few months later. A finding from the Centers for Disease Control perhaps supports this view: today’s young people are having less sex than their elders despite the hook-up dynamic.

It’s ironic that the rebellious Boomer generation has reached the stage of life at which they can be found bleating, like their elders, “Social change is ba-a-d!” But love, as Richard Curtis reminds us, remains all around, whatever its complex and evolving forms.

UPDATE: This is from one of my comments on the original thread, responding to Joe Carter...

And I guess, in the end, I simply feel that sometimes even more can be gained from a piece like this than lost. After all, sometimes the most valuable argument is the one we have to argue against. I, for one, find the “hook-up” culture morally shallow and just overall very sad. I think leaving the post up and commenting on it would have been a valuable contribution to this site, if only to allow those of us who disagreed completely with it to be able to air our thoughts and make our case.

Larison defends Dreher

Daniel Larison defends Rod Dreher's latest column, in which Dreher (rightly) states:

Today, the greatest threats to conservative interests come not from the Soviet Union or high taxes, but from too much individual freedom. Look around you: Americans have been poor stewards of our economic liberty, owing to cultural values that celebrate unfettered materialism. Our families and communities have fragmented, in part because we have embraced an ethic of extreme individualism. Climate change and a peak in oil production threaten our future because we have been irresponsible caretakers of the natural world and its resources. At best, the religious right stood ineffectively against these trends. At worst, we preached them, mistaking consumerism for conservatism.

Larison agrees, and chastises several of Dreher's critics.

We have been living in a culture that encourages the deferral of responsibility, and to one degree or another most of us have participated in it, and this is inconsistent with sustaining ordered liberty. Those who have not participated in this culture, or have done so only a little, should be the least offended by what Rod is saying, because his words are not directed at them. To the extent that we are all paying the price for an era of profligacy, what he says is relevant for all of us.

I have most certainly taken part in this culture of excess. We are so constantly battered by materialism, consumerism, the conservatism of "greed is good" rather than "save your damn money" that it is almost impossible not to succumb, occasionally, to this irresponsible way of life.

We are promised the moon--it's as easy as swiping your Master Card. And where have the conservatives been in all of this? Keep spending! Don't let those mean old terrorists get you down, just go to Target and buy whatever you want.

That's the American Dream, isn't it? You get whatever you want, no matter what. Right?

Infrastructure pt. 2

This is what I like about the Crunchy Con movement and the New Urbanist movement, and how I see them becoming entangled. They both evoke the spirit of neotraditionalism. I just think change should emerge in a grassroots, community-first way, and that some of the most basic ways I believe we can change this culture of consumption is through an investment in our infrastructure, building cities that are once again friendly to the pedestrian and the neighborhood, rather than commuter islands built for the benefit of the oil and auto and construction industries. Let's create communities we can once again be a part of. That's real America--and it's an idea, not a geographic location, or the arbitrary colors red or blue on a map.

From my article on Consumerism and the Crunchy Cons...

Humanitarian intervention and wisdom in foreign policy

So I have never been very shy about shifting my political opinions as I evolve intellectually. I have juggled them quite a lot as new evidence or better arguments comes to light. I try to think of things deeply, without the fetters of ideology to too tightly constrain my thoughts(though this is not entirely possible all the time, one can certainly be less ideologically influenced if one tries).

The problem, all too often, is that good ideas are quashed by the ideologues. Yes, at times one needs to stick to ones principles. At other times, though, one needs to reevaluate them.

For instance, I once identified as a neo-con. Perhaps I jumped into those shoes too quickly. I was upset with the Left's willingness to abandon the Iraqi people, and supported finishing what we started, even though I was vehemently opposed to the invasion in the first place. I also supported military action for humanitarian purposes. Somehow, I guess, this made me think I was a neocnservative.

I'm frustrated to no end by the Iraq War, however. We are entangled worse than ever before in the quagmire of mid-east politics. We have emboldened and strengthened Iran. We are in a worse position to help Israel. The only bright light is that things are improving, that Saddam Hussein is dead and gone, and that we might be out of there soon, and while I don't consider it a victory, at least we won't have left Iraq in the throes of all-out civil war and genocide.

One unintended consequence of the war has been the way it has hamstrung any efforts the US may have made to intervene in crises of humanitarian nature that are fast approaching or may already have become genocidal. Like Darfur.

For a glimpse as to my meaning, check out these photographs of the current strife in the Congo. Here is a place that really does need outside help to stabilize. Well, between the disaster of this economy and the Iraq war, the twin failures of nation building and supply side economics, of democracy by force and trickle down economics, we have no ability to effectively intervene. Nor can we even flex the tiniest of muscles when an ally like Georgia is attacked by the Russians.

We have effectively out-sourced our industrial and manufacturing capabilities, and if the auto industry fails then we can kiss this era good-bye. I'm not a fan of bailouts, but come on people! Who will make our tanks? The Chinese? Who will bankroll them? The Chinese? What if we need them to fight the bloody Chinese? I doubt this is in the cards, but who knows?

I think along with the bankrupting of our financial system by greed and foolishness and ego; the off shoring of our manufacturing base; and the massive growth of the Federal government, defense spending, entitlements, etc. we also have seen a shift away from the American Tradition--that being an amalgamation of individualism, hard work, family, community, honest government, fiscal sanity, and moderation. Remember our grandparents? They were frugal--not perfect by any means--but they understand modesty, and simplicity, and hard work. My grandfather was a carpenter, built his own house, and along with my grandmother raised eight children, all of whom have been absurdly successful both in their marriages and in their careers.

What has happened to this generation? Coaxed along by a Government awash in debt, a capitalism of hyper-wealth, of derivatives and subprimes and a class of investment bankers who produce no goods or services, nothing tangible, but only profit endlessly through a series of magic tricks, the best and last being that magical house of cards we see crashing down around us now...

Can we be blamed for our high credit card debt? Our shallowness? Our apathy or materialism? These are the values that have been laid at our feet. Even our most prominent ministers, those heretical televangelists, have given up the old message of simplicity, of casting off our worldly possessions--the whole "first shall be last, and the last shall be first" has become an antiquated notion, I suppose.

And thus we find ourselves, a country wobbling. We are uncertain of our values. Our families have become disjointed, fractured--our divorce rate is higher than ever before--yet we focus on the subject of gay marriage, plucking that tiny speck of dust we see in our neighbors eye out before we see to the log in our own.

So I no longer consider myself a neoconservative. I started this blog because I think in the end, I am an independent--conservative to a point, and liberal to a point, and always searching for more knowledge, more truth, more reason and compassion and grace. There is not a sure answer anywhere. As Freddie said yesterday "I have a deep aversion to those who believe in one truth or one mechanism to advance human kind."

Indeed. And that's a good thing.