Friday, 8 March 2013

Roger Scruton the Conservative philosopher evasive and prevaricating on feminism


CK to Roger Scruton
1 March 2013, 15:14
Subject: Re: What does the Conservative party believe any more?

May I know your views on feminism, Mr Scruton?  Do you think a Conservative can be a feminist?

CK to Roger Scruton
On 3 Mar 2013
May I take it that you have no intention of being drawn on this matter?    If so, I will proceed to point out at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/ that


  1. all emasculated British men are afraid of discusing feminism
  2. Western philosophy is not wise and is in fact vacuous as well as  a waste of the three years it would take the student to complete this pointless and fraudulent degree
  3. Western philosophers are milquetoasts afraid of criticising feminism
  4. there is no English Conservative philosopher worthy of that name if Roger Scruton is afraid of discussing feminism
  5. since Roger Scruton is not prepared to discuss feminism or answer my question of whether it is possible to be both a feminist and a Conservative, then there is no English Conservative philosopher worthy of that name
  6. since there is no English Philosopher worthy of that name that post should be declared vacant and applicants invited to fill that post


Roger Scruton to CK
3 March 2013, 17:55
Subject: Re: What does the Conservative party believe any more?

Lack of time, rather than evasiveness. Not a feminist, tend to take the same view as Christina Sommers,
RS

CK to Roger Scruton
3 March 2013, 19:10
Subject: Re: What does the Conservative party believe any more?

Thank you for drawing my attention to Christina Sommers.  I had not heard of her before.

You will find that Simon Sheppard states the anti-feminist case more boldly.
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=simon+sheppard


  1. Are you in favour of repealing the Equality Act 2010?
  2. Are you in favour of reintroducing fault in divorce to be reflected in the divorce settlement?
  3. To this end, are you in favour of making it compulsory to agree a marriage contract first before people can marry?
  4. Are you in favour of stigmatising never married mothers?
  5. Would you be prepared to say so publicly and unambiguously?



I guess the answer is a big fat NO.   

Scruton is probably too old and doddery to discuss these subjects now anyway, and has served only to bring Conservatism into disrepute by his dullness and dreariness and complete inability to take any kind of unambiguously moral position on anything at all except ask questions while being shy of answering them himself.  

Moral courage, your name sure ain't Roger Scruton!

If he is no longer fit for purpose and is fit only to be put out to grass, I am perfectly prepared to step into the breach.   I am culturally English if nothing else, and am quite prepared to define and articulate the principles of Conservatism.  I am also happy to say that no one can be both a feminist and a Conservative, unlike Roger Scruton, who is clearly too afraid to say so, having himself been feminised by decades of feminism and is afraid, probably of his wife and his female friends, relations and descendants.  A Conservative believes in respecting the institutions of marriage and feminism is all about trashing marriage.  Marriage is eugenic, feminism dysgenic.  Dygenic means that you will preside over the progressive degeneracy of your populace if this cancerous idea, which has now spread to all the major organs of state, is allowed to continue to exist unchecked and unchallenged.  

But Roger Scruton is silent.   

Too old and doddery, dreary and dull to dare to discuss feminism or answer my questions.  Roger Scruton: what is he for?

No comments: