Mailvox: defeating the purpose

The point of letting the woman win appears to have escaped Beth:

If it’s to be a woman, I say let it be Ann Coulter!!!!

While I would certainly be more enthusiastic about a Coulter presidency than most – although I have real qualms about her grasp of the militarily possible – that’s not exactly the idea I was putting forth in the column yesterday. The idea is to get this descent to the nadir over with as soon as possible, since rebuilding can’t begin until the self-destruction is complete.

I was astounded, however, to see that WND actually elected to print a positive letter to the editor about one of my columns:

Vox is right about women

I am glad to see that Vox Day has the courage to write what most others are afraid to say on equality. The main problem with equality is that American women have their priorities all wrong. Whenever we talk of equality, we talk about women having equal power, equal wealth and equal education. Those are not good measures of a person’s value in society.

Say there are two men, one of whom wields more power, has more wealth and is far more educated. Is he somehow better than the man who has less? We would say no because those things are not as important as stability, integrity and honesty.

So why is it that when women has less power, wealth and education than men, they suddenly becomes less valuable in society? It is because Americans became convinced that power, wealth and education were more important than faith and family.

Mr. Paris makes a good point, although I think a more salient one is that barring the immeasurable concept of equality before the eyes of God, it is an empirical fact that equality DOES NOT EXIST. There simply is no such thing, and attempting to base material human society upon an empirical fiction while simultaneously denying the existence of the immaterial is beyond irrational, it is downright crazy.

The ironic thing is that some people think it is crazy to order human society on the basis of a specific interaction of the supernatural with the natural, although this makes perfect sense if you believe in the supernatural. What does not make sense is to order human society on the basis of the immaterial with the material, when you believe the immaterial does not exist. I should very much like to hear an equalitarian rational materialist attempt to explain how his equalitarian ideology is not contradicted by his rational materialism. The garden variety atheist, one presumes, would simply retreat into irratheism.