The Center for Literate Values ~ Defending the Western tradition of responsible individualism, disciplined freedom, tasteful creativity, common sense, and faith in a supreme moral being.
P R A E S I D I U M
A Common-Sense Journal of Literary and Cultural Analysis
10.2 (Spring 2010)
courtesy of artrenewal.org
The Hemlock Society
They had met for drinks every Friday night at Nesterly’s house since the abortive party to christen Laslo’s new book. The whole English Department was supposed to have turned out in a gesture of collegiality… and three-quarters had mysteriously been claimed by failing health, eleventh-hour arrivals of long-lost college chum, flat tires, leaky water heaters, and alien abductions. The chair had profusely apologized on their behalf to Laslo, then backed her own way out of the front door as if having fulfilled her duty at a distant cousin’s wake. That had left Nesterly and McCaftery–and, of course, the newly published author. They had drunk rather too much of the wine that Nesterly had laid by optimistically for a larger crowd (as the department’s senior professor, he had considered it his honor and pleasure–his own words to Lslo–to arrange a festive soirée for their fresh-minted celebrity). Laslo had thereupon been plied with coffee until he could safely navigate his way home to wife and babes. The other tow had sat brooding in a dark room till dawn about the sad times, McCaftery having just received tenure after a very bitter struggle, Nesterly having given up his favorite course the past year to lure the bright young Laslo on board only to see the chair re-assign the class to her fair-haired darling… and so rose another sun.
They didn’t meet the next week; but the week after, McCaftery took Laslo in tow and they descended upon Nesterly unannounced. (Mrs. Laslo was entirely amenable, as long as her Frank didn’t return half-soused again. She was aware that some degree of covert alliance was essential to his survival.) Nesterly, explained McCatery in the lady’s presence. had long since packed all his kids off to college (institutions as far from this one as planes would fly), and his wife had died of cancer just last year, leaving him alone in a very large house. So the mission received charitable approval, and actually turned out quite well. It became a routine. Fridays not claimed by visiting in-laws or kindergarten Christmas songfests or the Thanksgiving holidays belonged to the Gang of Three, as Mrs. Laslo gamely dubbed them
To themselves, however–due to the recurrent content of their discussions as well as their isolation in campus politics–they were The Hemlock Society.
“Women have really not made the world better since taking it over,” remarked McCaftery one March evening, holding his Porter up to the equinoctial dusk. (Spring Break had preceded Spring this year, as it increasingly did, so The Society was re-uniting after the Laslo family’s excursion to outer Missouri.) “When you think about it, the old days weren’t really so bad. On any given day, there were no Vandals or Visigoths killing you, burning your fields, and enslaving your children. In any given month or year, even. Maybe once every fourth or fifth year, a band of murders would sweep through. And they would sweep. Give it a day, and they were gone. All you had to do was be alert for that one day. When you saw smoke on the horizon or heard your neighbor blowing his horn, you and all the women and kids and old folks would converge upon the pre-arranged place–a cave, a forest. Maybe a monastery. And the idiots on horseback would sweep through and leave you in peace for another five years. They’d burn your crops, but… but you would have set some aside for a rainy day, and some they would miss in their haste to find women and more horses. Five more years of peace. Think of it! Which of us now knows even five days of peace? Every day you go on campus, you’re wondering what urgent meeting will be called in the late afternoon, when you’re worn out and have papers to grade. A new committee for a new self-study to compile new data for re-accreditation? More time, more paperwork, more jargon, more bureaucracy, more taxes… we’re drowning in it all. Give me my hoe, the sun, a little rain, and my bonnie lassie in an apron and clogs/”
The image was especially poignant, since McCaftery was the only one of the three never to have been married.
“How sexist!” laughed Laslo youthfully, diffusing the poignancy without, perhaps, having seen its ghostly outline,
“No! Not at all! Why? Because of the apron–because she stays at home? But I’m out there with the hoe! At times, all of us have a hoe–she and the kids, too.”
“I do hope you don’t speak of hoes in your classes, Mac,” mumbled Nesterly with genuine rue. “Popular culture is the only variety left. Honestly, I don’t think they know what a hoe is, other than what they think it is.”
“And the eldest kid does the milking,” pursued McCaftery, utterly ignoring the interruption, “and… well, you see, roles are apportioned according to physical ability and… and degree of training required.”
“But in the training lies the sexism, a feminist would say,” responded Laslo sympathetically.
“If by that you mean that all children cannot be taught all things… well, duh, as a student would say!” McCaftery’s head perhaps cocked vindictively in Nesterly’s direction, though the shadows were growing thick about them all. “Women would tend to be taught less arduous things, both because they tend to be smaller physically and because they would be unavailable for hard labor when pregnant or nursing.”
“I’m just saying what others would say. I think ‘duh’ just about sums up the depth of the needed logical rebuttal.”
Others! We wouldn’t be having this conversation in the presence of others, as we all know damn well. That’s the whole point. A thousand years ago, all I needed to do to be happy was watch for smoke and keep a cave ready. Now I have to watch every word that somes out of my mouth. It’s not the Vandals on the eastern horizon–it’s Siberia hiding under every desk. Reading your e-mail…”
“But the mention of Siberia is apt,” observed Nessterly. rousing himself from deep cushions. “Surely you’re not saying that Stalinism was a ground-breaking feminist project.”
“Stalinism? No, of course not. But… but maybe so, in a way. You remember the Cold War better than I do. And even I distinctly recall the image of the matrushka in iron overalls, pulling in the traces right alongside the men. The Soviet model was to get women out of the bourgeois household and give them lunch pails with the rest of the kulaks. A worker is a worker. All very insect-like. A bureaucrat’s dream… a sane adult’s nightmare.”
“But I think what Nesterly is saying,” protested Laslo, “is that there’s a clear absence of female influence at the top of the governments you’re describing–or at least the progressive ones that have ruled the world lately. Aside from us–unless you mean only us… well, where was the Soviet Catherne the Great? Who’s the Chinese Boadicea?”
“They had them, you know,” mused Nesterly, declining the offered support. “The Soviets. Maybe not in the upper echelons… but there was many a Red Fury fighting among the partisans against the Nazis.”
“I take Laslo’s point, all the same,” conceded McCaftery grandly. “The Rule of Women was at first merely an idea… or an ideology. It was rule by fantasy. No cheating, no broken bones or bloody noses, everybody getting a trophy. The ideology of the soccer mom. Marx could have been a soccer mom, with his condescending vision of fair play. And the Rule of Women always brings out the worst in men, of course–it brings the most brutal men to the fore–because that’s exactly what happened when you put everyone on his honor to play fair, to work his hardest and not notice the sluggards all around him. The decent, gullible few get shot in the back right off. Then the assassins self-select, with the cowards running for holes in the woodwork and the bloodthirsty psychopaths dancing on corpses. No, it’s nothing like what the soccer moms had in mind… but if the soccer moms hadn’t gone meddling with the rules to begin with, the playground bullies wouldn’t have ended up in control.”
“True enough,” nodded Nesterly (a benign shadow in the room’s gloaming). “But still… haven’t you just made a case that we are not in the historical Rule of Women? Hasn’t the effeminacy of silly, irrational idealism led immediately to its own demise in your scheme? What succeeds it should be called the rule of something else. Of bullies, maybe. Of male degenerates. Even if effeminacy opened the door to them–as it certainly did among the French to the fascists–it’s a bit hard to call anything about the next stage either feminine or effeminate.”
McCaftery dinged his glass deliberately, reflectively, and musically with a fingernail during an otherwise silent spell. The fading note might have been a racing thought’s cloud of dust.
“I don’t think… I don’t think I’ve sounded the bottom of the matter yet. At the very least, I would insist on the boyishness of our ‘playground bully’ formula. The fascists were boys, first and foremost–as were the Bolsheviks. The Boy Scouts had their origin in the vision of a fascist fellow-traveler–did you know that? An English chap who drilled his little survivalists on Jersey or Anglesey… one of those Channel isles. Such undertakings are definitively not feminine… but they are also definitively boyish, not manly. Run away from home into the woods, dig some trenches, pitch some tents, build a fire, sing some songs, snuggle up in a sleeping bag next to the other boys… the whole thing is so aggressively counter-maternal that it couldn’t exist without maternity. There would be no playground bullies if there were no doting mothers running their fingers through the blond hair in the principal’s office, pleading, ‘He’s just a boy!'”
“Yes, yes. I’ve conceded that, Mac. You’ve provided a very interesting and credible psychological pedigree. But are you really saying anything other than that the male and the female are eternally locked in a pendulum effect–maybe the double helix of eternal generation? This Rule of Women thing…”
“I’m not getting it out very clearly, as I said. My point is something on the order of… that an epochal bump has been dealt to the pendulum. It still swings, but it can no longer keep time, because it’s circling wildly without any periodicity.”
“Turning and turning in a widening gyre,” murmured Laslo.
“For proof whereof, consider the next stage. Oh, the bullies didn’t last very long, historically. They never do. They killed tens of millions of people–Hitler, Stalin, Mao–but they were doomed to fail, because most of the scouts on the camping trip are good for little more than a dismembered partridge or a gutted fish. They really don’t want to torture a vagrant over an open fire. Boys are not psychopaths, for the most part. And so things swung back in the other direction, to be sure. The boys came home with their new survival skills–fires and knots and snares–and it was the feminine that brought them back into line.”
“Of course it was! That’s as it should be.”
“But no! I shouldn’t have said back into line. For this was something new under the sun. Their new skills had not been put to use before, by the soccer mom. When she had seen the rocket parts lying a out her son’s bedroom, she simply stacke3d them neatly and then put away th4e folded clothes. She had no idea what she was looking at. Now we have the age of the super-nanny, who knows exactly what boys get up to. Little Adolf is in time-out for the rest of eternity… but his V-2 rockets have possibilities. Little Werner von Braun can send them to the Moon. And from there we can survey every earthly playground constantly, making sure that nobody like Adolf is ever again allowed to trip the near-sighted kid from behind during recess. We can maternally bully the world’s Hitlers.”
Now you’ve really lost me!”
“Take heart, young Laslo. The oracle always speaks in riddles. To the extent that Max is saying anything at all–and sometimes he just falls in love with metaphor, frustrated bachelor that he is–he means that the Cold War was a kind of hoax. We’ve had this conversation before, he and I. The gist of it is that the real struggle of the twentieth century was over how best to get absolute and lasting control over the masses. The fascists sought to do so with raw power, the communists with a rhetoric of fraternity wherein raw power was supposed to be just a temporary expedient… and then the capitalists… ah, what shall we say of them?”
I honestly don’t remember having this conversation, maestro mio.”
“Don’t you, now? Well, perhaps a distillation of several. But if you’re to sustain this metaphor of the nanny, then you have to find a place for capitalism in the discussion. For the marketplace is the ultimate proving ground for stimuli–for gathering minute information about stimulated responses. Hitler in time-out, you said–I like that! The time-out is a classic application of behaviorism, you know. That’s what all these nanny shows have in common: stop yelling at the kids like der Führer, and negotiate with them through what they really want. Capitalism has taught us how to play the masses like a set of drums. Once we’ve given them all credit cards, cell phones, high-speed Internet, and the rest, we can elicit from them whatever behavior we like. We can actually put ideas into their heads which they will mistake for their own.”
“Which is the action of a nanny–not a soccer mom. The feminine influence suddenly possessed of a plan, an agenda. But where you’re wrong–or where you’re misquoting me, perhaps–is in implying that capitalism has supplied that agenda. Capitalism has no agenda at all: on a global scale, it is chaotic. It enriches the individual without any attention to the individual’s moral duties or his relation to the community. When the frightened and confused soccer mom was called into the principal’s office to answer for her golden-haired bully, she realized that she needed Super-Nanny. And it was the nanny who appropriated capitalism to advance her program of behavioral engineering.”
“So… was capitalism manly before the nanny latched onto it?” probed Laslo timidly.
Nesterly guffawed. The smack of palm striking thigh resounded in the gray room.
“‘Twere to consider too closely to consider so, Lord Hamlet!”
Yet McCaftery took the question very seriously. “I… don’t know. Certainly there is nothing more manly than building a wheel or a cart and bartering it for shoes of a new rug. Manufacture is manly. The joy of work is manly, and pride in that work–the willingness to make good on any failure, to stand behind the product–is the mark of a man. But seducing people into buying what they don’t need is not manly. Deception, double-talk, bait-and-switch… all characteristic of sickly, anemic specimens. And from the ‘demand’ side of the equation, craving for more finery and frippery is not manly. Men are not needy people. They always get by with what they have.”
“And the others, then,” pursued Laslo, “–the needy, the acquisitive, the seducers–are they women?”
“Reductio ad absurdum,” mumbled Nesterly good-naturedly.
“They are… they are children, of course. The needy are children. The acquisitive. You can vouch for that better than I… right?”
“And the seducers… well, let’s not mince words, among us three. We’re on Death Row, anyway–bring on the hemlock! Yes, I believe that seduction is essentially a female talent. You know the power that women have over us, have always had–and they do, too. When American capitalism shifted from a kind of frontier trading-post mentality to the hard sell of advertising, American life shifted critically from the masculine to the feminine. From Samson to Delilah. That’s precisely why the nannyism latent in Marxist ideology–not so latent, either–was able to slip its hand into our glove so readily after the outright bullies were all caged. Communists have always used the news media to sell their worldview. Capitalism was simply the logical extension of propaganda into people’s very private behavior–their consumerist activity. And when you come right down to it, a guy who uses his laptop for Internet porn and buys scalped tickets to the Superbowl on e-Bay is probably at least as likely to go along with Nazi-style eugenics or Chinese-style population control as someone who is merely fed these lines over and over in the weekly Party bulletin. The latter is bound to know that he’s being brainwashed, if he has a brain of any size. The former is actually living the life of here and now, of instant gratification. He’s not an ideologue, a utopian fanatic–nothing farther from it. But the nanny speaks in the stimulus-response terms that make complete sense to him.”
“Q.E.D. The Rule of Women.”
“But it sounds as though you’re saying,” p4ersisted Laslo, “that the only manly scenario is one that existed on the frontier, in the days of the plow.”
“But those were most of our days, Frank. As a species, I mean. That’s what feminists can’t forgive us. For thousands of years, women depended upon their men–and men didn’t let them down, for the most part. But when you could make a better living writing jingles to sell soap than shoeing horses, then women didn’t need men any longer… they actually did that sort of thing better than most men do… and men inevitably began to become more like women.”
“So… so there’s no future in being a man, in your view? Not unless it’s minding a lonely space station or blazing trails on Mars?”
“Indirectly, you’ve put your finger on the critical factor. Technology is the ultimate seductress–it makes us want everything quicker and easier, and takes away our power of self-reliance. It unsexes us men. Why do you think men always call their steam engines, locomotives, cars, planes, and guided missiles ‘she’? Or ‘it’… but never, never ‘he’? Why did the fly-guys paint Jean Harlow on the side of their B-24’s? Why Enola Gay? Why is it ‘motherboard’ instead of ‘fatherboard”? Technology has castrated us, and we will never get our manhood back. No, Frank–the lonely being in the space station will be a robot. Our future, ultimately, is to be neither man nor woman, but a bio-cybernetically fused eunuch. If these little gray creatures with large eyes and long fingers are really visiting us from other planets–“
“Oh, God! Not this again!”
“–then they are assuredly non sexual, because sexual beings would have to raise several new generations while in transit. They are almost certainly robotic, or semi-robotic. And that’s what we’ll become. Completely logical. Perfectly manageable. Replicable in the lab if more are needed. Recyclable for spare parts of too abundant. Have you noticed how recent feminism has already opted emphatically for lesbianism? It’s the beginning of the end of the sex drive–the beginning of the beginning for the Rule of Robots. For sex really is pretty inconvenient. It makes you dependent upon others–or, from a woman’s point of view, it makes others dependent upon you. And the feminist is tired of needing, of being needed. She wants autonomy–complete independence of man’s strength and of his needs. The ultimate in autonomy, as we all know, is the robot, once it has all the necessary programming.”
“The great irony of this discussion,” heaved Nesterly from his deep, dark cushions, instantly profound in his resonant monotone, “is that women are also being destroyed in Mac’s Rule of Women–as he has just demonstrated. I have loved the feminine in many forms throughout my life. You will have noticed that I have reproductions of Vermeer’s and Renoir’s young women all about my home. I love my daughters as my soul. My wife was the constant inspiration of everything good I ever wrote, and probably everything good I ever did. The insinuations of the past several decades–unrelenting, vulgar, stupid insinuations–that we male professors have somehow been engaged in a conspiracy to hold women back since the days of… oh, say the days of Moses… have nagged at me like a wound that never heals. I have done no such thing–we have done no such thing. How many of us, on the first day of a new semester, automatically look to the female students rather than the males for a bright answer? How many of us go straight to the girls’ papers when we collect a first round of essays so as to benchmark the best writing in the group? How often do we wince when a lower-division course is top-heavy with males, especially athletes? How often, when a student is smack on the border between a B and a C, do we subconsciously give the female a little stronger nudge than the male? If we actively encourage a student to pursue graduate studies in literature, isn’t it more often a young woman than a man? Oh, there may be the impurity of a PC calculation in that last preference: we may, that is, be thinking of ourselves as doing the male a favor by not pushing him in a direction where he will encounter eternal hostility. But the urging of the female student is also quite sincere. ‘English departments are hiring women over men,’ we tell them. ‘Why not take advantage of that? You have the ability.’ There’s a certain amount of cynicism there–but not aimed at the woman, for the love of Pete! We give them preferential treatment all the time–we should probably be ashamed of ourselves, except that most of it is indeed subconscious. We really mean them well!”
“Probably more than their female profs,” mumbled McCaftery.
“No doubt about it. And if some Victorian patriarch of a century ago may have patted a bourgeois maiden lightly on the hand and said, ‘My dear, you should be raising a family…’ well, how many Irish boys with working-class origins or Southern boys with drawls received the same condescension with far less courtesy? There were prejudices of innumerable sorts, no doubt. Why, then, does the prejudice against women deserve to be viewed as a millennial conspiracy? What microscopic percentage of the work force even belonged to the ivory tower in the nineteenth century? It’s all absurd… absurd, and painful. I find the implications rather insulting.”
“Not to argue with any of that,” exhaled Laslo from somewhere in the darkness, “–but Natalie certainly took more than her fair share of hazing as a gifted mathematician in grad school. Well, probably far less in grad school than as an undergrad… and less there than in high school.”
“But you’re proving the point,” countered McCaftery. “The higher she went, the easier it got–the more the rumored conspiracy disappeared. Children ridicule each other about everything that’s the least bit out of the ordinary. Clothes, hair, height… and then they grow up, and it more or less wears off.”
“But perhaps it wears off more quickly nowadays because feminism has made us more aware of the… of the bullying, to return to a word that both of you have used.”
“That’s bound to be true,” pronounced Nesterly in sonorous grandeur.
“I don’t argue it, either,” continued McCaftery. “What I argue is the notion of progress. Just because the bullies get bullied back in certain instances, does that diminish the overall amount of bullying in the world? Will it ever? Doesn’t it just shift the preferred target to another quarter?”
“But I thought you were using the Age of Bullies a minute ago as part of your progression to the Super-Nanny. Doesn’t that imply a variable rate of bullying?”
“Come on! You changed the word’s context on me in mid-stream. My real point is this. Look, when I decided that I wanted to major in literature, my father practically stopped speaking to me for a year. It has something to do with his idea of a manly occupation. Was that not a kind of oppression that I had to endure? Was it not worse than what your splendid Natalie–she really is terrific, you know–had to endure at my age? Maybe yes, maybe no. It would depend on the sensitivity of the person involved. But if that person is a woman, the oppression becomes as great as she wants to imagine it, even if she multiplies it to insane levels–even if she screams that she feels raped and enslaved. I might have felt every bit as beaten up by my father… but I was a male, so my level of subjective response would remain irrelevant. My feelings wouldn’t matter. For a woman, they’re all that matters–they’re the only facts at issue. That’s written explicitly into all the sexual harassment codes.”
“Just for the record, Natalie never claimed that she was harassed.”
“No, I’m sure she didn’t. She wouldn’t. Natalie is an adult. But I’m talking about this whole insane moral boondoggle that won’t go away. As Nesterly says, it’s still going strong now after decades. Not only do we adults have to take crap every day and get on with our lives: we now–if we’re males–have to be targets for the female Yahoos’ excrement every time we walk under their tree. It’s not just matters of harassment in the workplace, for ours isn’t just any workplace. Victimization of females has become the scaffolding on which we work, the foundation of our edifice. Everything we read or write is expected to assume that this victimization has existed throughout known history on a vast conspiratorial scale. Imagine that you were an architect, and that the wheelchair-bound people of the world wanted more accommodation. Well, of curse you’d try to put ramps and wider doors into your designs wherever cost and physics would allow. But now imagine that the wheelchair crowd wasn’t satisfied. New laws are passed requiring that all designs of any and every kind have wheelchair access from end to end, top to bottom. Gazebos, storage sheds, warehouses, squash courts… everything. Your job is no longer to be an architect, per se. It’s to create places for wheelchairs to go.”
“As usual, Mac, you’re a bit hyperbolic…”
“So you hope, anyway.”
“… but you have every right to be. The war that you had to wage to have your mammoth translation of Boiardo accepted as scholarship was outrageous. And the cold-shouldering of Laslo’s new book by our department was scarcely less so. This new push to produce more of what the chair calls research is nothing but a political shakedown. Practically all of it in composition and rhetoric! Endless papers read at endless conferences, an innumerable proliferation of journals in the field, if such it be… and the best stuff of the lot merely tired, re-packaged platitudes. But most of it is far worse. Grammatical atrocities, misused terms, incessant coining of barbarous jargon to camouflage absence of logical coherence… ghastly nightmares that we wouldn’t reward with a passing grade in a freshman class. Yet worse still–even worse–is the content, if anyone ever actually manages to wade through to the end of such a monograph and is moved by charity to project some kind of sense on the whole. Runaway relativism of the most childish, cliché sort… ‘your ways are not my ways’… quot homines tot sententiae… I already elevate it by making a classical allusion. And the lesson we are supposed to draw from this universal, unexamined relativism is that anything goes in an argument as long as it lures the audience (also known as the sucker) to your side. Then to top it all off, we find that… oops! Not quite everything is relative, after all! Oppression is the fundamental truth of the universe to which Mac referred. Women and dark-skinned peoples of the world–“
“But especially women!”
“… yes. Well, they have all been worked over for so long by the cudgel of Western white-male logic that… well, that apparently one may always trump the sophistical give-and-take of warped views by announcing, ‘I am a woman,’ or, ‘I am an Iraqi whose uncle was killed by an American mortar.’ And it seems to me that if we continue very much farther down this road–if this is indeed the caliber of thought destined to be accounted ‘research’–then the most honest thing would simply be to cut through the rhetorical envelope of relativism and just give everyone a political pledge-card to sign. But, of course, the rhetoric of relativism is the engine which drives the growth of the micro-engineering state. Traditional value systems are entirely subverted as pure hypocrisy, then victim groups are foregrounded to stir raw emotion without the benefit of reason to channel it, then the romance of championing the oppressed induces society to reject its own democratic institutions and elevate a few crusading knights to conquer the Holy Land… and then every word we say is monitored by a central government. Thought police everywhere. No more creative endeavor, no more true scholarship. No more free discussions like this one.”
“The Rule of Robots. Q.E.D.”
“Mm… if you wish. The Rule of Robots. Or the rule of whoever is behind turning the rest of us into robots. Avant-garde feminism. Bullies. Neo Marxian capitalists. The infernal legions.”
A deep silence settled over the room, whose bay window had now lost its last violet stain of dusk and sat transparently black beneath the shimmer of some distant streetlight.
“Gentlemen, the hour has come. The hour of pain. I find that I can no longer see to touch bottle to glass. Do I hear a motion to turn on the lamp?”
“I so move.”
“The motion has been seconded. All in favor, by a show of hands? The motion has passed.”
A frequent contributor to this journal for years, Dr. Moseby lives with his family in the Atlanta area, where he occasionally teaches at several institutions.