Stephen Roney's Blog, page 7

Sydney Sweeney Conquers All

 Sydney Sweeney now dominates the culture. 

Ben Shapiro says that, aside from prompting outrage on the left, boosting her career into the stratosphere, and selling a lot of jeans, she is also splitting the MAGA base. Blonde power!

There are, Shapiro says, two kinds of Trump supporters: the conservatives, and the anti-woke. The anti-woke love the Sweeney American Eagle ads, because they are a poke at the woke. The conservatives, like him, will dislike them, because they are immoral, using sex to sell a product.

I agree with him on the first part of this. Joe Rogan, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., are not conservatives. Trump himself is not a conservative. But by becoming a mad cult, the woke left united everyone else in opposition.

And his analysis works in my case. I am not a conservative, never was, but I support MAGA from a distance. I can respect the conservative position, but I have always been a liberal, in the proper sense of that term. And I rejoice in the Sydney Sweeney ads, because they are anti-woke.

But I disagree with Shapiro that they promote sexual immorality, or that they are using sex to sell a product—which would be, in effect, prostitution.

Sex itself is not a bad thing. Sex is a very good thing, so long as it is directed, as is proper, to male-female companionship and the procreation of children.

And I see the Sweeney ads as promoting exactly this. Not casual sex, but companionship and procreation. The tag line, “Sydney Sweeney has great genes” makes this about as direct as it could be: you are attracted to Sweeney because, having good genes, she would make good children. 

People also comment on her “girl next door” vibe. This speaks of companionship as opposed to callous lust. Aside from cleavage, Sweeney is really not showing much skin. She is quite modestly clad in most of the commercials, by current standards. Arms covered, legs covered down to the floor. Loose jeans not showing the shape of her legs. Shoulders covered. Midriff covered. Usually just head and hands visible. "profile and hands, please." That's all you get. 

If she nevertheless provokes lust in you, I’d say that’s on you. Surely we can appreciate feminine beauty without immediately thinking about jumping into bed.

I’d say she comes across instead as the kind of level-headed, just-folks woman most men would want to show a ring to, and settle down with, if they could.

I think Shapiro has slipped into puritanism. But maybe that’s why I’m not a conservative.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

On Prayer

“One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.’

2 He said to them, ‘When you pray, say:
“‘Father,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.
3 Give us each day our daily bread.
4 Forgive us our sins,
   for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.
And lead us not into temptation.’”

5 Then Jesus said to them, ‘Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; 6 a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have no food to offer him.’ 7 And suppose the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’ 8 I tell you, even though he will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship, yet because of your persistence he will surely get up and give you as much as you need.

9 ‘So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

11 ‘Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!’”

“ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.”

This familiar passage of the Bible implicitly condemns both atheists and those who call themselves “spiritual seekers.”

If God will reveal himself to whoever seeks him, it is not possible to honestly be an atheist. One is in denial. One also cannot claim to have long been seeking and not found. 

I submit that this is so. I say this although there was a time I too might have called myself a seeker, not a committed Catholic.

But that was actually out of fear. I recall I actually prayed that God send me no miracle, did not appear to me in any obvious way. Because if he did, I would fear I had gone mad. 

And getting past that fear felt like jumping off a cliff.

Others fear that accepting God would mean a heavy obligation on our part. We could no longer do what we want. We would need to feel guilty for things we have done. This seems to be the case for Jordan Peterson. I can remember it being the case for me. I can remember reading Jesus’s promise, “my yoke is light,” and not believing it. Fasting, abstaining from sex outside marriage, forgiving enemies… 

It is not that we think there is no God. It is that we are, like Adam and Eve, hiding in the bushes.

Usually, when you speak to an atheist, it is not that they don’t think God exists. They are angry with God. Why does he allow the innocent to suffer? Why does he not give me what I ask for? Why is he such a Fascist? This is abundantly clear of Christoper Hitchins.

You cannot be angry at someone you believe does not exist.

Given that he does exist, why indeed does God not instantly answer prayer? If he is good, why doesn’t he give us whatever we want?

Jesus explains by analogy: God is like a parent being petitioned by his son.

We immediately should understand that the parent knows better than the child; what children ask for is not always in their own best interest. They want to stay up all night and eat ice cream. God similarly knows better than we do what is good for us.

So why bother to pray at all?

Not for “stuff.” There is nothing wrong with praying for our daily bread, but beyond that, stuff is just candy.

But God wants us to pray, and to be persistent in prayer, to “annoy” God with the frequency of our prayer—like someone knocking on a door at midnight.  Not to allow God ever to ignore us.

Which really means, not to allow ourselves ever to ignore God.

And Jesus, in the last quoted verse, tells us exactly what prayer is really for: “If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

The thing we should pray for, and what prayer is there to obtain for us, is the Holy Spirit, the abiding voice of God, “who has spoken through the prophets.”

And with this, I aver, comes true peace and meaning. All else is just candy and childish toys.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Death of Canada

 

"I am Canadian, and freedom is my nationality." -- Laurier

The current Sean Feucht controversy—an American pastor-performer being harassed and prevented from performing in Canada, even in a church—underlines the sad reality that Canada is not longer a free country. Canadians demonstrably do not any longer have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, equal treatment before the law, property rights, freedom of conscience, the right to have a nation, or even right to life. 

To be fair, neither any longer do Britain or France.

I have lived in Saudi Arabia. The atmosphere of oppression, of having to mind what you say, of government intrusion into your life, is stronger now in Canada than in Saudi Arabia even at the height of its autocracy. 

It is shocking how casually Canadians, and Britons, and the French, have accepted this, even voted for it, even demanded it. I grew up imagining everyone believed in human rights.  And France and Britain were among the cradles of liberty. Hyde Park Corner, the Oxford Union, Magna Carta, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and all that. It is more than sobering to see how gauze-thin the commitment ever was.'

At least, pushing back against errant government, earning eternal honour, we do still have the United States. This is a recent phenomenon even there; under Biden, the US was going the same way as Canada and Europe, even in some ways leading the charge.

This gives hope that a similar turn may come in Canada. But time is running out. Canada just voted in a Liberal government once again, probably for four years. Britain is in a similar situation, and France has banned the leader of their opposition from running.

I have felt since 2022 that the brutal suppression of the Freedom Convoy, which is ongoing with the prosecution of Tamara Lich and Chris Barbour, made Western separation, or at least Alberta separation, inevitable.

The federal government cannot or will not make a new trade deal with the US. They are insisting on preserving supply management, and this is something the US, reasonably enough, will not accept. It has also been torpedoing trade deals with the UK, perhaps others. The feds dare not negotiate this away, because the system is too popular in Quebec.

So everyone else is making deals with the US to get lower tariffs, and Canada can’t make a deal. Alberta energy is the one bargaining chip Canada might have had, and it is gone. 

Canada may not last another four years. Not to mention the effects of mass immigration, which look about to erase Britain and France too.

That being so, and liberty and human rights being vastly more important than any petty tribal loyalties, the most I can say is that I would not oppose an American invasion. At worst, there is little left to lose.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Sydney Sweeney Has Great Genes

 

American Eagle’s current ad campaign for their jeans featuring Sydney Sweeney is getting a lot of attention. Not all favourable. Some are objecting to it as being full of “Nazi” or “Fascist” “dogwhistles.” 

This puzzled me at first, but now I think I get it. It is seen as a celebration of “white superiority.” In one short, Sweeney starts by saying she is a product of her genes. Including her eye color. The camera wanders down to her cleavage. “Eyes—up here,” she says. The camera moves to her blue eyes. She says “My jeans [genes?] are blue.” Then the overlay, “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.”

This supposedly endorses eugenics, and the supposed superiority of “white” genes. Never a Fascist idea, but a Nazi one.

This objection is itself racist, however, unless you would also object to a black model, or a Native American model, being featured in the same way, as having “great genes.” It can be no more than a thought experiment, but I cannot imagine anyone doing so. 

But it is “white” people who are being discriminated against if they are not permitted to be called beautiful or have their genes praised.

You might counter with a claim about white privilege, some ancient wrong that needs to be redressed.

But Sydney Sweeney has no white privilege. 

Sydney Sweeney is Irish. At least until the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, most educated people were aware of historic discrimination against the Irish; those who did not despise the Irish themselves. Attending university in Canada in the 1970s, the student newspaper ran an editorial titled “Let’s Sink Ireland for a Day”—an actual call, if not entirely serious, for genocide. There was no blowback. I have been told several times by women that they had promised their parents never to bring home an Irishman. T.S. Eliot used Sydney Sweeney’s very own surname in these lines to describe an Irish character in 1920: 

Apeneck Sweeney spread his knees
Letting his arms hang down to laugh,
The zebra stripes along his jaw
Swelling to maculate giraffe.

The Irish were never considered by the larger Anglo world part of any master race with superior genes. More often as a separate, subhuman race. 

There is a reason so many “black” Americans have Irish surnames. Look at Mariah Carey. Look at Rhiannon Giddens. They are probably half Irish. Irish and blacks were long considered the same social class, and commonly intermarried.

“Dumb Blonde” jokes may be part of this continuing prejudice—and such jokes are still perfectly permissible in polite company. As are comments like “do gingers have souls?” 

Talk about blackface? How about whiteface—the usual clown makeup. Note the red hair. The conventional North American clown is actually a stage Irishman, including the bulbous red nose suggesting a drinking habit. An ethnic stereotype.

It is time the Irish had a right to celebrate their genes, and their beauty.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Times, They Are A'Changing

 

I was there and I was young and everyone was young and the world was young and we believed the world was changing and it was. 

Some of the changes were good. Some of the changes were bad. But it was not what we imagined. It never is, never was, never will be.

And then, too drugged, we missed the cosmic moment. We got trapped in our traffic jam on the way to Woodstock and the garden. Some of us made it even to the gates, chanting, dancing, shaking fists, brave behind our placards. We wanted the world, and wanted it now, when we should have wanted heaven and forever, and then fell back into sex and money and paranoia and confusion and joined the 27 Club or became disco zombies or learned to code and retreated to cyber monasteries or taught in Asia.

And now, oh God, flashbacks, it seems to all be happening over again. There are wars and rumours of war and rogue criminal governments and thought crime and racism and discrimination and tumult in the streets.

But something else is wrong, has gone wrong, has gone most utterly wrong. 

This time the bones creak, and no voices rise in song.

This time there is no music.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Why Women Are Obsolete

 

There is much talk in the culture now about Men Going Their Own Way, and many 30-something women complaining on YouTube or TikTok that there seem to be no available men.

 Younger men seem to have lost interest not just in marriage, but in women.

The surprise is that it took seventy years. Wives have been obsolete since the 1950s. As of the postwar years, thanks to automation, the traditional women’s role in the home became relatively trivial. She was replaced by the washing machine, the dryer, the refrigerator, the vacuum cleaner, the electric oven. A suburban housewife had nothing but free time—this was essentially Betty Friedan’s complaint. At the same time, as Hugh Hefner realized, men could live perfectly comfortably alone, in a “bachelor pad.” Why marry?

However, rather than doing anything to restore their attractiveness to men, women took the opposite tack—of declaring that they did not need men anyway. Hence feminism: “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” 

Declaring that they disliked or hated men, they withdrew companionship—the second reason for men to want to marry, or spend time with women. Now, for men, spending time with women only meant being criticized. And dropped at any moment, thanks to no-fault divorce, with potentially huge financial penalties, should they happen to be successful in their career.

Leaving only one possible reason for men to want to be around women: for sex.

Feminists at least at first emphasized this: being a “liberated woman” meant having sex often and with abandon. 

However, women killed off this attraction too, with the “Me Too” movement. Now not only was marrying too risky for men; even having sex with a woman was too risky.

So of course men are staying away from women. It is a credit to their gallantry and sense of self-sacrifice that they stuck with it so long—seventy years, a human lifetime!

As technology marches on, it is now looking able to replace women for sex—with profuse porn available on the internet, perhaps virtual reality and sexbots soon. And it can even offer a kind of artificial female companionship, with emerging AI avatars. 

It is a sad situation. Women are alone; and men are alone. And no children are born. It is the death of the species itself.

And men can fare better alone than women can. Women by instinct crave community, children, affirmation, security; men have a natural drive for independence and self-reliance.

So women’s levels of happiness are nose-diving. Men’s are too, but not so much.

Blame technology; and blame feminism.

Why did women react so badly, hastening their own misfortune?

It seems to be a common human reaction: when one is accustomed to privilege, and it is threatened, one tends to lash out in denial. So the Boers, feeling vulnerable, imposed apartheid. Austria-Hungary, Europe’s shakiest Empire, provoked the First World War. The current wave of Islamic militancy, similarly, looks to me like a rearguard action. 

So feminism. Methinks they do protest too much.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Dead Don't Die

 

I recently stumbled across Jim Jarmusch’s “The Dead Don’t Die” on Apple Prime. When I saw it was from Jarmusch, and starred Bill Murray, I had to watch. And for most of the movie, I thought it was great. Lovely absurdism, lots of Americana, lots of cultural references. Lots of famous cameos. Very deadpan and low key. My cup of tea. 

But I really felt Jarmusch lost it with the ending. The movie has not had a great reception, and I think it is because of the weak ending. It just fizzles out. Not to give any spoilers, I will not say how it does end, at least more than I need to for a setup.

Here’s exactly where it goes off the rails: Jarmusch has Bill Murray as police chief turn to Adam Driver as his deputy, sitting in a police car surrounded by zombies, and say, “how is it you have a feeling this is going to end badly.”

And Driver says, “I read the script.”

To me, too obvious. An old Crosby/Hope Road gag. And it makes the ending predictable—a deadly dramatic error. No punchline, no climax, just a winding down.

Here’s how I would have done it, from this point:

Murray: “How is it you have a feeling this is going to end badly.”

Driver: “It’s all like a book I read once.”

M: “What was the name of the book?”

D: “War of the Worlds.”

M: Seriously? Ronnie, that book isn’t about zombies. It’s about Martians.”

D: “Oh yeah. I got confused. Martians. But it ended badly.”

Pause.

M: “It didn’t end so bad. Some virus killed all the Martians.”

Pause.

D: “Cliff…”

M: “Yeah, what?”

D: “What if we’re the Martians?”

Pause

Tilda Swinton appears on a hill nearby, with the cemetery below, police car to the left. She is carrying her samurai sword.

A saucer-shaped UFO appears and lands. Swinton strides forward, decapitating zombies right and left.

A panel in the saucer slides open. A mustached middle-aged man steps out, in a black business suit, holding a pipe. 

Swinton: “Mr. Wells?”

H.G. Wells: “The same.”

S: “Tell me, how does it end.”

Wells: “Well well well. We can’t use a virus, can we? Science tells us it is a virus that causes zombies. We can’t use that one again.”

S: “Pity. Are we doomed, then?”

Wells: “But what happens to you if you catch a virus.” Pointing his pipe.

S: “You die, or you get better.”

Wells: “And the dead don’t die…”

S: “They’re already dead.”

Wells: “So…”

Zombies begin slowly falling all around them.

S: “They get better.”

Wells: “And they go back to being dead.”

S: “Anyway, until the next apocalypse.”

Zombies continue to fall. Wells smiles contentedly and draws on his pipe.

S: “Officers? You can come out now!”

Murray and Driver get out of the police car and slowly approach, looking around at all the fallen and falling zombies.

M: “What happened?”

S: “Gentlemen, let me introduce you to Mr. H. G. Wells. He’ll explain it all to you during the credits.”

D: “Mr. Wells! Can I have your autograph?” Pulls out his police note pad.

M: “I loved you in Citizen Kane.”

Wells: “What?”

S: “No, that was Orson Welles.”

D: “Wait—you mean there’s two of you?”

M: “That’s spooky.”

Roll credits.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

On Consensus in Media

 

Russell Brand

Here is a recent wise quote from Russell Brand, paraphrased for brevity: “A consensus in mainstream media is not a verification. It is the opposite. The more you see the mainstream media making a point of claiming something is true, the more likely it is false.”

For “mainstream media,” I would substitute the term “broadcast platforms”: any information channel that is directed at a broad general audience. A more obvious example of a broadcast medium in this sense than even the traditional television networks is the education system. But it will also include newspapers at the local level, and large-circulation magazines: a National Geographic, a Scientific American, a Rolling Stone, a Time Magazine.

These are likely to be spreading false information, because these are the platforms on which it is most profitable and effective to spread false information. So if any powerful interested party can exert control of one, they are likely to do so for their purposes. Most probably, the government; but also business interests, professional groups, and other special interests with a lot of money to advertise.

If there really is a consensus on something, it should go without saying. Nobody needs to belabor the fact that the earth is round. So if a broadcast medium is repeatedly pointing out that something is true, this is almost in itself proof that it is not. You are looking at a propaganda campaign.

What about a “consensus of experts”? Good question. I would add that group who claims a consensus, or any organization that claims to govern by consensus, is really a dictatorship. Consider those elections in Eastern Europe in which the leader used to reliably poll over 90% of the votes. That’s consensus. It is not a good sign. It really means a situation in which nobody dares object to whoever has the strongest arm or the loudest voice. So beware any consensus of experts too.

We are all fortunate that the broadcast media are dying. It is a brave new world, in which what was long hidden should begin to appear in the light.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Death of Late Night

StephenColbert and the Late Show are being cancelled. News, but not a surprise.Apparently the show was losing 40 million USD per year.

The problemis that they were no longer attracting enough of the key demographic, those aged18 to 54. This is the only TV audience advertisers care about.

Why,exactly? Don’t older people have money to spend?

Yes, butthey also tend to have already made their choices. They are loyal to their preferredbrands. They are no longer in the open market.

The loss ofthis key younger demographic tells us network television itself is dying. Onlyold people still watch, loyal to their preferred medium, out of force of habit.

The declineis probably irreparable, thanks to improving technology. It is not just thatthere is greater competition; the new competition on the Internet cannarrowcast, offering a more targeted market for an advertiser. For most brandsand products, this makes more sense than paying for everyone’s eyeballs.

But here isa second puzzle. Why are the late night comics seemingly doing their best to jumpoff that cliff, to hasten their own downfall? For years, they have become increasinglypolitical and partisan. And stopped telling jokes. This obviously alienates alarge portion of their potential audience: obviously not what you want to do ifyou are broadcasting.

Colbert,for example, will be forever best remembered for one skit in which he simplydanced with a troupe dressed up as hypodermic needles, withno setup or gag, just the shout “vaccine” at the end of each bar. A sad legacy.

Was thissome desperate and incompetent attempt to narrowcast on a broadcast medium? To fightfor  bigger piece of a shrinking pie?

I think itillustrates instead a saying often wrongly attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, abouthow you change the public consciousness. “First they ignore you, then theylaugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Thisdescribes well the evolution of the political and social tendency often thesedays called “populism”; or, in the US, “MAGA.” It too is a product of the new technology. With greater access to information,people are increasingly disinclined to trust the received consensus—that whichis socially “broadcast” to them.

The latenight comics, by the nature of their position on the networks, were committedto the old “broadcast” paradigm.  Beingcomics, they naturally saw their greatest influence and their main chance atthe “then they laugh at you” phase. For some years, ridicule of this rebelliousnew turn of thought was the obvious and easy go-to for a gag. And it gave thecomics great prestige and social influence. I remember not so many years agothe common comment that “I get all my news from the comedy shows.” Shows likethe Daily Show.

But in goingfor the partisan gags, the late night hosts locked themselves into the “thenthey fight you” phase. As their habitual targets rose in power and influence,they were no longer funny. It was no longer a laughing matter. A few shrewd comicshave managed to navigate this by flipping sides: Joe Rogan, Scott Adams, RusselBrand, Bill Maher. Many more seem to have dug themselves in too deep, becomingpublicly identified primarily as a political figure.

I feelespecially sorry for Jimmy Fallon, who early on seemed to see the risk, and triedto resist it. But when broadcasting is your livelihood, you are pretty lockedin. You would have to kick against your employers as well as all your closestcolleagues.

And nowthey are losing the argument.

 

 

  

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Why Women Can't Write Poetry

 

Not the usual image, but thought to be perhaps a photo of Emily Dickenson.

I once belonged to a small poetry group. It is far from a valid sample, but… 

The only qualification for membership was interest in reading your poetry publicly. 

The group consisted loosely of four men, and four women. All four of the men were pretty good poets; and all of the women were dreadful.

Was that purely coincidental? 

There are indeed far more great male poets, than female poets in the canons of world literature.

Feminists will of course say this is because women’s voices were silenced. Only men’s voices counted.

Yet against this, in most or all societies, women have had more leisure time for the arts than men. It has been up to the man to earn sustenance for the family. Women, at least among the classes that could afford any leisure for anyone, were encouraged to pursue the arts. Book clubs were always primarily women; and still are. Magazines were mostly marketed to women. TV was mostly viewed by women. Why would they not have used this time to write?

Is it that female poets were discriminated against by publishers? A female poet of my acquaintance, who has done the research, insists this is not so; and any check of the Internet Archive or old newspapers appears to confirm this. At least by the 19th century, poetry by women seems actually to have been published more often than poetry by men. They did have the leisure time, and they did use it, and they did get it into print.

And yet, with few exceptions, it is the men’s poetry that is still read today, that has survived the test of time. The women’s poetry seems to have lacked any abiding message to mankind.

In her day, Elizabeth Barrett Browning was a bigger literary star than her husband, Robert. But since, her reputation has faded, while his has grown.

 Other than Emily Dickenson, how many first-rank women poets can you think of from the 19th century? 

Of course, you can list many from more recent years. But you could have drawn up a similar list in 1850. How many will endure?

Could it simply be that men are deeper thinkers than women? Women can make words pretty, but men are better fit to plumb the depths of human experience?

Pauline Johnson was wildly popular in Canada in the 19th century. She was half-aboriginal, and would recite wearing buckskin. But her popularity faded. It has been revived recently, to some extent, for political reasons. But it is striking to me that there is really no content to her poems; they never really say anything.

If ever a literary career was built on superficial show, it was hers.

A feminist heresy, of course, to suggest that men are deeper thinkers than women. But surely plausible; we know women’s and men’s brains, after all, are physically different. Such a difference in deep thinking is implied in the Bible, if you take it seriously, when St. Paul advises wives to obey their husbands, and women to remain silent in church. 

But it is not even clear to me that women are better at the mechanics of verse, at making words pretty. Even though, if we are still talking about sex differences, tests show that women on average have better linguistic skills than men. Even though craftsmanship in verse would seem to follow.

In my local group, it is not just that the women lacked any message. They also seemed to have no sense of craftsmanship either. What they declaimed were not poems or verse at all in the technical sense. More expressions of emotion without grammar. It is the men who played with the sounds of words, with rhythm, assonance, repetition, and sometimes rhyme.

Even in the case of Emily Dickenson: the odd exception of a great female poet. She absolutely has depth. But she is not great technically. Her rhymes are loose; there is little rhythm. Her style is epigrammatic. Britannica cites a “lack of high polish.”

What then can explain this? Why aren’t women better at poetry?

I think it is precisely because women are more verbal than men. It was certainly obvious in my poetry group. In between readings, all conversation was dominated by the women, who expressed their opinions on religion, politics, and human relationships freely and forcefully. The men all stayed mostly silent, but perhaps for occasional muttered assent.

Dickenson perhps explains it, when she says of poetry: “Tell all the truth, but tell it slant. Success in circuit lies.” Poetry is for saying things you cannot say directly. It is the voice of the silenced. Contrary to the claims of feminism, women have always been freer to speak their minds publicly. They are accustomed to being listened to, as well. A woman can usually get what she wants by making her demands clearly known. 

Men, by contrast, learn to choose their words carefully. They must not make demands, emotional or otherwise. They must think before they speak, or risk a fight, or force of law. 

Consider the famous feminist complaint that men will never ask for directions. A women will do so immediately, even without consulting the map. 

Isn’t this actually an example of female privilege?

If Emily Dickenson is an exception to the rule, it interestingly corresponds with an unusual life experience. She lived her life in seclusion, with few to talk to; if only due to her own congenital shyness.

It is the pressure to shut up, or having something to say that nobody wants to listen to, that forces poetry.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.