Moral Health

I accept that spoken languages evolve.  In English, we don’t say the words “Thee” and “Thou” any more except perhaps for poetic purposes.  The word “they” is well on its way to being both a singular and a plural pronoun.  At the spoken level, it may already have achieved that status, though in most formal writing it remains exclusively a plural pronoun.

Further, I accept that the evolution of the English language will be occasioned by the influx of individuals whose native tongue is not English.  This does not bother me in the slightest.  It is a reality.  It is a reality in English speaking countries.  It is a reality in non-English speaking countries.

What I have just described, however, is not inclusiveness or diversity, as many adherents of political correctness dream of matters.  In fact, I am opposed to their view of things.  Let me explain why.

Increasingly, phone calls to companies are being answered by individuals who do not have a mastery of the English language.  This is quite distinct from having an accent.  For one can have an accent and be perfectly fluent in a language.

Now, I take the idea to be that having people with various backgrounds and accents answer phone calls is representative of the true diversity of America.  There is no doubt something to this.  However, there is a problem if the company representative to whom one is speaking does not have an adequate command of the English language.  And the problem becomes particularly acute when one is trying to get clarity about a matter of great consequence, such as a health issue or the additional costs involved.

Today, I called USAirways only to find myself speaking to someone who not only had a heavy foreign (non-Spanish) accent but whose command of the English language was such that she could not follow any of my remarks.  Things were so bad that the only way I managed was to feign politeness and thank her for everything that she had said.  It was either that, or be rude and simply hang up on her.

I wanted to know whether the aircraft for a certain flight listed on the website is jet or not.  What I got was advice on how to clear my computer of cookies.  It was as if someone had pressed the button for the script on eliminating cookies.  For she went on about that notwithstanding my initial indication that cookies on my computer were not my problem.  I actually no how to get rid of them.

From the standpoint of diversity and inclusiveness, the entire matter was an utter disaster.  Not only was my time wasted, she has not even a clue that her response was not just unsatisfactory but entirely unrelated to my concern.

I don’t care about accents.  But I care mightily about comprehension.  And diversity shorn of comprehension is anything but progress.  It is wildly counterproductive in just about all cases; and it is often the occasion for much misunderstanding and unsatisfactory assistance.

Now, I can just imagine someone retorting “Well, now, you know how it feels when a person who doesn’t speak English has to talk with a native speaker of English over the phone”.  On the assumption that this is correct, so what?  Surely the right response to that situation is not for companies to have incompetent speakers of English handling phone calls.  For surely the proper way to be responsive to the disadvantaged is not to disadvantage others.

If it is true that every country should make a point of being receptive to it citizens and residents who do not speak the primary language of the country, then how much more so does it hold that a country should not put at a disadvantage those who do speak the primary language of the country.  After all, they are people, too.

Inclusiveness and diversity are no doubt wonderful things.  But not so shorn of excellence.  If adequate customer service requires that there be people available who can speak Spanish—and presumably speak Spanish fluently, then it has to also be true that adequate customer services requires that there be people available who can speak English—and presumably speak English fluently.

Just as it is not in any way racist to want a service representative who speaks one’s own language when English is not it, it is also not racist to want a service representative who speaks English when indeed that is one’s language precisely because it is the primary language of the country in which one was born and raised.

This last point is extremely important because the charge of racism is used nowadays to silence the status quo, whether or not its concerns or considerations have any legitimacy.

Suppose, for instance, that it was not I but an elderly person (born and raised in America), to whom the USAirways representative was speaking.  Needless to say, that elderly person might not have had the social agility to bring the conversation to an end by repeated remarks of politeness.  Suppose that the elderly person had just a little difficulty with hearing, and that she counted upon a competent speaker of English to get her or him through the purchase of the airplane ticket.  Needless to say, the conversation would have been utterly frustrating for both.  Nay, it might have been an utter disaster for the elderly person.

The elderly individual might have ended up purchasing a ticket that she or he did not want, since the USAirways representative had no sense at all that her initial responses were inappropriate to my question.  The only thing that lubricated the conversation were my repeated instances of “Thank You” and “I understand, now”.

I have just leveled what I believe to be a damning criticism of the present approach to diversity and inclusiveness.  For the approach reveals an utter disregard for the elderly in America who through no fault of their own speak no other language but English.  And even if they are at fault here, as someone might dare to suggest, the elderly should most certainly not be held at accountable for it in their old age.

We know, thanks to the gods of political correctness, that Asians and Native Americans and blacks and Latinos are people.  But the eldery?  Aren’t they people, too?  I guess the jury is still out on that.

France has a lightening rod who calls to mind Louis Farrakhan of the United States.  The name of this French citizen is Dieudonné M’bla M’bla.  What do Farrakhan and Dieudonné have in common?  The answer is that they both attribute to Jews extraordinary powers of control and, by consequence, they both blame Jews for the evils of the world.  In particular, there would not have been the slavery of African blacks but for Jews who orchestrated it all, or nearly so.

This line of thought recently advanced by Dieudonné in France radically underestimates the existence of anti-semitism down through the ages.  It also radically fails to take into account the reason why Jews, notwithstanding their small numbers, have such standing in Western culture.  The explanation, of course, is painfully simple: Christianity.

Jews have a standing with Christianity that no other group possesses, including blacks and Muslims.  This, of course, should come as no surprise, since Christianity unequivocally claims to have its origins in Judaism—not white folks or yellow folks or red folks or black folks.  Christianity cannot make sense of itself in the absence of Jews, but it can easily do so without reference to all other peoples.

Now, Western Culture is primarily Christian in its character.  So it should come as no surprise that for better and worse Jews figure prominently in Western Culture.  That is, Jews figure prominently in Western culture in spite of themselves rather than because they exercise masterful control over Western minds.  Nor again does this standing of Jews have anything to do with racism as such, either against blacks or Arabic Muslim.

It should come as no surprise that Islam has had very little influence upon Christianity, since the order of appearance is: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  Christianity is not about Islam for precisely the same reasons that Judaism is not about Christianity.  This is such an obvious point that it is utterly astounding that so many miss it.

The point here, of course, is not that things should not change.  Rather, I merely mean to be drawing attention to how things turned out to be a certain way in the first place, where the explanation is not at all morally objectionable.

Now, in the book, The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews, the Nation of Islam gives the impression that the slavery of blacks started with Jews.  Farrakhan seems to have moderated his thinking.  So he may no longer hold this view, but there is no doubt that he once espoused it ever so forcefully.

I have no desire to deny that the trafficking of black slaves tainted some Jews.  It in fact did.  But the truth of the matter is that the trafficking of black slaves tainted others, too, including blacks themselves.  Nor were there a disproportionate number of Jews tainted by slavery.

How one can know whether we have anti-semitism as opposed to a potent and valid criticism of Jews?  Well, if everyone did something objectionable, including Jews, but a person only draws attention to the fact that Jews behaved in that objectionable way, then what we have is antisemitism or massive ignorance. 

Dieudonné claims to be the voice of blacks and Muslim Arabs.  So one has to ask how is that he has conveniently forgotten the extensive Muslim Arabic enslavement of blacks, which even preceded the enslavement of blacks by Europeans and Americans?  When I do a Google search under “Arabic Muslim enslavement of blacks”, I find lots of very interesting things.  For instance, at RaceandHistory.Com I find an interesting piece that is said to have been published in 1995 in the City Sun on the enslavement of blacks in the Sudan.  If one goes to About.Com, one will find a two-part discussion entitled “The Role of Islam in African Slavery“.  The two parts are attached below in PDF format.  Now, we have not even touched the issue of the enslavement of blacks in the Sudan or the sexual slavery of women.  Finally, there is the 2 volume edited work, by John Ralph Willis entitled Slaves and Slavery in Muslim Africa (1985).

The point is that Dieudonné who has no qualms turning blacks against whites seems to have missed the wrong done by Arabic Muslims against blacks.  And this, quite frankly is abominable.  (By the way, there is the simple fact that I found this information, and I am no historian.)  Surely, Dieudonné could find this information, given the vast resources at his command.  Hence, the fact that he did not is quite an indictment of him.

It is regrettable that Dieudonné thinks that the country of France is being unreasonable for rendering a verdict of antisemitism against him, requiring him to pay 5,000 euros.  Dieudonné insists that free speech is a good thing and that the judgment is step backwards.

But let us notice something extremely important here.  For all the tension that there is between Jews and Muslim Arabs, ne’er a Jew has ventured to claim that in point of fact it was Muslim who were really responsible for the Holocaust and that they worked in the background influencing Hitler.  Again, ne’er a Jew has made such a claim about blacks.  It is not just that either claim would be preposterous, as surely each would.  It is also that case that it would be viciously wrong to make such an assertion.

One can see where I am going: If it is wrong for Jews to make the claim that the Holocaust was the work of black or Muslim Arabs working behind the scenes (or wherever), then it is equally wrong for any black or Muslim Arab to claim that the trafficking of black slaves was essentially the endeavor of Jews.

Free speech or not: It is terribly wrong to make either one of these claims, since both claims are manifestly false.

It never ceases to amazes me that people raise the banner of free speech when they are spouting invectives, but insist that it is wrong for others to respond in kind.

Were Jews to comment upon blacks and Muslim Arabs in the way that both groups comment upon Jews: Well, the cry that Jews are being racist would be utterly deafening.  By contrast, when the most despicable things are being said about Jews, it is a matter of free speech.

Freedom of speech as we understand it the United States does not exist in many European countries.  In both France and Germany, racist remarks are unacceptable and punishable by law.  This is not the place to debate whether Europe or the United States has the better approach to free speech.  The laws of France forbid unfounded claims that would incite violence or hate towards a people.

Perhaps Dieudonné thought he was merely inviting much needed reflection in claiming, à la the Nation of Islam, that Jews made their fortune trafficking in black slavery.  In that case he has shown himself to be a fool rather than either the poltical or comic genius that he takes himself to be.

For all of us, the truth of wrongdoing on the part human beings of every hue is painful enough.  There is absolutely no need to make anything up.  And those who do so are not committed to peace and fraternity, whatever words they might employ.  Dieudonné is no exception to this truth.

* * * * * *

For the record, my view is not that blacks, in the United States or France or else where should turn their wrath upon Muslim Arabs, as I do not think that writhing in anger and bitterness over slavery, whoever enslaved whom, is fruitful.  Rather, my point is that it is morally fulsome to use the pain of slavery to incite hate against those who are innocent.  This points holds all the more so in view of the fact that the well-documented extensive trafficking of slavery on the part of others is roundly ignored.  Indeed, they are embraced as brothers.   About this, I have righteous anger.

A few years ago, a graduate student brought his girlfriend to my large Ethics & Value Theory lecture.  They are now married, with three children.  But that is not particularly relevant to the point I wish to make.  The dating couple sat together on the front row, and the woman, thinking that her dress was a tad too short when seated on the front row, rather gracefully placed a scarf over her knees.  She probably did not need the scarf.  But the gesture commanded an awful lot of respect.  I know, I know: This is remarkably old fashion.  And harkens back to the days—surely many centuries ago—when it was said that “Decent women don’t do this or that”.   As I shall show, there is much more to this line of thought than is allowed.

Nowadays, of course, the idea that there are decent things that women don’t do is seen as an archaic and deeply sexist point of view.  Never mind that it was also held that there are things that decent men don’t do.  For we know that feminism is about women’s rights, period.  Commonsense and equality is pretty much irrelevant.

Time was when decent men did not take advantage of decent women.  But it is interesting that the idea of a decent man is beginning to have more weight to it than the idea of a decent woman.

If you don’t believe me consider the fact that all sorts of feminists have argued that it is a woman’s right to be able to go back to a man’s room in the middle of the night, sit on his bed, and so forth without having to worry about unwanted advances on his part.  Alas, it turns out that a decent man will not do anything untoward.  But feminism has taught us that it is inappropriate to say “Decent women don’t put themselves in that sort of situation”.

To me that is rather like saying that it is one’s right to walk down a dark ally of a crime-ridden neighborhood.  And that, in turn, is rather like saying that it is one’s right to be fool.  The wrongdoing does not get excused in any of these cases.  Still, we have a wrongdoing that could have been avoided.

One of the profound ways in which I think that feminism has gone wrong is that, in the push for women’s rights, feminism has pretty much jettisoned the idea of a decent woman.  There are things that a decent person does not do even if it is fully within the individual’s rights to do them.  Moreover, because I do not think that women and men are exactly identical, I think that there are some modes of decent behavior that apply primarily to women and other modes of decent behavior that apply primarily to men.

For instance, if a pregnant gets on the bus, I think that a decent man readily give his seat to the woman (provided that he is in good health and so on).  I hold that this is a way of honoring women for the very precious role that they play in humanity.  Women, too, can honor this role but not, I think, in the same way that men can.  Consider that there is often a bond between two pregnant women talking to one another that is rather unlike any other.  The role that women play in bringing life into the world is a reality to which theory must bow—not the other way around.

Because there are simply way too many opportunities for miscommunication, good intentions notwithstanding, I embrace the so-called sexist view that a decent woman really ought not to be going back to a man’s room at night if she is not sure that she wants to have sex with him nor she should invite him to her room.  Likewise, I hold that no one ought to walk down an ally at night in a crime-ridden neighborhood.

If there are considerations of decency that apply to men when a woman is sitting in his room at night on his bed, then presumably there are some such considerations that apply to women with respect to this context.  After all: equality is equality.  Or so I have been told.

Now, let me acknowledge the asymmetry that feminism has fought against.  Essentially, feminism has radically dismantled the view that with regard to marriage virginity is sacred for women but not for men.  Let us allow the merit of the feminist claims here.  For, it is certainly true that effective birth control measures have made it possible for women to be less concerned about the consequences of pregnancy than in the past.

Alas, from the truth that virginity is no more important for woman than it is for men what most certainly does not follow is that the very idea of a decent woman is now bankrupt.  And therein lies the fundamental problem with feminism.  Women have lost sight of the idea that a good man is a responsible man.

With or without virginity and with or without equal rights, there is simply no amount of sexual equality that will change the fact that a good man is a responsible man and a good woman is a responsible woman.

A decent woman will not settle for an irresponsible man; likewise, a decent man will not settle for an irresponsible woman.  And the judgment of decency flows not from a relentless exercise of whatever rights a person might have, but necessarily from the proper exercise of moral judgment.

Now, let me conclude by continuing my descent down the so-called sexist abyss of my thinking.  In reality sex is very asymmetrical.  We may use the word f-word with respect to both women and men.  But the delusion only goes but so far if we are talking about penal-vaginal sex.  Naturally, sex is not at limit to that arrangement.  Still, take that arrangement out of the picture and one has radically changed that the nature of sexual relations between most heterosexual couples.  Furthermore, while it is true that a woman can in fact rape a man, it is for good reason, as opposed to a mere flight of fantasy, that we primarily think of rape as something that men do to women without her consent.  However, desirous a woman might be of sex, the absence of consent on her part makes the act of penetration rape.

By contrast, it is very difficult to suppose that a man surfeited with sexual desire has been raped should a woman avail herself of the moment.  At least a very complicated story is needed order to make it so.  This is because whatever it is that a woman does if she should avail herself of a man’s erection, it is very, very difficult to characterize her behavior as analogous to a man’s rape of a woman.  And that asymmetry is not going to bow to theory.

What follows from this is something rather profound, namely that the way in which a woman conducts herself sexually makes a difference that has no analogue with respect to men, as is shown by the need for her consent in order for the sex act not to be rape.  This gives women a moral power that men lack.

A decent woman neither ignores nor abuses that power—a power that men do not have.

The hypocrisy of contemporary feminism, as opposed to the inexorable truth that women and men should have equal rights, lies in the fact that feminism refuses to acknowledge this power whilst never failing to avail itself of it.  It is simply not possible for any man to take women seriously without taking seriously the role of a woman’s consent with regard to sex.  An analogous claim does not hold for women with regard to men.

* * * * *

Dr. Laura Schlessinger often claims that women have a moral power that men lack.  I have attempted to give philosophical articulation to that claim—a claim that is manifestly compatible with equal rights for women and men.