Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

RIP Richard Matheson [Darleen Click]

Another great writer, whose works populated my coming of age, has died

Richard Matheson, who has died aged 87, was an American writer whose many short stories, novels, screenplays and television scripts were among the most significant and original works of horror and fantasy of the last century.

His two best-known novels, I am Legend (1954) and The Shrinking Man (1956), were both filmed – the first three times – and more than a dozen other films, including What Dreams May Come, The Legend of Hell House, Somewhere in Time, Stir of Echoes, The Box, Real Steel and Steven Spielberg’s directorial debut, Duel, were based on his fiction.

Matheson was also a prolific writer of both original screenplays and adaptations, and was responsible for 14 episodes of the television series The Twilight Zone, as well as writing for Star Trek. Stephen King acknowledged him as “the author who influenced me the most as a writer”, and Ray Bradbury described him as “one of the most important writers of the 20th century”.

Like Bradbury’s, Matheson’s work was often described, and marketed, as science fiction and (again like Bradbury’s) occasionally provided superficial pseudoscientific set-dressing for excursions into the fantastic. But though both writers shared an interest in the Gothic, the primary impulse of Bradbury’s fiction was towards the pastoral; the characteristic theme of Matheson’s work was undoubtedly paranoia.

81 Replies to “RIP Richard Matheson [Darleen Click]”

  1. cranky-d says:

    I followed the link to see he wrote “The Enemy Within,” one of the better ST-TOS episodes in my opinion.

  2. Darleen says:

    yep, and he wrote “The Night Stalker”, Tons of Twilight Zone episodes (including “Terror at 20,000 feet” starring William Shatner)

  3. cranky-d says:

    “Terror at 20,000 Feet” is another classic.

  4. serr8d says:

    Another good writer down. #RIP

    Well, we’ve still got Harlan Ellison.

    So I wanted to know, what’s the deal with Harlan Ellison writing naked? He chuckled mischievously before saying this:

    “Well it has been fairly recurrent. I wear whatever it is I’m wearing, when I get the urge to write, so if I get out of bed at two in the morning and wanna write I haven’t got the time or the patience to throw on pajamas…but in Vegas when I wrote that story, I did write it naked…God knows why. But that’s like asking ‘why did you put on shoes this morning.’ What is, is.”

  5. epador says:

    Here is an interesting eulogy from a publisher, a unique source of special publications from this and other interesting authors I have enjoyed:

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/gauntlet-press/gauntlet-publisher-barry-hoffmans-tribute-to-richard-matheson/423696797727720

  6. mojo says:

    Hollywood likes their stuff “edgy”, as they say, but not TOO edgy. Which is what Harlan always was – besides being unafraid of telling big-wigs to go fuck themselves. So, y’know, two strikes right there.

    Matheson was good, he even did a couple of books worth of horror shorts, Cthulhuish and very scary.

  7. dicentra says:

    We gots to talk about SCOTUS stuff, yeah? New thread?

  8. Pablo says:

    I like how they just granted state executives a veto over over the voters’ will as expressed via ballot amendments. What could go wrong there?

  9. Pablo says:

    Ballot initiatives/referendums, that is.

  10. dicentra says:

    Rush was just pointing out that DOMA was struck down not on the basis that it was unconstitutional but because its proponents were h8rs.

    I mean, that was in the opinion; it wasn’t Rush projecting SCOTUS motives (unlike what SCOTUS totally did).

    Reverse the polarity, proponents: DOMA is upheld because SCOTUS deems the motives of DOMA opponents to be suspect, on account of they’re trying to make the baby Jesus cry.

  11. dicentra says:

    Also, a lefty called Rush and tried to persuade him that socons could totally have won the argument on SSM if they’d just shut up about religion, because hey, atheists such as himself are married, and are the Xtians saying that his marriage doesn’t count because he doesn’t believe in God, because even before Christ, marriage was sanctioned by the state to ensure that the population was robust through the making of bebes, and THAT argument would have won them over.

    Rush hardly knew where to start.

  12. dicentra says:

    Hey pikachu!

    Will you be all vocal and staunch and in-your-face to your fancy friends when the following begins to happen?

    1. Churches that don’t sanction SSM

    (a) lose their tax-exempt status

    (b) are mysteriously unable to buy property

    (c) get fire-bombed

    (d) are sued into oblivion for crimes “real” and imagined?

    2. BYU and other religion-sponsored universities

    (a) lose their accreditation

    (b) cannot participate in the NCAA and other intramural sports

    (c) cannot get their papers published in scholarly journals

    3. People who belong to churches that don’t sanction SSM

    (a) get fired or are not hired

    (b) have crosses burned on their lawns or worse

    (c) are serially harassed by the FBI, IRS, EPA, OSHA, etc.

    (d) cannot get loans

    (e) lose their businesses from boycotts or arson

    (f) have their highly personal communications posted on the Internet, thus to humiliate them

    (g) are spat upon literally and figuratively as the new KKK

    Will you defend us to the people in your life?

    Or will you remain silent, because you know that if you utter so much as one word in our support, they’ll rip you to pieces before throwing you in the same pile as we’re on?

    BTW, the purpose of pushing SSM is not to be fair to the historically disadvantaged: it’s to provide a pretext to engage in the actions listed above. The Left wants us God-botherers discredited and humiliated and as silent as the tomb. Pushing SSM is about the niftiest way to do that.

  13. Ernst Schreiber says:

    We gots to talk about SCOTUS stuff, yeah? New thread?

    Today’s big winners? Mustapha Mond and the other World Controllers.

    Praise Ford!

  14. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Oh Di, everything will be just fine –like grilled peaches and vanilla bean ice cream with that cinammony rum buter sauce they put on the Bananas Foster– you wait and see.

  15. Ernst Schreiber says:

    BTW, the purpose of pushing SSM is not to be fair to the historically disadvantaged: it’s to provide a pretext to engage in the actions listed above. The Left wants us God-botherers discredited and humiliated and as silent as the tomb. Pushing SSM is about the niftiest way to do that.

    Well, that, and to finish the job of atomizing the individual by eradicating what remains of the intermediating bonds that shelter individuals from the all encompassing state.

    But mostly to finish the job of atomizing the individual by eradicating what remains of the intermediating bonds that shelter individuals from the all encompassing state.

    Praise Ford and pass the Soma!

  16. bgbear says:

    Matheson was one of the earliest names I learned to recognize to indicate “Oh, I’ll probably like this”.

  17. dicentra says:

    Well, that, and to finish the job of atomizing the individual by eradicating what remains of the intermediating bonds that shelter individuals from the all encompassing state.

    And to deprive us of our herteronormativity and (cis)sexual identity. As the floodgates open to SSM, watch for social shaming of those who present as distinctly male or female.

  18. dicentra says:

    Stay-cation: Day 2

    Not doing a very good job of keeping up with yesterday’s productivity. Also, I discovered that the “sunset” settings on my camera stop down the aperture quite nicely and emphasize reds and yellows like nobody’s bidness.

  19. Ernst Schreiber says:

    (cis)sexual Di? Really?

    Shame on you for using that bit of politicized neological cant.

  20. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I’ve been reading and re-reading Paul Johnson during my convalescence.

    Cant is my new favorite word.

  21. palaeomerus says:

    THe skelemans,
    They don’t complain
    The sekelemans
    Don’t use their brain
    The skelemans
    Got no reason to lie
    The skelemans
    Ain’t afraid to die
    The skelemans
    They don’t get mad
    The skelemans
    They don’t steal bread
    The skelemans
    Don’t take you court
    The skelemans
    Are quick to forget
    Can’t get sad…
    ‘Yeah they’re dead.

  22. palaeomerus says:

    That’s my shitty reggae lyrics for the day.

  23. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Also, my “Shorter Short” says you’re using cis- wrong connotatively, and the gay/feminazi lobby is using it wrong denotatively.

  24. mondamay says:

    As the floodgates open to SSM, watch for social shaming of those who present as distinctly male or female.

    Maybe. Politics can bend culture and human nature only so far. I offer as evidence that helpful husbands who do most of that helping in areas of traditionally “masculine” pursuit (fixing cars, being handy, mowing grass) get more sweet, sweet, lovin’ from their wives, than those more beta types who cook and clean.

  25. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Why would you think that there will still be such quaint, old-fashioned things as husbands and wives in the Brave New post-Constitutional Republic Ameritopia?

    That’s the kind of blatant, bigotry and hate that the Court just struck down.

    for your own good!

    Heterosexualist. I bet your patriarchical too.

  26. Ernst Schreiber says:

    My lousy grammah prove how righteous my indignation is.

  27. happyfeet says:

    I’m a be very vigilant for to make sure we don’t have us no firebombings

    so far we seem to have nipped the firebombings in the bud

    but for reals I think you’re hyperventilating a lil bit di

    everything will be ok you have my word

  28. mondamay says:

    Why would you think that there will still be such quaint, old-fashioned things as husbands and wives

    Because there always have been. See “politics can only bend” clause above.

    I see this more as a harbinger of doom for our current government and possibly our entire culture, than a major social/political realignment. Hopefully only the former (government).

  29. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Praise Ford!

  30. dicentra says:

    Shame on you for using that bit of politicized neological cant.

    Looks like WordPress doesn’t accept <irony> tags.

    Politics can bend culture and human nature only so far.

    The housework conundrum is effected in the privacy of the home. Tough to shame a man for not washing the dishes if nobody actually sees him not do it.

    Not tough to shame men for wearing beards or women for showing cleavage or wearing frills.

    I’m a be very vigilant for to make sure we don’t have us no firebombings

    I’m looking forward to your armed, simultaneous presence at all of the Christian chapels in the country.

    but for reals I think you’re hyperventilating a lil bit di

    You always say that. But when the crazy social engineering comes to pass, you go with the flow and call the rest of us biggits.

    Explain why we won’t continue on the current trajectory? What’s to stop social elites from “realizing” how bigoted it is for us to expect hermaphrodites and the transgendered to choose one or the other? What’s to stop Hollywood from going all unisex in their casting, hairstyles, clothing, and language?

    They’re never satisfied with winning any of their battles: they always move on to the next radical thing — the more radical the better, and the more shocking to the middle class, the harder they push it.

    Yeah. They’ll stop now. Now that they got what they wanted.

  31. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Why would you think that there will still be such quaint, old-fashioned things as husbands and wives

    Because there always have been.

    The Brave New World had its relics of a by-gone age too.

  32. Ernst Schreiber says:

    WordPress doesn’t accept tags.

    Wouldn’t have helped anyways. The anodyne I’m self-medicating with blocks the irony receptors.

    What’s to stop Hollywood from going all unisex in their casting, hairstyles, clothing, and language?

    You mean like Justin Cyrus and Miley Bieber? Or like Davie Lennox and Annid Bowie back in the 80s?

  33. dicentra says:

    Because there always have been. See “politics can only bend” clause above.

    Marriage has always been heterosexual, and yet what did they just do???

    Already in the Eurozone and Canada the terms “mother” and “father” are being replaced by “parent 1” and “parent 2” on birth certificates and other official documents. “Husband” and “wife” are being replaced with “spouse.”

    Do NOT underestimate the zeal of the activists. Please consider Bookworm’s arguments in Sex and State Power. This isn’t about being fair to historically disadvantaged people, it’s about acquiring as much power over the individual as possible, and effacing sexual identity is one of the more delicious elements because of the humiliation. We’ll all be that poor guy whose male member was accidentally severed in a circumcision and was forced to grow up as a girl.

    No, you’re NOT a boy or a girl! STOP THAT! You’re a person. We don’t say “she” or “he” anymore: we say “they,” to be fair to everyone. You have a parent named Sylvia and another parent named Bob. Don’t talk about “my mom” or “my dad” because how does that make the other kids feel if their parents are named Sue and Annie?

    Now let’s go picket that doll factory and Tonka trucks for their unforgivably insensitive genderist toymaking. Blocks! Paper and crayons! Those are the only toys that are suited for enlightened children!

    Unless something happens to stop the trend, this is where we’re headed. And it’s not just me: Dennis Prager gets it and has for a long, long time.

    Some examples of this war on gender:

    — This year Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, male or female. Harvard has agreed.

    — In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country’s largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service.

    — Each year more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as (gender-based) discrimination.

    — When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other.

    — Catholic Charities, which operates the oldest ongoing adoption services in America, has had to end its adoption work in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, DC because the governments there regard placing children with married man-woman couples before same-sex couples as discriminatory.

    Increasingly, even the mother-father ideal is being shattered in this battle to render male-female distinction insignificant.

    — The socialist French government has just announced that in the future no government issued document will be allowed to use the words “mother” or “father.” Only the gender-neutral term “parent” will be acceptable in France.

    — And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

    Are we seeing pushback on this or capitulation?

    Hyperventilating, indeed. I’m just watching where the trend lines point.

  34. Ernst Schreiber says:

    It’s all just sexplay and orgy-porgy anyways, Di. Geez. Take your soma like a good Beta-minus.

  35. Yackums says:

    Ernst Schreiber says June 26, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    Cant is my new favorite word.

    As in, “Yes We Cant?”

  36. BT says:

    I learned a new word yesterday. Heterosexism.

    Apparently being accused of it is a bad thing.

  37. eCurmudgeon says:

    At some point, future historians will look at last night’s events in Texas (warning: Auto-play video) and today’s Supreme Court decision as the point where the United States officially became a third-world nation.

  38. Ernst Schreiber says:

    That won’t be official until the Zimmerman is convicted.

  39. eCurmudgeon says:

    That won’t be official until the Zimmerman is convicted.

    More like acquitted – Followed by nation-wide urban rioting passionate civil-rights demonstrations.

  40. Squid says:

    Bear in mind that all the culture-war “transgressive” political battles are what the kids call “First World problems.” We’re rapidly approaching the point where Real Problems become everybody’s primary concern, at which point these “because we can” demonstrations of force will seem a quaint relic.

    Another nice side effect is that Real Problems will make people discover a new appreciation for things like good neighbors, churches, and families. (Probably also guns, though it’s fairly Hobbitty to mention as much.)

  41. Ernst Schreiber says:

    More like acquitted

    By all that’s right and just, he ought to be acquitted.

    Which is why I’m betting the other way.

  42. John Bradley says:

    I’m betting he’s found guilty this time around — to prevent the ‘Rodney King effect’ — which is overturned in the appeal (hoping that by then, the Revr’nds will have found a new racial chew-toy).

  43. sdferr says:

    By all that’s right and just, he ought to be acquitted.

    I think rather, never brought to trial. But that’s my bias as to justice.

  44. happyfeet says:

    hermaphrodites are not on my radar really

  45. sdferr says:

    Hermaphrodites mating, mucus aplenty — helical wonders abound.

  46. BT says:

    hermaphrodites are not on my radar really

    They probably don’t go out much.

  47. newrouter says:

    “hermaphrodites are not on my radar really”

    did you check your sonar?

  48. happyfeet says:

    shoulder to shoulder I will stand with all of you against the hermaphrodite menace

    this is a promise

  49. bgbear says:

    good happyfeet, I have banana slugs all around my house.

  50. happyfeet says:

    oh it’s on

  51. sdferr says:

    Saltshakers at the ready.

  52. dicentra says:

    ‘feets, you have no idea how hollow your pledges of fidelity ring.

    You’re in thrall to the good opinion of the enemies of the Republic. First sign of trouble and you’ll fold like a cheap tent.

  53. dicentra says:

    Interesting consideration: Utah was admitted to the Union on the condition that its constitution outlaw polygamy forever.

    If polygamy is forcibly legalized in Utah, does that mean we’ve automatically seceded?

    Please God say yes.

  54. leigh says:

    From your keyboard to God’s ears, di.

  55. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Feel free to disagree with her prescription, but Elizabeth Scalia’s descriptionis spot-on.

    Yesterday, a president stood up and told the country he’s making an end run around a co-equal branch of government and not an eye seemed to bat. The Party has won, and we will quickly watch everyone rush to insure that they are members-in-good-standing of The Party. They surely don’t want to have to stand on line with the proles.
    The press cannot help itself, it is still mad with love, if not for the administration, then for The Party. Who is not in love may still be willing to fall in line, for a variety of reasons. Some of them may be looking at the death of Michael Hastings and thinking, “even if it really was just an accident and not — as some conspiracy theorists are trying to argue — a car-hacked-take-out (which would be breathtaking but still seems too outlandish to consider), there is no reason to put anything at all at risk. Just hang on and enjoy the ride…” and they’ll get everything they think they want, politically.
    In pursuit of utopia there is no boat so terribly worth rocking in this administration, anymore.

  56. sdferr says:

    The pagans sank beneath the tide, their pieties — for all intents and purposes from our vantage — vanished.

  57. happyfeet says:

    getting rid of that doma business is one of the best gifts our beleaguered Team R friends could’ve hoped for di

    it’s serendipitous!

  58. BigBangHunter says:

    Scalia: ‘High-Handed’ Kennedy Has Declared Us ‘Enemies of the Human Race’

    In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

    But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent. – Justice Scalia.

    – See you all in another decade of sliding down the slippery slope of government mixing in society. I fully expect the moral bar will then be pikachu’s marrying their right hands.

  59. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Now if only we could get on board with the amnestying of the shadow-dwellers and the pureeing of the parasitic womb-dwellers, then everybody’d love us like Raymond.

    Fucking idiot.

    The pagans sank beneath the tide, their pieties — for all intents and purposes from our vantage — vanished.

    They’re baaaaaack!

    Or hadn’t you noticed?

  60. newrouter says:

    should we have a “missing-pagans” milk carton campaign.

  61. newrouter says:

    “getting rid of that doma business”

    why you h8te billy clinton?

  62. sdferr says:

    Oh I don’t think they’re back in the least. Some revival of the practice of human sacrifice seems to be on the wax, even if only metaphorically, but it isn’t apparent anyone is seriously doing obeisance and honor to Zeus, to Diana, to the Nereids, and so on. Else it would be impossible to account for Kevin Sorbo’s (very) modest film success.

  63. leigh says:

    Statement from the USCCB.

  64. dicentra says:

    Some revival of the practice of human sacrifice seems to be on the wax,

    child sacrifice has been legal since 1972

  65. newrouter says:

    ” Some revival of the practice of human sacrifice seems to be on the wax,”

    “dr” gosnell’s babyfeets in a jar available on ebay soon

  66. newrouter says:

    levin at close tonight ” it is time to go offense”

  67. dicentra says:

    I was listening to Hewitt live, and he interviewed Hoeven, and made mincemeat of him. It was a beautiful thing to see.

  68. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Some revival of the practice of human sacrifice seems to be on the wax, even if only metaphorically, but it isn’t apparent anyone is seriously doing obeisance and honor to Zeus, to Diana, to the Nereids, and so on. </blockquote

    No. but the elemental forces represented by Zeus and Dianna and the Nereids, to say nothing of Gaia, recieve their share of obeiscance. Dionysus seems to be doing pretty well. So does Astarte –she'd be doing even better but for Moloch. I think a neo-Platonic kind of gnosis has been especially popular for well over a century now.

  69. newrouter says:

    ” I think a neo-Platonic kind of gnosis has been especially popular for well over a century now. ”

    saw this today

    The gnostic aspect is our ruling class’s intellectual error in misconceiving our civilization as a cosmic fact, a necessary part of the universe that must and will continue to exist. Eric Voegelin masterfully elaborated on this in his Walgreen-sponsored lectures in 1952. He used the phrase ‘propaganda for moral insanity’ in describing the symptoms of gnostic intoxication, getting all of reality’s defaults precisely backwards all the time, with elites who are confused by their dream conception as it blurs the structure of reality as it truly is. In this case, the misappropriation of one thing and its application to something wholly different. Marriage cannot mean the same experience between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The most obvious and economic point for a brief discourse is no children. Only heterosexual unions can naturally transmit life. Marriage is the representative symbol of that unalterable reality, so it’s a natural target for gnosticism.

    link

  70. sdferr says:

    We should start worshiping the god of html if only it would cut us a little slack now and then.

  71. Patrick Chester says:

    The god of html might be like Crom, so calling upon him might bring only doom upon thee.

  72. Darleen says:

    I couldn’t blog from work … so I just got home a bit ago and started a SCOTUS thread

  73. newrouter says:

    i gauge the state of the republic by the status of the bird.

  74. sdferr says:

    Right about now I’m considering an appeal to the Daphnaie to distract Scott Kazmir for a moment or two, that he might toss a fat one down the heart of the plate.

  75. sdferr says:

    Bingo! Manny doubles (36!) again.

  76. BigBangHunter says:

    – There shall be many more unintended consequences than yet anticipated. They shall own their miseries.

    – (Especially yellow rodents).

  77. Patrick Chester says:

    The miseries upon yellow rodents will be poetic justice.

  78. Pablo says:

    — And in Rhode Island this year, one school district cancelled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

    Are we seeing pushback on this or capitulation?

    On that one, shockingly, yes.

  79. Ernst Schreiber says:

    – See you all in another decade of sliding down the slippery slope of government mixing in society.

    Well, let’s look back a quarter century to what Allan Bloom observed about the (then) twenty-odd year-old sexual revolution and feminist movement, and see if we can extrapolate by analogy, shall we?

    Sexual liberation presented itself as a bold affirmation of the senses and of undeniable natural impulse against our puritanical heritage, soci-ety’s conventions and repressions, bolstered by Biblical myths about origi-
    nal sin. From the early sixties on there was a gradual testing of the limits on sexual expression, and they melted away or had already disappeared without anybody’s having noticed it. [….] This emancipa-tion had in its intention and its effect the accentuation of the difference between the sexes. Making love was to be the primary activity, so men and women were to be more emphatically male and female. Of course, homosexuals were also liberated, but for the great mass of people, being
    free and natural meant achieving heterosexual satisfactions, opposite sexes made for each other.

    The immediate promise of sexual liberation was, simply, happiness understood as the release of energies that had been stored up over mil-lennia during the dark night of repression, in a great continuous Baccha-nalia.
    [….]
    In all this, the sexual revolution was precisely what it said it was-a liberation. [….]

    Feminism, … was, to the extent it presented itself as liberation, much more a liberation from nature than from convention or society. Therefore it was grimmer, unerotic, more of an abstract pro-ject, and required not so much the abolition of law but the institution of law and political activism. Instinct did not suffice. The negative sentiment of imprisonment was there, but what was wanted, as Freud suggested, was unclear. The programmatic language shifted from “living naturally” (with reference to very definite bodily functions) to vaguer terms such as “self- definition,” “self-fulfillment,” “establishing priorities,” “fashioning a life-style,” etc. The women’s movement is not founded on nature. Although feminism sees the position of women as a result of nurture and not nature, its crucial contention is that biology should not be destiny, and biology is surely natural. …. Moreover, it is very often asserted that science’s conquest of nature–in the form of the pill and labor-saving devices has made woman’s emancipation from the home possible. It is certain that feminism has brought with it an unrelenting process of consciousness-raising and -changing that begins in what is probably a permanent human inclination and is surely a modern one—the longing for the unlimited, the unconstrained. It ends, as do many modern movements that seek abstract justice, in forgetting nature and using force to refashion human beings to secure that justice.

    [….]

    Central to the feminist project is the suppression of modesty, in which the sexual revolution played a critical preparatory role, just as capitalism, in the Marxist scheme, prepared the way for socialism[.] The sexual revolution, however, wanted men and women to get together bodily, while feminism wanted them to be able easily to get along separately. Modesty in the old dispensation was the female virtue, because it governed the powerful desire that related men to women, providing a gratification in harmony with the procreation and rearing of children, the risk and respon-sibility of which fell naturally–that is, biologically on women. Although modesty impeded sexual intercourse, its result was to make such gratifica-tion centxal to a serious life and to enhance the delicate interplay between the sexes, which makes acquiescence of the will as important as possession of the body. Diminution or suppression of modesty certainly makes attain-ing the end of desire easier–which was the intention of the sexual revolution—but it also dismantles the structure of involvement and at-tachment, reducing sex to the thing-in-itself. This is where feminism enters.

    Female modesty extends sexual differentiation from the sexual act to the whole of life. It makes men and women always men and women. The consciousness of directedness toward one another, and its attractions and inhibitions, inform every common deed. As long as modesty operates, men and women together are never just lawyers or pilots together. They have something else, always potentially very important, in common– ultimate ends, or as they say, “life goals.” Is winning this case or landing this plane what is most important, or is it love and family? As lawyers or pilots, men and women are the same, subservient to the one goal. As lovers or parents they are very different, but inwardly related by sharing the naturally given end of continuing the species. Yet their working together immediately poses the questions of “roles” and, hence, “priorities,” in a way that men working together or women working together does not. Modesty is a constant reminder of their peculiar relatedness and its outer forms and inner sentiments, which impede the self’s free creation or capita]ism’s technical division of labor. It is a voice constantly repeating that a man and a woman have a work to do together that is far different from that found in the marketplace, and of a far greater importance.

    This is why modesty is the first sacrifice demanded by Socrates in Plato’s Republic [bold for orig. ital.] for the establishment of a city where women have the same education, live the same lives and do the same jobs as men. If the difference between men and women is not to determine their ends, if it is not to be more significant than the difference between bald men and men with hair, then they must strip and exercise naked together just as Greek men did. With some qualifications, feminists praise this passage in Plato and look upon it as prescient, for it culminates in an absolute liberation of women from the subjection of marriage and childbearing and -rearing, which become no more important than any other necessary and momentary biological event. Socrates provides birth control, abortion and day-care centers, as well as marriages that last a day or a night and have as their only end the production of sound new citizens to replenish the city’s stock, cared for by the city. He even adds infanticide to the list of conveniences available. A woman will probably have to spend no more time and effort on children’s business than a man would in curing a case of the measles. Only then can women be thought to be naturally fit to do the same things as men. Socrates’ radicalism extends to the relation of parent and child. The citizens are not to know their own children, for, if they were to love them above others, then the means that brought them into being, the intercourse of this man and this woman, would be judged to be of special significance. Then we would be back to the private family and the kinds of relatedness peculiar to it.

    Socrates’ proposal especially refers to one of the most problematic cases for those who seek equal teatment for women–the military. These citizens are warriors, and he argues that just as women can be liberated from subjection to men and take their places alongside them, men must be liberated from their special concern for women. A man must have no more compunction about killing the advancing female enemy than the male, and he must be no more protective of the heroine fighting on his right side than of the hero on his left. Equal oportunity and equal risk. The only concern is the common good, and the only relationship is to the community, bypassing the intermediate relationships that tend to take on a life of their own and were formerly thought to have natural roots in sexual attraction and love of one’s own children. Socrates consciously rips asunder the delicate web of relations among human beings woven out of their sexual nature. Without it, the isolation of individuals is inevitable. He makes explicit how equal treatment of women necessitates the re-moval of meaning from the old kind of sexual relations–whether they were founded on nature or convention–and a consequent loss of the
    human connections that resulted from them which he replaces with the common good of the city.

    [….]

    …. There may indeed be a feminine nature or self, but it has been definitively shaken loose from its teleological moorings. The femi-nine nature is not in any reciprocal relation to the male nature, and they do not define one another. The male and female sexual organs themselves now have no more evident purposiveness than do white and black skin, are no more naturally pointed toward one another than white master and black slave, or so the legend goes. Women do have different physical structures, but they can make of them what they will–without paying a price. The feminine nature is a mystery to be worked out on its own, which can now be done because the male claim to it has been overcome. The fact that there is today a more affirmative disposition toward child-bearing does not imply that there is any natural impulse or compulsion to establish anything like a traditional fatherhood to complement mother-hood. The children are to be had on the female’s terms, with or without fathers, who are not to get in the way of the mother’s free development. ….. So we have reproduction without family–if family includes the presence of a male who has any kind of a definite function. The return to motherhood as a feminist ideal is only possible because feminism has triumphed over the family as it was once known, and women’s freedom will not be limited by it. None of this means returning to family values or even bodes particularly well for the family as an institution, although it does mean that women have become freer to come to terms with the complexity of their situation.

    The uneasy bedfellowship of the sexual revolution and feminism produced an odd tension in which all the moral restraints governing nature disappeared, but so did nature. The exhilaration of liberation has evaporated, however, for it is unclear what exactly was liberated or whether new and more onerous responsibilities have not been placed on us.

    (Bloom, Closing 98-106; bold emphasis mine except where otherwise indicated.)

    If that was too long to read, I would summarize Bloom thusly:

    Congratulations, ladies. You burned your bras so that Adam and Steve could get married. beore they raise your kid for you as the lawfully designated agents of the state.

Comments are closed.