A comment tossed off In Sleeping Furiously alluded to the secret weapon of Islam: fecundity. This is a topic getting some attention lately as the immigration and assimilation problems in Europe are at long last subjected to some honest inquiry, and as US immigration policy gets increased scrutiny.

There are several drivers for cultural conflict on this issue. European cultures - which includes the US too - have been obsessed by breeding for decades, a confluence of a number of streams of thought ranging from concerns about human population to a pathological distaste for masculinity - except in women. Muslim cultures are equally obsessed but have entirely different prescriptions for management of the issue. A gross oversimplification from which to launch a discussion might be that European cultures seek to emasculate men - circumcising, repressing, and ridiculing masculine expression - while Muslim cultures seek to dehumanize women - circumcising, repressing, and ridiculing unto death any expression of female sexuality.

Glenn links to a post by "Dr. Sanity" that excoriates Islam.

Amazingly, this medieval culture has grasped the fundamentals of both Orwellian and postmodern rhetorical rationalizations, that are so prominent in certain intellectual quarters within our own culture! I have heard the canned rationalizations coming from their lips of muslim women myself; and they all claim that it frees them from having to be "sexual objects."

On the contrary, in Islamic society that is apparently the only role open to women. That, and breeders for the jihad.

This societal psychopathology poisons all interactions between the genders; takes up an incredible amount of time and effort in so-called "intellectual" circles and is the subject of religious edicts and innumerable rules and strictures on women's behavior and in the religious and social life; and causes the pseudoscientific rantings of arrogantly pathetic men . . . who try to justify their misogyny so that they don't have to deal with the reality of their frightened and impotent masculinity. . .

Without the subjugated woman, the entire house of cards of Islam and Arab culture will come tumbling down.

I have said it before and I will say it again here: the treatment of women under Islam is not only the key to understanding the pathology of the culture, but also the key to developing an antidote to its most poisonous and toxic elements.

Doctor, heal thyself. Christina Hoff Sommers reviews Manliness by Harvey C. Mansfield.

In Manliness, Harvey C. Mansfield seeks to persuade skeptical readers, especially educated women, to reconsider the merits of male protectiveness and assertiveness. It is in no way a defense of male privilege, but many will be offended by its old-fashioned claim that the virtues of men and women are different and complementary. . .

"Manliness," he says, "is a quality that causes individuals to stand for something." The Greeks used the term thumos to denote the bristling, spirited element shared by human beings and animals that makes them fight back when threatened. It causes dogs to defend their turf; it makes human beings stand up for their kin, their religion, their country, their principles. "Just as a dog defends its master," writes Mansfield, "so the doggish part of the human soul defends human ends higher than itself."

Every human being possesses thumos. But those who are manly possess it in abundance, and sometimes in excess. . .

Women can be manly--Margaret Thatcher is an example--but manliness is the "quality mostly of one sex." This creates problems for a society such as ours that likes to think of itself as "gender neutral," egalitarian, and sensitive. Manliness is not sensitive. Today, we mainly cope with it by politely changing the subject. The very word is deemed quaint and outmoded. Gender experts in our universities teach as fact that the sex difference is an illusion--a discredited construct, like the earth being flat or the sun revolving around the earth.

And yet, the complex range of behavior that "manliness" characterizes persists. It is still mostly men who embody it. We have succeeded in bringing the language to account, but we have not managed to exorcise masculine thumos.

It isn't that Islam is right, it is that Europeans are wrong too. Both cultures have botched socialization - one by suppressing one sex, one by suppressing the other. Both have laundry lists of reasons why their methods must be followed. Both cite aspects of conflict that can't be reasoned away or ignored except by masters of the cognitive kaleidoscope, and both cite equally dubious prescriptions that fail every imaginable reality test and callously disregard the pain and suffering of their respective constituencies, citing horrors avoided as justification for horrors inflicted.

We won't find a middle ground, and wouldn't admire it if we did since true sanity is not an average of these two dysfunctional cultures. The best outcome we can hope for is that each culture will be jolted out of its rut by the other, and that the nonsense practices of each will be rethought so that they can make some progress on the subject.

Though this is a remote subject from normal M&M themes it is relevant in that the structure of European confusion about sex is much the same as its confusion about the environment. The opposing political camps mirror the conflict and are often composed of the same people. Neither side grasps that they won't actually manage the environment well by disregarding the views of the other and seeking to dominate them using brute majoritarian force or stealthy manipulation of the "justice" system.

It isn't about winning, it's about good governance, good management and mindful accommodation of all members of society. It isn't helpful to demonize one another for having different views, different preferences, different principles and values and in the end different physical attributes which express themselves as different natures. You can't look inside yourself and find universals, you can only find an instance of a widely variable set.

It isn't useful - or even sane - to be squicked out by those who are different, and flatly refuse to grant them their humanity. That doesn't mean that you can't refute their prescriptions or out them for deceits and wrong-headed behaviors. It means that you can't lose sight of the fact that they are coming from somewhere that you must accommodate in some fashion, that useful prescriptions for governance must give them a place to stand. This isn't merely a moral prescription, it is a practical necessity to avoid social breakdown and disruption.

If you step back from the conflict for a moment and reflect on the structure of the problem it is easier to grasp that winning can be one of the roads to defeat: self-punking. Be careful what you fight for because you might win and then have to stand and deliver. It's the Red Monday problem of last century, the poorly analysed alternatives to evolved socio-economic institutions which over-focused on the defects of those institutions and under-focused on the defects of proposed alternatives. Twirl the kaleidoscope until the pattern confirms your cherished illusions, then wage war as if there were no tomorrow.

Prometheus made a point in a post referenced in an update to R.I.P.:

In practice, the notion of “consensus” is typically portrayed in pure black and white. You are either with the consensus or you are one of those skeptics, who Rahmstorf characterizes as “frequently dishonest.” And we see this pattern whether the issue is temperature trends as discussed above, or a seemingly even more uncertain issue like hurricanes and climate change. Consider this quote from a recent ABC News story which focuses on the nefarious intentions of the oil industry-funded climate skeptics, “But some continue to promote the idea there are “uncertainties in the science”.”

Such characterizations by scientists and the media can have a chilling effect on scientific discourse because they create powerful incentives to avoid research which may be somehow critical of the consensus, leaving such research primarily to those seeking to challenge the consensus.

This is important and it applies to most every conflict, not just the climate debate. It is one of the powerful self-punking mechanisms resulting from approaching socio-cultural analysis as conflict. Heresy is necessary to progress. There is no way to protect heretics. Tenure doesn't insulate them from scorn and the insults, both subtle and unsubtle, that are flung at them in a determined attempt to drive them away or starve them in place. The constant, grinding pressure to conform steers thought away from potentially fruitful directions and retards progress. Worse perhaps, it assures that only those infected with revolutionary fever will take those paths, a group not particularly noted for quality work since so much energy is siphoned off in maintaining the revolutionary stance.

Our strongest criticisms, our wittiest barbs and cruelest laughter should be directed at those on both sides most wedded to their positions since they are the greatest impediments to progress.