by Gavin Ashenden
From Quest to Consensus.
It might seem surprising to suggest that there is a connection between sex and free speech. But there does appear to be one.
I spent today at the House of Lords listening to Lord Toby Young (Lord Young of Acton- President of the Free Speech Union) lecture about free speech.
One of the questions he asked was whether the opponents of free speech see themselves as ‘ethical people’ trying to do something morally valuable, or whether they are simply motivated by spoiling conversation and exerting control.
The answer, it seems, is that most genuinely believe they are ethical and acting ethically. They think they are doing good. In their own eyes, they are they are saving people from harm. In this worldview, free speech is seen as a repressive tool of the powerful against the weak and the vulnerable.
How did we get here?
If you want to use the language of philosophy, this represents the replacement of Plato’s model of the Socratic dialogue — where competing ideas battle it out in pursuit of truth — with a kind of feminized Nietzscheanism. Nietzsche was the great prophet of power. It was he who offered an analysis of power relations being the most obvious way of interpreting social categories; but in its feminized form, under feminine influence, power is reframed: it exists to protect people, the vulnerable, the marginalised from harm.
This might sound odd at first sight , but let’s look at it in practice.
I remember twenty or thirty years ago when Anglicans were debating women in the priesthood. There was almost no theology involved. The conversation was reduced to a single question: “If men can, why can’t women?” — as if it were merely an administrative or fairness issue; doing rather than being.
This always struck me as theologically shallow. There is clearly a difference between men and women. But how deep does that difference go? Does it extend beyond procreation? Beyond psychology? The answer, it turns out, is that it stretches a very long way.
American writer Helen Andrews has pointed out that around 2020 a significant demographic shift occurred: all the major institutions — media, law, healthcare — developed a female majority. A 51-49 split emerged. Did this matter?