Conservative Dad's Empty Vessels

Grifting into the New Year with reflections on Roger Scruton

Many ‘takes’ have been offered surrounding the release of a so-called ‘conservative’ pinup calendar. It goes without saying that this has aggravated a fissure on the American Right, and justly so. To their credit, I would like to mention Peachy Keenan, Allie Stuckey and our dear friend Kruptos for their comments on the issue. Their opinions are basically mine, so this essay will not be an attempt to rehash their posts. I have a separate question to ask, one disconnected from the frankly disappointing arguments dominating discussion of the calendar at the moment; whether the calendar is good or bad (bad, obviously).

What did these women think they were doing? And what about all the men who helped them?

When a dozen or more ‘ conservative influencers’, media and press personalities, and social activists come together for a collaboration around a common cause, we think of events like CPAC or March for Life, not the private ambitions of a mail-order beer company to sell more beer. Social conservatives and Christians have offered the critique of the American Right in the last few years that all principles have been jettisoned for the mere satisfaction of ‘owning the libs’. Fine, then, - so our only cause is to own the libs. How does a pinup calendar help us own the libs? What goal does the use of our media pundits for the production of soft pornography accomplish? Accomplish is even too high an ask - what goal does it even pursue? What’s the point?

If we were not of the right, not Christians, nor traditionalists, or ‘conservative’ we might justify it for its own sake; the liberation or indulgence of sexiness, or rather - sexiness made into kitsch to hawk $19.99 6-packs of mail order beer. Being of the right, being Christians, traditionalists or conservatives, this excuse of mere indulgence will not suffice. We should demand, and I do, that people claiming the banner of our movement be aimed in their actions at least those publicly said to be done in the name of our movement, at least at some good, and preferably the good. None of the people involved in this and still none reading this essay can point to how the good was the object of this pinup calendar, and none still could reasonably explain how selling boudoir photos of our activists accomplishes that goal better than any number of political actions.

What it exposes, and what no one has so far commented on, is the grave degree to which these stunts serve to ghettoize and de-legitimize conservative and right wing media and activism. No one could imagine the Washington Post, New York Times, or Reuters staff deciding such a thing would be good for their brands or movements. The added tragedy is that the right wing media and activist sphere in this country has been complaining for years now about their ghetto-ization, and the damage this causes for their ability to reach new eyes and ears, let alone to the reputational damage it causes to their ability to attract serious donors.

At the most basic level, the right must demand of its own leaders that the actions they take publicly and in the name of the cause for which they have been given power and reach and influence to advance, that they be at least minimally concerned with that cause. If these women would like to be celebrated for their sexiness, perhaps conservative punditry or social activism on behalf of Christians is not the best career! Certainly there are many more egregious examples of pornography produced on a daily basis, but not ones by conservative media figures- and marketed as a conservative product. Not only is this bad in-and-of itself, but it is actively subversive.

In the end, the truth we are left with is this; a dozen members of the conservative activist and press movement in this country decided to sell a photo album of their underwear shots to have a company sell more beer. Far from sexy, far from liberating, the blunt articulation of this reality exposes it as gross, sad, and ugly.

But why is it gross and ugly? And why do these sort of temptations poison rather than prime affections for beauty between men and women?

I would like to explore a short thought I had some months ago when thinking on Sir Roger Scruton’s The Soul of the World.

Feminine modesty is a powerful and misunderstood virtue, a feminine virtue. Everyone understands that sex appeal and promiscuity give women power; they capture male attention. But the woman who masters both modesty and beauty creates infinitely more power. [And I would like to add that the power of promiscuity alone is a false power, as is exposed in the end.]

The ability to capture men’s attention is undoubtedly a source of power, and it is also the source of the truth in the phrase that ‘sex sells’. But eyes are drawn to beauty, and insofar as the promiscuous woman draws attention to her body, that attention comes to that body as much as it reflects what is beautiful about the form of women’s bodies. Many women are able to capture the attention of men this way, and even their infatuation, but never their respect. As uncomfortable as this fact may be, it is a fact.

A woman who exposes herself to all manner of lustful gaze is not merely putting herself on display, but is in fact putting merely her body on display. This means that when the eyes meet her, they meet first her body and not first her as her. When the mind behind the eyes then thinks of her in romance, they are trapped to say “Do I like her enough for her body?” The body, her body, then, becomes the goal of the suitor, and the woman, far from empowered, is measured against herself. In the man’s mind, she becomes trapped in competition against herself.

Modesty by contrast produces a relationship between body and soul that is complimentary. [The human relationship between mind and body is in reality complimentary, so we can understand intuitively that this is by far the more healthy perspective. Indeed, this perspective reflects the divine ordering of both mind and body but also woman and man as complimentary.] You look forward to seeing more of her, that which is already given and established and cherished, and already you appreciate the opaque beauty of modesty and look forward to seeing her more clearly as a reflection of more of her, not of disjunct body parts.

Attention to the promiscuous woman is directed at her but not at her as her, but merely at her as means towards the body. This will be in conflict with all immediate sensory experience the woman will receive; she will be flooded with compliments, and so on, but this is a mismatch.

What aids in this cultivation of her as her is that through modesty she may be feminine and beautiful without being merely a body to be gazed at. This grabs your attention and lifts it up to the eyes. To her as her. This declination to receive the gaze of men on her mere body, and her declination therefore of the power it would deliver to her, is what generates in men respect; genuine respect. That kind of respect is what today women clamor for from men, who increasingly treat women in bizarre ways because of the psycho-social problems of encountering all women as first body and then person.

Soon, with grace, we might all look back on the conservative dad’s pinup calendar as another one of those bizarre ways. Until then, it is time for Christians and conservatives to start making serious demands of those who claim to lead us, and for us to prepare to confront the secularization of ‘conservative’ politics in America.

Instead of ordering from Conservative Dad to give 10% to charity, donate to Position & Decision instead and I will personally ensure that a full 20% of the money goes to charity.

Merry Christmas and God Bless,

Sanfedisti