| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Gay Reichs | ||||
| ||||
2010/07/27
Scott Lively and the Pink Swastika
I just have to link to this video done by The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. Scott Lively is a conservative Evangelical, best known for his book The Pink Swastika, in which he claims that Nazism is a gay plot. Jon Stewart got him on his show - it's so hard to believe that he's actually serious about all this, but apparently, he is. It's hilarious and sad at the same time.
2010/07/26
Possible Few-day Vacation
Starcraft II just came out! I'm installing it even as I type. So, a warning that you may not see a post for the next few days... not that I ever posted regularly, anyway.
Instead, I'm gonna post a few links, one an ironic link to an article in the Guardian on internet/gaming addiction, which I most certainly am not afflicted by.
Another is on why the United States Postal Service is actually a lot more efficient than people believe - first because it receives nearly no federal funding (its funds come almost entirely from the fees it charges), and also because the post office, being a federal agency, can't leap through legal loopholes as easily as private companies can that allow businesses to not set money aside for employee retirement funds.
I also want to highlight another link, this time on Islam in Europe, specifically on how Islamic radicalization is partly overplayed by various media outlets, and partially made worse by defining radical Muslims as the only "real" ones, which leaves (particularly young) Muslims who identify with Islam to adopt more extreme religious positions since they don't want to be seen as less earnest about their religion.
Instead, I'm gonna post a few links, one an ironic link to an article in the Guardian on internet/gaming addiction, which I most certainly am not afflicted by.
Another is on why the United States Postal Service is actually a lot more efficient than people believe - first because it receives nearly no federal funding (its funds come almost entirely from the fees it charges), and also because the post office, being a federal agency, can't leap through legal loopholes as easily as private companies can that allow businesses to not set money aside for employee retirement funds.
I also want to highlight another link, this time on Islam in Europe, specifically on how Islamic radicalization is partly overplayed by various media outlets, and partially made worse by defining radical Muslims as the only "real" ones, which leaves (particularly young) Muslims who identify with Islam to adopt more extreme religious positions since they don't want to be seen as less earnest about their religion.
2010/07/22
Book Review of "Dangerous Children": Chapter 1
"Dangerous Children" is an e-book still being written (when she has the time) by feminist scholar Gaia Charis. I feel that the book, as much has been written so far, has a lot to add to the gender debate, though I also have plenty of reservations.
The first chapter, of course, sets the stage for the rest of the book. In it, she writes
Little nit to pick here - yes, technically she's correct that most of the people in charge are men, but I think it deserves to be added that 1) women get to vote, too, and they vote for conservatives about as often as men do, and 2) when women are in charge, they don't seem to act significantly differently than men do - i.e., they perform about the same on public welfare issues, vote in favor of war about as often, and so on. Admittedly, women do have a slight tendency to lean toward the left, but it deserves to be stated that this effect isn't especially pronounced. So, while gender equity is undoubtedly a worthy goal to aim for, it's not really clear that it would change very much.
In theory, she says, gender and sex are not necessarily identical; but in practice, there's an incredibly strong association between the two. Women, being generally feminine, receive "the allocation of pro-emotional and pro-social capacities", whereas masculinity requires the "valorisation of their anti-social counterparts, evidenced at every level from the virtual violence of video to the actuality of global warfare."
But that's not all, for she adds that
Obviously, I'm going to have a couple problems with this. First, she seems to be making the same kind of error that male psychologists made before women were allowed to enter the field: they all took a look at women's development and concluded that they were all stunted. They weren't, but men and women tend to use different strategies for forming relationships and building their ethical systems, and so the masculine researchers looked at women and just didn't find something they recognized. It wasn't until women entered the field that they were able to explain to the men all that was really going on (which is one really good reason to have at least some gender equity in a profession).
Secondly, as researchers of femininity have found, there are actually quite a few problems that women can run into by having to be too feminine, and researchers of masculinity have also found that there are some profoundly pro-social aspects to masculinity. To give some examples, the focus that most (I should probably add "white, middle-class") women have on "niceness" can prevent them from allocating enough time for themselves, which can lead to burnout, lack of personal development, and other issues. Masculinity, on the other hand, has a lot of focus on teamwork, healthful competitiveness, playing according to agreed-upon rules, and so forth. That's not to suggest, of course, that femininity has nothing helpful in its own right, but the most generally healthy individuals tend to be the ones that can successfully make use of both their masculine and their feminine sides as the situation calls. Both are valuable.
Next, my own perspective on gender roles is that there is probably a lot less of men deciding what women's role ought to be than most feminists seem to believe. Originally, most gender roles seem to me to be a result of the importance of property, whether that's land, resources, or various items that take a lot of work to produce: the more important property is, the more profitable it is to steal it from someone, which just wouldn't be an issue if property itself had virtually no meaning. So, you get a rise in militarism, as more people try harder to protect their things, and to take the things of others. In an ancient society, this generally requires gender roles to be established, since it doesn't make much sense for the women to be fighting in hand-to-hand combat while the men stay home and try to breastfeed. Very quickly, practical rules like these tend to become established within a culture, and passed down generation to generation until there's some very strong outside force that requires things to change. This explains fairly cleanly, I think, why "primitive" societies, most specifically ones without a strong sense of personal property, tend to have fairly egalitarian attitudes; why women's role is considered to be the domestic, and men's the political and military; why gender roles can be seen in pretty much the same configurations across nearly every human society; why athleticism and emotional restraint is considered masculine, whereas women are perceived to be more emotional and physically weak; and so on.
Or, on the other hand, gender roles are frequently the product of complex social interactions, like with the idea that women are inherently more pure and/or innocent than men: Christian belief strongly promotes an ideal of purity, one which the male rulers of feudal, Western societies just couldn't put into practice. So, as men did the dirty work of suppressing rebellions and slaying invaders and other such un-Christian behavior, women began to be idealized according to this Christian belief system due to their non-participation in the ugliness of feudal politics ("and so much the better that they're the ones who take care of the children!" they may have thought).
Undoubtedly there have been men in power who have abused that power, but in most situations it just doesn't seem very clear to me that this was the case, or why this or that particular virtue or behavior was considered "bad" and therefore feminine.
I'm going a bit too in-depth here, I think, but I'd still like to add that historically, there have tended to be a couple main camps in feminism that many people (including many feminists) haven't noticed, and that's that on the one hand, you have more gender-egalitarian-minded types who are primarily interested in establishing a balance between the genders, and loosening gender codes so that everyone can find their own niche, but on the other hand you've had a camp of thought that essentially worked within the traditional gender perspective, but that argued that femininity was a greater virtue than masculinity, that men had basically done everything wrong, and that now it was time to give women a turn. The author of this book seems to me to be more a member of the second camp.
Moving along, the author states that while masculinity is defined to a large degree by not being feminine, femininity has no such restriction, and as such can get the best of both worlds. I should like to point out here that this was not always the case; read enough old books, and you'll see that masculine behavior was considered very improper for women (still is, to some degree), and that being accused of being too masculine could definitely count as an insult to a woman. Both genders, originally, were defined by their not-being the opposite; it's only the past few decades that women have been permitted to participate in most masculine behaviors.
She argues, then, that more women in charge of business and politics would be better for societal health, in large part because of "their non-hierarchical, but very productive, management styles." Now, most women don't actually establish non-hierarchical relationships; rather, women are more likely to establish relationships "horizontally", on a closeness model, with the ones with the greatest intimacy held the closest; men tend to build relationships "vertically", in a sort of alpha-male model, with the most skilled or successful at the top. Both are hierarchies, however, with the lowest-ranked being at the outer rims, or the bottom rung, respectively. It also seems that an additional, I think complementary solution (along with bringing more women to management positions), is to loosen the bounds of masculinity so that men are more able to make use of their feminine sides.
Now, I'll agree that personal responsibility is important, but (maybe I'm being oversensitive here) I feel like her tone is a little... unsympathetic. Would it be fair to state that women just needed to take more responsibility for acting more masculine? - or would it be at least polite to make some reference to the sometimes extreme discrimination women faced in asserting their right to not be pigeonholed? Again, perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but I hear regularly (from feminists, who are almost always women) that men just need to take more responsibility, with very little mention of the real obstacles men face, whereas women's issues are all about discrimination, with very little mention being made of personal responsibility. Certainly, there's a little of both, for both sides?
All-in-all, the first chapter wasn't the strongest. There's a cognitive bias where people will find a solution to a problem, and immediately conclude that this solution will solve every problem. To give a colorful anecdote, in a study I read about on this phenomena, people would be handed a hammer and a screwdriver, and after successfully doing a few screws with the screwdriver, they'd try to hammer a couple nails with it before giving up and using the hammer, despite it being right there in front of them the whole time. I think this is a bias academics are especially prone to: Nietzsche knew that the will to power explained everything, Marx knew that all of human society could be explained by class struggle, the New Atheists frequently seem to think that religion is always the answer (or rather, the problem), and many feminists seem to believe that gender is at the root of everything. Gaia Charis also, I think, stumbles with this issue a little bit, but the book gets stronger later on, as she starts to focus more on the experiences of actual people, rather than the grand narration of her findings.
Link: Dangerous Children: Chapter 1
The first chapter, of course, sets the stage for the rest of the book. In it, she writes
As humanity edges its way into the 21st century the world it holds custody of is clearly in a mess. Our environment is in meltdown, the global economy is a fiscal black hole and social structures everywhere and at every level are riven with inequalities so great that conflict is constant. The time is right for accountability.
When companies founder we look to the top to see what has gone wrong. So who's been running Earth plc? The answer is not very pc. The answer is men.
Little nit to pick here - yes, technically she's correct that most of the people in charge are men, but I think it deserves to be added that 1) women get to vote, too, and they vote for conservatives about as often as men do, and 2) when women are in charge, they don't seem to act significantly differently than men do - i.e., they perform about the same on public welfare issues, vote in favor of war about as often, and so on. Admittedly, women do have a slight tendency to lean toward the left, but it deserves to be stated that this effect isn't especially pronounced. So, while gender equity is undoubtedly a worthy goal to aim for, it's not really clear that it would change very much.
In theory, she says, gender and sex are not necessarily identical; but in practice, there's an incredibly strong association between the two. Women, being generally feminine, receive "the allocation of pro-emotional and pro-social capacities", whereas masculinity requires the "valorisation of their anti-social counterparts, evidenced at every level from the virtual violence of video to the actuality of global warfare."
But that's not all, for she adds that
There is an adage attributed to women which says that men never grow up. There is more than a grain of truth in this. The masculine paradigm is not programmed for maturity and this is the template for living that males inherit. [...] The feminine paradigm is not principally defined by the same bipolar taboo. In a world where dominance has always conferred the power to define, the feminine has been the repository of what men have decided they are not, or do not wish to be. The feminine has thus always been defined by what has been allotted to it rather than by the prohibition of what it must never be.
Obviously, I'm going to have a couple problems with this. First, she seems to be making the same kind of error that male psychologists made before women were allowed to enter the field: they all took a look at women's development and concluded that they were all stunted. They weren't, but men and women tend to use different strategies for forming relationships and building their ethical systems, and so the masculine researchers looked at women and just didn't find something they recognized. It wasn't until women entered the field that they were able to explain to the men all that was really going on (which is one really good reason to have at least some gender equity in a profession).
Secondly, as researchers of femininity have found, there are actually quite a few problems that women can run into by having to be too feminine, and researchers of masculinity have also found that there are some profoundly pro-social aspects to masculinity. To give some examples, the focus that most (I should probably add "white, middle-class") women have on "niceness" can prevent them from allocating enough time for themselves, which can lead to burnout, lack of personal development, and other issues. Masculinity, on the other hand, has a lot of focus on teamwork, healthful competitiveness, playing according to agreed-upon rules, and so forth. That's not to suggest, of course, that femininity has nothing helpful in its own right, but the most generally healthy individuals tend to be the ones that can successfully make use of both their masculine and their feminine sides as the situation calls. Both are valuable.
Next, my own perspective on gender roles is that there is probably a lot less of men deciding what women's role ought to be than most feminists seem to believe. Originally, most gender roles seem to me to be a result of the importance of property, whether that's land, resources, or various items that take a lot of work to produce: the more important property is, the more profitable it is to steal it from someone, which just wouldn't be an issue if property itself had virtually no meaning. So, you get a rise in militarism, as more people try harder to protect their things, and to take the things of others. In an ancient society, this generally requires gender roles to be established, since it doesn't make much sense for the women to be fighting in hand-to-hand combat while the men stay home and try to breastfeed. Very quickly, practical rules like these tend to become established within a culture, and passed down generation to generation until there's some very strong outside force that requires things to change. This explains fairly cleanly, I think, why "primitive" societies, most specifically ones without a strong sense of personal property, tend to have fairly egalitarian attitudes; why women's role is considered to be the domestic, and men's the political and military; why gender roles can be seen in pretty much the same configurations across nearly every human society; why athleticism and emotional restraint is considered masculine, whereas women are perceived to be more emotional and physically weak; and so on.
Or, on the other hand, gender roles are frequently the product of complex social interactions, like with the idea that women are inherently more pure and/or innocent than men: Christian belief strongly promotes an ideal of purity, one which the male rulers of feudal, Western societies just couldn't put into practice. So, as men did the dirty work of suppressing rebellions and slaying invaders and other such un-Christian behavior, women began to be idealized according to this Christian belief system due to their non-participation in the ugliness of feudal politics ("and so much the better that they're the ones who take care of the children!" they may have thought).
Undoubtedly there have been men in power who have abused that power, but in most situations it just doesn't seem very clear to me that this was the case, or why this or that particular virtue or behavior was considered "bad" and therefore feminine.
I'm going a bit too in-depth here, I think, but I'd still like to add that historically, there have tended to be a couple main camps in feminism that many people (including many feminists) haven't noticed, and that's that on the one hand, you have more gender-egalitarian-minded types who are primarily interested in establishing a balance between the genders, and loosening gender codes so that everyone can find their own niche, but on the other hand you've had a camp of thought that essentially worked within the traditional gender perspective, but that argued that femininity was a greater virtue than masculinity, that men had basically done everything wrong, and that now it was time to give women a turn. The author of this book seems to me to be more a member of the second camp.
Moving along, the author states that while masculinity is defined to a large degree by not being feminine, femininity has no such restriction, and as such can get the best of both worlds. I should like to point out here that this was not always the case; read enough old books, and you'll see that masculine behavior was considered very improper for women (still is, to some degree), and that being accused of being too masculine could definitely count as an insult to a woman. Both genders, originally, were defined by their not-being the opposite; it's only the past few decades that women have been permitted to participate in most masculine behaviors.
She argues, then, that more women in charge of business and politics would be better for societal health, in large part because of "their non-hierarchical, but very productive, management styles." Now, most women don't actually establish non-hierarchical relationships; rather, women are more likely to establish relationships "horizontally", on a closeness model, with the ones with the greatest intimacy held the closest; men tend to build relationships "vertically", in a sort of alpha-male model, with the most skilled or successful at the top. Both are hierarchies, however, with the lowest-ranked being at the outer rims, or the bottom rung, respectively. It also seems that an additional, I think complementary solution (along with bringing more women to management positions), is to loosen the bounds of masculinity so that men are more able to make use of their feminine sides.
Are men listening? In theory anyone can adopt a masculine mindset. In reality, it is the domain of maleness. If men cannot find the courage to adapt and redefine, to see the dreadful folly of their time-honoured rejection of all those qualities that they have deemed feminine and taboo and which make us fully human then the future is bleak for us all. If destruction proves preferable to the facing of fear then humanity’s dangerous children may take us all into the void with them.
Now, I'll agree that personal responsibility is important, but (maybe I'm being oversensitive here) I feel like her tone is a little... unsympathetic. Would it be fair to state that women just needed to take more responsibility for acting more masculine? - or would it be at least polite to make some reference to the sometimes extreme discrimination women faced in asserting their right to not be pigeonholed? Again, perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but I hear regularly (from feminists, who are almost always women) that men just need to take more responsibility, with very little mention of the real obstacles men face, whereas women's issues are all about discrimination, with very little mention being made of personal responsibility. Certainly, there's a little of both, for both sides?
All-in-all, the first chapter wasn't the strongest. There's a cognitive bias where people will find a solution to a problem, and immediately conclude that this solution will solve every problem. To give a colorful anecdote, in a study I read about on this phenomena, people would be handed a hammer and a screwdriver, and after successfully doing a few screws with the screwdriver, they'd try to hammer a couple nails with it before giving up and using the hammer, despite it being right there in front of them the whole time. I think this is a bias academics are especially prone to: Nietzsche knew that the will to power explained everything, Marx knew that all of human society could be explained by class struggle, the New Atheists frequently seem to think that religion is always the answer (or rather, the problem), and many feminists seem to believe that gender is at the root of everything. Gaia Charis also, I think, stumbles with this issue a little bit, but the book gets stronger later on, as she starts to focus more on the experiences of actual people, rather than the grand narration of her findings.
Link: Dangerous Children: Chapter 1
2010/07/21
Arab man convicted of "rape by deception"
A criminal court in Israel just convicted a man of "rape by deception" because he lied to his girlfriend, telling her he was Jewish, not Arab. When she found out, she brought him to court.
Now, (ignoring the obvious racism - she obviously liked him enough when she thought he was a Jew) obviously he shouldn't have lied, but it seems to me this kind of principle just opens up a huge can of worms. If I had a girlfriend, and she cheats on me, is it rape if we have sex when she hasn't yet told me about her affair? I mean, lying in a relationship is wrong, but I have trouble calling it "jail-time" wrong.
Israel jails Arab for 'deceit rape'
Now, (ignoring the obvious racism - she obviously liked him enough when she thought he was a Jew) obviously he shouldn't have lied, but it seems to me this kind of principle just opens up a huge can of worms. If I had a girlfriend, and she cheats on me, is it rape if we have sex when she hasn't yet told me about her affair? I mean, lying in a relationship is wrong, but I have trouble calling it "jail-time" wrong.
Israel jails Arab for 'deceit rape'
2010/07/17
Random Post: Kate Beaton
I just HAVE to share Kate Beaton. She's been doing a webcomic for a few years, and most people have probably already heard of her, but she's just sooo funny (to me, at least; when I've shown her to other people, I've so far tended to hear "that's not very funny" or "I don't get it". But I'm laughing out loud.) Most of her comics are history-based, and you just have to see the drawings themselves, because she's so good at facial expressions.
Sort-of on-topic, and to make it somehow relevant to the rest of the blog, it turns out that most men don't think women are funny. The most likely explanation seems to be to be because in romantic relationships, men statistically tend to be the ones telling jokes, while women laugh at them - and as a result (so goes my thinking), men get the idea that women don't tell jokes because they're not as funny, though the real reasons are much more complex.
I also have to throw in this quote I read, which is just so funny, it's as good as Kate Beaton:
"It's hard to write about modern politics and not sound like HP Lovecraft.
Considering the fact that the GOP policy "positions" are horribly indescribable and indescribably horrible." - Snarki, child of Loki from the comments section in this Mother Jones blog post.
Sort-of on-topic, and to make it somehow relevant to the rest of the blog, it turns out that most men don't think women are funny. The most likely explanation seems to be to be because in romantic relationships, men statistically tend to be the ones telling jokes, while women laugh at them - and as a result (so goes my thinking), men get the idea that women don't tell jokes because they're not as funny, though the real reasons are much more complex.
I also have to throw in this quote I read, which is just so funny, it's as good as Kate Beaton:
"It's hard to write about modern politics and not sound like HP Lovecraft.
Considering the fact that the GOP policy "positions" are horribly indescribable and indescribably horrible." - Snarki, child of Loki from the comments section in this Mother Jones blog post.
2010/07/16
Miracles
Frequently you hear in discussions with believers of claims of miracles. Someone's cancer was cured, another had back problems that went away, someone's car was sliding on the ice, and they prayed and simultaneously regained control, and so on. There are a good number of fallacies at work when people put these forward as evidence for their religion.
The most common type of miracle in my experience is the Unexplainable Miracle. That is, something unusual happened, and the person can't explain it, so they assume it was a miracle. This is known in philosophy as an "argument from ignorance" - essentially what the person is claiming is "I don't know how x happened, therefore I do." Do you see the fallacy there? If you don't know something, then you don't - full-stop. If you come upon a really weird situation, and you can't explain it, the only reasonable thing you can do is accept your ignorance. Pretending you know when you don't isn't an acceptable response.
The next most common (again, in my personal experience) is the Coincidental Miracle: someone prays for something, and they get it.
One good example is a plane crash. The plane goes down, nearly everybody's praying for their life to be saved, and only one of them survives. Not surprisingly, this was one of the ones who was praying for their life. Therefore, they conclude, God must have saved my life. It's a miracle! A real one! Or so they think - it shouldn't be surprising that if most of the people are praying as the plane goes down, the one left over will be likely to have been among the praying ones.
What's more, when it's not one that was praying, they tend to assume it's just a lucky break - or even less reasonably, they give credit to God for saving their life, anyway. But what about all the ones that died? Did God just not listen to them?
The last one I think deserves its own category are Self-Fulfilling Miracles. For instance, someone is told that if a special blessing is given, their pain will go away. This is known scientifically as the placebo effect - in fact, scientists have discovered just what causes the placebo effect. Or, someone has difficulty walking, has a prayer said for them, and is able (temporarily) to walk; another has the flu, and their symptoms lessen after a blessing. What you don't see is someone's broken leg suddenly mending over ten seconds - that would be a miracle.
All of these can be explained the normal way: the placebo effect. Studies have repeatedly shown either a very small positive effect, within the realm of chance, no effect at all, or a negative effect. On average, prayer shows no effect beyond a placebo. This is a very important point for people to understand, that once something is explained, you don't need to explain it again. This is the essence of Occam's Razor, which states that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" - we already know that the placebo effect exists, we already know that it's sufficient to explain these phenomena, and as a result, we don't gain any information or better our understanding of the world by saying it's a miracle. All it does is clutter our worldview.
The main point of all of this is: if there's no difference between a miracle and the way things happen normally, then miracles cease to have meaning - and if something would have happened, "miracle" or not, then it's not good evidence that your religious beliefs are accurate. You'll have to find some other argument.
The most common type of miracle in my experience is the Unexplainable Miracle. That is, something unusual happened, and the person can't explain it, so they assume it was a miracle. This is known in philosophy as an "argument from ignorance" - essentially what the person is claiming is "I don't know how x happened, therefore I do." Do you see the fallacy there? If you don't know something, then you don't - full-stop. If you come upon a really weird situation, and you can't explain it, the only reasonable thing you can do is accept your ignorance. Pretending you know when you don't isn't an acceptable response.
The next most common (again, in my personal experience) is the Coincidental Miracle: someone prays for something, and they get it.
One good example is a plane crash. The plane goes down, nearly everybody's praying for their life to be saved, and only one of them survives. Not surprisingly, this was one of the ones who was praying for their life. Therefore, they conclude, God must have saved my life. It's a miracle! A real one! Or so they think - it shouldn't be surprising that if most of the people are praying as the plane goes down, the one left over will be likely to have been among the praying ones.
What's more, when it's not one that was praying, they tend to assume it's just a lucky break - or even less reasonably, they give credit to God for saving their life, anyway. But what about all the ones that died? Did God just not listen to them?
The last one I think deserves its own category are Self-Fulfilling Miracles. For instance, someone is told that if a special blessing is given, their pain will go away. This is known scientifically as the placebo effect - in fact, scientists have discovered just what causes the placebo effect. Or, someone has difficulty walking, has a prayer said for them, and is able (temporarily) to walk; another has the flu, and their symptoms lessen after a blessing. What you don't see is someone's broken leg suddenly mending over ten seconds - that would be a miracle.
All of these can be explained the normal way: the placebo effect. Studies have repeatedly shown either a very small positive effect, within the realm of chance, no effect at all, or a negative effect. On average, prayer shows no effect beyond a placebo. This is a very important point for people to understand, that once something is explained, you don't need to explain it again. This is the essence of Occam's Razor, which states that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" - we already know that the placebo effect exists, we already know that it's sufficient to explain these phenomena, and as a result, we don't gain any information or better our understanding of the world by saying it's a miracle. All it does is clutter our worldview.
The main point of all of this is: if there's no difference between a miracle and the way things happen normally, then miracles cease to have meaning - and if something would have happened, "miracle" or not, then it's not good evidence that your religious beliefs are accurate. You'll have to find some other argument.
2010/07/13
Religious extremism caused by anxiety
This might be stating the obvious for some, but a recent study found that anxiety was highly correlated with extreme religious beliefs. What this study would seem to suggest is that if you want to lessen religious extremism, one way to do that is to lessen people's anxiety levels, perhaps through social security programs, raising employment levels, promoting safer communities, or that sort of thing.
Link: Religious extremism driven by anxiety, says research
Link: Religious extremism driven by anxiety, says research
2010/07/11
Mark Twain on Christianity
Just a quick link:
Long after his death, Samuel Langhorn Clemens, who wrote under the pen name "Mark Twain," is about to reveal all in his never-before published autobiography. The author and inventor of such classic American characters as Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, felt that some of the things he wanted to say were too controversial to be revealed in his lifetime and stipulated that they not be published until one hundred years after his death. That was in 1910 and now that 2010 has arrived, the guardian of the autobiography, the University of California Berkeley's Bancroft Library is set to publish it in its entirety.
Read more: Revealed: Mark Twain's view of Christianity
Long after his death, Samuel Langhorn Clemens, who wrote under the pen name "Mark Twain," is about to reveal all in his never-before published autobiography. The author and inventor of such classic American characters as Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, felt that some of the things he wanted to say were too controversial to be revealed in his lifetime and stipulated that they not be published until one hundred years after his death. That was in 1910 and now that 2010 has arrived, the guardian of the autobiography, the University of California Berkeley's Bancroft Library is set to publish it in its entirety.
Read more: Revealed: Mark Twain's view of Christianity
2010/07/08
"Male Abortion"
Or rather, male adoption? There don't seem to be any really good names for it.
Anyway, what "it" is, is men's right to essentially put their children up for adoption, ceding both their parental rights and responsibilities as parents. Women already have this right, and in addition, they have the right to get an abortion.
This is a very touchy issue in the gender debate, although personally, the issue seems fairly clear-cut. The whole issue gets very complicated because of the different ways in which men and women reproduce. Both partners have to have sex, but most contraceptive methods are only available to women, and women are the ones who have to shoulder the responsibility of carrying a fetus inside them for nine months.
Because it's women who suffer the physical consequences of pregnancy, the case for unilateral power being given to women over abortion seems the most strong to me. Of course, in any healthy relationship, serious life-altering issues like these would be discussed with the other partner, but ultimately (and most importantly, legally) abortion would be the woman's choice.
This does, however, put men in a tough spot, especially since at the moment most contraceptive methods are also up to women, and women alone - the only three reliable option for men being condoms, vasectomies, and abstinence, none of which are particularly wonderful options for many men.
Luckily, there's a third option, and one that women already enjoy: carry the child to term, and then put it up for adoption. Especially since men can't force a woman to carry a child to term, it would seem obvious that men ought to have the right to put our children up for adoption, too. That's not the case in most Western countries. On the contrary, men are required by law to provide child support and usually have a lot of social pressure to participate in their child's life, even though they may never have been ready to be fathers, don't want the children - or even aren't actually the biological father, but simply were in a romantic relationship when the pregnancy first occurred and weren't able to prove conclusively that it wasn't theirs.
Usually, the argument for this is that it's not the child's fault and so should still have the opportunities that come with the extra income. This, first of all, seems to fly right in the face of the position that women are capable of making their reproductive choices by themselves - if they're not capable of telling when they're able to financially provide for a child, should women still have the right to decide whether or not to make one? Or, if women are capable of telling when they're able to take care of a child, why do they then need financial support from the father? Secondly, there are already lots of programs available for children from low-income families in the USA, like the SCHIP program for health insurance, FAFSA for college aid, and so on. Now, if these programs aren't getting the job done, then maybe they need to be strengthened, or new programs need to be created.
In any case, however, it seems unfair to hold a single man responsible for something that was basically beyond his control - we don't expect women choose between celibacy and motherhood, so how can we fairly expect men to do the same? And if it wasn't that particular man's fault (and let's say it's not the woman's, either), then that's something that society in general should deal with. Putting all of that responsibility on a single man's shoulders, and one who doesn't want it, and couldn't do anything to stop it, seems pretty unfair, especially when we aren't holding women to the same kinds of standards.
Anyway, what "it" is, is men's right to essentially put their children up for adoption, ceding both their parental rights and responsibilities as parents. Women already have this right, and in addition, they have the right to get an abortion.
This is a very touchy issue in the gender debate, although personally, the issue seems fairly clear-cut. The whole issue gets very complicated because of the different ways in which men and women reproduce. Both partners have to have sex, but most contraceptive methods are only available to women, and women are the ones who have to shoulder the responsibility of carrying a fetus inside them for nine months.
Because it's women who suffer the physical consequences of pregnancy, the case for unilateral power being given to women over abortion seems the most strong to me. Of course, in any healthy relationship, serious life-altering issues like these would be discussed with the other partner, but ultimately (and most importantly, legally) abortion would be the woman's choice.
This does, however, put men in a tough spot, especially since at the moment most contraceptive methods are also up to women, and women alone - the only three reliable option for men being condoms, vasectomies, and abstinence, none of which are particularly wonderful options for many men.
Luckily, there's a third option, and one that women already enjoy: carry the child to term, and then put it up for adoption. Especially since men can't force a woman to carry a child to term, it would seem obvious that men ought to have the right to put our children up for adoption, too. That's not the case in most Western countries. On the contrary, men are required by law to provide child support and usually have a lot of social pressure to participate in their child's life, even though they may never have been ready to be fathers, don't want the children - or even aren't actually the biological father, but simply were in a romantic relationship when the pregnancy first occurred and weren't able to prove conclusively that it wasn't theirs.
Usually, the argument for this is that it's not the child's fault and so should still have the opportunities that come with the extra income. This, first of all, seems to fly right in the face of the position that women are capable of making their reproductive choices by themselves - if they're not capable of telling when they're able to financially provide for a child, should women still have the right to decide whether or not to make one? Or, if women are capable of telling when they're able to take care of a child, why do they then need financial support from the father? Secondly, there are already lots of programs available for children from low-income families in the USA, like the SCHIP program for health insurance, FAFSA for college aid, and so on. Now, if these programs aren't getting the job done, then maybe they need to be strengthened, or new programs need to be created.
In any case, however, it seems unfair to hold a single man responsible for something that was basically beyond his control - we don't expect women choose between celibacy and motherhood, so how can we fairly expect men to do the same? And if it wasn't that particular man's fault (and let's say it's not the woman's, either), then that's something that society in general should deal with. Putting all of that responsibility on a single man's shoulders, and one who doesn't want it, and couldn't do anything to stop it, seems pretty unfair, especially when we aren't holding women to the same kinds of standards.
Maybe a male version of the Pill, for real this time?
Scientists invent first male contraceptive pill
There's a running joke that the male contraceptive pill has been five years away for about forty years, but this seems like a real breakthrough. If it actually works, too, it'd actually be better than the female pill, since it seems to be side-effect-free.
I do have to comment on one thing though: the article cites research showing that women don't trust men to take the pill. Really? How do they think we feel? Yes, women get stuck with the pregnancy, but men get stuck with the bill, and we don't have the option of getting an abortion. Which brings me to my next topic...
There's a running joke that the male contraceptive pill has been five years away for about forty years, but this seems like a real breakthrough. If it actually works, too, it'd actually be better than the female pill, since it seems to be side-effect-free.
I do have to comment on one thing though: the article cites research showing that women don't trust men to take the pill. Really? How do they think we feel? Yes, women get stuck with the pregnancy, but men get stuck with the bill, and we don't have the option of getting an abortion. Which brings me to my next topic...
How Faith Undermines Democracy
Most Americans are well-aware of how dysfunctional our national politics are. In most places, even to identify yourself as a Republican or a Democrat (for the few that still identify with either party) means to publicly beg for a shouting match.
What I strongly suspect, however, is that the religiosity of most Americans plays a large part in this: this is purely anecdotal, but I've noticed that I almost never have the same types of arguments with other atheists that I have and see other people have in political discussions with the religious. Granted, most atheists tend toward the liberal side in the USA, but there's a sizable minority of conservatives, and no matter how strongly we disagree, or how much difference there is in class or education levels, we're generally still able to discuss political issues rationally. That isn't what I see in discussions between people of faith - while obviously there are plenty of rational theists and plenty of irrational atheists, religious people typically seem to spend most of their time talking past each other, never directly addressing each other's points, making assertions without backing them up with anything, and making emotional pleas that don't convince anyone but the already-converted.
I think it's possible, or even probable, that religious faith is one source of this problem, or at least doesn't do much to create an environment where rational discussion is likely to take place. The problem with faith is that it rests in the personal: religious faith means essentially to identify the subjective with the absolute - that is, to turn a personal belief into a commandment of God. There is scientific evidence that people use their own opinions to infer what God thinks. On the more philosophical end, many people's faith is strongly influenced by a personal experience, whether that's a miracle, or a strong feeling of oneness with the universe, or what have you.
The problem here is that you can't base your life off of another person's personal experiences, and because of that, you can't use your personal experiences to convince others. The only way to resolve a debate is to communicate through the universal, and so far as I know, the only universal modes of proof are in sound logic and hard evidence.
So, people of faith will build a belief system or a set of morals based on personal experience, but when it comes time to convince others of the rightness of their position - which is generally necessary to resolve a political dispute - they have no way to actually change the other person's mind in a reliable way. What's worse, if the other person is also religious, they're not likely to change their mind even if strong evidence is provided against their position, since their belief system isn't based on evidence in the first place. And, just to really make matters really impossible, people who believe they have the absolute truth on their side have a very difficult time compromising, which is basically the last resort there is in a political dispute. All that's left, most of the time, is some sort of emotional plea or manipulation, or the use of force - whether that's jail time, fines, or actual violence.
Now, again, there are plenty of irrational atheists, and plenty of rational theists, but I think that atheists in the USA have a strong advantage in resolving political disputes, since there's a high correlation between rationalism and atheism, and a high correlation between faith and religiosity (obviously). So, where the environment most religious people live in is not conducive to settling political disputes, most atheists have an environment that requires them to be well-versed in rational or philosophical discussion, which makes it much easier to solve these kinds of problems, and compromise when there's no real resolution available.
What I strongly suspect, however, is that the religiosity of most Americans plays a large part in this: this is purely anecdotal, but I've noticed that I almost never have the same types of arguments with other atheists that I have and see other people have in political discussions with the religious. Granted, most atheists tend toward the liberal side in the USA, but there's a sizable minority of conservatives, and no matter how strongly we disagree, or how much difference there is in class or education levels, we're generally still able to discuss political issues rationally. That isn't what I see in discussions between people of faith - while obviously there are plenty of rational theists and plenty of irrational atheists, religious people typically seem to spend most of their time talking past each other, never directly addressing each other's points, making assertions without backing them up with anything, and making emotional pleas that don't convince anyone but the already-converted.
I think it's possible, or even probable, that religious faith is one source of this problem, or at least doesn't do much to create an environment where rational discussion is likely to take place. The problem with faith is that it rests in the personal: religious faith means essentially to identify the subjective with the absolute - that is, to turn a personal belief into a commandment of God. There is scientific evidence that people use their own opinions to infer what God thinks. On the more philosophical end, many people's faith is strongly influenced by a personal experience, whether that's a miracle, or a strong feeling of oneness with the universe, or what have you.
The problem here is that you can't base your life off of another person's personal experiences, and because of that, you can't use your personal experiences to convince others. The only way to resolve a debate is to communicate through the universal, and so far as I know, the only universal modes of proof are in sound logic and hard evidence.
So, people of faith will build a belief system or a set of morals based on personal experience, but when it comes time to convince others of the rightness of their position - which is generally necessary to resolve a political dispute - they have no way to actually change the other person's mind in a reliable way. What's worse, if the other person is also religious, they're not likely to change their mind even if strong evidence is provided against their position, since their belief system isn't based on evidence in the first place. And, just to really make matters really impossible, people who believe they have the absolute truth on their side have a very difficult time compromising, which is basically the last resort there is in a political dispute. All that's left, most of the time, is some sort of emotional plea or manipulation, or the use of force - whether that's jail time, fines, or actual violence.
Now, again, there are plenty of irrational atheists, and plenty of rational theists, but I think that atheists in the USA have a strong advantage in resolving political disputes, since there's a high correlation between rationalism and atheism, and a high correlation between faith and religiosity (obviously). So, where the environment most religious people live in is not conducive to settling political disputes, most atheists have an environment that requires them to be well-versed in rational or philosophical discussion, which makes it much easier to solve these kinds of problems, and compromise when there's no real resolution available.
2010/07/01
How To Flirt
This has basically nothing to do with anything, but I thought it was such a great link I just had to share it.
Basically, this is a paper written by a sociologist who put down everything we knew about flirting (and how to do it well). It turns out that successful flirting really, literally is a science.
The SIRC Guide to Flirting
Basically, this is a paper written by a sociologist who put down everything we knew about flirting (and how to do it well). It turns out that successful flirting really, literally is a science.
The SIRC Guide to Flirting
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
