by wj
(We’re way overdue for a new Open Thread. So here it is.)
Earlier this week, I saw a number of articles commemorating the 75 wedding anniversary of Jimmy and Roseland Carter. Which put me in mind of what Carter’s legacy will likely be. He was, to my mind, an average President. (Or, if you are not a fan, a mediocre one — not great but not horrible.) But he is, without real question, the greatest ex-president of my lifetime. Not even close.
Which also recalls the other great ex-President: Herbert Hoover. Also not a particularly good President, but the greatest ex-President from at least the middle of the 19th century until Carter. (Maybe longer; I’m not enough of a historian to judge further back.) If you doubt that, look up, for example, the Hoover Commission. And consider that other efforts to reorganize government at the state level (for example in California) have gotten labeled “Little Hoover Commissions.”
What it comes down to is, being President, and doing the job well, requires one set of skills. But doing something worthwhile after being President requires a rather different set of skills. There’s some overlap (e.g. ability to organize groups of people), but a lot more difference. And also, being an effective President is, to some extent, dependent of what kind of Congress one is blessed/cursed with.
As noted, open thread.
Hoover was also one of the better pre-Presidents, especially his relief work for Belgium and Eastern and Central Europe.
He had the misfortune of being POTUS during the Great Depression and having no good understanding of how to address it. Our misfortune, too.
Hoover was also one of the better pre-Presidents, especially his relief work for Belgium and Eastern and Central Europe.
He had the misfortune of being POTUS during the Great Depression and having no good understanding of how to address it. Our misfortune, too.
Both of them are/were deeply moral people, and that deep morality, coupled with deep personal integrity, sometimes ran counter to the prevailing winds of their historical moment.
Both of them are/were deeply moral people, and that deep morality, coupled with deep personal integrity, sometimes ran counter to the prevailing winds of their historical moment.
One other common factor: both were, by training, engineers. Which is hardly common among people in politics.
One other common factor: both were, by training, engineers. Which is hardly common among people in politics.
Trying to build a better machine from parts not on hand and out of stock.
Trying to build a better machine from parts not on hand and out of stock.
But he is, without real question, the greatest ex-president of my lifetime. Not even close.
Without a doubt. A great and good man, whatever one’s opinion of his presidency.
But he is, without real question, the greatest ex-president of my lifetime. Not even close.
Without a doubt. A great and good man, whatever one’s opinion of his presidency.
How does this crazy thing work?
Sorry, conflated two threads. Here’s my comment about Carter from the previous thread
~~~~
I won’t mention any names, but a former regular here would get really angry when talking about Carter. I don’t think they would deny they were a good post pres, just they won’t hold any brief for him as president. I, on the other hand, think he should be ranked a lot higher. Almost all of the deregulation ideas that Reagan ‘had’ (for various values of had) were initiated by Carter, and it’s just that Reagan did them in that typical Republican way of ripping out all oversight and disempowering the workers (can anyone say flight traffic control?)
~~~~
Speaking of Carter and different skillsets
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/jimmy-carter-saved-canada-nuclear-destruction/
Perhaps attention to detail is the killer for presidents??
How does this crazy thing work?
Sorry, conflated two threads. Here’s my comment about Carter from the previous thread
~~~~
I won’t mention any names, but a former regular here would get really angry when talking about Carter. I don’t think they would deny they were a good post pres, just they won’t hold any brief for him as president. I, on the other hand, think he should be ranked a lot higher. Almost all of the deregulation ideas that Reagan ‘had’ (for various values of had) were initiated by Carter, and it’s just that Reagan did them in that typical Republican way of ripping out all oversight and disempowering the workers (can anyone say flight traffic control?)
~~~~
Speaking of Carter and different skillsets
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/jimmy-carter-saved-canada-nuclear-destruction/
Perhaps attention to detail is the killer for presidents??
Elsewhere in the world, it seems the Pakistani government is very worried about the US leaving Afghanistan. After a couple of decades of charging the US big bucks to transport supplies across their territory, and of their intelligence services (ISI) subsidizing the Taliban as the fought against us, it looks like the Tailban might actually win. Thus encourging Pakistan’s own jihadists.
Somehow, my sympathy is very limited. “Chickens coming home to roost” would be the analysis.
Elsewhere in the world, it seems the Pakistani government is very worried about the US leaving Afghanistan. After a couple of decades of charging the US big bucks to transport supplies across their territory, and of their intelligence services (ISI) subsidizing the Taliban as the fought against us, it looks like the Tailban might actually win. Thus encourging Pakistan’s own jihadists.
Somehow, my sympathy is very limited. “Chickens coming home to roost” would be the analysis.
20 years.
they had 20 years to get their shit together.
20 years.
they had 20 years to get their shit together.
they had 20 years to get their shit together.
Oh, they got their shit together quite quickly. It’s just that they got it together to support the Taliban.
they had 20 years to get their shit together.
Oh, they got their shit together quite quickly. It’s just that they got it together to support the Taliban.
Open thread, so: I remember the mixed (mainly negative) response we gave here to Robin DiAngelo and her White Fragility, so I thought folks might be interested in this Guardian review of her new book.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jul/11/nice-racism-by-robin-diangelo-review-appearances-can-be-deceptive
Open thread, so: I remember the mixed (mainly negative) response we gave here to Robin DiAngelo and her White Fragility, so I thought folks might be interested in this Guardian review of her new book.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jul/11/nice-racism-by-robin-diangelo-review-appearances-can-be-deceptive
From the Guardian review of DiAngelo’s latest:
I’ve no especially strong feelings about DiAngelo one way or the other, but the above seems both fair and accurate.
From the Guardian review of DiAngelo’s latest:
I’ve no especially strong feelings about DiAngelo one way or the other, but the above seems both fair and accurate.
DiAngelo’s guilt-tripping shtick seems also to be making bank.
“This movement’s journey from obscurity to ubiquity has been neck-snappingly brief—and measurably lucrative for its leading lights. “My average fee for an event in 2018 was $6,200,” DiAngelo writes on her website’s “Accountability” page. “In 2019, it was $9,200. In 2020 (as of August), it has been $14,000.” In the book, she adds that she gives presentations on “whiteness and white fragility” on a “weekly basis.”
Taking those numbers at face value, that’s $728,000 a year just from speeches and workshops, to say nothing of book royalties and whatever the University of Washington is paying her. By most every yardstick, DiAngelo has achieved runaway success, lodging herself firmly in the top-earning 1 percent of the world’s richest country.”
Robin DiAngelo Is Very Disappointed in the White People Making Her Rich: Nice Racism—and the “anti-racism” consulting business—rakes in the bucks while losing hearts and minds.
DiAngelo’s guilt-tripping shtick seems also to be making bank.
“This movement’s journey from obscurity to ubiquity has been neck-snappingly brief—and measurably lucrative for its leading lights. “My average fee for an event in 2018 was $6,200,” DiAngelo writes on her website’s “Accountability” page. “In 2019, it was $9,200. In 2020 (as of August), it has been $14,000.” In the book, she adds that she gives presentations on “whiteness and white fragility” on a “weekly basis.”
Taking those numbers at face value, that’s $728,000 a year just from speeches and workshops, to say nothing of book royalties and whatever the University of Washington is paying her. By most every yardstick, DiAngelo has achieved runaway success, lodging herself firmly in the top-earning 1 percent of the world’s richest country.”
Robin DiAngelo Is Very Disappointed in the White People Making Her Rich: Nice Racism—and the “anti-racism” consulting business—rakes in the bucks while losing hearts and minds.
I suppose we should give Trump more of a pass. Clearly he isn’t the only grifter out there making hay off of his or her followers.
I suppose we should give Trump more of a pass. Clearly he isn’t the only grifter out there making hay off of his or her followers.
Taking those numbers at face value, that’s $728,000 a year
good for her. i bet she didn’t make anything like that any year prior. author isn’t a salaried job, so odds are good she’s going have a few lean years in which to work on spending that money.
very few authors (or musicians or artists in general) have steady 6-figure incomes.
Taking those numbers at face value, that’s $728,000 a year
good for her. i bet she didn’t make anything like that any year prior. author isn’t a salaried job, so odds are good she’s going have a few lean years in which to work on spending that money.
very few authors (or musicians or artists in general) have steady 6-figure incomes.
My thoughts on DiAngelo…
I think the behaviors that she describes are pretty well documented and have been developed by a host of scholars. She’s mostly famous for having coined the term “white fragility” to describe the behaviors. That was 2011.
DiAngelo’s anti-racist vernacular always sounds, to my rhetorically focused ear, akin to the sort of vernacular that one hears from someone who has gone through a 12-step program.
Her assessment of people’s behavior and motives really makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable and indignant. This could be productive if the conversation were to focus on what can be done to alleviate the broken social dynamics that perpetuate racial inequality, but that’s not what usually happens.
Instead people who are made uncomfortable by DiAngelo’s critiques spend all their time critiquing DiAngelo’s style and tone and blaming her for making people defensive with her scolding.
Meanwhile, there are lots of other people working in anti-racism and looking at our racial dynamics through a critical lens. Ignoring DiAngelo and looking, instead, to the larger body of research would give us a better sense of the problems we face. There are no shortage of them.
And we would be better off if everyone would just set aside their personal feelings and not get distracted either by “white fragility” or by getting all piqued and dudgeon-y over people talking about white fragility and instead start looking for the things that they could personally do or support to remove the existing socioeconomic barriers that non-whites face.
It’s not about her. It should never have been about her. Quit making it be about her (not said in a rant-y way, just laying out the points).
And it’s not personal. Except where it is. And if it is, then change if it is warranted and get on with being part of the solution.
My thoughts on DiAngelo…
I think the behaviors that she describes are pretty well documented and have been developed by a host of scholars. She’s mostly famous for having coined the term “white fragility” to describe the behaviors. That was 2011.
DiAngelo’s anti-racist vernacular always sounds, to my rhetorically focused ear, akin to the sort of vernacular that one hears from someone who has gone through a 12-step program.
Her assessment of people’s behavior and motives really makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable and indignant. This could be productive if the conversation were to focus on what can be done to alleviate the broken social dynamics that perpetuate racial inequality, but that’s not what usually happens.
Instead people who are made uncomfortable by DiAngelo’s critiques spend all their time critiquing DiAngelo’s style and tone and blaming her for making people defensive with her scolding.
Meanwhile, there are lots of other people working in anti-racism and looking at our racial dynamics through a critical lens. Ignoring DiAngelo and looking, instead, to the larger body of research would give us a better sense of the problems we face. There are no shortage of them.
And we would be better off if everyone would just set aside their personal feelings and not get distracted either by “white fragility” or by getting all piqued and dudgeon-y over people talking about white fragility and instead start looking for the things that they could personally do or support to remove the existing socioeconomic barriers that non-whites face.
It’s not about her. It should never have been about her. Quit making it be about her (not said in a rant-y way, just laying out the points).
And it’s not personal. Except where it is. And if it is, then change if it is warranted and get on with being part of the solution.
Matt Welch seems a little sensitive. As does your introduction Charles. A lot of people I really respect here disagree with DiAngelo, which is fine. But when you have to start digging thru someone else’s financials to find a reason to disagree with them, it seems like you are crossing over from disagreeing with what they say to having it hit too close to home…
I thought the Graniaud review was fair, and I was struck by this
In the passage that follows, she recognises her error, but then responds in a way that sits squarely within the playbook of “white moves” she has been at pains to denounce.
So, is she right to point out the white moves or is she wrong to end up doing them?
Matt Welch seems a little sensitive. As does your introduction Charles. A lot of people I really respect here disagree with DiAngelo, which is fine. But when you have to start digging thru someone else’s financials to find a reason to disagree with them, it seems like you are crossing over from disagreeing with what they say to having it hit too close to home…
I thought the Graniaud review was fair, and I was struck by this
In the passage that follows, she recognises her error, but then responds in a way that sits squarely within the playbook of “white moves” she has been at pains to denounce.
So, is she right to point out the white moves or is she wrong to end up doing them?
I’ll give her props for being a bit transparent about how she’s making bank.
I’ll give her props for being a bit transparent about how she’s making bank.
we would be better off if everyone would just set aside their personal feelings and not get distracted either by “white fragility” or by getting all piqued and dudgeon-y over people talking about white fragility and instead start looking for the things that they could personally do or support to remove the existing socioeconomic barriers that non-whites face.
It’s not about her. It should never have been about her. Quit making it be about her (not said in a rant-y way, just laying out the points).
I think it’s important, for those who actually care about addressing racism, to pay attention to how they make their points and how they phrase things. At least, if they care about changing minds and behaviors. Way too often, IMHO, advocates lose track of that.
Sure, in a perfect world people would focus on the substance of what she (or others) are saying. But then, in a perfect world we wouldn’t have racism in the first place. In the real world, how you make your points can have a huge impact on how successful your communication is.
we would be better off if everyone would just set aside their personal feelings and not get distracted either by “white fragility” or by getting all piqued and dudgeon-y over people talking about white fragility and instead start looking for the things that they could personally do or support to remove the existing socioeconomic barriers that non-whites face.
It’s not about her. It should never have been about her. Quit making it be about her (not said in a rant-y way, just laying out the points).
I think it’s important, for those who actually care about addressing racism, to pay attention to how they make their points and how they phrase things. At least, if they care about changing minds and behaviors. Way too often, IMHO, advocates lose track of that.
Sure, in a perfect world people would focus on the substance of what she (or others) are saying. But then, in a perfect world we wouldn’t have racism in the first place. In the real world, how you make your points can have a huge impact on how successful your communication is.
It’s not about her. It should never have been about her.
This *is* something I have strong feelings about. Completely agree.
I appreciate that DiAngelo is trying to address a very real thing, which is white defensiveness about racism. I guess it would be better if that issue was being raised by someone whose style was less annoying to people, but we work with what we’ve got. The fact that she, a white liberal, behaves in the ways that she describes white liberals as behaving is, perhaps, somewhat recursive, but I don’t think it should surprise anybody.
And if we’re obliged to accept the idea that people are entitled to be billionaires because they were in the right place at the right time, I don’t see how a mere high six figure salary should offend. She wrote a book, people bought it.
It’s not about DiAngelo. She has obviously struck a nerve, maybe we should consider what’s behind that.
It’s not about her. It should never have been about her.
This *is* something I have strong feelings about. Completely agree.
I appreciate that DiAngelo is trying to address a very real thing, which is white defensiveness about racism. I guess it would be better if that issue was being raised by someone whose style was less annoying to people, but we work with what we’ve got. The fact that she, a white liberal, behaves in the ways that she describes white liberals as behaving is, perhaps, somewhat recursive, but I don’t think it should surprise anybody.
And if we’re obliged to accept the idea that people are entitled to be billionaires because they were in the right place at the right time, I don’t see how a mere high six figure salary should offend. She wrote a book, people bought it.
It’s not about DiAngelo. She has obviously struck a nerve, maybe we should consider what’s behind that.
denying racism – like denying vaccines, pretending Donald Trump is a great man, and celebrating air pollution – is just another way for conservatives to proclaim their identity.
there’s no point even trying to communicate with them about this because their position has become “Nope, you’re a lying liberal”.
denying racism – like denying vaccines, pretending Donald Trump is a great man, and celebrating air pollution – is just another way for conservatives to proclaim their identity.
there’s no point even trying to communicate with them about this because their position has become “Nope, you’re a lying liberal”.
I think it’s important, for those who actually care about addressing racism, to pay attention to how they make their points and how they phrase things. At least, if they care about changing minds and behaviors. Way too often, IMHO, advocates lose track of that.
I think I’ve noted here before that texts have many different audiences, and that moving from one audience to another can radically change the way that the text gets interpreted.
Correction – DiAngelo (I think) wrote her first paper about White Fragility in 2006. It took almost 13 years for that idea to cross over into the general public in any major way. That first paper has been cited 23 times, and a big chunk of those citations date from after the publication of her book.
The book has been cited more than 3k times, and that figure is just for the academic citations.
Her work between 2006 and 2018 was largely constructive and added a useful concept to anti-racist scholarship. A lot of care and nuance goes into building that work. Reading and evaluating that scholarship also takes a lot of work and draws on a much larger body of scholarship. Writing for that audience requires, yes, A Different Skillset.
So now, in the wake of her book, that idea has crossed over, and suddenly the audience for these concepts has gone up by a few magnitudes.
It’s all well and good to note that the writing does not land equally with all audiences, but DiAngelo could not have known when writing her book that it would cross over the way that it has. She would have written it for the audience that she had with, an eye towards trying to build some bridges to a wider audience. It’s not her fault that she could not anticipate the impact of her book. Publishers do this for a living and they can’t predict this stuff with any surety absent a big name on the cover.
But if DiAngelo had written all of her work since 2006 with an eye towards not discomfiting anyone, she would never have reached a point where she would be in a position to write that book in the first place.
Double edged sword.
Regardless, we are having this conversation now in part because it did provoke a reaction. Some of that reaction, at the moment, is resistance and defensiveness and outright hostility. But she has probably spread her ideas to thousands more with this book than any of her previous writings. And a thousand more advocates for an idea is nothing to sneeze at.
And anyone who is turned off in the long run from the work of racial reconciliation by DiAngelo’s tone is not likely someone who would be won over by a more measured argument. Her tone just affords that person a measure of cover in public conversations.
Audience is tough. We have a hard time of it here, with more familiarity and shared context. Imagine if one of our comments were suddenly the subject of an Oprah boosting and a Carlson attack…
Then figure in the social media effect as the grievants get boosted and the conversants get fragmented and decontextualized.
I think it’s important, for those who actually care about addressing racism, to pay attention to how they make their points and how they phrase things. At least, if they care about changing minds and behaviors. Way too often, IMHO, advocates lose track of that.
I think I’ve noted here before that texts have many different audiences, and that moving from one audience to another can radically change the way that the text gets interpreted.
Correction – DiAngelo (I think) wrote her first paper about White Fragility in 2006. It took almost 13 years for that idea to cross over into the general public in any major way. That first paper has been cited 23 times, and a big chunk of those citations date from after the publication of her book.
The book has been cited more than 3k times, and that figure is just for the academic citations.
Her work between 2006 and 2018 was largely constructive and added a useful concept to anti-racist scholarship. A lot of care and nuance goes into building that work. Reading and evaluating that scholarship also takes a lot of work and draws on a much larger body of scholarship. Writing for that audience requires, yes, A Different Skillset.
So now, in the wake of her book, that idea has crossed over, and suddenly the audience for these concepts has gone up by a few magnitudes.
It’s all well and good to note that the writing does not land equally with all audiences, but DiAngelo could not have known when writing her book that it would cross over the way that it has. She would have written it for the audience that she had with, an eye towards trying to build some bridges to a wider audience. It’s not her fault that she could not anticipate the impact of her book. Publishers do this for a living and they can’t predict this stuff with any surety absent a big name on the cover.
But if DiAngelo had written all of her work since 2006 with an eye towards not discomfiting anyone, she would never have reached a point where she would be in a position to write that book in the first place.
Double edged sword.
Regardless, we are having this conversation now in part because it did provoke a reaction. Some of that reaction, at the moment, is resistance and defensiveness and outright hostility. But she has probably spread her ideas to thousands more with this book than any of her previous writings. And a thousand more advocates for an idea is nothing to sneeze at.
And anyone who is turned off in the long run from the work of racial reconciliation by DiAngelo’s tone is not likely someone who would be won over by a more measured argument. Her tone just affords that person a measure of cover in public conversations.
Audience is tough. We have a hard time of it here, with more familiarity and shared context. Imagine if one of our comments were suddenly the subject of an Oprah boosting and a Carlson attack…
Then figure in the social media effect as the grievants get boosted and the conversants get fragmented and decontextualized.
Charles’ link is to an article by Matt Welch, notable libertarian pundit. What are his speaking fees?
What, no accountability page?
Charles’ link is to an article by Matt Welch, notable libertarian pundit. What are his speaking fees?
What, no accountability page?
Imagine if one of our comments were suddenly the subject of an Oprah boosting and a Carlson attack…
I’d pay off the house and retire!!
If things got too intense for me here in the US as a result, there’s always the south of France.
🙂
I have no disagreement with any of nous’ 2:41.
Imagine if one of our comments were suddenly the subject of an Oprah boosting and a Carlson attack…
I’d pay off the house and retire!!
If things got too intense for me here in the US as a result, there’s always the south of France.
🙂
I have no disagreement with any of nous’ 2:41.
anyone who is turned off in the long run from the work of racial reconciliation by DiAngelo’s tone is not likely someone who would be won over by a more measured argument. Her tone just affords that person a measure of cover in public conversations.
I vigorously disagree. Some of the people who are turned off by the tone are not reachable. And that tone gives them an excuse and a validation for their rejection. Mi>However, there are also people who could be reached. But some who could be reached won’t be, or will take far, far longer to be reached.
It’s simply not true that anybody who objects to her tone was never reachable anyway. (Which, forgive me if I’m wrong, is what you seem to be saying.)
anyone who is turned off in the long run from the work of racial reconciliation by DiAngelo’s tone is not likely someone who would be won over by a more measured argument. Her tone just affords that person a measure of cover in public conversations.
I vigorously disagree. Some of the people who are turned off by the tone are not reachable. And that tone gives them an excuse and a validation for their rejection. Mi>However, there are also people who could be reached. But some who could be reached won’t be, or will take far, far longer to be reached.
It’s simply not true that anybody who objects to her tone was never reachable anyway. (Which, forgive me if I’m wrong, is what you seem to be saying.)
I did say “in the long run,” anticipating the time it takes to sort through the other reactions. Again, though, without the defensiveness there is no guarantee that the message would ever break through. A lot of arguments only ever get half heard because they seem like things that we already know. Those things get lost and forgotten.
I did say “in the long run,” anticipating the time it takes to sort through the other reactions. Again, though, without the defensiveness there is no guarantee that the message would ever break through. A lot of arguments only ever get half heard because they seem like things that we already know. Those things get lost and forgotten.
How much Robin DiAngelo makes is totally irrelevant, and the kind of absurd stick people always use to beat people making a decent living who profess to care about social justice.
My vague memory of my own reaction to our original discussions about RdiA is that I thought there was a lot to what she was saying, but that her attitude and tone were annoying. Which did not invalidate the truth she was trying to bring into the light.
So I agree with almost all of what nous says, at 02.41 and also at 12.36. But I also see wj’s point: it’s always helpful if people delivering difficult, hard-to-take, unintuitive info are able to deliver it in palatable ways. But some info is unpalatable by definition, if it is giving unwelcome news to the recipients. So RdiA has no doubt performed a valuable service, if she has popularised a hitherto unknown concept, which (as nous implies) can then trickle down into the culture, where it may become more familiar and therefore less threatening, and do some good.
How much Robin DiAngelo makes is totally irrelevant, and the kind of absurd stick people always use to beat people making a decent living who profess to care about social justice.
My vague memory of my own reaction to our original discussions about RdiA is that I thought there was a lot to what she was saying, but that her attitude and tone were annoying. Which did not invalidate the truth she was trying to bring into the light.
So I agree with almost all of what nous says, at 02.41 and also at 12.36. But I also see wj’s point: it’s always helpful if people delivering difficult, hard-to-take, unintuitive info are able to deliver it in palatable ways. But some info is unpalatable by definition, if it is giving unwelcome news to the recipients. So RdiA has no doubt performed a valuable service, if she has popularised a hitherto unknown concept, which (as nous implies) can then trickle down into the culture, where it may become more familiar and therefore less threatening, and do some good.
p.s. Despite seeing wj’s point, I do think it is unfair and untrue to call DiA a grifter (@10.51).
p.s. Despite seeing wj’s point, I do think it is unfair and untrue to call DiA a grifter (@10.51).
“You’re just a lying liberal”
No, just a liberal, whose power requires a movement that never gets resolved. It just gets redefined so it can still be a cause.
And if it never addresses poverty or equality of opportunity that’s OK. That way it can continue to be a banner to march under.
White fragility is an asshole concept designed to stifle any actual debate on racism.
There’s a reaction for you.
And yes, I just had a few minutes so I stopped by to say hi. So I won’t be defending my right to disagree against charges of being racist.
And no, I’m not going to just listen to what black people say and change my ways to suit them. Because there isn’t a homogeneous Seton people who have all suffered unspeakable microaggressions by all white people.
The whole subject is useless as long as any disagreement is simply dismissed as racism. It’s bullshit.
“You’re just a lying liberal”
No, just a liberal, whose power requires a movement that never gets resolved. It just gets redefined so it can still be a cause.
And if it never addresses poverty or equality of opportunity that’s OK. That way it can continue to be a banner to march under.
White fragility is an asshole concept designed to stifle any actual debate on racism.
There’s a reaction for you.
And yes, I just had a few minutes so I stopped by to say hi. So I won’t be defending my right to disagree against charges of being racist.
And no, I’m not going to just listen to what black people say and change my ways to suit them. Because there isn’t a homogeneous Seton people who have all suffered unspeakable microaggressions by all white people.
The whole subject is useless as long as any disagreement is simply dismissed as racism. It’s bullshit.
What is Seton? Is it a predictive text thing?
What is Seton? Is it a predictive text thing?
By which I meant “autocorrect”
By which I meant “autocorrect”
This is just me, but I have found that all of my own ‘spontaneous corrections’ have not been so spontaneous. They have only come after a weight of observations and comments and when I look back, I realize that I was being told something, multiple times, and I didn’t heed. I’ve also found that a lot of times, my resistance has, more often than not, been rooted more in me wanting to be correct.
Nous points out how DiAngelo’s work has a long run up. She is an academic and as you work on something, you get invested in it. That often develops “that” tone. Unfortunately, that tone can bleed into other debates. Academia tries to soften this by demanding references to prevent the mangling of quotes and ideas, though that isn’t always successful. Nous points to “social media effect” which elevates conflict. More to say, but this puny comment space cannot contain it…
This is just me, but I have found that all of my own ‘spontaneous corrections’ have not been so spontaneous. They have only come after a weight of observations and comments and when I look back, I realize that I was being told something, multiple times, and I didn’t heed. I’ve also found that a lot of times, my resistance has, more often than not, been rooted more in me wanting to be correct.
Nous points out how DiAngelo’s work has a long run up. She is an academic and as you work on something, you get invested in it. That often develops “that” tone. Unfortunately, that tone can bleed into other debates. Academia tries to soften this by demanding references to prevent the mangling of quotes and ideas, though that isn’t always successful. Nous points to “social media effect” which elevates conflict. More to say, but this puny comment space cannot contain it…
Marty, DiAngelo isn’t calling you a racist, she’s calling you a snowflake.
Marty, DiAngelo isn’t calling you a racist, she’s calling you a snowflake.
There’s a reaction for you.
And notice, that reaction is in the absence of any calling out, any direct accusation. I did my level best when I posted about DiAngelo originally to lay it out without calling anyone out. I may have fallen down on that, and I apologize if that is the case.
We all have unexamined assumptions. If one can never bring them to the light to examine them, they are never going to change…
There’s a reaction for you.
And notice, that reaction is in the absence of any calling out, any direct accusation. I did my level best when I posted about DiAngelo originally to lay it out without calling anyone out. I may have fallen down on that, and I apologize if that is the case.
We all have unexamined assumptions. If one can never bring them to the light to examine them, they are never going to change…
Despite seeing wj’s point, I do think it is unfair and untrue to call DiA a grifter (@10.51).
I plead guilty to being excessively snarky.
(Although I harbor a small suspicion that the level of attack in her writing has at least a little to do with generating reaction, and thus sales.)
Despite seeing wj’s point, I do think it is unfair and untrue to call DiA a grifter (@10.51).
I plead guilty to being excessively snarky.
(Although I harbor a small suspicion that the level of attack in her writing has at least a little to do with generating reaction, and thus sales.)
DiAngelo’s bestseller was published by a Universalist Unitarian non-profit press that has a distribution agreement with Random House. That’s not the sort of publisher one goes through if one is aiming to hit big on the NYT bestsellers list. That’s the sort of publisher you choose if you are just hoping to get a book out there and break even.
DiAngelo’s bestseller was published by a Universalist Unitarian non-profit press that has a distribution agreement with Random House. That’s not the sort of publisher one goes through if one is aiming to hit big on the NYT bestsellers list. That’s the sort of publisher you choose if you are just hoping to get a book out there and break even.
And notice, that reaction is in the absence of any calling out, any direct accusation.
And the funny thing is, DiA’s theory etc is not, it seems to me, aimed at people like Marty, it is (and one gathers even more in this new book) aimed specifically at “progressives”. And, to the best of my knowledge (is there a tag for understatement?), nobody has ever called Marty a progressive.
And notice, that reaction is in the absence of any calling out, any direct accusation.
And the funny thing is, DiA’s theory etc is not, it seems to me, aimed at people like Marty, it is (and one gathers even more in this new book) aimed specifically at “progressives”. And, to the best of my knowledge (is there a tag for understatement?), nobody has ever called Marty a progressive.
Well, if you’re going to amplify guilt, you have to start with people with guilt…
Well, if you’re going to amplify guilt, you have to start with people with guilt…
“Well, if you’re going to amplify guilt, you have to start with people with guilt…”
Quantum fluctuations assure that everyone has at least a tiny amount of guilt.
Of course, the narcissists deny it, and the sociopaths don’t care.
“Well, if you’re going to amplify guilt, you have to start with people with guilt…”
Quantum fluctuations assure that everyone has at least a tiny amount of guilt.
Of course, the narcissists deny it, and the sociopaths don’t care.
wj: In the real world, how you make your points can have a huge impact on how successful your communication is.
In the real world, the US elected He, Trump as its president. He, Trump’s “communication” style proved “successful” in 2016. That happened partly because a lot of people thought vicious rhetoric designed to offend would turn voters off.
In the real world, in the early 90s, Newt Gingrich and his wordmeister Frank Luntz made a science out of immoderate rhetoric, and took over the Congress.
The problem we face is that Republicans by definition can’t offend anybody, while Democrats by definition do so at every turn.
I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide whether Democrats (or liberals, or progressives, or whatever you call us) should keep trying to avoid stepping on snowflakes.
–TP
wj: In the real world, how you make your points can have a huge impact on how successful your communication is.
In the real world, the US elected He, Trump as its president. He, Trump’s “communication” style proved “successful” in 2016. That happened partly because a lot of people thought vicious rhetoric designed to offend would turn voters off.
In the real world, in the early 90s, Newt Gingrich and his wordmeister Frank Luntz made a science out of immoderate rhetoric, and took over the Congress.
The problem we face is that Republicans by definition can’t offend anybody, while Democrats by definition do so at every turn.
I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide whether Democrats (or liberals, or progressives, or whatever you call us) should keep trying to avoid stepping on snowflakes.
–TP
Quantum fluctuations assure that everyone has at least a tiny amount of guilt.
I have a tendency to sometimes leave out clarifying modifiers. I should have said something like, “Well, if you’re going to amplify a sense of guilt, you have to start with people with a sense of guilt…”
Quantum fluctuations assure that everyone has at least a tiny amount of guilt.
I have a tendency to sometimes leave out clarifying modifiers. I should have said something like, “Well, if you’re going to amplify a sense of guilt, you have to start with people with a sense of guilt…”
I’m not going to just listen to what black people say and change my ways to suit them.
Yeah, me either.
I’m just going to make an attempt to listen to what they say, and take it from there.
I’m a straight white middle class old dude with enough money (at this point) to sustain my pretty safe modest but pleasant middle class life. I’m insulated from the direct experience of being black. Or poor, or gay, or a woman, or any of a number of other demographic markers that might put me somewhere outside of the sweet spot that I happen to occupy in life.
I’m insulated from all of that.
But I’m interested in how people live and how they are making out, so I want to try to listen to what they have to say. People who aren’t insulated from all of that.
I see enough to believe that black people are treated differently from not-black people, in ways that are harmful to them, because their skin is black and for no other reason. I don’t know how you can live in this country and not notice that.
I don’t know what to call that except racism. It’s treating people differently, in negative ways, because of the color of their skin. What else could you call it?
So I figure it behooves me to at least listen. Because here we all are, stuck together, trying to live together.
I’m interested in hearing what they have to say. If I have ways that need changing, I don’t mind changing them, if that’s gonna help. I mean, why not? I’m not sure there’s another response that’s of any use.
I’m not going to just listen to what black people say and change my ways to suit them.
Yeah, me either.
I’m just going to make an attempt to listen to what they say, and take it from there.
I’m a straight white middle class old dude with enough money (at this point) to sustain my pretty safe modest but pleasant middle class life. I’m insulated from the direct experience of being black. Or poor, or gay, or a woman, or any of a number of other demographic markers that might put me somewhere outside of the sweet spot that I happen to occupy in life.
I’m insulated from all of that.
But I’m interested in how people live and how they are making out, so I want to try to listen to what they have to say. People who aren’t insulated from all of that.
I see enough to believe that black people are treated differently from not-black people, in ways that are harmful to them, because their skin is black and for no other reason. I don’t know how you can live in this country and not notice that.
I don’t know what to call that except racism. It’s treating people differently, in negative ways, because of the color of their skin. What else could you call it?
So I figure it behooves me to at least listen. Because here we all are, stuck together, trying to live together.
I’m interested in hearing what they have to say. If I have ways that need changing, I don’t mind changing them, if that’s gonna help. I mean, why not? I’m not sure there’s another response that’s of any use.
I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide whether Democrats (or liberals, or progressives, or whatever you call us) should keep trying to avoid stepping on snowflakes.
If you’re looking to feel justified, feel free. My point was, if you want to actually get changes made, you may need to do something different. Your choice what your priorities are.
I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide whether Democrats (or liberals, or progressives, or whatever you call us) should keep trying to avoid stepping on snowflakes.
If you’re looking to feel justified, feel free. My point was, if you want to actually get changes made, you may need to do something different. Your choice what your priorities are.
FWIW, my take on DiAngelo’s message is this:
Liberal white people quite often harbor weird attitudes about black people and as a result behave in negative ways toward them.
Because they think of themselves, being liberal white people, as devoid of racial animus, they are often blind to this, and can be very defensive if called out on it.
Does anyone doubt there are people who fit that description?
If you are one of those people, maybe DiAngelo has a message for you. Receive it or not as you see fit and to the degree that you find it true.
If you’re not one of those people, DiAngelo probably isn’t talking to you. So don’t worry about DiAngelo.
If there’s something there for you, receive it.
If not, no need to spend your time and energy getting worked up about DiAngelo. There are more than enough things that deserve concern.
FWIW, my take on DiAngelo’s message is this:
Liberal white people quite often harbor weird attitudes about black people and as a result behave in negative ways toward them.
Because they think of themselves, being liberal white people, as devoid of racial animus, they are often blind to this, and can be very defensive if called out on it.
Does anyone doubt there are people who fit that description?
If you are one of those people, maybe DiAngelo has a message for you. Receive it or not as you see fit and to the degree that you find it true.
If you’re not one of those people, DiAngelo probably isn’t talking to you. So don’t worry about DiAngelo.
If there’s something there for you, receive it.
If not, no need to spend your time and energy getting worked up about DiAngelo. There are more than enough things that deserve concern.
Feel justified about what, wj?
Did Gingrich or He, Trump “get changes made” or not? Did they carefully avoid giving offense with their rhetoric, or not?
I want to persuade people, just like you do. You have your notion of what works, and I have mine. I’d be inclined to adopt yours, if history proved it effective.
–TP
Feel justified about what, wj?
Did Gingrich or He, Trump “get changes made” or not? Did they carefully avoid giving offense with their rhetoric, or not?
I want to persuade people, just like you do. You have your notion of what works, and I have mine. I’d be inclined to adopt yours, if history proved it effective.
–TP
anyone who is turned off in the long run from the work of racial reconciliation by DiAngelo’s tone is not likely someone who would be won over by a more measured argument.
I submit that Marty’s comment above rather makes my case. (Marty, apologies if I’m misrepresenting you in what follows.) Consider:
After the Civil War, blacks in the south bought land. But Jim Crow laws meant that they couldn’t record title to the land, so they just passed it down from one generation to the next. No paper trail in sight. Recently, FEMA has been going thru Alabama trying to make payments to people whose proprty was damaged (often severely) by tornados earlier this year. But, because these folks can’t show clear, legally established, title, FEMA’s rules won’t let that happen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/07/11/fema-black-owned-property/
Now, I’m reasonably confident that Marty, presented with that situation, would be up for straightening out the mess. It’s legacy of historic racism, of course. But you could just lay out the situation, without detailing what led to it, and you’d get his support.
But insist on going on about “white fragility and racism is the cause of all evil” and you get a response like above. And no support for fixing a very real problem. Is that helpful?
anyone who is turned off in the long run from the work of racial reconciliation by DiAngelo’s tone is not likely someone who would be won over by a more measured argument.
I submit that Marty’s comment above rather makes my case. (Marty, apologies if I’m misrepresenting you in what follows.) Consider:
After the Civil War, blacks in the south bought land. But Jim Crow laws meant that they couldn’t record title to the land, so they just passed it down from one generation to the next. No paper trail in sight. Recently, FEMA has been going thru Alabama trying to make payments to people whose proprty was damaged (often severely) by tornados earlier this year. But, because these folks can’t show clear, legally established, title, FEMA’s rules won’t let that happen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/07/11/fema-black-owned-property/
Now, I’m reasonably confident that Marty, presented with that situation, would be up for straightening out the mess. It’s legacy of historic racism, of course. But you could just lay out the situation, without detailing what led to it, and you’d get his support.
But insist on going on about “white fragility and racism is the cause of all evil” and you get a response like above. And no support for fixing a very real problem. Is that helpful?
I want to persuade people, just like you do. You have your notion of what works, and I have mine. I’d be inclined to adopt yours, if history proved it effective.
Likewise, Tony. But what I’m seeing doesn’t exactly demonstrate great success for your approach either. (Well, unless you are willing to adopt an autocratic. Republicans today are. But I’m guessing you aren’t.)
I want to persuade people, just like you do. You have your notion of what works, and I have mine. I’d be inclined to adopt yours, if history proved it effective.
Likewise, Tony. But what I’m seeing doesn’t exactly demonstrate great success for your approach either. (Well, unless you are willing to adopt an autocratic. Republicans today are. But I’m guessing you aren’t.)
I really don’t want to make Marty the test case here. Don’t think it is fair to the argument or to Marty. I realize you want to choose a case we all have a relatively equal grasp of the context, but I don’t see it turning out very well.
I really don’t want to make Marty the test case here. Don’t think it is fair to the argument or to Marty. I realize you want to choose a case we all have a relatively equal grasp of the context, but I don’t see it turning out very well.
lj, I take your point. Marty, please accept my apologies.
lj, I take your point. Marty, please accept my apologies.
wj,
I will cop to criticizing your approach, but I don’t think I explicitly described mine. What do you take it to be?
–TP
wj,
I will cop to criticizing your approach, but I don’t think I explicitly described mine. What do you take it to be?
–TP
Tony, I took this,
I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide whether Democrats (or liberals, or progressives, or whatever you call us) should keep trying to avoid stepping on snowflakes.
and this,
Did Gingrich or He, Trump “get changes made” or not? Did they carefully avoid giving offense with their rhetoric, or not?
to advocate harsh rhetoric, and ignoring the impact it has on actually persuading those who don’t already agree with you.
Heaven knows, it had the opposite effect for Trump et al. But tben, they aren’t trying to change minds; just get their existing supporters worked up. And are willing to ignore election results or resort to violence when they lose. As, increasingly, they do — and nobody is more aware of that than they are.
Not, I submit, a desirable result for those with a chance (if they don’t insist on blowing it) of winning big and long term. And having watched electoral developments in this previously very conservative and very Republican state, I think I have an idea of where things are trending. .
Tony, I took this,
I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide whether Democrats (or liberals, or progressives, or whatever you call us) should keep trying to avoid stepping on snowflakes.
and this,
Did Gingrich or He, Trump “get changes made” or not? Did they carefully avoid giving offense with their rhetoric, or not?
to advocate harsh rhetoric, and ignoring the impact it has on actually persuading those who don’t already agree with you.
Heaven knows, it had the opposite effect for Trump et al. But tben, they aren’t trying to change minds; just get their existing supporters worked up. And are willing to ignore election results or resort to violence when they lose. As, increasingly, they do — and nobody is more aware of that than they are.
Not, I submit, a desirable result for those with a chance (if they don’t insist on blowing it) of winning big and long term. And having watched electoral developments in this previously very conservative and very Republican state, I think I have an idea of where things are trending. .
Now, I’m reasonably confident that [many people], presented with that situation, would be up for straightening out the mess. It’s legacy of historic racism, of course. But you could just lay out the situation, without detailing what led to it, and you’d get [their] support.
But insist on going on about “white fragility and racism is the cause of all evil” and you get [defiance]. And no support for fixing a very real problem. Is that helpful?
This seems like a very odd hypothetical to me because we are dealing with a very clear problem and a fairly simple solution that doesn’t require any invocation of DiAngelo or privilege or white fragility at all to explain the policy. And only an aggrieved asshole would introduce any of those arguments in opposition as justification for why they would not support such a solution.
The places where those conversations might be relevant are things like police use of force, or school district funding, or voting restrictions, or college admissions, or any other issue for which white people have prided themselves on having received better results because of merit or behavior or effort, and any mention of possible structural racism threatens that self-image. How are we supposed to address any of these sorts of problems if we are forced to avoid any mention of privilege for fear of provoking a defensive backlash?
Now, I’m reasonably confident that [many people], presented with that situation, would be up for straightening out the mess. It’s legacy of historic racism, of course. But you could just lay out the situation, without detailing what led to it, and you’d get [their] support.
But insist on going on about “white fragility and racism is the cause of all evil” and you get [defiance]. And no support for fixing a very real problem. Is that helpful?
This seems like a very odd hypothetical to me because we are dealing with a very clear problem and a fairly simple solution that doesn’t require any invocation of DiAngelo or privilege or white fragility at all to explain the policy. And only an aggrieved asshole would introduce any of those arguments in opposition as justification for why they would not support such a solution.
The places where those conversations might be relevant are things like police use of force, or school district funding, or voting restrictions, or college admissions, or any other issue for which white people have prided themselves on having received better results because of merit or behavior or effort, and any mention of possible structural racism threatens that self-image. How are we supposed to address any of these sorts of problems if we are forced to avoid any mention of privilege for fear of provoking a defensive backlash?
only an aggrieved asshole would introduce any of those arguments
Regretably, either there are a depressingly large number of those. Or, more likely, the ones there are have regretably large megaphones. But pretty much anything which is even slightly or hypothetically the result of racism (even generations ago) gets that dropped front and center when it gets discussed. Or even mentioned. And, just to be clear, I’m talking about progressive speakers/writers; not the nut cases of the right wing echo chamber.
I understand that, from your perspective, that may look like a massive overstatement. Rest assured that, to those of a moderate, let alone conservative, turn of mind it isn’t. Which is why I think it’s a problem.
only an aggrieved asshole would introduce any of those arguments
Regretably, either there are a depressingly large number of those. Or, more likely, the ones there are have regretably large megaphones. But pretty much anything which is even slightly or hypothetically the result of racism (even generations ago) gets that dropped front and center when it gets discussed. Or even mentioned. And, just to be clear, I’m talking about progressive speakers/writers; not the nut cases of the right wing echo chamber.
I understand that, from your perspective, that may look like a massive overstatement. Rest assured that, to those of a moderate, let alone conservative, turn of mind it isn’t. Which is why I think it’s a problem.
And in the context of the current discussion, what do we make of this ?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/11/tucson-unified-school-districts-mexican-american-studies-program-498926
Should any state be mandating what can and cannot be taught regarding about history ?
I find that considerably more irksome than anything Ms DiAngelo has to say.
And in the context of the current discussion, what do we make of this ?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/07/11/tucson-unified-school-districts-mexican-american-studies-program-498926
Should any state be mandating what can and cannot be taught regarding about history ?
I find that considerably more irksome than anything Ms DiAngelo has to say.
“regarding about”
Need that (self) edit function.
“regarding about”
Need that (self) edit function.
Should any state be mandating what can and cannot be taught regarding about history ?
FTA, the entire matter in a nutshell:
CRT, like the ‘caravan’, ‘death panels’, Sharia law, ‘la raza’, ‘woke’, ebola, Iraq, WMD, Benghazi, Confederate statues and trans bathrooms is just another manufactured crisis the GOP is using to rile up its base of easily-led idiots.
that’s how you get supposed Constitutional originalists demanding censorship of ideas. the whole party is a sham.
Should any state be mandating what can and cannot be taught regarding about history ?
FTA, the entire matter in a nutshell:
CRT, like the ‘caravan’, ‘death panels’, Sharia law, ‘la raza’, ‘woke’, ebola, Iraq, WMD, Benghazi, Confederate statues and trans bathrooms is just another manufactured crisis the GOP is using to rile up its base of easily-led idiots.
that’s how you get supposed Constitutional originalists demanding censorship of ideas. the whole party is a sham.
police use of force, or school district funding, or voting restrictions, or college admissions
And so on.
To me, the problem with DiAngelo is the focus on stuff like unconscious micro-aggressions. What about the obvious macro-aggressions?
The problem with worrying about white fragility is that it’s all about white people. It is, to no small degree, a distraction from the real, tangible, material harms that black people are subject to.
I appreciate what DiAngelo is trying to do, and I don’t really care if she makes a lot of money. If you don’t want her to make money, don’t buy her book or hire her for a speaking engagement.
But somehow the focus has shifted from the very real complaints of black people living in this country, to the tender psyches of whites.
Police use of force, differential outcomes in the criminal justice system, deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters, the legacy of generations of poverty due to discrimination in hiring and property ownership.
I don’t really know if black people are all that interested in whether white people are personally comfortable with the idea that they may or may not be complicit in any of that, knowingly or not. My guess is that they just want it to stop.
To me, the idea of white fragility is interesting, but is kind of beside the point. This is no knock on DiAngelo, specifically, she’s an academic who finds herself in the spotlight due to circumstances she did not cause.
It’s just weird that the most prominent response of white people to black people’s complaints is “how does that make *us* feel?”.
police use of force, or school district funding, or voting restrictions, or college admissions
And so on.
To me, the problem with DiAngelo is the focus on stuff like unconscious micro-aggressions. What about the obvious macro-aggressions?
The problem with worrying about white fragility is that it’s all about white people. It is, to no small degree, a distraction from the real, tangible, material harms that black people are subject to.
I appreciate what DiAngelo is trying to do, and I don’t really care if she makes a lot of money. If you don’t want her to make money, don’t buy her book or hire her for a speaking engagement.
But somehow the focus has shifted from the very real complaints of black people living in this country, to the tender psyches of whites.
Police use of force, differential outcomes in the criminal justice system, deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters, the legacy of generations of poverty due to discrimination in hiring and property ownership.
I don’t really know if black people are all that interested in whether white people are personally comfortable with the idea that they may or may not be complicit in any of that, knowingly or not. My guess is that they just want it to stop.
To me, the idea of white fragility is interesting, but is kind of beside the point. This is no knock on DiAngelo, specifically, she’s an academic who finds herself in the spotlight due to circumstances she did not cause.
It’s just weird that the most prominent response of white people to black people’s complaints is “how does that make *us* feel?”.
To me, the problem with DiAngelo is the focus on stuff like unconscious micro-aggressions. What about the obvious macro-aggressions?
I think there’s an awful lot to this, as well as the rest of russell’s 09.36 above.
It is true that racism in the US is considerably less deadly and ubiquitous than it once was. But, pace wj, McKinney et al, there is still plenty of the hard stuff to go round, and it needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Again, much of this is outlined succinctly above:
Police use of force, differential outcomes in the criminal justice system, deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters, the legacy of generations of poverty due to discrimination in hiring and property ownership.
Academics do what they do, and I’m glad of it; their theories resonate and influence the culture in frequently valuable ways. But if there are battles to be fought, my own instinct is to go after the worst stuff first, with all the allies you can enlist.
To me, the problem with DiAngelo is the focus on stuff like unconscious micro-aggressions. What about the obvious macro-aggressions?
I think there’s an awful lot to this, as well as the rest of russell’s 09.36 above.
It is true that racism in the US is considerably less deadly and ubiquitous than it once was. But, pace wj, McKinney et al, there is still plenty of the hard stuff to go round, and it needs to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Again, much of this is outlined succinctly above:
Police use of force, differential outcomes in the criminal justice system, deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters, the legacy of generations of poverty due to discrimination in hiring and property ownership.
Academics do what they do, and I’m glad of it; their theories resonate and influence the culture in frequently valuable ways. But if there are battles to be fought, my own instinct is to go after the worst stuff first, with all the allies you can enlist.
Police use of force, differential outcomes in the criminal justice system, deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters, the legacy of generations of poverty due to discrimination in hiring and property ownership.
I’m still lurking but lack the time to participate usefully. I’ve saved this string (but not my comment) for future reference.
The DiAngelo’s of this world are, with respect, clueless as to how far we have come. More broadly, academics aside, there is not a widespread consensus–much less compelling proof–that *racism* (which I would like to see defined in a useful way) is even remotely the ‘thing’ it was in the past, nor is *racism* unique to white people nor are white people participants in some white supremacy/oppression/privilege preservation endeavor, which seems to underpin a lot of the current anti-racist thinking.
Much of the case for anti-racism today hinges on either “assertion as evidence” or “disparate outcomes as conclusive proof of the desired outcome.” Neither of the foregoing have been tested by anything remotely resembling the scientific method. Rather, they are simply posited. The items that Russell quoted from another comment are flush with context, nuance, distinction, regionality and counter-evidence that is, for many of us, ignored or dismissed by anti-racists.
I am totally open to an actual discussion on this topic when time permits. Unfortunately, my personal stuff has me fully occupied through mid-December. Once I free up, I will defend my position on the merits, but I will ask that those on the other side likewise defend on the merits. For example, simply asserting the ubiquity of white privilege/supremacy/oppression or the patriarchy as opposed to proving that race or gender is, in fact, driving an issue is argument by assertion, not by adducing actual, tested evidence.
Thanks for your indulgence.
Police use of force, differential outcomes in the criminal justice system, deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters, the legacy of generations of poverty due to discrimination in hiring and property ownership.
I’m still lurking but lack the time to participate usefully. I’ve saved this string (but not my comment) for future reference.
The DiAngelo’s of this world are, with respect, clueless as to how far we have come. More broadly, academics aside, there is not a widespread consensus–much less compelling proof–that *racism* (which I would like to see defined in a useful way) is even remotely the ‘thing’ it was in the past, nor is *racism* unique to white people nor are white people participants in some white supremacy/oppression/privilege preservation endeavor, which seems to underpin a lot of the current anti-racist thinking.
Much of the case for anti-racism today hinges on either “assertion as evidence” or “disparate outcomes as conclusive proof of the desired outcome.” Neither of the foregoing have been tested by anything remotely resembling the scientific method. Rather, they are simply posited. The items that Russell quoted from another comment are flush with context, nuance, distinction, regionality and counter-evidence that is, for many of us, ignored or dismissed by anti-racists.
I am totally open to an actual discussion on this topic when time permits. Unfortunately, my personal stuff has me fully occupied through mid-December. Once I free up, I will defend my position on the merits, but I will ask that those on the other side likewise defend on the merits. For example, simply asserting the ubiquity of white privilege/supremacy/oppression or the patriarchy as opposed to proving that race or gender is, in fact, driving an issue is argument by assertion, not by adducing actual, tested evidence.
Thanks for your indulgence.
actual, tested evidence.
there are countless studies out there demonstrating all of this stuff. well, not countless, i guess. Google counted 700K of them on “white privilege” in 0.03s.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34&as_vis=1&q=white+privilege+studies&btnG=
actual, tested evidence.
there are countless studies out there demonstrating all of this stuff. well, not countless, i guess. Google counted 700K of them on “white privilege” in 0.03s.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C34&as_vis=1&q=white+privilege+studies&btnG=
But somehow the focus has shifted from the very real complaints of black people living in this country, to the tender psyches of whites.
Police use of force, differential outcomes in the criminal justice system, deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters, the legacy of generations of poverty due to discrimination in hiring and property ownership.
Granted, Republicans do the same or (much) worse. But whataboutism rather misses the point. Which is that, if you are trying to change minds so as to change behavior** (which those Republicans are not) then how you make your case matters.
** That inclused both personal interactions and voting behavior and the laws and regulations which result from those votes and the kind of officials elected.
But somehow the focus has shifted from the very real complaints of black people living in this country, to the tender psyches of whites.
Police use of force, differential outcomes in the criminal justice system, deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters, the legacy of generations of poverty due to discrimination in hiring and property ownership.
Granted, Republicans do the same or (much) worse. But whataboutism rather misses the point. Which is that, if you are trying to change minds so as to change behavior** (which those Republicans are not) then how you make your case matters.
** That inclused both personal interactions and voting behavior and the laws and regulations which result from those votes and the kind of officials elected.
how far we have come.
Let me be the first to say that this country has come miles from where we were, even in my own lifetime. Given where we have been, that is perhaps a low bar, but it is still something that must be recognized in any discussion of this stuff.
I completely agree that a discussion based on evidence will be more fruitful than otherwise.
Also agree that some common understanding of what is meant by ‘racism’ would be useful. My own – racism is thinking about or treating people differently solely because of their perceived race – is arguably much broader than most folks’. It’s actually probably overly broad, but I find it useful specifically because it doesn’t imply or require animus or ill will, plus it’s dead simple. In general I think most people find it less useful, for the same reasons. I’ll be curious to hear how other people define it.
McK, always glad to hear from you, carry on and we’ll pick it up when you’re free to engage.
how far we have come.
Let me be the first to say that this country has come miles from where we were, even in my own lifetime. Given where we have been, that is perhaps a low bar, but it is still something that must be recognized in any discussion of this stuff.
I completely agree that a discussion based on evidence will be more fruitful than otherwise.
Also agree that some common understanding of what is meant by ‘racism’ would be useful. My own – racism is thinking about or treating people differently solely because of their perceived race – is arguably much broader than most folks’. It’s actually probably overly broad, but I find it useful specifically because it doesn’t imply or require animus or ill will, plus it’s dead simple. In general I think most people find it less useful, for the same reasons. I’ll be curious to hear how other people define it.
McK, always glad to hear from you, carry on and we’ll pick it up when you’re free to engage.
I am totally open to an actual discussion on this topic when time permits. Unfortunately, my personal stuff has me fully occupied through mid-December. Once I free up, I will defend my position on the merits, but I will ask that those on the other side likewise defend on the merits.
McK, please let us know when your time frees up. I think we can set up a new thread then to facilitate the discussion.
I am totally open to an actual discussion on this topic when time permits. Unfortunately, my personal stuff has me fully occupied through mid-December. Once I free up, I will defend my position on the merits, but I will ask that those on the other side likewise defend on the merits.
McK, please let us know when your time frees up. I think we can set up a new thread then to facilitate the discussion.
Academics do what they do, and I’m glad of it; their theories resonate and influence the culture in frequently valuable ways. But if there are battles to be fought, my own instinct is to go after the worst stuff first, with all the allies you can enlist.
This was my position at the start, where I laid out my opinions on DiAngelo, before the conversation turned once again to being about how DiAngelo makes (white) people feel about the problems we are trying to fix.
My position, for the record, is an academic position. It’s the sort of position that academics take on these issues. Forget DiAngelo. Forget her tone. Focus on the issues and trying to understand the bigger pictures.
None of the anti-racist positions are arguments by assertion. As cleek points out, there is a huge body of scholarship around all of these issues in academia, complete with data and lively debates over the best ways to frame it in order to understand what should be done.
I know very few *actual* academics that get worked up over microagressions. That topic generally peaks somewhere between the time one is an upper division undergrad and the first couple years of grad school. By the time one is into doing research for a dissertation, those topics start to get passed over for the deeper questions and problems that emerge once you start to get critical context.
A lot of people get hung up on, or never go farther than, an early stage along the way to getting that context and never get to the deeper stuff that conversation is supposed to open up. It’s like the person who thinks a martial arts black belt marks the end of the learning, not just the beginning of real understanding and the start of a deeper practice.
DiAngelo isn’t there to point out microagressions. That’s an undergrad activist thing. She’s there trying to show how the defensive turn that leads to reactive aggression shapes and limits our engagement with the deeper work of reconciliation. That deeper conversation, though, keeps getting limited by our defensive reactions.
I’m not here to defend DiAngelo. I, like LJ, think the criticisms of DiAngelo in the reviews are fair, and I started out this conversation by saying that I think we’d do better to focus on the problems and not on white fragility.
Here’s a brief distillation of DiAngelo: don’t be a coward and stop looking for solutions to our lingering societal problems with the legacies of racism and slavery and colonialism because the conversation calls into questions things that we hold dear. Deep problems require deep reflection and may lead to some uncomfortable truths.
That, and the actual research that she cites will get you where you need to go.
All the noise about her tone and attitude are extrinsic to this, and focusing on those things is just, in my view, a form of avoiding the harder work of reconciliation.
Academics do what they do, and I’m glad of it; their theories resonate and influence the culture in frequently valuable ways. But if there are battles to be fought, my own instinct is to go after the worst stuff first, with all the allies you can enlist.
This was my position at the start, where I laid out my opinions on DiAngelo, before the conversation turned once again to being about how DiAngelo makes (white) people feel about the problems we are trying to fix.
My position, for the record, is an academic position. It’s the sort of position that academics take on these issues. Forget DiAngelo. Forget her tone. Focus on the issues and trying to understand the bigger pictures.
None of the anti-racist positions are arguments by assertion. As cleek points out, there is a huge body of scholarship around all of these issues in academia, complete with data and lively debates over the best ways to frame it in order to understand what should be done.
I know very few *actual* academics that get worked up over microagressions. That topic generally peaks somewhere between the time one is an upper division undergrad and the first couple years of grad school. By the time one is into doing research for a dissertation, those topics start to get passed over for the deeper questions and problems that emerge once you start to get critical context.
A lot of people get hung up on, or never go farther than, an early stage along the way to getting that context and never get to the deeper stuff that conversation is supposed to open up. It’s like the person who thinks a martial arts black belt marks the end of the learning, not just the beginning of real understanding and the start of a deeper practice.
DiAngelo isn’t there to point out microagressions. That’s an undergrad activist thing. She’s there trying to show how the defensive turn that leads to reactive aggression shapes and limits our engagement with the deeper work of reconciliation. That deeper conversation, though, keeps getting limited by our defensive reactions.
I’m not here to defend DiAngelo. I, like LJ, think the criticisms of DiAngelo in the reviews are fair, and I started out this conversation by saying that I think we’d do better to focus on the problems and not on white fragility.
Here’s a brief distillation of DiAngelo: don’t be a coward and stop looking for solutions to our lingering societal problems with the legacies of racism and slavery and colonialism because the conversation calls into questions things that we hold dear. Deep problems require deep reflection and may lead to some uncomfortable truths.
That, and the actual research that she cites will get you where you need to go.
All the noise about her tone and attitude are extrinsic to this, and focusing on those things is just, in my view, a form of avoiding the harder work of reconciliation.
All the noise about her tone and attitude are extrinsic to this, and focusing on those things is just, in my view, a form of avoiding the harder work of reconciliation.
This.
I took my lumps on the previous DiAngelo thread, and similarly, the “defund the police” one, and shall be brief (you are welcome). Most here are reasonable types who reason reasonably and therefore conclude (reasonably) that the way to effect real change is to present to them ONLY “reasonable” arguments that they personally find appealing and, you know, reasonable because otherwise, reasonable people (numbers unknown and unstated) will refuse to be reasoned with REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE POSITION THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER, because, I guess, they are unreasonably offended by….something, something.
Folks, I am here to tell you that it is not all about being reasonable, and looking back on the changes that have taken place in human history (good ones, bad ones, etc.), I would say that record makes my case.
Me? I shall continue to search for real change beneath the lethargic furniture cushions of human behavior in all of its unreasonableness.
All the noise about her tone and attitude are extrinsic to this, and focusing on those things is just, in my view, a form of avoiding the harder work of reconciliation.
This.
I took my lumps on the previous DiAngelo thread, and similarly, the “defund the police” one, and shall be brief (you are welcome). Most here are reasonable types who reason reasonably and therefore conclude (reasonably) that the way to effect real change is to present to them ONLY “reasonable” arguments that they personally find appealing and, you know, reasonable because otherwise, reasonable people (numbers unknown and unstated) will refuse to be reasoned with REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE POSITION THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER, because, I guess, they are unreasonably offended by….something, something.
Folks, I am here to tell you that it is not all about being reasonable, and looking back on the changes that have taken place in human history (good ones, bad ones, etc.), I would say that record makes my case.
Me? I shall continue to search for real change beneath the lethargic furniture cushions of human behavior in all of its unreasonableness.
All the noise about her tone and attitude are extrinsic to this, and focusing on those things is just, in my view, a form of avoiding the harder work of reconciliation.
this ^^^^^
black people keep telling us it’s tough for them to live here. which is doubly tough, because at this point this is where they’re from. they don’t really have another place to go.
a lot of people are sick of hearing it. they appear to be sick of living it.
so, a problem.
I don’t see a solution that doesn’t involve listening to what they have to say and considering whether there is merit in it. and, if there is, freaking *doing something about it*.
my own druthers, in all of this stuff, would be to treat discrimination based on race as a straight up violation of civil rights and put some real teeth in enforcement. like, large financial penalties and jail time.
screw sensitivity training, send offenders to jail. that would make the point pretty clearly.
most people – which is to say pretty much everyone but me – thinks that’s not such a great idea.
so we’re stuck with trying to change people’s hearts and minds.
lots of people are sick of hearing about how the blacks are put down. blacks are sick of being put down.
something has to give.
or, you know, we can just go on (and on, and on) resenting each other.
our choice.
All the noise about her tone and attitude are extrinsic to this, and focusing on those things is just, in my view, a form of avoiding the harder work of reconciliation.
this ^^^^^
black people keep telling us it’s tough for them to live here. which is doubly tough, because at this point this is where they’re from. they don’t really have another place to go.
a lot of people are sick of hearing it. they appear to be sick of living it.
so, a problem.
I don’t see a solution that doesn’t involve listening to what they have to say and considering whether there is merit in it. and, if there is, freaking *doing something about it*.
my own druthers, in all of this stuff, would be to treat discrimination based on race as a straight up violation of civil rights and put some real teeth in enforcement. like, large financial penalties and jail time.
screw sensitivity training, send offenders to jail. that would make the point pretty clearly.
most people – which is to say pretty much everyone but me – thinks that’s not such a great idea.
so we’re stuck with trying to change people’s hearts and minds.
lots of people are sick of hearing about how the blacks are put down. blacks are sick of being put down.
something has to give.
or, you know, we can just go on (and on, and on) resenting each other.
our choice.
my own druthers, in all of this stuff, would be to treat discrimination based on race as a straight up violation of civil rights and put some real teeth in enforcement. like, large financial penalties and jail time.
I’m not totally sure how you reliably show race-based discrimination. Extreme cases, sure, but I suspect that narrower cases are far more pervasive. But assuming we can come up with a reasonably objective criteria for the courts to use, it would be effective. More so than most of the proposals that I’ve seen.
Similarly, if someone is really serious about illegal immigration, and especially about “illegal immigrants taking our jobs”**, then the best solution is serious fines and jail time for hiring said illegal immigrants. Anyone opposing that has to be classified as not serious on the subject.
** Not that it’s that much of a problem. Tried hiring restaurant workers, etc. lately? There’s far more jobs created by immigrants starting businesses than jobs lost by legal residents.
my own druthers, in all of this stuff, would be to treat discrimination based on race as a straight up violation of civil rights and put some real teeth in enforcement. like, large financial penalties and jail time.
I’m not totally sure how you reliably show race-based discrimination. Extreme cases, sure, but I suspect that narrower cases are far more pervasive. But assuming we can come up with a reasonably objective criteria for the courts to use, it would be effective. More so than most of the proposals that I’ve seen.
Similarly, if someone is really serious about illegal immigration, and especially about “illegal immigrants taking our jobs”**, then the best solution is serious fines and jail time for hiring said illegal immigrants. Anyone opposing that has to be classified as not serious on the subject.
** Not that it’s that much of a problem. Tried hiring restaurant workers, etc. lately? There’s far more jobs created by immigrants starting businesses than jobs lost by legal residents.
Delurking to make an observation …
Based on my entirely unscientific personal observations, liberal white folks who tend to find value in DiAngelo also tend to have few (if any) close black friends in no small part because they weird out the black folks they approach with their overeagerness.
Delurking to make an observation …
Based on my entirely unscientific personal observations, liberal white folks who tend to find value in DiAngelo also tend to have few (if any) close black friends in no small part because they weird out the black folks they approach with their overeagerness.
I’m not totally sure how you reliably show race-based discrimination.
Here is a catalog of successful cases brought under EEOC law.
Some of the financial penalties assessed are minor to middling, some are significant.
I’d support sending offenders – the people who actually engaged in harassment or made discriminatory decisions in hiring, lending, etc – to jail. For things like discrimination in lending, strip people of their licenses to work in the fields where they engaged in discrimination.
Draconian? Yes. But these are violations of fundamental civil rights that deprive people of their ability to work, own property, and otherwise participate in basic civil life.
People can harbor whatever bigoted thoughts they like. You’re never gonna root it all out.
But you can make them accountable for acting on it.
I’m not totally sure how you reliably show race-based discrimination.
Here is a catalog of successful cases brought under EEOC law.
Some of the financial penalties assessed are minor to middling, some are significant.
I’d support sending offenders – the people who actually engaged in harassment or made discriminatory decisions in hiring, lending, etc – to jail. For things like discrimination in lending, strip people of their licenses to work in the fields where they engaged in discrimination.
Draconian? Yes. But these are violations of fundamental civil rights that deprive people of their ability to work, own property, and otherwise participate in basic civil life.
People can harbor whatever bigoted thoughts they like. You’re never gonna root it all out.
But you can make them accountable for acting on it.
so we’re stuck with trying to change people’s hearts and minds.
From Connie Schultz’s column after John Lewis died (read the whole thing, as they say):
so we’re stuck with trying to change people’s hearts and minds.
From Connie Schultz’s column after John Lewis died (read the whole thing, as they say):
Based on my entirely unscientific personal observations, liberal white folks who tend to find value in DiAngelo also tend to have few (if any) close black friends in no small part because they weird out the black folks they approach with their overeagerness.
I suppose it depends on what one means by “find value in.” I think there is a subset of the left for which all of this is a sort of catechism that they use to reassure themselves that they are good people. They are the ones I tend to think of as falling into that particular pattern.
Same with those who are baptized into the Church of Labor.
I’m too much of a post-evangelical to have time for that sort of worry. It’s not about me, it’s about aggregate effect.
I’m just trying to understand my world and help make it a bit better – looking for tools that will help us design better, more diverse, more open, more just social futures.
In my experience, you earn the trust of others by doing the work of trying to build that better social futures together with them and not ghosting when things get uncomfortable. Those uncomfortable moments are teachable moments, and are the times when one should spend time listening and asking good, engaged questions.
And after, you adjust to try to bring it all into better alignment. It’s practice.
“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
Based on my entirely unscientific personal observations, liberal white folks who tend to find value in DiAngelo also tend to have few (if any) close black friends in no small part because they weird out the black folks they approach with their overeagerness.
I suppose it depends on what one means by “find value in.” I think there is a subset of the left for which all of this is a sort of catechism that they use to reassure themselves that they are good people. They are the ones I tend to think of as falling into that particular pattern.
Same with those who are baptized into the Church of Labor.
I’m too much of a post-evangelical to have time for that sort of worry. It’s not about me, it’s about aggregate effect.
I’m just trying to understand my world and help make it a bit better – looking for tools that will help us design better, more diverse, more open, more just social futures.
In my experience, you earn the trust of others by doing the work of trying to build that better social futures together with them and not ghosting when things get uncomfortable. Those uncomfortable moments are teachable moments, and are the times when one should spend time listening and asking good, engaged questions.
And after, you adjust to try to bring it all into better alignment. It’s practice.
“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
Here is a catalog of successful cases brought under EEOC law.
Thanks for this, russell. They tend (from a very superficial look) to be what I would consider extreme cases. Definitely worth addressing, and far more emphatically than we do now. Jail time, and being banned from your career and industry, tend to concentrate minds.
It’s just that I suspect that less egregious cases are far more common. And, overall, do at least as much damage. I don’t see a good way to demonstrate race as a basis for these misbehaviors, but I’d dearly love to find one.
Here is a catalog of successful cases brought under EEOC law.
Thanks for this, russell. They tend (from a very superficial look) to be what I would consider extreme cases. Definitely worth addressing, and far more emphatically than we do now. Jail time, and being banned from your career and industry, tend to concentrate minds.
It’s just that I suspect that less egregious cases are far more common. And, overall, do at least as much damage. I don’t see a good way to demonstrate race as a basis for these misbehaviors, but I’d dearly love to find one.
“How do I reach their hearts?” I asked John. He folded his hands together and slowly shook his head. “We don’t need their hearts, Connie. We need them to do the right thing.”
Yes. Or to put it another way, you can’t police people’s thoughts, you can only police their actions. So, out of “hearts and minds”, I guess what russell is saying is that if you get it into their minds that racist behaviour is dangerous to them, i.e. could result in serious fines or prison time, they may “do the right thing” whatever the hell their hearts are saying.
(Completely random and tangential memory: the guy who was the great love of my life, many years ago, explained one of the differences between dogs and cats – he had one of each – thus: dogs have a sense of morality, they understand if something is wrong, whereas cats are completely amoral, they only understand if something is dangerous.)
“How do I reach their hearts?” I asked John. He folded his hands together and slowly shook his head. “We don’t need their hearts, Connie. We need them to do the right thing.”
Yes. Or to put it another way, you can’t police people’s thoughts, you can only police their actions. So, out of “hearts and minds”, I guess what russell is saying is that if you get it into their minds that racist behaviour is dangerous to them, i.e. could result in serious fines or prison time, they may “do the right thing” whatever the hell their hearts are saying.
(Completely random and tangential memory: the guy who was the great love of my life, many years ago, explained one of the differences between dogs and cats – he had one of each – thus: dogs have a sense of morality, they understand if something is wrong, whereas cats are completely amoral, they only understand if something is dangerous.)
as the old song goes, You Have To Be Carefully Taught.
we need to stop teaching.
as the old song goes, You Have To Be Carefully Taught.
we need to stop teaching.
what russell is saying is that if you get it into their minds that racist behaviour is dangerous to them
I guess what I’m trying to bring out is that discrimination like this isn’t just a matter of making people feel bad. It deprives them of the ability to work, to own a home or otherwise secure a place to live, and causes them to be subject to harassment and abuse. It deprives them of civil rights that ought to be theirs by virtue of living in this country.
To me, that deserves a stronger response than civil damages.
The thing that strikes me most about the EEOC cases is that they were almost all – maybe all – brought against companies. In some cases quite large companies.
Companies don’t discriminate. People do. In many of these cases, the actual individuals involved in the discriminatory actions are not individually held accountable. No doubt some of them were fired, and no doubt they ended up getting hired somewhere else.
If it’s actual company policy to discriminate, a civil penalty against the company makes sense. I somehow doubt that it is the official policy of a company like Target to discriminate against black people. I suspect it’s the decision of a store or department manager. That person should be liable.
In my opinion.
This probably all seems extreme, because we aren’t used to thinking about it this way. I suggest that it’s a completely reasonable way to think about it.
You discriminate, you are liable.
I’m not talking about sending people to jail for having a bad opinion of minorities, or even of expressing that in private conversation. I’m talking about causing tangible harm to people, because of their skin color or perceived ethnicity. I’d extend it to gender, sexual orientation, etc.
We are talking about civil rights here.
TBH, I think the thing that seems to be making the biggest difference is cell phones. Anybody with a phone can now record people’s statements and actions in real time, and make them public. Absent somebody pulling out their phone and pressing the record button, Derek Chauvin would still be on the job as a cop.
Weird that that is what seems to be bringing accountability, but so be it.
The EEOC thing I linked to above lists a few hundred cases over the last few years that were egregious enough that ordinary people were able to convince a lawyer to take them on. That tells me that yes, we’ve made progress, but no, we’re not in the land of milk and honey yet.
As wj notes, for every one of those cases, there are probably ten, or a hundred, that were not sufficiently cut and dry and provable to make it worth bringing to court.
what russell is saying is that if you get it into their minds that racist behaviour is dangerous to them
I guess what I’m trying to bring out is that discrimination like this isn’t just a matter of making people feel bad. It deprives them of the ability to work, to own a home or otherwise secure a place to live, and causes them to be subject to harassment and abuse. It deprives them of civil rights that ought to be theirs by virtue of living in this country.
To me, that deserves a stronger response than civil damages.
The thing that strikes me most about the EEOC cases is that they were almost all – maybe all – brought against companies. In some cases quite large companies.
Companies don’t discriminate. People do. In many of these cases, the actual individuals involved in the discriminatory actions are not individually held accountable. No doubt some of them were fired, and no doubt they ended up getting hired somewhere else.
If it’s actual company policy to discriminate, a civil penalty against the company makes sense. I somehow doubt that it is the official policy of a company like Target to discriminate against black people. I suspect it’s the decision of a store or department manager. That person should be liable.
In my opinion.
This probably all seems extreme, because we aren’t used to thinking about it this way. I suggest that it’s a completely reasonable way to think about it.
You discriminate, you are liable.
I’m not talking about sending people to jail for having a bad opinion of minorities, or even of expressing that in private conversation. I’m talking about causing tangible harm to people, because of their skin color or perceived ethnicity. I’d extend it to gender, sexual orientation, etc.
We are talking about civil rights here.
TBH, I think the thing that seems to be making the biggest difference is cell phones. Anybody with a phone can now record people’s statements and actions in real time, and make them public. Absent somebody pulling out their phone and pressing the record button, Derek Chauvin would still be on the job as a cop.
Weird that that is what seems to be bringing accountability, but so be it.
The EEOC thing I linked to above lists a few hundred cases over the last few years that were egregious enough that ordinary people were able to convince a lawyer to take them on. That tells me that yes, we’ve made progress, but no, we’re not in the land of milk and honey yet.
As wj notes, for every one of those cases, there are probably ten, or a hundred, that were not sufficiently cut and dry and provable to make it worth bringing to court.
It’s not about me, it’s about aggregate effect.
I may have described this, apologies for the repeat. In elementary school, we used to play a game that was basically everyone against one, whoever had the ball would run to avoid getting tackled while every other boy (girls never played) would try to tackle them. Ideally, you would run until you couldn’t and just before you get tackled, toss the ball into the hands of someone would become the next one against everyone. What did we call that game? Smear the queer.
I agree that you can’t police people’s thoughts, but you can stop them from getting rewards when they do express these kinds of thoughts. But it seems to me that there is a pretty strong impulse to punish those who express the opposite. (cough Kaepernick cough)
And to be shocked that it might bite one on the ass.
https://www.insider.com/nfl-protests-saints-drew-brees-kneeling-flag-apology-failed-2020-6
It’s uncomfortable to be at an inflection point and find that you were on the wrong side of it, which is what a lot of folks have found. And the process of saying that they were wrong also includes rethinking a lot of how they processed these things. If this is the case, it is good that DiAngelo is in demand.
What I see in wj’s approach is a Darwinian system where the goal is to punish people stupid enough to say dumb shit out loud so find themselves on the lower end of the scale. I have my doubts about that, though I do realize that this is how things generally work.
you get it into their minds that racist behaviour is dangerous to them, i.e. could result in serious fines or prison time, they may “do the right thing” whatever the hell their hearts are saying.
Going back to my example at the beginning, I don’t know if kids still play smear the queer. I’m not advocating placing listening devices on playgrounds and punishing the kids who call it that. But it is aggregate effect and many of the things that DiAngelo describes are there. And as the review says, they are there even in herself. As I asked before, does that make her thesis wrong because she ends up making the same ‘white moves’? Or is the argument that it isn’t wrong, just unhelpful, like a person at an autoshop worried about the grease stains.
Nous point about aggregate effect suggests to me that a lot of what DiAngelo points out should be addressed, but it can only be addressed by the person themselves. So this thought of punishment becomes the key pivot, so you have someone like Jordan Peterson getting his grift started on the false assertion that Canadian law was going to punish him for using the wrong pronouns. Peterson is someone smart enough to avoid saying the quiet parts out loud, and when you have enough of those folks floating around, then I don’t think you are going to get much change, because the people who are able to couch their discussion in a way that hides what they are saying is going to make them plenty of dough. You will have the dumber ones taking it too far, but that’s just the way the cookie crumbles and their sacrifice oils the gears.
And nous point about teachable moments is one I take away often. And if something becomes uncomfortable for me, that should be a teachable moment because I can certainly teach myself.
As I said, I thought the Guardian article was fair. Where I would take issue with it is the last sentence, where it is asserted that DiAngelo “pushes us deeper into the silos of ethnic identity.” I’m not really sure how you get to where one assumes everyone here wants to be without deeply questioning concepts of ethnic identity, yours, mine, everyone. So if your reaction to DiAngelo is like Matt Welch’s, to figure out how much money she’s making (which isn’t really original, Taibibi was there first) well, don’t lob that stone from your glass house. But if you do lob the stone, you shouldn’t be surprised if your own motivations are questioned.
It’s not about me, it’s about aggregate effect.
I may have described this, apologies for the repeat. In elementary school, we used to play a game that was basically everyone against one, whoever had the ball would run to avoid getting tackled while every other boy (girls never played) would try to tackle them. Ideally, you would run until you couldn’t and just before you get tackled, toss the ball into the hands of someone would become the next one against everyone. What did we call that game? Smear the queer.
I agree that you can’t police people’s thoughts, but you can stop them from getting rewards when they do express these kinds of thoughts. But it seems to me that there is a pretty strong impulse to punish those who express the opposite. (cough Kaepernick cough)
And to be shocked that it might bite one on the ass.
https://www.insider.com/nfl-protests-saints-drew-brees-kneeling-flag-apology-failed-2020-6
It’s uncomfortable to be at an inflection point and find that you were on the wrong side of it, which is what a lot of folks have found. And the process of saying that they were wrong also includes rethinking a lot of how they processed these things. If this is the case, it is good that DiAngelo is in demand.
What I see in wj’s approach is a Darwinian system where the goal is to punish people stupid enough to say dumb shit out loud so find themselves on the lower end of the scale. I have my doubts about that, though I do realize that this is how things generally work.
you get it into their minds that racist behaviour is dangerous to them, i.e. could result in serious fines or prison time, they may “do the right thing” whatever the hell their hearts are saying.
Going back to my example at the beginning, I don’t know if kids still play smear the queer. I’m not advocating placing listening devices on playgrounds and punishing the kids who call it that. But it is aggregate effect and many of the things that DiAngelo describes are there. And as the review says, they are there even in herself. As I asked before, does that make her thesis wrong because she ends up making the same ‘white moves’? Or is the argument that it isn’t wrong, just unhelpful, like a person at an autoshop worried about the grease stains.
Nous point about aggregate effect suggests to me that a lot of what DiAngelo points out should be addressed, but it can only be addressed by the person themselves. So this thought of punishment becomes the key pivot, so you have someone like Jordan Peterson getting his grift started on the false assertion that Canadian law was going to punish him for using the wrong pronouns. Peterson is someone smart enough to avoid saying the quiet parts out loud, and when you have enough of those folks floating around, then I don’t think you are going to get much change, because the people who are able to couch their discussion in a way that hides what they are saying is going to make them plenty of dough. You will have the dumber ones taking it too far, but that’s just the way the cookie crumbles and their sacrifice oils the gears.
And nous point about teachable moments is one I take away often. And if something becomes uncomfortable for me, that should be a teachable moment because I can certainly teach myself.
As I said, I thought the Guardian article was fair. Where I would take issue with it is the last sentence, where it is asserted that DiAngelo “pushes us deeper into the silos of ethnic identity.” I’m not really sure how you get to where one assumes everyone here wants to be without deeply questioning concepts of ethnic identity, yours, mine, everyone. So if your reaction to DiAngelo is like Matt Welch’s, to figure out how much money she’s making (which isn’t really original, Taibibi was there first) well, don’t lob that stone from your glass house. But if you do lob the stone, you shouldn’t be surprised if your own motivations are questioned.
This probably all seems extreme, because we aren’t used to thinking about it this way. I suggest that it’s a completely reasonable way to think about it.
You discriminate, you are liable.
Hope it was clear from my comment that I agree with this. Also agree on the cellphone thing – thank god for them, and bodycams (when they aren’t disabled, and if they are it should automatically raise suspicions), and dashcams on cars.
This probably all seems extreme, because we aren’t used to thinking about it this way. I suggest that it’s a completely reasonable way to think about it.
You discriminate, you are liable.
Hope it was clear from my comment that I agree with this. Also agree on the cellphone thing – thank god for them, and bodycams (when they aren’t disabled, and if they are it should automatically raise suspicions), and dashcams on cars.
It’s just that I suspect that less egregious cases are far more common.
I would agree with you on that, wj. However, in aggregate we still get terrible (dare I say racist?) outcomes.
So the question becomes, what public policies can we adopt to right the ship?
School integration was one such policy. Well, schools just about everywhere are still de facto segregated by race.
bobbyp: cut the link between school funding and property values.
Affirmative Action was one such policy, but good white people objected to that as “special treatment”(that is to laugh – ed.), and it has been discarded.
bobbyp: Reinstate it. Take one for the team.
Relative black family wealth still sucks. Badly. But as far as corrective public policy it seems to boil down to, “Well, things have changed and this will take care of itself eventually (i.e., a public policy of doing nothing).”
bobbyp: Reparations might alleviate a lot of these problems, but that discussion can’t get past the batter’s box, much less to first base.
There are many more approaches to consider, I’m sure. We should discuss them.
It’s just that I suspect that less egregious cases are far more common.
I would agree with you on that, wj. However, in aggregate we still get terrible (dare I say racist?) outcomes.
So the question becomes, what public policies can we adopt to right the ship?
School integration was one such policy. Well, schools just about everywhere are still de facto segregated by race.
bobbyp: cut the link between school funding and property values.
Affirmative Action was one such policy, but good white people objected to that as “special treatment”(that is to laugh – ed.), and it has been discarded.
bobbyp: Reinstate it. Take one for the team.
Relative black family wealth still sucks. Badly. But as far as corrective public policy it seems to boil down to, “Well, things have changed and this will take care of itself eventually (i.e., a public policy of doing nothing).”
bobbyp: Reparations might alleviate a lot of these problems, but that discussion can’t get past the batter’s box, much less to first base.
There are many more approaches to consider, I’m sure. We should discuss them.
I would agree with you on that, wj. However, in aggregate we still get terrible (dare I say racist?) outcomes.
So the question becomes, what public policies can we adopt to right the ship?
Agreed, just dealing with overt and egregious discrimination isn’t going to be adequate. I was just noting that, to implement the policy that was proposed (big fines and jail time) we need a way to objectively determine that race was the driving factor.
School integration was one such policy. Well, schools just about everywhere are still de facto segregated by race.
School desegregation worked relatively well. (Albeit subverted for a couple of decades in some places by private schools.) What we have now is more a matter of housing segregation. Sometimes a legacy of legal housing segregation. But sometimes more a matter of economics driving what housing is available to whom.
What I’m saying is that we need to look at what is actually causing particular policies to work or not work. All too often we just look at the results and decide that something was effective or not — without considering whether the idea was right, but we didn’t get deep enough into contributing factors. That is, we need to keep a policy, even though it wasn’t a stunning success, because it will still be needed even once we have addressed the other factors.
I would agree with you on that, wj. However, in aggregate we still get terrible (dare I say racist?) outcomes.
So the question becomes, what public policies can we adopt to right the ship?
Agreed, just dealing with overt and egregious discrimination isn’t going to be adequate. I was just noting that, to implement the policy that was proposed (big fines and jail time) we need a way to objectively determine that race was the driving factor.
School integration was one such policy. Well, schools just about everywhere are still de facto segregated by race.
School desegregation worked relatively well. (Albeit subverted for a couple of decades in some places by private schools.) What we have now is more a matter of housing segregation. Sometimes a legacy of legal housing segregation. But sometimes more a matter of economics driving what housing is available to whom.
What I’m saying is that we need to look at what is actually causing particular policies to work or not work. All too often we just look at the results and decide that something was effective or not — without considering whether the idea was right, but we didn’t get deep enough into contributing factors. That is, we need to keep a policy, even though it wasn’t a stunning success, because it will still be needed even once we have addressed the other factors.
What’s *really* needed is a highly-contagious virus that is totally asymptomatic for 3-4 weeks…
…after which your skin turns black. No other effects.
I hear that Professor Sylvester McMonkey McBean is working on it.
What’s *really* needed is a highly-contagious virus that is totally asymptomatic for 3-4 weeks…
…after which your skin turns black. No other effects.
I hear that Professor Sylvester McMonkey McBean is working on it.
What’s *really* needed is a highly-contagious virus that is totally asymptomatic for 3-4 weeks…
…after which your skin turns black. No other effects.
I heard Sinopharm Group is already in preliminary trials.
What’s *really* needed is a highly-contagious virus that is totally asymptomatic for 3-4 weeks…
…after which your skin turns black. No other effects.
I heard Sinopharm Group is already in preliminary trials.
Ha, it would be fascinating to see the mental contortions the anti-vaxxers would go through reversing their position! Snarki, I reckon you could sell that idea to Hollywood, and I for one would like to see the movie.
Ha, it would be fascinating to see the mental contortions the anti-vaxxers would go through reversing their position! Snarki, I reckon you could sell that idea to Hollywood, and I for one would like to see the movie.
What we have now is more a matter of housing segregation
Which ties back into observed wealth disparities, but I’d better hold off going further or I might find myself digressing into Critical Race Theory and Tex and Marty would get mad and never ever be persuaded to vote for even not so liberal Democrats, and it will all be my fault.
It is indeed a heavy burden to bear.
What we have now is more a matter of housing segregation
Which ties back into observed wealth disparities, but I’d better hold off going further or I might find myself digressing into Critical Race Theory and Tex and Marty would get mad and never ever be persuaded to vote for even not so liberal Democrats, and it will all be my fault.
It is indeed a heavy burden to bear.
after which your skin turns black. No other effects.
I heard Sinopharm Group is already in preliminary trials.
Sinopharm’s biggest concern is that it might be modified to make people either appear, or not appear, Han. Racism in the US is nothing compared to China.
after which your skin turns black. No other effects.
I heard Sinopharm Group is already in preliminary trials.
Sinopharm’s biggest concern is that it might be modified to make people either appear, or not appear, Han. Racism in the US is nothing compared to China.
…after which your skin turns black. No other effects.
Would it work just on whites? If so, light skin blacks and other minorities would become the new whites.
…after which your skin turns black. No other effects.
Would it work just on whites? If so, light skin blacks and other minorities would become the new whites.
Affirmative Action was one such policy, but good white people objected to that as “special treatment”(that is to laugh – ed.), and it has been discarded.
Policies intended to help don’t always help. After the courts ruled in 1996 that California universities couldn’t use race as a basis for student selection, black graduation rates increased 50%.
Affirmative Action was one such policy, but good white people objected to that as “special treatment”(that is to laugh – ed.), and it has been discarded.
Policies intended to help don’t always help. After the courts ruled in 1996 that California universities couldn’t use race as a basis for student selection, black graduation rates increased 50%.
If you believe that the total graduation rate tells the whole story, maybe you need to go do a DiAngelo lecture….
https://www.ucop.edu/academic-affairs/prop-209/index.html
This study examines the effects of affirmative action bans in four states (California, Florida, Texas, and Washington) on the enrollment of under-represented students of color within six different graduate fields of study: the natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, business, education, and humanities. Findings show that affirmative action bans have led to the greatest reductions in science-related fields of engineering, the natural sciences, and the social sciences. These declines pose serious long-term consequences for the United States since these fields provide specialized training critical to the nation’s ability to compete effectively in a global market and for ensuring continued scientific and technological advancement.”
and
I estimate the effects of affirmative action bans on college enrollment, educational attainment, and college demographic composition by exploiting time and state variation in bans. I find that bans have no effect on the typical student and the typical college, but they decrease underrepresented minority enrollment and increase white enrollment at selective colleges. In addition, I find that the affirmative action ban in California shifted underrepresented minority students from more selective campuses to less selective ones at the University of California.
Lot more there to read. Nothing about privatization, alas.
If you believe that the total graduation rate tells the whole story, maybe you need to go do a DiAngelo lecture….
https://www.ucop.edu/academic-affairs/prop-209/index.html
This study examines the effects of affirmative action bans in four states (California, Florida, Texas, and Washington) on the enrollment of under-represented students of color within six different graduate fields of study: the natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, business, education, and humanities. Findings show that affirmative action bans have led to the greatest reductions in science-related fields of engineering, the natural sciences, and the social sciences. These declines pose serious long-term consequences for the United States since these fields provide specialized training critical to the nation’s ability to compete effectively in a global market and for ensuring continued scientific and technological advancement.”
and
I estimate the effects of affirmative action bans on college enrollment, educational attainment, and college demographic composition by exploiting time and state variation in bans. I find that bans have no effect on the typical student and the typical college, but they decrease underrepresented minority enrollment and increase white enrollment at selective colleges. In addition, I find that the affirmative action ban in California shifted underrepresented minority students from more selective campuses to less selective ones at the University of California.
Lot more there to read. Nothing about privatization, alas.
A reason why the graduation rate went. By prioritizing race over scholastic ability, students were being mismatched with schools and being set up for failure. Students who could do very well at less selective schools were being placed in schools where many of them would flunk out.
A reason why the graduation rate went. By prioritizing race over scholastic ability, students were being mismatched with schools and being set up for failure. Students who could do very well at less selective schools were being placed in schools where many of them would flunk out.
Helps to read all of them and not cherry pick.
This study analyzes Prop 209’s impact on student outcomes at UC. Ending affirmative action caused UC’s 10,000 annual underrepresented minority (URM) freshman applicants to cascade into lower-quality public and private universities. URM applicants’ undergraduate and graduate degree attainment declined overall and in STEM fields, especially among lower-testing applicants. As a result, the average URM UC applicant’s wages declined by five percent annually between ages 24 and 34. By the mid-2010s, Prop 209 had caused a cumulative decline in the number of early-career URM Californians earning over $100,000 by at least three percent. Prop 209 also deterred thousands of qualified URM students from applying to any UC campus. Enrolling at less-selective UC campuses did not improve URM students’ performance or persistence in STEM course sequences. Complementary analyses suggest that affirmative action’s net wage benefits for URM applicants exceed its (potentially small) net costs for on-the-margin white and Asian applicants. These findings are inconsistent with the university ‘Mismatch Hypothesis’ and provide the first causal evidence that banning affirmative action exacerbates socioeconomic inequities.”
“This article evaluates the ‘mismatch’ hypothesis, advocated by opponents of affirmative action, which predicts lower graduation rates for minority students who attend selective post-secondary institutions than for those who attend colleges and universities where their academic credentials are better matched to the institutional average. Using two nationally representative longitudinal surveys and a unique survey of students who were enrolled at selective and highly selective institutions, the authors tested the mismatch hypothesis by implementing a robust methodology that jointly considered enrollment in and graduation from selective institutions as interrelated outcomes. The findings do not support the ‘mismatch’ hypothesis for black and Hispanic (as well as white and Asian) students who attended college during the 1980s and early 1990s.”
Helps to read all of them and not cherry pick.
This study analyzes Prop 209’s impact on student outcomes at UC. Ending affirmative action caused UC’s 10,000 annual underrepresented minority (URM) freshman applicants to cascade into lower-quality public and private universities. URM applicants’ undergraduate and graduate degree attainment declined overall and in STEM fields, especially among lower-testing applicants. As a result, the average URM UC applicant’s wages declined by five percent annually between ages 24 and 34. By the mid-2010s, Prop 209 had caused a cumulative decline in the number of early-career URM Californians earning over $100,000 by at least three percent. Prop 209 also deterred thousands of qualified URM students from applying to any UC campus. Enrolling at less-selective UC campuses did not improve URM students’ performance or persistence in STEM course sequences. Complementary analyses suggest that affirmative action’s net wage benefits for URM applicants exceed its (potentially small) net costs for on-the-margin white and Asian applicants. These findings are inconsistent with the university ‘Mismatch Hypothesis’ and provide the first causal evidence that banning affirmative action exacerbates socioeconomic inequities.”
“This article evaluates the ‘mismatch’ hypothesis, advocated by opponents of affirmative action, which predicts lower graduation rates for minority students who attend selective post-secondary institutions than for those who attend colleges and universities where their academic credentials are better matched to the institutional average. Using two nationally representative longitudinal surveys and a unique survey of students who were enrolled at selective and highly selective institutions, the authors tested the mismatch hypothesis by implementing a robust methodology that jointly considered enrollment in and graduation from selective institutions as interrelated outcomes. The findings do not support the ‘mismatch’ hypothesis for black and Hispanic (as well as white and Asian) students who attended college during the 1980s and early 1990s.”
Students who could do very well at less selective schools were being placed in schools where many of them would flunk out.
So why are black students more likely to flunk out of selective schools? Are black people just congenitally lazy and/or stupid?
Or this something else going on? What is the something else?
Let’s address the ‘something else’, please.
Students who could do very well at less selective schools were being placed in schools where many of them would flunk out.
So why are black students more likely to flunk out of selective schools? Are black people just congenitally lazy and/or stupid?
Or this something else going on? What is the something else?
Let’s address the ‘something else’, please.
Or this something else going on? What is the something else?
Poorer primary and secondary education.** Due, in substantial part, to significantly lower funding for schools in places with higher minority populations. Due, in turn, to schools being funded (at least in California) overwhelmingly by local property taxes. Makes upward mobility more difficult — if your family has more money, you get a better education so you make more money.
There’s no obvious reason why primary and secondary schools couldn’t be funded at the state level. If you’re rich, and want your kid’s school to have more money, no problem. Just vote to raise your taxes so your kid, and everybody else’s kids, get more money for their schools.
** Not the whole story, of course. But a significant part of the story.
Or this something else going on? What is the something else?
Poorer primary and secondary education.** Due, in substantial part, to significantly lower funding for schools in places with higher minority populations. Due, in turn, to schools being funded (at least in California) overwhelmingly by local property taxes. Makes upward mobility more difficult — if your family has more money, you get a better education so you make more money.
There’s no obvious reason why primary and secondary schools couldn’t be funded at the state level. If you’re rich, and want your kid’s school to have more money, no problem. Just vote to raise your taxes so your kid, and everybody else’s kids, get more money for their schools.
** Not the whole story, of course. But a significant part of the story.
So why are black students more likely to flunk out of selective schools? Are black people just congenitally lazy and/or stupid?
Has nothing to do with race. The same thing would happen if a random selection of high school graduates were placed in a more scholastically demanding environment than their abilities justified.
So why are black students more likely to flunk out of selective schools? Are black people just congenitally lazy and/or stupid?
Has nothing to do with race. The same thing would happen if a random selection of high school graduates were placed in a more scholastically demanding environment than their abilities justified.
Minority first-gen college students struggle at UC schools not because they do worse than their cohort, but because they don’t have the safety net that the others have.
Minority first-gen college students struggle at UC schools not because they do worse than their cohort, but because they don’t have the safety net that the others have.
they don’t have the safety net that the others have.
And all attempts at creating safety nets are often undercut or underfunded.
But yeah, random population mechanics probably explains everything…
they don’t have the safety net that the others have.
And all attempts at creating safety nets are often undercut or underfunded.
But yeah, random population mechanics probably explains everything…
This paper presents some evidence in favor of the mismatch hypothesis.
“Abstract
This paper empirically evaluates the mismatch hypothesis by exploiting the quasi-experimental variation in the adoption of statewide affirmative action bans. Specifically, this paper examines the effect of such bans on minority graduation rates using a difference-in-difference, synthetic control, and triple-difference approach. My results suggest that statewide affirmative action bans are associated with an increase in minority graduation rates, consistent with the mismatch hypothesis, at highly selective institutions. Moreover, mismatch effects are not confined to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) majors.
…
7. Conclusion
My findings suggest that minority graduation rates significantly increase after racial preference bans at highly selective public institutions, indicative of mismatch dominating college-quality effects. In addition to STEM, mismatch effects are present, albeit to a lesser extent, in the social sciences as well. These results are robust to the inclusion of private institutions and affirmed by a synthetic control approach. These results are consistent with those of Hinrichs (2014) and Arcidiacono et. al (2014), who uses only UCOP data. My findings are not inconsistent with Hinrichs (2012, 719), who finds that “affirmative action bans have no effect” for the “typical student at the typical college” even though affirmative action programs may cause some students to “cascade down” the selectivity ladder. Only a small fraction of public colleges in ban states in ban years are highly selective, and I find no evidence of significant mismatch effects at unselective institutions, encompassing roughly 80% of the sample.
In their review of the literature, Arcidiacono, Lovenheim, and Zhu (2015) articulated the empirical challenge of disentangling mismatch and college quality effects. My work joins Hill (2017), Hinrichs (2012, 2014), Arcidiacono et. al (2014) in answering this challenge. However, this paper is the first to find evidence for mismatch effects across two decades of IPEDS data at highly selective institutions. Moreover, no previous literature has examined whether mismatch effects are confined to a single major category at this nationwide scale. In finding that mismatch effects are present only at highly selective institutions and not confined only to STEM fields, my paper fills an important void in the literature.
However, I must present these findings with two caveats. First, it is still possible that (particularly biracial) minorities may change their race reporting behavior in response to racial preference bans…
A more serious challenge to my interpretation stems from the fact that colleges and universities may themselves respond to affirmative action bans by investing more in minority students following an inability to employ racial preferences in admissions decisions…”
Affirmative Action and Mismatch: Evidence from Statewide Affirmative Action Bans
This paper presents some evidence in favor of the mismatch hypothesis.
“Abstract
This paper empirically evaluates the mismatch hypothesis by exploiting the quasi-experimental variation in the adoption of statewide affirmative action bans. Specifically, this paper examines the effect of such bans on minority graduation rates using a difference-in-difference, synthetic control, and triple-difference approach. My results suggest that statewide affirmative action bans are associated with an increase in minority graduation rates, consistent with the mismatch hypothesis, at highly selective institutions. Moreover, mismatch effects are not confined to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) majors.
…
7. Conclusion
My findings suggest that minority graduation rates significantly increase after racial preference bans at highly selective public institutions, indicative of mismatch dominating college-quality effects. In addition to STEM, mismatch effects are present, albeit to a lesser extent, in the social sciences as well. These results are robust to the inclusion of private institutions and affirmed by a synthetic control approach. These results are consistent with those of Hinrichs (2014) and Arcidiacono et. al (2014), who uses only UCOP data. My findings are not inconsistent with Hinrichs (2012, 719), who finds that “affirmative action bans have no effect” for the “typical student at the typical college” even though affirmative action programs may cause some students to “cascade down” the selectivity ladder. Only a small fraction of public colleges in ban states in ban years are highly selective, and I find no evidence of significant mismatch effects at unselective institutions, encompassing roughly 80% of the sample.
In their review of the literature, Arcidiacono, Lovenheim, and Zhu (2015) articulated the empirical challenge of disentangling mismatch and college quality effects. My work joins Hill (2017), Hinrichs (2012, 2014), Arcidiacono et. al (2014) in answering this challenge. However, this paper is the first to find evidence for mismatch effects across two decades of IPEDS data at highly selective institutions. Moreover, no previous literature has examined whether mismatch effects are confined to a single major category at this nationwide scale. In finding that mismatch effects are present only at highly selective institutions and not confined only to STEM fields, my paper fills an important void in the literature.
However, I must present these findings with two caveats. First, it is still possible that (particularly biracial) minorities may change their race reporting behavior in response to racial preference bans…
A more serious challenge to my interpretation stems from the fact that colleges and universities may themselves respond to affirmative action bans by investing more in minority students following an inability to employ racial preferences in admissions decisions…”
Affirmative Action and Mismatch: Evidence from Statewide Affirmative Action Bans
Here’s the thing, though.
The neighborhoods around the selective schools are more expensive to live in than the neighborhoods around the more modest schools. And the students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a really hard time affording that and don’t get as much help from their families. They run into academic difficulties not because the course of studies is too difficult, but because they are having to work too many hours to keep up with the workload. Or they are spending too much time commuting. Or they are trying to do their research with unreliable tech and dodgy connections.
It’s economic resources getting counted as “ability.”
Or it is a student that has never faced difficulty at their high school as a “top student” not knowing how to ask for help, or feeling shame for not doing well and becoming depressed because they are letting their whole family down.
If the “high performing” student from the well off family struggles, then it’s time to get tutoring, or to take make-up courses and get someone to write them a letter of reference to keep them in school while they pay for an extra year of classes to repair the damage to their progress and their GPA. And then they get financial support from the family to pay off the extra loans that result when they lose financial support.
Most of those “low-ability” students don’t get those chances. If their GPA slips, their financial aid goes away and they are left with debt and shame. They end up at less competitive schools mostly because those schools have more forgiving support systems and are more affordable, not because of a lack of ability to do the work of learning.
It’s all the other crap.
But if you look at it through the lens of test scores and GPA, it looks like low ability because those things stand in for ability.
But I’ve seen a lot of really bright kids from tough backgrounds get spit out while some very marginal kids from well-off backgrounds slid through with a lot less to show simply by never having to worry about anything but staying above a C- in all their classes.
Here’s the thing, though.
The neighborhoods around the selective schools are more expensive to live in than the neighborhoods around the more modest schools. And the students from disadvantaged backgrounds have a really hard time affording that and don’t get as much help from their families. They run into academic difficulties not because the course of studies is too difficult, but because they are having to work too many hours to keep up with the workload. Or they are spending too much time commuting. Or they are trying to do their research with unreliable tech and dodgy connections.
It’s economic resources getting counted as “ability.”
Or it is a student that has never faced difficulty at their high school as a “top student” not knowing how to ask for help, or feeling shame for not doing well and becoming depressed because they are letting their whole family down.
If the “high performing” student from the well off family struggles, then it’s time to get tutoring, or to take make-up courses and get someone to write them a letter of reference to keep them in school while they pay for an extra year of classes to repair the damage to their progress and their GPA. And then they get financial support from the family to pay off the extra loans that result when they lose financial support.
Most of those “low-ability” students don’t get those chances. If their GPA slips, their financial aid goes away and they are left with debt and shame. They end up at less competitive schools mostly because those schools have more forgiving support systems and are more affordable, not because of a lack of ability to do the work of learning.
It’s all the other crap.
But if you look at it through the lens of test scores and GPA, it looks like low ability because those things stand in for ability.
But I’ve seen a lot of really bright kids from tough backgrounds get spit out while some very marginal kids from well-off backgrounds slid through with a lot less to show simply by never having to worry about anything but staying above a C- in all their classes.
Charles, the paper is interesting, but it is from the _Undergraduate_ Economic Review.
“The UER is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at promoting high quality undergraduate research.”
In regard to your earlier comment, from the paper
For example, institutions may more aggressively implement special tutoring, support, guidance, or mentoring services targeted at or restricted to minority students after affirmative action is banned, which could increase minority graduation rates after a ban. In this case, collegiate responses, rather than mismatch, could account for the increasing minority graduation rates post-ban.
So if this becomes what you want to argue from, you have to acknowledge that your earlier response was possibly wrong. But as long as you hop from argument to argument, it seems like you have a position and you want to find whatever proof you can to support it.
Charles, the paper is interesting, but it is from the _Undergraduate_ Economic Review.
“The UER is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at promoting high quality undergraduate research.”
In regard to your earlier comment, from the paper
For example, institutions may more aggressively implement special tutoring, support, guidance, or mentoring services targeted at or restricted to minority students after affirmative action is banned, which could increase minority graduation rates after a ban. In this case, collegiate responses, rather than mismatch, could account for the increasing minority graduation rates post-ban.
So if this becomes what you want to argue from, you have to acknowledge that your earlier response was possibly wrong. But as long as you hop from argument to argument, it seems like you have a position and you want to find whatever proof you can to support it.
And, frankly, I’m amazed that anyone thinks that either college admissions or college ratings are any sort of objective measure. Both are *highly* subject to manipulation. They only look rigorous from the outside.
And, frankly, I’m amazed that anyone thinks that either college admissions or college ratings are any sort of objective measure. Both are *highly* subject to manipulation. They only look rigorous from the outside.
Due, in turn, to schools being funded (at least in California) overwhelmingly by local property taxes.
This is simply not true. According to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, in the 2019 fiscal year, the total public dollar spending on K-12 education in California was 58% state money, 22% local property taxes, 9% federal, and the rest from assorted sources (mostly local non-property taxes). That did not include extra money the state contributed to the state pension fund for the express purpose of reducing those costs for local school districts. I don’t know the details of California’s state formula for distributing money; I would bet the ranch that it favors poor districts. That’s typical sort of arrangement for a western US state. Here in Colorado, there are poor districts whose budgets are more than 85% state and federal dollars.
I know I’ve written lengthy comments on the subject here before. State budgets are being consumed by two line items, Medicaid and K-12 education, both of which are growing faster than state revenues are. It’s the primary reason that funding for state colleges and universities keeps shrinking — Medicaid and K-12 spending is protected in various ways, higher ed isn’t.
Due, in turn, to schools being funded (at least in California) overwhelmingly by local property taxes.
This is simply not true. According to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, in the 2019 fiscal year, the total public dollar spending on K-12 education in California was 58% state money, 22% local property taxes, 9% federal, and the rest from assorted sources (mostly local non-property taxes). That did not include extra money the state contributed to the state pension fund for the express purpose of reducing those costs for local school districts. I don’t know the details of California’s state formula for distributing money; I would bet the ranch that it favors poor districts. That’s typical sort of arrangement for a western US state. Here in Colorado, there are poor districts whose budgets are more than 85% state and federal dollars.
I know I’ve written lengthy comments on the subject here before. State budgets are being consumed by two line items, Medicaid and K-12 education, both of which are growing faster than state revenues are. It’s the primary reason that funding for state colleges and universities keeps shrinking — Medicaid and K-12 spending is protected in various ways, higher ed isn’t.
And, frankly, I’m amazed that anyone thinks that either college admissions or college ratings are any sort of objective measure. Both are *highly* subject to manipulation. They only look rigorous from the outside.
Sometimes not even from the outside. All you have to do is look at “legacy admissions” at some supposedly elite schools. That means one of your parents went there, so you don’t have to compete to get in. And it’s a substantial fraction — nearly 50% at Harvard. Not to mention that you can up your chances of admission if your family makes a large “donation” (aka bribe) to the school.
And, frankly, I’m amazed that anyone thinks that either college admissions or college ratings are any sort of objective measure. Both are *highly* subject to manipulation. They only look rigorous from the outside.
Sometimes not even from the outside. All you have to do is look at “legacy admissions” at some supposedly elite schools. That means one of your parents went there, so you don’t have to compete to get in. And it’s a substantial fraction — nearly 50% at Harvard. Not to mention that you can up your chances of admission if your family makes a large “donation” (aka bribe) to the school.
According to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, in the 2019 fiscal year, the total public dollar spending on K-12 education in California was 58% state money, 22% local property taxes, 9% federal, and the rest from assorted sources (mostly local non-property taxes).
The trouble with state-wide numbers is that they conceal more than they reveal. For example, there are at least 100 districts in California which have enough property tax revenue that they get nothing from the state. Because state funds are only to get a district to some minimum level. No limit on how much higher a rich district can go.
According to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, in the 2019 fiscal year, the total public dollar spending on K-12 education in California was 58% state money, 22% local property taxes, 9% federal, and the rest from assorted sources (mostly local non-property taxes).
The trouble with state-wide numbers is that they conceal more than they reveal. For example, there are at least 100 districts in California which have enough property tax revenue that they get nothing from the state. Because state funds are only to get a district to some minimum level. No limit on how much higher a rich district can go.
Open thread? OK…ran across this in the Times this morning. For your reading pleasure.
Have a nice summer day.
Open thread? OK…ran across this in the Times this morning. For your reading pleasure.
Have a nice summer day.
For your reading pleasure.
hilarious.
this meta argument over what specific theories really mean, and their genealogy, is starting to reach the jurisdiction of Sayre’s Law:
“Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.”
For your reading pleasure.
hilarious.
this meta argument over what specific theories really mean, and their genealogy, is starting to reach the jurisdiction of Sayre’s Law:
“Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.”
I have completely removed CRT from my existence.
Flat-screens all the way, baby.
The CRT that only shows ‘black’ and ‘white’ is the worst, also, too.
I have completely removed CRT from my existence.
Flat-screens all the way, baby.
The CRT that only shows ‘black’ and ‘white’ is the worst, also, too.
from bobbyp’s link:
indeed.
some folks actually want to try to untangle them, or at least mitigate their effects.
some folks see the divisions but have no idea what to do about any of it.
some folks are sick of hearing about it, wish it would all go away, and spend their energy pretending it doesn’t exist. sometimes quite vigorously.
and some folks use the divisions to further their own agendas, whatever those might be.
there are no magic bullets here, but IMO there’s no path forward that doesn’t involve at least listening to people when they say they’re struggling.
from bobbyp’s link:
indeed.
some folks actually want to try to untangle them, or at least mitigate their effects.
some folks see the divisions but have no idea what to do about any of it.
some folks are sick of hearing about it, wish it would all go away, and spend their energy pretending it doesn’t exist. sometimes quite vigorously.
and some folks use the divisions to further their own agendas, whatever those might be.
there are no magic bullets here, but IMO there’s no path forward that doesn’t involve at least listening to people when they say they’re struggling.
My university had somewhere around 120,000 applicants last year. Imagine how many pages of transcripts, test scores, and admissions essays that generates.
Now, considering that going over those applications counts as university service, which is about 10% of the typical professor’s workload, try to estimate how much actual time goes into looking at each application file and considering that student’s merits, trying to decide if that student is the best qualified applicant.
Now think about how much of that application process is shaped by the applicant’s access to outside resources during the application process: admissions consultants to help with the process and advise on submitted materials; test prep courses; being able to retake the tests multiple times to obtain a more competitive score; having a sympathetic doctor who will give a student a diagnosis that allows the student test accommodations.
Now consider how many of those students choose a popular major that admits far more applicants than it can actually serve in upper division classes, and the systematic winnowing out of capable students that has to occur between sophomore and junior year regardless of ability. Those intro classes have an attrition factor built into them as an institutional feature, and it only serves to make those courses seem more desirable, and to stigmatize those who do not make it past the moving cutoff that has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with class size at the next level.
When you look at degree attainment, I think it is significant that, when looking at students with admissions test scores in the 76th+ percentile, students coming from households in the top 25% of household income graduate at rates 20% higher than students from the bottom 25%.
And despite all the much cited data that high school academic prep is the single highest predictor of college completion, students whose test scores are in the 50th-75th percentile, but whose family incomes are in the top 25% graduate at a 10% higher rate than students in the 76th+ percentile who come from the bottom 25% of household incomes.
All of these things really problematize the discussion of “low-achieving” students in the “mismatch effect” theory for me.
My university had somewhere around 120,000 applicants last year. Imagine how many pages of transcripts, test scores, and admissions essays that generates.
Now, considering that going over those applications counts as university service, which is about 10% of the typical professor’s workload, try to estimate how much actual time goes into looking at each application file and considering that student’s merits, trying to decide if that student is the best qualified applicant.
Now think about how much of that application process is shaped by the applicant’s access to outside resources during the application process: admissions consultants to help with the process and advise on submitted materials; test prep courses; being able to retake the tests multiple times to obtain a more competitive score; having a sympathetic doctor who will give a student a diagnosis that allows the student test accommodations.
Now consider how many of those students choose a popular major that admits far more applicants than it can actually serve in upper division classes, and the systematic winnowing out of capable students that has to occur between sophomore and junior year regardless of ability. Those intro classes have an attrition factor built into them as an institutional feature, and it only serves to make those courses seem more desirable, and to stigmatize those who do not make it past the moving cutoff that has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with class size at the next level.
When you look at degree attainment, I think it is significant that, when looking at students with admissions test scores in the 76th+ percentile, students coming from households in the top 25% of household income graduate at rates 20% higher than students from the bottom 25%.
And despite all the much cited data that high school academic prep is the single highest predictor of college completion, students whose test scores are in the 50th-75th percentile, but whose family incomes are in the top 25% graduate at a 10% higher rate than students in the 76th+ percentile who come from the bottom 25% of household incomes.
All of these things really problematize the discussion of “low-achieving” students in the “mismatch effect” theory for me.
Now consider how many of those students choose a popular major that admits far more applicants than it can actually serve in upper division classes, and the systematic winnowing out of capable students that has to occur between sophomore and junior year regardless of ability. Those intro classes have an attrition factor built into them as an institutional feature…
And consider that students who are the first in their family to go to college do not realize that they can pick an initial major which is less popular, and thus has more spots relative to the number of applicants. And then, once they are in, change to whatever major they actually are interested in. In short, if your family has been to college before, you have insights into how to game the system. If not, not.
Now consider how many of those students choose a popular major that admits far more applicants than it can actually serve in upper division classes, and the systematic winnowing out of capable students that has to occur between sophomore and junior year regardless of ability. Those intro classes have an attrition factor built into them as an institutional feature…
And consider that students who are the first in their family to go to college do not realize that they can pick an initial major which is less popular, and thus has more spots relative to the number of applicants. And then, once they are in, change to whatever major they actually are interested in. In short, if your family has been to college before, you have insights into how to game the system. If not, not.
The trouble with state-wide numbers is that they conceal more than they reveal.
Then why did you make a state-wide statement (“funded (at least in California) overwhelmingly by local property taxes”)? I prefer to work with number of students for an estimate like this. A couple of back of the envelope examples and the constraint that the state totals have to come out one-third local funding and two-thirds not suggests to me that less than 10% of students will be in districts that are overwhelmingly locally funded. Possibly quite a bit less than 10%.
The trouble with state-wide numbers is that they conceal more than they reveal.
Then why did you make a state-wide statement (“funded (at least in California) overwhelmingly by local property taxes”)? I prefer to work with number of students for an estimate like this. A couple of back of the envelope examples and the constraint that the state totals have to come out one-third local funding and two-thirds not suggests to me that less than 10% of students will be in districts that are overwhelmingly locally funded. Possibly quite a bit less than 10%.
There’s an interesting post here about how the local control of education, which grew out of frontier expansion was, at one point, a world beating idea, but as the world changed, it’s become a liability. It has also, I would suggest, been one of those ideas that has fueled fetishization of privatization, because you have this idea that the community just bands together, hammers together a school and finds someone to be the school marm. Again, great if you are dealing with a frontier and you are racing beyond the government, but not so good in an interconnected world.
There’s an interesting post here about how the local control of education, which grew out of frontier expansion was, at one point, a world beating idea, but as the world changed, it’s become a liability. It has also, I would suggest, been one of those ideas that has fueled fetishization of privatization, because you have this idea that the community just bands together, hammers together a school and finds someone to be the school marm. Again, great if you are dealing with a frontier and you are racing beyond the government, but not so good in an interconnected world.
great if you are dealing with a frontier and you are racing beyond the government, but not so good in an interconnected world.
Great if you have nothing better (which, on the frontier and at the time, they didn’t). But not as good as what we can provide now. And what our kids need in a world which is far more complex that a couple of centuries back.
great if you are dealing with a frontier and you are racing beyond the government, but not so good in an interconnected world.
Great if you have nothing better (which, on the frontier and at the time, they didn’t). But not as good as what we can provide now. And what our kids need in a world which is far more complex that a couple of centuries back.
The anti-life party reaches a new low. From The Nashville Tennessean
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/health/2021/07/13/tennessee-halts-all-vaccine-outreach-minors-not-just-covid-19/7928701002/
I guess the anti-vaxxers have achieved victory. Sad.
The anti-life party reaches a new low. From The Nashville Tennessean
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/health/2021/07/13/tennessee-halts-all-vaccine-outreach-minors-not-just-covid-19/7928701002/
I guess the anti-vaxxers have achieved victory. Sad.
But not as good as what we can provide now. And what our kids need in a world which is far more complex that a couple of centuries back.
Which would seem to argue for more flexibility and choice in education. Instead of the current largely one size fits all public schools. One way to encourage education innovation is to direct funding to the student instead of the schools. Then the school that’s selected as the fit by the student and their parents would get the funding.
Another approach could be education savings accounts that would be similar to SNAP. Funds credited to the accounts could only be spent on approved educational products and services.
Or scholarship funds that individuals and businesses can make tax-deductible contributions to.
But not as good as what we can provide now. And what our kids need in a world which is far more complex that a couple of centuries back.
Which would seem to argue for more flexibility and choice in education. Instead of the current largely one size fits all public schools. One way to encourage education innovation is to direct funding to the student instead of the schools. Then the school that’s selected as the fit by the student and their parents would get the funding.
Another approach could be education savings accounts that would be similar to SNAP. Funds credited to the accounts could only be spent on approved educational products and services.
Or scholarship funds that individuals and businesses can make tax-deductible contributions to.
To you, it would. But it seems that it would also require some sort of national structure, you know, like every other developed nation has. Yes, it can go overboard, But the structure of USeducation seems to be custom built to maintain structural inequities
To you, it would. But it seems that it would also require some sort of national structure, you know, like every other developed nation has. Yes, it can go overboard, But the structure of USeducation seems to be custom built to maintain structural inequities
the structure of USeducation seems to be custom built to maintain structural inequities
Built? To some significant extent. But not (in most places) designed for that purpose.
In fact, it was designed to reduce inequities. To move us from a place where only the rich got an education, and even literacy was limited. Not-rich people pooled their resources to at least give their kids some education, so they could move up in the world.
Today, it is an innovation from a different time. And we need new innovations to meet the needs of a different time. The challenge will be to design one based on the real world. Rather than on somebody’s ideologically-based vision of how the world is. Sadly, both right and left have enthusiastic ideologues just itching for a chance to ignore reality. And who, if you look at it, care more about their vision than about real kids.
the structure of USeducation seems to be custom built to maintain structural inequities
Built? To some significant extent. But not (in most places) designed for that purpose.
In fact, it was designed to reduce inequities. To move us from a place where only the rich got an education, and even literacy was limited. Not-rich people pooled their resources to at least give their kids some education, so they could move up in the world.
Today, it is an innovation from a different time. And we need new innovations to meet the needs of a different time. The challenge will be to design one based on the real world. Rather than on somebody’s ideologically-based vision of how the world is. Sadly, both right and left have enthusiastic ideologues just itching for a chance to ignore reality. And who, if you look at it, care more about their vision than about real kids.
I keep wondering what might have been, had the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s ruling in San Antonio v. Rodriguez and declared that education was a fundamental right that was guaranteed equal protected under the 14th Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Independent_School_District_v._Rodriguez
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=jolpi
Had that case been heard while Justice Black was still on the SC instead of Justice Powell, we’d likely have had a federal mandate for equal funding by district.
Without that ruling, it’s proven nearly impossible to try to equalize pay across districts in a state. People may be interested in funding education, but a majority opposes any funds being redistributed from their own districts to others.
So it’s not so much about reducing inequalities as it is about making sure that all districts are minimally funded before fighting like hell over what remains.
I keep wondering what might have been, had the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s ruling in San Antonio v. Rodriguez and declared that education was a fundamental right that was guaranteed equal protected under the 14th Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Independent_School_District_v._Rodriguez
https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=jolpi
Had that case been heard while Justice Black was still on the SC instead of Justice Powell, we’d likely have had a federal mandate for equal funding by district.
Without that ruling, it’s proven nearly impossible to try to equalize pay across districts in a state. People may be interested in funding education, but a majority opposes any funds being redistributed from their own districts to others.
So it’s not so much about reducing inequalities as it is about making sure that all districts are minimally funded before fighting like hell over what remains.
wj, that’s the foundation myth and like all foundation myths, has some truth to it. It was certainly designed to reduce inequities for different areas, but because it was locally controlled, whatever inequities were already around, it basically baked them in.
wj, that’s the foundation myth and like all foundation myths, has some truth to it. It was certainly designed to reduce inequities for different areas, but because it was locally controlled, whatever inequities were already around, it basically baked them in.
And then there are the guys who complain that they have to pay (via taxes) even for local education since they themselves have no kids (or at least no offspring in the age bracket).
Probably there exists a great overlap with those (male) guys that complain that their health insurance premiums also pay for services that only concern women and demand lower rates for themselves.
Solidarity is a dirty word and just a Trojan horse for communism.
And then there are the guys who complain that they have to pay (via taxes) even for local education since they themselves have no kids (or at least no offspring in the age bracket).
Probably there exists a great overlap with those (male) guys that complain that their health insurance premiums also pay for services that only concern women and demand lower rates for themselves.
Solidarity is a dirty word and just a Trojan horse for communism.
I keep wondering what might have been, had the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s ruling in San Antonio v. Rodriguez and declared that education was a fundamental right that was guaranteed equal protected under the 14th Amendment.
From a homeschooling parent’s point of view (mine), one of the striking things about that the decision is that it leaves in place a system that ensures appallingly bad schools for some kids, while maintaining the system of compulsory attendance. Schools can be worse than useless, but kids still have to go.
You might almost think there’s some underlying nefarious purpose to that combination.
I keep wondering what might have been, had the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s ruling in San Antonio v. Rodriguez and declared that education was a fundamental right that was guaranteed equal protected under the 14th Amendment.
From a homeschooling parent’s point of view (mine), one of the striking things about that the decision is that it leaves in place a system that ensures appallingly bad schools for some kids, while maintaining the system of compulsory attendance. Schools can be worse than useless, but kids still have to go.
You might almost think there’s some underlying nefarious purpose to that combination.
Further to our discussion on racism, and how much better things are now, I think it’s vital, as russell says, to listen to what black people are saying. This article is in today’s WaPo, about a black undercover cop who was information-gathering at a protest, and was enthusiastically beaten and brutalised by white cops who had exchanged texts earlier about how much they were looking forward to beating up the anti-racism protesters once it was dark and they could not so easily be identified. It’s sickening to read about the victim’s life-changing injuries, but much more to the point, what kind of blinkers do you have to be wearing to hear these kinds of stories (and there are plenty of them) and still deny there is systemic racism in law-enforcement and elsewhere?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/07/14/police-beating-undercover-protest-stlouis/
Further to our discussion on racism, and how much better things are now, I think it’s vital, as russell says, to listen to what black people are saying. This article is in today’s WaPo, about a black undercover cop who was information-gathering at a protest, and was enthusiastically beaten and brutalised by white cops who had exchanged texts earlier about how much they were looking forward to beating up the anti-racism protesters once it was dark and they could not so easily be identified. It’s sickening to read about the victim’s life-changing injuries, but much more to the point, what kind of blinkers do you have to be wearing to hear these kinds of stories (and there are plenty of them) and still deny there is systemic racism in law-enforcement and elsewhere?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/07/14/police-beating-undercover-protest-stlouis/
i’m mad that my insurance premiums go to keep anti-vaxx numbskulls alive.
i’m mad that my insurance premiums go to keep anti-vaxx numbskulls alive.
What cleek said.
What cleek said.
Eeek! I can’t remember if anybody else has linked this from LGM, or anything on the same subject, but given how many New Age types I have known in my life, this made my blood run cold:
The links between right-wing extremism and New Age wellness circles have become increasingly evident, as fissures appeared during the pandemic among wellness influencers on social media over the effect of conspiracy theories.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/07/cults-birth-other-cults
Eeek! I can’t remember if anybody else has linked this from LGM, or anything on the same subject, but given how many New Age types I have known in my life, this made my blood run cold:
The links between right-wing extremism and New Age wellness circles have become increasingly evident, as fissures appeared during the pandemic among wellness influencers on social media over the effect of conspiracy theories.
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/07/cults-birth-other-cults
given how many New Age types I have known in my life, this made my blood run cold
Look on the bright side. If it wasn’t for the big overlap, that would mean we had twice as many nut cases in the population.
For better or worse, the same people who believe in one conspiracy theory are prime candidates to embrace another. Just as political extremists can move from far left to far right without ever touching down in between. They’re looking for something, but the specifics don’t turn out to matter much.
given how many New Age types I have known in my life, this made my blood run cold
Look on the bright side. If it wasn’t for the big overlap, that would mean we had twice as many nut cases in the population.
For better or worse, the same people who believe in one conspiracy theory are prime candidates to embrace another. Just as political extremists can move from far left to far right without ever touching down in between. They’re looking for something, but the specifics don’t turn out to matter much.
the horseshoe is real
the horseshoe is real
It’s a horseshoe magnet. They are polarized and opposite, but attracted to the same sorts of crankery. And once they get attached to it, it’s hard to get either end to let go.
It’s a horseshoe magnet. They are polarized and opposite, but attracted to the same sorts of crankery. And once they get attached to it, it’s hard to get either end to let go.
I’m always grateful for reasons to be cheerful:
https://reasonstobecheerful.world/reducing-incarceration-no-prosecuting-minor-non-violent-crimes/#
Both sides of the political fence in the U.S. agree that mass incarceration isn’t working. It is expensive, discriminatory and has serious societal consequences. Crime has, in general, been trending down for decades (even in 2020, despite public perception) while prisons just keep filling up. The partisans may disagree on the best way to lower the prison population, but the good news is they agree it has to happen. The present system is unsustainable.
One way of reducing mass incarceration is to simply start ignoring certain laws. Some 80 percent of cases filed nationally are for misdemeanors. These are the types of crimes that are often victimless, but that can mess up the life of the person prosecuted for them. A few places have addressed this in the most straightforward way possible: by not automatically prosecuting these crimes. What has happened as a result? Studies have shown that these places reduced their prison populations without putting the public at risk. Crime did not go up. In fact, in many cases, it went down. And, surprisingly, often not just for misdemeanors.
I’m always grateful for reasons to be cheerful:
https://reasonstobecheerful.world/reducing-incarceration-no-prosecuting-minor-non-violent-crimes/#
Both sides of the political fence in the U.S. agree that mass incarceration isn’t working. It is expensive, discriminatory and has serious societal consequences. Crime has, in general, been trending down for decades (even in 2020, despite public perception) while prisons just keep filling up. The partisans may disagree on the best way to lower the prison population, but the good news is they agree it has to happen. The present system is unsustainable.
One way of reducing mass incarceration is to simply start ignoring certain laws. Some 80 percent of cases filed nationally are for misdemeanors. These are the types of crimes that are often victimless, but that can mess up the life of the person prosecuted for them. A few places have addressed this in the most straightforward way possible: by not automatically prosecuting these crimes. What has happened as a result? Studies have shown that these places reduced their prison populations without putting the public at risk. Crime did not go up. In fact, in many cases, it went down. And, surprisingly, often not just for misdemeanors.
Note also that, within 3 years of their release, 2 out of 3 people are rearrested and more than 50% are incarcerated again. In short, as a way of discouraging law breaking, prisons do not appear to be particularly effective. Let alone rehabilitating criminals, that is turning them into ex-criminals. If anything, they may be increasing crime.
Note also that, within 3 years of their release, 2 out of 3 people are rearrested and more than 50% are incarcerated again. In short, as a way of discouraging law breaking, prisons do not appear to be particularly effective. Let alone rehabilitating criminals, that is turning them into ex-criminals. If anything, they may be increasing crime.
Gosh, on the subject of different skill sets, I saw that the author of that piece on reducing incarceration was called David Byrne, but it never occurred to me it was THE David Byrne. But so it is. It turns out he is the founder of Reasons to be Cheerful. Quite an interesting second (or severalth) act.
Reasons to be Cheerful is a non-profit editorial project that is tonic for tumultuous times.
We tell stories that reveal that there are, in fact, a surprising number of reasons to feel cheerful. Many of these reasons come in the form of smart, proven, replicable solutions to the world’s most pressing problems. We’re here to tell you about some of them. Through sharp reporting, our stories balance a sense of healthy optimism with journalistic rigor, and find cause for hope. We are part magazine, part therapy session, part blueprint for a better world.
Reasons to be Cheerful was founded by artist and musician David Byrne, who believes in the power of approaching the world with curiosity—in art, in music, in collaboration and in life. Under the banner of Byrne’s non-profit organization, Arbutus, Reasons to be Cheerful embodies this sensibility, applying it now to the future of our world. Through stories of hope, rooted in evidence, Reasons to be Cheerful aims to inspire us all to be curious about how the world can be better, and to ask ourselves how we can be part of that change.
Gosh, on the subject of different skill sets, I saw that the author of that piece on reducing incarceration was called David Byrne, but it never occurred to me it was THE David Byrne. But so it is. It turns out he is the founder of Reasons to be Cheerful. Quite an interesting second (or severalth) act.
Reasons to be Cheerful is a non-profit editorial project that is tonic for tumultuous times.
We tell stories that reveal that there are, in fact, a surprising number of reasons to feel cheerful. Many of these reasons come in the form of smart, proven, replicable solutions to the world’s most pressing problems. We’re here to tell you about some of them. Through sharp reporting, our stories balance a sense of healthy optimism with journalistic rigor, and find cause for hope. We are part magazine, part therapy session, part blueprint for a better world.
Reasons to be Cheerful was founded by artist and musician David Byrne, who believes in the power of approaching the world with curiosity—in art, in music, in collaboration and in life. Under the banner of Byrne’s non-profit organization, Arbutus, Reasons to be Cheerful embodies this sensibility, applying it now to the future of our world. Through stories of hope, rooted in evidence, Reasons to be Cheerful aims to inspire us all to be curious about how the world can be better, and to ask ourselves how we can be part of that change.
Both sides of the political fence in the U.S. agree that mass incarceration isn’t working
i wish that was true.
right now, the GOP is back to singing from the book of Tough On Crime because Fox is pretending cities are being decimated by gangs of BLACK gangs, and blaming Dems for “defunding” police, etc..
same shit, different singer.
Both sides of the political fence in the U.S. agree that mass incarceration isn’t working
i wish that was true.
right now, the GOP is back to singing from the book of Tough On Crime because Fox is pretending cities are being decimated by gangs of BLACK gangs, and blaming Dems for “defunding” police, etc..
same shit, different singer.
And Florida has decided not to use it’s new and harsh ‘do not block highways in the context of protests’ law in a case of anti-Cuban protests doing exactly that.
Asked for some kind of explanation, the GOP governor said those who blocked the highway were “going out and peacefully assembling.” He added that protests in support of Cubans are “much different” from the Black Lives Matter protests that inspired the state Republican law.
The Miami Herald put it this way:
“Honestly, we would have been more impressed if he had just responded: ‘Nah, the Miami-Dade demonstrators seeking human rights in Cuba have nothing to fear from my anti-riot law. We created it to subdue Black folks seeking human rights in the United States.'”
And Florida has decided not to use it’s new and harsh ‘do not block highways in the context of protests’ law in a case of anti-Cuban protests doing exactly that.
Asked for some kind of explanation, the GOP governor said those who blocked the highway were “going out and peacefully assembling.” He added that protests in support of Cubans are “much different” from the Black Lives Matter protests that inspired the state Republican law.
The Miami Herald put it this way:
“Honestly, we would have been more impressed if he had just responded: ‘Nah, the Miami-Dade demonstrators seeking human rights in Cuba have nothing to fear from my anti-riot law. We created it to subdue Black folks seeking human rights in the United States.'”
For russell.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016020385/re-revising-the-history-of-jazz
Have you read his book ?
For russell.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016020385/re-revising-the-history-of-jazz
Have you read his book ?
leopards, faces…
https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-inevitably-turns-on-evangelicals/
leopards, faces…
https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-inevitably-turns-on-evangelicals/
Hey, I normally don’t believe this stuff, but red shoes?… [sarcasm]
God, I hope these losers get hoisted by their own petards…
Hey, I normally don’t believe this stuff, but red shoes?… [sarcasm]
God, I hope these losers get hoisted by their own petards…
red shoes on children are a signal of pedophilia, in the Q mythology.
probably because the amoral pranksters at the heart of this thought it would be fun.
red shoes on children are a signal of pedophilia, in the Q mythology.
probably because the amoral pranksters at the heart of this thought it would be fun.
QAnon activists accused the pastor of pedophilia and child sex trafficking in July after he posted a photo of his young daughter wearing red shoes.
These folks are just loonies. But we knew that.
On the other hand, how is it hard to believe the accusations reported later in the article of (massively hypocritical) sexual misbehavior by evangelical leaders?
QAnon activists accused the pastor of pedophilia and child sex trafficking in July after he posted a photo of his young daughter wearing red shoes.
These folks are just loonies. But we knew that.
On the other hand, how is it hard to believe the accusations reported later in the article of (massively hypocritical) sexual misbehavior by evangelical leaders?
Alexandra Petri’s Washington Post humor columns routinely come up with blistering criticisms. Consider this, from Concerned vaccine skeptics push back against disturbing fad of teenagers living
Pity these skeptics didn’t succeed in dying young themselves. /snark
Alexandra Petri’s Washington Post humor columns routinely come up with blistering criticisms. Consider this, from Concerned vaccine skeptics push back against disturbing fad of teenagers living
Pity these skeptics didn’t succeed in dying young themselves. /snark
When I was a kid, penicillin was pretty easy to get. Consequently, some kids got a shot by a parent every time they got a sniffle. Apparently ineptly given that they would lose it when faced with getting school-facilitated vaccinations.
When I was a kid, penicillin was pretty easy to get. Consequently, some kids got a shot by a parent every time they got a sniffle. Apparently ineptly given that they would lose it when faced with getting school-facilitated vaccinations.
The latest right-wing grift appears to be the Freedom Phone. $500, ships in August. The front man told the Daily Beast that it is manufactured in China and that FreedomOS — billed on the website as a new mobile OS — is based on Android. Speculation is that it’s a rebranded $120 phone made by Umidigi.
The latest right-wing grift appears to be the Freedom Phone. $500, ships in August. The front man told the Daily Beast that it is manufactured in China and that FreedomOS — billed on the website as a new mobile OS — is based on Android. Speculation is that it’s a rebranded $120 phone made by Umidigi.
The front man told the Daily Beast that it is manufactured in China
Which the evil Biden administration is allowing US companies to do busines with. Tsk, tsk.
The front man told the Daily Beast that it is manufactured in China
Which the evil Biden administration is allowing US companies to do busines with. Tsk, tsk.
Let Freedom Phone Ring!
Let Freedom Phone Ring!
and the biz filings with the state of WY show the business is actually registered as “MyCompanyWorks,Inc” – which is a service to help small businesses get started. and it’s phone number is all zeros. and the email address is agent@mycompanyworks.com.
in other words – the guy mailed in the sample form.
and the biz filings with the state of WY show the business is actually registered as “MyCompanyWorks,Inc” – which is a service to help small businesses get started. and it’s phone number is all zeros. and the email address is agent@mycompanyworks.com.
in other words – the guy mailed in the sample form.
“Don’t they have any idea what we’re doing to the earth?” asked another adult. “They won’t want to be alive in seven or eight decades, a terrifying fate that getting vaccinated now will make all the more likely. By then, the planet might well be ravaged by heat and scarcity!”
Well… they’re not wrong.
(Yes, I know it’s meant to be humorous sarcasm. But they’re not wrong.)
“Don’t they have any idea what we’re doing to the earth?” asked another adult. “They won’t want to be alive in seven or eight decades, a terrifying fate that getting vaccinated now will make all the more likely. By then, the planet might well be ravaged by heat and scarcity!”
Well… they’re not wrong.
(Yes, I know it’s meant to be humorous sarcasm. But they’re not wrong.)
in other words – the guy mailed in the sample form.
And someone registered a domain name, arranged for site hosting, and put together a web site. Although as near as I can tell, there’s only two or three pages total. Of course, that’s quite cheap to do these days.
in other words – the guy mailed in the sample form.
And someone registered a domain name, arranged for site hosting, and put together a web site. Although as near as I can tell, there’s only two or three pages total. Of course, that’s quite cheap to do these days.
Of course, that’s quite cheap to do these days.
And if you get it done cheap, outside the US, and by someone who is not a native speaker of English. Well, he might have no idea that the sample form examples weren’t the real company info.
Of course, that’s quite cheap to do these days.
And if you get it done cheap, outside the US, and by someone who is not a native speaker of English. Well, he might have no idea that the sample form examples weren’t the real company info.
The website is using Shopify to handle its ecommerce. They may have used Shopify apps to generate the website.
The website is using Shopify to handle its ecommerce. They may have used Shopify apps to generate the website.
Umidigi appears to do lots of rebranding. One could probably approach them with, “I have an idea for selling a lot of phones at a high mark-up in the US,” and they would do the grunt-work on spec.
Umidigi appears to do lots of rebranding. One could probably approach them with, “I have an idea for selling a lot of phones at a high mark-up in the US,” and they would do the grunt-work on spec.
It seems that the MAGAtPhone will come pre-loaded with (free) apps.
“damn GeyDar app keeps blasting out an alerts and show-tunes!”
It seems that the MAGAtPhone will come pre-loaded with (free) apps.
“damn GeyDar app keeps blasting out an alerts and show-tunes!”
I’ve wondered why the “culture wars” stuff all seems so alien to me. But apparently it’s not just me. I came across this in my local paper
Hey, Californians. Why aren’t you at war over critical race theory, transgender athletes and voting?
I guess part of the reason it seems so foreign is that, as loonie as the California Republican Party has gotten, they aren’t going down that road.
I’ve wondered why the “culture wars” stuff all seems so alien to me. But apparently it’s not just me. I came across this in my local paper
Hey, Californians. Why aren’t you at war over critical race theory, transgender athletes and voting?
I guess part of the reason it seems so foreign is that, as loonie as the California Republican Party has gotten, they aren’t going down that road.
I’ve wondered why the “culture wars” stuff all seems so alien to me. But apparently it’s not just me…
My impression is that it is mostly a matter of: (a) do the Republicans control the state legislature and (b) is the Republican Party there dependent on white fundamentalist churches. Not a perfect correlation, but pretty strong. This NPR piece has an interesting map about where trans athletic restriction bills have been introduced, and correctly points out that introduced is one thing and passed is quite another. I believe that all of the states that have passed such bills meet both of my criteria.
I’ve wondered why the “culture wars” stuff all seems so alien to me. But apparently it’s not just me…
My impression is that it is mostly a matter of: (a) do the Republicans control the state legislature and (b) is the Republican Party there dependent on white fundamentalist churches. Not a perfect correlation, but pretty strong. This NPR piece has an interesting map about where trans athletic restriction bills have been introduced, and correctly points out that introduced is one thing and passed is quite another. I believe that all of the states that have passed such bills meet both of my criteria.
California has plenty of “culture wars” stuff going on, it’s just that the Republicans are fragmented enough on any one front of the war that it is hard for them to get a large enough coalition to make it stick at the state level.
Orange County is 70% white only, but nearly half of that 70% is latino or hispanic white, and a decent sized chunk of the remaining white population is Arabic or Persian or Jewish. 21% of the population is Asian. Almost 4% identify as Hapa or Multiracial.
30% are foreign born. Only 46% claim religious affiliation.
That’s a lot of cross-cutting on a lot of culture wars issues right there. I’d bet that most of the big coastal population centers look somewhat like that, leaving the culture warriors literally out in the wilderness, political and otherwise.
Still enough of the fanatics, though, to outnumber the populations of half of the states in the union, even if there aren’t enough of any one stripe to get a plurality of the Republican base.
Our bigots are either rural or they are specialists and connoisseurs.
California has plenty of “culture wars” stuff going on, it’s just that the Republicans are fragmented enough on any one front of the war that it is hard for them to get a large enough coalition to make it stick at the state level.
Orange County is 70% white only, but nearly half of that 70% is latino or hispanic white, and a decent sized chunk of the remaining white population is Arabic or Persian or Jewish. 21% of the population is Asian. Almost 4% identify as Hapa or Multiracial.
30% are foreign born. Only 46% claim religious affiliation.
That’s a lot of cross-cutting on a lot of culture wars issues right there. I’d bet that most of the big coastal population centers look somewhat like that, leaving the culture warriors literally out in the wilderness, political and otherwise.
Still enough of the fanatics, though, to outnumber the populations of half of the states in the union, even if there aren’t enough of any one stripe to get a plurality of the Republican base.
Our bigots are either rural or they are specialists and connoisseurs.
“Our bigots are either rural or they are specialists and connoisseurs.”
They’re the small-batch artesanal free-range bigots, then?
Needz smaller batchez.
“Our bigots are either rural or they are specialists and connoisseurs.”
They’re the small-batch artesanal free-range bigots, then?
Needz smaller batchez.
They are, Snarki, but they are never in season.
They are, Snarki, but they are never in season.
Still enough of the fanatics, though, to outnumber the populations of half of the states in the union, even if there aren’t enough of any one stripe to get a plurality of the Republican base.
Our bigots are either rural or they are specialists and connoisseurs.
Perhaps the way to look at it is this. The plutocrats are smart enough to notice that the usual culture wars nonsense won’t get them enough marks to win anything significant. So they don’t waste their time and effort working that con.
The party leaders would like to replace their existing base with something more suited to the state’s current overall environment. (Let the flat out racists return to their natural home in the AIP.) But haven’t yet figured out how to get from here to there. Frankly I don’t see a path either. Pete Wilson’s embrace of Prop 187 (demonizing illegal immigrants, for you non-Californians) set to California GOP on a death spiral with no obvious exit.
Still enough of the fanatics, though, to outnumber the populations of half of the states in the union, even if there aren’t enough of any one stripe to get a plurality of the Republican base.
Our bigots are either rural or they are specialists and connoisseurs.
Perhaps the way to look at it is this. The plutocrats are smart enough to notice that the usual culture wars nonsense won’t get them enough marks to win anything significant. So they don’t waste their time and effort working that con.
The party leaders would like to replace their existing base with something more suited to the state’s current overall environment. (Let the flat out racists return to their natural home in the AIP.) But haven’t yet figured out how to get from here to there. Frankly I don’t see a path either. Pete Wilson’s embrace of Prop 187 (demonizing illegal immigrants, for you non-Californians) set to California GOP on a death spiral with no obvious exit.
Dropping another recurring topic in the soup here, since the Olympics have stirred up a lot of the gender critical, segregationist feminists in my circle of acquaintances:
https://www.si.com/wnba/2021/04/16/nonbinary-athletes-transgender-layshia-clarendon-quinn-rach-mcbride-daily-cover
Conversations about how sports should be organized are not new. There’s this idea that “the possibilities for the future are to maintain the fully sex-segregated system or to abolish it entirely,” says Elizabeth Sharrow, associate professor of public policy and history at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and whose work focuses on equity, policy and Title IX. “But that is a false narrative.” A false binary, like gender itself. “We have the ability to imagine participatory or competitive structures in lots of different ways,” they explain. “But in order to do so we have to give up the notion that categorization for athletics is easy, or is most fair or justifiable when we base it on the question of sex.”
Lots to talk about.
Dropping another recurring topic in the soup here, since the Olympics have stirred up a lot of the gender critical, segregationist feminists in my circle of acquaintances:
https://www.si.com/wnba/2021/04/16/nonbinary-athletes-transgender-layshia-clarendon-quinn-rach-mcbride-daily-cover
Conversations about how sports should be organized are not new. There’s this idea that “the possibilities for the future are to maintain the fully sex-segregated system or to abolish it entirely,” says Elizabeth Sharrow, associate professor of public policy and history at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and whose work focuses on equity, policy and Title IX. “But that is a false narrative.” A false binary, like gender itself. “We have the ability to imagine participatory or competitive structures in lots of different ways,” they explain. “But in order to do so we have to give up the notion that categorization for athletics is easy, or is most fair or justifiable when we base it on the question of sex.”
Lots to talk about.
I’d love to drop in a couple of articles by the professor interviewed in the article – E.A. Sharrow – to deepen things further still, but they are paywalled.
Elizabeth A. Sharrow (2017) “Female athlete” politic: Title IX and the naturalization of sex difference in public policy, Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5:1, 46-66
Elizabeth A. Sharrow (2021) Sex segregation as policy problem: a gendered policy paradox, Politics, Groups, and Identities, 9:2, 258-279
I’d love to drop in a couple of articles by the professor interviewed in the article – E.A. Sharrow – to deepen things further still, but they are paywalled.
Elizabeth A. Sharrow (2017) “Female athlete” politic: Title IX and the naturalization of sex difference in public policy, Politics, Groups, and Identities, 5:1, 46-66
Elizabeth A. Sharrow (2021) Sex segregation as policy problem: a gendered policy paradox, Politics, Groups, and Identities, 9:2, 258-279
“We have the ability to imagine participatory or competitive structures in lots of different ways”
Do they happen to give examples of such alternative competitive structures? Or are they merely asserting their existance ex nihilo?
“We have the ability to imagine participatory or competitive structures in lots of different ways”
Do they happen to give examples of such alternative competitive structures? Or are they merely asserting their existance ex nihilo?
Some alternatives are mentioned in the next paragraph, and it doesn’t take a black belt in keyword fu to find others.
Some alternatives are mentioned in the next paragraph, and it doesn’t take a black belt in keyword fu to find others.
And there we see the problem. It’s one thing to change some aspects of how we organize sports. That’s difficult, but potentially doable. But if you start from “blowing up everything”? That simply won’t happen.
It’s no doubt fun to brainstorm visions. But there’s no practical road to get from today to there. The most that demanding your vision happen will accomplish is to build up resistance to even the kind of changes which might actually be possible.
And there we see the problem. It’s one thing to change some aspects of how we organize sports. That’s difficult, but potentially doable. But if you start from “blowing up everything”? That simply won’t happen.
It’s no doubt fun to brainstorm visions. But there’s no practical road to get from today to there. The most that demanding your vision happen will accomplish is to build up resistance to even the kind of changes which might actually be possible.
And there we see the problem. It’s one thing to change some aspects of how we organize sports. That’s difficult, but potentially doable. But if you start from “blowing up everything”? That simply won’t happen.
Title IX already did that 50 years ago, and it’s happening all around us right now already.
We “blow up everything” all the time when we change some fundamental way in which we think about it.
Salary caps “blew up everything.” TV revenue and broadcast licensing “blew up everything.”
Climate change is going to “blow up everything.”
Not responding to change is going to “blow up everything.”
And it’s not “blow up everything,” it’s “blow up everything we think we know.” That’s a subtle, but important difference.
And there we see the problem. It’s one thing to change some aspects of how we organize sports. That’s difficult, but potentially doable. But if you start from “blowing up everything”? That simply won’t happen.
Title IX already did that 50 years ago, and it’s happening all around us right now already.
We “blow up everything” all the time when we change some fundamental way in which we think about it.
Salary caps “blew up everything.” TV revenue and broadcast licensing “blew up everything.”
Climate change is going to “blow up everything.”
Not responding to change is going to “blow up everything.”
And it’s not “blow up everything,” it’s “blow up everything we think we know.” That’s a subtle, but important difference.
“NEW YORK, NY—In an inspiring story from the world of professional cycling, a motorcyclist who identifies as a bicyclist has crushed all the regular bicyclists, setting an unbelievable world record.
In a local qualifying race for the World Road Cycling League, the motorcyclist crushed the previous 100-mile record of 3 hours, 13 minutes with his amazing new score of well under an hour.
Professional motorcycle racer Judd E. Banner, the brave trans-vehicle rider, was allowed to race after he told league organizers he’s always felt like a bicyclist in a motorcyclist’s body.”
Motorcyclist Who Identifies As Bicyclist Sets Cycling World Record…
“NEW YORK, NY—In an inspiring story from the world of professional cycling, a motorcyclist who identifies as a bicyclist has crushed all the regular bicyclists, setting an unbelievable world record.
In a local qualifying race for the World Road Cycling League, the motorcyclist crushed the previous 100-mile record of 3 hours, 13 minutes with his amazing new score of well under an hour.
Professional motorcycle racer Judd E. Banner, the brave trans-vehicle rider, was allowed to race after he told league organizers he’s always felt like a bicyclist in a motorcyclist’s body.”
Motorcyclist Who Identifies As Bicyclist Sets Cycling World Record…
We “blow up everything” all the time when we change some fundamental way in which we think about it.
Simply put: No.
Perhaps an example from outside will help. Until a century ago, we understood how the universe moves via Newtonian mechanics. And it worked fine most of the time. Although not in some few cases.
Einstein changed how we understand the universe in a fundamental way. However (and this is critical) he didn’t “blow up everything we think we know” in order to do so. Newtonian mechanics still works just fine; we all use it all the time. It’s only at the margins, in those special cases, that the change in our fundamental understanding becomes relevant and important.
I submit that, when the dust has settled, we will find ourselves again routinely using the “binary world” paradigm. We may have a different understanding for some few special cases. But they are just that: a small number of special cases. That, after all, is why our existing understanding doesn’t already include them.
We “blow up everything” all the time when we change some fundamental way in which we think about it.
Simply put: No.
Perhaps an example from outside will help. Until a century ago, we understood how the universe moves via Newtonian mechanics. And it worked fine most of the time. Although not in some few cases.
Einstein changed how we understand the universe in a fundamental way. However (and this is critical) he didn’t “blow up everything we think we know” in order to do so. Newtonian mechanics still works just fine; we all use it all the time. It’s only at the margins, in those special cases, that the change in our fundamental understanding becomes relevant and important.
I submit that, when the dust has settled, we will find ourselves again routinely using the “binary world” paradigm. We may have a different understanding for some few special cases. But they are just that: a small number of special cases. That, after all, is why our existing understanding doesn’t already include them.
On an unrelated front, I just finished Hakeem Oluseyi’s A Quantum Life. A really stark look at just how bad life is for “the other half”. By someone who (barely) managed to escape it.
How barely? Consider that he was the first in his family to finish high school. (And not because they were stupid; just because they grew up under the system in place.) Yet he ended up with a PhD . . . from Stanford . . in physics. As the book makes clear, it was an extremely narrow escape. And at many points could have gone wrong in an enormous number of ways.
Next time someone is getting exercised about how horribly traumitized they have been by something in their life, hand them this for a reality check. Because, bad as their lot may well have been, it’s virtually certain to pale by comparison. If only those putting lots of time and effort into the cause de jour would put even a quarter of that into the systemic problems we see here, far more people could be far, far better off.
On an unrelated front, I just finished Hakeem Oluseyi’s A Quantum Life. A really stark look at just how bad life is for “the other half”. By someone who (barely) managed to escape it.
How barely? Consider that he was the first in his family to finish high school. (And not because they were stupid; just because they grew up under the system in place.) Yet he ended up with a PhD . . . from Stanford . . in physics. As the book makes clear, it was an extremely narrow escape. And at many points could have gone wrong in an enormous number of ways.
Next time someone is getting exercised about how horribly traumitized they have been by something in their life, hand them this for a reality check. Because, bad as their lot may well have been, it’s virtually certain to pale by comparison. If only those putting lots of time and effort into the cause de jour would put even a quarter of that into the systemic problems we see here, far more people could be far, far better off.
“If only those putting lots of time and effort into the cause de jour would put even a quarter of that into the systemic problems we see here, far more people could be far, far better off.”
Skill sets, how *do* they work?1??
“If only those putting lots of time and effort into the cause de jour would put even a quarter of that into the systemic problems we see here, far more people could be far, far better off.”
Skill sets, how *do* they work?1??
can we call them the the anti-science party now?
yes, data says we can.
can we call them the the anti-science party now?
yes, data says we can.
About binary world, the Newton/Einstein analogy is interesting in how it doesn’t fit. Newtonian mechanics works to cover most cases, but in this day and age, it is hard to imagine someone arguing that Newtonian mechanics is correct, therefore Einstein is wrong. Yet with binary gender, you don’t have that. Obviously, there are folks who are milking this for all it is worth, but were there people saying ‘well, of course Einstein is wrong’. People knew there were limitations.
So you have to wonder what has people get stuck on the binary view. My suggestion is that it is (and apologies for throwing around leftist academic scare words, but …) the patriarchy. Which I define as the inability to see beyond a male centric viewpoint.
Here’s an article about various innovations stopped short because men didn’t want them
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jun/24/mystery-of-wheelie-suitcase-how-gender-stereotypes-held-back-history-of-invention
From my academic leftist vegan birkenstock wearing perch, it seems that if we go back to a ‘binary world’ paradigm, a lot more folks are going to push back. And push back hard. The genie is out of the bottle…
About binary world, the Newton/Einstein analogy is interesting in how it doesn’t fit. Newtonian mechanics works to cover most cases, but in this day and age, it is hard to imagine someone arguing that Newtonian mechanics is correct, therefore Einstein is wrong. Yet with binary gender, you don’t have that. Obviously, there are folks who are milking this for all it is worth, but were there people saying ‘well, of course Einstein is wrong’. People knew there were limitations.
So you have to wonder what has people get stuck on the binary view. My suggestion is that it is (and apologies for throwing around leftist academic scare words, but …) the patriarchy. Which I define as the inability to see beyond a male centric viewpoint.
Here’s an article about various innovations stopped short because men didn’t want them
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jun/24/mystery-of-wheelie-suitcase-how-gender-stereotypes-held-back-history-of-invention
From my academic leftist vegan birkenstock wearing perch, it seems that if we go back to a ‘binary world’ paradigm, a lot more folks are going to push back. And push back hard. The genie is out of the bottle…
in this day and age, it is hard to imagine someone arguing that Newtonian mechanics is correct, therefore Einstein is wrong.
Today, yeah. But for the first half century after Einstein published? Still getting pushback. (Including those willing to concede that he was more accurate than Newton, but still not right.)
I’m not suggesting that we “go back” to the binary world paradigm. I’m just saying that, for most day-to-day purposes, it’s what we’ll use. We’ll only bother with the non-binary view in those few cases, and in those circumstances, where it is really relevant.
I also expect that pretty much everybody will go back to using “he” or “she” — whichever the individual prefers. Rather than going thru contortions over pronouns. And mostly we’ll shrug, just like the kids today do when somebody points out that one of their classmates is homosexual.
in this day and age, it is hard to imagine someone arguing that Newtonian mechanics is correct, therefore Einstein is wrong.
Today, yeah. But for the first half century after Einstein published? Still getting pushback. (Including those willing to concede that he was more accurate than Newton, but still not right.)
I’m not suggesting that we “go back” to the binary world paradigm. I’m just saying that, for most day-to-day purposes, it’s what we’ll use. We’ll only bother with the non-binary view in those few cases, and in those circumstances, where it is really relevant.
I also expect that pretty much everybody will go back to using “he” or “she” — whichever the individual prefers. Rather than going thru contortions over pronouns. And mostly we’ll shrug, just like the kids today do when somebody points out that one of their classmates is homosexual.
I, for one, look forward to the day in the distant future when we can stop arguing about Free Silver.
I, for one, look forward to the day in the distant future when we can stop arguing about Free Silver.
We have gotten past Free Silver. But gold bugs we have yet with us. And folks cheerfully scamming them to buy more for “safety”.
We have gotten past Free Silver. But gold bugs we have yet with us. And folks cheerfully scamming them to buy more for “safety”.
I’m not suggesting that we “go back” to the binary world paradigm. I’m just saying that, for most day-to-day purposes, it’s what we’ll use. We’ll only bother with the non-binary view in those few cases, and in those circumstances, where it is really relevant.
I also expect that pretty much everybody will go back to using “he” or “she” — whichever the individual prefers. Rather than going thru contortions over pronouns. And mostly we’ll shrug, just like the kids today do when somebody points out that one of their classmates is homosexual.
This misses a deep and important difference in the two situations.
We ignore Relativistic and Quantum effects in everyday life because the circumstances in which they matter and change things are invisible to us. We are not operating on that scale.
In the case of trying to understand gender, that has the effect of telling people that you would prefer that they remain invisible for your own convenience.
You point out that homosexuality is no big thing to the kids, but that’s not because it is invisible. They act that way because we blew up the way that we thought about homosexuality (or had it blown up by activists in the wake of the Stonewall Riots, a.k.a. Pride), and they have reassembled the pieces in a way that makes room for it.
We aren’t there yet for Trans Rights. We’re still at the stage where people demand that we force people into a binary model of gender and of gender performance because non-binary people don’t matter enough to us to warrant any consideration.
One more story for consideration here, prompted by CharlesWT’s response, about the controversy surrounding a science fiction story that tried to push back against the erasure being forced on people by the “I identify as…” jokes:
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22543858/isabel-fall-attack-helicopter
One criticism above all got to her: that Fall must be a cis man, because no woman would ever write in the way she did. And because this criticism was so often leveled by cis women, Fall felt her gender dysphoria (the gap between her gender and her gender assigned at birth) increasing. In Fall’s story, Barb and Axis destroy the lives of people they cannot even see. Now, in a bitterly ironic twist, the same was happening to her.
“In this story I think that the helicopter is a closet. … Where do you feel dysphoria the hardest? In the closet. Or so I have to hope; I have not been anywhere outside it, except for [in publishing ‘Attack Helicopter’], which convinced me it was safer inside,” Fall says. “Most of all, I wanted people to say, ‘This story was written by a woman who understands being a woman.’ I obviously failed horribly.”
That was when she asked Clarke to take down the story. That was when she checked herself into a psych ward, so she wouldn’t kill herself in the midst of her dysphoric spiral.
“It ended the way it did because I thought I would die,” she says.
We want non-binary people to be invisible because we don’t want to change things that we enjoy and we don’t want to see people suffering because of the things we don’t want to change, and we blame them for ruining our enjoyment.
I’m not suggesting that we “go back” to the binary world paradigm. I’m just saying that, for most day-to-day purposes, it’s what we’ll use. We’ll only bother with the non-binary view in those few cases, and in those circumstances, where it is really relevant.
I also expect that pretty much everybody will go back to using “he” or “she” — whichever the individual prefers. Rather than going thru contortions over pronouns. And mostly we’ll shrug, just like the kids today do when somebody points out that one of their classmates is homosexual.
This misses a deep and important difference in the two situations.
We ignore Relativistic and Quantum effects in everyday life because the circumstances in which they matter and change things are invisible to us. We are not operating on that scale.
In the case of trying to understand gender, that has the effect of telling people that you would prefer that they remain invisible for your own convenience.
You point out that homosexuality is no big thing to the kids, but that’s not because it is invisible. They act that way because we blew up the way that we thought about homosexuality (or had it blown up by activists in the wake of the Stonewall Riots, a.k.a. Pride), and they have reassembled the pieces in a way that makes room for it.
We aren’t there yet for Trans Rights. We’re still at the stage where people demand that we force people into a binary model of gender and of gender performance because non-binary people don’t matter enough to us to warrant any consideration.
One more story for consideration here, prompted by CharlesWT’s response, about the controversy surrounding a science fiction story that tried to push back against the erasure being forced on people by the “I identify as…” jokes:
https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22543858/isabel-fall-attack-helicopter
One criticism above all got to her: that Fall must be a cis man, because no woman would ever write in the way she did. And because this criticism was so often leveled by cis women, Fall felt her gender dysphoria (the gap between her gender and her gender assigned at birth) increasing. In Fall’s story, Barb and Axis destroy the lives of people they cannot even see. Now, in a bitterly ironic twist, the same was happening to her.
“In this story I think that the helicopter is a closet. … Where do you feel dysphoria the hardest? In the closet. Or so I have to hope; I have not been anywhere outside it, except for [in publishing ‘Attack Helicopter’], which convinced me it was safer inside,” Fall says. “Most of all, I wanted people to say, ‘This story was written by a woman who understands being a woman.’ I obviously failed horribly.”
That was when she asked Clarke to take down the story. That was when she checked herself into a psych ward, so she wouldn’t kill herself in the midst of her dysphoric spiral.
“It ended the way it did because I thought I would die,” she says.
We want non-binary people to be invisible because we don’t want to change things that we enjoy and we don’t want to see people suffering because of the things we don’t want to change, and we blame them for ruining our enjoyment.
Have you read his book ?
I have not – and it looks great! Thanks for this, and also for the link to Gioia’s blog earlier – I’ve since subscribed to that.
We “blow up everything” all the time
I’m trying to think of a significant cultural or social change here in the US that didn’t require disruptive upsetting of the apple cart to make it happen.
Nothing comes to mind.
Have you read his book ?
I have not – and it looks great! Thanks for this, and also for the link to Gioia’s blog earlier – I’ve since subscribed to that.
We “blow up everything” all the time
I’m trying to think of a significant cultural or social change here in the US that didn’t require disruptive upsetting of the apple cart to make it happen.
Nothing comes to mind.
colloidal silver is where the real action’s at, these days.
“So you have to wonder what has people get stuck on the binary view.”
the non-binary view is very complicated, if you think you need to treat men and women differently. all those rules about door holding and pink v blue and who goes in which bathroom and what TV shows are appropriate and manners and housework, etc, etc, etc.. if you don’t know which gender you’re talking to, you don’t know which box to put the other person into.
colloidal silver is where the real action’s at, these days.
“So you have to wonder what has people get stuck on the binary view.”
the non-binary view is very complicated, if you think you need to treat men and women differently. all those rules about door holding and pink v blue and who goes in which bathroom and what TV shows are appropriate and manners and housework, etc, etc, etc.. if you don’t know which gender you’re talking to, you don’t know which box to put the other person into.
I’m trying to think of a significant cultural or social change here in the US that didn’t require disruptive upsetting of the apple cart to make it happen.
Does regional count? The Great Plains, roughly 500,000 square miles in extent, have been depopulating for 90 years now. Outside of the areas where there are hydrocarbons worth extracting, it seems to have reached the death spiral stage now: too few people to support services, and as the services disappear there’s no chance of getting people to move there.
I keep meaning to get in touch with the authors of the paper this CityLab piece is based on to see why they think people escaping rising sea level on the coasts are going to move to the rural Great Plains (which will have its own set of climate issues).
I’m trying to think of a significant cultural or social change here in the US that didn’t require disruptive upsetting of the apple cart to make it happen.
Does regional count? The Great Plains, roughly 500,000 square miles in extent, have been depopulating for 90 years now. Outside of the areas where there are hydrocarbons worth extracting, it seems to have reached the death spiral stage now: too few people to support services, and as the services disappear there’s no chance of getting people to move there.
I keep meaning to get in touch with the authors of the paper this CityLab piece is based on to see why they think people escaping rising sea level on the coasts are going to move to the rural Great Plains (which will have its own set of climate issues).
too few people to support services, and as the services disappear there’s no chance of getting people to move there.
Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour will put them out of their misery faster.
too few people to support services, and as the services disappear there’s no chance of getting people to move there.
Raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour will put them out of their misery faster.
why they think people escaping rising sea level on the coasts are going to move to the rural Great Plains
This sounds like nonsense to me. Per the article the worst case scenario is a six-foot rise in sea level by 2100.
Why that’s going to get Bostonians to freak out and move to the Great Plains is beyond me. Just checking, Cambridge is about 39 ft above sea level. Would it be uninhabitable at 33 ft?
Yes, Miami might empty, but why to the Great Plains? There are closer places.
why they think people escaping rising sea level on the coasts are going to move to the rural Great Plains
This sounds like nonsense to me. Per the article the worst case scenario is a six-foot rise in sea level by 2100.
Why that’s going to get Bostonians to freak out and move to the Great Plains is beyond me. Just checking, Cambridge is about 39 ft above sea level. Would it be uninhabitable at 33 ft?
Yes, Miami might empty, but why to the Great Plains? There are closer places.
We’re still at the stage where people demand that we force people into a binary model of gender and of gender performance because non-binary people don’t matter enough to us to warrant any consideration.
***
We want non-binary people to be invisible because we don’t want to change things that we enjoy and we don’t want to see people suffering because of the things we don’t want to change, and we blame them for ruining our enjoyment.
Who is this “we”? It certainly does not describe me, or any of the feminists I know (and I guess we are now described as “gender critical”) who are grappling with this issue, although it may well describe the rightwing loonies who have gleefully seized on it, and are intent on using it as a weapon.
Also, it is important to note that gender-critical feminists, as I understand it and experience it, are not arguing against non-binary gender identification, they are arguing that since we are a dimorphic species, sex is (from an overwhelming statistical perspective) binary. I therefore think it would be helpful if, here and elsewhere, people discussing this issue would differentiate between gender and sex.
Gender-critical feminists are arguing that the oppression of women has historically been based on their biological sex, i.e. menstruation, child-bearing etc, and that the attempt to anathematise words like “women” (or “mothers”) in medical contexts, and replace them with expressions like “people with cervixes”, or “people who menstruate”, (or “birth-givers”), is misogynistic. They are arguing that people with penises who demand openly to use spaces where e.g. women are changing should not automatically be given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to be women just because they say they are, and that the possibility of predation or misogynistic intent must be considered. And some of them are arguing that the recent astronomical increase in teenage and pre-teen girls (many of them on the autistic spectrum) identifying as trans might well be (at least partly) because of the increasing prevalence of certain types of misogyny in the culture (e.g. the increasing normalisation of violence and humiliation towards women in mainstream pornography), and/or the increasing pressures on girls (with selfie culture etc) to conform to the more extreme norms of acceptable “femininity”.
We’re still at the stage where people demand that we force people into a binary model of gender and of gender performance because non-binary people don’t matter enough to us to warrant any consideration.
***
We want non-binary people to be invisible because we don’t want to change things that we enjoy and we don’t want to see people suffering because of the things we don’t want to change, and we blame them for ruining our enjoyment.
Who is this “we”? It certainly does not describe me, or any of the feminists I know (and I guess we are now described as “gender critical”) who are grappling with this issue, although it may well describe the rightwing loonies who have gleefully seized on it, and are intent on using it as a weapon.
Also, it is important to note that gender-critical feminists, as I understand it and experience it, are not arguing against non-binary gender identification, they are arguing that since we are a dimorphic species, sex is (from an overwhelming statistical perspective) binary. I therefore think it would be helpful if, here and elsewhere, people discussing this issue would differentiate between gender and sex.
Gender-critical feminists are arguing that the oppression of women has historically been based on their biological sex, i.e. menstruation, child-bearing etc, and that the attempt to anathematise words like “women” (or “mothers”) in medical contexts, and replace them with expressions like “people with cervixes”, or “people who menstruate”, (or “birth-givers”), is misogynistic. They are arguing that people with penises who demand openly to use spaces where e.g. women are changing should not automatically be given the benefit of the doubt and assumed to be women just because they say they are, and that the possibility of predation or misogynistic intent must be considered. And some of them are arguing that the recent astronomical increase in teenage and pre-teen girls (many of them on the autistic spectrum) identifying as trans might well be (at least partly) because of the increasing prevalence of certain types of misogyny in the culture (e.g. the increasing normalisation of violence and humiliation towards women in mainstream pornography), and/or the increasing pressures on girls (with selfie culture etc) to conform to the more extreme norms of acceptable “femininity”.
I think the idea that populations will shift to the Great Plains are driven by more than just assumptions about sea level rises. There’s also changes in precipitation patterns and climatic zones and extreme weather and fire danger at work in the calculations.
https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
And this is before people start working in the effects of all of these on real estate values and wealth based on those property values. The places with the worst impacts will be the places that have lost the most economic power as well. Sure, a lot of them will end up homeless or poor in the next closest region, but that will drive those more fortunate (who can afford the move) to go somewhere they don’t have to deal with all the refugees and negative climate impacts.
You can bet that our household has been looking at these maps and trying to find the areas that are currently more affordable and will, in the near term, be more livable, and trying to calculate possible scenarios for relocation.
I think the idea that populations will shift to the Great Plains are driven by more than just assumptions about sea level rises. There’s also changes in precipitation patterns and climatic zones and extreme weather and fire danger at work in the calculations.
https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
And this is before people start working in the effects of all of these on real estate values and wealth based on those property values. The places with the worst impacts will be the places that have lost the most economic power as well. Sure, a lot of them will end up homeless or poor in the next closest region, but that will drive those more fortunate (who can afford the move) to go somewhere they don’t have to deal with all the refugees and negative climate impacts.
You can bet that our household has been looking at these maps and trying to find the areas that are currently more affordable and will, in the near term, be more livable, and trying to calculate possible scenarios for relocation.
We’re still at the stage where people demand that we force people into a binary model of gender and of gender performance because non-binary people don’t matter enough to us to warrant any consideration.
Not really. Nobody (outside the small, and dropping/dying off rwnj community**) is trying any more to force homosexuals into a heterosexual model. Nor bisexuals. So how big is the community we are actually talking about?
Estimates of the number of transgender individuals run perhaps half a percent of the population. Maybe less.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/how-many-people-lgbt/
The small number doesn’t mean they should be forced not to transition. But it does make it hard to justify blowing up the language, which works just fine for everybody else, just to accomodate them. Especially as, in my observation from a distance, a fair number of trans individuals don’t want to change the language either — they just want to change which pronoun is applied to them. Which makes the demand even smaller.
As for sports, we have rules against athletes taking steroids for good reason. You can take them for medical reasons. Or just because you like the way they make you look or feel. You just can’t take them and do competitive sports. If you show up with outside-the-normal-range steroids in your system, you’re out. If you’re going to argue for waiving that for trans individuals, you’ve pretty much got to, in fairness, drop the rule for everybody. Not sure you want to go there.
** I include here religious fundamentalists of all persuasions. Even if they have managed to capture control of their local country’s legal system.
We’re still at the stage where people demand that we force people into a binary model of gender and of gender performance because non-binary people don’t matter enough to us to warrant any consideration.
Not really. Nobody (outside the small, and dropping/dying off rwnj community**) is trying any more to force homosexuals into a heterosexual model. Nor bisexuals. So how big is the community we are actually talking about?
Estimates of the number of transgender individuals run perhaps half a percent of the population. Maybe less.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/how-many-people-lgbt/
The small number doesn’t mean they should be forced not to transition. But it does make it hard to justify blowing up the language, which works just fine for everybody else, just to accomodate them. Especially as, in my observation from a distance, a fair number of trans individuals don’t want to change the language either — they just want to change which pronoun is applied to them. Which makes the demand even smaller.
As for sports, we have rules against athletes taking steroids for good reason. You can take them for medical reasons. Or just because you like the way they make you look or feel. You just can’t take them and do competitive sports. If you show up with outside-the-normal-range steroids in your system, you’re out. If you’re going to argue for waiving that for trans individuals, you’ve pretty much got to, in fairness, drop the rule for everybody. Not sure you want to go there.
** I include here religious fundamentalists of all persuasions. Even if they have managed to capture control of their local country’s legal system.
Have just seen some coverage of violent anti-trans protests in LA. I cannot emphasise enough how horrible it feels to have perfectly reasonable concerns and points of view co-opted in the most cynical way possible by vile RWNJs. I repeat, as I have before, I am in no way against trans people, and I believe they should be protected from oppression and discrimination in every way. But discussion of how current extreme trans-activism can result in threats to the rights of women should not be silenced, and in fact attempts to silence this discussion, and write it off as transphobic, play right into the hands of the RWNJ bigots.
Have just seen some coverage of violent anti-trans protests in LA. I cannot emphasise enough how horrible it feels to have perfectly reasonable concerns and points of view co-opted in the most cynical way possible by vile RWNJs. I repeat, as I have before, I am in no way against trans people, and I believe they should be protected from oppression and discrimination in every way. But discussion of how current extreme trans-activism can result in threats to the rights of women should not be silenced, and in fact attempts to silence this discussion, and write it off as transphobic, play right into the hands of the RWNJ bigots.
Who is this “we”? It certainly does not describe me, or any of the feminists I know (and I guess we are now described as “gender critical”) who are grappling with this issue, although it may well describe the rightwing loonies who have gleefully seized on it, and are intent on using it as a weapon.
I’m always glad in these conversations that I suffer from no dysphoria and am unproblematically cis-male. The levels of hostility towards male bodies that gender critical feminists invoke on a regular basis would be deeply triggering to the non-binary people I know who were identified male at birth and have been struggling with that internalized hostility themselves.
I certainly understand the gender critical framing of feminism and the policeable borders they impose on people. And I understand and oppose the misogynistic violence that women suffer. But the intersectionalists have real concerns, too, and real people who are at risk and in need of our support. From one of the (paywalled? articles I cited above:
Several consequences follow from this framework for thinking about Title IX. The paradox suggested in policy design sanctions, rather than challenges, pernicious stereotypes about women’s inferiority. This means that for all that Title IX’s implementation has achieved in increasing opportunity for women, it has simultaneously undermined the goals of full gender equality. Segregation is premised on the perceived “need” for women to be protected from men and their purportedly stronger, faster, larger bodies, in order to achieve their full, competitive athletic potential. As political theorist Iris Marion Young elucidates, this encodes and transmits a confounding message: “Feminine bodily existence is an inhibited intentionality, which simultaneously reaches toward a projected end with an ‘I can’ and withholds its full bodily commitment to that end in a self-imposed ‘I cannot’” (1980, 145).
This paradox then produces other “spillover” consequences within, and stretching beyond, Title IX’s policy domain. Chiefly, it reinforces the idea of a sex binary. Dichotomous understandings of sex are flawed scientifically and injurious both to transgender, intersex, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people (hereafter, “trans*”) as well as – albeit in different ways – to cisgender women.8 The paradox embedded within Title IX fuels a host of intractable and on-going tensions which help to sediment, rather than dismantle, many of the unresolved gendered hierarchies at the core of equity policy battles, from gendered equality at work to youth sports.9 Policy suppresses opportunities for direct competition between women and men while reifying the idea that women need to be “protected” from men. In a world grappling with the legacies of male enclaves in a sex integrated world (see Menarndt 2018 with implications for #metoo), and a young generation increasingly apt to challenge the meanings of gender (Meadow 2018), identifying the spillover and interconnections between sports and other venues is increasingly urgent.
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21565503.2019.1568883
This is about trying to find the balance between protecting and empowering people who are not unproblematically male. That is not an easy prospect.
A safer question that puts no women’s shelters at risk:
Should the Olympics continue to divide sports competitions into Men’s and Women’s divisions? Should trans athletes be segregated into their own (tiny) divisions?
It’s a question that touches on a lot of the same issues without the intensifying complication of the policing of who should have access to women-only shelters.
Who is this “we”? It certainly does not describe me, or any of the feminists I know (and I guess we are now described as “gender critical”) who are grappling with this issue, although it may well describe the rightwing loonies who have gleefully seized on it, and are intent on using it as a weapon.
I’m always glad in these conversations that I suffer from no dysphoria and am unproblematically cis-male. The levels of hostility towards male bodies that gender critical feminists invoke on a regular basis would be deeply triggering to the non-binary people I know who were identified male at birth and have been struggling with that internalized hostility themselves.
I certainly understand the gender critical framing of feminism and the policeable borders they impose on people. And I understand and oppose the misogynistic violence that women suffer. But the intersectionalists have real concerns, too, and real people who are at risk and in need of our support. From one of the (paywalled? articles I cited above:
Several consequences follow from this framework for thinking about Title IX. The paradox suggested in policy design sanctions, rather than challenges, pernicious stereotypes about women’s inferiority. This means that for all that Title IX’s implementation has achieved in increasing opportunity for women, it has simultaneously undermined the goals of full gender equality. Segregation is premised on the perceived “need” for women to be protected from men and their purportedly stronger, faster, larger bodies, in order to achieve their full, competitive athletic potential. As political theorist Iris Marion Young elucidates, this encodes and transmits a confounding message: “Feminine bodily existence is an inhibited intentionality, which simultaneously reaches toward a projected end with an ‘I can’ and withholds its full bodily commitment to that end in a self-imposed ‘I cannot’” (1980, 145).
This paradox then produces other “spillover” consequences within, and stretching beyond, Title IX’s policy domain. Chiefly, it reinforces the idea of a sex binary. Dichotomous understandings of sex are flawed scientifically and injurious both to transgender, intersex, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people (hereafter, “trans*”) as well as – albeit in different ways – to cisgender women.8 The paradox embedded within Title IX fuels a host of intractable and on-going tensions which help to sediment, rather than dismantle, many of the unresolved gendered hierarchies at the core of equity policy battles, from gendered equality at work to youth sports.9 Policy suppresses opportunities for direct competition between women and men while reifying the idea that women need to be “protected” from men. In a world grappling with the legacies of male enclaves in a sex integrated world (see Menarndt 2018 with implications for #metoo), and a young generation increasingly apt to challenge the meanings of gender (Meadow 2018), identifying the spillover and interconnections between sports and other venues is increasingly urgent.
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21565503.2019.1568883
This is about trying to find the balance between protecting and empowering people who are not unproblematically male. That is not an easy prospect.
A safer question that puts no women’s shelters at risk:
Should the Olympics continue to divide sports competitions into Men’s and Women’s divisions? Should trans athletes be segregated into their own (tiny) divisions?
It’s a question that touches on a lot of the same issues without the intensifying complication of the policing of who should have access to women-only shelters.
The small number doesn’t mean they should be forced not to transition. But it does make it hard to justify blowing up the language, which works just fine for everybody else, just to accomodate them.
At what acceptable percentage of the population should non-binary people be afforded equal consideration in the conversation?
The small number doesn’t mean they should be forced not to transition. But it does make it hard to justify blowing up the language, which works just fine for everybody else, just to accomodate them.
At what acceptable percentage of the population should non-binary people be afforded equal consideration in the conversation?
The levels of hostility towards male bodies that gender critical feminists invoke on a regular basis
What does this refer to?
The levels of hostility towards male bodies that gender critical feminists invoke on a regular basis
What does this refer to?
Should the Olympics continue to divide sports competitions into Men’s and Women’s divisions? Should trans athletes be segregated into their own (tiny) divisions?
Since I have no interest in sport (except tennis, sometimes), the question of M and F sports is of comparatively little concern to me. But I understand the concerns of female athletes who feel that no matter how good they are, a trans woman (particularly but not limited to one who practised their sport as a man before transitioning) would always have an unfair advantage, based on biological differences between the sexes. I have wondered, in the interests of eliminating the binary paradigm, whether some system of “classes” like in boxing might work, although not based on weight. But if not weight, what? That’s a genuine question; I believe the testosterone test as used by the Olympics is very unsatisfactory for several reasons.
Should the Olympics continue to divide sports competitions into Men’s and Women’s divisions? Should trans athletes be segregated into their own (tiny) divisions?
Since I have no interest in sport (except tennis, sometimes), the question of M and F sports is of comparatively little concern to me. But I understand the concerns of female athletes who feel that no matter how good they are, a trans woman (particularly but not limited to one who practised their sport as a man before transitioning) would always have an unfair advantage, based on biological differences between the sexes. I have wondered, in the interests of eliminating the binary paradigm, whether some system of “classes” like in boxing might work, although not based on weight. But if not weight, what? That’s a genuine question; I believe the testosterone test as used by the Olympics is very unsatisfactory for several reasons.
The levels of hostility towards male bodies that gender critical feminists invoke on a regular basis
What does this refer to?
Gender critical feminists insist that they must be allowed to segregate themselves from trans women because male bodies – specifically penises – are an intrinsic threat to women.
Helluva bind for a gender dysphoric individual to be in.
They fear male only spaces because they are at risk in them, but they are denied female only spaces because they are elided with rapists by gender critical feminists seeking to exclude all penises.
The levels of hostility towards male bodies that gender critical feminists invoke on a regular basis
What does this refer to?
Gender critical feminists insist that they must be allowed to segregate themselves from trans women because male bodies – specifically penises – are an intrinsic threat to women.
Helluva bind for a gender dysphoric individual to be in.
They fear male only spaces because they are at risk in them, but they are denied female only spaces because they are elided with rapists by gender critical feminists seeking to exclude all penises.
There are male high school athletes who can, for example, beat female Olympic track records.
There are male high school athletes who can, for example, beat female Olympic track records.
There are male high school athletes who can, for example, beat female Olympic track records.
Because records are the part of sports that we most need to center our conversations on.
Just like the steroids question.
What is the most valuable think about human sporting contest that we should honor and value?
Start from there and organize decisions around that.
There are male high school athletes who can, for example, beat female Olympic track records.
Because records are the part of sports that we most need to center our conversations on.
Just like the steroids question.
What is the most valuable think about human sporting contest that we should honor and value?
Start from there and organize decisions around that.
At what acceptable percentage of the population should non-binary people be afforded equal consideration in the conversation?
Equal consideration? But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about special consideration.
You can, I think, make a case for special consideration when, for example, people have been subjected to economic discrimination compounded across generations. That, after all, is what affirmative action, at its best, is all about. But this situation is nothing like that. Here, we’re just talking about a conversation.
At what acceptable percentage of the population should non-binary people be afforded equal consideration in the conversation?
Equal consideration? But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about special consideration.
You can, I think, make a case for special consideration when, for example, people have been subjected to economic discrimination compounded across generations. That, after all, is what affirmative action, at its best, is all about. But this situation is nothing like that. Here, we’re just talking about a conversation.
I would look at it in reverse. When you think of all the invisible structures that uphold a male centric world and imagine they are dismantled, it would add up to quite a change. It is astonishing how English enforces such a viewpoint. As that is being eroded (singular they, avoiding gendered language) that percentage of people who identify as trans will be joined by people who weren’t so happy at being placed in one of two boxes. Which is a lot more people than you think. Yes, many trans people ‘just’ want to change the pronouns they are addressed with. But if that catches on, you find you have to review a lot more in your language and that review makes you more sensitive to a lot of other things.
If you think about it, pronouns are a key component of language, and the ones we have haven’t changed much since our Indo-European forebears were working out the wheel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_pronouns
It would be like going to buy a car and saying ‘I like that car, but can you make the gas tank smaller?’
I don’t want to claim that English and its pronoun system makes English speakers have a particular problem with this (The US has nothing on Japan in terms of male centric nonsense) but pronouns will grind up against almost everything you can think of. ‘The language works fine’, but it only works when everyone has a similar mindset. If you look at it as a small minority of trans people wanting to blow up the language, you are looking from the wrong end of the telescope. I feel that a lot of women chafe under the casual sexism of English. To be sure, a lot of women may feel their role and place is threatened if you change things. But I believe that women will realize that they are largely being played in this. Though it will be a long process, there is still a lot of resistance to the ideas of intersectionality and how earlier ideas of feminism drew on excluding women of color.
It might seem hyperbolic to draw a line from pronouns to the protests GftNC mentions, and I think we would handle this change a lot better if the world weren’t falling down around our ears, but that little drip of pronoun correction often elicits a fury, which then makes the stakes higher.
Gender reveal parties, women pushing back against being called by their first names
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/05/22/529391023/think-your-credentials-are-ignored-because-youre-a-woman-it-could-be
They are all of a piece.
As far as sports, we have rules against steroids because we have these fictional ideas about what constitutes proper effort. We want to imagine the athlete as someone who, thru sheer force of will, has made themselves into a better human. Yet it is hard to imagine a person getting to that high plateau without a whole regime of helpers and aids. Yes, raw talent gets the door open, but they or their team has people who will make sure that they are highly tuned machines.
Babe Ruth’s time had alcohol, Mantle’s had amphetamines. I don’t think steroids are good, but thinking that sports was some pristine field where these things were contemplated is nonsense. It’s the old Reagan ploy of imagining a perfect past. That’s probably why the 1619 project gets such pushback and Confederate statues provoke such anger.
Perhaps it’s just because I’m a linguist, but I don’t see changing pronouns as just a little thing. I think it has ramifications anywhere language is used. If you change that, you change everything.
I would look at it in reverse. When you think of all the invisible structures that uphold a male centric world and imagine they are dismantled, it would add up to quite a change. It is astonishing how English enforces such a viewpoint. As that is being eroded (singular they, avoiding gendered language) that percentage of people who identify as trans will be joined by people who weren’t so happy at being placed in one of two boxes. Which is a lot more people than you think. Yes, many trans people ‘just’ want to change the pronouns they are addressed with. But if that catches on, you find you have to review a lot more in your language and that review makes you more sensitive to a lot of other things.
If you think about it, pronouns are a key component of language, and the ones we have haven’t changed much since our Indo-European forebears were working out the wheel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_pronouns
It would be like going to buy a car and saying ‘I like that car, but can you make the gas tank smaller?’
I don’t want to claim that English and its pronoun system makes English speakers have a particular problem with this (The US has nothing on Japan in terms of male centric nonsense) but pronouns will grind up against almost everything you can think of. ‘The language works fine’, but it only works when everyone has a similar mindset. If you look at it as a small minority of trans people wanting to blow up the language, you are looking from the wrong end of the telescope. I feel that a lot of women chafe under the casual sexism of English. To be sure, a lot of women may feel their role and place is threatened if you change things. But I believe that women will realize that they are largely being played in this. Though it will be a long process, there is still a lot of resistance to the ideas of intersectionality and how earlier ideas of feminism drew on excluding women of color.
It might seem hyperbolic to draw a line from pronouns to the protests GftNC mentions, and I think we would handle this change a lot better if the world weren’t falling down around our ears, but that little drip of pronoun correction often elicits a fury, which then makes the stakes higher.
Gender reveal parties, women pushing back against being called by their first names
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/05/22/529391023/think-your-credentials-are-ignored-because-youre-a-woman-it-could-be
They are all of a piece.
As far as sports, we have rules against steroids because we have these fictional ideas about what constitutes proper effort. We want to imagine the athlete as someone who, thru sheer force of will, has made themselves into a better human. Yet it is hard to imagine a person getting to that high plateau without a whole regime of helpers and aids. Yes, raw talent gets the door open, but they or their team has people who will make sure that they are highly tuned machines.
Babe Ruth’s time had alcohol, Mantle’s had amphetamines. I don’t think steroids are good, but thinking that sports was some pristine field where these things were contemplated is nonsense. It’s the old Reagan ploy of imagining a perfect past. That’s probably why the 1619 project gets such pushback and Confederate statues provoke such anger.
Perhaps it’s just because I’m a linguist, but I don’t see changing pronouns as just a little thing. I think it has ramifications anywhere language is used. If you change that, you change everything.
I don’t want to claim that English and its pronoun system makes English speakers have a particular problem with this (The US has nothing on Japan in terms of male centric nonsense) but pronouns will grind up against almost everything you can think of.
In English we are at least spared gender being used for ALL nouns. Often nonsensically — what gender should table (masc in German), or bench (also masc), or chair (fem) logically be? Especially when there is a neutral option available. Our gender warriors would be in heaven!
I don’t want to claim that English and its pronoun system makes English speakers have a particular problem with this (The US has nothing on Japan in terms of male centric nonsense) but pronouns will grind up against almost everything you can think of.
In English we are at least spared gender being used for ALL nouns. Often nonsensically — what gender should table (masc in German), or bench (also masc), or chair (fem) logically be? Especially when there is a neutral option available. Our gender warriors would be in heaven!
Gender critical feminists insist that they must be allowed to segregate themselves from trans women because male bodies – specifically penises – are an intrinsic threat to women.
Helluva bind for a gender dysphoric individual to be in.
My understanding is that true trans women who still have penises would, if using women-only spaces, be anxious not to show their genitals because they themselves are dysphoric about them, and also sympathetic to women who experience male genitals in women-only spaces as threatening. (Unfortunately, many women have good reason to feel this way.) In some of the cases we hear about, hopefully unusual ones, “trans women” have been openly walking around showing their male genitals in women-only spaces, and then complaining about being being discriminated against. This is why I put “trans women” in this case in quotes – I doubt their genuineness. It is also why I referred to them above as “people with penises”: I did not want to call them “men”, because I would never want to take the chance of calling a genuine trans woman a man, but in these kinds of cases I believe there is reason to doubt their bona fides, and to suspect their motives..
Gender critical feminists insist that they must be allowed to segregate themselves from trans women because male bodies – specifically penises – are an intrinsic threat to women.
Helluva bind for a gender dysphoric individual to be in.
My understanding is that true trans women who still have penises would, if using women-only spaces, be anxious not to show their genitals because they themselves are dysphoric about them, and also sympathetic to women who experience male genitals in women-only spaces as threatening. (Unfortunately, many women have good reason to feel this way.) In some of the cases we hear about, hopefully unusual ones, “trans women” have been openly walking around showing their male genitals in women-only spaces, and then complaining about being being discriminated against. This is why I put “trans women” in this case in quotes – I doubt their genuineness. It is also why I referred to them above as “people with penises”: I did not want to call them “men”, because I would never want to take the chance of calling a genuine trans woman a man, but in these kinds of cases I believe there is reason to doubt their bona fides, and to suspect their motives..
But if not weight, what? That’s a genuine question; I believe the testosterone test as used by the Olympics is very unsatisfactory for several reasons.
I think one of those reasons, and it relates to just how difficult a problem this is, is that it’s a one-way street. Many trans men are on a hormone regime that is simply against the rules in most sports. Top-level cisgender male athletes don’t have to worry about whether trans men will have any sort of advantage, or take over the record books, because they’re not allowed to increase their testosterone level sufficiently.
I also have a problem with things like Lasik. Talk to any MLB hitter who has had their vision lased down to 20/15 as they got older. Hell, Tiger Woods says openly that lasing his eyesight down to 20/10 made him competitive for years after he would have become just another PGA pro. Dwayne Wade and LeBron James both credit Lasik with substantial performance improvements.
But if not weight, what? That’s a genuine question; I believe the testosterone test as used by the Olympics is very unsatisfactory for several reasons.
I think one of those reasons, and it relates to just how difficult a problem this is, is that it’s a one-way street. Many trans men are on a hormone regime that is simply against the rules in most sports. Top-level cisgender male athletes don’t have to worry about whether trans men will have any sort of advantage, or take over the record books, because they’re not allowed to increase their testosterone level sufficiently.
I also have a problem with things like Lasik. Talk to any MLB hitter who has had their vision lased down to 20/15 as they got older. Hell, Tiger Woods says openly that lasing his eyesight down to 20/10 made him competitive for years after he would have become just another PGA pro. Dwayne Wade and LeBron James both credit Lasik with substantial performance improvements.
but in these kinds of cases I believe there is reason to doubt their bona fides, and to suspect their motives
Certainly it would make things a bit easier if we had some objective test for trans. Rather than having to rely entirely on self-assertion. (It might also allow the situation to be properly addressed medically at younger ages.)
but in these kinds of cases I believe there is reason to doubt their bona fides, and to suspect their motives
Certainly it would make things a bit easier if we had some objective test for trans. Rather than having to rely entirely on self-assertion. (It might also allow the situation to be properly addressed medically at younger ages.)
This is why I put “trans women” in this case in quotes – I doubt their genuineness. It is also why I referred to them above as “people with penises”: I did not want to call them “men”, because I would never want to take the chance of calling a genuine trans woman a man, but in these kinds of cases I believe there is reason to doubt their bona fides, and to suspect their motives..
And this is why I have been at pains to present gender critical arguments in as neutral a framing as I can manage. I am trying to assume good faith.
In every day policy discussion trans people, especially trans women, are invariably grouped with rapists and cheaters when spaces and activities are segregated based on the need to police bodies, and then are forced to give an account of why they should not be treated as a rapist or a cheater.
Given how this place blows up every time someone discusses systemic racism and “how dare anyone imply that I am a racist…,” you’d think that we could try to do better for trans people as well.
Which is why visibility matters.
Because otherwise they get treated as a special case of asking for more rights, rather than just a human person asking for a measure of dignity, inclusion, and self-determination.
This is why I put “trans women” in this case in quotes – I doubt their genuineness. It is also why I referred to them above as “people with penises”: I did not want to call them “men”, because I would never want to take the chance of calling a genuine trans woman a man, but in these kinds of cases I believe there is reason to doubt their bona fides, and to suspect their motives..
And this is why I have been at pains to present gender critical arguments in as neutral a framing as I can manage. I am trying to assume good faith.
In every day policy discussion trans people, especially trans women, are invariably grouped with rapists and cheaters when spaces and activities are segregated based on the need to police bodies, and then are forced to give an account of why they should not be treated as a rapist or a cheater.
Given how this place blows up every time someone discusses systemic racism and “how dare anyone imply that I am a racist…,” you’d think that we could try to do better for trans people as well.
Which is why visibility matters.
Because otherwise they get treated as a special case of asking for more rights, rather than just a human person asking for a measure of dignity, inclusion, and self-determination.
trans people, especially trans women, are invariably grouped with rapists and cheaters
Which is why we need some better way to determine who is, or is not, trans. Not just everyone else having to take someone’s word for it.
Until we do have that, it becomes a risk/reward calculation when it comes to whether, for a given context, to simply accept what someone says.
trans people, especially trans women, are invariably grouped with rapists and cheaters
Which is why we need some better way to determine who is, or is not, trans. Not just everyone else having to take someone’s word for it.
Until we do have that, it becomes a risk/reward calculation when it comes to whether, for a given context, to simply accept what someone says.
Which is why we need some better way to determine who is, or is not, trans. Not just everyone else having to take someone’s word for it.
Have you ever discussed dysphoria with someone who has it? I’d rather not subject people with it to some sort of testing and policing regime, any more than I favor making muslims prove that they are not terrorists.
Wouldn’t it be more effective protection just to make public restrooms safer by default, or to disincentivize cheating, rather than trying to police gender and sex?
Which is why we need some better way to determine who is, or is not, trans. Not just everyone else having to take someone’s word for it.
Have you ever discussed dysphoria with someone who has it? I’d rather not subject people with it to some sort of testing and policing regime, any more than I favor making muslims prove that they are not terrorists.
Wouldn’t it be more effective protection just to make public restrooms safer by default, or to disincentivize cheating, rather than trying to police gender and sex?
Sorry, on my phone trying voice dictate. So I’m not reading everything as closely as one might hope.
The ironic thing about gender as a grammatical category is that it lessens the attention made to it. That’s why I think in countries that speak languages with grammatical gender, there’s not as much fuss. Mark twain’s memorable diatribe about gender in German is a good example. When it reaches that point, it’s just noise it doesn’t carry any particular meaning. The fact of English speakers I think it’s deeply revealing that a radish is either masculine or feminine tells a lot more about English than about the language in question
Sorry, on my phone trying voice dictate. So I’m not reading everything as closely as one might hope.
The ironic thing about gender as a grammatical category is that it lessens the attention made to it. That’s why I think in countries that speak languages with grammatical gender, there’s not as much fuss. Mark twain’s memorable diatribe about gender in German is a good example. When it reaches that point, it’s just noise it doesn’t carry any particular meaning. The fact of English speakers I think it’s deeply revealing that a radish is either masculine or feminine tells a lot more about English than about the language in question
We’ve had segregated bathrooms in the US for years and it has not prevented gender *conforming* rapists from raping people in those segregated spaces. Seems to me like we need a better approach.
We’ve had segregated bathrooms in the US for years and it has not prevented gender *conforming* rapists from raping people in those segregated spaces. Seems to me like we need a better approach.
I am trying to assume good faith.
You are trying, but your framing is not as neutral as perhaps you would wish. However, I value the attempt. I do understand that what are now called gender-critical beliefs are considerably less acceptable in the US than the UK, and they are not all that acceptable here either, although the tide may be turning. For my own part, I absolutely assume good faith on this issue within the confines of ObWi. Where I disagree with anyone, like you for example, I attribute what I consider possibly misguided impulses to the most benevolent, tolerant and compassionate attitudes.
Given how this place blows up every time someone discusses systemic racism and “how dare anyone imply that I am a racist…,”
If by “this place” you mean ObWi, I don’t think anyone here denies the existence of widespread systemic racism, with the obvious exceptions of Marty and McKinney. If you are referring to various people’s dislike of the DiAngelo phenomenon, I think this is a bit of a wilful misinterpretation, but we have gone into that already so I don’t want to derail.
I am trying to assume good faith.
You are trying, but your framing is not as neutral as perhaps you would wish. However, I value the attempt. I do understand that what are now called gender-critical beliefs are considerably less acceptable in the US than the UK, and they are not all that acceptable here either, although the tide may be turning. For my own part, I absolutely assume good faith on this issue within the confines of ObWi. Where I disagree with anyone, like you for example, I attribute what I consider possibly misguided impulses to the most benevolent, tolerant and compassionate attitudes.
Given how this place blows up every time someone discusses systemic racism and “how dare anyone imply that I am a racist…,”
If by “this place” you mean ObWi, I don’t think anyone here denies the existence of widespread systemic racism, with the obvious exceptions of Marty and McKinney. If you are referring to various people’s dislike of the DiAngelo phenomenon, I think this is a bit of a wilful misinterpretation, but we have gone into that already so I don’t want to derail.
I also expect that pretty much everybody will go back to using “he” or “she” — whichever the individual prefers.
A few days ago my seventeen-year-old daughter was baking in our kitchen with a friend, to whom she introduced me. Recognising the name, and surprised by the appearance, I asked my eighteen-year-old son about the friend. He told me that the friend plays rugby but he’s not sure what pronoun the friend prefers. I asked my daughter, who said “they/them”. That’s how young people see the issue, and why not.
Meanwhile, my brother, who is gay, insists that biological gender matters. He tells me that his lesbian friends are accused of being transphobic for not fancying trans women. Neither of us thinks this is a good thing.
I also expect that pretty much everybody will go back to using “he” or “she” — whichever the individual prefers.
A few days ago my seventeen-year-old daughter was baking in our kitchen with a friend, to whom she introduced me. Recognising the name, and surprised by the appearance, I asked my eighteen-year-old son about the friend. He told me that the friend plays rugby but he’s not sure what pronoun the friend prefers. I asked my daughter, who said “they/them”. That’s how young people see the issue, and why not.
Meanwhile, my brother, who is gay, insists that biological gender matters. He tells me that his lesbian friends are accused of being transphobic for not fancying trans women. Neither of us thinks this is a good thing.
You are trying, but your framing is not as neutral as perhaps you would wish. However, I value the attempt.
You should see the responses before revision…
I try to avoid any gratuitous sharp corners, but not everything can be smoothed over.
If you are referring to various people’s dislike of the DiAngelo phenomenon, I think this is a bit of a wilful misinterpretation
LJ and I were told – by people other than just Marty and McKinney…by people who I know from long conversation here to be quite unambiguously liberal people – that they resented DiAngelo and other anti-racists’ framing of defensive behaviors as being rooted in racism because that implied that those individuals were of a kind with the unabashed racists of their childhoods.
Self-identities are fraught. I’m not immune there, either.
You are trying, but your framing is not as neutral as perhaps you would wish. However, I value the attempt.
You should see the responses before revision…
I try to avoid any gratuitous sharp corners, but not everything can be smoothed over.
If you are referring to various people’s dislike of the DiAngelo phenomenon, I think this is a bit of a wilful misinterpretation
LJ and I were told – by people other than just Marty and McKinney…by people who I know from long conversation here to be quite unambiguously liberal people – that they resented DiAngelo and other anti-racists’ framing of defensive behaviors as being rooted in racism because that implied that those individuals were of a kind with the unabashed racists of their childhoods.
Self-identities are fraught. I’m not immune there, either.
Meanwhile, my brother, who is gay, insists that biological gender matters. He tells me that his lesbian friends are accused of being transphobic for not fancying trans women. Neither of us thinks this is a good thing.
We should not ever be obliged to find anyone sexually attractive by reason of their taxonomic identity, and no one can demand that we find them attractive.
Meanwhile, my brother, who is gay, insists that biological gender matters. He tells me that his lesbian friends are accused of being transphobic for not fancying trans women. Neither of us thinks this is a good thing.
We should not ever be obliged to find anyone sexually attractive by reason of their taxonomic identity, and no one can demand that we find them attractive.
You should see the responses before revision..
LOL.
As to the rest, fair enough.
I’m for bed – good night all.
You should see the responses before revision..
LOL.
As to the rest, fair enough.
I’m for bed – good night all.
I have to really apologize here, it’s the last two weeks of a very fraught term. We are back to f2f but masked. I felt I got a lot of work out of my students, but a number of them have not been able to complete assignments and I’ve uncovered some really interesting problems in what students have submitted (was gobsmacked to discover that a handful of very bright students are using two single apostrophes to get a double apostrophe! I’m now wondering if I just missed this in previous years. Other things are popping up all over the place) So I can’t participate as much as I would like.
This is obviously a subject of great interest to me, so I’ll try and comment (and maybe even work up a post in August), but if something strikes you as off, please just make a note of it and I’ll try to explain when I can. Way too much anger floating around lately.
I have to really apologize here, it’s the last two weeks of a very fraught term. We are back to f2f but masked. I felt I got a lot of work out of my students, but a number of them have not been able to complete assignments and I’ve uncovered some really interesting problems in what students have submitted (was gobsmacked to discover that a handful of very bright students are using two single apostrophes to get a double apostrophe! I’m now wondering if I just missed this in previous years. Other things are popping up all over the place) So I can’t participate as much as I would like.
This is obviously a subject of great interest to me, so I’ll try and comment (and maybe even work up a post in August), but if something strikes you as off, please just make a note of it and I’ll try to explain when I can. Way too much anger floating around lately.
Here is the Twain diatribe I was referring to
https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/twain.german.html
And the section I was thinking of
Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in the distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl. See how it looks in print–I translate this from a conversation in one of the best of the German Sunday-school books:
“Gretchen. Wilhelm, where is the turnip?
“Wilhelm. She has gone to the kitchen.
“Gretchen. Where is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden?
Wilhelm. It has gone to the opera.”
To continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female–tomcats included, of course; a person’s mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and NOT according to the sex of the individual who wears it–for in Germany all the women either male heads or sexless ones; a person’s nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven’t any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.
Now, by the above dissection, the reader will see that in Germany a man may THINK he is a man, but when he comes to look into the matter closely, he is bound to have his doubts; he finds that in sober truth he is a most ridiculous mixture; and if he ends by trying to comfort himself with the thought that he can at least depend on a third of this mess as being manly and masculine, the humiliating second thought will quickly remind him that in this respect he is no better off than any woman or cow in the land.
In the German it is true that by some oversight of the inventor of the language, a Woman is a female; but a Wife (Weib) is not–which is unfortunate. A Wife, here, has no sex; she is neuter; so, according to the grammar, a fish is HE, his scales are SHE, but a fishwife is neither. To describe a wife as sexless may be called under-description; that is bad enough, but over-description is surely worse. A German speaks of an Englishman as the ENGLÄNDER; to change the sex, he adds INN, and that stands for Englishwoman– ENGLÄNDERINN. That seems descriptive enough, but still it is not exact enough for a German; so he precedes the word with that article which indicates that the creature to follow is feminine, and writes it down thus: “die Engländerinn,”–which means “the she-Englishwoman.” I consider that that person is over-described.
Well, after the student has learned the sex of a great number of nouns, he is still in a difficulty, because he finds it impossible to persuade his tongue to refer to things as “he” and “she,” and “him” and “her,” which it has been always accustomed to refer to it as “it.” When he even frames a German sentence in his mind, with the hims and hers in the right places, and then works up his courage to the utterance-point, it is no use– the moment he begins to speak his tongue files the track and all those labored males and females come out as “its.” And even when he is reading German to himself, he always calls those things “it,” where as he ought to read in this way:
TALE OF THE FISHWIFE AND ITS SAD FATE [2]
It is a bleak Day. Hear the Rain, how he pours, and the Hail, how he rattles; and see the Snow, how he drifts along, and of the Mud, how deep he is! Ah the poor Fishwife, it is stuck fast in the Mire; it has dropped its Basket of Fishes; and its Hands have been cut by the Scales as it seized some of the falling Creatures; and one Scale has even got into its Eye. and it cannot get her out. It opens its Mouth to cry for Help; but if any Sound comes out of him, alas he is drowned by the raging of the Storm. And now a Tomcat has got one of the Fishes and she will surely escape with him. No, she bites off a Fin, she holds her in her Mouth–will she swallow her? No, the Fishwife’s brave Mother-dog deserts his Puppies and rescues the Fin–which he eats, himself, as his Reward. O, horror, the Lightning has struck the Fish-basket; he sets him on Fire; see the Flame, how she licks the doomed Utensil with her red and angry Tongue; now she attacks the helpless Fishwife’s Foot–she burns him up, all but the big Toe, and even SHE is partly consumed; and still she spreads, still she waves her fiery Tongues; she attacks the Fishwife’s Leg and destroys IT; she attacks its Hand and destroys HER also; she attacks the Fishwife’s Leg and destroys HER also; she attacks its Body and consumes HIM; she wreathes herself about its Heart and IT is consumed; next about its Breast, and in a Moment SHE is a Cinder; now she reaches its Neck–He goes; now its Chin– IT goes; now its Nose–SHE goes. In another Moment, except Help come, the Fishwife will be no more. Time presses–is there none to succor and save? Yes! Joy, joy, with flying Feet the she-Englishwoman comes! But alas, the generous she-Female is too late: where now is the fated Fishwife? It has ceased from its Sufferings, it has gone to a better Land; all that is left of it for its loved Ones to lament over, is this poor smoldering Ash-heap. Ah, woeful, woeful Ash-heap! Let us take him up tenderly, reverently, upon the lowly Shovel, and bear him to his long Rest, with the Prayer that when he rises again it will be a Realm where he will have one good square responsible Sex, and have it all to himself, instead of having a mangy lot of assorted Sexes scattered all over him in Spots.
Here is the Twain diatribe I was referring to
https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/twain.german.html
And the section I was thinking of
Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in the distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl. See how it looks in print–I translate this from a conversation in one of the best of the German Sunday-school books:
“Gretchen. Wilhelm, where is the turnip?
“Wilhelm. She has gone to the kitchen.
“Gretchen. Where is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden?
Wilhelm. It has gone to the opera.”
To continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female–tomcats included, of course; a person’s mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and NOT according to the sex of the individual who wears it–for in Germany all the women either male heads or sexless ones; a person’s nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven’t any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.
Now, by the above dissection, the reader will see that in Germany a man may THINK he is a man, but when he comes to look into the matter closely, he is bound to have his doubts; he finds that in sober truth he is a most ridiculous mixture; and if he ends by trying to comfort himself with the thought that he can at least depend on a third of this mess as being manly and masculine, the humiliating second thought will quickly remind him that in this respect he is no better off than any woman or cow in the land.
In the German it is true that by some oversight of the inventor of the language, a Woman is a female; but a Wife (Weib) is not–which is unfortunate. A Wife, here, has no sex; she is neuter; so, according to the grammar, a fish is HE, his scales are SHE, but a fishwife is neither. To describe a wife as sexless may be called under-description; that is bad enough, but over-description is surely worse. A German speaks of an Englishman as the ENGLÄNDER; to change the sex, he adds INN, and that stands for Englishwoman– ENGLÄNDERINN. That seems descriptive enough, but still it is not exact enough for a German; so he precedes the word with that article which indicates that the creature to follow is feminine, and writes it down thus: “die Engländerinn,”–which means “the she-Englishwoman.” I consider that that person is over-described.
Well, after the student has learned the sex of a great number of nouns, he is still in a difficulty, because he finds it impossible to persuade his tongue to refer to things as “he” and “she,” and “him” and “her,” which it has been always accustomed to refer to it as “it.” When he even frames a German sentence in his mind, with the hims and hers in the right places, and then works up his courage to the utterance-point, it is no use– the moment he begins to speak his tongue files the track and all those labored males and females come out as “its.” And even when he is reading German to himself, he always calls those things “it,” where as he ought to read in this way:
TALE OF THE FISHWIFE AND ITS SAD FATE [2]
It is a bleak Day. Hear the Rain, how he pours, and the Hail, how he rattles; and see the Snow, how he drifts along, and of the Mud, how deep he is! Ah the poor Fishwife, it is stuck fast in the Mire; it has dropped its Basket of Fishes; and its Hands have been cut by the Scales as it seized some of the falling Creatures; and one Scale has even got into its Eye. and it cannot get her out. It opens its Mouth to cry for Help; but if any Sound comes out of him, alas he is drowned by the raging of the Storm. And now a Tomcat has got one of the Fishes and she will surely escape with him. No, she bites off a Fin, she holds her in her Mouth–will she swallow her? No, the Fishwife’s brave Mother-dog deserts his Puppies and rescues the Fin–which he eats, himself, as his Reward. O, horror, the Lightning has struck the Fish-basket; he sets him on Fire; see the Flame, how she licks the doomed Utensil with her red and angry Tongue; now she attacks the helpless Fishwife’s Foot–she burns him up, all but the big Toe, and even SHE is partly consumed; and still she spreads, still she waves her fiery Tongues; she attacks the Fishwife’s Leg and destroys IT; she attacks its Hand and destroys HER also; she attacks the Fishwife’s Leg and destroys HER also; she attacks its Body and consumes HIM; she wreathes herself about its Heart and IT is consumed; next about its Breast, and in a Moment SHE is a Cinder; now she reaches its Neck–He goes; now its Chin– IT goes; now its Nose–SHE goes. In another Moment, except Help come, the Fishwife will be no more. Time presses–is there none to succor and save? Yes! Joy, joy, with flying Feet the she-Englishwoman comes! But alas, the generous she-Female is too late: where now is the fated Fishwife? It has ceased from its Sufferings, it has gone to a better Land; all that is left of it for its loved Ones to lament over, is this poor smoldering Ash-heap. Ah, woeful, woeful Ash-heap! Let us take him up tenderly, reverently, upon the lowly Shovel, and bear him to his long Rest, with the Prayer that when he rises again it will be a Realm where he will have one good square responsible Sex, and have it all to himself, instead of having a mangy lot of assorted Sexes scattered all over him in Spots.
We’ve had segregated bathrooms in the US for years and it has not prevented gender *conforming* rapists from raping people in those segregated spaces. Seems to me like we need a better approach
On that logic, since we had killings using guns prior to 1960 (or whatever date one prefers for the coopting of the NRA), obviously there could be no big deal to massively increase access to guns in this country since. Maybe it’s just me, but that’s how your statement reads.
We’ve had segregated bathrooms in the US for years and it has not prevented gender *conforming* rapists from raping people in those segregated spaces. Seems to me like we need a better approach
On that logic, since we had killings using guns prior to 1960 (or whatever date one prefers for the coopting of the NRA), obviously there could be no big deal to massively increase access to guns in this country since. Maybe it’s just me, but that’s how your statement reads.
What nous said at 8:19
(Even on this, we manage to agree on some things. 😉
What nous said at 8:19
(Even on this, we manage to agree on some things. 😉
And I know, I should be working, but wheels are turning.
I attribute part of the shared attitude the nous and I have due to the fact that we are teaching at university. I’m 60, but I’ve been told by a lot of people I don’t look it. I’ve suggested that the process of meeting a new group of 18-19 year olds every year is a big part of that. If I worked in a company where everyone I hung out with was the same age as me, I might either look a lot older or be desperately trying to stave it off. I suspect nous is similar, constantly dealing with college undergrads and his writing course, where he is asking them to reveal a lot of their own ideas about their place in society, has to have an effect.
I’m also often called on to counsel newcomers to Japan, and that can be quite enlightening, especially when they are choosing to recast their self identity because they are in new surroundings.
This may have the sound of me pointing to some superiority, like I am able to see what is coming and I apologize for that. But it is hard for me to imagine us going back in anyway from things what has happened. I’m sure everyone can come up with their own list. But regardless of that, our viewpoints are shaped by the people we hang out with, so that may account for some differences here.
And I know, I should be working, but wheels are turning.
I attribute part of the shared attitude the nous and I have due to the fact that we are teaching at university. I’m 60, but I’ve been told by a lot of people I don’t look it. I’ve suggested that the process of meeting a new group of 18-19 year olds every year is a big part of that. If I worked in a company where everyone I hung out with was the same age as me, I might either look a lot older or be desperately trying to stave it off. I suspect nous is similar, constantly dealing with college undergrads and his writing course, where he is asking them to reveal a lot of their own ideas about their place in society, has to have an effect.
I’m also often called on to counsel newcomers to Japan, and that can be quite enlightening, especially when they are choosing to recast their self identity because they are in new surroundings.
This may have the sound of me pointing to some superiority, like I am able to see what is coming and I apologize for that. But it is hard for me to imagine us going back in anyway from things what has happened. I’m sure everyone can come up with their own list. But regardless of that, our viewpoints are shaped by the people we hang out with, so that may account for some differences here.
On that logic, since we had killings using guns prior to 1960 (or whatever date one prefers for the coopting of the NRA), obviously there could be no big deal to massively increase access to guns in this country since. Maybe it’s just me, but that’s how your statement reads.
I’d hope it’s just you misreading it, because for the argument to read like you are reading it, we’d have to assume that we cannot differentiate between trans women and rapists.
In your version, both trans women and rapists are guns.
On that logic, since we had killings using guns prior to 1960 (or whatever date one prefers for the coopting of the NRA), obviously there could be no big deal to massively increase access to guns in this country since. Maybe it’s just me, but that’s how your statement reads.
I’d hope it’s just you misreading it, because for the argument to read like you are reading it, we’d have to assume that we cannot differentiate between trans women and rapists.
In your version, both trans women and rapists are guns.
Twain once complained that he was reading an article in a German-language newspaper and had no idea what it was about until he encountered a verb on page 3.
Twain once complained that he was reading an article in a German-language newspaper and had no idea what it was about until he encountered a verb on page 3.
He tells me that his lesbian friends are accused of being transphobic for not fancying trans women. Neither of us thinks this is a good thing.
We should not ever be obliged to find anyone sexually attractive by reason of their taxonomic identity, and no one can demand that we find them attractive.
It’s hard to keep it straight in complicated human situations, but some trans people are assholes, just like some of every human group you could name are assholes. (Except the group comprised of non-assholes, of course, for the logic-minded among us.) That brush shouldn’t tar all trans people.
Also, being nitpicky, I would change nous’s formulation to this: “We should not ever be obliged to pretend to find anyone sexually attractive….” I mean, is there anyone here whose attractions can be mandated from outside?
He tells me that his lesbian friends are accused of being transphobic for not fancying trans women. Neither of us thinks this is a good thing.
We should not ever be obliged to find anyone sexually attractive by reason of their taxonomic identity, and no one can demand that we find them attractive.
It’s hard to keep it straight in complicated human situations, but some trans people are assholes, just like some of every human group you could name are assholes. (Except the group comprised of non-assholes, of course, for the logic-minded among us.) That brush shouldn’t tar all trans people.
Also, being nitpicky, I would change nous’s formulation to this: “We should not ever be obliged to pretend to find anyone sexually attractive….” I mean, is there anyone here whose attractions can be mandated from outside?
More Twain on German.
More Twain on German.
Okay, so, a little ding goes off in my head and Google tells me that “tar with the same brush” is considered by some people to be a racist phrase. I retract it and would welcome anyone’s replacement for lumping people together on the basis of a particular characteristic, when in fact on the basis of some other characteristic they aren’t alike at all.
Okay, so, a little ding goes off in my head and Google tells me that “tar with the same brush” is considered by some people to be a racist phrase. I retract it and would welcome anyone’s replacement for lumping people together on the basis of a particular characteristic, when in fact on the basis of some other characteristic they aren’t alike at all.
my feeble attempts
that label shouldn’t be slapped on everyone?
they aren’t birds of a feather?
shouldn’t think they all wear the same uniform?
link
https://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-tar1.htm
The question is interesting because it seems to presume that tar and feathering was a punishment reserved for blacks by whites. However, my understanding of it is that it was directed against outsiders (most notably “carpetbaggers”) and often included ‘being run out of town on a rail’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riding_a_rail
That some people may think that there was a racial component to this tells you something, though I’m not sure what that is.
my feeble attempts
that label shouldn’t be slapped on everyone?
they aren’t birds of a feather?
shouldn’t think they all wear the same uniform?
link
https://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-tar1.htm
The question is interesting because it seems to presume that tar and feathering was a punishment reserved for blacks by whites. However, my understanding of it is that it was directed against outsiders (most notably “carpetbaggers”) and often included ‘being run out of town on a rail’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riding_a_rail
That some people may think that there was a racial component to this tells you something, though I’m not sure what that is.
lj, it seems to me to be like “niggardly.”
You can’t say that anymore either.
But we have worse problems to fret about, so I try to get my inner language nerd to take a nap.
lj, it seems to me to be like “niggardly.”
You can’t say that anymore either.
But we have worse problems to fret about, so I try to get my inner language nerd to take a nap.
The confusion about grammatical gender originates from the fact that most people assume that it was originally connected to sex in some logical way. But from what I have read the tripartite grammatical gender in indoeuropean languages had nothing to do with that at all and that the terms ‘masculine’ ‘feminine’ and ‘neutral’ were the result of a misunderstanding by grammaticians living a few thousand years after the system developed.
Those orginal half-nomads would have looked rather bewildered, if someone had tried to explain to them that weird idea that their grammar was sexual (after looking bewildered trying to understand the abstract concept of grammar in the first place).
As for the sexless German girls: In German all diminutives are neutral and ‘Mädchen’ (girl) is a diminutive of the feminine word ‘Maid’ (maiden). Btw, it is also the diminutive of ‘Made’ (maggot).
Another btw: If you put the neutral article ‘das’ before the masculine noun ‘Mensch’ (human) it turns into an insult aimed exclusively at women.
The confusion about grammatical gender originates from the fact that most people assume that it was originally connected to sex in some logical way. But from what I have read the tripartite grammatical gender in indoeuropean languages had nothing to do with that at all and that the terms ‘masculine’ ‘feminine’ and ‘neutral’ were the result of a misunderstanding by grammaticians living a few thousand years after the system developed.
Those orginal half-nomads would have looked rather bewildered, if someone had tried to explain to them that weird idea that their grammar was sexual (after looking bewildered trying to understand the abstract concept of grammar in the first place).
As for the sexless German girls: In German all diminutives are neutral and ‘Mädchen’ (girl) is a diminutive of the feminine word ‘Maid’ (maiden). Btw, it is also the diminutive of ‘Made’ (maggot).
Another btw: If you put the neutral article ‘das’ before the masculine noun ‘Mensch’ (human) it turns into an insult aimed exclusively at women.
This article discusses the precursors to grammatical gender though it is a tough slog. This article
https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/evolution-of-grammatical-genders-why-french-has-two-genders-german-has-three-and-english-does-not-care
as a relatively easy entry to discussion.
This article discusses the precursors to grammatical gender though it is a tough slog. This article
https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/evolution-of-grammatical-genders-why-french-has-two-genders-german-has-three-and-english-does-not-care
as a relatively easy entry to discussion.
So given that “niggardly” and “tar with the same brush” are considered racist based on mistaken derivation, does anybody here think they should be avoided?
So given that “niggardly” and “tar with the same brush” are considered racist based on mistaken derivation, does anybody here think they should be avoided?
So given that “niggardly” and “tar with the same brush” are considered racist based on mistaken derivation, does anybody here think they should be avoided?
I’m unconvinced that everyone taking offence is expressing an etymological view.
I suspect that “niggardly” has sometimes been used with the intention of bypassing the modern taboo on the n-word. If it’s used in that way, it seems reasonable to me for anyone who’s offended by the n-word to be similarly offended. So I would not use the word if there were any possibility of my intentions being misunderstood. I confess that this is no loss to me, since so far as I recall I’ve never actively used the word anyway.
Before reading this thread, I was unaware that there might be a problem with “tar with the same brush” – I understand it to refer to a punishment first documented during the crusades. But it is close in form to the plainly racist “touch of the tarbrush”. I don’t mind avoiding it if causes discomfort.
So given that “niggardly” and “tar with the same brush” are considered racist based on mistaken derivation, does anybody here think they should be avoided?
I’m unconvinced that everyone taking offence is expressing an etymological view.
I suspect that “niggardly” has sometimes been used with the intention of bypassing the modern taboo on the n-word. If it’s used in that way, it seems reasonable to me for anyone who’s offended by the n-word to be similarly offended. So I would not use the word if there were any possibility of my intentions being misunderstood. I confess that this is no loss to me, since so far as I recall I’ve never actively used the word anyway.
Before reading this thread, I was unaware that there might be a problem with “tar with the same brush” – I understand it to refer to a punishment first documented during the crusades. But it is close in form to the plainly racist “touch of the tarbrush”. I don’t mind avoiding it if causes discomfort.
niggardly should be avoided because it’s kind of an ugly word. My understanding was that it was giving things out in an ungenerous way, checking the dictionary it says being ungenerous with time or money. It’s an adverb, with no adjectival form, so it is pretty limited in how it can be used and there are tons of ways to not say it. So I give it a pass.
Tar with the same brush, I don’t have a huge reaction, though it isn’t as vivid as I would like to use. I think I would prefer tossed/thrown/stuffed/bunged in the same bin. I like the britticism of those and the verbs make it clear that the phenomenon is something that requires some agency. If it didn’t require agency, or I was saying it to point out that there was a categorization problem, I’d probably use something more straightforward.
niggardly should be avoided because it’s kind of an ugly word. My understanding was that it was giving things out in an ungenerous way, checking the dictionary it says being ungenerous with time or money. It’s an adverb, with no adjectival form, so it is pretty limited in how it can be used and there are tons of ways to not say it. So I give it a pass.
Tar with the same brush, I don’t have a huge reaction, though it isn’t as vivid as I would like to use. I think I would prefer tossed/thrown/stuffed/bunged in the same bin. I like the britticism of those and the verbs make it clear that the phenomenon is something that requires some agency. If it didn’t require agency, or I was saying it to point out that there was a categorization problem, I’d probably use something more straightforward.
Well, as long as PETA doesn’t come after me for saying that “you couldn’t swing a cat without hitting“, okay.
If they do, I might have to swing a cat at them.
Well, as long as PETA doesn’t come after me for saying that “you couldn’t swing a cat without hitting“, okay.
If they do, I might have to swing a cat at them.
The whole subject is fascinating.
I was told some years ago that “the nitty gritty” is a racist expression, because derived from the condition of slave ships.
I’m not sure I’ve ever used “tarred with the same brush”, but I would I think if there were no better alternatives, since I remember tarring and feathering being used on collaborators after WW2 and it seems clear to me that it is/was not connected to “a touch of the tarbrush”.
Like Pro Bono, I would be careful about the company in which I used “niggardly”, but I am loth to let words fall completely out of use based on mistaken ideas. Further to which, a proud jewish man of my acquaintance once professed to find calling someone “a Jew” (although we all know it can/has been used as an insult) an offensive slur, and that one should say that they were “jewish”. This giving in to misplaced, internalised sensitivity struck me as a dangerous precedent for the language, and those who love it.
And the last example I remembered was Doc Science some years ago complaining about Philip Pullman’s use of the word “Gyptians” to describe a group of people who were obviously based on gypsies, or water gypsies (much as he uses “chocolatl” for chocolate, and “anbaric” for electric). She seemed to take it for granted that the word “gypsy” was racist language. Now I gather from an article in the NYT that it is widely recognised as slur in the US, and that therefore animals such as Gypsy moths are being renamed. But I find on searching that my instinct is correct: the situation here in the UK is rather more complicated, although clearly evolving:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Romani_people#Use_in_English_law
A British House of Commons Committee parliamentary inquiry, as described in their report “Tackling inequalities faced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities” (published 2019),[32] stated about their findings in the United Kingdom that: “We asked many members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities how they preferred to describe themselves. While some find the term “Gypsy” to be offensive, many stakeholders and witnesses were proud to associate themselves with this term and so we have decided that it is right and proper to use it, where appropriate, throughout the report.”
I guess it will be necessary shortly, if it isn’t already, to call this group Romani.
The whole subject is fascinating.
I was told some years ago that “the nitty gritty” is a racist expression, because derived from the condition of slave ships.
I’m not sure I’ve ever used “tarred with the same brush”, but I would I think if there were no better alternatives, since I remember tarring and feathering being used on collaborators after WW2 and it seems clear to me that it is/was not connected to “a touch of the tarbrush”.
Like Pro Bono, I would be careful about the company in which I used “niggardly”, but I am loth to let words fall completely out of use based on mistaken ideas. Further to which, a proud jewish man of my acquaintance once professed to find calling someone “a Jew” (although we all know it can/has been used as an insult) an offensive slur, and that one should say that they were “jewish”. This giving in to misplaced, internalised sensitivity struck me as a dangerous precedent for the language, and those who love it.
And the last example I remembered was Doc Science some years ago complaining about Philip Pullman’s use of the word “Gyptians” to describe a group of people who were obviously based on gypsies, or water gypsies (much as he uses “chocolatl” for chocolate, and “anbaric” for electric). She seemed to take it for granted that the word “gypsy” was racist language. Now I gather from an article in the NYT that it is widely recognised as slur in the US, and that therefore animals such as Gypsy moths are being renamed. But I find on searching that my instinct is correct: the situation here in the UK is rather more complicated, although clearly evolving:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Romani_people#Use_in_English_law
A British House of Commons Committee parliamentary inquiry, as described in their report “Tackling inequalities faced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities” (published 2019),[32] stated about their findings in the United Kingdom that: “We asked many members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities how they preferred to describe themselves. While some find the term “Gypsy” to be offensive, many stakeholders and witnesses were proud to associate themselves with this term and so we have decided that it is right and proper to use it, where appropriate, throughout the report.”
I guess it will be necessary shortly, if it isn’t already, to call this group Romani.
He told me that the friend plays rugby but he’s not sure what pronoun the friend prefers. I asked my daughter, who said “they/them”.
i’m generally a descriptivist about language – it says what we want it to say, it doesn’t tell us what we can say. but the concept of personal pronouns troubles me, on a linguistic level.
the whole reason the pronouns she/he/her/him/it (and their variations) exist is to enable us avoid having to use a person’s formal name for brevity, or in hypotheticals. but an explicit list personal pronouns for a person is actually a set of aliases for that person, each of which needs to be used in a specific grammatical context. that feels like a big change in the language.
what English needs is better pronouns.
He told me that the friend plays rugby but he’s not sure what pronoun the friend prefers. I asked my daughter, who said “they/them”.
i’m generally a descriptivist about language – it says what we want it to say, it doesn’t tell us what we can say. but the concept of personal pronouns troubles me, on a linguistic level.
the whole reason the pronouns she/he/her/him/it (and their variations) exist is to enable us avoid having to use a person’s formal name for brevity, or in hypotheticals. but an explicit list personal pronouns for a person is actually a set of aliases for that person, each of which needs to be used in a specific grammatical context. that feels like a big change in the language.
what English needs is better pronouns.
“ATLANTA, GA—Calling brand new things racist—that no one would ever have thought could be racist—is fun, and everyone loves it. But as each new day people breathlessly inform us of the racist history of things like crossword puzzles and punctuality, scientists are warning of an impending catastrophe.
“At this current rate of coming up with new things that are racist,” warned racism scientist Frank Greene, “we’ll run out of new things to call racist by the end of this year.”
Anti-racism activists met this news with both fear and denial. “Running out of new things to call racist would be devastating,” said activist Brooke Snyder. “I mean, you’ll only get attention if you come up with something no one knows is racist. You can’t just say things like, ‘Ethnic slurs are racist.’ Everyone knows that.””
Scientists Warn That Within 6 Months Humanity Will Run Out Of Things To Call Racist…
“ATLANTA, GA—Calling brand new things racist—that no one would ever have thought could be racist—is fun, and everyone loves it. But as each new day people breathlessly inform us of the racist history of things like crossword puzzles and punctuality, scientists are warning of an impending catastrophe.
“At this current rate of coming up with new things that are racist,” warned racism scientist Frank Greene, “we’ll run out of new things to call racist by the end of this year.”
Anti-racism activists met this news with both fear and denial. “Running out of new things to call racist would be devastating,” said activist Brooke Snyder. “I mean, you’ll only get attention if you come up with something no one knows is racist. You can’t just say things like, ‘Ethnic slurs are racist.’ Everyone knows that.””
Scientists Warn That Within 6 Months Humanity Will Run Out Of Things To Call Racist…
what if contrarians ran out of things to be contrary about?
what if contrarians ran out of things to be contrary about?
the whole reason the pronouns she/he/her/him/it (and their variations) exist is to enable us avoid having to use a person’s formal name for brevity, or in hypotheticals. but an explicit list personal pronouns for a person is actually a set of aliases for that person, each of which needs to be used in a specific grammatical context. that feels like a big change in the language.
It also feels like a big change to someone with an aging memory, especially for names. As you point out, the whole point of pronouns gets lost if they multiply. Thirty years ago I was appalled at the idea of using ditching he/she entirely, and just using “they.” Little did I know it would turn out to be the lesser of several evils…. 😉
the whole reason the pronouns she/he/her/him/it (and their variations) exist is to enable us avoid having to use a person’s formal name for brevity, or in hypotheticals. but an explicit list personal pronouns for a person is actually a set of aliases for that person, each of which needs to be used in a specific grammatical context. that feels like a big change in the language.
It also feels like a big change to someone with an aging memory, especially for names. As you point out, the whole point of pronouns gets lost if they multiply. Thirty years ago I was appalled at the idea of using ditching he/she entirely, and just using “they.” Little did I know it would turn out to be the lesser of several evils…. 😉
Relevant article.
Relevant article.
I like the britticism of those
I have the same fondness for them. (Although I also have a fondness for Aussie-isms.) The folks outside the US can just write this off as Americans being weird. Probably not wrong there.
I like the britticism of those
I have the same fondness for them. (Although I also have a fondness for Aussie-isms.) The folks outside the US can just write this off as Americans being weird. Probably not wrong there.
As a writing teacher who deals with a lot of native Mandarin speaker, I see a lot of pronoun confusion in student writing even without all of the culture jamming. Pronouns seem pretty abstruse to those who have grown up with a single, gender neutral, third person.
And then there is Swedish, that adopted “hen” as an all-inclusive gender neutral third person pronoun (to go with the traditional han/hon binary.
I’ve never had problems with student pronouns in my classes. People who use non-binary pronouns or who are testing out a desire to transition tend to be pretty forgiving of any accidental gendering or misgendering if the person doing it is generally on-board. It’s only ever a problem when someone either decides that it doesn’t matter or makes a point of ignoring the person’s self-designation.
Beyond that, I find pronouns to be a problem mostly when they are used in ways that make their referents unclear or ambiguous (which happens all the time in paragraphs with more than one noun for which the pronoun can stand in), and the avoidance of pronouns to be a problem when it messes with rhythm or distracts the reader with too frequent repetition.
As a writing teacher who deals with a lot of native Mandarin speaker, I see a lot of pronoun confusion in student writing even without all of the culture jamming. Pronouns seem pretty abstruse to those who have grown up with a single, gender neutral, third person.
And then there is Swedish, that adopted “hen” as an all-inclusive gender neutral third person pronoun (to go with the traditional han/hon binary.
I’ve never had problems with student pronouns in my classes. People who use non-binary pronouns or who are testing out a desire to transition tend to be pretty forgiving of any accidental gendering or misgendering if the person doing it is generally on-board. It’s only ever a problem when someone either decides that it doesn’t matter or makes a point of ignoring the person’s self-designation.
Beyond that, I find pronouns to be a problem mostly when they are used in ways that make their referents unclear or ambiguous (which happens all the time in paragraphs with more than one noun for which the pronoun can stand in), and the avoidance of pronouns to be a problem when it messes with rhythm or distracts the reader with too frequent repetition.
While some find the term “Gypsy” to be offensive, many stakeholders and witnesses were proud to associate themselves with this term and so we have decided that it is right and proper to use it, where appropriate, throughout the report.
This is common for most minorities. There is a vocal group who reject the name of Ainu, prefering to use Utari, while another, trending younger group, prefers to use Ainu. Majority culture tends to view these instances as the minority unable to name themselves, not understanding that the purpose for taking a name that was pejorative is to throw it back in the face of the majority. You see the same thing happen with words like dyke or slut.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk
It’s a neat jiu-jitsu trick, flipping the word, and I think it gets its power from making people who might not like the word explore why they feel uncomfortable. Nous has commented eloquently about how the desire to been seen and recognized is the fundamental idea: you want to pretend that I don’t exist, well, I’m going to repurpose the slur that people call me and make you say it.
Lenny Bruce had a routine (given here) where he says this
The point? That the word’s suppression gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness.
In a better world, the word would have disappeared because it would fall out of use. Unfortunately, that better world required that we actually begin dealing with systemic racism and take steps. We didn’t, so that word got taken and refashioned as a weapon of a very peculiar kind: a weapon that the put upon side could use, but when used by the majority, it was taboo. It’s basically a group saying ‘you know what, I am your worst nightmare’. If a group does it, it means imho, no compromise. My feeling (and I’d be interested to hear reasons why this might be wrong) is that it relates to the intrasigence of the majority.
While some find the term “Gypsy” to be offensive, many stakeholders and witnesses were proud to associate themselves with this term and so we have decided that it is right and proper to use it, where appropriate, throughout the report.
This is common for most minorities. There is a vocal group who reject the name of Ainu, prefering to use Utari, while another, trending younger group, prefers to use Ainu. Majority culture tends to view these instances as the minority unable to name themselves, not understanding that the purpose for taking a name that was pejorative is to throw it back in the face of the majority. You see the same thing happen with words like dyke or slut.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk
It’s a neat jiu-jitsu trick, flipping the word, and I think it gets its power from making people who might not like the word explore why they feel uncomfortable. Nous has commented eloquently about how the desire to been seen and recognized is the fundamental idea: you want to pretend that I don’t exist, well, I’m going to repurpose the slur that people call me and make you say it.
Lenny Bruce had a routine (given here) where he says this
The point? That the word’s suppression gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness.
In a better world, the word would have disappeared because it would fall out of use. Unfortunately, that better world required that we actually begin dealing with systemic racism and take steps. We didn’t, so that word got taken and refashioned as a weapon of a very peculiar kind: a weapon that the put upon side could use, but when used by the majority, it was taboo. It’s basically a group saying ‘you know what, I am your worst nightmare’. If a group does it, it means imho, no compromise. My feeling (and I’d be interested to hear reasons why this might be wrong) is that it relates to the intrasigence of the majority.
I’ve actually been teaching a song and video to try and encourage the use of the singular they. It’s the song and video for Symphony.
lyrics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIf9GvWaxQQ
music video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aatr_2MstrI
Students are supposed to write a paragraph about the lyrics and then another paragraph about the video. The singular they makes it much easier and more elegant and students can see why they might want to use it.
I’ve actually been teaching a song and video to try and encourage the use of the singular they. It’s the song and video for Symphony.
lyrics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIf9GvWaxQQ
music video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aatr_2MstrI
Students are supposed to write a paragraph about the lyrics and then another paragraph about the video. The singular they makes it much easier and more elegant and students can see why they might want to use it.
that better world required that we actually begin dealing with systemic racism and take steps. We didn’t
Actually, we have begun. No question we have a very long ways still to go. But I think it’s counterproductive to insist that we haven’t even started yet.
Why do I think it’s counterproductive? Divide the (majority) world into three parts. First, those who are strongly opposed to systemic racism, and working to deal with it. Second, those who are strongly racist themselves, and fighting to keep it.
The third part, and the largest by a long ways, are those who can be persuaded that more needs to be done. But they see that some progress has already been made. So if members of the first group insist that nothing has been done, that reduces their credibility, and so makes it harder to successfully make the case for more change.
It’s a tendency that I have noticed on the left** going back to the anti-Vietnam War protests when I was in college in the 1960s. A relatively small group on the radical left would run amok, thus undercutting the message of the far large number of peaceful protesters. That kept support for the war high (or, at least, support for ending it low) for far longer than it otherwise might have been. Claiming nothing has been done is analogous. And similarly counterproductive IMHO.
** Mostly on the left, because that’s where the urge to change things for the better mostly lies.
that better world required that we actually begin dealing with systemic racism and take steps. We didn’t
Actually, we have begun. No question we have a very long ways still to go. But I think it’s counterproductive to insist that we haven’t even started yet.
Why do I think it’s counterproductive? Divide the (majority) world into three parts. First, those who are strongly opposed to systemic racism, and working to deal with it. Second, those who are strongly racist themselves, and fighting to keep it.
The third part, and the largest by a long ways, are those who can be persuaded that more needs to be done. But they see that some progress has already been made. So if members of the first group insist that nothing has been done, that reduces their credibility, and so makes it harder to successfully make the case for more change.
It’s a tendency that I have noticed on the left** going back to the anti-Vietnam War protests when I was in college in the 1960s. A relatively small group on the radical left would run amok, thus undercutting the message of the far large number of peaceful protesters. That kept support for the war high (or, at least, support for ending it low) for far longer than it otherwise might have been. Claiming nothing has been done is analogous. And similarly counterproductive IMHO.
** Mostly on the left, because that’s where the urge to change things for the better mostly lies.
A relatively small group on the radical left would run amok, thus undercutting the message of the far large number of peaceful protesters.
it is the way of all things.
there’s a movement to do X. some of the most-passionate proponents get ahead of their skis with their rhetoric or the vigor of their protests. opponents seize on that in order to smear all the proponents. some proponents back off.
A relatively small group on the radical left would run amok, thus undercutting the message of the far large number of peaceful protesters.
it is the way of all things.
there’s a movement to do X. some of the most-passionate proponents get ahead of their skis with their rhetoric or the vigor of their protests. opponents seize on that in order to smear all the proponents. some proponents back off.
opponents seize on that in order to smear all the proponents. some proponents back off.
The problem, as I see it, is not that some proponents back off. It is that some persuadable, but not yet persuaded, people become significantly less so.
opponents seize on that in order to smear all the proponents. some proponents back off.
The problem, as I see it, is not that some proponents back off. It is that some persuadable, but not yet persuaded, people become significantly less so.
Unfortunately, that better world required that we actually begin dealing with systemic racism and take steps.
Just ending the war on drugs would have a more immediate and greater benefit to blacks and other minorities than spending decades squabbling over what is systemic racism and dealing with it.
Unfortunately, that better world required that we actually begin dealing with systemic racism and take steps.
Just ending the war on drugs would have a more immediate and greater benefit to blacks and other minorities than spending decades squabbling over what is systemic racism and dealing with it.
Just ending the war on drugs would have a more immediate and greater benefit to blacks and other minorities than spending decades squabbling over what is systemic racism and dealing with it.
I agree, but then I think “and release all of the people who are incarcerated for non-violent drug crimes as well.” And then I think about the need for some sort of restorative program to let those released reintegrate, and to give them some sort of housing and food stability while they transition back.
And then we are straight back into a debate about how to deal with systemic racism and the politics of envy and resentment.
Ending logging saves a generation of trees, but it doesn’t end the effects of deforestation or restore a broken environment.
Just ending the war on drugs would have a more immediate and greater benefit to blacks and other minorities than spending decades squabbling over what is systemic racism and dealing with it.
I agree, but then I think “and release all of the people who are incarcerated for non-violent drug crimes as well.” And then I think about the need for some sort of restorative program to let those released reintegrate, and to give them some sort of housing and food stability while they transition back.
And then we are straight back into a debate about how to deal with systemic racism and the politics of envy and resentment.
Ending logging saves a generation of trees, but it doesn’t end the effects of deforestation or restore a broken environment.
Just ending the war on drugs would have a more immediate and greater benefit to blacks and other minorities than spending decades squabbling over what is systemic racism and dealing with it.
Why can’t you do both (minus the squabbling)? Even if you accept that the “white fragility” model of systemic racism is particularly problematic, there is so much really obvious systemic racism to be dealt with first.
Just ending the war on drugs would have a more immediate and greater benefit to blacks and other minorities than spending decades squabbling over what is systemic racism and dealing with it.
Why can’t you do both (minus the squabbling)? Even if you accept that the “white fragility” model of systemic racism is particularly problematic, there is so much really obvious systemic racism to be dealt with first.
Actually, we have begun. No question we have a very long ways still to go. But I think it’s counterproductive to insist that we haven’t even started yet.
I might have taken that line 5 years ago. But things happened.
Just ending the war on drugs would have a more immediate and greater benefit to blacks and other minorities than spending decades squabbling over what is systemic racism and dealing with it.
Because all those libertarian bros who wanted to legalize marjiuana were just thinking of the blacks and other minorities. I don’t want to be super sarcastic, but this is the sort of roller coaster logic that you bring every time. ‘If you only had listened to me, things would be perfect’ But you look at every other libertarian step taken and it looks like a stalking horse for every retrograde conservative scumbag to undermine progress.
Actually, we have begun. No question we have a very long ways still to go. But I think it’s counterproductive to insist that we haven’t even started yet.
I might have taken that line 5 years ago. But things happened.
Just ending the war on drugs would have a more immediate and greater benefit to blacks and other minorities than spending decades squabbling over what is systemic racism and dealing with it.
Because all those libertarian bros who wanted to legalize marjiuana were just thinking of the blacks and other minorities. I don’t want to be super sarcastic, but this is the sort of roller coaster logic that you bring every time. ‘If you only had listened to me, things would be perfect’ But you look at every other libertarian step taken and it looks like a stalking horse for every retrograde conservative scumbag to undermine progress.
…, there is so much really obvious systemic racism to be dealt with first.
Yet people can’t agree on what’s obvious. Some people view any differential outcome between blacks and whites as the result of systemic racism. Not social, not cultural, or a number of other possible factors.
‘If you only had listened to me, things would be perfect’
Nothing is ever going to be perfect.
…, there is so much really obvious systemic racism to be dealt with first.
Yet people can’t agree on what’s obvious. Some people view any differential outcome between blacks and whites as the result of systemic racism. Not social, not cultural, or a number of other possible factors.
‘If you only had listened to me, things would be perfect’
Nothing is ever going to be perfect.
Yet people can’t agree on what’s obvious.
And you are certainly doing your bit to help, posting funny articles implying a link to trans people and motorcyclists thinking they can participate in a bicycle race. How many Black history month menus have you passed along? Not that I don’t mind a little frivolity, but I think humor should always try to punch up, not down.
Yet people can’t agree on what’s obvious.
And you are certainly doing your bit to help, posting funny articles implying a link to trans people and motorcyclists thinking they can participate in a bicycle race. How many Black history month menus have you passed along? Not that I don’t mind a little frivolity, but I think humor should always try to punch up, not down.
Some people view any differential outcome between blacks and whites as the result of systemic racism. Not social, not cultural, or a number of other possible factors.
how is racism – systemic or otherwise – not a social and cultural phenomenon?
Some people view any differential outcome between blacks and whites as the result of systemic racism. Not social, not cultural, or a number of other possible factors.
how is racism – systemic or otherwise – not a social and cultural phenomenon?
A relatively small group on the radical left would run amok, thus undercutting the message of the far large number of peaceful protesters. That kept support for the war high
I understand what you’re saying, but I’d argue that, absent the radical element, the question of whether to support the war or not would likely not even have been on the table.
Somebody has to raise the question, and do so in a way that takes it beyond polite dinner conversation. If nobody lights a fire under anybody else’s butt, in general things do not change.
A relatively small group on the radical left would run amok, thus undercutting the message of the far large number of peaceful protesters. That kept support for the war high
I understand what you’re saying, but I’d argue that, absent the radical element, the question of whether to support the war or not would likely not even have been on the table.
Somebody has to raise the question, and do so in a way that takes it beyond polite dinner conversation. If nobody lights a fire under anybody else’s butt, in general things do not change.
I thought the offensiveness of “gypsy”was based on a sort of reverse etymology. The idea is that whatever the origin of the term, the word “gyp” was derived from “gypsy,” so the latter term became newly offensive. Not so?
A similar process may be at work in GFtnC’s friend attitude towards the word “Jew.” It is hard for me, a Jew, to see the offense in saying, “Abraham is a Jew,” though I have heard that some regard it as offensive. Is this because “jew” as a verb came to connote inappropriate bargaining over money? Oddly, the same people who might say, scornfully, “He tried to jew him down,” probably have no trouble saying, admiringly, “He tried to negotiate a better price.”
As so often, the bigot views negatively traits that would he would see positively in a member of an approved group.
I thought the offensiveness of “gypsy”was based on a sort of reverse etymology. The idea is that whatever the origin of the term, the word “gyp” was derived from “gypsy,” so the latter term became newly offensive. Not so?
A similar process may be at work in GFtnC’s friend attitude towards the word “Jew.” It is hard for me, a Jew, to see the offense in saying, “Abraham is a Jew,” though I have heard that some regard it as offensive. Is this because “jew” as a verb came to connote inappropriate bargaining over money? Oddly, the same people who might say, scornfully, “He tried to jew him down,” probably have no trouble saying, admiringly, “He tried to negotiate a better price.”
As so often, the bigot views negatively traits that would he would see positively in a member of an approved group.
how is racism – systemic or otherwise – not a social and cultural phenomenon?
Racism is a social and cultural phenomenon. But it is not the ONLY social and cultural phenomenon. Some differential outcomes might, in principle, have their origin in non-racist social and cultural phenomena.
how is racism – systemic or otherwise – not a social and cultural phenomenon?
Racism is a social and cultural phenomenon. But it is not the ONLY social and cultural phenomenon. Some differential outcomes might, in principle, have their origin in non-racist social and cultural phenomena.
So, apparently the Fox News national offices have adopted a vaccination requirement, and the news people on the air this afternoon were telling people to get jabbed, and giving out information for finding where in your area you could get jabbed. Speculation on what Tucker Carlson says tonight?
So, apparently the Fox News national offices have adopted a vaccination requirement, and the news people on the air this afternoon were telling people to get jabbed, and giving out information for finding where in your area you could get jabbed. Speculation on what Tucker Carlson says tonight?
Racism is a social and cultural phenomenon. But it is not the ONLY social and cultural phenomenon. Some differential outcomes might, in principle, have their origin in non-racist social and cultural phenomena.
Yes.
But if we look at groups and at differential outcomes across groups, and those other social and cultural phenomenon cross-cut all races, then the differential outcome is correlated with race.
Otherwise it’s just a way of saying that a racial group is responsible for its own lack of results due to group characteristics while avoiding the mention of race.
Intersectionality is looking at all those differential results and trying to map which factors affect which groups.
Racism is a social and cultural phenomenon. But it is not the ONLY social and cultural phenomenon. Some differential outcomes might, in principle, have their origin in non-racist social and cultural phenomena.
Yes.
But if we look at groups and at differential outcomes across groups, and those other social and cultural phenomenon cross-cut all races, then the differential outcome is correlated with race.
Otherwise it’s just a way of saying that a racial group is responsible for its own lack of results due to group characteristics while avoiding the mention of race.
Intersectionality is looking at all those differential results and trying to map which factors affect which groups.
Yet people can’t agree on what’s obvious.
Dammit, I am so hopeless at search that I can’t find what I know happened here not long ago. russell listed a bunch of ways in which black people in the US are obviously, undeniably, statistically discriminated against. Of course there will be people who DO deny that this is systemic racism. If you exclude overt and covert racists, the rest are probably people who find the idea that systemic racism is still rife extremely threatening, with its obvious corollary that things have to change, and in ways which may seem uncomfortable to people who are used to and perfectly happy with the status quo, thank you very much.
But I believe that when I said there is so much really obvious systemic racism to be dealt with first I was right, and that a majority of people would agree when presented with the stats (numbers of unarmed black men killed per year versus unarmed white men, for example, or average sentences handed down to black versus white people for the same offences). At least I hope so, although I admit that the Trump-type of phenomenon has shaken my confidence in such sanity.
byomtov, I am afraid that my friend, a Jew, did regard it as offensive. I imagine that was because (and not only when used as a verb) the word has been used pejoratively so often, at times in history when anti-semitism was so common as to be unremarkable. I am still brought up short occasionally when I encounter it used in this way in, for example, Victorian or earlier literature. But I think it is absolutely necessary to use it, properly and neutrally, because to do otherwise is to give in to the forces of ignorance. Language, and its proper use, is a priceless gift. We should not be ungrateful for it.
I am reminded of a wonderful interview I once read with the late poet William Matthews. The context about the use of language was different, they were talking about Matthews’s poems about his wife’s cancer. But I have never forgotten his final words on why he was determined to find words to write about it:
You can’t give up to the forces of silence. They mean us harm.
In fact, rechecking that quotation, and what precedes it, strengthens my conviction. I don’t want to allow niggardly to fall into disuse because of error, and to stop using the word Jew correctly because some people have allowed anti-semites to besmirch it, or to cooperate with the absurd redefinition of refute to mean deny. Language must be defended! (Always allowing for the fact that willy nilly, it will change over time.)
Yet people can’t agree on what’s obvious.
Dammit, I am so hopeless at search that I can’t find what I know happened here not long ago. russell listed a bunch of ways in which black people in the US are obviously, undeniably, statistically discriminated against. Of course there will be people who DO deny that this is systemic racism. If you exclude overt and covert racists, the rest are probably people who find the idea that systemic racism is still rife extremely threatening, with its obvious corollary that things have to change, and in ways which may seem uncomfortable to people who are used to and perfectly happy with the status quo, thank you very much.
But I believe that when I said there is so much really obvious systemic racism to be dealt with first I was right, and that a majority of people would agree when presented with the stats (numbers of unarmed black men killed per year versus unarmed white men, for example, or average sentences handed down to black versus white people for the same offences). At least I hope so, although I admit that the Trump-type of phenomenon has shaken my confidence in such sanity.
byomtov, I am afraid that my friend, a Jew, did regard it as offensive. I imagine that was because (and not only when used as a verb) the word has been used pejoratively so often, at times in history when anti-semitism was so common as to be unremarkable. I am still brought up short occasionally when I encounter it used in this way in, for example, Victorian or earlier literature. But I think it is absolutely necessary to use it, properly and neutrally, because to do otherwise is to give in to the forces of ignorance. Language, and its proper use, is a priceless gift. We should not be ungrateful for it.
I am reminded of a wonderful interview I once read with the late poet William Matthews. The context about the use of language was different, they were talking about Matthews’s poems about his wife’s cancer. But I have never forgotten his final words on why he was determined to find words to write about it:
You can’t give up to the forces of silence. They mean us harm.
In fact, rechecking that quotation, and what precedes it, strengthens my conviction. I don’t want to allow niggardly to fall into disuse because of error, and to stop using the word Jew correctly because some people have allowed anti-semites to besmirch it, or to cooperate with the absurd redefinition of refute to mean deny. Language must be defended! (Always allowing for the fact that willy nilly, it will change over time.)
As so often, the bigot views negatively traits that would he would see positively in a member of an approved group.
^this^
When this happens, I’d argue that there is an underlying impulse towards irrational prejudice. Assertiveness, anger, those are pretty common, but I’ve seen it with cracking a joke or a cheerful disposition (oh, they don’t take it seriously), almost any trait can be taken as good by your in group but bad by the group you don’t like.
As so often, the bigot views negatively traits that would he would see positively in a member of an approved group.
^this^
When this happens, I’d argue that there is an underlying impulse towards irrational prejudice. Assertiveness, anger, those are pretty common, but I’ve seen it with cracking a joke or a cheerful disposition (oh, they don’t take it seriously), almost any trait can be taken as good by your in group but bad by the group you don’t like.
Speculation on what Tucker Carlson says tonight?
1. Accuses Fox management of being fascists. (Low probability)
2. Totally ignores the fact that his employer requires vaccinations. (High probability)
Also unsurprising if he has a rant about some other company requiring vaccinations, and how horrible that is.
Speculation on what Tucker Carlson says tonight?
1. Accuses Fox management of being fascists. (Low probability)
2. Totally ignores the fact that his employer requires vaccinations. (High probability)
Also unsurprising if he has a rant about some other company requiring vaccinations, and how horrible that is.
This LGM post has a description with how Carlson has be dealing with being questioned about his vaccination status, i.e. not well
Time via
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/07/the-anti-vaxx-style-in-republican-politics
Near the end of our call, I asked Carlson if he’d been vaccinated against COVID-19. He paused. “Because I’m a polite person, I’m not going to ask you any supervulgar personal questions like that.”
I told him he was welcome to ask me whatever he wanted.
“That’s like saying, ‘Do you have HIV?’” he said. “How about ‘None of your business’?” He broke into a cackle, like a hyena let loose in Brooks Brothers. “I mean, are you serious? What’s your favorite sexual position and when did you last engage in it?” (This has apparently become his go-to line when asked whether he’s been vaccinated; Carlson offered the same retort to Ben Smith of the New York Times.)
whatta pos
This LGM post has a description with how Carlson has be dealing with being questioned about his vaccination status, i.e. not well
Time via
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/07/the-anti-vaxx-style-in-republican-politics
Near the end of our call, I asked Carlson if he’d been vaccinated against COVID-19. He paused. “Because I’m a polite person, I’m not going to ask you any supervulgar personal questions like that.”
I told him he was welcome to ask me whatever he wanted.
“That’s like saying, ‘Do you have HIV?’” he said. “How about ‘None of your business’?” He broke into a cackle, like a hyena let loose in Brooks Brothers. “I mean, are you serious? What’s your favorite sexual position and when did you last engage in it?” (This has apparently become his go-to line when asked whether he’s been vaccinated; Carlson offered the same retort to Ben Smith of the New York Times.)
whatta pos
“That’s like saying, ‘Do you have HIV?’” he said. “How about ‘None of your business’?” He broke into a cackle, like a hyena let loose in Brooks Brothers. “I mean, are you serious? What’s your favorite sexual position and when did you last engage in it?”
In other words, “yes.”
As the saying goes – if you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.
Carlson is a professional table pounder.
“That’s like saying, ‘Do you have HIV?’” he said. “How about ‘None of your business’?” He broke into a cackle, like a hyena let loose in Brooks Brothers. “I mean, are you serious? What’s your favorite sexual position and when did you last engage in it?”
In other words, “yes.”
As the saying goes – if you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.
Carlson is a professional table pounder.
I’ll copy here what I added to the the comments on that LGM thread, because I like it so very much:
“What’s your favorite sexual position and when did you last engage in it?”
“Snapping a MAGAt’s neck, and about 15 seconds after I get my hands on you.”
I’ll copy here what I added to the the comments on that LGM thread, because I like it so very much:
“What’s your favorite sexual position and when did you last engage in it?”
“Snapping a MAGAt’s neck, and about 15 seconds after I get my hands on you.”
Canada has announced that they will open the border to fully vaccinated Americans from August 9.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/19/canada-us-border-open/
Of course, you need documentation that you are fully vaccinated. “Vaccine passports”, anyone?
When US officials were asked about reciprocal opening for Canadians to travel to the US
Lucky Canada, they are already at 70%. As opposed to the US, where we’re down around 50%.
Canada has announced that they will open the border to fully vaccinated Americans from August 9.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/19/canada-us-border-open/
Of course, you need documentation that you are fully vaccinated. “Vaccine passports”, anyone?
When US officials were asked about reciprocal opening for Canadians to travel to the US
Lucky Canada, they are already at 70%. As opposed to the US, where we’re down around 50%.
“Carlson is a professional table pounder.”
That’s about as good as saying Carlson is the maitre d’hotel at the Bergen-Belson Bed and Breakfast and our luggage will be along shortly.
He’s a fucking killer He’s a national security menace, as is the entire FOX complex. My government has every right to protect me by executing him and IT.
Carlson is merely one of the millions of the murderous, racist vermin faces of the genocidal republican conservative movement.
We will have America OR we will have the diseased, death-dealing, pandemic-spreading Republican Party.
Both, together, is out of the question. The latter must must be wiped off the face of the Earth, or the former most certainly will be consumed in fire and will deserve it.
A savage, violent, killing fury is coming for the subhuman conservative movement.
The fascist, racist state of subhuman republican Texas is about to declare it illegal o teach or utter Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech in their “schools”.
Mentioning womens’ sufferage in a school would be an indictable offense.
Time for students and teachers to bring automatic weapons into the schools and give the Texas fascist conservatives their bullet-riddled birthright.
“I don’t want to allow niggardly to fall into disuse because of error, and to stop using the word Jew correctly because some people have allowed anti-semites to besmirch it, or to cooperate with the absurd redefinition of refute to mean deny.”
I endorse this view, but it’s too late in the many-centuried history of conservative subhuman hate and murder of humans and language.
The apostle Paul declared that Jews were “the enemies of the whole human race.”
Edmund Burke said the French Revolution was unlike others because it was led by “Jew brokers contending with each other who could best remedy the fraudulent circulation and depreciation paper and wretchedness and ruin brought on by their degenerate councils.
Conservative Karl Marx (he certainly wasn’t a liberal, and neither are conservative filth Putin, Xi Jinping, and Netanyahu) declared money to be the God of Israel.
They ruined “niggardly” for everyone.
It never fucking stops, until it is stopped.
Since Herbert Hoover was mentioned in threadpast, he and fellow racist conservatives Coolidge and Harding and Democratic Party racist conservative Woodrow Wilson held the black race to be less than human and not worthy of the rights of citizenship.
Neither did the Founders.
Their antisemitism was right alongside step by step, like Ginger alongside Fred.
It never fucking stops, until it is stopped. All of them should have been shot in their heads.
Instead, the racist right wing in 2021 is flourishing and re-embracing white nationalism and racism.
They assert their right to do so in plain English.
They are fucking dead.
“Carlson is a professional table pounder.”
That’s about as good as saying Carlson is the maitre d’hotel at the Bergen-Belson Bed and Breakfast and our luggage will be along shortly.
He’s a fucking killer He’s a national security menace, as is the entire FOX complex. My government has every right to protect me by executing him and IT.
Carlson is merely one of the millions of the murderous, racist vermin faces of the genocidal republican conservative movement.
We will have America OR we will have the diseased, death-dealing, pandemic-spreading Republican Party.
Both, together, is out of the question. The latter must must be wiped off the face of the Earth, or the former most certainly will be consumed in fire and will deserve it.
A savage, violent, killing fury is coming for the subhuman conservative movement.
The fascist, racist state of subhuman republican Texas is about to declare it illegal o teach or utter Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech in their “schools”.
Mentioning womens’ sufferage in a school would be an indictable offense.
Time for students and teachers to bring automatic weapons into the schools and give the Texas fascist conservatives their bullet-riddled birthright.
“I don’t want to allow niggardly to fall into disuse because of error, and to stop using the word Jew correctly because some people have allowed anti-semites to besmirch it, or to cooperate with the absurd redefinition of refute to mean deny.”
I endorse this view, but it’s too late in the many-centuried history of conservative subhuman hate and murder of humans and language.
The apostle Paul declared that Jews were “the enemies of the whole human race.”
Edmund Burke said the French Revolution was unlike others because it was led by “Jew brokers contending with each other who could best remedy the fraudulent circulation and depreciation paper and wretchedness and ruin brought on by their degenerate councils.
Conservative Karl Marx (he certainly wasn’t a liberal, and neither are conservative filth Putin, Xi Jinping, and Netanyahu) declared money to be the God of Israel.
They ruined “niggardly” for everyone.
It never fucking stops, until it is stopped.
Since Herbert Hoover was mentioned in threadpast, he and fellow racist conservatives Coolidge and Harding and Democratic Party racist conservative Woodrow Wilson held the black race to be less than human and not worthy of the rights of citizenship.
Neither did the Founders.
Their antisemitism was right alongside step by step, like Ginger alongside Fred.
It never fucking stops, until it is stopped. All of them should have been shot in their heads.
Instead, the racist right wing in 2021 is flourishing and re-embracing white nationalism and racism.
They assert their right to do so in plain English.
They are fucking dead.
“Vaccine passports”, anyone?”
Murdoch’s FOX is providing all of their employees, including murderers Carlson, Hannity, and the Frau with just such documentation.
The Canadian government should demand political affiliation papers at the border and shoot American republicans on sight.
“Vaccine passports”, anyone?”
Murdoch’s FOX is providing all of their employees, including murderers Carlson, Hannity, and the Frau with just such documentation.
The Canadian government should demand political affiliation papers at the border and shoot American republicans on sight.
russell listed a bunch of ways in which black people in the US are obviously, undeniably, statistically discriminated against.
I think that was cleek.
Yes, it’s true that pure and simple racism is not the sole reason that black people experience differential outcomes.
Many of the other reasons, however, find their origins, in turn, in centuries – centuries – of systematic, ubiquitous, explicit racism.
I understand why people would prefer to just put all of that behind us. The problem is, it’s not behind us.
Anybody who looks at the situation of black people in this country – now, today – and doesn’t see that racism is still a factor just doesn’t want to see it. For whatever reason.
Things are better than they were. That’s good. Sadly, it’s such a low bar that it doesn’t come close to addressing the issue as a whole.
Racism is a deep part of American culture. It will probably take as many years and generations to get past it as it took to bake it in.
If your response to this is “but I’m not a racist!” you have lost the plot. IMVHO.
russell listed a bunch of ways in which black people in the US are obviously, undeniably, statistically discriminated against.
I think that was cleek.
Yes, it’s true that pure and simple racism is not the sole reason that black people experience differential outcomes.
Many of the other reasons, however, find their origins, in turn, in centuries – centuries – of systematic, ubiquitous, explicit racism.
I understand why people would prefer to just put all of that behind us. The problem is, it’s not behind us.
Anybody who looks at the situation of black people in this country – now, today – and doesn’t see that racism is still a factor just doesn’t want to see it. For whatever reason.
Things are better than they were. That’s good. Sadly, it’s such a low bar that it doesn’t come close to addressing the issue as a whole.
Racism is a deep part of American culture. It will probably take as many years and generations to get past it as it took to bake it in.
If your response to this is “but I’m not a racist!” you have lost the plot. IMVHO.
Best line of the day:
But then, perhaps I’m easily amused.
Best line of the day:
But then, perhaps I’m easily amused.
Many of the other reasons, however, find their origins, in turn, in centuries – centuries – of systematic, ubiquitous, explicit racism.
There are more immediate things going on than just historical factors. Leading up to the civil rights era, in spite of Jim Crow and other racist conditions, blacks were making a greater rate of social and economic progress, though from a much lower level, than were whites. Blacks had a marginally higher marriage rate than whites. Black teenagers had a higher employment rate than white teenagers.
I guess you could argue that whites had greater economic leeway to be unmarried adults and unemployed teenagers.
But, some years after the civil rights era, progress for blacks started to flatten, diverging from that of whites.
Many of the other reasons, however, find their origins, in turn, in centuries – centuries – of systematic, ubiquitous, explicit racism.
There are more immediate things going on than just historical factors. Leading up to the civil rights era, in spite of Jim Crow and other racist conditions, blacks were making a greater rate of social and economic progress, though from a much lower level, than were whites. Blacks had a marginally higher marriage rate than whites. Black teenagers had a higher employment rate than white teenagers.
I guess you could argue that whites had greater economic leeway to be unmarried adults and unemployed teenagers.
But, some years after the civil rights era, progress for blacks started to flatten, diverging from that of whites.
But, some years after the civil rights era, progress for blacks started to flatten, diverging from that of whites.
As we all know, correlation does not mean causation. So what, in your opinion, was the cause.
But, some years after the civil rights era, progress for blacks started to flatten, diverging from that of whites.
As we all know, correlation does not mean causation. So what, in your opinion, was the cause.
What’s your point, Charles?
What’s your point, Charles?
As we all know, correlation does not mean causation. So what, in your opinion, was the cause.
A number of black intellectuals and scholars argue that a form of white paternalism and various public policies have contributed to blacks not making as much progress as was hoped for and expected.
There’s a book by Jason Riley. The book is a bit accusatory and may not be as explanatory as the author would like. But I think he makes some valid arguments.
“In Please Stop Helping Us, Jason L. Riley examines how well-intentioned welfare programs are in fact holding black Americans back. Minimum-wage laws may lift earnings for people who are already employed, but they price a disproportionate number of blacks out of the labor force. Affirmative action in higher education is intended to address past discrimination, but the result is fewer black college graduates than would otherwise exist. And so it goes with everything from soft-on-crime laws, which make black neighborhoods more dangerous, to policies that limit school choice out of a mistaken belief that charter schools and voucher programs harm the traditional public schools that most low-income students attend.
In theory, these efforts are intended to help the poor—and poor minorities in particular. In practice, they become massive barriers to moving forward.
Please Stop Helping Us lays bare these counterproductive results. People of goodwill want to see more black socioeconomic advancement, but in too many instances the current methods and approaches aren’t working. Acknowledging this is an important first step.”
Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed
As we all know, correlation does not mean causation. So what, in your opinion, was the cause.
A number of black intellectuals and scholars argue that a form of white paternalism and various public policies have contributed to blacks not making as much progress as was hoped for and expected.
There’s a book by Jason Riley. The book is a bit accusatory and may not be as explanatory as the author would like. But I think he makes some valid arguments.
“In Please Stop Helping Us, Jason L. Riley examines how well-intentioned welfare programs are in fact holding black Americans back. Minimum-wage laws may lift earnings for people who are already employed, but they price a disproportionate number of blacks out of the labor force. Affirmative action in higher education is intended to address past discrimination, but the result is fewer black college graduates than would otherwise exist. And so it goes with everything from soft-on-crime laws, which make black neighborhoods more dangerous, to policies that limit school choice out of a mistaken belief that charter schools and voucher programs harm the traditional public schools that most low-income students attend.
In theory, these efforts are intended to help the poor—and poor minorities in particular. In practice, they become massive barriers to moving forward.
Please Stop Helping Us lays bare these counterproductive results. People of goodwill want to see more black socioeconomic advancement, but in too many instances the current methods and approaches aren’t working. Acknowledging this is an important first step.”
Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed
the author’s blurb, from Charles’ link:
not quoting that to discount everything the guy says, it’s just an indicator of the intellectual stance he’s speaking from.
There are indeed a number of black intellectuals and scholars who would prefer that white people stop trying to help black people. Clarence Thomas is among them. He basically doesn’t believe there is any likelihood of white people ever accepting black people as full equals, and expects racial division to be a permanent fact in American life.
So his solution is for black people to seek self-sufficiency, personally and as a group. Do not rely on white people, whatever needs doing, do it for yourself.
It’s a reasonable position. And it’s a profoundly pessimistic one.
I can’t speak for what black people should and shouldn’t do. I’m not black.
I know what white people should do. White people should treat people who aren’t white with the same respect they show themselves.
the author’s blurb, from Charles’ link:
not quoting that to discount everything the guy says, it’s just an indicator of the intellectual stance he’s speaking from.
There are indeed a number of black intellectuals and scholars who would prefer that white people stop trying to help black people. Clarence Thomas is among them. He basically doesn’t believe there is any likelihood of white people ever accepting black people as full equals, and expects racial division to be a permanent fact in American life.
So his solution is for black people to seek self-sufficiency, personally and as a group. Do not rely on white people, whatever needs doing, do it for yourself.
It’s a reasonable position. And it’s a profoundly pessimistic one.
I can’t speak for what black people should and shouldn’t do. I’m not black.
I know what white people should do. White people should treat people who aren’t white with the same respect they show themselves.
A physical remains and a reminder of racism.
“DETROIT — When they started building the wall behind Margaret Watson’s house in northwest Detroit, she knew the reason without having to ask.
As a child in the late 1930s, Watson had seen the new streets laid down like a tic-tac-toe board in the open fields where her father once planted a garden the size of a city block.
She’d roller-skated down those newly paved lanes at speeds that would have been impossible on the dirt roads that ran in front of her house.
She knew the new streets had to be for white families — not Black ones like hers — so she wasn’t particularly surprised when, in the spring of 1941, a 6-foot-high, 4-inch-thick, half-mile-long concrete fortification suddenly appeared in her backyard.
If white people were moving in, she reasoned, they’d need a way to keep her out.
“I don’t remember feeling any way about it except it was the same old, same old,” said Watson, now 93, who still lives in that house and recalled being excluded from certain restaurants and stores growing up.
“I mean, I lived in Detroit all my life,” Watson said. “Detroit has been segregated all my life.””
Built to keep Black from white: Eighty years after a segregation wall rose in Detroit, America remains divided. That’s not an accident.
A physical remains and a reminder of racism.
“DETROIT — When they started building the wall behind Margaret Watson’s house in northwest Detroit, she knew the reason without having to ask.
As a child in the late 1930s, Watson had seen the new streets laid down like a tic-tac-toe board in the open fields where her father once planted a garden the size of a city block.
She’d roller-skated down those newly paved lanes at speeds that would have been impossible on the dirt roads that ran in front of her house.
She knew the new streets had to be for white families — not Black ones like hers — so she wasn’t particularly surprised when, in the spring of 1941, a 6-foot-high, 4-inch-thick, half-mile-long concrete fortification suddenly appeared in her backyard.
If white people were moving in, she reasoned, they’d need a way to keep her out.
“I don’t remember feeling any way about it except it was the same old, same old,” said Watson, now 93, who still lives in that house and recalled being excluded from certain restaurants and stores growing up.
“I mean, I lived in Detroit all my life,” Watson said. “Detroit has been segregated all my life.””
Built to keep Black from white: Eighty years after a segregation wall rose in Detroit, America remains divided. That’s not an accident.
Does Riley interrogate why it is that white people get the same welfare programs and minimum wages as blacks, but somehow only blacks suffer the crippling ill effects of those problems and the culture of entitlement that they purportedly engender, at least in terms of effects on the group and their economic progress?
This is precisely the sort of issues I was thinking of earlier when I pointed out the cross-cutting thing. And without a deep interrogation of the cross-cutting, it’s hard to determine if those premises are anything other than confirmation bias.
Here’s an alternative premise: the combined effect of hyperglobalism and the weakening of organized labor affected urban black communities more than rural white communities. A huge chunk of that economic progress for blacks was built upon good factory jobs that got outsourced.
Does Riley interrogate why it is that white people get the same welfare programs and minimum wages as blacks, but somehow only blacks suffer the crippling ill effects of those problems and the culture of entitlement that they purportedly engender, at least in terms of effects on the group and their economic progress?
This is precisely the sort of issues I was thinking of earlier when I pointed out the cross-cutting thing. And without a deep interrogation of the cross-cutting, it’s hard to determine if those premises are anything other than confirmation bias.
Here’s an alternative premise: the combined effect of hyperglobalism and the weakening of organized labor affected urban black communities more than rural white communities. A huge chunk of that economic progress for blacks was built upon good factory jobs that got outsourced.
Clarence Thomas is among them. He basically doesn’t believe there is any likelihood of white people ever accepting black people as full equals,
Gotta wonder if that includes his wife. Who, last I heard, is white.
Clarence Thomas is among them. He basically doesn’t believe there is any likelihood of white people ever accepting black people as full equals,
Gotta wonder if that includes his wife. Who, last I heard, is white.
What’s your point, Charles?
So liberal paternalism is what is holding African Americans back? I’m assuming that you are getting your arguments for Riley’s book
Leading up to the civil rights era, in spite of Jim Crow and other racist conditions, blacks were making a greater rate of social and economic progress, though from a much lower level, than were whites. Blacks had a marginally higher marriage rate than whites. Black teenagers had a higher employment rate than white teenagers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
https://www.history.com/news/tulsa-massacre-black-wall-street-before-and-after-photos
This was the first time air dropped munitions were used on American soil, until the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia
https://www.newyorker.com/news/essay/saying-her-name
And when they approached economic self sufficiency, they had it taken away.
And I would very much like to see Reilly (or your) data that supports black economic progress.
https://news.yahoo.com/hunger-hurt-bad-robert-kennedy-learned-poverty-boy-delta-090025735.html
Glancing over the kids, who were filthy and dressed in tattered, ill-fitting hand-me-downs, Kennedy had a somber air about him. He spoke quietly, asking Dillard why he wasn’t in school. The child explained that he wasn’t enrolled. Looking distressed, Kennedy asked the boy what he had eaten that day. “Molasses,” Dillard replied.
As Dillard walked up the wooden steps of the house to go inside and tell his grandmother about their visitors, Kennedy and his entourage followed. Inside the house, the senator questioned the woman about what she had fed the kids that day. Just bread and syrup, she replied. And they wouldn’t eat again until the evening because there just wasn’t enough food. The cupboards were empty. “I can’t hardly feed ’em but twice a day,” the woman told Kennedy, who could not conceal his shock.
What’s your point, Charles?
So liberal paternalism is what is holding African Americans back? I’m assuming that you are getting your arguments for Riley’s book
Leading up to the civil rights era, in spite of Jim Crow and other racist conditions, blacks were making a greater rate of social and economic progress, though from a much lower level, than were whites. Blacks had a marginally higher marriage rate than whites. Black teenagers had a higher employment rate than white teenagers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
https://www.history.com/news/tulsa-massacre-black-wall-street-before-and-after-photos
This was the first time air dropped munitions were used on American soil, until the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia
https://www.newyorker.com/news/essay/saying-her-name
And when they approached economic self sufficiency, they had it taken away.
And I would very much like to see Reilly (or your) data that supports black economic progress.
https://news.yahoo.com/hunger-hurt-bad-robert-kennedy-learned-poverty-boy-delta-090025735.html
Glancing over the kids, who were filthy and dressed in tattered, ill-fitting hand-me-downs, Kennedy had a somber air about him. He spoke quietly, asking Dillard why he wasn’t in school. The child explained that he wasn’t enrolled. Looking distressed, Kennedy asked the boy what he had eaten that day. “Molasses,” Dillard replied.
As Dillard walked up the wooden steps of the house to go inside and tell his grandmother about their visitors, Kennedy and his entourage followed. Inside the house, the senator questioned the woman about what she had fed the kids that day. Just bread and syrup, she replied. And they wouldn’t eat again until the evening because there just wasn’t enough food. The cupboards were empty. “I can’t hardly feed ’em but twice a day,” the woman told Kennedy, who could not conceal his shock.
Gotta wonder if that includes his wife. Who, last I heard, is white.
One of life’s puzzles. Gotta wonder a lot of things when it comes to Thomas. My guess is the man has a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
So liberal paternalism is what is holding African Americans back
Haven’t read Riley’s book, but I think you need to do some serious grooming of the data to come up with “blacks were doing so much better until civil rights legislation was passed”.
Gotta wonder if that includes his wife. Who, last I heard, is white.
One of life’s puzzles. Gotta wonder a lot of things when it comes to Thomas. My guess is the man has a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
So liberal paternalism is what is holding African Americans back
Haven’t read Riley’s book, but I think you need to do some serious grooming of the data to come up with “blacks were doing so much better until civil rights legislation was passed”.
amusingly, Riley is also the author of “Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders”
amusingly, Riley is also the author of “Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders”
Do you think Mr. Bigglesworth was scared during re-entry?
Do you think Mr. Bigglesworth was scared during re-entry?
For anybody still interested in the trans issue, and the views of gender-critical feminists, I thought this review of two recent books was interesting. I much preferred the sound of Kathleen Stock’s (an analytical philosopher who describes herself as “a gender non-conforming lesbian), although as I have mentioned I do not agree with what she is here described as doing:
she generally uses preferred pronouns for individuals but repeatedly describes trans women as men or males
However, the debate continues.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jul/18/trans-by-helen-joyce-material-girls-by-kathleen-stock-reviews
For anybody still interested in the trans issue, and the views of gender-critical feminists, I thought this review of two recent books was interesting. I much preferred the sound of Kathleen Stock’s (an analytical philosopher who describes herself as “a gender non-conforming lesbian), although as I have mentioned I do not agree with what she is here described as doing:
she generally uses preferred pronouns for individuals but repeatedly describes trans women as men or males
However, the debate continues.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jul/18/trans-by-helen-joyce-material-girls-by-kathleen-stock-reviews
In the part about Stock’s book, I particularly liked this:
The most intriguing chapter deals with what Stock calls “immersive fiction”, or the supposed capacity to feel, think and act as if it was true that trans women are women without considering this literally true. Like a legal fiction, an elegant device for reconciling opposing concepts in law, she argues it may allow two conflicting ideas to be comfortably held in mind. It’s a perceptive description of how many people probably do think, and perhaps even the glimmerings of a way forward, which might lie in accepting that people are who they say they are but that doesn’t preclude the need for safeguards and fine judgments in some circumstances. Where she will divide the room is by arguing that trans people too are immersed in their own fiction, requiring them to deny biological facts and insist others follow suit.
I hope it is the glimmering of a way forward.
In the part about Stock’s book, I particularly liked this:
The most intriguing chapter deals with what Stock calls “immersive fiction”, or the supposed capacity to feel, think and act as if it was true that trans women are women without considering this literally true. Like a legal fiction, an elegant device for reconciling opposing concepts in law, she argues it may allow two conflicting ideas to be comfortably held in mind. It’s a perceptive description of how many people probably do think, and perhaps even the glimmerings of a way forward, which might lie in accepting that people are who they say they are but that doesn’t preclude the need for safeguards and fine judgments in some circumstances. Where she will divide the room is by arguing that trans people too are immersed in their own fiction, requiring them to deny biological facts and insist others follow suit.
I hope it is the glimmering of a way forward.
I’ll shut up in a minute. But wow, this Kathleen Stock (of whom I had never heard before) is interesting. This is from an interview with her, which I also link below for anyone sufficiently interested:
GG: Some other academics, like Jane Claire Jones for example, have argued about the dualism involved in gender ideology. There’s this idea that you have a gendered brain, or soul, that’s separate from the body. I wonder if that kind of splitting has something to do with the way that we interact with technology these days.
KS: Yes, Jane talks about the idea of a gendered soul. There’s something really archetypal about the way that this discourse proceeds in terms of this thing inside you which is really you and can be detached from your bodily constitution. But in terms of relation to technology, when a male decides that he’s a woman or a female decides she’s a man, they’re immersed in a fiction. It becomes important not to mention that you’re immersed in a fiction because that would basically break the fourth wall and show that it was a fiction. And you don’t want anyone else to draw attention to the fact that it’s not real. That’s true of all fictions, like being in the theater and not wanting people’s mobile phones to go off. You don’t want to lose your remote, imaginative, emotion in what you’re fantasizing.
There’s a big connection to technology because we’re increasingly behind screens and it’s increasingly easy to construct and curate a persona for ourselves. This goes for all of us. We show the world only what we want to show and get no kind of real time feedback from others. You can see how many avatars are being used by kids who are into trans activism online. You can see the influence of Tumblr, for instance, and memes that capture what the person really wishes was the case about them, or representing what they really would like the world to see. That’s a big part of the story and it’s to be tied in with academia and journalism, along with wider trends, like the rise of the smartphone, the rise of self-harm in women and girls and other sociological trends. This is not a simplified story but when you think about it in terms of this gender identity bursting out of you innately, then it becomes a very simple story and there’s no need to try and connect it up.
GG: The whole phenomenon has the effect of silencing critical thought in general, right? Because if you can’t question this, then you can’t question the impact of the media on shaping identity.
KS: Everything’s become about an individual’s hero’s journey. It’s simple, Disneyfied archetypal stuff: the hero expresses themselves against the trends of society to become who they were destined to be. It really does cut out an awful lot of critical thought.
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2021/07/09/interview-dr-kathleen-stock-on-why-we-need-to-discuss-gender-identity-in-philosophy/
I’ll shut up in a minute. But wow, this Kathleen Stock (of whom I had never heard before) is interesting. This is from an interview with her, which I also link below for anyone sufficiently interested:
GG: Some other academics, like Jane Claire Jones for example, have argued about the dualism involved in gender ideology. There’s this idea that you have a gendered brain, or soul, that’s separate from the body. I wonder if that kind of splitting has something to do with the way that we interact with technology these days.
KS: Yes, Jane talks about the idea of a gendered soul. There’s something really archetypal about the way that this discourse proceeds in terms of this thing inside you which is really you and can be detached from your bodily constitution. But in terms of relation to technology, when a male decides that he’s a woman or a female decides she’s a man, they’re immersed in a fiction. It becomes important not to mention that you’re immersed in a fiction because that would basically break the fourth wall and show that it was a fiction. And you don’t want anyone else to draw attention to the fact that it’s not real. That’s true of all fictions, like being in the theater and not wanting people’s mobile phones to go off. You don’t want to lose your remote, imaginative, emotion in what you’re fantasizing.
There’s a big connection to technology because we’re increasingly behind screens and it’s increasingly easy to construct and curate a persona for ourselves. This goes for all of us. We show the world only what we want to show and get no kind of real time feedback from others. You can see how many avatars are being used by kids who are into trans activism online. You can see the influence of Tumblr, for instance, and memes that capture what the person really wishes was the case about them, or representing what they really would like the world to see. That’s a big part of the story and it’s to be tied in with academia and journalism, along with wider trends, like the rise of the smartphone, the rise of self-harm in women and girls and other sociological trends. This is not a simplified story but when you think about it in terms of this gender identity bursting out of you innately, then it becomes a very simple story and there’s no need to try and connect it up.
GG: The whole phenomenon has the effect of silencing critical thought in general, right? Because if you can’t question this, then you can’t question the impact of the media on shaping identity.
KS: Everything’s become about an individual’s hero’s journey. It’s simple, Disneyfied archetypal stuff: the hero expresses themselves against the trends of society to become who they were destined to be. It really does cut out an awful lot of critical thought.
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2021/07/09/interview-dr-kathleen-stock-on-why-we-need-to-discuss-gender-identity-in-philosophy/
Some other academics, like Jane Claire Jones for example, have argued about the dualism involved in gender ideology. [Emphasis added]
I think that the interviewer may have, however inadvertently, hit on part of the problem around this issue. For some (on both sides), it isn’t a matter of acceptance, or good manners, etc. It’s ideology. Which precludes any real discussion involving them about what makes sense and what doesn’t, and in which circumstances.
Some other academics, like Jane Claire Jones for example, have argued about the dualism involved in gender ideology. [Emphasis added]
I think that the interviewer may have, however inadvertently, hit on part of the problem around this issue. For some (on both sides), it isn’t a matter of acceptance, or good manners, etc. It’s ideology. Which precludes any real discussion involving them about what makes sense and what doesn’t, and in which circumstances.
There’s this idea that you have a gendered brain, or soul, that’s separate from the body. I wonder if that kind of splitting has something to do with the way that we interact with technology these days.
Hmm, splitting is much earlier than that. Hartmut could probably add more detail, but there was Plato’s theory about male and female ‘halves’ (he’s actually putting it in Aristophanes’ mouth, so it’s hard to say what he thinks) Oftentimes it is reduced to male and female halves rolling around (cause their forms were circular) but the actual story is a bit more complicated.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/plato-symposium
There’s this idea that you have a gendered brain, or soul, that’s separate from the body. I wonder if that kind of splitting has something to do with the way that we interact with technology these days.
Hmm, splitting is much earlier than that. Hartmut could probably add more detail, but there was Plato’s theory about male and female ‘halves’ (he’s actually putting it in Aristophanes’ mouth, so it’s hard to say what he thinks) Oftentimes it is reduced to male and female halves rolling around (cause their forms were circular) but the actual story is a bit more complicated.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/plato-symposium
Here’s a translation of the section.
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/eros/platos-other-half
Diving into the literary criticism pool, it is amazing that we talk (and balk) about the surgery that people who transition have done on themselves (and I think that is a main source of anxiety for this, the thought of the body as a pristine container that shouldn’t be bent, spindled or mutilated, and possibly the idea that if someone was willing to do that to themselves, they would somehow want to do it to others. To draw a line, John Dower in War without Mercy
It is true that Japanese commanders and ideologues attempted with considerable success to make a cult out of dying, as seen in the frenzied banzai charges of imperial land forces in certain battles and the creation of special suicide squads such as the kamikaze in the final year of the war. But Westerners also glorified those who fought to the bitter end, and in several instances Allied leaders at the highest level, including Winston Churchill and Douglas MacArthur, actually ordered their commanders never to surrender. Even as Americans were belittling Japanese who fought to the last man, treating them as virtually another species of being, they were cherishing their own epics of defeat such as the Alamo and the Little Bighorn. On the eve of Pearl Harbor one of Hollywood’s most popular offerings was They Died with Their Boots On, an Errol Flynn movie commemorating Custer’s last stand.
In the heat of war, such points of common ground were lost sight of and the behavior of the enemy was seen as unique and peculiarly odious, with the issue of atrocities playing an exceptionally large role in each side’s perception of the other. Savage Japanese behavior in China and throughout SouthEast Asia, as well as in the treatment of Allied prisoners, was offered as proof of the inherent barbarity of the enemy. In a similar way, the Japanese stimulated hatred of the Allies by publicizing grisly battlefield practices such as the collection of Japanese skulls and bones, and responded with profound self-righteousness to the terror bombing of Japanese civilians. It is conventional wisdom that in times of life-and-death struggle, ill-grounded rumors of enemy atrocities invariably flourish and arouse a feverish hatred against the foe. This is misleading, however, for in fact atrocities follow war as the jackal follows a wounded beast. The propagandistic deception often lies, not in the false claims of enemy atrocities, but in the pious depiction of such behavior as peculiar to the other side.)
But here in the excerpt, it talks about the process of creating gender as cutting and reshaping
“So saying, he cut those human beings in two, the way people cut sorb apples before they dry them or the way they cut eggs with hairs. As he cut each one, he commanded Apollo to turn its face and half its neck toward the wound, so that each person would see that he’d been cut and keep better order. Then Zeus commanded Apollo to heal the rest of the wound, and Apollo did turn the face around, and he drew skin from all sides over what is now called the stomach; and there he made one mouth, as in a pouch with a drawstring, and fastened it at the center of the stomach. This is now called the navel. Then he smoothed out the other wrinkles, of which there were many, and he shaped the breasts, using some such tool as shoemakers have for smoothing wrinkles out of leather on the form. But he left a few wrinkles around the stomach and the navel, to be a reminder of what happened long ago.
But in terms of relation to technology, when a male decides that he’s a woman or a female decides she’s a man, they’re immersed in a fiction.
I have my issues with the way some trans activists … act … and have no better idea what to do about some of the thornier conflicts than anyone else. But this is mind-bogglingly condescending. It assumes the conclusion and is framed as if the speaker’s beliefs are simply an obvious truth.
Here’s a translation of the section.
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/eros/platos-other-half
Diving into the literary criticism pool, it is amazing that we talk (and balk) about the surgery that people who transition have done on themselves (and I think that is a main source of anxiety for this, the thought of the body as a pristine container that shouldn’t be bent, spindled or mutilated, and possibly the idea that if someone was willing to do that to themselves, they would somehow want to do it to others. To draw a line, John Dower in War without Mercy
It is true that Japanese commanders and ideologues attempted with considerable success to make a cult out of dying, as seen in the frenzied banzai charges of imperial land forces in certain battles and the creation of special suicide squads such as the kamikaze in the final year of the war. But Westerners also glorified those who fought to the bitter end, and in several instances Allied leaders at the highest level, including Winston Churchill and Douglas MacArthur, actually ordered their commanders never to surrender. Even as Americans were belittling Japanese who fought to the last man, treating them as virtually another species of being, they were cherishing their own epics of defeat such as the Alamo and the Little Bighorn. On the eve of Pearl Harbor one of Hollywood’s most popular offerings was They Died with Their Boots On, an Errol Flynn movie commemorating Custer’s last stand.
In the heat of war, such points of common ground were lost sight of and the behavior of the enemy was seen as unique and peculiarly odious, with the issue of atrocities playing an exceptionally large role in each side’s perception of the other. Savage Japanese behavior in China and throughout SouthEast Asia, as well as in the treatment of Allied prisoners, was offered as proof of the inherent barbarity of the enemy. In a similar way, the Japanese stimulated hatred of the Allies by publicizing grisly battlefield practices such as the collection of Japanese skulls and bones, and responded with profound self-righteousness to the terror bombing of Japanese civilians. It is conventional wisdom that in times of life-and-death struggle, ill-grounded rumors of enemy atrocities invariably flourish and arouse a feverish hatred against the foe. This is misleading, however, for in fact atrocities follow war as the jackal follows a wounded beast. The propagandistic deception often lies, not in the false claims of enemy atrocities, but in the pious depiction of such behavior as peculiar to the other side.)
But here in the excerpt, it talks about the process of creating gender as cutting and reshaping
“So saying, he cut those human beings in two, the way people cut sorb apples before they dry them or the way they cut eggs with hairs. As he cut each one, he commanded Apollo to turn its face and half its neck toward the wound, so that each person would see that he’d been cut and keep better order. Then Zeus commanded Apollo to heal the rest of the wound, and Apollo did turn the face around, and he drew skin from all sides over what is now called the stomach; and there he made one mouth, as in a pouch with a drawstring, and fastened it at the center of the stomach. This is now called the navel. Then he smoothed out the other wrinkles, of which there were many, and he shaped the breasts, using some such tool as shoemakers have for smoothing wrinkles out of leather on the form. But he left a few wrinkles around the stomach and the navel, to be a reminder of what happened long ago.
But in terms of relation to technology, when a male decides that he’s a woman or a female decides she’s a man, they’re immersed in a fiction.
I have my issues with the way some trans activists … act … and have no better idea what to do about some of the thornier conflicts than anyone else. But this is mind-bogglingly condescending. It assumes the conclusion and is framed as if the speaker’s beliefs are simply an obvious truth.
What lj said.
While technology might have enabled a sharing of personal stories in a less judgmental manner than happened in the past, it’s quite clear (for example, from searches of British newspaper archives and court records) that something along the lines of what we now term transgender identity has likely never been uncommon.
This might give some idea:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=11kJTkIGsT15X3rc7MIc7VLg6okyPIr0H&ll=45.561532792717244%2C-5.549605700000017&z=4
What lj said.
While technology might have enabled a sharing of personal stories in a less judgmental manner than happened in the past, it’s quite clear (for example, from searches of British newspaper archives and court records) that something along the lines of what we now term transgender identity has likely never been uncommon.
This might give some idea:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=11kJTkIGsT15X3rc7MIc7VLg6okyPIr0H&ll=45.561532792717244%2C-5.549605700000017&z=4
A little something especially for Charles.
We are once again seeing, here in California, wildfires caused by the equipment of out electricity provider (PG&E).
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/07/19/editorial-pge-must-come-clean-about-cause-of-dixie-fire/
Not only not operating in a safe manner, but failing to meet the conditions that they agreed to after causing previous disasters. (Note the reference to criminal probation.) To the point that we are looking at a state takeover of the utility. For which there will be nobody to blame but the company itself.
A little something especially for Charles.
We are once again seeing, here in California, wildfires caused by the equipment of out electricity provider (PG&E).
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/07/19/editorial-pge-must-come-clean-about-cause-of-dixie-fire/
Not only not operating in a safe manner, but failing to meet the conditions that they agreed to after causing previous disasters. (Note the reference to criminal probation.) To the point that we are looking at a state takeover of the utility. For which there will be nobody to blame but the company itself.
this is mind-bogglingly condescending. It assumes the conclusion
It does indeed. I have my own views on what accommodations should and should not be made when it comes to transgender individuals. But assuming that their condition is a fiction is ridiculous. (Even if one could point to a few cases where it was a deliberate fraud. As distinct from a fiction.)
this is mind-bogglingly condescending. It assumes the conclusion
It does indeed. I have my own views on what accommodations should and should not be made when it comes to transgender individuals. But assuming that their condition is a fiction is ridiculous. (Even if one could point to a few cases where it was a deliberate fraud. As distinct from a fiction.)
when a male decides that he’s a woman or a female decides she’s a man, they’re immersed in a fiction.
My reaction to this is similar to Janie’s.
I am, once again, reluctant to speak for people whose experience is vastly different from, and far more fraught than, my own. But I’m not sure it’s accurate to characterize the relationship of trans people to the identity they embrace as a “decision”. I think, were you to ask them, they would say it’s a matter of their internal experience.
I.e., they didn’t wake up one morning and “decide” to live as – to be – a different gender than the one assigned to them at birth. I don’t think they experience it as a matter of choice.
Why they experience themselves as a gender different from the one assigned to them at birth, i.e. the one corresponding to their genitalia, is probably not something anybody is going to be able to explain. I’m not sure there is a lot of value in trying to explain it, it appears to be an existential fact of their existence, and IMO should be acknowledged as such.
I do understand that people who have a penis wanting to participate in life as a woman – including having access to places that are intended to exclusively be for women – is problematic. I also understand that some women may have a variety of thoughts and feelings about it all, even apart from considerations of safety. Some may feel their identity as women is being co-opted in some way by people who do not have female bodies.
It’s a complicated situation.
But I’m not sure it’s helpful to characterize trans people as being “immersed in fiction”. Clearly, they are experiencing something, and are expressing that. I’m not sure you can call that something they made up or invented.
I don’t think we understand the relationship between consciousness and our bodies and biology, and how all of that affects how we see ourselves, well enough to judge other folks’ experience. IMO we all need to take each other at face value. Certainly as the starting point.
when a male decides that he’s a woman or a female decides she’s a man, they’re immersed in a fiction.
My reaction to this is similar to Janie’s.
I am, once again, reluctant to speak for people whose experience is vastly different from, and far more fraught than, my own. But I’m not sure it’s accurate to characterize the relationship of trans people to the identity they embrace as a “decision”. I think, were you to ask them, they would say it’s a matter of their internal experience.
I.e., they didn’t wake up one morning and “decide” to live as – to be – a different gender than the one assigned to them at birth. I don’t think they experience it as a matter of choice.
Why they experience themselves as a gender different from the one assigned to them at birth, i.e. the one corresponding to their genitalia, is probably not something anybody is going to be able to explain. I’m not sure there is a lot of value in trying to explain it, it appears to be an existential fact of their existence, and IMO should be acknowledged as such.
I do understand that people who have a penis wanting to participate in life as a woman – including having access to places that are intended to exclusively be for women – is problematic. I also understand that some women may have a variety of thoughts and feelings about it all, even apart from considerations of safety. Some may feel their identity as women is being co-opted in some way by people who do not have female bodies.
It’s a complicated situation.
But I’m not sure it’s helpful to characterize trans people as being “immersed in fiction”. Clearly, they are experiencing something, and are expressing that. I’m not sure you can call that something they made up or invented.
I don’t think we understand the relationship between consciousness and our bodies and biology, and how all of that affects how we see ourselves, well enough to judge other folks’ experience. IMO we all need to take each other at face value. Certainly as the starting point.
The review GftNC linked to, with its familiar litany of bad things that have happened because of trans people, or bad actions carried out by trans people, made me see a parallel that I hadn’t seen before.
With both homeschooling and same-sex marriage, opponents were constantly bringing up bad things that might happen if homeschooling and same-sex marraige were permitted. I don’t know how many op-eds and letters to the editor I ended up writing, the main theme of which: on what basis is it justified to hold homeschooling families and same-sex couples up to a higher, and impossible, standard than that to which other families and couples are held?
You can get married if you’re a murderer, a rapist, a pedophile. You can get married no matter how abusive you are, or whether you’re a drug addict or not, or … almost anything. And yet: same-sex couples were to be banned from getting married because all sorts of bad things *might* happen, or basically because we had to require every same-sex couple to be inhumanly perfect before we could possibly risk it.
Similarly with homeschooling. Kids might escape the safety net … as if they never escape the safety net when they’re in school. As if the safety net even works. The recent history of child deaths in Maine, including some under the supervision of the authorities, is tragic. And unrelated to homeschooling.
The review GftNC linked to, with its familiar litany of bad things that have happened because of trans people, or bad actions carried out by trans people, made me see a parallel that I hadn’t seen before.
With both homeschooling and same-sex marriage, opponents were constantly bringing up bad things that might happen if homeschooling and same-sex marraige were permitted. I don’t know how many op-eds and letters to the editor I ended up writing, the main theme of which: on what basis is it justified to hold homeschooling families and same-sex couples up to a higher, and impossible, standard than that to which other families and couples are held?
You can get married if you’re a murderer, a rapist, a pedophile. You can get married no matter how abusive you are, or whether you’re a drug addict or not, or … almost anything. And yet: same-sex couples were to be banned from getting married because all sorts of bad things *might* happen, or basically because we had to require every same-sex couple to be inhumanly perfect before we could possibly risk it.
Similarly with homeschooling. Kids might escape the safety net … as if they never escape the safety net when they’re in school. As if the safety net even works. The recent history of child deaths in Maine, including some under the supervision of the authorities, is tragic. And unrelated to homeschooling.
PS I’m sure the safety net works sometimes. It’s very frayed in Maine right now. I’d like to say more but I’m headed out for a brief trip so … maybe later.
PS I’m sure the safety net works sometimes. It’s very frayed in Maine right now. I’d like to say more but I’m headed out for a brief trip so … maybe later.
Thank you, JanieM.
At the heart of that condescension is the insistence on fixing identity in the physical body as genetic hardware and treating issues of identity and self-image as software glitches. You can see that in their descriptions of what they see as problematic trends in trans-activism, helpfully summarized for us by GftNC:
And some of them are arguing that the recent astronomical increase in teenage and pre-teen girls (many of them on the autistic spectrum) identifying as trans might well be (at least partly) because of the increasing prevalence of certain types of misogyny in the culture (e.g. the increasing normalisation of violence and humiliation towards women in mainstream pornography), and/or the increasing pressures on girls (with selfie culture etc) to conform to the more extreme norms of acceptable “femininity”.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea of trans as being primarily an issue of personal narrative. I think “fiction” is the wrong term, though, because it implies that the trans person’s self-determination is based in a counterfactual, where I think of it more as them existing in a superposition of conflicting statuses.
What I disagree strongly with is the dismissive way that the gender critical feminists attempt to overwrite the trans person’s self-determination in order to preserve a hardware binary view that they find superior for those with no hardware/software conflicts.
We do need to protect women from sexual violence, and yes, sometimes, rarely, that violence comes from people who self-identify as trans people. But I believe that the judgments we make need to be made based on their behavior, not by calling into question the identity of an entire class of people and casting suspicion on that class.
Same reason that I always oppose the phrase “Radical Islamic Terrorism” and the insistence that Islam is an ideology inimical to modern cosmopolitan society.
Thank you, JanieM.
At the heart of that condescension is the insistence on fixing identity in the physical body as genetic hardware and treating issues of identity and self-image as software glitches. You can see that in their descriptions of what they see as problematic trends in trans-activism, helpfully summarized for us by GftNC:
And some of them are arguing that the recent astronomical increase in teenage and pre-teen girls (many of them on the autistic spectrum) identifying as trans might well be (at least partly) because of the increasing prevalence of certain types of misogyny in the culture (e.g. the increasing normalisation of violence and humiliation towards women in mainstream pornography), and/or the increasing pressures on girls (with selfie culture etc) to conform to the more extreme norms of acceptable “femininity”.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea of trans as being primarily an issue of personal narrative. I think “fiction” is the wrong term, though, because it implies that the trans person’s self-determination is based in a counterfactual, where I think of it more as them existing in a superposition of conflicting statuses.
What I disagree strongly with is the dismissive way that the gender critical feminists attempt to overwrite the trans person’s self-determination in order to preserve a hardware binary view that they find superior for those with no hardware/software conflicts.
We do need to protect women from sexual violence, and yes, sometimes, rarely, that violence comes from people who self-identify as trans people. But I believe that the judgments we make need to be made based on their behavior, not by calling into question the identity of an entire class of people and casting suspicion on that class.
Same reason that I always oppose the phrase “Radical Islamic Terrorism” and the insistence that Islam is an ideology inimical to modern cosmopolitan society.
Also, hardware/software is meant as a way of conceptualizing the conflict without prioritizing form over narrative. The sex/gender conflict could well be one of hardware/hardware that we do not yet understand, but I think the hardware/software idea better captures the sense of the experience as it has been explained to me by my non-binary friends.
Also, hardware/software is meant as a way of conceptualizing the conflict without prioritizing form over narrative. The sex/gender conflict could well be one of hardware/hardware that we do not yet understand, but I think the hardware/software idea better captures the sense of the experience as it has been explained to me by my non-binary friends.
The gender issue is one that increasingly of interest to me.
I’ve mentioned that one of my niece’s kids is a trans boy. He began living as a boy, and insisting on living as a boy, when he was about 5 years old. Made up a new name for himself, got a short hair cut, would only wear boys’ clothes.
Trans, as an identity, is very visible now, and his mom has been a very strong advocate for him. Some of us in the family, including myself, worry that she may be imposing her own understanding on what might otherwise be plain old gender dysphoria, which is actually not at all uncommon.
The boy is 10 now, which means the biological body changes of adolescence are just around the corner, and those will almost certainly raise a whole new set of issues.
Should he go on meds to delay adolescence? Will he eventually want gender re-assignment surgery? I have no idea how it is going to play out.
Gender re-assignment surgery, in particular, concerns the hell out of me. Because it’s fairly major surgery, and makes permanent changes to your body. I don’t have the same concerns about, for instance, surgery to correct birth defects, but it’s harder for me to see intact and unflawed genitalia as a birth defect. Without wanting to sacralize the body, there is something about it that disturbs me.
My problem, not his. I mostly just hope that he is completely clear about what he wants before committing to something like that.
I also have a good, long-time friend who has come to understand himself as queer. He’s straight, married, presents himself as a male. But he has always enjoyed things that are considered more or less girly. So he’s begun thinking of himself as coloring more or less outside the gender lines.
I wish it wasn’t necessary for him to even feel like he needs a label for his experience. He’s just being himself. But, for whatever set of reasons, it’s useful to him to have a name for his experience.
My wife and I also know a generous handful of young people – kids of friends – who have adopted gender-neutral ways of identifying themselves. All young women, as it turns out. They’ve taken on a gender-neutral name, or a name of the opposite gender, and begun using ‘them/their’ instead of ‘she/her’.
Maybe just a rite of passage for them, a way to explore their own sense of self. Probably different reasons for each kid. But a (to me) surprising number of young people seem to want to blur or elide the gender line.
The gender issue is one that increasingly of interest to me.
I’ve mentioned that one of my niece’s kids is a trans boy. He began living as a boy, and insisting on living as a boy, when he was about 5 years old. Made up a new name for himself, got a short hair cut, would only wear boys’ clothes.
Trans, as an identity, is very visible now, and his mom has been a very strong advocate for him. Some of us in the family, including myself, worry that she may be imposing her own understanding on what might otherwise be plain old gender dysphoria, which is actually not at all uncommon.
The boy is 10 now, which means the biological body changes of adolescence are just around the corner, and those will almost certainly raise a whole new set of issues.
Should he go on meds to delay adolescence? Will he eventually want gender re-assignment surgery? I have no idea how it is going to play out.
Gender re-assignment surgery, in particular, concerns the hell out of me. Because it’s fairly major surgery, and makes permanent changes to your body. I don’t have the same concerns about, for instance, surgery to correct birth defects, but it’s harder for me to see intact and unflawed genitalia as a birth defect. Without wanting to sacralize the body, there is something about it that disturbs me.
My problem, not his. I mostly just hope that he is completely clear about what he wants before committing to something like that.
I also have a good, long-time friend who has come to understand himself as queer. He’s straight, married, presents himself as a male. But he has always enjoyed things that are considered more or less girly. So he’s begun thinking of himself as coloring more or less outside the gender lines.
I wish it wasn’t necessary for him to even feel like he needs a label for his experience. He’s just being himself. But, for whatever set of reasons, it’s useful to him to have a name for his experience.
My wife and I also know a generous handful of young people – kids of friends – who have adopted gender-neutral ways of identifying themselves. All young women, as it turns out. They’ve taken on a gender-neutral name, or a name of the opposite gender, and begun using ‘them/their’ instead of ‘she/her’.
Maybe just a rite of passage for them, a way to explore their own sense of self. Probably different reasons for each kid. But a (to me) surprising number of young people seem to want to blur or elide the gender line.
This is going to be a drive by because I’m slammed, but:
1. I don’t think dysphoria is a fiction. When I was very young, there was a boy down the street named Eddie who only wanted to wear girl’s clothes and play with dolls. He was 5. So, it happens.
2. Straight women (I don’t use “cis”–it’s a made-up word that I never got to vote on) and lesbians have very definite views about penises on men who they are not in a relationship with or penises in general, respectively. For the male intersectional enforcers here at ObWi and elsewhere, here’s a head’s up: they really don’t want to be in the same room with an exposed penis unless it’s in private with a man they want to be with. But, if the new rule is: you have a choice about your body and your environment but only when we say so, then let’s just put that out there for a vote.
3. A trans-woman–if she was dysphorically a *woman*–would know this and would absolutely not put the vast majority of women in a position of being exposed to this trans-woman’s penis.
4. An intact below-the-belt trans-woman is a fully intact biological male. Even with surgery, she remains a woman encased in a biological male’s body. Plastic surgery and hormones are cosmetic.
5. Trans-women have no place in biological women’s sports. To make this otherwise obvious point crystal clear, just imagine a half dozen or so male MMA fighters declaring themselves trans-women *sometimes* under intersectional rules of gender fluidity and beating the living shit out of biological female MMA fighters. Sound like fun? Impossible? No. See No. 6 below.
6. My wife is a competitive tennis player. One of the competing ladies’ tennis leagues was threatened with litigation by a trans-woman, so they let her in. She hits the ball much harder than biological women and hits directly at her opponents. She’s a male bully passing as a woman. However, there is a fix for this: the women assigned to play against her simply default to her so she has the empty victory of no one wanting to play against her. As an aside, there is another trans-woman in the league who fits right in and isn’t a particularly great athlete so no one notices or cares. The sport remains fair and competitive.
7. The simple solution is to have a third competition category: trans/non-binary.
8. The idea that male sexual predators will not take full advantage of the very loose rules of intersectionality and invade women’s private places is, in actually, foolish and ignorant of an unfortunately large subset of male sexual behavior.
9. You can’t, OTOH, complain about patriarchy and rape culture and then turn around and mandate that all biological women must surrender their private spaces to biological males claiming to be women, particularly when the intersectional rules of gender say that once someone makes a declaration, they cannot be questioned as to authenticity.
10. I wonder if biological women complaining of trans-women inappropriate behavior will be given the same credence as women complaining of inappropriate male behavior. I’m betting the “believe all women” mantra (already selectively applied) will fall by the wayside in the latter instance.
11. The Intersectional Police are making a lot of liberal women into moderates and even moderate conservatives.
This is going to be a drive by because I’m slammed, but:
1. I don’t think dysphoria is a fiction. When I was very young, there was a boy down the street named Eddie who only wanted to wear girl’s clothes and play with dolls. He was 5. So, it happens.
2. Straight women (I don’t use “cis”–it’s a made-up word that I never got to vote on) and lesbians have very definite views about penises on men who they are not in a relationship with or penises in general, respectively. For the male intersectional enforcers here at ObWi and elsewhere, here’s a head’s up: they really don’t want to be in the same room with an exposed penis unless it’s in private with a man they want to be with. But, if the new rule is: you have a choice about your body and your environment but only when we say so, then let’s just put that out there for a vote.
3. A trans-woman–if she was dysphorically a *woman*–would know this and would absolutely not put the vast majority of women in a position of being exposed to this trans-woman’s penis.
4. An intact below-the-belt trans-woman is a fully intact biological male. Even with surgery, she remains a woman encased in a biological male’s body. Plastic surgery and hormones are cosmetic.
5. Trans-women have no place in biological women’s sports. To make this otherwise obvious point crystal clear, just imagine a half dozen or so male MMA fighters declaring themselves trans-women *sometimes* under intersectional rules of gender fluidity and beating the living shit out of biological female MMA fighters. Sound like fun? Impossible? No. See No. 6 below.
6. My wife is a competitive tennis player. One of the competing ladies’ tennis leagues was threatened with litigation by a trans-woman, so they let her in. She hits the ball much harder than biological women and hits directly at her opponents. She’s a male bully passing as a woman. However, there is a fix for this: the women assigned to play against her simply default to her so she has the empty victory of no one wanting to play against her. As an aside, there is another trans-woman in the league who fits right in and isn’t a particularly great athlete so no one notices or cares. The sport remains fair and competitive.
7. The simple solution is to have a third competition category: trans/non-binary.
8. The idea that male sexual predators will not take full advantage of the very loose rules of intersectionality and invade women’s private places is, in actually, foolish and ignorant of an unfortunately large subset of male sexual behavior.
9. You can’t, OTOH, complain about patriarchy and rape culture and then turn around and mandate that all biological women must surrender their private spaces to biological males claiming to be women, particularly when the intersectional rules of gender say that once someone makes a declaration, they cannot be questioned as to authenticity.
10. I wonder if biological women complaining of trans-women inappropriate behavior will be given the same credence as women complaining of inappropriate male behavior. I’m betting the “believe all women” mantra (already selectively applied) will fall by the wayside in the latter instance.
11. The Intersectional Police are making a lot of liberal women into moderates and even moderate conservatives.
You can’t, OTOH, complain about patriarchy and rape culture and then turn around and mandate that all biological women must surrender their private spaces to biological males claiming to be women
i can’t even.
The Intersectional Police are making a lot of liberal women into moderates and even moderate conservatives.
nonsense.
You can’t, OTOH, complain about patriarchy and rape culture and then turn around and mandate that all biological women must surrender their private spaces to biological males claiming to be women
i can’t even.
The Intersectional Police are making a lot of liberal women into moderates and even moderate conservatives.
nonsense.
When I was very young, there was a boy down the street named Eddie who only wanted to wear girl’s clothes and play with dolls.
On my street, Bobby.
I don’t use “cis”–it’s a made-up word that I never got to vote on
‘cis’ is actually a legitimate prefix, whose meaning is the opposite of ‘trans’. ‘cis’ is basically ‘this side of X’, ‘trans’ is ‘the other side of X’, e.g., ‘cisalpine’ vs ‘transalpine’.
‘cisgender’ is just extending that usage to gender.
so, a neologism, but not made up from whole cloth. it’s an efficient way to say ‘someone whose gender identity matches the genitalia they were born with’.
its use is not obligatory, but it does save typing. 😉
I don’t have a good solution for the conflict between trans women who want to go places where only women go, and non-trans women who wish they would not.
I’m not a sports guy, so I have no strong opinions about the sports issue.
When I was very young, there was a boy down the street named Eddie who only wanted to wear girl’s clothes and play with dolls.
On my street, Bobby.
I don’t use “cis”–it’s a made-up word that I never got to vote on
‘cis’ is actually a legitimate prefix, whose meaning is the opposite of ‘trans’. ‘cis’ is basically ‘this side of X’, ‘trans’ is ‘the other side of X’, e.g., ‘cisalpine’ vs ‘transalpine’.
‘cisgender’ is just extending that usage to gender.
so, a neologism, but not made up from whole cloth. it’s an efficient way to say ‘someone whose gender identity matches the genitalia they were born with’.
its use is not obligatory, but it does save typing. 😉
I don’t have a good solution for the conflict between trans women who want to go places where only women go, and non-trans women who wish they would not.
I’m not a sports guy, so I have no strong opinions about the sports issue.
The Intersectional Police are making a lot of liberal women into moderates and even moderate conservatives.
nonsense.
Not really. It’s simply reality that people’s views can be shifted in one direction by those on the other side being radical. It may be wrong in this case (although I wouldn’t bet on it), but it’s not nonsense.
The Intersectional Police are making a lot of liberal women into moderates and even moderate conservatives.
nonsense.
Not really. It’s simply reality that people’s views can be shifted in one direction by those on the other side being radical. It may be wrong in this case (although I wouldn’t bet on it), but it’s not nonsense.
So the women in McKinney’s wife’s tennis league have no problem competing against trans women who are not assholes, but he insists that we must segregate all trans women because assholes.
Also, notice how his non-problematic trans woman “isn’t a particularly great athlete.” Talk about damning all women athletes with faint praise. That particular line of thinking points to the deep problems with how Title IX plays with the idea of women’s equality from that first set of articles to which I linked.
And now we can add bully to rapist and cheat as the crosses which all trans people should bear for the sake of the assholes among them.
So the women in McKinney’s wife’s tennis league have no problem competing against trans women who are not assholes, but he insists that we must segregate all trans women because assholes.
Also, notice how his non-problematic trans woman “isn’t a particularly great athlete.” Talk about damning all women athletes with faint praise. That particular line of thinking points to the deep problems with how Title IX plays with the idea of women’s equality from that first set of articles to which I linked.
And now we can add bully to rapist and cheat as the crosses which all trans people should bear for the sake of the assholes among them.
It may be wrong in this case (although I wouldn’t bet on it), but it’s not nonsense.
i’m gonna bet that exactly zero actual liberal women (or men) are turned off by this. rather, it looks like the GOP is just alienating actual liberals.
It may be wrong in this case (although I wouldn’t bet on it), but it’s not nonsense.
i’m gonna bet that exactly zero actual liberal women (or men) are turned off by this. rather, it looks like the GOP is just alienating actual liberals.
Too big for right now, or probably ever, but partly as the parent of someone with apparently undiagnosable, drastically limiting chronic pain issues, who gets constant variations on “it’s all in your head,” I object to the whole hardware/software distinction from the word go.
There was a time when MS was considered to be all in people’s heads. I think i just read somewhere this morning that there was something similar with TB. Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue are on somewhere along a path toward recognition as real conditions, but a lot of doctors still pooh-pooh the possibility that they have a physical basis.
All our “software” has a physical basis. Our bodies are among the most unfathomably complex conglomerations of atoms in the universe. (As far as we know, and that’s far enough.) That there are many, and complicated, ways of being human, and of thinking about ourselves as living human beings (thinking itself being rooted in our physical being) should surprise no one.
Too big for right now, or probably ever, but partly as the parent of someone with apparently undiagnosable, drastically limiting chronic pain issues, who gets constant variations on “it’s all in your head,” I object to the whole hardware/software distinction from the word go.
There was a time when MS was considered to be all in people’s heads. I think i just read somewhere this morning that there was something similar with TB. Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue are on somewhere along a path toward recognition as real conditions, but a lot of doctors still pooh-pooh the possibility that they have a physical basis.
All our “software” has a physical basis. Our bodies are among the most unfathomably complex conglomerations of atoms in the universe. (As far as we know, and that’s far enough.) That there are many, and complicated, ways of being human, and of thinking about ourselves as living human beings (thinking itself being rooted in our physical being) should surprise no one.
I said it was too big, and I’ve got to stop. But part of my point is that our physical bodies are so unimaginably more complicated that just the two types that some people seem to think are all that really matters. The convenient fiction is that “male and female” is mostly all there is, and simple.
I said it was too big, and I’ve got to stop. But part of my point is that our physical bodies are so unimaginably more complicated that just the two types that some people seem to think are all that really matters. The convenient fiction is that “male and female” is mostly all there is, and simple.
You can’t, OTOH, complain about patriarchy and rape culture and then turn around and mandate that all biological women must surrender their private spaces to biological males claiming to be women, particularly when the intersectional rules of gender say that once someone makes a declaration, they cannot be questioned as to authenticity….
On the contrary, it appears that there is an attempt to deny spaces which advertise their willingness to make accommodation with trans individuals.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/18/dozens-arrested-in-los-angeles-as-anti-trans-protest-outside-spa-turns-violent
You can’t, OTOH, complain about patriarchy and rape culture and then turn around and mandate that all biological women must surrender their private spaces to biological males claiming to be women, particularly when the intersectional rules of gender say that once someone makes a declaration, they cannot be questioned as to authenticity….
On the contrary, it appears that there is an attempt to deny spaces which advertise their willingness to make accommodation with trans individuals.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/18/dozens-arrested-in-los-angeles-as-anti-trans-protest-outside-spa-turns-violent
Your objection, JanieM, is why I said that it may well be a sex-hardware/gender-hardware issue at its heart. Mostly I was trying to point to the sense of having a body we inhabit (or with which we are co-extensive) and about which we often feel a degree of conscious separation. Anyone who lives with any sort of body-image wobbliness or with depression or anxiety knows this from experience.
Feel free to rework that form vs. experience paradox however you wish if hardware/software feels too much like gaslighting. I’m working to preserve space for trans experience in the conversation, not undermine it.
Your objection, JanieM, is why I said that it may well be a sex-hardware/gender-hardware issue at its heart. Mostly I was trying to point to the sense of having a body we inhabit (or with which we are co-extensive) and about which we often feel a degree of conscious separation. Anyone who lives with any sort of body-image wobbliness or with depression or anxiety knows this from experience.
Feel free to rework that form vs. experience paradox however you wish if hardware/software feels too much like gaslighting. I’m working to preserve space for trans experience in the conversation, not undermine it.
So the women in McKinney’s wife’s tennis league have no problem competing against trans women who are not assholes, but he insists that we must segregate all trans women because assholes.
The woman in question may indeed be an asshole, but that’s not really the point. She could be the nicest person in the world, and still be much bigger and stronger than even the top other players in the league. And are we sure she’s an asshole? After all, it’s a game. The idea is to try to win, and short of cheating I’m not sure why doing that ought to be considered inappropriate.
Now maybe people of all genders shouldn’t, as a matter of sportsmanship, play in leagues where they clearly outclass the other participants. I once signed up for a tennis tournament divided by self-assigned skill levels – I assigned myself to the “does well not to fall down” group – and was quite annoyed when I had to play against a guy who obviously should have been in a much higher category.
Better classifications might solve some of the problem.
So the women in McKinney’s wife’s tennis league have no problem competing against trans women who are not assholes, but he insists that we must segregate all trans women because assholes.
The woman in question may indeed be an asshole, but that’s not really the point. She could be the nicest person in the world, and still be much bigger and stronger than even the top other players in the league. And are we sure she’s an asshole? After all, it’s a game. The idea is to try to win, and short of cheating I’m not sure why doing that ought to be considered inappropriate.
Now maybe people of all genders shouldn’t, as a matter of sportsmanship, play in leagues where they clearly outclass the other participants. I once signed up for a tennis tournament divided by self-assigned skill levels – I assigned myself to the “does well not to fall down” group – and was quite annoyed when I had to play against a guy who obviously should have been in a much higher category.
Better classifications might solve some of the problem.
I’m working to preserve space for trans experience in the conversation, not undermine it.
I know, nous. I went off on one of my own hobbyhorses, not at all aimed at you, but sort of back to the beginning, at Stock’s fiction of a fiction, which is based on the reduction of a great complexity to a simplistic binary.
I’m working to preserve space for trans experience in the conversation, not undermine it.
I know, nous. I went off on one of my own hobbyhorses, not at all aimed at you, but sort of back to the beginning, at Stock’s fiction of a fiction, which is based on the reduction of a great complexity to a simplistic binary.
She could be the nicest person in the world, and still be much bigger and stronger than even the top other players in the league.
Which has always been true of all sports. Bigger, faster, more coordinated, etc. (as appropriate to the sport) bodies have a competitive advantage. We call that fair when both bodies have male plumbing and are not supplementing their default biochemistry with anything it doesn’t produce on its own. Unless it is boxing or wrestling, where the competition gets divided by weight class because we consider too big a mismatch to be bullying, and bullies to be assholes.
Which is why your statement about better classifications points the way, IMO to potentially make sports better for all participants, if what we choose to value is competitive balance and the will to better oneself.
She could be the nicest person in the world, and still be much bigger and stronger than even the top other players in the league.
Which has always been true of all sports. Bigger, faster, more coordinated, etc. (as appropriate to the sport) bodies have a competitive advantage. We call that fair when both bodies have male plumbing and are not supplementing their default biochemistry with anything it doesn’t produce on its own. Unless it is boxing or wrestling, where the competition gets divided by weight class because we consider too big a mismatch to be bullying, and bullies to be assholes.
Which is why your statement about better classifications points the way, IMO to potentially make sports better for all participants, if what we choose to value is competitive balance and the will to better oneself.
The convenient fiction is that “male and female” is mostly all there is, and simple.
this seems accurate, to me. FWIW.
the sports thing:
in some music schools, and given enough students, there are multiple ensembles of the same type, graded by proficiency, and students audition to see which ensemble is appropriate for them.
just starting out? you go to the musical equivalent of JV orchestra.
strong player? you go to the more proficient ensemble.
I can’t imagine that it would be that hard to do something similar with sports. at least some sports, maybe most sports. basically, the kind of thing that Bernie talks about at 4:20.
if you can run the 400m sprint in less than 50 seconds, great, you run in that class. if you run between 50 and 60, great, you run in that class. and so on.
you compete with people with whom you are comparable, and anatomical plumbing is irrelevant.
I’m sure there are million reasons why That Would Never Work, but it makes sense to me.
but I’m not a sports guy.
The convenient fiction is that “male and female” is mostly all there is, and simple.
this seems accurate, to me. FWIW.
the sports thing:
in some music schools, and given enough students, there are multiple ensembles of the same type, graded by proficiency, and students audition to see which ensemble is appropriate for them.
just starting out? you go to the musical equivalent of JV orchestra.
strong player? you go to the more proficient ensemble.
I can’t imagine that it would be that hard to do something similar with sports. at least some sports, maybe most sports. basically, the kind of thing that Bernie talks about at 4:20.
if you can run the 400m sprint in less than 50 seconds, great, you run in that class. if you run between 50 and 60, great, you run in that class. and so on.
you compete with people with whom you are comparable, and anatomical plumbing is irrelevant.
I’m sure there are million reasons why That Would Never Work, but it makes sense to me.
but I’m not a sports guy.
Well, I appreciate you labelling it a drive by, and the others have pointed the flaws out, so I’ll pull in my claws. I’ll just add a small personal experience that I hope will make sense. This may not go in the direction you are expecting so please bear with me.
I have a friend, one of my best, who I roomed with in undergraduate and graduate school. Our lives intertwined in several ways. He came out and came out to me in undergrad and when we roomed togeter in grad school, he was able to make me aware of the countless ways things are set up to assume heteronormativity. When you have someone like that, who can point out where you made an assumption who is your friend and is not trying to one up you, but just wanting to make you aware, it can be quite powerful.
For far longer than I care to admit, I drew from on my stock of experiences with him. More often than not, I would label them ‘Well a friend of mine who is [xxx]’ I’m not sure how I realized it, but it suddenly became clear that I was doing the opposite of what my friend had taught me, rather than using his experiences to enrich and challenge my opinions, I was using them in a way to make my argument seem unassailable.
I don’t want to claim that we shouldn’t use anecdotes, just that it doesn’t have to be that way. One of the things that I marvel at Russell’s writing is how he is able to weave in anecdotes in a way that is actually trying to move to more understanding. It may be that I’m closer to Russell’s viewpoint, so when he tells me about someone he knows and it supports my framework, I am giving him a pass, but when McT presents his anecdotes, like the black judge he knows or his tennis club, because I obviously disagree with his viewpoint, I give him shit for his anecdotes. But to me, the way he wields them and Russell uses them seems quite different. We’ve talked about that lawerly bent, where the argumentation takes center stage.
I appreciate McT rules out the bathroom rapist fears. But I’m disappointed that he then goes to the well and tosses out patriarchy and intersectionality when he’s not even tried to engage in all the time he’s been here on what that entails. I used the word patriarchy in my comment, but I tried to frame it as referring to a much larger set of conditions that, if enumerated, would make my comment turn into War and Peace.
People exist to varying degrees of comfort in the society they live in. If they are lucky, the society matches their tendencies. One of the great problems of Western society is to assume that it is the sine qua non and anyone other way of organizing society is stupid. Like this example
https://stevenwakabayashi.medium.com/my-culture-is-not-your-toy-a-gay-japanese-mans-perspective-on-queer-eye-japan-7bb8420660c5
There is a lot more to say, but I’ll have to leave it at that.
Well, I appreciate you labelling it a drive by, and the others have pointed the flaws out, so I’ll pull in my claws. I’ll just add a small personal experience that I hope will make sense. This may not go in the direction you are expecting so please bear with me.
I have a friend, one of my best, who I roomed with in undergraduate and graduate school. Our lives intertwined in several ways. He came out and came out to me in undergrad and when we roomed togeter in grad school, he was able to make me aware of the countless ways things are set up to assume heteronormativity. When you have someone like that, who can point out where you made an assumption who is your friend and is not trying to one up you, but just wanting to make you aware, it can be quite powerful.
For far longer than I care to admit, I drew from on my stock of experiences with him. More often than not, I would label them ‘Well a friend of mine who is [xxx]’ I’m not sure how I realized it, but it suddenly became clear that I was doing the opposite of what my friend had taught me, rather than using his experiences to enrich and challenge my opinions, I was using them in a way to make my argument seem unassailable.
I don’t want to claim that we shouldn’t use anecdotes, just that it doesn’t have to be that way. One of the things that I marvel at Russell’s writing is how he is able to weave in anecdotes in a way that is actually trying to move to more understanding. It may be that I’m closer to Russell’s viewpoint, so when he tells me about someone he knows and it supports my framework, I am giving him a pass, but when McT presents his anecdotes, like the black judge he knows or his tennis club, because I obviously disagree with his viewpoint, I give him shit for his anecdotes. But to me, the way he wields them and Russell uses them seems quite different. We’ve talked about that lawerly bent, where the argumentation takes center stage.
I appreciate McT rules out the bathroom rapist fears. But I’m disappointed that he then goes to the well and tosses out patriarchy and intersectionality when he’s not even tried to engage in all the time he’s been here on what that entails. I used the word patriarchy in my comment, but I tried to frame it as referring to a much larger set of conditions that, if enumerated, would make my comment turn into War and Peace.
People exist to varying degrees of comfort in the society they live in. If they are lucky, the society matches their tendencies. One of the great problems of Western society is to assume that it is the sine qua non and anyone other way of organizing society is stupid. Like this example
https://stevenwakabayashi.medium.com/my-culture-is-not-your-toy-a-gay-japanese-mans-perspective-on-queer-eye-japan-7bb8420660c5
There is a lot more to say, but I’ll have to leave it at that.
I had to go after my rash of posts, so I’m only just catching up now. Variously:
1. I am pretty uncomfortable with the use of the word “fiction”. Whatever trans people’s concept of their gender construction, it seems to me unnecessarily dismissive and cruel to characterise it this way. And, as I have said, I am absolutely unwilling to call genuine trans-people by the sex they were assigned at birth and have suffered to escape.
2. I’m not even that comfortable about using gender dysphoria to characterise genuine trans people, because this seems to me to unnecessarily pathologise their situation.
3. We do need to protect women from sexual violence, and yes, sometimes, rarely, that violence comes from people who self-identify as trans people. But I believe that the judgments we make need to be made based on their behavior, not by calling into question the identity of an entire class of people and casting suspicion on that class.
Speaking for myself, I am not that concerned about what may be rare occasions of violent genuine trans people attacking women (although it would be absurd to neglect to mention that there are a tremendous number of threats of violence and rape by trans activists towards gender critical feminists). What I am concerned about, and think many compassionate, benevolent people underestimate, is the danger that self-ID laws enable fake trans people to be violent to women, under cover of self-ID. I guess this is what nous means by “cheats”. As a woman of almost 66 who has never been raped or abused, I have nonetheless learnt a great deal I did not know when I first read The Female Eunuch and was astounded and horrified by Germaine Greer’s famous comment. I can do no better than quote Bidisha from a reexamination of what that book meant to women:
In The Female Eunuch, Greer said what women had previously been too polite, too nice, too deferential (and basically too afraid) to say, even though it was obvious: that the vast and overwhelming majority of all of the abuse of women is perpetrated by men, and that this abuse is common and not rare, endemic and not exceptional, excused and condoned rather than condemned and abhorred. And that it comes from hate, not fear. It was crystallised in the famous line from that groundbreaking book: “Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.”
This is not my experience of men, and nor do I share all Germaine Greer’s attitudes to the trans issue, but it would be stupid to ignore the experience of so many, many women.
Two women a week are killed by their current or former partner in England and Wales alone. The Femicide Index compiles stats on women killed by men (although as I have said elsewhere some violent crime is now being recorded as being committed by women, when the perpetrators were trans women, with no way to know whether they were true trans women or fake):
https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/femicide-census-reveals-half-of-uk-women-killed-by-men-die-at-hands-of-partner-or-ex/
By contrast, the number of trans women killed in the whole UK (i.e. including Scotland, unlike the Femicide stats) per year over the last 13 years is <1. Even allowing for the difficulty (which Trans Respect describe) of making sure you have captured all the figures, the difference is stark.
https://transrespect.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/TvT_TMM_TDoR2020_Tables.pdf
So my main concern is about how to determine who is genuinely trans, and who is pretending in order to predate, or even just to taunt and make uncomfortable. In other words, I am not worried about dangers posed by trans people, but by dangers posed by fake trans people. I do see nous’s point about how difficult the determination would be from the point of view of the trans person (almost always a trans woman), but nonetheless some sort of solution must be found. As I have said before, genuine trans women are unlikely to flaunt male genitals in female-only spaces, let alone pressure lesbians to (sorry all) “s*ck my chickdi*ck”.
4. I don’t care about sports, but I see the point made by female athletes about fairness, and I believe therefore a solution to this must also be found.
5. I believe that women who object to the erasure of the words “women” “girls” “mothers” etc from public discourse should be listened to. Misogyny takes many forms, and women have learnt the hard way to be on the lookout.
Anyway, that’s enough for now. None of this is easy or comfortable, for any of us (except probably the RWNJs, who are rejoicing at the easy ammo they have been handed).
I had to go after my rash of posts, so I’m only just catching up now. Variously:
1. I am pretty uncomfortable with the use of the word “fiction”. Whatever trans people’s concept of their gender construction, it seems to me unnecessarily dismissive and cruel to characterise it this way. And, as I have said, I am absolutely unwilling to call genuine trans-people by the sex they were assigned at birth and have suffered to escape.
2. I’m not even that comfortable about using gender dysphoria to characterise genuine trans people, because this seems to me to unnecessarily pathologise their situation.
3. We do need to protect women from sexual violence, and yes, sometimes, rarely, that violence comes from people who self-identify as trans people. But I believe that the judgments we make need to be made based on their behavior, not by calling into question the identity of an entire class of people and casting suspicion on that class.
Speaking for myself, I am not that concerned about what may be rare occasions of violent genuine trans people attacking women (although it would be absurd to neglect to mention that there are a tremendous number of threats of violence and rape by trans activists towards gender critical feminists). What I am concerned about, and think many compassionate, benevolent people underestimate, is the danger that self-ID laws enable fake trans people to be violent to women, under cover of self-ID. I guess this is what nous means by “cheats”. As a woman of almost 66 who has never been raped or abused, I have nonetheless learnt a great deal I did not know when I first read The Female Eunuch and was astounded and horrified by Germaine Greer’s famous comment. I can do no better than quote Bidisha from a reexamination of what that book meant to women:
In The Female Eunuch, Greer said what women had previously been too polite, too nice, too deferential (and basically too afraid) to say, even though it was obvious: that the vast and overwhelming majority of all of the abuse of women is perpetrated by men, and that this abuse is common and not rare, endemic and not exceptional, excused and condoned rather than condemned and abhorred. And that it comes from hate, not fear. It was crystallised in the famous line from that groundbreaking book: “Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.”
This is not my experience of men, and nor do I share all Germaine Greer’s attitudes to the trans issue, but it would be stupid to ignore the experience of so many, many women.
Two women a week are killed by their current or former partner in England and Wales alone. The Femicide Index compiles stats on women killed by men (although as I have said elsewhere some violent crime is now being recorded as being committed by women, when the perpetrators were trans women, with no way to know whether they were true trans women or fake):
https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/femicide-census-reveals-half-of-uk-women-killed-by-men-die-at-hands-of-partner-or-ex/
By contrast, the number of trans women killed in the whole UK (i.e. including Scotland, unlike the Femicide stats) per year over the last 13 years is <1. Even allowing for the difficulty (which Trans Respect describe) of making sure you have captured all the figures, the difference is stark.
https://transrespect.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/TvT_TMM_TDoR2020_Tables.pdf
So my main concern is about how to determine who is genuinely trans, and who is pretending in order to predate, or even just to taunt and make uncomfortable. In other words, I am not worried about dangers posed by trans people, but by dangers posed by fake trans people. I do see nous’s point about how difficult the determination would be from the point of view of the trans person (almost always a trans woman), but nonetheless some sort of solution must be found. As I have said before, genuine trans women are unlikely to flaunt male genitals in female-only spaces, let alone pressure lesbians to (sorry all) “s*ck my chickdi*ck”.
4. I don’t care about sports, but I see the point made by female athletes about fairness, and I believe therefore a solution to this must also be found.
5. I believe that women who object to the erasure of the words “women” “girls” “mothers” etc from public discourse should be listened to. Misogyny takes many forms, and women have learnt the hard way to be on the lookout.
Anyway, that’s enough for now. None of this is easy or comfortable, for any of us (except probably the RWNJs, who are rejoicing at the easy ammo they have been handed).
So, I find myself in online arguments today about Bezos’s flight this morning. I say that 100 km straight up, then fall straight down far enough for parachutes to be effective, is a lovely billionaire’s toy but says nothing about whether he’s ready to play with the big boys. Musk seems to be putting a Falcon 9 into orbit every couple of weeks, on average. (And a Falcon Heavy is scheduled for October.) In the past year, Bezos didn’t win a contract to launch national security packages on the Blue Glenn, didn’t win a contract to build a lunar lander, and delivered a BE-4 engine to the United Launch Alliance that is the subject of a problematic GAO report. (Note: the ULA has largely bet their future in the national security heavy payload business on the BE-4.)
I assert that unless the ULA launch of the Boeing capsule on an Atlas V (with a Russian engine) on the 30th is perfect, they are in deep, deep trouble.
So, I find myself in online arguments today about Bezos’s flight this morning. I say that 100 km straight up, then fall straight down far enough for parachutes to be effective, is a lovely billionaire’s toy but says nothing about whether he’s ready to play with the big boys. Musk seems to be putting a Falcon 9 into orbit every couple of weeks, on average. (And a Falcon Heavy is scheduled for October.) In the past year, Bezos didn’t win a contract to launch national security packages on the Blue Glenn, didn’t win a contract to build a lunar lander, and delivered a BE-4 engine to the United Launch Alliance that is the subject of a problematic GAO report. (Note: the ULA has largely bet their future in the national security heavy payload business on the BE-4.)
I assert that unless the ULA launch of the Boeing capsule on an Atlas V (with a Russian engine) on the 30th is perfect, they are in deep, deep trouble.
First-ever manned suborbital flight with an all-civilian crew.
First-ever manned suborbital flight with an all-civilian crew.
Musk seems to be putting a Falcon 9 into orbit every couple of weeks, on average
true. but SpaceX didn’t put a person up until 2020. cargo is different than people.
Musk seems to be putting a Falcon 9 into orbit every couple of weeks, on average
true. but SpaceX didn’t put a person up until 2020. cargo is different than people.
Having experienced a number of colleagues, friends, and associates trying to come to terms with where they fit on a non-binary spectrum, I don’t know that trying to make trans woman and trans man an official status that can be regulated and policed is possible. Many people, especially younger adults, go through years of trying to find a space on the spectrum that makes sense.
Having experienced a number of colleagues, friends, and associates trying to come to terms with where they fit on a non-binary spectrum, I don’t know that trying to make trans woman and trans man an official status that can be regulated and policed is possible. Many people, especially younger adults, go through years of trying to find a space on the spectrum that makes sense.
4. I don’t care about sports, but I see the point made by female athletes about fairness, and I believe therefore a solution to this must also be found.
I’ll try to discuss Japanese concepts of sports categories and how they bumped into Western concepts later, so hold that thought.
5. I believe that women who object to the erasure of the words “women” “girls” “mothers” etc from public discourse should be listened to. Misogyny takes many forms, and women have learnt the hard way to be on the lookout.
Have a lot to say about this, but one big problem is that people who demand that these words remain can also be doing so for misogynist reasons. Context matters, so I’m not cool with blanket bans, but oftentimes, it takes on that faux-libertarian vibe, where the arguments are made, but they conceal something deeper. More, possibly later.
4. I don’t care about sports, but I see the point made by female athletes about fairness, and I believe therefore a solution to this must also be found.
I’ll try to discuss Japanese concepts of sports categories and how they bumped into Western concepts later, so hold that thought.
5. I believe that women who object to the erasure of the words “women” “girls” “mothers” etc from public discourse should be listened to. Misogyny takes many forms, and women have learnt the hard way to be on the lookout.
Have a lot to say about this, but one big problem is that people who demand that these words remain can also be doing so for misogynist reasons. Context matters, so I’m not cool with blanket bans, but oftentimes, it takes on that faux-libertarian vibe, where the arguments are made, but they conceal something deeper. More, possibly later.
I believe that women who object to the erasure of the words “women” “girls” “mothers” etc from public discourse should be listened to
this marks the first time i’ve heard of such a thing.
i can understand wanting to take the gender out of a lot of things. but “mother” has a meaning that can’t really be separated from biological gender, at this stage in our evolution. and if nothing else, the other two say something important about the possibility of the subject ever becoming a mother – and that will likely always be important in at least some contexts.
I believe that women who object to the erasure of the words “women” “girls” “mothers” etc from public discourse should be listened to
this marks the first time i’ve heard of such a thing.
i can understand wanting to take the gender out of a lot of things. but “mother” has a meaning that can’t really be separated from biological gender, at this stage in our evolution. and if nothing else, the other two say something important about the possibility of the subject ever becoming a mother – and that will likely always be important in at least some contexts.
hold that thought
Will do! Although from tomorrow, since it’s super hot, and I’m going to bed to swelter in peace.
hold that thought
Will do! Although from tomorrow, since it’s super hot, and I’m going to bed to swelter in peace.
Good heavens cleek, you obviously haven’t heard that, presumably at the behest of trans activists, in certain medical (I think NHS leaflets) contexts they are called birth-givers so as not to discriminate against trans men.
Good heavens cleek, you obviously haven’t heard that, presumably at the behest of trans activists, in certain medical (I think NHS leaflets) contexts they are called birth-givers so as not to discriminate against trans men.
better classifications points the way, IMO to potentially make sports better for all participants
The challenge would seem to be: how do we come up with appropriate classifications for each sport. Clearly basketball, golf, and hammer throw will need different criteria. But it seems like an enormous, and fraught, effort to deal with them all. I’ll be fascinated to see lj’s report on how Japanese sports deal with it.
It occurs to me that, once we have those, we still have a problem with those who are truly exceptional. Consider Shohei Ohtani.** It’s simply not possible to put together a team, let alone a league, where everybody is on that level. Other sports have similar issues, I suspect.
**For those who don’t follow baseball, he’s a major league player who is both exceptionally good as a hitter and as a pitcher. The last guy who could do both in the same class was Babe Ruth. And Ohtani is substantially better.
better classifications points the way, IMO to potentially make sports better for all participants
The challenge would seem to be: how do we come up with appropriate classifications for each sport. Clearly basketball, golf, and hammer throw will need different criteria. But it seems like an enormous, and fraught, effort to deal with them all. I’ll be fascinated to see lj’s report on how Japanese sports deal with it.
It occurs to me that, once we have those, we still have a problem with those who are truly exceptional. Consider Shohei Ohtani.** It’s simply not possible to put together a team, let alone a league, where everybody is on that level. Other sports have similar issues, I suspect.
**For those who don’t follow baseball, he’s a major league player who is both exceptionally good as a hitter and as a pitcher. The last guy who could do both in the same class was Babe Ruth. And Ohtani is substantially better.
birth-givers
ah, zeal…
1. discovers analytical tool
2. applies it to everything
…
163. learns better
birth-givers
ah, zeal…
1. discovers analytical tool
2. applies it to everything
…
163. learns better
Are infertile cis women who adopt children “mothers?”
As a language professional, I have no problem with a sentence like: “As a woman who has fathered a child….”
As a scholar of science fiction, I’ve been trying to work through ideas like this for decades. So have many SF authors – Joanna Russ spring most immediately to mind as the author of The Female Man. She was gender critical for many years, but changed her stance later in life and apologized for some of the stances she had taken in her writing during her last interview before death. I wish she had been healthy enough to expound on her reasons for the change of heart, but her last years were a constant struggle with chronic fatigue.
Are infertile cis women who adopt children “mothers?”
As a language professional, I have no problem with a sentence like: “As a woman who has fathered a child….”
As a scholar of science fiction, I’ve been trying to work through ideas like this for decades. So have many SF authors – Joanna Russ spring most immediately to mind as the author of The Female Man. She was gender critical for many years, but changed her stance later in life and apologized for some of the stances she had taken in her writing during her last interview before death. I wish she had been healthy enough to expound on her reasons for the change of heart, but her last years were a constant struggle with chronic fatigue.
nous, did you ever read Marge Piercy’s “Woman on the Edge of Time”?
— now there’s an interesting angle on what a “mother” is (in the future-society)
nous, did you ever read Marge Piercy’s “Woman on the Edge of Time”?
— now there’s an interesting angle on what a “mother” is (in the future-society)
It’s been a long time since I read Piercy, but yes.
It’s been a long time since I read Piercy, but yes.
Musk seems to be putting a Falcon 9 into orbit every couple of weeks, on average
true. but SpaceX didn’t put a person up until 2020. cargo is different than people.
Cargo is, indeed, different from people. And orbit is different from a sub-orbital flight.
Musk seems to be putting a Falcon 9 into orbit every couple of weeks, on average
true. but SpaceX didn’t put a person up until 2020. cargo is different than people.
Cargo is, indeed, different from people. And orbit is different from a sub-orbital flight.
Are infertile cis women who adopt children “mothers?”
“Mother” is hardly the only word in English that has multiple meanings which only partially overlap.
Are infertile cis women who adopt children “mothers?”
“Mother” is hardly the only word in English that has multiple meanings which only partially overlap.
My impression is the language thing is more a British thing than an American thing, but it’s often difficult for me to tell for sure.
Eugene, where I went to grad school, is quite a center for feminism, and, together with UC Berkeley and UW Madison, has a strong culture of feminism. When you have a culture like that, it’s easy to push the envelope. For example, the UO Motto is Mens agitat molem or minds move mountains. Unfortunately, some assumed that the mens was men, and demanded that the motto be changed. This anecdote then became an example of a culture that was historically inept and therefore shouldn’t be heeded. As a linguist, I thought it was pretty dumb, but given the howlers I’ve made in dealing with different languages, I think that, in keeping with the theme of my other comment, the anecdote doesn’t really tell us a lot except that humans often like to climb out on limbs.
My impression is the language thing is more a British thing than an American thing, but it’s often difficult for me to tell for sure.
Eugene, where I went to grad school, is quite a center for feminism, and, together with UC Berkeley and UW Madison, has a strong culture of feminism. When you have a culture like that, it’s easy to push the envelope. For example, the UO Motto is Mens agitat molem or minds move mountains. Unfortunately, some assumed that the mens was men, and demanded that the motto be changed. This anecdote then became an example of a culture that was historically inept and therefore shouldn’t be heeded. As a linguist, I thought it was pretty dumb, but given the howlers I’ve made in dealing with different languages, I think that, in keeping with the theme of my other comment, the anecdote doesn’t really tell us a lot except that humans often like to climb out on limbs.
Cargo is, indeed, different from people. And orbit is different from a sub-orbital flight.
We can debate, for example, which is harder: a structure that survives anything that the Bezos’s or Branson’s flight profiles encountered, or maintaining acceptable O2, temperature, and structural integrity while using friction to achieve 17,000 mph of delta-v (roughly five miles per second).
Just as discussion points, sailplanes are some of the most fragile craft we regularly put up, and reach 25% of the Kármán line. The world’s record for free fall from a balloon was from 41% of the Kármán line.
Cargo is, indeed, different from people. And orbit is different from a sub-orbital flight.
We can debate, for example, which is harder: a structure that survives anything that the Bezos’s or Branson’s flight profiles encountered, or maintaining acceptable O2, temperature, and structural integrity while using friction to achieve 17,000 mph of delta-v (roughly five miles per second).
Just as discussion points, sailplanes are some of the most fragile craft we regularly put up, and reach 25% of the Kármán line. The world’s record for free fall from a balloon was from 41% of the Kármán line.
If it moves really fast, tax it.
“Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said Tuesday that he is planning to introduce legislation that would establish excise taxes on commercial space flights with human passengers that aren’t focused on scientific research.”
Democrat proposes taxes on commercial space flights for nonscientific purposes
The space companies could avoid the tax and save on fuel if they made a deal with Brazil…
If it moves really fast, tax it.
“Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said Tuesday that he is planning to introduce legislation that would establish excise taxes on commercial space flights with human passengers that aren’t focused on scientific research.”
Democrat proposes taxes on commercial space flights for nonscientific purposes
The space companies could avoid the tax and save on fuel if they made a deal with Brazil…
Now if everyone will just be good sports…
Trans model makes Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover history: ‘If you don’t like it, you can go somewhere else’
Now if everyone will just be good sports…
Trans model makes Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover history: ‘If you don’t like it, you can go somewhere else’
Seeing red…
The MAGA-targeted “Freedom Phone” has a breathtaking amount of red flags: Analysis: No specs listed, “uncensored” app store looks like Google Play.
Seeing red…
The MAGA-targeted “Freedom Phone” has a breathtaking amount of red flags: Analysis: No specs listed, “uncensored” app store looks like Google Play.
I remember silly disputes about replacing history with herstory in the 1980ies. Somebody please conjure up Hisodot to put him on trial for this pre-English abuse of English to foster his womanthrope* purposes.
It’s probably all Greek to some people.
*thanks Oscar Wilde
I remember silly disputes about replacing history with herstory in the 1980ies. Somebody please conjure up Hisodot to put him on trial for this pre-English abuse of English to foster his womanthrope* purposes.
It’s probably all Greek to some people.
*thanks Oscar Wilde
Took me a minute to work out Hisodot (English has a “us” on the end)!
Took me a minute to work out Hisodot (English has a “us” on the end)!
Cargo is, indeed, different from people. And orbit is different from a sub-orbital flight.
also true.
i’m trying to figure out why it’s an argument worth having. Blue Origin and SpaceX (and Virgin) have different business plans, different ideas, different budgets, etc.. they’re all doing cool stuff. why would spectators like us want to take sides?
Cargo is, indeed, different from people. And orbit is different from a sub-orbital flight.
also true.
i’m trying to figure out why it’s an argument worth having. Blue Origin and SpaceX (and Virgin) have different business plans, different ideas, different budgets, etc.. they’re all doing cool stuff. why would spectators like us want to take sides?
why would spectators like us want to take sides?
Because golf is better than tennis.
why would spectators like us want to take sides?
Because golf is better than tennis.
Golf played with tennis rackets, for extra spectacle goodness.
Golf played with tennis rackets, for extra spectacle goodness.
Golf played with tennis rackets, for extra spectacle goodness.
Hey, why not. If you can play tennis with pingpong paddles, and call it pickle ball….
Golf played with tennis rackets, for extra spectacle goodness.
Hey, why not. If you can play tennis with pingpong paddles, and call it pickle ball….
To go back to pronouns, check out today’s Dilbert
https://dilbert.com/
To go back to pronouns, check out today’s Dilbert
https://dilbert.com/
It appears that somebody finally clued them in. On the fact that
– If the delta variant is almost exclusively killing the unvaccinated, and
– If their supporters are mostly the ones refusing to get vaccinated,
– Then the demographic problems they already face are going to get worse even faster.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-republicans-urge-vaccinations-amid-delta-surge/2021/07/20/52a06e9c-e999-11eb-8950-d73b3e93ff7f_story.html
The rest of us, of course, already figured that out.
It appears that somebody finally clued them in. On the fact that
– If the delta variant is almost exclusively killing the unvaccinated, and
– If their supporters are mostly the ones refusing to get vaccinated,
– Then the demographic problems they already face are going to get worse even faster.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/growing-number-of-republicans-urge-vaccinations-amid-delta-surge/2021/07/20/52a06e9c-e999-11eb-8950-d73b3e93ff7f_story.html
The rest of us, of course, already figured that out.
Too bad it’s a comic written by a right-wing kook. And that particular comic evinces his disdain for the concerns of people who don’t conform to gender norms. “Those funny pronouns have destroyed civilization! Yuck it up!”
Too bad it’s a comic written by a right-wing kook. And that particular comic evinces his disdain for the concerns of people who don’t conform to gender norms. “Those funny pronouns have destroyed civilization! Yuck it up!”
If I were to bet on the cause of Fox’s reversal, I’d bet that the legal department got a nice call/letter from the FTC, who wants to talk to the corporation and some of the talent about violations of the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act.
They don’t seem to care about things like long-term demographics. But billion-dollar lawsuits, threats of fines and/or jail time, and the head of the legal department sitting down at lunch and saying something like, “Our opinion is that we’ll likely lose this one in court,” that gets Rupert’s (or the kids’) attention.
Want to know what would really terrify them? Comcast sitting down when the carriage deal renewal comes up and saying, “We really think the benefits of continuing to carry Fox are not worth the risks.”
If I were to bet on the cause of Fox’s reversal, I’d bet that the legal department got a nice call/letter from the FTC, who wants to talk to the corporation and some of the talent about violations of the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act.
They don’t seem to care about things like long-term demographics. But billion-dollar lawsuits, threats of fines and/or jail time, and the head of the legal department sitting down at lunch and saying something like, “Our opinion is that we’ll likely lose this one in court,” that gets Rupert’s (or the kids’) attention.
Want to know what would really terrify them? Comcast sitting down when the carriage deal renewal comes up and saying, “We really think the benefits of continuing to carry Fox are not worth the risks.”
Want to know what would really terrify them? Comcast sitting down when the carriage deal renewal comes up and saying, “We really think the benefits of continuing to carry Fox are not worth the risks.”
FYLTGE
Want to know what would really terrify them? Comcast sitting down when the carriage deal renewal comes up and saying, “We really think the benefits of continuing to carry Fox are not worth the risks.”
FYLTGE
It would be good for the country if we could get upwards of 75% of the adult population vaccinated. At the moment, that looks fanciful. Too many on the right are refusing to even consider it — in significant part in order to “own the libs.” But there might be a way to get vaccination rates up.
As a thought experiment, suppose we saw some loud voices on the left (not Biden or other Democratic leaders, but maybe someone like AOC) start saying something like: “We should make it hard for conservatives to get vaccinated. Cut supplies to red states, etc. If they want to kill off their supporters, just say Go for it! and walk away.” Suddenly, the way to “own the libs” is to get vaccinated.
Think of it as political aikido.
It would be good for the country if we could get upwards of 75% of the adult population vaccinated. At the moment, that looks fanciful. Too many on the right are refusing to even consider it — in significant part in order to “own the libs.” But there might be a way to get vaccination rates up.
As a thought experiment, suppose we saw some loud voices on the left (not Biden or other Democratic leaders, but maybe someone like AOC) start saying something like: “We should make it hard for conservatives to get vaccinated. Cut supplies to red states, etc. If they want to kill off their supporters, just say Go for it! and walk away.” Suddenly, the way to “own the libs” is to get vaccinated.
Think of it as political aikido.
But the 75% have to be more or less equally distributed over the whole country, otherwise you’ll have a fertile breeding ground for newer and nastier strains that will sooner or later get past the vaccinal barrier and will require to restart it all. And then of course the surviving anti-vaxxers will howl: told you so.
But the 75% have to be more or less equally distributed over the whole country, otherwise you’ll have a fertile breeding ground for newer and nastier strains that will sooner or later get past the vaccinal barrier and will require to restart it all. And then of course the surviving anti-vaxxers will howl: told you so.
it won’t matter. as long as other countries remain unvaccinated, they will serve as the petri dishes and we’ll just keep importing the new strains because people are still going to travel.
we’re fucked.
it won’t matter. as long as other countries remain unvaccinated, they will serve as the petri dishes and we’ll just keep importing the new strains because people are still going to travel.
we’re fucked.
Although we are fucked, all of us, for oh so many reasons, I tried to fix my mind on higher things.
I was thinking with pleasure of the opening statement by the attorney representing Wile E Coyote in his suit for damages against the Acme Company:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1990/02/26/coyote-v-acme
And I found this, among all the other reasons there are to admire MIT, Janie’s alma mater:
Even in these end days there is pleasure still to be found.
Although we are fucked, all of us, for oh so many reasons, I tried to fix my mind on higher things.
I was thinking with pleasure of the opening statement by the attorney representing Wile E Coyote in his suit for damages against the Acme Company:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1990/02/26/coyote-v-acme
And I found this, among all the other reasons there are to admire MIT, Janie’s alma mater:
Even in these end days there is pleasure still to be found.
The whole book by Ian Frazier is worth it. He has another book of comic essays (Dating your Mom) and two books On the Rex and Travels to Siberia that are more serious but infused with his take on things. Looking these up, I see he has several others, which means I will be financing Bezos’ next flight…
The whole book by Ian Frazier is worth it. He has another book of comic essays (Dating your Mom) and two books On the Rex and Travels to Siberia that are more serious but infused with his take on things. Looking these up, I see he has several others, which means I will be financing Bezos’ next flight…
On your say-so, lj, I have just ordered the book from Abe Books. Bezos still gets some money, but so does the secondhand bookshop.
On your say-so, lj, I have just ordered the book from Abe Books. Bezos still gets some money, but so does the secondhand bookshop.
Took granddaughter #1 bicycling along the Poudre River today. There was flash flooding from one of the burn scars several miles upstream of us on Tuesday (at least one death when a mudslide took a house into the river). The water today was about the consistency of chocolate milk, only darker. Even this far downstream, there was heavy construction equipment pulling debris (eg, burnt tree trunks) out of the river where the stuff had collected on bridge pilings.
Took granddaughter #1 bicycling along the Poudre River today. There was flash flooding from one of the burn scars several miles upstream of us on Tuesday (at least one death when a mudslide took a house into the river). The water today was about the consistency of chocolate milk, only darker. Even this far downstream, there was heavy construction equipment pulling debris (eg, burnt tree trunks) out of the river where the stuff had collected on bridge pilings.
They are essays, so they can be read out of order, but they build up to the final one. Enjoy!
They are essays, so they can be read out of order, but they build up to the final one. Enjoy!
I’m spending part of my summer modifying one of my electric guitars. Not sure if what I’m doing counts technically as heresy or blasphemy to the Telecaster purists, but it’s a Squire, so I’m already most of the way to being an apostate… Gonna be a bastard son of a Gretsch (with a twang bar) by the time I’m done with it.
Been a long time since I last soldered anything, but electric guitar wiring should be a good reintroduction before I try my hand at building an effect pedal or two from kits.
I’m spending part of my summer modifying one of my electric guitars. Not sure if what I’m doing counts technically as heresy or blasphemy to the Telecaster purists, but it’s a Squire, so I’m already most of the way to being an apostate… Gonna be a bastard son of a Gretsch (with a twang bar) by the time I’m done with it.
Been a long time since I last soldered anything, but electric guitar wiring should be a good reintroduction before I try my hand at building an effect pedal or two from kits.
Thanks for the shout-out, GftNC.
Other MIT entertainment, an article in Sports Illustrated, of all places, from 1975, a few years after I graduated, that starts like this:
It includes this line, in 1975: It’s the MIT way. When the basketball team refused to stand for the national anthem a few years ago, MIT quit playing it.
Also, the Wikipedia article on MIT hacks, which includes that picture of Wile E. Coyote, and my favorite (b/c my dad was a firefighter) — the fire engine on the Great Dome, honoring first responders from 9/11 five years later.
Thanks for the shout-out, GftNC.
Other MIT entertainment, an article in Sports Illustrated, of all places, from 1975, a few years after I graduated, that starts like this:
It includes this line, in 1975: It’s the MIT way. When the basketball team refused to stand for the national anthem a few years ago, MIT quit playing it.
Also, the Wikipedia article on MIT hacks, which includes that picture of Wile E. Coyote, and my favorite (b/c my dad was a firefighter) — the fire engine on the Great Dome, honoring first responders from 9/11 five years later.
Huh, I had no idea about the MIT hacks tradition – that’s great!
Huh, I had no idea about the MIT hacks tradition – that’s great!
Despite all the cool ones over the years, this one to me takes the cake, given the actual damage it did and what it must have cost to remedy it. It’s the last one on the page:
Wadleigh was a dean when I was around. Very buttoned up by that time, LOL.
Despite all the cool ones over the years, this one to me takes the cake, given the actual damage it did and what it must have cost to remedy it. It’s the last one on the page:
Wadleigh was a dean when I was around. Very buttoned up by that time, LOL.
When the basketball team refused to stand for the national anthem a few years ago, MIT quit playing it.
If you attend MIT, you are definitively an elitist. And, at least while attending, you’re a New Englander. In short, clearly not a Real ‘Murican™. So what else would one expect?
When the basketball team refused to stand for the national anthem a few years ago, MIT quit playing it.
If you attend MIT, you are definitively an elitist. And, at least while attending, you’re a New Englander. In short, clearly not a Real ‘Murican™. So what else would one expect?
I love pretty much all the hacks, and the idea of the hacks, but the one I love best may not have happened – the birds being conditioned to divebomb the Harvard football pitch when the first whistle of the season is blown. What a brilliant idea – and what amazing dedication to the cause of mischief it would have required! I only hope it happened.
I love pretty much all the hacks, and the idea of the hacks, but the one I love best may not have happened – the birds being conditioned to divebomb the Harvard football pitch when the first whistle of the season is blown. What a brilliant idea – and what amazing dedication to the cause of mischief it would have required! I only hope it happened.
My favorite bit of MIT lore and hackage.
Smoot later became Chairman of ANSI and President of the ISO.
My favorite bit of MIT lore and hackage.
Smoot later became Chairman of ANSI and President of the ISO.
Apologies for being Debbie Downer here. I was one of those persons who did a lot of that at university. We would break into the Performing Arts center (there was a basement door that you could move in just a certain way and get in) We’d get into the theatre costume department or play spotlight, where a bunch of us would break in and the person who was it would have a flashlight and it was basically tag. One time, campus security noticed a light and came into check and I was hiding under a couch for about 2 hours until they left.
This might all be listed under ‘stupid things I did in college’, but it struck me a few years ago that these kinds of hijinks would, had I been black, been something else altogether. Perhaps a black person wouldn’t have been shot, but I’m not so sure. That thought really stopped me short and everytime I think of that, I think that I got to do that because of privilege. This isn’t to crap on MIT students, and some of their hacks display an incredible amount of ingenuity, but it’s hard to escape thinking that it’s pretty problematic.
Apologies for being Debbie Downer here. I was one of those persons who did a lot of that at university. We would break into the Performing Arts center (there was a basement door that you could move in just a certain way and get in) We’d get into the theatre costume department or play spotlight, where a bunch of us would break in and the person who was it would have a flashlight and it was basically tag. One time, campus security noticed a light and came into check and I was hiding under a couch for about 2 hours until they left.
This might all be listed under ‘stupid things I did in college’, but it struck me a few years ago that these kinds of hijinks would, had I been black, been something else altogether. Perhaps a black person wouldn’t have been shot, but I’m not so sure. That thought really stopped me short and everytime I think of that, I think that I got to do that because of privilege. This isn’t to crap on MIT students, and some of their hacks display an incredible amount of ingenuity, but it’s hard to escape thinking that it’s pretty problematic.
While I completely accept the concept of privilege generally, and white privilege in particular, and want the commensurate levelling up to take place, I don’t let this ruin my appreciation for the capacity of smart kids to create smart mischief, or think outside the conventional box. I’ve been going down the MIT rabbit hole, currently reading Janie’s 1974 Sports Illustrated article, and absolutely loved the bolded bit of the following. I have always had a serious crush on this kind of thinking.
De Jeude says he finds solutions to his engineering problems “in the middle of the night. I wake up and write them down.” Though he wants to be an opera singer as well as a computer analyst, he also wants to wrestle as long as he can. “It is a very sportsmanlike pastime. You’re not thinking of killing anyone. In football [which he played without distinction in high school], they always said you had to hate the guy in front of you. On what basis?”
While I completely accept the concept of privilege generally, and white privilege in particular, and want the commensurate levelling up to take place, I don’t let this ruin my appreciation for the capacity of smart kids to create smart mischief, or think outside the conventional box. I’ve been going down the MIT rabbit hole, currently reading Janie’s 1974 Sports Illustrated article, and absolutely loved the bolded bit of the following. I have always had a serious crush on this kind of thinking.
De Jeude says he finds solutions to his engineering problems “in the middle of the night. I wake up and write them down.” Though he wants to be an opera singer as well as a computer analyst, he also wants to wrestle as long as he can. “It is a very sportsmanlike pastime. You’re not thinking of killing anyone. In football [which he played without distinction in high school], they always said you had to hate the guy in front of you. On what basis?”
Italiexo!
Italiexo!
But, to change the subject entirely, further to our previous discussion about use of the word “Jew”, in which I talked about something that had come up years ago, I have just seen this relevant piece by David Baddiel, the writer and comedian who, as a matter of principle, has his Twitter bio just say “Jew”. His recent book about anti-semitism, Jews Don’t Count received very good reviews, but I haven’t been able to bring myself to read it yet.
But, to change the subject entirely, further to our previous discussion about use of the word “Jew”, in which I talked about something that had come up years ago, I have just seen this relevant piece by David Baddiel, the writer and comedian who, as a matter of principle, has his Twitter bio just say “Jew”. His recent book about anti-semitism, Jews Don’t Count received very good reviews, but I haven’t been able to bring myself to read it yet.
I didn’t mean to be disapproving GftNC. I just meant that for me, having done stuff like that (and regaled people with tales of oh you wouldn’t believe the shit I got up to in college), it has slowly dawned on me that telling stories like that is similar to explaining how it is so hard to find a decent help nowadays.
I didn’t mean to be disapproving GftNC. I just meant that for me, having done stuff like that (and regaled people with tales of oh you wouldn’t believe the shit I got up to in college), it has slowly dawned on me that telling stories like that is similar to explaining how it is so hard to find a decent help nowadays.
west coast problems:
thieves in CA are stealing water from municipalities to keep their pot farms alive.
west coast problems:
thieves in CA are stealing water from municipalities to keep their pot farms alive.
No no, lj, no worries. I just wanted to emphasise that one could appreciate the problems and issues, but still retain some enjoyment in the stories. Everybody gets to make their own accommodation with this kind of stuff; for me it is that there is so much worrying and depressing in the world, that it would easy for me to tip into a low mood all the time, so I prefer to take pleasure where I can and where (in my estimation) it does no harm to do so. As I have said elsewhere, I do believe in simultaneously fighting to end discrimination of the type you are talking about.
No no, lj, no worries. I just wanted to emphasise that one could appreciate the problems and issues, but still retain some enjoyment in the stories. Everybody gets to make their own accommodation with this kind of stuff; for me it is that there is so much worrying and depressing in the world, that it would easy for me to tip into a low mood all the time, so I prefer to take pleasure where I can and where (in my estimation) it does no harm to do so. As I have said elsewhere, I do believe in simultaneously fighting to end discrimination of the type you are talking about.
it has slowly dawned on me that telling stories like that is similar to explaining how it is so hard to find a decent help nowadays.
I strongly disagree with this. There’s an unending list of things that “privilege” gives you, and a lot of them — probably most of them, in the sense in which you’re using the word — should be birthrights for everyone. My goal would be making sure that becomes a reality, not that those of us with “privileges” that hsould be birthrights should give them up. You think you shouldn’t feed your kids decently, and take them to the doctor, because not everyone has the same resources and access?
it has slowly dawned on me that telling stories like that is similar to explaining how it is so hard to find a decent help nowadays.
I strongly disagree with this. There’s an unending list of things that “privilege” gives you, and a lot of them — probably most of them, in the sense in which you’re using the word — should be birthrights for everyone. My goal would be making sure that becomes a reality, not that those of us with “privileges” that hsould be birthrights should give them up. You think you shouldn’t feed your kids decently, and take them to the doctor, because not everyone has the same resources and access?
Yes, “making sure that becomes a reality” was what I meant by levelling up – I agree with this.
Yes, “making sure that becomes a reality” was what I meant by levelling up – I agree with this.
You think you shouldn’t feed your kids decently, and take them to the doctor, because not everyone has the same resources and access?
I’m guessing it’s more about realizing/acknowledging that not everyone has that same access after being blissfully unaware/unthinking of that aspect of it for a long time.
You think you shouldn’t feed your kids decently, and take them to the doctor, because not everyone has the same resources and access?
I’m guessing it’s more about realizing/acknowledging that not everyone has that same access after being blissfully unaware/unthinking of that aspect of it for a long time.
If you’ve always realised and acknowledged it, does that make it OK to enjoy the existence of it again? Not talking about anybody here, but just the tendency, I always think of that thing from Twelfth Night: “dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?”
If you’ve always realised and acknowledged it, does that make it OK to enjoy the existence of it again? Not talking about anybody here, but just the tendency, I always think of that thing from Twelfth Night: “dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?”
I’m guessing it’s more about realizing/acknowledging that not everyone has that same access after being blissfully unaware/unthinking of that aspect of it for a long time.
This brings to mind a passage from one of the essays that I teach, Hanif Abdurraqib’s “I Wasn’t Brought Here, I Was Born,” where he meditates on the friendly violence of the punk rock show:
It is a luxury to romanticize blood, especially your own. It is a luxury to be able to fetishize violence, especially the violence that you inflict upon others. To use it as a bond, or to call it church, or to build an identity around it while knowing that everyone you can send home bloody will not come back for revenge. To walk home bloody. To walk home at night. At the time of writing this, a video is circulating of a black man being killed by police, on camera. Before this, there was another black man. And a black boy. And black women vanishing in jail. And black trans women vanishing into the night. I do not blame punk rock for this. I instead ask to consider the impact of continuing to glorify a very specific type of white violence and invisibility of all others in an era where there is a very real and very violent erasure of the bodies most frequently excluded from the language, culture, and visuals of punk rock.
It’s an ambivalence and an awareness. It can be both LJ and JanieM at the same time, but getting to what JanieM seeks does take a bit of LJ’s reflection to consider how things might need to change to open up those possibilities for all.
The rest of the essay is also well worth a read:
https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/862-i-wasnt-brought-here-i-was-born-surviving-punk-rock-long-enough-to-find-afropunk/
Abdurraqib is consistently thoughful.
I’m guessing it’s more about realizing/acknowledging that not everyone has that same access after being blissfully unaware/unthinking of that aspect of it for a long time.
This brings to mind a passage from one of the essays that I teach, Hanif Abdurraqib’s “I Wasn’t Brought Here, I Was Born,” where he meditates on the friendly violence of the punk rock show:
It is a luxury to romanticize blood, especially your own. It is a luxury to be able to fetishize violence, especially the violence that you inflict upon others. To use it as a bond, or to call it church, or to build an identity around it while knowing that everyone you can send home bloody will not come back for revenge. To walk home bloody. To walk home at night. At the time of writing this, a video is circulating of a black man being killed by police, on camera. Before this, there was another black man. And a black boy. And black women vanishing in jail. And black trans women vanishing into the night. I do not blame punk rock for this. I instead ask to consider the impact of continuing to glorify a very specific type of white violence and invisibility of all others in an era where there is a very real and very violent erasure of the bodies most frequently excluded from the language, culture, and visuals of punk rock.
It’s an ambivalence and an awareness. It can be both LJ and JanieM at the same time, but getting to what JanieM seeks does take a bit of LJ’s reflection to consider how things might need to change to open up those possibilities for all.
The rest of the essay is also well worth a read:
https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/862-i-wasnt-brought-here-i-was-born-surviving-punk-rock-long-enough-to-find-afropunk/
Abdurraqib is consistently thoughful.
Thanks, nous. I appreciate your offering the possibility that it can be both instead of either/or.
I also want to note the emphasis, in your quoted paragraph, on framing in terms of “bodies.” Coates’s Between the World and Me made me think about all of this (“this” — I know) most specifically in relation to bodies for the first time. And that changed my way of looking at a lot of things.
Thanks, nous. I appreciate your offering the possibility that it can be both instead of either/or.
I also want to note the emphasis, in your quoted paragraph, on framing in terms of “bodies.” Coates’s Between the World and Me made me think about all of this (“this” — I know) most specifically in relation to bodies for the first time. And that changed my way of looking at a lot of things.
I was one of those persons who did a lot of that at university.
Yes, but were your hijinks canonized in the same way as our friend Oliver Smoot’s?
I think not!!
I played in a band for a while back in the 80’s in which I was the only person who was not a present or former student at MIT. Played a number of parties for MIT folks, on and off campus.
I have stories….
I will leave it at this: MIT people are not like other people.
I was one of those persons who did a lot of that at university.
Yes, but were your hijinks canonized in the same way as our friend Oliver Smoot’s?
I think not!!
I played in a band for a while back in the 80’s in which I was the only person who was not a present or former student at MIT. Played a number of parties for MIT folks, on and off campus.
I have stories….
I will leave it at this: MIT people are not like other people.
And apparently Google Earth and Google Maps offer smoots as an optional unit of measurement…
And apparently Google Earth and Google Maps offer smoots as an optional unit of measurement…
Thinking further about Abdurraqib and Coates and how they have affected my thinking…
I think the project of trying to make white privilege visible is directly related to the project of ending black erasure. To accomplish this, we need the people who are sheltered within a particular power structure to develop something like double consciousness that lets one see the places where the shelter one enjoys has barriers in place that make it unavailable or unreliable or dangerous for others.
When those barriers (or zones of exclusion) become visible, we can learn a lot about a person by how they respond and act in the face of that differential status, and where in the situation they locate their empathy and concern.
I hope that makes sense. I fear that trying to be more concrete will lead to way too many words.
Thinking further about Abdurraqib and Coates and how they have affected my thinking…
I think the project of trying to make white privilege visible is directly related to the project of ending black erasure. To accomplish this, we need the people who are sheltered within a particular power structure to develop something like double consciousness that lets one see the places where the shelter one enjoys has barriers in place that make it unavailable or unreliable or dangerous for others.
When those barriers (or zones of exclusion) become visible, we can learn a lot about a person by how they respond and act in the face of that differential status, and where in the situation they locate their empathy and concern.
I hope that makes sense. I fear that trying to be more concrete will lead to way too many words.
To accomplish this, we need the people who are sheltered within a particular power structure to develop something like double consciousness that lets one see the places where the shelter one enjoys has barriers in place that make it unavailable or unreliable or dangerous for others.
This is a very good formulation in not-too-many words. I think where lj and I differ (and maybe we wouldn’t actually differ if we had time enough to hash it out) is how much of, and whether, we can legitimately enjoy stuff behind the barriers even as we want the barriers dismantled. It’s a tough question. My own literal-minded mind immediately leaps to: I’m not giving away $ until I’ve got what the least of these have……I guess the same goes for intangibles.
Big, difficult topic.
To accomplish this, we need the people who are sheltered within a particular power structure to develop something like double consciousness that lets one see the places where the shelter one enjoys has barriers in place that make it unavailable or unreliable or dangerous for others.
This is a very good formulation in not-too-many words. I think where lj and I differ (and maybe we wouldn’t actually differ if we had time enough to hash it out) is how much of, and whether, we can legitimately enjoy stuff behind the barriers even as we want the barriers dismantled. It’s a tough question. My own literal-minded mind immediately leaps to: I’m not giving away $ until I’ve got what the least of these have……I guess the same goes for intangibles.
Big, difficult topic.
I will leave it at this: MIT people are not like other people.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My sense is that we blend in better as time goes by. Most of us. Some of us. … (I used to work with alumni, so I have some experience to go by.)
I will leave it at this: MIT people are not like other people.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My sense is that we blend in better as time goes by. Most of us. Some of us. … (I used to work with alumni, so I have some experience to go by.)
It is a big, difficult topic. But nous, I agree, I think your formulation at 03.04 is very good, and does indeed make sense. And when Janie talks about whether, and how much, “we can legitimately enjoy stuff behind the barriers even as we want the barriers dismantled”, that’s also very well and clearly put. I think you can, but you definitely have to be aware first.
ObWi was very salutary for me, because I didn’t know anybody (I don’t think) before I hung out here who would have dreamt of denying there was such a thing as (for example) white, male privilege. (Actually, that’s a lie: my girlhood very close friend is a Republican, and we had never discussed the issue.) Now admittedly, it was kind of easy to dismiss at first because it was McKinney and Marty, but as we hashed it backwards and forwards it was fascinating to see in real time how the mechanism worked.
But the danger of having that kind of reaction to contrast one’s own with, is that it’s easy to feel an awful sense of superiority, which can deaden one’s own self-critical faculties. I think this is an ongoing project, for everyone.
It is a big, difficult topic. But nous, I agree, I think your formulation at 03.04 is very good, and does indeed make sense. And when Janie talks about whether, and how much, “we can legitimately enjoy stuff behind the barriers even as we want the barriers dismantled”, that’s also very well and clearly put. I think you can, but you definitely have to be aware first.
ObWi was very salutary for me, because I didn’t know anybody (I don’t think) before I hung out here who would have dreamt of denying there was such a thing as (for example) white, male privilege. (Actually, that’s a lie: my girlhood very close friend is a Republican, and we had never discussed the issue.) Now admittedly, it was kind of easy to dismiss at first because it was McKinney and Marty, but as we hashed it backwards and forwards it was fascinating to see in real time how the mechanism worked.
But the danger of having that kind of reaction to contrast one’s own with, is that it’s easy to feel an awful sense of superiority, which can deaden one’s own self-critical faculties. I think this is an ongoing project, for everyone.
Morning all, I have to say, I love it when things get resolved without me around. Thanks to all.
One of the most useful words, to my mind is ‘squick’, a reaction of visceral disgust that one acknowledges may be something that someone else find quite exciting and enjoyable. But not everything can be a squick. Racism? Sexism? A lot of modern life seems to be trying to figure out how to separate the squicks from the things that everyone should find intolerable.
Nous quote of Abdurraqib saying this
It is a luxury to romanticize blood, especially your own.
gets at something that, especially in the past couple of years, I’ve been thinking about more and more. As all of you probably know, knowing about my family, my connections, is something that, well, obsesses me. It’s helped me blend in here in Japan. “I’m not an outsider, I’m one of you.” That’s all fair and good, but I’m exploiting an impulse that leaves others outside, waiting. It’s not like thinking you have to make your kids suffer in order to be enlightened. But it is having to interrogate yourself (emphasis on yourself) about what benefits you get out of a transaction. But this is me talking about me, not me talking about anyone else.
Anyway, more later.
Morning all, I have to say, I love it when things get resolved without me around. Thanks to all.
One of the most useful words, to my mind is ‘squick’, a reaction of visceral disgust that one acknowledges may be something that someone else find quite exciting and enjoyable. But not everything can be a squick. Racism? Sexism? A lot of modern life seems to be trying to figure out how to separate the squicks from the things that everyone should find intolerable.
Nous quote of Abdurraqib saying this
It is a luxury to romanticize blood, especially your own.
gets at something that, especially in the past couple of years, I’ve been thinking about more and more. As all of you probably know, knowing about my family, my connections, is something that, well, obsesses me. It’s helped me blend in here in Japan. “I’m not an outsider, I’m one of you.” That’s all fair and good, but I’m exploiting an impulse that leaves others outside, waiting. It’s not like thinking you have to make your kids suffer in order to be enlightened. But it is having to interrogate yourself (emphasis on yourself) about what benefits you get out of a transaction. But this is me talking about me, not me talking about anyone else.
Anyway, more later.
In so far as there’s any disagreement, I’m on GftNC’s side of it. I’d throw out a student who welded a streetcar to the tracks: there’s s shocking sense of entitlement in causing so much damage and inconvenience for a laugh.
In so far as there’s any disagreement, I’m on GftNC’s side of it. I’d throw out a student who welded a streetcar to the tracks: there’s s shocking sense of entitlement in causing so much damage and inconvenience for a laugh.
I’d throw out a student who welded a streetcar to the tracks: there’s s shocking sense of entitlement in causing so much damage and inconvenience for a laugh.
I suppose, when you get right down to it, this is the responsible, proper, grown-up response (which I admit, I didn’t immediately have). I like hacks which are particularly clever, using MIT type skills, or witty (like the Wile E Coyote one) and I did not understand the (no doubt brilliant) technique involved in this stunt, so it wasn’t one of my favoured ones. I can only assume that MIT is prepared to occasionally pay the cost of making good such stunts, on the basis that it’s a price occasionally worth paying to have the kind of brilliant students who think such things up, and a kind of PR for attracting them. I guess the trick would be to convince the hackers of the future that the cleverest, most prestigious stunts involve the least damage (as, apparently, hacker ethics dictate when “re-decorating” the Harvard statue).
But it’s true, and relevant to the meta-discussion we have been having, that this did indeed exhibit a shocking sense of entitlement in causing so much damage and inconvenience for a laugh
I’d throw out a student who welded a streetcar to the tracks: there’s s shocking sense of entitlement in causing so much damage and inconvenience for a laugh.
I suppose, when you get right down to it, this is the responsible, proper, grown-up response (which I admit, I didn’t immediately have). I like hacks which are particularly clever, using MIT type skills, or witty (like the Wile E Coyote one) and I did not understand the (no doubt brilliant) technique involved in this stunt, so it wasn’t one of my favoured ones. I can only assume that MIT is prepared to occasionally pay the cost of making good such stunts, on the basis that it’s a price occasionally worth paying to have the kind of brilliant students who think such things up, and a kind of PR for attracting them. I guess the trick would be to convince the hackers of the future that the cleverest, most prestigious stunts involve the least damage (as, apparently, hacker ethics dictate when “re-decorating” the Harvard statue).
But it’s true, and relevant to the meta-discussion we have been having, that this did indeed exhibit a shocking sense of entitlement in causing so much damage and inconvenience for a laugh
Of course, since it happened in the 30s, we can hope that current day MIT students would have more of a sense of this kind of issue. But I don’t know any – perhaps Janie could guess from her more recent experience whether this sort of obliviousness would still be likely.
Of course, since it happened in the 30s, we can hope that current day MIT students would have more of a sense of this kind of issue. But I don’t know any – perhaps Janie could guess from her more recent experience whether this sort of obliviousness would still be likely.
Of course, since it happened in the 30s, we can hope that current day MIT students would have more of a sense of this kind of issue. But I don’t know any – perhaps Janie could guess from her more recent experience whether this sort of obliviousness would still be likely.
Are they human? Then some of them are oblivious.
On the other hand, I’m pretty sure MIT would take a much dimmer view of such antics these days.
The Wikipedia article doesn’t mention, and I don’t have time to research, whether Wadleigh and friends *were* punished at the time. Given the MIT I knew, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that the students were required to make restitution somehow, but I don’t actually know. When I was first told about the track-welding, my first thought was that “modern” students (this was probably when I was working in admissions, late 70s) were quite tame in comparison — their hacks were mostly meant to be clever and funny.
The article cited in footnote 126 of the wikipedia page is from a student publication in the spring of my senior year. A lot of the names on the masthead are famliar, but I didn’t know any of those folks. The whole issue is dedicated to Wadleigh, but I don’t have time or heart to read it and see if the track-welding caper is mentioned. When I look at stuff from that era I tend to be appalled at the casual misogyny, and go do something else.
Of course, since it happened in the 30s, we can hope that current day MIT students would have more of a sense of this kind of issue. But I don’t know any – perhaps Janie could guess from her more recent experience whether this sort of obliviousness would still be likely.
Are they human? Then some of them are oblivious.
On the other hand, I’m pretty sure MIT would take a much dimmer view of such antics these days.
The Wikipedia article doesn’t mention, and I don’t have time to research, whether Wadleigh and friends *were* punished at the time. Given the MIT I knew, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that the students were required to make restitution somehow, but I don’t actually know. When I was first told about the track-welding, my first thought was that “modern” students (this was probably when I was working in admissions, late 70s) were quite tame in comparison — their hacks were mostly meant to be clever and funny.
The article cited in footnote 126 of the wikipedia page is from a student publication in the spring of my senior year. A lot of the names on the masthead are famliar, but I didn’t know any of those folks. The whole issue is dedicated to Wadleigh, but I don’t have time or heart to read it and see if the track-welding caper is mentioned. When I look at stuff from that era I tend to be appalled at the casual misogyny, and go do something else.
When I look at stuff from that era I tend to be appalled at the casual misogyny, and go do something else.
Admittedly I’m never going to be on the receiving end of this. But I’m inclined to be less appalled by folks in that time acting in ways that were unexceptional at the time. I’m far more appalled to see the same behavior today, when the problem is broadly recognized. Today, people should d*mn well know better.
When I look at stuff from that era I tend to be appalled at the casual misogyny, and go do something else.
Admittedly I’m never going to be on the receiving end of this. But I’m inclined to be less appalled by folks in that time acting in ways that were unexceptional at the time. I’m far more appalled to see the same behavior today, when the problem is broadly recognized. Today, people should d*mn well know better.
But I’m inclined to be less appalled by folks in that time acting in ways that were unexceptional at the time.
All well and good, and I do that in general too. But this perhaps supports lj’s side of whatever divergence of opinion we have on these issues: I have to face the fact that I was personally, and probably deeply, affected by it, and took it all for granted as just good “clean” fun. Some of the stuff in printed matter I have from those days is disgusting.
But I’m inclined to be less appalled by folks in that time acting in ways that were unexceptional at the time.
All well and good, and I do that in general too. But this perhaps supports lj’s side of whatever divergence of opinion we have on these issues: I have to face the fact that I was personally, and probably deeply, affected by it, and took it all for granted as just good “clean” fun. Some of the stuff in printed matter I have from those days is disgusting.
I have to face the fact that I was personally, and probably deeply, affected by it, and took it all for granted as just good “clean” fun.
Yes.
I don’t feel guilty for laughing at the misogynistic, rape-y, racist comedies of my youth that now make me cringe, but neither do I want to sit around claiming that things were so much better back then when “people didn’t get worked up about ‘x’.” I try to turn a bit of my attention to finding the things I am not seeing now that will make me cringe in 20 years.
But I’m a Social Justice Warrior, so…
And as LJ points out, it helps that I am perpetually in contact with young adults who don’t have the context for all those past things. Trying to explain without excusing, empowering, or perpetuating the problems is a worthy challenge.
I have to face the fact that I was personally, and probably deeply, affected by it, and took it all for granted as just good “clean” fun.
Yes.
I don’t feel guilty for laughing at the misogynistic, rape-y, racist comedies of my youth that now make me cringe, but neither do I want to sit around claiming that things were so much better back then when “people didn’t get worked up about ‘x’.” I try to turn a bit of my attention to finding the things I am not seeing now that will make me cringe in 20 years.
But I’m a Social Justice Warrior, so…
And as LJ points out, it helps that I am perpetually in contact with young adults who don’t have the context for all those past things. Trying to explain without excusing, empowering, or perpetuating the problems is a worthy challenge.
While I completely accept the concept of privilege generally, and white privilege in particular, and want the commensurate levelling up to take place, I don’t let this ruin my appreciation for the capacity of smart kids to create smart mischief, or think outside the conventional box.
It is entirely possible to be entertained by, or even admire in a perverse way, antics that you disapprove of.
It is similarly possible to be entertained by, or even admire in a perverse way, people you distrust completely.
This is, after all, the core of an untold number of stories, movies, etc.
It took me a while to learn the distinction.
While I completely accept the concept of privilege generally, and white privilege in particular, and want the commensurate levelling up to take place, I don’t let this ruin my appreciation for the capacity of smart kids to create smart mischief, or think outside the conventional box.
It is entirely possible to be entertained by, or even admire in a perverse way, antics that you disapprove of.
It is similarly possible to be entertained by, or even admire in a perverse way, people you distrust completely.
This is, after all, the core of an untold number of stories, movies, etc.
It took me a while to learn the distinction.
Trying to explain without excusing, empowering, or perpetuating the problems is a worthy challenge.
Certainly it is a worthwhile exercise. Just as it is a worthwhile exercise to point out to students that some things that we see as problematic are unexceptional in other cultures. As some things that are unexceptional to us are very problematic for them. (The obvious example being our swimming attire versus the clothing standards in various Middle Eastern countries.) That is the basic Anthropological principle of Cultural Relativity.
Everyone should understand that cultural standards are different, not only across space but across time. Unless you grasp that, you can’t really understand our own current culture.
Trying to explain without excusing, empowering, or perpetuating the problems is a worthy challenge.
Certainly it is a worthwhile exercise. Just as it is a worthwhile exercise to point out to students that some things that we see as problematic are unexceptional in other cultures. As some things that are unexceptional to us are very problematic for them. (The obvious example being our swimming attire versus the clothing standards in various Middle Eastern countries.) That is the basic Anthropological principle of Cultural Relativity.
Everyone should understand that cultural standards are different, not only across space but across time. Unless you grasp that, you can’t really understand our own current culture.
Classic prank: Caltech undergrads hacked the electronic scoreboard for the Rose Bowl game.
Made various small changes (improved the graphics! had a beaver image scurry across the chyron!) and were not noticed.
So they changed the team names to “Caltech” and “MIT” (with Caltech ahead, of course). The score, etc? Left untouched.
Officials freaked and stopped the game.
Students up on criminal charges, but what REALLY set of the judge was that the students got course credit for the hack. A course in digital electronics, so of course.
Classic prank: Caltech undergrads hacked the electronic scoreboard for the Rose Bowl game.
Made various small changes (improved the graphics! had a beaver image scurry across the chyron!) and were not noticed.
So they changed the team names to “Caltech” and “MIT” (with Caltech ahead, of course). The score, etc? Left untouched.
Officials freaked and stopped the game.
Students up on criminal charges, but what REALLY set of the judge was that the students got course credit for the hack. A course in digital electronics, so of course.
As may be obvious, one of my subfields for my graduate work in Anthropology was Cultural Change. It really, really helps in understanding a lot of what we see in our current political landscape. And also provides some hope for the future.
As may be obvious, one of my subfields for my graduate work in Anthropology was Cultural Change. It really, really helps in understanding a lot of what we see in our current political landscape. And also provides some hope for the future.
I have to face the fact that I was personally, and probably deeply, affected by it, and took it all for granted
Same, even the bits that didn’t seem (even at the time) like such “good, clean fun”. I am astonished sometimes, when I look back.
I have to face the fact that I was personally, and probably deeply, affected by it, and took it all for granted
Same, even the bits that didn’t seem (even at the time) like such “good, clean fun”. I am astonished sometimes, when I look back.
Certainly it is a worthwhile exercise. Just as it is a worthwhile exercise to point out to students that some things that we see as problematic are unexceptional in other cultures. As some things that are unexceptional to us are very problematic for them. (The obvious example being our swimming attire versus the clothing standards in various Middle Eastern countries.) That is the basic Anthropological principle of Cultural Relativity.
Undergrads these days are soaking in Cultural Relativity. Most of their essays are carefully performed balancing acts where they lay out sides and endeavor not to take one. The rest are polemical broadsides.
My job in First Year Writing is to try to get them past these two poles to a place where they can make an accounting of cultural relativity, but also take critical positions and trace out better ways of understanding how it all plays together so we can find better ways to affirm our shared values.
Certainly it is a worthwhile exercise. Just as it is a worthwhile exercise to point out to students that some things that we see as problematic are unexceptional in other cultures. As some things that are unexceptional to us are very problematic for them. (The obvious example being our swimming attire versus the clothing standards in various Middle Eastern countries.) That is the basic Anthropological principle of Cultural Relativity.
Undergrads these days are soaking in Cultural Relativity. Most of their essays are carefully performed balancing acts where they lay out sides and endeavor not to take one. The rest are polemical broadsides.
My job in First Year Writing is to try to get them past these two poles to a place where they can make an accounting of cultural relativity, but also take critical positions and trace out better ways of understanding how it all plays together so we can find better ways to affirm our shared values.
morning again, interesting stuff all.
It might be different if I hadn’t engaged in that kind of behavior, I might look at it as more anthropological ‘wow, aren’t those kids clever?’
Perhaps it is better to work with fictional examples. Here is one where the deleted scenes from the movie tell us a different story
https://heavy.com/entertainment/star-trek/2009-deleted-scenes-kobayashi-maru/
It’s interesting because with the deleted scenes, it tells of that Chris Pine’s Kirk got around the Kobayashi Maru simulation by essentially sleeping with (if you aren’t up on your star trek lore
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Orion_slave_girl
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Orion_slave_girl
the first one is canon, so is limited to only ‘official’ sources while the second includes non-canonical information. It’s fascinating to see how the construction of fictional worlds is shaped by all of the currents in society.
morning again, interesting stuff all.
It might be different if I hadn’t engaged in that kind of behavior, I might look at it as more anthropological ‘wow, aren’t those kids clever?’
Perhaps it is better to work with fictional examples. Here is one where the deleted scenes from the movie tell us a different story
https://heavy.com/entertainment/star-trek/2009-deleted-scenes-kobayashi-maru/
It’s interesting because with the deleted scenes, it tells of that Chris Pine’s Kirk got around the Kobayashi Maru simulation by essentially sleeping with (if you aren’t up on your star trek lore
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Orion_slave_girl
https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Orion_slave_girl
the first one is canon, so is limited to only ‘official’ sources while the second includes non-canonical information. It’s fascinating to see how the construction of fictional worlds is shaped by all of the currents in society.
Finally got to Janie’s SI article and this amazed me
By whatever measure, the Lambda Chis are indeed jock infested, and proud of it. On a recent Friday evening President John Cavolowsky, a tall, handsome, short-haired junior from Dedham, Mass. and a two-sport letterman (baseball and basketball), led members in an informal postdinner discussion on the whys and why nots of the non-existent MIT varsity football team. Dinner had been coat and tie. A polite, to-the-point blessing was said, and a bawdy—though dated—table song sung to enliven the stew.
The past is indeed a foreign country.
Finally got to Janie’s SI article and this amazed me
By whatever measure, the Lambda Chis are indeed jock infested, and proud of it. On a recent Friday evening President John Cavolowsky, a tall, handsome, short-haired junior from Dedham, Mass. and a two-sport letterman (baseball and basketball), led members in an informal postdinner discussion on the whys and why nots of the non-existent MIT varsity football team. Dinner had been coat and tie. A polite, to-the-point blessing was said, and a bawdy—though dated—table song sung to enliven the stew.
The past is indeed a foreign country.
Still an open thread, so, a story.
When I was at law school (only for a year, and it was as you will see a long time ago) I remember that in one of the lectures the female lecturer, a very proper Englishwoman, was talking about the issue of obtaining sex by deception (I cannot now remember what the law actually was, but the links below may or may not shed some light). I just remember, as if it were yesterday, this terribly correct woman saying:
I believe there is currently a pop group [sic] called the Damned, and that one of their number is called Rat Scabies. Suppose a young woman had sex with a young man who said that was who he was, but then she discovered that he was not Rat at all, but a roadie….
“Not Rat at all, but a roadie” passed into my close-knit friendship group’s vocabulary, to join “How awful! Why not?” which I have previously told you about. But I was caused to remember the occasion by reading the following piece in today’s NYT, and I also include a link to a past BBC piece about the same sort of issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/opinion/sexual-consent.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49127545
I found the consideration of the concept of “consent” to be interesting all over again, in the light of (as we have been saying) changed times.
Still an open thread, so, a story.
When I was at law school (only for a year, and it was as you will see a long time ago) I remember that in one of the lectures the female lecturer, a very proper Englishwoman, was talking about the issue of obtaining sex by deception (I cannot now remember what the law actually was, but the links below may or may not shed some light). I just remember, as if it were yesterday, this terribly correct woman saying:
I believe there is currently a pop group [sic] called the Damned, and that one of their number is called Rat Scabies. Suppose a young woman had sex with a young man who said that was who he was, but then she discovered that he was not Rat at all, but a roadie….
“Not Rat at all, but a roadie” passed into my close-knit friendship group’s vocabulary, to join “How awful! Why not?” which I have previously told you about. But I was caused to remember the occasion by reading the following piece in today’s NYT, and I also include a link to a past BBC piece about the same sort of issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/opinion/sexual-consent.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49127545
I found the consideration of the concept of “consent” to be interesting all over again, in the light of (as we have been saying) changed times.
Have just seen that that NYT piece was from March, so I don’t know why I have only just seen it. Not that it matters…
Have just seen that that NYT piece was from March, so I don’t know why I have only just seen it. Not that it matters…
today in Freedom-killing Conservative Cancel Culture
today in Freedom-killing Conservative Cancel Culture
Then there’s this from cleek’s link:
I suppose, however, the McCarthy will be happy enough with a gesture sans substance. Seems like his wheelhouse.
Then there’s this from cleek’s link:
I suppose, however, the McCarthy will be happy enough with a gesture sans substance. Seems like his wheelhouse.
It’s quite ironic how the GOP turns more and more fascist in content but clearly prefers Stalinism as far as form is concerned (although without legally enforcable show trials, labor/re-education camps and shots in the neck…yet).
On the other hand: The Koch family built its fortune by doing business with Stalin (mainly because the Kennedy clan already got the lucrative deals with Hitler), so ideological reserve always had its limits.
It’s quite ironic how the GOP turns more and more fascist in content but clearly prefers Stalinism as far as form is concerned (although without legally enforcable show trials, labor/re-education camps and shots in the neck…yet).
On the other hand: The Koch family built its fortune by doing business with Stalin (mainly because the Kennedy clan already got the lucrative deals with Hitler), so ideological reserve always had its limits.
What is remarkable to me is the utter horseshit that the GOP has decided is gonna be their hill to die on.
Support for Trump, a refusal to publicly acknowledge that he lost the election, and a refusal to recognize the 1/6 riots for what they were.
None of this is about policy. It’s a cult of personality and culture war bullshit.
There is no future in it, I just worry that they’re gonna take the rest of us down with them.
What is remarkable to me is the utter horseshit that the GOP has decided is gonna be their hill to die on.
Support for Trump, a refusal to publicly acknowledge that he lost the election, and a refusal to recognize the 1/6 riots for what they were.
None of this is about policy. It’s a cult of personality and culture war bullshit.
There is no future in it, I just worry that they’re gonna take the rest of us down with them.
What is remarkable to me is the utter horseshit that the GOP has decided is gonna be their hill to die on.
Support for Trump, a refusal to publicly acknowledge that he lost the election, and a refusal to recognize the 1/6 riots for what they were.
None of this is about policy. It’s a cult of personality and culture war bullshit.
What’s remarkable to me is that they chose to include opposition to vaccination in their collection of horseshit. It’s not just blatantly false to fact. It’s something that will, in the real world, lead to deaths disproportionately among their supporters.
If the Democrats were as lacking in moral fiber as today’s GOP, it would be a great disinformation approach to future political power. It wasn’t, of course. But the part about it threatening Republicans’ electoral future does seem to be (belatedly) perpetrating the tiny minds of GOP politicians. But, I suspect, too late.
What is remarkable to me is the utter horseshit that the GOP has decided is gonna be their hill to die on.
Support for Trump, a refusal to publicly acknowledge that he lost the election, and a refusal to recognize the 1/6 riots for what they were.
None of this is about policy. It’s a cult of personality and culture war bullshit.
What’s remarkable to me is that they chose to include opposition to vaccination in their collection of horseshit. It’s not just blatantly false to fact. It’s something that will, in the real world, lead to deaths disproportionately among their supporters.
If the Democrats were as lacking in moral fiber as today’s GOP, it would be a great disinformation approach to future political power. It wasn’t, of course. But the part about it threatening Republicans’ electoral future does seem to be (belatedly) perpetrating the tiny minds of GOP politicians. But, I suspect, too late.
I’m back to wearing a mask when I’m around other people in public spaces. I’m vaccinated, but that doesn’t mean you can’t get COVID, and it doesn’t mean it won’t make you sicker than you want to be. And it doesn’t mean you can’t spread it around, and even if you don’t get sick, or especially sick, you could hand it off to somebody who can’t be arsed to get vaccinated, and they could die.
If enough people get vaccinated, we won’t need to keep doing this. If they don’t, we will.
It’s rampant dumb-assery. People fill their heads with bullshit fresh from the bullshit factory, and we all get to live with the freaking virus for another year.
I’m back to wearing a mask when I’m around other people in public spaces. I’m vaccinated, but that doesn’t mean you can’t get COVID, and it doesn’t mean it won’t make you sicker than you want to be. And it doesn’t mean you can’t spread it around, and even if you don’t get sick, or especially sick, you could hand it off to somebody who can’t be arsed to get vaccinated, and they could die.
If enough people get vaccinated, we won’t need to keep doing this. If they don’t, we will.
It’s rampant dumb-assery. People fill their heads with bullshit fresh from the bullshit factory, and we all get to live with the freaking virus for another year.
In other news, I’m sitting on my front porch in eastern MA, about a half mile from the Atlantic Ocean, while looking at haze and smelling wood smoke from fires in Montana and Oregon.
Stay safe out there.
In other news, I’m sitting on my front porch in eastern MA, about a half mile from the Atlantic Ocean, while looking at haze and smelling wood smoke from fires in Montana and Oregon.
Stay safe out there.
My 88-year-old mother died with Covid last November. I don’t say died “of” Covid, because she was hardly alive at that point: her dementia had progressed to where she had lost her ability to speak, let alone reason or remember. After living in her house for over a year, trying to take care of her at home, I had to surrender to reality: we had to move her into a nursing home. Where she got Covid, and died.
And now I read that plenty of fucking nursing home staff are refusing vaccination. MAGAts abound, alas.
A few days ago, I was visiting my uncle — my late mother’s 94-year-old brother. He’s physically declining, but still has all his wits about him and will recount details of his youth at the drop of a hat. While I was there, another visitor dropped by: the son of one of my uncle’s old friends — a guy about my age who I had last seen at some Greek shindig 30 years ago when his father, my father, and my uncle were active members of the Pancretan Association of America.
In the course of a reasonably pleasant conversation, it transpired that neither he nor his girlfriend (who came with him) are vaccinated. At the risk of my aunt’s displeasure, I called him an idiot to his face. That was extreme restraint on my part.
This boyo is an unfortunately-typical Greek MAGAt. He owns a pizza joint someplace in Vermont. He sees it as his right to refuse the vaccine because reasons. He visits a 94-year-old man and his 83-year-old wife in company with his also-unvaccinated girlfriend, no masks, no avoidance of handshakes or hugs, no embarrassment or apology.
Had we been at my house, I would have kicked his ass out the door. Out of respect for my aunt’s let’s-not-have-unpleasantness sensibilities, I attempted to reason with him without explicitly calling his behavior reckless endangerment. I listened, without throwing things or pulling my hair out, to the usual MAGAt talking points he mumbled. We parted with conventional civilities, in effect having “agreed to disagree”.
But I’m done being civil. God rot all MAGAts. God damn all appeasers of MAGAts. May Covid hurry up and gather them all unto their Lord and Savior.
–TP
My 88-year-old mother died with Covid last November. I don’t say died “of” Covid, because she was hardly alive at that point: her dementia had progressed to where she had lost her ability to speak, let alone reason or remember. After living in her house for over a year, trying to take care of her at home, I had to surrender to reality: we had to move her into a nursing home. Where she got Covid, and died.
And now I read that plenty of fucking nursing home staff are refusing vaccination. MAGAts abound, alas.
A few days ago, I was visiting my uncle — my late mother’s 94-year-old brother. He’s physically declining, but still has all his wits about him and will recount details of his youth at the drop of a hat. While I was there, another visitor dropped by: the son of one of my uncle’s old friends — a guy about my age who I had last seen at some Greek shindig 30 years ago when his father, my father, and my uncle were active members of the Pancretan Association of America.
In the course of a reasonably pleasant conversation, it transpired that neither he nor his girlfriend (who came with him) are vaccinated. At the risk of my aunt’s displeasure, I called him an idiot to his face. That was extreme restraint on my part.
This boyo is an unfortunately-typical Greek MAGAt. He owns a pizza joint someplace in Vermont. He sees it as his right to refuse the vaccine because reasons. He visits a 94-year-old man and his 83-year-old wife in company with his also-unvaccinated girlfriend, no masks, no avoidance of handshakes or hugs, no embarrassment or apology.
Had we been at my house, I would have kicked his ass out the door. Out of respect for my aunt’s let’s-not-have-unpleasantness sensibilities, I attempted to reason with him without explicitly calling his behavior reckless endangerment. I listened, without throwing things or pulling my hair out, to the usual MAGAt talking points he mumbled. We parted with conventional civilities, in effect having “agreed to disagree”.
But I’m done being civil. God rot all MAGAts. God damn all appeasers of MAGAts. May Covid hurry up and gather them all unto their Lord and Savior.
–TP
TP, I’m sorry about your mother’s death, but most of all for what preceded it. Clearly, you were a very caring son. As we Jews say at such times, I wish you a long life.
As for your forbearance in the face of the MAGAt couple, words fail at their behaviour. I wonder what your aunt and uncle thought about the complete lack of concern for their health.
TP, I’m sorry about your mother’s death, but most of all for what preceded it. Clearly, you were a very caring son. As we Jews say at such times, I wish you a long life.
As for your forbearance in the face of the MAGAt couple, words fail at their behaviour. I wonder what your aunt and uncle thought about the complete lack of concern for their health.
So sorry to hear of your mother’s death, Tony. Especially sorry that she was not completely present for her last years.
FWIW, at the moment I know two people personally who were vaccinated, yet contracted Covid. They aren’t as sick as they would have been, which is good. They could pass it on to someone else, which is not good.
It’s been great to relax a bit, but it ain’t over yet.
So sorry to hear of your mother’s death, Tony. Especially sorry that she was not completely present for her last years.
FWIW, at the moment I know two people personally who were vaccinated, yet contracted Covid. They aren’t as sick as they would have been, which is good. They could pass it on to someone else, which is not good.
It’s been great to relax a bit, but it ain’t over yet.
TP, condolences and I echo GFTNC and Russell’s comments.
On the anti-vax front, our neighborhood in Spicewood TX is undergoing an outbreak due to unvaccinated people infecting vaccinated people. If there is a silver lining, it’s that the people who were vaccinated but got sick anyway, despite being over 70 with a range of co-morbidities, all had relatively mild symptoms, mainly sore throats and tired for 2-3 days. But, they all had to self-quarantine.
Very shitty leadership from the Repubs on this one, not to mention a really stupid unforced error.
TP, condolences and I echo GFTNC and Russell’s comments.
On the anti-vax front, our neighborhood in Spicewood TX is undergoing an outbreak due to unvaccinated people infecting vaccinated people. If there is a silver lining, it’s that the people who were vaccinated but got sick anyway, despite being over 70 with a range of co-morbidities, all had relatively mild symptoms, mainly sore throats and tired for 2-3 days. But, they all had to self-quarantine.
Very shitty leadership from the Repubs on this one, not to mention a really stupid unforced error.
Here in Japan, I’ve not run into those types. There are some floating around, but perhaps Japanese norms and culture serves to have them tamp it down. Tony P’s comment has me wondering how to react.
Obviously, the situation is that they are visiting, so he couldn’t trundle them out. I might go down the the nurse’s station and ask her to claim that the visit was over, or that your uncle had already been visited or anything to get them out the door. That pressure to not rock the boat is so strong, it’s hard to imagine what to do.
On the other hand, if this were someone I were meeting and didn’t have that pressure, I would simply ghost them, pick up my things and leave without a word.
My reaction has been shaped by what works here, and I wonder if it would work in that context as well. There is always the desire to set out why you are doing something. To explain yourself and your actions. But when you do that, you are granding a measure of equality, of equal footing to them. And I believe that is a mistake. They don’t deserve it.
Japanese have what is called an odashibeya and perhaps this is more attuned to Japanese norms, but my feeling is that you simply ignore them. If your uncle is there, you simply talk to him and pretend they aren’t there. If you were to meet these types while grocery shopping, you’d ideally set down your basket and walk out of the store.
I imagine this sort of thing would require some sort of mental prep, a psychic girding of the loins. But I had the opportunity to do that with a student who plagiarized this term. Everything for this class is online, and I’m using a SNS to keep in touch with students. So this student plagiarized and I sent him a picture of their essay and where they took it from (helpfully highlighted) and have not replied to any message they sent. Which got them more and more frantic. (unlike the US, plagiarism here is much harder to punish) However, the student sent multiple messages, each one more apologetic and resubmitted the homework. I’m not sure if that would work with the MAGAt types, but it certainly might.
Here in Japan, I’ve not run into those types. There are some floating around, but perhaps Japanese norms and culture serves to have them tamp it down. Tony P’s comment has me wondering how to react.
Obviously, the situation is that they are visiting, so he couldn’t trundle them out. I might go down the the nurse’s station and ask her to claim that the visit was over, or that your uncle had already been visited or anything to get them out the door. That pressure to not rock the boat is so strong, it’s hard to imagine what to do.
On the other hand, if this were someone I were meeting and didn’t have that pressure, I would simply ghost them, pick up my things and leave without a word.
My reaction has been shaped by what works here, and I wonder if it would work in that context as well. There is always the desire to set out why you are doing something. To explain yourself and your actions. But when you do that, you are granding a measure of equality, of equal footing to them. And I believe that is a mistake. They don’t deserve it.
Japanese have what is called an odashibeya and perhaps this is more attuned to Japanese norms, but my feeling is that you simply ignore them. If your uncle is there, you simply talk to him and pretend they aren’t there. If you were to meet these types while grocery shopping, you’d ideally set down your basket and walk out of the store.
I imagine this sort of thing would require some sort of mental prep, a psychic girding of the loins. But I had the opportunity to do that with a student who plagiarized this term. Everything for this class is online, and I’m using a SNS to keep in touch with students. So this student plagiarized and I sent him a picture of their essay and where they took it from (helpfully highlighted) and have not replied to any message they sent. Which got them more and more frantic. (unlike the US, plagiarism here is much harder to punish) However, the student sent multiple messages, each one more apologetic and resubmitted the homework. I’m not sure if that would work with the MAGAt types, but it certainly might.
i’d happily walk out of places where non-vaxxed gather. but the problem is there’s no way to tell who has been vaccinated and who hasn’t. the little paper cards are easily faked – and we can’t ask for them anyway.
i’d happily walk out of places where non-vaxxed gather. but the problem is there’s no way to tell who has been vaccinated and who hasn’t. the little paper cards are easily faked – and we can’t ask for them anyway.
I’m sorry about your mom, Tony P. You are not alone in your anger and frustration with the anti-vaxxers.
From the NYT via yahoo:
As Virus Cases Rise, Another Contagion Spreads Among the Vaccinated: Anger
https://www.yahoo.com/news/virus-cases-rise-another-contagion-121658945.html
I’m sorry about your mom, Tony P. You are not alone in your anger and frustration with the anti-vaxxers.
From the NYT via yahoo:
As Virus Cases Rise, Another Contagion Spreads Among the Vaccinated: Anger
https://www.yahoo.com/news/virus-cases-rise-another-contagion-121658945.html
“As Virus Cases Rise, Another Contagion Spreads Among the Vaccinated: Incandescent Rage”
“As Virus Cases Rise, Another Contagion Spreads Among the Vaccinated: Incandescent Rage”
Cleek, I was just thinking about Tony P talking to the person and that sort of situation. Maybe I’m getting a warped view from some of these stories, but it sounds like in some of these places, people are pushing for a confrontation.
Cleek, I was just thinking about Tony P talking to the person and that sort of situation. Maybe I’m getting a warped view from some of these stories, but it sounds like in some of these places, people are pushing for a confrontation.
TP, sorry about your mom. Having been through it earlier in 2020, I can relate. It’s hard enough to face the decline and the dementia, without adding the COVID situation. I don’t blame you one little bit for your anger.
TP, sorry about your mom. Having been through it earlier in 2020, I can relate. It’s hard enough to face the decline and the dementia, without adding the COVID situation. I don’t blame you one little bit for your anger.
I’ve just been watching the Committee hearing on the January 6th insurrection. I would find it completely incredible that anyone could believe that this event was in any way, “friendly”, “loving” or “tourist”-like. I would do, if I hadn’t now read that the father of one of the survivors of the Parkland school shooting has become a QAnon believer, and is now sure that the school shooting that his son survived is a hoax, and that the kids and others are being paid to continue the hoax.
We are through the looking glass.
I’ve just been watching the Committee hearing on the January 6th insurrection. I would find it completely incredible that anyone could believe that this event was in any way, “friendly”, “loving” or “tourist”-like. I would do, if I hadn’t now read that the father of one of the survivors of the Parkland school shooting has become a QAnon believer, and is now sure that the school shooting that his son survived is a hoax, and that the kids and others are being paid to continue the hoax.
We are through the looking glass.
“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
Always seems farcical… until you run into someone who literally refused to believe his eyes. Whether it’s a shooting survivor or one of those folks dying of covid while insisting to the end that it wasn’t real, so this couldn’t be happening.
“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
Always seems farcical… until you run into someone who literally refused to believe his eyes. Whether it’s a shooting survivor or one of those folks dying of covid while insisting to the end that it wasn’t real, so this couldn’t be happening.
I find it quite ironic that this old Groucho Marx quote is always taken out of context. It’s one of the very few cases where Groucho is NOT trying to scam of fool someone but is the one getting fooled (and thus the question, in the particular situation, is actually sincere).
I find it quite ironic that this old Groucho Marx quote is always taken out of context. It’s one of the very few cases where Groucho is NOT trying to scam of fool someone but is the one getting fooled (and thus the question, in the particular situation, is actually sincere).
The times I’ve experienced something truly dangerous (e.g., the time someone broke into my house) there are a few seconds where I try to come up with a rational, non-threatening explanation for what’s happening.
I think that’s an automatic reaction by the mind to deny horrible reality. (Happily, the initial “this can’t be happening!” response has so far worn off quickly enough that I have been able to respond appropriately.)
The self-willed ability to ignore reality and substitute one’s own may in some ways be a similar process, in terms of cognitive function and response. “This can’t be happening!” – and the person quickly segues to “This isn’t happening,” and transitions thereafter to “This didn’t happen.”
I know people pull this kind of denialism all the time. I’m interested in the mental process of doing so. Like any other mental adaptation, it gets easier the more often it’s done – with the result that people get very accomplished at ignoring what conflicts with their chosen reality.
The times I’ve experienced something truly dangerous (e.g., the time someone broke into my house) there are a few seconds where I try to come up with a rational, non-threatening explanation for what’s happening.
I think that’s an automatic reaction by the mind to deny horrible reality. (Happily, the initial “this can’t be happening!” response has so far worn off quickly enough that I have been able to respond appropriately.)
The self-willed ability to ignore reality and substitute one’s own may in some ways be a similar process, in terms of cognitive function and response. “This can’t be happening!” – and the person quickly segues to “This isn’t happening,” and transitions thereafter to “This didn’t happen.”
I know people pull this kind of denialism all the time. I’m interested in the mental process of doing so. Like any other mental adaptation, it gets easier the more often it’s done – with the result that people get very accomplished at ignoring what conflicts with their chosen reality.
Like any other mental adaptation, it gets easier the more often it’s done – with the result that people get very accomplished at ignoring what conflicts with their chosen reality.
It sounds like you’ve met my sister-in-law.
Like any other mental adaptation, it gets easier the more often it’s done – with the result that people get very accomplished at ignoring what conflicts with their chosen reality.
It sounds like you’ve met my sister-in-law.
hsh – I’m sorry to hear that. Hopefully you don’t have to put up with her all that often.
I know a lot of folks who do it to some degree, mainly in editing past events to make themselves look better than they did at the time. (Since memory is fallible, and none of us have unblemished pasts, probably most people do this to some degree.)
But a full 30% of the American adult public, and an entire political party/media apparatus, is infuriating. Because their delusions don’t affect just themselves and those close to them; it affects all of us.
hsh – I’m sorry to hear that. Hopefully you don’t have to put up with her all that often.
I know a lot of folks who do it to some degree, mainly in editing past events to make themselves look better than they did at the time. (Since memory is fallible, and none of us have unblemished pasts, probably most people do this to some degree.)
But a full 30% of the American adult public, and an entire political party/media apparatus, is infuriating. Because their delusions don’t affect just themselves and those close to them; it affects all of us.
Very shitty leadership from the Repubs on this one, not to mention a really stupid unforced error.
Sorry, McK, but that’s not enough.
Very shitty leadership from the Repubs on this one, not to mention a really stupid unforced error.
Sorry, McK, but that’s not enough.
The GOP is playing this as if they cannot survive any change of direction and don’t care if pursuing this course of action breaks national politics beyond repair.
We’ve lost major parties before, but never (to my knowledge) had one this far out of step with the majority of citizens, but still clinging to power through electoral manipulation and refusing to moderate its direction.
I have no idea what the future holds, other than change. Either the GOP breaks or the country does. Or both…there is always both.
The GOP is playing this as if they cannot survive any change of direction and don’t care if pursuing this course of action breaks national politics beyond repair.
We’ve lost major parties before, but never (to my knowledge) had one this far out of step with the majority of citizens, but still clinging to power through electoral manipulation and refusing to moderate its direction.
I have no idea what the future holds, other than change. Either the GOP breaks or the country does. Or both…there is always both.
To take this in slightly a different direction, I don’t usually post these sorts of news items, but this
https://www.denverpost.com/2021/07/27/aurora-police-excessive-force-john-haubert/
and this
https://www.kezi.com/content/news/Draft-of-new-info-on-fair-shooting–574920831.html
bring to mind this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora,_Colorado_shooting
and this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting
In a distant past, we may have thought that different places had bad energies, and people who lived there were doomed to suffer. Now, we are so immersed in the idea of individual responsibility and each of us as atomic individuals that we might not even grant the possibility that these things could even be linked. We are fooling ourselves.
To take this in slightly a different direction, I don’t usually post these sorts of news items, but this
https://www.denverpost.com/2021/07/27/aurora-police-excessive-force-john-haubert/
and this
https://www.kezi.com/content/news/Draft-of-new-info-on-fair-shooting–574920831.html
bring to mind this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora,_Colorado_shooting
and this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting
In a distant past, we may have thought that different places had bad energies, and people who lived there were doomed to suffer. Now, we are so immersed in the idea of individual responsibility and each of us as atomic individuals that we might not even grant the possibility that these things could even be linked. We are fooling ourselves.
The GOP is playing this as if they cannot survive any change of direction and don’t care if pursuing this course of action breaks national politics beyond repair.
And their denialism is manifested in a refusal to recognize that they cannot survive without a change of direction. Which they cannot.
The GOP is playing this as if they cannot survive any change of direction and don’t care if pursuing this course of action breaks national politics beyond repair.
And their denialism is manifested in a refusal to recognize that they cannot survive without a change of direction. Which they cannot.
If they can keep it up until they themselves retire (or preferably die of old age*), why should they care about any long term strategy**?
And why should they not believe that they will get away with it for that long?
*before the law- or tax-man catches up with them
**I take it for granted that at least the GOP leadership has no actual political ideals and is only pretending knowing that the rubes will fall for it long enough.
If they can keep it up until they themselves retire (or preferably die of old age*), why should they care about any long term strategy**?
And why should they not believe that they will get away with it for that long?
*before the law- or tax-man catches up with them
**I take it for granted that at least the GOP leadership has no actual political ideals and is only pretending knowing that the rubes will fall for it long enough.
i wouldn’t be so sure they can’t survive.
the perennial example: they routinely get a minority of the popular vote in NC but have 8/13 House seats.
they routinely get the minority of the popular Presidential vote, but routinely get the WH by winning the right states.
they have enough people in the right places to stay viable as long as they can get their base out. and their idiot base responds to FUD like no other.
i wouldn’t be so sure they can’t survive.
the perennial example: they routinely get a minority of the popular vote in NC but have 8/13 House seats.
they routinely get the minority of the popular Presidential vote, but routinely get the WH by winning the right states.
they have enough people in the right places to stay viable as long as they can get their base out. and their idiot base responds to FUD like no other.
Their base has become their greatest risk. Now there is always the danger of getting outcrazied by some true believer.
Their base has become their greatest risk. Now there is always the danger of getting outcrazied by some true believer.
i think Trump proved that the GOP leadership is perfectly capable of aligning itself to whatever nonsense the base comes up with.
i think Trump proved that the GOP leadership is perfectly capable of aligning itself to whatever nonsense the base comes up with.
lj, I may well be being exceptionally dim, but I’m finding your last paragraph @08.17 above (and the whole comment) a bit difficult to follow. Could you expand on it a little?
lj, I may well be being exceptionally dim, but I’m finding your last paragraph @08.17 above (and the whole comment) a bit difficult to follow. Could you expand on it a little?
Their base has become their greatest risk. Now there is always the danger of getting outcrazied by some true believer.
And crazy seems to be on the upswing. I won’t be amazed if even McConnell gets a primary challenge next time. After all, he’s been a vaccination supporter all along….
Their base has become their greatest risk. Now there is always the danger of getting outcrazied by some true believer.
And crazy seems to be on the upswing. I won’t be amazed if even McConnell gets a primary challenge next time. After all, he’s been a vaccination supporter all along….
What I took from lj’s comments:
In a distant past, we may have thought that different places [Aurora, Ferguson, Camden] had bad energies [crime, poverty], and people who lived there were doomed to suffer [violence, drugs, high rates of incarceration]. Now, we are so immersed in the idea of individual responsibility [he shouldn’t have resisted, it looked like a gun] and each of us as atomic individuals [he has to take responsibility for his past, those actions don’t represent this agency] that we might not even grant the possibility that these things could even be linked. We are fooling ourselves.
lj, please nuance or correct if I am interpreting this incorrectly and missing your intent.
What I took from lj’s comments:
In a distant past, we may have thought that different places [Aurora, Ferguson, Camden] had bad energies [crime, poverty], and people who lived there were doomed to suffer [violence, drugs, high rates of incarceration]. Now, we are so immersed in the idea of individual responsibility [he shouldn’t have resisted, it looked like a gun] and each of us as atomic individuals [he has to take responsibility for his past, those actions don’t represent this agency] that we might not even grant the possibility that these things could even be linked. We are fooling ourselves.
lj, please nuance or correct if I am interpreting this incorrectly and missing your intent.
Hmmm… I took the distant past to be a time of superstition, when people were wrong in a different way, believing that places with bad energies were cursed in some way. Now we’re wrong about the amount of control people have over their circumstances, believing problems are never systemic in nature.
I guess lj can let us know either way.
Hmmm… I took the distant past to be a time of superstition, when people were wrong in a different way, believing that places with bad energies were cursed in some way. Now we’re wrong about the amount of control people have over their circumstances, believing problems are never systemic in nature.
I guess lj can let us know either way.
I took pretty much hsh’s understanding. (If nothing else, we are having an interesting insight into how differently our words can be interpreted. At least until lj lets us know what he really meant.)
I took pretty much hsh’s understanding. (If nothing else, we are having an interesting insight into how differently our words can be interpreted. At least until lj lets us know what he really meant.)
Hmmm… I took the distant past to be a time of superstition
I was taking that as an analogy of sorts that gives us a mythic slant on structural and generational problems. Pre-enlightenment thinking had us believe that… but the enlightenment thinkers told us that… but now we are seeing that perhaps there was something deeper to the old way of thinking.
Argument can be like climbing route sometimes. The holds are mostly marked, but how you get from one to another is individual.
It takes a couple of intuitive leaps to get to my understanding of “the route.” Hoping I’m making the right leaps.
Hmmm… I took the distant past to be a time of superstition
I was taking that as an analogy of sorts that gives us a mythic slant on structural and generational problems. Pre-enlightenment thinking had us believe that… but the enlightenment thinkers told us that… but now we are seeing that perhaps there was something deeper to the old way of thinking.
Argument can be like climbing route sometimes. The holds are mostly marked, but how you get from one to another is individual.
It takes a couple of intuitive leaps to get to my understanding of “the route.” Hoping I’m making the right leaps.
hsh’s version was my guess about what lj was getting at, with the additional wrinkle (for me) that the feng shui I grew up around certainly implied hsh’s first sentence. And his (hsh’s) second sentence made sense too, both as a follow-on from the first, and a concept that we often discuss here. nous, it’s the second part of your formulation that still seems very mysterious to me, but something tells me that’s intentional!
hsh’s version was my guess about what lj was getting at, with the additional wrinkle (for me) that the feng shui I grew up around certainly implied hsh’s first sentence. And his (hsh’s) second sentence made sense too, both as a follow-on from the first, and a concept that we often discuss here. nous, it’s the second part of your formulation that still seems very mysterious to me, but something tells me that’s intentional!
The second part is informed by something like this:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mortality-black-belt/
There’s a map, made more than 150 years ago using 1860 census data, that pops up periodically on the internet. On two yellowed, taped-together sheets of paper, the counties of the Southern U.S. are shaded to reflect the percentage of inhabitants who were enslaved at the time. Bolivar County, Mississippi, is nearly black on the map, with 86.7 printed on it. Greene County, Alabama: 76.5. Burke, Georgia: 70.6. The map is one of the first attempts to translate U.S. census data into cartographic form and is one of several maps of the era that tried to make sense of the deep divisions between North and South, slave states and free.
But the reason the map resurfaces so frequently is not just its historical relevance. Rather, it’s because the shading so closely matches visualizations of many modern-day data sets. There is the stream of blue voters in counties on solidly red land in the 2016 presidential election, or differences in television viewing patterns. There’s research on the profound lack of economic mobility in some places, and on life expectancy at birth.
The second part is informed by something like this:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mortality-black-belt/
There’s a map, made more than 150 years ago using 1860 census data, that pops up periodically on the internet. On two yellowed, taped-together sheets of paper, the counties of the Southern U.S. are shaded to reflect the percentage of inhabitants who were enslaved at the time. Bolivar County, Mississippi, is nearly black on the map, with 86.7 printed on it. Greene County, Alabama: 76.5. Burke, Georgia: 70.6. The map is one of the first attempts to translate U.S. census data into cartographic form and is one of several maps of the era that tried to make sense of the deep divisions between North and South, slave states and free.
But the reason the map resurfaces so frequently is not just its historical relevance. Rather, it’s because the shading so closely matches visualizations of many modern-day data sets. There is the stream of blue voters in counties on solidly red land in the 2016 presidential election, or differences in television viewing patterns. There’s research on the profound lack of economic mobility in some places, and on life expectancy at birth.
Yes, but isn’t that systemic, inherited, (mostly race-related) poverty and disadvantage such as we (most of us) acknowledge exists? As in hsh’s formulation? I must be missing something…
Yes, but isn’t that systemic, inherited, (mostly race-related) poverty and disadvantage such as we (most of us) acknowledge exists? As in hsh’s formulation? I must be missing something…
Yes, but isn’t that systemic, inherited, (mostly race-related) poverty and disadvantage such as we (most of us) acknowledge exists?
We’ve seen here in our discussions, though, what lj was talking about with our current paradigm of individual freedom and responsibility and how that is used to undercut any assertion of structural problems.
It’s a macro/micro problem, and the reliance on an individual frame for every problem cuts the macro level concerns out of the discussion.
But on the macro level it starts to look, again, like the old problems of places with problems tied to them.
Yes, but isn’t that systemic, inherited, (mostly race-related) poverty and disadvantage such as we (most of us) acknowledge exists?
We’ve seen here in our discussions, though, what lj was talking about with our current paradigm of individual freedom and responsibility and how that is used to undercut any assertion of structural problems.
It’s a macro/micro problem, and the reliance on an individual frame for every problem cuts the macro level concerns out of the discussion.
But on the macro level it starts to look, again, like the old problems of places with problems tied to them.
Sorry, not able to stay up late as I’m going full out during the day.
Yes, nous’ take is the one I want to get across and I did want to connect with past. We look at our ancestors and think ‘god, what idiots’ Yet they were as smart (and as stupid) as we are. We look at “our” accomplishments and take them as triumphs that validate our success. This isn’t to say that hsh is wrong, but it seems to me that both takes are part of the same thing.
I wouldn’t wish my facebook timeline on anyone, but if you have one similar, you have arguments about whether it’s good for Bezos/Musk/Branson to do the shit they do. It’s remarkable, all of us “know” that those 3 musketeers didn’t build a rocket with their own hands, coming up with a fuel mix to provide optimum thrust, figure out the trajectory. They are essentially Laika, of some without the check of oxygen deprivation
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/sad-story-laika-space-dog-and-her-one-way-trip-orbit-1-180968728/
https://www.space.com/19505-space-monkeys-chimps-history.html
Every discussion seems to turn to an individual frame and it really distracts. I didn’t have this in mind, but if we look at the problems we are having with vaccination and personal responsibility, it takes all those problems and puts them in a blender. I’ll leave it all there before I get too ranty, but hope that helps.
Sorry, not able to stay up late as I’m going full out during the day.
Yes, nous’ take is the one I want to get across and I did want to connect with past. We look at our ancestors and think ‘god, what idiots’ Yet they were as smart (and as stupid) as we are. We look at “our” accomplishments and take them as triumphs that validate our success. This isn’t to say that hsh is wrong, but it seems to me that both takes are part of the same thing.
I wouldn’t wish my facebook timeline on anyone, but if you have one similar, you have arguments about whether it’s good for Bezos/Musk/Branson to do the shit they do. It’s remarkable, all of us “know” that those 3 musketeers didn’t build a rocket with their own hands, coming up with a fuel mix to provide optimum thrust, figure out the trajectory. They are essentially Laika, of some without the check of oxygen deprivation
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/sad-story-laika-space-dog-and-her-one-way-trip-orbit-1-180968728/
https://www.space.com/19505-space-monkeys-chimps-history.html
Every discussion seems to turn to an individual frame and it really distracts. I didn’t have this in mind, but if we look at the problems we are having with vaccination and personal responsibility, it takes all those problems and puts them in a blender. I’ll leave it all there before I get too ranty, but hope that helps.
We’ve seen here in our discussions, though, what lj was talking about with our current paradigm of individual freedom and responsibility and how that is used to undercut any assertion of structural problems.
Have we, here? Leaving aside McKinney and Marty, who clearly have a different opinion on this issue from most of us, is this something you have seen here? Or is this about some of the reaction here to Robin DiAngelo and White Fragility, or even my evolving views on trans issues? I can’t exactly see how what we have been talking about applies to either of those, but it might be my blind spot…
We’ve seen here in our discussions, though, what lj was talking about with our current paradigm of individual freedom and responsibility and how that is used to undercut any assertion of structural problems.
Have we, here? Leaving aside McKinney and Marty, who clearly have a different opinion on this issue from most of us, is this something you have seen here? Or is this about some of the reaction here to Robin DiAngelo and White Fragility, or even my evolving views on trans issues? I can’t exactly see how what we have been talking about applies to either of those, but it might be my blind spot…
Sorry, cross posted with lj. Absorbing.
Sorry, cross posted with lj. Absorbing.
Why leave aside McKinney and Marty, (and CharlesWT defaults to that line of argument as his starting point)? They are part of the conversation here and part of the wider political deliberations as voters.
Please note that I don’t believe that they deny that we have problems with race and racism in the US, or mean to imply that they do not want to solve those problems. I’m not attacking their intentions, just pointing out the paradigm from which they approach the conversation of what should be done and how the solution should be implemented.
Why leave aside McKinney and Marty, (and CharlesWT defaults to that line of argument as his starting point)? They are part of the conversation here and part of the wider political deliberations as voters.
Please note that I don’t believe that they deny that we have problems with race and racism in the US, or mean to imply that they do not want to solve those problems. I’m not attacking their intentions, just pointing out the paradigm from which they approach the conversation of what should be done and how the solution should be implemented.
No of course, if you want to include McKinney and Marty and CharlesWT , then clearly their views align much more closely with those who are reluctant to acknowledge the extent and systemic nature of various kinds of inequalities. But since they are obviously very much in the minority here, in that as in so much else, I wondered if you had something other in mind. (I also should have added to my list of possible topics the issues which came up in our recent discussion of the MIT hacks.)
But yes, thanks all and especially lj, I now have something of a clearer idea of what was meant by the original comment.
No of course, if you want to include McKinney and Marty and CharlesWT , then clearly their views align much more closely with those who are reluctant to acknowledge the extent and systemic nature of various kinds of inequalities. But since they are obviously very much in the minority here, in that as in so much else, I wondered if you had something other in mind. (I also should have added to my list of possible topics the issues which came up in our recent discussion of the MIT hacks.)
But yes, thanks all and especially lj, I now have something of a clearer idea of what was meant by the original comment.
If this were some period of time where I would be very rich (which would obviously be due to status and dumb luck) I hope I would have the sense to employ nous as my factotum.
(which I thought has one meaning as a ghostwriter and when I went to check, factotum sent me to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handyman
but anyway, just to say that he packages what I’m thinking a lot more elegantly than I do. Maybe the word is amanuensis, but that looks like just taking dictation)
A phrase I often have in my head is ‘It’s not about you’. Looking at these larger trends, it isn’t about individuals, it is about the impact on the collective. I don’t say it because it can come off as totally dismissive, but when it is the system that is problematic (and something like white fragility or attitudes towards trans are systemic in their scope, or climate change or gun laws), it isn’t about any one person’s attitudesand their evolution, it is about the evolution of the collective weight of those attitudes.
And one thing I notice (not so much here, but in other places) is that rather than deal with that, the urge is to personalize the argument. ‘you just don’t like me, do you’ sort of thing. ‘you disagree because you are a xxx’ I feel that it is at that point, rather than later, that the thread is lost.
I realize that Loomis is an acquired taste, but this is what I’m thinking
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/07/the-loss-of-collective-solidarity
more later, thanks for asking questions to get me to clarify GftNC
If this were some period of time where I would be very rich (which would obviously be due to status and dumb luck) I hope I would have the sense to employ nous as my factotum.
(which I thought has one meaning as a ghostwriter and when I went to check, factotum sent me to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handyman
but anyway, just to say that he packages what I’m thinking a lot more elegantly than I do. Maybe the word is amanuensis, but that looks like just taking dictation)
A phrase I often have in my head is ‘It’s not about you’. Looking at these larger trends, it isn’t about individuals, it is about the impact on the collective. I don’t say it because it can come off as totally dismissive, but when it is the system that is problematic (and something like white fragility or attitudes towards trans are systemic in their scope, or climate change or gun laws), it isn’t about any one person’s attitudesand their evolution, it is about the evolution of the collective weight of those attitudes.
And one thing I notice (not so much here, but in other places) is that rather than deal with that, the urge is to personalize the argument. ‘you just don’t like me, do you’ sort of thing. ‘you disagree because you are a xxx’ I feel that it is at that point, rather than later, that the thread is lost.
I realize that Loomis is an acquired taste, but this is what I’m thinking
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/07/the-loss-of-collective-solidarity
more later, thanks for asking questions to get me to clarify GftNC
he packages what I’m thinking a lot more elegantly
And not just you, nous is a particularly good and clear articulator of complicated stuff. Not to mention occasionally wickedly witty.
The thing I find so fascinating, is the way the evolution of the collective weight of those attitudes can move so fast. For gender-critical feminists, the speed of the evolution to what has become the majority progressive view on self-ID is astounding. For anyone who is interested, this is a piece on a Labour MP who is currently in the firing line:
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/02/rosie-duffields-canterbury-tale-defending-womens-rights/
he packages what I’m thinking a lot more elegantly
And not just you, nous is a particularly good and clear articulator of complicated stuff. Not to mention occasionally wickedly witty.
The thing I find so fascinating, is the way the evolution of the collective weight of those attitudes can move so fast. For gender-critical feminists, the speed of the evolution to what has become the majority progressive view on self-ID is astounding. For anyone who is interested, this is a piece on a Labour MP who is currently in the firing line:
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/02/rosie-duffields-canterbury-tale-defending-womens-rights/
Sorry not trying to threadjack, that interview with Rosie Duffield was in February, but (partly) forms the basis for what is reported in another piece in Lesbian and Gay News dated today:
LGBT+ Labour have claimed that Duffield has engaged in “a pattern of LGBT-phobic behaviour”. Chair of LGBT+ Labour Alex Beverley added: “We feel we have exhausted all other options and now must publicly call for the whip to be removed from Rosie Duffield and for her to be suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party.”
“The party must demonstrate that it stands with the LGBT+ community and that it will not tolerate transphobia or homophobia from our membership or elected officials.”
Some have cited Duffield’s opposition to gender self-identification and acknowledgment that ‘only women have a cervix’ as evidence of transphobia, despite the fact that Duffield is clear that she has no animosity toward those who identify as transgender. But even in the febrile environment of social media, where disagreement is often misconstrued as hatred, no evidence exists of any homophobia from Duffield.
Also, I’m definitely not trying to make ObWi a mouthpiece for gender-critical views, but I’m hoping folks here won’t mind me linking the occasional piece showing how views on this issue are evolving (or not) in the UK.
Sorry not trying to threadjack, that interview with Rosie Duffield was in February, but (partly) forms the basis for what is reported in another piece in Lesbian and Gay News dated today:
LGBT+ Labour have claimed that Duffield has engaged in “a pattern of LGBT-phobic behaviour”. Chair of LGBT+ Labour Alex Beverley added: “We feel we have exhausted all other options and now must publicly call for the whip to be removed from Rosie Duffield and for her to be suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party.”
“The party must demonstrate that it stands with the LGBT+ community and that it will not tolerate transphobia or homophobia from our membership or elected officials.”
Some have cited Duffield’s opposition to gender self-identification and acknowledgment that ‘only women have a cervix’ as evidence of transphobia, despite the fact that Duffield is clear that she has no animosity toward those who identify as transgender. But even in the febrile environment of social media, where disagreement is often misconstrued as hatred, no evidence exists of any homophobia from Duffield.
Also, I’m definitely not trying to make ObWi a mouthpiece for gender-critical views, but I’m hoping folks here won’t mind me linking the occasional piece showing how views on this issue are evolving (or not) in the UK.
Regret to inform you that it is, by definition, impossible to threadjack an Open Thread. 😉
Regret to inform you that it is, by definition, impossible to threadjack an Open Thread. 😉
The thing I find so fascinating, is the way the evolution of the collective weight of those attitudes can move so fast. For gender-critical feminists, the speed of the evolution to what has become the majority progressive view on self-ID is astounding.
I tend to think of this as an evolution that begins in earnest in 1990 with the publication of Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s Epistemology of the Closet (with Foucault’s The History of Sexuality sitting in the background since its translation into English in 1978). It was a constant feature of debates between Queer and BIPOC scholars and Women’s Studies scholars for most of the 1990s and 2000s. The tipping point on this in the US happens during the Obama years when Don’t Ask Don’t Tell finally gave way to integration for both women and transgendered military personnel, and then, of course, the reality TV driven ubiquity of Caitlyn Jenner pushing the whole conversation into mainstream media.
It seems a rapid tectonic shift for those who only witnessed the mainstream policy debates, but it’s a 30-year shift to anyone who’s been part of the scholarly community debating these topics.
And for community based Women’s Rights activists without much connection to Queer and BIPOC activists, the tipping point probably seems like something on which they were not consulted, whereas for the Intersectional Feminists, the current moment seems like a dissident-let backlash against a hard-won, multi-decade consensus building.
The thing I find so fascinating, is the way the evolution of the collective weight of those attitudes can move so fast. For gender-critical feminists, the speed of the evolution to what has become the majority progressive view on self-ID is astounding.
I tend to think of this as an evolution that begins in earnest in 1990 with the publication of Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s Epistemology of the Closet (with Foucault’s The History of Sexuality sitting in the background since its translation into English in 1978). It was a constant feature of debates between Queer and BIPOC scholars and Women’s Studies scholars for most of the 1990s and 2000s. The tipping point on this in the US happens during the Obama years when Don’t Ask Don’t Tell finally gave way to integration for both women and transgendered military personnel, and then, of course, the reality TV driven ubiquity of Caitlyn Jenner pushing the whole conversation into mainstream media.
It seems a rapid tectonic shift for those who only witnessed the mainstream policy debates, but it’s a 30-year shift to anyone who’s been part of the scholarly community debating these topics.
And for community based Women’s Rights activists without much connection to Queer and BIPOC activists, the tipping point probably seems like something on which they were not consulted, whereas for the Intersectional Feminists, the current moment seems like a dissident-let backlash against a hard-won, multi-decade consensus building.
We seem to have a lot of gay activists here who oppose self-ID. But perhaps the “Queer” in “Queer and BIPOC activists” means something other than gay in the relevant academic vocabulary?
Also, for clarity’s sake, when you say the current moment seems like a dissident-let backlash against a hard-won, multi-decade consensus building do you mean the objection to self-ID and its effect on women’s rights, or are you talking about transphobia? Because I think if the former (defining any objection to self-ID being sufficient to legally establish someone as the sex, not gender, they feel, as being transphobic) that is self-evidently wrong. As I have said ad nauseam, I (and many like me) have extreme concern for the rights of trans people, to dignity, to protection from violence, and in every other way.
Anyway, again, I don’t want to become a one-trick pony on this issue, and I don’t want to constantly argue with you, nous. It’s just that I don’t think it’s just “Women’s Rights activists” who feel self-ID was something they were not consulted on, it’s women, particularly women of a sufficiently advanced age to have had much experience of the multifarious ways in which their rights and protections are frequently under threat.
We seem to have a lot of gay activists here who oppose self-ID. But perhaps the “Queer” in “Queer and BIPOC activists” means something other than gay in the relevant academic vocabulary?
Also, for clarity’s sake, when you say the current moment seems like a dissident-let backlash against a hard-won, multi-decade consensus building do you mean the objection to self-ID and its effect on women’s rights, or are you talking about transphobia? Because I think if the former (defining any objection to self-ID being sufficient to legally establish someone as the sex, not gender, they feel, as being transphobic) that is self-evidently wrong. As I have said ad nauseam, I (and many like me) have extreme concern for the rights of trans people, to dignity, to protection from violence, and in every other way.
Anyway, again, I don’t want to become a one-trick pony on this issue, and I don’t want to constantly argue with you, nous. It’s just that I don’t think it’s just “Women’s Rights activists” who feel self-ID was something they were not consulted on, it’s women, particularly women of a sufficiently advanced age to have had much experience of the multifarious ways in which their rights and protections are frequently under threat.
Of the LGBTQA letters, I have a pretty solid idea of what LGBT and A are.
Yes, I know what *word* the Q stands for, but kinda fuzzy about what “queer” actually is.
If some people don’t like to self-ID that way, maybe they should use the word “weird” instead? I could identify with that.
Of the LGBTQA letters, I have a pretty solid idea of what LGBT and A are.
Yes, I know what *word* the Q stands for, but kinda fuzzy about what “queer” actually is.
If some people don’t like to self-ID that way, maybe they should use the word “weird” instead? I could identify with that.
I say Women’s Rights Activists in part because those are the people who are raising the issue. I think most women really didn’t think much about trans* rights issues until they started to see those issues intersecting with their own.
Meanwhile, trans* people tend also to be activists out of necessity.
And Queer as opposed to Women in my earlier formulation based on disciplinary identities, not by sex/gender identities. People whose main involvement is with LGBTQ human rights issues or people who may be gay, but whose primary involvement is with women’s human rights issues.
People can find themselves conflicted and interpolated in many ways when identities overlap.
My problematic family members, by the way, insist that *they* are the real women and would gladly throw most feminists under the bus with the queer activists. There’s that problematic overlap between gender critical feminists and gender critical patriarchy supporters.
I say Women’s Rights Activists in part because those are the people who are raising the issue. I think most women really didn’t think much about trans* rights issues until they started to see those issues intersecting with their own.
Meanwhile, trans* people tend also to be activists out of necessity.
And Queer as opposed to Women in my earlier formulation based on disciplinary identities, not by sex/gender identities. People whose main involvement is with LGBTQ human rights issues or people who may be gay, but whose primary involvement is with women’s human rights issues.
People can find themselves conflicted and interpolated in many ways when identities overlap.
My problematic family members, by the way, insist that *they* are the real women and would gladly throw most feminists under the bus with the queer activists. There’s that problematic overlap between gender critical feminists and gender critical patriarchy supporters.
“Q” in LGBTQ is meant to be inclusive of genderqueer and non-binary people, or those who know that they are queer in the larger sense, but are still trying to work out where their edges are.
“Q” in LGBTQ is meant to be inclusive of genderqueer and non-binary people, or those who know that they are queer in the larger sense, but are still trying to work out where their edges are.
it’s a 30-year shift
for context, Stonewall was 52 years ago. the first AIDs cases were 40 years ago, and the AIDs epidemic was an enormously galvanizing event for the gay community. I mark it as the point when they decided they were no longer going to accept second-class-human treatment anymore.
they got tired of dying.
kinda fuzzy about what “queer” actually is.
As a tiny data point, I know one person who identifies as ‘queer’, using that term.
He is straight, married with a kid, looks and acts male. He identifies with a lot of things that seem feminine to him, so he sees himself as falling somewhere outside the gender lines.
I wish he felt no need to name himself anything other than “John”, but we all have to live in a world we never made.
it’s a 30-year shift
for context, Stonewall was 52 years ago. the first AIDs cases were 40 years ago, and the AIDs epidemic was an enormously galvanizing event for the gay community. I mark it as the point when they decided they were no longer going to accept second-class-human treatment anymore.
they got tired of dying.
kinda fuzzy about what “queer” actually is.
As a tiny data point, I know one person who identifies as ‘queer’, using that term.
He is straight, married with a kid, looks and acts male. He identifies with a lot of things that seem feminine to him, so he sees himself as falling somewhere outside the gender lines.
I wish he felt no need to name himself anything other than “John”, but we all have to live in a world we never made.
the AIDs epidemic was an enormously galvanizing event for the gay community. I mark it as the point when they decided they were no longer going to accept second-class-human treatment anymore.
My sense at the time was that the AIDS epidemic convinced the vast majority of gays (especially the closetted ones) that simple survival required coming out and demanding their rights. The closet wasn’t comfortable, but it was familiar. Coming out was a change and a risk. For it to happen the risk of not changing had to be larger. (Although for some, much like today’s anti-vaxxers, even a high probability of dying wasn’t serious enough to convince them to change.)
the AIDs epidemic was an enormously galvanizing event for the gay community. I mark it as the point when they decided they were no longer going to accept second-class-human treatment anymore.
My sense at the time was that the AIDS epidemic convinced the vast majority of gays (especially the closetted ones) that simple survival required coming out and demanding their rights. The closet wasn’t comfortable, but it was familiar. Coming out was a change and a risk. For it to happen the risk of not changing had to be larger. (Although for some, much like today’s anti-vaxxers, even a high probability of dying wasn’t serious enough to convince them to change.)
This is just an observation, but there seems to be a slightly different flavor to the trans debates in the UK and in the US. Not exactly sure what it is and if it flows from differences between debates feminism, initial gay rights or something else entirely. It’s not that the US is better than the UK or vice versa, it just feels different when I read stuff about it.
This is just an observation, but there seems to be a slightly different flavor to the trans debates in the UK and in the US. Not exactly sure what it is and if it flows from differences between debates feminism, initial gay rights or something else entirely. It’s not that the US is better than the UK or vice versa, it just feels different when I read stuff about it.
Another short comment, that question of who is ‘real’ and who isn’t is one that often comes up in immigrant/expat/New Japanese(NJ)/mixed conversations. It’s fraught, frustrating and can often be used by people in ways that they don’t realize how dividing it can be.
Another short comment, that question of who is ‘real’ and who isn’t is one that often comes up in immigrant/expat/New Japanese(NJ)/mixed conversations. It’s fraught, frustrating and can often be used by people in ways that they don’t realize how dividing it can be.
Sorry, three comments in a row, but I want to tease out some things about wj’s take on why the gay liberation movement happened. I don’t think it is a unique take, I feel like many other people might have a similar one, but I do think it is problematic.
I also want to say that I don’t think he’s wrong, it is just that it is one narrative. But there are other narratives and each person is an individual, so that is A narrative, not THE narrative. And a multiplicity of narratives is necessary to allow for the diversity of experiences and opinions.
Which is important because the narrative is problematic. Here it is with some bits bolded
My sense at the time was that the AIDS epidemic convinced the vast majority of gays (especially the closetted ones) that simple survival required coming out and demanding their rights. The closet wasn’t comfortable, but it was familiar. Coming out was a change and a risk. For it to happen the risk of not changing had to be larger.
So, first thing is that if we take that as THE narrative, we imply that had AIDs/HIV not occurred, they would and perhaps should have been happy to stay where they were. Is that the case for everyone? Immediately, it shifts to that individual responsibility, if you wanted to be gay, you should accept the consequences. Yet those consequences were not really things that they could necessarily choose.
For ‘simple’ survival, I understand what you mean, but why shouldn’t being the person you want to be, finding the person you want to be with, making a family, also be ‘simple’. For For gay people before liberation, it was cut off to them. It’s still being cut off to them. So saying ‘simple’ survival implies that having complex needs is somehow something they shouldn’t have had. Or if they had them, they should repress them.
There is also an underlying implication that those in the closet were forced to come out. It takes away their agency, their control of their lives and their identity. On one level, we never really control our own identity, we are not just who we think we are, we are who others think we are. So this narrative shifts all the responsibility for change on those who were being discriminated against.
By presenting this as a cost-benefit analysis, it also fails to calculate the benefits to society when people can be who they feel they are. Can we imagine that people do their best, be their most creative, be the best persons they can be if they are constantly running a check on whether being true to themselves is a plus or a minus?
I don’t mean to make you a pinata here, and I’m not speaking for gay folks, but when I look at your narrative, it seems to leave out a lot of the story. And if I can see it as a cisgender male can see that, it might be even more problematic for others with actual stakes in the game.
Just to emphasize, this isn’t to doubt your good will and your good intentions, so please don’t take this as an attack on you, just some observations about that narrative.
Sorry, three comments in a row, but I want to tease out some things about wj’s take on why the gay liberation movement happened. I don’t think it is a unique take, I feel like many other people might have a similar one, but I do think it is problematic.
I also want to say that I don’t think he’s wrong, it is just that it is one narrative. But there are other narratives and each person is an individual, so that is A narrative, not THE narrative. And a multiplicity of narratives is necessary to allow for the diversity of experiences and opinions.
Which is important because the narrative is problematic. Here it is with some bits bolded
My sense at the time was that the AIDS epidemic convinced the vast majority of gays (especially the closetted ones) that simple survival required coming out and demanding their rights. The closet wasn’t comfortable, but it was familiar. Coming out was a change and a risk. For it to happen the risk of not changing had to be larger.
So, first thing is that if we take that as THE narrative, we imply that had AIDs/HIV not occurred, they would and perhaps should have been happy to stay where they were. Is that the case for everyone? Immediately, it shifts to that individual responsibility, if you wanted to be gay, you should accept the consequences. Yet those consequences were not really things that they could necessarily choose.
For ‘simple’ survival, I understand what you mean, but why shouldn’t being the person you want to be, finding the person you want to be with, making a family, also be ‘simple’. For For gay people before liberation, it was cut off to them. It’s still being cut off to them. So saying ‘simple’ survival implies that having complex needs is somehow something they shouldn’t have had. Or if they had them, they should repress them.
There is also an underlying implication that those in the closet were forced to come out. It takes away their agency, their control of their lives and their identity. On one level, we never really control our own identity, we are not just who we think we are, we are who others think we are. So this narrative shifts all the responsibility for change on those who were being discriminated against.
By presenting this as a cost-benefit analysis, it also fails to calculate the benefits to society when people can be who they feel they are. Can we imagine that people do their best, be their most creative, be the best persons they can be if they are constantly running a check on whether being true to themselves is a plus or a minus?
I don’t mean to make you a pinata here, and I’m not speaking for gay folks, but when I look at your narrative, it seems to leave out a lot of the story. And if I can see it as a cisgender male can see that, it might be even more problematic for others with actual stakes in the game.
Just to emphasize, this isn’t to doubt your good will and your good intentions, so please don’t take this as an attack on you, just some observations about that narrative.
There’s that problematic overlap between gender critical feminists and gender critical patriarchy supporters.
So true! As I have already observed, it is incredibly uncomfortable. But I’d guess it’s nothing to the discomfort of the overlap between transactivists and transactivist patriarchy supporters:
There’s that problematic overlap between gender critical feminists and gender critical patriarchy supporters.
So true! As I have already observed, it is incredibly uncomfortable. But I’d guess it’s nothing to the discomfort of the overlap between transactivists and transactivist patriarchy supporters:
first thing is that if we take that as THE narrative, we imply that had AIDs/HIV not occurred, they would and perhaps should have been happy to stay where they were.
Apologies, lj, if I made it seem that I thought AIDS was the only factor. Clearly it wasn’t. But I do think it vastly speeded up, and took national, something that was already starting, albeit somewhat tentatively, in a few urban liberal enclaves (such as the one I lived in at the time).
And I don’t think those in the closet were happy with their situation otherwise. I just think it was familiar, and that they saw coming out as a serious risk. Which it definitively was, to an extent that those born since 1985 can’t really imagine. I mean, liberals, even far left ones, when denouncing Reagan routinely called him “Ronnie buttf*ck”. Not precisely a sign of openmindedness and acceptance when it came to homosexuals.
As with any cultural change, there were multiple causes in aggregate. And, for each individual, multiple factors as well. But I think that, in this case, we can identify one cause for the timing which was substantially more significant than any other for the overall movement.
first thing is that if we take that as THE narrative, we imply that had AIDs/HIV not occurred, they would and perhaps should have been happy to stay where they were.
Apologies, lj, if I made it seem that I thought AIDS was the only factor. Clearly it wasn’t. But I do think it vastly speeded up, and took national, something that was already starting, albeit somewhat tentatively, in a few urban liberal enclaves (such as the one I lived in at the time).
And I don’t think those in the closet were happy with their situation otherwise. I just think it was familiar, and that they saw coming out as a serious risk. Which it definitively was, to an extent that those born since 1985 can’t really imagine. I mean, liberals, even far left ones, when denouncing Reagan routinely called him “Ronnie buttf*ck”. Not precisely a sign of openmindedness and acceptance when it came to homosexuals.
As with any cultural change, there were multiple causes in aggregate. And, for each individual, multiple factors as well. But I think that, in this case, we can identify one cause for the timing which was substantially more significant than any other for the overall movement.
Thanks wj and apologies for me using that as an argument. It is astonishing how much attitudes have changed and, though I don’t want to make your thoughts have to carry all of my speculation, I wonder why that is the case for homosexuality, but not for racism?
Certainly some easy factors to identify, the likelihood that you would find a relative or acquaintance who was gay and be surprised was a given, but you aren’t going to discover that an uncle or aunt was black (“wow, I didn’t realize…”), when people began coming out, they appeared across a wide crosssection of society, one didn’t suddenly discover that a CEO of a company whose goods you used all the time was black. The fact that sexual attraction exists on a spectrum means that a wider range of people are going to be sympathetic, so there was a multiplier effect that doesn’t exist for anti-racism. To the extent that all this is true, I wonder if anyone has any other speculation about this.
Thanks wj and apologies for me using that as an argument. It is astonishing how much attitudes have changed and, though I don’t want to make your thoughts have to carry all of my speculation, I wonder why that is the case for homosexuality, but not for racism?
Certainly some easy factors to identify, the likelihood that you would find a relative or acquaintance who was gay and be surprised was a given, but you aren’t going to discover that an uncle or aunt was black (“wow, I didn’t realize…”), when people began coming out, they appeared across a wide crosssection of society, one didn’t suddenly discover that a CEO of a company whose goods you used all the time was black. The fact that sexual attraction exists on a spectrum means that a wider range of people are going to be sympathetic, so there was a multiplier effect that doesn’t exist for anti-racism. To the extent that all this is true, I wonder if anyone has any other speculation about this.
If AIDS indeed played a major part in ‘normalizing’ openly professed homosexuality, it must be especially painful for the type of homophobes who welcomed the disease in the mistaken belief that it would get either rid society of gays or could serve as a pretense to put them all in concentration camps (there were ‘respectable’ politicians over here in Germany calling for that or at least an equivalent of the yellow star).
When I grew up, homosexuality was something I could not really grasp* and to me seemed limited to a certain strange subculture (which was concentrated in a certain quarter of town together with many other alternative lifestyles). No ‘moral’ prejudices on my part just not something that would fit in** ‘next door’. That subculture still exists around here but is now just one form of expression, not something gays and lesbians do ‘by nature’.
*still can’t, admittedly. But that is more about finding quite common sexual practices icky not about the emotional attraction between people of the same sex (no or at least no significant mental problems there).
**’fit in’ just in the sense of ‘does not seem out of place’ with no judgement involved. A gay couple next door would have been more like the neighbours having a giant anteater or an okapi as a pet.
If AIDS indeed played a major part in ‘normalizing’ openly professed homosexuality, it must be especially painful for the type of homophobes who welcomed the disease in the mistaken belief that it would get either rid society of gays or could serve as a pretense to put them all in concentration camps (there were ‘respectable’ politicians over here in Germany calling for that or at least an equivalent of the yellow star).
When I grew up, homosexuality was something I could not really grasp* and to me seemed limited to a certain strange subculture (which was concentrated in a certain quarter of town together with many other alternative lifestyles). No ‘moral’ prejudices on my part just not something that would fit in** ‘next door’. That subculture still exists around here but is now just one form of expression, not something gays and lesbians do ‘by nature’.
*still can’t, admittedly. But that is more about finding quite common sexual practices icky not about the emotional attraction between people of the same sex (no or at least no significant mental problems there).
**’fit in’ just in the sense of ‘does not seem out of place’ with no judgement involved. A gay couple next door would have been more like the neighbours having a giant anteater or an okapi as a pet.
When I grew up, homosexuality was something I could not really grasp*
…
*still can’t, admittedly. But that is more about finding quite common sexual practices icky not about the emotional attraction between people of the same sex
I have the same problem, on an emotional level. I suspect that it is rather common among people of my generation, just due to the culture in which we were raised. I manage to set aside those reactions when making decisions on how gays should be treated; others apparently find that impossible. Perhaps the good news is that this generation is passing from the scene.
When I grew up, homosexuality was something I could not really grasp*
…
*still can’t, admittedly. But that is more about finding quite common sexual practices icky not about the emotional attraction between people of the same sex
I have the same problem, on an emotional level. I suspect that it is rather common among people of my generation, just due to the culture in which we were raised. I manage to set aside those reactions when making decisions on how gays should be treated; others apparently find that impossible. Perhaps the good news is that this generation is passing from the scene.
I’ve read a dozen plus articles that attempt to trace the current anti-trans* moment in England and while I see some trends and consistent beats in the conversation (legacies of colonialism, the influence of the Sceptic Movement of the 1990s on a particular view of biological determinism), trying to chart a course through it to make sense of it all is not something that can be done in a single, readable comment on a blog.
I will say, however, that all that reading has left me with the impression that the trans* scepticism is related on some level to Euro scepticism and has parallels with the Brexit arguments. It’s about policing borders and a suspicion of migrancy.
For this reason, some of the more interesting accounts of the moment (to me, anyway) come from Irish feminists.
I’ve read a dozen plus articles that attempt to trace the current anti-trans* moment in England and while I see some trends and consistent beats in the conversation (legacies of colonialism, the influence of the Sceptic Movement of the 1990s on a particular view of biological determinism), trying to chart a course through it to make sense of it all is not something that can be done in a single, readable comment on a blog.
I will say, however, that all that reading has left me with the impression that the trans* scepticism is related on some level to Euro scepticism and has parallels with the Brexit arguments. It’s about policing borders and a suspicion of migrancy.
For this reason, some of the more interesting accounts of the moment (to me, anyway) come from Irish feminists.
the impression that the trans* scepticism is related on some level to Euro scepticism and has parallels with the Brexit arguments.
Like those similarly inclined in the US, it sounds like the common thread is a dislike of society changing from the way it was half a century (or more!) ago.
the impression that the trans* scepticism is related on some level to Euro scepticism and has parallels with the Brexit arguments.
Like those similarly inclined in the US, it sounds like the common thread is a dislike of society changing from the way it was half a century (or more!) ago.
When I grew up, homosexuality was something I could not really grasp
i don’t have that problem. on the other hand, i was certainly taught that i should have that problem. so i tend to lay low when people around me make the kind of casual homophobic comments that i wouldn’t make and i think they shouldn’t be making. i know i should say “why such a hater?” or whatever, but i also learned that saying anything like that could raise suspicions about me among people who might have problems with gays. and i’d rather not deal have to with that. easier to just make a mental note about those people and move on.
When I grew up, homosexuality was something I could not really grasp
i don’t have that problem. on the other hand, i was certainly taught that i should have that problem. so i tend to lay low when people around me make the kind of casual homophobic comments that i wouldn’t make and i think they shouldn’t be making. i know i should say “why such a hater?” or whatever, but i also learned that saying anything like that could raise suspicions about me among people who might have problems with gays. and i’d rather not deal have to with that. easier to just make a mental note about those people and move on.
Can’t remember any open homophobia in my surroundings in those days as opposed to e.g. anti-Turkish xenophobia. Gay jokes clearly did exist but were universally aimed at the stereotype of the subculture gay person and were of the ‘these guys are silly’ type (more like very diluted blond jokes). Anti-Jewish and anti-Turk jokes on the other hand were often extremly nasty. Black jokes were a mixed bag and often subverted the stereotype (e.g. the ‘savage’ encountered by whites in the African jungle usually turns out to be highly educated).
Even the (then) harmless jokes are of course often highly questionable these days but one could say the same about traditional jokes made by different German ‘tribes’ about each other (stingy Swabians, stupid East Frisians etc.)
Can’t remember any open homophobia in my surroundings in those days as opposed to e.g. anti-Turkish xenophobia. Gay jokes clearly did exist but were universally aimed at the stereotype of the subculture gay person and were of the ‘these guys are silly’ type (more like very diluted blond jokes). Anti-Jewish and anti-Turk jokes on the other hand were often extremly nasty. Black jokes were a mixed bag and often subverted the stereotype (e.g. the ‘savage’ encountered by whites in the African jungle usually turns out to be highly educated).
Even the (then) harmless jokes are of course often highly questionable these days but one could say the same about traditional jokes made by different German ‘tribes’ about each other (stingy Swabians, stupid East Frisians etc.)
I like okapis
I like okapis
the current anti-trans* moment in England
***
the trans* scepticism is related on some level to Euro scepticism and has parallels with the Brexit arguments
Just as long as by “anti-trans*” and “trans* scepticism” you are not referring to people like me. I am absolutely not anti-trans, or trans-sceptical, as I hope you understand after all our back-and-forths so far, and any formulation which seeks to so describe people with views like mine is totally inaccurate.
As far as Euro-scepticism and the Brexit argument are concerned, I understand what you are saying, and I bet that for certain kinds of “gender critical patriarchy supporters” there is a connection. For myself, most people here will remember how passionately pro-European I have been, and how desperate and upset I was after the Brexit referendum. The result, to me, was analogous (and a precursor) to the Trump phenomenon, with many of the same associations (such as racism, anti-immigrant feeling etc), and this is true of almost all gender-critical feminists of my acquaintance (there is only one somewhat Euro-sceptic exception, and even she voted Remain).
In fact, I am starting to be quite uncomfortable with the description “gender-critical”. After all, I have no problem at all with people choosing the gender identification with which they are comfortable, am perfectly happy to conform to their choice in the matter of pronouns and language etc, and fully accept the argument that gender is a social construct. Can anybody explain why somebody with these views should be called “gender-critical”?
the current anti-trans* moment in England
***
the trans* scepticism is related on some level to Euro scepticism and has parallels with the Brexit arguments
Just as long as by “anti-trans*” and “trans* scepticism” you are not referring to people like me. I am absolutely not anti-trans, or trans-sceptical, as I hope you understand after all our back-and-forths so far, and any formulation which seeks to so describe people with views like mine is totally inaccurate.
As far as Euro-scepticism and the Brexit argument are concerned, I understand what you are saying, and I bet that for certain kinds of “gender critical patriarchy supporters” there is a connection. For myself, most people here will remember how passionately pro-European I have been, and how desperate and upset I was after the Brexit referendum. The result, to me, was analogous (and a precursor) to the Trump phenomenon, with many of the same associations (such as racism, anti-immigrant feeling etc), and this is true of almost all gender-critical feminists of my acquaintance (there is only one somewhat Euro-sceptic exception, and even she voted Remain).
In fact, I am starting to be quite uncomfortable with the description “gender-critical”. After all, I have no problem at all with people choosing the gender identification with which they are comfortable, am perfectly happy to conform to their choice in the matter of pronouns and language etc, and fully accept the argument that gender is a social construct. Can anybody explain why somebody with these views should be called “gender-critical”?
Can anybody explain why somebody with these views should be called “gender-critical”?
I suppose it’s not too likely that “critical” is being used in the sense of “extremely important,” rather than in the sense of “disapproving.” But that’s the only way I can see it making sense.
Can anybody explain why somebody with these views should be called “gender-critical”?
I suppose it’s not too likely that “critical” is being used in the sense of “extremely important,” rather than in the sense of “disapproving.” But that’s the only way I can see it making sense.
Isn’t it that for gender critical thinkers, the biological facts are immutable (therefore ‘critical’) so any other aspects have to acknowledge that fact? Thus identifying yourself by a feminine pronoun is ‘wrong’. I don’t know if Jordan Peterson is ‘gender critical’, but his crusade started when he argued (falsely) that new laws would punish him if he didn’t acknowledge the pronouns someone else wanted to use.
Isn’t it that for gender critical thinkers, the biological facts are immutable (therefore ‘critical’) so any other aspects have to acknowledge that fact? Thus identifying yourself by a feminine pronoun is ‘wrong’. I don’t know if Jordan Peterson is ‘gender critical’, but his crusade started when he argued (falsely) that new laws would punish him if he didn’t acknowledge the pronouns someone else wanted to use.
sorry, identifying yourself with ‘her’ when you are a man is wrong. And vice versa.
sorry, identifying yourself with ‘her’ when you are a man is wrong. And vice versa.
In fact, I am starting to be quite uncomfortable with the description “gender-critical”. After all, I have no problem at all with people choosing the gender identification with which they are comfortable, am perfectly happy to conform to their choice in the matter of pronouns and language etc, and fully accept the argument that gender is a social construct. Can anybody explain why somebody with these views should be called “gender-critical”?
If you don’t think that the “gender-critical feminist” label applies because you disagree with their views about gender being a patriarchal trap, then it probably doesn’t apply to you as a label.
If it doesn’t apply, though, then the question of how to negotiate the sex/gender question becomes one with no single standard of “factually a woman,” and legal standards need to recognize the possibilities.
The sceptics want everything to be physics (in the ancient Greek sense of “natural, with fixed and knowable qualities). But given what we know of the biology and genetics of sexual expression in bodies, I’d say that a lot of our most crucial questions are metaphysics, rather than physics, and need to be allowed wide enough tolerances to account for this.
In fact, I am starting to be quite uncomfortable with the description “gender-critical”. After all, I have no problem at all with people choosing the gender identification with which they are comfortable, am perfectly happy to conform to their choice in the matter of pronouns and language etc, and fully accept the argument that gender is a social construct. Can anybody explain why somebody with these views should be called “gender-critical”?
If you don’t think that the “gender-critical feminist” label applies because you disagree with their views about gender being a patriarchal trap, then it probably doesn’t apply to you as a label.
If it doesn’t apply, though, then the question of how to negotiate the sex/gender question becomes one with no single standard of “factually a woman,” and legal standards need to recognize the possibilities.
The sceptics want everything to be physics (in the ancient Greek sense of “natural, with fixed and knowable qualities). But given what we know of the biology and genetics of sexual expression in bodies, I’d say that a lot of our most crucial questions are metaphysics, rather than physics, and need to be allowed wide enough tolerances to account for this.
Also, the “gender-critical feminist” label was chosen by the feminists themselves to step away from their earlier self-labeling as “trans-exclusionary radical feminists” after TERF started to be used as a pejorative. Either way, though, it is as lj explains it. They are critical of the received notions of gender as being products of patriarchy meant to subjugate women. For them, all that matters, essentially, are bodies, and those bodies are immutable scripts.
Also, the “gender-critical feminist” label was chosen by the feminists themselves to step away from their earlier self-labeling as “trans-exclusionary radical feminists” after TERF started to be used as a pejorative. Either way, though, it is as lj explains it. They are critical of the received notions of gender as being products of patriarchy meant to subjugate women. For them, all that matters, essentially, are bodies, and those bodies are immutable scripts.
Can anybody explain why somebody with these views should be called “gender-critical”?
Besides, if individuals have a right to choose what gender pronoun they are addressed by, then shouldn’t they also have a right to choose what other labels are appropriate for themselves?
Of course, that would make denunciations more difficult….
Can anybody explain why somebody with these views should be called “gender-critical”?
Besides, if individuals have a right to choose what gender pronoun they are addressed by, then shouldn’t they also have a right to choose what other labels are appropriate for themselves?
Of course, that would make denunciations more difficult….
Isn’t it that for gender critical thinkers, the biological facts are immutable (therefore ‘critical’) so any other aspects have to acknowledge that fact?
But what does the biological facts being immutable (not exactly how I would put it, but still, good enough) have to do with “gender”? If I read you right, shouldn’t that be “sex critical”?
If you don’t think that the “gender-critical feminist” label applies because you disagree with their views about gender being a patriarchal trap, then it probably doesn’t apply to you as a label.
Hmm. Well, I’m not sure I do think that gender is altogether a patriarchal trap, although it is noticeable that many trans women opt for a gender identity very much on the hyper-feminised end of the spectrum (i.e. the end often perceived as being a creation of the patriarchy). But not all trans women, that’s for sure. Not the trans women I have known personally.
This is a very complicated issue (specialist subject: stating the bleedin obvious), but when discussing this about a year ago with someone she said “What does it even mean, to feel like a woman inside? That is an incomprehensible and meaningless thing to say!”, to which I had to reply “You have just given the perfect example of feeling like a woman inside. There is zero discontinuity between how you feel, how you were brought up, how you are perceived, and how you are treated. It has been so obvious and natural to you that you are a woman, that it has never occurred to you to question it, or examine it.” Clearly, this is the opposite of the experience of many trans people.
Anyway, FWIW, that is my rather jumbled feeling about gender. I accept and want to accommodate the need for some people to change their gender identity. I don’t want them to have to suffer because of it. But I don’t want women to have to suffer for it either.
Isn’t it that for gender critical thinkers, the biological facts are immutable (therefore ‘critical’) so any other aspects have to acknowledge that fact?
But what does the biological facts being immutable (not exactly how I would put it, but still, good enough) have to do with “gender”? If I read you right, shouldn’t that be “sex critical”?
If you don’t think that the “gender-critical feminist” label applies because you disagree with their views about gender being a patriarchal trap, then it probably doesn’t apply to you as a label.
Hmm. Well, I’m not sure I do think that gender is altogether a patriarchal trap, although it is noticeable that many trans women opt for a gender identity very much on the hyper-feminised end of the spectrum (i.e. the end often perceived as being a creation of the patriarchy). But not all trans women, that’s for sure. Not the trans women I have known personally.
This is a very complicated issue (specialist subject: stating the bleedin obvious), but when discussing this about a year ago with someone she said “What does it even mean, to feel like a woman inside? That is an incomprehensible and meaningless thing to say!”, to which I had to reply “You have just given the perfect example of feeling like a woman inside. There is zero discontinuity between how you feel, how you were brought up, how you are perceived, and how you are treated. It has been so obvious and natural to you that you are a woman, that it has never occurred to you to question it, or examine it.” Clearly, this is the opposite of the experience of many trans people.
Anyway, FWIW, that is my rather jumbled feeling about gender. I accept and want to accommodate the need for some people to change their gender identity. I don’t want them to have to suffer because of it. But I don’t want women to have to suffer for it either.
Thus identifying yourself by a feminine pronoun is ‘wrong’.
OK, definitely not me.
Either way, though, it is as lj explains it. They are critical of the received notions of gender as being products of patriarchy meant to subjugate women.
This is getting increasingly confusing. lj said “critical” in gender-critical meant absolutely necessary (like immutable), not “critical” as in being critical of received notions of gender being products of the patriarchy.
In any case, it looks like this label does not apply to people like me. There is more than one spectrum involved in this issue, and although I am on the end of the spectrum which says you cannot change your sex (as biologically defined), I absolutely say you can change your gender if you choose, and should be free to do so, and not discriminated against for doing so.
We obviously need an enormous amount of new vocabulary. And an enormous amount of good will, so as not to believe that people who take opposing views are necessarily cruel bigots or ill-intentioned predators and misogynists.
Thus identifying yourself by a feminine pronoun is ‘wrong’.
OK, definitely not me.
Either way, though, it is as lj explains it. They are critical of the received notions of gender as being products of patriarchy meant to subjugate women.
This is getting increasingly confusing. lj said “critical” in gender-critical meant absolutely necessary (like immutable), not “critical” as in being critical of received notions of gender being products of the patriarchy.
In any case, it looks like this label does not apply to people like me. There is more than one spectrum involved in this issue, and although I am on the end of the spectrum which says you cannot change your sex (as biologically defined), I absolutely say you can change your gender if you choose, and should be free to do so, and not discriminated against for doing so.
We obviously need an enormous amount of new vocabulary. And an enormous amount of good will, so as not to believe that people who take opposing views are necessarily cruel bigots or ill-intentioned predators and misogynists.
I accept and want to accommodate the need for some people to change their gender identity. I don’t want them to have to suffer because of it. But I don’t want women to have to suffer for it either.
Could you say more about this? Because I think that this formulation with *people who change their gender* on one side and *women* on the other could point either to an implied categorical distinction between *transwomen* and *women* women or to an attempt to shorthand a complex problem that went a bit awry in its brevity and haste.
At least I marked it as a potentially problematic ambiguity in the argument.
(Arguments like these about language are probably why sceptics hate poststructuralists.)
I accept and want to accommodate the need for some people to change their gender identity. I don’t want them to have to suffer because of it. But I don’t want women to have to suffer for it either.
Could you say more about this? Because I think that this formulation with *people who change their gender* on one side and *women* on the other could point either to an implied categorical distinction between *transwomen* and *women* women or to an attempt to shorthand a complex problem that went a bit awry in its brevity and haste.
At least I marked it as a potentially problematic ambiguity in the argument.
(Arguments like these about language are probably why sceptics hate poststructuralists.)
Yes, Marty, okapis are cool.
The problem with having a Giant Anteater as a pet is getting a supply of Giant Ants to feed it. So an okapi is a better choice.
Yes, Marty, okapis are cool.
The problem with having a Giant Anteater as a pet is getting a supply of Giant Ants to feed it. So an okapi is a better choice.
i’d rather not deal have to with that. easier to just make a mental note about those people and move on.
there is a kind of triage involved, I think.
do you know this person?
do you care what this person thinks?
does this person care what you think?
is this someone you are going to have to interact with with any frequency?
how likely is it that this person will receive anything you have to say?
if you have any credibility with the person, and they’re a part of your life in any consistent way, could be that it’s worth challenging their point of view.
otherwise, less so.
there’s kind of a sliding scale.
I accept and want to accommodate the need for some people to change their gender identity. I don’t want them to have to suffer because of it. But I don’t want women to have to suffer for it either.
this makes sense to me.
there are going to be cases where not everyone is going to be happy. ideally, everyone involved will be acting in good faith, in which case there is probably a solution suitable to the case at hand.
if not, probably not, but at that point it’s no longer about acceptance and getting along, and more about making a point(s).
which can be legitimate, but is also inherently going to involve conflict.
there isn’t an easy answer. among the easy answers that don’t exist is for gay, trans, bi, and queer people to just shut up and go away.
not saying anyone here is arguing for that, just pointing out the obvious.
i’d rather not deal have to with that. easier to just make a mental note about those people and move on.
there is a kind of triage involved, I think.
do you know this person?
do you care what this person thinks?
does this person care what you think?
is this someone you are going to have to interact with with any frequency?
how likely is it that this person will receive anything you have to say?
if you have any credibility with the person, and they’re a part of your life in any consistent way, could be that it’s worth challenging their point of view.
otherwise, less so.
there’s kind of a sliding scale.
I accept and want to accommodate the need for some people to change their gender identity. I don’t want them to have to suffer because of it. But I don’t want women to have to suffer for it either.
this makes sense to me.
there are going to be cases where not everyone is going to be happy. ideally, everyone involved will be acting in good faith, in which case there is probably a solution suitable to the case at hand.
if not, probably not, but at that point it’s no longer about acceptance and getting along, and more about making a point(s).
which can be legitimate, but is also inherently going to involve conflict.
there isn’t an easy answer. among the easy answers that don’t exist is for gay, trans, bi, and queer people to just shut up and go away.
not saying anyone here is arguing for that, just pointing out the obvious.
I accept and want to accommodate the need for some people to change their gender identity. I don’t want them to have to suffer because of it. But I don’t want women to have to suffer for it either.
Any time you make a choice, there are both positive and negative consequences. (“Easy” decisions are those where the negative consequences are minor.) Sometimes, maybe even often, choosing something means that your choices in other areas are constrained. If you choose to enter astronaut training, you won’t be able to train for the Olympics. If you choose to live in Colorado, professional surfing is off the table.
Similarly, those who are transgender and choose to transition may have to accept that competitive athletics are no longer available. And for those are transgender, but have not yet transitioned, certain other choices (gender-segregated facilities, for example) may not yet be available.
We can argue about just which choices should or should not be limited, and why. But to insist that no limits are acceptable is posturing, not reality.
I accept and want to accommodate the need for some people to change their gender identity. I don’t want them to have to suffer because of it. But I don’t want women to have to suffer for it either.
Any time you make a choice, there are both positive and negative consequences. (“Easy” decisions are those where the negative consequences are minor.) Sometimes, maybe even often, choosing something means that your choices in other areas are constrained. If you choose to enter astronaut training, you won’t be able to train for the Olympics. If you choose to live in Colorado, professional surfing is off the table.
Similarly, those who are transgender and choose to transition may have to accept that competitive athletics are no longer available. And for those are transgender, but have not yet transitioned, certain other choices (gender-segregated facilities, for example) may not yet be available.
We can argue about just which choices should or should not be limited, and why. But to insist that no limits are acceptable is posturing, not reality.
But to insist that no limits are acceptable is posturing, not reality.
Yes, but it’s tapping in to something that is pretty bog standard American, right? Anyone can be president!
https://www.awakenthegreatnesswithin.com/25-inspirational-quotes-on-limits/
It’s kind of a own goal, right? Spend all your time telling people that there are no limits and damn if they don’t take you seriously…
But to insist that no limits are acceptable is posturing, not reality.
Yes, but it’s tapping in to something that is pretty bog standard American, right? Anyone can be president!
https://www.awakenthegreatnesswithin.com/25-inspirational-quotes-on-limits/
It’s kind of a own goal, right? Spend all your time telling people that there are no limits and damn if they don’t take you seriously…
Good memoir that explores a lot of this territory: The Fixed Stars, by Molly Wizenberg. The Amazon description gives only a pale shadow of the complexity of the story.
The passage that follows is possibly relevant to this from GftNC: it is noticeable that many trans women opt for a gender identity very much on the hyper-feminised end of the spectrum. Although Wizenberg’s partner is far from being hyper-feminized, the point about having to stick the landing seems relevant, IMO.
Good memoir that explores a lot of this territory: The Fixed Stars, by Molly Wizenberg. The Amazon description gives only a pale shadow of the complexity of the story.
The passage that follows is possibly relevant to this from GftNC: it is noticeable that many trans women opt for a gender identity very much on the hyper-feminised end of the spectrum. Although Wizenberg’s partner is far from being hyper-feminized, the point about having to stick the landing seems relevant, IMO.
They are critical of the received notions of gender as being products of patriarchy meant to subjugate women.
Let me take another whack at this. It is interesting that ‘critical’ has that double valence, 1)absolutely essential and 2)the ability to take apart logically. It reflects no small amount on the pedestal we put argumentation on. We know ‘they were critical of the proposal’ means that they were against it, but the general implication is they had good reasons. It also plugs into a trait I’ve noticed coming to Japan, if foreigners are asked to evaluate a proposal, they _have to_ find something wrong. If they don’t, they are ‘uncritical’ and aren’t expressing and care in the answer.
I believe that similarly ‘gender critical’ tries to have it both ways. People who label themselves as gender critical thinkers are placing gender as something that preceeds everything, but they also want to say that they are ‘critical’ of notions of gender. As nous pointed out, the idea that gender roles are the result of the partriarchy trying to enforce gender norms is then something that can be rejected.
It is interesting, because we also have critical race theory, which is doing a similar thing. It wants to criticize theories of race, but it also wants to deny the idea that the law is somehow colorblind (it originated, like intersectionality, within legal scholarship) So you have to talk about it to try and figure out what it is, even if you don’t think it _should_ matter.
Wikipedia tells me it is related to Critical Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
which also leverages that double valence.
They are critical of the received notions of gender as being products of patriarchy meant to subjugate women.
Let me take another whack at this. It is interesting that ‘critical’ has that double valence, 1)absolutely essential and 2)the ability to take apart logically. It reflects no small amount on the pedestal we put argumentation on. We know ‘they were critical of the proposal’ means that they were against it, but the general implication is they had good reasons. It also plugs into a trait I’ve noticed coming to Japan, if foreigners are asked to evaluate a proposal, they _have to_ find something wrong. If they don’t, they are ‘uncritical’ and aren’t expressing and care in the answer.
I believe that similarly ‘gender critical’ tries to have it both ways. People who label themselves as gender critical thinkers are placing gender as something that preceeds everything, but they also want to say that they are ‘critical’ of notions of gender. As nous pointed out, the idea that gender roles are the result of the partriarchy trying to enforce gender norms is then something that can be rejected.
It is interesting, because we also have critical race theory, which is doing a similar thing. It wants to criticize theories of race, but it also wants to deny the idea that the law is somehow colorblind (it originated, like intersectionality, within legal scholarship) So you have to talk about it to try and figure out what it is, even if you don’t think it _should_ matter.
Wikipedia tells me it is related to Critical Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
which also leverages that double valence.
PS to my 12:15: How people perceive me I’m bemused to say I’m not sure, but I can’t imagine anyone would describe me as “feminine.” I consider myself to be androgynous, at least mildly; if I were young instead of old I might even consider calling myself non-binary. The entire reason the passage I quoted was in front of me tonight was that I went looking for the core of it, which I find apt and memorable:
Androgyny is not gender’s absence; it’s the negotiation made visible.
PS to my 12:15: How people perceive me I’m bemused to say I’m not sure, but I can’t imagine anyone would describe me as “feminine.” I consider myself to be androgynous, at least mildly; if I were young instead of old I might even consider calling myself non-binary. The entire reason the passage I quoted was in front of me tonight was that I went looking for the core of it, which I find apt and memorable:
Androgyny is not gender’s absence; it’s the negotiation made visible.
Amazing how important prepositions are in English.
“they were critical of the proposal” means that they were against it,
“they were critical to the proposal” means that they were vital in creating it.
Amazing how important prepositions are in English.
“they were critical of the proposal” means that they were against it,
“they were critical to the proposal” means that they were vital in creating it.
And “they were critical at the proposal” means they probably aren’t getting a wedding invitation.
And “they were critical at the proposal” means they probably aren’t getting a wedding invitation.
How people perceive me I’m bemused to say I’m not sure…
I guess I was thinking more about people I know when I wrote that. As for strangers, when I was a young adult, I was mistaken for a young man on several memorable occasions. It is not rare for me to be called “sir” before someone hears my voice or actually pays attention. I just don’t think about it much anymore.
Life is interesting.
How people perceive me I’m bemused to say I’m not sure…
I guess I was thinking more about people I know when I wrote that. As for strangers, when I was a young adult, I was mistaken for a young man on several memorable occasions. It is not rare for me to be called “sir” before someone hears my voice or actually pays attention. I just don’t think about it much anymore.
Life is interesting.
there’s kind of a sliding scale.
definitely.
there’s kind of a sliding scale.
definitely.
I had no idea what “stick the landing” meant. Another win for the ObWi educational department!
nous, in response to your request for clarification @08.56, I thought you might have followed the discussion on another thread, where I said that after learning more about this issue than my original, highly supportive stance on trans people had entailed, I was now no longer willing to say, for example, “trans women are women.”
Although I still feel I am highly supportive of trans people and their rights, once I saw how things were developing, I made the following decision. I will never knowingly call a genuine trans person by the pronoun of their birth, and will do everything I can to be supportive of them. But I oppose the redefinition of the words “woman” and “man”, and instead am in favour of creating new categories of “trans woman”, “trans man” and “non-binary” (and who knows, as we find out more about this phenomenon and the heat goes out of the debate, maybe more categories than that, for example relevant to the stage of life at which the individuals transitioned). And I support the retention, where necessary, of “women-only” spaces.
Where language is concerned (and I know that lj thinks this part of the debate is more live in the UK than the US), I oppose eliminating the words “woman”, “girl”, “mother” etc and replacing them with “people with cervixes”, “people who menstruate”, “birth-givers” etc. In order to give consideration to trans men, I support, for example, the usage “women and other people with cervixes”.
None of this is ideal, or even comfortable. But we are in a time of rapid and contentious change, and we do what we can to try to treat people of all sorts with respect and compassion.
I had no idea what “stick the landing” meant. Another win for the ObWi educational department!
nous, in response to your request for clarification @08.56, I thought you might have followed the discussion on another thread, where I said that after learning more about this issue than my original, highly supportive stance on trans people had entailed, I was now no longer willing to say, for example, “trans women are women.”
Although I still feel I am highly supportive of trans people and their rights, once I saw how things were developing, I made the following decision. I will never knowingly call a genuine trans person by the pronoun of their birth, and will do everything I can to be supportive of them. But I oppose the redefinition of the words “woman” and “man”, and instead am in favour of creating new categories of “trans woman”, “trans man” and “non-binary” (and who knows, as we find out more about this phenomenon and the heat goes out of the debate, maybe more categories than that, for example relevant to the stage of life at which the individuals transitioned). And I support the retention, where necessary, of “women-only” spaces.
Where language is concerned (and I know that lj thinks this part of the debate is more live in the UK than the US), I oppose eliminating the words “woman”, “girl”, “mother” etc and replacing them with “people with cervixes”, “people who menstruate”, “birth-givers” etc. In order to give consideration to trans men, I support, for example, the usage “women and other people with cervixes”.
None of this is ideal, or even comfortable. But we are in a time of rapid and contentious change, and we do what we can to try to treat people of all sorts with respect and compassion.
…I oppose eliminating the words “woman”, “girl”, “mother” etc and replacing them with “people with cervixes”, “people who menstruate”, “birth-givers” etc.
This strikes me as something like saying that you oppose a worldwide ban on wristwatches. ;^)
…I oppose eliminating the words “woman”, “girl”, “mother” etc and replacing them with “people with cervixes”, “people who menstruate”, “birth-givers” etc.
This strikes me as something like saying that you oppose a worldwide ban on wristwatches. ;^)
I understand, hsh, but nobody has proposed (or put into effect) a worldwide ban on wristwatches! Whereas, hard as it is to believe, this has been done in some semi-official documentation because of the hijacking of the debate by extremist trans-activists. And in fact, it was when she semi-humorously tweeted an objection to the use of the phrase “people who menstruate” in something from (I think) the NHS, that J K Rowling got saddled with the reputation of being the world’s most famous “transphobe”. I have never heard or read her say a transphobic thing, and in fact, it is the phenomenon of this subject becoming something about which you cannot speak or debate without being anathematised which galvanised me and many non-extreme women to reevaluate our attitudes to the trans issue.
So if the words woman, girl etc become obsolete because of worldwide evolution of a consensus that they are no longer necessary, in the way wristwatches have, that’s fine. But nobody boycotts, threatens or tries to have fired people who like wristwatches, or still wear them.
I understand, hsh, but nobody has proposed (or put into effect) a worldwide ban on wristwatches! Whereas, hard as it is to believe, this has been done in some semi-official documentation because of the hijacking of the debate by extremist trans-activists. And in fact, it was when she semi-humorously tweeted an objection to the use of the phrase “people who menstruate” in something from (I think) the NHS, that J K Rowling got saddled with the reputation of being the world’s most famous “transphobe”. I have never heard or read her say a transphobic thing, and in fact, it is the phenomenon of this subject becoming something about which you cannot speak or debate without being anathematised which galvanised me and many non-extreme women to reevaluate our attitudes to the trans issue.
So if the words woman, girl etc become obsolete because of worldwide evolution of a consensus that they are no longer necessary, in the way wristwatches have, that’s fine. But nobody boycotts, threatens or tries to have fired people who like wristwatches, or still wear them.
I oppose eliminating the words “woman”, “girl”, “mother” etc and replacing them with “people with cervixes”, “people who menstruate”, “birth-givers” etc. In order to give consideration to trans men, I support, for example, the usage “women and other people with cervixes”.
Me too. Indeed, it’s hard for me to take a lot of this seriously. We actually don’t always need to make these distinctions, and when we do there are terms available.
If you tell me Jane is John’s mother I usually won’t care if she actually gave birth to John. If it’s important for some reason – maybe a medical issue – then the perfectly clear terms “adoptive” or “non-biological” can be used to distinguish.
I oppose eliminating the words “woman”, “girl”, “mother” etc and replacing them with “people with cervixes”, “people who menstruate”, “birth-givers” etc. In order to give consideration to trans men, I support, for example, the usage “women and other people with cervixes”.
Me too. Indeed, it’s hard for me to take a lot of this seriously. We actually don’t always need to make these distinctions, and when we do there are terms available.
If you tell me Jane is John’s mother I usually won’t care if she actually gave birth to John. If it’s important for some reason – maybe a medical issue – then the perfectly clear terms “adoptive” or “non-biological” can be used to distinguish.
“people who menstruate” excludes a lot of women.
i recommend ignoring the vanishingly small minority of people who say they want “woman” and “girl” to be replaced with clumsy jargon that adds no useful information. it’s never going to happen. people simply are not going to accept fundamental changes in languages in order to accommodate trans- people.
“people who menstruate” excludes a lot of women.
i recommend ignoring the vanishingly small minority of people who say they want “woman” and “girl” to be replaced with clumsy jargon that adds no useful information. it’s never going to happen. people simply are not going to accept fundamental changes in languages in order to accommodate trans- people.
it’s never going to happen
To some extent, it had already started to happen in the UK. Perhaps this is why the UK backlash on “trans rights” has (by US consensus) been more extreme than the one in the US, and not exclusively (or mainly) by RWNJs gleefully seizing a wedge issue.
And alas, ignoring this kind of issue is what almost got the self-ID law passed in the UK – it came within a whisker.
it’s never going to happen
To some extent, it had already started to happen in the UK. Perhaps this is why the UK backlash on “trans rights” has (by US consensus) been more extreme than the one in the US, and not exclusively (or mainly) by RWNJs gleefully seizing a wedge issue.
And alas, ignoring this kind of issue is what almost got the self-ID law passed in the UK – it came within a whisker.
Iirc wristwatches were, if not invented, made common in WW1 only because the proper watch on a chain turned out to be too impractical in the trenches.
As for banning specific words, “Fräulein” in German has turned from a respectable and even insisted on word to one detested and fought against. It’s a diminutive of “Frau” and means that the female in question is an adult but not married (in the present or past). During my lifetime it became a minefield with some (usually older) never married women insisting of being referred to as Fräulein while others considered it at best as patronising and at worst a personal insult*. I guess many kids these days have to get the word explained to them because they do not know it anymore.
It used to be also in general use for women in public service probably because in the past women that got married had to quit those jobs (in particular schoolteachers**).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A4ulein
I do not know, whether the English “Miss” underwent a similar change in perception.
*carrying the perceived connotation of either “spinster” (if old) or not yet properly grown-up (if young).
**leading to the ugly prejudice and stereotype that female schoolteachers were bluestockings (when*** young) and ugly (when old), so in both cases unable to find a husband due to flaws in character or looks.
***not sure, if ‘if’ or ‘when’ is more appropriate here since in this case it seems more temporal than conditional (as in the case above).
Iirc wristwatches were, if not invented, made common in WW1 only because the proper watch on a chain turned out to be too impractical in the trenches.
As for banning specific words, “Fräulein” in German has turned from a respectable and even insisted on word to one detested and fought against. It’s a diminutive of “Frau” and means that the female in question is an adult but not married (in the present or past). During my lifetime it became a minefield with some (usually older) never married women insisting of being referred to as Fräulein while others considered it at best as patronising and at worst a personal insult*. I guess many kids these days have to get the word explained to them because they do not know it anymore.
It used to be also in general use for women in public service probably because in the past women that got married had to quit those jobs (in particular schoolteachers**).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A4ulein
I do not know, whether the English “Miss” underwent a similar change in perception.
*carrying the perceived connotation of either “spinster” (if old) or not yet properly grown-up (if young).
**leading to the ugly prejudice and stereotype that female schoolteachers were bluestockings (when*** young) and ugly (when old), so in both cases unable to find a husband due to flaws in character or looks.
***not sure, if ‘if’ or ‘when’ is more appropriate here since in this case it seems more temporal than conditional (as in the case above).
Where language is concerned (and I know that lj thinks this part of the debate is more live in the UK than the US), I oppose eliminating the words “woman”, “girl”, “mother” etc and replacing them with “people with cervixes”, “people who menstruate”, “birth-givers” etc. In order to give consideration to trans men, I support, for example, the usage “women and other people with cervixes”.
No one is eliminating those words. No one is creating jargon to avoid those words. What the NHS was doing was being precise.
There are many different reasons why a woman may not have a cervix or a mother may not ever have given birth to a child.
“Women and other people with cervixes” gets it partially correct, but then it becomes “women with cervixes and other people with cervixes” when you really start to think about the category you are talking about.
It’s not a trans activists issue, this has been an issue raised by BIPOC feminists and disability advocates as well, as part of that 30 year history I mentioned.
I’m not overly concerned with policing casual language or enforcing the use of non-offensive terms. I get irritated with that sort of thing as much as anyone.
But sometimes language must be estranged and denaturalized in order to provoke a reassessment of our understanding of the world.
Wedge issues only create division when the people who are conflicted choose solidarity with bad actors over carefully compartmentalized matters of principle rather than maintaining a united front with their allies.
Where language is concerned (and I know that lj thinks this part of the debate is more live in the UK than the US), I oppose eliminating the words “woman”, “girl”, “mother” etc and replacing them with “people with cervixes”, “people who menstruate”, “birth-givers” etc. In order to give consideration to trans men, I support, for example, the usage “women and other people with cervixes”.
No one is eliminating those words. No one is creating jargon to avoid those words. What the NHS was doing was being precise.
There are many different reasons why a woman may not have a cervix or a mother may not ever have given birth to a child.
“Women and other people with cervixes” gets it partially correct, but then it becomes “women with cervixes and other people with cervixes” when you really start to think about the category you are talking about.
It’s not a trans activists issue, this has been an issue raised by BIPOC feminists and disability advocates as well, as part of that 30 year history I mentioned.
I’m not overly concerned with policing casual language or enforcing the use of non-offensive terms. I get irritated with that sort of thing as much as anyone.
But sometimes language must be estranged and denaturalized in order to provoke a reassessment of our understanding of the world.
Wedge issues only create division when the people who are conflicted choose solidarity with bad actors over carefully compartmentalized matters of principle rather than maintaining a united front with their allies.
Wedge issues only create division when the people who are conflicted choose solidarity with bad actors over carefully compartmentalized matters of principle rather than maintaining a united front with their allies.
No comment.
Wedge issues only create division when the people who are conflicted choose solidarity with bad actors over carefully compartmentalized matters of principle rather than maintaining a united front with their allies.
No comment.
My inner nerd compels me to note that ‘girl’ originally referred to children of either gender.
Language does change over time, but normally does so as a more or less organic process. It sometimes changes due to ideological or political imperative, but that isn’t the norm.
The handful of trans people I know basically just want to live their lives without being hassled or discriminated against. That seems like a reasonable ask, to me.
My inner nerd compels me to note that ‘girl’ originally referred to children of either gender.
Language does change over time, but normally does so as a more or less organic process. It sometimes changes due to ideological or political imperative, but that isn’t the norm.
The handful of trans people I know basically just want to live their lives without being hassled or discriminated against. That seems like a reasonable ask, to me.
Wedge issues only create division when the people who are conflicted choose solidarity with bad actors over carefully compartmentalized matters of principle rather than maintaining a united front with their allies.
Important point. I often watch an issue evolve and come to the point of having to say: well, the situation is more nuanced than either side wants to recognize, but look who’s on which side, and who my actual allies are. “My allies” (like me) are fallible, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to side with the devil to make that point.
Wedge issues only create division when the people who are conflicted choose solidarity with bad actors over carefully compartmentalized matters of principle rather than maintaining a united front with their allies.
Important point. I often watch an issue evolve and come to the point of having to say: well, the situation is more nuanced than either side wants to recognize, but look who’s on which side, and who my actual allies are. “My allies” (like me) are fallible, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to side with the devil to make that point.
I do not know, whether the English “Miss” underwent a similar change in perception.
Not going to do any research, but you might check out the evolution of the use of “Ms.” — which didn’t exist when I was a child, as far as I know.
I do not know, whether the English “Miss” underwent a similar change in perception.
Not going to do any research, but you might check out the evolution of the use of “Ms.” — which didn’t exist when I was a child, as far as I know.
Not going to do any research, but you might check out the evolution of the use of “Ms.” — which didn’t exist when I was a child, as far as I know.
OED says that it was first suggested 10 Nov. 1901 in the Springfield Sunday Republican.
Its use was being debated in the NYT by the 1930s, but it was used when a woman’s marital status was in doubt, and not as an emancipation statement.
The magazine of that name launched in 1971.
Not going to do any research, but you might check out the evolution of the use of “Ms.” — which didn’t exist when I was a child, as far as I know.
OED says that it was first suggested 10 Nov. 1901 in the Springfield Sunday Republican.
Its use was being debated in the NYT by the 1930s, but it was used when a woman’s marital status was in doubt, and not as an emancipation statement.
The magazine of that name launched in 1971.
nous, I do believe it began to be used as an emancipation statement when I was a teenager or young adult, which synchs roughly enough with the debut of the magazine.
My only point was to indicate that “Miss” became problematic in English as well as German, along with “Mrs.” for that matter.
It may have been invented and debated much earlier, but it was rarer than facial hair on men during my childhood.
nous, I do believe it began to be used as an emancipation statement when I was a teenager or young adult, which synchs roughly enough with the debut of the magazine.
My only point was to indicate that “Miss” became problematic in English as well as German, along with “Mrs.” for that matter.
It may have been invented and debated much earlier, but it was rarer than facial hair on men during my childhood.
Understood, JanieM, just filling in the research because I had easy access to it and was curious.
Understood, JanieM, just filling in the research because I had easy access to it and was curious.
I recall, when I was very young – somewhere from kindergarten to second grade, so 1973 to 1975 – a young teacher in my school insisting that she be called “Ms.” I think it was the first time I had heard it. I was too young to know what it was about, but I remember that she seemed very serious.
I recall, when I was very young – somewhere from kindergarten to second grade, so 1973 to 1975 – a young teacher in my school insisting that she be called “Ms.” I think it was the first time I had heard it. I was too young to know what it was about, but I remember that she seemed very serious.
It probably doesn’t need stating here, but as far as I understood it (and still do), the central point of “Ms.” was that we shouldn’t need to know or name women’s marital status to address or refer to them any more than we need to know or refer to men’s.
It probably doesn’t need stating here, but as far as I understood it (and still do), the central point of “Ms.” was that we shouldn’t need to know or name women’s marital status to address or refer to them any more than we need to know or refer to men’s.
Exactly.
Exactly.
As for banning specific words, “Fräulein” in German has turned from a respectable and even insisted on word to one detested and fought against.
How a lot of baby boomers in the US learn the word.
Bobby Helms – Fraulein (1956) & Answer Song.
As for banning specific words, “Fräulein” in German has turned from a respectable and even insisted on word to one detested and fought against.
How a lot of baby boomers in the US learn the word.
Bobby Helms – Fraulein (1956) & Answer Song.
For me it was probably watching Hogan’s Heroes reruns.
For me it was probably watching Hogan’s Heroes reruns.
While I have no problem understanding negative reactions to “Miss” (and “Fräulein”), I’m not sure that there are many English-speaking women that would object to being called “Mademoiselle”.
It’s possible that a solid majority would be tickled pink, to abuse an old expression.
It must be some sort of intersectionality thing, perhaps depending on the local curvature of space-time.
While I have no problem understanding negative reactions to “Miss” (and “Fräulein”), I’m not sure that there are many English-speaking women that would object to being called “Mademoiselle”.
It’s possible that a solid majority would be tickled pink, to abuse an old expression.
It must be some sort of intersectionality thing, perhaps depending on the local curvature of space-time.
I’m not sure that there are many English-speaking women that would object to being called “Mademoiselle”.
Hmmmmmm. Nicely hedged, but I can’t fathom what you’re basing this on. On the other hand, when the alternative is “Madame”……
Offered without comment, in fact, without giving it more than a quick skim myself.
I’m not sure that there are many English-speaking women that would object to being called “Mademoiselle”.
Hmmmmmm. Nicely hedged, but I can’t fathom what you’re basing this on. On the other hand, when the alternative is “Madame”……
Offered without comment, in fact, without giving it more than a quick skim myself.
meanwhile, GOP Congressman proudly displays his Remember The Terrorist Who Came To Kill Pelosi bracelet.
https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1421064779725213697
that’s Paul Gosar, one of the four Congresspeople who allegedly planned 1/6.
meanwhile, GOP Congressman proudly displays his Remember The Terrorist Who Came To Kill Pelosi bracelet.
https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1421064779725213697
that’s Paul Gosar, one of the four Congresspeople who allegedly planned 1/6.
Not going to do any research, but you might check out the evolution of the use of “Ms.” — which didn’t exist when I was a child, as far as I know.
I have a fairly clear recollection of Ms. coming into use circa 1970 when I was a 10th grader. Back to lurking.
Not going to do any research, but you might check out the evolution of the use of “Ms.” — which didn’t exist when I was a child, as far as I know.
I have a fairly clear recollection of Ms. coming into use circa 1970 when I was a 10th grader. Back to lurking.
On the other hand, when the alternative is “Madame”……
Perhaps there’s an issue due to the connotations of “madame” in colloquial English.
On the other hand, when the alternative is “Madame”……
Perhaps there’s an issue due to the connotations of “madame” in colloquial English.
Perhaps there’s an issue due to the connotations of “madame” in colloquial English.
That was my joking point, unarticulated.
Perhaps there’s an issue due to the connotations of “madame” in colloquial English.
That was my joking point, unarticulated.
As the slatternly woman at the entrance to the rundown apartment block says to Zero Mostel in The Producers when, asking for directions to the nazi writer of Springtime for Hitler, he grandiosely addresses her as Madam:
I ain’t no madam, I’m a concierge!”
As the slatternly woman at the entrance to the rundown apartment block says to Zero Mostel in The Producers when, asking for directions to the nazi writer of Springtime for Hitler, he grandiosely addresses her as Madam:
I ain’t no madam, I’m a concierge!”
Italiexo! Sorry all.
Italiexo! Sorry all.
Perhaps one of the reasons I get a sense of a different vibe between the US and UK is that the NHS and other similar organizations have to generate language to explain things and because of public funding, that language becomes a point of contestation. We get a little of that in the US, but not as much because we have no national health program and these sort of differences can be handled quite adequately by using non-gender marking language in those cases.
Separate from that, the process where good or non descript words become bad words is one that would seem to be apparent, but people insist on making arguments on it. In Japanese, the way to start a fight is to refer to a stranger as o-mae, which was originally was used to address someone higher that you (the initial o is an honorific)
But you can use it with a friend informally.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.664.2425&rep=rep1&type=pdf
kisama is another one of those words
https://linguaholic.com/linguablog/kisama-meaning-japanese/
The problem with language is that it makes a lot of decisions for you. For example, all the native Japanese words for wife carry an implicit meaning of subordination. kanai means ‘inside the house’, tsuma comes from edge or side and means not the main person. shufu means homemaker. I don’t want to use any of those, but if I use waifu, the English borrowing, which is used by some for exactly the same reason, it then becomes a marker that my Japanese fluency is not good. Oh, look at the poor foreigner who doesn’t know the word for his wife! Another work around is to use first names, which also marks you out as someone who doesn’t know Japanese, unless you are Japanese and everyone knows you are Japanese.
This normally gets played out in my head, but it was fun to see it happen to someone else in a slightly different context. My daughter, in her last term, brought her college dorm mate down. Our home conversations are usually a mix of Japanese and English and the friend’s English was good enough to keep up, but when she wanted to ask me a question, she went thru a bunch of different ways of addressing me until she alighted on my first name+san. Which then had her speaking to my wife as first name+san because it was strange to refer to me in one way and my wife/daughter’s mother in another. It was quite cute, but it was a constant reminder of the markedness. It is easy to see why some language might always seem like a red flag to some people, so though I have little time for people who just want to use it to signal value, I do recognize that one can’t issue a blanket dismissal.
Related to that, I love the fact that awful is an example of that flip, which my Homeric Greek textbook noted worked the same, which is why I noticed it. That idea that something is so bad that you are speechless, or gawping to toss out a briticism, then gets you the idea of awe-filled and from there, awful.
It’s actually a great help for me in dealing with some stupidity like you encounter on facebook. Rather than reply, it’s like you are walking into one of those big European cathedrals as a tourist. sicut erat in principio et nunc et in saecula saeculorum, amen
Perhaps one of the reasons I get a sense of a different vibe between the US and UK is that the NHS and other similar organizations have to generate language to explain things and because of public funding, that language becomes a point of contestation. We get a little of that in the US, but not as much because we have no national health program and these sort of differences can be handled quite adequately by using non-gender marking language in those cases.
Separate from that, the process where good or non descript words become bad words is one that would seem to be apparent, but people insist on making arguments on it. In Japanese, the way to start a fight is to refer to a stranger as o-mae, which was originally was used to address someone higher that you (the initial o is an honorific)
But you can use it with a friend informally.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.664.2425&rep=rep1&type=pdf
kisama is another one of those words
https://linguaholic.com/linguablog/kisama-meaning-japanese/
The problem with language is that it makes a lot of decisions for you. For example, all the native Japanese words for wife carry an implicit meaning of subordination. kanai means ‘inside the house’, tsuma comes from edge or side and means not the main person. shufu means homemaker. I don’t want to use any of those, but if I use waifu, the English borrowing, which is used by some for exactly the same reason, it then becomes a marker that my Japanese fluency is not good. Oh, look at the poor foreigner who doesn’t know the word for his wife! Another work around is to use first names, which also marks you out as someone who doesn’t know Japanese, unless you are Japanese and everyone knows you are Japanese.
This normally gets played out in my head, but it was fun to see it happen to someone else in a slightly different context. My daughter, in her last term, brought her college dorm mate down. Our home conversations are usually a mix of Japanese and English and the friend’s English was good enough to keep up, but when she wanted to ask me a question, she went thru a bunch of different ways of addressing me until she alighted on my first name+san. Which then had her speaking to my wife as first name+san because it was strange to refer to me in one way and my wife/daughter’s mother in another. It was quite cute, but it was a constant reminder of the markedness. It is easy to see why some language might always seem like a red flag to some people, so though I have little time for people who just want to use it to signal value, I do recognize that one can’t issue a blanket dismissal.
Related to that, I love the fact that awful is an example of that flip, which my Homeric Greek textbook noted worked the same, which is why I noticed it. That idea that something is so bad that you are speechless, or gawping to toss out a briticism, then gets you the idea of awe-filled and from there, awful.
It’s actually a great help for me in dealing with some stupidity like you encounter on facebook. Rather than reply, it’s like you are walking into one of those big European cathedrals as a tourist. sicut erat in principio et nunc et in saecula saeculorum, amen
Good lord, lj, you should give trigger warnings before quoting the Mass in Latin. 😉
Good lord, lj, you should give trigger warnings before quoting the Mass in Latin. 😉
Whoops! Sorry! I never did figure out how to do that spoiler markup so you could only see it if you clicked on it.
I’m probably revealing too much, but all my serious girlfriends before my wife were Catholics who were going to or had studied law. Which probably explains a lot more than I would care to admit. And I just realized that my mother went to a Catholic nursing school (though she was Methodist). Your past is always there for the ride…
Whoops! Sorry! I never did figure out how to do that spoiler markup so you could only see it if you clicked on it.
I’m probably revealing too much, but all my serious girlfriends before my wife were Catholics who were going to or had studied law. Which probably explains a lot more than I would care to admit. And I just realized that my mother went to a Catholic nursing school (though she was Methodist). Your past is always there for the ride…
I was just kidding about the trigger warnings, but wow is that Latin evocative.
A slightly longer version, in a more congenial context, the movie Waking Ned Devine. Wonderful movie.
I was just kidding about the trigger warnings, but wow is that Latin evocative.
A slightly longer version, in a more congenial context, the movie Waking Ned Devine. Wonderful movie.
Catholics who were going to or had studied law. Which probably explains a lot more than I would care to admit.
LOL. We won’t tell on you.
Catholics who were going to or had studied law. Which probably explains a lot more than I would care to admit.
LOL. We won’t tell on you.
That was my joking point, unarticulated.
Some days my obviousness amazes even me.
That was my joking point, unarticulated.
Some days my obviousness amazes even me.
all the native Japanese words for wife carry an implicit meaning of subordination. kanai means ‘inside the house’, tsuma comes from edge or side and means not the main person. shufu means homemaker.
And in mid-20th century America, “the little woman” was an unexceptional locution for one’s wife. (Better not use it today, however.)
all the native Japanese words for wife carry an implicit meaning of subordination. kanai means ‘inside the house’, tsuma comes from edge or side and means not the main person. shufu means homemaker.
And in mid-20th century America, “the little woman” was an unexceptional locution for one’s wife. (Better not use it today, however.)
Not sure if I broke the blog (the front page only shows my post) or if people are looking at the judo post with that sense of ‘awe’ as in ‘how the hell can he go on and on and on like that’.
But I wanted to come back here and talk about that double valence of critical. I’m skeptical of gender-critical feminists, in part because of who they seem to travel with and also because I don’t think gender is immutable, it just feels that way inside our skins. But it’s not because of the double valence of critical. I agree with Critical Race Theory, which I noted uses the same tightrope. The school of linguistics I subscribe to is Cognitive Linguistics, but I know full well that ‘cognitive’ is just a way to occupy the high ground. ‘well, I guess you are doing non-cognitive linguistics if you disagree’. So it’s not using that as a rhetorical device, I think any naming is going to do that. It’s what you do with that rhetoric.
Not sure if I broke the blog (the front page only shows my post) or if people are looking at the judo post with that sense of ‘awe’ as in ‘how the hell can he go on and on and on like that’.
But I wanted to come back here and talk about that double valence of critical. I’m skeptical of gender-critical feminists, in part because of who they seem to travel with and also because I don’t think gender is immutable, it just feels that way inside our skins. But it’s not because of the double valence of critical. I agree with Critical Race Theory, which I noted uses the same tightrope. The school of linguistics I subscribe to is Cognitive Linguistics, but I know full well that ‘cognitive’ is just a way to occupy the high ground. ‘well, I guess you are doing non-cognitive linguistics if you disagree’. So it’s not using that as a rhetorical device, I think any naming is going to do that. It’s what you do with that rhetoric.
Is ‘young lady’ condescending these days (or has it always been)? Or is it used ironically towards one’s pre-teen daughters exclusively anyway?
The German equivalent is ‘junge Dame’ and imo primarily used ironically these days.
Which reminds me of another paradox. In German attaching ‘young’ to ‘girl’ implies a female in her mid to late teens. So, a girl has to get quite old to acquire the attribute ‘young’.
Is ‘young lady’ condescending these days (or has it always been)? Or is it used ironically towards one’s pre-teen daughters exclusively anyway?
The German equivalent is ‘junge Dame’ and imo primarily used ironically these days.
Which reminds me of another paradox. In German attaching ‘young’ to ‘girl’ implies a female in her mid to late teens. So, a girl has to get quite old to acquire the attribute ‘young’.
lj, none of the gender-critical feminists I know think gender is immutable (although I accept there must be some who do), they think sex is immutable. I notice you always refer to gender in this discussion, rather than sex. What is the reason, if you don’t mind me asking?
lj, none of the gender-critical feminists I know think gender is immutable (although I accept there must be some who do), they think sex is immutable. I notice you always refer to gender in this discussion, rather than sex. What is the reason, if you don’t mind me asking?
Thanks for noticing that, gives me some food for thought. For me, sex is what people do, gender is what people are/may be. I’m not sure it I’m being idiosyncratic or prudish, but I would note that looking up things on the net, if you type in sex, you are going to get a lot of other stuff, but gender, you tend to get documents related to this topic. A quick google has this
The World Health Organisation regional office for Europe describes sex as characteristics that are biologically defined, whereas gender is based on socially constructed features. They recognise that there are variations in how people experience gender based upon self-perception and expression, and how they behave.
Again, I didn’t realize my usage, so I’m talking off the top of my head, but I’m not sure I accept that a man is always a man, which seems to be what I would do if I said that this was a ‘biological’ definition. I would draw on this
https://www.treehugger.com/animals-can-change-their-sex-4869361
Now, we aren’t banana slugs, but to my mind, this would have me hesitate to draw a conclusion about sex as being biologically ‘defined’. This kind of reflects my feeling about a lot of other things, in that we change over time. Does that make sense?
Thanks for noticing that, gives me some food for thought. For me, sex is what people do, gender is what people are/may be. I’m not sure it I’m being idiosyncratic or prudish, but I would note that looking up things on the net, if you type in sex, you are going to get a lot of other stuff, but gender, you tend to get documents related to this topic. A quick google has this
The World Health Organisation regional office for Europe describes sex as characteristics that are biologically defined, whereas gender is based on socially constructed features. They recognise that there are variations in how people experience gender based upon self-perception and expression, and how they behave.
Again, I didn’t realize my usage, so I’m talking off the top of my head, but I’m not sure I accept that a man is always a man, which seems to be what I would do if I said that this was a ‘biological’ definition. I would draw on this
https://www.treehugger.com/animals-can-change-their-sex-4869361
Now, we aren’t banana slugs, but to my mind, this would have me hesitate to draw a conclusion about sex as being biologically ‘defined’. This kind of reflects my feeling about a lot of other things, in that we change over time. Does that make sense?
This doesn’t answer Harmut’s question, but it is a fun exchange from Newsroom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvE1CTwPegU
Interestingly, I remembered it as “young lady” rather than “girl”.
This doesn’t answer Harmut’s question, but it is a fun exchange from Newsroom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvE1CTwPegU
Interestingly, I remembered it as “young lady” rather than “girl”.
Ok, lj, now I think I understand, but a lot of the things I’ve said must have been very confusing to you! This issue is actually at the heart of the debate. It will be interesting to see if and how your thinking on this evolves.
Ok, lj, now I think I understand, but a lot of the things I’ve said must have been very confusing to you! This issue is actually at the heart of the debate. It will be interesting to see if and how your thinking on this evolves.
Why would it evolve? I know I’m right! [joke]
I don’t think I’ve really waded into some of the discussions, but if I have and misunderstood things you’ve written, please accept my apology. I’m looking forward to reading the discussion having that understanding of what you are saying.
Why would it evolve? I know I’m right! [joke]
I don’t think I’ve really waded into some of the discussions, but if I have and misunderstood things you’ve written, please accept my apology. I’m looking forward to reading the discussion having that understanding of what you are saying.
No apologies necessary. But truly, this (the difference between sex and gender) is pretty essential to really understanding the issue and where so much of the heat comes from.
No apologies necessary. But truly, this (the difference between sex and gender) is pretty essential to really understanding the issue and where so much of the heat comes from.
I started reading the Wikipedia page on sex and gender and was immediately reminded, by implication, that “sex” is a word that different people define differently. Biologists have one definition (based on gametes), psychologists another (“[t]here are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.”), public health folks another, etc.
GftNC, you may have answered this before, and if so, apologies for asking you to repeat it; I’ve been here less often than usual lately. But: What is your definition, and that of the gender-critical feminists you know and/or agree with?
How many sexes do you think there are? Are there more than two, or do intersex people not have a sex? Is the immutable-from-birth definition you use based on body parts, hormones, brain structure, or what? If body parts, for instance, how non-standard do a newborn’s body parts have to be for that person to, by definition, be barred from growing up to be a woman?
I won’t pretend I’m not skeptical. The sex/gender distinction seems all too convenient to me, like (this is a blast from the past) saying that the inability to procreate with each other is a reason why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Sounds plausible, but falls apart under scrutiny.
(PS Will be out of the house a lot lately, might not see replies, or have a chance to reply, until later.)
I started reading the Wikipedia page on sex and gender and was immediately reminded, by implication, that “sex” is a word that different people define differently. Biologists have one definition (based on gametes), psychologists another (“[t]here are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia.”), public health folks another, etc.
GftNC, you may have answered this before, and if so, apologies for asking you to repeat it; I’ve been here less often than usual lately. But: What is your definition, and that of the gender-critical feminists you know and/or agree with?
How many sexes do you think there are? Are there more than two, or do intersex people not have a sex? Is the immutable-from-birth definition you use based on body parts, hormones, brain structure, or what? If body parts, for instance, how non-standard do a newborn’s body parts have to be for that person to, by definition, be barred from growing up to be a woman?
I won’t pretend I’m not skeptical. The sex/gender distinction seems all too convenient to me, like (this is a blast from the past) saying that the inability to procreate with each other is a reason why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Sounds plausible, but falls apart under scrutiny.
(PS Will be out of the house a lot lately, might not see replies, or have a chance to reply, until later.)
…all the native Japanese words for wife carry an implicit meaning of subordination. kanai means ‘inside the house’, tsuma comes from edge or side and means not the main person. shufu means homemaker.
That got me running through English colloquialisms for ‘wife’.
“Her indoors” (usually pronounced “er indoors”). Popularised by the television series Minder.
“Better half”. Animae dimidium meae
“Trouble”. For “trouble and strife”.
“(Old) Dutch”. Short for “Duchess”.
“Missus”. For “Mrs”.
…all the native Japanese words for wife carry an implicit meaning of subordination. kanai means ‘inside the house’, tsuma comes from edge or side and means not the main person. shufu means homemaker.
That got me running through English colloquialisms for ‘wife’.
“Her indoors” (usually pronounced “er indoors”). Popularised by the television series Minder.
“Better half”. Animae dimidium meae
“Trouble”. For “trouble and strife”.
“(Old) Dutch”. Short for “Duchess”.
“Missus”. For “Mrs”.
Over here we have ‘Meine Alte’ (my old one) but there is also the term ‘Mein Alter’ for the husband. The latter is ambiguous though since it is also used by kids as an informal term for ‘my father’ (while I have never heard that the mother is also referred to that way).
[another ambiguity is that ‘Alter’ also means ‘age’, so the question “Was ist dein Alter?” can mean both “what is your age?” and “what’s your father (implied: by profession)?”]
Over here we have ‘Meine Alte’ (my old one) but there is also the term ‘Mein Alter’ for the husband. The latter is ambiguous though since it is also used by kids as an informal term for ‘my father’ (while I have never heard that the mother is also referred to that way).
[another ambiguity is that ‘Alter’ also means ‘age’, so the question “Was ist dein Alter?” can mean both “what is your age?” and “what’s your father (implied: by profession)?”]
ISTM, *sex* is biological and therefore static and *gender* is fluid but not that difficult to conceptualize. For the vast majority of adults, sex and gender are congruent, whether gay or straight or bi (straight men like straight women because they are women and vice versa; gay men like men and gay women like women because they are men or women, as the case may be). That is, their gender aligns with their sex. The fifth category, call it *fluid*, embraces a range of people that may be largely dysphoric or even entirely dysphoric or not dysphoric at all but rather some other descriptor yet to be named (or it is named and I’m just unaware of it). There is a lot we don’t know due to lack of objective data and the inherent problems with self-reporting but regardless: everyone plays the hand they are dealt and our social contract needs to be amended to add the outliers who, regardless of orientation, own the same bundle of rights, obligations, protections and so on that are the birthright of every citizen. The execution may be tricky, but the over-arching general principle can’t be compromised.
That said, to me, the nature of dysphoria is such that individual classification may be problematic, i.e. how do we classify something most of us cannot understand? Is there language that really captures someone’s essence that only that person knows and even then may struggle to fully understand? It’s easy being born straight, not so much being born gay, but at least, gay or straight, you have a known orientation. As I understand it, a dysphoric may be entirely male or female oriented but in the wrong body but not all dysphorics fall in that defined category and, if I’m understanding their situation, whatever their *essence* might be, that may be fixed or it may be mutable over time and there seems to be–based on reporting–a lot of variability within the non-binary subset.
How much we, collectively, need to *know* about people with dysphoria is less pressing to me than making sure that we know enough to get past stupid stereotypes and make sure we fulfill our obligations under the social contract. The word “inclusion” has been co-opted by several schools of thought that use the term more aggressively than I like, but in its normal usage, “inclusion” is one of the fundamental terms of our collective agreement: everyone gets to participate equally to the extent of their drive, ability, etc.
It took 40 or so years for the straight world to get its arms around including gay people in the contract, but having managed that, one would think that the learning curve should be a lot shorter for addressing dysphoria.
If I had the time, I’d get into the line drawing and gray area stuff, but I don’t due to having started a three week trial this past Thursday. It’s a fascinating thread which really makes retiring at the end of the year attractive. I hate sitting this one out.
ISTM, *sex* is biological and therefore static and *gender* is fluid but not that difficult to conceptualize. For the vast majority of adults, sex and gender are congruent, whether gay or straight or bi (straight men like straight women because they are women and vice versa; gay men like men and gay women like women because they are men or women, as the case may be). That is, their gender aligns with their sex. The fifth category, call it *fluid*, embraces a range of people that may be largely dysphoric or even entirely dysphoric or not dysphoric at all but rather some other descriptor yet to be named (or it is named and I’m just unaware of it). There is a lot we don’t know due to lack of objective data and the inherent problems with self-reporting but regardless: everyone plays the hand they are dealt and our social contract needs to be amended to add the outliers who, regardless of orientation, own the same bundle of rights, obligations, protections and so on that are the birthright of every citizen. The execution may be tricky, but the over-arching general principle can’t be compromised.
That said, to me, the nature of dysphoria is such that individual classification may be problematic, i.e. how do we classify something most of us cannot understand? Is there language that really captures someone’s essence that only that person knows and even then may struggle to fully understand? It’s easy being born straight, not so much being born gay, but at least, gay or straight, you have a known orientation. As I understand it, a dysphoric may be entirely male or female oriented but in the wrong body but not all dysphorics fall in that defined category and, if I’m understanding their situation, whatever their *essence* might be, that may be fixed or it may be mutable over time and there seems to be–based on reporting–a lot of variability within the non-binary subset.
How much we, collectively, need to *know* about people with dysphoria is less pressing to me than making sure that we know enough to get past stupid stereotypes and make sure we fulfill our obligations under the social contract. The word “inclusion” has been co-opted by several schools of thought that use the term more aggressively than I like, but in its normal usage, “inclusion” is one of the fundamental terms of our collective agreement: everyone gets to participate equally to the extent of their drive, ability, etc.
It took 40 or so years for the straight world to get its arms around including gay people in the contract, but having managed that, one would think that the learning curve should be a lot shorter for addressing dysphoria.
If I had the time, I’d get into the line drawing and gray area stuff, but I don’t due to having started a three week trial this past Thursday. It’s a fascinating thread which really makes retiring at the end of the year attractive. I hate sitting this one out.
She who must be obeyed
The ball and chain
(my) old lady (hippie slang, right?)
bae, boo (though that is more girlfriend than wife, right?)
That first one is interesting to me, because it defines a space where the woman is in control, which is the explanation I have for Japanese gender roles being so durable. By granting the other that space, you are also extracting the promise that they will ‘know their place’ as it were.
My stay in Korea really had me start thinking about this a lot more, both countries are very conservative, but they are conservative in their own way. Koreans have a prudishness about sex that, after Japan, was pretty astonishing as well as a really severe problem with sexual harassment and chikan. Japanese have a pretty relaxed attitude towards sex (in the sense of what you do), yet gender is really persistent, but there is not a lot of policing of gender lines that I see as so problematic in the debates about trans rights or the homophobia that i felt was a pretty powerful feature of US society and still surfaces. Korea has had women commit suicide because they were filmed by hidden cameras (molka) but as the previous link about chikan suggests, this isn’t unknown in Japan, but the reaction to it is much less.
Japanese society carves out a relatively large space for privacy so if you don’t want to reveal it, you generally do not have to, though this is often suspended when the order of things is broken. I don’t know if I passed this article on, but it has some interesting insights to when Queer Eye came to Japan.
https://stevenwakabayashi.medium.com/my-culture-is-not-your-toy-a-gay-japanese-mans-perspective-on-queer-eye-japan-7bb8420660c5
This all wanders quite a bit away from what started this off, but interesting stuff to think about.
She who must be obeyed
The ball and chain
(my) old lady (hippie slang, right?)
bae, boo (though that is more girlfriend than wife, right?)
That first one is interesting to me, because it defines a space where the woman is in control, which is the explanation I have for Japanese gender roles being so durable. By granting the other that space, you are also extracting the promise that they will ‘know their place’ as it were.
My stay in Korea really had me start thinking about this a lot more, both countries are very conservative, but they are conservative in their own way. Koreans have a prudishness about sex that, after Japan, was pretty astonishing as well as a really severe problem with sexual harassment and chikan. Japanese have a pretty relaxed attitude towards sex (in the sense of what you do), yet gender is really persistent, but there is not a lot of policing of gender lines that I see as so problematic in the debates about trans rights or the homophobia that i felt was a pretty powerful feature of US society and still surfaces. Korea has had women commit suicide because they were filmed by hidden cameras (molka) but as the previous link about chikan suggests, this isn’t unknown in Japan, but the reaction to it is much less.
Japanese society carves out a relatively large space for privacy so if you don’t want to reveal it, you generally do not have to, though this is often suspended when the order of things is broken. I don’t know if I passed this article on, but it has some interesting insights to when Queer Eye came to Japan.
https://stevenwakabayashi.medium.com/my-culture-is-not-your-toy-a-gay-japanese-mans-perspective-on-queer-eye-japan-7bb8420660c5
This all wanders quite a bit away from what started this off, but interesting stuff to think about.
this (the difference between sex and gender) is pretty essential to really understanding the issue and where so much of the heat comes from.
Which actually brings us back around to how the language evolves. When I was young, “sex” and “gender” were pretty much used interchangeably. The only difference being that “gender” was somewhat more genteel. Now, as surgery has advanced to the point that at least the superficial attributes of bodily gender can be changed, the meaning of the words is evolving (definitely still a work in progress) to deal with that new reality. If/when we get to the point that sex organs can be replaced with full function, rather than just redrawn, we may have to adjust again.
this (the difference between sex and gender) is pretty essential to really understanding the issue and where so much of the heat comes from.
Which actually brings us back around to how the language evolves. When I was young, “sex” and “gender” were pretty much used interchangeably. The only difference being that “gender” was somewhat more genteel. Now, as surgery has advanced to the point that at least the superficial attributes of bodily gender can be changed, the meaning of the words is evolving (definitely still a work in progress) to deal with that new reality. If/when we get to the point that sex organs can be replaced with full function, rather than just redrawn, we may have to adjust again.
As a reference, I found this Wiki article about Feminism and Transgender to be pretty good. It collects most of the articles and sources that I found in my own independent research this week and helps to tease out the major threads and conversations and give a decent sense of the timeline:Nature…umm…finds a way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics
ISTM, *sex* is biological and therefore static and *gender* is fluid but not that difficult to conceptualize.
The difficulties we are having with this topic arise out of an assumption that we are dealing with objective material facts where sex is concerned and with information or culture where gender is concerned. The truth is that the lines between those are messy and hazy and “nature” appears far more subtle and mutable than thought the more you try to find fixed principles.
Given what we know and don’t know, and the complexity of the mechanisms and influences involved, I find myself aligning with those who treat sex and gender both as spectrums because it seems to do the least violence to the open questions we have.
Also, I think our most pressing question is not the larger question about the nature of sex/gender, but the specific question about how we can create a less toxic and damaging model of masculinity to make these other questions less urgent. A more open and accepting masculinity would take a lot of pressure out of the system, especially where the fight over women’s spaces are concerned.
As a reference, I found this Wiki article about Feminism and Transgender to be pretty good. It collects most of the articles and sources that I found in my own independent research this week and helps to tease out the major threads and conversations and give a decent sense of the timeline:Nature…umm…finds a way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_transgender_topics
ISTM, *sex* is biological and therefore static and *gender* is fluid but not that difficult to conceptualize.
The difficulties we are having with this topic arise out of an assumption that we are dealing with objective material facts where sex is concerned and with information or culture where gender is concerned. The truth is that the lines between those are messy and hazy and “nature” appears far more subtle and mutable than thought the more you try to find fixed principles.
Given what we know and don’t know, and the complexity of the mechanisms and influences involved, I find myself aligning with those who treat sex and gender both as spectrums because it seems to do the least violence to the open questions we have.
Also, I think our most pressing question is not the larger question about the nature of sex/gender, but the specific question about how we can create a less toxic and damaging model of masculinity to make these other questions less urgent. A more open and accepting masculinity would take a lot of pressure out of the system, especially where the fight over women’s spaces are concerned.
As a side note let me observe that, in most of the conversations here, McKinney is our token conservative. (Well, more conservative than me mostly, and I think I’m a conservative.) But his post above would, in broad swathes of the country, be branded as that of a flaming liberal.
As a side note let me observe that, in most of the conversations here, McKinney is our token conservative. (Well, more conservative than me mostly, and I think I’m a conservative.) But his post above would, in broad swathes of the country, be branded as that of a flaming liberal.
Another article, old to me, but maybe new to someone here, worth consideration: https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
“The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.”
Another article, old to me, but maybe new to someone here, worth consideration: https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
“The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.”
“The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.”
Thanks for this, nous. My guess would be sex is also less immutable and fixed at birth than would be convenient for some arguments, but this is one of those drive-bys….hope to be back later.
“The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.”
Thanks for this, nous. My guess would be sex is also less immutable and fixed at birth than would be convenient for some arguments, but this is one of those drive-bys….hope to be back later.
PS I don’t like the word “spectrum” in this context either either. More on that later, perhaps.
PS I don’t like the word “spectrum” in this context either either. More on that later, perhaps.
GftNC, you may have answered this before, and if so, apologies for asking you to repeat it; I’ve been here less often than usual lately. But: What is your definition, and that of the gender-critical feminists you know and/or agree with?
How many sexes do you think there are? Are there more than two, or do intersex people not have a sex? Is the immutable-from-birth definition you use based on body parts, hormones, brain structure, or what? If body parts, for instance, how non-standard do a newborn’s body parts have to be for that person to, by definition, be barred from growing up to be a woman?
I won’t pretend I’m not skeptical. The sex/gender distinction seems all too convenient to me, like (this is a blast from the past) saying that the inability to procreate with each other is a reason why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Sounds plausible, but falls apart under scrutiny.
I’ve said before that I’m not crazy about being a spokesperson on an issue I am still wrestling with, but FWIW (and I am not a biologist or scientist, nor do I want to spend more of my time doing research), this is what I think I know.
We are a dimorphic species, which means I believe that our species reproduces by means of two different types of gametes, sperm and eggs, and that the humans who produce them are divided respectively into two sexes, male and female. Contrary to lj’s feeling that humans might be able to change sex, this is not currently nor has ever been possible: people who produce sperm cannot (so far) turn into people who produce eggs, and vice versa. God only knows what future technological advances such as cloning will add into the mix, or how we will evolve in the future.
In addition to the gametes, our species has a range of primary and secondary sexual characteristics which fall into the two categories of male and female. This would cover the body parts/organs item in your list, the chromosome issue I assume (XX v XY) and probably the hormones too. I don’t believe we know for sure yet whether there is any difference between male brains and female brains, and myself I doubt it.
Very clearly, there are plenty of exceptions to parts of all this, but statistically they are not in any way sufficient to alter the combined effect of these definitions. At one time it was common to say that the percentage of intersex people in the population was similar to the number of redheads (approx. 1.7%), but that turns out to be misleading: by more commonly held definitions and combinations of conditions, it seems to be more like 0.02%.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
Whether intersex people should be considered male or female, or to have no sex, is above my pay grade. But interestingly, I have read an article in the last few days (cannot find it now, sorry) saying that various intersex organisations are objecting strongly to being co-opted into either the sex-is-a-spectrum or the gender argument.
As for Janie’s flashbacks to the argument that gay people should not be able to get married because they couldn’t procreate, I can only say that the views of people who think that marriage is solely for the purpose of procreation never seemed remotely plausible to me, let alone worthy of scrutiny! It was always clear to me that the prejudice against gay people was primarily religious, at least in origin, and I rejected it along with so much other religious dogma. I was also lucky to be a child of the 60s, and we took it for granted then that human sexuality was on a spectrum from heterosexual at one end to homosexual at the other, and that most people fell somewhere along the line, and I still believe that.
I do see that the current thinking, among people with whom I feel most ideological affinity, is not in agreement with my, and gender-critical feminists’, worry about trans-activists (as opposed to regular trans people) and particularly self-ID. And that is uncomfortable. But, as best I can understand it, I think it is because the well-meaning and benevolent proponents of the trans-activist cause do not allow for the amount of possible contempt, hatred and misogyny out there.
If the Trump phenomenon taught us anything, it should have taught us the lengths that quite a large percentage of the population would go to in order to express their hatred and contempt for the libz, and often that particularly tempting target uppity women, and if they have to call themselves Sandra and walk around with a beard and lumberjack clothing while insisting that everyone calls them by their preferred name and pronouns, and they can yuk it up with their buddies while recounting it all, that’s a perfectly believable scenario. Gender-critical feminists have been no-platformed, sacked, and threatened for saying sex (as opposed to gender) cannot be changed, a statement which, according to pretty much all the relevant scientific experts and authorities, seems to be what we used to call a fact (if the scientific consensus develops along the lines described in nous’s link, this will change, but that has not happened yet. In fact, scientists who believe this seem more to be like those few scientists who oppose the idea of anthropogenic climate change – they exist, but they are in the tiny minority). Only a very recent case in the UK courts has established that stating this belief is now protected from discrimination by law.
There it is. That’s how I’m thinking at the moment. I’m trying not to get too consumed by this issue as lots of otherwise perfectly liberal and lefty women I know are. I don’t want or need to be the spokesperson on it, and if my views change again (as they did from unquestioning support for all elements of trans-activist aims), I will let you know.
GftNC, you may have answered this before, and if so, apologies for asking you to repeat it; I’ve been here less often than usual lately. But: What is your definition, and that of the gender-critical feminists you know and/or agree with?
How many sexes do you think there are? Are there more than two, or do intersex people not have a sex? Is the immutable-from-birth definition you use based on body parts, hormones, brain structure, or what? If body parts, for instance, how non-standard do a newborn’s body parts have to be for that person to, by definition, be barred from growing up to be a woman?
I won’t pretend I’m not skeptical. The sex/gender distinction seems all too convenient to me, like (this is a blast from the past) saying that the inability to procreate with each other is a reason why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Sounds plausible, but falls apart under scrutiny.
I’ve said before that I’m not crazy about being a spokesperson on an issue I am still wrestling with, but FWIW (and I am not a biologist or scientist, nor do I want to spend more of my time doing research), this is what I think I know.
We are a dimorphic species, which means I believe that our species reproduces by means of two different types of gametes, sperm and eggs, and that the humans who produce them are divided respectively into two sexes, male and female. Contrary to lj’s feeling that humans might be able to change sex, this is not currently nor has ever been possible: people who produce sperm cannot (so far) turn into people who produce eggs, and vice versa. God only knows what future technological advances such as cloning will add into the mix, or how we will evolve in the future.
In addition to the gametes, our species has a range of primary and secondary sexual characteristics which fall into the two categories of male and female. This would cover the body parts/organs item in your list, the chromosome issue I assume (XX v XY) and probably the hormones too. I don’t believe we know for sure yet whether there is any difference between male brains and female brains, and myself I doubt it.
Very clearly, there are plenty of exceptions to parts of all this, but statistically they are not in any way sufficient to alter the combined effect of these definitions. At one time it was common to say that the percentage of intersex people in the population was similar to the number of redheads (approx. 1.7%), but that turns out to be misleading: by more commonly held definitions and combinations of conditions, it seems to be more like 0.02%.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
Whether intersex people should be considered male or female, or to have no sex, is above my pay grade. But interestingly, I have read an article in the last few days (cannot find it now, sorry) saying that various intersex organisations are objecting strongly to being co-opted into either the sex-is-a-spectrum or the gender argument.
As for Janie’s flashbacks to the argument that gay people should not be able to get married because they couldn’t procreate, I can only say that the views of people who think that marriage is solely for the purpose of procreation never seemed remotely plausible to me, let alone worthy of scrutiny! It was always clear to me that the prejudice against gay people was primarily religious, at least in origin, and I rejected it along with so much other religious dogma. I was also lucky to be a child of the 60s, and we took it for granted then that human sexuality was on a spectrum from heterosexual at one end to homosexual at the other, and that most people fell somewhere along the line, and I still believe that.
I do see that the current thinking, among people with whom I feel most ideological affinity, is not in agreement with my, and gender-critical feminists’, worry about trans-activists (as opposed to regular trans people) and particularly self-ID. And that is uncomfortable. But, as best I can understand it, I think it is because the well-meaning and benevolent proponents of the trans-activist cause do not allow for the amount of possible contempt, hatred and misogyny out there.
If the Trump phenomenon taught us anything, it should have taught us the lengths that quite a large percentage of the population would go to in order to express their hatred and contempt for the libz, and often that particularly tempting target uppity women, and if they have to call themselves Sandra and walk around with a beard and lumberjack clothing while insisting that everyone calls them by their preferred name and pronouns, and they can yuk it up with their buddies while recounting it all, that’s a perfectly believable scenario. Gender-critical feminists have been no-platformed, sacked, and threatened for saying sex (as opposed to gender) cannot be changed, a statement which, according to pretty much all the relevant scientific experts and authorities, seems to be what we used to call a fact (if the scientific consensus develops along the lines described in nous’s link, this will change, but that has not happened yet. In fact, scientists who believe this seem more to be like those few scientists who oppose the idea of anthropogenic climate change – they exist, but they are in the tiny minority). Only a very recent case in the UK courts has established that stating this belief is now protected from discrimination by law.
There it is. That’s how I’m thinking at the moment. I’m trying not to get too consumed by this issue as lots of otherwise perfectly liberal and lefty women I know are. I don’t want or need to be the spokesperson on it, and if my views change again (as they did from unquestioning support for all elements of trans-activist aims), I will let you know.
Me: My guess would be sex is also less immutable and fixed at birth than would be convenient for some arguments…
The article linked in nous’s 2:02 comment refers to this mutability. I won’t bother to say more.
As to a “spectrum” of either sex *or* gender (assuming we can even talk about them as different in the long run) — As a lifelong “tomboy,” I’ve thought a lot about this over the years. A long time ago I might have thought of gender as being on a “spectrum” myself. In fact, as recently as the early nineties my Irish girlfriend, a sometime gardener, joked that we were both “hardy hybrids.”
I came to dislike this metaphor, because it doesn’t have enough dimensions. Just like the oversimplified binary model of sex as being only male/female, it assumes there’s some essence of “male” at one end of a range, and of “female” at the other, and the rest of us are some combination of the two in different proportions.
Even nous’s article about the “sexes” undercuts this simple-minded notion. There are far too many variables involved to fit into a two-dimensional model.
Me: My guess would be sex is also less immutable and fixed at birth than would be convenient for some arguments…
The article linked in nous’s 2:02 comment refers to this mutability. I won’t bother to say more.
As to a “spectrum” of either sex *or* gender (assuming we can even talk about them as different in the long run) — As a lifelong “tomboy,” I’ve thought a lot about this over the years. A long time ago I might have thought of gender as being on a “spectrum” myself. In fact, as recently as the early nineties my Irish girlfriend, a sometime gardener, joked that we were both “hardy hybrids.”
I came to dislike this metaphor, because it doesn’t have enough dimensions. Just like the oversimplified binary model of sex as being only male/female, it assumes there’s some essence of “male” at one end of a range, and of “female” at the other, and the rest of us are some combination of the two in different proportions.
Even nous’s article about the “sexes” undercuts this simple-minded notion. There are far too many variables involved to fit into a two-dimensional model.
Huh, just catching up on all the comments since I started on that!
She who must be obeyed – we must never forget that this originated with Rider-Haggard, but was marvellously popularised by Rumpole of the Bailey
***
Also, I think our most pressing question is not the larger question about the nature of sex/gender, but the specific question about how we can create a less toxic and damaging model of masculinity to make these other questions less urgent. A more open and accepting masculinity would take a lot of pressure out of the system, especially where the fight over women’s spaces are concerned.
Well, I can certainly agree with most of what nous says here, with the possible exception of the word “most”. It (particularly the bolded bit) is certainly very pressing, and would indeed take a lot of the pressure out. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, recent developments (e.g. Trump etc) seem to suggest that this problem is in a (I hope temporary) upswing.
Huh, just catching up on all the comments since I started on that!
She who must be obeyed – we must never forget that this originated with Rider-Haggard, but was marvellously popularised by Rumpole of the Bailey
***
Also, I think our most pressing question is not the larger question about the nature of sex/gender, but the specific question about how we can create a less toxic and damaging model of masculinity to make these other questions less urgent. A more open and accepting masculinity would take a lot of pressure out of the system, especially where the fight over women’s spaces are concerned.
Well, I can certainly agree with most of what nous says here, with the possible exception of the word “most”. It (particularly the bolded bit) is certainly very pressing, and would indeed take a lot of the pressure out. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, recent developments (e.g. Trump etc) seem to suggest that this problem is in a (I hope temporary) upswing.
PS to my 5:52: it’s kind of like, if you plot a red pixel down at one end of a row, and a blue one at the other, and mix them gradually in between, you get a range from one, through purple, to the other.
What about yellow and green?
PS to my 5:52: it’s kind of like, if you plot a red pixel down at one end of a row, and a blue one at the other, and mix them gradually in between, you get a range from one, through purple, to the other.
What about yellow and green?
Final PS for now: my comments were written without seeing GftNC’s two most recent ones.
I’m done for now.
Final PS for now: my comments were written without seeing GftNC’s two most recent ones.
I’m done for now.
Before Janie’s final PS I posted, but seem to have lost:
Is there a word for a 3-D spectrum?
Before Janie’s final PS I posted, but seem to have lost:
Is there a word for a 3-D spectrum?
Is there a word for a 3-D spectrum?
It could be represented on a three-axis scatter plot.
But that assumes that the underlying mechanisms (or at least some measurable and distinct features) can be mapped and measured. This would be dependent on some sort of quantitative data, and getting that data would depend on assumptions and/or data points meant to simulate an observed statistical distribution.
A qualitative approach would produce something more like a cluster map, in which case the arguments would be around how to present that data in a way that doesn’t reinforce biases through size, distance, and associations of clusters.
And then there are environmental/contextual relationships and tipping points to be considered.
And only a small percentage of the general public that has an interest in the issues and want to have some input will have the time, patience, and ability to consider any of the inherent biases that get baked into the data presentation. They will just pick the one that feels least disruptive to their own life and their own concerns.
Is there a word for a 3-D spectrum?
It could be represented on a three-axis scatter plot.
But that assumes that the underlying mechanisms (or at least some measurable and distinct features) can be mapped and measured. This would be dependent on some sort of quantitative data, and getting that data would depend on assumptions and/or data points meant to simulate an observed statistical distribution.
A qualitative approach would produce something more like a cluster map, in which case the arguments would be around how to present that data in a way that doesn’t reinforce biases through size, distance, and associations of clusters.
And then there are environmental/contextual relationships and tipping points to be considered.
And only a small percentage of the general public that has an interest in the issues and want to have some input will have the time, patience, and ability to consider any of the inherent biases that get baked into the data presentation. They will just pick the one that feels least disruptive to their own life and their own concerns.
Is there a word for a 3-D spectrum?
When I referred to “two-dimensional” somewhere above, that was a brain glitch. A line is one dimension. That’s what “male-and-female-and-hybrids” would be.
A scatter plot would come closer to what I’m picturing, in three dimensions would be nice — this has some interesting material. For the record, I wouldn’t argue that there wouldn’lt be big clusters representing the statistical predominance of “men” and “women” — just that the clusters wouldn’t be as big as is commonly believed, and that there would be a lot more scatter in the dots than we can imagine. nous’s linked article lays out a lot of possibilities.
Is there a word for a 3-D spectrum?
When I referred to “two-dimensional” somewhere above, that was a brain glitch. A line is one dimension. That’s what “male-and-female-and-hybrids” would be.
A scatter plot would come closer to what I’m picturing, in three dimensions would be nice — this has some interesting material. For the record, I wouldn’t argue that there wouldn’lt be big clusters representing the statistical predominance of “men” and “women” — just that the clusters wouldn’t be as big as is commonly believed, and that there would be a lot more scatter in the dots than we can imagine. nous’s linked article lays out a lot of possibilities.
Again my comment was written without seeing a recent one: nous’s 7:11. For the record, my musings about the data are offered without the remotest notion that they have anything to do with the general public. They are just my way of trying to explain, in conversations with friends, how I picture what’s going on with sex and gender.
IMO “spectrum” is a lazy and inadequate way to account for the range of variation. It has irritated me for a long time, so I’ve tried to find a way to explain why.
That’s all.
Again my comment was written without seeing a recent one: nous’s 7:11. For the record, my musings about the data are offered without the remotest notion that they have anything to do with the general public. They are just my way of trying to explain, in conversations with friends, how I picture what’s going on with sex and gender.
IMO “spectrum” is a lazy and inadequate way to account for the range of variation. It has irritated me for a long time, so I’ve tried to find a way to explain why.
That’s all.
Interesting comments. I feel that I need to add some nuance to this (and no, I won’t use nuance as a verb!)
Contrary to lj’s feeling that humans might be able to change sex, this is not currently nor has ever been possible: people who produce sperm cannot (so far) turn into people who produce eggs, and vice versa.
If the ability to procreate is taken as the foundation, this is certainly true at the moment and certainly for my lifetime, but I don’t think that is all, which is why GftNC’s observation that I use gender rather than sex is quite insightful to me.
A euphemism that seems to have fallen out of favor is ‘plumbing’. It would be an interesting study to find out when it appeared as that, my literary reference is when Faulkner writes about Caddy Compson getting pregnant and abandoned (the three suitors all leaving town, one because they got her pregnant, the other two because they didn’t, gets at something about toxic masculinity) and her brother is infuriated and the father says something like “Well, you didn’t expect her to just run water thru it all the time” (note, I couldn’t find an online version of the text to check that, but I did find this hypertext version that will probably soak up a lot of time
http://drc.usask.ca/projects/faulkner/ )
That rejection of reduction to a single fact is more at the heart of my opinion than thinking that they can change ‘sex’. I understand that for some, it can be something that is non-negotiable. Woman has eggs, man has sperm. But to my mind, that reduces a person to some single trait, which is often at the heart of a lot of problems. We as humans have a tendency to do that, be it nationality, religion, sexual preference. We also use those traits to find our in-groups, so I don’t suggest that we deny them. But there has to be some shared notion and leaning hard on the biology seems like a desire to find some non-negotiable point so that there can be no argument. That’s my take, which will probably inform my response to wj in the judo post…
Interesting comments. I feel that I need to add some nuance to this (and no, I won’t use nuance as a verb!)
Contrary to lj’s feeling that humans might be able to change sex, this is not currently nor has ever been possible: people who produce sperm cannot (so far) turn into people who produce eggs, and vice versa.
If the ability to procreate is taken as the foundation, this is certainly true at the moment and certainly for my lifetime, but I don’t think that is all, which is why GftNC’s observation that I use gender rather than sex is quite insightful to me.
A euphemism that seems to have fallen out of favor is ‘plumbing’. It would be an interesting study to find out when it appeared as that, my literary reference is when Faulkner writes about Caddy Compson getting pregnant and abandoned (the three suitors all leaving town, one because they got her pregnant, the other two because they didn’t, gets at something about toxic masculinity) and her brother is infuriated and the father says something like “Well, you didn’t expect her to just run water thru it all the time” (note, I couldn’t find an online version of the text to check that, but I did find this hypertext version that will probably soak up a lot of time
http://drc.usask.ca/projects/faulkner/ )
That rejection of reduction to a single fact is more at the heart of my opinion than thinking that they can change ‘sex’. I understand that for some, it can be something that is non-negotiable. Woman has eggs, man has sperm. But to my mind, that reduces a person to some single trait, which is often at the heart of a lot of problems. We as humans have a tendency to do that, be it nationality, religion, sexual preference. We also use those traits to find our in-groups, so I don’t suggest that we deny them. But there has to be some shared notion and leaning hard on the biology seems like a desire to find some non-negotiable point so that there can be no argument. That’s my take, which will probably inform my response to wj in the judo post…
But there has to be some shared notion and leaning hard on the biology seems like a desire to find some non-negotiable point so that there can be no argument.
Well said.
But there has to be some shared notion and leaning hard on the biology seems like a desire to find some non-negotiable point so that there can be no argument.
Well said.
I never encountered the euphemism “plumbing” til I came to ObWi, and it mainly seemed to be McKinney who introduced it, or used it the most. I hated it, I don’t like euphemism anyway, and it seemed like a pretty creepy one. So there’s that.
If the ability to procreate is taken as the foundation, this is certainly true at the moment and certainly for my lifetime, but I don’t think that is all
The thing is, lj, sex has a pretty well-established set of definitions. It’s not just “the ability to procreate”, it’s a whole series of things: chromosomes, the type of gametes a person is capable of producing, sexual organs, secondary sexual organs, etc etc. It’s not a question of reducing anybody to a single trait, it has an actual meaning, which at the moment and by common consensus of the specialists who deal with this (biologists, geneticists, endocronologists etc etc) is pretty much non-negotiable. That’s the point, and that’s why gender is so important, because it is fluid, it is susceptible to preference, and to change, and it enables people who are unhappy with their biological sex to adopt their preferred gender and live accordingly, at peace.
So in many ways your preference for “gender” makes sense, because it fits much better with your (in my opinion, correct) concept of the extraordinary variety of ways humans can choose to exist.
I never encountered the euphemism “plumbing” til I came to ObWi, and it mainly seemed to be McKinney who introduced it, or used it the most. I hated it, I don’t like euphemism anyway, and it seemed like a pretty creepy one. So there’s that.
If the ability to procreate is taken as the foundation, this is certainly true at the moment and certainly for my lifetime, but I don’t think that is all
The thing is, lj, sex has a pretty well-established set of definitions. It’s not just “the ability to procreate”, it’s a whole series of things: chromosomes, the type of gametes a person is capable of producing, sexual organs, secondary sexual organs, etc etc. It’s not a question of reducing anybody to a single trait, it has an actual meaning, which at the moment and by common consensus of the specialists who deal with this (biologists, geneticists, endocronologists etc etc) is pretty much non-negotiable. That’s the point, and that’s why gender is so important, because it is fluid, it is susceptible to preference, and to change, and it enables people who are unhappy with their biological sex to adopt their preferred gender and live accordingly, at peace.
So in many ways your preference for “gender” makes sense, because it fits much better with your (in my opinion, correct) concept of the extraordinary variety of ways humans can choose to exist.
leaning hard on the biology
It’s hard not to lean hard on the biology, when it is a purely biological category. Unlike gender.
It’s two in the morning, so I’m not going back to check, but I think you quoted the WHO definition upthread:
The World Health Organisation regional office for Europe describes sex as characteristics that are biologically defined, whereas gender is based on socially constructed features.
And with that, to quote Janie, I’m out.
leaning hard on the biology
It’s hard not to lean hard on the biology, when it is a purely biological category. Unlike gender.
It’s two in the morning, so I’m not going back to check, but I think you quoted the WHO definition upthread:
The World Health Organisation regional office for Europe describes sex as characteristics that are biologically defined, whereas gender is based on socially constructed features.
And with that, to quote Janie, I’m out.
It’s not a question of reducing anybody to a single trait, it has an actual meaning, which at the moment and by common consensus of the specialists who deal with this (biologists, geneticists, endocronologists etc etc) is pretty much non-negotiable.
Is there really “common consensus”? I would have thought that the people on the other side of this argument have a bunch of specialists they can cite who disagree. Maybe nous knows.
From another angle, the one I’ve been more concerned with, the article nous linked is a reminder that even if it’s that cut and dried for most people, there are a lot of people who don’t actually fit into those boxes.
It’s not a question of reducing anybody to a single trait, it has an actual meaning, which at the moment and by common consensus of the specialists who deal with this (biologists, geneticists, endocronologists etc etc) is pretty much non-negotiable.
Is there really “common consensus”? I would have thought that the people on the other side of this argument have a bunch of specialists they can cite who disagree. Maybe nous knows.
From another angle, the one I’ve been more concerned with, the article nous linked is a reminder that even if it’s that cut and dried for most people, there are a lot of people who don’t actually fit into those boxes.
If you discount plumbing is there anything really to discuss? The scatter plots would represent gender but most of the characteristics would have e clusters of their own and suddenly there is a representation of nonbinary gender.
A few of those characteristics would involve sex but my guess is the overlap of those characteristics across clusters would make them less consequential.
If you discount plumbing is there anything really to discuss? The scatter plots would represent gender but most of the characteristics would have e clusters of their own and suddenly there is a representation of nonbinary gender.
A few of those characteristics would involve sex but my guess is the overlap of those characteristics across clusters would make them less consequential.
Is there really “common consensus”? I would have thought that the people on the other side of this argument have a bunch of specialists they can cite who disagree. Maybe nous knows.
There are always some consensus points and there are other points in contention. Science is about building models of understanding that account for the consensus “stable” facts and give a productive framework for learning new things about the areas of uncertainty. Sometimes new information upsets the consensus understanding of the “stable” facts.
Chromosomal sex has a fairly stable consensus, but what gonads develop and what pheontypes express are not limited by the chromosomes that are involved because these latter stages are influenced by regulatory “enhancers” that are still (as of 2018 anyway) not well understood.
So there are many possible expressions of gonadal and phenotypical sex, and of resulting hormonal effects on the brain, depending on the interaction of the chromosomes and the enhancers.
So any consensus needs to be treated as tentative.
I’m leaving out the references here for brevity, but they were pulled from journals and from the explanations of sexual differentiation in humans for upper division undergraduate classes at well known and respected universities.
We are teaching our next generation of researchers that the scientific understanding around sexual differentiation need to be open to variation because our understanding is not settled despite knowing some of the bigger, more stable and obvious mechanisms.
Take that for what it’s worth.
Is there really “common consensus”? I would have thought that the people on the other side of this argument have a bunch of specialists they can cite who disagree. Maybe nous knows.
There are always some consensus points and there are other points in contention. Science is about building models of understanding that account for the consensus “stable” facts and give a productive framework for learning new things about the areas of uncertainty. Sometimes new information upsets the consensus understanding of the “stable” facts.
Chromosomal sex has a fairly stable consensus, but what gonads develop and what pheontypes express are not limited by the chromosomes that are involved because these latter stages are influenced by regulatory “enhancers” that are still (as of 2018 anyway) not well understood.
So there are many possible expressions of gonadal and phenotypical sex, and of resulting hormonal effects on the brain, depending on the interaction of the chromosomes and the enhancers.
So any consensus needs to be treated as tentative.
I’m leaving out the references here for brevity, but they were pulled from journals and from the explanations of sexual differentiation in humans for upper division undergraduate classes at well known and respected universities.
We are teaching our next generation of researchers that the scientific understanding around sexual differentiation need to be open to variation because our understanding is not settled despite knowing some of the bigger, more stable and obvious mechanisms.
Take that for what it’s worth.
One of my grad school profs, Talmy Givon, was big on linking linguistics to biology, and argued that biology was functional rather than formal. This leads him to argue that if two linguistic structures are used to accomplish the same, they should be considered equivalent. That sort of thing informs a lot of my opinion about biology, though I’ve not delved into it and things will attract my attention when they synch with that for the most part.
One thing that I did read, but now can’t remember where or the exact terms, was that biological taxonomy can be described by two systems, both of which largely give you the same results, but the differences can often be quite revealing and that this is a point of debate within biology. I just spent 30 minutes trying to google something to help me remember, if anyone has a pointer, I’d appreciate it, it’s going to drive me nuts. Maybe cladistic versus [???]
One of my grad school profs, Talmy Givon, was big on linking linguistics to biology, and argued that biology was functional rather than formal. This leads him to argue that if two linguistic structures are used to accomplish the same, they should be considered equivalent. That sort of thing informs a lot of my opinion about biology, though I’ve not delved into it and things will attract my attention when they synch with that for the most part.
One thing that I did read, but now can’t remember where or the exact terms, was that biological taxonomy can be described by two systems, both of which largely give you the same results, but the differences can often be quite revealing and that this is a point of debate within biology. I just spent 30 minutes trying to google something to help me remember, if anyone has a pointer, I’d appreciate it, it’s going to drive me nuts. Maybe cladistic versus [???]
lj — didn’t read this, but maybe?
lj — didn’t read this, but maybe?
Thank you! That wasn’t the article, but it gives me enough to try and find it. This section is worth reading in light of our discussion
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s taxonomy was split into rival pheneticist and cladist camps. However, phenetics ultimately succumbed to internal problems. The pheneticists could not live up to their own standards: theoretical subjectivity kept creeping back in. For example, several different statistical techniques that led to analyses with different results were often equally defensible. The pheneticist still had to make a subjective choice between them.
Cladists also rely on computer analyses to choose between alternative cladograms. The success of these techniques encouraged so-called transformed cladism, which revived the phenetic pursuit of theory neutrality. Transformed cladists argued that it was circular logic to appeal to evolutionary understanding of the relationship between species, for example by weighting some characters over others. Transformed cladism was vulnerable to some of the same criticisms as phenetics. It also lent itself to quotation out of context by creationists, who could cite leading biologists as rejecting evolution—overlooking that they rejected it only as a hypothesis in the reconstruction of phylogeny, which would itself provide powerful support for evolution.
Taxonomy is one of the principal sources of conceptual originality and explanatory force in biology. Not only would other branches of the discipline be unable to proceed without the classification of their data, in many cases they are also indebted to systematics for their theoretical innovations. For example, understanding the concept of species has come largely from taxonomists, as have the foundations of ethology, the study of animal behavior, and biogeography, the study of the distribution of plants and animals.
The last of these is an essential ingredient of the science of conservation, in which taxonomy has played a crucial role, both in assessing the magnitude of the task and exploring the feasibility of possible methods. Fewer than 2 million species are known, but estimates of the total number are much larger, although they vary wildly from 10 million to 100 million and beyond. The arguments behind these estimates appeal to taxonomic reasoning.
One of the most controversial aspects of taxonomy is the place of our own species and its subdivision. Ancient and medieval classifications included man within a “chain of being” that ran from inanimate objects up to God. Taxonomists such as Linnaeus, for whom species were fixed, often acknowledged the similarities between men and apes. Indeed Linnaeus exaggerated them, mistakenly placing the orangutan among the genus Homo. However, the spread of evolutionary ideas meant that this resemblance spoke not to a similar design but to a shared origin. This was much more controversial: Darwin largely overlooked the place of man in On the Origin of Species (1859), postponing the subject to The Descent of Man (1871). The Welsh naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913), who independently proposed natural selection, could never bring himself to accept the human brain as a product of the process of which he was the codiscoverer.
Thank you! That wasn’t the article, but it gives me enough to try and find it. This section is worth reading in light of our discussion
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s taxonomy was split into rival pheneticist and cladist camps. However, phenetics ultimately succumbed to internal problems. The pheneticists could not live up to their own standards: theoretical subjectivity kept creeping back in. For example, several different statistical techniques that led to analyses with different results were often equally defensible. The pheneticist still had to make a subjective choice between them.
Cladists also rely on computer analyses to choose between alternative cladograms. The success of these techniques encouraged so-called transformed cladism, which revived the phenetic pursuit of theory neutrality. Transformed cladists argued that it was circular logic to appeal to evolutionary understanding of the relationship between species, for example by weighting some characters over others. Transformed cladism was vulnerable to some of the same criticisms as phenetics. It also lent itself to quotation out of context by creationists, who could cite leading biologists as rejecting evolution—overlooking that they rejected it only as a hypothesis in the reconstruction of phylogeny, which would itself provide powerful support for evolution.
Taxonomy is one of the principal sources of conceptual originality and explanatory force in biology. Not only would other branches of the discipline be unable to proceed without the classification of their data, in many cases they are also indebted to systematics for their theoretical innovations. For example, understanding the concept of species has come largely from taxonomists, as have the foundations of ethology, the study of animal behavior, and biogeography, the study of the distribution of plants and animals.
The last of these is an essential ingredient of the science of conservation, in which taxonomy has played a crucial role, both in assessing the magnitude of the task and exploring the feasibility of possible methods. Fewer than 2 million species are known, but estimates of the total number are much larger, although they vary wildly from 10 million to 100 million and beyond. The arguments behind these estimates appeal to taxonomic reasoning.
One of the most controversial aspects of taxonomy is the place of our own species and its subdivision. Ancient and medieval classifications included man within a “chain of being” that ran from inanimate objects up to God. Taxonomists such as Linnaeus, for whom species were fixed, often acknowledged the similarities between men and apes. Indeed Linnaeus exaggerated them, mistakenly placing the orangutan among the genus Homo. However, the spread of evolutionary ideas meant that this resemblance spoke not to a similar design but to a shared origin. This was much more controversial: Darwin largely overlooked the place of man in On the Origin of Species (1859), postponing the subject to The Descent of Man (1871). The Welsh naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913), who independently proposed natural selection, could never bring himself to accept the human brain as a product of the process of which he was the codiscoverer.
If you discount plumbing is there anything really to discuss?
Clearly, yes. To take the most obvious example (which has gotten some discussion here): hormones, and their impact on physical development. If you get your plumbing revised after puberty, your skeleton, muscles, etc. will have developed in a different manner than those of people who always had that plumbing.
If you discount plumbing is there anything really to discuss?
Clearly, yes. To take the most obvious example (which has gotten some discussion here): hormones, and their impact on physical development. If you get your plumbing revised after puberty, your skeleton, muscles, etc. will have developed in a different manner than those of people who always had that plumbing.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s taxonomy was split into rival pheneticist and cladist camps. However, phenetics ultimately succumbed to internal problems.
Pretty obviously what we’re dealing with, in current discussions of gender, is issues of taxonomy. That is, what are appropriate groups when it comes to gender, and how do we determine who is in which group?
No doubt it’s my ignorance of the field, but I just can’t see how a cladistic approach can add anything. We find siblings embracing a wide mix of whatever groups you can come up with. So “most recent common ancestor” tells you absolutely nothing.
I can see how it works in biology for genus and species. But lj, can you help me with what possible use it is when discussing gender. (Or, more likely, what facets of “cladist” I’m failing to understand.)
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s taxonomy was split into rival pheneticist and cladist camps. However, phenetics ultimately succumbed to internal problems.
Pretty obviously what we’re dealing with, in current discussions of gender, is issues of taxonomy. That is, what are appropriate groups when it comes to gender, and how do we determine who is in which group?
No doubt it’s my ignorance of the field, but I just can’t see how a cladistic approach can add anything. We find siblings embracing a wide mix of whatever groups you can come up with. So “most recent common ancestor” tells you absolutely nothing.
I can see how it works in biology for genus and species. But lj, can you help me with what possible use it is when discussing gender. (Or, more likely, what facets of “cladist” I’m failing to understand.)
I was thinking these points
It also lent itself to quotation out of context by creationists, who could cite leading biologists as rejecting evolution—overlooking that they rejected it only as a hypothesis in the reconstruction of phylogeny, which would itself provide powerful support for evolution.
Taxonomy is one of the principal sources of conceptual originality and explanatory force in biology.
I hope this isn’t taken as an insult, but we’ve seen so often that people will take a fragment of research and then make arguments without looking at the fuller context. The article that I read pointed out that a cladistic typology, which an ordinary person might assume was set and decided, was actually not as set as we might assume. Which is my take on sex.
I was thinking these points
It also lent itself to quotation out of context by creationists, who could cite leading biologists as rejecting evolution—overlooking that they rejected it only as a hypothesis in the reconstruction of phylogeny, which would itself provide powerful support for evolution.
Taxonomy is one of the principal sources of conceptual originality and explanatory force in biology.
I hope this isn’t taken as an insult, but we’ve seen so often that people will take a fragment of research and then make arguments without looking at the fuller context. The article that I read pointed out that a cladistic typology, which an ordinary person might assume was set and decided, was actually not as set as we might assume. Which is my take on sex.
Clearly, yes. To take the most obvious example (which has gotten some discussion here): hormones, and their impact on physical development.
A book on that subject. Though the author may have given her thesis a shot of testosterone in order for it to carry the weight she puts on it.
“Since antiquity—from the eunuchs in the royal courts of ancient China to the booming market for “elixirs of youth” in nineteenth-century Europe—humans have understood that typically masculine behavior depends on testicles, the main source of testosterone in males. Which sex has the highest rates of physical violence, hunger for status, and desire for a high number of sex partners? Just follow the testosterone.
Although we humans can study and reflect on our own behavior, we are also animals, the products of millions of years of evolution. Fascinating research on creatures from chimpanzees to spiny lizards shows how high testosterone helps males out-reproduce their competitors. And men are no exception.
While most people agree that sex differences in human behavior exist, they disagree about the reasons. But the science is clear: testosterone is a potent force in human society, driving the bodies and behavior of the sexes apart. But, as Hooven shows in T, it does so in concert with genes and culture to produce a vast variety of male and female behavior. And, crucially, the fact that many sex differences are grounded in biology provides no support for restrictive gender norms or patriarchal values. In understanding testosterone, we better understand ourselves and one another—and how we might build a fairer, safer society.”
T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us
Clearly, yes. To take the most obvious example (which has gotten some discussion here): hormones, and their impact on physical development.
A book on that subject. Though the author may have given her thesis a shot of testosterone in order for it to carry the weight she puts on it.
“Since antiquity—from the eunuchs in the royal courts of ancient China to the booming market for “elixirs of youth” in nineteenth-century Europe—humans have understood that typically masculine behavior depends on testicles, the main source of testosterone in males. Which sex has the highest rates of physical violence, hunger for status, and desire for a high number of sex partners? Just follow the testosterone.
Although we humans can study and reflect on our own behavior, we are also animals, the products of millions of years of evolution. Fascinating research on creatures from chimpanzees to spiny lizards shows how high testosterone helps males out-reproduce their competitors. And men are no exception.
While most people agree that sex differences in human behavior exist, they disagree about the reasons. But the science is clear: testosterone is a potent force in human society, driving the bodies and behavior of the sexes apart. But, as Hooven shows in T, it does so in concert with genes and culture to produce a vast variety of male and female behavior. And, crucially, the fact that many sex differences are grounded in biology provides no support for restrictive gender norms or patriarchal values. In understanding testosterone, we better understand ourselves and one another—and how we might build a fairer, safer society.”
T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us
Still looking, but I think everyone will enjoy the first paragraph of this
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2413605
I can’t see the rest, but the first paragraph is a doozy!
Still looking, but I think everyone will enjoy the first paragraph of this
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2413605
I can’t see the rest, but the first paragraph is a doozy!
At least we seem to have progressed beyond the ‘there is only one sex but half of the specimens are highly defective’ of Aristotle and in particular St.Thomas Aquinas [femina est mas occasionatus].
My guess is that both guys would not change their mind these days but argue instead that modern biology proves their point (because the absence of certain biochemical factors/influences produces females).
At least we seem to have progressed beyond the ‘there is only one sex but half of the specimens are highly defective’ of Aristotle and in particular St.Thomas Aquinas [femina est mas occasionatus].
My guess is that both guys would not change their mind these days but argue instead that modern biology proves their point (because the absence of certain biochemical factors/influences produces females).
I hope this isn’t taken as an insult, but we’ve seen so often that people will take a fragment of research and then make arguments without looking at the fuller context. The article that I read pointed out that a cladistic typology, which an ordinary person might assume was set and decided, was actually not as set as we might assume.
lj, if this is delicately and tactfully meant for me, I will definitely not take it as an insult! Not only am I not a scientist or a biologist, I am also not a linguist or an academic, so reading about and understanding the difference between pheneticist and cladistic is currently not on my (at the moment rather overwhelming) to-do list. However, I can assure you that if the general consensus shifts, particularly among scientists who don’t have an ideological axe to grind (gender-related or otherwise), and sex is no longer defined biologically, and there is no longer an enormous historical structure in which women are discriminated against on the basis of their biological sex, I will be quite prepared to look again at my attitude on this issue.
In the meantime, I will have to rely on my conviction that people of every sex and gender need to be treated with respect and compassion, and that their human rights have to be respected where they do not infringe on the human rights of other groups, and that the views of such groups need to be solicited and listened to in order to make such determination.
I hope this isn’t taken as an insult, but we’ve seen so often that people will take a fragment of research and then make arguments without looking at the fuller context. The article that I read pointed out that a cladistic typology, which an ordinary person might assume was set and decided, was actually not as set as we might assume.
lj, if this is delicately and tactfully meant for me, I will definitely not take it as an insult! Not only am I not a scientist or a biologist, I am also not a linguist or an academic, so reading about and understanding the difference between pheneticist and cladistic is currently not on my (at the moment rather overwhelming) to-do list. However, I can assure you that if the general consensus shifts, particularly among scientists who don’t have an ideological axe to grind (gender-related or otherwise), and sex is no longer defined biologically, and there is no longer an enormous historical structure in which women are discriminated against on the basis of their biological sex, I will be quite prepared to look again at my attitude on this issue.
In the meantime, I will have to rely on my conviction that people of every sex and gender need to be treated with respect and compassion, and that their human rights have to be respected where they do not infringe on the human rights of other groups, and that the views of such groups need to be solicited and listened to in order to make such determination.
Thanks! I should mention, the reason that I was readaing about taxonomies is that there were a spate of papers about language relationships, and they ran into the same problems as biological taxonomies. Anyway, thanks all.
Thanks! I should mention, the reason that I was readaing about taxonomies is that there were a spate of papers about language relationships, and they ran into the same problems as biological taxonomies. Anyway, thanks all.
My guess is that both guys would not change their mind these days but argue instead that modern biology proves their point (because the absence of certain biochemical factors/influences produces females).
Did you read the article cited in nous’s 2:02 yesterday? If so, I wonder if you know of more recent research that overturns this bit:
Science being a work in progress, I fully expect a lot of our tentative understandings to be altered in various ways over time, including these. But it looks like Aquinas and Aristotle will have to find some other reason to insist that women are inferior.
My guess is that both guys would not change their mind these days but argue instead that modern biology proves their point (because the absence of certain biochemical factors/influences produces females).
Did you read the article cited in nous’s 2:02 yesterday? If so, I wonder if you know of more recent research that overturns this bit:
Science being a work in progress, I fully expect a lot of our tentative understandings to be altered in various ways over time, including these. But it looks like Aquinas and Aristotle will have to find some other reason to insist that women are inferior.
Noreena Hertz, the author of The Lonely Century (2021), is the latest academic to link isolation to populism: she found that loneliness connects far-right-wing voters in the UK, France and the US. “A lot of the hardcore conspiracy-mongering and extremism we’re seeing can be tied to people feeling that they’re not being listened to,” Keohane says.
One of the most compelling passages in The Power of Strangers focuses on Theodore Zeldin, an 87-year-old Oxford professor who hosts events called the Feast of Strangers and is on a mission to meet as many people as possible. Zeldin refers to himself as an “explorer” who has spent his life “discovering the world, one [person] by one.” He has previously stated that he enjoys speaking to people who do not share his viewpoint: “I would argue that finding something admirable, or touching, in an obnoxious person, is also profoundly satisfying.”
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/31/the-assignment-made-me-gulp-could-talking-to-strangers-change-my-life
I thought this, particularly the bolded part, in today’s Observer, was very interesting. It certainly immediately resonated on an instinctive level that loneliness and far right extremism could be connected. We’re all familiar with the “feeling they’re not being listened to” formulation, but I had not specifically linked that to loneliness or social isolation. It makes sense once it’s pointed out.
Noreena Hertz, the author of The Lonely Century (2021), is the latest academic to link isolation to populism: she found that loneliness connects far-right-wing voters in the UK, France and the US. “A lot of the hardcore conspiracy-mongering and extremism we’re seeing can be tied to people feeling that they’re not being listened to,” Keohane says.
One of the most compelling passages in The Power of Strangers focuses on Theodore Zeldin, an 87-year-old Oxford professor who hosts events called the Feast of Strangers and is on a mission to meet as many people as possible. Zeldin refers to himself as an “explorer” who has spent his life “discovering the world, one [person] by one.” He has previously stated that he enjoys speaking to people who do not share his viewpoint: “I would argue that finding something admirable, or touching, in an obnoxious person, is also profoundly satisfying.”
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jul/31/the-assignment-made-me-gulp-could-talking-to-strangers-change-my-life
I thought this, particularly the bolded part, in today’s Observer, was very interesting. It certainly immediately resonated on an instinctive level that loneliness and far right extremism could be connected. We’re all familiar with the “feeling they’re not being listened to” formulation, but I had not specifically linked that to loneliness or social isolation. It makes sense once it’s pointed out.
JanieM, no, I was not aware of that more up-to-date research. Not my field of expertise, that’s for sure.
But I assume, like professional creationsts, those old miysogynists would happily ignore it, if it violated/s their preconceived notions.
JanieM, no, I was not aware of that more up-to-date research. Not my field of expertise, that’s for sure.
But I assume, like professional creationsts, those old miysogynists would happily ignore it, if it violated/s their preconceived notions.
My guess is that both guys would not change their mind these days but argue instead that modern biology proves their point (because the absence of certain biochemical factors/influences produces females).
Even though, as Janie implied above, we’re male if we have a Y chromosome. That is, one which is incomplete. Not that mere facts can persuade some people.
My guess is that both guys would not change their mind these days but argue instead that modern biology proves their point (because the absence of certain biochemical factors/influences produces females).
Even though, as Janie implied above, we’re male if we have a Y chromosome. That is, one which is incomplete. Not that mere facts can persuade some people.
You people write faster than I can read.
Also, quantum mechanics is easier to understand than this subtle and fascinating discussion.
Speaking of which, electrons have “spin”. The spin can be “up” or “down”, but nothing else. Spin is binary.
Well, it’s binary when you try to measure it. The “state” of any electron is a vector, composed of some linear combination of the vector UP and the vector DOWN, which are orthogonal to each other because Nature likes to mess with our heads.
“So the spin can’t be sideways?” I hear you cry. Sure, the STATE of the electron can be. But there’s no way to know the STATE without making a measurement. And when you do that, you get the answer UP or the answer DOWN. Nothing else. So you’re still unable to say what the STATE was before your measurement.
If you measure the same electron again, it’s guaranteed to give the same result as the first time. Once you measure the electron’s spin to be UP, say, its STATE becomes 100%UP, 0%DOWN, until the next time the electron undergoes some sort of interaction. If that interaction is another measurement, you can be certain you’ll measure UP again.
What all this has to do with sex, gender, spectra, taxonomies, and social norms or social interactions is … well, probably nothing. I’ve been watching too many Susskind lectures on YouTube lately.
–TP
You people write faster than I can read.
Also, quantum mechanics is easier to understand than this subtle and fascinating discussion.
Speaking of which, electrons have “spin”. The spin can be “up” or “down”, but nothing else. Spin is binary.
Well, it’s binary when you try to measure it. The “state” of any electron is a vector, composed of some linear combination of the vector UP and the vector DOWN, which are orthogonal to each other because Nature likes to mess with our heads.
“So the spin can’t be sideways?” I hear you cry. Sure, the STATE of the electron can be. But there’s no way to know the STATE without making a measurement. And when you do that, you get the answer UP or the answer DOWN. Nothing else. So you’re still unable to say what the STATE was before your measurement.
If you measure the same electron again, it’s guaranteed to give the same result as the first time. Once you measure the electron’s spin to be UP, say, its STATE becomes 100%UP, 0%DOWN, until the next time the electron undergoes some sort of interaction. If that interaction is another measurement, you can be certain you’ll measure UP again.
What all this has to do with sex, gender, spectra, taxonomies, and social norms or social interactions is … well, probably nothing. I’ve been watching too many Susskind lectures on YouTube lately.
–TP
But I assume, like professional creationsts, those old miysogynists would happily ignore it, if it violated/s their preconceived notions.
Aquinas, probably. He always stacked the deck in his own favor when constructing his arguments. Not so sure about Aristotle, though.
I’m thinking, specifically, of the Ethics here and his discussion of happiness. If he were to follow the side of the argument that assumes that sex is a state of being and gender is an activity, then I think that your conclusion would hold. But I do believe that, given these recent findings about the role of enhancers in sexual expression, that Aristotle might well conclude that sex is not a fixed telos, but an activity and thus more like happiness, a thing that is subject to contingencies that place it more in line with becoming than with being, since there are many circumstances that can shift the trajectory away from an otherwise apparent internally contained end.
Aristotle’s disagreement with Plato on the problem of happiness makes me think that he’s much more willing to acknowledge complexity and contingency than was Aquinas, who was ever the apologist, working to render his position unassailable.
But I assume, like professional creationsts, those old miysogynists would happily ignore it, if it violated/s their preconceived notions.
Aquinas, probably. He always stacked the deck in his own favor when constructing his arguments. Not so sure about Aristotle, though.
I’m thinking, specifically, of the Ethics here and his discussion of happiness. If he were to follow the side of the argument that assumes that sex is a state of being and gender is an activity, then I think that your conclusion would hold. But I do believe that, given these recent findings about the role of enhancers in sexual expression, that Aristotle might well conclude that sex is not a fixed telos, but an activity and thus more like happiness, a thing that is subject to contingencies that place it more in line with becoming than with being, since there are many circumstances that can shift the trajectory away from an otherwise apparent internally contained end.
Aristotle’s disagreement with Plato on the problem of happiness makes me think that he’s much more willing to acknowledge complexity and contingency than was Aquinas, who was ever the apologist, working to render his position unassailable.
But male is active and female passive by definition 😉
And (if I remember the old Stagirite correctly) sex with women is inferior to that with men and serves only the lower purpose of procreation.
I think he was an extremly stubborn guy and therefore likely to double down.
Honestly, I am more versed in Platon’s views on demons and magic than in Aristotelean erotica.
But male is active and female passive by definition 😉
And (if I remember the old Stagirite correctly) sex with women is inferior to that with men and serves only the lower purpose of procreation.
I think he was an extremly stubborn guy and therefore likely to double down.
Honestly, I am more versed in Platon’s views on demons and magic than in Aristotelean erotica.
Add a dose of Aristophanes and you are on your way to a best seller.
Add a dose of Aristophanes and you are on your way to a best seller.
“It’s more of a systems-biology view of the world of sex.”
I’m reminded of an article I’ll try to find tonight about a researcher who suggests that the reason we dream is because our visual cortex is not happy with having no input and (from memory) comandeers other parts of the brain, suggesting that the metaphor to explain the brain is not a team working together but like rival drug gangs marking out their turf.
“It’s more of a systems-biology view of the world of sex.”
I’m reminded of an article I’ll try to find tonight about a researcher who suggests that the reason we dream is because our visual cortex is not happy with having no input and (from memory) comandeers other parts of the brain, suggesting that the metaphor to explain the brain is not a team working together but like rival drug gangs marking out their turf.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/12/david-eagleman-the-working-of-the-brain-resembles-drug-dealers-in-albuquerque
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/12/david-eagleman-the-working-of-the-brain-resembles-drug-dealers-in-albuquerque
I always thought of my brain as working like a bunch of cockroaches scurrying away after a light was turned on.
I always thought of my brain as working like a bunch of cockroaches scurrying away after a light was turned on.