Ban Them Books!

1.  In Mosul, Iraq, the Islamic State is burning books:

Residents say the extremists smashed the locks that had protected the biggest repository of learning in the northern Iraq town, and loaded around 2,000 books — including children's stories, poetry, philosophy and tomes on sports, health, culture and science — into six pickup trucks. They left only Islamic texts.
The rest?
"These books promote infidelity and call for disobeying Allah. So they will be burned," a bearded militant in traditional Afghani two-piece clothing told residents, according to one man living nearby who spoke to The Associated Press. The man, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared retaliation, said the Islamic State group official made his impromptu address as others stuffed books into empty flour bags.

2.  In Denver, Colorado, a group of students walked out in protest because of this:

Hundreds of students walked out of classrooms around suburban Denver on Tuesday in protest over a conservative-led school board proposal to focus history education on topics that promote citizenship, patriotism and respect for authority, providing a show of civil disobedience that the new standards would aim to downplay.

3.  And in Oklahoma, Advanced Placement history courses are seen as fighting god and American exceptionalism:

Oklahoma Rep. Dan Fisher (R) has introduced “emergency” legislation “prohibiting the expenditure of funds on the Advanced Placement United States History course.” Fisher is part of a group called the “Black Robe Regiment” which argues “the church and God himself has been under assault, marginalized, and diminished by the progressives and secularists.” The group attacks the “false wall of separation of church and state.” The Black Robe Regiment claims that a “growing tide of special interest groups indoctrinating our youth at the exclusion of the Christian perspective.”
Fisher said the Advanced Placement history class fails to teach “American exceptionalism.” The bill passed the Oklahoma House Education committee on Monday on a vote of 11-4. You can read the actual course description for the course here.

I don't aim to compare the Islamic State with American conservatives by putting these news in one list (they are certainly not the same or comparable in horrible violence), but to point out the shared string in the violin concertos: 

What is taught to children matters very much to certain political and religious groups.  Books are powerful!  Books may need to be banned or burned!  Education matters greatly as the Boko Haram (Western Education Is Forbidden) terrorist movement in Nigeria has noticed and as the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan also knows.  And as Malala Yousafzai knows.  Hitler knew all about this, too:

Ignorance is a powerful weapon which makes education also a powerful weapon.  Hierarchical systems fear the idea of widespread democratic education, and they are correct in that fear.

I understand that our views of history or religion may clash, that utterly neutral information is impossible, even in school books.  But the approach to cure that problem is to let the different arguments duke it out when the children are old enough to follow debates of that sort.

On Altar Girls at the Star of the Sea Catholic Church in San Francisco And Other Related Topics

I missed this January event in San Francisco.  A Catholic church there, the Star of the Sea,  decided to stop allowing girls to be altar servers.  Existing girls who are serving can continue but new ones will not be accepted.

Imagine how you would feel if you were one of those "mistake, oops" girls!  To allow them to continue doesn't patch up the rejection.

But it's all perfectly fine, because there are parents in the congregation who like the idea of boys-only (in a church of male-priests-only) and because the priest behind this "innovation," one Joseph Illo, argues that the change is great for male bonding and makes sense as being an altar server could be the first step to becoming a priest and -- duh -- girls cannot become priests ever.  The logic is beautiful and very clear and in my divine opinion backwards.

The same Joseph Illo raised a few feathers more recently:

The Rev. Joseph Illo recently banned the use of altar girls at school and parish Masses at Star of the Sea, a decision opposed by some parents and staff.
Illo also upset families when he decided that non-Catholic students could no longer receive blessings during Communion, a decision he reversed after complaints from the school community.
And this week, parents revealed that Star of the Sea students as young as those in second grade received a pamphlet about confession late last year that referred to sexual topics such as sodomy, masturbation and abortion.

That was a mistake, Illo said Wednesday.
“Among the 70 items for reflection, some were not age appropriate for schoolchildren,” Illo said in a statement. “We apologize for this oversight and removed the pamphlet as soon as this was brought to our attention by the school faculty in December.”

You want to know what those pamphlets contained?

They asked questions such as, “Did I perform impure acts by myself (masturbation) or with another (adultery, fornication and sodomy)?” and, “Did I practice artificial birth control or was I or my spouse prematurely sterilized (tubal ligation or vasectomy)?” as well as, “Have I had or advised anyone to have an abortion?”
Riley Brooks, an 11-year-old student at the school, explained how he and his sixth-grade classmates responded to the material: they were “really grossed out.” “There was something about masturbation,” Brooks told the Chronicle. “Pretty sure abortion was on there, but I can’t remember. And sodomy. I don’t know what that means.”

Put all that together and Illo, a presumably celibate man in power inside a church which assigns most power to celibate men,  comes across as someone who just may have a slight problem with women and women's sexuality.  The irony in that is more than I can quite absorb.  

And no, I don't really care what theological arguments could be used to support his views because the game in all three major Abrahamic religions* is rigged against gender equality, what with their roots in two-thousand-year old shepherding tribal communities.  The gender roles literalists find supported in the Bible and in the Koran are those that were deemed appropriate in such tribal settings by those who had the power to leave us their words and thoughts.

These backward steps are not unheard of (though Illo's church is currently the only one in the archdiocese of San Francisco which is not going to let girls mess up things any longer).  The Southern Baptists, for example,  decided to get rid of female pastors in 1980s, though a few individual churches may still have them.

These occasions of backwards-sliding need to be noted.  Otherwise we will see more of them.

----
*In their most extremist forms, naturally. 

The Lesser Cut of Meat Speaks Up

Do you like jokes?  Do you have a sense of humor?  Probably not if you are a feminazi who uses armpit hair to make nets into which innocent misogynists stray, all the while staying straight-faced and glum.

But South Carolina State Senator Thomas Corbin (Republican, of course), he's a guy with a sense of humor!   I may have to explain his humor to those of you who are humor-deficient.

Begin with the context:  South Carolina Senate has only one female Senator, Katrina Shealy.  The rest are guys.  Within that context, Sen. Corbin directs stomach-hurtingly funny jokes of these types at Sen. Shealy:

Indignant at Corbin’s rank sexism, Shealy asked him where he “got off” making such remarks.
“Well, you know God created man first,” a smirking Corbin replied.  “Then he took the rib out of man to make woman.  And you know, a rib is a lesser cut of meat.”

He's a funny guy.  He even apologized for his comments, in the most masterful of ways:

After The State reached out to him for comment, Corbin said he’d stop, even though he claimed Shealy also teased him for being overweight and balding. They were both elected to the state Senate in 2012. “If it bothers her, I’ll quit joking around with her,”

That's what is called a non-apology (bolds are mine).

Then go looking for the excuses for these jokes (in a professional context, mind you), and you will find several, beginning with this:

“He makes comments like that all the time to everybody – including Senator Shealy,” said one legislative aide who spoke to FITS.

Are comments like that insulting jokes or specific sexist comments about women?  Assume it's the former.  Then the excuse is that the guy is just a general asshole, not explicitly just a sexist asshole.  It happens to be the case that his assholiness takes the form of sexism when the target is a woman.  It takes other forms in other cases, right?

Suppose that is true.  There's still a difference making cracks about all women vs. individuals.

 The second excuse is that Sen. Shealy also made jokes about Sen. Corbin's looks:

After The State reached out to him for comment, Corbin said he’d stop, even though he claimed Shealy also teased him for being overweight and balding.

The third one is that everyone laughed and laughed and laughed:

“We were all joking and laughing,” Corbin told The State. 

There you have it.  It was friends making slightly nasty jokes about friends, having fun while doing it, and if you don't agree you are a humorless asshole yourself.

Humor IS tricky, of course.  What is acceptable between friends who know each other well is a different kind of teasing than what is acceptable in a public setting or between individuals who don't know each other well.  When a joke falls flat the common defenses are exactly those listed above:  You did it, too!  You thought it was funny!  We laughed!  Well, if you can't take humor I'll stop!

But you know what?  It's not stupid jokes which ultimately matter, even when they consist of punching down, even when they consist of pinning the joke on, say,  a history of women's subjugation and the stories we tell about it as something hilarious.   What matters is what the jokes tell about Sen. Corbin, his likelihood for representing the women of South Carolina with proper respect and honesty.  That's what matters.

Incidentally, the way to check the "you have no sense of humor" counterargument is to have a large reservoir of reverse sexist jokes.  Just make a few of those to someone like Sen. Corbin and then accuse him of being a humorless sourpuss when he doesn't laugh.  Which he will not.

 

A Belated Valentine From Me

To all of you.  May you always have chocolate cake and moments of sheer happiness.

And may you never be snowed in for three weeks in a row as this area of the country is experiencing (chews on walls), may you always remain sharp thinkers with loving hearts.

Is that enough smooching for you?

If not, have a look at this needlepoint I didn't bid at Goodwill online auctions though I thought about it (click on it to make it bigger):

The needlepoint looks like a copy of a painting or an etching and has a definite Victorian flavor.  It could even be Victorian.  The man in the picture is carrying his bride against a background of fantastic nature.  His arms look too long, his legs are very very muscular, and his feet about three times as long as her little slippers.  The red cheeks on both of them are wonderful!

All that and the hairstyle and clothing of the man suggests something in the early Victorian period for the original which was used to create the needlepoint.

Then to the sociological commentary which is obligatory on this here blog:

Needlepoint was something which gained much popularity during the Victorian era, what with the renewed emphasis on separate spheres  for middle-class women and men and the myth of those women as the "angels of the house," responsible for the care of the stressed men once they returned home after a hard day's work. 

In reality more affluent women had suddenly a lot more time on their hands.  That was partly solved by the Victorian fad of excessive house decoration, the creation of little tablecloths for every surface, the working of anti-macassars* and so on.  Needlepoint was particularly popular because it adds up more rapidly than most types of embroideries and because of the inventions in textile dying which allowed a much greater scope for the color effects visible in the above piece than was the case earlier.

I have no idea if the artist creating this work lived in the Victorian era.  But that's the flavor the work gives me.  But mostly it's really fun in all sorts of odd ways.

It's fun to think how future generations will view our ways of depicting lovers and which sociological aspects (eg hairstyles, makeup, exaggerated body proportions) will draw their attention.

---
*These can still be found in flea markets and yard sales.  I have quite a few!

Short Echidne Thoughts on the Business of Blogging

1.  You know all those times when you need to complete an action online by clicking either "continue/publish/next/agree" button or its opposite, which is usually "cancel" or "delete" or "back?"

Please, kind developers, standardize the relative locations and colors of those buttons.  For instance, always have the "cancel" button on the right or the left of the other button, preferably in red or some other eye-catching color.  Do that EVERYWHERE.

You can guess why this has gotten my goat.  Granted, to double-check the location of the two buttons doesn't take very much of my time, but when you add up all the time all the net users spend on that, well, we just might have figured out how to get to relative world peace with those days and years.

2.  Brand.  That's not the hot iron mark on cattle ears (poor things).  It's what I'm supposed to have for this blog.  Like a mission statement, it's part of the business speak invading all sorts of areas.  If you don't have a brand people don't know what they are going to get and your message is not strong. 

Here's where my dark side enters.  I will NOT do whatever I'm supposed to do.  I have no idea why but I was like that inside the egg.  So I struggle with myself about the necessity of having a brand and other similar topics (such as developing a Twitter presence!  like a ghostly specter in the distance, howling away?), and the more I struggle the more scattered my topics and the worse my writing.

It could be an inner demon.  I may need lice treatment against those!

3.  Content producer.  That's another red flag waved at my inner bull (why not an inner angry cow?).   It sounds like an industry selling beautiful gift wrap and bows and -- only as an afterthought -- something to stuff into the box.  It could be shredded newspaper as long as it gets lots of clicks which produce lots of advertising revenue.

I understand why all that happens.  But I'm not some fu**ing content producer.  If you don't get my ire, suppose that mothers and fathers were routinely called child producers.

All that is grumpy writing.  The real reason is that I have to go out there, and out there consists of snow, snow and more snow.  If you never hear from me again remember that I loved you.

How To Create Strong Female Characters in Books, Movies and Games

What makes a female character in writing or in films "strong?"  Is it the ability to kick butt?  Chuck Wendig notes that butt-kicking ability is neither necessary nor sufficient.  A character is  more than a pawn on a chess board only when she has agency, an inner landscape which is not completely outer directed, a role more significant than merely justifying why the male hero does whatever he will do in the story.
 

Many “strong female characters” feel like something ripped out of a video game. Or worse, they feel like toys — objects that look tough, hold guns, wield swords, have karate-chop arms, but are ultimately plastic, posable action figures. Empty and maneuverable, they go where you tell them to go because they’re just devices.

Alison Bechdel coined the Bechdel Test, which asks if the story (or an overall body of storytelling) features at least two women who talk about something other than a man.

Gail Simone talks about the “Women in Refrigerators” problem, where women and girls inside comic books are used as fodder — raped, killed, or otherwise excised of power through violence (and often to make a male character feel something). The only power these women have in the story is to be damaged enough to motivate the story or the male characters in it.

Kelly Sue DeConnick talks about the “Sexy Lamp” test, which says, if you can replace the woman in the story with a sexy lamp and it doesn’t affect the story outcome, well, fuck you, that’s what.

I liked that quote.  I have long used the beer-barrels-and-ham-hocks test* when reading the most misogynistic type of evolutionary psychology (which I call Evolutionary Psychology or EP, to distinguish it from the more sensible kind of scientific inquiry, ep). 

Just replace any reference to women or "females" in the article by beer barrels and ham-hocks, and if everything else stays consistent and nothing makes you start giggling, then women or "females" in that study are assumed to have had the same agency as barrels of beer on cuts of ham.

The linked post makes a wider point (or so I read it).  It's not that we need to have all female characters in art be "strong,"  just as we don't need to have all male characters be that way.  The same goes for being all good or all bad. 

Real people are complicated mixes of strengths and weaknesses, and the more one-dimensional we make them in stories the more we start leaning on simple myths:  The damaged but valiant hero with big muscles but not much brain, the bitter but ultimately good anti-hero, the endlessly sacrificing/admiring/caring wife or mother or girlfriend, the woman-as-mobile-tit-carrier and so on.

Those myths often offer women up in a particularly impoverishing ways. defined by their relationships to the hero of the story, the mother-girlfriend/wife-whore trinity.  That, in turn, means that just a handful of those roles is sufficient for most action stories, and that being a girlfriend becomes a role equivalent to being one of the seven guys with different jobs and personalities.  This is probably one of the reasons why there are more jobs for male than female actors.

-------
*Copyrighted here by me!

The Drip-Drip Theory of Getting Fitted Into Gender Roles

That may not be the real name of the theory which is about the completely hidden part of acculturation to gender roles, the part which is invisible.  Other parts can be extremely visible (such as direct gender discrimination, religious rules about sex roles or examples like this intersection of race and gender in the treatment of black girls in US schools), but even those who are not subject to the avalanches of openly gendered rules may have been subject to the drip-drip experiences.

This is the idea that we are all slowly, slowly being filed down to a shape that will fit the hole the society has deemed acceptable for us, from childhood onwards. Those drip-drips are tiny events, not necessarily important in themselves, but as water dripping ultimately hones down a stone into a smooth pebble a continuous "rain" on us can have significant effects on the shapes we will take.

As an example of this, consider this study from Israel:

Beginning in 2002, the researchers studied three groups of Israeli students from sixth grade through the end of high school. The students were given two exams, one graded by outsiders who did not know their identities and another by teachers who knew their names.
In math, the girls outscored the boys in the exam graded anonymously, but the boys outscored the girls when graded by teachers who knew their names. The effect was not the same for tests on other subjects, like English and Hebrew. The researchers concluded that in math and science, the teachers overestimated the boys’ abilities and underestimated the girls’, and that this had long-term effects on students’ attitudes toward the subjects.
For example, when the same students reached junior high and high school, the economists analyzed their performance on national exams. The boys who had been encouraged when they were younger performed significantly better.
They also tracked the advanced math and science courses that students chose to take in high school. After controlling for other factors that might affect their choices, they concluded that the girls who had been discouraged by their elementary schoolteachers were much less likely than the boys to take advanced courses.

It's possible that all the teachers did was anticipate future developments (though what works against that is the absence of the reverse bias in English or Hebrew, areas in which girls are expected to do better than boys).  I have not read the study itself to see how well the controlling of other factors worked.  But even if that is the case, the drip-drip theory is likely to tilt things further in the anticipated direction.

When you put that one drop into the pail gathering them at the root of your feet things start looking different.  By the time you reach maturity you have been filed and sanded and honed by hundreds of similar small events.  Some of them you will remember, most of them you have forgotten or never knew about.

It's crucial to point out that the people doing the honing or filing are almost always totally unaware of what they are doing.  Any one of us could be holding that file or sandpaper.  One observation study* of a Finnish daycare center  found that the caregivers paid more attention to boys than girls, helped boys first (in dressing, say, which is not necessarily good for boys) and expected more sharing and controlled behavior from girls than boys.  Dolls were assigned to girls first and cars to boys first.

When the caregivers involved in the study found out the results they were shocked.  All those drips were unconscious, created by the way the society had filed and honed them in the earlier rounds.

None of this is an argument for a hundred-percent environmental theory of gender roles.  But it is important to notice that the societal effects are often of the type discussed in this post and may be as invisible as gentle summer rain.

-----------------
*Link in Finnish, sorry

On Religion, Islamic Terrorism and Islamophobia

If groups such as ISIS/Daesh and alQaeda have any very long-term religious objectives those seem to resemble the end times ideology of extreme right-wing US Christians.  In the former case the equivalence may not be to end times but the end of all religions except a certain type of Islam.  That era will be preceded by a global war between Muslims and the various types of infidels, and Islam will win, which provides a warped type of incentive for both extreme Christians and terrorists to root for that final war and perhaps even aid its arrival. 

For ISIS "infidels" cover everyone who is not an extremist Salafi and/or Wahhabi type Sunni Muslim, preferably more extremist than what the Saudis have managed to achieve.

Here's the thing:  Those are by far the most extremist movements in Islam which have any wider support.  Most Muslims are not Salafis or Wahhabis and most Salafis or Wahhabis are not terrorists, either.

But the roots (the code-book, if you like) of the current Islamic terrorism is very much in those two movements. They both view the few centuries after Mohammad as demonstrating everything that is necessary for the correct Islamic way of life.  They are both based on literal interpretations of the Koran and other sources, with the assumption that the messages are literally correct and can never be re-interpreted for new times or practices.  They frown upon the idea of contact with non-Muslims and they are extremely strict and narrow in terms of the allowed spheres of life for women and inflexible in their demands of male custodianship of all women.

Wahhabism used to be limited to Saudi Arabia.  The outflow of money from that oil-rich country to the rest of the world has spread Wahhabism.  This is a purposeful strategy:

Wahhabi mission, or Dawah Wahhabiyya, is to spread purified Islam through the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim. ^[224] Tens of billions of dollars have been spent by the Saudi government and charities on mosques, schools, education materials, scholarships, throughout the world to promote Islam and the Wahhabi interpretation of it. Tens of thousands of volunteers^[161] and several billion dollars also went in support of the jihad against the atheist communist regime governing Muslim Afghanistan.^[162] 

Still, it's crucial to understand that the total number of Salafis or Wahhabis is very low when we count all the different Islamic sects in the world, and we should be extremely careful not to confuse terrorists with Salafis or Wahhabis in general and especially careful not to assume that every single Muslim is a terrorist.

Food Stamps As Democratic Bribes To Buy Votes

Fox News' Stuart Varney explains how the president buys votes with food stamps. 

You should watch the video at the link (I couldn't get it to embed). 

In it Varney explains how the US cannot afford food stamps or any things from a long list of government "handouts" (which, by the way, includes health care for the poor and social security payments for the elderly). Then he explains that these "handouts" are paid by the tax payers, thus suggesting that those getting them never were or are taxpayers themselves.  Think about that division of people into two groups.  One gets all the undeserved benefits, one pays for all of them.  That the retired, for example, paid towards social security all their working lives is irrelevant.

And "we" cannot afford all these handouts!  "We" must take out loans to pay for them.  For Varney that "we" does not include the people on the "handouts."

I liked listening to Varney, because he is so good at triggering the anger and fear of the conservatives.  Someone is getting something for nothing and I am not!  

The logic is also fun to watch.  First Varney argues that the recession is over so why aren't people coming off food stamps (and "we" cannot afford those food stamps as "we" don't have the money but in fact we (as the government) should have the money if the recession is over).  But then he argues that two-thirds of Americans don't think the recession is over!

Gotcha, he mutters.  But of course there's the possibility that this recovery from the recession is another one of those weird ones where all the gains go for a small group of people on the top of the income distribution.  Varney tries to stuff to contradictory arguments down our throats:  Either there's no need for so many food stamp recipients anymore or there is, but Obama is to blame in both cases.

If you step a little back from these thoughts you could well ask why "we" cannot afford social security or Medicaid or food stamps but can afford a military system three or four times as expensive as the next largest military force on this earth.

Or you could ask why the government can afford to give "handouts" to corporations but not to individuals.

But then you would get depressed. 

Instead, let's ask if giving a lot of food stamps indeed makes people vote for Democrats.  That's a silly sentence.  To answer that we would need to control for the incomes of the potential voters and what the two parties actually propose to do for the affluent and the less affluent and so on.

Still, it's unlikely that food stamps work as money to be paid for Democratic votes.  That's because a) the highest percentages of people on food stamps tend to be found in Republican-voting states and b) because the poor are much less likely to vote than the more affluent.

What To Do When Snowed In

According to my recent experiences:

1.  Have a bad head cold.  It's fun to sneeze and important to support the tissue industry.  If the snow emergency lasts a long time you can turn it into a sinus infection.  That has the added advantage of giving you the sexiest of voices.  At least ravens would agree.

2.  Decide to bake tricky and difficult cakes using recipes you have never before attempted.  Take out almost all the ingredients, crack and beat eggs and so on, then realize that you are utterly out of flour.  Consider skiing to the stores but give up on it.  Create an extremely weird banana dessert from the beginnings of the banana bread recipe.  Eat it.  Then eat the bag of the bitter chocolate pieces for the chocolate-pear tarte.

3.  Suddenly notice that the large bowl of onions on the counter-top is sprouting.  It reminds you of spring which will never never arrive.  Use a slow cooker and some olive oil to create caramelized onions out of about five pounds of them.  It takes ten hours and the whole house will smell of onions.  On the other hand, you can eat a large saucepanful of yummy caramelized onions.

4.  Write a blog post with a list of all the things above because the sinus demon leaves very little space for brainz to work on anything more serious.  Then go out and build a snow demon (sinus demon in snow). 

Echidne Thoughts For Today: On Misogyny, Mostly

1.  Absent-minded web-surfing can result in interesting findings.  Like turning over a stone to see what slithers out.  For example, I saw a comment attached to an article about feminism (yes, one should not read those comments, but at least they demonstrate the importance of feminism) which stated that feminists are out to to either kill all men or to subjugate all men.

The commenting system allowed me to see what else this concerned person has in his writing routine, including comments on other sites.  Lo and behold (!), he had recently expressed the view that all women are emotional lying basket-cases who need to be dominated and ruled.  That's every single one of the billions of women on this earth.  The gentleman (pretty sure he identifies as a man and pretty sure he does not identify as gentle) also expressed various racist views in his comment history and all sorts of extreme right political views.  But the majority of his comments were about the perfidy of women and the diabolic nature of feminism.

This is interesting, not because I'd be a masochist (NO Fifty Shades for me, however poorly written) who loves reading about Men Who Hate Women Too Much, but because of the package in which these hatreds come (is this the sub-group the Republicans seek?)  and because  that odd fishing experiment (I've never done this before) cast a sharp light on how a little orphan comment floating all alone in the cyber-sphere looks very different when we see its parentage.

The Three Wise Men Wishing To Amend ACA To Remove Obligatory Maternity Care From Health Insurance

Three GOP guys who hate (HATEHATEHATE) the ACA (Affordable Care Act) want to eliminate maternity care as one of the things which health insurance must cover.  To give that some background, most individual health insurance policies before the Era of Obamacare (another name for the ACA, for those who live in happier places with national health care or health insurance) did not cover normal pregnancy and delivery.

Tara Culp-Ressler writes about this:

Nonetheless, it’s evident that the GOP lawmakers — Sen. Richard Burr (NC), Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT), and Rep. Fred Upton (MI) — are looking to undo many of the protections that Obamacare put in place for Americans who may struggle to afford insurance.
The Burr-Hatch-Upton plan would eliminate Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, which seeks to expand public health insurance to additional low-income people. It would also scale back the tax subsidies to help people purchase private plans. And it seeks to reduce federal regulation of “essential benefits,” dropping the current requirement for insurers to offer coverage for maternity care.
Obamacare mandates maternity coverage in all of the plans sold on its state-level marketplaces, a provision that quickly became a sticking point among opponents to the health law. Critics have latched onto it as an example of why they believe unnecessarily generous benefits will drive up health costs, complaining that having children is a choice and not everyone will need maternity care. During one House hearing, GOP lawmakers sarcastically asked former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius if she had ever heard of a man getting pregnant. Now, the Burr-Hatch-Upton plan addresses their concerns.

I love this!  I adore this!  It's such a beautiful example of stupidity.  It's certainly true that only some trans men could get pregnant, but it's even more true that Messrs. Burr, Hatch and Upton were themselves once born.

The point I'm desperately trying to make there is that a large chunk of the so-called maternity care is for the benefit of the child who is being born.  To assume that it only benefits women (that alien and deplorable part of humanity only necessary because of, you know, that birth thing) is stupid. 

See how I went around a circle there?  For the Burr-Hatch-Upton view to make sense we must assume that having children is a choice, a bit like choosing to wear high heels, and that upstanding gentlemen have nothing to do with that choice (no sperm involved, no necessity to continue the species, just an unfortunate choice that women should pay for as they pay for their Louboutins). 

But then why are similar conservative gentlemen so firmly opposed to abortion, so eager to regulate the wombs of this country?

Never mind.  Let's assume that insurance policies shouldn't have to cover anything we ourselves are unlikely to get.  So I no longer need to pay for anything that has to do with the diseases of the prostate or other parts of the male reproductive system?  And men don't have to pay for anything which has to do with the uterus, the ovaries, the female breasts and so on?

Let's go even further:  Why should my insurance cover sports injuries if I never engage in those sports myself?

This way of thinking, my friends, is the slippery slope to not having any pools for health insurance, because we can keep on dis-aggregating those classes into finer and finer slivers.

The only argument that deserves a more honest glance is the one about births not satisfying the insurance requirement of the insurable events being outside the person's control and not easily manipulatable (ok, it might not be a word but you know what I mean) by the insured people themselves.  But a huge proportion of all ill health* fails to satisfy those insurance criteria.  Indeed, health care is a very bad fit with the insurance model.  That's one reason why single-payer systems are more rational than traditional insurance.

------
*Or of health needs in general.  People getting vaccinated are not currently in ill health, annual checkups are carried out on largely healthy individuals and so on.  A normal pregnancy and delivery is not ill health, but if the appropriate care is missing it can quickly turn into just that.

Scott Walker and The Search For Truth

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, one of the Ringwraiths of the capitalist boyz' league (coughKochcough), has plans for the mission statement of the University of Wisconsin:

Gov. Scott Walker's proposed budget calls for essentially removing the public service language from the University of Wisconsin System's mission to focus more on workforce development, according to language released Wednesday morning.

Is the objective of a university to create worker drones?  Other hilarious changes in the mission statement include removing the goal of searching for the truth.

Walker is a likely contender for the next US presidential elections.  One day we may all learn how to please the firms best in our college careers!  What an irritating thought.

Training people for jobs is obviously part of the job of universities.  But the rewriting of the mission statement suggests a move away from the needs of the society on the whole and towards the needs of corporations.

Speaking of Scott Walker, here are his plans should he take over Washington, DC:

A Fort Dodge man asked Walker if he could use the same approach he used in “defeating unions” to take on liberals in Washington “and get some spending control bills and repeal Obamacare.”
“Absolutely,” Walker answered.

Destroying the unions is almost a done thing in this country.  It's also pretty closely linked to the increasing income and wealth inequality and bad news in many different ways, however badly some unions have behaved.  A person applying to be a janitor at a giant global firm cannot negotiate a contract as if both parties were the same size particles in some vat full of free-market ideals.

Clearly we need more of that.

On "Complementary" Gender Roles in Religions

The idea that men and women have been designed by a supreme power as complements to each other is common both in Christianity and in Islam.  Most recently I spotted a reference to it in an article about the Catholic Church and its woman problem:

Helen Alvare, a law professor at George Mason University and a consultant at the Vatican's laity office, said the language in the draft paper was remarkable given that it calls for "collaboration and integration" with men within the church. She said that mirrors findings from leading business consultancies that companies do better when men and women collaborate at every level.
"That statement is the strongest endorsement I have seen in a church document for what we sometimes call complementarity within the church," she said in a phone interview.

Bolds are mine.

I obviously clap my hands very hard for any positive change for women within Christianity, Judaism and Islam.  But I'm not a friend of the complementarity concept, not at all.

First, women and men are a lot more similar than they are different, and I believe that both genders need many of the same things.  To stipulate something different is almost like asking people to live on either just bread or on just water.  Parts of you will die if your diet is that monotonous.   

Second, there are soul-killing aspects in the rigid assumption of separate spheres by gender, and in extreme cases this leads to women losing their right to go out and watch the sunset or to get a job (assuming that the public sphere belongs to men).  One soul-killing aspect to consider is the fact that the complementarity is almost never defined by women but a few powerful male clerics.

Third, the complementarity assumption does great violence to those individuals (and I guess they are many) who suffer under the gender roles they have been assigned.  And when complementarity holds hands with the assumption of women's inferiority, many of those sufferers will be women.

Finally,  it's very important to remember that complementarity in roles, rights and obligations doesn't have to look like a cake divided into two equal halves, one given to men and one given to women. 

It could also be a cake divided into one tiny sliver and the huge remainder, and the sliver is given to the women.  Note that this division is also complementary, because the two parts add up to the whole cake!  Or the good and tasty bits of the cake could be given to one gender while the other gets the moldy corners.

If none of that convinced you just consider how I would arrange the world if all other people would have to be complements to me.  Wouldn't the risk be pretty high that I'd pick all the plum roles, all the roles with prestige and freedom, and that I'd leave the rotten bits to you lot?

Friday Facts And Some Fun: On Marissa Alexander, Colleen McCullough, Scott Walker And Others

1.  This American Life has a segment on Internet trolling of comedian Lindy West and another segment about the complaints people make about vocal fry, but only when it's young women's voices which have it.  Both are worth listening.  The Lindy West segment links to the online nastiness in general and in a bizarre way to the question whether we need a different kind of language policing when the message sent is a simple IHATEYOUBITCHDIE.

2.  New fragments of Sappho's poetry may have been found.   Her work is tantalizing because of its current scarcity despite the great reputation she possessed in antiquity.

3.  Marissa Alexander is out of prison but not free.  Her case is worth learning about because of the Stand Your Ground excuse didn't apply to it and because she almost received a mega-sentence for shooting a gun in the ceiling.

4.  An Australian newspaper begins the obituary of the best-selling author Colleen McCullough  like this:

Do a gender reversal on that.  Pick some famous guy whose books sell really well and begin the obituary by stating that X was a charmer, with a red ugly nose and a big belly, but he was still able to attract women, he said.  It's not impossible to imagine such an obituary, but it's much more unlikely than similar obituaries of famous women which far too frequently are grounded in the fact of them being women first.  That's why cooking skills or looks enter those kinds of obituaries.  Because they still matter for how we judge women and because famous women are still sometimes viewed as little dabs from the giant womanhood mountain.

5.  I adore this Freudian slip by Scott Walker, a Ringwraith and the Governor of Wisconsin:

But Walker did have a small Freudian slip in this part of his spiel. Walker said:
"I think that looking ahead as Republicans, we need to make the case that we are going to promote policies that promote and support and defend hard work in this company - er, in this country once again."

It's delicious, because Walker does the bidding of the Koch brothers, and also because many conservatives indeed see no real difference in how to run a country vs. Walmart:  Both are to profit the few who are viewed as the proper owners.

More on The Travails Of The Intrepid Factual Feminist: Deciphering Hoff Sommer's First Sexual Assault Myth

I feel mean enough to share some of the work that the anti-feminists make me do*.  This example is about the first item Christina Hoff Sommers talks about on her vlog as sexual assault myths.

It juxtaposes the one-in-five figure about college sexual assaults with a new figure which quickly flashes on the screen:  That one in 53 women experience sexual assault during the four years of college.  Before a quick look at a table which provides that number the vlog argues that a new report has come up with the "right" figure for the rate of sexual assaults during women's college experiences.

Got it?  Good.  Then next find out that report.  Read it.  Realize that it doesn't have a table with that one in 52.6 women figure.  Then realize that it doesn't have the other numbers in that table, either.

But...  The table with the calculations argues that its source is that very report.

The Language Police Is Coming To Get You

You may have read Jonathan Chait's opinion piece on the way language policing is perverting liberalism.

I read the piece a few times, but I'm still not clear on how his different examples relate to the topic he wishes to address, and I'm not 100% clear on what that topic is (freedom of speech issues?  what hurts the liberals?  what hurts Jonathan Chait?).  They span a range of cases, from wrecking someone's house because of what a person wrote, via the demands for trigger warnings in some college courses and campaigns to have controversial campus speakers banned, to an author being strongly (if humorously) criticized in a Twitter hashtag.

On the first and last of those examples almost everyone would agree:  nobody's house should be attacked because of something that person said and honest criticism of an author's work on Twitter is a legitimate form of debate.   The case of demanding trigger warnings (not a very widespread phenomenon, as I understand it, and criticized by several feminists) isn't about suppressing speech as such though I guess it could have a "chilling" effect on the courses of the professors responsible for reacting to the demands.  That leaves the question whether one should try to ban speakers or speech on campuses.  Those attempts are carried out by both the left and the right in this country, though in slightly different forms (e.g. firing a professor versus getting someone's invitation to speak cancelled).

Indeed, Chait's piece has so much material in it, much of it not of the same general species, that I had great difficulty making a straightforward summary about it.

Glenn Greenwald's response links to several other responses which you should read if you are fascinated by the topic of how we speak and do not speak, whom we listen to and do not listen to, and what it is that some people experience in online debates and how they interpret those debates.   But I agree with Greenwald that Jill Filipovic's tweet on all this makes a good point:

 

Julian Sanchez writes about some of those issues.  An example:

Let’s take it as given that this is not the case, and that any subjective chill experienced by folks like Jon Chait is not usefully understood as a problem of social justice. We can grant all that and still ask: Is there something unhealthy about discursive norms that lead to substantive self-censorship, even by the obviously privileged?  Not because these norms constitute an injury to the reticent privileged, or interfere with anyone’s sacred right to unfettered self-expression, but because they yield less robust, less interesting conversations?
Think of Solomon Asch’s famous experiments in group conformity, or the broader social psychology literature on information cascades.  The problem isn’t so much that some precious snowflake’s project of expressive self-realization has been constrained, but that constraints deprive groups of deliberative input that can help them make better decisions. When the constraints are on the order of “don’t use sexist or racist language,” probably nothing of value is lost.  When the constraints include “under no circumstances express any skepticism about any claim of sexual assault,” to pick a salient recent example, you may end up with bad journalism that hinders the ultimate goal of getting society at large to treat survivors’ stories more seriously and respectfully.

This is an important point.  To give another example, suppose that a social activist group is preparing a statement based on six cases of labor market discrimination against women and/or minorities.  Suppose one of the cases, the sixth,  isn't really like the other cases.  It's different and weaker and may not be an example about discrimination at all.  Suppose you think so, but say nothing because of the fear of group ostracism*.  Then the list of the six cases goes out and conservatives tear that sixth iffy case apart and imply that all the cases on your list are like that one.

So certain group norms can affect not only how robust a conversation is but even the outcomes from that conversation.
-----
*The fear of group ostracism is probably less if people meet in person than on the net.

By the way, I found the juxtaposition of rowdy public discourse and the question of ostracism interesting in the various takes.  They range from essentially arguing that if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen (which are even hotter for the more oppressed groups, by the way) to wanting all online mockery to cease because it's a form of language policing.  So what is free speech here?  The speech you like? 

I may be mistaken about that.  But it was one of the sticking points I had with Chait's arguments.

The End of Blogs?

Andrew Sullivan is killing his blog.  Dylan Byers comments on that and tells us this:

Sullivan was able to keep blogging alive (and lucrative) long after the era of blogs had come to an end -- at The Atlantic, at The Daily Beast, and, in recent years, through the funding of readers. It's also true that Sullivan's influence has waned of late. While there is still some demand for Sullivan's outspokenness -- he's at his best when he's arguing, aggressively -- there is far less demand for unspecialized aggregation.

...

Sullivan deserves immense credit for keeping his project alive, but its days were numbered.

So the blogs are waning.  What is waxing?  According to some, it's the Twitter.  But that's a distribution channel, not the content producer. 

The economic jargon in all that fascinates me.  We look at the demand side of the market:  What do people want?  They no longer want some smartass opining on everything and anything between heaven and earth.  They want, according to Byers, specialization and original content.

But what IS that demand for?  Writing?  Information?  Commenting?  Hanging out with friends and enemies?

Then there's the idea of "content."  To someone like me who adores and venerates that stuff called content the term sounds as if birthday presents exist only to justify an industry in wrappings and bows.

Still, I get the point, because people have to eat and to climb up career ladders.  But if blogs are dying (and as a general category they probably are), what is taking their place online? 

Mike Huckabee And Trash-Talking Women

This little snippet is worth thinking about, believe it or not:

Appearing last Friday on Mickelson in the Morning, an Iowa-based radio show, Huckabee recounted the culture shock he experienced when hearing profanity in the workplace while working for Fox News in New York City.
“In Iowa, you would not have people who would just throw the f-bomb and use gratuitous profanity in a professional setting,” Huckabee said. “In New York, not only do the men do it, but the women do it!”
He continued: “This would be considered totally inappropriate to say these things in front of a woman.” But “for a woman to say them in a professional setting,” Huckabee went on, “that’s just trashy!”

The quote makes two different points.  The first is about the kind of language which is appropriate in a professional setting for everybody.  The second is about different rules for men and women.  It's the latter which interests me.

Huckabee notes that men in the US mainstream culture were once frowned upon if they used profanities in front of women.  Note that this means they could use them when in all-male company.   Huckabee then adds his shock and horror when even women participate in such profanities!

So, you go, yawning.  Get to the point here.

Okay.   The point is that certain kind of speech was regarded as acceptable, but only by men and only to other men.  Swearing, using the fuck-words etcetera.  Perhaps calling someone you quarrel with a motherfucker?  Or asking that person to get on their knees for a blowjob?

On one level Huckabee is just pining for the imaginary past where women were ladies, at home and in the kitchen, and barely knew the facts that made them pregnant, while men were out there, fighting other men for the money that would support the little lady at home.

But on a deeper level it's well worth asking why women couldn't hear profanities or why women using profanities is the worst thing ever.

Is it the fact that uttering profanities is an act of aggression, and women are not supposed to be aggressive?

Or is it the possibility that using profanities means the user is taking an active sexual role in the verbal fights?  For example, telling someone to go and fuck themselves.  In Huckabee's world that's not the role women are supposed to have.

Then we come to the idea of purity, something not far removed from the Mediterranean concept of family honor as being preserved in the women's vaginas.  That's the root of honor killings, by the way, the idea that the behavior of the women in a family shames the men in that family and that they must revenge that shame.  A woman using profanities cannot be assumed to have shouldered the burden of purity right?

That's probably too far-fetched.  I have one further candidate to explain the rule that what goes in men's locker-room talk does not go in mixed company, and that's the fact that some of that locker-room talk, at least, is openly misogynistic and objectifying.  This explanation has the advantage of accounting for the reason why men are not supposed to continue the locker-room talk in front of women.  Just consider a guy calling an other guy a motherfucker when the mothers of both are present!  It's not really the swearing or whatever that is the problem there, but the use of the mother's sexual live as a slur against another man.

One Of Those Days... On How to Critique Research And Bad Popularizations. Or the Factual Feminist! (Guess Who That is)

I spend quite a lot of time avoiding research.  That's because almost anyone can quickly type out some outrageous claim and put it out on the net where it spreads like the Ebola virus.  When the claim is wrong, you could just put out a quick message saying that it's wrong.

Which would be like soggy toast.  But to do the actual work, the work of learning where the stupid thing came from, which studies it utterly ignores, which definitions it uses incorrectly etc. requires research.  Research takes a lot of time.  And nobody pays me for this type of research.  It's just my inner firm librarian which won't let me press "publish" on about three long draft posts because I haven't yet achieved complete expertise in umpteen different fields.

That stinks.  It stinks especially hard when most propagandists don't care about research at all.  The usual way someone like David Brooks -- to pick an example -- does this is by starting with his desired conclusions, then going back to the one study he chose, then -- utterly astonished --- he finds that the particular study supports what he says, to a tee!  And therefore that must be what research has established.

I was thinking about this when I looked through my arsenal of possible skills.  That I know how to read social science research in general is a big plus.  But I cannot be an expert in every single field of research, however ageless goddesses are.  Yet writing criticisms of studies often does require that.  It's a bit like playing tennis as an amateur with fifteen professional opponents at the same time, all of whom have an axe to grind with the issues.

To take a recent example, writing about how sexual assaults are measured in statistics, how the survey samples are arrived at, what the numbers mean etc. requires some pretty hard-tack chewing and work.  The minute I put a post on any of those up on the blog I get comments from people who spend all their time on just that one issue.  Some of them are real experts, others are real propagandists or whatever you might call them.  Well, most seem to be the latter. 

All that really means is a clear need for a group blog where people with all the proper expertise can shoot out well-written posts on iffy research.  Those group blogs might even exist!  I don't have to try to support the globe up on just my shoulders!  I could deflate my arrogance balloons!

But not as long as Christina Hoff Sommers, perhaps the best-known feminist-hater in the US, can write a video blog called "The Factual Feminist."  That's very funny, of course, that name, both the "feminist" label and the "factual" label.*  When you combine all that is funny in the title you get a post where women are bashed 99% of the time.

The idea of a five-minute vlog appeals to me, however.  Imagine a vlog by me called The Goddess With All The Facts! I'd spend five minutes of air time to refute or elaborate on Hoff Sommer's arguments on, say, the "correct" rape statistics or on the question how many women might lie about being raped.

Except that you CANNOT do that.  You cannot fly glibly over a whole large field of research, and you cannot just state that as all studies have some problems (actually varying from pretty good studies to utter rubbish), let's just refuse to put any number on, say false rape reports.

Then there's the additional confusion in that Hoff Sommers vlog**:  Of confusing activity on behalf of rape victims with the processes which are used to assess whether rape happened and what the conclusion of those processes might be.  The two are different things.  And no, colleges are not run by rabid feminists, and no, the processes do not necessarily result in a judgement which always finds for the alleged victim.  Though it may well be the case that having the colleges process sexual assault cases isn't working terribly well for anyone.

All this is very sad for me.  My inner librarian has now donned a whip and wants me to spend the next five years sorting out the facts.  But what she doesn't get is that the work I'd do would be partly wasted.   We lack the kind of agora where people actually try to search common ground and more reliable statistics.*** And in any case, some totally different game about data would attract her interest next.
-----
*If you haven't met Christina Hoff Sommers, the factual feminist, yet, here's some material for you:
Fun with Christina Hoff Sommers.  And a three-part series by me on her views about how much women deserve to earn.  Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
**There's also the very big question about how we define "rape culture."  I once wrote ten pages on that for my own notes.  If people cannot agree on what constitutes rape, how can we even start with the idea of a rape culture?  And what do we call societies which require four male witnesses for a rape (which suggests that very few rapists would ever get caught)?  But at the same time, what do we call the kinds of values which clearly exist among sub-groups of young men (and some older ones coughBillCosbycough)?  What is the role of pornography in defining what "sex" means nowadays?  The role of entitlement to sex from that?
***We need one of these, by the way.  I resent the idea that because I'm a feminist my thoughts are supposedly known in advance or that I'd somehow on purpose pick poor research to support.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating.