Wrestling Bears Bare-Chested

That's Vladimir Putin in the imagination of many American conservatives.  These recent comments reveal a yearning not only for a Strong Daddy Leader in the US (traditional among conservatives) but for something closer to Godzilla as the leader:  Someone who can demolish cities without a thought:

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin:

Well, yes, especially under the commander-in-chief that we have today because Obama's -- the perception of him and his potency across the world is one of such weakness. And you know, look, people are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee:

"I know the only time that Vladimir Putin shivers is when he takes his shirt off in a cold Russian winter," 

And the pundit Rush Limbaugh:

Well, did you hear that the White House put out a photo of Obama talking on the phone with Vlad, and Obama's sleeves were rolled up?  That was done to make it look like Obama was really working hard—I mean, really taking it seriously. His sleeves were rolled up while on the phone with Putin! Putin probably had his shirt off practicing Tai-Chi while he was talking to Obama.

Limbaugh was unintentionally hilarious in that quote when he picked tai chi (probably not one of Putin's actual martial arts) as his example.

It is a difficult internal martial art which uses very slow and apparently gentle movements in the training stages.  Its basic martial strategy consists of deflecting the attack and of using the attacker's own power against him or her; the very reverse of how Putin has acted in Ukraine or elsewhere.

That unintentional hilarity is worth pointing out, because it shows the lack of thinking in the conservative admiration of lack of thinking.  The best bear wrestlers are other bears, after all.

----
Cross-posted at Eschaton

SAT And The Dropped Essay Requirement. Gender Implications.

The Washington Post tells us that the essay requirement, which was only fairly recently added, will now be made optional:

The SAT college admission test will no longer require a timed essay, will dwell less on fancy vocabulary and will return to the familiar 1600-point scoring scale in a major overhaul intended to open doors to higher education for students who are now shut out.

...

Out, too, will be a much-reviled rule that deducts a quarter-point for each wrong answer to multiple-choice questions, deterring random guesses.

Whatever the actual reasons for these changes -- and they may be good ones, who knows -- there's an outcome which is not good for female students taking the test.  Have a look at the tables showing the 2013 scores on the written test, on the critical reading test and on the mathematics test.  You might check both the 99th percentiles, the top scorers, and then scroll down to the means and standard deviations on the tests.*

By making the essay an optional one, the College Board is keeping the tests where the male mean is somewhat higher than the female mean compulsory, while making the test where the female mean is somewhat higher than the male mean optional.  A similar impact could be created by not deducting anything for guessing if men are more likely to use that strategy than women**.

Removing the essay requirement also means that those who use the upper tail theory about tests to explain why there are fewer women than men in positions of power don't have to try to explain away the writing test results, because they will no longer be there to be cited in that debate.

------
*Note, also, that more women than men take the test, and this matters for all the means in those tables I link to.  From an older article (before the essay requirement was added) about this effect:

Gender Differences. The number of women taking the SAT has exceeded the number of men for more than two decades. In the class of 1996, there were 75,529 more women than men taking the SAT. These "additional" women were less likely to have taken rigorous academic course work than other students who took the SAT. In 1996, average SAT verbal scores were 503 for women and 507 for men. This four-point difference is what one might reasonably expect given that there are so many more women taking the test. In fact, research has shown that the differences in the self-selected population taking the test explains the difference in average verbal scores between men and women. If equal numbers of men and women took the SAT, the average verbal score for women would actually be somewhat higher than the average verbal score for men.

**My apologies for getting that one wrong.  Removing the penalty for guessing may benefit women if the results of that study generalize.

Short Posts, 3/6/14. From Serious to Silly

Dani McClain in the Nation reminds us not to forget about the black girls and women or the young Latinas while focusing on improving the opportunities of black and Latino boys and young men.  Monique Morris has more on the invisibility of girls of color.  Neither McClain nor Morris want to start oppression Olympics or deny the urgent needs of black and Latino boys and young men, but point out that the comparable female needs also should be addressed.

The Bitcoin markets are in trouble.  I've only recently read about the whole phenomenon, and find it a very interesting learning experience, especially to Libertarians who believe markets don't need any sort of outside framing to flourish.  Yet every market is like a poker game where someone needs to enforce the rules of the game and make sure that the deck is not marked.  That "someone" doesn't need to be the government but mostly ends up that way, because of the powers the referee needs to have.

This is a fun video where a young woman shows us how languages sound to those who don't actually speak them.  What she actually says is gibberish:

Trigger Warnings in College Courses

A debate on the advisability of having trigger warnings in college courses began with this New Republic article.

When reading an article on some new phenomenon, fashion or fad, it's important to ask the kind of question people these days tend not to ask about lots of things:  How common are these types of trigger warnings in colleges?*

They are probably quite rare, and mostly crop up by students asking for them (and perhaps not getting them), not by most colleges requiring them.  The rarity matters if we are going to spend energy and effort on thinking about the issues.  Indeed, one of my pet frustrations, these days, is people thinking that one nasty tweet, say, obviously and unavoidably means that the tweet is a representative of a giant movement.   It may be but most likely we are always going to have a few nasty tweets, even after the world is made into a paradise.

Given that warning, the debate is worth following for some of the issues it brings up.  Jill Filipovich writes about the feminism-linked part of trigger warnings by noting that they were at first used fairly narrowly on some feminists sites, and mostly in the context of sexual violence:

In the early days of feminist blogging, trigger warnings were generally about sexual assault, and posted with the understanding that lots of women are sexual assault survivors, lots of women read feminist blogs, and graphic descriptions of rape might lead to panic attacks or other reactions that will really ruin someone's day. Easy enough to give readers a little heads up – a trigger warning – so that they can decide to avoid that material if they know that discussion of rape triggers debilitating reactions.

She then gives examples of the proliferation of trigger warnings to a much wider class of topics, and explains the difficulty of using trigger warnings if they are intended to protect those suffering from PTSD:

It is true that everything on the above list might trigger a PTSD response in someone. The trouble with PTSD, though, is that its triggers are often unpredictable and individually specific – a certain smell, a particular song, being touched in that one way. It's impossible to account for all of them, because triggers are by their nature not particularly rational or universally foreseeable. Some are more common than others, though, which is why it seems reasonable enough for explicitly feminist spaces to include trigger warnings for things like assault and eating disorders.
College, though, is different. It is not a feminist blog. It is not a social justice Tumblr.

Tressie McMillan Cottom addresses trigger warnings in the context of college culture:

But, I’m not sure that’s at all the kind of deliberation universities are doing with their trigger warning policies. Call me cynical, but the “student-customer” movement is the soft power arm of the neo-liberal corporatization of higher education. No one should ever be uncomfortable because students do not pay to feel things like confusion or anger. That sounds very rational until we consider how the student-customer model doesn’t silence power so much as it stifles any discourse about how power acts on people.

Melissa McEwan notes that something akin to trigger warnings already exists in the wider society:

Film rating systems, which include warnings about certain types of content, including sexual and violent content, have existed for years. Although they are not typically broadcast at the beginning of a screening, with the exception of cable broadcasts where that has been standard practice for some time, viewers can easily access in trailers, reviews, and listings on sites like IMDb notes about the content of a film before viewing it. Newspapers, too, frequently offer notes about content at the top of in-depth investigative pieces about systemic abuse or violent crime, especially when there are graphic descriptions within the story. These sorts of habits already exist in some measure, which makes the alarmism about trigger warnings misplaced, at best.

This topic is difficult, even if we stick to the university context the New Republic article creates, because of the clashes of underlying values: fairness, inclusion, sensitivity to those who suffer from PTSD on the one side and the academic goals of debate, learning and challenging existing beliefs on the other side.  Then there are these questions:  What spaces should be (or can be) safe spaces (and for whom), how appending trigger warnings might affect the way students approach a topic, how not appending them might also affect the way the topic ends up being treated, and, how colleges would decide which phenomena deserve warnings and which do not, and finally, the whole question of the relationship between feminism and trigger warnings:

Then, simply, there is the fact that the universe does not treat its members as if they come hand-delivered in a box clearly marked "fragile". The world can be a desperately ugly place, especially for women. That feminist blogs try to carve out a little section of the world that is a teeny bit safer for their readers is a credit to many of those spaces. Colleges, though, are not intellectual or emotional safe zones. Nor should they be.
Trauma survivors need tools to manage their triggers and cope with every day life. Universities absolutely should prioritize their needs – by making sure that mental health care is adequately funded, widely available and destigmatized.
But they do students no favors by pretending that every piece of potentially upsetting, triggering or even emotionally devastating content comes with a warning sign.

But the fact is that the medical industry is not very good at treating PTSD.  If it were, we wouldn't need to have this discussion, because all sufferers would have been quickly cured.
-----
*From the article:

On college campuses across the country, a growing number of students are demanding trigger warnings on class content. Many instructors are obliging with alerts in handouts and before presentations, even emailing notes of caution ahead of class. At Scripps College, lecturers give warnings before presenting a core curriculum class, the “Histories of the Present: Violence," although some have questioned the value of such alerts when students are still required to attend class. Oberlin College has published an official document on triggers, advising faculty members to "be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression," to remove triggering material when it doesn't "directly" contribute to learning goals and "strongly consider" developing a policy to make "triggering material" optional. Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart, it states, is a novel that may "trigger readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide and more." Warnings have been proposed even for books long considered suitable material for high-schoolers: Last month, a Rutgers University sophomore suggested that an alert for F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby say, "TW: suicide, domestic abuse and graphic violence."
What began as a way of moderating Internet forums for the vulnerable and mentally ill now threatens to define public discussion both online and off. The trigger warning signals not only the growing precautionary approach to words and ideas in the university, but a wider cultural hypersensitivity to harm and a paranoia about giving offense. And yet, for all the debate about the warnings on campuses and on the Internet, few are grappling with the ramifications for society as a whole.

Bolds are mine.

Given the vast size of the college industry, these examples don't tell us how common trigger warnings in colleges are.  If the list given here is the total of all such warnings, any problems are pretty much nonexistent. 


 


 

Looking Up Your Skirt

In Massachusetts, a court ruled that it's legal for someone to take pictures up women's skirts on public transportation.  And yes, the man who was doing that, one Michael Robertson, is clearly an asshat (now take a picture of that).

But the reason why Robertson won his case has to do with the way the existing Massachusetts law is written: 

The court ruled that the law as written only applies to people in private when they are nude or partially nude. The court did say that riders should have protections from peeping toms on the MBTA, but the law as written needs to be updated.
"We conclude that (the law), as written, as the defendant suggests, is concerned with proscribing Peeping Tom voyeurism of people who are completely or partially undressed and, in particular, such voyeurism enhanced by electronic devices. (The law) does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA," read the decision.
"At the core of the Commonwealth's argument to the contrary is the proposition that a woman, and in particular a woman riding on a public trolley, has a reasonable expectation of privacy in not having a stranger secretly take photographs up her skirt. The proposition is eminently reasonable, but (the law) in its current form does not address it," read the decision.
 

Well, that's all I planned to write until I read some of the comments (mea culpa, though most of them were weird trollery and many of them were sensible).  The very first one:

If women want to dress scantily, I sure as hell will see whatever I can. I don't need a shot of testosterone.

And then there was this:

That's not a Green Line train in the photo above and the ladies on my Red Line trains to/from work are never that pretty :-(

Anyway, with the recent popularity of wearing black tights with no skirt, and the amount of camel toe being displayed all over the trains and in general as a result, it's not like you need to be doing the upskirt thing...so yeah, there's that....because Lycra. Now, if we could just get them to move on past the whole Uggs thing...blech...

Those do a neat reversal, blaming the imagined victims for showing too much flesh, right?* But there's also that whiff of 'cover-yerselves-wimmen' which I was a bit shocked to find on a liberal site.  And then another whiff of the idea that women's bodies indeed are public comestibles, that they can be judged in the manner of Olympic gymnastics or figure skating, that no woman out there can declare herself to be outside the competition (except perhaps by wearing a burqa).

That general ranking wouldn't bother me if we did the same to all bodies, partly, because I think that doing it to both men and women would reduce the amount of such judging I see.  Imagine, say, me going on here about plumber's cracks and big bellies and moobs and mullets.
------
*The question of "appropriate" clothing is a tricky one and I'm not addressing it here.  It partly depends on societal norms, but because those have traditionally been sexist the norms themselves need rigorous interrogating under bright lights before any simple conclusions can be drawn. 

Alcohol And Sexual Aggression. Or Was That Harassment Caused By the Booze?

Several sites have written about a study titled ""Blurred Lines?"  Sexual Aggression and Barroom Culture."  The study is available at the linked site in its entirety, which is good news for all the geeks who read this.

This study gets so much attention because of that ongoing debate about alcohol and its role in sexual abuse and rape.  That debate covers arguments such as Taranto's statement that inebriated sex is like two cars colliding but only one of the drivers (the male one) gets taken to court for the collision.  It also covers advice to young women not to drink because drinking makes them obvious and natural prey for the obvious and natural predators out there, and it covers the arguments that the role of alcohol in such events shouldn't be the excuse for what happened.

That's why the current study is of interest.

What does it have to tell us about alcohol and sexual aggression?  Here's what the NPR says about the study findings:

Young women are often the targets of aggression when they're out in bars, but the problem isn't that guys are too drunk to know better.
Instead, men are preying on women who have had too much to drink.
When researchers at the University of Toronto and the University of Washington observed young people's behavior in bars, they found that the man's aggressiveness didn't match his level of intoxication. There was no relationship.
Instead, men targeted women who were intoxicated.
The researchers hired and trained 140 young adults to go into bars in the Toronto area and note every incident of aggression they saw. They found that 25 percent of all incidents involved sexual aggression. And 90 percent of the victims of sexual aggression were women being harassed by men.
Almost all of the aggression was physical, with about two-thirds of the aggressors physically touching women without consent. About 17 percent threatened contact. And 9 percent verbally harassed their targets.

Men may perceive intoxicated women either as more amenable to advances or as easier targets who are less able to rebuff them because they don't have their wits about them, the researchers say.

Well, sort of, if we allow for the usual magnification and simplification of research summaries in the popular media.

It's indeed true that the study found no relationship between the aggressor's level of drunkenness and how invasive and persistent the harassment was, whereas the drunkenness of the "target" of harassment was found to be correlated with how invasive the aggression was, and that gives some support to the view of inebriated women as more vulnerable and therefore as more obvious prey for the predators among us.

But note that the observers in the study rated inebriation of the participants in these events on a scale from 0 (sober) to 9 (falling-down drunk).  Here is what the study tells us about the average inebriation level among the initiators (the aggressors) and the targets:

On average, initiators were rated 4.98 (SD = 2.10, range = 0 to 9.00) on the intoxication scale and targets rated 2.26 (SD = 2.30, range = 0 to 9.00).

In plain language, the aggressors were more likely to be drunk than the targets of the aggression, so it's not quite true that  "men are preying on women who have had too much to drink" as the NPR summary states, or at least it's not true that overwhelmingly sober men are preying on overwhelmingly  drunk women.

The nature of this study cannot tell us how the "initiators" in the bars the observers frequented might differ from those who did not initiate any kind of harassment, and neither does it tells us how possible "non-targets" for harassment might have differed from the "targets."  But that's the information we would also need, to state conclusively what the role of alcohol in the occurrence of harassment might be.

This post is not really criticizing the study as such, merely suggesting the kinds of things further studies might look at.

 

Speed Blogging, 3/4/14: On Female Scientists, Entrepreneurs and Women in Saudi Arabia

This is an interesting piece about female scientists of the past.  You can learn more about Lise Meitner, Émilie du Châtelet, Barbara McClintock and others.



A new study argues that female entrepreneurs pay themselves a lower salary than male entrepreneurs, and that the difference happens to match the gross gender gap in salaries.

What that means isn't very clear to me.  The study subjects were all graduates of a particular program in entrepreneurship, and it looks like that salary data was acquired very early after graduation from the program, because:

The good news, at least for the women schooled by Goldman, is that when they were asked six months after graduating, they had narrowed the salary gap, to 8 percent from 20 percent. Both male and female graduates gave themselves raises, but the women, Ms. Greene said, gave themselves bigger raises.

I can make all sorts of guesses to explain that first round difference in salary assignment.  As one expert in the quoted article stated:

Ariane Hegewisch, a study director at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, noted that there was “quite a pronounced gender segregation” in the types of businesses men and women operate. The Babson finding “could be a reflection of the fact that women are more likely to start businesses in sectors with lower average revenue than men,” she said in an email.

More generally, if people pay themselves at least partly based on their past actual salaries, then, on average, women might choose a lower salary because they are accustomed to that. 

Or, as the article also suggests, men and women could differ in risk aversion, men being more risk-loving. But why not theorize about other possible gender differences?  For instance, perhaps the women in that study were more focused on faster growth of the firm, plowing more money back into it, say?  Then there's the difficulty of determining what the "right" salary for entrepreneurs might be, given how the firm is doing, what other sources of funding it has and so on.   And the question what the right amount of risk aversion might be, for each type of enterprise.



Saudi activists have petitioned

 ...the country's consultative council to back a demand to curb the "absolute authority" of male guardians over women in the kingdom, a signatory has said.
Activist Aziza Yousef told AFP news agency on Sunday that "rights activists have petitioned the Shura (consultative) Council on the occasion of the International Women's Day [on March 8] demanding an end to the absolute authority of men over women".
They demanded "measures to protect [women's] rights," in their petition to the Shura Council, she said.
Saudi Arabia imposes a strict interpretation of Islamic law, forbidding women to work or travel without the authorisation of their male guardians.
It is also the only country in the world that bans women from driving, and a woman cannot obtain an identification card without the consent of her guardian.
Laws in the kingdom enforcing such restrictions on women "are not based on religious" teachings, said Yousef.
The petition, signed by 10 female activists, also calls for allowing women to drive.

I'm not holding my breath for instant changes.  But I raise my helmet for those ten activists.  They are brave women.

Ukraine Thoughts

1.  I spent time reading on the history of the area, the background of the conflict, the economics of energy dependency by countries such as Germany and France.  It's not quite true that the more I read the less I knew, because understanding the recent history, the economics, the ethnic divisions and the culture of the area IS helpful.  But different experts state very different things, and I have no basis for deciding who is more correct.  Indeed, my latest reading is that nobody really knows what's going to happen next.

2.  Then I tried to understand Vladimir Putin better, the one horseman of the apocalypse.  Does he simply wish to recreate the world power the Soviet Union had, with those old KGB principles of icy force, but using socially conservative, religion-backed nationalism in the place of communism?  And if he does, how many other areas will Russia need to re-swallow to feel sated?  I can't see the logic in this step, given Russia's weak economy and so on, but if the logic is in Vlad's reptile brain...

3.  There's something about protest movements and revolutions which makes me very sad.  They often begin because the people have shitty lives (as is the case in Syria, Egypt and Ukraine), but once they get going and the existing power of the dictators recedes the emerging power vacuum is there for the taking.  And it is not taken by the protesters but by those smaller groups which have ready frameworks, guns and money.  Often they have values no more democratic or less so than the values of the earlier dictators.

This is sad.  It doesn't mean that revolutions are without effects, but the effects may be a very long time coming.  And democracy is an art which requires practice.  That practice requires time.  Without the practice, a different type of non-democracy will win, at least in the short-run.

4.  When it comes to the possible role of the US in all this, my reading quickly got into the tinfoil area of odd conspiracies and so on.  What's pretty clear, however, is that too many American politicians think everything is about the US, and too many commentators apply US terms and ideas to a conflict which is about something different.

Then there are cheap shots like this one:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) took to Twitter this afternoon to connect the Russian invasion into Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula to the Obama administration’s response to the 2012 terrorist attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya that left four Americans dead.
“It started with Benghazi,” his tweet proclaimed. “When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression.”

It's cheap because he could have used the US invasion of Iraq as the example, not Benghazi, and the analogy would have been more apt.

This cheap aspect of politics makes me enormously tired.  Because the Republicans want to keep Benghazi in the news, in case Hillary Clinton will run for the presidency one day, every event with suffering in this world must somehow be related to it.  To manipulate the voters.
  

 

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

The way politics is financed in the US, combined with the increasing inequalities in income and wealth, means that democracy is  at risk.

This applies to even the half-assed democracy the US has, with most people not bothering to vote and others being stopped from voting and gerrymandering and so on, though the lethargy of the average voter is also linked to the problem of one-vote-one-dollar. 

The power of money in US elections distorts democracy. Rich people don't give large amounts of money without expecting something in return:

The Republican donors who have financed the party’s vast outside-spending machine are turning against the consultants and political strategists they once lavished with hundreds of millions of dollars. 

In recent months, they have begun holding back checks from Republican “super PACs” like American Crossroads, unsatisfied with the groups’ explanations for their failure to unseat President Obama or win back the Senate. Others, less willing than in the past to defer to the party elders and former congressional staff members who control the biggest groups, are demanding a bigger voice in creating strategy in exchange for their continued support. 

Donors like Paul Singer, the billionaire Republican investor, have expanded their in-house political shops, building teams of loyal advisers and researchers to guide and coordinate their giving. And some of the biggest contributors to Republican outside groups in 2012 are now gravitating toward the more donor-centric political and philanthropic network overseen by Charles and David Koch, who have wooed them in part by promising more accountability over how money is spent.

David, and Charles Koch oversee a political and philanthropic network that promises donors more accountability.  

“People are really drawn to the Koch model,” said Anthony Scaramucci, a New York hedge fund investor and Republican fund-raiser, who attended the Kochs’ annual donor conference near Palm Springs, Calif., in January. “It’s adaptive, data-driven, and they are the most propitious capital allocators in political activism.” 

The quiet revolt signals a broader shift in the world of big money. Clubs of elite donors in both parties are taking a more central role in shaping policy and campaigns, displacing party leaders and the outside-spending organizations they helped create after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. And the sheer scale of their spending is almost certain to rewrite the playbook for political campaigns this year, as candidates reckon with the strongly held views of some of the world’s wealthiest people.

Bolds are mine.

And the larger the wealth differences between the rich and the rest, the more will the political goals of the two groups diverge.  Whose goals will be taken care of when money comes from the top one percent of the one percent? 

One article argues that the current US wealth and income inequalities match those of the 1920s UK, portrayed, in its extreme form,  in the 'Downton Abbey' television series.   It's the Lord Granthams of this world who are funding the US elections, and it's their concerns and goals which will weigh the most.  Even very nice Lord Granthams will not have the same worries and concerns in life as Daisy, the kitchen maid.

The solution to this dilemma is real campaign finance reform, duh.  But it's not in the interest of the incumbents (and especially not in the interest of the Republican incumbents), so we are not going to get anywhere with that.  Then there are the Republicans in the Supreme Court who recently made everything worse in this respect.  Finally, lots of ordinary people don't want to pay taxes for the funding of campaigns, probably because they don't care or understand that the Lord Granthams will then rule.

Speed-Blogging 2/28/14

This is from the "It's OK For Me But Not For You" files:

More than a decade ago, Arkansas Rep. Josh Miller (R) was in a catastrophic car accident that broke his neck and left him paralyzed. Medicare and Medicaid paid the $1 million bill for his hospitalization and rehabilitation.
But this week, as the Arkansas legislature has debated continuing its privatized Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, Miller has remained steadfast in his opposition.
The Arkansas Times highlighted the contrast in a Thursday report. The alternative newspaper reported that Miller receives ongoing coverage through the government programs, including Medicaid-covered personal care assistance.
The Times asked Miller, 33, about this apparent contradiction: Shouldn't someone who has experienced the benefits of health insurance, including insurance paid for by the government, understand the importance of expanding those benefits to others?
The difference, he said, is that some of the 100,000 people who have gained coverage through Arkansas's Medicaid expansion don't work hard enough or just want access to the program so they can purchase and abuse prescription drugs.
"My problem is two things," Miller said. "One, we are giving it to able-bodied folks who can work ... and two, how do we pay for it?"
The accident that paralyzed Miller occurred about 11 years ago, the Times reported. He was driving with a friend, alcohol was involved, but Miller said he couldn't remember who was driving. When he arrived at the hospital with his life-changing injuries, he was uninsured.

Bolds are mine.

It's fascinating how all that works.  Others are not deserving.  And if there are people who might abuse a system or benefit from it in unethical ways (those others, naturally), the solution is never to fix the loopholes but not to have the system at all.  I have read something similar about those pro-life folk who get abortions themselves.  Their abortions are justified, those others are killing babies because of selfish motives.

Jezebel has a post about the Men's Rights Movement article at the New Republic. The two sites the New Republic piece quotes as sources are listed as misogyny sites at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Retail chains are seeing their profits drop:

The results paint a grim picture of an industry hit hard by the sluggish job recovery and slow wage growth, which have turned U.S. consumers into a nation of penny pinchers. Earnings are expected to drop 6.1 percent on average during the holiday quarter, according to Retail Metrics data. The broader pool of Standard & Poor’s 500 Index companies, meanwhile, are estimated to see profit rise 8.5 percent.

Move on, nothing to see there.  Or that's what those who focus on supply side economics would argue.  We need more austerity and more trimming-of-the-fat from public sector workers and the like, more tax cuts for corporations and fewer social welfare programs.  And more firms like Walmart and Amazon. 

The point, of course, is that the demand side matters.  If consumers have little discretionary income, firms will find it harder to sell their products and make profits from that.  Even firms which try not to pay their workers at all.

The Republicans have a lot of trouble with that wimminz thing.
 

The Downside of a Female President

Bill O'Reilly (a conservative pundit) wants to talk about the possible downside of having a female president.  This is because the American conservatives have very few women among their prominent politicians and because conservatives fear that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate in the next presidential race.  It's never too early to start working on the voters by bringing out all the murky gender ideas that float about in that reptile brain, right?

The snag in all this is that talking about the downsides is not about one individual here but about half of all humankind.  Which puts it firmly under sexism.  In this case, the hidden assumption is that women cannot be leaders.  The reasons why women cannot be leaders are ultimately whatever O'Reilly can dig up (and if you watch the video you will find out that almost anything goes there). 

For instance, we might argue that women are going to be too soft or wimpy to go against Vladimir Putin (who rides little ponies bare-chested and knows karate and ten other Chinese words*):

There haven't been that many strong women leaders throughout history," O'Reilly countered, noting Margaret Thatcher and women in the U.S. Congress as exceptions. "But you know when you’re president of the United States you have to deal with people like Putin. You got to deal with real ornery -- the Mullahs in Iran. Look, the Mullahs in Iran, they think women are like subspecies."

That is so sweet!  O'Reilly captures two different arguments there:  First, women are too wimpy to go against a real manly man, and, second, there are potential enemies of this country who would not respect a female leader (so let's obey that view and let's not have one; better still, let's oppress women, too).

The above comment was a response to a different type of possible problems with a female president:  one who tries too hard to be a tough manly-man type, one who tries to take on Vladimir Putin or the mullahs of Iran:

Panelists Kirsten Powers and Kate Obenshain were skeptical, but Powers volunteered one example: if a woman felt she needed to act "macho" and vote for the Iraq War -- theoretically, of course -- to make it look like she was a tough leader unafraid of using military force.

That's the third argument!  Women cannot win, because either we are too wimpy or we try too hard not to look too wimpy or we cannot lead because women's status in much of the world is so low that women leaders will not be respected!

All this is most enjoyable and funny, and not only because you can do a reversal on that too-wimpy vs. not-wimpy-enough part and apply it to George Bush Jr** and a large number of other male presidents whose masculinity has been judged by their war-mindedness or the lack of it. 

That judging, however, does not reflect anything much back to the male half of this world, despite the small nod O'Reilly gives to men perhaps being too macho, and the reason is that we are used to having male presidents, and so we are willing to judge them as individuals.  The case with female presidents is different because they will be judged as representatives of a whole gender.


-------
*The bit about karate and ten other Chinese words is a joke.  The bit about Putin on a pony is not.
 **Remember Mission Accomplished picture?

Slightly Hilarious Stuff: Douthat on Abortion, Surnames and Inequality, And Finnish Words

Ross Douthat talks abortion with guys.  That's all I want to say about that piece.

A study argues that genetics determines inequality of income and wealth because of that surname (last name) correlation:

To a striking extent, your overall life chances can be predicted not just from your parents’ status but also from your great-great-great-grandparents’.

...

We came to these conclusions after examining reams of data on surnames, a surprisingly strong indicator of social status, in eight countries — Chile, China, England, India, Japan, South Korea, Sweden and the United States — going back centuries. Across all of them, rare or distinctive surnames associated with elite families many generations ago are still disproportionately represented among today’s elites.

 ...

The notion of genetic transmission of “social competence” — some mysterious mix of drive and ability — may unsettle us. But studies of adoption, in some ways the most dramatic of social interventions, support this view. A number of studies of adopted children in the United States and Nordic countries show convincingly that their life chances are more strongly predicted from their biological parents than their adoptive families. In America, for example, the I.Q. of adopted children correlates with their adoptive parents’ when they are young, but the correlation is close to zero by adulthood. There is a low correlation between the incomes and educational attainment of adopted children and those of their adoptive parents.

The problems I see with that study are at least threefold.  First, surnames don't necessarily correlate with genetics.  How they are determined depends on the country one looks at, and I don't think one can assume the genetics without demonstrating it.  Second, it's not only genetic transmission that one inherits.  One also inherits manor houses, castles, fields, old-boy networks, political power within old famous families and so on.  Third, it omits the female lines altogether, at least in countries where women didn't get to keep their surnames at marriage.

Finally, this explains why I write so long in English.

Three Posts On Women in the Media

1.  The VIDA counts for 2013 are out. Soraya Chemaly notes the good news and the not-so-good news:

Today, as they have every year since 2009, VIDA: Women in The Literary Arts, an organization dedicated to gender parity in the literary arts, released its annual count documenting the gaping divide between the number of men and women being published in literary magazines, journals and book reviews.

....

First, the good news: The Boston Review, Poetry Magazine, and Tin House continued to maintain their consistently balanced byline ratios. However, gross disparities continue to dominate the field (I encourage you to take a quick skim of the pie charts on VIDA's website that show The Count at different journals). 



VIDA announced a "Drumroll for the 75%ers" (where women made up a quarter or less of writers): The Atlantic, London Review of Books, New Republic, The Nation, New York Review of Books (which managed, for the fourth year in a row to have less than 20% of it's bylines by women writers) and New Yorker.



However, The Paris Review and The New York Times Book Review are worth noting for the substantive changes that occurred in their gender representation during the past year. They are both examples of how awareness and concerted effort can quickly effect change.

As Chemaly points out, the reasons for the disparities can be complicated, but the percentages of men and women among those who submitted stuff into the slush piles probably isn't a crucial factor, simply because the slush pile is not the usual source for things to be published.


2.  In other news about women and media, the Women's Media Center's annual report is out.  It covers women in all media types, all the way from social media to obituaries, and in that sense works as the frame for the VIDA counts, too.*


3.  Mary Beard has written an interesting essay about the authoritative voice and whether women's voices can be regarded as authoritative in the public sphere or just as cacophony.

She weaves together examples from ancient Greece and Rome, from literature, from British and American history and today's Internet misogyny to support her argument:

These attitudes, assumptions and prejudices are hard-wired into us: not into our brains (there is no neurological reason for us to hear low-pitched voices as more authoritative than high-pitched ones); but into our culture, our language and millennia of our history. And when we are thinking about the under-representation of women in national politics, their relative muteness in the public sphere, we have to think beyond what the prime minister and his chums got up to in the Bullingdon Club, beyond the bad behaviour and blokeish culture of Westminster, beyond even family-friendly hours and childcare provision (important as those are). We have to focus on the even more fundamental issues of how we have learned to hear the contributions of women or – going back to the cartoon for a moment – on what I’d like to call the ‘Miss Triggs question’. Not just, how does she get a word in edgeways? But how can we make ourselves more aware about the processes and prejudices that make us not listen to her.

The Miss Triggs question, by the way, is this:

It’s a well-known deafness that’s nicely parodied in the old Punch cartoon: ‘That’s an excellent suggestion, Miss Triggs. Perhaps one of the men here would like to make it'

And yes, I have been Miss Triggs, in that I have experienced and witnessed that odd sudden social deafness.  If I had to venture a guess about what motivates it I'd go for the "no real consequences" explanation.  We might all be more likely to hear our boss than our subordinate, because not hearing the boss makes worse things happen to us, and being female still codes for lower positions in the various hierarchies.

I think this is changing, because younger people have grown up in a different society, with more women in positions of power.  But I may be naively optimistic here.

Beard wrote her essay as a tentative history of what today has become the often-hostile social media treatment of women who speak publicly, and perhaps because she herself was the target of some vicious attacks.  

I'm not quite convinced that the anger aimed at women (as women)  in the public sphere is just a continuation of the way women's public speech may have historically been treated in most societies.

Perhaps it is, but it could also be the case that the odd quasi-public/quasi-private nature of social media supports the angry attacks because they are being shared, because relatively small numbers of angry individuals can get together and validate their anger by becoming a supportive group.  The anger grows by being validated, and the usual restraint of social disapproval and exclusion doesn't work the same way it does in real life.

I'm basing this on the observation that a large number of political Internet comments express anger and hatred of various types, not just misogyny or contempt towards women, and that doesn't quite reflect what I see happening in "meatspace" social contexts.  Part of the explanation is that we have found out what happens when people can communicate masked, sure.  But part of the explanation could also be found in how the Internet offers people a chance to share and support not only good things and information but also their hatred and anger.

----------------------- 

*Time magazine gives a short summary of the report with one mistake:

6.    Women had fewer speaking roles in movies in 2012 than in any year since 2007–only 28.4% of speaking roles in the top 100 films went to women. But on TV, 43% of speaking parts are played by women. Of the women who who did get speaking roles in movies,  34.6% were black, 33.9% were Hispanic, and 28.8% were white. And of all the speaking characters, Latina women were most likely to be depicted semi-nude.

The mistake is in the second sentence which I have bolded.  It's extremely unlikely that the majority of women with speaking roles in movies in 2012 would have been minorities. 

It took me some time to find the source for this (I couldn't find it in the report itself), but this looks like the source:

The percentages of female speaking characters who are Hispanic (33.9%), Black (34.6%), and Asian (34.8%) are greater than the percentages of White females (28.8%) and females from other ethnicities (16.1%).  Although we see more women from certain racial / ethnic categories, compared to their male counterparts, females in every group are still under-represented.

Granted, the original isn't terribly clear, either.  But what it means is not that Hispanic women, say,  got 33.9% of all speaking roles for women, but that 66.1% of all Hispanic actors (or Hispanic characters) with speaking roles were men and 33.9% women.  And so on.  The percentages don't add up to 100%, and they should if we are taking percentages out of the group "women."

When Sarcasm Fails. Pregnant Women As Hosts Without Rights.

I have called pregnant women aquariums/aquaria for the zygote or fetus when I have written sarcastically about the views of the so-called pro-lifers (or forced-birthers).

But all that talk about the care and maintenance of your inner aquarium wasn't intended to describe the actual views of forced-birthers, just to point out to them that what they so desired (laws stipulating that human life begins at conception) could logically result in half the humankind being viewed as containers for current, future or potential human beings.

Well, at least one "pro-lifer" already seems to have those views:

A pregnant woman is just a "host" that should not have the right to end her pregnancy, Virginia State Sen. Steve Martin (R) wrote in a Facebook rant defending his anti-abortion views.
Martin, the former chairman of the Senate Education and Health Committee, wrote a lengthy post about his opinions on women's bodies on his Facebook wall last week in response to a critical Valentine's Day card he received from reproductive rights advocates.
"I don't expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent you from obtaining a contraceptive," Martin wrote. "However, once a child does exist in your womb, I'm not going to assume a right to kill it just because the child's host (some refer to them as mothers) doesn't want it."

Martin has now changed his post so that the word "host" has been replaced by "the bearer of the child," and in the comments to the post he argues that the parenthetical "some refer to them as mothers" should have been enough to qualify the use of "host":

NARAL has attacked me for allegedly referring to mothers as "hosts" in this post, and the story has spread through HuffPo. To do so is to take my comments completely out of the context - which was me parroting their own arguments back to them. Please note that I accented that fact by parenthetically stating that some of us call them "mothers." The point of that parenthetical reference was to point out they are not "hosts." They are mothers. Mothers are a critically important lynchpin of society. Not just because of the nurturing of children they carry in their womb, and throughout their lives. But, also because of the compassion they carry, and their tireless commitment to all they do in homes, communities, and workplaces. With all that they also bring a perspective no one else can bring that serves us throughout their lifetime. The lesson to be learned here is that where an offense is sought it can be found.

Rrrright.  Pro-choicers always regard pregnant women as hosts for fetuses.

In any case, that comment brings Martin firmly back into the Russian dolls view of women's fertility.

As an aside, one comment (by someone else) to Martin's post is worth highlighting here, because it represents the second major thrust of the anti-abortion people.  The first one is the idea that conception means a person now exists, the second one is the idea that women are irresponsible if they have sex without being ready to become hosts for such a person:

Steve, I have long said that when a woman chooses to have unprotected sex for pleasure's sake knowing that a consequence could be pregnancy, she has ALREADY MADE her choice. These organizations aren't asking for the right to choose, they're asking for the right to change their mind at the expense of the unborn child who was the consequence of their choice.

Martin's response to that:

Norris, that is as well put as I've heard. That is exactly what they want. "They want others to pay for their life choices," financially, socially, and physically. The children have to physically die for their life choices, and society has to pay for it, both by financing it and by loss of valuable citizenry.

Now take that first comment and change "a woman" to "a man" and "she" to "he" and imagine the uproar that would follow!   Would most pro-lifers preach the same responsibility message to men about sex?  I very much doubt it.  The society, in general, certainly doesn't, and some MRA guys preach the reverse message.

But never mind that.  Note that Martin's response widens the reasons why he is opposed to abortions.  It's not just about conception meaning full human rights for the zygote, but also something about "the loss of valuable citizenry" and who is to pay for all that sex. 

Except that the public sector makes choices which cause us to lose "valuable citizenry" in Iraq and in Afghanistan and via lax gun laws etc., and the "life choices" people make will actually have higher societal costs (including more abortions) without such programs as publicly funded family planning services.

Sunday Fun

1.  A puppy likes snow

2.  Scotland Yard surveillance of suffragettes in 1913.

3.  Here's one of those studies you should be able to laugh at, especially if you've read some of my take-downs of smelly research.

4.  Hesiod, Theogony 295 (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek Epic C8th or C7th B.C.) :

"She [Ekhidna] has her cave on the underside of a hollow rock, far from the immortal gods, and far from all mortals. There the gods ordained her a fabulous home to live in which she keeps underground among the Arimoi, grisly Ekhidna, a Nymphe who never dies, and all her days she is ageless."

Stuff To Read Over The Weekend, 2/21/14

This long article on the rise and fall of Chris Christie is of interest for political geeks and nerds.

Several states are trying to introduce far wider religious "conscience clause"  protections for firms and workers.  Arizona just passed such a law.

This time the focus is not on abortion or the "right" to refuse to prescribe the contraceptive pill, but on having the "right" to refuse to serve, say, gay or lesbian customers or clients. All this lawmaking probably has its roots in cases like this one, from New Mexico:

Vanessa Willock sent a brief email to Elane Photography wondering if they’d take pictures of her 2006 commitment ceremony to her longtime partner, Misti Collinsworth.
Elaine Huguenin, the photographer and co-owner of Elane photography with her husband Jonathan, said no. “As a company, we photograph traditional weddings,” read her response. “Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?” Willock asked. “Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!”

Willock told the state Human Rights Commission she was “shocked, angered and saddened” by Elane’s response, and suddenly worried she and Collinsworth would be unable to find a photographer. Though they eventually did, Willock also filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, saying that Elane Photography had violated a New Mexico state law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In August, the New Mexico Supreme court agreed, ruling unanimously that Elane Photography had violated state law by refusing to photograph the ceremony. Now the Huguenins are seeking to have their case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that forcing them to take pictures of same-sex ceremonies violates their First Amendment rights by compelling them to engage in speech they don’t believe in. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, it will provide the first key test of a conservative political and legal strategy of reframing a losing battle against gay rights into a conflict over religious freedom, one that could rewrite the bounds of anti-discrimination laws in the United States. The case has “widespread ramifications for the conflict between religious rights and anti-discrimination rights,” said Caroline Mala Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law.

The bolds are mine.  It's important to note that these "religious rights" laws must be written in such general terms that they would open up the door for any type of discrimination that can be justified by some religion somewhere, even if that religion doesn't absolutely require that kind of shunning, unless the particular type of discrimination is already explicitly banned in other state laws.  The possible outcomes are mind-boggling.

In rodent research news, a new study argues that alcoholic daddy mice can sire baby mice with severe problems:

Published in Animal Cells and Systems, researchers studied male mice exposed to varying concentrations of alcohol and one control group exposed only to saline. After exposure the mice were mated and resulting fetuses examined. The findings revealed previously unknown and riveting evidence that paternal alcohol consumption can directly affect fetal development. 

A number of fetuses sired by males exposed to alcohol suffered abnormal organ development and or brain development. Those in the saline group were normal. So, can developmental abnormalities be predetermined at fertilization? This research proves so. The authors believe alcohol consumption affects genes in sperm which are responsible for normal fetal development. 

Until now fathers' lifestyle choices have not seen any repercussion on their unborn children. This ground-breaking research provides the first definitive evidence that fathers' drinking habits pre-conception can cause significant fetal abnormalities.

So prospective papa mice should probably stick to the saline drinks. 

I'm writing about this study because mice studies have in the past been interpreted as giving explicit health advice to human women about their fertility, so seeing that this has recently been expanded to giving health advice to human men about their fertility is kinda interesting.  Another recent study about papa mice taking vitamin B9  also gave human men health advice:

'Men really need to think carefully about the life they're living.'- Sarah Kimmins, McGill University 

Folate, found in leafy green vegetables, cereals, fruit, beans and liver, is known to prevent miscarriages and birth defects in humans if taken by the mother. Because of that, folate supplements are often recommended for women of childbearing age, especially if they are trying to become pregnant, and a lot of processed food is now enriched with folate. In men, folate deficiency is already known to reduce fertility.

 

Greg Mankiw's Ode To The Rich

Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard, has written an opinion piece for the New York Times, on the topic of whether the rich deserve their large earnings.  I had a tiny problem after reading through his piece, and that is the question of how he defines that pesky verb "to deserve."

This matters quite a bit.  Does Mankiw mean that if we taxed the rich more, for example, something really bad would happen in the various markets they rule over?  That the large earnings of the super-rich, say, are a necessary condition for the rest of us to have nice things at all?

Or does Mankiw mean that the high earnings of the top 0.01 percent, say, are deserved in some moral or ethical sense?  And if this is the interpretation, does it have the corollary that the poor deserve their poverty?

Or does Mankiw mean something else, altogether, given that at the beginning of the piece he appeals to how people in general might feel about the question whether the rich are deserving or not:

In 2012, the actor Robert Downey Jr., played the role of Tony Stark, a.k.a. Iron Man, in “The Avengers.” For his work in that single film, Mr. Downey was paid an astounding $50 million.
Does that fact make you mad? Does his compensation strike you as a great injustice? Does it make you want to take to the streets in protest? These questions go to the heart of the debate over economic inequality, to which President Obama has recently been drawing attention.
Certainly, $50 million is a lot of money. The typical American would have to work for about 1,000 years in order to earn that much.
That sum puts Mr. Downey in the top ranks of American earners. Anything more than about $400,000 a year puts you in the much-talked-about 1 percent. If you earn more than about $10 million, you are in the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent. Mr. Downey makes it easily.
Yet, somehow, when I talk to people about it, most are not appalled by his income. Why?
One reason seems to be that they understand how he earned it. “The Avengers” was a blockbuster with worldwide box-office receipts of more than $1.5 billion.

Let's see what Mankiw's detailed argument are.

More on Writer's Block. The Woody Allen Case.

This post is all about me.  It may not deserve publication at all, but I'm trying to dissolve my writer's block, by any means necessary.  And I think talking about some of the issues that cropped up in my head can be useful, because they relate to the way we have debates in the social media.

This current block began  when I  did a lot of research and thinking about the Dylan Farrow post and the various aftermaths (and before-maths).   At the time I had a post all structured in my head, then I read more and more and more and the structure melted back into thought clouds which didn't lend themselves to the kind of analysis I can do.

This giant, unwritten post is still clogging up my writing channel (cloaca?).  There are many unwritten posts in my head, and some of them are on very important topics.  That they remain  unwritten gives me guilt and shame and all the rest of the nice spices, but they don't cause writer's block.  This particular post did.

So I just tried to write it out by force (with all the evidence various camps quoted) but that didn't work.   Heh.  Then I tried to write to myself the reasons why I can't write the post, and that didn't work.  A perfect circle.

One more attempt, from a slightly different angle:

Women, Get Your Mrs. Degrees Before It Is Too Late!

Amanda writes about a Wall Street Journal piece which urges that young women in college should start investing more in husband-hunting and less in their careers.  This one is by Susan Patton but the template has been used by many others before.

The conservative, anti-feminist story goes something like this:

1.  All men want is casual sex:

When you find a good man, take it slow. Casual sex is irresistible to men, but the smart move is not to give it away. If you offer intimacy without commitment, the incentive to commit is eliminated. The grandmotherly message of yesterday is still true today: Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free.

  Men don't want intimacy, commitment, marriage or children.  All they want is sex (a common anti-feminist view of men, by the way).   Women want marriage but not sex, and heterosexual women must con heterosexual men into marrying them.

The exchange plan the conservatives tell women to have is to refuse to provide sex without marriage.

Think of sex as milk and a young woman as a cow, as Patton does in her article.  Men won't buy the cow, she writes,  if the cow gives away its milk for nothing.  So it's important for the cows not let any milk leak.  That way you, the cow,  get to be bought (and presumably fed and cared for)  and this is called marriage.

What this means is that a woman must cross her legs until that ring is around her finger.  The flaw in this plan is pretty obvious. There's a big market for just the milk out there.  If men truly did not want commitment or marriage or children, they could find enough milk to buy or even get it provided freely.

2.  Never mind that actual market.  Patton argues that cows get old real fast, and any woman who spends time on her career and next promotion and so on will suddenly find herself competing with much younger women in the marriage markets!

Think about it: If you spend the first 10 years out of college focused entirely on building your career, when you finally get around to looking for a husband you'll be in your 30s, competing with women in their 20s. That's not a competition in which you're likely to fare well. If you want to have children, your biological clock will be ticking loud enough to ward off any potential suitors. Don't let it get to that point.

Somehow those much younger women are not like the women this article speaks to, which is illogical and bothers me.  Because if young women in college indeed are not prioritizing marriage, then they are not yet competing in the marriage markets with their older sisters (those poor deluded careerists whose eggs are beginning to smell.)

But never mind.  The real point of this step in the theory is that youth is what makes women attractive to men, youth fades away, and anyone who focuses on work is going to miss the marriage train.

Because somehow "planning for a husband" is so time-intensive that it cannot be combined with planning for promotions and a career or studying hard?  Women can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

That's what Ms. Patton appears to be saying.

4.  The final step is to accept that men don't mind "marrying down" but women do, and that women like marrying up but men don't*:

Could you marry a man who isn't your intellectual or professional equal? Sure. But the likelihood is that it will be frustrating to be with someone who just can't keep up with you or your friends. When the conversation turns to Jean Cocteau or Henrik Ibsen, the Bayeux Tapestry or Noam Chomsky, you won't find that glazed look that comes over his face at all appealing. And if you start to earn more than he does? Forget about it. Very few men have egos that can endure what they will see as a form of emasculation.

This is a common Evolutionary Psychology** argument ("all women are gold-diggers", "all men look for brainless Barbie-dolls," and this is argued to be hard-wired in our genes).  I have written several stunning take-downs of those arguments. 

A better way to understand why women in the past have tried to marry up (in the sense of finding a richer husband) is because of the laws which took most of the alternatives away from women so that marriage indeed became the best career path for most.  If inheritance favored sons over daughters, if guilds excluded women from membership, if the incomes women earned didn't belong to them but to their families, if universities and professions explicitly excluded women, well, how is a woman to make a living?  Add to that the weakness of any birth control, and you can see why Marriage As An Economic Arrangement would have been much more central to women than to men.

But writers like Patton implicitly assume that this is how men and women are, in some fundamental sense***.  She also seems to think that men won't mind having a wife who can't follow erudite discussions, perhaps because he can always talk about the Bayeux Tapestry with his male friends?  The same alternative is available for those uppity college women, of course.

Duh.  I ask myself why I write about any of this because Patton just takes out the conservative recipe, found under the title:  How To Keep Women From The Top End Of The Labor Market:  The Fear Cake,  measures out the ingredients and bakes the cake.  The recipe fails, because it's not based on facts about marriage rates and women's education.  As Amanda points out, evidence suggests that more educated women are more likely to get married over their lives than less educated women, and the general evidence on marriage shows that it's not in trouble among the more educated or the higher earning parts of the US population.

So why aim this advice to a particular group of women?  Why not write about the decline of marriage among those with less education and fewer earnings options if your job is to uphold traditional marriage? 

The answer is in that name of the cake I created.   None of this is about caring about the fate of young women in college but about a certain kind of social structure, the kind the social conservatives (who read Wall Street Journal) prefer to see, the kind of social structure which is reflected in the gender percentages of Republicans in the US Congress and the kind of social structure which cannot be maintained if too many women catch the brass ring or insist that kitchen chores and childcare must be shared more equally.

What's ironic about the Patton article is that in the olden days what she recommends used to be called getting your Mrs. Degree, and getting your Mrs. Degree was one of the slurs college women got thrown in their faces, along the lines that they were taking away the college places which should really go to those who plan to have actual careers.  Which just goes to show that it doesn't really matter what young women in college are there for; the conservatives would rather not have them there at all.

But honestly, the funniest thing about the Mrs. Degree piece is that it assumes some weird sort of giant effort to be required to hook a husband and that the puny female brains cannot fit both falling in love and studying but must choose between the two.  The next funniest (though also insulting) thing in the piece is the treatment of men as rather simple one-cell creatures which run on the need for sex and can be manipulated on that basis.  Sadly, that manipulation would end up hurting the women more than men.  This is not something Ms. Patton worries about, of course.

-----
*This term is usually understood to be about education and income.  You "marry up" if your spouse earns more than you and/or is more educated than you.

**The capital letters serve to define this as the sub-field of the more extreme evolutionary psychologists, the ones who like JustSo stories about the prehistory where nomadic tribal living (with very little opportunity for amassing any kind of resources except those embodied in the person) in family-based units somehow provided the optimal environment for women to develop hard-wiring which today translates into preferring older men with large bank accounts.

***But more women do seem to be "marrying down".

Blogger's Block

This, too, shall pass.  In the meantime, the world can also be beautiful,  life is not only a struggle, but it  has those moments of awe and joy and beauty.