This is another one of those topics that is so multidimensional that it is difficult for me to figure out how I'm going to even structure this, but I'll do the best I can.
Here is the disclaimer: I am white. oooohhh noooo that means that I am not allowed to have any sort of opinion on this!!! Bullshit. Racism does not = whites hating/discriminating against blacks. It is so much more complicated than that. I am an Italian with American heritage, and that meant that sometimes I had a hard time, but most of the time I was fine. When the war first broke out in Iraq it was not a good thing to be an American anywhere in Europe, particularly in Italy which was a country that was dragged in to the war despite the overwhelming majority of the people not wanting to have any part in it. When I moved to Ireland I was constantly referred to as "the tanned one", which I only found amusing seeing as I am quite white for an Italian. When I moved to Northern Italy it became apparent that some people were going to hate on me for being from Rome, as there is a right-wing group that has a lot of traction up here that staunchly hates everyone from Rome and below, saying that they don't work and are solely responsible for all of Italy's angst. Compound that with the fact that my boyfriend of four years is Romanian, which has been the single most hated nationality in Italy for years now, although it looks like recently Albania has begun to compete for the top spot. Putting that all together, I have had a share of racism and/or ignorance flung my way. Anyway, even if I hadn't, I am not of the opinion that only those who have experienced it are allowed to comment on it, so I feel my opinions would stand anyway.
Back to the topic at hand. I feel like there needs to be a strong distinction between "racism" and "ignorance", although racism of course stems from ignorance. When my Irish friend, upon seeing a black man for the first time at age 7 on the bus, exclaimed "Mammy! What's wrong with that man? Is he dirty?!" his mother was right to be mortified, but no one could possibly claim that he was a racist. Saying the same thing at age 20, now you're being a racist. So when do the two begin to split? I once tried to explain my distinction of the two with a story, trying to explain why Italians hate Romanians so much, and yet very few of them are actual racists:
Imagine tomorrow when you wake up you discover that there is a group of green people that live on an island off the coast of (insert your country here). They have always been there, it has been known, but you are only just finding out about it because the news says that they are now going to be servicing that island with a much more regular ferry than there previously was. At first you feel weary, which is only natural. Next week you see one in the flesh for the first time in the supremarket, you will probably stare more than you would at any other person, but that is only natural as well. Other than that, your contact with these green people is limited to the occasional chance sighting.
But then the news starts reporting. It looks like many of these green people are poor, and since more of them have been moving to your town there have been burglaries commited by the green people. A green person murdered an old man while trying to steal his wallet. Three green people were arrested for stealing a series of cars. Five burglaries occur in 10 days, two green men arrested. What is your opinion of these green people now? That they have invaded your town in order to steal and create mayhem, much better if they go back to the island they came from where they belong!
But then you meet one. And another one. All of the green people you meet are actually really nice and hardworking people. You may hear of one or two that are not, but from your personal experience you start to see that they are not looking for anything except a chance to work and earn a living. What is your opinion of them now?
If you change your opinion, you were just ignorant before, because you did not have all the information you needed to form a sound opinion. If you still maintain that green people should be shipped back to where they came from you're a racist.
Aside: I am of the belief that the way media reports things, particularly in this country, perpetuates ignorance about people who are different. "Two Romanians arrested for", "Five Africans arrested for", and if it was an Italian? "A young man arrested for". What the HELL difference does it make if they are black, white or eastern european?? They are criminals and you arrested them, good for you. Unless you are giving a description of someone that the public needs to look out for, or if the crime in question was a hate crime, why are you even mentioning their ethnicity as if it were pertinent to the story?
Anyway, I have always gone to international schools and have always been raised in an international environment, so I never understood racism. To me, judging someone based on the color of their skin is as retarded as judging someone based on the color of their hair. However, in that vein, I also never understood the mania with political correctness, for the exact same reason.
I understand political correctness insofar as to make some people, particularly older people, understand that certain words are now offensive although they weren't back in their day. Take my grandmother for instance, who is just now transitioning away from the word "negro" (pronounced "n-eh-gro, not nearly as bad as the word nigger in English, in fact there is no word in italian that comes anywhere as close as that in offensiveness, but a touch more offensive than the word "negro" in English). My father, her son, is married to a black woman, trust me there is not a racist bone in her body, but she just didn't understand that that word is now offensive.
However, when it comes to the nervousness and panic that I see in some people when talking to someone of a different race or nationality because they are terrorized of offending them, I don't get it. What exactly are you afraid of saying? Something racist? Fuck I'll be offended if you say something racist, regardless of the fact that I'm white. To me, being overly worried about political correctness is just another, milder, form of racism.
Making a judgement about someone based on their physical characteristics or nationality is stupid, no matter what that judgement is. You think because someone has darker skin than yourself they should be talked down to, or differently than you would someone who is white? They are ADULTS just like you, should be treated the exact same way as you would treat anyone else. To me, the color of someone's skin or the words on their passport doesn't factor remotely into my opinion of them or the way I talk to them, and for this reason I don't get what the big deal is.
Am I wrong? Is it really so different in other countries that I just don't get it? Let me know
Monday, October 24, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Looks Like We Are Number 1 in Something....
So it turns out that Italy holds the world record in 2011 for most solar panels installed, beating Germany, which was the world leader in solar panels for ten years, 3:1. Looks like she's finally going green, ah bless. Considering that Italy was one of the last countries in the developed world to get rid of leaded gas, I found this to be very surprising indeed.
See what I did there? It is genetically impossible for an Italian person to say something good about their country without immediately following it up with a pegorative comment. If anyone does have a mutation which allows them to complement this country unchecked, they are immediately labeled as naive suckers, the poor dears.
See what I did there? It is genetically impossible for an Italian person to say something good about their country without immediately following it up with a pegorative comment. If anyone does have a mutation which allows them to complement this country unchecked, they are immediately labeled as naive suckers, the poor dears.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Why Isn't This Bigger News?!
I found out about this from Pharyngula, and I was blown away. Not that the Catholic Church had another scandal on its hands, but that I had heard about it from Pharyngula.
In sum, over the course of 50 years and ending in the early 1990s, women who gave birth in Catholic hospitals that the nuns there disapproved of, usually because they were unmarried, were told that their child had died and that they were not allowed to attend their funeral. Of course the children were just fine, and they were sold, not given, sold for the price of an apartment to childless devout couples all over the country, complete with a forged birth certificate.
Why did they stop such a lucrative practice? Because until 1990 the hospitals were solely in charge of adoptions, controlling it on every level. After 1990 the Spanish Government began regulating adoption, so it fizzled out.
The whole thing came out after a man who had bought his son from a priest confessed everything to him when on his deathbed. The nun who was responsible for the kidnapping was tracked down and she confessed, and more digging came up with a number: 300,000 children. That's 15% of all the adoptions that took place in Spain between 1960 and 1989. What's the second worst thing the Catholic church could have on its hands, after the systematic rape of children and subsequent cover-up? There you go.
So where the HELL is the media frenzy over this?
Now obviously I haven't seen every news program in every country, but I want to know why the hell this isn't bigger news. Not a peep from the Italian news, but you can say Italy is a Catholic country so they're keeping it on the dl. OK (even though they definitely covered the sex scandals), but what about cnn.com? msnbc.com? BBC broke the story with a documentary on October 16th, the news hasn't been covering this since then? I'm not into conspiracy theories in the slightest, but does the Catholic church really have that much influence?
I tend to think not. The Magdalene laundries, the major pedophilia scandal, the Catholic Church's involvment in the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa, it's all relatively public knowledge and has been discussed in the media of today's society.
So please, you tell me, have you heard about this? If so, from where? Is the media ignoring it? Are they just a little late to the game and will spread the story eventually? Or am I making too much of a big deal about this?
Is this, this , this or this (all found on their homepages) bigger news than the Catholic Church stealing infants?
Looks like I might start looking to the BBC for my news from now on
In sum, over the course of 50 years and ending in the early 1990s, women who gave birth in Catholic hospitals that the nuns there disapproved of, usually because they were unmarried, were told that their child had died and that they were not allowed to attend their funeral. Of course the children were just fine, and they were sold, not given, sold for the price of an apartment to childless devout couples all over the country, complete with a forged birth certificate.
Why did they stop such a lucrative practice? Because until 1990 the hospitals were solely in charge of adoptions, controlling it on every level. After 1990 the Spanish Government began regulating adoption, so it fizzled out.
The whole thing came out after a man who had bought his son from a priest confessed everything to him when on his deathbed. The nun who was responsible for the kidnapping was tracked down and she confessed, and more digging came up with a number: 300,000 children. That's 15% of all the adoptions that took place in Spain between 1960 and 1989. What's the second worst thing the Catholic church could have on its hands, after the systematic rape of children and subsequent cover-up? There you go.
So where the HELL is the media frenzy over this?
Now obviously I haven't seen every news program in every country, but I want to know why the hell this isn't bigger news. Not a peep from the Italian news, but you can say Italy is a Catholic country so they're keeping it on the dl. OK (even though they definitely covered the sex scandals), but what about cnn.com? msnbc.com? BBC broke the story with a documentary on October 16th, the news hasn't been covering this since then? I'm not into conspiracy theories in the slightest, but does the Catholic church really have that much influence?
I tend to think not. The Magdalene laundries, the major pedophilia scandal, the Catholic Church's involvment in the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa, it's all relatively public knowledge and has been discussed in the media of today's society.
So please, you tell me, have you heard about this? If so, from where? Is the media ignoring it? Are they just a little late to the game and will spread the story eventually? Or am I making too much of a big deal about this?
Is this, this , this or this (all found on their homepages) bigger news than the Catholic Church stealing infants?
Looks like I might start looking to the BBC for my news from now on
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Are We Sexualizing Our Children?
This is a tough one. On the one hand, I want to scream at how ridiculously prudish society is becoming. On the other, there are some cases which scream an undeniable yes. So where exactly do you draw the line?
Now I live in a country where these extremes are not so well defined as of yet, so I bring my mentality to the table here. I remember when I worked for a summer in a girls camp in the US, a "lovely" place with 8 showers, 2 of them outdoors, to be shared between about 100 kids and staff. Because of this, two of the little girls came up with a brilliant idea, let's shower together to save time. Well, the staff leader freaked. That's inapprppriate!! It doesnt matter whether or not they had bathing suits on!! You CANNOT allow it!! One thing I did agree with was that yea, it didn't matter whether or not they had bathing suits on. However, what I thought was inappropriate was shaming two 9-yr old girls as if they were doing something wrong. To me, this was an extreme case of the prudes, to the point that it might even hurt the kids their warped ideas where meant to protect. If anything, the overly-prudish behaviour seems to me to be sexualizing them more, because you're projecting sexual ideas onto children when they are nothing of the sort. Once again, this comes from the mentality of a European, where 2-4yr old kids regularly run around the beach naked, where 4-9yr old girls only wear the bottom half of bathing suits, and brothers and sisters or even friends have baths together until they decide they're too embarassed to do so themselves. It's normal, they're kids, no one thinks twice about it.
The line became much finer to define when I watched the following two videos:
When I saw the first one, I didn't care, and yet the second one made me sick. I got to wondering, why is that?
OK so I had to make a few assumptions about the first video. Ana is obviously very biased in her opinion of the pole dancing classes, so she gave very little concrete information about what it entailed. Basically the information you get is that these girls were taking pole dancing classes, some pictures were posted on facebook, outrage ensued.
Disclaimer: I don't want to hear anyone drudging out the old "what about the perverts" argument. It's a dead horse, lay off it. First of all, the day we modify our behavior to satisfy a bunch of crazy freaks is the day the crazy freaks win. Secondly, perverts will get aroused by any picture of a kid, be it in a bathing suit at the beach, at a gymnastics class doing the splits or in a burka. There's no point thinking about what a perv is going to think when choosing your pictures.
Putting that aside, I had made a few assumptions based on A. the picture they showed of the instructor of the class and B. what I know about pole dancing classes from personal experience (obviously if any of my assumptions turn out not to be true, the following argument does not apply). Firstly, based on the extremely innocent picture of the instructor, the outfits that I presume the girls were wearing were not sexy or skimpy, they were at worst the classic gymnast costume. Secondly, from my own experience in dabbling in pole dancing in Ireland, I assumed they were not being taught stripper moves either.
Pole dancing classes started becoming popular because it was realized that pole dancing is AMAZING exercise which works out every single part of your body. Also, it's freaking hard. If any guy decided to look in on the pole dancing class that I went to in order to get off would have been sorely disappointed to find a group of sweaty red-faced ladies in leggings and baggy shirts trying to keep up with the instructor and not fall flat on their faces. They would have gotten much more gratification from watching a belly-dancing class. But of course as soon as people hear "pole" they think "stripper", so when it got out that mothers would ever let their daughters participate in pole-dancing classes made both the hosts and the comments section go bezerk. However, if my assumptions are true, i say pfft PRUDES! leave them alone!! Just because the pole is vertical rather than horizontal doesn't make their gymnastics any more or less sexy. GET OVER IT.
Then I saw the second video, and I thought I'd be sick. A woman dressing up her 3yr old as a fucking hooker?! Disgusting. Outrageous. Immoral. That poor child. But what made me react so differently to these two different situations? Where do I draw the line in my own subconscious, for me to have such a visceral reaction to one but nothing to the other?
It comes down to what we project onto our children. When a woman intentionally sexualizes her child, that's disgusting. Kids will be kids, and we forget that they have a completely different mentality before puberty. Sex does not factor into the life of a 7yr old, and yet it's hard for us to get it out of our heads. So as long as kids will be kids, let them be. If by age 6 they're still not embarassed to take a bath with their brother or sister, let them. If they want to put on a dance for you in their bathing suit at the beach, there's nothing wrong with that. However, when adults take their own sexualized thoughts and stick them onto their kids, whether it's to dress them up like a prostitute or to chide them for swimming naked with a friend, to me that is disgusting in equal measure. If a 3-yr old gets into her mother's makeup and slathers lipstick on her face it's cute, laugh and take a picture. If a mother puts red lipstick on her fake-tanned 3yr old in order to turn more heads at a beauty pageant, it turns my stomach. That's where I personally draw the line.
Where do you?
Now I live in a country where these extremes are not so well defined as of yet, so I bring my mentality to the table here. I remember when I worked for a summer in a girls camp in the US, a "lovely" place with 8 showers, 2 of them outdoors, to be shared between about 100 kids and staff. Because of this, two of the little girls came up with a brilliant idea, let's shower together to save time. Well, the staff leader freaked. That's inapprppriate!! It doesnt matter whether or not they had bathing suits on!! You CANNOT allow it!! One thing I did agree with was that yea, it didn't matter whether or not they had bathing suits on. However, what I thought was inappropriate was shaming two 9-yr old girls as if they were doing something wrong. To me, this was an extreme case of the prudes, to the point that it might even hurt the kids their warped ideas where meant to protect. If anything, the overly-prudish behaviour seems to me to be sexualizing them more, because you're projecting sexual ideas onto children when they are nothing of the sort. Once again, this comes from the mentality of a European, where 2-4yr old kids regularly run around the beach naked, where 4-9yr old girls only wear the bottom half of bathing suits, and brothers and sisters or even friends have baths together until they decide they're too embarassed to do so themselves. It's normal, they're kids, no one thinks twice about it.
The line became much finer to define when I watched the following two videos:
When I saw the first one, I didn't care, and yet the second one made me sick. I got to wondering, why is that?
OK so I had to make a few assumptions about the first video. Ana is obviously very biased in her opinion of the pole dancing classes, so she gave very little concrete information about what it entailed. Basically the information you get is that these girls were taking pole dancing classes, some pictures were posted on facebook, outrage ensued.
Disclaimer: I don't want to hear anyone drudging out the old "what about the perverts" argument. It's a dead horse, lay off it. First of all, the day we modify our behavior to satisfy a bunch of crazy freaks is the day the crazy freaks win. Secondly, perverts will get aroused by any picture of a kid, be it in a bathing suit at the beach, at a gymnastics class doing the splits or in a burka. There's no point thinking about what a perv is going to think when choosing your pictures.
Putting that aside, I had made a few assumptions based on A. the picture they showed of the instructor of the class and B. what I know about pole dancing classes from personal experience (obviously if any of my assumptions turn out not to be true, the following argument does not apply). Firstly, based on the extremely innocent picture of the instructor, the outfits that I presume the girls were wearing were not sexy or skimpy, they were at worst the classic gymnast costume. Secondly, from my own experience in dabbling in pole dancing in Ireland, I assumed they were not being taught stripper moves either.
Pole dancing classes started becoming popular because it was realized that pole dancing is AMAZING exercise which works out every single part of your body. Also, it's freaking hard. If any guy decided to look in on the pole dancing class that I went to in order to get off would have been sorely disappointed to find a group of sweaty red-faced ladies in leggings and baggy shirts trying to keep up with the instructor and not fall flat on their faces. They would have gotten much more gratification from watching a belly-dancing class. But of course as soon as people hear "pole" they think "stripper", so when it got out that mothers would ever let their daughters participate in pole-dancing classes made both the hosts and the comments section go bezerk. However, if my assumptions are true, i say pfft PRUDES! leave them alone!! Just because the pole is vertical rather than horizontal doesn't make their gymnastics any more or less sexy. GET OVER IT.
Then I saw the second video, and I thought I'd be sick. A woman dressing up her 3yr old as a fucking hooker?! Disgusting. Outrageous. Immoral. That poor child. But what made me react so differently to these two different situations? Where do I draw the line in my own subconscious, for me to have such a visceral reaction to one but nothing to the other?
It comes down to what we project onto our children. When a woman intentionally sexualizes her child, that's disgusting. Kids will be kids, and we forget that they have a completely different mentality before puberty. Sex does not factor into the life of a 7yr old, and yet it's hard for us to get it out of our heads. So as long as kids will be kids, let them be. If by age 6 they're still not embarassed to take a bath with their brother or sister, let them. If they want to put on a dance for you in their bathing suit at the beach, there's nothing wrong with that. However, when adults take their own sexualized thoughts and stick them onto their kids, whether it's to dress them up like a prostitute or to chide them for swimming naked with a friend, to me that is disgusting in equal measure. If a 3-yr old gets into her mother's makeup and slathers lipstick on her face it's cute, laugh and take a picture. If a mother puts red lipstick on her fake-tanned 3yr old in order to turn more heads at a beauty pageant, it turns my stomach. That's where I personally draw the line.
Where do you?
Monday, October 17, 2011
The Patriotic Mentality
As I explained in my first ever post, I have a double nationality, with one foot firmly in Italy, and one (well, perhaps a toe at the moment) in the US of A. This has given me a unique perspective, one that can view both countries in both a subjective and objective way. Something that has always struck me about the accepted cultural mentality with regards to these countries (speaking in generalizations of course, there are always people who are more objective with regards to their own country) are polar opposites, and yet I see both as being straight roads to failure. Let me explain further.
I have always been floored by the patriotism that is commonplace in the USA. The reverence for the flag, the pledge of allegiance, the national anthem played at every baseball game, all of it baffled me. But even if you forget about all of that, there is still a prevalent mentality, sometimes a subconscious one, that the USA is the best country in the world, and every other country wants to be like US. When I used to visit during my college years, I had numerous people, and I mean liberal, freethinking and well-travelled people, ask me why on earth hadn't I chosen the US when I was deciding on a college. In order to keep the answer short and away from "starting my working life under a pile of debt just didnt seem all that appealing to me" I gave them my second reason for not doing so, because the US is just too far away from the rest of the world. They all looked at me baffled, thought for a moment, and all of them, I shit you not, gave me the exact same answer:
"Huh. That's interesting. I never thought of that. See for us, America is the world"
The lack of internationality also aside, the patriotism in the US runs extremely deep. Americans do believe, unconsciously or not, that they are a model for the rest of the world, that everyone wants to move there and live there, that they have the best quality of life of the developed world, despite the stark evidence to the contrary. If I picked any old bar in the US, stood up, raised my glass and yelled "A toast to the USA! The greatest country in the world!" I would probably be met with a variation of nodding to outright applause (if any of you USAers want to give this a shot for me and share your stories, I'd love to hear them!)
Now lets contrast that with the prevalent Italian mentality.
In Italy, all you ever hear is "this is the worst fucking country in the entire world". When I tell people that Im here doing my PhD at the moment, all they can say to me is "What? Why the hell did you come back here? You speak English, leave this god forsaken country! Don't you know that this country has gone to the dogs?! If I were young, I'd leave this place and never look back! Well you finish your PhD, but then get out as fast as you possibly can! Here, we might as well be living in the Congo the way things are going nowadays. You'll see, we're desitined for a ruin the likes of which Haiti hasn't even seen. We're the laughing stock of the EU let me tell you!" And on and on and on. Good old Italian optimism. If I picked any old bar in Italy, stood up and raised a glass and yelled "A toast to Italy! The greatest country in the whole world!" I'd be met with laughter, jeers, and at the door the men in white coats would be waiting to bring me to a special place.
That isn't to say that Italy doesn't have its problems. I am the first to ackowlegde that there is a lot of work to do to get this country back on its feet. But Italians fail to recognize that there are other countries that have it much, much worse. They take what they have for granted, that if Italy has it, that means everyone does (like a very inclusive universal health care system), and everything else is just garbage and attests to the fact that Italy is unsavable, shameful and embarassing.
And now these two polar opposite countries are both facing some extremely tough times ahead. Both need sweeping reform and really new ideas. Yet what struck me most was how these two extremely opposing views seem to come to the same conclusion: hampering this change that is sorely needed.
On the one side you have the American view. What this can come to often is "yes, we have some problems, but we're still Number 1. We're still the best. We may need to change some things, but what we're doing works, we're number 1 after all, so theres no need to rock the boat all that much"
Compare that to the Italian view: "It doesn't matter what we do. All politicians are corrupt bums. I don't even vote anymore. Why should I? they're all the exact same and will the steal the exact same amount. Nothing is going to change. Ever. No point in getting our hopes up or expecting anything that's never going to happen".
See how these opposite extremes come down to the same thing? In order to have real change we have to put all of these personal biases aside. The idea that "change is impossible" or "we're too perfect to change" is ludicrous. People need to start looking at things objectively. America, don't be afraid to copy something that is working wonders in Norway because you think they're "socialist" or because you're subconsciously afraid that by taking a page from someone elses book you will diminish your status as alpha male and ackowledge an inferiority on your part. Italy, don't be afraid to really and truly reach for the stars, to identify what problems there are and do your part to eradicate them to create a better future for your children. Change is not bad, its inevitable, the important thing is to make sure that you change for the better, and you change enough to really make a difference.
I have always been floored by the patriotism that is commonplace in the USA. The reverence for the flag, the pledge of allegiance, the national anthem played at every baseball game, all of it baffled me. But even if you forget about all of that, there is still a prevalent mentality, sometimes a subconscious one, that the USA is the best country in the world, and every other country wants to be like US. When I used to visit during my college years, I had numerous people, and I mean liberal, freethinking and well-travelled people, ask me why on earth hadn't I chosen the US when I was deciding on a college. In order to keep the answer short and away from "starting my working life under a pile of debt just didnt seem all that appealing to me" I gave them my second reason for not doing so, because the US is just too far away from the rest of the world. They all looked at me baffled, thought for a moment, and all of them, I shit you not, gave me the exact same answer:
"Huh. That's interesting. I never thought of that. See for us, America is the world"
The lack of internationality also aside, the patriotism in the US runs extremely deep. Americans do believe, unconsciously or not, that they are a model for the rest of the world, that everyone wants to move there and live there, that they have the best quality of life of the developed world, despite the stark evidence to the contrary. If I picked any old bar in the US, stood up, raised my glass and yelled "A toast to the USA! The greatest country in the world!" I would probably be met with a variation of nodding to outright applause (if any of you USAers want to give this a shot for me and share your stories, I'd love to hear them!)
Now lets contrast that with the prevalent Italian mentality.
In Italy, all you ever hear is "this is the worst fucking country in the entire world". When I tell people that Im here doing my PhD at the moment, all they can say to me is "What? Why the hell did you come back here? You speak English, leave this god forsaken country! Don't you know that this country has gone to the dogs?! If I were young, I'd leave this place and never look back! Well you finish your PhD, but then get out as fast as you possibly can! Here, we might as well be living in the Congo the way things are going nowadays. You'll see, we're desitined for a ruin the likes of which Haiti hasn't even seen. We're the laughing stock of the EU let me tell you!" And on and on and on. Good old Italian optimism. If I picked any old bar in Italy, stood up and raised a glass and yelled "A toast to Italy! The greatest country in the whole world!" I'd be met with laughter, jeers, and at the door the men in white coats would be waiting to bring me to a special place.
That isn't to say that Italy doesn't have its problems. I am the first to ackowlegde that there is a lot of work to do to get this country back on its feet. But Italians fail to recognize that there are other countries that have it much, much worse. They take what they have for granted, that if Italy has it, that means everyone does (like a very inclusive universal health care system), and everything else is just garbage and attests to the fact that Italy is unsavable, shameful and embarassing.
And now these two polar opposite countries are both facing some extremely tough times ahead. Both need sweeping reform and really new ideas. Yet what struck me most was how these two extremely opposing views seem to come to the same conclusion: hampering this change that is sorely needed.
On the one side you have the American view. What this can come to often is "yes, we have some problems, but we're still Number 1. We're still the best. We may need to change some things, but what we're doing works, we're number 1 after all, so theres no need to rock the boat all that much"
Compare that to the Italian view: "It doesn't matter what we do. All politicians are corrupt bums. I don't even vote anymore. Why should I? they're all the exact same and will the steal the exact same amount. Nothing is going to change. Ever. No point in getting our hopes up or expecting anything that's never going to happen".
See how these opposite extremes come down to the same thing? In order to have real change we have to put all of these personal biases aside. The idea that "change is impossible" or "we're too perfect to change" is ludicrous. People need to start looking at things objectively. America, don't be afraid to copy something that is working wonders in Norway because you think they're "socialist" or because you're subconsciously afraid that by taking a page from someone elses book you will diminish your status as alpha male and ackowledge an inferiority on your part. Italy, don't be afraid to really and truly reach for the stars, to identify what problems there are and do your part to eradicate them to create a better future for your children. Change is not bad, its inevitable, the important thing is to make sure that you change for the better, and you change enough to really make a difference.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Why Do You Care?
So for these reasons I have not delved into the biology behind evolutionary theory, or explained certain mechanisms that may have been beyond some people's understanding. However, I still enjoy watching science videos, and if I see someone in the comments section that hasn't understood something I do tend to try to explain it to them. This has led to a question that I have been getting with increasing frequency, especially from my mother: Why do you care?
In all honesty my mother comes from a partially biased perspective. Of course she accepts science and evolution, but she sees my involvment with creationism being tightly linked with my atheism and as a personal attack on anyone or anything spiritual or supernatural. She therefore becomes unconsciously defensive if I say things like "have you heard that this has happened" or "did you see that this bill might pass" with regards to creationism, until she bursts. Why do you care what happens in a country that is not your own? Why do you waste your energy watching these videos and responding to comments? Why do you get so worked up over nothing?! What is your purpose here, just to attack someone's belief for no reason?!
Of course I can't say "wow Mom, since we've never been that close I was just fishing for conversation, and I thought of something I had heard about". But the question is worth answering: why do I care?
It's because I care about science and education. I feel that every human being should have a right to have access to good education if they want one, whether they live in the Congo or the USA. It's because I think that people have ignored creationists for too long, thinking them a part of a fringe minority not worth considering, and it was precisely that lack of interest which has allowed their faux science to spread into classrooms all over the world, particularly the US and the UK. I has been a lack of clarity from the science side that has allowed so many people to fall for deceitful creationist talking points leading to a whopping 46% of the US identifying themselves as young-earth creationists, and while it is not that high in the UK yet, the number grows.
This is just one of those examples of people thinking that certain topics should be handled with kid gloves just because they touch on religion. I know for a fact that my mother nor anyone else would get this upset with me if it was holocaust deniers that were gaining so much traction, nor would she ask me "why do you care what happens in a country that is not your own" if I had brought up what was happening in Zimbabwe or Iran. I have this terrible habit of giving a shit about things that are not necessarily firmly within my monkeysphere.
I enjoy teaching others and explaining things to them so that they can also experience the wonder and beauty of the natural world. I have a true passion for biology, which is why I have wanted to study it for as long as I can remember. I want to share my wonder and knowledge about fascinating things about the natural world the same way I want to share a movie, song or book that I found particularly moving with my friends and family. It's just part of my personality. I will never, ever be too busy or not feel like explaining something that I fully understand to someone who does not. Gee, I wonder why I wound up tutoring half my bio class in high school.....
Time to take the kid gloves off. Science is science, it shouldn't matter why someone doesn't get it when you attempt to explain it to them. And if you are one of those people that gets defensive when you hear about this sort of thing, try to really examine the reason for your discomfort. Is it because you avoid all subjects regarding education, or do you treat this particular one differently than you would someone who doesn't believe the holocaust ever happened, or that Mussolini and Stalin were actually great guys?
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Going Back to Original Meanings
It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Take a word that your opposition identifies with, twist it's meaning so that it becomes an insult, watch the other side scamper away and try to find another term to define them and even use that old word to fling at each other in insult. What's more pathetic than people who do that is people who let it work by running away from the new meaning they have found attached to that word.
Words are words, we can decide that they mean whatever we want them to mean. That is why, whenever engaging in any kind of debate with someone, I get very fiscal about defining the words we are going to use before we get started. It may sound like arguing semantics, but it can put a pin in the squirming worms of apologist talking points before you allow them to waste a half hour of your time.
Here I am not trying to say that one word has one absolute meaning and that they can never be redefined. I am saying that, in protest of this sneaky tactic we should not run away from these new meanings that have cropped up for perfectly fine words. We should embrace those old words that define us, and to have a little fun we can invent new words to take on the false meaning that have since been attached to them. Here are some examples:
1. Feminist
Original Meaning: A person who argues for or defends equal rights for women
It Has Become: Hairy-armpitted hippie lesbian know-it-all who wants to castrate every man who dares even look at a woman's ass in passing.
Pfft please. I may piss off a few of the "new" feminists by saying I don't give two shits if a man looks at a woman's ass, any more than I think men should care if I take a gander at a particularly fine man-ass that happens to cross my path. It's only natural. Of course that does not mean that a man should treat a woman differently because of the fineness of her ass, or think it appropriate to grope her regardless of what she's wearing, but that is a completely different story. I want a respectful environment for my fellow vagina-bearers, not the fucking thought police.
However I have been called a feminist as an insult quite a few times. I have to admit that even I started to say "ugh I'm NOT a feminist, just because I think you're a moron when you tell me to get back in the kitchen!" Sexism is something that people don't think exists anymore, so they take equal opportunities for granted and think that if there are still "feminists" around then they must just be here to break our balls. Screw that. Be proud to be a real feminist, and to the women that do fit the above-mentioned description here's a new word for you:
Female Supremacist
2. Animal Rights Activist
Original Meaning: A person who advocates for better living conditions and against the needless causing of suffering towards animals
It Has Become: PETA-loving vegan vandal who advocates for the bombing of medical research centers
As a researcher AND an animal lover, I find this one quite upsetting. As I said before in my post on veganism, vegetarianism and animal rights, I think that this new definition does a great disservice to those who want reasonable legislation to be passed on behalf of animals. I want to ban puppy farms, not pet ownership. I want cows, pigs, sheep and chickens to have good living conditions, not to ban the sale of meat. It is also the members of the last category that fuel this separation as well, saying that you cant really be an animal lover unless you are firmly on their side. Let's face it, a vegan world is never going to exist. So let's compromise: we will keep the term animal rights activist, since we might actually be able to acheive some changes on the legislative level, and you can have:
Vegan Fundamentalist
3. Liberal - In the US
Original Meaning: A person who advocates for the freedom of the individual and their rights
It Has Become: 1. God-hating atheist communist who is also secretly a totalitarian nazi sympathizer
2. Pussy
OK (1) the most extreme case scenario, but not too far off if you put together all of the ways that Fox News has used the term. What's worse is that this one has worked wonders, and now you have the left scampering over to the term "progressive", which is slowly put surely going down the same sad road as liberal is. Stop running people. Say it proudly! You are standing up for LIBERTY and EQUAL RIGHTS for every citizen, things that are undeniably patriotic and American. And for all of you who ran for the hills at the potential of criticism from the other side, you all can keep:
Pussy
Any more words I've forgotten? Let me know
Words are words, we can decide that they mean whatever we want them to mean. That is why, whenever engaging in any kind of debate with someone, I get very fiscal about defining the words we are going to use before we get started. It may sound like arguing semantics, but it can put a pin in the squirming worms of apologist talking points before you allow them to waste a half hour of your time.
Here I am not trying to say that one word has one absolute meaning and that they can never be redefined. I am saying that, in protest of this sneaky tactic we should not run away from these new meanings that have cropped up for perfectly fine words. We should embrace those old words that define us, and to have a little fun we can invent new words to take on the false meaning that have since been attached to them. Here are some examples:
1. Feminist
Original Meaning: A person who argues for or defends equal rights for women
It Has Become: Hairy-armpitted hippie lesbian know-it-all who wants to castrate every man who dares even look at a woman's ass in passing.
Pfft please. I may piss off a few of the "new" feminists by saying I don't give two shits if a man looks at a woman's ass, any more than I think men should care if I take a gander at a particularly fine man-ass that happens to cross my path. It's only natural. Of course that does not mean that a man should treat a woman differently because of the fineness of her ass, or think it appropriate to grope her regardless of what she's wearing, but that is a completely different story. I want a respectful environment for my fellow vagina-bearers, not the fucking thought police.
However I have been called a feminist as an insult quite a few times. I have to admit that even I started to say "ugh I'm NOT a feminist, just because I think you're a moron when you tell me to get back in the kitchen!" Sexism is something that people don't think exists anymore, so they take equal opportunities for granted and think that if there are still "feminists" around then they must just be here to break our balls. Screw that. Be proud to be a real feminist, and to the women that do fit the above-mentioned description here's a new word for you:
Female Supremacist
2. Animal Rights Activist
Original Meaning: A person who advocates for better living conditions and against the needless causing of suffering towards animals
It Has Become: PETA-loving vegan vandal who advocates for the bombing of medical research centers
As a researcher AND an animal lover, I find this one quite upsetting. As I said before in my post on veganism, vegetarianism and animal rights, I think that this new definition does a great disservice to those who want reasonable legislation to be passed on behalf of animals. I want to ban puppy farms, not pet ownership. I want cows, pigs, sheep and chickens to have good living conditions, not to ban the sale of meat. It is also the members of the last category that fuel this separation as well, saying that you cant really be an animal lover unless you are firmly on their side. Let's face it, a vegan world is never going to exist. So let's compromise: we will keep the term animal rights activist, since we might actually be able to acheive some changes on the legislative level, and you can have:
Vegan Fundamentalist
3. Liberal - In the US
Original Meaning: A person who advocates for the freedom of the individual and their rights
It Has Become: 1. God-hating atheist communist who is also secretly a totalitarian nazi sympathizer
2. Pussy
OK (1) the most extreme case scenario, but not too far off if you put together all of the ways that Fox News has used the term. What's worse is that this one has worked wonders, and now you have the left scampering over to the term "progressive", which is slowly put surely going down the same sad road as liberal is. Stop running people. Say it proudly! You are standing up for LIBERTY and EQUAL RIGHTS for every citizen, things that are undeniably patriotic and American. And for all of you who ran for the hills at the potential of criticism from the other side, you all can keep:
Pussy
Any more words I've forgotten? Let me know
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)