I've been talking about some quasi-feminist issues quite a lot recently, but I want to address just one more before I move on to some other things. I admit, this is going to be a short little rant, I was planning a much more complicated post but I am up to my ass in work at the moment so I have very little time to do this right now. I promise I will be more attentive very soon.
I wanted to talk about people who get outraged at men who undress women with their eyes, and men responding by saying "well don't dress so provocatively then!" I have some very mixed feelings about the whole discussion that I wanted to put out there.
First of all guys, be honest, if a woman is attractive it really doesn't matter what she's wearing, if she's not reeking from a week without showering and doesn't have dried egg and blood on her raggedy grey sweatshirt, you're going to undress her in your mind anyway. You're a red-blooded male and your mind just goes there. However when you're called on it you get extremely defensive, saying it's not you're fault that hussy has the nerve to wear a push-up bra, and anyway why do you feminazis want castrated men coasting through the halls anyway!!! Here's the thing, women think about sex too. A lot.
Relating to the fact that I am particularly busy these days, I was in my fifth meeting/seminar of the day with two more still to go, so of course my mind started to wander. The man talking was, lets face it, kinda cute, and I began undressing him in my mind. Oh how horribly sexist of me! While he was going on about scientific research I was pondering the various things I might do to him on that lovely desk. Pure fantasy of course, I'm happily in love with a perfectly wonderful man and would never dream of approaching this guy in real life. Even if I was single it still would never happen, he's not actually my type at all, but when you're mind wanders it just goes there. It says "I'm bored, I want to think about sex. Hmm he'll do for my mind fantasy!" For shame for shame for shame.
So now that the secret's out it looks even worse for us. Well fuck it if you do it too then WHY THE HELL are you busting our balls for doing the same to you women?!! See, SEE you're the sexist ones! You want unequal treatment I knew it!!! I'll tell you what the difference is, my darlings. The inherent difference is in the ability to multitask. Why do you think us women are able to keep it on the down-low?
When I'm fantasizing about the lovely man who happens to be giving the talk at the time, I can still listen to what he is saying. I'm not blankly staring at him with an obvious dog-face of arousal. I don't blankly fixate on his ass or crotch the way you guys go for the boobs. I still follow what he's talking about, take notes, while all the time wondering if he's a boxers or briefs man. Most importantly, his appearance doesn't influence my perception of him as a scientist or a professional. I don't think that his deserving of my taking him seriously is inveresly correlated with his attractiveness. The two things are completely seperate, and therein you fellas need to take a lesson.
Learn to oggle a woman minus the oggling part. Respect her as much as she is deserving of respect, no more because she wears glasses or no less because she has blond hair and nice boobs. Learn to still hear what she's saying and evaluate her worth as a professional regardless of what she may look like naked, and no one will give a shit what goes on in your head. Don't think that (most rational) women are going to try to become the thought police, it's just that we so often have to deal with our work being judged based on our appearance that we might come off as being prudes, but we're not. Just separate the two and you'll never get called on it again, because no one will ever know what's going on in your head if it doesn't show on your face.
Word to the wise ;)
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Word To The Wise: When No Means No And When It Means Try Harder
This was something that I felt needed a little clarification for all of the guys out there still scratching their heads over the complexity of female desires. It was originally brought back to the forefront of my mind by a post on Greta Christina's blog about an article, written by a woman no less, saying that just once in her life a woman should be wildly and passionately pursued by a man. Of course this prompted a slew of stalking story responses from females detailing how horrible it can be to be, myself included.
Now I already know that this has quite a few men wondering what the hell they're supposed to do. On the one hand no one wants to be a creepy stalker. On the other hand, many women love romance and play hard to get. All the rom coms show men going to the end of the Earth, stopping planes from taking off or traveling half across the globe to gallantly declare their undying love to their beautiful soulmate, and all the women in the theater alongside them are crying and moaning that they would kill to have such a demonstration of love. So what the hell do these women want?! We all know that no is supposed to mean no, but what about when it doesn't? How are these poor men supposed to tell the difference?
On one hand I do kind of get them, although this is partially their fault, or rather the patriarchal society that we live in. While the number of confident feminists is on the rise in many places, there are still the vast majority of women that can't afford to get a "bad reputation". You can't immediately say yes to a guy that shows some interest in you, what if he thinks you're a total slut? What if all he wants you for is a roll in the hay, while promising you so much more? What often results is a careful game during which the woman will assess just how seriously she is wanted by this man. If he's not particularly interested he'll wander off and not call back. If he is he'll persist, and at the same time respect her more for not being so easy. But what if she's not interested at all, or she definitely wants to break off the relationship? How is the man supposed to know which is which?
Well we think we're being pretty obvious, but since some men seem to need a little help I figured I'd come forward and explain a few straightforward signals to you in order to be able to distinguish the two.When approaching the woman in question, does she
1. Look up and away when turning down your date, or look you straight in the eye and say no?
2. Laugh and slap you on the arm when you tease her, or flinch when you touch her arm?
3. Answer the phone regularly when you call, or let it go to voicemail often?
4. Have plans with her friends often, or get short tempered when you ask her out?
5. Never answer you directly when turning you down, or say please when asking you to stop?
6. Say "maybe" and "I don't know" a lot, or tell you to move on?
7. Is quite giggly, or impatient?
If she tends to say the first part of these scenarios, get nicer and try again. If it tends to be the second, forget it and leave her the hell alone. Honest women will be direct when they're not interested, don't try to pressure her in to changing her mind.
This will seem ridiculously obvious to many men out there, but personal experience has taught me never to take men knowing these things for granted. \There is not a single woman I know well that has not had a man in her life that didn't know how to take no for an answer. I hope these little tips will help those of you out there who need a little guidance with what women want.
And to the girls out there, are there any signals that I've missed?
Now I already know that this has quite a few men wondering what the hell they're supposed to do. On the one hand no one wants to be a creepy stalker. On the other hand, many women love romance and play hard to get. All the rom coms show men going to the end of the Earth, stopping planes from taking off or traveling half across the globe to gallantly declare their undying love to their beautiful soulmate, and all the women in the theater alongside them are crying and moaning that they would kill to have such a demonstration of love. So what the hell do these women want?! We all know that no is supposed to mean no, but what about when it doesn't? How are these poor men supposed to tell the difference?
On one hand I do kind of get them, although this is partially their fault, or rather the patriarchal society that we live in. While the number of confident feminists is on the rise in many places, there are still the vast majority of women that can't afford to get a "bad reputation". You can't immediately say yes to a guy that shows some interest in you, what if he thinks you're a total slut? What if all he wants you for is a roll in the hay, while promising you so much more? What often results is a careful game during which the woman will assess just how seriously she is wanted by this man. If he's not particularly interested he'll wander off and not call back. If he is he'll persist, and at the same time respect her more for not being so easy. But what if she's not interested at all, or she definitely wants to break off the relationship? How is the man supposed to know which is which?
Well we think we're being pretty obvious, but since some men seem to need a little help I figured I'd come forward and explain a few straightforward signals to you in order to be able to distinguish the two.When approaching the woman in question, does she
1. Look up and away when turning down your date, or look you straight in the eye and say no?
2. Laugh and slap you on the arm when you tease her, or flinch when you touch her arm?
3. Answer the phone regularly when you call, or let it go to voicemail often?
4. Have plans with her friends often, or get short tempered when you ask her out?
5. Never answer you directly when turning you down, or say please when asking you to stop?
6. Say "maybe" and "I don't know" a lot, or tell you to move on?
7. Is quite giggly, or impatient?
If she tends to say the first part of these scenarios, get nicer and try again. If it tends to be the second, forget it and leave her the hell alone. Honest women will be direct when they're not interested, don't try to pressure her in to changing her mind.
This will seem ridiculously obvious to many men out there, but personal experience has taught me never to take men knowing these things for granted. \There is not a single woman I know well that has not had a man in her life that didn't know how to take no for an answer. I hope these little tips will help those of you out there who need a little guidance with what women want.
And to the girls out there, are there any signals that I've missed?
Saturday, November 26, 2011
What Is An Atheist?
Yesterday I was speaking to one of my students about religion and atheism as it influences our society, and he told me that when he was in China his guide proudly stated that China is 85% atheist. This made me scratch my head for a moment. I was pretty sure the number is not actually that high. The reason for this statistic is because in China they only consider people that are members of an organized religion to be religious. All of those people that give offerings to Buddhist temples or pray to their ancestors are counted as atheist.
But wait a minute, I thought. Just because these people are praying to great-great grandma instead of Yahweh they're still practicing a religion aren't they? It's still superstition. They still pray and give offerings and thank a supernatural entity that they believe directly influences their lives. They're not atheist the way, say, Denmark is atheist. My student responded by saying that the reason the Chinese don't count ancestor worship as religion is because it does not bring any rules to society. There's no religious holidays associated with it, no dietary rules and no influence on the lawmaking of divorce or stem cell research or any of that.
**Quick aside** when Chinese people get divorced, who is the child tied to? Since they have the one child rule and all that, if a married couple with a kid get divorced and remarried, which of the two is not allowed to have another child? If you know do tell me
My response to that was that even though there are no religious holidays tied to ancestor worship there are still some cultural rules that are so deeply ingrained they might not even see that they are tied to this practice. The most obvious one is the taboo of going against your parent's wishes and "bringing shame on the family". The role of the elders in your family is so hyped up in ancestor worship that to do something to shame them is the absolute worst thing you can do, which puts enormous pressure on young Chinese people.
While he sort of agreed with me on that point and we moved on to other things it still made me wonder, how do you define atheism exactly? As the root of the word comes to absence-of-theism, it is difficult to pinpoint what does and does not apply. I wish it could be as simple as "people who don't believe in silly things without evidence". If that was the case holocaust deniers, anti-vaxers, 9/11 truthers and children who believe in Santa are all excluded from being atheists. I think it's going to have to be more subtle than that.
Let's look at a couple of dictionary definitions. dictionary.com weighs in like this:
But wait a minute, I thought. Just because these people are praying to great-great grandma instead of Yahweh they're still practicing a religion aren't they? It's still superstition. They still pray and give offerings and thank a supernatural entity that they believe directly influences their lives. They're not atheist the way, say, Denmark is atheist. My student responded by saying that the reason the Chinese don't count ancestor worship as religion is because it does not bring any rules to society. There's no religious holidays associated with it, no dietary rules and no influence on the lawmaking of divorce or stem cell research or any of that.
**Quick aside** when Chinese people get divorced, who is the child tied to? Since they have the one child rule and all that, if a married couple with a kid get divorced and remarried, which of the two is not allowed to have another child? If you know do tell me
My response to that was that even though there are no religious holidays tied to ancestor worship there are still some cultural rules that are so deeply ingrained they might not even see that they are tied to this practice. The most obvious one is the taboo of going against your parent's wishes and "bringing shame on the family". The role of the elders in your family is so hyped up in ancestor worship that to do something to shame them is the absolute worst thing you can do, which puts enormous pressure on young Chinese people.
While he sort of agreed with me on that point and we moved on to other things it still made me wonder, how do you define atheism exactly? As the root of the word comes to absence-of-theism, it is difficult to pinpoint what does and does not apply. I wish it could be as simple as "people who don't believe in silly things without evidence". If that was the case holocaust deniers, anti-vaxers, 9/11 truthers and children who believe in Santa are all excluded from being atheists. I think it's going to have to be more subtle than that.
Let's look at a couple of dictionary definitions. dictionary.com weighs in like this:
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
How about the Cambridge University Press:
atheist
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
A few more different dictionaries all give pretty much the same definition. While they do not talk about the presence or absence of an organized religion with a distinct set of rules, they all mention the lack of belief in God or gods. So now the question becomes this, do the ancestors that are prayed to qualify as gods?
Now when looking up the word "god" we get many more definitions, however I think the first two are the most telling. Let's take the Oxford dictionary as an example:
God
- 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
- 2 (god)(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:
atheism
The disbelief in the existence of a supernatural or superhuman being that has power over nature or human fortunes.
This new definition would also include the god of the Bible, the Qu'ran etc, while also encompassing other "softer" religions like some forms of Buddhism.
Also, If you also want to exclude the believers in all that other silly stuff that doesn't have to do with religion, you can thank Thunderf00t for this little gem of a word:
pearlist
A person who bases their views on Physical Evidence and Reasoned Logic
Friday, November 25, 2011
Tough Questions: Why Can't Men Hit Women?
As a continuation of yesterday's topic, I figured while I was at it to bring up an old argument that I used to hear in high school (where I was typically called a "feminist" as an insult) all the time. If you really believe that women and men should be treated equally, and that you shouldn't make any judgement on someone based on their gender, then why is it not as acceptable for a man to hit a woman as it is to hit a man? You can't have it both ways.
OK so let's put aside the argument "It's not OK to hit anyone". It's a silly excuse to avoid the real issue: it is absolutely true that it is socially acceptable for a woman to slap a man if he seriously insults her, but if a man slaps a woman when she's mouthing off it is atrocious, even for the majority of women that advocate equality. Is that wrong? Why or why not?
I had to think about this long and hard, the reason being that I did in fact occasionally get into physical altercations with the opposite sex. It began in elementary school when I put the smack down on the class bully who was actively choking my friend at the time for telling him to piss off. Since then my elementary school years were often spent pulling a bully off my friends' younger siblings and giving them a little taste of their own medicine. The bullies in the school were either my age or older, so my teachers never reprimanded me nor did they ever inform my mother, seeing as I was doing what they all wished they could. By the time I went to middle school, however, they had stopped physically bullying and the only kind of harassment that was thrown around was verbal, so the fights stopped. In high school I was still very much considered one of the guys and it was obvious that I was not afraid to throw down if the need ever came up. I defended a couple of my friends from harassment (both sexual and physical) on the streets and I was still the go-to-girl for this kind of vigilante justice. I suppose the fact that I was considered "between genders" in my teenage years made me the ideal person to ask this question, and it really made me think.
As I thoght about it, I came to two important realizations. First of all I realized that the more I was growing up, the more this taboo of hitting girls(/women) was growing, even in my own mind. The second realization was that while I wouldn't have minded if one of the aforementioned boys tried to smack me, because I would have made them regret it for the rest of their lives, I would have been morally outraged if they did the same thing to one of my "girlier" friends, and I would have made them regret it for the rest of their lives. With this second one, the reason for this disparity clicked in my mind.
As I was growing up, the physical disparity between the sexes started becoming more apparent. While girls and boys aged 7-11 are reasonably equally matched physically, they begin to diverge after puberty. This seems like the most obvious statement in the world, but it's at the heart of the whole issue.
The moral outrage doesn't come (at least doesn't from me) from a person with a penis hitting a person with boobs. It's about hitting a person that is not physically matched to defend themselves. I would be just as outraged to see a fully grown man hitting a young scrawny boy. It is the intent behind that slap that makes it. When a woman slaps a man for being rude, she is saying "I will not tolerate you degrading me like this. You are completely out of line and I want to shock you so you remember it". When a man hits a woman (or by extention, a scrawny teenage boy) for the same reason, that slap says "Know your place. You forget I am stronger than you, I can dominate you if and whenever I choose. I have this power over you, so don't you think of saying something to set me off". The power dynamic is completely different.
I am a woman who has no qualms defending herself with her fists if need be. If a man who is physically matched with me raises his hands with the same intent that he would raise them with another man, that moral outrage disappears for me. If, on the other hand, I see a man raising his hands against a woman who is significantly weaker than him, or one that has been conditioned by society to not defend herself physically, and therefore if the intent behind that slap is the second one I have described, I'll go fucking nuts.
So, can men hit women? The answer is yes only if the intent behind bringing the confrontation to violence is the same as it would be if she were a man, if she has a good chance of defending herself and if she has just as much intention of escalating to that same level. In other words, the same morally justifiable rules that apply for physically engaging another man.
Not such an unequal concept after all is it?
OK so let's put aside the argument "It's not OK to hit anyone". It's a silly excuse to avoid the real issue: it is absolutely true that it is socially acceptable for a woman to slap a man if he seriously insults her, but if a man slaps a woman when she's mouthing off it is atrocious, even for the majority of women that advocate equality. Is that wrong? Why or why not?
I had to think about this long and hard, the reason being that I did in fact occasionally get into physical altercations with the opposite sex. It began in elementary school when I put the smack down on the class bully who was actively choking my friend at the time for telling him to piss off. Since then my elementary school years were often spent pulling a bully off my friends' younger siblings and giving them a little taste of their own medicine. The bullies in the school were either my age or older, so my teachers never reprimanded me nor did they ever inform my mother, seeing as I was doing what they all wished they could. By the time I went to middle school, however, they had stopped physically bullying and the only kind of harassment that was thrown around was verbal, so the fights stopped. In high school I was still very much considered one of the guys and it was obvious that I was not afraid to throw down if the need ever came up. I defended a couple of my friends from harassment (both sexual and physical) on the streets and I was still the go-to-girl for this kind of vigilante justice. I suppose the fact that I was considered "between genders" in my teenage years made me the ideal person to ask this question, and it really made me think.
As I thoght about it, I came to two important realizations. First of all I realized that the more I was growing up, the more this taboo of hitting girls(/women) was growing, even in my own mind. The second realization was that while I wouldn't have minded if one of the aforementioned boys tried to smack me, because I would have made them regret it for the rest of their lives, I would have been morally outraged if they did the same thing to one of my "girlier" friends, and I would have made them regret it for the rest of their lives. With this second one, the reason for this disparity clicked in my mind.
As I was growing up, the physical disparity between the sexes started becoming more apparent. While girls and boys aged 7-11 are reasonably equally matched physically, they begin to diverge after puberty. This seems like the most obvious statement in the world, but it's at the heart of the whole issue.
The moral outrage doesn't come (at least doesn't from me) from a person with a penis hitting a person with boobs. It's about hitting a person that is not physically matched to defend themselves. I would be just as outraged to see a fully grown man hitting a young scrawny boy. It is the intent behind that slap that makes it. When a woman slaps a man for being rude, she is saying "I will not tolerate you degrading me like this. You are completely out of line and I want to shock you so you remember it". When a man hits a woman (or by extention, a scrawny teenage boy) for the same reason, that slap says "Know your place. You forget I am stronger than you, I can dominate you if and whenever I choose. I have this power over you, so don't you think of saying something to set me off". The power dynamic is completely different.
I am a woman who has no qualms defending herself with her fists if need be. If a man who is physically matched with me raises his hands with the same intent that he would raise them with another man, that moral outrage disappears for me. If, on the other hand, I see a man raising his hands against a woman who is significantly weaker than him, or one that has been conditioned by society to not defend herself physically, and therefore if the intent behind that slap is the second one I have described, I'll go fucking nuts.
So, can men hit women? The answer is yes only if the intent behind bringing the confrontation to violence is the same as it would be if she were a man, if she has a good chance of defending herself and if she has just as much intention of escalating to that same level. In other words, the same morally justifiable rules that apply for physically engaging another man.
Not such an unequal concept after all is it?
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Sorry To Break It To You, But It's Really Not That Hard
A few days ago, Dave Futrelle posted a review of an upcoming horror movie "The Woman" on his blog (love him btw. Love the name, love the content, love it all). I've finally decided I will go see it when it comes out on my side of the pond and I might even review it myself when I do.
Apparently the plot has some fairly obvious feminist undertones, which is relatively rare in horror movies. It deals with a "feral" woman captured by a seemingly ordinary family man and chained in his basement in the hope of "civilizing her". I assume at some point she escapes and kills a few people, which prompted this comment from some misogynist on the internet:
I feel I need to respond, only because it seems that every time this comes up there is a big pink elephant in the room that no one is willing to discuss, and one that HISHE parodies excellently. Gentlemen, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you can be pretty much physically overpowered by any woman out there.
Cue to the sound of MGTOW heads exploding everywhere
See gents, you were born with some little dangly bits in between your legs. While you pay enormous attention to those bits on other occasions, you seem to fail to notice that they make you exceedingly vulnerable. One good tap there (I am told that an upwards tap can be even worse than an outright blow on some occasions, but a hard kick will suffice I'm sure) will put any man out of commission long enough for you to run for it and out of harms way. While I am not suggesting this to be an appropriate course of action if you are just having a discussion with someone, I am saying that it is more than appropriate to get yourself out of a life-or-death situation.
"Fine then", I can already hear them say, "If that's so, Miss Uppity Feminazi Kow-It-All, then why are there so many women that get attacked by men? HA checkmate bitch!" Well, Mr. Hypothetical Loser erm I mean MGTOW, there are many reasons why that happens:
1. Blitz Attack If someone sneaks up on you from behind and smacks you over the head, you don't even see them coming and the damage is done before you have time to react
2. Fear If the attacker is holding a knife or a gun, many people will fear being killed and go along with whatever the attacker wants in the hopes of escaping with their lives. Weapons even the playing field
3. Panic Some people react under panic, others freeze. The person may have ample opportunity to go for the proverbial jewels, but the thought never crosses their minds at the time
4. Multiple Attackers If someone is holding you down while the other attacks the odds are incredibly stacked against you
5. Love Especially in the case of female rape victims, the vast majority of cases the woman knows her rapist. If it is someone they actually like or love they may subconsciously not want to hurt them, despite how much they are being hurt (e.g. Battered Wife's Syndrome)
6. Huge Physical Difference I say most people can put most men out of commission, but of course if you pin a tiny 95 pound woman against a 6foot 200pound man with fighting experience, chances are he's not going to let her get close to those balls. However, the number of cases that fit this description are very limited.
My point is that all of these reasons are not limited to women. If a man is blitz attacked, is held at gun point or is tiny compared to his attacker he also has the same diminished chances as a woman. It's not about the presence of a Y chromosome, it's about the circumstances you find yourself in.
Apparently the plot has some fairly obvious feminist undertones, which is relatively rare in horror movies. It deals with a "feral" woman captured by a seemingly ordinary family man and chained in his basement in the hope of "civilizing her". I assume at some point she escapes and kills a few people, which prompted this comment from some misogynist on the internet:
I feel sorry for you and any other woman who truly believes that they can physically overpower a man.
You know, if women are just as physically capable as men, I’d love to start my own inter-gender boxing league. Sign me up, baby! Equality at its finest.
I feel I need to respond, only because it seems that every time this comes up there is a big pink elephant in the room that no one is willing to discuss, and one that HISHE parodies excellently. Gentlemen, I'm sorry to break it to you, but you can be pretty much physically overpowered by any woman out there.
Cue to the sound of MGTOW heads exploding everywhere
See gents, you were born with some little dangly bits in between your legs. While you pay enormous attention to those bits on other occasions, you seem to fail to notice that they make you exceedingly vulnerable. One good tap there (I am told that an upwards tap can be even worse than an outright blow on some occasions, but a hard kick will suffice I'm sure) will put any man out of commission long enough for you to run for it and out of harms way. While I am not suggesting this to be an appropriate course of action if you are just having a discussion with someone, I am saying that it is more than appropriate to get yourself out of a life-or-death situation.
"Fine then", I can already hear them say, "If that's so, Miss Uppity Feminazi Kow-It-All, then why are there so many women that get attacked by men? HA checkmate bitch!" Well, Mr. Hypothetical Loser erm I mean MGTOW, there are many reasons why that happens:
1. Blitz Attack If someone sneaks up on you from behind and smacks you over the head, you don't even see them coming and the damage is done before you have time to react
2. Fear If the attacker is holding a knife or a gun, many people will fear being killed and go along with whatever the attacker wants in the hopes of escaping with their lives. Weapons even the playing field
3. Panic Some people react under panic, others freeze. The person may have ample opportunity to go for the proverbial jewels, but the thought never crosses their minds at the time
4. Multiple Attackers If someone is holding you down while the other attacks the odds are incredibly stacked against you
5. Love Especially in the case of female rape victims, the vast majority of cases the woman knows her rapist. If it is someone they actually like or love they may subconsciously not want to hurt them, despite how much they are being hurt (e.g. Battered Wife's Syndrome)
6. Huge Physical Difference I say most people can put most men out of commission, but of course if you pin a tiny 95 pound woman against a 6foot 200pound man with fighting experience, chances are he's not going to let her get close to those balls. However, the number of cases that fit this description are very limited.
My point is that all of these reasons are not limited to women. If a man is blitz attacked, is held at gun point or is tiny compared to his attacker he also has the same diminished chances as a woman. It's not about the presence of a Y chromosome, it's about the circumstances you find yourself in.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Of Course You Think That; You're A Liberal
To which my initial gut reaction would be to reply "OF COURSE I'm a liberal, I'm not ignorant!!" But that's not completely fair. So let's explore:
I've been called a "liberal" in the form of an insult many times before, always of course by my American friends, seeing as it's not a dirty word outside the US. However a recent post from The Crommunist Manifesto made me think about this again when discussing the opening of an "Afrocentric" school in Toronto. The part that particularly brought this discussion back to my mind was this:
Liberal-minded folks across the province were left scratching their heads, caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, helping black students get a quality education is good. On the other hand, segregation is bad, and if we put all the black kids in one school, how will they learn to hold hands under a rainbow with the white kids? To be less snarky about it, isn’t segregation bad because it isolates students? Didn’t we fight against segregation of black students just a few decades ago?
Therein the characterization of liberal minded people lies. The idea that liberals are just as baboon-y in their liberalism as right-wingers are in their conservativism (that's not a word is it. Oh well, it is now). That's not to say that there aren't liberals that are like that, the kind that just hop on the bandwagon because it has a key liberal word in it without considering the issue. All I am saying is that I am not one of them.
I have not decided whether or not I'm for this Afrocentric school idea. It doesn't really matter to anyone but myself whether I agree or not since I don't live in Toronto. However, the reason I haven't made up my mind isn't because the idea has the two conflicting ideas of "help black community" and "segregation". It's because I don't know enough about it.
I think out my positions to death on every issue I have an opinion on, following my train of logic right along to a conclusion based on the information that I have. I can fully lay out that logical thought process for anyone in order to explain my conclusion, which is part of the reason that I started this blog. Also my conclusion is always subject to change if new information comes out, but it is not if the available information remains the same. I don't claim to have an opinion until I am firmly confident with my logical assessment of the information I have.
This little logical train of thought I have tends to lead to positions that coincide with the ones that liberals hold, therefore I define myself as a liberal. It's the same discussion as deciding which food group to place a food in. If I'm a steak I ma contain vitamin B-12 and some fat, but I'm mostly protein, so I call myself a protein. So I guess the question becomes why do I tend to come to liberal conclusions?
1. I have no religious preference. This means that what certain people preach about certain issues doesn't affect my thought process in the slightest
2. I don't hold on to cultural history. Just because something was done in the good ol' days doesn't make it right in my mind
3. I don't project what I want for myself on to what others should want for themselves. Just because I have no interest in gay sex or gay marriage doesn't mean I want to begrudge others the right to partake
4. I am aware that general consensus doesn't influence truth. Just because 600 years ago 100% of people thought the Earth was flat that didn't make it any more true then than it does now
5. And I think most importantly, I have to have a reason to think what I think about something. There's no such thing for me as having an opinion "because it feels wrong" or "because it's weird". That's not a conclusion. WHY does it feel wrong? If it's because of one of the aforementioned reasons then I reject the feeling and move on. If it's not then maybe there's something to it and I pursue it. But I can't just stop at "just cause", call it a day and claim it as my opinion, or worse vote for legislation supporting that opinion that may be completely unfounded.
I don't think things because I'm a liberal. This is not a chicken-and-egg complex. I think things first. Then I claim to be a liberal as a direct result of the things that I think. If you take a statement about an issue, worded the exact same way, and have a right-winger say it or a liberal I am one of those people that will agree or disagree with them equally, regardless of what they call themselves.
Where does your logic take you?
I've been called a "liberal" in the form of an insult many times before, always of course by my American friends, seeing as it's not a dirty word outside the US. However a recent post from The Crommunist Manifesto made me think about this again when discussing the opening of an "Afrocentric" school in Toronto. The part that particularly brought this discussion back to my mind was this:
Liberal-minded folks across the province were left scratching their heads, caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, helping black students get a quality education is good. On the other hand, segregation is bad, and if we put all the black kids in one school, how will they learn to hold hands under a rainbow with the white kids? To be less snarky about it, isn’t segregation bad because it isolates students? Didn’t we fight against segregation of black students just a few decades ago?
Therein the characterization of liberal minded people lies. The idea that liberals are just as baboon-y in their liberalism as right-wingers are in their conservativism (that's not a word is it. Oh well, it is now). That's not to say that there aren't liberals that are like that, the kind that just hop on the bandwagon because it has a key liberal word in it without considering the issue. All I am saying is that I am not one of them.
I have not decided whether or not I'm for this Afrocentric school idea. It doesn't really matter to anyone but myself whether I agree or not since I don't live in Toronto. However, the reason I haven't made up my mind isn't because the idea has the two conflicting ideas of "help black community" and "segregation". It's because I don't know enough about it.
I think out my positions to death on every issue I have an opinion on, following my train of logic right along to a conclusion based on the information that I have. I can fully lay out that logical thought process for anyone in order to explain my conclusion, which is part of the reason that I started this blog. Also my conclusion is always subject to change if new information comes out, but it is not if the available information remains the same. I don't claim to have an opinion until I am firmly confident with my logical assessment of the information I have.
This little logical train of thought I have tends to lead to positions that coincide with the ones that liberals hold, therefore I define myself as a liberal. It's the same discussion as deciding which food group to place a food in. If I'm a steak I ma contain vitamin B-12 and some fat, but I'm mostly protein, so I call myself a protein. So I guess the question becomes why do I tend to come to liberal conclusions?
1. I have no religious preference. This means that what certain people preach about certain issues doesn't affect my thought process in the slightest
2. I don't hold on to cultural history. Just because something was done in the good ol' days doesn't make it right in my mind
3. I don't project what I want for myself on to what others should want for themselves. Just because I have no interest in gay sex or gay marriage doesn't mean I want to begrudge others the right to partake
4. I am aware that general consensus doesn't influence truth. Just because 600 years ago 100% of people thought the Earth was flat that didn't make it any more true then than it does now
5. And I think most importantly, I have to have a reason to think what I think about something. There's no such thing for me as having an opinion "because it feels wrong" or "because it's weird". That's not a conclusion. WHY does it feel wrong? If it's because of one of the aforementioned reasons then I reject the feeling and move on. If it's not then maybe there's something to it and I pursue it. But I can't just stop at "just cause", call it a day and claim it as my opinion, or worse vote for legislation supporting that opinion that may be completely unfounded.
I don't think things because I'm a liberal. This is not a chicken-and-egg complex. I think things first. Then I claim to be a liberal as a direct result of the things that I think. If you take a statement about an issue, worded the exact same way, and have a right-winger say it or a liberal I am one of those people that will agree or disagree with them equally, regardless of what they call themselves.
Where does your logic take you?
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Is It Just Me, Or Is It A Slow News Day?
Shocking shocking shocking. Today I just didn't know what to talk about. Here is where each and every blogger starts reeling off their excuses for such pitiless behaviour, but I swear I have some pretty good ones:
1. My PhD progess report is next week and I need to start my presentation
2. My boyfriend has injured himself at work so the entire cooking and cleaning load has fallen on my shoulders
3. I have a second job AND a gym membership
4. I have been asked to collaborate on a second project in tandem with my own so I need to learn everything about it before one of the Professors corners me and asks me something about it
5. I need to start reading papers to see where to bring my project from here since I am coming to the end of my current experiments
Put all that together and you get a big fat ARGH why am I tired all the freaking time??!!
So I decided to take a gander at cnn.com to see if there was anything of interest to grab my attention that I might waffle about. It seems as though CNN is having the same problems that I am today.
I open the US page, and this is the headline story: a 61-year old grandfather becomes the oldest man to ever score in a college football game. Aww, that's sweet, but really? The leading story? OK, let's head over to the Europe page:
Hugh Grant blasts British media over the phone hacking scandal. Little late to the party there aren't we Hugh? Got caught up in the backseat of a limo again? Seriously though, who gives a shit what Hugh Grant thinks about something, especially something that pretty much everyone agrees was "cowardly and shocking". Really not much of a debate to be weighing in on. Fine then, lets travel to Asia:
2 people are killed in a football stampede in Indonesia. Slightly more of a story, but hardly headline worthy. It might make the front page in an Indonesian paper, but of ALL OF THE THINGS happening in Asia this is the best most interesting thing you got? Ok fine. How about Latin America?
Chevron was fined $28M for an oil spill off the coast of Brazil. AAhh finally we're getting somewhere. This I am happy to hear. Sure it's chump change to Chevron, but let's hope they take it further and that finally some company has some accountability for their actions. Much better CNN.
Anyway, looks like we all need a little snooze today. I hope to get mine in between boxing and reading my predecessor's PhD thesis. What joy :)
And as for a lab update, the Professor was reminded of his promise of cake and champagne last Friday, after which he immediately agreed that it was a gross lapse on his part and that they will both ensure shortly. Still no cake and champagne though. We'll see what happens with this one...
1. My PhD progess report is next week and I need to start my presentation
2. My boyfriend has injured himself at work so the entire cooking and cleaning load has fallen on my shoulders
3. I have a second job AND a gym membership
4. I have been asked to collaborate on a second project in tandem with my own so I need to learn everything about it before one of the Professors corners me and asks me something about it
5. I need to start reading papers to see where to bring my project from here since I am coming to the end of my current experiments
Put all that together and you get a big fat ARGH why am I tired all the freaking time??!!
So I decided to take a gander at cnn.com to see if there was anything of interest to grab my attention that I might waffle about. It seems as though CNN is having the same problems that I am today.
I open the US page, and this is the headline story: a 61-year old grandfather becomes the oldest man to ever score in a college football game. Aww, that's sweet, but really? The leading story? OK, let's head over to the Europe page:
Hugh Grant blasts British media over the phone hacking scandal. Little late to the party there aren't we Hugh? Got caught up in the backseat of a limo again? Seriously though, who gives a shit what Hugh Grant thinks about something, especially something that pretty much everyone agrees was "cowardly and shocking". Really not much of a debate to be weighing in on. Fine then, lets travel to Asia:
2 people are killed in a football stampede in Indonesia. Slightly more of a story, but hardly headline worthy. It might make the front page in an Indonesian paper, but of ALL OF THE THINGS happening in Asia this is the best most interesting thing you got? Ok fine. How about Latin America?
Chevron was fined $28M for an oil spill off the coast of Brazil. AAhh finally we're getting somewhere. This I am happy to hear. Sure it's chump change to Chevron, but let's hope they take it further and that finally some company has some accountability for their actions. Much better CNN.
Anyway, looks like we all need a little snooze today. I hope to get mine in between boxing and reading my predecessor's PhD thesis. What joy :)
And as for a lab update, the Professor was reminded of his promise of cake and champagne last Friday, after which he immediately agreed that it was a gross lapse on his part and that they will both ensure shortly. Still no cake and champagne though. We'll see what happens with this one...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)