I recently learned that MPs have been forbidden from having second jobs, the idea being that a second job would prevent them from focussing sufficiently on their work for the good of the country.
I don't know which dolt thought that one up, but I find it far more likely that MPs with part-time jobs will work better, since they won't be swayed by short-term populism, financial concerns over being granted a paid position as a minister or committee chairman or worries about re-election.
I would even venture to suggest that MPs should be required to have another job, or a fall-back job, confirmed by an employer (but without conflict of interest, such as working in a lobbying company), to ensure their immunity to such concerns.
They would also have more experience of working like the rest of the population, have networks outside of Parliament and the party apparatchiks and have less time for conniving to disenfranchise other voters in political meetings and conferences.
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Disease
I watched an interesting talk today about the possibility of controlling the evolution of infectious diseases.
A few years ago cholera was introduced to Peru, causing an outbreak, and it spread to neighbouring countries such as Ecuador and Chile. But the severities of the outbreaks were very different because these countries have differing qualities of water supply.
The interesting finding was that not only were the severities of the whole outbreaks different, but that the cholera strains had evolved to be milder in places with cleaner water because they needed healthier, more mobile humans in order to be transmitted.
A similar thing could be done for both malaria and HIV; insect-proofing housing in malarial regions would prevent mosquitoes biting severely ill people, and thereby reduce the spread of virulent strains of malaria. A reduction in HIV transmission rate would make HIV evolve to be less aggressive.
For HIV, spread by direct contact, a reduction in contact is always a good thing, and so this theoretical possibility does not suggest a new way to improve HIV care. But in vectorial diseases we have a powerful way to improve the disease.
If microbes in hospitals become resistant to antibiotics they will often be more virulent. If we can identify major routes of transmission and block these preferentially for the most virulent strains (which are easily identified by the worst suffering patients) then this action will not only be directly protective, but preventing some infections, but will introduce a reproductive bias in favour of less aggressive infections.
We need to identify whether transferring patients to specialist wards provides more opportunity to spread infection or reduces it, and whether patients then all share the worst strain on that ward.
Perhaps specialist wards should deliberately take only half the cases, and try to take the worst ones, in order to make the infections evolve to be less problematic, rather than treat one species as all the same.
A few years ago cholera was introduced to Peru, causing an outbreak, and it spread to neighbouring countries such as Ecuador and Chile. But the severities of the outbreaks were very different because these countries have differing qualities of water supply.
The interesting finding was that not only were the severities of the whole outbreaks different, but that the cholera strains had evolved to be milder in places with cleaner water because they needed healthier, more mobile humans in order to be transmitted.
A similar thing could be done for both malaria and HIV; insect-proofing housing in malarial regions would prevent mosquitoes biting severely ill people, and thereby reduce the spread of virulent strains of malaria. A reduction in HIV transmission rate would make HIV evolve to be less aggressive.
For HIV, spread by direct contact, a reduction in contact is always a good thing, and so this theoretical possibility does not suggest a new way to improve HIV care. But in vectorial diseases we have a powerful way to improve the disease.
If microbes in hospitals become resistant to antibiotics they will often be more virulent. If we can identify major routes of transmission and block these preferentially for the most virulent strains (which are easily identified by the worst suffering patients) then this action will not only be directly protective, but preventing some infections, but will introduce a reproductive bias in favour of less aggressive infections.
We need to identify whether transferring patients to specialist wards provides more opportunity to spread infection or reduces it, and whether patients then all share the worst strain on that ward.
Perhaps specialist wards should deliberately take only half the cases, and try to take the worst ones, in order to make the infections evolve to be less problematic, rather than treat one species as all the same.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
The purpose of marriage
I listened to the second Reith lecture this year
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00l0y01/The_Reith_Lectures_The_Reith_Lectures_2009_Morality_in_Politics/
which is entitled 'Morality in Politics'. Professor Michael Sandel discusses how politics should not attempt neutrality on vexed moral questions, but needs to engage in debate and resolve them.
He also mentions how the attempt to be distanced from moral debate has led us to a flawed tolerance of disagreements, in which we pretend to accept others' opinions whilst finding them fundamentally disagreeable. This chimes nicely with a quotation which I have cherished for some time (and which I took from a games designer called Mark Rosewater, but which is not lessened by its unusual pedigree) and which ends like this:
'When did everyone get so afraid of conflict existing? Conflict is a wonderful thing. It causes resolution.'
We need proper debate about these problems, and that is the one thing that we are not getting. Another news source today mentioned that a few decades ago a politician got about 43 seconds to make a point. A few years ago it was 9 seconds and it is now 6 seconds. The article was attempting to blame computer games and video for shorter attention spans, but whatever the cause, it is clear that we are getting less substantive debate, not more.
Professor Sandel went on to talk about one thing especially: how the state cannot avoid being involved in moral questions. His first example was one in which a disability law made the question of the essential nature of golf a legal question, to be decided by judges, and his second was the subject of homosexual marriages.
States currently all support heterosexual marriages, and Professor Sandel clearly distinguishes between the options of equally supporting all types of marriage, supporting homosexual relationships in a lesser way or under a different name, and not supporting any marriage. As he says, marriage is patently not about procreation, despite many people's protestations.
In his opinion, marriage is about honouring the mutual and exclusive dedication of two people to each other. This honour is conferred not only by name but also through various legal benefits.
His analysis is clear and concise, if a little slowly spoken. It is about other points that we differ. Whereas he believes that the state must support homosexual marriage as an equal with heterosexual marriage, since the individuals have made identical commitments, I think that his examination is enough to show us that the whole institution of marriage is unsound.
Firstly, I see no reason for the state to honour mutual and exclusive dedication at all. Why this is a special form of relationship entirely eludes me; I have no arguments against it, but fail to see justification also. It simply appears ludicrous.
Secondly, I think that legal benefits are better given as support for procreation, if given at all. The mutual dedication is good only because it might (I doubt it) be always better for a child. In this case marriage is flawed because we recognise marriage intrinsically, not parents with children. Thus in some way I actually agree with those who are categorised as right-wing loonies and Christian nutters.
Thirdly, the 'mutual and exclusive' tag can be applied to any number of people. The addition of 'between two people only' is as ludicrous as 'between a man and a woman' if it is only the feelings that we are honouring. This is similar to Professor Sandel's dismissal of the 'simplistic' argument that people should be free to choose their partner. He says that it is not that simple, because of the option of the state not supporting a partner system at all. Rather than choose to remain in a clearly untenable system of thought, as he does, I take this problem as a demonstration that marriage is indeed an arbitrary and unjustifiable legal imposition.
We already know that our states are predicated on the dispensation of as much freedom as possible; it is commonly held that it is good for the state to impose no more on people's choice than is necessary to prevent others within or without society imposing on people's free choice. To support the institution of marriage is therefore beyond the legitimate scope of a government, since it is an arbitrarily chosen good, dependent solely on belief.
The 'right-wingnuts' or whatever they choose to call themselves are quite right. Once marriage is dissociated from child-rearing its value is lost. Where they are wrong is to suppose that it currently is linked to child-rearing and that supporting homosexual marriage will break this link. Until marriage necessarily involves a child then that link does not exist. We have plenty of married couples without children, and plenty who no longer have children.
I'm not even sure that giving any support for child-rearing is a good thing, given the problems of global over-population and people having children just for the benefits. Gregory Clark makes a compelling argument (implicitly in his work) that because child subsidies are proportionally greater for the poor, the poor will have more children, who will have a reduced quality of upbringing the more children the poor have. The rich, who can afford to care for a child better, will feel less incentive.
He also argues that the long-term trickle down of greater fertility in the rich generated the work ethic and culture of personal virtue that started the industrial revolution. While the direct evidence is weak, the possibility is absolutely clear. Although any idea of attempting to control fertility of any group is anathema to modern society, it being claimed that everyone has the right to as many babies as he chooses, this seems silly to me. Soon we will have to indulge in population control anyway.
Furthermore, child subsidies already disproportionately affect the poor. It can be argued just as cogently that we are already therefore favouring fertility in this group, and that changing this system will remove our immoral influence. Of course, this is delving into subjects that could merit a whole discussion of their own.
The last point on this subject (that I have in mind at the moment) is something that Professor Sandel mentioned in his first Reith lecture: that financial incentives replace moral incentives, rather than adding to them. If putting a price on pregnancy (as he mentions in the second lecture) is wrong, then surely a price on child-rearing is wrong. Children should be raised to be moral citizens because it is necessary for society, not because society pays for children and has punishments in place for their immorality.
I would support a centralised child-rearing scheme. If anything is essential to society then future members are. If working members of the public supported both young and old then there might be less of a pensions problem: if there are too few workers to support the aged at some point in the future then it is because those aged did not support enough children when they were working (in a stable society: society with changing life expectancies but not retirement ages, or a society with a shrinking income would suffer anyway).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00l0y01/The_Reith_Lectures_The_Reith_Lectures_2009_Morality_in_Politics/
which is entitled 'Morality in Politics'. Professor Michael Sandel discusses how politics should not attempt neutrality on vexed moral questions, but needs to engage in debate and resolve them.
He also mentions how the attempt to be distanced from moral debate has led us to a flawed tolerance of disagreements, in which we pretend to accept others' opinions whilst finding them fundamentally disagreeable. This chimes nicely with a quotation which I have cherished for some time (and which I took from a games designer called Mark Rosewater, but which is not lessened by its unusual pedigree) and which ends like this:
'When did everyone get so afraid of conflict existing? Conflict is a wonderful thing. It causes resolution.'
We need proper debate about these problems, and that is the one thing that we are not getting. Another news source today mentioned that a few decades ago a politician got about 43 seconds to make a point. A few years ago it was 9 seconds and it is now 6 seconds. The article was attempting to blame computer games and video for shorter attention spans, but whatever the cause, it is clear that we are getting less substantive debate, not more.
Professor Sandel went on to talk about one thing especially: how the state cannot avoid being involved in moral questions. His first example was one in which a disability law made the question of the essential nature of golf a legal question, to be decided by judges, and his second was the subject of homosexual marriages.
States currently all support heterosexual marriages, and Professor Sandel clearly distinguishes between the options of equally supporting all types of marriage, supporting homosexual relationships in a lesser way or under a different name, and not supporting any marriage. As he says, marriage is patently not about procreation, despite many people's protestations.
In his opinion, marriage is about honouring the mutual and exclusive dedication of two people to each other. This honour is conferred not only by name but also through various legal benefits.
His analysis is clear and concise, if a little slowly spoken. It is about other points that we differ. Whereas he believes that the state must support homosexual marriage as an equal with heterosexual marriage, since the individuals have made identical commitments, I think that his examination is enough to show us that the whole institution of marriage is unsound.
Firstly, I see no reason for the state to honour mutual and exclusive dedication at all. Why this is a special form of relationship entirely eludes me; I have no arguments against it, but fail to see justification also. It simply appears ludicrous.
Secondly, I think that legal benefits are better given as support for procreation, if given at all. The mutual dedication is good only because it might (I doubt it) be always better for a child. In this case marriage is flawed because we recognise marriage intrinsically, not parents with children. Thus in some way I actually agree with those who are categorised as right-wing loonies and Christian nutters.
Thirdly, the 'mutual and exclusive' tag can be applied to any number of people. The addition of 'between two people only' is as ludicrous as 'between a man and a woman' if it is only the feelings that we are honouring. This is similar to Professor Sandel's dismissal of the 'simplistic' argument that people should be free to choose their partner. He says that it is not that simple, because of the option of the state not supporting a partner system at all. Rather than choose to remain in a clearly untenable system of thought, as he does, I take this problem as a demonstration that marriage is indeed an arbitrary and unjustifiable legal imposition.
We already know that our states are predicated on the dispensation of as much freedom as possible; it is commonly held that it is good for the state to impose no more on people's choice than is necessary to prevent others within or without society imposing on people's free choice. To support the institution of marriage is therefore beyond the legitimate scope of a government, since it is an arbitrarily chosen good, dependent solely on belief.
The 'right-wingnuts' or whatever they choose to call themselves are quite right. Once marriage is dissociated from child-rearing its value is lost. Where they are wrong is to suppose that it currently is linked to child-rearing and that supporting homosexual marriage will break this link. Until marriage necessarily involves a child then that link does not exist. We have plenty of married couples without children, and plenty who no longer have children.
I'm not even sure that giving any support for child-rearing is a good thing, given the problems of global over-population and people having children just for the benefits. Gregory Clark makes a compelling argument (implicitly in his work) that because child subsidies are proportionally greater for the poor, the poor will have more children, who will have a reduced quality of upbringing the more children the poor have. The rich, who can afford to care for a child better, will feel less incentive.
He also argues that the long-term trickle down of greater fertility in the rich generated the work ethic and culture of personal virtue that started the industrial revolution. While the direct evidence is weak, the possibility is absolutely clear. Although any idea of attempting to control fertility of any group is anathema to modern society, it being claimed that everyone has the right to as many babies as he chooses, this seems silly to me. Soon we will have to indulge in population control anyway.
Furthermore, child subsidies already disproportionately affect the poor. It can be argued just as cogently that we are already therefore favouring fertility in this group, and that changing this system will remove our immoral influence. Of course, this is delving into subjects that could merit a whole discussion of their own.
The last point on this subject (that I have in mind at the moment) is something that Professor Sandel mentioned in his first Reith lecture: that financial incentives replace moral incentives, rather than adding to them. If putting a price on pregnancy (as he mentions in the second lecture) is wrong, then surely a price on child-rearing is wrong. Children should be raised to be moral citizens because it is necessary for society, not because society pays for children and has punishments in place for their immorality.
I would support a centralised child-rearing scheme. If anything is essential to society then future members are. If working members of the public supported both young and old then there might be less of a pensions problem: if there are too few workers to support the aged at some point in the future then it is because those aged did not support enough children when they were working (in a stable society: society with changing life expectancies but not retirement ages, or a society with a shrinking income would suffer anyway).
Thursday, 28 May 2009
I came across a conversation some people were having about a news article that explained how the poor have to pay more than many middle-class people for the same services (such as how not owning a car can disrupt one's life). One person made a typical American-right-wing comment about how the poor should stop smoking, look harder for jobs and take any job, cook for themselves and cancel television subscriptions (all good advice, but not really an infallible solution to a global or national problem of poverty). These hilarious paragraphs were the response.
'The poor are there because many of them make such bad choices. All those middle class poor overextending themselves on their mortgages and all those multi-millionaure poor overextending themselves on credit default swaps just show that bad decision making is an exclusive trait of the poor and that they can never have wealth until they learn to stop making bad decisions.'
'That's right. If they were responsible people, educated themselves, went to business school, and blew a $12,000,000,000,000 hole in the world economy, then the government could help them out. As it is, though, these leeches are steaing our money for what? To feed their children?'
' If you cannot afford a computer and internet, then you're 'paying' for a similar thing with commute time, as you go to the library to use their computers. Funny how the "time is money" phrase kind of gets ignored by many when applied to the poor.'
'The poor are there because many of them make such bad choices. All those middle class poor overextending themselves on their mortgages and all those multi-millionaure poor overextending themselves on credit default swaps just show that bad decision making is an exclusive trait of the poor and that they can never have wealth until they learn to stop making bad decisions.'
'That's right. If they were responsible people, educated themselves, went to business school, and blew a $12,000,000,000,000 hole in the world economy, then the government could help them out. As it is, though, these leeches are steaing our money for what? To feed their children?'
' If you cannot afford a computer and internet, then you're 'paying' for a similar thing with commute time, as you go to the library to use their computers. Funny how the "time is money" phrase kind of gets ignored by many when applied to the poor.'
Thursday, 21 May 2009
The drive to promiscuity
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8055296.stm
This is a news story about how brain anatomy correlates with sociability. The idea that sociability is an innate characteristic is not proven, since the brain could have grown this way during development due to environmental influences. Nonetheless it's as interesting a thought that someone might have a set drive for sociability during adulthood which doesn't really change.
What I find more interesting than this, though, is the implication that these various drives might correlate with each other, such that people who crave chocolate, sex or other drugs also crave social contact. I've encountered suggestions that people substitute one of these things for another: magazines are full of articles in which people mention chocolate binges that happen as a result of being dumped, for example. I'd never encountered a neurological basis for this before though.
We also have cravings for attachment and romance, as explained here:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat.html
Apart from the fun bits, such as 'we were made to love more than one person', I wonder if all these cravings really can substitute for each other. Can the 'satisfaction' neurons reach maximal activity just from one or two of these (such as sex and chocolate) or do we need romance, sex, attachment, chocolate and social contact?
Either way, I'm not sure that marriage is a good solution. Helen Fisher thinks that we naturally want more than just the satisfaction of one drive that marriage gives us. If one drive, satisfied enough, can satisfy us entirely, why marry at all? Why not smoke weed all day, or eat chocolate, or have a busy social life? On the other hand, if it can satisfy us, why do so many marriages fail?
It seems much more likely that some amount of substitution is possible, but that we really want all the cravings to be satisfied separately.
In this case marriage seems to fight against human satisfaction by specifically denying us the chance to satisfy lust, romance and attachment all at once. Once again it seems a less than optimal solution. Any long-term arrangement that satisfies our desire for attachment does us harm if it also forbids us from satisfying our intrinsic desire for romance or our relatively short-term lusts; people who are attached to each other should accept that what is now called cheating is a perfectly normal and acceptable human trait. We might also notice that this research gives a decent explanation for extreme variabilities in sex drive. If someone wants more sex than someone else, he's not necessarily more base and sinful, just as the other person is not necessarily more prudish.
Of course, we knew this already. It does bring us on to the complicating factor of religion. Religion is a powerful tool for convincing people that things are wrong when they're actually beneficial. Religious people tend to be far less tolerant of drug use (of any sort), promiscuity, satisfaction of urges in general and especially of lust. It does seem strange that God would have made us to be naturally unhappy if we follow His teachings. Of course, much of these teachings are not necessarily God's, but are part of church doctrine instead. Either way, we have cause to doubt organised religion.
This is a news story about how brain anatomy correlates with sociability. The idea that sociability is an innate characteristic is not proven, since the brain could have grown this way during development due to environmental influences. Nonetheless it's as interesting a thought that someone might have a set drive for sociability during adulthood which doesn't really change.
What I find more interesting than this, though, is the implication that these various drives might correlate with each other, such that people who crave chocolate, sex or other drugs also crave social contact. I've encountered suggestions that people substitute one of these things for another: magazines are full of articles in which people mention chocolate binges that happen as a result of being dumped, for example. I'd never encountered a neurological basis for this before though.
We also have cravings for attachment and romance, as explained here:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat.html
Apart from the fun bits, such as 'we were made to love more than one person', I wonder if all these cravings really can substitute for each other. Can the 'satisfaction' neurons reach maximal activity just from one or two of these (such as sex and chocolate) or do we need romance, sex, attachment, chocolate and social contact?
Either way, I'm not sure that marriage is a good solution. Helen Fisher thinks that we naturally want more than just the satisfaction of one drive that marriage gives us. If one drive, satisfied enough, can satisfy us entirely, why marry at all? Why not smoke weed all day, or eat chocolate, or have a busy social life? On the other hand, if it can satisfy us, why do so many marriages fail?
It seems much more likely that some amount of substitution is possible, but that we really want all the cravings to be satisfied separately.
In this case marriage seems to fight against human satisfaction by specifically denying us the chance to satisfy lust, romance and attachment all at once. Once again it seems a less than optimal solution. Any long-term arrangement that satisfies our desire for attachment does us harm if it also forbids us from satisfying our intrinsic desire for romance or our relatively short-term lusts; people who are attached to each other should accept that what is now called cheating is a perfectly normal and acceptable human trait. We might also notice that this research gives a decent explanation for extreme variabilities in sex drive. If someone wants more sex than someone else, he's not necessarily more base and sinful, just as the other person is not necessarily more prudish.
Of course, we knew this already. It does bring us on to the complicating factor of religion. Religion is a powerful tool for convincing people that things are wrong when they're actually beneficial. Religious people tend to be far less tolerant of drug use (of any sort), promiscuity, satisfaction of urges in general and especially of lust. It does seem strange that God would have made us to be naturally unhappy if we follow His teachings. Of course, much of these teachings are not necessarily God's, but are part of church doctrine instead. Either way, we have cause to doubt organised religion.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
titbits
I saw today a chap had written that if women really were paid less solely on the basis of being women, businesses would not employ any men, because they'd be more expensive.
I have also just read that fever is associated with a 7-13% rise in energy consumption per degree (centigrade) increase in body temperature, which is estimated to be roughly equivalent to a 70kg person walking 45km (Hotamisligil and Erbay, 2008).
No wonder being ill is so tiring!
I have also just read that fever is associated with a 7-13% rise in energy consumption per degree (centigrade) increase in body temperature, which is estimated to be roughly equivalent to a 70kg person walking 45km (Hotamisligil and Erbay, 2008).
No wonder being ill is so tiring!
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Feminism
I was directed recently to a website started by a postgraduate student in order to lay out her beliefs. Her slogan was 'hungry for change', and she was attempting to garner publicity for her 60-day fast (during daytime hours). She claimed to be a moderate feminist who was appalled at the sexism she saw all around her, including these points ('the icing on the cake'):
'-At dinner, a student brings up “gang rape” among ducks, to prove a point. When quietly informed that he has gone too far, he only becomes defensive and continues the topic.
-An entire research institute devoted to violent conflict has no past or present research whatsoever on gendered dimensions of conflict.
-A local newspaper reports rape as ‘sex’.
-A female student points out something sexist on TV. A male student insists it is only a coincidence and that she is reading too much into it.
-A group of students proclaim that because gender doesn’t matter to them, they see no reason to be concerned about women’s 7% representation in ministerial cabinet positions worldwide. (Ahah, then I must be the sexist one!)
-A male student corners a female student into a discussion about abortion, at a Halloween party. The man does not understand why pregnant rape victims do not ‘simply’ carry the foetus to term and then find it an adoptive family. I repeat: at a Halloween party.'
Talking about gang rape is hardly oppressive in itself. Supporting it and doing it would be bad, but surely feminists would welcome attention to what might well be an under-recognised crime? If she thinks that even mentioning rape might offend people, because it's an offensive thing, I wonder how she might justify why feminists like to raise public awareness of discrimination against women. That could certainly be an offensive thing, and yet talking about it is suddenly fine by them. She could also read my post on offence.
That this point is a stupid one is supported further by an observation I made whilst staying with my sister. She and her flatmate were idly watching television, and the comedian happened to start talking about how silly it is for people to think that natural is good, such as in the organic food industry, when giving birth or when claiming (against all evidence) that homosexuality is a perversion of nature. Amongst the various amusing comments that he made one really caught my attention: he mentioned that mallards typically mate through a process of gang-rape, and that according to the nature-is-good crowd we should therefore allow gang-rape. I have now found this fact about mallards quoted in other reputable sources.
So it appears that, far from being sexist, the man being quoted by my feminist might well have been arguing about something else entirely, a point which went right over this woman's head.
As for conflict, I'd have thought that feminists would be pleased about this. If women are not involved in the conflict, it could be taken to show how superior women are because they don't fight, or it could be used to show that in the conflict women are oppressed because they have no major roles to play. The assumption that somehow women are playing a different role in the conflict and that this is vitally important and stands independently of any other research area is itself sexist. Not everything revolves around women, and nor should an institution have research departments into irrelevant fields. Conflict and women (or 'gendered dimensions') are not so closely related that this is amazing. It is akin to expecting a physics department to have a group investigating paranormal abilities. Paranormal abilities will certainly need a physical explanation, but are not central to physics.
A local newspaper might report rape as sex because the trial and conviction has not yet happened, and thus rape is only an allegation. This could well be perfectly normal legal practice. Furthermore, given how offensive it is to mention rape (as we saw with the poor boy and his gang-raping ducks), perhaps the newspaper was just avoiding giving offence. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
We have two conflicting opinions about what's on television and we are expected to assume that the woman is right and that the man is being sexist. That assumption is sexist in itself. We need more information, and not giving it but expecting what is written to be enough is the most sexist thing that we have yet seen in her writing.
Sex doesn't matter to me when it comes to my country's cabinet, and it appears not to matter to the country either. If sexism is more rife in other parts of the world, that's a problem, but not one that campaigns within this country can solve. Furthermore, when we start considering raw statistics such as this one, we need to be careful to consider other factors, such as the proportions of men and women actually trying to make a serious career in politics, and whether women tend to prioritise families over careers. It's not sexism if it's due to personal choices.
As for the Halloween party, this seems more like an example of religious fanaticism than plain sexism. The question of abortion in many people's minds has nothing to do with sexism, but about murder. Were it a sexist issue, people would allow abortion of one sex but not another.
This particular feminazi, as she describes herself (with regret) might not be representative, but some of her arguments are. I frequently hear from those of my female friends to whom it matters that such an action is discriminatory, or that this particular thing is sexist.
It is very easy to become sensitive to these things. Not every action in which a certain group of people suffer is specifically designed to harm that group. Not every system in which a certain group of people experience unequal outcomes is unfairly biased against them. The whole idea of institutional racism is an unnerving and dangerous one.
Would anyone agree with me if I said that people between the ages of 20 and 25 were unfairly discriminated against because they occupy 0% of all professorships in the department, 0% of cabinet posts (probably worldwide) and have extraordinarily high car insurance premiums?
Maybe they would for the last one. But the point is that discrimination (of the illegal sort which we do not want to exist) only exists if it occurs on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. If women happen to be under-represented in certain professions, it could be because they themselves choose not to apply. It could be because women tend not to excel at those things, whether by choice or biological tendency (for example, women tend not to be as strong and hence make worse manual labourers).
Women tend to take time out of their careers for family life. If 30% of women drop out for families, and another 50% take time out for families, then it will be no surprise when women are under-represented in top jobs, which take time to reach. Those percentages were mere guesses, by the way.
Men die early, commit much more suicide, suffer more prostate cancer (amazingly) and so on. Yet men are happy to admit that these have reasonable explanations and are not directly dependent solely on a person's manhood. It is these underlying causes that should be considered, and if necessary addressed. Why can feminists not follow the same line of reasoning?
It is the same line of reasoning that says that we should address poverty, not racial discrimination, because by far the biggest cause of racial inequality in this country is the economic status of black children, not active discrimination.
This country has given women equal status, and did so a long time ago. Maybe some of these changes are still filtering through to the top levels of professions, which take time to reach, but there is no reason to change anything further, except to benefit women unfairly. Feminists should focus on individuals or other societies, because their battle here is won.
Having said all this, I still have some gripes. Firstly, feminism nowadays justifies itself as being a campaign for equal rights for everyone. As I say, this has been achieved for women. So why is the name now feminism, except as further campaign material to continue enhancing the rights and attitudes of women? We have an equal rights movement and we have a wonderful organisation called Liberty who campaign about civil rights. There is no need for anything else.
Secondly, I am unsure why breast cancer is the most famous cancer in the country. Can it really be the biggest killer when it (almost entirely) can affect only half of the population? Why is a woman-only cancer so special?
Thirdly, the argument that society is based on male principles is a stupid one. Some feminists don't even believe in male and female traits. But if we take the traditional dichotomy of rational intelligence and cold, hard logic versus emotions and desires, we will find that rationality is far more appropriate for dealing with physical actions and systems, which follow cold hard rules. Objective considerations, almost by definition, are only things that unite great masses of individuals into coherent societies. We are forced into objectivity by having society and a physical world, and so it is hardly sensible to complain that this masculine. If, indeed, women are better at manipulating relationships and men at phsyical and objective concerns then it is simply a biological fact that society must necessarily be masculine. It does not preclude women from dominating in the endless network of individual social relationships that actually make society work.
'-At dinner, a student brings up “gang rape” among ducks, to prove a point. When quietly informed that he has gone too far, he only becomes defensive and continues the topic.
-An entire research institute devoted to violent conflict has no past or present research whatsoever on gendered dimensions of conflict.
-A local newspaper reports rape as ‘sex’.
-A female student points out something sexist on TV. A male student insists it is only a coincidence and that she is reading too much into it.
-A group of students proclaim that because gender doesn’t matter to them, they see no reason to be concerned about women’s 7% representation in ministerial cabinet positions worldwide. (Ahah, then I must be the sexist one!)
-A male student corners a female student into a discussion about abortion, at a Halloween party. The man does not understand why pregnant rape victims do not ‘simply’ carry the foetus to term and then find it an adoptive family. I repeat: at a Halloween party.'
Talking about gang rape is hardly oppressive in itself. Supporting it and doing it would be bad, but surely feminists would welcome attention to what might well be an under-recognised crime? If she thinks that even mentioning rape might offend people, because it's an offensive thing, I wonder how she might justify why feminists like to raise public awareness of discrimination against women. That could certainly be an offensive thing, and yet talking about it is suddenly fine by them. She could also read my post on offence.
That this point is a stupid one is supported further by an observation I made whilst staying with my sister. She and her flatmate were idly watching television, and the comedian happened to start talking about how silly it is for people to think that natural is good, such as in the organic food industry, when giving birth or when claiming (against all evidence) that homosexuality is a perversion of nature. Amongst the various amusing comments that he made one really caught my attention: he mentioned that mallards typically mate through a process of gang-rape, and that according to the nature-is-good crowd we should therefore allow gang-rape. I have now found this fact about mallards quoted in other reputable sources.
So it appears that, far from being sexist, the man being quoted by my feminist might well have been arguing about something else entirely, a point which went right over this woman's head.
As for conflict, I'd have thought that feminists would be pleased about this. If women are not involved in the conflict, it could be taken to show how superior women are because they don't fight, or it could be used to show that in the conflict women are oppressed because they have no major roles to play. The assumption that somehow women are playing a different role in the conflict and that this is vitally important and stands independently of any other research area is itself sexist. Not everything revolves around women, and nor should an institution have research departments into irrelevant fields. Conflict and women (or 'gendered dimensions') are not so closely related that this is amazing. It is akin to expecting a physics department to have a group investigating paranormal abilities. Paranormal abilities will certainly need a physical explanation, but are not central to physics.
A local newspaper might report rape as sex because the trial and conviction has not yet happened, and thus rape is only an allegation. This could well be perfectly normal legal practice. Furthermore, given how offensive it is to mention rape (as we saw with the poor boy and his gang-raping ducks), perhaps the newspaper was just avoiding giving offence. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
We have two conflicting opinions about what's on television and we are expected to assume that the woman is right and that the man is being sexist. That assumption is sexist in itself. We need more information, and not giving it but expecting what is written to be enough is the most sexist thing that we have yet seen in her writing.
Sex doesn't matter to me when it comes to my country's cabinet, and it appears not to matter to the country either. If sexism is more rife in other parts of the world, that's a problem, but not one that campaigns within this country can solve. Furthermore, when we start considering raw statistics such as this one, we need to be careful to consider other factors, such as the proportions of men and women actually trying to make a serious career in politics, and whether women tend to prioritise families over careers. It's not sexism if it's due to personal choices.
As for the Halloween party, this seems more like an example of religious fanaticism than plain sexism. The question of abortion in many people's minds has nothing to do with sexism, but about murder. Were it a sexist issue, people would allow abortion of one sex but not another.
This particular feminazi, as she describes herself (with regret) might not be representative, but some of her arguments are. I frequently hear from those of my female friends to whom it matters that such an action is discriminatory, or that this particular thing is sexist.
It is very easy to become sensitive to these things. Not every action in which a certain group of people suffer is specifically designed to harm that group. Not every system in which a certain group of people experience unequal outcomes is unfairly biased against them. The whole idea of institutional racism is an unnerving and dangerous one.
Would anyone agree with me if I said that people between the ages of 20 and 25 were unfairly discriminated against because they occupy 0% of all professorships in the department, 0% of cabinet posts (probably worldwide) and have extraordinarily high car insurance premiums?
Maybe they would for the last one. But the point is that discrimination (of the illegal sort which we do not want to exist) only exists if it occurs on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. If women happen to be under-represented in certain professions, it could be because they themselves choose not to apply. It could be because women tend not to excel at those things, whether by choice or biological tendency (for example, women tend not to be as strong and hence make worse manual labourers).
Women tend to take time out of their careers for family life. If 30% of women drop out for families, and another 50% take time out for families, then it will be no surprise when women are under-represented in top jobs, which take time to reach. Those percentages were mere guesses, by the way.
Men die early, commit much more suicide, suffer more prostate cancer (amazingly) and so on. Yet men are happy to admit that these have reasonable explanations and are not directly dependent solely on a person's manhood. It is these underlying causes that should be considered, and if necessary addressed. Why can feminists not follow the same line of reasoning?
It is the same line of reasoning that says that we should address poverty, not racial discrimination, because by far the biggest cause of racial inequality in this country is the economic status of black children, not active discrimination.
This country has given women equal status, and did so a long time ago. Maybe some of these changes are still filtering through to the top levels of professions, which take time to reach, but there is no reason to change anything further, except to benefit women unfairly. Feminists should focus on individuals or other societies, because their battle here is won.
Having said all this, I still have some gripes. Firstly, feminism nowadays justifies itself as being a campaign for equal rights for everyone. As I say, this has been achieved for women. So why is the name now feminism, except as further campaign material to continue enhancing the rights and attitudes of women? We have an equal rights movement and we have a wonderful organisation called Liberty who campaign about civil rights. There is no need for anything else.
Secondly, I am unsure why breast cancer is the most famous cancer in the country. Can it really be the biggest killer when it (almost entirely) can affect only half of the population? Why is a woman-only cancer so special?
Thirdly, the argument that society is based on male principles is a stupid one. Some feminists don't even believe in male and female traits. But if we take the traditional dichotomy of rational intelligence and cold, hard logic versus emotions and desires, we will find that rationality is far more appropriate for dealing with physical actions and systems, which follow cold hard rules. Objective considerations, almost by definition, are only things that unite great masses of individuals into coherent societies. We are forced into objectivity by having society and a physical world, and so it is hardly sensible to complain that this masculine. If, indeed, women are better at manipulating relationships and men at phsyical and objective concerns then it is simply a biological fact that society must necessarily be masculine. It does not preclude women from dominating in the endless network of individual social relationships that actually make society work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)