Markets In Everything: Daycare For Parents Who Work Crazy Hours
Because this is a story in The Guardian, it's written as a story about how awful it is that these daycare centers exists. The subtitle of the piece by Alissa Quart:
As more American parents work low-wage jobs with unusual hours, they're turning to 24-7 daycare centers to help raise their children.
Here's a bit from it:
When I first visited Dee's Tots Childcare three years ago with photographer Alice Proujansky, I was struck by how appealing the place was. The owners, Deloris and Patrick Hogan, run Dee's out of their family home in New Rochelle, New York and work around the clock to serve parents who need daycare, whether at 7 in the morning or 11 at night.
I was also struck by what Dee's and other 24-7 daycare facilities represented. They serve an ever-expanding number of children whose parents work non-standard and unpredictable hours. The parents might be working two service or retail jobs or they may be night nurses. According to the National Women's Law Center, 9% of daycare center care is now provided during evenings or weekends.
These venues range from Shifts Night Care Center in Jackson, Mississippi, to Tip Top Child Development Center and Five Star Sitters in Las Vegas, to Success Kidz 24-Hour Enrichment Center in Columbus, Ohio. Nearly 40% of Americans now work non-traditional employment hours. Almost two-thirds (64.2%) of women with children under age six are working, and one in five working moms of small children work at low-wage jobs that typically pay $10.50 an hour. They all need to earn more if they are to truly be able to afford daycare, and in a cruel twist, many must work more and stranger hours to do so.
The number of parents forced to rely on 24-hour daycare will only grow. It is simply the nature of everyday - and every night - life in today's America.
Of course, the writer appears to blame the employers. More from the piece:
Diana's mother works two jobs because neither employer will give her more than 29 hours of work. By keeping her hours down, the companies can avoid offering benefits that come with full-time employment.
But who is really to blame here? Try the government -- and the unintended consequences from the government both massively meddling in healthcare, yet not untying it from the workplace in an era when few people have just one job for life (and many are working freelance).
Meanwhile, imagine a suddenly widowed man or woman who is also a single parent who works the night shift. Suddenly, that parent has options in a way they wouldn't have previously -- unless they had willing grandparents living right nearby.
That's important, more now than ever. I write in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" about what a transient and spread-out society we now live in -- with many living across the country from their biological family.
Here's a less grim view from a person with experience instead of (what I see, in the Guardian as) an agenda:
ATLtoon
My daughter (now 16) attended one such daycare in Atlanta as a child. The couple who ran it were truly wonderful and are part of the reason my daughter is graduating high school two years early. Her mother and I couldn't have raised such an amazing young woman if not for the 24/7 daycare service in her early years.
There's also opportunity here -- for women, especially, to earn a living while being home with their own children and those of other parents.
The Guardian’s new series, the Mother Load, explores why it’s harder to be a mother in the US than in any other developed country.
That's a load, all right.
Kevin
at February 28, 2018 11:29 PM
"But who is really to blame here?"
Much of the blame belongs to parents who have children they can not afford. People who have little education and no marketable skills continue to have children they cannot afford to raise.
They insist it is their right to have as many children as they want. But, they don't want to accept that there is a corresponding responsibility to provide a decent childhood for the children.
After three children my wife and I decided that was all we could afford to raise comfortably and so we had no additional children. Personal responsibility is missing from too many people today.
Jay
at March 1, 2018 2:03 AM
They are useful daycares for people who work as first responders - nurses, paramedics, doctors, etc. who tend to work rotating and long shifts. Where I live most of the major hospitals have a daycare like that nearby.
Unfortunately, I've also seen cases of divorced parents where dad would happily look after the children at those odd times, but mom chooses to put the children in a daycare like this instead.
Snoopy
at March 1, 2018 3:51 AM
But who is really to blame here?
Oh, if only someone could have foreseen that coming to pass.
Oh, wait, lots of us did. It wasn't unintended. That was very intentional.
I R A Darth Aggie
at March 1, 2018 6:21 AM
I think you missed what the blame was Jay. Children don't cause people to only work 29hrs/week on two different jobs.
Ben
at March 1, 2018 6:21 AM
The Guardian is pretty much a Marxist house organ. They make the New York Times look conservative.
My wife manages medical labs. A lot of the jobs associated with medical lab work, like phlebotomists and couriers, are entry-level jobs for the medical profession, and the bulk of the employees are working-class women with children. Whenever one of them complains to my wife about the high cost of child care, she points out that it used to be that someone in their neighborhood could take in children. But now they can't, due to the burden of government regulations. There's little competition in child care as it is, and almost none in child care for shift workers.
Cousin Dave
at March 1, 2018 6:28 AM
Ben. I never said the children were to blame. That is a straw man and attempt to change the subject. If you read my comments I was pointing out that if you have to work two 29 hour jobs just to get by, you shouldn't be having two and three children.
Again it boils down to personal responsibility.
Jay
at March 1, 2018 7:19 AM
It's great that these exist.
It is NOT so great that the need for them is growing.
NicoleK
at March 1, 2018 7:30 AM
HEads up!
The link to the lady in the Swiss orphanage leads to the Markets in Everything post.
Also when I scroll down everything goes wonky.
NicoleK
at March 1, 2018 7:33 AM
But who is really to blame here? Try the government.... ~ Amy
That's a big part of it. Government regulated shortages of desired services result in those services only being available during peak times, as there's lower demand during off-peak hours and the limited number of providers don't need to provide off-peak services to make money.
For example, my wife and went to an affair held at San Francisco's City Hall a few years back (pre-Uber). We left at 9:00pm, called a cab service, and were told a cab would be there in "10 minutes." Fifteen minutes later, there was no cab. We called again and were again told "10 minutes." After waiting almost 40 minutes in all, we walked to a BART station several blocks away, in the freezing cold.
San Francisco cabs then were heavily regulated and the number of them kept low so the existing companies would always have customers who needed a cab, ensuring the existing companies would have plenty of customers due to a shortage of suppliers for the desired service. The cabbies, who leased their cabs, made their daily nut during normal business hours and didn't have to work extra hours to pick up additional fares. Thus, people who needed a cab after 6:00pm had a smaller pool of working cabs from which to draw.
Just like daycare. Since the bulk of the demand for daycare (and the money to be made) is during normal business hours and the number of daycare providers is limited by regulation, most daycare providers will choose to operate during those hours. Parents needing daycare for off-peak hours will have a smaller pool of providers.
Uber and Lyft upset the apple cart for San Francisco (and other cities) cabbies. Unfortunately, due to concerns about child molestation, both by parents and those who could be accused, I don't see an Uber for childcare coming any time soon.
Conan the Grammarian
at March 1, 2018 8:37 AM
When one of my mentors was trying to talk me into a night job, she told me she would advertise for a college student to sleep over at her house the 3 nights a week she workef, when her kids were young. Its a good solution-theyre basically paid to study and sleep.
A lot of people who make really good money in really good careers, work nights. Most of them, once parents, either work alternate shifts from their spouse, or hire a nanny. But 24 hour faycares are great, not a sign of a war on women.
Momof4
at March 1, 2018 9:15 AM
Sorry about the underlining thing. Gregg is working on fixing problems with the blog.
I've never felt more emphatic and decisive. THIS is me at my compelling, attention-demanding best.
Crid
at March 1, 2018 9:38 AM
My employer and others in this industry find it difficult to get enough people willing to work nights and weekends. So they pay us night and weekend workers substantially more money. I suppose 24-hour child care services will make it easier for more people to compete for the better paying night and weekend work. That might make me worth less money.
Ken R
at March 1, 2018 10:34 AM
Jay, You didn't blame the children. But look at what you were quoting.
"Diana's mother works two jobs because neither employer will give her more than 29 hours of work. By keeping her hours down, the companies can avoid offering benefits that come with full-time employment.
But who is really to blame here?"
The question was asking who is to blame for people needing to work two 29hr part time jobs. Which is why government and employers were the two options presented. Children are completely unrelated. You went off on a nonsequiter.
Either way, site is pretty fubared for me. Best wishes to Greg I guess.
Ben
at March 1, 2018 10:58 AM
By keeping her hours down, the companies can avoid offering benefits that come with full-time employment. But who is really to blame here?
Government mandates that she get expensive benefits if she works 30 hours or more result in a sudden jump in costs to the employer. So, they hold down costs by denying her more than 29 hours a week.
Writers like Alissa Quart tend to think of that as greedy corporations refusing to pay benefits to hard-working minimum wage employees. But if she's making $15 an hour, getting 30 hours a week means a jump from $435 a week in wages to $450 a week in wages, an increase in costs of $15 per employee per week, and another $160 a week in benefits costs per employee per week (estimated at 35% of gross wages). Multiply that by 52 weeks per year and that starts to add up. Then, multiply it by 100 or more employees, not to mention an HR cost for administering benefits to more employees as well as federal and state reporting requirements and you're looking at a considerable expense.
And if it's simply Diana's mother needing an additional 11 hours of paid work in order to pay for daycare, why is she working two 29-hour jobs? Or does Diana's mother need to upgrade her skill set so she is worth more on the job market?
Perhaps Diana's mother needs a daycare alternative not saddled with expensive federal and state qualification and licensing requirements as well as compliance reporting requirements?
So, yes, who is really to blame here?
Sorry about the underlining thing. Gregg is working on fixing problems with the blog. ~ Amy Alkon at March 1, 2018 9:32 AM
I kind of liked it. It made my blog post seem that much more emphatic.
Conan the Grammarian
at March 1, 2018 12:19 PM
Personal responsibility is missing from too many people today.
Jay at March 1, 2018 2:03 AM
_________________________________________
Yes, well, there ARE those conservatives who argue, if not in so many words, that "responsibility" means that white, middle-class, native-born Americans "need" to create babies that they often don't even want or could afford only if they moved to a trailer. Because, you know, the birth rate is down, and the last thing we want is more babies from "those people."
Half the comments are horrified about it, the other half is either alleged dads saying they'd be proud of their son or wish they were in the kid's place
System Maintenance
Gregg is doing a little site-fixing. Sorry for the mess! Will post a new post as soon as he gets things back in order. (Should be sometime Wednesday.)
The NFL gets a new pizza sponsor after being fired by Papa John's. Even if Pizza Hut is paying more for the term, I'm guessing that on a per location rate they're paying less.
The new deal is for more years remaining (four) and for more money than Papa John’s was paying, Sports Business Journal also reported. Pizza Hut’s reach, with 7,200 locations, dwarfs that of Papa John’s.
Does anybody remember this, circa 1969? It was maybe my last erotic desire before actual eroticism.
Crid
at February 28, 2018 9:09 AM
Yea! we're all copyright violators!
Rejecting years of settled precedent, a federal court in New York has ruled [PDF] that you could infringe copyright simply by embedding a tweet in a web page. Even worse, the logic of the ruling applies to all in-line linking, not just embedding tweets. If adopted by other courts, this legally and technically misguided decision would threaten millions of ordinary Internet users with infringement liability.
It's A Long And Whining Road
Do you think you have it tough because your iPhone's a little sluggish? Here's @AskDrRuth. (The "Haganah" reference is about how she worked as a sniper in Israel.)
As generations of helicoptered kids are coming of age, do you think America is becoming a land of wimps? Or...is it just news from college campuses that make it seem that way?
Adjusted to today's inflation, how much those 75 cents are worth today?
Sixclaws
at February 27, 2018 5:01 AM
Good question. Let's do the math: According to her Wikipedia page, she emigrated to the U.S. in 1956. usinflationcalculator.com says that 75 cents in 1956 would be $6.83 today -- less than the legal minimum wage.
Cousin Dave
at February 27, 2018 6:20 AM
Also, both of her parents died in the Holocaust. And, she was near-fatally wounded in the Israeli War of Independence in 1948.
Cousin Dave
at February 27, 2018 6:22 AM
From Wikipedia: "Westheimer joined the Haganah in Jerusalem. Because of her diminutive height of 4 ft 7 in, she was trained as a scout and sniper. Of this experience, she said, 'I never killed anybody, but I know how to throw hand grenades and shoot.' Westheimer was seriously wounded in action by an exploding shell during the Israeli War of Independence in 1948, and it was several months before she was able to walk again."
Oh, sorry, my mistake, I misread when she arrived here.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 27, 2018 6:54 AM
I think we've come so far in health, infrastructure, and education that we have come to conflate physical safety with a sense of security.
Individual risks and individual harms are easily framed as poor choices, and it might be in our nature to delude ourselves into thinking if we behave well we will be safe, and that people who are not safe were endangered by their own risky behavior.
So many people who spoke out against that illusion are people who were already living life on the skinny branches. Certainly they could have doubled down and hidden deeper, but perhaps people reach their own limits and realize their only access to joy, self respect, or the satisfaction of a meaningful life is by venturing out:
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing."
"I am an artist... I am here to live out loud."
- Emile Zola
Dr. Ruth was not alone in her hardships or her duties, and her opportunities for having her basic needs met, for healing, and education appear to have been institutional or communal, not a private investment by a family. I don't think the ethos permeating the media and the culture was "have it your way".
Tattooing numbers on people was horrific evidence that the individual did not matter, and fighting back against that was a collective matter of the collective good. Now people and companies are trying to find our individual characteristics (income, spending habits) to tailor not only goods offered but the prices at which they're offered. It's easy to get lulled into the mistaken belief that people at large actually care about what we personally want.
Do you think you have it tough because your iPhone's a little sluggish?
In the not-too-distant future, we are all (OK, most of us; there will be a small band of resisters, including me) going to become one, literally, with our smartphones.
The new smartphonepeople will get around by drones, which they will also have become one with, and will reproduce by rubbing their screens against each other.
Google just banned "gun" from their shopping site. Not the guns, but anything that has the exact combination of those letters in that order. Be it a Gundam toy or a Guns n Roses album, it's nowhere to be found
Be it a Gundam toy or a Guns n Roses album, it's nowhere to be found ~ Sixclaws at February 27, 2018 5:04 AM
And here I am, in need of a hot glue gun.
Apropos of nothing, in indenting the quote, I typed "glockquote."
Conan the Grammarian
at February 27, 2018 6:09 AM
Oberlin finds itself between Scylla and Charybdis. Perhaps Mothra would like a taste, since Oberlin has three major issues threatening its existence?
One suit, by a local bakery boycotted by Oberlin students and administration based on apparently false claims the bakery racially profiled students, has been permitted to move forward.
...
In another lawsuit, an expelled Oberlin College male student sued claiming the hearing process was biased and stacked against men
...
As in the [bakery's] lawsuit, the alleged conduct of Dean of Students Raimondo was at issue.
...
Falling enrollment at Oberlin is a key driver of the financial problems.
Another researcher discovers the existence of Intrasexual Competition:
"Across the three studies, we found consistent evidence that women reported higher levels of incivility from other women than their male counterparts," Gabriel said. "In other words, women are ruder to each other than they are to men, or than men are to women.
So, in addition to being "undocumented aliens", more than a few are engaging in identify theft so they can be "documented employees"? and we're supposed to give them amnesty because of why?
Why did Donald Trump win the election? Scott Adams thinks he knows and details how the clown genius won in his new book, Win Bigly.
Adams examines the Trump persuasion toolkit, including techniques that he calls “thinking past the sale” and “anchoring.” For instance, Trump would frequently make an assertion that was technically wrong yet directionally correct, invariably drawing a flurry of media attention to “fact check” and correct him—all the while drawing attention to the issues that he wanted to highlight. For example, Trump claimed to be worth $10 billion; critics scurried to prove that he was worth less, unintentionally certifying Trump’s main point—that he was extremely rich. Now that everyone agreed that Trump was a successful, wealthy businessman, the only question was how wealthy. The mere act of focusing on Trump’s relative wealth also raises the perceived importance of Trump’s business success as a reason to vote for him. “The initial number becomes a mental anchor that is hard to move,” Adams says. “That’s why you should always be the first to offer numbers, even if you are talking about an entirely different situation.” Trump pulled a similar trick when he promised that he would get Mexico to pay for the border wall that he planned to build. If your reaction was that there’s no way Mexico will pay for that wall, you were already “thinking past the sale.” You’ve implicitly admitted that there will be a wall; now the debate is over how to pay for it."
Watch for an interesting 2020 election as a new breed of presidential aspirants copy his techniques.
_
Conan the Grammarian
at February 27, 2018 3:00 PM
Newsweek Can’t Pay Its Rent on Time and Faces Eviction -
Childhood Is Now A Punishable Offense
Who here hasn't inhaled helium from a balloon and talked in a cartoon voice?
Valarie Honeycutt Spears, in Lexington Herald-Leader, writes that a 13-year-old boy got suspended from school for it:
LEXINGTON, Ky. - A Kentucky mother says she's upset because her 13-year-old son was suspended from middle school for three days because he inhaled helium from two Valentine's Day balloons he bought at school.
Robert Rodriguez, an eighth-grader at Simons Middle School in Flemingsburg, told the Lexington Herald-Leader he inhaled the helium from balloons in class last week because "I wanted a squeaky voice." His mother Tonya Miller said her son merely wanted to sound like the cartoon character Donald Duck, but school officials viewed that as huffing and he was suspended Friday afternoon.
"If the school district considers helium a drug, why are they selling it to our children?" Miller said. "Students were unaware that this was punishable until after my son was suspended."
The Superintendent says there's more to the story. But that seems to be news to the mother. Also, it seems to run contrary to telling her it was "huffing."
Miller said Wednesday after she contacted the news media, school officials said her son was suspended for a safety concern, not a drug offense. Robert said he did not disrupt class when he inhaled the helium.
Because we need to overreact when the kids do something they've seen every comedian do.
Maybe he said something like Elmer Fudd's, "Be vewwy, vewwy quiet, we're hunting wabbits" and that was thought a terroristic threat.
Radwaste
at February 25, 2018 10:23 PM
Time to correct that old chestnut:
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't PULL THEIR HEAD OUT OF THEIR *SSHOLES teach.
There, fixed that for you.
Ben David
at February 25, 2018 11:30 PM
At most, this should have stopped at the assistant principal, with a "stern" warning to the student (but maybe a wink and a nod, too), then a brief conversation with the teacher for their career development.
It was true back in my day, guess it's still true today, public school administration seems to attract some of the most humor-less, clueless people on the planet. One has to wonder if they were ever kids themselves, or if they are just cloned at some secret lab.
bkmale
at February 26, 2018 6:40 AM
How do you inhale helium, talk in that funny voice, and not disrupt class? Middle school students are going to laugh. Suspendable offense? I’m not sure, but I can guarantee that it disrupted class.
Our students aren’t allowed to carry around anything Valentines; everything must be left in the office to avoid distractions.
Jen
at February 26, 2018 6:59 AM
The third part of the saying Ben David quoted is, "Those who can't teach, administrate." And it certainly applies here.
Helium is the least reactive chemical element that exists. Until about 1980, it was not known to form any compounds at all; a few have since been identified, but it takes extreme measures to form them. Simple asphyxiation is possible from inhaling it, since it displaces oxygen, but the amount in a small balloon isn't going to hurt anyone in reasonably good health.
Cousin Dave
at February 26, 2018 7:12 AM
> The third part of the saying
The version in my house was "Those who can do, do. Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym."
Similarly, as inexpensive photocopying entered the administrative workplace:
Xerox technology is predicated on the assumption that not every document reproduction needs to achieve 'Kodak' quality.
Olivetti technology is predicated on the assumption that there's a sucker born every minute.
Crid
at February 26, 2018 7:51 AM
That one time in high school - a helium tank in the student council office, a bag of condoms from the friend whose mom worked at Planned Parenthood...
Two memories:
Putting my mouth on the open end of the condoms and learning that spermicide is slippery stuff;
Tying those balloons to the windshield wiper of a friend's car in the student parking lot.
A feeling of safety is necessary to create an environment conducive to long term learning. I hope teachers can navigate the art of classroom control in a way that allows for a feeling of safety that creates space for spontaneity, shared laughter, and joy.
Michelle
at February 26, 2018 8:25 AM
Michelle, while this is different, a Georgia prostitute named Dolores French (she worked for the Mayflower Madam at one point) wrote of how she protected herself against STDs by blowing condoms onto her johns - while distracting them, of course. That is, one thing to remember was to use only unlubricated condoms, because the other kind tasted awful. (Also: Make sure the condom is facing in the right direction first.) The lesson turned out to be very important, later on.
lenona
at February 26, 2018 2:59 PM
If a pop tart chewed into a gun shape is dangerous then inhaling helium to sound funny is huffing. See? Logical (in some alternate universe way).
cc
at February 26, 2018 3:03 PM
Lenona - funny how in our playing around we were so close to putting together that important life skill.
They *were* memorably awful - but mostly, at that age, funny. Shortly thereafter I discovered women. We've seen a lot of progress since then - I hope the flavorings have gotten better.
Michelle
at February 27, 2018 12:27 AM
Those darned kids and their noble gases!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 27, 2018 6:07 AM
Call It Pre-Chump. You paid to have your rights and body slightly less violated by the TSA gropers -- but you might wait longer than non PreCheck members.
“In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss. In the context of these two common weight loss diet approaches, neither of the two hypothesized predisposing factors was helpful in identifying which diet was better for whom.”
Crid
at February 26, 2018 4:24 AM
And while you're at it, chew on this: Clothing is done.
The apparel industry seems to have no solution to the dwindling dollars Americans devote to their closets. Many upstarts promising to revolutionize the industry drift away with barely a whimper. Who needs fashion these days when you can express yourself through social media? Why buy that pricey new dress when you could fund a weekend getaway instead?
By the standards of my childhood, we've slipped a supercomputer(!) into the pocket or purse of most every literate person on the planet... And into those of an uncountable number of dimmer bulbs.
But commoditization of this ruthless binary candlepower isn't cleansing us with rationality: These logic machines are detonators for novelty.
If Trump (and Xi) are merely the early disruptions from this dynamism, I fear we ain't seen nuthin' yet.
Crid
at February 26, 2018 5:21 AM
Damn, that was a great blog comment. Seriously, a Best-of-the-Month™ contender. Straightforward presentation of the Big Link, solid (and humble) follow-thru on the incidental statistic, and thoughtful, skull-widening analysis at the end. At least one of the top two of the month, and maybe the top of my Olympic podium for the young 2018.
Did you guys know that every time Amy awards one of her BotM™ certificates, she includes a coupon for 20,000 free MileagePlus bonus miles on American Airlines?
(She used to give away lunch at participating Red Lobster restaurants, but airline miles are better. Fly the friendly skies, people!)
Crid
at February 26, 2018 5:34 AM
Okay, truth time: It was another food link this morning that nourished the comment about cellphones:
As the head of Cornell’s prestigious food psychology research unit, the Food and Brand Lab, Wansink was a social science star.
All these things can teach us to hate the word "social."
We just flew the fam to disney. I swore Id never fly while the tsa existed, but we got a deal cheaper than driving, so....
All we had to do was put our carryons and shoes through the xray, and walk through a metal detector-the only difference between it and entering Disney was the shoes. All of us that is except DD#2. She is apparently TSA prechecked, at 13. Do they give that out randomly to every X passenger, or does she have a frequent-traveller name-twin?
Hopefully its the same story heading home. Because no one is "patting down" any of my kids.
We flew JetBlue, a first, I'm a Southwest girl, but I'm impressed with them. We took 6 22-inch carryons, no checked bags so no fees, plenty of free inflight snacks and entertainment, and the most legroom Ive had since I was 6 and got to sit in 1st class cause daddy was paying.
Fellow parents: last week of feb is the week for Disney. Cheap flights, cheap hotels, no crowds.
Momof4
at February 26, 2018 5:50 AM
Indeed, we're still waiting for Amy's first words about the replication crisis.
Crid
at February 26, 2018 5:51 AM
I just haven't discussed the replication crisis here. I'm putting Nosek and Open Science in my next book.
Even Ioannidis has some problems: Steven Goodman and Sander Greenland, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Problems in the Analysis"
Whitlock-Loder-Cosh-Me-You: It's precision of the harmony that reminds us how those guys got famous.
Crid
at February 26, 2018 6:05 AM
For those interested in reading research reports in the media and understanding them, an important thing to look at is how they state the stats. There's relative risk versus absolute risk. This is a good primer.
Momof4: yes, I've randomly gotten a TSA Precheck notation on my boarding passes now and again without having to pay for it. I think that's a sneaky advertising campaign on the TSA's part.
This has never stopped the True Believer prohibitionist.
"If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem," Connecticut Sen. Tony Guglielmo (R-District 35), told the Hartford Courant when large numbers of state residents flipped the bird to lawmakers and defied the new gun law.
Well... yes, you do. And like their restriction-inclined predecessors, gun controllers will have quite a mess on their hands.
Hey! How many times have I said things like this on this very blog?
We have to accept that science is a human enterprise, with all that that entails, rather than pretending that everything is wonderful and then having an attack of the vapours any time there’s a problem.
Answer: A bunch.
Crid
at February 26, 2018 6:22 AM
From Crids linke to the replication issue we see this:
How many research groups are doing something similar, but are accurately reporting the data they cooked up to make a good story?
Do we know how to find them? Can the Black Flag find them?
The answer is no, we cannot.
You might want to apply some of the things forensic accounting has learned. One may be able to suss out some of that made up data. Now, if the datamongers are truely clever, it will be very hard to spot. But never attribute to cleverness what can be adequately explained by laziness and pseduo-random number generators.
I haven't actually been keeping up with the news....
Crid
at February 26, 2018 6:44 AM
Science is a process, not an endpoint. Good science involves correcting errors in past work -- but science is done by humans and is plagued by confirmation bias and all the rest of human flaws.
I am writing a medical expose now. It's terrifying what errors mean to people. If I am undercritical about social science, you might ask a girl out the wrong way. If a medical researcher gets something wrong, your sister might die.
Good gosh, the music is so in sync w/ the fight scene starting at 4:37...like an opera without lyrics, just people dying all over the place...culminating at 6:45 w/ the eerie music, then the drums as Keanu is stepping on to the car...the music and the movements are perfect together, like Jesse Ventura said: wrestling is ballet w/ violence. Not to mention when Keanu gets angry at 3:35
Stinky the Clown
at February 26, 2018 6:53 AM
I often get TSA pre-check, which I presume is due to my, erm, status with the DoD. In my experience, it's almost worthless. At many airports (PHX, I'm lookin' at you), the precheck lines are only open during the very busiest hours. Any other time, you have to go through the regular line. At STL, the precheck line is seldom any shorter or less time-consuming than the regular line, so all it does is keep you from having to take your shoes off. (In theory, you can avoid taking your laptop out of your bag. But I have to travel with a CPAP machine, and it must always be removed from the bag, and if you have that, they usually want your laptop removed too.) Ironically, the one place where it consistently saves me time is at my home airport, where the precheck line is quick and the people are usually courteous.
I remember one time, pre-9/11, when I had to hand-carry an oscilloscope onto a flight. If I tried that today, I'd probably get strip-searched and have my entire family history investigated.
Cousin Dave
at February 26, 2018 6:57 AM
Something Mark Twain is supposed to have said: Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.
Yes, Democrats, please do:
So the Dems will run in November on impeaching Trump, rolling back his tax cut, identity politics, and taking away guns owned by lawful Americans?
So the Dems will run in November on impeaching Trump, rolling back his tax cut, identity politics, and taking away guns owned by lawful Americans? ~ I R A Darth Aggie at February 26, 2018 6:58 AM
Well, the California Democratic Party refused to endorse Diane Feinstein at its recent convention, preferring progressive state senator Kevin de Leon, but not enough to endorse him either.
Feinstein, while still pretty moonbat liberal, has at least held a job with executive level responsibility (mayor of San Francisco) and, thus, understands that not all liberal/academic policies make good governance. As such, she's unacceptable to the left wing of the Democratic Party.
The preferred candidate, de Leon, has not. He is a former "educator teaching US citizenship courses" and a former community organizer. He is an advocate for the California Teachers' Association, as well as a member. He was instrumental in passing the law that gave California driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and has advocated illegal immigrant friendly policies.
He is an advocate of gun control and has pushed policies that restrict sales of handgun ammunition. In that, he may be no better than Feinstein and her "assault weapons" ban.
At a press conference, de Leon displayed his ignorance about guns, claiming the AR-15 could "disperse 30 bullets in half a second" and could accept a "30 caliber magazine clip."
He is a proponent of the affirmative consent standard in California colleges and universities.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 26, 2018 7:36 AM
> Science is a process
Yeahyeah, just saying, Ioannidis' slapback was so fast I didn't even see it.
And actually, if I'd noted the date of Goodman/Greenland challenge, I'd have ignored it entirely.
This is the kind of 'confession' offered by someone whose impact on the flow of world events is generational, and perhaps game-changing and Godsent.
Ioannidis has made his mark, and double-checked his penmanship at every stroke.
Crid
at February 26, 2018 8:00 AM
And alas, my beloved (and redheaded and hardheaded) sister is now perfectly safe.
Crid
at February 26, 2018 8:03 AM
The scourge of manspreading that was so pervasive an ordinance for the subway had to be passed lest the transit authority be accused of sexism has its first sacrificial lamb
Oh they arrested a woman? Well thats just sexist, and probably racist too
”Hopefully its the same story heading home. Because no one is "patting down" any of my kids.”
Yeah, because the wishes of the passenger are always foremost in the minds of the TSA… They will totally do what you want.
Let us know how much your bail is.
I hear some handcuffs are comfortable, so you won’t mind wearing them.
Radwaste
at February 26, 2018 1:52 PM
A couple years back an enlightened smarter-than-you woperson and suspiciously congruent commentmob agreed that hetero sex is always rape.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 26, 2018 2:03 PM
A couple years back an enlightened smarter-than-you woperson and suspiciously congruent commentmob agreed that hetero sex is always rape.
Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin called to say welcome to the party, pal! I guess late is better than never.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 26, 2018 2:34 PM
Let us know how much your bail is.
I can scratch up a couple of bucks. TSA probably sees actual paying customers as an imposition on their free time.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 26, 2018 2:37 PM
Deer Google, you might want to rethink this. If not, DOJ should contemplate opening an anti-trust investigation, IMO. Or you should be thankful that "net neutrality" was rescinded.
I did the AR-15 search, and it came up null. I also did a search on AK-47, and google returned results. One of which is a hoodie that says "My AK-47 identifies as a bolt action".
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 26, 2018 2:45 PM
Seems like someone should have brushed up on his Florida government class or taken one.
Dworkin, like Kate Millett, has turned a garish history of mental instability into feminist grand opera. Dworkin publicly boasts of her bizarre multiple rapes, assaults, beatings, breakdowns and tacky traumas, as if her inability to cope with life were the patriarchy's fault rather than her own. She pretends to be a daring truth-teller but never mentions her most obvious problem: food.
After that, some of what she says gets kind of personal and pointed.
Crid
at February 26, 2018 2:55 PM
Would totally d̶a̶t̶e̶ vote for Stacy Dash. That child is stunning.
Crid
at February 26, 2018 3:18 PM
Conservative Mona Charen: "I’m Glad I Got Booed at CPAC"
"...So you’d think that the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, would be a natural fit. It once was. But on Saturday, after speaking to this year’s gathering, I had to be escorted from the premises by several guards who seemed genuinely concerned for my safety...
"...My panel was about the #MeToo movement, which was a natural for me since my new book coming out in June, “Sex Matters,” grapples with the movement and other aspects of our fraught sexual ecosystem.
"After every woman on the panel had a chance to speak and with 10 minutes remaining on the clock, the moderator threw a slow pitch right over the plate. She asked us about feminist hypocrisy. Ask me that at a cocktail party and I will talk your ear off about how the very people who had lectured us about the utter venality of workplace sexual harassment throughout the 1980s became suddenly quiescent when the malefactor was Bill Clinton.
"But this time, and particularly in front of this crowd, it felt far more urgent to point out the hypocrisy of our side. How can conservative women hope to have any credibility on the subject of sexual harassment or relations between the sexes when they excuse the behavior of President Trump? And how can we participate in any conversation about sexual ethics when the Republican president and the Republican Party backed a man credibly accused of child molestation for the United States Senate?
"I watched my fellow panelists’ eyes widen. And then the booing began.
"I’d been dreading it for days, but when it came, I almost welcomed it. There is nothing more freeing than telling the truth. And it must be done, again and again, by those of us who refuse to be absorbed into this brainless, sinister, clownish thing called Trumpism, by those of us who refuse to overlook the fools, frauds and fascists attempting to glide along in his slipstream into respectability..."
Um, a 9mm handgun has a muzzle velocity of about 1,200 feet per second. An AR-15 has a muzzle velocity of about 3,300 fps. Of course, this depends upon the ammunition used.
So, technically O'Donnell is correct with the 3x metric, but we're talking about a difference of 1/10th of a second or less. Both bullets break the speed of sound (1,125 fps).
I'm not sure I get what he's saying; that the school shooter would duck out of the way of the teacher's shot and hit the teacher with his faster AR-15 shot? Has O'Donnell ever tried to duck a handgun shot?
I've got a 1909 revolver that shoots an anemic 750 fps and I dare O'Donnell to try and dodge that.
If the Left wants to argue gun control, do so. Don't try and impress people with a tenuous grasp of the technical details of guns. There be monsters.
I'm sure China's air pollution would be a lot worse if they DID have clothes dryers. (Which is not to say there's no way of having the best of both worlds - I just don't know what it could be.)
Let’s consider for a moment the imbecility of the suggestion that teachers be armed and ready to return fire in the event of another school shooting. If the perpetrator is a student at the school, the teachers would be firing at a child; how many teachers do you know who would actually do this?
In the event of a firefight, there is the possibility of friendly-fire casualties; how many teachers would be willing to take that risk?
We already ask too much of teachers: We ask them to work for little pay in underfunded, overflowing classrooms, and they do. They do because they are committed to their mission to educate, nurture and help the next generations succeed.
To our president and members of Congress: Go ahead and ask that same person to take on the responsibility of potentially killing a student, friendly-fire or otherwise, and see what response you get.
BROOKE JONES, HONOLULU
lenona
at February 26, 2018 4:32 PM
Presumably Larry O'scary was trying to discuss rate of fire. ~ Crid at February 26, 2018 4:11 PM
Well, they're both semi-automatic firearms (one trigger pull per shot). So they only shoot as quickly as you can pull the trigger. So, they shoot at the same rate of fire.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 26, 2018 4:32 PM
In the event of a firefight, there is the possibility of friendly-fire casualties; how many teachers would be willing to take that risk? ~ lenona at February 26, 2018 4:32 PM
Lenona, let's not deify teachers. I'm sure plenty of them would be willing to shoot back at a student killing his fellow students. At least as willing as a Palm Beach County Sheriff's deputy would be, or a School Resource Officer of the Year candidate.
And I believe the idea is not to arm every teacher, just enough of them to create a deference to anyone thinking about taking guns to school - like Sky Marshalls.
Perhaps not a great plan, since the random presence of Sky Marshalls does not seem to have deterred hijackers.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 26, 2018 4:38 PM
"Let’s consider for a moment the imbecility of the suggestion that teachers be armed and ready to return fire in the event of another school shooting. If the perpetrator is a student at the school, the teachers would be firing at a child; how many teachers do you know who would actually do this?"
This is another example of there being no link whatsoever between education, reason and outrage on social media - and of the pervasive atmosphere of fear in the USA, possibly indicative of an epidemic producing emotional infirmity, such as that exhibited by Alzheimer's victims.
You must fear. It's mandatory.
• This "imbecility" is already in place in Utah.
• A teacher - the single person encountering the killer - will not be "firing at a child"; they'll be firing at a deluded monster who has decided to kill and maim others, including the teacher. Go tell that coach in Florida a "child" killed him.
Larry Correia already addressed this.
Radwaste
at February 26, 2018 7:06 PM
I'm not sure how some people have built up these shooters as being a cross between a Terminator and John Rambo, with a dash of John Wick thrown in for good measure.
These turkeys are still human. And for the most part are not well trained - Call of Duty doesn't count. They know how to operate their weapons, and they're quite willing to shoot people who are unarmed. But they're not going to kill you with a fucking pencil.
They're still subject to the same fight or flight emotions they're inflicting on their victims, and they're also liable to fall prey to target lock, the narrowing of their vision to only see the things in front of them, and not the person behind them that's about to put bullet in their head. Or back. Remember: they're is no shoot to wound.
Go and review the John Wick, Chapter 2 trailer. In particular, the scene where he is in confined space with an AR of some sort (or perhaps an M-16/4?). Aimed shots, very particular, disciplined and keeps his head on a swivel.
"I know there's a lot of controversy, and people who don't want to arm them," said Locastro, 44. But she thinks armed staffers can deter attacks like the Parkland gunman. "Hopefully, it will make them think twice," she said.
In about two dozen states, including California, schools can allow staff to carry guns on campus, although some require concealed-carry licenses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 26, 2018 8:15 PM
I'm a pro-Constitution kinda guy so how about we remove taxpayer-funded armed protection from our politicians and see how the voting goes?
Because I'm pretty damned certain those shmoes don't want the drunken hotheads on the other side of the aisle packin' heat on the job.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 26, 2018 8:57 PM
I see that the President has said he would have run into the Florida high school to stop the shooter, "...even if I didn't have a weapon."
This is exactly what ANY person in power should be prepared to do.
Can you imagine your favorite public figure doing that? If not, maybe they shouldn't BE your favorite.
What would Hillary have done?
Radwaste
at February 26, 2018 9:00 PM
I see that the President has said he would have run into the Florida high school to stop the shooter, "...even if I didn't have a weapon." ~ Radwaste at February 26, 2018 9:00 PM
Until the shooting actually starts, let's take with a grain of salt any claims of what any would-be heroes would have done.
Unless the would-be hero has a history of rushing into danger to save people, any claim that he would have is just an empty boast; and even then it's still up in the air as each situation is different and who knows when even a real hero will lose his nerve.
Even on this forum, we've had posters tell us what heroes they would have been in various situations, but when asked to back it up by telling us when they really were a hero, they went silent.
In college, I worked in a grocery store. Every night we had a police officer hired to guard the store before closing, prime time to rob us. One night, Officer O'Brien was standing by the register I was cleaning when the high school student sweeping nearby asked her if she wore a bullet-proof vest. She knocked on her chest and said "always" although she expressed doubts about the "proof" part of that description.
Our would-be Rambo declared he would not wear one, as a vest would only slow him down. She went into a detailed description of what a bullet wound does to a human body and said she would always wear one, given a choice. I, having stayed out of the conversation up to this point, nodded and said I was with her. He repeated his assertion that he needed the freedom of movement that being sans vest would give him.
Officer O'Brien and I looked at each other and shook our heads. What a dumbass. Everybody's a hero when the guns are silent.
Having had guns pointed at me, both in anger and in stupidity, I'd take the vest. I'd like to think that I'd run into the school to save people, but I hope I never have to find out.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 27, 2018 6:03 AM
"How can conservative women hope to have any credibility on the subject of sexual harassment or relations between the sexes when they excuse the behavior of President Trump? And how can we participate in any conversation about sexual ethics when the Republican president and the Republican Party backed a man credibly accused of child molestation for the United States Senate?"
Answer: Because the Trumpian conservatives no longer give a damn. They've figured out that the Left views civilized behavior as a weakness to be exploited, and that Washington has become its own most important constituency. The Tea Party was the last try at doing things the old-fashioned way. Charen is a good and thoughtful writer, but she's a product of her time and she doesn't understand the new rules of engagement.
Cousin Dave
at February 27, 2018 6:42 AM
"They're still subject to the same fight or flight emotions they're inflicting on their victims, and they're also liable to fall prey to target lock, the narrowing of their vision to only see the things in front of them, and not the person behind them that's about to put bullet in their head. "
One of the things they emphasize to us in our active-shooter training is that these shooters are usually acting in a state of adrenaline and excitability that they have no experience with, so their operational effectiveness, if you will, is actually quite poor. Most of the shots they take miss, and it's common for them to miss a target that is only a few feet away. Most of the casualties that they inflict occur when they fire into groups or crowds of people, where it's almost impossible to miss. The solution to this is: disperse. Don't gather. This is why "shelter in place" is a terrible idea.
These shooters are also highly distractable. One tactic is to throw something that will make a lot of noise when it hits the floor. The shooter will turn their focus to where the noise came from -- they might even fire at it. This creates a significant opportunity for either escape or counterattack.
Cousin Dave
at February 27, 2018 6:53 AM
"How can conservative women hope to have any credibility on the subject of sexual harassment or relations between the sexes when they excuse the behavior of President Trump?" ~ Mona Charen [quoted]
How can modern feminists hope to have any credibility on the subject of sexual harassment or relations between the sexes who they fervently back stories that are easily proven false (UVA fraternity, Duke lacrosse, etc.), go apoplectic at innocent touching, and cry rape with equal fervor whether the case is a knife-wielding thug or arguably little more than morning-after regret?
How can modern feminists have any credibility when they fervently backed a woman who actively covered up her husband's sexual harassment and credible rape accusation? And never expressed any regret for having done so?
Given the modern hysteria over relations between the sexes, no one party or viewpoint has more credibility than the other. It's a goat rodeo.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 27, 2018 7:32 AM
"Until the shooting actually starts, let's take with a grain of salt any claims of what any would-be heroes would have done."
Okay, I'll take that bait:
Of the number of people who state they would run INTO danger, what percentage will actually DO that...
As opposed to the percentage of those who remain silent, or state that they will NOT?
There are a lot of people who buy the idea that it's "someone else's" job to defend women and children - and/or that the common American simply cannot cope, no matter what. Not me.
There are a lot of people who buy the idea that it's "someone else's" job to defend women and children - and/or that the common American simply cannot cope, no matter what. ~ Radwaste at February 27, 2018 11:49 AM
Well, until crunch time comes, I'll take your profession of bravado with a grain of salt.
A combat veteran once told me that he never answered questions of what it's like because if you've never been there, words aren't enough and if you have, words aren't necessary.
As such, absolute professions of "I would..." bravado are too often given with no idea what it's like when the bullets are flying.
Sometimes it won't be boasting. ~ Radwaste at February 27, 2018 11:52 AM
Sometimes it won't. Sometimes, it will.
I wonder if Deputy Peterson ever boasted that he would lead the charge if a mass shooter came to Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School. If he did, I'll bet he thought he would at the time.
I wonder if Coach Feis ever thought he'd be tested with something like this, or ever bragged that he would be heroic if he was.
__
Conan the Grammarian
at February 27, 2018 2:03 PM
the Republican Party backed a man credibly accused of child molestation for the United States Senate?
I'd still dispute that. Of the women accusing him all but one was OVER the legal age of consent for the state and I honestly cant recall one saying he used force of violence - nor was there any reports of him sleeping around after marrying his wife
On the accusations of the lady who was 14 at the time, there were a couple problems with her story, and as far as I can tell not one reporter ever asked her mother to corroborate what her daughter said she said.
That being said 14 is skeevy and I cant think of a reason a woman of that age would make such an accusation given she had nothing to gain after all this time
"Well, until crunch time comes, I'll take your profession of bravado with a grain of salt."
Go right ahead, because I am not here to please you. I suspect you'll hide and Isab would go in. Meanwhile, the percentage of those who claim they will act, who then DO act, is greater than those who claim otherwise - even though the deadliest person I've ever met said nothing whatsoever about his actions; it took the arrival of his mostly redacted service record for the command to learn of them.
I know many people personally who have served and come under fire. Guess what they say?
Hillary - you know, the "adult" candidate - came under sniper fire overseas according to her. I bet she's guarding a school right now.
Radwaste
at February 27, 2018 8:02 PM
Hillary - you know, the "adult" candidate - came under sniper fire overseas according to her. I bet she's guarding a school right now. ~ Radwaste at February 27, 2018 8:02 PM
Hillary's full of crap, Raddy. And I suspect you are too. But I hope you never have to find out for real if you'll hide or go in.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 27, 2018 8:37 PM
Trump is a HERO! He's PHYSICALLY COURAGEOUS! He's brilliant negotiator who gets discounts on airliners (except that time he defaulted on his own airline in 1990)...
"The price has always been around $4 billion," said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with the Teal Group. "There's no evidence that anything has changed at all with this program. Happy Air Force One Theater Day!"
Crid
at February 28, 2018 7:36 AM
...And all because he loves you, the people who voted for him.
Social Justice Fundamentalism Poisoning The Minds Of The Current College Generation: Creating A Generation Of Victims
This is crazy social justice fundamentalism -- in which your mom giving you a hug without first asking for your consent (like a guy about to penetrate you is supposed to) is a crime against bodily integrity.
It turns normal young women into the equivalent of trauma victims who cannot be touched without feeling violated. Touched in any way.
There must be a consent pact worked out first: "May I touch you on the arm to get your attention in the loud cafeteria?"
If this is not done -- if consent for an arm touch is not asked for and received (ideally, in writing), it's some kind of junior rape.
YELLOW SPRINGS, Ohio -- When Soleil R. Sykes took an internship in Washington during her first year as a student at Antioch College, she experienced a bit of culture shock.
She was working at a German think tank and noticed that both in the office and at social events, friends and colleagues were far more casual about touching one another. "At a mixer before a speech, someone would tap you on the shoulder or I would tap someone on the shoulder," said Ms. Sykes, 22, now a fourth-year student majoring in political economy. "At Antioch, people would have asked permission first."
In 1990, Antioch College students pioneered its affirmative sexual consent policy, formulating a document now called the Sexual Offense Prevention Policy. It was mocked by much of the rest of the world. Since then, campuses across the country have caught up. Education about consent is now part of college life.
Now, the current crop of pioneers at Antioch are moving the conversation beyond sex to discussions of consent in platonic touch.
When Alyssa Navarrette, a third-year student who is studying anthropology and art, came home for her first visit after starting college, she was taken by surprise when her mother hugged her.
"If you don't want to be touched and your mom wants to hug you, you should be allowed to say no," Ms. Navarrette said. "It's about having autonomy over your own body."
"It's a framework for how to engage with everyone, on every level," said Angel Nalubega, a 22-year-old fourth-year history major and a dorm resident adviser. "It helps promote respect for all people in the community."
Again, what it seems to help is turning privileged young women, especially, into people who go out into the world feeling like victims about to be violated.
If that sounds a little overblown, here's a quote from the piece:
"...We live in a culture where so many are penetrated physically, emotionally and verbally by anyone at any moment."
We live at a time -- and place, here in America -- in which we ALL are safer and more "privileged" than any other people at any time in history.
Grow the fuck up. A guy at the airport, clearing your tray while you're wearing headphones, who touches your arm is not raping you. He just wants to do his job.
Their focus on work placements in other cities and their attractiveness to counter-culture students may have conflicted with sustaining enrollment - or maybe their model was less compelling as a world of options was opening up with the world wide web.
That said, I don't know why they folded in balancing bureaucracy with a counter-culture ethos, where their neighbor Oberlin has had continued success.
Michelle
at February 25, 2018 7:59 AM
Grow the fuck up.
Too late. That subculture is already seeping into the larger culture, and eventually it will begin seeping into the laws at various levels.
Eventually it will infiltrate and become the dominate culture, until the next counter-culture comes into being. But that's going to be a nice dark age from when this culture becomes dominate and the next one does.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 25, 2018 8:31 AM
"That subculture is already seeping into the larger culture..."
I have a bit of an overclocked nervous system, certain light and sound frequencies, repetitive harmonics - they drive me nuts, I wear low grade ear plugs if I have to be in a room with more than four people and I hate to be touched by other people.
That being said I shake hands, let my relatives hug me, and tamp down the urge to punch strangers who tap me to get my attention because its less of a hassle than having a 45 minute conversation castigating them for failing to understand my issues before I ever explained them - which dont even affect the public so most people dont recognize it or even understand it
Statistical outliers need to grow the fuck up, and everyone needs to recognize the fact that the world doesnt revolve around them
There is a potential problem for the self-appointed victims of everything: What if their opposite numbers actually followed the Book?
No guy will ask out a woman for fear of being accused of something awful. That's before he actually taps her on the shoulder or offers to shake hands.
Nobody will try to get your attention when you're about to get run over by the marching band. Too risky.
Nobody will offer a suggestion for fear of using privilege or whatever SJW mantra is on for that day.
A man, driving by himself, will not stop to help a lone woman who's got a flat tire for fear of some accusation of something. Yeah, he changed my tire, but he condescended to me by being able to break the corroded lug nuts loose. And he called me "ma'am" which is prejudging my gender identification. I know who his employer is.
I coached youth soccer thirty years ago. You couldn't get me near that job--presuming the knees were willing--today.
"...We live in a culture where so many are penetrated physically, emotionally and verbally by anyone at any moment."
We live in a culture where people may feel compelled to interact with you at any moment, even if you don't feel like talking.
By the way, if you do find yourself in Yellow Springs, Ohio for some reason, Young's Dairy would be worth your time.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com)
at February 25, 2018 12:52 PM
There is already a system in place for making sure people don't touch when you don't want. It is called nonverbal communication. If someone comes at you for a hug you can draw back or put your hand out to shake hands. You can stiff arm them if they don't take a hint. As to not wanting your mom to hug you or freaking out about a touch on the elbow--this better not become the norm because it is seriously nuts.
cc
at February 25, 2018 1:42 PM
We live in a culture where people may feel compelled to interact with you at any moment, even if you don't feel like talking.
You got to learn how to deliver the thousand yard stare. That usually gets the point across.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 25, 2018 4:35 PM
I was flying last week. A woman I did not know had the window seat and I had the aisle seat.
She was asleep when the attendant came down the aisle asking for drink orders. I said, "ma'am". Nothing. So I touched her upper arm. She woke up and thanked me, gave the order.
We had no further interaction.
Still, a certain type of SJW could have objected, or even tried to get me in trouble. I was thinking of that at the time.
No problem this time, but was that the usual thing, or was I lucky?
Do I feel lucky next time?
Richard Aubrey
at February 25, 2018 5:18 PM
This reminded me of the meltdown Daryl Metcalfe, an extremely far-right Pennsylvania state legislator, had last year when a colleague tried to get his attention by touching his forearm (http://www.insideedition.com/state-rep-freaks-out-when-touched-fellow-lawmaker-im-heterosexual-38722). Not all of this can be put down to "cultural Marxism" or anything like that; I think a lot of it is just that an occupational hazard of activism is that it attracts people with certain kinds of personality disorders.
Michelle asked why Antioch is struggling while Oberlin is thriving. My guess is that the market for that type of school is so small that it can support only one player.
Michelle asked why Antioch is struggling while Oberlin is thriving. My guess is that the market for that type of school is so small that it can support only one player.
ebohlman at February 25, 2018 5:41 PM
And I suspect that it is the reputation of the Conservatory that is keeping Onerlin in business. If they didnt have that they would rapidly go the way of Antioch.
Isab
at February 25, 2018 6:13 PM
Isab - good point. I had forgotten about the Conservatory (and I don't have enough of a music background to appreciate what that could mean to a school).
Michelle
at February 25, 2018 9:21 PM
What scares me more is the inevitable cultural rebound: What happens when we've collectively had enough of the lunatic fringe? Crying out together as a voice of reason hasn't deterred the movement.
Perhaps we have become a bunch of "pussies", as Darth Aggie had put it. However, it is that sentiment, carried to the equal and opposite extreme that I'm apprehensive about. Counter movements aren't known for moderation.
Anthony W Funk
at February 25, 2018 10:14 PM
"I see that. We're becoming a nation of pussies."
A couple of events have caused people I know to ask about buying guns. Do you have experience shooting something?
(I know Isab has. Thumbs up for Isab.)
Radwaste
at February 25, 2018 11:05 PM
"...We live in a culture where so many are penetrated physically, emotionally and verbally by anyone at any moment."
Verbally penetrated?
I'm envisioning someone yelling down a woman's vagina. I wonder if he hears echoes.
Patrick
at February 26, 2018 3:20 AM
A guy at the airport, clearing your tray while you're wearing headphones, who touches your arm is not raping you. He just wants to do his job.
But a guy at the airport searching you before you get on the plane is not and should be verbally castigated and publicly shamed?
Conan the Grammarian
at February 26, 2018 5:20 AM
Yes, the latter is also raping the Constitution while fingering your asshole
Yep. Pretty soon, speaking to someone (especially a woman) without their prior permission will be considered rape. Hey, speech is violence, right?And I wonder how this portion of that generation is ever going to ride a subway, go to a concert, or board an airplane if they are that squeamish about body contact.
One of the things we're seeing now is that feminism has fell off the end of the left, gone around the back, and re-emerged on the far right.
Cousin Dave
at February 26, 2018 6:46 AM
Yes, the latter is also raping the Constitution while fingering your asshole ~ lujlp at February 26, 2018 6:33 AM
Raping the Constitution?
I'm no fan of the TSA, conceptually or actually, but that's a bit hyperbolic.
I have been searched a few times by the TSA and have never yet encountered a TSA "agent" who was rude or officious. And I've never had my asshole fingered by them.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 26, 2018 7:45 AM
Remember that wacky novel by Ayn (rhymes with "mine") Rand about a society where all the 'makers' and 'thought leaders' finally gave up on all the PC bullshit and scampered off to escape the madness?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 26, 2018 10:37 AM
"I have been searched a few times by the TSA and have never yet encountered a TSA "agent" who was rude or officious. And I've never had my asshole fingered by them."
This is called, "approval". Right?
Don't let anyone lie to you: you were assumed guilty because you wanted to travel on a plane.
Since you got to after being searched, you think that's OK.
Radwaste
at February 26, 2018 9:18 PM
This is called, "approval". Right? ~ Radwaste at February 26, 2018 9:18 PM
No, Raddie, it's not. You blatantly ignored the part where I said, "I'm no fan of the TSA, conceptually or actually...."
The TSA is a stupid idea, always was. It's about government control and the illusion of safety. Give up your freedom and any control over your own life and some government flunky will make sure you're safe.
Only, that government flunky won't do that, because he can't. No one can. Be prepared for fight for your own life if you want to be safe. And, even then, there are no guarantees. You might lose that fight.
Don't let anyone lie to you: you were assumed guilty because you wanted to travel on a plane. Since you got to after being searched, you think that's OK. ~ Radwaste at February 26, 2018 9:18 PM
Again, no. I was only commenting on the behavior of the person doing the search, not the validity or Constitutionality of the search itself. Learn the difference.
The person doing the search is probably not a petty tyrant, a member of the new Nazi party fanatically exerting control over the lives of people he considers inferior, Communists and Jews. Likely as not, he just needed a job. The person voting to authorize millions of taxpayer dollars spent on searches like that one is the person with whom I have a beef.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 28, 2018 1:16 PM
Leave a comment
Social Justice Fundamentalism Poisoning The Minds Of The Current College Generation: Creating A Generation Of Victims.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Advice Goddess Free Swim
It's Saturday night, and I'm super-zonked.
You pick the topics. I'll try to post a piece in the morning.
P.S. One link per comment or my spam filter will eat your post.
What She Told The FBI
Horrible. A woman gave copious information to the FBI about how dangerous this mass murderer of children was. Just one excerpt from it.
The call was made on January 5, 2018, reports the NY Daily News' Chris Sommerfeldt and Jessica Schladebeck:
Following the deadly rampage, FBI admitted it had not passed on details of the woman's call to the Miami field office for consideration.
Read the stuff in that report. How does any person who takes that report or sees that report not immediately get on the phone and take action?
In other absolutely appalling behavior, four armed men -- the armed school resource officer and three sheriff's deputies -- hid behind cars while children were gunned down by a monster with a terrible weapon.
Good grief! The FBI has a vast amount of egg on its face.
What exactly do they need before they act on a tip and even question someone?
You'd get a visit from the Secret Service for far less than this if he had specified targeting the White House.
Patrick
at February 24, 2018 3:02 AM
Hopefully this results in a complete cleaning house and overhaul of the FBI. Its long overdue. Criminal negligence charges all around, too.
Momof4
at February 24, 2018 4:15 AM
Chances are that they're going to fire an scapegoat that CNN as always will love to chase at this person's place of residence, and will double-down by also put cameras in front of the fired agent's relatives.
Sixclaws
at February 24, 2018 5:15 AM
What exactly do they need before they act on a tip and even question someone?
Check and see if they are a republican politician.
.
Also remember, for decades law enforcement officials and agencies have argued in courts that they have no duty what so ever to protect any given citizen from crimes in progress - and the courts have AGREED
What lujlp said - "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."
Also remember, for decades law enforcement officials and agencies have argued in courts that they have no duty what so ever to protect any given citizen from crimes in progress - and the courts have AGREED
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME
Which is understandable, in a way. Without such protections in place, the police become liable should a well-meaning rescue attempt go wrong for any reason.
Patrick
at February 24, 2018 6:16 AM
I wonder when the *resource officer* had last been to the range and actually qualified with his service weapon?
Keystone cops, a politically correct FBI that is an arm of the Democratic party, and trangender surgeries for the military.
Then people still wonder why Trump was elected.
Isab
at February 24, 2018 8:16 AM
". . . four armed men -- the armed school resource officer and three sheriff's deputies -- hid behind cars while children were gunned down by a monster . . ."
And cops should risk their lives? for what? so the BLM and other hate groups can blame them for all of society's ills?
Yes, it is appalling behavior; but, it is not surprising given how cops are, nowadays, damned if they do and damned if they don't.
charles
at February 24, 2018 9:40 AM
Which is understandable, in a way.
No. The courts give them way too much leniency when it comes to qualified immunity. Things that if you or I would do that would get us arrested, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and sent to prison, they don't even get the barest slap on the wrist.
Maybe paid leave whilst being investigated. Sounds horrible. Meanwhile, the courts and prosecutors *wink*wink*nudge*nudge*.
Again, the notion of To Protect and Serve is a great bit of PR. But as always, unless you're lucky and an officer happens to be on the scene[1] or in the neighborhood, you/us/we are the first responders. Anyone arriving after the fact are recorders of the incident, or the clean up crew.
The first officer to respond to the scene of the attack was Alan Horujko, an officer with the OSU Division of Police who happened to be nearby because of a reported gas leak. Horujko shot and killed the assailant within a minute after the attack started.
See something, say something sounds great, but only if someone will do something.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 24, 2018 10:48 AM
“Terrible weapon“? Are you kidding me?
Gregg famously is a researcher. Please tell me you will ask him about this, because the AR15 is one of the lowest powered rifles one can buy. They were basically built with three criteria in mind: 1000 foot pounds at 300 yards, lightweight ammunition and measurable reliability.
To call the WEAPON, “terrible“ is to anthropomorphize it - hardly representative of a “Science“ – based blog.
Do you call it something different when the police are holding it?
Radwaste
at February 24, 2018 10:49 AM
I wonder when the *resource officer* had last been to the range and actually qualified with his service weapon?
Probably the last time he had renew his weapon qualification. Any time from days before the slaughter, to just shy of 12 months ago. Presuming they have to qualify every year.
Unlike the "gun nuts" more than a few cops don't go to the range on a regular basis.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 24, 2018 10:58 AM
And cops should risk their lives? for what?
Because they swore an oath to do so? Is that so hard to abide by? oh, right, it's more important that cops make it home that night than those students, or you, should you have the misfortune to have an encounter with one just before the end of their shift.
I find this wryly amusing:
Reporters who attempted to approach the West Palm Beach home of ex-Broward County Sheriff's Office Deputy Scot Peterson were reportedly met with resistance from at least six police officers who were standing guard outside.
“They prevented us from approaching the house,” WSVN’s Frank Guzman tweeted Thursday.
More cops to protect a retiree than were assigned to protect 4,000 students? well, ok, I'm glad we have our priorities straight. Oh, right, going home after their shift.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 24, 2018 11:06 AM
One can read about the ballistics of the 5.56x45 ammunition here:
So the retired, now a private citizen, school resource office currently is enjoying 24,000 times the armed protection he was SUPPOSED to provide to these students?
Why does he need 24,000 times the fire power he refused to provide the student in his charge to protect him from questions?
Patrick: What exactly do they need before they act on a tip and even question someone?
Just a fake dossier paid for by the opposing political party that ran the FBI during the previous eight years.
Ken R
at February 24, 2018 1:07 PM
No. The courts give them way too much leniency when it comes to qualified immunity. Things that if you or I would do that would get us arrested, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and sent to prison, they don't even get the barest slap on the wrist.
We're talking about saving lives. And whether you're a police officer or a private citizen, you are under no obligation to aid anyone in distress. (That is, unless you owe some duty to the person in distress, such as your kids, or your actions placed them in their distress in the first place.)
But if I'm walking down the beach and I see a five year old kid drowning in the ocean, I have no obligation whatsoever to do anything about it.
I'm perfectly within my rights to keep right on walking. So, when it comes to a duty to save lives, neither the police nor a private citizen has any obligation. So, no, I would not be arrested if I failed to save lives.
Patrick
at February 24, 2018 1:18 PM
Dana Loesch: 18 calls, including from neighbors and family members... 39 home visits... 2 FBI tips... Nothing done... No questions...
It's almost enough to make a cynical person think they didn't want to stop it from happening.
Ken R
at February 24, 2018 1:23 PM
I like the part where the FBI is in cahoots with all the crazies because black helicopters Illuminati Freemasons Jews commies feminists.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 24, 2018 1:55 PM
And whether you're a police officer or a private citizen, you are under no obligation to aid anyone in distress.
So, lets see if I have this right. A duly sworn law enforcement official who is aware of a forcible felony being committed is not duty bound to intervene?
Then there's no point in having police. None.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 24, 2018 2:16 PM
In other absolutely appalling behavior, four armed men -- the armed school resource officer and three sheriff's deputies -- hid behind cars while children were gunned down...
Reminds me of an amateur video I saw from the Virginia Tech massacre that showed a half dozen chubby cops with shotguns and AR-15s hiding behind trees and police cars while you could hear the sound of gunfire from inside the building.
At Columbine there were police outside the school within minutes after the shooting started at 11:19 AM. They returned fire when the two shooters fired at them from inside the building, but it was 1:09 PM, one hour and 50 minutes after the shooting started and 61 minutes after the shooters killed themselves, before SWAT teams entered the building. Some of the wounded kids were not evacuated until almost 3:30 PM.
As others have said above, the police have no duty to save lives and many seem not inclined to try if it involves risk to themselves. Their highest priority is their own safety.
Mass shootings don't show a need to control or ban guns. They show a need for more civilians to be armed. The government will not protect you.
Ken R
at February 24, 2018 2:22 PM
"A duly sworn law enforcement official who is aware of a forcible felony being committed is not duty bound to intervene?"
True.
And, upon thinking about this, you will see that the decision, best shown in Warren v. DC, is justified:
Establishing a duty to "intervene", or to take action to protect an individual, exposes police to lawsuits for failure to perform that duty.
Even in cases where there was no police presence or action.
The result would be a bankrupt city. The only reason this sounds like a bad thing, or requires any thought at all, is that people have been told that "others" have this duty, to protect you, by those who stand to profit from your defenselessness.
Radwaste
at February 24, 2018 3:51 PM
At Columbine there were police outside the school within minutes after the shooting started at 11:19 AM. They returned fire when the two shooters fired at them from inside the building, but it was 1:09 PM, one hour and 50 minutes after the shooting started and 61 minutes after the shooters killed themselves, before SWAT teams entered the building. Some of the wounded kids were not evacuated until almost 3:30 PM. ~ Ken R at February 24, 2018 2:22 PM
Before Columbine, the standard police procedure in an active shooter situation was to wait for SWAT, cops trained in infiltration and armed for the task.
After Columbine, the standard procedure was changed. Cops are now expected to enter the building and attempt to subdue or kill the active shooter(s) as they arrive on the scene.
The fact that it took so long to stage a SWAT team at Columbine and for that team to enter the building caused police departments across the country to re-evaluate their active shooter procedures and develop better ones.
This according to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD officer who taught the active shooter class I took last year.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 24, 2018 5:08 PM
Establishing a duty to "intervene", or to take action to protect an individual, exposes police to lawsuits for failure to perform that duty.
Ok. Good to know. It blows up one the gun grabber's talking points: why do you need guns? the cops will save you.
No. No they won't.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 24, 2018 7:12 PM
> No. No they won't.
Meanwhile, consider this. When self-beloved government enthusiasts start using language in that clipped way, we know we have a real problem.
Stephen Willeford didn't wait until backup arrived when he grabbed his AR-15 and stopped the Texas church shooter. Was his AR a "terrible weapon" or a "wonderful weapon?" A bolt-action .223 can do just as much damage in the same time period as an AR if one is motivated to do so. It's not the gun or the caliber. It's the intent of the shooter.
The cops are afraid and think of their safety before yours.
This whole incident has nothing to do with firearms. It's a failure of government and law enforcement including the FBI.
2015 FBI murder stats by weapon:
rifles of all types: 252
heads/hands/feet: 624
blunt instruments, hammers, clubs: 437
knives: 1544
Jay J. Hector
at February 24, 2018 8:26 PM
The solution is clear Jay. We need heads/hands/feet control laws in this nation. Until we amputate the heads, hands, and feet of all citizens we will never be safe.
Ben
at February 25, 2018 5:47 AM
...hid behind cars while children were gunned down by a monster with a terrible weapon.
The fact that a .223 (5.56mm) bullet moving at high speed radically changes direction when it hits flesh is not really relevant to whether an armed populace deters government tyranny.
Gun control advocates have been using scary bullets to frighten the public for years. Remember when Teflon-coated "cop-killer bullets" were gonna kill us all?
Conan the Grammarian
at February 26, 2018 5:28 AM
I see that the Broward County Sheriff's Department is still every bit as worthless as it was when I lived there, three decades ago. I wonder how much they made on civil forfeitures last year. So cops are guarding Scot Peterson's house? Which cops? Broward County? From the description, Peterson lives in Palm Beach County. If the cops are Broward County, they are out of their jurisdiction.
And in other news: "Shelter in place" kills. Remember, kids: run, hide, fight.
Cousin Dave
at February 26, 2018 6:30 AM
And while I'm here, I will give kudos to the Coral Springs city police. It sounds like they did the job that the sheriff was supposed to do.
You don’t need guns, they told me. Civilized people know the police will protect them, they told me. Anything else is just gun crazy paranoia, they said.
Yeah, Cridmo, who knew that cancer could be raaaaaacist!!!! ???
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 24, 2018 10:35 AM
In a lot of ways, Antioch College exists in a bubble.
@Crid,
One half of my family has a history of 100% deaths due to health problems related to cancer.
So, reading about that college gives me the joy to know that my eventual tumors will kill me before I see those kids reach important positions of power in the civilized world.
Sixclaws
at February 24, 2018 11:17 AM
I R A Darth Aggie, who complains about getting free food for all their employees?
Satire, but the heart of good satire is a kernel of truth.
“Trump is a dangerous tyrant, so he should be the only one with deadly weapons!” one woman screamed at an anti-gun protest. “People obviously can’t be trusted with them. Instead, we need to entrust them only to the most powerful man on the planet, who has proven time and time again he’s no better than history’s most violent dictators and has the potential to become an iron-fisted totalitarian!”
I vote for this incident as the stupidest instance of overreaction ever.
Patrick
at February 24, 2018 1:13 PM
Moar from Antioch College. They have some interesting notions of good touch, bad touch
But seriously, how can the snowflakes who emerge from this college ever live in the real world? Why would anyone want to take the risk of talking to them, knowing that they are so terrified of the possibility of contact? I would go out of my way not to hire an Antioch graduate, afraid that if they got a pat on the back from a colleague, they would file a harassment lawsuit.
Secret truth: Yellow springs is such a charming little town that I've had daydreams of moving there to teach something (communications maybe, or shoelaces) at Antioch.
Crid
at February 24, 2018 5:39 PM
You can't drink the water, though.
That's not a metaphor or anything. It's called Yellow Springs for a reason.
Welcome To Female Competition: Find A Reason The Pretty Girls Should Cover Up
Jennifer Lawrence was criticized by feminists -- as if she were some actressbot with zero agency -- for posing outside in what must have been cold weather in a fabulous and revealing dress.
I'd have done it, too in a -- heh -- hot second, and for the same reasons Lawrence did. (More on that below.)
I once joined two very smart (and hot) guy friends for drinks at the bar by my house. I wore a vintage full-length Halston evening dress -- at about 5 o'clock on a weekday afternoon.
There were people in the place in sweats, sure, and my guy friends were dressed as I knew they'd be -- in everyday guy clothes.
My feeling: Life is short. Fashion's fun. Why dress like you're about to clean out the garage?
In The Telegraph/UK, Helena Horton reports that Lawrence gave the feminist sneerers both barrels, calling them "ridiculous".
The actress defended her right to wear a skimpy Versace dress during a promotional event for the film Red Sparrow earlier this week.
While Lawrence wore the strappy gown, which featured a thigh-high split, male co-stars Joel Edgerton, Jeremy Irons, Matthias Schoenaerts and director Francis Lawrence were all in multiple layers of clothing, and many pointed out the contrast.
Writer Helen Lewis attracted thousands of retweets when she wrote: "This is such a quietly depressing (and revealing) image. Not least because I've been outside today and it's b----- FREEZING."
Peep Show's Robert Webb tweeted: "To all those saying JL 'chose' to wear that dress: fine but that choice has a context. She could have made a different decision but we can agree on one thing: it's not a decision to which the blokes had to give the slightest thought."
...Lawrence responded to critics in an impassioned Facebook post, writing: "This is not only utterly ridiculous, I am extremely offended. That Versace dress was fabulous, you think I'm going to cover that gorgeous dress up with a coat and a scarf? I was outside for 5 minutes. I would have stood in the snow for that dress because I love fashion and that was my choice.
"This is sexist, this is ridiculous, this is not feminism. Over- reacting about everything someone says or does, creating controversy over silly innocuous things such as what I choose to wear or not wear, is not moving us forward. It's creating silly distractions from real issues. Get a grip people. Everything you see me wear is my choice. And if I want to be cold THATS MY CHOICE TOO
This might seem like these feminists care about Lawrence and whether she has goosebumps. However, it's really classic female competition. I write about that in this column:
While men will sock each other in the bar parking lot (and can sometimes go back in and have a beer), women engage in what anthropologists call "covert aggression" -- attacks that are hard to pinpoint as attacks, like gossip, social exclusion, and stabbing another woman in the self-worth. ("Stabracadabra!" -- you're bleeding out, but nobody but you can tell!)
Psychologist Anne Campbell, like others who study female competition, explains that women seem to have evolved to avoid physical confrontation, which would endanger their ability to have children or fulfill their role as an infant's principal caregiver. (Ancestral Daddy couldn't exactly run up to the store for baby formula.) So while guys will engage in put-down fests as a normal part of guy-ness, even women's verbal aggression is usually sneaky and often comes Halloween-costumed as compliments or concern: "Ooh, honey, do you need some Clearasil for those bumps on your chest?"
The tarted-up put-down is a form of psychological manipulation -- a sly way of making a woman feel bad about herself so she'll self-locate lower on the totem pole. And because men have visually driven sexuality, women specialize in knocking other women where it really hurts -- their looks. Like those supposedly minuscule boobs of yours. (Right...you'll have a latte, and she'll just have another mug of your tears.)
The topic of female competition always reminds me of a few lines from Ani Difranco's "32 Flavors"
"God help you if you are an ugly girl
Of course, too pretty is also your doom
Cause everyone harbors a secret hatred
For the prettiest girl in the room"
"I'll never try to give my life meaning
by demeaning you"
Just thought I'd mention that. I always take the opportunity to mention Ani. She's ace. :)
...and good on Laurence for facing down the girl police. This puritan/modesty nonsense is getting out of hand. No wonder these types see the burka as a positive.
I saw on Twitter that she, Lawrence, had called someone "sexist". It took several seconds to process what she might have meant. This is just a weird time in our social understanding of such matters, as news of Weinstein's prosecution and defense are showing up in the feeds as well. It's hard to know what's worth taking offense over.
Crid
at February 23, 2018 2:01 AM
Every guy who has ever been asked to settle an argument between two women knows that it's a lose-lose deal: no matter what you do, you will end up with both women angry at you. If you choose a side, the one you don't choose will be angry with you, and the one you do choose will instantly go all sisterhood and be angry with you because you hurt the other woman's feelings. If you try to find a middle ground, they will both be angry with you for not manning up and choosing a side.
Cousin Dave
at February 23, 2018 6:23 AM
Well, so much for "her body, her choice".
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 23, 2018 6:40 AM
CD, that's the case were you don't say nothin', and go back to your meal/drink/beer.
I had that happen to me once, and that's what I did. As you imply, I got a question for which there is no right answer.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 23, 2018 6:44 AM
On the one hand, she can wear whatever she wants to - anyone can.
OTOH, she has a history of forcing herself into the spotlight, especially trying to give her "informed and enlightened opinion" on things that she knows nothing about while ridiculing others for having different opinions.
For example, she said on British TV in September 2017 that the hurricanes in Florida and Texas "were signs of Mother Nature’s rage and wrath at America for electing Donald Trump."
She has every right to speak up on any topic she wants. But if you do that as a public figure, you'd better be prepared for the backlash.
rick
at February 23, 2018 7:16 AM
When I was still in my 20’s, I’d run around half naked in the cold, too... not because of “sexism,” but because I looked good, and I knew it. Now that I’m in my late 30’s, I generally only raise an eyebrow when someone is dressed inappropriately in an office setting (or church). (We did have a “skintern” last year that who though that “business casual” meant skintight mini dresses.) But for social events? Look as hot as you want.
ahw
at February 23, 2018 9:13 AM
In a small village or tribe, it makes sense that you can raise your status by pulling others down, and people do that. But in a country of 370,000,000 that makes no sense at all. No one around you will promote your status because you discouraged some hot girl from wearing sexy clothes. No one around you will even notice such a thing unless it is in a small social circle, in which case the rep as a mean girl wipes out any advantage.
cc
at February 23, 2018 11:32 AM
if a girl doesn't suck up to other girls and apologize for looking good too, she will be utterly vilified. the level of fear and loathing is terribly high among women. sad to not love who you are and can be.
vicki chang
at February 23, 2018 4:28 PM
But in a country of 370,000,000 that makes no sense at all.
It does if you can get her to apologize for such an infraction in public. Shows that you have lots of power because you're able to pretend you speak for all women. With your numbers, thats ballpark 185 million women.
But when your target tells you and your fellow crones to go suck an egg, not so much power.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 23, 2018 7:08 PM
While men will sock each other in the bar parking lot (and can sometimes go back in and have a beer),
And, in those cases, their choice is typically Miller Fite.
JD
at February 24, 2018 1:16 PM
Leave a comment
Welcome To Female Competition: Find A Reason The Pretty Girls Should Cover Up.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Inkolal
It's a town of links somewhere in Eastern Europe.
One quibble with that last tweet. It wasn’t neck-tat guy who shot back at the church shooter. It was the older guy who lived across the street. Johny neck-tat drove the truck to chase him down.
But as for the rest- Yes.
Evergreen State expects an enrollment drop. Can't imagine why people would prefer to not be on a campus with roving gangs of baseball bat wielders who threaten to beat the boogey man du jour.
The dieters weren’t strictly monitored or required to stick to a rigid plan. Instead, they were offered 22 hour-long classes led by registered dietitians on how to follow their assigned diet without feeling deprived, as well as general advice on healthy eating.
But, wait, it gets better:
Both groups cut back but on average didn’t hold to the targets, based on interviews. The low-carb dieters reported eating, on average, about 246.5 grams of carbohydrates per day at the beginning of the trial. They got that down to an average of 97 at the three-month mark but crept back up to 132 by the end. The low-fat dieters were, on average, eating 87 grams of fat per day at the start. They were down to 42 after three months and inched up to 57 by the end.
I had wondered where the resource officer was, and why the shooter was not confronted by said officer. And only one resource officer for a school of about 4,000 individuals? seems...thin.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 23, 2018 6:55 AM
I really would like this to be "fake news".
Over the weekend the Seattle Times jumped at a news tip: there was a Confederate flag flying beneath the American flag in the city's Greenwood neighborhood, and residents were very concerned.
Only, it turns out, it wasn't the Confederate flag at all. It was the state flag of Norway, and a group of friendly Norwegians were just trying to show their patriotism and support for their Olympic Team when their very concerned neighbors contacted local media.
A nice twitter link on why there's no sassy PuertoRican blacktinos(as) characters in a video game set in the Middle Ages located in a Czech village far, far away from anything else.
Hey Gog, ever wonder why no one wonders why the most powerful being in existence with access to the gold reserves of an infinite number of planets can never afford to pay for his own shit?
No More Child Genital Mutilation: If You Were A Modern Aztec, We Wouldn't Let You Sacrifice Somebody's Baby To The Gods
"Because religion...!" is not an excuse for murder, and I say that as a atheist who believes that people should have the freedom to practice their religion -- until that moment when they start to do something that will cause harm to another person (who is not a consenting adult).
Of course, some people are into "harm," and if they're over 18, who am I to tell them they can't have their girlfriend, oh, bullwhip them upon request?
So, where should we draw the line on what you can and can't do per your religious beliefs? Well, for starters, on unnecessary medical procedures -- effectively mutilation -- of little boys and girls' genitals.
We get all, "Wow, disgusting and terrible!" (and it is) about FGM: Female Genital Mutilation. Meanwhile, some person who's tsk-tsking some magazine article about FGM will step right up to have part of their son's penis whacked off in the name of their religion.
Now, if some tot needs some sort of penile or vaginal surgery for medical reasons, well, have at it. I'll just step out of your way.
But if your ancient religious practice is what's leading you to give your child an unnecessary (and potentially risky -- because all operations come with risk) medical intervention, well, no.
Your child is your child, but they are not a coffee mug or a lamp. You don't own your child. He or she is a person -- one who has a right to bodily integrity, to not have others make decisions for him or her to have body parts hacked off for any reason other than medical necessity.
Iceland is the first country to get civilized along these lines. They have a bill in their parliament that would ban circumcision for non-medical reasons. (They banned FGM in 2005, so it's about time somebody got behind ending the genital mutilation of boys.) At the BBC:
The draft law would impose a six-year prison term on anyone guilty of "removing part or all of the [child's] sexual organs", arguing the practice violates the child's rights.
Jewish and Muslim leaders however have called the bill an attack on religious freedom.
Iceland would be the first European country to ban the procedure.
The country is thought to have roughly 250 Jewish citizens and around 1,500 Muslim citizens.
...The Nordic Jewish Communities issued a statement condemning the ban on "the most central rite" in their faith.
"You are about to attack Judaism in a way that concerns Jews all over the world," the open letter reads.
Oh, bullshit.
P.S. Though I'm an atheist, I'm Jewish. Being against circumcision is about leaving little penises unmutilated. I will defend your right to do all sorts of ridiculous stuff for religious purposes that does not involve knives slicing into toddler flesh for no fucking medical reason.
Alarmingly, one place we might start operating is the pediatric vulva. Compared to the penis, the external female genitalia provide if anything “an even more hospitable environment to bacteria, yeasts, viruses, and so forth, such that removing moist folds of tissue (with a sterile surgical instrument) might very well reduce the risk of associated problems.”
It's not a medical procedure, it's a religious one, and your sarcasm is inappropriate.
Crid
at February 22, 2018 12:22 AM
1.
Whatever happened to "keep your LAWS off my BODY"?
2.
Does this mean you support forced vaccination of children?
Ben David
at February 22, 2018 1:21 AM
Its a religious one for a large minority of jews.
It was pushed as a medical thing onto the western public at large by a man who wanted to destroy male sexual pleasure in an attempt to curb masturbation. A man who also suggested using carbolic acid to burn off women's clitorises
But given FGM is a religious thing for even more muslims I'm sure you have no objection to that, right crid?
Sarcasm again: You guys in a terrible hurry to be right about something.
> But given FGM is a religious
> thing for even more muslims
> I'm sure you have no objection
> to that, right crid?
We've discussed this before, little fella: Context and proportion are not what you're about.
Crid
at February 22, 2018 2:51 AM
If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't circumcise my sons. They are 27, 25, and 19. We did it because it was done to me (as it was to most American males my age), we didn't know what the downside was, we were nervous about how to teach a kid to care for the uncircumcised equipment. We were young and ignorant and stupid.
I always wonder what I, and they, are missing out on because of it, to say nothing of the consent issue.
It's Grey DUCK dammit
at February 22, 2018 5:33 AM
I always wonder what I, and they, are missing out on because of it, to say nothing of the consent issue.
Why worry about something y'all never knew y'all had?
As for consent, did you get their consent for all the other icky things you did to them? do you worry about that, too?
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 22, 2018 6:37 AM
Unfortunately history is replete with examples of prophylactic proceedures that in a later time might seem barbaric, and also a lack of prophylactic procedures that now seems sort of crazy by todays ever shifting standards of cleanliness and disease prevention.
Amy wants to make this a simple issue, when it seems to me, it is anything but.
Full disclousre, I am the mother of a thirty two year old uncircumcised man. My thinking on the subject was influenced by the fact that I come from a culture where circumcision was not the norm. My own father was circumcised in 1942 when he was drafted into the Army for World War II and I am relatively sure he had no choice about either the forced military service, or the circumcision that accompanied it. I am also sure I know what was the risker of the two.
So yes, we in America have the freedom to make bad medical choices all the time and sometimes they get made for us. But taking these sort of decisions out of the hands of parents, the adults most concerned with a child’s welfare and giving them over to the shiting standards and foibles of the government medical nannies is far worse.
I might grant you theoretically that all unnecessary medical proceedures ought to be only performed at the age of 18 with the informed consent of the individual subjected to them, including hormonal treatment and sexual reassignment surgury which in most cases shouldn't be performed at all, if you would also acknowledge that to be legally and morally consistant, mothers would no longer have the option of aborting a viable baby after roughly six months of gestation, which seems to me a far more important child rights issue than a right not to be circumcized.
Isab
at February 22, 2018 6:46 AM
Of course, there's mutilation and there's mutilation. My wife tells me that in the Philippines, female newborns leave the hospital with pierced ears as a matter of course, and some children in this country have their ears mutilated at a very young age.
Mutilating ears (or noses, or lips, or what-have-you) strikes me as a purely elective procedure as well, and perhaps outside the bounds of parental authority.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com)
at February 22, 2018 7:37 AM
We've discussed this before, little fella: Context and proportion are not what you're about.
Nope, Im not, if a practice is wrong it is wrong regardless if preformed on girls or boys
And the post of mine you highlighted has not yet been refuted and was backed up by several scientific studies
But since you love to hear yourself talk, so to speak, why is t you are unable to answer such a simple question as to why its ok for boys but not girls?
But as long as we are referencing that post here is something else I posted on that thread you likewise decided to ignore
Every defense of this practice has ultimatly boiled down to A) cultural norms which isnt good enough for foot binding, female circumcision{even the variants less harmful than male circumcision}, or arranged marriges of 12 yr olds to 60yr olds
or B) Parental rights, which isnt good enough for any other type of elective cosmetic surgery for minors, child abuse, or refusing medical treatment based on religious values
(A) God loves you so much he wants a man with a razor blade to slice your genitals when you come into the world.
Or:
(B) Control freaks want control over everything about you from birth to death and beyond.
Discuss.
And don't forget to tithe, people! That's 10 percent from your weekly gross, not net. Don't forget.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 22, 2018 1:20 PM
The country is thought to have roughly 250 Jewish citizens and around 1,500 Muslim citizens.
So, a country with a population of 334,252 (2016) is banning a religious practice important to a very small percentage of its population - 250 Jews (0.07%) and 1,500 Muslims (0.4%) - and no one mentions any worries about the majority running roughshod over the minority?
Shouldn't this abrupt and casual dismissal of the concerns of the minority, however distasteful, raise some concerns about how the country's government respects the rights of the governed, of all the governed?
Isn't this the "tyranny of the majority" that our own forefathers warned about?
Conan the Grammarian
at February 22, 2018 1:40 PM
Why worry about something y'all never knew y'all had?
I’m confident I knew I had it while it was being surgically removed. But assuming I didn’t, what kind of logic is that? I wouldn’t know the difference if my parents had any number of alterations made, unless there was a complication, of course. Let’s not assume surgery is without risks. Or costs, especially, since circumcision clearly has costs to the individual.
As for consent, did you get their consent for all the other icky things you did to them? do you worry about that, too?
Which other permanent, non-therapeutic body alterations are you wondering about? The ethical distinction for non-therapeutic circumcision from a generic, “icky” parental decision is rational, unlike the implication that a) parents make decisions, b) circumcision is a decision, so c) parents may circumcise.
Tony
at February 22, 2018 1:46 PM
... about how the country's government respects the rights of the governed, of all the governed?
Children are citizens, including boys, who have the same right to bodily integrity as their sisters. Does their government not have a duty to protect their rights?
Tony
at February 22, 2018 1:50 PM
“Every defense of this practice has ultimatly boiled down to
A) cultural norms which isnt good enough for foot binding, female circumcision{even the variants less harmful than male circumcision}, or arranged marriges of 12 yr olds to 60yr olds”
Straw man argument. I would say hormonal treatments for the purpose of arresting puberty based on some kind of mental harm criteria is the modern equivelent of foot binding, and in fact, totally medically unnecessary, and yet crazy parents are allowed to make these decisions every day. If they wont, then the court will do it for them.
Why? because it is culturally aceptable now to want to be transgender.
Iceland will make an exception for Muslims the moment they are faced with a bomb threat because it will be easier and safer to look the other way while the law abiding Jews will vote with their feet, as they have had to do for at least the last three thousand years. It’s a two fer!
You want to government deciding that your kid gets antibiotics rather than an appendectomy because if the antibiotics work the appendectomy would be medically unnecessary or do you want to leave that to the doctor and the parents?
I guarantee you “medically necessary” Is a can or worms you dont want to open. And “elective” isnt nearly as clear cut as you would like to believe it is.
Isab
at February 22, 2018 1:55 PM
Children are citizens, including boys, who have the same right to bodily integrity as their sisters. Does their government not have a duty to protect their rights? ~ Tony at February 22, 2018 1:50 PM
Do the children have a right to vote, or to enter into a contract? Do they have the responsibility of serving on a jury, or paying taxes? Or does the government recognize that children do not have the experience, maturity, or foresight to comprehend the implications of the decisions they make in these areas?
Do we not have parents to make decisions for them until they reach the age of majority? Else why leave children with their parents; why not take them to a government orphanage where they will be "protected" along with their rights?
And, notice I did not say in my original post anything about the government "protects" their rights; I said "respects" their rights. Rights are not given to you by the government. They are respected by the government or they are not.
Depending upon the government to "protect" your rights is a sure way to have those rights impinged by the very government you're looking to for protection - all in the name of "protecting" you and your rights.
Ironically, when it comes to "protecting" the children, Iceland has the highest abortion rates in the Nordic world, despite having fairly restrictive abortion laws. The high abortion rate is attributed to limited sexual education, early onset of sexual activity, and less widespread use of contraceptives. So, in Iceland, you can abort your child, but you cannot circumcise him. That's government "protection" for you.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 22, 2018 2:45 PM
I was circumcised when I was an infant, and frankly, I'm glad I was. I already have a short temper, which I'm working on. Heaven only knows how foul I would be if I had to fiddle with a foreskin every time I had to pee. I would probably use the F word even more often than Amy apparently likes to do.
Besides, the anti-circumcision movement just smacks of more nanny state elitism, this time imposed on Jews who wish to honor their Biblical covenant. Who in heck is gonna remember the snip-snip happened to them at eight days old, anyhow?
mpetrie98
at February 22, 2018 3:18 PM
Pierced ears are reversible, just stop wearing the earrings, the hole closes. Circumcision is more analogous to slicing off the ear lobe. Neither should be done for no reason. Nothing thats illegal and immoral to do to females should be legal to do to males.
However, in a generation this will be a moot point. Already fewer male babies born in the US are circumsized than not. The "gotta have a penis like dads" reflex, which is the only reason most circumsize, will be gone.
Momof4
at February 22, 2018 3:18 PM
> why is t you are unable to
> answer such a simple question
> as to why its ok for boys
> but not girls?
Because as has been made amply & repeatedly clear, the question doesn't apply, . This isn't rhetoric, this is foam. You (and Amy) have other things on your mind, childish things. Points can be tracked to their obvious dissolution, and still you reply: "Ugg!" Or consider "Tony," who appears like a vampire of cowardice when Amy extracts another jolt of inarticulate resentment out of this topic.
You make shit up and you're smugly entertained, but it's mundane.
You kids have fun out there!
Crid
at February 22, 2018 3:23 PM
So Crid, as usual, you have no argument.
Snoopy
at February 22, 2018 5:04 PM
Conan,
Do the children have a right to vote, or...
Do children have the right to not have normal, healthy parts of their bodies cut off? The law in Iceland, as in the U.S. and other nations - protects that right for girls. (Protects, not grants, because it is a natural right we all have, including boys.)
I don't think government is the best method for protecting it, for many of the comparable reasons you mention. I've only said it's appropriate. Whether it would be effective is a separate discussion.
Do we not have parents to make decisions for them until they reach the age of majority?...
Should parental authority (or deference to it) be absolute? Do you think they have a right to cut their children's normal, healthy genitals? If so, is that right limited to their sons? If so, on what basis is non-therapeutic genital cutting limited to sons and not daughters? Either way, why is that right limited to the genitals and not other body parts? (Is it limited to the genitals?)
Tony
at February 22, 2018 5:07 PM
> as usual, you have
> no argument.
Wrong again, Bunnymuffin: Once again, you haven't done the reading. I've offered perhaps hundreds of comments on dozens of these posts across more than a decade here, and because this topic is one of Amy's obsessions/frequent exploitations, I've probably written as much as anyone.
It's your pattern. The hepcat phrase "Fake News" gives you the illusion that nuance, subterranean motives and plain deception are new and unseen by those without your arriveste sensitivities... As if a 1946 edition of the New York Times or a 1975 copy of the Ellettsville Pennysaver had somehow been a more reliable source of meaningful truth. But you'd have been a gullible goof reading those works in their context in their day, just as you're naively addled by pandering hucksters (and candidates) on the internet today.
That's what's nauseating in these lesser blog posts: Amy & some readers will cluck and spit about linguistic trickery and bad faith from academe and government, but when she decides to flex her own authoritarian impulses, she's nakedly enthusiastic. These resentments are as contextual as anyone's.
In her case it's all forgiveable, though it ought to compel a little humility. But some of the dorkminded boy readers oughta simply give it up.
Crid
at February 22, 2018 5:53 PM
"No argument":
Despite my penchant for simplistic, reductive thinking, you should treat every topic as a dewy new dawn, and collect for me the richness of your harvest anew, as my fresh brilliance will thereby find the insights unavailable to civilization before my arrival!
You want any argument, Cookieboy?
EARN one.
Crid
at February 22, 2018 5:58 PM
Sp: "arriviste".
Still.
Crid
at February 22, 2018 6:01 PM
Should parental authority (or deference to it) be absolute? Do you think they have a right to cut their children's normal, healthy genitals? If so, is that right limited to their sons? ~ Tony at February 22, 2018 5:07 PM
I'm not actually arguing for (or against) circumcision. In fact, I hold no position on the subject. I see it as a silly practice that has survived for thousands of years because no one every asked "why are we doing this?" In the end, no one has actually proven it harms, or helps, the young man to whom it is done.
However, having a government casually steamroller a minority of its citizenship simply because the minority lacks the numbers to stop it does put one's teeth on edge.
However, like the suttee in India, some ancient practices are incompatible with modernity; some are more barbaric than others. And, perhaps, circumcision is one of those whose time has come.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 22, 2018 6:22 PM
Conan,
Physical harm from circumcision is an objective fact. It removes healthy, normal tissue. We understand this with almost every other wound/alteration/surgery we might inflict on a healthy child, including female genital cutting that is analogous or less. There's nothing left to "prove" on this.
I assume that isn't what you mean, though, but rather to prove that it's a net harm. (Correct me if I assume wrong.) That's true, we don't know, but because it's a subjective evaluation to each individual. Net harm or benefit can't be proven, except in some cases of complications for the former, as much as some demand we accept a conclusion. I'm thinking of Brian Morris, specifically, but pick nearly anyone arguing either side, and I'm likely to agree. That we can't know invokes the ethical principle for dealing with the guaranteed physical harm.
All tastes and preferences are unique to the individual. I make no claim that it's a net harm for anyone other than myself, about which I'm obviously correct, because I don't value the reasons it was done or why it's defended. The claims by supporters that it reduces certain risks, or pleases God, or appeals aesthetically to future sexual partners are positions one can take for himself. I don't care. It only matters that an individual be left with his body to choose, not what he chooses or why.
The effects of what government does is relevant. However, "steamrolling" a minority requires more than respecting a right for all individuals against the objection of others. A law applied equally, such as this, that only restricts what one can do to another (i.e. not inflict unnecessary, permanent harm without consent) does not infringe on rights. Rights belong to the individual, not the collective when the individual does not get to choose to be a part of the collective. A law prohibiting non-therapeutic circumcision, full stop, even for consenting males would be indefensible and monstrous, for example. That isn't what this is. Religion is not a pass to violate another's rights. Even one's children.
As I mentioned, government is probably not the best path, however appropriate the law is. Cultural change is necessary. Unfortunately, many remain willfully ignorant, happy to let others violate others. I'm not interested in LULZ NOTHING MATTERS as a public policy effort until the ignorant choose not to be ignorant.
P.S. I'll be shocked if the law passes.
Tony
at February 22, 2018 7:44 PM
Shouldn't this abrupt and casual dismissal of the concerns of the minority, however distasteful, raise some concerns about how the country's government respects the rights of the governed, of all the governed?
Isn't this the "tyranny of the majority" that our own forefathers warned about?
Conan the Grammarian at February 22, 2018 1:40 PM
The group "all the governed" includes those kids. Prohibiting the circumcision of infants preserves the rights of those individuals to elect to be circumcised as adults.
Michelle
at February 22, 2018 8:17 PM
the question doesn't apply
Da fuq?
It is the exact same thing done for the exact same reasons how the fuck does it not apply?
Prohibiting the circumcision of infants preserves the rights of those individuals to elect to be circumcised as adults. ~ Michelle at February 22, 2018 8:17 PM
Are such large numbers of circumcised Icelandic Jewish men lamenting their condition that the law must step in to protect them and future Jewish men?
Will all ancient customary body modifications be affected - neck rings on Icelandic Kayan, foot binding for Icelandic Chinese, tattoos for Icelandic Celts, pierced ears for Icelandic Yuppie babies? Or are only Jewish and Muslim practices affected?
Conan the Grammarian
at February 23, 2018 6:58 AM
Some sympathy for the Icelandic, here. Many of these ancient cultural practices truly are disturbing. That neck ring thing can destroy a woman's shoulders over time. I saw an x-ray in National Geographic once. Pretty gruesome.
And foot-binding? Saw a woman's unwrapped bound foot once, also in National Geographic. Yikes.
But the casual disregard being shown in Iceland and here on this blog for dismantling a thousands of years old cultural identifier is also disturbing, albeit not on a visceral level.
And how is this law to be enforced? Will the police be randomly inspecting infant genitals? Will the police be raiding Jewish and Muslim homes to inspect their infants? Will elementary schools have random "drop trou" days?
Conan the Grammarian
at February 23, 2018 7:13 AM
Are such large numbers of circumcised Icelandic Jewish men lamenting their condition that the law must step in to protect them and future Jewish men?
One hypothetical man is enough to protect the rights of all. Bodily integrity and religious freedom rights belong to individuals, not the group(s) to which they belong.
Tony
at February 23, 2018 9:45 AM
One hypothetical man is enough to protect the rights of all. Bodily integrity and religious freedom rights belong to individuals, not the group(s) to which they belong. ~ Tony at February 23, 2018 9:45 AM
And how, exactly, do you propose the government protect this "bodily integrity" of which you speak so adoringly? Are you okay with no-knock raids to check your children for circumcision? How about random drop trou checks on your children at school?
Or do you propose the government only check Muslim and Jewish families? You know, them.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 23, 2018 11:22 AM
Have we agreed it is a right? Presenting bodily integrity as “bodily integrity” suggests not. Were we to ever meet, do I need to fear that you would not recognize what my right to bodily integrity entails? Would the law look the other way if you cut part of my body off if I’m not in a dire medical emergency that calls for it and unable to consent?
Tony
at February 23, 2018 12:57 PM
I always wonder what I, and they, are missing out on because of it, to say nothing of the consent issue.
It's Grey DUCK dammit at February 22, 2018 5:33 AM
____________________________________________
Here's what sex columnist Dan Savage said about it:
"In the first few months of D.J.'s life, Terry and I deadlocked on just two issues: circumcision and baptism. I got my way on both. Like most American males, Terry and I were circumcised as infants. And like most American homos, we prefer circumcised men as sex partners. I lived in Europe for a while, and came to appreciate uncut men. But given my druthers, I'd rather put a cut dick in my mouth than an uncut one. Cut cock just tastes better, and in a culture that's embraced oral sex as enthusiastically as ours has, gay and straight, taste counts for something. Discuss circumcision with new parents — hip ones, living in urban areas — and along with the standard pro-circumcision arguments ('We want him to look like his father'; 'We don't want him made fun of in the locker room'; 'It's easier to keep clean') you'll hear implicit and occasionally explicit concerns about how he's going to taste. Straight folks won't usually come right out and say, 'We worry about his dick tasting awful'; instead, they communicate their concern with cryptic comments about what his sex partners will think, the smegma issue, and whether being uncut might limit his options sexually...and they trail off.
"Unfortunately for oral sex, logic is on the side of the anticircumcision activists. Family resemblance? Not something we usually judge on the appearance of genitals. Teasing in the locker room? Half of all boys born in America today are not circumcised; if your son gets teased, he and the other uncut kids can form a gang and beat the shit out of the snip-dicks. Ease of cleaning? We don't cut off other body parts that are hard to keep clean. (not verbatim, this last sentence): With that kind of logic, people point out, we should have our teeth yanked out to save us the trouble of flossing...
"...'If D.J. grows up with a complex about not looking like us, or gets beat up in locker rooms, or can't find anyone who'll give him a blow job,' Terry warned me, 'I'm going to tell him it's all your fault.'
"I assumed these risks, and D.J. remained intact. Barring infectious complications, or a conversion to Judaism, he'll remain uncut for life."
Have we agreed it is a right? Presenting bodily integrity as “bodily integrity” suggests not. ~ Tony at February 23, 2018 12:57 PM
As I said earlier, I'm not defending circumcision, and certainly not FGM. Just because "we've always done it that way" does not mean we should continue to do it that way.
I'm just wondering how far you're willing to let the government go to protect this thing you insist is a right that newborn children automatically have at birth - to the point that religious rituals or cultural traditions should be casually overturned by government fiat.
So far, you've only repeated your assertion that newborn children have a right to bodily integrity.
I'm also wondering what other rights you believe children should have unfettered at a young age. Not because I don't think children should be cared for and protected, but because I'm curious where you draw the line. Should they be allowed to vote, to bear arms, to publish a newspaper? Would you assign them civic responsibilities such as serving on a jury or voting? Would you be willing to have a 12-year-old on a jury deciding your fate?
Were we to ever meet, do I need to fear that you would not recognize what my right to bodily integrity entails? Would the law look the other way if you cut part of my body off if I’m not in a dire medical emergency that calls for it and unable to consent? ~ Tony at February 23, 2018 12:57 PM
Yes. You need to worry about that. Because everything I've posted here indicates I believe that I can cut random body parts from people I meet in the street, with or without their consent, and for no reason.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 23, 2018 1:28 PM
I don't think you're defending circumcision. But I think you're inclined to a relativism that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Protecting "...this thing [I] insist is a right that newborn children automatically have at birth..." is the core function of government. Most Western governments already protect this right for girls. Even ignoring the obvious harm, the analogous protection afforded to girls calls into question equal treatment under the law. Either boys are being violated or the parents of girls are. Pick one.
Yes. You need to worry about that. Because everything I've posted here indicates I believe that I can cut random body parts from people I meet in the street, with or without their consent, and for no reason.
Obviously, just as I've stated that I think forcing kids to "drop trou" is both necessary and reasonable. And that my concern is solely about, you know, them.
I'm also wondering what other rights you believe children should have unfettered at a young age.
My argument is that boys have the same rights as girls to their bodily integrity, which we protect for girls (and men and women). It's an argument about equality. It isn't "toddlers should vote!". It's a question of whether we would recognize a flaw in our civic structure if girls could vote at 16 but boys have to wait until 18 (or could never vote). The law treats (defenseless) citizens differently based solely on how hormones shaped genital tissue in utero. Permitting non-therapeutic male circumcision on children is an egregious error in our system.
As for what would I do, I stated clearly that I don't think a law is the best strategy. Culture always leads the law, if the law is to be effective. What the government should do ethically isn't synonymous with what is the best way to achieve the ethical outcome. If the US revised the Anti-FGM Act to be the Anti-GM Act, as it should, it would be ignored. Prosecutors would not enforce it, while continuing to enforce it for girls. The sole benefit, and not likely a net benefit in the long-term, would be to discourage doctors for fear of civil lawsuits in the future. I think that's the best legal path, anyway, and it's at least as effective without the law. But that doesn't mean the proposed law is immoral.
Tony
at February 23, 2018 4:13 PM
The incidence of cervical cancer is lower in societies that circumcise males. One of the arguments against circumcision is that modern hygienic practices negate its benefits, but there are still all sorts of situations where one is deprived of the opportunities for modern hygienic practices, especially if one can potentially be sent to places like Afghanistan to live in a tent while fighting a politically motivated war, or if one is trapped in the Superdome without runnng water after a hurricane, etc.
It was done to me for non-religious reasons, and I have zero complaints, and am glad to have one less source of dependency on a societal infrastructure that grows less reliable with each passing political conflict.
bw1
at February 23, 2018 7:48 PM
As for what would I do, I stated clearly that I don't think a law is the best strategy. ~ Tony at February 23, 2018 4:13 PM
But, Tony, you've left little room for anything else. You're celebrating Iceland's law against circumcision - government action to protect the child's bodily integrity. Noble intentions that can very easily let the vampires in the front door.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 23, 2018 8:08 PM
Are you okay with no-knock raids to check your children for circumcision? How about random drop trou checks on your children at school?
Conan the Grammarian at February 23, 2018 11:22 AM
I assume this is the kind of thing that would get noticed in a routine exam of a newborn child by a pediatrician, or by a childcare worker changing a diaper. In the US childcare workers have a duty to report signs that could indicate abuse.
I disagree. To the same extent I celebrate the law, you’re saying it’s too hard, so we shouldn’t try. Which is to say, I don’t think you’re saying that completely, just as I’m not celebrating this law.
This law is appropriate but not the best strategy, as it is in any country. I’ve also said I’ll be shocked if it passes. I mean that, because I’ve experienced how these go.
In a scenario where it has a chance, discussing your concerns is part of the process. It’s just premature to start with enforcement specifics until getting agreement on the framework that male children are humans, too, with the same right to all of their genitals as everyone else. While enough people demand circumcision is a parental right, but *of course* their right somehow limited to their sons, the law still isn’t passing, regardless of the proposed enforcement and punishment. Proposals like this are part of the conversation to change culture, not the process itself.
We didn’t have much of an FGM problem when that law passed in the ‘90s, so it was safe to express outrage through the law, even though the US practiced female genital cutting on a limited scale in the past. How do we enforce that now that it’s rare? There is a prosecution ongoing in Detroit. It’s obviously intrusive to some extent. Is it therefore wrong to have and use the law?
To be clear, existing battery laws already protect boys, since circumcision clearly meets those definitions. FGM, too. But we imagine a difference for the genitals, for no defensible reason other than enough people throw tantrums when someone suggests they shouldn’t mutilate their children.
So, hypothetically, absent this proposed law, what is the appropriate age at which parents no longer have authority to have their healthy son circumcised without need or his consent? Is it the age of majority? When should battery laws finally apply to the whole body of a male?
Tony
at February 24, 2018 5:24 AM
We didn’t have much of an FGM problem when that law passed in the ‘90s, so it was safe to express outrage through the law, even though the US practiced female genital cutting on a limited scale in the past. ~ Tony at February 24, 2018 5:24 AM
One major difference between FGM and circumcision is the part(s) removed. Circumcision removes the foreskin. FGM, in its most extreme removes the clitoris, more akin to chopping off the end of the penis instead of simply the foreskin. Makes it easier to portray it as mutilation.
And nowhere in the Bible was Abraham told to mutilate his daughters, just to circumcise his sons.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 24, 2018 8:19 AM
If someone really wants to make a covenant with their God they can do so as an adult.
"But it hurts more!" Yes, but people do all sorts of weird painful things for their Gods and traditions all over the world, if they want to do it they will.
NicoleK
at February 24, 2018 9:34 AM
...FGM, in its most extreme...
Yes, but you’re putting your thumb on the scale. The forms that affect the analogous tissue (or involve less cutting harm) are still illegal. There are permanent costs to genital cutting.
Studying the effects of testosterone for female-to-male trans men is revealing, too. The clitoris grows and begins to resemble a penis. Can we therefore conclude that a hoodectomy is fine to perform on healthy girls because it’s the same skin? Is that prohibition wrong?
An argument on the parts removed is also incomplete without a qualifier of “on purpose”. Complications, sometimes horrific, occur with male circumcision. People cite statistics on complications that are generally under-reporting and good for making people feel good, but whatever the numbers, there are real people within those statistics.
As for the Bible, do we allow everything it says, or is civic law superior on Earth? And what about Muslims who claim FGC is commanded by God in their interpretation. Are we going to put the state in charge of deciding whose religious text is actually God’s word?
Also, I’m still curious for your answer to my question on the age limit for when parents may no longer force their sons to undergo non-therapeutic circumcision.
Tony
at February 24, 2018 9:44 AM
There are roughly seven forms of FGM, four of which are more benign than medical circumcision, three of which cause less damage than jewish religious circumcision
The least harmful of which is literally a pin prick.
These are all illegal even though they cause less harm, and are preformed for the same reason as 'religious tradition'
mpetrie: I was circumcised when I was an infant, and frankly, I'm glad I was.
Same here. If I had ever had kids, I don't think I would have chosen to do the same thing to any boys I had, but I hold nothing against my parents for choosing to have it done to me and, as you said, I'm actually glad they made that choice.
Perhaps being uncircumcised would've brought me more sexual pleasure and intense sensation over the years. I'll never know. What I do know is that being circumcised certainly did not create an absence of such pleasure and sensation. I've had a lot of very pleasurable sex. Also, it's probably been responsible for receiving more oral sex -- and more enthusiastic oral sex -- from girlfriends over the years. I've asked many girlfriends if they preferred going down on a guy who's cut or uncut and not a single one ever said uncut.
As for whether it should be illegal, I'd have to strongly lean toward yes. I don't believe parents have the right to choose to have some surgical procedure performed on their child unless it's medically necessary.
JD
at February 24, 2018 12:28 PM
...you’re saying it’s too hard, so we shouldn’t try. ~ Tony at February 24, 2018 5:24 AM
No, I'm saying I'm leery of laws, no matter how nobly intentioned, that run roughshod over a minority's established cultural or religious practices, no matter how disturbing.
Sometimes such laws have to be passed. However, care should be taken in these instances that the law being passed is not being passed in order to suppress an undesired minority.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 24, 2018 5:30 PM
And laws that affect religious minorities are not inherently intended to suppress that minority, and can pass constitutional scrutiny.
How would he have ruled, he was asked by attorney Nathan Lewin, had a 2011 attempt to criminalize circumcision in San Francisco succeeded and eventually made its way to the high court?
“If the practice is something that society does not want, and it’s not intended to discriminate against Jews in particular, I think the law is perfectly valid,” he said to a crowd somewhat mystified by how incongruous the remark seemed in the context of Scalia’s other church-state comments.
So, yes, I take the point that it has potential for abuse. I don’t want that. And I don’t think we’re in danger of that because this law won’t likely pass.
For what it’s worth, I think it was clear I do not actually believe you think we shouldn’t try. That quote is a bit out of context. You’re leery of a law. I get that. Which is also why I asked at what age you think parents may no longer circumcise their healthy sons.
Tony
at February 24, 2018 5:50 PM
JD, of course your girlfriends said cut, YOU are cut. No girl is gonna be like, "Sorry, I hate your dick and wish it was different"
NicoleK
at February 25, 2018 12:44 AM
Leave a comment
No More Child Genital Mutilation: If You Were A Modern Aztec, We Wouldn't Let You Sacrifice Somebody's Baby To The Gods .
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Linkwash
I ate the last hog, in the form of strips of crispy bacon.
So, near as I can tell according to the official FBI indictments the Russians are guilty of illegal immigration, and skirting campaign finance laws, and apparently no one in the Trump campaign was aware.
I just love how when a republican is in the white house how the DOJ sudden cares about PACs filing official paperwork and illegal immigration
I have an idea: Trump should propose legislation that exactly replicates existing gun laws. Most people, including the vast majority of vocal gun-control supporters, would think he was proposing something new and draconian.
Golly, guys: Is that his real hair? ~ Crid at February 21, 2018 9:21 PM
I'm getting really tired of this one-size-fits-all body language thing. Some people cross their arms when thinking or concentrating. I know I do; keeps me from fidgeting with other stuff.
Don't cross your arms. Don't lean back. Don't loom over. Don't spread your legs.
Hollywood has been a bad influence on Canadian territories
“I learned about this just shortly before the animal was euthanized,” Julie Woodyer, campaign director for Zoocheck, told The Dodo. “I guess there was a plan to euthanize her because the zoo had brought in a group of young wolves that they wanted to put on display, and they felt that this animal wouldn’t integrate well, and rather than finding a place to move the animal to, they euthanized it.”
Kali was 14 years old, which is considered old for a wolf, but she was fairly healthy, according to the informant (who asked to stay anonymous for her own protection).
I have an idea: Trump should propose legislation that exactly replicates existing gun laws. Most people, including the vast majority of vocal gun-control supporters, would think he was proposing something new and draconian. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at February 22, 2018 6:51 AM
The problem with most of those existing gun laws they're difficult to enforce. They were passed piecemeal in response to different tragedies and incidents and not always funded for enforcement.
Comprehensive gun legislation would at this point be welcome, but what problem is it to address, dissociated people prone to anger and violence who lash out with guns, or the widespread availability of firearms and difficulty tracking them beyond the initial purchaser?
Hey Snoopy! Be a grown-man racist who worries about "Fake News[!]" as if there's something new under the sun! Affirm expertise! No one is laughing at you!
Crid
at February 22, 2018 4:06 PM
So Crid, as usual, you have no argument.
Snoopy
at February 22, 2018 5:04 PM
A grown man whining about "fake news" isn't worth sincere engagement... You thrive in tropes. You shat on Hillary for this?
Crid
at February 22, 2018 5:07 PM
All your snark won't help you forget for a second all the time you spent being stuffed in lockers.
Snoopy
at February 22, 2018 5:22 PM
Apparently the officer assigned to the school never went in. He took cover. Oh, and the police had interactions with the kid 20-something times over the last decade. http://www.850wftl.com/new-details-bso-stoneman-douglas-resource-officer/
But the family he was staying with thought it was totally fine for the deranged f-cking loser to have a gun. The hubs and I were discussing this earlier; his theory is that the family was getting paid to foster the monster and didn’t want to lose the payments.
...his theory is that the family was getting paid to foster the monster and didn’t want to lose the payments. ~ Ahw at February 22, 2018 6:42 PM
if I remember correctly, he was only staying at their house as a friend of their son. They invited him to stay with them after his mother died and they felt sorry for him. It was not an official foster arrangement. He was 18, too old to be a foster child.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 23, 2018 9:45 AM
The local police and the FBI were well informed of his dangerous behavior. They did nothing. And when he did start shooting people the cop
hid outside until it was all over.
If you want to be safe you have to take care of yourself. No one else will do it for you.
Does Discrimination Cause Poor Performance In School For Black Kids From Impoverished Families?
Walter Williams doesn't think so. He writes in his emailed newsletter (which Reason Foundation's Manny Klausner sent me):
Putting greater emphasis on black successes in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds is far superior to focusing on grievances and victimhood. Doing so might teach us some things that could help us today. Black education today is a major problem. Let's look at some islands of success from yesteryear, when there was far greater racial discrimination and blacks were much poorer.
From the late 1800s to 1950, some black schools were models of academic achievement. Black students at Washington's racially segregated Paul Laurence Dunbar High School, as early as 1899, outscored white students in the District of Columbia schools on citywide tests. Dr. Thomas Sowell's research in "Education: Assumptions Versus History" documents similar excellence at Baltimore's Frederick Douglass High School, Atlanta's Booker T. Washington High School, Brooklyn's Albany Avenue School, New Orleans' McDonogh 35 High School and others. These excelling students weren't solely members of the black elite; most had parents who were manual laborers, domestic servants, porters and maintenance men. Academic excellence was obtained with skimpy school budgets, run-down buildings, hand-me-down textbooks and often 40 or 50 students in a class.
Alumni of these schools include Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice (Frederick Douglass), Gen. Benjamin Davis, Dr. Charles Drew, a blood plasma innovator, Robert C. Weaver, the first black Cabinet member, Sen. Edward Brooke, William Hastie, the first black federal judge (Dunbar), and Nobel laureate Martin Luther King Jr. (Booker T. Washington). These examples of pioneering success raise questions about today's arguments about what's needed for black academic success. Education experts and civil rights advocates argue that for black academic excellence to occur, there must be racial integration, small classes, big budgets and modern facilities. But earlier black academic successes put a lie to that argument.
In contrast with yesteryear, at today's Frederick Douglass High School, only 9 percent of students test proficient in English, and only 3 percent do in math. At Paul Laurence Dunbar, 12 percent of pupils are proficient in reading, and 5 percent are proficient in math. At Booker T. Washington, the percentages are 20 in English and 18 in math. In addition to low academic achievement, there's a level of violence and disrespect to teachers and staff that could not have been imagined, much less tolerated, at these schools during the late 1800s and the first half of the 20th century.
Many black political leaders are around my age, 81, such as Rep. Maxine Waters, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Jesse Jackson. Their parents and other authorities would have never accepted the grossly disrespectful, violent behavior that has become the norm at many black schools. Their silence and support of the status quo makes a mockery of black history celebrations and represents a betrayal of epic proportions to the blood, sweat and tears of our ancestors in their struggle to make today's educational opportunities available.
I was exhausted last night, so I only posted the post and not my comment on it, but I'll comment now.
Walter Williams points out that being poor and black has not kept black people in generations past from making great successes of themselves. Williams does not explicitly mention what I believe is the root of the problem.
In short, what previous generations had that current generations lack is intact families. I've read the Moynihan Report, but I've gone beyond that. From talking with Sarah Hrdy, Daniel Nettle, and other anthropologists as well as understanding "Life History Theory," I believe that the 70 percent out-of-wedlock birth rate of black women is a huge problem causing huge problems in black children.
In the past, even if maybe one child on a block or a few children in a neighborhood were raised by single parents -- including single mothers after a father died -- there weren't vast numbers of children raised by single parents. There was, very importantly, stability that comes from having an environment populated by family units -- intact family units, sometimes with mother, father, and a grandmother in the home.
"Life History Theory" is a scientifically-supported theory about how organisms react -- adaptively -- to risky, unstable, and even violent environments. If you are likely to die young, it is adaptive to mate faster (be promiscuous) and take risks (including being violent) in a way it is not in more stable environments.
Too many children of black parents are now growing up in unstable environments, largely -- I believe -- due to a lack of fathers in many homes in a neighborhood. (By the way, you can per, Judy Stacey's research, have a two-parent family with two same-sex parents, and have the kids turn out really well -- but it helps if those kids are not growing up in an unstable environment due to many other children being from single-parent families and promiscuous and risk-taking because of it.)
Just to be clear, the effect we're seeing in the black community, from all the children growing up without the stability of a family environment, is not a black thing. Any children raised this way, in this sort of environment, are likely to have the entirely adaptive reaction to a risky, unstable environment.
To read more on Life History Theory (and automatic "fast" or "slow" adaptive strategies that are triggered), see Marco del Giudice's excellent scientific papers and book chapters here.
The election of the idiot Trump and a few other social trends make me think we need to come to grips with inherent limitations of intelligence in a very sober and explicit way.
Crid
at February 21, 2018 1:04 AM
I'm still pissed off by a bad travel experience tonight, but I'm not taking the previous comment back.
"Has anyone in this realm actually read The Bell Curve?"
I don't know; I see a lot of the same things happening among whites out in the sticks. However, you can make an argument that this is not inconsistent with the Bell Curve's hypothesis -- e.g., in both cases, it's the result of maladaptive mating.
Cousin Dave
at February 21, 2018 6:32 AM
Out of curiosity who are the young black leaders? Maxine Waters and Jesse Jackson are around 80 and I know those names. But who are the younger ones? Is Obama it? He at least is 56. Other groups don't have leaders like american blacks, so is this the end of that trend?
Ben
at February 21, 2018 6:53 AM
Absent fathers are certainly one of several causes. (But of course we will argue forever over whether this is caused by irresponsible behavior by parents or by whitey incarcerating those fathers.) Al Sharpton's teaching blacks that they shouldn't bother making successes of themselves but just wait for bailouts is another. But the big problem is the lack of discipline in schools. And politically-correct school boards make it impossible to cure that except by privatizing the schools. This needs to happen yesterday.
jdgalt
at February 21, 2018 7:30 AM
> I see a lot of the same
> things happening among whites
> out in the sticks.
Oh, indeed, that's true. Hence, I affirm, Trump.
Crid
at February 21, 2018 8:19 AM
If you look at trailer park whites where there is a lot of drug use and crime among the parents, and also welfare and single mothers, you get the same thing. The kids grow up in chaos and have a high chance for crime and teen pregnancy themselves. Doing well in school requires a stable home life. An additional factor you get with an intact home is an emphasis on achievement, discipline, and more attention to the kids. Reading to your kids does not take money (you can check out books by the armful from the library) but helps them tremendously. In the typical slum household, there are no books and no one reads to the kids or talks to them. They are often left alone.
The Democrat dogma that blacks can't succeed on their own but need handouts is also likely holding them back. If you believe you can't succeed, why try? That is a logical response. An alternative response is: double down on working hard, dress sharp, don't live your life drunk or stoned, show up on time. Maybe you will still face discrimination but you will do much better than the guy who ends up in jail. My black neighbor was like this: hard working, well-spoken, sharp dresser and he was able to retire before me. This is culture and requires a cultural change. It is not something government can do by throwing money at it. Government hand-outs make it worse, especially when at the same time government makes it harder to start a business, to get a license to braid hair, and makes housing more expensive.
Also, why are people compelled to say "family units" rather than "families"?
Crid
at February 21, 2018 8:57 AM
...we need to come to grips with inherent limitations of intelligence in a very sober and explicit way. ~ Crid at February 21, 2018 1:04 AM
My experience is that while education levels are trending upward, actual intelligence is trending downward.
I remember discussing this with a manager at a finance company for which I worked in the early '90s shortly after we had been purchased by a large bank. She knew she would not be retained because she had no degree and banks love credentials. Being in her fifties, she was better educated than many of our twenty-something college graduate managers, but she had no "piece of paper."
In encounters with several recent college graduates I am appalled at how little they actually know. They need calculators for any number over 10 and can only discuss historically significant events at a very superficial level, believing commonly-held myths instead of investigating the truth. Their grammar is terrible ("between you and I" or "I had ran the report") and their ability to string together a coherent narrative beyond a few sentences is abysmal.
We've dumbed down our society in an effort to equalize outcomes and have proven Moynihan correct. The average person in the US now has no more intelligence than one of those air ferns that collect nutrients from whatever blows their way.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ~ Winston Churchill
Conan the Grammarian
at February 21, 2018 9:42 AM
...we need to come to grips with inherent limitations of intelligence in a very sober and explicit way. ~ Crid at February 21, 2018 1:04 AM
The soution is easy, but probably politically impossible. Get rid of the racial spoils system. Stop bean counting by perceived superficial traits like ethnicity and phenotype.
Individualize education through heavy use of computer learning and allow the people that cannot be educated due to social pathologies or low intelligence opt out for something non academic.
The current public school funding formula is to blame for a lot of this mess.
They get money for bodies in seats, and hours in the classroom, not any kind of quantifiable educational results with those bodies.
Isab
at February 21, 2018 11:14 AM
My experience is that while education levels are trending upward, actual intelligence is trending downward.
It's something that has been happening for decades. Teachers in the private and public educational sector have been complaining that kids are not being taught how to think, that the contents of the approved curricula is nothing more than memorizing filler.
Of course, when you tell the teachers to actually uh, teach, the get pissy and bitch that that's someone else's job.
Sixclaws
at February 21, 2018 12:42 PM
The problem, Six, is that all they're being taught is how to think or look something up. They're not being given reference points for their arguments. Rote memorization is a dirty word in modern education circles.
Memorizing dates and events is tough, but it provides chronological reference points and historical context.
Memorizing multiplication tables is tough, but it provides instant references for handling large calculations.
Memorizing grammar rules is tough, but it provides a framework for expressing one's self, in writing and verbally.
Having an internal library of facts enables one to frame arguments and analyses, to quickly maneuver through mental minefields, and to avoid being conned by someone who sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
You can't argue the Civil War is you don't know when it occurred or what happened during it. You can only argue that slavery was bad and therefore everyone who fought for the South was, by default, evil - so you pull down the statue and congratulate yourself on your righteousness.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 21, 2018 12:59 PM
But of course we will argue forever over whether this is caused by irresponsible behavior by parents or by whitey incarcerating those fathers.
Johnson started the disintegration of the black family in the 2nd half of the 60s and the Great Society "war on poverty". Black women on welfare discovered that having a father around put a crimp in their benefits. So, they went from fathers to sperm donors.
And if you look at the statistics regarding education results prior to 1960 to post 1960 it becomes startlingly obvious that something went pear shaped.
And now that white illegitimacy is creeping up towards the rate in the black community, you see the same thing happening to the poor white folk.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 21, 2018 1:08 PM
But the big problem is the lack of discipline in schools. And politically-correct school boards make it impossible to cure that except by privatizing the schools. This needs to happen yesterday.
No, the big problem is parents — not just black or white, poor or rich, religious or irreligious.
The lack of discipline at home translates to lack of discipline in schools. The kids are not angels at home and then rotters when the school bells ring.
I'm all for privatizing schools as long as it's done with private (as in non-taxpayer) funds, but the dumbing down of children is directly related to the dumbing down of parenting skills in America.
I also agree with Conan that rote memorization has a bum rap in today's society; it has many benefits, not the least of which is providing a benchmark for "standardized testing," which us oldsters used to call "testing." Somehow grades were better under that onerous system, which is all that matters for those of us who cut the checks but have almost zero say.
Kevin
at February 21, 2018 1:27 PM
"The problem, Six, is that all they're being taught is how to think or look something up. They're not being given reference points for their arguments. Rote memorization is a dirty word in modern education circles."
No Conan, they aren't teaching either of them.
Most of my interactions with teachers both as a student and as a parent follow this formula.
Teacher:"Go do x"
Me:"How do I do x? Can you give an example?"
T: "No"
M: "Is this x?"
T: "No"
M: "Is this x?"
T: "No"
M: "Is this x?"
T: "No"
M: "Is this x?"
T: "No"
If your parents can teach you that is one option. If you can self teach from a book that is another. But if you are depending on the teachers you are out of luck. Mind many nay most of those teachers are wonderful individuals. They are nice and caring. But they are completely incapable of providing clear directions. And that extends all the way from mathematics to what kind of snacks parents are required to provide. To some extent this feels intentional.
Kevin, you are entirely part of the problem. Without breaking the public school monopoly there is zero hope of any sort of reform. Instead costs will continue to balloon and quality will continue to fall. You mentioned the 'old' school system. And do you know what really set it apart from today's system? It wasn't standardized. The teachers didn't come from a teaching college. They had degrees in math or history instead of degrees in education. They didn't follow requirements from the department of education because they didn't take any money from them. Instead they could solve their own problems according to their own local needs. That isn't possible today. A school in Colorado, one in Texas, California, or Pennsylvania they are all the same. The students are different but you could swap the entire staff out from any other school in the US and nothing would change. They are all indistinguishable. And as long as that holds true there will be no improvement.
Saying we should all have better parents is nice but it doesn't make anything better.
Ben
at February 21, 2018 3:54 PM
The above explanation misses an important motor:
When government pays for everything, there is no link whatsoever between effort and achievement. Why should some thug behave when he's going to get his EBT card anyway? Why should a woman care who she has sex with when the government will pay? And pay. And pay.
Aid programs remove consequences entirely. There is no work to miss upon arrest.
Radwaste
at February 21, 2018 6:48 PM
When government pays for everything
You/we/us are the product being sold. The provider will always go with the demands of the entity actually paying for the service provided, no matter what the negative consequences might be for the subject.
Just wait until we have socialized medicine. It'll be as fantastic as socialized education!
Also, with teachers unions involved, teaching is like 5th or 6th on the list of goals.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 21, 2018 8:02 PM
You/we/us are the product being sold. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at February 21, 2018 8:02 PM
A variation of Jim Hightower's advice on playing poker: Look around, and if you don't see a product being sold, you're the product.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 21, 2018 8:13 PM
Kevin, you are entirely part of the problem. Without breaking the public school monopoly there is zero hope of any sort of reform. Instead costs will continue to balloon and quality will continue to fall.
You're welcome to break the "public school monopoly" as long as you don't use public funds.
The usual use of "school reform," however, means decrying Uncle Sugar's influence while still demanding his sweet tax money.
A school in Colorado, one in Texas, California, or Pennsylvania they are all the same. The students are different but you could swap the entire staff out from any other school in the US and nothing would change. They are all indistinguishable.
I couldn't disagree more. Many rural schools teach agriculture in all its forms; high schools in a place like New Orleans likely teach music in a way that's very different than anywhere else. Some schools focus on baseball rather than football, soccer rather than basketball.
And as long as that holds true there will be no improvement.
So it's society's fault when a kid fails? We'll have to disagree on that one.
Saying we should all have better parents is nice but it doesn't make anything better.
It certainly doesn't, but naming the problem never hurts.
Kevin
at February 21, 2018 8:29 PM
Then just be honest about things Kevin. Admit you want to close all public schools.
As for the variation in schools, you are flat wrong. Even the things you mention as differences are pretty insignificant. So the music class in Orleans has more jazz than one in DC. Boy, things are totally different and the students are way better educated. As I said even if you swap out every single teacher from ones in another state you will still have those same 'differences'. They aren't teacher driven but student driven.
'So it's society's fault when a kid fails? We'll have to disagree on that one.'
'It certainly doesn't, but naming the problem never hurts.'
I don't care about fault. Blame God. Blame the Devil. Does it really change anything? Yes it doesn't hurt anything. Of course it doesn't help anything either. The reality is you aren't getting some magic new parents any time soon. You are no different than the people who complain that socialism just hasn't been done right yet.
Ben
at February 22, 2018 6:22 AM
"You're welcome to break the "public school monopoly" as long as you don't use public funds."
The other side of that coin, though, is that I maintain that if I'm not using public funds, then the government should not have the power to collect those taxes from me. That's the problem. There has long been a Grand Bargain among the general public: schools are paid for by broad-based taxation, included taxes paid by people who do not have school-age children. Everyone agreed to this because everyone recognized that public education had benefits to society at large: we produced more capable workers, and increased the general level of knowledge so that people could better exercise their rights and duties as citizens.
But then the Marxists arrived. One of the first rules in the Dictator's Handbook is that an ignorant and superstitious population is easier to control than an educated one. Towards that end, if the Marxists ever were to gain control of the U.S., the public school system had to be destroyed. The tactic that evolved was twofold: in the middle-class areas, convert the schools to political indoctrination centers. In the poor areas, just make them completely dysfunctional. In both areas, assert that government control over the children, via the schools, supersedes the parents' control. They succeeded in those specific goals. Fortunately, the population at large remains aware enough that they recognize what is happening, even if they don't know what the causes are.
So the Grand Bargain is now broken. Poor people are being processed through the pipeline, which produces nothing but more poor people. Middle class parents are either fleeing the system altogether, or getting their children into the isolated pockets of the system that remain more or less functional. As many people who don't have school age children see it, the system no longer provides any direct or indirect benefit to them, and they're beginning to ask why they have to keep paying taxes to support the system. At one time, the employment of teachers created a social buffer against this sentiment; nearly everyone had a relative or a neighbor who was a schoolteacher, and that made it more personal to them. However, now that schools are replacing teachers with highly-paid, elite-class administrators, that source of goodwill is drying up. And since public events no longer take place on school grounds (because of "assault rifles", dontcha know), most people no longer have any contact with their town's schools whatsoever. They are simply one more example of expensive, impersonal government bureaucracies that appear to serve no useful function. The NEA yelling and screaming and stamping their feet won't change this perception one bit -- in fact, it reinforces it.
Cousin Dave
at February 22, 2018 6:52 AM
"The election of the idiot Trump"
Everyone who voted against my candidate is stupid and my local sports franchise is my identity.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 22, 2018 2:09 PM
Quite right Cousin Dave. I'm quite willing to end public schools in their entirety. But that will involve rewriting a large number of state constitutions. Many states have public education obligations written into theirs.
Ben
at February 22, 2018 5:22 PM
I dunno if I want large numbers of unschooled kids running around
NicoleK
at February 24, 2018 11:28 AM
Leave a comment
Does Discrimination Cause Poor Performance In School For Black Kids From Impoverished Families?.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
But I think the access of the wealthy to security teams (at all) diminishes their stature when speaking about 2a. ~ Crid at February 21, 2018 8:40 AM
Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguard applied for a concealed weapons permit form the Greenwich Police Department in 2000. She said he applied because his company required him to and he would not have a firearm while guarding her or her children. She later amended her views, admitting she has armed security for her children and walking back her "only the police should have guns" position to an "only trained and licensed professionals" position.
Dianne Feinstein had a concealed carry license. She got in the '70s when the New Word Liberation Front attempted to blow up her house and shot out the windows in her house. In 2012, the Senator's spokesperson said she no longer has a concealed carry permit. Of course, now she has the DC Metro Police, the Capitol Police, and armed bodyguards at her beck and call; and the SFPD securing her $16.5 million Pacific Heights mansion.
Carl Rowan used his unregistered handgun to shoot a kid pool jumping at his DC house, firing wildly into the backyard. Luckily, an errant bullet did not kill a neighbor.
Poor and middle class people need security, too. But they can't afford to hire armed security and don't have the political pull to have the police on instant response mode.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 21, 2018 9:11 AM
Also, Carney. ~ Crid at February 21, 2018 8:42 AM
While common and widespread, I don't think cholera, typhus, and dying in childbirth were "popular" in 1790.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 21, 2018 9:15 AM
Are they technically circles Crid ?
Given their hard pixelated edges its more of a squared off hexacontagon
Anyone who claims you can fill out the ATF Form 4473 in 5 minutes, let alone walk out with your purchase complete has never actually made that purchase.
Some context as to why this happened, the Mic -aka baby Gawker- website sent an introvert feminist journalist to a late-night afterparty so drama happened.
So, near as I can tell according to the official FBI indictments the Russians are guilty of illegal immigration, and skirting campaign finance laws, and apparently no one in the Trump campaign was aware.
I just love how when a republican is in the white house how the DOJ sudden cares about PACs filing official paperwork and illegal immigration
Ruth Bader Ginsburg On The Due Process That Went Missing For Men On Campus
People -- mostly women -- have come after me in most vicious ways on Twitter for calling for due process for those accused of sexual assault or improprieties on campus or elsewhere.
On campus, Title IX -- as interpreted by the frankly evil Obama era "Dear Colleague" letter and the financial blackmailing of colleges and universities that didn't comply -- led to an environment in which campus kangaroo courts prevailed. The accused were not allowed the basic rights in the Constitution and American jurisprudence -- resulting in the ruin of many men's education and lives.
Jeffrey Rosen interviews Ruth Bader Ginsburg at The Atlantic, and asks her about this:
Rosen: What about due process for the accused?
Ginsburg: Well, that must not be ignored and it goes beyond sexual harassment. The person who is accused has a right to defend herself or himself, and we certainly should not lose sight of that. Recognizing that these are complaints that should be heard. There's been criticism of some college codes of conduct for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard, and that's one of the basic tenets of our system, as you know, everyone deserves a fair hearing.
Rosen: Are some of those criticisms of the college codes valid?
Ginsburg: Do I think they are? Yes.
Rosen: I think people are hungry for your thoughts about how to balance the values of due process against the need for increased gender equality.
Ginsburg: It's not one or the other. It's both. We have a system of justice where people who are accused get due process, so it's just applying to this field what we have applied generally.
On a side note, I think her response here is utter crap:
Rosen: Some women also fear backlash. They worry that women may have less opportunity for mentorship at work because guys are afraid of interacting with them. Is this valid or not?
Ginsburg: Well, let me ask you--as a man--do you think that you will be hesitant to encourage women because of the #MeToo movement?
Rosen: On the contrary, I have felt, like many men, sensitized to the plight of women by hearing these stories and it seems like an entirely salutary thing.
What was crap about Ginsberg's response? She was asked about women being concerned that men will be more reluctant to interact with them, as they realize an unsubstantiated accusation can ruin their lives. So, she asked if Rosen, as a man, feels that way.
Frankly, I think it was Rosen's response to Ginsberg's question that was self-serving crap. Good for you, Rosen. You told the world what a great guy you are. You might have thrown in something about how evil, vile and oppressive men are, but still, you got your brownie points.
Patrick
at February 20, 2018 4:36 AM
Agree Patrick. Ginsburg dodged the question but Rosen dove into a pile of poundMeToo BS face first.
Ben
at February 20, 2018 6:34 AM
What was crap about that last Ginsburg reply was that she dodged the question. Instead of giving an answer, she threw the question back at Rosen. Yes, Rosen got his virtue-signaling opportunity out of it, but that's a different problem.
Cousin Dave
at February 20, 2018 6:36 AM
Great minds think alike...
Cousin Dave
at February 20, 2018 6:38 AM
So, just to be clear Ginsberg is a rape apologist for supporting due process for men accused of sexual misconduct/assault
Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be the only sane voice remaining on the Left. I don't always agree with her, seldom do actually, but she's not a screaming lunatic. As her longstanding friendship with Antonin Scalia indicates, she's able to leave politics at the doorstep and engage people who don't agree with her as fellow human beings.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 20, 2018 8:36 AM
I don't see Ginsburg's response as dodging the question. She isn't a man, so she should be asked to speak for them? And even if she were, she could only speak to her experience as a man.
She might have been able to answer the question had she done some research at found either 1) yes, the majority of men in business are now hesitant to mentor females; or 2) no, the majority of men are not hesitant at all and instead, like Rosen purports to be, more determined than ever to be supportive.
Somehow, I don't think it's likely that she researched that question. So, what was she supposed to say? She could have given a weasel response and say, "It's a possibility that men will now be more reluctant to work closely with women in one-on-one settings."
Which, of course, only prompts questions like, "How strong a possibility?" and "What percentage of men will feel this way?"
The only acceptable response she could have given is, "I don't know."
Patrick
at February 20, 2018 9:49 AM
Cousin Dave: Great minds think alike...
No. Great minds think for themselves.
Patrick
at February 20, 2018 9:50 AM
You don't have to be a man to answer the question Patrick. Heck the actual question was about women and how they feel. And anyone with even a sketchy level of information about the subject should be aware of this viewpoint. Ginsburg didn't want to answer the question so she tossed it back to Rosen so he could give his scripted answer.
Ben
at February 20, 2018 10:20 AM
The irrational hatred of men continues.
Purdue writing guide: Words with 'MAN' 'should be avoided'
And they ask the important question: who do they think they are with their maiden names and their loud boisterous unrestricted joyous laughter?!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 20, 2018 11:18 PM
I don't think that women should be ignored. But in sex assault cases, which are mostly "he-said-she-said", there is NO way to cut the process short without giving advantage to one side. In the case of college sex assaults, there is now a huge advantage for women. An accusation is now considered proof. That is massively wrong. And universities which made the error of believing the accusation are paying massive massive settlements to men for depriving them of their rights. Watch the case "Yale basketball Montague". Yale falsely charged him with sex assault 13 months after the event, even though the woman did NOT want the charge to be made.
Rocky the flying squirrel
at February 22, 2018 5:27 AM
"No. Great minds think for themselves."
Well, prepare to be disappointed when you find out an idea of yours isn't new.
Radwaste
at February 23, 2018 9:16 PM
Leave a comment
Ruth Bader Ginsburg On The Due Process That Went Missing For Men On Campus.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Oh...Is That A Live Cockroach Crawling Out Of Your Ear?
It's annoying to have one's reading on a website interrupted with one of those "Sign up for our newsletter!" popups with some stupid crack like, "No, I'd like to remain a dumb fuck."
But at least they're giving you an article to read -- in an otherwise civilized manner.
And then there's this...
Two words at any link I've clicked on that make me want to hunt the perpetrator down, duct-tape them to a chair in storage closet, and release 12,000 live cockroaches. pic.twitter.com/Vfki2bEbq8
"AnnoyingPopupAdvertisements.com wants to send you notifications. Accept?"
Cousin Dave
at February 20, 2018 6:40 AM
The worst ones are the ones that change size just as you're about to click a link you want to read and you end up clicking an ad as the original window shifts.
Or the one that takes over the entire Web page just as you were getting into the article you're reading and you have to hunt for the little "X" to close it.
Or the one that has a timer counting down to when you can close the ad.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 20, 2018 8:39 AM
RBG thinks it would be just fine to have an all-female Supreme Court.
She needs to go -- and take the "wise latina" with her.
Jay R
at February 20, 2018 9:08 AM
Ooops! Wrong thread...
Jay R
at February 20, 2018 11:55 AM
Sign up for our newsletter? Sure.
My email?
admin@[website]
Doesn't stop the popups, but I'm sure it's fun for them !!
NEXT>
DrCos
at February 23, 2018 4:39 AM
Leave a comment
Oh...Is That A Live Cockroach Crawling Out Of Your Ear?.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
#CalExit: An NBC Bay Area Investigation reveals a dangerous concoction of drug needles, garbage, and feces lining the streets of downtown San Francisco. The Investigative Unit surveyed more than 150 blocks, including some of the city’s top tourist destinations, and discovered conditions that are now being compared to some of the worst slums in the world.
Can Ron Rosenbaum Have One Of Your Kidneys?
I learned, to my dismay, last year sometime, that my sweet, talented, and brilliant author and magazine writer friend, Ron Rosenbaum, -- @RonRosenbaum1 -- needs a kidney.
(Picture of Ron and a review of his most recent book here.)
Ron doesn't like to ask people for minor favors, so I figured he'd have a really hard time with the, "Got an internal organ I could have?" thing.
So, bossy broad that I am, I said, "I'll ask for you! Just tell me when."
Well, now's finally the time.
So, here goes: Ron Rosenbaum is a candidate for a kidney transplant and needs a live donor. Are you the one?
Email Jack Shafer for details: shafer.politico@gmail.com
And please feel free to share this on social media.
Kidney donation? Maybe you've never given it any thought. Well, you're in luck.
My friend Virginia Postrel gave one of her kidneys to Sally Satel. She wrote about it in Texas Monthly in 2006, "How and why I became an organ donor -- and how I kept people from talking me out of it."
Until last November, I'd never thought about being a kidney donor. I hadn't known anyone with kidney disease, and like most people, I hadn't filled out an organ donation form when I'd gotten my driver's license. I'd never even donated blood. That all changed after I ran into a friend and asked, "How's Sally?" I got an unexpected answer: "She's. . . all right," in a tone that made it clear she was most definitely not all right.
Sally Satel and I have been friends since 1997. We're kindred spirits -- strong-willed, intellectual iconoclasts who are a bit too ingenuous for our own good. But she lives in Washington, D.C., where she's a fellow at a think tank, and I live in Dallas. We almost never see each other and communicate mostly by e-mail. We follow each other's work but don't share our day-to-day lives. Last fall, no one would have called us close.
So I had no idea Sally's kidneys were failing. She needed a transplant, our friend told me. Otherwise, she'd soon be on dialysis, tied at least three days a week to a machine that would filter poisons from her blood. For someone who prizes her independence and freedom of movement as much as Sally does, dialysis would have been a prison sentence.
With no spouse, children, siblings, or parents to offer her a kidney, I thought she must be desperate. I knew the chances of getting a cadaver kidney were low, although I didn't realize how truly miniscule: More than 66,000 Americans are on the waiting list for the 6,700 or so cadaver kidneys that are available each year. Just thinking about her situation made my heart race with empathetic panic.
"Maybe we can do something to get Sally a kidney," I said. It probably sounded as if I were proposing a publicity campaign. After all, she and I and our mutual friend are in the persuasion business: We write books and articles and have lots of press connections. What I really meant, though, was "Maybe I can give Sally a kidney." At the time, it seemed like a perfectly natural reaction.
Usually when someone is seriously ill, all you can do is lend moral support and maybe cook some meals or run a few errands. Nothing you do will make that person well. But if you donate a kidney, you can (with the help of a team of medical specialists) cure her. Who wouldn't want to do it? I had no idea what a strange thought that was.
Nor did I sort through my motivations. I've spent a good bit of my life trying to save the world, mostly by working to beat back bad government policies, including some that would have stifled medical research. But even when your side wins, the victory is incremental and rarely permanent. And people of goodwill dedicated to the same good cause can be awfully contentious about how to achieve their goals.
In this case, there was something reassuring about the idea that the benefit wouldn't depend at all on my talents, persuasiveness, or intellect. It would be simple. All I had to do was show up. In middle age, I've realized that I can't save the world. But maybe I could save Sally. Someone had to.
The rest of the piece details what the whole procedure is like.
PS When Sally came on my podcast, just before air, I had to mention it: "I just wanted to give a little wave to my friend Virginia's kidney."
She laughed.
Again, if you might even consider doing this for Ron -- a seriously awesome thing to do for another human -- please email Jack Shafer at the address above.
I'd love to help, but my mother has kidney failure, and unless she turns out to be a lousy candidate for donation, one of my kidneys is reserved for her. She is on dialysis. However, periodic reminders on this blog would be great, in case things change.
mpetrie98
at February 19, 2018 3:15 PM
We get lots of inquiries about finding living donors at Living Donors Online (web site and Facebook group), so we put a web page together with suggestions on how to find a living donor. We hope this helps Ron find a donor! http://livingdonorsonline.org/finding-living-donor/
Anyone who is not a monster wants the school shootings and other terrible mass gun violence to stop. The knee-jerk response is "We must ban AR-15s and such." Apparently, that's not a solution. It seems like it would be (and there's a 2nd Amendment debate to be had over that), but it's apparently not.
Here's a post by a FiveThirtyEight writer, statistician Leah Libresco.
"I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise."
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
...When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gunowner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, arocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
...As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference.
...We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
It's weird how everyone assumes that both this problem and its solution are the work of government. Nobody can imagine any other mechanism on hand by which we can change people's behavior.
Crid
at February 19, 2018 6:57 AM
By the way, all of you people who've been saying nasty things about Hillary Clinton for the last few years are agents for the commie Russian government.
Crid
at February 19, 2018 6:58 AM
By the way, all of you people who've been saying nasty things about Hillary Clinton for the last few years are agents for the commie Russian government.
Da, comrade.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 19, 2018 7:37 AM
Every time someone mentions the Australian Gun ban I like to point out that immediately after crime in all categories rose, sometimes as much as an 80% increase in some categories.
It took over a decade for some crime rates to fall below pre ban levels, and some crimes still havent
But dont take my word for it, take the Australian governments word
In 2016 Comrade Putin was busy outflanking Hillary.
“How is it that these Russian operatives knew to focus on purple states like Michigan and Wisconsin and your campaign didn’t?” Nancy Cordes, the host of “Face the Nation,” asked Podesta.
The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns. ~ Leah Libresco
"Against this backdrop, most forms of gun control proposed after each mass killing represent a collective punishment. The rights of the law-abiding are restricted with no real evidence that these alleged 'common sense' reforms will prevent future tragedies in any meaningful way."
"...there is broad conceptual agreement that regardless of whether you view gun ownership as a right or a privilege, a person can demonstrate through their conduct that they have no business possessing a weapon."
"Time and again mass shooters give off warning signals. They issue generalized threats. They post disturbing images. They exhibit fascination with mass killings. But before the deadly act itself, there is no clear path to denying them access to guns. Though people can report their concerns to authorities, sometimes those authorities fail or have limited tools to deal with the emerging danger."
Such a proposal gives the authorities, local and state, the tools to deal with the emerging danger without permanently infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 19, 2018 10:14 AM
"How is it that these Russian operatives knew to focus on purple states like Michigan and Wisconsin and your campaign didn’t?” Nancy Cordes, the host of “Face the Nation,” asked Podesta.
Hillary didn't lose because of Russian collusion or Trumpian shenanigans. She lost because she did not understand how elections were changing and Trump did.
He tweeted regularly from a modern smart phone. She still relied on her obsolescent Blackberry.
She played the technophobe Luddite ("what, with a cloth?"). He embraced modern technology.
He eschewed meetings with billionaires. She sought them.
He was openly human while she tried to sell herself as a modern-day saint.
She counted on people to vote as their parents had. He urged them not to.
He held open rallies. She closed hers to anyone not cleared by the party.
She was a machine politician in an era of populism. He was a populist.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 19, 2018 10:23 AM
This one is interesting -
1. If what she did was done by a man, it would be sexual assault, and the guy would be in jail.
2. Reading the comments, it is interesting to see how many women would happily be this guy's side piece.
So lets pass laws to ban guns.
Basically anyone with a big garage and a couple of CNC machines, which you can have shipped to your doorstep from China, and some G code programs downloaded from the internet, can start cranking out guns.
Ammunition is a little harder, but someone with a very basic knowledge of chemistry, and the above machinery could make caseless ammunition, or go the air rifle route and forego chemical explosive ammunition all together. A well designed air rifle can pack the same punch and has about the same performance as a 45 caliber pistol, which is a pretty mean performer.
And then there are all the guns that have been produced since the beginning of the industrial era that are already out there.
Shootings are a social problem that is not going to be solved by outlawing a readily available object.
Furthermore, contrary to what the liberal MSM would have you believe, mass shootings are not a white male supremacist problem. On almost any weekend, US inner cities, Detroit, St Louis, Chicago, Miami, Memphis, Trenton, East LA, Stockton, etc etc , collectively and far too often individually generate a body count that is multiples of the what a white male run amok does.In the US mass shootings are an inner city problem, inner cities are inhabited by many mass killers, but it politically incorrect to discuss this epidemic of inner city killers.
Jonanothan Whapemheimer
at February 19, 2018 1:29 PM
I'm sure glad that Jennifer Lawrence is on the case. ~ mpetrie98 at February 19, 2018 4:28 PM
"I’m going to be working with this organization as a part of Represent.US… trying to get young people engaged politically on a local level.”
“It doesn’t have anything to do with partisan [politics]. It’s just anti-corruption and stuff trying to pass state by state laws that can help prevent corruption, fix our democracy."
I'm also quite glad that Mayim Bialik is on the case. ~ mpetrie98 at February 19, 2018 4:29 PM
And if Michael Rapaport weren't on the case, nuttin' would get done! ~ mpetrie98 at February 19, 2018 4:31 PM
'cause we all know the solution to complex problems is to get young people engaged, blame an advocacy group instead of the perpetrator, and attack anyone who disagrees with you with profanity-laced diatribes.
I'm glad they captured Cruz alive and hope an examination of him will lay to rest this idea that mass shooters pick up guns and say "Sure glad I found this gun, now imma gonna go shoot up a school" as if the gun is to blame; and if not for the gun, would have lived quietly as that weird loner at the end of the street.
I suspect the reasons it didn't catch on, in no particular order, are
1 expensive
2 encouraged troops to waste ammunition
3 more complex, thus more prone to failure, or mechanical fault
I think #2 is pretty much endemic among generals in all military establishments. Which is part of why Custer and the 7th rode out with single shot rifles to face the Souix and Cheyenne, some of whom had those new fangled Winchester and Henry repeaters.
Of course, splitting up your troops into smaller groupings and being numerically inferior at all points didn't help, either.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 19, 2018 6:23 PM
We must ban AR-15s and such.
If you feel mean, just ask if they'd ban one of these Ruger Mini 14s.
Anyone who'll say "oh, yes, that's ok" should freak out when you tell them that they work the same, and have pretty much the same rate of fire as the evil black rifles they wanna ban.
And they come chambered in the malicious 5.56 mm NATO round.
"This is a Bushmaster XM-15, the same model of rifle used at Sandy Hook. Because it's considered an AR-15-style weapon, it would be subject to the latest assault-weapons ban that has been introduced in Congress. It's semiautomatic, meaning one bullet fires per trigger pull. Its rate of fire depends on how fast its shooter can pull the trigger. The Bushmaster shoots .223-caliber ammunition from a 16-inch barrel. And it accepts a 30-round magazine, which means someone can fire 30 times without reloading."
"Now compare that to this, a Ruger Mini 14. It's semiautomatic. It shoots .223-caliber ammunition from a 16-inch barrel. And it accepts a 30-round magazine."
"There are a few differences in how the innards of each rifle operate. But when it comes to rate of fire, capacity and power -- the things people worry about most in a mass shooting -- these are basically the same rifle." [Emphasis mine]
"In other words, all we'd be doing is banning weapons that look scarier than your common hunting rifle. Which, again, doesn't do anything to protect us from madmen hellbent on bloodshed."
People calling for bans on "assault" rifles don't know what they're talking about. The Mini 14 has been in production since 1973. LIke I've been saying, the guns have always been here, the shootings have not. Something new is driving them; it's not the guns.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 19, 2018 8:02 PM
It's evident to me, from various Facebook postings and things that I've seen over the last week, that a vast number of people believe that the AR-15 is an automatic, and that automatic weapons have been used in all of these school shootings. Further, they think that an automatic weapon holds an infinite number of rounds, and that it can fire continuously for an indefinite amount of time without anything melting. Hollywood has contributed greatly to this perception.
I like to point out to them that a lot of the worst mass murders in history have been done largely or entirely without guns. Then I ask them: "Do you want to be able to tell your friends that you 'made a difference', or do you want the problem solved?"
(P.S.: the reason that most of these school shootings result in so many casualties is that (1) the good guys/gals have been disarmed by the government, and (2) "shelter in place" is one of the stupidest things ever invented.)
Cousin Dave
at February 20, 2018 7:06 AM
...a vast number of people believe that the AR-15 is an automatic, and that automatic weapons have been used in all of these school shootings. ~ Cousin Dave at February 20, 2018 7:06 AM
Charles Joseph Whitman killed 14 with a single-shot, bolt action sniper rifle at the University of Texas in 1966. He had a documented history of mental health and anger issues.
People also tend to forget that Columbine was originally a bombing, but the homemade bombs malfunctioned, so Klebold and Harris were forced to improvise. Their plan had been to shoot students as they fled the building, not to hunt them down in the hallways.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 20, 2018 8:29 AM
And then, before this current trend, there is the school shooting that everyone has forgotten about: I Don't Like Mondays.
The Wholesome Business Of Selling Sex
From Wikipedia on Prostitution in New Zealand:
Prostitution (sex work), brothel-keeping, living off the proceeds of someone else's prostitution, and street solicitation are legal in New Zealand. Coercion of sex workers is illegal.
Corazon Miller writes for the New Zealand Herald about how it plays out:
A light-filled ensuite, painted white walls, cream-coloured lounge suit, kitchen, large double bed and blue and yellow themed decor are far removed from the shady black and red interiors of brothels typically seen on the big screen.
Murphy says the light and airy decor is part of her mission to bring prostitution into the open.
It frustrates her that many still frown upon sex workers and their clients. In her experience the men who come to her are "decent human beings" looking for sex, intimacy and female companionship.
"[Paying for sex] is something that is frowned upon in some circles, but I don't see why it should be," she says.
"Why shouldn't a man want sex? Why shouldn't a man want intimacy?
"And if for whatever reason he's not able to have that in the rest of his life - perhaps it's a marriage that has gone stale, or perhaps he's just very busy and doesn't have time for a girlfriend - why do we view that as being abusive or predatory?"
Murphy has strict rules around whom she will employ - she views prostitution as a valid career and won't consider anyone who is taking desperate measures.
"First of all a drug-free workplace.
"Second, hiring girls who genuinely enjoy sex and are doing this of their own free will, not because they are in any kind of desperate circumstance, or because they are trying to work out some sort of abuse issue."
Reread this bit that Maggie McNeill -- "overeducated and unrepentant whore" -- highlighted in a tweet:
"Why shouldn't a man want sex? Why shouldn't a man want intimacy?
"And if for whatever reason he's not able to have that in the rest of his life - perhaps it's a marriage that has gone stale, or perhaps he's just very busy and doesn't have time for a girlfriend - why do we view that as being abusive or predatory?"
Exactly. Why do we?
We sure shouldn't.
Oh, and here's how it plays out when sex work is no longer a crime -- as in New Zealand:
"Today you have sex workers who are confident interacting with police and know they have rights and that gives them a sense they are not isolated and disconnected.
"I don't want to say it's all pleasant, lightness and pleasure, but for some people they are really happy, others say they can't wait to stop."
Some men are not good at picking up girls--ugly, boring, clueless, old. It seems pretty cruel to subject them to criminal penalties. Oh, and I thought feminists were all about choice and empowerment...hahaha
cc
at February 18, 2018 11:56 AM
Consistency question…
If drugs should be legal, what justification is there for making this a drug-free workplace?
Radwaste
at February 18, 2018 1:05 PM
Oh, and I thought feminists were all about choice and empowerment...hahaha
They didn't mean yours.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com)
at February 18, 2018 1:47 PM
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 18, 2018 10:54 PM
It is ok to give sex away for free to strangers. It is called hooking up. It is ok to accept expensive gifts and trips in exchange for sex as long as you call it dating. It only becomes illegal when you tell the truth about what you are doing. Kind of like, it isn't bribery if you call it a campaign donation and let the favor be implied.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, etc (Shakespeare was amazing)
cc
at February 19, 2018 8:39 AM
I wouldn't want my mother, sister, wife or daughter to clean toilets, collect garbage, mine coal, sell guns or work in the Trump administration so all of those things should be illegal.
JD
at February 19, 2018 8:48 AM
Unfortunately, where sex work is legal there seems to be MORE human trafficking and black market sex, not less. You'd think it would be the other way, but...
The Netherlands is having this debate now because of some cases of forced sex work.
NicoleK
at February 25, 2018 12:38 AM
Unfortunately, where sex work is legal there seems to be MORE human trafficking and black market sex, not less. You'd think it would be the other way, but...
The Netherlands is having this debate now because of some cases of forced sex work.
I totally remember when Congress passed the reprehensible Public Affairs Act; it was the same weekend that Evel Knievel attempted to jump his motorcycle over Snake River Canyon.
The Hurt Feelz Approach To Science: NLRB On Damore's Google Memo
Unbelievably, the US National Labor Relations Board has declared parts of fired Google employee James A. Damore's memo "discriminatory." From Ars Technica's Sam Machkovech:
In explaining the board's reasoning, NLRB member Jayme Sophir points to two specific parts of the controversial memo circulated by Damore in August: Damore's claim that women are "more prone to 'neuroticism,' resulting in women experiencing higher anxiety and exhibiting lower tolerance for stress" and that "men demonstrate greater variance in IQ than women."
Sophir describes how these gender-specific claims resemble other cases decided by the NLRB that revolved around racist, sexist, and homophobic language in the workplace. She says that specific Damore statements were "discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [his] effort to cloak [his] comments with 'scientific' references and analysis, and notwithstanding [his] 'not all women' disclaimers. Moreover, those statements were likely to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace."
This claim -- that women are more prone to "neuroticism," one of the five (or sometimes six) dimensions of personality, is not scientifically controversial. Nor, for example, is the observation that there's greater variance in male IQs. Men, more than women, fall at the far ends of the bell curve.
From the NLRB memo:
I want to make clear that our decision is based solely on the part of your post that generalizes and advances stereotypes about women versus men.
So, our government's body is actually making its finding on the potential for hurt feelz. Did the scientific findings disturb some simpering Sallies, or might they disturb them?
I'm embarrassed to be included simply by being a woman, lest somebody infantilize me accordingly.
Of course, there are individual differences in people; the memo Damore wrote talks about the ways, for example, that women generally are. This -- realizing how many women are -- is extremely helpful information. Why wouldn't it be, assuming you understand that there are individual differences?
Ultimately, from my read of Damore, he's a good-hearted dude who thought, "I'll just put out the science and make things better!"
He didn't realize how strongly ideology tops science in one of the top tech companies in the world.
Let's play a little game along the NLRB's decisional lines:
Here's a generalization: Men are vastly more likely to get prostate cancer than women.
Here's another: Women are vastly more likely to have ovaries.
Discriminatory! Constitutes sexual harassment! "Nothwithstanding" my effort to cloak my comments in "basic physiology."
It seems like a bad decision for the reasons you give, and hell, I just dislike gov't lawyers with their BA in history and JD to be making decisions on what is a scientifically accurate and what is not.
So all my sympathies are with James and I hope he prevails, it will be interesting as a layman to see how James and his lawyer deal with this.
jerry
at February 16, 2018 11:08 PM
Since Danforth was neither a private sector employer nor a Union official and had no power to hire or fire anyone, how did his internal memo even fall under the puview of the NLRB?
Isab
at February 17, 2018 4:39 AM
Let's pretend that we did not saw that would happen a mile away.
Sixclaws
at February 17, 2018 6:51 AM
publicinfo@nlrb.gov if anyone wants clarification on specific statements probability of getting you fired
I wonder if mathematicians can now be fired for saying 2+2=4, if such a statement hurts a womans feelings?
Funny, I heard back in the 1980s that psychologists had declared the whole idea of neuroses to be obsolete. What happened?
lenona
at February 17, 2018 8:43 AM
Women are much more likely to get auto-immune disease. Men are much more prone to suicide. Women more prone to anxiety men more to depression (someone quipped anxiety is worry about the future, depression is worry about the past).
The idea that "making generalization" is a fireable offense is equivalent to saying that we believe men and women are identical. That does appear to be the prevailing dogma, though of course women are not identical when they need safe spaces etc etc.
That was supposed to be "Chuck." Unfamiliar keyboard... I got no problem with the guy.
Crid
at February 17, 2018 9:54 PM
The NLRB, and the entire Labor Department, is a part of the federal government that simply does not need to exist.
Cousin Dave
at February 19, 2018 8:23 AM
So would a memo that said "We have generally found Carnegie-Mellon graduates to be better programmers," or "We have generally found Harvard Business School graduates to be better at strategic marketing" be considered discriminatory by the NLRB?
Of course not. Universities have in effect a special license to have discrimination conducted on a school basis.
What about a memo that said "While there are some exceptions, extreme introverts do not generally make good sales reps," or "We have found a general correlation between musical appreciation and talent, on the one hand, and programming skill, on the other"?
It just hit me that what happened was that the memo-writer took a rule that was perfectly sensible in one context and tried to apply it in a completely different context. If Google had used those two observations to justify a policy of preferring men or refusing to hire/promote women, they'd absolutely be committing prohibited discrimination.
But that's because they'd be judging specific applicants based on generalizations about group averages, where the groups involved are protected. Damore was neither doing this or suggesting that it be done. Similarly, if Damore had actually claimed what the SJWs falsely claim that he did, namely that his female colleagues were underperforming his male colleagues because of the ddifferences he cited, it would be reasonable to say that he contributed to a hostile environment. But he did nothing of the sort.
Now that Google messed their image searches thanks to Getty Images, head to www.qwant.com
Here's an example: On it do an image search on.. Pandas and click on one picture. At the right it has the option to view it in fullscreen, click on it and it'll open the image in a new tab.
According to an online calculator, that is 319 sales per month, versus Amy's 130 sales per month.
Snoopy
at February 17, 2018 10:38 AM
The only joy I have is that I won't live long enough to see these spoiled-rotten brats get old enough -I don't believe they will ever grow up- to become judges, senators, congressmen/women/whatever.
VP of advertising at Facebook, Rob Goldman, parts with the Party line in this series of Tweets. Who at the Politburo allowed this to happen and when will he be ousted as a bigot, hater, and secret Trump sympathizer? https://twitter.com/robjective/status/964680122006581248
It's Okay To #FreeTheNipple As Long As You've Got Saggies, Not Perkies
I joke that most of the people you see at the #freethenipples rallies are those whose nipples (and all the rest) you'd really rather they keep under wraps.
Feminists, meanwhile, are right behind any woman being all body proud -- providing her body isn't the sort considered hot by most men.
Accordingly, there's been a push in the UK from feminists to get rid of the "grid girls," hotties employed for promotional tasks by various sports. Like Formula One racing.
These women are earning a living -- perhaps sending themselves to school, paying their rent, supporting their children...but feminists want to put them out of a job because they aren't okay with them earning a living through their looks. Nuh-uh, not okay.
Brendan O'Neill has a piece about this in Penthouse/Australia -- "Fun Police Kill Off Grid Girls -- just another casualty in the war on harmless fun:
A curious thing happened online last week: young women were subjected to vile abuse and yet feminists didn't come to their defence.
The women were branded "dumber than dogshit", "bimbos", "dangerous". And yet feminists didn't kick up a fuss. Despite having spent the past five years going on about how terrible it is to be insulted by oafish men online, feminists kept strangely schtum about this particular war of words on women.
How come? Why the sudden collapse in the sisterhood's stand against abuse? Because the women being targeted were the wrong kind of women.
They are immoral women, bad women, undeserving of support from the prim, well-bred women who make up much of modern-day feminism.
Yes, these were the grid girls and darts girls -- the glamorous models who bring sass to Formula 1 and darts by looking attractive and happy.
Or who used to, rather. They've now been unceremoniously dumped after the overlords of these sports decreed that they were "inappropriate".
...As British darts girl, Charlotte Wood said on TV: "I thought feminism was meant to help us... I feel like we're having our rights taken away."
Charlotte hit on something incredibly important: modern feminism, an increasingly posh, stiff, censorious affair, is not really about helping women. In fact, if any woman makes a choice feminists disagree with, they'll be thrown under the bus.
One more reason I call myself (and am) a humanist -- and not a feminist.
I'm for individual rights -- of all people, including those who don't have a vagina.
This includes the right of grid girls, sex workers, and all other workers to exchange whatever work they want for whatever money they want for it with other consenting adults.
The feminists seem to know what's better for everyone.
I don't dismiss the plight of the grid girls who lost their jobs, but even more distressing is that the powers-that-be capitulated to the pressure. This is giving the feminists power that they not only don't deserve but don't actually have.
They should have told the feminists, "Get fucked. Literally." Because the men who enjoy seeing the grid girls will still be there; their business would be quite safe. But instead, they capitulated to a bunch of self-important shitheads who don't truly have the power to harm them.
I could forgive them doing this if the feminists really could cause their business to go under. But I don't believe they do have that power. Tell the feminists to fuck off, let them pitch their collective and futile hissy fit, and continue about your business. It is much better for the feminists and the world at large to realize that feminists don't have the power they think they do.
Patrick
at February 16, 2018 2:57 AM
Feminists want to assert control over what men should or shouldn't find sexy.
It's another aspect of feminist supremacism.
Snoopy
at February 16, 2018 3:55 AM
#FreeTheNipple but only when it’s a feminist nipple
This is giving the feminists power that they not only don't deserve but don't actually have.
They did actually have the power. Maybe somebody ceded it to them, but that's how it works sometimes.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com)
at February 16, 2018 4:49 AM
It's Okay To #FreeTheNipple As Long As You've Got Saggies, Not Perkies ~ Amy
Actually, aging could be a big part of it.
Young, attractive women will always be accommodated. As they got older, however, women found society needed them less and desired their presence even less. Unattractive women found the same thing without aging. They were, for all intents and purposes, useless.
And, without voting or property rights, women had no other avenues but neighborhood crone. As men got older, they became senior officers and NCOs, CEOs and executive managers, master craftsmen, etc. For women, getting older meant no such esteem or leadership roles. Getting the vote, property rights, and career rights gave older women purpose and value in Western society.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 16, 2018 6:01 AM
Let's stick with Amy's famous line: this about gaining unearned power over others. In this case, over other women, and pretending to be able to speak out on behalf of all women. And as we see here in the USofA, if they don't toe the line, then they're not really women, even if they have a vajayjay.
People like that need to be kept away from the levers of any real power, because they will use that power for their own enjoyment.
Of course, now F1 and the dart promoters have decreased their employment costs. It may cause them to lose some eyeballs, but I suspect it will be a small net profit for them.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 16, 2018 6:21 AM
Mean Girls, version 2018.
bkmale
at February 16, 2018 6:45 AM
It’s interesting to see what’s happening in the female modeling profession. Transgender folks and obese women are being promoted over convetionally attractive young women.
ahw
at February 16, 2018 9:13 AM
As a guy I only paid attention to fashion to look at the hot chicks.
The clothes looked stupid, and quite frankly ugly most of the time.
Thanks to broadband internet I can look at all the hot chicks I want for free.
It has been theorized that much of the conventional modesty morality in society is not from men but from other women who don't like the competition. If a girl goes out in too short a skirt, the men look but it is other women (mostly older) who cluck-cluck or even make a rude comment. Feminists are even worse, because they don't seem to want any men to look at any women, even those dressed ok. They want to simply stop the whole sex-drive thing, as it displeases them (either because they are lesbians or ugly or both). All this crap about "the male gaze" is simply nuts. Why do women wear yoga pants all the time? To attract the male gaze. If it was for comfort, men would wear them too.
cc
at February 16, 2018 12:03 PM
Too much feminist bashing these days. Most feminists just want equality...and yes, for everyone.
Those with penises already have it.
AnnieG
at February 16, 2018 12:33 PM
You consider 96% of workplace deaths equal?
You consider suffering over 60% of domestic violence equal?
The majority of homelessness and poverty equal?
Feminists only want equality for all women in things where a fraction of a single percent of men rise to the top, never in areas where over 30% of men sink to the bottom
That is the problem AnnieG. They don't have it. And claiming otherwise doesn't change that.
Ben
at February 16, 2018 1:01 PM
Women only make up less than 20% of Congress.
More women than men live in poverty.
Women still only earn .79 to a man's dollar.
10 million women per year are victims of domestic violence.
So...tell me again about how men have it worse than women.
AnnieG
at February 16, 2018 1:33 PM
AnnieG: I think there is plenty of unfairness to go around. 99.9999% of men are not in Congress. 98% of workplace deaths are men. Men work more hours than women and pay all the child support. If a man loses his job, wife will often divorce him. He has no option to stay home. 60% of college students right now are women. The 79 cents on the dollar figure ignores that more women work part-time or choose jobs that don't interfere with family life (do you have kids? they take a lot of time and energy). Women don't and don't need to want the same things out of life as men do.
cc
at February 16, 2018 1:42 PM
"Men work more hours than women and pay all the child support."
Where on earth do you get your facts? LOL
Hard to debate with someone who lives in fantasy land.
AnnieG
at February 16, 2018 2:07 PM
Stick it in your fanny, Annie.
Ignorant + bigot = feminist.
Jay R
at February 16, 2018 2:13 PM
> "Men work more hours than women and pay all the
> child support."
> Where on earth do you get your facts? LOL
> Hard to debate with someone who lives in fantasy
> land.
"According to the 2015 American Time Use Survey by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, among full-time employees, men worked 8.2 hours compared to women working 7.8 hours."
"And if you compare employed men and women (regardless of part-time work), employed men work an average of 42 minutes more per day than employed women. 42 minutes might not seem like much, but that is an extra 3.5 hours a week or 14 hours a month. I know I could get a lot more done with an extra day and a half a month of work."
That there is quality bovine scatology. Before you go off half clocked, search this here web site for uber driver compensation.
And all the other times that subject has come up.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 16, 2018 4:47 PM
I have a slightly different theory.
Yes, this is revenge of the Wallflowers, making everyone else miserable since they pulled a 'snakeeyes' in the genetic lottery.
But hot girls still exist and still insist on being beautiful, no matter how Feminists push 'healthy weights' (created by bon bons) and 'natural beauty' (i.e. horrible skin on display)
So their impulse is 'no woman can now look hot in service to men. WE have to own all hot women'. So a Milee Cyrus, a Beyoncé, a Hollywood starlet is NOT destroyed...as long as she is singing the Feminist Cant.
A grid girl, working for men's appreciation. A stripper. A Boxing Match girl...all must be destroyed as collaborators of the Patriarchy.
FIDO
at February 16, 2018 7:04 PM
Women only make up less than 20% of Congress.
So? More women vote than men, and exit polls show men are more likely to vote for female candidates than women. Clean out your own bigots before blaming men for the free choices of women
More women than men live in poverty.
Yes they do, but only if you ignore the homeless population - are you saying homeless men dont suffer from poverty?
Women still only earn .79 to a man's dollar.
Yes they do, know what else sugartits? Women only work 66% of the HOURS men do to earn that 80%. Now I know math rapes feminists like you but .8/.66=1.21
This means for the same HOURS worked women earn $1.21 for every dollar a man does
10 million women per year are victims of domestic violence.
According to all research done on the subject of DV it turns out women commit more than 60% of all domestic violence
So...tell me again about how men have it worse than women.
Asked and answered Annie, but I bet you ignore it
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 16, 2018 7:37 PM
They would hate this but they are just another identity politics group that struggle to find footing in the real world. At least the one I’m from
Lew Chapman
at February 17, 2018 6:35 AM
when I was at law school, there was a lot of hissing because I wore cashmere, silk, high heels, long hair. apparently only butch hair cuts, work shirts, non-fitted blue jeans, work boots were acceptable. what a bunch of hypocrites!
vicki chang
at February 18, 2018 10:14 AM
I joke that most of the people you see at the #freethenipples rallies are those whose nipples (and all the rest) you'd really rather they keep under wraps.
I feel the same way about the Solstice Cyclists, although it's fun to watch them anyway (and some of them do have very nice bodies.) One thing that has changed over the years: more women cyclists. It used to be that the nudes were mainly dudes, but not so much anymore.
JD
at February 19, 2018 8:42 AM
"Those with penises already have it."
AnnieG: tell me when you registered for the draft.
I'll wait.
Radwaste
at February 20, 2018 7:24 PM
Leave a comment
It's Okay To #FreeTheNipple As Long As You've Got Saggies, Not Perkies.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Link Angeles
I couldn't resist -- answering a question on Next Door about our LA city council "representative":
On school shootings, according to the CDC in 2015 there were 58 homicides in "Other specified place, including school, sports/athletics area, or cemetery"
Is this a Russian bot or just plain stupid? ~ Sixclaws at February 16, 2018 4:52 AM
It's stupid. And she doubles down on the stupid in the subsequent comments.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 16, 2018 5:33 AM
...mass killings. ~ Crid at February 15, 2018 11:40 PM
Very interesting. And along the lines of something I talked with my wife about last night. Throughout history Americans have had widespread and easy access to guns, but mass shootings were rare.
I had dorm-mates in college who had rifles and would sneak them into the dorms (against the rules at the time) when they were going hunting the next day. No shootings.
What happened? What changed about society that mass shootings are now happening with an alarming and depressing frequency? It's not the guns; they've been around for centuries.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 16, 2018 5:53 AM
I would love to know the answer to Conan's question. Is it a copycat thing?
I'm being stalked by an apparently mentally ill man right now, JustinNey.com. Stalked and harassed. It's terrible. I filed a police report yesterday, and another woman I know did as well. He's not in LA -- he's in Somerville, MA -- but it's very disturbing. He's been messaging business colleagues to tell them I'm a "homophobe" and a "rape lover" and more.
As anybody who's been around here for any amount of time knows, I'm a strong supporter of gay rights, gay parenting, and gay marriage, and I've written volumes of material that reflects that.
I'm quite over the notion of withholding the names of minors in these cases.
Kevin
at February 16, 2018 7:45 AM
At one point in time, the Thompson sub-machine gun was advertised for sale to the public as protection for large estates and ranches.
And yet no mass shootings involving innocents being randomly gunned down.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 16, 2018 7:50 AM
Once again we have a school shooting in which
(1) the school administrator claims they didn't know nuffin 'bout no shooter's bad behavior prior to the shocking mysterious came outta nowhere violence never nohow - which is proven to be absolute BS within 24 hours, and
(2) the shooter was on psych drugs.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 16, 2018 8:38 AM
The nightmare eight-hour tantrum on a transatlantic flight.
The plane never should've left the gate with a child in that condition.
Kevin
at February 16, 2018 8:51 AM
Social analysis from the blogs Qute Racisstt™!
> enforced monogamy. Top end
> guys get more pussy
Force! Hierarchies! Deprivation!...
No.
As a rule, the "guys" who don't "get pussy" aren't supposed to.
Crid
at February 16, 2018 9:04 AM
> Force! Hierarchies! Deprivation!...
> No.
> As a rule, the "guys" who don't "get pussy" aren't
> supposed to.
It's pretty simple math. The more polygamy in a society, the more guys who can't get pussy.
So, the more a society moves to a polygamous one, the more guys there will be who can't get pussy.
Snoopy
at February 16, 2018 9:14 AM
It's well established that there is a lot more violence in polygamous societies by young men, then in monogamous societies.
All I'm saying is that over the last few decades, are society is becoming more like a polygamous one. So we are seeing a lot more violence by young men.
Snoopy
at February 16, 2018 9:18 AM
> As a rule, the "guys" who don't "get pussy" aren't
> supposed to.
By definition this can't be true, because in different societies, there will be different percentages of men who can't get pussy.
Similarly, even in the US, in different time periods, there will be different percentages of men who can't get pussy.
Snoopy
at February 16, 2018 9:22 AM
> What changed
I'm not sure anything did. Nowadays history is well-transcribed, with names and dates and recitations from living memory and maybe a few official documents. Back in the day, and all too recently, shit that happened down in the valley (up in the hills, across the river, out on the plain) wasn't so tidily recorded in books, newspapers, or even the conversation of burghers who could be intimidated into forgetfulness with knives or fisticuffs.
It's.... (Ahem.) It's like when Amy pretends that Islam is some *new* category of horror that civilization's never faced before.
It ain't, and neither are disturbed boys who want to kill old schoolmates but who don't have family around to keep the lid on.
Look around: The thing that makes the Left so obnoxious today (and the Right too, for that matter) on the internet is their certainty that they know who the problem people are: It's the ones who interfere with their seizure of government authority in order to slay the monsters!
Could these presumptions *possibly* be new to our character? I deeply doubt it.
Crid
at February 16, 2018 9:25 AM
> Similarly,
I'm not sure you're old enough for that kind of language.
Crid
at February 16, 2018 9:25 AM
> I'm not sure you're old enough for that kind of
> language.
So again, you've got no counter argument.
Snoopy
at February 16, 2018 10:12 AM
I mean, a "guy" who cheerfully announces that 'I'm a racist and you are too' is probably not in a position a of sufficiently mature & dispassionate observation to pompously explain how human hearts work in matters of [A.] love or [B.] violence.
Crid
at February 16, 2018 10:13 AM
> Back in the day,
Except we're talking about the last few decades, not centuries.
Snoopy
at February 16, 2018 10:14 AM
> I mean, a "guy" who cheerfully announces that 'I'm
> a racist and you are too'
You're a typical lefty - calling someone a racist wins the debate in your mind.
Snoopy
at February 16, 2018 10:16 AM
"I'm being stalked by an apparently mentally ill man right now, JustinNey.com"
This is a job for Reddit!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 16, 2018 10:36 AM
> You're a typical lefty
I dunno, maybe
> calling someone a racist
Muffin, you called YOURSELF racist, as publicly as our darling little forum will permit. Can't we trust you?
Crid
at February 16, 2018 10:47 AM
Trouble is, Kevin, that's likely what those "shitty kids" WANT.
_________________________________________
I had dorm-mates in college who had rifles and would sneak them into the dorms (against the rules at the time) when they were going hunting the next day. No shootings.
What happened? What changed about society that mass shootings are now happening with an alarming and depressing frequency? It's not the guns; they've been around for centuries.
Conan the Grammarian at February 16, 2018 5:53 AM
_________________________________________
(The following is what I spelled out to someone else):
Re Florida, what's interesting was something I found in a column a week ago by controversial psychologist John Rosemond (born in 1947), who argued that guns and wildlife hunting were all the rage among teenage boys (including himself and his classmates) in the 1960s, in the state of Georgia, and so, during hunting season, there were always plenty of rifles and such in the cars in the school parking lot (and at other schools as well), but one didn't hear of teenagers committing school shootings back then. Therefore, he says:
"No, guns are not the problem. The problem is feelings. I am a member of the last generation of American children whose parents disciplined not only our behavior, but also insisted that we exercise emotional self-control...
"...As I said, guns are the means, but the problem is what I term emotional entitlement syndrome – the narcissistic belief that certain feelings are all the excuse one requires to justify anti-social and/or self-destructive behavior.
"To widespread emotional entitlement one can add the effects of encouraging high self-esteem (which is associated, we now know, with low respect for the rights and property of others) and the demonization of shame, the primary purpose of conscience. A calamity was sure to ensue, and it has. It includes not only school shootings, but the widespread use of social media as a platform for acting out personal soap operas (i.e., emotional dramas), a dramatic rise in child and teen depression and suicide, cutting, epidemic bullying, and millions of children on psychiatric medications that may cause more problems than they solve (if they solve any)."
(end)
I'm surprised the media aren't attacking him yet for saying that - but maybe they don't want to give him extra publicity.
I personally think he's 60% right. That is, what he doesn't seem to want to talk about is that emotional entitlement, unfortunately, is nothing new in the US, contrary to what he implied. Specifically, what other people in the media have pointed out about school shootings, time and again, is that the young gunmen are almost always white (and, sometimes, involved with white supremacy groups). So, one might say, what's the difference between their behavior and the lack of "emotional self-control" that was common among white ADULT Americans between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the 1960s, considering that lynchings of both black and white people - but mostly black - were so common that, despite the efforts of thousands of people, the anti-lynching bills of the 1920s and 1930s were blocked by the Senate and did not pass.
From Wikipedia: "Roosevelt was concerned about a provision of the (1935) bill that called for the punishment of sheriffs who failed to protect their prisoners from lynch mobs. He believed that he would lose the support of the white voters in the South by approving this, and lose the 1936 presidential election."
And, from the FDR archives:
"It was not until 2005 that the US Senate apologized formally for its shocking failure to pass any anti-lynching legislation '…when action was most needed.' "
Extra note: If you're going to ask why white teen shooters don't necessarily target only people of color, maybe it's because that would be too much advance work; they're teens and they're targeting innocent individuals anyway, so they don't necessarily care what color they are; they feel that every person who didn't help them get something for nothing is a guilty "accomplice" anyway and deserves to die.
lenona
at February 16, 2018 10:51 AM
"What changed about society that mass shootings are now happening with an alarming and depressing frequency? It's not the guns; they've been around for centuries."
Not addressing the "frequency" issue now, though I doubt it - but there are three things I can imagine having an effect:
• Widespread prescription of drugs, which began in childhood for some shooters
• The "creep" of instant gratification
• The immense publicity accorded every psychopathic loser and his fantasies. He'll be more famous than anyone who wouldn't talk to him; he'll even get the whole nation to drop a flag longer than it was for the death of an American legend and his lifetime of service.
We even rank killings. Hey, gotta beat that number!
Radwaste
at February 16, 2018 10:54 AM
First up, crid
It's.... (Ahem.) It's like when Amy pretends that Islam is some *new* category of horror that civilization's never faced before.
And yet, everytime she mention how its been a blight on humanity since its inception 1500+ years ago
Now now Lujlp, you well know that Crid is as old as the hills and the seas. The birth and death of the stars in the heavens is just a flickering moment in Crid's eye.
As for the gun thing, it used to be common for everyone to be armed. Boys in school had knives. I don't know what the girls had but I expect they had something similar. So schools weren't soft targets where no one fought back. And that was the 1950s. Before all the 'gun free zones' the few school attacks I can remember were all bombings that sometimes devolved into shootings when the bombs didn't work. Also as Rad and Lujlp mentioned, the frequency problem. School shootings are very rare. Natural population growth may account for a lot of it.
Ben
at February 16, 2018 11:39 AM
As to why more mass shooting in schools?
US Population 1840 017 Mil
US Population 1918 103 Mil +500%
US Population 2018 326 Mil +215%
US schools 1840 3.7 million 21% of population
US schools 1918 21 million 20% of population
US schools 2018 81 million 25% of population
The population is 20 times larger than 200 years ago, school age population is 22 times larger
You could have twenty times as many school shooing as two hundred years ago and it would still be less statistically
"You could have twenty times as many school shooing as two hundred years ago and it would still be less statistically"
Statistically I believe it wouldn't go up linearly, but closer to the square of the population increase. Since both perp and victims are of the same increased population.
Joe J
at February 16, 2018 12:31 PM
"Connan" What happened?
A number of possible things or a combination of all of them.
As was pointed out just an increase in population would account for some of an increase.
Social societal changes: Fame/infamy of perp. Feelings of anonymity of common person, with a few others reaching super stardom for odd reasons (kardasians).
Drug/medication use
Changes in religion/societal norms. Rewriting/definitions of what "crazy" is, often for political purposes.
Politicization of this issue makes it much more visible and talked about but also obscured in certain ways (that it is all about gun control or mental health issues, no one trusts the numbers).
Trolling.
And a slew of others.
Similar to an odd conversation I was having about a Trump cartoon. Liberal friend, "Trump is unstable and reckless and has his finger on the button. So we have to attack and insult him"
My response if you actually believe him that unstable and dangerous the last thing anyone would do is insult him.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 16, 2018 6:31 PM
Ban assault rifles. Destroy the AR-15, which has been the primary weapon of choice in most of the mass shootings in the past 15 years and is ridiculously inexpensive to buy at less than $1000. The number of rifles manufactured in the US has DOUBLED since 2008. That's a problem. Shotguns have stayed nearly static since the '80s, as have revolvers. Pistols have shot up remarkably, but rifles have had astronomic growth rates in manufacturing. It's also estimated that about 20% of all rifles sold are AR-15 pattern. Assault rifles are not used to hunt game and they sure as hell shouldn't be used by an 18-year-old who can buy one easier than a pistol. Ban all bump stocks and oversize clips -- there is no function for them unless you are in the military.
In war. I'm sorry, but there is something very, very wrong with how we view assault rifles in the US.
gooseegg
at February 16, 2018 9:34 PM
Oh, I forgot to post this, but wanted to say that I agree with the above reasoning behind the desire to pick up a gun and kill someone. I just think until we get that sorted out, maybe make it a little harder to find a gun to pick up.
FFS, if you learn to read, you'll learn to take the point.
Crid
at February 17, 2018 2:46 AM
Assault rifles are not used to hunt game and they sure as hell shouldn't be used by an 18-year-old who can buy one easier than a pistol. ~ gooseegg at February 16, 2018 9:34 PM
And you know that no one has ever used an "assault rifle" to hunt game, or that "assault rifles" are somehow deficient for those purposes?
In a recent article I read, the author recommended the AR-15 as an ideal home protection weapon, citing its pistol grip and layout as easier for maneuvering around doorways and furniture in the dark.
Of course, most of the world's militaries have given up on the M-16 as too large for tight situations, preferring the bull pup design as more compact and maneuverable.
Goose, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The founding fathers feared tyrannical government and wanted the people armed and able to resist any government encroachment on their rights. That some have chosen to use this freedom to kill their fellow citizens is abhorrent and must be stopped. But, as I pointed out earlier, the guns have always been there. It's the shootings that are new.
In an essay I read a few years ago the author compared medieval France to medieval Britain. In war, the British depended upon the longbow, which took years to master. Every yeoman was required to have in his dwelling a longbow and be proficient in its use. The French peasant, when France went to war, was provided with the loan of a crossbow, a weapon that could easily be picked up and used by an amateur. The British king thus knew that his peasantry was armed (legend of Robin Hood, anyone?), while the French king knew that his peasantry was not. Guess which country evolved a democracy and tradition of individual rights without a violent revolution and period of extended tyranny and bloodshed.
Ban all bump stocks and oversize clips -- there is no function for them unless you are in the military. ~ gooseegg at February 16, 2018 9:34 PM
Second, why on earth would the military need bump stocks? The military has fully automatic weapons. A piece of plastic that requires brute muscle power to allow a semi-automatic to mimic an automatic is not necessary for anyone with a real automatic.
I just think until we get that sorted out, maybe make it a little harder to find a gun to pick up. ~ gooseegg at February 16, 2018 9:43 PM
This is the most cogent point you've made so far, perhaps the only one. I disagree with it, but it's a cogent point with a straightforward point.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 17, 2018 5:30 AM
The number of rifles manufactured in the US has DOUBLED since 2008. That's a problem.
That number reflect domestic sales as well or just manufacture which also feeds into the US government selling arms to other nation states and what inevitably become terrorist cells?
That guy git shot five times in the face, what if he had realized she was out of ammo and continued his attack? What if there was more than one assailant?
I'd agree to an ammo cap on one condition, that those advocating it put their names on a list, and should it be proven that anyone died as a result of not having enough ammo to protect themselves some one from that list is chosen at random and one of their children is executed in recompense.
No one should be allowed to dictate to another free person what they use or how they choose to defend themselves without offering up the life of someone they love as payment for possibly killing someone they dont know
Conan, no one "needs" an AR-15 for home protection. Because someone somewhere recommends it for home safety doesn't mean the average homeowner actually needs that weapon. The ability to kill 17 people and wound 17 more within a 6-minute time span is insane. No one needs that firepower. I am sick and tired of seeing this nation reduced to tears and trembling after every mass shooting and not one dang thing being done about it. This doesn't happen anywhere else in the entire world, yet we have normalized it that it is a problem of the insane, not the weapons. The most obvious place to start is with the weapon of choice and then move on from there. No one "needs" an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. For anything. Gabby Giffords was shot by a man using a pistol that had been converted with a magazine that holds 33 rounds. If you need 33 rounds to shoot someone inside your home, then you're dead anyway. You all want to spout the second amendment and the right to bear arms, but at the time no Founding Father ever thought that a snot-nosed kid would have their hands on a weapon that could do that damage. It took 4-1/2 minutes to load a second round when that amendment was written. In that amount of time the shooter here had struck 34 people. Besides the fact that if we are ever overrun by our own government or any government for that matter, all the AR-15s in the world aren't gonna help us against the advanced drones, heavy artillery, and smart weapons out there. You go ahead and console your kids and grandkids and tell them it's because one day the world will implode and I want to have a semi-automatic rifle. You go on now to school because it's active-shooter drill day and practice being quiet while someone knocks on the doors of every classroom (which happens MONTHLY where I live). See how they sleep at night and tell yourself you really, really need that AR-15.
gooseegg
at February 17, 2018 7:20 AM
Even after the gun ban Australia has had mass shootings, just a few years ago in Norway that guy killed a bunch of kids
Your emotional reactions have already blinded you to the fact that this does indeed happen elsewhere on this planet
Given we have ample proof of your inability to acknowledge facts that disagree with your emotional suppositions why would you think your solutions would be any less flawed than your current reasoning?
And ah yes, the beautiful argument that says, since we don't know that will work, we shall sit still and do nothing. And wait for someone to kill 80 people at an outdoor concert, 35 kindergarteners, or 75 college kids. What number do you have to get to? 500 in one event? 1000?
What number makes a difference in the eyes of the NRA? Because that, apparently, is who really controls things in this country.
And no, this doesn't happen in other countries. Mass shootings are rare, rare like albino dolphins are rare, in other countries. Because one rare shooting occurs, are you seriously equating this with 'Merica? That's emotionally twisted, to look in the face of the mass casualties and say that because it's normal to me it's normal elsewhere, right? It's not normal -- it's just normal here.
gooseegg
at February 17, 2018 8:45 AM
Conan, no one "needs" an AR-15 for home protection. ~ gooseegg at February 17, 2018 7:20 AM
Well, it's a good thing we have you, a firearms expert, to tell us what we "need" for home protection instead of those experts who write articles and regularly research the subject. Between you and Joe "just fire a shotgun into the air" Biden, it's a wonder the thugs aren't running for the hills.
You're deliberately blind to the main point. The Second Amendment is not about thugs breaking into your house, nor is it about hunting. It's about the check on government tyranny that an armed populace provides. And yes, an populace armed with semi-automatic AR-15s can fight an advanced army - just ask our troops in the Middle East about the effectiveness of the AK-47 armed guerrillas there.
Nor is it about reload times. When the second amendment was written the difference between civilian and military weapons was pretty slim, but the point the Founding Fathers were making about an armed populace still stands. By the way, a skilled musket user with paper cartridges could get off as many as 45 shots in a minute, a much faster reload rate than your 4.5 minute estimate.
As for consoling our children, let's find the real source of the problem instead of telling them they're safe with the band-aid of gun control. G. Gordon Liddy said in his book, Will, that none of the people in prison with him for gun crimes had gotten their guns legally. And that was when guns were all metal and had to be machined in a gun shop. Now, you can print a gun on a 3-D printer with very few metal parts. The current ones last only a few shots right now, but with better plastics, the day of a durable home-printed gun is coming. Good luck banning those.
The guns have always been there, the mass random shootings have not. The Thompson submachine gun spits out 1,500 rounds per minute of .45 caliber ACP ammunition and was invented in 1917; it was widely available to the public after World War I. The "tommy gun" was popular with the Prohibition era gangsters, but was never used in a random mass shooting of the public. It's not the guns. As much as we'd love for this issue to have a simple solution like gun control or background checks or anything, this is not a simple problem and band-aids will only leave us vulnerable.
My final quibble is the term "assault rifle." It's really just a made-up term to make some weapons sound scarier than others. Some folks trace it back to the Nazi "sturmgewehr" or "Storm of War." But, until the discussion of the government's Assault Weapons Ban, it didn't really exist.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 17, 2018 9:48 AM
Given USA today is not an arbiter on the definition of mass shooting who cares what they say
They had a mass shooting a few years ago, that cafe thing, and right after that people who appointed themselves definers of mass shootings changed the criteria so that incident no longer qualified.
You say you are tired of kids dying, more kids are killed by hand guns each year than AR15s
More kids are killed by cars, more kids die as a result of their parent refusing medical treatment than die in mass shootings.
You wnat few kids to die? Who doesnt.
Articulate a DISPASSIONATE plan of action that
A) Doenst interfere with other peoples rights
B) Actually prevents such a tragedy from occurring
Becuase in the last 20 years I have yet to hear of a policy that would have prevent any of these shootings
You can do that by destroying the Constitution. Go for it, dood.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 17, 2018 1:24 PM
Here's an idea for you, Goose, a gun-violence restraining order (GVRO).
"...most forms of gun control proposed after each mass killing represent a collective punishment. The rights of the law-abiding are restricted with no real evidence that these alleged 'common sense' reforms will prevent future tragedies in any meaningful way."
"...there is broad conceptual agreement that regardless of whether you view gun ownership as a right or a privilege, a person can demonstrate through their conduct that they have no business possessing a weapon."
"Time and again mass shooters give off warning signals. They issue generalized threats. They post disturbing images. They exhibit fascination with mass killings. But before the deadly act itself, there is no clear path to denying them access to guns. Though people can report their concerns to authorities, sometimes those authorities fail or have limited tools to deal with the emerging danger."
"In other words, proper application of existing policies and procedures could have saved lives, but the people in the federal government failed. And they keep failing. So let’s empower different people. Let’s empower the people who have the most to lose, and let’s place accountability on the lowest possible level of government: the local judges who consistently and regularly adjudicate similar claims in the context of family and criminal law."
Time To Stop Trying To Shove Women Into STEM
If you are somebody miserable in the job you're doing, there's a good chance you're in it because you thought you should be -- because your parent was a lawyer and you thought you had to do that, too, just to name one example.
Now, it pays to do something that's practical -- a career in which you can earn a living so you won't be living on a sheet of cardboard on the corner.
But there's this big push to get girls into STEM -- while there's no commensurate push to get women into oil rig work, no complaints that there aren't enough women hanging off the back of garbage trucks.
I think girls -- and boys -- should be shown all sorts of possibilities for their lives early in their school experience. It's sometimes important to encourage a kid to try something they think they might not be good at. However, I don't think kids should be pushed to, essentially, take one for the team careerwise -- which is how I see pushing girls into STEM when it's really not their thing.
STEM fields are terribly hard. If you don't really, really want to be there, well, you're not going to do so well -- and there's a good chance you'll be miserable in a way that leaks through to other areas of your life.
Sex differences researcher David C. Geary and social scientist Gijsbert Stoet write at Quillette:
We've recently found that countries renowned for gender equality show some of the largest sex differences in interest in and pursuit of STEM degrees, which is not only inconsistent with an oppression narrative, it is positive evidence against it.18 Consider that Finland excels in gender equality, its adolescent girls outperform boys in science, and it ranks near the top in European educational performance.19 With these high levels of educational performance and overall gender equality, Finland is poised to close the sex differences gap in STEM. Yet, Finland has one of the world's largest sex differences in college degrees in STEM fields. Norway and Sweden, also leading in gender equality rankings, are not far behind. This is only the tip of the iceberg, as this general pattern of increasing sex differences with national increases in gender equality is found throughout the world.20
...We believe that with economic development and advances in human rights, including gender equality, people are better able to pursue their individual interests and in doing so more basic sex differences are more fully expressed.22 The differences in STEM are related in part to student's personal and occupational interests and relative academic strengths. Sex differences in occupational interests are large, well-documented, and reflect a more basic sex difference in interest in things versus people.23 Men prefer occupations that involve working with things (e.g., engineering, mechanics) and abstract ideas (e.g., scientific theory) and women prefer working with and directly contributing to the wellbeing of others (e.g., physician, teacher). The sex difference in interest in people extends to a more general interest in living things, which would explain why women who are interested in science are much more likely to pursue a career in biology or veterinary medicine than computer science.24
Programs designed to steer women into inorganic STEM fields would in effect steer these same women away from the life sciences. Such programs would, in our opinion, only be justifiable if women are not provided a fair opportunity to pursue inorganic STEM fields (for which there is no good evidence). The main argument from gender activists is that inorganic STEM fields are a better choice for women either because these jobs lead to higher incomes or that there is a labor market demand for them. Both arguments are fundamentally capitalist and dehumanizing in the sense that considerations of personal interest are overridden by considerations of societal demand. This is ironic, given that the agenda arguing for more women in STEM seems most popular among left-leaning people.
In any event, on top of differences in career preferences, there are important and largely overlooked sex differences in relative strengths in reading, mathematics, and science.25 Students who are relatively better in reading-related areas (e.g., literature) than they are in science or mathematics, independent of their absolute level of performance are more likely to pursue college degrees in the humanities and enter non-science occupations. The reverse is true for students who are relatively better in science and mathematics than literature.26 This is where the results from Finland and elsewhere make sense. Although Finnish girls perform as well or better than Finnish boys in science, the gap is even larger in reading. The result is that more Finnish girls have relative advantages in reading than science. Most adolescent boys in contrast are relatively better at science or mathematics than reading, independent of their absolute level of performance. Individuals with this academic profile are likely to enter STEM areas, either as research scientists or technicians, and there are more boys than girls with this pattern throughout the world.
During my senior year of high school, my mom enrolled me in computer classes -- DOS and COBOL, I think (though I might not be remembering right) -- in the local community college. I hated them and probably would have preferred being dropped off in a shallow grave filled with live cockroaches to being dropped off at OCC (Oakland Community College) a few days a week.
Ever notice how the feminists complaining that we need more women in STEM fields majored in gender studies?
Patrick
at February 15, 2018 1:38 AM
Stop pushing women into STEM? Misleading title. How about we STOP discouraging young women in high school from using their science and math skills and pursuing a STEM major in college?
"STEM fields are terribly hard." Wow, why not just say women can't handle it and that they should pursue an easier field. Women are just as intelligent as men; men are discouraging them from entering 'their' domain.
MichaelM
at February 15, 2018 6:01 AM
I'm going to lay some patriarchy on you:
there's no commensurate push to get women into oil rig work, no complaints that there aren't enough women hanging off the back of garbage trucks
That's because men are expendable, and women are not. And both of those occupations require more than a little physical labor. Feminists rail against the patriarchy, right up until it benefits them. Otherwise, they'd be all in favor of making young women sign up for Selective Service.
Women are just as intelligent as men; men are discouraging them from entering 'their' domain.
You have proof of this? go on, make your arguments. Otherwise, I categorically reject your assertion.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 15, 2018 6:18 AM
Got any proof of that Mangina, I mean Michael?
And by proof I mean something more tangible, and measurable then your histrionic feelings.
"STEM fields are terribly hard." Wow, why not just say women can't handle it and that they should pursue an easier field. Women are just as intelligent as men; men are discouraging them from entering 'their' domain.
MichaelM manages to decide this is about women, this "STEM fields are terribly hard."
Nobody who doesn't want to be in STEM -- who isn't driven like a motherfucker to be in STEM -- should be in it.
Michael also seems to be a bit clueless about the countless initiatives to push women into STEM.
See McArdle here on precisely what I'm talking about:
I had attended a concert that Saturday night. I answered the question with an account of both. The guys stared blankly. Then silence. Then one of them said: "I built a fiber-channel network in my basement," and our co-workers fell all over themselves asking him to describe every step in loving detail.
At that moment I realized that fundamentally, these are not my people. I liked the work. But I was never going to like it enough to blow a weekend doing more of it for free. Which meant that I was never going to be as good at that job as the guys around me.
So I went to business school, and eventually I landed myself in the kind of career that I was happy to do on weekends, and nights, and most of my other time -- a career that I did, in fact, do for free for five years before anyone offered to pay me for it. My field, policy journalism, is also predominantly male. But it's less male, and it suits me better.
Those facts may be related. Thinking back to those women I knew in IT, I can't imagine any of them would have spent a weekend building a fiber-channel network in her basement.
When scientists say that, on average, men and women differ on trait X, this is what they mean (see screenshot). ~ from Crid's link
And "on average" tells you nothing about the standard deviation, or any of the other meaningful statistical measurements that could help clarify the information.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 15, 2018 6:34 AM
...men are discouraging them from entering 'their' domain. ~ MichaelM at February 15, 2018 6:01 AM
Not buying it.
My sister works in STEM and has for the past thirty some-odd years. As an engineer. No one tried to discourage her. In fact, she was strongly encouraged by her professors when she expressed an interest in going into engineering and heavily recruited by engineering firms when she graduated. Fellow engineering students were happy to have girls in their classes.
This "discouragement" is a fiction feminists have cooked up to explain why girls are passing up fields that require a deep immersion in mathematics to enter (programming, engineering, physics, math).
I went to business school with a woman who had a physics undergraduate degree. Her choice to leave physics was not based on being discouraged from entering a man's field, but based on the job opportunities available in the field - which requires a PhD for any well-paying venture and has limited openings at the top, a quandary which affects equally both men and women in the field.
When one of the business school professors asked if she had encountered pushback in the field from resentful men, she told him no, that she had been encouraged all the way, by professors and students, but that an MBA allowed her to start making money right away and a physics PhD would mean an extra year or two of school, then waiting for a rare opening at a university or foundation.
Ever notice how the feminists complaining that we need more women in STEM fields majored in gender studies? ~ Patrick at February 15, 2018 1:38 AM
This. Social Science feminists have no concept of the work required to major in STEM and think the skills, like Harry Potter's or Rey's, magically manifest themselves when needed.
They learn only enough statistics to justify the conclusion they've already drawn and so can't understand the idea that math is more than just balancing your checkbook.
there's no commensurate push to get women into oil rig work, no complaints that there aren't enough women hanging off the back of garbage trucks
These jobs don't pay as well and are not glamorous. No one is giving oil rig workers and garbagemen stock options in start-ups. No one cares if a female oil rig roustabout leans in.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 15, 2018 6:59 AM
"STEM fields are terribly hard."
Well, they are. Let me tell you what happens when you major in a STEM field. On Friday and Saturday night, when other students are partying and hooking up and having fun, you're in the lab, or hiding in the library to do your homework because there's too much noise in the dorm. And even if you weren't, you have no money to party on because you spent it on expensive textbooks and manuals and lab fees. You don't choose when to take your classes; you take them when they are offered, because there's only one section per year. If the class is only offered during summer term, then you stay at school over the summer to take it. You do not have a girlfriend; in fact, you scarcely know any women, because most of the girls on campus regard you as weird and creepy, and you don't have time or money for dates anyway. Yes, there will are few women in your classes. They are so rare that each one has her pick of men -- the ones who aren't already married, that is. On top of everything else, the liberal arts professors blame you for everything that is wrong with the world, and they aren't shy about telling you so. (You have to take their classes, even though none of the liberal arts students have to take any of your classes.) You watch Revenge of the Nerds over and over, and dream of the day that you have your degree and a real job, and you can start to make some money and be part of society and live somewhat like a normal person.
The contention that women are still blocked from STEM fields is laughable. Schools have strong preferences for female applicants for STEM degrees. I saw something last week where an admissions person from Howard University was bragging about the fact that they admit essentially every female student who applies for the College of Science, while rejecting 80% of the male applicants.
Cousin Dave
at February 15, 2018 7:13 AM
"Both arguments are fundamentally capitalist..."
This is the one bit they got wrong. Economic freedom is an essential ingredient of capitalism. When certain groups of people are being pushed into certain fields by the government, that implies that the groups who would otherwise be going into those fields are being shoved aside. That's not an economic free choice; hence, it is not capitalism. It is a (somewhat subtle) form of socialist central planning. That's why the Left likes it; it gives them more control over other peoples' lives.
Cousin Dave
at February 15, 2018 7:18 AM
"Women are just as intelligent as men; men are discouraging them from entering 'their' domain."
This isn't about class, it's about opportunity. So far as your allegation...
Here is an entertaining specuation about innate differences. Maybe if you look around you'll find the study containing the statistical analyses explaining the outliers when testing for intelligence.
Radwaste
at February 15, 2018 7:43 AM
True misogyny towards women is treating them like men.
Snoopy
at February 15, 2018 8:37 AM
"Consider that Finland excels in gender equality, its adolescent girls outperform boys in science ..."
I have to ask, is girls outperforming the same as equality? I didn't dig deeper but many people treat those like synonyms.
"How about we STOP discouraging young women in high school from using their science and math skills and pursuing a STEM major in college?"
Every college I've worked with being a girl in STEM is worth about a letter grade. I.e. just by having boobs your work will be graded better. By comparison being black is only worth half as much. Once you get out of college that tends to flip. I.e. being black is worth $10k-20k in increased income and being a woman is only worth half of that.
"These jobs don't pay as well and are not glamorous. No one is giving oil rig workers and garbagemen stock options in start-ups. No one cares if a female oil rig roustabout leans in."
Rig work is for the non-college educated. It pays really well. Domestic workers (i.e. in USA) make ~$45k/year. Offshore is $60k/year. Offshore international is $90k/year. That is starting pay. It goes up with experience. The flip side is work flexibility. Domestic workers have it the easiest. You still work in the middle of nowhere but hotels are available and you can see your family on a regular basis. Offshore is 3 month on 3 months off. I.e. you will live on a boat with 4 other people for 3 months. International is 6-9 months on 6-9 months off. I.e. you will work for at least 6 months without seeing your family. Hence the high pay. I will give you the not glamorous.
There are some US based female rig hands. There aren't many but there are some. There are virtually zero international ones. The risk of kidnapping is already quite high. Adding in the risk or rape and sex slavery is more than most companies can handle.
Ben
at February 15, 2018 8:45 AM
There are many reasons why MichaelM strikes me as pompous & unworldy, as a total prehistoric flying doof-asaures, but this will do for now.
(There are other links to these studies in the files from last year: Let me know if you need 'em, Mickles.)
Crid
at February 15, 2018 9:14 AM
"STEM fields are terribly hard." Wow, why not just say women can't handle it and that they should pursue an easier field. Women are just as intelligent as men; men are discouraging them from entering 'their' domain.
I come down on Amy as much as anyone when I think she's wrong, but this is plainly taking her statements out of context.
There was nothing in Amy's statement that implied that women couldn't handle being in STEM. In fact, she goes on to say that if you don't really, really want to be in STEM, you're going to be miserable. Since there was no reference to gender in that statement, I understood it to mean that anyone, man or woman, is going to be miserable in a STEM field if they don't want to be there.
Patrick
at February 15, 2018 9:27 AM
Rig work is for the non-college educated. It pays really well. ~ Ben at February 15, 2018 8:45 AM
Yes, my point was that the push for "equality" in representation in specific fields is a push for money and glamour, not a push for real equality.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 15, 2018 9:37 AM
In fact, she goes on to say that if you don't really, really want to be in STEM, you're going to be miserable. ~ Patrick at February 15, 2018 9:27 AM
My dad said that in his 50+ year of engineering, he hadn't met an engineer yet who at some point didn't want to get out of engineering. So, even if you really, really want to be in STEM, at some point, you won't.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 15, 2018 9:48 AM
And "on average" tells you nothing about the standard deviation, or any of the other meaningful statistical measurements that could help clarify the information.
Yes. Additionally, while I suspect that the distribution for women is very close to the normal distribution, it isn't quite so obvious that the distribution for men is just skewed to the right.
In fact, I think the curve is flatter, or perhaps even bi-modal: while there are a lot of genius men, there are also a lot of "here, hold my beer" types as well. Women are much more tightly clustered in that ± 1 standard deviation: not so many outliers.
After a refresher on the normal distribution, I do vaguely recall this:
A standard deviation is a unit of measurement that can help you with figuring out where data items are likely to fall. For example, 68% of all measurements fall within one standard deviation either side of the mean. In other words, the bulk of your data will fall between -1 and +1 standard deviations from the mean. If you go out to two standard deviations, that percentage rises to 95; almost all (99.7%) of your data will fall within three standard deviations.
I do vaguely recall this: ~ I R A Darth Aggie at February 15, 2018 10:00 AM
The 68-95-99.7 Rule derived from Chebyshev's Inequality. And yes, the rule applies only to a normal distribution.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 15, 2018 10:13 AM
my mom enrolled me in computer classes -- DOS and COBOL, I think (though I might not be remembering right)
Given that you're in my age cohort, that sounds about right. Well, not so sure about DOS, it might have been IBM JCL. I didn't fool around with COBOL and I am blissfully unaware if it ran on IBM PC-AT class machine. I'm thinking "no", tho.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 15, 2018 10:17 AM
Social Science feminists have no concept of the work required to major in STEM and think the skills, like Harry Potter's or Rey's, magically manifest themselves when needed.
Which is why I can completely work thru the math on this page.
Well, no, I can't. Tho I see my old nemeses Gauss, Laplace, Fourier and Bayes make their appearances. Fiends!
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 15, 2018 10:24 AM
"My dad said that in his 50+ year of engineering, he hadn't met an engineer yet who at some point didn't want to get out of engineering. "
When I was a cub engineer, I had a co-worker who berated himself on almost a daily basis for not going to law school. "The pay is better, the work is easier, and you get a lot more respect." I don't know about the work part, but the other two contentions are indisputably true. (At least they are for our generation; the pay one might not be true any more for younger generations.)
"In fact, I think the curve is flatter, or perhaps even bi-modal: while there are a lot of genius men, there are also a lot of 'here, hold my beer' types as well."
Yeah, I think it's well accepted that when you are doing stats on behavior characteristics, there will be more outliers, at both ends, among men. Both curves are bell curves, but the standard deviations are wider with men.
The other thing is: Due to the nature of male thinking, sometimes the difference between the genius and the hold-my-beer guy can be hard to discern. Before the Apollo 8 mission (the first one to go to the Moon, although it didn't land), Jim Lovell treated it like he was a terminally ill medical patient: he got all of his accounts and papers in order, and made sure his wife knew where everything was and how to file claims. He did this, he explained to people, because he figured he had about a 1 in 3 chance of surviving the mission.
Cousin Dave
at February 15, 2018 10:31 AM
"Given that you're in my age cohort, that sounds about right. Well, not so sure about DOS, it might have been IBM JCL. I didn't fool around with COBOL and I am blissfully unaware if it ran on IBM PC-AT class machine. I'm thinking 'no', tho."
I did some batch with JCL, although most of my mainframe experience was with Univac EXEC-8 (which made a lot more sense to me than JCL, for what it's worth). I took a COBOL class, mainly for the reason that I was working as a tutor for the C.S. department and I needed a working knowledge of COBOL for that. Once I graduated, I never looked at a line of COBOL again.
My first exposure to a computer was with Data General RDOS and Extended BASIC, in high school. (I was fortunate; few high schoolers had access to a computer in those days.) My college work was mostly in FORTRAN V at first, and the C. I knew BSD 4.2 and System V inside and out. Did a lot of assembly language too, on both mainframes and mini/micro computers. One of my favorite jobs that I'e ever had involved writing assembly language for the Zilog Z80. In embedded work, there are still places where nothing but the assembler gets the job done, and I'm the only person in my group that knows any.
Cousin Dave
at February 15, 2018 10:38 AM
I don't think I've ever seen or even heard of a interpreter or compiler COBOL on a micro. Not sure I've even seen a line of it after, perhaps, a textbook's by-the-way in the Fortran classroom of 1978.
Crid
at February 15, 2018 11:52 AM
I bought a British book on Z80 assembler for the T/S 1000/Sinclair ZX-81. The book sucked, so I gave up after a chapter or three.
Still not entirely ashamed of the failure. It's assembler, fer chrissake. There was a wife to divorce and new tail to chase.
Crid
at February 15, 2018 11:55 AM
My point back Conan was that while I agree with you about rig work not being glamorous it pays really really well. The median annual wage for a high school only worker is $30k. The starting pay for a US rig worker is $45k. Well above the median. And the starting pay of $90k for international work is way over that median. For someone with no college education that is a lot of money. The flip side is no one wants to do that work so they have to pay that or they wouldn't have any employees.
Feminist think is more about the glamor than the money. Getting dirty or taking risks are not an option.
"I had a co-worker who berated himself on almost a daily basis for not going to law school. "The pay is better, the work is easier, and you get a lot more respect.""
I don't know that any of that is true. Lawyers have highly variable pay. Engineers there is very little variation. It is the same man/woman argument all over again. The top lawyers make a lot more than engineers. But the bottom make a lot less. I get $118k median for lawyers from the BLS. I get $94k for EEs. And $83k for CEs. So 25% better? I can't say about the work. Never been a lawyer. As for respect, how many scumbag lawyer jokes are there out there? You get weirdo engineer jokes but not a profession known for slime.
At some point you realize any job is just a job. So if you went into it because you had a passion for it (which describes most engineers) when that passion runs out you can be pretty disappointed.
Incidentally, what is a cub engineer? Never heard the term before.
Ben
at February 15, 2018 12:07 PM
Aha! I recalled that the outside of it was yeller because I remember the inside not at all.
Except for one clumsy passage near the top, introduced near as follows: "To make this perfectly clear, ...." Well, it didn't. And I knew that day that no programmer would EVER make anything "perfectly clear."
And by the way, when a guy says "STEM fields are terribly hard," isn't he implicitly saying that nothing the sisters prefer to do could ever be so challenging, else his manly encouragement would be required for them to accomplish that, as well?
MMikey knows how to make friends.
Crid
at February 15, 2018 12:19 PM
Far as I can tell Fortran and Cobol are only used in some scientific circles these days. Mainly for legacy reasons.
I would kill to use something like a Pentium. But it is just the nature of the beast. When things get hot running a quartz crystal over 20MHz is not really an option. PLLs pretty much don't work. CTE (coefficient of thermal expansion) prohibits any PGA much less BGA packages. Anything with over 64 pins in a QFP won't last for more than 250hrs for the same reason. You get solder cracks on all the corner pins from CTE. Oh well, such is life.
Ben
at February 15, 2018 12:19 PM
Anyone notice that aside from Michael not a single lady has commented thus far?
Ah, THIS is the tweet I meant to share with MikeyM.
Crid
at February 15, 2018 1:37 PM
"Incidentally, what is a cub engineer? "
A just-out-of-school person on their first job. Hmm. Must be a local term. Never thought about it.
COBOL is pretty much dead now. It died with the mainframes. Most of what it used to do is now done by spreadsheets and relational databases (plus a lot more). I haven't seen any COBOL code anywhere since before the Sex Pistols broke up.
Fortran (no longer all caps) is still around, and the language keeps being updated. A lot of the numerical simulation people prefer it to C, because Fortran has rigid rules for operator order of evaluation, which C doesn't.
Cousin Dave
at February 15, 2018 1:44 PM
"How about we STOP discouraging young women in high school from using their science and math skills and pursuing a STEM major in college?"
Yeah, and stop kicking them. In the head. With a boot. AN IRON BOOT!!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 15, 2018 1:46 PM
And now that we've bored Amy and all the other readers with this tech yakking... (does that prove Amy's thesis?)
Cousin Dave
at February 15, 2018 1:47 PM
"Yeah, and stop kicking them. In the head. With a boot. AN IRON BOOT!!"
Iron is so 20th century. We promise to use titanium-superalloy boots in the future.
Cousin Dave
at February 15, 2018 1:48 PM
My husband loves being an Engineer. In fact he loves it so much that he has turned down multiple offers of promotion into management.
Isab
at February 15, 2018 2:14 PM
Far as I can tell Fortran and Cobol are only used in some scientific circles these days. Mainly for legacy reasons.
That code is also battle tested. Some of it is rapidly approaching 60 years of age, possibly more. With many years, all bugs are shallow.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 15, 2018 2:29 PM
Ah, THIS is the tweet I meant to share with MikeyM.
Nice graph. But to whomever produced it: please label your axes!! I presume the Y axis is a measure of gender equity, but???
One of my former boss' pet peeve rubbed off on me.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 15, 2018 2:34 PM
In fact he loves it so much that he has turned down multiple offers of promotion into management.
*BORG VOICE*
WE ARE THE MANAGEMENT. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
*/BORG VOICE*
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 15, 2018 2:37 PM
Far as I can tell Fortran and Cobol are only used in some scientific circles these days. Mainly for legacy reasons. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at February 15, 2018 2:29 PM
I suppose you could start with the conclusion-is-in-the-premise argument, even though he's a PhD. (Try and guess his day job. Go on, try).
Or his constant self-referential book-pimping throughout. Or his creepy attitude toward womyn. Or his broad generalizations of both the ancient past and the doesn't-really-conform-to-his-thesis present.
In his defense he's published in Psychology Today and he knows his readers -- and plays them like a cheap banjo.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 15, 2018 2:55 PM
> my former boss' pet peeve
I think the image was cropped, but don't care enough to buy the download and be certain.
Someone might know where to find it on that Kazakh pirate site or whatever...
Crid
at February 15, 2018 3:14 PM
I can assure you that as of 2010 there was still a lot COBOL running in banks. And I worked on some Fortran in the late 90s.
When I was in school, women were strongly encouraged and supported in the STEM fields by pretty much everyone -- well the adults.
My niece -- now a senior in HS -- felt that starting around grade 5 that being good at math or science was uncool and so she was no longer so good at these items. Particularly evident starting around grade 8. Mainly it was the other girls...the boys just cared if the girl was cute.
I have also heard that a lot of men in the fields are concerned about getting acused of something and so don't want to work with women or at least in a very stand-offish way.
The Former Banker
at February 15, 2018 11:17 PM
"My husband loves being an Engineer. In fact he loves it so much that he has turned down multiple offers of promotion into management."
My dad used to say, of a place he worked at: "They take good engineers and turn them into mediocre managers."
Cousin Dave
at February 16, 2018 5:51 AM
My mathematician friends tell me the best female mathematicians are French or Italian. I want to know why the US isn't producing as many as other countries.
NicoleK
at February 16, 2018 7:12 AM
"Iron is so 20th century. We promise to use titanium-superalloy boots in the future."
Are you sure you aren't still a cub engineer CD? The point of iron boots is the weight. Titanium is light. Tungsten is the appropriate choice. (Though you might not be able to lift the boot to kick anyone at that point)
As for mathematicians NicoleK, Russia produced tons of great mathematicians. Stalin liked mathematicians. Mathematicians didn't go to the gulag. So there is one option for motivating people.
Ben
at February 16, 2018 7:33 AM
Ben, considering that a jet engine tossed a chunk of that superalloy through the wall of a warehouse a quarter of a mile away in Chicago, I don't think I'd want to be in the way of it.
Admittedly, the jet engine is cable of imparting a wee bit more kinetic energy than my leg is.
Cousin Dave
at February 16, 2018 10:57 AM
Being properly nerdly though not advanced at it, I looked up computer languages.
Yeesh. Bunches of them. They have to categorize them.
And nobody admits that one of the principal tasks of programming is to guarantee future employment for the programmer.
Radwaste
at February 16, 2018 11:01 AM
Feminists seem to want women to become men, even though men are icky monsters.
Men tend to spend lots of time thinking about "things" even when no one is paying them. My friends have an email group where they challenge each other with math puzzles (which also come up at our parties). Have you ever heard of women doing this? We will sit around and debate whether self-driving cars will ever take over, or debate how good the Tesla is, or...
Another aspect of all this is that men think first about the money in a job, not if it is satisfying or flexible or stressful. Men take all the most boring jobs (accountant, computer programmer, mechanic) because the pay is good. Women want satisfaction and flexibility and hate stress.
cc
at February 16, 2018 11:22 AM
A power plant tossed a rod a few years back. And by tossed I mean threw a huge steel cylinder over a mile. A bullet only weighs a few ounces and is just as dangerous. So I reject your argument Cousin Dave.
Titanium has a density of 4.54 g/cm3. Iron has a density of 7.87 g/cm3. Almost double. Tungsten has a density of 19.35 g/cm3. Slightly more than gold and I think the densest non-radioactive element out there. Though there is depleted uranium (20.2) and such. I'm not too clear on stable heavy stuff.
For letting someone know they've really gotten a boot to the head I still vote tungsten.
Now don't get me wrong. That titanium super alloy stuff is really durable stuff. Your boots would be able to kick a whole lot of heads without getting scuffed.
Ben
at February 16, 2018 11:50 AM
"During my senior year of high school, my mom enrolled me in computer classes -- DOS and COBOL, I think (though I might not be remembering right) -- in the local community college. I hated them and probably would have preferred being dropped off in a shallow grave filled with live cockroaches to being dropped off at OCC (Oakland Community College) a few days a week."
Damn, Amy, we lived parallel lives. My father decided, on the basis of nothing, that I should be a computer programmer and made me take the same classes at good old OOC. It didn't work. I have no affinity for that whatsoever.
It didn't help that the instructors, with one exception, were a bunch of BOFH/techno diva types who didn't know jack shit about teaching.
When Snooplettes weeps, which is a thing he does a lot, this is what his tears taste like as they flow, torrentially, over his hairless upper lip. Because racism, and he's scared of the colorful people.
Crid
at February 15, 2018 8:05 AM
(To be honest, I can never remember whether it's Snoo or Benny who says he's a racist so the rest of us are too, and it's never seemed to matter enough to warrant investigation.
Crid
at February 15, 2018 8:17 AM
> When Snooplettes weeps
I know reading an entire book is likely too much for you crid, but you may want to check out -
We might describe the last two grafs of this piece about Parkland as a blossoming narrative:
Nembhard said he thinks Cruz had been on foot when he was arrested. At first, Nembhard saw only the one officer and his police cruiser alongside the suspect on the ground with no other vehicles in sight. Within minutes, however, a swarm of officers and cruisers had descended on the quiet neighborhood.
From about 150 feet away, Nembhard watched as authorities handcuffed Cruz and put him into a police cruiser. A few minutes later, authorities put him into an ambulance.
Well then.
Crid
at February 15, 2018 8:44 AM
A very short LTTE (about something Trump wants):
"I am all in favor of a US military parade, as long as disabled and homeless veterans lead it."
Jim Miranda
Belmont, MA
lenona
at February 15, 2018 11:00 AM
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, "shelter in place" gets you killed. Remember the run-hide-fight protocol: run if you can, hide if you must, fight as a last resort. If you can't get away, use whatever items are at hand as shields or weapons. Do things the shooter doesn't expect; almost any action will bend the situation to your favor as long as you do something. Don't be passive. Remember, in combat there are no rules; the only goal is to survive, by any means available. And, as they always tell us at the very end of active-shooter training: "If you are wounded, don't give up!"
Cousin Dave
at February 15, 2018 11:09 AM
"I am all in favor of a US military parade, as long as disabled and homeless veterans lead it."
Great idea, actually. Nobody has paid any attention to veterans' issues since before Vietnam. It's way past time to zero out the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and give the job back to the DoD.
Jordan Peterson On The Disgusting Racism Behind The Concept Of "White Privilege"
The idea of collectively held guilt is reprehensibly ugly and "dangerous" -- the stuff of the Kulak mass murders in Russia, to name one example, says Jordan Peterson.
He and I have a similar view on "safe spaces."
If you are so emotionally fragile -- so debilitated by information that makes you a little uncomfortable -- that you need a safe space, the institution you should be in is not an educational one.
And, Happy St. Valentine’s Day. Good reason to go enjoy a nice evening with the one you love. It’s also Ash Wednesday, so, it’s also OK to feel guilty about enjoying yourself.
Wfjag
at February 13, 2018 11:49 PM
This might sound unkind, and I'm quite certain that black activists will call me a racist, but I think the black activists have decided that the best defense is a good offense. With the election of Barack Obama (who will be remembered, if nothing else, as the most divisive President in history), they realized that the "We're oppressed!" argument as an excuse for their collective poor performance is gone.
As a demographic, they are the least productive, least educated, most criminal, most violent and most dependent and government handouts. And, in order to prevent the greater population (not just whites, but Hispanics and Asians) from shining a light on their poor performance, they have decided that the "oppression" argument needs to be ramped up. So, they have invented non-issues to cry about, such as "cultural appropriation" in which everything that they can convince the world was invented by Africans, becomes their exclusive property. Such as dreadlocks (although the oldest examples in the world of dredding hair comes from ancient Greece and India). Remember the collective Twitter attack you once shared, Amy, on a 12-year-old blonde girl, Mallory Merk, who had the unspeakable gall to wear her hair in box braids?
Another great fictitious concept to whine about: digital blackface. Apparently, it's very oppressive when white people are online, using animated gifs of black people in their responses.
And there's enough moronic, guilt-ridden white idiots who let them get away with this bullshit.
When black people adopt styles invented by whites, such as clothing styles, country and classical music, theatre, ballet, etc., they are merely "assimilating to the dominant culture."
But when whites adopt theirs, it's "cultural appropriation" and oppressive.
And of course, pointing all this out makes me a racist. And you know what? Maybe so. Maybe there are innate racial differences that make certain races, such as whites and Asians, better suited to adapt to a Western society, when other races would fare better in different types of societies.
Although I've seen enough productive, successful, happy people in every color to wonder whether that's truly the case. It's honestly very hard to know for certain because over half of all blacks in the U.S. are at least 1/8 white. And God knows, there's plenty of worthless, violent, criminal whites out there.
Patrick
at February 14, 2018 3:19 AM
As a demographic, they are the least productive, least educated, most criminal, most violent and most dependent and government handouts. ~ Patrick at February 14, 2018 3:19 AM
Thomas Sowell called it "redneck culture" in his book, Black Rednecks and White Liberals. (review here) Sowell characterizes redneck culture as "brawling, braggadocio, self-indulgence, disregard of the future" and laments that is survives today in " the poorest and worst of the urban black ghettos."
Conan the Grammarian
at February 14, 2018 5:29 AM
One thing a lot of people don't realize about the Soviet Union is that, despite its pretensions about the "universality of man", it always contained a strong element of Russian-ethnic centrism. The party was always under Russian control, and the other Warsaw Pact nations were always regarded as conquered territories. Thus the Stalin-managed Ukrainian famine -- they weren't Russians, so nobody in Moscow cared. Better to show those outer provinces who the boss is.
This is the sort of thing that happens when you put ethnic identity above community shared values.
Cousin Dave
at February 14, 2018 6:47 AM
@Patrick, @Conan,
This has been an issue constantly addressed by Saturday Morning cartoons that had an African-American cast and the creator(s) is/are involved.
Sixclaws
at February 14, 2018 7:15 AM
This leads to absurdities like blacks calling for racial purity and segregated dorms at college. So if you are conservative and have a black wife or adopted a black child, you are somehow still racist. There is no action you can do that will prove you are not racist. Pure blood libel and very dangerous.
The damage caused by the "black power" movement was to hold up as admirable the very characteristics of black culture that were the most damaging to getting ahead. In the 1950s blacks were actually slightly more likely to be married than whites and had high church attendance. The black power movement plus welfare turned this all around, with "gangsta" culture now being held up as what young black men should be proud of. This has been reinforced by SJWs who assert that we should never criticize any cultural attribute (which they seem to view as fixed within a races). Thus we may not say that perhaps staying out of jail should be your priority. I know refugees from persecution in the Middle East who arrived here with $10 in their pocket and rough English skills and who have made something of themselves. It is all about culture. Thomas Sowell is right by the way.
cc
at February 14, 2018 9:10 AM
One thing a lot of people don't realize about the Soviet Union is that, despite its pretensions about the "universality of man", it always contained a strong element of Russian-ethnic centrism. ~ Cousin Dave at February 14, 2018 6:47 AM
Churchill was the only world leader to realize at the time that Stalin was not a communist, he was the czar of the new Russian Empire.
Krushchev continued the Russia-centric focus of the Russian brand of communism, bending the Warsaw Pact nations to Russia's will and using them for Russia's benefit.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 14, 2018 10:36 AM
I like Peterson, and he doesn't seem to be wrong about anything, but it's remarkable how such a mild figure has been accorded an identity of maverick disruptor.
See also, Bari Weiss.
Crid
at February 14, 2018 10:00 PM
Leave a comment
Jordan Peterson On The Disgusting Racism Behind The Concept Of "White Privilege".
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
So for the first time I look at the maps of latitudes and temperate zones at the same time, and Hell yes human civilization is moving northward... It would probably do so even without anthropogenic global warming. All the best land and all the best weather is up here.
Being a world class moral idiot, Donald Trump has an uncanny ability to turn his critics into moral idiots too.
Case in point: Increased tensions between the Trump administration and the nuclear-armed, dynastic despotism of North Korea are leading major media outlets and the president’s partisan antagonists (often indistinguishable) to swoon over the North Korean delegation to the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics.
The story is weird and the reporting is weird and the people are weird and the painting is weird and the cooking is weird and the behavior is weird and the beliefs are weird.
Nice suit, though.
Now ask for a do-over on the portraits.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 14, 2018 9:53 AM
"Being a world class moral idiot, Donald Trump has an uncanny ability to turn his critics into moral idiots too."
Trump didn't do that. (Neither did Obama.) Media people were granting themselves moral carte blanche, and engaging in blatantly partisan cheerleading, decades before Trump was born.
But yeah. I've enjoyed watching the media people swoon over those robotic North Korean cheerleaders. If those women were from a Western nation, they'd be calling them Stepford wives.
Cousin Dave
at February 14, 2018 9:59 AM
> Media people were granting
> themselves moral carte blanche,
> and engaging in blatantly partisan
> cheerleading, decades before Trump
> was born.
✔ Affirmed
Crid
at February 14, 2018 10:26 AM
America's chief abstinence advocate and mother of three is being divorced by the only man who impregnated her with a non-bastard child.
As if poor Sarah didn't have enough heartache with the restraining order against her eldest, who beat the crap out of his own father.
Now ask for a do-over on the portraits. ~ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 14, 2018 9:53 AM
Nah, the portrait suits him, and his politics. It was painted by a gay, black artist who wants everyone viewing his work to know that he's a gay, black artist.
The sexual orientation and ethnicity of the artist is more important than the work itself. That's the Obama era in a nutshell.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 14, 2018 10:42 AM
That’s right, Rolling Stone is only now able to put this travesty behind them — at least legally. The magazine reached a final settlement in late December with the members of the fraternity that were falsely maligned in the story. The details have not been disclosed, but at least two members of the fraternity will be the beneficiary of the settlement.
That idea is beginning to pay off: in a study published Monday in the journal Nature Microbiology, he and his colleagues report the discovery of a new class of antibiotic extracted from unknown microorganisms living in the soil.
This class, which they call malacidins, kills several superbugs – including the dreaded methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) – without engendering resistance.
The Authoritarian Twisties -- Never Knowing Which Way You'll Be Ordered To Live
It's hard to know which way you're supposed to bend over for the well-meaning authoritarians.
In California, "affirmative consent" demands that you must look for (and ask, to be safe) for explicit consent -- awkward and unsexy -- every time you want to make some different kind of sex move. (Note -- important for later in this blog post -- that does mean that women are allowed to say no.)
Here, from a Cathy Young piece, is California's "Yes Means Yes" law -- for California college students:
"Affirmative consent" means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. ... Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.
Cathy explains:
SB967 requires colleges and universities to evaluate disciplinary charges of sexual assault under an "affirmative consent" standard as a condition of qualifying for state funds.
But for Utah sixth graders, things are a little different. There, writes Sarah Young in the Independent, girls must say yes if boys ask them to dance at a school shindig. That's right. Girls get no say in whether they dance with a boy:
Natalie Richard, from Utah, was speaking to her sixth-grade daughter about the upcoming Valentine's Day dance at her school, Kanesville Elementary, when she was told about the controversial rule.
Her daughter explained that teachers had told the students, aged between 11 and 12, that they had to say "yes" when someone asked them dance.
In disbelief, Ms Richard said that she must have misunderstood what they were saying.
However, after speaking to the school she soon realised that the statement was accurate.
"The teacher said she can't. She has to say yes. She has to accept and I said, 'Excuse me'," Ms Richard told Fox 13.
Shocked by the policy, the mother took her concerns to the school principal but was simply told that that's just how they organise their dances.
Lane Findlay with the Weber School District confirmed that it is in fact a rule, but added that it's meant to teach students how to be inclusive.
Yes, in Utah, it's "must consent" -- teaching girls that they get no agency, no choice. All in the name of "inclusiveness."
This reminds me of the mistaken notion that having good manners just means sucking it up when you're abused. Um, no. That's agreeing to be a victim -- and I suggest you have none of that.
That doesn't necessarily mean you let somebody shape who you are -- that you go as ugly as they do. But it means you don't just go silently and acquiescently when somebody tries to push you around.
Personally, I like to go badass on at least some of these occasions, if not most.
Little girls should be taught that they get to choose what they do and with whom.
The idiot administrators who think they're teaching kindness should be fired immediately.
I'm curious what the punishment would be if Suzie or MykKaylah said "No" and defied the holy gods of Inclusivity.
Kevin
at February 13, 2018 12:15 AM
I think you all forget what sixth-grade dances are like. No sixth-grade boy in his right mind wants to ask a girl to dance. Nor does he want to dance with a girl. Girls are still pretty icky to 6th-grade boys.
It will be the girls asking the boys to dance and the boys that have to say yes.
A stupid rule, still, but it's not oppression of girls, it's of boys.
And what I think is stupid is having 6th-grade dances. There are tons of other activities that both girls and boys would enjoy. Why must we push youngsters toward a "romantic" activity?
Suzanne Lucas
at February 13, 2018 12:56 AM
> Girls are still pretty icky
> to 6th-grade boys.
Naw, we all secretly dug 'em. By that age you've read enough or seen enough or talked about it enough to realize that girls were going to have all the beauty. And those boobies were going to be useful for something, even if you weren't yet sure what during those last elementary-school summers.
The dances put it all in the context of the rest of life, where we were always told (and would soon see for ourselves) that you can achieve most of your success by handling the mechanical bits with mechanized proficiency, and leaves the brilliance and insight and inspiration and innovation to (probably) take care of themselves. How many times in life do we hear something like '90% of the battle is just showing up'? For a kid, a kid's dance is a fine thing to show up for. So is the SAT, even if it isn't as meaningful as a dissertation defense.
Not icky, terrifying. The summary of all the quickly-accruing awareness was that girls were going have all sorts of powers to humiliate and make misery.
Crid
at February 13, 2018 1:52 AM
Thanks, Crid -- done: "Growing Up in Moscow: Memories of a Soviet Girlhood will be shipped to Amy Alkon..."
Didn't know about this -- very interested in Russia and what her experience was.
Suzanne, I think you're absolutely right -- that it's idiotic to have 6th grade dances.
You're realistic about this (having kids) in a way I wasn't, merely having memories of being in 6th grade (unpleasant memories, because I had a not-fun childhood).
PS Good question, Kevin. (What if somebody says no?)
Oh, Suzanne. You're the bomb but I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one.
Regardless of the social dynamics of the 6th grade (I know I was pretty interested in girls by then, even though I didn't get comfortable asking them to dance until - well, I'm still not), a rule that forces girls to acquiesce to an activity they aren't freely consenting to is a terrible precedent to set.
It's especially terrible in a predominantly LDS community, which is barely starting to realize, much less come to grips with, its own larger issues of consent and abuse. "Smile and be nice to the man, honey" is classic 1950s advice, and not the sort of thing I want my daughters subject to. I would tell my kids that they are perfectly free to politely say "No thank you," and cordially invite school administrators to see me in hell or on court if they didn't like it.
Grey Ghost
at February 13, 2018 5:45 AM
I'm curious what the punishment would be if Suzie or MykKaylah said "No" and defied the holy gods of Inclusivity.
What if somebody says no?
Well, it's considered heresy in some quarters if you turn down a transexaul womyn if you're a lesbian or straight man.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 13, 2018 5:58 AM
I get where it is coming from. You don't want everyone saying no to one kid, or only one girl getting asked, and others not at all. Like that's a huge load of crap to deal with as a teacher.
It's like in gym class, where kids pick teams, you don't want kids to shriek out "No, I don't want to be on Aiden's team!"
That said, dancing is a bit more intimate than a game of soccer. Maybe schools should stick to group dances. Or not stick to boy-girl partners, have everyone learn both to lead and follow.
NicoleK
at February 13, 2018 6:01 AM
Nor does he want to dance with a girl. Girls are still pretty icky to 6th-grade boys.
Really? I know of younger boys who have multiple "girl friends", so unless things change between then and 6th grade, they'll still have multiple girl friends. Maybe it does, I don't know.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 13, 2018 6:02 AM
I thought classic good manners, though, was you could say no but then you had to sit that dance out.
NicoleK
at February 13, 2018 6:04 AM
Here, from a Cathy Young piece, is California's "Yes Means Yes" law -- for California college students:
So, it's open season on non-college women in California?
Conan the Grammarian
at February 13, 2018 6:08 AM
What about the girls that don't get asked? No one's said. That's hardly inclusive.
iowaan
at February 13, 2018 6:20 AM
"I get where it is coming from. You don't want everyone saying no to one kid, or only one girl getting asked, and others not at all. Like that's a huge load of crap to deal with as a teacher."
I see the problem that they are trying to solve. From personal experience at that age, I can tell you that (1) a lot of the boys will only ask the prettiest girls, and (2) most of the girls will turn down all but the one or two boys that they want to dance with. The result is that most of the boys, and some of the girls, don't get any dances. (And maybe it doesn't hurt to teach them that in the real world of the United States today, freedom of association doesn't actually exist, regardless of what that First Amendment thing says.) It does seem like the right way to address this would be to make out dance cards for all of the students. This way, everyone gets a few dances.
(Whine: I was one of those boys who got turned down most of the time. The last dance I went to was in the 8th grade. The next time I had an opportunity to dance seriously with a woman, I was 40 years old.)
"I thought classic good manners, though, was you could say no but then you had to sit that dance out."
It's really not even so much an etiquette thing as it is a don't-do-stupid-stuff thing. It is well known that the women all know who the guys are that only ask the pretty young things for dances, or that are "handsy". Women have ways of avoiding these men, up to and including turning them down outright. (Although most of the time, they will employ subtler tactics.)
Well, men spread words around too. If a woman often turns down a dance with some excuse, and then dances that same song with someone else, eventually the men notice what is going on. If it continues, men will stop asking that woman, and pretty soon she'll find that she's not getting any dances any more. The same thing happens to women who are known to be rude to their partners, or who consistently try to back-lead.
Cousin Dave
at February 13, 2018 6:36 AM
As for the other half of the topic: The feminists have already moved beyond "yes means yes" to what they really want it to be: "yes means yes except when it means no". Feminist writers have been explicit that a heterosexual man risks a rape charge for every single sexual encounter he participates in, whether the woman consents or not. There are so many disqualifiers for consent that actually getting, and proving, informed consent is impossible. And the laws, as they want them structured, will place the burden of proof on the accused.
Cousin Dave
at February 13, 2018 6:48 AM
@iowaan: What about the girls that don't get asked? No one's said. That's hardly inclusive.
My middle daughter told me that at her 8th grade farewell dance, people danced mostly in large groups. Maybe it varies, region to region, school to school. But at her dance, she bounced around with the (mostly) girls at her table.
After a while, they noticed one girl at a table by herself. She was one of the "developmentally challenged" kids, and she really didn't have anyone to hang out with. They invited the girl to join their group, where she spent the rest of the event, dancing and laughing.
The next day, one of the teachers told my daughter what the little girl's mother had told her: her daughter had the time of her life that evening.
Maybe that's the kind of inclusiveness we should be encouraging, not dictating how little boys and girls pair up.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com)
at February 13, 2018 9:16 AM
"I thought classic good manners, though, was you could say no but then you had to sit that dance out."
It's really not even so much an etiquette thing as it is a don't-do-stupid-stuff thing ...
Well, men spread words around too. If a woman often turns down a dance with some excuse,...
Can confirm. The sit-out-if-you-turn-someone-down guideline still exists, but, as Cousin Dave says, it's more of a "consequences" thing, naturally enforced by the community.
I'll be damned if I have to sit out my favorite song just because Sweaty Grope-Monster asked me first. But I also make it a point to say yes to ... well ... pretty everyone else. And I only use the "I'm tired" excuse when I'm actually tired and plan to sit out the song (and then find that same guy and ask him to dance later). Sweaty Grope-Monster gets a firm, deadpan "No thank you."
A lot of women use the "I'm tired" excuse on any guy they don't think is hot enough, but jump out their seat if someone they like asks them. And, soon, fewer and fewer men ask them to dance. Because those awkward new guys blossom into fantastic dancers. And they remember.
sofar
at February 13, 2018 10:28 AM
"Because those awkward new guys blossom into fantastic dancers. And they remember."
It applies to all dancers: Be careful who you diss today. A few years from now, they may be better than you.
And yeah, if a woman asks me for one (doesn't happen often, but now and then), I don't say no unless I've either already promised it to someone else, or it was a dance I wan't going to do anyway (don't know that dance, need to use the restroom, blister, just danced a three-minute Viennese waltz, etc.) There are only two women in the world that I won't dance with: one is a notorious and brutal back-leader, and the other is consistently rude to her partners.
Cousin Dave
at February 13, 2018 11:04 AM
This is a rare occasion where you have gotten it wrong, Amy.
This is not a high school "dating" type dance. This is for grade school kids, and operates as a cotillion for the kids -- a well-organized social event that teaches social graces and etiquette.
For the same reason that women (but not men) had dance cards, potential conflict and social cohesion and manners are taught by saying "yes" to a new partner -- and by waiting your turn for your preferred partner. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. If you don't want to dance, don't go to the dance!
By the way, girls who didn't have boys signing up on their dance cards is where the term "wallflower" comes from.
Jay R
at February 13, 2018 1:02 PM
Ooops!
Should be: "potential conflict is avoided"
Jay R
at February 13, 2018 1:05 PM
I think you all forget what sixth-grade dances are like. No sixth-grade boy in his right mind wants to ask a girl to dance. Nor does he want to dance with a girl. Girls are still pretty icky to 6th-grade boys.
I think it depends on the age of the sixth-grader. Ten years old? nope, they don't care. But eleven? They start to find out that girls have an irrestible Je ne sais quoi.
Sixclaws
at February 13, 2018 3:23 PM
I must have gone to odd schools. We didn't have school dances till 10th or 11th grade. in 6th grade we did have teaching folk dances in some class or other. Polka, Italian, others but that was a class not a real dance. So if there was an asking to dance it was a formal asking where neither really wanted to do it. Saying no probably wasn't an option nor was choice of partners.
Joe j
at February 13, 2018 3:25 PM
I already mentioned this in the Minkey thread. Ask and ye shall receive, Kevin. From the Independent article on it:
Comment:
Utjazzfan45
1 day ago
"This is sadly true, I live in Utah, someone I knew even got suspended for saying 'no thank you' a few years back. IN SIXTH GRADE, it’s not ok."
And, no, it's NOT just the girls who are under pressure that way.
“Students are also told by their teacher that if a classmate asks to be on their card, they should be polite and respectful, and agree to dance with that person,” the school said. “This applies to all students regardless of gender.”
_____________________________________
To me, there's a difference between saying "you can't say you can't play" and applying that to dancing. Or dating.
And if the teachers don't want the unpopular boys and girls to go danceless (commendable), maybe the TEACHERS should do the pairing, just as some gym teachers choose the teams instead of letting the kids do that. That's what one boarding school always did at prom time. If you were already in a couple and the two of you wanted to go together, you had to say so in advance to the teachers. But, even if you didn't have a date beforehand, you would always have someone to have supper with and dance the first dance with. After that, you were free to mingle as you pleased.
lenona
at February 13, 2018 4:32 PM
I thought classic good manners, though, was you could say no but then you had to sit that dance out.
_________________________________________
I believe it was - and that it goes back to Jane Austen.
What's puzzling is that Miss Manners seemed to have conflicting rules on what a girl should do after she'd turned down the FIRST invitation to the dance night itself!
(Warning: I turned this into a long thread, but there are a lot of juicy comments):
DEAR MISS MANNERS: Is it acceptable for a girl to decline an invitation to a dance, only to later accept another invitation to the same dance? This is for a high school dance or prom.
GENTLE READER: If you are the parent of a young gentleman to whom this has been done, Miss Manners can confirm that the young lady is indeed rude, and that however crushed your son is, he is better off. She would be capable of committing another rudeness, such as breaking the date later.
If you are the parent of a young lady who proposes to do this, it is still rude, but Miss Manners has more to say.
You should tell your daughter that as the idea is to avoid hurting the young gentleman’s feelings, in theory, she should be able to do this if he would never find out. Then ask her how she would decline without being unkind or untruthful. And remind her that there are no secrets in high school.
There is another lesson you might give, even though she will not believe it. That is that some law of nature makes the least popular boy in high school into the most desirable man later in life, yet, no matter how successful and glamorous he has become, makes him remember and continue to smart from having been slighted.
(end)
____________________________________
Before that, in the thread, there was a 2016 letter to Carolyn Hax about a mother of a son who agreed with that idea and was upset that a girl who turned him down had the gall to go the dance! The mother even confronted the girl's stepmother!
BUT...from April 2010 (also in the above thread):
________________________________________
Dear Miss Manners: My freshman daughter in high school has received several offers to the homecoming dance. She said yes to the first offer, although she knew another boy she liked (and we did, too) had attempted to contact her.
She said she didn't realize the conversation with the first boy would end in an invitation, and she didn't want to hurt him. We know this boy's family and agree that it would be best to go on the date she has accepted.
This situation might come up again. Would you have advice on how to decline an invitation to the school dance, which I think is different from a regular date because everyone wants to go?
If you say no to a potential date, does etiquette mean you should not go at all? My only advice was "don't answer the phone three weeks before a dance and only call back the boy you want."
There are a lot of limitations with this advice. This is a situation in which I think it is hard to juggle getting what you want with being kind.
Is 14 too old for her to say, "I have to ask my parents first"? This still doesn't help because we wouldn't want to hurt a boy's feelings just to wait for another offer.
Gentle Reader: Your daughter is not too young to learn how to say no to someone who admires her. It will save you, as well as her, a lot of grief later.
And although Miss Manners commends your and her desire to avoid hurting anyone's feelings, you both need to recognize that not all hurt feelings can be avoided.
Hurting someone's feelings by making it clear that the young lady is waiting for a better offer would indeed be bad. But everyone, even a vulnerable young gentleman in high school, has to learn to deal with whatever hurt is felt if an invitation is declined or a romantic impulse unrequited.
The chief way to avoid rudeness when declining is not to give any excuse. This is also a way to avoid easily detected falsehoods. She need only say, "You're so nice to ask me, but I'm afraid I can't."
If the petitioner's mother has not taught him the danger, as well as the rudeness, of asking why not, she should say merely, "I'm sorry, but I have other plans." Even if the other plans are to wait for a more desirable young gentleman to ask.
(end)
_________________________________
So...unless there was an unforgivable editing error in the 2012 column, why did MM change her mind?!
Finally, here's what I said, early on, in the thread:
I can only hope that, since MM calls herself a feminist, she would apply the same rule to boys who were asked out by girls and refused the invitations. I don't know whether it also applies to adult women and Saturday night dates that don't involve dancing. Obviously, it's ALWAYS rude to accept the first invitation only to break it off in favor of a second invitation - but we're not talking about that here.
But the (2012) rule makes no sense to me, even though some people today agree with MM. After all, aren't even TODDLERS supposed to learn to deal with crushing disappointments on a daily basis, never mind older kids? What's the difference? Besides, what gives the boy the right to ask out a second girl if the first girl refuses him, since the second' girl's feelings would ALSO be hurt when she finds out she wasn't the first one asked? Not to mention - why in the world should ANYONE have to stay at home just because he/she was unlucky enough to be asked out first by someone who's a borderline criminal or someone who never bathes and has the creepy personality to go with such habits? Again, don't awful young people NEED to experience rejection and change themselves if they want to become more popular?
lenona
at February 13, 2018 4:44 PM
Oh, and Amy, the school said that that's been the rule for years, so in Utah, it's likely not about being politically correct, even if the rule applies to both sexes.
And regarding my suggested solution that kids not be the ones to do the asking, Ann Landers just might have agreed - it's from 1989:
DEAR ANN LANDERS: I am the mother of three children. My oldest is a 12-year-old girl who just entered junior high. "Lucille" has always been shy about participating in social activities, so I was pleased when she agreed to go to the junior high school dance. Unfortunately, she didn't have a date and none of her girlfriends wanted to go, so I drove her to the auditorium and dropped her off. She looked adorable in her new dress. I was really proud of her.
Two hours later I drove back to the school to pick her up. She was in tears. Not one boy had asked her to dance. She said she approached several boys she knew, and they all turned her down.
I'm aware that seventh-grade boys are very immature, Ann, but wasn't it rude of them to refuse? I am truly upset that my child's feelings were hurt by boys who were never taught manners.
Please print this letter so the parents of youngsters (particularly in the Bay Area) will see this. - San Francisco Mom
Dear Mom: I know dances for 12-year-olds have been going on for a long time, but I still think it's nutty.
These kids aren't ready for boy-girl dances, and I can't understand why schools would sponsor such events. It's ridiculous to shove youngsters into adult activities.
The boys who turned your daughter down may not have been rude, just shy. Please do Lucille a favor and stop pushing her to do things she's not ready for. Growing up is tough enough without being pressured by Mom.
...The Weber School District got the message, too. In a statement sent to CNN Monday night, community relations specialist Lane Findlay said the instructions for the dance have been changed.
According to the statement, attendance at the dance has typically been “voluntary but encouraged.” Students are asked to fill out a dance card with names of classmates they’d like to dance with. Half the dancer selections are the girl’s choice and the other half are the boy’s choice, and students can’t dance with the same person more than once.
But now students will be free to say no.
“In the best interest of our students, we are re-examining the procedures surrounding these dances and will make any necessary changes to promote a positive environment where all students feel included and empowered in their choices,” the statement said.
“We have advised our schools to eliminate any sort of language in the instructions surrounding these dances that would suggest a student must dance with another student.”...
lenona
at February 13, 2018 5:07 PM
" . . . it's meant to teach students how to be inclusive."
No, teaching someone they MUST do something so one-on-one with someone else is NOT teaching them how to be inclusive. I find it somewhat creepy.
Now, on the other hand, if a student brought in cupcakes to share with the class then they must be inclusive and bring enough to share with everyone in the class. No playing favorites with that in 5th grade.
Oh wait! No bringing in food because that might leave someone out who has a food allergy. Nevermind!
charles
at February 13, 2018 6:15 PM
Regarding this horrible dance idea, the solution is simple. Boycott the school's dance and have your own. I'm sure such an event could be easily funded if enough parents object to this policy.
Patrick
at February 13, 2018 8:47 PM
> classic good manners, though, was
> you could say no but then you had
> to sit that dance out
Modernity is better
Crid
at February 14, 2018 1:59 AM
Now send them into the workplace untrained in how to reject an unwanted advance and put them side-by-side with men who have learned that asking once is all that's required.
Brilliant.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 14, 2018 12:05 PM
"Oh wait! No bringing in food because that might leave someone out who has a food allergy. Nevermind!"
I got hit with this in preschool. We are required to bring in snacks every few weeks but there are all kinds of rules they won't tell us. You can't bring in anything anyone could possibly have an allergy to. So no peanut butter celery. But your snack has to be healthy so no prepackaged goods or candies. But it also has to have shelf life since you drop your kids off with it and they don't hand it out till 2:00pm. So nothing fresh that will wilt or spoil in room temp. They won't give any suggestions as to what they want and I don't know why. Instead it is just no no no.
As for school dances, why don't schools focus on education instead and leave the dancing to someone else. Solves this whole thing.
Ben
at February 14, 2018 4:17 PM
Leave a comment
The Authoritarian Twisties -- Never Knowing Which Way You'll Be Ordered To Live.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Something we already knew, incidentally, considering the ancient bust of her was colored light red. And Ancient Egyptians weren't black.
And I'm enjoying myself, taunting idiots who spout disinformation, like "Kemet [bastardization of Kumat, a name for ancient Egypt] means Land of the Blacks."
Supposedly, this proves that ancient Egyptians were black. Kumat actually means "black land," and refers to the black soil of the Nile flood plains. This is to distinguish it from the "deshret" (red land) that they used to describe the desert.
Bitch and moan all you like about your own pathetic crawl through the mortal coil. Go ahead!... If you need to convince other people that your own life is a mess, we're all ready to believe you. Truly, no one GAF.
But never pretend that your own wretchedness portends anything instructive our species viewed whole.
Things are going great, big-picture, and we're morally enjoined from pretending otherwise.
Crid
at February 13, 2018 5:44 AM
Black Twitter is having a meltdown. It seems they just learned that Queen Nefertiti wasn't black.
*snork*
Wait till they find out that Cleopatra was Greek. In fact, the land of Egypt has had multiple incursions from the Greeks throughout history. The Greeks were pretty good sailors, and the Med is a relatively forgiving ocean and for the most of the time BCE, Egypt was wealthy and a tempting target.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 13, 2018 5:48 AM
Here's another one regarding the fucking Norks and their sycophants in the media:
Clueless is as clueless does. Maybe you should have, I dunno, checked out the terms of your contract?
Parents at a Miami Catholic school are demanding answers after a beloved teacher was fired just days after marrying her partner.
First-grade teacher Jocelyn Morffi lost her job at Sts. Peter and Paul Catholic School on Thursday, the day after she returned from her wedding in the Florida Keys.
“This weekend I married the love of my life and unfortunately I was terminated from my job as a result,” Morffi said in a post on social media. “In their eyes I’m not the right kind of Catholic for my choice in partner.”
Why do you think you are special, Jef? What makes you better than poor people? Why wouldn’t cooking be absolutely cheaper for them too? Why do you think they are so inferior that they can only live in the now, and not make good financial decisions which will benefit them long term?
By the way, those are rhetorical questions, you smug putz.
IT WILL CERTAINLY BE INTERESTING TO SEE AMY'S TAKE ON THAT STORY, Ira.
Because... For years she argued that gay marriage was the essential component of civilization's forward march.
Then, two or three weeks later, she announced that people shouldn't be compelled to bake cakes or shoot photographs for gay couples (professionally) if they weren't into it.
SO I PRESUME SHE'D AFFIRM THAT CHURCHES SHOULDN'T BE COMPELLED TO HIRE GAY TEACHERS FOR THEIR KIDS, EITHER.
Well, we'll have to wait and see what she says. The flow of her reasoning is no longer apparent to me.
Crid
at February 13, 2018 7:19 AM
How to stoke team spirit after you've been mathematically eliminated.
Crid
at February 13, 2018 7:33 AM
She seems annoyed: It's apparent that other people live their lives in completely different moral, emotional and even kinetic paradigms than the one I so often presume we share.
Crid
at February 13, 2018 8:14 AM
Say wut? BUFF for the win!
The Air Force confirmed that it plans to send its two newer bombers into early retirement, but keep the B-52 in the inventory well past its 100th birthday.
A porn ban, then, is a prohibition that might not work on its own terms, and would in any case leave us with a world in which porn is darker and more dangerous for everyone involved. The real barrier to banning pornography, the objection that matters, is not cultural defeatism or lack of public will. It is that attempting to ban porn would at best be a foolish, expensive, and futile project, and at worst a path to a new and radically expanded police state devoted to punishing people for engaging in acts of consensual self-expression. A federal war on porn would be just as winnable as the federal wars on drugs and alcohol—in other words, not winnable at all.
Egypt had 100 years of black Pharaohs and somehow that isn't enough.
It's funny but sad.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 13, 2018 11:15 AM
Love the BUFFs, but I wish they'd do something about those J57s. They'd really look sharp with a four-pack of nice shiny new CFM LEAP engines. And they'd gain mission range and cut maintenance costs. I don't know why the Air Force continues to resist re-engining them.
Cousin Dave
at February 13, 2018 11:21 AM
If you want to see where an effective ban on porn leads IRA then you need to look at Soviet era porn. When you have a police state you can ban most everything. And then you are left with extreme S&M or yarnies. Only the really weird and dangerous stuff is left.
Ben
at February 13, 2018 11:28 AM
Cousin Dave: allegedly, the AF wants to re-engine the BUFFs for the reasons you mention. We'll see.
Ben: You mean like furry pr0n? Yikes!
Speaking of Yikes!
But what is an extremist ideology? It’s easy to see on one end of the spectrum, once violence happens. But the FBI sees the progression as “crossing the line from First Amendment protected rights to committing crimes to further their political agenda.”
It sounds like they are saying speaking out is a precursor to terrorism. Exercising rights is suspicious.
Long before any B-52 approaches that duration of service, one of them will be taken down by an enormous murmuration of tiny, inexpensive, consumer-grade drones operated by the enemy.
Um, Darth, I heard a radio host point out today something that I'm sure has been pointed out by many others as well. Namely, you don't see teachers in such schools fired for getting divorced or for having HETEROSEXUAL sex outside of marriage. Even though those things are very much against Catholicism.
It's all about gay people.
lenona
at February 13, 2018 4:14 PM
All employees, including school teachers, are considered church representatives and are expected to abide by Catholic teachings, the memo said. Any conduct “inconsistent” with that could result in disciplinary action, including termination. ~ from Crid's link
So, all the teachers who are having extra-marital sex will be fired? As will the teachers who are eating meat on Fridays during Lent, the teachers who take birth control pills or use condoms, and the teachers who have had an abortion?
Conan the Grammarian
at February 13, 2018 4:42 PM
Sorry, the fired teacher link was Darth's.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 13, 2018 4:45 PM
These people are nuts . . . but then again, nearly everybody on this forum knows that.
Not quite. You know those hand knit yarn hats or scarves. Take that concept but do a full body suit. Some didn't include holes and were fully anatomically correct. I don't really get how that worked.
I've known a number of furries. The art work can be quite silly but most of them are quite tame in person.
As for the S&M stuff the Russians are still into some of that for some reason. Every few years someone nails their genitalia to the porch of that cathedral in Moscow. It is a protest thing. Around here people just douse themselves in gasoline and light up at the court house. Not sure that is better. I'm just more used to it.
Here Comes Peter Outrage-tail!
I've come to believe that the insane level of outrage hunting we see -- and the OMG! THIS IS LIKE HITLER! -- is a thing that allows people to feel they're doing something productive (while doing fuck all other than giving somebody a hard time for something ridiculous.
This thought was prompted by THE most ridiculous thing -- people going all "storm the movie studio gates and burn the place down!" (basically) because as AP put it:
Peter Rabbit' filmmakers apologize for insensitively depicting a character's allergy in the film--a portrayal that prompted an online backlash.
Sony Pictures says Sunday in a joint statement with the filmmakers that "food allergies and are a serious issue" and the film "should not have made light" of a character being allergic to blackberries "even in a cartoonish, slapstick way."
In "Peter Rabbit" which was released this weekend, the character of Mr. McGregor is allergic to blackberries. The rabbits fling the fruit at him in a scene and he is forced to use an EpiPen.
The charity group Kids with Food Allergies posted a warning about the scene on its Facebook page Friday prompting some on Twitter to start using the hashtag #boycottpeterrabbit. The group said that allergy jokes are harmful to their community and that making light of the condition "encourages the public not to take the risk of allergic reactions seriously."
Here's one of the nutcases -- and then Albert (@spaycemunkey), whose response I just loved:
I almost died from food allergy induced anaphylactic shock and I think the people freaking out about this are out of their minds. I'd honestly rather die of anaphylaxis than live in the hypersensitive, watered down feelings-before-fact world they want to create.
"Grievance collector" is right. I have ADHD. My boyfriend teases me: "Do I have your divided attention?" I love it! The woman who edits me calls me "Stalin" and says, "Where's the document, whore?!" I love it. We have fun.
It's both good and bad that there are no longer gatekeepers. Good because Princeton prisses are no longer the only ones who get a platform. Bad because any idiot can spout off and get the modern equivalent of irate French revolution peasants to build a pyre and burn down the person to dares to make a fucking joke.
Yes, society is real fucking fun these days.
I'll pass -- and continue being a fierce PC-challenging provider of outrage fodder for the lazy pussies who express offense at any comment more weighty than "please pass the salt."
As the mother of two small kids let me tell you they absolutely do copy what they see in videos. Just saying'. It's a pretty bad idea to do this in a movie targeted at kids.
However, based on the previews, this is about the most innocuous thing in the movie. The whole thing looks like a pile of crap and obnoxious behaviours. I will not be bringing my kids to see it. On the other hand if they see it at someone's house so be it.
NicoleK
at February 12, 2018 1:53 AM
People need to get a life.
Snoopy
at February 12, 2018 5:04 AM
I cannot identify my first exposure to the notion of the "artisanal grudge farmer," but I remember thinking I'd found my people when it appeared.
We imagine slow, unhurried work, outdoors in the breezy sunshine until the shadows come, with attentive handicraft behind reading glasses as the beloved brings a restorative glass of lemonade. There's no rush. Everything must be perfect, and just as our forebears taught.
Crid
at February 12, 2018 5:52 AM
Just to be clear, is the objection to the rabbits intentionally throwing the object of Mr. McGregor's allergies at him, Mr. McGregor's having an allergy, or that a food allergy is depicted as an object of humor?
Plenty of shows and movies have portrayed character with a food allergy in the middle of an episode of anaphylactic shock, mostly as a humorous episode or transition to move a story along. Was there an objection to them as well?
Conan the Grammarian
at February 12, 2018 5:55 AM
I have to agree with Nicole. Kids do copy what they see in videos. When I was a kid, I thought allergies were just things that made people sneeze and it was used to comedic effect. Someone trying to hide, but their allergen happens to be present? "Achoo!"
Busted. Comedy ensues.
I'm concerned that kids might not understand that allergies can be very serious, even life-threatening.
In fact, in the scene described (forgetting that this is animation depicting animals), if Peter Rabbit and friends had any knowledge of Mr. MacGregor's allergy, then they could be charged with attempted murder.
I'd hate to think that some of the kids seeing this movie might have a classmate with a deathly allergy to peanuts so they start throwing peanuts at him, thinking it's just a funny joke, and it will okay since he carries his epi-pen.
Patrick
at February 12, 2018 5:56 AM
And by the way, comparisons to Hitler are "out there." The producers had a lapse in judgment. There is no need to make a federal case out of it.
And before anyone brings up other violent cartoons like Tom and Jerry or the Road Runner, I would point that Jerry and the Road Runner are not depicted as humans. They're barely even anthropomorphic creatures, since neither one of them can speak.
Also, Tom and Wile E. Coyote are predators, trying to satisfy hunger or at least doing what predators do with their natural prey.
The rabbits, by contrast, are doing this purely out of mischief. The problem is, since Farmer MacGregor is a human being and in very real danger of dying, the rabbits' mischief becomes malice.
They're not predators satisfying their urges. Their genuinely trying to harm someone purely out of malice. Someone who is presumably (since I haven't seen this adaptation) trying only to protect what is rightfully his from thieving rabbits.
And again, when I was five or six (the age of the target audience), I didn't understand that allergies can be fatal.
Patrick
at February 12, 2018 9:12 AM
There is an important life lesson for the kids:
Your weaknesses will be used against you when stuff gets real.
Farmer MacGregor has no amenable authority he can appeal to who will fight his battle for him - whether that's mom, Big Sister, or the school principal.
El Verde Loco
at February 12, 2018 10:58 AM
There's also a similar scene in the movie Mrs Doubtfire, and there's obviously dire consequences of said prank:
Oh, for f***s sake people, these are animated creations that have obviously been altered from their (also fictional) origins. I have read lots of Beatrix Potter and there is not an Epipen in sight. You could try to teach your kids to not bully others (if you're concerned about the peanut allergic having peanuts thrown at them). Or just don't expose your kids to any fiction?
I often just despair about the seemingly total and complete loss of common sense and perspective evident everywhere now.
Robin
at February 12, 2018 12:12 PM
Farmer MacGregor has no amenable authority he can appeal to who will fight his battle for him - whether that's mom, Big Sister, or the school principal. ~ El Verde Loco at February 12, 2018 10:58 AM
Well, he can always retain the services of the firm of Mossberg, Browning, Remington and Ithaca.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 12, 2018 12:41 PM
As a kid we watched every three stooges movie, and except for saying "Nyuck nyuck nycuk" we never did any of the things in the shows because they were obviously idiotic. We never dug up the yard or poked each other's eyes out. We could likewise say Superman is dangerous because kids might try to fly, but kids try to fly anyway and that is what parents are for (to stop them, not to make them fly). If we think kids will blindly imitate anything they see, then don't let them see any super hero movie or any slapstick comedy or hell, anything at all. Keep em locked up.
The rabbits are in fact "predators" but they are after the carrots in the garden, and thus are absolved of evil intentions.
If you think the rabbits should be charged with attempted murder, do you think the same of a 7 yr old who offers his pbj sandwich to a friend? Of course not, kids are idiots. It says so right on the label.
cc
at February 12, 2018 1:53 PM
"f we think kids will blindly imitate anything they see, then don't let them see any super hero movie or any slapstick comedy or hell, anything at all. Keep em locked up."
But, by all means, let them watch the thug at halftime grab his crotch and yell obscenities, because "rap" is a vital cultural element.
First, let me say that fatal allergies are nothing to joke about when kids are around.
But I think that, given that a movie based on a book is almost ALWAYS intellectually inferior to the book in one way or another (or, at least, more about instant gratification than anything else), kids who ASK to see it should be told: "Well, it's your idea, so it will have to be your money too. If you don't have enough money, forget it." (They'll get used to it, even if they cry buckets first.)
Kids are quite capable of enjoying almost any free treats chosen by the PARENTS. That includes healthful snacks as well. Having to work for trashy products will help them think twice.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 12, 2018 6:46 PM
As the mother of two small kids let me tell you they absolutely do copy what they see in videos.
Can someone make a popular video in which kids shut up, sit down and don't bother adults?
Kevin
at February 12, 2018 6:47 PM
Kids are quite capable of enjoying almost any free treats chosen by the PARENTS. That includes healthful snacks as well. Having to work for trashy products will help them think twice.
Kids are pretty resourceful, ask mom, then ask dad, then if dad asks if mom said something about it? Tell the truth the first time, or say I don't know, or lie about it. The best thing dad can do is tell them to ask mom, and you can tell you won this time because they slump their shoulders and head towards mom in a faux-tired kind of way.
Then, they ask grandma and/or grandpa. Whether they're your parents or your inlaws, that's irrelevant. They just seem to enjoy from time to time to trample the authority of the parents of their grandchildren.
Sixclaws
at February 12, 2018 6:49 PM
Don't forget there's no shortage of single mothers who don't necessarily live near other relatives. So finding someone else may not be easy.
lenona
at February 12, 2018 6:59 PM
lujlp: I wonder if you saw such a thing depicted in a movie if t maight have taught you?
That's a good point. Nowadays, the death-by-fatal-allergy has been used, even in family movies, such as "My Girl" when Macauley Culkin's character died when he disturbed a bee's nest.
Of course, now with the invention of the Epi-pen, that particular convention might have to go by the wayside.
Patrick
at February 12, 2018 8:38 PM
Wrote Robin:
I often just despair about the seemingly total and complete loss of common sense and perspective evident everywhere now.
Common sense has been RIP for a while. When a teenager eats a Tide Pod or a busybusy parent leaves a child in a hot car to fry like bacon, about all one can do is hope that it's the end of that gene pool and move on to something of more consequence.
Kevin
at February 13, 2018 12:19 AM
Kevin:
Common sense has been RIP for a while. When a teenager eats a Tide Pod or a busybusy parent leaves a child in a hot car to fry like bacon, about all one can do is hope that it's the end of that gene pool and move on to something of more consequence.
And don't forget those rocket scientists to dry their helpless pets after a bath by sticking them in a microwave.
Patrick
at February 13, 2018 4:22 AM
Kevin, if you ever see such a movie please let me know!
Why they sat on their asses for five years and never informed said government that she need help remains a mystery
They probably expected GCHQ to pick up on their signals. Sometimes when I am on my cell phone with someone I know well, I'll give a shout out to the NSA.
I probably shouldn't mention the semtex or the mercury fulminate...
Soon after their meeting each other, Robert and Eddy realized they were brothers separated at birth, both born July 12, 1961, in Long Island, and then adopted by different families. Their story made the local news, which brought about another twist. Shortly after the story came out, David Kellman of Queens made contact with the twins. He also looked, talked, and acted exactly like the two brothers. The long lost twins were in fact long lost triplets.
More good news. But watch out for the stupid autoplay video. Who thought that was a good idea?
Researchers have developed an ultraviolet (UV) lamp that kills the influenza virus but isn’t harmful to human skin or eyes, according to a new study in Scientific Reports. They hope the technology can be commercialized and marketed to prevent the spread of seasonal flu in public places, such as schools, hospitals, and airports.
And while the end result may have been cruel, I doubt it was designed in and of itself to be cruel.
True. It isn't the Tuskegee syphilis experiment.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 12, 2018 12:58 PM
Twitter is awkward, but see especially #'s 29 & 30.
Because after six years with a well-functioning but screencracked smartphone, I decided to upgrade last month to the newest top-of-the-line from the same brand.
And when there's some function that doesn't work as well as it did on the old model, I'm totally all like Dubyoo-tee-eff??!?! Because the new one cost TWICE as much as the old one. In a competitive market, it should work at least as well in all respects.
Crid
at February 12, 2018 3:29 PM
>> I doubt it was designed in
>> and of itself to be cruel.
> True.
It's weird that you guys think that's in any way relevant.
Crid
at February 12, 2018 3:30 PM
It is relevent, no harm was meant or enacted on those kids, plenty of twins and siblings are deliberately separated by people who arent psychologists preforming research.
I read that reunion story in Reader's Digest - in the 1980s.
lenona
at February 12, 2018 6:29 PM
Might not be the same ones. I recognize Ira's three jewish kids from being on Donahue circa '81. They were inarticulate, adrobs and deliriously happy.
Crid
at February 12, 2018 6:40 PM
I have never watched Masterpiece Theatre, so I won't be following "Victoria."
Especially since you can just tell from the fact that they couldn't even bother to get a suitably unfriendly-looking actress for the role, that they almost certainly will NOT be talking about the Opium Wars! (If Victoria felt guilty over them in any way, I'll be very surprised.)
Does anyone know? I tried to search right now and didn't come up with anything.
lenona
at February 12, 2018 6:56 PM
"School’s decision to refuse girls right to say no if boys ask them to dance challenged by pupil’s parent"
(There's no mention of whether girls have the same right to ask boys and get only a "yes" - but I doubt it. In Utah?)
...Lane Findlay, community relations specialist with the Weber School District, confirmed that it is in fact a rule, but added that it’s meant to teach students how to be inclusive.
“Please be respectful, be polite,” Mr Findlay said.
“We want to promote kindness, and so we want you to say yes when someone asks you to dance.”
However, Ms Richard believes there are other ways to teach children how to be accepting and that this method sends the wrong message...
Comment:
Utjazzfan45
1 day ago
"This is sadly true, I live in Utah, someone I knew even got suspended for saying 'no thank you' a few years back. IN SIXTH GRADE, it’s not ok."
_______________________________
For more info, search on "Natalie Richard" - the mother.
lenona
at February 12, 2018 7:04 PM
To clarify, my question was: Will they address the issue on the PBS show?
“Students are also told by their teacher that if a classmate asks to be on their card, they should be polite and respectful, and agree to dance with that person,” the school said. “This applies to all students regardless of gender.”
_____________________________________
To me, there's a difference between saying "you can't say you can't play" and dancing. Or dating.
lenona
at February 12, 2018 7:10 PM
Re the triplets and Reader's Digest:
Well, to my annoyance, I can't find more details than this, but here's what I DID find.
Triplets-- and they didn't know it! / by Phyllis Battelle, May 1981
Big Thumb: Google Has A Less Modern Work Environment Than Little Old Me
I work over Skype three (short) days a week with my part-time editor and for about half an hour one day a week with the grammar ninja who copyedits my column. I have seen each in person probably fewer than six times over the years. Of course, I have no need to indoctrinate them in AmyAlkonthink.
And that's what separates me from Google -- uh, among a few other things (starting with bajillions of dollars).
Tom Foremski writes for ZDNet that Google doesn't allow telecommuting. In fact, they're investing billions of dollars into office buildings.
Google is a surprisingly old-fashioned company since it insists on keeping its workers in its environments for as many hours of the day as it can -- developing among other things: remote working technologies such as Google Hangouts, Google Docs, Sheets, and Google Drive.
With such powerful collaborative telecommuting technologies why isn't Google eating its own dog food? Why is Google insisting on bussing its Silicon Valley workers in daily three-hour-plus commutes between its Mountain View HQ and San Francisco?
Google has said that it has tested the productivity of remote teams and on-site teams and found no difference in performance. So why are there no telecommuting jobs at Google?
There is only one reason Google insists on its workers being under its control: keeping them separate from non-Google environments as much as possible with the aim to create company culture and prevent conspiracy.
...Cities need to ask Google why it doesn't allow telecommuting and insist it is vital to stemming commute times for everyone; and it is vital to fighting division in their neighborhoods. The same should be asked for all the other giant employers, imho.
And that's what separates me from Google -- uh, among a few other things (starting with bajillions of dollars). ~ Amy
That, the sheer volume of output required to keep you in business vs. the volume required to keep Google in business, the global reach of the each of you, and the number of employees to be managed.
The people you described, grammar nazi and copy editor, are not really employees as much as contractors, so there's that, too, that separates you from Google. You're not managing them, you're managing your relationship with them, the tasks at hand that need to be completed.
That said, I agree with you that if Google is pushing remote office technologies on the rest of the world, it should implement some of them for itself, if for no other reason than the same reason you want your broker to own the same stocks he's pushing you to buy.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 11, 2018 4:43 AM
This--
There is only one reason Google insists on its workers being under its control: keeping them separate from non-Google environments as much as possible with the aim to create company culture and prevent conspiracy.
--is a weird and silly passage of text. We recognize the pretense of a junior high student casting an aura of wizened intrigue... At the door of McDonald's.
Crid
at February 11, 2018 8:12 AM
I for one would love to have a job where I get paid for six hours to sit on a bus on do nothing
Both Google and Microsoft very much try to enforce a 'company town' atmosphere. They are hardly the only companies like that in the US. Schlumberger is the famous one in the oil patch. If they could such companies would pay you in company script and forbid relationships with non-company people.
As for getting paid for those six hours on the company bus, nice dream Lujlp. Salaried are still expected to put in your 8+hrs in addition to bus time. For the few hourly workers you get paid when you clock in, not when you are on the bus. Tradition is you don't get paid for your commute, for good reason.
As for why some companies do this, protecting IP is only part of it. A lot of it is making sure workers don't know what other environments are available to them. They don't want their workers being aware of what other people are paying. It keeps people from demanding higher wages or lower stress.
Ben
at February 11, 2018 8:43 AM
Tradition is you don't get paid for your commute, for good reason.
Nope, if I have to get on company property as part of my job then I consider that work
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 11, 2018 9:53 AM
Companies ought to have to pay for commuting time, because it is their decisions that determine both where work is located and where you can afford to live.
As for "...Cities need to ask Google why it doesn't allow telecommuting and insist it is vital to stemming commute times for everyone; and it is vital to fighting division in their neighborhoods." -- what is wrong with division in neighborhoods? We would all be much better off if at least some of the laws against discrimination in housing were repealed, so that folks who wanted their own private gated communities could have them. (For example, child-free ones.) Of course it would help if we first end the scam and cartel known as urban planning.
jdgalt
at February 11, 2018 11:08 AM
I am instantly reminded of Conan's gem: "We demand perfection of those other people admire."
It's not my business how Google conducts business. By extension, it isn't yours, either.
Considering what they do... make a truly tiny effort to think about IT security at the premier IT provider on Earth. Physical access is the #1 threat to the security of a network accessed by personal computer.
Now, tell me you want to put thousands of company-access computers - the ones employees use, not those directly executing searches - out in your neighborhoods. On Time-Warner cable.
I didn't think so.
Radwaste
at February 11, 2018 12:21 PM
And yet Cisco has tens of thousands of contractors securely working remotely via the Cisco VPN.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 11, 2018 2:34 PM
I eliminated "telecommuting" for standard employees, with great results.
If actually coming in to work is too onerous for some, I suggest contract employment or freelancing, which provides more flexibility — and that's what Amy's editor and copy editor are.
Kevin
at February 11, 2018 2:35 PM
"If actually coming in to work is too onerous for some"
Ah, yes, the 1950s. Good times.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 11, 2018 6:00 PM
> Companies ought to have to
> pay for commuting time
Why would you think they don't?
Oh:
> because it is their decisions
> that determine both where work
> is located and where you can
> afford to live.
I don't understand why you don't see it as precisely the opposite: They put their facilities in the places where they can get the staff to show up. You discuss "decisions" as if they were pitiless hammerblows by The Man against the lumpen Little Guy: They can just as easily be regarded as desperate prayers by a uncertain competitors, with gambles happening up and down the economic perspective.
If you made it to work and the check cleared, you've been paid for your commute.
Crid
at February 11, 2018 6:12 PM
- a
Sorry.
Still a great comment.
Crid
at February 11, 2018 6:14 PM
Companies ought to have to pay for commuting time, because it is their decisions that determine both where work is located and where you can afford to live. ~ jdgalt at February 11, 2018 11:08 AM
If you take the job and it doesn't pay your commuting costs, that's on you, not the company.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 11, 2018 7:09 PM
"I eliminated 'telecommuting' for standard employees, with great results."
Tell us more. What were the issues you were encountering? Work just not getting done, or something more insidious?
Cousin Dave
at February 12, 2018 6:43 AM
"And yet Cisco has tens of thousands of contractors securely working remotely via the Cisco VPN."
Cite the differences between Google's work and Cisco's*, please.
Also, it would be nice if you defined, "securely", since it isn't really a single value.
Thank you.
*another company which policies are not my business
Radwaste
at February 12, 2018 11:34 AM
"Nope, if I have to get on company property as part of my job then I consider that work"
Please document which companies pay for daily commute time.
The Fair Labor Standards Act specifically states that companies are not required to pay for 'an ordinary commute to and from work'. I don't know of a single company that pays hourly workers from the time they get into their car. They all pay from the time you clock into the office. If you are referencing salaried positions then you are just speaking nonsense. Salary is paid irrespective of the hours worked. Time commuting gets the same pay as time in the office and time sleeping at home, $0. Instead you get a fixed wage.
Ben
at February 12, 2018 4:42 PM
Tell us more. What were the issues you were encountering? Work just not getting done, or something more insidious?
Productivity went way up.
Kevin
at February 12, 2018 6:38 PM
Tell us more. What were the issues you were encountering? Work just not getting done, or something more insidious?
Productivity went way up.
Kevin
at February 12, 2018 6:38 PM
"Cite the differences between Google's work and Cisco's*, please."
LOL! No.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 12, 2018 7:04 PM
Leave a comment
Big Thumb: Google Has A Less Modern Work Environment Than Little Old Me.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Vice defends pedophiles - “The current misconception is that every pedophile is a child molester, and if they’re not, it’s just a matter of time. It’s important to show the world that that’s not the case.”
To be fair Snoopy the word pedophile has come to mean having sex with anyone under the age of 18, or taking naked pictures of anyone under the age of, up to 20, depending on the jurisdiction.
Take Roy Moore for example, all but one of the 'girls' he was accused of having sex with was over the legal age of consent
I find it amazing that for all the outrage politicians and the general public claim to have over this issue its been decades since any legislative body has done a comprehensive overhaul of the laws regarding age of consent for sexual activity
...That's right, you crazy little goofballs... I took the extra time to cut and paste the little "flying top hat -E- character" in order to make it extra-intimidatingly French.
Crid
at February 11, 2018 9:49 AM
Should it be "forensic" or "science" in scare quotes? oh, right, embrace the power of and!
"To be fair Snoopy the word pedophile has come to mean having sex with anyone under the age of 18, or taking naked pictures of anyone under the age of, up to 20, depending on the jurisdiction."
Again, depending on the jurisdiction (and the zeal of a prosecutor), the label is also applied to anyone who has pictures just like this one (SAFE FOR WORK) if they are not of immediate family members at an outdoor family outing.
(To be clear on the process: selecting any feminine name, followed by the word, "model" will produce a picture like this in Google Images. You probably knew this.)
Sex is more important than murder. Appearing to want it from an individual or class unapproved by a third party can cost you dearly.
Radwaste
at February 11, 2018 12:37 PM
Men have a dilemma as they're meant to form relationships and take the initiative, but commit “sexual harassment” if they misjudge a woman's interest. Yet I don't see much discussion from that perspective in the mainstream media.
Essentially, men are in a no-win situation in that they're considered Peter Pan man-children, wimps, etc. if they don't show interest and take initiative, but can be considered doing anything from harassment to sexual assault if they misjudge a woman's interest.
(Not an actual link per se, but something that causes internal conflict. Is that OK here?)
Sorry about that. My ancestors brought that crap with them from Britannic environs round about Plymouth Rock time and for some reason it's stayed with us.
Although honestly it would be the same if it had been old school Catholics, Muslims, snake-handling strychnine-chugging Christians, et al.
Something about the ol' in-n-out just gets some folks in a dither. A lathery, sweaty, forbidden dither.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 11, 2018 4:22 PM
> Something about the ol' in-n-out
> just gets some folks in a dither.
Yeah... "Consequences," the call it.
Crid
at February 11, 2018 6:25 PM
By the way, it's a lot of fun to be a guy who doesn't much think about age of consent, because why would you. A nice, general principle of stoic responsibility works nicely. For everyone. See Paglia.
The Death Of Individualism -- It's Gotten Its Start On Campus
Andrew Sullivan has a piece in NY Mag that starts out with the question some ask, why we should care what's happening on campus: "These are students, after all. They'll grow up once they leave their cloistered, neo-Marxist safe spaces. The real world isn't like that. You're exaggerating anyway. And so on."
Sullivan explains how this poisons the waters of the culture at large:
When elite universities shift their entire worldview away from liberal education as we have long known it toward the imperatives of an identity-based "social justice" movement, the broader culture is in danger of drifting away from liberal democracy as well. If elites believe that the core truth of our society is a system of interlocking and oppressive power structures based around immutable characteristics like race or sex or sexual orientation, then sooner rather than later, this will be reflected in our culture at large. What matters most of all in these colleges -- your membership in a group that is embedded in a hierarchy of oppression -- will soon enough be what matters in the society as a whole.
And, sure enough, the whole concept of an individual who exists apart from group identity is slipping from the discourse. The idea of individual merit -- as opposed to various forms of unearned "privilege" -- is increasingly suspect. The Enlightenment principles that formed the bedrock of the American experiment -- untrammeled free speech, due process, individual (rather than group) rights -- are now routinely understood as mere masks for "white male" power, code words for the oppression of women and nonwhites. Any differences in outcome for various groups must always be a function of "hate," rather than a function of nature or choice or freedom or individual agency. And anyone who questions these assertions is obviously a white supremacist himself.
This is just disgusting:
Many media organizations now have various private, invitation-only Slack groups among their staffers -- and they are often self-segregated into various gender and racial categories along classic campus "safe space" lines. No men are allowed in women's slack; no non-p.o.c.s in the people-of-color slack; and so on. And, of course, there are no such venues for men -- in this Orwellian world, some groups are more equal than others. At The Atlantic, the identity obsession even requires exhaustive analyses of the identity of sources quoted in stories. Ed Yong, a science writer, keeps "a personal list of women and people of color who work in the beats that I usually cover," so he can make sure that he advances diversity even in his quotes.
As a socially awkward kid, I was excluded throughout most of my childhood and teen years from all sorts of groups and cliques.
I'm guessing the people who engage in this behavior -- promoting certain people (of the "correct" color), excluding white people (and especially heterosexual white males) -- are disgusted by the golf clubs that exclude blacks and Jews.
Yet Ed Yong unabashedly discriminates -- sees it as a good thing.
Awful.
How is it any better to use somebody because they are not white than it is to use somebody because they are white?
Via Claire Lehmann, my kind of editor and human being. She tweets in response to that bit about Slack and Yong's racial preference quote list:
It's sad that they think so lowly of their writers that they wouldn't generally seek diversity of opinion and perspective that they force them into such tokenism. I don't know if that's more insulting to the writers or the people they interview out of obligation.
The goal of our culture now is not the emancipation of the individual from the group, but the permanent definition of the individual by the group. We used to call this bigotry. Now we call it being woke. You see: We are all on campus now.
The great advantage the SJW movement has for people is that it converts you from a nobody barrista or student or professor of studies into a cultural hero, fighting "the man" and oppression. Never mind if the oppression you fight is only in your imagination. Never mind if you are calling perfectly decent people terrible names. There was some of this same fake heroism back in the 60s (yep, I was there)--being a hippie was revolutionary, dontcha know. But it was self-limiting. There wasn't the marxist ideology to hang it on. There were no "studies" profs to give it legitimacy. And everyone was too busy getting high to do much activism. Now, we have the internet, which makes it much worse.
cc
at February 10, 2018 10:00 AM
In 25 years, these students will be running for Congress and POTUS. We are doomed !!
Nick
at February 10, 2018 10:54 AM
In 25 years, these students will be running for Congress and POTUS. We are doomed !
Nick
at February 10, 2018 10:55 AM
The SJW cancer is already spread far and wide in the culture. Just look at Google. Look at the federal government ("Dear Colleague" letter, anyone?).
It is going to be very bad. The elite will love it. Normies will not. E.g., one is homophobic if one believes sexual orientation is not immutable. At the same time, one is transphobic if one is unwilling to date a "man" with a vagina, or a "woman" with a penis. Go figure.
Jay R
at February 10, 2018 4:26 PM
Sullivan is kind of late - this has been going on for years - for decades in fact!
charles
at February 10, 2018 8:31 PM
I'm curious who claimed "They'll grow up once they leave their cloistered, neo-Marxist safe spaces." As Charles notes this has been going on for quite a while. Since the 70s at least since it happened when my parents went to college. That's roughly 50 years. Everyone I know just said 'Go in. Get your degree in hard science and suffer through the rest. There are too many of them and we can't fix it.'
Ben
at February 11, 2018 8:50 AM
Years ago, there was an episode of Grays Anatomy where a paramedic is severely injured and the doctors find out he has a swastika tatoo. He doesnt want the doc assigned to him, who is a black woman resident. She brought the chief of surgery (a black man), but he said no. So she got the ace Asian intern... But he was only happy if the white intern supervised the Asian ace... End of the episode, the ace Asian intern turns to the resident and chews her out for using her for her race. She wasn't asked to do that job because of her interest, skill, or talent, but because she was whiter but not white. I thought this made an eloquent point. To be reduced to superficial traits is dehumanizing... Even if done with better intentions
Shannon
at February 11, 2018 12:42 PM
"You see: We are all on campus now."
I think I just peed my pants a little, this literally scares the piss out of me.
bkmale
at February 12, 2018 6:30 AM
Given that the American academy appears to be unreformable, it is my sincere hope that it will eventually be reduced to a rump institution, as actual higher education moves on to greener pastures. It'll become a finishing school for the children of wealthy Marxists. Then the rest of us can all ignore it.
Cousin Dave
at February 12, 2018 7:06 AM
And by the way, it's nice to have Sully back. He's been in his self-imposed prison for a long time.
Cousin Dave
at February 12, 2018 7:07 AM
Leave a comment
The Death Of Individualism -- It's Gotten Its Start On Campus.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Brakes engaged at 1min 55sec, and as noted in the text, only 9 car lengths to stop, because engineers be smart.
Crid
at February 9, 2018 10:10 PM
People had a lot of good clean fun at this woman's expense yesterday. (See Rossman's timeline for several good examples.)
But who is she? Wikipedia won't say, and there's not enough courage to dive into the pop culture internet to find out.
It's interesting that the web's bookish types haven't gotten around to her yet. It's at least possible that the taste-&-audience matching muscle of social media has reduced the intrusion of the least compelling celebrities into the wider mindspace.
Your grandchildren will wonder why anyone cared about Jennifer Anniston, too.
Crid
at February 10, 2018 5:44 AM
1993 report from the State of Connecticut and Yale New Haven Hospital concluded that Woody Allen did not molest Dylan Farrow.
I spent like 30 seconds on her twitter feed, and that was my assessment. Famous for being famous.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 10, 2018 7:30 AM
Interesting piece on how @MrAndyNgo, a gay child of Vietnamese refugees, became skeptical of campus identity politics and its focus on symbolic slights: on a trip to Vietnam (where he'd expected to feel at home) he found much more acute racism & homophobia
Conan swears he'll make it up to you even if it takes as long as he lives. ~ Crid at February 10, 2018 6:43 AM
Even if it takes twice as long as that.
Biblical mythology is rooted in human mythology. Almost every ancient religion has a flood myth, a virgin birth myth, and an imparting of forbidden knowledge myth (in Christianity, a serpent while in Greek mythology, Prometheus, and in Native American mythology, Raven).
To get worked up about the similarity of such myths is futile. To understand that such myths speak of a universal truth is to begin to understand what religion and religious beliefs have meant to mankind over the centuries.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 10, 2018 11:25 AM
The idiotically needful public's impulse to identify with some distant stooge in pathetic adoration —the very force by which Donald Trump was elected to the White House— may well propel this loathsome woman to global celebrity.
But the good news is that if it does, Fatbro will probably have her decapitated before springtime's desperate Korean thaw.
Crid
at February 10, 2018 12:40 PM
My take is: Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are both mentally ill, narcissistic pieces of shit.
Narcissists maybe, but as to mentally ill, none of Woodys kids have killed themselves or died under odd circumstances, there are no examples of him delighting in the misfortune of his exes, or him making similar unsubstantiated claims of against every ex lover who dumped him
"Well you cant prove a negative. So I guess what you mean is they found no physical evidence of rape."
I'm sure you fully support the principle of innocence until proven guilty.
BTW - there ARE ways to prove what appears to be a negative, and you actually know of some of them. These consist of showing an exclusion was in effect.
• Showing that the accused was documented to be traveling at a location other than an alleged attack.
• Showing that a process claimed could not have happened by showing another process that fully involved the venue central to the accusation.
So, sometimes, you not only can't prove the accused was present, you CAN prove she was somewhere else at the time.
While I believe in innocoent until proven guilty in a court of law. Absence of a conviction does not automatically make me want to absolve someone like Woody Allen in the court of public opinion.
Find some pictures of Mia Farrow in the 60’s and 70’s and of Soon Yi Previn in the 80’s and then tell me that Woody Allen has no sexual interest in prepubescent females.
Had a distant cousin like this. Was never actually molested by him but was touched in ways that made me uncomfortable back in the day when small kids sat on family member’s laps. He may never have actually raped any small children but it was clear where his interests lay. I took care never to be alone with him.
He had one short marriage, and yep, the woman looked like she was 14. Just sayin.
Isab
at February 11, 2018 6:56 AM
They've been married for 25 years now havent they?
Is a quarter century of perfectly normal behavior irrelevant?
Rube Goldberg's Valentine's Day Gift
I need to eat some apple peel, but I don't eat fruit (low-carb/high-fat diet). Gregg found this amazing device for me, and it's on sale (maybe just for today) for $9.09. I absolutely love using it. Peel winds right off all in one strip.
I used this technique below -- I tried on the persona of my boss at Ogilvy to develop my own confidence, responding as if I were her when I had to do small, socially hard things (socially hard if you're timid and socially awkward, which I was back then).
I did this simply because I was desperate to change and couldn't really think of any other way to do it. However, it turns out that what I did has a really solid basis in the latest science in exposure therapy, memory research, and neuroscience.
I’ve done this. I used to use the persona of Stacy London.
sofar
at February 9, 2018 7:51 AM
Beyonce did this with the alter ego Sasha Fierce. It's the persona she took on before taking the stage. Interesting that even Beyonce needs a little help believing she's Beyonce sometimes.
Expressing "Common-Sense Skepticism" Doesn't Mean You're On The Side Of Predators
Smart piece by Margaret Wente in The Globe and Mail in Canada about the accusation against Steve Paikin, a straight-shooter whose show I've been on a couple of times.
The story:
His accuser, former Toronto mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson, alleges that he asked her to sleep with him back in 2010, during a lunch at which her executive assistant was present. This seemed improbable: Who would proposition someone with a witness present? Everyone who knows Mr. Paikin (I know him slightly) seems to have shared my response.
Mr. Paikin, widely known as one of the most upright men in journalism, is host of The Agenda, the flagship public-affairs show for TVO, Ontario's public broadcaster. It's a must-see for wonks. In the olden days, his employer would probably have dismissed these allegations out of hand. But in the #MeToo age, it had no choice. As soon as he informed management of the charges, they summoned him for a grilling. (Ms. Thomson made her accusations, without naming him, in a lengthy blog posting, then sent him an accusatory e-mail demanding that he step down.) Within hours, TVO went public with the news that it had launched an independent investigation. Unusually, it didn't suspend or fire him. It simply announced that he would be removed from stories involving sexual misconduct (which, as you may know, have sent Ontario politics into quite a tailspin).
Mr. Paikin was lucky not to be suspended, people say. Some luck. His name is in the headlines, generally on the same page as all the other #MeToo stories that now dominate the news. I imagine that most people who know him don't believe a word of it. Others will think, "These days you never know."
And Wente's take -- and I agree:
I have no idea what happened at that lunch. Maybe everything Ms. Thomson said is true and Mr. Paikin is lying through his teeth. Maybe he made a stupid joke. What I do know is that questionable or careless or unfounded allegations deal a tremendous blow to the #MeToo movement because they undermine the real victims of sexual assault and help stoke a backlash. Women should be extremely concerned about this problem. Sad to say, some are not. Too many of us have embraced the principle #BelieveAllWomen - a formula for miscarriage of justice if there ever was one. Unfortunately there are plenty of false or exaggerated claims out there. Women (just like men) lie for all kinds of reasons, including the fact that they are unbalanced or unhinged. Remember the sensational Rolling Stone piece from 2014, detailing a brutal group rape at the University of Virginia? It caused an uproar. "[T]here is a reason that people believed and continue to believe Jackie: There are so many people - too many people - who report similar attacks," the arch-feminist Jessica Valenti wrote. But the story was entirely made up, and Rolling Stone was forced to retract it in its entirety.
Too many people think that common-sense skepticism - or even a willingness to withhold judgment until the facts are in - puts you on the side of the predators. The truth is that not all men are guilty of what they've been accused of, and others aren't that guilty of very much. The world's a messy, complicated place. And given what there is to go on, I'd bet that Mr. Paikin is the same guy I thought he was last week. I may be wrong. But I don't think so.
Why let facts and reason get in the way of a good-ol'-fashioned witch burnin'? They draw a much bigger crowd.
bkmale
at February 9, 2018 6:43 AM
Feminist: Consent is simple, ask before you act
Guy: OK, I find you attractive, want to have sex?
Feminist: OMG How dare you ask me for sex, the answer is no.
Guy: Whatever
Feminist 15 years later: HELP, HELP, THIS GUYS IS A RAPIST FOR VERBALLY REQUESTING SEX BEFORE TOUCHING ME EXACTLY AS I ASKED (never mind the fact he never touched me or asked me again after I said no) FIRE HIM FROM HIS JOB AS HE IS A FILTHY RAPIST
I find it interesting that this stuff has been going on for quite a long time (decades) and now that high powered Democrats are getting hit people are willing to publish opposition to it.
Ben
at February 9, 2018 8:05 AM
"Due process? Real life is beginning to mimic college tribunals. When the perpetrator of an anonymous list accusing dozens of men of a whole range of sexual misdeeds is actually celebrated by much of mainstream media (see this fawning NYT profile), you realize that we are living in another age of the Scarlet Letter. Moira Donegan has yet to express misgivings about possibly smearing the innocent — because the cause is far more important than individual fairness. Besides, if they’re innocent, they’ll be fine! Ezra Klein has openly endorsed campus rules that could frame some innocent men. One of the tweets in response to some of my recent writing on this has stuck in my mind ever since: “can anyone justify why the POSSIBLE innocence of men is so much more important than the DEFINITE safety and comfort of women?” And yet this principle of preferring ten guilty people to go free rather than one innocent person to be found guilty was not so long ago a definition of Western civilization."
Rolling Stone was forced to retract it in its entirety
Not only that, but they've had to pay a shit ton of money to people who were wronged by their article, and there are still some judgements pending.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 9, 2018 10:35 AM
Women, by letting feminists control the situation, are well and truly killing the goose that has been laying golden eggs for them. At the same time, they are inviting an authoritarian governmental Dracula over the threshold -- which will be necessary for their "protection".
But, it just FEELZ too good to stop now.
Mother and wife? NO. Cog in someone else's machine? YES!
You go, grrrrrls.
Very sad.
Jay R
at February 9, 2018 10:46 AM
Snoopy,i always ask the what their plan is for when someone accuses their father/husband/brother/son.
What is the innocence of the one or two men they love compared to the comfort and safety of the women who will accuse them?
"It’s time we all acknowledge an overwhelmingly powerful source of shame and silence — in the bible.
The story that begins the bible, the first one that we learn in Sunday school, the founding story of man and woman upheld for thousands of years by Judeo-Christian religion, is actually the story of the first sexual assault of a woman. The woman’s name is Eve. And the perpetrator? God."
lujlp, I think a lot of the problem is these women dont have fathers or brothers. Theyve literally no men in their life to show them good/normal male behavior. Or if they have a brother, there was no father to raise him right. So they literally have no basis whatsoever for knowing how to interact with males. No famiarity with males. Theres a reason it takes 2 genders to make a kid. It takes 2 genders to raise them functionally, but more and more people in each generation are only raised by women, who themselves may have only been raised by women. Its destroying society.
Momof4
at February 10, 2018 5:47 AM
Life is growing more complex, and we all have gone along at some point with the crowd mentality in order to simplify it.
I'm going to spread a new meme and hope it becomes a supermeme: victimhood trumps accomplishment.
Or am I too late?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 10, 2018 7:07 AM
So you literally cannot ask for sex? I thought that was what getting consent meant. Perhaps it was the asking before taking her to dinner that was wrong? Remember, that comedian asked for permission also and was a bad person simply for wanting sex. If no one is allowed to want sex, then everyone is a criminal and we will soon go extinct.
cc
at February 10, 2018 9:53 AM
Nope cc, as the Ansari story shows us failure to ask for consent is rape, and asking for consent is also rape.
If you recall that 'woman sexually abused while walking through NYC' half her abuse was people saying 'hello'
Wow! -Senator Mark Warner got caught having extensive contact with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch. Warner did not want a “paper trail” on a “private” meeting (in London) he requested with Steele of fraudulent Dossier fame. All tied into Crooked Hillary.
Interesting article on the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols and the effect it had on Islam.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 9, 2018 6:03 AM
This Student Failed Her Assignment Because Her Professor Said "Australia Isn't A Country" ~ Snoopy at February 9, 2018 3:52 AM
Sadly, it's probably not an uncommon mistake.
Reminds me of the Atlanta Olympics. A man from Albuquerque called the ticket office was told he'd need to consult his embassy for tickets since foreign tickets were handled through the embassy. He tried to explain that New Mexico is a state and has been since 1912. No dice. He was eventually able to get tickets. While in Atlanta, he hung a sign on his hotel room door labelling it the "New Mexican Consulate."
When my cousin's college roommate applied to USC, she was referred to the foreign students office as an applicant from another country. She was from Hawaii.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 9, 2018 6:18 AM
GOG
Just after my mom and dad split we moved in with her sister, my cousin and I were about four, and after extensive testing we discovered as long as a cat is at least 8 inches above the ground it will land on its feet.
As a sex god too virile for even my own contemplation, I spent a shower and a commute to work last night thinking about all the ways poverty and warfare have been diminished in the past... Not just since the years of your birth and my own, but even just since we got our degrees. For either that half-interval or the whole enchilada— Had some genuine soothsayer told us how much better life was going to get and for how many billions, you and I wouldn't have believed it. There would have been no science fiction story for the explosion of wealth, comity and decency that actually happened for which our parents or grandparents would have spent 5¢. The truth has been incalculably better for our species than the richest imaginations could have dreamt.
And this morning I'm reminded how great it is to be annoyed by showbiz figure X rather than the Mongol hordes. And we don't even have to BE in the Mongol hordes!
We need more Iraq historians. In 2001(?), just as the web was blossoming, a folklorist published a blog or internet column of some kind discussing an ancient Middle Easten myth of a warrior who buries his sword/saber/etc in some moment of emotional turpitude... Only to have it waiting there, years later, when he needed to dig it out the sand and defend himself. This was convincingly offered as the reason for Saddam's buried jet fighters.
But if you read the (surviving) links, the modern mind can only see modern motives... As if they could explain a monster of that magnitude.
I'll never forgive myself for losing that article.
This turned up this morning, too. I hope it was enough to live happily and safely.
So in a present test you set up where you already knew the answer, you "found" the answer faster than in the real senario you compared it to where you didn't know the answer?
You know Sixclaws, sci-fi stories and futurists predicted the reason there was no signs of intelligent life in the cosmos was all society's reach a point where they self destruct due to nuclear war.
Turns out it is SJWs who will destroy any society that approaches the level needed to loosen the bonds of gravity
All you denizens of Mexifornia, what will it take for you to have enough of Mexifornia? You have sewage floating on the streets from the homeless, high property taxes, high income taxes, high state taxes, 10% of the population illegal, fires...will there be an exodus??
"An anti-abortion activist who was appointed by Donald Trump to head a federal agency that detains undocumented immigrant children considered using a highly contentious and untested technique to stop a teenager from completing an abortion that was already in process, it has emerged.
"Scott Lloyd, the Trump administration’s pick as director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, raised the prospect last March of administering the hormone progesterone to a 17-year-old girl from El Salvador who had entered the US illegally and was being held in custody in San Antonio, Texas. The procedure is unrecognized by the medical profession as a means of reversing abortion and has side-effects attached to it..."
I Would Have Sold My Sister For A Bag Of M&Ms
My mom fed us food that, well, in taste, it was like she said, "Amy, go out and gnaw off some bark." And that was just the main course.
Carob, a 1970s hippie plot against your taste buds: "How Carob Traumatized a Generation." https://t.co/u7vkdMcFH6
Carob is the only chocolatey thing I can eat. I developed an allergy to chocolate in my 20s. People have suggested that its one of the ingredients in the product, but I'm not allergic to eggs, or milk, so it's either the cocoa butter or the chocolate.
Don't cry for me, tho. I associate chocolate with not feeling quite right, or worse. All I miss is fudge, and Reese's peanut butter cups.
And I can get those in white chocolate. And that leaves more chocolate for the rest of y'all.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 8, 2018 6:35 AM
Food allergies can be quite strange. I can't eat most fish. Not fatal or anything but I do get to reenact the exorcist. Tuna is included in that list. But I can eat chicken of the sea. All I can conclude from this is despite what the label says that ain't tuna.
Ben
at February 8, 2018 6:43 AM
Wouldn't surprise me in the least, Ben. I used to work in the meat department of a grocery store, which included seafood. I was constantly being surprised to discover that things didn't have to be what they were clearly labeled as.
Scallops weren't scallops. Or any kind of shellfish, for that matter. Steelhead trout was marked as salmon, etc.
Patrick
at February 8, 2018 7:43 AM
When I hear "scallops" I think "shark meat".
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 8, 2018 7:55 AM
I was constantly being surprised to discover that things didn't have to be what they were clearly labeled as. ~ Patrick at February 8, 2018 7:43 AM
You really don't want to know what the FDA allows food manufacturers to put into your food and not disclose on the label.
Who da thunk Jessica Simpson could be onto something?
Conan the Grammarian
at February 8, 2018 8:13 AM
F-cking carob!
There is nothing more disappointing to one’s tastebuds than thinking you’re biting into a delicious chocolate brownie and ending up with a mouthful of nasty-ass carob.
I was a kid in the 80’s, not the 70’s, but one of my aunts, and my grandma, were still into gross hippie health food.
The other horrible, horrible “healthy substitute” they tried to sell me on was molasses. Uhhhhg! Vomit! Molasses is NOT syrup, you a$$holes!
ahw
at February 8, 2018 8:17 AM
My experience with carob in the 70s was that it tasted good at first. But if I had more than a couple of bites, it started tasting funny.
I am a child of the 70’s and 80’s too and can remember the one Easter when my mother susbsituted our chocolate bunnies with carob bunnies...it was awful...straight into the trash.
And I am with awh, molasses is gross! Someone suggested taking a tablespoon of it to cure severe cramps and I gagged just dipping the spoon into the jar. I literally chose suffering over molasses. Ha!
Sheep Mom
at February 8, 2018 8:40 AM
"Who da thunk Jessica Simpson could be onto something?" ~ Conan
Very good, Conan! I've seen that one before. The look that Nick Lachey is giving her is priceless.
My experience with carob in the 70s was that it tasted good at first. But if I had more than a couple of bites, it started tasting funny. ~ Fayd at February 8, 2018 8:27 AM
Mine too.
After a few bites, you started wondering what you were eating.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 8, 2018 9:12 AM
Future generations will regard kale the same way.
Kevin
at February 8, 2018 10:11 AM
Future generations will regard kale the same way.
Kevin at February 8, 2018 10:11 AM
We already do.
Chocolate isnt the problem. It always was, and always will be, the sugar.
Carob is an awful waste of perfectly good sugar. There otta be a law.
Isab
at February 8, 2018 10:18 AM
molasses is gross!
Well, you know what one can do with molasses? convert it into rum.
I don't think it is the albacore vs. other types of tuna for me. I can't eat salmon, cod, and a wide variety of other fish. Shrimp is probably ok. And I suspect crayfish is ok. But given the risk/benefit analysis I'm not really interested in checking. Nights of worshiping the porcelain god have left me a bit gunshy on all aquatic proteins.
On the kale, molasses, and even tofu these foods have a place. They can be cooked in very delicious forms. So I suspect carob is the same (never had the stuff). But don't pretend things are what they aren't. Carob isn't chocolate, tofu isn't turkey, and by god cashews aren't cream cheese. People need to stop pretending these things are what they aren't.
Ben
at February 8, 2018 2:19 PM
People need to stop pretending these things are what they aren't. ~ Ben at February 8, 2018 2:19 PM
Soy Milk, Almond Milk, etc. are not milk.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 8, 2018 2:33 PM
On the kale, molasses, and even tofu these foods have a place. They can be cooked in very delicious forms.
______________________________________
Sure can. I like gingerbread and molasses cookies, though I suspect both were considered far more delicious in the 19th century, when cocoa was a lot harder to come by. Or candy in general, sometimes. (I remember a Wall Street Journal story on gingerbread that told of a party - in the 1990s - where kids were served frosted gingerbread cookies, but they simply licked off the frosting and abandoned the rest.)
Anyway, while I don't know of any scrumptious recipes where kale is the MAIN ingredient, here's a Portuguese soup that gets rave reviews; I cook it regularly. The ingredients include sausage and sweet potatoes.
Warning: Unless you want it really hot, if you can only get spicy sausage, do NOT include the pepper flakes. I didn't make that mistake, so I don't know just how hot that would be. You also might want to use less chicken broth and more water. (Or omit the salt.)
lenona
at February 8, 2018 3:45 PM
Yep Conan and Lenona. And yes kale shouldn't be the main ingredient. But that holds for lots of foods. The protein is almost always the main ingredient. Mustard greens, collard greens, any other greens there are good recipes for even if they aren't the main ingredient. Little different from kale as far as I can tell.
My sister once sent me a box of ingredients with a recipe for a vegan cheese cake. Essentially they used cashews instead of cream cheese. We ended up eating all the ingredients and never made the cake. If the name is a lie I'm not too interested. I like cashews. If they called it a cashew cake I might have tried it. But cashews are not cream cheese. The cake was a lie.
Ben
at February 8, 2018 4:40 PM
Well actually, since spinach is usually more expensive, I might just boil some kale and put some soy sauce on it. (With spinach, I like soy sauce or butter.)
lenona
at February 8, 2018 5:30 PM
@Ben,
Stir-fried Mustard greens work as a side-dish. The bitterness balances with rich, savory meals such braised pork belly with potato and fermented bean curd.
Tip for stir-frying leafy greens: Cook the stems first, and once you see the stems become translucid, add the leaves; that keeps them from going mushy.
Sixclaws
at February 8, 2018 5:48 PM
I started liking carob a lot more when I stopped thinking of it as a chocolate substitute and started thinking of it as a dried fruit like dates or figs or something.
NicoleK
at February 9, 2018 5:58 AM
That is what my wife said NicoleK. Thought it tasted like figs. And figs aren't chocolate. Not even close. Just because two things are the same color doesn't mean they taste anything like each other.
Honestly the issue extends far beyond food. Movies suffer from this too. Like Starship Troopers which drew more from Starcraft the game than the Heinlein book. Or even classics like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where they had to add a scene of Charlie being bad messing up a major point of the book.
Ben
at February 9, 2018 8:11 AM
The reason so few books make great transitions is because most good books collaborate with the reader to create a world no Hollywood director could replicate even if they tried.
Take LOTR really good movies, still cut out alot of source material and added that things that never existed.
Starship troopers pissed me off, was a good movie in and of itself, but the director made an evil universe equivalent of the book.
Pissed of Heinlein s family to the point the have refused to licence any of his other works for film though
"There is nothing more disappointing to one’s tastebuds"
I'd have to say gluten-free pastries. WTH are they making those things from?! They look right but the taste and texture are straight outta Hades.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 9, 2018 12:13 PM
Agreed Gog. Gluten is what makes cake spongy, what makes pastries flaky. If you don't want to eat gluten then eat something else. Don't try to make cookies, cakes, and pastries without gluten. Have some ice cream instead.
It wasn't cutting things out that made Starship Troopers not Starship Troopers. I understand needing to edit and even modify a bit due to technical capabilities. But Starship Troopers the movie was based on StarCraft the video game. It was the Terrans vs. the Zerg. If you watch movie 2 and 3 it becomes even more obvious. This is just false advertising. It is tofurkey all over again. Tofu ain't bad. But it isn't turkey. And no amount of pretending will change that. As far as video games that become movies go Starship Troopers was pretty good (most are abominable after all). But they needed to fess up they were making StarCraft the movie and not claim it was Starship Troopers.
But the real trip down the rabbit hole in that story is the fact that people are apparently, with a completely straight face, insisting that straight men and lesbians are supposed to be dating some of these “women with penises.” And if you refuse to do so, you’re transsomethingorother and just generally a bad person.
But some women have penises. ~ from the link by I R A Darth Aggie at February 8, 2018 6:17 AM
Um, not they don't. By definition.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 8, 2018 8:10 AM
In the regular pay gap wherein women earn 80% of what a man does, the Bureau of Labor Statistics which tell us this also tells us that women only work 66% of time men do
.8/.66= 1.21
So women in fact earn 120% of what men do for the same amount of TIME spent on the job
The South Korean government is expanding an investigation into researchers who named their children as co-authors on papers. The extended probe, announced on 1 February, comes after a government report last week identified 82 academic papers on which authors had named their children or relatives — many of them in middle or high school — as co-authors on the publications.
In some cases, the practice is thought to be intended to give the children an edge when applying to university, a highly competitive process in South Korea.
Was it the clip of her screaming at the trans guy?
lujlp
at February 8, 2018 11:48 AM
VW diesel emissions scandal: The rank and file go to prison while the elites skate. Same as it ever was.
Cousin Dave
at February 8, 2018 12:29 PM
Given his music choices does anyone else suspect crud ODed on acid one time too many or spends his weekends pushing Molly? ~ lujlp at February 8, 2018 11:41 AM
Flogging Molly?
Conan the Grammarian
at February 8, 2018 12:41 PM
Raddy had me at Led Zeppelin. Lujlp, cite your study. Also, the real travesty isn't in the gender wage gap, but in the racial wage gap. Now that's something no one seems to be able to rationalize away, why Black or Hispanic women make thousands less per year in the same job as a white woman, much less a white man. Tell me why that is, will ya
gooseegg
at February 8, 2018 12:49 PM
Right on cue, every criticism to her post is met with snark, circular logic, hyperbole, cherry-picking comments out of context.
When you're advancing in a different direction from the Chosin reservoir, the enemy will put you to an endurance test of their own devising. And if you're very fortunate, it won't be faster than you can endure.
In a slight change to the grueling initial stage of the 13-week Infantry Officer Course, Marines will no longer be required to pass the Combat Endurance Test to move on.
The Corps has come under criticism for what some have claimed to be unnecessarily high standards to graduate from the course. To date, only one unnamed female Marine has successfully completed the entire course.
But Marine officials at Training Command contend the changes are not an effort to water down standards.
...because the build list is NOT restricted to what YOU might define. ~ Radwaste at February 8, 2018 2:41 PM
Um, Raddie, you keep trying to sell the argument that a wispy man is a woman, even if he doesn't want to be. And you're claiming that I'm saying musculature defines masculinity - when that's not my argument at all, not even close to it.
I'm not arguing about the build list. But if your build list specifies penis as the genitalia and testosterone as the primary hormone, you've built a man, no matter how effeminate or slight the final product.
If he feels the build list was in error and he should have been a woman, he's free to change that - and more power to him for having the courage to do so. But simply putting on a dress and lipstick will not make him a woman.
"...Amidst the seeming forward momentum of the #MeToo movement, it’s impossible to imagine regressing back to the age of Cosby’s Teflon reputation. The implicit promise of the Hollywood reckoning is a rejection of the old status quo, which doled out endless second chances to Hollywood’s legion of abusive men. In addition to outing abusers, the movement has elevated long forgotten (or deliberately ignored) testimonies of abuse. But Cosby’s efforts to rehab his image—his denials and talk of a racist conspiracy, his 'friends, fans, and loyal supporters'—are all an ugly portent of what’s to come.
"While we might like to think that alleged abusers would have the good sense to stay out of sight and off the stage, Cosby’s campaign is a good reminder that the A-list accused are already fighting back. For every Louis C.K. saying that 'these stories are true,' there’s a Brett Ratner suing an accuser for defamation or a Donald Trump, who threatened to do the same.
"Many columnists have already moved on to tepid defenses of only-sort-of-bad dudes, insisting that an Aziz Ansari shouldn’t suffer the same fate as a Harvey Weinstein, a Kevin Spacey, or a Bill Cosby. But if Cosby’s career isn’t even over—if a comic can spend decades allegedly drugging and raping women and then get a warm reception during a comedy set—then maybe this movement isn’t as fearfully powerful as those op-eds would have us believe.
"If a man like Bill Cosby is able to fight and arguably win in both a court of law and a court of public opinion, what does that say about the future career viability of accused abusers in every industry? Maybe the era of a million free passes isn’t over, after all."
lenona
at February 8, 2018 5:35 PM
"I'm not arguing about the build list. But if your build list specifies penis as the genitalia and testosterone as the primary hormone, you've built a man, no matter how effeminate or slight the final product.
If he feels the build list was in error and he should have been a woman, he's free to change that - and more power to him for having the courage to do so. But simply putting on a dress and lipstick will not make him a woman."
I'm not doing that, although this last post of mine was more cautionary than evidentiary.
The plain fact is that Americans are born without, or with anomalous, gender - and they are still citizens. No, you do not get to classify such people as one or the other gender.
Radwaste
at February 8, 2018 6:03 PM
The plain fact is that Americans are born without, or with anomalous, gender - and they are still citizens. ~ Radwaste at February 8, 2018 6:03 PM
Raddie, first of all, no one is denying citizenship based on gender or even gender-confusion. Nor is anyone advocating stratifying citizenship.
No, you do not get to classify such people as one or the other gender. ~ Radwaste at February 8, 2018 6:03 PM
Second of all, nobody is classifying anybody. This is not Nazi Germany. Or Apartheid South Africa. Nor is anyone advocating the US start classifying people.
We do not get to make up whatever gender we want. Nature is binary and has given us two genders, male and female. We're free to be whomever we want within that paradigm.
The 31 genders recognized by the New York Commission on Human Rights is not a template of tolerance and diversity, it's an act of enabling mental illness.
LinkBoy69 can want to be female and to look feminine all he wants. But when it comes to sex with those who desire to have sex with women, the penis is going to get in the way - for both the straights and the lesbians.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 8, 2018 8:03 PM
No study gooses egg, just plain old math
go to BLS.gov
If you take the total full time earnings of men and women you get the 80% figure feminists like to tout
Dig into the hours worked by full time men and women and do the math yourself
I didnt pay that close attention but from reports it seems he was quite up front with his "victims" when they mutually agreed to trade sex for drugs and money
No, no, luj. You presented that as though women work less than men because they're lazy. They are choosing part-time work versus full-time work -- you know, kids and all. And being paid less. What in the crap are you trying to dig out of those stats? China is around there somewhere, I'm sure. Stop.
gooseegg
at February 9, 2018 5:55 PM
No gooseegg, the reason women work few hours is becuase fewer individual women work full time than men
This is how the wage gap works
Feminists take ALL the money ALL full time men earn and compare it to ALL the money ALL full time women earn.
Given more men work full time than women, and generally work longer hours than women it is no wonder they as a whole make more than women as a whole
What I am digging out of those stats, the exact same stats I've never heard you berate feminists for using, if the stupidity of the wage gap argument.
For the sake of argument let us assume there are only three full time jobs in the world.
Two men working eighty hour weeks at ten dollars per hour figure in over time and the numbers are
Man 1 - 80 hours at $1000 dollars a week
Man 2 - 80 hours at $1000 dollars a week
Men - 160 hours at $2000 a week
Men - $12.50 per hour
Let us assume that the third job is held by a woman working forty hours a week at thirty five dollars an hour
Woman 1 - 40 hours at $1400 dollar a week
Women - $35 per hour
Now according to the way feminists run this math, women earn 7-% of what men do as
1400/2000=.7
But the men in this senario worked 400% longer than the woman did earning under 36% of the womans hourly rate as
12.5/35=0.357
Have you gotten the point yet?
If not Ill make it explicit. The wage gap is a lie. And I fully admit my stat is just as big a lie.
The difference being I am honest about it being a lie, and my lie forces feminists to go digging for the truth. A truth that will dispell their lie just as it will dispell mine.
The Gender Pay Gap In Uber Driving And Tesco Stores And Warehouses
Different jobs and different ways of doing jobs lead to different levels of pay -- a fact that's often conveniently ignored when complaining about a pay gap between men and women.
Uber driving is a great thing to look at on the "gender pay gap," because the app doesn't exactly pick drivers by penis or vagina.
When you use the app, you just see a little automatic notification that "Carlos" in his Nissan Sentra is coming to pick you up -- and he gets chosen by how close he is to you, not whether there's a set of balls resting on the driver's seat.
On Freakonomics, Steven Dubner and Greg Rosalesky ask the question, "What Can Uber Teach Us About the Gender Pay Gap?"
They write:
This is a special episode occasioned by the fact that we got our hands on a brand-new research paper that we thought was so interesting, and important, that you'd want to be among the first people to know about it. It's called "The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence From Over a Million Rideshare Drivers." (You can read the paper in its entirety at the bottom of this page.)
Those "rideshare" drivers, as you may have guessed, are Uber drivers. The paper was written by five economists -- two who are employed by Uber; two Stanford professors; and one researcher who's been on Freakonomics Radio several times: John List, who's chairman of the University of Chicago economics department, and he moonlights as head of the ubernomics team at Uber.
List is joined on the podcast by two of the other economists who worked on the paper: Rebecca Diamond, from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Jonathan Hall, who leads the public policy and economics team at Uber.
So, to sum up the findings -- why men earn more -- there are a few factors. First, there's when and where drivers drive and which routes drivers focus on:
LIST: So after reaching the dead end of discrimination doesn't seem to be a determinant, we then decided to ask, Well, what about where and when? So what I'm thinking about here is time of day, day of week, and where in Chicago they actually drive. And here, we had some success. So what we find is that after you explore the where's and when's, we find that we can explain roughly 20 percent of the gender pay gap by choices over where to drive and when to drive.
DIAMOND: And an important contributor to the gap is particularly where the rides started. So different neighborhoods are going to differ in the types of rides that you're going to get, and also potentially the frequency of rides you're going to get called for. So men and women tend to target different neighborhoods of where they're driving, and men are targeting more lucrative pay areas than women.
DUBNER : And does that have to do with, like, at 3:00 in the morning on Saturday, and I want to go out to where all the bars are, and there might be a surge? Or is it more -- I don't know, early-morning airport trips? Can you characterize the nature of those most lucrative trips, that men seem to be doing a little better at?
LIST: So what is more important than when you drive, is exactly which trips or routes do you tend to focus on. So one particularly salient example here is that airport trips tend to be the most profitable trips on the Uber platform. So what you have is that men tend to complete more airport trips than women complete.
There's level of experience:
LIST: No, that's right. When you look at experience, really men are more experienced than women because of two primary reasons. One, women drop off the platform more often than men. But, two, even for those who are on the platform for the same amount of time, since the average man drives about 50 percent more trips per week than the average woman, you still have the experience effect for those who have been on the platform the same number of months.
DIAMOND: So at any given day or time, the men driving for Uber have a higher level of experience under their belt than women, and that plays an important role in compensation.
HALL: And that explains about 30 percent of the pay gap that we measure.
And then there's how men tend to drive faster than women:
LIST: That's right. So after we account for experience now we're left scratching our heads. So, we're thinking, Well, we've tried discrimination. We've done where, when. We've done experience. What possibly could it be? And then what we notice in the data is that men are actually completing more trips per hour than women. So this is sort of a eureka moment.
HALL: Yeah. So the third factor, which explains the remaining 50 percent of the gap, is speed.
DIAMOND: So men happen to just drive a little bit faster, and because driving a little bit faster gets you to finish your trips that much quicker, and get on to the next trip, you can fit more trips in an hour, and you end up with a higher amount of pay.
DUBNER: Now how did these Uber driver data for male/female speed compare to male/female driver speed generally? Do we know for a fact that men generally drive faster than women?
LIST: Yeah, what you find is that in the general population men actually drive faster than women.
DUBNER: Okay, so male Uber drivers drive faster than female Uber drivers, and therefore that helps them make more money. Is that, however, more dangerous, the faster driving?
DIAMOND: So the gap is small -- men drive about 2 percent faster than women. So it doesn't suggest that that's leading to big differences in risk.
Women, on the other hand, get higher tips -- 10 to 20 percent more -- though they've just started compiling those data. However, earnings go down overall due to tipping, it seems, because there's an increased supply of drivers (perhaps thinking that they can make more money).
All in all, when people talk about erasing the gender pay gap, they often don't take into account the reasons some are paid more. For example, there's a Tesco case now where they say that the largely female store employees are paid less than the largely male warehouse workers.
Lawyers say female shopfloor workers earn up to £3 an hour less than male warehouse staff
Well, note that there's a difference. It's not less pay for the same work -- it's different work. Store floor versus warehouse floor. I'm just throwing out a guess here, yes, but which do you think is easier?
In asking for pay parity, people should check and see whether they're asking for pay parity for the same work or charity from businesses for half of the population.
And on one related note, women need to do what they tend not to do -- negotiate for higher salaries and better benefits instead of just taking what they're offered and then complaining that they are paid less.
If they are paid less because male employees negotiated for more than they were offered and they did not, that isn't discrimination; it's capitalism.
Freakanomics via @CHSommers; Tesco via @jowilliams293
Second day in a row where Amy's main blog post is based on a link I previously posted :)
Snoopy
at February 7, 2018 6:36 AM
Great that you did, Snoopy. I didn't see it, or I would have credited you. Yesterday was deadline day, and I was feeling sick all day and felt too bad to blog last night (in any sort of worthwhile way!). Saw this via a Christina Hoff Sommers tweet this morning (the Uber link), and then saw Joanna Williams' tweet about Tesco.
Little doubt that the warehouse work is physically more demanding labor. There's also the risk. I haven't found any later data, but in 2004 there were 21 fatalities and 14,620 injuries reported due to warehouse work. In a free market, you generally have to pay more to get people to do jobs that contain injury risk.
Cousin Dave
at February 7, 2018 7:04 AM
> based on a link I
> previously posted :)
Golly! You're that very special kind of racist who sees the future! ! :) :) :) ♥ ♥ :)
Crid
at February 7, 2018 7:08 AM
Ok, after controlling for experience, routes, etc, what was the earnings per mile driven? With that much data available, there should be enough to do that and get results that should stand up to scrutiny.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 7, 2018 8:13 AM
> what was the earnings per mile driven?
the problem with that is that sadly, Uber economists are famous for lying and fudging, because those numbers are competitive trade secrets, could cause them to get regulated, and could even cause them to get unionized (current Seattle case)
It's why I take this study with a huge grain of salt.
jerry
at February 7, 2018 9:55 AM
Wait, wut? You mean to say that women have been blaming men and demanding that they fix a "problem" for which women are completely responsible?
That doesn't sound right. Wonder what else women have got wrong by listening to feminists....
Jay R
at February 7, 2018 10:19 AM
In the academic world, rewards are largely based on your publication record. Often, this is completely under your own control. Publication rates tend to be highly skewed, with perhaps 10% of the academics writing 90% of the papers. The most productive 1% may publish upwards of 200+ lifetime papers (depends on the field). That 1% is almost entirely men. Even the most productive 10% is mostly men. Women academics seem to (very subjective data point here) think this is unfair. The result can be explained by the facts that 1) men are more willing to work longer hours, 2) men are more aggressive (more willing to write a challenging paper), and 3) men play the "build an empire" such as their own lab with lots of technicians and post-docs game more often and better.
cc
at February 8, 2018 9:05 AM
I have the solution to pay parity disputes.
Reduce the pay to match the lower paid employees.
Problem solved.
Why is it always 'more'... and never 'you are overpaid, time for a reduction'.
Earl Wertheimer
at February 13, 2018 1:04 PM
Leave a comment
The Gender Pay Gap In Uber Driving And Tesco Stores And Warehouses.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Advice Goddess Free Swim
It's Tuesday night, and I'm super-zonked.
You pick the topics. I'll try to post a piece in the morning.
P.S. One link per comment or my spam filter will eat your post.
This sports/'tics analogy is really starting to take root, which I think is a fine thing...
Remember that Hillary was born in 1947. She was indisputably bright, and her ambition was nourished in her earliest years by her father, who admired her enthusiasm as her brothers seemed, in Paglia's word, "recessive."
Let's set aside 1948 ('Dewey Defeats Truman'), as she was in diapers. Let's also spot her 1952 (Ike defeats Adlai= #1), when she was presumably learning to read.
But by 1956 (Ike defeats Adlai= #2), she was probably listening to the radio, watching TV, reading newspapers and talking to adults such that she learned the workings of the electoral college.
I doubt Donald Trump had even heard of the EC before October 2016... And he probably still doesn't care.
Which means that she bungled that election even though she had a six-decade head start in knowing how things worked.
--
Miscellaneous business: It's just not in my heart to read the details of the Uma Thurman thing... I'm just too old, and neither the Big Oom nor any of her filmmaker/oppressors ever gave me the time of day.
Could someone please do the reading and post a comment here in a couple of sentences if there's anything we need to from the perspectives of either good gossip or civil rights? Thanks.
Crid
at February 6, 2018 11:36 PM
The guy's beautiful, and I don't care about football. Or earpods. Check out that fabric.
Crid
at February 6, 2018 11:41 PM
~50 years ago, the USA was looking up. The space program was something we were doing well.
Since then, we have been told constantly to look down. We suck, we are told. We cannot do anything but molest women and children and offend each other. Not any more.
> how do you KNOW it's wrong to
> say that people stop listening
> to people who say things they
> don't want to hear - ESPECIALLY
> when the speaker is a foul-
> mouthed boor?
Um, I didn't say anything about the rightness or wrongness of that particular position. Wut I sed wuz "people demand to be flattered for the things they believe or think about," and they shouldn't.
Crid
at February 7, 2018 3:02 AM
A Democratic Congressman tried to collude with Russians to compromise the President -
The people calling the loudest for equal representation in STEM fields seem to be singers, actors, activists, politicians, etc. - professions that require very little study or technical skill and for which color, sex, and ethnicity can be deciding factors in one's success.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 7, 2018 6:00 AM
Ok, we're finally underway: This single tweet may portend greater justice, or at least deeper correction, for more assaults and intrusions than everything we've heard from New York, Los Angeles and DC in the last five months.
Crid
at February 7, 2018 7:04 AM
This single tweet may portend greater justice, or at least deeper correction, for more assaults and intrusions than everything we've heard from New York, Los Angeles and DC in the last five months. ~ Crid at February 7, 2018 7:04 AM
Not surprised. Ever work retail? It's full of petty tyrants. Small people with despotic tendencies put in charge. People with little education or experience of the world given sway over hundreds of lives and livelihoods. Everything you've ever seen in the movies and on TV about retail bosses is true; maybe not applicable to all retail bosses, but to enough.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 7, 2018 7:26 AM
In case you didn't understand the difference between sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexual misconduct.
Degrees of difference can be important distinctions, even for something awful.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 7, 2018 7:30 AM
This news story reminds us that against the best predictions of summertime '16, Scott Baio is NOT actually a member of the President's cabinet.
Crid
at February 7, 2018 7:44 AM
Going to the Winter Olympics? might want to pack your thermal undies. Tho these won't be the Chosin Few.
Some politicians need to be beaten with a clue X 4. Here are two.
State lawmakers in New Mexico recently proposed a bill that would force high school students to apply for college unless they provide the government with alternative post-graduation plan.
House Bill 23, sponsored by Republican state representative Nate Gentry and Democratic state senator Daniel Ivey-Soto, would require high school juniors to “file an application with a college or show that the student has committed to an internship or apprenticeship or military service.”
Question: will these two geniuses make their state colleges and universities waive application fees for in-state students?
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 7, 2018 9:30 AM
Add on question, is it good enough to just fill out the form and not pay the application fee? Talk about annoying your local college as millions of applications are sent it with no intention of following through with them.
Ben
at February 7, 2018 9:48 AM
Ordinarily, I'd say drunk, angry posting is not the best idea, but in this case it worked out.
Talk about annoying your local college as millions of applications are sent it with no intention of following through with them.
Well, it won't be millions, as the state population is just a hair over 2 million. Recent live birth data is clocking near 25,000/year, so maybe 20,000 or so applications, minus the people who will sign up for the military in their junior year and those going the intern/apprenticeship route.
There are three letters. I'm sure most people here will be very glad to see them.
lenona
at February 7, 2018 4:21 PM
...Scott Baio is NOT actually a member of the President's cabinet. ~ Crid at February 7, 2018 7:44 AM
The fact that one recently retired member of Trump's staff (albeit not Cabinet-level) moved on to a reality TV game show, and not a lobbying, news, or private enterprise job, gives one pause to consider the caliber of people being hired for that staff.
If you're the proper caliber person for a president's staff, even in a minor position, you should command considerable interest in the private sector. She did not and is now back to the only job for which she seems qualified, reality TV contestant.
Even Kal Penn, the actor who was part of Obama's staff maintained a certain amount of post-administration dignity - his abetting the production of more Harold and Kumar movies notwithstanding.
Meeting With A Male Colleague At Work Now Has Rules Like Going To A Male Gynecologist
When you have a male gynecologist, he'll have a female nurse in the room while doing any procedures. It protects him from being accused of any funny business by you.
Well, Kyle Smith writes at the NY Post of a side-effect of "#metoo," and it's that men are no longer willing to be alone with female colleagues:
Consider what's happening in the capital of Florida. Female staffers and lobbyists have found "many male legislators will no longer meet with them privately," reported The Miami Herald. "I had a senator say, 'I need my aide here in the room because I need a chaperone,' " lobbyist Jennifer Green told the paper. "I said, 'Senator, why do you need a chaperone? . . . Do you feel uncomfortable around me?' 'Well,' he said, 'anyone can say anything with the door shut.' "
"I'm getting the feeling that we're going back 20 years as female professionals," said Green, who owns her company. "I fully anticipate I'm going to be competing with another firm that is currently owned by some male, and the deciding factor is going to be: 'You don't want to hire a female lobbying firm in this environment.' "
...Across industries, "Several major companies have told us they are now limiting travel between the genders," Johnny Taylor, president of the Society for Human Resource Management, told the Chicago Tribune, citing execs who tell men not to go on business trips or share rental cars with women co-workers. UCLA psychologist Kim Elsesser, the author of "Sex and the Office," sees a nascent "sex partition." If men start to back away from women, at least in professional settings, it's difficult to see how that will aid the feminist cause.
Women of past generations worked so hard to be treated as men's equals.
Now every woman has to be looked at like a walking lit fuse.
All hail, progress!
UPDATE: Here's a surprise!
3x as many male managers are now uncomfortable mentoring women in the wake of #MeToo. This is a huge step in the wrong direction. We need more men to #MentorHer. https://t.co/RyPo0PBz7N
By removing that frisson of 'play' between men and women, all it does is put women in the role of slightly smaller, dangerous business competitors who constantly complain about the temperature and engage in strange emotional displays, instead of being creatures 'delightfully different'.
They probably will not relish that role.
FIDO
at February 6, 2018 6:25 AM
What Jennifer Green fails to appreciate is the third party complaint. If she goes into the senator's inner office with the door closed, just the two of them, then any other woman can decide on Green's behalf that she was sexually harassed or assaulted. The senator will have no defense, and Green's own denial will not constitute exculpatory evidence -- she'll be labeled as either a denier or a collaborator. In the #Metoo world, it is assumed, any time and a man and a woman are alone under any circumstances, that the man's intentions are explicitly sexual.
Are there any male OBGYN's left? We had a post yesterday where male nurses were mentioned. Pretty soon, nobody will have to worry about that any more. So many restrictions will be placed on male nurses administering care to women / children that they won't be able to do their jobs. Hospitals will get rid of them in favor of female nurses. They won't say out loud that they are doing that, but that is what it will be.
Cousin Dave
at February 6, 2018 6:43 AM
FWIW, the rules are gender neutral, at least at my doc's practice. Her assistant comes into the room before my annual physical. Which means there are two women present for my prostate exam. Go equality!
pavetack
at February 6, 2018 7:04 AM
Cousin Dave, I had an ex-girlfriend who used to say that the only reason a man becomes a gynecologist is so he can look at p***y all day long. But yes, there are still male OB/GYNs. My wife chose a male when she was expecting.
This is also a logical step by men now that "Every woman must be believed." Good work femiinists. You'll soon eliminate women's ability to compete for many high paying/status jobs. What is the next step in your strategy to limit women?
Jay
at February 6, 2018 7:11 AM
This is also a logical step by men now that "Every woman must be believed." Good work femiinists. You'll soon eliminate women's ability to compete for many high paying/status jobs. What is the next step in your strategy to limit women?
Jay
at February 6, 2018 7:12 AM
I had an ex-girlfriend who used to say that the only reason a man becomes a gynecologist is so he can look at p***y
Wrong. Except for a routine check up, OBGYNs get to see the vajayjay at its worst.
Ummm...one of the ads is for sugar free bacon. Ummm...bacon. Bacon > vajayjay.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 6, 2018 7:13 AM
Yeah, considering the shape some of that p***y is in... After all, people go to the doctor when they're sick. (And the list of possible malfunctions in that area is rather astounding.) GYN is no exception.
Cousin Dave
at February 6, 2018 7:52 AM
By removing that frisson of 'play' between men and women, all it does is put women in the role of slightly smaller, dangerous business competitors who constantly complain about the temperature and engage in strange emotional displays, instead of being creatures 'delightfully different'.
They probably will not relish that role.
It's a Scorched Earth approach from them.
If I can't have my happily ever after ending, then no one will.
Sixclaws
at February 6, 2018 8:06 AM
Strangely, one stereotype that I've noticed about male OBGYN doctors is that they're big time womanizers.
Keep in mind that while they get to see plenty of peekachoos at their worst, they often tune them back to as best as it can be.
Sixclaws
at February 6, 2018 8:19 AM
This is a smart move by any man. Men are looked at as guilty until proven innocent upon any accusation. Then if proven innocent...still kind of sort of guilty and looked at with a crooked eye. Two national cases come to mind in the Duke Lacrosse case and the Rolling Stone University of Virginia case. Have a female witness.
Dave M.
at February 6, 2018 8:33 AM
Have a female witness.
On the one hand, since only 'women will be believed' the corollary is men will never be believed.
Ergo, a man needs a female witness. Sort of a reverse Islam who only believes 4 men in a rape case, but somehow will believe one woman over four men. (UVA anyone?)
HOWEVER, when I first read that sentence, my gut reaction is 'Are you flipping INSANE?' Now you have ANOTHER women who can be offended, hypersensitive, or try to convince the other woman to take otherwise banal comments in the worst possible light.
Society used to be 'what will settle matters down the most'. If Jim at work gets a bit too handsy, the woman can go to a rather large male friend or family member and...things get settled. Teamwork.
Now with identity politics, it is not 'what will settle things down and restore harmony', it is 'what will give me the most political juice and screw society'
This...is having predictable outcomes.
FIDO
at February 6, 2018 8:55 AM
Ms. Huffington,
You can have your cake.
or
You can eat your cake.
You can demand a man provide both.
You are likely to be GRIEVOUSLY disappointed.
FIDO
at February 6, 2018 8:59 AM
Ms. Huffington,
You can have your cake.
or
You can eat your cake.
Or you can marry a gay cake, as Arianna did.
Kevin
at February 6, 2018 9:23 AM
Replying to @ariannahuff
Lady, for the last 50 years women have been telling men they dont need us, want us, or particularly like us.
Stop bitching about getting exactly what you said you wanted
One would think but I'm not sure how irrational the Womyn have gotten.
FIDO
at February 6, 2018 10:07 AM
Feminists would have us all pretend that women's sexual power over men does not exist.
Women will miss it when it's gone. They won't know what hit them.
The dark side of my nature is going to enjoy watching what happens.
Jay R
at February 6, 2018 10:21 AM
"I had a senator say, 'I need my aide here in the room because I need a chaperone,' " lobbyist Jennifer Green told the paper. "I said, 'Senator, why do you need a chaperone? . . . Do you feel uncomfortable around me?' 'Well,' he said, 'anyone can say anything with the door shut.'"
They don't need to say anything. An ill-received comment or a hand in the wrong place is equal to a violent rape in the #metoo world. The man will never work again either way. So, it's worth his career to be in a room alone with her.
She talks about Katie Roiphe's new essay in Harper's Magazine, for one.
Excerpt (this is about a third):
"...Some of the sentiments Roiphe describes are similar to things I’ve said in private conversations myself. I understand the hesitation to say them publicly, because it’s unpleasant to be jeered at on the internet by self-righteous young people. But Roiphe, like the Trump rally-goers, makes a category error in conflating criticism — even harsh, ugly criticism — with oppression. The social justice left is often accused of putting feelings over facts. But its critics, in many cases, are just as unwilling to distinguish FEELING silenced from actually being silenced.
"Despite the fears of some of Roiphe’s informants, plenty of women have questioned aspects of the #MeToo movement without demonstrable damage to their careers. Roiphe, far from being unable to speak, appeared on 'CBS Sunday Morning' this weekend to talk about the #MeToo 'thought police.' On the program, Roiphe seemed genuinely unnerved by the pre-publication furor over her piece. 'It felt like there was a mob with torches outside the window,' she said.
"Having run afoul of a Twitter mob or two myself, I know the feeling. But I also know that a virtual mob isn’t the same as a live one. The torches aren’t real, and in some cases neither are the people.
"This is important to remember, because social media can obscure the power dynamics of the offline world. It’s democratizing up to a point, for good and ill — it can give a platform to traditionally marginalized people, and allows all of us to be judged and insulted by masses of strangers. But influence on Twitter doesn’t necessarily translate to influence elsewhere..."
lenona
at February 6, 2018 11:52 AM
Now, I'm a stunning physical specimen, a middle-aged Kouros... Proportioned in marble, but loose and dynamic. Chicks *dig* my athleticism. But these are the years we live in, y'know?
Well, I've been traveling a lot because of this thing... Short but distant trips at weird, unpredictable hours. And so a lot of the customer service types are fertile young women fresh out of high school or college, destined to climb the corporate ladder, but working for now on a lower rung.
And I've been delighted by how many are comfortable flirting with an older white guy, no matter how electrifying and attractive, during these months of litigious madness. That their charm is transparently contextual and essentially insincere is no more worrisome than it was thirty years ago. People want to play games and have fun. People want to practice.
A lot of this noise, a LOT of it, is media types --social, academic and otherwise-- desperate for something to write about. On the ground, I think decent people are doing about as well as they ever did.
Crid
at February 6, 2018 12:12 PM
> And I've been delighted by how many are
> comfortable flirting with an older white guy, no
> matter how electrifying and attractive, during
> these months of litigious madness. That their
> charm is transparently contextual and essentially
> insincere is no more worrisome than it was thirty
> years ago. People want to play games and have fun.
> People want to practice.
There's no incentive or payoff for accusing a customer, whom one interacts with for a few minutes and then never sees again, of sexual harassment. Accusing a boss or coworker is a very different situation.
Snoopy
at February 6, 2018 12:38 PM
Snooplemuffin, if you're a guy who wants to worry about such things (in a faux-wizened discourse about motives), I'm ready to believe your concern is appropriate.
Crid
at February 6, 2018 1:14 PM
Crid,
If you are, as you say, a stud muffin, you need never worry. As a person drifting though a 'target rich' environment of women willing to toss their panties at you, it isn't likely a threat to you.
Follow the SNL three rules to avoid sexual harassment claims:
Be Handsome..
Be Attractive..
and Don't Be Unattractive.
FIDO
at February 6, 2018 1:38 PM
> Follow the SNL three rules to avoid sexual
> harassment claims:
"men who are funny and charismatic and easy with women can get away with almost anything"
"Sexual harassment is a crime committed by beta-males who think they can get away with alpha behaviour"
The whole mentoring thing is almost entirely women driven anyway.
Girls need mentoring.
Men need to mentor them.
Because of Jack and Jane, both graduates of the same program, the same semester, the same grades, Jack is expected to not need mentoring because cock. Jane is told, managers are told, they need to mentor Jane because vagina.
Girls, make sure you find a good mentor, and remember ladies, often time, women make the worse mentors as they want to keep you down or are chill girls.
jerry
at February 6, 2018 4:51 PM
> it isn't likely a
> threat to you.
I was bullshitting.
How come men visiting this blog so o ften talk like it's a terrible burden to engage the opposite sex in a pattern of thoughtful, attentive empathy? They've been complaining about it for years.
Furthermore, "mentoring" is essentially frogwash, as was it's older cousin "role modelling"...
...Who lives in prison now!
Crid
at February 6, 2018 5:49 PM
I'm a guy. I had a mentor for advice, training and who was my advocate in the company.
It gave me more opportunities than other people who were my peers or even, in one case, more senior than I was.
I still keep in touch with him 20 years later even after he retired when I need professional advice or just a great conversation.
I don't blame the men for feeling that way about the risks and I think the women are losing more than they care to admit, but it's situation out of an individuals control
FIDO
at February 6, 2018 7:31 PM
'Senator, why do you need a chaperone? . . . Do you feel uncomfortable around me?'
...she said, giggling and tossing her hair. "Oh, you!".
Later, weeping at the Congressional inquiry ...
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 6, 2018 9:30 PM
It's all nuts. I know a guy who works in child care. Some mother was shocked, shocked that he would dare change a girl-baby's diaper. Yet she obviously had no qualms at the idea of a woman changing a boy-baby's diaper.
Feminists have deliberately tarred all men for the misdeeds of a few. The consequences are inevitable: men will do business mostly with other men, simple because we cannot know which women to trust, and which ones not. Add in the third-party problem that Amy mentions, and it's "game over" for female equality in the workplace.
a_random_guy
at February 7, 2018 5:12 AM
"I had a mentor for advice, training and who was my advocate in the company."
I wish I had had that. Circumstances in the computer industry in the 1980s were such that few mentors were available. Most of us were all in the same age group.
I had a female protege at one point. They had assigned a more senior female to mentor her, but they clashed. She told me later that she had specifically asked for me. We worked well together. We went through some stretches of having to work in shifts in high-stress assignments, and we had a number of 2 AM rental-car rides together after completing a shift. She's a senior tech lead now. If it happened today, I would have to refuse.
Cousin Dave
at February 7, 2018 6:36 AM
How come men visiting this blog so [often] talk like it's a terrible burden to engage the opposite sex in a pattern of thoughtful, attentive empathy? They've been complaining about it for years. ~ Crid at February 6, 2018 5:49 PM
"Women: You can't live with them, and you can't get them to dress up in a skimpy little Nazi costume and beat you with a warm squash or something." ~ Emo Philips
Conan the Grammarian
at February 8, 2018 8:17 AM
I note not a single woman has posted on this topic.
It's a loser for them. A) They don't want to be sexually harassed...B) they want to advance in their careers with some career help...but totally uncontrollable and unrelated women are essentially ruining the prospects of having both because C)the toxic atmosphere of fear that these womyn are causing give the men some extremely legitimate complaints (and when coupled with what they see as male overreaction) they can't fault the men.
By the same token, if they attack the women fighting against sexual harassment...they still lose.
Life in the big city.
FIDO
at February 8, 2018 8:59 AM
Leave a comment
Meeting With A Male Colleague At Work Now Has Rules Like Going To A Male Gynecologist.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Maybe the system is now so unfair to rich liberals that this is the way we should go. And given how impossible it is for them to get anything done in the federal government these days, blue-state liberals might want to offer Republicans a compromise: We’ll get rid of federal taxes and programs, and it’s every state for itself. If you genuinely think it’s an outrage that red states collect so much federal money, you should probably be eager for the trade.
But think carefully before you make that proposal. Because if liberals offer to dismantle the New Deal and return to genuine federalism, they might just find that Republicans are eager to take that deal.
We need to stop calling federal funds spent in red states "subsidies" given nearly half the land of all western red states are owned by the federal government and therefore as owners the upkeep is paid by the federal government.
Im guessing they are also counting federal monies paid to Indian tribes in that figure as well
Knockout column today from Slate that was trending at Google News (topics are helicopter parents, atheist parents telling their kids about other people's belief in God, and well-intentioned racism - when in the world are strangers going to understand that making personal comments - or touching children - is almost never polite?):
By Margery Eagan (cohost of WGBH’s “Boston Public Radio.”) February 05, 2018
Excerpts:
_______________________________________
"Here are some facts that might surprise you.
"In 1971, two years before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, the biggest white evangelical group in America, the Southern Baptist Convention, supported its legalization. The group continued that support through much of the 1970s. And the late Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, did not give his first antiabortion speech until 1978, five years after Roe.
"Though opposition to abortion is what many think fueled the powerful conservative white evangelical right, 81 percent of whom voted for Donald Trump, it was really school integration, according to Randall Balmer, chairman of the religion department at Dartmouth. The US Supreme Court ruled public school segregation unconstitutional in 1954. In 1976 it ruled against segregated private schools. Then courts went after the tax exemptions of these private all-white Southern schools, or so-called segregation academies, like Falwell’s Liberty Christian Academy...
"...'This administration is focused on recognizing one set of religious beliefs,' Gretchen Borchelt of the National Women’s Law Center told Politico. But why the one set of beliefs so out of step with the rest of America? Though 70 percent of white evangelicals want abortion illegal, the majority of other religious groups, including mainline Protestants, black Protestants, and Catholics, do not.
"This raises unsettling questions: How much of antiabortion rhetoric is really about the unborn, and how much is a convenient and even cynical cover for white evangelicals to support, as they did, a white supremacist like Roy Moore, in Alabama, or Trump himself, leader of the American birther movement and defender of neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Va.?
"Balmer’s scholarship on the racial underpinnings of the religious right — and the link between the antiabortion movement and a certain political agenda — is more than familiar to a group of Americans who overwhelmingly rejected both Moore and Trump. That would be black evangelicals..."
lenona
at February 6, 2018 11:59 AM
And a couple of comments under that column:
NER_MCFC02/05/18 08:09 PM
From sources unrelated to the ones Eagan cites, I learned some years ago that Falwell got into politics in the mid sixties in response to the ever increasing fame and influence of Martin Luther King. Before then, Falwell had followed the then standard view among fundamentalist Christians that political activity was unwise because of their minority status. Indeed Falwell's first public remarks on the subject criticized King for being overtly political.
If you want to really find out the roots of Planned Parenthood, you should dig into Margaret Sanger, the founder, and her relationship to the eugenics wing of the progressive movement in the 1920s and 1930s.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 6, 2018 1:49 PM
Careful if you come across a tiger
I'm surprised they didn't open fire, and put a couple hundred rounds downrange. Given their penchant for shooting dogs willy-nilly, that restraint is truely astounding.
Now, if they'd just practice that restraint with the rest of us...
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 6, 2018 1:53 PM
"in the 1920s and 1930s"
Timely.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 6, 2018 1:57 PM
"Make Tide Pods less appetizing? New York lawmakers want design change for colorful packets"
I imagine that in 10 years or so society will have devolved to the point where electric fans are sold with a pictogram illustrating "Do Not Stick Your Dick in This Fan."
Kevin
at February 6, 2018 2:28 PM
"Do Not Stick Your Dick in This Fan.""
Rock band managers should have done that long ago re: crazy groupies.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 6, 2018 3:06 PM
And I should be surprised that someone of that generation wasn't 100% opposed to eugenics? Really. In other words, she wasn't unusual. Hint: Forced sterilizations in the U.S. went on and on until at least the 1980s, long after Sanger's death!
From the Sept. 2017 thread we had here called "In Case You Were Wondering":
lenona, the depth to which your stupidity can reach is astounding
Did you really argue the people who support an anti abortion agenda do so because they are white supremacist/racists started on that path to revenge school desegregation regardless of the fact that the vast majority of all abortions are preformed on minority women?
The people who think tin foil prevents Aurellian brain scans from the mothership seem reasonable in comparison
When did people become unable to recognize hyperbole from a comedian?
Not a Silverman fan but at least Breitbart made sense of the clickbait headline by placing it in context in the article.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 6, 2018 8:51 PM
"When did people become unable to recognize hyperbole from a comedian?"
The problem is, these days it's tough to tell when they are engaging in hyperbole and when they are being serious. It's the narcissistic concept of humor: say something horribly degrading about someone, and then when they complain, say "It was just a joke! Can't you take a joke?"
Silverman was funny, once upon a time. Seems like a long time ago now.
Cousin Dave
at February 7, 2018 6:44 AM
"Blue state, red state"
Yes. Most red states would gladly take that deal. Especially if they get to repo the land currently under federal control. Honestly this is probably part of the reason those states turned red.
Ben
at February 7, 2018 7:28 AM
Lujlp, maybe you should read ALL of Margery Eagan's column.
And FORCED abortions are practically unheard of in the US. Even parents (often to their shock) can't force their healthy teen daughters to have them - and pro-choice groups have never offered to change that law. No woman enjoys having an abortion, but it's no surprise that a lot of women who choose to get abortions simply can't afford children at that time - or who don't WANT a child at that time AND have economic problems getting access to good contraception. So what's your point regarding minority women, who are often poor? (It's not as though
In the meantime, since she mentioned Roy Moore, it's interesting to remember that, as someone else humorously pointed out, that Moore's stress on Doug Jones' pro-choice stance (and the number of black women having abortions) just might have backfired among white supremacists - but maybe not.
Not to mention that according to the U.S. Census Bureau, black people are at 13% right now, higher than about 50 years ago.
lenona
at February 7, 2018 10:21 AM
Plus, luj, do I really need to spell out to you the fact that while there's no shortage of black people who are opposed to abortion (and white people as well), that doesn't change the fact that when a healthy teenager or woman of any color chooses to have one, even if she's somewhat unhappy about it, she's likely someone who has a few OPTIONS in life other than being a minimum-wage worker and she doesn't want to ruin that chance, even if it's slim. As Katha Pollitt wrote in her column: "...you don't find many 15-year-olds dropping out of the Dalton School to have babies. Girls with bright futures--college, jobs, travel--have abortions. It's the ones who have nothing to postpone who become mothers."
My point, of course, is that if there's anything that white racists don't want, it's black people having more options other than despair and minimum wage jobs. Not to mention that when it comes to people who are poor and white, haven't we all heard that that politicians often prefer voters who stay poor and are thus easy to control? Making abortion hard to get is obviously a way to do that.
lenona
at February 7, 2018 4:18 PM
But then again, there are examples like Whoopi Goldberg, who allegedly had six abortions, and while actress Martha Plimpton had "only" two abortions -- which she openly indicates were done to help out her career prospects -- she actually rocks a dress with the word "abortion" printed all over it. Do we really want to celebrate such human sacrifice like that?
mpetrie98
at February 7, 2018 4:47 PM
As Fran Lebowitz said more than 40 years ago about clothes (this was NOT about any particular statement):
"If people don't want to hear from you, what makes you think they want to hear from your sweater?"
I couldn't agree more. I never had clothing with writing on it as a kid, and I didn't have the nerve to ask for such clothes until I was a teen. It was an "I Love New York" T-shirt, and my mother let me know she didn't really like my wearing it, regardless of the message. (Almost no one in my extended family wore clothes like that, either.) I didn't replace it after I outgrew it.
And when I was in Tuscany a few years ago, everyone there dressed more with more class than that - even the American tourists. (Nothing very expensive, from what I could tell.)
lenona
at February 7, 2018 5:00 PM
And, just a reminder: Any state that isn't tiny and that has only one abortion clinic is NOT likely to be a state where it's easy for poor women to get effective contraception. (Traveling expenses have to be factored in too, of course - probably for getting hormonal contraception as well as abortions.) So, is it any surprise that in such states, poor women would have more abortions than elsewhere, even if they had to drive out of state to get them?
In 2016 the states that had only one clinic each were Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
And if you're wondering how many centers there are in small Rhode Island:
"There were 5 abortion-providing facilities in Rhode Island in 2014, and 3 of those were clinics. These numbers represent a 25% increase since 2011 in overall providers, and a 50% increase in clinics from 2011, when there were 4 abortion providers overall, of which 2 were clinics."
Why Do We "Need" Male Nurses And Female Engineers?
A good bit of the advice I give -- advice that doesn't usually make the column -- goes to people who went into some profession due to others' expectations: Their parents, what they thought they "should" do, etc.
An article about Swedish teens in The Local by Catherine Edwards reflects this notion -- through a "gender studies" lens. Una Tellhed is the researcher -- and the person who's quoted just below:
"We need more men to take an interest in nursing and more women to take an interest in technology, partly because it's important for the labour market to be able to recruit both men and women," she said.
This follows an earlier remark from her:
"Both boys and girls are reluctant to enter professions dominated by the opposite gender, leading to gender segregation later on in the world of work, the study ... shows."
The reality is, women tend to prefer working with people and will often sacrifice making big bucks and advancement for living balanced lives. In fact, many women prefer to just have jobs they enjoy and are not the tigers fighting for the corner office that men are more likely to be.
I wrote about this in a column -- and, by the way, as somebody who's pretty "work first," I'm one of the female outliers:
There's an assumption that women should want to join the cutthroat race to the corner office. Psychologist Susan Pinker criticizes this as the "male standard" being forced on women. In her 2008 book, "The Sexual Paradox," Pinker points to countless studies that find that women tend to be more motivated by "intrinsic rewards" -- wanting to be happy more than they want to be on top. As an example, she profiles "Donna," who quit her prestigious job as a tenured professor in a computer science department for a lower-status job (tutoring faculty at another university) that allowed her more one-on-one engagement with people. Pinker explains, "Donna decided to opt for what was meaningful for her over status and money."
Like you, I don't want kids. (I describe them as "loud, sticky, and expensive.") However, Pinker notes that there's "plenty of evidence that many more women than men" -- including women at the top of their game -- put family before career advancement. She tracked down "Elaine," the author of an op-ed titled "My glass ceiling is self-imposed," about why she'd declined a promotion that would have put her third from the top in a company with 12,000-plus employees in more than 60 countries.
The president of the company was dumbfounded. But Elaine wrote that she was happily married, with children (and grandparents nearby). The promotion would have required relocating, and that would have destabilized her family. She concluded her piece with the observation that "many companies ... would like nothing more than to have more senior female executives, but not all females are willing to give up what it might take to get there."
Frankly, that's just fine -- with me, anyway. I think people should do what works for them for their career and not feel obligated to act as quota points to comfort those in gender studies academia.
1. OK but... nursing is an excellent example of men avoiding female-associated careers that could be very fulfilling. Not every man who wants to work in medicine can hack it in medical school.
That kind of openness is, I think, welcome. And I think most people who follow your blog agree that the gubmint should not be engineering any of this. It's politicization of this that is wrong.
(BTW Something similar is happening in the Protestant and liberal-Jewish clergy: the ordination of women has caused men to drop out of this profession.)
2. OK but... my Orthodox Jewish community is full of women who, although fully committed to Jewish family life, made sure to get that Bachelor's degree first. They in no way lack "drive", and have every intention of returning to the workforce - and not just to support their families: many move on to rather high-powered positions, or follow the traditional Jewish track of small business ownership. Many manage to complete 2nd and 3rd degrees during the years that are focused on child-rearing.
These women have a attained "life-work balance" by doing one thing at a time, each in the biologically proper time. And yes, living in a community that still values the commitment of marriage makes this a lot easier.
Paradoxically, the traditional mores that clearly leave sex at home, combined with having already achieved personal goals of marriage and family, allow these women to be very assertive/self-possessed when they get to the workforce.
"You can have it all, just not all at once"
Ben David
at February 4, 2018 11:42 PM
It's good comedy that women have decided to make themselves systematically unhappy; I guess the Feminine Mystique was a tombstone for women's happiness; making powerpoints and trying to act like men must offer something to replace housewife boredom, but whatever it is has no name...
Living somebody else's vision for your life is a sure recipe for anxiety, unhappiness, and early-onset "old man's" diseases.
And your average college co-ed thinks that these women who tell her how she's supposed to live her life are on her side!
El Verde Loco
at February 5, 2018 6:31 AM
Problem #1 for the diversity advocates is that they take "diversity is good" as an axiom; it is true because they define it to be so. But that doesn't make a good axiom. "Two plus two equals four" is an axiom; it is true because it's inherent in the definitions of the words "two", "plus", "equals", and "four". And it clearly conforms to real-world experiences. The only way that "two plus two equals four" could not be true would be if one or more of the words was redefined, or put into a different context.
However, the proposition "is diversity good?" is testable. Studies have been done. Results from what I've seen have been mixed. While we can say that "is diversity good?" might be a true proposition -- we don't have enough data to know -- it can't be a valid or useful axiom because, clearly, it isn't self-evidently true. Thus, the diversity advocates base all of their arguments on a premise that hasn't been demonstrated.
Problem #2 is the advocates' definition of the word "diversity", which to them means having a mix of males and females, and mixes of people of different ethnic origins and sexual orientations. This is a proxy for having people who have different ways of looking at things due to having had different life experiences. The theory is that having such a mix of people improves creativity and the quality of work, and therefore, an organization having this type of diversity will be more successful than one that doesn't. That hasn't been proven to most people's satisfaction (see problem #1), but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is true. Now, are the life experiences of a white boy who grew up in midtown Manhattan likely to be the same as a white boy who grew up on a farm in Kansas? Probably not, and to lump both of them into the category of "white male" is intellectual laziness. Diversity advocates try to get around this problem by micro-dividing demographics into ever-finer categories, assuming that they can eventually get to a small enough set of divisions that it can serve as a proxy for the individuals in each division.
But that doesn't work because of the nature of statistics. Demographic statistics are good for telling you the average behavior of large groups; they don't tell you much about a given individual. And as the groups are divided smaller and smaller, the error bars get bigger, pretty soon you have demographic stats that fail at doing what they are supposed to do -- tell you the average behavior of a group -- and still don't tell you how an individual will behave. The whole thing breaks down and you wind up learning nothing. To really achieve what the diversity advocates say they want, they'd have to take a different approach: doing psychological testing on everyone, and categorizing people based on how they actually think. (And of course, such tests do exists, such as the Meyers-Briggs assessment.) There is no neat and easy proxy. But doing this level of testing on everyone would be expensive, raise obvious civil rights concerns, and it doesn't make for pithy political slogans.
So to sum up, "diversity" has two big problems: (1) it is based on premise that hasn't been demonstrated, and (2) its methodology is faulty. That's why diversity advocacy quickly breaks down into a political power contest.
Cousin Dave
at February 5, 2018 6:53 AM
"Why Do We "Need" Male Nurses And Female Engineers?"
To make porn more believable?
On a more serious and similar note, people push the 'innovation is good' idea just like they push the 'diversity is good' idea. And reality has shown that too much innovation is just as deadly for an organization as too little. Kodak was an incredibly innovative company. And not just in the chemical photography business. They essentially invented digital photography. And that quickly lead to the death of Kodak.
Ben
at February 5, 2018 7:04 AM
It's a sad sign of the times that the simple concept of recognizing what makes you happy, and then doing it, is seen as unusual, brave or anything out of the ordinary.
Psychologist Susan Pinker criticizes this as the "male standard" being forced on women.
It's not being "forced" on anyone except those who never learned to say "No, that's not what's going to make me happy or fulfilled." If you let Betty Friedan or Phyllis Schlafly or anyone else guide your decisions against your own best interests, you're not thinking for yourself.
Kevin
at February 5, 2018 8:28 AM
"... women tend to be more motivated by "intrinsic rewards" -- wanting to be happy more than they want to be on top."
I prefer women on top.
iowaan
at February 5, 2018 8:48 AM
Regarding “intrinsic rewards”, I am reminded of a discussion I read a number of years ago, I believe quoted by Donald McCaig about something Patrick Burns was asked by a dog trainer, about rewarding his terriers when they brought an animal to earth: “I let them do it again.” And that to me is a powerful remark about both genetics and behavior: his terriers want to hunt voles, and live for it. I think to some degree you see the same sort of thing in the STEM disciplines, most particularly computer science and engineering: the work itself is rewarding for men in ways it is not for women.
Rob McMillin
at February 5, 2018 9:33 AM
Regarding item number 2 about women in the Orthodox Jewish community, in the first comment above by Ben David:
To each her own of course, but I think that's an excellent model for young women who want to have stable, traditional families and a lot more. In my family of traditional, conservative, evangelical Christians, this is the predominate model for young women. Both of my daughters and most of my 20 nieces were homeschooled, went to college, worked for respectable salaries, owned property, married in their mid-20's, and have children that they care for full time. They can't have it all, but they can have a lot; and they have pretty much whatever they want, including time. They profess satisfaction and happiness, and appear to be happy. All I ever hear about them from their husbands is gratitude and appreciation, and from their kids, some now in their teens, admiration. In case you can't tell, I'm very proud of them and love them all, especially my daughters. They are awesome women.
Ken R
at February 5, 2018 1:02 PM
Ben: "Why Do We "Need" Male Nurses And Female Engineers?"
To make porn more believable?
You win the internet.
Though if we seriously wanted to make porn more believable, I think they should start with acting lessons.
Patrick
at February 5, 2018 1:26 PM
Rob McMillin: I think to some degree you see the same sort of thing in the STEM disciplines, most particularly computer science and engineering: the work itself is rewarding for men in ways it is not for women.
My daughter is a software engineer. Her degree is in business administration, but while in college she found that she liked doing whatever it is software engineers do and learned the skills during her spare time and summers. She did part-time work in that for extra money in college.
After graduating she worked for several years for a company whose software developers were divided into five categories of "geeks", based on their skill level - level 1 were novices; level 5 were "super geeks". My daughter was a level 4 geek.
When I asked her if she was going to be a level 5 geek she said she had no desire to. Level 5 geeks were all men, mostly single, with masters degrees or PhD's in computer science, math or engineering. They lived, breathed, thought and dreamed code. It was their whole life and they loved it. They talked about code during their lunch and coffee breaks; they got together after work to drink beer and talk code. Code was their hobby in their spare time - they designed and built fascinating toys and gadgets for entertainment.
My daughter said she enjoyed the work, the company she worked for, the people she worked with, and the money - salary, bonuses and incentives into six figures - but her dream was to have kids and be a full-time mother and homemaker. And that's what she is. She and my son-in-law are self-employed and successful; their skills are complementary. My grandchildren are homeschooled and happy.
Three of my grandkids and I are going to eat junk food and watch movies later this afternoon.
Ken R
at February 5, 2018 1:56 PM
Feminists: Men are awful
Also feminists: women should strive to be just like men
Excuse me if I notice that this is not working out so well.
cc
at February 5, 2018 3:22 PM
Though if we seriously wanted to make porn more believable, I think they should start with acting lessons.
And while they're at it. They should bring back higher production values and musicals:
Also if they want porn to be more believable the actresses should stop being so surprised when they find something in a guy's pants. It's like opening a refrigerator and be shocked there is food in there.
Ben
at February 5, 2018 8:15 PM
"Feminists: Men are awful
Also feminists: women should strive to be just like men."
Yeah, that's a thing going back to Second Wave. Looking back it's amazing how quickly "the options that are available to men should be available to women" morphed into "women should want the same things that men want".
Later in her life, Phyllis Schlafly took an interest in missile defense. She educated herself well enough to write some thoughtful opinion columns on the subject. Take that however you will.
As far as the believability of porn: where would one start. Hugh Hefner started out with the idea that Playboy would feature "girl next door" women, and it was under that mantra that the magazine saw its initial growth. It wasn't until the mid-1970s that Playboy turned to the bolt-on-boobs, entire-body-covered-in-concealer supermodel wannabees, and that's where its growth pretty much stopped. There's a reason why amateur porn is a thing. Just sayin'.
Cousin Dave
at February 6, 2018 7:08 AM
We don't need female engineers or male nurses, we need good engineers and nurses.
Feminists saw men making beaucoup bucks and engendering respect as engineers and wanted in on it. But they didn't realize (or want to realize) that getting an engineering degree takes a lifelong interest in mathematics and a great deal of study and effort. They saw a field that paid well and was mostly men and assumed "good ol' boys' club."
The push for male nurses is just a way to balance out the push for female engineers. As more men enter the profession and make more money than their EMT buddies, indoors and in better working conditions, those numbers will shift without any political action.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 6, 2018 10:17 AM
As more men enter the profession and make more money than their EMT buddies, indoors and in better working conditions, those numbers will shift without any political action.
Until the males are forced out by sex abuse allegations.
dee nile
at February 6, 2018 4:40 PM
Some men might not be comfortable being wiped down by a female nurse.
[blockquote]
Why Women Are Rarely Serial Innovators
A single-minded life of invention is hard to combine with family obligations. One solution: ‘nonlinear’ careers
By Melissa Schilling
[Prof. Schilling teaches management at New York University’s Stern School of Business. Her new book is “Quirky: The Remarkable Story of the Traits, Foibles and Genius of Breakthrough Innovators Who Changed the World,” which will be published on Feb. 13 by Public Affairs.]
It’s 6 a.m., and I’m rushing around my apartment getting ready to fly to California to teach an innovation workshop, when my 10-year-old son looks at me with sad eyes and asks, “Why are you always busy?” My heart pounds, and that familiar knife of guilt and pain twists in my stomach. Then a thought flickers through my head: Does Jeff Bezos go through this?
I recently finished writing a book about innovators who achieved multiple breakthroughs in science and technology over the past two centuries. Of the eight individuals I wrote cases about, only one, Marie Curie, is a woman. I tried to find more, even though I knew in my scientist’s heart that deliberately looking for women would bias my selection process. But I didn’t find other women who met the criteria I had laid out at the beginning of the project.
I had hoped that Grace Hopper, a pioneer in computer programming language (and a U.S. Navy rear admiral), would make the cut, and I talk about her in the book. But in the end, it was hard to make the case that she was a serial inventor.
After studying Marie Curie and Grace Hopper, I know why there aren’t more women on these lists, and there’s no easy fix. The historical discrimination against women is only part of the story, and believe it or not, it’s the easier part to fix. The other part is much deeper.
...
In my own case, I can afford more child care, but I don’t want to relinquish more of my caregiving to others. From the moment I first gave birth, I felt a deep, primal need to hold my children, nurture them and meet their needs. Nature is extremely clever, and she has crafted an intoxicating cocktail of oxytocin and other neurochemicals to rivet the attention of parents on their children.
The research on whether this response is stronger for mothers than for fathers is inconclusive. It is tough to compare the two, because there are strong gender differences in how hormones work. Historically, however, women have taken on a larger share of the caregiving responsibilities for children, and many (myself included) would not have it any other way.
Is such a view hopelessly retrograde, a rejection of hard-won feminist achievements? I don’t think so.
[/blockquote]
jerry
at February 4, 2018 9:29 PM
Pence is vindicated.
"Female staffers and lobbyists have found many male legislators will no longer meet with them privately..."
Metoo has gone way too far. It’s no wonder some men are pushing back. Why should they be lumped all in the same category as the truly vile people who deserve to be hated. I tweeted to metoo that not all men are rapists and not all rapists are men. Silence. Easy to ignore facts when you’re hysterically attacking anything with a penis.
Kendra
at February 5, 2018 5:23 AM
Why should they be lumped all in the same category as the truly vile people who deserve to be hated. ~ Kendra at February 5, 2018 5:23 AM
Because we've lost our ability to see degrees of difference. A womanizer is a rapist. When some behavior at the end of a spectrum is evil or vile, all behavior along that spectrum is just as evil or vile.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 5, 2018 5:52 AM
> Because we've lost our ability to see degrees of difference.
Reminds me of the spanking conversation we had the other day.
Snoopy
at February 5, 2018 6:29 AM
Automation: not as easy as it looks.
I’ve been working in automation for 20 years. When you see how hard it is to simply digitize a paper process inside a single plant (often a multi-year project), you start to roll your eyes at ivory tower claims of entire industries being totally transformed by automation in a few years. One thing I’ve learned is a fundamentally Hayekian insight: When it comes to large scale activities, nothing about change is easy, and top-down change generally fails. Just figuring out the requirements for computerizing a job is a laborious process full of potential errors. Many automation projects fail because the people at the high levels who plan them simply do not understand the needs of the people who have to live with the results.
"Newsweek fired editor-in-chief Bob Roe and executive editor Ken Li Monday. Additionally, TheWrap has learned that the publication has parted ways with the top reporters of its investigations unit, including Celeste Katz and Josh Saul. International Business Times reporter Josh O’Keefe was also dismissed.
Employees who were not fired were sent home Monday — potentially without pay, TheWrap has learned."
"Female staffers and lobbyists have found many male legislators will no longer meet with them privately..."
Snoopy at February 5, 2018 4:28 AM
_______________________________________
I knew someone would mention that eventually. Though it's not clear whether Pence, at least, is more worried about a false accusation from a woman, a false accusation from some third party conspirator who wasn't even there, or...a TRUE accusation.
No need to bother with the article itself. What REALLY caught my eye was in the comments.
_________________________________________
HN Philadelphia, PA November 15, 2017
"This so-called Christian rule prevents men from dining alone or taking meetings alone with women. But what about men dining alone or taking meetings alone with men? Is the assumption that no Christian men have the capacity to be gay predators?"
________________________________________
(And, we've all heard stories of homophobic politicians who turned out to be in the closet, so it's not as though only openly gay politicians have to worry about false accusations. How can any politician, male or female, afford to be alone with ANYONE from now on, really?)
Also:
______________________________________
Ms. Pea Seattle November 15, 2017
"I once worked with a guy like Pence, who wouldn't have a meeting with a woman and wouldn't even get in an elevator with a woman if no one else was getting in at the same time, nor would he walk down a hallway with a woman if they were alone. He carried it to such extremes that he was reported to human resources. It became a kind of discrimination that he was practicing, under the guise of his religious belief. It was demeaning to the women in the office, who felt he treated them as second class. People have to be able to function in the world, and in an office it is sometimes necessary to speak with or meet with a coworker. No one is interested in seducing Mike Pence, just as no one was interested in the guy in my office. We all just want to get on with our work and our day. This 'rule' is just a foolish waste of time."
Maria Ashot EU November 15, 2017
"Jesus did not avoid women, obviously.
"Just pray & focus on the purpose of the meeting."
_______________________________________
(And that was long AFTER the story of Potiphar's wife, if anyone's interested.)
And, from a Miss Manners 1995 column I've posted here before ("Reader Offers Some Workplace Rules"):
"...But it is not Miss Manners' job to try your case, of which she knows nothing. It is your proposed etiquette that interests her. So she went fastidiously past your wounded tone and examined the rules you so bitterly offered.
"And you know what?
"Some of them constitute discrimination against women, which could land you right back in that legal tangle you did not seem to relish. You cannot refuse to conduct ordinary business with the otherwise appropriate people because of their gender.
"But other rules that you offer as draconian are very sensible rules, indeed..."
______________________________________
Finally, someone said something interesting - that while big companies probably can't get away with not hiring women in the future, small ones can and will. Don't know how likely that is.
lenona
at February 5, 2018 2:43 PM
> it's not clear whether Pence, at least, is more
> worried about a false accusation from a woman, a
> false accusation from some third party conspirator
> who wasn't even there, or...a TRUE accusation.
It really doesn't matter what he's worried about. The fact is that it is turning out to be a very prudent policy for men to follow.
> Is the assumption that no Christian men have the
> capacity to be gay predators?
That's not the assumption. Compare the situation where a female teacher has sex with a male student, and where a male teacher has sex with a female student. When the "victim" is male, commenters say they wish they had been that lucky. When the "victim" is female, commenters say they wish they could personally kill the teacher. Female teachers in this situation normally get only a slap on the wrist whereas male teachers end up in jail for many years.
Society is very unlikely to find that a man who had sex was a "victim" regardless of the circumstances. See also the case Amy mentioned a while back where a woman gave a passed out man oral sex and it was the man who got expelled from university.
> People have to be able to function in the world,
> and in an office it is sometimes necessary to
> speak with or meet with a coworker
So bring in a third person to join the meeting, or hold the meeting in an open or public space. It's not that difficult.
A woman just doesn't take the same legal risk in being alone with a man, so it can be difficult for a woman to understand. A man can literally lose everything a be zeroed out on the word of a woman - a slight inconvenience is going to be worth avoiding that for most men.
Men are pragmatic and deductive. Given the very real threat of losing everything, they will adapt to the environment in ways that will protect them, including avoiding being alone with a woman.
Snoopy
at February 5, 2018 3:47 PM
> Is the assumption that no Christian men have the
> capacity to be gay predators?
_______________________________________
That's not the assumption.
________________________________________
But the fact that the possibility is being ignored is absurd, as I spelled out.
________________________________________
Compare the situation where a female teacher has sex with a male student, and where a male teacher has sex with a female student. When the "victim" is male, commenters say they wish they had been that lucky.
_________________________________________
And, as I've mentioned, those who say "lucky boy" are almost always...men.
Plus, most men certainly DON'T say that when a man preys on a teen boy.
lenona
at February 5, 2018 4:59 PM
"Is the assumption that no Christian men have the capacity to be gay predators?"
1. There aren't that many of them. At 1% or less of the population as well as a trend to self segregate there just aren't a whole lot of gays to go around. The number of gay predators is far far less than that. So yes, to some extent there is an assumption there aren't any gay predators, Christian or otherwise.
2. The concern that the Pence rule addresses is accusations. Pence isn't worried he will do something. He is worried about being accused of something. Like it or not no one would take an accusation of him being a gay predator seriously. This holds for the vast majority of men. So the accusation holds no threat.
Ben
at February 5, 2018 8:25 PM
Ben, don't forget that bisexual men exist too. They just might be more reluctant to admit it than bisexual women. As Dan Savage said, bisexual women are EVERYWHERE. Maybe because they make themselves easy to see - and it turns the public on?
Not to mention, what makes you think the gay male population is THAT low? Maybe it isn't 10%, which is what people used to say 30-40 years ago, but maybe it isn't even as low as 3% - even if you don't include bisexual men. (3% is a common statistic these days.)
And while Pence may have done whatever mysterious moves it takes to prove he's purely heterosexual and not in the closet, just what made it somewhat easy for male accusers of male politicians from the last 20 years to be believed, when many of the accused WERE in the closet? I don't see why "the accusation holds no threat" "for the vast majority of men." Especially if the male politician looks handsome and boyish. (Though I'd guess that most men would hesitate to make any FALSE accusations, for several reasons. But not all.)
lenona
at February 6, 2018 10:29 AM
No Lenona bisexual men aren't everywhere. They do exist but not in large numbers. Reality is ~98% of men are purely hetero give or take a percent. And as I mentioned people self select and separate. Many and perhaps most companies don't have a single non-hetero employee. The flip side is a small number of companies have almost no hetero employees.
Also you responded about politicians. Most of us aren't politicians. I mentioned Pence because he got famous for refusing to be alone with women. The stated reason being fear of accusations. If Pence was a Democrat that wouldn't be a concern. At least not until #MeToo happened. But for most men this is a concern given the current nature of how sexual harassment is defined.
You raised the issue of men making false accusations. As I said this isn't a concern. Not that men don't make false accusations but that virtually no HR departments take accusations of sexual harassment from men seriously. I am sure that some men make both false as well as real accusations. And then those accusations get thrown in the trash. Not fair perhaps but that is real life.
As for proof, no man is concerned about a closed door meeting with another man. Well, maybe one or two but nothing significant. On the other hand a large percentage of men are concerned about being in a closed door room with a women. You may claim they shouldn't have that view. But the reality is they do.
Many years ago, I was riding the train home from work when I spied a passenger with a partly-open gym bag containing a human head!
Okay, I could tell it was fake, like the one pictured. The passenger explained that she was learning hairdressing, and that the head was her practice dummy. Maybe that's what we're seeing in the photo.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com)
at February 4, 2018 2:01 PM
Flock of Seagulls? Nah. If it was, it would have a reverse Mohawk.
Cousin Dave
at February 5, 2018 7:02 AM
Hm. That's the intersection of Waring and N Edinburg. Car is Universal Japanese compact, very similar to 2001 Nissan Sentra GXE. Property on right is posted as prohibited for public access, has been for more than 2 years.
Radwaste
at February 5, 2018 2:22 PM
Leave a comment
"Headless Body In Topless Bar" On Vacation In Los Angeles.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Did You Get Your Ding-Dong On Today, Ladies?
I love this. My new term for masturbation: "ringing the devil's doorbell"! https://t.co/Mu0l8TN2U1
Adam Conover, of Adam Ruins Everything, a rather pompous individual who apparently knows everything (except how to eat without becoming obese), insists that everyone masturbates.
I assume he's got a reason to believe that this is a behavior that is innate to humanity, since he obviously hasn't observed every human being that has ever lived, especially in that particular behavior.
I would venture to say that asexuals probably don't.
Patrick
at February 4, 2018 12:17 AM
... putting this on my little list of Beliefs Jews Do NOT Share with Christians...
Whew.
Ben David
at February 4, 2018 4:58 AM
Asexuality does not seem to preclude masturbation. It can be used as stress relief, not a desire for sex.
Whoever posted those is mentally ill. And ignorant: the clitoris has no involvement whatsoever in babymaking. Its only purpose is pleasure. What sort of upbring did they have, to think women have no right to physical pleasure unless a husband provides it?? Sad. And not a belief shared by most christians.
Momof4
at February 4, 2018 6:10 AM
I suspect that the source of those absurd quotes is more likely to be someone who hates Christians than someone who is a Christian.
Ken R
at February 4, 2018 9:32 AM
Apparently I missed something in sex ed... just how does a clitoris create a child?
I mean I've heard orgasms increase likelihood of conception but from there to "creating a child" is a bit of a stretch
NicoleK
at February 4, 2018 9:59 AM
Apparently I missed something in sex ed... just how does a clitoris create a child?
Given that in certain Muslim nations they cut that doorbell right off, and they don't seem to have a particularly diminished population.
Due to that, any way.
I R A Darth Aggie
at February 4, 2018 10:10 AM
"... make she she has never self-raped her sin cave."
Somewhere, a college kid is laughing. I'm not going to spoil things by looking, but I'm willing to guess that StopMasturbationNow.org isn't meant to be taken seriously.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com)
at February 4, 2018 11:04 AM
Darth, it's mostly African countries. Plus, the practice predates Islam. As I understand it, while it's mentioned in the Koran, it's not exactly advocated. (Btw, since it's not usually done in a hospital, it's often lethal, and the attitude is often "it was just her time to die." That's from the book below.)
From chapter 7 of Fauziya Kassindja's memoir, "Do They Hear You When You Cry":
In her Muslim sex ed class: "If it were a requirement of the Islam faith, the malam would have told us as much. But he never even mentioned the word. He did talk about polygamy, though..."
(Born in 1977 in Togo, she was raised Muslim by relatively liberal parents, but when her beloved father died in 1993, his relatives forced her mother to leave - perfectly legal - and, in 1994, tried to force her into a marriage with a man 30 years older who had three wives - and he wanted her mutilated. In October, she escaped with the help of her mother and sister just hours before that would have happened - made it to the U.S., tried to apply for asylum, and wound up in prison under horrific conditions with other refugees and real felons for nearly two years. In June 1996, she became "the first person to receive political asylum from the United States based on the threat of female genital mutilation." (PBS). She got married and now runs a business on Staten Island.)
lenona
at February 4, 2018 11:23 AM
Ken R, I'm sure you're right.
Btw, everyone, check out this tale from the Decameron (you WILL enjoy it):
What kind of moron would think self-pleasuring women are evil?
mpetrie98
at February 4, 2018 11:33 AM
PS If you marry a woman who has never masturbated, you are very likely marrying a woman who has no interest in sex.
_______________________________________
Exactly. It's been common knowledge that, ever since the late 1970s, according to the late psychologist, educator and marriage counselor Eleanor Hamilton, men aren't that eager anymore to marry completely inexperienced women (any man who would be unhappy about a bride who's gone all the way would likely also be just as unhappy about one who's had oral sex) for several reasons.
1. In the age of birth control, any female who is completely untouched is too immature to marry, or if she's over 20, she's likely asexual, in the closet, severely traumatized or just plain very unpopular. Who wants to marry anyone like that?
2. Whether such a woman is still a teenager or not, for those reasons, marrying such a woman is a quick path to divorce court. If there's anything men are REALLY scared of these days, it's that.
3. Men don't want to be accused of being jerks with double standards. (Does anyone really think that a man who's both ABLE and willing to marry - as in, you know, someone 25 or older - is going to be untouched himself? If he is, he's likely a male version of #1.)
4. The younger you are, the harder it is not to confuse love and sex. This is said to be why so many people in very religious communities get married pretty early; they're sick and tired of waiting for sex, and the parents encourage those early marriages, because in a world where divorce is taboo, they don't care much if their children marry in haste and repent at leisure. Avoiding premarital sex and staying married are all that matter.
Btw, in the "Courtship and Romance: Methods of Meeting" section in her book "Miss Manners' Guide for the Turn-of-the-Millennium," she wrote:
"Victorian gossip is full of stories about innocent brides receiving unpleasant diseases from their parent-chosen bridegrooms."
So at the very least, men should expect their fiancees to ask highly embarrassing questions that might even make them angry, like "when will you see the doctor before the wedding and prove to me that you don't have herpes, even if you haven't had any symptoms yet?"
As MM implied, parents in Victorian times likely thought that if a man came from a "nice family" and was religious, either they could assume he was untouched or that at least he would be enough of a gentleman to go to the doctor without being asked. Not the case - and, of course, plenty of diseases back then were incurable or worse.
lenona
at February 4, 2018 12:11 PM
mpetrie, from what I've heard time and again, it wasn't until the 19th century that women were seen as the guardians of virtue. Before then, they were seen as the devil's instruments/temptresses. Virginity was considered magical. Any woman who ENJOYED sex was suspect - even after marriage. That would certainly explain why Susan B. Anthony was opposed to birth control (Elizabeth Cady Stanton wasn't); she felt that it would only lead to wives having even more unwanted sex.
lenona
at February 4, 2018 12:17 PM
To clarify: In Victorian times, men were more or less expected to put with wives who simply refused to have sex as a means of birth control, since the wives were just being "virtuous" that way. That would help to explain why, despite the infant mortality rate, a married woman didn't typically have ten or more children in those times. (Yes, I know about nursing as a contraceptive - but still.)
lenona
at February 4, 2018 12:30 PM
> men aren't that eager anymore to marry
> completely inexperienced women
> 1. In the age of birth control, any female who
> is completely untouched is too immature to
> marry, or if she's over 20, she's likely
> asexual, in the closet, severely traumatized or
> just plain very unpopular. Who wants to marry
> anyone like that?
This speaks more to the practicality of accomplishing this, rather than men's eagerness for it. If marrying virgins were still a practical option, I'm sure there'd be no shortage of men eager to marry them.
> 2. Whether such a woman is still a teenager or
> not, for those reasons, marrying such a woman is a
> quick path to divorce court. If there's anything
> men are REALLY scared of these days, it's that.
The stats show otherwise - the more partners a woman has had before marriage, the more more likely her marriage is to end in divorce -
> 3. Men don't want to be accused of being jerks
> with double standards.
Men and woman are different, so different standards make sense. A key that can open a lot of locks is a master key. A lock that can be opened by multiple keys is a weak lock.
Snoopy
at February 4, 2018 1:54 PM
Gives a completely different meaning to the Ding Dong Ditch prank.
Joe J
at February 4, 2018 8:40 PM
"I'm willing to guess that StopMasturbationNow.org isn't meant to be taken seriously"
But how else are we to keep up with the news of Fappy The Anti-Masturbation Dolphin's pardon by the Governor of Arizona?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 5, 2018 2:52 PM
The stats show otherwise - the more partners a woman has had before marriage, the more more likely her marriage is to end in divorce -
______________________________________
I didn't say anything about having multiple partners. Of course a man is not eager to marry a 25-year-old who's already had six or so - and it's easy to imagine it wouldn't work out anyway. (Women married to rich men - like Jackie Kennedy - who don't want to give up their cozy lifestyles are more likely to be forgiving of philandering as well as the men's past records.)
But, if he doesn't get married till he's 35 and no one under 30 is willing to marry him, he's being ridiculous if he really expects a 30-year-old to be completely inexperienced by that age. If it bothers him so much, he should do everyone a favor and never get married - or get married long before he turns 25. Fat chance of the latter happening, of course.
_________________________________________
Men and woman are different, so different standards make sense. A key that can open a lot of locks is a master key. A lock that can be opened by multiple keys is a weak lock.
_______________________________________
Yuck. Being promiscuous is bad for BOTH sexes. Men are better at spreading diseases than women, after all, so one could argue that THEY should be the chaste sex. "Like" and "equal" are not the same thing, and there is such a thing as a happy medium. I will bet that most modern parents would agree that there are far worse things for 18-year-old daughters than premarital sex with condoms. Namely:
1. Marrying at 18 out of emotional/sexual desperation, repenting at leisure, divorcing by age 21, and coming home to one's parents with a baby or two for them to support - or at least a broken heart. (Which would have been the "happy ending" version of "Romeo & Juliet," when you think about it.)
2. Being brainwashed by one's parents into believing that THEY are never wrong in their judgment or orders to their daughters, which can lead to the incurable Victorian hell that MM mentioned above. (I only wish she'd made it clear just how you DO ask your betrothed certain embarrassing questions, when they might be offensive.)
3. Being raised to be so modest and squeamish about sex that she can't even talk to her doctor about "indecent" things like contraceptives, so she and hubby have kids at the wrong time, again and again, which destroys their marriage - or at least threatens it badly.
lenona
at February 5, 2018 3:12 PM
Not to mention that any community where it's normal for a man to marry a woman barely out of high school is very likely a community where divorce is considered a absolute moral disgrace. I.e., just because such a marriage doesn't necessarily break up doesn't mean the two are happy. Even if she WAS older than her teens at the time - but how many women or men are willing to wait for sex until age 25 anyway?
lenona
at February 5, 2018 5:32 PM
"Men are better at spreading diseases than women... "
Got some data to back that assertion up?
Cousin Dave
at February 6, 2018 7:15 AM
Yes. Newsweek, for one, in 1991, after Magic Johnson admitted he had HIV. It's all about men's producing more bodily fluids.
lenona
at February 6, 2018 10:33 AM
The stats show otherwise - the more partners a woman has had before marriage, the more more likely her marriage is to end in divorce -
_________________________________________
And you're obviously dodging my point, which was: Why would any man be likely to stay married to a woman who's asexual or gay if he didn't know that when he married? Why should he HAVE to stay married in that case?
And while a teen marriage may not be a lot more likely to break up than one between two adults, it certainly isn't more likely to be a happy marriage in the long run. There's a reason most people warn against it.
lenona
at February 6, 2018 10:36 AM
On top of that, just because a man may firmly believe that men should be free to get sexual experience before marriage and women should not, that doesn't mean any woman will necessarily put up with that. Modern men may be "on strike," according to Dr. Helen Smith, but even SHE didn't claim in her book that modern women's reluctance to marry before 21 or to abstain until 25, 30 or 40 has anything to do with men's growing reluctance to marry at all, IIRC.
In the same vein, just because a man hates washing dishes or even mowing the lawn, while his wife (not a housewife) might enjoy both, that's not a fair excuse for him to refuse to do either, since both NEED to be done, and both parties deserve a certain amount of useless leisure time. (Not to mention that parents wouldn't tolerate a teen's whining "you enjoy this, I don't," so what's the difference? After all, a chore-hating spouse still wants the other spouse to have plenty of energy - and cheer - left for bedroom fun, right?)
lenona
at February 6, 2018 10:52 AM
And, from the CDC:
"Female anatomy puts women more at risk than men. Female genitals are thinner and more delicate than male genitals, giving bacteria and viruses an easier pathway."
FAQ
There's a lot of hype about how risky it is to have unprotected sex. What are the real odds of catching a disease?
The real answer to your question is that it depends on which disease is being transmitted and who it's being transmitted to. The odds are as high as 50 percent in some cases. For example, if a woman has unprotected sex with a man who has gonorrhea, she has a 50 percent risk of becoming infected. In the opposite case, the risk is 30 percent. In fact, in nearly all cases, women are more likely to become infected by carrying males than men are to be infected by carrying females. The risk for younger women and, perhaps, for women who use birth control pills, may be even higher. To worsen the situation, some diseases, such as chlamydia, may not produce symptoms in a man, even though he can pass the disease to his partner.
The statistics look like this:
Risk of Infection (%) from One Unprotected Encounter
MEN WOMEN
Genital Herpes 30% 30%
Gonorrhea 25% 50%
Chlamydia 20% 40%
Syphilis 20% 30%
Chancroid 15% 30%
Genital Warts 10% 10%
Hepatitis B 5% 10%
HIV .9% 1%
______________________________________________
lenona
at February 6, 2018 10:57 AM
Lenona, I've taken a look at that site before, and I'm very leery of it. Most of the medical advice is out of date, and some of it, particularly the section on erectile dysfunction, is mostly shaming of the "it's all in your head, snap out of it" variety. (This sort of treatment is why men don't like to go to doctors.) The section on male heart disease is 100% shaming, with no practical advice whatsoever. There's a "For Women" section which begins with, "women, here's a list of all of the ways in which your husband is disappointing you." It then goes on to tell women to treat their husbands as children. "Go to the doctor with him." Seriously? I'm not six years old; I don't need my mommy to go to the doctor with me.
I've long suspected that the "Male Health Center" is a stealth feminist site, in a weird way. It combines traditional Christian lecturing at men with feminist lecturing at men. As for the stats you quoted, I note that they do not cite a source for them.
Cousin Dave
at February 7, 2018 7:34 AM
I was in a rush and it was one of the first sites to pop up. How's this one?
Actually, in many areas of the country there is a shortage of men to women, so men have the opportunity to have more partners and in many cases they do. More men die early from accidents, war, high-risk jobs etc... Plus, more men are likely to end up in prison - decreasing the potential partners for women and increasing the available partners for men, who are alive or not in prison.
If we're going to have Cardinals waving magic wands at computers, how long before a bunch of monks on a mountain will end the universe by calculating the nine billion names of God?
Arthur C. Clarke, 1953
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 5, 2018 8:33 AM
That happened back in 1000AD Gog. Most of us found the end of the universe wasn't that big of a deal.
Beat Your Children Well: The Persistence Of Spanking, Despite The Science
Psych prof and clinical psychologist Noam Shpancer writes at Quillette that the spanking debate is over -- which is to say it's been scientifically resolved:
Spanking is correlated strongly and quite exclusively with multiple negative outcomes for children. The negative outcomes often appear only after the spanking has begun, and the effects of spanking remain significant and sizable even after controlling for the influence of other variables such as parental age, child age, sex, race, family structure, poverty, emotional support, cognitive stimulation, etc.
...Overall, the empirical case against spanking is strong, and made stronger by the absence of any empirical case in support of spanking. There is not one well designed study I have seen that links spanking to long term positive outcome.
Of course, life has not caught up with the research findings.
If spanking doesn't work, then why is it so popular?
No doubt some of it has to do with the American cultural ethos. With spanking as with guns, football, the military, and comic book super heroes: America, born in war, has an ongoing romance with violence. The trenchant Christian dogma viewing children as wild sinful creatures whose will must be broken into obedience through instilling fear is undoubtedly another culprit. However, several psychological reasons can also be offered for the practice's continued popularity.
First, in the parent-child equation, the parents have the power. The powerful in a given situation seldom see their behavior in that situation as the problem. It's not easy for those whose solution is to inflict pain to see pain as a problem. The axe forgets, goes the proverb, only the tree remembers.
Second, spanking often looks like it's working. Indeed, according to research, parents who rely on spanking do it mostly because they believe it works, not due to impulse or momentary frustration. In part, spanking appears to work because it often does, in the short term, halt the behavior it follows. Alas, three problems with that:
1. Short term solutions often become long term problems. Heroin, for example, works really well in the short term, as does junk food. Short term solutions are not what we should aim for in parenting children, particularly if they beget long-term problems.
2. Much of the seeming effectiveness of spanking is due to regression to the mean, a known statistical phenomenon whereby extreme behavior tends to return toward baseline in short order. Children are most often spanked for extreme 'out of line' behaviors, from which they would regress back to normal even without the spanking.
3. Parents think spanking works because one consequence of spanking is to train the spanked to elude the spanker. It may seem like your child has curbed her naughty behavior after the spanking, but more likely she has learned (from you) how to hide or lie about it better.
Spanking also persists because it is a quick and readily available tool for most any parent. Spanking is the equivalent of taking a pill to quickly numb your knee pain rather than engage in the long tedious process of figuring out what the pain is trying to tell you about the way you're mistreating your knees.
Finally, we all tend to keep to our tribal traditions, and we are resistant to change. For good reasons. Tribal alliances protect us, and change begets instability. Thus, it is rare for parents who were not spanked as children to begin to spank their children. Spanking, like other behaviors and customs, is readily transmitted from one generation to the next absent a strong counter-current. Research has shown that, particularly when we are under duress, we tend to fall back on our primary responses -- those that are well learned; those we grew up with. Parenting is stressful, so parents will often fall back on primary responses, those learned early, from their role models for parenting -- their own parents.
And so spanking persists, even though it can neither be defended on the basis of the available empirical data nor on the basis of sound psychological theorizing.
Alan E. Kazdin, John M. Musser professor of psychology at Yale University and director of Yale's Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic, echoes Shpancer's remarks and provides alternatives:
Spanking is not a very effective strategy. It does not teach children new behaviors or what to do in place of the problem behavior. It is also not useful in suppressing the problematic behavior beyond the moment. Research indicates the rate of misbehavior does not decline, in fact, the problem behavior returns, even if the parent escalates the punishment.
...The task is to help children change their behavior, and physical punishment is not needed to accomplish that. Developing positive opposite behaviors, i.e., the desired behaviors that the parent wants, is much more effective.
...Positive reinforcement for alternative behaviors is extremely effective. This is not just rewards or points but the use of antecedents (what comes before behavior), behavior (shaping and gradually developing, repeated practice), and consequences (e.g., specially delivered praise).There is a whole area of research (applied behavior analysis) devoted to this and some parenting books, too.
More here. More from Kazdin here on "eliminating inappropriate child behaviors and teaching habits and values."
Spend an afternoon in the supermarket where I work, listening to the average of one really loud scream or tantrum every 10 minutes because asshole parents bring brats who won't behave and won't even try to make them. Then tell me with a straight face that spanking is a bad idea.
It might help if you first name something that works better.
jdgalt
at February 2, 2018 9:39 PM
“And so spanking persists, even though it can neither be defended on the basis of the available empirical data nor on the basis of sound psychological theorizing.”
Sound psycological theorizing......what the fuck is this? and please point to where I can figure out how to recognize it independently from some snooty psycologist telling me that is what he is *doing.*
Maybe a legitimate study would seperate out and eliminate from the study, both kids who dont respond to any kind of discipline, and parents who are actually beating kids rather than spanking them.
Then with the group of spanked (but not beaten) kids, and a group of unspanked kids, hand the data over to another set of researchers and see if they could discern from observation which kids were spanked, and which were not, and what the negative effects were, without knowing which were which.
Would that be too scientific for ya?
Then after pulling the abisers out, and the kids
Isab
at February 2, 2018 10:08 PM
I know correlation is not causation, but the decline in spanking is correlated to rise in helicopter parenting as well as the rise in snowflake young adulthood as seen at Yale and all over.
And I also think there is a difference between an occasional spanking and beating your kids.
jerry
at February 2, 2018 11:06 PM
If those kids don't like it they can drop out of kindergarten and get a job and pay their own damn rent.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 2, 2018 11:11 PM
With spanking as with guns, football, the military, and comic book super heroes: America, born in war, has an ongoing romance with violence.
Clucking. Like a hen, this clucks.
Crid
at February 3, 2018 1:45 AM
"Of course, life has not caught up with the research findings."
Wow. It's the other way around.
I also want to know how you get the attention of a being totally incapable of reasoning, with an endocrine system flooding it with demands on a random basis.
Radwaste
at February 3, 2018 3:06 AM
Wow. Look at all the defensive parents. "How dare you tell me I didn't raise my kids right when I spanked them!"
jdgalt: It might help if you first name something that works better.
You reason with kids by laying out their crime and then the consequences. If you've ever watched those nannying reality shows, like Nanny 911 and Supernanny, you'll see that there are ways to inflict penalties that don't involve beating.
Isab: and parents who are actually beating kids rather than spanking them.
This was laugh out loud hilarious. This is an attempt to create a distinction where none exists. I would consider myself duly enlightened, Isab, if you could explain to me how you can spank a child without beating it. Is there some form of spanking that I've never heard of that doesn't involve making violent physical contact?
There is no distinction between spanking and beating. At best, you might consider spanking to be a subset of beating, defined only by the severity.
Jerry: And I also think there is a difference between an occasional spanking and beating your kids.
No. There isn't.
You might consider spanking to be a mild form of beating, but you cannot spank a child without beating it.
Crid: Clucking. Like a hen, this clucks.
While I've given up on expecting you to say anything meaningful, I can least applaud the fact that you managed to say nothing in six words, as opposed to your usual M.O. of saying nothing in sixty-thousand words.
Radwaste: I also want to know how you get the attention of a being totally incapable of reasoning...
Rad, I've come to the conclusion that you should simply stop talking about children completely. Every single time you mention them, you embarrass yourself silly.
You persist in sagely peeping that "children have no rights as enumerated by the Constitution," despite the fact that children aren't even mentioned by the Constitution as distinct from adults, and despite the fact that the Supreme Court clearly alluded to their Constitutional rights in the Tinker v. Des Moines decision.
And despite the fact that you know this, you, like Sean Hannity, continue to spout bullshit that has clearly been proven wrong to you, because admitting you were wrong is an irredeemable loss of face in your mind, and because you don't feel that children should have constitutional rights, even though they do.
Children are not "utterly incapable of reasoning." They're human beings. As such, they can reason. Yes, their capacity is not as developed -- hopefully, that increases with fullness of years and education -- but they do understand the concept of actions and consequences.
Amy, I think spanking persists simply because it's a faster solution. A swat on the backside is a much quicker than lowering yourself to the child's level, explaining their bad behavior, then laying out the punishment.
Some time ago, I was working as a cashier at a high-end grocery store in my neighborhood. A pleasant looking young mother came through with her child, a tiny tot probably around two.
The child looked longingly at the candy rack, but the mother said, "No, Katie. It's too close to lunch time."
I continued to ring up the groceries, when I noticed that Katie was walking very slowly past my register, clutching her coat closed very tightly.
Please don't tell me I have to call management on a shoplifting two-year-old, I prayed silently.
Fortunately, Katie's mother also noticed. "Katie, what do you have inside your coat?"
"Nuffin'," Katie replied.
"Katie, please take that candy out of your coat and put it back where you found it."
Katie very slowly perp-walked back to the candy rack and placed what she had taken back on the rack. She then turned to face mommy, apparantly understanding that something bad was about to happen.
"Katie, I am very upset with you right now. You took candy when I told you no, and when I asked you about it, you lied to me. We are not going to grandma's house today like we planned."
Katie evidently loved visiting her grandmother, because the announced punishment reduced her to tears. Katie was then told to sit on the bench by the checkout, and her mother, who had lost none of her pleasantness, finished her business with me, collected her groceries, and held out her hand and pleasantly called for her daughter. Katie continued to sob as she took her mother's hand and the two left the store.
That, dear friends, is what's known as "parenting."
Yes, Katie's mother had to take a few extra seconds to compel her daughter to replace what she attempted to steal, and to lay out the crime and punishment, but she managed to get the point across to a theiving two-year-old. As opposed to the two seconds it would have taken to give her a historionic, noisy smack on the bottom.
You want to know what spanking teaches a child? That might makes right and that hitting people is how you get them to do what you want. And that mommy and daddy have severe anger management issues.
And if you brought up you child using such measures, then you will simply have to come to terms with the fact that you didn't discipline your child in the most effective manner and that you communicated bad messages to them. But you were probably doing what was done to you, whatever consolation you take from that. Although frankly, if you, as an adult, don't realize that hitting people is only justified in self-defense, I don't know what to tell you.
Let the foaming, gnashing and snarling begin!
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 4:09 AM
I have to agree with Patrick's assessment here that the objections appear to be quite reactionary, which suggests people are defending their own unchangeable past parenting choices.
It is easier for them to try and defend the indefensible than to admit they might have been in error or that with additional information they could have been better parents.
Artemis
at February 3, 2018 4:56 AM
Oh dear, this is going to devolve into a cut vs uncut situations, right?
Sixclaws
at February 3, 2018 5:21 AM
"With spanking as with guns, football, the military, and comic book super heroes: America, born in war, has an ongoing romance with violence. The trenchant Christian dogma viewing children as wild sinful creatures whose will must be broken into obedience through instilling fear is undoubtedly another culprit."
Wow, what an idiot to undermine his own argument with such an ignorant, biased statements.
charles
at February 3, 2018 5:24 AM
Thank you, Artemis. I decided to taunt the spanking apologists a bit, but you condensed it very well.
One wonders how a parent punishes a child who hits other children on the playground.
Probably snarling like a rabid beast, "You are never [whack!], never [whack!], never [whack!] to hit someone again!"
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 5:31 AM
Spanking ≠ beating. That said, there is a thin line between the two. Just like the lawful execution of a convicted criminal does not equate to murder; one is a discipline process and the other is a wanton crime. Not all discipline can be effected through lectures and time outs.
Young children do not think things through. The small child who chases his ball rolling into the street is not going to be moved to caution by a lecture on the physics of a moving automobile, but might be moved to caution by the memory of a timely swat on the behind.
The trenchant Christian dogma viewing children as wild sinful creatures whose will must be broken into obedience through instilling fear is undoubtedly another culprit.
Civilization, whether Christian or other, is inherently violent, breaking mankind of its primeval instincts of self-preservation. No longer can men knock women over the head and drag them back to the cave. No longer are disputes to be settled with violence. Civilization had to break the wild animal - and it didn't do it with timeouts.
Blaming Christianity for civilization's shortcomings is in high fashion these days among hip atheists and "woke" intellectuals. Well, this one's not on Christianity. Original sin, as a doctrine, is not about beating one's kids, it's about the baser instincts of mankind being subdued for the greater good. A formal baptism ceremony initiates one into the civilized tribe.
America, born in war, has an ongoing romance with violence.
When the Saxons moved into what is today Germany, it was with love and peace offerings. And when they departed and moved into what is today England, the Angles welcomed them with open arms. Because human migration was accomplished peacefully - that is, until those brutal Americans displaced the peace-loving natives, who never fought among themselves or did anything violent.
Violence is human nature, and not uniquely or distinctly American.
Nor is spanking uniquely or distinctly American. Just ask Michael Fay. Think he'll ever vandalize a car in Singapore again?
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 5:33 AM
Sixclaws Says:
"Oh dear, this is going to devolve into a cut vs uncut situations, right?"
This is a very astute observation.
I agree with you that the same way people who have circumcised their children irrationally defend the practice later in life, people who have raised their children with spanking will also irrationally defend the practice later in life.
That there are legitimate arguments against these practices and data that suggests they are harmful is not a cause for reflection for such individuals.
They are already committed so admission of wrongdoing isn't on the table.
Artemis
at February 3, 2018 5:36 AM
Probably snarling like a rabid beast, "You are never [whack!], never [whack!], never [whack!] to hit someone again!" ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 5:31 AM
What you're describing is not a spanking, it's a beating.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 5:37 AM
"America, born in war, has an ongoing romance with violence."
The guy's Israeli, by the way -- he's surely actually been in the army and is surely no stranger to violence (buses being blown up, children being murdered in their beds by Palestinian terrorists, etc.).
"The small child who chases his ball rolling into the street is not going to be moved to caution by a lecture on the physics of a moving automobile, but might be moved to caution by the memory of a timely swat on the behind."
There is a fundamental difference between smacking a child's hand away from a hot stove top burner to prevent grievous injury and spanking a child out of frustration or exasperated.
It is legitimate to jerk back on a toddlers overalls as they run toward the street into oncoming traffic... it isn't legitimate to then start smacking them to make the lesson stick.
A parent who resorts to spanking out of frustration or exasperation because they are unable to use their words is a parent who could use some improvement to their parenting skills.
Artemis
at February 3, 2018 5:43 AM
Conan Says:
"The small child who chases his ball rolling into the street is not going to be moved to caution by a lecture on the physics of a moving automobile, but might be moved to caution by the memory of a timely swat on the behind."
There is a fundamental difference between smacking a child's hand away from a hot stove top burner to prevent grievous injury and spanking a child out of frustration or exasperated.
It is legitimate to jerk back on a toddlers overalls as they run toward the street into oncoming traffic... it isn't legitimate to then start smacking them to make the lesson stick.
A parent who resorts to spanking out of frustration or exasperation because they are unable to use their words is a parent who could use some improvement to their parenting skills.
Artemis
at February 3, 2018 5:43 AM
I added some of Alan E. Kazdin's views and advice on how to change behavior to the post. Refresh or clear your cookies and they should show up (if they aren't).
There is a fundamental difference between smacking a child's hand away from a hot stove top burner to prevent grievous injury and spanking a child out of frustration or exasperated. ~ Artemis at February 3, 2018 5:43 AM
Is there? You and Patrick have allowed no differences. "Spanking is beating" you've proclaimed as you allow no distinction in abruptly dismissing the arguments of others. Violence is violence by your position.
And "smacking" is not gently taking the child's hand and guiding it away from the hot stove top burner - "smacking" is rooted in a violent reaction. The word itself resounds with violence. Smack!
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 5:50 AM
Conan: Spanking ≠ beating. That said, there is a thin line between the two.
No, there isn't. And you haven't even tried to make one. Pronouncements do not make your case.
It is not possible to spank someone without beating them. Don't believe me? Suppose someone "spanks" you. Now, suppose a different person "beats" you.
Which one is not guilty of battery?
"Oh, it's different if you're a child."
No. It's not.
And please, Conan, let's not get silly with the reasonable responses to protecting someone from an immediate threat to their lives or safety.
It sounds like a hoax story that fooled and outraged many people about a woman who hit her head and rendered herself unconscious while jumping into a lake, then sued the man who rescued her, arguing that she was helpless at the bottom of the lake and the man had full control of her.
There were furious, outraged responses before it was clear that the story was a hoax.
If I shoved you out of the way of a speeding car, unless you're a total asshole, you're not going to have me arrested for battery for shoving you.
It's no different than a response to a child running out into the road to chase his ball. Since the threat to the child's life or safety is immediate, you take an immediate response. You yank the kid out of harm's way. There will be time enough to explain safety once the kid is safe.
If a kid is about to stick a fork into an electrical outlet, you grab or swat his hand away. Lecture about safety after the immediate danger is dealt with.
We don't have different rules for children and adults in the situations you describe. An immediate response to remove someone from eminent danger, in either case, is appropriate.
It's hardly the same as telling to cut his own switch when he was caught cheating in school. The threat is not immediate.
Conan: "What you're describing is not a spanking, it's a beating."
Oh, really? What makes the difference? Was it the fact that I described three strikes, as opposed to one?
One swat on the bottom is a spanking, but three is a beating?
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 6:40 AM
943 words with sarcasm for concision: Perhaps you're overwhelmed. Don't care why.
Crid
at February 3, 2018 6:50 AM
One swat on the bottom is a spanking, but three is a beating?
Patrick at February 3, 2018 6:40 AM
No. A beating leaves a bruise or a mark. Swatting a kid across the butt with an open hand with two layers of fabric between the open hand and the skin is not a beating. By any definition.
I can tell you from personal experience it is possible to hurt a child a lot more by holding their arm tightly as you try and restrain them from running into the street or knocking over an old lady.
Mild pain and surprise without lasting damage is a pretty good way to teach human beings of any age not to do stuff that will get them killed. Too often a no spanking parent is a screaming *no discipline at all* parent ineffectually wringing their hands while their klutzy offspring runs around endangering themselves and others.
Isab
at February 3, 2018 7:09 AM
Crid: 943 words with sarcasm for concision: Perhaps you're overwhelmed. Don't care why.
Interesting that you care enough to count my words, but don't care why I'm so interested in this topic.
By the way, are you including my quotes of other posters in this word count?
If you must know, I'm admittedly amused by the responses. As Artemis pointed out, it's transparent that this is rooted in defensiveness. To suggest that spanking is not okay is to suggest that those who were spanked as children weren't raised well. Or worse, that those who spanked their kids didn't raise their children well.
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 7:12 AM
Yes, okay, amusement. You want us to take note of your emotional responses, and inquire as to the source of your enthusiasms
Crid
at February 3, 2018 7:32 AM
It isn't rooted in defensiveness Patrick. You are just wrong. May as well claim 2+2=3. And I suspect the study used the same definitions you use for spanking to get their foolish results.
Have you raised a child? Or is your child rearing experience based on Nanny 911?
Ben
at February 3, 2018 7:33 AM
> If you must know, I'm
Patrick, that's it exactly. No, we *mustn't* know. I don't understand your presumption that everyone is fascinated with your interior life. It began with your 1st comments here almost 20 years ago
What made you think we "must know"? The tone isn't conversational, it's solipsistic
Crid
at February 3, 2018 7:37 AM
Pronouncements do not make your case. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 6:40 AM
Nor does simply stating that spanking and beating are the same make yours.
Suppose I swat a child's butt if he does something wrong while telling him what he did wrong. Suppose I punch him in the face and walk away. Which is a spanking and which is a beating? Most people can readily tell the difference. And no, they're not both a beating, not matter how much you desperately want them to be.
Discipline vs. violence. Violent discipline? Yes, but disciplined violence, not random. Restrained to the point of teaching a lesson, not wild flagellating smacks from a frustrated or aggravated person. Just because a parent calls her wild flagellating smacks a "spanking" does not make it a spanking.
"Oh, it's different if you're a child." ... No. It's not. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 6:40 AM
Yes, it is different. The hypothetical person you have beating and spanking me is not in any way responsible for bringing me up and into adulthood.
And the people who were responsible for that spanked me on occasion. Spanking was a formal process in our house. One was brought forward that evening, told of his transgression, told how many swats the punishment was, and given the requisite number of swats. Done.
Did I get slapped a few times, when I transgressed beyond a parent's ability to adjust? Yep. Parents are human, too. But those were not spankings. Those were not discipline, they were lashing out. Nonetheless, they did teach me a few lessons about pushing things too far.
The person I transgress as an adult has other means of relief available to him. He can sue me. He cannot sue a child. If he violently touches me, an adult, it's assault. If he violently touches a child not his, it's assault. He can sue the parents for the damage the child does to his property - other means of relief.
An immediate response to remove someone from eminent danger, in either case, is appropriate. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 6:40 AM
Using violence when nothing else will suffice in order to save someone is generally acceptable, but that's not what was described.
In the case described, a non-violent reaction would have sufficed - i.e., taking hold of the child's hand and gently guiding it away from the hot stove top burner would have accomplished the same result without smacking him.
The smack, on the other hand, might make the lesson last. And might be enough to make sure that the next time the child reaches for the hot stove top burner, he remembers the lesson.
And, with that ball ruling toward the street scenario, I was not describing a situation with a parent at hand and ready to intervene, I was describing the long-ago lesson the stays with the small child's under-developed brain and is remembered when the child's concentration is intently focused on other things - i.e., getting the rolling ball back.
BTW, It's "imminent" danger. Eminent means famous and respected. You'll need to know the difference when you get to law school.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 7:40 AM
To suggest that spanking is not okay is to suggest that those who were spanked as children weren't raised well. Or worse, that those who spanked their kids didn't raise their children well. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 7:12 AM
And to flat out state that spanking is beating is to call those who use that as a method of discipline child abusers, or psychopaths.
Since the majority of comments on this thread seems to be by people who have never admitted having children - Crid, Amy, Patrick, Artemis, myself - you might understand how those with children, the ones dealing with these issues on a day-to-day basis, might look askance at the expertise we seem to think we have.
...with that ball ruling toward the street.... ~ Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2018 7:40 AM
That's "rolling" toward the street.
Autocorrect assumes that the typist mis-typed a letter over that he missed one - changing a mis-typed "roling" to "ruling," never to "rolling."
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 7:49 AM
My little half brother was a biter, bit kids in preschool, church, playground.
Went on for months, no matter how he was punished or talked to he didnt stop.
Until the day he decided to bite me and I bit him back. In that moment he finally understood that what he was doing wasnt so funny after all
If his parents had done their freaking job the first time he bit someone and inflicted some pain dozens of children wouldnt have been assaulted, and two or three wouldnt have life long scars from where they were bitten so hard my brother caused them to bleed.
In some instances at some ages pain is the only motivator
Close paraphrase of years-old tweet: "I bought a wallet on Amazon. Next time I log on: 'Would you like to buy *another wallet*?' AI has a long way to go before it threatens us."
Crid
at February 3, 2018 7:56 AM
Love that grocery store anecdote, Patrick! Well said.
Well, here's some of what John Rosemond said...
He's not that opposed to spanking, but he has nothing but praise for those who manage to raise well-behaved kids without spanking. Also, he's pointed out that for many kids (especially the smallest), since spanking only takes a few seconds, it's too easy for a kid to forget it and thus NOT feel guilty for the crime that precipitated it. (Haven't we all heard stories of kids who say things like "I wish they WOULD spank me and get it over with instead of grounding me for a week plus the silent treatment! That's too meeeeeaaaan!")
In 2001, he wrote:
I've asked several recent audiences, "Raise your hand if you think the punishment - in other words, the consequence a child receives for misbehaving - should fit the crime?" Every time, nearly everyone raises a hand, which goes a long way toward explaining why so many of today's parents complain that the consequences they employ don't seem to work, that no matter what they do, their children just keep right on misbehaving in the same exasperating ways.
The old-fashioned parent was unconcerned with the issue of fairness (used in this case to refer to the perception that there is "equity" between the misbehavior and its consequence) when it came to discipline. Rather, he or she was intent upon "nipping" misbehavior in the proverbial bud, which was generally accomplished through a lowering of the proverbial boom.
The old-fashioned parent realized that the size of a given misbehavior should not dictate the size of the punishment. After all, any misbehavior, no matter how small, can become a major problem if allowed to flourish; ergo, the boom.
Modern parents have been brainwashed into believing that any and all old-fashioned parenting practices should be avoided, as they are supposedly damaging to self-esteem. In a sense, that is correct. But then, most old-fashioned parents wanted to raise humble, modest children. Intuitively, before the term came into popular usage, they realized that children with high self-esteem are likely to be obnoxious little brats; ergo, the boom.
As a child, I was boomed on more than a few occasions. So was every kid in my neighborhood. None of us liked it, of course. But when I talk about such boomings with people my age, we all agree that in retrospect these psychologically incorrect disciplinary events (PSIDEs) eventually proved to be blessings in our lives.
As one fifty-something fellow recently told me, "I'd have probably been in prison before I was 20 if my parents hadn't been willing to cause me extreme discomfort when I misbehaved." And, he added, they never, ever spanked him! He meant psychological discomfort; i.e., they lowered his self-esteem; i.e., when he got "too big for his britches," they cut him down to his proper size.
In fact, I talk to lots of people my age who were never spanked. Instead, the first time they violated curfew, they were grounded for a semester; the first time they talked back to their dads, they were made to chop and carry firewood for an entire weekend; the first time they rode their bikes where they had been told not to, their bikes were taken for a month; the first time they goofed off in class, they were made to write long letters of apology to the teacher and every classmate. And so on. No, spanking was not the secret to the reasonably well-behaved baby boomer. The not-so-secret secret was the boom.
Come to think of it, we post-war kids are not the "boomers." Our parents were.
___________________________________
JR (not verbatim) To spank or not to spank is not the question. The question is, does a particular punishment stop the behavior or not?
__________________________________
JR, from his book "The New Parent Power":
In my view, a spanking is a spanking only if the following conditions are adhered to:
-The parent administers it with her or her hand only.
-The parent's hand makes contact with the child's rear end only.
-The hand strikes the rear no more than three times.
Anything else is a beating.
______________________________
JR: Children will not change their behavior because someone else gets upset about it. They will change their behavior when their behavior causes them to become upset (because of the punishment that follows the behavior). Now, that's not complicated, is it?
_____________________________________
JR, from 1996 (I would give the link for this instead, since it's long, but I couldn't find a good one):
My petitioner and I were in the lobby of an auditorium in which I was about to speak in Lancaster, Pa., talking about a relatively minor discipline problem she was experiencing with her 6-year-old son.
I asked how her husband reacted to it.
"Well," she answered, "to tell you the truth, I don't really trust my husband to discipline the kids."
"Why not?" I asked. "Does he tend to be overly physical?"
"Oh, no," she replied. "He doesn't even believe in spanking."
"So what's the problem?"
"He hurts their feelings."
I looked at her for a moment, sizing up my options, before deciding to go for it.
"Well, actually, that's the idea," I said.
She looked dumbfounded. "No! I mean, you can't be serious."
"Yes, indeed, I'm dead serious," I replied. "Discipline doesn't work unless it hurts the child's feelings. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about causing permanent damage. I'm talking about causing a little pain."
"But why?" she asked, mournfully, as if grieving over shattered illusions.
That such formerly self-evident facts of bringing up children have to be explained to today's parents is why today's children, by all accounts, are less-disciplined than children of any prior generation.
Veteran teachers describe them as "self-absorbed" and "disrespectful." Parents say things like "I'd have never talked to my parents the way my children sometimes talk to me" and "Anything (in the way of corrective discipline) my parents did worked, but nothing I do seems to work for long."
To a great degree, these laments can be traced to parents who are not willing to hurt their children's feelings.
Children are not adults. A responsible adult, when he wrongs someone else, is capable of imposing penance upon himself and prescribing appropriate atonement. If, for example, he insults someone in a moment of pique, he will later feel chagrined and apologize. If he possesses a sufficient conscience, no one needs to tell him to feel bad or beg pardon. He does so on his own.
Not so with children. The younger the child, the more necessary it becomes - when the child does something wrong - that an adult impose penance upon the child and mandate appropriate atonement.
Helping a child understand that he did something wrong usually requires making the child feel bad - as in, hurting the child's feelings.
The "sting" of discipline creates a permanent memory, one that serves to inhibit future behavior of the same sort. Without the sting, the memory will not form - nor, therefore, the inhibition.
The accumulation of such painful memories constitutes what is known as conscience, and a person so endowed is capable of being a functional member of society.
This is the "price" humans pay for the relative protection of civilization. When there are too few such "inhibited" individuals, civilization begins to come apart at the seams.
For 30 years or so, American parents - at the well-intentioned urging of misguided mental-health professionals - have been trying to make children "feel good about themselves."
This anti-scriptural, anti-social notion has corrupted American child-rearing and is now -as a generation of insufficiently inhibited children is attaining chronological adulthood -beginning to corrupt America.
These perpetual children, so corporate leaders often tell me, are generally lacking in a sense of loyalty to their employers. They come to work asking not what they can do for the company, but what the company can do/should do for them. They enter into "trial" marriages, which they abandon the moment reality - that a successful marriage is the hardest secular thing anyone can ever accomplish - sets in.
Jurists tell me that all too often today's young people think breaking the law is a big deal only if they lack the money to hire the best attorneys. This isn't Generation X. This is Generation E, for entitled.
For all these reasons, I wanted to shake this woman and scream, "Wake up! Please, for everyone's sake, wake up!"
Instead, I patiently explained what every prior generation of American parents grasped without explanation.
The question becomes: If it has to be explained, will it ever again be understood?
_________________________________________
Finally, a "draconian," non-spanking punishment by Rosemond when his son didn't do his chores at the right time (it happened in the mid-1970s):
There's a missing paragraph from the last article:
I then take a poll. "What's worse?" I ask. "Imposing a supposedly unreasonable punishment one time and one time only, or fighting the same battle day after day after day after day chastising, yelling, criticizing, complaining, threatening and yelling some more?" Everyone agrees. The latter is far worse.
lenona
at February 3, 2018 8:41 AM
Crid: Patrick, that's it exactly. No, we *mustn't* know. I don't understand your presumption that everyone is fascinated with your interior life.
Translation: "I don't care about your interior life! I don't care so much that I'm going to create post after post after post on this blog to tell you how much I don't care about your interior life!
"And I don't read your posts about your interior life! I don't care! I don't care so much that I'm going to create posts in which I cite your comments about your interior life in exact detail, and then claim I only skimmed those comments."
I take back what I said earlier. Your posts at least provide fodder for my entertainment. I do derive some sadistic pleasure in watching idiots prove they're idiots.
And your meltdowns are absolutely hilarious.
And I was address "you" singular, not "you" plural. You have a very weird fascination with me, even as you vehemently protest you don't. I never meant to suggest that the entire blog is fascinated with my personal life. Just you.
Ben: Have you raised a child?
Oh, I knew that was coming. Momof4 does that all the time.
Make any post that doesn't coincide with her preconceived ideas as to what pristine parenting looks like, or worse, to suggest she did something wrong, is to invite the question, "Are yooooooooou a parent?"
To answer the question, "No." However, I was raised by a parent, and I've got scads of siblings who all raised children. I see what works and what doesn't. And I see which kids turned out better, more confident, capable, well-adjusted and successful.
Even you would concede that being a parent by no means makes you an expert. There are parents in this world who are absolutely horrible by any objective standard we could come up with.
By the same token, not being a parent doesn't mean I couldn't be an expert on it. Nor does it mean I'm wrong about this.
Isab: No. A beating leaves a bruise or a mark. Swatting a kid across the butt with an open hand with two layers of fabric between the open hand and the skin is not a beating. By any definition.
Yes, it is a beating. And you are not an authority and you don't get to define terms. Not even legal terms. The lawyers that get to define legal terms are the ones who sit behind benches in long, black robes. And as I pointed out to Conan, either one will get you arrested for battery if done to an adult.
And your definition is silly. It is entirely possible to be physically abusive to a child without leaving marks.
Conan:
In the case described, a non-violent reaction would have sufficed - i.e., taking hold of the child's hand and gently guiding it away from the hot stove top burner would have accomplished the same result without smacking him.
I'm not sure we were thinking about the same things. I was thinking swatting a child's hand might be acceptable if you see a child lowering his hand toward a hot stove burner and is less than a second from making contact. In which case, that is a rescue response, and entirely appropriate. As would be the case if a child were about to step into the street in the path of a speeding car.
But those responses are also appropriate when dealing with adults. If you and I were standing on the side of a road and you stepped into the street thinking it was safe, not seeing the speeding car that appeared out of nowhere, yes, I would yank you out of harm's way. If it were Crid, on the other hand... (I'm joking, Crid. Don't get your knickers in a twist.)
But somehow, this spanking business changes the rules. Rough physical contact when effecting a rescue from imminent danger, when no other means will suffice, is acceptable, when done to either children or adults.
But while it's not okay to swat an adult on the bottom, when you do it to kids, it's called parenting.
No, it isn't.
Conan: And to flat out state that spanking is beating is to call those who use that as a method of discipline child abusers, or psychopaths.
Oh, give me a fucking break! I'm not calling anyone anything. A psychopath is someone with no empathy or conscience. To say that someone who employs a misguided sense of discipline must be completely without feelings is ridiculous.
As for being child abusers... well, perhaps, although I feel that might be an exaggeration. I assume that these parents do sometimes discipline their children without having to lay violent hands on them. You know, like grounding, taking away their toys, etc.
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 8:45 AM
All the anti-spanking arguments presented here (grounding, self-esteem, etc.) seem to center around children old enough to be reasoned with. What about those children not old enough to be reasoned with? As far as I can tell, no one advocating spanking is talking about spanking teenagers.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 8:49 AM
We use this system of discipline with our children:
It works well; never need to spank them. It is also really easy to learn and to implement.
"1-2-3 Magic divides the parenting responsibilities into three straightforward tasks: controlling negative behavior, encouraging good behavior, and strengthening the child-parent relationship. The program seeks to encourage gentle, but firm, discipline without arguing, yelling, or spanking."
Snoopy
at February 3, 2018 8:54 AM
Conan: What about those children not old enough to be reasoned with?
As I tried to point out in my anecdote about Katie and her mother, there is no such thing as a child who isn't old enough to be reasoned with. Or if there is, it's the kind that doesn't yet have sufficient mobility to get themselves into trouble anyway.
Reason is not something that is non-existent in newly-formed human beings, the magically springs into being on the child's seventh birthday, or whenever.
Even the smallest child has a rudimentary knowledge of actions and consequences. I'm simply pointing out that consequences for children don't have to take the form of laying violent hands on them.
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 8:56 AM
>> Jerry: And I also think there is a difference between an occasional spanking and beating your kids.
>No. There isn't.
>You might consider spanking to be a mild form of beating, but you cannot spank a child without beating it.
That's right Patrick, also, there is no difference between Aziz Ansari and Harvey Weinstein.
There's no difference between anything, and we need spergs like you to tell us so repetitively, 1,000 words at a time.
And lest anyone disagree, they are foaming, snarling, mansplaining, and doing violence.
> Wow. Look at all the defensive parents. "How dare you tell me I didn't raise my kids right when I spanked them!"
Also good, we're all parents who've spanked our kids, just like if I defend speech I dislike or attack policies like police asset forfeiture it means I endorse the speech and am probably a criminal.
you go girl, sperg on you crazy diamond
jerry
at February 3, 2018 8:57 AM
So John Rosemond, when his kid forgets to do a chore,
+ humiliates the kid in front of his friends
+ gets the kid to do the chore right then and there,
+ sends the kids to his room for the rest of the day,
+ makes him go to bed early,
and then tells everyone in his newspaper column that punishments should fit the crime.
Got it. This guy is the child whisperer.
jerry
at February 3, 2018 9:04 AM
I'm not sure we were thinking about the same things. I was thinking swatting a child's hand might be acceptable if you see a child lowering his hand toward a hot stove burner and is less than a second from making contact. In which case, that is a rescue response, and entirely appropriate. As would be the case if a child were about to step into the street in the path of a speeding car. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 8:45 AM
And how do you make those lessons last? How do you make sure a small child thinks twice about doing those things when there is not an adult nearby to initiate a rescue response?
A lecture about physics and death will not resonate with a child. A quick flash back on pain and humiliation might make the connection in a child's often-distracted mind.
I suspect the studies that show spanking to be counter-effective are defining any physical contact as spanking and are not setting age limits. So, we're arguing two different things.
A teenager subjected to corporal punishment is going to have a very different reaction than a small child - with concurrent long-term effects. Especially since it will take comparatively more force to impart punishment to a teenager than to a small child - force akin to abuse.. And there are better ways to discipline a teenager than corporal punishment.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 9:04 AM
That is key Conan. The 'study' and Patrick are mixing two very different things. And that political line out of the author makes it obvious he was doing it intentionally. This is the same as 'studies' that show religion causes violence. To most people that seems quite counterintuitive and unexpected. You look a little closer and you find their sample size for 'religion' is 50% or more of 3rd world Muslims. Well duh! Everyone knows 3rd world Muslims are violent. Doesn't say anything about any other religious group. Same with mixing spanking and beating. Beatings are fairly ineffective. Spankings can be very effective. And they are two very different things.
"Ben: Have you raised a child?
Oh, I knew that was coming. Momof4 does that all the time."
Because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I get you are very emotional about this subject. But did the fact that you and Artemis are on the same side not give you any concern?
As for:
"But while it's not okay to swat an adult on the bottom, when you do it to kids, it's called parenting."
Who told you that? When you do it to an adult it can be sexy. Though getting sexy with a stranger or especially with a kid is a huge no no.
Ben
at February 3, 2018 9:08 AM
Jerry: you go girl
The rest of your post was nonsensical bullshit, not worth responding to, but I have to delightedly point out that it didn't take long for your faggot-hating ass to assert itself.
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 9:10 AM
Silly little man, there's no need to "translate." Tressider did that for years, too. But as she approached middle age, she stopped.
Crid
at February 3, 2018 9:17 AM
Because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I get you are very emotional about this subject.
Well, amused is an emotion, so I suppose I do get emotional about it.
But did the fact that you and Artemis are on the same side not give you any concern?
Not at all. Should it?
Should the fact that Hitler was kind to animals cause all of us who are also kind to animals rethink our position?
Supposedly, Hilter was also a vegetarian (I keep hearing that he was and he wasn't; I don't know, and I don't care.), does that make vegetarianism bad?
No, if you want to talk about whether vegetarianism is bad, you talk nutrition, sustainability, environmental impact, etc. Not about who else happens to be a vegetarian.
Stupid argument. You should be ashamed of yourself for making it. Amy is also on our side.
And trying to shame me from my position by being smug and patronizing isn't going to work. You're the one who has no idea what you're talking about.
Take this little gem of yours, for instance.
The 'study' and Patrick are mixing two very different things. And that political line out of the author makes it obvious he was doing it intentionally. This is the same as 'studies' that show religion causes violence. To most people that seems quite counterintuitive and unexpected. You look a little closer and you find their sample size for 'religion' is 50% or more of 3rd world Muslims.
Oh, really? So, this study that spanking is not effective and may cause harm, is just the same as the studies that show religion is violent by using an unbalanced sample group?
Do you have some kind of proof that this study used an unbalanced sample group? Or is this just wishful thinking because you want it to be true?
Rhetorical question. I already know the answer.
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 9:33 AM
“Do you have some kind of proof that this study used an unbalanced sample group? Or is this just wishful thinking because you want it to be true?”
Uh, proof works the other way round. It is on the people doing the study to show how they selected their data, and how they removed their own biases.
The reason why psychological studies are mostly all cherry picked bullshit is because they almost all rely on subjective interviews.
Amy has a vested interest in believing in, and massaging this sciency tripe into a work product. Her livelihood is based on it. (More power to you Amy but these types of psychology studies are nothing more than a new aged religion.)
Isab
at February 3, 2018 9:48 AM
Isab: Uh, proof works the other way round. It is on the people doing the study to show how they selected their data, and how they removed their own biases.
Uh, no, I was right the first time.
If you want to claim that someone's scientific approach is faulty, then it's up to you to point out the flaws. How they did their sample group is presumably right there in the open, like it is with most scientific studies.
You don't get to say, "Oh, their sample was unbalanced," as if that's a given. If you want to debunk a study, then you have to prove the study was faulty.
The premise that a study was done improperly is not the default position.
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 10:05 AM
>Jerry: you go girl
>The rest of your post was nonsensical bullshit, not worth responding to, but I have to delightedly point out that it didn't take long for your faggot-hating ass to assert itself.
In addition to being a child beater, now I'm a faggot hating ass now.
Sperg on you crazy diamond.
jerry
at February 3, 2018 10:12 AM
Conan:
A lecture about physics and death will not resonate with a child. A quick flash back on pain and humiliation might make the connection in a child's often-distracted mind.
So, because a child is ignorant of the fact that a hot stove burner can harm them, that merits corporeal punishment?
Good to know that not understanding something deserves a beating.
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 10:18 AM
Patrick is needy, but the Super Bowl is going to be great.
Pats by 13. I want Brady to retire. He's probably already out-careered five generations of his own defensive linemen. His wife, who is even prettier than he us, also even has more money. Here's his house. She paid for it, and vacuums all the carpet.
Crid
at February 3, 2018 10:38 AM
The premise that a study was done improperly is not the default position.
Patrick at February 3,
Actually the defalt position of all real science is: Here is my data, here are my methods, replicate my study and prove me wrong.
Isab
at February 3, 2018 10:42 AM
So, because a child is ignorant of the fact that a hot stove burner can harm them, that merits corporeal punishment? ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 10:18 AM
I don't know if your autocorrect is acting up, but your word usage today is off.
"Corporal" punishment relates to physical punishment under law.
"Corporeal" relates to having physical body.
Same root word, but diverging meanings.
And, yes, explaining to a very young child that a 3,500-pound car moving at 30 mph takes so many feet to stop is not going to make them think twice about running into traffic. Hell, grown ups still try to beat the train and it weighs way more than 2.75 tons and can take miles to stop. Remembering that Mom spanked them the last time they ran into traffic will cause them to think twice before running into traffic the next time.
Good to know that not understanding something deserves a beating. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 10:18 AM
Now you're just being ridiculous.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 10:43 AM
Patrick is needy..... ~ Crid at February 3, 2018 10:38 AM
Yeah. I haven't seen him this worked up about anything in a while.
Pats by 13. I want Brady to retire. He's probably already out-careered five generations of his own defensive linemen. His wife, who is even prettier than he us, also even has more money. Here's his house. She paid for it, and vacuums all the carpet. ~ Crid at February 3, 2018 10:38 AM
Even prettier? She'd have to be if she's paying for a $20 million mansion solely on her looks. I mean, he at least has to win a football game or two once in a while - deliver actual results. She just looks good; it's her sole claim to fame, her sole salable asset.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 10:52 AM
...it weighs way more than 2.75 tons and can take miles to stop. ~ Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2018 10:43 AM
Sorry, a 3,500 pound car weights 1.75 tons (US tons).
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 10:58 AM
"Now you're just being ridiculous."
Now? I thought he was ridiculous from the start.
Ben
at February 3, 2018 11:16 AM
and then tells everyone in his newspaper column that punishments should fit the crime.
Got it. This guy is the child whisperer.
jerry at February 3, 2018 9:04 AM
_____________________________________
He did NOT say that. Kindly read this quotation again - I think you missed a word or two.
"I've asked several recent audiences, 'Raise your hand if you think the punishment - in other words, the consequence a child receives for misbehaving - should fit the crime?' Every time, nearly everyone raises a hand, which goes a long way toward explaining why so many of today's parents complain that the consequences they employ don't seem to work, that no matter what they do, their children just keep right on misbehaving in the same exasperating ways."
___________________________________
In other words, he's saying that the punishment does NOT need to fit the crime - that it's better to err on the side of being a little too strict rather than being a little too lenient.
Also, read these again:
____________________________________
"As a child, I was boomed on more than a few occasions. So was every kid in my neighborhood. None of us liked it, of course. But when I talk about such boomings with people my age, we all agree that in retrospect these psychologically incorrect disciplinary events (PSIDEs) eventually proved to be blessings in our lives.
"As one fifty-something fellow recently told me, 'I'd have probably been in prison before I was 20 if my parents hadn't been willing to cause me extreme discomfort when I misbehaved.' And, he added, they never, ever spanked him! He meant psychological discomfort; i.e., they lowered his self-esteem; i.e., when he got 'too big for his britches,' they cut him down to his proper size."
_______________________________
And, what is wrong with what he wrote in 1996?
________________________________
"...After telling this story - as I often do - to a live audience, I ask for a show of hands from those who think my punishment didn't fit Eric's 'crime'; that I had been unjust and despotic. About a third of the folks raise their hands.
"I then point out that precisely because I was so 'unjust,' I never again had to remind Eric to do a chore. One time was all it took.
"I then take a poll. 'What's worse?' I ask. 'Imposing a supposedly unreasonable punishment one time and one time only, or fighting the same battle day after day after day after day chastising, yelling, criticizing, complaining, threatening and yelling some more?' Everyone agrees. The latter is far worse.
"Why, then, are so many parents so reluctant to nip misbehavior in the bud, as I did with Eric? The answer, of course, is that what I did to Eric smacks of what the parent of the '50s might have done. And today's parents have been told - by the Pied Pipers of Enlightened Parenting - that they must not, under any circumstances, rear their children the way they themselves were reared, lest they do irreparable psychic harm.
"And it is precisely because today's parents allowed themselves to be persuaded of this malarkey that they find themselves chastising, yelling, criticizing, complaining, threatening and yelling some more."
lenona
at February 3, 2018 11:26 AM
Conan:
Yeah. I haven't seen him this worked up about anything in a while.
If believing that what it takes to get you through the night, Conan...
Though frankly, I see this as a candid admission that you're wrong and you don't want to admit it. You have failed in every single point you tried to make, so the topic must turn to me personally. You're not going to win that way, but if it gives you satisfaction, I suppose...
I'm not the least bit worked up. On the contrary, I can't remember a time that a topic on Amy's blog has entertained me more.
What fascinates me about this topic is the magnitude of defensiveness this raised. As you yourself pointed out (rather hysterically) the very suggestion that spanking a child is not only unnecessary, but completely wrong, is to suggest that the parents on this thread who spanked their children did a bad thing by their children. It's also to malign the parents of those in this discussion who were spanked as children.
I can see readily why hackles were instantly raised. It is a shame that so many let defensiveness decide their responses than an honest look at the things they might have done in the past.
All Amy had to do was post an article about how spanking children is wrong, and you could see the backs arching, like angry cats, and hear the collective hiss from so many regulars on this blog. It's a very rare occurrence for Amy to post something that meets with such quick and decisive condemnation. And I'm enjoying it immensely. To think I almost decided to go to the movies today.
Conan: Now you're just being ridiculous.
Not one-tenth as ridiculous as your suggestion that because I say spanking is beating your child and wrong, that parents who spank their kids must be psychopathic. There are people who might believe they have the right to lay violent hands on someone else. Unless their motivation is self-defense, they're wrong. But doing so does not necessarily mean psychopathic.
If my comments cause you to believe I am "worked up," then I would suggest you apply that standard to yourself with your "psychopath" comment and let us know what you come up with.
"Oooh, Patrick is worked up! Tee-hee-hee! Giggle-giggle!" On the contrary, I have rarely been more certain that I am on the right side in a debate.
Though I will concede this: yours are the most reasoned attempts to counter this premise. Although that probably isn't saying much, considering the dumb responses this topic has generated. "Oooh! Artemis is on your side! That automatically means you're wrong!"
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 11:40 AM
And I haven't read Noam Shpancer's article yet, but I suspect one reason many working-class parents, in particular, keep spanking is that they can't help but observe all the failures of middle-class parents who wouldn't dream of (gasp!) making their kids CRY by saying "you did something bad, so we're not going to Grandma's." Since spanking also makes kids cry, the parents end up not making kids pay for their actions at all.
Bottom line: If a kid says/thinks "sure, ma, I can live with that punishment," that's not a real punishment, even if it "fits the crime."
"...I’ll wager that you’ve talked yourselves blue in the face, nagged, threatened, and even yelled. You wouldn’t have asked my opinion if any of that had worked. What you haven’t done is confiscate the video game and the cell phone. Well, maybe you have, but then he’s promised to do better (and maybe even done better for two or three mornings) and you’ve given them back. If so, that’s an example of what I call 'trying to stop a charging elephant with a fly swatter' – that is, responding to a big problem with a completely ineffectual consequence.
"If you really and truly want your son to wake up and smell the coffee where his responsibilities are concerned, then I’ll venture that the only wake-up call he’s going to pay attention to is the (a) sudden and (b) long-term disappearance of his devices. His video game disappears when he’s at school tomorrow (in hesitation, all will be lost!), and you confiscate his cell phone as soon as he comes home.
"Then, having obtained his full attention, you inform him that you will restore the devices to his possession when he’s had no problem getting out of bed on school mornings for no less than two straight months. If, during that time, you have to get him up, his two electronics-free months start over again the next day.
"You won’t be the most well-liked parents in the world, but like Fred Astaire said, somethings’ gotta give."
(end)
lenona
at February 3, 2018 11:50 AM
What do you know - Rosemond wrote again about spanking, recently.
"Four sentences into her Wall Street Journal article on recent research into spanking ('Spanking for Misbehavior? It Causes More!' December 17, 2017), the author, Susan Pinker, makes two grievous errors: first, she says that children under 7 cannot master their emotions; second, she says a fair amount of misbehavior on the part of a young child distinguishes him from a robot...
"...I’ve taken a close look at UTA’s study and truth be told have no problem with its basic finding. First, I think most parents who spank make a mess of it and accomplish nothing. Since they accomplish nothing, the behavior problems for which they are spanking continue to worsen. Second, as research finds and common sense confirms, disobedient children are not happy children. So, it makes perfect sense that researchers find that spanking is associated with both increased misbehavior and later mental health problems.
"But that is not an indictment of spanking; not, at least, unless the researcher in question set out intending to malign it. Being a social scientist myself, I can attest that most social 'science' simply finds what the researcher expected, even wanted, to find, meaning that most social scientists are not scientists; rather, they are ideologues.
"In my estimation, the real problem is that today’s parents, by and large, do not know how to properly convey authority. They think authority is expressed by using proper consequences. So, they attempt to discipline by manipulating reward and punishment. That works with dogs, but it does not work very well at all with human beings, the only species with free will. Under the circumstances, behavior problems worsen, parental stress builds, and emotion-driven and therefore completely botched spankings become increasingly likely.
"The conveyance of authority is accomplished via a proper attitude, not proper methods. The characteristics of the attitude in question – calm, confident composure – are universal leadership qualities. That attitude is what causes a child to invest complete trust in his parents, even if they occasionally spank him."
lenona
at February 3, 2018 11:59 AM
Ah thank you lenona, you're right about that, I did misread that.
Regardless, I tend to think this guy is talking through his ass.
> "I then point out that precisely because I was so 'unjust,' I never again had to remind Eric to do a chore. One time was all it took.
I'd have to believe this guy that he never had to remind Eric again, and well, I don't.
> "As one fifty-something fellow recently told me, 'I'd have probably been in prison before I was 20 if my parents hadn't been willing to cause me extreme discomfort when I misbehaved.' And, he added, they never, ever spanked him! He meant psychological discomfort; i.e., they lowered his self-esteem; i.e., when he got 'too big for his britches,' they cut him down to his proper size."
I also find odd that people claim an extreme psychological discomfort or Rosemond's "unreasonable punishment" is any different, or better than a spanking.
I honestly can't think of much worse than a parent laying into a kid and giving them extreme psychological discomfort, or even giving their kid an unreasonable punishment.
(Isn't this how I'm told why many girls grow up with their daddy issues)
Am I supposed to believe that that one time, with that chore was the only time Rosemond gave his kid a punishment he agrees other people might consider unreasonable? I suspect he gave a lot of them out.
Anyway, I'm glad my parents gave me the very rare, occasional spanking, then ever tried to take me down a peg, much less give me any sort of regular psychological discomfort.
jerry
at February 3, 2018 12:01 PM
...your suggestion that because I say spanking is beating your child and wrong, that parents who spank their kids must be psychopathic. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 11:40 AM
You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I never suggested that you argued spanking or beating kids means the parent is a psychopath.
I did make an absurd comment to illustrate the ridiculous-ness of your contention that opposition to your position is rooted in defensiveness (a contention Artemis advanced and with which you readily agreed - "...it's transparent that this is rooted in defensiveness"). People might legitimately disagree with you - no defensiveness involved.
It seems that, once again, a debate with you has devolved into "you said" and "no, I actually said." This is why you're no fun to debate. You don't advance a position and present arguments supporting it, normal give and take. You state your position as unassailable fact and parse opposing posts to find words and imagined meanings to nitpick.
And as far as you being "worked up," I don't really care, but that little throwaway comment did seem to get under your skin. Perhaps you should give that some thought.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 12:07 PM
I don't want to go round and round on this lenona, if you find/found Rosemond's advice helpful, all the more power to you and your kids.
here though
> "...I’ll wager that you’ve talked yourselves blue in the face, nagged, threatened, and even yelled. You wouldn’t have asked my opinion if any of that had worked. What you haven’t done is confiscate the video game and the cell phone. Well, maybe you have, ...
I would agree with him, but wonder why anyone would consider that punishment (the long term disappearance of the phone until behavior changes for the long term) unreasonable.
However, Rosemond should acknowledge the problem really is that in this day and age, taking the phone away really is different than grounding a kid, taking away tv privileges, taking away the gameboy etc.
Because of the way families work (ie separations and divorces), and how teachers communicate, handout assignments and ask questions (email and text), taking away a phone especially for the long term, really isn't viable. You've just removed the kid from his/her other parent (and punished that parent) and made it that much harder for the kid at school.
Setting phone hours though, and removing the phone at say, 8pm to 7am, or even 8pm to 3pm would seem to be a much better idea for everyone.
(If the kid is really young, why the hell does she/he have a phone to themselves at night anyway?)
jerry
at February 3, 2018 12:10 PM
There's some idiot feminist law "the responses to any discussion of feminism justifies feminism", it's similar to Patrick's
> let the foaming, gnashing and snarling begin!
Most people recognize this as a combination of a Kafkatrap and poisoning the well.
Patrick recognizes it as a trump card, just like the sjw's taught him.
jerry
at February 3, 2018 12:17 PM
You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I never suggested that you argued spanking or beating kids means the parent is a psychopath.
No, Conan. You need to work on yours. Or perhaps your short-term memory? Remember this?
Conan: And to flat out state that spanking is beating is to call those who use that as a method of discipline child abusers, or psychopaths.
I have flat-out stated that spanking is beating. I have called it a subset of beating or a mild form of beating. No, I have not suggested that parents who use that "method of discipline" are psychopaths. Nor would I go quite so far as to call them child abusers.
Although whatever nutty head-trip they put themselves through to convince themselves that spanking a child is not beating a child is for a shrink to diagnose. And I am not a shrink.
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 12:29 PM
I also find odd that people claim an extreme psychological discomfort or Rosemond's "unreasonable punishment" is any different, or better than a spanking.
___________________________________
Well, duh, maybe they make that claim because you seldom/never hear too often of ONE spanking solving a particular bad behavior from recurring, and spanking over and over for the Same Crime is a waste of time? Especially since, as I said, a spanking is too quickly over and easily forgotten - except as a reminder not to get CAUGHT the next time? A punishment that lasts a whole day (or longer), as in Eric's case, is more likely to make a kid think "well, maybe I shouldn't risk it at all."
There's even an example of this in "Goodfellas." That is, Paulie was opposed to any of his "family" committing you-know-what crime ONLY because the legal penalties were so much harsher than for other crimes. After all, while they were somewhat skilled in law, they were too dumb not to get caught or killed eventually, so Paulie, at least, stayed away from it. (But, of course, the others were too dumb to stay away, since the money was so tempting - and they all paid for it. Even Henry wasn't exactly grateful about not having to go to jail; he loved the mob life and, as Roger Ebert said: "...the horror of the film is that, at the end, the man's principal regret is that he doesn't have any more soul to sell.")
____________________________________
I honestly can't think of much worse than a parent laying into a kid and giving them extreme psychological discomfort, or even giving their kid an unreasonable punishment.
_____________________________________
And being a little too lenient makes accomplishes something? How? Besides, it's just a gamble if one keeps struggling to be "100% fair" instead of trying to Stop The Behavior.
_____________________________________
Am I supposed to believe that that one time, with that chore was the only time Rosemond gave his kid a punishment he agrees other people might consider unreasonable? I suspect he gave a lot of them out.
_____________________________________
He didn't say anything like that. Read it again. He only said he never had to punish/remind Eric to do CHORES again. There's a big difference. Of course Eric misbehaved in other ways that he thought he might get away with, since they were very different - but again, his parents nipped each one in the bud. Two examples are here, from Rosemond's book "Teen-Proofing":
The first is about bad grades (when Eric turned 11) and the second is about hanging around with "the wrong crowd."
The most important pages are 147-155 (in large type, so don't worry), but you might want to read from 140-159. Some pages are missing anyway, but not the best ones.
__________________________________
Anyway, I'm glad my parents gave me the very rare, occasional spanking, then ever tried to take me down a peg, much less give me any sort of regular psychological discomfort.
jerry at February 3, 2018 12:01 PM
____________________________________
Again, it wasn't all that "regular" with his kids, because they learned (relatively) quickly not to cross EITHER of their parents. See the above link for what happened with his daughter, as a teen. Hint: You'll be a bit disappointed.
lenona
at February 3, 2018 1:09 PM
Anyway, I'm glad my parents gave me the very rare, occasional spanking, then ever tried to take me down a peg, much less give me any sort of regular psychological discomfort.
__________________________________
Obviously, you didn't NEED much punishing - and they knew it. Again, as JR said: "To spank or not to spank is not the question. The question is, does a particular punishment stop the behavior from recurring or not?"
Of course there's such a thing as an overly harsh punishment that backfires and doesn't stop the crime from recurring - so clearly, he wouldn't advocate that either, whether it involved spanking or not.
__________________________________
if you find/found Rosemond's advice helpful, all the more power to you and your kids.
___________________________________
I don't have kids. But I advocate his books because:
1) I don't want to be surrounded by 10-year-old hoodlums when I'm 80, for obvious reasons.
2) If I hadn't read his books out of curiosity when I was much younger, I could easily have been brainwashed by the "common wisdom" that says it's practically abuse to make a kid cry over something, even if the "something" is that the kid wants to eat nothing but candy and soda or wanted to drop out after 1st grade and the parent said no. People who believe that, whether they have kids or not, become part of a very bad disciplinary problem in society.
3) It breaks my heart to see well-educated friends of mine caving in to kids' trends of rude/selfish behavior (such as wish lists on birthdays, mailed out to the "guests") or gross anti-intellectual behavior (such as demanding nonstop screen time from infancy onward, just because their chores and homework MIGHT be done for the day). Even smarter parents who might read his books and think "well, duh, this is all just common sense - why do I need it" could well be surrounded by parents who DON'T have common sense, so they WILL need reminders so as to keep their sanity. They might also have neighbors who would have them arrested for allowing a five-year-old to play in the back yard alone.
4) What Rosemond's enemies seem to have in common is, they're jealous of his and his followers' success with their kids; psychologists resent losing business whenever he encourages parents to solve simple problems on their own instead of hiring a therapist (unlike Dear Abby, who pushed therapy half the time); they typically attack his books in very vague terms; AND they never, ever, seem to come up with any adults who even claim that their childhoods were made deeply unhappy - never mind ruined - by Rosemond's books. (He started writing them in the 1970s.)
5) You don't have to be a parent to remember what YOUR parents would have done in such and such a situation, why some of their tactics were wise while others weren't, and understand which were which. Or to have common sense in general. As Bill Maher said: "Yeah, and I don't have any fish, but I know not to fill their tank with Mountain Dew."
__________________________________
> "...I’ll wager that you’ve talked yourselves blue in the face, nagged, threatened, and even yelled. You wouldn’t have asked my opinion if any of that had worked. What you haven’t done is confiscate the video game and the cell phone. Well, maybe you have, ...
I would agree with him, but wonder why anyone would consider that punishment (the long term disappearance of the phone until behavior changes for the long term) unreasonable.
___________________________________
Because, as he hinted in the Lancaster anecdote, an awful lot of people these days think that it's somehow horribly wrong to punish a kid in such a way that hurts their feelings. They are why he stays in business, when they give up and realize that their methods aren't working with their kids. It's also why he has plenty of enemies. See #4.
___________________________________
Because of the way families work (ie separations and divorces), and how teachers communicate, handout assignments and ask questions (email and text), taking away a phone especially for the long term, really isn't viable. You've just removed the kid from his/her other parent (and punished that parent) and made it that much harder for the kid at school.
Setting phone hours though, and removing the phone at say, 8pm to 7am, or even 8pm to 3pm would seem to be a much better idea for everyone.
____________________________________
You could easily be right on that one, unfortunately. But schools should think twice before making it practically impossible for kids to remove themselves from the temptation of constant instant gratification when so many parents are already struggling to minimize it in their kids' lives. What does that do to their chances for making good grades, after all? Or their work ethic in general?
______________________________________
(If the kid is really young, why the hell does she/he have a phone to themselves at night anyway?)
_____________________________________
The parents at the Arcamax link said the boy is 16.
lenona
at February 3, 2018 1:54 PM
Actually, Patrick, should you care to notice - and you don't - I have enumerated many cases in which it is clear that minor children do not have rights.
So, who cares what you think when you say that they do? It's not an absolute. No, it's not.
Don't cry.
Spare the rod, get a millennial.
Or a Patrick, who seems quite upset about this.
Radwaste
at February 3, 2018 1:58 PM
Regarding what I said in point #2:
Had I not read his books, I wouldn't have been nearly as helpful to friends of mine in making their kids behave - one mother said (verbatim) "what would I do without you?" (She's very well-educated, but she can't even make herself say things like "don't interrupt adults when they're talking." So, I have to say it.)
Though I have to admit that, while I'm lucky if I see them once a year (we live on opposite coasts), so far, she and the father seem to be doing pretty well with their three boys - but they DO give them far more screen time than I would. (On the other hand, a while back, I sent them some good Terry Deary books on history - very funny books - and the two older ones, 10 and 8 at the time, fought over one of them.)
lenona
at February 3, 2018 2:11 PM
“Although whatever nutty head-trip they put themselves through to convince themselves that spanking a child is not beating a child is for a shrink to diagnose. And I am not a shrink. “
I know what you mean Patrick. I had to go through a lot of soul searching and expensive counseling to convince myself that vaccinating my kids wasnt stabbing them, because really fundamentally, there isnt any difference between the two right?
Isab
at February 3, 2018 2:30 PM
Remember this? ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 12:29 PM
Um. Yeah.
I remember it.
After all, I cited it earlier. It was a statement I made to show how ridiculous your assertion that any and all opposition to your argument is "rooted in defensiveness" - transparent you said it was. That the only reason anyone could disagree with you was out of guilt at having committed the sin you're preaching against.
You've allowed no honest disagreement, therefore your argument has taken on the elements of a crusade. You cannot admit any heresy. Your god must be worshipped. Not a good position to be in for a debate. But then, you're not debating, you're proselytizing.
Although whatever nutty head-trip they put themselves through to convince themselves that spanking a child is not beating a child is for a shrink to diagnose. ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 12:29 PM
No, you didn't say they were psychopaths or child abusers, just that they need a shrink to diagnose their disagreement with you on spanking. Because to disagree with you is, ipso facto, evidence of insanity.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 2:40 PM
Isab, that reminds me of Gandhi, who (supposedly) disapproved of Western medicine because it involved hypodermics and scalpels - tools of violence.
But not when it came to his OWN survival. Just his not-so-beloved wife's.
...Recounting how Gandhi refused to allow his wife to receive what would have been a life-saving shot of penicillin for pneumonia (being opposed to modern medicine), Mr. Shenkman informs us that "his wife died, but he still had his principles." He then goes on to throw shade on these principles by detailing all the lifesaving medical help Gandhi later received...(an appendectomy).
lenona
at February 3, 2018 2:53 PM
Lenona, that book is going on my list.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 3:00 PM
Radwaste:
Actually, Patrick, should you care to notice - and you don't - I have enumerated many cases in which it is clear that minor children do not have rights.
No, you haven't. I would have noticed.
Radwaste:
So, who cares what you think when you say that they do? It's not an absolute. No, it's not.
It isn't me who says so; it's the Supreme Court. Perhaps you've heard of them? Tinker v. Des Moines. Maintains that the minor children have the right to free speech. And that they have the right file suit. That's two rights that children have right there.
Try this: have a child, even your child if you have one, arrested for saying offensive things in public. You can't do it. Why? Because they have free speech.
Again, every single time you mention children, you are 100% wrong. You know it. I know it. The whole blog knows it. We're a very knowledgeable group when it comes to how little you know, but pretend to.
But go ahead. I'll be fair. Cite me a court case that says that children have absolutely no rights as enumerated by the Constitution. Go ahead, name one. Show me the court case that says not a single Constitutional right applies to minor children.
Which would imply that a child has the right to property. You cannot steal anything unless it has an owner. Otherwise, it's just something you found; no crime committed.
Gee, but according to you, children have no rights under the Constitution. Not a single solitary one. And I just named three rights that the law obviously doesn't agree with you on.
Guess that makes you wrong, huh, Sean Hannity?
Conan, here's a little thought experiment for you to try, if you care to: define "spanking" in a way that does not include "beating."
I'm dying to hear how you can spank someone without beating on them.
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 3:54 PM
Conan, here's a little thought experiment for you to try, if you care to: define "spanking" in a way that does not include "beating." ~ Patrick at February 3, 2018 3:54 PM
Patrick, you seem unable to grasp (or unwilling to admit while on your high horse) the concept of degrees of difference, as Isab pointed out in her delightfully sarcastic post and as jerry pointed out in his less-sarcastic but equally spot-on post.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 5:08 PM
The only way to discipline a three year old like Kejuan for stealing a cupcake is to let LaShirley and Glenndria spank his butt - and then spank his skull with a baseball bat.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 3, 2018 6:25 PM
Strikes me, so to speak, that the difference between "you did a bad thing" and "You are a bad person" could seem fuzzy to a kid. So if you're going to keep her from seeing Grandma, you have to make sure it's the act and not the person which generates punishment. And be sure the kid knows which is which.
My brother and I fought so much that my mom said that the cops might think we were being abused.
But spanking did straighten us up when we might not have responded to a scolding.
We did okay, college grads. Commissioned officers, he Air Force, me Infantry. Oops, wait. We got turned into war lovers.
Forget it.
Richard Aubrey
at February 3, 2018 6:36 PM
A little background on the case and who was caring for mom's five children while she was in jail.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers
at February 3, 2018 6:36 PM
I wonder where they learned that. ~ Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 3, 2018 6:25 PM
If Patrick had set his argument up along the lines laid out by the author of the article Amy linked, that spanking is gateway behavior (once you've passed the threshold of physical punishment of your child, it's easier to justify using it more often than really necessary) or that abusive parents too often use corporal punishment as a justification for their abuse or that it teaches the other children that corporal punishment is acceptable and encourages them to administer it to younger siblings despite not having learned adult-level self control, that would have been one thing. But that's not the point he chose to argue, the mountain he chose to die on.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 7:25 PM
There is a rational distinction to be made between the broadly understood meanings of spanking and beating.
Spanking is calmly chosen non=injurious corporeal punishment that the child has a basis to expect as the consequence of a choice they have made.
Beating commonly refers to uncontrolled, emotionally driven, injurious actions, and because it's based on the parents' emotional response, it's not predictable to the child.
Spanking is administered for willful defiance knowingly chosen by the child. Beating can happen for lapses, performance failures, etc.
If a child is surprised to be spanked, or is unable to know that they won't be spanked in a given situation, it's beating.
I was spanked, and every time it happened, I knew it was coming. Some of my siblings were not spanked. Every child is unique. There wasn't ANY other punishment that worked with me. Any deprivation punishment that wouldn't be considered abuse or endangerment was like water off a duck's back to me. It wasn't the pain; it was the complete coercive loss of autonomy that I couldn't stand. Eventually, my conscience developed to the point where spanking was no longer necessary, but there are kids who just need it, and I say that as one of them.
My own son is 5, has never been spanked, and I doubt he ever will be. It's not suitable or necessary in his case. If you have a child who responds to timeouts or deprivations, count your blessings. If you have a kid like I was, then you know what I'm talking about.
Our society recognizes situations where violence is justified, and ones where it is not. It's interesting that the blog post made a comparison to guns - even the most ardent opponent of the right to bear arms doesn't want to disarm law enforcement. Although I was spanked, I wasn't violent myself. I learned that our society had criteria for violence being justified and when those criteria didn't apply.
Social scientists love to lecture us on long standing common practices that they claim should be abandoned, but it's noteworthy that all the problems social scientists claim to address have increased in lockstep with the number and influence of social scientists.
bw1
at February 3, 2018 8:27 PM
By the way Patrick, regarding children's rights "under the Constitution" - the Constitution spells out rights which the government is barred from infringing. It limits the actions of government only, so "rights under the Constitution" is not a relevant argument here.
bw1
at February 3, 2018 8:32 PM
"Good to know that not understanding something deserves a beating."
It's odd, Patrick, that when Conan makes an assertion about spanking being more effective at preventing self-endangering behavior, an entirely utilitarian argument, you choose to respond to a morally normative argument that he did not make.
In fact, I think you're the only one in this comment stream to bring up the concept of what is deserved.
bw1
at February 3, 2018 8:51 PM
Patrick's our own private Cathy Newman. His comments about Conan's lobster claws was really below the belt though:
So you're saying everyone ought to be striking their infant children with closed fists?
Crid
at February 3, 2018 9:13 PM
The Royal Navy used to flog its "naughty" sailors, now it just cuts their privileges
Parents need to remember one golden rule
if you say NO you do not change your mind.
Tantrums are a power play for control by children who do not understand the consequences of their actions
Parents are adults and should act like responsible adults not like childish bullies
An adult hitting a child is like a heavy weight boxer hitting you
Graham Palmer
at February 3, 2018 9:50 PM
Conan:
Patrick, you seem unable to grasp (or unwilling to admit while on your high horse) the concept of degrees of difference, as Isab pointed out in her delightfully sarcastic post and as jerry pointed out in his less-sarcastic but equally spot-on post.
You thought Isab's post was delightfully spot on?
Frankly, I never mentioned it because I was mildly embarrassed for her, and found myself thinking that she's ever argued a case before a judge, I could only feel horribly sorry for her clients.
But since you brought it up, let's take a look.
Isab:
I know what you mean Patrick. I had to go through a lot of soul searching and expensive counseling to convince myself that vaccinating my kids wasnt stabbing them, because really fundamentally, there isnt any difference between the two right?
Okay, first, unless Isab has RN after her name, or LPN, or DO, MD, etc., she is not vaccinating anyone. The doctor or the nurse is.
Second, even a child can be made to understand that this is a necessary procedure. It's intended to prevent certain illnesses. The pain of innoculation is a necessary byproduct. The child knows it is not being punished.
Presumably, if the mother is stabbing her child (and I consider it somewhat sick and twisted that a mother would even think about her child in those terms), then the intent is to kill the child.
So, necessary medical intervention to prevent illness vs an intent to kill a child. Not much comparison between the two: One is a necessary medical procedure and compliance with the law which includes very minor pain as its byproduct, only because science has not yet advanced sufficiently to vaccinate against certain diseases without using needles.
The other is an intent to kill.
And I could go on and on about the differences between immunizing a child and stabbing. Parents generally don't subject their child to tongue-lashings when having them immunized; again, it is clear, even in the mind of a child, that this is not punishment.
And why do you need what is so patently obvious explained to you?
Now, let's compare spanking to beating. And the point of my challenge to you (which, by the way, you ran from) is that it is not possible to spank a child without beating it. Look it up in the dictionary.
And since we're on the subject of Isab's embarrassing commentary, you also won't find in the dictionary a definition that includes leaving marks as a criteria for beating. Her self-righteous harrumphing about leaving marks "by any definition," to the contrary.
Now, let's look at the intent between spanking and beating, even though spanking is, at best, a subset of beating.
Why do you spank a child? The intent is to inflict pain. Yes, you try to convince yourself that this is the way to teach the child (even though you know you're wrong and are intentionally deluding yourself), but inflicting pain is the intent.
And this differs exactly how from beating? It doesn't. Again, the intent is to inflict pain. And child beaters, I'm sure, have also convinced themselves that this is the way to teach the child.
So, an intent to inflict pain on the child vs an intent to inflict pain on the child. Hmmmm... Not much difference there, huh?
It wasn't so long ago when using belts or some other form of leather strap to flog a child was considered perfectly acceptable, even appropriate. That is what parents did and were expected to do to disobedient children, with society's blessing.
But don't flatter yourself into thinking you've evolved so much because we've put the belts away. You still think hurting someone is the way to teach them.
An assertion that is easily disproven by the number of parents who have raised happy, successful and productive children without spanking.
I guess you'll just have to resign yourself to the fact that since they know how to discipline without beating, they're better parents than you.
Isab's post was neither intelligent nor spot-on. It was absolutely embarrassing in its insipidity.
Game, set and match to me.
You guys made this way too easy.
Patrick
at February 4, 2018 12:06 AM
> You guys made this
> way too easy.
"Game, set..."
Over 4,501 words worth of "easy," you affirm that you *desperately* want to command this topic. Has anyone who read them changed their mind?
Crid
at February 4, 2018 5:12 AM
Crid says:
"Has anyone who read them changed their mind?"
That is a silly standard for a blog discussion.
When entering into a debate of any kind usually it is impossible to shift the positions of those who have dug in their heels.
Therefore purpose of the discussion is for the observers and not those directly involved.
In this case it would me potential lurkers who aren't actually participating in the conversation.
By definition you would have no way of knowing how many or how few of those minds have been changed.
As for folks like Isab, I have never seen her change her mind about anything. She is one of those people whose cup filled up long ago and there is no room for new thoughts or information.
Her mind has been made up about all things, her mind has ossified through age.
Artemis
at February 4, 2018 6:11 AM
I see a great many excuses for corporal punishment of children and not many justifications.
One excuse that keeps cropping up is where children cannot be reasoned with, therefore corporal punishment is appropriate.
The problem here is that there is no evidence whatsoever that more intelligent children are spanked less frequently than less intelligent children.
What we do see evidence for however is that spanking is positively correlated with parental stress.
In other words... children are spanked more often when the parents are less reasonable.
Reality doesn't appear fit with the excuses being offered. That indicates that those excuses are incorrect.
The data suggests that children are spanked when the parents are less able to reason with the child... not when the child is less able to reason.
Spanking is a failure of the parents, it is the quick and easy way out. The important point here is that proper parenting isn't quick and easy, it is well thought out and rational.
Parents tend to hit out of frustration and/or temporal expediency, this has nothing to do whatsoever with the cognitive ability of the child.
Artemis
at February 4, 2018 6:18 AM
Crid:
Has anyone who read them changed their mind?
Has anyone ever changed anyone's mind on an internet discussion? I've never seen it happen.
When I came to this discussion, every post I had read prior to posting my first comment was transparent defensiveness.
It was all about parents outraged over being told they didn't raise their children right. Or children being told their parents didn't raise them right.
And the irrationality began pouring in. Jerry decided (without looking at a single reference in the numerous footnotes in the article) that the study was done with a biased sampling.
Isab abandoned every standard she ever learned in law school, and decided that it was up those who did the study to prove they didn't resort to biased sampling.
Psst. Isab. If you accuse someone of tomfuckery, you have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. Pre-law 101.
I mean, if the footnotes to reputable scientific
sources are right there. It should be easy to look at the studies and show how they resorted to unbalanced sampling practices.
But Jerry, with the fervor of a southern Gospel preacher, just waves his hands in the air, loudly trumpeting that they obviously relied on unbalanced samplings.
Of course they did. Isab joins the party and decides that they conflated child-spankers with child-beaters. Oh, yes, that must be exactly how it happened.
Of course, no one ever bothered to look at any of the references to actually see that they did this. They just decided that that was how it was done, now it's up to those who wrote this study to defend themselves against completely baseless accusations.
Vehemence is not evidence. Fanatical desperation to believe in something does not shift the burden of proof. Accusations. Still. Require. Evidence.
We clear on this?
I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me how you can possibly spank a child without beating it. I've looked up the word "beat" in the dictionary, and remain convinced spanking cannot happen without beating.
One thing I have noticed is that the arbitrary standards are gradually changing. It wasn't so long ago that school principals kept wooden paddles in their offices. They might have been for intimidation purposes, or for something more.
Mine had one with a baby deer drawn on it, and a bear cub behind it, and the caption read, "For the cute little deer, with the bear behind."
I wonder when we decided that spanking can only be done with an open hand, and only applied through clothing. The dictionary, has not caught up with that, by the way.
Patrick
at February 4, 2018 6:46 AM
I unfortunately wasted my time reading Artemis and Patrick’s comments on this topic. Did not change my mind.
They got spanked in this conversation, like most others.
Abersouth
at February 4, 2018 7:15 AM
Abersouth Says:
"I unfortunately wasted my time reading Artemis and Patrick’s comments on this topic. Did not change my mind.
They got spanked in this conversation, like most others."
Unfortunately for you ~40 years of research is against you.
That 40 years of research isn't sufficient to alter your position even 1 millimeter suggests that you didn't reason your way into the position in the first place.
I believe that I am formulating a new opinion here.
Those most likely to spank children are also those who are most resistant to shifting their opinions in response to new information.
Unlike you, my opinion is backed by meta-analysis and the full spectrum of scientific data available to us.
Your opinion is back by...???
Artemis
at February 4, 2018 7:29 AM
Just to cut to the chase here... exactly what data or evidence would shift the pro-spanking crowds opinion here?
Apparently 40 years of research isn't enough... what data point is needed specifically?
How are the pro-spanking crowds opinions different than a religious belief?
Artemis
at February 4, 2018 7:33 AM
Artemis: Your opinion is back by...???
Their opinion is backed by nothing. That's the problem. Jerry and Isab seem to think that debunking a study simply involves making an assertion about said study, without even looking at it to see if the assertion is remotely fair or even accurate.
Obviously, they combined child beaters with spankers. Obviously, they used an unbalanced sample group, just like the overrepresentation of Muslims in a study of religious people to prove that religious people are more violent.
No evidence for either assertion. They don't need it. Assertion makes it fact, fact, unimpeachable fact.
Patrick
at February 4, 2018 8:03 AM
You two should get a room.
That assertion is a fact.
Abersouth
at February 4, 2018 8:45 AM
You should learn how to handle losing a debate without having a tantrum. I suspect you lose a lot of them.
Patrick
at February 4, 2018 8:57 AM
Already 20% longer than the Declaration of Independence... Today adding a sheet or two of Constitutional Amendments.
I've been persuaded by things on the internet often, and on huge matters a number of times.
Crid
at February 4, 2018 8:58 AM
Lol. I didn’t enter the debate. I merely declared who I thought won it.
Marketing matters. You suck at it Patrick.
Abersouth
at February 4, 2018 9:15 AM
Abersouth: I didn’t enter the debate.
Yeah. You did.
Abersouth: Marketing matters.
Marketing does not change the truth. But it can change peoples' perception of it.
I wasn't trying to market anything. I don't need to. I had the facts on my side.
Patrick
at February 4, 2018 9:27 AM
You’re the most funnest person ever Patrick. Don’t ever change for anybody.
Abersouth
at February 4, 2018 9:48 AM
Patrick: Why do you spank a child? The intent is to inflict pain.
Indeed it is. And that's precisely why, when my dad spanked me for doing something I wasn't supposed to do, I didn't do it again. Pain avoidance is a powerful motivator.
All of my four siblings and I got spanked (my two sisters a lot less than my two brothers & I because they didn't misbehave as much as we did.) I don't see any negative effects with any of them. All of them have gone on to raise ten great kids. The only effect that being spanked might have had on me is the strong dislike I have for being told what to do, but that might also just be a rebellious nature.
If I had ever had kids of my own, I'm not sure what I would have done. Because I don't feel that being spanked had any negative effects on me or my siblings, I think I would've leaned toward doing it, but I may have also chosen not to.
Did I like being spanked? Of course not. But I never thought I was being "abused" and I don't consider "basic"** spanking to be child abuse.
** I think there are types of spanking that would be child abuse, such as being brutally thrashed with a hard object, like a paddle.
JD
at February 4, 2018 11:41 AM
Artemis: The data suggests that children are spanked when the parents are less able to reason with the child...
I'm sure that was true with my parents, especially my father (who was the only parent who spanked us.) He was a good father, and good man, but was a religious conservative and reasoning wasn't one his strong qualities.
In my post above, I mentioned that spanking was effective with me with because I wanted to avoid pain. It's entirely possible that, had my father used reasoning instead of spanking, it would have been just as effective in getting me to stop doing something I wasn't supposed to do. But I don't know that. It's also possible that it wouldn't have been as effective.
JD
at February 4, 2018 11:52 AM
Lenona, that book is going on my list.
Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2018 3:00 PM
________________________________
Assuming you mean Richard Shenkman's book "Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of World History," I should warn you that while I own it and enjoy it, it's NOT one of his better ones. I don't understand why it's written in a Reader's Digest style when his other books are far more intelligent than that.
Others of his I own:
Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of American History
I Love Paul Revere, Whether He Rode or Not (the title is a quotation by someone else)
Ones I haven't seen yet:
One-Night Stands with American History: Odd, Amusing, and Little-Known Incidents
Presidential Ambition: Gaining Power At Any Cost
Political Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics
lenona
at February 4, 2018 12:43 PM
JD Says:
"In my post above, I mentioned that spanking was effective with me with because I wanted to avoid pain. It's entirely possible that, had my father used reasoning instead of spanking, it would have been just as effective in getting me to stop doing something I wasn't supposed to do. But I don't know that. It's also possible that it wouldn't have been as effective."
I do not believe that anyone is arguing that corporal punishment isn't effective at altering behavior.
What is being argued is that corporal punishment alters behavior at a cost to overall well-being and development of the child.
The research doesn't suggest that corporal punishment ultimately fails at getting children to comply with the demands/expectations of the parent. It does suggest that corporal punishment as a means of child discipline is associated with increased aggression, behavioral and mental health problems, as well as reduced cognitive ability.
In other words... parents who use corporal punishment as a means to get obedient children are taking a short cut at the expense of their child's overall wellbeing.
The quick and easy path isn't always the best one long term.
That is what the research shows.
Had your father been better at reasoning things through with you, you might have benefitted from his thought process in terms of *why* he wanted you to do something. That in turn could have assisted your own ability to think through unrelated problems and situations.
When a parent uses authoritarian methods they short change their children of learning how and why they have come to the conclusions they have come to.
There are typically age appropriate explanations to offer that are worlds better than "do this or I am going to spank you".
Artemis
at February 4, 2018 4:04 PM
Patrick, that was beautiful. No sarcasm. Really perfect.
There are very few decisions I regret more in parenting than not avoiding spanking altogether. We minimized it, didn't do it in anger, explained it, etc. - in other words, made all of the excuses people make to rationalize it. But we blew it.
Grey Ghost
at February 5, 2018 6:06 AM
Spankings? Hell, no! Tasers are the answer! Go big or go home!
Jim Armstrong
at February 5, 2018 1:31 PM
Ca-ca del toro.
You're going to have an intelligent, persuasive conversation with a three-year-old about how his behavior is a negative response to his environment? My ass.
Kids are physical. Sometimes you need to communicate with them physically. That's obvious to any nonstupid individual.
With young children you do not just have 1 intelligent and persuasive conversation about a particular behavioral issue. You have many of them on a regular basis until they understand.
With children the process of socializing them isn't about "convincing" them the way you might try with an adult. It is a process of education.
The same way you don't just go over the alphabet with a 3 year old just once and expect them to "get it" the same applies to proper socialization.
The physicality you talk about is just a short cut... it is lazy parenting.
Yes the child might avoid a behavior our of fear of physical pain... but you have taught them nothing about why the behavior should be avoided.
You aren't educating your children this way, all you are teaching them is pain aversion, which isn't a particularly useful life lesson.
The reason it isn't useful is because most living things naturally avoid pain, you have taught them nothing that they didn't already know.
Artemis
at February 8, 2018 6:38 PM
Leave a comment
Beat Your Children Well: The Persistence Of Spanking, Despite The Science.
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com)
at February 3, 2018 6:47 AM
This song always confused me. What car has a back seat that seats eight people? And what self-respecting woman would share a makeout session with a guy and six other women?
Patrick
at February 3, 2018 6:51 AM
Regarding the Nunez memo, for the purposes of this conversation I could care less if its true or false, I just love the hypocrisy of liberals it highlights
To wit:
The government is breaking the law when investigating its citizens
Said liberals in 2003
Said Obama in 2007
Said Snowden in 2013
Said Trump in 2018
Sometimes you glance past a pretty young woman on public transportation and she looks sideways at you like you're a pathetic & skeezy old man and then you realize you've fallen in love.
It's Perpetual Backwards Day At Universities
Students -- in a number of university courses -- are now regularly encouraged not to think; not to question; just to lap up the material like dogs.
Columbia University undergrad Coleman Hughes writes at Heterodox Academy of a Tale of Two Columbia Classes:
As a second-year undergrad student at Columbia University, I've noticed that two of my courses this semester differ greatly. One is an introductory philosophy course called Methods and Problems of Philosophical Thought, in which we read classic papers in the philosophy of mind, identity, and morality. The other course is called Philosophy and Feminism, in which we learn the core principles of intersectional feminism, queer theory, and feminist epistemology.
Leaving aside what is taught, the courses differ greatly in how they're taught. In Methods and Problems, we'll read some philosopher--say, Thomas Nagel--and learn his arguments well enough to repeat them, and then spend much of the class exposing any weaknesses that Nagel's argument might have. We don't hold anyone's views as sacred, or even special. We debate with one another; I even argue with the professor at times. The prevailing mood encourages friendly but lively debate. It's challenging, good-natured, and fun.
Every Monday and Wednesday I leave Methods and Problems and go straight to Philosophy and Feminism where the mood is strikingly different. We read some philosopher--say, Foucault--and learn his arguments, but rarely does a single person even ask a question, to say nothing of making a critique. On the exceedingly rare occasion that a student asks a question that could potentially contradict what's being taught, the professor has a mysterious way of answering without ever suggesting that the argument could simply have a weakness.
Of the seven philosophy courses I've taken at Columbia so far, not a single one has operated even close to this way--philosophy professors are always the first to point out logical weaknesses, strong counterarguments, and alternative points of view, even when they fundamentally agree with the course material. In this class, I got the sense that the professor was wedded to the material, such that a critique of the material would have been synonymous with a critique of her. As hyperbolic as this might sound, voicing a strong pushback against any idea that the Professor favored was nearly unthinkable.
You can't actually can't really question Foucault because it's a big steaming pile of convoluted shit. As is Judith Butler. A Judith Butler quote from a PJ Media piece by Toni Airaksinen:
Judith Butler:
"Gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender creates the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all."
Uh, right.
Fixed it for you, Judith Butler: "Gibberish is not a fact, the various acts of gibberish creates the idea of gibberish, and without those acts, there would be no gibberish at all."
Fortunately, one may reject such arguments and save beaucoup money by not enrolling in such classes, or such universities.
Unfortunately, such thought gets imprinted upon the watery brains of those who choose to do so, and we have to live among such people.
Fortunately, one has the right to tell them, "You're wrong, and you're likely stupid to boot. Here is why."
Kevin
at February 1, 2018 11:35 PM
In an effort to get acquainted with what the cool kids are "into" nowadays, I've watched about a half-dozen Peterson videos in the last week. Most of those hours were lost, forever... Like tears in the rain under the glittering Tannhauser stargate.
Of the seven philosophy courses I've taken at Columbia so far, not a single one has operated even close to this way
I'd be more concerned with the fact that this student is taking seven courses in philosophy. Unless he is a philosophy major, no one needs that many.
I took Intro to Philosophy in college to fulfill a GER and never looked back.
Patrick
at February 2, 2018 2:05 AM
I know more through years of reading, thinking, and going to academic science conferences than I ever would have learned in school. My "science-help" book, Unf*ckology, is a product of that, as is my science-based column.
I started out by reading the big people in psychology and therapy. Not being taught by a professor worshipful of, say, Freud, I immediately saw that he just made shit up.
Because I didn't go through the system and get a Ph.D., (on the advice of Albert Ellis, the late co-founder of cognitive therapy, who was a fan of my column), I am transdisciplinary in a way professors aren't and can't be.
For this book, I didn't understand the brain research I was reading. Okey-dokey -- I read an entire cognitive neuroscience textbook by Michael Gazzaniga (probably the clearest and best writer on the subject) and his colleagues. Next up is a better understanding of endocrinology. That textbook is, as they say, in the mail.
Philosophy is a fine thing to study, thoughtful and demanding, especially if you want to know how it works.
Crid
at February 2, 2018 8:47 AM
What is the last big human problem, existential or otherwise, that philosophy has solved?
Conan the Grammarian at February 2, 2018 6:56 AM
Well Philosphy certainly isnt engineering, but it beats the hell out of feminist theory as a dsicipline for establising a moral compass in life.
The Stoics are back in fashion now. Most likely a good thing.
Isab
at February 2, 2018 8:48 AM
Philosophy is fundamentally about questioning - existence, accepted schools of thought, and anything else upon which our social construct rests.
Feminism is fundamentally about bending everything - physical laws, social structures, economics, biology - to the whim of whatever feminist school of thought is the loudest
Asking a philosopher to justify his or her school of thought is like asking a person to breathe, argument is what they live for. Asking a feminist to justify his or her school of thought is the exact opposite - it's an imposition, it's an insult, a slap in the face.
"Gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender creates the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all." ~ Judith Butler
So, if women didn't have babies, humans would reproduce by mitosis? It's only the act of having babies that make them women; and, by default, divides humans into men and women?
Even if you undergo sexual re-assignment surgery, you spent your formative years awash in the opposite gender's hormone. If you are a man and become a woman, you never experienced the things through a woman's point of view that influence a woman's thought processes and outlook. Same with being a woman who becomes a man.
So, simply saying you identity as the opposite gender and acting like you see others of that gender acting does not make you the opposite gender. Gender is not as fluid as these folks think it is.
And NYC's Baskin Robbins -esque 31 genders are not based on biology, but on actions. Androgyny is a gender to NYC's Commission on Human Rights.
More power to you if you find you were born the wrong gender and make the actual physical switch; but simply putting on a new outfit does not change your gender, no matter how much you want it to.
Gender is not actions, it's biology. And nature is a mother.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 2, 2018 8:55 AM
Philosophy is a fine thing to study, thoughtful and demanding, especially if you want to know how it works. ~ Crid at February 2, 2018 8:47 AM
No argument here about studying philosophy. I'm a fan.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 2, 2018 8:57 AM
> Feminism is fundamentally
> about bending everything
Only the academic kind. The feminists you meet on the street and at parties are excellent folks.
Paglia talks about this in the Peterson video linked above. In the 60's and 70's, English & Lit departments were pressured by external groups to develop courses of study to concentrate on women's writing, theretofore underrepresented in syllabi. A reasonable request, but academic department heads [A.] had no clue, [B.] knew that the money they'd be spending to make the problem go away was never their own and [C.] that nobody would ever call their bluff (because it wasn't nobody's money, either). So bodies were hired to fill offices and lecture podia, whether or not the women knew their way around a typewriter... And here we are.
Crid
at February 2, 2018 10:18 AM
It's remarkable that Patrick knows precisely how many philosophy courses other people need.
Geez, Kevin, tone down on the macroaggressions. The snowflakes will melt away in the face of such hate speech.
I take my cue from the late Florence King, who responded to a POSITIVE review of one of her books with a letter to the reviewer. It began:
You do not know how to write a book review. I do. Here are your faults.
Kevin
at February 2, 2018 11:33 AM
What does one do with a philosophy major?
What is the last big human problem, existential or otherwise, that philosophy has solved?
It depends, if you go the route of the Socratic Method you could end up with writing gigs for the BBC, CNN, or for any of the The Daily Show alumni.
Sixclaws
at February 2, 2018 1:16 PM
Fortunately, one has the right to tell them, "You're wrong, and you're likely stupid to boot. Here is why."
Kevin at February 1, 2018 11:35 PM
_______________________________________
Not in those exact words, I trust. Pointing out the faults in someone's arguments in a sly manner may make that person cry, but at least that person was LISTENING, or he/she wouldn't be crying.
Or, as many have said, "you can blow off steam or change your opponent's mind, but not both, as a rule. Which do you care more about?"
lenona
at February 2, 2018 2:38 PM
What is the last big human problem, existential or otherwise, that philosophy has solved?
_________________________________________
Well, if enough people take "The God Delusion" to heart (and learn not to let their guard down around the dangerous people who don't) we just MIGHT have a better chance at world peace.
lenona
at February 2, 2018 2:40 PM
Or, as many have said, "you can blow off steam or change your opponent's mind, but not both, as a rule. Which do you care more about?"
I'm not particularly interested in changing other people's minds, nor am I big on blowing off steam.
Kevin
at February 2, 2018 2:42 PM
Well, if enough people take "The God Delusion" to heart (and learn not to let their guard down around the dangerous people who don't) we just MIGHT have a better chance at world peace. ~ lenona at February 2, 2018 2:40 PM
Ah yes, those dangerous people who believe in God. Let's blame religion for all the world's ills. It's easier that way; less actual thinking involved.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 2, 2018 5:24 PM
For the record, philosophy has much to do with engineering. It begins with a brutally rigorous appreciation of logic, then goes on from there. Properly approached, there's nothing effete or useless about it.
Crid
at February 2, 2018 8:54 PM
"Ah yes, those dangerous people who believe in God. Let's blame religion for all the world's ills. It's easier that way; less actual thinking involved."
Ask Charlie Hebdo. Of course you were thinking about Baptists, weren't you?
Radwaste
at February 3, 2018 3:09 AM
Of course you were thinking about Baptists, weren't you? ~ Radwaste at February 3, 2018 3:09 AM
Not really. I grew up in the South, around evangelical Baptists, and am not a fan; really not a fan. When it comes to religion, I'm more of a skeptical agnostic.
I was thinking of the knee-jerk tendency in too many people who've proclaimed themselves to be atheists to blame religion for all the world's violence, hatred, and problems. As if, had the world eschewed religion, it would have been a peaceful paradise of enlightenment and tolerance.
These "enlightened" atheists pick the worst of the religious - evangelicals, jihadists, WBC types - and tar the entire religious world with them; loudly and publicly separating themselves from religion with arrogant (and often ignorant) dismissals of religion by characterizing it with simplistic dismissals like "invisible friend" or "superman."
And the rhetoric and delivery of their atheism tells us they're not on a journey of self-discovery, they're loudly and publicly rejecting the belief system of their parents and neighbors. It's teenaged rebellion writ large. Like hillbilly kids who went to college and discovered their parents and neighbors are uneducated and ignorant, they're going to wield their newfound enlightenment as a weapon against the heathens, beating them over the head with it whenever possible.
Religion has, over the centuries, moved the world to many things. Violence and hatred? Yes, but also discovery, charity, and even morality. It has divided people as well as united them.
If you're going to blame religion for all the evils committed it its name, you also have to credit it with the good done in its name. And, yes, there has been good - hospitals, orphanages, charities, universities, etc.
Ask Charlie Hebdo. ~ Radwaste at February 3, 2018 3:09 AM
I know there's a tendency on this site for folks to dismiss Islam as violent and ignorant. But that's actually a fairly recent tendency in the history of one of the world's great belief systems. Islam was at the heart of some of the world's greatest civilizations. If not for the Mongols, it might still be.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 5:09 AM
Islam was at the heart of some of the world's greatest civilizations. If not for the Mongols, it might still be.
Bullshit
Islam conquered some of the worlds greatest civilizations and parasitically fed off them. generally within a few generations enough people in the conquered regions would convert to Islam to avoid the non stop harassment and all higher learning would cease
The Monguls in comparisons were benign taskmasters who generally left you alone so long as you paid tribute
> Or, as many have said, "you
> can blow off steam or change
> your opponent's mind, but not
> both, as a rule. Which do you
> care more about?"
"Many" were wrong. One great tragedy of this age, and perhaps all of them, is that people demand to be flattered for the things they believe or think about, or for any half-cooked daydream they can fit into a sentence.
No; Be *right* about stuff, whether it makes you pretty or not.
Crid
at February 3, 2018 7:48 AM
The Monguls in comparisons were benign taskmasters who generally left you alone so long as you paid tribute ~ lujlp at February 3, 2018 7:14 AM
Mongol destruction of the Khwarezmid Empire set off its conquest of the Islamic region. That conquest deflated Islam's pretension that Allah was on their side and wanted Islam to rule the world.
The Mongols excelled at cruelty in conquering those who did not immediately surrender to them. The conquest of the Khwarezmid Empire left Iraq, Turkey, and Syria wide open to conquest - and later Khans obliged.
Distraught Muslims sought answers as to why Allah had abandoned them and let them be conquered. They found those answers in fundamentalism, reverting back to a more primitive form of Islam than the one then in practice.
Without the conquest of the Khwarezmid Empire (brought about by the stupidity of the shah) and the subsequent conquest of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria, the Islamic world would have evolved differently and, perhaps, not become the morass of ignorance and intolerance it is today.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 8:43 AM
Crid, how do you KNOW it's wrong to say that people stop listening to people who say things they don't want to hear - ESPECIALLY when the speaker is a foul-mouthed boor?
I've never heard any scientific proof that Aesop was wrong when he said "persuasion is better than force." Foul language counts as force, in a way.
lenona
at February 3, 2018 8:48 AM
"If you're going to blame religion for all the evils committed it its name, you also have to credit it with the good done in its name. And, yes, there has been good - hospitals, orphanages, charities, universities, etc."
Okay. Now, where are the Muslim hospitals?
Radwaste
at February 3, 2018 2:01 PM
Okay. Now, where are the Muslim hospitals? ~ Radwaste at February 3, 2018 2:01 PM
Right beside the PLO ammo dumps. But which came first? Today's Islam is still suffering from the reversion to fundamentalism after the Mongol conquest, so its medical knowledge is probably not as advanced as it could be.
However...
Charity (toward fellow Muslims) is one of the pillars of Islam. Under the "rightly guided" caliphs (Rashidun), a percentage of war booty was sent to charities to take care of widows and orphans, to dig wells and build roads in the conquered territories, and to provide for the indigent.
When the Umayyad Caliphate succeeded the Rashidun, the charity portion of the loot was redirected to the Caliph's treasury and giving to the Caliphate was counted as charity.
The Umayyads, however, did begin the process of collecting all existing medical knowledge, translating it to Arabic, and building hospitals to dispense medical care to all who needed it. Hospitals were built across the Islamic world, from the first one in Damascus to later ones in Baghdad, Tunis, Morocco, Cairo, and Andalusia.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 3, 2018 2:56 PM
Well, if enough people take "The God Delusion" to heart (and learn not to let their guard down around the dangerous people who don't) we just MIGHT have a better chance at world peace.
lenona at February 2, 2018 2:40 PM
My problem with "The God Delusion" and the rest of Dawkins' whole shtick is the straw man Christianity he sets up, which is pretty easy to knock down. It's not a book written to help Christians understand Dawkins' version of reality; it's a book to allow his like-minded sycophants to congratulate themselves on their enlightenment.
The publisher of Newsweek and the International Business Times has been engaging in fraudulent online traffic practices that helped it secure a major ad buy from a US government agency, according to a new report released today by independent ad fraud researchers.
It’s all happening in the market for subprime auto bonds, where loans to American consumers with some of the patchiest credit histories are packaged into securities to be sold to big investors. A decade after risky mortgage lending toppled the U.S. financial system, the securities have rarely been so popular. But the collateral behind the bonds is getting less safe: car-owners are increasingly falling behind on bigger loans with longer repayment terms made against depreciating assets.
"The Nunes memo is out, and it is a stunning rebuke of the prevailing Democrat narrative on Trump-Russia collusion. It shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that extreme abuses of authority and bad faith were instrumental in getting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to approve a counterintelligence warrant that circumvents normal 4th Amendment processes for an American citizen.
...There can no longer be any doubt — oppo research was used to weaponize the intelligence collection process on behalf of one American political party against the other during a presidential election.
...Their motivation for such an abuse appears to be that some or all of them shared the feelings of Steele, a British national, who according to the memo told the FBI he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” The preponderance of the evidence now shows us Steele was not the only one who felt this way.
...But we now have clear evidence that yes, Trump associates were targets of intelligence surveillance, using a flimsy partisan pretext that only makes sense if those advancing it from the corridors of government power were filled with a judgment-clouding hatred for all things Trump."
But the recipe that Jinich serves at her home near Washington, D.C., took a detour. Like her Eastern European, Jewish grandparents, it skipped Ellis Island and reached the New World through Mexico. Which is why Jinich's matzo ball soup sits on a bed of steamed mushrooms, jalapeños and onions. It's "not traditional, but it is a recipe my grandmother used to make in Mexico," she says.
Nothing in the highly anticipated memo from the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee impugns the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller. If President Donald Trump had hoped the memo, released Friday, would discredit the probe into Russian influence of the 2016 election, he's wrong.
"Winning"?
Crid
at February 2, 2018 6:47 PM
> "Winning"?
The FBI takes four times a "salacious and unverified" dossier to a secret court to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump associates, and the FBI does not tell the court that the DNC / Clinton campaign paid for the dossier.
Sure, that's a big nothing burger. No abuse of power or bad faith there.
Snoopy
at February 2, 2018 7:22 PM
Six more weeks of winter.
"Up early this morning. Far from home. Are you searching for the Phil-osopher's stone? Well, even my best friends, they don't know. Is it an early spring or just more snow," the proclamation read. "My faithful followers, your hands (and my paws) are getting cold so here is my forecast. Not lead, but solid gold: I see my royal Shadow! Six more weeks of Winter to go!"
A gannet named Nigel has died unexpectedly next to a fake bird that he had been trying to woo for years. Nigel spent years living alone on a remote island off the coast of New Zealand, surrounded by concrete replica gannets put in place by wildlife officers in hopes of attracting a breeding colony there.
Consider What Porn Does To Society!
Well, actually, it's associated with a decline in sex crimes. As Milton Diamond puts it in this 2009 paper:
It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.
More:
Surprisingly few studies have linked the availability of porn in any society with actual associated antisocial behaviors or sex crimes in particular. None have found a causal relationship and very few have even found one of positive correlation.
Against pornography the work of Donnerstein and Malamuth is frequently presented. Citing Malamuth and his colleagues' work, Donnerstein & Linz (1986) and Donnerstein, Linz, & Penrod, (1987) state that a non-rapist population will show increased sexual arousal after having been exposed to "media-presented images of rape," especially when the female victim demonstrates signs of pleasure and arousal.
This exposure, they further claim, may also lead to a lessened sensitivity toward rape, acceptance of rape myths, and increased self-reported likelihood of raping and self-generated rape fantasies. These were their findings from paper and pencil attitude studies with students, not actual behavior research. These classroom studies, both on methodological as well as theoretical grounds have been strongly criticized e.g., Brannigan & Goldenberg (1987) and Howitt & Cumberbatch (1990).
Overall review of the research available at that time, prepared for the Meese Commission found no causal link between sexual material and antisocial conduct. Indeed, as emphasized by Fagan (1985) in his highly critical review of the findings "a deeply divided Commission concluded that pornography 1) was harmless, even of potential therapeutic and 'cathartic' value; 2) had no negative effects on adults or children; 3) was not a social problem; and 4) its production and distribution should be free from any regulation or control (page 3)." A relatively positive review by Pally (1994) of the 1986 Surgeon General's report found similarly.
And about who uses porn...um...
The police sometimes suggest that a high percentage of sex offenders are found to have used pornography. This is meaningless, since most men have at some time used pornography. And as reported by psychiatrist Robert Stoller, "Men's interest in pornography appears to be statistically normal and sado-masochism may be the most popular ingredient in pornography (Stoller, 1986), page 86)."
Findings by Goldstein and Kant (1973) can also be relevant here. These investigators found that rapists were more likely than non-rapists in the prison population to having been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster. And such was by no means common among the rest of the prison population.
In fact, as reported above, the non-rapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age. These investigators also found that what does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing (Goldstein & Kant, 1973). Green too reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of "normal" males (Green, 1980).
"The police sometimes suggest that a high percentage of sex offenders are found to have used pornography. This is meaningless, since most men have at some time used pornography. "
Yeah, that's a logical fallacy known as the "converse fallacy". It's the fallacy of assuming that if X implies Y, then Y implies X. An example that illustrates it is the statement "When it's cold outside, I stay indoors." The fallacy would then state that "When I'm staying indoors, it's because it is cold outside". But obviously there might be reasons other than cold weather why one would choose to stay indoors.
The recent metoo scandals have amply demonstrated that the Lefties who want to regulate stuff like this "for the children" or "to protect women" are hypocrites.
It's alwaysonlyever about expanding gubmint power.
Society's morals are determined by the citizenry, not the gubmint.
Ben David
at February 1, 2018 7:26 AM
"Society's morals are determined by the citizenry, not the gubmint."
You may not believe how big the porn business is... ~ Radwaste at February 1, 2018 8:21 AM
However much money is being made in porn, it ain't the stars making the money.
Ran across that on Real Clear Life a few weeks ago. Interesting, but somewhat prurient, read - possibly NSFW due to word content.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 1, 2018 8:34 AM
Question: from whence came the strange Americanism "to 'use' porn"? Does one also 'use' a movie, a novel or a statue in an art gallery if it has exposed bewbees or other prominent naughty bits? Curious!
The police sometimes suggest that a high percentage of sex offenders are found to have used pornography. This is meaningless, since most men have at some time used pornography.
A high percentage of sex offenders also are found to have eaten food within 24 hours of committing their offenses.
SOMEONE SHOULD LOOK INTO THAT.
Kevin
at February 1, 2018 12:35 PM
Perry de Havilland: Question: from whence came the strange Americanism "to 'use' porn"?
I was wondering the same thing. Is there a difference between "looking at" porn and "using" porn?
Ken R
at February 1, 2018 1:53 PM
Is there a difference between "looking at" porn and "using" porn?"
My evidence-free suspicion is that telling people that some things should not be read or watched makes you vulnerable to criticism on the grounds you cannot form a meaningful critical opinion without examining it.
However "use", which is redolent of anathemised drug use, suggests something is so harmful that you should just take it on trust.
I am not going to "use" PCP or Crack Cocaine on the basis I can't know if it will harm me unless a try it, where as I did indeed read Capital, the Communist Manifesto & My Struggle & pondered them at length, before concluding they were steaming piles of toxic intellectual shit. But I read them, rather "using" them ;-)
Is there a difference between "looking at" porn and "using" porn?"
--------------------------
Well it depends.
When you "look at" porn - how many hands does that take?
As is typical with this sort of news, many of the models were not at all pleased with being out of a job due to the chatterings and pesterings by feminist organizations.
On the #GridGirl hashtag there are various grid girls who are complaining about being out of work thanks to the feminists.
Politicians can get really dumb ideas into their heads. And thus into bills to be voted upon.
So to summarize. It won’t work on multiple levels both technical and constitutional but if it did work it would lead to more of the very thing it is supposed to stop. Sounds like a perfect government program! The only surprise is that the virtue signalling bansturbators who proposed this are Republicans not Democrats, but I guess bansturbation is a cross party interest.
As is typical with this sort of news, many of the models were not at all pleased with being out of a job due to the chatterings and pesterings by feminist organizations.
Ever wonder if #metoo and the fury over sexual harassment isn't just a backlash of high school insecurities, fomented by unrealistic expectations given us by Hollywood and the music industry?
The movies and TV show us only pretty people - pretty person puts on glasses to play the nerd who, by removing said spectacles, is transformed into the beautiful swan.
The music industry gives us MTV-pretty stars with auto-tune and little actual talent singing vapid songs. Martha Wash was labelled "unmarketable" because of her weight, despite singing lead vocals on more hits than most singers will have in two lifetimes (12 number 1 hits). She was left out of the video for "Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)" since she did not fit the MTV aesthetic.
So, the world is taught that, if you're not pretty, forget it. Now, the not-so-pretty ones are getting their revenge. It's revenge of the high school nerds against the cheerleaders.
Harvey Weinstein preys upon the pretty girls who ignored him in high school but now want a job from him. Silicon Valley nerds engage in a hedonistic lifestyle that was beyond their reach in high school but within their monetary grasp now. Nerdy girls get model-pretty girls fired from jobs that pay big money and provide glamour and access to famous racers in return for almost no work.
And the pretty girls are getting their revenge, too. They expected to sleep only with stars and hunks in Hollywood, but the nerds run the show. So, #metoo allows the pretty girls to tank the careers of the nerds who dared think they could sleep with a cheerleader.
We're adults now. It's time to leave high school insecurities behind.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 1, 2018 8:07 AM
The only surprise is that the virtue signalling bansturbators who proposed this are Republicans not Democrats, but I guess bansturbation is a cross party interest. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at February 1, 2018 7:42 AM
To be a politician is to want to limit the type of fun people are allowed to have, while reserving for yourself all types of fun.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 1, 2018 8:11 AM
McArdle.
Always make more dinner rolls than you think you can eat. For some reason, dinner rolls loom much larger in our imaginations than in our stomachs.
What Conan is saying is probably true, but I wanted to leave this comment before reading him closely. I've been a moderately enthusiastic F1 fan for about 10 years, after not having paid any attention to it since I was a little boy. Never in my life have I thought I want to tune into the race today because I know I'm going to see a bunch of girls in their late teens wearing sportswear composed from s***** artificial fabrics and decorated with sponsor logos.
That's my cell phone fixing the spelling.
Mostly grid girls looked like they were having a mediocre time of it… As if they were thinking of the neurologists and financiers who they could have been dating on that perfectly good Sunday afternoon. No drivers or other players have ever given them the slightest attention. Everyone seems to understand that this was a holdover from the [Bernie's] gogo 1960's, as birth control really hit its stride... When middle-aged men who might have served in World War II, or wanted to, suddenly realized that people who look like their daughter's good friends were having a lot of sex which they themselves would never enjoy.
Sociological changes of this magnitude are not from prudery or corporate timidity. No harm, no foul.
See you at Eau Rouge. Be ready.
Crid
at February 1, 2018 8:43 AM
Don't overcomplicate things Conan. #Metoo is the inevitable result of tribal politics. Anyone who cared to know about Weinstein knew. But since he was 'on our side' it didn't get any press time. Note the multiple times reporters submitted articles about his abuses that got stopped by their editors. What changed is there was a conflict in the Democrat party and suddenly Weinstein wasn't 'on our side'. It was ok for some people to report on these things. Once things calm down it will be back to business as usual and the abuse will continue. After all the fundamental forces driving that abuse haven't changed.
#Metoo is the inevitable result of tribal politics. Anyone who cared to know about Weinstein knew. ~ Ben at February 1, 2018 9:39 AM
Weinstein was not running around raping women and exposing himself to women because of politics. His actions may have been covered up because of tribalism, but his unhinged sexual antics were because of his own insecurities.
The poorly-socialized doofus gained power and was determined to have the sex life he imagined the jocks in high school were having and from which he was excluded.
"A wry disgruntlement will forever unite those of us who were children during the height of the nineteen-seventies natural-foods movement. It was a time that we recall not for its principles—yes to organics, no to preservatives—but for its endless assaults on our tender young palates. There was brown rice that scoured our molars as we chewed, shedding gritty flecks of bran. There was watery homemade yogurt that resisted all attempts to mitigate its tartness. And, at the pinnacle of our dietary suffering, worse even than sprout sandwiches or fruit leather or whole-wheat scones, there was carob, the chocolate substitute that never could."
Michelle
at February 1, 2018 11:11 AM
"She was left out of the video for "Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)" since she did not fit the MTV aesthetic."
When Arsenio Hall had her as a guest, he pointed out that many wouldn't know who she was, and said, "Why don't you let them know?" or some such. The mike boom guy yanked the overhead up a few feet because he knew what was coming - her "Everybody dance now!" rang the building.
Deborah Iyall had the same problem fronting Romeo Void. It just wasn't possible to make her into eye candy.
Radwaste
at February 1, 2018 11:41 AM
Never in my life have I thought I want to tune into the race today because I know I'm going to see a bunch of girls in their late teens wearing sportswear composed from s***** artificial fabrics and decorated with sponsor logos.
Maybe this is the only part being seen on Tv coverage, but we are not actually merely decoration. We promote the sponsor, we interact with fans during signings, we represent the brand or team to the public. The Tv only picks up the standing on the grid part!
But.. When it comes to the tech sector, we are stuck with a Monopolistic Competition, or an Oligarchy, depending on which country you are
But in a competitive economy, greed is typically satisfied by making your services better, not worse. To quote a wise Scotsman, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Your local pizzeria offers free bathrooms, delivery service, and fresh ingredients because they know it will give them a competitive edge, not because they love you. Companies know that if they make life worse for their customers, those customers will take their business elsewhere.
Boaty McBoatface and the Golden Palace Casino monkey show how easy it is to hijack online polls.
But I guess you're right. If they want to stay profitable, they just can't skip an entire generation and they have to cater to the crowd that finds a bland show like Friends painfully offensive.
"Weinstein was not running around raping women and exposing himself to women because of politics."
I agree. He did that because he is a scumbag. But there are lots of scumbags out there. Weinstein was protected and defended because of tribal politics. It was tribal politics that enabled his scumbag behavior along with lots of other scumbags for decades. When the tribe split he lost his protection and when the tribe joins again a new group of scumbags will gain it's protection. In the end nothing has changed.
Ben
at February 1, 2018 4:27 PM
I reread your comment Conan.
"The poorly-socialized doofus gained power and was determined to have the sex life he imagined the jocks in high school were having and from which he was excluded."
Prove it.
The guy wanted sex. Simple as that. Nothing complicated. Don't spin elaborate fairy tales about teenage angst or jocks. Guy wanted sex, was able to harass women into giving it to him, so he did. Nothing more to it. He didn't need to be excluded from anything for that to happen.
He did that because he is a scumbag. ... Weinstein was protected and defended because of tribal politics. ~ Ben at February 1, 2018 4:27 PM
That's exactly what my argument said.
Don't spin elaborate fairy tales about teenage angst or jocks. Guy wanted sex, was able to harass women into giving it to him, so he did. ~ Ben at February 1, 2018 4:31 PM
No fairy tales, just some insight from being old enough to have met a few Harvey Weinstein's in my life.
And I'm not the only one who got that vibe off him. Zoë Brock wrote a recollection of her first meeting with Weinstein and got the same vibe.
"Hearing those words the first time I saw, in an instant, an unattractive, overweight kid who never got the girl in high school, and went on to become one of the richest and most powerful men in the world so he could take revenge on the girls who rebuffed him when he was young."
We'll just ignore the incorrect and clunky pronoun usage in Brock's headline (blame an editor for that one).
Conan the Grammarian
at February 1, 2018 6:17 PM
"And again... These are not things that race fans care about."
Hey, you're fond of asking others if they've ever kissed a girl, but have you even been to a race?
At least in AMA, World Superbike and MotoGP motorcycling, yes, the umbrella girls DO hawk products for the sponsors of the race. See here - or perhaps ponder why thousands of images of them are online.
Perhaps you're upset that one of them took your job standing next to a sweaty Marc Marquez and his howling multimillion-dollar prototype, but hey, you get to cluck about denying a woman a job now. Oooh, you're "woke"!
No contest for prizes and feminine attention for you!
Radwaste
at February 1, 2018 6:21 PM
And the apostrophe in Weinsteins earlier was put there by my phone. Damned autocorrect.
Conan the Grammarian
at February 1, 2018 8:13 PM
I have compelling responses to all this, but it's not letting me post them. Trust me, I'm perfectly correct... Surrender your system of belief and move forward.
Crid
at February 2, 2018 12:00 AM
I've met plenty of Weinstein types as well Conan. Scumbag is a common form of human. Many of them were the jocks. Others weren't but didn't have any teenage angst. They wanted something so they took it. Juvenile, uncivil, evil even but no angst against what could have been. I've met very few that actually did have that angsty fantasy thing.
Either way, whether Weinstein dreams of mean cheerleaders or not in a few years there will be another Weinstein doing the exact same thing to the exact same type of people. And the reason he will be able to do that is tribal politics. Weinstein's personal motivations are irrelevant.
Ben
at February 2, 2018 3:55 PM
"I have compelling responses to all this, but it's not letting me post them. Trust me, I'm perfectly correct... Surrender your system of belief and move forward."
Nope.
Or you'd have noticed that the NFL has a cadre of eye candy at each and every performance.
No, Mark Ruffalo, I am not a newborn kitten of a person who needs men to shut up so I can be heard.
I kick ass in any debate because I am smart and funny and rational and -- if necessary -- a fierce bigmouth who won't allow people to push her around.
In this, I am the daughter of the redheaded, Jewish 81-year-old Mohammed Ali of debating -- my mother.
I do try to be polite and listen, but I can get on a roll. When I do, my boyfriend will tell you that the problem isn't giving me space to speak -- but getting me to shut up in between rants so somebody else can talk.
In other words, Mark Ruffalo, you can keep your patronizing bullshit - that is, unless you want to debate me...in which case, you'd better keep that safe space, because you'll need it to recover after I trounce your ass.
...men "have to make a safe space inside of our privilege for women to speak up."
How is having men obligated to keep a safe space for women different from having men obligated to hold doors, an act that feminists say condescends to women?
A true feminist would not have men obligated to do anything to or for women that women are not also obligated to do.
Mary Wollstonecraft did not demand safe spaces and was more than capable of engaging leading male intellectuals like Edmund Burke in furious debate.
Nor did Elizabeth Cady Stanton insist on safe spaces while advocating outdoor activity and a strong academic education for all her children; and equal rights for women.
Conan the Grammarian
at January 31, 2018 7:11 AM
What went wrong between the Merry Wife of Bath and today that there's this pretend belief that women can't speak up for themselves? Oh, right, victim olympics.
El Verde Loco
at January 31, 2018 8:08 AM
Mark would have been correct in 1850 but the idea that men are keeping women from speaking today...eh.
cc
at January 31, 2018 8:51 AM
How is having men obligated to keep a safe space for women different from having men obligated to hold doors, an act that feminists say condescends to women?
I'm not "obligated" to hold doors, but I frequently do for women and men alike.
I also walk on the street side when I'm strolling down the sidewalk with a woman (unless there are alleys and such on the building side), and rise when a woman leaves or returns to the table in a nice restaurant (not at a diner, for instance).
If I ever had a negative reaction to doing so (and I haven't yet), I'd chalk it up to someone else's lack of manners.
Kevin
at January 31, 2018 9:47 AM
So you're saying that you don't like women, or lobsters?
Snoopy
at January 31, 2018 1:42 PM
This is from 1980. While it's possible that the man didn't, in fact, do anything hasty and the woman in the wheelchair WAS just being rude, I think it's far more likely that Miss Manners made a correct guess as to what really happened.
"Miss Manners dearly hopes you will not discontinue helping damsels in distress, and mensels, too, for that matter. Just make sure, before you do so, that they are in distress, helping someone into distress, however courteously, is not a good deed."
lenona
at January 31, 2018 2:10 PM
To clarify: I was responding to Kevin's good manners.
"...There is a reported $7.5 million settlement between Mr. Wynn and his former manicurist, which prohibits her from speaking publicly about her experience. Many working-class and low-income women who never report misconduct are informally making similar deals, on a much smaller scale. Each day at work, they may decide to remain silent about sexual harassment for the sake of their families and their own sense of safety, in exchange for a much-needed paycheck from someone who has astronomical wealth.
"It is exceptionally brave for any low-income woman who speaks out, but there is a reason Mr. Wynn’s accusers have remained unnamed: They do not have a legion of Twitter followers to mobilize around them, or people of power to affirm them, or forthcoming movies to support them financially. Socioeconomic status plays a significant role in their ability to say, 'Me too.'..."
lenona
at January 31, 2018 2:14 PM
Lenona - Miss Manners is right. "Helping" someone who is blind, in a wheelchair, etc. without asking could very well put them in jeopardy. That's not manners, that's basic public safety.
"Would you like some help?" is what a gentleman should say, and be prepared to hear "no."
I guess, taken to the wrong extreme, compassion for those who feel they are disadvantaged or oppressed, political correctness, etc. becomes coddling.
Ruffalo has a good heart and means well. But we're not doing any favors by coddling others based on their demographics. Yes, I'm all for treating people compassionately who need it. But that's based on their individual experiences, not their race, gender, etc.
Patrick
at February 1, 2018 1:58 AM
I always make the women walk on the street side of the sidewalk so I can scan the traffic and avoid our getting pancaked by some idiot driver. It's suicide with me on the street-side.
I hold open doors so I can discretely check-out the merchandise without getting slapped, ticketed or metoo'd. I especially like to hold open the door to Women's Restrooms.
I am Legend.
Jay J. Hector
at February 1, 2018 3:14 AM
Grace Hopper is one of my heroes. Despite the fact that she helped invent COBOL.
Cousin Dave
at February 1, 2018 7:19 AM
Point to CD, because Cobol.
Crid
at February 1, 2018 8:46 AM
I agree, Kevin. She usually is.
lenona
at February 3, 2018 9:08 AM
Leave a comment
Mark Ruffalo Thinks Women Are Men's Pathetic Inferiors .
« Previous |
Home
| Next »
[1.] A few days ago I said Peterson interlocutor Newman worked for British government, meaning the BBC, but apparently she works for a more plainly capitalist enterprise, "Channel 4."
[2.] Yesterday I said that Peterson's #SoYoureSaying fanboys had grown tired of mocking her in the comments to her Twitter postings. They have not... Glory be, they have not.
Crid
at January 30, 2018 11:02 PM
American faces up to SEVEN years in a Dubai prison because he used the word 'b****' in an Instagram story - and his ex-wife reported him to police
"'Most people are unaware that they are likely already in breach of the Cybercrime laws when they arrive in the country,' Stirling said.
Stirling added: 'Under these poorly drafted and arbitrarily enforced laws, visitors can even be subject to prosecution for posts they have shared from outside of the UAE, years before visiting.
'Laws are open to manipulation and abuse by disgruntled partners, friends or colleagues. In the event of a falling out, a criminal complaint can be easily made to authorities.
'Even if the complaint is trivial, it can lead to arrest, lengthy detention, fines, years in prison and deportation."
Meanwhile, in Boston, plans are afoot to do away with middle schools. Grade schools would be mostly kindergarten through eighth grade, with grades nine through twelve at the high schools.
I could get behind that. Like the author of the linked post, I hated junior high. In fact, I have trouble recalling anything I hated more.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com)
at January 31, 2018 10:32 AM
Meanwhile, in Boston, plans are afoot to do away with middle schools. Grade schools would be mostly kindergarten through eighth grade, with grades nine through twelve at the high schools. ~ Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at January 31, 2018 10:32 AM
I used to live it a small town in rural Illinois (for a year) in the fourth grade. That's the way the school was set up there. the town had one school campus. Half of it was for high school and the other half was for not high school.
Conan the Grammarian
at January 31, 2018 11:38 AM
IRA Darth Aggie:
ShoeOnHead has a new podcast: Hepeating.
ShoeOnHead is nice to look at, and I like her views on a number of subjects, but I can't get past her obnoxious, braying voice. She sounds exactly like Nancy McKeon in her role as Jo Polniaczek on the old TV show, "The Facts of Life."
That aside, "hepeating" is the first cousin of "mansplaining," the latest in the feminists movements attempt to demonize men by insisting that there are certain obnoxious behaviors that men only do to women.
Mansplaining is supposedly men explaining something to a woman (which may be something she already knows and doesn't need explained to her) in a condescending, rude manner. Because the feminists just know, know, know that no woman in the history of the world has ever explained something to a man in a condescending and rude manner. Or done that to another woman. And of course, men never do that to other men. They only do it to women.
I mean, it's like women lying about a supposed rape in order to get men in trouble. It's absolutely never happened. No woman would ever lie about rape because it's just too traumatic and horrible.
Hepeating is how men supposedly steal credit for a woman's idea by basically repeating a suggestion that she just made and then getting credit for the suggestion.
Again, the stealing credit for ideas is a regrettably common practice. But the feminists seek to characterize this as something only men to do women; i.e. women never do this to men or to other women, and men never do it to other men.
I somehow wound up on the GOP email list. On the day of the SOTU address I received an email purportedly from Eric Trump, that opened with these lines:
"We’re sick of hearing the media say that our movement is losing support. Today that ends.
YOU can prove them wrong while the world watches my father’s first official State of the Union Address.
The official Donald J. Trump for President livestream of the speech will display the names of all the patriots who chose to make a contribution for the world to see."
The email went on to encourage people to donate $1 to see their names scroll across the TV as a f#ck you to The Media.
Based on the record viewership numbers, I'm going to guess this was a brilliantly effective marketing move.
The Guardian’s new series, the Mother Load, explores why it’s harder to be a mother in the US than in any other developed country.
That's a load, all right.
Kevin at February 28, 2018 11:29 PM
"But who is really to blame here?"
Much of the blame belongs to parents who have children they can not afford. People who have little education and no marketable skills continue to have children they cannot afford to raise.
They insist it is their right to have as many children as they want. But, they don't want to accept that there is a corresponding responsibility to provide a decent childhood for the children.
After three children my wife and I decided that was all we could afford to raise comfortably and so we had no additional children. Personal responsibility is missing from too many people today.
Jay at March 1, 2018 2:03 AM
They are useful daycares for people who work as first responders - nurses, paramedics, doctors, etc. who tend to work rotating and long shifts. Where I live most of the major hospitals have a daycare like that nearby.
Unfortunately, I've also seen cases of divorced parents where dad would happily look after the children at those odd times, but mom chooses to put the children in a daycare like this instead.
Snoopy at March 1, 2018 3:51 AM
But who is really to blame here?
Oh, if only someone could have foreseen that coming to pass.
Oh, wait, lots of us did. It wasn't unintended. That was very intentional.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 1, 2018 6:21 AM
I think you missed what the blame was Jay. Children don't cause people to only work 29hrs/week on two different jobs.
Ben at March 1, 2018 6:21 AM
The Guardian is pretty much a Marxist house organ. They make the New York Times look conservative.
My wife manages medical labs. A lot of the jobs associated with medical lab work, like phlebotomists and couriers, are entry-level jobs for the medical profession, and the bulk of the employees are working-class women with children. Whenever one of them complains to my wife about the high cost of child care, she points out that it used to be that someone in their neighborhood could take in children. But now they can't, due to the burden of government regulations. There's little competition in child care as it is, and almost none in child care for shift workers.
Cousin Dave at March 1, 2018 6:28 AM
Ben. I never said the children were to blame. That is a straw man and attempt to change the subject. If you read my comments I was pointing out that if you have to work two 29 hour jobs just to get by, you shouldn't be having two and three children.
Again it boils down to personal responsibility.
Jay at March 1, 2018 7:19 AM
It's great that these exist.
It is NOT so great that the need for them is growing.
NicoleK at March 1, 2018 7:30 AM
HEads up!
The link to the lady in the Swiss orphanage leads to the Markets in Everything post.
Also when I scroll down everything goes wonky.
NicoleK at March 1, 2018 7:33 AM
That's a big part of it. Government regulated shortages of desired services result in those services only being available during peak times, as there's lower demand during off-peak hours and the limited number of providers don't need to provide off-peak services to make money.
For example, my wife and went to an affair held at San Francisco's City Hall a few years back (pre-Uber). We left at 9:00pm, called a cab service, and were told a cab would be there in "10 minutes." Fifteen minutes later, there was no cab. We called again and were again told "10 minutes." After waiting almost 40 minutes in all, we walked to a BART station several blocks away, in the freezing cold.
San Francisco cabs then were heavily regulated and the number of them kept low so the existing companies would always have customers who needed a cab, ensuring the existing companies would have plenty of customers due to a shortage of suppliers for the desired service. The cabbies, who leased their cabs, made their daily nut during normal business hours and didn't have to work extra hours to pick up additional fares. Thus, people who needed a cab after 6:00pm had a smaller pool of working cabs from which to draw.
Just like daycare. Since the bulk of the demand for daycare (and the money to be made) is during normal business hours and the number of daycare providers is limited by regulation, most daycare providers will choose to operate during those hours. Parents needing daycare for off-peak hours will have a smaller pool of providers.
Uber and Lyft upset the apple cart for San Francisco (and other cities) cabbies. Unfortunately, due to concerns about child molestation, both by parents and those who could be accused, I don't see an Uber for childcare coming any time soon.
Conan the Grammarian at March 1, 2018 8:37 AM
When one of my mentors was trying to talk me into a night job, she told me she would advertise for a college student to sleep over at her house the 3 nights a week she workef, when her kids were young. Its a good solution-theyre basically paid to study and sleep.
A lot of people who make really good money in really good careers, work nights. Most of them, once parents, either work alternate shifts from their spouse, or hire a nanny. But 24 hour faycares are great, not a sign of a war on women.
Momof4 at March 1, 2018 9:15 AM
Sorry about the underlining thing. Gregg is working on fixing problems with the blog.
Amy Alkon at March 1, 2018 9:32 AM
I've never felt more emphatic and decisive. THIS is me at my compelling, attention-demanding best.
Crid at March 1, 2018 9:38 AM
My employer and others in this industry find it difficult to get enough people willing to work nights and weekends. So they pay us night and weekend workers substantially more money. I suppose 24-hour child care services will make it easier for more people to compete for the better paying night and weekend work. That might make me worth less money.
Ken R at March 1, 2018 10:34 AM
Jay, You didn't blame the children. But look at what you were quoting.
"Diana's mother works two jobs because neither employer will give her more than 29 hours of work. By keeping her hours down, the companies can avoid offering benefits that come with full-time employment.
But who is really to blame here?"
The question was asking who is to blame for people needing to work two 29hr part time jobs. Which is why government and employers were the two options presented. Children are completely unrelated. You went off on a nonsequiter.
Either way, site is pretty fubared for me. Best wishes to Greg I guess.
Ben at March 1, 2018 10:58 AM
Government mandates that she get expensive benefits if she works 30 hours or more result in a sudden jump in costs to the employer. So, they hold down costs by denying her more than 29 hours a week.
Writers like Alissa Quart tend to think of that as greedy corporations refusing to pay benefits to hard-working minimum wage employees. But if she's making $15 an hour, getting 30 hours a week means a jump from $435 a week in wages to $450 a week in wages, an increase in costs of $15 per employee per week, and another $160 a week in benefits costs per employee per week (estimated at 35% of gross wages). Multiply that by 52 weeks per year and that starts to add up. Then, multiply it by 100 or more employees, not to mention an HR cost for administering benefits to more employees as well as federal and state reporting requirements and you're looking at a considerable expense.
And if it's simply Diana's mother needing an additional 11 hours of paid work in order to pay for daycare, why is she working two 29-hour jobs? Or does Diana's mother need to upgrade her skill set so she is worth more on the job market?
Perhaps Diana's mother needs a daycare alternative not saddled with expensive federal and state qualification and licensing requirements as well as compliance reporting requirements?
So, yes, who is really to blame here?
I kind of liked it. It made my blog post seem that much more emphatic.
Conan the Grammarian at March 1, 2018 12:19 PM
Personal responsibility is missing from too many people today.
Jay at March 1, 2018 2:03 AM
_________________________________________
Yes, well, there ARE those conservatives who argue, if not in so many words, that "responsibility" means that white, middle-class, native-born Americans "need" to create babies that they often don't even want or could afford only if they moved to a trailer. Because, you know, the birth rate is down, and the last thing we want is more babies from "those people."
Speaking of which:
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-way-we-talk-about-immigration-is-profane/
lenona at March 1, 2018 12:24 PM
Another "opposing the Left is racist" argument. Yawn.
Cousin Dave at March 1, 2018 12:44 PM
Yeah? Name one. And cite the argument made.
Conan the Grammarian at March 1, 2018 12:59 PM
So lenona, saying people should take responsibility for their decisions is racist? What in your world isn't racist?
Jay at March 1, 2018 2:37 PM
Leave a comment