Wow. I had no idea. I have no idea what else to even say.

{ 2 comments }

This should be an easy trivia question.

What modern classic movie used this very theme as a sub plot?

{ 3 comments }

This woman presents a choice: do you take the red pill and have all your comfortable presumptions about sexism challenged, or do you take the blue pill and look away?

(Warning: small amount of potty-mouth.)

Transcript here.

{ 0 comments }

GirlWritesWhat, my new favorite blogger on gender issues, says it’s time to start using different terminology.

I agree heartily. And it certainly gets us out of the “liberal/feminist” versus “conservative/traditionalist” dichotomy, which makes increasingly little sense.

{ 0 comments }

A Lovely Little Tune

by Dean Esmay on May 13, 2012

in Music

Got any others? :-)

{ 0 comments }

OK science geeks, anyone know an answer to this? They’re just questions I’ve ruminated on for some time:

1) If I commit a gross act of entropy generation–say, taking a statue of Venus and smashing it to pieces–and then throw it into a singularity, have I reduced the net entropy in the universe?

2) If Hawking Radiation is real (and it does appear to be), does it not imply that black holes are increasing the net mass of the universe?

3) If Hawking Radiation is real, does it not imply that black holes will continually grow more massive even if nothing else ever falls into them?

(Think before answering these please, especially on the first one, because what may seem obvious to you is not obvious to me or I wouldn’t have asked.)

{ 6 comments }

Even as a Catholic it’s hard not to love the cultural aspects of the (protestant) black Church in America on display here, and to love just how much the black Church here in the US did to advance the cause of civil rights in America. These tend to be very socially conservative people, and the pastor here knows that, and knows how to address it properly: how you feel about gay marriage has nothing at all to do with whether or not you should support a law banning it:

Preach it, brother Barber!

{ 1 comment }

As if City of Brass, Dean 2016, Haibane, Talk Islam, and DW weren’t enough, I’m blogging at Patheos too, now – for their Politics and Faith channel. As the name implies, I’ll be talking about politics from a religious perspective; my first post is about the reaction of Harry Reid (practicing Mormon) to Obama’s statement in favor of marriage equality. Should be fun :)

{ 3 comments }

So Obama has endorsed government recognition of gay unions/marriages. On the other hand, Obama did so in a manner respectful of dissent rather than with anger or contempt for opponents–which as I have told many of my gay rights friendly friends so many times, is the smarter way to go. The more you treat people on the other side of the argument with contempt and impatient anger on an issue like this, the less carefully you listen to and try to understand their arguments, the more resistance they’ll have to your arguments. (Not that I’m always good about that myself, but I try hard to remind myself of it, in this and other contexts).

And no, that does not mean there is never any point in anger. You just have to know when it’s effective, and when it’s not. On this one, lovable and funny people like Ellen Degeneres have almost certainly been orders of magnitude more effective than all the angry and/or self-righteous ranters put together.

Now one also has to wonder at the political calculation behind this. I’ve thought about it for about 24 hours because I could not decide if this was a political risk he was taking, a statement of what he really felt, or a brilliant political tactic. On balance I’ve decided it’s pretty much all three (he is a politician after all). This certainly draws a blazing line in the sand for social conservatives and social liberals. It may endanger him in some swing states. On the flip side, one of his biggest problems is that much of his base is disenchanted with him and there is the very real concern that many of them will not bother to show up to vote for him in November. This alone will motivate many of them to show up, and should enhance his fundraising between now and then. It’s also forced Romney to take a socially conservative position when it’s pretty clear that Romney would rather avoid social issues and talk about the economy. That not only detracts from Romney’s central message, but also makes it harder for him to persuade some voters that he’s really a moderate centrist (which is what Romney wants most voters to think of him as).

It’s certainly in part a ploy, very similar to how George W. Bush came out for an amendment banning gay marriage in 2004 even though any person who knew anything about politics knew the chances of such an amendment even making it to a vote were slim to none. It shored up his base and otherwise meant nothing because it’s an amendment he COULD NOT pass and he knew it. Similarly, there is almost nothing President Obama can do on this issue either, but it helps him shore up his base anyway. So goes politics.

{ 6 comments }

“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.” –Rebecca West

I have long been alternately amused and irritated by that famous quote. Why? Because I find myself relating to it in divided fashion:

For my part, I have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is either. But I do know that people call me anti-feminist, or a misogynist, whenever I question the logic of some self-proclaimed feminists–or express sentiments that differentiate me, as a man, from a doormat.

I began ruminating on this a few days ago upon reading an essay by the (thoughtful, rational, and decent) Willow Wilson entitled How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Feminists. There’s not a thing wrong with that essay, and I highly recommend reading it. Were I to give it a shorthand summary it amounts to, “Angry feminists may sometimes be over the top but there are some real evils in the world and they often serve a necessary function to combat that evil.” OK. I can dig it. (But seriously, read it yourself.)

On the other hand, I’ll be 46 this year, and if I’ve done my math right that means I’m about 16 years older than Willow. That doesn’t give me any special authority or make her viewpoint any less valid—indeed, I’m often wearied by Baby Boomers who obnoxiously tell me my own youth compared to them means I “just don’t understand” certain things that I think I understand very well, thank you very much. But it does mean I remember things she would never have experienced: how men, especially those of us who were boys in the 1970s and 1980s, were often castigated by self-proclaimed feminists for things we didn’t do and had no part of. Or how frequently normal boyish behavior was deemed wrong or evil–and by that I do not even mean things sexual, I mean guy stuff like enjoying professional wrestling, heavy metal music, tinkering with engines or electronics or computers instead of being concerned about the latest emotional goings-on around us, or not being very tidy.

A favorite cliche I remember from my youth that I daresay most men my age will remember: “you’re only messy because you were brought up to have your mother clean up for you and now you expect women to do it for you!” Um, no. First off, she didn’t clean up after me much. My stepfather was the neat freak. Second off, I’m just not a very tidy person thank you very much. I will consistently put up with a greater degree of household messiness than most women, and the proof has been that whenever I’ve lived with a woman who’s gone “on strike” and refused to “clean up after me,” I have obliviously gone on without even noticing. On the other hand, whenever I’m asked to clean something, I simply do so without (much) complaint, because my very male brain says “the female needs this cleaned, thus, I will clean it and she will be happy.” (Note to self: make sure to explore in a later essay just how automatically and unthinkingly most American men will do anything a woman asks just because she asked.)

I remember how frequently we were accused of attitudes we really didn’t think we had. How often we might get accused of misogyny or sexism for just uttering a thought or sentiment that was not deemed Politically Correct by many self-proclaimed feminists–Political Correctness itself being (in part) an invention of self-proclaimed feminists. Or how often we were subjected to double-standards of behavior by women in our age group, who simultaneously demanded utter equality when it suited them, but deference and chivalry when it was convenient. Or how often we experienced–and still experience!–gender discrimination in the workplace today.

I work in a field where women are given preferential hiring status, and fast-tracked for promotion because they are women. I don’t necessarily object to it–in fact I tend to prefer working for female managers over male ones–but I do note that this is a systemic bias that no one seems to care about. And that such systemic biases are common in today’s work world. Discrimination against men, either overt or subtle, is so innate to this culture that it’s either completely invisible to most people until you point it out, or, it’s often considered laudable. Indeed, in many fields, women make considerably more than men the same age do, often even when they work fewer hours. Instead of wondering if that isn’t evidence of at least some level of systemic bias against males, the usual take on that is to laud it as a great achievement.

And if feminism is supposed to be about equality for women in a world that oppresses them, what are we to make of the following facts–all of which I’ll be happy to verify with references if anyone really needs me to–which are all going on right now in modern-day America, circa 2012?

* The vast majority of High School dropouts are male.
* Fewer men now go to college than women, and are far more likely to drop out if they do go.
* Women are now by far the majority of college graduates, a trend that’s been increasing for years.
* Men are by significantly more likely to be the victims of violent assault in their lifetimes than women.
* Men are the majority of the nation’s homicide victims.
* Men are as likely to be assaulted by intimate partners as women are, but are less likely to report it and more likely to be laughed at or accused of wrongdoing if they do.
* The vast majority of prison inmates are men.
* The vast majority of alcoholics and drug addicts are men.
* The overwhelming majority of the long-term homeless population is male.
* The overwhelming majority of victims of work-related injuries are male.
* The overwhelming majority of work-related deaths are male.
* The overwhelming majority of successful suicide attempts are male.

Anyone who has a son, or a brother, or a father whom she loves should find those facts sobering.

And by comparison, while we as a nation are preoccupied with the problem of “Violence Against Women,” as Patricia Pearson noted in her classic book When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence, “Women commit the majority of child homicides in the United States; more than 80 percent of neonaticides; an equal or greater share of severe physical child abuse; an equal rate of spousal assault; about a quarter of child sexual molestations; and a large proportion of elder abuse… The rate at which infants are murdered by women in the U.S. is higher than the rate at which women are murdered by men.” Those facts remain fundamentally unchanged, except for the fact that the (reported) rate of female-on-male violence has been on a steady rise for about 20 years. For her audacity in noticing things like this, Patricia Pearson wasn’t hailed by feminist political groups as a gender-role-busting warrior for equality, for giving women agency by holding them accountable for their actions, but instead was either ignored or attacked by much of the politically-active feminist community. (And if you don’t believe me, ask her.)

A good counterbalance to Willow’s essay, I think, is by the remarkable “Girl Writes What,” a blogger I recently stumbled upon whose work thrills me. She’s a bit over 40 so she remembers some of these things I’ve talking about very well, and can still see how some of it remains active in modern America. She’s by no means a conservative or a right-winger, but she’s still got beefs with modern feminism. To quote part of her Manifesto on Female Agency and Equality:

Under extremist modern feminism, there can be no female autonomy or agency because though we have freedom and opportunity, there is no corresponding expectation of self-sufficiency, accountability, or responsibility placed on women. And there can be no male autonomy or agency, because for men there is only self-sufficiency, accountability and responsibility, while freedom and opportunity is becoming a thing of the past.

If chivalry infantilized women, feminism does the exact same thing. Only instead of running to tell daddy/Sir Galahad about all those horrible brutes who are so very mean to us, we’re supposed to run to daddy government.

But I have news for modern feminism. Some of us just aren’t that interested in feeling like victims. Being victimized is something that happens to people, and is often completely outside our control. But we DO have a choice as to whether we see ourselves as victims, and choose to live our lives as victims, or not. Modern feminism wants me to feel like a default victim. And I am NOT a victim. Victims are passive. Victims are acted upon. Victims lack agency. That’s not the way I will ever choose to view myself, and it saddens me that so many women have been convinced to see themselves this way.

But I suggest reading the whole thing.

I heartily recommend reading her other blog essays. If you like having your preconceptions challenged, you’ll get plenty of that there.

Now one of the problems with Girl Writes What’s writings is her use of the term “feminism.” She offends some people when she uses it, because she writes about it critically. It points to the same problem in reverse with Willow’s article, or really, almost any article I’ve ever read or discussion I’ve ever had with anyone about feminism: nobody can tell you precisely what they mean by it. This leaves a lot of people in a whiplash condition. There are perfectly decent people who don’t hate women and want women to be free to live their lives as they wish who still say they are anti-feminist. But there are others who say, “If you respect women and want women to be free to live their lives as they wish, that makes you a feminist!” Then there will be those who read Girl Writes What, who is critical of feminism, who say “wait a minute, I’m a feminist and I don’t think those things she accuses feminists of!” And they get their feelings hurt.

To close this out where I began: I have never been able to figure out what feminism is, because it appears that no one can agree on what it is, let alone whether or not it is a good thing. If you can’t even agree on what a word means, you will usually get into tailchasing exercises where both parties argue fiercely with each other when it turns out they’re arguing as much or more about what that one word means than they are about the actual issues involved.

So me? I just won’t use the word “feminist” if I can avoid it. It’s a distraction: like the word “socialist,” in the modern English lexicon it has come to mean anything the speaker wants it to mean at the moment they say it, subject to revision at any given moment if their opinions change. I won’t even play with words like that anymore. If you want to even discuss feminism with me, I first ask that you tell me exactly what you mean by that word, and once you do we can discuss that. Hopefully in a mutually respectful way. Otherwise, frankly, I would rather use less emotionally charged terms like “gender equity” or “gender fairness” or “women’s issues” and “men’s issues” or, really, anything other than the damned “f” word that not only makes people angry, self-righteous, confused, or otherwise in a state that makes clear communication impossible.

What do I actually think about men and women? I think men are biologically, psychologically, spiritually, and pragmatically different from women, and vice-versa, although men and women have more in common than not, and no gender label perfectly describes anybody. I think neither men nor women are innately superior as human beings by dint of gender. I think that everybody should have a chance to do whatever they want with their lives, regardless of their sex, so long as they actually have that capability. I think that as much as possible, women and men should be treated equally under the law except in those rare areas where that’s impossible, and in those cases we should strive to make it as equitable as we can. Special treatment should always be avoided wherever possible.

There are those who would call all of that feminism. There are those who would call it the radical opposite of feminism. There are those who’d call it liberal. There are those who’d call it right-wing. And you know what? That’s why I eschew labels when I can. Because what do I call all of that? I call it “what I think.” And I’m open to hearing what you think, so long as you can avoid calling me names or making nasty allegations about my character or motives.

Peace out. ;-)

(This item cross-posted to The Moderate Voice.)

{ 6 comments }

And the Tea Party claims another scalp: Sen. Richard Lugar.

Lugar released a remarkable, lengthy statement after his defeat that cuts to the core of the problem: bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle.

{ 8 comments }

OK, years after the rest of the world, I’ve finally begun using Twitter. Apparently, you can follow me here. Posts to this blog will automatically propagate there, and I may also have a thing or two to add to it now and then.

{ 2 comments }

It appears that there may be a serious safety problem for pilots of F-22 Raptors, and it looks like there’s some butt-covering by the brass over it.

A full PDF of the official Air Force report on the crash of Capt. Jeffrey Haney is available here. The most chilling note, to me, is in the conclusion:

“By clear and convincing evidence, I find the cause of the mishap was the MP’s failure to recognize and initiate a timely dive recovery due to channelized attention, breakdown of visual scan and unrecognized spacial disorientation.”

Thus writes Brigadier General James S. Browne.

You cut off a guy’s air supply, and then you figure he’s at fault for “channelized attention?”

OK, carefully thinking about that, and reading other parts of the report, it seems that there may have been a training issue there; suggestion of the report is that what the pilot should have done was take off his oxygen mask, which would plausibly give him a minute or three of air while he made sure his plane was oriented properly and also worked on getting oxygen restored, but apparently, according to them, he panicked because his airflow was restricted and he felt suffocated, and because of his high speed he had barely a minute to figure out what to do before he crashed, and he was focused on his oxygen mask instead of his plane. Plausibly, this could be fixed in training procedures where you simulate the oxygen mask suddenly stopping and suffocating you, so you can practice whipping it off your face while still keeping the airplane reasonably oriented. I can see that as a defensible position.

But where is the question of whether or not there might be a design flaw somewhere in the oxygen delivery system? You know, even if we didn’t give a damn about human life, those airplanes are worth a few hundred million dollars each, and just in pure monetary terms fighter pilots themselves are pretty damned expensive when you add up how much time it takes to recruit, train, take care of, and pay them, and compensate their families. Even if you do take the “if you signed up to be a fighter pilot you knew you could die” mentality, there doesn’t seem to be much excuse for not demanding a very careful review of the design of the oxygen systems. Not just the maintenance procedures, but the design itself. One unforeseen problem by the design engineer, or manufacturing flaw, plausibly something very simple, could cause something like this. I would think that pilots expressing concern over that would be respected, wouldn’t you?

{ 0 comments }

“I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center.” –Dwight Eisenhower

{ 0 comments }

As events in the European Union continue to make the situation appear chaotic and possibly on the verge of collapse, I can’t help but note this irony:

If the European Union fails, it will be because the political left parties recently swept into power decided to get rid of it, or forced its dissolution.

Funny eh?

{ 2 comments }

Obama Confident

by Dean Esmay on May 7, 2012

in Politics

Time Magazine has a fascinating look at the campaign to re-elect the President. Their basic mantra: “Be confident, but take nothing for granted.”

The President has fairly good reason to be confident. That said, Romney has not yet truly begun the general election campaign. While he is the presumptive Republican nominee, he doesn’t have the nomination quite yet, and cannot afford to take it for granted; if he were to seriously anger any significant portion of the base prior to being given the nomination, it could be imperiled. His nomination, while statistically almost certain, is still not 100% certain (merely very very very close to 100%). If he stays disciplined, he will do nothing to seriously upset the GOP base at least until June. So expect Romney–who has run an extremely disciplined campaign from day 1–to spend most of the next month or two mending fences and shoring up his base. Expect him to fully introduce himself to the general electorate and start working on winning centrist voters around the time he picks a Vice Presidential running-mate and formally accepts the nomination at the convention. Yes, he’s focusing on Obama primarily now, but he’s also not taking a lot of risks as far as that’s concerned.

The Obama campaign plans to be tightly disciplined and smart. But the smart money says that the Romney campaign plans exactly the same. Both candidates should have quite impressive operations put together by August. My prediction would be that you should watch for Romney’s approval ratings to slowly climb as Republicans who didn’t like him start to get behind him, and even moreso as Romney begins working on convincing centrist voters that he’s a good choice for them. Barring unforeseen surprises, I think we can expect a very close election in November.

(This item cross-posted to The Moderate Voice.)

{ 0 comments }

Resolved: If President Obama wins re-election but Republicans wind up with control of both houses of Congress, it will give us a better outcome than the alternatives, because the country seems to function best when the legislative and executive branches are held by different parties.

Discuss.

{ 7 comments }

Awww…..

by Dean Esmay on May 4, 2012

in humor

How to stop a nightmare. My experience is that it works!

{ 0 comments }

May the 4th

by Aziz Poonawalla on May 4, 2012

in movies

Happy Star Wars Day!

I have my own muslim-y take on The Force at City of Brass, of course. :)

{ 0 comments }

I have pretty much resigned myself to the fact that I have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for Obama, but damn, sexist garbage like “The Life of Julia” sure doesn’t make that any easier to do. There are so many things wrong with it I hardly know where to begin.

I guess the art of winning elections is like making sausage, not something you really want to see.

*Update*: Sign of the times, a page-by-page alternative of Julia which lays out conservative ideas, although I don’t know how much that matches up with what Team Romney is actually proposing.

{ 6 comments }

Roku.com-The Little Black Box That Streams Thousands of Films! WordPress MU, WPMU and BuddyPress plugins, themes and support at WPMU DEV Thesis Theme for WordPress:  Options Galore and a Helpful Support Community
traffic stats