PLEASE FEED THE GODDESS!
Goddess Praise
- "Dear Echidne, I read your blog all the time! I love it."
- Katha Pollitt, the Nation
Links
- Alas, A Blog
- Alternet
- And Another Thing
- Angry Black Bitch
- Best of Both Worlds
- Blog Sisters
- Bouphonia
- Broadsheet
- Crooks and Liars
- Daddy Dialectic
- Daily Politics Blog
- Dependable Renegade
- Devil's Dictionary Defiled
- Donna's Place
- Eschaton
- Ezra Klein
- Fact-esque, A Reality-Based Blog
- the f-word
- Feminist Blogs
- Feminist Campus
- Feminist Law Professors
- Feministe
- Feministing.com
- First Draft
- Focal Point (was Majikthise)
- Frogblog
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hecate
- Hello Ladies
- Hollaback
- Hullabaloo (Digby)
- I Blame The Patriarchy
- Informed Comment
- James Wolcott
- Jesus' General
- Katha Pollitt Dot Com
- Kathryn Cramer
- Laura, 11D
- Lance Mannion
- Lawyers, Guns and Money
- The Left Coaster
- Liberal Oasis
- Liberty Street
- Manboobz.com
- Matthew Yglesias
- Multi Medium
- olvlzl
- Orcinus
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Pen-Elayne on the Web
- Pensito Review
- Pharyngula
- Prof. Wombat:Second Opinion
- Prometheus6
- Racialicious
- The Ranting Teenager
- Raw Story
- The Reaction
- RH Reality Check
- Rising Hegemon
- Roger Ailes
- The Rude Pundit
- Shakespeare's Sister
- skippy the bush kangaroo
- slacktivist
- Spocko's Brain
- Steve Bates
- Suburban Guerrilla
- TalkLeft
- TAPPED
- TBogg
- Think Progress
- Welcome to the Sideshow (Avedon)
- Whiskey Fire
- CLICK HERE TO DONATE: PLEASE FEED THE GODDESS!
Archives
- 11/2/03 - 11/9/03
- 11/9/03 - 11/16/03
- 11/16/03 - 11/23/03
- 11/23/03 - 11/30/03
- 11/30/03 - 12/7/03
- 12/7/03 - 12/14/03
- 12/14/03 - 12/21/03
- 12/21/03 - 12/28/03
- 12/28/03 - 1/4/04
- 1/4/04 - 1/11/04
- 1/11/04 - 1/18/04
- 1/18/04 - 1/25/04
- 1/25/04 - 2/1/04
- 2/1/04 - 2/8/04
- 2/8/04 - 2/15/04
- 2/15/04 - 2/22/04
- 2/22/04 - 2/29/04
- 2/29/04 - 3/7/04
- 3/7/04 - 3/14/04
- 3/14/04 - 3/21/04
- 3/21/04 - 3/28/04
- 3/28/04 - 4/4/04
- 4/4/04 - 4/11/04
- 4/11/04 - 4/18/04
- 4/18/04 - 4/25/04
- 4/25/04 - 5/2/04
- 5/2/04 - 5/9/04
- 5/9/04 - 5/16/04
- 5/16/04 - 5/23/04
- 5/23/04 - 5/30/04
- 5/30/04 - 6/6/04
- 6/6/04 - 6/13/04
- 6/13/04 - 6/20/04
- 6/20/04 - 6/27/04
- 6/27/04 - 7/4/04
- 7/4/04 - 7/11/04
- 7/11/04 - 7/18/04
- 7/18/04 - 7/25/04
- 7/25/04 - 8/1/04
- 8/1/04 - 8/8/04
- 8/8/04 - 8/15/04
- 8/15/04 - 8/22/04
- 8/22/04 - 8/29/04
- 8/29/04 - 9/5/04
- 9/5/04 - 9/12/04
- 9/12/04 - 9/19/04
- 9/19/04 - 9/26/04
- 9/26/04 - 10/3/04
- 10/3/04 - 10/10/04
- 10/10/04 - 10/17/04
- 10/17/04 - 10/24/04
- 10/24/04 - 10/31/04
- 10/31/04 - 11/7/04
- 11/7/04 - 11/14/04
- 11/14/04 - 11/21/04
- 11/21/04 - 11/28/04
- 11/28/04 - 12/5/04
- 12/5/04 - 12/12/04
- 12/12/04 - 12/19/04
- 12/19/04 - 12/26/04
- 12/26/04 - 1/2/05
- 1/2/05 - 1/9/05
- 1/9/05 - 1/16/05
- 1/16/05 - 1/23/05
- 1/23/05 - 1/30/05
- 1/30/05 - 2/6/05
- 2/6/05 - 2/13/05
- 2/13/05 - 2/20/05
- 2/20/05 - 2/27/05
- 2/27/05 - 3/6/05
- 3/6/05 - 3/13/05
- 3/13/05 - 3/20/05
- 3/20/05 - 3/27/05
- 3/27/05 - 4/3/05
- 4/3/05 - 4/10/05
- 4/10/05 - 4/17/05
- 4/17/05 - 4/24/05
- 4/24/05 - 5/1/05
- 5/1/05 - 5/8/05
- 5/8/05 - 5/15/05
- 5/15/05 - 5/22/05
- 5/22/05 - 5/29/05
- 5/29/05 - 6/5/05
- 6/5/05 - 6/12/05
- 6/12/05 - 6/19/05
- 6/19/05 - 6/26/05
- 6/26/05 - 7/3/05
- 7/3/05 - 7/10/05
- 7/10/05 - 7/17/05
- 7/17/05 - 7/24/05
- 7/24/05 - 7/31/05
- 7/31/05 - 8/7/05
- 8/7/05 - 8/14/05
- 8/14/05 - 8/21/05
- 8/21/05 - 8/28/05
- 8/28/05 - 9/4/05
- 9/4/05 - 9/11/05
- 9/11/05 - 9/18/05
- 9/18/05 - 9/25/05
- 9/25/05 - 10/2/05
- 10/2/05 - 10/9/05
- 10/9/05 - 10/16/05
- 10/16/05 - 10/23/05
- 10/23/05 - 10/30/05
- 10/30/05 - 11/6/05
- 11/6/05 - 11/13/05
- 11/13/05 - 11/20/05
- 11/20/05 - 11/27/05
- 11/27/05 - 12/4/05
- 12/4/05 - 12/11/05
- 12/11/05 - 12/18/05
- 12/18/05 - 12/25/05
- 12/25/05 - 1/1/06
- 1/1/06 - 1/8/06
- 1/8/06 - 1/15/06
- 1/15/06 - 1/22/06
- 1/22/06 - 1/29/06
- 1/29/06 - 2/5/06
- 2/5/06 - 2/12/06
- 2/12/06 - 2/19/06
- 2/19/06 - 2/26/06
- 2/26/06 - 3/5/06
- 3/5/06 - 3/12/06
- 3/12/06 - 3/19/06
- 3/19/06 - 3/26/06
- 3/26/06 - 4/2/06
- 4/2/06 - 4/9/06
- 4/9/06 - 4/16/06
- 4/16/06 - 4/23/06
- 4/23/06 - 4/30/06
- 4/30/06 - 5/7/06
- 5/7/06 - 5/14/06
- 5/14/06 - 5/21/06
- 5/21/06 - 5/28/06
- 5/28/06 - 6/4/06
- 6/4/06 - 6/11/06
- 6/11/06 - 6/18/06
- 6/18/06 - 6/25/06
- 6/25/06 - 7/2/06
- 7/2/06 - 7/9/06
- 7/9/06 - 7/16/06
- 7/16/06 - 7/23/06
- 7/23/06 - 7/30/06
- 7/30/06 - 8/6/06
- 8/6/06 - 8/13/06
- 8/13/06 - 8/20/06
- 8/20/06 - 8/27/06
- 8/27/06 - 9/3/06
- 9/3/06 - 9/10/06
- 9/10/06 - 9/17/06
- 9/17/06 - 9/24/06
- 9/24/06 - 10/1/06
- 10/1/06 - 10/8/06
- 10/8/06 - 10/15/06
- 10/15/06 - 10/22/06
- 10/22/06 - 10/29/06
- 10/29/06 - 11/5/06
- 11/5/06 - 11/12/06
- 11/12/06 - 11/19/06
- 11/19/06 - 11/26/06
- 11/26/06 - 12/3/06
- 12/3/06 - 12/10/06
- 12/10/06 - 12/17/06
- 12/17/06 - 12/24/06
- 12/24/06 - 12/31/06
- 12/31/06 - 1/7/07
- 1/7/07 - 1/14/07
- 1/14/07 - 1/21/07
- 1/21/07 - 1/28/07
- 1/28/07 - 2/4/07
- 2/4/07 - 2/11/07
- 2/11/07 - 2/18/07
- 2/18/07 - 2/25/07
- 2/25/07 - 3/4/07
- 3/4/07 - 3/11/07
- 3/11/07 - 3/18/07
- 3/18/07 - 3/25/07
- 3/25/07 - 4/1/07
- 4/1/07 - 4/8/07
- 4/8/07 - 4/15/07
- 4/15/07 - 4/22/07
- 4/22/07 - 4/29/07
- 4/29/07 - 5/6/07
- 5/6/07 - 5/13/07
- 5/13/07 - 5/20/07
- 5/20/07 - 5/27/07
- 5/27/07 - 6/3/07
- 6/3/07 - 6/10/07
- 6/10/07 - 6/17/07
- 6/17/07 - 6/24/07
- 6/24/07 - 7/1/07
- 7/1/07 - 7/8/07
- 7/8/07 - 7/15/07
- 7/15/07 - 7/22/07
- 7/22/07 - 7/29/07
- 7/29/07 - 8/5/07
- 8/5/07 - 8/12/07
- 8/12/07 - 8/19/07
- 8/19/07 - 8/26/07
- 8/26/07 - 9/2/07
- 9/2/07 - 9/9/07
- 9/9/07 - 9/16/07
- 9/16/07 - 9/23/07
- 9/23/07 - 9/30/07
- 9/30/07 - 10/7/07
- 10/7/07 - 10/14/07
- 10/14/07 - 10/21/07
- 10/21/07 - 10/28/07
- 10/28/07 - 11/4/07
- 11/4/07 - 11/11/07
- 11/11/07 - 11/18/07
- 11/18/07 - 11/25/07
- 11/25/07 - 12/2/07
- 12/2/07 - 12/9/07
- 12/9/07 - 12/16/07
- 12/16/07 - 12/23/07
- 12/23/07 - 12/30/07
- 12/30/07 - 1/6/08
- 1/6/08 - 1/13/08
- 1/13/08 - 1/20/08
- 1/20/08 - 1/27/08
- 1/27/08 - 2/3/08
- 2/3/08 - 2/10/08
- 2/10/08 - 2/17/08
- 2/17/08 - 2/24/08
- 2/24/08 - 3/2/08
- 3/2/08 - 3/9/08
- 3/9/08 - 3/16/08
- 3/16/08 - 3/23/08
- 3/23/08 - 3/30/08
- 3/30/08 - 4/6/08
- 4/6/08 - 4/13/08
- 4/13/08 - 4/20/08
- 4/20/08 - 4/27/08
- 4/27/08 - 5/4/08
- 5/4/08 - 5/11/08
- 5/11/08 - 5/18/08
- 5/18/08 - 5/25/08
- 5/25/08 - 6/1/08
- 6/1/08 - 6/8/08
- 6/8/08 - 6/15/08
- 6/15/08 - 6/22/08
- 6/22/08 - 6/29/08
- 6/29/08 - 7/6/08
- 7/6/08 - 7/13/08
- 7/13/08 - 7/20/08
- 7/20/08 - 7/27/08
- 7/27/08 - 8/3/08
- 8/3/08 - 8/10/08
- 8/10/08 - 8/17/08
- 8/17/08 - 8/24/08
- 8/24/08 - 8/31/08
- 8/31/08 - 9/7/08
- 9/7/08 - 9/14/08
- 9/14/08 - 9/21/08
- 9/21/08 - 9/28/08
- 9/28/08 - 10/5/08
- 10/5/08 - 10/12/08
- 10/12/08 - 10/19/08
- 10/19/08 - 10/26/08
- 10/26/08 - 11/2/08
- 11/2/08 - 11/9/08
- 11/9/08 - 11/16/08
- 11/16/08 - 11/23/08
- 11/23/08 - 11/30/08
- 11/30/08 - 12/7/08
- 12/7/08 - 12/14/08
- 12/14/08 - 12/21/08
- 12/21/08 - 12/28/08
- 12/28/08 - 1/4/09
- 1/4/09 - 1/11/09
- 1/11/09 - 1/18/09
- 1/18/09 - 1/25/09
- 1/25/09 - 2/1/09
- 2/1/09 - 2/8/09
- 2/8/09 - 2/15/09
- 2/15/09 - 2/22/09
- 2/22/09 - 3/1/09
- 3/1/09 - 3/8/09
- 3/8/09 - 3/15/09
- 3/15/09 - 3/22/09
- 3/22/09 - 3/29/09
- 3/29/09 - 4/5/09
- 4/5/09 - 4/12/09
- 4/12/09 - 4/19/09
- 4/19/09 - 4/26/09
- 4/26/09 - 5/3/09
- 5/3/09 - 5/10/09
- 5/10/09 - 5/17/09
- 5/17/09 - 5/24/09
- 5/24/09 - 5/31/09
- 5/31/09 - 6/7/09
- 6/7/09 - 6/14/09
- 6/14/09 - 6/21/09
- 6/21/09 - 6/28/09
- 6/28/09 - 7/5/09
- 7/5/09 - 7/12/09
- 7/12/09 - 7/19/09
- 7/19/09 - 7/26/09
- 7/26/09 - 8/2/09
- 8/2/09 - 8/9/09
- 8/9/09 - 8/16/09
- 8/16/09 - 8/23/09
- 8/23/09 - 8/30/09
- 8/30/09 - 9/6/09
- 9/6/09 - 9/13/09
- 9/13/09 - 9/20/09
- 9/20/09 - 9/27/09
- 9/27/09 - 10/4/09
- 10/4/09 - 10/11/09
- 10/11/09 - 10/18/09
- 10/18/09 - 10/25/09
- 10/25/09 - 11/1/09
- 11/1/09 - 11/8/09
- 11/8/09 - 11/15/09
- 11/15/09 - 11/22/09
- 11/22/09 - 11/29/09
- 11/29/09 - 12/6/09
- 12/6/09 - 12/13/09
- 12/13/09 - 12/20/09
- 12/20/09 - 12/27/09
- 12/27/09 - 1/3/10
- 1/3/10 - 1/10/10
- 1/10/10 - 1/17/10
- 1/17/10 - 1/24/10
- 1/24/10 - 1/31/10
- 1/31/10 - 2/7/10
- 2/7/10 - 2/14/10
- 2/14/10 - 2/21/10
- 2/21/10 - 2/28/10
- 2/28/10 - 3/7/10
- 3/7/10 - 3/14/10
- 3/14/10 - 3/21/10
- 3/21/10 - 3/28/10
- 3/28/10 - 4/4/10
- 4/4/10 - 4/11/10
- 4/11/10 - 4/18/10
- 4/18/10 - 4/25/10
- 4/25/10 - 5/2/10
- 5/2/10 - 5/9/10
- 5/9/10 - 5/16/10
- 5/16/10 - 5/23/10
- 5/23/10 - 5/30/10
- 5/30/10 - 6/6/10
- 6/6/10 - 6/13/10
- 6/13/10 - 6/20/10
- 6/20/10 - 6/27/10
- 6/27/10 - 7/4/10
- 7/4/10 - 7/11/10
- 7/11/10 - 7/18/10
- 7/18/10 - 7/25/10
- 7/25/10 - 8/1/10
- 8/1/10 - 8/8/10
- 8/8/10 - 8/15/10
- 8/15/10 - 8/22/10
- 8/22/10 - 8/29/10
- 8/29/10 - 9/5/10
- 9/5/10 - 9/12/10
- 9/12/10 - 9/19/10
- 9/19/10 - 9/26/10
- 9/26/10 - 10/3/10
- 10/3/10 - 10/10/10
- 10/10/10 - 10/17/10
- 10/17/10 - 10/24/10
- 10/24/10 - 10/31/10
- 10/31/10 - 11/7/10
- 11/7/10 - 11/14/10
- 11/14/10 - 11/21/10
- 11/21/10 - 11/28/10
- 11/28/10 - 12/5/10
- 12/5/10 - 12/12/10
- 12/12/10 - 12/19/10
- 12/19/10 - 12/26/10
- 12/26/10 - 1/2/11
- 1/2/11 - 1/9/11
- 1/9/11 - 1/16/11
- 1/16/11 - 1/23/11
- 1/23/11 - 1/30/11
- 1/30/11 - 2/6/11
- 2/6/11 - 2/13/11
- 2/13/11 - 2/20/11
- 2/20/11 - 2/27/11
- 2/27/11 - 3/6/11
- 3/6/11 - 3/13/11
- 3/13/11 - 3/20/11
- 3/20/11 - 3/27/11
- 3/27/11 - 4/3/11
- 4/3/11 - 4/10/11
- 4/10/11 - 4/17/11
- 4/17/11 - 4/24/11
- 4/24/11 - 5/1/11
- 5/1/11 - 5/8/11
- 5/8/11 - 5/15/11
- 5/15/11 - 5/22/11
- 5/22/11 - 5/29/11
- 5/29/11 - 6/5/11
- 6/5/11 - 6/12/11
- 6/12/11 - 6/19/11
- 6/19/11 - 6/26/11
- 6/26/11 - 7/3/11
- 7/3/11 - 7/10/11
- 7/10/11 - 7/17/11
- 7/17/11 - 7/24/11
- 7/24/11 - 7/31/11
- 7/31/11 - 8/7/11
- 8/7/11 - 8/14/11
- 8/14/11 - 8/21/11
- 8/21/11 - 8/28/11
- 8/28/11 - 9/4/11
- 9/4/11 - 9/11/11
- 9/11/11 - 9/18/11
- 9/18/11 - 9/25/11
- 9/25/11 - 10/2/11
- 10/2/11 - 10/9/11
- 10/9/11 - 10/16/11
- 10/16/11 - 10/23/11
- 10/23/11 - 10/30/11
- 10/30/11 - 11/6/11
- 11/6/11 - 11/13/11
- 11/13/11 - 11/20/11
- 11/20/11 - 11/27/11
- 11/27/11 - 12/4/11
- 12/4/11 - 12/11/11
- 12/11/11 - 12/18/11
- 12/18/11 - 12/25/11
- 12/25/11 - 1/1/12
- 1/1/12 - 1/8/12
- 1/8/12 - 1/15/12
- 1/15/12 - 1/22/12
- 1/22/12 - 1/29/12
- 1/29/12 - 2/5/12
- 2/5/12 - 2/12/12
- 2/12/12 - 2/19/12
- 2/19/12 - 2/26/12
- 2/26/12 - 3/4/12
- 3/4/12 - 3/11/12
- 3/11/12 - 3/18/12
- 3/18/12 - 3/25/12
- 3/25/12 - 4/1/12
- 4/1/12 - 4/8/12
- 4/8/12 - 4/15/12
- 4/15/12 - 4/22/12
- 4/22/12 - 4/29/12
- 4/29/12 - 5/6/12
- 5/6/12 - 5/13/12
Powered by
RSSify at WCC
ATOM Feed
OPINIONS OF ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES,
A MINOR GREEK GODDESS.
She can be reached at:
ECHIDNE-OF-THE-SNAKES.COM
Thursday, May 10, 2012
The Catholic Church And Girls
Just lumping together two probably unrelated pieces of news. One has to do with the war the Catholic Bishops here have declared against Girl Scouts. Or, if you prefer, mere scrutiny rather than war. The other is specific to one Catholic school: All second baseman Paige Sultzbach wanted to do was play in her school's state championship baseball game tonight.The latter is more about fundamentalist religions in general. For some odd reason they are always about controlling the wimminz. |
More Mummy/Mommy Wars! They Sell Magazines!
The Time did so well with the women-really-want-to-be-spanked issue that they've now expanded into a fight over attachment mothering. I haven't read the stories yet. All I have is the above cover photo (for the United States issue). And clearly there is much to be written about the whole topic, much. But most of it is smoke and mirrors, from a feminist point of view, however significant it might be from cultural etc points of view. So lets wave away the smoke and cover the mirrors and look at what remains: First, the "guru": In a feature on the not-at-all-incendiary subject of “why attachment parenting drives some mothers to extremes,” writer Kate Pickert takes on motherhood and its “guru,” attachment parenting author William Sears. Note anything interesting about this "guru?" It's the same thing which is true of other famous people in child-rearing advice. He is a man. All the famous people advocating particular ways of bringing up children have been men, even though it is women who are expected to follow the recommended scenarios. Now, why would I be disturbed by that? Imagine a reversal. Say, a woman with no military experience telling men how to wage wars, and all men are obeying her dictates without any of them asking what she knows about wars. Second, the impact of defining mothering as an all-exhaustive occupation, consisting of attachment mothering, home-schooling and the impossibility of combining good mothering with work outside the home? What does it mean for the equality of women and men, in general? What roles would be possible for women with children under that scenario? And how could any woman with few material resources ever be a "good" mother, if that concept is defined by standards such as these? If this is the road we take then feminism should look completely different, as I have written before. Laws against gender discrimination at work and in education and such would not help mothers. Third, the mummy/mommy wars. They are not parent wars. They are not daddy wars. The people fighting in the arenas are women only, and the rest of the society are not expected to feel any responsibility for what might be going on there. Pass the pop corn! Indeed, all these three points have to do with the gendered division of labor in child-rearing: Who gets to define the "right" practices, who gets to carry them out in practice, and who gets to watch and criticize. |
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
My Annual Fund-Raising Campaign
Begins tomorrow. The idea is to get my yearly blogging costs covered, at least when it comes to actual financial costs. The opportunity costs of my time I mostly donate to the cause. Well, completely donate to the cause. You can use the PayPal button on the blog to donate. Any amount is appreciated. Don't give if you have little. Just send warm thoughts in that case. |
Conclusions In Search Of Evidence
This statement by Paul Krugman applies to a whole bunch of theories and arguments: More on the structural unemployment thing. As Mike Konczal points out, there’s something clearly obsessive about the desire to tell a structural story. It’s not just that people keep coming up with new arguments after each successive argument is shot down by the data; it’s the fact that it’s the same people who keep coming up with new arguments, strongly suggesting that they really want to believe it’s structural, and won’t take no for an answer. Read about the history of the attempts to prove women intellectually inferior in various ways, and you face the same thing. The conclusions remain, even if specific theories are proven false. New theories just take their place right away. Thus, we move from women's smaller brains (though not all have moved away from that one!) to which half of the brain each sex might use more to gray matter or white matter to blood flow in the brain to PET scan images and on and on. Whenever a particular theory has been shown false another theory takes its place and the game continues. Because it is the game which matters, not the particular theories. Or rather, those who pursue that game are firmly convinced of the correctness of their conclusions. All that remains to be found is that missing evidence. If this piece won't do, then keep searching! You might argue that these games are to some extent symmetrical, and in Krugman's example they might be among some economists. But in my example they are not. One side always plays attack, the other side plays defense. |
On Obama's Same-Sex Marriage Statement
I think it's the right thing to do, of course. What motivated the statement at this point in time could be worth pondering over. My guess is that Obama needs the youth vote and something of this sort is needed to get the young voters energized. At the same time, those who are firmly opposed to same-sex marriage would most likely not vote for Obama in the first place, because of the other opinions which are bundled with that opposition. Still, all this is pure guessing. |
Meanwhile, in Kansas, Providers' Beliefs Are Protected, Women Are Not
Kansas has that wonderful governor Sam Brownback, our very own Talibani. I'm sure that he will be glad to sign a bill just passed in the Kansas Senate: A bill giving more legal protection to Kansas health care providers who refuse to participate in abortions was on its way Wednesday to Gov. Sam Brownback, despite concerns it would limit access to birth control and allow some professionals to block life-saving care.A long time ago I read a novel in which a woman was allowed to die of cancer without treatment (not even pain killers) because she was pregnant. It was a frightening read for a young goddess because it hammered home the principle of women's unimportance as people in themselves. But when I had finished the book I could tell myself that it was just fiction. Now? Not so sure anymore, though I hope that this law will not be applied to pregnant women with cancer. But this is the part which smells truly off: Furthermore, critics said, patients wouldn’t know about a provider’s moral objections until the provider refused to provide treatment or dispense a drug – and the provider wouldn’t have to refer the patient elsewhere.If this is the case then patients would essentially be trapped. It's like not listing the additives in some food item in the stores. At a minimum, all providers should be required to list their beliefs openly so that prospective patients can find a provider they are comfortable with. This is not about protecting the providers' beliefs. This is about forcing those beliefs on patients who may not hold the same beliefs. How come do we get these kinds of laws only about abortions? Logic requires that they should apply to all ethical and religious dilemmas in health care. Thus, physicians who are Jehovah's Witnesses should be able to refuse to provide blood transfusions or stay silent about their advisability without anything bad happening to them. And so on. |
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Fun With David Brooks
I haven't written about Brooks for a while. I forgot how hilariously he writes. His schtick is to zoom right in with a very assertive assertion, demanding that it be taken for truth. Then he builds sand castles on that assertion. That's what his most recent macroeconomic column does. It begins with the assertion of two-types-of-people: The country is divided when different people take different sides in a debate. The country is really divided when different people are having entirely different debates. That’s what’s happening on economic policy.Quite lovely! Except for the fact that the two-types-of-people Brooks creates are his creations: Just in case you thought that the failure of austerity in the United Kingdom and across the euro zone, and its rejection by voters in France and Greece, might be cause for changing course, David Brooks has a column to tell us otherwise. He says that there are two different arguments going on over economic policy which unfortunately don't intersect. Brooks loves to form imaginary groups of people in his columns! He does that often. He also puts opinions into the mouths of his imaginary groups and then tells us how the country (according to the creator Brooks) thinks on various issues by moving the lips of his puppets. Thus, we get the small-town-good-Murkans who are conservatives and care about their families and really know what Murka is all about, and we get the uppity latte-sipping rich people in the east coast ivory towers who know nothing about Murka. Brooks sets such groups against each other and then interprets the outcomes to his readers. That the groups are not real or at least omit many other groups is irrelevant. They are used from the other end: To support the conclusions Brooks wants to reach. And in this case the conclusion (once again, not based on any empirical proof) is this: But you can only mask structural problems for so long. The whole thing has gone kablooey. The current model, in which we try to compensate for structural economic weakness with tax cuts and an unsustainable welfare state, simply cannot last. The old model is broken. The jig is up. Just in case you didn't get that yet, Brooks repeats it: Make no mistake, the old economic and welfare state model is unsustainable. The cyclicalists want to preserve the status quo, but structural change is coming. That's what the column really is about: Brooks' personal belief that we cannot afford a welfare state. But he does not offer any proof for that argument and neither does he map out what his desired alternative world would look like? Neofeudalism? A global concentration of a few large firms running everything? And if the public sector should be shrunk who then will educate those future workers so that their skill sets will match the needs of those multinational behemoths (without teaching them anything that might make them socially belligerent, I presume)? How would the problem of increasing income inequality and its impact on the society be solved in Brooks' future world? Gated communities for the rich? What for the rest of us? It's perhaps understandable why most of those who argue against the welfare state have little to offer as alternatives. The history of the nineteenth century Britain, say, suggests that the alternatives of unrestrained capitalism are not pleasant for most individuals. I don't know. Looking at Greece, for instance, makes me think that what we cannot afford, as civilizations, is the demise of the safety net for ordinary people. |
Meet Today's Misogynist, Jesse Lee Peterson
Warning: Skip this post if you get easily angered and find anger paralyzing or unproductive. Jesse Lee Peterson was a guest at the conservative Hannity show where Kristen Powers pointed out his misogyny According to Wikipedia, Peterson runs an organization called The Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny (BOND), and at the beginning of the show Sean Hannity told us that he is a member of the board over at the brotherhood. Here is Peterson giving us a sermon about the perfidy of women. Hannity seemed OK with having Peterson on his show. Indeed, he seemed angrier at Powers for her interruption. A quote from the sermon for any of you who might have difficulty viewing the video: Women cannot handle power. It's not in them to handle power in the right way. [...] I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote. We should've never turned this over to women. [...] It was a big mistake. [...] And these women are voting in the wrong people. They're voting in people who are evil who agrees [sic] with them who're gonna take us down this pathway of destruction. And this probably was the reason they didn't allow women to vote when men were men. Because men in the good old days understood the nature of the woman. They were not afraid to deal with it. And they understood that, you let them take over, this is what would happen.[12] What's the point of this post? To remind Fox News that it is not nice to coddle woman-haters? Or to point out that misogynists always view the question of what rights women have as something to do with "them?" It is "they" who "gave" women too many rights and now it's time to take those rights back? By what means? |
Monday, May 07, 2012
The Ghost Of Lawrence Summers' Comments on Women And Mathematics
Will forever haunt us. Or rather, this Chris Hayes show suggests that the scales of unfair science denial are somewhat equated when the conservatives deny climate change and the liberals refuse to discuss racial and gender differences in IQ or innate gender differences in general. This is what one of the guests, Jonathan Haidt, says, beginning at about 4 minutes and 57 seconds. Watch the following few minutes and then note who tries to say something there and does not succeed. Jonathan Haidt has talked about Lawrence Summers' comments before: The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s, according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society, and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality both “binds and blinds.” What fun! I have looked at the extreme-tails hypothesis in a fairly recent post, and it looks quite a bit more complicated than the implicit assumption Haidt seems to have: That men simply are more likely to always score more in the high tail and the low tail of any particular test distribution. So what did I write about Summers' comments in 2005? It took me some time to dig those posts up but here they are: Part I Part II Part III Hmm. Those posts still look to me as if I'm discussing the theories Summers presented, to the extent they could be discussed in 2005. But I guess Haidt didn't refer to unknown weird bloggers when he talks about how the left savaged Summers. That the right sorta joined in (to defend Summers and to, incidentally, savage women) he also ignores. The overall topic of the Chris Hayes program deserves a completely separate post so I'm not going to address it here, except to note that I sense a certain kind of compromise proposal in the works in Haidt's mind: Give them the "science" they like and maybe then they will accept the "science" we like! Perhaps I'm wrong about that. But my view of research is much more complicated than those that cropped up in the discussion which appeared to suggest that all science (including hypotheses which cannot be empirically tested) is somehow equally reliable, that no scientist has particular prior biases and that every new study is without problems until other researchers point those out. That self-correcting approach probably works over eons. It doesn't work terribly well in the short run, and the reason is that theories themselves create those bonded groups. If a sub-field has only one set of basic theories (such as inside evolutionary psychology) then the criticisms cannot come from inside, and the academic reward structure doesn't provide incentives for outsiders to offer their criticisms. As a slightly different example, there is no general field of "gender similarities" to counteract the field of "gender differences," as an example. Janet Hyde has written on gender similarities and has been called biased because of that. But those who choose to work on gender differences cannot be without prior beliefs themselves and those tend to be of the type which make someone choose to look for differences, not for similarities. All this is a far cry from the simple arguments that people like some science and hate other science and pick just on that basis, though of course that happens, all the time. But this does not mean that everything printed somewhere as a study is equally reliable or necessarily problem-free, and it does not mean that Lawrence Summers' utterances about a field he is not an expert in should be regarded as part of scientific inquiry. |
Sunday, May 06, 2012
Spice Cookies
I found one recipe on the net which looked very similar to the recipe I lost. It's not the same (I tested it) and a bit sweeter than I like but you might find it worthwhile. The measures are in deciliters (dls) and grams (g) but my measuring bowls have both cups and dls, and the grams can be estimated if you don't have a scale as they only apply to the butter/margarine and you need two sticks minus a sliver. Here's the recipe: Ingredients: 200 g butter or margarine 2 dl sugar 1 tbsp molasses 1 medium egg 2 tsp ground cardamom 2 tsp ground cinnamon 1tsp baking powder 1 tsp baking soda 6.5 dl pastry flour or white flour Instructions: Beat butter/margarine with sugar until foamy. Add molasses and the egg (not the shells!) while beating well. Mix the spices, soda, baking powder and flour separately and shift into the batter. Let the final batter rest in the fridge overnight (or at least a few hours). Roll it into small balls on baking paper and finally use a fork to flatten each ball. Bake in a preheated oven (225 centigrade, 437 Fahrenheit) for ten minutes. These are called fork cookies because of that use of the fork. If the fork sticks, use some flour on it while pressing. The ideal size is fairly small, I think, so this batch might make a hundred or so? I added a smidgen of ground cloves to the spices. This might also work as one of those cookies where you mold the batter into long sticks, freeze them, and then cut out cookies onto a baking sheet when you feel like some. |
Why Men Should Not Be Priests
This is a funny list of ten reasons for excluding men from the priesthood. It was posted several years ago. Of course the reverse lists are conventional wisdom on the question why women cannot be priests. The point, of course, is that the reverse list is equally funny or silly but we take it seriously. The fishes that swim in the ocean do not think water has a taste. (I'm trying to make that into a meme about how people are blind to their old cultures and view them as simply obvious.) |
Friday, May 04, 2012
Friday Music
Revenge Shags
Louise Mensch is a British conservative politician whose politics are certainly not mine. She does, however, share my gender and thus the usual trollish commentary on women in the public eye. That commentary is based on sexuality, looks and the sluttiness or f***ability of a particular woman. But there's also more than a hint of true nastiness in some of it: UPDATE: I’ve just had my attention brought to an article published on Vice.com yesterday titled Question of International Worker’s Day – Hey Crustie, Would you have sex with Louise Mensch? The magazine asked a load of Occupy protesters if they’d sleep with her (the answer was invariably “Yes”) and photographed their responses. As if the premise of the article isn’t disappointing enough, most disgustingly, one of the questions asked was “Would you shag her for revenge?” to which the response was “Yeah, she’s a Tory”. Too vile for words.What does it mean to shag someone for revenge? How does that differ from rape? Or are they the same thing? I get the impression that they are not the same thing but Googling doesn't give me a definition of "a revenge shag," either. The point, of course, is that this treatment of Louise Mensch is equally applicable to any woman. It's not ultimately about her political views at all. It's about her gender. That she is regarded as deserving such a treatment, because of her political views or whatever else she may have done does not change the fact that different political views by another woman would lend her equally vulnerable to the same trollery, albeit by different trolls. |
A Deep Thought On Capitalism Gone Wild
It has gone wild. That's the deep thought, and the reason is the demise of state-sponsored communism after the Berlin Wall fell. Just cast your mind back and that is what happened. Without the counter-force of communism the capitalists had no restraints and we got what we have now: A world run as if it is a private corporation, a world run for the benefit of the capital-owners alone. A privatized world. It is ironic that communism was what kept the American type capitalism decent. Without that public enemy the nazguls are free to rob and ravage. I have always been a supporter of the mixed economy. They still do much better. Atrios quotes this, for example: I asked the Swedish finance minister the other day how they made nationalised banks lend. He said to me: "It's simple. We own them, we tell them what to do and if the directors don't, we sack them and get people who can." That's what me must do.This approach, my friends, is no longer possible in the United States because those who own the markets also now own the government. ------ Added later: An additional example from today: WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday issued a proposed rule governing hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on public lands that will for the first time require disclosure of the chemicals used in the process.Bolding mine. |
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
In Today's Nazgûl News: Scott Walker's Adventures in Wisconsin
From the very first time I saw governor Scott Walker's face, especially his eyes, I knew he was a Nazgûl , one of the ringwraiths from the Lord of the Ring. The other ringwraiths took over other states at the same time, but Walker is the one who has hogged most of the limelight. And he has carried his assigned tasks out extremely well! The great state of Wisconsin has almost been demolished! In the good news, angry drivers can now have guns in their cars, there's no longer any of that gender-equality crap in state-based equal pay laws, and the state ranked the first in increased unemployment and job loss misery last year! Governor Walker should be proud. That he is facing a recall battle doesn't matter, because ringwraiths get their funding from their overlords and overladies: Gov. Scott Walker raised an unprecedented $13.2 million over three months to fight off the recall bid against him, outdistancing his Democratic challengers and driving home the challenge they will have in beating the Republican incumbent. .... The Democrats raised little compared with Walker. Falk, a former Dane County executive, raised $977,000 and had $118,000 on hand. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett raised $831,500 and had $475,500 on hand.It is hilarious. The best democracy money can buy, and most of it from out of state and from a few large donors: Conservative billionaire Diane Hendricks gave Walker $500,000. Hendricks co-founded Beloit-based ABC Supply, a roofing wholesaler and siding distributor, with her husband, Ken, who died in a 2007 fall.So why am I so hard on one poor ringwraith? Probably because he is so blatant in his goals and so destructive in his achievements, because he looks like a puppet with the strings held in only a few gold-ringed pudgy hands? Because he makes a mockery out of democracy? I'm not sure. And of course I'm kidding about him being a Nazgûl . Right? |
Men's Problems? The Fault of Women, Naturally.
Fraser has written two posts (here and here) on one of those pieces about what's-the-problem-with-men, the ones which always produce hundreds of misogynistic comments*. Because the obvious response to any problem about men is to argue that it's really the fault of women. Thus, if boys have trouble at school it's the fault of schools which favor the way girls learn (never mind that schools were initially created for boys and have used the same learning structures ever since). If men don't go to college in the same percentages as women, it is the fault of American feminists indoctrination which has turned men off from education and destroyed their self-confidence. Never mind that the phenomenon is global, that even in Saudi Arabia the majority of college graduates are women. And if men move back to their parents and spend time playing computer games and watching pron, that, too is the fault of women who don't save themselves for marriage and who don't understand that women must be dependent on men's earnings to deserve marriage. Do read the comments to the original article, especially if you believe misogyny is nonexistent. One of the comments mentions the stretched-out vaginas of women who have bedded too many men to be worthy for the glorious role of being the commenting asshole's wife. Pay attention to the fact that those comments were moderated. This particular one passed moderation. It presumably is regarded as pertinent to the topic. Just imagine what the comments must have been like which did not pass moderation! I'm very curious about the thinking behind the editors who choose these pieces, especially given the misogyny fest they always provide. Perhaps very few newspapers or magazines regard women as among their customers? Nah. They like this shit. They like the idea of providing a safe nest for the hatred of all women. One must, after all, provide a voice for all the haters, too. That the misogynists cannot be engaged, that they attack anyone arguing back (however calmly and scientifically), that the debate degenerates into nothing but name-calling from their part, none of that matters as much as the click numbers and the advertising revenue. ---- *The original article was published in early March. |
Squash It Like A Cockroach
Today's child-rearing advice, from a Christianist minister: "So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, 'Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,' you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed.It's a real problem for these folk. It's all supposed to be essentialist, whether determined by some divine party or the weirder type of evolutionary psychology. But at the same time you gotta beat it into the children. Not to mention the fact that this roaring and yelling gentleman (audio at the link) usurps the right to define what being male or female might mean. |