Today boys and girls, we're going to talk about terrorism. Don't groan. We must.
There are a lot of problems with this word, mainly because it has lots of meanings. We'll start with its history.
It dates from 18th century France, from "The Reign of Terror", and at that time it referred to the government. It was used again during WWI as part of allied policy against the enemies.
On the other hand it has been used to describe every kind of resistance and guerrilla fighter imaginable.
Back in Victorian times we had a different word which was bandied about everywhere and used for fearmongering, and that was "anarchy". At the time this was a very powerful word, as it meant "bringing down the establishment", and there was no objection to that meaning by either side. The only objection was that the establishment didn't want to be brought down. It never does.
Right now we live in a world where there is much objection to the establishment, and yet many of us benefit from it, not just the wealthiest. We are used, in the west, to talking about the 1% who get all the benefits, while the rest of us miss out. However, on a worldwide scale, most of us in the west are in the top 10%. And we don't want to lose that.
Simply put, if you own a house and a car, you are wealthy. In fact, even if you rent your home and travel by bus, if you have a fridge in that home, and can afford to eat and clothe yourself, you are still doing better than most. Most people on planet earth genuinely struggle to get by. By definition, nobody able to read this blog is struggling. If you disagree with this you need to do some research. Everything is relative but we are very fortunate.
So, quite understandably, we'd like it to stay that way.
What if all the wealth in the world was evenly distributed? This was a question I started asking at a very young age. Before we were married the Methodist minister booked to do the deed required us to attend a series of classes, and as a budding Marxist with the undivided attention of a clergyman, I put it to him that sharing the wealth equally might be a good idea. He smiled wisely and explained to me that it would never happen, because too many people had too much to lose, and that even if it did, it wouldn't stay that way for long.
He reminded me that human behaviour, more than anything else, affected the distribution of wealth. It tended to clump around those who had the abilities to obtain or keep it for themselves in various ways, some more honest than others. Some people simply steal it. But others have skills that are more valuable, including charisma. Intellect and charm attracts wealth, as do leadership skills, and telling lies. Hard work plays a role, but not a huge one. The hardest working people in the world often earn the least.
He went on to explain that once those clumps started forming, they enabled the proto-wealthy to become more wealthy because they could pay for the services they needed to attract more wealth. In other words, it would be just a matter of time before the distribution was back to the way it was.
Yes, this devoutly religious man (and he was a VERY good man, a great example of his calling) truly believed that the uneven distribution of wealth was inevitable.
That of course is assuming a free market. The way to alter distribution is to have rules and limits. These may or may not be ethical, obviously, but that is how it is in reality. The free market means the wealthy are free to accrue as much as they want, and the poor are free to starve.
I gave this a lot of thought at the time, and it knocked the Marxist right out of me. Because it became very obvious that as wonderful as the theory behind it was, it was impossible without oppressive rules and limits, as happened in communist regimes. Not a system I wanted to live under. I confess that I prefer democracy and capitalism, however flawed it is. I hope it matures into a better system, but I'm not into revolution. It would hurt me and mine. I'm not alone here.
Not only that, if you do divide the world's free money (not property or other assets) equally among all people, you end up with under $10,000 each. For most people on the planet this would be an amazing windfall. For me it wouldn't last very long, and I'd be clumping feverishly.
So I'll sit here and confess, that I would lose out if this were done, as would most westerners, and this is why we have no plans to do it. Our perspective in the west, as decent ordinary people, is that we think the distribution is unfair, but at the same time, we'd just like to redistribute money locally, thank you very much.
This perspective is not shared by most of the world. If they have time to think about it at all, they would like it shared around more, and would very much like some of our share. Right now their way of achieving that is limited to selling things to us, or moving here and getting a little clump of their own.
But many of them have a different perspective. They are perfectly willing to live under oppressive rules and limits. It would leave them all better off. Humans are often willing to exchange freedom for security, we do it ourselves in many ways. When you don't even have the security of knowing where your next meal is coming from, it looks like a really good deal.
And some people are perfectly willing to be those who organize this, and impose the oppressive rules and limits. In true utilitarian style, they'll even kill a few to feed the many. If anyone stands in their way, oh dear. Collateral damage.
This doesn't take into account the corruption that goes on within revolutionary governments, of which there is invariably plenty. It could even be questioned whether any of their motives were pure, or whether they are simply offering security in order to obtain power, but the end result is the same either way.
People without any leadership are willing to accept authoritarian leadership.
You don't have to believe me, there are so many examples, and so few exceptions, this is empirically proven. No, it makes no sense. I'd like to think I wouldn't, but maybe, in that situation, I would. Maybe if you are poor and vulnerable you don't have the luxury of sense.
And when I say leadership, that includes representation. There may well be an established government, but if it fails to represent you either because you are the minority or just the huddled masses, then you have no leadership from the government, and you look elsewhere for it. You take what you can get.
These alternative leaders are not without opposition. The establishment obviously is not welcoming them with open arms. Why would they? These are....anarchists. Not for long mind you. As soon as they are in power they oppose anarchy. See how it works? It's a trap, but it's one that marginalized people have fallen into time and time again, and I guarantee they will continue to do so as long as we fail to figure out this wealth distribution thing. Possibly even then.
At this stage, if you are still unsure that I'm not talking out of my arse, I invite you to read just about anything on the history of revolution, in any place, at any time. You'll find the same scenario play out with a frightening familiarity, and few success stories. Of course the first American revolution was a huge exception (only because of the leaders at the time being exceptional men), but I'm not so sure the next one will be. Anyway, my point is that during the "takeover" from one system to another, those who start the revolution are anarchists, and then afterwards they are not.
What they are, necessarily, is terrorists. You don't get to usurp power by asking nicely. It simply doesn't happen that way. There are only two ways of getting into power, one is by being asked/voted in, and one is by seizing power. There are instances of this being a bit of a grey area (e.g. 1066) but generally, if you wish to take charge, you have to do it by force alone.
All of this so far is assuming that you WANT to be the new government. That you are part of some larger organization or plan to that end. It goes without saying that sometimes anarchists act alone. Sometimes they are just lone crazies. They have big intentions but nothing to back it up. Sometimes they are not alone but still very impotent little organizations with a grievance. They haven't got a hope of achieving their goals but they have enough martyrs available that they can certainly cause havoc (q.v. Red Army Faction, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, BRAT, etc).
So, I emphasize these are not true anarchists. They either have no intention or ability to bring down the establishment, they just have a grudge with it, but they still are a perfect definition of terrorism. Their acts are designed to cause terror, it's really that simple.
But I'm not going to claim that simply lack of intent means that terrorism and anarchism are not synonymous. Quite often the terrorists are the establishment. Terror is the objective, therefore those carrying it out are terrorists. Anarchy is the last thing they have in mind, quite the opposite. These acts of terror are done to protect and save the establishment. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism, and they worked. They achieved their objective.
I maintain therefore that we use the word terrorism wrongly and too much. What is the official definition? According to Wikipedia (I'm just saving myself a lot of typing here):
In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism, though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group. Usage of the term has also been criticized for its frequent undue equating with Islamism or jihadism, while ignoring non-Islamic organizations or individuals.
(It's not a bad read, that page, why not have a look at the whole thing)
This is a word we use in the same way we use the word pornography. We describe what we disapprove of as terrorism, but if we think the act was justified (usually because "our side" did it) we call it military action, or whatever.
If drone strikes aren't terrorism I'm not sure what is. I won't bother with other examples, find your own, but "we" are pretty good at it.
No, anarchy and terrorism aren't the same thing, but both words have been used in the same way to suit the intentions of those involved.
I've seen two suggestions recently regarding this word.
One is that if we do use it, we should at least use it alone, without a group connection. At the moment the majority of terrorist acts we hear about on the news are by Islamists (please understand, that word does not mean Muslims, if you don't know what it means, look it up) and for this reason the word terrorist has become synonymous in many minds with Islamist, which is silly, because terrorists can be of any persuasion, as I've just explained at length. (Please note: the term Islamist is our term, not theirs, but I'm not going to get into that right now).
Unfortunately so many people have got hold of the idea that Muslim = Terrorist that those of us with half a brain are fed up with explaining the difference, and even using the word alone won't help. It just won't. Once the plebs get hold of an idea they run with it. (My son has been told he looks like a terrorist. What does a terrorist look like then? Apparently they have a swarthy complexion, long nose, dark eyes, and a heavy dark beard.)
The other suggestion is to stop using the word altogether. Good idea, but I think that horse has already bolted too. In any case, what would we use instead? If you found another word that covered all acts like this, it would soon come to be synonymous with whoever was doing it (in the uneducated mind) and if you found a word specific to each group, you'd do no better. Some better educated people are using "Jihadist" instead of extremist/Islamist/Muslim terrorist for political correctness, but that doesn't really work if you have done your homework, as it has corrupted the meaning of the word jihad.
(Jihad is an intrinsic part of Muslim theology, if you are interested, find a normal Muslim to explain it to you)
Does all this sound like I have no solution or alternative? I suppose it does, but I think we can just be aware of what we're talking about, make the effort to understand what words mean, and take care to explain ourselves properly. Like it or not, this IS a big talking point, it IS a big issue, and it isn't going to go away. At the very least we can discuss it carefully.
Friday, 9 January 2015
Thursday, 8 January 2015
Bullies
There's something I am often heard saying in debates on just about anything, and it's this:
There's a difference between an explanation and an excuse.
You'd think this would be really, really obvious, but I'll be damned if I don't have to remind people of it over and over and over and over.......
Example: I don't believe in the death penalty. I think it's foolish AND wrong. It doesn't work as a deterrent, AND it makes the executioner just as bad as the guy he kills. Killing is killing. Not only that, I don't think it's right to kill someone for being crazy. It is my opinion that the vast majority of those who end up being executed are crazy, or at least were at the time they did the deed.
(Yes, I said crazy. If you don't like the word, replace it. I chose it for a reason.)
Yes, yes, I know that in theory, they are psychologically evaluated to determine they were not crazy. But to me, by definition of having done it, they were crazy. Non-crazy people don't go around killing people. For the moment, please pretend you agree with that even if you don't.
Now here's the thing. The moment that I say "The guy was crazy" somebody will say "That's no excuse" and I never said it was. It's an explanation. Cause and effect, nothing more and nothing less.
It doesn't make it OK, and it doesn't let him off. Put him away for life, by all means, if he's dangerous. There should be a few more of them inside. But our modern western legal system is stupid, it imprisons people who could be treated, and leaves the crazy people on the street. We'll discuss that at length another time, I'm sure. That's not my point today, it's just an example.
I want to talk about bullies, and how we deal with them. No excuses. Cause and effect is just an explanation, it does not let anyone off. I'm so done with how the bullying issue is being dealt with in schools, but that's nothing compared to what happened in France.
I'm sure you've heard that in France a bunch of bullies killed some journalists for daring to publish things they didn't want them to publish. This particular bunch of bullies don't believe in free speech, so they don't give a shit about that angle. Right now a lot of support and solidarity is being shown by other people, but the question is how much will be dared by other journalists.
You won't remember this because the bullies in my next example weren't the right kind of bullies to make front page news, but this sort of thing happens all the time.
Eleven years ago a journalist in Mexico was walking home from work when he was stabbed 26 times, which killed him. It was no random attack. He was known for openly criticizing local drug cartels and the corrupt authorities who were at the very least turning a blind eye to their activities, but most likely aiding and benefiting from it. Not only did they kill him, they did an amazing job of not finding out who did it, if you see what I mean.
Since then, surprise, surprise, journalists in the area have stayed very quiet on that topic. So, yep, the bullies won.
And this is how it works. It has always worked. People are scared to speak because somebody was made into an example.
There are many examples of this type of bully, and have been throughout history. Sometimes they are actually governments, central or local. Sometimes they are organizations, large or small. Sometimes they are school directors. Sometimes they are individuals. It's the same story though. Somebody decides "you can't say that" for whatever reason, and then they bully people into not saying it.
And inevitably somebody brave says it anyway.
As things stand, in schools in many places today, to prevent bullying, there is a crazy (there's that word again) zero tolerance policy. If two boys get into a fight, they are both punished in whatever way is deemed appropriate. Nobody cares who threw the first fist, and nobody cares if one of the boys has a L-O-N-G history of starting fights, bullying, and generally causing trouble. I personally know many examples of unjust treatment of kids as part of this policy, and I oppose it with every fibre of my being.
Out in the real world thankfully we are still a bit more sensible than that. We look for something called provocation. We accept and understand that if you are being bullied there is a limit to how much you'll take before you strike back.
However we also have this idea of "don't poke the bear". If you were to walk into a pub in Glasgow, choose the meanest looking guy in the place, tap him on the shoulder and make fun of his accent, you'd probably end up minus a few teeth.
Here we have a perfect example of cause and effect. BUT, it's still an explanation and not an excuse.
Today, I'm reading various editorials on the situation in Paris. Some are hard to read as they are nothing more than rabid racism. But some are just as hard to read as they seem to suggest giving in to the bully.
They suggest, in fact, that it's wrong to provoke bullies like this. That perhaps these journalist should be more careful what they publish.
Should they? No.
Satirical publications exist to satirize. That's their purpose and their job. Satirists have existed for thousands of years (read a Greek comedy if you don't believe me, there's even satire in the Old Testament). They are a part of human society. You may not like them at all, but most people find them amusing until they are the target. We see this all the time. Isaac Hayes was on South Park, and worked happily on many episodes poking fun at all sorts of people and groups, but when they had a go at Scientology, which he's part of, he quit in a fit of pique.
Yeah, it's all clever and funny until it's YOU, right?
Was it likely that bullies would eventually get their knickers in a knot over the satire aimed at them? Yes.
So this was provocation, right? No.
Because an explanation and an excuse are two different things.
Free speech is a complicated right, open to definition, and further argument. It has consequences, it can make you very unpopular, and some of it is horrible, but we have to defend it without exception or we have no free speech at all.
There is one problem, and we can't ignore this. Many countries now have "Hate Speech" laws. This makes things complicated, but it's not an insurmountable problem. There are careful definitions of what constitutes hate speech, and it doesn't infringe on free speech, because satire is generally excluded. That's our recourse, our outlet. That's why it's so precious. Something can be in very poor taste without being hate speech.
Some object to satire being excluded. They say it's a sneaky way of getting round it. Maybe. I'll still defend it because life without satire would most definitely be life without free speech. We'll work out the complications as we go.
Satire has a go at everyone and everything, no exceptions. Even if you don't like any of it (I don't believe you) there is no possible excuse for killing over words or cartoons, and therefore these are not just bullies, but crazy people. Non-crazy people don't go around shooting people. (BTW, the usual politically correct term for these bullies is "extremists". In this house we use the term "nutjobs".)
But there's more, isn't there? There's the risk of backlash.
Is it likely that some members of the public will get so upset about these killings that they may turn on people who share the same religion as the bullies? It has already happened. A mosque was attacked near Paris within hours of the shootings and other attacks have been reported elsewhere.
Quite what this is supposed to achieve I don't know. It's just another form of bullying. It's just as bad as the original attack, only more random. There's an explanation, sort of, but no excuse. And more crazy people. Non-crazy people don't go around throwing grenades.
Not only should we never give in to bullies, we shouldn't blame their victims. EVER.
I hope every journalist, every publication, every news station shows TRUE solidarity for the fallen by not kowtowing to the bullies, and I don't want to hear one single person say "well, they shouldn't have..."
Because that's like blaming the rape victim for wearing a skirt folks, all over again.
EDIT: Just stumbled across a mild example of "duct tape over the mouth" syndrome:
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/01/hartmann-why-wont-media-call-out
There's a difference between an explanation and an excuse.
You'd think this would be really, really obvious, but I'll be damned if I don't have to remind people of it over and over and over and over.......
Example: I don't believe in the death penalty. I think it's foolish AND wrong. It doesn't work as a deterrent, AND it makes the executioner just as bad as the guy he kills. Killing is killing. Not only that, I don't think it's right to kill someone for being crazy. It is my opinion that the vast majority of those who end up being executed are crazy, or at least were at the time they did the deed.
(Yes, I said crazy. If you don't like the word, replace it. I chose it for a reason.)
Yes, yes, I know that in theory, they are psychologically evaluated to determine they were not crazy. But to me, by definition of having done it, they were crazy. Non-crazy people don't go around killing people. For the moment, please pretend you agree with that even if you don't.
Now here's the thing. The moment that I say "The guy was crazy" somebody will say "That's no excuse" and I never said it was. It's an explanation. Cause and effect, nothing more and nothing less.
It doesn't make it OK, and it doesn't let him off. Put him away for life, by all means, if he's dangerous. There should be a few more of them inside. But our modern western legal system is stupid, it imprisons people who could be treated, and leaves the crazy people on the street. We'll discuss that at length another time, I'm sure. That's not my point today, it's just an example.
I want to talk about bullies, and how we deal with them. No excuses. Cause and effect is just an explanation, it does not let anyone off. I'm so done with how the bullying issue is being dealt with in schools, but that's nothing compared to what happened in France.
I'm sure you've heard that in France a bunch of bullies killed some journalists for daring to publish things they didn't want them to publish. This particular bunch of bullies don't believe in free speech, so they don't give a shit about that angle. Right now a lot of support and solidarity is being shown by other people, but the question is how much will be dared by other journalists.
You won't remember this because the bullies in my next example weren't the right kind of bullies to make front page news, but this sort of thing happens all the time.
Eleven years ago a journalist in Mexico was walking home from work when he was stabbed 26 times, which killed him. It was no random attack. He was known for openly criticizing local drug cartels and the corrupt authorities who were at the very least turning a blind eye to their activities, but most likely aiding and benefiting from it. Not only did they kill him, they did an amazing job of not finding out who did it, if you see what I mean.
Since then, surprise, surprise, journalists in the area have stayed very quiet on that topic. So, yep, the bullies won.
And this is how it works. It has always worked. People are scared to speak because somebody was made into an example.
There are many examples of this type of bully, and have been throughout history. Sometimes they are actually governments, central or local. Sometimes they are organizations, large or small. Sometimes they are school directors. Sometimes they are individuals. It's the same story though. Somebody decides "you can't say that" for whatever reason, and then they bully people into not saying it.
And inevitably somebody brave says it anyway.
As things stand, in schools in many places today, to prevent bullying, there is a crazy (there's that word again) zero tolerance policy. If two boys get into a fight, they are both punished in whatever way is deemed appropriate. Nobody cares who threw the first fist, and nobody cares if one of the boys has a L-O-N-G history of starting fights, bullying, and generally causing trouble. I personally know many examples of unjust treatment of kids as part of this policy, and I oppose it with every fibre of my being.
Out in the real world thankfully we are still a bit more sensible than that. We look for something called provocation. We accept and understand that if you are being bullied there is a limit to how much you'll take before you strike back.
However we also have this idea of "don't poke the bear". If you were to walk into a pub in Glasgow, choose the meanest looking guy in the place, tap him on the shoulder and make fun of his accent, you'd probably end up minus a few teeth.
Here we have a perfect example of cause and effect. BUT, it's still an explanation and not an excuse.
Today, I'm reading various editorials on the situation in Paris. Some are hard to read as they are nothing more than rabid racism. But some are just as hard to read as they seem to suggest giving in to the bully.
They suggest, in fact, that it's wrong to provoke bullies like this. That perhaps these journalist should be more careful what they publish.
Should they? No.
Satirical publications exist to satirize. That's their purpose and their job. Satirists have existed for thousands of years (read a Greek comedy if you don't believe me, there's even satire in the Old Testament). They are a part of human society. You may not like them at all, but most people find them amusing until they are the target. We see this all the time. Isaac Hayes was on South Park, and worked happily on many episodes poking fun at all sorts of people and groups, but when they had a go at Scientology, which he's part of, he quit in a fit of pique.
Yeah, it's all clever and funny until it's YOU, right?
Was it likely that bullies would eventually get their knickers in a knot over the satire aimed at them? Yes.
So this was provocation, right? No.
Because an explanation and an excuse are two different things.
Free speech is a complicated right, open to definition, and further argument. It has consequences, it can make you very unpopular, and some of it is horrible, but we have to defend it without exception or we have no free speech at all.
There is one problem, and we can't ignore this. Many countries now have "Hate Speech" laws. This makes things complicated, but it's not an insurmountable problem. There are careful definitions of what constitutes hate speech, and it doesn't infringe on free speech, because satire is generally excluded. That's our recourse, our outlet. That's why it's so precious. Something can be in very poor taste without being hate speech.
Some object to satire being excluded. They say it's a sneaky way of getting round it. Maybe. I'll still defend it because life without satire would most definitely be life without free speech. We'll work out the complications as we go.
Satire has a go at everyone and everything, no exceptions. Even if you don't like any of it (I don't believe you) there is no possible excuse for killing over words or cartoons, and therefore these are not just bullies, but crazy people. Non-crazy people don't go around shooting people. (BTW, the usual politically correct term for these bullies is "extremists". In this house we use the term "nutjobs".)
But there's more, isn't there? There's the risk of backlash.
Is it likely that some members of the public will get so upset about these killings that they may turn on people who share the same religion as the bullies? It has already happened. A mosque was attacked near Paris within hours of the shootings and other attacks have been reported elsewhere.
Quite what this is supposed to achieve I don't know. It's just another form of bullying. It's just as bad as the original attack, only more random. There's an explanation, sort of, but no excuse. And more crazy people. Non-crazy people don't go around throwing grenades.
Not only should we never give in to bullies, we shouldn't blame their victims. EVER.
I hope every journalist, every publication, every news station shows TRUE solidarity for the fallen by not kowtowing to the bullies, and I don't want to hear one single person say "well, they shouldn't have..."
Because that's like blaming the rape victim for wearing a skirt folks, all over again.
EDIT: Just stumbled across a mild example of "duct tape over the mouth" syndrome:
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/01/hartmann-why-wont-media-call-out
Wednesday, 7 January 2015
A Little Tangent On Goodness
Well, that was interesting.
Yesterday, apparently, I was more controversial than usual. I write on all manner of topics - you name it - I'm not afraid! But when I stated that churches do not make people good, my Facebook wall exploded.
The strangest part is that after all the argument (and everyone was very well-behaved, which was nice) I don't think anyone actually disagreed with me.
What didn't really get discussed was "What is good?". It was quite easy to find examples of "What is bad" but if we're going to talk about good behaviour, we probably ought to define it.
For me it's really quite simple, I know good behaviour when I see it. I've written on my thoughts on this before, the whole "Harm None" concept. That's not enough, however, when people with different concepts of morality are trying to find common ground.
Why do people have different concepts of morality?
Well, isn't that just the most interesting thing of all? If we all agreed on these things it would be a lot easier, but we don't.
Let's start with the most heinous. Killing.
This one also ought to be the easiest, but it isn't. There are circumstances such as self-defence (which can include certain acts of war) where killing is the only solution if we wish to survive ourselves. Then there is the question of species. Those who eat meat justify it on the grounds that it's a different species, while those who are the most hardcore vegans are still willing to kill microorganisms, so perhaps size matters.
I sometimes run into people who are anti abortion but pro death penalty. This messes with my head, frankly. They find it easy to justify, by saying that the fetus is innocent. Now, there's an interesting argument, which could go on forever. Not now, but I mention it because it's selective killing. So, killing is wrong, unless.........
OK, what about violence that doesn't lead to death. There are many levels there and many reasons. It could have been attempted murder, that is to say the intent was to kill. There is assault that leads to permanent disability and chronic pain, that's pretty bad. There is injury that's purely accidental, such as when a doctor messes up. And there's injury by neglect or not paying attention, such as when you run over a pedestrian on a crosswalk. (The last two could also lead to death, obviously).
How much of a role does intent play? If you inadvertently caused an injury or death, is that immoral?
OK, what about "minor" acts of violence. Playground punch-ups, no harm done. Is that moral? What about one small slap on the bottom of a child who is behaving badly? These are the things that we tend to disagree on most vehemently.
I remember the outcry when Cesar Milan suggested "biting" (with your hand) the neck of a dog in training. That is how the puppy's mother would teach it, he said, and humans take on the role of parent, so it's perfectly reasonable. The internet exploded with animal lovers and other dog trainers demanding he be taken off the air or even charged.
But horses are whipped just to go faster in races and it's rare to hear anything about it. Are dogs more important than horses?
Not only that, we tend to hear more outcry over cruelty to animals than we do cruelty to children. And if you want to get into the details, we hear more outcry over harm to western children than we do those in other parts of the world.
Our responses to what we see as immoral are very selective. When questioned, we may say it's all wrong, but our passions tend to lie with those closest to us, and situations we relate to. And when we're told that the very shoes we wear are made by children in slavery conditions, we shrug.
Every single one of us is complicit in some type of immorality or other, so the very first thing to do when asking who is good is to accept that nobody is perfect. Some immorality is de facto unavoidable.
So, yes, intent does matter, because morality is based largely on choice. Those things we do when we know the outcome.
Finally, how about those situations where two opposing views are held, and each person believes his is the more moral. This crops up in fiscal politics often enough, but also in parenting, and in the debate on gay rights.
Here, intent becomes a major issue. "He means well, but...."
Perhaps my knowing a good person when I see one isn't so far from efficient. I try to be a good person, and I'm sure you do too. I daresay we can all do better. Have a GOOD day :)
Yesterday, apparently, I was more controversial than usual. I write on all manner of topics - you name it - I'm not afraid! But when I stated that churches do not make people good, my Facebook wall exploded.
The strangest part is that after all the argument (and everyone was very well-behaved, which was nice) I don't think anyone actually disagreed with me.
What didn't really get discussed was "What is good?". It was quite easy to find examples of "What is bad" but if we're going to talk about good behaviour, we probably ought to define it.
For me it's really quite simple, I know good behaviour when I see it. I've written on my thoughts on this before, the whole "Harm None" concept. That's not enough, however, when people with different concepts of morality are trying to find common ground.
Why do people have different concepts of morality?
Well, isn't that just the most interesting thing of all? If we all agreed on these things it would be a lot easier, but we don't.
Let's start with the most heinous. Killing.
This one also ought to be the easiest, but it isn't. There are circumstances such as self-defence (which can include certain acts of war) where killing is the only solution if we wish to survive ourselves. Then there is the question of species. Those who eat meat justify it on the grounds that it's a different species, while those who are the most hardcore vegans are still willing to kill microorganisms, so perhaps size matters.
I sometimes run into people who are anti abortion but pro death penalty. This messes with my head, frankly. They find it easy to justify, by saying that the fetus is innocent. Now, there's an interesting argument, which could go on forever. Not now, but I mention it because it's selective killing. So, killing is wrong, unless.........
OK, what about violence that doesn't lead to death. There are many levels there and many reasons. It could have been attempted murder, that is to say the intent was to kill. There is assault that leads to permanent disability and chronic pain, that's pretty bad. There is injury that's purely accidental, such as when a doctor messes up. And there's injury by neglect or not paying attention, such as when you run over a pedestrian on a crosswalk. (The last two could also lead to death, obviously).
How much of a role does intent play? If you inadvertently caused an injury or death, is that immoral?
OK, what about "minor" acts of violence. Playground punch-ups, no harm done. Is that moral? What about one small slap on the bottom of a child who is behaving badly? These are the things that we tend to disagree on most vehemently.
I remember the outcry when Cesar Milan suggested "biting" (with your hand) the neck of a dog in training. That is how the puppy's mother would teach it, he said, and humans take on the role of parent, so it's perfectly reasonable. The internet exploded with animal lovers and other dog trainers demanding he be taken off the air or even charged.
But horses are whipped just to go faster in races and it's rare to hear anything about it. Are dogs more important than horses?
Not only that, we tend to hear more outcry over cruelty to animals than we do cruelty to children. And if you want to get into the details, we hear more outcry over harm to western children than we do those in other parts of the world.
Our responses to what we see as immoral are very selective. When questioned, we may say it's all wrong, but our passions tend to lie with those closest to us, and situations we relate to. And when we're told that the very shoes we wear are made by children in slavery conditions, we shrug.
Every single one of us is complicit in some type of immorality or other, so the very first thing to do when asking who is good is to accept that nobody is perfect. Some immorality is de facto unavoidable.
So, yes, intent does matter, because morality is based largely on choice. Those things we do when we know the outcome.
Finally, how about those situations where two opposing views are held, and each person believes his is the more moral. This crops up in fiscal politics often enough, but also in parenting, and in the debate on gay rights.
Here, intent becomes a major issue. "He means well, but...."
Perhaps my knowing a good person when I see one isn't so far from efficient. I try to be a good person, and I'm sure you do too. I daresay we can all do better. Have a GOOD day :)
Tuesday, 6 January 2015
Um.....No.
I was shown this. And I rolled my eyes.
I've heard it all before, had that discussion a few thousand times.
No.
Crime? You really want to go there?
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/why-atheists-make-85-percent-americas-scientists-and-07-percent-its-prison
I was unable to get data on how many ordained ministers commit crimes, but it's not exactly a secret that plenty do.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/bishop-eddie-longs-alleged-sex-scandal-victim-centino-kemp-reveals-suicide-attempt-61150/
Morality has nothing to do with religion. NOTHING. Oh sure, many religions preach morality. And that's about as far as it goes.
Anyway, back to the video. Apparently this gentleman is curious how people know how to behave without religious leaders telling them what to do. I've heard that question many times, and here are a few suggestions to start you off.
Parents
Friends
School
Community
Common sense
The Rule of Law was invented for political purposes, not moral or religious purposes. I've nothing against the Rule of Law, humans seem to need it. Societies with a poor system of law tend to do badly. But religion did not invent the idea that it's wrong to kill and steal. Quite the other way around. Religions were created to implement these laws, by threatening eternal punishment to offenders. Did it work? Nope.
Despite thousands of years of religions and their laws, we still have crime, actually. Despite those religions affecting culture and government policy for generation after generation after generation, people still misbehave. People with devout religious beliefs still steal, rape, and kill. In fact most wars in history have been "in God's name". It's an excuse, for sure, but they were supported by the church.
Why are people good or bad?
Well, thankfully this question puts me right back on track for my topic of the week (and of my forthcoming book, nudge nudge).
Mostly, it's intelligence, frankly. Intelligent people are aware that if we are "good" then society is a better place to live in. A society of "good" people tends to thrive. Have you visited crime ridden areas? Not pretty. No fun.
Then, there's mental health. Any defect here can compromise intellect. A person who "knows better" behaves badly because his twisted rationality has decided this is the best choice for him. Substance abuse, which is a type of mental illness, plays a huge role in crime, not just in the dysfunctional behaviour of users, but in the cost of obtaining their drugs. Addicts inevitably must steal or trade, and trading often involves violence when things go awry.
And there's vices. The churches love to talk about these, but they haven't cured them. What is a vice anyway? It's a character flaw. We all have them. A temporary lapse of intellect and sanity allows them to become reality. Greed. Lust. Wrath. Even pride can lead to crime. These aren't bad people, these are people who made a mistake, a bad choice.
As a professor, a highly educated man, and a well-travelled man, surely Mr Christensen is aware of all of this. When he or anyone asks "How do people know how to behave without religious guidance?" what I seem to be hearing is this instead: "I am afraid, that without the fear of God, I'd behave badly."
I may be wrong of course. But this gentleman in particular was born into his particular religion. He doesn't know life any other way. Perhaps that limits his perspective. He may also be conflating having been raised in a large, good, happy, functional family with his religious upbringing. I'm a little bit biased on this of course, but I believe that large, good, happy, functional families tend to turn out good people.
He's also never experienced poverty. Poverty remains one of the main reasons people turn to crime. It's only 100 years or so since western society automatically equated crime with poverty, but it took them a ridiculously long time to realise that if you lessen poverty you lessen crime. And this idea still hasn't really caught on.
Finally, you'd think an educated man would know that education is the other big key to reducing crime. Investing in the education of the masses is the best investment you can make, and while churches could, theoretically, help there, they generally don't. That isn't their real function, after all.
The reason most people behave themselves, most of the time, has nothing to do with churches or police forces. It's because human nature is actually not as bad as all that. Those who "stray", those whose moral compass is off, are actually the minority. We are NOT born sinners. We are born sponges, we soak up everything we see around us, and atheists learn morality JUST FINE.
When people decide to commit crimes, they don't think about their fear of God OR the police. If these deterrents really were as powerful as that, they'd work. They don't! Even where the death sentence is still in place, people still commit the worst crimes. And people steal right out of the collection boxes in churches.
When people behave themselves, it's because they are sane, wise people who have made good choices.
If religion is what makes Mr Christensen NOT go around committing crimes, then I hope he sticks with it. Whatever works. Same applies to anyone else that feels they need churches to keep them out of prison. Don't miss a Sunday! If that's what you need to behave, carry on.
But most of us are quite able to behave ourselves, thank you very much.
Sunday, 4 January 2015
Normal
Here are a list of things ordinary people do. There is no judgement here, no good or bad things. Just a list. You'll check some off and not others. Count them if you like.
Wear PJs
Chew gum
Kiss your dog
Phone friends to chat
Wear perfume
Send Christmas cards
Eat chicken soup
Wear slippers
Get a flu shot
Take cold medicine
Drink coffee
Look at your watch
Smoke pot
Wear leather shoes
Pee standing up
Watch the News
Read your horoscope
Smoke cigarettes
Wear socks
Drink teaPlay X Box
Go to church
Watch reality TV
Go to the hairdresser
Drive to work
Eat McDonald's
Read an e-reader
Watch sport
Listen to country music
Drink juiceWear sweatpants
Read magazines
Have a manicure
Play Warcraft
Drink soda/pop
Eat Pop Tarts
Wear a hat
Play golf
Go to the library
Eat mints
How many did you get? These are all perfectly normal things, and yet if you showed this list to a Mongolian yak herder she wouldn't even know what some of them were. And she'd only do a few of them. Who is the "normal" person here, you or her? What does normal mean anyway?
Nothing you do is normal. It's normal for you, obviously. You may have grown up doing these things and thought nothing of them, or you may have developed these habits at a later age. Now, you don't think twice, unless somebody criticizes or questions your habits, and the you probably defend them as perfectly normal, if you even bother to respond.
The idea of normal behaviour, as we use the term, tends to means either "familiar", or "what I do" or both. Sometimes we realise this, and sometimes we don't.
We live in a world where increasingly "different" is permitted. We still have an awful long way to go as regards tolerance, but man is it ever different to how I remember society when I was a child. During the sixties everything gradually, gradually became less conservative, and then in the mid-seventies Punk Rock appeared on the scene and I saw some of the strangest reactions of all. I think what I saw was mostly fear.
I love Punk Rock. I wasn't old enough to be that angry but I understood the point of it. I still do. I think really I'm just an old punk. But I was never an authentic punk, which of course is the best part of all, because authentic means trapped. The whole point of punk was to avoid that. By being a punk who refused to pierce my nose or whatever, dammit, I'm punker than punk.
Anyway, I remember somebody I like enormously, so no names here (I think she'd be awfully embarrassed if I mentioned it now....people change) going on a rant about punks when we were out together once, and how they just "weren't normal people". But of course she was. Decided by whom?
Let's look at this. Are the normal ones:
The majority, by sheer numbers?
The most successful?
The most popular?
Those least likely to break rules?
Those who say they are?
Break it down a bit. Fashion is a good reflection of time and place.
Look at this.
Quite frankly they were utterly ridiculous.
But I guarantee that if by some remote chance they came back into fashion, they'd be worn by the vast majority of women, yes, even today, because people get sucked into wanting to be like everyone else. You say it wouldn't catch on? Don't be so sure. It has done so once.
The bustle was once NORMAL. It is now so far from normal that to wear one would be an act of rebellion. You'd be laughed at. Called names. Inevitably some people would admire you for your daring. The whole range of reactions. But nobody would see it as normal. Normal is TEMPORARY.
It's also local. You don't see any Mongolian yak herders round your way. National Geographic have taught us that although the modern western look is busy encroaching on all lifestyles globally, and there are less and less people wearing the clothing traditional to their area, there are still differences. It's often quite easy to tell the difference between an American and an Englishman in a photo, by his clothing, even if he is "fashionable", and even if he is young. Especially outer wear, for some reason.
When you travel, it's not unusual to suddenly become aware of how foreign you look. You may not mind, in fact you may think you are better dressed, but it's a strange feeling. This is why foreign travel broadens the mind, and helps you understand what I'm saying about perception of normal, plus it's doable, whereas the time machine is not.
OK, you say, I know all of that. Silly. I don't live under a rock, I know that I have been conditioned into believing western society is normal. I can take it or leave it.
No, you can't. None of us can. Not even the most way-out avant garde freak. It's simply not convenient. At times we all have to go with the flow because to fight it would be too expensive, too risky, or actually, illegal.
I can't build a Hobbit house in Ontario. It's against building code.
I can buy a cow but I can't sell or even give the milk away. Totally illegal.
I CAN however walk through Toronto topless, but as it's January I really don't think I will. Still, just because it's legal doesn't mean there wouldn't be consequences if I did. Because it's not considered normal. I'd get a lot of attention and probably be on City TV tonight. It would be remembered too. FOREVER.
Going against what is normal can be fun, or it can be dangerous. Whatever it all hinges on there being a normal to go against, how do we arrive at that?
1. What we prefer.
2. What is easy.
3. What is legal.
4. What we're used to.
How many did you get on that list at the top again?
How many apply to reasons 1, 2, 3, or 4? Are you sure? Think about it.
Would you like to know how many I got? 0. None. That's actually a list of things I don't do. Depending on the situation however, I'm widely considered to be more or less normal. Why?
I don't own a yak either.
(If anyone wants to buy me a yak, I'll take good care of it.)
Saturday, 3 January 2015
Are You A Feminist?
WHAT? We thought this week's topic was human preferences.......
Tangent.
I frequently write about feminism, and I doubt there will be anything new in this post, so feel free to skip it if I've overdone you today. It's written for a friend of mine as a follow-up to a kitchen table conversation we had one night when I was too tired to do it justice.
Firstly it's the question of who is and who isn't a feminist.
If you have never had any major problems with men or inequality, it's quite possible that you feel feminism is unnecessary, at least these days, or just something that's got too extreme or whatever. You're not actually anti-feminist, you just don't relate to it. Here's an example of that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2893694/Kaley-Cuoco-apologises-comments-feminism-spark-backlash.html
She's a happy-go-lucky sorta gal, life's been good to her, and she's happily married. Feminism just isn't a big issue for her. I totally understand why she said what she said. She's also an intelligent woman, she understood the criticism, and I believe her explanation was sincere.
I've been there.
When I was young I clued in very quickly to ALL of the ideals feminists talk about. After all, I went through my formative teen years in an all-female environment - just me and a widowed mother. I was a tomboy, a rebel, and a free thinker. I didn't even need to have the basics of it all explained to me. It was instinctive.
Did I experience inequality. Yes, and how, but in those days it was normal. Did I fight it, object and protest? Yes, but at the same time.......
I married young. And it worked.
Somehow I got hold of the idea that despite all of my attitude and my successes in dealing with inequality I couldn't possibly be a feminist because a) I liked men, and b) I was perfectly happy barefoot and pregnant, growing vegetables and baking pies. You know? I absolutely loved all that stuff. I thought I was the very opposite to a feminist.
Well, I was misled. Fortunately in my late 30s I was introduced to the internet and a whole world of other ideas, and people who had really suffered. You don't always have to suffer to "get it", but it helps to at least learn of suffering from a sufferer, rather than as an example in a text book. I met women who had been raped, who had been abused by fathers, in any or all of the 3 ways, who had lost jobs/missed promotions/been cheated of money, who had experienced severe, harmful inequality. I listened to their stories, asked questions, cared, and learned.
I say cared. I'm not suggesting that those who disagree with me on this topic don't care. I know from talking to people on other topics that very sincere caring people can simply see a problem very differently. It's not that they don't care, they just have a totally different approach and solution to an issue.
Anyway, I found myself caring very much. Injustice bites at me, and I hate it because I feel helpless. I'm solutions oriented, and I want to do something. Often, I can't. I can't save the world, I can't fight all battles, I am very limited in what I can do, but I have to do something. I'm a good writer, so I choose to do my bit by writing. I educate and provoke by sharing information, and by trying to get people to consider things from another angle. I can't force anyone to change their mind, but I'm pretty good at getting their attention and helping them understand. What they do after that is their own affair.
After I understood, after I realised that, actually, I was a feminist, and that I had just heard some very biased ideas of what feminism is, I set out to make that enlightenment available to others.
And please note, in all of this I don't say other women. Men can be feminists, and many are.
So why is it called feminism? Well, frankly it's because of the starting point.
Inequality works both ways. Of course it does. But, like it or not, it can be easily demonstrated that the inequality women face is greater, even today. We have made HUGE strides (alas, some have been backwards) but we're not there yet. Until we are, until equality is reached, it has to be called feminism as it is females who are on the losing side.
If you don't like the term, OK, don't use it, call it equality instead. It's the same thing. What's in a name? If that's important to you, whatever. I call it feminism because most people do and we know what it means. Or do we?
Therein lies the problem, it has been said that if you ask for 12 definitions of feminism you'll get 13 answers. Everyone thinks their definition is correct. Are all feminists in agreement? BWAHAHA! No. They fight and argue all the time. It's like any group with a common agenda, nobody really knows what that agenda includes or excludes, it's not written in stone, there's no "gospel". Democracy is dynamic. It's better that way.
But that can mean that the feminist you meet isn't exactly representative, even if she/he is in the majority.
For example, there ARE feminists who reject the concept of marriage. I've had them tear me apart for taking my husband's name. Oh yes. I've heard it all. And I can well imagine that if you were meek they could scare or sway you. I'm not meek. (You may have noticed.) Still, at first I took notice of what they said, I thought about it.
There ARE feminists who are so opposed to gender differences, that they take gender-free names and identities. This has led some people to associate feminist with transgendered, and so on. I've actually heard some ignorant people say that all feminists are lesbians, and that male feminists are "obviously" gay. I've not seen a link myself, but I suppose it's probably fair to say that most people who are not 100% "mainstream" (define that word, smartypants) with regard to gender are probably sympathetic to feminists. Not all of course. Just because you've suffered one form of inequality doesn't necessarily follow that you are sympathetic to others. We've all met racist homosexuals and homophobic ethnic minorities. It boggles the mind, but it happens regularly enough.
I will walk on very dodgy ground here and say that the majority of feminists agree on two things:
1. Women are still not given the same opportunities as men, all other things being equal. So for example, in situations where physical size or strength isn't an issue, and yet a woman is still earning less while doing an identical job. This remains very, very common.
2. The objective of feminism is not to prescribe gender roles, old, new, different, or otherwise, but to enable choice in gender roles. So, a woman who wants to take her husband's name, and stay at home raising children and baking cakes is treated as a fully and equally valuable member of society. A woman who wishes to have her gender ignored and to rise to the top in any profession based on her skills can do so. AND any man who wishes to take his wife's (or husband's) name and stay at home raising children and baking cakes is treated as a fully and equally valuable member of society too. This is all part of feminism.
There is a fringe of feminism. There is a fringe of everything. Don't judge music by Throbbing Gristle, don't judge art by Tim Patch, don't judge religion by Fred Phelps, and don't judge feminism by the loonies either.
Then, somewhere along with all of this is an idea that feminism is essentially OK - but has gone too far.
Where? Which parts don't you like?
Perhaps you can just ignore or shrug off those parts.
Do you like TV? Yes? Do you like ALL of what's on TV? No. But you can still enjoy TV.
Perhaps you can work with others to find common ground on those parts.
Do you watch sport? Do you follow the same team as your neighbour? No, but you can discuss the game just the same.
Perhaps you can look deeper at those parts.
Do you like opera? No?
Have you actually been to the opera, seen it live, understood the story, the historic background to the artform, and so on. You may still not like it, but perhaps you develop a sympathy for those who do.
Ultimately, we will never have consensus, and that's OK. So long as we agree that there is injustice, and that everyone would benefit if we fixed it, we can work from that point.
Finally
If you think that the things that feminists do/say are still, maybe, a bit anti-men, here's an example of where you are wrong.
I am a mother of young men. I am well aware that there are problems they face due entirely to bad women. I try to educate them to lessen these risks. It is wise to do that.
But I AM offended by the idea that my boys are all would-be rapists that can't control themselves and behave like rutting sheep.
Many of the things we say about one gender simply reflect our attitude towards the other one. We've discussed how calling boys names that refer to women says far more about our attitude towards women. How when the greatest insult you can give a boy is to call him a girl, you are implicitly saying girls are lesser. And how women are guilty of this.
We also do no favours to a woman saying that she is "as good as any man". That speaks volumes. Our society has done this, our language keeps it going.
You don't solve these "accidental" slurs by having a "chairperson" instead of a chairman or chairwoman. You solve it by voting them in without treating their gender as a plus or minus.
The producers of QI, a British TV celebrity quiz show, learned that audiences saw shows with two female guests and two male guests as "female biased" or "heavily female". Despite the quizmaster being male. So, a cast 3-2 in favour of men is seen as having too many women. Yet 50% of survey respondents were women. Do women not want to watch other women? Or are they just so used to male dominated casts, that they notice when more women are around and find it odd?
Nintendo were careful to give Super Mario a female character for girls to play. One. One girl. And what sort of girl? An effing Princess. But what do most girls play? Not her. Do girls not want to play female characters, or is it more complex than that?
When ANY woman, young or old is asked about all of this, she usually realises what's going on pretty quickly, but it's so deeply ingrained, it takes a "push" to make us think about it.
If you don't know, you don't know.
I went to an all girl school. Physics was simply NOT OFFERED. It was not considered suitable/necessary/wanted (take your pick). Did I object? No. Why? Because I had never heard of physics. Because you don't know what you don't know.
My daughter did very well in physics. The world changes slowly. Squeakily.
And every so often it takes a huge step back.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/then-and-now-lego-ad_n_4768560.html
Do girls want this? Do they? Really?
Do girls want to be princesses or is it an idea foisted upon them by parents/advertisers/society.
Was my tomboy/rebel attitude an anomaly or the result of letting me be who I was?
I think we'll have to do a lot more research, but for now I invite you to see how this post fits in with my earlier one, and the rest of the week's topic, just fine, thank you.
Tangent.
I frequently write about feminism, and I doubt there will be anything new in this post, so feel free to skip it if I've overdone you today. It's written for a friend of mine as a follow-up to a kitchen table conversation we had one night when I was too tired to do it justice.
Firstly it's the question of who is and who isn't a feminist.
If you have never had any major problems with men or inequality, it's quite possible that you feel feminism is unnecessary, at least these days, or just something that's got too extreme or whatever. You're not actually anti-feminist, you just don't relate to it. Here's an example of that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2893694/Kaley-Cuoco-apologises-comments-feminism-spark-backlash.html
She's a happy-go-lucky sorta gal, life's been good to her, and she's happily married. Feminism just isn't a big issue for her. I totally understand why she said what she said. She's also an intelligent woman, she understood the criticism, and I believe her explanation was sincere.
I've been there.
When I was young I clued in very quickly to ALL of the ideals feminists talk about. After all, I went through my formative teen years in an all-female environment - just me and a widowed mother. I was a tomboy, a rebel, and a free thinker. I didn't even need to have the basics of it all explained to me. It was instinctive.
Did I experience inequality. Yes, and how, but in those days it was normal. Did I fight it, object and protest? Yes, but at the same time.......
I married young. And it worked.
Somehow I got hold of the idea that despite all of my attitude and my successes in dealing with inequality I couldn't possibly be a feminist because a) I liked men, and b) I was perfectly happy barefoot and pregnant, growing vegetables and baking pies. You know? I absolutely loved all that stuff. I thought I was the very opposite to a feminist.
Well, I was misled. Fortunately in my late 30s I was introduced to the internet and a whole world of other ideas, and people who had really suffered. You don't always have to suffer to "get it", but it helps to at least learn of suffering from a sufferer, rather than as an example in a text book. I met women who had been raped, who had been abused by fathers, in any or all of the 3 ways, who had lost jobs/missed promotions/been cheated of money, who had experienced severe, harmful inequality. I listened to their stories, asked questions, cared, and learned.
I say cared. I'm not suggesting that those who disagree with me on this topic don't care. I know from talking to people on other topics that very sincere caring people can simply see a problem very differently. It's not that they don't care, they just have a totally different approach and solution to an issue.
Anyway, I found myself caring very much. Injustice bites at me, and I hate it because I feel helpless. I'm solutions oriented, and I want to do something. Often, I can't. I can't save the world, I can't fight all battles, I am very limited in what I can do, but I have to do something. I'm a good writer, so I choose to do my bit by writing. I educate and provoke by sharing information, and by trying to get people to consider things from another angle. I can't force anyone to change their mind, but I'm pretty good at getting their attention and helping them understand. What they do after that is their own affair.
After I understood, after I realised that, actually, I was a feminist, and that I had just heard some very biased ideas of what feminism is, I set out to make that enlightenment available to others.
And please note, in all of this I don't say other women. Men can be feminists, and many are.
So why is it called feminism? Well, frankly it's because of the starting point.
Inequality works both ways. Of course it does. But, like it or not, it can be easily demonstrated that the inequality women face is greater, even today. We have made HUGE strides (alas, some have been backwards) but we're not there yet. Until we are, until equality is reached, it has to be called feminism as it is females who are on the losing side.
If you don't like the term, OK, don't use it, call it equality instead. It's the same thing. What's in a name? If that's important to you, whatever. I call it feminism because most people do and we know what it means. Or do we?
Therein lies the problem, it has been said that if you ask for 12 definitions of feminism you'll get 13 answers. Everyone thinks their definition is correct. Are all feminists in agreement? BWAHAHA! No. They fight and argue all the time. It's like any group with a common agenda, nobody really knows what that agenda includes or excludes, it's not written in stone, there's no "gospel". Democracy is dynamic. It's better that way.
But that can mean that the feminist you meet isn't exactly representative, even if she/he is in the majority.
For example, there ARE feminists who reject the concept of marriage. I've had them tear me apart for taking my husband's name. Oh yes. I've heard it all. And I can well imagine that if you were meek they could scare or sway you. I'm not meek. (You may have noticed.) Still, at first I took notice of what they said, I thought about it.
There ARE feminists who are so opposed to gender differences, that they take gender-free names and identities. This has led some people to associate feminist with transgendered, and so on. I've actually heard some ignorant people say that all feminists are lesbians, and that male feminists are "obviously" gay. I've not seen a link myself, but I suppose it's probably fair to say that most people who are not 100% "mainstream" (define that word, smartypants) with regard to gender are probably sympathetic to feminists. Not all of course. Just because you've suffered one form of inequality doesn't necessarily follow that you are sympathetic to others. We've all met racist homosexuals and homophobic ethnic minorities. It boggles the mind, but it happens regularly enough.
I will walk on very dodgy ground here and say that the majority of feminists agree on two things:
1. Women are still not given the same opportunities as men, all other things being equal. So for example, in situations where physical size or strength isn't an issue, and yet a woman is still earning less while doing an identical job. This remains very, very common.
2. The objective of feminism is not to prescribe gender roles, old, new, different, or otherwise, but to enable choice in gender roles. So, a woman who wants to take her husband's name, and stay at home raising children and baking cakes is treated as a fully and equally valuable member of society. A woman who wishes to have her gender ignored and to rise to the top in any profession based on her skills can do so. AND any man who wishes to take his wife's (or husband's) name and stay at home raising children and baking cakes is treated as a fully and equally valuable member of society too. This is all part of feminism.
There is a fringe of feminism. There is a fringe of everything. Don't judge music by Throbbing Gristle, don't judge art by Tim Patch, don't judge religion by Fred Phelps, and don't judge feminism by the loonies either.
Then, somewhere along with all of this is an idea that feminism is essentially OK - but has gone too far.
Where? Which parts don't you like?
Perhaps you can just ignore or shrug off those parts.
Do you like TV? Yes? Do you like ALL of what's on TV? No. But you can still enjoy TV.
Perhaps you can work with others to find common ground on those parts.
Do you watch sport? Do you follow the same team as your neighbour? No, but you can discuss the game just the same.
Perhaps you can look deeper at those parts.
Do you like opera? No?
Have you actually been to the opera, seen it live, understood the story, the historic background to the artform, and so on. You may still not like it, but perhaps you develop a sympathy for those who do.
Ultimately, we will never have consensus, and that's OK. So long as we agree that there is injustice, and that everyone would benefit if we fixed it, we can work from that point.
Finally
If you think that the things that feminists do/say are still, maybe, a bit anti-men, here's an example of where you are wrong.
I am a mother of young men. I am well aware that there are problems they face due entirely to bad women. I try to educate them to lessen these risks. It is wise to do that.
But I AM offended by the idea that my boys are all would-be rapists that can't control themselves and behave like rutting sheep.
Many of the things we say about one gender simply reflect our attitude towards the other one. We've discussed how calling boys names that refer to women says far more about our attitude towards women. How when the greatest insult you can give a boy is to call him a girl, you are implicitly saying girls are lesser. And how women are guilty of this.
We also do no favours to a woman saying that she is "as good as any man". That speaks volumes. Our society has done this, our language keeps it going.
You don't solve these "accidental" slurs by having a "chairperson" instead of a chairman or chairwoman. You solve it by voting them in without treating their gender as a plus or minus.
The producers of QI, a British TV celebrity quiz show, learned that audiences saw shows with two female guests and two male guests as "female biased" or "heavily female". Despite the quizmaster being male. So, a cast 3-2 in favour of men is seen as having too many women. Yet 50% of survey respondents were women. Do women not want to watch other women? Or are they just so used to male dominated casts, that they notice when more women are around and find it odd?
Nintendo were careful to give Super Mario a female character for girls to play. One. One girl. And what sort of girl? An effing Princess. But what do most girls play? Not her. Do girls not want to play female characters, or is it more complex than that?
When ANY woman, young or old is asked about all of this, she usually realises what's going on pretty quickly, but it's so deeply ingrained, it takes a "push" to make us think about it.
If you don't know, you don't know.
I went to an all girl school. Physics was simply NOT OFFERED. It was not considered suitable/necessary/wanted (take your pick). Did I object? No. Why? Because I had never heard of physics. Because you don't know what you don't know.
My daughter did very well in physics. The world changes slowly. Squeakily.
And every so often it takes a huge step back.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/then-and-now-lego-ad_n_4768560.html
Do girls want this? Do they? Really?
Do girls want to be princesses or is it an idea foisted upon them by parents/advertisers/society.
Was my tomboy/rebel attitude an anomaly or the result of letting me be who I was?
I think we'll have to do a lot more research, but for now I invite you to see how this post fits in with my earlier one, and the rest of the week's topic, just fine, thank you.
Why People Like What They Like
People fascinate me. Nothing fascinates me more. Sure, all of Nature is fascinating. Butterflies and thunderstorms and amethysts and spinach. It's all fascinating. But people, probably because they are the most complex and confusing of all of Nature (emphasis on the confusing) are the most fascinating.
Yes, there are mysteries at the bottom of the ocean. Gravity is anybody's guess. And who knows what lies out there beyond the reach of our biggest telescopes. Nevertheless, human beings are baffling.
I have been told many, many times I should have studied psychology. Well, in my own way, maybe I do. I people-watch. I question, I ponder. Human behaviour gives me plenty to "do" no matter where I am, and after much consideration (you have no idea how much), I've chosen a book on this topic to be the one I publish this year, so when that happens you'll all be pestered to help me market it.
However, there is one aspect of human behaviour that I find the most interesting of all, and that's preferences. Why you like what you like.
Sometimes the reason is obvious. Frequently we like something that we encounter because it makes us think of something we already like. That seems to be normal. It also seems to be harmless, but unfortunately it isn't.
1. It's a strategy used by people who want us to like things. Vodka that tastes of chocolate bars appeals to the youngest buyers. This is quite deliberate, and in my considered opinion, quite unethical.
Even t-shirts sold at high prices for no reason whatsoever other than that they have a logo on the front of our favourite bands/TV shows/games/movies/literary character is getting into a grey area of business ethics. Nevertheless an entire industry has grown up around selling clothing at many times the usual price for this reason. It works. People will pay it, and caveat emptor.
2. This is a type of positive prejudice, and right there, if you turn it around, is a dark side. If it is possible to instantly like a person, simply because they remind you of another person you once liked, even if the resemblance is totally physical and therefore superficial, then, by the same process it is possible to instantly dislike a person, simply because they remind you of another person you once disliked, even if the resemblance is totally physical and therefore superficial. I've seen that in action, and it's horrible.
Sometimes, of course, it can be amusing.
(More here: http://lotoflaughters.com/the-resemblance-is-uncanny-20-pics/4/)
How powerful is that? Don't know. More research necessary.
How often does it happen at some deep subconscious level? Hmm.
Here's an example. I recently saw a bookcover that reminded me of another bookcover, a book I loved as a child. In a beautiful example of a cliché manifesting, I decided I wanted to read this book based simply on that. I judged it by its cover, oh yes.
We do that actual thing a lot by the way, which is why packaging is so important, but before we get into that, let's look at nostalgia a bit more.
I mentioned once (was it here or elsewhere? Don't remember, I write all over the place) how I personally find it truly bizarre (and therefore utterly fascinating) how people can like something they don't really like because it reminds them of the "good old days". (When were they, by the way?)
My daughter loves the smell of dirty, used engine oil. YEUK. Why? Because it's how Daddy smelled when she was a little girl. He changed his career in her teens and comes home smelling differently now, and she's all grown up anyway, so that time in her life is gone. It reminds her of being hugged on Daddy's lap and feeling very safe. Nostalgia.
Personally I hated that smell then and still do, plus I hate how he smells after work now too. I love my husband very much but I prefer him after a shower.
So you may ask then, what smell of childhood whisks me back? I have no memory of being hugged on anyone's lap, ever. So there's no smell to take me there. Don't get the idea that I was some deprived child, I just didn't need hugs and laps, my happy safe place was up a tree. Do I love the smell of trees? I suppose so, never really thought about it.
Clearly, this is not a universal phenomenon.
HOWEVER, if I smell slightly damp cupboards mixed with soap powder (yes really) THAT whisks me back to my Aunt's house, and all the toy cars she let me play with. Do I like that smell? Not especially, but I can think of worse. Get the toy cars out!
My point here is that even with the well-known "memory by smell" effect, everyone is different, and that is the fascinating part. There are patterns, but there are exceptions, and then there are patterns in the exceptions, and on and on and on. And I keep wondering, why, why, why.
The last reason for liking something that is easily explained is because we've been taught to like it.
Familiarity. Expectations. Conditioning. Grooming. Yep, see that last one? There's always a dark side to all and any of this. Brainwashing.
I'm a bit of a free spirit*, I tend to have unusual tastes, and therefore I often get asked why I like things that most people don't, or vice versa. I can't explain it any more than anyone else can, but when I turn it around and ask them why they like what they like, I often see people discover, as they think it through, that it's all based around familiarity, a sort of comfort zone of taste. It can can be very interesting and revealing, therefore, instead of just saying "I like that", to really TRY to think why that is.
In other words, as I've often suggested...are your preferences really your own? Are you sure?
The fact that we have a multi-billion dollar international advertising industry says "NO". So on that note I'll return tomorrow.
(The aim is to completely mess with your head by the end of the week :) )
*I like to make understatements.
Yes, there are mysteries at the bottom of the ocean. Gravity is anybody's guess. And who knows what lies out there beyond the reach of our biggest telescopes. Nevertheless, human beings are baffling.
I have been told many, many times I should have studied psychology. Well, in my own way, maybe I do. I people-watch. I question, I ponder. Human behaviour gives me plenty to "do" no matter where I am, and after much consideration (you have no idea how much), I've chosen a book on this topic to be the one I publish this year, so when that happens you'll all be pestered to help me market it.
However, there is one aspect of human behaviour that I find the most interesting of all, and that's preferences. Why you like what you like.
Sometimes the reason is obvious. Frequently we like something that we encounter because it makes us think of something we already like. That seems to be normal. It also seems to be harmless, but unfortunately it isn't.
1. It's a strategy used by people who want us to like things. Vodka that tastes of chocolate bars appeals to the youngest buyers. This is quite deliberate, and in my considered opinion, quite unethical.
Even t-shirts sold at high prices for no reason whatsoever other than that they have a logo on the front of our favourite bands/TV shows/games/movies/literary character is getting into a grey area of business ethics. Nevertheless an entire industry has grown up around selling clothing at many times the usual price for this reason. It works. People will pay it, and caveat emptor.
2. This is a type of positive prejudice, and right there, if you turn it around, is a dark side. If it is possible to instantly like a person, simply because they remind you of another person you once liked, even if the resemblance is totally physical and therefore superficial, then, by the same process it is possible to instantly dislike a person, simply because they remind you of another person you once disliked, even if the resemblance is totally physical and therefore superficial. I've seen that in action, and it's horrible.
Sometimes, of course, it can be amusing.
(More here: http://lotoflaughters.com/the-resemblance-is-uncanny-20-pics/4/)
How powerful is that? Don't know. More research necessary.
How often does it happen at some deep subconscious level? Hmm.
Here's an example. I recently saw a bookcover that reminded me of another bookcover, a book I loved as a child. In a beautiful example of a cliché manifesting, I decided I wanted to read this book based simply on that. I judged it by its cover, oh yes.
We do that actual thing a lot by the way, which is why packaging is so important, but before we get into that, let's look at nostalgia a bit more.
I mentioned once (was it here or elsewhere? Don't remember, I write all over the place) how I personally find it truly bizarre (and therefore utterly fascinating) how people can like something they don't really like because it reminds them of the "good old days". (When were they, by the way?)
My daughter loves the smell of dirty, used engine oil. YEUK. Why? Because it's how Daddy smelled when she was a little girl. He changed his career in her teens and comes home smelling differently now, and she's all grown up anyway, so that time in her life is gone. It reminds her of being hugged on Daddy's lap and feeling very safe. Nostalgia.
Personally I hated that smell then and still do, plus I hate how he smells after work now too. I love my husband very much but I prefer him after a shower.
So you may ask then, what smell of childhood whisks me back? I have no memory of being hugged on anyone's lap, ever. So there's no smell to take me there. Don't get the idea that I was some deprived child, I just didn't need hugs and laps, my happy safe place was up a tree. Do I love the smell of trees? I suppose so, never really thought about it.
Clearly, this is not a universal phenomenon.
HOWEVER, if I smell slightly damp cupboards mixed with soap powder (yes really) THAT whisks me back to my Aunt's house, and all the toy cars she let me play with. Do I like that smell? Not especially, but I can think of worse. Get the toy cars out!
My point here is that even with the well-known "memory by smell" effect, everyone is different, and that is the fascinating part. There are patterns, but there are exceptions, and then there are patterns in the exceptions, and on and on and on. And I keep wondering, why, why, why.
The last reason for liking something that is easily explained is because we've been taught to like it.
Familiarity. Expectations. Conditioning. Grooming. Yep, see that last one? There's always a dark side to all and any of this. Brainwashing.
I'm a bit of a free spirit*, I tend to have unusual tastes, and therefore I often get asked why I like things that most people don't, or vice versa. I can't explain it any more than anyone else can, but when I turn it around and ask them why they like what they like, I often see people discover, as they think it through, that it's all based around familiarity, a sort of comfort zone of taste. It can can be very interesting and revealing, therefore, instead of just saying "I like that", to really TRY to think why that is.
In other words, as I've often suggested...are your preferences really your own? Are you sure?
The fact that we have a multi-billion dollar international advertising industry says "NO". So on that note I'll return tomorrow.
(The aim is to completely mess with your head by the end of the week :) )
*I like to make understatements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)