This article in Harper’s (pdf link), about (among other things) the philosophical implications of what’s beyond the final screen in Pac Man and other classic arcade games, is the best thing I’ve read all week. I’d never before realized that Pac Man models a deterministic universe — but Ms Pac Man doesn’t. (Curtsy).
Anyhow, consider this an open thread. Post whatever you like, as long as you like, with whomever you’d like. Self-linking is beautiful.
I don’t think it’s good for feminism that ending sexism is seen as something without direct benefits for men, when…
I disagree. I do think there are ways that men are hurt by sexism that have no equivalent in your…
Speaking as a man I would never join an organisation that focuses on men's issues. To do so would be…
Why are there no dedicated left orgs like that? In the UK there's the Men and Boys Coalition. In the…
I’ll address the final part of your comment separately. Before I do that, I have some more data to bring…
Call at 8:00 this AM:
“I read your ad. I know you said ‘no phone inquiries accepted’*1 and I know you gave application instructions*2, but I think I am highly qualified*3. Is the position still open? Can I fax you my resume?”
Sigh.
Seriously, what do you say to someone like that? “I’m sorry, but don’t bother typing up a resume–you just ignored every single one of my clear requests, and as a result I’m not going to hire you” (the truth?)
Do I lie? Do I tell her the position has been filled (it’s not) or that I’m not accepting applications (I am)?
What would you do?
*1 I didn’t even give my phone number in the ad.
*2 A.k.a. the “can you follow directions?” test. Which she failed, obviously.
*3 Followed, in this case, by the common “I don’t have the minimum qualifications you listed in the ad, but I want to apply anyway” request.
I wrote Belts, Children and Discipline about how the word discipline hides abuse
Radical Feminism and CIS Privilege..The effects of hate sppech and how this translates to violence against trans women.
And finally Black Women Can Be Beautiful To..How beauty as power effects WOC.
I wrote about the Tarot last week, and Rick Warren this week.
Today, various stuff, from alcoholism on Greyhound buses to Hipsters as the END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
Yes, I am large, I contain multitudes.
Yes.
Couldn’t that get you in trouble, for example, if she were to find out that it was a lie and allege discrimination?
Even if not, I see no point in not being truthful.
Obama and McCain were both wrong, cowardly, and smart in response to Rick Warren’s question about abortion. I have seen the defense of Obama’s comment that the answer is above his pay grade defended by referencing his answer to the question of when life begins. But that was not what Warren asked. What Warren asked both Obama and McCain was : At what point does a baby get human rights?
Let’s start with McCain. McCain answered definitively, “At the the moment of conception.” Later, he stated that he supported stem cell research. Soo….. Killing people without their consent for medical research does not violate human rights? McCain stated, “…this has been a great struggle and a terrible dilemma,” but he never explained how he reconciled the two views because it cannot be done. He needed to state “at conception” so that the Republican base would not stay home on election day, but opposing stem cell research turns off centrists who are otherwise wishy-washy about abortion. Smart, cowardly, and wrong answers.
Obama started his response with, “Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” He then went on to talk about how women struggle with the issue, why he is pro-choice, and why we should work to reduce abortions. I agree with everything he said, if cut out of the interview and presented as stand-alone statements.
But Obama didn’t answer the question. Unlike the beginning of life, human rights are not a theological or scientific issue. They are informed by science, and possibly theology, but they are moral and *legal* issues. Morality and law should be based on facts determined, I believe, as much as possible by science. But if science and theology give us unclear answers, your consious ans the law must still make a decision, using principles of morality and law that cover unclear situations.
So is this above Obama’s pay grade? Obama is a former professor of constitutional law, a current U.S. Senator, and the presumptive Democratic nominee for President. Deciding where and when human rights should be respected is precisely his job. Of course, for a pro-choice person like Obama or me, the correct answer is: at birth. But this would turn off people who are uncomfortable with late-term abortions. So the smart, cowardly, and wrong thing to do was to answer the question most people assumed Warren was asking, rather than the one he actually did ask.
By the way, since we just had forum/debate thingy with Pastor Warren, would it be too much ask the candidates to agree to debate SCIENCE? (http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php) Rick Warren is charasmatic and likeable media-savy pastor who represents the Chistian Fundimentalist worldview. For his opposite number from the world of science, I nominate Neil deGrasse Tyson as the scientist both candidates should have to explain themselves to.
McCain stated, “…this has been a great struggle and a terrible dilemma,” but he never explained how he reconciled the two views because it cannot be done.
It’s very simple really: McCain will never be pregnant. He may, however, at some point be in a position to benefit from stem cell research. So he is saying that it is ok to kill people as long as killing them will benefit people like him (i.e. rich, white, American men). Perfectly consistent with the Republican position that killing a few million Iraqis is ok as long as it results in lower gas prices.
Opening statements were today in the case of an ex-Marine sergeant who’s being tried in federal court under a congressional law that’s never been applied this way before. He was a police officer when arrested and was indicted on manslaughter charges in connection with an incident where four detainees were shot and killed by him and two other sergeants.
Perfectly consistent with the Republican position that killing a few million Iraqis is ok as long as it results in lower gas prices.
This reminds me of the famous quote about selling your soul for porage, and then not getting the porage. I tried to look up the quote to be more precise and give credit, but I couldn’t find it.
I’ve made two little roundups about women at the olympics; one, two. The first includes the fairly shocking story of how the women who appear in the medal presentations were trained for their role.
My family and I are recently back from a two week trip to Iran and I have started to post about it to my blog. It was an interesting trip. Stop by if you have the chance. (Once I get my new Macintosh computer system set up and all my software configured, I will cross post here as well, but for now I am putting the posts up on my blog only.)
If you want to discuss body parts, click here here.
If you want to discuss differences among the lyrics in alt, blues, country, electronica, folk, gospel, metal, hip hop, jazz, R&B and rock music, click here.
(Which link will get the most clicks, do you suppose…?)
Daran, for your continuing contempt toward other commenters, feminism, and this community, you are banned from the blog for six months. This temporary ban is made because of a pattern of contemptuous behavior displayed particularly over the course of the past few weeks.
This is ridiculous. Daran does not show contempt for feminism; he shows respect for it, by holding it to the same analytical and logical standards that he applies to other ideologies or worldviews. Unwillingness to stand silent, for solidarity-type reasons, in the face of perceived contradiction or cognitive error is not contempt.
As someone who has more than once been on the wrong side of Daran’s occasionally monomaniacal nigglings at logical loose ends, I can attest that this is uncomfortable. But I have never felt disrespected by Daran, nor have I ever seen him fail to show courtesy, willingness to engage on substance, and ability to acknowledge demonstrated errors on his own part.
This moderation decision is unjustified.
I agree with Robert. I was extremely surprised to find out about Daran’s banning, and I’ve been reading a bunch of his recent comments to try to find out what prompted it. So far I’ve yet to find anything that qualifies as being ‘contemptuous towards other commenters or towards the Alas community’.
Could Mandolin (or some other moderator) point to specific examples of the comments Daran made that prompted this move?
I’m not a mod but here’s what I think from the comments I’ve read by Darren.
I don’t think Darren likes feminism. From what he’s written i think he actively dislikes it. I think he wants it to be something else and that he’s mad at feminists because they disagree with him about what it should be. I think he’s hostile towards it and I think he has ill will towards people that self identify as feminists. I think his reasons for this are very different from those of republicans that feel the same way. But I don’t see how the path to all of that really matters.
Oh, and I’m so certain of this that I’ve stopped closely reading his comments when the subject turns to gender issues. I think i know what he’s going to say so i skim to see if there’s anything new.
Well, Joe, since “it” is not your expectation, I don’t see how you can possibly tell whether Daran likes “it” or not. I think Daran agrees with portions of “it” and disagrees with other parts of “it” … which, in this respect, would make him exactly like you, me, and every blogger and commenter who participates at Alas.
Here you’re just plain wrong, Joe. Two of the three folks who accepted his invitation to co-blog at Feminist Critics were self-identified feminists at the time they accepted his invitation. One of them (who no longer self-identifies as a feminist and who is on hiatus from FC) just finished a guest-blog stint at Feministe. It seems a rather curious display of ill will toward a group of people to invite them to co-blog with you. (Although, given the hours and the pay, I guess an argument could be made …)
It matters if you believe in genuine debate and discussion, and it matters if you believe the accuracy of a proposition is not enhanced through uncritical repetition.
Ballgame and Robert,
Your credibility on this is zero.
I also don’t care what Daran does or doesn’t do on his own site; he has been contemptuous on this one. Furhter, I would be much more willing to listen to invocations of Renegade Evolution if you invoked her in any other way other than “Nyah nyah, we’ve gots us someone you consider feminist on OUR side.” Yes, thanks, I know you have plenty of use for women when their spectres can be invoked for anti-feminist intentions.
Robert, your net contribution to this site is negative, your contempt for the community oozes out of you, and I believe you argue consistently in bad faith. You are a troll in this community of the worst variety, one who has done irreparable damage to its comment sections and its population. I have no interest in courting your approval of my decisions, since your approval is meaningless.
Without wanting to invite yet another debate about Robert’s participation here, for the record, I disagree with Mandolin’s assessment of Robert.
* * *
I’m torn on the question of if it’s right to ban Daran, but not at all torn about whether or not Daran’s hostile to feminism and feminists; he definitely is, although he expresses his hostility without overt rancor. And I agree with Mandolin that having invited Ren plus an anti-feminist feminist to co-blog on “Feminist Critics” doesn’t make the hostility magically disappear.
(Hey, I invited Daran to co-blog at “Creative Destruction”; does that mean I’m not at all hostile to anti-feminists?)
On Daran’s blog, I see that a few weeks ago he commented that I should “discipline” the other moderators, which in context clearly meant Mandolin. I think this shows a fundimental misunderstanding of how “Alas” works. Mandolin is a co-moderator, not a sub-moderator, and makes decisions for herself. She has the authority to act without seeking my approval on every ban, and we can disagree without her being “wrong.”
(Just as when I banned Ginmar — a move Mandolin very much disagrees with — that didn’t make me wrong.)
So, feminism is FOR:
Atheists, Jews, pagans, baha’i feminists, Mormons, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, Buddhist-Quakers, the anti-religious, the anti-atheistic, evangelicals, black people, white people, Boricuas, chicanas, desi people, Asian people, people with a mixed race identity, men, women, white men, environmental activists, animal rights activists, those who prioritize people, anti-racists, the transsexual and genderfluid, trans men (even when they halt transition), trans women, cissexuals, people whose gender identity formation is ambiguous, mothers, the childfree, mothers who stay at home with their children, mothers who work outside the home, and those who homeschool, fathers: gay, straight, partnered, and unparterned, fathers of boys and girls, stay at home dads, heterosexual couples raising children, gay parents raising children, polyamorous people raising children, single parents raising children, and people who prefer to help raise the children of friends and family, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, people who like to look at men, asexuals, polyamorous women and polyamorous men, the monogamous, those creating unusual families, psychiatrists, the anti-psychiatry, people with PTSD, cyclothymia, narcissistic personality disorder, the fat, the thin, and those with eating disorders, real women, with and without curves, people who Mandolin admires, people who piss Mandolin off, and people who she admires who piss her off, those who adopt or foster, and those who use IVF, and those who’ve given birth to many children, the married, the divorced, the unmarried, the several times divorced (and happily remarried), those who are in interracial marriages, those who are in cross-generational relationships, those whose hard-won joyful marriages anger many Americans, and those who are unfairly barred from marriage, the disabled and the abled and the parents of the disabled, those who believe in litmus tests, and those who eschew them, Republicans, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, anarchists and Marxists, Democrats, people in the Green party, etc. etc. etc.
But feminism is NOT FOR:
People who are opposed to sex roles, and who are in favor of gay marriage, and who are pro-choice and pro-equal pay for equal work.
THOSE people are clearly faux feminists.
Got.
It.
We’ve had endless discussions of the moderation here. I think that it’s been firmly defined as subjective moderation by the moderators (with the moderators all giving outlines as to their views). I think, at this point, it’s fair to disagree with a banning or to ask for clarification. I just don’t see the point of attempting to argue the moderation any longer. I particularly don’t see the point of longtime antagonists continuing to argue the moderation unless their goal is to be disruptive.
FWIW, I didn’t quite follow Mandolin’s reasoning for banning Daran. I can only imagine that his cumulative irritatingness passed her limit. But I’m not going to argue it because I understand how moderation at Alas has been defined & I’m aware that Daran pushes the limits stated to him previously.
In any case, there are many styles of moderation (my current favorite is at http://ussmariner.com/ – which very few of you will find an interesting site for content). Alas has clearly defined its moderation policies and it is what it is and, after many discussions over a loooong period of time, I don’t think that there will be any significant changes coming.
Because goodness knows there’s no other pattern in your writing — such as habitually attacking feminism, while rarely criticizing MRAs or anti-feminists — that would have motivated my take on your position. Nor have you joined a blog primarily devoted to anti-feminism.
I agree with you, of course, that feminism has a lot to do with why we’re now seeing a movement towards marraige equality. And it’s good you acknowlege that, and favor marriage equality. What’s interesting, to me, is that you continue to align yourself with a movement — call it “feminist critics” or “antifeminism” or whatever — that has never in the world done a bit of good.
Despite your progressive opinions, you act like a reactionary; your fellow travelers in hating feminism, if they win, will make sex roles more set in concrete, and outlaw same-sex marraige forever. But you nonetheless devote your energies to attacking me and people like me, while barely ever criticizing the people who have actual power and are pushing the most damaging forms of sexism against both women and men.
I actually think, by mingling your objections to anti-male sexism with anti-feminism, you (and Daran and many others) do far more harm than good. Conflating reactionary anti-feminism with legitimate discussions of how sexism hurts men discredits legitimate points that shouldn’t be discredited, imo.
(Note: Ballgame and I cross-posted, or whatever you call it when I edited my comment before Ballgame’s response posted. I originally used the phrase “faux-feminist,” and then modified it to “anti-feminist feminist.” For the record, I think “anti-feminist feminist” is a more accurate label for Ballgame’s position, and I don’t stand by the phrase “faux-feminist”.)
ballgame Writes:
August 29th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I disagree with you. But that’s just my opinion.
Also fwiw, I think in many (but not all) instances Robert’s being here is a net plus.
“Despite your progressive opinions, you act like a reactionary; your fellow travelers in hating feminism, if they win, will make sex roles more set in concrete, and outlaw same-sex marraige forever. But you nonetheless devote your energies to attacking me and people like me, while barely ever criticizing the people who have actual power and are pushing the most damaging forms of sexism against both women and men.”
Can some people agree with parts of a movement but not the net sum? Can I disagree with capitalism while not eschewing and spitting on all its benefits? Can I think the justice system is heavily flawed in many ways (in different places, including the carceral system) without thinking that it needs to be done away with to leave place to anarchy?
If I want to point out the flaws of capitalism, prisons, courts, governments, other systems (like caste systems), does this necessarily give ammunition to the opposition (who want the system/organization/idea to be shot down) without giving a chance for the critiqued one(s) to better that weakness?
In short, while sometimes harsh, isn’t constructive criticism (pointing out options that could better things, pointing out a flaw without having knowledge of an immediate possible viable solution too) welcome on ideas that aren’t perfect (which is all ideas)?
I’ve seen a few ‘hardcore’ MRA sites, the kind that provides absolutely no constructive criticism and only goes up to say “Feminism is bad” or “Women are bad” or other such nonsense without providing anything useful at all. Are you basically saying that Feminist Critics blog is the same as them, and that even inadvertedly, FC blog is working in tandem with those haters and bigots over those more hardcore sites?
Schala:
I agree with your point. Criticism isn’t a bad thing and it doesn’t imply hostility.
Ampersand:
Ampersand what generally or specifically do you see in the bloggers comments as being anti-feminist? What criteria are you using to differentiate between feminist and anti-feminist people/remarks? Ballgame stated in an earlier comment some things I’m sure you both are for, is ballgame not a feminist? If Daran, ballgame, and you share those same beliefs what does that make Daran? I’m asking not to out of hostility or antagonism, but out of belief that you and the bloggers at FC have a lot of common ground and out of general ignorance on what you see (or anyone else for that matter) as anti-feminist.
Pingback: Alas a Ban | Feminist Critics
Well, I wouldn’t say Daran was my favourite person to talk to here, but he sure as hell isn’t the most obnoxious. I’m not sure he’s in the bottom 3. I’ve not been around as much lately as I used to, though, so maybe I missed his worst moments.