Month: April 2010

  • So that they could learn respect

    Two Belfast girls, age 12 and 14, were going to be sent to Pakistan by their parents, for “education.” A judge issued a forced marriage protection order to prevent this little jaunt.

    He said: “I find as a fact that there is a present real and substantial risk that G and D will be forced by their parents to marry against their wishes.”…He found the real reason G and D were to be sent to Pakistan in 2007 was “so that they could learn ‘respect’ as an overarching filial duty which I hold in the context of this family means obedience overriding their full and free choice.”

    Ah yes, ‘respect’ as an overarching filial duty, meaning people never have lives of their own, because they are always the property of their parents. Life under that arrangement is always vicarious, either upwards or downwards, and never simply a matter primarily for the person whose life it is. Excessive submission on the one hand and excessive authority on the other and never a decent proportionality.

  • Laws against child marriage violate boys’ rights

    ‘For example, imagine a young man of 13 or 14 years of age who wants to have sex.’ He has rights too you know!

  • Belfast court blocks forced marriage

    The judge imposed a forced marriage protection order for the girls aged 12 and 14.

  • Saudi cleric fired for advocating sanity

    He suggested that women and men should be allowed to mix socially. Blasphemy!

  • Addressing questions is one thing, answering them is another

    One of the places we’ve seen this claim that science has nothing to say about God or other religious beliefs lately is in the article about Francisco Ayala in the Times after he won the Templeton Prize.

    Professor Ayala…won the prize for his contribution to the question “Does scientific knowledge contradict religious belief?”…[Ayala] says science and religion cannot be in contradiction because they address different questions. It is only when either subject oversteps its boundary, as he believes is the case with Professor Dawkins, that a contradiction arises, he said.

    That’s a recipe for epistemic chaos. We can’t have hermetically sealed ways of “addressing” questions – not if we want to get things right. Ways of addressing questions have to be consistent with each other, at least. The claim that science and religion address different questions only works if you admit that religion – when it comes to addressing questions – is simply a branch of fiction. This means you’re admitting that religion doesn’t really address questions at all, if “address questions” is taken to mean raising questions in the hope of answering them.

    You can’t do both. You can’t say that they’re radically different, and still maintain that religion does anything other than raise questions only for the sake of giving answers that don’t have to meet any criteria.

  • The beliefs that underlie the demands

    A line from Sam Harris’s The End of Faith (p 128):

    …we are confronted by people who hold beliefs for which there is no rational justification and which therefore cannot even be discussed, and yet these are the very beliefs that underlie many of the demands they are likely to make upon us.

    This is why NOMA, in addition to being wrong as a description, is no use. It’s also why the much-repeated claim that science has nothing to say about God or other religious beliefs is flawed. If religious beliefs are immune to any kind of rational, this-world inquiry or dispute, then we are abandoned to a world in which unreasonable, protected beliefs get to tell us what to do.

  • Clay Shirky’s Rant about women

    Not enough women have what it takes to behave like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks.

  • Brain-training games are just games

    They don’t improve general cognitive abilities.

  • Indonesia: court upholds blasphemy law

    If Indonesia’s constitutional court had overturned the law, other religions would have been allowed to practice freely.

  • The religious lobby and women’s rights

    Why would a modernising ‘New’ Labour, which claims to uphold the rights of women and minorities, seek to expand the religious sector?

  • Somalia: no music on the radio for you

    Islamists told all stations to stop broadcasting music because it’s “unIslamic.” All but two submitted.

  • The male voice is what expertise comes to sound like

    NPR’s On the Media did a piece about the disproportionate number of men in the media, including NPR and On the Media. An NYU professor did a blog rant on the subject awhile ago, and On the Media brought him (yes, him, and they did the irony-check) to talk about the issue. He said women aren’t quick enough to say “Me me me me look at me I’m good me me me.”

    CLAY SHIRKY: I said it then, I believe it now. I think the concern for how other people think about you is one of the sources of essentially work paralysis among women.
    One of the big skills that you need, and my institution does not do a good job of inculcating this in women – there are not enough institutions that do – one of the big skills is to be able to do what you want to do without caring what other people think.
    BROOKE GLADSTONE: You have to acknowledge the fact that when women put themselves out there, they’re called “biatches.” The word “shrill” is applied to them. They are not called “leaders.” They are not called “strong.”
    CLAY SHIRKY: That is right.
    BROOKE GLADSTONE: They’re called “strident – hags.”
    CLAY SHIRKY: Yes.
    BROOKE GLADSTONE: And it’s a pain in the – butt.

    Yes it is. And I’ll tell you why. There is more than one way for people to think about you, and some kinds of indifference are easier than others. Gladstone and Shirky sum up that difference very briskly in that brief passage. Allow me to explain. It is one thing to be considered – however disapprovingly – tough and aggressive and strong and ballsy. It is another to be considered a shrill strident hag bitch.

    That’s all there is to it, really. That’s why Gladstone says it’s a pain in the ass. Yes it damn well is. Being considered strong and tough is not all that unpleasant even if the people who consider you that detest you. Being considered a shrill strident hag bitch is a whole different thing. And what Gladstone says is no lie: it takes very little for people to call a woman a bitch – or, as we have seen, shrill and strident.

    So women can’t win no matter what they do. Either they hang back and don’t get the top jobs because they didn’t grab for them, or they grab for the top jobs and spend the rest of their lives as shrill strident hag bitches.

    BROOKE GLADSTONE: You write, “Women aren’t just bad at behaving like arrogant self-aggrandizing jerks, they are bad at behaving like self-promoting narcissists, anti-social obsessives or pompous blowhards, even a little bit, even temporarily, when it would be in their best interests to do so. Whatever bad things you can say about those behaviors, you can’t say they are underrepresented among people who have changed the world.”

    Okay – I do better with that one. I’m very very very good at behaving like an anti-social obsessive. I’m a *genius at that. Top of the class. And I’m not too bad at the pompous blowhard thing, and I do a fair bit of the self-promoting narcissism routine too.

    CLAY SHIRKY: I’ll tell you though, the reaction that has surprised me most is that any number of people, many of them women, have come forward and said, essentially, women have a different way of getting along in the world, we’re more social, we’re more nurturing, and so forth.
    And I have two problems with that attitude. The first is, essentially, that if you flowered up the language a little bit, you could dump that into a Victorian almanac.
    And the second is that all of that kind of nurturing, social junk imagines that the best role we can imagine for women in the workplace is as kind of middle-management mommies, right?

    God yes. I squawked when I heard that part. I squawked and I threw some things. It drives me crazy when women buy into that crap.

    BROOKE GLADSTONE: In your view, what is the impact of having so many more male voices as experts and sources than women?
    CLAY SHIRKY: I think one of the big impacts is that the male voice is what expertise comes to sound like. And so, even from someone who doesn’t go in with a formally sexist bias about whether men are more expert than women in general, you may just unconsciously flip through to those parts of the rolodex.
    Someone somewhere has to say, we have to change the fact of the representation before we change people’s mental model of what expertise sounds like because if we just wait, we will always lag the cultural change rather than leading it.

    The male voice is what expertise comes to sound like – that is exactly it.

  • Media: where are all the women?

    When women put themselves out there, the word “shrill” is applied to them. They are not called strong, they are called strident.

  • No you may not

    So here it is again – Christian groups getting up in public and demanding the right to treat certain people badly.

    In a case that pits nondiscrimination policies against freedom of religion, the Supreme Court is grappling with whether universities and colleges can deny official recognition to Christian student groups that refuse to let non-Christians and gays join…The Christian group said its constitutional freedoms of speech, religion and association were violated when it was denied recognition as a student group by the San Francisco-based school.

    The group has made this argument at several universities around the nation with mixed results…

    Hastings said it turned the Christian Legal Society down because all recognized campus groups, which are eligible for financing and other benefits, may not exclude people due to religious belief, sexual orientation and other reasons.
    The Christian group requires that voting members sign a statement of faith. The group also regards ”unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” as being inconsistent with the statement of faith.

    Right – so there you have it. The group regards a particular set of people as doing something “immoral” for no stated reason except that that is part of their “statement of faith,” and on those stupid unreasonable narcissistic grounds the group wants to exclude that set of people in a context where groups are simply not allowed to exclude people for stupid unreasonable arbitrary reasons.

    This is bad. This is institutionalized badness. It is bad to exclude people for stupid arbitrary tiny-minded reasons, and religious groups shouldn’t be energetically trying to gain themselves a putative “right” to do that. This is bad, bad stuff. People don’t get to invent random definitions of “immoral” and then use them to exclude people in public settings. Religious groups are energetically trying to do exactly that, and they must be resisted and rebuked.

  • The Nerds Are on the March

    Far from being depressed, the audience turned into a heaving mass of furious geeks. Be afraid, charlatans.

  • Christian Group Wants the Right to Exclude Gays

    Group requires members to sign statement of faith; statement forbids “sexually immoral lifestyle”; gays are immoral. See?

  • Miami Selectively Censors Bus Ads

    A ‘submission to God: Islam’ ad is fine; a ‘Refuge from Islam’ ad is taken down.

  • Iran: Mullah Says Women Cause Earthquakes

    The slutty bitches make men think about sex, and that causes earthquakes.

  • Catholic Clerics Continue Blaming Everyone Else

    It’s eroticism on TV and internet porn; it’s lecherous 13-year-olds who seduce poor helpless priests.