Notes and Comment Blog


More like babies

Nov 11th, 2013 4:27 pm | By

So what’s the psychology of the gigantic princess eyes? Olga Khazan explains at the Atlantic.

The debate over the merits of Disney princesses is as old as time, but it’s fairly undeniable that the animated films’ female leads tend to look like a “pretty girl” cliche.

There’s some research behind why the princess formula is so effective: Enlarged eyes, tiny chins, and short noses make them look more like babies, which creates an air of innocence and vulnerability. There’s evidence that adults who have such “babyfacedness” characteristics are seen as less smart, more congenial, and less likely to be guilty of crimes.

Well what could be more wonderful than illustrations and cartoons that make women look like babies? What a brave new world we live in now that feminism has worked and we are all equal and anything that feminists object to now just shows that they’re radical and deranged. The ideal woman has a face like a baby’s and a rack like a moose’s.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Chirp chirp simper

Nov 11th, 2013 4:01 pm | By

The artist, cartoonist and illustrator David Trumble did a Disney-princessified version of ten women who got/get shit done, by way of making the point that women don’t have to look like a Disney princess to get shit done.

This was a response to the furor kicked up over the glossy ‘princessification’ of Pixar’s Merida character, both in image and doll form. I drew this picture because I wanted to analyze how unnecessary it is to collapse a heroine into one specific mold, to give them all the same sparkly fashion, the same tiny figures, and the same homogenized plastic smile.

My experience of female role models both in culture and in life has shown me that there is no mold for what makes someone a role model, and the whole point of Merida was that she was a step in the right direction, providing girls with an alternative kind of princess. Then they took two steps back, and painted her with the same glossy brush as the rest. So I decided to take 10 real-life female role models, from diverse experiences and backgrounds, and filter them through the Disney princess assembly line.

The result was this cartoon, which earned equal parts praise and ire from readers. Some didn’t get the joke, some disagreed with it, others saw no harm in it at all and wanted to buy the doll versions of them… it was a polarizing image, but I suppose that’s the point. The statement I wanted to make was that it makes no sense to put these real-life women into one limited template, so why then are we doing it to our fictitious heroines?

David Trumble_ Women Of The World Collection

David Trumble

Fiction is the lens through which young children first perceive role models, so we have a responsibility to provide them with a diverse and eclectic selection of female archetypes. Now, I’m not even saying that girls shouldn’t have princesses in their lives, the archetype in and of itself is not innately wrong, but there should be more options to choose from. So that was my intent, to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to paint an entire gender of heroes with one superficial brush.

Go to the article to see photos of the women next to their cartoons to see who’s who (and how vastly more interesting-looking the real women are than the bubblegum version).

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The Citizens Disaster Response Center

Nov 11th, 2013 12:03 pm | By

Ed Brayton publicizes the Foundation Beyond Belief’s page for donations to disaster relief in the Philippines.

The Foundation Beyond Belief is launching a new Humanist Crisis Response for the victims of Typhoon Haiyan, which has been rated as the most powerful storm ever recorded by the US Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center. The power of this storm is mind-blowing, sustained winds of 195 mph and gusts up to 235 — with 10 million people in its path. The aftermath is absolutely devastating. After much research, FBB decided on the Citizens Disaster Response Center as the beneficiary. They’re based in the Philippines and on the ground already. Any help you can give is obviously very badly needed. You can find a link to donate here. Every dollar will go to the CDRC. It isn’t enough to be anti-religion; if we are serious about our humanist principles, we must put them into action and help others whenever possible.

Helping people isn’t one of the Ten Commandments. So much the worse for the Ten Commandments.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



75 years after Kristallnacht

Nov 11th, 2013 10:34 am | By

Spiegel Online reports an EU survey on fears of rising anti-Semitism in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

A vast survey conducted by the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights and published Friday contains troubling results almost exactly 75 years after Kristallnacht: Jews in Germany and seven other EU countries continue to live in fear of verbal or physical abuse — whether in public or, increasingly, online.

“I find it almost unbearable that religious services can only take place with police protection.”

“Anti-Semitism is one reason for me to leave Germany because I want to protect my family from any danger.”

“The anti-Semitic insults I have experienced were not from neo-Nazis or from leftists, but from ordinary people of the political center.”

Maybe this is just the human normal – group hatreds splashing around all over the place and everyone except those lucky enough to be privileged in all categories just having to put up with it…or be killed by it, as the case may be.

The survey’s results provide insight into the perceptions, experiences and self-conception of European Jews. Rather than supplying absolute figures on anti-Semitic attacks, the study focuses on the perceived danger of such attacks and how much the anxiety this causes affects their lives.

  • Two-thirds of respondents (66%) said that anti-Semitism is a problem in Europe, and over three-quarters (76%) noted that there had been an increase in anti-Semitic hostility in their home countries over the last five years.
  • Close to half of respondents (46%) are afraid of being verbally attacked or harassed in a public place because they are Jewish, while a third (33%) worry that such attacks could turn physical.
  • Roughly 50 percent of surveyed parents or grandparents of school-aged children worry that their children could be victims of anti-Semitic verbal insults or harassment at or on the way to or from school if they wore visible Jewish symbols in public.

Of course perceptions and fears can be different from reality; they can be, in short, mistaken. But still the numbers are disquietingly high.

  • More than half of respondents (57%) said that, over the last 12 months, they had heard or seen someone claim that the Holocaust was a myth or that it has been exaggerated.
  • About a quarter (26%) of respondents said that they had experienced some form of anti-Semitic harassment over the previous year, while 4 percent said they had experienced physical violence or threats of attack in the same period.
  • Almost one-fourth (23%) said they had been discriminated against in the last 12-month period for being Jewish.
  • Among employed respondents, 11 percent said they are most likely to experience discrimination for being Jewish at the workplace, while 10 percent said this was the case when looking for work.

So fears are at about 50% and experiences are around 25%…In a way, with the experiences being at 25% (assuming the claims are accurate) you’d expect the fears to be even higher.

The study also found that respondents claimed that they had been increasingly exposed to negative statements about Jews online, including on blogs and social-networking sites. Three-quarters (75%) of all respondents in the eight countries identified the Internet as “the most common forum for negative statements” and a place where such statements could be made with virtual impunity. This was particularly true for respondents between the ages of 16 and 29, of whom 88 percent said that they saw or heard negative comments about Jews online.

Worries about suffering verbal or physical attacks, the study notes, have been found to have negative effects on physical, social and emotional well-being by prompting people to restrict their movements or activities.

Yeah.

The survey also found that Jews living in Germany were particularly concerned with two issues that have sparked much debate in recent years: the prohibition of circumcision (brit mila) and traditional Jewish rituals associated with slaughtering animals (shechita). Almost three-quarters (71%) said that banning circumcision would be a “very big” or “fairly big” problem for them, while half (50%) held the same view regarding prohibitions on traditional slaughter.

“I will wait for the developments concerning a statutory regulation on the Brit Mila. This will be crucial for my decision on whether or not to leave Germany.”

Oh dear. I wish the two could be disaggregated. I wish no one saw wanting to prevent infant and child genital mutilation as any kind of group antagonism.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Why the Catholic church is an intrinsically immoral institution

Nov 11th, 2013 8:48 am | By

Ok, so is the Catholic church an intrinsically immoral institution? I say it is, and Minow in a comment on Poland’s AG has received files says it isn’t. So let’s discuss that.

I say it is, because it is a powerful but wholly unaccountable institution which tries to impose its dogmatic rules on everyone. It’s authoritarian, and it’s officially all-male. The source of its power and authority is its imaginary relationship to an imaginary god.

Those features taken together are enough on their own to make it an intrinsically immoral institution. It bosses people, on the basis of an invisible unaccountable god, and it answers to no one. That’s a god-based dictatorship, and that’s intrinsically immoral. It excludes half of humanity from even the possibility of sharing its power, and that’s intrinsically immoral.

And those features aren’t all. There’s its long long history of murderous persecution of “heretics” and other rebels against its arbitrary unaccountable power. There’s the squalid history of the Vatican as a state. There’s the blood-chilling history of Ireland’s industrial “schools” and Magdalen laundries. There’s Savita Halappanavar. And there is of course the sprawling history of child-rape by priests and the church’s refusal to obey the law and report its child-raping employees to the police.

What’s on the other side of the ledger? Well there’s charity work. Yes, there’s charity work, but it comes with strings attached – it’s Catholic charity work. It’s anti-abortion charity work, which can be way too high a price to pay. It’s charity work that can cloak child-raping priests. It’s charity work that gives the church a toehold in desperately poor countries, so that it can spread its power even more. Above all it’s charity work that doesn’t need to be theistic in nature, and shouldn’t depend on compliance with theistic rules to be available. It’s charity work in exchange for obedience, and that’s not a good exchange.

On the other hand there are generous, liberal Catholics who do the charity without making it depend on compliance. But then it’s just charity; it’s independent of the “Catholic” part; it’s often in outright defiance of the Catholic part. (Hence the Vatican’s bullying of the US nuns.)

If the church were a golf club that formally excluded women, I would say that was immoral but not necessarily intrinsically immoral. But the Catholic church has more power over people than does a golf club. Much more. It has enormous power, and it has no truck with democracy or equality or accountability at all. Yes, that’s intrinsically immoral.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Poland’s AG has received files

Nov 10th, 2013 4:59 pm | By

A Polish friend tells me that the Catholic church in Poland is about to get slammed with its very own child abuse scandal.

There’s this place called the Dominican Republic, see…

Poland’s attorney general has received investigation files concerning two Polish clerics accused of child abuse in the Dominican Republic. 

“A cursory look at them has confirmed that they will be of value in the case, as we had hoped,” said Maciej Kujawski, spokesman for the attorney general.

The 650 documents have been passed on to the district prosecutor’s office in Warsaw, but the office has declined to reveal whether any extradition request has been made.

Yes but – uh – look over there! Pope Francis!! He’s a really nice guy!!!

Father Wojciech Gil, who in recent months has been staying with family in a village near Krakow, stands accused of sexually abusing at least seven boys while he headed a parish in the highland town of Juncalito.

Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski, former Vatican nuncio in the Dominican Republic, faces similar accusations, although his current whereabouts are unknown.

As a Vatican ambassador, Archbishop Wesolowski possessed diplomatic immunity, although he has already been replaced in his post, after being recalled by the Vatican in August.

But the church loves little children! It proves that every day by forcing women to stay pregnant when they don’t want to. Forced pregnancy and child rape, that’s life in God’s jurisdiction.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



If only

Nov 10th, 2013 11:16 am | By

Now read PZ on the silences, the neglect, the moving on to more important matters.

I would like to have read more about “Hearing from Women”, but not only could the writer not be troubled to include more of the women’s statements, but she didn’t even bother to link to any of the panelists. I can correct that, at least: Christie Aschwanden, Deborah Blum, Florence Williams, Kate Prengaman, Kathleen Raven, Maryn McKenna, and Emily Willingham. Isn’t that odd that an article purportedly about this panel didn’t even link to the panelists’ professional pages, neglected to even name one of them, yet still made that special effort to capture men’s opinions on it?

Yes it is.

Now watch a scene from the tv show Scandal in which Lisa Kudrow, as a candidate for president, talks in a tv interview about coded sexism. If only!!

PZ provides the transcript for people who can’t see it but if you can see it it’s worth watching the performed version.

Are you saying that Governor Reston is sexist?

Yes. I am. And it’s not just Governor Reston speaking in code about gender. It’s everyone, yourself included. The only reason we’re doing this interview in my house is because you requested it. This was your idea. And yet here you are, thanking me for inviting me into my “lovely home.” That’s what you say to the neighbor lady who baked you chocolate chip cookies. This pitcher of iced tea isn’t even mine. It’s what your producers set here. Why? Same reason you called me a “real live Cinderella story.” It reminds people that I’m a woman without using the word.
For you it’s an angle, and I get that, and I’m sure you think it’s innocuous, but guess what? It’s not. Don’t interrupt me when I’m speaking. You’re promoting stereotypes, James. You’re advancing this idea that women are weaker than men. You’re playing right into the hands of Reston and into the hands of every other imbecile who thinks a woman isn’t fit to be commander-in-chief.

If only!!!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Hearing from women, hearing from men

Nov 10th, 2013 10:12 am | By

First, take a look at this: a write-up of a panel of women at the National Association of Science Writers meeting on November 2, talking about sexual harassment and women in science writing.

Read it.

After the preliminary summary we get

Hearing from Women

Under that we get two paragraphs, one for the panel and one for the audience.

Among the panelists’ comments, Emily Willingham explained the concept of social privilege, which is advantage derived from a feature of a person that he or she did not create.  This reality, she said, imposes responsibilities on those who possess such features—responsibilities that the privileged often ignore.  Christie Aschwanden noted that the scandal had surprised men and not women and also described her feelings of marginalization in the world of science writing.  Maryn McKenna noted that science journalism will soon be a majority female occupation, but that won’t in itself end the marginalization of women. And Kathleen Raven, one of those who came forward to accuse Zivkovic, told of doing all she could, to no avail, to stop the harassment, including repeated warnings.  She will, she said, be much more clear about ground rules of interactions in the future.

So much for the panel. The paragraph on the women in the audience is even shorter and more perfunctory:

When Blum opened the floor to comments from the audience, women came forward to tell their own experiences of harassment and marginalization.  The special vulnerability of freelances—who generally depend on personal relationships to get assignments and rarely know publications’ anti-harassment policies or reporting procedures—was a common theme.  In addition,  Ginger Campbell, a practicing physician as well as a podcaster, brought word from the world outside science writing.  Numbers alone will not end these problems; on that point she agreed with McKenna.  The medical profession is now also heavily female, she said, but there, too, invisibility is everywhere

Then we get

Hearing from Men

Under that we get four paragraphs, all for men in the audience, and the men get whole paragraphs to themselves.

But some of the most powerful and significant statements came from men.  Mike Lemonick described his astonishment at the different reactions of men and women to the revelations.  Men, he said, were amazed that harassment appeared to be common.  Women were not.  He, like many men, had simply been unaware, a situation that needs to end.  Unless men’s consciousness is raised, he said, men will continue to be unconscious.

Mitch Waldrop recalled that when he rose to a position of editorial power, he didn’t feel powerful or get any training on how to think about  or deal with power differentials that can cause innocently intended behavior to be misinterpreted.  Editors, he said, need such training.  Waldrop, an NASW board member, also mentioned that the board is taking the issue very seriously and is working on several approaches to help.

And so on.

Really. Even in a story about an all-woman panel about being a woman in a particular line of work, written by a woman, the women on the panel plus in the audience get two paragraphs while the men in the audience alone get four.

It’s mind-boggling.

Now read Emily Willingham’s post on the subject.

There were six of us who sat there, who presented, paneled, and answered questions, yet in this writeup on the session at the National Association of Science Writers (NASW) conference in Gainseville, Fla., where our panel convened, one of us doesn’t even get a mention. The writeup appeared at PLoS blogs on the site of NASW blogger Tabitha Powledge, but Beryl Benderly, NASW treasurer, wrote the XX panel summary.

Instead of highlighting what each of the six of us said, the post, in what I must characterize as “business as usual,” not only leaves out mention of a member of our all-women panel but also treats the standing-room only plenary session as an aside, something to roll into a longer section that talks about … life on other planets? Indeed, of the 2285 words that make up the post at PLoS, 1335 are devoted to the possibility of Earthlike planets and life elsewhere instead of the possibilities of the lives of at least half of us right here.

And of the 950 words allotted to the XX science panel at the NASW meeting, 264 were devoted to what the men in attendance at the session had to say. That stands in contrast to the 238 words given to what women on the panel and in the audience at this session on women in science writing had to say, words that trail off in the post without even an end punctuation. Not only that, but the section devoted to the men’s commentary begins with, “But some of the most powerful and significant statements came from men.”

Wouldn’t you think that…oh never mind.

As a sort of coup de grace, the post tags are as follows: aliens, astronomy, Bora Zivkovic, exoplanets, intelligent life, Kepler spacecraft, Milky Way Galaxy, On Science Blogs, science blogging, science journalism, science writing, Scientific American, sexual harassment, Tabitha M. Powledge, women. Not one of the names of the women who were on the panel appears in the metadata. A summary of the post on the NASW Website focuses, like the post itself, on astronomy and gives a single line to what ought to be a major issue for a national association of science writers representing its membership.

After that series of what I can only describe as mounting offenses, the XX panel summary comes to an abrupt end, offering a segue into the bulky remainder on Earth-like planets by saying, “We Now Return You to Our Regularly Scheduled Program.”

Based on the content and emphasis and oversights of that post, it looks to me like we never left that program. The old emphasis on male voices and the attitude of “phew, that’s over” are the same old regular programming we’ve been watching and living for decades. And that, my friends, is the problem that put the six of us in front of a standing-room only crowd at NASW in Gainesville in the first place. And–I believe I can say this with certainty–not a single one of the six of us is content to return to that regular programming. There will be no sliding back into complacency this time.

We don’t want your stinkin regularly scheduled program!!

 

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Deconstructing the assembly

Nov 9th, 2013 5:56 pm | By

The Sunday Assembly idea is getting a lot of mockery – at least I think it is, but maybe that’s because most of my friends on social media are the kind of people who mock things like Sunday assemblies, which they certainly are. That could be it. It could be that people who have more social media friends who sing solemn songs about Sunday assemblies or crochet scarves (from organic non-GMO fully local twice-blessed wool sheared from athletic non-smoking sheep) to wear to Sunday assemblies – it could be that people like that don’t have the impression that the Sunday Assemblies idea is getting a lot of mockery. I do though.

Melbourne has already hosted five Sunday Assemblies. Perth, Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra are next.

“Because it is a godless congregation, we don’t have a doctrine to rely on so we take reference from everything in the world,” Kathryn Murray, the Assembly’s Melbourne convenor, said.

“From the arts, from nature, from everything that we can get our hands on.”

A typical service includes inspirational talks, readings and sing-alongs and always finishes with tea and cake.

Hmm. Why does it sound so dire? Well because of the inspirational talks, readings and sing-alongs and the tea and cake. (I must be assuming the cake will be inspirational as opposed to good, because normally the idea of cake does not repel me, but the cake that would follow the inspirational talks, readings and sing-alongs does repel me. I suppose I think it must be damp and taste like shortbread.

So what should there be instead?

The things there are anyway, I guess. Third places – coffee shops, pubs, taverns, concerts, visits among friends, flea markets, farmers’ markets, bakeries, plays, movies, parks, games, marathons – lots of things. Just talking, instead of inspirational talks.

Maybe it’s this whole caper of setting out to be inspirational. I don’t hold with it. I’d rather look at a sunset instead.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Robin expostulating

Nov 9th, 2013 5:04 pm | By

The video of the panel on “Is science the new religion?” at QED last April is now available, so you can see Robin Ince expostulating with Brendan O’Neill. I enjoy seeing Robin Ince expostulating with Brendan O’Neill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvKLL-db0kc

Tickets for QED 2014 are now on sale. Only £99!

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Guest post by Bill Cooke: CFI combating superstition in Uganda

Nov 9th, 2013 4:09 pm | By

Bill Cooke is the International Director of the CFI’s Transnational Program. 

Fifty or so miles out of Kampala is a small town called Wobulenzi, and here CFI–Uganda runs a clinic devoted to testing the local population for HIV/AIDS and educating them how the disease is contracted. The education program is vital because, as in much of Africa, superstition and misinformation are rife.  So much of what is not understood is attributed to witchcraft and, not infrequently, whoever is identified as the witch ends up dying a horrible death. The churches and the mosques do little or nothing to prevent this superstition, and in many cases are the chief propagators. So, against huge odds, CFI–Uganda is fighting these debilitating superstitions.

2013, Uganda, CFI centre

CFI–Uganda is also helping an organization called HALEA, or Humanist Association for Leadership, Equity and Accountability. HALEA works in the Kampala slums providing basic information to the people there. It might be about successful job-hunting, or about sexual hygiene and contraception. As elsewhere, there is a strong need to educate people against the prevalent superstitions. Predatory churches seek members by spreading fear and misinformation about HIV/AIDS, contraception, vaccination, education and many other things. The young slum-dwellers, almost all unemployed, are also susceptible to criminal activities, so HALEA organises recreational activities to keep them busy and off the streets.

2013, Uganda, CFI centre3

CFI recently stepped up its funding to the clinic at Wobulenzi, and has donated money for HALEA to buy a motorbike, the cheapest and quickest means of transport around Kampala. The various programs it runs are scattered around the sprawling city but now contact between them is a little bit easier. The CFI’s work in Uganda is the clearest example I know of skepticism and humanism working seamlessly together.

Editor’s note: If you want to donate to support this work, donate to CFI and earmark it for the International Program.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



George Bush is here to set you free

Nov 9th, 2013 11:29 am | By

So what’s George Bush up to these days? I know you’re wondering. He’s up to converting the Jews, that’s what. Sarah Posner explains at Mother Jones.

Next week, former President George W. Bush is scheduled to keynote a fundraiser in Irving, Texas, for the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute, a group that trains people in the United States, Israel, and around the world to convince Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah. The organization’s goal: to “restore” Israel and the Jews and bring about the second coming of Christ.

I have to wonder how one goes about “training” people to convince other people to accept Jesus as the Messiah. I do. I wonder because training seems like a secular sort of activity, in the sense that it needs to be tethered to reality at some point in order to do the job. Training means teaching people how to do something the right way. I wonder how one goes about training people to convince other people of bullshit. I know it happens, I know people do it, I just wonder how it works – if there’s ever any wink-wink nudge-nudge “this is the best way to fool people” type of thing.

Based in Dallas, the MJBI claims that it acts like the Apostle Paul in helping to “educate Christians in their role to provoke the Jewish people to jealousy and thus save some of them (Romans 11:11-14).” It has Bible schools in 12 countries, an online school of “Messianic theology,” and programs to train Messianic rabbis and pastors. Its logos feature a star of David and a menorah, and its website promotes the weekly Torah portion, a “Yiddish Mama’s Kitchen,” and links to purchase Judaica and books, such as Christ in the Old Testament. The nonprofit organization brought in approximately $1.2 million in revenue in 2011, the last year for which records are available.

At the November 14 event, which will be held at the Irving Convention Center, Bush will discuss his White House experiences, according to promotional materials. Bush, the group says, will “share his passion for setting people free.” Last year, Glenn Beck was the star of the group’s fundraiser, which was held at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas.

That’s Bush’s idea of setting people free? Yikes.

Maybe that’s because he’s an addict. Is that it? He found Jesus helpful in getting free of addiction to alcohol, so he sees Jesus as setting people free in general? But one problem with that would be that not everyone is an addict.

At last year’s MJBI fundraiser, Beck received a “Defender of Israel” award. During Beck’s time as host of his Fox News program (which ended in 2011), hundreds of Jewish leaders denounced his on-air rhetoric as anti-Semitic—particularly his repeated invocation of Nazis and the Holocaust to demonize political adversaries and his accusation that George Soros is a “puppet master” who collaborated with the Nazis. “One of the reasons why I love Israel so much is I’m a guy who’s for the underdog,” Beck told the audience. “I’m a Mormon, which is kind of the Jew of the Christian world.”

Robert Morris, pastor of Gateway Church in Dallas, which Beck attends, introduced Beck as a “prophet” at the event. Morris told the crowd that his church has supported MJBI because “when we do this, the Bible tells us, it’s going to change the whole world. That it’s going to hasten the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and it’s going to bring about worldwide revival.”

That’s where it gets dangerous.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



First

Nov 9th, 2013 10:37 am | By

Cruelty doesn’t get enough attention. Judith Shklar pointed that out; Montaigne pointed it out.

When I drew up that quick secular 10 commandments recently I put “don’t be cruel” first. I kind of take it for granted that that’s essential…but apparently I’m not in the majority on that.

I just Googled the word and I’m a bit shocked to find that most of the first entries are for cruelty to animals, as if cruelty to humans isn’t a thing.

Cruelty to humans is a thing.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Everyday sadism

Nov 8th, 2013 5:23 pm | By

So that study on sadism I’ve been meaning to talk about for weeks.

Most of the time, we try to avoid inflicting pain on others — when we do hurt someone, we typically experience guilt, remorse, or other feelings of distress. But for some, cruelty can be pleasurable, even exciting. New research suggests that this kind of everyday sadism is real and more common than we might think.

So does regular interaction on the internet, and it’s very depressing. I mean really depressing. I don’t like realizing that a lot of people like to inflict pain just for the hilarity of it.

To test their hypothesis, they decided to examine everyday sadism under controlled laboratory conditions. They recruited 71 participants to take part in a study on “personality and tolerance for challenging jobs.” Participants were asked to choose among several unpleasant tasks: killing bugs, helping the experimenter kill bugs, cleaning dirty toilets, or enduring pain from ice water.

Participants who chose bug killing were shown the bug-crunching machine: a modified coffee grinder that produced a distinct crunching sound so as to maximize the gruesomeness of the task.

The machine didn’t actually do anything to the pill bugs who were put in it, but the subjects didn’t know that.

Of the 71 participants, 12.7% chose the pain-tolerance task, 33.8% chose the toilet-cleaning task, 26.8% chose to help kill bugs, and 26.8% chose to kill bugs.

Participants who chose bug killing had the highest scores on a scale measuring sadistic impulses, just as the researchers predicted. The more sadistic the participant was, the more likely he or she was to choose bug killing over the other options, even when their scores on Dark Triad measures, fear of bugs, and sensitivity to disgust were taken into account.

Participants with high levels of sadism who chose to kill bugs reported taking significantly greater pleasure in the task than those who chose another task, and their pleasure seemed to correlate with the number of bugs they killed, suggesting that sadistic behavior may hold some sort of reward value for those participants.

That creeps me out. The first day I ever worked at the zoo, as a volunteer, I learned that one of the tasks in the Reptile House (where I was volunteering) was to kill mice for the snakes to eat. It wasn’t my task, but the way the mice were killed freaked me out anyway. Later, when I got an actual job at the zoo, it sometimes was my task. I hated it.

Participants with high levels of sadism who chose to kill bugs reported taking significantly greater pleasure in the task than those who chose another task, and their pleasure seemed to correlate with the number of bugs they killed, suggesting that sadistic behavior may hold some sort of reward value for those participants.

And a second study revealed that, of the participants who rated high on one of the “dark” personality traits, only sadists chose to intensify blasts of white noise directed at an innocent opponent when they realized the opponent wouldn’t fight back. They were also the only ones willing to expend additional time and energy to be able to blast the innocent opponent with the noise.

Together, these results suggest that sadists possess an intrinsic motivation to inflict suffering on innocent others, even at a personal cost — a motivation that is absent from the other dark personality traits.

The researchers hope that these new findings will help to broaden people’s view of sadism as an aspect of personality that manifests in everyday life, helping to dispel the notion that sadism is limited to sexual deviants and criminals.

I’m learning it. But god damn I do not like it.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Starting to catch up

Nov 8th, 2013 4:57 pm | By

Alison Bechdel posts on the Bechdel test in Sweden and the news flurry about same.

I have always felt ambivalent about how the Test got attached to my name and went viral. (This ancient comic strip I did in 1985 received a second life on the internet when film students started talking about it in the 2000′s.) But in recent years I’ve been trying to embrace the phenomenon. After all, the Test is about something I have dedicated my career to: the representation of women who are subjects and not objects. And I’m glad mainstream culture is starting to catch up to where lesbian-feminism was 30 years ago. But I just can’t seem to rise to the occasion of talking about this fundamental principle over and over again, as if it’s somehow new, or open to debate. Fortunately, a younger generation of women is taking up the tiresome chore. Anita Sarkeesian, in her Feminist Frequencies videos, is a most eloquent spokesperson.

It gets hard to do once you’re ancient because you can’t help thinking it shouldn’t be taking so fucking long. You know? A younger generation at least hasn’t lived through all the time it’s taking, so it’s that many decades less likely to feel too frustrated to say one more word on the subject.

H/t rrede.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



Catch 2222222222222

Nov 8th, 2013 4:31 pm | By

So since I was reading a piece by Laura Bates I saw another piece by Laura Bates, so I read that too.

A UK tabloid, the Daily Star, is in such a lather about the urgent duty of telling Kate-who-married-William how to body that it published a story about the ghost of Diana – the mother of said William who died I think it was 16 years ago – giving Kate how to body advice. Yes really.

The Daily Star headline that should horrify us all.

Laura Bates comments:

Under a front-page headline so ridiculous I assumed it was a spoof for a couple of hours, the paper ran the “story”: Di ghost tells the duchess: You’re too thin! They labelled it an exclusive.

That’s right. Not only has the body relentlessly lauded and photographed and peddled to women everywhere as the ultimate pinnacle of ideal, unachievable, feminine thinness attracted the inevitable media backlash – but the paper in question had the gall to take body shaming to a completely new plane. The unrelenting criticism of women’s figures has gone paranormal.

That could become a trend. Joan Crawford tells Hillary Clinton how to body. Queen Victoria tells Angela Merkel how to body. Catherine the Great tells Elena Kagan how to body.

Without even going into the breathtaking insensitivity of evoking a dead woman’s memory to body-shame her son’s new wife, articles such as these pose an even more immediate and insidious threat.

As we sell our daughters birthday cards, dressing-up costumes and childhood books about becoming a beautiful princess (while our boys revel in merchandise promoting the active adventures of astronauts) the media obsession with the duchess’s every bodily inch reinforces the principle that girls should be seen and not heard. Compound that with the contradictory message that she is simultaneously perfectly, joyously slender and selfishly, irresponsibly underweight and we’re also broadcasting to our girls, loud and clear, the message of mandatory female insecurity.

The duchess’s treatment testifies that though they will forever be evaluated on the basis of their looks alone, those looks will always be cruelly attacked by somebody; there is no way they can win.

That is true. It’s something that’s been forcefully shoved on my attention in the past few years – there is no way we can win. We are targets, no matter what.

 

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



This is just what happens to women online

Nov 8th, 2013 3:59 pm | By

Laura Bates takes a look at online sexism. (Cue a rumble of outraged outrage in response.)

The internet is a fertile breeding ground for misogyny – you only have to look at the murky bottom waters of Reddit and 4Chan to see the true extent to which it allows violent attitudes towards women to proliferate. But, crucially, it also provides a conduit that enables many who hold those views to attack and abuse women and girls, from what they rightly perceive to be an incredibly secure position. Meanwhile, the police seem near-powerless to take action, social media sites shrug their shoulders, and women are left between a rock and a hard place – simply put up with the abuse as a part of online life, or get off the internet altogether.

These are not just nasty comments, or harsh criticisms – they are extreme, detailed and vitriolic threats of rape, torture and death. I have received messages detailing exactly how I should be disembowelled, which weapons could be used to kill me, and which parts of my body should be raped. When I ignored the threats, they intensified and proliferated, finding out information about my family members and threatening to rape them instead. They are the kind of messages that race around your head at night when you try to sleep, no matter how much you wrote them off as empty scare-mongering during the day. They make you hesitate to post online and change the way you use social media. And nobody seems to be able to do anything about it. Of the three rape threats I reported to police in recent months, two have already been dropped because the police are unable to trace the perpetrators…

Just like Sweetie and any other young girls her age venturing into shared online spaces, the answer seems to be an ambivalent shrug – this is just what happens to women online so you might as well get used to it. And woe betide you if you try to protest the apparent unfairness of that, because didn’t you know that you are threatening free speech?

If this really is just what happens to women online then women face a massive obstacle to being online, don’t we. It’s not a thing you just get used to, nor should it be. The price of participation should not be bullying and harassment, let alone threats of violence. Using harassment and threats to stop people participating is itself a threat to free speech. Which speech has the better claim to freedom? The kind that harasses women just for showing up, or the kind that objects to being harassed just for showing up?

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



How is that promoting religion?

Nov 8th, 2013 11:36 am | By

Actual, not figurative, out loud blurt of laughter. An American Legion post in North Carolina wanted to give the local schools a poster yelling “in god we trust” but the school board said no thank you, and a member of the Legion who is also a pastor has hurt feelings.

“We got an email from the school saying thank you but on advice of their legal counsel they could not accept the posters because of separation of church and state,” American Legion member Rick Cornejo told me in a telephone interview.

Cornejo, who is also a local Baptist preacher, said the decision to ban the posters has resulted in a lot of hurt feelings.

“It’s disappointing, it really is,” he said. “Educators are asking us for those posters so they can put them in their classrooms but right now they can’t do it – because the school board won’t let them.”

The 16×20 inch framed posters include the words “In God We Trust,” with an American flag in the background.

It reads: “The national motto of the United States, adopted by Congress, July 30, 1956.”

At the height of the Cold War, and wtf is a “national motto” anyway, and one of these days I really ought to stop everything else and make a concerted effort to get “ingodwetrust” off the god damn currency. But anyway.

 spokesman for the school district told the Watauga Democrat newspaper that “In God We Trust” was banned on the advice of their legal counsel. They feared someone could see the poster and construe the district was promoting religion.

Cornejo said that’s just silly.

“How is that promoting religion?” he asked me. “It doesn’t say anything about Jesus. I could understand if it was a Bible verse – but it’s ‘In God We Trust.’”

There, that’s the part that caused the noisy laughter. It’s hard to tell if they’re bullshitting or stupid when they say that kind of thing. “Ho yus the cross is not a religious symbol at all, it’s purely ceremonial, as any fule kno.” “Oh good heavens no, ‘God’ is not religious; Jesus is religious, absolutely, but God? Don’t be silly.”

How is saying “in god we trust” promoting religion? I’ll tell you, sport. It’s promoting the baseless claim that there’s an always-absent yet supremely important other-worldly but concerned-with-us SuperBoss out there somewhere (and also in here and everywhere) and that we trust it. If you genuinely don’t recognize that that’s a very large and very difference-making claim, then you should think harder about it. After that you should think harder about how anyone knows that, and why they should be shoving it on people when in fact they don’t know it.

The writer of the article, Todd Starnes, goes on to blame it on the liberals. It’s creepy.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



We can treat the great majority of the people equally

Nov 8th, 2013 11:11 am | By

Ron Lindsay objects to the way the plaintiffs’ attorney in Greece v Galloway briskly threw the atheists under the bus.

Roberts was asking whether the concerns of atheists had to be considered in
determining whether the prayer practice is constitutional. And, incredibly, the plaintiffs’ attorney responded, “We’ve excluded the atheists.” (Transcript, p. 46.) In other words, to all atheists: Your concerns don’t matter. You’re not part of the community. You’re a special case and your constitutional rights are limited. Or, if you prefer blunter language, eat shit.

What Laycock said really is rather tooth-grinding.

We can treat the great majority of the people equally with the tradition of prayer to the almighty, the governor of the universe, the creator of the world -

Yes but you can treat all the people equally by skipping the putative tradition of prayer at a government function altogether. Treating just the great majority equally isn’t what you should be doing here.

Back to Ron’s post.

CFI, joined by other secular groups, filed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court, arguing that the reasoning behind the Marsh decision is fundamentally flawed. The Marsh court assumed invocations would not be divisive. That has proven not to be the case, especially as the country has become more religiously diverse, including a growing segment of nonreligious individuals. There have been a number of protests involving various local bodies when members of minority religions have offered invocations—or when atheists were allowed the opportunity to open business with solemn secular remarks.

You know what they should start doing? Showing a film clip of the earth seen from space, with inspiring music. Let that be the invocation.

I’m serious. They want to start with solemnity and reminding everyone that this matters. Ok then, do it in a way that really is relevant to all of us.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)



The Bechdel test in Södermalm

Nov 7th, 2013 5:55 pm | By

Movie theatres in Sweden are introducing a new rating system to highlight the scarcity of women in movies. It’s a Bechdel test rating. That’s not even a joke or a figure of speech: they’re using the Bechdel test.

I love Sweden.

To get an A rating, a movie must pass the so-called Bechdel test, which means it must have at least two named female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man.

“The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, all Star Wars movies, The Social Network, Pulp Fiction and all but one of the Harry Potter movies fail this test,” said Ellen Tejle, the director of Bio Rio, an art-house cinema in Stockholm’s trendy Södermalm district.

Bio Rio is one of four Swedish cinemas that launched the new rating last month to draw attention to how few movies pass the Bechdel test. Most filmgoers have reacted positively to the initiative. “For some people it has been an eye-opener,” said Tejle.

It’s especially pathetic about Harry Potter, isn’t it. J. K. Rowling is after all a woman.

Beliefs about women’s roles in society are influenced by the fact that movie watchers rarely see “a female superhero or a female professor or person who makes it through exciting challenges and masters them”, Tejle said, noting that the rating doesn’t say anything about the quality of the film. “The goal is to see more female stories and perspectives on cinema screens,” he added.

In the hope that maybe, someday, a few centuries from now, people will at last start to realize that women aren’t quasi-human or partly human or almost human, but really actually fully human.

The A rating is the latest Swedish move to promote gender equality by addressing how women are portrayed in the public sphere.

Sweden’s advertising ombudsman watches out for sexism in that industry and reprimands companies seen as reinforcing gender stereotypes, for example by including skimpily clad women in their adverts for no apparent reason.

Since 2010, the Equalisters project has been trying to boost the number of women appearing as expert commentators in Swedish media through a Facebook page with 44,000 followers. The project has recently expanded to Finland, Norway and Italy.

So where are the people shouting about radical feminism? Oh, they’re there.

“If they want different kind of movies they should produce some themselves and not just point fingers at other people,” said Tanja Bergkvist, a physicist who writes a blog about Sweden’s “gender madness”.

Good thinking. If the culture ignores women, just make a new culture yourself and not just point fingers at other people. That’s easy enough isn’t it? Making a new culture single-handed? Producing better movies because you want better movies?

Research in the US supports the notion that women are under-represented on the screen and that little has changed in the past 60 years.

Of the  top 100 US films in 2011, women accounted for 33% of all characters and only 11% of the protagonists, according to a study by the San Diego-based Centre for the Study of Women in Television and Film.

Another study, by the Annenberg Public Policy Centre at the University of Pennsylvania, showed that the ratio of male to female characters in movies has remained at about two to one for at least six decades. That study, which examined 855 top box-office films from 1950-2006, showed female characters were twice as likely to be seen in explicit sexual scenes as males, while male characters were more likely to be seen as violent.

And if you don’t like it, it’s up to you as an individual to create an alternative. Your time starts now.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)