The bad ideas file
Excellent stuff (as usual) from Fred Halliday. The world’s twelve worst ideas.
Number nine: We live in a “post-feminist” epoch. The implication of this claim, supposedly analogous to such terms as “post-industrial”, is that we have no more need for feminism, in politics, law, everyday life, because the major goals of that movement, articulated in the 1970s and 1980s, have been achieved. On all counts, this is a false claim: the “post-feminist” label serves not to register achievement of reforming goals, but the delegitimation of those goals themselves.
Really. The idea that feminism has nothing left to do – what a joke. Tell that to women in India, or Pakistan, or Niger, just for a start.
Number seven: Religion should again be allowed, when not encouraged, to play a role in political and social life. From the evangelicals of the United States, to the followers of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, to the Islamists of the middle east, the claim about the benefits of religion is one of the great, and all too little challenged, impostures of our time. For centuries, those aspiring to freedom and democracy, be it in Europe or the middle east, fought to push back the influence of religion on public life. Secularism cannot guarantee freedom, but, against the claims of tradition and superstition, and the uses to which religion is put in modern political life, from California to Kuwait, it is an essential bulwark.
Secularism cannot guarantee freedom but it certainly is a start, and its absence is a near-guarantee of unfreedom.
Number one: The world’s population problems, and the spread of Aids, can be solved without the use of condoms. This is not only the most dangerous, but also the most criminal, error of the modern world. Millions of people will suffer, and die premature and humiliating deaths, as a result of the policies pursued in this regard through the United Nations and related aid and public-health programmes. Indeed, there is no need to ask where the first mass murderers of the 21st century are; we already know, and their addresses besides: the Lateran Palace, Vatican City, Rome, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC. Timely arrest and indictment would save many lives.
Yeah. And note how the three link up – religion playing a huge role in political and social life, religio-male domination, and extra suffering and death on a massive scale caused by the combination. Three sucky ideas creating pointless stupid misery. And yet people wonder why atheists won’t just be quiet.
This is brilliant stuff!
I will have to re-read the artcle, properly, tomorrow.
Not that it will stop the religious from moaning on and on and on ……
Well, they lost in the House of Lords tonight, so ha.
House of Lords? Damn OB, you English are overweening anachronisms with your hegemony and hotel name-tags ;-)
These ‘ten worst ideas’ are a good selection, but the framing makes me wonder whether the atheism of your last para is any benefit in framing solutions. Are you going to get new standards of human decency accepted by treating the people accepting intermediate stages (ie mixing modern standards with soft religion and conservatism) as equal to the worst?
I think this is in significant part self-serving, despite the overall sound points.
And yes, it took me more than 12 months to realise you were on the other side of the pond.
Oh please, “brilliant stuff”. Indeed, if you’re an authoritarian!
I have no quibble with #9, but large parts of #7 and #1 are emotive rants. I think he needs a cup of tea and a lie down.
Re: #7. Yes, the purported benefits of religion should be challenged, but, I would suggest that many who have championed freedom and democracy in the past have been religious. And have been inspired by their religious principles.
There also seems to me to be some confusion here. Didn’t the liberal interpretation of religious principles actually allow secularism to come into existence?
Like it or not, unless (or even if) religion is made a thought crime, people will use their religious principles in their political and social life. The obvious conclusion from what Halliday says is that he believes that religion should not be allowed to play a role. Exactly how would that be done? If he is talking about institutional favours for organised religions, then yes, I agree. But I think he means more than that.
I think that religion in political and social life should not be out-of-bounds. Let’s have more discussion and challenging of the religious principles being expounded. And OB, I would suggest that the absence of religion in a society is a clear sign of unfreedom.
Re: #1. Not this tired old line again. If the gullible in the second and third world are following their religious indoctrination then they will not only be avoiding condom use, but they would also be virgins until marriage and remain monogamous when married. Please direct me to the edict of the Catholic Church that advocates sex outside of marriage, with multiple partners, and still maintains that condoms should not be used. It’s more likely that the lack of strict adherence to religious indoctrination is the cause of the continuing spread of Aids; that is, not enough religion that is the problem. Attack religion by all means, but don’t blame it for what it is not responsible for. I would suggest that the cultural objections to condom use are vastly more important than any Vatican edict.
His statement that the world’s population problem can to be solved through the use of condoms is also very strange. Firstly, I’d have thought that Aids might be actually solving his “problem” for him. But more importantly, the biggest factor in reducing the birth rate is not the availability of condoms but the wealth of the society, especially the women on the society. It seems he hasn’t updated his thinking from the 70’s.
His #1 is not the most dangerous idea, and to deem it criminal is some sick fantasy of his. Of course, having said that, condoms are part of the solution to the problem of Aids.
Do we, possibly, have an “American” right-winger or christian apologist in our midst, in the form of “eagle bomber”?
Come now, sir or madam, #7 is entirely correct.
Given that all religions are forms of organised blackmail, based on fear and superstition, why should someone’s imaginary friend be allowed to dictate any policy?
As for #1, what is actually wrong with the statement as such?
Peole are going to screw, there’s nothing you can do about it, so you might as well make the best of what you can with that fact in mind.
Yes, other, better birth-control programmes would be a very good idea, as well, and “bomber’s” point about increased affluence and education seems to automatically lower the birth-rate – provided, of course, women are actually allowed to have a say – which, of course they are not in islamic societies – oh we’re back to religion again.
Funny, that.
There is also a problem with Number Eight:
“Markets are a “natural” phenomenon which allow for the efficient allocation of resources and preferences.”
The problem is that few people who see value in markets claim that markets are “natural.” The fact that they are or are not “natural” is not relevant. It’s that in many though not all situations they actually work. I won’t get into the pro/com arguments; we did that starting in junior high. My point is that “natural” is not a useful criterion for judging capitalism.
Intelligent onbservers who are pro-market will acknowledge that (for example) markets rely on a fair and efficient legal system, backed up by state authority, so that private contracts do not need to be enforced by “self-help” i.e. my gun is bigger than yours.
So Halliday, much as I have admired his writings in general, strays a bit here.
I think Eagle Bomber’s criticism to #7 points to a genuine problem, though I believe his interpretation of the statement might be more charitable. The (implied) statement that religion should not play a role in political and social life can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
If secularism is to mean that the state, courts etc. should be religiously neutral, – and I’ve always understood it to mean exactly that – I’m all for it. This does not mean that religion and religious institutions cannot play a role in political and social life on private initiative. Where I’m from, the churches organize shelters for illegal refugees, halfway houses for ex-cons, etc. – all initiatives which I heartily applaud. They definitely imply the presence of religiously inspired initiatives and religious organizations in the public sphere. But unless they become intertwined with the state, I see no problem with secularism here.
Another, more difficult question, is that of political parties with an explicit religious basis. Of which there are quite a few around here. In my mind, the presence of, say, Christian Democrat or Calvinist parties in the Dutch government and parliament does not negate secularism as long as the courts, the structure of the state as such, etc. remain essentially irreligious (of course, Holland isn’t exactly secular, but that’s a different issue).
Lastly, I should note that even if I don’t deny the connection to organized religion that OB draws, it is quite possible to support at least idea #9 and #7 and probably #1 as well from an atheist perspective. Atheism doesn’t quite imply one does not want religion to play a large role in public life – not all the rumblings about our “judeo-christian values” from the right come from theists, putting it mildly.
I agree with Merlijn that Eagle Bomber has a reasonable point in #7 (any group of like minded people should be able to participate as a group in public life, they just shouldn’t be specially privileged), but I feel his argument about #1 is flawed.
Yes, it is probably right that culural values play a large part in not using condoms (in the sense that some men don’t like the idea for machismo or whatever reasons) but the religious groups (who have real power over life and death in poverty stricken areas) have way over-stepped the line by teaching that condoms are not only ineffective against HIV, but are actually infected with the virus. And the idea of African women consulting their religious conciences before deciding whether or not to have sex is cloud cuckoo land. Besides which, I seem to recall that some American evangelical charities are putting pressure on the government to withhold funds from organisations distributing or promoting condoms. Can’t find the appropriate link at the moment, but I’m reasonably confident that’s the case.
Even if Eagle Bomber (an admittedly odd choice of handle) is a right wing christian apologist, as long as his comments are reasoned and courteous (as they seem to be) I don’t see why he shouldn’t be welcomed. Actually, I agree that Halliday’s list smacks of authoritarianism. Some good points, but wide open to fair criticism.
Merlijn and Don, I’m curious, how do you know eagle bomber is male?
I guess just picking up on little subliminal signals. Choice of handle seems rather masculine/macho, the assumption that women in Africa are able generally to make a free choice on condom use, … just an unconsidered instinct. Could be wrong (I thought Cathal was a woman for his first few posts) but his (?) writing style just ‘feels’ male.
Yeah – I’m guessing it’s a male too. Trouble is, when it’s an ungendered name and people assume the person is male, it just plays into that default assumption that everyone is male. One notices it (at least I certainly do) with animals – people always refer to random unknown animals as ‘he’ – sometimes even if there are very visible tits and (unsurprisingly) no visible penis.
Hrmph. To be honest, I just sort of assumed it (seeing as I used ‘his’). Probably stimulated by the ‘bomber’ (in my native Dutch, virtually every word ending in ‘-er’ has male reference). But it was careless.
OB – yes, but I find on the world of blogs, you’ll be right much more often than you’re wrong if you assume that an ungendered name is male.
Patrick, maybe so, but that’s not a good reason to do so.
‘Bomber’ does rather suggest a male, of course, as Merlijn points out. Nevertheless! Default-male double-plus ungood.
‘Bomber’ does rather suggest a male,…
So, not so much ‘default male’ as balance of probability based on textual cues. If the same comment had been posted by ‘Fluffy-wuffy Kitten’ rather than ‘Eagle Bomber’ I would probably guessed female.
So not working on pre-conceptions at all.
Or Tits’n’ass, or Hot Lips Houlihan, or Do I Look Fat in this Dress, or How is the Pot Roast Dear, or My Hair Just Won’t Curl Today, or Gosh I Don’t Know Why Don’t You Explain it Honey, or Aw Boo Boo Did it Get an Owie, or Oh Dear I Spent A Year’s Salary on These Manolo Blahniks, or Why Do You Expect Me to Clean Up After You I’m Not Your Mother.
I have a confession to make: I assumed OB was a guy for almost two months into reading B&W.
Being a female philosopher myself, I still seem to go about assuming that everyone writing about philosophy has to be male.
Shame on me.
Eagle Bomber has some interesting points to make on AIDS but XXXXXX defence of the Catholic Church’s doctrine on contraception reveals that XXXXXX has not followed the argument through to its nefarious practical effects.
The Church’s doctrine that premarital and extramarital sex is a mortal sin applies also to the use of ‘artificial’ birth control methods within marriage, ranging from coitus interruptus to the contraceptive pill. All these methods are upsetting to God. According to Catholic teaching, the only admissible form of contraception is abstinence from sex during the woman’s fertile period (the so-called rhythm or Ogino-Knaus method). It was formally legitimised in the papal encyclical Casti Connubii of 1930:
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.
This ‘natural’ birth control method may ‘work’ for devout middle-class Catholics but it is absolutely unrealistic to expect it will be effective in controlling the birth rate of the uneducated – including the vast majority of the Third World’s population.
Detailed information on the Vatican’s morally bankrupt role may be found, inter alia, at the website of the ‘Center for Research on Population and Security’. See here.
Note: Few people are aware that many strands of Islamic teaching on birth control are less restrictive than that of the Vatican. In fact, only Orthodox Jews (for whom sexual intercourse is mandatory during the wife’s fertile period) are more ‘fertility-driven’ than the Catholic Church.
Tea:
I have a confession to make: I assumed OB was a guy for almost two months into reading B&W.
Er… Yeah, well… Um… *shuffles feet*
(I figured it out after a few weeks, though)
“One notices it (at least I certainly do) with animals – people always refer to random unknown animals as ‘he’ – sometimes even if there are very visible tits and (unsurprisingly) no visible penis.”
Actually, with cats people seem to default to the female, dogs to the male. For the trest, I think people usually go for a straight ‘it’, don’t they?
“Indeed, there is no need to ask where the first mass murderers of the 21st century are; we already know, and their addresses besides: the Lateran Palace, Vatican City, Rome, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC. Timely arrest and indictment would save many lives.”
This is a bit annoying. So the responsibility when men have unprotected sex lies not with the men themselves, but with the US President and the Pope? That’s as daft as the ‘Blair’s bombs’ rhetoric. I also think it is boderline racist since the men who we are assuming to have no moral agency with this are by definition black and brown men from poor countries. if a big city white man with money fucks around without a condom and thereby spreads AIDS, we assume it is his fault, not the Pope’s, even if he is a committed cathloic (after all, he is choosing to ignore the Pope’s injunction against fucking around).
“Indeed, there is no need to ask where the first mass murderers of the 21st century are …
John, that’s not just ‘a bit annoying’ — it’s a pretty revolting textbook example of the kind of hyperbole used by those who preach only to the converted.
The problem with hyperbol is that your adversaries are quite likely to think you mean what you said.
Sometimes the adversaries are right.
Mass muderers of this century?
What’s Kim Jong-Il’s address?
or Ahmendijad’s, or that of the syndic in Khartoum?
Etc …..
Depressing though.
New rule. If there is a commenter of unknown gender, don’t assign it one. No exceptions. Especially not for Cathal.
The thing about Tea and Merlijn assuming I was a guy for a long time is quite good – it means I don’t tip my hand. That’s good; I prefer not to.
Trouble is, when it’s an ungendered name and people assume the person is male, it just plays into that default assumption that everyone is male.
The default (blogosphere) assumption is not that ‘everyone is male’ but that a large majority of bloggers are male; this default assumption is a correct assumption. Use of sex-specific personal pronouns tends to reflect reality. The gen term is ‘stereotype accuracy’.
To make a somewhat blunt comparison for clarification purposes: if in a dark alleyway we were to spot a very tall person approaching us at a distance, we would make the ‘default assumption’ that that person is male, although there is always the slim possibility that that person is an abnormally tall female.
It would be quite natural to say to our companion:
‘Do you that guy coming down the road?’
rather than:
‘Do you see that person, who is probably a male but possibly a very tall female, coming down the road?’
For economy’s sake, default assumptions are quite justifiable: at any rate, if a girl-blogger does not want to be mistaken for a boy-blogger, all she has to do is to use a girl’s name and that will settle the matter. And vice versa.
A sensitive and experienced reader will often guess the writer’s sex correctly when the subject matter is of a ‘human interest’ nature (as opposed to the natural sciences), such as most of the topics discussed at N&C. For example, it is almost impossible to conceive of the ‘G’ in ‘G. Tingey’ being the first letter of ‘Gemma’ or ‘Gudrun’ or ‘Goldilocks’ – his testosterone-driven style vibrates through the airwaves (Oops, verboten. I mean ‘his or her testosterone-driven style’. Pardon.)
Examples: women tend to me more conciliatory (‘I think you may be mistaken’), men more adversarial or even abusive (‘your posting sucks, you forking asshole’). Women tend to use adjectives galore; men are more parsimonious in this respect.
The fair sex also tends to use the first person singular more frequently than men.
I can tell you I’m sure of that, I am.
Cathal, do keep the tedious predictable crap to yourself. If the damn database didn’t take ten minutes to get working I would delete that comment in a heartbeat; as it is it will have to wait until tomorrow.
Seriously. Don’t post garbage. It’s annoying.
Cathal, and others ….
My style may or may not be “testerostone-driven”, but you won’t find anyone outside the [Ir ON: xtreme-lesbian/all-males-are-evil /Ir OFF:] groupngs who is more anti-female discrimination than me.
I have NEVER, and I mean never seen the point of it.
I can remember the awful fuss made in the late 50’s/early 60’s when women wanted to become airline pilots, and how “they couldn’t possibly handle the resposibility/stress/training/etc …
And thinking … “Erm, I’m sure women used to act as ferry pilots for aircraft, up to and inclusing 4-engined bombers during WWII, so what’s the problem?”
As it happens, they did, and one or two, ferrying fighters, even shot down some Nazi planes, and quite a few were killed in the execution of their duties, for which they had all volunteered.
Oh, and if I was really T-driven, wouldn’t I be some sort of religous believer, given most religions treatment of women?
So, if you wanted a rise out of me, you’ve got it.
I hope you like the response, because Ophelia knows why I really couldn’t give a toss ….
Cathal,
The phrase ‘I think you may be mistaken’ is not necessarily conciliatory. It can be something you say while deciding where best to place the knife.
Now I have to leave it, so I might as well say why it’s crap.
“The default (blogosphere) assumption is not that ‘everyone is male’ but that a large majority of bloggers are male; this default assumption is a correct assumption. Use of sex-specific personal pronouns tends to reflect reality…For economy’s sake, default assumptions are quite justifiable”
Economy of what? If you don’t know, just say it or its. Not expensive – and, which ought to have some weight, more sodding accurate. Saying ‘his’ when you don’t in fact know is inherently inaccurate: it says you know what you don’t know. Why say anything which claims knowledge you don’t in fact have? That’s not good practice, and it does nothing to ‘reflect reality’; on the contrary, it distorts it. The relevant reality is not that most bloggers are male (and I’ve seen many claims that the opposite is true) but that you don’t know whether pseudonymous blogger X is female or male.
Do a thought experiment. Suppose we had pronouns that specified race, along with an alternative that didn’t; also that first names indicated race. Then suppose that it was your opinion that most bloggers are white. Would you then automatically call all pseudonymous bloggers ‘White’ instead of ‘Neutral’ on the grounds that most bloggers are white?
There are now, I believe, more male judges than female judges in both the UK and the US. Does that mean it is best practice to call all Judge Xs ‘he’? No, it damn well doesn’t.
Your objections are worthless and pointless, which is what makes them so irritating – they so obviously have no purpose other than that of annoyance. I’m not telling you to call anonymous bloggers she, for christ’s sake, I’m telling you not to call them he; I’m telling you not to claim to know what you don’t damn well know. If you did know what you pretend you can know, then I’d be a man, and I’m not.
Your objections are worthless and pointless, which is what makes them so irritating – they so obviously have no purpose other than that of annoyance…
Ophelia, the fact that my comments caused annoyance does not mean that that was my intent (unless I am deceiving myself, it wasn’t — my intent was to initiate a discussion, any possible annoyance being deemed to be collateral damage).
Since I don’t want to waste any more of your time or my time quarreling over this issue, let me just say this: I’m not going to antagonise you further by defending my position unless you expressly ask me to do so on the grounds that otherwise I am playing ‘hit and run’. I think a mountain is being made out a molehill, perhaps by both of us.
P.S.
One empirical point does interest me. You write:
The relevant reality is not that most bloggers are male (and I’ve seen many claims that the opposite is true) …
I’ve assumed that most bloggers (at least on political issues) are male simply because most of the first names used are male.
I would be thrilled to be wrong about this, because I don’t like making mistakes and I would have great fun asking my colleagues whether they believed that males or females ‘dominate’ in the blogosphere. Most would probably say ‘males’ and I would have the malicious pleasure of correcting them and ticking them off for ‘stereotyping’
etc etc
Helen’s Blog: 6,300,000 entries
Harold’s Blog: 2,630,000 entries…
“THE RELEVANT REALITY IS NOT THAT MOST BLOGGERS ARE MALE (and I’ve seen many claims that the opposite is true) …”
I’ve put the important part of that sentence in capitals so that Cathal can see what it is he is supposed to argue about.
Don’t thank me, it’s National Delurking Week!
Arnaud,
I fully understood the sentence — I found the stuff in brackets more interesting, though.
Thanks for the Helen v. Harold findings! Did you select the most desirable results, or were these two the first two names you googled?
Arnaud, my results for Harold and Helen were even more female-weighted than yours (you obviously use a male-biased search engine!):
Helen’s blog — 36700
Harold’s blog — 9350
Who on earth are all these darn Helens anyhow?
“I think a mountain is being made out a molehill, perhaps by both of us.”
Classic, classic, classic guy shit. Do a lot of dumb sexist chest-thumping, then when called on it by a woman, say we’re both making too much of it. So classic there must be a statue to it somewhere.
No doubt it is a molehill to you, Cathal, but then it would be, wouldn’t it. It’s not a molehill to me. Maybe you still don’t see it…I’ll explain. You’re not disappeared by all this “Let’s just assume everyone is male because after all almost everyone is.” I am. I don’t like it. I don’t like it and as a result the stupidity of it gets on my nerves in a big way.
Nice try on argument re-direction front, Arnaud! Too bad it didn’t work.
Wow, this thread does seem to have gone off topic.
Sorry, but I ain’t tellin’.
Regards, EB
Cathal: “Thanks for the Helen v. Harold findings! Did you select the most desirable results, or were these two the first two names you googled?
I’ll take your word for it.”
That was my point exactly. Not much of a point, I know but thank you so much for explaining it to me…
But let’s carry on.
Cathal: “first book on my desk, let’s open it — Emma Williams’s ‘It’s easier to reach heaven’ …”
First name I read: Emma (Google for Emma’s Blog: 2 900 000 results), next male name : William (Google for William’s blog: 732 000)
My apologies to OB and Eagle Bomber. PLEASE, do us the favour to go back to the original point before my brains melt with the boredom…
Harry blog — 19,600,000
Helen blog — 5,570,000
(I see no rerason to add the apostrophe.)