Monday, December 22, 2014
Light Blogging For the Holidays: Drawing the Vagina And The Last Presidential Press Conference Of the Year
Not much light this time of the year (happy belated solstice!), so the term must be used in the sense of weightless or not so important or funny.
For example, here are drawings of the vagina by a few men. The drawing project was a test. You might wish to notice that the vagina is not drawn in any of the pictures (it's the vulva that is shown there). The other mistakes are fun, too.
We should do the same drawing project on the male genitals by women, to see whether lack of information is equally distributed or not.
And what fun that president Obama press conference was! For some reason he took questions only from female journalists. Why? Did he try to balance his question-taking by the end of the year? Or was this the first stage of the new feminazi world where not one single man is ever allowed to open his mouth?
Some meninist sites suggested the latter, to which I might mutter that if the press conference had only allowed questions from men we wouldn't even have noticed. That's how common having men do most of the public talking is, for various reasons.
Can you guess how Howard Kurtz, Fox's media critic, criticized those women's questions? This is so delicious: The questions were "bland, tentative or rambling."
So. If the questions had been deemed aggressive, what on earth could Kurtz have said about them? That they were strident, hysterical, illogical? Probably.
You know, on white privilege or male privilege or whatever type of privilege someone might refer to. It just occurred to me (probably light years after it occurred to everyone else) that the way the term privilege is used upends the common way that oppression and inequality have been used: Instead of focusing on a group that is mistreated, that has too few rights etc. many now focus on a group that is treated too well, that has too many rights etc.
Which is interesting. Whether it works similarly to the older terminology in psychological terms is also an interesting question.
I've written before that the concept of privilege is an excellent introspection tool. It reminds us that other people's lives can be very different, without us knowing anything about it. It's as if the automatic doors at the store which always open for us never open for them and must be tugged and pulled hard, and that information is valuable.
But will the linguistic upending lead to the kind of change we wish to see? I'm not sure. In theory there is some level of treatment which might be regarded as fair, a level which we all should be entitled to receive.
Where is that level in the privilege debate*? Is it when nobody has any privilege left? And how do we get to that point? By relinquishing all our privileges (because all but the most miserable person on earth will have some "privilege"** over that person)? Can privileges be relinquished?
Or by bringing everyone else up to the same level of privilege? But is that still privilege then?
I think the discussion needs that third level; otherwise we just pull up and tug down and there's no objective standard about the correct treatment.
*In the older debate that level was assumed to be everybody else except the oppressed group under discussion, where oppression was defined on the basis of one dimension. For instance, women in Saudi Arabia should have the same rights of driving cars as men do. From the privilege approach the men there should stop driving cars, I think.
**This is because privilege has been extended from its roots in class or wealth privilege to gender and race privilege and then to religious privilege, privilege of the slim and slender, privilege of the still-healthy etc.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
The effects of son-preference in India have resulted in a trade in brides. When the discussions about the phenomenon in China and India (especially) began, some argued that the scarcity of women would give women more power in mate-selection. I knew that was not the case, because an antique vase doesn't get more power when it becomes scarcer: Its owners get more power, though thieves are also more likely to steal it.
The son preference stands on two legs: The first has to do with patrilocal marriage customs which mean that daughters indeed are a burden. They must be fed and reared and then they are sent off, possibly with expensive dowries. Sons, on the other hand, are viewed as the ones who carry the family name and who take care of the family in general. Who stay.
The second leg is the lack of governmental old-age benefits. Sons are expected to take care of their elderly parents, so a couple with no sons is going to be in trouble. Even though daughters in the West do more of the hands-on care of their elderly parents, that task in India is more likely to be assigned to daughters-in-law. That makes daughters even less desirable, because your daughters will care for some other person in old age, not you.
This problem will not be solved until the valuation of women rises (coughfeminismneededcough):
Just one in five women has her name on her house’s papers and four out of five need permission to visit a doctor, the India Human Development Survey revealed. Just one in five women is in the workforce, making India’s workforce one of the most gender-biased in the world.Note that a woman who can earn money may not need a dowry to get married. A woman who can earn money might have more power in both her birth family and in her husband's family. The unpaid work she does at home is deemed as her natural duty and tends not get her more bargaining power.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Slate has a long list of useful articles to understand what an outrage means on Twitter and what ensues when an outrage has happened. If you don't share that particular Twitter world, the articles may let you understand one negative side of social media. It also has many positive sides*, but I'm the goddess of gloom, and if I'm tongue-tied (forked tongue-tied) on Twitter, it's because of the fear that 140 misunderstood characters will destroy my life forevermore. Quoth the raven.
This links to something wider. When I began blogging I looked at the keyboard like a child seeing a chocolate castle: Mine! All mine! What fun we will have!
When I got comments the glee and joy trebled and quadrupled. And then I learned about criticism and debate and not all of that was fun, but necessary, the way cod-liver oil is good for you (and bad for the cod), the way we all grow from criticism (except when we don't) and so on.
But after a while I realized that I don't write about certain topics anymore, because I don't want the aggro. And that is bad. Or at least some part of my conscience thinks it's bad. When I've tried to write on, say, why people firmly enter two separate camps on topic X** and why the conversation never advances beyond the point where the ramparts are reinforced I get comments about the two camps (ours is the correct one!) and more strengthening of the ramparts.
That makes certain types of posts pointless. Well, not fun, in any case.
All that is an attempt to explain why writing suddenly seems harder for me than it used to be (I'd send off a long post in as many minutes as it took to type it in, without any editing! Oh those salad days!), why I think much more about what will happen after I press the Publish-button and why many of my posts are frozen in drafts.
Some of that is great! It's good to check one's work carefully and to think about what one may have omitted or misrepresented. But it's not as much fun.
*It allows some members of previously marginalized groups access to the public space, it allows the creation of movements (such as on Ferguson), it allows rapid spread of eyewitness interpretations of events and it allows some amount of direct access to the powers-that-be which can be turned into influence. It also creates news which may have been ignored by the mainstream media and disseminates important information more widely. All that is good (though eyewitness reports may be false and the spread of false statistics is still the spread of misunderstood statistics).
**The X could stand for feminists-and-prostitution, feminism-and-transgender-movement, Israel-vs-Palestine, Islamophobia-vs-multiculturalism-gone-amok and so on. Even something as technical as the individual responsibility part of the ACA is one of those X-topics. What all those seem to share is the impossibility of getting anywhere but the two-sides-disagreeing setting, whatever the actual contents of the post. And no, I'm not treating the two camps on a certain topic as equally justified, say.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
The New York Times has published a good article on the wildly varying prices for diagnostic procedures and the apparent stickiness of those prices at the upper tail of the distribution. The quickest possible look tells us that the prices are not set based on some kind of marginal cost thinking, as simple market models assume. For example:
In other words, competition doesn't lower prices*. Rather the reverse, in fact:
With pricing uncoupled from the actual cost of business, large disparities have evolved. The five hospitals within a 15-mile radius of Mr. Charlap’s home here charge an average of about $5,200 for an echocardiogram, according to an analysis of Medicare’s database. The seven teaching hospitals in Boston, affiliated with Harvard, Tufts and Boston University, charge an average of about $1,300 for the same test. There are even wide variations within cities: In Philadelphia, prices range from $700 to $12,000.You don't need to know anything more than that to know that the markets are not truly competitive, that consumers are uninformed about the prices (except after the fact when it's too late to shop around) and that the supply side has price-setting power.
In other words, competition doesn't lower prices*. Rather the reverse, in fact:
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
On Women in the US: Wikipedia, Montana Legislature And Skirt Lengths, And What Sony Pays to Its Female Stars.
Wikipedia, the wonderful experiment in anarchy, has a shadow side:
Wikipedia is a paradox and a miracle—a crowdsourced encyclopedia that has become the default destination for nonessential information. That it has survived almost 15 years and remained the top Google result for a vast number of searches is a testament to the impressive vision of founder Jimmy Wales and the devotion of its tens of thousands of volunteer editors. But beneath its reasonably serene surface, the website can be as ugly and bitter as 4chan and as mind-numbingly bureaucratic as a Kafka story. And it can be particularly unwelcoming to women.
Why unwelcoming to women? Because of this:
Last week, Wikipedia’s highest court, the Arbitration Committee, composed of 12 elected volunteers who serve one- or two-year terms, handed down a decision in a controversial case having to do with the site’s self-formed Gender Gap Task Force, the goal of which is to increase female participation on Wikipedia from its current 10 percent to 25 percent by the end of next year. The dispute, which involved ongoing hostility from a handful of prickly longtime editors, had simmered for at least 18 months. In the end, the only woman in the argument, pro-GGTF libertarian feminist Carol Moore, was indefinitely banned from all of Wikipedia over her uncivil comments toward a group of male editors, whom she at one point dubbed “the Manchester Gangbangers and their cronies/minions.” Two of her chief antagonists in that group got comparative slaps on the wrist. One was the productive but notoriously hostile Eric “Fuck Wikipedia” Corbett, who has a milelong track record of incivility, had declared the task force a feminist “crusade ... to alienate every male editor,” and called Moore “nothing but a pain in the arse,” among less printable comments; he was handed a seemingly redundant “prohibition” on abusive language. The other editor was Sitush, who repeatedly criticized Moore for being “obsessed with an anti-male agenda” and then decided to research and write a Wikipedia biography of her; he walked away with a mere “warning.”
My guess is that a certain number of the volunteer editors (such as the man who called the founder of Wikipedia a "dishonest cunt") don't exactly yearn for a larger input for women (aka cunt-carriers?). The impression I get agrees with what the author of the article states: The group with the greatest staying power wins, never mind the facts in the story. Or in other words, if you offer anarchy it doesn't mean that power hierarchies are not created. They just become impermeable to the influence of the rest of the group.
And if women face extra aggression in the editors' meeting places, it's unlikely that their numbers will rise very fast. This extra aggression could be both because of misogyny of some milder type and because outsiders shouldn't break into the fortress.
In Montana, the members of the legislature are provided with a dress code. The code differs for men and women. It requires female legislators to be sensitive to "skirt lengths and necklines." Male legislators are not asked to be sensitive to, say, the tightness of their pants in the groin area or how many buttons they have undone. This is an unimportant matter, in the wider frame of things. But as one Montana legislator states:
And there's a more traditional gender-political division here, too:Ms. Eck said she was leaving a health care forum in Helena, the capital, on Monday when one of her Republican colleagues peered at her and told her that he was glad to see she was dressed appropriately.“It just creates this ability to scrutinize women,” Ms. Eck said. “It makes it acceptable for someone who’s supposed to be my peer and my equal to look me up and down and comment on what I’m wearing. That doesn’t feel right.”
Eck said, "(The dress code) is signed by House leadership, but the Minority House leadership wasn't consulted and I do have an issue with that because the majority of our caucus is women and the majority of our leadership is women."
Speaker Knudsen said the matter's been blown out of proportion, and that no one is going to be measuring skirt lengths.
The Sony hack seems to reveal that the Hunger Games star Jennifer Lawrence was paid less than her male co-stars on American Hustle and that
The news is even more troubling when you take into consideration that the hack also revealed a staggering gender pay gap among Sony staffers. According to a spreadsheet listing the salaries of 6,000 employees, 17 of those employees were raking in $1 million or more, but only one of those $1 million-plus employees is a woman. Also, analyzing the pay of the two co-presidents of production at Columbia Pictures—who have the same job—pointed to another gender-pay disparity, with Michael De Luca ($2.4 million) making almost $1 million more than Hannah Minghella ($1.5 million).These data are raw and unadjusted to anything that might be relevant in how someone is reimbursed. Still, raw data like that suggests that more detailed study of the payment policies of Sony would be pretty interesting.
As I've written before, the secrecy about salaries and wages in the US serves only the employers who wish to pay people the smallest amount they can get away with. And if the markets, overall, offer women lower alternative salaries, well, Sony can pay women less, too! Save money, right?
Saturday, December 13, 2014
The New York Times is running a long series on the US employment situation. Yesterday it ran a story of American men without jobs, today a similar type of story ran on American women. It's the latter that requires some extra attention here.
It's not a bad story at all. It looks well-researched and it points out the lack of government policies which would help women with children to stay in the labor force. That lack is reinforced by the cultural norms which expect mothers to do all the hands-on child-care.
But those problems have existed in the US for ever. They are not new policies, and as such they cannot explain the crucial statistics the article quotes, these:
As recently as 1990, the United States had one of the top employment rates in the world for women, but it has now fallen behind many European countries. After climbing for six decades, the percentage of women in the American work force peaked in 1999, at 74 percent for women between 25 and 54. It has fallen since, to 69 percent today.The article notes that countries such as Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, France, Britain, Denmark, Portugal and Japan all have higher labor market participation rates of women than the US, and the reasons for those differences are at least partly in the lack of paid parental leave and good subsidized daycare in the US. Still, the drop in the US women's labor market participation rate from 1999 to 2013 has a better explanation than this:
But the failure of the United States to meet the needs of working parents doesn't respond to the headline of the piece, "why U.S. women are leaving jobs behind." The answer to this question is very clearly the state of the economy. After all, the employment to population ratio (EPOP) for prime age women peaked in 2000 at 74.2 percent, coincidentally the peak of the business cycle. After the stock bubble burst and threw the economy into recession in 2001 the EPOP for prime age women declined. It bottomed out at 71.8 percent in 2004 and then started to rise as the economy began to create jobs again. It peaked at 72.5 percent in 2006 and 2007 and then tumbled to a low of 69.0 percent in 2011. Since then it has inched up gradually as the labor market has begun to recover from the downturn.I agree with that quote. Note, especially, how the EPOP has varied within a short time period. Those changes cannot be explained by the lack of support for working parents (read: mothers), because that lack of support has been fairly constant.
An interesting problem in stories like this one (or any stories which use interviews with individuals as anecdotes) is that the anecdotes appear to support the stories (women wishing to work but unable because of child-care obligations), simply because the interviewed people are telling the truth about their lives. But the people picked for the interviews are selected to go with the plot the author(s) wish to follow. Similar stories could have been told at the peak of the business cycle in 2000 or at any time, pretty much.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Religious rights often clash with human rights, because so many of them are demands to be allowed to decide how other people live or demands to be allowed to treat other people as lesser. Ultimately, of course, they are all about organizing the whole world so that one's own religion trumps everything else, including other people's religions. Just look at what the founding principles of the Islamic State are all about. Granted, they tend to have the most severe form of demanding what they have decided to define as their religious rights, one which utterly shreds any human rights of women or gays and Lesbians or those whose religions (including their interpretations of the same religion) are different.
However distantly, the arguments the Islamic State uses are plants from the same root as the recent growth of the religious rights movement in the US, This quote explains the similarity fairly well:
NM: Let's start with why these two things — religious belief and civil rights — have come to seem so at odds.The more practical interpretation of that clash is that most large religions allow interpretations which take away equal rights from women, from gays and Lesbians and from those who possess different religions or none at all. To be able to practice one's religion in peace, then, may well mean that other people's lives become harder, narrower, less free and more dangerous. While this is very clear in the events happening in Iraq and Syria, the same basic conflict exists whenever one's religious rights are set above other people's human rights.
KF: Part of the problem is the way we're currently framing the issue. On the one hand, we have the free exercise of religion, which is largely based in an appeal to revelation, to the truths of religious texts and religious doctrine. And on the other hand we have rights of equality and liberty, which are based in rational arguments — what are people entitled to as a matter of their humanity because we should all be treated equally under law. It’s an incommensurable confrontation between revelation and rationality. What ends up happening is that religion ends up like a trump card — you throw it down, it’s a conversation stopper, and we don’t know how to get out of this impasse. Law is really ill equipped for adjudicating between the claims of revelation and the claims of rationality.