An ever recurring annoyance in today’s writing is over- and misuse of “you”. The “Freshly Pressed” entries on WordPress, e.g., are usually full of the word. Software literature is another great source of examples—the more absurd because software developers need to be of above to noticeably above average intelligence, and those who might actually benefit from “you” are best kept away from the field.
What is wrong with using “you”? Nothing—when the reader is validly addressed directly. This, however, is almost never the case. It is far more common to abuse “you” through-out a text as e.g. a highly sub-optimal means of attaching actions (believes, emotions, whatnot) to a subject. In these cases, there are a number of issues:
The result is unnecessarily wordy and hard to read, compared to more adult formulations. Compare
However, if you want to use features such as hot redeployment on a full application server, you need to package your application correctly.
(genuine example) with
However, to use features such as hot redeployment on a full application server, we need a correctly packaged application.
The second text is shorter, easier to understand, and stylistically better. Consider the effect not merely on individual sentences, but on the length of books: This is a roughly 15 % drop in length (more in terms of words; less in terms of characters). Admittedly, this sentence is not representative, but even shaving off just a few per cent can be valuable for a hard-working professional.
As an aside: The fact that I often am unnecessarily wordy, even without over-using “you”, is a matter of personal incompetence in this area—not a sign of problems with non-“you” texts in general.
“You” is often condescending, misleading, illogical, or entirely ridiculous. A particularly atrocious example is the common “in this chapter you will learn”: Possibly, but the reader may also merely be refreshing something he already knows—or even be a reviewer with superior knowledge... Even if not, the statement can be faulty, e.g. because the reader is merely currently getting an overview, contemplating individual points, or is slow on the uptake. A far better formulation is “in this chapter we discuss X” or “this chapter deals with X”.
I have even often seen “you” (the reader) used where context demanded “I” (the author)... A typical example would be a traveler describing his emotions or subjective impressions during certain events of a journey. Obviously, it should be “When I saw Mount Everest, I was filled with humility.”, not “When you see Mount Everest, you are filled with humility.” or any similar formulation.
Rule-of-thumb: Does the text work when taken from the perspective of an actual reader who takes “you” as a direct reference to him? If not, “you” is inappropriate. (The reverse conclusion does not necessarily hold.)
“You” polarizes the author and his readers; “we” unites them; other formulations provide neutrality.
“You” can be accusatory, even to the point of raising the issue of guilt or fault with innocents. Consider an oral example: “When you come late, you hinder the rest of the team.” Unless the counter-part actually did come late, this formulation is entirely and utterly unacceptable: Not only will most feel accused, but a third-party who over-hears the discussion can come to entirely incorrect conclusions. If the discussion is intended to be general, it should be kept general: “When someone comes late, he hinders the rest of the team.”
As can be seen by the previous item, “you” introduces unnecessary ambiguities: Is the author/speaker discussing the counter-part or a generic someone?
Rule-of-thumb: Try to replace every instance of “you” with an alternate formulation using “we”, a generic pronoun (e.g. “someone” or “one”), a sentence with an implicit subject (this sentence is an example), or a passive. Only allow the “you” to stand on those rare occasions when it actually is the best alternative. (Do not follow guide-lines that try to ban the passive outright: The passive is very valuable and the extreme anti-passive stance that many naive teachers take is highly misguided—they parrot and misapply an insight that they have not actually understood. Excesses of passives should be avoided, true, but very many uses are legitimate and beneficial, and bending backwards to eliminate them does far more harm than good—just like the positive effects of a pinch of salt on a soup are no reason to empty an entire salt-shaker into the pot.)
To expand on the implicit subject: This may seem to be just as bad as using “you” on a casual glance, because the implicit subject may seem to be a “you”. There are at least two crucial advantages, however: Firstly, there is no unnecessary overhead. Secondly, the implicit subject could in most cases be something else, e.g. a “we” or a more abstract entity. (For example, a “Try to [...]” could be seen as “We should try to [...]” rather than “You should try to [...]”.) This resolves the problems with e.g. an accusatory or condescending tone.
I just encountered a post titled Quotes I likee stating:
Let no man pull you low enough to hate him.
Martin Luther King Jr.
US black civil rights leader & clergyman (1929 – 1968)
I was struck by the great contrast between this and the very often hateful attitude of the self-proclaimed anti-racists of today. For instance, just yesterday, I saw the following commente:
Rasister är vidriga. Måtte de döden dö.
(Racists are despicable. They should die. [Lit. “May they die the death”, a Swedish expression.])
I have tendency to end up with browser tabs that are open for weeks or even months in a row, because I do not have the time to read the contents at the time of the first visit, wish to re-read the contents later, think that the page could make a good base for a blog entry, or similar.
Cleaning up the browser instance dedicated to blogging, I found a number of links relating to e.g. male–female brain differences or unfair treatment of boys in school, having in common that I had at the time planned a blog entry on the topic.
Until I have found the time, I publish the corresponding URLs here, so that I can close the tabs with a semi-good conscience. I stress that I do not guarantee that any individual link will be of high value, nor that it were intended as more than a starting point—some are/were; others not.
In English:
http://neurosem.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/boy-brain-girl-brain-how-the-sexes-act-differently/e
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-02/cu-cn020711.phpe
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/02/female-scientists-discrimination/1e
In Swedish:
http://maukonen.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/hur-bemoter-feminister-kritik/e
http://aktivarum.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/pojkarna-som-ofrivilliga-forskningsobjekt/e
http://aktivarum.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/christermagister-pa-hal-is-om-pojkarnas-betygsfraga/e
http://christermagister.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/pojkar-missgynnas-i-betygsattningen/e
In German:
http://www.brainlogs.de/blogs/blog/geschlechtsverwirrung/2011-02-26/das-taboo-der-gender-theorie.-geisteswissenschaftliche-geschlechterforschung-und-die-biologiee
http://www.brainlogs.de/blogs/blog/geschlechtsverwirrung/2009-11-26/hirnforschung-m-nner-und-frauen-reagieren-unterschiedlich-auf-visuelle-reizee
In the process of cleaning up my tabs (cf. the previous entry), I also re-encountered a particularly annoying blog entrye (and guess whose factual-but-dissenting comment had been censored...):
The post makes a long quote from a feminist work that I will analyze below, and seems to have an exceedingly naive view of what feminism is:
Do you think it’s fair that a guy will make more money doing the same job as you? Does it piss you off and scare you when you find about your friends getting raped? Do you ever feel like shit about your body? Do you ever feel like something is wrong with you because you don’t fit into this bizarre ideal of what girls are supposed to be like?
As has been discussed repeatedly, it is a myth that women earn less than men for equal work. Cf. e.g. [1]. The number of women who are raped is comparatively small—far smaller than feminists like to claim. The perception that a woman has to adhere to a certain ideal and her insecurities about this stem primarily from herself and other women.
Well, my friend, I hate to break it to you, but you’re a hardcore feminist. I swear.
Not at all: Apart from the contextual remarks already given, equal pay is not something feminist (it can even increasingly be seen as anti-feminist); however, the stubborn belief, contrary to evidence, that women earn significantly less than men for equal work is indeed strongly overlapping with feminist opinions. Similarly, an opposition to rape is not feminist—only the distortion of statistics and definitions, and the cheap rhetoric around it. Similarly, again, criticism of e.g. body ideals is not feminism—but the unfair attempts to blame men for them usually are.
Indeed, I would not hesitate to claim that someone who truly wants equal opportunities, rights, responsibilities, whatnot, for the sexes is, by necessity, anti-feminist: Feminism is currently the greatest single threat to this goal—as is abundantly clear to anyone with insight into the situation in Sweden.
For some reason, feminism is seen as super anti: anti-men, anti-sex, anti-sexism, anti-everything. And while some of those antis aren’t bad things, it’s not exactly exciting to get involved in something that’s seen as so consistently negative.
On the contrary, feminism has for a long time benefited from an undeserved reputation as a force of good—including begin “pro-” (most notably pro-equality). That the pendulum is starting to turn is a good thing. (Notwithstanding that the presence of absolute nutcases, e.g. Andrea Dvorkin, has made the proportion of early anti-feminists and those sceptic to feminism in the US greater than in e.g. Sweden.)
As an aside, I have to ask which of the “some of those antis” that “aren’t bad things” are: A plural is indicated, which implies that at least one of “anti-men”, “anti-sex”, and “anti-everything”, would be good. Twisted world-view or lack of writing ability? Experiences with feminists could point to the former, the previous incongruency in the first three sentences quoted point to the latter.
The good news is that feminism isn’t all antis. It’s progressive and – as cheesy as it sounds – it’s about making your life better.
Feminism is severely regressive and destructive. If “your” refers specifically to a woman, the last sentence may be true in theory, but wrong in practice—in the end feminism is likely to do more harm than good to women too. Where men are concerned, even consideration for negative side-effects on men (e.g. from new legislation) is usually absent; attempts to actively improve life for men are as good as unheard of.
As different as we all are, there’s one thing most young women have in common: we’re all brought up to feel like something is wrong with us. We’re too fat. We’re dumb. We’re too smart. We’re not ladylike enough – stop cursing, chewing with your mouth open, speaking your mind. We’re too slutty. We’re not slutty enough.
A pure strawman: Firstly, this is an over-generalization. Secondly, the ones doing the “bringing up” in this direction are typically other women. Thirdly, the claim ignores the many similar issues that men have. Fourthly, this has nothing to do specifically with feminism—feminism is not the white knight in shining armor who will save the poor women from this windmill.
Looking at the comments, it is not an iota better:
(Ellen Smith)
Well, feminism is a strong word but being a feminist doesn’t necessarily mean “man-hater” I think that is a misconception. It’s just about being equal in spite of biological/gender differences…
The implication that feminism would be seen as equaling man-hate is partially a strawman, partially glossing over the fact that disturbingly many feminists have very strong negative feelings about men—when not hate, then at least despise. Further, severe prejudices about what men want, think, do, and what the “male role” is are abundant.
Feminism is not about “being equal in spite of biological/gender differences”. On the contrary, a significant part of the main feminist ideology of today is the stubborn denial of any such differences (outside of mere physical characteristics). Further, the feminist movement has proved again and again that it strives not for equality, but for women’s rights and benefits—even at the cost of equality.
(Caroline Garrod/the blog author resp. text quoter)
I would argue, though, that “feminism” doesn’t have to be a strong word – it can and hopefully one day will be universally perceived as a normal statement, as much as one would say “of course I’m antiracist”.
Again a direct reversal of the actual position of feminism in public perception. Being feminist has been the politically correct and accepted position for several decades—at best/worst, it has been a merely acceptable position; at worst/best, half the college women loudly proclaim themselves to be feminists (usually without having any idea of what modern feminism entails).
The recent growing turn-around is positive and it is to be hoped that one day the claim “of course I’m antifeminist” will be just as normal as “of course I’m antiracist”: Feminism and racism are both destructive ideologies that no enlightened person should support.
(With reservations for “racist” and “anti-racist” being used in their proper meanings. As have been observed repeatedly, this is rarely the case. Cf. e.g. [2].)
The author of the original text, by the way, is Jessica Valenti, whose name I have repeatedly seen associated with anti-male prejudice, blaming of men, and similar. A quick web search found e.g. [3]e and [4]e.
Today, I encountered a blog post titled The nazi-behaviour of the lefte (“Vänsterns nazistbeteende”), written by a member of the controversial and much maligned party Sverigedemokraterna (SD)—perfectly timed for the blog post I had planned. A pertinent quote:
I jämförelse med judarna i 1930 talets Tyskland har jag det avsevärt lättare. Men jag har drabbats av Berufsverbot och stötts bort från ett arbete. Man har inte målat Davidsstjärnan på min dörr, utan texten RASIST. Varför? Jag har varit folkvald riksdagsledamot för SD.
Är det någon skillnad i den grundläggande mekanismen om en jude får Davidsstjärnan målad på sin dörr och får yrkesförbud eller om en sverigedemokrat får sin dörr hatsprejad och likaledes beläggs med yrkesförbud?
Så vilka är de verkliga fascisterna?
(Compared to the Jews in the 1930s Germany, I have it considerably easier. But I have been affected by Berufsverbotw and been rejected from a job. The Star of David has not been painted on my door, but the text RACIST. Why? I have been a publicly elected member of parliament for SD.
Is there a difference in the basic mechanism if a Jew gets the Star of David painted on his door and receives a profession ban or if an SD member gets his door hate-sprayed and also receives a profession ban.
So, who are the real fascists?
This is a special case of something I have seen again and again: Some people are merely because of their opinions considered so evil that evil actions are taken against them in the name of good. To make matters worse, as with SD, the opinions in question are normally not even the actual opinions of the victims, but the opinions that their abusers claim they would have...
The politically correct, leftists, self-proclaimed anti-racists and equally self-proclaimed anti-fascists are among the dominant sources of such evil. (A recurring topic in my writings. Cf e.g. [1], [2].) These people are often blind to the burning cross in their own eyes, while complaining loudly about the ember in their neighbour’s.
Let us repeat and generalize that important question:
So, who are the real fascists?
So, who are truly evil?
The underlying problem seems to be the neglect of a simple principle:
Evil is, as evil does.
It is neither urges nor opinions that determine whether someone is evil, but his actions. Indeed, the figure who actually considers himself evil is found in children’s cartoons and comic books—not real life. Even the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao tend to see themselves as ... good. Did Hitler kill Jews because he enjoyed causing suffering or out of a mere disregard for human life? No: He did so because he considered the Jews a force of evil that must be fought with all means for the benefit of society ... Whether he tried to exterminate Jews, Nazis, the educated, or sailors is beside the point, as are his exact motivations: What matters is that he tried to exterminate and in doing so caused the world an evil that outweighed anything positive he (strictly hypothetically) could have achieved.
To bring out the difference between action and thought, consider two people:
The first is a pedophile. The second is dedicated to the well-being of fellow humans. The first has resisted every urge, for fear of harming children. The second is a believer in corporeal punishment as a means of building character and discipline, and takes every opportunity to give a child a solid thrashing.
Which of the two does harm in this world and which is harmless?
Now, some may protest that the pedophile is an accident waiting to happen or that the risks are too large. To a large part, this is just prejudice, built on media portrayals and political propaganda: To my knowledge, there is no indication whatsoever that pedophiles would be more different from non-pedophiles than homosexuals from non-homosexuals, Christians from atheists, or women from men. (Indeed, compared to the last case the difference is bound to be smaller, and the same may well be true for typical individuals in the former two cases.) Further, most of us spend a majority of our lives with sex partners that are far from what we consider optimal—or go without partners entirely. Why should pedophiles be considered unable to control themselves when almost everyone else is?
Indeed, this is one of the most common problems with the issue: It is seen as near unavoidable that the pedophile will lose control and rape the neighbour’s children; that the member of the “extreme right” will (metaphorically or literally) build concentration camps and invade Poland, should he land in power; etc. Notably, this happens even when the risk is objectively small and when in direct opposition to the own judgment or stated opinion of the presumed perpetrator. A particular problem is circular reasoning along the lines of “X is evil because he has opinion A. That X denies having opinion A is irrelevant—after all, he is evil and, therefore, a liar.”, which leaves the victim without a defense.
Besides, if we set out to eliminate every possible risk of evil, we would create a despotic police state with no regard for human rights—which certainly would be a thing of very great evil.
To expand on the above discussion of Hitler: How do we know that Hitler was evil? Well, Hitler’s evil did not manifest in hating Jews or being a nationalist—but in waging unjustifiable wars and committing genocide. If we look merely at his opinions and ideology, there are, today as well as then, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people with opinions of a similar extremeness—some on the left, some on the right; some Christian, some Muslim, some atheist; some men, some women; some German, some Tibetan; some vegan, some meat loving; some racist, some anti-racist; ... What makes the difference is not what they believed, but what they actually did. Someone who hates Jews is merely misguided—not evil. Someone who kills the Jew-hater, despite his being innocent of anything other than thought—now, he is evil. Indeed, if hate against a particular group of people was a crime worthy of punishment (be it capital or otherwise), then very few of us would go unpunished: Those of us who have never hated another group, no matter their current feelings, are a very small minority. Then again, how many of us actually acted on that hate? In contrast, how many have now overcome it?
My urgent plea to those who are convinced that they do the work of good and that the means justify the end against the evil they fight: Remember that “evil is, as evil does” and re-examine your own actions for signs of actually having become a greater evil than the evil you set out to fight. The road to Hell is built with good intentions.
Disclaimer: The above is not intended to be a full treatment of the concept of “evil”, and deliberately ignores a number of issues (including whether evil truly exists and whether e.g. a mentally ill person could be considered evil). The topic is more narrowly focused on a “bad guy”/“good guy” differentiation.
Recently, I encountered a German blog giving an analysis of the argumentse in an (English) complaint against “fauxminists”e (men who, in the eyes of the feminist writer, are faux feminists).
(Why would I care whether a useful idiot is considered a feminist or a fauxminist? I do not. In fact, it is better that feminism is divided and internally squabbling than united and fighting the rest of the world. However, the text in question is an excellent example of the incorrect reasoning so often used by feminists and within gender studies. Notably, the author, Meg Milanese, is a “recent graduate” with a “BA in women’s studies”, which, in itself, raises more than one warning flag.)
Below, I will analyze this complaint from my own perspective, specifically the ten defining characteristics:
He interrupts women that he speaks with.
Melanese argues that this is rude, would show communicative incompetence, and that men interrupt women more than they do men.
Interruptions can be rude, but they need not be. Indeed, they are often necessary and most interruptions that I have observed or been involved in (be it as the interrupter or the interrupted) have been legitimate. Further, the need to interrupt is often based on the communicative incompetence of the ... interrupted: There are many people who simply do not observe the cues others send that they too have something to say, who monopolize the discussion, go on long contentless ramblings, spell out over two minutes what the counter-part understood in two seconds, whatnot.
Indeed, these problematic people are (in my experiences so far) disproportionately common among women. (Which gives us some clues as to why women are interrupted more often...)
He expects to be given leadership roles far before he’s ready for them.
The text gives no real support for this claim, but describes something more akin to men (unsurprisingly) being more likely to take initiative than women. Furthermore, in as far as this claim would be true, there is nothing male about it: I have met plenty of women with exactly this mentality—often among those clearly unsuitable for leadership. Indeed, this type of entitlement-thinking is very common among Swedish women (and, in my second-hand impression, US women).
He mansplains.
The accusation of mansplaining (feminists’ favourite way of discrediting their opponents without actually having to provide any factual arguments) has been dealt with at length.
The claim “A feminist man should be able to understand the difference between mansplaining and simply explaining something while simultaneously being a man.” is almost comical, seeing that this is a difference that feminist women seem unable to grasp—with far more accusations of mansplaining being raised because the explainer happens to be a (usually dissenting) man and the dissented a woman than for what feminists claim that “mansplaining” would imply.
He insists that feminism must make equal time for men and men’s issues.
I cannot judge this issue, in particular the frequency of the demand being made, within the feminist movement itself. However, many of the statements made by Melanese are detached from reality and demonstrate that her take on men’s issues is a very destructive and prejudiced one. Take “So yes, men have issues. However, in no way, shape, or form are they of the same caliber as the problems and oppression facing women.” (a bullshit statement, cf. e.g. [1], [2]) or the attempt to make men’s main problem to be ... masculinity.
In the end: As long as feminism remains about women’s issues, not equality, feminism will remain a force of evil. (It is refreshing, however, that a feminist admits this onesidedness so clearly.)
He continues to partake in media or activities that objectify/degrade women.
The whole issue of objectification and degradation is cheap rhetoric. Cf. e.g. parts of [3]. That Melanese irrationally finds e.g. porn to be degrading does not imply that men (feminist or otherwise) who use it are doing anything wrong—nor that the many women who also enjoy porn would be.
He calls women he doesn’t agree with “bitches”, “whores” or other gender-based slurs.
This particular item is specifically dealing with how this use by a feminist will affect the cause of feminism (i.e. that it is harmful). That part of the analysis is likely to be true; however, this has nothing to do with whether a man is a feminist or a fauxminist—unless we assume that these words would be anti-woman per se. (They are not: They make a statement about a particular woman—not women in general.)
Further, I note that personal attacks and insults is very common from feminist women, which makes the item odd: Melanese’s efforts would be better spent attacking the “argumentation” methods of feminists in general.
He feels entitled to the trust of the women he works with in feminist activism circles.
The basic reasoning behind this item would be sound, but for two issues:
Firstly, the problem of unwarranted and exaggerated distrust is treated to cavalierly.
Secondly, it is based on a very distorted view of reality. Consider e.g. “[...]the daily normality of cat-calling and slut-shaming that women endure” or “the person who is distrustful is a member of a class that is disproportionately affected by harassment, violence and degradation and the person who is not being trusted is a member of the class that most often perpetrates that degradation”—not only cheap rhetoric, but also sexist, one-sided, and prejudiced bullshit.
In addition, the claim “It could be rape, it could be domestic violence, it could be emotional abuse.” is likely equally off: Yes, this would be an understandable reason for distrust, even misplaced distrust. At the same time, rape is rare, women commit more domestic violence than men, and emotional abuse (from what I have seen so far) is much more common from women than from men—yet, the way the text reads, it sounds like this would something that women would be regularly exposed to and men not.
He will not hold other self-proclaimed male-identified feminists accountable.
The text does not really deal with the topic of the title; however, the statement “If a man cannot be expected to do this much [risk his social reputation/being called a mangina] while women are enduring sexual assault, violence, and verbal abuse for standing up for their rights, the mantle of feminism has been proven to be too much to bear for him and he is undeserving of the title.” should say enough. How often are women enduring sexual assualt and violence for standing up for their rights? Hardly ever and likely less often than men. Indeed, when I have heard of violence in the context of feminism it has usually been perpetrated by the ... feminists. (Cf. e.g. [4]e.) Certainly, feminists commit far, far more verbal abuse than anti-feminists—indeed, they may possibly be the single greatest source of verbal abuse around.
He uses the tone argument on you.
Frankly, I am not certain that I understand this item. However, it does sound like something women do to men, rather than the other way around.
He is pissed off by this article.
The very predictable conclusion: As usual, the whole thing is setup with an illogical “damned if you do; damned if you don’t”—either you agree with me, or your disagreement proves my point. The same evil trick of pseudo-reasoning is regularly used e.g. with regard to the alleged male privilege (“Not having to admit privilege is a male privilege!”) and mansplaining (“Your criticism of the term ‘mansplaining’ is just mansplaining!”).
Generally, many of the items contain prejudice, belief in the “Patriarchy”, and a world-view (e.g. with regard to men’s and women’s situations) that does not match reality.
Recently, I have seen several posts dealing with whether cursive writing and penmanship are important, should be taught in schools, etc. (E.g. [1]e, [2]e.) The comment sections, in particular, have contained a lot of unsound reasoning and preconceived opinions. Below I will look into a number of examples. First, for context and some explanations in advance, my own comments:
Well, when I went to school, I was forced to spend endless hours training my penmanship (with little positive effect, I might add). In contrast, we spent possibly two hours getting a rough introduction to touch typing. Since I left school, by necessity, the vast majority of all my writing is done on a keyboard…
What modern students should be taught is strong touch typing and sufficient handwriting skills (not specifically cursive). If they want to take handwriting further, they can do so on their own time: A key truth to schooling is that there are thousands of topics that would be worthy of inclusion or preservation (in the eyes of at least some), but that time and resources are limited. Schools have a duty to give the students value for their efforts and must make compromises.
Incidentally, those who learn block letters will move more or less automatically to cursive if they do spend a lot of time writing by hand. (I would even consider it plausible that a focus on good block letters is more beneficial for those wanting to write well in cursive than specific “cursive exercises”.) Thus, the extensive teaching of cursive is wasteful even among those who will eventually need it…
‘Please, there is that aspect of caring that is found in a written note. It is like the person is saying, “I know it would be easier to send an email, but I want you to know that I care so much, I wanted to write a letter to you.” ‘
I see it the other way around (on those very rare occasions) when I receive hand-written letters: The author put his or her own convenience (seeing that most people are still weak typists) over mine, leaving me to deal with the problem of interpreting the writing. (Between individual variation and the repeated changes to what is considered “standard” cursive over time, this can be an issue even where good penmanship is concerned.) Further, it leaves me with a text that is likely to be less thought-through and edited than a letter written on a computer. When we go a step further and compare emails to hand-written letters, there is the additional complication that my ability to answer, quote, reference, and re-distribute in an efficient manner is restricted for no good reason.
Correspondingly, to me, a hand-written text of a non-trival size is disrespectful, bordering on rude. (Excluding cases with legitimate reasons, say a sender who does not have access to computers at the moment or who is too old for computer skills to be expected.)
———–
In a bigger context, I note that a number of commenters express the opinion that cursive would be a vital skill, an important part of writing, whatnot—without in anyway substantiating that claim. These I ask to beware that there is nothing magical about cursive writing, but that it just happens to be a convention, something we are used to. This reminds me of the complaint that the children of today would only learn how to read a digital clock and not a “real” clock—yet, there is nothing real about an analog clock that is not real about a digital clock. That someone grow up with analog clocks and only encountered digital ones as an adult may explain a personal preference. This preference, however, is personal and subjective—and none of the two types of clocks is any more or less real than the other.
The loss of cursive writing may be negative, but considering the opportunity cost of spending time and money on cursive writing (cf. my earlier comment) there really is no case: There are thousand of topics, skills, whatnot, that are valuable and beneficial. Not all of them can be mastered in a life-time, let alone in school. Further, cursive writing is certainly not the most important of these.
I would keep the two issues of penmanship and good grammar (spelling, style, whatnot) separate:
The latter is a vital skill and its neglect in modern schooling is a problem—likely, a severe problem.
The former is an entirely independent nice-to-have (although I see how texting and twitter can create the opposite impression). The practical benefits and the need of being able to write well (as opposed to “at all”) with a pen are extremely limited in today’s world. Indeed, I write more words on the computer per day than I do on paper per month. (With reservations for periods when I do a lot of cross-words—but here I write in non-cursive and all-caps to begin with.) Further, what I do write on paper is almost always intended only for my own eyes.
Of course, we could lament the loss of penmanship on an “ars gratia artis” basis, but the same would apply to e.g. the move from fountain pens to ball-point pens, the disappearance of cobblery, or the lack of harpsicord players. There are far too many arts for the active preservation of all as a universal skill—instead the individual must choose which he wishes to pursue.
On to the issues:
A very common theme is the confusion of cursive writing with hand writing or even writing in general:
The removal of cursive writing does not imply that students are unable to write notes, even letters, and it does certainly not imply that their skills at writing (in terms of e.g. grammar and style) remain undeveloped. On the contrary, these have far better chances when writing on a computer. Notably, the effort and time needed to write a draft is reduced, the draft can be edited (instead of re-written from scratch), re-organisations are far easier, ... With computers more time can be spent on the actual text—not just putting down letters on paper.
Indeed, when I went to school, we were taught an almost mockingly named “writing process”, which consisted of three basic steps: Write the essay on paper. Read through and re-write the essay on paper, making improvements. Read through and re-write the essay on paper, making minor corrections and with a main emphasis on legibility. Honestly, how should a student learn to write with such idiocy? When the vast majority on the time available for the essay had to be spent on merely writing letters on paper, instead of thinking about the contents and the language?
Many commenters simply assert, without giving evidence, that cursive is a vital skill, express their horror at the poor cursive of today’s students, or merely seem to say “I like cursive; ergo, cursive should be taught in schools.”—comments void of convincing power.
Cursive has positive effects on cognitive ability:
There is no indication that this would be true, except in as far as almost any activity has a positive effect. Now, writing can have a positive effect, but this is not in anyway restricted to cursive writing.
Cursive is good for creativity:
There is no particular reason to assume this to be the case (and no proof was ever presented). Hand writing may be beneficial over typing in many circumstances (when it comes to the creative process); however, cursive is just a special case of hand writing and not teaching cursive does not imply not teaching hand writing.
Cursive improves fine motor skills:
This may be, but so do a thousand other things—including normal hand writing. Further, I am not entirely convinced that this argument is valid per se: Coordination develops over time and setting targets for students writing that are too far from their natural level of coordination (as was the case for many students in my own one-size-fits-all schooling) will result in frustration and failure. Certainly, my hand-writing improved as my coordination did—not the other way around. It would then be better to give the students exercises that help them develop their more general motor skills and doing so in a matter that is actually fun—not through the boring and mindless exercises in penmanship.
Cursive is faster than block-letter writing:
Cursive is what automatically happens over time when a block-letter writer spends a lot of time writing and starts to write faster, which makes this statement both tautological and uninteresting.
Further, even cursive writing is a lot slower than typing (assuming writers of a comparable training level).
Cursive is needed so that people can sign documents:
This does not require learning cursive, but just learning the signature. Further, a signature does not have to be cursive. Further yet, the need for handwritten signatures is mostly a legacy issue that will disappear over time. Certainly, for legal documents, digital signatures with private encoding and public decoding keys are far superior.
The issue of a “personal touch” is very common:
As can be seen from my earlier comments, this is a very one-sided take that ignores that others can see the issue differently: Personal preference is not an indication of an absolute good.
Following the comments on [1]e, I have just encountered the whopper of a weak argument:
If children do not learn how to write cursive, they will not learn how to read cursive, and they will be unable to read important documents of old...
Documents worth reading will exist in transcriptions using printed letters. Can there be any doubt that understanding the contents of an important document is more important than being able to read the original version? Indeed, the vast majority of older texts worth reading were originally published in printed letters...
It is possible to read a script that one does not know how to write. Indeed, most of the trouble with learning how to write a particular script is mastering the movements—not learning the shapes. If reading is the main benefit, then reading should be taught.
Most of the documents of old are not written in a cursive that is particularly close to today’s versions—and over the centuries of modern English there have been too many scripts for this to be a valid argument. Further, the same argument applies even to printed documents.
Similarly, language changes through the years make any document sufficient old hard to read, even unreadable, to the untrained. In addition, it should be remembered that there are numerous valuable documents in other languages and that access to these would be blocked anyway.
(See the previous post for context.)
I have recently been looking for a new apartment. Doing so, signing the new lease, and making first preparations for the move, a number of annoyances with apartments in Germany have been brought to my mind again. The likely two worst are discussed below:
Realtors:
These provide a service exclusively to the landlord—but for which the tenant must pay... In effect, the landlord gives a listing to the realtor, the realtor does everything the landlord would otherwise have done himself (e.g. advertisements and showings), provides the prospective tenants with no value added, and then requires a fee equaling two months rent + VAT from ... the new tenant.
In fact, from a tenants perspective, the service provided is actually on a “value subtracted” basis: The realtor is usually unable to answer even basic questions (but refers to the landlord), does not know the house or the neighborhood (let alone the neighbors), and generally seems keen on giving the most pleasing answer. Indeed, having found that I was always given positive answers when enquiring about how quiet the house or the neighbours were, I once reversed my questions (something on the lines of having regular parties or playing music late in the evening)—and was once again given a positive answer! The information given by these expensive “value subtracted” providers cannot even be trusted.
Similarly, a landlord (at least a private one) will be available for phone calls and inspections of the apartment outside of normal working hours, while German realtors keep hours that are highly unfriendly to the prospective tenants—with no possibility to call during the weekend and often forcing a call from work during the week.
A particular quirk is that the realtors are only allowed to charge their fees to tenants who were not previously aware of the apartment in question. This has the side-effect that ads by realtors will not contain the street address, but only a general area—which means that it is not possible to e.g. look up the house and the closest surroundings through Google Maps without first contacting the realtor. This, however, is something that a net-savvy user would want to do as a first step before bothering to call. (Of course, this rule is of dubious value, because if a prospective tenant with previous knowledge does show interest, the realtors will discriminate against him.)
And, no, it is apparently not possibly for a prospective tenant to hire a realtor (at least not in the rental market) to actually do some leg-work for the tenant instead of the landlord: I have over the years tried this on two occasions, simultaneously enquiring at several realtors, with the results being either no response at all (!) or a one-time listing of the apartments they at that moment had on offer (which was then the very last I ever heard).
The regulations should by changed so that it is always the party hiring and benefiting from the service (currently only the landlord) who pays any fees involved. This would not only be a fairer system, but would also lead to more customer-oriented realtors where even a tenant has the possibility to receive value-added services from a realtor—including decent telephone hours and the odd realtor who is actually willing to do some amount of work for prospective tenants.
Security deposits:
German apartments usually require a security deposit equivalent of three month’s (!) rent. While the wish for a security deposit is understandable, I cannot consider the size justifiable. Further, the way the system is implemented, the security deposit can very easily be abused by the landlord, e.g. to recompensate himself for rent held back for legitimate reasons or otherwise disputed, without having to take the initiative to go to court. (Something I fear will happen with my old apartment: The 2009 water bill for the 10-apartment house was inexplicably divided with my share amounting to half (!)—and despite this being absolutely preposterous and obviously incorrect, the landlord has refused to correct the bill and insists on payment of more than 800 Euro + an additional 70 Euro per month since. Considering his highly unethical behaviour throughout my years in the old apartment, I strongly suspect that he will simply help himself to the security deposit and force me to go to court over the money.) In contrast, the intended uses for the deposit appear to have become secondary (to cover unrepaired damages caused by the tenant and later differences in utility bills, as well as preventing a dishonest tenant from just skipping the last few months payment).
Other complications around the security deposit include landlords taking unduly long to repay it after the tenant moves out—often more than a year, rarely less than a half. (A time during which the tenant has six months’ (!) rent unavailable between the new and the old security deposits.) A better solution would include a smaller amount, some stringent form of escrow (no party is allowed to access the money without consent of the other or a court order), and a need for prompt re-payment: The landlord has e.g. two weeks to raise any objections and must then re-pay the major part of the sum, keeping at most a fraction to cover any differences in later utility charges.
And, no, this security deposit does not include the first or last months rent—these have to be provided separately at the beginning of the first, respectively last, month of the lease period. As can be noted, the sums involved are quite large: There is potentially a one-time payment of seven months’ rent (first, security deposit, realtor fees, and a last at the old apartment, seeing that an overlap in leases is hard to avoid)—and this not even counting the costs of the actual move and any needed repairs.
Recently, I have seen two old observation brought to my mind again:
I often make more errors on an easy task than on a hard task.
Doing a task well is far easier when I know the level of difficulty.
Explanations:
Both observations are easy to understand, even though they may seem counter-intuitive at a first glance. A good illustration is Sudoku (the solving of which has kept me entertained on my many recent train rides):
Firstly, with an easy puzzle, the numbers pop-up more or less by themselves and just have to be written down. The actual thinking needed is minor and each individual number is of little value to me. I have no incentives to do extra boring leg-work (notably checking that I put two numbers down in the right order, I am in a “work fast” mode, my brain tends to become inattentive, and I never gain a deeper “understanding” of the puzzle and its connections. With a harder puzzle, in contrast, the leg-work forms a smaller part of the overall work and is easier to justify (in particular, as an unnecessary error would ruin more of the time put in), I am in a “slow and thorough” mode, my brain pays close attention, and I see much more of the connections present (both through having to think on many different aspects to reach a solution and through the longer time spent on the puzzle).
Secondly, problems of different difficulty require different solutions. For instance, with easy puzzles, I find many number very fast by a strategy of looking at which numbers already present block which squares in other nine-blocks. With increasing difficulty, this strategy becomes less and less useful and slower methods, requiring more thinking must be used. For very hard puzzles, it often boils down to individual investigation on an ad hoc basis or “brute force” attacks (basically assuming different combinations of numbers and positions and trying to rule out all but one of these). Using the “advanced” methods on an easy puzzle would work—but it would be significantly slower than with the more basic methods. Conversely, the latter simply would not suffice to solve a harder puzzle at all. Knowing the difficulty of the puzzle is important when deciding on how it should be attacked.
Implications:
If other people are much the same (and in my observations so far, they are), this has interesting implications for e.g. judging competence levels, deciding who should be given what tasks, and how the education system should work. To take a specific example, consider dumbing-down and education: An increasing dumbing-down will lead to more of the bright students facing “too easy” tasks, while more of the dull students are faced with “just right” tasks—under-estimating the former and over-estimating the latter, possibly to the point that some students are ranked in a ridiculously wrong order. (To which must be added, obviously, off-topic issues like increasing boredom.) Similarly, it may seem a good idea to promote the entry-level employee who excels at the entry-level tasks—but on closer inspection the less successful entry-level colleague might be the better choice, because he fairs better with harder tasks post promotion. (Which is not in any way to say that lack of success on easy tasks would be a proof of excellence—incompetence is another common explanation... The point is that the judgement made must factor in that things may be different than they appear to be and that the relative success of two parties may change drastically as the difficulty of the tasks change.)
As the recurring reader may have noticed, I have not spent much time on my blog lately. This is due to a mixture of work and travel, me partially moving to Düsseldorf with my computer still in Cologne, preparations for my main move, etc. Seeing that the Internet provider for my new apartment has so far failed to activate my connection, there may even be acomplete break for some weeks after the move.
My last post read:
As the recurring reader may have noticed, I have not spent much time on my blog lately. This is due to a mixture of work and travel, me partially moving to Düsseldorf with my computer still in Cologne, preparations for my main move, etc. Seeing that the Internet provider for my new apartment has so far failed to activate my connection, there may even be a complete break for some weeks after the move.
It has, in fact, been some years... (OK, exaggeration, but the two year mark is not that far away.)
Unfortunately, the ISP never managed to do its job at all—a common problem in Germany, with Deutsche Telekom (German “AT & T” ) being less than cooperative with the competition, to the point that its negligence seems to border on sabotage. (By means of explanation: Deutsche Telekom owns a disproportionate part of the actual, physical wiring from its monopoly days. They are required to give the competition fair access “from the street” to the telephone socket. However, the work that needs to be done to accomplish this is done by technicians in their employ. For some reason, these technicians often do not show up for the appointments, customers of the competition have to wait longer for an appointment than customers of Deutsche Telekom, and so on.)
Seeing that I tend to spend too much time on the Internet, I decided to let the matter rest for some time, removing myself from temptation. The planned several months came and went, and the topic increasingly slipped of my radar.
Late 2012, starting to get a bad conscience about e.g. unread emails on my main private account, I bought a smart-phone, intending to by-pass the problems by using it as a modem. This did not work (although I could do some minor surfing on the phone itself) and yet more time passed. (No, reading emails this way was not an option, seeing that it was infested with bloatware, which I a) did not trust, b) was prevented from de-installing by the idiotic restrictions of Android. For similar reasons, Internet cafes have not been option either. A strong argument could be made, however, that I should have risked an access from a company computer, despite their using various versions of Windows—as I had with some less important accounts. Then again, here the lesser security risk compared to an Internet Cafe collides with the ethical issue of using employer property for non-trivial private purposes.)
About a month ago, I tried yet another road: A web-stick from pre-paid provider Fonic. I easily managed to get it working with a company laptop, and was content with that for a week or two. However, as I then tried to move on to using my actual computer, an entirely unwarranted blocking of my SIM-card put in a delay of yet another week. (Some weird claims about my needing to prove my identity were raised and it took several emails to clear this up. Notably, I received no notification or explanation for the block before I wrote to complain...) About a week later, I decided to try again. I spent some time downloading extra programs on the notebook one day, and transferred and installed them on my (Linux) computer the next. Everything was set to go, I pressed “connect”, a connection took place, and ... nothing worked. Moving back to the notebook, a tentative explanation seemed to offer it self: Poor timing had lead to my pre-paid account being emptied the day before. Now, starting to feel cursed, I tried to send the special text messages that would upload another ten Euro from my bank account—and nothing happened.
In particular, the confirmation that was promised to arrive within minutes was replaced by a declination—more than eight hours later. This message claimed that I had to make an additional registration on the website of Fonic in order to use this payment mechanism. Funny: Not only had I already done this shortly after buying the stick, but I had also already used the very same payment mechanism on at least two occasions with Fonic...
Having no intention to remain with such abysmal service, I did some additional research, eventually settling for a second try with provider Aldi (actually a chain of low-price grocery stores, cooperating with E-Plus for its own pre-paid brand). Earlier this week, I bought a corresponding SIM-Card, fortunately compatible with the previous stick, and could go online on the same day. The prep-work already being done, it was more or less plug-and-play even with Linux.
Assuming that there are no further interruptions and disturbances, I plan to slowly get back to being active on the Internet. However, the exact forms and proportions are still unclear. Importantly, I currently have an enormous back-log to deal with, including dozens upon dozens of articles for my website in various stages of work (from ready-to-publish to first-draft-half-done) and some fourteen hundred emails (most of which, admittedly, are just comment notifications from blogs were I have a subscription on some post).
There have been a few comments on this blog in the mean time; however, fortunately, not very many: This has never been a comment-attracting blog and without new posts...
To the authors: I am sorry for the delay in moderating your comments. It is poor style of a blogger to wait for half-an-eternity—and something that has often annoyed me when on the receiving end. I will try to get them all done in the course of the evening.
Living in Germany and being absent from the Internet (cf. my previous entry), I had only the vaguest impression of the events until the recent acquittal of Zimmerman and the subsequent protests.
As I started reading up, my first impression was soon formed: A white man (Zimmerman) had hunted down and shot a black boy (Martin) for no other reason that the latter was black. Despite evidence indicating that this was true, an all-white jury freed Zimmerman, based on extremely generous “stand your ground” legislation—and possibly quite a large dose of racial partisanism. While I knew from experience that the truth is rarely that clear-cut and easy, implying that this first impression was likely to be exaggerated, I was somewhat shaken—and seriously questioned whether I had hitherto underestimated the problem of racism in the U.S. (Which I had taken to be considerably exaggerated on e.g. partisan blogs, in analogy with the feminist claims in Sweden or the largely nonsensical accusations against “The Bell-Curve”.) I also felt some amount of discomfort (“fear” is too a strong word, but might be more appropriate in quality) at the thought of something similar one day happening to me—a killing of that kind is ultimately based on a madness and irrationality from which white people are by no means safe.
However, as I continued reading, this impression changed—and the more I read, from both partisan and neutral sources, the further my view of the events was altered: “Stand your ground” had never been part of the defense, Zimmerman was not White (at least not in the way a Swede or a German would understand it) and Martin likely considered himself a grown man, there were no clear signs of malicious intent, certainly any chase that had taken place had not been made with the intent of killing (there is even some doubt as to whether “chase” applies at all), Zimmerman had entered the story as neighborhood watchman and Martin had a history which at least increased the possibility that he was doing something “JD” at the time, Zimmerman had injuries on his head, ... By all signs, Zimmerman had fired when lying on the ground while losing a fight. If worst comes to worst, he would have had to be a complete and utter idiot to even call the police, as he did, if he had been up to no good—let alone to continue the conversation so long. Under no circumstances whatsoever, irrespective of the truth, was there enough evidence against Zimmerman to warrant a murder sentence—even a manslaughter sentence seems stretched in my layman’s impression.
Now, I was not there and I cannot with certainty say what happened—but neither were and can those many who call for the conviction of Zimmerman or who publicly call him a murderer. Irrespective of personal belief: There is not enough evidence to warrant a certainty that Zimmerman was the villain of the drama, let alone a murder conviction.
What do I believe happened? My conjecture, not my firm conviction, is that the account of Zimmerman is mostly correct in his honest impression and subjective estimation—including that he honestly, but quite possibly erroneously, suspected Martin of criminal activities or preparations for such.
The big question-mark in my book is what ultimately caused the fight. I conjecture that Martin thought himself harassed and, in turn, suspected Zimmerman of something criminal (or otherwise unsavory). He confronted Zimmerman and shortly thereafter ended up on top of Zimmerman in a fight, after which the shot fell. Whether Martin attacked, as per Zimmerman’s account, or whether a verbal confrontation got out of hand, I dare not even conjecture. Irrespective of which, an avoidable tragedy took place—but not one where there was a clear villain and a clear victim.
Indeed, most people live through a story where they are the righteous hero, who may possibly be frail, make mistakes, or waver, but is ultimately the “good guy”—something we all would do well to remember. What we saw was likely two good guys (in their own self-estimate) from two different movies being taken for the villain of the other movie by the counter-part.
In as far as Zimmerman erred, it was more in form of poor judgement than maliciousness, racism, or in having homicidal tendencies.
From this and my readings (not detailed above) there are a number of conclusions to be drawn, including:
Trusting first impressions is extremely dangerous; making a decision after only having heard one side of the story is inexcusable. Cf. also an older discussion of the Mavi Marmara incident.
Media, which have given very one-sided and/or misleading accounts of the events and the evidence are not to be trusted. Critical thinking is of paramount importance when dealing with media. (Problems with the reporting include such grave transgressions as manipulating photos or cutting Zimmerman’s call to the police in a manner that distorted his words. The distortions do not appear to have been one-sidedly against Zimmerman, however, with some news sources painting a too negative image of Martin.)
The U.S. justice system and its elected DAs is very vulnerable to populism. Cf. e.g. the events around false rape-accuser Mangum and the Duke lacrosse team, which form a clear parallel.
Parts of the Black population and movement have quite obviously chosen to believe that Zimmerman was the villain and Martin the victim based on ... skin color. The same may or may not apply to the pro-Zimmerman faction, m.m., but unlike the anti-Zimmerman faction, they actually have the evidence supporting their position—at least to the point that “not guilty” was the objectively correct verdict. (And I have very strong doubts as to whether the typical White person, even in the U.S., would identify with Zimmerman as another White.) As with the feminist movement, there appears to be a fair amount of reversing the accusation going on in the Black rights camp—with the accusation of racism being far fairer towards the anti-Zimmerman camp than the pro-Zimmerman camp or (likely) Zimmerman himself. Generally, the Black right’s camp has done its own causes a lot of damage as far as I, and likely many other critical thinkers, am concerned—by crying wolf here, with such energy and determination, they have undermined their credibility and ensured that I view any and all claims by them with the same suspicion as I already view feminist claims.
Interestingly, while the anti-Zimmerman camp often claims that if Martin had been black, he would still be alive, or that if Zimmerman had been black, he would have been convicted, the pro-Zimmerman camp counter-claims that Zimmerman would never have been prosecuted, at all, had he been black.
The question of “racial profiling” has often been raised: Allegedly, Zimmerman was only interested in Martin due to racial profiling, which is condemned as a form of racism.
However, racial profiling, when based on actual differences in behaviour between groups, is by no means a form of racism (and the simple, indisputable truth is that blacks commit a disproportionate part of all crimes in the U.S.–only the cause is open for dispute). Further, in as far as it does not go beyond e.g. a neighborhood watchman being extra alert or inquisitive, I see nothing unethical in it. (Whereas e.g. attempting to detain the profiled individual or openly accusing him, without other supporting proof, would go too far.)
Further yet, even if Martin was racially profiled, for which there is no clear indication, he was also profiled based on either or all of his age, behaviour, or clothing. With crime statistics what they are, there is no reason for racial profiling to be the one odd unacceptable form of profiling—and if all forms of profiling were dropped in accordance, an intervention, even in the form of a preliminary contact with the police, would not be possible before a crime was already in progress and actually observed as a crime.
In the time of my absense I have of course received many comment notifications from other blogs, including the publishing and response to a comment that I had assumed had been censored due to dissent and where I had planned to write a post on the topic under discussion. Seeing that the eventual reply contained a number of further fallacies or misleading claims, I will go ahead with my own post, despite the almost ridiculous delays involved: My comment 20 August, 2011; publishing of the comment by the poster (lizzyflax) 2 Sep 2012; my own post 2 June 2013.
The post consists of four photographs of “fantastically offensive” adverts for diamonds, each followed by a hard-to-justify condemnation for sexism and whatnot.
To start with, I give my answer with the relevant text of the corresponding adverts inserted in square brackets (with reservations for transliteration errors).
Looking at these adverts, I would say that you are overreacting—while failing to attack the true insults, namely that the viewer would be sufficiently stupid to buy/want a piece of extremely over-priced and mostly useless [piece of] carbon, resp. sufficiently stupid that he would be moved to make such an expensive buying decision by advertising.
1.
[HEY, WHAT DO YOU KNOW. SHE THINKS YOU’RE FUNNY AGAIN.]
Is a swing-and-a-miss, but not really offensive—and sadly there is a grain of truth in it: There are quite a few women out there who either confuse true affection in a man with the giving of gifts or are opportunistic enough to “play nice” when given gifts. Notably, these women tend to be more common around men with enough money to buy diamonds for other occasions than proposals (and the ad does appear to be directed at non-proposal situations).
2.
[What she says: “Any ring is fine so long as I have you.” What she is thinking: “No diamond? How cheap! [Lethal revenge threats]” Get Her A Diamond, idiot! ]
May be a bit exaggerated, but is spot on as a psychological observation: The typical woman will be disappointed when her man does not go the extra mile. She may not contemplate cutting his break lines, but the absense of a diamond for a proposal will not sit well, even when she has claimed otherwise in advance. Similar pitfalls include e.g. agreements not to give each other Christmas gifts and many “It’s OK. You don’t have to do X.” situations.
The truly offensive part here is the “idiot” directed at the male buyer.
3.
[Make her speechless. For a change.]
Is an old joke played very well. It may not be a hit with women, but then it is directed at male buyers and it does reflect a sentiment that most men share—that women talk too much. (And you might want to reflect on the number of jokes directed at men in modern advertising.)
4.
[Buy her a diamond ahhh... a moment of silence.]
Is a more amateurish version of the same joke.
http://chinadailymail.com/2013/05/31/chinese-women-learn-how-to-marry-elite-foreigners-in-90-days/
Selected parts from the author’s reply:
At first I was loathe to respond to your comment because in characterising my article as overreaction, you seem (mind I don’t know you or your intent, this is only what I can surmise from your comment) to be using an age-old tactic of painting any woman who speaks her mind as overly emotional, even hysterical. This isn’t a good way to start an exchange of ideas.
On the contrary, the age old tactic is painting factual criticism of one individual women as an attack on women in general and/or implying that the criticism is related to the the fact that the woman was a woman. In as far as women are begin painted as over-emotional, it is almost invariably in situations were they actually are over-emotional. Women who speak their mind with good sense and solid arguments are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned—and this is the opinion of practically every man whose opinion I can actually judge. (Including many, say Pär Ström, who have been severely maligned as e.g. misogynist for their pro-true-equality engagement.)
Applying Hanlon’s Razor, the conclusion would be that lizzyflax considerably strengthens my interpretation that she was over-reacting by ... over-reacting. In both cases, it can pay to bear the problem of TODO gender-glasses in mind.
On the other hand, similar claims (including accusations of TODO mansplaining) are so common among feminists that I find my ability to use Hanlon’s Razor very limited by now.
1. I find this point pretty offensive, not to mention weirdly anecdotal. For example (to use your model of argument), I know of no women in my acquaintance who equate gifts with love, nor do I personally know any women who are drawn to men with money because they are opportunistic/greedy. In no way am I saying these women don’t exist, however I don’t think they are as plentiful as you or the media would like to imagine. I also don’t happen to think these traits are sex-linked and it is irresponsible and simplistic to believe in something as patently manipulative as the trophy wife/gold digger caricature.
Apart from offering nothing beyond the anekdotal in return, the last sentence is an entirely unwarranted attack based on a non sequitor. In addition, my response made no claim whatsoever about sex, which makes “sex-linked” appear very odd.
Looking at the more constructive points of the arguments: Irrespective of lizzyflax’ claim, women very often tend to see gifts (and similar attentions) as a (not necessarily conscious) gauge of their SOs love (or lack thereof). (Whether her formulation, “equate gifts with love”, applies to the phenomon I refer to is another matter.) Notably, I do not claim that these gifts have to be diamonds: It is a matter of what “signs of love”, where women on average simply have a different thinking than men on average.
The gold-digger/being-drawn-by-greed part goes considerably further than anything I say, well into strawman territory. Notably, my “play nice” means nothing more than just that: The (already existing!) boyfriend is treated a little better than usual. Corresponding to the add, this could for instance include laughing at a joke that would otherwise have been ignored.
In addition, gold-diggers are very real. They may be common or they may be rare, but they do exist and they are predominantly found around men with money. (The rarity or commonality will likely depend on matters of defintion: Is a women who accepts a drink in a bar under false pretenses of mutual interest a gold-digger?) woman; she would get a week-end on the yacht.) Correspondingly, even had I (or the add) spoken of gold-digging
2. Again, who are these women? Perhaps you should consider widening your social circle. I find your broad generalizations about women pretty ghastly and most definitely dangerous. And, by the way, you leveled the same charge of "idiot" at anyone who would think it necessary to cement an emotional tie with an expensive bauble.
These women are probably an out-right majority: Pick-up a book on relationships or ask your friends how they would actually feel in situations like the ones given (or, worse, when a birthday is forgotten). The situation is often even worse than I imply: During my readings of online diaries and relationship forums, I saw many examples of women expecting a man to “propose” with a ring and what-not—even though an agreement of marriage already existed, sometimes even with a wedding-date already set... (In other words, where the actual proposal, i.e. the suggestion of marriage, had already taken place, making the “proposal” a purely ritual act.)
I note that lizzyflax continues her unwarranted attacks, without anything resembling actual arguments.
3. I don’t think I ever argued this isn’t a genius marketing strategy, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t rooted in the misogynistic trope of the woman-as-scold. Although this piece wasn’t written to explore misandric tropes (therefore it wasn’t relevant to discuss), I would be happy to consider doing a piece about this as I consider it every bit as dangerous (particularly the trope of the bubbling father).
Is it misogynist to describe women as they actually are? (With the typical reservations for individual variations vs. the average/typical.) In feminist rhetoric: Yes. In my book: No.
(More generally, even stereotypisations and exaggerations need not be any type of “-ism”, but can, depending on context, be just mutually enjoyable humour. Consider e.g. the extremely stereotyped portrayals of some types of Jews, in particular “the Jewish mother”, that are common among Jewish comedians. Cf. e.g. “The Nanny”. For that matter, the main protagonist of that show was a bimbo, who obsessed about her looks and about finding a husband—an extreme charicature of a woman. Still, the show’s creator and leading force was a woman (Fran Drescher)—and she, herself, played that charicature...)
4. Yeah, see, it’s every. How revolting.
Makes no sense, but I note the spurious use of “revolting”. Compare with some highly negative statements towards me above.
In closing: stereotypes. They’re dangerous and effective (especially when used in advertising) and I’m sorry to see you seem to have bought into quite a few of them.
I have not bought into stereotypes: I have developed insights that lizzyflax lacks, through long years of observation (to a lesser degree also experimentation) in my own life, through readings of at least half-a-dozen books and dozens of articles on relationships (many with female authors), and through very long readings of what women themselves say and do through e.g. online diaries and relationship forums. Of course, also what other men have said and observed; however, here some degree of partiality cannot be ruled out.
Here we see a constant problem with feminists (and the politically correct in general): They have a world-view which does not match reality, often based in preconceptions and ideas of how the world “should” be, and when someone points to the reality, he is condemned as prejudiced and unenlightened (in some form or other).
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.
WordPress posts (archive 1)
WordPress posts (archive 2)
WordPress posts (archive 3)
Sitemap